TOKYO Nov03-Feb04 No. 98 NUKECitizens' Nuclear INFO Information Center 3F Kotobuki Bldg., 1-58-15, Higashi-nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003, JAPAN URL: http://cnic.jp/english E-mail : [email protected] Abandoned plans for Suzu and Maki Plants: the beginning of the end?

The joy of the citizens of Suzu on hearing that the Suzu Nuclear Power Plant plan had been cancelled n Dec. 24th, 2003, This is the first time that a construction plan Company officially announced that it was has been abandoned for a nuclear power station abandoning its plan to build the Maki which was included in the government’s Basic ONuclear Power Plant in Maki Town, Niigata Pre- fecture. According to the company the proposal CONTENTS for the construction dates back 32 years, but if one Suzu and Maki Plants Abandoned 1-3 counts from the time when, in order to disguise its plan to build a nuclear power plant, the com- Recent Developments in Nuc. Fusion Research 4-6 pany bought land under the pretense of building a Open Debate re Fuel Reprocessing 7-8 health resort, the project is actually 40 years old. Leaks in Rokkasho Spent Fuel Storage Pool 9-10,16 However, in the end the resolute resistance of the Developments since Monju Court Decision 11-12 local people against the nuclear power plant pre- Anti-Nuke Who’s who: Misako Ogawa 13,16 vailed. News Watch 14-15  Nov03-Feb04 No.98 Nuke Info Tokyo

Plan for Electric Power Development and which Plant is a direct result of a decision on Decem- had already commenced the safety screening pro- ber 18 by the Supreme Court to reject a lawsuit cess. In the same month, on December 5th, the by the proponents of nuclear power. As a result Suzu Nuclear Power Plant plan (Suzu City, Ishi- of this decision, Tohoku Electric was unable to kawa Prefecture), which has been pursued jointly procure the land adjacent to the land where the by Kansai, Chubu and Hokuriku Electric Power core of Reactor Unit 1 was to be built. Tohoku Companies, was declared “frozen” by the three Electric claims to be utterly dissatisfied with this companies involved. In reality this means that the “disturbing decision”. However the Denki Shim- project has been abandoned. This is the first time bun newspaper, which reported about the court that any electric power company has abandoned decision in its December 22nd issue, anticipating plans on the basis of its own management deci- the official decision of Tohoku Electric wrote, sion. “Unlike the era of constant progress, during this That’s two “firsts” in a row. What these cases era of liberalization withdrawal is one possible have in common is that the resistance of the local strategy”. The decision of the Supreme Court was people for around thirty years prevented the com- a good excuse for withdrawal. panies from constructing the plants, until times The land which Tohoku Electric tried unsuc- and circumstances combined to encourage them cessfully to buy originally belonged to the town, to abandon their plans. In the end, their long but the Mayor sold it to members of an anti-nucle- struggles bore fruit. It is just as Yohsaku Fuji, ar group. His action was prompted by Japan’s President and Director of Kansai Electric Power first ever local referendum regarding the location Company (KEPCO), said regarding the Suzu of a nuclear power plant, conducted on August Power Plant plan: “The resistance movement was 4th, 1996. The turnout reached 88% and 61% very strong. Time was moving on, but we hadn’ of the valid vote cast (54% of all eligible voters) t even begun a location assessment. During that opposed the nuclear power plant. time energy demand has become sluggish. Price In spite of the criticism from the proponents of competition has become fiercer as a result of nuclear power that the Mayor sold the land with- liberalization. The circumstances have changed out the approval of the Town Council, the Mayor completely.” The same fate befell the construc- was re-elected and the Niigata District Court, the tion plan for the Maki Power Plant, which was Tokyo High Court and also the Supreme Court all abandoned with the safety screening process still upheld that “this measure, taken in order to abide on hold. by the result of the referendum, was in accordance The same “first time” situation is about to visit with law”. It could be said that, in effect, the the construction plans for other nuclear power Supreme Court itself concluded that the volition plants that have been blocked in the same way. of the people, as expressed in the public referen- This is the beginning of the end for them too. dum, had to be respected. The Mayor of Mihama Town (Fukui Prefecture) The thing which made the referendum possible announced on December 9th the postponement in the first place was another piece of land - not of a decision regarding a petition presented to in this case land owned by the local government, the Town Council in the Fall of 2001 requesting but land collectively owned by opponents to the the extension of the Mihama Power Plant. As nuclear plant. This piece of land was located on reasons, the Mayor cited the circumstances fac- the coast on the proposed site of Reactor no.3. ing KEPCO, namely the downward correction for This became a lever for the opposition movement, electricity demand estimates and cost competition because it halted the safety screening process. following the liberalization of the electricity mar- When the former Mayor, a proponent of nucle- ket. ar power, was about to sell the land in question to Tohoku Electric, the women of the town orga- Continuous opposition stopped nized a hunger strike in the entrance hall of the construction of nuclear power sta- Town Hall and workers organized a sit-in in front tions of the Assembly Hall, so that the council meeting The revocation of the plans for the Maki Power had to be cancelled. If just one element in this Nuke Info Tokyo Nov03-Feb04 No.98 

30-year plus struggle had been missing, instead the Secretary to the Minister of Economy, Trade of the plan being abandoned, the nuclear power and Industry made the following comment: station might be operating today. “There is a shift from increasing the supply and supplementing the quantity to lifting the quality Take the next step confidently of demand and supply.” The collapse of the plans for the Suzu and Evidently the times and circumstances have Maki power plants teaches us again the impor- changed. Let’s take the next step confidently. tance of keeping the campaign going and never (By Baku Nishio) giving up. Of course, the Suzu and Maki Nuclear Power Plant Datelines nuclear power problem is far from over. Nation- Year Maki Suzu Other 1965 Purchase of land for health Japan's first commercial wide there are more than resort begins reactor (TEPCO GCR) goes critical 50 reactors in operation and 1969 Newspaper article reveals the government is deter- nuclear power plant plan 1971 Tohoku Electric officially Power companies start mined to implement its applies to Maki Town maneuvering nuclear fuel cycle policy 1975 Local government requests First national anti-nuclear central government for site energy gathering held in no matter what. Neverthe- consideration Kyoto less, this experience clearly 1976 Kansai, Chubu and Tohoku Electric Power Cos announce shows that phasing out joint site proposal nuclear power is not “an 1979 Three Mile Island accident 1981 Included in the government's unrealistic dream”. Basic Plan for Electric Power The detection of the Development 1982 Tohoku Electric applies to ‘trouble concealment’ at government for permission to Tokyo Electric Power construct reactor 1983 Opponents unable to acquire Company (TEPCO) led to land. Tohoku Electric applies for suspension of safety the suspension of the oper- screening, advising ation of one nuclear reactor government of changed siting plan. after the other. In the wake 1986 Chernobyl accident of this scandal the problem 1989 Citizens stage 3 week action to block City Hall in response of the insecurity of nuclear to site inspection by KEPCO. power as a source of energy Inspection stopped. 1991 Growth in electricity demand supply was raised again begins to slow down last summer. Moreover the 1995 Attempts to sell town land to Liberalization of wholesale Tohoko Electric blocked by electricity begins. Monju blackout in North America opposition campaign. accident. Regulation for citizens' showed that a high depen- referendum passed. dency on nuclear power 1996 Representative of Citizens' prolongs blackouts. Referendum Action Committee elected Mayor. In an article in the Referendum held. Nuclear December 8th issue of power plant rejected. 1999 Mayor sells town land to JCO criticality accident Denki Shimbun, which members of Citizens' Referendum Action refers to the “freezing” of Committee . the construction plan for 2000 Governor of Mie Prefecture cancels Ashihama Nuclear the Suzu Power Plant, a Power Plant plan. staff member of the Agency Liberalization of electricity sales to large scale of Natural Resources and consumers. Energy is quoted as saying, 2001 Overwhelming rejection of nuclear power plant in “The notion that the con- citizens' referendum in struction of power plants is Miyama Town, Mie Prefecture connected to stable energy 2003 Nuclear power plant plan Nuclear power plant plan supply has changed”. And abandoned abandoned  Nov03-Feb04 No.98 Nuke Info Tokyo Recent Developments in Nuclear Fusion Research 1. Introduction - Developments regarding the sit- Even now, the level of public awareness in ing of ITER Japan of ‘nuclear fusion energy’ is very low. However, it was no easy task for propo- However the government and people in the nents of nuclear fusion to obtain an ‘S’ rank- field are continuing their steady behind-the- ing. The fact is that in January the Nuclear scenes moves to make sure that their efforts to Fusion Working Group, located in the Ministry promote nuclear fusion succeed. This they do of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and instead of providing accurate information to the Technology (MEXT), intending to site ITER public. This article reports on some important in Japan, put together a report stating that details that have come to light recently. national research into nuclear fusion should be prioritized. This was reflected in the 2004 2. Their strategy: priority is ‘S’ draft budget estimates. The Report says that On 17 October the Council for Science and ITER, JT-60 (Japan Atomic Energy Research Technology Policy, Cabinet Office announced Institute), LHD (National Institute for Fusion the 2004 Budget priorities for science and Science) and Gekkou-XII (Osaka University) technology. These relate to the major policies should all be prioritized and that all other uni- included in the draft estimates and are ranked versity research facilities should be eliminated. in four levels based on the level of priority. It’s fair to say that they have begun to genu- The Council for Science and Technology Poli- inely think about ITER, but with big science, cy was established in 2001 to complement the research loses its flexibility and original purity Prime Minister and Cabinet. Its role is to take of spirit. a broad view of Japan’s overall science and Regarding the ITER project, at the end of technology and to undertake comprehensive January this year the US returned once again to planning and coordination from a position one the project and in June South Korea announced level above the ministries. Consequently, rank- that it would participate. (Current partici- ings assigned here hold a great deal of signifi- pants are the US, South Korea, China, the EU, cance for researchers in related fields. Canada and Japan.) This was good news for This time it says of the Ministry of Educa- the participants, because the burden of the con- tion, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology’ struction costs decreased as a result. s ITER (International Thermonuclear Experi- Those who put their names forward to host mental Reactor) that “nuclear fusion is of great the facility were Japan, Canada and the EU, but significance as a means of securing future ener- MEXT’s Nuclear Fusion Development Office gy sources and that it is a long-term research made a prediction (Tokyo Shimbun 4 Novem- issue”. It assigns it the highest ranking, ‘S’. ber). Judging from the amount of funds con- The amount demanded is 858.8 billion yen, a tributed, MEXT concluded that Canada wasn’ huge increase compared to the previous year’ t a serious contender, so it was down to a one- s budget of 55 billion yen. ‘S’ is defined as on-one battle with the EU. At the time, the EU “specially important policies which should be had not yet decided between a proposed site in vigorously implemented”. This time they rep- France and another in Spain. MEXT predicted resent 16% of all items. that if the EU chose France the US would sup- port Japan, due to the fact that France opposed Nuke Info Tokyo Nov03-Feb04 No.98  the war on Iraq, but if it chose Spain, which located in the other. Whichever way the deci- consistently supported the war, the US could sion goes, however, it is clear that the ITER go either way. As it turns out, the EU chose the project is not only an energy problem. It is a Cadarache site in France. political problem. A ministerial level conference was held on December 20 and 21 (Japan Standard Time) to - Implementation of nuclear decide the construction cost of ITER. Accord- fusion and adapting it for a ing to media reports, a decision was deferred hydrogen energy society because Russia and China supported the EU, The government is also making preparations whereas the United States and South Korea for a time after ITER. This can be seen in the backed Japan. MEXT’s prediction wasn’t far Proposal to Accelerate the Implementation of from the mark it would seem. Those support- Nuclear Fusion (figure 1). Their idea is that, ing the EU pointed out that Japan has high in order to prevent global warming and at the labor costs and electricity prices, and that same time contribute to economic develop- earthquakes are also a cause for concern. ment, genuine market investment by, at the lat- The next conference is planned for February. est, 2050 is desirable. Japan has suggested that it might be willing to In other words, even before they have con- consider a compromise in which the project ducted any real ITER experiments, they are would be shared between the two countries. already beginning to plan for the next phase The actual reactor could be located in one reactor. Moreover they are trying to conflate country, while an information center could be that reactor into the prototype and the demon- Figure 1. Proposal to Accelerate the Implementation of Nuclear Fusion 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Current Plan

