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

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …