Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 1514

More on incinerating, burying radiactive rubble
Gov't to OK incinerating, burying radioactive rubble in FukushimaTOKYO, June 5 (AP) - (Kyodo)—The Environment Ministry plans to allow incinerating or burying rubble from the March 11 earthquake and tsunami in the coastal and central parts of Fukushima Prefecture that could be contaminated with radioactive material spewing from a damaged nuclear power plant in the northeastern prefecture, ministry officials said Sunday.
While the ministry already allows 10 municipalities where contamination levels are low to handle debris under normal procedures, it has decided to expand the eased restrictions to other parts of the prefecture, except for the government-designated off-limits and evacuation areas.

The move is aimed at speeding up the removal of rubble in Fukushima Prefecture, but authorities are required to handle it with care, including decontaminating and managing it properly, the officials said.

The ministry plans to formally decide on the matter at an expert panel meeting scheduled on June 19 and allow the disposal of rubble kept at makeshift yards starting as early as in late June. But it will continue to ban the transfer of the debris to areas outside Fukushima Prefecture.

As of Friday, the ministry estimates that 23.82 million tons of rubble have resulted from the March disaster in the coastal areas of Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures alone.

Of the total, Fukushima accounts for 2.88 million tons, of which 16 percent have been taken to makeshift yards, but cleanup work has been stalled in municipalities around the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
www.breitbart.com
by estacion 6/6/2011 12:28:19 AM

Vladimir Slivyak, co-chair of Russia’s Ecodefense agreed, and said the water containment issues was concerning, especially because of the time constraints involved.

“Every time TEPCO announces trying to improve a situation under a deadline, it doesn't work out. I don't think they have the situation anywhere nearly under full control,” he said in an email interview Sunday.

Slivyak suggested that more epic scale events could occur before the situation was considered contained.

“I doubt it will be taken under control in the near future – there is a long road ahead and new discharges of water and radiation await us, even possibly more explosions,” he said.

www.bellona.org
by Rob in SF 6/6/2011 12:29:32 AM

(E)ngineers have begun installing equipment supplied by French reactor maker Areva to decontaminate the radioactive water and TEPCO wants to start operating it by June 15.

But if the treatment system does not work, one of the reactors could run out of space to store contaminated water as early as June 20, and it could then spill into the sea. The same could happen to a second reactor a day later, TEPCO said. Officials did not identify the reactors in calls from Bellona Web, but they are thought by other experts who spoke anonymously to be reactor Nos 1 and 2, which have suffered from the most critical water overloads.

Further difficulties with pooled water – which press agencies estimate to be enough to fill about 40 Olympic sized swimming pools – could occur if there are glitches in trying to set up a new cooling system for the reactors.

www.bellona.org
by Rob in SF 6/6/2011 12:30:28 AM

@jt stairs in the SE and in front of the SFP in that wall about middle
by lillymunster 6/6/2011 12:36:03 AM

@lillymunster 'in front' in which direction, S or E? Also just found this video I hadn't seen before: www.bbc.co.uk
by jt 6/6/2011 12:39:01 AM

Disposal of radioactive debris to go ahead
A panel on nuclear waste disposal has decided to allow municipalities to burn highly radioactive debris if they have incinerators that can remove radioactive substances.
The panel was set up by the environment ministry. Members of the expert panel made the decision on Sunday.

The ministry measured radioactive substances on debris inside Fukushima Prefecture at collection posts, excluding areas such as those in a 20-kilometer radius no-entry zone. It had already decided to allow 10 municipalities where radiation levels are relatively low to resume usual methods of disposal, such as burning and burying.

On Sunday the panel discussed ways to dispose of highly radioactive debris in the areas.
The participants agreed, in principle, to allow municipalities to burn debris highly contaminated with radioactive substances if their incinerators have filters or electric dust cleaners to remove the substances.

The environment ministry will inform these municipalities of the decision by the end of June, after checking the capabilities of each facility.

The panel also agreed that the ministry and the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency should measure the radioactivity of debris inside the 20-kilometer radius no-entry-zone and evacuation zones where monitoring has not been conducted.

Monday, June 06, 2011 05:13 +0900 (JST)
www3.nhk.or.jp
by estacion 6/6/2011 12:40:10 AM

@jt between the sfp and the outer wall. so the south walls IIRC
by lillymunster 6/6/2011 12:40:37 AM

@Edano If I keep collecting floor plans and drawings maybe eventually I will have a whole reactor building! :-)
by lillymunster 6/6/2011 12:41:31 AM

@lillymunster do you know what elev you are looking for
by fitter 6/6/2011 12:44:46 AM

@lillymunster Which ones were Tepco's 'destroyed stairs'?
by jt 6/6/2011 12:45:53 AM

@jt number 4 I guess it would be the north side since sfp is south end?
by lillymunster 6/6/2011 12:47:47 AM

@lillymunster North end there are two sets of stairs. Smaller ones are stairs to elevator machinery room.
by jt 6/6/2011 12:50:13 AM

Here's the new Daiichi Radiation Map for those who have not seen it...
2.bp.blogspot.com
by Reed via 2.bp.blogspot 6/6/2011 12:55:04 AM

by Rob in SF 6/6/2011 1:03:50 AM

anyone want to add English subtitles for us darn English? ;-)
by Darren 6/6/2011 1:06:30 AM

@all Good Morning...Good Evening...Hello!
by smoss 6/6/2011 1:23:21 AM

@all A number of aging-related degradation effects of metallic core structures can be accelerated by the increased fast neutron flux and gamma heating associated with MOX fuel. These phenomena include embrittlement, irradiation-assisted stress corrosion cracking (IASCC), creep and thermal fatigue. The structures affected include the reactor pressure vessel (RPV), reactor internals and piping.

