July 9, 2014

Jul 9, 2014 | Fukushima Accident Updates

  • The removal of fuel from unit #4 has been suspended until September. The reason is for scheduled maintenance and inspection of the ceiling (polar) crane used to move the transport casks in and out of the pool. http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/decommision/index-e.html
  • The cooling for the unit #5 spent fuel pool has been restarted. A leak was found on an auxiliary seawater throttle valve on Sunday. The seawater flow through the cooling system heat exchanger was stopped and the leak temporarily sealed with a hardening agent. Until a final fix is achieved, an alternative cooling method is being used through an interconnection to the Residual Heat removal System. The cooling of the pool’s water resumed at 3:50pm on Tuesday. http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/2014/1238847_5892.html A Tepco handout with timeline of the discovery and remediation plus pictures of the leaking valve, the specific location of the leak on the valve, and the temporary repair (patch) can be found here… http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/handouts/2014/images/handouts_140707_03-e.pdf
  • Fukushima Prefecture considers revising standards for deaths related to the nuke accident. Currently, all of the 1,729 post-3/11/11 “related” deaths have been listed as being due to the Fukushima accident’s evacuees being forced to live in temporary housing. Prefecture officials say it is difficult to identify a relationship between these so-called related deaths and the accident itself. Some, if not most of these post-accident deaths may well be due to the earthquake and tsunami themselves.  The government intends to provide municipal authorities with information on nuclear accident-related deaths to help standardize norms for identifying such fatalities. Nuclear accident-related deaths result from deterioration in health conditions following protracted life in shelters as evacuees. But what about those who have died which are not nuclear-related? Each identified death can provide survivors with as much as $50,000 in compensation if the deceased was main income earner, and $25,000 if not. http://www.fukushimaminponews.com/news.html?id=368
  • The government has cut the compensation amount for deaths caused during the nuclear evacuation. The Nuclear Damage Claim Dispute Resolution Center says it cannot prove that the evacuation deaths were entirely due to the nuclear evacuation-itself. There were some cases where full compensation would be warranted, but there were others where the evidence is not so clear. Center head Hiroshi Noyama said, “In some cases, we can recognize that the contribution ratio of the nuclear accident to deaths is 100 percent. But we assess the ratio is 50 percent in most settlement plans. If we are to carefully deliberate each case, we couldn’t maintain the current pace of deliberations [an average of about six months per case]. This is the best thing that the center can do. If you’re dissatisfied with the practice, please file a lawsuit.” The Center has assessed the value of the damage for the death is $180,000 if the nuclear evacuation is 100% of the cause, but the average to date has been about half of that. Tepco says they are in no position to comment on the Center’s decision. http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20140709p2a00m0na003000c.html
  • Japan’s nuclear regulator is considering stricter decommissioning rules for F. Daiichi. The issue is whether or not the station’s damaged units could withstand another 3/11/11-level earthquake and tsunami. NRA Commissioner Toyoshi Fuketa says the seriousness of the contaminated water situation is the main reason for concern. Chairman Shunichi Tanaka concurred. They agreed to apply the new regulations invoked for undamaged nuclear plants to F. Daiichi. Some NRA officials doubted whether the plant’s operator has a sense of crisis. NHK World; New safety rules may be applied to Fukushima plant; 7/9/14
  • America’s EPA is increasing the “radiation threat level” for public protective actions. The increase is about a factor of 333. The Environmental Protection Agency says the previous standards were far lower than warranted by scientific analysis. The new ruling could potentially save billions of dollars per year and save lives in the process. The yearly cost of unscientific EPA regulations is in the many hundreds of billions of dollars internationally, reducing wages and hurting the world’s standard of living. There are two “triggering” causes for the change. One is the impact of the mandated evacuation from around Fukushima Daiichi based on exposure standards that cannot be scientifically justified. This resulted in as many as 1,600 unnecessary deaths to elderly and ill persons, plus billions of dollars in fossil fuel purchases caused by Japan’s on-going nuclear moratorium. In addition, the American evacuation out to 50 miles from F. Daiichi due to the too-low limits was unwarranted and caused unnecessary harm to international relations. On the other hand, no-one has died or become ill as a result of the radioactivity released during and after the accident. The second trigger concerns over-reaction to terrorist threats due to the concept of making a radioactively “dirty” bomb. Prior limits were based on a computer model assuming that risk is proportional to exposures all the way down to zero. Studies run over the past three decades show that exposures below 100 millisieverts cause no adverse health effects, but the trigger level was 0.15 mSv. EPA public protective decisions were based on the linear no-threshold model assuming that any minimal exposure will cause cancer or asthma among some proportion of the population. But under this theory, even tiny amounts of sunlight are a threat. Advances knowledge of radiologically-induced health effects caused the EPA to make significant move. How this might impact the regulatory systems in the United States and Japan remains to be seen, but it could be substantial. http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/06/raising-the-epa-radiation-limit-will-sav