Group items tagged

On location report from Minami Soma – Strontium continues to be detected – “Too early for evacuees to be returning home.” Nationally declared “emergency evacuation preparedness zones” have been simultaneously lifted, however excessive risks may remain. Lab results from a radioactive contamination survey commissioned by Minami Soma City Council yield shocking results. - Desipite the lifting of the “emergency evacuation preparedness zone” designation, the perception is that contamination questions linger. - 59,000 people lived within the 20-30km “emergency evacuation preparedness zone”, 28,000 have relocated. Citizens view the lifting of the designation as good news, but unease persists.

From a local council perspective, the sooner evacuees return to start rebuilding the better. - Citizens infuriated with fuzzy official statements regarding severity of contamination, particularly when they have to consider the safety of their own kids. - Local government testing reveals strontium contamination, further complicating the situation. 17 spots around Minami Soma were tested, and four locations showed 33 – 1,113 Bq/kg of strontium contamination, including 100 Bq/kg from an area previously covered by the recently lifted evacuation advisory zone. - Regarding the possibility of internal exposure, Strontium is much more serious than cesium. As explained by a researcher from the Japanese Atomic Energy Institute, biological half life of cesium is 100 days vs 50 years for Strontium, which mimics calcium in the body.

It’s reasonable to expect that where there is cesium, there is also strontium, however it takes much longer to run tests for strontium and there are very few labs equipped to run the tests. - On the same day that the evacuation advisory zone was lifted, MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology) finally released results of strontium testing carried out around the plant. - Of the samples, collected since June, Futuba (inside the 20km zone) was the highest, at 5,700 Bq/m2 (note the change in unit from kg to square meters). Of particular concern were results from within the lifted evacuation advisory zone: Minami Soma (three locations: 600, 260, 160 bq/m2), Tamura (610 Bq/m2), Kawauchi (380、130、39 Bq/m2) and Hirono (220、150、120、76、61 Bq/m2). - Plutonium also detected for the first time outside the plant, however official attitude is to ignore the results, as ‘compared to cesium the quantities are minuscule, therefore the focus will remain on cesium’.

--China's State Council halted all new reactor construction Wednesday, pending revised safety regulations. The country also ordered a comprehensive inspection of its plants. China's current energy plan sets aside $10.7 billion annually for nuclear plant construction over the next decade. Some two dozen reactors are under construction in China, according to Reuters

The European Commission decided all 143 power plants in 27 European Union countries will be tested for emergency preparedness. Following radiation releases and core damage still unfolding at a Japanese nuclear plant brought on by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake, European officials have said they will reevaluate EU plants’ preparedness for emergencies like floods, tsunamis and terrorist attacks

According to a report in the New York Times, an estimated 110,000 people protested against nuclear power in some 450 German towns Monday. The newspaper reported that nuclear plants supply a third of the electricity in the EU.

A nuclear or radiological emergency presents complex public health, environmental and engineering challenges. A constant flow of detailed, reliable information is indispensable to be able to marshal and coordinate the needed response which includes the prompt mobilisation and dispatch of specialised human and equipment resources, as requested. The global focal point for such coordination and information exchange is the IAEA's Incident and Emergency Centre, or IEC. It is the IEC's task to inform many different official designated actors around the world as quickly as possible whenever a nuclear or radiological emergency occurs. A sustained and reliable information flow is one of the most important resources in effective incident and emergency response. New Platform

One of the IEC's tasks is to develop and improve the communication and coordination systems that deliver authenticated and verified information to the emergency responders who need it. During the emergency response to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident, the IEC launched a new, secure web-based communications platform, the Unified System for Information Exchange on Incidents and Emergencies, or USIE. The new system, which had been in development since 2009, replaces two existing communication systems, thus simplifying the emergency information exchange. "The new USIE system delivers a solution the emergency response community needed and requested from the IAEA," said Denis Flory, IAEA Deputy Director General for Nuclear Safety and Security. "When the IAEA's Member States respond to a nuclear incident or emergency, they need a single, secure, straight-forward system that easily adapts to their needs. That is exactly what USIE does."

Alert System Like its predecessor systems, USIE is a secure website to which registered users have access. Instead of monitoring two separate systems that previously reported on different types of incidents, users now receive alerts from the new USIE system when new information is issued about any type of incident, ranging from a lost radioactive source to a full-scale nuclear emergency. The platform delivers alerts, based upon the user's preferences, via text messages delivered to a mobile device, or via email, or via fax. The system tracks multiple events, issuing information that has been authenticated by the country reporting an accident or incident. The platform meets demanding security standards thus offering its users the assurance that the information received is reliable.

