Contamination of food imports into the United States in the early days after the Fukushima accident Robert L. Metzger, Ph.D. Radiation Safety Engineering,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Fukushima Daiichi Incident – Dr. Matthias Braun - 04 June p.1.
Advertisements

Nuclear Accident in Japan: A Summary
Physics 105 Physics for Decision Makers: The Global Energy Crisis Fall 2011 Lecture 25 Nuclear Power.
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant Event Summary and FPL/DAEC Actions.
Change of State. The 3 Basic States of Matter What about Plasma?
Assessing the Challenges Resulting from the Events at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station A Preliminary Discussion March 25, 2011 Walter L. Kirchner.
Workshop on Accelerator Operations 2012 RIKEN Nishina Center’s Response to Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster -Radiation Screening at Fukushima, How We.
FUKUSHIMA, DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCIDENT AND CONSEQUENCES TO THE ENVIRONMENT Dragoslav Nikezic Faculty of Science, University of Kragujevac, Serbia
Safety Implications of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Sheldon L. Trubatch, Ph.D., J.D. Vice-Chairman Arizona Section American Nuclear Society.
Health and Safety Executive The Fukushima Daiichi Accident – Report of HM Chief Inspector NuLeAF Meeting 21 October 2011 Andy Hall Deputy Chief Inspector.
Issues Associated with the Development of Severe Accident Management Guidelines for CANDU Reactors Keith Dinnie Director, Risk Management Nuclear Safety.
n.ogv
Meltdown alert at Japan reactor Technicians are battling to stabilise a third reactor at a quake-stricken Japanese nuclear plant, which has been rocked.
Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Daiichi NPP A collection of images and data by Toro Laszlo Member of the Council of the RSRP National Institute of Public.
Overview of Incident at Fukushima Daiich Nuclear Power Station (1F) (Informal personal observations) April 2011.
What Happened? Late one evening, a large storage tank containing a flammable liquid began to overflow. It was not detected until a security guard noticed.
Nuclear Energy. How does a nuclear reactor work? Is it a major energy source worldwide? Is it Green? Problems – Waste Disposal – Accidents Future – Research.
THE FUTURE OF FUKUSHIMA Can nuclear energy overcome its bad rap? CHAPTER 27 NUCLEAR FUTURE.
Nuclear Power.
Jed Harrison Office of Radiation & Indoor Air.  Review the Incident – What Happened  Describe the EPA Response  Review EPA’s RadNet Monitoring System.
EPA’s Response to Fukushima Japan Nuclear Emergency Mike Boyd, Senior Health Physicist EPA/Office of Radiation & Indoor Air Presented at 2011 OAS Annual.
Radiological Monitoring of Air and Drinking Water in British Columbia Following the Fukushima Nuclear Incident Environmental Health Services (EHS) British.
Nuclear Fission & Fusion Nuclear Fusion - Energy released when two light nuclei combine or fuse However, a large amount of energy is required to start.
THE FUTURE OF FUKUSHIMA CHAPTER 23 NUCLEAR POWER Can nuclear energy overcome its bad rep?
1 Dale E. Klein, Ph.D., P.E. Assoc. Vice Chancellor for Research – The University of Texas System Associate Director – Energy Institute, The University.
Fukushima Incident Preliminary Analysis, Consequences and Safety Status of Indian NPPs Part-1 Dr. S.K.Jain Chairman & Managing Director NPCIL & BHAVINI.
How they work and what happened at Fukushima Daiichi Plant.
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill On April 20, 2010, an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon MC252 drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico caused the rig to sink.
Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Team 07: Belsheim Joshua Francis Travis He Jiayang Moehling Anthony Ziemkowski Micah 1.
Fukushima Dai-ichi - LinkLink. Boiling Water Reactor – Video LinkVideo Link.
Nuclear Disasters A Historical Look.
CHERNOBYLCHERNOBYL A CITY THAT WAS By: Mikey, Andrew, Greta, Naweed, and Daniel A CITY THAT WAS By: Mikey, Andrew, Greta, Naweed, and Daniel.
Worldwide Commercial Energy Production. Nuclear Power Countries.
Nuclear Power Plant Accidents Reporters: Uyangurin, Mareinne L. Suico, Monica Sharlyn L. Waresa, Daryl Mae B.
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant Event Summary and FPL/DAEC Actions.
The Pilgrim Power Plant By Khloe, Oliver, Galina, Robert and Rachel.
March 11, 2011 to Present. Presentation Overview Reactor Design and FeaturesChronology of EventsCurrent Status of Each ReactorRecovery Actions Kashiwazaki-Kariwa.
Fukushima Power Plant – Japan Post March 11, 2011
Agenda Background Update on Fukushima Daini Update on Fukushima Dai-ichi – Summary of Events at Fukushima Dai-ichi Summary of Radiation and Reports.
Ta’Juan Dutrieuille November 4, 2009 Period 1
Nuclear Power Plant How A Nuclear Reactor Works.
Nuclear Power. Generators Generators produce electricity by spinning a coil of wire (solenoid) in front of permanent magnets. The part of a generator.
A LTERNATIVE ENERGY : NUCLEAR Group 4 Bar Shida Keane.
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency Occupational Radiation Protection during High Exposure Operations Lecture 2-2 Lessons Learnt from Occupational.
FUKUSHIMA Nuclear Disaster By Miss Dammarell & Mrs. Schwartz.
MEHB 513 Introduction on nuclear technology assignment GROUP MEMBERS:ID: SEEH CHONG CHIN ME YEE QIAN WAHME TING DING PINGME LIM JIA YINGME
Coal-Fired Plant Coal is conveyed to boiler In primary water loop, water is boiled into steam Steam is sent through turbine Turbine spins the generator,
FROM CHERNOBYL TO FUKUSIMA. Lesson Objectives  foster lexical and grammar skills;  develop comparison-contrast strategies;  activate scanning and monologue.
The March 2011 Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan: A Nuclear Perspective Mary Lou Dunzik-Gougar, PhD Associate Chair of Nuclear Engineering and Health Physics.
What do you know of Japan’s Nuclear crisis? How about any past nuclear issues? Do you feel that nuclear power is safe? Why or why not? Question of the.
Japanese Nuclear Accident And U.S. Response April 20, 2011.
INTRODUCTION TO NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY MEHB513 SEM 2,2014/2015 GROUP PROJECT : EVALUATE THE IMPACTS OF THE FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR ACCIDENT ON THE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
BASIC PROFESSIONAL TRAINING COURSE Module XV In-plant accident management Case Studies Version 1.0, May 2015 This material was prepared by.
Nuclear Power.
Fukushima Daiichi Jourdan Robbins 12/6/ /16/16.
Approaches and measures aimed at ensuring safety, preventing severe accidents in new RF NPP designs Gutsalov N.A. 10/03/2016.
9.5 Nuclear Power Although nuclear power does not come from a fossil fuel, it is fueled by uranium, which is obtained from mining and is non-renewable.
Nuclear power stations
The Fukushima Daiichi Incident – Dr
Risk Assessment Fukushima
Nuclear Power.
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant Event Summary and FPL/DAEC Actions
Fukushima Lessons Learned
The Fukushima Daiichi Incident – Dr
The Fukushima Daiichi Incident – Dr. Matthias Braun - 05 April p.1
The Fukushima Daiichi Incident – Dr. Matthias Braun - 22 April p.1
Isotopes.
Approaches and measures aimed at ensuring safety, preventing severe accidents in new RF NPP designs Gutsalov N.A. 10/03/2016.
The Fukushima Daiichi Incident – Dr. Matthias Braun - 01 June p
Chapter 12 Nuclear Energy
Presentation transcript:

Contamination of food imports into the United States in the early days after the Fukushima accident Robert L. Metzger, Ph.D. Radiation Safety Engineering, Inc.

The Accident Four Boiling Water Reactors involved. Three were operating at full power. Unit 4 was shut down for refueling and the fuel assemblies were outside of containment in the storage pool. Units 5 and 6 were in cold shutdown.

The Accident

On March 11 at 2:46 PM a magnitude 9 earthquake struck under the ocean off the east coast of Japan. Ground motion triggered a shutdown of all of the operating reactors (1- 3). Heat generation due to fission stopped. At 3:42 PM a 14 meter tsunami hit the plant. It was designed to withstand a 6.5 meter wave. The tsunami flooded the site, filled the auxiliary buildings, terminated offsite power, and carried the fuel tanks for the emergency diesel generators out to sea. Station blackout.

The Accident After shutdown, there is a significant amount of decay heat in the core that must be removed. Several redundant systems are provided. All require power. By 4:46 PM, the ECCS failed.

Hydrogen Generation With no heat removal, the pressure and temperature built up, the core was exposed, and the cladding exceeded 1200 deg C. o Zr + 2H20 ->ZrO2 + 2H2 Exothermic reaction increased heat still further. Once the cladding ruptured fission. As temperature built, the core was exposed and cladding exceeded 1200 ° C. Zirconium burns in a steam atmosphere. Zr + 2H 2 0 ->ZrO 2 + 2H It is an Exothermic reaction and increased heating further. Once cladding ruptures fission products are released.

Containment Containment sealed early in the accident. Designed for 4 – 5 bar. Actual pressure built up to 8 bar. Containment was depressurized for units 1 & 3 on March 12 – 13 and again later. Released hydrogen gas burned in the service hall and destroyed the steel frame roof. A hydrogen gas explosion in Unit 2 containment was also observed.

Unit 4 Unit 4 was shut down at the time of the earthquake and the core was in the spent fuel storage pool outside of containment. A hydrogen explosion on March 15 led many to conclude that the core had become uncovered and melted. It now appears that the hydrogen came through shared ductwork with Unit 3. The Unit 4 core was not a major source or releases.

