nuclear-news

Why was the Sendai nuclear power plant restarted?

Two of Japan’s reactors—Units 1 and 2 of the Kyushu Electric Power Company’s Sendai nuclear power plant—have just restarted, and Unit 1 should begin generating electricity on August 14. Like all other Japanese nuclear power plants, Sendai was shut down after the events at Fukushima Daiichi in 2011, in which an earthquake, a tsunami, egregious design mistakes, and a poor safety culture combined to form “a cascade of stupid errors” that led to a triple meltdown.

This is the first restart of any of Japan’s 43 operable commercial reactors since Fukushima, and it is happening despite many unresolved questions concerning nuclear safety regulations. When it comes to safety, the Sendai nuclear power plant is definitely not at the head of the class: The utility owning the power plant was given a pass despite a very problematic history. (At one point, a regulatory commissioner called the plan to restart Sendai “wishful thinking”.)

There is certainly no nationwide re-emergence of nuclear power in Japan. Indeed, there have been vocal public protests against the Sendai restart. One of the protestors even included a former prime minister of Japan.

So, why is it happening? What are the ostensible reasons for a restart? Were they valid?

A three-pointed rationalization. The justification for a restart was based upon three key points: the type of reactors to be used at Sendai were considered inherently “safer;” the chance of a similar natural disaster(s) was considered to be minimal; and the concerns of the local communities were dismissed as inconsequential.

Let us look at each of these items in turn.

Pressurized water reactors are considered inherently safe. Because strict new standards for the regulation of nuclear power plants were imposed in July 2012—the result of the belated adoption of a tougher global standard—Japan’s newly formed Nuclear Regulation Authority deemed that pressurized water reactors (PWRs) such as those used at Sendai were safer than the boiling water reactor technology used at the ill-fated Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Consequently, facilities with PWRs were given a longer time span—five years—to introduce severe accident countermeasures when the new regulation standards come into force.

For example, a nuclear power plant using a pressurized water reactor is not required to immediately install a filtered containment venting system to prevent large-scale radioactive contamination to the environment if the containment vessel inside is damaged. The Nuclear Regulation Authority’s reasoning is that the risk of containment vessel damage is low in a pressurized water reactor because it is so much larger than in a boiling water reactor, thus allowing considerably more time before any accident measures must be put into effect. Building on this logic, the agency then gave a temporary exemption to the requirement to install the venting system to any facility using PWRs. This relieved the plant operators of heavy burdens in terms of both finances and preparatory work. All 10 of the nuclear power plants (representing six different electric companies) that applied for the waiver use pressurized water reactors.

But PWRs are not inherently safe at all; for example, their steam generators are a serious concern. In 1991, the steam generator in the pressurized water reactor at Mihama Unit 2 of Kansai Electric Power in Japan was damaged, and the emergency core cooling system had to activated. Though caused by something as simple as the failure of the mount of a metal fitting, the resulting accident was rated at Level 3, or “serious incident,” on the seven levels of the International Nuclear Event Scale. Similarly, in 2013, Unit 2 and Unit 3 of the San Onofre nuclear power plant in California had to be closed due to a radiation leak from the plant’s virtually new steam generators; the two units subsequently had to be retired and the plant is now in the process of a costly decommissioning, predicted to cost $3 billion. And San Onofre used pressurized water reactor technology.

Natural disasters can be predicted. There are many glaring problems with this argument, not the least of which is the tendency of, say, volcanoes to behave in ways we don’t foresee. This is of major concern in Japan, which sits on the Pacific Ring of Fire, where tectonic plates interact and a large chunk of the planet’s volcanic eruptions and earthquakes takes place. Kyushu Electric Power claims that volcanic eruptions can be readily predicted, and the Nuclear Regulation Authority accepted this argument. But many volcanologists insist that it is scientifically impossible to predict the eruption of a volcano—and there are many volcanoes and calderas near the Sendai nuclear power plant. According to a survey conducted by Kyushu Electric Power, catastrophic eruptions have been occurring on a 90,000-year cycle at the Aira Caldera, located 53 kilometers, or about 33 miles, from the Sendai site, with the latest eruption about 30,000 years ago. (There have been many smaller, near-continuous eruptions in the caldera since 1955.) Furthermore, sediment from the pyroclastic flow of a volcano has been discovered only 5 kilometers, or roughly 3 miles, from the reactors at Sendai.

Another problem comes from trying to determine the maximum acceleration likely to occur at the time of an earthquake. This is an issue of tremendous concern, because there are about 1,500 earthquakes of varying sizes in Japan every year. In the words of the World Nuclear Association: “Because of the frequency and magnitude of earthquakes in Japan, extra attention is paid to seismic activity in the siting, design, and construction of nuclear power plants. The seismic design of such plants is based on criteria far more stringent than those applying to non-nuclear facilities.”

Yet one of the reasons that the authority announced fast-track approval for Sendai was based upon a recalculation of the largest earthquake that could reasonably be expected to occur at the site of this nuclear power plant—which was found to be larger and more devastating than before, based upon the known seismicity of the area and local active faults. Known as “peak ground acceleration,” this figure is expressed in the number of centimeters per second squared, also known as “Galileo units” or Gal. Setting the value of a specific region’s peak ground acceleration is difficult scientifically; guessing just how bad an earthquake can get is the cause of many safety design revisions and much expense. In the case of the Kyushu Electric Power Company, however, the company not only said on its restart application that an earthquake was likely to be worse than previously expected (620 Gal rather than the earlier estimate of 540 Gal), it cavalierly said that its current reactor would be able to handle the higher figure. The NRA apparently considered this platitude about the resiliency of the company’s Sendai plant to be a statement of scientific fact and sufficient in terms of safety.

And some seismologists insist that an earthquake at Sendai is likely to be even more severe—they say that the earth could shake much more than 620 centimeters (about 20 feet) per second squared. For example, Katsuhiko Ishibashi, a Kobe University professor and seismologist, has been warning about the problem of nuclear power plant accidents caused by earthquakes since his first book on the topic in 1994—17 years before what happened at Fukushima Daiichi. (Ishibashi even coined a term in the Japanese language to describe the problem: “gempatsu shinsai,” or “nuclear earthquake disaster.”) He insists that the intensity of a more severe earthquake is underestimated because the current value does not take into consideration other phenomena, such as an interplate earthquake.

And in any case, the 620 Gal figure comes from earthquake data collected from the north end of Japan, while the Sendai nuclear power plant is located at the south end, where conditions may be different. So, we don’t precisely know just how severe the peak ground acceleration will be at Sendai.

There is no available scientific literature on the influence of a major earthquake on delicate devices such as the steam generators used in pressurized water reactors.

Concerns of the local communities were dismissed. After the Nuclear Regulation Authority granted its approval in regards to the safety requirements, the final hurdle was to secure approval from two of the local governments: Kagoshima prefecture and Satsumasendai city. If they agreed, then the Sendai facility could restart.

Other neighboring communities, including six cities and two towns, had asked that the prefecture and the city include them in the list of “local governments of the nuclear power plant site.” They based their request on the fact that they would likely be affected by any radioactive contamination—after all, the plume caused by the Fukushima accident spread over 250 kilometers (155 miles) from the reactor site. But only those communities within 8 to 10 kilometers (about 5 to 6 miles) from the Sendai nuclear power plant were allowed to participate.

And even those within that radius were sometimes barred from having their concerns heard. A neighboring city, Ichikikushikino, is located just 5 kilometers (about 3 miles) from the Sendai plant, but that city’s request to be heard was denied by the governor of Kagoshima prefecture governor, Yuichi Ito, and by the mayor of Satsumasendai city, Hideo Iwakiri. This refusal is assumed to be based on two reasons: In addition to the difficulty of summarizing the different opinions on the nuclear restart, prefecture and city officials were concerned about having to decrease their own constituents’ share of the subsidy benefits that are to be provided by the plant to local governments. In the end, only Kagoshima prefecture and Satsumasendai city approved the restart in November 2014.

Other actions by the prefecture governor caused problems, as well. The prefecture’s disaster prevention plan was supposed to include an evacuation program for people requiring special assistance in any medical or welfare facilities located within 30 kilometers (about 20 miles) from the Sendai nuclear power plant. The prefectural governor, however, declared that an area within 10 kilometers (roughly 6 miles) from the power plant was more than sufficient as the target area for this program. Therefore, the number of applicable facilities was reduced from 244 facilities to to only 17 facilities, or less than one-tenth the original number. Furthermore, an evacuation facility that had been constructed by repairing an old elementary school, Yorita Elementary, turned out to have insufficient protective measures against radiation, even though the total construction cost for the facility was the equivalent of $760,000.

The real reasons for the restart. The decision to restart the reactor at Sendai is probably based upon the “dismal science:” economics.

It seems that financial considerations and worries about the health of the national and local economies triumphed over safety concerns; an article in the Japan Times says that when Kyushu Electric tried to turn to other means of generating electricity—such as thermal power—its costs more than doubled. “The huge costs have weighed heavily on its earnings. The company is aiming to shore up its earnings by reactivating idled nuclear power reactors. Kyushu Electric expects that the restart of the Sendai Number 1 reactor will save the company about 7.5 billion yen (over $60 million) per month.”

Kyushu Electric Power had previously tried raising the price of electricity after their nuclear power plant was stopped, but that still was not enough—their deficit continued. The best hope of profitability comes from restarting nuclear power plants.

This concern for their bottom line may be understandable, but it seems to come at the expense of public safety and open, democratic, rational decision-making. Kyushu Electric Power has used questionable means to promote its agenda. For example, at an informational meeting for local residents about nuclear power plant operation only three months after the Fukushima accident, Kyushu Electric Power sent in undercover employees pretending to be ordinary citizens, who then stood up and spoke in favor of nuclear power. The company also tried to manipulate public opinion by sending in “fake e-mails” in support of the restart of nuclear power plants to a television broadcaster. The president of Kyushu Electric Power resigned after the ruses were discovered.

Meanwhile, Kyushu Electric Power still refuses to hold talks with citizen groups and neighboring local governments, even after the plant has been cleared to restart. They also refused an offer from nearly 100 citizen groups this March to hold a discussion, and did not accept a petition containing more than 100,000 signatures. The company continues to refuse the requests of many local governments within the 30 kilometer (20 miles) radius of the Sendai site.

Economics also played a role in another way: The prefecture and the nearest city are financially dependent on nuclear energy. For a long time, the prefecture governor has been clearly stating that he endorses the restart. After the prefectural assembly election this April, he revealed that the reason the restart was approved in November 2014 was to avoid having it become an election issue.

Satsumasendai city receives more than $12 million in grants annually from the nuclear industry, which it uses to pay for its public and educational facilities, receiving about $270 million over the years. According to the Satsumasendai Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the overall economic benefit of the restart of the Sendai nuclear power plant is approximately $25 million to the local economy yearly.

There are also questions of transparency in the dealings of local government authorities with Kyushu Electric Power. According to an article published this January by the Asahi Shimbun newspaper, construction companies run by members of the Kagoshima prefectural assembly received 26 orders for construction work at Sendai, representing $2.5 million of work, in the three years since the Fukushima accident. Not surprisingly, these members of the prefectural assembly endorsed the restart of the Sendai nuclear power plant.

According to a survey conducted this May by a major local newspaper, Minami–Nippon Shimbun, 59.9 percent of those polled were against a restart of the Sendai nuclear power plant. But their opinions may not be regarded as important because they have no economic significance. In this way, strict regulations are not being applied to nuclear decisions, even after the Fukushima accident. Economics was considered more important than human life: That is why the Sendai nuclear power plant was able to restart.

Source: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

http://thebulletin.org/why-was-sendai-nuclear-power-plant-restarted8644

August 14, 2015 Posted by dunrenard | Japan | Nuclear Plant Restart, Sendai | Leave a comment

Japan resumes nuclear reactor operation for 1st time in 2 years

Kyushu Electric Power Co. on Aug. 11 restarted the No. 1 reactor at its Sendai Nuclear Power Plant in Satsumasendai, Kagoshima Prefecture, making it the first reactor to be reactivated under new safety regulations established in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

It was the first time in about two years for a nuclear reactor to operate in Japan, after the No. 3 and No. 4 reactors at the Oi Nuclear Power Plant in Fukui Prefecture were shut down in September 2013. The Kagoshima plant’s 890 megawatt No. 1 reactor had been inactive for around four years, three months.

At 10:30 a.m. on Aug. 11, a lever in the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant’s central control room was operated to remove rods controlling nuclear fission from the reactor. The reactor is expected to reach criticality at about 11 p.m. the same day.

After the reactor reaches criticality, Kyushu Electric Power Co. will check that it can be safely shut down, and if there are no problems, power generation and transmission will begin on Aug. 14. The power company will bring the reactor to full operating capacity in stages while checking the temperature and pressure inside the reactor.

If Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) finds no problems with the reactor during an inspection, commercial operation will resume in early September.

Operation of the No. 1 reactor at the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant was suspended in May 2011 for a regular inspection. Since the reactor has been offline for a long time, possible trouble caused by deterioration of pipes and other equipment has been feared. It is rare globally for a reactor to be restarted after being offline for more than four years.

NRA Chairman Shunichi Tanaka has commented that various problems are envisaged, and the nuclear watchdog is therefore seeking solid safety precautions. The power company has said it will quickly release information if there is any trouble or if equipment malfunctions.

Kyushu Electric Power Co. has also had the nuclear plant’s No. 2 reactor undergo preoperational checks, and if there are no problems, the reactor is expected to be restarted in mid-October.

Japan has a total of 54 nuclear reactors. In the wake of the meltdowns at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant triggered by a massive earthquake and tsunami in March 2011, reactors were gradually shut down, and in May 2012 no reactors were in operation. In July that year, the government restarted the No. 3 and 4 reactors at the Oi Nuclear Power Plant in Fukui Prefecture as a special measure, but they were shut down in September 2013 for regular inspections, again leaving Japan with no reactors in operation.

Applications have been filed with the NRA to screen 25 reactors at 15 nuclear power plants in Japan. In addition to the No. 1 and 2 reactors at the Sendai plant, other reactors to have received safety approval from the regulator are the No. 3 and 4 reactors at Kansai Electric Power Co.’s Takahama plant in Fukui Prefecture, and the No. 3 reactor at Shikoku Electric Power Co.’s Ikata plant in Ehime Prefecture. All of these reactors are pressurized water reactors, different from those at the Fukushima plant.

The Fukui District Court has issued a temporary injunction halting activation of reactors at the Takahama plant, and there are no immediate prospects of the plant’s reactors being restarted.

It is unclear whether local consent can be obtained for restarting the Ikata plant reactor, and it is unlikely that it will be reactivated this year.

Source: Mainichi

http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20150811p2a00m0na017000c.html

August 13, 2015 Posted by dunrenard | Japan | Nuclear Plant Restart, Sendai | 1 Comment

Volcano issues unaddressed in nuclear plant restart

Japan has seen its first nuclear power reactor restart in more than two years despite persisting safety issues related to volcanic eruptions.

The No. 1 reactor at Kyushu Electric Power Co.’s Sendai nuclear power plant in Kagoshima Prefecture came back online on Tuesday.

But the utility has not designated a site for relocating nuclear fuel in the event of a massive volcanic eruption, claiming that warning signs would give Kepco enough time to prepare and transfer the fuel.

The utility and the Nuclear Regulation Authority have also decided there is little chance of a major volcanic eruption in the next several decades.

In the event of a major eruption, however, pyroclastic flows could reach the plant and disable cooling functions for its reactors and spent fuel, which could trigger massive radioactive emissions.

There are five major calderas around the Sendai plant, suggesting that massive eruptions have occurred there.

The plant currently stores 1,946 fuel assemblies in spent fuel pools. The sheer volume makes it hard to find a relocation site big enough to take them.

A panel of volcano experts advising the NRA has compiled a report indicating that there are currently no technologies that can precisely predict the timing and scale of a major eruption.

Toshitsugu Fujii, a member of the panel and chairman of the Meteorological Agency’s Coordinating Committee for Prediction of Volcanic Eruptions, has said that the panel’s opinion is not necessarily consistent with that of the NRA.

According to experts, the commonly held view is that it is impossible to predict a major eruption from warning signs because such eruptions occur only once every 10,000 years in Japan, so the data are scant.

The panel has proposed launching an advisory organization to the NRA to help deal with volcanic eruption forecasting. Due to time constraints, however, the launch of the organization is expected to be in September at the earliest.

The panel has also pointed out that the NRA should set standards for judgments on whether an impending eruption would be huge, but the time-line for setting such criteria is undecided.

Evacuation-plan worries

Two hospitals and 15 welfare facilities for elderly people within 10 km of the Sendai plant should have evacuation plans in the event that a serious nuclear accident occurs. However, concerns remain.

The prefectural government initially asked welfare facilities within 30 km of the plant to draw up evacuation plans in line with a central government policy. But it later changed course. Kagoshima Gov. Yuichiro Ito insisted that it would be enough if evacuation plans within 10 km are in place and that those beyond that would be unworkable.

The Otama-san no Ie elderly group home, the welfare facility closest to the nuclear plant — about 1 km south of the plant’s main gate — included an evacuation destination beyond 30 km of the plant and four routes to it in its plans.

“This is supplementary to local governments’ evacuation plans,” said Keiji Miyauchi, general manager of the group home.

Under the group home’s evacuation plans, residents will be first taken to a nearby shelter built by the Satsumasendai city government. The shelter, equipped with a filtered venting system that can block radioactive materials, has four days’ worth of water and food.

But Miyauchi said: “The group home has only a staff of two during the night shift. It would be difficult to take 18 elderly residents, some of whom are in wheelchairs, to the shelter.”

Miyauchi is also concerned about the evacuation routes. “Roads would be congested because they are narrow,” he said. “Some roads may be destroyed and made inaccessible if an earthquake occurs.”

Broad evacuation plans are available but details cannot be fixed, said an official at another elderly facility within 10 km of the nuclear plant. “Needs among elderly people change depending on the season,” the official said.

The facility has an evacuation agreement in place for an elderly home located beyond 30 km from the nuclear plant to accept its residents. But how to care for these evacuees remains uncertain.

“A facility alone can’t determine what to do after evacuations, and this is a matter that needs to be decided by the central or prefectural government,” the official said.

Source: Japan Times

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/08/12/national/volcano-issues-unaddressed-nuclear-plant-restart/#.VcsikvmFSM_

August 13, 2015 Posted by dunrenard | Japan | Nuclear Plant Restart, Sendai | Leave a comment

Amid protests, Kyushu Electric restarts Sendai nuclear plant in Kagoshima

SATSUMA-SENDAI, Kagoshima Prefecture–Kyushu Electric Power Co. activated the No. 1 reactor of the Sendai nuclear power plant here on Aug. 11, the first to be restarted in Japan under new safety regulations instituted after the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

The reactor is the first of 43 across the nation to be brought back online, ending a period with no nuclear power, which lasted for a year and 11 months.

As anti-nuclear protesters rallied around the Sendai plant, located in Satsuma-Sendai city, work to restart the No. 1 reactor began in the central control room at 10:30 a.m. on Aug. 11.

Kyushu Electric workers pulled a lever to remove the control rods that had curbed nuclear fission in the reactor.

The 32 control rods began to withdraw, reactivating the reactor.

The reactor is expected to reach criticality, in which nuclear fission is self-sustaining, at around 11 p.m. on Aug. 11. Steam produced from the heat generated by the nuclear fission will drive a turbine to produce electricity.

The generation and transmission of electricity is expected to begin on Aug. 14. The output will be raised gradually, reaching full power generation in late August and shifting to a commercial operation in early September.

In a statement, Kyushu Electric Power President Michiaki Uriu said, “The activation of the nuclear reactor is one of the important steps in the process for restart. We will continue to deal sincerely with the government’s inspections and proceed with the subsequent process by putting a top priority on safety.”

In September 2014, the Sendai nuclear power plant passed the new safety regulations for the first time in the nation. In March this year, the Nuclear Regulation Authority started the inspection process that is required before a nuclear reactor can be reactivated. In July, nuclear fuel was brought into the reactor.

As operations of the reactor had been suspended for about four years, Kyushu Electric proceeded cautiously with the preparations.

All nuclear reactors in Japan were taken offline soon after the March 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami triggered three meltdowns at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. Though Kansai Electric Power Co. temporarily operated the No. 3 and No. 4 reactors of its Oi nuclear power plant in Fukui Prefecture to deal with an electricity shortage, it suspended operations again in September 2013.

The electric power industry is pushing for the restart of idled nuclear reactors. The Abe administration also regards nuclear power as vital to the nation’s power needs.

Kyushu Electric plans to restart the No. 2 reactor at its Sendai nuclear power plant in mid-October. Preparations for a restart are progressing at the No. 3 and the No. 4 reactors of Kansai Electric’s Takahama nuclear power plant in Fukui Prefecture and the No. 3 reactor of Shikoku Electric Power Co.’s Ikata nuclear power plant in Ehime Prefecture.

One stumbling block for the Takahama plant is a temporary injunction the Fukui District Court issued in April this year to prohibit the restart.

Meanwhile, anxieties remain among residents living near nuclear power plants over insufficient emergency measures in the event of a nuclear accident. For example, the formulation of evacuation plans has been delayed for some medical and welfare facilities that house many elderly people.

In the Kyushu region where the Sendai nuclear power plant is situated, volcanic activity poses a threat. Therefore, some opponents argue that it is necessary for nuclear power plants to take safety measures against major eruptions.

The spread of summer power-saving campaigns and solar power generation have reduced concerns over electricity shortages even when no nuclear reactors are operating. A stable electricity supply is continuing across the nation even amid a serious heat wave.

Opposition to the restart of nuclear plants remains strong among the public.

Source: Asahi Shimbun

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201508110066

August 13, 2015 Posted by dunrenard | Japan | Nuclear Plant Restart, Sendai | Leave a comment