Having spent a good many years in the Nuclear industry, I can say from experience that seismic concerns are addressed in every plant design. For older plants, the required seismic upgrades have been extensive. One plant I worked at had added so many snubbers to piping that it became a major effort to do any work in some areas - clearances were terrible.
So I read the "concerns" being raised by anti-nuclear activists following the problems at the Kashiwazaki Kariwa reactor in Japan after the earthquake yesterday with a huge grain of salt. The press has not carried a lot of real detail, but there appears to have been some very, very small release of water from a spent fuel pit, a transformer fire - which has nothing whatsoever to do with the nuclear side of the plant and some drums knocked over. Consider me underwhelmed as to the seriousness of all that. Not so the helpful "activists". They are kicking things up into high gear.
With 20 percent of the world's nuclear reactors in seismically active zones and the remote but real possibility of earthquakes just about everywhere else, nuclear power plants are designed with shaking in mind.
Plants in many countries have survived quakes more powerful than the one that hit Japan on Monday, suggesting that the poor performance of the Kashiwazaki Kariwa reactor is more illustrative of recent safety problems in the country's nuclear industry than any inherent vulnerability of the technology.
"It did what it was supposed to," said William Miller, a University of Missouri at Columbia nuclear engineering professor. "It shut down. It did not release radioactive material into the atmosphere."
Miller said he considers the relatively small amounts of radioactivity that were released when the earthquake knocked over several waste-containing barrels to be "negligible."
But environmentalists and nuclear watchdogs expressed concern that fire and power failure, both of which resulted at Kashiwazaki on Monday, can trigger nuclear meltdown.
Fire and power failure. So what? A transformer fire is actually a fairly frequent, if unwelcome, event in the utility industry. One plant I used to work at had a transformer explode and burn. And that was a coal plant, not a nuke. As to the loss of power - first, the second the plants tripped offline - as they were designed to do and did - there would be offsite power available. If that happened to go away, there are diesel generator sets that start automatically (and are tested all the time to ensure that they will do so). There was no "loss of power", merely a loss of one or more layers of protection. Nukes are very, very redundant in protection. All of those units tripped, I am quite sure, all by themselves before a human even realized that there was an earthquake.
Oh, and the amount of radioactivity in spent fuel pool water is generally extremely low. So Miller is right not to be concerned. Beware of "activists" raising "concerns". It is all too often a way to spread fear and disinformation about what is really going on.