IMPACT: Nuclear plant owner TEPCO downplayed tsunami risk

The aftermath of the Fukushima meltdown starts with the people it affectsTOKYO — In planning their defense against a killer tsunami, the people running Japan’s now-hobbled nuclear power plant dismissed important scientific evidence and all but disregarded 3,000 years of geological history, an Associated Press investigation shows.

The misplaced confidence displayed by Tokyo Electric Power Co. was prompted by a series of overly optimistic assumptions that concluded the Earth couldn’t possibly release the level of fury it did two weeks ago, pushing the six-reactor Fukushima Dai-ichi complex to the brink of multiple meltdowns.

Instead of the reactors staying dry, as contemplated under the power company’s worst-case scenario, the plant was overrun by a torrent of water much higher and stronger than the utility argued could occur, according to an AP analysis of records, documents and statements from researchers, the utility and the Japan’s national nuclear safety agency.

And while TEPCO and government officials have said no one could have anticipated such a massive tsunami, there is ample evidence that such waves have struck the northeast coast of Japan before – and that it could happen again along the culprit fault line, which runs roughly north to south, offshore, about 220 miles (350 kilometers) east of the plant.

TEPCO officials say they had a good system for projecting tsunamis. They declined to provide more detailed explanations, saying they were focused on the ongoing nuclear crisis.

What is clear: TEPCO officials discounted important readings from a network of GPS units that showed that the two tectonic plates that create the fault were strongly “coupled,” or stuck together, thus storing up extra stress along a line hundreds of miles long. The greater the distance and stickiness of such coupling, experts say, the higher the stress buildup – pressure that can be violently released in an earthquake.

That evidence, published in scientific journals starting a decade ago, represented the kind of telltale characteristics of a fault being able to produce the truly overwhelming quake – and therefore tsunami – that it did.

On top of that, TEPCO modeled the worst-case tsunami using its own computer program instead of an internationally accepted prediction method.

It matters how Japanese calculate risk. In short, they rely heavily on what has happened to figure out what might happen, even if the probability is extremely low. If the view of what has happened isn’t accurate, the risk assessment can be faulty.

That approach led to TEPCO’s disregard of much of Japan’s tsunami history.

In postulating the maximum-sized earthquake and tsunami that the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex might face, TEPCO’s engineers decided not to factor in quakes earlier than 1896. That meant the experts excluded a major quake that occurred more than 1,000 years ago – a tremor followed by a powerful tsunami that hit many of the same locations as the recent disaster.

A TEPCO reassessment presented only four months ago concluded that tsunami-driven water would push no higher than 18 feet (5.7 meters) once it hit the shore at the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex. The reactors sit up a small bluff, between 14 and 23 feet (4.3 and 6.3 meters) above TEPCO’s projected high-water mark, according to a presentation at a November seismic safety conference in Japan by TEPCO civil engineer Makoto Takao.

“We assessed and confirmed the safety of the nuclear plants,” Takao asserted.

However, the wall of water that thundered ashore two weeks ago reached about 27 feet (8.2 meters) above TEPCO’s prediction. The flooding disabled backup power generators, located in basements or on first floors, imperiling the nuclear reactors and their nearby spent fuel pools.

The story leading up to the Tsunami of 2011 goes back many, many years – several millennia, in fact.

The Jogan tsunami of 869 displayed striking similarities to the events in and around the Fukushima Dai-ichi reactors. The importance of that disaster, experts told the AP, is that the most accurate planning for worst-case scenarios is to study the largest events over the longest period of time. In other words, use the most data possible.

The evidence shows that plant operators should have known of the dangers – or, if they did know, disregarded them.

As early as 2001, a group of scientists published a paper documenting the Jogan tsunami. They estimated waves of nearly 26 feet (8 meters) at Soma, about 25 miles north of the plant. North of there, they concluded that a surge from the sea swept sand more than 2 1/2 miles (4 kilometers) inland across the Sendai plain. The latest tsunami pushed water at least about 1 1/2 miles (2 kilometers) inland.

The scientists also found two additional layers of sand and concluded that two additional “gigantic tsunamis” had hit the region during the past 3,000 years, both presumably comparable to Jogan. Carbon dating couldn’t pinpoint exactly when the other two hit, but the study’s authors put the range of those layers of sand at between 140 B.C. and A.D. 150, and between 670 B.C. and 910 B.C.

In a 2007 paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Pure and Applied Geophysics, two TEPCO employees and three outside researchers explained their approach to assessing the tsunami threat to Japan’s nuclear reactors, all 54 of which sit near the sea or ocean.

To ensure the safety of Japan’s coastal power plants, they recommended that facilities be designed to withstand the highest tsunami “at the site among all historical and possible future tsunamis that can be estimated,” based on local seismic characteristics.

But the authors went on to write that tsunami records before 1896 could be less reliable because of “misreading, misrecording and the low technology available for the measurement itself.” The TEPCO employees and their colleagues concluded, “Records that appear unreliable should be excluded.”

Two years later, in 2009, another set of researchers concluded that the Jogan tsunami had reached 1 mile (1.5 kilometers) inland at Namie, about 6 miles (10 kilometers) north of the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant.

