Tuesday Morning Update

UPDATE AS OF 8:30 A.M. EDT, TUESDAY, APRIL 12:

Japan’s nuclear safety agency has raised the crisis level of the Fukushima Daiichi accident from 5 to 7 on the seven-level International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale. The new rating puts the Japanese incident on the same level as the 1986 Chernobyl accident—even though Japanese authorities estimate that radiation released at Fukushima is only 10 percent of the amount released from the Ukrainian plant.

The new level designates Fukushima as a “major accident,” up from an “accident with wider consequences.” Level 7, the highest on the scale, describes an event with “a major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures," according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which sponsors the ratings.

For the new rating, the Japan Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency combined the accidents at reactors 1, 2 and 3 as a single event. Previously, separate level 5 ratings had been applied to each reactor. The earlier level 3 rating (“serious incident”) still applies to reactor 4.

Japanese authorities may revise the INES rating at the power plant as more information becomes available.

Comments

Cyril R said…

Actually Fukushima released 3 to 6 percent of Chernobyl.

http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/04/fukushima-rated-ines-level-7.html

What matters much more is the dose, not the release. For example reprocessing plants routinely release more radiation than Fukushima, La Hague emits a Fukushima every two to four years. Because the nuclides are all noble gasses that just float away in the atmosphere, the dose is tiny so has no effect on public health.

April 12, 2011 at 9:31 AM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog