Talk:Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

Disappointing

As someone who is at least marginally qualified to interpret information about the design of the plant, I was extremely disappointed with both the tone and content of the wikipedia article about it. The article is full of the latest information, appropriate for keeping on top of things. The problem, paraphrasing Don Knuth, is that it's not wikipedia's job to keep on top of things: this site is supposed to be an encyclopedia, which is appropriate for getting to the bottom of things. And it has failed at that. The article uses the acronym BWR, implying a single loop design, gives the date 1966 and mentions GE, which built single loop reactors in that era as opposed to the Westinghouse and B&W double loop designs. But it doesn't really say any of this, nor does it even provide references to other articles that would help. Google news helps me keep on top of things better than wikipedia ever will; if wikipedia wants to keep adding value, it needs to get out of this business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.236.139 (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What would you have us do? --Kizor 07:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And by not fixing and sourcing it, you are part of the problem. StrangeWill (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Please remove reference to a cesium rod =

There is no such thing as a cesium rod in a BWR. There are fuel rods that are hot from the heat generated by the radioactive decay of the fission products (decay heat). Some of the fission products are isotopes of cesium, but there is also a whole range of chemicals inside the rods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.123.223.150 (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

it's out now... L.tak (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

removed part

I removed this part (1/2 times now -the first time I think it was wikipedia and a weird sort of edit conflict, but anyway- so I'll stop):

In addition to the reactor cores, the storage pool for highly radioactive irradiated nuclear fuel is also at risk. The pool cooling water must be continuously circulated. Without circulation, the still thermally hot irradiated nuclear fuel in the storage pools will begin to boil off the cooling water. Within a day or two, the pool’s water could completely boil away. Without cooling water, the irradiated nuclear fuel could spontaneously combust in an exothermic reaction. Since the storage pools are not located within containment, a catastrophic radioactivity release to the environment could occur. Up to 100 percent of the volatile radioactive Cesium-137 content of the pools could go up in flames and smoke, to blow downwind over large distances. Given the large quantity of irradiated nuclear fuel in the pool, the radioactivity release could be worse than the Chernobyl nuclear reactor catastrophe of 25 years ago.

• 1 because it is a very long quotation which is not really useful, but
• secondly because it is a scenario by an anti-nuclear expert.
• 3: I think we should focus here on the facts and immediate risks rather than discuss risks if events don't unfold positively in the next days in worst case (the name given in the article it cites....). Views welcome!

L.tak (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That's perfectly reasonable. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your decision "up to 100%." -- 76.115.3.200 (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Dates

The is hour that don't have date with it. For now, we can assume it is march 11 (GMT, march 12 local time). I propose to add date, and to convert all GMT time to local time.

199.89.103.13 (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

go ahead, but it might be tricky with so many reversions at the moment... L.tak (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That will also change the date of many press stories, so I don't recommend it, due to the date you put in not matching the date on the site of, say the New York Times or a London paper, making it difficult to verify or find the reference later. Edison (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I converter time to JST in the article, but not in the reference. 199.89.103.13 (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Useful news resources for today's incident

So far, much of the mainstream media (major newspapers, broadcasters, etc.) coverage of the incident following the earthquake has been garbled and contradictory, perhaps because the reporters don't yet fully understand the technology they're reporting on. World Nuclear News is published by the World Nuclear Association, an international industry trade group; the target audience is the nuclear industry, not the general public. Here's a link to their current coverage:

• "Massive earthquake hits Japan". World Nuclear News. 11 March 2011. Retrieved 11 March 2011.

Presumably the mainstream media will improve their coverage in the next day or two as they come to better understand the technical issues, but for now, this is the most reliable article I've found. It appears to be updated every several hours.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to Tokyo Electric Power Company's news release page, which is issuing more or less hourly updates. Most of the coverage in the mainstream media appears to be based on these releases; as well, the statements by the Japanese government pretty much reflect the same information. Realistically, there are not going to be any other, independent primary sources of information at this point that are not based on information coming from the engineers on site.

• "TEPCO News". Tokyo Electric Power Company. Retrieved 12 March 2011.
  

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Japanese Nuclear Safety Commission's English language site; as of this point, they are not posting anything on the incident in English:

• http://www.nsc.go.jp/NSCenglish/index.htm
  • I have no idea what they're posting in Japanese:
    • http://www.nsc.go.jp/index.htm

This is the Japanese Prime Minister's web site in English:

• "Prime minister of Japan and His Cabinet (main page)". Office of the Prime Minister of Japan. Retrieved 12 March 2011.
  • There is a page on that site with links to the Prime Minister's statements on the 11 March earthquake, including the problems with TEPCO's reactors:
    • "Countermeasures for 2011 Tohoku district - off the Pacific Ocean Earthquake". Prime Minister of Japan. Retrieved 12 March 2011.

As of now (00:30, 12 March 2011), that site's English releases do not yet reflect the most recent events (such as evacuation orders).

