Press Release: Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake – Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power PlantNGO’s demand IAEA stop misleading international community and TEPCO improve transparency

[PDF: 584KB]

Media Release
7 September 2007

Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake – Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant
NGO’s demand the IAEA stop misleading the international community and TEPCO improve transparency

NGOs today demanded that there be greater international accountability from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and that Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) improve its transparency surrounding the impact of the Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake on the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant.

In a letter to the IAEA and TEPCO, Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center, Green Action, and Greenpeace Japan criticized the IAEA Expert Mission to the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant for making misleading statements about the impact of the earthquake on the plant1. They also criticized Philippe Jamet, head of the Expert Mission, for saying it would take “months or a year” to put the plant back into operation, even though a careful reading of the Expert Mission’s 17 August 2007 report shows that there are strong grounds for believing that the plant can never be operated again.

The groups strongly supported the Expert Mission’s goal of sharing the findings and lessons learned with the international nuclear community. However, they pointed out that there is a major barrier to the achievement of this goal. That is that Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) does not publish most of its reports in English.

The Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center (CNIC) contacted TEPCO to ask if it intended to translate a technical report published on its Japanese web site on 10 August. TEPCO replied it did not. CNIC then took the initiative of translating charts on neutron flux and reactor pressure and publishing them on the following page
http://cnic.jp/english/topics/safety/earthquake/kktechreport10aug07.html

The TEPCO report contains key information that will be useful to anyone with a technical interest in the impact of the Chuetsu-Oki earthquake.

The groups wrote to TEPCO calling on it to publish on its web site full translations of the technical reports relating to the Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake which have been published by TEPCO in Japanese. If TEPCO can provide such information in English to the IAEA, there is no reason why it cannot provide it to a wider audience. Only when sufficient basic data is available in English will the international community be able to independently analyze the findings and the lessons learned.

Contacts

Philip WHITE, International Liaison Officer, Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center (Tokyo, Japan)
Phone: 81-3-3357-3800
Email: cnic@nifty.com

Aileen Mioko SMITH, Director, Green Action (Kyoto, Japan)
Phone: 075-701-7223 / 090-3620-9251
Email: amsmith@gol.com

Jun HOSHIKAWA, Executive Director, Greenpeace Japan (Tokyo, Japan)
Phone: 81-3-5338-9800
Email: jun.hoshikawa@jp.greenpeace.org


1. Letters to IAEA and TEPCO dated 7 September, 2007 available on the following web pages:
http://cnic.jp/english/topics/safety/earthquake/kkiaea7sep07.html
http://cnic.jp/english/topics/safety/earthquake/kktepco7sep07.html

Letter to Tokyo Electric President Katsumata requesting English translations of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa earthquake damage data

[PDF: 28KB]

7 September 2007
Mr. Tsunehisa Katsumata
President
Tokyo Electric Power Company

Request for English Translations

Dear Mr. Katsumata,

We are writing to request full English translations of TEPCO’s reports on the impact of the 16 July 2007 ChuetsuOki Earthquake on the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant. The limited English information which your company has published on its web site is welcome, but much more is necessary to enable non-English speakers to understand the behavior of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant during the Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake.

Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center contacted your company to find out if it intended to translate its 10 August 2007 report1 into English. The report contained key information that would be useful to anyone with a technical interest in the impact of the earthquake. Your company refused to translate the report, so we made a provisional translation of the neutron flux and reactor pressure charts. We have showed them to overseas specialists and uploaded them onto the following web site:
http://cnic.jp/english/topics/safety/earthquake/kktechreport10aug07.html

In addition to a full English translation of the 10 August report, we also call on TEPCO to publish on its web site full translations of the other technical reports relating to the Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake which TEPCO has issued in Japanese, including the reports released on 22 and 23 August 2007.

If TEPCO can provide such information in English to the IAEA, there is no reason why it cannot provide it to a wider audience. Only when sufficient basic data is

available in English will the international community be able to independently analyze the findings and the lessons learned.

Yours sincerely,

Philip White, International Liaison Officer, Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center, Tokyo
Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center
Akebonobashi Co-op 2F-B, 8-5 Sumiyoshi-cho,
Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-0065, Japan
TEL.03-3357-3800 FAX.03-3357-3801
email: cnic@nifty.com

Aileen Mioko Smith, Director, Green Action, Kyoto
Green Action
Suite 103, 22-75 Tanaka Sekiden-cho
Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8203 Japan
Tel: +81-75-701-7223 Fax: +81-75-702-1952
email: amsmith@gol.com

Jan Beranek, Nuclear Energy Project Leader, Climate & Energy Unit, Greenpeace International
Greenpeace International
Ottho Heldringstraat 5, 1066 AZ Amsterdam
Tel NL office: +31-20-718-2134
email: jan.beranek@int.greenpeace.org


1. The 10 August 2007 report referred to is on the following URL:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/07081002-j.html

Open Letter to IAEA Concerning IAEA’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant Earthquake Damage Investigation

[PDF: 844KB]

7 September 2007
To:
— IAEA Expert Mission to the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station
— Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

On 6 August 2007, we wrote to you concerning the IAEA Expert Mission to the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant. In particular, we requested that the Expert Mission “not permit its report to be used…to diminish the significance of…the risks posed by earthquakes to nuclear power generation.”

The Expert Mission failed on this count.

It is highly regrettable that, on the basis of less than three days at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, without seeing inside the reactors, the Expert Mission’s report issued 17 August, 2007,* made statements which could be expected to mislead the public regarding the significance of the risks posed by earthquakes to nuclear power generation and the possibility of restarting the plant.

Key components of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant have yet to be examined for internal structural damage. The IAEA’s initial report should have therefore been indeed preliminary, stressing what it in fact does admit, that there is “the possibility that the long-term operation of components could be affected by hidden damage from the earthquake.”

Instead, the Expert Mission report and the issues report released by IAEA staff on the same day chose to arbitrarily and subjectively emphasize another view. The Expert Mission report states, “Safety related structures, systems and components of the plant seem to be in a general condition, much better than might be expected for such a strong earthquake, and there is no visible significant damage…” The headline of the issues report declares, “Earthquake damage at Japanese nuclear station less than expected, report says.” Predictably, the media reported accordingly. A careful reading of the Expert Mission report, however, reveals that the true picture is far less rosy.

The head of the Expert Mission, Philippe Jamet, was widely quoted by the media saying it would take “months or a year” to put the plant back into operation. In fact, the report provides no grounds for believing that the plant can be restarted in a year’s time. On the contrary, the abovementioned problem of “hidden damage” and also “the potential existence of active faults underneath the site” both pointed out in the report are strong grounds for believing that the plant can never be operated again.

The investigations of the Expert Mission are ongoing. We recommend that it give serious consideration to a statement made on 21 August, 2007, by the newly formed Group of Concerned Scientists and Engineers Calling for the Closure of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant. Their statement contains the following key points:

1.
In light of the “Regulatory Guide for Reviewing Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Reactor Facilities (Seismic Guide),” which was revised by the Japanese Government in September2005, it is clearly inconceivable to continue to operate a nuclear power plant at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa site. The reason for this is that the basic policy stated in the revised Seismic Guide is that all buildings and structures must be installed on ground having adequate support performance. There can be no doubt now that the ground of the site of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant does not fulfill this requirement.
2.
It should be assumed that plastic deformation (permanent strain) remains in many facilities and items of equipment and that in some cases cracks may have formed. In other words, nobody can objectively claim that the seven units are sound.
3.
Earthquake ground motion smaller than that of 16 July 2007 could cause a major accident at this already damaged site. The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa region is located at the center of an area of particularly high crustal activity and has many active faults. It is impossible to say that large earthquakes in this region ended with the 2004 Chuetsu earthquake and the recent Chuetsu-Oki earthquake. Also, over the next several to ten years, large earthquakes could occur as aftershocks of the Chuetsu-Oki earthquake that damaged the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant.

The full statement can be found on the following web site:
http://cnic.jp/english/topics/safety/earthquake/kkscientist21aug07.html

The Expert Mission stated that it was willing “to share the findings and lessons learned with the international nuclear community.” We fully support this goal. However, there is a major barrier to its achievement. That is that Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) does not translate most of its reports into English. We are not referring to confidential documents. We are referring to documents which are publicly available in Japanese. The Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center (CNIC) contacted TEPCO to ask if it intended to translate technical information released in Japanese on 10 August, 2007. TEPCO replied that it did not. Therefore, CNIC took the initiative of translating charts on neutron flux and reactor pressure. We have made this information available to the English-speaking world on the following web site:
http://cnic.jp/english/topics/safety/earthquake/kktechreport10aug07.html

This problem is not restricted to TEPCO. It is endemic in the Japanese nuclear industry and Japanese Government bureaucracy. Just a brief look at their English language web sites is enough to prove this point. We believe this is a reflection of the inward-looking nature of the Japanese nuclear industry and the Government’s nuclear authorities and their aversion to and fear of independent international scrutiny. We are calling on them to become more open and to provide more information in English, in particular in relation to the effects of the Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake on the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant. It is in the interests of the IAEA to support our call. Only when sufficient basic data is available in English will the international community be able to independently analyze the findings and the lessons learned.

As the Expert Mission continues its investigation, it too will need English translations of technical information related to the impact of the Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake on the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant. If TEPCO and the Japanese Government can provide such information in English to the IAEA, there is no reason why it cannot provide it to a wider audience.

Yours sincerely,

Sign_Ban_Hideyuki

BAN Hideyuki
Co-Director,
Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center
(Tokyo, Japan)

Sign_Hoshikawa_Jun

HOSHIKAWA Jun
Executive Director
Greenpeace Japan
(Tokyo, Japan)

Sign_Aileen_Smith

Aileen Mioko SMITH
Director,
Green Action
(Kyoto, Japan)

cc: IAEA Board of Governors


*Footnote: Mission Report Volume I, “Preliminary Findings and Lessons Learned from the 16 July 2007 Earthquake at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa NPP”, International Atomic Energy Agency, 17 August 2007.

Letter to the IAEA Concerning Earthquake Damage at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station

[PDF Version: 1.4MB]

  • The IAEA Team of International Experts Investigating the Effects of the Chuetsu Oki Earthquake on the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station in Niigata, Japan
  • Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

From:

  • Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center (Tokyo, Japan)
  • Greenpeace Japan (Tokyo)
  • Green Action (Kyoto)

6 August 2007

To Director General Mohamed ElBaradei and the IAEA Investigation Team:

We hereby respectfully make the following four requests:

  • We request that you commission a truly independent international (including Japanese) investigation team with rigorous and objective expertise to look into the effects of the Chuetsu Oki Earthquake on the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station. Given the shifting seismic cycle with a trend toward stronger earthquakes along the Ring of Fire in the Pacific, carrying out the most thorough and precise investigation as possible at this time is not only in the interest of the Japanese people but also in the critical interest of everyone who may come closely under the circles of influence of possible nuclear facilities to be built around the world in the coming years and decades.
  • We request that before concluding a report on the post-earthquake safety-status of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, the IAEA investigation team makes it a priority to investigate and report on the fundamental problems which caused this state of affairs, including an analysis into the causes of the lapses of judgment by TEPCO and the Japanese government in regard to the seismic survey, the design, and the approval for the plant.
  • We request the IAEA report include details concerning
    • Ground deformation within the site
    • Radionuclides released according to isotope, including timeline of when and how much was released
    • Status of the reactor, including fuel, reactor control system, pipes, whether equipment is securely fixed, measurement equipment, and damage such as cracking, etc.
  • The IAEA investigation team not permit its report to be used by TEPCO, the nuclear power industry, the Japanese government, or anyone else with a vested interest in promoting nuclear power to diminish the significance of the lapses of judgment that were highlighted by the Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake, or of the risks posed by earthquakes to nuclear power generation.
    Under no circumstances should the IAEA investigation team’s report lead people to believe that the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant can ever be restarted.

* * *

For over three decades since 1974, local residents organizations and scientific experts have been warning that there are active faults concentrated in the region where Tokyo Electric’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station is sited, even active fault lines existing in very close proximity and directly underneath the nuclear power plants. They have also argued that the geology of the ground on which the plants are built is of very poor quality, and that this region has entered a seismically active period. They have continually warned, therefore, that the occurrence of an earthquake having serious, perhaps even devastating effects on the nuclear power station, is far from unlikely.

Tokyo Electric ignored these warnings, refusing to admit that there were active fault lines in close proximity or directly underneath the nuclear power station site. Instead, in their analysis, they broke up the fault lines and considered only sections, thereby enabling them to underestimate the effects of any potential earthquake, and as a result, make it appear that any seismic activity would be limited in scale. Moreover, they stated publicly that the nuclear power station was not located above an active fault. Tokyo Electric’s home page continues to make these assertions even today.

Since the Chuetsu Oki Earthquake, Tokyo Electric has continually insisted that this earthquake was “unforeseen.” That is certainly not the case. As indicated above, local resident organizations and scientific experts had been pointing out the seismic dangers at this nuclear power station site for decades. Tokyo Electric now says that it will undertake a reassessment of active fault lines in the area. However, any investigation undertaken by Tokyo Electric cannot be trusted. Any investigation it would undertake would lack any credibility whatsoever, especially to the concerned residents of this region.

It is of vital importance that before Tokyo Electric or the national government begins to undertake a reassessment of the seismic situation, a thorough investigation should be undertaken by an independent entity to find out why the seismic dangers of this area were not taken into consideration by Tokyo Electric. There needs to be a very clear explanation as to why Tokyo Electric ignored the arguments brought forward by local resident organizations and experts and why they sectionalized the fault lines and minimized their seismic potential.

The problems lie not only in underestimation of potential seismic movement. The effects of the Chuetsu Oki earthquake on the foundation and equipment of the plant site are suggestive of Tokyo Electric’s underestimation of the effects of seismic movement on these foundations and equipment as well.

In their letter to Niigata Governor Izumida dated 25 July 2007, the local resident organization which had filed petitions consistently since 1974 detailing the seismic concerns of this site wrote, “Our view is that although theoretically a new license could be issued based on new standards, it is absolutely inconceivable to reuse the current facility that was constructed on the basis of an underestimation of seismic activity, and now moreover incorporates equipment and buildings that were damaged by the Chuetsu Oki Earthquake, due to which the possibility of ductile deformations cannot be denied.” We entirely agree.

