Earthquake in Japan causes the tsunami happen near the Fukushima nuclear power station on 11th March 2011 shocked of the world. All reactors that have ceased operations automatically as soon as tremors detected. Electric system failure and also shake the reactor cooling system causing an unprecedented explosion in the Fukushima station. Hydrogen explosion occurred at Reactor Buildings that contain atoms known as radioactive hazardous.
Radioactive began to spread around the station as far as 20 km to 30 km. due to the Japanese government had warned residents and also advice on the surrounding area to circulate to the area far from the radioactive.
In a further report will inform industrial process and operation, impact of the Fukushima nuclear disaster to the society, Ecology, Sociology, health and actions also rates Taken by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO),
The Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, nuclear power plant located on a 3.5-square-kilometre (860-acre) in the towns of Okuma and Futaba in the Futaba District of Fukushima Prefecture, Japan (Tohoku offshore in the Pacific). First commissioned in 1971, the plant consists of six boiling water reactors (BWR). These light water reactors drove electrical generators with a combined power of 4.7 GWe, making Fukushima Daiichi one of the 15 largest nuclear power stations in the world. Fukushima I was the first nuclear plant to be designed, constructed and run in conjunction with General Electric, Boise, and Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO)
This earthquake is the mega thrust earthquake of magnitude 9.0 undersea (Mw) which originates in Japan offshore epicenter located about 70 kilometers (43 mi) east of the Oshika Peninsula Tohoku with a depth of about 32 km (20 bt) in the sea. This is the most powerful earthquake known to have hit the Japanese, and one of the strongest earthquake in the world since modern record-keeping beginning in 1900. This earthquake has triggered a monster tsunami that reached a height of 40.5 meters (133 ft) in Miyako, Iwate of the Tohoku Region, and swept inland as far as 10 km (6 mi) inland in the Sendai area. This earthquake has turned the island of Honshu 2.4 m (8 ft) to the east as well as tilting the Earth on its axis by 10 cm (4 in.) to 25 cm (10 in). According to TEPCO reports a total of 37 with physical injuries, 2 workers taken to hospital with radiation burns. After the interrogation is no person or employee of the station die struck radiation.
Some problems also arise in Fukushima Daini station, which houses four (4) reactors, Unit No. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Four units at Fukushima Daini station is operated in the period 1982-1987, and all is well BWR. Four units are also in operation during the occurrence of two earthquakes, and all operations will stop automatically when the vibration is detected.
Although the earthquake and tsunami did not affect the structure of the reactor building in all units. Serious incident occurred at Units 1, 2 and 3 of the Fukushima Daiichi as the results of the external power stations are required reactor cooling pool and nuclear fuel storage. by power outage outdoor, emergency generators began operating. Once the tank is washed diesel generator by the tsunami generator fails to operate because then stopped by cooling the reactor system.
Sample of nuclear operation
When all three cooling system is not operating, the pressure increase in the reactor without control. The high pressure is caused by the boiling water in the reactor has been the absence of an emergency cooling system, and which also contain rates of hydrogen gas generated from the reaction of steam and dangerous radiation in the core reactor. The hydrogen gas occurs when water molecules (H2O) lost due to radiation, to produce hydrogen and oxygen. As a result of the opening of the valve element extract cesium (cesium) that released radioactivity was detected first reactor and around Fukushima Daiichi station. This explosion of a building external hydrogen scheme does not affect the primary containment structure (primary containment) and the secondary reactor (secondary containment). Therefore, more serious radioactive leak has been avoided, but part of the nuclear fuel in the reactor core melting was suspected (partial melt-down).
Therefore, the Prime Minister of Japan has expanded evacuation orders to 10 kilometers of Fukushima Daini station. Injection of seawater mixed with boric acid into the reactor Unit 1 at Fukushima Daiichi March 12, 2011, and continued until now. Boric acid intended to absorb neutrons in nuclear reactions in the reactor so that it can be stopped continue to achieve cold shutdown (cold shut-down) form.
The earthquake and tsunami 11th March 2011 natural disasters that shocked the whole world. Fukushima nuclear accident in the past year was characterized as a ‘man-made disaster’ and not simply due to the tsunami, according to a Japanese parliamentary panel in a final report on the disaster.
String from the tsunami happened was an unexpected event involving nuclear reactors causing hydrogen gas explosion in the reactor building.
