explosion at nuclear plant Marcoule

desertlabs

I don't understand, if there's nothing significant, why WOULDN'T they report it.

NUCENG

Seriously?

"And now the news!

Today, in France, nothing significant happened. Film at eleven!"

Sorry, that just hit me funny!

Astronuc

It's not a nuclear plant (as in a commercial nuclear power plant or fuel fabrication facility), but the facility does process or recycle waste from medical, research and perhaps operating nuclear plants. There is a MOX fuel fabrication facility, AREVA's MELOX plant, nearby.

Astronuc

I believe they plant personnel reported that there was no release of radioactivity, or otherwise whatever radioactivity was released, it was below reportable limits.

tsutsuji

and perhaps from decommissioned nuclear plants and perhaps from decommissioned military nuclear facilities as the BBC suggests in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14879557 mentioning that Marcoule used to be a military site as well as a civilian one, and "Marcoule's principal activity these days is cleaning itself up". http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_nu...A9s_militaires refers to http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13...info/i3251.pdf saying the main part of the decommissioning of Marcoule's military site will be finished in 2020, but the treatment of the waste extracted from it will take until 2040.

desertlabs

Alright...that's amusing the way you put it. But seriously, I only meant that since people are concerned, why wouldn't they report levels for a week or so?

Borek

Agreed. Especially now, after Fukushima, lack of information may look as something is hidden, and it can only fuel antinuclear sentiments. It doesn't make sense to make it a headline, but reporting levels won't hurt.

rowmag

I agree, too. In fact the only thing that really makes me prick up my ears about this is the fact that they apparently stopped updating environmental monitor reports as soon as the accident happened.

tsutsuji

Some updates:

source: http://sws.irsn.fr/sws/mesure/index

Back in 2009 they found 4.5 Bq/kg of Cs-137 in grass:

source: http://sws.irsn.fr/sws/mesure/index

http://www.ledauphine.com/vaucluse/2...four-expertise According to witnesses, the worker who died used a spud bar.
http://www.ledauphine.com/vaucluse/2...l-de-scenarios The journalists interviewed the secretary general of the "Foundry Technical Society" about what might have happened. When you restart a furnace after a temporary shutdown, most of the metal is still liquid, but a crust has been created. "breaking the crust at that time is delicate" and the "pressure cooker effect" may occur. An other possible scenario is if the tool was humid. "water and melted metal can have such a reaction". A third possibility if if the worker needed to take the temperature with a pyrometer, which requires breaking the crust. Or without using a pyrometer, to find the temperature by looking at the melted metal's color, which experimented workers are usually able to do.
http://www.ledauphine.com/vaucluse/2...es-le-drame-de Some of the local mayors are angry. More than 24 hours after the accident they have received no information whatsoever from the prefecture administration. It seems that although the emergency plans provide that mayors should be kept informed when a nuclear accident happens, this time no nuclear emergency plan was launched and there is no such provision in case a non nuclear event like this one happens. One mayor says he had a phone call from the prefecture saying there is no worry.

Attached Thumbnails

   

Bodge

Nice going liars:

http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article23013

"it appears that the smelter contained at the time of the accident, a charge of about 4 tons of waste to an activity of 30 MBq and not 63 as originally KBq said the operator "

"This new assessment is 476 times greater than that which prevailed since September 12."

Bodge

All reporting links down and 404'ed

tsutsuji

Europe-solidaire.org is publishing a CRIIRAD press release which is quoting http://www.asn.fr/index.php/S-inform...-niveau-1-INES (29 September French nuclear safety authority press release)

In http://www.asn.fr/index.php/S-inform...-niveau-1-INES , the ASN also says the room where the furnace is located was damaged, but the building was not. They classify the accident as INES level 1. The ASN has asked the operator why they made the wrong 63 kBq claim. The restarting of the furnace will be subject to prior authorisation from the ASN.

In http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article23013 , the CRIIRAD says that they had their first doubt about the 63KBq/4 tons operator report when they learnt from informal sources that the radiation of the dead victim's body was measured to be 8.5 μSv/h.

http://www.midilibre.fr/2011/09/19/e...ite,389997.php (19 September) Spanish newspaper Público has doubts on the official version based on the fact that the injured worker was sent to a military hospital in Paris, that the waste owner's name has not been released and that the radiation measurements made on the filters at the furnace chimneys have not been released.

http://www.publico.es/ciencias/39693...te-de-marcoule (18 September) According to judiciary sources, the coffin of the dead worker (51 year old José Marín, of Spanish origin) that was seen at church had light radiation protection inside.

July-September 2011 trend


2000-2011 trend (apparently there was a peak in spring 2003)


2000-2011 trend further North at the Phenix EDF monitoring post (it looks like they had an even bigger problem in 2002)

source: http://sws.irsn.fr/sws/mesure/index

There was what is believed to be a non-nuclear sodium-water explosion, without casualties, caused by heavy rainfalls, in the Phenix plant, Marcoule in September 2002 : http://www.asn.fr/index.php/S-inform...rale-de-Phenix (not classified on the INES scale). There doesn't seem to be any nuclear event reported during those years.

Attached Thumbnails

     

tsutsuji

http://www.ledauphine.com/vaucluse/2...antiradioactif The chief prosecutor of Nîmes said "8.5 μSv was measured near the feet". He said that as there is no doubt on the cause of the death, an autopsy - which would have required special conditions due to the low radiation level - would not have revealed anything that is not already known.

tsutsuji

http://www.actu-environnement.com/ae...rts-13820.php4 The ASN made a surprise inspection at Centraco on 4 October. It found that the monitoring of gas releases was not sufficient, as it consisted only of a monitoring of radioactive particles using filters, while radioactive gasses that pass through the filters are not measured. Concerning the September explosion, the Socodei explained that the 63 kBq claim was "a human error".

http://www.asn.fr/index.php/content/...-2011-0922.pdf Letter from the ASN to the Socodei's general manager about the conclusions of the 4 October surprise inspection. "Although you told inspectors that you had found the [63 kBq] mistake one day after the accident and communicated a correction during the Local Information Commission meeting of 14 September, the ASN wants to stress that the Socodei representative failed to mention that correction at the 15 September meeting of the High Committee for Transparency and Information on Nuclear Safety".