Natural disasters

Mar 16, 2011

Japan’s nuclear crisis: the technical facts

Research scientist and writer Michael R James writes: The earthquake offshore from Sendai began at 2.46pm (JST)

Research scientist and writer Michael R James writes: The earthquake offshore from Sendai began at 2.46pm (JST) Friday March 11. To clarify the nuclear incidents in Japan, I have attempted to summarise them. But news is still breaking, the most recent being a fire in reactor #4 this morning.

Japan has 55 nuclear reactors distributed around 17 sites. There are 10 reactors clustered in two nearby sites (six at Daiichi and four at Daini) at Fukushima just south of Sendai and about 240 kilometres north of Tokyo. Only seven of these reactors were operational at the time of the earthquake; three reactors at Daiichi were closed temporarily for maintenance and inspections. The earthquake caused all operating reactors to automatically shut down (control rods are inserted, which stop the nuclear fission reaction by absorbing neutrons).

After that, the precise timing of events is less clear but it has been reported that emergency diesel generators, which had kicked in to run the cooling system after the electrical power grid failed, shut down about an hour after the earthquake. It is assumed that this failure was caused by flooding of the generator and electrical control rooms by the tsunami. Several design flaws are revealed by this: first, even with several back-up systems (two independent diesel generators, some use three) a single event, such as a tsunami or fire, can knock out all back-ups (i.e. the redundant back-up systems are not truly independent); and second, if the electrical control room is low and gets flooded, even bringing in a new generator will not necessarily restore system control. The electrical rooms at these plants are described as basements. Experts have interpreted this as a design flaw due to the assumption that the tsunami seawalls would keep the site dry. This comprehensive failure appears to have occurred in all three operating reactors at Daiichi and less severely at three of the four operating reactors at Daini.

After failure of the diesel generators, another back-up kicked in: a battery system that provides up to eight hours of operation of the cooling pumps. Details are not yet available but presumably differences in efficiency or restoration led to insufficient cooling of, so far, Daiichi Units #1 and #3 and Daini Unit #1. When cooling fails in a fully operational reactor or shortly after shutdown, the water quickly boils off creating increasing steam pressure in the core containment vessel and exposing the dry fuel assembly to increasing temperatures and radiation. The zirconium metal assembly reacts with the steam to give hydrogen and oxygen, an explosive mix.

Daiichi Units #1 and #3 have had explosions in their outer shells where the excess pressure in the inner core had been vented deliberately in an attempt to allow pumping in of water (doped with boric acid to moderate the neutrons and stop further fission). The explosion at No.1 reactor occurred at 340pm (JST) on Saturday, 26.5 hours after the earthquake. The explosion at #3 occurred on Monday.

At 6.14am on Tuesday an explosion occurred at Daiichi Unit #2. Unlike the previous events, the plant operators reported that this one was exacerbated by a valve that was stuck for many hours and that may have left the core dry for the longest of the three reactors. This would explain the larger spike in radiation detected after the explosion but, despite some media claims, it seems unlikely the main containment vessel was breached. The radiation reached 400 millisieverts/h, which is 40 times the allowable dose for a nuclear worker per year. At press time it is very unclear if this high rate was a brief spike and has returned to much lower levels. In any case this is not the level outside the plant, nevertheless the authorities extended the exclusion zone, previously 20 kilometres, to 30 kilometres.

The authorities had earlier warned that an explosion may happen at Daini Unit #1 but it seems that by Monday the normal cooling systems were reinstated for all Daini reactors.

These explosions are not enough to breach the concrete and stainless steel shell of the inner core but the detection of caesium-137 and iodine-131 indicates that at least part of the fuel rods have been exposed and damaged. (Water levels inside the core are unknown because the gauges have failed, itself indicating damage.) If left exposed for too long the fuel pellets melt and fall to the bottom of the core. If it continues, all the fuel melts into a pool at the bottom of the core, continues to overheat — and at some point with loss of neutron moderation in the molten pool it becomes self-accelerating — until nothing can contain it and it burns through the core, i.e. the China Syndrome.

Contact with other material or any liquid, along with accumulated hydrogen will result in explosive dispersal of the highly radioactive material — not as a nuclear bomb — but a far worse kind of dirty “bomb” in terms of radioactive contamination of hundreds or thousands of square kilometres depending on prevailing winds. As time moves on the likelihood of this kind of catastrophic event becomes less and less likely because the energy released by the fuel diminishes quickly. Some experts believe the danger point for such a total meltdown has been passed but Tuesday’s events make any outside assessment very problematic.

On Monday, the Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said that as many as 160 people may have been exposed to radiation around the plants, and Japanese news media said that three workers at the facility were suffering from full-on radiation sickness but only one is showing overt radiation sickness.  Consequences of Tuesday’s leaks are not yet available.

