Editorial: Can the safety of nuclear power plants be guaranteed?
Jan. 23, 2012
A sense of discomfort over the single-minded nature of the effort to restart operations of this nation’s nuclear power plants cannot be brushed off. The Japanese government’s approach to safety issues involving the plants is also unclear.
With regard to the first results of safety checks, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has complied a draft of its report on the safety check undertaken at the Oi No. 3 and No. 4 nuclear power plants operated by the Kansai Electric Power Company. The agency states that the company’s assessment of these facilities is “appropriate.”
As early as February, the agency will complete its official report of the assessment, which will also be examined by the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan. The process then requires that Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda and other officials debate the merits and demerits of restarting plant operations and reach a final decision.
Ten months have passed since the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 (Daiichi) nuclear power plant. Due to regular inspections and other factors, the number of the nation’s nuclear plants currently in operation has declined to just five out of 54 plants. If idle plants are not restarted, all nuclear power stations in Japan will suspend operations in April.
With the demand for energy highest in summer, the needed supply of electricity must be secured. However, the reaction that suggests the priority must be restarting operations at the plants, and allowing safety and security to take a back seat, cannot gain understanding from the people of local areas where the nuclear power plants are located or from the general public, either.
Last July, the central government required that safety checks be performed on the power plants run by electric companies as a condition for restarting facilities that had seen operations suspended. Such assessments are modeled after the stress test, or resistance evaluation, which the European Union has begun conducting.
The test uses computers to analyze the sort of “margin” plants have with regard to safety, including damage to the fuel supply, in the event of an earthquake, tsunami, complete loss of power, or other emergency conditions.
Seven electric power companies have submitted their initial results of the safety check to the central government. These evaluations cover 14 nuclear plants, including the Oi nuclear plant. For the Chugoku Electric Power Company to restart operations at its Shimane nuclear power plant, located in the city of Matsue, it must pursue the same procedure.
The results of the assessment performed at the Oi nuclear plant indicates that the facility could withstand a tremor 1.8 times more powerful than that of an earthquake envisioned by the company, as well as a tsunami four times as high as one that would be likely to strike the plant.
However, the local Fukui prefectural government points out that such results are based only on “speculative simulations.” The prefectural government has indicated that it will not endorse restarting operations at the Oi plant, even if the central government gives the green light, arguing that the criteria for reaching such a decision is unclear. It is only natural that the prefectural government, charged with protecting the safety of its residents, would take this stance.
In the case of the accident at Fukushima, it is said that the operator of the plant had not been sufficiently prepared for such emergency conditions and the lack of expertise and training on the part of the plant staff exacerbated the situation. What portion of the disaster was “man-made” has yet to be fully clarified.
With this stage still lingering, it cannot be said that the safety of the nation’s nuclear plants has been adequately secured, despite the addition of certain speculative calculations to the traditional safety standards.
More importantly, the Japanese government has already declared that it will devise a new set of safety standards which will reflect the lessons Japan has learned since the accident at Fukushima.
The Nuclear Safety Agency, a new regulatory body, will be launched in April. However, the current state of affairs, in which the old Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency will be virtually scrapped while retaining authority over the restart of plant operations, is unsatisfactory at best.
The Noda administration has, by law, stipulated the life span of a nuclear power plant to be “40 years in principle,” and yet government bureaucrats say that this period “can be extended to 60 years.” As shown in this, and other instances, the administration’s stance vacillates. It can be assumed this is due to the fact that the administration has not clearly envisioned how nuclear power will be included in the nation’s energy policy for the future.
The priority now is a thorough investigation of the accident at Fukushima, rather than seeking to restart operations at nuclear plants with superficial procedures. Then, based on this investigation, the central government must articulate a clear vision of how nuclear energy can be safely used.
(Originally published on January 20, 2012)
With regard to the first results of safety checks, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has complied a draft of its report on the safety check undertaken at the Oi No. 3 and No. 4 nuclear power plants operated by the Kansai Electric Power Company. The agency states that the company’s assessment of these facilities is “appropriate.”
As early as February, the agency will complete its official report of the assessment, which will also be examined by the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan. The process then requires that Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda and other officials debate the merits and demerits of restarting plant operations and reach a final decision.
Ten months have passed since the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 (Daiichi) nuclear power plant. Due to regular inspections and other factors, the number of the nation’s nuclear plants currently in operation has declined to just five out of 54 plants. If idle plants are not restarted, all nuclear power stations in Japan will suspend operations in April.
With the demand for energy highest in summer, the needed supply of electricity must be secured. However, the reaction that suggests the priority must be restarting operations at the plants, and allowing safety and security to take a back seat, cannot gain understanding from the people of local areas where the nuclear power plants are located or from the general public, either.
Last July, the central government required that safety checks be performed on the power plants run by electric companies as a condition for restarting facilities that had seen operations suspended. Such assessments are modeled after the stress test, or resistance evaluation, which the European Union has begun conducting.
The test uses computers to analyze the sort of “margin” plants have with regard to safety, including damage to the fuel supply, in the event of an earthquake, tsunami, complete loss of power, or other emergency conditions.
Seven electric power companies have submitted their initial results of the safety check to the central government. These evaluations cover 14 nuclear plants, including the Oi nuclear plant. For the Chugoku Electric Power Company to restart operations at its Shimane nuclear power plant, located in the city of Matsue, it must pursue the same procedure.
The results of the assessment performed at the Oi nuclear plant indicates that the facility could withstand a tremor 1.8 times more powerful than that of an earthquake envisioned by the company, as well as a tsunami four times as high as one that would be likely to strike the plant.
However, the local Fukui prefectural government points out that such results are based only on “speculative simulations.” The prefectural government has indicated that it will not endorse restarting operations at the Oi plant, even if the central government gives the green light, arguing that the criteria for reaching such a decision is unclear. It is only natural that the prefectural government, charged with protecting the safety of its residents, would take this stance.
In the case of the accident at Fukushima, it is said that the operator of the plant had not been sufficiently prepared for such emergency conditions and the lack of expertise and training on the part of the plant staff exacerbated the situation. What portion of the disaster was “man-made” has yet to be fully clarified.
With this stage still lingering, it cannot be said that the safety of the nation’s nuclear plants has been adequately secured, despite the addition of certain speculative calculations to the traditional safety standards.
More importantly, the Japanese government has already declared that it will devise a new set of safety standards which will reflect the lessons Japan has learned since the accident at Fukushima.
The Nuclear Safety Agency, a new regulatory body, will be launched in April. However, the current state of affairs, in which the old Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency will be virtually scrapped while retaining authority over the restart of plant operations, is unsatisfactory at best.
The Noda administration has, by law, stipulated the life span of a nuclear power plant to be “40 years in principle,” and yet government bureaucrats say that this period “can be extended to 60 years.” As shown in this, and other instances, the administration’s stance vacillates. It can be assumed this is due to the fact that the administration has not clearly envisioned how nuclear power will be included in the nation’s energy policy for the future.
The priority now is a thorough investigation of the accident at Fukushima, rather than seeking to restart operations at nuclear plants with superficial procedures. Then, based on this investigation, the central government must articulate a clear vision of how nuclear energy can be safely used.
(Originally published on January 20, 2012)
