2011 Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami - News and Analysis

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 Apr 2011 06:38

Robots enter Fukushima - April 18, 2011

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbe ... shima.html

UPDATE: The Associated Press reports that the robots have detected peak radiation levels of around 50 millisieverts
per hour inside units 1 and 3 (World Nuclear News also has a nice summary of the range of numbers seen, and what they mean). The bottom line is that rates in some places at least are far too high for human workers to enter the plant. The readings point to a long and difficult clean up process. You can read more about what the numbers mean here.

Over the weekend, remote-controlled robots entered the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The robots took the first photos inside the units 1 and 3 reactors (right) and assessed radiation levels. The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), which runs the plant, sent Packbots, from the American company iRobot.

Packbots are used for explosive ordinance disposal in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in the wake of the nuclear accident iRobot sent two to Fukushima, along with two larger Warrior bots. The robots are equipped with cameras and radiation detector equipment, and are even capable of opening doors (presuming they're not locked). Normally the robots are radio-controlled, but iRobot installed a fiber-optic link on the models at Fukushima, to make it easier to operate them in the harsh radiation environment that is believed to exist inside the plant.

Click here for more on the role of robots at Fukushima.

TEPCO sets out Fukushima crisis plan - April 18, 2011

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbe ... lowch.html

Ever since a massive earthquake and tsunami struck the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on 11 March, activities at the site have been hasty, improvised, and often uncoordinated. For engineers, project managers (and reporters who cover large projects), nothing has made the chaos more pronounced than the lack of a flowchart. Yesterday that all changed: the world now has a brightly coloured chart of the next six to nine months at Fukushima.

Flowcharts are omnipresent in the world of big projects. They impose order on the myriad little tasks needed to complete a spacecraft or particle accelerator. They ensure that the hundreds or thousands of people involved have a clear view of the goal, and where their own efforts fit in. They're often derided, but as a reporter, I find them invaluable.

For the first month, Fukushima had no public flowchart. Instead, workers seemed to be pursuing an ad hoc strategy of flooding reactors and pumping out contaminated water. That made sense in the short term, but bringing the reactors under control is a mammoth task that will require careful planning and coordination. A flowchart is long overdue.

The new plan from the owner of the plant, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), reflects the complex task ahead. It can be roughly broken down into three parts:

First, workers will continue to cool the reactors, whose nuclear fuel is still generating significant amounts of heat. In the near term, the cooling will be done as it is now, with water pumped in through the Emergency Core Cooling system. But in the long term, TEPCO would like to restore a "heat exchange function", which I take to mean they would like to have some system for re-circulating water through the core. This would avoid the massive build-up of contaminated water that has been a problem at the site for the past few weeks.

Second, but in parallel with the cooling effort, is a plan to deal with contamination on the site. The most pressing problem is the thousands of tons of radioactive water building up as a result of emergency cooling. Here, the utility seems to be taking a two-pronged approach. For lightly contaminated water the plan is to decontaminate it, possibly with zeolite filters of the sort we've discussed elsewhere. Higher level water will be stored in new tanks and other waste facilities at the site.

TEPCO is also planning to build a structure or structures over the reactors, which will keep radiation in, and hopefully keep rain and wind out. These structures will initially be flimsy, but the company plans to design more substantial concrete buildings to cover the reactors.

Finally, TEPCO is planning a coordinated monitoring system that will allow local residents to accurately gauge the risk they face as they begin to return to the evacuation zone.

The entire plan should, theoretically, be completed in six to nine months. It's an ambitious schedule, but if it were successful, it would bring a degree of stability to the residents of Fukushima prefecture.

It is very important to note that there is still quite a bit missing from the new plan. Most importantly, there is no mention of whether or how TEPCO might remove the roughly one thousand tonnes of nuclear fuel from the broken reactors before they are dismantled. This may be because radiation levels near the reactors are too high to contemplate further cleanup, or perhaps because the utility does not expect to be in charge of the next phase of the clean up.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 Apr 2011 06:43

Nuclear safety chief calls for reform

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110418/ ... 2274a.html

Laurent Stricker, chairman of the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO), says that the disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant should mark a turning point for an industry that many experts believe has become complacent about the safety of its reactors. Created in 1989, WANO is an international forum, headquartered in London, that brings together all nuclear power plant operators, along with governments and nuclear experts, to improve operational safety across the industry. Stricker is a nuclear engineer and former power plant director, and is also the senior adviser on nuclear affairs to the French utility company EDF.

Should Fukushima prompt WANO to change its remit?

Until now, WANO has addressed lessons learned from reactor operations, but not reactor design issues. I think in the future it should, in particular so that when operators modify their designs they draw more on analyses of past accidents.

It is not easy to designate one reactor design as safer than another. Rather, one must look at the particular case of each reactor's implementation, and its location. A reactor exposed to the threat of a tsunami doesn't face the same risks as a reactor of the same design elsewhere.

Population proximity is also very important. Japan, like many other countries, has several enormous nuclear sites near dense populations, so those demand even higher safety margins. After Fukushima, I believe that safety reviews should also consider the risk of accidents at several reactors at the same site at the same time. Often the current plans are only done for an accident in one reactor at a site.

We also need to be prepared for events exceeding what a reactor was designed to withstand, and to learn how best to cope with accidents such as a loss of electricity supply and cooling capacity, as happened at Fukushima Daiichi. That means having the right emergency procedures and equipment, and regular emergency drills, often involving the local population. Some countries do this very well; others do it much less, or not at all.

In October, WANO will bring together in China the chief executives of all the nuclear operators to discuss lessons learned from Fukushima, and any changes needed to WANO's mandate. WANO needs to be in a position to verify that every nuclear operating company has plans to cope with unforeseen accidents.

Has the industry been overconfident that a serious nuclear accident is now impossible?

Absolutely. I worry about overconfidence. People think we have good designs, we have good operators, we have good procedures and good safety authorities, so they think everything is fine.

Does the International Nuclear Events Scale distort the true safety record of the industry, with 'near misses' being registered as low-level incidents rather than potential disasters?

I think you are right. And it's true that the scale of severity is used in very different ways from one country to another. You also have differences in transparency from one country, and from one operator, to the next. At WANO, for example, we ask member companies to report incidents to us so that we can analyse them and share lessons from them. But between 5% and 7% of the power plants don't report any events in a given year. As an operator, I'm convinced that anyone running a nuclear power plant is bound to have something to report over the course of a year.

Could greater international oversight improve safety?

My point of view is that there are not enough plans in place to immediately help an operator in another country to cope with an accident.

