Category Archives: Environment

Design Flaw Fueled Japanese Nuclear Disaster

Design Flaw Fueled Japanese Nuclear Disaster – WSJ.com.

Nuclear technology is not the issue.  Of course, don’t hold your breath waiting for “left leaning, liberal, environmental factual analysis”…  I cannot figure out why/how the Nuclear Industry itself is so often its own worst enemy.

======

TOKYO—Some senior engineers at Tokyo Electric Power Co. knew for years that five of its nuclear reactors in Fukushima prefecture had a potentially dangerous design flaw, but the company didn’t fully upgrade them, dooming them to failure when the earthquake hit, a Wall Street Journal examination of the disaster shows.

The company used two different designs for safeguarding its 10 reactors in Fukushima. When the devastating quake struck on March 11, the five reactors with the newer design withstood the resulting 45-foot tsunami without their vital cooling systems failing. Those reactors shut down safely.

But the cooling systems failed at four reactors with the older design. Backup diesel generators and electrical-switching equipment were swamped by seawater. As a result, fuel melted down at three reactors and there were explosions at several reactor buildings, culminating in the largest release of radiation since Chernobyl.

The tsunami exposed an Achilles heel in the design of some of the plants: the questionable placement of a single kitchen-table-size electric-switching station. At newer plants, the station was in a robust building that also housed the reactor. In others, it stood in a poorly protected outbuilding—a relic of the original design. When the tsunami hit, those switches were knocked out, rendering operating generators useless.

This article is based on interviews with a dozen current and former senior Tokyo Electric Power engineers, including several who were intimately involved when the fateful design decisions were made in the 1970s. Some of them say the company, known as Tepco, had opportunities over the decades to retrofit the oldest reactors. They blame a combination of complacency, cost-cutting pressures and lax regulation for the failure to do so.

Earthquake in Japan

Track the toll of dead and missing, read survivors’ stories, see before and after coastline photos and read more about past nuclear incidents.

“There’s no doubt Tepco should have applied new designs” throughout Fukushima, says Masatoshi Toyota, 88 years old, once a top Tepco executive who helped oversee the building of the reactors. He says he blames himself for not noticing the design problems and correcting some of them later.

A spokesman for Tepco declined to comment for this story, citing the Japanese government’s ongoing investigation into the cause of the accident.

Japan isn’t the only nation grappling with aging nuclear reactors. The U.S. has dozens of reactors that have operated for more than 30 years, and 23 with the same General Electric Co. design as the older Fukushima reactors. Several face fights over relicensing in the next few years. Elsewhere, Germany and Switzerland have decided to phase out their aging plants and drop nuclear power altogether.

All the Fukushima plants, including the newer ones, were based on GE designs. GE maintained lucrative contracts to service GE reactors in Japan and was engaged with partner Hitachi Ltd. in a global campaign to extend the lives of its aging plants.

GE said any flaws at the Fukushima reactors weren’t its fault because Tepco was in charge of design changes. “The location of emergency diesel generators at the Fukushima Daiichi plant were reviewed and approved by Tepco and regulatory authorities,” said GE spokeswoman Catherine Stengel.

Construction of the oldest Fukushima plants dates to the 1960s. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear-power station—the source of all the post-quake radiation problems—was the first for Tepco, Japan’s largest utility. The facility, located on the Pacific coast, was seen as a learning lab. At that time, barely two decades removed from the devastation of World War II, Japan was incapable of designing its own nuclear-power plants. It imported nuclear technology wholesale from GE, say Japanese engineers.

[JDOOMED] Tepco

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor No. 1, damaged by an explosion.

The early reactors used GE’s Mark 1 design. The general contractor was an American engineering firm called Ebasco, which no longer exists. To keep the reactor compact and economical, Ebasco made the reactor building small, said Mr. Toyota, the engineer who helped oversee the construction.

Nuclear-power plants must continuously cool their unstable, radioactive fuel. Those cooling systems run on electricity, which the plants ordinarily pulled from the nation’s power grid. If the grid fails, on-site diesel generators kick on to keep the cooling systems running. If they don’t, that plant is in danger of melting down.

Because Tepco’s first reactor buildings were small, the generators had to go somewhere else. Engineers put them into neighboring structures that house turbines. The reactor buildings were fortress-like, with thick concrete walls and dual sets of sturdy doors. The turbine buildings were far less sturdy, especially their doors.

“Backup power generators are critical safety equipment, and it should’ve been a no-brainer to put them inside the reactor buildings,” Mr. Toyota says. “It’s a huge disappointment that nobody at Tepco—including me—was sensitive enough to notice and do something about this discrepancy.”

Kiyoshi Kishi, a former Tepco executive in charge of nuclear-plant engineering, says that at the time of the original design, people thought a large tsunami on Fukushima’s Pacific coast was “impossible.” Later Tepco adjusted some parts of the plant—but not all—to address tsunamis of up to 18.8 feet, less than half the height of the one that hit in March.

Another Tepco engineer who visited the Fukushima Daiichi plant many times starting in the 1970s says the cramped reactor buildings barely allowed room to install a valve during routine work. “It was super-inefficient,” this engineer says.

The Tepco engineers say Tepco was so dissatisfied with the Mark I that it decided to switch designs midstream as it was planning the sixth and final reactor at Fukushima Daiichi. An improved GE reactor with a sleeker design—the Mark II—was available. The No. 6 reactor building had enough space for the backup generators to go inside.

Tepco improved its design further when it started building its Fukushima Daini complex about seven miles away in the late 1970s. The four reactors built there, all using the Mark II, had a more “domestic flavor,” Tepco engineers say, with specs that better addressed earthquakes and tsunamis.

GE says it made improvements to the Mark I design in the 1980s in the U.S. and Japan as technology evolved. It says the Mark I is safe.

By 1987, Tepco had opened its tenth and final reactor in Fukushima prefecture. Nos. 1 through 5 at Fukushima Daiichi had the old design. The other five had the newer design.

Over the ensuing years, Tepco updated the plants repeatedly, and the Japanese government tightened standards for earthquake preparedness several times. The government gave the turbine buildings that contained the generators for the older reactors a lower earthquake-preparedness rating, Class B, than the reactor buildings that housed the generators at the newer facilities, which were graded Class S.

“Some of us knew all along and were concerned about the inconsistent placements of diesel generators at Fukushima Daiichi between reactor No. 6 and the older reactors 1 through 5, and their potential vulnerability,” says one of Tepco’s top engineers who has guided the company’s nuclear division.

The engineer says that when he was preparing for a regularly scheduled government inspection in 1987, the inconsistent placement of the backup generators “stood out like a sore thumb.” He says he asked his colleagues, “Do we need to fix this?”

Another expert, he recalls, said it wasn’t necessary because the turbine buildings were more earthquake-resistant than their Class B rating suggested. The engineer says he concluded that “it simply wasn’t a must-fix.”

Says Mr. Toyota, the former Tepco executive: “Over the years, a lot of engineers have come up with different ideas to improve safety. But my guess is that they couldn’t come forward and point that out to management because of the high costs associated with back-fitting older reactors with new designs.”

Tepco was criticized during those years for having high electricity rates, and such significant changes would have been difficult, say former company officials.

In 1998, to comply with new regulatory requirements, Tepco decided to give each reactor at Fukushima Daiichi at least two dedicated backup diesel generators, according to executives—something that not all of them had. New backup generators for reactors Nos. 2 and 4 were placed in new buildings located higher on the mountainside next to the reactors. All six reactors were given access to generators housed outside of the vulnerable turbine buildings.

Those were major safety advances, and Tepco was now just one safety-improvement away from ensuring backup power to all of its reactors in the event of a March 11-size tsunami. It involved the switching stations that sent power from the backup generators to the reactors’ cooling systems. Japanese engineers call the stations meta-kura—a Japanese pronunciation of “metal-clad,” referring to the equipment’s covering.

The meta-kura for reactors Nos. 1 through 5 were still in the poorly protected turbine buildings—Class B safety territory—and that’s where they stayed. (Because of its more-advanced original design, No. 6’s meta-kura was already in the reactor building.)

Katsuya Tomono, a former Tepco executive vice president who in the late 1990s was in charge of nuclear-plant equipment such as backup generators, says he believes that “engineers on the ground took the easy way out and used the switch yard that already existed in the turbine buildings. As far as I know, there was no debate on this matter among engineers who led the move to add backup generators.”

In 2001, when the original 30-year operating permit for Fukushima Daiichi’s No. 1 reactor was set to expire, Tepco applied for and received a 10-year extension. It got another one earlier this year, just five weeks before the accident. Regulators never reviewed whether the basic blueprint of the older reactors was flawed, the abbreviated minutes of government deliberations show.

“The extension was based on the premise that design reviews were undertaken before the plant was ever built, so there was no discussion of fundamental design and construction specifications,” says Katsunobu Aoyama, an inspection official at Japan’s regulator, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. “Our process focused on things like pipes and fittings.”

The nuclear agency is part of the industry ministry, which also is responsible for promoting nuclear power. The ministry aimed to raise nuclear power to more than half of Japan’s electricity output, from around 30% last year—a goal reaffirmed as recently as June 2010 by Prime Minister Naoto Kan.

At around 3:30 p.m. on March 11, 45 minutes after a magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck, a giant wave hit Fukushima Daiichi. It knocked out the power grid and swamped the backup generators housed in the turbine buildings since the 1970s.

All three of the generators added in the late 1990s, located in the separate hillside buildings, kept working. But they didn’t do any good at reactor Nos. 1 through 4 because the meta-kura that delivered power from the generators to the cooling systems got swamped in the lightly protected turbine buildings.

“Once water gets in there, the whole thing is kaput,” said Mr. Tomono, the former Tepco executive vice president.

Radioactive fuel began overheating at reactors Nos. 1 through 3. The risk was that the fuel would melt and release radiation. Within hours, fuel at No. 1 was almost completely melted and lying at the bottom of its vessel, according to Tepco.

Over the next few days, explosions at Nos. 1 and 3 severely damaged those reactor buildings. Hydrogen leaking from No. 3 is thought to have triggered a blast at the No. 4 reactor building, and No. 2 probably had an explosion, too. The multiple blasts released radiation into the outside air.

In contrast, reactors No. 5 and 6, and all four reactors at nearby Fukushima Daini, safely reached cold shutdown. At No. 6, two generators located inside the reactor building became inoperable temporarily, perhaps because water got inside through exhaust pipes, according to Tepco officials. But the newest generator housed in a separate building kept working and supplying power through its undamaged meta-kura, secure inside the reactor building. Tepco was able to use that power to keep equipment at neighboring No. 5 running.

The worst-hit reactors are still months away from reaching cold shutdown.

Mr. Kishi, the former Tepco executive in charge of nuclear-plant engineering, watched the nuclear plant he had worked on for decades go up in smoke. He says he believes the discrepancy between the older and newer reactors at Fukushima was “subtle.”

But in retrospect, he says, Tepco’s inconsistency in applying improved standards was the “basic flaw” that doomed Fukushima and darkened nuclear power’s prospects around the world.

Write to Norihiko Shirouzu at norihiko.shirouzu@wsj.com

Share

Mistaken About EPA and Clean Air

Schwarzenegger Is Mistaken About EPA and Clean Air — Letters to the Editor – WSJ.com.

Some great letters here.

=====

The straw-man argument that legislation to rein in the EPA’s worst abuses would somehow dirty the air is an unworthy one for a strongman like Arnold Schwarzenegger (“The Clean Air Act Keeps Us Healthy,” April 21).

The Clean Air Act’s success reflects its original focus on practical solutions that balance costs and benefits to achieve significant improvements in air quality at a reasonable price. Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s EPA has thrown that approach out the window. Its new mercury rule, for example, would cost tens of billions of dollars a year, all of which would be passed on in electricity prices, for a benefit that the EPA estimates to be negligible. That’s because U.S. mercury emissions—currently less than 2% of global emissions—have been falling for decades, even without costly federal regulation. Mr. Schwarzenegger apparently buys EPA’s line that reductions don’t “count” unless coerced by the agency.

Yet the aim of this EPA is not to eke out improvements in air quality but to drive up energy prices, a goal consistently articulated by candidate Barack Obama during his presidential campaign. The EPA’s power grab on carbon dioxide—in which the agency actually admits to overriding parts of the Clean Air Act—and broader war on coal-generated power cannot be explained in any other way.

Still, Mr. Schwarzenegger says to leave these decisions to the scientists. Which ones? The EPA’s captive scientists assert that dioxin in meat, fish and eggs is a major health risk, while the independent National Academies of Sciences concluded that the risk is overblown. The discrepancy comes down to politics.

That is, making trade-offs is a political, not technocratic, act. Mr. Schwarzenegger is right that Congress made intelligent trade-offs when it enacted the Clean Air Act. But it should not sit idly by while unelected EPA bureaucrats discard the balance the act strikes to further their radical agenda.

Andrew Grossman

The Heritage Foundation

Washington

Congress can’t be trusted to interfere with the EPA’s scientific standards, says Arnold Schwarzenegger. So we are to put all our trust in an unelected, austere, intellectual and totally unbiased guild of wizards who claim to be all-knowing and politically unmotivated? They are not to be challenged by the machinations of a democratically elected Congress? And he was a governor, a man who was at the spearhead of the democratically elected process?

Michael Greczek

Houston

Mr. Schwarzenegger writes that Congress should not substitute political calculations for scientific and medical facts. Mr. Schwarzenegger fails to distinguish why this is different than anything else Congress does. As an example, Congress is a political body, and the majority of its members are not well-schooled in economics. It utilizes populist politics on an electorate, which is also not well-schooled in economics, to get re-elected and to use its powers to create regulations that often have adverse effects on our prosperity.

Mr. Schwarzenegger applauds the fact that mercury emissions from power plants are now being regulated. I would have been interested to have him explain why California’s Title 24, mandating mercury containing compact fluorescent lights in new building construction, was created without consideration for proper disposal of them. Not only do CFLs present a danger to occupants when broken in the home, folks are disposing them improperly, and the lights are ending up in landfills where they contaminate air and water with mercury.

Dave Zittin

Cupertino, Calif.

Most people now realize that the science of anthropogenic climate change is not “settled” and that the methods and motivations of the climate-change movement are highly questionable. By throwing carbon dioxide into the pollutant category, the agency is throwing itself under the bus. The regulators and legislators must restrict their reach to real pollutants, or live with the destruction of their credibility and the resulting backlash against the unjustified regulatory behemoth required to tackle the CO2 chimera.

Peter Staats

Loveland, Ohio

Share

Why I Still Support Nuclear Power

William Tucker: Why I Still Support Nuclear Power, Even After Fukushima – WSJ.com.

The facts can be a hard sell, at times…

=========

It’s not easy being a supporter of nuclear energy these days. The events in Japan have confirmed many of the critics’ worst predictions. We are way past Three Mile Island. It is not quite Chernobyl, but the possibilities of widespread radioactive contamination remain real.

Still, other energy technologies are not without risk. In 1944 a natural gas explosion in Cleveland leveled an entire neighborhood and killed 130 people. Yet we still pipe gas right into our homes. Coal mining killed 100,000 workers in the 20th century, and still kills an average of six a day in China, but we haven’t given up coal. A hydroelectric dam collapsed in Japan during the earthquake, wiping away 1,800 homes and killing an undetermined number of people, yet nobody has paid much attention.

But talk about the risks of other energy sources really doesn’t cut to the issue. The obvious question people are asking is, “Why do we have to mess with this nuclear stuff in the first place? Why do we have to risk these horrible accidents when other better technologies are available?” The answer is that there are no better alternatives available. If we are going to maintain our standard of living—or anything approximating it—without overwhelming the earth with pollution, we are going to have to master nuclear technology.

Consider: Uranium fuel rods sit in a reactor core for five years. During that time six ounces of their weight—six ounces!—will be completely transformed into energy. But the energy produced by that transformation will be enough to power a city the size of San Francisco for five years.

Getty Images

A coal plant must be fed by a 100-car freight train arriving every 30 hours. A nuclear reactor is refueled by a fleet of six trucks arriving once every two years. There are 283 coal mines in West Virginia and 449 in Kentucky. There are only 45 uranium mines in the entire world. Russia is offering to supply uranium to most of the developing world with the output from one mine. That is why the environmental impact of nuclear is infinitely smaller.

What about natural gas? Huge reservoirs of shale gas have been unlocked by hydrofracking. But “fracking” has been able to proceed so rapidly only because it has been exempted from federal regulations governing air and water pollution. Now that concern has arisen about damaged aquifers, natural gas production may slow as well.

So what about hydro, wind and solar? These energy sources will not bring about utopia. The only reason we don’t object to the environmental effects of these renewables is because we haven’t yet encountered them.

The amount of energy that can be derived from harnessing wind or water is about 15 orders of magnitude less than what can be derived from uranium. Thus a hydroelectric dam such as Hoover must back up a 250-square-mile reservoir (Lake Mead) in order to generate the same electricity produced by a reactor on one square mile.

Windmills require even more space, since air is less dense than water. Replacing just one of the two 1,000-megawatt reactors at Indian Point in Westchester County, N.Y., would require lining the Hudson River from New York to Albany with 45-story windmills one-quarter mile apart—and then they would generate electricity only about one-third of the time, when the wind is blowing.

Solar collectors must be built to the same scale. It would take 20 square miles of highly polished mirrors or photovoltaic cells to equal the output of one nuclear reactor—and then only when the sun shines. Such facilities may one day provide supplementary power or peaking output during hot summer afternoons, but they will never be able to supply the uninterrupted flow of electricity required by an industrial society.

It will be impossible to meet the consumer demands of a contemporary society without a reliable source of energy like nuclear. Other countries have already acknowledged this. There are 65 reactors under construction around the world (far safer and more advanced than the 30-year-old technology at Fukushima Daiichi), but none in the U.S.

The Russians’ sale of uranium to the world comes with an offer to take back the “nuclear waste” and reprocess it into more fuel, at a profit. The Chinese have commercialized their first Integral Fast Breeder, a reactor that can burn any kind of “waste” and promises unlimited quantities of cheap energy.

We have become the world’s predominant industrial power because our forebears were willing to take the risks and make the sacrifices necessary to develop new technologies—the steam engine, coal mining, electricity, automobiles, airplanes, electronics, space travel. If we are not willing to take this next set of risks, others will. Then the torch will be passed to another generation that is not our own and our children and grandchildren will live with the consequences.

Mr. Tucker is author of “Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America’s Energy Odyssey” (Bartleby Press, 2010).

Share