ITER Construction Basic Performance High Performance and Tests Engineering Tests

Prototype Reactor Engineering Construction Demonstration of Extended Performance and Design Power Generation Tests

Demonstration Power Reactor Industry Initiative to and Commercial Power Reactor Assess Potential for Commercialization of ITER

Proposed Plan for accelerating implementation of the Plan

ITER Construction Basic Performance High Performance Tests and Engineering Tests

Demonstration Engineer- Demonstra- of The Power System Studies ing and Construc- tion of Reactor Design tion Power Generation  Nov03-Feb04 No.98 Nuke Info Tokyo stration reactors. The physical behavior of the Indeed, even the manufacturers don’t seem burning plasma that is created by ITER is com- to be very enthusiastic about nuclear fusion. pletely unclear, so any plan to begin design at One person from ’s nuclear energy this stage is very rash. What they are trying to project section expressed an honest view at the do is to generate electricity as early as possible Cabinet Committee to Investigate Basic Issues and get some public recognition for it. Howev- Associated with Nuclear Fusion Research er, based on the size of ITER, a demonstration and Development. He/She would cooperate reactor would need to have a power output of as much as possible with development being 2-3GW, 4-6 times that of ITER. promoted as part of a national project, but isn’ These aren’t the only plans to bring nuclear t considering it as a future business area. The fusion into society. Studies about adapting reasons given for this were that, compared nuclear fusion for a hydrogen-based society are with light water reactors, reactor structure and also beginning. There has been research into control of the power output of the fusion reac- making hydrogen from nuclear fusion since tor being envisaged would be more complex, the 1970s. However now, as moves towards the materials to be used and the surrounding a hydrogen energy society centered on fuel equipment would be more expensive and more cells gather strength, these investigations are various, and power would be necessary for being recommenced. If it really proceeds in the facility and for start-up power. As if there this direction it will become a formidable plan weren’t enough problems controlling light indeed. water reactors, there will be even more prob- The reason for this is that a true hydrogen lems with fusion reactors. market will be larger than the electricity market Another big problem is that even though (because it can be applied to transport as well the level of radiation in the reactor core will be as electricity); it will be a global market (light very high, machinery inside the reactor core water reactor policies are different in each will have to be changed regularly. Exchange country); and there is the possibility that it will of machinery by remote control is envisaged. require a centralized heat source (in that case However hardly any technological develop- electrolysis using renewable energy would be ment for this has been undertaken. If a prob- insufficient). Of course, this is assuming that a lem arises, there will be no alternative but for hydrogen-based society really begins and that somebody to enter that dangerous place. There nuclear fusion is implemented. is no way that nuclear fusion can be called the crystallization of leading-edge technology. 3. The hard reality: not every- thing is plain sailing for promot- 4. Final remarks ers. In contrast with the past, the proponents of In March, Masatoshi Koshiba, a Nobel nuclear fusion are to some extent attempting Physics Prize laureate, and Akira Hasegawa, to come to grips with the social circumstances. former Chairperson of the Division of Plasma Until now they have taken the optimistic view Physics in the American Physical Society , sub- that if they simply built a nuclear fusion reac- mitted a joint petition to the Prime Minister and tor, society would accept it. Now they are related Ministers calling for reconsideration of sensing the need to make an effort to gain the the proposal to site the ITER in Japan. Accord- acceptance of society. Even greater vigilance ing to them, as much as 2kg of the hazardous will be necessary in future. substance tritium will be stored as fuel and (Tadahiro Katsuta, CNIC) 40,000 tons of radioactive waste will be gener- ated, so even if experiments are successful, it won’t be accepted by the public. Nuke Info Tokyo Nov03-Feb04 No.98 

