March 10, 2010

Shingo Mimura
Governor of Aomori Prefecture

Petition Concerning Nuclear Energy

Our committee opposes construction and operation of nuclear facilities in Aomori Prefecture. We submit this petition to you as a protest against your approval of yesterday's delivery of vitrified high-level radioactive waste (HLW) canisters from the UK and your commencement of consideration of the acceptance of low-level radioactive waste (LLW).

First, in regard to the first delivery of vitrified HLW canisters from the UK, the reprocessing plant has been plagued with accidents and, as we have pointed out before, there are doubts about the integrity of the vitrified HLW canisters. It is, therefore, doubtful whether the material that was returned to Japan was the material that was supposed to be returned to Japan. Was not other countries' waste foisted upon us under the claim that it came from Japan's spent nuclear fuel?

As a precaution against terrorism, information about the shipment of these technically dubious vitrified HLW canisters, including the arrival date and time, was not made public. However, it was only the public that was not informed. The government received the information. That is why last week the Federation of Electric Power Companies (FEPC) and government officials applied to you for site planning approval. In other words, the people who could not be told were the citizens, because there is a notion that there are terrorists among the citizenry. As a consequence, users of Route 338, who could not know in advance when the shipment would arrive, were caught in the situation where they had to watch the HLW canisters drive by. At the same time, they were exposed to skyshine radiation. We strongly protest your approval of this shipment.

In regard to the return from overseas of LLW, given that the late Governor Kitamura himself invited these facilities over 25 years ago, you may be aware that this was foreseen. It is recorded in the writings of the late Deputy Governor Yamauchi that Governor Kitamura, who sounded out the possibility of siting a reprocessing plant, also requested the addition of a uranium enrichment plant and took on the low-level and high-level waste facilities as well. However, this [history] is not known to the residents of Aomori Prefecture. First of all, therefore, efforts should be made to gain the agreement of the residents before deciding whether or not to accept nuclear waste from overseas other than HLW. In light of this [history], statements by the Minister et al to the effect that your consideration is a first step towards acceptance by Aomori Prefecture are a slight on the citizens of Aomori. We strongly protest this [treatment].

At the end of February, Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd, (JNFL) released a series of reports about the bad state of the HLW vitrification process. The review of these reports continued until yesterday and JNFL will adopt measures hereafter. We do not have information about the nature of the review. JNFL was required to submit the reports, but there have been examples in the past of reports being redone on the basis of reviews. Therefore, bearing in mind that nothing is solved by the submission of these reports, we strongly request that you respond cautiously.

We request speedy answers to the following open questions.

1. Aomori Prefecture's Nuclear Administration
   In regard to the "Agreement on Safety and Environmental Protection of the Region Around the Rokkasho Uranium Enrichment Plant", there is no section concerning the enrichment method, or how to deal with changes to the enrichment method. Will not the Agreement be changed in the context of a change of enrichment method?
   How will waste from dismantlement be stored? Also, what are your views in regard to radioactivity concentration and exposure to radiation and future disposal of waste? Please clarify the Prefecture's position on these matters.
   
2. What is the Prefecture's position regarding the third leak of HLW liquid?
   Is it sufficient that JNFL submitted a report to the Nuclear Industrial and Safety Agency (NISA)?
   What is you opinion of the character of JNFL?
   Will the Prefecture accept that it is safe, if the central government says it is safe? We believe that the Prefecture should establish its own safety committee to assure the safety and confidence of the Prefecture's residents. What is your opinion on this?
   
3. It is said that JNFL's President explained the background to you. Every time there is an accident or incident JNFL gives an explanation to the Prefecture, but is JNFL really remorseful?
   JNFL says it has an "all Japan" structure, but do you believe that the technology is established?
   
4. Looking at the details of the report (February 24, 2010), do you really believe that the plant will be completed by October 2010. What are the reasons for your judgment?
5. There have been 3 leaks so far and each time measures have been taken. What is the Prefecture's opinion about this?
   Can the Prefecture assure the safety and confidence of its residents each time an accident occurs?
   
6. Concerning the request for acceptance of waste returned from overseas
   On March 1, Toru Ishida, Director-General of the Agency for Resources and Energy (ANRE), requested you to accept LLW returned from overseas. The following day, Shosuke Mori, Chairman of the Federation of Electric Power Companies (FEPC), and Yoshihiko Kawai, President of Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd., made the same request. Newspapers reported that you reserved judgment, saying, "I need to hear from the Minister for Economy, Trade and Industry directly to confirm this."
   What is it that you want the Minister for Economy, Trade and Industry, rather than the Director-General of ANRE, to confirm directly?
7. When a request for acceptance [of LLW returned from overseas] was submitted on October 2006, you refused to consider it, saying, "At this time I must devote myself to the steady implementation of the safety of the active tests." In hindsight, in your judgment have the active tests progressed satisfactorily?
   
8. Also, in October 2006, in regard to the return of LLW from overseas you said, "It is necessary to act to promote the understanding of the residents." From memory, you also made the point that the efforts of the central government and the company to promote understanding had not progressed. Do you now believe that the understanding of the Prefecture's residents has progressed?
9. The following is recorded in the supplementary budget of July 2006: "Cost of appointing expert technical advisors to strengthen monitoring of the safety of nuclear energy facilities." From memory 5 expert technical advisors were appointed and contributed to consultations regarding prior consent for extensions to the reprocessing plant. Should not a report be made about the activities of the technical experts since then?
10. In regard to the problem of radioactive waste, there has been no progress or decision regarding final disposal, including of waste returned from overseas. Does the Prefecture intend to agree to accept radioactive waste (so-called designated HLW and TRU etc. category two waste, uranium waste, decommissioning waste) when there is not even a final disposal site?
11. According to the February 22 edition of the Denki Shimbun, Aomori Prefecture's Nuclear Policy Panel "held a study meeting on February 9 in Tokyo on the theme of decommissioning measures and disposal of radioactive waste". Has the Prefecture begun preparations for acceptance of decommissioning waste?
12. Concerning JNFL's "Report on the Current State of Reprocessing"
    (1) The report and its three appendices appear to be interim progress reports. Regarding step 1, before beginning work to raise the temperature for recovery of tiles, a follow-up report should be demanded from JNFL and the central government's NISA.
    The central government held public hearings on February 26 and March 2 on the report "Concerning Irregularities Inside the Vitrification Furnace". Regarding the other two reports, discussion was held on January 28 at the 40th meeting and was planned for March 9 at the 41st meeting of the Reprocessing Working Group of the Fuel Cycle Safety Subcommittee of ANRE's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Committee. Discussion was also planned for March 10 at the 32nd meeting of the Rokkasho Reprocessing Facility Comprehensive Inspections Review Committee. We understand that NISA will finalize its assessment when these processes are finished.
    After NISA's assessment is complete, is it not appropriate to hold meetings of the Prefectural Assembly's Special Committee into Nuclear Power and Energy and establish a separate forum for debate?
    (2) Thus, we believe that the pros and cons of the "work steps towards recommencement of active tests and completion of the construction" should be debated at a forum after receiving the abovementioned follow-up report. Do you not hold such a view?

Committee to Prevent Delivery of Nuclear Fuel Waste
Representative: Susumu Sawaguchi

Click here for background information about shipments of Japan's HLW.

Return to CNIC's Nuke Waste page