Skip to main content

Home/ Open Intelligence / Energy/ Group items tagged processing

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
D'coda Dcoda

It's 2050: Do you know where your nuclear waste is? [09Sep11] - 1 views

bos.sagepub.com/...30.full

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 09 Sep 11 - No Cached
  • Though nuclear power produces electricity with little in the way of carbon dioxide emissions, it, like other energy sources, is not without its own set of waste products. And in the case of nuclear power, most of these wastes are radioactive.1 Some very low level nuclear wastes can be stored and then disposed of in landfill-type settings. Other nuclear waste must remain sequestered for a few hundred years in specially engineered subsurface facilities; this is the case with low level waste, which is composed of low concentrations of long-lived radionuclides and higher concentrations of short-lived ones. Intermediate and high-level waste both require disposal hundreds of meters under the Earth’s surface, where they must remain out of harm’s way for thousands to hundreds of thousands of years (IAEA, 2009). Intermediate level wastes are not heat-emitting, but contain high concentrations of long-lived radionuclides. High-level wastes, including spent nuclear fuel and wastes from the reprocessing of spent fuel, are both heat-emitting and highly radioactive.
  • When it comes to the severity of an accident at a nuclear facility, there may be little difference between those that occur at the front end of the nuclear power production and those at the back end: An accident involving spent nuclear fuel can pose a threat as disastrous as that posed by reactor core meltdowns. In particular, if spent fuel pools are damaged or are not actively cooled, a major crisis could be in sight, especially if the pools are packed with recently discharged spent fuel.
  • Elements of success
  • ...17 more annotations...
  • All countries with well-established nuclear programs have found themselves requiring spent fuel storage in addition to spent fuel pools at reactors. Some, like the US, use dry storage designs, such as individual casks or storage vaults that are located at reactor sites; other countries, Germany for one, use away-from-reactor facilities. Sweden has a large underground pool located at a centralized facility, CLAB, to which different reactors send their spent fuel a year after discharge, so spent fuel does not build up at reactor sites. Dry storage tends to be cheaper and can be more secure than wet storage because active circulation of water is not required. At the same time, because dry storage uses passive air cooling, not the active cooling that is available in a pool to keep the fuel cool, these systems can only accept spent fuel a number of years after discharge.6
  • The United States had been working toward developing a high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada; this fell through in 2010, when the Obama administration decided to reverse this decision, citing political “stalemate” and lack of public consensus about the site. Instead, the Obama administration instituted the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to rethink the management of the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle.8 The US can flaunt one success, though. The Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP), located near Carlsbad in southern New Mexico, is actually the only operating deep geologic repository for intermediate level nuclear waste, receiving waste since 1998. In the case of WIPP, it only accepts transuranic wastes from the nuclear weapons complex. The site is regulated solely by the Environmental Protection Agency, and the state of New Mexico has partial oversight of WIPP through its permitting authority established by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The city of Carlsbad is supportive of the site and it appears to be tolerated by the rest of the state.9
  • France has had more success after failing in its first siting attempt in 1990, when a granite site that had been selected drew large protests and the government opted to rethink its approach to nuclear waste disposal entirely. In 2006, the government announced that it needed a geologic repository for high-level waste, identified at least one suitable area, and passed laws requiring a license application to be submitted by 2015 and the site to begin receiving high-level waste by 2025.
  • Canada recently rethought the siting process for nuclear waste disposal and began a consensus-based participatory process. The Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Organization was established in 2002, after previous attempts to site a repository failed. The siting process began with three years’ worth of conversations with the public on the best method to manage spent fuel. The organization is now beginning to solicit volunteer communities to consider a repository, though much of the process remains to be decided, including the amount and type of compensation given to the participating communities.
  • the most difficult part of the back end of the fuel cycle is siting the required facilities, especially those associated with spent fuel management and disposal. Siting is not solely a technical problem—it is as much a political and societal issue. And to be successful, it is important to get the technical and the societal and political aspects right.
  • After weathering the Fukushima accident, and given the current constraints on carbon dioxide emissions and potential for growth of nuclear power, redefinition of a successful nuclear power program is now required: It is no longer simply the safe production of electricity but also the safe, secure, and sustainable lifecycle of nuclear power, from the mining of uranium ores to the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. If this cannot be achieved and is not thought out from the beginning, then the public in many countries will reject nuclear as an energy choice.
  • Certain elements—including an institution to site, manage, and operate waste facilities—need to be in place to have a successful waste management program. In some countries, this agency is entirely a government entity, such as the Korea Radioactive Waste Management Organization. In other countries, the agency is a corporation established by the nuclear industry, such as SKB in Sweden or Posiva Oy in Finland. Another option would be a public– private agency, such as Spain’s National Company for Radioactive Waste or Switzerland’s National Cooperative for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste.
  • Funding is one of the most central needs for such an institution to carry out research and development programs; the money would cover siting costs, including compensation packages and resources for local communities to conduct their own analyses of spent fuel and waste transportation, storage, repository construction, operations, security and safeguards, and future liabilities. Funds can be collected in a number of ways, such as putting a levy on electricity charges (as is done in the US) or charging based on the activity or volume of waste (Hearsey et al., 1999). Funds must also be managed—either by a waste management organization or another industry or government agency—in a way that ensures steady and ready access to funds over time. This continued reliable access is necessary for planning into the future for repository operations.
  • the siting process must be established. This should include decisions on whether to allow a community to veto a site and how long that veto remains operational; the number of sites to be examined in depth prior to site selection and the number of sites that might be required; technical criteria to begin selecting potential sites; non-technical considerations, such as proximity to water resources, population centers, environmentally protected areas, and access to public transportation; the form and amount of compensation to be offered; how the public is invited to participate in the site selection process; and how government at the federal level will be involved.
  • The above are all considerations in the siting process, but the larger process—how to begin to select sites, whether to seek only volunteers, and so on—must also be determined ahead of time. A short list of technical criteria must be integrated into a process that establishes public consent to go forward, followed by many detailed studies of the site—first on the surface, then at depth. There are distinct advantages to characterizing more than one site in detail, as both Sweden and Finland have done. Multiple sites allow the “best” one to be selected, increasing public approval and comfort with the process.
  • he site needs to be evaluated against a set of standards established by a government agency in the country. This agency typically is the environmental agency or the nuclear regulatory agency. The type of standards will constrain the method by which a site will be evaluated with regard to its future performance. A number of countries use a combination of methods to evaluate their sites, some acknowledging that the ability to predict processes and events that will occur in a repository decrease rapidly with each year far into the future, so that beyond a few thousand years, little can be said with any accuracy. These countries use what is termed a “safety case,” which includes multiple lines of evidence to assure safe repository performance into the future.
  • Moving forward
  • France, Canada, and Germany also have experienced a number of iterations of repository siting, some with more success than others. In the 1970s, Germany selected the Gorleben site for its repository; however, in the late 1990s, with the election of a Red–Green coalition government (the Greens had long opposed Gorleben), a rethinking of repository siting was decreed, and the government established the AkEnd group to re-evaluate the siting process. Their report outlined a detailed siting process starting from scratch, but to date too much political disagreement exists to proceed further.
  • Notes
  • Nuclear wastes are classified in various ways, depending on the country or organization doing the classification. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) notes six general categories of waste produced by civil nuclear power reactors: exempt waste, very short-lived waste, and very low level waste can be stored and then disposed of in landfill-type settings; low level waste, intermediate level waste, and high-level waste require more complex facilities for disposal.
  • Sweden is currently the country closest to realizing a final solution for spent fuel, after having submitted a license application for construction of a geologic repository in March 2011. It plans to open a high-level waste repository sometime after 2025, as do Finland and France.
  • Some countries, such as Sweden, Finland, Canada, and, until recently, the US, plan to dispose of their spent fuel directly in a geologic repository. A few others, such as France, Japan, Russia, and the UK have an interim step. They reprocess their spent fuel, extract the small amount of plutonium produced during irradiation, and use it in new mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. Then they plan to dispose of the high-level wastes from reprocessing in a repository.
D'coda Dcoda

Experts split on how to decommission Fukushima nuclear plant [29Aug11] - 0 views

mdn.mainichi.jp/...20110828p2a00m0na002000c.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 30 Aug 11 - No Cached
  • What is actually going to take place at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant, where word is that the four reactors that were crippled in the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami will eventually be decommissioned? The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) defines "decommissioning" as the process of removing spent fuel from reactors and dismantling all facilities. Ultimately, the site of a decommissioned reactor is meant to be reverted into a vacant lot.
  • In 1996, the then Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) -- now the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) -- finished decommissioning its Japan Power Demonstration Reactor. The decommissioning process of the Tokai Nuclear Power Plant in the Ibaraki Prefecture village of Tokai began in 1998 and is set to end in fiscal 2020, while the No. 1 and No. 2 nuclear reactors at the Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant in the Shizuoka Prefecture city of Omaezaki are slated for decommissioning by fiscal 2036. Around the world, only around 15 nuclear reactors have thus far been dismantled.
  • The standard decommissioning process entails six major steps: 1. Remove spent fuel rods, 2. Remove radioactive materials that have become affixed to reactor pipes and containers, 3. Wait for radiation levels to go down with time, 4. Dismantle reactors and other internal vessels and pipes, 5. Dismantle the reactor buildings, and 6. Make the site into a vacant lot.
  • ...17 more annotations...
  • "Cleaning," "waiting," and "dismantling" are the three key actions in this process. Needless to say, this all needs to be done while simultaneously containing radioactive materials.
  • In the case of the Tokai Nuclear Power Plant, the first commercial plant to undergo decommissioning, spent fuel was removed over a span of three years beginning in 1998, and was transported to Britain for reprocessing. Dismantling of the facilities began in 2001, with current efforts being made toward the dismantling of heat exchangers; workers have not yet begun to take the reactor itself apart. The entire process is expected to be an 88.5-billion-yen project involving 563,000 people.
  • Hitachi Ltd., which manufactures nuclear reactors, says that it "generally takes about 30 years" to decommission a reactor. The Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant's No. 1 and No. 2 reactors operated by Chubu Electric Power Co. are also expected to take about 30 years before they are decommissioned.
  • In the case of the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant, meanwhile, the biggest challenge lies in how to remove the fuel, says Tadashi Inoue, a research advisor at the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI), a foundation that conducts research on energy and environmental issues in relation to the electrical power industry.
  • "we must deal with rubble contaminated with radioactive materials that were scattered in the hydrogen blasts and treat the radiation-tainted water being used to cool nuclear fuel before we can go on to fuel removal."
  • Currently, the Fukushima plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), is desperately trying to treat the contaminated water. Huge challenges remain with regards to the contaminated rubble, as radiation levels of over 10 sieverts per hour were found near outdoor pipes on the plant grounds just the other day. Exposure to such high levels would mean death for most people.
  • Each step in the process toward decommissioning is complicated and requires great numbers of people. It's a race against time because the maximum amount of radiation that workers can be exposed to is 250 millisieverts.
  • Prefacing the following as "a personal opinion," Inoue says: "Building a car that can protect the people inside as much as possible from radioactive materials, and attaching an industrial robotic arm to the car that can be manipulated by those people could be one way to go about it."
  • Two types of fuel removal must take place. One is to take out the spent fuel in the containment pools, and the other is to remove the melted fuel from the reactor cores. Because the radiation levels of the water in the spent fuel pools have not shown any significant changes from before the crisis, it is believed that the spent fuel has not suffered much damage. However, removing it will require repairing and reinstalling cranes to hoist the fuel rods out.
  • The breached reactor core is a bigger problem. It is believed that raising water levels inside the reactor has been difficult because of a hole in the bottom of the vessel. It will be necessary to plug the hole, and continue filling the vessel with water while extracting the melted fuel. How to fill the vessel with water is still being debated. If the reactor can be filled with water, steps taken after the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident can serve as a guide because in that case, in which approximately 50 percent of the core had melted, workers were able to fill the reactor with water and remove the fuel within.
  • Inoue predicts that removal of spent fuel from the containment pools will begin about five years after the crisis, and about 10 years in the case of melted fuel from the reactor core. Work on the four reactors at the Fukushima plant will probably take several years.
  • "Unless we look at the actual reactors and take and analyze fuel samples, we can't know for sure," Inoue adds. Plus, even if workers succeed in removing the fuel, reprocessing it is an even more difficult task. A review of processing methods and storage sites, moreover, has yet to take place.
  • Meanwhile, at least one expert says he doesn't believe that workers will be able to remove the melted fuel from the crippled plant.
  • "If there's 10 sieverts per hour of radiation outside, then the levels must be much higher closer to the reactor core," says Tadahiro Katsuta, an associate professor at Meiji University and an expert in reactor engineering and reactor policy who was once a member of an anti-nuclear non-profit organization called Citizens' Nuclear Information Center (CNIC). "The fuel has melted, and we haven't been able to cool it consistently. If work is begun five or 10 years from now when radiation levels have not yet sufficiently gone down, workers' health could be at serious risk."
  • Katsuta predicts that it will probably take at least 10 years just to determine whether it is possible to remove the fuel. He adds that it could very well take 50 years before the task of dismantling the reactor and other facilities is completed.
  • What Katsuta has in mind is a Chernobyl-style concrete sarcophagus, which would entail cloaking the melted tomb with massive amounts of concrete. "How could we simultaneously dismantle four reactors that have been contaminated to the extent that they have by radioactive materials?" asks Katsuta. "Japan has little experience in decommissioning reactors, and this case is quite different from standard decommissioning processes. It's not realistic to think we can revert the site back to a vacant lot. I think we should be considering options such as entombing the site with concrete or setting up a protective dome over the damaged reactor buildings
  • what we face is a great unknown to all of mankind.
D'coda Dcoda

Research and Markets: Nuclear Regulatory Frameworks - Fuel Processing and Waste Disposa... - 0 views

www.benzinga.com/...rameworks-fuel-processing-and-

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 17 Jul 11 - No Cached
  • Research and Markets (http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/b6d3ce/nuclear_regulatory) has announced the addition of the "Nuclear Regulatory Frameworks - Fuel Processing and Waste Disposal Policies Critical for Industry Growth" report to their offering. Nuclear Regulatory Frameworks - Fuel Processing and Waste Disposal Policies Critical for Industry Growth, that provides an insight into the nuclear regulatory frameworks of the major nuclear power countries of the world. The study, which is an offering from the company's Energy Research Group, provides information about the major nuclear agencies and associations across the world, major nuclear treaties and protocols and comparison between different countries on the basis of selected parameters which define the presence of nuclear power in a country. The research also provides the nuclear policy, regulatory frameworks, key nuclear policies and regulations and also the major nuclear affiliations for major nuclear power generating countries in each of the five geographic regions. The report is built using the data and information sourced from proprietary databases, primary and secondary research and in-house analysis by a team of industry experts.
  • Carbon Emission Reduction Protocol to Play an Important Role in Nuclear Policies Formulation
  • Improved Nuclear Waste Disposal Policy Instrumental in Revitalizing the Nuclear Industry
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Most of the countries either use large repository or reprocess the fuel as a mean to dispose the nuclear waste. The following table shows the list of different countries and their ways for disposing the radioactive waste. Nuclear Non- Proliferation Makes Way for Peaceful and Non-Power Applications
  • The nuclear energy is used in transport application, in medicines and in industries as radioisotopes, in space exploration programs, in nuclear desalination, in nuclear heat process and in other research programs.
  • Scope Overview of the global nuclear power industry Analysis of the historical trends of nuclear capacity and generation until 2009. Description of the various nuclear agencies and associations, globally and by region. Description of the various nuclear treaties and protocols. Analysis of the nuclear energy policy of the major countries in all geographic regions Analysis of the regulatory frameworks in major countries of different geographic regions including North America, South and Central America, Europe, Middle East and Africa and Asia Pacific.
  • Reasons to Buy
  • D'coda Dcoda on 17 Jul 11
     
    This is the competition? This report on nuclear industry, at a price. First one I've seen so far.
D'coda Dcoda

EnergySoultions Contracts with Studsvik for Nuclear Waste Processing [10Feb11] - 0 views

nuclearstreet.com/...r-waste-processing-021002.aspx

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 23 Jul 11 - No Cached
  • EnergySolutions Inc. is making a deal with a Sweden-based competitor, Studsvik, to dispose of solid nuclear waste in Utah. The Deseret News of Salt Lake City reported Tuesday that EnergySolutions signed a contract in December with Studsvik Inc. That's a U.S. subsidiary of Sweden's Studsvik Holding.
  • The plan is to use the company's THOR (Thermal volume/Weight Reduction Technology) to process nuclear power plant waste into solid form rather than a mix of powdery, radioactive resins.
  • Studsvik's patented technology features a pyrolysis / steam reforming system to volume and mass reduce organic waste streams to a non-reactive waste form for efficient Disposal or On-site Storage. Bead Resins, Powdered Filter Medias, Sludges, Activated Charcoal, Non-Metal Filter Cartridges, and Dry Active Wastes (DAW) all have been successfully processed. This entire process is referred to as Thermal Organic Reduction or THOR.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • After processing at Studsvik's facility in Erwin, Tenn., the waste will be disposed of at EnergySolutions' plant in Tooele County, about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City.
  • Officials say the final product doesn't exceed the low-level class A radioactivity limits that the EnergySolutions Utah facility is licensed to accept
D'coda Dcoda

How safe is India's nuclear energy programme? [23Aug11] - 0 views

www.livemint.com/...w-safe-is-India8217s-nucl.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 28 Aug 11 - No Cached
  • The March nuclear disaster in Fukushima in Japan led countries with nuclear power plants to revisit safety measures. The International Atomic Energy Agency constituted a global expert fact-finding mission to the island nation. The purpose of the mission was to ascertain facts and identify initial lessons to be learned for sharing with the nuclear community.
  • The mission submitted its report in June and the report stated in clear terms that “there were insufficient defence for tsunami hazards. Tsunami hazards that were considered in 2002 were underestimated. Additional protective measures were not reviewed and approved by the regulatory authority. Severe accident management provisions were not adequate to cope with multiple plant failures”.
  • Further, on the regulatory environment the report states: “Japan has a well organized emergency preparedness and response system as demonstrated by the handling of the Fukushima accident. Nevertheless, complicated structures and organizations can result in delays in urgent decision making.” The inability to foresee such extreme scenarios is a forewarning to countries that are expanding nuclear capacity at a frenzied pace.
  • ...13 more annotations...
  • For India, this is a lesson and an exceptional opportunity to relook at the protected structures of the department of atomic energy (DAE), and establish more transparent processes and procedures.
  • In the past, the Three Mile Island incident (1979) and Chernobyl accident (1986) had provided similar opportunities to evaluate nuclear safety and regulatory systems. India, in response to these incidents, constituted safety audits to assess the safety of nuclear power plants. However, A. Gopalakrishnan, (a former chairman of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) in his recent article said, “DAE management classified these audit reports as ‘top secret’ and shelved them. No action was taken on the committee’s findings.”
  • If this is so, these reports, or at least action-taken reports, ought to have been published and made available. Such steps could have guaranteed DAE considerable public faith in the functioning of regulatory authorities and given significant confidence in engaging with stakeholders in the present expansion plan.
  • Nuclear Power Corp. of India Ltd, post-Fukushima has undertaken safety evaluation of 20 operating power plants and nuclear power plants under construction. The inm report titled Safety Evaluation of Indian Nuclear Power Plants Post Fukushima Incident suggested a series of safety measures that must be incorporated in all the audited nuclear power plants in a time-bound manner. Measures pertain to strengthening technical and power systems, automatic reactor shutdown on sensing seismic activity, enhancement of tsunami bunds at all coastal stations, etc.
  • However, in the same breath, the report provides assurance by stating that, “adequate provisions exist at Indian nuclear power plants to handle station blackout situations and maintain continuous cooling of reactor cores for decay heat removal”. Further, the reports recalls, “the incidents at Indian nuclear power plants, like prolonged loss of power supplies at Narora plant in 1993, flood incident at Kakrapar plant in 1994 and tsunami at Madras (Chennai) plant in 2004 were managed successfully with existing provisions.”
  • DAE’s official response, post-Fukushima, has been cautious while providing assurance. Separately, DAE has made it clear the nuclear energy programme will continue as planned after incorporating the additional safety features identified by the safety audit report.
  • Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his speech two days ago in West Bengal was emphatic about the future of India’s nuclear energy programme. He said that “there would be no looking back on nuclear energy. We are in the process of expanding our civil nuclear energy programme. Even as we do so, we have to ensure that the use of nuclear energy meets the highest safety standards. This is a matter on which there can be no compromise”.
  • S. Banerjee, chairman of Atomic Energy Commission and secretary DAE at the International Atomic Energy Agency Ministerial Conference on Safety, categorically said: “India’s effort has been to achieve continuous improvement and innovation in nuclear safety with the basic principle being, safety first, production next.” This is important at a time when we are in the process of expanding nuclear capacity at an incredible pace.
  • Currently, there are several domestic and international power projects in the pipeline. DAE has projected 20,000MWe (megawatt electric) by 2020 from present 4,780MWe, a fourfold increase from the current production. Going further, Banerjee stated that India hopes to achieve targets exceeding 30,000MWe by 2020 and 60,000MWe by 2032. This is a tall order, considering our experience in executing major infrastructure projects. DAE has struggled in the past to achieve targets.
  • Execution of these targets is to be achieved by importing high-capacity reactors and through DAE’s own programme. As we see greater activity in the nuclear energy sector?which was traditionally not transparent in engaging with the public?the trust deficit could only widen as we expand the programme
  • Land acquisition is already a major concern for infrastructure projects and has become an issue at the proposed Jaitapur nuclear power plant as well. However, the biggest challenge in this expansion would be to convince the public of the safety and security of nuclear power plants and also arrive at a comprehensive information and communication package for states in whose territory projects are being executed. Because of the nature of India’s nuclear programme?the combined existence of civilian and military programmes?the nation may not be in a position to achieve the kind of regulatory autonomy, process and engagement that has been witnessed in many European countries and in the US.
  • The bifurcation of India’s nuclear establishment into civilian and military, subsequent to commitment under India-US civil nuclear cooperation has provided with the prospect of an empowered regulatory system.
  • Incidents in Jaitapur and the Fukushima nuclear disaster have further pushed the government to commit to establish an independent nuclear regulator, the Bill of which is expected to be in Parliament any time this year. Nuclear programme is likely to face more complex issues in the future with respect to environment, social and health. Neighbouring countries may also join the chorus soon since some of the proposed nuclear power plant sites are close to our borders
D'coda Dcoda

Tokyo Metropolitan Government Will Accept and Burn Disaster Debris from Tohoku, Renews ... - 0 views

ex-skf.blogspot.com/...ropolitan-government-will.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 29 Sep 11 - No Cached
  • First, the Tokyo government didn't tell anyone that they started dumping the radioactive ashes in the landfill in the Tokyo Bay in May. And now, without bothering asking the citizens, again, it will start bringing the disaster debris from Tohoku that are likely to be radioactive and burn in Tokyo.
  • NHK News (9/29/2011):
  • The Tokyo Metropolitan government has decided to bring in the disaster debris from Iwate prefecture to Tokyo and burn them, and will sign an agreement with the Iwate prefectural government on September 30.
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • In the disaster-affected areas in Tohoku, the amount of debris from tsunami is simply too huge for the affected municipalities to process by themselves. The national government has requested the prefectures and municipalities not affected by the disaster to take the debris and process. Responding to the request, the Tokyo Metropolitan government has decided to accept the debris from Iwate Prefecture for 2 and a half years till March 2014, and will sign an agreement with the Iwate prefectural government on September 30.
  • As to the "safe" level of burying the radioactive ashes and debris, that's totally meaningless now that the Ministry of Environment has allowed the burial of just about anything, even the ashes that measures over 100,000 becquerels/kg of cesium, as long as there are measures in place at the processing facilities that will prevent the leakage.
  • The Tokyo Metropolitan government will conduct public bidding to decide which contractors will get to process (incinerate) the disaster debris before starting to accept debris from Miyako City in Iwate Prefecture starting next month. The debris will arrive in Tokyo in containers by rail. Radioactive materials will be measured when the debris are shipped, and when they are burned. After incineration, the ashes will be buried in the landfill beyond Aomi in Koto-ku.
  • The landfill beyond Aomi, Koto-ku is the same one in the Tokyo Bay that the Tokyo Metropolitan government has been dumping the radioactive ashes since May. (See my 9/13/2011 post.)
  • According to the government, the density of radioactive materials measured on the debris and in the ashes from burning the debris in Miyako City was lower than the national standard to allow burying. Outside Tohoku, Tokyo will be the first to accept the disaster debris from Tohoku. The Tokyo government plans to accept the total of about 500,000 tonnes of debris. The Metropolitan bureau of environment says "We want to contribute to the recovery and rebuilding of the disaster-affected areas".
  • Apparently, when the Tokyo Metropolitan government answered questions from the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly on September 28, it was already a done deal. Assemblyman Hirofumi Yanagase, who has been active in alerting the citizens about dangerous radiation levels at sludge plants and waste incinerators in his district in Tokyo, fumes (link is in Japanese):"The government said during the question and answer session in the Assembly on September 28 that the details were still being worked out. But then less than half a day later they announced a concrete plan of accepting 1,000 tonnes of debris from Iwate Prefecture by the middle of November."
  • NHK also reports that the Tokyo will launch the campaign to invite the 2020 Summer Olympics to Tokyo but with the reduced budget, after the lavish and unsuccessful campaign by Governor Ishihara the last time (for 2016) was heavily criticized. Now Isihara says he will only use 7 billion yen (US$91.5 million) of taxpayers' money instead of 14 billion yen he spent the last time.
  • Oh and the national government now wants Tokyo and 7 other Prefectures in Kanto and Tohoku (Fukushima, Miyagi, Iwate, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Gunma, Chiba) to build intermediate storage facilities of highly contaminated soil in their own prefectures, according to Yomiuri Shinbun (9/28/2011). Half of Tohoku and most of Kanto are to have a nuclear waste dump, and Tokyo wants to invite Olympics
D'coda Dcoda

Turbine hall comes down at Bradwell [04Aug11] - 0 views

www.world-nuclear-news.org/_down_at_Bradwell-0408114.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 19 Sep 11 - No Cached
  • The turbine hall at the shut down Bradwell nuclear power plant in Essex, UK, is being demolished as part of the plant's decommissioning. The hall is the largest single building on the site. Meanwhile, an innovative process is being used to clean the site's used fuel pool.   The Bradwell site hosts two 125 MWe Magnox gas-cooled reactors, which operated between 1962 and 2002.
  • The turbine hall - about the size of a football pitch and some 15 metres tall - was originally constructed in the 1950s and used to house the plant's nine turbine generators.
  • Work has already been carried out to strip off the metal sheeting covering the building to reveal its main structure. Ancillary buildings on the Bradwell site - including the auxiliary turbine hall, the main control room, the water treatment plant and the battery room - have already been demolished.   Over 100 tonnes of dangerous asbestos has been removed from the hall, while more than 6000 tonnes of metal has been removed and sent for recycling.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • With over 100,000 man-hours of work having already been conducted by Magnox Ltd and its contractor Erith, the next stage is to demolish the main structure, which is expected to be completed by mid-September. The entire project is set to be completed in November.   Magnox Ltd, which manages the site on behalf of the UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), said that demolition "marks a significant milestone towards reaching care and maintenance on the site, which will see it placed into passive storage in 2015."
  • The 'care and maintenance' stage of decommissioning is when the reactor buildings are placed in a passive state, known as Safestore, and are monitored and maintained until the site is completely cleared in about 65 years' time, by which time the residual radioactivity will have decreased significantly.
  • Brian Burnett, head of the Magnox program at the NDA, said, "Accelerating care and maintenance, whilst challenging, is an important element of delivering improved value for money." He added, "The demolition of the turbine hall at Bradwell is a significant decommissioning milestone."
  • Freeze and thaw   Meanwhile, the Bradwell site has become the first in the UK to use a 'freeze dredging' process, developed in conjunction with FriGeo of Sweden, to remove sludge from the site's used fuel storage pool. The process works by freezing small amounts of waste whilst the equipment is submerged in the pond water. The frozen mass is then thawed to separate out the sludge and debris. The process of thawing and dewatering reduces the moisture content of the contaminated materials, thereby minimizing waste volumes.
  • The system allows the team operating the machinery to work remotely from the pool area, with the help of cameras and hoists, resulting in a much lower radiological hazard working environment.   Magnox said that the first drum of captured waste had successfully been filled in late July. Up to a further 60 drums are expected to be filled by the end of October
  • The FriGeo method of freeze dredging has previously been used to remove oil-polluted sludge from the bottom of bodies of water.
  • D'coda Dcoda on 19 Sep 11
     
    re: decommissioning a nuclear plant & new method
D'coda Dcoda

Babcock to tackle Berkeley waste - UK [01Sep11] - 4 views

www.world-nuclear-news.org/le_Berkeley_waste-0109114.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 19 Sep 11 - No Cached
  • Babcock has been awarded a contract by Magnox for an intermediate-level waste (ILW) retrieval and processing project at the Berkeley site in the UK.
  • The contract has been awarded under the Magnox ILW Management Program, for which a framework contract was awarded to Babcock by Magnox in February 2011. ILW comprises a range of material including debris from the fuel elements, resins, sludges and graphite.
  • The initial contracted phase involves concept design through to completion of the engineering design. Phase two will include the detail design, manufacture, integrated works testing, installation and inactive and active commissioning. Once the equipment has been formally accepted, the third and final phase of the project will cover the operation of the installed plant to remove the fuel element debris, and carry out the sorting and packaging into the appropriate containers.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Under the new contract, Babcock will be undertaking ILW retrieval and processing of the fuel element debris from the Active Waste Vault 2 at the Berkeley site. The £14 million ($23 million) project will take some four years to complete.   Babcock said that key areas to be addressed under the contract include the fuel element debris retrieval from Vault 2 and the waste transfer module which will facilitate the transport of the waste to the sorting module, where low-level waste (LLW) and ILW can be separated. The waste can then be prepared for packaging in containers.
  • Babcock said that it is "one of six companies to be awarded a framework contract for ILW retrieval and processing work across all the Magnox sites, and one of only three to have secured a contract for both solid and wet wastes." The value of the framework contract (within which individual projects are competed) is expected to be £300 million ($480 million) over ten years. The company noted that the Berkeley contract is one of the first projects to be competed under this framework.   Nuvia Ltd - which has also been appointed by Magnox to the framework contract - was awarded a contract in late June for the retrieval and processing of ILW from the chute silo at the Berkeley site. The contract pertains to the retrieval of "miscellaneous activated components" from the silo and packing them into shielded containers.
  • In December 2010, the two Magnox reactors at Berkeley became the first UK units to be placed in Safestore, a passive state during which they will be monitored and maintained until the site is completely cleared in about 65 years' time. With the fuel already having been removed from the reactors, final dismantlement is scheduled to begin in 2074, by which time the residual radioactivity will have decreased significantly.
Dan R.D.

TOWARD REAL ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY BY MOLECULAR NANOTECHNOLOGY - 0 views

www.tainano.com/...LITY%20BY%20NANOTECHNOLOGY.htm

nanotechnology disposal storage nuclear

shared by Dan R.D. on 28 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • Dan R.D. on 28 Oct 11
     
    2.2.5. Nuclear Wastes MNT cannot treat nuclear wastes and render them harmless directly, for MNT only work with atoms and molecules, not nuclei.  Yet indirectly, by lowering the cost of energy and equipment, MNT can offer us the means for a clean, permanent solution to the untreatable nuclear wastes left over from the nuclear era. Nuclear wastes can be collected, concentrated by specific nanobots. Products of MNT could help with conventional approaches to dealing with nuclear waste, helping to store it in the most stable, reliable forms possible.  Using nanomachines, we could seal them in self-sealing containers and powered by cheap nano-solar energy (10).  These would be more secure than any passive rock or cask.  When MNT has developed cheap, reliable spacecraft, the concentrated nuclear wastes can be transported to the moon and bury them in moon's dead, dry rock by nanobots, or to other planets that still radioactive, or even shoot them directly into the sun. Underground nano-atom smasher powered by cheap solar cells can also be devised to treat nuclear wastes. This is a reverse process of nuclear engineering.  Instead of smashing nonradioactive target and harvesting for radioactive substance, the nanomachine will smash radioactive target and harvest for nonradioactive substance.  The smashing and harvesting process will continue stability is achieved.  Fig. 9 illustrates a few routes for resolving nuclear waste piles that accumulated in the environment and TDBT is at loss on dealing with them.
D'coda Dcoda

Whistleblower on MSNBC: Criticality possible at Hanford - We could end up with explosio... - 0 views

enenews.com/ase-radioactive-material-video

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 18 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • Whistleblower pays price for voicing nuke safety concerns, MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show, Dec. 15, 2011: Dr. Walter Tamosaitis, Research & Technology Manager for the Waste Treatment Plant processing Hanford’s radioactive waste Walt Tamosaitis, nuclear waste whistleblower and Tom Carpenter, attorney and executive director of the non-profit group Hanford Challenge, talks with Rachel Maddow about safety concerns at the site and the penalties he has suffered as a consequence of speaking about his concerns.
  • Transcript Excerpts At ~7:00 in MADDOW: Dr. Tamosaitis, can you describe your safety concerns at Hanford [nuclear waste facility in Washington] for the non-nuclear engineers among us? TAMOSAITIS: Yes, ma`am. The major concern is poor mixing in the vessels, the tanks that process the hazardous nuclear waste. And if you have poor mixing in the tank, you can build up solids, the solids can trap hydrogen gas. You can have solids build up on the bottom of the tank which can lead to a criticality. So, trapping a hydrogen gas can lead to a fire or an explosion. And the solids buildup could lead to a criticality.
  • At ~9:45 in MADDOW: In terms of — Dr. Tamosaitis, let me go back to you. In terms of your safety concerns and, again, speaking to a public that may not be, including myself, all that familiar with the processes you`re describing there, what is the greatest risk that you think is possible here based on corners that you`ve seen cut? Are we looking at something that could be more than the kind of leaks that Hanford has already experienced? Are we talking about something that could be a larger release of radioactive material? TAMOSAITIS: Yes, ma`am. Yes, Rachel, we are. If we have poor mixing, we could trap hydrogen gas, we could end up with a fire or explosion, as we saw on the TV at Fukushima in Japan.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Note the interesting exchange during Tomasitis’ recent Senate testimony at around 3:00 in DR. WALTER TAMOSAITIS, URS: Bechtel is still in charge of the project. Yes, Senator. SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D), MISSOURI: And everyone sees you go to work in the basement with no windows? TAMOSAITIS: Yes. Yes, ma`am. MCCASKILL: And knows that you are not allowed to work even though you`re there on site and getting paid? TAMOSAITIS: Correct. MCCASKILL: So everyone — so every day you are an example to all the workers there, whether they`re federal employees or Bechtel employees, don`t say anything or you too will be banished to the basement?
  • TAMOSAITIS: Yes, Senator. Very directly. It`s a very visible example of what happens if you speak up. Advertise | AdChoices MCCASKILL: It`s just unbelievable to me that we`ve allowed this to occur.
D'coda Dcoda

