Japanese reactor build on active fault line?!?

[sod]

Read more here:

"A finding that an active fault line runs directly underneath the No. 2 reactor of the Tsuruga nuclear power plant in the western Japan prefecture of Fukui could deal a fatal blow to plant operator Japan Atomic Power Co., which may be forced to shut the facility permanently."

ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201305160063

or here, if Asahi Shimbun keeps you out:

www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/05/16/national/japan-atomic-power-calls-nra-determination-of-active-fault-unfair/#.UZUVeMpnC5U

This exposes a serious problem of the industry: There is an extreme reason to fight against closing this reactor, as the company will not only lose profits from the reactor but instead has to pay to build it back.

[edireland]

Is this even a problem?

It's not as if the ground is going to literally break open and swallow the reactors whole.
Subsidence is unlikely to cause a catastrophic loss of reactor cooling if the plant is properly prepared.

[sod]

May 17, 2013 4:17:07 GMT 9.5 edireland said:

Is this even a problem?

yes. Remember, there was a major nuclear accident in Japan rather recently.

It's not as if the ground is going to literally break open and swallow the reactors whole.

It might cause massive damage to the hull and to equipment. And it could easily swallow the emergency diesels.

Subsidence is unlikely to cause a catastrophic loss of reactor cooling if the plant is properly prepared.

small cracks will lead to loss of cooling, as Fukushima is still showing! And for some stupid reason, roof top storage seems to be still allowed.

--------------------------

but apart from all of this, it is simply forbidden to have a reactor above an active fault:

"Nuclear plant operators are not allowed to build or operate reactors and other critical safety equipment directly above active faults, which means the Tsuruga plant’s reactor 2 must be decommissioned."

www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/05/16/national/japan-atomic-power-calls-nra-determination-of-active-fault-unfair/#.UZV70spnC5V

The story is now hitting US papers:

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578484583837316190.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

there also is a huge problem with the reactor in Monju:

"“The Japan Atomic Energy Agency cannot sufficiently secure the safety of Monju,” the NRA said in a document, referring to JAEA’s delayed checks on a wide range of Monju’s equipment, reported last November, and subsequent blunders. “We see deterioration in its safety culture.”"

[Roger Clifton]

May 17, 2013 10:15:35 GMT 9.5 @sod said:

Remember, there was a major nuclear accident in Japan ...

From a safe distance we have seen the remarkable spectacle of one of the biggest earthquakes in history strike some of the toughest structures in an earthquake-engineered country, and every single one of them survived intact. As far as I know only a crack appeared in a storm drain between two of the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi, one of the many nuclear installations that withstood the violence of Nature that day.

If they had had time enough to react, a chorus of antinuclear zealots would have crowed to the world about how nuclear reactors crack in the event of earthquakes. At the same time they would have shouted down our concern for a million or so people struggling to survive as their roofs shook to come down around them. Can anyone get more callous than that?

Yes they can. Because the same voices believe that instead of the nukes on the coast, all those houses should have had solar panels placed on their roofs. We do not know how many people were killed by solar panels falling into their houses in Eastern Japan that day, but we can guess how many more would have died if the zealots had had their way.

The subsequent, much greater disaster arising from the most horrific tsunami did not swerve them from their fear mongering. Even now the myopia persists, because we hear repeatedly of unspecified nuclear casualties, based on the two people drowned on the site of one of these maligned monsters, while 20,000 people died horribly in an otherwise familiar suburban landscape.

[sod]

May 17, 2013 18:08:35 GMT 9.5 Roger Clifton said:

From a safe distance we have seen the remarkable spectacle of one of the biggest earthquakes in history strike some of the toughest structures in an earthquake-engineered country, and every single one of them survived intact. As far as I know only a crack appeared in a storm drain between two of the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi, one of the many nuclear installations that withstood the violence of Nature that day.

There are serious doubts about this. Instead we have a lot of evidence, suggesting that the quake did major damage to the Fukushima plant.

The main problem is, that this has not been properly investigated, because TEPCO is preventing inspections with all means, including false claims.

"Tokyo Electric Power Co. misled a Diet investigation panel citing "pitch blackness" and “dreadfully high” radiation levels in a reactor building to effectively block an inspection for possible quake damage at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant."

ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201302070058

[sod]

This piece sums it all up:

ajw.asahi.com/article/views/editorial/AJ201305180030

"Overly optimistic assumptions about the safety of nuclear power plants can result in huge damage if a disaster actually takes place. That is one of the most important lessons that should be gleaned from the devastating accident that occurred in 2011 at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant."

Many writers on this page should read and think about this fact twice...

meanwhile, there has also been a resignation over the Monju breeder debacle:

ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201305170072

[anonposter]

The most important lesson to be learned from it (and Chernobyl as well) is the one which people like sod and the media (mostly staffed by people with no clue about science) are doing their best to avoid, namely that the anti-nuclear movement is more dangerous than nuclear power.

[sod]

May 19, 2013 1:07:56 GMT 9.5 @anonposter said:

The most important lesson to be learned from it (and Chernobyl as well) is the one which people like sod and the media (mostly staffed by people with no clue about science) are doing their best to avoid, namely that the anti-nuclear movement is more dangerous than nuclear power.

What i think, doesn t really matter in this case.

There is a rule in Japan: no nuclear power plant above an active fault line. (i can hardly think of any rule that makes more sense)

There have been doubts about this about the Tsugura plant for a long time.

www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/05/20/editorials/tsuruga-reactors-active-fault/#.UZqAmJxrmJA

"But it must be remembered that experts expressed a view by the early 1990s that the Urazoko fault is active. Even the now-defunct, infamous Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency in 2011 expressed suspicions that the D-1 fracture zone is an active fault."

Now it looks as if the only reason that keeps this reactor online is a simple one: The company will go bankrupt, if the reactor is closed.

While the argument at the top (no reactor above an active fault line) is one of the best i ve ever heard, this is among the worst.

[cyrilr]

Here's an excellent summary of the Fukushima events:

www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Fukushima-Accident-2011/

As you can see, there was no detectable trouble when the earthquake hit, even though it was beyond the design basis of some of the Daiichi units. The plants shut down as designed upon seismic exceedence, and the diesel generators all started and ran fine till the tsunami hit. The flooding by the tsunami caused common mode failure of most electrical systems in a way that no earthquake ever could.

The plants were clearly robust seismically, they were just vulnerable to the tsunami created by a quake on the sea. If such a reactor sits on top of an active fault, there won't be a tsunami.

Most of Japan is in the damage influence area of active faults. Should we perhaps close down the country? If a nuclear plant in a low population area under the influence of an active fault is unacceptable, then why is a city of 13 million people (Tokyo) acceptable?

[Something Special]

wow... it's wonderful