Category: Documents

Green Action and Mihama-no-Kai Petition Government and Kansai Electric to Investigate Return Shipment MOX Transport Cask for Possible Corrosion

For immediate release: 14 June 2002 For more information contact: Aileen Mioko Smith or Stephen Ready Mobile: 090-3620-9251

Takahama, Fukui Prefecture, Japan—- Two Japanese citizen organizations, Green Action and Mihama-no-Kai, who were instrumental in December 1999 in successfully identifying the falsification of safety data for fuel fabricated at BNFL for Japan’s plutonium (MOX) program, joined local citizen groups in Takahama today to protest the arrival of the British-flagged vessel the Pacific Pintail into the port of Takahama. The ship arrived to drop off the transport cask that is scheduled to carry the tainted MOX back to Britain. The ship is scheduled to leave the Takahama nuclear power plant bound for Britain in early July.

In 1999, eight MOX (mixed plutonium uranium oxide) fuel assemblies manufactured by BNFL for Kansai Electric’s Takahama nuclear power plant in Fukui Prefecture were found to have safety data which had been falsified. In 2000, the British company agreed to take back the fuel.

‘BNFL willfully endangered the lives of the citizens of Fukui and surrounding areas. It has never apologized to the people for this. Now it intends to wash its hands clean by undertaking this shipment. We can never accept BNFL again,’ stated Aileen Mioko Smith, director of Green Action. ‘It is shocking that this company and the British government does not consider fuel with falsified quality control data to be unsafe. Even sabotage of the fuel did not warrant a thorough investigation. Such a company will never be acceptable to the Japanese public’ Smith stated. Smith was referring to Britain’s position that safety had not been undermined by the deliberate falsification. The sabotage concerned unnamed worker or workers inserting debris (screw) into the fuel rods.The local Anti Nuclear Power Plant Obama Citizens Group issued an urgent resolution yesterday against the shipment stating, "This shipment affirms the existence of BNFL’s THORP reprocessing plant which releases vast quantities of radiation, contaminating the surrounding regions and the shores of neighboring countries. BNFL continues to lie to the people of Ireland, Norway, and Denmark and can even be described as ‘criminal.’" The group stated, "This shipment is being undertaken with no party claiming ownership of the MOX fuel assemblies. If an accident were to occur with ownership remaining unsettled, who will be responsible for damages"

Kansai Electric’s Osaka headquarters are on record stating this June that they will not begin undertaking any contract negotiations with BNFL for new MOX fuel without the approval of the citizens of Fukui Prefecture and surrounding areas.

"One thing is certain. We Fukui citizens will never allow BNFL to set foot in our prefecture again" stated Miwako Ogiso, executive director of the Fukui Prefectural Citizens’ Organization Against Nuclear Power Plants.

Green Action campaigner Stephen Ready stated, "This shipment is being undertaken without the consent of the countries on the route of the shipment, there is no environmental assessment, no adequate liability regime or contingency plans in case of emergency. Over 50 countries are on record protesting Japanese nuclear shipments. We in Japan staunchly oppose this shipment on these grounds."

Green Action and Mihama-no-Kai submitted questions and demands to Kansai Electric earlier this month and again today to the Japanese government’s Ministry of Land, Transport, and Infrastructure urging them to investigate possible corrosion of the transport cask delivered today into Takahama. Recently, similar transport casks used by both Tokyo Electric and Kansai Electric were found to have corrosion problems after a more thorough investigation revealed previously unidentified corrosion. Kansai Electric claims there is ‘no problem’ because the casks "have different designs" but is yet to explain what these differences are.

Green Action
Suite 103, 22-75 Tanaka Sekiden-cho, Sakyo-ku Kyoto 606-8203 Japan
T + 81 75 701 7223
F + 81 75 702 1952
E-mail amsmith@gol.com

Commonly referred to as the pluthermal program, Japan has plans to commercially burn MOX (mixed plutonium uranium oxide) fuel in 16 to 18 nuclear power plants by 2010. The program, however, is way behind schedule and yet to begin. MOX utilization was initially to take place in Fukui, Fukushima, and Niigata Prefectures. However, at this time, all plans to load MOX fuel in these regions have been temporarily suspended, and opposition to implementation of the pluthermal program remains strong.

NIIGATA PREFECTURE:

Kariwa’s ‘No to MOX’ Referendum Result Remains Unchanged May 27, 2002 marked the first anniversary of a referendum in Kariwa village, Niigata Prefecture, in which a majority of residents voted against the use of MOX fuel at Tokyo Electric’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Unit 3 nuclear power plant. An opinion poll conducted recently by the Niigata Nippo confirms that there has been very little change in opinion in Kariwa since last year’s referendum. Loading of the fuel during this August’s scheduled outage now appears politically impossible. Although the referendum is not legally binding, the message to the national government is clear. Citizens living at nuclear power plant sites do not want to implement the national government’s plutonium fuel utilization plans.

Details of the Poll: Noting that since the referendum, the pluthermal program has been ‘put on hold and no decision has been made as to whether to implement the program or not", 100 eligible voters in Kariwa were asked in face-to-face interviews what they thought should be done with the program. More than 70% agreed that the program should not go forward at this time, (with 40% stating that the "against" result should be respected and the program be put off for some time, and 33% saying the program should be scrapped entirely). Only 8% of respondents stated that the plan should be immediately implemented irregardless of the referendum result.

When asked to give their opinion about the pluthermal program, 46% answered that they are against the program, 26% answered that they are in favor of the program, and a further 28% of respondents stated that they "did not know or could not say."

In last year’s referendum 53.4% voted against the program, 42.5% voted in favor of the program, with 3.6% voting "suspend". The recent poll results clearly indicate the opposition force is still in the majority, and regardless of opinions concerning the program itself, a large majority of Kariwa residents believe MOX utilization should not go forward for the time being.

FUKUSHIMA PREFECTURE:

Governor Remains Critical of Program
Meanwhile, in Fukushima Prefecture, Governor Eisaku Sato continues his strong criticism of the pluthermal program national government plans to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. On May 17, Governor Sato questioned the very necessity of the pluthermal program by stating, "Is it a policy which needs to be implemented The whole nation should consider whether or not it is a policy which needs to be implemented as the national government is saying."

Back in February 2001, Governor Sato decided not to allow for the time being the utilization of MOX fuel in Tokyo Electric’s Fukushima Dai-ichi Unit 3 nuclear power plant in his prefecture. He also announced that Fukushima Prefecture would set up an Energy Policy Review Committee to examine the entire national energy policy from the perspective of an energy producing prefecture.

Over the past year, Governor Sato has also publically questioned the economics of reprocessing and MOX fuel use, as well as pointing out the proliferation dangers of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.

The Fukushima Prefecture Energy Review Committee is expected to wrap up its deliberations in the near future and officially propose to the national government a list of demands concerning formulation of future Japanese national energy policy.

FUKUI PREFECTURE:

BNFL Falsified MOX Fuel Return Shipment Imminent
Two transport vessels, the Pacific Pintail and Pacific Teal, are currently en route to Japan to retrieve 8 MOX fuel assemblies delivered to Japan in September 1999 which were later found to have quality control data falsified by the manufacturer British Nuclear Fuels plc. (BNFL). The fuel is currently in storage at Kansai Electric’s Takahama Nuclear Power Plant in Fukui Prefecture and is scheduled to be shipped out for return to the manufacturer, British Nuclear Fuels plc. (BNFL) sometime mid-June or later.

CONCLUSION:

Strong public opposition against the pluthermal program continues to prevent MOX fuel utilization from going forward in Japan. MOX fuel use is not necessary for Japan’s energy program, and is not accepted by the public.

Japanese electric utilities should cancel all MOX fuel fabrication plans with European fabricators, and consider immobilization of their separated plutonium stocks now in Europe.

Green Action
Suite 103, 22-75 Tanaka Sekiden-cho, Sakyo-ku Kyoto 606-8203 Japan
T + 81 75 701 7223
F + 81 75 702 1952
E-mail amsmith@gol.com

For immediate release: April 9, 2002 For further information contact: Aileen Mioko Smith 090-3620-9251, or Stephen Ready

Kyoto, Japan–The Japanese Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) in its 2001 White Paper reaches the conclusion that use of plutonium at Japanese nuclear power plants is safe. However, the NSC’s has a poor record when it comes to declaring there is no problem with Japan’s MOX program.

In 1999 when citizen organizations submitted evidence to the NSC that MOX fuel manufactured by the British company BNFL for Kansai Electric had falsified quality control data, the NSC failed to address the issue. Citizens filed an injunction against use of the fuel and were subsequently proven correct. As a result, Kansai Electric abandoned the fuel on December 16, 1999. The fuel is now scheduled to be returned to Britain.

Today, again, the NSC declared there would be no safety problems with using plutonium fuel atJ apanese nuclear power plants claiming there is ample experience in using this fuel in Japan and Europe. What the NSC fails to inform the Japanese public and international community is that experience with MOX fuel at nuclear power plants (light water reactors) in Japan is virtually non-existent, and that use of MOX fuel internationally is minimal when compared to use of uranium fuel. The Fugen ATR reactor which uses plutonium fuel is a great safety concern to many Fukui residents.

‘Importantly, the NSC fails to inform the public and international community that the scale of MOX fuel use in Japan will be unprecedented. There is to be a higher concentration of plutonium in the fuel, and a higher burn-up rate. Experiments have shown that there are serious safety concerns with high burn-ups. In fact a NUPEC (Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation) report commissioned by the Japanese government addresses this precise concern’ stated Aileen Mioko Smith, director of Green Action. Moreover, the NSC does not require that adaptations be made such as increasing the number of control rods when using MOX fuel.

There is no need for Japan’s plutonium program. Yet the Japanese government is pushing for restart of Japan’s troubled fast breeder prototype reactor Monju-even though there is no program to commercialize the breeder. There is no demand for plutonium and yet the government is promoting start up of Japan’s Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant which would, if run at full capacity, produce as much as 7 to 8 tons of plutonium a year. Only 5 kilograms of this plutonium would be necessary to create a nuclear weapon.

Green Action calls on the Japanese government to abandon its plutonium program which is unsafe, environmentally unsound, and is a nuclear proliferation threat to Asia.

Green Action
Suite 103, 22-75 Tanaka Sekiden-cho, Sakyo-ku Kyoto 606-8203 Japan
T + 81 75 701 7223
F + 81 75 702 1952
E-mail amsmith@gol.com

Citizen organizations from Aomori, Fukushima, Niigata, Fukui, Tokyo region, Kansai region, and Kyushu region submit petition to stop Cogema fuel and technology from entering Japan

For immediate release: 13 February 2001 Contact persons:Aileen Mioko Smith (+ 81 90 3620 9251) / Stephen Ready

Kyoto, Japan—-On 12 February, citizens from prefectures with Tokyo Electric nuclear power plants slated to use MOX (mixed plutonium uranium oxide) fuel under Japan’s plutonium program submitted a petition to the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry seeking government rejection of MOX fuel currently being fabricated at Cogema’s Melox facility for Tokyo Electric’s Fukushima Unit I-3 reactor. They were joined in the petition by Green Action, Mihama-no-Kai and other organizations. A total of 24 organizations nationwide signed the petition. The petition also seeks government scrapping of plans to build a MOX fuel fabrication facility in Aomori prefecture which uses Cogema technology.

Citizens who filed the petition were from Aomori, Fukushima, Niigata, and Fukui prefectures along with Tokyo, Kansai, and Kyushu regions. The petition was handed over to METI officials of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (Nuclear Safety Administration Division, and, Nuclear Power Inspection Division) at a meeting held at the House of Representatives Diet Office Building. Two Diet offices were also represented.

The petition was prompted by Kansai Electric’s announcement on 26 December that it was scrapping plans to use MOX fuel fabricated by Cogema for its Takahama nuclear power plant, and, a report by NUPEC (Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation) commissioned by the Japanese government. The NUPEC report findings indicate problems in Cogema’s MOX fuel fabrication technology.

According to Kansai Electric, the decision to abandon the MOX fuel manufactured at the Cogema Melox facility was prompted by the Japanese government informing the company a month earlier on 29 November that even if the company were to submit an application for approval of the fuel, the government would reject it on grounds Kansai Electric had failed to meet the new regulatory requirements for imported MOX fuel. The regulation came into effect in July 2000.

Citizens, however, have strong doubts that this was the true reason for the fuel’s rejection since the new regulations specifically exempt fuel that was already under fabrication, such as the Kansai Electric Cogema fuel, from meeting requirements placed on fuel to be fabricated after the regulations took effect.

One of the reasons given by the government to justify rejection of the Kansai Electric Cogema fuel was that Kansai Electric did not conduct its own ‘pre-fabrication audit’ of the Melox facility. Yesterday, however, METI admitted that, ‘It would have been a physical impossibility for Kansai Electric to have conducted a pre-audit’. However METI stated it had nevertheless placed this requirement on the fuel. According to METI it ‘knew from the beginning’ that the fuel would be rejected but only informed Kansai Electric in November of 2001. METI stated yesterday that in spite of the many meetings it had held with Kansai Electric concerning the fuel, it never informed the company the fuel would be rejected because, ‘Kansai Electric never asked’.

METI’s rejection came the day following Kansai Electric’s submission of a two-page document to METI explaining the process the company had undertaken in order to quality the fuel. Reiko Oshima, member House of Representatives who attended the meeting told METI officials it was scandalous that METI’s review process for MOX fuel approval was so slipshot, requiring only a two-page document and a one day review process.

The NUPEC study, published in March 2001, reports on analyses of plutonium spots in MOX fuel fabricated by Belgonucleaire and what the report only identifies as ‘the other MIMAS’ fabricator. The study reveals a multitude of plutonium spots particularly in the latter’s fuel. METI, in response to citizens’ questioning yesterday, divulged that ‘the other MIMAS’ fuel was Cogema’s. The data and photographs in the NUPEC report reveal extensive areas in the Cogema fuel with 25% plutonium concentration (enrichment), a sign that the process of mixing the plutonium and uranium in Cogema’s A-MIMAS process is not going well. [NUPEC report, p.75, graphs 4.4.1-9a and 4.4.1-9b ] High plutonium enrichment areas are called ‘plutonium spots’ and are a safety concern. The NUPEC report describing the graphs states, ‘The peak in the area of 25% plutonium concentration is a concentration close to the plutonium concentration figure of the first powder mix, and is thought to be a peak arising from plutonium spots. ‘ [NUPEC report p.53.] (Informal English translation of Japanese text by Green Action.) METI’s Shinichi Mizumoto of the Nuclear Safety Administration Division stated yesterday that ‘areas of 25% plutonium concentration are not a problem’ but admitted when asked to back up his statement that there were no standards established in Japan concerning plutonium concentrations.

In the past, Japanese citizen organizations have repeatedly asked both Cogema and Kansai Electric to release information concerning quality control of Cogema fuel. The information has, nevertheless, never been released.

Citizens told METI officials yesterday that the government should respect the May 2001 citizen referendum which took place Kariwa village which rejected use of MOX fuel, thereby abandoning the pluthermal program altogether. Kariwa is, along with Kashiwazaki city, the site of Tokyo Electric’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant complex, the largest capacity nuclear power plant site in the world.

Green Action
Suite 103, 22-75 Tanaka Sekiden-cho, Sakyo-ku Kyoto 606-8203 Japan
T + 81 75 701 7223
F + 81 75 702 1952
E-mail amsmith@gol.com

• 

In February 2001, Governor Eisaku Sato of Fukushima Prefecture announced that he would not allow the use of MOX fuel in Fukushima Prefecture in spite of earlier promises to the national government and Tokyo Electric to allow the pluthermal program to proceed.

At the same time, Governor Sato announced his intention of setting up an Energy Policy Review Committee to examine the entire national energy policy from the perspective of an energy producing prefecture.

After listening to the views of twelve prefectural citizens on 31 May 2001, the committee proceeded to hear the views of eight lecturers.

On October 25, Professor Hitoshi Yoshioka, expert committee member of Japan’s Atomic Energy Commission, gave testimony to the review committee. Yoshioka presented a critical view of the Japanese government’s nuclear fuel cycle policy, pointing out it would be best to "withdraw from this policy as soon as possible." In particular, Yoshioka questioned the economics of MOX utilization, and suggested that the electric utilities should "make an orderly withdraw from the pluthermal program."

At a press conference held on 23 October 2001, Fukushima Governor Eisaku Sato pointed out that experts who have given presentations at the Energy Review Committee have continually pointed out the high cost of the nuclear fuel cycle, and stated in particular that professor Yoshioka’s arguments were "very persuasive." [Mainichi Newspaper, 24 October 2001]

At the most recent session, held on the 23 January 2002, during the question and answer period with lecturer Masao Nakamura, Governor Sato stated, "my conclusion is different from yours." Nakamura had given a lecture in support of the continued promotion of the nuclear fuel cycle for energy security reasons.

An article in the 24 January 2002 Mainichi Newspaper, addressing the reasons why Governor Sato supports a once-through cycle, quotes the governor as stating to Mr. Nakamura that, "(1) the nuclear fuel cycle will be too expensive under deregulation, (2) France has abandoned the nuclear fuel cycle, and (3) uranium fuel resources will not dry up for the next 70 years."

The prefecture’s original plan was to wrap up the review during fiscal 2001, but after the Hamaoka Unit 1 pipe rupture accident in Shizuoka Prefecture last November, Governor Sato announced that the committee would continue to meet into fiscal 2002. The purpose of the extension is to consider such topics as the safety of aging nuclear reactors and fiscal support for regions which supply nuclear power. [The Hamaoka reactor and Fukushima reactors are similar in design.]

After the September 1999 JCO criticality accident and the December 1999 BNFL data falsification scandal, Governor Sato stated that "public support for the pluthermal program has clearly retreated." He reiterated these feelings several times prior to establishing the energy review committee in February 2001. The strong anti-pluthermal victory in the Kariwa referendum in May 2001 clearly indicates that there is little public support for plutonium utilization policies even in areas which depend on nuclear power for livelihood.

Green Action
Suite 103, 22-75 Tanaka Sekiden-cho, Sakyo-ku Kyoto 606-8203 Japan
T + 81 75 701 7223
F + 81 75 702 1952
E-mail amsmith@gol.com