Posted in Global Warming, tagged Containment building, explosion, Nuclear Power, Nuclear reactor core, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, public citizen texas, Texas on March 12, 2011 |
According to an update from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) an explosion has occurred at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMEV-_X5b_8]
Video of the aftermath of the explosion shows that the containment building
has been destroyed.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELR3hdlce2g]
The NIRS update goes on to explain, in a General Electric Mark I reactor, the containment building is fairly weak and is considered the secondary containment. The primary containment is a steel liner that surrounds the reactor core. So far, video and photos have not been clear enough for us to determine whether this steel liner is intact.
Radiation levels at the site are reported to be 1,015 micro/Sieverts per hour. This is roughly equivalent to 100 millirems/hour. The allowable annual dose for members of the public from nuclear facilities in the U.S. is 100 millirems/year. The allowable annual dose for nuclear workers is 5,000 millirems/year. The average annual background dose from all radiation sources in the U.S. is about 360 millirems/year.
The explosion in Unit 1 was almost surely a hydrogen explosion. Pressure has been building up in the containment since offsite power was lost to the reactor because of the earthquake/tsunami. The GE Mark I reactor design is called a “pressure suppression” design. Rather than be built to withstand large pressure increases, General Electric sought with this design to attempt to reduce such increases in an accident scenario. The design has been criticized by independent nuclear experts and even Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff for many years (see: http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/bwrfact.htm). In this case, the design clearly did not work. 24 U.S. reactors use the GE Mark I design.
The evacuation zone around the site has been expanded to 20 kilometers (about 12 miles). Another reactor at Fukushima Daiichi, Unit 2, is reported to be without cooling capability at this time. Three reactors at the nearby Fukushima Daini site are reported to be without cooling capability. These are GE Mark II designs, which are considered a mild improvement over the Mark I design. Both sites are on the Pacific Ocean, about six miles apart.
Posted in Nuclear, tagged japan, Nuclear Power, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Texas on March 11, 2011 |
This morning’s quake on the other side of the world has implications for nuclear plants here in the U.S. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), through its regional office in Arlington, TX, announced they are closely monitoring this situation – the Japanese earthquake and subsequent tsunami – as it unfolds with respect to nuclear facilities within the United States.
Earlier today the NRC issued a “notice of unusual event” (NOUE) at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, located near San Luis Obispo, CA. In addition to the Diablo Canyon plant, the NRC is also monitoring the San Onofre nuclear power plant, the Humboldt Bay spent fuel storage site and NRC-regulated nuclear materials sites in Hawaii and Alaska to name a few.
A push to build new nuclear facililties in the U.S. has catapulted the nation’s aging nuclear industry into the limelight and the NRC is being quick to assure the public that nuclear power plants are engineered to withstand environmental hazards, including earthquakes, tsunamis and other natural disasters.
The NRC claims plants are designed to take into account the most severe natural phenomena historically reported for the site and surrounding area. Still, while the emergency situation at two Japanese plants is seemingly contained at this point, with one Texas plant situated on the hurricane prone Texas Gulf coast and the other in the middle of tornado alley, one has to wonder . . . what if we haven’t yet seen the most severe natural phenomena for those areas?
Posted in Global Warming, Nuclear, tagged earthquake, japan, natural disasters, Nuclear Power, Texas on March 11, 2011 |
Fukushima Nuclear Plant
Japan’s nuclear safety agency said workers are currently scrambling to restore cooling water supply at the facility, but that there was no prospect for an immediate success. So far there have been no reports of any radiation leaks.
UPDATE: At 4:30 CT on Friday, March 11th all the U.S. news outlets were breaking news about radiation levels in the control room of the No. 1 reactor of the Fukushima nuclear power plant reaching around 1,000 times the normal level and that some radiation has also seeped outside the plant, prompting calls for further evacuations of the area.
Japan's nuclear plants near the earthquake epicenter from MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42025882/ns/world_news-asiapacific/)
The quake struck just under 250 miles northeast of Tokyo, the U.S. Geological Survey said. It was followed by more than a dozen aftershocks, one as strong as 7.1, and eleven nuclear reactors were automatically shut down in the affected area, according to the Japanese government, but they haven’t confirmed any effects induced by radioactive materials outside the facilities.
In addition to the situation at the Fukushima plant, at the TEPCO’s nearby Onagawa facility, which is in the worst-hit Miyagi prefecture north of the Fukushima facility, a fire broke out at the plant following the quake. The blaze occurred in a turbine building, which is separate from the plant’s reactor, and was reported as being quickly extinguished. However, there seems to be some concerns about the cooling system at this plant too and the the Japanese government has also declared a state of emergency at this facility. Another unit at Onagawa is reported as experiencing a water leak, though it is unclear whether the incident is significant.
Obviously, we don’t know if any of these reports will lead to a serious nuclear event or not, but the isolated reports so far are worrisome.
In this region, earthquakes are a design basis accident which nuclear plants are supposed to survive, but engineering, while it can take many factors into consideration and build in multiple backups, can only be tested by an actual natural disaster. The problem is, under such circumstances, if there is a failure, one can only assume that other systems (transportation, power availability, access to experts and technicians – all the ancillary things ones needs to deal with a containing a serious event) will also be disrupted. So when a nuclear “expert” tell you that a plant is designed to withstand a massive hurricane, storm surge, tornado, or earthquake, keep that in mind.
Posted in Energy, Nuclear, Renewables, tagged Électricité de France, France, International Nuclear Event Scale, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, Texas on February 22, 2011 |
Nuclear power plant in Cattenom, France -Wikipedia
According to the Associated Press, France, the most nuclear-dependent country in the world, with over 75 percent of its electricity coming from nuclear reactors, recently reported incidents at 8 of their 59 reactor units.
French authorities say they are having to replace faulty metal bearings in the emergency power systems of eight nuclear plants due to signs of wear.
At the Tricastin nuclear complex, located 90 miles north of Marseille, all of the emergency diesel generators used as backups for two of the four reactors were equipped with the faulty bearings.
That incident was classified as a level 2 incident, on a scale of zero to seven, with seven being a major disaster. At other plants the same problem was classified at level 1.
To give some perspective to a level 1 incident, in July 2008, thousands of gallons of uranium solution, containing unprocessed uranium, were accidentally released when cleaning and repair work on the containment system for a holding tank caused the tank to not function properly when filled. The faulty containment system allowed 7,925 gallons of uranium solution to leak out of the tank, with 4,755 gallons of the solution spilling onto the ground. Later testing showed elevated uranium levels in the nearby Gaffière and Lauzon rivers. The liquid contained about 165 pounds of un-enriched uranium which, while only slightly radioactive, is highly toxic as a heavy metal. Ground and surface water tests indicated that levels of radioactivity were 5% higher than the maximum rate allowed.
French authorities have banned the use of water from the Gaffière and Lauzon for drinking and watering of crops. Swimming, water sports and fishing were also banned. This incident has been classified as Level 1 on the International Nuclear Event Scale .
France is often held up as the poster child for nuclear energy, but the country has had its share of problems with their nuclear plants. Among the problems are included a partial core meltdown in 1980 at the Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Plant, and the shut down of plants during a summer heatwave in 2003. In spite of heatwave preparedness efforts in Europe, the intense heatwave that swept through Europe in 2009 put a third of France’s nuclear power stations out of action and forced France to buy electricity from England.
And even French nuclear power plants are not immune to the high capital costs and construction delays that plague the industry.
In May 2006, Electricité de France (EdF) approved construction of a new 1650 MW European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) unit, alongside two existing 1300 MW units. The first concrete was poured on schedule in December 2007 and construction was expected to take 54 months. However, completion is now expected late in 2012. Even in an extremely nuclear friendly country, nuclear plants have a history of coming online later than estimated.
According to the The World Nuclear Association, an international organization that promotes nuclear energy and supports the global nuclear industry, France’s nuclear power program cost 400 billion French Francs in 1993 currency, (or $8.4 billion U.S.) excluding interest during construction. Half of this was self-financed by Electricité de France, 8% was invested by the state but discounted in 1981, and 42% was financed by commercial loans.
In 1988 medium and long-term debt amounted to 233 billion French Francs, or 1.8 times EdF’s sales revenue. By the end of 1998 EdF had reduced this to about two thirds of sales revenue and less than three times annual cash flow. Net interest charges had dropped to 4.16% of sales by 1998. In 2006 EdF debt had fallen to 25% of sales revenue.
In October of last year, the French parliament passed legislation establishing NOME, or new organization of the electricity market, which put an end to two European Commission antitrust cases hanging over the French electricity sector without threatening the pricing that stems from France’s nuclear-heavy energy mix. The restructuring requires EdF to sell a quarter of its nuclear electricity production to competitors on a temporary basis, allowing them to develop their own power supplies. The restructuring was designed to create a framework for investment in much-needed peakload capacity and financing for the modernization of the existing nuclear fleet.
But lingering concern over the effects of this reform of the French electricity market coupled with a weakened outlook in European energy markets after the 2009 recession has caused some trepidation about the price the company will be forced to accept under the NOME law, making the outlook for this restructuring as a financing tool for new nuclear projects somewhat questionable even in the world’s most nuclear friendly country.
Because of the high capitol cost, debt service on these projects is quite high and long term even in France. And here in our own back yard, the City of Austin is still paying several hundred million dollars on the debt from our measly sixteen percent of STP units 1 and 2. We can do better than that as we move forward. We can invest in truly renewable energy that won’t break the backs of taxpayers and ratepayers.
###
By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.
Posted in Global Warming, tagged bay city, Energy, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, STP, Texas, tx on February 8, 2011 |
"Come Unto Me", a depiction of Jesus Christ at Cedarvale Bay City Cemetery - on Wikipedia
The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold two public meetings on the environmental review of South Texas Project (STP) Nuclear Operating Co.’s application to renew the operating licenses for the STP nuclear reactors near Bay City.
The public is invited to attend and comment on environmental issues the NRC should consider in its review of the proposed license renewal. Formal comments on environmental issues should be provided during either of the scheduled sessions.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
In the afternoon from 1:30 p.m. until 4:30 p.m.
In the evening from 7:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m.
NRC staff will host informal discussions an hour prior to
each meeting to answer questions and provide
additional information about the process.
Bay City Civic Center located at 201 7th St. in Bay City, Texas,
The meetings will include an NRC staff presentation on the license renewal process, after which members of the public will be given the opportunity to present their comments on what environmental issues the NRC should consider during its review.
For planning purposes, those who wish to present oral comments at the meeting are encouraged to contact Tam Tran, email at tam.tran@nrc.gov or telephone at 301- 415-3617. People may also register to speak before the start of each session. Individual comment time may be limited by the time available.
Both South Texas Project Units 1 and 2 are pressurized-water nuclear reactors, located 12 miles southwest of Bay City, Texas. The plant’s current operating licenses for Units 1 and 2 will expire on Aug. 20, 2027, and Dec. 15, 2028, respectively.
Posted in Global Warming, tagged Low level waste, Nuclear Power, public citizen texas, radioactive waste, Texas, vermont, vermont law school on February 1, 2011 |
Governor Peter Shumlin, the newly sworn in Governor of Vermont, has appointed Montpelier attorney Richard Saudek and Vermont Law School professor Peter Bradford to the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission (TLLRWCC). The TLLRWCC is an 8 member legal entity, separate and distinct from the party states, whose commissioners are appointed by the Governors of Texas and Vermont. The Commission consists of six Texas and two Vermont appointees.
The commission are responsible for administering the provisions of the Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. The States of Vermont and Texas are the party states. Texas is the host state for a low level radioactive waste disposal facility.
Saudek, who is a partner in the law firm of Cheney, Brock & Saudek, P.C., has advised legislative committees on issues involving Vermont Yankee and its owner, Entergy Corp. Saudek has also served as Chair of the Vermont Department of Public Service, and as Vermont’s first Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Service.
Bradford is an adjunct professor at Vermont Law School, where he teaches ‘Nuclear Power and Public Policy.’ He also teaches utility regulation, restructuring, nuclear power and energy policy. Bradford served on the Public Oversight Panel for the Comprehensive Vertical Assessment of Vermont Yankee, and has served as an expert witness on investment in new nuclear power.
Public Citizen is very pleased with Mr. Bradford’s appointment and believes Mr. Saudek will also make a good addition to this industry skewed commission.
###
By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.
Posted in Energy, tagged Nuclear Power, Tax break, Texas, united states department of energy on February 1, 2011 |
Energy interests of all sizes are poised to defend their share of tax breaks, loan guarantees and other financial incentives amid calls to slash spending both at the state and the federal level.
Concerned that debt-obsession at the federal and state will translate into real cuts, industry groups and their lobbyists are preparing for what amounts to an all-out war, pitting energy resource against energy resource. Their battles should prove to be daunting given that there will probably be no sacred cows when it comes to cutting the billions of dollars in assistance that the government hands out every year.
In his State of the Union speech last Tuesday, Obama cracked a smile as he said, “I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own,” repeating the call he’s made the past two years for the elimination of billions of dollars in tax breaks for oil companies.
While that alone would not be enough to cause the industry to break their stride, rumblings from house Republicans lining up their own targets, are probably giving the industry pause. The conservative Republican Study Committee recently outlined $2.5 trillion in spending, tax breaks and subsidies it wants to see cut over the next decade, including billions of dollars in Energy Department research, vehicle, fuels, weatherization and energy efficiency programs.
With so many battlefronts ahead, energy businesses trying to map out investments are probably sweating bullets trying to figure out how to make the case for pending large capital outlays (say for instance – the billions of dollars needed to build a new nuclear power plant which won’t see a return on investment for a decade).
Hoping they will be spared, we can expect energy lobbyists to push back with warnings that messing with the status quo will force lay offs and halt projects that are helping get the economy back on its feet.
Still, even in a state with as intimate a relationship with the energy industry as Texas, you can’t get blood from a stone. In the face of a massive budget deficit this legislative session and a constitutionally required balanced budget, you can bet Texas will be looking hard at every dollar it spends and every dollar of revenue it gives up.
###
By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.
Posted in Global Warming, tagged Exelon, Nuclear Power, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Texas on January 27, 2011 |
Endangered Whooping Cranes in South Texas -byWikipedia
Texans For A Sound Energy Policy (TSEP) has filed formal legal contentions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) urging denial of Exelon’s application for an Early Site Permit (ESP) for a proposed nuclear power plant site south of Victoria, Texas. The filing of these contentions will set the stage for a formal legal hearing on TSEP’s contentions regarding the site.
The voluminous contentions filed by TSEP provide an unprecedented level of detailed scientific analysis of the serious water, environmental, endangered species and site safety concerns surrounding the proposed Victoria County site that render it unsuitable for a nuclear power plant.
TSEP’s attorney, Jim Blackburn, offered, “We have extensively documented through thorough research and analysis extremely serious and far-reaching concerns with this proposed site. We are pleased to file them formally with the NRC and look forward to the opportunity to be heard on each of them.”
TSEP’s contentions regarding the proposed Exelon site center on several key issues, including:
Posted in Nuclear, tagged Nuclear, Nuclear Power, Texas, U.S. Energy Information Administration, United State, wall street on January 18, 2011 |
The United State’s much-touted nuclear renaissance is in jeopardy, but it is not primarily from environmental and safety concerns. The industry is finding it increasingly difficult to make the economic case for building new nuclear plants.
The enormous capital cost of building reactors is just one factor holding back the long-promised nuclear revival. Just as critical is the risk that the already high costs will balloon as companies build new-generation plants that must be able to withstand the impact of a terrorist crashing an airliner into one. Companies are facing difficulties financing their plants due to the long lead times needed for permits and construction before they can begin to recoup capital expenditures. Then there’s the potential for cost overruns, so companies are looking for political and regulatory support to shift financial obligations onto customers and taxpayers to minimize risk in what Moody’s Investor Service Inc. has dubbed a “bet-the-farm” type of project.
That effort to offload financial risk to partners, customers and governments is the hallmark of the 21st-century nuclear industry. (more…)
Posted in Nuclear, Radioactive Waste, tagged Nuclear Power, Peter Shumlin, Public Citizen, radioactive waste, Texas on January 5, 2011 |
The Texas Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission (TLLRWDCC) approved rules yesterday that pave the way for 36 states to export low-level radioactive waste to a remote landfill along the Texas-New Mexico border.
The 5-2 vote by the TLLRWDCC came after last-minute legal maneuvering on Monday failed to delay the meeting when a federal judge threw the case out because he didn’t believe he had jurisdiction even though he expressed concerns about the issue brought before him involving the loss of comments because of an incorrect email address being posted in the Texas Register instructing citizens on how to and where to comment about the rules. Even with that, more than 5,000 people commented on the plan, almost all in opposition to it.
The vote also came two days before Vermont’s incoming governor, Peter Shumlin, takes office. The Governor-elect has openly criticized the plan and had said he would replace the state’s two commissioners with members more in line with his views. And we believe the commission was rushing to vote on the rules to ensure a majority.
WCS has stated that they are expecting some legal challenges to the commission’s decision, but is moving ahead with construction of the landfill. The first phase of construction should be completed by November. In early 2012, the second part of the site — where federal waste will be stored — will also be finished.
While the facility will now be able to accept waste from three dozen states, the TLLRWDCC guaranteed Vermont — which paid $25 million to have two members on the commission — 20 percent capacity in the landfill. Vermont has only one nuclear facility, but since it plans to phase it out in the next 30 to 40 years it sought to promise itself space for the waste that process would create. And yes . . . this facility will accept waste from nuclear power plants—every thing but the spent fuel rods, not just the medical booties and gloves the mainstream media (as fed to them by WCS) always talked about in their stories.
TLLRWDCC Commissioner Bob Wilson has opposed the expansion plans and the rules for some time. He voted against the rules on Tuesday, but largely because he fears the commission is unprepared to deal with the enormity of the task once the 1,340-acre site begins accepting waste from other states. The commission is largely unfunded, getting $25,000 a year from Vermont and money from Texas only to cover meeting and travel costs. It has no office—just a postal box in a building in Austin from what we can tell (yes we went by to see if there actually was someone in an office space to accept all those comments that came flooding in through the Christmas holiday)—and their one staff member’s last day was right after the new year. Expanding the importation of waste will interfere with the site’s capacity and Wilson questioned whether it will be as profitable as is being predicted.
Public Citizen, is reviewing the past months events and will decide the next step later this week, but a lawsuit is possible.
We will let you know how things progress.
">spousal
Citizen Vox Blog
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |