Published: December 19th, 2012 at 10:57 am ET
|
Title: Quake risk at Japan atomic recycling plant: experts
Source: AFP
Author: Kyoko Hasegawa
Date: December 19, 2012
Japan’s only reprocessing plant for spent nuclear fuel could sit on an active seismic fault vulnerable to a massive earthquake, experts warned Wednesday.If regulators agree they will have to order its closure and Japan would be without any recycling capacity of its own, a government official told AFP on condition of anonymity. [...]
Yasutaka Ikeda, assistant professor of geomorphology at Tokyo University, said a nearly 100-kilometre (60-mile) fault runs under the Rokkasho reprocessing plant in northern Japan.
“Even though experts’ opinions are divided on whether this fault is active or not, I think the possibility of it being an active fault is extremely high, given the evidence,” Ikeda told AFP.
“This fault could cause an 8-magnitude earthquake, so any nuclear-related facilities in the region are in danger,” he said, referring to the Shimokita Peninsula where the Rokkasho plant is located.
Mitsuhisa Watanabe, professor of geomorphology at Tokyo University, separately told Wednesday’s Tokyo Shimbun that part of an active fault runs directly under the Rokkasho plant, warning it is likely to move when the bigger fault moves. [...]
Under government guidelines atomic installations cannot be sited on a fault if it is still classed as active. [...]
Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant – Wikipedia:
At the same site there will also be:
- A high level nuclear waste monitoring facility
- A MOX fuel fabrication plant
- A uranium enrichment plant
Published: December 19th, 2012 at 10:57 am ET
|
sending...
"Even though experts’ opinions are divided on whether this fault is active or not…"
One does not need to be an "expert" to know that all faults are active on some time-scale. Put another way, all faults are inactive until they aren't.
Report Comment
I like that. The same rule should apply to volcanoes.
Report Comment
They should shut it down…but they won't.
Too much money involved.
In the U.S. they're building a MOX plant at the Savannah River Site.
>> it's costing 6 billion dollars (so far)
>> it's beset with problems
>> there are no customers for it
>> What is MOX?
"Mixed Oxide Plutonium Fuel (MOX) is composed of uranium dioxide and plutonium dioxide powders which are mixed inside of fuel pellets."
>> Whose bright idea was MOX?
"The US MOX program results from the 1998 Agreement on the Management and Disposition of Plutonium with Russia. This agreement designates 54 metric tons of surplus weapons grade plutonium for “immobilization” through irradiation as MOX fuel."
http://www.ananuclear.org/Issues/PlutoniumFuelMOX/tabid/75/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/572/Default.aspx
>> Simplyinfo did a good, short summary on it
http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=4897
Report Comment
You forgot to add that Fukushima Daiichi #3 disproved the fallacy that MOX can't be detonated.
Report Comment
Excellent point, dosdos.
Report Comment
The failed French AREVA is directing the construction.
Report Comment
“’We are committed to constructing the MOX facility safely and in accordance with regulations of the NRC,’ said Kelly Trice, president and chief operating officer of Shaw AREVA MOX Services, LLC, ‘and the NRC’s report underscores this commitment.’…”
http://us.arevablog.com/tag/savannah-river-site/http://us.arevablog.com/tag/savannah-river-site/
Report Comment
The French are allowed to shut down their facilities, but the Americans…?
Report Comment
“GREENVILLE — A Duke Energy study under way through next year will spell out just how much water the Savannah River has to spare for the millions of people who depend on it.
“Two of the energy giant’s hydropower plants in Oconee County are operating under a 50-year federal license that expires in 2016. Duke’s water supply study will look at demands on the river from the upper of those two power plants — at Lake Jocassee — all the way to the Atlantic Ocean, said Ed Bruce, an engineer with Duke Energy who has worked on several relicensing projects for the utility.
“Bruce spoke Wednesday at Duke’s Wenwood Operations Center in Greenville to about 30 people representing municipal, water and environmental organizations.
“The water supply study is among 14 planned as Duke pursues a license renewal from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for its Jocassee and Keowee hydropower plants. Other studies will look at the plants’ effect on water quantity, recreation and wildlife….”
http://www.independentmail.com/news/2011/sep/14/duke-studies-savannah-rivers-supply-limits/
Report Comment
OK, the off topic thread starts here, and continues.
Report Comment
Duke Energy Abandons Plutonium Fuel (MOX) Testing Program in South Carolina Reactor
Nov. 12, 2009
Utility’s decision to abort test during reactor outage is a huge setback for federal Department of Energy
“Columbia, SC – Friends of the Earth has learned that Duke Energy has taken a decisive step which signals its complete withdrawal from the Department of Energy’s controversial program to test the potential use of surplus military plutonium as fuel for commercial nuclear reactors.
“In a stunning and silent move, Duke Energy has decided not to reload experimental plutonium fuel (mixed oxide fuel, MOX) test assemblies into its Catawba Unit 1 reactor during the current fuel outage which began on November 6. This move is a major setback to the Department of Energy’s goal of using MOX fuel in commercial reactors. Such an outage is a normal procedure, as the radioactive uranium fuel must be withdrawn from the reactor core every 18 months….”
http://www.foe.org/news/archives/2009-11-duke-energy-abandons-plutonium-fuel-mox-testing-prog
Report Comment
Are San Onofre's problems due to MOX experiment?
San Onofre PWR Data for Code Validation of MOX Fuel Depletion
Analyses _ Revision 1
http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cpr/rpt/106763_.pdf
Report Comment
NoNukes
February 1, 2012 at 7:38 pm
San Onofre has MOX too? They have a “recycling” program:
“TheEEI-WestinghousePlutonium Recycle Demonstration Program was conducted to examine the use of MOX fuel in the San Onofre PWR, Unit I, during cycles 2 and 3.”
http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cpr/rpt/106763_.pdf
just google “San Onofre Mox”
Arto Lauri says that the unstable MOX caused massive build-up and venting at Fukushima long before the earthquake (see spikes on U.S. Radnet before 3/11), enenewser PattieB outlines how they had “plutonium only fuel” “recycling” weapon project on Webcam thread…sounds similar to the pdf about San Onofre “examining” the use of MOX.
Arto Laurie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V71EclYZm2c
Report Comment
http://enenews.com/radioactive-release-possible-at-california-nuke-plant-we-cant-make-a-black-and-white-statement-that-absolutely-none-escaped-workers-unable-to-enter-to-check-if-leaking
Report Comment
How is this related to the report on Rokkasho?
Report Comment
This sure takes me back to those FOIA releases, and early reports that we had 7 plants outfitted or running mox, and yet NRC said no way, no we don't..
Also, keep digging at Duke.. found really interesting historical dots there.. like the agreement for Tabacco and WHO.. started with Duke, prior to them entering the turbine biz.. made me wonder if that is where the WHO and nuke agreement came from.. sure seems very similar.. I was not able to find the definitive link, but I do believe it is there.. found lots of indicators.. but no actual proof.. yet.
Report Comment
Mack last I read SRS was cleaning that place up and not reprocessing fuel there. There are a bunch of vids on YouTube about it.
Report Comment
Active faults or not, we don't want dangerous MOX fuel, and we don't want nuclear reactors. It's like someone keeping a gun pointed at your head.
Report Comment
Insanity.
Report Comment
It's as if the people who chose the site said to themselves, "Hey! Our idea is great! Let's site the plant at the worst possible location. Let's see, there's a northern facing peninsula where it's vulnerable to tsunamis caused by earthquakes in northern Japan, the Kuril Islands, and possibly Alaska and North America. And this is great, too, it's on an active fault. Let's put it there! Yeah, that's the ticket!"
Report Comment
You're right HoTaters.
It's either intentional or complete stupidity/incompetence on their parts.
Report Comment
If anyone likes to read, the article linked below gives a good understanding of the mentality of the early nuclear energy promoters.
This sentence in the article stuck out:
"Nuclear energy was a game for young men…"
Highly recommended reading—>
http://www.powermag.com/nuclear/Too-Dumb-to-Meter-Part-7_5225.html#tools
Report Comment
All you have to do is look at the schematic of a Mark 1 reactor to see it's like testosterone on steroids. Almost like a giant "I'm giving you the finger." I needn't say more. I'm a fan of testosterone in moderation.
Report Comment
Sorry if this offends anyone. I've always thought the shape of the reactor was very, very symbolic. Like the male archetype run amock.
Report Comment
Mack, a relative of mine may have been working on the Alaska project Teller devised. He may have quit working for the fledgling AEC because of this project. I could be mistaken, but our family lore has it he quit the AEC over ethical issues. Not surprising. 1962 would be about the right time frame.
Report Comment
Mack, I agree. And check this out:
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/atmosphr/ustests.html#Plumbbob
"Conducted at the Nevada Test Site from 28 May to 7 October 1957, Operation PLUMBBOB included the 24 nuclear detonations summarized in the accompanying table. The series also included six safety experiments, conducted to ensure that no nuclear reaction would occur if the high explosive components of the device were accidentally detonated during storage or transport (18: 1,6,7). These tests are discussed with the subsequent safety experiments in section 4.18.
Operation PLUMBBOB Weapon-Related Events, 1957
4.14.3 Dose Summary for Operation PLUMBBOB.
The maximum dose limit for Desert Rock troops was 5.0 rem of gamma radiation in any 6-month period, with no more than 2.0 rem to be from prompt radiation. Participants in activities of the AEC Nevada Test Organization and AFSWC were limited to 3.0 rem for any 13-week period and 5.0 rem for one calendar year (18: 2,3).
Summary of External Doses for Operation PLUMBBOB as of
1 May 1986
Gamma Dose (rem) 0-0.5 0.5-1 1-3 3-5 5-10 10+ (Table shows exposure to military personnel (the human lab rats).
Report Comment
Hi Mack, the Kuril Islands are extremely tectonically active, and IMHO to site a plant anywhere facing the Aleutian or Kuril Islands is insanity. If one looks at the shape of the bay where Rokkasho is sited, you'll see it sits roughly in the middle of a crescent shaped bay. Sapporo lies to the north. If a tsunami were to strike this area directly (with the wave more or less traveling directly toward it, the waters would reach the highest levels somewhere near Rokkasho.
In other words, the bowl shape of northern Honshu and Hokkaido would trap the water, and the brunt force would be directed roughly toward Rokkasho. Imagine forcing water into a funnel. The narrower the neck of the funnel, and the greater the force behind it, the more powerful the stream of water is, coming from the opening of the funnel (exiting).
Analysis of the tsunami after the great Sumatra quake of 2004.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Asia-Tsunami/Tsunami-death-toll-passes-283000/2005/01/27/1106415737181.html
Watch this video. If you ever had any doubt about the potential destructive force of a tsunami, this should dispel your illusions. You will see many people standing helpless, unable to move, or too tired to run, swamped by the enormous waves and surges of water. At one location in Thailand, the tsunami waves traveled some 35 kilometers inland, up a river.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDOuwMj7Xzo
In Phuket, Thailand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand_tsunami
Report Comment
From Wikipedia, a map showing the area affected by the 2004 Sumatra (Banda Aceh) earthquake. It shows the path of the tsunamis through the Indian Ocean. Good illustration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand_tsunami
This article describes teletsunamis, which is the type of tsunami which could strike Rokkasho (consideration of an onshore EQ aside). The Banda Aceh EQ caused teletsunamis which reached 100 feet in height in inland areas (see article). Waves were also "focused" by undersea ridges.
Map showing tectonic plates around Japan here:
http://phys.org/news/2012-03-scientists-survey-seabed-fractured-japan.html
And have a look at this one, and imagine the water being funneled in between the islands of Honshu and Hokkaido.
http://www.igse.net/index.php?id=102
Lastly, look at where Rokkasho is situated (red dot on map):
http://www.igse.net/index.php?id=102
Report Comment
Where I'm going with this "argument" is the worst case earthquake and tsunami scenario could be horrific. As I studied this and pondered it, I became more and more convinced the builders chose one of the worst sites possible. Seeing the red dot on the map where the Rokkasho plant lies (last link here), I was convinced the worst case scenario might be truly devastating.
http://www.igse.net/index.php?id=102
Report Comment
More facts about the characteristics of tsunamis and how they travel:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_far_inland_can_a_tsunami_go
From description ofharacteristics of tsunami movement:
"The angle at which the tsunami reaches land and the geographical shape of the coastline: A concave coastline will suffer more damage than a convex coastline that can deflect the water movement."
Rokkasho lies roughly in the center of a concave shaped area of coastline.
Report Comment
And think about this — as a tsunami traveled toward Hokkaido and Honshu, and the water was driven through the undersea neck of the funnel, would the tsunami waves form a massive "whirpool" right off the coast where the Rokkasho plant lies? In other words, as the waters boiled through the neck of the undersea funnel, would they not form a swirling pattern as they hit the neck of the undersea funnel (inland between the islands)? Note a small island sits between the two larger islands. This area could be hit with a focused force, by a tsunami.
Think about it. Does anyone else visualize this the way I do?
Report Comment
Lastly, the coastline of Thailand sits inside a "funnel neck" and a coastline similar to that between Thailand and the tip of the Indonesian island where Banda Aceh lies.
http://www.thailandmaps.net/
And the article showing an animation of the tsunami waves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand_tsunami
Now visualize what could happen if a tsunami struck the area between Hokkaido and Honshu (where Rokkasho lies).
Report Comment
HoTaters – You've done some really excellent research.
Hopefully someone who 'makes decisions' will read your research and conclude that it's time to shut down the Rokkasho plant.
Report Comment
Maybe I should send this to the UNR or UC Berkeley Seismology Lab, and see if can analyze what my "findings" seem to point toward ….
Got a little bit carried away with this, but the deeper I got into looking at it, the more I realized they truly did put the Rokkasho plant in a very seismically risky area.
The idea tsunami effects could be amplified by seafloor topography and other geologic factors is unnerving. I just went with my gut feeling and assumptions about the area. These "gut reads" often prove correct ….
Report Comment
Have decided to begin saving some of this research because I seem not to be able to find my own stuff here after the fact. Am going to send to UNR and UCB, and ask if UCB (Berkeley) Nuke Lab can look at it along with their Seismology people. A phone chat between dept personnel would do. Then maybe they can pass their educated, researched opinions on to University people, well placed in Japan.
If they DON'T look at this data or do some analysis then IMHO they are playing ostrich.
Report Comment
Edited results of my preliminary findings sent to UCB Seismology Lab, assistant the Lab Director. Requested he review it and forward to his superiors, the BRAWN Nuclear Physics Lab, and the professors at Tokyo University in Japan. IMHO if my findings are reviewed by professional seismologists and nuclear physicists, and found to have any merit, it would carry more weight with the professors in Japan (as opposed to my contacting them directly). Credentials carry weight. I'm smart, but I'm not a Ph.D.
Report Comment
HoTaters, i'm inspired and a little teary-eyed by your effort. Thx for caring so much to create those models and send them out to try and make us all a little safer.
Report Comment
Here's a useful link.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/index.php?regionID=15
I lost the link showing the ridge pointing more or less directly at the island lying between Honshu and Hokkaido. It is the end and highest point of a ridge running roughly east to west, and out into the Pacific Ocean. W/O this link, it's hard to understand why a tsunami originating in the Pacific could be "focused" into a teletsunami aimed right at Rokkasho. I'll see if I can find the link and will post it.
This one shows the ridge, but it doesn't show the terminus at the island between Hokkaido and Honshu:
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2003/11/research.html
You can see the trench between the two islands here, but it doesn't clearly show the oceanic ridge.
http://www.maps.com/map.aspx?pid=16011&AID=41160&CJPID=4003003&SID=c7toog6t1jup
Zoom in on the Asia area until you get the desired magnification.
Here's a decent picture, but perhaps w/o all the detail:
http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/tsunami/japan/minamisanriku1.html
Here's a map showing the small island offshore from Rokkasho:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Japan
Report Comment
This is probably the best link showing, geographically, the seafloor, the island between Honshu and Hokkaido, and the land masses. If you scroll back and forth between this map and the map with the red dot showing Rokkasho, you might be able to visualize why Rokkasho would stand in harm's way, were a focused teletsunami to occur.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Sea_of_Japan_descr.jpg
Report Comment
HoTaters – The fact that Japan sits on a convergence of FOUR tectonic plates is enough reason that nuclear power and nuclear processing plants should not be in Japan.
The 4 tectonic plates:
Eurasian Plate
North American Plate
Pacific Plate
Philippine Sea Plate
From the link you posted:
http://phys.org/news/2012-03-scientists-survey-seabed-fractured-japan.html
Report Comment
Agreed.
Report Comment
They don't have to care, they have the bottomless taxpayer safety net to rely on. There is no fiscal reason for these plants to operate, or locate safely. They have no skin in the game, their feet are not in the fire, the board members, share holders get to live fancy as the rest of the world is polluted by dna mutating invisible death dust.
Take away taxpayer safety net and put the fiscal onerous back on the corporation, the share holders, the board members and nuke would have been dead a generation ago.
You only need to check what is going on with Tepco stock to see it.. shouldn't those that buy the stock, own the company, pay for it's mess? Now that would change things.
Report Comment
Too many have been motivated by a death wish; all for mammon and power.
Report Comment
Faults and fault lines don't just disapear like that.
Active faults that have become inactive are replaced by new faults.
