Well, it looks like TEPCO may have turned a corner at Fukushima. Ralph Vartabedian, who is one of the better reporters on technical issues, writes in the Los Angeles Times that Administration officials on background have said that radiation levels and heat loads are dropping and suggesting reports that Unit 2 melted through appear premature. (The story, by Matthew Wald and Andrew Pollack in the New York Times, is ambiguous about what precisely the NRC said.)
Cheryl Rofer has a nice commentary on the story at Phrone … Phrone … oh, well, you know.
Toshiba is, according to Ken Belson in the New York Times, now thinking about how to decommission the reactors on site for TEPCO, a process that will probably take years.
Anyway, your daily statement from our friends at the Federated Electric Power Companies of Japan, after the jump.
Update to Information Sheet Regarding the Tohoku Earthquake
The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan (FEPC) Washington DC Office
As of 12:00PM (EST), April 8, 2011
- Radiation Levels
o The concentration of radioactive nuclides from the seawater sampled at the screen device (installed to remove waste before the intake of seawater) of Unit 2 and sampled near the seawater discharge point (south side) of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Station were as follows:
Nuclides (half-life)
Concentration (Unit : Bq/cm3) Ratio Sampled at the screen of Unit 2 at 7:45AM on April 7 (a) Sampled at south side discharge point at 2:00PM on April 7 (b) Maximum Permissible Water Concentration (c) a / c b / c I-131 (8 days)
2.5 x 103 1.7 x 100 4.0 x 10-2 63,000 43 Cs-134 (2 years)
1.5 x 103 1.8 x 100 6.0 x 10-2 25,000 30 Cs-137 (30 years)
1.5 x 103 1.8 x 100 9.0 x 10-2 17,000 20
o At 7:00PM (JST) on April 8, radiation level at main gate (approximately 3,281 feet from Unit 2 reactor building) of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station: 94 micro Sv/hour.
o At 7:00PM on April 8, radiation level at west gate (approximately 3,609 feet from Unit 2 reactor building) of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station: 53.4 micro Sv/hour.
o Measurement results of environmental radioactivity level around Fukushima Nuclear Power Station announced at 7:00PM on April 8 are shown in the attached PDF file. English version is available at: http://www.mext.go.jp/english/radioactivity_level/detail/1304082.htm
o For comparison, a human receives 2,400 micro Sv per year from natural radiation in the form of sunlight, radon, and other sources. One chest CT scan generates 6,900 micro Sv per scan.
- Plant Parameters
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6 pressure inside the reactor core (gauge pressure, MPa) 0.395 -0.020 -0.004 - 0.003 0.005 4/8 12:00PM
4/8 12:00PM
4/8 12:00PM
- 4/8 2:00PM
4/8 2:00PM
pressure inside the primary containment vessel (absolute pressure, MPaabs) 0.185 0.100 0.1052 - - - 4/8 13:00PM
4/8 12:00PM
4/8 12:00PM
- - - water level inside the reactor core (meter) *1 -1.65 -1.5 -1.85 - +1.644 +1.668 4/8 12:00PM
4/8 12:00PM
4/8 12:00PM
- 4/8 2:00PM
4/8 2:00PM
temperature of the reactor vessel measured at the water supply nozzle (degrees Fahrenheit) 475.9 *2
286.2 191.8 *2
- - - 4/8 1:00PM
4/8 12:00PM
4/8 12:00PM
- - - temperature of the spent fuel pool (degrees Fahrenheit) - 127.4 - - 94.5 86.9 - 4/8 12:00PM
- - 4/8 2:00PM
4/8 2:00PM
the temperature directly above the spent fuel pool by thermography measurement (degrees Fahrenheit) 73.4 - 132.8 114.8 - - 4/8 7:30AM
- 4/8 7:30AM
4/8 7:30AM
- - temperature directly above the primary containment vessel by thermography measurement (degrees Fahrenheit) 91.4 - 95 - - - 4/8 7:30AM
- 4/8 7:30AM
- - - temperature directly above the second containment building by thermography measurement (degrees Fahrenheit) - 86 - - - - - 4/8 7:30AM
- - - - Amount of water in total shot/injected to the spent fuel storage pool (tons) 90 299 – 314 5,048 1,531 - - as of 4/8 7:00PM
as of 4/8 7:00PM
as of 4/8 7:00PM
as of 4/8 7:00PM
- - *1: Minus figure means that water level is below the top of the fuel rods.
*2: This figure is under investigation.
- Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 reactor
o As of 6:00PM on April 8, injection of nitrogen gas into the primary containment vessel to prevent an explosion by accumulated hydrogen gas continues.
o As of 6:00PM on April 8, the injection of freshwater into the reactor core continues.
- Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2 reactor
o As of 6:00PM on April 8, the injection of freshwater into the reactor core continues.
- Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 reactor
o At 5:08PM on April 8, TEPCO began to shoot water aimed at the spent fuel pool, with a specialized vehicle normally used for pumping concrete.
o As of 6:00PM on April 8, the injection of freshwater into the reactor core continues.
- Fukushima Daiichi Common Spent Fuel Pool
o At 7:20AM on April 8, the temperature of the spent fuel pool: 82.4 degrees Fahrenheit.
Others <Influences of the aftershock occurred at 11:32PM on April 7>
- Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station
o As of 4:00PM on April 8, no significant changes have been detected at monitoring posts at the site.
- Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station (Unit 1, 2, 3 & 4)
o Plant operation was suspended at all units when the aftershock occurred.
o As of 4:00PM on April 8, no significant changes have been detected at monitoring posts at the site.
- Onagawa Nuclear Power Station (Unit 1,2 & 3)
o Plant operation was suspended at all units when the aftershock occurred.
o The spent fuel pool cooling system was suspended automatically but has been recovered immediately.
o As of 4:00PM on April 8, no significant changes have been detected at monitoring posts at the site.
- Higashidori Nuclear Power Station
o Plant was under periodical maintenance when the aftershock occurred.
o Immediately after the external power was lost, backup diesel generators turned on to supply electricity to maintain the cooling system of the spent fuel storage pool.
o As of 4:00PM on April 8, no significant changes have been detected at monitoring posts at the site.
- Tokai Daini Nuclear Power Station
o Plant operation was suspended when the aftershock occurred.
o As of 4:00PM on April 8, no abnormality has been reported.
- Tomari Nuclear Power Station (Unit 1, 2 & 3)
o All units were under normal operation when the aftershock occurred.
o As of 4:00PM on April 8, all units are under normal operation.
- Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant and Accompanying Facilities
o Immediately after the external power was lost, backup diesel generators turned on to supply electricity..
o As of 5:00PM on April 8, power supply has been switched from backup power generation systems to the external power. It was confirmed that no fire, damage to equipment, injuries to personnel occurred. Radiation levels were measured at a normal level of safety.
Our official sources are:
- Office of The Prime Minister of Japan
- Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA)
- Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) Press Releases
- Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)
Anon | April 8, 2011
Why is Jaczko not so safety conscious with US plants?
genomega | April 8, 2011
Because the same thing could not happen at a US reactor and should have not happened there. In the US 55 reactors do not depend on outside power sources at all, they generate their own. This company was ordered years ago to build their seawalls higher and to harden their backup pumps and fuel tanks, neither was done. Fuel tanks in the US are in concrete bunkers, theirs out in the open barely above sea level and there are many other differences. This was a man made disaster period.
Anon | April 9, 2011
How do they generate their own power? Is there a scenario in which that self generated power will go out?
What about this:
http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/4391446094/internal-nrc-documents-reveal-doubts-about-safety
or this:
http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/4264620731/chairman-jaczko-should-listen-to-himself
or:
http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/4445460674/foia-documents-from-nrc
FSB | April 9, 2011
Really genomega? Can’t happen in gold ol US of A?
Well, according to foremost expert Lochbaum in sworn testimony before the senate: ” Today, tens of thousands of tons of irradiated fuel sits in spent fuel pools across America. At many sites, there is nearly ten times as much irradiated fuel in the spent fuel pools as in the reactor cores. The spent fuel pools are not cooled by an array of highly reliable emergency cooling systems capable of being powered from the grid, diesel generators, or batteries. Instead, the pools are cooled by one regular system sometimes backed up by an alternate makeup system.
The spent fuel pools are not housed within robust concrete containment structures designed to protect the public from the radioactivity released from damaged irradiated fuel. Instead, the pools are often housed in buildings with sheet metal siding like that in a Sears storage shed. I have nothing against the quality or utility of Sears’ storage sheds, but they are not suitable for nuclear waste storage.
The irrefutable bottom line is that we have utterly failed to properly manage the risk from irradiated fuel stored at our nation’s nuclear power plants. We can and must do better.”
and:
“If the past three decades have demonstrated anything, it’s that the NRC will likely come up with a solid action plan to address problems revealed at Fukushima, but will be glacially slow in implementing those identified safety upgrades. A comprehensive action plan does little to protect Americans until its goals are achieved. We urge the US Congress to force the NRC to not merely chart a course to a safer place, but actually reach that destination as soon as possible.”
And maybe it is worth reading the NRC’s Inspector General’s report before mouthing off on how safe US Nuclear Plants are:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/insp-gen/2011/oig-11-a-08.pdf
And, btw, 11 US reactors have batteries designed to supply dc power for up to 8 hours should a power outage (station blackout SBO) occur.
The Fukushima reactors were also equipped with 8-hour battery capacities and were insufficient to meet the challenge.
Ninety-three US reactors are designed with batteries lasting half that long.
How about we discuss facts on this blog, instead of fantasy?
yousaf | April 8, 2011
Several Nature articles on health risks:
A long shadow over Fukushima
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110405/full/472007a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110407
Fukushima health risks scrutinized
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110405/full/472013a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110407
Japan’s Long Road Ahead
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110405/full/472014a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110407
US radiation study sparks debate
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110405/full/472015a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110407
see also:
http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/4406180702/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause
Eve | April 10, 2011
Thanks Yousaf!
Eve | April 10, 2011
Jim Smith’s article on Cs-137 is quite appropriate.
The health risks article argues for the capture of baseline data. This is highly important for future studied and a scramble for this should be made.
I wonder how many reactors have analysed the finer details, like the way in which the wind blows year round. If the wind had blown over a major metropolitan area, such as Tokyo, I think the situation would have had a completely different dramatic outcome. Has such a study ever been conducted in the States?
bks | April 9, 2011
Baloney. Where’s the data?
–bks
Anon | April 9, 2011
Could you clarify what you refer to?
bks | April 9, 2011
In J. Lewis’ intro he alludes to an article in the LA times and a blog, neither of which have a named source nor an ounce of data. Last I heard, TEPCO is building a seawall and radioactive measurements in the Pacific Ocean are rising.
–bks
Anon | April 9, 2011
I wish they would stop using the stupid false equivalence to things like CT scans and background radiation.
It is anti-scientific. Where are the medical nuclear physicists on this issue?
Most background radiation and medical imaging is in the form of X- and Gamma rays.
The risk around a power plant would be from ingested or inhaled Cs or I, which then concentrates in specific tissue, delivering a MUCH higher dose _locally_ at that site, the Thyroid gland in particular.
This clearly involves a much greater local risk to renegade cells being created, which is precisely how cancer starts. And fetuses and young children are at much greater risk.
So comparing background radiation levels (or CT scans) to the risk of living near a power plant (or disaster) is just nonsense — much worse than apples and oranges, more like apples and artichokes.
Eve | April 10, 2011
You are right – this type of comparison is not correct, and it is very important to continue to refine our models based on empirical data. Where possible, we might benefit from new knowledge coming from genomic analysis – mutation screening in plants and animals. This data will give us precise data on how radiation absorbtion affects human, animal and plant DNA integrity. For instance, it is already known certain radionuclides and forms of radiation are much more efficient at causing double stranded breaks in particular genomes. In some cases it can be compared between being hit by a ping pong in a room versus a big mac truck. There is much more to be done on the biological front.
FSB | April 9, 2011
Dude, we know you are in CA and not great with numbers, but, like OMG, it is 4/8 not 3/8…as in the title of your post. ;)
Jeffrey | April 9, 2011
I live in DC. You try running a blog, raising a kid and keeping your day job without making typos.
Charles | April 10, 2011
Jeffrey, I’m appalled at your lack of dedication. To hell with family, this is a BLOG!
bks | April 9, 2011
Wait … I thought they stopped the leak.
“Tokyo Electric Power Co. started Saturday to install enclosing materials in the sea to prevent a further spread of highly radioactive water that seeped from a crisis-hit nuclear power plant, while continuing other efforts to stabilize Japan’s worst nuclear crisis.”
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/84290.html
–bks
Still Concerned | April 9, 2011
“Well, it looks like TEPCO may have turned a corner at Fukushima. Ralph Vartabedian, who is one of the better reporters on technical issues, writes in the Los Angeles Times that Administration officials on background have said that radiation levels and heat loads are dropping and suggesting reports that Unit 2 melted through appear premature.”
It’s hard to square things are improving at Fukushima with today’s new stories at NKH or even with the figures you posted in the table showing the reactor stats from FECP for April 8th. In comparison with the values that you published for April 7th, temperature and pressure are still going up in Reactor 1. Copied from your tables here:
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/10_05.html
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/10_03.html
Here is recent JAIF data for more comparisons of rising pressure and temperature at Reactor 1:
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/
2011-04-09
Reactor Status and Major Events Update 76 – NPPs in Fukushima as of 18:00 April ・・・ PDFファイル(280KB)
Major Data (Reactor 1)
Reactor Water level (Apr. 08 12:00)
(A) -1650mm (B) -1650mm
Reactor pressure (Apr. 08 12:00)
(A) 0.395MPaG, (B) 0.793MPaG
CV pressure (Apr. 08 13:00)
0.185MPaabs
RPV temperature (Apr. 08 06:00)
246.6°C at feed water line nozzle
(to be confirmed)
Thermography (Apr. 08 07:30)
CV: 33°C, SFP: 23°C
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/
2011-04-08
Reactor Status and Major Events Update 74 – NPPs in Fukushima as of 20:00 April ・・・ PDFファイル(273KB)
Major Data (Reactor 1)
Reactor Water level (Apr. 08 06:00)
(A) -1650mm (B) -1650mm
Reactor pressure (Apr. 08 06:00)
(A) 0.395MPaG, (B) 0.785MPaG
CV pressure (Apr. 08 06:00)
0.180MPaabs
RPV temperature (Apr. 08 06:00)
250.6°C at feed water line nozzle
(to be confirmed)
Thermography (Apr. 06 07:30)
CV: 29°C, SFP: 24°C
Many thanks for continuing to post about Fukushima on your blog.
Jim | April 10, 2011
The pressure increase at reactor 1 appears to correspond temporally with the injection of nitrogen. You can see a sudden jump at 4/7 @ 0600 and nitrogen injection commenced at 4/7 @ 0130. Prior to that pressure was fairly stable. Look at JAIF updates 69 and 70.
Eve | April 10, 2011
Perhaps they have turned a corner with heat loads going down, but if they still have 92.5 uSv h-1 at 17 kms from the plant (according to a reporters dosimeter), this is troubling. More empirical evidence needed please!!!
bks | April 11, 2011
What corner? Fire at reactor #4 and severity raised to 7 from 5. You youngsters have no stamina. Pay attention.
–bks
Eve | April 12, 2011
Ah, that was a pothole. I had a look through the data from MEXT 7th April and at sample point 83 (35Km out) it’s 58.5 uSv h-1 and yesterday at the same time, same sample point, 53.2 uSv h-1. This is one of the peak areas seen going to the Northwest. So it seems fairly stable to me. So if they now say 10% of Chernobyl emissions, and from that say there was a 5 fold less Cs-137 emission than I-131, at what time out do would you envisage people repopulating that area? No time soon.