The warning from the 2001 report about the 3,000-year history would prove to be most telling: “The recurrence interval for a large-scale tsunami is 800 to 1,100 years. More than 1,100 years have passed since the Jogan tsunami, and, given the reoccurrence interval, the possibility of a large tsunami striking the Sendai plain is high.”

The fault involved in the Fukushima Dai-ichi tsunami is part of what is known as a subduction zone. In subduction zones, one tectonic plate dives under another. When the fault ruptures, the sea floor snaps upward, pushing up the water above it and potentially creating a tsunami. Subduction zones are common around Japan and throughout the Pacific Ocean region.

TEPCO’s latest calculations were started after a magnitude-8.8 subduction zone earthquake off the coast of Chile in February 2010.

In such zones over the past 50 years, earthquakes of magnitude 9.0 or greater have occurred in Alaska, Chile and Indonesia. All produced large tsunamis.

When two plates are locked across a large area of a subduction zone, the potential for a giant earthquake increases. And those are the exact characteristics of where the most recent quake occurred.

TEPCO “absolutely should have known better,” said Dr. Costas Synolakis, a leading American expert on tsunami modeling and an engineering professor at the University of Southern California. “Common sense,” he said, should have produced a larger predicted maximum water level at the plant.

TEPCO’s tsunami modelers did not judge that, in a worst-case scenario, the strong subduction and coupling conditions present off the coast of Fukushima Dai-ichi could produce the 9.0-magnitude earthquake that occurred. Instead, it figured the maximum at 8.6 magnitude, meaning the March 11 quake was four times as powerful as the presumed maximum.

Shogo Fukuda, a TEPCO spokesman, said that 8.6 was the maximum magnitude entered into the TEPCO internal computer modeling for Fukushima Dai-ichi.

Another TEPCO spokesman, Motoyasu Tamaki, used a new buzzword, “sotegai,” or “outside our imagination,” to describe what actually occurred.

U.S. tsunami experts said that one reason the estimates for Fukushima Dai-ichi were so low was the way Japan calculates risk. Because of the island nation’s long history of killer waves, Japanese experts often will look at what has happened – then project forward what is likely to happen again.

Under longstanding U.S. standards that are gaining popularity around the world, risk assessments typically scheme up a worst-case scenario based on what could happen, then design a facility like a nuclear power plant to withstand such a collection of conditions – factoring in just about everything short of an extremely unlikely cataclysm, like a large meteor hitting the ocean and creating a massive wave that kills hundreds of thousands.

In the early 1990s, Harry Yeh, now a tsunami expert and engineering professor at Oregon State University, was helping assess potential threats to the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant on the central California coast in the United States. During that exercise, he said, researchers considered a worst-case scenario involving a significantly larger earthquake than had ever been recorded there.

And then a tsunami was added. And in that Diablo Canyon model, the quake hit during a monster storm that was already pushing onto the shore higher waves than had ever been measured at the site.

In contrast, when TEPCO calculated its high-water mark at 18 feet (5.7 meters), the anticipated maximum earthquake was in the same range as others recorded off the coast of Fukushima Dai-ichi – and the only assumption about the water level was that the tsunami arrived at high tide.

Which, as is abundantly clear now, could not have been more wrong.

This AP story was written by YURI KAGEYAMA AND JUSTIN PRITCHARD
Pritchard reported from Los Angeles. AP writers Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo and Alicia Chang in Los Angeles and AP researcher Barbara Sambrinski in New York contributed to this report.

Tepco Worker’s Email Reveals Personal Struggles

TEPCO workers struggle to keep up with the disaster amongst all the debrisWall Street Journal – By PETER LANDERS And NORIHIKO SHIROUZU- TOKYO  An email from a Tokyo Electric Power Co. employee working at one of the Fukushima nuclear power plants gives a rare look at how employees are grappling with personal loss even while working around the clock to respond to the March 11 quake.

“My parents were washed away by the tsunami and I still don’t know where they are. Normally I would rush to their house as soon as I could. But I can’t even enter the area because it is under an evacuation order,” says the email signed by the author, who works for the plant manager at the Fukushima Daini plant near the stricken Fukushima Daiichi reactors.

Tokyo Electric Power spokesman Hiro Hasegawa said the email, sent last Wednesday to a private email list and viewed by The Wall Street Journal, is “authentic.” The worker didn’t return emails seeking comment and couldn’t be reached.

“Most of the people working at 1F and 2F [Daiichi and Daini] live in this area, and they are all victims of the disaster,” the email said. The author said that where her parents lived, “the whole town was washed away by the tsunami.”

The worker said that people in her plant were working “without sleep or rest,” in part because they were helping Fukushima Daiichi’s recovery efforts. “The scene is completely like a war zone,” she said.

She said the tsunami was an “act of heaven” and the people who work in nuclear power weren’t at fault. Nonetheless, she said Tepco executives should recognize that people who live near the plant, especially those forced to evacuate from a 20-kilometer zone around it, were suffering greatly.