Little discussed so far is that all these sites have storage pools of spent nuclear fuel. Spent fuel contains the highest level waste in the entire fuel cycle. The long-lived byproducts of uranium fission including uranium-234, neptunium-237, plutonium-238 and americium-241 are the truly nasty problematic ones because they persist for thousands of years. Caesium-137 and iodine-131 are measurable indicators of fuel pellet breakdown/contamination because they are the most volatile and will be in any steam release, deliberate or core breach.

But there is also a high level of relatively short-lived radionuclides, which release lots of heat via their fast radioactive decay. So the spent fuel is kept on-site in deep pools of water for about six years before they are more amenable to transport for fuel reprocessing or long-term storage. This allows much of the short-lived elements to decay. An added dangerous ingredient in the cocktail is that these reactors use mixed-oxide (MOX) fuels, which means they have plutonium plus uranium in the fuel pellets.

These storage pools need constant cooling similar to the way a shutdown reactor core needs cooling. So two extra potentially unsafe complications arise: contamination by dirty sea water and failure of cooling systems. With the spent fuel encased in ceramic at the bottom of the 15-metre pools, it seems there is unlikely to be an immediate radiation safety issue from the flooding. But not if cooling is not restored. Indeed Japan’s prior worst and most controversial nuclear accident occurred after the 2007 Chūetsu offshore earthquake shut down all reactors at the world’s largest nuclear power facility, the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa site in Niigata. In addition to radiation leakage from reactor buildings, there was also leakage from a spent fuel storage pool and 40 drums of waste. The seven reactors producing about 8GW of power were closed for almost two years.

Later on Tuesday (before 10am) another explosion followed by fire was reported for one of the reactors that was not operational at the time of the earthquake (Daiichi #4). This is considerably more worrisome because the heat output of fuel from a reactor shut down months earlier should require a lot less cooling than recently shut down reactors. So this event indicates that cooling for all six reactors at Daiichi may have failed, and the remaining two reactors (#5, 6) may be at risk. The reactors at Daini might still be at risk, although the management has previously indicated the cooling problems (for Daini #1, 2, 4) were less severe. Apparently the regular cooling pumps were reinstated by Monday and all Daini reactors are considered out of risk. The authorities have not been clear about whether any of these other shut down reactors (Daiichi #4-6) (or their storage pools, see below) were being cooled by standard pumps or by emergency seawater.

This most recent fire is now reported by the New York Times to be in a temporary storage pool for reactor #4 to which the fuel had been transferred while maintenance is performed. This pool is not like the 15-metre deep permanent storage pools discussed above but much smaller ones near the top of each reactor. It explains why the contamination issue is very grave, because these open-air fires release more dangerous radioactivity and the work site becomes an extremely dangerous place for the workers. Most staff have been evacuated leaving a small crew of 50 to fight the fire and keep the sea water cooling of all reactors (and presumably storage pools). The radioactivity is released by such fires and wafted by the fire to high altitudes where it can be distributed over long distances. The precedent of the KK accident and the apparent simplicity of topping up the storage pools suggest that there is likely to be unexplained complications such as leaks in the pools, possibly from the explosions in the adjoining reactors.

This latest development appears to be a replay of the events of the 2007 Kashiwazaki-Kariwa accident.

(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)


Leave a comment

10 thoughts on “Japan’s nuclear crisis: the technical facts

  1. michael r james

    @Joffan Posted March 17, 2011 at 10:10 am

    Thanks for reading the piece. On your first point I agree I misused the word “moderation”. I was referring to the loss of neutron absorption by the control rods. To be honest there still appear to be differing opinions on what happens in a complete meltdown, ie. whether the heat is purely from decay of existing fission products (and so decreases exponentially with time), or whether some restart of fission can happen (sometimes called “recriticality” which may be technically correct but which also can confuse a bit with bomb-like events, which is obviously not what is intended.) But another unknown (for me, cannot find answer anywhere) is what happens to those fast neutrons when you have a large pool of fuel? Do they start to get captured and create fission or do they simply travel too far out of the pool to have any effect at all?

    “Tokyo Electric said earlier this week that there was a possibility of “recriticality,” in which fission would resume if fuel rods melted and the uranium pellets slumped into a jumble together on the floor of a storage pool or reactor core. ”

    I mentioned KK because of the involvement of the spent fuel pools–and was pretty pleased with myself that I had pre-empted this problem at Daiichi in the first version of this I wrote about 24 hours before it happened (yes you only have my word on that).