Otherwise there would not be any faults anymore.
The truth is that researchers can't predict where and when a new faults are happening. Japan would like the faults to just go away and make all of them gradually "inactive". The reality is that Japan is moving and over subsuctive and prone to earthquake lands and there were, are and will be new faults.
Report Comment
Mox reactors will end it all and the final loss of face
will have a plutonium taste
Report Comment
I think a quake just hit:
Japan Just Hit With Third Earthquake Today as 177 Earthquakes Have Peppered the Western Pacific
http://guardianlv.com/2012/12/japan-just-hit-with-third-earthquake-today-as-177-earthquakes-have-peppered-the-western-pacific/
"Honshu, Japan was just hit with its third earthquake of the day as 177 relatively significant earthquakes have peppered the Western Pacific Countries. The last 5.0 temblors hit approximately 4:20 p.m. Tuesday, December 18, 2012, local time. According to the USGS, the quake had a depth of 20 miles and struck off the east coast of Honshu, Japan."
Report Comment
Who's fault is that ?
Report Comment
Savannah River Site; Most Severely Radiation Polluted Place on Earth? via A Green Road http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/11/savannah-river-site-most-severely.html
Tokai And Rokkasho Reprocessing Plants History, Accidents And Dangers; via A Green Road
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/06/rokkasho-reprocessing-plant.html
Report Comment
This article identifies an active fault as having moved within the past 120,000 to 130,000 years. Wikipedia defines a fault as being active if it has moved within the past 10,000 years. As much as I would welcome the perminent shut down and decommissioning of this and all other nuclear plants, I am curious as to what the full criteria of the fault being defined as active is, and how it's most recent movement is determined. I would also like to know why there is such a large discrepancy between the hugely differing criteria for a fault being defined as active. Any seismologists out there?
Report Comment
Tje desription of an active fault is by definition, deficient, in that it does not describe potential hazards to human beings. See this document (first three paragraphs):
http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/7_vol1_115.pdf
From the USGS office in Menlo Park, CA. I'd say their expert opinion probably carries some weight.
Report Comment
It seems an active fault and not a tsunami would be the greatest danger to this facility. The plant its self is located about three miles inland and over 160 feet above the nearest body of water which is a sea level lake. How vulnerable the cooling intake pumps etc are is a valid question but it would take a tsunami bigger than anything seen in modern times to actually reach the plant. I do hate now knowing that all impending epic disasters are now to compounded and stretched out over eons by the addition of nuclear catastrophes.
Report Comment
There have been, historically documented, tsunami waves reaching 1,400 meters in height, in Indonesia. If you consider what a focused teletsunami might do, as I described above (all that water coming into a bottleneck near Rokkasho) it's not inconceivable. If Rokkasho lay further inland and sat behind the island in the isthus between Hokkaido and Honshu, it would be better protected. As it is, it sits right in harm's way, IMHO. Perhaps the elevation and distance from the ocean would protect it. I certainly hope so.
Report Comment
Also helpful to do a search using term Higashidori, as this is an existing plant location, and where the Rokkasho plant is to be built.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higashid%C5%8Dri_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Is this three miles inland? Higashidori plant:
http://www.tohoku-epco.co.jp/electr/genshi/npi/higas-e.htm
Link is from Tohoku-Tepco PR page (in English).
You say the Rokkasho plant being sited further inland? It's supposed to be part of the Higashidori complex, non? The Higashidori plant sits on a small strip of land on a peninsula in the strait between Honshu and Hokkaido. Both the eastern side and Pacific side of the peninsula are visible from the plant. On the Pacific side are a series of small ponds. If you know your geology, you might be aware these ponds are often caused by ground subsidence occurring on a fault line.
"The Higashidori Nuclear Power Station is sited in Higashidori-mura, facing the Pacific Ocean, on the eastern side of the Shimokita Peninsula in Aomori Prefecture. To the north of Higashidori-mura is Cape Shiriyazaki on the northeastern tip of the main island of Japan. This cape is a part of the Shimokita Peninsula National Park. It commands a fine view of a white lighthouse, a green grassy plain and a blue expanse of ocean. On the Pacific side of Higashidori-mura are as many as twenty-four lakes and marshes formed by the natural damming by dune sand…."
Report Comment
Show me the beef, and I'll believe Rokkasho is safely sited inland. Where's the beef?
Report Comment
Keen, I believe you are correct re: the location of Rokkasho. My apologies.
Report Comment
Japan's tsunami went 6 miles inland.
Report Comment
Tepco having another bad day.."at least two major faults underneath the Higashidori plant are believed to be active and could cause major earthquakes, rejecting operator Tohoku Electric Power Co.'s denial. The operator would have to re-evaluate the seismic impact and reinforce the facility, a process which could take years."
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201212200097
Report Comment
Thank you, Cataclysmic. The combined risk from earthquakes and tsunamis makes the siting of this plant a very, very bad decision, IMHO. In Japan, there are at least two nuclear power plants sited on peninsulas, where they are exrremely vulernable to tsunami damage.
The greatest tsunami damage arises when there is movement under the seafloor, (as in in a subduction zone), and movement of geologic masses under the sea. If these moving masses of soil, rock (or whatever they are) underwater displaces a lot of water quickly, it can generate a powerful tsunami.
To understand tsunamis, one needs to understand how the energy is attenuated over distance.
Report Comment
Higashidōri in eastern Aomori Prefecture, on the Shimokita
Peninsula, facing the Pacific Ocean.
From Enformable,
http://enformable.com/2012/12/nra-chairman-says-faults-under-higashidori-likely-active-rokkasho-may-also-be-investigated/
"Survey team member Yota Kumaki, a professor at Senshu University, said that the claim by Tohoku Electric raises many questions. If the faults are judged to be active, however, there must be a main active fault nearby, the only question is where is it located? Many experts believe it could be located on the peripheral fault on the continental shelf, running along the seabed about 7 kilometers east of the Higashidori plant. Tohoku Electric has said the fault, which runs north and south for more than 80 kilometers, is not active."
Another map with info. on Higashidori:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VJBAzT27t5s/TZ4pYBj62GI/AAAAAAAAAs4/SXrfIwEo_0I/s1600/HigashidoriMap.png
Rough location of Rokkasho:
http://www.cnic.jp/english/topics/cycle/rokkasho/rokkashodata.html
Why is it so hard to get info. on the exact location? Security concern for Areva, maybe?
Tepco wants Rokkasho to be built because it will provide a repository for the spent fuel it wants to move out of the Fukushima Daichi plant, and ostensibly, other nuke plants in Japan.
CITIZENS' NUCLEAR INFORMATION CENTER
INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
JOINT PRESS RELEASE
Japanese Government Should Halt Construction of Plutonium…
Report Comment
"The plutonium fuel from this plant would be the most expensive in the world, by far. Abandoning the Rokkasho plant right now would economically be the wise thing to do," said Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a nonprofit organization based in Takoma Park, Maryland, USA." (from report above)
As close as I can tell, the Rokkasho might may be sited inland as Keen stated, and possibly closer to the East Coast of the peninsula, closer to the Sea of Japan (Eastern coast of Honshu). Not able to get a good map of the exact location.
Report Comment
Latitude and long. here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higashid%C5%8Dri_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Report Comment
By the old standards the Rokkasho plant is situated in a tsunami safe location and the Fukushima plants especially (as well as the Higashidori plant) were (and are) known not to be. At this point it is obvious that the "old standards" need some serious reevaluation. I do not know if there is such a thing as a "safe" site for any big nuclear facilities. Especially in Japan.
Fourteen hundred meter tsunamis !?!!!. That could really cramp ones style. Sounds like you are talking about a Yellowstone or Toba type of event that could be spelling curtains for everyone any way. If there is a chance of surviving it I would hope it would not also be within a nuclear paradigm.
Now a Carrington type of event which before the advent of electrical transmission would have simply been a wondrous spectacle could really spell disaster. Now however, such events which may occur about every 500 to 2,000 years will set modern existence asunder, even without nuclear power plants. With them the likelihood of hundreds of simultaneous full nuclear melt downs becomes quite high. If we get off easy it might be only ten or so. Knowing what a Carrington type of event could do getting off easy seems unlikely when globally every ones electrical power would be simultaneously knocked out and fires are likely to ignite in all cities and towns. Firefighters would have to choose between protecting peoples homes and businesses or engaging in a likely futile effort at the local nuclear power…
Report Comment
I have posted a link to the 1,400 meter tsunami info. here, in the past.
The largest one in modern times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Lituya_Bay_megatsunami
"The 1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami occurred on July 9, 1958, when an earthquake triggered a landslide that caused 30 million cubic metres of rock and ice to fall into the narrow inlet of Lituya Bay, Alaska. The sudden displacement of water resulted in a wave hundreds of metres high, that washed over trees and was ultimately measured as washing 524 metres (1,720 feet) up the opposite slope of the inlet, 143 metres (470 feet) taller than the roof of the Empire State Building. This is the highest recorded megatsunami and the largest known in modern times. The event forced a re-evaluation of large wave events, and recognition of impact and landslide events as a previously unknown cause of very large waves."
Report Comment
More historical info. on tsunamis:
http://www.livescience.com/13176-history-biggest-tsunamis-earthquakes.html
Reunion Island may have had the largest tsunami on record. It is located off the eastern coast of Africa.
We got into this discussion about a year ago when Atoms4Peace1 was trying to argue the tsunami which hit Fukushima was much larger than other tsunamis which have hit Japan in the last 100 or 300 years.
The highest tsunami ever measured was not witnessed and recorded, but the data came from marks it left on objects inland. Will have to try to find the link for this again.
One also has to think about a tsunami in terms of force. The wave height doesn't always indicate the amount of destructive force present. It's the amount of energy present that is most important.
The five most destructive tsunamis in recorded history (not including findings by scientists):
http://fohn.net/biggest-tsunami/
The Lituya, Alaska tsunami was measured at 1,740 feet in height.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Lituya_Bay_megatsunami
Can't find the info. posted here before on height of Indonesian tsunami.
Report Comment
More historical info. on tsunamis:
http://www.livescience.com/13176-history-biggest-tsunamis-earthquakes.html
Reunion Island may have had the largest tsunami on record. It is located off the eastern coast of Africa.
We got into this discussion about a year ago when Atoms4Peace1 was trying to argue the tsunami which hit Fukushima was much larger than other tsunamis which have hit Japan in the last 100 or 300 years.
The highest tsunami ever measured was not witnessed and recorded, but the data came from marks it left on objects inland. Will have to try to find the link for this again.
One also has to think about a tsunami in terms of force. The wave height doesn't always indicate the amount of destructive force present. It's the amount of energy present that is most important.
The five most destructive tsunamis in recorded history (not including findings by scientists):
http://fohn.net/biggest-tsunami/
The Lituya, Alaska tsunami was measured at 1,740 feet in height.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Lituya_Bay_megatsunami
Can't find the info. posted here before on height of Indonesian tsunami. Wave height at Lituya Bay not 1,740 feet, but it traveled up that far on the rock shore of the bay, on opposite side.
Report Comment
Higashidori: Very nearly SBO
“Information released today by NISA indicates that the Higashidori Nuclear Power Station, owned and operated by Tohoku Electric Power Company, did in fact get very close to experiencing an actual Station Blackout event. Here from the narrative style data provided by NISA is a brief timeline of events at Higashidori following the April 7 earthquake off Miyagi Prefecture (which is assumed to be an aftershock from the March 11 Great East Japan Earthquake):…
“07:00 April 9th: The diesel that had been in service, unit B, was again ready for operation. This made a period of about 17 hours during which the plant had no EDG capability at all….”
http://atomicpowerreview.blogspot.com/2011/04/higashidori-very-nearly-sbo.html
Report Comment
Magnitude 7.1
Date-Time
Thursday, April 07, 2011 at 14:32:41 UTC
Thursday, April 07, 2011 at 11:32:41 PM at epicenter
Location 38.253°N, 141.640°E
Depth 49 km (30.4 miles)
Region NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
Distances 66 km (41 miles) E of Sendai, Honshu, Japan
114 km (70 miles) E of Yamagata, Honshu, Japan
116 km (72 miles) ENE of Fukushima, Honshu, Japan
330 km (205 miles) NNE of TOKYO, Japan
Report Comment
They had damage from a 7 magnitude aftershock to 311 and may already be in meltdown.
Report Comment
The Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant , the real time bomb
From Aletho News something to scare us further .
[link to alethonews.wordpress.com]
" … There are large seismic faults, capable of producing earthquakes at the 7 or 8 magnitude level, near each of Japan’s nuclear plants, including the reprocessing plant at Rokkasho. It is hard to believe that there is any nuclear plant that would not be damaged by a magnitude 8 earthquake.
“A representative case is the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant itself, where it has become clear that the fault under the sea nearby also extends inland. The Rokkasho plant, where the nuclear waste (death ash) from all the nuclear plants in Japan is collected, is located on land under which the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate meet. That is, the plate that is the greatest danger to the Rokkasho plant, is now in motion deep beneath Japan.
