Japan Earthquake: Political Aspects

[Astronuc]

Fukushima Daiichi crisis: OECD & IAEA
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2060625
Nuclear world confers
20 September 2011

Two international meetings in Europe in June have reinforced the desire of the nuclear industry to work together to respond to the lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi accident. In a separate development, the US nuclear industry, which operates a quarter of the world’s reactors, has created a formal organisation to respond to Fukushima Daiichi.
. . . .

 

[gmax137]

This might be as appropriate on the "scientific side of the fence" (it's not always so clear cut, stupid messy reality!) but I'll post it here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/21/what-tepco-and-the-media-are-hiding/I've wondered myself about this quake vs. the Hanshin quake, but seeing it calculated at 350 times the Hanshin quake really makes that difference suspect.

I'd love to hear any reactions/explanations about the magnitude issue.

...

Well I'm no seismic expert, but he seems to be mixing up magnitude (which I thought was a property of the earthquake) and the local ground response at a given location. I just don't see how you can argue that "this 'quake couldn't have been magnitude 9, because the other quake (at magnitude 7.3) caused much more damage". Doesn't it depend on where the 'quake was and where the damage was? He seems to be sensitive to muddy thinking on the part of others, so I'm not sure I understand his seemingly muddy thoughts.

 

[tsutsuji]

Fukushima Daiichi crisis: OECD & IAEA
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2060625
Nuclear world confers
20 September 2011

Two international meetings in Europe in June have reinforced the desire of the nuclear industry to work together to respond to the lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi accident. In a separate development, the US nuclear industry, which operates a quarter of the world’s reactors, has created a formal organisation to respond to Fukushima Daiichi.

Also the American Nuclear Society's Special Committee on the Japanese Fukushima Accident:

will provide a clear and concise explanation of the events surrounding the accident to the general public and U.S. leaders. These communications will include events such as station blackout, the effect on the reactors and on the spent fuel stored at the plant site and the likely health effects of the radioactive substances released to the environment. In addition, the committee will evaluate recommended actions that ANS could or should consider to better communicate with the public and elected officials during a nuclear event.
(...)
will present its draft report by the end of calendar year 2011 and the final report by the spring of 2012.

http://www.new.ans.org/about/committees/scjfa/

Prime minister Noda's address to the IAEA (translation of draft):

At a minimum, there is little doubt that we had overestimated our preparations for tsunami. It is clear that electrical power supplies for emergency use and pumps should not have been situated in locations that could be submerged by tsunami. Our preparations for a severe accident that would result in damage to the reactor core were insufficient. Making a vent took more time than expected, causing loss of precious time. While a full-scale process to discover the cause of the accident will continue for some time, we have identified ''faults'' as well as ''lessons learned'' from them.

(...)

Japan will also present practical strategies and plans around the summer of 2012 concerning the composition of energy sources over the medium and long terms.

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/09/116392.html

 

[clancy688]

I just don't see how you can argue that "this 'quake couldn't have been magnitude 9, because the other quake (at magnitude 7.3) caused much more damage".

But he has a point. I just checked wikipedia for some older big earthquakes. All of them are measured in the Mj JMA scale. The Tohoku quake is the first one to be measured in the Mw magnitude scale. And according to the german wikipedia, while the Tohoku quake has a 9,0 Mw magnitude, it "only" has a 8,4 Mj JMA magnitude.

http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/press/1103/25b/kaisetsu201103251730.pdf" a comparison of many big quakes and the Tohoku quake (look on page 7). Apparently, the Mw and Mj scales often produced the same numbers, but not for the Tohoku quake.

As far as I understand, the Mw scale measures released energy and the Mj scale destructive power. Wasn't it said that the Fukushima plant should withstand earthquakes up to 8,4? Does anyone know if that number represents the Mw or the Mj number?

 

[westfield]

"IAEA adopts action plan for nuclear safety"

"The plan calls for sending IAEA inspectors to member countries to evaluate the safety of nuclear plants at their request. It also requires the signatories to quickly organize a response team after a nuclear accident."




http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/22_37.html"



As its reported in that article it's seems like a combination of what the IAEA already does and what would be the obvious thing to do in an emergency. Hardly worth a press release unless they just wanted to insult people's intelligence.

 

[Susudake]

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201109240257.html

I posted on the scientific thread asking for clarification on whether it's accurate to use the term "cold shutdown" in reference to FDI 1-3. Not much response but one person with an engineering background said it would be inaccurate since, as I pointed out, it's not fuel assemblies, but corium, inside (and outside) the reactors.

But now this term seems to be getting embedded in every story (see above). In other words, a meme getting repeated until it's taken for granted. The Asahi is ostensibly a bit more left/independent (independent of a 100+ year right-wing and often militaristic government means by definition being left-leaning) and yet it's still part of the Japanese MSM.

My use of the term "propaganda" (even if the Asahi or others are not doing it intentionally, they're still propagating) in referring to this felicitous mis-application of the term cold-shutdown seems more accurate every time I see this term used.

 

[zapperzero]

My use of the term "propaganda" (even if the Asahi or others are not doing it intentionally, they're still propagating) in referring to this felicitous mis-application of the term cold-shutdown seems more accurate every time I see this term used.

Well, yes, it is. Meaningless feel-good phrase. Cold. Shutdown. No more danger.

 

[alpi]

Well, yes, it is. Meaningless feel-good phrase. Cold. Shutdown. No more danger.

I don't think it is meaningless to have the fuel elements and/or corium covered with water that is no longer boiling, either by heat exchange or by continuous replacement with purified cold water.

 

[gmax137]

... Wasn't it said that the Fukushima plant should withstand earthquakes up to 8,4? Does anyone know if that number represents the Mw or the Mj number?

I don't know if 'it was said' but I think if were said, it would be meaningless. The 'magnitude' is a characteristic of the earthquake (at the location of the earthquake) -- it has nothing really to do specifically with the damage at any given location, simply because the severity at a given location depends on how close you are to the site of the earthquake. Seismic design for a nuclear plant is specified in terms of a ground response spectrum; this tells you how hard the shaking is at the reactor site. The response spectrum defines how a collection of oscillators of various natural frequencies would respond to the ground motion. It has the form of a curve of acceleration (units g or gal) vs. frequency (in hertz). If you want to compare the earthquake as it affected Fukushima to the plant design, you need to convert the measured ground motion at the plant to a response spectrum and then compare that to the specified spectrum. I have not seen such a comparison reported, if any of you have seen it please post a link.

 

[clancy688]

If you want to compare the earthquake as it affected Fukushima to the plant design, you need to convert the measured ground motion at the plant to a response spectrum and then compare that to the specified spectrum. I have not seen such a comparison reported, if any of you have seen it please post a link.

What I meant was http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8379759/Japan-earthquake-Disaster-in-numbers.html" :

8.2 The magnitude of earthquake the Fukushima nuclear plant was designed to withstand

This "8.2" number was often quoted in the media. But is it a number on the Mw scale or the Mj scale?


And there were http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110516e27.pdf" report, Unit 1 was initially designed for peak ground accelerations of not more than 0.18 g - compare that to the numbers in the TEPCO pdf I posted.

 

[gmax137]

Thanks for the link clancy688, I will take a look at it.

 

[Caniche]

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201109240257.html

I posted on the scientific thread asking for clarification on whether it's accurate to use the term "cold shutdown" in reference to FDI 1-3. Not much response but one person with an engineering background said it would be inaccurate since, as I pointed out, it's not fuel assemblies, but corium, inside (and outside) the reactors.

But now this term seems to be getting embedded in every story (see above). In other words, a meme getting repeated until it's taken for granted. The Asahi is ostensibly a bit more left/independent (independent of a 100+ year right-wing and often militaristic government means by definition being left-leaning) and yet it's still part of the Japanese MSM.

My use of the term "propaganda" (even if the Asahi or others are not doing it intentionally, they're still propagating) in referring to this felicitous mis-application of the term cold-shutdown seems more accurate every time I see this term used.

Propaganda, popular ,spin ; cold infers inactivity ,benign ,harmless ;shutdown implies absolute control,mastery ,total authority.
Hard to see how you can claim either or both when you don't know if your sensors are working or where your fuel/debris mix is located?

 

[sp2]

I don't think it is meaningless to have the fuel elements and/or corium covered with water that is no longer boiling, either by heat exchange or by continuous replacement with purified cold water.

Quick question: If it's "no longer boiling," where's all that steam coming from?


(And yes, of course it's propaganda to call it 'Cold Shutdown.'

'Cold Shutdown' applies to Nuclear Reactors. Like, *intact* Nuclear Reactors.
We don't have anything remotely resembling that here.

Calling it 'Cold Shutdown' is like opening the drawer of the hospital morgue to pull out a patient who's been dead for a week, taking his temperature, and saying, "Well, he's definitely *stable*."

<nonsense deleted>

 

[Borek]

Quick question: If it's "no longer boiling," where's all that steam coming from?

You don't need boiling to see steam. Common misconception.

 

[Luca Bevil]

I don't think it is meaningless to have the fuel elements and/or corium covered with water that is no longer boiling, either by heat exchange or by continuous replacement with purified cold water.

Covered ? quite dificult to ascertain since the exact location of the corium is not known.
One can only say that temperature at the positions where termocouples are is less than 100 degrees Celsius. which is of course better than registering a higher temperature, especially if there is a decreasing trend, but is far from a normal cold shutdown condition.

 

[tsutsuji]

How common is this in Japan? The new cabinet is just a week old, no?

Ryu Matsumoto resigned after one week in July:

Japan's Minister for Reconstruction Ryu Matsumoto has announced his resignation after just a week in the job.

He had been widely criticised for making insensitive remarks to governors of areas badly affected by March's deadly earthquake and tsunami.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14024206

Minoru Yanagida resigned over a gaffe in November 2010. He had been minister of Justice for less than 3 months:

Japan's justice minister resigns after gaffe
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/22/japan-justice-minister-minoru-yanagida

 

[sp2]

You don't need boiling to see steam. Common misconception.

Borek--

Please don't tell me you would look me in the eye and state that you honestly believe there's nothing boiling in there.

Please.

 

[Borek]

I have no idea what is going on inside. But concluding something is boiling just because you see a steam is wrong.

 

[NUCENG]

Propaganda, popular ,spin ; cold infers inactivity ,benign ,harmless ;shutdown implies absolute control,mastery ,total authority.
Hard to see how you can claim either or both when you don't know if your sensors are working or where your fuel/debris mix is located?

I am the engineer that pointed out that cold shutdown is a technical term with a legal definition that is not applicable to the Fukushima reactors.

Now I will also state that the term propoganda is equally suspect. As I said before, communication and translation from Japanese to English is one source of inaccuracy. Another is in the media interpretation of what they have been told. These can be innocent errors. However, your use of the word propoganda is deliberate and implies intentional miscommunication. Your previous posts clearly demonstrate your bias. So unless you are prepared to prove your assertions, I will simply categorize your posts as propoganda too.

Edit:

TEPCO does not yet consider the plants in cold shutdown. see:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/28/japan-nuclear-plant-idUSL3E7KS28V20110928

 

[zapperzero]

Gentlemen and ladies of PF.

I would like to point out to all of you that this thread is right at the very edge of what is acceptable on physicsforums anyway. It's quite normal, therefore, that moderators lack experience and regulars become uncomfortable with the deluge of spin, propaganda, counterprop and plain all-out kookery.

But that's what this thread is for! Think of it as a bag where all the unruly kittens can be stuffed. Tolerate the odd outburst of noise and the occasional squirming...

 

[Astronuc]

Propaganda, popular ,spin ; cold infers inactivity ,benign ,harmless ;shutdown implies absolute control,mastery ,total authority.
Hard to see how you can claim either or both when you don't know if your sensors are working or where your fuel/debris mix is located?

Quick question: If it's "no longer boiling," where's all that steam coming from?


(And yes, of course it's propaganda to call it 'Cold Shutdown.'

'Cold Shutdown' applies to Nuclear Reactors. Like, *intact* Nuclear Reactors.
We don't have anything remotely resembling that here.

Calling it 'Cold Shutdown' is like opening the drawer of the hospital morgue to pull out a patient who's been dead for a week, taking his temperature, and saying, "Well, he's definitely *stable*."

Don't read more into the terminology than temperature at 1 atm.

NUCENG has already discussed the use of the term.

Cold shutdown
The term used to define a reactor coolant system at atmospheric pressure and at a temperature below 200 degrees Fahrenheit following a reactor cooldown.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/cold-shutdown.html

Shutdown implies that reactor/core is subcritical.

 

[zapperzero]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204010604576596321581004368.html
Japan Officials Failed to Hand Out Radiation Pills in Quake's Aftermath says the title.
So much fail.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204138204576602763288145094.html "Japan Panel Says Nuclear Agency Manipulated Forums"

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/news/20110930p2a00m0na007000c.html criticality accident anniversary: Tokai Mayor "showed his anti-nuclear position."

 

[tsutsuji]

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111004p2g00m0dm010000c.html "The head of Japan's largest labor organization said Tuesday that the 6.8 million-strong body will seek to eventually realize a society not dependent on nuclear power, marking a shift from its previous stance of promoting atomic energy."

 

[joewein]

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111004p2g00m0dm010000c.html "The head of Japan's largest labor organization said Tuesday that the 6.8 million-strong body will seek to eventually realize a society not dependent on nuclear power, marking a shift from its previous stance of promoting atomic energy."

