Fukushima Daiichi’s Unit 4 Spent-Fuel Pool: Safe or Not? Wall Street Journal

[flamingdem]

http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2012/05/21/fukushima-daiichis-unit-4-spent-fuel-pool-safe-or-not/

** More BS from the people in charge, who can push them? No one and the US isn't willing to go there.

Questions have been bubbling recently over how safe Japan’s stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant—in particular the pool atop Unit 4, where some 1,535 fuel rods are stored—would be if another big earthquake hit.

Plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. has been taking steps recently to address that issue, and last month it invited legislator Ikko Nakatsuka, Japan’s senior vice-minister for reconstruction, to check its work.

The bottom line: The steps Tepco has taken look fine, Mr. Nakatsuka said—as far as they go. Speaking to reporters Monday at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan, Mr. Nakatsuka stayed determinedly away from making big-picture conclusions. And in the wake of last year’s accident, he said, the government has learned there’s no such thing as absolutely safe.

[FBaggins]

1. The people in charge?

That would be the government of Japan that's lying to their people?


You've obviously missed the true source of BS re: unit 4.

Fukushima Nuclear Reactor 4 Leaning And In Danger Of Complete Collapse

Breaking News: Reactor 4 on fire

Wall of the south side is falling apart at reactor 4

And dozens more like them... all based on fuzzy webcam photos and bloggers trying desperately to cling to something that they can use to scare people. There just has to be some chance that this could still end up worse than Chernobyl...

but the reality is that the building is not, in fact, leaning... let alone collapsing.

[kristopher]

2. Rep Markey's visit, has caused this problem to bubble to the surface

The area of the reactor is thought by seismologists to be ripe for a 7+ earthquake and there is considerable doubt about whether the structure can maintain its integrity if that happens.

It is literally a ticking time bomb.

[FBaggins]

4. Nonsense.

You really think Japan is driven by a minor US rep's visit?

They've had their own irrational fears bubbling up with ongoing claims of #4 being about to collapse.

and there is considerable doubt about whether the structure can maintain its integrity if that happens.

There really isn't. Unless you're an anti-nuke blogger who has run out of dangers to scare the US with.

[kristopher]

6. I don't think, I know. But I did make an error.

It was Wyden, not Markey.

To: UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

An Urgent Request on UN Intervention to Stabilize the Fukushima Unit 4 Spent Nuclear Fuel

Recently, former diplomats and experts both in Japan and abroad stressed the extremely risky condition of the Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 spent nuclear fuel pool and this is being widely reported by world media. Robert Alvarez, Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), who is one of the best-known experts on spent nuclear fuel, stated that in Unit 4 there is spent nuclear fuel which contains Cesium-137 (Cs-137) that is equivalent to 10 times the amount that was released at the time of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Thus, if an earthquake or other event were to cause this pool to drain, this could result in a catastrophic radiological fire involving nearly 10 times the amount of Cs-137 released by the Chernobyl accident.

Nearly all of the 10,893 spent fuel assemblies at the Fukushima Daiichi plant sit in pools vulnerable to future earthquakes, with roughly 85 times more long-lived radioactivity than released at Chernobyl.

Nuclear experts from the US and Japan such as Arnie Gundersen, Robert Alvarez, Hiroaki Koide, Masashi Goto, and Mitsuhei Murata, a former Japanese ambassador to Switzerland, and, Akio Matsumura, a former UN diplomat, have continually warned against the high risk of the Fukushima Unit 4 spent nuclear fuel pool.

US Senator Ron Wyden, after his visit to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on 6 April, 2012, issued a press release on 16 April, pointing out the catastrophic risk of Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4, calling for urgent US government intervention. Senator Wyden also sent a letter to Ichiro Fujisaki, Japan’s Ambassador to the United States, requesting Japan to accept international assistance to tackle the crisis....

http://fukushima.greenaction-japan.org/2012/05/01/an-urgent-request-on-un-intervention-to-stabilize-the-fukushima-unit-4-spent-nuclear-fuel/

[FBaggins]

11. Well... that certianly does a better job documenting it than I expected.

I'll have to reconsider and defer to your superior connection with Japan.

But haven't the ex-skf/fuku-diary/etc sites been screaming about #4 for many months now? Hasn't Gundersen/Busby/etc. been selling this nonsense there for equally as long?

I still find it hard to believe that this is something new in Japan and was merely a US internet conspiracy theory for over a year before Japan picked it up.

Or are you merely saying that the recent move to formally refute the claim is what his visit sparked?

[RobertEarl]

3. What about #2

Reactor #2 is so dangerous that not even robots can enter the building without being destroyed.

Yet #2 sits there spewing radiation all day every day.

The attention paid to #4, while needed, seems to be a diversion from the rest of the plant's problems which are happening as we speak.

Yes, if #4 spills its guts, that will be all she wrote: The fat lady will have sung. As it is, tho, the story is that the fat lady is singing.

