2008年、番組の企画を作るか（福島の事故前にNHKやTV制作会社の方に打診するも実現せず。。。涙）、記事を書こうとして、書き出したメモ書き。
In
2008, I wrote some earthquake and nuke facility related plans for TV
programs ( I consulted with NHK and a TV production company before the
accident in Fukushima. )
すでに、この時に、私はとあるTV制作会社の方にお願いし、TBS報道特集にて、地震と原発の特集プログラムを作ってもらっていたのです。http://takenouchimari.blogspot.com/2020/08/2008.html（のちに東電から制作会社に「事実関係でひとつも間違いはなかった」という電話をもらいました。）
2008年当時、番組を企画するために私は、原発建設反対で最も尽力された地質学者、故・生越忠博士には何十回と会いに行っていたのでした。（博士の情報に基づいた川内原発http://takenouchimari.blogspot.com/2014/03/blog-post_15.html、伊方原発http://takenouchimari.blogspot.com/2013/04/blog-post_14.html、柏崎原発http://takenouchimari.blogspot.com/2013/04/please-stop-insane-japan-from-nuke.htmlの記事も私のブログにあります）
In
2008, I already made a plan for TV program, which was actually
broadcasted. http://takenouchimari.blogspot.com/2020/08/2008.html I
visited Professor Sunao Ogose, the geologist who had been 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 THE 2011 EARTHQUAKE HIT. BUT THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED AND
MAY HAPPEN MORE IN JAPAN AND THE WORLD!
http://takenouchimari.blogspot.com/2014/03/blog-post_15.html
http://takenouchimari.blogspot.com/2013/04/blog-post_14.html
http://takenouchimari.blogspot.com/2013/04/please-stop-insane-japan-from-nuke.html
ああ、私の企画書をNHKやTV制作会社が真面目に見ていたら、東日本大震災の被害だって少しは軽減されていたかもしれないのです。。。
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. . .
先日驚くべきことに六ケ所再処理工場安全審査が合格となってしまいました。。。
まずはこちらの推進側から出された施設内にある断層の図をご覧ください。
Please look at the Rokkasho Reprocessing facility's site plan submitted by pronuclear side below.
Rokkasho facility is only 30km away from Misawa US Military Base!!!
六ヶ所敷地内に走る２本の断層の恐怖。ｆ－１断層は最大落差１４０ｍ、ｆ－２断層は最大落差３３０ｍと推定されると書いてあるのですが、この落差とは何のことなのだろう。。。これは再処理施設建設申請の準備書面からです。（つまり推進側の文書より）
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。And the cross section.
日本原燃の再処理工場「合格」 稼働は21年度以降
- 2020/5/13 12:08 日経新聞より
再処理工場の安全対策の基本方針について、11年の東京電力福島第1原発事故後にできた新規制基準に適合していると判断した。今後、一般からの意見公募などを踏まえて、今夏中にも正式に合格が決まる。
原燃は21年度上期までに安全対策など必要な手続きを終える予定で、その後、青森県と六ケ所村の同意を得て稼働にこぎ着けたい考えだ。
原燃の再処理工場は全国の原発で出る使用済み核燃料から再び発電に使えるウランやプルトニウムを商業的に取り出す国内で唯一の施設。100万キロワット級の原発約40基分に相当する年間800トン（ウラン換算）の使用済み核燃料を処理できる能力を持つ。
当初は1997年に完成するはずだったが、トラブルが相次ぎ、これまでに完成時期を24回遅らせた。2006年には最終的な運用試験に入ったものの、不具合対応にてこずっていた11年3月に福島第1事故が起きて、手続きを進められなくなった。
原燃は14年1月に新規制基準に基づく安全審査の申請を出し、規制委は約6年かけて慎重に審査を進めてきた。地震の想定を大幅に引き上げたほか、竜巻に備えて設備を補強した。
重大事故が起きたときの拠点となる緊急時対策所の整備なども進めている。新規制基準の対応前に約2兆2000億円を見込んでいた建設費は、追加の安全対策が必要になり3兆円近くに膨らむ。
再処理工場の完成が遅れている影響で、核燃料サイクルは目詰まりを起こしてきた。再処理工場にある使用済み燃料を貯蔵する施設はほぼ満杯で、電力各社は各原発などでの保管を余儀なくされた。これまでにトラブルを起こし続けてきた施設だけに完成しても、順調に稼働できるかは不透明だ。
また、福島第1原発の事故後に新規制基準に合格して再稼働した原発は全国で9基にすぎない。再処理で生み出した燃料を使う原発が増えなければ、施設の意義も問われかねない。
新型コロナウイルスの感染拡大を防止するため、13日の規制委定例会は一般傍聴者を入れずに審査書案を議論した。従来通りインターネットでは中継したものの、異例の対応だった。
六ヶ所に関する地震・地盤問題
Earthquake and geological problems related to Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant
Earthquake and geological problems related to Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant
活断層についてActive faults
1.
上記断層のピットを見ると、最近の地質年代における活動性が見られる。構造としては、近くに対して圧縮力が働いたために上盤が下盤に対して相対的にずり上がって形成された逆断層のように見られる。（これに対し、北村名誉教授は、急傾斜崩壊―がけ崩れ後として片付けようとしている。）
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.)
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.)
2. ｆ－１断層から出ている「ひげ」に対し、当時の衣笠通産相地質調査所技官は、活断層といわれないように、地形に沿ったクリープ性のものとか注意書きをする必要ありという入れ知恵。しかし、ひげを一種の活褶曲と考えれば、その真下のｆ－１断層が活断層である可能性は極めて大きい。
For
the "branch line" emerging from the f-1 fault, the technician of the
Geological Survey from MITI, Mr. Kinugasa stated, "In order not to be
called as fault lines, we need to annotate that the branch line was
generated by creep motion." However,
if the branch line is considered to be a kind of active fold, it is
very likely that the f-1 fault beneath it is actually an active fault.
3.
青森県東方沖に海岸にほぼ平行して南北方向に総延長１００ｋｍ内外、崖高２００メートル以上の大断層がある。全面的に再活動した場合、M=8の巨大地震を引き起こす。ところが、（財）地震予知総合研究振興会および日本原子力船研究開発事業団がこの活断層を抹殺。さらに、原燃産業も、濃縮工場申請書でこの大断層を「海域―２の断層」と呼んだものの、活断層である可能性は小さいとし、上記衣笠技官がそれを追認した。衣笠議事録によれば、「JNFIのウラン審査でJNFIから海の活断層の資料を見て欲しいといわれたが、指針上そこまでの評価は求めていないので見ないことにした」という驚くべき記録。
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."
ところが、この無視されている大断層に関しては、１６６７年から１８５４年までの間にM=6クラスの地震が５回起こっており、また六ヶ所村東方の太平洋海底は１９７８年の「青森県東岸の地震」（２回のM=5.8の地震）の主震の震央となり、さらに余震の震央は海底から陸地にまたがっており、核燃サイクル基地の近傍にも震央が分布していたという事実により、その地下には正真正銘の活断層が存在する事が明らかである。
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.
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."
ところが、この無視されている大断層に関しては、１６６７年から１８５４年までの間にM=6クラスの地震が５回起こっており、また六ヶ所村東方の太平洋海底は１９７８年の「青森県東岸の地震」（２回のM=5.8の地震）の主震の震央となり、さらに余震の震央は海底から陸地にまたがっており、核燃サイクル基地の近傍にも震央が分布していたという事実により、その地下には正真正銘の活断層が存在する事が明らかである。
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.
4.
海域―２の断層の死活を巡っては、「朝まで生テレビ」の中で、当時原燃サービス取締役調査部長をしていた鈴木雄太氏と地質学者、生越忠氏の間で、論争が展開され、最終的に１９７８年５月１６日の地震は海域―２の断層が逆断層運動を引き起こしたことによって発生したものであることを是認している。
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.
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.
5.
上記「朝まで生テレビ」において、内部資料、「裁判で反原発側に指摘されたら弱い・・・」というような内容の書かれてあった衣笠メモを、生越氏が公開。その後視聴者から問い合わせが殺到したという。好評を博した朝生の原発論争であったが、それ以降は推進側からの拒否）で2度と行なわれていない。
Dr.
Ogose showed a memo written by Kinugasa during the above-mentioned
"Live TV until morning" program. The internal document by Mr. Kinugasa
said, "We would be in a trouble if the anti-nuclear side point this out
in the court trial ...". It is said that the TV program had been flooded with inquiries since then. It
was a very popular controversial TV program on the nuclear power plant,
but since then, the ensuing series was stopped due to refusal from the
nuclear promotion side.
過去の地震と震度階、加速度、速度について
Past earthquakes and seismic intensity scales, acceleration, velocity
Past earthquakes and seismic intensity scales, acceleration, velocity
1.
「新編日本被害地震総覧」（宇佐美龍夫氏）に基づいて、青森県太平洋沿岸地方に何らかの影響を与えたと考えられる地震を生越氏が拾ってみたところ、１０６に達していたにもかかわらず、原燃産業によってリストからはずされた地震がある。例えば１６７７年の「陸中の地震」は、青森県頭部地方にとって戦後最悪とされる１９６８年十勝沖地震に似た地震のひとつとされていて絶対欠かせないものである。
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.
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.
2.
また、リストからはずさないまでも震度階を気象庁のものよりなぜか低くしているものがある。上記、十勝沖地震、「日高、・・・の地震」の六ヶ所村における震度階は５としてあるのにもかかわらず、４としてある。
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.
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.
3.
上記宇佐美氏の旧編（１９７９）と新編（１９８７）において更新された事象が、申請書に反映されていない。１９７７年の陸中の地震では旧編では震央距離が２５０ｋｍ、新編では８０ｋｍに短縮されたが、申請書の表３－３にも安全審査書にも組み入れられていない。
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 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.
4.
震央距離よりも断層距離によって震度階は大きく支配されるが、その考慮がない。また、同じく震度階には震源深さ及び敷地の地盤の性質が大きな影響をもたらすが、その辺りの考慮が全くない。（理論そのものは岐阜大学村松郁栄教授から。事業者らはいまだM－Δ図を使っている。M－Δ図が使い物にならないのは、１９６８年の十勝沖地震および１９９４年の三陸はるか置き地震の緒元を比較すると震度階が実測値とM－Δ図とで合わないことからも明らかである。
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.
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.
5.
１９９４年１２月２８日の三陸はるか沖地震（M=7.5）に際して、震央距離が１８６．５Kmの八戸で震度階６が観測されたり、１９９７年５月１３日の鹿児島県北西部の地震（M=6.2）に際して、震央距離が１８．５Kmの宮之城町において９０２ガルというきわめて大きな加速度が観測されたことなどから、村松式では捉えきれない距離の割には大きな加速度、また大きな震度が中規模地震の際でも六ヶ所村で起こりえる。
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.
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.
6.
①１９９３年１月１５日釧路沖地震（M=７．８ ｈ＝１０１ｋｍ）、②同年７月１２日の北海道南西沖地震（M=７．８、ｈ＝３５ｋｍ）、③９４年１０月４日の北海道東方沖地震（M=８．１、ｈ＝２３ｋｍ、④同年１２月２８日の三陸はるか沖地震は、①および③は太平洋部レート内部が避けて起こった海洋プレートない巨大地震、②は北米プレートとユーラシアプレートとの協会で起こったプレート境界型巨大地震、④は太平洋プレートと北米プレートとの境で起こったプレート境界型大地震であったが、大谷証人はこれら海洋プレート内地震について了知していなかった。また、事業者らは、敷地内の震度階は５を想定すれば十分としているが、①と③では釧路で初の震度階６が観測され、④では八戸で初の震度階６が観測されている。
(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.
(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.
7.
さらに大谷証人は、１８９６年６月１５日の明治三陸地震が津波規模からM=８．５とされていることから、日本近海で発生するプレート境界地震としては、M=８．５までは最低考えるべきであるとしており、本件施設の敷地付近の真下でM=８．０を超えるような海洋プレート内地震が発生する可能性についても、「概念的には否定できないと思います」と証言している。この証言をそのまま引用すれば、敷地での影響度は震度階７までの可能性を考えるのが妥当であるが、５までとしている。ただし、大谷証人は「過去に現実に６以上の地震が起こったこともあり得るかもしれない」と述べている。（二次設計としては震度６や７も想定しているのでしょうか？）
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?)
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.
金井式―大崎の手法に基づく敷地基盤の最大速度振幅の計算値の大小と実際の被害の大小は相関性を持たない。
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.
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.
松田式の信頼性もなし
9. No reliability of Matsuda
9. No reliability of Matsuda
10. 三次元の地震動に対し、地震動における加速度や速度を三方向の合成で計算しないのはおかしい。なぜ、南北東西なのか？
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?
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?
地盤について（「核燃施設を大地震が襲う時」６１ページ以降より）
About the ground (from "When a large earthquake hits a nuclear fuel facility" on page 61)
About the ground (from "When a large earthquake hits a nuclear fuel facility" on page 61)
1.
鷹架層の構成岩石が軟岩に属することは国も是認している（どこにある？）のであるが、科技庁防災総合研究部長の大谷圭一証人は「非常に硬い」と証言。上面の風化部を除くとN値が５０以上であることをその根拠としているが、N値が５０以上でも岩質が硬いとは言い切れず、土質・基礎工学の専門家にもN値の効用を過信してはならないという警告する向きがある。
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.
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.
再処理施設の敷地内では明瞭なすべり面が認められる場所がある事が明らかになっているが、同証人は審査の段階ではわからなかったと述べている。
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.
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.
固有周期についてProper period
1.
地震動は震源から地盤に伝わり、建物・構造物に伝わって最後に設備・機器に伝わることになるが、ここで最も重要なことは、これらがたがいに共振現象を引き起こさないようになっているのかどうかということである。この問題を究明するためには、それぞれの固有周期を明らかにする事が必要不可欠になる。しかし大谷証人は、第一次審査では固有周期についてはきっちり検討対象にしたことはないと証言した。
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 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.
2.
同証人はウラン濃縮建屋の固有周期を尋問され、「恐らくコンマ２秒か３秒」と証言したが、本件施設の鷹架層の固有周期については全く証言していない。地盤と建物の固有周期の関係で場所によって被害率が全く異なる現象は、１９２３年の関東大震災ですでに実証されていることである。本件施設の支持基盤である鷹架層は、地質工学的には軟岩に属するとはいえ、土ではなく、岩であるから、その固有周期はかなり短いものとなるはずであり、その場合、固有周期の短い壕構造の本件施設との共振現象が心配される。しかし、本件施設の申請においては、このことにはまったく言及がない。ちなみに１９８１年７月の建築基準法施工例の改正に伴う地盤の分類では、固有周期が重要な分類基準のひとつになっている。
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 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.
津波についてTsunami
本件施設は、標高３０ｍ内陸３ｋｍに位置しているが、本件申請書及び一部補正に津波の記事は全く見られない。１８９６年の明治三陸地震では岩手県三陸町綾里において、３８．２ｍという最大波高が記録されている。また、１８５６年の「日高、胆振、渡島、津軽、南部」の地震では津波のため馬渕川は上流１１kmの櫛引まで逆流した。標高３０ｍ内陸３ｋｍという立地点において、津波を考慮に入れず、何も検討していないと言うのはおかしい。
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.
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.
