Skip to main content

IAEA Update on Trip to Japan

image IAEA’s team of nuclear experts has a preliminary assessment available on Fukushima-Daiichi and Japan’s overall response to the accident. There are some good nuggets and takeaways from their experience. Below are a few of the team’s preliminary findings and lessons learned:

- 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.

Worth noting, here’s what the more-detailed report (pdf) said in a sentence by itself on page 3:

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

There are definitely some good observations from this first cut, look for their final report later this month.

Picture of the IAEA folks at Daiichi from their Flickr page.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The comment about "no health effects having been reported as a result of radiation exposure from the nuclear accident" makes me wonder. Wasn't there a story about two workers stepping in water in a flooded building and being rushed to a hospital? Isn't that enough to make the above statement false?

If they only meant members of the public at large they should have explicitly stated that assumption. The public really latches on to any apparent inconsistency and uses it to justify questioning everything the industry says.
Sanatanan said…
I feel that the IAEA Fukushima Fact-Finding Team's report is a tad too generous in paise. I wonder whether this could partially be because Mr. Yukiya Amano, the Director General, is from Japan.
Anonymous said…
Those employees exposed to the flooded building water were "rushed" to a hospital to be checked out and examined for effects of an extremity (feet and lower leg) shallow dose overexposure. It was estimated they have have received in the range of 1-2 Sv of exposure to the skin. They were released and sent home with no apparent ill effects. Shallow dose can cause things like erythema, which looks a lot like sunburn. If you even want to count it at all, that might only be considered a very minor health effect. I just got a bit of a sunburn last week mowing the lawn. Didn't make the papers...

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…