The
Japanese government’s Radioactive Wastes Subcommittee, reestablished in
May 2013, comprised of different members from those in the subcommittee
under the Electricity and Gas Industry Committee of the Advisory
Committee for Natural Resources and Energy, Ministry of Economy, Trade
and Industry. The subcommittee has been renamed the Radioactive Wastes
Working Group (“Radioactive Wastes WG”) from the time it met for the
third time on July 5, 2013, and has been meeting regularly since then.
On May 23, 2014, up to which time 13 meetings had been held, the WG
publicized an interim report
1) of its discussions.
The Japanese government plans to bury high-level radioactive wastes
deep underground, deeper than 300 meters from the surface, as the final
disposal method. Since 2002, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization
of Japan (NUMO), the main body supervising the project, has been openly
soliciting applications for host locations for the disposal site from
municipalities nationwide.
However, all the municipalities that expressed interest in applying
were confronted with opposition from local residents and forced to
desist from submitting the application. Thus, to date, no application
has been delivered. As a result, the government has accelerated moves
to enable the designation of candidate municipalities from the
government side and to request them to accept onsite research for the
determination of suitability as the disposal site. The Radioactive
Wastes WG was established as part of this move.
Contents of the Interim Report
The Interim Report of the Radioactive Wastes WG consists of six
chapters in 32 pages of text. In the “Introduction,” the report states
that in order to carry out the project the WG intends to review the
conventional basic policy concerning high-level nuclear wastes and the
final disposal project from the very basics. Chapter 2 discusses
current conditions and problems; Chapter 3 describes efforts the
present generation should make; Chapter 4 gives measures for improving
these efforts; Chapter 5 discusses improvements in the disposal
promotion organization. The following consists of summaries of the
third and following chapters of the report.
The
present generation is
required to make substantial efforts to realize the final disposal of
radioactive wastes. However, proceeding with the efforts as if the
project was a “done deal” is not sufficiently supported by society
(Section3-1). To gain social support, it is essential to establish a
system that, in consideration of technical uncertainty, will guarantee
reversibility and retrievability, and will enable current and
future generations to review earlier decisions concerning final
disposal (3-2). As a final disposal method, geological disposal is the
most promising, but alternative methods will also be studied (3-3).
Social consensus should be developed through the evaluation of disposal
technology improvement and alternative technologies (3-4). For
consensus development, people from a wide range of social standings
should have earnest in-depth discussions. Through the discussions, an
awareness that the final disposal of radioactive wastes is an
unavoidable issue should be developed, along with an understanding of
ideas regarding the nature of nuclear power policies (3-5).
The government, for
example, should indicate a location that is considered more
scientifically suitable for final disposal than other locations, and
explain the geological environmental characteristics of the location
from a scientific point of view, thus gaining an understanding by local
residents regarding the selection of the location as the final disposal
site (4-1). A system for developing a consensus should be introduced
into the location, and local residents of different social standings
should participate in this (4-2). The government should plan measures
that will support the location that has accepted the construction of
the disposal site (4-3).
As measures to improve
the conventional system for promoting the siting of the final disposal
site, NUMO, which will implement the disposal project, should be
fundamentally reformed (5-1), and third-party evaluation, essential to
ensure the reliability of the disposal project (5-2), should be
introduced.
The report, with reference to international agreements, clearly states
that the disposal of radioactive wastes domestically is a fundamental
policy, thus nullifying the possibility of the disposal of radioactive
wastes overseas, where more geologically stable locations may be
available.
Public opinions for this proposed Interim Report were solicited for one
month, and many critical opinions were delivered. Of 121 opinions
received, 83 indicated that before the disposal of radioactive wastes
is discussed, nuclear power plants and spent-fuel reprocessing should
be abandoned or the upper limit of the volume of wastes should be
determined. Many doubted the safety of geological disposal (31
opinions). Other opinions included: “The small number of people who
have promoted nuclear power plants should take primary responsibility
for the wastes instead of the facile insistence on the responsibility
of the entire generation” (22); “The wastes should go into interim
storage for the time being” (15); and “The wastes should be permanently
stored aboveground” (11).
|
Summary of public opinion for the interim report of the Radioactive Wastes Working Group
|
Unresolved problems
The Interim Report includes many unresolved problems.This author had
assumed that the Geological Disposal Technology Working Group
(“Technology WG”), newly established in October last year, would
discuss any locations that might be scientifically promising for
hosting a radioactive wastes disposal site. However, the Technology WG
ended up naming no prospective locations. At the meetings of the
Technology WG, NUMO repeatedly asserted that it would evaluate
prospective locations from all angles, in consideration of engineering
measures, even if some conditions were unsatisfied in terms of
geological environment, water-quality environment, or any other matters.
This indicates NUMO’s policy in soliciting applications from
municipalities for hosting a final disposal site; the policy is based
on the organization’s idea that if engineering measures are taken
appropriately (if artificial barriers are provided), most locations
within Japan are geologically suitable (wastes can be buried in 70% of
the total area of Japan). However, if such is the case, no specific
municipalities can be selected for the government to request acceptance
of the construction of a disposal site. For the government to request
municipalities to host the site, more detailed discussions on the
selection of promising locations are indispensible.
Discussion on how to guarantee local resident participation in the
selection process and ensure the revocability of earlier decisions has
also been insufficient. In-depth discussion regarding by whom and
through what process the acceptance of literature research will be
determined has not been conducted, nor has the procedure for revoking
decisions been discussed. These steps have not been specified such that
they are organized into an established system.
To carry out the geological disposal project, it is critical to ensure
that the activities of the government and NUMO are fair and that
information released is objective. If the fairness of the activities
and the objectivity of the information are verified by a third party,
the project may be able to gain trust from society. People have been
deceived by the government and businesses many times in the past, and a
third-party panel would have a critical role to play.
Nuclear Waste WG meetings discussed the cases of France and Sweden, but
the character and status of these are not precisely applicable to
Japan. It is necessary to prepare a system with reference to the cases
of countries other than these.
The Interim Report suggests that the Japan Atomic Energy Commission
(JAEC) can play the role of the third-party panel. However, if the JAEC
assumes this role, public criticism that interested parties are simply
attempting to promote their own preferences will be unavoidable. A
reliable organization should be established, and it should be
administered fairly and transparently. In achieving this end, many
issues, such as who should participate in the panel and who should
share the costs, remain undiscussed. The discussions in the report
mention only the necessity of solving these issues.
If the project is promoted while participation by local residents and
the revocability of decisions remain unguaranteed, a scientifically
unsuitable location may be selected in the political context and the
placement of the site in the location eventually determined.
At the same time, subsidies may be sent to the location and various
reasons for promotion of the site invented as soon as the document
study begins. In such a case, the release of radioactive material
from the buried wastes into the living environment might start to occur
earlier than expected.
On the condition that no further radioactive wastes will be produced,
all possible efforts should be made to minimize the influence of
already existing wastes on future generations. For this reason, the
author believes that discussion on this issue should be further
prolonged.
(Hideyuki Ban, Co-director of CNIC)
1)
http://www.meti.go.jp/committee/sougouenergy/denryoku_gas/genshiryoku/houshasei_haikibutsu_wg/report_001.pdf
(in Japanese)
Return to
Energy Policy / Nuclear Trends / Nuclear Industry page
Return to NIT 161 contents