“Local children will have to transfer to schools in their places of refuge. Everyone has lost everything—their home, their job, their school, their friends, their families,” she wrote.

Contacted by email, Tepco officials at the Fukushima plants declined to comment on the email but offered apologies for causing the release of radiation and other problems.

The author expressed loyalty to Tepco, saying: “We are all working hard to complete our tasks as Tepco employees, before thinking of ourselves as disaster victims.” She concluded, “We will fight to the end!”

Read the original here

Fukushima 50 told they walked in water with 10,000 times the expected level of radiation

A japanese person showing us the geiger counter they use to test people at the evacuation shelter(Peter Alford and Rick Wallace, Tokyo) – HIGHLY irradiated water that injured two emergency service workers at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi plant probably leaked from the No 3 reactor core, Japan’s nuclear safety regulator says.  It was likely the No 3 reactor’s containment vessel had been breached and the water into which three workers stepped on Thursday came from the core, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency’s Hidehiko Nishiyama said yesterday.

It was possible “similar things could have happened” with No 1 and No 2 reactor containment vessels, Mr Nishiyama said, but information was inconclusive.

The threat of water leakages directly from reactor cores raises the difficulty and risk for workers in cooling the damaged plant so that more safety work can begin.

Three men stepped into the water in the basement of the No 3 reactor while replacing cables. Two were taken to hospital with skin lesions and all three had further tests yesterday.

The water’s radiation level was 10,000 times the level experienced with cooling water in a normally operating reactor. NISA said yesterday it had ordered plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co to improve its safety measures.

The agency found TEPCO had not properly monitored water radioactivity in the No 3 unit, nor provided the workers adequate protective gear, and did not evacuate the area immediately after Thursday morning’s accident.

The No 3 building remained evacuated yesterday and Mr Nishiyama said he did not know when and how work could resume on reattaching permanent power to the reactor’s cooling system.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano called upon Fukushima prefecture residents living outside the 20km exclusion zone around the plant but within a 30km radius to voluntarily evacuate.

TEPCO officials braced the Japanese public for blackouts rolling into the northern summer, dousing earlier hopes the blackouts on Honshu, the main island, would end by April 30.

A fortnight after the March 11 triple disaster – earthquake, tsunami and nuclear emergency – Prime Minister Naoto Kan was due to address the nation last night. By midday yesterday, the likely death toll exceeded 27,450. Police said 10,035 people were confirmed dead and 17,443 were missing, presumed dead.

Contamination of water in some treatment plants in areas surrounding the stricken power station remained above the safe limit for infants of 100 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive iodine.

In Tokyo, where elevated iodine 131 readings earlier in the week sparked panic buying of bottled water, levels remained safe.

But plants supplying Chiba, a major residential area east of Tokyo, posted readings on Wednesday of up to 220 becquerels of iodine 131, well above the infant limit. The advice for infants not to drink the water remained.

Shipments of vegetables including spinach, cabbage, broccoli, radish and parsley, and milk from Fukushima and three surrounding prefectures (Ibaraki, Tochigi and Gunma), remain suspended.

The World Health Organisation said 17 countries and the European Union had stepped up monitoring of Japanese imports.

read original here

What do I do to help Japan? The World?

Turn off your lights, Reduce power consumption, Learn where your power comes from and START using Solar power and Wind power in your everyday lives!

I am serious as the things going on in Japan and the rest of the world. The things going on throughout the world again remind us that we can no longer fend for ourselves. We have been taught that if you sit on the couch and forget to cook your kids dinner, McDonalds has a pile of calories in unhealthy food for you to ‘surprise’ your kids with. What happened to growing our own food, using wind power to bring water up from wells (you would appreciate that shower a lot more) and now with technology we can be spoiled and yet self sufficient in more ways than you think.

Solar power and wind power have been a part of my life since a kid. When I was young, my father, added on to our house. He did some interesting things that, looking back, were very forward thinking and power concious. The room was built with a venting system that took the hot air from the ceiling and forced it through cavities below the floor, thus heating it. He also put a hot tub in the room. For that he chose solar power. I was lucky enough to see the entire installation and see how the various green energy technologies were put to use even though I will be the first to admit that it took me many years to understand why the extra effort was worth it.  I also realised he did it for me, well, future generations.
Thank you dad!

 Anyway, nice story but  What does this mean to me?

Where are the reactors in the United States of America?
USA Nuclear Reactor Map(See the whole list of  USA Nuclear Reactors )

Question: Why did you show me the map?
Answer: Because if you live in the USA and so much as have bought something at a store, YOU  have caused, in part, the need for the nuclear reactors in this picture. There are a LOT of them.

Working in the dark yet? Lights off?  kidding, well kind of. How do we make a change? Companies like Urban Green Enegy are making a difference with simple and yet fantastic things like their vertical axis wind turbines and their ‘Sanya’ streetlight.  The technology is all around us and it is really just a matter of finding it and getting it going.  Learn to be more self sufficient.  The technologies cost money, I agree and the time for change is always when the economy is down.  It takes money to make money and it takes money to save money over time.  So, DIY or do it yourself…. More to come on that but I feel better writing this, and yes, this was writen in the dark. Hopefully that explains the spelling errors.

