Reactors at TEPCO's Niigata nuclear plant pass safety review

But, which two reactors? There are 7 reactors at this plant, the first of which was commissioned in 1985, nearly 40 years ago. It is the largest plant in Japan and one of the largest in the world. The latest (units 6 & 7) were commissioned in 1995, which is over 20 years ago. There has been a few incidents at this plant involving radiation leakages over the years. Japan definitely seems to be 'clutching at straws' to keep these ageing plants and to get them running again. These reactors were design to last only 40 years. More than half of Japan's reactors are over 30 years old and only have a few years of service left before they pass their use-by dates. However, I've not seen or heard of any plans to start decommissioning these ageing reactors, which costs more and takes a lot longer than it did to build them in the first place. Tell me again how nuclear power is cheap and safe.

Source Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashiwazaki-Kariwa_Nuclear_Power_Plant

What safety review, with human parameters? Oh, that again, see how well that works when we only have experience of the last 200 years-ish at best to (Japan seems to ignore sediment deposits etc from tsunami events in the distant past) determine these ‘parameters’, nature is beyond our imaginations, as proven by Fukushima. ’Safety review passes’? Laughable.

Great idea!

Lets start a war with North Korea and give them a few more targets! Like the Takahama plant! 1 missile would destroy the whole Hokuriku, Kinki, Kansai, etc. regions!

Don't want to be a complainer, so here is my solution to Japan's energy dilemma, TIDAL WAVE POWER!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelamis_Wave_Energy_Converter

Hopefully sane heads will prevail and get Reactors 6 & 7 operating.

YongYang,

Japan seems to ignore sediment deposits etc from tsunami events in the distant past

Japan does not. The Jogan Tsunami was being investigated, unfortunately some vital information was missing: it was discovered after the 2011 Tsunami that the inland reach (and so power) of the tsunamis were being underestimated. Scientists had previously thought that sediment deposits showed the reach of ancient tsunamis - in 2011 sediment some deposits only went 60% of the inundation limit. (See Goto et al, The future of tsunami research following the 2011 Tohoku-oki event)

Quote: "Niigata Gov Ryuichi Yoneyama, who won the local election in 2016 for a four-year term, is known to be cautious about restarting Kashiwazaki-Kariwa."

But they do not tell us why.

Building nuclear reactors on top of active seismic faults is only asking for trouble (again)

@nandakandamanda - He is not convinced that TEPCO have learned anything from the Fukushima disaster, and are not fit to run a nuclear power plant, and the way that they have submitted a succession of revised applications after failures to report situations has troubled him. He is also concerned that insufficent planning has gone into evacuation plans for the local population in the event of an accident. Others are wondering just what altered the NRA’s assessment of Tepco to determine that the utility is fit to run a nuclear plant, after a refusal only 6 months ago.

In July, the out-going NRA Chairman Tanaka, in a meeting that was also attended by Tepco’s top management, severely criticized the utility over the way it was approaching the task of cleaning up the mess of Fukushima No. 1, saying that a power company which “lacks the will to take the initiative” in decommissioning the crippled Fukushima plant “does not have the right to restart operations” of a nuclear power plant.

@Viking, no, TEPCO ignored all and any data concerning tsunami presented to it connected to events prior to 1896, including a 2001 report about the 3000-year history: "The recurrence interval for a large-scale tsunami is 800 to 1100 years. More than 1100 years have passed since the Jogan tsunami, and, given the reoccurrence interval, the possibility of a large tsunami striking the Sendai plain is high.” They foolishly ignored ‘worse case scenarios’.

Sotegai is unacceptable as an excuse. This is why TEPCO must NOT be allowed to restart any of they NPP!

My first earthquake was in Nigata. That means another one will happen, if you check sites like...

move along Japan.

Hope the data wasn't falsified....why not bring in external auditors from outside the country to check?

@Lover

I'm afraid you are completely wrong. Tsunami effects from 1960 were used in the initial plans, and tsunami countermeasures were increased twice in the 2000s because of new information.

The 2001 paper was firmed up in 2008 and TEPCO did investigations.

By the way, what is it with people who castigate TEPCO over allegedly not taking countermeasures for the 2011 tsunami, but have no interest in finding out who let 20,000 people die in the same event?

Reference:http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/interim/images/111202_01-e.pdf

The 'Soteigai' shocker with this plant in Niigata was the earthquake resistance of the plant itself.

It was shaken by an earthquake much bigger than the planners and architects had foreseen, along unexpected faultlines under the plant longer than they had allowed for. From our flexible friend Wiki:

"It was the largest nuclear generating station in the world by net electrical power rating. It was approximately 19 km (12 mi) from the epicenter of the second strongest earthquake to ever occur at a nuclear plant, the Mw 6.6 July 2007 Chūetsu offshore earthquake. This shook the plant beyond design basis and initiated an extended shutdown for inspection, which indicated that greater earthquake-proofing was needed before operation could be resumed. The plant was completely shut down for 21 months following the earthquake. Unit 7 was restarted after seismic upgrades on May 9, 2009, followed later by units 1, 5, and 6. (Units 2, 3, 4 were not restarted)."

And that is only part of the story.