Open Debate Held re Fuel Reprocessing

he chemical tests at Rokkasho have been pants in all. completed and the uranium testing phase From CNIC and Gensuikin were Mr. Koji is scheduled to begin in April. However, Asaishi (lawyer), Ms Miwako Ogiso (Fukui Citi- Teven among the proponents of nuclear energy, zens’ Congress Against Nuclear Power), Mr. Koi- calls for a moratorium have emerged. For exam- chi Hasegawa (Professor at Tohoku University) ple, the Young Nuclear Engineers Study Group is and Mr. Baku Nishio (CNIC) - altogether four one such group They propose a two year mora- participants. The discussion was chaired by Mr. torium, during which time an overall assessment Hiroyuki Torii from the Tokyo Institute of Tech- of the policy should be conducted. Their opinion nology. was scheduled to appear in the trade journal Gen- A brief impression of the debate would be shiryoku Eye (Nuclear Viewpoints), but the paper that, although it was an open debate, AEC didn’ rejected the article. t give much away. They were unable to give up Against this background, having organized front responses to questions that arose during the a ‘One Million Signature Campaign’, the Japan debate, such as the problem of the cost and the Congress Against A- and H-Bombs (Gensuikin) issue of plutonium supply and demand. Getting and the Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center through the debate with bland statements, present- (CNIC), both of which assert the need to rethink ing only the semblance of ‘direct discussion with the nuclear fuel cycle policy, succeeded in pres- the citizens’, is a pretty meaningless exercise. No suring the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) doubt the audience picked this up too.

From left: Kondo, Kimoto, Takeuchi, Morishima, Endo, Torii, Nishio, Asaishi, Ogiso, Hasegawa into organizing a symposium in Aomori City The arguments presented by each side regarding on October 11th under the title Open Debate: some of the main points of discussion are summa- Rethinking Reprocessing and the Nuclear Fuel rized below. Cycle. The debate was co-hosted by these three organizations. The same tired old arguments in It was the first time that such an event had favor been organized in this manner. Drawing about AEC’s explanation was presented by Com- 460 participants the event received widespread missioner Morishima. The basic gist was that by attention. The participants from the government 2030 energy demand will rise to 160% of what side were: Mr. Tetsuya Endo (AEC Chairperson’ it is today. This is because of increased demand s Representative), Ms. Noriko Kimoto, Mr. Tetsuo from China and India. Takeuchi, Mr. Akio Morishima (all Commission According to this argument, it follows that, members) and Mr. Shunsuke Kondo - five partici- from the perspective of energy security, nuclear  Nov03-Feb04 No.98 Nuke Info Tokyo energy must be pursued. Nuclear energy repre- no prospect of turning the Fast Breeder Reactor sents 13% of Japan’s energy supply. Moreover, Cycle into a reality, so a far more sound energy under the Kyoto Protocol Japan has undertaken policy would be, instead of pouring money down to reduce its CO2 emissions by 6% compared to that drain, to develop existing energy saving and the 1990 level. Expansion of nuclear energy is distributed energy technologies. factored into this figure. New sources of energy The more the nuclear fuel cycle is promoted, are important, but they aren’t a replacement for the more complicated it becomes. For every bit nuclear energy. of radioactive waste extracted, more complicated, By reprocessing spent fuel, the plutonium larger volumes of waste emerge. The danger of extracted can be used and energy consumption accidents and nuclear proliferation are increased. reduced. The cycle is incomplete for the time By abandoning the nuclear fuel cycle, it will being, but the intention is to use the plutonium in become possible to develop a flexible policy. light water reactors. Even so, uranium consump- Mr Asaishi’s argument was that there is tion can be reduced to some extent. Also, by already too much plutonium. The notion that by reprocessing, the quantity of high level waste can going steadily forward this problem will go away be reduced. It’s a little expensive, but if in the is nothing but wishful thinking. Even if Rokkasho long term uranium prices rise, this situation will becomes operational, it won’t be profitable, so it change. would be better to withdraw now. Spent fuel should be disposed of as is. Once Critique of rigid reprocessing pol- uranium tests begin, the plant will be irreversibly icy contaminated with radiation. In that case, the 2.6 Baku Nishio of CNIC and Aomori lawyer Koji trillion yen cost of decommissioning the repro- Asaishi gave presentations in response. cessing plant will be passed onto future genera- The gist of Mr Nishio’s presentation was that tions. AEC’s reprocessing policy is rigid in regard to its Which is preferable, to begin full-scale opera- direct connection to the objective of developing a tion, or to conduct a truly open public debate, Fast Breeder Reactor Cycle. There is absolutely based on the principle of freedom of information? no rush to make Rokkasho operational. There is (Hideyuki Ban, CNIC)

Participants at the“Open Debate: Rethinking Reprocessing and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle” held in Aomori on October 11th. Nuke Info Tokyo Nov03-Feb04 No.98 

