Another trustworthy source connected with the industry believes, short of a miracle, Fukushima reactors won’t be cooled enough in time to avoid “fission product release”
Posted by debito on March 20th, 2011
New novel IN APPROPRIATE by ARUDOU Debito
UPDATES ON TWITTER: arudoudebito
DEBITO.ORG PODCASTS on iTunes, subscribe free
Hi Blog. I’m sorry to keep quoting sources who wish to remain anonymous, but this is another person I trust, who says: ”Prefer to remain in the background – for now. Please rest assured, my sources are VERY HIGH up in the industry in the United States and are working 24 hours a day to follow this incident due to the dramatic potential ramifications if multiple units ‘meltdown’.” However, he wishes for this information to be known, and chose Debito.org to be his venue. Take this letter within that context. Arudou Debito
/////////////////////////////////
March 18, 2011
In light of the debate occurring over the scope of the nuclear catastrophe on Debito-san’s blog I would like to present some information.
I am not the individual that made the original post (which some have asked Debito to remove) and I agree with some of the arguments refuting that post. Those who have asked Debito to remove the post should also state their credentials as well and provide a more detailed rebuttal to each issue (I do agree with some of the refuting conclusion). My credentials are presented further below.
However I would like to deal with one specific issue, using seawater to cool the reactor and reactor cooling, as this is within my area of expertise. Essentially the only thing that matters now is reactor cooling.
I am glad Debito displayed the original post. It has been interesting for me to watch others debate and react to this issue. I am flabbergasted that the Japanese government and TEPCO still call this a Level 5 incident. I believe it will end up being a Level 6, or if meltdown occurs, Level 7.
Regarding credentials; I have over 25 years experience as a registered professional engineer and have worked in the nuclear power industry. I have performed SSFI inspections (Safety System Functional Inspections) on several power plants and have performed one post accident investigation. My roles in the assessments related to the power distribution system for the reactor cooling system.
I have been discussing this issue with several colleagues, some of whom are top level experts in the nuclear industry and one who is in a position to have access to whatever information the U.S. government has. Because TEPCO has not been at all transparent and has been hesitant to issue any specific technical information on this disaster it is difficult to say for sure what is happening. We also have reason to believe that TEPCO or the government has not been completely forthright (for whatever reason) regarding radiation levels near the plant (but that is outside of my area of expertise).
One of the individuals I have been in contact with has been very accurate in predicting the events as they are unfolding. He was wrong in one of his predictions, that the situation would have resolved itself by now (either meltdown/melt through of the reactor pressure vessel of one of the units or restoration of station power).
We believe radiation is being released in three forms:
1. Slightly radioactive steam from the initial explosions. The initial explosions were caused when TEPCO vented the reactor pressure vessel, hydrogen was released and exploded.
2. Higher levels of radiation being released from burning fuel rods, especially in Unit 4, which was being used for spent fuel storage.
3. Higher levels of radiation from compromised containment in Unit 2 (and possibly other units) due to cracking or some other type of compromising of the containment. This was confirmed last Tuesday when TEPCO and the government reported the pressure in the reactor pressure vessel was at 1 atmosphere (the normal atmospheric pressure outside). Normally these are operating much higher. The fact that these units lost pressure indicates a crack or some type of other event that caused pressure to remain at atmospheric.
At this point the radiation being released is very serious and will undoubtedly cause deaths (most likely in the long term in the form of cancer) in the areas near the reactors (admitted yesterday by the head of TEPCO).
However, the level of radiation released if there is a meltdown of one reactor pressure vessel will dwarf the levels of radiation being released now (up to 10 x 10 to the 5th power higher). This is why cooling is imperative.
Below is our assessment of the situation (this is speculative because TEPCO has not released further information, which may lead us to draw more severe or less severe conclusions). I hope the situation is less severe and they have been able to provide at least minimally cooling.
We believe the cooling situation has become dire. We think at this point, barring a miracle, they clearly are not going to be able to establish any reasonable means of core cooling for the affected units before suffering severe core damage, which means the potential for large fission product release. The wind direction will be up to Mother Nature. The spent fuel pool fire is interesting and very troublesome. There are no barriers against fission product release if the spent fuel rods are involved in the fire. We don’t know the cause of the spent pool fire and nobody’s talking either, which may lead one to draw much more interesting conclusions which are too highly speculative for me to mention.
Below is a technical explanation upon which we base these conclusions.
The earthquake and tsunami caused a “perfect storm” event. That is total loss of onsite power, backup generation, utility station service power, and eventually a loss of DC power due to the fact that the AC power system was not available to charge the station batteries. This is an event that has not occurred before.