More U.S. states find traces of radiation from Japan

RadNet Radiation monitor station(CNN) — Colorado and Oregon have joined several other Western states in reporting trace amounts of radioactive particles that have likely drifted about 5,000 miles from a quake and tsunami-damaged nuclear power plant in Japan, officials say.

But, on a portion of its website dedicated to tracking such radiation, the Environmental Protection Agency noted Wednesday that these and other readings “show typical fluctuation in background radiation levels” and — thus far — “are far below levels of concern.”

Sampling from a monitor in Colorado — part of a national network of stations on the lookout for radioactivity — detected miniscule amounts of iodine-131, a radioactive form of iodine, the state’s public health and environmental department said Wednesday in a press release.

On the same day in Portland, Oregon, tiny quantities of iodine-131 were also detected by an Environmental Protection Agency air monitor, Oregon public health officials said.

Small amounts of radioactive material were detected Wednesday, too, in Hawaii — just as they had a day earlier, according to the EPA. But while they were above the historical and background norm, the levels weren’t considered harmful to human health.

Washington and California previously reported low levels of radioactive isotopes that likely came from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, which has been releasing radioactive particles into the air since its cooling and other systems were damaged by a 9.0-magnitude earthquake and massive tsunami on March 11. Efforts continued Thursday to cool down the spent nuclear fuel rods, prevent a further meltdown of the plant’s six reactor cores and curb the release of additional radioactive material.

Sampling of these radioactive particles from these various monitors will be further analyzed at the EPA’s national lab.

Still, right now, U.S. health officials have emphasized that, at about 5,000 miles from the plant, the West Coast is unlikely to see any dangerous levels of radiation regardless of what happens in Japan. Radioactive particles disperse in the air, thus there is less of a hazard the farther away you are.

“Our finding is consistent with findings in Washington and California. We have expected to find trace amounts of the isotopes released from the Japanese plant. There is no health risk,” Gail Shibley, administrator of Oregon’s Office of Environmental Public Health, Oregon Public Health Division, said in a statement.

Besides the Hawaii readings, the Environmental Protection Agency has found trace amounts of radioactive iodine, cesium and tellurium at four RadNet air monitor filters on the West Coast — three in California and one in Washington. These levels are consistent with what a U.S. Department of Energy monitor found last week, the EPA said Monday.

Americans typically get exposure to radiation from natural sources such as the sun, bricks and rocks that are about 100,000 times higher than what has been detected in the United States.

There is no need for anyone as a precautionary measure to take potassium iodide, a medication that can counter the harmful effects of iodine-131, health officials say.

Radiation Levels Rise in Tokyo Tap Water as New Evacuations Ordered at Nuke Plant

(FOXNEWS) Tokyo – A spike in radiation levels in Tokyo tap water spurred new fears about food safety Wednesday as rising black smoke forced another evacuation of workers trying to stabilize Japan’s radiation-leaking nuclear plant.

Radiation has seeped into vegetables, raw milk, the water supply and seawater since a magnitude-9 quake and killer tsunami crippled the Fukushima Dai-ichi power plant nearly two weeks ago. Broccoli was added to a list of tainted vegetables, and U.S. and Hong Kong officials announced a block on Japanese dairy and some produce from the region.

The crisis is emerging as the world’s most expensive natural disaster on record, likely to cost up to $309 billion, according to a new government estimate. The death toll continued to rise, with more than 9,400 bodies counted and more than 15,600 people listed as missing.

Concerns about food safety spread Wednesday to Tokyo after officials said tap water showed elevated levels: 210 becquerels of iodine-131 per liter of water — more than twice the recommended limit of 100 becquerels per liter for infants. Another measurement taken later at a different site showed the level was 190 becquerels per liter. The recommended limit for adults is 300 becquerels.

“It is really scary. It is like a vicious negative spiral from the nuclear disaster,” said Etsuko Nomura, a mother of two young children ages 2 and 5. “We have contaminated milk and vegetables, and now tap water in Tokyo, and I’m wondering what’s next.”

Infants are particularly vulnerable to radioactive iodine, which can cause thyroid cancer, experts say. The limits refer to sustained consumption rates, and officials urged calm, saying parents should stop giving the tap water to babies, but that it was no worry if the infants already had consumed small amounts.

They said the levels posed no immediate health risk for older children or adults.

“Even if you drink this water for one year, it will not affect people’s health,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said.

Tokyo residents shouldn’t worry, said Dr. Lim Sang-moo, director of nuclear medicine at the Korea Cancer Center Hospital in Seoul.

Parents might want to be more cautious if they have a choice. “Nobody wants to drink radioactive water,” he said. But “it’s not a medical problem but a psychosocial problem: The stress that people get from the radioactivity is more dangerous than the radioactivity itself.”

Also, radioactive iodine is short-lived, with a half-life of eight days, meaning the length of time it takes for half of it to break down harmlessly.

Richard Wakeford, a public health radiologist at the University of Manchester in Britain, blamed the spike in radiation on a shift in winds from the nuclear plant toward Tokyo. He predicted lower levels in coming days once the wind shifts back to normal patterns.

“I imagine that bottled water is now quite popular in Tokyo,” he said.

Convenience stores around Tokyo began selling out of water soon after the news broke. At one downtown supermarket, clerk Toru Kikutaka said water purchases were limited to two, two-liter bottles per person, but the store still sold out almost immediately.

“I’ve never seen anything like this,” he said.

The latest reported food data showed sharp increases in radioactivity levels in a range of vegetables. In an area about 25 miles northwest of the plant, levels for one locally grown leafy green called kukitachina measured 82 times the government’s limit for radioactive cesium and 11 times the limit for iodine.

The unsettling new development affecting Japan’s largest city, home to some 13 million in the city center, came as nuclear officials struggled to stabilize the hobbled reactor 140 miles to the north.

The quake and tsunami that struck off the east coast March 11 knocked out the plant’s crucial cooling systems.

Explosions and fires followed in four of the plant’s six reactors, leaking radioactive steam into the air. Progress in cooling down the facility has been intermittent, disrupted by rises in radiation, elevated pressure in reactors and overheated storage pools.

The plant operator had restored circuitry to bring power to all six units and turned on lights at Unit 3 late Tuesday for the first time since the disaster — a significant step toward restarting the cooling system.

It had hoped to restore power to cooling pumps at the unit within days, but experts warned the work included the risk of sparking fires as electricity is restored through equipment potentially damaged in the tsunami.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. manager Teruaki Kobayashi said the pump for Unit 3 had been tested and it was working. But officials weren’t sure when they would be able to turn the power on to the pump.

In a new setback, black smoke billowed from Unit 3, prompting another evacuation of workers from the plant during the afternoon, Tokyo Electric officials said. They added that there had been no corresponding spike in radiation at the plant.

“We don’t know the reason” for the smoke, said Hidehiko Nishiyama of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.

Late Wednesday, nuclear agency official Kenji Kawasaki said workers would not be allowed to return to the plant until Thursday morning, as it was too difficult to tell at night whether all the smoke had cleared.

As a precaution, officials have evacuated residents living within 12 miles of the plant and advised those up to 19 miles away to stay indoors to minimize exposure.

And for the first time, Edano suggested that those downwind of the plant, even if just outside the zone, should stay indoors with the windows shut tight.

Survivors, meanwhile, buried the dead from the disaster in makeshift coffins, resorting to wrapping some bodies in blue tarps.

In Higashimatsushima, about 200 miles northeast of Tokyo, soldiers lowered bare plywood coffins into the ground, saluting each casket, as families watched from a distance. Two young girls wept inconsolably, their father hugging them tight.

“I hope their spirits will rest in peace here at this temporary place,” said mourner Katsuko Oguni, 42.

Hundreds of thousands remained homeless, squeezed into temporary shelters without heat, warm food or medicine and no idea what to call home after the colossal wave swallowed up cities and towns along the coast.

Read the original at FoxNews.com here

USA Nuclear Reactor List

I have provided links to the US Nuclear regulatory commitee site for additional information. For a map please see the post ‘What do I do to help Japan? The World?’
Don’t forget that Solar power and Wind power can help us to lower this.

