Tsuruga Nuclear Power Plant
[7] In March 2015 the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) accepted an expert report that concluded the plant is on an active fault, which put any restart of Tsuruga 2 in doubt.The plaintiffs argued that the plant is unsafe being built on a fault, and a severe accident could occur during an earthquake endangering the health of all residents, also contaminating Lake Biwa.On top of this, the presence of the oceanic faults were not taken into account by NISA and JAP in the assessment of the safety of the Tsuruga nuclear power plant.[17] After an on-site survey at four points of geological layers by a panel of geologists, on 24 April 2012, NISA did admit that the 35-km-long Urazoko fault that runs under the Tsuruga reactors could be active.Although other outside experts will be asked to check the report "to improve" the contents, Kunihiko Shimazaki, NRA-member and panel head said : "We're not expecting to spend much time, but I can't tell at this moment by when (the review will finish)."[21] On 22 January 2013, officials of Japan Atomic Power Co. received a version of the draft assessment report on the geologic faults running under the reactor complex.Although the leaked information was not secret, for it contained a summary of public discussions, the incident was rather an embarrassment for the NRA because it undermined its policy of transparency and neutrality.[22] On Friday, 8 March 2013, Japan Atomic Power Co. presented its latest analysis based on its ongoing geological investigation at the plant to the NRA-panel.[23] On 19 April 2013, the NRA inspection team told JAPC that it would not accept the power company's refutation of the NRA-report, stating the high possibility of an active fault lying under reactor No.[26] One day earlier experts hired by the operator of the nuclear power plant had asked the NRA to postpone the decision, because they found there were insufficient data to do so.And while it appeared to be very difficult to restart the other reactors, Japan Atomic Power could not sell any electricity, and survived only on the basic fees it received from its major stockholders.[27] In seeking approval to restart the reactor under stricter regulations imposed following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident, Japan Atomic Power has been trying to disprove geological expert opinion, published in March 2015, that the fault is active.
Commission dateJapan Atomic Power CompanySea of JapanNameplate capacityCapacity factorAnnual net outputTsurugaFukui PrefectureFugen Nuclear Power PlantMarch 2011 earthquakeNuclear Regulation Authorityactive faultLake BiwaUrasoko faultKansai Electric Power CompanyJapan Atomic Energy AgencyMihama Nuclear Power PlantMonju fast-breeder reactorMonju Nuclear Power PlantGeneration III reactorList of nuclear power plants in JapanWayback MachineKyodo NewsJapan Timesarchive.todayNuclear power in JapanEnergy in JapanNuclear powerHokkaidoTomariTohokuOnagawaHigashidōriFukushima DaiichiFukushima DainiKashiwazaki-KariwaHamaokaHokurikuKansaiMihamaTakahamaChugokuShimaneShikokuKyushuSendaiGenkaiTōkai IITōkai IMagnoxNamie-OdakaJōyō Japanese Atomic Energy Commission(JAEC) Nuclear Regulation Authority(NRA) Japan's NSCHitachiToshibaMitsubishi FBR SystemsJapan Nuclear Fuel Limited Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA)Dōnen Japan Electric Association(JEA) RokkashoreprocessingFukushima nuclear disasterTokaimura nuclear accidentsMihama nuclear accidentsList of incidentsAnti-nuclearmovementAshes to HoneyJapanese Communist PartyGenpatsu-shinsaiGreens JapanMizuho FukushimaKatsumi FuritsuNobuto HosakaTetsunari IidaKiyoshiro ImawanoProject Sunshine for JapanReiwa ShinsengumiSanshiro KumeKenzaburō ŌeRokkasho RhapsodyRyuichi SakamotoSayonara Nuclear Power PlantsSocial Democratic PartyJinzaburo Takagi