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

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…