Posted on by Rick E

Fukushima Prefecture Energy Policy Review Committee

Interim Report

September 2002

I. Background

(How the Review came about.)

II. Concerning the Problem of "Falsification of Industry Inspections Records at Nuclear Power Plants"

"Of course the responsibility of the utilities [for having caused this situation] must be pursued vigorously, but the Japanese government’s responsibility for this situation is also extremely grave as well."

"This current problem is a problem of the national government’s constitution and disposition, conducting nuclear policy "like a bulldozer", and ‘belittling [holding in contempt] the residents where nuclear power plants are located".

"The Japanese government states, "Even though there may be slight delays as a result of the current problems, the basic plan of aiming for implementation of the pluthermal program remains unchanged." Also, "We will steadily go forward with the Pluthermal Program.’ Perhaps the national government doesn’t understand the basic nature of the current problems."

"The government is looking into the introduction of a new regulatory inspection regime —ASME-type standards. But, can this really result in effectively preventing the reoccurrence of the type of problems we are currently facing Questions remain as to whether these standards will lead to the upgrading of safety and credibility at nuclear power plants. Rather, isn’t it necessary now to take the time and undertake a careful deliberation of the issues

[Referring to the fact the government back in July had at first recognized the high marks for safety and reliability attained by the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Units 3 and 4 after their periodic safety reviews, then retracting these after the scandals erupted, the Fukushima Review states the following:]

"The government was forced into an extraordinary situation of withdrawing its approval because of the exposure of dishonest practices, and this it did without sufficient explanation as to what kind of assessment it had made to deem this judgment correct. If this is the state of affairs of the periodic safety review process which forms the basis of assuring the safety and reliability of nuclear power plants, isn’t it utterly impossible to say that the government’s inspection and assessment regime to assure safety is properly functioning"

III. Concerning "The Main Issues and Concerns"

1. Concerning the Changes in the Energy Supply-Demand Structure:
Considering the fact liberalization of the electricity market is moving forward and the supply-demand structure etc. is changing, will additional electricity-producing sites of electric utilities being built based on the assumption that electricity consumption will continue as before really be necessary
2. Concerning the Possibilities for New Sources of Energy:
The government has made the target for introducing new energy sources to be about 3% of total primary energy supply. However, isn’t it necessary to plan for an even greater increase by adopting policies to introduce each [energy source] area
3. Concerning the Decision Making Process for Formulation of Nuclear Policy:
  1. Is Information Disclosure Sufficient:
    Nuclear Energy is a colossal scientific technology, its contents very difficult to understand. Also the promotion of nuclear policy relates to the issue of safety which is deeply connected to basic human rights. Because of this, the thorough disclosure of information is indispensable. However, is thorough disclosure of information taking place
  2. Are the views of a wide range of the nation’s citizens being sufficiently heeded when formulating policy Rather than just listening to the views of the nation’s citizens, isn’t it necessary to create an infrastructure whereby, after supplying the nation’s citizens with sufficient information and knowledge to make their own judgments, the views of citizens are reflected when formulating nuclear policy etc.
  3. Is assessment of nuclear policy being properly undertakenAfter the Monju accident, and from the point the fast breeder development plans that had been in place were revised, future plans for the utilization of plutonium have become uncertain. Wasn’t it necessary at that point to re-examine the policy of reprocessing all spent nuclear fuel
  4. Where is nuclear policy actually decided
    It has been said that it is difficult for citizens to understand the decision making system for nuclear policy. Where is nuclear policy finally decided Who takes responsibility for this policy Also, nuclear policy is decided only by the bureaucracy. Isn’t it necessary instead to consider making the process democratic by having its formulation go through the legislative Diet process, etc.
4. The Position of Nuclear Energy in Overall Energy Policy
  1. Is the promotion of nuclear power convincing to the nation’s citizens
  2. "….While the fight to cut costs mounts, have proper countermeasures been put in place for assuring safety and undertaking the proper steps for the back-end
  3. Are measures for the aging of nuclear power plants being properly undertaken
    Isn’t it necessary to undertake a drastic reconsideration of measures [countermeasures] for aging of reactors
  4. What is going to happen with the outlook for disposal of high level radioactive waste Although the legislation and system for realizing a site has been established, isn’t it going to be considerably difficult to site a final repository
5. Concerning the Nuclear Fuel Cycle
  1. Can it be said that the nuclear fuel cycle is at this point absolutely necessary If uranium resources can be supplied stably, is reprocessing which is undertaken in order to save on the consumption of uranium absolutely necessary
  2. Will the nuclear fuel cycle not only save on resources, but will it likewise lead to a stable supply of energy
    During the Review it was pointed out that if there were no fast breeder reactors, then reprocessing once through would lead to approximately 10% of resource savings. At this level of savings, when considering the uncertainty of the costs of reprocessing and its back-end, can it really be said that reprocessing, for only this amount of resource savings, is really appropriate
  3. Aren’t there problems with the cost
    The basis for the financial estimation of the cost of the nuclear fuel cycle within the backdrop of the liberalization of electricity has not, in spite of the fact it is an extremely important problem which affects the regions where nuclear power plants are located tremendously, been made sufficiently clear. Considering this, isn’t an assessment of the economic viability [of the nuclear fuel cycle difficult to make
  4. What about plutonium balance
    If the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant begins operation, will it not produce yet more surplus plutonium — considering the fact fast breeder reactor realization is nowhere in sight, construction of the full MOX nuclear reactor at Ohma in Aomori Prefecture is behind schedule, and MOX fuel implementation in light water reactors has not been realized

    …….There are concerns that even the 30 some ton quantity of plutonium from overseas reprocessing will take a considerable time to use up.
    ……Under these circumstances, the plutonium balance in the long term plan for nuclear power is no longer realistic. Can’t it be said that we can no longer say our country’s plutonium utilization is transparent. And, will there not be a possibility that anxiety will be harbored internationally due to the existence of plutonium that is ‘in surplus’ as a result of undertaking reprocessing

  5. What is the possibility of the realization of a fast breeder at this time ..Currently there is no outlook for the realization of the fast breeder. Under these circumstances, is it really appropriate to continue promoting the reprocessing path
  6. Does reprocessing really greatly reduce the amount of high level radioactive waste …….but it increases the volume of low level waste vastly…….etc., therefore aren’t the merits cancelled out……Isn’t it necessary to re-examine the policy of reprocessing all nuclear waste considering the problems with the cost and back end of reprocessing, the reality that there is no outlook for the fast breeder reactor, and in addition, when evaluating the overall issue of waste volumes of high level radioactive waste
  7. What will happen with spent MOX fuel
    ……The chances of a second reprocessing plant becoming reality is extremely small.
6. Considering the Future of Electric Power Plant Sites
  1. …… A monoculture economy…….
  2. Isn’t it time to think about the future of the regions which now face the reality of the decommissioning of nuclear power plants.IV CONCLUSION[Summary in bullet point form Only parts relevant to nuclear fuel cycle translated here.]

    Especially, as far as the nuclear fuel cycle is concerned, isn’t it necessary to stop once and, moving ahead with information disclosure while undertaking a comparison between the reprocessing of all spent nuclear fuel and the options of direct disposal etc., ask the citizens of the nation what path should be taken from henceforth.
    Finally, we hope and expect that the national government will listen to our views with humility, and, based upon the rights and responsibilities bestowed upon it, carry out the responsibility of explaining the concerns and doubts we have addressed here to the citizens of the nation. We hope and expect that the government will not be bound to the past but indicate to the citizens of this nation a new nuclear energy policy in concrete form, bringing forward a nuclear power administration based on safety and security which can be understood and trusted by the citizens of this nation.

Placed on home page

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