Wednesday, October 20, 2010

One of The Safety Mechanism for a Nuclear Power Plant (Core Catcher)


Core Catching
One of the worst accidents in American nuclear history occurred in 1979 at Three Mile Island, located in Pennsylvania. As a result of a series of mechanical and human errors, the reactor core containing the nuclear fuel, which is normally covered in cooling water, was actually uncovered for an unspecified period of time. Before the flow of water could be restored, about half of the nuclear fuel had melted.
The diagram from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s website shows what the reactor core “theoretically” looked like immediately after the meltdown. Even though half of the nuclear fuel in the reactor vessel was reduced to a molten mass, none of it escaped the reactor vessel or the containment building, thus avoiding a much more serious disaster.
But what would have happened if the nuclear fuel actually did melt through the bottom of the reactor vessel? At least one report, titled “The President’s Commission on the Accident at TMI,” chaired by John G. Kemeny, theorizes that the nuclear fuel still would have been contained inside the containment building that surrounds the reactor vessel. This commission, also known as the Kemeny commission, was formed two weeks after the TMI accident (at the order of the President) and was tasked with investigating the events that unfolded at TMI. The report theorizes that if the molten core had melted through the reactor vessel, there is a high probability that the containment building and the hard rock on which the containment building was built would have been able to prevent the escape of a large amount of radioactivity.
Long before the TMI accident, nuclear plant designers were already placing systems below the reactor vessel in case of just such an emergency – the melting of the nuclear core. These systems are sometimes called core catchers, since they are designed to catch the flowing molten core that has melted through the metal reactor vessel. These systems continue to evolve and grow more complex as new materials are discovered and researched.
For example, U.S. Patent No. 4,036,688, issued on July 19, 1977, and owned by the United States government, describes a system where the melted core is funneled onto magnesia and graphite bricks layered below the reactor vessel.
As can be seen in the diagram from the patent, a molten reactor core melts through the bottom of the reactor vessel (10) and flows into a funnel (14) made of carbon steel. The funnel (14) directs the molten core to the core debris receptacle (16), whose primary purpose is to prevent the molten core from forming a geometry that would result in a critical mass, resulting in an unwanted fission chain reaction.
The core debris receptacle (16) includes a center dome (24), made of blocks of alumina, as well as tantalum rods (26). Both tantalum and alumina have high melting points and are highly neutron absorbent. The center dome (24) disperses the molten core so that it spreads out over a large surface area thus preventing the formation of a critical geometry. Although the blocks making up the core debris receptacle (16) will reduce nuclear fission reactions in the molten debris, they will eventually melt and combine with the molten debris as it flows into the bed (18) area. The bed (18) contains bricks of magnesia which are designed to melt and mix with the molten core in order to further dilute the amount of nuclear fuel in the molten debris.
The walls of the bed (18) are lined with a layer of heat-resistant graphite blocks (30), which have cooling pipes embedded in them (not shown in the diagram). As the molten debris eventually flows toward the graphite blocks (30), it solidifies as it is cooled by the fluid flowing through the pipes.
Another core catcher system is described in U.S. Patent No. 4,113, 560, issued on September 12, 1978, and assigned to Massachusetts Institute of Technology. As can be seen in the diagram from the patent, a bin (7) located beneath the reactor core (1) contains a bed of graphite particles (6). Since graphite dissipates heat rapidly, the molten core would initially be cooled as heat is transferred from the molten core to the graphite particles. As the molten core begins to cool, it begins to solidify and flows more slowly through the bed of graphite particles (6). The patent indicates that the molten material would flow through the graphite particles at a rate of about a foot per hour.
Without intervention, however, the molten material would eventually flow to the bottom of the bin (7) and melt right through it. For this reason, the system also includes an overhead spray (9) combined with a bottom drain (10) in order to circulate cooling water through the particle bed (6). The water could also contain boron, a neutron absorber, which impedes any fission chain reaction in the molten material as it cools and hardens.
Another core catcher design is described in U.S. Patent No. 4,464,333, issued on August 7, 1984, and assigned to Combustion Engineering, Inc.
The diagram from the patent shows the bottom of the reactor vessel (14) enclosed inside concrete walls (12) of the containment building (16). Below the reactor vessel (14) is an array of vertically oriented water-cooled tubes. Pressurized water flows into the array through the inlet tube (18), then flows through the vertical cooling tubes before exiting via the outlet tube (30). The exterior of the vertical tubes are coated with a heat-resistant material, such as a ceramic or graphite matrix to resist melting from the heat of the molten core.
The inside of the vertical tubes are coated with a neutron absorbent material in order to prevent the neutrons emitted from the molten fuel from being reabsorbed by the fuel, thus preventing a sustained fission chain reaction. The water flowing out of the array via the outlet tube (30) is directed to a heat exchanger (e.g., such as cooling towers) located outside of the reactor containment vessel (16).
Another core catcher design is described in U.S. Patent No. 4,643,870, issued on February 17, 1987, and assigned to the Department of Energy. The diagram from the patent depicts a core meltdown situation, where the core debris (46) has melted through a hole (44) in the bottom of the reactor vessel (34). The core debris (46) comes to rest on a 3 foot thick metal basemat (28) that extends 200 feet outwards from the wall of the reactor vessel (34).
The long length of the basemat (28) helps to dissipate heat transferred to it from the core debris (46). Underneath the basemat (28) are several layers of sand and gravel (32a-d). The top layer (32a) is a 1 foot layer of fine sand, followed by a 1 foot layer (32b) of course sand, followed by 4 foot layer (32c) of fine gravel, followed by a 6 foot layer (32d) of coarse gravel. Two sets of perforated pipes (50, 52) runs through the layers of sand and gravel. One of the pipes (52) carries cooling water to the heated area, which quickly turns the water to steam. The steam is then carried away by the other pipe (50), and is vented some distance from the reactor vessel. Metal pilings (30), extending downwardly and outwardly from the bottom of the reactor, supports the reactor vessel during a meltdown condition. The metal pilings (30) also absorb a substantial amount of heat which then travels down the length of the metal piling (30) away from the reactor vessel.
Another core catcher design is described in U.S. Patent No. 6,658,077, issued on December 2, 2003, and assigned to Areva NP GMBH. The diagram from the patent shows the bottom of the reactor vessel (8) with the core catching system below it. If the conditions for a core meltdown are present, pressurized water held in the storage tank (9) is immediately pumped though a coolant line (5) and is disbursed through multiple coolant lines (4). The water then fills a porous layer (3) made of porous concrete and/or ceramic, which may also contain particles of steel or iron. A sealing layer (7) made of plastic or metal encases the porous layer (3) so that the water remains pressurized once all the cavities of the porous layer (3) have been filled. A layer of concrete (6) having a low melting point sits on top of the sealing layer (7). The purpose of the layer of concrete (6) is to melt and mix into the molten core so that when the molten mixture subsequently melts through the sealing layer (7) and comes into contact with the water in the porous layer (3) the molten mixture is immediately solidified, fragmented and cooled.
A complex core catching system is described in U.S. Patent Publication No. 20090116607, issued on May 7, 2009, assigned to the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute.The system includes a molten core retention tank (20) situated below the reactor vessel (10). A cooling water storage tank (40) and a compressed gas tank (30) is connected to the retention tank (20) through a section of piping called the mixer (50). In the event of a core meltdown, a valve (41) opens and water begins flowing by gravity from the water storage tank (40). At the same time, a valve (31) opens releasing the inert gas from the gas tank (30), which then mixes with the water in the mixer (50) portion of the piping. The water cools the molten material in the retention tank (20), while the inert gas prevents a possible steam explosion caused by the water suddenly coming into contact with the hot molten material.
Because all of the components shown in the diagram are enclosed in a reactor containment building, the steam produced from the water contacting the molten core (left-hand side of the diagram) will begin to condense on cooler surfaces. For example, water is likely to condense on the outer surface (1) enclosing the water storage tank (40) - as can be seen on the upper right-hand side of the diagram. As water condenses, it will flow through a filter (61) and into an intermediate storage tank (60). This tank (60) refills water depleted from the water storage tank (40) through piping (62) connecting the two tanks. This ensures an adequate supply of cooling water to remove heat from the molten core in the retention tank (20).
Fortunately, no core catching device has actually been utilized in an operating reactor plant. Most nuclear plants have layered protection systems in place that can quickly determine if a dangerous conditions is approaching and prevents it. The core catching mechanisms are meant to be the very last line of defense when these systems, for some reason, fail. However, the lack of actual physical testing of these core catchers caused concern in the report by the Kemeny commission.

36 comments:

  1. Throughout the article,now we know that the inner of nuclear reactor has been modified to meet the highest safety measurement.anyway,the people incharge also should take take high precoution to handle it,so that any unwanted accident won't happen again.
    TQ

    arif afifi bin ahmad
    me084865
    megatron_183@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. There are many more pictures related to it for understanding. Here is the link:
    http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2010/03/03/under-the-hood-with-duncan-williams-core-catching-03032.aspx

    Dzul fadhli b mohd husin seria
    ME083538
    dzulfadhli@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. hye,
    i wanna know what are the other safety mechanism to protect nuclear power plant???
    i think that nuclear power plant is a dangerous sources no matter where we build it..
    mohd fazli ramly
    mrfazli@rocketmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow, this is very dangerous to us if in the future, nuclear power plant suddenly explodes in Malaysia. Thats why we need to think of the safety precautions before build one in Malaysia. And nuclear power plant must also stay away from the citizens. So that if anything happen, human will not that harm.

    Muhammad Naqib Bin Roslan
    ME084003
    naqib.roslan@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good post. But too long to read. You may need to shortened it. Not to just take it from other website. But i can see your point here that is a safety device.

    Muhammad Naqib Bin Roslan
    ME084003
    naqib.roslan@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is why a very few people in the world who can truly able to control or operate the reactor... So what are the odds that Malaysia have one of the these people? To train and recruit new people just for the purpose of controlling the reactor would might take a few years... So, please consider it before using a nuclear power plant in Malaysia...

    WAN MOHAMED AFIF BIN WAN MANSOR
    afif_blackcat@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  7. what do all those numbers in brackets mean?i have tried my best to imagine how the process works but im failed. could u please explain it in the simplest words?

    mohamad azmi b mohamad sulaiman
    technoboyz88@yahoo.com.my

    ReplyDelete
  8. hi
    core catchers technology seems to be very important in case the core melts,, , since they are designed to catch the flowing molten core that has melted through the metal reactor vessel, the fuel wont contaminate outside atmosphere. its rely good..to have technology to fix things up even if a accident hapen.

    jivithan a/l kandeeban
    me083555
    jiviremo@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  9. In case of a nuclear disaster how prepared is Malaysia...?

    CE082377
    ma7ed100@hotmail.com
    ABDULMAJEED KHATIMO ALMUTAIRI

    ReplyDelete
  10. is the core catching device the only last line of defense and is it use in all nuclear stations or are there other types of technology that can be used to replace this but has the same function

    Harsukhvir Singh Godrei
    me083547
    sukh_x@hotmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  11. maybe u can attach certain new safety mechanism used in american now. : ) the worst accident happened in america 1979. u can see now, this technlgy already done 20 years

    alif ahnaf bin omar
    me084145
    alip04macro@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  12. hye. i dont really understand about what is safety mechanism for a nuclear power plant but nowadays i like to know more about nuclear. lots of thing i dont ever know and from now on i realize that nuclear is very important for our world. so, i hope you can post other interesting article about nuclear. thanks.

    MOHD IZHAN BAZLI BIN BASIR
    CE082720
    izhanbazli@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  13. salam n hye.. wow, what a long and it take me quite some time to read this article. so, can you explain a bit why catching device are meant to be the very last line of defense when the nuclear plant systems? tq. ^_^

    HAZIM BIN SHARUDIN
    ME083548
    sena_90@yahoo.com.my

    ReplyDelete
  14. Salam...
    People do learn from their mistakes, The Three Mile Island and chernobyl disaster certainly has make nuclear power plant much more safer nowdays... But people will still remember and be reminded of these kind of tragedies. Hopefully we will never see this core catching device being used because we hope the other protection systems in place can quickly determine if a dangerous conditions is approaching and prevents it from happening. Like the article above mentioned, that lack of actual physical testing caused concern in the report by the Kemeny commission.

    Khairul Amirin Bin Amir Hussain
    CE080110
    deafening_silence84@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  15. the core cathcer, designed to prevent meltdown of nuclear from spreading into the streams and waters. this is one of the technological advancement we have in nuclear technology. we discover, there ae such things which can happen when dealing with nuclear when it happens only but, after 50 years, i believe we have closed most of the loopholes from where nuclear can escape into the environment.

    joel bharath
    me083556
    sect6

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wow its interesting to know that scientist worldwide have worked hard working out methods to prevent accidents and reduce damages done by human error.

    Govinderan Mageswaran
    ME083544
    ninemoons_firing@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi...what is the main cause of nuclear fission reaction in the molten debris?Between all of the core catching devise design which is the best in providing adequate protection and preventing any divergence in nuclear plants system?

    YOGASWERAROW S/O SREE RAMALU
    ME084029
    yoges.sphinx_cruisevirgo88@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  18. Do all the NPP use the same type/size of core ?

    Normie Suhaida binti Ab Rasul
    ME084231
    normie.sd@hotmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  19. very interesting...nuclear energy has been around for years now..every year researches have been conducted to find ways to improve on the safety aspect and it's contamination as the US is doing..they are installing sensors and detectors to improve fault detection..and each year they are coming up with way to improve them...
    I believe nuclear energy is safe and it is the way forward.

    Leon K
    ME084603

    ReplyDelete
  20. Great article. Before this, I never know that there are other nuclear power plant disaster than the famous Chernobyl.

