Skip to main content

Saturday Update

From NEI's Japan Earthquake launch page:

UPDATE AS OF 12:00 P.M. EDT, SATURDAY, APRIL 2

Recovery efforts continue at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan, as aid pours in from the international nuclear community in the form of technical expertise, protective equipment for workers, storage tanks for contaminated water and other measures.
Today, Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) said it has identified one likely source of contaminated water reaching the Pacific Ocean, accounting for some of the radiation readings in seawater samples taken over the past several days. The crack is in a two-meter-deep concrete “pit,” or trench, that contains power cables near the reactor 2 water intake. Water measuring between 10 and 20 centimeters deep was found in the pit with radiation levels of more than 1,000 milliSieverts per hour. TEPCO plans to pour concrete to patch the crack while continuing to search for other potential leak paths.
The Nuclear Industrial and Safety Agency says iodine-131 will be diluted in seawater and does not pose a threat to the public. Additionally, iodine-131 has a short half-life—about eight days—and will decay to harmless levels fairly quickly. (See NEI's fact sheet to learn more about the health impacts of iodine-131.)
The Japan Atomic Industrial Forum said TEPCO is obtaining a “massive, hollow floating platform” from Shizuoka City and will use it to store contaminated water from the Fukushima site. The float can store up to 18,000 tons of water. Meanwhile TEPCO and the Japanese government are working to identify safe methods for transporting and storing contaminated water.

NRC Forms Task Force to Review U.S. Safety Measures
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced April 1 that it has formed a task force to identify any potential near-term actions that affect U.S. nuclear power plants, including their used fuel pools. This is part of the NRC’s 90-day review of U.S. safety measures in light of what is known to date about the March 11 earthquake and tsunami. The review will encompass station blackout (loss of all offsite electrical power for a reactor), external events that would lead to a prolonged loss of cooling, plant capabilities for preventing or dealing with such circumstances and emergency preparedness. The task force will provide status reports in public meetings May 12 and June 16 and recommendations at a July 19 public meeting.

Comments

jimwg said…
The Nine Inch FISSURE

Not to single out FoxNews since other media players have proven as "unprecise", but I'm almost amused when Fox's Japan reporter Dominic is echoing the alarmist news banners of the day about the doomsday leak, as though were talking about the Titanic's infamous 300 foot rip. Though Japan hasn't come out with the stats, I think in lieu the dimensions and volume of the trench involved, it's safe to assume there's no dam-busting Torrent roaring into the Pacific as cable news coyly speculates than prehaps several gallons per minute (how long would that take to empty your pool?). Wouldn't it behoove the media's passion for unbiased accuracy in information to mention such?

James Greenidge

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

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

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...