“The Rokkasho plant was originally built with the very low earthquake resistance factor of 375 gals. (Translator’s note: The gal, or galileo, is a unit used to measure peak ground acceleration during earthquakes. Unlike the scales measuring an earthquake’s general intensity, it measures actual ground motion in particular locations.) Today its resistance factor has been raised to only 450 gals, despite the fact that recently in Japan earthquakes registering over 2000 gals have been occurring one after another.
Report Comment
[cont.]
Worse, the Shimokita Peninsula is an extremely fragile geologic formation that was at the bottom of the sea as recently as the sea rise of the Jomon period (the Flandrian Transgression) 5000 years ago; if an earthquake occurred there it could be completely destroyed.
“The Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant is where expended nuclear fuel from all of Japan’s nuclear power plants is collected, and then reprocessed so as to separate out the plutonium, the uranium, and the remaining highly radioactive liquid waste. In short, it is the most dangerous factory in the world.
“At the Rokkasho plant, 240 cubic meters of radioactive liquid waste are now stored. A failure to take care of this properly could lead to a nuclear catastrophe surpassing the meltdown of a reactor. This liquid waste continuously generates heat, and must be constantly cooled. But if an earthquake were to damage the cooling pipes or cut off the electricity, the liquid would begin to boil. According to an analysis prepared by the German nuclear industry, an explosion of this facility could expose persons within a 100 kilometer radius from the plant to radiation 10 to 100 times the lethal level, which presumably means instant death… “
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1460501/pg1
Report Comment
PLANNING FOR FAILURE – INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS
AND THE ROKKASHO-MURA REPROCESSING PLANT
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/planet-2/report/2006/6/planning-for-failure-internat-2.pdf
Rokkasho blunder leads to failures
Saturday, May 31, 2003
“Business at Oye Kogyo went downhill after the company was found to be responsible for a water leak at a nuclear fuel storage tank in December.
“The tank is in a spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant now under construction in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture….”
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nb20030531a6.html
Report Comment
Plutonium and Japan’s Nuclear Waste Problem: International Scientists Call for an End to Plutonium Reprocessing and Closing the Rokkasho Plant
6-21-2012
http://nuclearfreeplanet.org/articles/plutonium-and-japan%E2%80%99s-nuclear-waste-problem-international-scientists-call-for-an-end-to-plutonium-reprocessing-and-closing-the-rokkasho-plant.html
Report Comment
Rokkasho blunder leads to failures
Saturday, May 31, 2003
“Business at Oye Kogyo went downhill after the company was found to be responsible for a water leak at a nuclear fuel storage tank in December.
“The tank is in a spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant now under construction in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture….”
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nb20030531a6.html
Report Comment
Insight: Japan's nuclear crisis goes much further than Fukushima
“…A joint venture between Tokyo Electric Power, operator of the crippled Fukushima plant, and Japan Atomic plans to build Japan's first large dry-cask storage facility in Mutsu, north of Rokkasho, where 3,000 tonnes of spent fuel would be encased in metal and stored on an interim basis.
“But that project would be dedicated only to Tokyo Electric and Japan Atomic rather than all nuclear utilities, and it is also delayed, with commercial operation set to begin in October next year, 15 months behind schedule….”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/24/us-japan-nuclear-waste-idUSTRE81N08P20120224
Report Comment
Outline of the Rokkasho MOX Fuel Fabrication Plant
http://insaf-net.org/mox_wg/JNFL.pdf
Report Comment
Rokkasho Reprocessing Facility
another leak from spent fuel pool
“On June 8th it was confirmed that there had been yet another leak from the spent fuel storage pool (Figure 1) at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant. The location of the leak was a corner of the burnable poisons1 treatment pit for PWR spent fuel. According to a report released by Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. (JNFL) on July 12th, two holes, almost connected to each other, were found where padding had been faultily welded, contrary to the approved procedures….
“There have been large scale leaks from the same spent fuel storage pool in the past. Those leaks also resulted from faulty welding. A leak detector attached to the pool detected leakage in July 2001, but the leak wasn't publicly confirmed until January 2002 (NIT 88, 95). By April 2003, 291 faulty welds, including six actual leaks, had been located. As a consequence major repairs had to be carried out. At the time, six locations in the burnable poisons pit where this latest leak occurred were repaired. For over a year spent fuel could not be loaded into the pool. This led to delays in the uranium trials….”
http://www.cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit107/nit107articles/nit107rokleak.html
Report Comment