Defective Welding in Spent Fuel Storage Pool at Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant leak from the Spent Fuel Storage Pool sibility that they would run into trouble when which occurred in Spring 2001 was dis- exchanging fuel, so the work at Rokkasho was cussed in NIT No.95 (May/June 2003). rushed. On top of this, when JNFL took over ASince then Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd (JNFL) has the facility from the construction companies, it continued its attempts to identify the cause only carried out checks selectively. and the places from whence the leaks came It speaks volumes for the flaws in JNFL’ and a report was produced in August last year. s quality assurance system that it could fail to According to JNFL, holes which went right notice such huge construction faults. through the Spent Fuel Storage Pool liner were found in six places and faulty welding was Chemical tests detect 300 defects identified in 291 places. Chemical tests of the factory itself were Faulty work was found not only in the Spent completed at the end of December 2003. These Fuel Storage Pool. It was also present in liquid tests were carried out at nine of the ten build- holding vessels for all sorts of solutions within ings and 307 defects were identified. No tests the factory itself. Of these, one hole penetrated were conducted at the Vitrification Building. right through and there were 57 examples of (In an earlier test using water and steam 1000 faulty work. Again associated with faulty defects were found.) In the Dissolver several welding, there were around 100 instances of thermometers, very significant instruments metal fittings that had been severed. The fit- from the point of view of safety, were incor- tings in question are metal plates embedded in rectly positioned. The Dissolver was installed the concrete that supports the fuel racks. in 2001 and a test was carried out by flushing JNFL has announced that it will redo all water through, but this problem wasn’t discov- the faulty welds where leaking has actually ered until the chemical tests in 2003. These occurred, as well as all the welds where leak- defects were fixed and tests were carried out ing could possibly occur in the liners of both again. the Spent Fuel Storage Pool and of the vessels. The correction of defects has not been com- However there is no guarantee that this repair pleted in the following two areas: (1) modifica- work will actually ensure the safety of the tion of the pipes used in the extraction of con- facility. centrated solutions from the Solvent Distilla- One direct cause that can be identified for tion Column in the 2nd Acid Recovery System the faulty work is that the construction time (this is scheduled to be retested before the ura- was extremely short. Despite the fact that the nium tests begin); and (2) a problem with the total length of welds in the Rokkasho Spent software which controls a locking valve related Fuel Storage Pool are 6 times that of a nuclear to protection against criticality accidents. This reactor, the time allotted for the work was is a big problem. They say it will be fixed and about the same as that for a reactor. It rep- retested before ‘active testing’ begins. Tests resents a complete failure of control of the using spent fuel are planned, but it appears that construction process. The reason for this is there are lots of problems with the safety of the that, due to the fact that Japan’s nuclear power whole facility and with the quality assurance plants have only small storage pools for their process. No doubt the defects of the inspection spent fuel, in several plants there was a pos- arrangements of the Agency for Nuclear and 10 Nov03-Feb04 No.98 Nuke Info Tokyo Industrial Safety, the organization with respon- new Governor Mimura have been supportive sibility for giving the final approval for the of the reprocessing plant, but they have also storage pool, will also be called into question. made critical remarks concerning JNFL, say- ing that, “Above all the soundness of the fac- Operational date deferred until tory must be assured.” In order for uranium July 2006 tests to begin, a new safety agreement with JNFL has lost the public’s trust as result of Aomori Prefecture is necessary. This is likely the leak from the spent fuel storage pool. The to generate fierce debate in the Prefectural response of both Aomori Prefecture and the Assembly and there is no guarantee that this central government to JNFL’s quality assurance hurdle can be cleared in less than a year. As for failures has been to set up investigation com- the only envisaged end use of the plutonium, mittees focusing on this problem. It is neces- in MOX fuel, there are no signs that either the sary, especially for the regional government of Fukushima, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa or Takahama Aomori Prefecture, to sign a new safety agree- Nuclear Power Plants will be able to use it. ment before the uranium tests begin. Until the That the overall nuclear cycle policy has stalled results of the debates of the investigation com- is now glaringly obvious and the argument that mittees emerge, JNFL can’t begin the uranium Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant is necessary has tests at the reprocessing plant. Furthermore, become thinner than ever. because it has become clear that the work to fix the leakage problem will take several months, Total cost of reprocessing 11 tril- in September JNFL announced that it would lion yen defer the commencement of operations at the There is yet another reason to abandon Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant by one year to reprocessing. In November the Federation of July 2006. This is the seventh postponement Electric Power Companies of Japan stated that and the original plan to commence operations total back-end costs amount to about 19 trillion in 1995 has been delayed by 11 years. How- yen (18.8 tril.). This includes the construc- ever the chances of JNFL running to time, even tion, operation, repair, dismantling and waste under this new schedule, are remote. management of Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant, The Governor of Aomori Prefecture (Continued on page 16.) changed in February 2003. The Executive and

Back End Costs (Figures inside brackets are in billion yen)

TransportTemporary of SF（920）Manufacture storageManagement Managementof of SF（1010） MOXTransport of fuel（1190） returnedBurial of returnedof ofHLW（190） HLW（300） HLW（2550） LLW（570）Burial ofDismantling, TRU（810） Handling & Disposal of UEF（240）

Reprocessing（11000）

Construction & Operation of Vitrification（1210）LLW（780）Dismantling, Handling & Disposal

Main Buildings（7060） （1550）

19,000 billion yen

LLW: Low Level Waste HLW: High Level Waste SF: Spent Fuel TRU: Transuranic Elements UEF: Uranium Enrichment Facility MOX: Mixed Oxide Nuke Info Tokyo Nov03-Feb04 No.98 11 Developments Since ‘Monju’ Court Decision by Miwako Ogiso (Head of the Office for the Accusers Group in the Monju Court Case) METI’s appeal to the Supreme Energy Commission (AEC), the Ministry of Court Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Tech- Concerning the Monju Fast Breeder Reactor, nology (MEXT) and METI have been snowing built by the Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Fukui and Tsuruga Cities with symposiums Institute (JNC) in Tsuruga City, Fukui Prefec- and explanatory meetings. And each time, they ture, on 27 January the Kanazawa Branch of take out a one or two page advertisement in the the Nagoya High Court ruled that the approval newspaper. to build the reactor was invalid (NIT No.93). Also, Fukui Prefecture is carrying out its In response to this decision, on the 30th of own safety investigation, independent of the that month the Minister for Economy, Trade central government’s investigation, and two and Industry (METI) appealed to the Supreme years ago, in order to carry out a detailed inves- Court on the grounds that the decision went tigation of Monju’s safety, it established the against a precedent set by the Supreme Court. Monju Safety Investigation Expert Commis- On 23 October, we the accusers submitted sion. There are five experts, all of whom have a defense to the Supreme Court refuting the towed the government’s line until now, so the government’s claim and saying that “the deci- result was obvious from the time the commis- sion is in accord with precedent, so there are sion was established. On 16 September they no grounds for this appeal, which is based on announced their conclusion that Monju is safe a distorted legal interpretation”. We proudly and called for public submissions. The final appeal to the general public to understand that report was handed to the Prefectural Govern- this decision is not in the least bit strange; ment on 14 November. The report was present- rather, that it is totally in accord with Supreme ed to Tsuruga City Council and the Prefectural Court precedents. Assembly. The plot is being laid so that, if a The government is preparing for the start mood for starting work can be created in the up of Monju before the Supreme Court makes Assembly, the Tsuruga Mayor and the Fukui a decision and is applying pressure to the Governor will be able to say that this is the Supreme Court to overturn the High Court’ will of the local people and that they have to s decision. On 27 December 2002 METI go along with it. This is the way things might gave permission to JNC to make alterations to proceed, even if they have to call an emergency Monju. These alterations are a precondition session of the Prefectural Assembly. for Monju to be restarted. Since then the High Court has handed down its decision, but this Discontented citizens has no force because it is subject to an appeal. MEXT is the department promoting Monju. JNC’s position is that it wants to get on with METI’s Agency for Nuclear and Industrial the alterations regardless of the court’s deci- Safety (ANIS) has responsibility for regula- sion. In order to commence work, agreement tions, so ANIS and the Nuclear Safety Com- from the regional governments is necessary, mission of Japan, in order to press the appro- so the government and JNC have joined forces priateness of the regulatory administration that to apply pressure to Fukui Prefecture and Tsu- they themselves manage, will give their full ruga City. Every month since June, the Atomic cooperation to MEXT. Of course the AEC will 12 Nov03-Feb04 No.98 Nuke Info Tokyo give its support too, so all these organizations decision should be respected.” However the will be encouraging MEXT. The full weight of Governor of Fukui Prefecture and the Mayor the government will be promoting the need for of Tsuruga have taken the view that reopening and safety of Monju. Monju and commencing alterations are dif- However, this type of a one-sided ‘expla- ferent issues. When the central government nation’, has been confronted with a severely has been pleading with them so much, one can critical populace at every meeting. So on 13 understand how they have become set in the September in Fukui City MEXT, for the first feeling that they have no choice but to agree time, held a meeting including their opponents. to the work. Nonetheless, there seems to be They hoped that that would bring to an end a significant difference between the stance of their maneuvers to persuade the public, but the Governor and that of the Mayor. The Gov- they met with fierce opposition at the sympo- ernor will not readily agree to an early restart sium. Faced with pointed questions and com- of Monju if the central government will not ments from ordinary citizens, the government provide a positive answer regarding the devel- was left holding its hands helplessly in the air. opment of the regional economy. On the other Unable to let things end in that fashion, they hand the Mayor, influenced by local business held a follow-up meeting in Tsuruga City on leaders, places more emphasis on the local eco- 25 October. They drafted some supporters to nomic benefits from Monju modification work speak in favor of reopening Monju, but more than on any economic stimulation at the prefec- people were opposed and they failed once tural level. again in their attempts to create an atmosphere of public support for reopening. Monju should be decommissioned At the local meetings in Fukui and Tsuruga The government’s Monju-centered nuclear cities on December 13, 2003, organized by the fuel cycle policy was drawn up in 1967. Since prefectural government in order to explain the then it hasn’t changed one iota. Despite the report of the Monju Safety Investigation Expert fact that times have changed so much, we are Commission, they were again unsuccessful in still faced with their stubborn fixation with this persuading the citizens. The majority of par- 35-year-old policy. It is precisely this state of ticipants expressed their dissatisfaction with the affairs which we must change. If we can’t do report. this, there is no future. 800 billion wasted yen Now the overwhelming attitude of the local has already been poured into Monju. That is citizenry towards Monju is, “The High Court all a burden that the public has to carry. has made a weighty decision, so obviously the Drawing attention to these issues, we appeal for Monju to be closed down. We must build up public opinion to place pressure on the Supreme Court to confirm that the permission granted to build Monju was invalid. To this end, on December 6, on the Shi- raki beach of Tsuruga City, with Monju facing them across the water, a Decommission Monju! National Gathering was held. There 730 participants expressed their opposition to the government’s stance and appealed to the local municipality not to go ahead with modification of the Monju FBR plant (Picture).

Picture :Author gave a keynote address at the national gathering. Nuke Info Tokyo Nov03-Feb04 No.98 13 Anti-Nuke Who’s Who Misako Ogawa A Municipal Assembly Member Campaigning Against Nuclear Power by Yoko Torihara* isako Ogawa has been working for eight years as a member of the municipal assembly in the city of MKagoshima, 44 km from the Sendai Nuclear Power Station. She asks questions about the power station at every assembly meeting. Her campaign to phase out nuclear energy is a political appeal through action from within the Assembly. Feeling the need to carry the voice of the countryside to the nation, she ran for a seat in the Municipal Assembly eight years ago. She has confronted the Mayor with incon- venient issues, such as truthful investigations was started in 1984. Then in 1986 the shock- of problems at power stations, the question ing nuclear accident at Chernobyl happened. of disaster prevention, the problem of school She began to understand that once an accident trips to the Nuclear Power PR Center and the has happened, the radioactive contamination demand for a change to renewable sources of crosses national borders and spreads to the din- energy. She has emphasized again and again ing tables of ordinary families. The effect on that, though in the case of natural disasters infants and children is especially severe. Out such as earthquakes and floods reconstruction of a feeling that something needed to be done, is possible, once nuclear power plants suffer an she launched an anti-nuclear power network of accident that is the end. Recently her influence housewives across the country. has spread across party lines to other council Since then she has undertaken a variety of members, and more and more questions regard- actions aimed at the phasing out of nuclear ing nuclear power have started to emerge. energy, adopting as her motto the slogan, “I Twenty-two years ago, shortly after her want to live without nuclear power”. Her eldest son was born, she happened to watch a efforts to expand the movement to phase out TV documentary which heightened her aware- nuclear power cover a wide range of activities, ness of the problem of nuclear power. She including opposition to the construction of new learned about the contract workers who carry nuclear power stations, to the nuclear fuel cycle out regular inspections at nuclear power sta- and to the export of nuclear power plants. She tions, but who are unaware of their exposure to has carried out research in countries that have radiation. The lives of these workers who have experience with phasing out nuclear power, she been exposed to radiation became her stepping- has organized lectures and film events regard- stone. She was shocked to realize that our own ing nuclear power and she participates in such way of life depends on the consumption of things as signature campaigns, protest adver- large quantities of readily available electricity, tising and protest sit-ins. Wherever alliances so she started anxiously reading lots of books can be formed with people pursuing the same about nuclear power. (Continued on page 16.) Meanwhile the construction of Sendai Power Station steadily continued and operation *Yoko Torihara is President of the Federation of the Opposition to the Building of Sendai Power Station. 14 Nov03-Feb04 No.98 Nuke Info Tokyo