The disaster that struck Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station on March 11, 2011, caused the most extensive release of radioactivity the destruction at Fukushima was initiated by natural disasters a huge earthquake and tsunami rather than equipment failure and human error. The tsunami knocked out backup power systems that were needed to cool the reactors at the plant, causing several of them to undergo fuel melting, hydrogen explosions, and radioactive releases.
Studies of the Fukushima disaster have identified design changes, response actions, and other safety improvements that could have reduced or eliminated the amount of radioactivity released from the plant. As a result, Fukushima has prompted a re-examination of nuclear plant safety requirements around the world, including the United States.
Identifies whether the Fukushima nuclear disaster is natural or man-made. Clearly explain your justification.
In investigations of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation said the Japanese government and TEPCO say that failing to prevent the disaster is not as large tsunami is not expected, but because they refuse to invest time, effort and money in protecting against natural disasters is considered impossible. The panel system is not enough to blame the law for managing the nuclear crisis, crisis chaos, direction caused by the government and TEPCO, and excessive intervention possible in the Prime Minister’s office in the early stages of the crisis. Panel also said that cultural complacency about nuclear safety and poor crisis management led to a nuclear disaster. With the Fukushima nuclear accident last year has been characterized as a ‘man-made disaster’ and not simply due to the tsunami, according to Japanese parliamentary panel in its final report on the disaster. By TEPCO mentioned, the size of the earthquake and tsunami exceeded expectations and can not be predicted to be the main cause of the problem.
Japanese Prime Minister apologized to the Fukushima nuclear crisis in the country.
Industrial process and operation of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant
Unit 1 is a 439 MW boiling water reactor (BWR3) was built in July 1967. Began producing commercial electricity March 26, 1971, and was scheduled to close in March, 2011.Ia damaged during Sendai earthquake and 2011 tsunami. The reactor has a high level of safety and earthquake atom when made, but now both old and outdated. No one knows how bad the earthquake could occur in Japan. Unit 1 is designed for peak ground motion earthquake shakes acceleration of 0.18 g (1.74 m/s2) and seismic response spectra based on Kern County earthquake 1952. All units were inspected after the 1978 Miyagi earthquake when the ground acceleration seismic 0.125 g (1.22 m/s2) for 30 seconds, but no damage to the critical parts of the reactor has been found.
And fukushima daiichi unit 2, 3, and 4 is a 784 MW boiling water reactor (BWR). But was commercial operation on July 1974(unit 2), Mac 1976(unit 3), and October 1978(unit 4)
Impact of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant disaster
From the survey we found that Radiation from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster may eventually cause anywhere from 15 to 1,300 deaths and from 24 to 2,500 cases of cancer, mostly in Japan, Stanford researchers have calculated.
Estimates have a large uncertainty, but the contrast with earlier claims that radioactive emission is unlikely to cause serious health effects. The numbers are in addition to the 600 deaths caused by the evacuation of the area around the nuclear plant immediately after, March 2011 earthquake and tsunami crisis.
In March 2011, Japanese officials announced that “radioactive iodie-131 exceeding safety limits for infants had been detected in 18 water treatments plants in Tokyo and other provinces. As in July 2011, the Japanese government has been able to contain the spread the radioactive material into the nation’s food. Radioactive material has been detected in variety of outcomes, including spinach, tea leaves, milk, fish, and meat, up to 200 kilometres from the nuclear plant. In the 12 kilometre evacuation zone around the plant, all farming was abandoned
The Fukushima Daiichi meltdown was the most extensive nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. Radiation release critically contaminated a “dead zone” of several hundred square kilometres around the plant, and low levels of radioactive material were found as far as North America and Europe. But the most of the radioactivity was dumped in the Pacific, only 19 percent of the released material was deposits over land and keeping the exposed population relatively small. There are groups of people who have said there would be no effects.
A month after the disaster, the head of the United Nations science committee on the effects of atomic radiation, for example, predicted that there would be no serious public health consequences resulting from the radiation
Outline the actions taken by (TEPCO), government and the regulatory body during the occurrence of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Catastrophic Tohoku earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011 resulting humanitarian crisis and a devastating economic impact. The tragedy of 300,000 residents forced to leave their homes in the tohoku region, in addition to the lack of food, water, shelter, medicine and fuel for survivors. To address the crisis, the Japanese government move him self defense forces, while many countries sent search and rescue teams to japan to help search for survivors. Aid organizations in and outside japan also responded, especially the Japanese Red Cross society branches that reported donations of $ 1 billion.