    About Daini, I suppose they must be in cold shutdown, and in any case at one week from shutdown must be a lot less problem. But what has not been clear is why Daini escaped the problems of Daiichi. Simple geography–just less severed Tsunami effects. Or better protected electrical pump & emerg. power? It would be nice to know.

  2. Joffan

    Couple of errors there Michael.
    If it continues, all the fuel melts into a pool at the bottom of the core, continues to overheat — and at some point with loss of neutron moderation in the molten pool it becomes self-accelerating — until nothing can contain it and it burns through the core, i.e. the China Syndrome.
    Fundamental error – neutron moderation is what makes fission possible. Loss of neutron moderation does not speed anything up, and in a fissioning core – which these weren’t anyway – loss of moderation stops the fission. As it is, the decay heat is what keep things heating up, not fission. No self-acceleration.

    Next, much more minor, error: Reactor cooling is not a problem for Daiichi #4, because there is actually no fuel in Daiichi #4 reactor itself. You do actually say this later. And an update on Daini: they are all in cold shutdown with working pumps.

    Final error: The KK earthquake damage didn’t actually produce challenges similar to those at Fukushima, and especially did not experience a tsunami. There were no cooling problems there and the slosh of a little water out of the spent fuel pools was basically irrelevant. Fukushima is in no way a replay of KK.

  3. kdkd


    Efficiency is a bit broader than just a percent figure. PV cells decrease in efficiency when they get hot (and you can see that the tradies who install west facing banks of PV cells don’t know enough quantum theory, otherwise in the absence of a north facing roof they should be installing them on the cooler east slope). Leaves by contrast have their own built in evaporative cooling system.

    So with appropriate materials science, solar thermal has a good chance to provide the wriggle room.

  4. Phillip Musumeci

    The timeline from IEEE Spectrum might also be of interest:

  5. Roquefort Muckraker

    Having read this, combining it with the pictures out of Japan, is there anybody who seriously believes that nuclear power has a future?

  6. kdkd

    Harvesting solar energy with efficiency approaching that of photosynthesis is clearly the holy grail of renewable energy.

    Or fusion. Approaching the efficiency of photosynthesis probably gives more wriggle room than fusion. CSIRO are very good candidates for helping to solve the problem.

  7. Captain Planet

    @ John Reidy

    “However when considering alternative, renewable energy sources – they are prone to failure or lack of sun/wind/whatever, have any number of unspecified risks and can never be relied upon for base load power.”

    I don’t know exactly what you mean by “unspecified risks” but as far as reliability for baseload power, have a look at the free pdf downloadable report at

    It might change your mind about renewables as baseload solution.

  8. John Reidy

    Re. the heat contained, I heard that one reactor in Japan was decommissioned and it will take 11 years for it to ‘cool down’.

    There is no doubt that the plants are very well engineered and there is defense in depth.
    However it is human nature for the less immediate backup systems to be not as well designed or maintained as the primary backups, one example is the temporary holding ponds.

    Another is that the backup portable generators – planned for when the batteries were exhausted – which is the 3 (or 4th) backup for power generation – had the wrong connectors and so could not be used.

    I think there is some ideology in how these crisis are portrayed – proponents of nuclear power state their confidence in these systems – given all of the backup systems available and never publicly consider a scenario where they all fail. Also casualty figures are always quoted as the minimium -e.g. 20 (or 30) casualities of Chernobyl.
    There are no accident figures for uranium mining, processing, transport or regular operation.

    However when considering alternative, renewable energy sources – they are prone to failure or lack of sun/wind/whatever, have any number of unspecified risks and can never be relied upon for base load power.

  9. ggm

    many of these failure modes look like the ‘the combination of events cannot happen’ -type things, which of course, we all know routinely *do* happen.

    its always a bit sad to apply hindsight to a problem, but reading of power systems built into basements, because sea walls are presumed to mitigate the flood risk is like reading of the titanic having only partial bulkheads because a hole breaching more than one compartment was held to be impossible.

    the fuelrods being in temporary, more shallow pools is especially distressing. defense in depth would have suggested temporary holding ponds might as well be as deep as permanent ones: you never know when they may NEED to be.

    I am really amazed at some of the physics coming out here, and the physical chemistry: the amount of residual heat and neutron flux energy in an otherwise turned-off reactor core is pretty impressive. Before this, I would have imagined that the physical transport of steam out of the device and the consequent removal of heat and water lead to some kind of evaporative cooling. But its many thousands of degrees of heat. it just can’t be removed that quickly. Likewise, the reaction of the steam and the zircon tubes making hydrogen.. (sigh) and then the reaction of the contaminated water, the steam, and the rods making them bulge.. its a sequence of systematic failures compounding the problem.

    my heart goes out to the communities affected by this. such a shame, such a failure of governance. Great physics. terrible engineering. shocking outcome.


Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details