National Geographic News
A radiation sign is seen, with a sarcophagus covering the damaged fourth reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the background, April 4, 2011.

A radiation sign marks the Chernobyl nuclear plant in 2011. The disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima are the only two incidents to receive the highest Level 7 rating on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale.

Photograph by Gleb Garanich, Reuters

Patrick J. Kiger

For National Geographic

Published August 29, 2013

Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority announced Wednesday that it officially is reclassifying the radioactive water leak at the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant from Level 1 to Level 3 on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES), denoting it as a "serious incident."

That rating sounds ominous, to be sure. But its real meaning—and the significance of Japanese officials' decision to make a more dire assessment of the crisis—are, like many other ramifications of the ongoing crisis at Fukushima, frustratingly unclear.

"In some respects, it's not that big of an issue what they call it," explained David Lochbaum, a veteran nuclear engineer who works as a safety advocate for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It's still the same mess." (See related: "Latest Radioactive Leak at Fukushima: How Is It Different?")

Why the Rating Now?

Workers for Tokyo Electric Power Co., which operates the plant, discovered on August 19 that 300 tons (nearly 72,000 gallons) of highly radioactive water apparently had escaped from a holding tank into the ground over the previous month. The water had been used to cool one of Fukushima's damaged reactors, in the wake of the 2011 earthquake and tsunami that caused one of the worst nuclear accidents in history. (See related "Pictures: The Nuclear Cleanup Struggle at Fukushima.")

Samples taken from containment area showed it to be so heavily contaminated with strontium-90, cesium-137, and radioactive substances that a person standing less than two feet away would receive, in an hour's time, a radiation dose equivalent to five times the acceptable exposure for nuclear workers. Within ten hours, an exposed person would develop radiation sickness, with symptoms such as nausea and a drop in white blood cells. (See related photos: "A Rare Look Inside Fukushima Daiichi.")

Lochbaum and other outside observers suggest that the reclassification really may be Japanese regulators' effort to reassure the public that they're taking the problem seriously, even though they've yet to take any action beyond observing TEPCO's effort to find and seal the leak. "We've been asking the government to do more," said Jim Riccio, a nuclear policy analyst for Greenpeace, the international environmental organization, who derided TEPCO's cleanup efforts as a "fiasco." "They've got to get more involved." (See related story: "Can an Ice Wall Stop Radioactive Water Leaks From Fukushima?")

Even the International Atomic Energy Agency, the global body whose experts helped create the INES scale in 1990, urged Japanese officials to explain to the public why they had chosen to sound the alarm about this leak, after choosing not to rate several previous leaks as serious, according to the Japan Times.

How the Scale Works

The INES scale was created in 1990 as a way of communicating the relative seriousness of incidents in which radioactivity is released at nuclear plants. Before that, various countries relied upon their own classification systems, which made it difficult to compare a nuclear mishap that occurred in the U.S. with one in, say, Europe or Japan.  The scale is a pyramid with seven tiers. The lowest is 1, or "anomaly."

In that sort of incident, a nuclear plant might have a one-time incident in which someone is exposed to a small amount of radioactivity—less than ten millisieverts, roughly the amount that a person gets from an abdominal CT scan—or in which a small amount of low-level radioactive material is misplaced or stolen. Probably hundreds of such events occur around the world every year, according to experts.

At the top of the scale is a level 7, denoted as a "major accident," in which a massive release of radiation threatens people over a widespread area and requires nuclear authorities to take measures such as large-scale evacuations to protect the public.

Only two such events have rated a level 7—the original Fukushima accident in 2011 and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the former Soviet Union, which received the rating retroactively. The partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979, the worst accident in U.S. nuclear power history, retroactively has been rated a 5.

Somewhere in between is level 3, the rating assigned to the recent Fukushima leak. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Scott Burnell said that the rating probably was based upon the elevated exposure risk that the leak presents to cleanup workers inside the plant, rather than to the public.

"In broad terms, going from a one to a three means that it has a greater impact at the site," Burnell explained. "Personnel there have to take actions to monitor and if necessary reduce their exposure. But there is no expectation of effects outside the plant."

Will the Rating Change?

Burnell said that he didn't expect the situation at Fukushima to be upgraded in seriousness past level 3, because it involves a leak of radioactive water from the site, rather than a breakdown of another reactor. "If you don't have an operating reactor, you don't have the starting conditions to generate the impact necessary to rate something a 7," he said.

Another example of a Level 3 accident was a 2005 leak at Great Britain's Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. In that event, about 20 tons of uranium and about 350 pounds of plutonium spewed onto a plant floor when a pipe ruptured. The material was contained in a sealed area, so there was no release to the outside world. A 1989 accident at a plant in Vanellos, Spain, in which a fire caused safety systems to fail, also retroactively received a 3 rating. The NRC offers these examples of other INES levels.

Kathryn Higley, head of the nuclear engineering and radiation health physics department at Oregon State University, said that while the level 3 rating is far from the worst-case scenario for a nuclear plant, it's clearly a situation for TEPCO and Japanese regulatory officials to be concerned about. "It's one thing to have these radiation levels in areas of the plant that by design are going to be hot," she explains. "This is not by design."

This story is part of a special series that explores energy issues. For more, visit The Great Energy Challenge.

Bernard Loines
Bernard Loines

I am pro nuclear, have been for years. In general, nuclear plants are safe and  little will go wrong with them, they carry on doing what there designed to do, produce electricity, at a constant rate without any climatic problems, its a clean and efficient method of generating electricity. When problems do happen, it will cause a major problem, as this present situation in Japan highlights. Having said that, if  the same amount of money which is spent on global armaments, was used for the development of the next generation of nuclear reactors, incorporating the very best of technology, the global energy shortfall, which is becoming apparent, on a daily basis, will not happen! What people do not understand is that nuclear technology is capable of considerable technological refinement, it can be tailored to our present and future needs, we can even use the waste products to produce electricity! Which other generation system can do that!  

Peace Seeker
Peace Seeker

The film tells the story of the Japanese nuclear plant meltdown in 2011 and the cover-up by the Japanese government and TEPCO. The film documents how the nuclear energy program for "peaceful atoms" was brought to Japan under the auspices of the US military occupation. It explores the criminal cover-up of the safety dangers of the plant by TEPCO and GE management, which built the plant in Fukushima. Included is an interview with Kei Sugaoka, the GE nuclear plant inspector from the bay area who exposed cover-ups in the safety at the Fukushima plant and was retaliated against by GE.

The film features the voices of the people and workers about the reality of the disaster. It shows what this means not only for the people of Japan but the people of the world as the US government and nuclear industry continue to push for more new plants and government subsidies. This film breaks the information blockade and the cover-up by the corporate media in Japan, the US and around the world that seeks to convince the public that Fukushima is over.

Debbie B.
Debbie B.

Again Dennis D..... So why can nobody fish? Contamination!

Illigal and why more stewardship of our Globall waters need to sue this company. If it had been a leak of gas or oil... this would have been an outrage in any country. This is an outrage to have a contamination of this level in our waters. It should be condemned to have Nuke power so close to the ocean and should Not be allowed anyware. This is not safe and far more people could and would be injured. Let us look at this in 20 years from now... I DO NOT WANT TO. Time will tell. I will die before this happens.

Debbie B.
Debbie B.

I quess that I am missing something here. If big oil can be sued for crude spills and leaks....... why is there no international outrage for the toxins leaking into the ocean? And this situation just seems to be getting worse.

This is also something that CAN NOT be cleaned up... this is a very long term environmental catastrophe.

Let us all hope that the 'Ring of Fire' shows mercy on Japan.

denis d.
denis d.

@Debbie B.Global waters are still being fished as safely as before this incident. While it was important not to stand in the leaked water for over an hour, and certainly not to drink the water, the leak has now been cleaned up.

They have detected a very small amount of radiation in the sea water near where the leak occurred. While the radiation levels are exceedingly small, they are apparently the first detections of radiation reaching the sea since December 2011.

denis d.
denis d.

@Debbie B. There appears to be a few things missing here, Debbie. The article is wrong to say that the leaked water contained caesium because the caesium had already been removed from the water before it was stored in the tank. However, the water does contain radiation.

Next, some of the water that leaked out was in puddles on the ground outside the tank - that is how they noticed the leak in the first place - and this water has been pumped to another storage tank. The wet soil has been removed to a depth of 20 inches and no contamination was found at that level.

Testing of drainage channels appears to confirm that no contaminated water reached the sea from this incident.

It appears that the incident is rated a level 3 due to the potential danger to staff only, as stated in this article - the general public is not affected by the leak.

However, the response by Japan to this entire incident since March 2011 leaves a lot to be desired even though they work in very difficult conditions. And this latest incident has been an operational and communications disaster for all concerned.

Christina Nunez
Christina Nunez

@denis d. @Debbie B. Thanks for your comment, Denis. Cesium was indeed reported present in the tank water by Tepco. While it's true that a filtering system was being used on the water, the efficacy of that system has been questioned by the IAEA, and the system has suffered breakdowns.

Debbie B.
Debbie B.

@denis d. @Debbie B. Please explain to me how you remove this? It apparently is explosive in cold water. And where do you store it? Just asking....

denis d.
denis d.

@Debbie B. @denis d. Impurities are removed as a matter of routine in most large power stations using ion exchange systems. It is no different with the caesium in this water.

While pure caesium is explosive in water, please note that it is not pure caesium that is contained in the tanks - the caesium is very soluble in water and so it can be stored in the water in which it is dissolved or it could be turned into a salt and stored as such.

Recent Energy News

See More at The Great Energy Challenge »

The Big Energy Question

Share Your Opinion »

The Great Energy Challenge

The Great Energy Challenge is an important National Geographic initiative designed to help all of us better understand the breadth and depth of our current energy situation.

Energy News, Blog and Interactive Features »