Monju Nuclear Plant Operator Ordered To Stop Restart Preparation

AmiMoJo writes "Japan's nuclear regulator has ordered the operator of the Monju fast-breeder reactor to suspend preparation for its restart until measures are put in place for its proper maintenance and management. The regulators acted after finding the operator had missed checkups on about 10,000 pieces of equipment. They ordered that sufficient manpower and funds be allocated for maintenance and management. The reactor in Tsuruga City, central Japan, is at the center of the nation's nuclear-fuel recycling policy. But its operator has been hampered by a series of problems."

Comments

So, not a Tepco site

[dhammabum]

According to the Japan Times, the Japan Atomic Energy Agency runs the site. Well done for not allowing them to get away with the same old practices.

Re:So, not a Tepco site

[hcs_$reboot]

Unfortunately Japan seems to easily forget about Fukushima and its effects, side effects and future effects. The new Japanese government is in favor of a drastic change regarding power plants future: from an all-stopped-and-deep-check (May 6, 2012) to a lets-go-restart-asap-what-you-can policy. They probably estimate the probability of another such F-event very low (F as in Fukushima, but you can put what you want here). This is one of the globalization problem: economical globalization trend, without global consensus on fundamental issues.

Re:So, not a Tepco site

[khallow]

Unfortunately Japan seems to easily forget about Fukushima and its effects, side effects and future effects.

I see no indication of this.

The new Japanese government is in favor of a drastic change regarding power plants future: from an all-stopped-and-deep-check (May 6, 2012) to a lets-go-restart-asap-what-you-can policy.

Why do you consider that a worse approach? There's never been a safety or engineering justification for a "all-stopped-and-deep-check" approach. Magnitude 9 earthquakes don't happen all the time and that was a fundamental cause of the Fukushima accident.

They probably estimate the probability of another such F-event very low (F as in Fukushima, but you can put what you want here).

Given that only one "F-event" has happened in the history of nuclear power, I think it is fair to consider the probability of such events to be very low.

This is one of the globalization problem: economical globalization trend, without global consensus on fundamental issues.

No, it is common sense risk management taking over. There's no safety reason to slow down the restarting of well maintained nuclear reactors. And there's plenty of costs to such delays.

And I have to roll my eyes at "global consensus". I think Japan wouldn't be satisfied with the sort of compromises that it'd have to do in order to reach a consensus with say, Russia, the US, and China, all who appear to take some sort of short cuts with respect to nuclear power.

For example, Russia still operates a few reactors of the sort that failed at Chernobyl (and will continue to do so, for at least a decade). China is notorious for its disregard for human health. And the US has a number of oversight issues (and NIMBY politics) hampering the safety of its reactors. A "global consensus" isn't going to be the best practices possible, but rather an ugly compromise.

Re:So, not a Tepco site

[trum4n]

We pull radioactive fuel out of the ground, refine it, deplete it (partially) then bury it again. Why does everyone not get this. It comes from the earth, and we return it there! When we return it, it's even slightly less radioactive than it started.

Re:So, not a Tepco site

[doom]

Obvious point to learn from Fukushima: the emergency pumps need to be up above the flood line. One would hope that's easy enough to understand and fix, and one would hope they don't drag out the necessary changes for too long.

There's admittedly a harder problem to solve pointed at by Fukushima: how do you prevent "regulatory capture"? What can you do to make sure that watchdog agencies really watch? Needless to say this is a problem with every regulatory agency-- it's hard to see how we can deal without them, but overtime they tend to become neutralized and gradually become ineffective.

(I have trouble fathoming what you're getting at with this jazz about disposal of polluted cleaning water... nuclear accidents do indeed suck, because you get stuck releasing a certain amount of radioactives, and there's a chance they'll increase cancer rates, and you should do what you can to avoid all this, but if you want to pick something to stress out about I suggest you think a little more about coal burning. Those guys spew poison all the time as a matter of course, not just when there's been an accident.)

Re:Ownership != Operatership

[sidevans]

I'm starting to think the people who own nuclear plants shouldn't be the same people who operate them, at least in Japan.

You're tripping mate. Its not like USA and Russia haven't had their own fair share of nuclear fuck ups.

I think Japan, who have been bombed twice and recently had a plant explode, are more educated and informed than most countries, when it comes to the dangers of nuclear power.

Re:Ownership != Operatership

[Demonantis]

Canada did the same BS with chalk river. The plant didn't have redundant cooling so the government fired managers until they got someone willing to run it. The GPs idea doesn't fix anything. Ideally, they should be running designs that can't function in an unsafe condition or fail safe.

Re:Ownership != Operatership

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to (keyword: used to) work in the nuclear industry. Rumors I have heard was that Japan plants were very quick to fix equipment that broke. When something broke(Safety Related* or not) they had technicians out looking at it in very short order(within a week). At the plants I've been at and heard about here in the USA when stuff breaks if its not deemed "important" or Safety Related* it may be put off for months or years due to strict schedules, not enough work hours and insufficient technicians on staff, etc. It's not uncommon to see equipment that has been broken for more than 3 years, and INPO doesn't start hounding you until it's been more than 4 years. The NRC doesn't really care about anything that isn't classified as Safety Related* so they don't care how long it takes to fix it. Of course, the rumors of how Japan does business could be wrong as I've never actually toured or met someone that worked at one.

And the best part is you can easily get that clock restarted. If you think a switch is broken and then later find out its something else, you simply close that work order and open a new work order on the correct part. New work order = new date for when the job was created. So now that thing that's been broken for 4 years could be 8 years. And guess what.. what if it isn't that either? *Poof*... 12 years to fix something. And I guarantee you if its a job that needs parts that are VERY expensive, require alot of man-hours to perform, or requires alot of dose for the technicians doing the job, it'll be put off as long as someone can come up with an excuse to push the work date back.

Don't get me wrong, I consider nuclear power plants in the USA to be very safe, but when you stop and think "gee.. this has been broken since 2010 and we STILL haven't fixed it or even solidly troubleshot the issue to a particular piece of equipment?" you start questioning where the priorities are and what could be going on process-wise behind the scenes that nobody has noticed. I know that if something starts having problems with my car I preemptively fix it, even if its not something related to my own safety(like my brakes). Some parts in the nuclear industry are quite expensive(think 5, 6 figures or more) but are pennies on the dollar when you look at the amount of money the stations make per day. If they have an expected lifespan of only 5 years you can effectively get "something for nothing" just by not fixing it for a while. Those 3 parts that should have lasted you 15 years combined now can last over 20 if you wait 2 years between each fix. Suddenly you saved yourself big money in the long run. There's some hidden cost savings for the shareholders and its not like the company is going to come out and admit to how much money they saved just by not fixing stuff for a while. The general public would probably have a big cow if they knew the truth.

* - Safety Related is a classification for equipment that is deemed necessary for a safe shutdown, sufficient cooling and control of the reactor during accident conditions.

Posting for obvious reasons...I might want to work in the industry again someday. It is good money, a very reliable job and I know I'll be working with some of the smartest people I'll ever meet. Hopefully it won't get drowned out with all the other BS AC comments.

Not a restart, Not a safety decision, lets not let

[thesupraman]

Firstly its an experimental facility that has not been run up yet, even for testing, and they are currently considering not testing it soon..

Secondly the decision is based on a re-evaluation of Japans actual need for a fast breeder immediately, and due to overspends by its
contractors.

It is quite amazing how hard the anti-nuclear lobby will work to smokescreen any news as a near disaster and try and scare
us all away with the nuclear apocalypse bogeyman..

Japans economy is in recession, their energy needs are falling, they are cutting back on spending that is currently not required.
Any real news here?

The real danger...

[Anonymous Coward]

in operating a breeder reactor is of course... you end up with a bunch more little reactors later. A fast-breeder reactor... jeez, you end up with more than you can shake a uranium fuel rod at before you know it! And if someone's playing anything by Barry White nearby... forget it!

Re:Ownership != Operatership

[thegarbz]

The hydrogen explosions aren't the issue. You're venting to atmosphere or flaring, or you're putting it in a building and causing it to explode, the only thing the people will here is OMG radiation got out!

The problem is not the hydrogen explosion, the problem is that it got that far to begin with.

Re:Not a restart, Not a safety decision, lets not

[nojayuk]

The Monju fast-breeder has been a white elephant for a long time. Sodium leaks/fires (a perennial problem with fast reactors around the world) and general poor operational practices have meant it has spent most of its life sitting idle getting reworked or repaired.

Re:Ownership != Operatership

[nojayuk]

The Fukushima Daiichi reactors were in fact fitted with venting apparatus -- if you look at pictures of the site you'll see large white vertical pipes standing beside the reactor buildings, braced with girders to cope with earthquakes. The problem is that if the vents are used they can (and probably will) release radioactivity as well as hydrogen gas since at that point in time the fuel elements in the reactors will have suffered heat damage.

I've heard claims that the decision to not vent the gas buildup was taken by politicians in the Japanese government since they didn't want to be responsible for deliberately releasing radioactive contamination across parts of Japan. Whether that is true or not venting would have released much less radioactivity than the explosions did.