I. Introduction
It was about sixty years ago when the first and the last two atomic bombs dropped where the human had been living. The nuclear technologies have developed so rapidly since then. Japan is one of the countries which actually have received benefits from such technologies, particularly from the aspects of energy resources. Though, it is said as peaceful utilization of nuclear, we, Japanese, unconsciously admit using “nuclear,” and it is assumed that Japanese does not seemed think seriously about whether the nuclear power is used safely or dangerously, effectively or not. Regarding to the ordinary citizens, it is highly possible that their only concern is stable energy supply. The most obvious example seems to be the Rokkasho reprocessing plant, or the nuclear fuel cycle installation, where the nuclear waste come from Japanese nuclear power plant, as well as repatriated radioactive waste from Britain. Rokkasho is one of the largest facilities all over the world, which consisted with reprocessing plant, Enrichment plant, Low level waste disposal centre, and High level waste storage facility (Nedderman 38). It has been constructed since 1994 and planed to start running in 2006, though it was still under construction in 2006. It is now making a test installation on the fourth stage out of fifth stages. From many perspectives, it is controversial issue even for peaceful utilization. This paper firstly describes the basic knowledge and explores the current situation surrounding the Rokkasho as well as Japan, then clarifies the major problems, and finally suggests possible solutions from the examples and policy of other environmentally-advanced country. Although it once seemed and argued to be beneficial and harmless to run the Rokkasho reprocessing plant, it is assumed that the reasons for running it have been proved unacceptable by following reasons; the risks on environment and consequently human health, the unpractical cost, and concern over proliferation.
II. Knowledge and Current Situations
Before clarifying the problems that Rokkasho potentially containing, it needs to be described that the knowledge regarding to the purpose and the roles of Rokkasho nuclear facilities, and the current situation is in Japan and outside of Japan. The Rokkasho spent fuel reprocessing plant is “the largest and by far the most expensive of the Japanese Nuclear Fuels Ltd projects, and the plant has the capacity to reprocess 800 ton of uranium per year and is based on technology used in Cogema's plants at La Hague, France. However the design has been extensively re-engineered to suit Japanese conditions, including the need to protect against earthquakes, and includes some technology from Japanese and UK sources” (Nedderman 38). The purpose of Rokkasho reprocessing plant is to recycle the spent nuclear fuel and reproduce the Plutonium and Uranium out of it, which is available as an energy resource for nuclear power plant. That is, used fuel from conventional nuclear power stations sent to reprocessing plant to be separated into plutonium, uranium and nuclear waste. Yet according to Nedderman, a 800 ton per year reprocessing plant can handle the fuel from about thirty 1000 megawatt class reactors out of fifty reactors of whole Japan, and so the Rokkasho plant is not be able to reprocess all of the spent fuel from Japanese nuclear power stations (38). This plant simultaneously emits radiation, or nuclear waste, into the nature. This type of plants exists only in couple countries except Japan, namely Cogema's facility La Hague in France, British Nuclear Fuels Limited's (BNFL) Sellafield plant in Cumbria in England, at Mayak in Russia, and couple of plants in India (Greenpeace Japan, Nihon).
Another reason for constructing reprocessing plant is that Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) announced by the U.S. thrust Japan to be producer of nuclear fuels (SENKI 1). GNEP’s purposes are 1) improvement of energy security 2) promotion of clean development and the environmental improvement 3) reducing the risks of proliferation. This purpose divide nations into two groups; nuclear fuel supplier and consumer, and Japan is regarded and positioned as former groups. Hence, those mentioned above are the essential and basic information about the reprocessing plant.
Next to it, the current situation inside and outside of Japan is noteworthy to understand the issue surrounding nuclear power plant. Japan is thought as a nation which lacks in energy resources. According to International Energy Agency (IEA), the degree of Japanese energy dependence on import is 82.2%, and it means Japan is the poor country in resources. On the contrary, the U.S. is 33.2%, Germany 65.0%, Canada 17.1%, and Italy France 55.7%. In addition, according to the ministry of foreign affairs, the detail of primary energy supply comprising shows the lack in energy resources; fossil fuel is 47.8%, natural gas 13.2%, coal 21.8%, and nuclear energy 13.8%. From these statistics, it is obvious that Japan cannot supply the energy by themselves. Hence the need for nuclear energy is inevitable.