    ENGKU AHMAD AZIZAN
    ME083540
    eazizan90@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  21. surely accident can be avoided. we only have to make sure the safety measures is rightly implemented to prevent fatal accidents from occurring in the future.

    ALIFF AMIRU BIN WAHAB
    ME084105
    rapidoz@msn.com

    ReplyDelete
  22. good post.Safety is taken very seriously by those working in nuclear power plants. The main safety concern is the emission of uncontrolled radiation into the environment which could cause harm to humans both at the reactor site and off-site.

    PAVANESVARAAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM
    waraan_2@hotmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  23. salam!!
    it is true!!
    there is a lot bad things can be done by this kind of stuff..if we see,d creation of this weapon was amazing,it could end up with a big disasters..
    thanks!

    ZAAKIR HUSSEIN BIN MD YASSIM
    ME083675
    zaakir_52@yahoo.com.my

    ReplyDelete
  24. hye..

    wow...wvery2 long and details post actually..><
    btw,wat i want tell here is,although error can occur during we handling NPP,whether human error or the machine error,the effects still in minimum condition.as we know,the NPP got 5 layers in the buildings.the contaminated radioactive waste surely very hard to leak into outside if something bad happen.furthermore, the technology of NPP always improved years to years.so,no need think bad about nuclear technology.i'm kinda sure that our country an able to handling NPP as other country.we are the great country.

    muhamad danial bin dasuki
    me083590
    den_nell90@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  25. The accident in pennsylvania was mainly caused by training and human factors, for Malaysia to introduce this energy, we need to understand the importance of human involvement so that mistakes is not possible. Education is key to this development and only highly skilled professionals should be handling the equipments

    ReplyDelete
  26. It was a very good artical that you produced. Its good to obtain the opinions of various people. However my personal belief is that I think nuclear is safe to be used, its just that I am not very confident in Malaysians handling nuclear, given to track record that we have. However, I think the issue of safety is well addressed, and I feel it is not a real threat to our health.

    naderaj
    me086092
    avinraj_cwto@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  27. it was a very good artical that you produced. Its good to obtain the opinions of various people. However my personal belief is that I think nuclear is safe to be used, its just that I am not very confident in Malaysians handling nuclear, given to track record that we have.

    naderaj
    me086092
    avinraj_cwto@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  28. hallo, as stated in the article, "The core catching mechanisms are meant to be the very last line of defense when these systems, for some reason, fail." but here ther is one question. How do the core catching mechanism fail mean? may i know more detail? thank you..

    MOHD SHAFIQ BIN IDRIS
    ME083587
    sapik_900906@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  29. this is a great post and hope this can make others or especially for the responsible party realize that even nuclear is a safe energy, but it only can avoid great damage if it is handle properly. even we are using high technology container, it is still need to be supervise.

    muhammad safwan bin mohd shakri

    ReplyDelete
  30. its a very good safety feature that halps the coolong process of the core so that it wont over heat. the process is a simple condensation process but a very effective one indeed.

    JUSTIN PETER JOSEPH
    ME083557
    terbalik_just23@hotmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hello,
    I would like to ask how much did it cost to repair the NPP after Three Mile Island accident. And how was the reaction of the Americans and how the US nuclear community handle the negative perception after the accident. Thanks in advance.

    Amir Bin Wahid
    ME083527
    ME083527@student.uniten.edu.my

    ReplyDelete
  32. The government of Malaysia should consider a variety of techniques to avoid any serious disasters, such as the above blog post, and other safety systems.

    Muhamad Rifdy Bin Samsudin
    CE083444
    ed_dy12@hotmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  33. I find it a very informative and revealing post. It helps me to understand how complicated it is to make sure the safety of a nuclear reactor. Based on this, I am not sure if our country is quite ready for this kind of technology.

    MUHAMAD HAFIZUL BIN MOHD NASIR
    ME084164
    pjoe87@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  34. Izzatun Nadia ME086266October 26, 2010 at 1:50 AM

    if nuclear energy had been approved by the goverment,where shoud we establish the power plant? our country doesnt have a "desert" city such as the middle east or an open ground.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Great article indeed. The safety measures for nuclear power plant has been improved greatly since the mishaps like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Since the Three Mile Island incident, its been three decades nuclear power plant disasters never hit the front line. Kudos to the US for their technology superiority and improvements to avoid such disasters. This should be propagated to the public so that the fear of nuclear can be refuted.
    As for the safety measures for nuclear waste management, I hope there will be an article about it posted here soon because the public(human) do take this as a problem too. As I know, the US, Sweden, Finland and France are in proposals to improve the safety mechanism for long-lived nuclear waste disposal.

    -Wong Chee Meng-
    -ME082755-
    -tidus_henry21@yahoo.com-

    ReplyDelete