It was a city known for its beautiful beaches and boasts one of the longest cherry blossom tree tunnels in Japan.
But after a tsunami and a nuclear disaster both struck in the space of 12 months, Tomioka was turned into a ghost city.
These eerie images, captured by a drone, show what is left of the area near Fukushima that had to be abandoned overnight.
More than 15,000 residents living in 6,000 houses were forced to evacuate in March 2011 because of safety fears concerning dangerous radiation levels.
Three years on, schools and business are still prevented from returning while parks, playgrounds, roads and the city’s train station have been left covered in overgrown grass.
A total of 300,000 people have been evacuated from the east coast of the country since the disasters and 15,884 have died.
Road to nowhere: The way into Tomioka, Fukushima, has been blocked off, preventing residents from going back because of dangerous radiation levels
Tatyana Novikova has been fighting an unsafe nuclear power plant right on the country’s border with Lithuania. She spoke to Chris Garrard about her campaign, the official persecution of anti-nuclear activists, and her invocation of the Aarhus Convention to the anti-nuclear cause.
“It was not just arrest but the mockery – all five days I spent in a dark, wet and insanitary space. We had no walks and we slept on the wooden floor with no bed with other prisoners “”
Tatyana Novikova is an environmental campaigner and journalist from Belarus.
Her home lies a short distance from the construction site of the Ostrovets (aka Astravets) nuclear plant, of which she is an outspoken opponent.
A key member of the environmental NGO Ecohome, she was given a Viktar Ivashkevich human rights award in 2013 by the independent Belarusian news site, Charter 97. I took the opportunity to meet her on a recent trip to London organised by the Belarus Free Theatre.
I asked Tatyana, “Where do you draw your strength from as an activist? How do you keep going with your campaign?”
Tatyana answered, “I do not understand this question. What else could I do?”
Taking a stand on a pressing issue of environmental or social justice is often viewed as a conscious decision that a person has made to take a stand.
For Tatyana Novikova though, campaigning against the construction of a new nuclear power plant at Ostrovets in Belarus was much less of a choice.
Her own house is only a short distance away from the construction site and, like the majority of Belarusian citizens, the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 is still a recent memory.
The cloud from Chernobyl covered almost the entire territory of Belarus and studies have observed that all the areas affected by the radioactive fallout have seen a significant rise in the overall sickness rate.
Fighting Ostrovets means fighting the dictator
For some years now, Tatyana has been an environmental activist at the forefront of resisting this new plant, which if built will be the first in Belarus – a project being pushed ahead by the country’s ‘President’ and dictator, Alexander Lukashenko.
“The decision [to build a new plant at Ostrovets] was very unbelievable for us because all the scientists and experts in Belarus know that the citizens suffered, and still suffer [from Chernobyl]. It is very serious for us because many people died from thyroid cancer.”
Following international policy discussions in Maastricht, Tatyana had joined us in London for a number of meetings, interviews and an after-show discussion. When I met her at the airport, I offered to buy her a bottle of water. She declined but eagerly set off for a tap to refill her bottle.
As I discovered during the course of her stay, Tatyana’s activism runs deep, from her everyday actions to her commitment to her campaign. I was curious how she had first become involved in environmentalism and what had motivated her.
In Belarus, nuclear opponents are ‘enemies of the state’
In 1993, she says, “I worked as a mathematician in the Academy of Sciences where we worked with people who made maps of [the] Chernobyl consequences … I started to get more information about the consequences of nuclear power – it was very serious.”
Over the years, Tatyana has developed a thorough understanding of the risks of nuclear energy and radiation, working alongside many specialists and experts in the field.
However, it is not simply an objection to nuclear power that is behind their campaign but also a response to the intimidation her and her colleagues have faced for simply offering an opposing view. In a speech during ‘Chernobyl Day’ in 2008, Lukashenko made his views explicit.
“[He] tells us that the nuclear power plant construction is very important for the security and safety of Belarus … He said that these guys who are against the nuclear power plant are ‘enemies of the state’.”
This strong statement by Lukashenko was followed by the intimidation and arrest of anti-nuclear campaigners, including Tatyana and her colleagues. The repression began in 2009 as activists were searched, detained and arrested, with a number being deported.
The Aarhus Convention to the rescue?
However, it was only in July of this year that the Compliance Committee of the Aarhus Convention, an international agreement governing access to information to the decision-making process related to environmental matters, opened a case about the harassment of environmental activists in Belarus.
The government had to discuss its plans to build the new nuclear plant at Ostrovets with us and other environmentally concerned people, because it had signed up to the Aarhus Convention, says Tatyana.
“But the government told us, ‘No, we have taken the decision already. Your view is not important for us.'”
The government’s disregard for opposition voices, in combination with the legacy of Chernobyl, provided the foundation for a campaign resisting the new power plant. However, Tatyana and her colleagues decided to be thorough and specific in their approach.
“Our campaign started with looking for strong arguments. You can say ‘I am against nuclear’ but it will not have a serious impact on the government. You have to say why you are concerned. So, we started to analyse the official documentation … “
In March 2010, Tatyana and a team of independent researchers put together an analysis of the plans for a new plant, an analysis which stood in stark contrast to the government’s own documentation.
“What we see in the documentation is big errors and no professional analysis. We analysed this documentation with our big team of fifty experts – professors and specialists … They told us it is bad documentation with a lot of errors … “
The conclusion, she says, is that the government’s insistence that the plant is safe is “incorrect”. Ivan Nikitchenko, the chairman of this independent expert commission, stated that the potential impact to public health of a new nuclear power plant would be “dramatic”.
Build first, design later
Over the course of her visit, Tatyana told me about the many shortcomings of the project but one fact in particular stood out.
The government began to build the foundations of the first reactor building on May 21st 2012, nearly a year before an architectural design was in place. Even the license for construction was not issued until September 2013.
In its Environmental Impact Assessment, the Belarusian government claims that a severe accident at one of the Ostrovets VVER-1200 reactors(aka NPP-2006 / AES-2006) would not cause any harmful effects outside of the plant area and that the evacuation of the surrounding population would be unnecessary.
However, flexRISK, the Austrian research team, disproved this claim by analysing the potential effects of a severe accident at one of reactors. They identified that Cesium-137 pollution could cause the evacuation of the population within a range of 300 kilometres of the plant. The Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, lies just 50km away to the west.
