Just as I was wondering in my previous post, TEPCO confirmed they found a pinhole in the other Batch Treatment Tank of the same line (Line A) of ALPS, multi-nuclide removal system contracted by Toshiba.
There are three lines (A, B and C) in ALPS, and each line has two Batch Treatment Tanks which receive contaminated water which has been treated by SARRY (cesium absorption).
From Jiji Tsushin (6/20/2013):
別タンクにも微細な穴=放射能低減装置-福島第1
Minute hole in a different tank in ALPS system, at Fukushima I Nuke Plant
東京電力福島第1原発で汚染水の放射性物質を除去する「多核種除去装置(アルプス)」のタンクから微量の汚染水が漏れた問題で、東電は20日、同じ系統の別のタンクでも溶接部に微細な穴(ピンホール)が1カ所見つかったと発表した。水漏れは確認されていないという。
Concerning the small leak of contaminated water from a tank in ALPS multi-nuclide removal system at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, TEPCO announced on June 20 that the other tank in the same line had a pinhole in the weld. According to TEPCO, there is no leak from the hole.
東電によると、アルプスは3系統に汚染水を入れるタンクが二つずつ設置されている。水漏れ発覚で同系統のタンクを調べたところ、最初に穴が見つかったタンクと同様、溶接したつなぎ目部分にピンホールがあった。
According to TEPCO, there are two tanks each in the three lines of ALPS to store contaminated water. After the discovery of the leak in one tank, TEPCO inspected the other tank and found a pinhole in the weld, just like the first tank.
この系統は試験運転中だったが、水漏れで運転を停止しており、新たなピンホールが見つかったタンクに汚染水は入っていないという。
This line [A] was conducting the test run, but since stopped after the discovery of the leak. There is no contaminated water in the tank where a pinhole was discovered this time, according to TEPCO.
TEPCO at least has some wits about them to inspect the other tank. What a surprise. Now, how about the same tanks in other two lines? What about other tanks and vessels that are all welded?
I'm sure the Nuclear Regulatory Authority, very proud of their "world toughest safety standard" they managed to come up with in less than 10 months, will make sure every weld is done properly.
1 comments:
According to NHK the "new" safety standard leaves wide discretionality to utilities on several key safety factors, including the estimation of the largest earthquake that could hit a plant whereby the estimation has a degree of ambiguity between -50% and +100% (!).
It looks like the new safety standard leaves too much freedom to a party with a vested interest -- like the old standard that led to Fukushima.
Beppe
Post a Comment