Will Fukushima Eventually Be Classified as a Level 7 Event Like Chernobyl?

[M. Bachmeier]

Is there anyone who is willing to go on record to say that the multiple incidents (ongoing) will not be rated (when all is said and done) as a level 7 emergency?

I would like to know if anyone has any firm convictions.

 

[Astronuc]

It would help to explain the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES).

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale

 

[russ_watters]

Seems unlikely is what I'd say. It is worse than TMI (level 5) but is unlikely to come anywhere close to Chernobyl (the only level 7).

 

[AlephZero]

Only a fool (or a politician) would go on the record about that before it's "over", I think.

Till then, the best anyone can do is talk about probabilities.

 

[M. Bachmeier]

It would help to explain the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES).

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale

Sorry, thought it was almost a given by now.

 

[M. Bachmeier]

I would say that current events are at INES level 6, but that the scale may need redefining at or above level 7 when all is said and done.

This could become the worse accident ever on record and has made me truly wonder if such power systems can be made adequately safe.

 

[Thermalne]

I would say that current events are at INES level 6, but that the scale may need redefining at or above level 7 when all is said and done.

This could become the worse accident ever on record and has made me truly wonder if such power systems can be made adequately safe.

Why do you say that?

Do you realize how destructive Chernobyl was?

This accident doesn't even compare to it and you're calling it the "worst accident ever on record."

Clearly you have no formal education involving nuclear engineering nor nuclear reactors. I would suggest you educate yourself before projecting something like that.

 

[M. Bachmeier]

Why do you say that?

Do you realize how destructive Chernobyl was?

This accident doesn't even compare to it and you're calling it the "worst accident ever on record."

Clearly you have no formal education involving nuclear engineering nor nuclear reactors. I would suggest you educate yourself before projecting something like that.

The quote directly above your statement is "This 'could' become the worst accident ever on record."

That's because their ability to control what's happening is extremely limited and they really aren't sure what to do.

There are multiple problems here. Control systems in a mess. Sensing equipment mostly nonfunctional. The crews are being exposed, and have been exposed, to dangerous levels of radiation. The consequences of sea water cooling are not known. The people on site must be seriously tired and they have to be better than perfect right now.

 

[revnaknuma]

I think it is level 4.

 

[vanesch]

I would say that current events are at INES level 6, but that the scale may need redefining at or above level 7 when all is said and done.

Well, I don't know. FOR THE MOMENT, this is a level 5 accident if you look at the INES definitions, although officially they put it to 4 (which is, I think, a very bad policy). But I'm not sure they are going to contain the contents of the fuel ponds and the reactors. If they totally stop cooling, and abandon the site, which might be necessary if they have a full meltdown in one of the fuel ponds which seems to be ongoing now and the radiation level at the site or above it is unworkable, I don't see how one can avoid eventually EVERYTHING leaking out one way or another, as all containments will eventually fail without cooling and/or pressure relief. And then I think that one should classify it as a level 7 event, no ? Waiting for an expert to tune in...

 

[QuantumPion]

Well from an economic standpoint it is far worse than Chernobyl and is by far the worse disaster to the nuclear industry. Losing 6 units (+2 under construction) is a what, ~$30 billion loss? It's like 15% of the entire generating capacity of TEPCO.

 

[Astronuc]

I'd put it 5, but I think it is a serious accident. TMI-2 is apparently rated 5, but I'm not sure if any deaths were attributed to radiation.

There is a significant release of activity - outside of containment.

Can nuclear power systems be designed to be safer? Yes, of course.

First - don't put EDGs in a location where they can be destroyed. If the EDGs had worked, we wouldn't have this event.

Second - realize that the Fukushima containment is Mk I, which was superceded by Mk II, then Mk III, and now modern containment systems. In the more modern plants, e.g., Mk III, the spent fuel pools have been removed from the top of the reactor building into a separate area. There were numerous improvements.

I would expect regulators to consider some retrofit of Mk I containments.

 

[Astronuc]

U.S. shows growing alarm over Japan nuclear crisis
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/sc_nm/us_nuclear_usa

PLUME OF RADIATION

Gregory Jaczko, the top U.S. nuclear regulator, cast doubt on efforts to cool overheating reactors, saying workers may be hit with "lethal doses" of radiation.

"It would be very difficult for emergency workers to get near the reactors," Jaczko said.

That might be enough to move it to INES 6.

 

[MeMyself+Eye]

I'm uncomfortable with that whole rating system, especially rating it preemptively.

TMI-2 was rated a '5', with no fatalities or associated radiation effects on longevity for anyone. SL-1 was rated a '4' despite the fact there were three fatalities and an explosion. My guess TMI was considered worse since the entire Island was off limits

While it sounds like the, incredibly brave, workers are exposing themselves to detrimental, if not lethal, doses of radiation, unless there is a significant dispersal of radioactive isotopes, this accident could still be rated a '4' or '5'.

Caveat Emptor, my knowledge of Nuclear Power begins and ends at the outlets in my home. I'm just a morbidly curious observer of this mess, and can only add that the Earthquake and Tsunami took thousands of lives.

 

[russ_watters]

I'd put it 5, but I think it is a serious accident.

At your request :

Japan's nuclear safety agency raised the severity rating of the country's nuclear crisis Friday from Level 4 to Level 5, on a seven-level international scale...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-03-18-Japan-nuclear-level_N.htm

TMI-2 is apparently rated 5, but I'm not sure if any deaths were attributed to radiation.

That part is weird to me:

...putting it on par with the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979.

The way the wiki describes it, the rating is based on the highest score of several different criteria:

-Severe damage to reactor core.
-Release of large quantities of radioactive material within an installation with a high probability of significant public exposure. This could arise from a major criticality accident or fire.

TMI is high on the first criteria but very low on the second.

I think it is likely at this point that the damage in Japan is worse than at TMI so I expected it as well. It's natural that the rating comes after the disaster, so that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that I consider human life to be vastly more important than plant damage and environmental damage much more important. So for an accident like TMI that destroyed the reactor, but caused no environmental damage or loss of human life, I don't consider that to be a reasonable rating. Putting TMI one level below Chernobyl makes them sound more similar than they really were. The scale should be more linear than hyperbolic.

 

[M. Bachmeier]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/be...na.japan.nuclear.chernobyl.cnn?iref=allsearch

Michio Kaku has gone on record (without question) that this is an INES level 6 emergency. His interview earlier in the day suggested his last resort concept was hypothetical.

I think his recommendation would be dangerous at this time based on what nearly happened at Chernobyl. Informed and knowledgeable opinions about the current state of affairs would really help right now.

 

[minerva]

Michio Kaku does some good work sometimes, but I've seen him espousing anti-nuclear rubbish on more than one occasion.

INES Level 5 makes sense to me. Comparable to TMI.

Nobody has been injured or killed by radiation, no public members seem to have received any significantly large doses.

 

[M. Bachmeier]

Do some of the reactor incidents at Fukushima Daiichi deserve to be rated at INES level 6?

"Level 6: Serious accident

Impact on people and environment
Significant release of radioactive material likely to require implementation of planned countermeasures.

There has been only one such incident to date:

* Kyshtym disaster at Mayak, Soviet Union, 29 September 1957. A failed cooling system at a military nuclear waste reprocessing facility caused a steam explosion that released 70–80 tons of highly radioactive material into the environment. Impact on local population is not fully known. This is the only accident to go over 5 on scale besides Chernobyl. [2]"

And, if so, what could be expected as an implementation of planned countermeasures? Are there planned countermeasures that can address the scope of this (these) incident(s)?

 

[Reno Deano]

I'd put it 5, but I think it is a serious accident. TMI-2 is apparently rated 5, but I'm not sure if any deaths were attributed to radiation.

There is a significant release of activity - outside of containment.

Can nuclear power systems be designed to be safer? Yes, of course.

First - don't put EDGs in a location where they can be destroyed. If the EDGs had worked, we wouldn't have this event.

Second - realize that the Fukushima containment is Mk I, which was superceded by Mk II, then Mk III, and now modern containment systems. In the more modern plants, e.g., Mk III, the spent fuel pools have been removed from the top of the reactor building into a separate area. There were numerous improvements.

I would expect regulators to consider some retrofit of Mk I containments.

"Retrofit" - I would then expect the utility bean-counters to have them shut down and decommissioned, since their age and the decommission costs have been collected.

 

[AntonL]

JAIF continues to rate exploded Unit 4 as an INES rate 3 incident, somewhat underrated but I suppose nobody notices or is bothered to up-rate to much else to do at the moment http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300976122P.pdf"

 

[M. Bachmeier]

JAIF continues to rate exploded Unit 4 as an INES rate 3 incident, somewhat underrated but I suppose nobody notices or is bothered to up-rate to much else to do at the moment http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300976122P.pdf"

Not sure what I'm looking for and the reported number of fuel rods is not accurate. Unless you are referring to what appear to be contradiction about power supply/availability?

 

[Astronuc]

"Retrofit" - I would then expect the utility bean-counters to have them shut down and decommissioned, since their age and the decommission costs have been collected.

With respect to retrofit, I was referring to NPPs with Mk I containment, other than those at Fukushima. Regulators would put a priority on public safety as opposed to economics, while the utilities must consider the economics, i.e. if retrofitting costs too much, then the plant gets shutdown and decommissioned.

Units 1-4 of Fukushima are history.


With regard to INES, I'd put it at a high 5, with a 6-rating pending.

Two workers at Japan's damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant have been taken to hospital after being exposed to high levels of radiation.
. . . .
They were exposed to radiation levels of 170-180 millisieverts, he said, which is lower than the maximum level permitted for workers on the site of 250 millisieverts. Two of the workers were taken to hospital.

"Although they wore protective clothing, the contaminated water seeped in and their legs were exposed to radiation," said a spokesman.
. . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12845304

I'm not certain of the reliability of the following, but -
6 WORKERS EXPOSED TO EXCESSIVE RADIATION @ FUKUSHIMA PLANT TOKYO, March 19, Kyodo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2691423/posts

Based on the exposures, it's definitely a 5, and could go to 6 if more personnel or public are exposed.

The matter of the neutron 'beam' or neutron radiation is of concern. It would seem to indicate loss of transuranics (fuel particles/fines) from the containment, which is not a good sign.

 

[AntonL]

JAIF continues to rate exploded Unit 4 as an INES rate 3 incident, somewhat underrated but I suppose nobody notices or is bothered to up-rate too much else to do at the moment http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300976122P.pdf"

Not sure what I'm looking for and the reported number of fuel rods is not accurate. Unless you are referring to what appear to be contradiction about power supply/availability?

?
back to my initial post, each reactor or unit has been separately INES rated, Unit 4 is Ines level 3 as per JAIF

 

[M. Bachmeier]

?
back to my initial post, each reactor or unit has been separately INES rated, Unit 4 is Ines level 3 as per JAIF

Yes I see the obvious point now, but all I can say is I had no knowledge of how the rating system was employed (case by case) when I started the thread, but it seems most have taken it to mean the highest rating of the site (which has value in it's own right). Has there ever been a major incident that involved more than one reactor at a time? I also confess that I've attempted to absorb a large amount of information that I'm not properly trained to interpret, so I'm sorry if my line of reasoning has been vague or my concept of the standard limited in it's value.

If time permits I will place a table with the current ratings and encourage reasoned argument about the appropriateness of each reactor incident assessment.

 

[Escapekey]

Japan just announced that they are considering RAISING THIS TO INES 6.

So... wait for confirmation.

 

[Bodge]

I see no reason that this can't make a 7

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=480200&page=68

4.9 Megabecquerels of beta/gamma contamination per square METRE

 

[AntonL]

Greenpeace call for INES 7

 

[M. Bachmeier]

Greenpeace call for INES 7

That's nice but Greenpeace is not the organization it once was. They have taken aggressive stands with less than adequate information before. Belief sometimes being a substitute for fact.

However, they are entitled to they're opinion, which is all this thread is about.

 

[AntonL]

My Opinion

Chernobyl in slow motion - level 6 coming up and finally followed by level 7

NEWS ADVISORY: Over 1,000 millisieverts per hour found in water at No.2 reactor
12:00 27 March Kyodo and same on NHK TV

and as long as water is pumped into the reactor or the SFP this water keeps flowing out

 

[Thermalne]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/be...na.japan.nuclear.chernobyl.cnn?iref=allsearch

Michio Kaku has gone on record (without question) that this is an INES level 6 emergency. His interview earlier in the day suggested his last resort concept was hypothetical.

I think his recommendation would be dangerous at this time based on what nearly happened at Chernobyl. Informed and knowledgeable opinions about the current state of affairs would really help right now.

Michio Kaku is no expert in nuclear power. I'd take anything he has said with a grain of salt.

 

[M. Bachmeier]

Michio Kaku is no expert in nuclear power. I'd take anything he has said with a grain of salt.

I didn't mean to imply that he's an expert in nuclear power systems or emergency management, but thought some reasoned debate about the entombment (where, when, etc.), what he may be right about and where he might be wrong, would give me and others like myself a better idea of where the overall (INES) classification should be and where it's going to likely end up.

 

[Astronuc]

Dangerous Levels of Radioactive Isotope Found 25 Miles From Nuclear Plant
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/asia/31japan.html

The isotope, cesium 137, was measured in one village by the International Atomic Energy Agency at a level exceeding the standard that the Soviet Union used as a gauge to recommend abandoning land . . . .

The measurements, reported Wednesday, would not be high enough to cause acute radiation illness, but far exceed standards for the general public designed to cut the risks of cancer.

. . . .

This event should probably be INES 6, especially if persistent levels of Cs-134 and Cs-137 prevent folks from living in their native areas.

www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/INES-2009_web.pdf (218 pages, 5.6 MB)

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/ines.pdf (4 pages)

 

[M. Bachmeier]

From Wikipeda...

Accident rating
Radiation releases during the initial hydrogen explosions

The severity of a nuclear accident is rated on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES). This scale runs from 0, indicating an abnormal situation with no safety consequences, to 7, indicating an accident causing widespread contamination with serious health and environmental effects. The Chernobyl disaster is the only level 7 accident on record, while the Three Mile Island accident was a level 5 accident.

The Japan Atomic Energy Agency initially rated the situation at unit 1 below both of these previous accidents; on 13 March it announced it was classifying the event at level 4, an "accident with local consequences".[34] On 18 March it raised its rating on unit 1 to level 5, an "accident with wider consequences", and also assigned this rating to the accidents at units 2 and 3. It classified the situation at unit 4 as a level 3 "serious incident".[303]

The Wall Street Journal reported on 25 March that authorities were considering raising the event to level 6, a "serious accident," one level above the Three Mile Island accident, and second only to Chernobyl.[304] On the same day, Asahi Shimbun supported this upgrading, based on the amount of radioactive contamination.[298][305]

Several parties have disputed the Japanese classifications, arguing that the situation is more severe than they are admitting. On 14 March, three Russian experts stated that the nuclear accident should be classified at Level 5, perhaps even Level 6.[306] One day later, the French nuclear safety authority ASN said that the Fukushima plant could be classified as a Level 6.[307] as of 18 March[update], the French nuclear authority—and as of 15 March, the Finnish nuclear safety authority—estimated the accidents at Fukushima to be at Level 6 on the INES.[308][309] On 24 March, a scientific consultant for Greenpeace, a noted anti-nuclear environmental group, working with data from the Austrian ZAMG[310] and French IRSN, prepared an analysis in which he rated the total Fukushima I accident at INES level 7.[311]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_accident

 

[M. Bachmeier]

Also, from: worldnes.com http://article.wn.com/view/2011/04/02/Japans_unfolding_disaster_bigger_than_Chernobyl/

"Japan's unfolding nuclear disaster is "much bigger than Chernobyl" and could rewrite the international scale used to measure the severity of atomic accidents, a Russian expert said yesterday. "Chernobyl was a dirty bomb explosion. The next dirty bomb is Fukushima and it will cost much more" in economic and human terms, said Natalia Mironova, a thermodynamic engineer who became a leading anti-nuclear activist in Russia in the wake of the accident at the Soviet-built reactor in Ukraine in 1986. "Fukushima is much bigger than Chernobyl," she said, adding that the Japanese nuclear crisis was likely to eclipse Chernobyl on the seven-point scale..."

Is there hesitation on the part of Japanese authorities to up the overall rating due to the potential implication of additional evacuations, which may be logistically impossible?

 

[AntonL]

Is there hesitation on the part of Japanese authorities to up the overall rating due to the potential implication of additional evacuations, which may be logistically impossible?

There may also be other consequences by upgrading, dictated by economic consideration like insurances. Insurers may automatically increase their premium for aircraft and ships heading for Japan or even stop all cover while an ongoing level 6 is in progress. Once an aircraft or ship is contaminated it has scrap metal value.