Tatyana pointed out that these risks are greatly increased due to the experimental nature of the project – the chosen design for the plant has never been completed and put into operation before, although other examples are under construction.
Arrested – but what was the crime?
Tatyana explained to me that the plant is not just a Belarusian project but is, in reality, a collaboration with the Russian government. It is Russian investment and their provision of reactors that has allowed the project to move forward.
When the Russian Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev, came to Belarus to finalise the arrangement, Tatyana and her colleagues decided to bring their findings to his attention.
“Medvedev came to Belarus to sign [the] contract on the construction of the new nuclear power plant … and we were approaching the Embassy of Russia with a letter addressed to Medvedev, informing him that the construction of the reactor building at the nuclear power plant was started without an architectural plan, without a licence, with violations of technical norms in international law.”
They were all arrested – at Tatyana was held in custody for five days. Later, during the original public hearings of the Environmental Impact Assessment, one of the project’s critics, Andrey Ozharovskiy, a Russian nuclear expert, was arrested for seven days, preventing his objections from being heard.
He was also part of Tatyana’s group that planned to deliver the letter to Medvedev. Like Tatyana, Ozharovskiy was also arrested but imprisoned for ten days and then deported and banned from entering Belarus for ten years.
“It was not just arrest but the mockery – all five days I spent in a dark, wet and insanitary space. We had no walks and we slept on the wooden floor with no bed with other prisoners … Every day they searched for handovers from relatives during the deep nights.”
More harassment and obstruction
Since that time, Tatyana and her colleagues have encountered other forms of harassment. For example, she is one of the key organisers of the annual Chernobyl March in Minsk, an event sanctioned by the local authority.
However, when her and a friend were about to leave for a recent march, banners in hand, they found that the police had surrounded the flat they were staying in. Even climbing out of the window was not an option, as a member of the KGB, the state security service, was stood on guard outside dressed in plain clothes.
The campaign against the plant so far has been effective at raising awareness, locally and at international policy forums. However, it is this intimidation that Tatyana feels has prevented other people in Belarus from more actively supporting their campaign.
“My country is not a country of big democracy which is why people think they could not make a difference, affect decisions … they are afraid. For example, they read articles in the paper that I am arrested.
“I have thyroid cancer, I have two types of cancer … and in the jail I cannot access medication. People are afraid, afraid to raise their voice, because they understand that they could be arrested and no [explanations] will prevent this arrest.”
The slow progress of ‘soft diplomacy’
Some 48 hours before I met Tatyana, she had been at the meeting of the parties of the Aarhus Convention in Maastricht. At that meeting, a decision was adopted on Belarus’s failure to comply with the convention.
The EU delegation took the decision to make a special statement on the issue, suggesting that they would move for a caution to be made to Belarus if they did not eventually fully comply with the convention.
This time though, the recommendations that were made to Belarus remained unchanged. The process of international policy negotiations was clearly frustrating for Tatyana, as the convention has so far only delivered ‘soft’ decisions in the form of ‘recommendations’.
Since it came into force in 2001, the Aarhus Convention has only halted one construction project, in Ukraine, because of its violations.
The Aarhus and Espoo Conventions are key pieces of international legislation that need to be enforced but there are other avenues to be explored.
Tatyana explained that the Swedish multinational, Alfa Laval, had recently won the contract to supply heat exchangers for the plant – a risky deal given the plant’s current status and a deal which has not been scrutinised.
A new petition by Belarus Free Theatre seeks to put pressure on the EU and the Belarusian government for the project to be halted. With greater publicity of Tatyana’s experiences and those of her colleagues, the international pressure will quickly grow.
In order to help bring those stories to a wider audience, we had decided to make a short video interview with Tatyana, where she could share her thoughts and experiences.
One of the most poignant moments came towards the end, when she was asked what someone watching the video might do to support her campaign.
“I would ask them to believe in the result. Believe in the final aim … “
Chris Garrard is a campaigner with Belarus Free Theatre, who are company-in-association at the Young Vic theatre. The company’s Red Forest campaign emerged from their recent production of the same name, which explores true stories of human rights, environmental degradation and injustice gathered from research around the world.
A recent court ruling in Japan, Fukui District Court’s landmark ruling on May 21, has brought into question the justification for taking the risks associated with nuclear power.
The ruling states that the risks of earthquake-safety planning concerning nuclear reactors are impossible to measure because the science of earthquake prediction today is not able to allow for the risk of damage to nuclear power plants.
As we can see by the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, these risks are and have been seriously underestimated. Even so, the Japanese nuclear corporations are still trying to claim that they can allow for any possible future disaster.
Risk assessment is a core part of any project and it takes into account the profit and other benefits of having a nuclear plant and this is balanced against the social, health and environmental issues.
For a corporation the profit element is the most important as the corporations need to be able to show profits to their shareholders whilst local community and other interested NGOs would normally voice the issues and risks from a social, health and environmental point of view.
Court ruling puts a spanner in the works
AJW.ASAHI.COM reported these facts on the May 21, 2014;
“…An anti-nuclear citizens’ network has translated a Japanese court’s ruling blocking the restarts of two reactors into English, Korean and Chinese to spread the ‘universal values’ of the judgment.
“Part of the translated ruling says: ‘this court considers national wealth to be the rich land and the people’s livelihoods that have taken root there, and that being unable to recover these is the true loss of national wealth.
“…The ruling also says, ‘the operation of nuclear power plants as one means of producing electricity is legally associated with freedom of economic activity and has a lower ranking in the Constitution than the central tenet of personal rights.
“…Lawyer Hiroyuki Kawai, who heads a network of plaintiff groups demanding the abolishment of nuclear energy, said it is ‘extremely rare’ for a Japanese court ruling other than in patent cases to be translated into foreign languages.
“The ruling has resonated with people around the world because it declared universal values by placing priority on the lives of people over the merits of nuclear energy, Kawai said….”
“English translation of the epoch-making Japanese court verdict issuing an injunction against restart of Japan’s nuclear power plants Ohi Units 3 and 4.
“On May 21, 2014, the Fukui District Court in Japan issued a scathing indictment against restart of the Ohi Nuclear Power Plant owned and operated by the second largest electric utility in Japan.
The injunction against the plant is epoch-making because it addresses generic issues applicable to nuclear power plants worldwide.”
English translation of summary now available.
Translation: Greenpeace / Cooperation: Green Action
Kyushu Electric power has recently managed to get a ruling from the NRA to restart 2 of its 4 nuclear-reactor units. However, there are some problems with this ruling aside from the Ohi nuclear plant ruling mentioned above.
There are problems with the safety of this nuclear site such as the evacuation plan for the 30,000 residents, in the case of a nuclear incident.
“The (evacuation) plan itself is very sloppy, just slotting bits and pieces into a manual without giving any consideration to the special features of the area,” said Zenyu Niga.
Also, aside from earthquake threats there is an issue with volcanoes with this nuclear plant. In fact there was a large eruption in 2013 at a local volcano reported here;
Apart from a number of calderas, Sakurajima, an active volcano, is just 50 Km away and a scientist said, “No-one believes that volcanic risks have been adequately discussed,” said Setsuya Nakada, a professor of volcanology at the University of Tokyo, who advised officials when they were forming regulatory guidelines for monitoring volcanoes.
The manipulation of safety agencies who wish to ignore the court ruling
Kunihiko Shimazaki, who was one of the members of the post-Fukushima formed NRA that was supposed to oversee a new safety regime, was recently replaced. An executive of the Kyushu Electric Power Co said that “Shimazaki made us suffer,” and on “May 14, executives of the Kansai Economic Federation and Kyushu Economic Federation met with Katsuhiko Ikeda, the NRA secretary-general.”
Then “Yasuhisa Shiozaki, the deputy policy chief, openly criticised Shimazaki when he said, “While it is acceptable to have seismologists on the NRA, the same cannot be said for someone who knows absolutely nothing about nuclear energy.”
Shimazaki was then replaced, leaving the NRA without a seismology expert for at least the next 5 years.
A financial problem exists
Concerning the issue of profitability Moodys of Japan KK reported that even if the Kyushu Sendai plant did start the 2 reactors, “The current tariff, implemented in May last year, is based on four of the company’s nuclear power plants being operational — so even if two reactors are restarted Kyushu will still not be able to return to profitability,” Kazusada Hirose, vice president of Moody’s Japan K.K.
Half the population of the local town have voted to reject the local plant even though there is no alternative funding for other infrastructure to stimulate business unconnected to the nuclear industry. A video from an independent media company shows this clearly and shows how the nuclear company uses money to buy its way. That short video can be seen here (Reporting by Hitomi Yagi from TBS News Bird):
In the video, we see that there are many social and economic impacts caused by the nuclear plant, such as the possible loss of fishing grounds if another reactor is to be built on reclaimed land and how bribes to fishermen with compensation payments are used to achieve this. We also see the desperation of business needing customers because no other infrastructure projects have been put in place these last 3 years or so resulting in economic hardship and the local community being split apart.
Fish dying because of nuclear-associated pollution?
There is even a statement from a local in the video mentioned above, that increasing amount of “fish have been dying for the last five years” and we see some evidence of that, I wonder if that is why the fishermen are so ready to accept the compensation for the loss of their fishing grounds?
Summary
It is obvious that local government, national government and nuclear industry has contrived to fully manipulate the situation in this and other areas to the benefit of the nuclear industry and to the detriment of peoples safety, financial security and to the quality of the environment. It is obvious that the Sendai Kyushu reactor will be opened no matter the dangers involved.
Dialogue between UETA Kazuhiro and SUZUKI Tatsujiro
No.22 ,Science Jun 28, 2014
(Full transcript below)
It’s not simply the matter of cleaning up and asking people to come back. We affected their lives that much and changed their course by promoting nuclear power and causing that accident.
The Views state in Point 2 that the accident imposed restrictions on people’s right to live.
but I think there was also an aspect to the accident that strictly questioned whether or not this technology called atomic power generation can coexist with our society in a broader sense.
In response to the request, the Seismological Society of Japan asked the Agency of Natural Resources and Energy to clarify whether this working group has the status of a third-party organ or not, taking a proposal made by the Science Council of Japan (refer to Footnote 6) into consideration. (Refer to an essay by Kato that appeared in the February 2014 issue of Science Journal Kagaku for details.) However, the Agency of Natural Resources and Energy has ignored this request and provided no reply to the Society whatsoever.
However, disaster prevention plans are not included in items inspected by the Authority. The government cannot win the confidence of residents without disaster prevention plans
We should set up organizations for such activities and build systems for exchanging opinions with citizens. Unless such actions are taken, things will not advance smoothly even if the government comes to the front. We have said this repeatedly.
There is no upper limit for the cost of nuclear power generation. No ceiling has been set on the cost of nuclear power generation because the cost depends on the size of an accident if it happens.
There have been no published data about cost distribution among existing plants. Oshima Kenichi of Ritsumeikan University calculated costs, but they were averages for existing plants.
Japanese systems have a built-in tendency to hide information in administration. What should we do about this tendency?
Power companies stop publishing their costs if and when competition results from electric power deregulation. The government must take steps to prevent such a response
The government talks about responsible energy policies. But the government will not be able to perform its responsibilities if it leaves the policies in the hands of business operators.
It is wrong to say that nuclear power is not necessary while it is OK for power companies to fail without such discussions. At the same time, it is unreasonable to say nuclear power is necessary by speaking as if our lives will be thrown into trouble if power companies become bankrupt.
The latest nuclear accident was so huge in scale that it could cause a big, global company called Tokyo Electric Power Company to fail if decontamination and compensation are assumed as its responsibilities.
Damage compensation is rising in value as the actual conditions of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident become more and more known. Where to go for securing funds for compensation becomes a problem under the circumstance. One approach is to obtain the funds by raising power rates. Another approach is to secure the funds by restarting nuclear power plants. The third approach is to build up the funds by asking to reduce damage compensation. There are no other alternatives. All these three approaches appear in the business plans of Tokyo Electric Power Company.
The government is shifting the burden to power rates and taxes after all. As for the fourth approach, the government is taking over compensation by using tax revenues
There are private companies that implement a national policy. In several places, the Opinions say the government comes to the front. I think the government must deal with nuclear power generation responsibly in many respects.
I feel that investing tax revenues in the organization in charge of decommissioning is inevitable in a sense.
As a matter of fact, the Nuclear Damage Compensation Facilitation Corporation Act prescribes these points should be discussed within one year. But no discussion has yet taken place. We must discuss these points.
The elimination of the nuclear power industry resembles the abolition of nuclear weapons. They are parallel issues.
[Introductory notes by the Editorial Department of Science Journal Kagaku]
The Basic Act on Energy Policy stipulates the formulation of the Basic Energy Plan (a basic plan for energy supply and demand). In formulating the Plan, the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry is asked to listen to the opinions of the Advisory Committee for Natural Resources and Energy, an advisory council for the Agency of Natural Resources and Energy under the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. The Subcommittee on Basic Policies presented Opinions on the Basic Energy Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “Opinions”) to the Advisory Committee for Natural Resources and Energy on December 13, 2013. The secretariat for the Advisory Committee had suddenly submitted the Opinions during a Committee meeting on December 6, 2013. Even though the Opinions were still a proposal, public comments on them were sought from that day. (The period for accepting the comments was initially announced to end on January 4, 2014, but it was later extended to January 6, 2014.)
Ueta acted as a member of the Subcommittee on Basic Policies (which held its first meeting on July 24, 2013, and its 13th meeting on December 13, 2013) and as a member of the Committee on Basic Issues, an organ that had performed roles similar to the Subcommittee before a government changeover (and held its first meeting on October 3, 2011, and its 33rd meeting on November 14, 2012) . In the meantime, the Japan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) published Views on Opinions on the Basic Energy Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “Views”; refer to the Appendix for details) on January 9, 2014. Science Journal Kagaku asked Ueta, who had taken part in these discussions, and Suzuki, the JAEC vice-chairman, to come to its office and discuss where Japan’s energy policies will go from here.
Original Problems with the Committee on Basic Issues and the Subcommittee on Basic Policies
Ueta: Needless to say, the substance of energy policies is crucial, but I feel that how decisions are made about the policies is an extremely big issue related to their substance. I wrote that in my book [Midori-no enerugii genron (The Principles of Greening Energy) published by Iwanami Shoten, Publishers]. I feel this way based on my own experience as a member of the Committee on Basic Issues and the Subcommittee on Basic Policies.
Looking back, the Committee on Basic Issues was established in response to the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. At the time when the Committee was launched, some of its members asked if it was all right for this Committee to have its secretariat located where it was (at the Agency of Natural Resources and Energy under the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) in the first place. They also questioned if it was OK for a stakeholder of this kind to become the chairman of this Committee (aside from the question of personal qualifications) and for individuals involved in past policies to serve as members of the Committee.
There is a tendency for the secretariat to decide who will be members of these panels. As reported in the mass media, the composition of panel members changed considerably when the Committee on Basic Issues dissolved as a result of a government changeover and the Subcommittee on Basic Policies was born. (There were reports that Committee members critical of nuclear power plants fell substantially in number.) I think the change in members caused a considerable difference in the substance of published energy policies.
Personally, I felt the change in the panel members gave Japanese citizens doubts and caused them to wonder if the Subcommittee on Basic Policies could really come up with energy policies that are trustworthy.
The Committee on Basic Issues had problems in the first place, but there was a feature of its panel composition that permitted Committee members to lock horns with each other. Additionally, the Committee was originally designed to propose choices of a certain kind regarding energy policies. The Committee had an established process through which those choices were submitted to national debate. The Committee on Basic Issues was limited in many ways, but I give it high marks on this point.
What surprised me about the Subcommittee on Basic Policies was that the Opinions were explained for the first time in the latter half of its meeting on December 6, 2013, and became finalized before long on December 13. This seems excessively fast to me. I also felt public comments were not sought sufficiently.
I think we can say whether or not trustworthy energy policies will be formulated based on lessons learned from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident for the first time when a trustworthy process to form decisions becomes available. In my view, the Opinions have a considerably big problem from that viewpoint. The Subcommittee on Basic Policies must have a great deal of discussions on the substance of energy policies. At the same time, the Subcommittee must build a process for discussing a fair way to form decisions that can ultimately convince citizens. I think things will go wrong unless the Subcommittee does that.
The JAEC’s Views Point Out a Lack of Explanations to Citizens
Suzuki: The JAEC stated that the Subcommittee on Basic Policies should carefully explain the Opinions to Japanese citizens in Point 1 of the Views, and discuss Views on Initiatives for Building the Confidence of Citizens (issued on December 25, 2012) in Point 8 of the Views. These points are close to what Mr. Ueta said. In the Views, the JAEC mentioned transparency, fairness, and citizens’ participation in the decision-making process as principles for building citizens’ confidence. The three members of the JAEC share the view that the Opinions do not take these principles into consideration.
Process transparency does not simply mean providing information. The point is that the type of information sought by people who wish to verify a process must be provided in a manner that permits its verification.
The JAEC also received criticism regarding the issue of fairness. Fairness in this context means how to take various opinions into account and how to listen to the opinions of people who occupy different positions.
We also stated public participation is essential in the Views. We asked the Subcommittee to give Japanese citizens opportunities to gain knowledge and express opinions through a decision-making process.
The Opinions published on this occasion are extremely insufficient in these respects. That is the shared opinion of the JAEC members. I agreed with Mr. Ueta precisely as I listened to his opinions just now.
The Opinions were decided on abruptly and quickly. The way they were decided came from public comments that were extremely large in number. The number of comments surpassed 10,000. There were national debates about it when the Democratic Party of Japan was in power, though these were insufficient. There must have been both good and bad sides to those debates as a matter of course. But I think discussions were insufficient this time around.
My impression is that the substance of the Opinions is inclined toward positioning nuclear power as an important baseload power source, though there are many opinions about nuclear power. Granted that such positioning is accepted as one view, the Opinions offer no sufficient explanation for nuclear power’s positioning as an important baseload power source under the policy (stated by Prime Minister Abe Shinzo) of lowering the degree of reliance on atomic power generation as much as possible. There is no explanation about the expression “important baseload power source” written in the Opinions, either.
We invited a METI official to a regular meeting of the JAEC and asked the official how an important baseload power source differs from a key power source, an expression that had been used to describe atomic power generation. An important baseload power source is positioned slightly lower than a key power source,
if we understood the official’s explanation correctly. A key power source means the most important power source. In the meantime, a baseload power source is but one of the important power sources. Using baseball players in the same club as an example, a base power source is one of the starting pitchers. The official didn’t say exactly this, but that’s how I interpreted the explanation the official supplied.
If that is the case, the positioning must be written exactly as such and its meaning must be explained accurately. Unless that is done, citizens do not understand how a baseload power source is positioned and what it means.
The Opinions also say the period for checking the structure of energy supply and demand is about twenty years. I think the statement means that twenty years is the time for positioning energy policies that originally adopt long-term perspectives. I feel the Opinions do not give sufficient explanations. The period for reducing reliance on nuclear power and positioning it as an important base power source is set at twenty years this time around. However, the Opinions left unknown what would happen after this period ends.
In concrete terms, the question is whether or not to build and expand nuclear power plants. The Opinions say nuclear power plants will be positioned as a baseload power source, and their scale will be kept at the required level. Doing so requires replacement (of old nuclear power plants with new ones). However, Prime Minister Abe said Japan will not build or expand nuclear power plants for the foreseeable future. The Opinions say nothing about their replacement, either. Explanations have been insufficient. We wrote that in the Views.
Ueta: Frankly speaking, the Opinions are not written in language that is easy to understand. Sections of the Opinions that demand explanations increase in number as we discuss them more and more. It may be my shrewd guess, but I think explanations for the Opinions ended quickly to prevent such sections from further increasing.
As Mr. Suzuki said, the Opinions positioned nuclear power as an important base power source. The Opinions also stated Japan should lower the degree of reliance on nuclear power plants, but their scale should be maintained at a required level. How do these three statements connect to each other? That is an essential question. I think people who read the Opinions did not understand them. I feel the incomprehensibility of the Opinions strengthened Japanese citizens’ feeling of doubt about nuclear power.
It is often said that the restoration of public confidence is essential for energy policies. My impression is that the Subcommittee adopted an approach that was not sufficient for restoring public confidence.
What Kind of Society Should Japan Aim to Realize with March 11 as the Starting Point?
Editorial Department: Thinking about energy over the long-term amounts to thinking about how a society should be, doesn’t it?
If spent nuclear fuel is buried 1,000 meters underground for 1 million years, the radiation level at the earth’s surface will peak in 3,000 years, at 0.3 microsieverts per year.
Deep13th Nuclear Waste Info
Published on 25 Jul 2014
The Japan Atomic Energy Agency is reported to be looking at the direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel instead of reprocessing it.
NHK has obtained a draft report compiled by the agency which analyzed the environmental impact of disposing of spent nuclear fuel.
The conclusion of the analysis is expected to touch off controversy, because the government has long maintained the policy of reprocessing all spent nuclear fuel. It has conducted few studies about disposing of it as waste.
Spent nuclear fuel is known to have higher radiation levels than high-level radioactive waste.
But the agency’s draft report says it is technically possible to directly dispose of spent nuclear fuel at a low radiation level.
If spent nuclear fuel is buried 1,000 meters underground for 1 million years, the radiation level at the earth’s surface will peak in 3,000 years, at 0.3 microsieverts per year.
Even though reprocessing remains official government policy, the Rokkasho reprocessing plant is nowhere near full operating capacity.
Japan’s nuclear power plants have accumulated 17,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel.
The agency’s analysis is expected to lead to greater attention on future discussions on dealing with the stockpile of spent nuclear fuel.
Professor Tatsujiro Suzuki at Nagasaki University says the conclusion that direct disposal is possible is a very important step forward. Suzuki is a former member of the government’s Atomic Energy Commission.
The BJC has now printed a similar article (Bunch et al, 2014) which, if anything, is even worse than the 2013 one. The new article also should never have been published.
[…]
This study is reassuring for anyone who happens to be living near a power plant Dr Julie Sharp, Cancer Research UK (from article linked at bottom of post)
In 2013, the British Journal of Cancer published an article (Bithell et al, 2013) (for references see below) purporting to show there were no leukemia increases in young children near UK nuclear power plants (NPPs). I published a post criticising this article stating that it should not have been published. The BJC has now printed a similar article (Bunch et al, 2014) which, if anything, is even worse than the 2013 one. The new article also should never have been published.
The new report concludes, first, that children, teenagers and young adults currently living close to Sellafield and Dounreay are not at an increased risk of developing cancer. Second, it concludes there is no evidence of any increased cancer risk later in life among those resident in these areas at birth.
However a close reading of the actual data in the report’s table 3 in fact reveals statistically significant cancer increases measured across all years and ages. The data layout in their table 3 carefully hides these increases so the data are more clearly laid out below (for Seascale ward), together with p values kindly added by Dr Alfred Körblein.
The very low p values in Seascale ward show that the cancer increases there are statistically significant, ie are not due to chance. It is notable that these increases and their accompanying p values are NOT discussed in the new report.
*one-sided P value (Poisson test), **one-sided P value (Binomial test) both calculated by Dr Alfred Körblein
So, at Seascale, the leukemia risk is 7.4-times greater than the control area (RR=7.4, P=0.0002), and for all malignancies, the risk is 3.3 times greater than the control area (RR= 3.3, P=0.0005).
The new article should therefore have reported that statistically significant cancer increases occurred across all ages and cancers in Seascale, about 4 km from Sellafield. Instead, the printed conclusions refrain from this and make misleading inferences in selected analyses which appear to show the opposite. This is poor science.
Let’s unpack that first conclusion that “children, teenagers and young adults currently living near Sellafield are not at an increased risk of developing cancer”. This is presumably based on the most recent data (1991-2006) which show 1 observed case (0-14 yr olds) and 1 observed case (15-24 yr olds). In fact, these are increases over the expected numbers, but you can’t say anything definite one way or the other as the numbers are far too small for meaningful conclusions. Also these data are now eight years old: can we really say that young people currently living near Sellafield are not running risks?
Let’s unpack the second conclusion that “there is no evidence of any increased cancer risk later in life among those resident in these areas at birth”. This is presumably based on the data for those aged 15-24, but in fact, these again show actual increases (Observed 4, Expected 1.43 for all cases). Again you can’t be definite from such small numbers as the increases are still not statistically significant, but to say there was no increased risk when in fact the numbers show the opposite is perverse and misleading.
