national

TEPCO's reactors soon to clear major safety hurdle to restart

31 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

31 Comments
Login to comment

What?

Incompetent, dangerous company is still pushing to control a as we have witnessed a very dangerous business model. For the love of god these people really need to run a convienence store into the ground not manage a Nuclear Reactor.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

What 'safety regulation' can possible ensure that nuclear reactors can safely provide energy in an earthquake ridden country as Japan?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

They're not going to clear safety hurdles, they're going to clear inspection hurdles.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

TEPCO: The Earth’s Parasite Continues ON.

Stop STOP lubing the shareholders fears, let this appalling company fail, STOP using tax payer's money STOP nuclear power in a country riddled with fault-lines, a history of mega quakes and tsunami! STOP the madness!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Has the Fukushima accident not shown how safe the nuclear technology of the plant has been? The reactor switched off as it should have. Power generators switched on as they should to continue the cooling. Had it not been for the tsunami to reach the power generators no accident would have happened. The technology used was fit to endure an earthquake. But it should have been constructed higher up and out of reach of a tsunami. But for cost reasons that was not done. So greed caused that accident.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@Who am I Japanese requested that General Electric (who built the plant) move the power generators up the hill rather then put them underground by the ocean, as in GE's plan. But GE refused for "safety reasons".

1 ( +2 / -1 )

TEPCO, which is facing massive compensation payments and other costs to deal with one of the world's worst nuclear crises, has been desperate to resume operation of its idled reactors so it can reduce spending on costly fossil fuel imports for non-nuclear thermal power generation.

Well, let's hear a resounding "Awww!" of sympathy for TEPCO. The meltdowns in Fukushima may very well have been caused by a tsunami, but they were the result of a failure to employ safety upgrades to the plant, which were falsely documented as being done. I feel so sorry for them, NOT!

This plant in Niigata was commissioned in 1985, which means it's already over 30 years old. The reactors in most nuclear plants are built to only last 30 years. The article states, it will take another 4 or 5 years to gain approval from the public, by which time the reactors will be nearly 40 years old. This plant, and many others around the same age, should never be restarted simply because they are too old.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Japanese electric energy cost is some of the highest in the world and for all its faults Nuclear energy helps to keep these cost down. Fossil fuel importation will raise the cost even more. TEPCO must do due diligence when cleared to bring these two plants back online. Until improvements in wind,/sun prower alternates get all their kinks worked out, Nuclear energy is going to continue to offer a cost effect alternate to Fossil fuel.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@gokai_wo_maneku:  Yeah, I read those exact sentiments a lot on Japanese sites whenever the Fukushima plant is in the news. It was all the fault of General Electric. I find this to be a typical Japanese trait, blaming someone else for your own shortcomings. However, all in hindsight of course and for the umpteenth time, it is well documented that the plant was originally planned to be built higher up on a cliff and that TEPCO, as in not GE, decided to lower the site in order to be able to build the plant on bedrock, i.e. saving piles of cash. A further cost saving benefit was that pumping cooling water up a hill would then no longer be necessary. TEPCO was warned about all sort of risks, even the risk of a tsunami, but decided not to act upon all these warnings. The Nuclear Safety Agency in Japan was aware of these warnings, but didn’t act upon it either. Furthermore, although all reactors were designed by GE, half were built by Japanese companies.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Burning coal is more dangerous than nuclear. Soon people will have to turn on their headlights during the day in Tokyo. Tens of thousands of people are going to die every year because of the use of coal. FYI burning coal releases radiation and mercury into the enviroment. When they sell oxygen in convience stores again?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Can you remove the +10% since you are making money?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It's interesting to see people comparing coal and nuclear power. It's also interesting to see people stating that nuclear power is cheaper than coal. Do you know how much the one 'man-made' disaster in Fukushima will end up costing? It will end up costing a hundred times more than it cost to build every reactor in Japan. Let me make this clear for non-educated, 'MODERN' nuclear power is safe and cheap if it is maintained properly. Japan's nuclear power plants are neither modern or safe and have a history of falsified safety reports and a failure to implement safety upgrades. Unfortunately, due to Japan's relaxed attitude towards nuclear power, coal is the better of the the two evils.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Love the photo - nuclear fishin'.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I would like to offer a solution instead of Japan relying on nuclear power. It is called SCALE WAVE POWER STATIONS. This is the best solution I have ever seen and Japan could finally rid itself of the likes of TEPCO or the coal fuel industry!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I Japanese requested that General Electric (who built the plant)

I am sorry but this is flat wrong. This just shows how ignorant people are on the matter and I am sure that pretty everyone in Japan is like that. 

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant consists of six reactors. Units 1 to 5 are based on the Mark I design of the US company General Electric (GE). GE supplied the reactors for units 1, 2, and 6, and two Japanese companies supplied the other; Hitachi provided unit 4 and Toshiba provided units 3 and 5. Both Toshiba and Hitachi were responsible in maintenance and/or servicing of the nuclear power plant. 

Already when those reactors were built, it was known that this reactor generation were weak in the event of rapid pressure increase due to lose of the cooling. The primary containment vessel surrounding the reactor would probably burst as the fuel rods inside overheat. This design flaw was actually known by GE and it warned the Japanese back then not to use this design in their plants since the risk of a rapid loss of control following a catastrophic event like an earthquake and/or a tsunami was likely enough. In order to reduce cost, Japan totally ignored their recommendations and decided to go forward with this design.

Later again, GE engineer Dale G. Bridenbaugh highlighted a potential design flaw of the reactors in the 1970s, when he publicly questioned whether GE’s Mark I reactor would stand up to a loss-of-coolant accident. Also Mitsuhiko Tanaka, a former engineer with Hitachi, has publicly said that the company covered up faults in the pressure vessel it produced for Fukushima’s reactor 4. When Tanaka tried to make this information public after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, Hitachi threatened him saying “Think of your family.” 

In addition to those points, several critical aspect on how poorly the nuclear industry in Japan is managed should be given:

1) The Daiichi plant was built by lowering the land since this reduced the cost to build the pipe system from and towards the plan to the sea. This decision was made ignoring the seismologists and other nuclear experts recommendations.

2) It was discovered in 2002 that TEPCO failed to accurately report cracks at its nuclear reactors in the late 1980s and 1990s, basically the cover up lasted for decades. A list of 29 cases of cover-ups of cracks on the core of 13 nuclear reactors, at three plants were established. None of the people responsible for this serious criminal act was brought to justice. The Japanese nuclear industry and the corruption involved with the Japanese government made sure that nobody would pay for it.

3) At some point during the late 90's early 00's, TEPCO decided to move the back-up diesel engines at Fukushima Daiichi underground in the turbine building. This is a decision which turned out to be critical for the accident in the plant because the engines were immediately flooded by the water and all back-ups were immediately gone after the tsunami hit the plant. This decision was made without any real concertation with independent nuclear experts. Back then the governmental safety Japans nuclear agencies were just useless and they were totally corrupted by the nuclear and power companies.

4) During the accident, it was clear that the plant operators were not properly trained to operate the plant which resulted in sloppy work. For example, they did not know how to operate the condenser and it was a critical failure since it accelerated the overheating and the fuel melting. The condenser was built to operate without power with the condition that its valve stays open. The operators at the plant did not know how to use it properly and in fact the condenser must be let open at any cost in case of loss of power. They did not understand that. Two hours passed before they started to think about the condenser and they did not know that the valve of the condenser automatically closed after the power loss. When the condenser was the first time mentioned by the operators, the water in the reactor was already low. They should have been trained to open the valves manually which they were not, but instead they were sent near the condenser for a single inspection which they could not do anyway since the radiation was already high. In fact no one really understood how to operate the condenser valve and everyone thought it was working. When they realized that the condenser valse was in fact closed, they thought that it was temporary ignoring that by design it closes after a loss of power and should be opened manually. A good operation of the condenser could have postponed the reaction fusion by seven hours.

Another major issue was a poor understanding of how the water gauges measuring the water level inside the reactor were designed. After bringing a few bus batteries to power up some of the plants instruments, they could read again the water level. However the readings were wrong. The gauge was giving wrong measurements. The gauge uses a reference level of water to work properly, however the reference water evaporated due to the heat and it was not possible anymore to reliably measure the water level. Nobody in the operation room knew that. In fact when the reference level is too low, the gauge indicates falsely a higher level of water inside the reactor. This made believe the operators that the level was higher than it was in reality. The same gauge design is still used in all nuclear plants across Japan. 

5) Seismologists have warmed for years the Japanese government and the nuclear industry based on very detailed scientific research that a giant tsunami would hit the plant and that nothing is in place to protect it. Instead, it was argued by the nuclear industry AND the government that a tsunami higher than 10 meters would never hit the plant.

In addition to the above, here a list of Japan’s record of nuclear cover-ups and accidents:

December 1995

Eight tonnes of sodium coolant leak from a pipe at the Monju experimental fast-breeder reactor, run by the now-defunct Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (Donen).

March 1997

An explosion rocked the Tokaimura waste reprocessing facility, triggered by a fires in a building where waste is mixed with asphalt for storage in drums. Seven maintenance staff were later found to have been out playing golf.

July 1999

Twenty tonnes of radioactive water leaked from a cracked pipe at the Tsuruga power station, run by the Japan Atomic Power Company.

September 1999

In what is billed as the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl at that time, three reprocessing workers at Tokaimura inadvertently created a critical mass of uranium, severely irradiating themselves and triggering chain reactions that continued for several hours.

International safety experts was flabbergasted to learn that the workers were pouring a solution of uranium oxide in nitric acid into a sedimentation tank by hand, using buckets. JCO, the company that now runs the facility, and the Japanese government were criticised both for allowing such a dangerous procedure and for a sluggish response to the incident.

December 1999

Hisashi Ouchi, one of the workers irradiated in the Tokaimura criticality accident, died after three months in intensive care; his colleague Masato Shinohara perished four months later.

October 2000

Six managers from JCO were arrested and charged with professional negligence for failing to prevent the dangerous procedures that triggered the chain reaction at Tokaimura.

August 2004

In one of the deadliest workplace incident for Japan’s nuclear industry, a steam leaked from a power turbine at the Mihama plant kills four people and injured seven. There was no radiation leak, but the Kansai Electric Power Company was criticised for failing to inspect the failed pipe.

July 2007

Three reactors at the world’s largest nuclear plant, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, shut down after a 6.8-magnitude earthquake. A fire briefly broke out in one of the units. TEPCO initially said that the quake caused no radiation leaks, but days later admitted that 1200 litres of radioactive water had washed into the sea and several drums containing nuclear waste lost their lids after falling over.

In the wake of the incident, experts debated whether Japan’s nuclear plants are engineered to standards high enough to cope with major quakes – the country’s Nuclear Safety Commission stipulated that all new plants must be built to withstand only a magnitude-6.5 event. Worldwide, there are about 150 earthquakes above magnitude 6 per year.

December 2011

In the run-up to the Japanese earthquake, it was discovered that TEPCO failed to carry out several scheduled inspections at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi plant. Thirty-three critical pieces of equipment were not properly inspected, including a backup power generator for reactor 1 during decades. 

Now the fact that TEPCO is still allowed to operate any reactor is a disgraceful scandal. Only an incredible ignorant and apathetic population would accept that without saying anything. Instead and like the poster above, they play the victims or blame others when they screw up.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

If telco is worried why should anyone else right? Who care about health and wellbeing or safety when there is money to be made, who cares if fish have no eyes and three heads!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Burning coal is more dangerous than nuclear.

That's not the point. Its not nuclear vs. coal or nuclear vs. fossile energy. This debate is essentially ridiculous and outdated. Both are not sustainable and safe way to produce energy.

Nuclear also produces a lot of waste that nobody really knows how to deal with it and adding to that, there is in fact a very high cost involved in the safe operation of nuclear plants. A critical issue with nuclear energy is also the tremendous cost faced by the population after a serious accident. Do you have any idea how much as a tax payer the Fukushima accident will cost you? I can tell you, it's very ugly....

4 ( +4 / -0 )

NK doesnt need to target Japan with its missiles when we have TEPCO.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I should be glowing according to some posters, survived Chernobyl, worked in places with higher than average background radiation plus Fukushima.

Didn't happen, how come? Waiting for explanations.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Nuclear plants are the largest business resource in Japan currently.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Forgot plenty of X-Ray, CT and MRI.

And how many thyroid cases in 2007, 2008 2009 & 3010, of forgot no testing happened.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

3010= 2010.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

That is not the point. Its not atomic versus coal or atomic versus fossile vitality. This civil argument is basically ludicrous and obsolete. Both are not practical and safe approach to deliver vitality. Atomic additionally delivers a considerable measure of waste that no one truly knows how to manage it and adding to that, there is in reality a high cost engaged with the protected operation of atomic plants. A basic issue with atomic vitality is likewise the colossal cost confronted by the populace after a genuine mischance. Do you have any thought what amount as a citizen the Fukushima mischance will cost you? I can let you know, it's revolting

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@daito_hak

Wow! Thank you for all that info!!

Do people WANT to be ignorant?..

Just curious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Daito_ Hak.

Thanks, telling me stuff I knew many decades ago, reason why my country still don't use nuclear energy as we voted against it 40+ decades ago.

Still free and happy.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

4 decades it should be.l

0 ( +0 / -0 )

-   The Niigata earthquake of June 16, 1964 had a magnitude of 7.5 and caused severe damage to many structures in Niigata.

A severe earthquake wreaked havoc on a wide portion of Niigata Prefecture and surrounding areas Monday morning, killing seven people, injuring more than 830 and destroying 500 houses. Although Tepco initially said no radioactivity was released, it later said an unspecified amount of water containing radioactive material leaked. No further details were immediately available...July 17 2007.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

Daito hak It doesn't matter that people started pointing out design flaws in GE's Mark 1 reactor in the 70s. The reactors were build in the 50s under the Atoms for Peace program of the US government to kick start the nuclear energy industry. When they "asked" Japan if they wanted reactors, recently defeated Japan was not in a position to say no. Also, putting the power underground was part of the original Mark 1 design because GE was thinking of the situation in the US when the plant was designed. They were worried about tornadoes throwing cars or trucks against the power source, and were not thinking about tsunamis, which they don't have to worry about in the US. There seem to be two completely different histories, including one that completely lets GE off the hook.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Regardless as to the reasons why Japan felt obliged to acquire Nuclear technologies from other Nations corporations, had it felt concerned about issues with those designs it surely has had long enough to act - yet instead of decommissioning, it seems to have ignored the problem, or denied that there ever was one.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The people do not want them restarted. They are too dangerous.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

HI Daito,

A few comments and questions on your detailed post.

1) The Daiichi plant was built by lowering the land since this reduced the cost to build the pipe system from and towards the plan to the sea. This decision was made ignoring the seismologists and other nuclear experts recommendations.

You seem to be mixing up two site-building decisions: One, to lower the ground level so the plant could be built on bedrock, which is recommended for nuclear plants, as it eliminates soil liquidfication as a problem. Two, the coast at the Daiichi site had a cliff. A decision was made, in the mid-60s, to remove the cliff so that a simple and reliable pumping path could be used.

2) It was discovered in 2002 that TEPCO failed to accurately report cracks at its nuclear reactors in the late 1980s and 1990s, basically the cover up lasted for decades. A list of 29 cases of cover-ups of cracks on the core of 13 nuclear reactors, at three plants were established. None of the people responsible for this serious criminal act was brought to justice. The Japanese nuclear industry and the corruption involved with the Japanese government made sure that nobody would pay for it.

True, and also true is the fact that the cracks were not hazardous.

3) At some point during the late 90's early 00's, TEPCO decided to move the back-up diesel engines at Fukushima Daiichi underground in the turbine building. This is a decision which turned out to be critical for the accident in the plant because the engines were immediately flooded by the water and all back-ups were immediately gone after the tsunami hit the plant. This decision was made without any real concertation with independent nuclear experts. Back then the governmental safety Japans nuclear agencies were just useless and they were totally corrupted by the nuclear and power companies.

First time I've heard this. Do you have a reference?

5) Seismologists have warmed for years the Japanese government and the nuclear industry based on very detailed scientific research that a giant tsunami would hit the plant and that nothing is in place to protect it. Instead, it was argued by the nuclear industry AND the government that a tsunami higher than 10 meters would never hit the plant.

And yet the same seismologists somehow forgot to warn the municipalities on the Pacific coast of Tohoku? How could they overlook that? More to that story than meets the eye.

And also, TEPCO was investigating reports from early 2000 of a recurrent tsunami in the wider gerographical area, and was investigating. They had also raised the tusnami defences significantly when new threats were brought to light.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites