No need to rush restart

August 9, 2014

As I See It: Don't rush decision to put Sendai nuclear plant back online

http://mainichi.jp/english/english/perspectives/news/20140810p2a00m0na004000c.html

The Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) on July 16 approved the upgraded safety features of Kyushu Electric Power Co.'s Sendai Nuclear Power Plant in Kagoshima Prefecture as meeting the agency's new standards. The focus will now fall on whether local governments will approve of restarting the plant. Because Kagoshima Gov. Yuichiro Ito has shown enthusiasm to push ahead, it appears almost certain that the Sendai plant will be the first nuclear plant to be put back online since the new NRA regulations were put in place.

However, a myriad of problems -- including questions about the efficiency of evacuation plans and the sufficiency of measures against volcanic eruptions -- surrounding the Sendai nuclear plant have been brought up. As such, approval of reactivation under current circumstances would undoubtedly be criticized as a snap decision.

In response to the NRA's approval of Kyushu Electric's upgraded safety features, Ito said at a regularly scheduled press conference on Aug. 1, "I believe it means that safety has been guaranteed from the perspective of the general public." While he did not directly discuss whether he would approve of restarting the plant, his pro-reactivation stance is evident from his remarks referring to "the existence of environmental and energy issues, as well as the government's current-account balance." The willingness to go forward with reactivation based on the NRA's initial safety approval is a revival of the safety myth of nuclear power.

Nine municipalities within a 30-kilometer radius of Sendai Nuclear Power Plant have designed evacuation plans for residents based on the guidelines for measures against nuclear disaster that were revised after the onset of the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant disaster. According to calculations made by the prefectural government based on these plans, it will take 28 hours and 45 minutes for the approximately 215,000 residents within 30 kilometers of the plant to leave that area by car.

The estimates operate on the premise that residents within five kilometers from the plant will evacuate first, followed by those living within five to 30 kilometers. But a staff member of the Namie Municipal Government in Fukushima Prefecture who experienced the Fukushima disaster first hand says that such a proposal is unlikely to be carried out as planned. It's hard to imagine that those living in areas over five kilometers from the plant will remain put until those closer to the plant are finished evacuating; people will likely try to evacuate at once, including those living more than 30 kilometers from the plant. Moreover, the possibility that main roads and bridges may be out of commission has not been considered in the calculations, leading experts to criticize the estimates as being much too rosy.

Evacuation plans for people in medical and nursing care facilities who require extra assistance have not been completed. Plans for 17 facilities (826 people) within a 10-kilometer radius were drawn up in July. Ito has said he believes that laying down plans for the 10-kilometer radius is sufficient, and that devising plans for all facilities within 30 kilometers of the plant is unrealistic.

Indeed, securing evacuation sites for the approximately 10,000 people at all 244 facilities within 30 kilometers of the plant is not an easy task. There hasn't been sufficient planning for the evacuation of those who live at home and require extra assistance, either. That's precisely why we shouldn't rush to restart the Sendai nuclear plant.

Evacuation plans are not subject to the NRA's safety assessment, so their effectiveness goes unchecked. The governor, too, has said that evacuation plans are not part of the criteria that must be met to restart the plant. But implementing effective evacuation plans should be a prerequisite for plant reactivation if one looks at the situation from the perspective of protecting residents.

The NRA's acceptance of Kyushu Electric's conclusion that "it is sufficiently unlikely that a massive volcanic eruption will take place while the Sendai plant is in operation" is also questionable. The Sendai plant is surrounded by multiple volcanoes, and is said to have the highest risk of being affected by a massive eruption among the country's nuclear plants. The NRA says it's possible to detect the warning signs of volcanic eruptions through close monitoring, but many volcanologists point out that it is incredibly difficult to predict massive eruptions.

Despite the many problems that remain, the governor maintains that only the consent of the prefectural government and the Satsuma-Sendai Municipal Government, where the Sendai plant is located, is required for the plant's reactivation. However, the Fukushima crisis has shown that damage caused by a nuclear disaster can span far beyond the boundaries of a nuclear plant's host municipality. The national government has not stipulated the parties that must provide consent for reactivation, but according to a Mainichi Shimbun poll taken of municipalities within 30 kilometers of the 16 nuclear power plants nationwide, 48 said that municipalities within 30 kilometers of a plant should have to provide consent before plant reactivation, as opposed to 18 municipalities, which said only the host municipality should have to provide consent.

In the Kagoshima Prefecture city of Ichikikushikino, located next to Satsuma-Sendai, a petition with the signatures of over half the city's population of 30,000 was submitted in protest of reactivating the Sendai plant.

"The voices of residents, who will suffer the most damage in the case of an accident, should be heard," says Koji Ueno, 61, who signed the petition and lives within 10 kilometers of the plant. But as of now, Ichikikushikino does not have any rights regarding the Sendai plant. It's unclear how the governor expects to reflect the will of the prefecture's residents in his final decision.

Hideyuki Hirakawa, a professor of science and technology studies at Osaka University, says there is a need to take more deliberate steps before making a decision on plant reactivation.

"It is important to carry out a careful process of gathering residents' opinions and wishes," he says. "There should be a forum in which experts who argue that the plant is safe and those who are critical of those claims can exchange their views, and assist residents in their decision making."

I agree. There is absolutely no reason to rush to a conclusion. It will take time, but the governor must present diverging views on the issue and provide a forum where debate can be carried out. And once that's done, there should be a referendum or other method for residents to express their will. That, I'm convinced, is the shortest route to extricating ourselves from the safety myth. (By Kenta Somatani, Kagoshima Bureau)

August 10, 2014(Mainichi Japan)