Solsticewitch13's BOS: Enformable: “Chairman of Japanese nuclear regulator blames declining working moral for Fukushima leaks and problems” plus 1 more

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Enformable: “Chairman of Japanese nuclear regulator blames declining working moral for Fukushima leaks and problems” plus 1 more

Chairman of Japanese nuclear regulator blames declining working moral for Fukushima leaks and problems

Posted: 09 Oct 2013 08:06 AM PDT

On Wednesday, Shunichi Tanaka, Chairman of Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority, suggested that one of the causes of radioactive leaks and other problems at Fukushima Daiichi is due to a decline in worker moral. Tanaka said that the problems would be prevented if the workers had strong morale in a positive work environment.

The majority of the workers on-site at Fukushima Daiichi are subcontracted and have no tenure or authority amongst circles of TEPCO workers. Why are the subcontracted workers there? Because TEPCO does not want to unnecessarily expose their key on-site personnel, who have the most knowledge and experience with the Fukushima Daiichi site, while stuck in the current feed and bleed doldrums with no obvious path forward. The workers who worked at the plant before the March 11^th disaster have the most intimate knowledge of the site and the reactor buildings. They fill in the gaps where the blueprints leave off. Right now, human beings cannot even enter the reactor buildings, due to high radiation levels, so the intricate knowledge of the buildings is not as helpful as will be down the road. So, currently TEPCO is stuck in a holding pattern, and using expendable (red-shirt for all the Trekkie fans) subcontracted workers; who are paid minimal amounts, sent in to do the most dangerous work, and now get blamed for all the mistakes.

This week, TEPCO confirmed that the reason why radioactive water leaked from storage tanks, is because TEPCO decided to purchase storage tanks which were not welded, rather bolted, in order to save time and money. This was not a decision in any way affected by the subcontracted help at Fukushima Daiichi, it was a cost-effective decision made by TEPCO.

Tokyo Electric, not subcontracted workers, broke their promise made in June, 2011 to the Japanese government to build fences to block radioactive water from leaking directly into the Pacific Ocean. The utility asked the government not to announce they had committed to a $1 billion construction project, due to fears of the financial fall-out that would ensue, then – did not even move forward with the work that they had promised to complete.

Personally, I resent the very idea submitted by the Chairman. I think that Tokyo Electric, the utility in charge of the power plant before and after the disaster is the main reason for the additional ongoing problems at Fukushima Daiichi.

I spoke to Dave Lochbaum with the Union of Concerned Scientists, to see if maybe I was missing the point. Dave also shared these concerns. He added, “Let us hypothetically suppose, that even if the problems at Fukushima Daiichi were caused by the poor moral of a single worker, then maybe we could advocate that TEPCO deserved to be cut some slack; but it is clear to me what when a large portion of the workforce becomes demoralized – TEPCO is definitely the one to blame. Each worker may be responsible for their own morale, but TEPCO is responsible for the moral of the work force. Additionally, if even the workers who are risking their lives are demoralized and have no trust in TEPCO wanting to do – or being capable of doing the right things, why should the Japanese citizens or international public at large have any confidence in the Japanese government or TEPCO?”

Source: NHK

The post Chairman of Japanese nuclear regulator blames declining working moral for Fukushima leaks and problems appeared first on Enformable.

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

Kan, Jaczko, Gundersen, Bradford and Nader — Nuclear Power Through the Fukukshima Perspective

Posted: 09 Oct 2013 06:37 AM PDT

It started this June in California. Speaking about the problems at the troubled San Onofre nuclear plants through the perspective of the Fukushima nuclear complex catastrophe was a panel of Naoto Kan, prime minister of Japan when the disaster began; Gregory Jaczko, chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at the time; Peter Bradford, an NRC member when the Three Mile Island accident happened; and nuclear engineer and former nuclear industry executive Arne Gundersen.

This week the same panel of experts on nuclear technology—joined by long-time nuclear opponent Ralph Nader—was on the East Coast, in New York City and Boston, speaking about problems at the problem-riddled Indian Point nuclear plants near New York and the troubled Pilgrim plant near Boston, through the perspective on the Fukushima catastrophe.

Their presentations were powerful.

Kan, at the event Tuesday in Manhattan, told of how he had been a supporter of nuclear power, but after the Fukushima accident, which began on March 11, 2011, “I changed my thinking 180-degrees, completely.” He said that in the first days of the accident it looked like an “area that included Tokyo” and populated by 50 million people might have to be evacuated.

“We do have accidents such as an airplane crash and so on,” said Kan, “but no other accident or disaster” other than a nuclear plant disaster can “affect 50 million people…no other accident could cause such a tragedy.”

All 54 nuclear plants in Japan have now been closed, Kan said. And “without nuclear power plants we can absolutely provide the energy to meet our demands.” Meanwhile, in the two-plus years since the disaster began, Japan has tripled its use of solar energy—a jump in solar power production that is the equivalent of the electricity that would be produced by three nuclear plants, he said. He pointed to Germany as a model in its commitment to shutting down all its nuclear power plants and having “all its power supplied by renewable power” by 2050. The entire world, said Kan, could do this. “If humanity really would work together…we could generate all our energy through renewable energy.”

Jaczko said that the Fukushima disaster exploded several myths about nuclear power including those involving the purported prowess of U.S. nuclear technology. The General Electric technology of the Fukushima nuclear plants “came from the U.S.,” he noted. And, it exploded the myth that “severe accidents wouldn’t happen.” Said the former top nuclear official in the United States: “Severe accidents can and will happen.”

And what the Fukushima accident “is telling us is society does not accept the consequences of these accidents,” said Jaczko, who was pressured out of his position on the NRC after charging that the agency was not considering the “lessons” of the Fukushima disaster. In monetary cost alone, Jaczko said, the cost of the Fukushima accident is estimated at $500 billion by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Nuclear engineer Gundersen, formerly a nuclear industry senior vice president, noted that the NRC “says the chance of a nuclear accident is one in a million,” that an accident would happen “every 2,500 years.” This is predicated, he said, on what the NRC terms a probabilistic risk assessment or PRA. “I’d like to refer to it as PRAY.” The lesson of “real life,” said Gundersen, is that there have been five nuclear plant meltdowns in the past 35 years—Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and the three at Fukushima Daiichi complex. That breaks down to an accident “every seven years.”

“This is a technology that can have 40 good years that can be wiped out in one bad day,” said Gundersen. He drew a parallel between Fukushima Daiichi “120 miles from Tokyo” and the Indian Point nuclear plant complex “26 miles from New York City.” He said that “in many ways Indian Point is worse than Fukushima was before the accident.” One element: the Fukushima accident resulted from an earthquake followed by a tsunami. The two operating plants at Indian Point are also adjacent to an earthquake fault, said Gundersen. New York City “faces one bad day like Japan, one sad day.” He also spoke of the “arrogance and hubris” of the nuclear industry and how the NRC has consistently complied with the desires of the industry.

Bradford said that that the “the bubble” that the nuclear industry once termed “the nuclear renaissance” has burst. As to a main nuclear industry claim in this promotion to revive nuclear power—that atomic energy is necessary in “mitigating climate change”—this has been shown to be false. It would take tripling of the 440 total of nuclear plants now in the world to reduce greenhouse gasses by but 10 percent. Other sources of power are here as well as energy efficiency that could combat climate change. Meanwhile, the price of electricity from any new nuclear plants built has gone to a non-competitive 12 to 20 cents per kilowatt hour while “renewables are falling in price.”

Bradford also sharply criticized the agency of which he was once a member, the NRC, charging among other things that it has in recent years discouraged citizen participation. Also, as to Fukushima, the “accident really isn’t over,” said Bradford who, in addition to his role at the NRC has chaired the utility commissions of Maine and New York State.

Nader said that with nuclear power and the radioactivity it produces “we are dealing with a silent cumulative form of violence.” He said nuclear power is “unnecessary, unsafe, and uninsurable…undemocratic.” And constructing new words that begin with “un,” it is also “unevacuatable, unfinanceable, unregulatable.”

Nader said nuclear power is unnecessary because there are many energy alternatives—led by solar and wind. It is unsafe because catastrophic accidents can and will happen. He noted how the former U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in a 1960s report projected that a major nuclear accident could irradiate an area “the size of Pennsylvania.” He asked: “Is this the kind of gamble we want to take to boil water?”

Nuclear power is extremely expensive and thus uneconomic, he went on. It is uninsurable with the original scheme for nuclear power in the U.S. based on the federal Price-Anderson Act which limits a utility’s liability to a “fraction” of the cost of damages from an accident. That law remains, extended by Congress “every ten years or so.”

As for being “unevacuable,” NRC evacuation plans are “fantasy” documents,” said Nader. The U.S. advised Americans within 50 miles of Fukushima to evacuate. Some 20 million people live within 50 miles of the Indian Point plants and New Yorkers “can hardly get out” of the city during a normal rush hour.” Nuclear power is “unfinancable,” he said, depending on government fiscal support through tax dollars. And it is “unregulatable” with the NRC taking a “promotional attitude.” And, “above all it is undemocratic,” said Nader, “a technology born in secrecy” which continues. Meanwhile, said Nader, “as the orders dry up in developed nations” for nuclear plants, the nuclear industry is pushing to build new plants in the developing world.

Also at the event in New York City, moderated by Riverkeeper President Paul Gallay and held at the 92^nd Street Y, a segment of a new video documentary on nuclear power by Adam Salkin was screened. It showed Salkin in a boat going right in front of the Indian Point plants and it taking nearly five hours for a “security” boat from the plant to respond, and Salkin, the next day, in an airplane flying as low as 500 feet above the plants. The segment demonstrated that the nuclear plants on the Hudson are an easy target for terrorists and, it noted, what it showed was what “terrorists already know.”

The San Onofre nuclear power plants were closed permanently three weeks after the June panel event—and after many years of intensive actions by nuclear opponents in California to shut down the plants, situated between San Diego and Los Angeles. The panel’s appearances this week in New York City Tuesday and Boston Wednesday, titled “Fukushima—Ongoing Lessons for New York and Boston,” are aimed at the same outcome occurring on the East Coast.

The forums are online. For links go to www.Facebook.com/FukushimaLessons

The post Kan, Jaczko, Gundersen, Bradford and Nader — Nuclear Power Through the Fukukshima Perspective appeared first on Enformable.