Skip to main content

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site:

Fukushima City to Decontaminate 110,000 Residences

September 28, 2011

Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues

  • Fukushima City plans to remove radioactive materials from private houses, parks and meeting venues in the city. The plan includes decontamination of all 110,000 residences in the city over two years, with emphasis on households with children. Cleaners will scrub roofs, remove concrete and decontaminate ditches.
  • Japan’s Atomic Energy Commission is resuming its discussions on revisions to the country’s nuclear policy, which were started last year and interrupted by the events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear energy facility. The commission has added new members with expertise in safety. The country’s policy on nuclear energy was developed in 1956 and has been revised roughly every five years since.
  • The Makinohara City Assembly has called for the permanent shutdown of a local nuclear energy facility unless its safety can be guaranteed. The city is within 6.5 miles of Chubu Electric’s Hamaoka nuclear power station. Three of the facility’s five reactors were shut down following the accident at Fukushima Daiichi. The other two had already been taken off line for decommissioning.

New Products

  • The Tennessee Valley Authority’s Browns Ferry nuclear energy facility withstood a historic spate of tornadoes earlier this year, shutting off external electricity to the plant. Managers at the facility talk about safety measures in a new report on NEI’s Safety First website.

Media Highlights

  • Japan’s government will have to remove and store as much as 29 million cubic meters of contaminated soil as cleanup progresses after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, Reuters reports.
  • Radiation levels approaching the government-set safety limit have been detected in rice harvested In Nihonmatsu, a city near Fukushima Daiichi, the Yomiuri Shimbun reports. Rice grown in the city will be subjected to additional testing.

Upcoming Events

  • The NRC commissioners will be briefed on prioritization of long-term recommendations from its Japan task force in a public meeting Oct. 11. The briefing will be webcast.
  • NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko will participate in an Oct. 4 American Nuclear Society/NRC live online webinar for nuclear bloggers. Participants may submit questions in advance to BlogMtg1.Resource@nrc.gov.
  • Jaczko also will speak on the global implications of the Fukushima accident Oct. 5 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. More information is at the National Journal’s event website.

Comments

Anonymous said…
A dumm question: does the area that the Japanese ministry is estimating they will have to remove seem correct to you, given that they are limiting to 5 milliSieverts per year above background, and that they are estimating average background as 2.4 milliSieverts per year? Based on their radiation map & the MEXT monitoring readings, I can't get this to work. When you allow for buildings and roads (which have to be washed, but no soil removal is required), the estimate of tons to be removed also seems out of line? Furthermore, the article says that soil is only to be removed in towns. If they decontaminated the entire 30 km exclusion zone, which is roughly semicircular, it would be 1400 km2. 7.4 milliSieverts per year, is about 0.85 microSieverts per hour, if I am doing this correctly. Granted, there is a large spike extending up to Fukushima City outside the 30 km ring that is contaminated, but also there are a lot of areas inside the ring that are below 0.85 microSieverts per hour at this point?

Do you think their figures are correct?



I'd love to see the basis of their calculations spelled out.
jimwg said…
>> Fukushima City plans to remove
>> radioactive materials from private
>> houses, parks and meeting venues
>> in the city.

In lieu life long doing just okay in high radiation background locales far in excess of Fukushima, is this fanaticism really necessary? Really?

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…