Prime Minister Kan visited the plant for a briefing on 12 March. He had been quoted in the press calling for calm and minimizing exaggerated reports of danger. Kan met with Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) on 15 March and lamented the lack of information. According to press accounts, he asked, “what the hell is going on? ‘Secretary of Government Yukio Edano stated around 18 March, “We could have moved a little quicker in assessing the situation.
The Japanese government asked the United States to provide cooling equipment to the plant. As of 15 march, the U.S had provided 3,265 kilograms (7,200 lb) of “special equipment”, a fire truck to help monitor and assess the situation at the plant. The French nuclear accident reponse organization Groupe INTRA shipped some of its radiation-hardened mobile robot equipment to japan to help with the nuclear accident. At least 130 tonnes of equipment has been shipped to japan. Japan request that Russia send landysh, a floating water decontamination facility originally built with Japanese funding and intended for decommissioning nuclear submarines.
After advocates building more reactors, Prime Minister Naoto Kan took increasingly anti-nuclear stance in the months following the Fukushima disaster. In May, he ordered the aging Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant be closed over earthquake and tsunami fears, and said he would freeze plans to build new reactors
Former chiefs of key nuclear safety commissions and government agencies hav apologized for overlooking important nuclear safety concerns.
The Japanese government has admitted it failed to keep records of key meetings during the Fukushima nuclear crisis. Such detailed notes are considered a key component of disaster management
Effective preventive action to be strengthen by TEPCO
Quite a number of issues exist, which need highly specialized nuclear knowledge over a wide range for solving technical and nuclear engineering problems concerning the emergency responses to the accident at TEPCO Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS, and the then-available disaster preparedness by the government, TEPCO and other organizations. These issues should be reviewed and resolved, results being shaped into concrete actions, through competent knowledge by stakeholders in nuclear power generation. In doing so, they should sincerely take into consideration the recommendations the Investigation. Committee has made and they should do so with accountability to society for its process and results.
TEPCO has been pursuing the reduction of risks of nuclear disasters from various perspectives. However, as summarized in the Main Report, almost all functions of the facilities that were expected to operate for accident response were lost in this accident due to the effect of the tsunami which was an unprecedented scale. Since the frameworks and procedure manual for accident response were developed on the premise of using such facilities, responses at the field were forced to adapt to the sudden change of circumstances and they became extremely difficult.
As a result, TEPCO was unable to prevent the reactor core damage, which the company regrets deeply. After actually encountering this tsunami, TEPCO now sincerely reflects upon its lack of sufficient prior preparedness, and is determined to steadily put in place countermeasures that are compiled in the Main Report based upon the lessons learned this time.
In conclusion I would like to propose some recommendation and awareness regarding this Fukushima daiichi nuclear disaster matter:
For reforming the crisis management system for a nuclear disaster.
– Learning from the experience as a result of the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS, the crisis management system for a nuclear disaster should be urgently reformed, in which the nuclear emergency response manual should be revised assuming an occurrence of a complex disaster combining an earthquake/tsunami disaster and a nuclear accident. In its reforming process, the strengthening of response capabilities of off-site centers, which are supposed to serve as the base for response during a nuclear emergency (hereafter simply referred to as “off-site centers”), is needed. In addition, it is also required to build a crisis management system by examining how to respond to a situation which a Local Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters cannot handle by convening personnel from relevant emergency response bodies.
for the nuclear emergency response headquarters
-The emergency response headquarters should, in general, be located close to the accident site where the relevant information is easy to obtain in a nuclear emergency, and the activities at the accident site are easy to grasp. To promptly collect accurate information is, needless to say, the fundamental principle in a nuclear emergency. The government emergency response headquarters should be set up in a way which enables the government people access to the necessary information while staying in government facilities like the Prime Minister’s Office, without moving to the nuclear operator’s head office.
For the roles of the prefectural government in nuclear emergency responses.
-In a nuclear disaster, the prefectural government should take a responsible role in front, because the damage can extend to a regional size. The nuclear disaster prevention plan should take this point into account.
for improving radiation monitoring operations
-To ensure that the monitoring system does not fail at critical moments, and to ensure the collection of data and other functions, the system should be designed against various possible events, including not only an earthquake but also a tsunami, storm surge, flood, sediment disasters, volcanic eruptions and gale force winds. Measures should be taken to prevent the system from functional failures even in a complex disaster simultaneously involving two or more such events. Furthermore, measures should be developed to facilitate the relocation of monitoring vehicles and their patrols even in a situation where an earthquake has damaged roads.
-Training sessions and other learning opportunities should be enhanced to raise
awareness of the functions and importance of the monitoring system among competent authorities and personnel.