Early Releases

Airborne Releases TEPCO estimates 500 PBq (13.5 MCi) of 131 I, and 10 PBq (0.27 MCi) each of 134 Cs and 137 Cs were released to the atmosphere between March 12 to PBq of noble gases (primarily 133 Xe) were also released, although these played no role in food contamination. 20% came from Unit 1, 40% from Unit 2, and 40% from Unit 3. Total releases are <20% of Chernobyl. Plume temperature was much colder than Chernobyl.

Ocean Releases TEPCO estimates that 11 PBq (0.3 MCi)of 131 I, 3.5 PBq of 134 Cs (95 KCi), and 3.6 PBq 137 Cs were released to the ocean from March 26 to September 30. The containment breach in Unit 2 played an important role in these releases. Japanese authorities quickly established a “no fishing” zone around the area that appears to have been effective. Virtually all food contamination was due to the airborne releases.

Ground Contamination Airborne releases were relatively cold producing local wet and dry deposition from the plume. Isotopes of Iodine and Cesium dominated the releases. Japanese labs began monitoring food supplies immediately.

Water Contamination Surface water was contaminated due to wet and dry deposition of fission products from the airborne releases, and from runoff. Large quantities of seawater and fresh water were used to cool the damaged reactors. Since the fuel cladding was damaged in all four reactors, this water became highly contaminated with fission products. Much of this water escaped the site into the ocean after March 26. Fishing restrictions were quickly established and proved to be effective.

Airborne Concentrations at the Lab

Wet Deposition at the Lab

Food Imports - Sushi Japan is not a major exporter of food to the United States and much of this limited supply was disrupted by the earthquake and tsunami. Sushi importers import fresh fish every two to three days. Up to a dozen species of fish are imported in small numbers, and are quickly distributed to sushi restaurants. Importers, concerned by the news coverage of the accident, began sending samples of imported seafood products in late March.

Seafood The first observed food import that had observable contamination was found on March 30. One species of seafood in a Sushi import was found to be contaminated with 131 I only. The source of the contamination was believed to be a food processing plant in Fukushima prefecture which had contaminated service water (unknown to them). The food product was destroyed by the importer.

Koji Powder On April 5, a shipment of Koji powder was found to be heavily contaminated with 60 Co, 124 Sb, 131 I, 132 Te, 134 Cs and 137 Cs. Koji powder is a precursor for Saki. This, and subsequent samples, exceeded the FDA Derived Intervention Limit. All were destroyed by the importer.

FDA DIL Radionuclide Group (Bq/kg)(pCi/kg)Milk (pCi/L) Sr I Cs Cs ,00033,000 Pu Pu Am Ru-103 +Ru-106 C 3 /6800+C 6 /450<1C 3 /18,00+C 6 /12,00<1C 3 /190,000+C 6 /12,000<1

Japanese DIL

Green Tea By July, the I-131 had largely decayed away and the primary concern was foods that were known concentrators of some of the isotopes. The sample of the dried green tea leaves below has Cesium concentrations at 1/3 of the FDA DIL, but above the Japanese DIL at the time. All contaminated product was not imported or destroyed.

Seaweed By July, the impact of the water releases were observed in harvests of seaweed (a concentrator of Cesium isotopes) taken too close to the Daiichi plant. Seaweed is used as a wrapper for Sushi. The sample shown below is about 1/3 of the FDA DIL for Cesium, but above the Japanese DIL at the time.

Vegetables and Other Products Our lab found no observable contamination in any other vegetable or other food product imported from Japan, to include those trapped under the FDA’s Import Alert Salmon, and other migratory fish species were similarly found to be free of contamination. None of the West coast commercial fisheries took fish anywhere near the East coast of Japan. The Japanese restrictions on fishing in areas near the plant appear to be effective as does their monitoring of food products.

Comparison of Results The FDA, performed extensive monitoring of food imports, both with portal monitors installed at the ports, and using their own radiochemistry laboratory. Published results indicate they found little to no observable contamination of food products. There are several possible explanations. First is a matter of timing. We were testing samples while the accident was still in progress and therefore saw problems before the FDA started testing seriously.

Portal Monitors Portal monitors found at the seaports can detect food contamination at and below the FDA DIL if: The food is uniformly contaminated and is in close proximity to the portal. The mass of the food is sufficient to alarm the portal. Portal monitors alarm based on the number of Bq in front of them, while the DIL is in units of Bq/Kg. Many of the food items we found to be contaminated violated one or more of these criteria and therefore would not have been detected with a portal monitor.

Selection If you think you have a problem with your finances, you would get help from: A. The Internal Revenue Service B. Your local accountant. Importers used private labs to avoid problems with the FDA and other authorities. The samples submitted for testing were not random. Consequently, the subset of samples seen at private labs may have been biased.

Conclusion Imported food products contaminated with fission products from the Daiichi accident were detected starting in late March and April of Conscientious importers tested their imported foods and destroyed any food that was found to be contaminated, even at levels well below the FDA DIL. As a result, there was no observable impact on the imported foods to the US.