www.nirs.org
by smoss 6/6/2011 1:32:48 AM

@Smoss That makes sense..it may explain why Gundersen is concerned about an RPV collapse in 3 with corium due to corrosion from seawater and melting fuel. If MOX makes it worse and there is still fuel in the RPV there probably could be a rapid drop and explosion. Hopefully...won't happen.
by LM 6/6/2011 1:38:07 AM

@Smoss Gundersen referenced the vulnerability in his latest 2 part interview. www.chrismartenson.com
by LM 6/6/2011 1:39:51 AM

@LM I am wondering if the MOX fuel assemblies have a similar effect to the SFP in which they are stored prior to insertion.
by smoss 6/6/2011 1:40:06 AM

@all An interesting read on analysis of fuel rod ballooning...THE OECD-NEA SFP PROJECT
AN EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME AND RELATED ANALYSES FOR THE
CHARACTERIZATION OF HYDRAULIC AND IGNITION PHENOMENA OF PROTOTYPIC
WATER
REACTOR FUEL ASSEMBLIES
sacre.web.psi.ch
by smoss 6/6/2011 1:45:21 AM

@smoss Good question. If Gundersen and others are correct about a prompt criticality in 3's SFP it might have been more vulnerable to lack of cooling because of the MOX fuel's inherent vulnerability to thermal fatigue.
by LM 6/6/2011 1:47:58 AM

@LM Mox will melt down faster also as in melting the cladding faster. I don't know if or how much mox was in 3's sfp but I think it played a role in 3's epic melt down. We probably won't know until TEPCO is cornered with facts by an outside agency.
by lillymunster 6/6/2011 1:49:45 AM

I'm at work bit I want to quickly repost my 2 latest videos. I posted them on here at an odd time because I live in Australia.
by AustralianCannonball 6/6/2011 1:51:47 AM

@lillymunster I have something for you from elaine hang one
by Angie 6/6/2011 1:51:54 AM

by AustralianCannonball 6/6/2011 1:52:00 AM

by AustralianCannonball 6/6/2011 1:52:11 AM

@Nancy I agree..it does make sense...especially if MOX was more susceptible to melt. I'm inclined to agree with Gundersen on the prompt criticality in the pool...although, do we know if there was MOX in the core as well? I forget....know it was talked about.
by LM 6/6/2011 1:52:52 AM

I'm told people cannot find my channel in the USA?. It may be a tech issue or it may be censorship. Either way email this on if you want to in the USA: www.youtube.com
by AustralianCannonball 6/6/2011 1:53:27 AM

it is the roof work being done at kk that they didnt do at www.tepco.co.jp translate.google.com
by Angie 6/6/2011 1:53:28 AM

@LM yes there was a MOX load in Sept-Oct 2010. I don't know the total rods installed, they mix it with regular rods. So unsure of how much is in #3 rpv vs. total delivered to Fuku.
by lillymunster 6/6/2011 1:54:15 AM

@Angie thanks!
by lillymunster 6/6/2011 1:54:33 AM

@lillymunster any time!
by Angie 6/6/2011 1:55:01 AM

@Nancy That's what I thought. There's just so much we're not being told. If there is slag at the bottom of any of the RPVs we need to hope it doesn't break through in a big molten mass all at once...then we have a real mess on our hands!....not to mention 4 and it's susceptibility to EQs...
by LM 6/6/2011 1:59:50 AM

@Nancy Found this info.... At the time of the magnitude 9.0 earthquake, Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 was operating with 32 mixed oxide (MOX) fuel assemblies and 516 low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel assemblies in its reactor core. In other words, less than 6% of the fuel in the Unit 3 core was MOX fuel. There were no other MOX fuel assemblies (new, in operation or used) at the Fukushima Daiichi plant at the time of the accident.

MOX fuel assemblies were loaded into Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 for the first time in the fall of 2010. The MOX fuel had been used for less than five months at the time of the accident. Differences in initial fuel composition between MOX and LEU fuel can lead to differences in consequences (prompt fatalities and latent cancers) following a core damage event with releases to the environment. us.arevablog.com
by LM 6/6/2011 2:07:31 AM

@all back to work for me. 12.09pm here.
by AustralianCannonball 6/6/2011 2:09:58 AM

Monday.
by AustralianCannonball 6/6/2011 2:10:04 AM

@LM There was the well publicized MOX install, a load of MOX sent to Fuku in 1999 and possibly another load in 2006. The info was vague on what of the MOX went where. If it was received at FUKU and went elsewhere? Or if they had all of it there. The 1999 load would have sat in a SFP for 10 years before being installed since it can't be just stored exposed to the air.
by lillymunster 6/6/2011 2:15:41 AM

@Nancy So it's entirely possible that 32 assemblies were in the core and the rest of the shipment was in the SFP?
by LM 6/6/2011 2:17:53 AM

@lilymunster My question is this: Wouldn't there have been degradation in those MOX fuel assemblies given 10 years in storage in the SFP? and a follow up: What agency would have been tasked with inspection prior to insertion?
by smoss 6/6/2011 2:19:12 AM

@LM we don't know. I need to go back and find the info on the 2006 shipments. We had a rough potential number. There is lots of vague info and unanswered questions. IIRC 1992 shipment was 32 and the 2006 shipments were other numbers.
by lillymunster 6/6/2011 2:20:37 AM

@Nancy ...And given the explosion and exposure of the pool directly to the atmosphere I'm sure they will continue to withhold info indefinitely.
by LM 6/6/2011 2:22:38 AM

here is the document on the MOX install in 2010 www.houseoffoust.com BTW, we put links to all these documents on the group site.
by lillymunster 6/6/2011 2:22:52 AM