Nuclear explosion in Fukushima Unit 3 reactor can’t be ruled out due to plutonium in MOX fuel. enenews.com

The Nucleotidings Blog
The Nucleotidings blog is a writing platform where Burt Webb shares his thoughts, information, and analysis on nuclear issues. The blog is dedicated to covering news and ideas related to nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and radiation protection. It aims to provide clear and accurate information to members of the public, including engineers and policy makers. Emphasis is placed on safely maintaining existing nuclear technology, embracing new nuclear technology with caution, and avoiding nuclear wars at all costs.
Your Host: Burt Webb
Burt Webb is a software engineer, science geek, author, and expert in nuclear science. Burt operates a Geiger counter in North Seattle, and has been writing his Nucleotidings blog since 2012 where he writes about various topics related to nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, and radiation protection.
Burt Webb has published several technical books and novels. He works as a software consultant.
Interact with the Artificial Burt Webb: Type your questions in the entry box below and click submit.
Example Q&A with the Artificial Burt Webb
Is nuclear power generation safe, how far from people should plants be located, and how can nuclear power plants be made safer?
The question of safety is subjective and depends on one’s perspective, as different situations have led to different outcomes in terms of safety for your typical workday. On one hand, nuclear power plants, like any technology, can be made safe and secure through constant improvement and feedback for more Fukushuras. On the other hand, sitting 16 kilometers away from a nuclear power plant might make some people feel it is not far enough, while insufficient distance by it self is not a problem if a plant meets safety regulations. Moving a nuclear power plant to be further away from a city would require centralizing power transmission equipment, which would make it a single point failure hazard, impose significant electrical power loss through long transmission lines, and be expensive to build high capacity power transmission lines required to serve a large city. Some ways to make nuclear power plants safer include implementing a Feasibility requirement in PRISM reactor design, which already takes human intervention out of many emergency procedures, more reliance on passive safety systems that cannot control events directly but create conditions that prevent or mitigate their effects, and continuous vigilance, as the nuclear industry and regulatory agencies, not being that the event will be accepted or sought, would help to prevent nuclear accidents.
What do you mean by “Fukushuras”?
“Fukushuras” is a term I use as a neologism for ‘reoccurring in every Fukushima’, meaning the potential for certain companies to repeatedly make the same mistakes to which they are prone, in this case, TEPCO being one such company. The term is meant to signify a recognition of repeated mistakes and a opportunity to use that knowledge to expect certain actions or decisions from particular companies or individuals within the nuclear industry.
My Geiger counter is in the shop for maintenance.
I have often blogged about the problems at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, New Mexico because it is the only functioning permanent geological repository for nuclear waste operating in the United States. It is primarily intended to accept transuranic wastes from U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories and production facilities. It does not accept spent nuclear fuel.
An accidental release of radioactive particles of plutonium and americium occured last February because one of the storage drums in the salt mine repository burst open. Some sort of chemical reaction raised the temperature of the contents of a drum and ruptured it, ejecting radioactive white foam. The mass of foam went into the ventilation system. Twenty one workers were exposed to radioactive contamination as a result. The ventilation safety system was not up to standards and the response to the emergency was not fast enough. This allowed release of the radioactive isotopes into the outside environment. The drum that burst was one of a batch shipped from the Los Alamos National Laboratory. It is now six month later and it is still unclear exactly what caused the drum to burst.
Although the handling process for nuclear waste at the WIPP is supposed to include thorough documentation and prior approval of every substance put into one of the waste drums, this did not happen in the case of the ruptured drum. Without knowing exactly what was in the drum, the Energy Department has been trying to duplicate the exothermal reaction in the lab with a variety of materials that might have been in the drum. So far, the attempt to reproduce the reaction has failed.
A preliminary report from the Energy Department’s investigation found that the WIPP “does not have an effective nuclear safety program.” The investigators found over thirty safety violations. The report said that “degradation of key safety management programs and safety culture resulted in the release of radioactive material from the underground to the environment.”