[FBaggins]

5. A perfectly valid question

The original reason for #4 being the focus of attention is that the damaged wall panels (since cut away) and some fuzzy webcam photos made some people think that the building was leaning. Just as importantly, while it was unit #3 that some thought had MOX in it (an almost irrelevant issue that nevertheless drove much commentary at the time), and the building was obviously far more damaged...

...it was unit #4 that had the freshest (and most IIRC) fuel in it. The entire core had only recently been moved there, so the activity level in the pool would be much higher than in the other three SFPs.

But that was 15 months ago. The activity level in the pool has declined substantially. Sure, it's still higher than the other three, but if you're going to worry about one of the buildings collapsing entirely, couldn't you imagine the collapse exposing the core (or at least making it impossible to cool effectively)?


Yet #2 sits there spewing radiation all day every day.

Any idea how much?

[RobertEarl]

7. No idea how much

Except that they told us it could never happen. But it is. Happening.

What IS curious about #4 is that it never exploded like 1 & 3. At least not that any videos have been shown. Yet the building has been falling apart. It is damn near rubble. They even went in and placed supports under the #4 pool because the building had fallen apart.

Any idea why #4 has fallen apart? Besides the earthquake which apparently only damaged the cooling system. Even after #3 blew sky high, #4 was visibly (from the air) intact.

[FBaggins]

8. It did explode... but it isn't falling apart.

That's a common internet rumor that was flying around for weeks. Someone looked at a fuzzy webcam photo and compared it to an earlier one and proclaimed that an entire side of the building had collapsed. Rumors spread that the fuel had spilled to the ground.

In reality, TEPCO had been systematically removing all of the debris so that they could begin construction on the mechanism designed to remove the spent fuel from the pool. They cut away everything that could get in the way of accessing the pool



They even went in and placed supports under the #4 pool because the building had fallen apart.

Nope. They went in because, before they removed all the rubble, parts of the building looked like it might be leaning. So they reinforced it. At the time (as I pointed out in an early thread we were on), they analyzed it and said that it could take another 7... but they were reinforcing it anyway. Now all indication are that the supports for the SFP are above the specs of the original bulding. We also know that the key structural parts of the building weren't actually leaning (the pool itself is reportedly level).

But yes, there was an explosion at #4 (haven't we discussed this as well?) Unit 3&4 share a venting system and it is thought that hydrogen from unit 3 vented into building 4 and exploded.

[RobertEarl]

9. It did explode

So, you are saying that a concrete structure that withstood an earthquake and did not have any material in its reactor was blown up from a hydrogen explosion? Wow. So what has caused it to continue falling apart?

And as for evidence that the building is so far gone, I will take the word of the US Senator - Wyden - who actually did visit the building and came back with the report - linked above by Kristopher - that the building is falling apart. Sorry, baggins, Wyden's word over yours.

Anyway, what about #2? What do you know about its constant release of radiation? How long will it continue? When will it be safe to enter the building again? And when can repairs be made?

[FBaggins]

10. Sorry... you've made some fundamental errors there.

So, you are saying that a concrete structure that withstood an earthquake and did not have any material in its reactor was blown up from a hydrogen explosion?

All of the explosions were hydrogen explosions. But no, the "concrete structure" withstood both the quake and hydrogen explosion. The portions that were destroyed weren't the structure of the building. They were essentially the supports of the facade.

Wow. So what has caused it to continue falling apart?

You failed (again) to read the post you replied to, didn't you?

It has not "continued to fall apart". Did you miss the demo photos?

Anyway, what about #2? What do you know about its constant release of radiation?

I ask again.. how much radiation? Or don't you think that matters?

When will it be safe to enter the building again?

They were in the unit quite some time weeks ago.

And when can repairs be made?

You may have missed the news. All four are clearly beyond repair.

[RobertEarl]

12. I do understand your position

And why you have to be so vague. After all, it was claimed that what happened could never happen, but it did.

But then you claim: All four are clearly beyond repair.

So, are you saying that no repairs will be made? I find that to be outrageous. That the leaking radiation is beyond repair? That we are destined to just let it go?

[FBaggins]

13. It doesn't seem so.

You seem to keep building straw men rather than addressing what I'm saying. I also don't see how I have been at all "vague". Feel free to ask for clarification if something isn't clear enough.

After all, it was claimed that what happened could never happen, but it did.

Nope. It was never claimed that what happened in Fukushima "couldn't happen". What was claimed (and what Fukushima proved to be correct) was that what happened at Chernobyl couldn't happen to a then-modern western reactor.

But then you claim: All four are clearly beyond repair.

I don't see how that can be described as a "claim". It's a statement of simple fact.

So, are you saying that no repairs will be made? I find that to be outrageous.

Then we aren't speaking the same language. That's understandable if it's science/engineering and you don't have a background in it... but this is just English. My understanding of "repair" is "to return to working order" or similar. Do you mean it a different way?

That the leaking radiation is beyond repair? That we are destined to just let it go?

