Anxieties in China over the safety of the nation’s nuclear power programme
China resumes nuclear power plant construction after a four-year freeze By Zhang Yu Source:Global Times Published: 2015-6-15“…China recently ended its pause for approvals of nuclear power plants put into place after the 2011 nuclear accident in Japan. This year, as many as eight nuclear power plants may be launched in China. Some experts are warning that this is going too fast with controversial technology…….
Since 2004, China has been approving projects using advanced nuclear power reactors, including US-based Westinghouse’s AP1000 and France-based Areva’s EPR (Evolutionary Power Reactor), many of which are now under construction. Dubbed generation III reactors, they are designed to withstand the crisis that damaged the Japanese nuclear plant.
Construction of these projects has not been smooth. Sanmen Nuclear Power Station in Zhejiang Province was expected to be the first nuclear power plant in the world that uses AP1000 technology. The first of the two reactors was scheduled to finish construction and start operation in November 2013, but construction is now over 18 months behind schedule. The plant won’t start operation until 2016 at the earliest, an official from China’s State Nuclear Power Technology, the company building the power plant, said in January.
The company has struggled to keep its schedule because of constant changes in design and new problems that emerged during tests, previous reports said.
In a statement by the economic planner of Zhejiang Province in 2013, its energy department said the delay has slowed down the province’s nuclear development and affected the power supply plan in Zhejiang. It has also undermined China’s overall plan to make AP1000 its major technology in new nuclear plants……..
She said hydroelectricity and other new energy means should be developed in inland areas. “Nuclear shouldn’t play an important role in China’s energy structure,” she said.
“The rapid speed of China’s nuclear expansion, and the direction it is expanding – to the most populous inland areas – is unprecedented…Besides, China’s nuclear industry has a tendency to exaggerate its achievements to the central government, so as to gain more funding,” He told the Global Times.
He also warns of a nuclear accident when the total number of nuclear power plants reaches 50 – the total number of nuclear plants built and under construction in China.
“According to past experiences, the likelihood of a disaster rises sharply after a country runs over 50 nuclear power plants, as is the case in the US and Japan,” he said……..http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/927146.shtml
Action needed on the threat of nuclear terrorism
Nuclear terrorism a threat without global security co-operation YUKIYA AMANO THE AUSTRALIAN SEPTEMBER 7, 2015
Nuclear terrorism is, in the words of US President Barack Obama, “the gravest danger we face”. But while few would dispute this characterisation, the world has unfinished business in minimising the threat. Ten years after world leaders agreed to amend the landmark 1987 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material to make it harder for terrorists to obtain nuclear material, the new measures have yet to enter into force. The resulting vulnerability needs to be addressed urgently.
In July 2005, signatories to the CPPNM agreed to amend the convention to address the risk of terrorism more effectively. The new measures that were introduced would make it more difficult for terrorists to cause a widespread release of radioactive material by attacking a nuclear power plant or detonating a radioactive dispersal device — commonly known as a dirty bomb.
Before the amendment can enter into force, two-thirds of the 152 signatories to the original convention must ratify it. While significant progress has been made — in July, the US, Italy, and Turkey did so — at least 14 more countries are needed.
The fact that there has never been a major terrorist attack involving nuclear or other radioactive material should not blind us to the severity of the threat. There is evidence that terrorist groups have tried to acquire material to construct a crude nuclear explosive device, or a dirty bomb……….
Since 1995, the IAEA’s member states have reported nearly 2800 incidents involving radioactive material escaping regulatory control. Although only a handful of these incidents involved material that could be used to make a nuclear explosive device, a relatively small amount of radioactive material could be combined with conventional explosives to create a dirty bomb. Such a weapon could be capable of killing many people, contaminating large areas, and sparking mass panic.
The original convention focused only on the international transport of nuclear material, and did not cover the protection of nuclear facilities. The amendment adopted 10 years ago would oblige countries to protect nuclear facilities and any nuclear material used, stored, or transported domestically. It would expand co-operation on locating and recovering stolen or smuggled nuclear material and co-ordinate the response to any attack on a nuclear facility. It would make nuclear trafficking a criminal offence and require signatories to co-operate on national systems of physical protection and minimising the consequences of sabotage…….
Effective international co-operation is crucial. The consequences of a security failure could be a catastrophe that transcends borders. All countries must take the threat of nuclear terrorism seriously. The most effective way to do so would be to ensure that the amendment to the CPPNM enters into force as soon as possible.
Yukiya Amano is director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Japan’s Monju nuclear reprocessing reactor, plagued by safety errors, offline for most of 20 years
Errors found in safety management of Monju reactor http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20150903_28.html Sep. 3, 2015 Japan’s nuclear regulators have found fresh faults with the safety management of the country’s fast-breeder reactor, which is currently offline. They say they have found thousands of errors in safety classifications of the equipment and devices at the Monju reactor.
The operator of the prototype reactor in Fukui Prefecture, central Japan, has been banned from conducting test runs since 2013 following discoveries of a large number of safety inspection oversights.
The Nuclear Regulation Authority says it has recently found at least 3,000 mistakes with safety classifications of equipment and devices at the reactor during its regular inspections which are conducted 4 times a year. Its officials say, equipment and devices with high importance were, in some cases, classified in lower ranks in the 3-level system, which suggest the operator might have failed to carry out necessary inspections for them.
The errors found recently include those going as far back as 2007. The fact suggests that government inspectors have also overlooked the operator’s mistakes. The operator, Japan Atomic Energy Agency, built the Monju fast-breeder reactor in the early 1990s to reuse the spent nuclear fuel MOX, a mixture of plutonium extracted from spent fuel and uranium.
But it has been offline for most of the period after it underwent a fire from a leak of sodium, the reactor’s coolant, in 1995.
The operator aims to conduct the reactor’s test run by next March. But it is uncertain when the ban by the authority will be lifted. The plant’s director, Kazumi Aoto, says he will take the government’s report seriously. An NRA inspector, Yutaka Miyawaki, says the regulators will try to identify the actual effects of the errors.
Pilgrim Nuclear Station on the brink of permanent shutdown
Pilgrim nuclear plant one step from shutdown by regulators, Cape Cod Times Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station is now at the bottom of the performance list of the nation’s 99 operating reactors, based on its forced shutdowns and equipment failures, and in a category just one step above mandatory shutdown by federal regulators. By Christine Legereclegere@capecodonline.com Sep 2, 2015 PLYMOUTH –
Only two other plants in the country are currently in that category: Arkansas Nuclear One and Arkansas Nuclear Two. Those two, like Pilgrim, are Entergy-owned.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced the downgrade of the Pilgrim plant today. In a letter to Entergy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the downgrade was due to the plant’s failure to adequately address the issues that have caused the plant’s high number of unplanned shutdowns.
A supplemental inspection will focus on the plant’s shortcomings, “including human performance, procedure quality and equipment performance.”
The results of the supplemental inspection will “provide the NRC with additional information to be used in deciding whether the continued operation of the facility is acceptable and whether additional regulatory actions are necessary to arrest the licensee/plant performance,” the NRC said……..U.S. Sen Edward Markey, D-Mass., issued a statement on Pilgrim’s dubious status. “For decades, I have raised concerns about Pilgrim’s operations, security preparedness, the safety of the surrounding communities in the event of a nuclear accident, and the willingness of Entergy to dedicate sufficient resources to run the reactor safely,” Markey wrote.
The senator noted Pilgrim is the same boiling water reactor design as those that suffered meltdowns at Fukushima. http://capecodtimes.com/article/20150902/NEWS11/150909865
Nuclear Regulatory Commission scraps public rulemaking on weak GE containments,
A Fukushima Lesson Unlearned: NRC scraps public rulemaking on weak GE containments, Enformable Paul Gunter 4 Sept 15 The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) typically begins its narrative on the “lessons learned” from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe with Japan’s March 11, 2011 accident. Not surprisingly, the agency has avoided addressing the most critical lesson recognized in the accident’s official investigative report by Japan’s National Diet. In their finding, the unfolding radiological catastrophe is “manmade” and the result of “willful negligence” of government, regulator and industry colluding to protect Tokyo Electric Power Company’s financial interests. Likewise, here in the US, addressing identical reactor vulnerabilities remain subject to a convoluted corporate-government strategy of “keep away” with public safety as the “monkey in the middle” going back more than four decades and, for now, three nuclear meltdowns later.
In the latest development, by a 3-1 vote issued on August 19, 2015, the majority of the four sitting Commissioners with NRC ruled not to proceed with their own proposed rulemaking and bar public comment and independent expert analyses on the installation of “enhanced” hardened containment vents on 30 U.S. reactors. In the event of a severe nuclear accident, roughly one-third of U.S. atomic power plants currently rely upon a flawed radiation protection barrier system at General Electric (GE) Mark I and Mark II boiling water reactors that are essentially identical to the destroyed and permanently closed units at Fukushima Daiichi. The nuclear catastrophe has resulted in widespread radioactive contamination, massive population relocation, severe economic dislocation and mounting costs projected into the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Fundamentally at fault, the GE Mark I and Mark II boiling water reactor “pressure suppression containment system” designed for internalizing such a nuclear accident is roughly one-sixth the volumetric size of pressurized water reactor containment designs like Three Mile Island. Under accident conditions, the reactor pressure vessel and the operation of the emergency core cooling system is depressurized into the “drywell” containment component which in turn routes steam, heat, combustible gases and radioactivity into the “wetwell” component where it is supposed to be quenched and scrubbed in a million gallons of water. The GE design was first identified as too small to contain potential accident conditions in 1972 by Atomic Energy Commission memos. The internal communications would eventually be released years later under the Freedom of Information Act after more GE reactors were granted operating licenses. The memos revealed that the undersized containment system is highly vulnerable to catastrophic failure from over-pressurization in the event of a severe accident. This long recognized chink in GE’s “defense-in-depth” armor was graphically confirmed with the global broadcast of the Fukushima explosions.
Fukushima further demonstrated that “voluntary” GE containment modifications requested by NRC in the early 1990’s are not reliable under real accident conditions. Most U.S. Mark I operators voluntarily installed a hardened vent on the “wetwell” or “torus” containment component. The same modification was installed in Japanese reactors including Fukushima Daiichi. The voluntary containment modifications in the U.S. were carried out under a NRC regulation (10 CFR 50.59) that avoids licensee disclosures in the public hearing process, claiming that the design changes did not raise significant safety issues. Other than the paper trail, even the NRC inspectors were not aware of the final as-built containment modifications…………
The Commission’s August 19th majority vote is effectively a gag order on the American public’s opportunity for formal input to fortify the continued operation of GE Mark I and Mark II reactors against the next nuclear catastrophe. Ironically, the international nuclear industry is simultaneously cashing in on the effort to restart Japan’s nuclear power plants where their Nuclear Regulation Authority has ordered state-of-the-art engineered external filters on severe accident capable hardened containment vents as a prerequisite to resume operation. On August 17, 2015, AREVA issued a press release announcing that it had just delivered it fourteenth filtered containment vent system to the Hamaoka Unit 4 reactor operated by Chubu Electric Power Company where 70% of the Japanese public no longer trust the industry and its regulator and remain opposed to any further nuclear power operations. http://enformable.com/2015/09/a-fukushima-lesson-unlearned-nrc-scraps-public-rulemaking-on-weak-ge-containments/
USA’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission ignores Recommendation on Plans to Address a Core-Melt Accident
NRC Rejects Recommendation to Require Nuclear Plant Owners to Establish Plans to Address a Core-Melt Accident, UCS, Washington (August 28, 2015)—
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has rejected the recommendation of the high-level task force it convened after the March 2011 Fukushima disaster to require nuclear plant owners to develop and maintain plans for coping with a core-melt accident. This decision will allow nuclear plants to continue to maintain those plans voluntarily and deny the agency the authority to review those plans or issue citations if they are deficient.
“Once again, the NRC is ignoring a key lesson of the Fukushima accident: Emergency plans are not worth the paper they are printed on unless they are rigorously developed, maintained and periodically exercised,” said Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). “When it comes to these critical safety measures, the NRC is allowing the industry to regulate itself.”
In a decision posted on the NRC’s ADAMS website on August 27, NRC commissioners instructed agency staff to remove a provision of a proposed draft rule aimed at protecting plants from Fukushima-type accidents that would require nuclear plants to establish Severe Accident Management Guidelines, or SAMGs. The staff’s proposal was in response to Recommendation 8 of the NRC’s post-Fukushima staff recommendations, which questioned the effectiveness of NRC’s current practice of allowing plant owners to develop and maintain the SAMGs on a voluntary basis. ……
Yesterday’s decision also removes a provision from the proposed draft rule that would require new reactors to have additional design features to protect against Fukushima-type accidents. By eliminating this requirement, Lyman said, the NRC is relinquishing the opportunity to ensure that new reactors built in the United States will have stronger protection measures than the current reactor fleet. http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/NRC-Rejects-Requiring-Core-Melt-Plans-0522#.VeOCWSWqpHw
Leaked review tells of ‘Significant Design Vulnerabilities’ at Hanford radioactive trash site
‘Significant Design Vulnerabilities’ Plague Massive Nuclear Waste Site, Leaked Internal Review Reveals, Common Dreams,
‘The fact that the Department of Energy has not released this report, prepared last year, is alarming and indicative of a safety-last culture.’
A leaked internal review of the nation’s largest nuclear clean-up site found hundreds of “significant design vulnerabilities” and begs questions about the Energy Department’s transparency, a watchdog group says.
The Hanford Nuclear Reservation near Richland, Washington houses radioactive waste from the production of plutonium for nuclear weapons, and the decades-long clean-up effort has been costly and plagued by leaking underground nuclear waste storage tanks.
Seattle-based Hanford Challenge, which advocates for safe clean-up of the site, says it received the Department of Energy document from a whistleblower who has worked at the site for many years as an engineer.
“The fact that the Department of Energy has not released this report, prepared last year, is alarming and indicative of a safety-last culture,” said Tom Carpenter, Executive Director of the group.
The document is a 2014 draft review called “Low-Activity Waste Facility Design and Operability Review and Recommendations.” That LAW facility, Hanford Challenge explains in a statement, “is designed to treat waste from Hanford’s high-level nuclear waste tanks that will be pre-treated to remove the highly-radioactive materials before being mixed with glass formers in a facility designed to vitrify the low level waste.”
From the executive summary of the leaked report: ……
The leaked review comes the same month as whistleblower Walter Tamosaitis, who raised safety concerns regarding operations at the site, reached a $4.1 settlement with Hanford subcontractor AECOM.
And last year, documents obtained by the Associated Press showed there were “significant construction flaws” in some of the double-shell storage tanks at the facility. U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) urged the Energy Department to provide an action plan of how it would deal with the risks the flaws pose, writing in a letter (pdf) to Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz: “It is time for the Department to stop hiding the ball and pretending that the situation at Hanford is being effectively managed.”
The Washington site has proven itself an “intractable problem” that “costs taxpayers a billion dollars a year,” author and history professor Kate Brown wrote earlier this year. “Corporate contractors hired to clean up Hanford have made hundreds of millions of dollars in fees and surcharges, and, since little has been accomplished, the tab promises to mount for decades.”http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/08/26/significant-design-vulnerabilities-plague-massive-nuclear-waste-site-leaked-internal
Sendai’s cooling tubes already leaking! But the pro #nuclear hubris goes on!
Japan Sendai Nuclear Restart — The Hubris Alone Is Killing Me, Let Alone the Volcano and Salt Water Leaks, Nuke Pro 21 Aug 15
I would drop a comment at the link, but I have been banned from Japan Times, so many TIMES that I can’t count. They have no interest in the truth.
————————————————————————————————————–
Kyushu Electric checked the water quality and confirmed an increase in salt content.
Each condenser has some 26,000 tubes inside that are used to pipe seawater around for cooling. Kyushu Electric suspects that holes have opened on such tubes, causing seawater to enter into the condenser. [diagram below by the author of this article]
And this is very dangerous way to think. Perhaps they have 2 sets of heat exchangers, so they can run at 50% whilst one set is completely shut down and worked on. Regardless, this is a stop gap measure, just like at San Onofre if some tubes are already going, there are many more right behind it. So these stories will slip out at the weeks go on.
Heat exchangers that can handle salt water are going to be stainless steel at least and ideally titanium. Industry has gotten a lot better at working with titanium in the last few decades. So those 40 year old heat exchangers at Sendai are probably stainless steel, not at good as titanium.
But in Typical japan Times Fashion, they try to downplay the incident by stating
In Japan, similar problems have occurred about 50 times in the past, but the latest case was the first at the Sendai power plant. In the past, Kyushu Electric experienced two cases at the No. 1 reactor at its Genkai plant in Saga Prefecture in 1997 and 1999.
Classic “don’t worry” it happens all the time. So the pimps of nuke will do anything to keep this plant running. Including putting your life and livelihood at risk………. http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/japan-sendai-nuclear-restart-hubris.html?showComment=1440185210724#c7323011781148838576
China’s race to clear dangerous chemicals from Tianjin explosion site
China warehouse explosion: Tianjin workers race to clear site of deadly chemicals before it rains Fears potential showers could create clouds of toxic gas. Chinese officials face a race against time to clear toxic chemicals from the site of the Tianjin warehouse explosion, amid fears the blast may have released hundreds of tons of toxic gas into the air.
Soldiers have joined rescue workers in gas masks and hazard suits in the port city where the death toll from Wednesday’s massive explosion has risen to 112. Another 95, the majority of whom were firefighters, remained missing.
Officials confirmed the warehouse where the blast occurred was used to house more than 100 tons of sodium cyanide, a potentially deadly substance.
The presence of the chemicals was confirmed by Shi Luze, the chief of staff of the People’s Liberation Army’s Beijing Military Region.
He said workers were trying to clear the area before possible rain showers, which could create toxic gas……..http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-warehouse-explosion-tianjin-workers-race-to-clear-site-of-deadly-chemicals-before-rains-10457786.html
France worried that China’s hasty nuclear power programme is unsafe
“the state of conservation” of large components like pumps and steam generators at Taishan “was not at an adequate level” and was “far” from the standards of the two other EPR plants, one in Finland and the other in Flamanville, France
in a rare public comment about safety concerns, China’s own State Council Research Office three years ago warned that the development of the country’s power plants may be accelerating too quickly.
Critics of China’s nuclear safety regime, including Albert Lai, chairman of The Professional Commons, a Hong Kong think tank, says that lack of information risks eroding confidence in safety controls in what’s set to be a 14-fold increase of atomic capacity by 2030.
“The workings of China’s atomic safety authority are a ‘‘total black box,’’ said Lai. ‘‘China has no transparency whatsoever.’’
China Regulators ‘Overwhelmed’ as Reactors Built at Pace, Bloomberg Tara Patel, Benjamin Haas , June 20, 2014 (Bloomberg) — China is moving quickly to become the first country to operate the world’s most powerful atomic reactor even as France’s nuclear regulator says communication and cooperation on safety measures with its Chinese counterparts are lacking.
In the coastal city of Taishan, 100 miles (160 kilometers) from the financial hub of Hong Kong, Chinese builders are entering the final construction stages for two state-of-the-art European Pressurized Reactors. Each will produce about twice as much electricity as the average reactor worldwide.
France has a lot riding on a smooth roll out of China’s EPRs. The country is home to Areva SA, which developed the next-generation reactor, and utility Electricite de France SA, which oversees the project. The two companies, controlled by the French state, need a safe, trouble-free debut in China to ensure a future for their biggest new product in a generation. And French authorities have not hidden their concerns. Continue reading
South Africa’s incorrect environmental assessments for proposed nuclear power stations
Nuclear deal environmental assessments don’t match proposed plants: DA http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2015/08/16/Nuclear-deal-environmental-assessments-dont-match-proposed-plants-DA RDM News Wire | 16 August, 2015
The Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) conducted to assess and predict the environmental consequences of chosen nuclear build sites – and which are necessary by law – are outdated and obsolete‚ and cannot be used in support of the proposed trillion rand nuclear build programme, the Democratic Alliance says.
The DA said on Sunday that this is yet another reason why Minister of Energy Tina Joematt-Pettersson must “move to scrap this secretive and unaffordable nuclear deal once and for all”.
In a statement‚ DA spokesman on energy Gordon MacKay said this information had come to light in a reply to a DA parliamentary question in which the Minister of Energy revealed that the EIAs – which are needed before construction can begin – were carried out for only three of the proposed sites by Eskom between 2007 and 2008.
“The DA has reviewed the existing EIAs and we have noted deficiencies in at least two respects.
“Firstly‚ the EIA’s have only assessed the suitability and environmental impact of High Pressurized Water Reactors‚ a technology currently being used at South Africa’s sole nuclear site at Koeberg.
“The EIA’s have not considered technology being offered by other bid vendors such as Rossatom’s AES 2006 reactor. This reactor‚ the VVER‚ is a water to water pressurised rector and differs materially from the design evaluated by the EIA. Adoption of technology from vendor nations with designs deviating from Koeberg’s would therefore be ill advised and invalid.
