national

Japan's aging nuclear plants may be checked at least once a decade

30 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

30 Comments
Login to comment

Oh, we're completely safe now, then. (eye roll)

3 ( +17 / -14 )

Once a decade? What could go wrong?

5 ( +20 / -15 )

What were the previous requirements? every 20 years? never?

2 ( +17 / -15 )

Once a decade, here another idea, once every disaster happened.

-1 ( +13 / -14 )

Should be checked at least every five years or more.

(Should be doing whatever we can to wean ourselves off of nuclear power.)

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Given most are already past their best before date, a slightly more frequent inspection regime might be more appropriate, say ten times? Once a year is the very least and unannounced if it is to have any credibility.

5 ( +12 / -7 )

Uum....usually when things age, there are more, not less inspections. Take for example human or pet physical check ups, your JCI (Japanese Car Inspection), driver's license renewal for the elderly, or aging aircraft just to name a few; I mean even MS stopped supporting the venerable Win XP. This line of reasoning from the regulators is back asswards!

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Once? If my car is checked every year then these can as well

7 ( +11 / -4 )

You seriously can't make this stuff up! Once a decade for plants which are already past their used by date??!!!

Most corrupt, inept bunch of useless government lackeys one could ever find anywhere in the world!

-1 ( +12 / -13 )

It’s global standard. In Britain and France, there’s no limit to operating life of nuclear reactors and they are only checked once a decade. Those two countries must have their share of “most corrupt, inept bunch of useless government lackeys” too.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Nuclear plants to run for 80 years,as in the united states

Lets not forget that the USA had advised Japan to follow its safety standards when they purchased the reactors from them and that Japan refused to heed the warnings of the USA and assembled the plants and reactors in a dangerous manner.

Hence the Fukushima disaster

So lets not be fooled by thier comparison to what the USA standards are.

They didn't follow the USA safety standards then or now

(Proposed) regulations

This Proposed regulation clearly demonstrates the inability and unwillingness to ensure a top priority safety standard for the safe operation of nuclear power plants in Japan.

And then we have the concern as to how Japan deals with its radioactive waste.

A safety inspection every 6 months is more appropriate due to the precarious placement of the reactors and that they were shut down and restarting.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

LOL at the above comments. There are different types of checks and inspections. Inspections happen every year. A full check up happens every 10 years for various tech reason. The US navy has the same policy.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

It’s global standard. In Britain and France, there’s no limit to operating life of nuclear reactors and they are only checked once a decade. '

Do British and French reactors face the same risks as the Japanese plants however ? How often do they have powerful earthquakes over there? Not to mention the decades of cover ups and data falsification by the N-village here.

LOL at the above comments. There are different types of checks and inspections.

Lol at your expert comment particularly....nice new username though.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

France does not have powerful earthquakes but they have had large-scale floods which could affect the nuclear power plants.

Most of the Japanese reactors were supplied by Hitachi and Toshiba and manufactured in Hokkaido. The reactors have to be shut down every 2 years for inspections and refueling which takes 6 months.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

LOL at the above comments. There are different types of checks and inspections. Inspections happen every year. A full check up happens every 10 years for various tech reason. The US navy has the same policy.

LOL ?

Yeah laugh out loud all you want ?

The US navy follows the USA guidelines whereas the Japanese government didn't.

Try reading the comment again and paying attention next time.

FYI - this isn't the US navy !

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

The nuclear plants for all and likely more reason need frequent and complete inspection. Just as our bodies as they grow older. This said, the quality of inspections must be secured.

Fukushima is a case study in ubiquitous sloppiness.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

They will be requiring TWO hankos from the manager of the temporary agency they hire the inspectors from. And they will verbally ask the inspectors if they are qualified, in principle. No worries.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Seems reasonable most decision makers in Japan don’t get checked at all. Most would fail their drivers licence but can make decisions like this. What do you expect?,care, concern.?

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

@jansob1,

You have nailed it.

Every single care home in Japan,every farm is calling out for workers yet there is such a shortage.

I can imagine the worst of the worse being employed by the Japan Nuclear Village.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

In the years following 3/11 many nuclear engineers left the country to work elsewhere. Many universities cut back on their courses. Even many of the so-called nuclear gypsies moved on.

All the major parts of a reactor need replacing every 25 years.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The big question I who will do the checking? I suspect TEPCO and other electricity suppliers that have a history of cover-ups and poor checking.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

These reactors are still there and are going to still be there, so the risk is still there. So you might as well use them, and get some benefit. So unless your'e going to demolish/scrap them, you might as well as use them.You'll reduce CO2, help in the fight against global warming and keep costs down. At least until you have enough renewables,thermal, or hydro come online.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

The problem of micro-cracking of concrete in old plants is a known issue.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-nuclear-edf-analysis-idUKKBN1IA2P0

Checking once in a decade by a blind person with a bag over his/her head is an effective way to avoid decommissioning a plant, though the augmented sense of touch possessed by the blind could be an problematic....

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Sorry. “could be problematic.”

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@Farmboy spot on!

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

I can imagine a TEPCO employee splashing water with his hands around the plant every decade. Pass!, We did everything we were legally obligated to do?

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

This article is explaining why Germany denuclearized for a good reason, while LDP elites under Korean control are still stubborn.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

More problems to come then…

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Japan's superannuated nuclear plants that are not designed to can endure to use over 60 years have poor seismic resistance less than general houses, one inspection per decade is just pretence or excuse in Japan where huge natural disaster often occurr.

11 years from Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japanese authorities completely ignores lessons. LDP government or major power industries and regulation agency are about to be in one body as same as before Fukushima nuclear disaster.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm basically anti-nuclear but with the current energy crisis restarting the TEPCO Nigata NP could provide enough power for the whole of Eastern Japan.

The Fukushima reactors withstood the earthquake and went into shutdown when it happened. The reactors and their buildings could not withstand the tsunami.

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