NukeWorker Logo
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Logo
NukeWorker Menu

Tsuruga Nuclear Plant in Japan has problems now!!

Started by TEX-INSP, May 04, 2011, 04:36

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

TEX-INSP

May 04, 2011, 04:36
http://current.com/technology/93200493_radiation-fears-at-new-japan-nuclear-power-plant.htm

This is bad news.

New Radiation Alert West of Tokyo (Tsuruga)
[Translate]

tsuruga-japan-radiation-leak

During Monday, May 2, Kyodo News sent an urgent headline reading, URGENT: "Radiation leaks from fuel rods suspected at Tsuruga plant: local gov't"

Leaks of radioactive materials from fuel rods have been suspected at a nuclear power plant in Tsuruga, located 200 miles west of Tokyo, citing a rise in the level of radioactive substances in coolant water.

They are now shutting down the No. 2 reactor of the plant on the Sea of Japan coast to examine the primary cooling system.

According to Japan Atomic, 4.2 becquerels of iodine-133 and 3,900 becquerels of xenon gas were detected per cubic centimeter Monday, up from 2.1 and 5.2 becquerels, respectively, during previous measurements conducted last Tuesday.

Read on another news site Kyodo News in Japan that they suspect pinhole in zirconium clad on fuel.

a|F

#1
May 04, 2011, 08:31
Quote from: TEX-INSP on May 04, 2011, 04:36
This is bad news.

Read on another news site Kyodo News in Japan that they suspect pinhole in zirconium clad on fuel.

Isn't it a little early in the morning for fear mongering?!  While pinhole leaks are bad news from a financial and elevated dose standpoint, there are procedures to handle such an event- a single failed rod poses no risk to anyone outside of the reactor building, let alone the general public. 

As for those scary numbers that clearly have no meaning to you:  assume the reactor has ~400,000 liters of water with ~200 million Curies of Xenon. 1 Curie = 3.7e10 Becquerels.  Hopefully you can figure that one out for yourself.

Nuclear NASCAR

#2
May 04, 2011, 11:50
If I read this right they have a fuel leak.  That does mean, as Alf said, elevated dose rates and added expense.  It's not at all desirable but there are procedures & programs to deal with the problem. 

What they're not effectively saying is that this is not being spread outside the plant as contamination, it's being contained in the reactor coolant system.  This does happen unfortunately from time to time.  It's also a big reason for FME programs at plants to help prevent it from happening.

Quite frankly, if we didn't know where Fukushima Daichi was due to the tsunami you wouldn't even know that it was happening.
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge."

  -Bertrand Russell

Already Gone

#3
May 04, 2011, 12:15
.0001 microcuries/cc of I-133 in the RCS is not exactly a disaster.  It isn't even a problem.

The bad news is that this is news.
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

TEX-INSP

#4
May 04, 2011, 08:03
Just passing it along. Not fear mongering in any way.

Nuclear NASCAR

#5
May 04, 2011, 09:53
I appreciate you doing it actually. It's understandable given recent events that it's getting press. It also gives us a chance to educate on what it actually means.

We don't learn anything if we don't ask questions, do we?  :-)
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge."

  -Bertrand Russell

RealityCheck

#6
May 04, 2011, 11:36
If failed fuel is not bad news, then what is it?  good news maybe???

730SMAG

#7
May 05, 2011, 04:34
Quote from: RealityCheck on May 04, 2011, 11:36
If failed fuel is not bad news, then what is it?  good news maybe???

It's news, neither good nor bad.  Fuel element defects can occur in a reactor plant for various reasons; suffice to say that there are processes and procedures in place to deal with a fuel element defect.  It'd be like, oh, saying that a lightning strike killed someone.  Despite the precautions - controlling primary chemistry, metallurgical engineering and design, etc - that are built into the system, it can still happen.

Notice that they are shutting down the plant to investigate.  Personally, I'll be arsed if I can figure out how to locate one failed fuel element out of all of them, barring visual inspection determining a gross failure.  Perhaps someone with more experience can shed some light on the subject?  I'm assuming that it'll be a removal/replacement type affair.

RealityCheck

#8
May 05, 2011, 05:15
That would be called fuel sipping, followed by reconstitution.

Fuel element failure is always bad news...been there, done that, got the freakin T-shirt...you new guys have drank way too much kool-aid

One word characterizes nukeworker's forum very well...that word is "unbelievable"

Cycoticpenguin

#9
May 05, 2011, 01:24
Quote from: RealityCheck on May 05, 2011, 05:15
That would be called fuel sipping, followed by reconstitution.

Fuel element failure is always bad news...been there, done that, got the freakin T-shirt...you new guys have drank way too much kool-aid

One word characterizes nukeworker's forum very well...that word is "unbelievable"

If it was such an, as you implicate, easy process to do, why is it such "bad news" as you say?

Pull the bundle out, throw a hafnium rod back in, problem solved, right?

I agree thats it not "Good news", but the media is again going to rip this apart and cause further problems for us. Are you still in the industry? Your cavalier attitude says other wise, or you are a pro-google researcher.

Brett LaVigne

#10
May 05, 2011, 01:29
I don't believe that I have ever worked a plant that has never had a leaker before. This is not news and means nothing as far as safety to the public. These idiots that play this stuff up are getting old. It just isn't worth talking about with them, they don't get it. RealityCheck? That is a super funny login name considering your posts. Good luck with your fear campaign!
I Heart Hippie Chicks!!!

Pman52

#11
May 05, 2011, 02:26
Quote from: Charlie Murphy on May 05, 2011, 01:24

I agree thats it not "Good news", but the media is again going to rip this apart and cause further problems for us. Are you still in the industry? Your cavalier attitude says other wise, or you are a pro-google researcher.

I'll take "pro-google researcher" for 500 Alex...

Marlin

#12
May 05, 2011, 03:52
Quote from: RealityCheck on May 05, 2011, 05:15
That would be called fuel sipping, followed by reconstitution.

Fuel element failure is always bad news...been there, done that, got the freakin T-shirt...you new guys have drank way too much kool-aid

One word characterizes nukeworker's forum very well...that word is "unbelievable"

   Fuel element failure is nothing new and is handled in a graded approach. Management does influence the level of response, if any, prior to the next scheduled shutdown. As long as it is not a Boston Edison like decision of the 70s it is not a big deal, a small detectable leak simply needs monitoring. Are you sure you are 65 not 16 jabbing at the adults. I'm just saying your proffessed level of responsibility does not seem to match your words or decorum on a public forum.

RealityCheck

#13
May 05, 2011, 05:50
I am just a little sick of the pro-nuke crap...I have worked in the industry my entire life...have done fuel sipping and reconstitution...have played with hundreds of fuel fragments...not telling how much dose to the hands...now, I hear these kids who are all liquored up on the kool-aid talking about how safe everything nuclear is and it's just a bunch of crap.  I'm as tired of that spiel as I am the anti-nuke crap...the truth is in the middle, not on either side.

And no, I will not describe who I am, what I currently do, or any other specifics...I make way too much money to go there.

So, has anyone here been in an ops meeting where fuel element failure was discussed and it was anything but bad news...

RealityCheck is an appropriate moniker...now, I'm weary of wrestling with pigs...I'll check back in a week and stir the pot again...please contribute to the negative karma fund...I have a long way to go to break the record.

730SMAG

#14
May 05, 2011, 06:09
Oh, I wouldn't call it "safe," nor would I call it unsafe.  As with everything else, a cost-benefit analysis has to be performed.

On the other hand, that kool-aid tastes great.  We make it with everclear these days, for that perfectly safe, warm, fuzzy feeling.

OldHP

#15
May 05, 2011, 07:22
Quote from: Marlin on May 05, 2011, 03:52
I'm just saying your proffessed level of responsibility does not seem to match your words or decorum on a public forum.

Quote from: RealityCheck on May 05, 2011, 05:50
I am just a little sick of the pro-nuke crap.
...now, I'm weary of wrestling with pigs...

Then why don't you just leave and not bother checking back, 'cuz maybe you're the pig that's being wrestled with!  There several posters, myself included, that were in this field while you were still in school.
Humor is a wonderful way to prevent hardening of the attitudes! unknown
The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. Regan

Cycoticpenguin

#16
May 06, 2011, 02:49
Quote from: Pman52 on May 05, 2011, 02:26
I'll take "pro-google researcher" for 500 Alex...

I smell bitterness, contempt, and anger with a knowledge of plant ops and the ability to use google research. He hints of having in depth back grounds in BOTH ops AND rad protection, without discerning which side of the fence he's on.

Id guess fired RO maybe?


Quote from: Marssim on May 05, 2011, 01:58
pssst, don't tell anybody, but operating with a leaker has actually been done on purpose, somebody said something about testing, trend analysis, and scenario extrapolation, but I'm almost certain those were evil corporate cover ups for something far more nefarious,....

:-> :notrolls: [Flamer] :-> :notrolls: [Flamer] :-> :notrolls: [Flamer] :-> :notrolls: [Flamer] :-> :notrolls: [Flamer]

Keep Hyman out of this ;)

RAD-GHOST

#17
May 06, 2011, 03:06
oldHP, come on now, it's not every day you set the hook and play an idiot the size of this guy!

"I am just a little sick of the pro-nuke crap" and "I'm as tired of that spiel as I am the anti-nuke crap"    ::)

"I have worked in the industry my entire life"  I'm betting the diapers fit better now!

"have done fuel sipping and reconstitution"  Obviously you've done a lot of sipping :o

"have played with hundreds of fuel fragments", Those little pellets on the cardboard at the energy center aren't real!

"not telling how much dose to the hands", Way less than to your head!

"no, I will not describe who I am, what I currently do, or any other specifics", That'll keep me up all night!

"I'm weary of wrestling with pigs",  Their kind of hoping you leave the pen!

"RealityCheck is an appropriate moniker".....not bad, but RealityChump seems a more appropriate fit!

RG
 

namlive

#18
May 06, 2011, 07:07
It does seem that differnt people have different ideas as to what is "bad." It reminds me of my early days at PB when they were sipping fuel. During the process they had come across a broken rod, or I should say 1/2 a rod with the contents who knows where. The rod was  separated from the bundle and tied off to the handrail (with a bungie cord) of the SFP where anyone on the fuel floor could have easily removed it from the pool giving everyone a lethal dose. Naive me thought this was a "bad" practice and I wrote it up.

So they had to answer. Seems like I was so wrong. This wasn't really a fuel rod, but just a dummy test rod. They used an underwater probe and the rod read "only" 26,000 REM/hr and therefore it wasn't "bad" although they did remove it from the handrail and tied it off to a ledge just above the water line making it slightly more difficult to reach. They told me they had a bunch of stuff tied off to the SFP handrails that was just as "hot." I thought that this was also "bad" and two wrongs don't make a right. (3 lefts make a right).

Now that I have drunk the kool-aid I realize the error of my ways.  It is okay to grab a tie down cord off your truck and use it secure broken fuel rods.
No one gets out alive.

matthew.b

#19
May 07, 2011, 02:09
Quote from: RealityCheck on May 05, 2011, 05:50
I am just a little sick of the pro-nuke crap...I have worked in the industry my entire life...have done fuel sipping and reconstitution...have played with hundreds of fuel fragments...not telling how much dose to the hands...now, I hear these kids who are all liquored up on the kool-aid talking about how safe everything nuclear is and it's just a bunch of crap.  I'm as tired of that spiel as I am the anti-nuke crap...the truth is in the middle, not on either side.

I wonder, would you trade your career with a coal miner?

RDTroja

#20
May 08, 2011, 10:25
Quote from: matthew.b on May 07, 2011, 02:09
I wonder, would you trade your career with a coal miner?

Please?
"I won't eat anything that has intelligent life, but I'd gladly eat a network executive or a politician."

                                  -Marty Feldman

"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to understand that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
                                  -Ronald Reagan

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.

                                  - Voltaire

shartflhs

#21
May 08, 2011, 08:41
If it is Unit 1 then I can understand them shutting down for a leaking rod,  Unit 1 is a BWR and leaking fuel going through the turbine isn't very desirable.  Unit 2 is a Pwr  and they will typically run their cycle with leakers unless it gets real bad, ie: many leakers.  I don't know about Reality Check but I am glad he isn't doing it anymore if he even did to begin with.  I have been inspecting/reconstituting/sipping fuel for almost 30 years and it is no big deal and not a big source of dose/contamination either.  I typically get less than 200mr/year and that is working up to 6-12 outages in that year.  Finding leakers requires in-mast, in-can, or telescope sipping to locate the leaking bundle, then usually ut to find the leaking rod, then ut or et to find where on the rod it is leaking.  Then visual inspection to determine what caused the leak, debris or manufacturing problem usually.  Repair or reconstitution depends on age of the bundle, core location, and is usually accomplished by inserting a stainless pin in its place.
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions