NUCLEAR DANGERS

October 1, 1999
		Japan's nuclear accident has raised concerns about the widespread use of nuclear energy. Terence Smith talks with two experts about the accident and ongoing clean-up efforts.

March 30, 1998: Radioactive tanks leaking underground in Washington state Nov. 22, 1997: Nuclear waste and health concerns Nov. 10, 1997: An Online Forum on nuclear power and international ecology March 28, 1997: An Online Forum on the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Dec. 16, 1996: Deregulation of the U.S. power industry and nuclear possibilities Nov. 20, 1996: An Online Forum on nuclear power April 26, 1996: An Online Forum on the Chernobyl nuclear accident The Online NewsHour's coverage of Asia.     The Daily Yomiuri Nuclear Energy Institute Frontline: Nuclear Reaction	ANDREW VEITCH: The accident turned Tokaimura into a ghost town. 34,000 people spent a night and a day penned in their homes. Streets near the plant were closed as nuclear workers checked for contamination. Radiation levels near the plant were 15,000 times the normal amount. Later, the government announced a cautious all-clear and asked residents within six miles of the plant to go to community centers for radiation checks. HIROMU NONAKA, Government Spokesman: (speaking through interpreter) We have decided to lift restrictions on residents living within a ten kilometer radius. I would like to take this opportunity to apologize from my heart that we have inflicted a great inconvenience during this time. ANDREW VEITCH: So far, 55 people are known to have been exposed to radiation, including 45 plant workers and three firemen. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: (speaking through interpreter) I'm still uneasy. The area may have been opened but I'm very worried. Can I believe that it's really safe? UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: (speaking through interpreter) I am old, so I don't care, but I was worried for the young people.
	The scale of the explosion
	ANDREW VEITCH: Two of the three workers rushed to hospital suffering from radiation sickness are still on the critical list. Officials refused to say how much radiation they had been exposed to. Emergency teams have controlled the chain reaction at the Tokai plant by draining water from the system, but the building is still too contaminated for people to enter. The accident has been rated four on the internationally-agreed scale that rates a Chernobyl- style meltdown at seven. The plant was testing new ways of making a much more potent nuclear fuel. They were dissolving uranium in the form of a gas in a bath of nitric acid. They had been using just over two kilos at a time; on Thursday, they put in 16 kilos. That was enough to cause a nuclear reaction: The mixture went critical. It gave off a beam of deadly neutrons, and a cloud of gas was blown through the roof radiating throughout and its surroundings. MALCOLM GRIMSTON, National Institute of International Affairs: The astonishing thing from my point of view is if one were writing a book about things that could go wrong with nuclear technology, had this would be page one or page two. It is the simplest nuclear accident you can have. ANDREW VEITCH: The worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl was at Tomsk in Siberia six years ago. An explosion at this former Soviet bomb factory hurled radioactive material across 220 square kilometers. Information only now being disclosed shows that hundreds of people were contaminated. The most likely site of the next accident may be the Cola Peninsula near the city of Murmansk across the border from Norway. Nearly 200 nuclear submarines are waiting to be dismantled, rusting in the water with aging reactors still on board. Officials say the submarines and the stores of spent fuel and nuclear waste nearby pose a security risk. Despite the protests that greeted today's arrival of the second ship load of fuel from France and Britain, there is little public opposition to nuclear power in Japan. The economy depends on it.
	Human error to blame?
	TERENCE SMITH: For more, we are joined by David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Anthony Baratta, a nuclear engineer and director of the Nuclear Safety Center at Pennsylvania State University. Welcome to you both. David Lochbaum, what went wrong here? DAVID LOCHBAUM: Well, the plant in Japan was -- typically makes fuel for power reactors. A few times a year they make fuel for others thing. As they were making fuel for those other things, a research reactor, a mistake was made and too much material was put together in a confined space. A nuclear reaction resulted from that mistake, releasing energy, which blew a hole in the roof of the building and radiation, which hurt some workers at the plant. The nuclear reaction went unchecked for about 17 hours before it was finally stopped. TERENCE SMITH: Quite a long time. DAVID LOCHBAUM: Much longer than I would have expected, yes. TERENCE SMITH: Professor Baratta, is this a case of human error? Is that what happened? ANTHONY BARATTA: I think it is a case of human error and maybe more importantly, a case where the system itself, and I'm not referring to the mechanical systems, but the administrative controls and such broke down.
	An isolated accident?
	TERENCE SMITH: And do we have better controls or at least different controls to prevent a similar accident? ANTHONY BARATTA: Yes, I think we do, from what I've seen. In our case, for example, it would be unlikely that a container would be large enough to hold a critical mass like that. It would be sized so you physically could not put that in there. TERENCE SMITH: So it actually couldn't happen this way? ANTHONY BARATTA: Right, yes. But you have to realize that that comes from having had such incidences occur very early in our program back in the 1950's and going as far back as 1945 and we picked up and learned from that. TERENCE SMITH: David Lochbaum, put this in some proportion for us in terms of seriousness. We, of course, recall Chernobyl, Three Mile Island. How does this fit? DAVID LOCHBAUM: It's closer to the Three Mile Island range. In fact, less radiation was released in this event than released in Three Mile Island. Unfortunately, before it was released, some of the workers were exposed and overexposed and are in very serious condition. Three Mile Island didn't have the impact on plant workers that this accident had. So in some respects you could say this straddled Three Mile Island -- more hazardous for plant workers but less hazardous for the general public. TERENCE SMITH: Do you agree with that, professor? ANTHONY BARATTA: Yes, most definitely.
	The global impact
	TERENCE SMITH: If you look at this and the way it happened, do you conclude it is an isolated incident or not? ANTHONY BARATTA: There have been a couple of things that have happened in Japan over the last year or two that give me pause for concern that maybe their system of regulation and their safety system may need to be looked at. And as I understand it, that is what the Japanese government is going to do. They've asked for assistance from the World Association of Nuclear Operators, the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations, the United States and IEAA, to come in and look at that issue. Is it something that's fundamental to their system that's not quite right? TERENCE SMITH: Are there, David Lochbaum, global consequences to this as there were, for example, from Chernobyl. DAVID LOCHBAUM: No, because the amount of radiation released isn't going to circle the globe as occurred after Chernobyl. We won't see a reactor cloud passing the United States. There wasn't enough material released fortunately. TERENCE SMITH: What about elsewhere in Japan? DAVID LOCHBAUM: It's pretty much because it was raining the day of the accident, most of the radiation that got out returned to the earth so it's a very localized effect, and again it wasn't as much material involved as Three Mile Island or Chernobyl.
	Could this happen in the U.S?
	TERENCE SMITH: I suppose the bottom line question for us, at least in this country, is could it happen here? ANTHONY BARATTA: We don't have precisely the same systems but there are possibilities which we've tried to develop -- the regulation and physical systems -- to preclude that. We hope that they are sufficient to do that, that such an event is extremely unlikely here as it should be and is in most other places as well. TERENCE SMITH: And, of course, as they no doubt assumed it was in Japan? ANTHONY BARATTA: True. TERENCE SMITH: What are the lessons to be learned, David Lochbaum, from this? DAVID LOCHBAUM: I think the lessons for the United States to learn is that accidents like these can happen. And if we adopt a mindset that they can happen, we are more likely to take the precautions that are necessary to minimize the chances of it occurring and we're also more likely to ensure that we have the contingency measures in place to deal with it if it does happen. If the accident never happens, then that effort is basically a very cheap insurance premium against this type of accident.
	Changing attitudes to nuclear energy
	TERENCE SMITH: Professor Baratta, Three Mile Island had a profound effect on attitudes toward nuclear power in this country. Do you have any sense of what reaction might be in Japan, what consequences there might be in terms of attitude? ANTHONY BARATTA: I have a suspicion that this accident will in fact cause the Japanese people and the government to look more closely, and to develop that mindset that you have to be always on guard and to work towards getting a very safe environment, as we have here. I agree that we have to be prepared to look at the possibility of such an accident. Hopefully by developing these safeguards we won't have such an accident here. That's what needs to be done in Japan as well. TERENCE SMITH: David Lochbaum, how big a cleanup job is involved here? DAVID LOCHBAUM: I think it's too early to tell. I think the next few weeks surveys of the buildings will be done to determine the extent of the building and the amount of radioactive material that's contained in the building. Once the survey is done, then a pretty good estimate of how long it will take and how much it's going to cost can be made. Right now it will be speculation and I simply don't want to guess what they could be. TERENCE SMITH: Chernobyl, of course, was a huge cleanup job. And in the end, they basically buried it.
	Cleaning up the damage
	DAVID LOCHBAUM: Well, I think there's actually two options on the table this. This wasn't nearly as bad as Chernobyl. So, it's conceivable the damage is limited to the point where the plant could be cleaned up and restarted. It's possible that the damage will be greater than that and it won't be feasible to restart this plant. At this point, I think those are the two options and I don't really know which is more likely at this point. TERENCE SMITH: Professor Baratta, do you see it that way as well in terms of cleanup? ANTHONY BARATTA: Yes, I do. I mean we have seen other events like this occur, like I said, in the 50's and such. Some of those installations were restored, depending upon the cost. I think this is true in this case as well. TERENCE SMITH: David Lochbaum, Japan gets an important percentage of its energy from nuclear power. What effect might this have on that? DAVID LOCHBAUM: Japan gets roughly 30 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. This event by itself is unlikely to alter that dramatically. Unless public confidence in nuclear power wanes as a result of this accident and that really depends on how the government responds to this issue and how the company responds to this issue, if they act quickly and frankly in dealing with the issue, public confidence is not likely to be adversely affected. And the 30 percent number shouldn't be affected dramatically. TERENCE SMITH: David Lochbaum, Professor Baratta, thank you both very much.