Explosion at nuclear plant Marcoule

In summary, an explosion at a nuclear plant in France has not yet revealed any details about the incident. Concerns about the safety of nuclear plants remain, even after the Fukushima crisis.
  • #1
Bioengineer01
123
0
Explosion in a nuclear plant in France, no details yet. Hope it is nothing bad...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2


Bioengineer01 said:
Explosion in a nuclear plant in France, no details yet. Hope it is nothing bad...

To clarify: there are no working reactors at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcoule, and looks like the explosion was not related to nuclear energy. Still, as they process radioactive waste, contamination is possible.
 
  • #3
More details on the French Nuclear accident

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/12/markets-france-stocks-nuclear-idUSLDE78B0A20110912
 
  • #6


Accident at 1145 AM
 
  • #7


Although the header at http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Documents/france.htm claims the data are updated every 4 hours, I am not seeing any update more than 4 hours after the 11:50 AM 60 nSv/hour data.

Here are the monitoring data for the past few days :

attachment.php?attachmentid=38781&stc=1&d=1315846082.jpg

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

And today's screenshot of http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Documents/france.htm
attachment.php?attachmentid=38784&stc=1&d=1315847380.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Marcoule Areva August-September 2011.jpg
    Marcoule Areva August-September 2011.jpg
    45.6 KB · Views: 792
  • Marcoule 2011-09-12 1150AM.jpg
    Marcoule 2011-09-12 1150AM.jpg
    77.6 KB · Views: 726
Last edited:
  • #8


Socodei ,plutonium ;tritium;americium;neptunium; what's a minor explosion amongst friends,course it's safe like autumn leaves
 
  • #9


80 nSv/h is 0.7 mSv/year, slightly below natural background levels (assuming they average at about 3 mSv/year).
 
  • #10
http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_pr...ation_installation_CENTRACO_Marcoule_12h.aspx the accident took place "around 12 noon" on 12 September. The cause of the explosion is still unknown. They took grass samples "within hours after the accident", from which a preliminary laboratory analysis "confirmed the absence of artificial radionuclides". 3 samples have already undergone a 12 hour counting. The other 2 samples have not finished the 12 hour counting.
Carte_mesures_marcoule_12092011_gf.jpg

Blue dots : sampling locations
Yellow squares : "teleray" radiation monitoring posts
red line: CEA-Marcoule perimeter

http://www.socodei.fr/traitement-des-dechets/centraco/ The facility's official website (with English language video at http://www.socodei.fr/societe/visite-virtuelle-de-lusine/ )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11


tsutsuji said:
Although the header at http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Documents/france.htm claims the data are updated every 4 hours, I am not seeing any update more than 4 hours after the 11:50 AM 60 nSv/hour data.
...

There have been no updates for air measurements since 11:50 on the 12th.

Why would they say that they update every 4 hours and then not update for nearly 48?
 
  • #12


Bodge said:
There have been no updates for air measurements since 11:50 on the 12th.

Why would they say that they update every 4 hours and then not update for nearly 48?

That is what I would like to know.

In the last (August) issue of "magazine Repères" they say, about the follow-up of radiations on the French territory during the Fukushima crisis

These probes were able to detect any abnormal rise of air radiations, with a measurement every 5 minutes, sent to the central control room in Le Vésinet. In normal time, only the daily average of every probe is published on the environment survey portal of the IRSN website. "When the contaminated air masses approached France, our website became saturated", Nathalie Chaptal-Gradoz says. "We took that opportunity to give updates about every four hours, published no longer every day but every hour. This enabled internet users to follow in near real time the radiation level on the whole territory.

page 18 http://www.irsn.fr/FR/IRSN/Publicat...rchives/Documents/IRSN_Reperes_10_08-2011.pdf (my translation)

So, one possibility is that they intended this 4 hour update speed only for the Fukushima crisis. Now that the Fukushima crisis is over, they might get back to the 24 hour update speed. Yet that would not explain why their website has not been updated for more than 48 hours by now.

Even the 4 hour update speed is very low compared to the equivalent Japanese website, http://www.bousai.ne.jp/vis/index.php [Broken] which provides updates every 10 minutes.

Why can't the French authorities be as transparent as the Japanese authorities and provide the real time data ?

Also the number of monitoring posts seems to be low. Around Japanese power plants there are 5 or 6 monitoring posts. On the Marcoule map above we can see only two monitoring posts, one in the north and one in the south of the plant. What happens if the wind goes west or east ?

Also the website saturation problem does not seem to have been solved as I failed from connecting to that website one or two hours after the Marcoule accident began being reported in the news. Although a minor one, this is one lesson from the Fukushima crisis which has not been learnt. They seem to be comfortable with having a website that gets saturated when people need it, instead of apologizing to the internet users that were affected.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13


No leak after Marcoule explosion
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2060607 [Broken]
13 September 2011

NEIMagazine said:
There has been no release of radioactivity, and no protective action was required for the population after an explosion at a radioactive waste treatment facility near Marcoule in southern France killed one worker and injured four, one seriously, according to the French nuclear safety authority (ASN) said. There is also no risk of future radiation, according to a statement by parent company EDF.

The explosion occurred in a furnace dedicated to melting low and very low radioactive metallic waste (valves, pumps and tools). . . .

Injured people did not suffer from any radiological contamination and measurements conducted outside of the building have shown no trace of radioactive contamination.

. . . .
Apparently they are not reporting because there is nothing signifiant to report. They plan an investigation.

Normally the process is to chemically decontaminate metal equipment (valves, pumps, piping, tools, . . .).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
tsutsuji said:
http://www.europe1.fr/France/Explosion-radioactivite-tres-faible-au-sein-du-four-714153/ The content of the furnace that exploded was 4 tons of material with a 67,000 Bq total, or 17 Bq / kg.

17Bq/kg? That's not waste, it's good clean food. We've got food in Japan that's measuring over 4,000 Bq per kg.

France will be fine so long as they keep stopping the Japanese tea in customs...

http://enenews.com/tea-with-over-1000-bqkg-of-cesium-found-in-paris
 
  • #15


Astronuc said:
Apparently they are not reporting because there is nothing signifiant to report.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how that is apparent.

Might it be apparent, with all the bad publicity that Areva's industry has had over the past six months, that they'd be happy to report any the data indicating no-contamination?
 
  • #16
swl said:
I'm sorry, but I don't understand how that is apparent.

Might it be apparent, with all the bad publicity that Areva's industry has had over the past six months, that they'd be happy to report any the data indicating no-contamination?
A subsidiary of EdF (French utility) operates the plant. They have apparently reported that there was no release of radioactive material. If that is the case, then they should be measuring normal amounts of [mostly background] radioactivity around and outside the plant.

I think this is relevant.
http://www.socodei.fr/en/waste-processing/
http://www.socodei.fr/en/waste-processing/centraco/melting/
 
  • #18


Astronuc said:
No leak after Marcoule explosion
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2060607 [Broken]
13 September 2011

Apparently they are not reporting because there is nothing signifiant to report. They plan an investigation.


I don't understand, if there's nothing significant, why WOULDN'T they report it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19


desertlabs said:
Astronuc said:
No leak after Marcoule explosion
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2060607 [Broken]
13 September 2011

Apparently they are not reporting because there is nothing signifiant to report. They plan an investigation.


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

"And now the news!

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

Sorry, that just hit me funny! :rofl:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
Bioengineer01 said:
Explosion in a nuclear plant in France, no details yet. Hope it is nothing bad...
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #21


desertlabs said:
I don't understand, if there's nothing significant, why WOULDN'T they report it.
I believe they plant personnel reported that there was no release of radioactivity, or otherwise whatever radioactivity was released, it was below reportable limits.
 
  • #22
Astronuc said:
the facility does process or recycle waste from medical, research and perhaps operating nuclear plants.

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_nucléaire_de_Marcoule#Activit.C3.A9s_militaires refers to http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/pdf/rap-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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23


NUCENG said:
Seriously?

"And now the news!

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

Sorry, that just hit me funny! :rofl:


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?
 
  • #24


desertlabs said:
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?

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.
 
  • #25


Borek said:
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
Some updates:
attachment.php?attachmentid=38923&stc=1&d=1316168748.jpg

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

Back in 2009 they found 4.5 Bq/kg of Cs-137 in grass:
attachment.php?attachmentid=38924&stc=1&d=1316168747.jpg

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

http://www.ledauphine.com/vaucluse/2011/09/14/le-corps-evacue-le-four-expertise According to witnesses, the worker who died used a spud bar.
http://www.ledauphine.com/vaucluse/2011/09/14/une-expert-de-la-fonderie-donne-un-panel-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/2011/09/13/apres-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.
 

Attachments

  • CEA Marcoule Cs-137 in grass.jpg
    CEA Marcoule Cs-137 in grass.jpg
    38.6 KB · Views: 552
  • Marcoule Areva, 2011-09-01 - 2011-09-14.jpg
    Marcoule Areva, 2011-09-01 - 2011-09-14.jpg
    57 KB · Views: 573
Last edited:
  • #27
Nice going liars:

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

"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."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28


Borek said:
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.

All reporting links down and 404'ed
 
  • #29
Bodge said:
Nice going liars:

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

"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 "

Europe-solidaire.org is publishing a CRIIRAD press release which is quoting http://www.asn.fr/index.php/S-informer/Actualites/2011/Centraco-autorisation-prealable-au-redemarrage-des-fours-et-niveau-1-INES (29 September French nuclear safety authority press release)

In http://www.asn.fr/index.php/S-informer/Actualites/2011/Centraco-autorisation-prealable-au-redemarrage-des-fours-et-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 [Broken] , the CRIIRAD says that they had their first doubt about the 63KBq/4 tons operator report when they learned 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/...aises-disent-elles-toute-la-verite,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/396936/paris-tapa-el-origen-radiactivo-del-accidente-de-marcoule [Broken] (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
attachment.php?attachmentid=39504&stc=1&d=1317549801.jpg


2000-2011 trend (apparently there was a peak in spring 2003)
attachment.php?attachmentid=39505&stc=1&d=1317550064.jpg


2000-2011 trend further North at the Phenix EDF monitoring post (it looks like they had an even bigger problem in 2002)
attachment.php?attachmentid=39506&stc=1&d=1317551345.jpg

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-informer/Actualites/2002/Incident-a-la-centrale-de-Phenix (not classified on the INES scale). There doesn't seem to be any nuclear event reported during those years.
 

Attachments

  • Marcoule-Areva July-September 2011.jpg
    Marcoule-Areva July-September 2011.jpg
    48.1 KB · Views: 504
  • Marcoule-Areva 2000-2011.jpg
    Marcoule-Areva 2000-2011.jpg
    50.8 KB · Views: 480
  • Phenix EDF 2000-2011.jpg
    Phenix EDF 2000-2011.jpg
    49.3 KB · Views: 465
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
http://www.actu-environnement.com/ae/news/centraco-marcoule-visite-ASN-ecarts-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/download/31424/222993/file/INSSN-MRS-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".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. What caused the explosion at the nuclear plant in Marcoule?

The explosion at the nuclear plant in Marcoule was caused by a fire in a furnace used to melt radioactive waste. The fire resulted in a blast that caused damage to the building and injured several workers.

2. Was there any radiation released during the explosion?

According to initial reports, there was no significant release of radiation during the explosion at the nuclear plant in Marcoule. However, authorities are continuing to monitor the situation and investigate any potential environmental impacts.

3. Were there any fatalities from the explosion?

Fortunately, there were no fatalities reported from the explosion at the nuclear plant in Marcoule. However, four workers were injured and one was in serious condition. The injured workers were taken to a nearby hospital for treatment.

4. How will the explosion at the nuclear plant affect the surrounding community?

At this time, it is unclear how the explosion at the nuclear plant in Marcoule will affect the surrounding community. Authorities are working to contain the situation and minimize any potential impacts. It is important for residents to follow any safety precautions or evacuation orders issued by local authorities.

5. What measures are being taken to prevent future incidents at the nuclear plant in Marcoule?

After the explosion, the nuclear plant in Marcoule was shut down and an investigation was launched to determine the cause of the incident. The plant will not resume operations until it is deemed safe by authorities. Additionally, stricter safety protocols and procedures may be implemented to prevent future incidents from occurring.

Similar threads

  • Nuclear Engineering
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
46
Views
3K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
30
Views
874
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • Nuclear Engineering
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
7
Views
994
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top