Skip to main content

Saturday Update

By

UPDATE AS OF 11:30 A.M. EDT, SATURDAY, APRIL 9:

Tokyo Electric Power Co. has increased its efforts to remove highly radioactive water that is slowing restoration of reactor cooling systems at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum reports.

For the last several days, TEPCO workers have been discharging low-level radioactive water from a storage tank to the Pacific Ocean to make room for highly contaminated water that has accumulated in the basements of reactor turbine buildings. After the discharge is complete, which is expected by Sunday, and after the storage tank has been inspected for possible earthquake damage, workers can begin to pump the radioactive water out of the turbine buildings.

Earlier this week, TEPCO sealed a crack in a concrete enclosure near reactor 2 that was allowing highly radioactive water to leak into the ocean. Since then, the utility has reported the water level in the enclosure has risen, but said it is not expected to overflow from the enclosure. TEPCO has not identified the source of the contaminated water.

Workers continue to use backup pumps to inject cooling water into reactors 1, 2 and 3 at the Fukushima Daiichi site. Spraying water onto the used fuel pools of reactors 1-4 continues on an as-needed basis. TEPCO also continues to inject nitrogen gas into the primary containment of reactor 1. The nitrogen will prevent possible ignition of hydrogen that may be accumulating in the containment.

TEPCO is preparing to fly a small, unmanned helicopter over the plant to take infrared photos of areas that have been out of reach. The photos may help the company plan its restoration work.

Overall, dose rates around the site continue to decline.

Labels:

Comments

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

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

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more