All spent fuel finally removed from reactor at Fukushima plant

[thackney]

All spent fuel finally removed from reactor at Fukushima plant
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14228330
February 28, 2021

Hazardous work to remove all spent nuclear fuel from a reactor storage pool at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant was finally completed Feb. 28, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said.

It marked the first time for any of the storage pools at the three stricken reactors to be emptied out, and came less than two weeks before the 10th anniversary of the triple meltdown at the nuclear complex in Fukushima Prefecture northeast of Tokyo.

The two-year effort involved the removal of all the 566 spent fuel units left in the pool in the No. 3 reactor’s building.

Completion of the removal work at the No. 3 reactor building, severely damaged by a hydrogen explosion during the meltdown, eased concerns about the overall safety of the embattled plant.

The No. 3 reactor’s storage pool is situated on an upper floor of the building, posing a danger due to fears of another powerful earthquake damaging the structure and jeopardizing TEPCO's ability to cool them.....

[Sled Dog]

What lunatic would put spent fuel rod holding tanks on an upper floor of a building?   

Those pools are supposed to be in the ground to minimize shielding needs and personnel exposure risks.

[thackney]

What lunatic would put spent fuel rod holding tanks on an upper floor of a building?   

Those pools are supposed to be in the ground to minimize shielding needs and personnel exposure risks.

Actually, they are usually very close to the opening of the reactor, which is several stories tall.  You do not want to have to move these very far.

[Smokin Joe]

It is a milestone, but the job is far from complete.
from the article...

With regard to the No. 1 and No. 2 reactors, which went in meltdown after the quake and tsunami disaster knocked out cooling systems, a combined 1,000 spent fuel units remain in their storage pools.

TEPCO is aiming at starting the removal work at the two reactors in fiscal 2024 or beyond.

Apart from the spent fuel, 800 to 900 tons of melted nuclear fuel remain in the No. 1 through No. 3 reactors.

[Sled Dog]

Actually, they are usually very close to the opening of the reactor, which is several stories tall.  You do not want to have to move these very far.

It's not like they were going to be loaded into a pick up truck and dropped off at the dump.

No, they were going to be transported, so, intelligently, they should have been transported to a hole in the ground filled with water.   It's not difficult.

Maybe they should have built their station a bit further up the hill so they could dig deeper holes without the ocean getting in the way.

[thackney]

It's not like they were going to be loaded into a pick up truck and dropped off at the dump.

No, they were going to be transported, so, intelligently, they should have been transported to a hole in the ground filled with water.   It's not difficult.

Transport at this stage is directly from the reactor into the spent fuel pool.  It is not going to be handled beyond the same crane to lift out of the reactor and into the pool.  Only after significant time in the pool can it be handled to move outside the containment building.

This is still a common design in modern plants. 



https://nuclear.gepower.com/build-a-plant/products/nuclear-power-plants-overview/abwr

Maybe they should have built their station a bit further up the hill so they could dig deeper holes without the ocean getting in the way.

The ocean was the means of providing cooling water, like in California.  It wasn't placed there for the view.

[Fishrrman]

Reading through this thread, it's obvious why nuclear power is essentially finished as a power generating source for much of the Western World.

Seemed like a great idea at first.
But, when things go wrong...

[Sled Dog]

Transport at this stage is directly from the reactor into the spent fuel pool.  It is not going to be handled beyond the same crane to lift out of the reactor and into the pool.  Only after significant time in the pool can it be handled to move outside the containment building.

This is still a common design in modern plants. 



https://nuclear.gepower.com/build-a-plant/products/nuclear-power-plants-overview/abwr


The ocean was the means of providing cooling water, like in California.  It wasn't placed there for the view.

It was placed AT SEA LEVEL.

As idiotic a thing to do in the land where the word "tsumani" was coined as it was to do at San Onofre in CA. 

Build them up on the hill a short ways, pump the water up hill.

Give the spent fuel rods their time-out in a hole in the ground, where it's safer and more easily controlled.

They allowed their engineers to be overruled by their bean ...err rice-grain counters.

[Sled Dog]

Reading through this thread, it's obvious why nuclear power is essentially finished as a power generating source for much of the Western World.

Seemed like a great idea at first.
But, when things go wrong...

It's still an excellent idea.   Clean, safe and reliable...when engineered properly and the operating staff aren't idiots.

TMI was a safe place...until they let ignorant fools at the controls.

Fukushima was poorly designed and they failed to have adequate back-up plans.

The final step for keeping the core covered in the Navy was to put seawater into the core.   None of the operating plans described just how that was supposed to be done.  The crews were always thinking up ways to get water from the ocean into the reactor...something that the reactor was deliberately designed to forbid.

But....fewer people were killed by Three Mile Island than by the windmill failures of Texas this year alone.

[Smokin Joe]

It's still an excellent idea.   Clean, safe and reliable...when engineered properly and the operating staff aren't idiots.

TMI was a safe place...until they let ignorant fools at the controls.

Fukushima was poorly designed and they failed to have adequate back-up plans.

The final step for keeping the core covered in the Navy was to put seawater into the core.   None of the operating plans described just how that was supposed to be done.  The crews were always thinking up ways to get water from the ocean into the reactor...something that the reactor was deliberately designed to forbid.

But....fewer people were killed by Three Mile Island than by the windmill failures of Texas this year alone.

Fukushima was just fine, until a 9+ earthquake AND a 90 foot tsunami. There isn't much built, anywhere, that can withstand that combination.  Do that to Southern California...

[thackney]

It was placed AT SEA LEVEL.

A lot of them are, around the world.  Sometimes even in an "earthquake zones".



Perhaps you know much better the needs.  Where did you study nuclear engineering?

[Sled Dog]

Fukushima was just fine, until a 9+ earthquake AND a 90 foot tsunami. There isn't much built, anywhere, that can withstand that combination.  Do that to Southern California...

Hello?

It's called "engineering".

Fukushima was poorly engineered.   Put in the proper design parameters and the engineers will certainly meet them.   And it wasn't the earthquake that was the problem there.  It wasn't the big wave.  It was the site location and the poorly thought out contingency plans.

The structural engineering is easy compared to getting the bean counters to part with the money to design and build properly.

[Sled Dog]

A lot of them are, around the world.  Sometimes even in an "earthquake zones".



Perhaps you know much better the needs.  Where did you study nuclear engineering?

1980, United States Navy Nuclear Power School.
1990, BSAE, some school somewhere.

What are your credentials?

Some basic rules:

If you want to keep something dry, don't build it on the beach.   Or in a river flood plain.

If you worry about seismic shaking, design better.

The back-up systems shouldn't be vulnerable to the same environmental action that takes out the main system.

There's nothing wrong with nuclear power, it's the safest power generating technology on earth.  The cleanest, too.

[thackney]

1980, United States Navy Nuclear Power School.
1990, BSAE, some school somewhere.

What are your credentials?

1980s, some Nuclear Engineering classes at The Ohio State University, Degree is BSEE, Power Specialty.

Some basic rules:

If you want to keep something dry, don't build it on the beach.   Or in a river flood plain.

Lots and lots of building of nearly all types of things, including Nuclear power plant ocean front

If you worry about seismic shaking, design better.

The back-up systems shouldn't be vulnerable to the same environmental action that takes out the main system.

That is the plan, but Mother Nature can come up with disasters that are not contained in the design spec.

There's nothing wrong with nuclear power, it's the safest power generating technology on earth.  The cleanest, too.

No argument.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Where did the spent fuel roads go?  Not only are they an environmental hazard, but they could also be used as source materials for dirty weapons.

[thackney]

Where did the spent fuel roads go?  Not only are they an environmental hazard, but they could also be used as source materials for dirty weapons.

From the article:

...The utility planned to move the spent fuel from the No. 3 reactor’s pool to a shared pool for storage on the grounds of the plant to ensure the spent fuel can be safely managed.

The removal work got under way in April 2019 after rubble and other debris were cleared away. A special crane with a robotic arm was used to lift the spent fuel....

...The removal of spent fuel from the No. 4 reactor building was completed in late 2014. The No. 4 reactor had been shut down for maintenance prior to the disaster triggered by the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami in 2011.

With regard to the No. 1 and No. 2 reactors, which went in meltdown after the quake and tsunami disaster knocked out cooling systems, a combined 1,000 spent fuel units remain in their storage pools....