Skip to main content

Nuclear Energy Workers in Japan and the U.S.

Japan-News-Fukushima-Daiichi-nuclear-plants-workers-photo-Yahoo The New York times ran a much discussed article this past Saturday about workers at Fukushima Daiichi and other nuclear energy plants.

Of roughly 83,000 workers at Japan’s 18 commercial nuclear power plants, 88 percent were contract workers in the year that ended in March 2010, the nuclear agency said. At the Fukushima Daiichi plant, 89 percent of the 10,303 workers during that period were contractors.

The Times makes clear that there are cultural factors that weigh into the structure of the Japanese work force:

They [The itinerate workers] are emblematic of Japan’s two-tiered work force, with an elite class of highly paid employees at top companies and a subclass of laborers who work for less pay, have less job security and receive fewer benefits.

And:

Some workers are hired from construction sites, and some are local farmers looking for extra income. Yet others are hired by local gangsters, according to a number of workers who did not want to give their names.

Frankly, the article depends more on hearsay (those local gangsters, for example; and there is no discussion of how many of the contracted workers are highly trained) than on documented occurrences of malfeasance, but for the sake of argument, let’s accept the various assertions even where they are not proved and  somewhat dubious.

How does the American industry measure up to this picture of the Japanese industry? Callous though it may seem, Americans have every right to expect high standards whatever is true in Japan.

First things first: nuclear workers in the United States, both employed by the plants and by contractors, are highly trained for their duties – no farmers plucked from their fields, no gangster-hires. Additionally, the safety culture implemented at plants applies to all workers, so any safety issue that arises can (really, must) be reported.

Second, all workers are measured for radiation exposure – about 120,000 workers in recent years – 90,000 permanent workers and 30,000 temporary workers.

During 2008, the most recent year with complete reporting, no U.S. worker had more than 3 rem of radiation exposure. Three rem is 40 percent below the federal regulatory limit for radiation exposure in a year for nuclear power plant workers.

Additionally, more than half that number had exposures that were less than 10 millirem, the equivalent of a chest x-ray. (I’m picking up this data from here, an NRC report called “Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities,” 2008.)

So no, the American industry is not hiring untrained workers off the street nor is it exposing its work force to dangerous levels of radiation.

It’s too early to assert this as a certainty, but worker incompetence appears to have had nothing whatever to do with events at Fukushima Daiichi; and even with heightened attention paid to them, the other nuclear plants in Japan have likewise not shown evidence of worker issues exacerbating earthquake-related problems. When it is wiser to shut reactors down, that’s been done – when they can operate, they do.

Which doesn’t mean the New York Times is wrong to report the story – just that there’s more to the story that needs further explication.

Workers at Fukushima Daiichi.

Comments

John Wheeler said…
Mark, thank you for your thoughtful perspective. I couldn’t agree with your more, other than to take exception to your characterization of farmers as unskilled labor.

Actually, in the industry we love to “pluck farmers from their fields” because with the right nuclear specific training former farmers make excellent operators and technicians. Many farmers in the USA have business, engineering, or agriculture degrees. A successful farmer has a strong work ethic and is accustomed to complex problem solving. The modern farmer learns the fundamentals of operation, maintenance and repair on many technologies found in nuclear plants such as diesel engines, digital control systems, motors, generators, pumps and piping systems.

Give me a farmer and in six to nine months I’ll have a nuclear plant operator or nuclear maintenance technician!
Anonymous said…
Right now, we are between a rock and a hard place— where the probable and possibly best choice for energy in the US is nuclear energy, despite the recent crisis in Japan. What can the United States learn from Japan’s disaster? How can we prevent such a tragedy here? It is a scary thought—I hope that we can come through to handle it… especially if we learn from Japan…
Check out “Nuclear Energy: Lessons from Japan”: http://bit.ly/e02awE

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …