NRC: No Water In Spent Fuel Pool Of Japan Plant

[jus_the_facts]

Source: AP

The chief of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Wednesday that all the water is gone from one of the spent fuel pools at Japan's most troubled nuclear plant, but Japanese officials denied it.

If NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko is correct, this would mean there's nothing to stop the fuel rods from getting hotter and ultimately melting down. The outer shell of the rods could also ignite with enough force to propel the radioactive fuel inside over a wide area.

Jaczko did not say Wednesday how the information was obtained, but the NRC and U.S. Department of Energy both have experts on site at the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex of six reactors. He said the spent fuel pool of the complex's Unit 4 reactor has lost water.



Read more: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=134600420

[truthisfreedom]

1. It's really hard to tell what's the most dangerous part of this situation. For some reason,

I get the feeling that reactor number 4 is the biggie.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. I wonder if 4 had new, very hot fuel sitting in that pool when the earthquake hit.

It was offline for something, probably refueling when it happened. (Along with 5-6.)

If it was new, very thermally hot, high-decay rate fuel, that might explain why it's a problem when 5-6 appear to not be, if it had new fuel delivered. (or maybe a lot more used rods sitting in the pool)

[Lucinda]

11. It has been said that the three were offline for regularly scheduled tests

And I think your guess sounds about right - but someone else may have another idea about it

[abqmufc]

5. Cumulative Risk.....

We need to start addressing such issues as a cumulative risk, rather "stove piping" each issue. It is all part of one big risk.

I always have an issue when we look at environmental accidents as singular risk, rather than looking at the collective risk.

For example, pundits are acting like this is one of the only events we've seen as citizens. They are wrong. If you are old enough to have lived through the Nation's era of above ground nuclear testing in Nevada then you've more than likely lived through some heavy doses of radiation, especially in the Midwest. If you ate corn and food grown in the Midwest you ate radioactive food exposed to the fallout from those tests. If you eat WA apples, odds are, you are eating apples grown in and around Richland, WA, home to the worlds most toxic and radioactive nuclear waste facilities - Hanford. FDA doesn't test for exposure. If you spend time in the sun these days, you put yourself at greater risk than the pundits tell you. Pundits don't factor in the ozone layer is nearly gone and that is directly linked to the exponential rise in skin cancer (the sun is not safe anymore...).

The same is true for discussing nuclear energy. Even if nuclear power was safe (the actual plant), one must factor in the mining and milling of uranium, the transport of fuel, as well as, the transport of spent fuel and waste and long-term storage of waste. When you factor all steps for nuclear power it is obvious how great the risk is.

When you factor in the amount of radiation many citizens have seen during the nuclear era from the various sources the correct question is, 'how much more exposure is needed till I am at risk?' The second question is "what is risk." For most Western Science models the threshold is death, or cancer. Exposure to nuclear materials can create other health concerns which are not counted as major risk by the government nor industry.

[cbdo2007]

2. So what happens next? does it explode or just give off radioactive fumes? or what?

I think "dispersement" of the radioactive material would be the main concern.

[jtuck004]

6. The fuel continues to heat if it can't be cooled, and unless there is

damage beyond that should "melt" into the bottom of the reactor in some percentage. This goes for fuel in the "core" a well as that outside of it in storage. The damage to the structures makes it a real problem - I even wonder if they will have to cover and abandon for awhile, but that is still to be seen.

It's not Chernobyl, has been handled much better it seems, and the design is far different, likely outcome will have a much, much smaller footprint. There has been constant and ongoing release of radioactive steam, and some of the fuel may well be laying on the ground after the explosions, but there is not enough info. Probably won't be until this is further along.

If they can do it at all they will probably try to restore circulating water to try to cool it and leave it in place for a few years while it cools to a level suitable for transport, then move it out for reprocessing or storage. I read earlier that they nearly have an electric line to the site - which has been the big problem all along.

In the meantime they will need to figure out which later designs will work, how to site them, and build new nuclear plants using designs and parameters that are more appropriate for what we saw happen. Probably will have those up and operational before that old fuel can be moved.

Because the real problem here was earthquakes and a tsunami, and only partially the design. The design of the plant worked inside the design parameters it had, but those didn't take into account what happened.

[cui bono]

7. Also, the metal of the rods oxidizes when not covered with water, causing it to deteriorate.

And I believe it has a lot to do with the design. They have the nuclear waste (what is now being called spent fuel, I assume to keep everyone from discussing that there is a radioactive waste issue that has NO solution) sitting at the top of the structure with much less protection than the core. And from what I understand there is a lot more radioactive waste sitting up there than what is in the core itself.

So I must take issue with you saying they need to "figure out which later designs will work, how to site them, and build new nuclear plants using designs and parameters that are more appropriate for what we saw happen". What they need to do is STOP building nuclear plants! It just isn't safe and it isn't clean. How many more disasters do we need?

[jtuck004]

12. The old disasters are fine.

Like dumping the output of coal plants on this country every day, very likely responsible for at least shortening, if not ending, 10,000 lives every year(that's the conservative estimate I heard). Coal needs to end.

Or auto's, which take out about 40,000 people a year.

Nuclear is far safer than that when we aren't using it as weapons. If we were to get into actually installing the billions of installations of solar\wind we would need to even generate a part of the total package we would probably lose as many people falling from towers and roofs as we do now from well-designed nuclear installations. I'm not against wind and solar, I think it should be part of the mix, as well as work on energy efficiency for homes and agriculture.

If solar is so viable why is are the undamaged PV factories in Japan down because of no electricy? If the stuff is so great they should be able to generate their own - they can't even do it for themselves, much less all the other demand.

People are free to take issue with whatever, but IMHO its nothing more than a religious\superstitious belief in solar\wind\etc that keeps people thinking they can directly replace working technologies. It's easier to believe in ghosts than to prove it, and just because they can generate power in some limited areas, even for parts of whole cities, doesn't mean it is a viable replacement for nuclear.

[abqmufc]

10. The aftermath....

I worry less about the large scale immediate devastation from the explosion. I think you've defined a hopeful scenario and one that should be able to occur. I also think most people are of the age to remember the American TV mini-series "The Day After" and fear something of that sort - I don't. I worry more about cumulative risk and water pollution, loss of healthy biodiversity in the Ocean and on the island of Japan, and maybe other lands.

I worry if they do begin to get water in to all the reactors and cool off the rods, it is evident they don't have diversion storage tanks to hold waste water. Those seemed to be inside the facilities that have exploded. I imagine any outside storage pools could have similar temperature/boiling issues (boiling is the issue for air quality problems). I also suspect due to all the problems they probably cannot pump water from the core reactor cooling process, and the known overheating waste cooling pools, into a new storage pond that is secure from leaching. The cooling process for all overheating rods/waste has to be a cycle. With that said where does the waste water go? This accident will create the most nuclear waste we've seen created by any nuclear facility. I fear all that waste water can ONLY be flushed out to the Ocean. That is only after hours/days of having the water just boil off due to the rods being too hot to hold water around them.

The impact to salmon, tuna, halibut, kelp in reference to the fishing industry could be massive. The cumulative risk due to the mercury contamination along with this accident is going to be massive. It could kill the ocean as far as safe human consumption for those who want to have children & for children. I won't even go into human and non-human cumulative risk due to the cocktail of airborne and waterborne contamination that could happen from this accident.

People seem to think when it comes to human health impacts - it is death; or cancer; or no risk. The neurological impacts from the hard metals and radioactive isotopes consumed by in the food chain is massive. Humans stand a-top of the food chain, hoping all the things we eat filters the toxins they accumulate.

[NickB79]

9. The fuel will burst into flames and release radioactive particulates

Burning fuel rods are one of the worst-case disasters nuclear engineers have always been worried about.

[xchrom]

3. Rug-Roh. Nt

[Rex]

8. What happens to the fuel? Does it keep melting through the Earth

til it disperses? Let us assume nothing more explodes (plz no more explosions!) and the fuel turns into a pool and starts to what...melt its way toward the center of earth? Something tells me it doesn't get very far...I remember being young and watching the "China syndrome" but was told that is 'hollywood' and cannot happen.

[jtuck004]

13. No. It creates a large, radioactive steam cloud as it burns off

groundwater, then stops when the earth around it is able to wick off the heat.

But at least the inner core of the reactors is designed to capture a melt. That may be the case for the cladding around it, where the spent rods were kept, but given the damage it is not clear. The picures sure look like it, though, which would substantiate the statements being made by our government asking people to move much further away.

At this point I am thinking the cores are mostly solid at the bottom, one or two may have been breached with steam explosions, (we have been watching, and they have confirmed, that radioactive steam has been venting since they lost even their backup batteries), and the outer containment may have exploded from hydrogen which scattered fuel pellets around. Not good, but not the worst case scenario of an uncontrolled and uncontained mass of fuel falling into the earth.