information about Fukushima published in English in Japanese media info publiée en anglais dans la presse japonaise
8 Août 2013
August 8, 2013
In his 40 years of involvement at nuclear plants in Fukushima Prefecture, Yukiteru Naka witnessed the safety myth surrounding nuclear energy grow to levels that left him sleepless on occasion.
Everything changed after the March 2011 accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant.
Naka, a former General Electric Co. engineer, is now promoting measures to reconstruct areas hardest hit by the nuclear disaster, including some radical ideas. But he says it is up to the affected communities to raise their voices and spark debate on how to rebuild.
A native of Okinawa Prefecture, Naka says he does not want Fukushima residents to feel abandoned by fellow Japanese—much as Okinawans felt.
“That is the last hope of an engineer who has lived with nuclear plants in Fukushima,” says Naka, chairman of Tohoku Enterprise Co., which provides services for Tokyo Electric Power Co., operator of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 plant.
Excerpts from his interview follow:
* * *
Q: You can hear children playing at a park through the window of your office in Iwaki, Fukushima Prefecture.
A: (Children can play outside) because radiation levels are relatively low here. We have to let them grow up in a safe environment. My heart aches when I think about children still evacuating from home to escape radiation.
Q: Some residents have returned to municipalities in Futaba county just around the Fukushima No. 1 plant. What is their situation?
A: Only elderly people have returned. Some say they will not be able to live meaningfully if their children or grandchildren cannot visit them.
It will take a long time to decommission reactors (at the Fukushima No. 1 plant). The slow pace of government response has been unbelievable.
The former “nuclear village” may have been disbanded, but I wonder if a new nuclear village has been born.
Q: You were a member of the nuclear village, weren’t you?
A: Yes, I was. I lived with nuclear power plants in Fukushima for 40 years.
I failed to safeguard the safety that had to be safeguarded at any cost, and I had our cherished hometown destroyed and caused inconvenience to the public. I feel greatly responsible for that.
Q: Why did you become a nuclear engineer?
A: I was born to a fisherman on a small island. I was in Okinawa until I was a high school student. But I had to go to Tokyo because I was involved in a student movement against the U.S. administration of Okinawa.
I got a ship engineer’s license and went around the world on a freighter. A U.S. colleague, who had worked on a nuclear submarine, suggested that I worked for GE.
I studied nuclear power hard at GE. I was licensed as an operator of the boiling water reactor, the type of reactor adopted at the Fukushima No. 1 plant.
I translated a GE textbook into Japanese, and it became the first textbook at TEPCO’s BWR training center.
I came to Fukushima Prefecture in 1973. The No. 2 reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 plant was on a trial run, and preparations were being made for the construction of the No. 6 reactor.
Since then, I worked as a nuclear engineer, giving advice on reactor construction and offering systems management and maintenance services.
After seeing the world, I believed that nuclear power would be the only energy source for resource-poor Japan. I was proud of my job.
Q: Didn't you think nuclear power was dangerous?
A: I was always aware of the risks. I experienced abnormal situations several times, including those caused by GE’s design flaws.
I cannot forget an incident that occurred at the No. 3 reactor at the Fukushima No. 2 nuclear power plant at the end of 1988. An impeller in a recirculation pump broke down, and a piece of metal entered the reactor core. After detecting abnormal vibrations of the pump and motor, I advised TEPCO to lower power output.
I was told it was impossible because it was the end of the year.
I could not sleep. I kept saying the same thing for a month. I was relieved when power generation was finally halted.
I was afraid that the fast-moving piece of metal might fracture a pipe directly connected to the reactor because it could destroy the containment vessel.
Designs of boiling water reactors allow only highly experienced engineers to deal with an accident. Workers need to patrol plant sites, with all five senses sharpened.
I sometimes touched piping systems to see whether vibrations and temperatures were at normal levels.
FOCUS ON EFFICIENCY
Q: Were workers not experienced enough to deal with the Fukushima No. 1 plant accident?
A: I think Masao Yoshida, plant chief at the time of the accident, and other TEPCO employees did their best immediately after the accident. Those who remain are still working hard.
Still, it is true that compared with the past, fewer employees were well-versed with the plant’s operations at the time of the accident. In the 1970s, a large number of TEPCO engineers were working on the plant site.
Ryo Ikegame, who later became TEPCO vice president and was known as the last “don” who loved plants, was often found on the site. We used to have good debates.
In the 1980s and onward, TEPCO has left the plant’s operations to contractors and manufacturers, apparently giving priority to management efficiency alone.
I continued to warn that a major accident was bound to occur, but I failed to make my case strongly enough.
Q: Where were you at the time of the accident?
A: I was at my company office in Tomioka, Fukushima Prefecture.
I called our employee who was at the Fukushima No. 2 plant and was told that power sources could be secured. But I thought a seawater pump at the Fukushima No. 1 plant, at 5 meters above sea level, would be damaged by tsunami.
I felt hopeless when I heard from our employee who was at the quake-proof building (of the Fukushima No. 1 plant) that all cooling facilities were halted.
Q: The Fukushima No. 1 plant remained in critical condition for some time.
A: It was only by luck that the containment vessels were not destroyed. We were overly confident that power plants were safe. We were also indulged because we covered up accidents and avoided facing pressure from the public.
We were forced to pay the price all at once. I have been disappointed by the crisis management of TEPCO and the government since the disaster.
I sent an e-mail to GE’s nuclear power division immediately after the accident.
While Japan controls the radiation dose people receive on a single occasion, workers in the United States can be exposed to high levels of radiation if they agree.
Many professionals work under a high-radiation environment. The U.S. response to radiation is more severe than Japan’s.
I asked GE to send such radiation professionals, and GE made arrangements, but our efforts failed to get incorporated into (those of) TEPCO or the government.
Q: How confused were the government and TEPCO immediately after the accident?
A: Our employees dealt with the accident along with TEPCO employees. It was tough to send them on a dangerous and severe mission, but they asked me to let them go.
All our employees are from the area, and they said they could not abandon their hometown. It made my eyes water.
Q: What condition is the Fukushima No. 1 plant in?
A: Temporary cooling systems have kept the reactors at low temperatures. A limited amount of water has been leaking from temporary piping systems, but it had probably been within TEPCO’s expectations.
However, the company is still struggling to keep groundwater from flowing into buildings and dispose of radioactive water, and has been unable to start decommissioning the reactors.
Our company has been providing technology to support decommissioning, but the outlook remains unclear.
Q: How do you feel about the government’s push of exports of nuclear plants to promote economic growth?
A: We are still on our way to putting an end to the accident, including investigations into its causes. Under such circumstances, there cannot be restarting nuclear reactors or exporting them.
When we build nuclear plants, the important thing is how to dispose of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. Depending on the country, anti-terrorism measures are also necessary.
It is unthinkable to export nuclear reactors at a time when such requirements have not been fully met even in Japan.
Decommissioning is more important. Nuclear reactors around the world will go out of service someday. We will have a business opportunity if we establish the required technology.
The Fukushima No. 1 plant is where we can improve such technology. We should assemble talented engineers and acquire the world’s top-class decommissioning technology at the reactors, which remain in severe condition.
I have heard that fewer students are studying nuclear energy in Japan. But I hope young people will come forward with a determination to save Japan with nuclear technology.
ISLAND OF RUBBLE?
Q: Are people outside Fukushima Prefecture losing interest in the nuclear accident?
A: I know there is not much to gain for politicians and bureaucrats by focusing their energy on Fukushima, which is nothing more than a provincial prefecture.
It also cannot be helped that people outside the prefecture have become less sympathetic. But I hope all Japanese will continue to be interested in Fukushima as fellow countrymen.
In May, I presented a Futaba County Island Construction Plan to heads of municipal governments in Futaba county.
It calls for creating a huge island off the Fukushima No. 1 plant from contaminated soil and rubble and building facilities for decommissioning as well as for disposal of and research on debris.
(A high level of) radiation is not expected on the island because it will be covered with a large amount of soil. All possible measures will be taken to prevent an adverse impact on the ocean.
Decontamination would be limited to a minimum, and the state budget would be directed toward reconstruction measures. All contaminated soil and rubble generated in Fukushima Prefecture would be temporarily stored in the county.
Q: Won’t there be opposition to plans to minimize decontamination and accept radioactive soil?
A: The problem is that contaminated soil and rubble have been stored in various areas. We can keep them at an intermediate storage facility planned by the government until the proposed man-made island is completed.
I came up with the proposal for the purpose of reconstructing all of Fukushima Prefecture. In return, I expect government assistance in building the man-made island and other projects.
Q: The idea of a man-made island sounds like a fantasy.
A: Unless local communities stir up controversy, no one will pay attention. Will companies set up in a place full of abandoned homes? Can agriculture be revived when there are no successors? The government’s approach is not realistic.
It is necessary for the local communities to raise issues, change the image of Futaba county drastically and develop an area where young people want to gather.
The Futaba County Island Construction Plan should contribute to decommissioning the reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 plant and reconstructing local communities. I expect experts to study the feasibility of the project.
Q: Was it a good idea for Japanese to possess nuclear plants in the first place?
A: Japanese are more sensitive to radioactive materials than any other people because they experienced atomic bombings. But they gave no thought to the possibility of nuclear plants that generate radioactive materials becoming a negative legacy.
Nuclear plants supported economic growth, but I think we were overly insensitive to their negative aspects because we gave priority to economic growth.
Another problem is that we created an atmosphere that is not conducive to open discussions about nuclear plants.
I am not qualified to discuss the rights and wrongs of nuclear plants because I have lived with them. But I want to say the public has a right to know accurate information about nuclear power, which can threaten their lives. That is the basic premise even if reactors should be restarted.
Q: Will you continue to live in Fukushima?
A: I got married here and also built my house and tomb here.
I was able to clearly see the Fukushima No. 2 plant from my home in Tomioka, where I cannot live now.
When I said it was a watch house (for the plant), a neighbor said, “I do not have to worry as long as you are here.” When we met at an evacuation center after the earthquake, the neighbor said, “The watch house did not help.” My heart wrenched.
People in Okinawa used to ask those on the mainland whether Okinawans were Japanese. I do not want to hear the same words from people in Fukushima. I do not want to see Fukushima turn into an abandoned land. That is the last hope of an engineer who has lived with nuclear plants in Fukushima.
By TAKAFUMI YOSHIDA/ Staff Writer
/https%3A%2F%2Fassets.over-blog.com%2Ft%2Fcedistic%2Fcamera.png)