The Niigata Nippo, the newspaper of record in the region has provided day-by-day cover in huge articles since the earthquake, describing the appalling lack of emergency preparedness of Tokyo Electric and clearly illustrating serious systemic problems with Tokyo Electric management. The Niigata Nippo also addresses the serious lack of information disclosure to the region’s public, including interviews with residents who state, “This is a long-standing problem with Tokyo Electric.”

Governor Izumida of Niigata has officially lodged a complaint to the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) of the Japanese government based on the overt inadequacy on the part of the Japanese government of post-earthquake information regarding the plant site. The front page of the Niigata Nippo newspaper reports the governor’s statement that the national government “did not evaluate for us whether we should evacuate (the citizens living in the area of the nuclear power plants)” and criticized the conduct of the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency, stating that there is “room for improvement.” “Along with the information released from Tokyo Electric, the interested party, the national government who is the administrating authority (in charge of nuclear power) should be expeditiously releasing information to the national citizenry.” (Niigata Nippo newspaper, 21 July 2007).

The Social Democratic Party’s earthquake investigation team has entered the plant site three times and its members have serious concerns about Tokyo Electric refusing to allow inspection of damaged areas they want to hide. Also, upon inspection of areas Tokyo Electric allowed them to see, there was clear evidence of Tokyo Electric rushing to cover up evidence of earthquake damage. These “repairs” are being undertaken before any independent investigation of the damage has been undertaken and are a serious case of suppression of evidence.

There are serious problems with the Japanese government’s nuclear regulatory and licensing system as well, regarding assessment of seismic activity and assurance that nuclear power generation will be undertaken in full safety despite the seismically active nature of this archipelago. Katsuhiko Ishibashi, who was a member of the government-appointed committee to reassess the seismic Guidelines and who resigned in protest at the last session of the committee’s proceedings, pointed out serious problems with the selection of committee members and their lack of independence in a press conference at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan on 20 July, to a packed audience representing foreign media.

An independent investigation needs to be undertaken to investigate why the Japanese government could not and did not address the erroneous judgments of Tokyo Electric.

After the Chuetsu Oki Earthquake experts are pointing out the possibility of deformations or distortions of pipe joints and the footings of the reactor pressure vessel. However, Dr. Haruki Madarame, the government-appointed chair of the expert committee to investigate the effects of the earthquake on the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station has publicly stated, in spite of the fact that an in-depth investigation has not even begun, “With the technology we have today, we can do anything if we have the will to do it.” (3 August, Nikkei Newspaper.) Before vital evidence has been examined, he has repeatedly stated, “It’s only natural that about this amount of oscillation (2000 gal) would be recorded. That possibility had already been incorporated into the seismic design.” After being criticized for these remarks, he simply gave excuses, then stated, “I’ll be more careful when making comments in the future.”

Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center has sent a petition to Yasuhisa Komoda, Director-General of NISA (fax dated 31 July 2007) demanding the replacement of Professor Haruki Madarame as committee chair. We stated, “Professor Madarame was quick to state that safety of [the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant] was assured, saying that it is not a major problem if B and C class equipment breaks as a result of shaking in excess of expectations. He has also repeatedly stated that he predicts that the plant will be able to restart in one to two years. We question the academic ethics of someone who makes such a statement before the inside of the reactor containment vessel has even been looked at. When the Committee’s chairperson makes such comments, it is not possible to avoid the criticism that the study and response of the Committee itself will only be perfunctory.”

When inspecting the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa site, and referring to the damage from the earthquake, Kenzo Miya, head of one of the three working groups of the committee chaired by Madarame, stated repeatedly, “This is an opportune experiment,” and, “This may well be a historic event” – a comment that created a great deal of antipathy in the Kashiwazaki and Kariwa area. He has since stepped down from the technical committee of Niigata prefecture but remains head of the working group of the government’s committee.

The people of Japan, and especially the citizens in the Kashiwazaki and Kariwa area, do not trust this national government committee investigating the effects of the earthquake on the nuclear power station.

Since both Tokyo Electric and the Japanese government cannot be trusted to properly assess why the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station was allowed to be sited in its present location in the first place, and cannot be trusted to accurately and fairly inspect the current situation at the nuclear power station, we cannot emphasize strongly enough the need for independent, objective investigation into these matters.

Yours sincerely,

Sign_Ban_Hideyuki

BAN Hideyuki
Co-Director,
Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center
(Tokyo, Japan)

Sign_Hoshikawa_Jun

HOSHIKAWA Jun
Executive Director
Greenpeace Japan
(Tokyo, Japan)

Sign_Aileen_Smith

Aileen Mioko SMITH
Director,
Green Action
(Kyoto, Japan)

Joint Public Appeal Issued by Regional NGOs in Niigata Chuetsuoki Earthquake Area Demanding Japanese Government Face Up to the Consequences of the Earthquake for Nuclear Power Plants in Japan

[97 organizations including Green Action have given their support to this public appeal as of 9am, July 21, 2007.]

—Joint Public Appeal—
We Strongly Urge a Radical Reexamination
of Earthquake Countermeasures for Nuclear Facilities,
Facing Consequences Squarely Whatever the Outcome!

[PDF version: 48KB]
[Japanese site]
English translation
July 21, 2007

To:
— ABE Shinzo, Prime Minister of Japan
— All those in relevant branches of government and in nuclear-related organizations
— The People of Japan

As a result of the Chuetsuoki Earthquake, unforeseen problems continue to arise at the largest nuclear power plant complex in the world, Tokyo Electric’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power station. All seven reactors are currently shut down, but they remain directly threatened by the danger of aftershocks.

This major earthquake revealed dramatically the existence of a previously undetected fault line, and seismic oscillations recorded during the earthquake far exceeded regulatory standards established for earthquake resistance. Consequently, it is clear that the safety of these nuclear power plants cannot be assured, and, faced by the probability of strong after-shocks, large numbers of people in the Kashiwazaki Kariwa area and the greater Chuetsu region are deeply concerned that further problems may develop at this nuclear power plant complex, resulting in a nuclear disaster.

According to the seismic resistance design specifications of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, seismic acceleration greater than 300 gal would cause deformations resulting in permanent damage, making equipment unusable. The design was based on the hypothesis that seismic acceleration on site would never exceed 450 gal. This earthquake, however recorded a maximum of 680 gal. Since the government which previously investigated and established these seismic standards has been proven totally wrong, it is now self-evident beyond any doubt that the licenses for these reactors should be revoked.

Last March (2006), the Kanazawa District Court handed down a verdict which placed an injunction on the operation of the Shika nuclear power plant. The earthquake which occurred this week in Niigata has inadvertently confirmed that the Kanazawa verdict was indeed correct. Since the rationale which formed the basis for licensing these nuclear power plants and related facilities has collapsed as a result of this earthquake, the fact that seismic shocks can cause severe damage to such facilities due to previously unrecognized seismic faults cannot be denied. Apartment buildings which were built on the basis of falsified earthquake resistance data are now being torn down because they no longer meet legal requirements. How can nuclear facilities with potentially far more devastating effects be allowed to continue to operate as usual?

For the above reasons, if nuclear power plants or reprocessing plants continue to operate, there is grave danger that nuclear disasters could occur due to these facilities being subjected to earthquakes, resulting in severe damage and massive releases of radioactive materials. We therefore petition the Prime Minister of Japan and all organizations related to the operation of nuclear power plants in Japan to undertake a radical reexamination of earthquake countermeasures and face the consequences squarely whatever the outcome.

We sincerely urge all the people of Japan to share our concern about earthquake resistance measures at nuclear power plants. Please support us in our efforts to prevent nuclear disaster.

Signed:
— The Three Organizations Opposed to the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plants
— Kashiwazaki and Kariwa Regional Coordination Center for the Consideration of Nuclear Power Issues
— Nishiyama and Kariwa Citizens’ Group for the Consideration of Nuclear Power Issues
— Kashiwazaki and Kariwa Citizens’ Network for the Consideration of the Pluthermal (MOX fuel use) Program

Open Letter and Questions Concerning the Relevance of Nuclear Power in Addressing the Problem of Global Warming

[Word (86KB)]
[Japanese version]

26 April 2007

Dear Professor James Lovelock,

We wish to express our deep respect for your keen insight in sounding the alarm from a very early stage concerning the threat of global warming to human society and the ecosystem of the planet, and for explaining through your “Gaia Theory” how the planet behaves as one being.

At the same time, however, we cannot agree with your view that maximizing the use of nuclear fission energy 1 is an appropriate way to address global warming.

At the 43rd anniversary symposium commemorating Nuclear Energy Day organized by the Japan Atomic Energy Relations Organization (JAERO) on 25 October 2006, you gave a keynote speech entitled “The Revenge of Gaia”. Shortly thereafter, on 29 October, JAERO published full-page advertisements in Japan’s major national newspapers, featuring your keynote speech as a promotion for nuclear power2. In 2004 also, you appeared in a newspaper advertisement taken out by this same organization 3.

As you are aware, this organization is an organ created by the national government to promote nuclear power to the Japanese public. We find it very regrettable that Japan’s nuclear program is being promoted by you in this manner.

We believe, for the reasons elaborated below, that the expansion of nuclear power is not an effective way of preventing global warming. We believe that, instead of promoting nuclear power, we should actively encourage the introduction of safer and more reliable alternatives.

On this 21st anniversary of the Chernobyl accident, we convey to you our views and, at the same time, sincerely ask you to reply to the questions listed below. We are addressing this open letter and questions to you, and, at the same time we are making the letter available to the public.

Signatory Organizations

Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center (CNIC)

Consumers Union of Japan

Global Peace Campaign

Green Action

Greenpeace Japan

Group of Ten Thousand Plaintiffs for the Lawsuit to Stop the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies (ISEP)

Japan Congress Against A-and H- Bombs (GENSUIKIN)

Kiko (climate) Network

Osaka Citizens against the Mihama,, Ohi and Takahama Nuclear Power Plants

Peace Boat

Peace food action net. ILFA (International life & food association)

Sun & Wind Power Trust for Citizens

Women’s Democratic Club

(The attached is an initial list of signatory organizations. There will be additional organizations signing on to this letter)

* * *

When the Japanese government promotes nuclear power, it quotes your views as follows4:

“Nuclear energy would pose an insignificant threat. Renewable energy sounds good, but so far it is inefficient and expensive. It has a future, but we have no time now to experiment with visionary energy sources. I see nuclear energy as the only effective medicine we have now.”

1) In your view how many nuclear power plants will be needed worldwide and by when in order for nuclear power to become an effective medicine to combat global warming?

Our View:

1. Nuclear power is not an effective medicine for the problem of global warming.

You advocate switching from fossil fuels to nuclear power.

Even if carbon dioxide emissions were to be immediately reduced to zero, due to human-induced CO2 emissions to date, it seems certain that we will still not be able to avoid a rise in the earth’s mean temperature5. According to the most up-to-date scientific information, in order to avoid a catastrophic impact from climate change, it will be necessary to limit the rise in the earth’s mean temperature to within 2 degrees of pre-industrial times (pre-1850). In order to accomplish this, within the next 10 years we will need to switch from increasing global CO2 emissions to decreasing them, and by 2050 attain a 50 percent reduction from 1990 emission levels.

As we explain below, at a time when urgent action is required, nuclear energy cannot be a realistic means of combating global warming.

At the end of 2003, there were 434 nuclear reactors worldwide producing electricity. These reactors produced only 16 percent of total electricity supplied and 6 percent of total primary energy6. Assuming the life-span of a reactor to be 40 years, by 2025 more than half, and by 2050 all of the reactors presently operating will have ended their operating lives7.

At present fossil fuels produce 66 percent of all electricity8. If nuclear power plants were to replace all fossil fuel plants and all the current nuclear power plants which will be decommissioned, about 2,230 new nuclear reactors (1000 MW(e) reactors operating at 70 percent capacity) would have to be built, even if future electricity demand is assumed to be flat. If this increase is to be accomplished by 2025, two new reactors will have to go on line every week, or if the increase is to be accomplished by 2050, then one new reactor must go on line every week.

 At present there are 55 nuclear power reactors operating in Japan. These reactors produce approximately 30 percent of total electricity and 10 percent of total primary energy. About 145 new reactors will be required in Japan if the same conditions indicated above prevail, where new reactors replace old ones and additional reactors are built to replace fossil fuel plants which currently produce about 60 percent of electricity. This is assuming that electricity demand remains flat. If this is to be accomplished by 2050, then every 3 – 4 months, a new reactor will need to go on line.

If worldwide electricity demand were to increase, then the rate at which new reactors would need to be built would increase proportionally. If one considers the cost of bringing a nuclear reactor on line (several billion US dollar per reactor), the time taken from planning to actual operation (approximately 10 years), and – depending on the country – the infrastructure needed (such as high voltage lines), it is for all practical purposes impossible for nuclear power to solve the problem of global warming during this coming crucial decade, during which time we must go from increasing CO2 emissions to decreasing them.

2. Conservation and Energy Efficiency are Paramount

The most effective measures for reducing greenhouse gases are energy conservation and increased energy efficiency. The International Energy Agency (IEA), Japan’s National Institute for Environmental Studies and others state likewise in their reports9. Considering that the electricity sector, which is responsible for nearly 40 percent of world CO2 emissions, wastes a large portion of its energy, it is vitally important that this sector’s energy efficiency be improved.

In Japan, approximately 40 percent of primary energy is used to generate electricity. The efficiency of nuclear power plants does not exceed 35 percent. Even electricity production efficiency of the most up-to-date fossil fuel plants is only around 50 percent.

At present a large portion of the heat produced by electricity generation is thrown into the environment as waste heat. In other words, the majority of the energy used to produce electricity is wasted. In the case of nuclear power, the plants are by necessity built in locations far from areas with high electricity consumption. Therefore, there are also large transmission losses.

Compared to this type of massive, centralized electricity system, decentralized systems supply electricity on-site where it is needed. Energy losses in production and transmission can be minimized. If, in addition, cogeneration systems are employed, maximum use can be made of “waste heat” for heating, cooling, hot water and steam. The end result is that total energy efficiency is increased to over 80 percent. Thus energy conservation and significant CO2 emissions reductions can be achieved. In Denmark, already 50 percent of electricity and 80 percent of district heat is supplied by cogeneration plants10.

On the other hand, as we state below, because of its inherent nature, nuclear power actually impedes development of the most important measures to prevent global warming – energy conservation and energy efficiency – by entrenching a society which is wasteful in its use of energy.

3. Nuclear Power Runs Counter to Energy Conservation

Because nuclear reactors cannot adjust output readily, they cannot deal with the constantly fluctuating demand for electricity. Fossil fuel plants are the main means of dealing with these fluctuations. Hence, nuclear power plants and fossil fuel plants come in tandem.

Nuclear power also has structural problems stemming from the large amounts of electricity produced per unit. When demand is low, either seasonally or during the late night hours, electricity production exceeds demand. In order to consume this surplus electricity, in Japan additional facilities (for example pumped storage generation stations, which consume more electricity than they produce) and systems (such as late night lower electricity rates) have been put in place. The effect of these measures is to in fact increase electricity demand.

With nuclear power, because output per unit is very large, if a reactor is shutdown due to an accident or a scandal, this has an adverse effect on the stability of supply. Because electricity from nuclear power plants supplies large metropolitan and industrial areas, sudden shutdowns can cause economic and social disruption. Fossil fuel plants are built in order to assure an immediate supply of large quantities of replacement electricity.

As a result, in order to deal with fluctuations in demand and to supply back-up energy, if more nuclear power plants are installed, additional fossil fuel plants and other types of power plants will also be required. Since power companies are reluctant to waste these investments in additional facilities by keeping them closed or operating them below capacity, they promote schemes to increase demand for electricity, such as the “all electric” campaign for residential buildings.

For the above reasons, nuclear power does not help to conserve energy.

4. It is Impossible to Ensure the Reduction of CO2 Emissions with Nuclear Power

The capacity factor of Japan’s nuclear power plants is about 70 percent. However, the Japanese government calculates CO2 emissions reduction estimate based on the assumption that the capacity factor will rise to 88 percent11.

Nuclear power carries with it the latent risk of serious accidents. Therefore, if there is some kind of problem or accident at one reactor, it may be necessary for other reactors of the same model to be shutdown simultaneously for inspections12. The risk of accidents also increases if nuclear reactors are pushed to continue operation in order to achieve production efficiency targets13.

Because electricity supply shortages resulting from the shutdown of nuclear reactors are, for the most part, managed using fossil fuel plants, emissions of CO2 shoot up every time as an accident or incident takes place at any plant and the plant is shut 14. This actually happened between 2002 and 2003 in Japan, when a scandal involving falsification of inspection data at several of Tokyo Electric’s nuclear power plant units resulted in the shutdown of all of the utility’s 17 nuclear reactors. As a result, greenhouse gas emissions in Japan increased 4.8% during this period. Such unscheduled, long-term shutdowns have occurred time and again, and with the further aging of nuclear reactors, the frequency of such unscheduled shutdowns will no doubt increase15.

It now appears unlikely that Japan will be able to meet its commitment of decreasing its annual CO2 emissions by 6 percent, as promised under the Kyoto Protocol. Japan will not be able to attain a steady decrease in CO2 emissions as long as it depends on nuclear power in a major way to accomplish this reduction.

5. Expansion of Nuclear Power Aggravates Global Warming

According to an opinion poll undertaken in 2005 by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 76 percent of the Japanese public is opposed to building more nuclear power plants in Japan16. Because of the difficulties of building more nuclear reactors domestically, the Japanese nuclear industry is planning to go abroad to build nuclear reactors in developing countries, including countries in Asia. The Japanese government is actively supporting this by stating that it is “a response to global warming”17.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, reductions of CO2 emissions resulting from projects undertaken abroad can be counted as reductions in the emissions of the country investing in the project. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is one of the mechanisms adopted under the Kyoto Protocol. Nuclear power, however, is not regarded as a part of the CDM.

The Japanese government has decided on a policy to push for the inclusion of nuclear power projects under the CDM in the next round of the Kyoto framework18. By doing so, it hopes to encourage the domestic companies to invest in infrastructure for the export of nuclear power plants so as to create a favourable environment for nuclear industry to enter foreign markets.

However, the transfer of nuclear technology to developing countries is nothing but the export of an inefficient energy system. Since nuclear power requires planning decades into the future, if energy policies that include nuclear power go ahead, it will be difficult to change this path, thus societies based on massive energy consumption will be created. This is exactly what Japan and other nations with nuclear power plants have already experienced. Also, as mentioned above, more adjustment and backup fossil fuel plants will have to be built.

The introduction of nuclear power to developing countries will not help to reduce greenhouse gases. What should be developed and disseminated instead are decentralized systems based on renewable energy sources.

2) Do you believe that accidents like the Chernobyl Accident (1986) and the Tokai Criticality Accident (1999) will never happen again?

Our View:

Even conservative risk assessments estimate that the probability of a core meltdown occurring is once every 4,000 reactor years19. Such a risk means that if there were 2,000 operating reactors in the world, there would be one core meltdown accident every two years. Of course, past accidents demonstrate that Probabilistic Risk Assessment is incapable of accurately assessing the risk of accidents20.

The big difference between accidents at nuclear facilities and other types of accidents is that the former involve the release of radioactivity. In general, the core of operating reactors can accumulate as much as 1,000 times the fission products released by the Hiroshima bomb.

Therefore, if an accident involving the release of large quantities of radioactivity were to occur, the damage that would be inflicted on people, the environment, society and the economy would be orders of magnitude larger.

The whole of the Northern Hemisphere was contaminated with radioactivity from the Chernobyl accident. It is thought that the number of people who suffered as a result of the accident exceeded 7 million21, but there is considerable variation in estimates of the number of cancer deaths22. The Chernobyl Forum estimated that only 4,000 people would die of cancer as a result of the accident23. One reason for this very low estimate was the extremely restricted target population. Greenpeace, for example, estimated that 93,000 would die of cancer as a result of the Chernobyl accident24.

In regard to the damage caused by this accident, you said, “If the dam burst, perhaps as many as a million people would be killed in the wave of water … Many think that tens of thousands if not millions died as a result of the Chernobyl accident. As we will see, it was no more than seventy-five.”25 In the first place, comparing the number of deaths resulting from the breach of a dam with the number resulting from a nuclear accident goes against scientific common sense. Secondly, it is not possible to assess the damage from an accident involving radioactivity from the number of cancer deaths alone. An increase in the rate of thyroid cancer amongst young people has been confirmed in the affected regions and a wide range of other physical and psychological impacts has been reported26. Furthermore, the survivors suffer from direct and indirect effects, which they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.

If there is an expansion of nuclear power, the risk of a serious accident like this occurring again somewhere in the world will increase. This is especially true for earthquake prone countries like Japan. To prevent ever more people becoming nuclear victims, we believe that energy policies must be changed. Policies must be chosen which do not make us dependent on nuclear energy.

3) How do you propose that low, medium and high-level radioactive waste, accumulated as a result of the operation of nuclear reactors, should be disposed of?

Our View:

Many developing countries will soon begin building up their energy systems in earnest. On the other hand, developed countries are approaching a period when they will have to replace aging buildings and power plants. Hence, the choices of energy systems and energy sources that are made now have great significance in the context of our response to global warming.

One of our reasons for not supporting nuclear energy as a viable energy choice is that the waste it produces is radioactive. When nuclear power plants end their operating lives, the buildings and equipment, including but not limited to the reactor itself, become huge piles of radioactive waste.

