A Different Kind Of Nuclear Fallout

 

 

# 5613

 

Map credit- Wikipedia

 

The future of nuclear energy in Japan may be decided on a community-by-community basis.

 

Reuters is reporting today that Japan – which up until now has steadfastly insisted that nuclear energy would remain a major component of their electrical generating infrastructure – would consider shutting down all 54 of their nuclear power plants if local communities objected to their operation due to safety concerns.

 

Moving to fossil fuels – which must be imported – could add another 3 trillion yen ($30 billion U.S.) per year to that country’s energy costs.

 

As all Japanese nuclear plants must be shutdown at least once every 13 months for maintenance and inspection, currently only 19 of the nation’s nuclear power plants remain online, with the last of those due for its scheduled maintenance shutdown in April of 2012.

 

Although NISA has the authority to authorize the restarting of a nuclear plant, plant operators always go to local governments for their approval before bringing a nuclear reactor back online.

 

While a complete cessation of nuclear power production in Japan may sound like an unlikely outcome right now, how each community will decide on this issue is unknown.

 

The ultimate success or failure of bringing the Fukushima reactor crisis to a safe resolution will no doubt heavily influence their decisions.

 

Proving that there is more than one kind of fallout to take into account following a nuclear accident.

 

 

This from Reuters.

 

Japan may have no nuclear reactors running by next April

By Risa Maeda

TOKYO | Wed Jun 8, 2011 8:58am EDT

(Reuters) - All 54 of Japan's nuclear reactors may be shut by next April, adding more than $30 billion a year to the country's energy costs, if communities object to plant operating plans due to safety concerns, trade ministry officials said on Wednesday.

(Continue . . . )

 

 

Germany, meanwhile, announced on May 31st that they would keep 8 of their nuclear power plants closed, and the remaining 9 plants would be decommissioned no later than 2022.

IAEA Preliminary Assessment Of The Fukushima Disaster

 

 

 

# 5589

 

Last week IAEA nuclear experts from 12 countries (Argentina, China, France, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States) arrived in Fukushima, Japan to conduct interviews with local officials and to visit nuclear facilities, including the earthquake and tsunami damaged Fukushima Daiichi power plant.

 

They have produced a brief (3-page) preliminary assessment of the safety issues related to the Fukushima nuclear crisis. A full report will be delivered to the Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety at IAEA headquarters in Vienna in about 3 weeks.

 

 

 

They describe the level of cooperation, and access, their expert mission received as being `excellent’, and the response of the workers at the stricken plant as `exemplary’ and `brave’. 

 

They also reassure that: To date no health effects have been reported in any person as a result of radiation exposure from the nuclear accident.

 

From today’s  UPDATE: IAEA Fact-Finding Team Completes Visit to Japan (1 June 2011) on the IAEA website, we get an overview of the expert mission, and a synopsis of their findings:

 

 

The expert team made several preliminary findings and lessons learned, including:

• Japan's response to the nuclear accident has been exemplary, particularly illustrated by the dedicated, determined and expert staff working under exceptional circumstances;
• Japan's long-term response, including the evacuation of the area around stricken reactors, has been impressive and well organized. A suitable and timely follow-up programme on public and worker exposures and health monitoring would be beneficial;
• The tsunami hazard for several sites was underestimated. Nuclear plant designers and operators should appropriately evaluate and protect against the risks of all natural hazards, and should periodically update those assessments and assessment methodologies;
• Nuclear regulatory systems should address extreme events adequately, including their periodic review, and should ensure that regulatory independence and clarity of roles are preserved; and
• The Japanese accident demonstrates the value of hardened on-site Emergency Response Centres with adequate provisions for handling all necessary emergency roles, including communications.

 

While cloaked in the polite language of diplomacy, the bottom line is that what disaster planners and nuclear regulatory agencies assumed to be a `worst-case scenario’, and planned for  – a 5.7 meter tsunami – turned out to completely inadequate on March 11, 2011 when a series of 14+ meter tsunamis slammed into the Fukushima nuclear power facility.

 

It has recently emerged that this wildly optimistic worst-case disaster scenario’ came from a 1-page, decade-old memo generated by Fukushima plant operators, and that it provided little in the way of scientific data to back up their assessment (see AP article AP Exclusive: Fukushima tsunami plan a single page).

 

 

Those expecting any sort of critical exposé here will find this report lacking. Given Japan’s level of social, political, and economic uncertainty in the wake of this three-pronged disaster, the IAEA is obviously (and understandably) treading carefully here.

 

Prime Minister Naoto Kan faces a no-confidence vote this week, the Japanese economy is reeling, public confidence in TEPCO and the Japanese government’s disaster response is waning, and the Japanese people are enduring a collective tragedy almost beyond comprehension.

 

So diplomatically, this report avoids assigning blame or directing criticism, so as not to aggravate what is obviously a precarious situation.

 

A full post-mortem analysis of what happened - and what continues to transpire as crews attempt to contain this nuclear crisis - will no doubt have to wait until the emergency has passed.

 

And given the size and scope of this disaster, that could be months or even years from now.

Fukushima: A 10-Year Decommissioning Plan

 

 

 

# 5492

 

 

Although a decade is a long time to deal with a crisis, compared to other estimates (see ABC News Crews 'facing 100-year battle' at Fukushima), today’s report actually sounds optimistic.

 

Photo credit IAEA

 

The plan comes from manufacturing giant Toshiba, which helped build the Fukushima Daiichi plant, and was generated in consort with 4 US companies in the nuclear industry.

It envisions a 3-phase decommissioning and cleanup strategy, with the first phase – cooling and stabilizing the reactors and spent fuel pools – expected to take several months

 

Phase II – removing the nuclear fuel rods – would take 5 years.

 

And Phase III - dismantling the reactors and environmental cleanup – will take another 5 years.

 

NHK World News has more in the following report:

 

Reactor makers draft 10-year decommission plan

updated at 13:57 UTC, Apr. 14

IAEA Briefing On Fukushima Severity Level

 

# 5486

 

 

 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released an update over the last few hours on the revision to the Fukushima severity level I reported last night (see Fukushima: Brief Fire, 6.4 Aftershock & Severity Level To Be Raised).

 

While sharing the same severity level as Chernobyl, Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) is quick to point out that the amount of radiation released from Fukushima is estimated to be 1/10th that of the Russian disaster.

 

 

NISA, however, has come under increasing criticism for its handling of the disaster and the speed in which it has released radiation readings from the reactor facilities and surrounding areas.

 

There have been frequent calls from the public, international agencies, and world governments for better dissemination of information on the nuclear crisis (including Kyoto News China urges Japan to release timely, precise info on nuke crisis).

 

Yesterday NISA publicly admitted that their actions have not always been adequate for the task at hand (see NHK News Nuclear safety regrets its response to Fukushima).

 

Events and admissions that are likely to do little to assuage criticism and frustration over NISA’s ongoing assessment and handling of the nuclear risks at Fukushima.

 

Here is the IAEA update, followed by links to the NISA announcement.

 

 

 

IAEA Update on Fukushima Nuclear Accident (12 April 2011, 4:45 UTC)

by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Tuesday, April 12, 2011 at 12:43am

The Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) today issued a new provisional rating for the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on the IAEA International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES).

 

The nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi is now rated as a level 7 "Major Accident" on INES. Level 7 is the most serious level on INES and is used to describe an event comprised of "A major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures." Japanese authorities notified the IAEA in advance of the public announcement and the formal submission of the new provisional rating.

 

The new provisional rating considers the accidents that occurred at Units 1, 2 and 3 as a single event on INES. Previously, separate INES Level 5 ratings had been applied for Units 1, 2 and 3. The provisional INES Level 3 rating assigned for Unit 4 still applies.

 

The re-evaluation of the Fukushima Daiichi provisional INES rating resulted from an estimate of the total amount of radioactivity released to the environment from the nuclear plant. NISA estimates that the amount of radioactive material released to the atmosphere is approximately 10 percent of the 1986 Chernobyl accident, which is the only other nuclear accident to have been rated a Level 7 event.

 

Earlier ratings of the nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi were assessed as follows:

 

On 18 March, Japanese authorities rated the core damage at the Fukushima Daiichi 1, 2 and 3 reactor Units caused by loss of all cooling function to have been at Level 5 on the INES scale. They further assessed that the loss of cooling and water supplying functions in the spent fuel pool of the Unit 4 reactor to have been rated at Level 3.

 

Japanese authorities may revise the INES rating at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant as further information becomes available.

 

INES is used to promptly and consistently communicate to the public the safety significance of events associated with sources of radiation. The scale runs from 0 (deviation) to 7 (major accident).

 

For further information on the INES scale:

http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/emergency/ines.asp

Further details regarding this development can be found in the following NISA press release:

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110412-4.pdf

Fukushima: Brief Fire, 6.4 Aftershock & Severity Level To Be Raised

 

 

# 5485

 

 

According to NHK World News Japan’s Nuclear Safety Agency today has decided to raise the severity level of the multiple crises at the Fukushima Nuclear facility from a 5 (on par with Three Mile Island) to a 7 – the same level assigned to the 1985 Chernobyl disaster.

 

It is still believed that the amount of radiation released at the Fukushima plant is less than what was released at Chernobyl, however.

 

This decision comes a month after the devastating 9.0 earthquake and tsunami that disabled and severely damaged at least 4 reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi facility.

 

An announcement will be made via a press conference to be held Tuesday morning (Japan Time).  

 

This from NHK News.

 

 

Japan to raise Fukushima crisis level to worst

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 05:47 +0900 (JST)

The Japanese government's nuclear safety agency has decided to raise the crisis level of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant accident from 5 to 7, the worst on the international scale.

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency made the decision on Monday. It says the damaged facilities have been releasing a massive amount of radioactive substances, which are posing a threat to human health and the environment over a wide area.

(Continue . . . )

 

 

In other news, a brief fire broke out at reactor # 4 a short time ago (around 6:30 am local time), but appears now to be extinguished.  The following report is from Reuters.

 

 

Fire seen at Fukushima nuclear plant; flames no longer visible

• Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:53pm EDT

(Reuters) - A fire broke out at Japan's crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, operator Tokyo Electric and Power (TEPCO) said on Tuesday, although flames and smoke were no longer visible.

(Continue . . . )

 

 

And another strong (6.4 Mag), very shallow (13.1 km) aftershock struck just after 8am local time,  77 km ESE of Tokyo.  No Tsunami warning was issued, and thus far there are no reports of fresh damage or injuries.

 

 

MAP 6.4  2011/04/11 23:08:16  35.406   140.542 13.1 
NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN

The IAEA Presentations Channel

 

 

# 5451

 

 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has selected Slideshare to host documentation, slide shows, and other presentations on the Japanese nuclear crisis. 

 

You can access (as of this writing) 26 presentations, and 6 documents at the IAEA Presentations Channel.

 

 

 

Some of these are multi-slide presentations while others are informative single page charts and graphics, like the one below:

 

 

A resource very much worth checking every day or so.

High Radiation Readings 30 Km From Fukushima Facility

 

 

 

# 5417

 

 

NHK World News this morning is reporting that radiation readings some 30 kilometers northwest of the Fukushima nuclear facility over the past two days have been measured above 150 microsieverts per hour.

 

This is well outside of the Japanese evacuation zone (20 km) and on the outer cusp of the `stay indoors’ (20-30 km) zone.

 

First the NHK News article, then I’ll be back with more on relative radiation doses.

 

 

High radiation detected 30km from nuke plant

Friday, March 18, 2011 17:38 +0900 (JST)

 

 

Japan's science ministry says relatively high radiation levels have been detected on 2 consecutive days about 30 kilometers northwest of the quake-damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

 

The radiation measured 170 microsieverts per hour on Thursday and 150 microsieverts on Friday.

 

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano says the government will take appropriate measures if this level of contamination continues in the area for a long period. But he says this would be unlikely.

(Continue . . .)

 

 

Before anyone is tempted to head down to the bunker, it should be noted that people staying indoors in this region are likely experiencing a much lower exposure than these readings might suggest.

