April 3, 2011
A Quick Note: A Message from My Dad, a Nuclear Engineer, for TEPCO and the Japanese Government
Posted by Evelyn Mervine
A message from my dad for the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and the Japanese government, from Interview 16:
“We’ve tried to remain calm and rational and not get too excited. So, just because we haven’t raised our voice and started yelling and screaming doesn’t indicate at all that we don’t have concerns. I think from early on, if you go back and listen to some of the early interviews, the lack of transparency from TEPCO– I’ve been saying all along I think before, definitely before, the mainstream press, and I remember in one of the interviews early on I was really happy when finally Anderson Cooper was starting to take them to task for their lack of transparency– we’ve been saying since day one that TEPCO has not been forthcoming. And, in the last interview, and I realize it’s probably been three days, we talked about: hey [TEPCO], two-and-a-half weeks into this, now three weeks into this, how come you can’t get two or three reactor operators or engineers together from some of your other plants [and] interpret for the public what’s going on and produce a comprehensive briefing every day? And their [TEPCO’s] press releases are still not very informative.
The other thing that we’ve commented on is the lack of a website that an average person can go to and have the radiation and contamination readings in plain English so that they can understand where it’s above the limit and where it’s below the limit and where they should and should not be concerned. And the IAEA had at least put some information out there, and we had referenced people to it a few days ago, but still as far as I know, today– now there may be a site in Japanese that I can’t find or read– but to my knowledge there’s still not a website that people can go to that shows them: here’s the radiation and contamination readings for the past twenty-four to forty-eight hours– and here’s where we are above the limit, here’s where we are below the limit. It just doesn’t seem to exist. The information is scattered. Clearly, I think the Japanese government could be doing a better job there. I’m surprised that they’re not.
And the other thing that we pointed out– we had a very long discussion about venting and the fact that the NRC in the US had required plants with the Mark I containment to go back in and put in hardened vent systems and that TEPCO obviously didn’t do that– now they’re not in the United States so they’re not compelled to follow orders from the NRC, but certainly they were aware that this design change had been required in the US, and I think TEPCO as a nuclear operator has a responsibility to do the right thing whether they are required by the government or not. But also– where was the Japanese government in requiring this for the plants in Japan? So, as far as I’m concerned they’re both at fault. And that has to be looked at. The Japanese government has to look at their regulatory agency and say: okay, what else should have been done to our nuclear power plants in Japan that we haven’t required?…
…given the lack of transparency, given the lack of implementation of the design changes, given some of the other shortcomings that we’ve heard of in terms of radiation suits and radiation badges, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to question if TEPCO should be allowed to continue to operate nuclear power plants. Now, I’m not yelling, I’m not screaming, but I don’t think I can be any clearer in saying that I don’t trust TEPCO, and I’m not sure anybody else should either based on what’s happened during this accident. ”
-Cdr. Mark L. Mervine, Nuclear Engineer (USNR, Ret.)
Is it possible the Fukushima plants did have hardened vents but they were inoperable due to air-operated valves which were dependent on air compressors which were without power? My direct experience is with a later-model BWR with the large Mk III containment where a hardened vent isn't (apparently) necessary.Another point to note: in the US, plants are required to show they can survive an extended station blackout (this sort of accident) and make design & procedure changes if they couldn't under their original design. Did the Japanese regulator follow the US lead in this area?I agree that TEPCO needs to show some real transparency and the Japanese regulator is the one to demand that happen if TEPCO won't step up on its own. I don't want to second-guess TEPCO or the regulator, at least until the interim report on this accident comes out but both have a lot to answer for.
apthorpe: Good question about the vents. I'll ask my dad to clarify tomorrow. I'm not sure he can answer the second question about the Japanese regulation for blackouts, but I'll ask him that one too.
I think the New York Times did a pretty good job for the laypeople yesterday on where the contamination was (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/04/02/world/asia/assessing-the-radiation-danger.html?ref=asia), but they only just came out with it yesterday, and who knows if this graphic gets updated.What I find disappointing is not that TEPCO has made mistakes, but that we seem to be making these same mistakes over and over. There was a lack of transparency at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl as well. Similarly, there weren't enough dosimeters: famously, people thought President Carter had been exposed to 90 millirem during his visit to TMI, until it was discovered that the utility company was giving out the same dosimeters to multiple people, then writing down what they read each time and subtracting the previous reading. If you go back and look at the history of previous incidents, it is remarkable how TEPCO is repeating previous mistakes. We need to start learning from our mistakes.
TEPCO is bankrupt and it will be nationalized. It will be the Japanese to pay the cost of closing that power plant.
It is the same in Japan, regarding the conveying of information to the public as to the ongoing situation at the Fukushima facility, reports are lacking in thoroughness and expediency, and most inadequate to allow people who are being directly affected to be sufficiently informed.Honestly, as honorable people, you want to ponder the discrepancies and failings, but I don't believe that any satisfaction can be obtained by merely questioning some of the activities of either TEPCO or the government, as applied to nuclear plant regulation and safety, and as to how the current matter is being attended to via information. You had better first delve into the question of greed and arrogance by people in positions of authority, as a basis for the groundwork for such an enquiry. No doubt likely something too large in scope for the intended purposes of this informative blog. TEPCO is known guilty of having falsified safety documentation in the past, while concealment and lying to the public is a common occurrence with our government. One might think that nine on the richter scale and the ramifications might be enough to elicit the truth from such entities, but sadly it isn't. Rather, only more reason for avoiding responsibility and not wanting to compromise one's position of power. These people want to set it up so they come out looking good in the end as much as is possible, no matter what is entailed to do that, be it truth or falsehood. Unfortunately, they are incapable of much distinction between the two.
This guy is scraping various TEPCO and Japanese government websites for radiation data and graphing them out. http://fleep.com/earthquake/Frustrating that it falls to the public to graph out such important data. And given their reporting errors, TEPCO needs to show their math.This BBC h2g2 article explaining the different units is good, http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2922671as was the http://XKCD.com/radiation magnitude chart.
A lot of people in connected to the US nuclear industry seem very keen to tell us what a bunch of cowboys TEPCO and the Japanese regulators are – implication: It Can't Happen Here.There's plenty of evidence that nobody understands WTF is going on, but not much evidence that TEPCO is covering things up. This note is asking for them to provide more help to the general public in interpreting the information they're releasing, but I don't see why _TEPCO_ has to do that; Anybody can collate and explain the data, and plenty of people are.
Edmund: I respectfully disagree. I believe that TEPCO and the Japanese Government have a responsibility– to those around Fukushima, to Japan, to the whole world– to provide clear & complete information about what exactly is going on at Fukushima. There is no way that "anyone" can collate and explain the data, particularly when "anyone" does not have access to the data from TEPCO. My dad- a nuclear engineer who spends hours each day pouring over dozens of websites and reports– often has trouble understanding the basics of what is going on at Fukushima. Clearly, he could do a better job if we had more resources and time, but it shouldn't be this difficult to figure out what's going on at Fukushima. People do *not* have enough information and understanding about what is going on at Fukushima. If such information were available from an appropriate source (TEPCO,Japanese government, IAEA, etc.), this little geology blog would not receive so many visits. We are not doing a perfect job in these updates, but we try our best. My dad and I are not saying that a nuclear disaster could not happen in the US– we've talked about how the NRC (which is not perfect, as we say) is revisiting risks in the US as a result of Fukushima. We haven't talked too much about the US & other countries because we keep the reports focused on the Fukushima disaster. However, we do think that much of what has happened at Fukushima– mistakes made, lack of communication– is unacceptable. If there is any chance that these issues could occur at another nuclear power plant, that is unacceptable as well. Hopefully, nuclear power plant companies and regulatory organizations around the world will learn from this disaster.
i'm the guy who wrote asking why you've expressed such trust in government/industry. i appreciate you addressing my question, and i hear you saying you're not sure how i can describe your position as "trusting."1) you have repeatedly called on both japanese and americans to "trust their governments and do what they recommend."2) you have repeatedly expressed the expectation that TEPCO would provide comprehensive and comprehendible information. you are shocked that they have not, and emphasize that such an effort would require miniscule resources.nuclear skeptics, conversely, are not surprised at TEPCO's behavior, which exactly meets expectations for an organization whose motivations are maximizing profit and minimizing liability. you trusted TEPCO (and their US homologs) to prioritize the public interest while ignoring the fact that they have no interest in doing so; no rational person should ever have expected them to, nor encouraged others to have such faith. nuclear skeptics have predicted this scenario for decades, for which they are derided as conspiracy theorists.your proposal that TEPCO have its operating license revoked is both too late and ineffective. profit was private for 40 years and the risk has just become socialized. eliminating TEPCO does not clean up this mess, and whatever operator takes its place will have the same motives and interests as TEPCO. in fact, it will have largely the same personnel, since there isn't a huge talent pool with "expertise," experience, and faith in nuclear power.regarding trusting governments, do you believe that the current exclusion zone is based on a good-faith, well-researched effort to protect public health? or is it mainly a political calculation, under the cover of preventing panic? are you aware that japanese elementary school begins in april, and the federal government is pressuring the local school board not to postpone opening? (http://fukushima.greenaction-japan.org/2011/03/31/citizen-radiation-monitoring-in-fukushima-prefecture/)if you lived just outside the official exclusion zone and had young children, would you trust the current assurances of safety? would you agree that "preventing rumors and panic" was more important than ensuring a wide margin of safety for your children? have you looked at a population density map of the area? have you noticed that the current exclusion zone generates 150k evacuees, stopping just short of the point where any increase would bump that number to >1M? (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/16/world/asia/japan-nuclear-evaculation-zone.html)
One need only look at the early knee jerk reaction from both TEPCO and the Japanese nuclear regulatory agency, to get a fair assessment of their basic posturing toward the situation as it developed. "There is no cause for alarm", was the following statement to any announcements that were given by either agency, for a number of days. They were basically still saying that, when a professor from Kyoto university, a man apparently knowledgable in such matters, came on the radio and said that it would be in everyone's interest who was living near the Fukushima plant, to clear out as soon as is possible. If someone not even close to the situation, could better interpret how the event was transpiring, based on what little information was available, and later be proven correct, one can only be incredulous at best, of both TEPCO's and the government regulatory agency's motivation to better serve the interests of the public, their being in the most favorable position to properly assess the situation, which has shown the initial response to have been most inadequate.