From left, Ruiko Muto, Kazuyoshi Sato and Takashi Soeda hold a news conference in Fukushima on Jan. 19 to announce a planned group that will monitor the trial of three former executives of Tokyo Electric Power Co.
Lawyers, journalists and scientists will form a group to help expose the truth and spread details about the Fukushima nuclear disaster during the criminal trial of three former executives of Tokyo Electric Power Co.
“We will encourage the court to hold a fair trial while transmitting information regarding the trial across the nation,” said an official of the planned organization, whose name is translated as “support group for the criminal procedure on the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.”
Tsunehisa Katsumata, former chairman of TEPCO, the operator of the crippled plant, and two former vice presidents, Sakae Muto and Ichiro Takekuro, face mandatory charges of professional negligence resulting in death and injury.
Although the trial is still months away, 33 people are now setting up the group, including Ruiko Muto, who heads an organization pursuing the criminal responsibility of TEPCO and government officials for the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Tetsuji Imanaka, an assistant professor of nuclear engineering at the Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute, and Norma Field, a professor emeritus of East Asian Studies at the University of Chicago, have also joined.
Three reactors melted down at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant after the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami struck on March 11, 2011. A number of hospital patients died in the chaotic evacuation.
About 14,000 residents of Fukushima Prefecture filed a criminal complaint against TEPCO executives, government officials and scientists in 2012, saying they were aware of the dangers to the Fukushima nuclear plant from a tsunami, but they failed in their responsibility to take proper countermeasures.
Tokyo prosecutors twice decided not to indict the three former TEPCO executives. However, the Tokyo No. 5 Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution, a panel of citizens, decided to forcibly indict the three in July last year.
“It has been almost five years since the disaster, but many details, including their foreseeability of the tsunami, remain unclear,” said science writer Takashi Soeda, one of the group’s co-founders. “As TEPCO has not unveiled a sufficient amount of information even in inquiries conducted by the Diet and the government or in civil lawsuits, the truth must be uncovered through the legal force of a criminal trial.”
Five lawyers appointed by the Tokyo District Court will act as prosecutors in the trial.
Legal experts expect the lawyers will indict the former TEPCO executives and release a statement naming the victims around March 11, the fifth anniversary of the triple disaster that still haunts the Tohoku region. http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201601270055
NARAHA, Fukushima Prefecture–A life-size model of a section of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant that will be used in developing decommissioning technology is almost complete.
The mockup of the lower part of a reactor containment vessel will be used to develop remote-control technology used to locate the section from where radioactive water is leaking in order to repair damage, the Japan Atomic Energy Agency said.
A group of reporters from the Japan National Press Club were allowed to enter the test building of the JAEA’s Naraha Remote Technology Development Center in the town of Naraha.
The model is being built at the center by a consortium comprised of electric utilities and nuclear plant manufacturers. It is scheduled to be completed in mid-March.
Radiation levels near the reactors that went in meltdown in the aftermath of the 2011 earthquake and tsunami disaster remain too high for workers to approach. The development of remote-control technology is key to smoothly conducting the decommissioning work, which is estimated to take 30 to 40 years.
The report was released on 10/30/2015, titled as “Readings of radioactivity level in drinking water by prefecture” to cover from July to September in 2015.
From this report, only 0.0015 Bq/Kg of Cs-137 was detected in Fukushima drinking water. Cs-134 was not supposed to be detected. On the other hand, 0.00036 Bq/Kg of Cs-134 and 0.0015 of Bq/Kg were detected from Tokyo drinking water.
The measurement of Cs-134 is due to Fukushima accident.
NRA comments each data is based on the reports from prefectures.
It is not mentioned by Fukushima prefectural government why Cs-134 was not detected in their drinking water.
Struggling Toshiba may spin off ailing Japan nuclear power business, Japan Times, 28 Jan 16, KYODOScandal-hit Toshiba Corp. will consider splitting off its flagging nuclear power business in Japan and rebuilding it as a separate company as part of a sweeping restructure following an accounting scandal, sources said.
The 2011 Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant disaster has made it difficult to build reactors in Japan amid safety concerns.
Toshiba’s subsidiary, Westinghouse Electric Co., which is in charge of its overseas nuclear power business, will seek to secure orders in emerging markets, the sources said Tuesday.
The move could trigger a realignment of the country’s nuclear power industry at a time when the government is aware of the need to bolster the competitiveness of domestic players, observers said…….
Toshiba said in November that Westinghouse had written down its assets by $1.3 billion in fiscal 2012 and 2013, revealing the difficulties facing the subsidiary in achieving profitability at the level anticipated by Toshiba.
China admits nuclear emergency response ‘inadequate’ as safety concerns halt construction of two Guangdong reactors, South China Morning Post, Wednesday, 27 January, 2016, Stephen Chen China admitted on Wednesday its nuclear emergency response mechanism is “inadequate” for coping with “new situations and challenges” arising from its nuclear power plants.
The central government also said it had halted construction of two new-generation nuclear reactors in Guangdong province, because of safety concerns, but vowed that they would not be abandoned……..
Concerns over nuclear safety in Hong Kong and Macau have caught particular attention of the central government. A section in the white paper was dedicated to the issue with promise to “answer public concerns in time” and “clear the doubts”.
Xu Dazhe, chairman of the China Atomic Energy Authority, told a press conference on Wednesday that the construction of the two European Pressurised Reactors in Taishan, in Guangdong, had been delayed owing to safety concerns…….
Former Prime Minister of Japan Naoto Kan says the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant is not over, despite nearly five years having passed since a massive earthquake and tsunami triggered the disaster.
“There is no doubt” radioactive materials have been seeping into the sea after mixing with underground water, Kan, who has been a vocal critic of nuclear energy since the accident, told the National Press Club in Washington on Tuesday.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has said the issue of water contaminated with radioactive substances at the Fukushima plant is “under control” on various occasions including his presentation to pitch Tokyo as host of the 2020 Olympic Games.
“The accident is still unfolding” at the nuclear plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co., Kan said.
Kan was prime minister when the world’s worst nuclear crisis after Chernobyl occurred following the massive earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011.
Kan, a lawmaker of the opposition Democratic Party of Japan, also criticized Abe’s decision to raise the ratio of electricity produced by atomic energy to 20-22 percent of the total output in 2030.
“The goal is not achievable” unless Japan extends the maximum legal period of nuclear plant operation or build a new nuclear plant, Kan said.Japan has halted most nuclear reactors since the Fukushima disaster out of concerns about the safety.
Kansai Electric Power Co. is set to reactivate a nuclear reactor at its Takahama plant on the Sea of Japan coast Friday in what would be the third restart since new safety standards were put in place after the quake.
Last year on the Republic Day, to please the United States President Obama who was the chief guest, Modi government effectively surrendered the govt’s option to sue the nuclear vendors in case of a nuclear accident by creating an insurance pool from public funds to channel suppliers’ liability back to the taxpayers, taking an about turn from earlier strong reservations of the BJP on nuclear liability.
This year, Modi’s government seems bent on finalising an insanely dangerous and destructive nuclear project.
Another Republic Day, another compromise on nuclear safety?A year after giving in on nuclear liability during Barack Obama’s visit, India’s enthusiasm to seal a deal with France on the expensive and dangerous Jaitapur nuclear project is disturbing. Scroll In 28 Jan 16 Kumar SundaramOn Tuesday, chief guest Francois Hollande looked on as India showcased its military might at the Republic Day parade in New Delhi. Nearly 2,000-km away in Maharashtra, farmers and fisherfolk in the port town of Jaitapur are gearing up to protest the French president’s visit. They believe that the nuclear reactors India wants to import from France pose a threat to their lives, livelihoods and the local ecology.
Untested and unsafe technology
In the joint declaration issued on Monday in New Delhi, the two governments reaffirmed their commitment to go ahead with the nuclear deal. The project has been in the pipeline for almost a decade now, and last several bilateral annoucements have ceremoniously menioned the nuclear agreement. The intense negotiations to finalise the commercial agreement are yet to be completed as the staggering cost of the project remains a major sticking point.
The Modi government has added “make in India” in the declaration, a reference to the prime minister’s ambitious plan to turn India into a hub of manufacturing. Now, this is more than a ceremonial insertion and has potentially dangerous implications. The joint declaration mentions “large-scale localisation” of components for the nuclear power project at Jaitapur, a Memorandum of Understanding for which was signed between the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited and French government-owned nuclear corporation Areva last year. “Transfer of technology” is also being considered, claims the declaration.
The French company Areva, which is verging on bankruptcy after the Fukushima disaster, desperately needs this project to survive. Its terminal financial crisis has also led to a major re-structuring in France. To save Areva from bankruptcy, the Électricité de France, a govt owned electricity utility company has bought majority stake in Areva. Areva has resorted to massive job cuts – it did 6,000 lay offs worldwide in 2015 – and is frantically seeking investorsto rescue itself from the crisis.
It is actually this financial crisis that has forced Areva to consider partial closure and outsourcing of its reactor manufacturing business. There too, it is giving away only the parts which it cannot absolutely manage on its own for financial and safety reasons. And the European Pressurised Reactor design fits in this scheme. France is building reactors in Jaitapur of the same design, of 1650MWe capacity each. Totalling 9,900 Mwe, Jaitapur would be the world’s largest nuclear power park.
The safety of this design, especially the vulnerabilities of the Reactor Pressure Vessel – the huge iron core where radioactive fission takes place – came under serious questions, raised by France’s own nuclear safety regulator Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire in April last year. Later in 2015, Areva had to ask the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend certification review for EPR design. The US has been postponing certification for the European Pressurised Reactor( since 2007. In Finland’s Olkiluoto, the only other place where Areva is building these reactors, the project was supposed to be completed in 2009 but has run into massive cost and time over-run and cannot be completed before 2018. The Finnish regulator has taken Areva to the court on this issue and Finland has cancelled the order for the 4th reactor. Even in China’s Taishan, the only other place where such a reactor is under construction, the project has been delayed. Ironically, just after two days of publication of Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire’s report, Modi re-affirmed the commitment to buy the reactors from France during his visit to Paris last year in April.
In another extremely dangerous irony, the Modi govt is lauding Jaitapur as a “Make in India” project. The localisation in this case is nothing more than Areva passing off its burden and risks to Indian companies. Without much experience in nuclear sector, Larsen and Toubro has been given the task of collaborating in manufacturing of pressure vessel, the same crucial equipment in which the French regulator has found vulnerabilities. There is also pressure on L&T to keep the cost to the minimum, which would have its own safety implications. Technology transfer in this case actually means experimenting an untested and unsafe technology on the Indian people……….
U-turns and misadventures
For its entire 10-year entire stint in the opposition the Bharatiya Janata Party kept opposing Manmohan Singh government’s nuclear policy, but now nuclear deals have become matters of pride for Modi’s foreign sojourns. In 2010, the BJP had sought a review of the environmental clearance given to the Jaitapur project on the eve of the visit of the then French president Nicholas Sarkozy. But now the government has sought an extension of the same.
Last year on the Republic Day, to please the United States President Obama who was the chief guest, Modi government effectively surrendered the govt’s option to sue the nuclear vendors in case of a nuclear accident by creating an insurance pool from public funds to channel suppliers’ liability back to the taxpayers, taking an about turn from earlier strong reservations of the BJP on nuclear liability.
This year, Modi’s government seems bent on finalising an insanely dangerous and destructive nuclear project.
The government has used taxpayer money to provide over ¥16.2 billion in subsidies to local governments for promoting so-called pluthermal power generation using mixed oxide fuel (MOX), a survey has shown.
The subsidies, financed with revenue from a tax for power-resources development imposed on electricity users, have been distributed to local governments that accepted pluthermal power generation at facilities in their regions.
The Jiji Press survey released Saturday illustrates that a large amount of taxpayers’ money has been spent on the pluthermal project in order to win support from local governments.
The project, a key part of the country’s nuclear fuel cycle policy, uses MOX fuel, a mixture of uranium and plutonium extracted from spent nuclear fuel.
So far, just four reactors in Japan have used MOX fuel, including reactor 2 at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. The reactor, set to be decommissioned, experienced a core meltdown after the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami.
The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan hopes to eventually raise the nation’s total number of reactors carrying out pluthermal generation to somewhere between 16 and 18.
However, pluthermal projects have failed to progress as expected, prompting critics to urge the central government to conduct an immediate review of its policy.
The other three reactors that have run on MOX fuel are the No. 3 reactor at Kyushu Electric Power Co.’s Genkai plant in Saga Prefecture, the No. 3 reactor at Shikoku Electric Power Co.’s Ikata plant in Ehime Prefecture and the No. 3 reactor at Kansai Electric Power Co.’s Takahama plant in Fukui Prefecture. The Takahama plant reactor is set to be rebooted later this month using MOX fuel.
The survey found that seven of the nine prefectural governments and all of the 10 other municipalities entitled to the subsidies — one to promote the fuel-cycle policy and the other to support host municipalities — have actually received the payments.
The exceptions, Hokkaido and Shizuoka prefecture, have refrained from applying for the subsidies. While the Fukushima disaster has spurred safety concerns among citizens, a series of scandals — including attempts to influence public opinion — in favor of pluthermal projects — have eroded trust in the plan, sources said.
In Hokkaido, the No. 3 reactor at Hokkaido Electric Co.’s Tomari plant has been designated for pluthermal power generation. In Shizuoka Prefecture, the No. 4 reactor at Chubu Electric Power Co.’s Hamaoka plant has also been tapped for the pluthermal project.
Of the four prefectures where pluthermal generation has been carried out, Saga received ¥6.097 billion in state subsidies and Ehime was given a total of ¥6.059 billion by the end of fiscal 2014.
Fukui, meanwhile, has received ¥2.486 billion as of the end of 2013 and is expected to get more subsidies through fiscal 2015.
Currently, nuclear plant operators in Japan bear unlimited liability for compensation, but some experts demand that a ceiling be set for their responsibility.
The discussions are expected to be difficult, as limiting the liability would raise the problem of how to compensate affected people and businesses for the damage in excess of the limit.
For the March 2011 triple meltdown accident at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s disaster-stricken Fukushima No. 1 plant, Tepco shoulders full liability for compensation under the nuclear compensation law.
But as Tepco alone cannot finance all the costs for compensation payments and decontamination work, the government set aside ¥9 trillion in assistance, which has been provided to the company through Nuclear Damage Compensation and Decommissioning Facilitation Corp., a public-private organization. Tepco repays the aid little by little.
Electric power industry people have been pushing for a cap on nuclear plant operators’ liability for compensation. “If the sky’s the limit for compensation, we cannot project an outlook for our nuclear energy business,” a senior official of a major power utility said.
In line with the government’s policy of continuing to use nuclear energy, an expert panel of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission started debate last year on any problems with the current compensation regime.
Some panel members argued for a limited liability system. “Shouldering risks that go beyond the limit of the private sector will impede fund procurement by electric power companies,” one member said.
On the other hand, a separate member said, “Limited liability is not an option, considering the current situation of Fukushima.”
There are also concerns that a narrower scope of responsibility for power companies could be detrimental to their commitment to safety.
With the panel divided sharply, a government official said no conclusion is expected at an early date.
The expert panel plans to produce a report on their discussions next year, and the government will subsequently start working on any necessary amendments to the nuclear compensation law.
Even if the nuclear compensation system is revised, past nuclear accidents will not be covered by a limited liability system.
Among countries that impose limits on an electric power company’s liability of compensation for a nuclear accident, the United States sets the maximum liability at $12.6 billion and Britain has a ceiling of £140 million ($199.7 million), according to the Japan Atomic Energy Commission. Under the U.S. system, if the scale of nuclear damage exceeds the limit, the president proposes a supplementary compensation program to the Congress.
France Signals Rafale, Nuclear Progress as Hollande Visits India, Bloomberg, HeleneFouquet January 24, 2016 France signaled a state-to-state accord with India could be signed on Monday over a deal for 36 Dassault Aviation SA Rafale fighter jets, and that a six-year-old plan to build nuclear reactors in the South Asian nation would see some progress…………
The reactors are planned for Jaitapur, a coastal town in India’s western province of Maharashtra. Areva was seeking further clarity from India on its nuclear liability law before moving ahead with what would be India’s biggest nuclear plant.
The agreement India and the U.S signed recently over insurance-related issues for nuclear plants will help in overcoming certain hurdles, Royal said.
Chinese President Xi Jinping tipped to attend nuclear summit in US, South China Morning Post, Sidney Leng sidney.leng@scmp24 Jan 16 Despite disagreement on North Korea, Beijing and Washington ‘have much common ground’President Xi Jinping is expected to make his second visit to the United States in less than a year to attend the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington in March, according to national defence and military experts from both countries.
During Xi’s state visit to the US in September, the two countries agreed to deepen cooperation on nuclear security. Beijing has not confirmed Xi’s attendance, but several Chinese academics and analysts at a China Energy Fund Committee conference in Hong Kong yesterday said he would probably go.
A White House fact sheet dated September also said the two countries might hold a meeting before the summit to discuss nuclear security.
“The two countries share common interests in intercepting nuclear terrorism, so I think there is plenty of room for cooperation on it, among other issues,” said Zhang Tuosheng, from the China Foundation For International and Strategic Studies.
Chinese foreign policy strategists say China has already put enough pressure on North Korea, made denuclearisation a priority in the region and insisted on addressing the issue through dialogue.
A Japanese organization called “declaration of safety in Fukushima” (福島 安全 宣言) or something like that launched a campaign for the “decontamination of minds” (心 の 除 染) to convince that radioactivity is safe.
In a video taken in the twenty kilometers zone, sill evacuated, a person takes radiation readings and states that it is safe as it is well below 100 mSv. But the video avoids the most contaminated areas and confuses microsieverts and microsieverts / hour. When the Japanese authorities say there is no risk below 100 mSv, it is on the whole life span. To compare that value to microsieverts per hour or millisieverts per year is meaningless.
There are also videos of pseudo-scientific conferences to affirm that radiation in Fukushima is safe. The audience seems very small.
The group calls for the lifting of the evacuation orders and the return of inhabitants, and also for the restart of the declared safe nuclear reactors.
Another similar initiative, already presented by the Blog of Fukushima, has been to make children to pick up garbage along the highway 6 that passes thru the forbidden zone. This time, it was an organization called “Happy Road Net” which was the organizer. http://happyroad.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Image150915145225.pdf
Let us remember that it is internationally recognized that there is no safe limit for radiation and that each radiation dose has an impact that is proportional to it. In such a context, it is recommended that the radiation exposure should be justified by a benefit. What was the benefit for these children?
An example of bio-accumulation of radioactive material in Fukushima:
According to the following post, wild monkey poops from Namie-city, Fukushima had more than 150,000Bq/kg in terms of radioactive Cs137 & Cs134.
Cs137: 133987 Bq/kg
Cs134: 25186 Bq/kg
K40: 225 Bq/kg
The surrounding ground surface was about 500～600cpm.
Japan has improved its nuclear safety regulation since the 2011 Fukushima disaster, but it still needs to strengthen inspections and staff competency, a team of experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency said Friday.
It was the first IAEA review for Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority since it was established in 2012. Japan adopted stricter safety requirements for plant operators, but a law regulating on-site inspections remained mostly unchanged.
The 17-member team, which concluded a 12-day inspection that included the wrecked Fukushima plant, said the Nuclear Regulation Authority demonstrated independence and transparency — crucial elements lacking before the disaster, when an earlier agency was in charge.
The Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant was hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami in March 2011, triggering triple meltdowns. Government, parliamentary and private investigations have blamed complacency about safety, inadequate crisis management skills, a failure to keep up with international safety standards, and collusion between regulators and the nuclear industry.
The IAEA inspection team urged the Nuclear Regulation Authority to enhance inspection competence and the government to amend its nuclear safety law to make on-site safety checks more effective and flexible.
Mission leader Philippe Jamet, a French regulatory commissioner, said Japan’s inflexible inspection rules do not allow inspectors to move freely at nuclear facilities or respond quickly when there is a problem.
“What we found is that the system that is regulating, that is defining the framework of inspection is very complex and very rigid,” Jamet said at a news conference.
Japan has a comprehensive framework but “it doesn’t give enough freedom for the inspectors to react immediately and to provide results,” he said. “At any time and for any plant, inspectors should be allowed to go where they want.”
A final report by the team is expected in about three months.
Japan’s top nuclear commissioner, Shunichi Tanaka, acknowledged the shortcomings and said, “We have to focus on tackling the challenges of inspection system and human resources.”
Masakazu Shima, a Japanese regulator who assisted the inspection team, said the inspection issue was also raised by an earlier IAEA mission in 2007 but Japan never took action.
NARAHA, Fukushima Prefecture–A life-size model of a section of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant that will be used in developing decommissioning technology is almost complete.
nuclear-news 