Nuclear Regulation Authority bars restart of Monju fast-breeder nuclear reactor 原子力規制委員会、もんじゅに無期限の運転停止要請

(Source) http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/nuclear-regulation-authority-bars-restart-of-monju-fast-breeder-nuclear-reactor  May 30, 2-13
 
The Nuclear Regulation Authority on Thursday handed the Japan Atomic Energy Agency an official notice prohibiting restart of the company’s Monju fast-breeder nuclear reactor in Tsuruga, Fukui Prefecture.
The written order was handed to JAEA executive vice president Yonezo Tsujikura, instructing the company to improve its safety measures. The trouble-plagued next-generation test reactor has been cited for numerous safety violations.
Monju uses plutonium fuel instead of conventional uranium and produces radioactive substances that can be reused as fuel. After nearly 50 years in the works, the reactor is still struggling to get online.
The watchdog’s five commissioners unanimously agreed that JAEA is not ready to sufficiently secure the safety of Monju. They said the operator had repeatedly failed to conduct mandatory inspections on an array of equipment and come up with improvement plans.
The previous government tried to terminate Monju under its nuclear phase-out plan, but Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government quickly reversed course as it pushed to restart commercial reactors that have been idle since a March 2011 earthquake and tsunami triggered a nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
Before issuing the order, Nuclear Regulation Authority chairman Shunichi Tanaka told reporters that Monju’s operator lacked a “safety culture” and deserved severe action.
“They repeated the same mistakes even though they said they were analyzing the root cause of the problem. I think they lack fundamental understanding about safety,” Tanaka said. “Despite the lessons we learned from the Fukushima Daiichi accident, it seems a safety culture is still insufficient in Japan.”
Japan built Monju as a “dream reactor” to fulfill its energy needs, with the reactor meant to be a centerpiece of a self-sustainable fuel cycle. To complete the cycle, Japan has been building the Rokkasho fuel recycling plant in northern Japan to extract uranium and plutonium from spent fuel and fabricate hybrid fuel made from the two radioactive elements.
But with both Monju and Rokkasho having technical problems, Japan has built up a large stockpile of plutonium extracted overseas and at home, causing international proliferation concerns.
[.....]
Regulators who inspected Monju said its top management lacked safety-first principles, and workers were demoralized without prospects for a startup. Their interviews with plant workers also revealed they had to keep inspection and maintenance records using massive amounts of paperwork instead of a computer database, and they were always on deadline to meet a test run schedule.
“It’s too dangerous for Monju to start operation now,” said Yasushi Morishita, the watchdog’s director of nuclear regulation. “The plant was so poorly managed.”

Japan Today/Reuters

*Monju fast-breeder reactor undergoes safety inspection (March 4^th, 2013)

The operator of the reactor on the Sea of Japan coast was found to have failed to conduct periodical checks on a quarter of its nearly 40,000 item s of equipment before the deadline.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/316373/monju-fast-breeder-reactor-undergoes.html

*NHK Documentary: Nuclear Waste Managing a Lethal Legacy in Japan ＮＨＫドキュメンタリー：日本の核のごみ管理は致命的負の遺産http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNRBNeQqRXQ

MissingSky101 

http://fukushimaappeal.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/nhk-documentary-nuclear-waste-managing.html

44m50s - The Atomic Energy Commision  vice chairman, Mr. Suzuki attended the meeting. …….He explained why the reprocessing program won’t be changed.  invested interest (利害関係） are the main concern.  Many businesses are counted on successful outcome for the planned nuclear fuel cycle.   they don't want to see the changes that could affect their business.  Mr. Suzuki will feel difficult to talk about the changes with things as they are now.  We should first discuss the policy and decide on feasible solution.  Then think about Rokkasho.  Country 50 year old nuclear energy policy, systems and organizations are standing in the way of change.  The situation limits what we can do.  Even many people realized that the reprocessing won't work, the project continues.  The reprocessing program was supposed to give resource poor Japan unlimited supply of energy.  But as the time passed it became simply tool of nuclear power plant running and protect the businesses involved.  Other factors influence the decison as well.  These include possible harm to local economy and potential damage to relation to the United States............... But changing the current frame work is only way forward.  
Now we know the danger of radioactive waste, we can't keep to put it away. .......

(Editor’s note)　
*Maintenance cost of Rokkasho (Reprocessing plant) is ￡1.8 million a day.
*Japan is in possession of over 40 tons of plutonium. One source said Japan would try to restart Moxed fuel reactors to justify keeping them in the near future.

Exposed: Japanese Officials Upped Radiation yardsticks to Dodge Compensation Costs 発覚！ 日本政府は、賠償金の支払いを軽減するために、年間被爆許容線量を２０ｍＳｖ／ｙに、引き上げた！

(Source)
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/05/26 

An investigation by The Asahi Shimbun shows that a higher level was sought to lower the number of evacuees and thus, limit compensation

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

Japanese officials raised the level of acceptable radiation doses for evacuees of the Fukushima nuclear disaster to avoid increasing costs for compensation, Japan's Asahi Shimbun reported on Saturday.

A 5-millisieverts per year dose, the same level of exposure used as a yardstick to relocate residents after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, was proposed at an unofficial meeting of ministers in October of 2011, seven months after the disaster began, they then reported.


But just weeks later, the yardstick was upped to 20 millisieverts per year.

... at a meeting on Oct. 28, joined by Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura and Tatsuo Kawabata, internal affairs minister, the participants appeared reluctant to approve a yardstick other than 20 millisieverts.
[...]
“The prefectural government could not function with the population drain under the 5-millisievert scenario,” said a state minister who attended the meeting. “In addition, there were concerns that more compensation money will be needed, with an increase in the number of evacuees.”
[...]
The Abe administration in March decided to release by the end of this year a set of protection measures for evacuees returning to areas with doses of up to 20 millisieverts.
The move is apparently aimed at setting the stage for return of evacuees even if decontamination operation fails to achieve the target of 1 millisievert.
[...]
The Japan Times reported that
At least 157,000 people fled their homes in Fukushima because of the 2011 nuclear disaster, tsunami, and earthquake. Some 32,000 of them now live in temporary housing developments in the prefecture. Around 59,000 more live in subsidized apartments there. Rent is free but utilities are not.

This arrangement was originally supposed to last for two years.
But more than two years have passed and final compensation settlements from Tepco have not been decided.

Permanent housing for displaced people has not been built;

Much of the evacuation zone ― which includes eleven towns and extends up to 45 km from the plant ― remains uninhabitable.

The government now plans to extend the amount of time residents can stay in the temporary houses to four years.

An earlier investigation by Asahi Shimbun revealed that 60 percent of Fukushima evacuees, roughly 54,000 people, would still be unable to return home by 2017.

The evacuees from the nuclear disaster aren't limited to Fukushima prefecture. 
Some residents from Hippo district in Miyagi prefecture, just outside of Fukushima, have said that some radiation levels in their area exceed some of those in Fukushima, and are demanding the same compensation, the Associated Press reported. 

Lack of compensation for these people, critics say, is another effort to avoid costs.
"Damages from the nuclear accident do not stop at the border. We hope that the compensation program is carried out in a way that reflects the reality of people's lives," said Koji Otani, a lawyer representing the Hippo residents.

UN asks Japan, operator to help nuclear power plant victims 国連は日本政府とＴｅｐｃｏに対し、福島原発事故による被災者の援助を、要請！

(Source) http://www.timeslive.co.za/scitech/2013/05/26/un-asks-japan-operator-to-help-nuclear-power-plant-victims

A United Nations expert who investigated the aftermath of Japan's 2011 nuclear power plant disaster says the government and the operator of the facility should do more to help those affected by the catastrophe.

A report by special rapporteur Anand Grover, posted on the UN Human Rights Council's website, says the government's takeover of Tokyo Electric Power Co. allowed the utility to evade full responsibility for the nuclear disaster, the worst since Chernobyl.
The report points to problems with the handling of the crisis, including a difficult process for seeking compensation for radiation exposure, a lack of openness about health risks from radiation and inadequate protection for nuclear plant workers.
It urges Japan to improve its emergency preparedness and its handling of compensation claims.
The Geneva-based council is due to discuss the report, compiled after a visit to Japan by Grover late last year, at its general meeting starting Monday.
Japan's atomic energy industry remains in crisis more than two years after a powerful earthquake and tsunami triggered meltdowns in three reactors at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant.
[…]
The U.N. report cited a number of "serious challenges" and urged the government to involve affected communities in decisions and do more to protect and help vulnerable groups such as children, pregnant women, the disabled and the elderly.
[….]
That acquisition of a majority stake in the company "has arguably helped TEPCO to effectively avoid accountability and liability for damages," the U.N. report said.
[…]
The compensation should include financial relief to help the tens of thousands of residents displaced by the disaster rebuild their lives, it said.
So far, TEPCO has paid 2.3 trillion yen, about half of it to companies and business owners. That amount includes 1.6 million individual claims, mostly from voluntary evacuees. Because the amount of claims is expected to exceed the initial estimate of 3 trillion yen ($29 billion), the government has injected an additional 154 billion yen ($1.5 billion) into the compensation fund.

