Japan's Nuclear Regulatory Authority Investigates Faults Beneath Fast-Breeder Monju, Operator JAEA Insists They Are Not Active Faults

Nuclear Regulatory Authority's Deputy Chairman and seismologist Kunihiko Shimazaki is leading a team of experts to determine whether the 8 faults that run directly beneath the trouble-prone fast-breeder Monju in Fukui Prefecture are active faults.

Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) "operates" the fast-breeder reactor which is supposed to be the centerpiece of Japan's fuel cycle policy. In its 22-year history since the test run in 1991, Monju has managed to generate one hour worth of electricity.

The Abe administration insists the fuel cycle policy will continue.

JAEA is a government corporation under the Ministry of Education and Science and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry - i.e. a landing pad for the top bureaucrats with golden parachutes.

NRA's Dr. Shimazaki has not been political so far, and has practically said about another nuclear power plant in Fukui (Tsuruga Nuclear Power Plant) that the operator doesn't want to see active faults, therefore does not see the active faults which are apparent to him and his team of experts in two-day investigation.

I suspect it's the same thing at Monju.

From Asahi Shinbun (7/17/2013):

もんじゅ断層、現地調査を開始　原子力規制委

NRA starts field survey of faults at Monju

日本原子力研究開発機構の高速増殖原型炉もんじゅ（福井県）の敷地内に活断層がある疑いが指摘されている問題で、原子力規制委員会は１７日、現地調査を始めた。活断層と判定されれば廃炉になる公算が大きく、国は核燃料サイクル政策の見直しを迫られる。

To determine whether there are active faults at Fast-breeder Monju (Fukui Prefecture) operated by Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Regulatory Authority started the field investigation on July 17. If the faults are determined to be active, it is likely that Monju will be decommissioned, and the national government will be pressed to revise its fuel cycle policy.

　規制委の島崎邦彦委員長代理ら有識者会合のメンバー４人がこの日午前、現地に入った。まず、もんじゅの西約５００メートルを走る活断層「白木（しらき）―丹生（にゅう）断層」が露出している福井県美浜町の現場を調査。２日間かけて、敷地内の断層が活断層かどうかを確かめる。

4 members of the expert group including NRA's Deputy Chairman Kunihiko Shimazaki arrived in Fukui in the morning of July 17. They first investigated the location in Minaha-cho in Fukui where the known active fault, "Shiraki-Nyu Fault", which runs 500 meters west of Monju, is exposed. The group will determine whether the faults inside the Monju compound are active, after the two-day survey.

　敷地内には９本の断層があり、うち８本が原子炉施設の真下にあることが知られている。白木―丹生断層が活動したときに、これらの断層が引きずられて動くおそれが指摘されてきた。今回は最も長い「ａ断層」を中心に見る。機構側は「新しい年代に繰り返し動いたことを示す痕跡は認められない」として活断層ではないと主張している。

There are nine faults inside the compound, with 8 of them known to be directly beneath the reactor facilities. Experts have pointed out the danger of these faults moving if the Shiraki-Nyu Fault becomes active. In the survey, the longest fault "a-fault" will be the focus. JAEA insists that it is not an active fault, saying there is no evidence that it repeatedly moved in recent years.

By "recent years", JAEA means in the last 100,000 years or so. NRA has made it clear in its new "regulatory standards" that it will consider the last 400,000 years.

Location of the Shiraki-Nyu Fault and Monju, from Asahi Shinbun:

The Shiraki-Nyu Fault in Mihama-cho:

Even without any active fault, Monju should not be operating, for the simple reason that should the road (Route 141) become inaccessible, Monju would be utterly inaccessible except from the sea. Even the ocean access would be problematic after a big earthquake and tsunami:

View Larger Map

Tweet

(Anything Goes Series -3) "Danger of Active Faults Is Baseless Rumor", Says Tokyo University Geologist

The others chime in, and say, basically, "Let's coexist with nuclear power plants that sit on top of active faults."

Very interestingly, the pro-nuclear Sankei Shinbun's article echoes the open letter by the US Energy and Commerce Commission to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with its curious emphasis on "performance-based" policy.

The article by Sankei Shinbun quotes a physicist, a nuclear engineer, and an marine geologist among others who say the Nuclear Regulatory Authority's new safety regulation proposal is not based on science but is pure fiction.

I'm afraid the entire country of Japan is pure fiction at this point.

Sankei's article starts with a very tricky headline as if it were the NRA who says it is possible (for nuclear power plants) to coexist with active faults. It is not, but unless you actually read the article, Sankei readers wouldn't know that.

From Sankei Shinbun via Yahoo Japan (1/30/2013; part; my comments in square brackets in blue italic):

地震・津波原発の新安全基準骨子案　「活断層との共生可能」

Proposed new safety standard outline for nuclear power plants in the event of earthquake/tsunami "It is possible to coexist with active faults"

科学的根拠失った規制を危惧

Fearful of regulation without scientific basis

原子力規制委員会が２９日に骨子案をまとめた地震・津波に関する原発の新安全基準。活断層の真上に重要施設の設置を禁止したが、全国に約２千本あるといわれる活断層大国の日本では「耐震設計で活断層との共生は可能」との見方も出ている。科学者らは失われた科学技術への信頼回復を目指す一方で、安全を強調するあまり科学的根拠を失った規制がまかり通ることを危惧している。

On January 29, the Nuclear Regulatory Authority announced its outline proposal for new safety standard for nuclear power plants in the event of earthquake and/or tsunami. The new standard would prohibit the installation of important facilities on top of active faults, but there are people who think it is possible to coexist with active fault with anti-seismic design in the country where there are about 2,000 active faults. Scientists are trying to restore the trust in science and technology which was lost [in the wake of the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant accident], but at the same time they are worried that with too much emphasis on safety the regulations without scientific basis will go unchallenged.

[Go unchallenged? OK, who are those scientists?]

元文相で物理学者の有馬朗人氏は２５日に都内で開かれたシンポジウムで、東日本大震災でも無事だった東北電力女川（おながわ）原発（宮城県）や東京電力福島第２原発（福島県）を取り上げ、「活断層があってもどうすれば安全が保たれるか研究開発を進めればよい」

In a symposium held in Tokyo on January 25, former Minister of Education and [nuclear] physicist Akito Arima cited Tohoku Electric Power's Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant (in Miyagi Prefecture) and TEPCO's Fukushima II (Daini) Nuclear Power Plant (in Fukushima Prefecture) as having survived the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami, and said, "Even if there is an active fault, all we need to do is do R&D to maintain safety."

[Well said, Dr. Arima, but nuclear physics doesn't address how to construct buildings on top of an active fault, does it?]

東京大の岡本孝司教授（原子炉工学）は「本当に重要なのは活断層かどうかということではなく、放射性物質が漏れるリスクがあるかどうかだ。だが、その議論がない」と指摘。その上で「規制委での議論は科学とはいえず、小説の世界だ」と断じた。

Professor Koji Okamoto of Tokyo University (nuclear reactor engineering) says, "What's more important is not whether it is an active fault, but whether there is a risk of radioactive leak. But there is no discussion [of the latter]." He concluded, "The discussion at the NRA is not science. It is a world of fiction."

[So, a nuclear reactor engineer calling the discussion by the top seismologists and geologists a fiction. That makes sense. Not.]

首都大学東京の山崎晴雄教授（地震地質学）は「活断層が危ないというのは風評で、原発反対運動の口実として使われている」と指摘。

Professor Haruo Yamazaki of Tokyo Metropolitan University (seismogeology) points out, "Danger of active fault is a baseless rumor, and it is used as a pretext in opposing nuclear power plants."

[Baseless rumor.]

This newspaper is incredible for its choice of words like "go unchallenged", as if the NRA trying to be on the conservative side of science were the bullies punishing the industry for no good scientific reason.

The article continues, saying that the definition of active faults has changed over time - from 50,000 year-old faults to 120,000 to 130,000, and now to 400,000-year-old faults - and the new benchmark of "400,000 years" is "meaningless", quoting a marine geologist. (A marine geologist should know very well about land geology, shouldn't he?)

Right on cue, a faction of the ruling Liberal Democratic Parties has started to make noise about the commissioners of Nuclear Regulatory Authority, who have been installed without the consent from the National Diet by then-Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda. They say they have doubts about these commissioners because of their extremely strict conditions for the restart of a nuclear power plant, and particularly because of their opinion that Tsuruga Nuclear Power Plant (that sits on active faults) has to be decommissioned.

LDP has already bullied Bank of Japan into submission (whatever Governor Shirakawa says now to defend himself as "independent" is ludicrous). Nuclear Regulatory Authority next?

Tweet

"Active Fault Right Under the Reactor Building in Tsuruga Nuke Plant", Japan's Nucleaer Regulatory Authority Concluded After 2-Day Field Research

All five experts on the Nuclear Regulatory Authority's panel agree it is highly likely that the fault that runs right beneath the Reactor 2 building at Tsuruga Nuclear Power Plant is an active fault.

Chairman Shunichi Tanaka doesn't think it is even possible at this point to proceed with the safety evaluation to restart the plant.

From Jiji Tsushin (12/10/2012):

敦賀原発、活断層の可能性＝田中委員長「再稼働できない」－専門家一致・規制委
It may be an active fault at Tsuruga Nuke Plant, Chairman Tanaka says "Cannot restart", all experts at Nuclear Regulatory Authority agree

日本原子力発電敦賀原発（福井県敦賀市）で、敷地内の岩盤の亀裂（破砕帯）に活断層の疑いが指摘された問題で、原子力規制委員会は１０日、現地調査の結果を検討する評価会合を開いた。２号機原子炉建屋の直下を通る断層について、専門家５人全員が「活断層の可能性が高い」との認識で一致。これを受け田中俊一委員長は、個人的考えと前置きした上で「今のままでは再稼働に向けた安全審査はとてもできないと判断した」と述べた。

Experts have raised doubt that fractured zones inside the Japan Atomic Power Co. Tsuruga Nuclear Power Plant compound (Tsuruga City, Fukui Prefecture) may be active faults. The Nuclear Regulatory Authority held a meeting on December 10 to evaluate the result of the field survey. As to the fault that runs directly beneath the reactor building of Unit 2, all five experts agreed that "it is highly likely to be an active fault". Chairman Shunichi Tanaka, prefacing that his remark is personal, said "In the current condition, we have decided there is no way we can conduct the safety evaluation for the restart of the plant."

規制委は近く会合を開き、評価結果の妥当性を判断するが、再稼働は認められない見通しとなった。運転停止が長期間続けば、廃炉を求める声が強まる可能性がある。原発の断層問題で、専門家調査団が活断層と判断したのは初めて。

NRA will hold a meeting soon to decide the appropriateness of the evaluation, but the prospect is that the restart will not be allowed. If the shutdown of the reactor continues for a long time, it is possible that people will demand decommissioning the reactor. This is the first time in the investigation of faults in nuclear power plants that a panel of experts determined a fault as active.

評価会合では、日本原電が調査のために掘った試掘溝の西側に、２号機原子炉建屋直下を通る「Ｄ－１破砕帯」の一部とみられる活断層が存在する可能性が高いとの認識で一致した。

In the evaluation meeting, the expert agreed that it is highly likely that an active fault, which is considered to be part of the "D-1 fracture zone" right underneath the reactor building of Unit 2, exists on the west side of the trench that Japan Atomic Power Co. dug for the investigation.

座長役の島崎邦彦委員長代理は、根拠として(1)政府の地震調査研究推進本部が活断層の目安とする４０万年前より新しい十数万年前に動いていたと考えられる(2)原発近くを通る活断層「浦底断層」と非常に近い動きをしている－などを挙げた。

Deputy Chairman Kunihiko Shimazaki explained the basis of their conclusion as: (1) The fault is considered to have been moving, as late as 100,000 and several 10,000 years ago, much later than 400,000 years ago which is a criterion for an active fault as defined by the government's Headquarters of Earthquake Research Promotion; (2) The fault is moving closely together with a [known] active fault near the nuclear power plant, "Urazoko Fault".

I caught part of the live press conference that the Nuclear Regulatory Authority held on December 10 to announce their findings. Deputy Chairman Shimazaki and five experts who went to Tsuruga to investigate in early December were there, answering questions from the reporters.

What struck me was two things: 1) Reporters from the mainstream media seemed knowledgeable enough on the subject to ask intelligent questions to the experts to get the facts out; and 2) The experts pretty much gave straight answers, without any seeming vested interest or ego.

(After watching the beginning of the press conference, the first point still stands, but with the exception of the NHK reporter who was clearly designated by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (secretariat) to ask the first question. His question was too vague and generalized, Dr. Shimazaki was perplexed as to what he was asking.)

There were some very interesting exchanges between the reporters and the experts who were all geologists, particularly Dr. Shimazaki (seismologist by training).

When asked by a reporter from Fukui TV why it was taking months for the operator of the plant to reach any conclusion but the Nuclear Regulatory Authority's experts were able to reach a conclusion (that an active fault runs beneath the reactor building) in two days, Dr. Shimazaki answered:

やはり事業者さんはですね、非常に微妙な立場に、特に調査をされている方がそういう立場におかれているんではないかとわたくしは思います。基本的には、活断層ではないことを証明するために調査を続けられているわけですから、その証明が出来ない限りは、ある意味調査を続けなければいけないという立場になるわけで、それは我々の立場とはぜんぜん違う立場になります。

After all, the plant operator is in a very delicate position, particularly those who actually do the investigation may be placed in a very delicate position, I suspect. Basically, [the operator] continues the investigation in order to prove that it is not an active fault, and as long as it cannot prove that it has to continue the investigation, so to speak. That is a totally different position than ours.

Isn't that the truth. I was rather shocked that Dr. Shimazaki very matter-of-factly stated it.

Then, a reporter from pro-nuke Yomiuri (and probably aligned well with the Nuclear Regulatory Agency) asked again, why the group of experts was able to reach the conclusion so quickly, compared to Ooi. Dr. Shimazaki, showing some heat, said,

今回の結論がもし皆さんが速いと言われるのであれば、わたくしは速いとは思いませんよ。はい。わたくし個人的にはですね、データがそろっていれば皆さんの意見は一致するはずなんで、きちんとしたデータがあれば判断は速いとわたくしは思っていますので、決して二日の調査で簡単に結論を出したな、という風に思われるのは心外だ、と思います。きちんとした調査がされていてきちんとしたデータがあれば、日にちはある意味関係ない、皆さんが一致した結論になる、というのがわたくしの思いであります。

If you think our conclusion this time [as compared to that on Ooi Nuke Plant] was made quickly, well I don't think it was quick. No. Personally, I think the same conclusion is reached if the valid data is there, and the decision can be made quickly if there is enough [valid] data. I am a bit annoyed if you think we made a casual decision with only the 2-day investigation. If the investigation is done properly and there is valid data, the number of days [to make decision] is in a way irrelevant, and the experts will agree on the conclusion, that's what I think.

indicating that unlike Kansai Electric (in Ooi Plant investigation) the operator did have a very good set of data but didn't want to draw any conclusion that they didn't want.

The Nuclear Regulatory Authority, before it was formed, was heavily criticized by many as being run by the "nuclear village residents" - people with strong ties to the nuclear industry in Japan, and as such it would be biased toward the industry and toward the restart of the nuclear power plants.

It must be an unpleasant surprise for the industry, so far.

The nuclear industry can hope for the day, very soon, when LDP's Abe is installed again as the Prime Minister of Japan, and fire these commissioners. Abe will have an excellent pretext of firing anyone who was not formally approved by the Diet (as PM Noda pushed through the appointment without consulting the Diet).

The Nuclear Regulatory Authority's reportｓ are here. In his report at the site, Professor Takahiro Miyauchi of Chiba University Earth Science says Urazoko Fault and its related faults may be capable of generating earthquakes greater than M7.5, and urges the criteria for the evaluation to include not just fractured zones but this long stretch (35 kilometers minimum, as long as 65 kilometers) of faults right next to the plant.

Tweet

NISA's New Safety Standard May Allow Nuclear Reactors on Top of Active Faults to Continue Operation

(No, this is not an April Fool's Day's joke.)

Totally, absolutely in line with Prime Minister Noda's intention of seeking the "fourth way" for the future energy policy on reliance on nuclear power, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (which is still the one and only regulatory agency over the nuclear industry in Japan) is now considering installing a new safety standard:

You can continue to operate a nuclear reactor even if the reactor happens to sit on top of an active fault, as long as the expected size of dislocation is small enough.

This Kyodo News has the largest number of retweets I've seen on the websites of the Japanese mainstream media, currently with 9,015 retweets.

From Kyodo News (8/28/2012):

原発直下に地盤をずらす「断層」があっても原発の運転を一律に禁止せず、継続の可能性を残す新たな安全評価基準の導入を、経済産業省原子力安全・保安院が検討していることが２８日、分かった。

It was revealed on August 28 that the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency under the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry was considering the introduction of a new safety evaluation standard that would leave a possibility of continued operation of a nuclear reactor even when the reactor sits on top of a fault that could shift the ground, instead of uniformly banning the operation of such reactors.

　保安院は従来「活断層の真上に原子炉を建ててはならない」との見解を示していた。新基準では、これまでは活断層と判断される可能性があった一部の断層について原発の直下にあっても、ずれの量が小さく原子炉建屋などに影響が生じないと評価されれば原発の運転継続も可能になるとみられる。

So far, the NISA's opinion has been that "a nuclear reactor cannot be built on top of an active fault". Under the [proposed] new standard, it is expected that the continued operation will become possible for reactors that sit on top of certain faults which may be active faults, as long as the shifting of the ground is small enough and there is no effect on the reactor buildings.

　だが「ずれの量の正確な評価手法はまだ完全ではない」（保安院）など課題も多い。

There are many issues still to be resolved, as NISA admits that the method to precisely evaluate the size of the shifting is not yet perfect.

In the meantime, the prime minister who seeks the "fourth way" further elaborated on his stance. According to Jiji Tsushin (8/28/2012), Mr. Noda had a casual dinner in Tokyo with the DPJ's newbies (and apparently open to the press), where he told them and the press that he couldn't commit easily to "zero nuclear" because of national security concerns.

Tweet

KEPCO Can't Find Photos of Fault at Ooi Nuclear Power Plant, But NISA Says No Problem

We are supposed to take their word for it that it's not active and that the plant is is safe.

Fukui Shinbun reports that KEPCO, Ooi Plant operator, cannot find photographs of the crushed zone that runs through the plant compound, between Reactor 2 and Reactor 3 buildings.

Two university researchers have said publicly that the crushed zone could be active faults or that it could be activated by the active faults nearby.

From Fukui Shinbun (6/26/2012):

大飯原発の敷地内断層写真未提出　保安院要請に関西電力

KEPCO hasn't submitted the photos of faults at Ooi Nuke Plant despite the request from NISA

再稼働準備中の関西電力大飯原発（福井県おおい町）の敷地内を走る軟弱な断層（破砕帯）が、活断層と連動して地表をずらす危険性が指摘されている問題で、経済産業省原子力安全・保安院は２５日、関電に求めた破砕帯の写真が提出されていないことを明らかにした。

It has been pointed out by researchers that the crushed zone at the Ooi Nuclear Power Plant may cause the slippage of the ground surface when the active faults move. The plant is currently being prepared for the restart in Ooi-cho in Fukui Prefecture. The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency disclosed on June 25 that the photographs of the crushed zone that the agency had asked KEPCO to submit weren't submitted.

　保安院によると、要請には法的強制力はなく、関電は「写真を探しているが見つからない」としている。保安院は「データの要請は情報収集の一環」としており、大飯原発の破砕帯の活動性はないとの見解は変えていない。

According to NISA, the request was not legally binding. KEPCO says "We're looking for the photographs but we can't find them." NISA says the request for the photographs is part of the information gathering, and the agency hasn't changed its opinion that the crushed zone at Ooi Nuke Plant is not active.

　同日、参院議員会館で開催された市民団体などとの会合で保安院が明らかにした。

NISA disclosed this information during the meeting with citizens' groups held at the Office Building for the members of the House of Councilors (Upper House).

　保安院は、渡辺満久東洋大教授（変動地形学）らが今月初め、破砕帯がずれる危険性を指摘したのを受け、情報収集を始めた。１９８５年に関電が国に提出した大飯３、４号機の増設申請書に掲載された調査図面の原図と、破砕帯の写真を求めたが、原図しか提供されていないという。

NISA started collecting information after Professor Mitsuhisa Watanabe of Toyo University (tectonic geomorphology) had pointed out the danger of the crushed zone shifting, earlier this month. The agency requested the original survey map that was attached to the application submitted by KEPCO to the national government in 1985 to build Reactors 3 and 4 at Ooi Nuclear Power Plant, and the photographs of the crushed zone. NISA said KEPCO only submitted the original survey map.

　また、保安院専門家会議の委員のうち活断層に詳しい６人に非公式に見解を尋ねたところ、一部の委員からは「現地を調査するべきだ」との意見があったという。

NISA also said it had unofficially asked the agency's 6 expert commissioners who were knowledgeable about active faults, and some of them were of the opinion that a field survey should be carried out.

I have a feeling that KEPCO is looking all over the place for the photographs, in all locations where they know for sure they don't keep.

The Ooi plant is set to restart on July 1.

Tweet