Jeffrey LewisFEPC Info Sheet 4/7

Do other people find these information sheets useful?  I am debating about whether to keep posting them.

My fascination with the events unfolding at Fukushima is slowly giving way to the fact that I still have a day job that deals with other topics.

 

Update to Information Sheet Regarding the Tohoku Earthquake

The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan (FEPC) Washington DC Office

As of 3:00PM (EST), April 7, 2011

  • Radiation Levels

o      The concentration of radioactive nuclides from the seawater sampled at the screen device (installed to remove waste before the intake of seawater) of Unit 2 and sampled near the seawater discharge point (south side) of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Station were as follows:

 

Nuclides

(half-life)

Concentration (Unit : Bq/cm3) Ratio
Sampled at the screen of Unit 2 at 7:40AM on April 6  (a) Sampled at south side discharge point at 2:05PM on April 6  (b) Maximum Permissible Water Concentration (c) a / c b / c
I-131

(8 days)

5.6 x 103 3.7 x 100 4.0 x 10-2 140,000 93
Cs-134

(2 years)

3.1 x 103 2.4 x 100 6.0 x 10-2 52,000 40
Cs-137

(30 years)

3.2 x 103 2.5 x 100 9.0 x 10-2 36,000 28

 

o      At 6:00PM (JST) on April 7, radiation level at main gate (approximately 3,281 feet from Unit 2 reactor building) of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station: 99 micro Sv/hour.

o      At 6:00PM on April 7, radiation level at west gate (approximately 3,609 feet from Unit 2 reactor building) of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station: 56.8 micro Sv/hour.

o      Measurement results of environmental radioactivity level around Fukushima Nuclear Power Station announced at 7:00PM on April 7 are shown in the attached PDF file. English version is available at:    http://www.mext.go.jp/english/radioactivity_level/detail/1304082.htm

o      For comparison, a human receives 2,400 micro Sv per year from natural radiation in the form of sunlight, radon, and other sources. One chest CT scan generates 6,900 micro Sv per scan.

 

  • Plant Parameters
  Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6
pressure inside the reactor core (gauge pressure, MPa) 0.375 -0.009 0.000 0.002 0.008
4/7

12:00PM

4/7

12:00PM

4/7

12:00PM

4/7

12:00PM

4/7

12:00PM

pressure inside the primary containment vessel (absolute pressure, MPaabs) 0.165 0.100 0.1059
4/7

12:00PM

4/7

12:00PM

4/7

12:00PM

water level inside the reactor core (meter) *1 -1.65 -1.5 -1.9 +1.801 +1.816
4/7

12:00PM

4/7

12:00PM

4/7

12:00PM

4/7

12:00PM

4/7

12:00PM

temperature of the reactor vessel measured at the water supply nozzle (degrees Fahrenheit) 434.8 290.5 190.9

*2

4/7

12:00PM

4/7

12:00PM

4/7

12:00PM

temperature of the spent fuel pool (degrees Fahrenheit) 123.8 96.8 69.8
4/7

12:00PM

4/7

12:00PM

4/7

12:00PM

the temperature directly above the spent fuel pool by thermography measurement (degrees Fahrenheit) 75.2 140.0 134.6
4/6

7:30AM

4/6

7:30AM

4/6

7:30AM

temperature directly above the primary containment vessel (degrees Fahrenheit) 84.2 89.6
4/6

7:30

4/6

7:30

temperature directly above the second containment building (degrees Fahrenheit) 89.6
4/6

7:30

Amount of water in total shot/injected to the spent fuel storage pool (tons) 90 299 – 314 5,048 1,493
as of 4/7

7:00PM

as of 4/7

7:00PM

as of 4/7

7:00PM

as of 4/7

7:00PM

*1: Minus figure means that water level is below the top of the fuel rods.

*2: This figure is under investigation.

 

  • Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 reactor

o      At 1:31AM on April 7, TEPCO began the injection of nitrogen gas into the primary containment vessel to prevent an explosion by accumulated hydrogen gas.

o      As of 3:30PM on April 7, the injection of freshwater into the reactor core continues.

  • Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2 reactor

o      At 1:29PM on April 7, TEPCO began to inject freshwater into the spent fuel pool, until 2:34PM (approximately 36 tons in total).

o      As of 3:30PM on April 7, the injection of freshwater into the reactor core continues.

  • Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 reactor

o      At 6:53AM on April 7, TEPCO began to shoot water aimed at the spent fuel pool, until 8:53AM, with a specialized vehicle normally used for pumping concrete (approximately 70 tons in total).

o      As of 3:30PM on April 7, the injection of freshwater into the reactor core continues.

  • Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 reactor

o      At 6:23PM on April 7, injection of freshwater into the spent fuel pool commenced.

  • Fukushima Daiichi Common Spent Fuel Pool

o      At 7:45AM on April 7, the temperature of the spent fuel pool: 82.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

  • Others

Our official sources are:

  • Office of The Prime Minister of Japan
  • Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA)
  • Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) Press Releases
  • Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)

Comments

  1. Benny (History)

    I like to read them and appreciate the time you put into them. I wish I understood them more.

    I have a day job too, and will understand when they daily postings disappear.

  2. Francis (History)

    My fascination with Fukushima stems from the fact that I live in the same country and have a nuclear power station of similar vintage and design just down the road.
    The information is fairly readily obtainable, however after a short while one becomes inured to the elevated figures and begins to accept them as normal.
    Insightful analysis helps to break the spell

  3. retr2327 (History)

    Defnitely find them helpful, especially in this new format, which allows easy comparison from one reactor to another. Thanks for your time.

  4. JamesL (History)

    Jeffrey,

    What your posts provide–timely, relevant information, with a small but important reader feedback loop–is critically important to enable an informed electorate, and has very few if any counterparts. You were reporting info from sources before many people knew who the sources were. What you have provided has also ongoingly proven the journalistic sloppiness, non-comprehensiveness, and ineptitude of news media, particularly US news media. I have been collecting, condensing, and sending out information on a variety of topics for nearly a decade, all of that piled on top of a day job, often uncomfortably. The issue isn’t whether what you are sending out is useful. It is–no question about it. Your site and efforts have been a great benefit to me. The more fundamental issue is whether enough people care to justify your effort. That is another question entirely. Do we now have an informed electorate? Is one possible? How many people are willing to even put in the amount of effort to read what you’ve compiled? Does anybody care?

  5. Iain (History)

    It is not so much the postings as the discussion they have elicited that I much appreciate. Perhaps a weekly posting or an ongoing discussion thread would retain the value without needing as much of your time, for which the vountary offering of we are duly grateful!

  6. FSB (History)

    The reports and comments on them are useful but I think they may be taking you and your colleagues’ bandwidth away from other AC happenings.

  7. Anon (History)

    And Fuk u Shima ain’t arms control neither.

  8. bks (History)

    Where do you get them?

    –bks

  9. FSB (History)

    I am esp. looking forward to Joshua Pollack’s new post on the DNI’s new assessment of Iran’s nuclear weapons’ program that does not exist.

  10. Stephen Young (History)

    Funny, I thought I could pretty quickly track down where Jeffrey was getting these from, but in the process I instead found this page:
    http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/index.php
    which has even more details, in three or more daily documents, than the quite detailed FEPC updates have.

  11. Eve (History)

    Just provide the source links and discuss the main issues. Like how TEPCO applied two weeks ago to build several new reactors at the same site. Radionuclide output, reactor/ex-reactor stability and integrity of the spent/unspent fuel pools are all something we can learn from, especially where we consider in them in the context of emergent countries ambitions and experiments.

    • Eve (History)

      (and also perhaps on the calculations of risk in developed countries)

  12. MB (History)

    First of all I want to thank you for your daily reports and all the work you put into them.
    I do log in daily and from all I can understand, the crisis at Fukushima is far from being under control, not even to mention the risks posed by further earthquakes.

    It is always amazing how much established media in all countries tend to reproduce / re-print official standpoints of governments and government- related organizations that have an interest in downplaying the radiation problems.

    It resembles the way the problem was reported during the Chernobyl catastrophe. So anybody who wants “real information” depends on investigative sources like you.

    I just came across a link on a AREVA presentation, which you might want to make available in a more prominent position of your blog:
    http://www.seyth.com/ressources/quake/AREVA-Document.pdf

  13. mike (History)

    The data are appreciated but if there is a link(s) with a main index page for your source perhaps you can just put that on your home page side bar and post your own comments when you think appropriate to any change in status. But as usual, you have been one of the few out front of the MSM on this issue.

  14. Christian (History)

    I’ve very much appreciated the updates, although would understand it if pressures of the day job reduced their frequency. One request – Fahrenheit is not a measurement system I have any experience with, and it would be if the temperature readings could be given in Celcius.

  15. Wramblin' Wreck (History)

    Jeffrey, I too would like to thank you for the time and effort you have provided. The compiled data is informative and helpful but it is the comments of the knowledgeable readers I treasure, something I have not found elsewhere on this subject.

    It seems that the situation is stabilizing and they are regaining a semblance of control. I am not watching as carefully but I still read on armscontrolwonk daily.

    Again, Thanks!!

  16. hilary (History)

    I’d like to add my voice to the others thanking you.
    You have become part of my daily routine.
    Real info was so hard to find and I spent many hours searching the web for quality comment and analysis of a subject I know nothing about myself.
    I finally came to rest with this blog and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
    Both of them have held my hand, educated and informed me during the weeks of this crisis.
    Whilst I understand that it must be hugely time consuming for you, the selfish part of me hopes that you will keep abreast of the situation and post about the ongoing stages of clean up and decommissioning over the coming years.
    Thank you very much for this blog and the opportunity to benefit from yours and others’ knowledge.

  17. Jim (History)

    Jeffrey, you can’t do more than you can, but these FEPC updates ARE extremely useful particularly for the daily temperature and pressure readings for each reactor vessel which (despite the Fahrenheit readings) are more specific than either the IAEA or JAIF daily reports. (As of a few days ago the RPV-1 pressure started rising again and as of 4/08 the temperature is following suit. I don’t know how serious that is but I’m guessing it’s why they’re injecting nitrogen. The best background I have seen on what happened is in the 4/01 Areva presentation and the leaked 3/26 NRC RST assessment, which together allow you to piece together some of what’s going on.) If these FEPC updates were posted elsewhere then just the link would do it, but I couldn’t find them on the FEPC site (presumably because they come from the FEPC Washington office–what do you do, bicycle by and pick them up?) or elsewhere on the web. Anyway, thanks for posting them so far.

  18. Chris (History)

    I too have to thank you for putting these up — not because I can digest the data myself, but (as others have mentioned) because it spurs discussion among the knowledgeable, from which I benefit greatly. The key thing to have access to, for interested laypeople, is not just data but skilled interpretation of data, and the comments here have been immensely helpful to me in that regard.

    The only other site I highly recommend for this kind of insight is the Union of Concerned Scientists, and not just their “All Things Nuclear” blog, but especially their not-quite-but-almost-daily press briefings, the transcripts of which are posted on the site, along with their Congressional testimony. It is hard to find real nuclear energy expertise that is not so entangled with industry imperatives as to make its independence questionable, and the UCS fills that gap very well.

    Their latest press briefing transcript is here:
    http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/safety/nuclear-crisis-japan-telepress-transcript-04-07-11.html

Pin It on Pinterest