Also, for countries that are relatively new to operating nuclear power plants, peer review before plant start-up is essential because serious accidents have often occurred in new reactors shortly after start-up. WANO sends teams of 20–25 engineers from other nuclear plants to review the functioning of the new plant for about three weeks and to provide a confidential report. The International Atomic Energy Agency has a similar programme that does five or six similar reviews per year; WANO has greater resources and conducts about 40 of these reviews a year. At our meeting in China, I will propose increasing their frequency.

I have also proposed that if operators fail to make progress on issues flagged by these reports as 'areas for improvement', then WANO should be authorized to dispense with its obligations of confidentiality.

If there is another major accident, is nuclear energy finished?

I fear so. As we have seen at Fukushima, an accident in one country has consequences for all nuclear operators elsewhere.

Fukushima Plan: Achieving Cold Shutdown Could Take 6 Months

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... ld-sh.html

Officials with Tokyo Electric Power Co. have outlined their plans for ending the saga of the stricken reactors at the Fukushima Daichi power plant. In the first 3 to 6 months, according to the plan, crews will try to cool the reactors to a stable point, aiming for “cold shutdown” with temperatures within the reactors below 100°C. Then engineers will inject nitrogen into the pressure vessel surrounding each reactor. Using this inert gas should make it possible to minimize the use of water in the reactor vessel and reduce the risk of hydrogen explosions, which have already rocked three of the reactors. But crews will aim to use water to cool the outer containment vessel. The second step will focus on stopping the leakage of radionuclides into the air, essentially by fixing the outer walls of the damaged reactors or replacing them with freestanding, cubic containment barriers. There is no timetable for the government to ease restrictions on residents who live within the 20-kilometer-radius evacuation zone.

The Japanese effort “seems to be on track, but [there’s] a long way to go,” says Lake Barrett, who helped lead the cleanup effort for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3 decades ago at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania.

He says a big challenge for the Japanese is to start recirculating water they’ve used to cool the reactors; they have already created 10 million gallons of radioactive water in a once-through process called “feed and bleed." "They need to get those cores on recirculation and off of feed and bleed. It is drowning them with radioactive water,” Barrett says. By the end of the shutdown effort at Three Mile Island, Lake says, U.S. engineers were left with far less radioactive water, about 600,000 gallons.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 19 Apr 2011 07:30

Bade wrote:Mutations happen all the time and is that not a requirement for evolution anyway. Whether it is for good or bad is decided in the long run. A faster process of mutation aided by natural radiation excess cannot all be bad. The population has been exploding there over the centuries and perhaps even the most healthiest relative to the all India average. So there is not even circumstantial evidence to indicate otherwise as of now.

Bade - As you know but I may add, there is BIG difference between mutation and mutation leading to cancers or doing real harm. . Relationship between radiation and mutation is fairly well understood, more radiation causes more mutation (so that Kerala study about more mutation is expected) but dna repairs itself for virtually all the mutations. Actually recent studies (person got noble prize for that) supports the theory that most low-level radiation damage will get repaired. (High dose for a short time - when cells do not have time to repair - will cause more cancers than the same dose taken over a longer time)

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 19 Apr 2011 07:46

I wonder how many people here are aware of Vermont's Yankee NPP. It is a BWR almost of the same era (1972 ?) as Fukushima. The old licence was going to expire in 2012, but got 20 year renewal (NRC) after Fukushima incident. One person who use to comment for CNN was quite against it ("how can they do it knowing Fukushima" )

Will be interesting to see all the hulla gulla. (State recently voted to stop the plant in 2012 but NRC is federal and the plant may not listen to the state ...)

IIRC they do/did have a lot of spent fuel..(it was a problem, as they had more than they would have liked but anti-nuke groups will not let them move it) they did have an earth-quake too (not in too distant past..) which (I think, but may be mistaken) damaged the cooling tower..

I tried to take a dekho in wiki but was not surprised to see "The neutrality of this article is disputed" sign there!

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 19 Apr 2011 08:20

AmberG, thanks for clarifying the distinction and putting it in more simpler terms to avoid confusion.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 19 Apr 2011 09:40

Link: http://www.meti.go.jp/english/speeches/ ... 0417_a.pdf

Roadmap towards Restoration from the Accident
at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station
April 17th, 2011
Tokyo Electric Power Company

With regard to the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station due to
the Tohoku-Chihou-Taiheiyo-Oki Earthquake occurred on Friday, March 11th, 2011,
we are currently making our utmost effort to bring the situation under control. This
announcement is to notify the roadmap that we have put together towards
restoration from the accident.

1. Basic Policy

By bringing the reactors and spent fuel pools to a stable cooling condition and
mitigating the release of radioactive materials, we will make every effort to enable
evacuees to return to their homes and for all citizens to be able to secure a sound
life.

2. Targets

Based on the basic policy, the following two steps are set as targets: “Radiation
dose is in steady decline” as “Step 1” and “Release of radioactive materials is under
control and radiation dose is being significantly held down” as “Step 2.” Target
achievement dates are tentatively set as follows: “Step 1” is set at around 3
months and “Step 2” is set at around 3 to 6 months after achieving Step 1.

3. Immediate Actions

Immediate actions were divided into three groups, namely, “I. Cooling”, “II.
Mitigation”, “III. Monitoring and Decontamination.” For the following five
issues—“Cooling the Reactors,” “Cooling the Spent Fuel Pools,” “Containment,
Storage, Processing, and Reuse of Water Contaminated by Radioactive Materials
(Accumulated Water),” “Mitigation of Release of Radioactive Materials to
Atmosphere and from Soil,” and “Measurement, Reduction and Announcement of
Radiation Dose in Evacuation Order/Planned Evacuation/ Emergency Evacuation
Preparation Areas”—targets are set for each of the five issues and various
countermeasures will be implemented simultaneously.
Please see the attachment for detailed actions.

We would like to deeply apologize again for the grave inconvenience and anxiety
that the broad public has been suffering due to the accident at the Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. We will continue to make every endeavor to bring
the situation under control.

Here is a pdf copy of the same :http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-co ... 417e12.pdf
Prevent scattering of radioactive materials on buildings and ground
Cover the entire buildings (as temporary measure)
{ Does not say here anything about flooding with water ..}

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 19 Apr 2011 09:55

About those robots and radiation levels .. few comments:

- Unit 1 (Between 10 and 49 mSV /Hr)
- No data for unit 2 (yet to be released?)
- Unit 3 ( Between 28 and 57 mSV/Hr)

Just a note that international standard for workers in emergencies is 500 mSV (year).. The limit at present in Japan is 250 mSV (It was raised .. Normal for plant workers is 20 or 50 mS/Year)

The oxygen level inside reactor buildings (1 and 3, no data for 2) is about 20% - (workers can go in except for radiation )

There is also a unmanned helicopter (to film the outside and upper sections)

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 19 Apr 2011 10:13

Some one was suggesting data-center type batteries etc... here are some pictures for DG, cooling system, etc.. (Pictures are of a similar BWR plants..(from nucleartourist.com)

Emergency coolant injection pump (driven by steam)

Diesel Generator:

Torus:

Circulating water pipes

Recirculation pump (mockup)

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 19 Apr 2011 10:18

For Pictures of Fukushima, take a tour:
http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/tour.html

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 19 Apr 2011 11:52

Sanku wrote:But as far as I know, trains when hit by Tusnami don't leak radiation, so just perhaps a "train != Nuclear plant", it may be difficult, but perhaps that thought could also be considered?

