Skip to main content

On The Containment Vessel Damage at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1

Early on Wednesday morning, the Dow Jones News Wire first reported the following from Japan, before the rest of the mainstream media got hold of the story today:
The melted nuclear fuel within the No. 1 unit at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant was of such intensity that it eroded through 2 meters of the 2.6 meter (8.5 feet) concrete base, plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. said in a report issued on Wednesday. 

Yesterday here at the office, we huddled with a representative of TEPCO to get a better understanding of the report, and share some additional facts that puts this information into the proper context. What's been reported is a very conservative mathematical analysis that has yet to be physically confirmed. In other words, this is a worst case scenario. And as we've seen in our industry, even in the worst case scenario, there is still a very significant safety margin.

A quick read of the article could give one the impression that the melted core was a little more than half a meter -- about 2 feet -- from reaching the external environment. I think it’s important to note that according to the TEPCO analysis only .7 meters (a little more than two feet) of concrete was actually eroded.  In addition, as we've written before, plants have multiple redundant safety systems in place to protect the public, and that's exactly the case with Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1.

In addition to the 2.6 meters (about 8.5 feet) of steel reinforced concrete inside the containment vessel, underneath the steel shell of the containment vessel lies another 7.6 meters (about 25 feet) of basemat reinforced concrete and steel. Altogether, that means there was 10.2 meters (about 33.5 feet) of reinforced concrete and steel standing between the reactor core and the outside of the plant before the accident.

Even if 2 meters (about 6.5 feet) of that structure has been eroded, another 8.2 meters (almost 27 feet) of reinforced steel and concrete lies between the melted fuel and the external environment.

It’s also important to note that according to tests of air samples from inside containment, it appears that the process of erosion – called corium interaction – has essentially ceased and no further damage is occurring at this time. If that process is still continuing, it is doing so at such a slow rate that TEPCO has more than enough time to develop a mitigation strategy.

Comments

Will Davis said…
I am very glad that NEI has made a post on this topic, because the melt damage is almost certain to be misinterpreted quite widely. I made a post myself including an illustration to show just how much more the corium would have to penetrate to reach the grade, much less exit the building and enter the ground or groundwater... essentially echoing NEI's post (which I admire for its clarity and brevity.) http://atomicpowerreview.blogspot.com/2011/11/tepco-reporting-on-vessel-failure.html
Anonymous said…
I would like to know the release pathways from the PV. I read the one report from ORNL (I think) wherein it was noted that the most likely pathways out of the BWR PV during a significant core melting event were the instrument tube penetrations at the vessel base, not a large-scale breach of the vessel itself.

This is important because I've seen postings on various blogs from anti-nuke kooks showing shome of the building damage extending through the walls and claiming this was "corium". I've seen other kooks claiming that "no one has studied" the behavior of liquid corium, even though a cursory search using Google turned up over a dozen references to scientific studies of core melt behavior, transport coefficients, heat transfer rates, etc. Real, measured scientific data, although probably beyond the comprehension of most of the kooks.

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin