Results 1 - 10 of 10
Results 1 - 10 of 10. Search took: 0.018 seconds
|Sort by: date | relevance|
[en] Numerous cases of unequal foundation and floor subsidence due to ground settlement and liquefaction were observed as damage to mechanical equipment. Most of these were observed in waterfront areas of reclaimed ground and riverside areas with a seismic intensity of 4 or higher. Cracks and bumps occurred to foundation concrete. These caused damage to mechanical equipment, e.g. core displacement, inclination, uplift from foundation, and sinking.
[en] TSP and atmospheric 210Pb concentrations were observed at Tsukuba, Japan during July 2001 to March 2005. TSP concentrations ranged from 14.5 to 152.4 µg m-3. 210Pb concentrations ranged from 0.04 to 0.86 mBq m-3 which was low in summer and high in winter to spring. Although TSP concentrations changed annually, 210Pb concentrations had almost the same concentration level and seasonal variation. The correlation coefficient between 210Pb concentration and NO3- concentration was slightly higher than for other ion species. This result indicated that both had been attached to the same particle size and transported to the sampling site. (author)
[en] Contents: National status of SFR development in Japan. Prospects of Japan Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor -Introduction: JAEA has developed conceptual design of an advanced loop-type SFR, named JSFR.; R&Ds for innovative technologies adopted in JSFR have been conducted as well as design study for improving maintainability and repairability and safety measures based on lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plants accident.; JAEA is developing the design concept of a pool-type SFR based on the technology obtained from the above.; The development of this concept will broaden not only options for reactor types in Japan but also the range and depth of international cooperation. Design concept of a pool-type SFR; Study of reactor structure - Structural design and seismic evaluation, - Thermal hydraulic evaluation; Study of safety design - Safety design concept, - Applicability evaluation of SASS. Concluding Remarks: JAEA is developing the design concept of pool-type sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) that addresses Japan's specific siting conditions such as earthquakes and meets safety design criteria (SDC) and safety design guidelines (SDGs) for Generation IV SFRs.; The development of this concept will broaden not only options for reactor types in Japan but also the range and depth of international cooperation.
[en] The JMTR operation was once stopped in order to be checked & reviewed in August 2006, and the refurbishment and restart of the JMTR was finally determined by the national discussion. The refurbishment was started in FY2007 and was finished in March 2011. However, on March 11, 2011, the Great-Eastern-Japan- Earthquake occurred, and functional tests before the JMTR restart were delayed. On the other hand, based on the safety assessments considering the 2011 earthquake new regulatory requirements were established on December 18, 2013 by the NRA. The new regulatory requirements include the satisfaction of integrities for the updated earthquake forces, tsunami, the consideration of natural phenomena, and the management of consideration in the Beyond Design Basis Accidents (BDBA) to protect fuel damage and to mitigate impact of the accidents. Analyses related to the new regulatory requirements have intensively been performed timely, and an application to the NRA had been submitted in March 27, 2015. After submission of the application, a seismic resistance assessment of the JMTR reactor building was carried out by assuming the standard earthquake ground motion of 810 gal. As a result, it was found that seismic reinforcement work for reactor building and reactor pool wall were required. As a result, it became clear that at least 7 years of reinforcement work and a cost of about 40 billion yen are required for seismic reinforcement and to meet new regulatory standards. At the same time, it was made clear that high availability such as 8 operation cycles per year as originally planned cannot be expected due to aging problem. For this reason, JAEA positioned the JMTR as a decommissioning facility in the mid- and long-term plan of JAEA announced in April 2017. JAEA started to study the construction of a new material testing reactor. The examination results will be compiled by the end of FY2019. (author)
[en] The alert came just before sunrise in Vienna on 11 March 2011. The on-call emergency response manager reviewed the seismic report that opened on his laptop screen. Within minutes, staff trained in specialized response roles were called into the IAEA’s Incident and Emergency Centre (IEC). He had initiated the IEC’s ‘full response’ for the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, based on the results of an assessment that followed pre-established procedures. ‘Full response’ means that over 200 staff members trained in regular exercises operate in 12-hour shifts, 24 hours per day, gathering information from emergency contact points in the ‘Accident State’ — in this case, Japan — and other Member States, dispatching IAEA assistance when requested, informing the international community, while updating the media and public and coordinating the international response.
[en] On 11 March 2011, the Great Japanese Earthquake shook the Asian seabed so powerfully that it moved the main island of Japan two and a half metres to the east. As the ensuing tsunami swept across the mainland, it breached Japan’s coastal defences including the perimeter of the Fukushima Daiichi’s Nuclear Power Plant, causing the release of radionuclides. Even so, scientists have found no evidence that this radiation caused health-related effects. The accident prompted a concerted and coordinated response by the international community, which has led to a significant improvement in the safety and safety culture in the nuclear sector. Three months after the accident, the IAEA hosted a Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety and the IAEA Action Plan on Nuclear Safety was endorsed in September 2011. Nuclear engineers worldwide poured over their reactors analysing and upgrading equipment. They shared their knowledge and findings and four years later, the IAEA published its comprehensive report on the accident. It is important to recognize the progress made in nuclear safety in Japan and worldwide in the past decade. Nuclear is safer than it has ever been. Nonetheless, we cannot be complacent. I continue to emphasize the need to remain vigilant and put safety first. The 7.3-magnitude earthquake that hit Fukushima in 2021 is a reminder of the need to keep our safety focus. The stakes are even higher today, because we need nuclear power to expand if we are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
[en] Less than an hour. That’s the time it took the earthquake-triggered tsunami of 2011 to reach Japan’s eastern shoreline. Soon after, the first tsunami hit the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, leading to an accident that forced tens of thousands of people to evacuate. Since then, the Government of Japan and the authorities of Fukushima Prefecture have made significant efforts to make much of the evacuated areas inhabitable again. A decade after the accident, what does life look like in the affected areas of Fukushima Prefecture? The IAEA has provided technical expertise, equipment, expert missions and guidance on recovery operations — based on international examples and the IAEA safety standards. It has been supporting Japanese authorities and scientists in three technical areas: radiation monitoring, remediation and the management of waste from decontamination activities.
[en] Since our last newsletter in July 2020, which reported on the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic to the work of the Food and Environmental Protection (FEP), the Section has continued to support more than 70 technical cooperation projects (TCPs) and six coordinated research projects (CRPs). A couple of additional new CRPs are in the pipeline. Please see selected highlights in related articles in this newsletter. For the TCPs, greater focus was placed on implementing procurement of equipment and laboratory supplies, which has been quite successful. Where supply and delivery of procurements has been prompt, this has greatly facilitated food safety testing activities in Member States. Food safety and quality laboratories have generally remained active in Member States to ensure that consumers receive safe and quality food. Laboratory supplies have therefore been very critical during these times. While coordination meetings and capacity building activities through physical interactions have not been possible and several have been postponed to 2021, a number of virtual activities have been implemented. For example, an ad-hoc, one-day (2 July 2020) coordination meeting for the regional (Latin America and the Caribbean) food safety project on “Improving Regional Testing Capabilities and Monitoring Programmes for Residues/Contaminants in Foods Using Nuclear/Isotopic and Complementary Techniques” (RLA5081) was organized to finetune workplans and address urgent needs. Another two-day virtual meeting held 27 and 29 October on “The Future of Data in Food Safety, Sharing Experiences and Lessons Learned with the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA)” was organized under a related regional project “Strengthening the Regional Collaboration of Official Laboratories to Address Emerging Challenges for Food Safety” (RLA5080). A two-day (21–22 September 2020) collaborative Global Minor Use Priority Setting Workshop was also held in collaboration with the Minor Use Foundation. More than 180 participants from Asia, Africa as well as Latin America and the Caribbean, among others, attended. Such events helped to enhance global efforts to establish collaboration among food safety partners in identifying priority crops/compounds and planning for generation of residue data needed to set up maximum residue limits and promote fair trade. Another virtual meeting attended by 29 participants in 18 countries of the Asia and Pacific region was held from 3 to 4 September 2020, to initiate a TC project on promoting food irradiation by electron beam and X ray technologies. Furthermore, an online food irradiation network (FInet) was initiated with specialists in Asia and Pacific countries taking part virtually. FEP also participated in the 11th meeting of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Standards Committee (EPReSC) held virtually between 2 and 4 November 2020 to consider and approve a range of radiation safety standards and guidelines. We also participated in the review and assessment of food products in Japan as part of the Agency’s review of Comprehensive Fukushima reports from Japan (June and October). On the global scene, FEP joined Member States to commemorate the World Food Safety Day1 and the World Food Day2 . FEP also supported Indonesia’s commemoration of World Food Day by participating in an international webinar on 22 October 2020 in Jakarta, during which FEP delivered a presentation on “Achieving quality/Safety of Food/Agriculture and Environment to Meet the Needs of People During COVID-19 – A system’s perspective”. Undeterred by the COVID-19 challenges, the Food and Environmental Protection Laboratory (FEPL) continued to perform its R&D activities and provide outreach services as well as technical guidance to Member States. This newsletter presents details of the work done including but not limited to: (1) “Chemometrics Add-in for Excel” E-learning course under a regional project RAS5081 for Asia-Pacific (16–20 November 2020); (2) regional project support; (3) webinars; (4) state-of-the-art analytical instrumentation; (5) analytical method development and innovative sample preparation; (6) collaborating centre(s); (7) training courses; and (8) laboratory networking. FEP has continued to support laboratory and food safety networking initiatives in Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa and Asia. Some highlights are presented in this Newsletter. This newsletter also presents a feature article focussing on food irradiation and our collaboration with Member States including the IAEA Collaborating Centre framework. Collaborating Centres help the Agency in the implementation of targeted IAEA programmatic activities.
[en] Whereas the former USSR and Asia are the most nuclear regions in the world (164 reactors), and as their nuclear policies has been put by the Fukushima accident into question again, this paper proposes an overview of the situation of nuclear electric power production in these countries. It appears that Russia and China have a very offensive policy of development of nuclear (sheets are proposed with indications and brief comments on resources and on the composition of the electricity mix, on economy, infrastructures and organisation, and on the nuclear policy for Russia and China). The cases of Armenia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan are described as countries wishing to initiate or to increase their nuclear power production (a sheet is proposed for Ukraine). Then, the paper addresses the cases of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan which reconsider their will to phase out nuclear (sheets for Japan and Korea). A brief synthesis is finally proposed.
[en] The author who was present in Japan at the time of the catastrophe, proposes an analysis of the Fukushima disaster, notably based on testimonies from people she met: inhabitants (refugees or not), the Fukushima plant manager (Maso Yoshida), and the Prime Minister of that time (Naoto Kan). It appears that their dissonant narratives question the modalities of management of ignorance and of the right to know. She notably discusses who governs the access to crucial public health information, or who may decide the non-evacuation of a devastated town or of the resettlement of populations in a radioactive city in such circumstances where millions of human lives are at stake. Thus, also based on unissued archives, she proposes a scientific analysis of refugee resettlement policies, of stakes of radioactivity measurements, and of the psychological follow-up of traumatised people