Twenty-five years after the tragedy at the Chernobyl power plant in Ukraine, tons of concrete shield workers and visitors from the puddle of dangerously radioactive melted fuel that lurks in the basement. In contrast, more than 30 years after the accident at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, Pa., the next-door twin of the partially melted-down reactor is still in operation and surrounded by homes. Eventually the plant will be torn down and the site cleaned up.

These two scenarios—continued operation followed by cleanup versus abandoning and entombing the site—bookend the possible outcomes for the newest member of the nuclear meltdown club, Fukushima Daiichi. The Japanese plant has endured partial meltdowns in at least three of its six reactors, as well as two of its seven pools for storing spent  fuel. “You have several [impacted] reactors, and you could easily have two or three approaches to decommissioning,” says Kurt Kehler, vice president of decommissioning and demolition at CH2M HILL in Englewood, Colo.

Fukushima’s fate will ultimately come down to how badly the fuel at the plant melted, how deeply contaminated the site has become and how much money the Japanese government is willing to spend on cleanup. Tokyo Electric Power, which operates the plant, estimates that the fuel in at least one of the reactors has completely melted down. If so, the fuel rods may have formed a “puddle,” not unlike the one at Chernobyl that has necessitated a massive steel structure to contain it. Moreover, radioactive contami­nation has spread to a 30-kilometer radius of the stricken plant, including to towns even farther afield, such as Iitate, which is so contaminated that it will have to be abandoned or its soil scooped up and entirely replaced. Some 80,000 residents in similar towns have been evacuated.

The Japanese government has called for the plant to be torn down. TEPCO would prefer to restart the undamaged reactors if at all possible. Unfortunately, neither may get its wish: if the fuel has indeed formed a puddle, radiation levels may be too high for would-be deconstruction workers to approach, necessitating entombment efforts similar to those at Chernobyl. And like the Ukrainians and Belarusians who never returned to the exclusion zone, residents in the towns near Fukushima Daiichi may never return home permanently, and local farmers and fisherfolk may not be able to resume their professions. In short, the area surrounding Fukushima may remain a no-go zone for years to come—another name on the list of unexpected nuclear parks and another reminder of the peril of nuclear ­energy. 

This article was originally published with the title From Nuclear Plant to Nuclear Park?.

5 Comments

1. 1. sethdayal 12:38 PM 6/30/11

   All of the long term environment damage at Fukusima was from the massive chemical/refinery fire that burned for weeks spewing deadly forever chemicals. Since Sciam is a Big Oil rag you won't here about that here.
   
   Folks in Ramsar,Iran with peak yearly dose of 260 mSv have a lower incidence of cancer than average. Other studies have found the same results in folks that lived in radiation environments as high as 900 mSV.
   
   All emissions in the FuKushima area, outside the plant itself are an order of magnitude below this range.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. tharter in reply to sethdayal 02:43 PM 6/30/11

   Well, I guess you can buy some cheap housing then, lol.
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Knuttsen-Boltzmann 03:20 PM 6/30/11

   What an excellent idea, to turn Fukushima into a Nuclear Park.
   
   How about a Nuclear Theme Park?
   
   The spent fuel ponds could be part of a light show and art installation, lit by Cerenkov radiation, and in the lovely, unearthly, heavenly-blue glow, there could be a complimentarily lit series of panels explaining the medical uses of radiation.
   
   Once the reactor vessels are cleaned up a bit, they could house a "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" kind of adventure ride, explaining how nuclear reactors work, and why nuclear electricity is so much better than solar, wind, hydro or even coal and oil.
   
   The bottom-most bowels of the reactor, the donut-shaped bit that holds the extra water, could be turned into a big plastic aquarium for radioactive fish to swim round and round in, so folks can watch Evolution in Action. Organic evolution needs far more support than nuclear electricity, as so many people still don't believe that humans are descended from apes, and that we share over 95% of our chromosomes with chimpanzees (some people may have even more in common - would some of them be nuclear reactor engineers, I wonder?).
   
   Of course no nuclear electricity theme park situated on a beautiful coastline, as is Fukushima, would be complete without a big IMAX screen competing with the view. Science shows for the kiddies and their eager, aspirational parents could watch old favourites like Walt Disney's "My friend the Atom" (admittedly not in IMAX format), or more up-to-date 3D movies on earthquake science and tsunamis and the wonders of plate tectonics. For late evening fare, Dr Strangelove, and re-runs of the post-bombing movie documentation of the damage to Hiroshima and Nagasaki may help sate some folks' appetite for the noir and grotesque.
   
   
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. scientific earthling 12:59 AM 7/1/11

   The cheapest way to decommission a nuclear power plant is to allow the core to melt down, strip all assets from the company before you do that and then bankrupt the company. My billions in revenue, the taxpayers problem to clean up.
   
   I am sure Sethdayal will chose this business route, he even tells you radiation is harmless, like smoking, mercury, asbestos and all the other materials we classify as carcinogens.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. ksparth 06:32 AM 7/1/11

   Finally, the radioactive material will remain at one location; admittedly containing it will be a challenge.Fukushima accident will have only local impact.The residents will be able to come back to their dwellings.
   K S Parthasarathy

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this