Japan Effect

NSBE To increase the number of culturally responsible Black engineers who excel
academically, succeed professionally and positively impact the community.
Home > News / Media > Magazines > Career Engineer > Fall 2011 Back to School Issue > The Japan Effect
The Japan Effect
U.S. Nuclear Reactors Return to the Spotlight after Fukushima
By James Michael Brodie
As Japan continues to recover from the worst nuclear disaster in decades, nuclear regulators in the U.S. are taking a
second look at American reactors.
And while Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials and others are confident in the safety of the U.S. reactors, which
account for roughly 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, they admit that Fukushima has returned the spotlight to an energy
source once at the center of controversy.
“U.S. plants have always been designed keeping severe events in mind,” NRC spokesman Scott Burrell told Career
Engineer. “The analyses we tend to do focus on individual events. But plants are designed to deal with a wide range of
events, and we believe we have the staff and procedures to keep the public safe.”
Concerns over how U.S. plants would withstand the type of double whammy of a major earthquake and subsequent
tsunami that hit the Fukushima Daichi nuclear reactors in March caused the NRC to order a review of all of the nation’s 104
nuclear reactors.
Speaking in May to an NRC panel reviewing the Japanese disaster and the potential for the same in the U.S., the head of
the agency’s reactor task force reported that licensees were not required to protect certain equipment from natural
phenomena, adding that they were only required to store equipment at a safe distance from a fire or blast. Licensees were
also not required to have sufficient resources, staff, or equipment for some aspects of a multiunit event response.
“Current requirements do not cover some elements of the Fukushima scenario, nor were they designed to do so,” said
Charles Miller, director of the NRC’s Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs and
Chair of the NRC Task Force. “These locations may not be protected from flooding or seismic events.”
Anatomy of a Disaster
The disaster at the Fukushima Daichi nuclear power complex was the worst nuclear calamity since the 1986 meltdown of
the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant near the Ukraine-Belarus border.
On March 11, a magnitude 9.0 quake shook the complex, located of off the coast of Honshu Island, automatically shutting
down three reactors. Another three were undergoing routine maintenance and were not operating, according to published
reports. The tremor also knocked the plant off of the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (TEPCO’s) power grid, although
backup diesel generators, intended to run pumps to keep the water in the reactor from boiling, kicked in to continue cooling.
Later that day, a 46-foot-high tsunami, created by the earthquake, overran the plant site, knocked out the generators and
washed away fuel tanks. As temperatures inside the reactor rose, another backup system started that used steam-powered
pumps and battery-powered valves.
TEPCO tried flooding one of the units with seawater until an aftershock forced them to stop. It was a last-resort step that
would have written off the reactor. As the crisis worsened, TEPCO pumped in seawater and boric acid to prevent a
meltdown.
Page 1 of 4The Japan Effect - National Society of Black Engineers
1/17/2014http://www.nsbe.org/News-Media/Magazines/Career-Engineer/Fall-2011-B...

Over time, Japan’s health ministry reported that radioactive iodine and cesium exceeding allowable levels of consumption
were showing up in milk and leafy vegetables near the plant, and in tap water.
Reginald DesRoches, Ph.D., professor and associate chair with the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the
eorgia Institute of Technology, told Career Engineer that recent reports coming out of Japan indicate that the situation is a
lot worse than previously reported, with the cores of all three reactors experiencing meltdown. He added that worries over a
Fukushima-type accident in the U.S. could make it more difficult for new plants to get approvals, particularly those in areas
of high earthquake risk.
“The Fukushima disaster was very rare,” DesRoches said, “but can happen in the U.S. e need to be concerned about all
of our nuclear plants and need to make sure that they are designed and maintained to withstand the proper level of seismic
hazard.”
Wakeup Call
The Japan disaster has sparked a renewed interest in U.S. nuclear power at a time when the nation grapples with how
such power fits the nation’s future energy needs.
“The importance of Fukushima would be that it further improves the safety of reactors, says Farzad Rahnema, Ph.D., chair
of the Nuclear and Radiological Engineering/Medical Physics Program at the eorgia Institute of Technology. “U.S.
reactors are very safe. e don’t have any of the issues they had in Japan.”
NSBE member Magali oyo, an electrical engineer with the Palisades Power Plant, near alamazoo, Mich., says it is
impossible to predict whether what happened in Japan could also take place in the U.S.
“It is difficult to answer questions until we have a better understanding of the precise problems and conditions that faced the
operators at Fukushima Daiichi,” says oyo. “ e do know that Fukushima Daiichi reactors 1 4 lost all AC power. This
situation is called station blackout.’ “
“U.S. nuclear power plants are designed to cope with a station blackout event that involves a loss of offsite power and
onsite emergency power, and are required to conduct a coping’ assessment and develop a strategy to demonstrate to the
NRC that they could maintain the plant in a safe condition during a station blackout scenario,” oyo says.
Natural disasters notwithstanding, she says, nuclear power plants are designed for safe operation for a number of natural
and man-made disasters.
“Containment of radioactive materials is a well-known and well-practiced activity at nuclear facilities. Strict federal
regulations direct users of the material to safely store and monitor their radioactive materials onsite,” oyo says. “Since the
general public has no reference point to compare them to, these events appear to be overwhelming.”
Nuclear Debate Continues
Fukushima has given new life to groups on both sides of the nuclear power debate.
In March, shortly after the meltdown, antinuclear activists No Nukes Pennsylvania who now include Japan on its list of
nuclear hot spots gathered at the gates of Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, which on March 28,
19 9 was the site of the world’s first major nuclear power plant disaster.
“Three Mile Island was not as bad as people make it out to be,” says NSBE member Carles Miller, P.E., business
development manager at Burns McDonnell Engineering in ansas City, Mo. “Chernobyl was perhaps the worst accident
we would ever hope to see. That one melted down to the core and released radiation into the air. And Fukushima still has
had less of an impact on public safety than Chernobyl. hat has gotten lost in this is that (there) was an earthquake and a
tsunami that killed a lot more people.”

Miller says that although Fukushima’s disaster is significant, it still will not be as dire as Chernobyl.
“They had at least eight hours to get backup power to the plant. As an electrical engineer, one big (thought) that came to
mind for me was that you need to have a staging of power,” he says. “If this happens in the U.S., and this happened in
California, I feel like we could get the resources there.”
In April, antinuclear groups came to ashington to protest construction of a plant on the Department of Energy’s Savannah
River site in South Carolina, where plutonium from weapons would be reprocessed into fuel for nuclear power plants.
Protestors called the plan expensive and dangerous.
In July, the Iowa State Senate decided not to pass a bill that would pave the way for MidAmerican Energy to charge
ratepayers in advance for new nuclear reactor construction. The utility would have been allowed to keep the money even if
construction was never completed.
Post-Fukushima concerns about nuclear power doomed the proposal, according to a SurveyUSA poll in April released by
the antinuclear group Friends of the Earth. It found that nearly three quarters of Iowans were opposed to the measure and
that 0 percent would rather the state invest in renewable energy than nuclear. A ashington Post poll showed 64 percent
of Americans are opposed to building new reactors.
This year alone, state legislatures rejected construction of reactors in Minnesota, isconsin, entucky and Missouri.
“Though many utilities, lawmakers and regulatory commissioners continue to blindly support building new nuclear reactors
that put ratepayers at risk, the public is growing ever more skeptical of nuclear power,” says Sara Barczak, program director
with the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.
But another survey, released in June, reached a very different conclusion. That survey, released by the Bisconti Research
for the Nuclear Energy Institute, found that a majority of residents living around nuclear facilities in the U.S. continue to
support nuclear energy. According to the study, 80 percent of residents living near nuclear facilities said they favored the
use of nuclear energy as one way to provide electricity to the U.S. Half “strongly favored” the use of nuclear energy,
compared with 11 percent who were “strongly opposed.”
Nuclear Future
Last year, President Barack Obama announced more than 8 billion in federal loan guarantees for the construction of the
first nuclear power plant in the U.S. since the 1980s, and called nuclear energy an essential element in his plan to shift the
nation from fossil fuels to cleaner nuclear forms of energy.
“Our competitors are racing to create jobs and command growing energy industries. And nuclear energy is no exception,”
Obama said in 2010.
“I get what he wants to do,” says NSBE member Tarla TaMia Toomer, an engineer working with nuclear power for the
federal government. “ e are going to have to diversify. But we also have to educate the public about the benefits.”
The president did acknowledge what he called nuclear energy’s “serious drawbacks” and called for safe storage of nuclear
waste and the strictest safety standards for the plants. illiam Miller praised President Obama’s commitment to nuclear
power, noting that it had not changed in the wake of Fukushima.
Obama has said on several occasions that nuclear power is still part of the nation’s energy portfolio and won’t be scaled
back. As for the construction of new power plants, observers say there may be some negative effect or slowing of progress,
but the U.S. will eventually proceed.
“People who support green technology, like solar and wind, may not want to be associated with nuclear, but the truth is that

nuclear energy is clean energy,” Miller says. “ ind and solar combined cannot produce enough power to run our grid
today.”
A renewed commitment could open new career opportunities in nuclear engineering at a time when much of that work force
is beginning to age. The average nuclear worker age is about 0 years old, and approximately 0 percent of the work force
is eligible for retirement within the next five years. And the opportunities may not be limited to nuclear engineers, as
professionals will be needed with backgrounds in electrical and mechanical engineering, systems management, biology,
health physics and environmental engineering and science.
“I have four different engineering degrees,” Toomer says. “On any given day, I can use all four.”
James Michael Brodie is a writer based in Baltimore, Md., and a former editor of NSBE Magazine.
For full stories, subscribe to NSBE Magazine by sending $20 for a one-year subscription to NSBE Circulation, 205
Daingerfield Rd., Alexandria, VA 22314.
Certificate
Programs
phoenix.edu/Certificates
Earn a Certificate Online in Your
Field of Choice. Learn More Today.

Japan Effect

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Japan Effect

Similar to Japan Effect (17)

Japan Effect