• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is TEPCO Capable?
#1
Every time something like this gets announced it becomes more evident that TEPCO is not capable of managing nuclear.

31 Aug TEPCO Daily
"* When spent fuel stored in the spent fuel shared pool of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in November 2013 was loaded into transport and storage casks, 4 spent fuels that have not been checked for loading are loaded Confirmed what you are doing on 30th August.

Regarding this cask, it is currently stored in the dry cask temporary storage facility, but no significant fluctuation is confirmed in the cask's inter-lid pressure, temperature and area monitor indication value after fuel loading. Spent fuel (recovered uranium fuel * ) that has not been confirmed whether loading is allowed or not is different from the uranium fuel in composition, but can be handled in the same way as ordinary uranium fuel. The future response is under consideration now. 
* Reprocessed spent fuel at the reprocessing facility, transformed and concentrated to produce molded fuel" http://www.tepco.co.jp/press/report/2017..._8981.html

And technical report:
On the error of loading uranium fuel into dry cask of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station
August 31, 2017
August 31, 2017 TEPCO Holdings Corporation

"When loading the spent fuel stored in the spent fuel shared pool of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in November 2013 into the dry cask, the spent fuel that has not been confirmed whether or not it can be loaded into the cask (recovered uranium fuel I confirmed Yesterday (August 30) that 4 people are loading ※). * Reprocessed spent fuel at reprocessing facility, transformed and concentrated to produce molded fuel

Regarding this cask, we are currently storing it in the dry cask temporary storage facility in the power plant premises, but no significant fluctuation has been confirmed in the cask lid inter-lid pressure, temperature and area monitor indication value since fuel loading Hmm. [hmm is an interesting comment in such a report].

Although recovered uranium fuel is different in nuclear composition from normal uranium fuel, it can be handled equally.
The future response is currently under consideration and details will be announced once it is known.
For this matter, I will also explain at the interview on the progress of the medium- and long-term roadmap scheduled from 5:45 pm today." http://www.tepco.co.jp/press/mail/2017/1..._9013.html
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#2
Still not inspiring any confidence, Tepco loads MOX fuel into dry cask by mistake and says it's safe so far. Hmm
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#3
Is MOX what they mean when they say "Reprocessed spent fuel at reprocessing facility, transformed and concentrated to produce molded fuel" - why not just call it MOX instead of uranium?

A little history: Aug 2000 Tepco gets green light for MOX nuclear fuel https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2000/0...ag3KoqQxPs
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#4
Quote:Although recovered uranium fuel is different in nuclear composition from normal uranium fuel, it can be handled equally.
made me think MOX and I've heard Mox referred to as reprocessed so I translate it as MOX.  

Some spent fuel from CSFP was transferred "in November 2013 into the dry cask".  

I think this would have been some older assemblies that had sat awhile in the CSFP, were cool enough and could safely be dry casked to make room in the CSFP for R4's fuel assemblies.  The report implies that MOX got dry casked by mistake.  Was there used MOX already sitting in the common pool?  Remember that MOX was not registered to be used and it was an 'embarrassment' that TEPCO was found using it in r4 and r3.  They said UO2 and MOX can be handled equally but storage requirements probably differ.  Now Tepco has a test dry-cask of MOX to see how safe it is.  

No One is Watching
Published on October 1, 2013
http://drsircus.com/world-news/no-one-is-watching/
Quote:Highly radioactive “spent fuel rods” must be kept submerged under at least 20 feet of constantly circulating cold water for at least five years after being removed from the reactor core
...
it must be transferred at all times in water and heavily shielded structures into dry casks.

One of my first posts on sfp4 fuel removal, from a Tepco report no longer available:
Quote:132 fuel rods transferred as of 12-24-2013.

Your link, Aug 11, 2000, says MOX was used in r3. Five to ten year cooled assemblies could probably be safely dry-casked.

Had not heard of TEPCO making any mistakes at the time, good find Pia.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#5
perhaps it wasn't the same MOX (if MOX, but I think you assessed the language used correctly). Reports shouldn't be disappearing... more obfuscation afoot me thinks.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#6
(08-31-2017, 12:22 PM)piajensen Wrote: Is MOX what they mean when they say "Reprocessed spent fuel at reprocessing facility, transformed and concentrated to produce molded fuel" - why not just call it MOX instead of uranium?

A little history: Aug 2000 Tepco gets green light for MOX nuclear fuel https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2000/0...ag3KoqQxPs

MOX fuel has a higher percentage of Plutonium. The added Plutonium creates a fuel with different characteristics than Uranium fuel. Most of the nuclear work has been done by UO2 fuel and the characteristics are fairly well known and documented. MOX fuel may not be as 'safe' to work with but they're determining that now with its use.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#7
So, it does make me wonder what they mean by "Reprocessed spent fuel at reprocessing facility, transformed and concentrated to produce molded fuel" while stating it's uranium.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#8
It is Uranium fuel but with a little added Plutonium to be MOX. MOX was to be the solution to using the stockpiles of Plutonium and attempting to complete the "nuclear fuel cycle". Not all of the Uranium is used in a reactor, after a time Neutron poisons accumulate in the fuel and can't sustain reactions. Reprocessing sought to remove the Neutron poisons to use the remaining Uranium. Then some Nukie thought adding Plutonium was a good idea to get more burn from the fuel. It became more of a political solution when the US-Russia treaty dictated a reduction in Plutonium stockpiles.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)