About 150 000 Fukushima residents are still displaced. Hundreds have filed claims seeking greater compensation, including many living outside the prefecture.

NO to NUCLEAR POWER IN BRITAIN: The battle is far from over…It’s a time to start collaring your MPs again……

(Source) http://stopnuclearpoweruk.net/

You may have been disappointed to read recently that planning permission has been granted for EDF Energy to start construction work on the Hinkley C nuclear power station in Somerset.

But the battle is far from over.

EDF and the Treasury are still in deadlock over a strike price – the guaranteed price at which the government will buy power from EDF over next 30 to 40 years. EDF has been pushing for a price of around £100 per megawatt hour – twice the going rate for today’s electricity.

Any ‘contract for difference’ deal with EDF will lock us into paying insanely high energy bills for many decades. Meanwhile the cost of renewable energy is going down. Connie Hedegaard, the EU climate change commissioner, maintains that offshore wind power makes much more sense than nuclear, see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/17/wind-cheaper-nuclear-e....

Even if the Treasury strikes a deal with EDF, the French-owned energy giant still has further hurdles to overcome. After Centrica withdrew as a minority shareholder from the Hinkley project in February, EDF is still looking for a new partner to bridge the investment gap.

Meanwhile nuclear watchdog, Energy Fair, has sent a formal complaint to the European Commission claiming that the government is rigging the energy market in favour of nuclear power. The EU is taking this seriously and an investigation could take up to two years. You can read Energy Fair’s full press release here: http://www.energyfair.org.uk/news-releases/legal-bid
Greenpeace has also lodged an application for a judicial review of the government’s decision to grant consent for the Hinkley C project. It’s believed that that the application is based on an absence of "effective arrangements" for dealing with the nuclear waste that would be generated.
At the beginning of the year, Cumbria County Council rejected government plans for a massive long-term nuclear waste repository underneath the Lake District following a highly vocal campaign by anti-nuclear activists in the region. No other solution is on the table.
Greenpeace’s legal challenge comes hot on the heels of a challenge from the National Trust for Ireland. This applications contends that the Irish people should have been consulted on the Hinkley plans, given the risk of environmental damage to neighbouring countries from radiation pollution.
On the subject on subsidies, Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, has tabled six amendments to the Energy Bill that is currently going through Parliament. The amendments aim to challenge the unfair support being given to new nuclear at the expense of renewables.
The amendments call for: greater transparency and parliamentary scrutiny of any contracts drawn up between government and nuclear companies; the removal of payments to nuclear companies through contracts for difference or the capacity mechanism; and the removal of any public underwriting of construction costs or other investment contracts.
Caroline has asked for our help in drumming up support for these amendments. We would therefore be very grateful if you could print off the letter below and send it to your local MP. (It’s basically asking your MP to support Caroline’s changes to the Energy Bill). It would be even better if you added some comments of your own at the top of the letter: apparently MPs take more notice of letters that are personalized.
It would also be really useful for us to know which MPs have been sent the letter. So if you’re emailing your letter, could you please add our email address (campaign@stopnewnuclear.org.uk) in the blind copy/Bcc subject line. If you’re sending the letter by post, could you send us a short email to let us know who you’ve sent it to.
Most important of all, we understand that the report stage of the Energy Bill will take place on the 3rd and 4th of June, so please send your letter as soon as possible.
If you are unsure who your MP is, you’ll be able to find the details here (if you are unable to open this link, go to http://www.theyworkforyou.com).
Many thanks for your continuing support of the Stop New Nuclear Alliance. We’ll be in touch again soon.

*DRAFT LETTER TO MP
Dear [insert name of MP],
I am writing about the Energy Bill to ask you to support the six amendments on nuclear power. These amendments have been tabled by the Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, and are gaining cross party support.
I would like you to add your name to amendment numbers 23 to 28 before Report Stage of the Bill, which will take place on 3rd and 4th June, and to represent my views by speaking and voting in favour of these amendments in the House of Commons.
The Coalition Agreement made a very clear promise that new nuclear power stations would only be built if the industry got no public subsidy. I am disappointed that ministers are backtracking from this. Because of the huge cost increases for new reactors and the withdrawal of major companies from the consortium interested in building nuclear power, they are now introducing mechanisms to provide financial support through the Energy Bill.
I am very concerned about the high cost of nuclear power and the secrecy of the Government’s negations with EDF Energy. Estimates of the cost of electricity from new nuclear are around double the current electricity prices and the Government’s current proposals would lock us into these high prices for the lifetime of the power station, i.e. around 40 years.
You may have read that Connie Hedegaard, the EU climate change commissioner, said that, whilst some people believe nuclear is cheap, even offshore wind is cheaper than nuclear, see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/17/wind-cheaper-nuclear-e....
I believe that renewable energy sources, coupled with new storage technology, energy demand reduction, and wider European integration through cross-border electricity interconnectors can provide the necessary generation capacity. Germany is providing a strong example of a nuclear-free energy strategy that is safe and affordable.
Furthermore, Ed Davey, Secretary of State, has said that nuclear power must be “price competitive” and represent value for money for consumers if it is to be taken forward.
More recently, Michael Fallon, Energy Minister, said: “Any deal reached would have to be fair, affordable and value for money”. Caroline Flint has said that Labour is in favour of nuclear power but that the decarbonisation of our power supply must be done in the most cost-effective way. And that any strike price agreed must reflect a fair deal for bill payers.
There are three key amendments that I would like you to support – even if you are not opposed in principle to nuclear power:
Firstly, in order to achieve these aims, please will you support amendment 24. This already has cross party backing and would ensure that payments under a Contract for Difference for nuclear electricity are not greater than payments for any form of renewable generation. This would recognize that nuclear is a mature technology - as well as cross party consensus on the importance of protecting bill payers from unnecessarily high costs. This amendment would prevent nuclear power from getting a larger subsidy than less mature renewable energy technologies, in terms of price per megawatt hour and the length of the contracts that would be provided.
Secondly, I would like you to support amendments 26 and 27 on transparency and parliamentary scrutiny of any contract. These amendments increase the transparency and accountability around DECC’s negotiations with EDF Energy or other companies building new nuclear power, in respect of investment contracts (amendment 26) and contracts for difference (amendment 27). The amendments would require the Secretary of State to ask the National Audit Office and Parliament to examine whether the contracts represent value for money, in line with the backbench business motion debated on 7 February 2013, and the cross party group of MPs and academics who wrote to the NAO recently asking for this, see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9975199/UK-nuclea...
Thirdly, amendment 28, which rules out payments to nuclear power through the capacity mechanism. There have been reports that DECC is looking at this option. New nuclear power already stands to gain huge subsidies through the contracts for difference and investment contracts in the Bill. Subsiding new nuclear power through the capacity mechanism would also contravene Ministers’ commitment not to give public subsidies for new nuclear power. This amendment also rules out the possibility that existing nuclear power could receive taxpayer handouts via the capacity mechanism. The capacity mechanism is supposed to be about ensuring supply meets demand at times of peak demand but nuclear is one of the least flexible electricity generation technologies available.
I am strongly opposed to new nuclear power for economic and environmental reasons and I have seen a lot of evidence that we do not need new nuclear to meet carbon emissions reductions. I am also concerned that Government support for new nuclear power will mean much less investment in renewables and energy efficiency. Therefore, as my MP, I would like to you support two further amendments on nuclear too:
Amendment 23: this would rule out payments to new nuclear power through the Contracts for Difference Mechanism in the Energy Bill.
Amendment 25: this would rule out any public underwriting of construction costs or other public support to nuclear through investment contracts. It is widely reported that EDF Energy is seeking underwriting / guarantees in addition to a strike price of around double the market price for electricity. Such incentives are not available to all renewables and therefore this is another unjustifiable subsidy to new nuclear power.
I would be grateful if you could write back to me to confirm whether you will represent my views on nuclear power by supporting some or all of these amendments.
If you are unwilling to support them, at the very least please could you write to Ed Davey [if MP is a Lib Dem] / Michael Fallon [if MP is a Tory]/ Caroline Flint [if MP is Labour] to convey my views on nuclear power.
Thank you in advance for your response and I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Name
Address

Date