 

Theoretically, at 150 microsieverts an hour, over 24 hours a person would receive about 3.6 millisieverts of radiation – or about what much of the world’s population receives in background radiation every  1.5 to 2 years.

 

But to put that into perspective, an abdominal CT-Scan exposes you to roughly 8 millisieverts of radiation, or more than double that dose. And nuclear plant workers – under normal circumstances – are allowed up to 50 millisieverts of radiation exposure each year.

 

At about 100 millisieverts the risk of developing cancer sometime in the future due to radiation exposure begins to elevate very slightly.

 

According to the NIH full body exposure to 1000 millisieverts of ionizing radiation results in radiation sickness, while an exposure of 4,000 millisieverts is fatal in about 50% of cases  (see Medline article Radiation sickness).  

 

At 6,000 millisieverts (6 Sieverts), death is almost certain.

 

So, while well above normal, you’d have to be exposed to 3.6 millisieverts a day for nearly a month to reach the first tier of health concern; the 100 millisievert exposure range.

 

In other words, in the short term this level of exposure is unlikely to pose health risks to residents. 

 

Over time, however, ongoing exposure to this level of radiation would be dangerous.  

 

All of this assumes, of course, that the radiation readings we are getting from the stricken plant and monitoring stations nearby are both comprehensive  and accurate. 

 

Two assumptions that are difficult to make right now.

Dueling Assessments: NRC Chairman On Nuclear Crisis

 

 

# 5407

 

The head of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Gregory Jaczko - speaking in front of the House energy and commerce subcommittee today - gave a far more somber assessment of Japan’s nuclear crises than have Japanese officials over the past couple of days.

 

While stating that their information is `limited’, he said that the U.S. believes that the water is nearly, or perhaps even totally, gone from the spent fuel pool at Fukushima reactor # 4.

He stated that the radiation levels there were very high, and that “could possibly impact the ability to take corrective measures”.

 

He also posed the possibility that there is a crack in the spent fuel pool in reactor three "which could lead to a lost of water in that pool.”

 

First a report from Reuters on Jaczko’s comments, then a report from ABC news which claims that officials are `alarmed’ over the Japanese handling of the crisis, and believe there may be only 24-48 hours to prevent a much greater catastrophe.

 

 

UPDATE 1-Bigger evacuation area needed for Japan reactors-NRC

Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:21pm GMT

* Emergency workers may face lethal doses of radiation

* Reactor #3 spent fuel pool may also have crack, leak (adds comments from NRC chairman, spent fuel pool at reactor three may be leaking)

By Tom Doggett

 

WASHINGTON, March 16 (Reuters) - The top U.S. nuclear regulator told Congress on Wednesday the United States will not be hit by harmful radiation from Japan's crisis-hit reactors and that the evacuation area around them is smaller than what it would recommend.

(Continue . . . )

 

U.S. Officials Alarmed By Japanese Handling of Nuclear Crisis

U.S. Officials Fear Fukushima Could Become 'Deadly For Decades'

By MARTHA RADDATZ

March 16, 2011

U.S. officials are alarmed at how the Japanese are handling the escalating nuclear reactor crisis and fear that if they do not get control of the plants within the next 24 to 48 hours they could have a situation that will be "deadly for decades."

(Continue . . . )

 

 

Both reports offer surprisingly critical (and contradictory) remarks by U.S. officials on the actions being taken by the Japanese in dealing with this crisis.

 

Meanwhile, Japanese officials are hopeful that a freshly laid power line will soon supplied badly needed electricity to these overheating reactors, and that the cooling pumps can be started again.

 

While this would be a major step towards easing the crisis, that will not solve all of the problems facing these damaged reactors.

 

Here is the Associated Press report on that critical operation.

 

New power line may ease crisis at Japan nuke plant

By MARI YAMAGUCHI

The Associated Press

FUKUSHIMA, Japan — A nearly completed new power line could restore cooling systems in Japan's tsunami-crippled nuclear power plant, its operator said Thursday, raising some hope of easing the crisis that has threatened a meltdown and already spawned dangerous radiation surges.

(Continue . . . )