My sense is that TEPCO and the government have been slow and cautious in releasing information on what's going on.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The TEPCO 7 AM press update says their "monitoring car" detected elevated levels of radioactive material "Iodine etc." Would there normally be detectable levels of radioactive Iodine? An "elevated level" could be .01% above normal background. A China Syndrome could also produce "elevated radioactive Iodine levels" much higher, so they become a health hazard. Is "elevated" a term of art in nuclear safety, meaning a significantly above normal level? We should restrain anyone's going beyond official statements and reliable press coverage, in the article text. Edison (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The English language version of that news release is a little ambiguous -- it refers to monitoring of radiation (Iodine, etc). That could mean radioactive iodine levels have gone up or that radiation levels in general have gone up. The presence of radioactive iodine does not indicate a China syndrome is imminent -- just that the zircalloy cladding somewhere on a fuel element has been damaged, exposing the uranium fuel underneath. Radioactive iodine is a fission product entrapped in the uranium fuel and is released into the coolant when this happens. See our Nuclear fission product article for a good write-up on fission products. Any radioactive iodine would still not reach the environment unless either the reactor piping was breached, inadvertently releasing steam or liquid coolant (water), or (more likely), some steam was deliberately vented to reduce pressure. So the presence of radioactive iodine could indicate anything from a small defect to a big problem.

I think the ambiguities here are typical of the early hours of a nuclear incident in a foreign country being reported by a non-technical press corps. The fact that this is going on during a major disaster makes it that much more difficult for the press to focus in on getting themselves up to speed on the problem and asking the right questions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing updates on the International Atomic Energy Agency site:

• "IAEA Alert Log". International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved 12 March 2011.

The IAEA's updates are based on information from the Japanese safety agency. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Could we have an actual radiation measurement added to this article please? My back-of-the-envelope calculation is that "1000x background" is approximately 0.5 REM per hour, about 10% of the lifetime dosage acceptable for nuclear power plant workers (5 REM) in the USA but well below immediately dangerous levels (i.e. 70 to 100 REM). 71.198.27.62 (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You raise a good question but so far the English sources that I have seen are only ambiguously reporting "1000 times" with no elaboration as to what the actual does is. Are they reporting gamma radiation coming through the shielding? Or airborne contamination levels? And what's the "normal" they're comparing this to? It's unclear at this point. I'm not sure the press really understands the technical details of what they're reporting. Likewise, I'm not sure TEPCO's translators understand the technical details of what they're posting in English. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A new news article worth reading:

• "Battle to stabilise earthquake reactors". World Nuclear News. 12 March 2011. Retrieved 12 March 2011.

I'm going offline now and I think L.tak is also -- it would be helpful to get some other editors watching and updating this article as events unfold.

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Many of the English-language media are quoting Kyodo News agency's reports; you can find English versions of them at:

• http://english.kyodonews.jp/

They appear to basically be rehashing the TEPCO and IAEA information cited above.

Various Western media outlets are also calling in technical pundits and academics to fill in the blanks in their coverage; their comments are ranging in style from "there's no real problem" to "this is the Apocalypse". It's all nothing but speculation for now, regardless of the pundits' supposed expertise; we should avoid adding this stuff until further hard information comes out of the Fukushima plants. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

unit 4?

was in maintenance we thought... But still cooling problems seem to have occurred? http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031214-e.html Would that make sense? L.tak (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

hm, that was Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant (daini).... L.tak (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely Conflicting Information

TEPCO press releases indicate core cooling initially occurring with RCIC (Reactor Core Isolation Cooling) and then using the makeup system (non-emergency system). This would be 'normal' following a reactor scram. The indication also is that suppression pool temperature went over 100 degrees, probably indicative of relief valve operation, also somewhat 'normal' in a scram situation of this type. The high suppression pool temperature seems to indicate that the suppression pool cooling mode of Low-Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI) has not been able to be entered for some reason. Nothing indicative of truly 'major' damage or malfunction. At most a hint of a possible small steam leak inside primary containment. The radiation detected is a mystery. TEPCO press releases indicate no stack or effluent monitoring detection. There is no mention of abnormal containment radiation monitoring system detections. One monitoring station detecting something could be a fluke. Earthquakes have been known to release naturally-occuring radiation, such as radon gas. If there is no abnormal radiation in containment, where would this detected radiation be coming from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.68.140 (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the "makeup system" (referred to in the TEPCO English PR as "Make-up Water Condensate System", which doesn't appear to be a standardized term referring to GE BWR designs)? Where does it take its water from? The suppression pool or from outside the containment? Where can it take pump power from? Also, it appears TEPCO acknowledges (as of March 12th 10 AM JST) release of radioactive gases (or particle contaminats in vented air) and that two different monitoring systems detect elevated radiation levels outside the Daiichi (Fukushima I) plant as follows:

• Measurement of radioactive material (Iodine, etc.) by monitoring car indicates increasing value compared to normal level. One of the monitoring posts is also indicating higher than normal level. We will continue monitoring discharge of radioactive material from exhaust stack and discharge canal, etc.
• Considering the increasing pressure with in the reactor containment vessel of Unit 1, the national government has instructed us to implement measures to reduce the pressure of the reactor containment vessel (partial discharge of air containing radioactive materials) in order to fully secure safety.

I was under the impression that the suppression pool design (Mark II? for Daiichi/Fukushima I Unit #1) was intended to prevent any need to vent readioactive steam to the outside air. What kind of "containment" is it, if they need to vent outside of it when just 100°C is exceeded? I also thought that the suppression pool had air scrubbers to remove airborne contaminants from the atmosphere inside that structure. Do these need outside power to operate?

All considered, these reports are indeed very conflicting, because by IAEA standards any intentional release of radioactive substances from a triple redundant containment is an extremely serious situation, indeed an accident (INES Level 4 at this stage) 85.156.224.62 (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Aiui, the pressure chamber is designed to prevent water boil to 148C, and is a closed system. That would be an atmospheric pressure of 66 psi/4.6 bar. If the pressure had risen to 1.5x the normal inside the chamber as reported, 99 psi/6.9 bar, it might increase the risk of a catastrophic failure of the pressure chamber if the temperature continued to climb and achieved a boiling point—164C (at which point the pressure would presumably increase rapidly.) - Amgine (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"...the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency announced that part of a cesium rod appeared to have melted,..." Since cesium melts at 28C (i.e., in your hand) the quality of both information and reporting seems to be really poor. 68.110.169.4 (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously there are no such things as "cesium rods" inside the reactor, so I don't see the point in replicating such an error in reporting in the article. What is really meant, is that the detected caesium-137 levels indicate that at least one fuel rod has melted, which is pretty cautious statement. If melting tempertures have been achieved, it would stand to reason that several fuel rods have melted already, at least partially.

It's also interesting that only IAEA used to claim that any venting from Daiichi #1 was to be filtered with radioactive elements being retained in containment, while TEPCO never made such a claim. Also, the latest IAEA alert no longer makes this filtration claim. This clarifies the situation somewhat, because unfiltered release of primary containment steam would explain the onsite detections of radiation release. Just to recap, latest TEPCO reports state that Daiichi #1 has released such vapor and Daiichi #2 and Daiichi #3 are preparing for the capability to release. Also, Daini (Fukushima II plant some 10 km south of Daiichi) reactors #2 and #4 have finished preparations for release, while #1 is still preparing and #3 achieved "cold shutdown". 85.156.224.62 (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the reported explosion and massive cloud of "white smoke" (steam?) surrounding Daiichi #1 that are now filtering in, I expect that we're looking at a meltdown somewhere in the INES Level 5 or Level 6 range at this point. I won't put that into the article, because it would be OR, but in short, things just went to shit. rdfox 76 (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, things really took a turn for the worse. It might be interesting to look at the 5 day weather forecast for wind directions. Nuclear safety regulator pundits are already speculating with the possible fallout scenarios. 85.156.224.62 (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

From BBC: Japan's NHK TV showing before and after pictures of the Fukushima-Daiichi plant. It appears to show that the outer structure of one of four buildings at the plant is no longer there. Ouch! I'll try to verify that, but it's unlikely it could be some other building, such as the turbine hall... 85.156.224.62 (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Formatting

In the first section, "Reactors on site", a graphic called "Aerial view of the plant" obscures the table listing the reactors. MichaelAaronson (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

that often depends on resolution etc; is it better now? L.tak (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Normal operating pressure

The article currently states "At 2:00 JST, the pressure inside the reactor was reported to be 600kPa (6 bar or 87 psi), 200 kPa (2 bar or 29 psi) higher than under normal conditions." Can that be right? Boiling water reactor states that the cooling water of a BWR is normally kept at about 75 bar. 4 bar steam doesn't sound very useful for driving a H.P. turbine. -- 119.31.121.88 (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

the big question of course is: where in the system are those pressures taken? However it comes from WNN, which look knowledgeble to me... L.tak (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change all GMTs to JST (for consistency). 220.100.15.15 (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It may have just blown up

This appears to be a video of it blowing up, released 15 mins ago: http://www.twitvid.com/LICNU Any news of this on English-language media yet? Buckethed (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

NHK World English service has reported the explosion and is showing live video which clearly shows that Daiichi #1 outer containment building has partially collapsed, with only remains of one wall remaining and that 1,050 mSv of radiation level has been measured (per hour?, no mention of time interval). 85.156.224.62 (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

All of the news agencies covering live are saying that the plant is possibly undergoing a meltdown. Should this be reported? 198.96.35.248 (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably not yet. While the damage is self evident and it's difficult to explain it without a steam explosion resulting from a full meltdown, that's something we need "expert confirmation" for. 85.156.224.62 (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)