Plant Name
Docket Number
Reactor
Type
Location Owner/Operator NRC Region
Arkansas Nuclear 1
05000313
PWR 6 miles WNW of Russellville, AR Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 4
Arkansas Nuclear 2
05000368
PWR 6 miles WNW of Russellville, AR Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 4
Beaver Valley 1
05000334
PWR 17 miles W of McCandless, PA FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. 1
Beaver Valley 2
05000412
PWR 17 miles W of McCandless, PA FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. 1
Braidwood 1
05000456
PWR 20 miles SSW of Joliet, IL Exelon Generation Co., LLC 3
Braidwood 2
05000457
PWR 20 miles SSW of Joliet, IL Exelon Generation Co., LLC 3
Browns Ferry 1
05000259
BWR 32 miles W of Huntsville, AL Tennessee Valley Authority 2
Browns Ferry 2
05000260
BWR 32 miles W of Huntsville, AL Tennessee Valley Authority 2
Browns Ferry 3
05000296
BWR 32 miles W of Huntsville, AL Tennessee Valley Authority 2
Brunswick 1
05000325
BWR 40 miles S of Wilmington, NC Progress Energy 2
Brunswick 2
05000324
BWR 40 miles S of Wilmington, NC Progress Energy 2
Byron 1
05000454
PWR 17 miles SW of Rockford, IL Exelon Generation Co., LLC 3
Byron 2
05000455
PWR 17 miles SW of Rockford, IL Exelon Generation Co., LLC 3
Callaway
05000483
PWR 25 miles ENE of Jefferson City, MO Ameren UE 4
Calvert Cliffs 1
05000317
PWR 40 miles S of Annapolis, MD Constellation Energy 1
Calvert Cliffs 2
05000318
PWR 40 miles S of Annapolis, MD Constellation Energy 1
Catawba 1
05000413
PWR 18 miles S of Charlotte, NC Duke Energy Power Company, LLC 2
Catawba 2
05000414
PWR 18 miles S of Charlotte, NC Duke Energy Power Company, LLC 2
Clinton
05000461
BWR 23 miles SSE of Bloomington, IL Exelon Generation Co., LLC 3
Columbia Generating Station
05000397
BWR 20 miles NNE of Pasco, WA Energy Northwest 4
Comanche Peak 1
05000445
PWR 40 miles SW of Fort Worth, TX TXU Generating Company LP 4
Comanche Peak 2
05000446
PWR 40 miles SW of Fort Worth, TX TXU Generating Company LP 4
Cooper
05000298
BWR 23 miles S of Nebraska City, NE Nebraska Public Power District 4
Crystal River 3
05000302
PWR 80 miles N of Tampa, FL Progress Energy 2
D.C. Cook 1
05000315
PWR 13 miles S of Benton Harbor, MI Indiana/Michigan Power Co. 3
D.C. Cook 2
05000316
PWR 13 miles S of Benton Harbor, MI Indiana/Michigan Power Co. 3
Davis-Besse
05000346
PWR 21 miles ESE of Toledo, OH FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. 3
Diablo Canyon 1
05000275
PWR 12 miles WSW of San Luis Obispo, CA Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 4
Diablo Canyon 2
05000323
PWR 12 miles WSW of San Luis Obispo, CA Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 4
Dresden 2
05000237
BWR 25 miles SW of Joliet, IL Exelon Generation Co., LLC 3
Dresden 3
05000249
BWR 25 miles SW of Joliet, IL Exelon Generation Co., LLC 3
Duane Arnold
05000331
BWR 8 miles NW of Cedar Rapids, IA Florida Power & Light Co. 3
Farley 1
05000348
PWR 18 miles SE of Dothan, AL Southern Nuclear Operating Co. 2
Farley 2
05000364
PWR 18 miles SE of Dothan, AL Southern Nuclear Operating Co. 2
Fermi 2
05000341
BWR 25 miles NE of Toledo, OH Detroit Edison Co. 3
FitzPatrick
05000333
BWR 6 miles NE of Oswego, NY Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 1
Fort Calhoun
05000285
PWR 19 miles N of Omaha, NE Omaha Public Power District 4
Ginna
05000244
PWR 20 miles NE of Rochester, NY Constellation Energy 1
Grand Gulf 1
05000416
BWR 20 miles S of Vicksburg, MS Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 4
Hatch 1
05000321
BWR 20 miles S of Vidalia, GA Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc. 2
Hatch 2
05000366
BWR 20 miles S of Vidalia, GA Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc. 2
Hope Creek 1
05000354
BWR 18 miles SE of Wilmington, DE PSE&G Nuclear 1
Indian Point 2
05000247
PWR 24 miles N of New York City, NY Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 1
Indian Point 3
05000286
PWR 24 miles N of New York City, NY Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 1
Kewaunee
05000305
PWR 27 miles ESE of Green Bay, WI Dominion Generation 3
La Salle 1
05000373
BWR 11 miles SE of Ottawa, IL Exelon Generation Co., LLC 3
La Salle 2
05000374
BWR 11 miles SE of Ottawa, IL Exelon Generation Co., LLC 3
Limerick 1
05000352
BWR 21 miles NW of Philadelphia, PA Exelon Generation Co., LLC 1
Limerick 2
05000353
BWR 21 miles NW of Philadelphia, PA Exelon Generation Co., LLC 1
McGuire 1
05000369
PWR 17 miles N of Charlotte, NC Duke Energy Power Company, LLC 2
McGuire 2
05000370
PWR 17 miles N of Charlotte, NC Duke Energy Power Company, LLC 2
Millstone 2
05000336
PWR 3.2 miles WSW of New London, CT Dominion Generation 1
Millstone 3
05000423
PWR 3.2 miles WSW of New London, CT Dominion Generation 1
Monticello
05000263
BWR 35 miles NW of Minneapolis, MN Nuclear Management Co. 3
Nine Mile Point 1
05000220
BWR 6 miles NE of Oswego, NY Constellation Energy 1
Nine Mile Point 2
05000410
BWR 6 miles NE of Oswego, NY Constellation Energy 1
North Anna 1
05000338
PWR 40 miles NW of Richmond, VA Dominion Generation 2
North Anna 2
05000339
PWR 40 miles NW of Richmond, VA Dominion Generation 2
Oconee 1
05000269
PWR 30 miles W of Greenville, SC Duke Energy Power Company, LLC 2
Oconee 2
05000270
PWR 30 miles W of Greenville, SC Duke Energy Power Company, LLC 2
Oconee 3
05000287
PWR 30 miles W of Greenville, SC Duke Energy Power Company, LLC 2
Oyster Creek
05000219
BWR 9 miles S of Toms River, NJ Exelon Generation Co., LLC 1
Palisades
05000255
PWR 5 miles S of South Haven, MI Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 3
Palo Verde 1
05000528
PWR 50 miles W of Phoenix, AZ Arizona Public Service Co. 4
Palo Verde 2
05000529
PWR 50 miles W of Phoenix, AZ Arizona Public Service Co. 4
Palo Verde 3
05000530
PWR 50 miles W of Phoenix, AZ Arizona Public Service Co. 4
Peach Bottom 2
05000277
BWR 17.9 miles S of Lancaster, PA Exelon Generation Co., LLC 1
Peach Bottom 3
05000278
BWR 17.9 miles S of Lancaster, PA Exelon Generation Co., LLC 1
Perry 1
05000440
BWR 35 miles NE of Cleveland, OH FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. 3
Pilgrim 1
05000293
BWR 38 miles SE of Boston, MA Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 1
Point Beach 1
05000266
PWR 13 miles NNW of Manitowoc, WI FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC 3
Point Beach 2
05000301
PWR 13 miles NNW of Manitowoc, WI FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC 3
Prairie Island 1
05000282
PWR 28 miles SE of Minneapolis, MN Nuclear Management Co. 3
Prairie Island 2
05000306
PWR 28 miles SE of Minneapolis, MN Nuclear Management Co. 3
Quad Cities 1
05000254
BWR 20 miles NE of Moline, IL Exelon Generation Co., LLC 3
Quad Cities 2
05000265
BWR 20 miles NE of Moline, IL Exelon Generation Co., LLC 3
River Bend 1
05000458
BWR 24 miles NNW of Baton Rouge, LA Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 4
Robinson 2
05000261
PWR 26 miles NW of Florence, SC Progress Energy 2
Saint Lucie 1
05000335
PWR 10 miles SE of Ft. Pierce, FL Florida Power & Light Co. 2
Saint Lucie 2
05000389
PWR 10 miles SE of Ft. Pierce, FL Florida Power & Light Co. 2
Salem 1
05000272
PWR 18 miles S of Wilmington, DE PSE&G Nuclear 1
Salem 2
05000311
PWR 18 miles S of Wilmington, DE PSE&G Nuclear 1
San Onofre 2
05000361
PWR 45 miles SE of Long Beach, CA Southern California Edison Co. 4
San Onofre 3
05000362
PWR 45 miles SE of Long Beach, CA Southern California Edison Co. 4
Seabrook 1
05000443
PWR 13 miles S of Portsmouth, NH Florida Power & Light Co. 1
Sequoyah 1
05000327
PWR 16 miles NE of Chattanooga, TN Tennessee Valley Authority 2
Sequoyah 2
05000328
PWR 16 miles NE of Chattanooga, TN Tennessee Valley Authority 2
Shearon Harris 1
05000400
PWR 20 miles SW of Raleigh, NC Progress Energy 2
South Texas 1
05000498
PWR 90 miles SW of Houston, TX STP Nuclear Operating Co. 4
South Texas 2
05000499
PWR 90 miles SW of Houston, TX STP Nuclear Operating Co. 4
Summer
05000395
PWR 26 miles NW of Columbia, SC South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. 2
Surry 1
05000280
PWR 17 miles NW of Newport News, VA Dominion Generation 2
Surry 2
05000281
PWR 17 miles NW of Newport News, VA Dominion Generation 2
Susquehanna 1
05000387
BWR 70 miles NE of Harrisburg, PA PPL Susquehanna, LLC 1
Susquehanna 2
05000388
BWR 70 miles NE of Harrisburg, PA PPL Susquehanna, LLC 1
Three Mile Island 1
05000289
PWR 10 miles SE of Harrisburg, PA Exelon Generation Co., LLC 1
Turkey Point 3
05000250
PWR 20 miles S of Miami, FL Florida Power & Light Co. 2
Turkey Point 4
05000251
PWR 20 miles S of Miami, FL Florida Power & Light Co. 2
Vermont Yankee
05000271
BWR 5 miles S of Brattleboro, VT Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 1
Vogtle 1
05000424
PWR 26 miles SE of Augusta, GA Southern Nuclear Operating Co. 2
Vogtle 2
05000425
PWR 26 miles SE of Augusta, GA Southern Nuclear Operating Co. 2
Waterford 3
05000382
PWR 25 miles W of New Orleans, LA Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 4
Watts Bar 1
05000390
PWR 60 miles SW of Knoxville, TN Tennessee Valley Authority 2
Wolf Creek 1
05000482
PWR 3.5 miles NE of Burlington, KS Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp. 4

TEPCO revised year-end dividend forecast

Press Release (Mar 23,2011)
Notice Concerning Revision of Year-end Dividend Forecast

The Tokyo Electric Power Company Incorporated (TEPCO, TSE:9501) hereby announces revision of its
year-end dividend forecast for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011.

1. Reasons for Revision of Year-end Dividend Forecast

TEPCO is currently investigating detailed impact of the earthquake which struck off northeastern
coast of Japan on March 11 and working for taking appropriate countermeasures against the
situation. For the reason above, TEPCO has decided to announce a revised year-end dividend forecast
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011 once TEPCO completes the ongoing investigation into
actual and expected impacts on the company¡Çs earnings. The previous dividend forecast announced
on April 30, 2010 was 30 yen per share.

2. Details of Revision

TEPCO revised dividend forcast due to earthquakes and tsunami

Chernobyl today-Fukushima Tomorrow

Chernobyl today and the gas masks for the kids from the nuclear disaster Someone asked me for more information on what happens after the Fukushima nuclear disaster to the site and the other reactors.  To answer this I looked into Chernobyl.

Taking a look at the history of Chernobyl  since the disaster and the efforts to contain the radioactive material and clean up the site, we can see what hurdles the Fukushima few have to fight everyday.  Today the reactor number 4 at Chernobyl (the reactor that had a melt down) is now enclosed in a large concrete shelter which was by October 1986.  The shell allowed continuing the operation of the other nuclear reactors at the plant.  Some 200 tons of highly radioactive material remain buried deep within it.  This radioactive material poses an environmental hazard until it is better contained/cleaned up.

A New Safe Confinement structure is due to be completed in 2014, being built adjacent and then will be moved into place on rails. It is to be an 18,000 tonne metal arch 110 metres high, 200 metres long and spanning 257 metres, to cover both unit 4 and the hastily-built 1986 structure. The design and construction contract for this was signed in 2007 with the Novarka consortium and preparatory work on site was completed in 2010. The Chernobyl Shelter Fund, set up in 1997, had received €864 million from international donors by early 2011 towards this project and previous work. It and the Nuclear Safety Account, set up in 1993, are managed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). The NSA had received 321 million by early 2011 for Chernobyl decommissioning and also projects in other ex-Soviet countries. The total cost of the new shelter is estimated to be €1.2 billion. Early in 2011 EBRD said a further €600 million was required for the structure. Design approval is expected by mid 2011.

Used fuel from units 1 to 3 is stored in each unit’s cooling pond, in a small interim spent fuel storage facility pond (ISF-1), and in the reactor of unit 3.

Chernobyl meltdown today-A lonely landscape In 1999, a contract was signed for the construction of a radioactive waste management facility to store 25,000 used radioactive fuel assemblies from units 1-3 and other nuclear wastes, as well as radioactive waste from decommissioning units 1-3. The contract included a processing facility, able to cut the RBMK fuel assemblies and to put the material in canisters, which will be filled with inert gas and welded shut. They would then be transported to dry storage vaults in which the fuel containers would be enclosed for up to 100 years. This facility, treating 2500 fuel assemblies per year, would be the first of its kind for RBMK fuel. However, after a significant part of these ISF-1 storage structures had been built, technical deficiencies in the concept emerged, and the contract was terminated in 2007. EBRD says that the licence for ISF-1 is unlikely to be renewed after 2016. A new interim spent fuel storage facility (ISF-2) is now to be completed by Holtec International by mid-2014. Design approval and funding from EBRD’s Nuclear Safety Account was in October 2010.

In April 2009, Nukem handed over a turnkey waste treatment centre for solid radioactive waste (ICSRM, Industrial Complex for Radwaste Management). In May 2010, the State Nuclear Regulatory Committee licensed the commissioning of this facility, where solid low- and intermediate-level wastes accumulated from the power plant operations and the decommissioning of reactor blocks 1 to 3 is conditioned. The wastes are processed in three steps. First, the solid radioactive wastes temporarily stored in bunkers is removed for treatment. In the next step, these wastes, as well as those from decommissioning reactor blocks 1-3, are processed into a form suitable for permanent safe disposal. Low- and intermediate-level wastes are separated into combustible, compactable, and non-compactable categories. These are then subject to incineration, high-force compaction, and cementation respectively. In addition, highly radioactive and long-lived solid waste is sorted out for temporary separate storage. In the third step, the conditioned solid waste materials are transferred to containers suitable for permanent safe storage.

As part of this project, at the end of 2007, Nukem handed over an Engineered Near Surface Disposal Facility for storage of short-lived radioactive waste after prior conditioning. It is 17 km away from the power plant at the Vektor complex within the 30-km zone. The storage area is designed to hold 55,000 m3 of treated waste which will be subject to radiological monitoring for 300 years, by when the radioactivity will have decayed to such an extent that monitoring is no longer required.

Chernobyl meltdown today-A hydrocephAnother contract has been created for a Liquid Radioactive Waste Treatment Plant, to handle some 35,000 cubic metres of low- and intermediate-level liquid wastes at the site. This will need to be solidified and eventually buried along with solid wastes on site.

In January 2008, the Ukraine government announced a four-stage decommissioning plan which incorporates the above waste activities and progresses towards a cleared site.

Cobalt, Iodine and Cesium found in the Fukushima Daiichi plant’s discharge canals

Radioactive cesium in solid formOn March 21st and 22nd, TEPCO detected cobalt, iodine and cesium in the seawater around discharge canal of Unit 1, 2, 3 and 4.
With the latest press releases from TEPCO in Japan we learn that radiation is being detected in the ocean surrounding the plant. Levels are abnormal and due are of great concern to the fishing communities around Japan. This announcement is only going to fuel the fire of concern as Japan provides 15 percent of the world’s commercial fish catch. We are seeing wholsesalers in Asia, at least temporarily, are stopping the imports of Japanese fish, especially fish used in sushi.

The press release from TEPCO can be read here