Is Fukui Prefectural Assembly a response on Monju. For his part, Governor really prepared to oppose nuclear Nishikawa refused to budge from his position reactors? that he would make an “overall judgment” tak- On December 8 the Fukui Prefectural ing into account the Prefectural Assembly’s Assembly decided to press for the extension decision. of the Hokuriku Shinkansen (bullet train) The expansion of Tsuruga Power Plant was to Fukui Prefecture. The Fukui Prefectural included in the central government’s Basic Plan Assembly demanded that the central govern- for Electric Power Development in August ment approve the extension of this Shinkan- 2002 and in December the Fukui Governor sen, which is now under construction, to Nan’ and the Mayor of Tsuruga agreed to the Japan etsu and that it quickly commence work on the Atomic Power Company approaching the cen- line within Fukui Prefecture. It demanded that tral government for approval. However in work within Fukui be commenced at the same regard to the destination of the power, due to time as the Nagano-Toyama section. It stated reduced demand, Kansai Electric Power Com- that, “depending on the attitude of the central pany is showing some reluctance and is yet to government on this matter, we are prepared to make a request. oppose the nuclear energy policy in future”. It The Fukui Prefectural Government and Tsu- is possible then that the prefectural government ruga City Council are in conflict due to their might oppose the commencement of work on differing economic interests, but they are on the modification of Monju and the building of common ground in regard to their lack of inter- two additional reactors at Tsuruga (Nos.3&4, est in such questions as the need for and safety each APWR 1358MW). of nuclear energy. The Mayor of Tsuruga and the Tsuruga FEPCO reconfirms target for plu- Local Assembly are strongly opposed to this thermal power generation project, line of thinking. They take the view that this but . . . would amount to treating Tsuruga City with The Federation of Electric Power Com- contempt, given that the city is host to both panies (FEPCO) reconfirmed on December Monju and the Tsuruga Nuclear Power Plant. 19 that it would stick firmly to its target for They believe that the modification of Monju the pluthermal project. FEPCO originally and the expansion of the Tsuruga Power Plant announced the target in February 1997. would give a big economic boost to the Tsu- According to this target it would start in ruga construction companies and eating houses, FY1999 to use plutonium in two thermal which are currently languishing in depression. reactors and by FY2010 this number would On December 26 Tsuruga Mayor Kawase increase to between 16 and 18 reactors. How- visited Fukui Governor Nishikawa to request ever the plan to start in FY1999 collapsed and, that he promote the plan to build Tsuruga as of the end of 2003, the plan has not been Reactors 3&4. By indicating support for com- implemented. What was reconfirmed this time mencement of the modification work, the was merely the final goal of 16-18 reactors by Mayor also put pressure on the Prefecture for Nuke Info Tokyo Nov03-Feb04 No.98 15 FY2010. topes”; and (2) “sustainable development and Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), nuclear energy”. whose cover-up scandals at its nuclear facili- With regard to the first topic, the point was ties were exposed in August 2002, withdrew made that major users of radiation and RI are Fukushima 1 and Kashiwazaki-Kariwa from “outside” of the nuclear power industry, such the list of reactors where pluthermal was to as those in agriculture and medical care, and be implemented and also removed the word the importance of strengthening cooperation ‘implement’ from the plan. TEPCO has made with research and development institutions “the recovery of the trust of the local people its “inside” the nuclear industry was emphasized. top priority task.” As for the second topic, there was a consen- Other than Kansai Electric Power Company sus that nuclear power is an important energy (KEPCO), which still maintains its plan to supply option in the Asian region, where there implement the pluthermal project in two reac- is such strong economic growth. There was tors at Takahama and the Japan Atomic Power also agreement that nuclear power should not Company, which plans to implement it in one be excluded from the Clean Development reactor at Tsuruga (both by 2008), the other Mechanism (CDM) in the second commitment utilities have no concrete plan, although they period (2013-17) under the Kyoto Protocol. say they will implement the project by 2010. At the meeting the participants agreed on a Electric Power Development Co. Ltd. (now new project for a discussion panel to consider trading under the name J-Power) has stated “the sustainable development of Asia and the that it will start the project in 2011 at Oma role of nuclear power”. Preparations for this nuclear plant, making it clear that it is unable to topic have been underway for the last two keep the 2010 deadline. There seems to be no years. The first panel meeting is scheduled to chance of them achieving this goal. be held in the early part of 2004. It is said that, as well as clarifying demand and supply of FNCA ministerial-level meeting: energy in Asia and greenhouse gas reductions “Nuclear power should be includ- resulting from nuclear power generation, the ed in CDM” panel will assess the use of nuclear power for A ministerial level meeting of the Forum for purposes other than power generation, such as Nuclear Cooperation in Asia (FNCA) was held for desalination of seawater and production of from December 2-4, 2003 in Nago City, Okina- hydrogen. wa Prefecture. FNCA is hosted by the Atomic Energy Commission of Japan, and the venue Nuclear reactor terror response: of the annual ministerial meetings alternates new organization formed between Japan and the other countries. It was ANIS (Agency for Nuclear and Industrial held in Thailand in 2000, Japan in 2001, South Safety) has made a decision to form a new Korea in 2002, and the next meeting is sched- organization in 2004 to respond to terrorism uled to be held in Vietnam. against nuclear facilities. Legislation will spec- The 4th meeting in 2003 was attended by ify steps that should be taken by companies ministers from Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, with nuclear facilities, such as electric power and the Philippines and vice-minister level companies. The new organization will inspect officials from China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thai- the protective systems in place at such facili- land, and Australia. At the meeting ministe- ties. ANIS is also considering the possibility of rial round-table discussions were held on two recruiting people with expertise in anti-terrorist topics: (1) “the increased social and economic measures from outside of ANIS. effects of the use of radiation and radio-iso- 16 Nov03-Feb04 No.98 Nuke Info Tokyo (Continued from page 10.) (Continued from page 13.) plus the MOX plant and the transport, storage goals, she will be there. and disposal of radioactive waste returned from After the accident at JCO, working with an overseas. Regarding the reprocessing plant, anti-nuclear power group she traveled to the so far only the construction costs have been city of Sendai every month for seven months to released. These construction costs alone keep distribute pamphlets about the danger of nucle- ￥ going up and have now reached 2.14 trillion. ar power and she was successful in initiating The total cost calculations for the plant are citizens’ movements against the construction of based on it operating for 40 years from 2006 Sendai Reactor No. 3. then taking 32 years to dismantle. In total, the She used the larger part of her bonus to print Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant alone consumes a picture book and a comic pamphlet, which 11 trillion yen, or 60% of the total back-end illustrates how we can live without nuclear costs. However this is only a very approxi- power. In all sorts of ways she continues to mate minimal figure. Future increases are appeal to the public to oppose nuclear power. inevitable. In regard to this enormous figure, The comic pamphlet has been distributed to Japanese power companies say that they have over 100,000 households. already reached the limit of the money they Her enthusiasm to “pool all our wisdom to are able to set aside from their own funds and stop nuclear power plants” has certainly helped that they will increase charges and also request to enlarge her mainly women’s network and supplements through the tax system. the vitality of her activities has become a great Solving the problems of repair of the leak- stimulus for the local anti-nuclear power move- ing pool and the huge waste of money is very ment. easy in our opinion. Simply abandon the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant. (Masako Sawai, CNIC)

SUBSCRIPTION Nuke Info Tokyo is a bi-monthly newsletter that aims to provide foreign friends with up-to-date information on the Japanese nuclear industry as well as on the movements against it. Please write to us for a subscription (Regular subscriber - $30 or ¥3,000/year; supporting subscriber $50 or ¥5,000/year). When paying in Japan, the subscription fee should be remitted from a post office to our post office account No. 00160-0-185799, HANGENPATU-NEWS. Due to costly processing fees on personal checks, when sending the subscription fee from overseas, please send it by international postal money order. We would also appreciate receiving information and newsletters from groups abroad in exchange for this newsletter.

Editors’ comments re this edition 1. Please note the new address of our English home page (refer top page). 2. We apologize for the delay in the distribution of this edition of NIT. We are in the midst of a change-over of editors. The new editor, Philip White, is an Australian citizen who has been resident in Japan for many years. He has been a volunteer translator for NIT in the past. This edition was a joint effort, with the previ- ous editor, Kazuhisa Koakutsu, helping during the change-over period. 3. We welcome comments and suggestions about the style and content of NIT. Please feel free to contact us. If you send an email message, be sure to provide a clear subject heading so that we can distinguish it from all the spam we receive. Translators: Philip White, Britta Hajek, Junko Yamaka, Kazuhisa Koakutsu Proof-readers: Yukio Yamaguchi, Baku Nishio Editors: Kazuhisa Koakutsu & Philip White