Subcommittee on Specified Radioactive Waste Reports Nos. 9 & 10 – Discussions End on the Draft Literature Survey Report and the Review of the Communication Gatherings
By Takano Satoshi (CNIC)
The 4th and 5th meetings of the Specified Radioactive Waste Subcommittee were held on June 17 and August 1, respectively. The discussions on the draft literature survey report and the draft report on the review of the communication gatherings were concluded, and the two reports are scheduled to be completed this autumn. (The literature survey report was submitted on November 22, to the mayor of Suttsu Town, the mayor of Kamoenai Village and the Governor of Hokkaido.) The contents of the deliberations of the two Subcommittee meetings will be reviewed with a focus on the comments of the author as a member.
◆◆ Outline of the Specified Radioactive Waste Subcommittee
First, I would like to briefly review what kind of organization the Specified Radioactive Waste Subcommittee (below, “Subcommittee”) is. The Subcommittee is a committee under the Electricity and Gas Industry Committee of the Advisory Council for Natural Resources and Energy, a council of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). It discusses all aspects of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) disposal policy. Under the Subcommittee is the Geological Disposal Technology Working Group (below, Technical WG), a specialist WG which discusses geological disposal from a technical perspective. Technical evaluation criteria for the literature survey, the first stage of a geological disposal survey, are also discussed in this working group.
Advisory Council for Natural Resources and Energy
⬇
Electricity and Gas Industry Committee
⬇
Specified Radioactive Waste Subcommittee
⬇
Geological Disposal Technology WG
Organizational Diagram of the Subcommittee and Technical WG
The Subcommittee consists of 12 members, including the chairperson, appointed by METI. The members include experts in the social and natural sciences and residents of areas where nuclear power plants have been sited. I (the author) am the only member who is clearly opposed to the implementation of geological disposal in Japan at the current level of scientific knowledge, and only a small number of members, including myself, are opposed to nuclear power. Many of the Subcommittee members are in favor of the use of nuclear power and take the stance of promotion of geological disposal. Thus, only a few of the Subcommittee members express fundamental and incisive criticisms of policies proposed by METI and, moreover, almost none of the Subcommittee members are fully aware of the painful situation in Suttsu Town, Hokkaido, where a geological disposal literature survey is underway, and where the community has been divided and the bonds between residents have been damaged. This is why, as a Subcommittee member appointed from a citizens’ group, I have visited the town regularly to exchange opinions with the residents and have thus far undertaken such activities as a Subcommittee member due to my awareness of the importance of communicating to the Subcommittee the difficulties faced by local men and women.
The Technical WG consists of 13 members, including the chairperson. The members of the WG are experts recommended or introduced by academic societies related to geological disposal, and thus none of the committee members are critical or skeptical about geological disposal in Japan. Unsurprisingly, it is difficult to say that the WG has become a body that can hold in-depth discussions open to all kinds of criticism, including with experts opposed to geological disposal. As I mentioned in my article in NIT 220, as a member of the Subcommittee, I requested that METI and the chairperson of the Technical WG invite to the Technical WG deliberations on the draft report of the literature survey as reference experts the organizers of a statement asserting that geological disposal in Japan is impossible.[1]
By having METI accept this request, I think I have contributed in a small way to making Japanese councils, which tend to conduct closed discussions, more transparent and fair.
Let us now review the deliberations in the fourth and fifth meetings of the Subcommittee.
◆◆ Launch of the literature survey in Genkai Town, Saga Prefecture
There were three items on the agenda of the fourth Subcommittee meeting. The first item on the agenda was the launch of the literature survey in Genkai Town, Saga Prefecture (in Kyushu). On May 1, METI applied to Genkai Town to accept the survey. On June 10, Genkai Town accepted the request and the survey was officially begun. However, in the “Scientific Features Map” prepared by METI in 2017, the entire area of Genkai Town is colored silver, which indicates relatively unfavorable characteristics for geological disposal. Specifically, underground coal fields exist and there is a possibility that these could be mined by people in the future. On this point, METI stressed the significance of the fact that the presence of minerals has not been confirmed in some of the silver areas and this can be confirmed through surveys.
However, if safety is a priority, the selection process should be carried out in a scientific manner, in which suitable sites are narrowed down using the features map, and then further detailed screening conducted through a literature survey. I raised the issue that such a system was not in place. What is also important is that METI made the application with regard to an area that is completely indicated in silver. I can only conclude that the proposal was not based on scientific perspectives, but on the political desire to increase the number of areas where surveys are being conducted.[2]
◆◆ Points of attention regarding the review of the communication gatherings
The second item on the agenda was the review of the communication gatherings. The gatherings are an opportunity for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan (NUMO), the operator of the geological disposal projects, to provide residents with information on geological disposal in the area where the literature survey is being conducted. Surveys have been ongoing in Suttsu Town and Kamoenai Village, both in Hokkaido, for more than three years. Since the beginning of this year, NUMO has been conducting a review, mainly through interviews with residents of the two municipalities, with a view to making improvements in the future.
Two issues came up at the Subcommittee meeting. The first was NUMO’s response to the written opinion I submitted to the Subcommittee. I had reported, based on this written opinion, to the previous Subcommittee meeting that NUMO had behaved in a manner lacking survey ethics, such as not abiding by rules set by the Subcommittee, during the interviews with the residents of Suttsu Town. NUMO gave an explanation of its response at the beginning of the meeting.[3] While NUMO acknowledged that it had shown insufficient consideration, since some of the residents were not happy about the way NUMO had conducted the interviews, it denied some of the matters I had pointed out. Further, I also viewed as problematic the lack of expressions of remorse and apology despite the fact that there had been cases where decisions made by the Subcommittee were violated and also indicated doubts about the contents of the responses, as NUMO had not fully confirmed with the residents the facts regarding the points I had made. A member of the committee, Juraku Kohta, also showed severe displeasure regarding the insincere responses, saying, “This is an insincere summary of your remorse for the ethical violations. You ought to consider explaining your actions to the residents again, including whether or not they might withdraw their consent to the survey.” NUMO was thus forced to revise its responses.
The second issue with the review was the draft of points of attention. Third-party experts have thus far analyzed the contents of the interviews with residents. NUMO has organized the contents and summarized them as points of attention.[4] Some of these points of attention are noteworthy, since they include critical opinions from residents and the independent perspectives of third-party experts. For example, three models for the future design of the communication gatherings were presented, including one in which NUMO does not play the role of the secretariat. I have pointed out several times in the Subcommittee that for the sake of fair and neutral management NUMO should not play the role of secretariat, but as the feasibility of this approach has now been indicated, I can give the points of attention a certain degree of credit.
Nevertheless, NUMO simply listed the points of attention with little attention to the mechanism for actually ensuring fair management. I therefore proposed that mandatory guidelines should be established, rather than just have vague provisions such as points of attention, and that a body should also be established to check that the guidelines are observed and to lay down clearly how violations are to be handled. Another problem was that while the focus was on identifying points of attention and issues to be addressed, there was insufficient evaluation of whether the communication gatherings at Suttsu Town and Kamoenai Village were conducted fairly or not. I previously pointed out that the communication gatherings at Suttsu Town were not conducted in accordance with the basic policy of the final disposal policy, which stipulates that “a securing of a diversity of views and information provided by experts and others,” and I have called for an investigation into the cause of this. In reply, NUMO stated that “we accept this as a task and will consider it in the future.”
This highly irresponsible reply angered me, and, despite myself, I criticized them forcefully by saying, “After all this, what is NUMO saying now?!” It cannot be called a satisfactory review if NUMO cannot investigate its own actual unfair operation. We must not tolerate NUMO’s irresponsible attitude, in which it lays out a list of points to consider for the future and attempts to gloss over its faults while avoiding its important operational responsibilities.
◆◆ Report on discussions concerning a statement on geological disposal
The third item on the agenda was a report on the deliberations concerning a statement on geological disposal. In October 2023, more than 300 geoscientists issued a statement claiming that geological disposal was impossible in Japan. The Technical WG discussed the contents of the statement three times. In the process, three of the organizers of the statement attended the Technical WG as expert witnesses and participated in the discussions. A report on the discussions was submitted to the Subcommittee.[5]
The report explained that it was not appropriate to keep HLW stored aboveground for a long period of time, and that the fact that disposal sites had been selected in Northern Europe, while bearing in mind such matters as securing sufficient depth for the HLW, should also be referred to. Further, when NUMO conducts onsite surveys, it is necessary to maintain a stance of actively investigating and eliminating high-risk areas. In effect, the Subcommittee rejected almost all of the issues raised by the statement organizers.
In response, the three organizers who attended the Technical WG jointly submitted their views on the report to the Subcommittee.[6] The organizers argued as follows:
- At the present stage, where scientific verification of the safety of multiple barriers in geological disposal that can withstand 100,000 years of fault activity has not been established, temporary storage aboveground should be carried out.
- The geological structures of Northern Europe, where plate movement has ceased, and Japan, where upheavals associated with seismic activity, etc., occur due to plate collision, differ qualitatively.
- In the current literature surveys, the criteria for proceeding to the outline survey are arbitrary and biased interpretations, and screening to eliminate unsuitable sites for the outline survey has not been carried out.
A request was also made for a symposium to be held for the general public to discuss the report and its views.
I basically agreed with the views of the statement organizers and pointed out that the deliberations were insufficient and that doubtful points had not been resolved. At the same time, many of the other Subcommittee members said that the deliberations had been sufficient, and the report ended up being approved. However, the submission of views definitely had an impact. A number of subcommittee members expressed the opinion that the discussions should be shared more broadly, not only at the council, with Subcommittee member Yagi Ekoh suggesting that “People at the survey sites should be interested in the issues raised by the statement organizers, and therefore discussions should be returned to the local level.” It is hoped that many more citizens will raise their awareness of the discussions on the statement, and that this will stimulate debates on geological disposal and literature researches in the future.
Next, I would like to review what happened at the 5th Subcommittee meeting held on August 1.
◆◆ Discussions on the draft report on the literature survey fail to reach a satisfactory conclusion
In November 2020, literature surveys were launched in Suttsu Town and Kamoenai Village, both in Hokkaido, as the first stage of investigations for the selection of a HLW disposal site, and the draft of the survey reports were finally published in February 2024. The Technical WG discussed the reports from a technical point of view at five meetings before the discussion ended.
The fifth Subcommittee meeting conducted a final confirmation of the points made in the Technical WG. Subcommittee members expressed opinions that there were ambiguous inconsistencies between the Scientific Features Map published by the government in 2017 and the literature survey, and that although they appreciated NUMO’s stance of actively eliminating unsuitable sites after the outline survey, it was not clear how this would be guaranteed. The draft report itself was nevertheless approved. It was also indicated that the outlook was for the report to be completed as early as this autumn.
The author made comments focused on how to proceed with future discussions. As detailed data could not be obtained through the literature survey, the Subcommittee felt that there was a limit to the discussions that could be held in the council, where there were hints that the conclusion would be that the outline survey should proceed, and it was felt that that measures to supplement the council’s deliberations would be necessary.
As I reported in NIT 220, a statement announcing that geological disposal was impossible in Japan was issued in October 2023, and three of the organizers attended a Technical WG meeting, as mentioned above. This series of discussions was compiled into a report on the discussions held on the statement. At the fourth Subcommittee meeting, a number of members, including myself, suggested that efforts should be made to share the contents of the report widely in Suttsu Town and Kamoenai Village, as well as in society as a whole.
As there was no response to this in the materials prepared for the Subcommittee meeting, I personally confirmed this and proposed that at the briefing session organized by NUMO, scheduled to take place after the completion of the literature survey report, they should explain not only the report on the literature surveys but also the background and contents of the report on the discussions held on the statement. While METI hinted that “It is necessary to consult with the municipalities concerned about what to do in Suttsu Town and Kamoenai Village,” it made no clear statement about the handling of the report at the briefing session, simply repeating generalizations and saying, “I think it is extremely important to take up diverse opinions.” Now that the deliberations in the council on the draft literature survey report have been completed, it is necessary for civil society to express its dissatisfaction with the inadequate deliberation process and call for its correction.
◆◆ NUMO apologizes regarding the review of the communication gatherings
Discussions on the review of the communication gatherings were also completed at this meeting. With the participation of residents in the areas where the literature survey has been conducted, NUMO has been evaluating the management of the communication gatherings where NUMO has been sharing information on the geological disposal project and future town planning and has been identifying issues and points for future improvements.
Interviews were conducted with residents as part of this work, and I heard complaints directly from Suttsu Town residents that there were problems with the way NUMO had conducted the interviews. I summarized the residents’ complaints in an opinion paper and submitted it to the Subcommittee.[7] NUMO’s response at the previous Subcommittee meeting had been so insincere that I lodged a strong protest and demanded another confirmation of the facts.
This time, NUMO revised its response, saying, “As the organization responsible for the implementation of the surveys, we deeply apologize for the inadequacy in the way the surveys have been conducted,” and bowed their heads in apology. One of the Subcommittee members asked, “Why didn’t you say so right from the start? You have damaged our trust in you,” and I naturally felt the same way, too. I said that rather than apologize to Subcommittee members, NUMO should apologize directly to the residents and requested that NUMO meet the residents in person, explain the circumstances, and apologize to them in person.
◆◆ Points of attention at communication gatherings require more precise content
Although there were some problems with the residents’ interview process, third-party experts recommended by a Subcommittee member, including myself, analyzed the content of the interviews, and, as issues were identified, to some extent this will ensure fairness and neutrality in the process of reviewing the communication gatherings. The review will consist of two parts: a list of “Points of Attention” that summarizes issues, and a “Materials” section that will include residents’ opinions and the evaluations of the third-party experts, and this is planned to be presented as a report at some time in the future.
As I was unable to comment much on the contents of the list of Points of Attention at the previous Subcommittee meeting, at this meeting I focused my comments on the nine “findings” in the list.[8] First, there is the question of participation by a more diverse range of local residents. In addition to gender and age group, it was mentioned that “diversity” also referred to a balance between pro and con opinions. This point is, of course, extremely important for fair management. On the other hand, it was not clearly stated that the reason for the unfair management of the Suttsu Town communication gatherings was that it was composed of participants who were biased toward those in favor of the survey, and the opinions and suggestions of those opposed to the survey were largely ignored. It was requested that the wording be revised to emphasize this point.
Next, it was requested that a stricter definition of multifaceted information provision be introduced. The communication gatherings are not forums for fostering understanding of the views of the government and operators. It was thus pointed out that it is necessary to clearly state that information provision from a standpoint differing from the views of the government and operators is essential and should be adequately provided.
This is also related to the nature of inspections and study trips. Without information provision from a standpoint differing from the views of the government and operators, inspections and study trips are nothing more than public relations activities by operators. If this is the case, they should not be expanded. At the meeting in Suttsu Town, there were no opportunities to hear the opinions of experts who were skeptical about geological disposal, and only two such opportunities were provided in Kamoenai Village. When there were inspection and study trip visits to facilities in Rokkasho Village, Aomori Prefecture, and Horonobe Town, Hokkaido, there were no opportunities to hear the opinions of local and neighboring residents or experts who had views differing from those of the operators. To the contrary, as NUMO paid most of the costs for the visits, a sense of a debt of gratitude was fostered among the residents. As a result, an atmosphere of acceptance of NUMO was created in the local community. Such a situation should never be repeated.
With regard to the use of meeting facilitators, since it was clear that NUMO harbored a simplistic awareness that facilitators were useful for the neutral management of the communication gatherings, I therefore requested clarification of the selection criteria and transparency of the selection process. I hope to continue negotiations with NUMO to ensure that these requests are reflected in the Points of Attention list.
At the same time, it is worth noting that, apart from the review of the communication gatherings by the Subcommittee, citizens’ group in Hokkaido also conducted an examination of the communication gatherings. A group of volunteers from Hokkaido who have experience as facilitators formed an organization called the Citizens’ Project for Dialogue on Nuclear Waste and published their views on the communication gatherings. These views were published as reference material to the fifth Subcommittee meeting.[9]
According to these views, since NUMO did not presuppose any policy changes, the gatherings consisted of NUMO’s one-sided communication. The group made the fundamental criticism that it is highly likely that this went on to deepen discord and division in the community. The communication gatherings are also scheduled to be held in Genkai Town, Saga Prefecture (in Kyushu). We need to act positively to make proposals to METI and NUMO to have them refer to the list of Points of Attention for the gatherings and the abovementioned views in order to manage the communication gatherings in a more appropriate manner.
◆◆ Reflecting on this series of Subcommittee discussions
It was in April 2022 when I first attended a meeting of the Subcommittee (then called the Nuclear Waste WG). Since that time, the main agenda of the Subcommittee has been the literature surveys of the two municipalities and an examination of the related communication gatherings. Discussions on these two matters ended at the fifth Subcommittee meeting, and the report is scheduled to be released this fall. Of course, there will be more Subcommittee meetings in the future, but one major milestone was reached with the completion of the literature surveys. Looking back on my activities thus far, I believe I have been responsible for three outcomes.
The first is that the literature surveys have enabled me to reflect the voices of residents suffering from community divisions in the Subcommittee discussions. As I mentioned at the outset, I have visited the sites of the literature surveys as a member of a civic organization and have listened to testimonies from residents who opposed the surveys. On one occasion, I quoted from a statement issued by a residents’ organization that opposed the survey when I spoke to the Subcommittee. As part of the review of the communication gatherings, on the basis of residents’ testimonies, I raised the issue of research ethics violations that occurred when NUMO conducted interviews with residents and was finally able to have NUMO admit its responsibility. METI and NUMO listened seriously to the voices of residents opposing the surveys, who demanded that the survey selection process be improved. We are far from achieving this goal, but I think we were able to make visible the negative impacts on local communities caused by the unilateral enforcement of the national policy of final disposal projects.
Second, I worked effectively to ensure fairer technical discussions regarding the literature surveys. Before the Technical WG began full-fledged discussions on the draft report of the literature surveys, I had a series of discussions with the organizers of the statement claiming that geological disposal is impossible in Japan, presented the issues to be addressed by the Technical WG, and requested that the organizers be allowed to participate in the Technical WG meeting. METI accepted this request. This was probably the first time that experts arguing the infeasibility of geological disposal in Japan had participated in discussions in a council discussing geological disposal from a technical perspective. METI was unable to hold sufficient discussions due to problems with its management of the proceedings, and thus the results were limited, but I believe this was a small step toward the realization of a fairer and more transparent council that is open to criticism.
The third was to urge citizen groups to monitor the Subcommittee and make policy recommendations. I gave numerous talks in Hokkaido to explain the reality of the Subcommittee and to emphasize that monitoring and actions by citizen groups are indispensable for fairer deliberations. While providing information to citizens’ groups, I have been urging them to communicate their demands to METI, the Subcommittee, and the Technical WG through written requests if they are dissatisfied with the council in any way. As a result, when it was decided that the organizers of the statement would be invited to participate in the Technical WG, many citizens’ groups in Hokkaido spontaneously demanded that METI conduct fair deliberations and full discussions. When that demand was not realized and the discussions ended without a sense of adequacy, they sent letters of protest. This kind of oversight by citizens’ groups may well make Japan’s very formal deliberations more substantive. As a member of a citizens’ group and as a citizen scientist, I would like to consider together with all our readers what contributions we can make toward the democratization of Japan’s ministerial councils.
[1] Takano Satoshi, Report on the 2nd Meeting of the Geological Disposal Technical WG: Experts Against Geological Disposal Attend a Government Working Group (NIT 220): cnic.jp/english/?p=7190 [English]
[2] CNIC Statement: CNIC Statement: We Strongly Protest the Government Proposal to Genkai Town to Conduct a Literature Survey: cnic.jp/english/?p=7169 [English]
[3] Reply to the Opinion Paper Submitted to the Third Meeting of the Specified Nuclear Waste Subcommittee by Subcommittee Member Takano: www.meti.go.jp/shingikai/enecho/denryoku_gas/radioactive_waste/pdf/004_05_00.pdf %5BJapanese%5D
[4] Points of Attention for Basic Examination of Community Dialogues (Draft): www.meti.go.jp/shingikai/enecho/denryoku_gas/radioactive_waste/pdf/004_07_00.pdf %5BJapanese%5D
[5] Report on Deliberations Regarding Technical and Expert Viewpoints Based on the Statement on Geological Disposal: www.meti.go.jp/shingikai/enecho/denryoku_gas/radioactive_waste/pdf/004_03_00.pdf %5BJapanese%5D
[6] Views on the Draft Deliberation Report of the Geological Disposal Technology Working Group: www.meti.go.jp/shingikai/enecho/denryoku_gas/radioactive_waste/pdf/004_s05_00.pdf %5BJapanese%5D
[7] The contents of the written opinion can be found in NIT 221: cnic.jp/english/?p=7488 %5BEnglish%5D
[8] The Nine “Findings” can be seen on p.2 of Points of Attention for Basic Examination of Community Dialogues: www.meti.go.jp/shingikai/enecho/denryoku_gas/radioactive_waste/pdf/005_09_00.pdf %5BJapanese%5D
[9] Reference Material 5 of the Fifth Special Radioactive Waste Subcommittee: www.meti.go.jp/shingikai/enecho/denryoku_gas/radioactive_waste/pdf/005_s05_00.pdf %5BJapanese%5D
