Problems inherent to nukes not addressed

March 12, 2014

EDITORIAL: Government must face problems inherent in nuclear energy

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/editorial/AJ201403120037 

Communities became ghost towns overnight and now only an eerie silence prevails. In wind-blown shopping streets devoid of life, abandoned homes are becoming rundown and weeds are growing everywhere.

This is the reality of the Futaba district in Fukushima Prefecture, three years after residents were forced to evacuate due to the triple meltdown at the nearby Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

In the compound of the crippled facility, some 4,000 workers are risking exposure to radiation in their tasks, such as the battle to control radiation-contaminated water.

EVACUATION CAN TAKE DAYS

In a series of editorials we ran in July 2011, The Asahi Shimbun proposed that Japan should aim to become a "society without nuclear power generation." We argued in favor of decommissioning superannuated nuclear reactors and closing plants in areas where major earthquakes are anticipated. We also called for a speedy switch to alternative energy sources to end the nation's reliance on nuclear power generation.

We stand by those proposals. Moreover, we have since been able to determine that the time needed to rid our society of nuclear power plants is actually a lot shorter than initially estimated.

We say this because it is now clear that the feared problem of power shortages in summer and winter can be mostly resolved through conservation efforts newly rooted in our society and power-sharing across broad regions among utilities.

Yet, the Abe administration's policy is to continue to depend on nuclear power generation to some degree as an "important base load electricity source."

The administration intends to resume operations of nuclear plants that clear safety screenings by the Nuclear Regulation Authority. For all its talk about "reducing the nation's reliance on nuclear power generation," the administration clearly embraces restarts of nuclear reactors that are presently offline.

Has the Abe administration done enough to control the "nuclear risks" that became apparent following the Fukushima disaster?

Let's look at this in terms of disaster control measures and evacuation plans.

In the immediate aftermath of the Fukushima disaster, the evacuation of the Futaba district encountered serious glitches. Buses chartered by the municipalities to transport the evacuees failed to show up because drivers feared being exposed to radiation. Residents fleeing in their cars became stuck in huge traffic snarls.

Later, the number of municipalities that were obliged to devise their own disaster preparedness plans rose to 135.

They are all located within a 30-kilometer radius of nuclear plants. The central government's disaster management guidelines and manuals were also duly revised.

But most of those guidelines and manuals are nothing more than to-do lists, and even now not even half of the municipalities concerned have come up with specific evacuation plans.

The nongovernmental Kankyo Keizai Kenkyusho did a study to estimate how long it would take to evacuate everybody living within a 30-kilometer radius of 17 nuclear power plants. Naomi Kamioka, the institute's director, found that even if evacuees are able to travel on expressways, they would still need eight hours to flee the vicinity of the Oi plant in Fukui Prefecture and reach safety. In the case of the Hamaoka plant in Shizuoka Prefecture, the figure was 63 hours. If evacuees can travel only on ordinary roads, Kamioka found that it could take as long as six days to reach a safe distance from the Hamaoka plant.

These are only estimates, but the findings basically mirror other detailed simulations released by prefectural authorities.

Even though the Nuclear Regulation Authority and the secretariat of the Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Council are assisting local governments in drawing up evacuation plans, there is no system to objectively determine if their plans are really viable.

Given what happened in Fukushima, we suggest that some sort of "evacuation plan evaluation committee" be established. It would include transportation experts to examine the appropriateness of each municipality's evacuation plan and share that information with all residents living within a 30-kilometer radius of nuclear power plants. A system also needs to be set up that allows all local governments in areas near nuclear power plants to have a say in whether or not to restart reactors

.

LIMIT ON AMOUNT OF NUCLEAR WASTE

Radioactive waste is one potential huge risk that goes with nuclear power generation. If nuclear power plants resume operations, they will add to the nation's stockpile of spent nuclear fuel. This will be a problem as the spent fuel pool at each plant is nearing its capacity limit.

The government intends to set up a nuclear fuel cycle business by transporting spent fuel to the reprocessing plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, for recycling. Aside from the fact that nuclear fuel reprocessing is extremely costly, there are only three nuclear power reactors that could use the recycled fuel. Even if the reprocessing plant can be put into operation, it will contribute only to increasing the stockpile of plutonium.

And yet, there is still no site for the disposal of highly radioactive waste that is produced by reprocessing spent fuel.

The difficulty of disposing of radioactive waste is an issue that the government has been confronting for a very long time. After the Fukushima disaster, the Science Council of Japanproposed setting a limit on the total amount of radioactive waste produced through nuclear power generation. But there are no signs that the Abe administration has discussed this proposal in any depth.

COST OF NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION

This raises a question. Why does Japan need to restart its offline nuclear reactors? The government insists that not to do so would drain the nation's "wealth." But if the truth be told, what the government is really watching out for is the financial benefits for electric power companies.

With the yen weakening and the nation's nuclear reactors still offline, the utilities have been hit with rapidly growing costs of fossil fuel imports for thermal power generation, and their financial situation is worsening. So far, six utilities have raised electricity charges.

Without question, the effects of higher electricity charges on households and businesses need to be watched closely. And it is also a fact that restarting the idle reactors will improve the utilities' bottom line in the immediate future.

But when the costs of radioactive waste disposal and the risks of future nuclear accidents are taken into account, nuclear power generation will cost the utilities much more than what they are paying now, and the government ought to admit this fact.

The power companies that are considering reactor restarts as their foremost priority are quite reluctant to rebuild or improve their old, inefficient thermal power stations. They are also anything but ready to commit to switching to renewable energy sources. The Abe administration is supposed to be trying everything to secure alternative energy sources. But if it gives its tacit approval to what the utilities are doing, it will simply end up betraying the trust of the public.

The Fukushima disaster happened as a result of people in positions of responsibility refusing to face the problems inherent in nuclear power generation.

We just cannot allow them to keep doing that any longer.

See :

Science panel recommends delaying burying radioactive waste

September 12, 2012

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201209120009 

THE ASAHI SHIMBUN

Citing the country's geologically unstable archipelago as a threat, the Science Council of Japan is recommending that the government build temporary storage facilities to hold more than 27,000 cylinders of high-level radioactive waste.

The council on Sept. 11 completed a report that calls for regulating the total amount of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants and storing it temporarily.

The report pointed out the high seismic and volcanic activity beneath the Japanese archipelago threatens a burial site for the waste.

"There is a limit to what we can do with currently available scientific knowledge and technological capacities" to search out geological formations that will remain stable over tens of milleniums, the council said.

The report recommended building facilities for the temporary storage of nuclear waste, from which it can be removed anytime, although it could be stored there for anywhere from decades to centuries.

Scientists should use that time to study the stability of geological formations and develop techniques to more quickly reduce radioactivity in nuclear waste, the recommendation said.

The SCJ is a government-affiliated body of academics that makes policy recommendations. It submitted its report, which calls for a fundamental review of the current final disposal policy based on eventual burial in the ground, to the government's Japan Atomic Energy Commission.

The government's current policy specifies that all spent fuel from nuclear plants should be reprocessed. It says the high-level radioactive waste, generated during the reprocessing, should eventually be buried at depths of 300 meters or more below ground in Japan. This reprocessing policy is currently under government review, which started after the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in March last year.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan in 2002 started accepting candidacies by local governments willing to host a final disposal site. Only one municipality came forward in 2007, and it later retracted its offer.

To break the impasse, the AEC in September 2010 asked the SCJ to draw up a recommendation on the matter. The SCJ has since held deliberations in a study committee.

The SCJ's report also pointed out a lack of urgency at controlling the total amount of nuclear waste. It said the fear of an increase without limits lies at the bottom of public distrust of the government's nuclear power policy.

The recommendation said it is essential to set an upper limit on the total amount of radioactive waste and to implement controls to prevent it from increasing without limits. It said the current effort to decide on the ratio of electricity to be generated by nuclear energy in the future without discussing a cap on the total waste generated was tantamount to simply postponing the issue and called on the government to seek public input.

The government's current nuclear waste disposal policy assumes that the waste can be disposed of safely using established techniques. The latest SCJ recommendation, which said currently available technologies involve uncertainty and risks, is a fundamental challenge to that assumption and is a call for policy change.

The SCJ recommendation will be discussed by an AEC panel to revise the government's Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy by year's end. If any part of the SCJ recommendation ends up in the revised framework, it will be reflected in the government's policy.

In the past, the AEC was responsible for determining the policy. Following the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, however, it was decided that the government's Energy and Environment Council will first draw up the proposal, and that the framework will be drafted only on that basis.

The council will decide whether to incorporate the SCJ proposal in the Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy.

The SCJ recommendation pointed out that expert opinion remains divided over the assumption that it is possible to isolate radioactive-contaminated waste with certainty even in the event of an unimagined contingency or disaster. It will be difficult to select a final disposal site without forming a consensus during careful discussions by experts and sharing it through a broad public discussion.

Some countries overseas have decided on putting nuclear waste in temporary storage facilities instead of burying it immediately in a final disposal site. Canada, for example, in 2007 decided to store radioactive waste temporarily for about 60 years prior to its final disposal.

France plans to design a nuclear waste disposal facility so that waste remains recoverable for at least 100 years.

Japan possesses more than 2,650 cylinders containing vitrified high-level radioactive materials. It also has the equivalent of 24,700 cylinders of spent fuel at nuclear power plants. The amount of waste is expected to grow if the government decides to move toward zero nuclear power generation and to bury spent fuel directly in the ground without reprocessing it.

Temporary storage means passing the resolution of nuclear waste disposal to future generations. Even discussions on a storage site have yet to start. It is vital for policymakers on nuclear issues to offer solutions to the waste disposal problem.

(Jin Nishikawa contributed to this article.)