Reactor in central Japan fails to pass post-Fukushima safety review

13 years after Fukushima incidents, still not enough to implement those standards?

Japan revamped its regulatory setup by launching the NRA in 2012 and has also introduced a set of new safety requirements to reflect the lessons learned from the disaster at Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc's Fukushima Daiichi plant, triggered by a huge earthquake and tsunami in March 2011

If March 2011 didn't happen, they won't change regulation ? Just do everything same until actual incident take place?

The whole complex should be shut down,like a 100ft fault cannot compromise the reactors, Japanese have a different level of risk than American,it would of never been there

Judging from the number of downvotes given to the above two posters' comments, I think there are a lot of people here who don't give a hoot about safety standards when it comes to nuclear reactors. Very worrying. Pride before safety?

Judging from the number of downvotes given to the above two posters' comments, I think there are a lot of people here who don't give a hoot about safety standards when it comes to nuclear reactors. Very worrying. Pride before safety?

Maybe it's the fact that sakurasuki and Yrral habitually spam the forum with off-topic or otherwise unconstructive comments.

Modern nuclear energy technology is relatively safe and reliable.

Japan refuses to modernize and upgrade is facilities. Fukushima did not meet sufficient safety standards and TEPCO did nothing to improve or mitigate the risks.

Now in 2024 another nuclear plant does not meet safety standards?????

TEPCO and the LDP need to allocate funding to modernize & upgrade ALL nuclear facilities in JAPAN.... ASAP!!!!

This: due to a possible active fault underneath the offline unit

And this: building reactors … directly above active faults is prohibited.

So why this?: Nuclear Regulation Authority plans to seek public comments on its assessment report

Is this nuclear safety by vote or by law?

Also, doesn’t this (lying) mean Japan Atomic Power can’t be trusted to run a safe power plant?:

documents that included inaccuracies and data rewritten without approval

Wow must have been bad for the traditional rubber stamp to be not used!

Here is a photo that is designed to condition the reader. I have never seen an image by a professional digital imager framed out context by allowing the impression that the plant is leaning into the ocean. No decent editor would give that image a pass unless it is design to condition the reader.

Failed the safety review, dont get to operate. A very simple system.

"better be safe than sorry.these safety rules are there for a good reason."@Eastmann

I rest my case, no one else can put it better than you have done.

Eastmann- correct. Check out the leaning venting tower. lol. I can,'t operate like that.

The assessment process for the reactor had been rocky, with proceedings suspended twice after it was revealed that Japan Atomic Power had submitted documents that included inaccuracies and data rewritten without approval.

Only suspension of proceedings?

Culprits should be jailed for this

Judging from the number of downvotes given to the above two posters' comments, I think there are a lot of people here who don't give a hoot about safety standards when it comes to nuclear reactors. Very worrying. Pride before safety?

This is a very uncharitable interpretation of people’s votes.

A main issue, especially with the first poster’s comments, is that the safety standards exist and have been applied, contrary to what the comment implies.

Also, the claim that an active nearby fault compromises safety, which implies that Fukushima happened because of an active nearby fault, is stupid. The fault was hundreds of kilometers away from Fukushima. Hardly anybody in the Tohoku quake died from the quake. The tsunami killed thousands. Likewise, the nuclear plant was not damaged in the quake. It was the tsunami that destroyed it.

Tsuruga isn’t approved partly because of uncertain geology, but even then the quake risk is vanishingly small. Buildings can withstand strong shaking. Focus instead on the sea defenses because a tsunami originating anywhere off the Fukui coast is a vastly greater risk.

wow I'm shocked..... not

Safety check. Failed. Reactor can't be used. The system works.

Great! Next step, get rid of every single nuclear plant in Japan.

Shouldn't we restart nuclear power plants? It's not a matter of pride or reputation. I doubt there are any ordinary people who think that way.

First of all, were there any nuclear power plants that collapsed or were destroyed in the 3/11 earthquake?

There was damage from the tsunami, but was there really any damage caused by changes in fault lines due to the earthquake? This is a scientific question.

And currently, electricity rates have risen by at least 20% due to the soaring price of crude oil.

This is because Japan's current electricity generation is supported by thermal power plants that burn crude oil.

If we're going to operate thermal power plants that emit a lot of carbon dioxide, then why not operate nuclear power plants, which have much more efficient power generation? Isn't that the opinion of the majority of citizens?

This particular plant is built on a fault, which is against the law, and the operator has evidently done a lot of funky reporting. They probably messed up in front of the wrong people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsuruga_Nuclear_Power_Plant

The assessment process for the reactor had been rocky, with proceedings suspended twice after it was revealed that Japan Atomic Power had submitted documents that included inaccuracies and data rewritten without approval. It reapplied in August last year.

.

Some believe that having a nuclear power plant located above an active fault is acceptable.

Some have never experienced an earthquake.