“The Fukushima No. 1 plant was a practice course for Toshiba and Hitachi Ltd. to learn about GE’s design on a trial-and-error basis.”-former TEPCo executive
asahi.com reporting that Fukushima Daiichi (aka Number 1 Plant) was designed as “trial and error” experiment. This might explain why it’s neighbor, Fukushima DaiNi (aka Number 2 Plant), is not having the same problems.
Tokyo Electric Power Company officials recently compared the design plans of the two plants. Their conclusion was that the safety features of Fukushima Daiichi are so different, and weaker, than Fukushima DaiNi, that it must be the reason for the current crisis. I find it amazing that TEPCo didn’t already understand the fundamental differences between their nuclear plants.
A former TEPCo engineer said even upgrades, made to Number 1 Plant, were not sufficient: “First of all, there was the judgment that the reactor core buildings were in a safe location in relation to the expected height of any tsunami that might strike the plant. However, even if they wanted to move the generators, there was no space within the reactor building, so that would have meant a major revision in design. At the time, no one considered making such changes.”
A unnamed midlevel TEPCo official said just getting a nuke plant built was all that mattered: “The blueprints for the reactor cores at the No. 1 plant were bought ‘as is’ by Toshiba Corp. from General Electric Co., so the priority at that time was on constructing the reactors according to those blueprints.”
Remember, there are six reactors at Fukushima Number 1 Plant. So far reactors 1, 2, 3 & 4 are in trouble. Why not reactors 5 & 6? Those reactors are of a later more improved design than the 1, 2, 3 & 4 reactors.
Some TEPCo officials admit that making the decision NOT to make proper improvements was a matter of pride; it would have meant admitting that the work already done was faulty.
General Electric’s current involvement in the crisis might be due to the fact that they could be sued, under Japanese law, for their faulty design.