Researchers to check faults beneath Tsuruga reactors

Japan has regulations against building a nuclear plant on top of an active fault that has moved within the last 120,000 to 130,000 years, so the Tsuruga site could be declared unfit to host a nuclear plant.

So, with such razor sharp predictions, how come these intelligent scientists did not detect the Fukushima incident? As somebody said, it is better to assume that the whole of Japan is sitting in dangerous earthquakes that can happen anytime, and therefore not suitable for nuclear plants, especially the old faulty ones littered all over Japan

Did they remove the fuel rods?

Correction: Researchers to check faults beneath Tsuruga reactors, find everything just peachy, and recommend switching them back on again, shrtly thereafter receive a record amount of tax yen as "Research Grants"

zichi: "and what about the TEPCO NPP in Niigata with it's 7 reactors? TEPCO knowingly built it on a fault line?

The largest nuclear power complex in the world. The best we can say is that they underestimated the length of the fault line and only discovered the truth when it shook more violently than the upper limit of the plant's designated quake resistance.

They still have not revealed the truth of what happened inside the reactor buildings. One of those 30-ton cranes by the fuel pool for lifting spent fuel rods was sheared off clean through the solid steel base, for example. One of the very few photographs ever released, right after the quake before a news blackout was imposed.

They have since attempted to restart a couple of the damaged reactors, but with mixed success.

Ah, phew! It's the Japanese NISA checking it out -- that means it'll be completely objective and not in favour of the energy companies, or vest interests! My guess is it'll be 'regrettable', but somehow they'll find it necessary to turn on the reactors again despite opposition. Building on top of a fault? From my understanding that seems to be the rule more than the exception. Rule number 2. is that the company has to deny it at first before admitting it and saying, "they could not have known".

Rick Kisa May. 15, 2012 - 07:15AM JST

"Japan has regulations against building a nuclear plant on top of an active fault that has moved within the last 120,000 to 130,000 years, so the Tsuruga site could be declared unfit to host a nuclear plant."

So, with such razor sharp predictions, how come these intelligent scientists did not detect the Fukushima incident?

Your quote is not actually a prediction. Also, some scientists had discovered that there was a recurring earthquake and associated tsunami that appeared to strike the Pacific Coast of Tohoku every 1000-odd years. Even then, there is no way, at present, to predict such events to the accuracy you seem to be demanding.

As somebody said, it is better to assume that the whole of Japan is sitting in dangerous earthquakes that can happen anytime, and therefore not suitable for nuclear plants, especially the old faulty ones littered all over Japan

Well, if that is the case - then we also need to drain and close all the large hydro dams. Water supply will have to be decentralized on a large scale, cities probably evacuated, and all the hydro-storage dams that a widespread move to renewables needs will not be able to be built...

Need some clarification on a few things:

Japan Atomic Power Co, which operates the plant, initially denied the existence of an active fault right under the plant, citing its own geological assessment, but NISA ordered the new investigation which will continue until November.

JAPCO (really? JAPCO? LOL) INITIALLY denied the existence of an active fault. This implies that sometime later they changed their stance. True?

Japan has regulations against building a nuclear plant on top of an active fault that has moved within the last 120,000 to 130,000 years, so the Tsuruga site could be declared unfit to host a nuclear plant.

With as many eathquakes as Japan experiences, I would think there isn't a fault that hasn't shifted in the last 300 years, never mind 120,000 to 130,000 years (and what an odd timeframe to choose... 150,000 years was too distant?)

The company had planned to scrap the No. 1 reactor in 2016.

Seems like it makes sense to start scrapping the older, more vulnerable reactors NOW and if you have to have them, replace them with the somewhat safer convection-cooling reactors. By the time this No. 1 reactor gets permission to start-up, refuel, and come online, it will be time to shut-down, defuel, and decommission the reactor. Get started on it now while cleanup is much easier.

Star-Viking: "Even then, there is no way, at present, to predict such events to the accuracy you seem to be demanding."

They were warned, for more than a decade, that what happened would happened, but TEPCO completely ignored it. They then said, "How could we have known", and when it was proven they were warned they made up some internal meeting saying it might happen... but of course, the minutes of any and all meetings were never recorded. In other words, the corruption of the electric companies is so disgusting it warrants international attention -- and Fukushima is not the first time TEPCO covered up scandals.

They have very detailed maps of fault lines in Japan, and yet these moronic companies always try and suggest they had no idea there was a fault where they built an NPP.

