Fukushima Watch: Authority Chairman Not Convinced Level 3 Needed

Just a week after Japan’s nuclear regulator declared the leak of radioactive water at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant big enough for a Level 3 incident rating, the regulator’s head is wondering publicly if it really deserved that rating after all.

Based on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale, a Level 3 rating is considered a “serious incident.” For the sake of comparison, the 2005 leak of 83,000 liters of radioactive waste at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing site in the U.K. was also given a Level 3 rating on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s scale. Both the Fukushima Daiichi and the Chernobyl disasters were assigned the scale’s highest Level 7 rating.

While it might seem like Tokyo Electric +1.60%, the plant’s operator, would h******e a precise measurement of the amount of water that had been leaked, the current incident actually started with puddles discovered outside a storage tank of contaminated water. When workers subsequently checked the levels of the 1,000 metric ton water tank, they found only 700 tons. The missing water was presumed to h******e drained into a surrounding trench.

“We don’t think the leak was exactly 300 tons,” said Shunichi Tanaka, chairman of the Nuclear Regulation Authority, said at a regular press conference on Wednesday. “It could be much more or much less,” he added, saying that Tepco calculated the amount based on the assumption that the tank had been full.

“300 tons is a huge amount. If workers patrolled twice a day without noticing it leaking, I don’t understand,” Mr. Tanaka told reporters. “It wouldn’t be desirable, but we would h******e to change the rating if the leak turns out to be much smaller.”

Tepco has been forced to deal with ever-rising contaminated water levels at the Fukushima plant since the March 11, 2011 disaster. Given the sheer scope of containing the disaster, the way the utility has managed the plant has been very disorganized.

More In Fukushima Watch

Fukushima Watch: Previous Experiments With Ice Walls

Fukushima Watch: Where Did the Water Go?

Fukushima Watch: A Level 3 Incident at Daiichi

Fukushima Watch: Tepco Finally Gets an Official Cleanup Plan

Fukushima Watch: Tepco Eyes Another Rate Hike To Swing To Profit

in the latest leak, a panel investigation has revealed that only nine people supervised roughly 1,000 tanks at the site with two of them on a rotation shift. They patrolled the tanks twice a day to check if there are any signs of leaks, but they didn’t make records.

On Tuesday, Tepco said it would increase the number of patrollers to about 60 people.

“I h******e not been convinced with the data from Tepco. We need to collect more to make our own judgment,” said Mr. Tanaka.

The supposedly huge water leak is reminiscent of a case this past April, when Tepco announced up to 167 tons of contaminated water leaked from underground storage pools. At that time, Tepco hurriedly calculated the number and announced it to the public. But several weeks later, it revised down the amount sharply to about a few dozens liters after careful double checks.

A Tepco spokeswoman said “it’s true that we calculated 300 tons. We cannot say whether we will or we won’t change it later.”

在日本核能监管人员公布福岛核设施放射性废水泄漏以足以达到3级一周后，监管负责人则公开质疑这是否真的达到这一评级。

基于国际核及放射性事件等级表，3级则被认为是“严重事故”。与之相较，2005年英国Sellafield核处理设施83000升放射性废物泄漏也被国际原子能机构评定为3级。福岛与切尔诺贝利灾难都被评定为最高的7级。

尽管似乎该设施经营者，东电公司，可能对泄漏水的数量有精确测量，但目前的事件实际上最早于污染水处理箱外的水坑中发现的。当工人随后检查1000吨水箱时，他们发现仅剩700吨。缺少的水推定是流入了附近的沟渠中。

“我认为泄漏量不是正好300吨，”核监管局主席Shunichi Tanaka周三在常规媒体会议上说道。“这可能多很多或是少很多，”他又说道，并称Tepco测算的数据是基于水箱是装满的.这一假设。

“300吨是个大数目。如果工人们每天巡查两次却未能注意到漏水，我无法理解，”Tanaka先生对记者说道，“这不是人们所想要的，但如果泄漏数量的确小很多，我们将不得不改变评级。”

自2011年3月11日地震后，Tepco被迫处理福岛核电站不断增高的污染水量。纵观除灾过程，该设施管理方式十分紊乱。在最近的泄漏中，小组调查披露只有9人监管近1000个水箱，采用2人轮班制。他们每天两次巡查水箱以检查十分有漏水迹象，但他们并未做记录。

周二，Tepco表示其将把巡查人员人数增加到约60人。“我不相信Tepco的数据。我们需要收集更多资料做出我们自己的判断，”Tanaka先生说道。

这一推测的大量水泄漏让人想起了4月份的一次事件。当时Tepco宣布有167吨受污染水从地下储水池中泄漏。当时，Tepco匆忙计算数据并将之公之于众。但在几周后，其在进行仔细的二次核查后将数据减为仅有几十升。

Tepco的一名发言人表示“我们的确测算为300吨。但我们没法说之后我们会不会改变数据。”