Fukushima Update: Why We Should (Still) Be Worried [20Jan12] - 0 views

www.businessinsider.com/should-still-be-worried-2012-1

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 22 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • you would think the Japanese government would be doing everything in its power to contain the disaster. You would be wrong—dead wrong.
  • nstead of collecting, isolating, and guarding the millions of tons of radioactive rubble that resulted from the chain reaction of the 9.0 earthquake, the subsequent 45- to 50-foot wall of water that swamped the plant and disabled the cooling systems for the reactors, and the ensuing meltdowns, Japanese Environment Minister Goshi Hosono says that the entire country must share Fukushima’s plight by accepting debris from the disaster.
  • an estimated 20 million tons of wreckage on the land, much of which—now ten months after the start of the disaster—is festering in stinking piles throughout the stricken region. (Up to 20 million more tons of rubble from the disaster—estimated to cover an area approximately the size of California—is also circulating in the Pacific.)
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • the sheer amount of radioactive rubble is proving difficult to process. The municipal government of Kashiwa, in Chiba Prefecture to the west and south of Tokyo, recently shut down one of its main incinerators, because it can’t store any more than the 200 metric tons of radioactive ash it already has that is too contaminated to bury in a landfill.
  • According to the California-based Fukushima Fallout Awareness Network (FFAN), burning Fukushima’s radioactive rubble is the worst possible way to deal with the problem. That’s because incinerating it releases much more radioactivity into the air, not only magnifying the contamination all over Japan but also sending it up into the jet stream. Once in the jet stream, the radioactive particles travel across the Northern Hemisphere, coming back down to earth with rain, snow, or other precipitation.
  • Radiation used to be a word that evoked serious concern in a lot of people. However, the nuclear industry and its supporters have done a masterful job in allaying public fears about it. They do this in significant part by relying on outdated and highly questionable data collected on Japanese atom bomb survivors, while at the same time ignoring and dismissing inconvenient but much more relevant evidence that shows the actual harmful effects of radiation exposure from nuclear accidents. Author Gayle Greene explains this well in a recent article here. In their attempt to win the public over to their viewpoint, nuclear proponents even trot out the dubious theory of radiation hormesis, which says that low doses of radiation are actually good for you, because they stimulate an immune response. Well, so does something that causes an allergic reaction. But I digress…
  • radioactive elements, also known as radioisotopes or radionuclides, are unstable atoms. They seek stability by giving off particles and energy—ionizing radiation—until the radioisotope becomes stable. This process occurs within the nucleus of the radioisotope, and the shedding of these particles and energy is commonly referred to as ‘‘nuclear disintegration.’’ Nuclear radiation expert Rosalie Bertell describes the release of energy in each disintegration as ‘‘an explosion on the microscopic level.” This process is known as the “decay chain,” and during their decay, most radioactive elements morph into yet other radioactive elements on their journey to becoming lighter, stable atoms at the end of the chain. Some of the morphed-into elements are much more dangerous than the original radioisotope, and the decay chain can take a very long time. This is the reason that radioactive contamination can last so long
  • different radioisotopes give off different kinds of radiation—alpha, beta, gamma, X ray, or neutron emissions—all of which behave differently. Alpha emitters, such as plutonium and radon, are intensely ionizing but don’t penetrate very far and generally can’t get through the dead layers of cells covering skin. But when they are inhaled from the air or ingested from radiation-contaminated food or water, they emit high-energy particles that can do serious damage to the cells of sensitive internal soft tissues and organs. The lighter, faster-moving beta particles can penetrate far more deeply than alpha particles, though sheets of metal and heavy clothing can block them. Beta particles are also very dangerous when inhaled or ingested. Strontium-90 and tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, are both beta emitters. Gamma radiation is a form of electromagnetic energy like X rays, and it passes through clothing and skin straight into the body. A one-inch shield of either lead or iron, or eight inches of concrete are needed to stop gamma rays, examples of which include cobalt-60 and cesium-137—one of the radionuclides of most concern in the Fukushima fallout
  • The behavior of radioisotopes out in the environment also varies depending on what they encounter. They can combine with one another or with stable chemicals to form molecules that may or may not dissolve in water. They can combine with solids, liquids, or gases at ordinary temperature and pressure. They may be able to enter into biochemical reactions, or they may be biologically inert.
  • In her book No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth, Bertell notes that if they enter the body either through air, food, water, or an open wound, “They may remain near the place of entry into the body or travel in the bloodstream or lymph fluid. They can be incorporated into the tissue or bone. They may remain in the body for minutes or hours or a lifetime.”
  • “Plutonium is biologically and chemically attracted to bone as is the naturally occurring radioactive chemical radium. However, plutonium clumps on the surface of bone, delivering a concentrated dose of alpha radiation to surrounding cells, whereas radium diffuses homogeneously in bone and thus has a lesser localized cell damage effect. This makes plutonium, because of the concentration, much more biologically toxic than a comparable amount of radium.”
  • the EPA was so confident that Fukushima fallout would not be a problem for U.S. citizens that it stopped its specific monitoring of fallout from Fukushima less than two months after the meltdowns began. But neglecting to monitor the fallout will not make it go away. In fact, another enormous problem with radioactive contamination is that it bioaccumulates in the environment, which means it concentrates as it moves up the food chain.
D'coda Dcoda

Problems Plague Cleanup at Hanford Nuclear Waste Site [19Jan12] - 0 views

m.usatoday.com/...52622796

nuclear waste

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 19 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • Seven decades after scientists came here during World War II to create plutonium for the first atomic bomb, a new generation is struggling with an even more daunting task: cleaning up the radioactive mess.The U.S. government is building a treatment plant to stabilize and contain 56 million gallons of waste left from a half-century of nuclear weapons production. The radioactive sludge is so dangerous that a few hours of exposure could be fatal. A major leak could contaminate water supplies serving millions across the Northwest. The cleanup is the most complex and costly environmental restoration ever attempted.And the project is not going well.
  • A USA TODAY investigation has found that the troubled, 10-year effort to build the treatment plant faces enormous problems just as it reaches what was supposed to be its final stage.In exclusive interviews, several senior engineers cited design problems that could bring the plant's operations to a halt before much of the waste is treated. Their reports have spurred new technical reviews and raised official concerns about the risk of a hydrogen explosion or uncontrolled nuclear reaction inside the plant. Either could damage critical equipment, shut the facility down or, worst case, allow radiation to escape.The plant's $12.3 billion price tag, already triple original estimates, is well short of what it will cost to address the problems and finish the project. And the plant's start-up date, originally slated for last year and pushed back to its current target of 2019, is likely to slip further.
  • "We're continuing with a failed design," said Donald Alexander, a senior U.S. government scientist on the project."There's a lot of pressure … from Congress, from the state, from the community to make progress," he added. As a result, "the design processes are cut short, the safety analyses are cut short, and the oversight is cut short. … We have to stop now and figure out how to do this right, before we move any further."
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • The "design-build" approach "is good if you're building a McDonald's," said Gene Aloise, the GAO's director of nuclear non-proliferation and security. "It's not good if you're building a one-of-a-kind, high-risk nuclear waste facility."The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, an independent federal panel that oversees public health and safety at nuclear weapons sites, is urging Energy Secretary Steven Chu to require more extensive testing of designs for some of the plant's most critical components."Design and construction of the project continue despite there being unresolved technical issues, and there is a lot of risk associated with that," said Peter Winokur, the board's chairman. The waste at Hanford, stored in 177 deteriorating underground tanks, "is a real risk to the public and the environment. It is essential that this plant work and work well."
  • Documents obtained by USA TODAY show at least three federal investigations are underway to examine the project, which is funded and supervised by the Department of Energy, owner of Hanford Site. Bechtel National is the prime contractor.In November, the Energy Department's independent oversight office notified Bechtel that it is investigating "potential nuclear safety non-compliances" in the design and installation of plant systems and components. And the department's inspector general is in the final stages of a separate probe focused on whether Bechtel installed critical equipment that didn't meet quality-control standards.Meanwhile, Congress' Government Accountability Office has launched a sweeping review of everything from cost and schedule overruns to the risks associated with the Energy Department's decision to proceed with construction before completing and verifying the design of key components.
  • Everything about the waste treatment plant at Hanford is unprecedented — and urgent.The volume of waste, its complex mix of highly radioactive and toxic material, the size of the processing facilities — all present technical challenges with no proven solution. The plant is as big as the task: a sprawling, 65-acre compound of four giant buildings, each longer than a football field and as tall as 12 stories high.The plant will separate the waste's high- and low-level radioactive materials, then blend them with compounds that are superheated to create a molten glass composite — a process called "vitrification." The mix is poured into giant steel cylinders, where it cools to a solid form that is safe and stable for long-term storage — tens of thousands of glass tubes in steel coffins.
  • Once the plant starts running, it could take 30 years or more to finish its cleanup work.The 177 underground tanks at Hanford hold detritus from 45 years of plutonium production at the site, which had up to nine nuclear reactors before it closed in 1989. Some of the tanks, with capacities ranging from 55,000 gallons to more than 1 million gallons, date to the mid-1940s, when Hanford's earliest reactor made plutonium for the first atomic bomb ever detonated: the "Trinity" test at Alamagordo, N.M. It also produced the plutonium for the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, in World War II.
  • More than 60 of the tanks are thought to have leaked, losing a million gallons of waste into soil and groundwater. So far, the contamination remains within the boundaries of the barren, 586-square-mile site, but it poses an ongoing threat to the nearby Columbia River, a water source for communities stretching southwest to Portland, Ore. And, while the liquid most likely to escape from the older tanks has been moved to newer, double-walled tanks, the risk of more leaks compounds that threat.
D'coda Dcoda

EPA Finds Compound Used in Fracking in Wyoming Aquifer [10Nov11]f - 0 views

www.propublica.org/...ng-compound-in-wyoming-aquifer

fracking natural gas fresh water contamination

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 11 Nov 11 - No Cached
  • As the country awaits results from a nationwide safety study on the natural gas drilling process of fracking, a separate government investigation into contamination in a place where residents have long complained [1] that drilling fouled their water has turned up alarming levels of underground pollution. A pair of environmental monitoring wells drilled deep into an aquifer in Pavillion, Wyo., contain high levels of cancer-causing compounds and at least one chemical commonly used in hydraulic fracturing, according to new water test results [2] released yesterday by the Environmental Protection Agency.
  • The findings are consistent with water samples the EPA has collected from at least 42 homes in the area since 2008, when ProPublica began reporting [3] on foul water and health concerns in Pavillion and the agency started investigating reports of contamination there. Last year -- after warning residents not to drink [4] or cook with the water and to ventilate their homes when they showered -- the EPA drilled the monitoring wells to get a more precise picture of the extent of the contamination.
  • The Pavillion area has been drilled extensively for natural gas over the last two decades and is home to hundreds of gas wells. Residents have alleged for nearly a decade [1] that the drilling -- and hydraulic fracturing in particular -- has caused their water to turn black and smell like gasoline. Some residents say they suffer neurological impairment [5], loss of smell, and nerve pain they associate with exposure to pollutants. The gas industry -- led by the Canadian company EnCana, which owns the wells in Pavillion -- has denied that its activities are responsible for the contamination. EnCana has, however, supplied drinking water to residents.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • The information released yesterday by the EPA was limited to raw sampling data: The agency did not interpret the findings or make any attempt to identify the source of the pollution. From the start of its investigation, the EPA has been careful to consider all possible causes of the contamination and to distance its inquiry from the controversy around hydraulic fracturing. Still, the chemical compounds the EPA detected are consistent with those produced from drilling processes, including one -- a solvent called 2-Butoxyethanol (2-BE) -- widely used in the process of hydraulic fracturing. The agency said it had not found contaminants such as nitrates and fertilizers that would have signaled that agricultural activities were to blame.
D'coda Dcoda

NRC Delays New Reactors, Old Units Struggle To Stay Viable [15Oct11] - 0 views

www.simplyinfo.org/?p=3621

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 15 Nov 11 - No Cached
  • The NRC had declared delays in the new reactor approval process for AP1000 and ESBWR reactor designs. They NRC wants to complete their analysis on information from Fukushima Daiichi before moving ahead with the process to possibly approve either new design. Meanwhile Nuclear power companies are forging ahead with preparing sites for the reactors they hope to build. An interesting twist in that power companies can start a project before getting approval for the reactor they intend to build. This is then frequently used to pressure the NRC because work and spending is already underway. It was a key circumstance during the initial approval process at North Anna.
  • The Oyster Creek reactor in New Jersey, one of the oldest in the US has announced they will shut down for good in 2019. In 2010 Excelon threatened to close Oyster Creek unless a mandate requiring them to build cooling towers was removed. It appears that the cooling tower issues may have been a major factor in the decision to cease operations.  Containment corrosion and lawsuits over the lack of metals testing on the reactor were mounting against Oyster Creek. The people in the region and the state authorities were all working various angles to shut down the plant due to its many problems. They have succeeded. Now to just hope nothing bad happens at Oyster Creek before 2019.
  • At Davis Besse in Ohio, as they are replacing the reactor cap that has a pineapple sized hole in it, they discovered a long crack in the containment concrete. They had already sliced a hole in the containment dome to put the replacement reactor cap in. FirstEnergy claims none of this will degrade safety…..
D'coda Dcoda

Nuclear Engineer shares concerns about Brunswick Nuclear Leak [19Nov11] - 0 views

enformable.com/...ut-brunswick-nuclear-leak-from

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 21 Nov 11 - No Cached
  • The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission will begin a special inspection at Progress Energy‘s Brunswick-2 unit in North Carolina after the utility said Friday the reactor pressure vessel’s lid was not adequately tightened when it restarted earlier this week.  Most of us are also paying close attention to the events at Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant, and today I talked with a former nuclear engineer  Chris Harris about the recent developments.
  • Refueling procedures are elaborate and well documented procedures, and one of the biggest questions is why the proper procedures were not followed, or were carried out incorrectly. The bolts need to be tensioned in a specific Torque Pattern, which generally includes multiple passes.  Refueling procedures require a crew of  at least 6 engineers, and additional Quality Control inspectors.
  • The unit had been in a maintenance outage, was in the process of restarting and was operating at 7% power when workers discovered the leak in the reactor coolant system, Progress said in an event report filed Wednesday with NRC. When the leak exceeded 10 gal/minute, the unit was shut, Progress said.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • The Brunswick Nuclear Plant has two boiling-water reactors that generate 1,875 megawatts of electricity. Each of the Brunswick reactors is refueled once every 24 months, usually in the spring when the demand for electricity is relatively low. At the Brunswick Plant, 1 million gallons of water per minute are pumped from the Cape Fear River where it passes through the plant’s cooling system and then drops approximately  15 feet to the head of the outflow canal.
  • The unit shut Wednesday morning after the reactor leaked. An investigation showed the inadequately tightened reactor vessel head was a potentially “significant” safety issue, Progress said in a report filed Friday with the NRC. Workers seeking the source of the leak found that at least 10 of the 64 bolts that secure the reactor vessel head to the pressure vessel were not fully tightened, Progress spokesman Ryan Mosier said in an email Friday.
  • The Tensioning Tool is inspected and maintained, and is also part of the QC checklist.  This is not a simple situation where someone didn’t torque down the bolts correctly, as multiple personnel would have had to check and confirm the status prior to restart. In fact, according to Progress Energy’s 35 day outage schedule, the reassembly and reactor test are the 9th, and 10th steps of the process, and one can’t help but wonder why this was not detected before the reactor was re-pressurized. Chris had some very good questions regarding the Brunswick event, that I felt were worth sharing.
  • What testing was performed to determine that the RPV Head was Tensioned properly? What caused the improper Tensioning ? Procedure, Skill of the Craft? Aggressive Schedule? What are the Acceptance Criteria in the procedure for a properly tensioned head” How do you know that you meet the Acceptance Criteria?
  • Not only are the procedures and QC process in question, but the event also impacts operations and reliability of reactor components.  Chris highlighted a few questions that he felt were critical to ensure safe restart and operation.
  • Could there have been Foreign Material on the RPV Head Flange? What damage to surrounding equipment in the Drywell was sustained by the Steam/Water Leak? What is the condition of the Refueling Seal, now that it has been sprayed with Steamy/Hot Water? Did Hot/Steamy water find its way on the Outside of the Containment such that Corrosion in the future will be a problem? Did the steam leakage affect the Reactor Vessel Head Studs and their Threaded Holes (in the Reactor Vessel Flange) such that they will fail at a future date? At this point, Progress Energy is keeping fairly quiet about the specifics, and initially only revealed information of a “possible leak at the top of the reactor vessel”.  Monday morning should prove eventful not only for the Utility, but also for regulators.
D'coda Dcoda

Nuclear safety: A dangerous veil of secrecy [11Aug11] - 0 views

english.aljazeera.net/...2011877118599802.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 12 Aug 11 - No Cached
  • There are battles being fought on two fronts in the five months since a massive earthquake and tsunami damaged the Daiichi nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan. On one front, there is the fight to repair the plant, operated by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and to contain the extent of contamination caused by the damage. On the other is the public’s fight to extract information from the Japanese government, TEPCO and nuclear experts worldwide.
  • The latter battle has yielded serious official humiliation, resulting high-profile resignations, scandals, and promises of reform in Japan’s energy industry whereas the latter has so far resulted in a storm of anger and mistrust. Even most academic nuclear experts, seen by many as the middle ground between the anti-nuclear activists and nuclear lobby itself, were reluctant to say what was happening: That in Fukushima, a community of farms, schools and fishing ports, was experiencing a full-tilt meltdown, and that, as Al Jazeera reported in June, that the accident had most likely caused more radioactive contamination than Chernobyl
  • As recently as early August, those seeking information on the real extent of the damage at the Daiichi plant and on the extent of radioactive contamination have mostly been reassured by the nuclear community that there’s no need to worry.
  • ...29 more annotations...
  • The money trail can be tough to follow - Westinghouse, Duke Energy and the Nuclear Energy Institute (a "policy organisation" for the nuclear industry with 350 companies, including TEPCO, on its roster) did not respond to requests for information on funding research and chairs at universities. But most of the funding for nuclear research does not come directly from the nuclear lobby, said M.V. Ramana, a researcher at Princeton University specialising in the nuclear industry and climate change. Most research is funded by governments, who get donations - from the lobby (via candidates, political parties or otherwise).
  • “There's a lot of secrecy that can surround nuclear power because some of the same processes can be involved in generating electricity that can also be involved in developing a weapon, so there's a kind of a veil of secrecy that gets dropped over this stuff, that can also obscure the truth” said Biello. "So, for example in Fukushima, it was pretty apparent that a total meltdown had occurred just based on what they were experiencing there ... but nobody in a position of authority was willing to say that."
  • This is worrying because while both anti-nuclear activists and the nuclear lobby both have openly stated biases, academics and researchers are seen as the middle ground - a place to get accurate, unbiased information. David Biello, the energy and climate editor at Scientific American Online, said that trying to get clear information on a scenario such as the Daiichi disaster is tough.
  • The Center for Responsive Politics - a non-partisan, non-profit elections watchdog group – noted that even as many lobbying groups slowed their spending the first quarter of the year, the Nuclear industry "appears to be ratcheting up its lobbying" increasing its multi-million dollar spending.
  • "In the United States, a lot of the money doesn’t come directly from the nuclear industry, but actually comes from the Department of Energy (DOE). And the DOE has a very close relationship with the industry, and they sort of try to advance the industry’s interest," said Ramana. Indeed, nuclear engineering falls under the "Major Areas of Research" with the DOE, which also has nuclear weapons under its rubric. The DOE's 2012 fiscal year budge request to the US Congress for nuclear energy programmes was $755m.
  • "So those people who get funding from that….it’s not like they (researchers) want to lie, but there’s a certain amount of, shall we say, ideological commitment to nuclear power, as well as a certain amount of self-censorship."  It comes down to worrying how their next application for funding might be viewed, he said. Kathleen Sullivan, an anti-nuclear specialist and disarmament education consultant with the United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs, said it's not surprising that research critical of the nuclear energy and weapons isn't coming out of universities and departments that participate in nuclear research and development.
  • "It (the influence) of the nuclear lobby could vary from institution to institution," said Sullivan. "If you look at the history of nuclear weapons manufacturing in the United States, you can see that a lot of research was influenced perverted, construed in a certain direction."
  • Sullivan points to the DOE-managed Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory at the University of California in Berkley (where some of the research for the first atomic bomb was done) as an example of how intertwined academia and government-funded nuclear science are.
  • "For nuclear physics to proceed, the only people interested in funding it are pro-nuclear folks, whether that be industry or government," said Biello. "So if you're involved in that area you've already got a bias in favour of that technology … if you study hammers, suddenly hammers seem to be the solution to everything."
  • And should they find results unfavourable to the industry, Ramana said they would "dress it up in various ways by saying 'Oh, there’s a very slim chance of this, and here are some safety measure we recommend,' and then the industry will say, 'Yeah,yeah, we’re incorporating all of that.'" Ramana, for the record, said that while he's against nuclear weapons, he doesn't have a moral position on nuclear power except to say that as a cost-benefit issue, the costs outweigh the benefits, and that "in that sense, expanding nuclear power isn't a good idea." 
  • "'How is this going to affect the future of nuclear power?'That’s the first thought that came into their heads," said Ramana, adding, "They basically want to ensure that people will keep constructing nuclear power plants." For instance, a May report by MIT’s Center For Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems (where TEPCO funds a chair) points out that while the Daiichi disaster has resulted in "calls for cancellation of nuclear construction projects and reassessments of plant license extensions" which might "lead to a global slow-down of the nuclear enterprise," that  "the lessons to be drawn from the Fukushima accident are different."
  • Among the report's closing thoughts are concerns that "Decision-making in the  immediate aftermath of a major crisis is often influenced by emotion," and whether"an accident like Fukushima, which is so far beyond design basis, really warrant a major overhaul of current nuclear safety regulations and practises?" "If so," wonder the authors, "When is safe safe enough? Where do we draw the line?"
  • The Japanese public, it seems, would like some answers to those very questions, albeit from a different perspective.  Kazuo Hizumi, a Tokyo-based human rights lawyer, is among those pushing for openness. He is also an editor at News for the People in Japan, a news site advocating for transparency from the government and from TEPCO. With contradicting information and lack of clear coverage on safety and contamination issues, many have taken to measuring radiation levels with their own Geiger counters.
  • "They do not know how to do it," he said of some of the community groups and individuals who have taken to measure contamination levels in the air, soil and food
  • A report released in July by Human Rights Now highlights the need for immediately accessible information on health and safety in areas where people have been affected by the disaster, including Fukushima, especially on the issues of contaminated food and evacuation plans.
  • A 'nuclear priesthood' Biello describes the nuclear industry is a relatively small, exclusive club.
  • The interplay between academia and also the military and industry is very tight. It's a small community...they have their little club and they can go about their business without anyone looking over their shoulder. " This might explain how, as the Associated Press reported in June, that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission was "working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nationalise ageing reactors operating within standards or simply failing to enforce them."
  • However, with this exclusivity comes a culture of secrecy – "a nuclear priesthood," said Biello, which makes it very difficult to parse out a straightforward answer in the very technical and highly politicised field.  "You have the proponents, who believe that it is the technological salvation for our problems, whether that's energy, poverty, climate change or whatever else. And then you have opponents who think that it's literally the worst thing that ever happened and should be immediately shut back up in a box and buried somewhere," said Biello, who includes "professors of nuclear engineering and Greenpeace activists" as passionate opponents on the nuclear subject.
  • In fact, one is hard pressed to find a media report quoting a nuclear scientist at any major university sounding the alarms on the risks of contamination in Fukushima. Doing so has largely been the work of anti-nuclear activists (who have an admitted bias against the technology) and independent scientists employed by think tanks, few of whom responded to requests for interviews.
  • So, one's best bet, said Biello, is to try and "triangulate the truth" - to take "a dose" from anti-nuclear activists, another from pro-nuclear lobbyists and throw that in with a little bit of engineering and that'll get you closer to the truth. "Take what everybody is saying with a grain of salt."
  • Since World War II, the process of secrecy – the readiness to invoke "national security" - has been a pillar of the nuclear establishment…that establishment, acting on the false assumption that "secrets" can be hidden from the curious and knowledgeable, has successfully insisted that there are answers which cannot be given and even questions which cannot be asked. The net effect is to stifle debate about the fundamental of nuclear policy. Concerned citizens dare not ask certain questions, and many begin to feel that these matters which only a few initiated experts are entitled to discuss.  If the above sounds like a post-Fukushima statement, it is not. It was written by Howard Morland for the November 1979 issue of The Progressive magazine focusing on the hydrogen bomb as well as the risks of nuclear energy.
  • The US government - citing national security concerns - took the magazine to court in order to prevent the issue from being published, but ultimately relented during the appeals process when it became clear that the information The Progressive wanted to publish was already public knowledge and that pursuing the ban might put the court in the position of deeming the Atomic Energy Act as counter to First Amendment rights (freedom of speech) and therefore unconstitutional in its use of prior restraint to censor the press.
  • But, of course, that's in the US, although a similar mechanism is at work in Japan, where a recently created task force aims to "cleanse" the media of reportage that casts an unfavourable light on the nuclear industry (they refer to this information as "inaccurate" or a result of "mischief." The government has even go so far as to accept bids from companies that specialise in scouring the Internet to monitor the Internet for reports, Tweets and blogs that are critical of its handling of the Daiichi disaster, which has presented a unique challenge to the lobby there.
  • "The public fully trusted the Japanese Government," said Hizumi. But the absence of "true information" has massively diminished that trust, as, he said, has the public's faith that TEPCO would be open about the potential dangers of a nuclear accident.
  •  Japan's government has a history of slow response to TEPCO's cover-ups. In 1989, that Kei Sugaoka, a nuclear energy at General Electric who inspected and repaired plants in Japan and elsewhere, said he spotted cracks in steam dryers and a "misplacement" or 180 degrees in one dryer unit. He noticed that the position of the dryer was later omitted from the inspection record's data sheet. Sugaoka told a Japanese networkthat TEPCO had instructed him to "erase" the flaws, but he ultimately wrote a whistleblowing letter to METI, which resulted in the temporary 17 TEPCO reactors, including ones at the plant in Fukushima.
  • the Japanese nuclear lobby has been quite active in shaping how people see nuclear energy. The country's Ministry of Education, together with the Natural Resources Ministry (of of two agencies under Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry - METI - overseeing nuclear policies) even provides schools with a nuclear energy information curriculum. These worksheets - or education supplements - are used to inform children about the benefits of nuclear energy over fossil fuels.
  • There’s reason to believe that at least in one respect, Fukushima can’t and won’t be another Chernobyl, at least due to the fact that the former has occurred in the age of the Internet whereas the latter took place in the considerably quaint 80s, when a car phone the size of a brick was considered the height of communications technology to most. "It (a successful cover up) is definitely a danger in terms of Fukushima, and we'll see what happens. All you have to do is look at the first couple of weeks after Chernobyl to see the kind of cover up," said Biello. "I mean the Soviet Union didn't even admit that anything was happening for a while, even though everybody was noticing these radiation spikes and all these other problems. The Soviet Union was not admitting that they were experiencing this catastrophic nuclear failure... in Japan, there's a consistent desire, or kind of a habit, of downplaying these accidents, when they happen. It's not as bad as it may seem, we haven't had a full meltdown."
  • Fast forward to 2011, when video clips of each puff of smoke out of the Daiichi plant make it around the world in seconds, news updates are available around the clock, activists post radiation readings on maps in multiple languages and Google Translate picks up the slack in translating every last Tweet on the subject coming out of Japan.
  • it will be a heck of a lot harder to keep a lid on things than it was 25 years ago. 
D'coda Dcoda

WikiLeaks cables reveal fears over China's nuclear safety [25Aug11] - 1 views

www.guardian.co.uk/...aks-fears-china-nuclear-safety

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 25 Aug 11 - No Cached
  • China has "vastly increased" the risk of a nuclear accident by opting for cheap technology that will be 100 years old by the time dozens of its reactors reach the end of their lifespans, according to diplomatic cables from the US embassy in Beijing.The warning comes weeks after the government in Beijing resumed its ambitious nuclear expansion programme, that was temporarily halted for safety inspections in the wake of the meltdown of three reactors in Fukushima, Japan
  • Cables released this week by WikiLeaks highlight the secrecy of the bidding process for power plant contracts, the influence of government lobbying, and potential weaknesses in the management and regulatory oversight of China's fast-expanding nuclear sector
  • n August, 2008, the embassy noted that China was in the process of building 50 to 60 new nuclear plants by 2020. This target – which has since increased – was a huge business opportunity. To keep up with the French and Russians, the cable urged continuous high-level advocacy on behalf of the US company Westinghouse to push its AP-1000 reactor.This is crucial, according to the cable dated 29 August 2008 from the American Embassy in Beijing, because "all reactor purchases to date have been largely the result of internal high level political decisions absent any open process."
D'coda Dcoda

Groundwater Coming into Reactor Bldg and Turbine Bldg Basements at #Fukushima I Nuke Pl... - 0 views

ex-skf.blogspot.com/...ell-us-series-groundwater.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 20 Sep 11 - No Cached
  • From Tokyo Shinbun (7:06 AM JST 9/20/2011):
  • Large amount of groundwater flowing into the basements at Fukushima I? Obstacle to the work to wind down the accident
  • It's been revealed that there is a possibility that several hundred tonnes of groundwater may be flowing into the basements of reactor buildings and turbine buildings in Reactors 1 through 4 at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. The amount of contaminated water should have decreased by now to slightly over 50,000 tonnes, based on the amount of water processed. However, there are still over 80,000 tonnes of highly contaminated water remaining in the basements. TEPCO has admitted to the possibility of groundwater flowing into the basements, whose walls may have been damaged in the earthquake and are letting in the water. This may affect the future work to wind down the accident.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • Tokyo Shinbun calculated the hypothetical amount of the remaining contaminated water, based on the data published by TEPCO on the amount of contaminated water transfer and the amount of water injection into the reactors. According to our calculation, about 100,000 tonnes of contaminated water should have been reduced to about 51,600 tonnes by September 13.
  • However, the latest estimate by TEPCO from the actual water levels in the basements is 81,300 tonnes, leaving 30,000 tonnes or so gap from the calculated amount.
  • So far, TEPCO has explained that the contaminated water is not decreasing as fast because of the rainwater. Around Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, there have been 3 heavy rainfalls since July. Part of the rain may have entered the buildings through the damaged rooftops. However, the contribution of rainwater to the water in the basements is not big enough to explain the 30,000 tonnes difference.
  • It has been pointed out before that the groundwater may be flowing into the basements through cracks in the basement walls, and now that possibility is even more heightened. We showed the result of our calculation to TEPCO, and they answered "The water may be flowing in in the order of 100 tonnes per day".
  • If the groundwater is indeed flowing into the basements, the amount of contaminated water to be treated will be further increased, necessitating the decrease of water being injected into the reactors. The work to wind down the accident may be affected in many ways.I don't know whether TEPCO means "100 tonnes per day per unit" or "100 tonnes per day per each building" or "100 tonnes per day at the plant".In the latest announcement on the contaminated water processing on September 14, TEPCO is processing about 1,500 tonnes per day.
D'coda Dcoda

Japan's Ministry of the Environment Determined More Than Ever to Spread Radioactive Dis... - 0 views

ex-skf.blogspot.com/...s-ministry-of-environment.html

contamination debris

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 06 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • Minister of the Environment and Minister of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Goshi Hosono called representatives from 43 Prefectures to the Ministry of the Environment and requested again that they accept disaster debris from Miyagi and Iwate Prefectures.From Fuji News Network (FNN) via Yahoo Japan (10/5/2011; don't expect this link to last for more than a few days):
  • Processing the disaster debris from the March 11 earthquake/tsunami has been a big problem. The Ministry of the Environment held a conference attended by the municipalities from all over Japan, and requested that they accept the disaster debris.
  • Minister of the Environment Hosono said, "The obstacle to recovery and reconstruction is the processing of the disaster debris. I'd like to ask you to cooperate with us".
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • The conference was set up by the Ministry of the Environment to expedite the acceptance of disaster debris in Iwate and Miyagi Prefectures. People in charge of waste disposal and cleaning in 43 prefectures and 74 municipalities participated.
  • It is considered that the March 11 disaster resulted in about 23 million tonnes of debris. However, there are many people voicing concern for radiation contamination, and the acceptance of the disaster debris is not happening except for Yamagata Prefecture which has already been accepting the debris and Tokyo which will start accepting starting the second half of October.
  • The Ministry of the Environment will ask the municipalities once again about their intentions and waste processing capacities, and will coordinate between the disaster-affected areas and the municipalities that will accept the debris.
  • As for the Tokyo Metropolitan government, it signed the agreement with Iwate Prefecture on September 30 with hardly any consultation with the Metropolitan Assembly and zero consultation with the residents to accept about 500,000 tonnes of disaster debris. The government says it tested the ashes of the disaster debris from Miyako City in Iwate Prefecture and it was only 133 becquerels/kg of radioactive cesium.What the Metropolitan government didn't bother to tell anyone was that the radioactive debris were mixed with non-radioactive regular garbage and burned. The radioactive debris were supposedly 30%. However, the Ministry of the Environment itself did the testing of the disaster debris ashes in the same city back in July, and the Ministry's number was 4895 becquerels/kg of radioactive cesium. (Information from Tokyo Shinbun on 10/5/2011, in Japanese)
1 - 20 of 158 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page