Prof Hayama said that caesium levels were used as an indicator of the radiation exposure of the monkeys. “The low haematological values in the Fukushima monkeys could have therefore been due to the effect of any radioactive materials,” he said. “We did not conclude the low-blood cell counts are caused by caesium but so far we cannot find other reasons except radiation.”
“This first data from non-human primates — the closest taxonomic relatives of humans — should make a notable contribution to future research on the health effects of radiation exposure in humans,” he said. The work, which ruled out disease or malnutrition as a cause of the low blood counts, is published in the peer-reviewed journal Scientific Reports.
Primates in Fukushima region found to have low white and red blood cell levels and radioactive caesium
Wild monkeys in the Fukushima region of Japan have blood abnormalities linked to the radioactive fall-out from the 2011 nuclear power plant disaster, according to a new scientific study that may help increase the understanding of radiation on human health.
The Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata) were found to have low white and red blood cell levels and low haemoglobin, which the researchers say could make them more prone to infectious diseases.
But critics of the study say the link between the abnormal blood tests and the radiation exposure of the monkeys remains unproven and that the radiation doses may have been too small to cause the effect.
The scientists compared 61 monkeys living 70km (44 miles) from the the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant with 31 monkeys from the Shimokita Penisula, over 400km (249 miles) from Fukushima. The Fukushima monkeys had low blood counts and radioactive caesium in their bodies, related to caesium levels in the soils where they lived. No caesium was detected in the Shimokita troop.
Professor Shin-ichi Hayama, at the Nippon Veterinary and Life Science University in Tokyo, told the Guardian that during Japan’s snowy winters the monkeys feed on tree buds and bark, where caesium has been shown to accumulate at high concentrations.
Robert Alvarez, former senior adviser to the U.S. Department of Energy, is currently a senior researcher at the Institute of Political Studies, where he works on the subject of nuclear disarmament, the environment and energy policies. He speaks here of the dangers of low secure storage of spent nuclear fuel in many plants, Japan or the United States pools. It is also in America found closest to saturation pools, in 2015, battered fuel having suffered the highest rate of combustion in the world. There is also talk of high activity radioactive waste produced by the defense sector, which nobody really knows what to do in 60 years in terms of stabilization and final disposal. Resources mentioned in the video: http://cryptome.org/eyeball/daiichi-n…
COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR WASTE
Effects of a Termination of the Yucca Mountain Repository Program and Lessons Learned
Video made the symposium “The medical and Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima nuclear accident” (medical & environmental consequences of the nuclear accident at Fukushima) organized by the Helen Caldicott Foundation 11 & 12 March 2013 in New York. http://nuclearfreeplanet.org/symposiu…
According to the English transcription of HO & AK (http://Afaz.at). Robert Ash translation, proofreading Odile Girard http://fukushima-is-still-news.over-b… July 23, 2014
TEPCO using secondhand tanks to store radioactively contaminated water
original upload here Piscines à combustible nucléaire usé et déchets radioactifs – R. Alvarez 12 03 13 http://youtu.be/RNSe7_MQNJ0 Pools for spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste – March 12, 13 R. Alvarez
Tokyo, Japan – “Abe colour” is an expression occasionally used in Japan’s domestic media. It means those government policies that reflect Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s personal views, and the term relates to his hawkish security policies. Critics claim the secrecy bill passed into law in December 2013 is said to be one such example of “Abe colour”, and it will go into effect this December.
Proper safeguards and oversight bodies were supposed to be included, but critics say that this secrecy law is still far from adequate.
One of the strongest critics of the new law comes from the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, which has asked the government to completely reconsider the law. Yoichi Eto, its representative, told Al Jazeera that “this law simply provides new powers to the government officials. It says that they are authorised to do this or that. But it has nothing to say at all about what officials must not do.
“There are no limits on the scope of this law, and that is its biggest problem,” Eto said.
Almost every critic of the law points to vagueness of its language; the manner in which the line between what is allowed and what is forbidden is not clearly specified.
“If we don’t have clarity in the regulations, if don’t have clarity in the law, then we don’t know what is the extent of the government’s power,” said Lawrence Repeta, a law professor at Meiji University in Tokyo. ” We don’t know how government agencies will use that power, to what degree, to what extent, what range of information may be covered.”
Professor Repeta goes on to note that the law makes no distinction about whether or not information is properly designated as a secret, or if release of the information will actually have any negative effect on national security, or if it is demonstrably in the public interest: All that the new law says is that if someone reveals something designated (for whatever reason) as a special secret, then they have committed a crime for which they may spend up to ten years in prison.
The new Japanese secrecy law also specifically targets journalists. While there is language in the text that supposedly guarantees “normal” journalistic practice, it also says that reporters and others who utilise “inappropriate means” to learn a special secret may be subject to prosecution and up to five years in prison.
What exactly constitutes “inappropriate means” to gather the news? The law is silent on this point, suggesting once again that the government and police will decide for themselves what the law mandates, once they are faced with a specific case.
Journalists at risk
Japan’s freelance investigative journalists are at particular risk, as the government may not even recognise their status as being part of a legitimate news media.
The present government has an unusually large number of things that it wants to hide
– Yu Terasawa, reporter
Yu Terasawa, recently cited by Reporters Without Borders as one of the world’s “100 Information Heroes” – the only person in Japan given such an honor – sees the main purpose of the law as preventing the media from revealing embarrassing information to the public. “The present government has an unusually large number of things that it wants to hide,” Terasawa said.
“This includes issues surrounding the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant as well as, looking forward, possible conflicts with China, Russia, or North Korea.”
Terasawa is part of of a group of 43 freelance journalists and other writers who have launched a lawsuit against the new secrecy law. Michiyoshi Hatakeyama, another freelance journalist who is a plaintiff in the case, explains, “What is a secret? The line where these special secrets begin will not be clear. Even if one is arrested and you ask them why you’ve been arrested, that too may be a secret under this law.”
For its part, the Abe administration has been very reluctant to publicly defend the secrecy law since its passage last December. The minister put in charge of handling the issue, Masako Mori, is the most junior member of the Abe Cabinet, whose portfolio is Minister of State for Gender Equality, the Declining Birthrate, and Consumer Affairs. She declined repeated requests from Al Jazeera to explain the government’s position on the secrecy law, and at a press conference this month at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan the minister indicated that she only wanted to address the issue of gender equality.
Still, one journalist managed to challenge the minister on the secrecy law, and her defense of it consisted of denying that it posed any particular problems for the public good. She asserted that all necessary protections for journalists and for the public’s right to know had been properly legislated.
She also claimed that whistleblowers are fully protected under Japanese law. The only problem she acknowledged was that the government may have made insufficient efforts to inform the public about the responsible and entirely appropriate nature of this particular law. “The secrets protection law was written after exhaustive research on similar legislation of other countries,” Mori said.
No oversight
Outside Japan’s government, independent observers directly contest these claims.
In the summer of 2013, the Global Principles on National Security and the Right to Information, better known as the Tshwane Principles, were issued after a study involving more than five hundred experts from more than seventy countries at fourteen meetings held around the world. The Tshwane Principles calls on governments to protect and uphold freedom of information.
Professor Repeta, for example, states, “One of my biggest complaints about Japan’s parliamentary procedure was they didn’t consider the Tshwane Principles at all. It was as if they did not exist.”
It is hard to imagine a country that less needs a secrecy law than Japan.
– Morton Halperin, Director of Policy Planning at the US State Department
One of the world’s top experts on secrecy and declassification procedures, the former Director of Policy Planning at the US State Department, Morton Halperin, agrees with Repeta that the Japanese secrecy law in no way conforms with the Tshwane Principles and reflects an extremely alarming approach to secrecy legislation.
Among the problems cited by Halperin are that in the new Japanese law there is no credible third party oversight of the secrecy designation and its declassification systems, no concept that the public interest might sometimes override the need of the government to keep secrets, and no provision in the law that bureaucrats must explain why a particular document should be designated as a special secret.
The Abe administration has asserted repeatedly that fears about its new secrecy law are overblown. They say that the government will be restrained and responsible in the way that it applies the law to specific cases.
The problem, however, is that there is nothing in the law that actually obligates the government to act with restraint, and even if the Abe administration is sincere in its promises to act responsibly, it has handed an alarmingly broad power to future Japanese governments whose practices are far from certain.
Even in the absence of the new secrecy law, the Japanese government’s actual operations are often guarded from public view. Almost every major study of Japan’s mainstream media notes its tendency to shy away from investigative political reporting and to “reveal” to the Japanese public that information simply handed to them by the public relations officials of the various ministries and other government agencies.
In this context, Morton Halperin observed, “It is hard to imagine a country that less needs a secrecy law than Japan.”
Tomioka Mayor Katsuya Endo said that although the government has set up several thousand barricades and many areas are still off-limits, the new zone designations allow for some 11,200 people, around 70% of the town’s former residents, to return to their former homes and begin clean-up operations. “Finally, we can start rebuilding the city’s infrastructure,” Endo told reporters. Mar. 25, 2013
Photograph of the Prime Minister receiving a letter of request from Mayor Katsuya Endo of Tomioka Town, Fukushima Prefecture March 14, 2012
FUKUSHIMA (Kyodo) — Katsuya Endo, the former mayor of Tomioka in northeastern Japan who was forced to evacuate the town along with his fellow residents following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, died of gum cancer on Sunday, his family said. He was 74.
Endo served as mayor of the Fukushima Prefecture town for a total of 16 years over four four-year terms between 1997 and 2013. He lost his re-election bid last year.
After a powerful earthquake and tsunami crippled Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima Daiichi power plant north of the town, all Tomioka residents were forced to evacuate their seaside town. Town hall operations were also moved.
Endo was living in Koriyama, an inland Fukushima city west of Tomioka, when he died at a hospital there.
Tomioka plays host to Tokyo Electric’s Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant, which remains offline following the disaster at the nuclear complex nearby.
Epidemiology of gum cancer
The incidence rates of oral cancer differ from region to region. The annual age-adjusted incidence rates per 100 000 in several European countries vary from 2.0 (UK, south Thames Region) to 9.4 in France. In the Americas the incidence rates vary from 4.4 (Cali, Colombia) to 13.4 in Canada. In Asia, it ranges from 1.6 (Japan) to 13.5 (India). In Australia and New Zealand, it varies from 2.6 (New Zealand – Maori) to 7.5 in South Australia. In Papua New Guinea, in the Lowlands and the Highlands the incidence per 100 000 among men was 6.8 and 1.0 and among women 3 and 0.4, respectively. In Iran the incidence was reported to be 1.1 per 100 000 per year 2,3.
The prevalence rates of oral cancer available from Burma and India indicate that in Burma, among 600 villagers aged 15 years and above, the prevalence was 0.03 per cent4. In a study of 150 000 villagers aged 15 years and above in six districts of India, the prevalence rate of 0.1 per cent was the highest reported5,6. The relative frequency of oral cancer in several countries compiled from several reports published over a 25-year period varies from 2 to 48 per cent. http://ispub.com/IJDS/1/2/5720
Two doctors judged a health problem of a woman in Minamisoma to be “almost entirely” caused by Fukushima nuclear accident.
The woman (66) was livng in Minamisoma city when 311 took place. She started evacuating on 3/12/2011.
10 days after, she had cerebral hemorrhage in a toilet of a shelter. She had a past illness of high blood pressure but healthy enough to work in her farm.
She still doesn’t have the sense of her left hand and leg.
Regarding her cerebral hemorrhage, both of her family doctor and rehabilitation doctor judged it was due to Fukushima nuclear accident.
This was a diagnosis to be submitted to ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) of Fukushima accident.
However the ADR center picked up the diagnosis of the doctor who was recommended by Tepco, has never seen this woman.
Tepco’s doctor asserted her cerebral hemorrhage is only 50% affected by Fukushima accident, which the basis has never been shown.
The center suggested the compromise settlement of 7 million yen compensation for her.
Some 39 months after the multiple explosions at Fukushima, thyroid cancer rates among nearby children have skyrocketed to more than forty times (40x) normal.
More than 48 percent of some 375,000 young people-nearly 200,000 kids-tested by the Fukushima Medical University near the smoldering reactors now suffer from pre-cancerous thyroid abnormalities, primarily nodules and cysts. The rate is accelerating.
