Category: Documents

Secret Plutonium Shipment Exposes Failure of Non Proliferation and Security Policy in Advance of Nuclear Security Summit and the Threat from Japanese Stockpiling Program
Armed British transport ships expected to arrive Tokai port Sunday

March 18th 2016  Tokyo…A shipment of weapons-grade plutonium scheduled to depart the port of Tokai, Ibaraki prefecture this coming weekend highlights the failure, but also the proliferation risks, of the current Japanese nuclear policy, a coalition of five non-governmental organizations warned today. A cargo of 331kg of plutonium will be loaded on to the Pacific Egret, an armed British nuclear transport ship, prior to departure under armed escort to the United States. It will be the largest shipment of separated plutonium since 1.8 tons of plutonium was delivered to Japan by controversial Akatsuki-maru in 1992. The two month voyage to the Joint Base Charleston-Weapons Station will then see the plutonium dumped at the Department of Energy Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina.(1) The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, which is responsible for the shipment, has identified that storage in Japan poses a security risk justifying its removal.(2)
Citizen Nuclear Information Center (Japan); Green Action (Japan); Savannah River Site Watch (U.S.); CORE (England), and Greenpeace, condemn the shipment as a dangerous distraction from the major problem in Japan which is its overall nuclear energy policy, where over 9 tons of plutonium remains stockpiled and there are  plans to produce many tons more during the coming decade. The representatives of the five organizations have worked together over the past quarter century against Japan`s plutonium and nuclear fuel cycle program.

Two-hundred and thirty six kilograms of the Tokai plutonium was supplied to Japan from the UK, with 2 kilograms from France and the remainder from the U.S. for neutronic testing purposes at the Japan Atomic Energy Agency Fast Critical Assembly facility at Tokai-mura in Ibaraki. The facility has been used as a basis for Japan`s failed fast breeder reactor program, in particular the MONJU reactor. For more than five decades, Japanese nuclear policy has been based on the production and use of plutonium as a nuclear fuel. However, the failure of both its breeder program and plans to use plutonium as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel in light water reactors, has led to Japan acquiring the largest stockpile of weapons usable plutonium of any non nuclear weapon state.

For the U.S. and Japanese government, the Tokai shipment will be mistakenly hailed as demonstrating their commitment to reducing the threat from fissile materials. Both Prime Minister Abe and President Obama plan to announce the ‘success’ of the removal from Japan, at the fourth Nuclear Security Summit from March 31st-April 1st in Washington, D.C. (3), while Japan will be desperate to avoid any discussion of the proliferation and security threat posed by its plutonium fuel cycle program.
“If 331 kg of plutonium warrants removal from Japan on the grounds of its vulnerability and in the interests of securing nuclear weapons material, then there is no credible justification for Japan’s current program and future plans to increase its plutonium stockpiling. Hailing a shipment of hundreds of kilograms of plutonium as a triumph for nuclear security, while ignoring over 9 tons of the weapons material stockpiled in Japan and in a region of rising tensions, is not just a failure of nuclear non proliferation and security policy but a dangerous delusion,” said Shaun Burnie, senior nuclear specialist at Greenpeace Germany, who is currently in Japan.
In total, Japan`s current stockpile is around 46,700 kg, of which 9,528kg is located in Japan, the remaining balance being stored in France and the UK. The shipment from Tokai port will reduce its stockpile to 9,197 kg. Less than 8kg is sufficient for one nuclear weapon. While the Tokai shipment consists of weapons grade plutonium, and the vast bulk of Japan`s remaining stockpile is designated reactor-grade plutonium, from a security and non proliferation perspective there is no practical distinction and reactor-grade plutonium is capable of being used for the manufacture of nuclear weapons — a point highlighted by Shigeru Ishiba, a former Liberal Democratic Party Defense Minister, when speaking in 2011 described Japan`s nuclear energy program as “a tacit nuclear deterrent”.(4)
Two reactors, Takahama 3 and 4, owned by Kansai Electric, began operation in January and February 2016 loaded with plutonium MOX fuel, with unit 3 operating with 24 assemblies containing 1,088kg of plutonium and unit 4 with 4 assemblies containing 184kg of plutonium. Unit 4 shutdown due to an electrical failure three days after start up, while unit 3 was forced to shutdown on March 10th following a court order. Both reactors remain shutdown and are subject of a court injunction preventing operation issued by the Otsu district court, Shiga prefecture on March 9th. They are expected to be non operational for many months. Of the 26 reactors under review by the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA), Ikata-3, Genkai-3 and Tomari-3 are all intended to operate with plutonium MOX fuel.

“On current plans, and if ever the Rokkasho-mura reprocessing plant begins operation, Japan`s program could yield as much as 93,000kg by 2025 – most of which will remain unused. The reactor program in Japan is in crisis with no credible program for either restarting most reactors or using large amounts of this plutonium. If ever there was a time to abandon its current doomed nuclear energy policy, it is now. The Obama administration in its last year has an opportunity to step up and actively reduce the spiraling proliferation dynamic in East Asia – this should be top of the agenda in Washington instead of being ignored. The next step is to challenge the basis of the U.S.-Japan nuclear cooperation agreement which runs to 2018 – approval for Japan to continue acquiring plutonium must be reversed,” said Burnie.

The Department of Energy has no plans for final disposal of the Japanese plutonium, which will be added to the existing stockpile of 13 tons at the SRS, demonstrating that the shipment is largely a commercial dumping operation to secure funds for the beleaguered weapons material production site near Aiken, South Carolina, as pointed out by Savannah River Site Watch.
For more detailed analysis of Japan’s plutonium program and future prospects see Nuclear Proliferation in Plain Sight:Japan’s Plutonium Fuel Cycle–A Technical and Economic Failure But a Strategic Success, Japan Focus, March 2016.

For further information:
Hideyuki Ban, Co-Director CNIC –+81-3-3357-3800-http://www.cnic.jp/english/?p=3182
Aileen Mioko Smith – Executive Director Green Action –+81 90 3620 9251–http://greenaction-japan.org/en/
Tom Clements – Director Savannah River Site Watch -+1 803 240 7268-http://www.srswatch.org
Martin Forwood – CORE -+44 1229 716523 –http://corecumbria.co.uk
Shaun Burnie – Greenpeace Germany –+81 80 5088 335
http://www.greenpeace.org/japan/ja/campaign/energy-en/

Notes
1 – The Pacific Egret and its escort ship Pacific Heron are lightly armed UK flagged vessels and arrived in Kobe port from Barrow-in-Furness, England on March 4th. The Egret docked in Tokai for pre-transport logistics last week. Both ships after departing Tokai port will sail together most likely through the South Pacific to the east coast of the United States.
2- The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration’s Office of Material Management and Minimization (M3), formerly known as the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI), describes itself as a part of the U.S. national security strategy of preventing the acquisition of nuclear materials for use in weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and other acts of terrorism. The M3 mission is to reduce vulnerable nuclear materials located primarily at civilian sites worldwide, and in the case of Japan the NNSA identified gap nuclear material (plutonium), which presents a potential threat to nonproliferation goals and may not have adequately safe and secure management options – see Environmental Assessment For Gap Material Plutonium – Transport, Receipt, And Processing, DOE/EA-2024 December 2015, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/12/f27/EA-2024-FEA-2015.pdf
3 – During the March 2014 Hague Nuclear Security Summit, Prime Minister Abe and President Obama “pledged to remove and dispose of all highly-enriched uranium (HEU) and separated plutonium from the Fast Critical Assembly (FCA) at the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) in Japan”. Their pledge involved 331kg of plutonium. The 2016 summit will be the last. See http://nis2016.org
4- “In Japan, Provocative Case for Staying Nuclear — Some Say Bombs’ Potential as Deterrent Argues for Keeping Power Plants Online”, Wall Street Journal, October 28, 2011, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203658804576638392537430156

Download:Imminent Plutonium Shipment Exposes Failure of Non Proliferation, Threat of Plutonium Stockpiling (PDF)

Lessons of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Have Not Been Learned
We Strongly Oppose the Restart of the Takahama Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 Located in the Seismically Active Wakasa Bay Region of Japan

29 January 2016
Kyoto, Japan
For immediate release. Contact: Aileen Mioko Smith +81-90-3620-9251
(amsmith@greenaction-japan.org)

There are fifteen nuclear reactors located in the Wakasa Bay region of Fukui prefecture, one of the most seismically active areas among nuclear power plant sites in this earthquakeridden archipelago of Japan.

Takahama Unit 3 is being allowed to restart by Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) even though it does not meet NRA stardards for evaluating seismic motion, whereby the variations from the average recorded earthquake motions of past earthquakes must be taken into consideration. The plant is not safe from earthquakes.
The NRA also approved the plant’s restart even though Kansai Electric, the owner operator, does not have plans for constructing a seismic isolation building which would act as a control center in the event of a serious accident involving an earthquake. Such a building existed at Fukushima Daiichi and is considered by Tepco to have been the lifeline for not worsening the accident.

Clearly, the lessons of the March 11, 2011’s Fukushima Daiichi accident have not been learned by the regulator and Kansai Electric.

Kenichi Oshima of Ritsumeikan University rightly points out that Kansai Electric will only break even if four reactors at Takahama and Ohi all operate with regularity. Electric prices will only come down if the very old Takahama Units 1 and 2 are allowed to operate. In other words, restarting Takahama Units 3 and 4 will actually only increase electricity rates.

On 21 January, a coalition of NGOs including Green Action met with NRA officials who confirmed that only spot checks had been undertaken to confirm regulatory compliance of Takahama Unit 3 electric cabling. This means the NRA does not know if there is adequate separation between the cables needed for back-up systems and other cables, a vital requirement for meeting the fire code. Only Takahama Units 3 and 4 and the alreadyoperating two Sendai reactors are exempt from undertaking comprehensive examinations of the electric cables. No valid explanation has been given by the NRA on why these four reactors are exempt. Lack of compliance could lead to a catastrophic accident.

Freedom of information disclosure has revealed that MOX (mixed plutonium uranium oxide) fuel to be used at Takahama Unit 3 (and subsequently other nuclear power plants) is of markedly inferior quality compared to uranium fuel normally used in reactors. The NRA has not re-assessed the MOX fuel standards created by the now-defunct NISA (the former regulator) which were created before the Fukushima Daiichi accident. MOX fuel is known to be less safe than uranium fuel. Here again, neiher the NRA nor the utilities have learned the lessons of Fukushima.

Nearly 180,000 people must evacuate from Fukui and Kyoto prefectures in the event of a serious accident at the Takahama plant. Small children near the plant remain unprotected.
Their parents must battle through congested traffic just to get potassium iodine pills. Green Action as part of a coalition of citizens in the Kansai region has made over 60 visits to cities evacuating and others which are evacuation points. We have learned there is no viable evacuation plan in place for the tens of thousands of people with special needs–inpatients and outpatient at hospitals and various facilities, those in day care, and those with handicaps living at home. When others can flee, there are no vehicles to transport these people nor medical care prepared if and when they reach the evacuation facilities. Restart of the Takahama plant is a human rights injustice toward children and those with handicaps.

As for evacuation drills, Kansai Electric confirmed back in 2014 that Fukui Prefecture asked for the accident scenario to be sent from the utility to be for a small enough accident so the prefecture’s evacuation drills could cope. All drills in the Fukui and northern Kyoto Prefecture region have been grossly inadequate. There is no consideration that there could be heavy snow or an earthquake.

The government and Kansai Electric has ignored repeated calls by the 8 prefectures and 4 cities of the Union of Kansai Governments which state since they are in the region that can be affected by a serious accident, therefore they should have consent rights when it comes to reactor restart issues.

“Restart of Takahama violates the NRA seismic safety standard. Operating a Japanese reactor without a seismic isolation emergency control room is negligence in the extreme. Tens of thousands of children including babies and those with special needs not being protected under current emergency management planning is an outright human rights violation.” said Aileen Mioko Smith, executive director of Green Action based in Kyoto.

Download: Lessons of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Have Not Been Learned We Strongly Oppose the Restart of the Takahama Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 Located in the Seismically Active Wakasa Bay Region of Japan (PDF)

Japan’s Nuclear Regulator:
We don’t know if Takahama Reactor has significant fire safety violation
Reactor due to start January 29th

January 26, 2016, Tokyo –Greenpeace and Green Action today condemned the failure of the NRA to verify that critically important electric cabling inside the Takahama reactors meet the agency’s own fire safety regulations. At a meeting held in the National Diet on January 21st, representatives of the NRA admitted under questioning from citizens and NGOs, that they simply do not know whether Takahama 3&4 reactors are in violation.(1)

Kansai Electric plans to restart Takahama 3, located on Wakasa Bay in Fukui prefecture, on January 29th.

The safety-related cabling in a reactor must be separated to ensure that in the event of fire or other singular incident, critical redundant safety systems and power supplies are not lost. If the cabling is not adequately separated – by physical distance, cabling trays, and fire barriers in accordance with regulations– this would pose a significant risk to reactor safety – including the risk of a losing cooling systems which, in worst case, could lead to a core meltdown.

The NRA has ordered all nuclear plant operators in Japan to provide reports on the status of cable separation at their reactors before the end of March – except for Takahama and Sendai.(2)

“This latest example of complete negligence by the NRA just days before the Takahama unit 3 reactor is scheduled to restart is wholly unacceptable. It’s like allowing an airliner packed with passengers to take off without knowing whether the fuel lines and the control wires are crossed. If an accident happens, the power and backup safety systems could be taken out at once, and the plane is going down. While the NRA may be content to allow the Takahama safety cables to remain in the black box, the public deserves to know what’s inside before their lives and livelihoods are put at significant risk,” said Kendra Ulrich, Senior Global Energy Campaigner, Greenpeace Japan.

In March 2015, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency provided an assurance of safety to the Union of Kansai Governments for the Takahama reactors. It told the Union that the NRA had confirmed that the utility’s policy for the reactors would ensure compliance with nuclear safety regulations. This includes the issue of electric safety cabling.(5) The Union, made up of eight prefectural governments and four cities, has challenged the restart process for the Takahama reactors; it represents 22 million people living in the greater Kansai region. They provided the same assurance to local governments in the Union, as well as Fukui prefecture.

“The fact the Japanese government, in its efforts to neutralise the mounting opposition to restart from the Union Kansai Governments, told them last March that the plant complied with their regulations shows both the level of incompetence and deception at the heart of Japan’s nuclear industry,” said Aileen Mioko Smith, Director, Green Action, Kyoto. “The NRA are clearly not being honest or transparent about what they know about this issue. When completing their overall assessment of the safety design of the Takahama reactors in August last year, did they not verify compliance with their regulations during this process? If not, why not?” said Smith.

For a detailed briefing on the Nuclear Safety and Reactor Cable Separation: http://bit.ly/1K7EhAh

Kendra Ulrich, Senior Global Energy Campaigner, Greenpeace Japan – +81-80-5088-3351
Kendra.ulrich@greenpeace.org

Aileen Mioko Smith, Director, Green Action, Kyoto – +81-90-3620-9251
amsmith@greenaction-japan.org

Notes:

1 – A coalition of NGO’s have petitioned the NRA on a ranges of safety issues at Takahama, including safety cabling. There are 14 petitioners including: Green Action, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace Japan, and numerous local NGOs.

2 – The NRA admitted in December that it knew of at least six nuclear plants in Japan had a safety cable problems that meant they were in non compliance with their regulations – all seven reactors at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa; units 3 and 4 at Fukushima Daiini; unit 4 at Hamaoka, and Shika unit 1, Onagawa unit 3 and Higashi-dori unit 1 – for a total of 13 reactors.

3 – See Protection against Internal Fires and Explosions in the Design of Nuclear Power Plants, IAEA Safety Series, Pages 46-48, see http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1186_web.pdf

4 – Fire Protection For Nuclear Power, October 2009 Revision 2, U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.189 (Draft was issued as DG-1214, dated April 2009) see http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0925/ML092580550.pdf

5 – NRA to Union of Kansai Governments – March 27 2015, see http://www.kouiki-kansai.jp/data_upload/1427449594.pdf

–Background Briefing–
Why the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant Should Not be Operated

[Revised]
11 August 2015 (1:00pm)
For immediate release from Sendai nuclear power plant gate, Kagoshima Prefecture.

Aileen Mioko Smith
Executive Director, Green Action (Japan)
Contact: amsmith@gol.com / +81-90-3620-9251

Lack of Consideration of Potential Earthquakes Damage—In Violation of NRA Regulations
Seismologist and emeritus professor of Kobe University, Member of the Diet NAIIC (National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission), has stated that the Nuclear Regulation Authority’s Review of the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant is “careless and faulty and will invite a second Genpatsu-Shinsai (Earthquake-Nuclear Combined Disaster)”.

Ishibashi points out that the NRA’s Review violates the legal rules of the New Regulatory Requirements by approving Kyushu Electric’s restart application which neglected to fulfill the requirement that, when establishing the Standards Seismic Motion for the plant (how much earthquake motion the plant must able to withstand), all 3 types of earthquakes (1. inland crustal earthquakes, 2. interplate earthquakes and 3. oceanic intraplate earthquakes) must be considered いｎ evaluating “earthquake ground motion formulated with a hypocenter specified for each site”. For the selection of the “Earthquakes for Investigation”, Kyushu Electric ignored type 2 and 3 earthquakes, arguing that the largest earthquakes in the past in these two categories had been sufficiently distant from the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant site. The NRA approved Kyushu Electric’s application with only the type 1 earthquake considered.

The legal requirement, however, is that not only historic but future potentially significant earthquakes must be considered. Kyushu Electric did not meet this requirement when it ignored the maximum possible Nankai trough earthquake that could occur in the future (magnitude 9). The value of seismic intensity around the Sendai Plant for this type 2 earthquake as evaluated by the Study Team in the Cabinet Office is a level of intensity that would have had to be considered under the Review.

Moreover, according to the graph presented by Kyushu Electric itself, the seismic intensity of the 1909 Western Miyazaki Prefecture earthquake (type 3 earthquake) would come to magnitude 5 Upper (5+) at the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant. But, Kyushu Electric did not include this type of earthquake for consideration in its restart application.

Ishibashi notes that, “J-SHIS, the Japan Seismic Hazard Information Station, which is made public by the National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention), shows that both type-2 and type-3 earthquakes could register 5 Upper (5+) or greater seismic intensity around the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant.”

According to Dr. Ishibashi, what is of serious concern is that Shunichi Tanaka, the chair of the NRA appears to not grasp that NRA has violated its own regulations, and the Nuclear Regulatory Agency officials in charge of Safety Management for Earthquakes and Tsunamis have evaded answering media questions on this issue. (NRA chair’s response to media questions about Dr. Ishibashi’s concerns was, “Dr. Ishibashi may have his own views.” The NRA’s response to the public comment process for the Sendai restart Review on this issue was inadequate and did not address these violations even though they were pointed out during the process.

Emergency Evacuation Planning for Accidents is Inadequate or Non-Existent
Although the NRA states that evacuation plans (public emergency preparedness plans) are not a requirement for restarting reactors, Shunichi Tanaka is on record stating that evacuation and the regulatory requirements for restart are “two wheels on the vehicle.”

Kagoshima’s emergency management measure plans are grossly incomplete and inadequate. All Japanese nuclear emergency management plans including Kagoshima’s do not take into consideration multiple problems, such as a earthquake occurring at the same time, i.e. an earthquake causing a nuclear accident. (For regions with heavy snow in the winter, the climate factor not being taken into consideration is a major issue.)

The protection/evacuation of children, pregnant women, and evacuation of people with special needs are to be given priority, but the actual situation is the reverse with these members of the public receiving less protection than the rest of the public.

For the region surrounding the Sendai nuclear power plant, in spite of the post-Fukushima era, potassium iodide has not been distributed to children 3 years and younger even within the 5km radius of the Sendai nuclear power plant. (After citizen organizations pointed out this problem, a newspaper article ran on August 7th in the Minami Nihon Shimbun reporting that the prefecture was not considering distributing potassium iodide to elementary schools and children’s day care facilities.) Currently, children under three are to receive the potassium iodide after they evacuate. (The effectiveness of potassium iodide is reduced with time after radiation exposure.)

On 27 August, when citizen organizations met with Kagoshima Prefecture’s Public Health and Welfare Department, Pharmaceutical Administration Section, the responsible officials thought that all evacuation would take place without any radiation exposure. The officials were unaware that between the 5km and 30km zone, the government standards for radiation measurement to activate evacuation was 500 microsieverts/hour recorded on two consecutive days. Kagoshima plans for beyond 5 kilometers is to have evacuees receive potassium iodide pills at the screening locations or the locations where they have evacuated. It will take many hours to evacuate, so this is too late.

Evacuation within the 5km radius is to take place before radiation is released to the environment. It is questionable that this is feasible since the official worst case scenario has the reactor fuel starting to melt 20 minutes after start of the accident. No evacuation plans have been undertaken around the Sendai plant or any other nuclear power plant using this scenario.

Governor Yuichiro Ito is on record stating that the prefecture will not create plans in advance for evacuation of people with special needs (people in facilities such as those for disabled and senior citizens) in the zone of 10km to 30km radius because “It’s not realistic. It’s impossible anyway to have a plan that will work”. There are 272 such facilities in Kagoshima in the 10km to 30km zone. There will be no plans made in advance. Kagoshima has opted for a “ flexible plan that will be implemented according to the situation at hand.”

The national government is on record asking for evacuation plans to be put in place for those in medical and welfare facilities. Nowhere in Japan has this been completed. Some prefectures have matched facilities: which facilities evacuate to which other facilities, but none have effective plans for transporting these people with special needs (people with physical and mental health problems). Kagoshima’s plans are especially poor with only a computer data input system for the 10km to 30km zone and no decision made as to who will be responsible for assessing the situation, deciding where people will be evacuated, and organize the means of transport in the event of an accident. Those with special needs residing at home or in day care are not even included under the data input system. In spite of this the national government agreed that Kagoshima’s emergency management plans were adequate.

Under Kagoshima’s plan, those members of the public without means of transportation are to be evacuated by buses, but this is only for the some 2000 people living within the 5 kilometer zone. There is no plan for those outside this radius except for making plans with neighbors with cars.

The evacuation of those within 5km of the plant is to be undertaken by bus companies with operations within the 30 kilometer zone. However, when Green Action interviewed the bus company union of this region on 24 July , we learned that it would take a minimum of 2 to 3 hours before the buses could arrive at the site to transport the individuals, it is unclear how the people would get to the bus stops, unclear how many buses could be procured in an emergency, and, since bus companies could not force drivers to enter the zone if radiation releases had begun, it is unclear if the buses could be driven by the drivers. The union officials also made clear that bus drivers could not unilaterally decide to expose the bus vehicles to radiation since the vehicles are owned by the bus companies.

The NRA is now deliberating establishment of allowable radiation exposure standards for local/regional civil servants (there is already a standard for national government civil servants), bus and truck drivers, etc., raising permissible exposure from the general public’s permissible exposure of 1mSV/year from manmade sources. It is expected that the standard will be decided by the end of the calendar year. The Kagoshima Bus Association has signed a contract with Kagoshima Prefecture to cooperate with emergency evacuation in the event of a nuclear accident at the Sendai nuclear power plant. However, the Association is on record stating that this contract would need to be negotiated from scratch if permissible limits for bus drivers are to be increased from the current 1mSv/year.

Much of the evacuation plans of towns and cities within the 30km zone is to evacuation points heading downwind from the Sendai nuclear power plant. The main routes of evacuation is National Road Number 3. Part of the route is in a natural hazard zone prone to flooding. There are 14 areas within the towns and cities of the 30km radius evacuation zone (total population 1,375) that are designated as “isolated hamlets” by government authorities, prone to difficulties in evacuating.

No Rights to Approve/Disapprove Restart. No explanation meetings by Kyushu Electric and/or the National Government
(For more information about this issue, please contact the author.)
The “gentleman’s agreement” for the right to say yes/no to restart has only been granted to the local and prefecture authorities where the nuclear power plant is located. This is also the case nationwide. However, at the same time, it is acknowledged that in the event of a serious nuclear power accident, areas within the UPZ zone (30 kilometers) may be contaminated with radiation, and local authorities in these areas are required to establish emergency evacuation plans.

The city legislatures of Aira, Ichikikushikino, Hioki, and Akune within the Sendai plant UPZ (30 kim) zone have all issued statements/petitions seeking that public explanation meetings be undertaken about restart and evacuation issues before the plant is restarted. To date, Kyushu Electric has refused to undertake such public meetings and Kagoshima Prefecture will not ask the national government to come to Kagoshima to explain these issues to its citizens. The only meeting being considered is for the national government to come to Kagoshima to explain “the necessity of nuclear power.”

On 24 June 2014, citizens of Ichikikushikino City, located within the 30km evacuation zone of the Sendai nuclear power plant, submitted 15,464 signatures of its citizens (more than half the population of the city) to city officials. The petition opposed restart of the Sendai plant without a viable evacuation plan for its citizens. The petition was later submitted to Kagoshima Prefecture as well. The authorities have not acted on this petition.

NRA in Violation of its own Ageing Management Guide
NRA’s Ageing Reactor Management Implementation Guide states in section 3.2 “Development and Revision of the Long-Term Maintenance Management Policy” that, “The implementation period for the long-term maintenance management policy developed under Commercial Reactor Regulation, Article 82, Section 1, shall commence from the first day after the 30th year of start of operation.”
This implementation pertains to ageing nuclear reactors in outage / cold shutdown as well as reactors that are fueled and producing electricity.
The NRA, however, neglected to apply this for the Sendai nuclear power plant Unit 1 which reached its 30th year of operation on 3 July 2014.
Instead, the NRA announced on 2 July 2014, without giving a reason why it could bend its own rules, that approval and implementation of the policy would be extended. The gap occurred, among other things, because new post-Fukushima regulatory standards had not been put in place in time to implement a plan under that new regime. It is negligent of the NRA to have allowed a gap in safety requirements between NISA and NRA oversight regimes. During NISA, never had a plant’s ageing management policy not been approved before the 30th year. In comparison, no plan was in place even after Sendai Unit 1 went into its 32nd year.
On 3 July 2015, Kyushu Electric submitted its revised application for its long-term maintenance management policy (which took into consideration the basic seismic motion’s upward revision.)
The NRA had first stated that restart approval for the Sendai nuclear power plant and NRA’s approval and Kyushu Electric’s implementation of Sendai’s ageing reactor management policy beyond the 30th year were separate issues and the plan did not have to be in place when restart was approved. However, probably due to citizen organizations raising concern about this NRA position and media inquiries about this, on July 13th the NRA began examining Kyushu Electric’s application in order to approve this policy. The NRA had to examine the plan under the new, revised basic seismic motion of the plant, now raised to 620 gals. This should have be a complicated matter. However, the NRA approved the policy on August 5th.
It had became clear by July 13th that there were ageing reactor concerns at the Sendai plant. The seismic resistance analysis for the main feed water pipe system showed reduction in the pipe wall thickness (extrapolation of corrosion rates to 40 years) of 0.991 compared to the maximum allowable figure of 1.
On August 4th at a Diet office building meeting organized by citizens (including Green Action) with former prime minister Naoto KAN arranging the meeting and attending, Nuclear Regulatory Agency officials stated that they did not have any additional measurement figures concerning this important item, nor did the NRA undertake any extensive physical examination of the plant when it undertook its one on site investigation, nor was it intending to undertake any further on site investigations when deliberating the application. Moreover, when citizens pointed out that the NRA had violated its own “NRA Ageing Reactor Management Implementation Guide” when it allowed Kyushu Electric to go beyond its 30th year without implementing the long-term maintenance management policy for the Sendai plant, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency official stated, “the NRA Guide does not have to be adhered to.”
Citizens are concerned that there is uncertainty in this estimation and that reduction in the pipe wall thickness could result in pipe rupture in the event of a large earthquake. Citizens demanded that the NRA examine the issue further and establish an outside expert committee to review Kyushu Electric’s ageing reactor maintenance policy. As mentioned above, however, the NRA gave its final approval to Kyushu Electric’s policy the next day, August 5th.
On August 7th, 1973 citizens filed an administrative complaint to the NRA, protesting NRA’s approval of Kyushu Electric’s revised long-term maintenance management policy application. The complain stated that there was no indication that the NRA had, during the review of the application, looked into whether the 0.991 figure noted above was the maximum figure this equipment and others around it had registered, nor whether deviation and uncertainty had been taken into consideration. The complaint stated the NRA had not increased the number of equipment to be examined, or undertaking a detailed examination of the area where this finding (0.991) had been registered, nor obtain the opinion of outside experts. The complaint lists other items: the fact the implementation delay violated NRA’s own standards, and the fact the Ss-2 seismic motion review which had been added on in the revised application had not been undertaken although the NRA had said it would undertake this review.

Volcanoes: the NRA is Violating its Own Volcano Guide when it Approved Sendai Restart
Japan is a land of volcanoes. Kagoshima Prefecture is an active volcano area. Kyushu Electric admits that in the past there is a possibility that pyroclastic flow from a caldera eruption reached the location where the Sendai nuclear power plant is now located. Since that is the case, the NRA Volcano Guide stipulates that surveillance of volcanic activity (monitoring) be undertaken and if and when precursor activity of a caldera explosion is observed, that the reactor site be shut down and a plan created to remove all the fuel before such an eruption takes place.

The NRA’s Volcano Guide is not as stringent as the IAEA, nor has the NRA even followed its own Volcano Guide. (More details to follow.)

Download: Background Briefing: Why the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant Should Not be Operated (PDF)

Pre-Ruling Background Briefing on Sendai Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 Injunction Lawsuit

For immediate release: 22 April 2015 00:05 JST (Kyoto City/Kagoshima City)

For further information contact: Aileen Mioko Smith, Executive Director, Green Action
+81-90-3620-9251
(on site in Kagoshima City)

A 3-member panel of judges headed by chief judge Maeda will be handing down a decision at 10:00am today (22 April) at the Kagoshima District Court regarding the operation of the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2.
FFTV live from 10am: http://twitcasting.tv/fukuroufoe_tv

Background:
There are 5 super volcanoes (calderas) within a 160km of the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant. On 10 September 2014, Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) granted permission of a change in reactor installation i.e. that the application for Sendai Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2 owned and operated by Kyushu Electric met post-Fukushima accident nuclear regulatory standards. The NRA granted permission for the Construction Plan on 18 March 2015. The last step in the permission process, the Operational Safety Program, remains to be completed.

Main issues: Earthquakes, volcanoes, and emergency evacuation plans

Earthquakes
Plaintiffs:
Since 2005, measurements which surpassed the reactors’ basic earthquake ground motion have occurred 5 times at a total of 4 reactor sites in Japan.

The basic earthquake ground motion estimation, calculated from the length of faults and other factors, is based on the average picture of past earthquakes i.e. data that vary from the average are not taken into consideration. Because of this, the result becomes significantly underestimated.

Basic earthquake ground motion is also based on only a limited amount of data.

Because earthquakes greater than estimated could occur at the Sendai Units 1 and 2 reactor sites, the current basic earthquake ground motion of 620 gal is too low. Because of this, there is a danger of reactor core meltdown.

The defendant Kyushu Electric:
It is not just the average picture of past earthquakes, but also special characteristics of the area which were also included in the consideration of basic earthquake ground motion for the reactor site. The possibility that the area near Sendai nuclear power plant will have an earthquake that would result in the basic earthquake ground motion being exceeded is extremely low. Even if exceeded, there is a margin of safety with the facility’s seismic resistance design. Moreover, the reactor is far from the epicenter of the Nankai Trough earthquake.

Volcanoes
Plaintiffs:
The reactors do not meet the Nuclear Regulation Authority’s Volcano Guide which states that the probability of pyroclastic flow reaching the reactor site during operation of the site (during the time nuclear fuel remains at the site) as a result of a huge (caldera) volcanic eruption must be extremely low. There are no grounds for Kyushu Electric’s assertion that the cycle for a disastrous volcano eruption is 90,000 years. The Sendai plant is surrounded by 5 calderas (super volcanoes: ring of volcanoes). Moreover, the ability to predict eruptions is known to be inadequate. This has been substantiated by volcanologists. There are no grounds for Kyushu Electric’s assertion that the probability of a caldera eruption is low.

Under the NRA guide, Kyushu Electric must meet the NRA’s Volcano Guide which requires that the utility monitor the Aira caldera, the ring of volcanoes closest to the plant, and be able to remove all the nuclear fuel from the reactor site before any volcanic eruption that would result in pyroclastic flow to the site. Kyushu Electric’s application does neither (does not show that monitoring the Aira caldera would make it possible to predict an eruption, and, there is no concrete plan which confirms that the nuclear fuel can be removed from the site before an eruption). This constitutes a violation of the NRA Volcano Guide.

The NRA’s Volcano Guide is considerably more lax than the IAEA Volcano Guide.

Kyushu Electric has also under-estimated the potential risk of volcanic ash to the facility.

The defendant Kyushu Electric:
Southern Kyushu’s cycle of huge (caldera) eruptions is very long, approximately 90,000 years. The most recent eruption was approximately 30,000 years ago. Thus the chances of a huge (caldera) eruption occurring are very low.

Eruptions can be predicted by monitoring, such as monitoring for changes in the ground. There is about 10 years leeway from the time activity is seen and an eruption. There is enough time to remove the nuclear fuel from the site after shutting the reactors down.

Emergency Evacuation Plans
Plaintiffs:
The plans do not take wind direction into consideration. Evacuation of citizens from within the 30km zone will take longer than 30 minutes. There is a danger that citizens will be exposed to radiation before they can evacuate.

There is insufficient means of transportation (buses) for people with special needs. The plans for evacuation are not realistic.

The defendant Kyushu Electric:
Evacuation will be undertaken in stages in relation to the developing situation and the distances from the site, and buses can be procured. If it becomes difficult to deal with the situation, then there will be nationwide organization to support the effort. The current evacuation plans are rational in content and the government’s emergency planning committee has approved the plan. The local authorities have made concrete emergency plans.

Download: Pre-Ruling Background Briefing on Sendai Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 Injunction Lawsuit (PDF)

Takahama Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4 Injunction Ruling
-This is a pre-ruling background briefing-

For immediate release: 14 April 2015 13:00 (Kyoto City/Fukui City)
For further information contact: Aileen Mioko Smith, Executive Director, Green Action
+81-90-3620-9251
(on site at the Fukui District Court, Fukui City, Fukui Prefecture)

A 3-judge panel headed by ruling judge Hideaki Higuchi will be handing down a decision at 14:00 today at the Fukui District Court regarding the operation of the Takahama Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4.

IWJ (Independent Web Journal) will be U-streaming the event from14:00 (Fukui Channel 1)
http://adieunpp.com/karisasitome.html

The Wakasa Bay region where Takahama Units 3 and 4 are located:
On 23 May 2011, the National Diet’s Upper House committee with oversight on government administration summoned 4 expert witnesses. Amongst them was Dr. Katsuhiko Ishibashi , seismologist and emeritus professor of Kobe University. When asked which nuclear power plant(s) held the highest risk next to the Hamaoka nuclear power plant (located in Shizuoka Prefecture), Dr. Ishibashi’s replied, “The entire Wakasa Bay area.”

There are 15 nuclear power reactors located along Wakasa Bay. Takahama Units 3 and 4, owned and operated by Kansai Electric, have received initial permission to restart by the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) in a three-step process, and lead the restart in the Wakasa Bay area. Kansai Electric owns 11 of these reactors. Dr. Ishibashi stated, “Although such earthquakes as the Kambun Earthquake (1662) and Fukui Earthquake (1948) have occurred, this area has been a silent region. It is unmistakably an extremely dangerous area.”

Quote from ruling judge Hideaki Higuchi:
“When you alter an elevator from 12 -person occupancy to16-person occupancy, can safety be secured without radical reconstruction?

Main issues of the injunction lawsuit:
At the first court hearing of the case, Judge Higuchi (the court) requested both defendant and plaintiffs to provide clarification/proof on the following points. It is expected that the verdict will be along the lines of judging these submissions.

Clarification/Proof Requested by the Court:

• What seismic motion resistance construction was undertaken in order to address the basic earthquake ground motion being raised from 370 gal to 550 gal (this was the increase in requirement for Takahama Units 3 and 4, identical for Ohi Units 3 and 4.)
• What seismic motion resistance construction was undertaken, is scheduled to be undertaken, and the progress of this construction, in order to address the basic earthquake ground motion being raised from 550 gal to 700 gal (this is the increase in requirement for Takahama Units 3 and 4, identical for Ohi Units 3 and 4.)
• Does the cliff edge shift when raising the basic earthquake ground motion from 550 gal to 700 gal (this is the increase in requirement for Takahama Units 3 and 4, identical for Ohi Units 3 and 4.)
• What is the seismic resistance class level for the measurement equipment of the reactor vessel.
• What are the capability functions of the Seismic Isolation Building and when will the facility be put in place.

Plaintiff and defendant responses to the above issues (in Japanese)
Plaintiff:
http://adieunpp.com/karisasitome/150227junnbi6.pdf
Defendant: (Kansai Electric)
http://adieunpp.com/karisasitome/150309kandsinnkou.pdf

Other issues concerning the Takahama Units 3 and 4 reactors:
On 31 August 2014, Fukui Prefecture undertook an emergency response exercise simulating an accident occurring at the Takahama nuclear power plant. Citizens later asked Kansai Electric about the type of simulation provided for this exercise. Kansai Electric responded in September and again in November 2014 that the scenario provided responded to Fukui Prefecture request of providing a scenario for a level of accident that Fukui Prefecture could cope with because the prefecture would not be able to deal with implementation of an emergency response exercise for an accident that was too serious.

25 December 2014, Union of Kansai Governments, “Proposal Concerning Nuclear Emergency Response Measures” submitted to the Japanese government.
http://www.greenaction-japan.org/internal/141225_Kansai_Union_Proposal_on_nuclear_emergency_response_measures_E_Translation.pdf

Download: Takahama Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4 Injunction Ruling -This is a pre-ruling background briefing- (PDF)

Kansai Electric’s Takahama Units 3 and 4 Restart Review
Enters Public Comment Period

First Use of Plutonium (MOX) Fuel Since Fukushima Accident Moves Ahead Without NRA Review of its Severe Accident Implications

For immediate release: 17 December 2014
Contact: Aileen Mioko Smith +81-90-3620-9251

Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) today approved the first stage of the review for restart of Kansai Electric’s Takahama Units 3 and 4 located in Fukui Prefecture. If restart is approved, it will be the first reactors to use plutonium (uranium and plutonium mIxed oxide fuel: MOX fuel) since the Fukushima accident.

The Nuclear Regulatory Agency stated today that the approval process for MOX fuel at Takahama had already been completed (before the Fukushima accident) and therefore its use will not come under NRA review. Compared to conventional uranium fuel, MOX fuel lowers the safety margin of reactor operation and causes greater health damage if released to the environment. Since there is no plan for spent MOX fuel, it will remain at the reactor site.

“It is unconscionable that the NRA is not undertaking a safety assessment of MOX fuel use. If the NRA is requiring stricter standards after Fukushima, a reassessment of MOX fuel use must be undertaken. Without this, the NRA has not learnt the lessons of Fukushima, nor can Japan profess that its regulatory safety standards are “’the strictest in the world’ ” said Aileen Mioko Smith, executive director of Green Action based in Kyoto.

The Takahama reactors are unique not only because they are slated to be the first to use MOX fuel since the Fukushima accident, but because they are located quite close to large populations. The center of Kyoto City is located 60 kilometers from the Takahama plant. The population of Kyoto Prefecture within the 30km nuclear accident evacuation area is 128,500 compared to Fukui Prefecture’s 66,900 where the Takahama site is located. The entire cities of Maizuru (89,000) and Miyazu (20,300) in northern Kyoto must flee in case of a serious accident including their city hall administrations. The cultural heritage of Kyoto City is also endangered as well as Kyoto’s tourism industry which suffered economic loss after the Fukushima accident. There are 15 nuclear reactors within a 52-kilometer radius of Kyoto City’s northern city limits.

The NRA, however, refuses to address the holding of public hearing on the Takahama plant restarts in Kyoto Prefecture and states that the prefecture should go and ask Fukui if it wants to hold such meetings.

Current emergency plans to cope with an serious accident at the Takahama site are woefully inadequate including no effective plans for people with special needs, nor a decision as to where people will evacuate to within Kyoto Prefecture (Kyoto City is to accept 65,000 evacuees), and 31% of the evacuation points for Fukui and Kyoto citizens in Hyogo Prefecture do not meet legal requirements. Lake Biwa, the water serving the 14 million people of the Kansai area will be contaminated according to a study undertaken by Shiga Prefecture this year.

The NRA approval process does not include whether evacuation plans are in place to protect citizens.

Kyoto Prefecture has sought to sign a nuclear safety agreement with Kansai Electric since June 2011, but has received no positive response.

Kansai Electric’s fleet of reactors is aging, with 3 reactors over 40 years old and 4 others approaching 40 years. Although Kepco reported financial results in the black this year and there is sufficient electricity in the utility’s area, the company is pushing to restart reactors.

A public comment process will be undertaken of the NRA draft review approval. The deadline is January 16, 2015. After that Kansai Electric must receive approval for its Construction Plan and Operational Safety Program before it can restart the reactors.

There is citizen protest against restart of the Fukui Prefecture reactors. Fukui Prefecture citizens are petitioning to stop restart of all the nuclear reactors and Kansai area residents are addressing evacuation, seismic, severe accident and other issues.

Download: Kansai Electric’s Takahama Units 3 and 4 Restart Review Enters Public Comment Period (PDF)

Governor of Kagoshima Fails Fukushima Lessons:
ignores science, safety and public opinion
States operation of Sendai Nuclear Power Plant is “Unavoidable”

For immediate release: 7 November 2014
Contact: Aileen Mioko Smith +81-90-3620-9251

Governor Yuichiro Ito of Kagoshima in approving the restart of the two nuclear reactors at Sendai earlier today has failed to understand the lessons of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe, Green Action stated. The Kagoshima Prefectural Assembly has earlier voted to approve operations of the reactors. In the last week evidence has been made public that the reactor operator and the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) are ignoring volcano risks to Sendai ; that evacuation shelters required in the event of a severe nuclear accident are in violation of the law (revised in April 2014) for emergency evacuation planning. Demands for consultation on restart by citizens throughout Kagoshima have all now been ignored.

“So desperate are Kyushu Electric, the Abe government and the Liberal Democratic Party leadership to restart the Sendai reactors, that they are willing to exert maximum leverage on Kagoshima. The Governor, by stating that restart of Sendai was “unavoidable” has mistakenly chosen, like them, to ignore the evidence of the risks restarting Sendai presents to the lives and livelihoods of the people of not just Kagoshima but a much greater geographical area. The volcano scientists who have stated that predicting eruptions in advance is not possible have spoken clearly based on their decades of experience. Yet, Kyushu Electric, NRA chair Shunichi Tanaka, and the politicians who support them are prepared to disregard these warnings and the concerns of the people of Kagoshima. The Fukushima accident was in part caused by the same arrogant disregard for nuclear safety concerns, and tragically it is being repeated once more. The Kagoshima Governor has failed to learn the lessons of Fukushima and to act to protect the interests of the people of his region,” said Aileen Mioko Smith, executive director of Green Action.

In the last week city officials of Satsumasendai City where the Sendai reactors are located, and Izumi City, Ichikikushikino City, Akune City (all within 30km from the Sendai reactors) and Minamata City in Kumamoto Prefecture where evacuees from Kagoshima are to evacuate have all confirmed to citizens groups that many of their nuclear emergency shelters are vulnerable to the impacts of tsunami’s and storm surges or landslides and that as a result they are required under the law to find safe alternatives. The emergency plans for these communities with hundreds of thousands of people are currently in violation of the Disaster Countermeasures Basic Law.

On 25 September, Kumamoto Prefecture which neighbors Kagoshima and 4 of its local authorities issued a joint petition to the Government to undertake a detailed, careful explanation to Kumamoto citizens and the prefecture regarding the NRA review and Government decisions on the Sendai plant. They also demanded that the Government issue its regulations for radiation exposure/evacuation beyond the 30km limit (the PPA standard) which are yet to be issued and undertake measures including financial measures for these areas. They also demanded that the Government undertake human and financial support for local authorities with citizens evacuating and local authorities accepting evacuees. The Government is yet to respond to any of these demands.

In the meantime, in Fukushima Prefecture, radiation levels in many areas remain higher than government set limits with no prospect for return of the population. At the time of the accident, authorities took over a month to evacuate Iitate village’s citizens despite the high radiation exposure. Kagoshima City with a population of over 600,000, is located in a similar distance away, 40km, from the Sendai reactors.

Recent polling have shown increasing demands for wider consultation on nuclear reactor restarts beyond communities that directly benefit financially from hosting power plants.

Even with approval from the full Kagoshima Prefectural Assembly and the Governor, restart of the two reactors at Sendai will not take place before 2015. The NRA has yet to complete its review of the Sendai reactor post Fukushima retrofitting plan, safety management rules and onsite inspections of the plant. Kyushu Electric’s concrete plans to comply with the NRA’s volcano guide have not been completed and made public.

Download: Governor of Kagoshima Fails Fukushima Lessons: ignores science, safety and public opinion States operation of Sendai Nuclear Power Plant is “Unavoidable”

Will Japan’s Nuclear Regulator Approve Plans to Restart Reactors Near Super Volcanoes?