Reactors must be terror-proof as well as quake-proof: regulator
TOKYO —
Japan’s new nuclear regulator said Wednesday it was going to require power companies to make reactors terror-proof as well as quake-resistant, as the body set out to prove it was a watchdog with teeth.
Shunichi Tanaka, chairman of the Nuclear Regulation Authority, said plants would have to be able to survive a direct hit from a hijacked airliner or ship, as well as withstand tsunamis like the one that crippled Fukushima.
“For absolutely sure, if we continue… Japan will have the world’s toughest standards in terms of earthquakes and tsunami,” Tanaka told a press conference.
The move comes after repeated criticism that lax regulation and an overly-cozy relationship between authorities and the big-money companies they were supposed to police worsened the catastrophe of March 2011, when a tsunami swamped the coastal Fukushima Daiichi plant.
Thousands of people were forced to evacuate when radiation spewed from the crippled plant, polluting swathes of land and leaving some settlements uninhabitable, possibly forever.
The NRA this week unveiled draft proposals for new safety measures designed to prevent a repeat of the world’s worst nuclear accident in a generation.
Under the plans, which will be formally adopted in July, power plants must build backup control rooms and secure emergency power supplies on higher ground 100 meters from reactors.
Cooling systems at Fukushima and emergency power supplies were located in the same building as the reactors that went into meltdown.
The authority wants nuclear plants to prepare for “external human-caused events” including “flying objects such as falling planes, the collapse of a dam, explosions, fire at nearby plants, toxic gas, a ship crashing into a facility and the interruption of communication systems.”
The nuclear authority is also crafting new safety criteria to deal with earthquakes and tsunami, including toughening the regulations on siting a plant near geological fault lines.
Once adopted, Japanese regulations will match standards in the United States, which tightened its nuclear rules after the terror attacks on Sept 11, 2001.
The move is partially designed to symbolize a change in the nation’s nuclear outlook, which has been lambasted in the aftermath of the meltdowns.
Fukushima operator Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) has insisted it could not reasonably have predicted the massive tsunami that slammed into Japan after the 9.0 magnitude undersea earthquake.
But in October the company admitted it had played down the risks to the facility for fear of the political, financial and reputational cost.
Anti-nuclear protests grew in Japan over 2012, with increasing outrage over the political and financial clout of one of the world’s largest utilities, which has enjoyed a monopoly for decades on the production and distribution of electricity in and around Tokyo.
Japan’s 50 reactors were gradually shut down in the months after the catastrophe as scheduled safety checks fell due.
A nervous public has prevented any more than two of them being restarted since, despite warnings of a power crunch.
Tanaka said Wednesday the two working reactors must also be taken offline if they fail to meet the new standards.
© 2013 AFP
Order by Time Order by Popularity
32 Comments
Login to comment
6
Farmboy
This is certainly the standard people will be hoping for. Now, on to the next nuclear regulator. This guy won't last, saying things like this.
3
Ewan Huzarmy
So what he means is make them indestructible ...... that sounds like unsinkable, now where have I heard that before ?
12
nostromo
How about TEPCO proof??
3
semperfi
It is a very high standard the NRA has set. . . . .However KUDOS to the NRA for defining the necessary parameters of safety. . . . Perhaps other countries -like Canada and USA - that use Nuclear energy will follow suit.
6
BertieWooster
Even if they are quake proof, terrorist proof, they won't be idiot proof and there will still be the problem of what to do with the waste.
There are many clean and safe ways to produce energy.
We don't need nuclear power.
3
JeffLee
Perhaps other countries -like Canada and USA - that use Nuclear energy will follow suit.
Canada, USA, France, etc. don't have the groundswell of anti-nuclear sentiment that Japan does right now. Japanese anti-nuke demonstrators getting increasingly angry...and perhaps even desperate. Japan also has a rich postwar history of domestic terrorism.
0
papigiulio
@nostromo: LOL! qoty ^^
7
marcelito
Terror proof N plants - in this day and age a no brainer and absolutely necessary. They could even go one better and ensure the highest levels of safety for those plants - by keeping them them shut down...but unfortunately money talks.
3
Elbuda Mexicano
Terror proof?? It is already terrorizing having greedy fools at Tepco, the LDP keeping old nuke reactors running over earthquake fault lines, trying to tell us that everything is fine, when the Daichi nuke plant is still spewing nuke crap into the ocean, etc...so yes IDIOT proof should also be required, IMHO.
3
ogtob
Don't forget about the right wing nut job who tried to drive his van into Fukushima Daichi during the height of the meltdown crisis and was turned away but somehow got his van inside of Fukushima Daini and drove around playing patriotic music.. They'll probably make a checklist and say it's safe because they checked the box.
0
semperfi
Jeff Lee :
That is true !.........................However 'some' of the above-mentioned countries have a higher risk of attack. ...
1
Yubaru
In other words this guy is in effect saying it's time to shut down the reactors for good because there is no way in hell that we can possibly protect them from any or every possible risk. I mean heck he's Japanese right? He can't say things straight and has to beat around the bush and leave himself an out if anyone questions his motivation....I didnt say they had to be shut, I just said you hat to prepare for any and all contingencies, real or imagined.
Heck I'm surprised he didn't say they had to be nuke proof too!
Oh and if the US couldn't protect the Pentagon from an airline strike how do the Japanese think they could?
5
zichi
This should have all been in place prior to the 3/11 nuclear disaster. We will have to wait and see how much real power the new NRA will have when it says a reactor or plant can't be started.
0
BertieWooster
Recommended reading:
http://www.japanfocus.org/events/view/164
2
rickyvee
unless your're talking about placing anti-aircraft artillery with military personnel or constructing a building with 5-meter thick walls, then these reactors won't be able to withstand a terrorist flying a plane into the reactors.
and i agree with zichi. they can "recommend" all they want but the final decision rests with the gov't.
1
cloa513
There is no way any terrorist with the slightest brain would ever break into a standard commercial nuclear reactor- they are full of pressurized hot radioactive water so in the slight chance they breached the reactor (very difficult from the outside) - there are much easier ways to get uranium and much easier ways to cause radioactive hazards to people that terrorists want to hurt most. The US is mad on terrorist safety with whole group of anti-terrorist groups on standby at reactors but its ludicrous.
2
Amidalism
While they're at it, why not make them meteor, black hole and dinosaur proof?
2
Andreas Zachcial
I am sure the Nuclear Regulation Authority will soon have another chairman. Somebody LDP approved.
2
Disillusioned
The toughest standards for earthquakes and tsunamis? Um, didn't they know Japan was an earthquake and tsunami prone country sitting on the cusp of two tectonic plates prior to deciding to build nuclear power plants? Why is it that, only after an 'unprecedented' event they decide to change their engineering standards? It's all BS! The Japanese government and the power companies (TEPCO, KEPCO, etc) have proven they are not capable of safely managing nuclear power and have been caught out many times with their lies and deceipt. This article is just another politically motivated load of BS sponsored by the LDP with the aim of convincing Japanese people that nuclear power is safe.
1
tapi0ca
"Terror proof"? To its own people, I would hope. Thus, don't start it and/or don't build it.
-3
cabadaje
Unfortunately, Japan absolutely needs nuclear power if it wishes to advance.
0
herefornow
Semperfi -- do you ever read past the headline before you post? If you did you would have undoubtedly read the following:
So, all Japan is doing is matching what the U.S. has already done.
2
FightingViking
@cloa513
Who ever said terrorists have brains ???
1
Nessie
There's no such thing as "terror-proof". Can you terror-proof a nuke plant against the strike of a highjacked plane?
Terror-resistant should be the standard.
-2
basroil
cloa513Jan. 24, 2013 - 10:34AM JST
Hell, if fear and death was their aim they could pump poison gas into a packed stadium, blow up a hospital, or take down any large office building. Even an exposed core with all gasses released would end up killing less than any of the above, but then again people don't think in the right units and say stupid things.
-3
timeon
move them to the Moon. problem solved
-2
basroil
NessieJan. 24, 2013 - 11:45AM JST
The reinforced concrete hulls of all new plants in the USA (and many PWR types elsewhere) are built to survive a 737 plane crash, which can't be said of most other targets. The best way to prevent damage from terrorist attacks is to not let them happen in the first place, not to design it to survive one.
3
slumdog
Yes, and the World Trade Center towers were said to be able to withstand being hit with a plane roughly the size of a 707. Yet, they fell after being hit with planes that were roughly the same size and weight. Unforeseen circumstances can change things very quickly. Nothing is 100% --- proof.
0
Ranger_Miffy2
In the end, the npp must go into a long cycle of expensive decommissioning, performed by legions of over-rotated, over-exposed temp types. All the money and graft that would have gone into more nuks will go into renewable, sustainable, decentralized (no TEPCO) energy. Otherwise, it's the end for Japan as there will be more destruction ahead.
1
ka_chan
Using a 737 is a low standard. When the Twin Towers were created they didn't have the 757 that crashed into them. Today you have the Airbus 380 about 3 or 4 times the size of a 737. Then there are the N. Korean missles that are seemly for the sail. Anyway, anything that faces the sea is very vulnerable or anything built below or above a cliff. And unfortunately shutting them down does get rid of the danger, they do have those old hot rods just sitting there.
But in Japan you don't have to worry about the terrorist or nature as much as upper managers of those running the plants. Now that's terrorism.
0
basroil
slumdogJan. 24, 2013 - 12:42PM JST
They survived the plane crash just fine, it's burning jet fuel and the tension design that brought them down. In the case of a reactor , all it needs to do is survive the impact, since the fuel is easy to deal with after that. If you want a nice read on how the reactors are better, http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720008869_1972008869.pdf
0
T-Mack
Just a bunch of bull, I don't believe anybody feel's about you the way I feel about you now...!!!...by now you should of learned of what not to do by now....!>!>!>???... your the one who save's me?????? I'm still Lambasted!!!!!
Back to top