More than 120 childhood cancers have been indicated where just three would be expected, says Joseph Mangano, executive director of the Radiation and Public Health Project.
The nuclear industry and its apologists continue to deny this public health tragedy. Some have actually asserted that “not one person” has been affected by Fukushima’s massive radiation releases, which for some isotopes exceed Hiroshima by a factor of nearly 30.
But the deadly epidemic at Fukushima is consistent with impacts suffered among children near the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island and the 1986 explosion at Chernobyl, as well as findings at other commercial reactors.
But a wide range of independent studies confirm heightened infant death rates and excessive cancers among the general population. Excessive death, mutation and disease rates among local animals were confirmed by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and local journalists.
Dr Richard Dixon, Director of Friends of the Earth Scotland said: “The proposal to use ships sounds like a ploy to get this problem out of people’s minds rather than the safest option.”
Sea trials will soon be conducted to establish whether it is a realistic option to transport highly radioactive material from Dounreay to Sellafield
Sea trials will soon be conducted to establish whether it is a realistic option to transport highly radioactive material from Dounreay to Sellafield
But Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd (DSRL), the consortium in charge of the £1.6 billion decommissioning of the Caithness plant, insists no decision has been taken on whether to take 26 tonnes of material south by rail or by ship.
Concerns have been raised about such a dangerous cargo being taken through the Pentland Firth and down through the Minch and passed the Argyll islands to the giant nuclear plant in Cumbria.
Dounreay accumulated more than 100 tonnes of nuclear fuel and material when the decision was taken in 1998 to close down and clean up the site.
A few tonnes belonged to foreign reactor operators and most of this has now been returned by road, air and sea over the last decade.
The remainder belongs to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority quango which wants the spent fuel to be managed at Sellafield.
But 26 tonnes are made of so-called ‘Dounreay exotics’ , highly radioactive fuels, some of which include highly enriched uranium.
Dr Richard Dixon, Director of Friends of the Earth Scotland said: “The proposal to use ships sounds like a ploy to get this problem out of people’s minds rather than the safest option.”
A DSRL spokeswoman said “The sea trial has not been conducted yet. It is planned for later on in the year. There has no decision to take the material by sea. The Dounreay Stakeholder Group was informed in March that trials of a sea route would be carried out. If successful, this will give the option of two routes.”
There are plenty of reasons for EU countries to be wary about tighter sanctions against Russia. The need for nuclear supplies is only one of them.
A recent document produced by the European Commission put it like this: “There is no diversification, nor back-up in case of supply problems (whether for technical or political reasons).”
Following the loss of the Malaysian airliner last week, European leaders are once again wrestling with the question of how to respond to Russia over its role in the Ukraine crisis.
They are reluctant to get tough, much more so than the United States.
The EU could easily end up doing itself a lot of economic harm, most obviously if Russia were to respond by turning down the gas.
Russia is a very important oil exporter too, though that is a more liquid market – to coin a phrase – where it is not so hard to find alternatives if you fall out with one major supplier.
But there is also a significant role in Europe’s energy sector for Russian nuclear supplies and the potential for significant disruption in the EU.
Nuclear energy is an important source of electricity in the EU.
Some countries are planning to phase it out, notably Germany. But even so, projections last year from the European Union see more than a fifth of EU electricity coming from nuclear power plants up to the middle of the century.
About half of EU states have some nuclear power – though there is a marked variation between countries.
In France, which is the world’s biggest producer and user of nuclear power, 75% of total electricity generation is nuclear. In the UK, the figure is 18%, while Italy is the largest EU economy to have none.
Russian connection
Russia comes into this picture at several points.
“Start Quote
There is no diversification, nor back-up in case of supply problems”
European Commission report
First, it is an important supplier of the raw material for nuclear fuel, uranium.
There is an international market for uranium, so there are alternative sources, but Russia accounts for 18% of EU supplies (behind Kazakhstan and Canada), so switching is not that simple.
Second, there is the business of enrichment to make the uranium suitable for power generation – and 30% of this work is done by Russian companies.
There is another potential source of vulnerability, too. The EU has a significant number of older, Russian-designed nuclear reactors – 18 in all.
This is a reflection of past political relations with the Soviet Union.
Finland, which was never formally part of the Soviet bloc but did have a close relationship, has two – and all the reactors in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary are Russian-designed.
Hungary also has an agreement for two more to be built.
Millions of fish and larvae are killed as Indian Point sucks in 2.5 billion gallons of Hudson River water daily to cool its plant components. While the state and some environmentalists say Entergy should engineer a closed-cycle cooling system—which would rely less on the river—the power company says that idea is unfeasible and too costly.
Besides dying as they are sucked into the plant system, fish and other aquatic life are harmed when they come into contact with warmer water discharged back into the river by the plant, said Mr. Musegaas.
Business groups and the operator of the Indian Point Energy Center have aligned against a proposal by New York state to close the nuclear power plant in spring and summer months to protect fish in the Hudson River, an idea drawing tentative support from some environmental advocates.
Indian Point produces about 25% of the electricity consumed in New York City and the lower Hudson Valley. The state Department of Environmental Conservation, which is proposing the shutdown, hasn’t specified how the loss of power produced by Indian Point would be made up, though it said it would do what it could to prevent service disruptions.
The DEC is advocating the shutdown as an alternative to proposed engineering changes to the facility that have largely been rejected by Entergy Corp. , the plant’s operator.
Millions of fish and larvae are killed as Indian Point sucks in 2.5 billion gallons of Hudson River water daily to cool its plant components. While the state and some environmentalists say Entergy should engineer a closed-cycle cooling system—which would rely less on the river—the power company says that idea is unfeasible and too costly.
The DEC has proposed to shut down the plant during the May 10-Aug. 10 period—for stints of 42, 62 or 92 days—to coincide with the presence of migrating or spawning fish in the Hudson. Two public hearings on the matter are scheduled for Tuesday in Cortlandt Manor, N.Y.
“This would not curtail operations this summer,” said Emily DeSantis, a spokeswoman for DEC said, in an email.
Entergy said the DEC’s latest public information on the proposal, released in May, failed to say how electricity would be replaced during the high-usage period of the summer or to assess the risk of blackouts or brownouts during that time. It said such a requirement would be unprecedented for a nuclear plant.
nuclear-news 