@Star-viking

Well, if that is the case - then we also need to drain and close all the large hydro dams. Water supply will have to be decentralized on a large scale, cities probably evacuated, and all the hydro-storage dams that a widespread move to renewables needs will not be able to be built...

In case of accident, the risk and hazard involved is much higher for nuclear plant than the hydro-electric plant. This is the reason why care should be taken which area to built a nuclear plant. The way the researchers detail here presents a false picutre that no stone is left unturned to ensure safety of the people when building a nuclear plant , which is not true. Some nuclear plants such as the Niigata ones were knowingly built on an active fault!

Researchers from the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) and Japan Atomic Power Co on Tuesday will begin a six-month survey of faults beneath two reactors at the Tsuruga nuclear power plant in Fukui Prefecture.

And yet they are re-starting Nuke power plant in Oi.....

smithinjapanMay. 15, 2012 - 11:21PM JST

Star-Viking: "Even then, there is no way, at present, to predict such events to the accuracy you seem to be demanding."

They were warned, for more than a decade, that what happened would happened,

If that was the case, then why were there no protest movements, no articles in the Japan Times? Articles in scientific journals do not constitute warnings - though I wish they did.

but TEPCO completely ignored it. They then said, "How could we have known", and when it was proven they were warned they made up some internal meeting saying it might happen... but of course, the minutes of any and all meetings were never recorded. In other words, the corruption of the electric companies is so disgusting it warrants international attention -- and Fukushima is not the first time TEPCO covered up scandals.

Well, the frist thing is - why the hell is TEPCO investigating seismic hazards to its facilities in the first place? More blame should be heaped on those who decided that was the best approach from a safety perspective. The second thing is - how conclusive was the research of recurring tsunamis on the Pacific Coast of Tohoku at the time? It's all very well to say that TEPCO was warned - but if the danger was so imminent I would have expected the tsunami experts to have been up in arms about it. Perhaps they did not see it as such a danger?

They have very detailed maps of fault lines in Japan, and yet these moronic companies always try and suggest they had no idea there was a fault where they built an NPP.

Well, these maps get filled in as better technology provides better maps.

Samuel Mikenga May. 16, 2012 - 01:00AM JST

In case of accident, the risk and hazard involved is much higher for nuclear plant than the hydro-electric plant.

Really?

Malpasset Dam Disaster, France 1959 - around 400 deaths. Vajont Dam Disaster, Italy 1963 - around 2000 deaths. Banquio Dam Disaster, China 1975, around 171,000 deaths. Morvi Dam Disaster, India 1979, between 1800 and 151,000 deaths estimated. Val di Stava Dam Disaster, Italy 1985, 268 deaths. St Francis Dam Disaster, USA 1928, more than 450 deaths. Canyon Lake Dam disaster, USA 1972, 238 deaths. Johnstown Flood, USA 1889, over 2200 deaths.

Fukushima Disaster - no reported deaths to date.

This is the reason why care should be taken which area to built a nuclear plant. The way the researchers detail here presents a false picutre that no stone is left unturned to ensure safety of the people when building a nuclear plant , which is not true. Some nuclear plants such as the Niigata ones were knowingly built on an active fault!

Really? Wiki, which is usually good for this stuff states:

"After the 2007 earthquake suspicions arose that another fault line may be closer to the plant than originally thought, possibly running straight through the site."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashiwazaki-Kariwa_Nuclear_Power_Plant

zichi May. 17, 2012 - 08:31PM JST

Star-viking at a recent press conference TEPCO have admitted it knew in 2006 following a report, and again in 2008 following another report, their Fukushima plant could be hit by a 14m tsunami and swamp the plant. They made the sea pumps waterproof but took no action to increase the height of the sea wall, waterproofing the reactor buildings or the emergency power generators.

The second link just states that TEPCO knew that the backup generators could fail if hit by a 14 metre tsunami. The first link could do with some more information - like the background of the other experts on the earthquake panel. If Prof Shimazaki was the only seismologist then the report is worrying, if not - then it just shows that he had a dissenting view. TEPCO is not mentioned as being directly involved in the report, and in fact Prof Shimazaki says:

"Mr. Shimazaki and others say the fault lay not in outright corruption, but rather complicity among like-minded insiders who prospered for decades by scratching one another’s backs. They describe a structure in which elite career bureaucrats controlled rubber-stamp academic policy-making committees, while at the same time leaving it to industry to essentially regulate itself. "

Now TEPCO is not blameless by any means, but the bureaucrats are the ones who let things go to hell in a handbasket to line their own pockets.