From NEI’s Japan Earthquake launch page: UPDATE AS OF 11:30 A.M. EDT, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6: TEPCO has stopped a leak of highly radioactive water from the site into the Pacific Ocean. TEPCO had been trying various means to plug the leak in a concrete enclosure that carries electric cables since it was discovered Saturday. Pouring concrete and later an absorbent polymer into the enclosure were unsuccessful. On Monday, workers injected a colored liquid tracer into the system of enclosures to determine the flow path of the water. It showed that the radioactive water may be leaking from a cracked pipe, and then seeping through gravel into the concrete enclosure. Additional testing showed leakage from the crack in the enclosure into the ocean. Beginning yesterday, TEPCO injected approximately 1,600 gallons of liquid glass into the system, which stanched the flow of water. TEPCO is considering injecting more liquid glass into the area as a preventive measure. Workers continue to inject cooling water into reactors 1, 2 and 3 and to the used fuel storage pools at reactors 1-4. Radioactive water in the turbine buildings continues to hinder efforts to fully restore cooling functions. Some residents of the 20-kilometer (12.5-mile) evacuation zone around Fukushima Daiichi may be permitted brief visits to retrieve personal items from their homes. The Japanese government is analyzing radiation data and is expected to draft a plan for the visits. |
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...
Comments