...which reminded me of a quote in http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20111002x1.html" published on Oct 2:

What was your motivation in helping to organize the anti-nuclear demonstration in Tokyo on Sept. 19?

I planned the demonstration because right after the Fukushima crisis no citizens' groups seemed able to organize anti-nuclear rallies. In France or Germany, citizens' groups organized demonstrations numbering 200,000 or 300,000 people. In Japan it is difficult to hold such massive rallies.

Why is it difficult in Japan?

In Japan, labor unions have been the main organizers of massive demonstrations, but Rengo (the Japanese Trades Union Confederation) is not against nuclear power because it represents workers in the nuclear industry.

However, since May there have been many ordinary citizens, mainly young people, organizing anti-nuclear rallies that have typically attracted about 10,000 demonstrators.

So I thought that I should help to organize an even bigger demonstration, and I added my efforts to those of eight other co-organizers.

So if Rengo switches sides, it could be quite an interesting development, also considering the close links between Rengo and the currently ruling Democratic Party.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://mainichi.jp/select/jiken/news/20111015k0000m040029000c.html The ministry of education is publishing and distributing to schools new versions of reading books about radioactivity. Expressions such as "Nuclear plants are built in such a way that makes them safe from big earthquakes or tsunamis" that were written in the old versions have been removed.

 

[clancy688]

Expressions such as "Nuclear plants are built in such a way that makes them safe from big earthquakes or tsunamis" that were written in the old versions have been removed.

That says a lot about their "newfound confidence" in safety measures. It probably would have been enough if they'd just slipped a "are supposed to be built in such a way" into the text, but I won't complain.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T111015002391.htm English article about nuclear science education in Japanese schools.

 

[Astronuc]

Also from Yomiuri, NISA secretly calculated Fukushima meltdown risks / Agency considered worst-case scenario of 'China syndrome'
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T111015002539.htm

The agency [NISA] was working on the calculations just as TEPCO was saying the nuclear fuel in three reactors at the plant was "slightly damaged."

The key statement is: "The calculations indicated that if cooling water could not be injected, . . . ."

So why didn't TEPCO come out and say that they believed some fuel may have melted. Well, they eventually did, but they didn't know, and they still don't know how much (they would be left simply speculating). And they (and we) won't know until the RPVs are opened and the cores are visually inspected.

From the hydrogen and activity release, it is clear there is a lot of damage to the fuel, but a lot of damage could have occurred well below the melting point of the fuel and cladding. The cladding and channels would have oxidized considerably at half the melting temperature of the Zircaloy-2 material. Once the cladding is breached, the inner Zr-liner would have rapidly oxidized at even lower temperature, and the fuel would have been exposed to the coolant, and it would have started to oxidize. Other than the volatiles, the severely oxidized fuel would have fallen into the coolant - but it would not have melted. Only if the core had gone completely dry (essentially adiabatic conditions) would the fuel have melted.

Since water is the source of hydrogen, there had to be water in or below the core, and that would reduce the likelihood of the core melting through the RPV. It remains to be seen if the cores in units 1, 2 and 3 ended up like TMI-2's damaged core.

 

[zapperzero]

And they (and we) won't know until the RPVs are opened and the cores are visually inspected.

Five years minimum, according to TEPCO roadmap.

Why in the name of Stinky Pete they do not just stick borescopes in there is beyond me.

Knowing the shapes and locations the fuel's in would help prevent recriticality and optimize cooling, so it's not like they would be doing it just to satisfy our curiosity.

 

[Astronuc]

Five years minimum, according to TEPCO roadmap.

Why in the name of Stinky Pete they do not just stick borescopes in there is beyond me.

Knowing the shapes and locations the fuel's in would help prevent recriticality and optimize cooling, so it's not like they would be doing it just to satisfy our curiosity.

It's not so easy. They would have thread it though one of the feedwater lines, and then get it through the feedwater sparger, and arounound the hardware above the core. Above the core are the moisture separator and steam dryer. To go in through the top, they'd have to remove the RPV head, and before that the plug. They have no heavy lifting equipment in place to do that. They'd have to remove the steel from the upper containment first.

See the details here - http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf

 

[NUCENG]

It's not so easy. They would have thread it though one of the feedwater lines, and then get it through the feedwater sparger, and arounound the hardware above the core. Above the core are the moisture separator and steam dryer. To go in through the top, they'd have to remove the RPV head, and before that the plug. They have no heavy lifting equipment in place to do that. They'd have to remove the steel from the upper containment first.

See the details here - http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf

IF the boroscope will fit through instrument lines, and the lines are intact, and the boroscope can survive the process conditions, and if water clarity permits, and if rad levels permit access to the penetration area by personnel to install the boroscope, there are routes to the drywell via the drywell and suppression chamber instrument lines, to the vessel outside the shroud through the vessel pressure and level instrument lines, and to the lower plenum inside the vessel through core differential pressure lines.

Navigate the IF minefield and get your camera is there and photograph the debris. Now what will you use that information for? What could you see that would change what they are doing now? They are still trying to ensure that the fuel, wherever it is, is covered and cooled to below 100 degC. Boiling keeps things stirred up and would probably be detrimental to getting useful pictures. How long was it before they inserted cameras at TMI? Is it worth the dose and risk to do this now, before completing site cleanup and building the containment "tent" structures?

I am curious, too. I "hope" they plan to look for the fuel before they start trying to remove it, but if it isn't at the top of their ppriority list right now, I can understand that, too.

 

[zapperzero]

IF the boroscope will fit through instrument lines, and the lines are intact, and the boroscope can survive the process conditions, and if water clarity permits, and if rad levels permit access to the penetration area by personnel to install the boroscope, there are routes to the drywell via the drywell and suppression chamber instrument lines, to the vessel outside the shroud through the vessel pressure and level instrument lines, and to the lower plenum inside the vessel through core differential pressure lines.

Navigate the IF minefield and get your camera is there and photograph the debris. Now what will you use that information for? What could you see that would change what they are doing now? They are still trying to ensure that the fuel, wherever it is, is covered and cooled to below 100 degC. Boiling keeps things stirred up and would probably be detrimental to getting useful pictures. How long was it before they inserted cameras at TMI? Is it worth the dose and risk to do this now, before completing site cleanup and building the containment "tent" structures?

I am curious, too. I "hope" they plan to look for the fuel before they start trying to remove it, but if it isn't at the top of their ppriority list right now, I can understand that, too.

We keep having this conversation, which says a lot about my pig-headedness and your patience, both.

I think after the tents are up working inside the reactor buildings will be harder not easier for the reason that radioactive steam will still be wafting out even if all the water is below 100 degrees Celsius.

I do not know if it is worth the dose. Maybe it is. Depends on what one would find. I would at least try to put a borescope into the drywell, below the RPV bottom head.

I may see that I need to add more boron ASAP because there is fuel and it is in a nasty configuration.

I may see that the RPV is whole, or I may see that it isn't, which would probably affect the choice of cooling lines and help me minimize water use.

I may see other, unexpected things, such as severely cracked walls/floors, a big honking hole in the middle of the drywell floor into which the fuel is sinking and so on and so forth. Interesting stuff that may make me change my priorities radically.

I may see nothing, in which case I would retrieve the borescope, see what sort of dose it got and if it got hit by any neutrons and call it a day. Then you'd criticize me (rightly, because hindsight is always 100%!) for wasting time, money and exposing people to unnecessary risk.

 

[Astronuc]

Assuming the core melted - from the top down - since the top would be first exposed if coolant was leaking from the bottom of the vessel, it is better to look from the top down - as was the case at TMI-2.

Alternatively, they could look at the outside of the RPV before opening it in order to determine any breaches to the primary systems and RPV. It may be possible that some pipes rupture, or some control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) housing tubes broke. That would be useful to know.

Some useful information on BWR details here - http://www.ansn-jp.org/jneslibrary/npp2.pdf

 

[NUCENG]

We keep having this conversation, which says a lot about my pig-headedness and your patience, both.

I think after the tents are up working inside the reactor buildings will be harder not easier for the reason that radioactive steam will still be wafting out even if all the water is below 100 degrees Celsius.

I do not know if it is worth the dose. Maybe it is. Depends on what one would find. I would at least try to put a borescope into the drywell, below the RPV bottom head.

I may see that I need to add more boron ASAP because there is fuel and it is in a nasty configuration.

I may see that the RPV is whole, or I may see that it isn't, which would probably affect the choice of cooling lines and help me minimize water use.

I may see other, unexpected things, such as severely cracked walls/floors, a big honking hole in the middle of the drywell floor into which the fuel is sinking and so on and so forth. Interesting stuff that may make me change my priorities radically.

I may see nothing, in which case I would retrieve the borescope, see what sort of dose it got and if it got hit by any neutrons and call it a day. Then you'd criticize me (rightly, because hindsight is always 100%!) for wasting time, money and exposing people to unnecessary risk.

No criticism planned or intended. I have no argument with you personally and neither of us will make that decision.