In 2008, I made some earthquake and nuke facility related plans for TV programs ( I consulted with NHK and a TV production company before the accident in Fukushima. )
In 2008, I already made a plan for TV program, which was actually broadcasted. http://blog.livedoor.jp/woo111/archives/50592980.html I visited Professor. Sunao Ogose, the geologist who was opposing to the construction of Japanese nuclear power plants for dozens of times for this. I REALLY WANTED TO MAKE MORE TV PROGRAMS ESPECIALLY ON NHK TO STOP ALL THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS BEFORE HUGE EARTHQUAKE HITS. BUT IT HAPPENED AND MAY HAPPEN MORE!
Oh, God, if NHK and the TV production company took up my plan seriously, the damage caused by the Great East Japan Earthquake might have been alleviated. . .
Please look at the Rokkasho Reprocessing facility's site plan submitted by pronuclear side below.
The fear of two faults running inside the Rokkasho site. The f-1 fault is estimated to have a maximum drop of 140 m, and the f-2 fault is estimated to have a maximum drop of 330 m, but what is this drop? . . These maps are from the preparation document for reprocessing facility construction application. (That is, from the nuclear promotion side)
それと断面図。ごめんなさい！なぜか縦になってしまう。。。And the cross section. sorry! It becomes vertical for some reason. . .
There are important matters and important person description
- 2020/5/13 12:08 日経新聞より
Earthquake and geological problems related to Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant
If you look at the pits of the above faults, you can see the activity in the recent geological age. As a structure, it seems to be a reverse fault formed by the upper plate rising against the lower plate due to some compressive force. (In contrast, Professor Emeritus Kitamura is trying to define tha fault line as a steep slope collapse on a landslide.)
A large fault with a total cliff height of 200 km and a cliff height of 200 meters or more is located in the north-south direction in parallel with the coast east off Aomori Prefecture. If it reactivates fully, it will cause a huge earthquake of M = 8. However, the Japan Earthquake Research Institute and the Japan Atomic Vessel Research and Development Agency deleted the description of this active fault. Furthermore, although the Japan Nuclear Fuel Industries called this large fault as “Sea Area-2 Fault” in the uranium enrichment factory application form, it stated that the fault line were unlikely to be active faults, which was confirmed by Mr. Kinugasa. According to the Kinugasa's minutes, "I was asked by the JNFI to examine the data on active faults in the sea during the uranium examination by the JNFI, but I decided not to do so because the guidelines do not require evaluation up to that level."
However, with respect to this neglected major faults, there were five M = 6 class earthquakes between 1667 and 1854, and the Pacific ocean floor east of Rokkasho Village was in 1978 on the east coast of Aomori Prefecture. Due to the fact that the epicenter of the main earthquake of "Earthquake" (two M = 5.8 earthquakes), and the aftershock epicenter extended from the seabed to the land, and the epicenter was also distributed near the Rokkasho nuclear fuel cycle facility. It is clear that there are genuine active faults underground.
Regarding whether the fault line of Sea Area-2 is active or not, there was a controversy in the "Live TV until Morning" program between Dr. Yuta Suzuki, who was then Director of Research Department of Nuclear Fuel Service, and geologist, Professor. Sunao Ogose (Note: The late Prof. Ogose was the geologist whom Takenouchi used to support and we made a TV program together in 2008 on TBS, Tokyo Broadcasting Station). It was eventually admitted that the May 16, 1978 earthquake was caused by the reverse active fault movement caused by the Sea-2 fault.
Past earthquakes and seismic intensity scales, acceleration, velocity
Based on the "New Japanese Earthquake Damage Survey" (Dr. Tatsuo Usami), Dr. Ogose picked up an earthquake thought to have affected the Pacific coast of Aomori prefecture, and although it reached as many as106, there are earthquakes that were removed from the list by the nuclear industry. For example, the 1677 “Rikuchu earthquake” is one of the worst earthquakes in the Aomori prefecture region, similar to the 1968 Tokachi-oki earthquake considered to be the worst one after WWII, and is absolutely indispensable.
In addition, some seismic intensity levels are lower than those of the Japan Meteorological Agency, even if they are not removed from the list. Although the seismic intensity scale of Rokkasho Village for the Tokachi-oki Earthquake and the "Hidaka, ... Earthquake" is 5, it was written as 4.
The events updated in Usami's old edition (1979) and new edition (1987) are not reflected in the application form. In the 1977 Rikuchu earthquake, the epicenter distance was shortened from 250 km in the old version to 80 km in the new version, but it is not included in Table 3-3 of the application form or the safety review form.
The seismic intensity scale is controlled by the fault distance rather than the epicenter distance, but this is not taken into consideration. Similarly, the depth of the epicenter and the nature of the ground features on the site have a great influence on the seismic intensity, but there is no consideration in that area. (The theory itself is from Professor Ikuei Muramatsu of Gifu University. Nuclear industry still uses M-Δ diagrams. The M-Δ diagrams are useless, looking at the comparison of the 1968 Tokachi-oki Earthquake and 1994 Sanriku Haruka. It is also clear that the seismic intensity scale does not match the measured value and the M-Δ diagram.
During the Sanriku Haruka-oki Earthquake (M = 7.5) on December 28, 1994, a seismic intensity of 6 was observed at Hachinohe with an epicenter distance of 186.5 km, and an earthquake in the northwestern part of Kagoshima Prefecture on May 13, 1997 (M = 6.2), a very large acceleration of 902 gal was observed in Miyanoshiro-machi with an epicenter distance of 18.5 km. Therefore, a large acceleration and a large seismic intensity can be caused by medium-scale earthquakes for the distance that cannot be captured by the Muramatsu type. Even in the case of Rokkasho village.
(1) January 15, 1993 Kushiro-oki earthquake (M = 7.8 h = 101 km), (2) Hokkaido Nansei-oki earthquake (M = 7.8, h = 35 km) on July 12, ③, October 4, 1994 The Hokkaido Toho Oki Earthquake (M = 8.1, h = 23km, ④ The Sanriku Haruka Oki Earthquake on December 28 of the same year, ① and ③ are giant ocean plate-free earthquakes that occurred inside the Pacific rate, and ② is North America. Plate boundary giant earthquake that occurred at the association of the plate and the Eurasian plate, ④ was a large plate boundary type earthquake that occurred at the boundary between the Pacific plate and the North American plate, but Otani Witness was aware of these marine intraplate earthquakes .In addition, although it is sufficient for the operators to assume a seismic intensity scale of 5 on the premises, the first seismic intensity scale 6 was observed in Kushiro in (1) and (3), and the first seismic intensity in Hachinohe ( 4). Floor 6 is observed.
Furthermore, since the Meiji Sanriku earthquake on June 15, 1896 was M = 8.5 due to the tsunami scale, Otani Witness confirmed that the minimum plate boundary earthquake that would occur in the sea near Japan would be at least M = 8.5. I think that we should think about it, and testify that the possibility of an intra-plate earthquake that exceeds M = 8.0 just below the site of the Facility is "conceptually undeniable." ing. If this testimony is quoted as it is, it is reasonable to consider the possibility of impact up to the seismic intensity level 7 on the site, but it is set to 5. However, Otani witnesses said, "There may have been more than 6 earthquakes in the past." (Is seismic intensity 6 or 7 assumed for the secondary design?)
8. Kanai formula-There is no correlation between the magnitude of the calculated maximum velocity amplitude of the site base based on the Osaki method and the magnitude of the actual damage.
9. No reliability of Matsuda
10. For three-dimensional ground motions, it is strange not to calculate acceleration and velocity in ground motions by combining three directions. Why south-south-east-northwest?
About the ground (from "When a large earthquake hits a nuclear fuel facility" on page 61)
1. Although the government has endorsed (where is it?) That the rocks that make up the Takahashi Formation belong to soft rocks, Keiichi Ohtani, Director of the Disaster Prevention Research Department, Science and Technology Agency, testified that it was "very hard." It is based on the fact that the N value is 50 or more excluding the weathered part on the upper surface, but even if the N value is 50 or more, it cannot be said that the rock quality is hard, and the expert of soil and basic engineering also has the N value. There are people who warn that one should not overconfide the utility.
2. It was revealed that there was a clear slip surface on the site of the reprocessing facility, but the witness stated that it was not known at the examination stage.
The earthquake motion is transmitted from the epicenter to the ground, transmitted to the buildings / structures, and finally to the facilities / equipment.The most important thing here is that whether they cause resonance phenomenon or not. (Translator's note: I heard from a GE engineer that this resonance phenomenon was NOT calculated in Fukushima either.) It is about that. In order to investigate this problem, it is essential to clarify each natural period. However, Otani witnesses testified that in the first examination, the proper period was never subject to consideration.
The witness interrogated the proper period of the uranium enriched building and testified that it was "probably a comma for 2 or 3 seconds", but did not test the proper period of the Takachiho layer of the Facility at all. The damage rate is completely different depending on the location due to the relationship between the ground and the proper period of the building, which has already been demonstrated in the 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake. Although not too solid, the support base of the facility belongs to soft rock in terms of geotechnical engineering, it is a rock rather than a soil. Therefore, its proper period should be quite short, which could be a concern about the resonance phenomenon with the facility of the trench structure with a short cycle. However, there is no mentioning of this in the application for the facility. By the way, the proper period is one of the important classification criteria in the classification of the ground due to the revision of the construction example of the Building Standards Act in July 1981.
The facility is located at an altitude of 30m and 3km inland, but there are no tsunami articles in the application form or partial amendments. In the 1896 Meiji Sanriku earthquake, the maximum wave height of 38.2m was recorded at Ryori, Sanriku Town, Iwate Prefecture. In the 1856 "Hidaka, Iburi, Oshima, Tsugaru, Nanbu" earthquake, the tsunami caused the Mabuchi River to flow back up to 11km upstream. It is strange to say that at a location of 30 m above sea level and 3 km inland, the tsunami was not taken into consideration and nothing was considered.