All countries that have introduced nuclear energy have postponed the problem of dealing with radioactive waste to a future date. For most countries there is no prospect that they will establish a disposal site for high-level waste (spent nuclear fuel and vitrified high-level waste) anytime soon. The method proposed in existing plans is geological disposal, but it will be millions of years before the radioactivity contained in the waste will decrease to the point where it can be said to be harmless. During that period, the possibility that massive earthquakes and upheavals will cause changes in the earth’s crust cannot be eliminated. There are also other dangers posed by contamination of ground water and the possibility of terrorism27.

Expanding nuclear power means generating more and more radioactive waste, which will be handed down as a legacy to future generations. We cannot consent to such an irresponsible “response to global warming”.

You have proposed disposing of high-level radioactive waste in tropical forests28. Tropical forests are the most biologically diverse places on earth and their ecosystems are extremely fragile. By absorbing carbon dioxide, they also help maintain the balance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is inconceivable that a huge radioactive waste disposal facility could be built without destroying the surrounding forest. The destruction of the forest would probably actually exacerbate global warming.

4) What is your view on the dangers of nuclear proliferation and terror?

Our View:

The expansion of nuclear energy is one of the biggest threats to global security. You claim that nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants are different29. However, if one looks at the history of the development of nuclear weapons, one sees that nuclear energy was a bi-product of nuclear weapons production. The basic principles, the ingredients and the processes are the same. What will happen if lots of countries introduce technology and equipment for nuclear power, train nuclear scientists and engineers and obtain large quantities of nuclear material? It is impossible to deny that nations and sub-national groups with the necessary specialist knowledge and skills and access to such equipment and material could make a nuclear weapon. The history of nuclear proliferation is testimony to this fact.

Not only plutonium and highly enriched uranium, but also materials such as low, medium and high-level radioactive waste can be used as weapons ingredients. Explosive devices containing radioactive materials are called “radiological weapons” or “dirty bombs”. They use conventional explosives to disperse radioactivity. Thus there is an inextricable link between the spread of nuclear power and the proliferation of nuclear and radiological weapons.

If nuclear power is expanded, safeguards and protection of nuclear materials must also be strengthened. This costs money and uses up human resources. Furthermore, it will no doubt be necessary to constrain human freedoms. Above all, it will be necessary to maintain a continual state of alert throughout the whole world for military or terror attacks aimed at nuclear facilities and nuclear materials30.

5) Are you aware that the overwhelming favouritism towards nuclear power is holding back the development and introduction of other alternative energy sources?

Our View:

You have said, “The nuclear industry can hardly afford pro-nuclear demonstrations and advertisements”, whereas “….the true costs [of renewable energy] have been hidden from the public by subsidies and the distortion of market forces through legislation.” 31 This is far removed from the true situation.

Governments and nuclear industry in countries which have introduced nuclear power go to great lengths to promote public acceptance of nuclear energy. One example of the scale of these efforts are the advertisements placed by the Japan Atomic Energy Relations Organization (JAERO) in all the major Japanese newspapers, in particular the full-page advertisement featuring your photograph and lecture.

It is also well known that countries which have introduced nuclear power have given it extremely favourable treatment. The Japanese government has placed nuclear power as national energy policy, poured vast amounts of taxpayers’ money into its research and development, and granted subsidies to regions which accept nuclear facilities. At the same time it has also borne the economic risks associated with nuclear power. The title of a Japanese policy document published in 2006 translates as “Nuclear Energy Nation-Building Plan”. This plan and the Basic Energy Plan, as amended in March 2007, indicate that nuclear power will receive even more favourable treatment in future.

As mentioned above, nuclear power cannot exist without a long-term plan. For this reason the extreme favouritism towards nuclear energy deprives energy planning of any flexibility. Development of renewable energy and decentralized energy system, which should by rights be the pillars of our response to climate change, are overwhelmed by this favouritism towards nuclear energy.

In 2004, for example, 64 percent of Japan’s budget for energy research and development went to nuclear energy. By contrast, renewable energy (commonly referred to as “natural energy” in Japan, but referred to as “new energy” by the government) received a mere 8 percent32.

6) You see fission energy as a provisional power source until fusion energy becomes practical. When do you predict that electricity produced from nuclear fusion will be supplied to national electricity grids?

Our View:

Neither uranium nor fossil fuels are inexhaustible resources. Consequently, countries which introduced nuclear power originally planned to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, extract the plutonium and burn it in fast breeder reactors. In this way, it was claimed, energy from nuclear fission could be used for thousands of years.

However, most countries have withdrawn from the reprocessing and fast breeder reactor path. This is because problems such as cost, technical difficulties, radioactive contamination, radioactive waste, the risk of nuclear proliferation, and so on are incomparably greater than if only uranium fuel is used.

Japan alone, under the name of “response to global warming”, has continued to pour huge sums of public money into research and development for this program33. Nevertheless, according to government estimates, the fast breeder reactor cycle will not replace light water reactors until next century at the earliest34. In the first place, it has not even been established that it is possible to breed plutonium effectively.

You speak as if electricity produced from nuclear fusion will, in the near future, be supplied to national grids35. If human beings wish to use fusion energy, they must induce a fusion reaction between two hydrogen isotopes, deuterium (2H) and tritium (3H) (the so-called “D-T reaction”). However, there is at present no material on earth capable of withstanding for any length of time the intense neutron radiation which accompanies this reaction. For the foreseeable future it will be impossible to build commercial scale fusion reactors, so there is no possibility that fusion will become a major source of energy. The only conceivable large-scale use of fusion energy is in thermonuclear weapons.

You also claim that fusion energy does not produce significant amounts of radioactive waste. In fact, large quantities of radioactive waste contaminated with tritium and other radionuclides will be produced36.

Fusion reactors and fast breeder reactors are no more than desk-top schemes. Wasting huge amounts of time and money developing such technologies actually obstructs the introduction of the radical measures for climate change required now.

7) You say that renewable energy is impractical. Please tell us why you think so.

Our View:

You say, “almost every engineering development … took about forty years to pass from open enthusiasm to widespread application in the first world” and reject renewable energy as “a romantic, impractical dream” 37.

In fact, renewable energy is now one of the fastest growing industries. For example, wind power has grown at a rate of over 30 per year for the last few years38.

Germany is the leader in the field. In the 1990s it passed legislation to broaden the market penetration of sustainable energy. This led to a wind power boom and by 2006 wind power had grown to 5 percent of total electricity supplied39. By 2020 the German government aims to increase this to 20 percent and to increase total renewable energy to 26 percent40. Judging from the record to date, attainment of these targets seems assured. The Germany’s Atomic Act stipulates phase out of nuclear power (currently 30 percent of electricity supply), but it is reasonable to expect that renewable energy and energy conservation will amply make up for this.

Examples of other countries which have increased the use of wind power by adopting similar policies to Germany include USA, Denmark., Spain and India. Thanks to this rapid market expansion, costs of wind power have fallen 20 percent in the last few years and in some countries it is already competitive with conventional electricity sources41.

Germany also passed Japan in cumulative installed capacity of solar power to become number one in the world in 2005. This was a result of policies promoting the introduction of renewable energy.

The cost of solar electricity systems is coming down as a result of large-scale production. According to the leading Japanese photovoltaics maker, residential solar power systems today are one third of the price that they were ten years ago42. If policies promoting the spread of such systems are introduced, it can be expected that the cost will fall further.

In addition, if the use of fuel cells spreads, the growth of micro-power, a key element of decentralized energy systems, will jump.

In Japan, however, which places nuclear power at the center of its response to climate change, the renewable energy obligation is now a tiny 1.35 percent of total electricity sales and the target for 2014 is just 1.63 percent43.

It is clear from the above that renewable energy is not impractical. It is utterly practical. The expansion of renewable energy is not a technical problem. It is a policy problem.

8) A safer and more reliable climate change response exists. Do you nevertheless believe that nuclear power is essential?

Our View:

The most effective ways to minimize climate change are energy conservation and the spread of renewable energy. These can be achieved through distributed energy systems. Since climate change was recognized as a real threat, renewable energy has been growing rapidly throughout the world, particularly in Europe. This is largely due to the fact that these technologies emit essentially no carbon dioxide, but it is also because they are superior to nuclear power in terms of cost and the time required to install them. They also have many other benefits, including increasing energy independence and promoting the development of local industry and employment.

You say that the success or failure of responses to global warming depends on how appropriately we make use of science and technology44. However, as argued above, the science and technology which should be used are not the massive scale science and technology represented by nuclear energy.


Footnotes:

1. Yomiuri Newspaper, 29 October 2006. Japan Atomic Energy Relations Organization (JAERO) advertisement. The original source is a Japanese translation of a keynote speech by Professor Lovelock at the Nuclear Energy Day symposium in 2006.

2. Yomiuri Newspaper, 29 October 2006.

3. Mainichi Newspaper, 11 September 2004.

4. Nuclear Policy Issues and Responses: Nuclear Power Nation Plan, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), 2007. See website of document in Japanese

Click to access zenntai.pdf

5. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Summary for Policymakers), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), February 2007.

6. Energy Technology Perspectives 2006, International Energy Agency (IEA), 2006.

7. Mycle Schneider et al., ‘The World Nuclear Industry Status Report’, 2004

8. IEA, op.cit.,

9. IEA, op.cit., ‘Japan 2050–Scenario for a Low-Carbon Society: Examining Possibilities for 70% Reduction of Global Warming Gases’, National Institute for Environmental Studies (Japan), 2007, Energy [r]evolution, Greenpeace & European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), 2007.

10. Greenpeace and EREC, op.cit.,p21

11. ‘State of progress of specific measures and policies under the Plan for Achieving Kyoto Protocol Targets’, METI, 26 March, 2007.

12. In 2002, voluntary safety inspection data were found to have been falsified at three nuclear reactors of Tokyo Electric’s Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant. As a result, all 17 of Tokyo Electric’s nuclear power plants where shut down until May 2003 in order to undergo comprehensive inspections.

13. In August 2004, an accident at Kansai Electric’s Mihama Nuclear Power Plant Unit killed 5 and injured 6 workers. The accident occurred when a carbon steel pipe carrying hot water under high pressure burst. The utility was aware the pipe had not been inspected since start-up of the plant 28 years earlier, but had chosen to delay inspection until the next outage.

14. The rise in green house gases emissions due to unscheduled shutdown of nuclear power plants was 4.8% in 2003 and 2.8% in 2004. Data from Ministry of Environment (MoE) Japan, Central Environmental Council, Global Environment Committee, June 2006, and MoE data published 17 October 2006.

15. In March 2007, it was discovered that Hokuriku Electric had, in June 1999, covered-up an uncontrolled criticality accident due to control rod slippage. The accident took place during a periodic inspection (outage) at the Shika Unit 1 nuclear power reactor. Subsequently it was found that similar cover-ups of control rod slippage during outages had also occurred at Tokyo Electric, Tohoku Electric and Chubu Electric.

16. Global Public Opinion on Nuclear Issues and the IAEA Final Report from18 Countries, prepared for the International Atomic Energy Agency, GlobeScan Incorporated, 2005.

17. Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy, Japan Atomic Energy Commission, 2005.

18. New National Energy Strategy, METI, 2006.

19. NUREG/CR2497, NRC,1982.”One reactor year” signifies operation of one reactor for one year.

20. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), USA, had calculated the probability of the Space Shuttle Challenger encountering an explosion accident upon launch to be 10,000 to 1. The explosion occurred on the 25th launch.

21. Tetsuji Imanaka and Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center (CNIC) (eds) , Reconsidering Chernobyl, CNIC, 2006, p20. Between 1,000 and 2,000 plant workers and firefighters were onsite at the time of the accident and “liquidators” numbered between 600,000 and 800,000. About 120,000 people within a 30-kilometer radius of the reactor were evacuated and 250,000 to 300,000 people have left the “most contaminated areas”. There are still 6 million people living in contaminated areas (more than 1 Curie/km2).

22. See for example, the following estimates; World Health Organization (2006): 9,000; International Agency for Research on Cancer (2006): 16,000; “Chornobyl+20: Remembrance for the Future” Conference in Kyiv (2006): 30,000~60,000; Greenpeace (2006): 93,000.

23. Chernobyl Forum was made up of the IAEA, WHO, several UN agencies and the governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and the Ukraine. Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-economic Impacts and Recommendations to the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, Chernobyl Forum, IAEA, September 2005, p. 10. A target population cancer death assessment was about 600,000, including emergency workers, residents of the “most contaminated areas” and evacuees from a 30-kilometer area surrounding the plant. But 5 million people residing in “other contaminated areas” were neglected.

24. The Chernobyl Catastrophe – Consequences on Human Health, Greenpeace International, 2006.

25. James Lovelock, The Revenge of Gaia (Penguin Books:2007), p127-128

26. Tetsuji Imanaka et.al., Multi-sided Approach to the Realities of the Chernobyl NPP Accident: Summing-up of the Consequences of the Accident Twenty Years After, research supported from the Toyota Foundation, 2006.

27. Due to concerns about nuclear terrorism, the USA, UK, Germany, and France include vitrified high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel under nuclear material to be safeguarded. Japan is also planning to include vitrified high-level radioactive waste under the same category.

28. James Lovelock, op.cit., p117.

29. Mainichi Newspaper, 13 May 2006

30. In Japan, based on the Civil Protection Law, training assuming an attack on a nuclear power plant is carried out in host regions. Israel, Iran and Iraq have attacked each others’ nuclear facilities.

31. James Lovelock, op.cit., p107.

32. Energy Policies of IEA Countries 2004 Review, IEA, 2006.

33. Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy, Japan Atomic Energy Commission, 2005. India, Russia and China also have fast breeder programs, but, unlike Japan, fast breeders are not central to the energy policies of these countries. Japan’s FY2007 budget for its fast breeder program was 40 billion yen. The budget for the five-year period FY2006-FY2010 is 250 billion yen.

34. The government does not expect the fast breeder cycle to be in place and supplies of natural uranium to cease to be necessary until after 2100.

35. James Lovelock, op.cit., p115.

36. Petition by Masatoshi Koshiba (Nobel Laureate, Physics) and Akira Hasegawa (James Clerk Maxwell Prize for Plasma Physics Recipient, former chair of the American Physical Society Division of Plasma Physics) urging the Japanese government not to push for siting of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in Japan, 2003.

