Skip to main content

Wednesday Update

By

From NEI’s Japan micro-site:

NRC Staff Proposes Priorities for Post-Fukushima Actions

October 5, 2011

Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues

  • A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff paper that prioritizes recommendations from the near-term post-Fukushima task force was released today. The document, which will be the basis for an Oct. 11 commission briefing, divides the recommendations into three “tiers.” The briefing will be webcast
  • Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency has ordered Tokyo Electric Power Co. to provide safety guidelines for its work to stabilize the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear energy facility. The agency said the main objective should be to prevent additional discharges of radioactive material and to reduce radiation levels at the plant over the next three years.
  • A reactor at the Genkai nuclear energy facility in western Japan shut down safely Tuesday because of abnormalities in the turbine generator steam condenser, a non-safety-related component. The operator of the plant, Kyushu Electric Power Co., reported no injuries and no change in radiation levels near the facility.
  • The government of Fukushima Prefecture has begun to train workers who will clean areas contaminated with radioactive material from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear energy facility. The two-day technical seminars are scheduled in various locations around the prefecture. Ten seminars are scheduled through the end of the year.
  • The Japanese government will check radiation levels in five municipalities outside the 12-mile no-entry zone around Fukushima Daiichi. On Friday, the government lifted its evacuation advisory for the municipalities, which are located between 12 and 18 miles from the nuclear energy facility. Decontamination continues in the areas and residents have not returned to their homes.

Media Highlights

  • U.S. nuclear energy facilities are built to withstand earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and other extreme natural events, Tony Pietrangelo, NEI’s senior vice president and chief nuclear officer, writes in a Real Clear Energy column. The comments also are posted on NEI’s Safety First website.

Upcoming Events

  • NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko will speak on lessons learned from Fukushima Oct. 24 at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C. Details are on the AAAS website.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
This post is absolutely correct. The fuel in the reactor spent fuel pools at Fukushima was never at any risk. Even with the massive hydrogen explosions in Units 1, 3, and 4, the spent fuel pool walls were sufficiently thick that the pools remained leak tight, with plenty of water inventory.

But the lack of instrumentation to measure and monitor the water level created unnecessary uncertainty about the status of the pools, and the concern about the potential for damage to the spent fuel led to resources being diverted to spray water into the pools, and to the unnecessary NRC recommendation for a 50-mile evacuation distance for U.S. citizens.

There were a number of "technical experts" with anti-nuclear positions who were interviewed by the media during the early phases of the accident who made a lot of incorrect claims about what was happening during the accident. This type of disinformation is very damaging, and that's why the NRC's decision to put improved spent fuel pool instrumentation at the top of the list is exactly the right thing to do.
October 7, 2011 at 11:39 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