Time to admit problems linked to nuclear fuel cycle project

 January 8, 2014

Editorial: Gov't should acknowledge limits of nuclear fuel cycle project

拡大写真 

http://mainichi.jp/english/english/perspectives/news/20140108p2a00m0na010000c.html 

Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. (JNFL) has applied with the government's Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) for safety inspections of its so-called spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, which is the core of the nuclear fuel cycle project, and other relevant facilities, under new nuclear power regulatory standards. The company is aiming to complete the plant in October 2014.

The basic plan on energy, which the Cabinet of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is set to approve later this month, states that the government will steadily promote the nuclear fuel cycle project, thus expressing firm support for the start of the reprocessing plant.

The project, in which plutonium is extracted from spent nuclear fuel and reused in nuclear reactors, has been part of Japan's energy policy for many years.

However, there are problems involving the project from the viewpoint of safety, economic efficiency and nuclear non-proliferation. The project would be unnecessary if the government is to decrease Japan's reliance on atomic power. The government should put an end to the nuclear fuel cycle policy and disapprove of the operation of the reprocessing plant.

The construction of the reprocessing plant got under way in 1993 and was to be completed in 1997. However, the completion of the work has been postponed 20 times because of a series of technical problems. The construction costs, which were initially estimated at about 760 billion yen, have snowballed to around 2.2 trillion yen.

Since the plant is supposed to deal with a massive amount of radioactive substances, the new regulatory standards require its operator to be prepared for powerful earthquakes, high tsunami and severe accidents and terrorist attacks to the same degree as nuclear power stations. JNFL estimates that additional measures it needs to take to meet the new standards will cost it approximately 30 billion yen.

An 85-kilometer fault lies on the outer edge of a continental shelf off the Shimokita Peninsula, where the reprocessing plant and other nuclear-related facilities are concentrated. While JNFL and other entities deny that the fault is active, the NRA is currently surveying the subsurface structure of the Shimokita Peninsula. Depending on the results of the survey, JNFL could be required to take further countermeasures against possible powerful temblors.

Even if the operation of the plant starts, there is currently no reactor where extracted plutonium can be burned. The prototype fast-breeder reactor Monju, which uses plutonium, remains idled following revelations that mechanics failed to sufficiently inspect it. The NRA has not given the green light for work to prepare for the restarting of Monju. Nor are there any prospects that a project to burn plutonium in conventional nuclear reactors can be put to practical use in the foreseeable future.

If Japan is to stockpile a massive amount of plutonium which can be used as a material for nuclear weapons, it would raise grave concerns in the international community, and increase the risk of terrorist attacks.

Questions also remain as to the economic efficiency of the nuclear fuel cycle project. A subcommittee of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission concluded in 2012 that disposing a full amount of spent nuclear fuel is cheaper than fully reprocessing such radioactive waste or a combination of disposal and reprocessing.

However, if Japan is to abandon the nuclear fuel cycle project, it would invite protests from Aomori Prefecture that has allowed spent nuclear fuel to be stored in its territory on the assumption that the radioactive waste will be reprocessed. Therefore, the national government has no choice but to provide a detailed explanation to local bodies hosting relevant facilities as well as the public to seek a consensus.

In Japan, most of the spent nuclear fuel is being stored in pools, but so-called dry storage, or storing radioactive waste in air-cooled metal containers, is much safer. Such being the case, dry storage could be a temporary method of storing such waste until final disposal.

Furthermore, one cannot help but wonder whether electric power consumers, who benefit from nuclear plants, should bear a certain burden of dealing with spent nuclear fuel instead of leaving the matter entirely to the communities hosting atomic power stations. In-depth debate should be held on how the nation should share the burden of storing and disposing of radioactive waste.