Skip to main content

Tuesday Afternoon Update

By

From NEI's Japan Earthquake launch page:

UPDATE AS OF 3 PM EDT, TUESDAY, MARCH 29:

Plutonium found in five soil samples at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant complex originated from uranium fuel at the plant, Tokyo Electric Power Co. has determined. The level of radiation from the plutonium is not considered dangerous to human health.

The company on March 28 said that some of the plutonium—which is at a very low level—could have been the result of fallout from atomic weapons tests during the Cold War.

Fresh water is being injected into reactors 1, 2 and 3 to cool fuel in the reactors. Workers have switched from diesel fire pumps to temporary electric pumps to move water into the reactors. U.S. Navy barges filled with fresh water have arrived at the site with much-needed supplies of fresh water to pump into the reactors and used nuclear fuel storage pools.

TEPCO also continues to clean contaminated water from the basements of the turbine buildings at the three reactors. The water is being pumped into the main condenser for each reactor. Workers also are working to drain water remaining at unit 4.

As reported earlier, radioactive water has been found in concrete-enclosed channels that hold piping and cables outside of the reactor 1, 2, and 3 turbine buildings. TEPCO is assessing the best way to remove the water from these structures. None of the trenches empty directly into the sea near the Fukushima plant.

NEI’s Pietrangelo Briefs Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee

Tony Pietrangelo, NEI senior vice president and chief nuclear offer, briefed members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on events in Japan and steps U.S. companies are doing to ensure safety and emergency preparedness at nuclear energy facilities. To watch video of Pietrangelo’s briefing, click here and go to the 94 minute mark.

Labels:

Comments

jimwg said…
I compliment Mr. Pietrangelo for artfully correcting Sen. Franken. Re: Evacuation. I would recommend that the NCR use the same mass evacuation plans which would/must be used in the event of a virulently lethal biological warfare agent/microbe release in an urban environment. Surely there are contingencies for that -- right? What agency would be responsible for such a critical mass evacuation plan in a world of terrorism and super-lethal engineered biologics?

James Greenidge
March 29, 2011 at 5:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more