“Secondly‚ the EIA was conducted when the power utility was planning on expanding its nuclear generating fleet through the nuclear-1 project – a much smaller‚ single site project which does not compare to the current proposed build programme‚” Mr MacKay asserted.
“Indeed‚ the Environmental Consultants who did carry out the EIA indicated that the evaluation was only for a single nuclear power station of a maximum of 4‚000 MW‚” he added.
He quoted the consultants as making clear in their report that “In spite of the above-mentioned broad recommendations regarding the number of power stations that could potentially be constructed at each site‚ it must be emphasized that the current application is for a single nuclear power station of a maximum of 4‚000 MW. The cumulative impacts of any additional nuclear power stations on a particular site (if authorised) would have to be confirmed in a new EIA process prior to any further development”.
“This‚” stated MacKay‚ “is significantly less than the current nuclear build programme‚ which is estimated at 9600MW‚ more than double the maximum of 4000 MW stipulated in the EIA. The report also makes it quite clear – anything above 4000MW would have to be confirmed in a new EIA process prior to any further development.
“The fact that the Minister is trying to distort South Africa’s legislative processes‚ in this way‚ is deeply concerning.
“It is now increasingly clear that the proposed trillion rand nuclear deal is ill-thought out‚ and rushed‚ and should not be pursued. The Minister must now put her pride aside‚ and do what is right: scrap the deal‚ once and for all.”
Seabrook Nuclear Station’s 10-mile evacuation plan inadequate
Seabrook Station’s 10-mile evacuation zone draws scrutiny , SeaCoast Online, By Max Sullivan
msullivan@seacoastonline.com Aug. 16, 2015 The Massachusetts House of Representatives is considering a bill to extend the emergency planning zone surrounding Seabrook Station nuclear power plant. Some New Hampshire lawmakers support the idea and are considering similar legislation for the Granite State.
The bill, H.2031, would extend the zone to 50 miles out from Seabrook Station in Massachusetts only. There is currently a 10-mile radius around the nuclear plant. Within that radius, first responders receive special training, siren equipment and a supply of potassium iodide pills to be dispersed to counteract some of the health problems caused by exposure to radiation.
Potasium iodide can help block radioactive iodine from being absorbed by the thyroid gland, thus protecting this gland from radiation injury, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
Bill supporters note during the meltdown of the nuclear plant in Fukushima, Japan, American citizens were urged to evacuate at least 50 miles from the site.
The bill is currently in the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Health.
Massachusetts state Sen. Kathleen O’Connor Ives, a Democrat representing the First Essex District, wrote a letter in support of the bill and said she has concerns about the fact only three of her towns, Amesbury, Newburyport and Salisbury, fall within the 10-mile radius. The other towns she represents, Haverhill, Merrimac, Methuen and North Andover, do not have the same emergency resources, she said…….http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20150816/NEWS/150819432
Earthquake M5.0 offshore of Fukushima prefecture
M5.0 hit Fukushima offshore / No announcement on plant status from Tepco http://fukushima-diary.com/2015/08/m5-0-hit-fukushima-offshore-no-announcement-on-plant-status-from-tepco/ by Mochizuki , August 14, 2015 According to JMA (Japan Meteorological Agency), M5.0 occurred offshore of Fukushima prefecture at 5:13 of 8/14/2015 (JST).
The depth of epicenter was 40km. They observed 4 of seismic intensity in Iwaki city.
The earthquake affected the large area from Shizuoka to Aomori prefecture.
The latest status of Fukushima plant has not been announced by Tepco http://www.jma.go.jp/en/quake/20150814051743395-140513.htm
Questions on the causes and effects of the Tianjin explosion
Tianjin explosions ignite barrage of questions, The Age, Philip Wen China correspondent for Fairfax Media, August 14, 2015 Tianjin: As fatalities continue to mount, so too have questions around the cause, response and potential health effects of the terrifying explosions at a toxic chemicals warehouse that tore through the port city of Tianjin, China, on Wednesday night.
Chinese authorities have dispatched more than 200 military nuclear and biochemical materials specialists to the site of the blast, as well as a team from the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Beijing environmental emergency response centre.
But some 36 hours after the explosions, municipal and environmental officials said they were still unable to determine the specific substances held in the warehouse which likely triggered the blast which killed dozens, injured hundreds, and ignited a fireball so large it was captured by orbiting satellites.
The owner of the warehouse, Ruihai International Logistics, is a firm which specialises in handling hazardous cargo, state news agency Xinhua said. It is licensed to handle dangerous and toxic chemicals including sodium cyanide, compressed natural gas, phosphoric acid, potassium nitrate and butanone – an explosive industrial solvent.
“So far, we are not able to provide the detail of type and amount of these dangerous items,” Gao Huaiyou, the deputy director of Tianjin’s work safety administration bureau, said on Thursday. “There is quite a big inconsistency with information provided by the company’s management and their customs declaration.”
Though a pungent smell and visible smog hung in the vicinity of the blast, officials said 17 emergency air monitoring stations indicated air quality in the city remained within a normal range, aided by easterly winds which blew toxic plumes from the fires out to sea.
Readings of cyanide and chemical oxygen demand – a measure of water quality – some three to eight times normal levels were detected near two underground discharge pipes, though officials said the pipes had been sealed off and posed no danger to health or the environment of the surrounding area.
Xinhua said 1000 firefighters and more than 140 fire trucks were struggling to contain the blaze in a warehouse which stored “dangerous goods”.
“The volatility of the goods means the fire is especially unpredictable and dangerous to approach,” it said….http://www.theage.com.au/world/tianjin-explosions-ignite-barrage-of-questions-20150814-gizjw9.html#ixzz3ir0wfaMy
Belgium lax on nuclear safety – yet another incident
Greenpeace nuclear expert: ‘There’s always something’, DW, 13 Aug 15, After yet another incident at one of Belgium’s two nuclear power plants, DW spoke to Greenpeace expert Rianne Teule to assess the risk. She worries that safety is not being taken seriously enough. Early Thursday morning, the Tihange 3 nuclear reactor was shut down because of an “unplanned unavailability,” according to utility company GDF Suez.
The shutdown is the latest in a string of minor technical incidents at the plant since last July, including two minor fires, some of which have been attributed to human error. The incidents, the age of the plant – the oldest reactor dates to 1975 – and cracks that were discovered in the walls of Belgian reactors earlier this year have raised concerns over the safety of the country’s nuclear power supply.
DW spoke to Rianne Teule, campaign director with Greenpeace Belgium, about the state of Belgium’s nuclear industry and the future of the renewables sector.
DW: What can you tell me about this week’s technical incident at Tihange?
Rianne Teule: It’s relatively normal in any reactor that there’s a scram [emergency shutdown] caused by some kind of technical issue; that should not be a problem. But, last week, four workers were suspended [for security lapses by the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control]. In combination with the scram this week, that of course makes you think something more is going on, if the two things are related. Of course, Electrobel, the Tihange operator, has said that they aren’t related, that everything is normal. But [the incident] did cause FANC to pay more attention.
There have been quite a few minor incidents at Tihange in recent months.
There’s always something. And the safety culture being somewhat questionable, there’s the risk that these small incidents turn into something bigger.
How significant is that risk?
The Doel reactor, which is 10 kilometers (6 miles) from Antwerp, is in the harbor. An accident there would basically stop all activity in the harbor – an important part of the Belgian economy………..
Belgium decided to phase out nuclear energy a long time ago, in 2003. They set a maximum lifetime of 40 years per reactor, which meant that the first reactors would shut down in 2015. But the government didn’t actually do anything to prepare for the phaseout of nuclear. They didn’t invest enough in renewables to compensate for the nuclear shutdown, and that was used as an argument in 2014 to extend the lifetime of Tihange 1 by 10 years, and it’s being used as an argument now to extend the lifetimes of Doel 1 and 2. Tihange 1 was supposed to close in October this year……….
Belgium is also a very complicated country politically. While the nuclear energy sector is controlled by the federal government, renewable energy is controlled by the regional governments. There should be some kind of overarching energy vision managed by the federal government, but that doesn’t exist at the moment.
And, while these nuclear reactors stay operational, investment in other electricity supplies is more difficult because it’s not sure there will be space on the market and on the grid. What we would need is a gradual shutdown of nuclear, and simultaneously a gradual increase of renewables. Right now, it’s too risky for investors in renewables. There are no feed-in tariffs or priority access of renewables to the grid. There’s nothings like that. In Germany, that was the main incentive to invest in renewables………..http://www.dw.com/en/greenpeace-nuclear-expert-theres-always-something/a-18650290
1 This Month
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
Register for the Zoom Event Here
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (74)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
