A Radioactive Situation

Japan's earthquake could shake public trust in the safety of nuclear power.

BY CHARLES D. FERGUSON | MARCH 11, 2011

Is nuclear power too risky in earthquake-prone countries such as Japan? On March 11, a massive 8.9-magnitude earthquake shook Japan and caused widespread damage especially in the northeastern region of Honshu, the largest Japanese island. Nuclear power plants throughout that region automatically shut down when the plants' seismometers registered ground accelerations above safety thresholds.

But all the shutdowns did not go perfectly. Reactor unit 1 at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station experienced a mechanical failure in the emergency safety system. In response, officials ordered the evacuation of residents who live within two miles of the plant. Also, people living between two to 10 miles were ordered to stay indoors. The Japanese government described this order as a precautionary measure.

A worst-case accident would release substantial amounts of radioactive materials into the environment. This is unlikely to happen, but is still possible. Modern commercial nuclear power plants like the Fukushima plant use defense-in-depth safety measures. The first line of defense is fuel cladding that provides a barrier to release of highly radioactive fission products. Because these materials generate a substantial amount of heat, coolant is essential. Thus, the next lines of defense are to ensure that enough cooling water is available. The reactor coolant pumps are designed to keep water flowing through the hot core. But loss of electric power to the pumps will stop this flow. Backup electric power sources such as off-site power and on-site emergency diesel generators offer another layer of defense.

Unfortunately, these emergency power sources were knocked out about one hour after the plant shut down. Although it is unclear from the reporting to date, this power outage appears to have occurred at about the same time that a huge tsunami, triggered by the earthquake, hit that part of Japan.

Sustained loss of electric power could result in the core overheating and the fuel melting. However, three other backup systems provide additional layers of defense. First, the plant has batteries to supply power for about four hours. Second, the emergency core cooling system can inject water into the core. Finally, the containment structure, made of strong reinforced concrete, surrounds the reactor and can under even the most severe conditions prevent radioactive materials from entering the environment.

But the earthquake -- the largest in the 140 years of recorded history of Japanese earthquakes -- might have caused some damage to the containment structure. Japanese authorities announced that they will vent some steam from the containment structure to reduce the pressure buildup. This action may release small amounts of radioactive gas. The authorities do not expect any threat to the public.

Although a meltdown will most likely not occur, this incident will surely result in significant financial harm and potential loss of public confidence. For example, it was less than four years ago, in July 2007, when the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant, Japan's largest, suffered shaking beyond its design basis acceleration. The plant's seven reactors were shut down for 21 months while authorities carefully investigated the extent of the damage. Fortunately, public safety was not harmed and the plant experienced no major damage. However, the government accepted responsibility for approving construction of the first reactor near a geological fault line, which was unknown at the time of construction. The biggest loss was financial. In particular, the fiscal year 2007 loss was estimated at $5.62 billion with about three-fourths of that to replace the 8,000 megawatts of generating capacity from the nuclear plant.

STR/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: ENERGY, DISASTERS, JAPAN
 

Charles D. Ferguson is president of the Federation of American Scientists. His book Nuclear Energy: What Everyone Needs to Know will be published in May.

ODYSSEY8

3:15 PM ET

March 12, 2011

Japan played Nuclear Russian Roulette, and they lost!

The Japanese went for nuclear power because the electricity it produces is relatively inexpensive, but there was one thing that they conveniently chose to ignore; specifically, that their country is prone to earthquakes. The nuclear plant that exploded was constructed in an area that was particularly vulnerable not just to earthquakes, but to tsunamis and floods as well.

From where I am sitting, the Japanese government was looking at the bottom line, when they should have been looking at whether or not the ecological risks would be worth the economic gains. They knew that their country was prone to earthquakes, and yet they chose to play Russian Roulette with their country's ecology and citizens in the name of the almighty Japanese Yen.

The person or persons in the Japanese government who thought it was a good idea to build a nuclear power plant in an area that is so prone to earthquakes will have much to answer for in regards to this disaster, and they must be held to account!

 

GRANDEROHO

5:32 PM ET

March 12, 2011

Well until it actually causes

Well until it actually causes real deaths, let us first hold accountable all the natural gas and oil refinery explosions who actually killed people.

 

MAGNETAR

5:43 AM ET

March 13, 2011

Death have been recorded

Deaths have been recorded already due solely to nuclear issues. Numerous personnel exposed to high doses of radiation and are hospitalized.
---

Earthquake risks weren't completely ignored. The facilities were just not built to withstand higher magnitude quakes. Some have alluded to the relative lull in major quake activity over a 50 year period as a reason for why these facilities weren't built to higher safety standards. Regardless of what specifically prompted design oversights or commonplace safety lapses strict regulation in the nuclear sector would clearly be of benefit to both public safety and owners of these facilities. If investors and the public are to trust nuclear energy again we cannot accept cutting corners.

 

MAGNETAR

5:44 AM ET

March 13, 2011

Deaths have been recorded

Deaths have been recorded already due solely to nuclear issues. Numerous personnel exposed to high doses of radiation and are hospitalized.
---

Earthquake risks weren't completely ignored. The facilities were just not built to withstand higher magnitude quakes. Some have alluded to the relative lull in major quake activity over a 50 year period as a reason for why these facilities weren't built to higher safety standards. Regardless of what specifically prompted design oversights or commonplace safety lapses strict regulation in the nuclear sector would clearly be of benefit to both public safety and owners of these facilities. If investors and the public are to trust nuclear energy again we cannot accept cutting corners.

 

BILLMENKE

10:38 PM ET

March 21, 2011

Failure of a Theory

Concerning: "Some have alluded to the relative lull in major quake activity over a 50 year period as a reason for why these facilities weren't built to higher safety standards."

Back in the 1960's, before modern equipment was available to measure and record the acceleration of the ground during earthquakes, the earthquake engineering community widely ascribed to a theory that earthquake accelerations could not exceed about 20% of gravity, because earthquake waves would be strongly suppressed by the "non-linear response" of the soil. So I am not surprised that the design acceleration for a power plant built in the early 1970's was only 18% of gravity. As accurate measurements of much larger earthquake accelerations became available in the 1970's and 80's, this theory slowly withered away. Modern structures are designed to withstand much more realistic accelerations (which is not to say that these designs always succeed).

However, insofar as I can tell (and good technical information is scarce), the crisis at the Fukushima plant was caused by flooding associated with tsunami and not primarily by shaking due to the earthquake. The flooding apparently destroyed electric systems that distributed power to the cooling systems, thus allowing the reactor to overheat.

Bill Menke
Professor of Seismology
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Columbia University
New York

 

SHARPZ111

10:00 PM ET

March 12, 2011

Perspective

Let's not forget that of the reactors at Fukushima Daichi-I the oldest was commissioned in 1970 (40 years ago!), and was planned for decommissioning this year anyway - hence the willingness to write off the reactor by circulating seawater and boric acid (neutron poison). So these reactors have worked without serious incident for nearly 4 decades!

According to Wikipedia, Unit 1 (the most seriously damaged, it appears) was designed to withstand 0.18g of peak ground acceleration. As it happens, this correlates to something like a 9.2 magnitude earthquake, giving enough tolerance to protect the integrity of the reactor in this case. Of course the logarithmic nature of the scale means that a 9.2 quake is significantly more powerful than the 8.9 quake in Japan.

For example, the quake which triggered the 2004 Tsunami that devastated Sumatra was a 9.2 magnitude quake, and this means it had roughly 4 times the energy of the earthquake in Japan.

This suggests to me that the Japanese government used laudable caution in their design and construction.

In any case, Fukushima-Daichi I's Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) were planned to be replaced by a newer Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) design with enhanced safety features.

This article does raise a number of important questions though: should Japan have more electricity production contingencies for the temporary periods in which nuclear stations must be checked and restarted after emergency SCRAMing (which could be filled partially by renewable energy)?

Elsewhere it has been questioned whether placing such a large and concentrated facility on the east coast of Japan was such a wise idea, considering its greater vulnerability to extreme tectonic activity.

I would say that the communication from the government has been hazy and sometimes conflicting (not laudable), which means that the abundance of caution so far can be misinterpreted as a panicked response by those with an axe to grind.

As far as we know the reactor has been SCRAMed (i.e. shut down) successfully, and therefore the temperature in the reactor is slowly falling. There is evidence of partial melt-down (caesium traces), but the container vessel has not been compromised (although the reactor hall was destroyed by a hydrogen explosion).

I understand fears that the Japanese government will attempt to downplay the risks here, especially in the wake of huge a natural disaster, but it is also important not to get too carried away. Or for Friends of the Earth types to take advantage of this extreme case to bash nuclear energy generally.

If a nuclear reactor can be shown to withstand such extreme conditions with only minor localised radiation and containment, then this should reinforce confidence in safe nuclear power in slightly less volatile regions! (I live next to two nuclear reactors, so I promise i'm no NIMBY).

 

BILLMENKE

10:59 PM ET

March 18, 2011

Modest earthquakes can cause severe shaking.

Your assertion, above, that 0.18g (18% of gravity) of peak ground acceleration correlates to something like a 9.2 magnitude earthquake is incorrect. Actually, many far more modest earthquakes, with magnitudes in the 6-7 range, have caused shaking of this intensity, or even greater.

Ever since the 1971 magnitude 6.6 San Fernando (California) earthquake, for which peak ground accelerations of 37% of gravity were observed, seismologists and earthquake engineers have understood that even a relatively modest earthquake can cause severe shaking. However, the region of severe shaking tends to be more geographically restricted than for great earthquakes of magnitude 8 or 9. The 1995 Kobe earthquake, which was magnitude 6.8, caused peak ground accelerations exceeding 30% of gravity in a broad region around that city, and one place where it exceeded 80%. The 2007, magnitude 6.6, Ch?etsu earthquake (offshore western Japan), caused shaking of 69% to 200% of gravity at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant, which experienced significant damage and had to be shut down for 16 months.

The reactors at Fukushima Daichi-I were designed before 1971, before data from San Fernando and other earthquakes of the 1970's were available. One might argue that a design acceleration of 18% g was reasonable based on the science of the late 1960's. I do not completely buy this argument, because it was known at the time that the location was smack onto of a plate boundary fault capable of magnitude 8+ earthquakes (the last in the area was in 1933). But in any case, the real tragedy is that the safety standards were not beefed up as better information on shaking became available in the 1980's and 1990's.

By the way, the 869 Sanriku (Japan) earthquake - 1100 years ago - which was probably about a magniude 8.6, cause a tsunami very similar in size to the recent one, with run-up up to 4 km inland.

Bill Menke
Professor of Seismology
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Columbia University
New York

 

KEBEC1

7:42 PM ET

March 13, 2011

Dodged Bullet?

the event is on-going. it's too early to talk about dodging a bullet.

confidence in nuclear power is, of course, already shaken, world-wide.

 

XTIANGODLOKI

10:13 AM ET

March 14, 2011

Missing from the article are facts about the powerplants

The first power plant which blew up over the weekend was decades old. The Japanese government proposed to upgrade the plant years ago but funding was consistently cut, thanks partly to anti-nuclear power activists.

The thing with nuclear power is that once you decide to implement it then you go as much as you can to make it worthwhile. I am not sure if a newer plant would have prevented the explosion but it's likely safer than an old plant.

 

KATHERIN JASON

9:42 AM ET

April 10, 2011

The facilities were just not

The facilities were just not built to withstand higher magnitude quakes. Some have alluded to the relative lull in major quake activity over a 50 year period as a reason for why these facilities weren't built to higher safety standards. stavky Regardless of what specifically prompted design oversights or commonplace safety lapses strict regulation in the nuclear sector would clearly be of benefit to both public safety and owners of these facilities. If investors and the public are to trust nuclear energy again we cannot accept cutting corners.For example, the quake which triggered the 2004 Tsunami that devastated Sumatra was a 9.2 magnitude quake, and this means it had roughly 4 times the energy of the earthquake in Japan.This suggests to me that the Japanese government used laudable caution in their design and construction.In any case, Fukushima-Daichi I's Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) were planned to be replaced by a newer Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) design with enhanced safety features.This article does raise a stavkove kancelarie number of important questions though: should Japan have more electricity production contingencies for the temporary periods in which nuclear stations must be checked and restarted after emergency SCRAMing (which could be filled partially by renewable energy)?Elsewhere it has been questioned whether placing such a large and concentrated facility on the east coast of Japan was such a wise idea, considering its greater vulnerability to extreme tectonic activity.