Kyodo: “Potentially up to six spent-fuel pools in a degraded condition” -NRC transcript

Published: February 22nd, 2012 at 11:09 am ET


Title: U.S. worried about Fukushima meltdown early on: commission transcript
Source: Kyodo
Date: Feb 22, 2012

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission released Tuesday some 3,000 pages of transcripts […]

The documents showed that as early as March 16 […] Jaczko projected “a worst scenario” that all three operating reactors at the crippled plant might be experiencing meltdowns.

“The reactors would likely eventually…breach primary containment and have some type of (radioactive) release,” he said during a conference call […]

The prediction turned out to be accurate […]

The transcripts also showed that Jaczko mentioned “potentially up to six spent-fuel pools in a degraded condition, possibly with spent fuel pool fires.” […]

Read the report here

Published: February 22nd, 2012 at 11:09 am ET


Related Posts

  1. AP: Nuclear fuel moved as it melted — Little known about location and condition of reactor cores — Limited info on spent fuel pools December 9, 2011
  2. NY Times: Spent fuel pools in reactors “have lost their cooling systems” — Nuclear engineers now warning pools “could pose an even greater danger than the melted reactor cores” April 6, 2011
  3. NHK: Fears that walls of Fukushima spent fuel pools will erode — Tepco working to keep salt from causing holes (VIDEO) November 6, 2011
  4. Experts fear radiation from damaged nuclear fuel has weakened structures of reactors and spent fuel pools at Fukushima September 14, 2011
  5. Gundersen: I’m sure there’s a lot of damaged nuclear fuel in Fukushima spent fuel pools — The tubes are cracked — May be completely severed (VIDEO) December 10, 2012

11 comments to Kyodo: “Potentially up to six spent-fuel pools in a degraded condition” -NRC transcript

  • Ganxet Ganxet

    Are the SFP the main reason, not to shut down all the nuclear reacors?
    If there are no power generation , who is going to pay the continuous refreshing of the spent fuel?

  • James2

    it wouldn't cost much to keep them cool, the more expensive thing would be backup systems, monitoring systems and security.

  • Ganxet Ganxet

    are westinghouse AP1000 SFP different than BWR?
    The reactor seems to be safeter than markI one's, but SFP ?

  • harengus_acidophilus

    I'm not a native speaker.
    Maybye anyone can tell me the difference between
    "degraded condition" and "broken"?


    • LetThemEatYellowCake LetThemEatYellowCake

      "Broken" means non-working and as such, is also in a degraded condition. "Degraded condition" is a relative term and can mean any stage from the moment past "new" to "broken". When it comes to contaminants in a fuel pool though, it either is or it isn't so the degraded condition means it's broken… but then he also says, "potentially", but keep in mind their definition of "know" varies at times too.

    • In this case, degraded may mean "almost working".

  • moonshellblue moonshellblue Arnie Gundersen speaks about the AP1000

  • Ganxet Ganxet

    tnks moonshellblue

  • Anthony Anthony

    Mainstream: Radiation from tsunami disaster detected off Japan's coast in Pacific; levels below harmful
    By Brian Skoloff,Malcolm Ritter, The Associated Press | The Canadian Press – 20 hours ago

    • vital1 vital1

      This story has been published almost verbatim in major news papers worldwide. Talk about centrally controlled propaganda. They don't mention that a US navy study done years ago showed fish can bio-accumulate radiation contamination 100,000 times.

      Get the message out there on how serious the Fukushima nuclear disaster is
      quickly, and efficiently. You don’t need to explain anything just distribute the lifesaver.pdf (or create your own), hand it out, mailbox it, or email it.

      Put it everywhere, libraries, notice boards, web pages, forums, Facebook,
      and tweet! Think outside the box.

  • Tanuki San

    It seems, after Fukushima, like such a bad idea to keep large amounts of spent fuel AT a nuclear power plant. Why not move it somewhere else so that if an accident happens, the huge amounts of spent fuel won't add to the disaster?