March 5, 2010
Shingo Mimura
Governor of Aomori Prefecture
Refuse to Accept Low-Level Waste Returned from Overseas
On April 9, 1985, the late Governor Kitamura announced his acceptance of nuclear fuel cycle facilities at Rokkasho Village. However the enterprise has not proceeded according to plan. The reason is the immaturity of Japan's nuclear technology. This has become a fatal problem. The rate of operation of the uranium enrichment plant has fallen and completion of the reprocessing plant is delayed. The only thing that has proceeded according to plan is the receipt of radioactive waste, with the result that Aomori Prefecture is turning into a nuclear waste dump.
The people who 25 years ago promoted the construction of nuclear fuel cycle facilities proclaiming that the only way for Aomori to have a future was for it to accept nuclear fuel cycle facilities should reflect on their error of judgment. Likewise, it is clear that the government's judgment that construction and operation would proceed without problems was grossly mistaken. The reality is that the government's nuclear fuel cycle program itself should be reviewed.
Under these circumstances, we are amazed at the sudden application on March 1 for acceptance in Rokkasho Village of low-level waste returned from overseas reprocessing plants.
On March 1, Toru Ishida, Director-General of the Agency for Resources and Energy (ANRE) requested that you permit Rokkasho Village to receive low-level radioactive waste (LLW) generated at reprocessing plants overseas. Then on March 2, Yosuke Mori, Chairman of the Federation of Electric Power Companies (FEPC), and Yoshihiko Kawai, President of Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. (JNFL), requested that you agree to the establishment of a new facility for the receipt and storage of LLW on JNFL's property.
The waste in question this time is referred to as "low-level", but in the end it is destined to be buried underground and managed for hundreds of thousands of years in the same as vitrified high-level waste (HLW) canisters. When no disposal site has been decided, it is irresponsible for the government to request you to accept waste that requires such strict management, defending its position on the grounds that when reprocessing was consigned overseas a promise was made to accept return [of the waste], and using the one-sided argument that "international trust will be damaged".
It is also unacceptable that on March 3, as if anticipating your approval, FEPC and JNFL announced the plan for establishment of a new receipt and storage facility.
The plaintiffs group aims for a society without nuclear power plants. However, under circumstances where nuclear power plants cannot be closed down immediately, based on the principle of producer responsibility we believe that the nuclear waste generated during operation should be securely stored on the site of the nuclear power plant.
However, in regard to waste generated as a result of past reprocessing overseas, we question whether the waste being returned to each electric power company is their own. That is because during reprocessing each country's nuclear fuel was dissolved together and the quantity returned will be determined on the basis of the quantity of radioactivity in HLW. Nuclear fuel that was involved in an accident might be mixed in. Also the difference between civilian and military programs is unclear.
This suspicion applies to the vitrified HLW canisters that are about to arrive from the UK. Indeed it is doubtful whether the UK's problem-plagued reprocessing plant actually reprocessed all the spent nuclear fuel sent by Japan's electric power companies.
It is reckless to store such indeterminate waste in Rokkasho Village's nuclear fuel cycle facilities simply because the quantity to be returned has been decided. It cannot be said for either HLW canisters or LLW that the environmental impact has been adequately considered. It is nothing more than an out of sight out of mind approach to dealing with nuclear waste.
We believe that such a storage method should not be chosen for the management of nuclear waste. The reason is that it is not the end once this odious waste is buried underground. To secure the safe management of buried waste, stable ground is necessary. However, it is common knowledge that although you search throughout the whole of Japan you won't find ground without faults. Nor can the possibility be eliminated of an earthquake suddenly occurring and deforming the earth's crust in a place where no faults had been found. Therefore, it should not be buried underground.
Rather, all nuclear waste should be securely stored at each electric power company's nuclear power plant sites. No further nuclear waste should be produced and nuclear energy should be phased out.
In the first place, the acceptance of LLW generated through reprocessing overseas is not included in the basic site agreement and the safety agreement between FEPC and Aomori Prefecture and Rokkasho Village. Therefore, Governor Mimura should seek anew to come to an understanding with the citizens of Aomori Prefecture.
For the above reasons, we demand that you suspend delivery of vitrified HLW canisters produced in the UK. Also, in regard to the issue of the return of LLW generated through reprocessing overseas, we emphatically request that you reject the application to accept this waste in Aomori Prefecture.
At the same time, we request speedy answers to the following open questions.
- According to the plans of FEPC and JNFL, there is a big difference between the quantity of waste to be returned from France and the UK. Do you know the reason for this?
- Do you know why the two countries' reprocessing methods produced different quantities and material contents?
- What is the reason why, in barter for LLW, the government agreed to the return of HLW which was not by rights intended for return? Should not the principle of producer's responsibility be upheld?
- It has been pointed out that the LLW to be returned is more brittle than vitrified HLW canisters and that there is a greater danger of radioactivity dispersing in ground water. The search for a site to dispose of the glass canisters is delayed. Is there really no possibility that Rokkasho Village, Aomori Prefecture will be chosen as the final disposal site? Also, what is the area required for a disposal site for the returned waste?
- If the LLW is accepted, how much nuclear fuel tax is expected? Also, will nuclear fuel tax be applied to LLW generated at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant? Given that Aomori Prefecture is dependent on this type of money, we expect that our children will raise the issue of siting a final repository here. What is your view on this?
- It is predicted that the new receipt and storage facility in the Rokkasho nuclear fuel cycle facility will be constructed by 2018. Given that this will not be in time for the return [of LLW] from 2013, can one trust the central government, which is pressing for acceptance on the grounds that "international trust will be lost"?
- JNFL says that it cannot determine a concrete management method for the waste generated at the Rokkasho nuclear fuel cycle facilities as long as the government does not determine a concrete method. Do you know when a concrete method will be determined?
10,000 Plaintiffs in the Lawsuit Against the Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Representative: Koji Asaishi
Click here for background information about shipments of Japan's HLW.
Return to CNIC's Nuke Waste page
