Japanese NGOs today sent a letter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Taro Aso, requesting that the Japanese government reply to six US Democrat Members of Congress, including Edward Markey, who had urged that plans to conduct active testing at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant be suspended. During these active tests, plutonium will be separated from spent nuclear fuel for the first time at this plant.
The NGOs also sent the letter to Ambassador Takeshi Nakane, Director-General for Disarmament, Non-Proliferation and Science. They requested that the proliferation implications of the Rokkasho reprocessing plant be considered during the Third Asian Senior-level Talks on Non-Proliferation (ASTOP), of which he is chairperson.
The meeting is being be attended by officials in charge of non-proliferation policies (Director-General level) from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries, Australia, China, Republic of Korea (ROK), United States (US) and Japan. The talks are being held in Tokyo today at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (main international conference room, ministry building south wing).
Edward Markey et al sent their letter to the Japanese Ambassador, Ryozo Kato on January 26th. They called on the Japanese Government to suspend plans to conduct active testing of Rokkasho in the interests of non-proliferation.
On January 27th, in response to media reports, before the letter was even received, the Japanese government promptly issued a statement in Japanese. However, an English response has still not been received by the Members of Congress. If a response has already been sent it should be made public.
The statement was issued by the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, and the Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry, but it fails to answer the concerns raised by Markey et al.
The NGOs requested that the implications of Rokkasho for non-proliferation in Asia and the world be seriously discussed at today's Asian Senior-level Talks on Non-Proliferation. They requested that the government reply to the six Members of Congress based on this discussion, responding to the specific issues raised in their letter.
The NGOs also requested that the Arms Control and Disarmament Division and the Non-Proliferation, Science and Nuclear Energy Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs be involved in discussions regarding a response to the letter, in view of the letter's reference to the implications of the Rokkasho reprocessing plant for nuclear proliferation. We understand that currently an official response is being considered by the International Nuclear Energy Cooperation Division. However, according to the Ministry's web site, this office has responsibility for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, but not for prevention of diversion of nuclear energy to military use. Clearly prevention of diversion to military use and nuclear proliferation are precisely what the Markey et al letter is about, so sections with responsibility for these issues should be involved in drafting the reply.
Due to the tardiness of the government in responding to Markey et al, we have sent them our own translation of the government's January 27th statement (see below).
The government's statement fails to provide a satisfactory answer to the concerns raised by Markey et al regarding Japan's growing plutonium inventory. They expressed their concerns about the existing stockpile and noted that "separation and stockpiling of further plutonium at a new reprocessing plant would not comply with Japanese policy." Japan's plutonium inventory now stands at 43 tons and will increase to about 70 tons by the end of 2010 if reprocessing proceeds as planned at Rokkasho.
The government's statement attempts to justify Japan's plutonium stockpiles by explaining that plutonium is not held in pure form, but as a mixed oxide of uranium and plutonium (MOX). However, it is a simple matter to separate plutonium from MOX. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regards MOX as a "special fissile material" and a "direct use" weapons-usable material. IAEA judges that it would take from one to three weeks to convert it into a metal for use in a nuclear explosive device.
We have requested that this press release be handed to the delegates to the Third Asian Senior-level Talks on Non-Proliferation. The Japanese request to which it relates was signed by the following NGOs.
Citizens' Nuclear Information Center
Greenpeace Japan
Peace Boat
Green Action
Contacts: Philip White (International Liaison Officer) 81-3-5330-9520
Hideyuki Ban (Co-Director) 81-3-5330-9520
27 January 2006
Agency for Natural Resources and Energy
Japan's view of reports concerning a letter from US Democrat Members of Congress calling for a suspension of plans to conduct testing at the Rokkasho reprocessing plant
On 26 January this year there were reports that a letter had been sent to the Japanese Ambassador to the United States, Ambassador Kato, signed by 6 Democrat Members of Congress, including Edward Markey, to the effect that due to concerns about non-proliferation they request that active testing of the Rokkasho reprocessing plant be suspended. (Note: At this point the letter has not yet been delivered to the Japanese government.)
The government's response to this is as follows.
Concerning Active Testing of the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant
27 January 2006
Cabinet Office
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
In regard to the commencement of active testing of the Rokkasho reprocessing plant, there were some reports that Members of the US Congress had requested suspension of plans to conduct active testing from the point of view of nuclear non-proliferation. Japan's views on the matter are as follows.
1. Japan's basic policy is to reprocesses spent fuel and effectively utilize the recovered plutonium and uranium, based on ensuring the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. This policy was reconfirmed in the October 2005 Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy as a result of a thorough comparative analysis of multiple scenarios.
2. Regarding the promotion of the nuclear fuel cycle, as a uniquely Japanese principle of enhancing transparency through the principle of not holding plutonium with no specific use, electric power companies, etc., published a plutonium utilization plan in anticipation of the commencement of active testing, in order to increase understanding and trust at home and abroad that Japan's use of plutonium is solely for peaceful purposes. The Atomic Energy Commission of Japan judged the information thus published to be appropriate from the point of view of enhancing the transparency of Japan's use of plutonium.
3. Furthermore, in regard to the Rokkasho plant, so that plutonium oxide does not exist in pure form, a technical measure has been adopted whereby it is mixed with uranium to produce MOX powder (mixed oxide powder).
4. Moreover, Japan holds fast to its three non-nuclear principles. From the perspective of nuclear non-proliferation, it has ensured the strict application of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards and national safeguards, which are based on the strict protection of nuclear materials and export control regulations. In regard to Rokkasho too, it is internationally accepted that it is possible to appropriately enforce safeguards measures in order to guarantee peaceful use.
5. Japan, based on its record and experience of the peaceful use of nuclear energy as a non-nuclear weapon state, intends to proceed with its nuclear fuel cycle policy, upholding both non-proliferation and peaceful use.
The above document was translated by Citizens' Nuclear Information Center (CNIC). CNIC only translated this document because of the tardiness of the Japanese Government in making its own translation. The government was very prompt in responding in Japanese, even before it had a copy of the letter from the Members of Congress. It is appalling that it should have issued this response in Japanese, but not promptly sent an English translation to the authors of the letter.