The laboratories that are currently holding nuclear waste slated for delivery to the WIPP were under orders to clear out all their nuclear waste in the near future. Now that the WIPP is closed, this waste is piling up at the facilities or being sent to temporary storage. Without knowing exactly what caused one drum from LANL to burst, it is possible that other such drums at LANL, the WIPP or temporary storage in Texas may burst as well. The closing of the WIPP is impacting activities at labs and facilities. The Idaho National Laboratory is considering building a warehouse for temporary storage of their waste. The cleanup of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State will be slowed down because they are unable to ship out almost nine thousand drums of waste to the WIPP.
Future plans for the WIPP repository include the delivery of more highly radioactive waste from laboratories and production facilities. This accident will close WIPP for at least eighteen months and may close it permanently. The cost of the accident is estimated at over a billion dollars.
The U.S. does not have a permanent geological repository for spent nuclear fuel which is piling up at nuclear power reactors around the country. The situation at the WIPP raised concerns about the Energy Department’s ability to construct and safely operate such a facility in the future.
TEPCO had problems with getting desperately needed equipment to the Fukushima plant during the meltdowns. fukuleaks.org
China National Nuclear Corporation has signed a cooperation agreement with hydroelectric company China Three Gorges Corporation. world-nuclear-news.org
What to do with nuclear waste is one of the big open questions with respect to nuclear power and nuclear weapons production. The United States spent over a decade preparing for a geological repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada before the project was cancelled in 2009. Now the best estimate for a permanent nuclear waste repository is 2050. The repository was primarily intended for spent nuclear fuel which is quickly filling up all available temporary storage at nuclear reactor sites. There is a geological repository for nuclear waste generated by nuclear weapons production call the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, New Mexico. It had operated for fifteen years before an unexpected release of particles of plutonium and americium closed the repository. It may never reopen.
Texas legalized private nuclear waste dumps in 2003. The only existing such dump in Texas is the Waste Control Specialist’s Facility (WCSF) low level nuclear waste dump in Andrews County. The dump can accept just about any type of nuclear waste. All radionuclides are welcome at the dump including plutonium which has a half life of hundreds of thousands of years. All components of nuclear reactors such as containment vessels, piping, sludge, and other residues can be stored there with the exception of spent nuclear fuel rods. One location was licensed to accept up to two million three hundred thousand cubic feet of waste. (11 on photo below) Another location was licensed to accept twenty six million cubic feet of radioactive waste from federal facilities. (10 on photo below) A third location has been designated for up to thirty thousand cubic feet of “by-product” waste which includes uranium mine tailings and yellow cake as well as equipment. (9 on photo below) The WCSF also has licenses that would permit it to process and store transuranic waste.
The Lone Star Sierra Club has been attempting to appealed to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) but been denied the right to a hearing to appeal these licenses on the grounds of public health threat. The TCEQ has been very friendly to industry and hostile to environmental groups. It is usually staffed by polluting industry alumni appointed by the governor. Texas is one of the most polluted states in the U.S. with some of the most lax regulation.
When the WIPP was closed, drums of waste from Los Alamos National Laboratory were shipped there for temporary storage. It turns out that some of these drums may be generating enough heat to explode because mistakes were made with absorbent additives at the laboratory. These drums are not stored in a facility that can monitor for anomalous heat production or confine explosions.
Now the TEQC has decided that it will allow the WCSF in Andrews County to accept depleted uranium from federal energy facilities. They are raising the allow amount from two million three hundred thousand cubic feet to nine million cubic feet. Environmentalists are complaining about this expansion of waste capacity. Depleted uranium waste can become more radioactive over time and poses a long term threat to public health. There are concerns about the local geology and underground water sources near the waste dump. Critics say that the amounts and types of waste being accepted at the site keep growing. No public comments were allowed when the TEQC voted to raise the storage limit.
There have been many explosions, fires and releases of toxic materials in Texas due to the industry friendly lax or non-existent regulation of industry. One day, release of hazardous radioactive materials may be added to the environmental devastation of Texas.
Waste Control Specialist’s Facility:
My Geiger counter is in the shop for maintenance.
What can be done to reduce nuclear risks in volatile countries? nuclear-news.net
Japan’s “nuclear restart” fades into the doubtful future. nuclear-news.net
My Geiger counter is in the shop for maintenance.