5:20 PM
Waa Haa Haa
A forecast of the radiation released in another
nuclear accident shows that at four plants, a 30-kilometer evacuation
zone would be insufficient for public safety, and that more distant
residents would need to flee their homes too.
The findings mean additional local authorities may need to draw up contingency plans for evacuations, and power companies may need to seek the approval of those extra governments for reactor restarts.
In the first published survey of its kind, the Nuclear Regulation Authority on Oct. 24 released the results of a study that used the estimated radioactive materials released from the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant and modeled likely fallout at plants in 16 other locations, taking into consideration factors such as reactor size and local meteorological data.
The study found that at four plants, radiation doses more than 30 kilometers away would exceed the current safety threshold and would require evacuations.
It was the first time the central government had assessed the impact of a serious accident at each of Japan's nuclear plants and released the results.
In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear accident, the Nuclear Regulation Authority plans to define a new zone within which local authorities would need to plan how to evacuate all residents. It decided to expand the zone from between eight and 10 kilometers to 30 kilometers, a size which matches an International Atomic Energy Agency recommendation.
Accordingly, local governments will need to compile new contingency plans for nuclear plants by March 2013.
Furthermore, the Nuclear Regulation Authority has adopted the IAEA standard of a radiation dose of 100 millisieverts, acquired cumulatively over the course of a week, in delineating mandatory evacuation zones.
The latest study provides a reference point for prefectural governments as they go about drawing up new evacuation zones around nuclear plants.
Its forecast was based on the assumption that a future accident would be similar to that at the Fukushima No. 1 plant, causing a spill of radioactive materials. The study also considered the number of reactors at each plant and their generating capacity.
Based on those assumptions, the likely accumulated radiation exposure level was found to exceed 100 millisieverts farther than 30 kilometers from four plants: Oi in Fukui Prefecture, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa in Niigata Prefecture, Fukushima No. 2 in Fukushima Prefecture and Hamaoka in Shizuoka Prefecture.
Calculations considered the direction and distance that radioactive materials would spread. But the calculations have several important limitations. Local topographical features such as mountains were not factored in. Hourly meteorological observations measured at the plant premises, such as wind direction, velocity and rainfall, were applied to all areas around the plants.
The study found that in the case of the Oi plant, currently Japan's sole operating nuclear plant, radioactive materials would likely spread in a south-southwesterly to southeasterly direction. Accumulated radiation exposure would exceed 100 millisieverts in Nantan, Kyoto Prefecture, which is located 32.2 kilometers south of the plant.
The forecast for the Takahama plant found that even the area around the Oi plant would reach levels requiring evacuation. That means that the Oi plant would itself be affected in the event of a major accident at its Takahama neighbor.
Radioactive materials were forecast to spread over the widest area from the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, reaching likely evacuation levels even in Uonuma, Niigata Prefecture, which lies 40.2 kilometers east-southeast of the plant.
This plant was forecast to release the largest volume of radioactive materials because it has seven reactors and it has the largest total generating capacity of any plant in Japan.
The Nuclear Regulation Authority's planned extension of its prepare-to-evacuate zone to 30 kilometers meant that the number of municipalities required to compile evacuation plans will increase to 135 across 21 prefectures, up from the earlier total of 45 in 15 prefectures.
And the latest findings mean that additional municipalities may need to draw up plans too, faced with possible evacuation-triggering fallout levels outside the 30-kilometer zone.
A key figure used in the forecast was the modeled release of 770 quadrillion becquerels of radioactive materials (a quadrillion is one thousand trillion). This was the size of the atmospheric release during the Fukushima nuclear accident.
In the event of another accident, local weather conditions will affect the spread of such materials. However, the forecast assumed that the wind direction at the time the release began continued for a week. It considered meteorological records in determining the possible direction of a radioactive plume.
The map produced showed which areas, in 16 different points of the compass from the nuclear plant, could end up with accumulated radiation exposure levels of 100 millisieverts.
The wide area of forecasted contamination means local governments will face a greater burden in compiling effective disaster management plans.
However, Shunichi Tanaka, chairman of the Nuclear Regulation Authority, has called such plans a minimum requirement before nuclear plants can be cleared for a restart.
If local governments cannot compile effective disaster management plans, it means the security of local residents is not assured. In such circumstances, not only would it be difficult to resume operations at such plants, but the very existence of those plants could be called into question.
In the past, electric power companies needed to fulfill few conditions before constructing new plants or additional reactors at existing ones, and reactivating them. They needed the approval of the central government and the consent of both the hosting municipal governments and corresponding prefectural governments.
If the number of municipalities that could be affected by a nuclear accident is increased, the utilities will need to take into consideration the greater number of local governments that will have to draw up disaster management plans.
Some local governments have already made known their opposition to reactivating nuclear power plants. That means electric power companies will face even longer delays before obtaining the support of such governments.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201210240073
The findings mean additional local authorities may need to draw up contingency plans for evacuations, and power companies may need to seek the approval of those extra governments for reactor restarts.
In the first published survey of its kind, the Nuclear Regulation Authority on Oct. 24 released the results of a study that used the estimated radioactive materials released from the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant and modeled likely fallout at plants in 16 other locations, taking into consideration factors such as reactor size and local meteorological data.
The study found that at four plants, radiation doses more than 30 kilometers away would exceed the current safety threshold and would require evacuations.
It was the first time the central government had assessed the impact of a serious accident at each of Japan's nuclear plants and released the results.
In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear accident, the Nuclear Regulation Authority plans to define a new zone within which local authorities would need to plan how to evacuate all residents. It decided to expand the zone from between eight and 10 kilometers to 30 kilometers, a size which matches an International Atomic Energy Agency recommendation.
Accordingly, local governments will need to compile new contingency plans for nuclear plants by March 2013.
Furthermore, the Nuclear Regulation Authority has adopted the IAEA standard of a radiation dose of 100 millisieverts, acquired cumulatively over the course of a week, in delineating mandatory evacuation zones.
The latest study provides a reference point for prefectural governments as they go about drawing up new evacuation zones around nuclear plants.
Its forecast was based on the assumption that a future accident would be similar to that at the Fukushima No. 1 plant, causing a spill of radioactive materials. The study also considered the number of reactors at each plant and their generating capacity.
Based on those assumptions, the likely accumulated radiation exposure level was found to exceed 100 millisieverts farther than 30 kilometers from four plants: Oi in Fukui Prefecture, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa in Niigata Prefecture, Fukushima No. 2 in Fukushima Prefecture and Hamaoka in Shizuoka Prefecture.
Calculations considered the direction and distance that radioactive materials would spread. But the calculations have several important limitations. Local topographical features such as mountains were not factored in. Hourly meteorological observations measured at the plant premises, such as wind direction, velocity and rainfall, were applied to all areas around the plants.
The study found that in the case of the Oi plant, currently Japan's sole operating nuclear plant, radioactive materials would likely spread in a south-southwesterly to southeasterly direction. Accumulated radiation exposure would exceed 100 millisieverts in Nantan, Kyoto Prefecture, which is located 32.2 kilometers south of the plant.
The forecast for the Takahama plant found that even the area around the Oi plant would reach levels requiring evacuation. That means that the Oi plant would itself be affected in the event of a major accident at its Takahama neighbor.
Radioactive materials were forecast to spread over the widest area from the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, reaching likely evacuation levels even in Uonuma, Niigata Prefecture, which lies 40.2 kilometers east-southeast of the plant.
This plant was forecast to release the largest volume of radioactive materials because it has seven reactors and it has the largest total generating capacity of any plant in Japan.
The Nuclear Regulation Authority's planned extension of its prepare-to-evacuate zone to 30 kilometers meant that the number of municipalities required to compile evacuation plans will increase to 135 across 21 prefectures, up from the earlier total of 45 in 15 prefectures.
And the latest findings mean that additional municipalities may need to draw up plans too, faced with possible evacuation-triggering fallout levels outside the 30-kilometer zone.
A key figure used in the forecast was the modeled release of 770 quadrillion becquerels of radioactive materials (a quadrillion is one thousand trillion). This was the size of the atmospheric release during the Fukushima nuclear accident.
In the event of another accident, local weather conditions will affect the spread of such materials. However, the forecast assumed that the wind direction at the time the release began continued for a week. It considered meteorological records in determining the possible direction of a radioactive plume.
The map produced showed which areas, in 16 different points of the compass from the nuclear plant, could end up with accumulated radiation exposure levels of 100 millisieverts.
The wide area of forecasted contamination means local governments will face a greater burden in compiling effective disaster management plans.
However, Shunichi Tanaka, chairman of the Nuclear Regulation Authority, has called such plans a minimum requirement before nuclear plants can be cleared for a restart.
If local governments cannot compile effective disaster management plans, it means the security of local residents is not assured. In such circumstances, not only would it be difficult to resume operations at such plants, but the very existence of those plants could be called into question.
In the past, electric power companies needed to fulfill few conditions before constructing new plants or additional reactors at existing ones, and reactivating them. They needed the approval of the central government and the consent of both the hosting municipal governments and corresponding prefectural governments.
If the number of municipalities that could be affected by a nuclear accident is increased, the utilities will need to take into consideration the greater number of local governments that will have to draw up disaster management plans.
Some local governments have already made known their opposition to reactivating nuclear power plants. That means electric power companies will face even longer delays before obtaining the support of such governments.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201210240073
0 comments:
Post a Comment