In Tokyo Bay...
(Photos taken by EEE Reporter)Nuclear Community in Japan
There are various governmental agencies and committees and industrial and academic bodies related to nuclear energy and nuclear power generation in Japan. As money involved, both public and private, is huge, people and parties concerned form a comparatively tight network for common interest. Especially many elite bureaucrats of Japan take upper positions in these organizations after retirement from public services.
1) Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization
http://www.jnes.go.jp/english/index.html
2) Japan Atomic Energy Agency
http://www.jaea.go.jp/english/index.shtml
3) Atomic Energy Commission of Japan
4) Nuclear Safety Commission of Japa
http://www.nsc.go.jp/NSCenglish/index.htm
5) Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency
http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/index.html
6) Japan Atomic Energy Association
http://www.jaea.go.jp/english/index.shtml
7) Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization
http://www.jnes.go.jp/english/index.html
8) Radioactive Waste Management Funding and Research Center
http://www.rwmc.or.jp/english/
9) Nuclear Safety Research Association
http://www.nsra.or.jp/index-e.html
10) NUCLEAR Safety Technology Center
http://www.nustec.or.jp/
11) Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (JAIF)
http://www.jaif-icc.com/english/index.html
12) JAIF International Cooperation Center
http://www.jaif-icc.com/english/index.html
13) The Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry
http://criepi.denken.or.jp/en/index.html
14) Japan Atomic Energy Relations Organization
http://www.jaero.or.jp/
15) Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan
http://www.numo.or.jp/en/index.html
16) Atomic Energy Society of Japan
http://www.aesj.or.jp/en/
17) Japan Nuclear Technology Institute
http://www.gengikyo.jp/english/index.html
18) Nuclear Safety Research Association
http://www.nsra.or.jp/index-e.html
19) Radioactive Waste Management and Nuclear Facility Decommissioning Technology Center
http://www.randec.or.jp/english/index.html
20) Japan Atomic Energy Relations Organization
http://www.jaero.or.jp/
21) Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation
http://www.rist.or.jp/atomica/data/dat_detail.php?Title_Key=13-02-01-06
22) Thermal and Nuclear Power Engineering Society
http://www.tenpes.or.jp/e_index.html
23) Council for Nuclear Fuel Cycle
http://www.cnfc.or.jp/index_e.html
24) Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO)
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/index-e.html
25) Chubu Electric Power Company
http://www.chuden.co.jp/english/index.html?cid=fo
26) Tohoku Electric Power Company
http://www.tohoku-epco.co.jp/index-e.htm
27) Kansai Electric Power Company
http://www.kepco.co.jp/english/index.html
28) Hokkaido Electric Power Company
http://www.hepco.co.jp/english/index.html
etc.
Appendix A. Dosage Rate Increase in Tokyo on March 15
http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/pamp/images/senryo2.pdf
Though the dosage of 0.45 micro-sieverts per hour is not dangerous to human health at all, it was measured at Shibuya, Tokyo, on March 15 as a sharp rise from the normal value of 0.045 micro-sieverts per hour.
Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update (15 March 2011, 05:15 UTC)
Japanese authorities informed the IAEA that there has been an explosion at the Unit 2 reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. The explosion occurred at around 06:20 on 15 March local Japan time.
Japanese authorities also today informed the IAEA at 04:50 CET that the spent fuel storage pond at the Unit 4 reactor of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is on fire and radioactivity is being released directly into the atmosphere.
Dose rates of up to 400 millisievert per hour have been reported at the site. The Japanese authorities are saying that there is a possibility that the fire was caused by a hydrogen explosion.
The IAEA is seeking further information on these developments.
The IAEA continues to liaise with the Japanese authorities and is monitoring the situation as it evolves.
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/fukushima150311.html
This is an example of the worst case scenario of another explosion of a Fukushima Daiichi reactor unit. It would increase a radiation level in Tokyo 10 times higher. But, it will not rise up to a harming level for human health, very hopefully.
Appendix B. US Standard for Selection of Nuclear Power Plant Site
Since 1997, the U.S. tightened the conditions for selecting the land where a nuclear power plant is allowed to be built as so stipulated in 10 CFR PART10 of NRC.
Subpart A--Evaluation Factors for Stationary Power Reactor Site Applications Before January 10, 1997 and for Testing Reactors
§ 100.10 Factors to be considered when evaluating sites.
Factors considered in the evaluation of sites include those relating both to the proposed reactor design and the characteristics peculiar to the site. It is expected that reactors will reflect through their design, construction and operation an extremely low probability for accidents that could result in release of significant quantities of radioactive fission products. In addition, the site location and the engineered features included as safeguards against the hazardous consequences of an accident, should one occur, should insure a low risk of public exposure. In particular, the Commission will take the following factors into consideration in determining the acceptability of a site for a power or testing reactor:
(a) Characteristics of reactor design and proposed operation including:
(1) Intended use of the reactor including the proposed maximum power level and the nature and inventory of contained radioactive materials;
(2) The extent to which generally accepted engineering standards are applied to the design of the reactor;
(3) The extent to which the reactor incorporates unique or unusual features having a significant bearing on the probability or consequences of accidental release of radioactive materials;
(4) The safety features that are to be engineered into the facility and those barriers that must be breached as a result of an accident before a release of radioactive material to the environment can occur.
(b) Population density and use characteristics of the site environs, including the exclusion area, low population zone, and population center distance.
(c) Physical characteristics of the site, including seismology, meteorology, geology, and hydrology.
(1) Appendix A, "Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," describes the nature of investigations required to obtain the geologic and seismic data necessary to determine site suitability and to provide reasonable assurance that a nuclear power plant can be constructed and operated at a proposed site without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. It describes procedures for determining the quantitative vibratory ground motion design basis at a site due to earthquakes and describes information needed to determine whether and to what extent a nuclear power plant need be designed to withstand the effects of surface faulting.
(2) Meteorological conditions at the site and in the surrounding area should be considered.
(3) Geological and hydrological characteristics of the proposed site may have a bearing on the consequences of an escape of radioactive material from the facility. Special precautions should be planned if a reactor is to be located at a site where a significant quantity of radioactive effluent might accidentally flow into nearby streams or rivers or might find ready access to underground water tables.
(d) Where unfavorable physical characteristics of the site exist, the proposed site may nevertheless be found to be acceptable if the design of the facility includes appropriate and adequate compensating engineering safeguards.
[27 FR 3509, Apr. 12, 1962, as amended at 38 FR 31281, Nov. 13, 1973]
Subpart B--Evaluation Factors for Stationary Power Reactor Site Applications on or After January 10, 1997
Source: 61 FR 65176, Dec. 11, 1996, unless otherwise noted.
§ 100.20 Factors to be considered when evaluating sites.
The Commission will take the following factors into consideration in determining the acceptability of a site for a stationary power reactor:
(a) Population density and use characteristics of the site environs, including the exclusion area, the population distribution, and site-related characteristics must be evaluated to determine whether individual as well as societal risk of potential plant accidents is low, and that physical characteristics unique to the proposed site that could pose a significant impediment to the development of emergency plans are identified.
(b) The nature and proximity of man-related hazards (e.g., airports, dams, transportation routes, military and chemical facilities) must be evaluated to establish site parameters for use in determining whether a plant design can accommodate commonly occurring hazards, and whether the risk of other hazards is very low.
(c) Physical characteristics of the site, including seismology, meteorology, geology, and hydrology.
(1) Section 100.23, "Geologic and seismic siting factors," describes the criteria and nature of investigations required to obtain the geologic and seismic data necessary to determine the suitability of the proposed site and the plant design bases.
(2) Meteorological characteristics of the site that are necessary for safety analysis or that may have an impact upon plant design (such as maximum probable wind speed and precipitation) must be identified and characterized.
(3) Factors important to hydrological radionuclide transport (such as soil, sediment, and rock characteristics, adsorption and retention coefficients, ground water velocity, and distances to the nearest surface body of water) must be obtained from on-site measurements. The maximum probable flood along with the potential for seismically induced floods discussed in § 100.23 (d)(3) must be estimated using historical data.
http://www.kokai-gen.org/html/data/20/2010351403/2010351403-1.pdf
It is apparent that TEPCO should have followed the standards provided by the US National Research Council so as to protect the Fukushima Daiichi (No.1) Nuclear Plant from the greatest tsunami that has ever happened in Japan in these 1000 years.