That for the SAME TSUNAMI, DIFFERENT CASES, need DIFFERENT TREATMENT?

As far as I know even sunlight leaks radiation - but your 'regularly occuring' Tsunami killed people on the train. So shouldn't trains be banned? Not building train lines near the coast can prevent the tsunami effect but what about earthquakes? so shouldn't trains be banned completely? They are killers. Deaths from radiation are still 0

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Apr 2011 11:57

arnab wrote: As far as I know even sunlight leaks radiation

Sun light does not "leak" radiation. Sunlight is radiation.

Stop making flippant remarks if you want to be taken seriously,

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 19 Apr 2011 12:01

Sanku wrote: Sun light does not "leak" radiation. Sunlight is radiation.

Stop making flippant remarks if you want to be taken seriously,

yeah, yeah - but I thought we were arguing along the lines of 'an explosion is an explosion - nuke, hydrogen are all semantics'.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Apr 2011 12:06

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote: Sun light does not "leak" radiation. Sunlight is radiation.

Stop making flippant remarks if you want to be taken seriously,
yeah, yeah - but I thought we were arguing along the lines of 'an explosion is an explosion - nuke, hydrogen are all semantics'.

That is yet another misrepresentation.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 19 Apr 2011 13:32

The criticism of Fukushima is indeed skewed when compared with lack of fault-finding regarding the other ~20,000 deaths (I don't have the latest death count). Yes, granted that the deaths of old people who could not evacuate is unfortunate, but were they unavoidable?

A lot has been said about the history of 40 m tsunamis in Japan and how Tepco should have known about it. Doesn't the same argument apply to those who build senior folks homes near the coastline? Are they being raked through the coals for their negligence? Their negligence resulted in *actual* deaths, not some hypothetical death from cancer in the next 20 years.

Trains are another example posted here. Yes, trains do not release radioactivity, but so what? Can the Japanese railways be treated independently and brought to justice? I agree that they should not be compared to the reactor. They should be tried and punished independently.

The shrill news media has taken the focus away from the real culprits.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Apr 2011 13:50

Trains, et al are different in some ways in the context of above points raised.

1) One time impact vs lingering impact. The consequence is huge
2) Impact on surrounding areas not otherwise impacted -- localized vs widespread.
3) Visibility of danger and understanding of its effects in general (in all sections including scientist) -- unpredictability involved.
etc...

Nuke is different from everything else, drastically, that remains so, for better or for worse.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Apr 2011 14:00

Meanwhile people on the ground do not trust TEPCO and its claims of clean-up very much it seems

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/perspectives/edi ... tml?inb=rs

TEPCO must provide more solid information on recovery from nuclear crisis

Just when will people be able to breathe a sigh of relief that the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant is over? The lives of residents living around the plant are hanging on an answer to this question. For local farmers and businesses, it is a matter of life and death.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO)'s announcement of a schedule for bringing the disaster under control was significant. Unfortunately, however, the schedule lacks concrete details. Rather than serving as a plan to solve the crisis it is a display of just how many difficulties remain.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 19 Apr 2011 14:15

Sanku wrote: Nuke is different from everything else, drastically, that remains so, for better or for worse.

This is the precise reason that this thread has had long sequences of posts disproving the perceptions of long term health effects etc etc. It has now boiled down to the opinion of some versus facts of others. If you claim "long term" anything, don't you have to prove it? Just saying it and then giving the trains a free pass for being "short term" is not good policy.

Bottom line, "long term" and "wide spread" need to be proven -- not in some Bq/kg readings but in terms of actually verified harm to humanity.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Apr 2011 14:19

GuruPrabhu wrote: It has now boiled down to the opinion of some versus facts of others. .

No, there is no merit in the opinion that Nuclear issue is same as Railways. The facts clearly are different.

Bottom line, "long term" and "wide spread" need to be proven -- not in some Bq/kg readings but in terms of actually verified harm to humanity.

It is seen, at Chenobyl at Fukushima and others. The costs are known.

That is the difficulty with commerical insurance to NPPs, since that will break the insurance company or the NPP. No NPP can run purely commercially without a large Govt cover. Trains can, and do.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 19 Apr 2011 14:42

Sanku wrote:It is seen, at Chenobyl at Fukushima and others. The costs are known.

I am sorry but the costs are not known to me. Please post the cost as you see them, not some link to some website.

Secondly, the cost estimates for India should be made in the Indian model, i.e., taking railways as an example -- Rs. 4 lakhs/death and zero payments for environmental damage, despite operating diesel locos and electric locos (powered by coal-fired electricity) that spew very *visible* pollutants daily. When doing this exercise, please keep in mind the *widespread* and *long-term* radioactivity that is dispersed with coal ash.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Apr 2011 14:47

GuruPrabhu wrote:I am sorry but the costs are not known to me. Please post the cost as you see them, not some link to some website..

Well well, I have see no sense to take part in unreasonable discussion, it should be other way around. If you cant back up with other open sources, don't bother discussing.

The Fukushima and Chernobyl costs are already posted from various "web-sites"

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 19 Apr 2011 14:58

It is your choice to not discuss. However, it should not be a huge bother to post a cost if it is known to you. It takes but a few keystrokes to write down a number. I am asking for your understanding of the cost because the websites are all over the place and don't agree with each other. So, since you state that the cost is known to you, what is the harm in just typing in the number?

All of BRF will benefit from knowing this number.

Secondly, you are ignoring the railways example even though I have painstakingly pointed out why it is a relevant example because GOI has established the payment amounts for that sector.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Apr 2011 16:01

GuruPrabhu wrote:to post a cost if it is known to you.

Well, my knowledge is based on others knowledge, so I will have to pull in others when quoting numbers. It IS NOT a question of a few keystrokes as you said. It is a important question with various issues that will need to be considered.

Trotting out a number would be flippant. We can only estimate major ranges based on open source information. These have been posted.

Secondly, you are ignoring the railways example even though I have painstakingly pointed out why it is a relevant example because GOI has established the payment amounts for that sector.

I am not ignoring it, I am categorically stating examining the similiarities and differences, but thats in Indian Nuclear thread, right.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 19 Apr 2011 18:24

Nuke plant meltdown warning went unheeded

Meanwhile, the Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization (JNES) released last fall a simulation in which a nuclear reactor would have a core meltdown and other consequences only 100 minutes after losing its cooling capabilities.

The fact that the nation had been warned of the worst-case scenario is likely to pressure the government and electric power companies to review their nuclear designs and screening process.

The JNES comes under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and is an independent administrative institution tasked with studying nuclear safety. It wrote a report in October last year after examining seven types of nuclear reactors and carried out simulations of quake-triggered severe accidents at the reactors.

The pool for spent fuel at the No. 4 reactor of TEPCO's Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant is pictured in this Feb. 1, 2005, file photo. (Mainichi)
It studied how a boiling water reactor (with an output capacity of 800,000 kilowatts) identical to the No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant would react once it lost its power source and the function to cool the reactor core halted.

The study shows that a meltdown began about one hour and 40 minutes after the water- pumping function stopped. About 3 hours and 40 minutes later, the pressure container broke down and about 6 hours and 50 minutes later the containment vessel also ruptured.

At the Fukushima nuclear plant, the pressure within the containment vessel of the No. 1 reactor abnormally surged at 1:20 a.m. on March 12, about 8 hours and 40 minutes after the reactor's water-filling function failed. Radioactive steam was vented from the containment vessel and a hydrogen explosion occurred at 3:36 p.m. the same day.

In the No. 3 reactor, the water injection function malfunctioned, prompting the release of radioactive steam and triggering a hydrogen explosion shortly after 11 a.m. on March 14. The reactor's cooling function equipped with the reactor's pre-warning device was believed to have been still operative for some time after the loss of its power source.

As part of precautionary measures against severe accidents, power operators are required to take steps even if there is a low possibility of incidents that would induce such accidents. In the Fukushima nuclear disaster, emergency diesel generators lost electricity due to the tsunami. No one had projected a situation in which all emergency power generators could not be used for many hours.

Tadashi Yoshida, a professor of reactor engineering at Tokyo City University, said, "No one, including myself, ever imagined all emergency power generators would be wiped out. We could not imagine this worse-case scenario. We should radically review the design guidelines and the state's screening process."

Takeshi Matsuoka, a guest professor of system engineering at Utsunomiya University, said, "In view of the huge damage and social losses from potential consequences, the government should have ordered them to draw up measures even if the chances of electricity loss were low. Members of the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan and other people in responsible positions have apparently lacked vision to utilize JNES's knowledge. The respective electric power companies must have had the resources to independently analyze the results of the JNES results."

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 19 Apr 2011 18:30

Gov't cracks down on flow of retired bureaucrats to power company jobs

As the crisis at a Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture continues to rage, the government is taking a new and harder look at the flow of retiring ministry officials to senior positions at the country's electric companies.

The first casualty in the new battle against electrical utility "amakudari" -- the Japanese term for retiring senior bureaucrats moving into private sector jobs related to their old positions -- is TEPCO advisor Toru Ishida, a former official with the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (predecessor to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry), who recently announced his resignation.

The announcement came in the wake of an order from Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano to the industry ministry to crack down on "re-employment" of officials with major electric firms, prompted by analysis of the Fukushima nuclear accident that placed blame on the "collusive relationship between government and the private sector" for worsening the crisis.

The first industry ministry official to take a high-ranking job at TEPCO was Takeo Ishihara, a former vice minister who joined the utility as a director in 1962, going on to successive posts including vice president. He was followed by Makoto Masuda, former head of the Agency of Natural Resources and Energy, and Hiroshi Kawasaki and Susumu Shirakawa, both former assistant directors of the energy agency, and one of TEPCO's six vice president positions is now apparently reserved for former ministry bureaucrats.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 19 Apr 2011 18:47

French company to decontaminate Daiichi water

French nuclear reactor maker Areva says it has agreed with the Tokyo Electric Power Company to build a facility to decontaminate radioactive water at the compound of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

CEO Anne Lauvergeon told reporters in Tokyo on Tuesday that Areva -- one of the world's largest nuclear energy firms -- will build the facility to remove radioactive substances from the contaminated water.

The facility is to use chemical agents to remove radioactive iodine and cesium from contaminated water. The concentration of the radioactive substances is to be reduced to one-one thousandth to one-ten thousandth of the current level. A similar system is already in place in France.

Lauvergeon said it is most important to decontaminate the water at the plant, and that her company will try to do this in every possible way.

TEPCO told reporters on the same day that it has adopted Areva's proposal. The company says it will first transfer the contaminated water into a waste processing facility at the plant, and then decontaminate 1,200 tons of the water per day. It hopes to use decontaminated water to cool the reactors.

TEPCO hopes to start operating the decontamination facility in June.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 21:47 +0900 (JST)

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 19 Apr 2011 18:55

Japan mulls hiking power charges to help cover damages payments
TOKYO, April 19, Kyodo

The government is considering increasing electricity charges to help cover damages payments to people who have suffered losses on the ongoing crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant of Tokyo Electric Power Co., government sources said Tuesday.

It is planning to increase the tax on electricity source development, which is collected from consumers as part of electricity charges, and use the hike for providing a portion of the damages payments that TEPCO may not be able to shoulder, they said.

Within the government and the electric utility industry, however, there are some cautious views about the planned measure that will effectively force all the Japanese people to share the burden of damages payments.

With unspecified quantum of damages, public has to share damages if TEPCO is not to go bankrupt and remain operational as earlier report indicated. Probably this may be factored into calculation of cost of Nuclear plants as well?

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 19 Apr 2011 18:59

TEPCO starts moving highly radioactive water to storage facility
TOKYO, April 19, Kyodo

The operator of the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on Tuesday started moving highly radioactive water from the No. 2 reactor turbine building to another facility at the site as part of efforts to enable engineers to engage in work to restore key cooling functions of the troubled reactors.

Workers are struggling to remove some 25,000 tons of deadly water in and around the No. 2 turbine building, which has an extremely high level of radiation exceeding 1,000 millisieverts per hour. The total amount of contaminated water accumulating in the plant's premises is estimated to be a little less than 70,000 tons.

The pools of water at the site are believed to be a side effect of a stopgap measure of injecting water into many of the plant's reactors and spent nuclear fuel pools, which have lost cooling functions since the March 11 quake and tsunami, to prevent them from overheating.

After decontamination these 70,000 tonnes of water could be sold in US as Fukushima Water as it would have low radiation level which are beneficial. Good Business opportunity and some cost could also be recovered.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 19 Apr 2011 19:06

U.S. anti-radiation team to leave Japan next week after not being called in
Tuesday 19th April, 12:14 PM JST

Good move by Japanese.

