Fukushima Updates and Nuclear Safety

I'm Arne Gunderson from Fairwins and today's Monday April 25th. I wanted to look back today at the six weeks since Fukushima and see what kind of lessons can be learned at this early date and what the United States should be doing as a result of that. Well, the industry had a worst case assumption of 1% failed fuel on one reactor. And in fact, we've got multi-unic sites and we've got 70% failed fuel in three reactors of Fukushima. You know, clearly what we thought on March 10th was worst case is in fact, not worst case at all. The nuclear regulatory commission assumed a containment leak that a half a percent a day. I Fukushima, we have three reactors, reactor containment, and it's leaking at enormously amounts more than that. One is water is literally pouring out of the side of it. Back before March 10th, the industry assumed that all these releases would get sucked out of the buildings and pulled up the stack and released very high into the air to minimize exposure. I Fukushima, the stack didn't work. The worst case assumption that the nuclear regulatory commission ever thought possible was that batteries could be used for eight hours and then everything would be back to normal. Of course, if Fukushima that didn't work either. And also, the industry always assumed that there was case that people would have to be evacuated out for 10 miles and a day or two or three may be allowed to come back in. Well, the United States State Department has suggested that the people move out if they're within 50 miles of the plant. And no one knows when they're coming back in. We simply haven't planned for the really worst case. If you look at Fukushima, we've got three reactors in one form of a meltdown or another. We've got four spent fuel pools that have had fires, explosions, and leaks. Again, in one form of meltdown or another, that's seven problems. That this were a road race. We'd have a seven car accident. If this were a road race, we'd put out a yellow flag and slow things down. And yet here in America, the nuclear regulatory commission isn't putting out the yellow flag. It isn't slowing things down. It's a matter of fact, it's continuing the license of reactors to run for an extra 20 years where to have their power increase. Even though we have in the background Fukushima looming over us, I think it's time to put out the yellow flag and slow things down. Here's an example. I have argued with the nuclear regulatory commission for five years. I've written expert report on expert report about containment leakage. I've given the nuclear regulatory commission pictures of holes in the side of containment. Then they said, no containment, don't leak. I've given the nuclear regulatory commission pictures of cracks in the side of containment. And they said, no, containment, don't leak. There's zero percent probability that a containment will leak. Well, at Fukushima, we've got three containment that are leaking. And yet the NRC continues to license new power plans based on the fact that we believe that the containment won't leak. I think in my professional career, there's been five major accidents. There's been, um, then you're missing. There's, there's been three mile island. And the, uh, the NRC blamed the operators for an operator or there was browns ferry. That was a fire that, uh, almost caused the meltdown. It was caused by a maintenance guy looking for leaks with a candle. The candles set the wires on fire. They blamed the maintenance practice. Then there was Chernobyl. And again, the, the industry blamed the, uh, the operating practice. Then there was Davis Bessie. That was in 2000. And there, there are a whole size of a grapefruit was allowed to eat its way through the side of a nuclear reactor. And the industry blamed one dive for signing one line on one procedure and ultimately management paid millions of dollars in fines because it really was a management issue. And now is Fukushima. And we've got a, a natural disaster. Again, totally unanticipated by the nuclear regulatory commission. And the nuclear regulatory commission is really good at working inside the box that they've constructed. We haven't had an accident with anything that they've evaluated inside the box. But we've had many accidents caused by stuff outside the box. And when I'm suggesting is we pause. Put out the LF lag and say, you know, keep running. But we're not going to license new reactors to run or we're not going to license new old reactors to run for next to 20 years until we figure out what's happening here at Fukushima. I think we have a couple things that we can do. We can petition the government to have a really independent agency. Take a look at that the Fukushima problem. And not have it's, have it staffed by a nuclear regulatory commission employees. They've missed every major accident until after the fact, for the last 40 years. We need independent thinkers who can think outside the box and anticipate what's really the worst case. The other thing I think we need is a freeze-on licensing. Some reactors should, we'll probably at the end of this process, realize that the Fukushima problems are so great that they should be shut down. It might be difficult because of evacuation planning. It might be because of other reasons. But I think we're going to see that. But a pause in licensing right now where reactors should continue to run, but not be relicensed in a situation like this until the Fukushima lessons learned are there. This appropriate. Not just the old reactors, but also we've got new reactors working our way through the, through the licensing process, with billions of dollars of loan guarantees. We don't need that power now. And now is the time to slow things down rather than grant licenses and ultimately say, oh my God, we made a mistake. But what I'm suggesting is that if you recall back a hundred years ago, the French said, never again, it's not going to happen again. And they built a wall between them and Germany. And the wall was called the Maginoline. But that wall was designed to prevent an attack from the previous war. They were fighting the previous war instead of the next war with the Maginoline. By building new reactors, I think we're building a new Maginoline. Technology's changed. We have computers with smart grids. We have distributed ways of generating power closer to the grid with not as much waste and much higher efficiencies. So by putting loan guarantees in the process where we've got tens of billions and potentially hundreds of billions of dollars of money on the line, we are creating here in America, the Maginoline. The technology of the 20th century was to build large power plants. The technology of the 21st is not. And what I'm proposing is that by freezing licensing and thinking through this Fukushima large power plants, we may see that we can do it better and smarter with distributed sources of power in the future. And we don't have to build a Maginoline. Well, I hope we all contact our representatives and ask for a freeze-on licensing and ask for an independent agency to come in and evaluate these plants. Because I don't believe the nuclear regulatory commission is going to think outside the box. Thank you.