NRC FOIA: “WTF” — When reactor blew up “it looked like a containment building disappearing in an explosive cloud” (Mar. 12 Email)

Published: January 9th, 2012 at 5:07 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
20 comments


March 12th, 2011 – Looked like a containment building disappearing in an explosive cloud – WTF, Enformable, Jan. 9, 2012:

From: Hardies, Robert
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2011 5:12 AM
To: Mitchell, Matthew
Subject: RE: FYI

My dog woke me up to go out. I turned on CNN. They had breaking video they could not explain. To me it looked like a containment building disappearing in an explosive cloud. WTF.

From: Mitchell, Matthew
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2011 8:05 AM
To: Hardies, Robert
Subject: RE: FYI

I’ve seen that as well.

Secondary continment buildings aren’t all that robust, but still…

Apparently no change in the ex-primary containment radiation levels, however, after the explosion.

Published: January 9th, 2012 at 5:07 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
20 comments

Related Posts

  1. “Very Unexpected”: Large debris filmed in Fukushima Unit 1 shows something explosive happened inside containment (VIDEO) September 27, 2012
  2. Asahi: Explosive hydrogen may be coming from melted fuel rods and “accumulating near the top of the containment vessel without being driven out” September 25, 2011
  3. Reactor No. 1 core had total meltdown and uranium fuel may be outside containment building — Nuclear reaction could have restarted May 16, 2011
  4. “Cover over Reactor 1 is only cosmetic” — Built to keep webcam from filming badly damaged building — Has nothing to do with preventing radioactive materials from escaping June 13, 2012
  5. Gundersen: Video inside Reactor 1 may show seismic damage — Japanese experts suggest unit was having severe problems before tsunami September 27, 2012

20 comments to NRC FOIA: “WTF” — When reactor blew up “it looked like a containment building disappearing in an explosive cloud” (Mar. 12 Email)

  • patb2009

    WTF….

    No further explanation needed.


    Report comment

  • Kevin Kevin

    Secondary containment buildings arent all that robust?

    Alrighty if you say so, but I saw three foot thick walls with more rebar than I would care to bend and tie.


    Report comment

    • Human0815

      @ Kevin,

      the Walls of the Reactor are designed in that way
      that they give not much Resistance to a Explosion
      in the Inside, when you Research via Scroogle you will get this Information!

      In my Opinion we just saw the “Cap” of the secondary Containment Vessel flowing away!


      Report comment

      • Kevin Kevin

        @Human

        Is that so? I was not aware of that. I have not researched that particular aspect. I was simply going by my observation of the remains of the building….

        I did take a quick peak at wikipedia not a very reliable source… But I did find this….

        the Mark I containment, consisting of a rectangular steel-reinforced concrete building, along with an additional layer of steel-reinforced concrete surrounding the steel-lined cylindrical drywell and the steel-lined pressure suppression torus below. The Mark I was the earliest type of containment in wide use, and many reactors with Mark Is are still in service today. There have been numerous safety upgrades made over the years to this type of containment, especially to provide for orderly reduction of containment load caused by pressure in a comp0onded limiting fault. The reactor building of the Mark I generally is in the form of a large rectangular structure of reinforced concrete.

        Sounds robust enough to me… Steel reinforced concrete… not just the cube but also in the interior….. In fact more robust that I originally thought.


        Report comment

        • Kevin Kevin

          Oh by the way, I forgot to provide the link for you Human.

          GO here and you will also see that I was wrong… the walls are in fact 4 to 8 feet thick….. Steel reinforced….

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor_safety_systems#Varieties_of_BWR_containments

          I repeat, 4 – 8 foot thick, pre stressed, steel reinforced concrete! Sounds more like a nuclear bunker….. but I am sure its made to blow up good as you say and we certainly saw.


          Report comment

          • Human0815

            @ Kevin, please read:
            ” The thin secondary containments were not designed to withstand hydrogen explosions, and suffered blown out or destroyed roofs and walls, and destruction of all equipment on the refueling floor including cranes and refueling platform.

            Although they were fitted with modified hardened vent systems to vent hydrogen into exhaust stacks, they may have not been effective without power. Unit 2 had a large panel removed to vent gases, but suffered an explosion to the lower suppression area. Even before the Fukushima incident, Mark I containment had been criticized as being more likely to fail during a blackout. [5] [6]”

            Also on Wiki and http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/nuclear-experts-weigh-in-on-ge-containment-system/2011/03/14/ABspN1V_story.html


            Report comment

            • Human0815

              Sorry, the full part must be so:
              The Mark I containment was used in those reactors at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant which were involved in the Fukushima I nuclear accidents. The site suffered from a combination of two beyond design-basis events, a powerful earthquake which may have damaged reactor plumbing and structures and 15 meter tsunami which destroyed fuel tanks, generators and wiring causing back up generators to fail, and battery-powered pumps also eventually failed. Insufficient cooling and failure of pumps needed to restore water lost to boiling off led to partial or possible complete meltdowns of fuel rods which were completely uncovered by water. This led to releases of significant amounts of radioactive material to the air and sea, and hydrogen explosions. However PWR reactors also require years of powered pumped cooling water. The thin secondary containments were not designed to withstand hydrogen explosions, and suffered blown out or destroyed roofs and walls, and destruction of all equipment on the refueling floor including cranes and refueling platform. Unit 3 suffered a particularly spectacular explosion which created a plume of debris over 300m high which resulted in a collapse of the north end of the top floor, and buckled concrete columns on its west side as can be seen by aerial photographs. Although they were fitted with modified hardened vent systems to vent hydrogen into exhaust stacks, they may have not been effective without power. Unit 2 had a large panel removed to vent gases, but suffered an explosion to the lower suppression area. Even before the Fukushima incident, Mark I containment had been criticized as being more likely to fail during a blackout. [5] [6]”
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building

              Show also that it was not soooooo high!


              Report comment

              • Kevin Kevin

                Hey Human….

                300 meters is thousands of feet, so it was that high.

                Posting snippets of the official story of hydrogen explosions and how these biuldings would not be prepared for such a thing, given that is the primary threat, and suggesting that somehow, 4 – 8 foot thick walls of pre-stressed concrete, reinforced by steel and having three steel layers for containment is “made to blow up easy” and “not resist” is all interesting but largely detached from reality. Walls like that are not made to blow up and if it was not built to “contain” why call it a containment? I understeand the primary purpose would be to prevent radiation from leaking, however, in so doing it would also be a significant factor in at least limiting the extent of the explosion…. no? Even if not by design. The point is those are some seriously thick walls and doubly reinforced obviously for some reason.

                Anyhow, number three was bad, real bad and the first casualty was the truth.


                Report comment

                • Human0815

                  @ Kevin,
                  i don’t mind this and i am failing to provide a accurate Source at the moment
                  but i will look later for it!

                  The Explosion in Nr. 3 was something
                  very special, never seen before
                  and until now no one can explain the
                  strange occurrence some mili-seconds
                  before the Explosion happened!

                  Do you remember what i am talking about?


                  Report comment

              • HoTaters HoTaters

                That was 300m as in meters, right?


                Report comment

              • ITSNOTABANANA

                I get sickened every time I see or hear someone say this situation was an accident. IT WAS FATE PEOPLE!!!


                Report comment

      • Misitu

        Human0815 said :In my Opinion we just saw the “Cap” of the secondary Containment Vessel flowing away!

        That too was my impression.

        I am now moved to wonder about the nature of the containment head bolts. I recall there was a surveillance shot of I think Number 4′s containment head back then, and my recollection is that a number of the bolts were not screwed home.

        Realising that this statement is somewhat of the polemic, and allowing that No 4′s vessel head would not be screwed down tight because of the maintenance ongoing at the time, I would not in any way allege that No 4′s head was not fastened securely ["before" the explosion]

        but, given the other evidence of unrepaired pipework leaks and fractures beforehand, it does give you cause to think.


        Report comment

        • Misitu

          Sometimes I only post controversy such as the above in the faint hope that a reader here, having been at some time closely involved in the work of Tepco or Dai-ichi,

          might reach into the innards of their deep buried conscience and bring here some little part of the greater hidden truth.

          Anyone reading this who might have some personal information on the topic? Please? I am sure that we will be grateful for anything you might be able to tell us!


          Report comment

        • Human0815

          The good old Arnie dedicated a whole Report about this, but i do not remember which one it was!
          Must be in the first 3 Month after all this started!

          The Stuff we saw in this Explosion of Reactor Nr. 3
          was for sure just the Cap!


          Report comment

  • lam335 lam335

    I’m assuming this refers to reactor #3? If so, I find the claim that there was “no change in the ex-primary containment radiation levels … after the explosion” hard to believe.


    Report comment

  • Jebus

    A repost but very much on topic…



    Report comment

  • Yep. That would be TF.
    Gracias, Jebus.
    TEPCOPANOCHAOTA
    OTAOTAOTA!


    Report comment

  • Kevin Kevin

    March 12th was the date of the email cited in this post. Therefor the original writer was referring to the picture on the left. His description is apt. However, two days later when reactor three blew as pictured on the right I am sure his reaction would have been quite different. The responder is obviously clueless when he asserts that the containment is not robust.

    Suspecting the writer is familiar with the fact that the secondary containment building is built with pre-stressed, 4-8 foot thick concrete walls thoroughly reinforced with steel, one would surmise that this as the premise, if not entire point of the email.

    some pretty serious shit was happening with that particular reactor whose mushroom cloud reached thousands of feet into the air. Given the robust fashion of the containment, I am confident with Arnie’s conclusion that the official story of hydrogen explosions is simply false and his assertion that the fuel pool was impacted to my mind is an absolute.

    The obfuscation of the chain of events at this reactor only serves to support my assertion that the fuel in the SFP in this reactor is now in our environment and this incident alone is of such grave concern that most of the other reactor incidents pale in comparison.

    Its high time heads role and real information is sought out and distributed, for many it may not be too late, however for some it clearly is.


    Report comment