TOKYO —
A 150-member anti-radiation team from the U.S. Marine Corps will leave Japan as early as next week now that the ongoing nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station is not likely to deteriorate further, a senior Japanese Defense Ministry official said Tuesday.

The Marines’ Chemical Biological Incident Response Force, or CBIRF, has been staying at the U.S. Air Force’s Yokota air base in suburban Tokyo since around April 5 to prepare for an emergency, but the situation at the crippled nuclear plant has not required its callout, according to Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa.

U.S. forces appeared to have come to a conclusion that the nuclear crisis would not deteriorate further now that the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co, announced Sunday its schedule to bring the situation under control over a period of six to nine months, the official said.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 19 Apr 2011 21:25

Bade wrote:In case of NPP in Japan or even in India, both being democracies, it will be hard to agree on the bolded part. People in Japan knew what the bargain was both for NPP as well as building settlements in Tsunami zones from historical records. There is always a bargain in any situation when one uses technology including driving cars, flying etc.

So far the measurable evidence from high background radiation elsewhere and its impact on human health is inconclusive, and the exposure levels to the general population from Fukushima is well below the danger zone for a cumulative dose threshold over a lifespan.

In fact they opposed it. But their voices went unheard in the face of money of Nuke lobby and power of the Govt.

Japan had different reason to go Nuclear. It has no coal and oil reserve worth its name.

So lets say it is inconclusive . that's not the same as saying it is harmless as some would like us to believe.

It depends on the area. Certainly in some areas and plant premises and fukushima city and evacuation zone it would be higher for general public for whom limit is set 1 mSV in normal times and currently 10 mSv as per some report and 20 mSV by some other reports. And when people are evacuated from the zone to be returned after indefinite period of time for no fault of theirs, how can one say that we can't attribute deaths to radiation since no one died. Do we wait for them to die to understand that Nuclear Plant accident radiation is harmful.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 19 Apr 2011 21:44

Amber G. wrote:
amit wrote:Meanwhile, an update on the nuclear plant:

New cooling systems may be installed outside Fukushima reactor buildings
Amit et al:
Here is my take on the events to come. Some may be my guesses but most, I think, are consistent with what the experts are saying.

1. As said before (actually right in the beginning - see my posts then) It is a long term process. Chernobyl burqa took something like 8 months. Radiation has to subside, calculation have to be made, plans have to be checked and double checked etc.

2. Full (as much as full can be called) will take about 10-20 years. (See my post in the beginning again, or MITNSE type sites). This is the time frame to treat all the water , move all Cs, fuel rods, eent-pathar out, clean up soil etc, and burry it all. Expensive process, but nothing unexpected, even scheduled retiring of NPP, one has to do that.

3. 3 Months period - hope fully (actually there are positive indications that the time frame is ok) cooling pumps etc are restored, and normal "cold shutdown" condition is reached.

4. By this time, the decay heat would have fallen enough (according to best available data) and stable condition would have reached. This means - water temp would be below 100C with normal/stable cooling.

5. At this time, perhaps, containers would be examined and any leaks would be sealed to keep the inside inside. Next 5-6 months all reactors may be flooded in water by erecting swimming pool type walls or make the whole part an artificial lake (There are some concerns, - earth-quakes related - to make sure the walls would be okay).
- This is perhaps better deal than concrete burqa.

6. Radiation level will be closely monitored. Things will settle down in next 3 months or so.

7. Iodine half life is small, so 3 months will reduce the quantity by a factor or 1000x. Cs has relatively short biological half life (month or so) so
food etc would be monitored. Soil may need to be cleaned up etc. But this can be done at its own pace.

... Just some points...Take it for whatever it's worth

For once , i am inclined to agree with this. It would take 10-20 yrs and in my estimate plant is as good as gone. What solutions would be provided would depend on they want to proceed with it based on the real ground situation. Though not yet clear about fate of Plant 5 & 6 as they seems to be fine.

don't agree much though on Point 6&7 , , need continuous monitoring. All depends how much is still being released , how much released etc. Only time will tell and if someone strays in the zone stays to see the effect unprotected. Like those communities still living within Chernobyl evac zone.

Don't know what would become of Fukushima City itself given contradictory signals emerging from Japan.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 19 Apr 2011 21:45

Lalmohan wrote:^^^ western england has high levels of natural radon gas escaping from rocks, there are supposed to be higher rates of cancer there

Any studies for that conclusion?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 19 Apr 2011 22:39

^^^ Allow me, you can read the whole paper, but here is an abstract from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8758252

An ecological study of cancer incidence and radon levels in South West England.

Etherington DJ, Pheby DF, Bray FI.

Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, U.K.
Abstract

To investigate the relationship of domestic radon levels and cancer, the incidence of 14 major cancers in Devon and Cornwall were examined in relation to the local radon levels. Cancer registrations for 1989-1992 were provided by the South-Western Regional Cancer Registry. The average radon levels for postcode sectors were sorted into ten categories from low (< 40 Bq/m3) to extremely high (> or = 230 Bq/m3 {Compare these with levels in Japan} ) and age-standardised incidence rates were calculated for each radon category. The incidence rates for lung cancer, where radon has been claimed to be a risk factor, were very similar across all domestic radon categories. Only non-melanoma skin cancers, showed a significant increase in incidence in the high-radon postcode sectors (> or = 100 Bq/m3) compared with the low-radon sectors (< 60 Bq/m3) {skin cancer is also caused by sun-light etc..check the original paper for details } and this effect was observed for both sexes. The remaining 12 cancer sites showed no significant trend in incidence rates with increasing radon concentration. There was no significant difference in corrected survival rates for any cancer site between the low- and high-radon areas. The possible contribution of confounding factors to the results of this study is discussed.

PMID: 8758252 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Not that this, or any study, will help the true-believers.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 19 Apr 2011 22:46

OPINION: How to minimize consequences of the Fukushima catastrophe
By Alexey V. Yablokov
MOSCOW, April 15, Kyodo

The analysis of the health impact of radioactive land contamination by the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, made by Professor Chris Busby (the European Committee of Radiation Risk) based on official Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology data, has shown that over the next 50 years it would be possible to have around 400,000 additional cancer patients within a 200-kilometer radius of the plant.

This number can be lower and can be even higher, depending on strategies to minimize the consequences. Underestimation is more dangerous for the people and for the country than overestimation.

Based on Chernobyl experiences, it is necessary to understand that it may be impossible to quickly get back to life before the catastrophe and to accept the post-Fukushima realities as soon as possible.