The March nuclear disaster in Fukushima in Japan led countries with nuclear power plants to revisit safety measures. The International Atomic Energy Agency constituted a global expert fact-finding mission to the island nation. The purpose of the mission was to ascertain facts and identify initial lessons to be learned for sharing with the nuclear community.

The mission submitted its report in June and the report stated in clear terms that “there were insufficient defence for tsunami hazards. Tsunami hazards that were considered in 2002 were underestimated. Additional protective measures were not reviewed and approved by the regulatory authority. Severe accident management provisions were not adequate to cope with multiple plant failures”.

Further, on the regulatory environment the report states: “Japan has a well organized emergency preparedness and response system as demonstrated by the handling of the Fukushima accident. Nevertheless, complicated structures and organizations can result in delays in urgent decision making.” The inability to foresee such extreme scenarios is a forewarning to countries that are expanding nuclear capacity at a frenzied pace.

India has improved procedures to deal with a nuclear emergency in the wake of the Fukushima crisis in Japan, the country's atomic energy watchdog said Thursday, after criticism of its preparedness."After Fukushima, we have drawn lessons on all aspects of reactor safety and one positive development is the integrated disaster management plan," the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board chairman S.S. Bajaj said.

Earlier this year, Bajaj's predecessor at the AERB, A. Gopalkrishnan, criticised India's readiness to deal with emergencies of any kind and said that plans to tackle major nuclear incidents were largely a paper exercise.Drills were infrequent "half-hearted efforts which amount more to a sham", he said after an massive earthquake and tsunami struck the Japanese Fukushima plant in March, forcing a re-think on nuclear power around the world.A survey of nearly 10,000 Indians at the time also suggested that 77 percent of people had concerns about atomic safety while 69 percent believed the authorities could not handle a nuclear disaster on the scale of that in Japan.

Bajaj told AFP on the sidelines of a nuclear energy summit in the financial hub Mumbai that India's nuclear emergency plan "was not that positive" in the past but added: "These weaknesses have been plugged."M.C. Abani, a nuclear specialist at the National Disaster Management Authority, said that six emergency exercises had been conducted at Indian nuclear power plants since March and procedures strengthened."NDMA has raised 10 battalions of National Disaster Response Force. Each battalion has 1,150 soldiers and officers. They are trained in handling nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological incidents," he said.

by IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano

I greatly value the experience and expertise of the World Association of Nuclear Operators and I welcome your decision to devote this biennial general meeting to the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan. Together, WANO and the IAEA will play a key role in ensuring that the right lessons are learned from the accident and that the necessary improvements in nuclear operating safety are actually put into practice everywhere.

We have been good partners since WANO was created in 1989. In the aftermath of Fukushima Daiichi, I believe our partnership must be deepened and intensified.

The nuclear energy industry will continue to work with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as it considers forthcoming recommendations of an agency task force on new procedures and regulations in light of the accident at Fukushima Daiichi.  We have undertaken significant work in the past 90 days to examine our facilities and take the steps necessary to enhance safety.  We will continue to work with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to understand any potential gaps in safety and fill those gaps. Prompted by the Fukushima accident, the NRC staff has been developing recommendations to enhance safety at America’s reactors. The task force is expected to release its report to the NRC commissioners within the next week. In their interim reports, NRC officials have emphasized that issues identified during the recent inspections will not impede the facilities’ ability to maintain safety even in the face of extreme events.

These NRC’s inspections complement industry efforts begun within days of the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Each of the nation’s 104 nuclear energy facilities has been subjected to a comprehensive verification of preparedness to maintain safety during a severe event, regardless of the cause. As a result of these self-inspections, facility operators have made immediate enhancements or developed plans to enhance safety. The vast majority of the items identified by the industry are enhancements to safety measures already in place.

The NRC has also made clear that issues identified during its post-Fukushima inspections at each plant do not undermine any facility’s ability to respond to extreme events. This conclusion is based upon exemplary levels of safe operation and the multiple layers of protection that exist at each nuclear energy facility in the country.   Moreover, in its annual reports to Congress, the NRC has listed only one “abnormal occurrence” over the past decade—an incident nine years ago that did not result in the release of radiation. Over the last 10 years, the NRC has not identified any negative trends in safety at America’s nuclear facilities. In the wake of the tragedy in Japan, Americans are concerned about whether U.S. reactors face the same risks.  The fact is, American nuclear facilities are subject to more regulatory scrutiny and requirements than in any other country.  American nuclear energy facilities are equipped and employees are trained to manage severe events. Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the industry has made significant improvements in physical structures and emergency response capabilities.

Radioactive Wolves, the first episode of the 30th season of PBS’s Nature, documents current conditions in the area that was forcibly evacuated following the uncontrolled radioactive material releases caused when the operators at the Chernobyl nuclear power station conducted a poorly planned experiment and blew up their power plant.In the absence of human beings, the remaining creatures seem to be doing just fine. I believe that is because it is hard to teach animals to be afraid of radiation; they do not watch many scary movies or news programs featuring breathless commentators interviewing publicity seeking “experts” whose main claim to fame is a lack of actual nuclear plant operating experience. Even long-lived creatures like catfish and eagles show few signs that they are constantly eating contaminated food from an area that has been officially declared to be unfit for habitation.

By the end of the article, I was more than a little suspicious that the politically appointed person driving the actions actually wanted to damage the plant. At the time I could not understand why anyone would do such a thing. That was before I realize how financially rewarding it can be for the establishment hydrocarbon industry to put nuclear energy into a negative light and before I understood just how important selling oil and gas to Europe was to the Soviet Union and how important that activity remains for Russia.I have read a few articles recently about efforts in Belarus to resettle parts of the evacuated areas, but information about the progress of those efforts is difficult to find. In the post Fukushima world, it is important to learn as much as we can about the measured long-term effect of radioactive materials released into the environment. Reactor accidents are events worth avoiding, but it is becoming more evident that the actual results are within the limits of the risk that is routinely accepted in many other industries.If that is true, more people should become comfortable with the prospects of using nuclear energy to benefit mankind and to make life more comfortable and prosperous for us all. The reality seems to be that nuclear accidents are not only rare events, but the consequences that result from a rare, but possible, failure are acceptable.

It should be difficult for a thinking person to watch this show without asking some of the following questions: If radiation is so dangerous, why doesn’t it seem to affect other mammals? If radiation is so dangerous, why do the plants and animals look so normal and healthy? Is there any logical reason to be more fearful of radiation than other risks? If radiation is not as dangerous as some people claim, why were so many people forced to leave their homes and livelihoods? Who benefits by working so hard to make people afraid of radiation and nuclear energy? A long time ago, I read a lengthy technical article that provided the details of the events leading up to the explosion. It was difficult to imagine how any trained operator could keep moving down the path that was taken without calling a halt to the evolution to ask hard questions and demand adequate responses.

Earthquakes are routinely measured by magnitude, or energy released. But the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)requires the nation's 104 nuclear reactors to withstand a predicted level of ground motion, or acceleration — something called g-force. What does that mean, magnitude-wise?

"I don't have what that translates into … unfortunately," NRC spokesman David McIntyre says. The agency released a statement Thursday to clarify its "earthquake measurements and design criteria," but it does not say what ground motion each reactor can handle. This muddiness heightens the concerns of industry critics, who have urged stricter safety rules after reactors at Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant nearly melted down due to a magnitude-9.0 earthquake and tsunami on March 11.

A task force mandated by President Obama recommended in July that each U.S. plant be re-examined, given ongoing NRC research that shows the seismic risks for Eastern and Central U.S. nuclear power plants have increased. "The Virginia earthquake is now our local 911 call to stop delaying the implementation of stricter safety standards," Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., wrote in a letter this week to the NRC.

On Friday Canadian regulators published their post-Fukushima Daiichi report on nuclear safety, concluding the country’s reactors could stand up safely to the conditions that triggered the crisis in Japan. As in the United States, the Canadian government ordered inspections of its operating nuclear plants and a review of their accident preparedness in response to the March station blackout that severely damaged three reactors. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s Fukushima Task Force Report “concludes that Canadian nuclear power plants are safe and pose a very small risk to the health and safety of Canadians or to the environment.” The report identified no gaps in emergency planning or regulatory oversight related to severe accidents. Further, the CNSC said in a release the country’s reactors can “withstand conditions similar to those that triggered the Fukushima event.”