Then, it needs to be described that the detail as to nuclear power plant and reprocessing plant. Currently, in Japan, 53 nuclear power plants are operating, raising Japan's self-sufficiency in primary energy supply (Ogawa and Schiffer 20). From these plants the estimated and expected amount of emitting spent fuel is about 1000 ton which is beyond the capacity of Rokkasho reprocessing plant. By now, this fuel was shipped to France and UK but now it is repatriated, or reprocessed in the Tokai-mura reprocessing plant, although which is now decommissioned because of the lethal burst of radiation with causing three workers to die (Davis 26). And the Rokkasho’s initial purpose was to reprocess this fuel (Ogawa and Schiffer 20). Briefly speaking, these mentioned above are basic knowledge and the current situations in relation to nuclear.
With clarifying the current situation, in the subsequent paragraphs the problems of Japanese nuclear industry, which is conspicuous in the case of Rokkasho reprocessing plant, are going to be defined and discussed.
III. Identifiable Problems
A. Risks on Environment and Human Health As many of the report and scientist warning the risks and dangerousness of Rokkasho reprocessing plants, to start operating plant have to some extent bad or negative effects on environment and human health, and this aspect is one of the identifiable problems of the Rokkasho reprocessing plant. Firstly, as the report by greenpeace Japan accompanied by CRIIAD, short for Commission for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity and which is French NGO which specializes in the analysis of radioactivity in the environment, submit evidences against running the plant; radioactive such as iodine is emitted into the ocean, the air, and the soil, and absorbed by plants, and consequently the ecosystem is contaminated by the them (Greenpeace Japan, radioactive). Moreover, radioactive materials have a quite long half-life, once it spread into the biosphere it stay very long period, though depends on the materials. Specifically, iodine has 16 million years half-life, tritium 12 years, carbon-14 5730 years, and Krypton-85 10.7 years. In addition, the both French and UK’s plants excused of emitting radiations into the earth by saying it is “commercially unpractical” (Greenpeace Japan). This excuse simply shows that plants discharge radiation wastes just because of the cost, ignoring the risks and influences on the environment which finally influences human health.
Secondly, there are also quite a few data which point out the risks of running reprocessing plants on human health. Now, it is common that the radiation or contamination by radioactivity sometimes fatal for human beings, because of the accidents took place, for instance in Tokai-mura in Japan, leak accidents at Sellafield in Britain, and Chernobyl in Russia. However, the accumulation of daily exposure to radiation or radioactive also cause incurable cancer such as leukemia. Imanaka, assistant professor of Kyoto research reactor institute and the member of Nuclear Safety Research Group, accepts that there is causality between reprocessing plant and cancer, or especially leukemia, quoting the survey of West Cumbria villages located near Sellafield reprocessing plant. This survey shows that the rate of becoming leukemia of the people age 0-24 living in a village three kilometers from the plant is at least 10 times or even more than the average. He concludes that it is most honest to consider the cause of not only leukemia, but also other forms of cancer, as discharged water which contains radiations from reprocessed materials of the plant. Moreover, naturally nuclear factory workers are at increased risk of cancer (Wakeford 6404). The closer people live or work, the more probability to get most forms of cancer, and especially the workers of the plant have the higher probability to become contaminated and get cancer. From those evidences and arguments, denying the risks and dangerousness of reprocessing plant is thoughtless and ignorant.
B. Cost and Waste
The next identifiable problem is the cost of the installation of the plant, and cost for “reprocessing” plutonium in comparison with “direct disposal” of plutonium. According to Green Action, Rokkasho reprocessing plant is the “most expensive plant ever built in the history of the world,” which cost 2.3 trillion yen (equivalent to about 21 billion dollars) to ratepayers. Furthermore, it is said that the cost of operating the plant will be 19 trillion yen for forty years, which is far more than disposing without reprocessing (Green Action). In addition, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency estimates that it is 2.3 percent less expensive to generate electricity from nuclear fuel that is then disposed of directly than from employing a "closed" nuclear fuel cycle using spent fuel reprocessing." That is, using MOX fuel (short for Mixed Oxides Fuel which is made from the reprocessed plutonium oxide and uranium oxide) is far more expensive than using fresh uranium fuel" (Ogawa and Schiffer 20). This fact seems inconvenient for government to the extent to hide up the estimation of direct disposal cost which is revealed in a statement at the Diet made by the Diet member, Mr. Maebara. Therefore, it is possible that government also knows “reprocess” is not a reasonable way to deal with spent fuel.
In relation to the cost for reprocess the spent fuel, there is virtually no need for extra plutonium now. One of the reasons to build this expensive plant is, as mentioned above, the pressure of the GNEP and attempting to reduce the degree of dependence on other countries of reprocessing the spent fuel. Whatever the reason is, it is obvious that Japan does not need any extra nuclear fuel such as plutonium and uranium. This is because there are already enough resources, namely plutonium, for running nuclear power plant (CNIC). More importantly, in 1990s Japanese government declared and decided to hold the policy that Japan does not possess extra plutonium for commercial use (Barnaby and Burnie 7). At that same time, there were about 9,000 kilograms of plutonium in 1991, but now in 2006 it expands to 45,000 kilograms, five times more with no increased nuclear power plant. Thus it is just a making waste and wasting money, and there are many scientist and activist who oppose to use and run the reprocessing plant in terms of the cost.
C. Concern over proliferation
The third and one of the most delicate problems of the reprocessing plant is concerning over proliferation, or a conflict with the policy of government. So far, Japan has upheld its "Three Non-Nuclear Principles" of not possessing, producing or permitting the introduction of nuclear weapons to the country. In addition to it, according to ministry of foreign affairs, Japan ratifies Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which places a responsibility on them not to produce or acquire nuclear weapons. Furthermore, Japan's domestic law called 'the Atomic Energy Basic Law' requires Japan's nuclear activities to be conducted only for peaceful purposes. However, NPT review conference at the United Nations, a group of international academics, officials and scientists, including four Nobel laureates, issued a statement calling on Japan to indefinitely postpone operating the plant, although they are fully aware of Tokyo's looming gargantuan energy needs. And the statement said "At a time when the non-proliferation regime is facing its greatest challenge, Japan should not proceed with its current plans for the start-up of the Rokkasho reprocessing plant" (Suvendrini). Furthermore, the conference warned that “Japan is alone in the region East Asia in moving ahead with the stockpiling of large quantities of plutonium for which it has no practical, peaceful use" (Suvendrini). This is a conspicuous example of concern for Rokkasho reprocessing plant. Even if the stockpiles of plutonium are supposed to be used for peaceful purpose, there is no definition of “peaceful,” and there can be no valid justification of holding huge extra plutonium. Consequently, this is the third problems of the Rokkasho reprocessing plant, which cannot be disappeared until the plant gone.
IV. Possible Solutions
Since the problems of reprocessing plant are undeniable, there is a necessity to think about at first, alternative way to dispose nuclear spent fuel or discard the “reprocessing” itself, and second, to produce energy that is less harmful, risk, and dangerous. Firstly, possible way to dispose spent fuel is “direct disposal”, because this way has relatively less risks and extremely less radiation which is produced in the process of disposing than reprocessing plutonium (Greenpeace Japan). To resolve fundamentally, as NPT conferences state, the program of installation of reprocessing plant in Rokkasho village has to be abandoned, for far greater benefit to both human and nature. This is only and best way to not to discharge radiation, namely no bad influence or harm onto both the environment and human health. As long as the plant is running, radiation will be constantly discharged, which cannot be justified by any reasons. Therefore, to say radically, the best way is to stop and discard it as soon as possible.
Next, there are a lot of alternative and cheaper ways to produce electricity now, thanks to the technological innovation. Although each inventions or means might not be big thrust to move forward away from nuclear power plant, such inventions are quite important for the future energy needs in respect to not dependent on nuclear system. According to Wakai Kazunori, professor of engineering department of Gifu University Japan, there are quite a few natural energy including solar light power, solar thermal power, biomass, wind power, wave power, tidal force, ocean thermal energy, geothermal power, etc. In addition, there are also remarkable technologies, for instance, fuel battery, which is now being improved for practical use for running car, and Advanced Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion, which is now in the test installation at Tokyo Station (East Japan Railway Company). Again, these new energy resources are not enough to provide electricity demanded. However, they are actually “clean” and above all environmentally friendly and no harm to human health. These are the important factors for the future energy. Hence, these small steps will be critical in near future.
By doing these two major thing; try not to depend on nuclear facilities especially reprocessing plant, and shift away from nuclear to clean and less risks energy resources, it will finally be able to observe and be proud of our policies, which are non-proliferation policy and three non-nuclear principles.
V. Conclusion
In conclusion, by analyzing the problems that Rokkasho has, it proved to be that it is unpractical and unreasonable to run the reprocessing plant, though it will not be able to abandon instantly. It might not be possible to shift the today’s energy dependence, but by analysis this fact, the current situation at least has to be changed, if not drastically. Now it is the time to face the inconvenient condition regarding nuclear matter in Japan, because as inhabitants of the earth, we cannot be ignorant about nuclear affairs. Mahatma Ghandi says; "It's the action, not the fruit of the action, that's important. You have to do the right thing. It may not be in your power, may not be in your time, that there'll be any fruit. But that doesn't mean you stop doing the right thing. You may never know what results come from your action. But if you do nothing, there will be no result," it is high time to face this problem seriously, and to make actions.
No comments:
Post a Comment