Under the new policy, Japan will maximize the use of existing reactors by restarting as many of them as possible and prolonging the operating life of aging ones beyond a 60-year limit. The government also pledged to develop next-generation reactors.In 2011, a powerful earthquake and the ensuing tsunami caused multiple meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi plant — a disaster that supercharged anti-nuclear sentiment in Japan and at one point led the government to promise to phase out the energy by around 2030. But since then, the government has recommitted to the technology, including setting a target for nuclear to make up 20-22% of the country’s energy mix by the end of the decade.
Reviving Japan’s nuclear power industry will not be easy
Jan 3, 2023
Japan is facing its most severe energy crisis in decades and wants to speed up the revival of its nuclear energy industry to reduce its dependence on imported fossil fuels.
But restarting more nuclear reactors remains controversial, more than a decade after the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
What does the government want?
All the country’s reactors were shut down for safety checks after the Fukushima meltdown, and there are currently 33 considered operable.
By mid-December, nine were generating electricity, meeting a target set by Prime Minister Fumio Kishida this summer to help counter energy shortages and cover around 10% of Japan’s winter power consumption.
The national nuclear safety watchdog has approved the restart of seven other reactors in principle, but such moves often face fierce opposition from local communities.
In August, Kishida called for these seven reactors to come online by summer 2023 and said Japan should also consider building next-generation nuclear reactors.
He also said authorities would discuss extending the service life of existing reactors beyond the current 60-year limit if safety can be guaranteed.
Before the Fukushima disaster, nearly a third of Japan’s power generation came from nuclear energy, but in the fiscal year to March 2022, the figure stood at around 7%.
The government is aiming for nuclear power to account for between 20% and 22% of electricity production by 2030, part of efforts to reach carbon neutrality by 2050.
What are the obstacles?
The success of these nuclear power ambitions lies with Japan’s independent Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA), which must give a green light to the plans before they go ahead.
“It will be a challenge” to get existing reactors going again, because some have been “stalled for quite a long time,” said Tom O’Sullivan, a Tokyo-based energy consultant at Mathyos Advisory.
Bringing nuclear plants online could also be complicated by “nervousness about anti-terrorism issues,” he added, pointing to concerns around plants caught in Russia’s war in Ukraine.
“Given what’s happening with the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine, I think the NRA is probably more sensitive nowadays to potential terrorist attacks.”
Surveys show that reticence among the Japanese public toward a nuclear power revival has eased since the war in Ukraine triggered a steep rise in energy prices last year.
But opposition from people living near the plants will remain a sticking point, while reports of security breaches at one large plant in recent years have added to public unease, said analyst Hiroe Yamamoto of Moody’s Japan.
How quickly the government’s nuclear power revival hopes can become reality depends on local authorities but also Kishida’s popularity this year, said Nobuo Tanaka, chair of the Innovation for Cool Earth Forum steering committee.
The prime minister is currently “in trouble,” with his approval ratings dragged down last year by scandals, Tanaka said at a recent news conference.
So “just saying we need (more reactors online) because of high energy prices — this kind of argument may not be sustainable,” and the government must also address issues such as waste disposal, he said.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/01/03/national/reviving-nuclear-industry/
Water, water everywhere
Scientists and Pacific governments are worried by Japan’s plan to dump radioactive wastewater from Fukushima into the Pacific Ocean
“…For panel member Arjun Makhijani, a former nuclear engineer and IEER expert on nuclear safety, the lack of significant data is a crucial problem.
“From a scientific point of view, we as an expert panel felt there was really insufficient information to plan this huge operation,” he tells me. “We perceived early on that because most of the storage tanks had not been sampled, most of the radionuclides are not being sampled, and so there just wasn’t enough information to proceed.”
As time went on, says Dr Makhijani, the panel’s worries about the Japanese plans became stronger. “Do they know what they are doing? Do they have enough information? Have they done the measurements properly? Do they know if the capacity of the filtration system will be enough for the volume of liquids, so the concentration of radionuclides would be low enough? How long will it take if they have to repeatedly filter the liquids? There weren’t any clear answers to these questions.”
As they met with TEPCO and Japanese authorities, the expert panel began to raise a series of concerns: the failure to accurately sample different isotopes in the storage tanks, the level of radioactive contamination in sludge at the bottom of the tanks, and the models used to determine how elements like tritium will disperse and dilute in the vast Pacific Ocean.
For Dr Makhijani, the Japanese authorities have not provided enough information to ascertain what range and amounts of radionuclides will be found in each tank. Only nine of sixty-four radionuclides have been included in the data shared with the Forum.
“The vast majority of radionuclides are not being measured, according to the Japanese authorities themselves,” Dr Makhijani says. “In summary, most of the tanks have never been sampled. The sampling they do is non-representative of the water in the tanks and when they were stored. Are the measurements of what’s in the tanks accurate? The answer to this is no.”
…
The bulk of the radioactivity measured in the wastewater is from two isotopes: tritium and carbon-14. But current data also show a complex mix of other highly radioactive isotopes, including strontium-90, caesium-134, caesium-137, cobalt-60 and even tellurium-127, a fission product with a short half-life of nine hours that shouldn’t be present after years of storage.
The expert panel has noted that some tanks low in tritium are high in strontium-90, and vice versa, concluding that “the assumption that concentrations of the other radionuclides are constant is not correct and a full assessment of all radioisotopes is needed to evaluate the true risk factors.”
Also of concern is the fact that particles in the water may settle to the bottom of the storage tanks over time, creating contaminated sludge. Japanese authorities have confirmed that tanks filled with cooling water in the years immediately after the 2011 accident contain contaminated sediment of this kind.
“The sludges were not sampled then and have not been sampled since that time,” says Dr Makhijani. “How much of these sludges will be stirred up and complicate the filtration system as you pump out the water from the tanks? This issue has not been addressed.”
TEPCO plans to filter out most isotopes but dump vast amounts of tritium into the Pacific, relying on rapid dispersion and dilution. But many scientists are critical of the model used to measure the dilution of tritium in seawater, which is based on models using international standards for how much naturally occurring tritium can be safely ingested in drinking water. Environmental critics of the dumping plan are concerned tritium and other radioactive isotopes will accumulate in ocean sediments, fish and other marine biota.
According to Dr Makhijani, the expert panel was concerned that the proposed drinking water standard for tritium does not apply to ocean ecosystems. “The discharged concentration of tritium will be thousands of times the background level you find naturally or through historical nuclear testing,” he explains, “and then you’re going to discharge it for many decades.”
He believes a full modeling of the impact would include “an ecosystem assessment, both for sediments and for vegetal and animal biota that travel,” which hasn’t been done. “In TEPCO’s environmental impact assessment, they didn’t take account of any bioaccumulation of tritium, which does occur in all organisms. The question of bioconcentration in an ocean environment was totally ignored in the statement.”
In its report to Forum member governments in August, the expert panel concluded that Japan’s assessments of ecological effects and bioconcentration are seriously deficient and don’t provide a sound basis for estimating impact.”
20 December 2022
Early next year Japan plans to begin dumping 1.3 million tonnes of treated radioactive wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear reactor into the Pacific Ocean. Fiercely opposed by local fishermen, seaweed farmers and residents near Fukushima, the plan has also been challenged by China, South Korea and other neighbouring states, as well as by the Pacific Islands Forum.
At their annual summit in July, island leaders appointed an independent five-member expert scientific panel to probe the project’s safety. Forum secretary-general Henry Puna, concerned about harm to the fishing industry in Japan and the wider Pacific region, has reinforced regional concern that the scientific data doesn’t justify the plan.
“Experts have advised a deferment to the impending discharge into the Pacific Ocean by Japan is necessary,” Puna said last month. “Based on that advice, our members encourage consideration for options other than discharge, while the independent panel of experts continue to further assess the safety of the discharge in light of the current data gaps.”
In a confidential report to the Pacific Islands Forum, the expert panel outlined detailed concerns about the project, arguing that any decision to proceed should be postponed. Even though Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority has given the go-ahead for construction, a growing number of scientists are warning about the long-term implications of dumping more than a million tonnes of water containing radioactive isotopes into the Pacific.
The waste problem goes back to March 2011, when three nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant were flooded after an offshore earthquake. A fourteen-metre tsunami hit the coast, causing massive damage to the reactors’ power supply and cooling systems. The partial meltdown of the reactor cores caused extensive damage as fuel rod assemblies burned through steel containment vessels and into the concrete base of the reactor buildings.
For more than a decade, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, known as TEPCO, has been using water to cool the excess heat still emanating from the melted fuel rods. The highly contaminated cooling water is then stored in more than a thousand tanks at the site. With more than a hundred tonnes of water collected every day, storage space is running out.
Japan proposes to dump this wastewater into the Pacific Ocean after passing it through an Advanced Liquid Processing System designed to remove most radioactive materials.
The cost of decommissioning the stricken Fukushima reactors has put TEPCO — and Japanese taxpayers — under massive pressure. Since 2011, more than ¥12 trillion (A$120 billion) has been spent on cleaning up the plant, decontaminating the site and compensating people affected by the accident. This accounts for half of the amount budgeted for work that must continue for many decades.
The Japanese government has already provided ¥10.2 trillion in no-interest loans to TEPCO. Last month Japan’s Board of Audit revealed that repayment of these loans will be delayed, highlighting TEPCO’s ongoing financial crisis.
Many analysts are concerned TEPCO is looking at ocean waste dumping as the cheapest option to resolve storage costs for the vast amounts of water contaminated with tritium and other radionuclides. As Benshuo Yang and Haojun Xu from the Ocean University of China report, alternatives include underground burial, controlled vapour release, and injection into the geosphere. Japan, they add, “has chosen the most cost-efficient, but most harmful one.”
Work on the ocean dumping plan is rushing ahead, ignoring international concern. In August, TEPCO began building the infrastructure needed to release the treated radioactive water into the sea, including a kilometre-long undersea tunnel and a complex of pipes to transfer the treated water from storage tanks.
Because Japan is a major donor to Pacific Island nations, some island governments are wary of directly condemning the plan. But anti-nuclear sentiment is strong in a region that still suffers from the radioactive legacies of fifty years of cold war–era nuclear testing, and many remember previous Japanese pledges to consult about plans to dump nuclear waste.
The expert panel was appointed to help bolster the islands’ dealings with Japan. Its five members have extensive expertise in the marine environment, nuclear radiation, reactor engineering and oceanography: Ken Buesseler works at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Antony Hooker is director of the Centre for Radiation Research, Education and Innovation at the University of Adelaide, Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress is with the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at Monterey, Robert Richmond is director of the Kewalo Marine Laboratory at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, and Arjun Makhijani is president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, or IEER.
TEPCO’s radiological impact assessment, released in November 2021, sidestepped many of the initial concerns raised by critics of the project. Throughout 2022, the expert panel held meetings with TEPCO and Japanese officials, receiving some data on the type of radionuclides held in storage by the company. The International Atomic Energy Agency has also contributed to the debate, with director-general Rafael Grossi visiting the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in May 2022 and briefing a Forum meeting in July.
For panel member Arjun Makhijani, a former nuclear engineer and IEER expert on nuclear safety, the lack of significant data is a crucial problem.
“From a scientific point of view, we as an expert panel felt there was really insufficient information to plan this huge operation,” he tells me. “We perceived early on that because most of the storage tanks had not been sampled, most of the radionuclides are not being sampled, and so there just wasn’t enough information to proceed.”
As time went on, says Dr Makhijani, the panel’s worries about the Japanese plans became stronger. “Do they know what they are doing? Do they have enough information? Have they done the measurements properly? Do they know if the capacity of the filtration system will be enough for the volume of liquids, so the concentration of radionuclides would be low enough? How long will it take if they have to repeatedly filter the liquids? There weren’t any clear answers to these questions.”
As they met with TEPCO and Japanese authorities, the expert panel began to raise a series of concerns: the failure to accurately sample different isotopes in the storage tanks, the level of radioactive contamination in sludge at the bottom of the tanks, and the models used to determine how elements like tritium will disperse and dilute in the vast Pacific Ocean.
For Dr Makhijani, the Japanese authorities have not provided enough information to ascertain what range and amounts of radionuclides will be found in each tank. Only nine of sixty-four radionuclides have been included in the data shared with the Forum.
“The vast majority of radionuclides are not being measured, according to the Japanese authorities themselves,” Dr Makhijani says. “In summary, most of the tanks have never been sampled. The sampling they do is non-representative of the water in the tanks and when they were stored. Are the measurements of what’s in the tanks accurate? The answer to this is no.”
The bulk of the radioactivity measured in the wastewater is from two isotopes: tritium and carbon-14. But current data also show a complex mix of other highly radioactive isotopes, including strontium-90, caesium-134, caesium-137, cobalt-60 and even tellurium-127, a fission product with a short half-life of nine hours that shouldn’t be present after years of storage.
The expert panel has noted that some tanks low in tritium are high in strontium-90, and vice versa, concluding that “the assumption that concentrations of the other radionuclides are constant is not correct and a full assessment of all radioisotopes is needed to evaluate the true risk factors.”
Also of concern is the fact that particles in the water may settle to the bottom of the storage tanks over time, creating contaminated sludge. Japanese authorities have confirmed that tanks filled with cooling water in the years immediately after the 2011 accident contain contaminated sediment of this kind.
“The sludges were not sampled then and have not been sampled since that time,” says Dr Makhijani. “How much of these sludges will be stirred up and complicate the filtration system as you pump out the water from the tanks? This issue has not been addressed.”
TEPCO plans to filter out most isotopes but dump vast amounts of tritium into the Pacific, relying on rapid dispersion and dilution. But many scientists are critical of the model used to measure the dilution of tritium in seawater, which is based on models using international standards for how much naturally occurring tritium can be safely ingested in drinking water. Environmental critics of the dumping plan are concerned tritium and other radioactive isotopes will accumulate in ocean sediments, fish and other marine biota.
According to Dr Makhijani, the expert panel was concerned that the proposed drinking water standard for tritium does not apply to ocean ecosystems. “The discharged concentration of tritium will be thousands of times the background level you find naturally or through historical nuclear testing,” he explains, “and then you’re going to discharge it for many decades.”
He believes a full modelling of the impact would include “an ecosystem assessment, both for sediments and for vegetal and animal biota that travel,” which hasn’t been done. “In TEPCO’s environmental impact assessment, they didn’t take account of any bioaccumulation of tritium, which does occur in all organisms. The question of bioconcentration in an ocean environment was totally ignored in the statement.”
In its report to Forum member governments in August, the expert panel concluded that Japan’s assessments of ecological effects and bioconcentration are seriously deficient and don’t provide a sound basis for estimating impact. Writing in the Japan Times, the five scientists noted:
The release of contaminated material from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant would take at least forty years, and decades longer if you include the anticipated accumulation of new water during the process. This would impact not only the interests and reputation of the Japanese fishing community, among others, but also the people and countries of the entire Pacific region. This needs to be considered as a transboundary and transgenerational issue.
Insufficient information is available to assess how environmental and human health would be affected, they argued, and issuing a permit at this time would be premature at best: “Having studied the scientific and ecological aspects of the matter, we have concluded that the decision to release the contaminated water should be indefinitely postponed and other options for the tank water revisited until we have more complete data to evaluate the economic, environmental and human health costs of ocean release.”
The potential for long-term damage to the ocean environment is echoed by expert panel member Robert Richmond from the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.
“This is truly a trans-boundary issue,” he says. “Fish don’t respect political lines, and neither do radionuclides or pollutants in the ocean. I really commend the members of the Pacific Islands Forum for recognising this is an issue they need additional information on.”
Soon after the 2011 Fukushima accident, scientists confirmed that Pacific bluefin tuna can transport radionuclides across the northern Pacific Ocean. A 2012 study from Stanford University reported tuna with traces of Fukushima-related contamination had been found on the shores of the United States.
“Pacific bluefin tuna can rapidly transport radionuclides from a point source in Japan to distant ecoregions and demonstrate the importance of migratory animals as transport vectors of radionuclides,” the study reported. “Other large, highly migratory marine animals make extensive use of waters around Japan, and these animals may also be transport vectors of Fukushima-derived radionuclides to distant regions of the North and South Pacific Oceans.”
Will perceptions of radioactive hazards from Japan’s ocean dumping damage the global market for tuna? Many island nations derive vital revenue from the deepwater fishing nations that pay to operate in Pacific Island exclusive economic zones, or EEZs.
Regional organisations have also sought to process and market tuna from the Pacific as another key source of revenue. For nearly a decade, island states have supported Pacifical, a brand that promotes sustainable distribution and marketing of skipjack and yellowfin tuna caught in their EEZs.
Speaking after her recent appointment as executive director of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Rhea Moss-Christian highlighted the potential damage of Japan’s decades-long project: “This is a massive release and a big, big potential disaster if it’s not handled properly.”
Moss-Christian is the first Pacific woman to head the commission, which manages the largest tuna fishery in the world, representing nearly 60 per cent of global production.
“I wish that the Japanese government would take some more time before its release,” she told journalists at December’s commission meeting. “There are a number of outstanding questions that have yet to be fully answered. They have focused a lot on one particular radionuclide, and not very much on others that are also present in the wastewater.”
Moss-Christian is a citizen of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, an island nation living with the consequences of radioactive fallout from sixty-seven US atmospheric nuclear tests on Bikini and Enewetak Atolls. A former chair of the Marshall Islands National Nuclear Commission, she is deeply aware of this radioactive legacy. Her nation struggles to control radionuclides leaching into the marine environment from the Runit Dome, a nuclear waste site on Enewetak Atoll created by the United States in the 1970s.
“We have a lot of experience in the Marshall Islands with lingering radioactive waste,” Moss-Christian said. “We don’t want to find ourselves in another situation, not just in the Marshall Islands, but in general in the region, where we agree to something without knowing what could potentially happen in the future. What are the contingency plans? What are the compensation mechanisms?”
At a time of growing US–China tension, the Japanese government is seeking to boost its role in the islands region. Tokyo is building closer ties with Australia and the United States through increased military operations and joint investments in the islands. In November, for example, Tokyo and Washington agreed to contribute US$100 million to support Australian underwriting of Telstra’s purchase of Digicel, blocking Chinese investment in the Pacific’s key mobile phone network.
Even as the Japanese government seeks to win hearts and minds in the region, community anger about the nuclear threat is growing. Church and civil society groups, including the Pacific Conference of Churches, Pacific Islands Association of Non-Governmental Organisations and Pacific Network on Globalisation, have criticised the proposed wastewater dumping plan.
When Japanese foreign minister Yoshimasa Hayashi visited Fiji last May, these community groups argued the proposed ocean dumping breached international agreements like the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution. A joint civil society statement concluded, “We believe there is no scenario in which discharging nuclear waste into the Pacific Ocean is justified for the health, wellbeing, and future safety of Pacific peoples and the environment.”
As Japan forges ahead with its plan and Australia works towards acquiring nuclear submarines under the AUKUS agreement, the gulf is growing between the two countries’ geopolitical agenda and the growing antinuclear sentiment across the Blue Pacific. •
Nuclear plant hosts split over Japan’s reversed energy policy
An anti-nuclear rally is held near the prime minister’s office building in Tokyo on Dec. 16.
December 23, 2022
The government’s return to reliance on nuclear energy sparked both anger and joy among municipalities that host nuclear power plants.
The Fumio Kishida administration, in a sweeping reversal of the nation’s nuclear energy policy, says it intends to make “maximum use” of nuclear power to secure a stable energy supply and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“We are still struggling to rebuild our community,” said Hisato Iwamoto, a member of the Futaba town assembly. “The central government must have forgotten the Fukushima disaster.”
The town co-hosts the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, which suffered a triple meltdown after the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami in March 2011.
Iwamoto’s family was forced to move from one place to another in the prefecture following the disaster.
In fact, all residents of Futaba were told to evacuate their homes.
As a member of the town assembly that had endorsed nuclear power, Iwamoto said he feels responsible.
“It had never occurred to us that an accident could happen at the plant because we constantly asked the central government and Tokyo Electric Power Co. to ensure the plant’s safety,” he said. “I now know there is no such thing as ‘absolutely safe’ no matter how advanced nuclear plants become in the future.”
Since the 2011 triple meltdown, Iwamoto has consistently sounded warnings that a serious accident could occur at any nuclear plant when he attended meetings of assembly members of municipalities hosting nuclear plants across the country.
But their reactions have been lukewarm, according to Iwamoto.
Iwamoto, 65, noted that politicians opposed to nuclear energy would have difficulty winning elections in areas whose economies rely largely on nuclear plants.
His father, Tadao, was a good example.
Tadao was first elected to the Fukushima prefectural assembly in 1971 and began activity opposing nuclear plants. That opposition resulted in three straight election losses since 1975.
Even in the 1979 election, which followed the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in the United States in March that year, he gained the least number of votes among candidates.
After he switched his position and accepted nuclear power, he was elected Futaba mayor. He served five terms at the post.
Evacuees from Futaba were allowed to return to live in their hometown in August.
But Futaba is now a far cry from what it used to be, said Iwamoto, who still lives in evacuation in Iwaki in the prefecture.
“Community ties have never been restored,” he said.
Ritsuko Yanai, a 44-year-old mother who evacuated to Aizuwakamatsu in the prefecture, said she suspects the central government is “trying to wipe the slate clean.”
She is from Okuma, the other co-host of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant.
She fled the disaster with her 1-month-old son. Her parents’ home was dismantled to make space for and interim facility to store debris and waste from decontamination work.
There is no clue on when decommissioning of the plant will be completed. And the release into the sea of tons and tons of treated water stored at the plant is expected to begin in spring.
“The nuclear accident is not over yet,” Yanai said.
But in Mihama, a town hosting the Mihama nuclear plant in Fukui Prefecture, the central government’s decision on nuclear power was mostly welcomed.
The prefecture facing the Sea of Japan hosts 15 reactors, the most in the nation. Seven of them, including two prototype reactors and two reactors at the Mihama plant, are in the process of decommissioning.
“The central government finally took action,” said Jitaro Yamaguchi, a former mayor of the town. “Nothing can serve as an alternative to nuclear energy.”
Yamaguchi, who was Mihama mayor for 20 years until he stepped down in 2019, had lobbied Kansai Electric Power Co., operator of the Mihama nuclear plant, to build more reactors in the town, with a population of about 9,000.
His pro-nuclear power stance remained unchanged even after the Fukushima disaster.
“We need nuclear plants when we think about environmental issues and power supply,” he said. “They have benefitted the local economy.”
The Mihama nuclear plant is called the “heart” of the local economy, sending “blood” to every corner of the town.
More than half of the town’s initial budget of 8.6 billion yen ($65 million) for fiscal 2022 is funded by revenues from nuclear facilities.
Since retiring as mayor, Yamaguchi, 79, has served as head of an organization promoting nuclear power.
He said he is pleased with the government’s new policy to replace retired reactors with new units. Previous governments had refused to commit to such projects following the Fukushima accident.
The town now has better prospects for construction of brand-new reactors–and more money.
“Nuclear power plants are an integral part of the local industry,” he said. “They should be built seamlessly.”
But the town is not without opponents of new reactors as well as advocates for a shift to renewables.
“A nuclear plant is akin to a drug addiction that you cannot break,” said Teruyuki Matsushita, a 74-year-old assemblyman. “Once a huge sum of money from a nuclear project is poured in the town, you are increasingly less likely to give serious thought on how to build the future of the town.”
(This article was compiled from reports by Keitaro Fukuchi, Nobuyuki Takiguchi and Tsunetaka Sato.)
VOX POPULI: Shame on you, prime minister, for your blatant about-face
JR Namie Station, upper right, in Fukushima Prefecture is surrounded by vacant land in March 2019, after homes and shops damaged by the 2011 nuclear disaster were demolished.
December 24, 2022
Mariko Sato of the town of Namie, Fukushima Prefecture, said in March 2011: “Explosions at the nuclear power plant have forced me to evacuate twice already. What’s going to happen in the days ahead?”
“I’ve lived a bit too long. I saw something I didn’t want to see,” noted 102-year-old Fumio Okubo in April before he took his own life in front of his home in the village of Iitate.
One year later, 6-year-old Toya Matsuoka spoke of his dream: “I want to be rich when I grow up. I’m going to buy a big house that won’t be washed away by tsunami, so my entire family can live there.”
And Kunio Omori, 81, recalled his temporary return to his home in the town of Tomioka: “There were beautifully ripe, yellow fruits on apricot trees in my yard. But I couldn’t even pick them, let alone eat.”
Those are among comments by Fukushima residents who survived the Great East Japan Earthquake of March 2011 that triggered a nuclear disaster to tell their stories to The Asahi Shimbun.
Trying to remember what kind of future our nation sought back then, I re-read the clippings, placed side by side on my desk with stories that ran in yesterday’s paper.
And I was overcome with shocked disbelief: How could anyone completely forget something of such magnitude after only 11 years?
The Kishida administration on Dec. 23 announced a new policy to make “maximum use” of nuclear power.
The government will proceed with the hitherto “unanticipated” reconstruction of old facilities, will consider building new facilities and extend the life span of reactors to beyond 60 years.
The about-face is so total, I feel cheated.
And yet, the language of the new policy is shamelessly replete with lofty “assurances” such as, “Fukushima’s reconstruction is the basis on which (the nation’s) energy policy is to be pursued” and “the sobering lessons we learned from the accident will never be forgotten, not even for a second.”
A guilty heart is said to turn one’s ears red. And that is why the kanji for “haji” (shame) is made up of two radicals that stand for “ear” and “heart,” according to kanji scholar Shizuka Shirakawa (1910-2006), the author of “Joyo Jikai” (translated into English as The Keys to the Chinese Characters).
Prime Minister Fumio Kishida boasts about his “ability to listen.” I wonder if his new energy policy has made his ears turn red, even if for just a second.
If not, it’s just too sad.
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident: Two workers who developed leukemia and other illnesses while working on the plant premises are certified as workers’ compensation workers
December 23, 2022
The Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare (MHLW) has recognized a causal relationship between work and two men who developed leukemia and other illnesses while working inside the TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant after the accident.
The two men, both in their 60s and 70s, worked for a TEPCO subcontractor and were involved in restoration work at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant after the accident in March 2011.
According to the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare, the man in his 60s was in charge of electrical system construction and was diagnosed in 2017 with “true red blood cell hyperplasia,” a cancer of the blood that increases the number of red blood cells.
Another man in his 70s was involved in the construction of new tanks and was diagnosed with leukemia last year.
Both men had been working at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant since before the accident, and their total exposure doses exceeded the guidelines for certification. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare recognized their work as having a causal relationship to their work.
Since the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, eight workers have been diagnosed with leukemia and thyroid cancer, bringing the total number of workers’ compensation cases to 10.
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20221223/k10013933321000.html?fbclid=IwAR1IVXivzuHbmjsDsjDVZ8Ht5gj3nSLkNE_fJEQlTaiVU92 PqsIdnoZuDJA
JP Gov estimates Tepco to take 42 more years to compensate
Storage building of residuals from the contaminated water https://www.tepco.co.jp/decommission/visual/photo/index-j.html
The Board of Audit of Japan has estimated that it will take until fiscal year 2064 to recover the funds lent to TEPCO for compensation for the Fukushima nuclear accident. Four years ago, the Board of Audit estimated that the maximum period would be until fiscal 2051, but this time it has been extended by 13 years. There is still room for the amount of compensation TEPCO will pay to the victims and others to increase, and the Board has pointed out that “the timing of the completion of recovery may be extended even further in the future than this trial calculation.”
TEPCO has paid compensation for victims and the cost of decontamination work. In order to financially support this company, the government borrows funds from private financial institutions and issues government bonds to provide funds to TEPCO through the Nuclear Damage Compensation and Decommissioning Facilitation Corporation. The organization is proceeding with de facto repayment by paying “general contributions” from TEPCO and other electric power companies to the government.
According to the Board of Audit, 13.5 trillion yen (97B USD) in government bonds have been issued to support TEPCO so far, and about 8 trillion yen (58B USD) has not been returned to the government by the agency. In addition to the general contribution, the agency uses “special contribution from TEPCO” and “profit on sale of TEPCO shares by the agency” as the source of funds for the return.
Nevertheless, TEPCO’s financial situation and stock price have not improved as planned, and in the worst scenario by this moment, it would take another 42 years until 2064 to recover the full amount.
Next spring, it is planned that contaminated water from decommissioning work will begin to be discharged into the Pacific, which is anticipated to increase the amount of compensation. In addition, since the amount of compensation determined in lawsuits filed by victims and evacuees across the country already exceeds the expected line by the government guidelines, the amount of compensation is likely to increase even further if the guidelines are updated.
For this reason, the Board of Audit stated, “If Tepco ends up making more loans from the government due to the increasing compensation liability, the burden on the people will also increase.”
Japanese panel approves return to nuclear power as disaster memories fade
Dec 22, 2022
Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s advisory panel approved a plan to extend the lifespans of nuclear reactors beyond 60 years and build new units to replace those that are decommissioned, reversing policies put in place after the Fukushima disaster in 2011.
The step reflects a shift in public opinion, as the import-reliant country struggles with the threat of blackouts amid Russia’s war in Ukraine and extreme weather. While massive demonstrations calling for the abolition of atomic power were a regular occurrence in the wake of the meltdowns, recent polls indicate growing support for restarting idled plants.
The government is aiming to present legislation to parliament during the next session to put the basic plan into action, Kishida told a meeting of his “green transformation” panel, which is made up mostly of business executives and academics, on Thursday. The proposal will be opened for public comment and could gain Cabinet approval by February, the Nikkei newspaper reported.
Japan is joining a global shift back to nuclear energy after the prices of natural gas and coal shot to records this year as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine upended markets. The Kishida administration is also turning to nuclear to help curb emissions and hit Japan’s 2050 net-zero target.
A survey by the Yomiuri newspaper in August found 58% in favor of restarting idled reactors, the first time a majority approved of the idea in that poll series since the question was initially posed in 2017. A separate survey by public broadcaster NHK earlier this month found 45% approved of the panel’s plan, while 37% opposed it.
The government still faces some opposition from local residents over nuclear restarts and lawsuits related to safety concerns still keep many reactors offline. Only a third of Japan’s operable reactors have restarted since the 2011 disaster.
After the Fukushima disaster, Japan swore to phase out nuclear power. But not anymore
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is seen on March 17. Japan on Thursday adopted a new policy promoting greater use of nuclear energy to ensure a stable power supply amid global fuel shortages and reduce carbon emissions — a major reversal of its phaseout plan since the Fukushima crisis.
December 22, 2022
TOKYO — Japan adopted a plan on Thursday to extend the lifespan of nuclear reactors, replace the old and even build new ones, a major shift in a country scarred by the Fukushima disaster that once planned to phase out atomic power.
In the face of global fuel shortages, rising prices and pressure to reduce carbon emissions, Japan’s leaders have begun to turn back toward nuclear energy, but the announcement was their clearest commitment yet after keeping mum on delicate topics like the possibility of building new reactors.
Still, restart approvals for idled nuclear reactors have come slowly since the Fukushima disaster, which led to stricter safety standards. Utility companies have applied for restarts at 27 reactors in the past decade. Seventeen have passed safety checks and only 10 have resumed operation.
According the paper laying out the new policy, nuclear power serves “an important role as a carbon-free baseload energy source in achieving supply stability and carbon neutrality” and pledged to “sustain use of nuclear power into the future.” Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said he planned to get the Cabinet to approve the policy and submit necessary bills to Parliament.
As part of the new policy, the Economy and Industry Ministry has drafted a plan to allow extensions every 10 years for reactors after 30 years of operation while also permitting utilities to subtract offline periods in calculating reactors’ operational life.
The plan was endorsed on Wednesday by the Nuclear Regulation Authority, Japan’s nuclear watchdog. New safety inspection rules still need to be put into law and approved by Parliament.
The regulation authority’s commissioner, Shinichi Yamanaka, told a news conference the new safety rules requiring operational permits every decade after 30 years will be safer than a current one-time 20-year extension option for 40-year-old reactors. But experts cast some doubt on that.
Some experts question extending the lifespan of older reactors
Takeo Kikkawa, an economics professor at the International University of Japan and an expert on energy, said utility operators under the new policy could keep using old equipment instead of investing in new technology or renewables.
“Naturally, we should aim for newer technology and use it safely. Therefore, extending reactors’ lifespans is an undesirable move,” Kikkawa recently told a talk show.
Most nuclear reactors in Japan are more than 30 years old. Four reactors that have operated for more than 40 years have received permission to operate, and one is currently online.
Under the new policy, Japan will also push for the development and construction of “next-generation innovative reactors” to replace about 20 reactors now set for decommissioning.
Kenichi Oshima, a Ryukoku University professor of environmental economy and energy policy, said some of what the government calls “innovative” reactors are not so different from existing technology and that prospects for nuclear fusion and other next-generation reactors are largely uncertain and not achievable anytime soon.
Thursday’s adoption of the new policy comes less than four months after Kishida launched the “GX (Green Transformation) Implementation Council” of outside experts and ministers to “consider all options” to compile a new policy that addresses global fuel shortages amid Russia’s war on Ukraine and seeks to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.
Japan’s nuclear energy goals may be out of reach
Nuclear energy accounts for less than 7% of Japan’s energy supply, and achieving the government’s goal of raising that share to 20-22% by 2030 will require about 27 reactors, from the current 10 — a target some say is not achievable. The new policy also does not help address imminent supply shortages because reactors cannot be restarted quickly enough.
While public opinion on nuclear energy has softened since Fukushima, opponents still argue atomic power is not flexible and not even cheaper than renewables when final waste management and necessary safety measures are considered — and that it can cause immeasurable damage in an accident.
Ruiko Muto, a survivor of the Fukushima disaster, called the new policy “extremely disappointing.” She added: “The Fukushima disaster is not over yet and the government seems to have already forgotten what happened.”
The regulation authority came under fire Wednesday after revelations by a civil group that a few of its experts had discussed details with industry ministry officials before the watchdog was officially asked to consider a rule change for aging reactors, despite their compulsory independence.
Prime Minister Kishida also said Thursday that the government will do more to find candidate sites for a final repository for high-level nuclear waste that Japan does not yet have. Preliminary studies have begun in two small towns in Hokkaido, angering some residents.
Now that the government has turned to promoting nuclear power, I would like you to see a photo book published that tells the history of opposition to the construction of the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant. Valuable data that survived the disaster
After the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, Muneyoshi Abe (right), a resident of Onagawa Town, Miyagi Prefecture, held a banner saying, “Let Fukushima be a lesson to us all. Muneyoshi Abe (right) holds up a flag with the slogan “Oppose Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant” (from the photo book “50 Years in the Town of Nuclear Power Plants”).
December 22, 2022
A photo book titled “50 Years in the Town of Nuclear Power Plants: Thinking about the Future from Onagawa” was published to document the struggle to stop the construction of Tohoku Electric Power Company’s Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant (Onagawa Town, Miyagi Prefecture, and Ishinomaki City). While the Kishida administration has been pushing for nuclear power, Mikiko Abe, 70, the editor of the book and a member of the Onagawa Town Council, says, “I would like people to come into contact with the faces and thoughts of the local residents who have been fighting for half a century against nuclear power plants. (Norio Noro)
The plan to build a nuclear power plant in Onagawa was announced in 1968, and the struggle against the plant by fishermen and others began. Mr. Abe returned to his hometown after graduating from Chuo University in 1975 and joined in the struggle led by his father, Muneyoshi, who ran a shipping agent. He was outraged when he saw police riot police raising their shields and beating him, and began filming with a camera.
In September 1976, women in kappo-gowns marching in a demonstration at the “Three Towns United to Absolutely Stop Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant” rally held in Onagawa (from the photo collection “50 Years in the Town of Nuclear Power Plants”).
Residents blocking an overnight bus carrying supporters to the prefectural government’s “nuclear power plant briefing,” a demonstration at sea on a fishing boat, and a request to protest Tohoku Electric Power Company…. Standing on the frontlines of the struggle, the film records their thoughts and actions in defense of “the sea is life.
In 1977, the Onagawa Fisheries Cooperative Association passed a resolution at an extraordinary general meeting to invite nuclear power plants to Onagawa. While opponents were celebrating when the only thing reported outside was the “rejection of the abandonment of fishing rights,” which had been decided at the same time, Mr. Abe took a picture of himself shouting, “We passed a resolution to invite the nuclear power plant, so don’t shout ‘Hooray!
Construction of Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 began in 1979, and commercial operation began in 1984. In 2008, when the opposition to the plant continued, a town official asked Mr. Abe to preserve the photos he had taken, saying, “The struggle against the plant is part of Onagawa’s history, so I want to preserve it.
Mikiko Abe
However, her house and the town hall were hit by the tsunami in the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011, and her precious photos and CDs were lost. However, she was lucky enough to find the data on a CD she had given to an acquaintance in Sendai City, which was left on the computer of another friend. Teiji Wada, 70, a native of the town and the head of the publishing company Ichiyo-sha (Kita-ku, Tokyo), and others have been working together to compile a photo collection.
The book contains approximately 340 photographs, including those taken by Mr. Abe in the 1970s, when the struggle was fierce. The book also includes testimonies from fishermen and others who describe the situation at that time, the Great East Japan Earthquake, and other events.
On April 26, after the accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, Mr. Abe stood with Mr. Soetsu at the site of their debris-strewn home. That day marked the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in the former Soviet Union. On the momohiki that had washed ashore, he wrote “Let Fukushima be a lesson to you? and “All nuclear reactors must be decommissioned! and “All nuclear power plants must be decommissioned! Muneyoshi passed away in 2012 at the age of 86, following in his father’s footsteps.
The Kishida administration has announced a shift in nuclear power policy to promote nuclear power for the first time since the Fukushima accident. Furthermore, the administration has been touting nuclear power as a decarbonizing and effective countermeasure to global warming.
Mr. Abe said, “The large amount of wastewater emitted from nuclear power plants is 7 degrees higher than the temperature of seawater, and this will contribute to global warming. Decommissioning or building new reactors requires enormous amounts of energy and increases carbon dioxide emissions. How will radioactive waste be disposed of and managed? I hope that people will see the origin of the struggle against nuclear power and deepen their understanding of the need for nuclear power plant phase-out,” he said.
Photo book “50 Years in the Town of Nuclear Power Plants” looks back on the struggle against the construction of the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant.
The photo book is A4 size, 136 pages, 2,200 yen. Ichiyo-sha Publishing Co.
https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/221467
Bad move to prolong the life of an industry with no growth potential: Official Decision to Operate Nuclear Power Plants for More Than 60 Years, With the Goal of Restoring the Nuclear Power Plant Accident Unseen
Prime Minister’s Office
December 22, 2022
On the afternoon of December 22, the government will hold a meeting of the Green Transformation (GX) Council at the Prime Minister’s Office to discuss industrial transformation to realize a decarbonized society, and will formally decide on a basic policy that includes measures to utilize nuclear power plants, focusing on operating them for “more than 60 years” and rebuilding (replacing) them.
After the accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station in 2011, the government had legally limited the operating period of nuclear power plants to “40 years in principle, with a maximum of 60 years,” and had stated that it “does not envision” rebuilding or adding new plants, but 11 years and 9 months after the accident, the government is making a major change in its nuclear policy.
According to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, nuclear power plants will be allowed to operate for more than 60 years, excluding the period of suspension due to the Nuclear Regulation Authority’s examination and judicial decisions for restarting operations. The revised bill is expected to be submitted to the ordinary Diet session next year.
In addition, the company will move forward with concrete plans to rebuild nuclear power plants that have been decided to be decommissioned with next-generation nuclear power plants, based on the assumption that safety is ensured and that the local governments in which the plants are located have their understanding. The construction of new nuclear power plants is estimated to cost more than 1 trillion yen, and the government will also consider financial support measures to help electric power companies bear the initial costs.
The basic policy will also include the development of the power grid to maximize the use of renewable energy.
At the end of July, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida instructed relevant ministries and agencies to advance discussions on overcoming the energy crisis caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the GX as one, and to specify items requiring a political decision.
◆ While uninhabitable areas still remain and compensation for the affected people is still ongoing
Prime Minister Kishida is calling it a “political decision” to change the nuclear energy policy. While the GX’s cause of reforming the socioeconomic system to combat global warming has been raised, the maximum utilization of nuclear power plants is a bad move, a measure to prolong the life of an industry that is not expected to grow.
There are two pillars of the government’s decision to utilize nuclear power plants: The first is to cut to the bare bones the rule of “40 years in principle, with a maximum of 60 years” for operation, effectively allowing operation “beyond 60 years.
Ensuring the safety of old nuclear power plants requires an enormous amount of manpower, money, and time. Nuclear power plants, which the government has promoted as an “inexpensive power source,” would impose a tremendous double-digit trillion-yen burden on electric power companies if even one severe accident were to occur. The accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant 11 years and 9 months ago brought this to light.
The other pillar of the plan is to rebuild the decommissioned nuclear power plants with next-generation nuclear power plants. Although it is touted as the introduction of new technology, the number of human resources in the industry has decreased since the Fukushima accident, and there is an undeniable lack of personnel and technical capabilities. Nuclear power plant construction has long ceased, and nuclear power plant exports, promoted as a growth strategy by the Shinzo Abe administration, the longest in the postwar era, have failed at every turn.
At the site of the world’s worst nuclear accident, located 220 kilometers from Tokyo, the goal of restoration work remains elusive. Uninhabitable areas remain in the vicinity of the plant, and compensation for the victims is still ongoing. There is no hope for political decisions that do not face reality. （Shinichi Ogawa)
https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/221469?fbclid=IwAR3rXy86c0b5tNBmOiRJCsrggIOJjQUSyuQk97hGXvxymepmv1loO36wC-Y
Court rejects calls to halt Kansai Electric’s aging nuclear reactor
Dec 20, 2022
Osaka – The Osaka District Court on Tuesday rejected local residents’ calls to halt an aging nuclear reactor at Kansai Electric Power’s Mihama power plant in central Japan that started operations more than 40 years ago.
The court ruling marked the first judicial decision over the safety of an aging reactor. It was handed down after local residents sought suspension of the No. 3 unit of the plant in Fukui Prefecture due to safety concerns.
The decision came as the government seeks to extend the maximum service period for the country’s existing nuclear reactors beyond 60 years. The reactor is the only one that operates in Japan beyond the country’s 40-year service period in principle.
Nine residents in Fukui, Shiga and Kyoto prefectures living within a 10- to 80-kilometer radius of the plant argued the reactor would not be able to withstand a massive earthquake due to the likelihood that facilities and equipment have deteriorated over time.
Such a situation poses a risk of exposure to radiation caused by the spread of radioactive materials, the residents said, adding that the current evacuation plan is not effective, as the route passes by other nuclear plants and destination sites are located where radioactive materials could reach.
However, the court ruled that there is no problem with Kansai Electric’s safety measures against earthquakes and that steps taken against the aging of the reactor are also reasonable.
Kansai Electric had argued the safety of the reactor is ensured as it complies with the new regulatory standards established on lessons learned from the 2011 nuclear disaster that was caused by a massive earthquake and tsunami.
In June 2021, the No. 3 unit became the first nuclear reactor to operate beyond 40 years under the new rules that limit a reactor’s service period to 40 years in principle, although it can be extended by up to 20 years if approved by the Nuclear Regulation Authority.
The unit was halted just four months after being restarted as it failed to implement anti-terrorism measures in time and also suffered a water leakage before being started up again on Aug. 30 this year. It resumed operations on Sept. 26.
Units No. 1 and 2 of the Mihama plant were terminated in April 2015 in line with the 40-year limit.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/12/20/national/crime-legal/mihama-ruling/
Scope of Fukushima nuclear accident compensation expanded
A gate leading to a “difficult-to-return zone” is closed by a government official in a town in Fukushima Prefecture in May 2013.
December 21, 2022
Psychological damage stemming from the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant accident is being recognized by a government panel as eligible for compensation.
This policy was included in interim guidelines being compiled for the first time in nine years by the Dispute Reconciliation Committee for Nuclear Damage Compensation on Tuesday.
It will significantly expand the scope of compensation for people affected by changes to their livelihood due to a long period of evacuation from areas around the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.
The guidelines set the standards for compensation from Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. following the nuclear accident at its plant.
As part of the revisions to the guidelines, rulings in lawsuits filed by evacuees will also be applied to non-plaintiffs.
The new guidelines recognize psychological damage caused by changes in living conditions of people who not only lived in the “difficult-to-return zones,” but also those who live in other evacuation-designated zones. This means additional compensation of up to ¥2.5 million each for about 30,000 people living in “restricted residence zones” and about 40,000 residents of “evacuation order cancellation preparation zones.”
For people who used to live within a 20-kilometer radius of the plant, an additional ¥300,000 is set to be paid on the grounds that they were forced to endure harsh evacuation conditions.
As for former residents of Fukushima City and other areas that are not included in evacuation zones but were subject to voluntary evacuation, the new guidelines raise the amount of compensation. An adult who is not pregnant will be eligible for ¥200,000, up from ¥80,000.
“We don’t think of these guidelines as caps on compensation,” TEPCO President Tomoaki Kobayakawa said to reporters at the of Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry. “We would like to respond sincerely to the matter.”
Kobayakawa indicated that TEPCO would continue to provide compensation to the southern part of Fukushima Prefecture, which is not included in the guidelines.
The latest revision is expected to cost TEPCO additional compensation of ¥500 billion.
Source: https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/society/general-news/20221221-78746/
1 This Month.
5 January -Webinar-What is Trump’s Golden Dome?
REGISTER AT Massachusetts Peace Action Education
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- December 2025 (268)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 