We believe that initially the plant did have some limited AC and DC power available, and thus could run pumps and operate valves. However, it appears that they were still unable to keep adequate water on the core. We believe that because of this the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) pressure was allowed to increase to a point that no available pumps had adequate discharge head to overcome the high static pressure in the PRV. In this case the pumps that were pumping try to pump but no water is going into the vessel. We believe with certainty that the most important pump, the High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) pump was not and still is not available. This is a very big pump, 400 horsepower or bigger and is probably too big for the current power available. This pump is capable of dumping 6,000 gallons per minute of cooling water into the RPV.
When they were venting to atmosphere it was clear they were having problems reducing pressure by venting to the torus (which serves as a quench tank during an accident). This led us to believe that the torus was operating at saturated conditions, which means it is not possible to reduce pressure unless the steam bubble in the torus can be collapsed. Obviously they could not do this so they vented to atmosphere and the subsequent explosions occurred. The fact that these initial explosions occurred was due to the fact that hydrogen was vented from the RPV. The presence of hydrogen during the vent was almost certainly due to the fact that the fuel cladding was damaged and the process of a meltdown was in the early stages (likely started very late Friday night or early Saturday morning).
When the fuel cladding material (Zirconium) gets very hot in the presence of moisture it begins to breakdown and hydrogen is formed. The explosions at U1 and U3 were clearly very large, and thus indicative that the operators were venting large volumes of hydrogen gas (along with steam). Because of the magnitude of the explosions (especially Unit 3) this is unmistakably indication of partial melting and deformation of the fuel rod assemblies. This represents the first stage of “melt down.” The fact that the Unit 3 explosion was much, much stronger than Unit 1 indicates the melt down was continuing to get progressively worse. As this melting and deformation progress, the fuel material will eventually drop to the bottom of the RPV. This represents the next stage of meltdown in which the fuel then begins to corrode and melt through the RPV. When this phase of the accident is reached it’s time to clear out (which TEPCO has done, leaving only 50 people on site) since there remains only one of the three fission product barriers intact, the drywell containment structure. At this point we believe that fuel assembly damage has occurred for sure, the core has likely deformed and started to melt, and the process of melting through the RPV has started.
Once you melt down the RPV, you have a “meltdown”. This has not occurred yet, but is still a possible scenario. The only way to avert this is to cool the reactor.
Using seawater to cool the reactor as well as dumping water with helicopters and using water cannons are acts of desperation. Specifically the use of seawater contaminates the reactor cooling system and essentially makes all units scrap and virtually incapable of being reused (good these cannot be reused in my opinion). This is a decision not taken lightly by a utility such as TEPCO.
For your information the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued what they call a “generic letter” in 1988. In this generic letter, which I have sent to Debito-san, the NRC basically addressed this identical event (not tsunami, but total loss of grid power, station service, onsite generation, backup generation, and batteries) and recommended plants using GE Mark 1 reactors address this issue. This was 23 years ago and most or all plants in the U.S. have addressed this issue. It is obvious TEPCO did not with these units. The conclusions in the NRC letter are based on severe accident PRA analyses, which identified two critical areas for the older GE Mark 1 containments that should be improved.
• Alternate water supply to drywell spray & injection
• Better PRV depressurization capability
It is ironic that these were the 2 technical problems that were preventing the plants from reestablishing control in the initial stages of this incident. Had they been able to spray down the torus and drywell, thereby rapidly decreasing RPV and torus pressure, the low head pumps would likely have been available to cover the core. If this would have occurred, they probably would not have needed to resort to seawater injection.
Regarding the management of the situation I have my opinions but will withhold them until the final resolution is reached.
I read the article in the Daily Mail, showing Akio Komiri breaking down and finally admitting that the radiation levels are potentially lethal.
ends
==========================
Source letter from United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued what they call a “generic letter” in 1988 (PDF, download, click below:)
8-29-1989-NRC
ENDS
March 20th, 2011 at 7:12 am
http://ukinjapan.fco.gov.uk/en/news/?view=News&id=569076982
The greatest health effects of all nuclear incidents have been due to the anxiety that people like you are doing their best to ramp up. Thanks a lot for contributing to the problem.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/japan-tsunami/a/-/article/9024080/analysis-japan-radiation-fears-mask-worse-threats-to-health/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12789749
– Tamp down on the invective, please.
March 20th, 2011 at 7:41 am
Debito, I think that this post is flawed.
First off, your source is not primary but is relying on others for information. Next, I believe the title is misleading (emphasis mine):
Exclusive to DEBITO.ORG: Another trustworthy source connected with the industry believes, short of a miracle, Fukushima reactors won’t be cooled enough in time; there will be “fission product release”
The actual content (emphasis mine):
We believe the cooling situation has become dire. We think at this point, barring a miracle, they clearly are not going to be able to establish any reasonable means of core cooling for the affected units before suffering severe core damage, which means the potential for large fission product release.
While the sentence structure you chose to employ is conditional (i.e., if X then Y), it reminds me of tactics used (very effectively) by Matt Drudge.
Therefore, I suggest the following title:
Another trustworthy source connected with the industry believes, short of a miracle, Fukushima reactors won’t be cooled enough in time to avoid “fission product release”
I also removed the “Exclusive to DEBITO.ORG” because, correct me if I am wrong but, there appears to be no new, exclusive information here, though this depends on the definition of “a miracle.” I am fairly confident that all the information presented in this post was already available from the J-gov, Tepco, and the J-media, or from the results of independent US government analysis.
The main concern is not the absolute amount of radiation released from the plant but the level of radiation outside the current exclusion zone. I did not find the latter addressed. I did find the notation used to describe the former confusing.
However, the level of radiation released if there is a meltdown of one reactor pressure vessel will dwarf the levels of radiation being released now (up to 10×105 higher). This is why cooling is imperative.
Is this supposed to be a) 10×105 higher, b) 10-105 x higher, c) 10-100 x higher, or d) 10 x 10^5 higher?
In the case of (a) this is gibberish.
In the case of (b) this is either 1) a typo or 2) a poor attempt at indicating a higher level of analytical precision than what actually exists, which reflects poorly on the writer.
In the case of (c) I believe common sense dictates that we could see such an increase in release during a meltdown. All the credible information I’ve heard regarding a meltdown is that damage would be limited to the exclusion zone.
In the case of (d) 10 x 10^5 is a very odd way to say one million and leaves a similar impression as case b.2.
– Thanks for the advice. I have adjusted the title accordingly. Note that I adjusted some time ago the “10 to the 5th power higher”; microsoft formatting issues.
March 20th, 2011 at 7:53 am
You should be very sure of yourself before releasing posts like this one Debito. You are trading on your accumulated reputation in the NJ community. If the nuclear plant accident turns out to be just a massively over-sensationalised local incident you will have portrayed yourself as some kind of unreliable conspiracy theorist. The best advice of governments and experts is that there is NO danger to people outside the 30 km exclusion zone. Meanwhile attention is being diverted from the real disaster, the humanitarian crisis caused by the tsunami.
March 20th, 2011 at 7:58 am
The paid shills and just plain naive apologists are all over the net nowadays.
This just reinforces the truth about nuclear power: some things are just bad ideas. Can you make a perfectly safe plant? No? Then this is the danger we face.
Perhaps Japan should send some experts to Iceland to learn about geothermal. Maybe send a few to Portugal and Scotland to learn about wave power. The Iroquois have a philosophy of considering the impact of their actions 7 generations down the line. Our societies need to learn to think that way.
March 20th, 2011 at 8:49 am
“Using seawater to cool the reactor as well as dumping water with helicopters and using water cannons are acts of desperation.”
The roofs of reactor 1 and 2 are non-existent. The pools that hold the spent fuel rods are exposed, are they not? Therefore, why shouldn’t this be helpful. I was not led to believe that this was an attempt to cool the actual reactors, that would be desperate. The point is to cool the spent fuel rods by getting water into those pools. Even in the case of reactor 3 and 4, the hope is the water will seep in via crack created via the earthquake and explosions and fires. I’d like to be corrected here, if I am wrong.
As I understand it, they are still injecting sea water into the reactors directly. This is specifically what the company states:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031803-e.html
If that’s accurate, than the chance of a core meltdown in the reactor hopefully will be decreased. I don’t think anything is particularly clear though.
The crux of the argument this *anonymous* author is making is that TEPCO is lying to us and things are worse. Well, that’s certainly a possibility, I think. But for now, don’t we have to just wait and see?
March 20th, 2011 at 9:04 am
Agree with the previous comment. The last thing we need anonymous scaremongering. Even I can tell that this guy doesn’t have any special information on the situation.
Please see above links.
March 20th, 2011 at 9:21 am
“exclusively to debito.org”..
This once-excellent blog has descended to the level of a tabloid newspaper in the space of a week.
Numerous credible, named sources — which you continue to brush aside — have stated unequivocally that the risks to the public posed by the Fukushima plant are confined to its immediate vicinity. In that area, yes, it is a serious problem. Outside of that area, it isn’t. For the rest of Japan, it’s a peripheral issue that causes unnecessary panic and a diversion of valuable time and resources away from the people in the North East who need it most.
They have suffered homelessness, trauma, bereavement and despair, and none of this Doomesday-scenario speculation on the nuclear issue helps them or does them any kind of service whatsoever.
Signing out in despair,
Steve King, Tokyo
March 20th, 2011 at 9:46 am
Obviously, the Fukushima reactors have not yet had a total meltdown and there is still the possibility that they never will. But temperature levels in the cooling ponds continue inexorably to climb.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/16/world/asia/reactors-status.html
The nuclear industry has not yet figured out what to do with partially depleted fuel rods. At the Fukushima plant, the amount of radioactive material held as spent fuel far exceeds the amount of fuel actually in the reactor cores. News reports suggest that there are perhaps four times as many spent fuel rods in cooling ponds as in reactors. In the absence of any way of disposing of used fuel rods, they have just been accumulation over the past decades. Chernobyl couldn’t have had that much spent fuel; it was much too early in the history of nuclear power to have accumulated much.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/world/asia/18spent.html
Chernobyl had two reactors, only one of which blew. The Fukushima Daiichi plant has six reactors, four of which are in dire circumstances. I don’t know whether the amount of nuclear fuel at Fukushima is more or less than was at Chernobyl.
The dead zone around Chernobyl encompasses 15,000 square miles. A little arithmetic suggests that this much area would be covered by a circle with a radius of about 110 kilometers. That area would constitute a substantial chunk of Honshu. According to the New York Times, the area around Chernobyl will be uninhabitable for more than 300 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/weekinreview/20chernobyl.html
TEPCO continues to do what it can, but what it has done hasn’t been very effective. With evacuation currently in place, it is unlikely that there will be a sudden large number of fatalities, so there is no need to panic, but the long term consequences could still be very costly, indeed.
March 20th, 2011 at 10:40 am
Arudou Debito, can you check with your source today and see what he thinks about the reconnected power and resumed pump activity?
If you could post his views on the new situation with some active pumping capacity that would be useful.
March 20th, 2011 at 10:52 am
Wow, Debito, I expected better from you. There are NUMEROUS sources that prove this false.
First, please read this
http://mitnse.com/
As this is written by nuclear scientists that know what they are talking about, not the scaremongering, sensationalizing mass media. And then look here, the WHO has publicly stated that there is no health risk
http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/03/19/who-no-radiation-risk-outside-evacuation-zone-safe-to-visit-japan/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JapanProbe+%28Japan+Probe%29
And then here, a professor of high-velocity particle physics at UCSB has given his expert opinion
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/plecture/bmonreal11/
And this one links to what you have said
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262210/anti-nuclear-press-puts-japanese-lives-risk-robert-zubrin?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4d7fd31713dcd710%2C0
That the anti-nuclear press is causing most of the problems
And here,
http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/03/17/comparing-chernobyl-fukushima/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JapanProbe+%28Japan+Probe%29
This is a story about how comparing Fukushima and Chernobyl is inaccurate and how the 2 disasters are COMPLETELY different.
Here is an example of what you have just done
http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/03/18/media-sensationalism-bbc-vs-huffington-post/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JapanProbe+%28Japan+Probe%29
Media sensationalization that is.
Here is a link that has various links to other sites with ACCURATE information.
http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/03/16/japan-nuclear-radiation-fear-mongering-vs-facts/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JapanProbe+%28Japan+Probe%29
Notice the theme here? Fear-mongering vs. the truth.
And finally, for those in Tokyo who are of low intelligence and are easily impressionable,
http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/03/15/tokyo-geiger-counter/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JapanProbe+%28Japan+Probe%29
a link to a live geiger counter stream in Tokyo.
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle…G.I. JOE!
March 20th, 2011 at 10:54 am
>I have over 25 years experience as a registered professional >engineer and have worked in the nuclear power industry. I have >performed SSFI inspections (Safety System Functional >Inspections) on several power plants and have performed one >post accident investigation. My roles in the assessments >related to the power distribution system for the reactor >cooling system.
>
>I have been discussing this issue with several >colleagues, .some of whom are top level experts in the nuclear >industry and one who is in a position to have access to >whatever information the U.S. government has.
Why have your correspondent and his colleagues chosen Debito.org to release (exclusively!) their opinions?
Why not a more wide reaching forum?
You do not accept anonymous sources from posters on other issues, and should not do so now. The very fact that it is anonymous renders it valueless.
Also, you should take down the plugs for your books, it looks like you are exploiting the situation for publicity.
(I will presume that you are not.)
March 20th, 2011 at 11:21 am
James,
I don’t see a lot of invective here, only good information. I find it quite reassuring that the US NRC addressed two major technical issues with this design 23 years ago. This makes it more likely that someone will be able to underwrite the insurance policy I asked for here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7688#comment-780112
I understand and appreciate your concern about health effects from anxiety, and I would please ask that you propose positive solutions instead of asking for continued ignorance.
My view is having the insurance industry (or concerned individuals) underwrite radiological contamination policies would be the best way to put a realistic and rational risk evaluation, and get us focused back on what things really matter, like rebuilding Japan and sustainable replacements for coal plants for the rest of the world.
March 20th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Your anonymous source quotes the Daily Mail. We can only conclude he has no research skills whatsoever.