The main directions of actions that should be taken:

1. Enlarge the exclusion zone to at least about a 50-km radius of the plant;

2. Distribute detailed instructions on effective ways to protect the health of individuals while avoiding the additional contamination of food. Organize regular measurements of all people by individual dose counters (for overall radionuclides) at least once a week. Distribute the radioprotectors and decontaminants (substances which provide the body protection against harmful effects of radiation) of radionuclides. There are many of such food additives;

3. Develop recommendations for safe agriculture on the contaminated territories: reprocessing of milk, decontamination of meat, turning agriculture into production of technical cultures (e.g. biofuels etc.). Such ''radionuclide-resistant'' agriculture will be costly (it may be up to 30-40 percent compared with conventional agriculture) and needs to be subsidized;

4. It is necessary to urgently improve existing medical centers -- and possibly create new ones -- to deal with the immediate and long-term consequences of the irradiated peoples (including medical-genetic consultations on the basis of chromosome analysis etc.);

5. The most effective way to help organize post-Fukushima life in the contaminated territories (from Chernobyl lessons) is to create a special powerful interagency state body (ministry or committee) to handle the problems of contaminated territories during the first most complicated years.

I am sure that Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian radiation medicine and agriculture specialists, radiobiologists and radioecologists who have enormous experience in fighting radiation consequences will be ready to cooperate with Japan.

(Alexey V. Yablokov is a councilor for the Russian Academy of Science and a principal author of ''Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment,'' published in 2009).

==Kyodo

I was curious about his book so here is the wiki link on the book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl: ... nvironment

Neutrality of Wiki is doubted yet it makes some valid points.

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment is a translation of a 2007 Russian publication by Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko. It was published by the New York Academy of Sciences in 2009 in their Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences series.[1]

There is significant disagreement on the degree of long-term adverse impacts of the Chernobyl disaster, despite decades of environmental and heath effects research.[2][3] The environmentalist Amory Lovins has written

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation's 2005 estimate of about 4,000 Chernobyl deaths contrasts with this review of 5,000 mainly Slavic-language scientific papers the UNSCEAR overlooked.

It found deaths approaching a million through 2004, nearly 170,000 of them in North America.[4]

The book was not peer reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences,[5] but has been reviewed in the Oxford Journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry[6] in February 2010.

Two expert reviews of the book were commissioned by the Oxford journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry.

The first, by Dr. Ian Fairlie[7] greets the book as a "welcome addition to the literature in English. The New York Academy of Sciences [is] to be congratulated for publishing this volume. [...]

In the opinion of the reviewer, this volume makes it clear that international nuclear agencies and some national authorities remain in denial about the scale of the health disasters in their countries due to Chernobyl's fallout.

This is shown by their reluctance to acknowledge contamination and health outcomes data, their ascribing observed morbidity/mortality increases to non-radiation causes, and their refusal to devote resources to rehabilitation and disaster management."

Fairlie notes two shortcomings of the book:

that it does not sufficiently investigate the large decrease in average male life spans throughout Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, in both contaminated and uncontaminated areas;

and that it does not make enough effort to reconstruct estimated doses of contamination and discuss their implications for eastern and western Europe (though Fairlie agrees with the authors that studies should not be rejected for failing to contain dose estimates—a criterion commonly applied by western nuclear agencies such as the IAEA).

Fairlie specifically concurs with Yablakov et al. on three points:

The IAEA's exclusion of data where estimated dose is below a certain threshold (following ICRP recommendations) is contrary to normal practice, even the ICRP's own practice, and contradicts the linear no-threshold model (LNT). The ICRP's recommendation in this regard is inconsistent with LNT and its own practices.

The IAEA/WHO have often sought to justify their dismissal of eastern European epidemiological studies by citing questionable scientific practices: but epidemiology is not an exact science, and the same shortcomings exist in western studies uncriticised by the IAEA.

The IAEA also point to shortcomings with pre-Chernobyl Soviet cancer registries, but cancer registries in western countries had similar issues at that time.

In observational epidemiological studies where certain data is already known and certain effects are expected, statistical tests for significance of the results are not normally required.

Yet the IAEA has challenged such papers that do not include statistical tests and confidence intervals, and questioned whether the observed effects are due to chance.

Eastern scientists are faced with a catch-22 situation whereby they either (correctly) leave out statistical tests, and are dismissed, or else apply the tests, leading western scientists to (incorrectly) conclude that there is no real effect.

The second review (in the same volume), by Dr. Monty Charles,[8] is largely critical, noting several problems:

The authors expressly discount socioeconomic or screening factors when considering increased occurrence of diseases, but this methodology does not seem to account for variations between territories prior to the accident.

Their discussion of 'hot particle' poisoning is cursory, and is unclear regarding dosage figures.

The chapter on health effects, 60% of the book, contains inadequate explanation or critical evaluation of many cited facts and figures, and in many instances related tables, figures and statements appear to contradict each other.

A section abstract predicted numbers of casualties due to cancer, however the section did not contain any discussion to support these numbers.

While Charles agrees with the importance of making eastern research more available in the west, he states that he cannot tell which of the publications referred to by the book would sustain critical peer-review in western scientific literature, and that verifying these sources would require considerable effort.

Charles sees the book as representing one end of a spectrum of views, and believes that works from the entire spectrum must be critically evaluated in order to develop an informed opinion.

In George Monbiot's recent exchanges with anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott and John Vidal on the matter of the total death toll of Chernobyl, Caldicott and Vidal made reference to Yablokov's book. Monbiot responded by saying:
A devastating review in the journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry points out that the book achieves this figure by the remarkable method of assuming that all increased deaths from a wide range of diseases – including many which have no known association with radiation – were caused by the Chernobyl accident. There is no basis for this assumption, not least because screening in many countries improved dramatically after the disaster and, since 1986, there have been massive changes in the former eastern bloc. The study makes no attempt to correlate exposure to radiation with the incidence of disease.
The passage Monbiot is referring to comes from Charles' review, and actually relates to the 2006 Greenpeace report on Chernobyl, not the book by Yablokov et al.[8]

Read the book here if you are a member of NYAS ( I am not)
http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals ... 3f44b3bfc1

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 19 Apr 2011 22:47

Amber G. wrote:^^^ Allow me, you can read the whole paper, but here is an abstract from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8758252
An ecological study of cancer incidence and radon levels in South West England.

Etherington DJ, Pheby DF, Bray FI.

Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, U.K.
Abstract

To investigate the relationship of domestic radon levels and cancer, the incidence of 14 major cancers in Devon and Cornwall were examined in relation to the local radon levels. Cancer registrations for 1989-1992 were provided by the South-Western Regional Cancer Registry. The average radon levels for postcode sectors were sorted into ten categories from low (< 40 Bq/m3) to extremely high (> or = 230 Bq/m3 {Compare these with levels in Japan} ) and age-standardised incidence rates were calculated for each radon category. The incidence rates for lung cancer, where radon has been claimed to be a risk factor, were very similar across all domestic radon categories. Only non-melanoma skin cancers, showed a significant increase in incidence in the high-radon postcode sectors (> or = 100 Bq/m3) compared with the low-radon sectors (< 60 Bq/m3) {skin cancer is also caused by sun-light etc..check the original paper for details } and this effect was observed for both sexes. The remaining 12 cancer sites showed no significant trend in incidence rates with increasing radon concentration. There was no significant difference in corrected survival rates for any cancer site between the low- and high-radon areas. The possible contribution of confounding factors to the results of this study is discussed.

PMID: 8758252 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Not that this, or any study, will help the true-believers.

Thanks , will read if accessible.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 20 Apr 2011 03:38

^^^ One may also like to check (assuming that one is honestly interested in facts, and not just likely to throw insults on people who may like to help)

Amit et all - this is for record, and reference...

-Canadian study ( which by the way, goes from 0-1800 Bq/m3). Since the Canadian study found no risk from exposure to over 7200 Bq/m3, it is probable that none exists from residential levels of radon.
Ltourneau EG, Krewski D, Choi NW, Goddard MJ, McGregor RG, Zielinski JM, Du J.

Case-control study of residential radon and lung cancer in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Am J Epidemiol 1994 Aug 15;140(4):310-321. 714 ever smokers, 24 never smokers. No risk after adjustment. 0-1800 Bq/m3, OR=1.0 (reference); 1801-3600 Bq/m3, 0.97 (95% CIs 0.63-1.48); 3601-7200 Bq/m3, 0.84 (0.51-1.39); 7201+ Bq/m3, 1.00 (0.69-1.46).]

[National Research Council. Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations (BEIR IV). Health Risks of Radon and Other Internally Deposited Alpha-Emitters. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988.]

Let me put a few more..
(Just like reports of 100,000,000,000,in Cashemere, EB's will never acknowledge that there has been NO study where statistical results show what their hypothesis show)

Studies in the US not only fail to convincingly demonstrate a risk from residential radon, but there is a suggestion of declining risk with higher low-level exposure. Radon scare-mongers have attempted to dismiss the work of Bernard L. Cohen, who found that lung cancer rates actually decreased with increasing residential radon levels, as merely an ecological study, and claim that it must have been confounded.

Ref:
[Cohen BL. Test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis for inhaled radon decay products. Health Phys 1995 Feb;68(2):157-174]. "It is shown that uncertainties in lung cancer rates, radon exposures, and smoking prevalence are not important and that confounding by 54 socioeconomic factors, by geography, and by altitude and climate can explain only a small fraction of the discrepancy" [between the linear-no threshold theory that radon causes lung cancer in proportion to the dose, and actual decreasing rates of lung cancer with dose actually found]. This study covered more than half of all US counties, with about 90% of the US population.

Cohen BL. Lung cancer rate vs. mean radon level in U.S. counties of various characteristics. Health Phys 1997;72(1):114-119. "Plots of lung cancer rates corrected for smoking prevalence vs. average home radon levels are presented for U.S. counties with a wide variety of socioeconomic characteristics. The data are generally well described by the same negative slope linear, plus positive slope quadratic, `standard' curve. Plots are presented for geographic regions and these are also reasonably well fit by the standard curve. The findings are not consistent with predictions based on a linear no-threshold model."

Cohen BL. Problems in the radon vs lung cancer test of the linear no-threshold theory and a procedure for resolving them. Health Phys 1997;72(4):623-628. "

It has been shown that lung cancer rates in U.S. Counties, with or without correction for smoking, decrease with increasing radon exposure, in sharp contrast to the increase predicted by the linear no-threshold theory. The discrepancy is by 20 standard deviations, and very extensive efforts to explain it were not successful. It is pointed out that, unless a plausible explanation for this discrepancy (or conflicting evidence) can be found, continued use of the linear no-threshold theory is a violation of "The Scientific Method." Various explanations that have been offered for ignoring these results are examined and shown not to be valid. A simple procedure for clearly settling the issue is proposed." And: "Our study has tremendous statistical power, including effectively nearly a million lung cancer deaths and 20 million deaths from other causes. The discrepancy with theory is by 20 standard deviations, which has a probability of occurring by chance equal to the inverse of the total number of electrons plus nuclei in the entire universe!"]

Cohen also conducted an unrelated study with different methodology, which also failed to find any evidence to support the theory predicting that radon risk begins at zero and rises smoothly with increasing exposure. Cohen analyzed 4438 lung cancer deaths, in comparison with the "nearly 1,000" in the UK study.
[Cohen BL. Questionnaire study of the lung cancer risk from radon in homes. Health Phys 1997;72(4):615-622.

"First-time measurements of radon levels in homes, self-selected by occupants, were accompanied by questionnaires asking about people who had lived in the house and died of cancer. Responses were received before-measurement results were available. The ratio of lung cancer deaths to deaths from other cancers was plotted as a function of radon level in the house. The results seem to indicate essentially no dependence of this ratio on radon exposure, in sharp contrast to the strong increase with increasing radon exposure predicted by the theory which should have been easily observable. Possible explanations of the discrepancy are discussed. Use of two alternative control groups increases the discrepancy with theory. This work has no connection with the recent test of the linear nonthreshold theory in the low dose region by the same author."]

But Praful Bidwai and their chelas will keep harping on the hypothesis and 985,000 deaths, merely because their model says so. /sigh/

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 20 Apr 2011 07:22

Amber G. wrote:I wonder how many people here are aware of Vermont's Yankee NPP. It is a BWR almost of the same era (1972 ?) as Fukushima. The old licence was going to expire in 2012, but got 20 year renewal (NRC) after Fukushima incident. One person who use to comment for CNN was quite against it ("how can they do it knowing Fukushima" )

Will be interesting to see all the hulla gulla. (State recently voted to stop the plant in 2012 but NRC is federal and the plant may not listen to the state ...)

IIRC they do/did have a lot of spent fuel..(it was a problem, as they had more than they would have liked but anti-nuke groups will not let them move it) they did have an earth-quake too (not in too distant past..) which (I think, but may be mistaken) damaged the cooling tower..

I tried to take a dekho in wiki but was not surprised to see "The neutrality of this article is disputed" sign there!

Here is a news item:
Entergy files suit to keep plant open

Entergy Corporation has filed a complaint with the US District Court in a bid to prevent the state of Vermont from forcing the closure of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in 2012.

Vermont Yankee (Image: NRC) The suit filed by Entergy subsidiaries Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and Entergy Nuclear Operations follows the March 2011 decision by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the plant's operating licence to March 2032. The single boiling water reactor plant has been in operation since 1972. The state of Vermont remains opposed to the operation of the plant beyond the expiry of its original licence, in March 2012.

The NRC's licence renewal decision, reached after an in-depth review, would normally be sufficient to ensure that a plant could continue to operate. However, in the case of Vermont Yankee, state approval is also needed for it to extend operations – a condition of the purchase of the plant by Entergy in 2002. Under a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed at the time, the two Entergy subsidiaries had agreed they would seek a certificate of public good from the Vermont Public Service Board if seeking to operate the plant beyond 21 March 2012. Entergy contests that a law passed by the Vermont General Assembly in 2006 repudiated the MoU, breaching the agreement and excusing the two Entergy subsidiaries' obligation to further comply with that specific provision.

"The 2006 state law took the decision about Vermont Yankee's future away from the Public Service Board, a quasi-judicial expert decision-maker, independent of legislative control," said Entergy Wholesale Commodities president Richard Smith. In so doing, it "placed Vermont Yankee's fate in the hands of political decision-makers," who could deny the plant's continued operation for unsupported or arbitrary reasons. "This is not what we signed up for in 2002," Smith added.

Entergy says it has made considerable efforts to achieve the necessary state approvals to allow the continued operation of the plant without resorting to litigation, including filing for a certificate of public good, offering Vermont utilities favourable terms for long-term power purchase agreements, offering to negotiate a date for commencement of decommissioning activities at Vermont Yankee earlier than the 60-year SAFSTOR period permitted by NRC regulations, and exploring the potential sale of the plant. The company says its recent attempts to sell the plant were stymied by political uncertainty in the state, and "more specifically, due to the stated intent of Vermont officials to shut down the plant."

Smith described litigation as by far the last preferred approach, but the action was taken following a 30 March meeting between Entergy and state governor Peter Shumlin in which the governor reiterated his opposition to the continued operation of Vermont Yankee beyond March 2012.

The suit contends that the state of Vermont is violating the Atomic Energy Act in asserting that it can close a federally licensed and operating nuclear power plant, and the Federal Power Act in making an agreement to provide power to Vermont utilities at preferential wholesale rates a condition of continued operation.

Meanwhile, Governor Shumlin accused Entergy of "attempting to rewrite history." Shumlin states that the 2006 law clearly outlined the requirements for continued operation of a nuclear power plant in the state. "When it purchased Vermont Yankee, Entergy clearly agreed that it must obtain a new state licence to operate beyond March 2012, and that it would not attempt to claim preemption regarding the state's licensing decision," he said. "Vermont has a proper role in granting or denying state approval for Vermont Yankee," he added.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 20 Apr 2011 07:24

Also:
International pledges for Chernobyl safety

As the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident approaches, the international community has pledged a further €550 million ($786 million) to ensure the plant site in Ukraine is made stable and environmentally safe.
<snip>

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 20 Apr 2011 07:30

Plans for Fukushima basement pumping

Plans to remove contaminated water from Fukushima Daiichi 2 should see it moved at the rate of 480 tonnes per day.

Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) has released details of the arrangements for dealing with the mass 25,000 tonnes of water that has accumulated in the basement of the turbine building of unit 2 at the damaged nuclear power plant.

This leak to sea has now been plugged, water levels are rising
within the building and must be dealt with

The water has a high level of radioactive contamination which is assumed to have come from direct contact with damaged nuclear fuel in the reactor core. Somehow this water appears to have has left the reactor coolant circuit and massed in the bottom of the turbine building. There it prevents workers from repairing cables that could enable the return of normal cooling and maintenance systems.

The 25,000 tonnes of accumulated water contains 3.0x106 becquerels from iodine-131 as well as 1.3x107 becquerels from caesium-137 per cubic centimetre. This leads to unacceptable dose rates at its surface of over 1000 millisieverts per hour.

This water had previously been leaking directly to sea through a 20 centimetre crack in the wall of a connected shaft adjacent to the sea. This was sealed a few days after its discovery and as a result the water level within this building has now begun to rise. About 168 tonnes of fresh water is injected to the reactor core each day to maintain adequate cooling. Tepco cannot confirm, but it is widely assumed that some of this water goes on to accumulate in the turbine building basement.

Although units 1 to 4 at Fukushima Daiichi have water in their turbine buildings, only that in unit 2 suffers this high level contamination. Hydrogen explosions earlier in the accident destroyed the top sections of the roofs of units 1 and 3. However, in unit 2 loud noises accompanied apparent damage to the torus suppression chamber, leading to speculation that this may form part of the route for water to take from the reactor core.

With water levels rising in unit 2, Tepco has made efforts to seal any potential leakage route from the lower turbine building, which is not normally a radiation-controlled area. The company will also inhibit any potential leakage by maintaining pressures in the building to levels below ground water pressure and running pipes through other reactor buildings where possible.

Preparations are now in progress to pump this water at the rate of some 480 tonnes per day into a centralized waste treatment building, whose normal contents have already been cleared out. In an extraordinary measure two weeks ago the Japanese government approved Tepco to dump some 11,500 tonnes of very mildly radioactive water from the treatment facility and other places to sea. This released a total of 1.5x1011 becquerels of radioactivity, the same amount as contained in just ten litres of the basement water.

The treatment facility can securely hold about 10,000 tonnes of the water. It will initially use coprecipitation methods to decontaminate the water but by June these will be complimented by ion-exchange equipment and additional storage tanks.

Tepco said it plans to have a closed loop for cooling unit 2 "by around July" meaning that the decontaminated fresh water will be re-injected for cooling. Eventually it should be possible to drain all the water and dispose of the buildings.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 20 Apr 2011 07:34

Hi Amber,

Thanks for posting Bernie Cohen's papers. He was the pioneer of Radon studies back in the late 1970s. There was a time when coal mine workers were suing the mine owners for increased risk of cancer. Bernie brought in Radon as a factor and showed that there can be other correlations drawn. later, to his surprise, he found that even Radon was not strongly correlated.

He had a famous quote back then: "Not having guard rails on highways kills more people than nuclear reactors ever have or ever will".

vina · Post by **vina** » 20 Apr 2011 10:08

GuruPrabhu wrote:He had a famous quote back then: "Not having guard rails on highways kills more people than nuclear reactors ever have or ever will".

Yes true. But it is a tragedy in the Indian context. Over the lifetime of the Jaitapur plant AFTER it is set up, there may or may not be a SINGLE fatality due to any cause, however, before the plant is even set up, there has been one death in firing, arson and maybe more to come, thanks to some rank idiocy and scare mongering bordering on insanity.

How about that for a reality check?