Again... I refuse to accept the false assumption that the amount of radiation is irrelevant. The amount that we can detect is far smaller than the amount that requires attention. If you have granite counter-tops, they're radioactive... but at a level far too low to matter. Your profile says that you live in the Smokies. Moving downhill to the Charlotte or Triad area would likely cut your Radon exposure in half. Does that excess (inhaled and internal) dose worry you enough to lose sleep over? Will you be moving here? Heck... does the difference in dose between opening and closing your windows on a Spring day draw any of your attention at all? If the release from one of these reactors gets down to the level where we're starting to make comparisons with the radon you live with every day... is that close enough to zero to count as "repaired"?

[RobertEarl]

14. You should come visit the Smokies

It is a tree huggers dream come true.

Now: back to Fukushima. When I suggest repairs, i do mean that broken pipes are fixed. That the units are restored as much as possible and the water used to keep the coriums and spent fuel pools cooled is NOT released into the Pacific, as it was before the explosions.

One could surmise that given your propensity to say that repairs are not possible, that your determination is that Tepco should just walk away and not worry? As you said:

""My understanding of "repair" is "to return to working order" or similar......&....... All four are clearly beyond repair""

I do wish you would not be so casual about something with such severe ramifications. You are not well represented with such remarks. It belies your education. And besmirches the whole industry.

[FBaggins]

15. I'm there fairly regularly.

Some of the prettiest parts of the AT.

When I suggest repairs, i do mean that broken pipes are fixed. That the units are restored as much as possible and the water used to keep the coriums and spent fuel pools cooled is NOT released into the Pacific, as it was before the explosions.

Oh... well by that standard they're long since "repaired". In fact they seem to be processing more water than they pump in (indicating that any leakage is a net inflow).

That's why I asked you "how much" multiple times when you talked about ongoing releases from Fukushima. The number won't be "zero" for quite some time (decades probably)... but it has gotten awfully tiny in comparison to the levels reported in the first few weeks. There's ongoing monitoring of the sea both offshore and right by the plant... and the numbers do not reflect an ongoing leakage.

[RobertEarl]

16. Ongoing monitoring?

"There's ongoing monitoring of the sea both offshore and right by the plant... and the numbers do not reflect an ongoing leakage."

You have a source for these numbers?

[FBaggins]

18. Sure.

http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/

[RobertEarl]

17. Less is better

You say: "it has gotten awfully tiny in comparison to the levels reported in the first few weeks"

Indeed, it has been less. Looking forward to seeing those numbers.

Which reminds me of the fact that all that water that was highly radiated while in the reactor, was dumped into the ocean.

Tons and tons of the deadliest water man has ever made just dumped into the ocean. I wonder if one could ever put a price tag on that little slip-up?

[FBaggins]

19. Yes, there's no question that the largest lasting releases were to the sea.

Tons and tons of the deadliest water man has ever made just dumped into the ocean.

Care to guess what percentage increase there was to the existing radioactivity of the Pacific?

The BP spill had a much larger impact.

Or do we need to go back to whether radiation from a manmade source is different from the same radiation from a natural source?

[RobertEarl]

20. That is sad

The BP spill had a much larger impact

So, "We're not as bad as BP" is the new motto for the industry?

Besides which, it may be totally false claim.

[kristopher]

21. This interactive website brings a lot of things into focus.

http://www.japanquakemap.com/

[flamingdem]

22. That's for sure!

No problem with earthquakes there at all..

[FBaggins]

23. I think that's been set to music

I think this is the one I saw (only silent).

brings a lot of things into focus.

Like how ridiculous it would be to claim that Unit 4 simply can't withstand a quake without collapsing?

[kristopher]

24. Let's clearly state your claim

Building number 4 has been through an earthquake that damaged it, it was then hit with a massive tsunami, then there was a hydrogen explosion. Radioactive contamination limits access and work.

You think the buildings structural integrity is not compromised.

Is that right?

Earthquake mitigation measures are usually intrinsic to basic structural design of a building, so trying to patch up a building damaged damaged to the extent this one is would be akin to trying to fix a cracked engine block with duct tape.

[FBaggins]

25. Then why don't we actually do that?

As opposed to building yet another strawman?

The question is not whether or not any damage has been done, but whether sufficient damage has been done to endanger the spent fuel pool in the event of another earthquake. But let's take them in order:

Building number 4 has been through an earthquake that damaged it

Did it? That is... did the earthquake do any significant damage to the structure that holds up the SFP? Why would we assume that it did? As you've pointed out previously, the earthquake was right around the design basis.

it was then hit with a massive tsunami

So? That was significant from a flooding standpoint (and obviously precipitated meltdowns in the three active reactors), but flooding doesn't endanger reinforced concrete and it isn't as if large waves actually crashed into the structure (the turbine buildings would be gone were that the case).

there was a hydrogen explosion.

Yep. But on what basis would that damage the structure from bedrock to the bottom of the SFP? Where was the vast bulk of the explosive force? (above the pool).

What you left out was the most likely source of damage to the supporting structure... the explosion of #3.

Radioactive contamination limits access and work.

And what impact does that have on the supporting structure?