37. James Lovelock, op.cit., p108

38. Wind Force 12: A blueprint to achieve 12% of the world’s electricity from wind power by 2020, Greenpeace International, June 2005

39. Entwicklung der erneuerbaren Energien im Jahr 2006 in Deutschland,BMU,2006

40. Themenpapier: Windenergie, BMU,2006

41. Energy [r]evolution, Greenpeace, 2007.

42. Kouji Tomita, ‘Solar Energy Market’, a chapter in Energy Market of Renewables, edited by Tetsunari Iida (Tsukiji Shokan: 2005)

43. Special Energy Measures Act, METI, 2007.

44. JAERO advertisement, Yomiuri Newspaper, op.cit.

Statement by Japanese and Russian Environmental Groups: Consequences of Japan-Russia—Uranium Enrichment Deal

[For international release: February 28, 2007]
[Word version: 76KB]

Today the prime ministers of Japan and Russia are meeting in Tokyo. According to media reports, part of the negotiations will focus on a new nuclear agreement allowing Japanese nuclear material to be sent to Russia. It is planned that uranium extracted from spent nuclear fuel reprocessed in the UK and France will be enriched in Russia for use as nuclear fuel for Japanese nuclear power plants. Earlier this month, the Yomiuri Shimbun (1) and various Russian media (2)(3) reported that “Japan has entered into final negotiations that would see Russia enriching Japan’s uranium.

It is clear that the Russian uranium enrichment plant in Angarsk will serve as the main enrichment plant for such a deal, because the Rosatom, Russian nuclear agency, has announced that it is establishing a so-called “international center” for uranium enrichment at Angarsk. The aim of the center is to provide a guaranteed supply of uranium fuel for countries which do not enrich uranium themselves, including for countries under international sanctions such as Iran, India and others. Although Japan has an enrichment plant, the plant’s capacity is only a fraction of Japan’s total demand.

If a deal is signed between Japan and Russia, uranium extracted from Japanese spent fuel will be transported nearly 10,000 km to the Angarsk uranium enrichment plant near lake Baikal, a UNESCO World Heritage site. Transportation over such a long distance may become a target for terrorist attack, or cause transport accidents leading to large releases of radioactivity.

Uranium enrichment and the production of nuclear fuel result in enormous amounts of radioactive waste, which has to be stored and isolated from the environment permanently. According to Russian environmental groups, there is over 100,000 tons of radioactive waste already stored in Angarsk. The Russian nuclear industry has no plan for disposal of that waste. The waste is stored under the open sky in partly corroded containers and poses a threat of radioactive leakages. Such leakages may reach lake Baikal, contaminating the largest reservoir of non-salt water on Earth.

There are also concerns that Japan’s proposal to send uranium to Russia for enrichment could further undermine the international non-proliferation regime. Japan cannot be confident that Japanese nuclear material will not be diverted to Iran, or to other countries suspected of developing nuclear weapons. Russia traditionally uses its own resources (including down-blending of highly enriched uranium to the enrichment level of uranium fuel for light-water reactors) to meet its own demand. Uranium sourced from other countries is more likely to be exported. The inadequacy of IAEA safeguards in nuclear weapons states and Russia’s avowed determination to supply fuel for Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant are grounds for serious concern.

Local residents are totally opposed to the plan of establishing an international center for uranium enrichment and new enrichment contracts. Since December 2006, protests have been happening on a weekly basis. People are demanding that authorities withdraw from new enrichment contracts in order to stop the growth of radioactive waste stockpiles near the highly sensitive Baikal ecosystem. Both Japan and Russia must uphold democratic values and respect the wishes of the local residents. We call on both governments to withdraw from negotiations over enriching Japanese uranium in Russia.

Contact information:

Green Action:
+ 81-75-701-7223 or + 81-90-3620-9251
(Aileen Mioko Smith)
email: amsmith@gol.com
web: http://www.greenaction-japan.org/

Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center:
+ 81-3-5330-9520
(Philip White)
email: cnic@nifty.com
web: http://cnic.jp/english/

Ecodefense (Moscow, Russia):
+ 7-985-7766281 or 903-2997584
(Vladimir Slivyak)
email: ecodefense@online.ru
web: http://www.ecodefense.ru


References:

(1) Yomiuri Shimbun ”Nuclear fuel agreement mixed blessing”, 22 February 2007

(2) RIA Novosti ”Atomic power will be the theme of visit of Fradkov to Tokyo” 27 February 2007

(3) Newspaper “Vedomosti (together with Financial Times and Wall Street Journal)”, article ”Atomic power will be the theme of visit of Fradkov to Tokyo”, 27 February 2007

Letter to IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei: "Is the IAEA Safeguards Glossary’s MOX Conversion Concept Unrealisitic" as JNFL President Kojima Implies?

[PDF: 31k]

30 November 2006
Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei
Director General
International Atomic Energy Agency

Dear Director General ElBaradei:

We in the Japanese movement against nuclear weapons appreciate your tireless efforts against nuclear proliferation. We welcome you to Japan!

We are writing you to call your attention to a statement made by the president of JNFL (Japan Nuclear Fuel Limited) about the “unrealistic” IAEA MOX fuel conversion concept and urge you to clarify the IAEA’s position on this issue.

JFNL president Isami Kojima stated at the JNFL press conference in Aomori on the 24th of November that it is practically impossible to separate plutonium again from MOX fuel.*1 (This was in reference to the Rokkasho reprocessing plant.)

Mr. Kojima’s statement was in response to a question concerning the conversion times in TABLE 1. ESTIMATED MATERIAL CONVERSION TIMES FOR FINISHED Pu OR U METAL COMPONENTS in 3.13 Conversion time of the IAEA SAFEGUARDS GLOSSARY, 2001 Edition.

Mr. Kojima stated at the press conference:

“It might be possible in theory to peel apart the MOX fuel product again physically, but, practically speaking, it is impossible. It would involve all the facilities and end up redoing the reprocessing. However, when one looks at the facilities and the process, practically speaking it is impossible to separate out [plutonium] again from MOX fuel.”*2

We would appreciate greatly if you could clarify the position of the IAEA on this issue:

  • Is TABLE 1 of the IAEA Safeguards Glossary unrealistic?
  • Should we NOT worry about possible diversion or theft of MOX fuel since, according to the president of JNFL, it is “in reality impossible” to separate plutonium from MOX?

Yours sincerely,

Shingo FUKUYAMA
Secretary General,
Japan Congress Against A- and H-Bombs
(Gensuikin)

Hideyuki BAN
Co-Director,
Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center

Aileen Mioko SMITH
Director,
Green Action

Jun HOSHIKAWA
Executive Director,
Greenpeace Japan

Hideyuki KOYAMA
Director,
Mihama-no-Kai

Akira KAWASAKI
Executive Committee,
Peace Boat

Contact address:
Japan Congress Against A- and H-Bombs (GENSUIKIN)
5F Sohyo-kaikan, Kanda-Surugadai Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 101-0062, Japan TEL:+81-3-5289-8224 FAX:+81-3-5289-8223

cc IAEA Board of Governors


*1: Tooh Nippo newspaper of Aomori Prefecture, 25 November 2006.

*2: Record obtained from reporters who attended the press conference.)ess conference.)