14 Nuclear Power Plants in Japan failed and not just the 6 at Fukushima Daiichi

It Could Have Been Worse from Fairewinds Energy Education on Vimeo.

VIDEO: Could Have been worse

Source: Fairwinds Energy Education

http://www.fairewinds.org/
Fairwinds Video Link
http://vimeo.com/user6415562

Fairewinds analysis of the triple meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi determined that other Japanese reactor sites were also in jeopardy because their cooling water systems were destroyed by the same tsunami. In this film, Fairewinds provides evidence that cooling systems for 24 out of 37 diesel generators were shut down by the tsunami and that 14 additional nuclear reactors were impacted. Finally, Fairewinds also recommends that the criteria of the international nuclear accident scale have a Level 8 added. The addition of a Level 8 would reflect the nuclear accident scenario at a multi-reactor site that significantly changes the risk factors to the general public and emergency evacuation procedures.

Team H2O Report

http://www.fairewinds.org/content/team-h2o-project-report

Video Transcript:

If I were to ask you, what caused the accident at Fukushima-Daiichi, I bet you would tell me that an unimaginably large tsunami hit the plant and flooded out the diesel generators. If I were to ask, if we moved the diesel generators higher, would this entire accident have been avoided? Again, I bet you would tell me that yes, that would solve the problem. And you would be wrong.

 

I am Arnie Gundersen from Fairewinds. Today, I would like to talk about the real cause of the accident at Fukushima Daiichi. And how close we came, not just at Fukushima Daiichi, but at 3 other nuclear sites and at 10 other nuclear reactors. On the morning of March 11, 2011, a Richter 9 earthquake out in the Pacific Ocean about 100 miles off the coast of Japan caused a shock wave that hit the island. The nuclear plants on the island shut down quickly and there is inconclusive evidence about whether they really did survive that earthquake or not. But 45 minutes later, a huge tsunami hit the island and wiped out those nuclear power plants. This is not just Fukushima Daiichi. The wave hit Fukushima Daiichi, Fukushima Daini, Onagawa, and Tokai. And all of them were damaged by the same tsunami.

 

About a week after the accident, I was on CNN and I told John King that it was not about the earthquake and it was not about the tsunami wiping out the diesels that knocked out the Fukushima Daiichi reactors. We brought up a satellite video that showed the damage to the pumps along the ocean. And as you can see here, it is just rubble. Now these pumps were relatively strong. They were designed to withstand earthquakes and anything Mother Nature could throw at them. And as you can see, the space along the coast is just a scrapyard of twisted metal.

 

You know in your car, you have a pump on the front of the engine, called a water pump. If the water pump fails, your engine dies. Well, that is really what happened at Fukushima Daiichi. Those pumps along the water provide cooling water to the diesels, just like the pump on the front of your engine on your car. Without those pumps operating, the diesels were doomed to fail anyway. It does not matter if those diesels were 100 feet in the air. The pumps along the water were destroyed. And that is the real root cause of the accident at Fukushima Daiichi.

 

We call that the loss of the ultimate heat sink. And the keyword there is ultimate. You need the ocean to pull the water out of the nuclear reactor to keep it cool. But that same water has to cool the diesels to make that happen. The diesels would not have worked even if they had not been flooded. Now this problem that we call the loss of the ultimate heat sink, did not just happen at Fukushima Daiichi I, II, III, and IV. All 6 reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi site experienced it, but also at the Fukushima Daini site, the Onagawa site, and the Tokai site. Between those 4 sites there are 14 nuclear reactors. They had 37 diesels. 9 of them failed because of the tsunami. Those are the ones at Fukushima Daiichi I, II, III and IV. But 15 others failed too.

 

Mainstream media is not talking about that and the nuclear industry is not talking about that either. The diesels were not flooded. What happened was the pumps along the ocean were destroyed, not just for Fukushima Daiichi I, II, III, and IV, but for every one of those sites at least one diesel was knocked out because it could not be cooled. On December 21st, 2011, a report was written by a Team H2O Project and it discussed, "What are the lessons that we really should learn from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident?" It is a long report, 250 pages, and we have it on the website. But the key page as far as I am concerned is page 108. There is a really complicated graph on the page, but let me explain it. The pink boxes on that graph are the diesels that were destroyed from flooding. And you will see the diesels at Fukushima Daiichi were destroyed from flooding. But also, one at Fukushima Daini was also destroyed by the flood. More importantly, there are 15 other boxes on that chart that are orange. Those represent the 15 diesels that did not work, not because they were flooded, but because the cooling water systems had been destroyed by the tsunami. So the 9 that failed because they were flooded, would have failed anyway because their pumps were destroyed. Plus, 15 others were destroyed just because they could not be cooled. Between the 4 sites, Fukushima Daiichi, Daini, Onagawa and Tokai, there were 37 diesels. 24 were wiped out by the tsunami.

 

There is an important lesson here and the lesson is that it does not matter where we put the diesels. We have to put the cooling pumps at the water because that is were the water is. The nuclear industry is not addressing that; they are focussing on moving the diesels, or hardening the diesels or protecting the diesels from flooding. But in fact, the key that has to be resolved here is what are you going to do to protect the pumps along the edge of the water. Now there is another piece to this puzzle that the mainstream media and the nuclear industry do not want to talk about. It is the fact that this accident occurred when everyone was already on the site. There were a thousand people working at Fukushima Daiichi and another thousand people working at Fukushima Daini. Had the earthquake and the ensuing tsunami occurred 12 hours later, there would have been a hundred people working at Fukushima-Daiichi and another hundred at Daini, about 6 miles away. The roads would have been destroyed, either by the tsunami or the earthquake and the people could not have returned to work. It was through herculean efforts by a thousand heroes at both of those sites that rescued the world from a more serious accident than the one we have already experienced.

 

Think about how bad it would have been if the accident had been in the evening. We would have had 10 nuclear reactors in meltdown and likely other problems at the Onagawa Plant and the Tokai Plant. So when we talk about the Fukushima Daiichi accident, I think #1, it should be called accidents, because we had 3 nuclear reactors explode and another fuel pool in jeopardy. But also, it was not just Fukushima Daiichi. Fukushima Daini was in jeopardy for days. Onagawa was in trouble for more than a day. And Tokai also experienced trouble. So there were 14 nuclear reactors in jeopardy on March 11th. And the world instead was focussed on Fukushima Daiichi.

 

There is a citizen scientist in Pennsylvania who has suggested, and I think it is a great suggestion, that we add a level to the international nuclear scale to address the fact that when more than one nuclear plant is having an accident, the whole world needs to mobilize to solve the problem. I am sure you know that Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl were both considered Level 7 accidents which is the worst that could happen. Adding a level to the international scale on nuclear accidents and adding this Level 8 accident is not about the amount of radiation released. I think Fukushima Daiichi released somewhat more radiation than Chernobyl. But even if they are roughly the same, that is not the point. The point is that it was a multi-unit accident and it also affected many sites. Well, that affects how many resources are brought in from outside and that is why Scott Portzline's recommendation that we add a level to the nuclear accident scale is so important.

 

So Mr .Portzline is recommending, and I agree with him, that we really need one more rung on the international emergency scale. We need a Level 8. It is not about how much radiation is released, it is about when multiple sites or multiple units are involved, the accident can be much, much worse than what we encountered. In fact as I have said, a 12 hour difference in this accident would have very likely meant the destruction of Japan, because 2,000 people happened to be there and they were able to rescue plants that were in dire straits.

 

The 2 lessons for today are #1, the nuclear industry needs to move the pumps or protect the pumps with something called submersible pumps so that they work even when they are flooded. And the second piece is that the International Atomic Energy Agency needs to admit that there are circumstances beyond a Level 7, a Level 8, where international co-operation is critical. If only the international community had had a Level 8 and recognized that it was not just a single plant or a single site that was in jeopardy, and that, in fact, 14 nuclear reactors at 4 different sites were in jeopardy. The world might have been able to minimize the consequences at Fukushima Daiichi and minimize the exposure to the Japanese population if only the international community had acted faster.

 

Thank you. I am Arnie Gundersen and I will keep you informed.

Team H2O Report

http://www.fairewinds.org/content/team-h2o-project-report

Source: Fairwinds Energy Education

http://www.fairewinds.org/
 

Read More

Coverup: Risk of Nuclear Melt-Down in U.S. Higher than it was at Fukushima

 

Source: Global Research (Washington’s Blog)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverup-risk-of-nuclear-melt-down-in-u-s-higher-than-it-was-at-fukushima/5309002

Reactors in Nebraska and elsewhere were flooded by swollen rivers and almost melted down. See this, this, thisand this. (Links Below)

The Huntsville Times wrotein an editorial last year:

A tornado or a ravaging flood could just as easily be like the tsunami that unleashed the final blow [at Fukushima as an earthquake].

An engineer with the NRC says that a reactor meltdown is an “absolute certainty” if a dam upstream of a nuclear plant fails … and that such a scenario is hundreds of times more likely than the tsunami that hit Fukushima :

An engineer with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) … Richard Perkins, an NRC reliability and risk engineer, was the lead author on a July 2011 NRC report detailing flood preparedness. He said the NRC blocked information from the public regarding the potential for upstream dam failures to damage nuclear sites.

Perkins, in a letter submitted Friday with the NRC Office of Inspector General, said that the NRC “intentionally mischaracterized relevant and noteworthy safety information as sensitive, security information in an effort to conceal the information from the public.” The Huffington Post first obtained the letter.

***

 

 

 

 

 

The report in question was completed four months after … Fukushima.

The report concluded that, “Failure of one or more dams upstream from a nuclear power plant may result in flood levels at a site that render essential safety systems inoperable.”

Huffington Post reported last month:

These charges were echoed in separate conversations with another risk engineer inside the agencywho suggested that the vulnerability at one plant in particular — the three-reactor Oconee Nuclear Station near Seneca, S.C. — put it at risk of a flood and subsequent systems failure, should an upstream dam completely fail, that would be similar to the tsunami that hobbled the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility in Japan last year.***

The engineer is among several nuclear experts who remain particularly concerned about the Oconee plant in South Carolina, which sits on Lake Keowee, 11 miles downstream from the Jocassee Reservoir. Among the redacted findings in the July 2011 report — and what has been known at the NRC for years, the engineer said — is that the Oconee facility, which is operated by Duke Energy, would suffer almost certain core damage if the Jocassee dam were to fail. And the odds of it failing sometime over the next 20 years, the engineer said, are far greater than the odds of a freak tsunami taking out the defenses of a nuclear plant in Japan.

“The probability of Jocassee Dam catastrophically failing is hundreds of times greater than a 51 foot wall of water hitting Fukushima Daiichi,” the engineer said. “And, like the tsunami in Japan, the man‐made ‘tsunami’ resulting from the failure of the Jocassee Dam will –- with absolute certainty –- result in the failure of three reactor plants along with their containment structures.

“Although it is not a given that Jocassee Dam will fail in the next 20 years,” the engineer added, “it is a given that if it does fail, the three reactor plants will melt down and release their radionuclides into the environment.”

In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Huffington Post, Richard H. Perkins, a reliability and risk engineer with the agency’s division of risk analysis, alleged that NRC officials falsely invoked security concerns in redacting large portions of a report detailing the agency’s preliminary investigation into the potential for dangerous and damaging flooding at U.S. nuclear power plants due to upstream dam failure.

Perkins, along with at least one other employee inside NRC, also an engineer, suggested that the real motive for redacting certain information was to prevent the public from learning the full extent of these vulnerabilities, and to obscure just how much the NRC has known about the problem, and for how long.

Huffington Post notestoday:

An un-redacted version of a recently released Nuclear Regulatory Commission report highlights the threat that flooding poses to nuclear power plants located near large dams — and suggests that the NRC has misled the public for years about the severity of the threat, according to engineers and nuclear safety advocates.

“The redacted information shows that the NRC is lying to the American public about the safety of U.S. reactors,” said David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer and safety advocate with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

According to the NRC’s own calculations, which were also withheld in the version of the report released in March, the odds of the dam near the Oconee plant failing at some point over the next 22 years are far higher than were the odds of an earthquake-induced tsunami causing a meltdown at the Fukushima plant.

The NRC report identifies flood threats from upstream dams at nearly three dozen other nuclear facilities in the United States, including the Fort Calhoun Station in Nebraska, the Prairie Island facility in Minnesota and the Watts Bar plant in Tennessee, among others.

Larry Criscione, a risk engineer at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who is one of two NRC employees who have now publicly raised questions about both the flood risk at Oconee and the agency’s withholding of related information, said assertions that the plant is “currently able to mitigate flooding events,” amounted to double-speak.

Criscione said this is because current regulations don’t include the failure of the Jocassee Dam — 11 miles upriver from Oconee — in the universe of potential flooding events that might threaten the plant. “I think they’re being dishonest,” Criscione said in a telephone interview. “I think that we currently intend to have Duke Energy improve their flooding protection and to say that the current standard is adequate is incorrect.”

According to the leaked report, NRC stated unequivocally in a 2009 letter to Duke that it believed that “a Jocassee Dam failure is a credible event” and that Duke had “not demonstrated that the Oconee Nuclear Station units will be adequately protected.” These statements — along with Duke’s own flood timeline associated with a Jocassee Dam failure and NRC’s calculated odds of such a failure — were among many details that were blacked out of the earlier, publicly released report.

Richard H. Perkins, a risk engineer with the NRC and the lead author of the leaked report, pointed to the analysis by the Association of Dam Safety Officials in an email message to The Huffington Post. “I felt it made a significant point that large, fatal, dam failures occur from time to time,” he said. “They are generally unexpected and they can kill lots of people. It’s not credible to say ‘dam failures are not credible.’”

Dave Lochbaum, the Union of Concerned Scientists engineer who reviewed a copy of the un-redacted report, says these revelations directly contradict the NRC’s assertions that Oconee is currently safe. “Fukushima operated just under 40 years before their luck ran out,” Lochbaum, who worked briefly for the NRC himself between 2009 and 2010, and who now heads the Nuclear Safety Project at UCS, said in a phone call. “If it ever does occur here, the consequences would be very, very high.

“Japan is now building higher sea walls at other plants along its coasts. That’s great for those plants, but it’s too late for Fukushima. If in hindsight you think you should have put the wall in,” Lochbaum said, “then in foresight you should do it now.”

Other Comparisons Between Dangers In U.S. and Fukushima

There are, in fact, numerous parallels between Fukushima and vulnerable U.S. plants.

A Japanese government commission found that the Fukushima accident occurred because Tepco and the Japanese government were negligent, corrupt and in collusion. See this, thisand this. The U.S. NRC is similarly corrupt.

The operator of the Fukushima complex admitted earlier this month that it knew of the extreme vulnerability of its plants, but:

If the company were to implement a severe-accident response plan, it would spur anxiety throughout the country and in the community where the plant is sited, and lend momentum to the antinuclear movement ….

The U.S. has 23 reactors which are virtually identical to Fukushima.

Most American nuclear reactors are old. They are aging poorly, and are in very real danger of melting down.

And yet the NRC is relaxing safety standardsat the old plants. Indeed, while many of the plants are already past the service life that the engineers built them for, the NRC is considering extending licenses another 80 years, which former chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority and now senior adviser with Friends of the Earth’s nuclear campaign David Freeman calls “committing suicide”:

You’re not just rolling the dice, you’re practically committing suicide … everyone living within a 50 mile radius is a guinea pig.

Indeed, the Fukushima reactors were damaged by earthquake even before the tsunami hit (confirmed here). And the American reactors may be even more vulnerable to earthquakes than Fukushima.

Moreover, the top threat from Fukushima are the spent fuel pools. And American nuclear plants have fuel pool problems which could dwarf the problems at Fukushima.

And neither government is spending the small amounts it would take to harden their reactors against a power outage.

The parallels run even deeper. Specifically, the American government has largely been responsible for Japan’s nuclear policy for decades. And U.S. officials are apparently a primary reason behind Japan’s cover-up of the severity of the Fukushima accident … to prevent Americans from questioning our similarly-vulnerable reactors

Links:

Berm Protecting Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant Breaks … Plant Flooded, on Emergency Diesel Generators

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/berm-protecting-fort-calhoun-nuclear-plant-breaks-plant-flooded-on-emergency-diesel-generators.html
Nebraska Nuclear Threat: As Predictable as Fukushima
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/nebraska-nuclear-threat-as-predictable-as-fukushima.html
Nebraska Nuclear Reactor Flooded
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/nebraska-nuclear-reactor-flooded.html
Parts of Nebraska Nuclear Facility Already Under 2 Feet of Water … But – So Far – Emergency Flood Walls Are Protecting Electrical Equipment
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/parts-of-nebraska-nuclear-facility-already-under-2-feet-of-water-but-so-far-emergency-flood-walls-are-protecting-electrical-equipment.html
Nuclear Engineer Accuses regulators of Safety Cover up
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/249843-nrc-engineer-accuses-regulators-of-safety-cover-up
Letter: NRC intentionally mischaracterized relevant and noteworthy safety information http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/igletter.pdf
NRC Report: Flooding of Nuclear Power Plant Sites following upstream dam failures
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1218/ML12188A239.pdf
Japanese Seismologist in 2004 on Risk of Nuclear Accident: “It’s Like a Kamikaze Terrorist Wrapped in Bombs Just Waiting to Explode”
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/03/japanese-seismologist-in-2004-on-risk-of-nuclear-accident-its-like-a-kamikaze-terrorist-wrapped-in-bombs-just-waiting-to-explode.html
Engineers Knew Fukushima Might Be Unsafe, But Covered It Up … And Now the Extreme Vulnerability of NEW U.S. Plants Is Being Covered Up
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/engineers-knew-fukushima-might-be-unsafe-but-covered-it-up-and-now-the-extreme-vulnerabilty-of-new-u-s-plants-is-being-covered-up.html
Japan’s Nuclear Meltdown, the Economic Meltdown, and the Gulf Oil Meltdown All Happened for the SAME REASON
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/japans-nuclear-melt-down-economic.html
General Electric designed reactors in Fukushima have 23 sisters in USA
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/03/13/6256121-general-electric-designed-reactors-in-fukushima-have-23-sisters-in-us
US Nuclear Regulators weaken safety rules
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/20/national/main20072497.shtml
US nuclear regulator meets to discuss 80-year licenses for old reactors
http://enenews.com/you-wont-believe-this-us-nuclear-regulator-meets-to-discuss-80-year-licenses-for-old-reactors-not-just-rolling-the-dice-youre-practically-committing-suicide-expert-video/comment-page-1
Japan’s Atomic disaster due to collusion
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/05/us-japan-nuclear-report-idUSBRE8640K420120705
A U.S. Nuclear Accident Could Be a Lot Worse than Japan
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/a-u-s-nuclear-accident-could-be-a-lot-worse-than-japan.html
The Top Short-Term Threat to Humanity: The Fuel Pools of Fukushima
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/the-largest-short-term-threat-to-humanity-the-fuel-pools-of-fukushima.html
The AMERICAN Government Is Dictating Japanese Nuclear Policy
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/10/american-government-is-dictating-japanese-nuclear-policy.html

 

Read More