“Three sample analyzes are the national rule”… The IAEA is also scheduled for three rounds
2nd and 3rd sample analysis yet, but hastily prepared a report as a result of the 1st
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Secretary General Rafael Grossi shakes hands with participants at an event to address contaminated water held in Iwaki, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan on the 5th. yunhap news
It has been confirmed that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced the final report after completing only one analysis of the contaminated water sample, which was supposed to be done three times while reviewing the safety of marine discharge of contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident. In addition, the results of the analysis of ‘environmental samples’ conducted to ‘confirm’ the environmental monitoring results have not yet been released. When it was revealed that the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that there was no problem even before the analysis of all the core samples was finished, criticism came out that it had destroyed the credibility of the report itself. In the final report released on the 4th, the International Atomic Energy Agency said, “The report containing the analysis of the two samples (second and third samples taken in October of last year) will be issued in the second half of 2023.” It will be,” he said. Sample analysis is part of the ‘independent sampling, data validation and analysis activities’, one of the three components of the safety review. The International Atomic Energy Agency pushed ahead with the release of the final report without the results of analysis on the second and third samples. Previously, the International Atomic Energy Agency announced that it would collect and analyze samples of contaminated water from Fukushima three times in the process of safety review in the ‘3rd interim report’ released last December. According to this plan, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s special team collected Fukushima contaminated water samples through TEPCO twice, once in March last year and twice in October last year. Through the ‘6th Interim Report’ released by the International Atomic Energy Agency in May, the first samples collected in March of last year were analyzed by laboratories in four countries, including the International Atomic Energy Agency affiliated research institute and Korea’s Institute of Nuclear Safety and Technology (KINS). Except for tritium, no nuclides exceeding the standard were detected.” This first sample was collected after homogenizing the sample by operating circulation and agitation (stirring) facilities for 14 days in the ‘K4-B’ storage tank, which TEPCO determined was ready for discharge. , the expected result was evaluated. However, the analysis results for the second and third samples taken in October have not yet been released. The two samples are standard storage tanks for storing water treated with multi-nuclide removal facilities (ALPS Alps), ‘G4S-B10’ (G4S-B10) and ‘G4S-C8’ (G4S-C8). It was collected without circulation or agitation for sample homogenization in the tank, and the analysis results were originally scheduled to be submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency early this year. The final report was released without the analysis results of ‘environmental samples’ as well as contaminated water samples. The International Atomic Energy Agency said it would “‘confirm’ the results of environmental monitoring conducted by the Japanese authorities in relation to Tokyo Electric Power, which handles water treated by the Alps,” and collected environmental samples from seawater, marine sediments, fish and algae in November of last year. there is a bar However, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s final report released the day before said only that “the results of this analysis will be provided in the second half of this year.” In effect, the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that the discharge of contaminated water had “very little impact on human health and the environment” without completing the ‘confirmation’ process, which is the process of confirming the accuracy and reliability of data submitted by Japan. am. In addition, the interlaboratory cross-analysis (ILC) conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency to determine occupational radiation exposure did not come out. ‘Occupational radiation protection’ is one of the eight technical themes of nuclear energy safety review. The International Atomic Energy Agency said the results, too, are “scheduled to be available later this year.” Criticism came over the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that ‘Japan’s discharge plan meets international safety standards’ even before the analysis of the main samples was completed. Han Byeong-seop, director of the Nuclear Safety Research Institute (Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering), pointed out that the analysis of the contaminated water sample was done only once as a problem. He said, “It is a ‘national rule’ (a rule that everyone follows) in chemical analysis to analyze samples three times to obtain reliable values, so the International Atomic Energy Agency would have decided to do it three times,” he said. “But only one result came out. “The fact that the report was published by . Another safety regulation expert from the Institute of Nuclear Safety and Technology said, “From the standpoint of Japan, which wants the International Atomic Energy Agency to organize the report as quickly as possible, I think it may have pulled the service period and produced an unfinished result.” problem,” he said. Senior Reporter Kim Jeong-soo [email protected]
2023-07-05 11:27:58
#IAEA #failed #complete #sample #analysis #contaminated #water #Reliability #Harm #Report
