Skip to main content

Friday Update

By

From NEI’s Japan micro-site:

NRC, Industry Agree on Near-Term Actions at U.S. Reactors

October 7, 2011

Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues

  • U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Gregory Jaczko this week said the agency’s near-term priorities to supplement safety and emergency response at America’s nuclear energy facilities include revising existing rules to cover emergency preparedness at multi-reactor facilities and used nuclear fuel pool monitoring. A video of Jaczko’s remarks is available on the National Journal’s website. The nuclear energy industry agrees with the majority of issues identified for near-term action.
  • Tokyo Electric Power Co. said radiation is not suspected in the death an employee who became ill at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear energy facility and later died. TEPCO said it could not reveal the cause of death until authorities issued a death certificate. Two other Fukushima workers have died since stabilization efforts began at the Japanese reactor, neither from radiation exposure.
  • A Japanese government panel reviewing TEPCO’s finances said the utility is expected to pay $13.2 billion through March 2012 in compensation for damages and then $11.6 billion annually. The panel did not say how long the payments might continue. Additionally, the panel said TEPCO will have to cut 7,400 jobs and reduce costs by $32.5 billion over the next 10 years. The Japanese government will use the panel’s findings to help craft a plan for the company’s financial stability.
  • TEPCO started sprinkling decontaminated water on the premises of the Fukushima nuclear power plant, wetting down trees that been cut down in order to reduce the risk of fire. TEPCO says it now has stored 17,000 tons of such water, collected from two reactor turbine buildings and cleaned of salt and radioactive substances. TEPCO will continue to use about 100 tons of the water each day within the facility grounds.
  • The Hokuriku Electric Power Co. has started building a reinforced concrete seawall at its plant in west-central Japan. The project is in response to a government directive to enhance preparedness against tsunami damage at nuclear energy facilities. Workers at the facility also will install an extra pump to cool reactors and a power source to operate a valve for venting steam from containment.
  • Finland is the first country to announce plans for a new nuclear energy facility since the accident in Japan. Finnish nuclear power consortium Fennovoima said it would build a reactor in Pyhajoki in Northern Finland. Authorities said the new facility will help the country reduce its use of Russian natural gas and further support the forestry and metals industries.

Upcoming Events

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold its second hearing on the NRC’s post-Fukushima activities Nov. 3.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
All three fossil fuels are in terrible shape. Oil has peaked worldwide, and exports are down from 44 million barrels a day in 2005 to just 38 million barrels a day today, and falling fast. And more of those declining exports are going to China and India. In the U.S., Eurozone and Japan, per capita oil consumption is down 10% since 2006. Coal and natural gas, amazingly, are in just as bad shape!

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-05-17/debunking-shale-gale

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29919

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-05-13/peak-coal-year

It really is nuclear or nothing!
October 8, 2011 at 4:28 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

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