I think dctokyo's data is coming from the news and local area, mostly seems a day late though but not a huge biggy :).
I found this when looking through my normal news stuffs.
http://www.irsn.fr/FR/popup/Pages/ir...ce_19mars.aspx
I haven't checked the world news in 2 days and etc...
I understand the supposed values are not bad but then again who want's a chest x-ray once an hour?
You guys really think that's safe? ^^...
Whatever's...
Edit:
That wasn't meant as a scare tactic.
It was just to show that the smoke plume made it across the world already.
I'm gonna do alot of research today and see what I can figure out.
On the 19th the radiation level's here around where I lived were doubled but since went down to around norm.
But that could be normal though to be honest, level's may double from one day to the next I don't know yet.
Anyways I'm gonna get something to eat, check the news and do some studyings...
I'm curious to know if I can't find old school data on REM amounts...
I'm gonna make a call on that...
Edit:
Quote:
Cable dated:2008-10-27T08:20:00C O N F I D E N T I A L TOKYO 002993SIPDISDEPT FOR EAP/J, ISN/CTR, ISN/MNSA, ISN/NESS DOE FOR KBAKER, NA-20E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/24/2018TAGS: PARM ENRG TRGY NRR MNUC PUNE JA
Classified By: Ambassador J. Thomas Schieffer; reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)
¶1. (C) Summary: Lower House Diet Member Taro Kono voiced his strong opposition to the nuclear industry in Japan, especially nuclear reprocessing, based on issues of cost, safety, and security during a dinner with a visiting staffdel, Energy Attache and Economic Officer October 21. Kono also criticized the Japanese bureaucracy and power companies for continuing an outdated nuclear energy strategy, suppressing development of alternative energy, and keeping information from Diet members and the public. He also expressed dissatisfaction with the current election campaign law. End Summary.
¶2. (C) Member of the House of Representatives Taro Kono spoke extensively on nuclear energy and nuclear fuel reprocessing during a dinner with a visiting staffdel, Energy Attache and Economic Officer October 21. Kono, a member of the Liberal Democratic Party first elected in 1996, is the son of Yohei Kono, a former President of the LDP who is currently the longest serving speaker of the House in post-war history. Taro Kono, who studied and worked in the United States and speaks excellent English, is a frequent embassy contact who has interests in agriculture, nuclear, and foreign policy issues. He is relatively young, and very outspoken, especially as a critic of the government’s nuclear policy. During this meeting, he voiced his strong opposition to the nuclear industry in Japan, especially nuclear fuel reprocessing, based on issues of cost, safety, and security. Kono claimed Japanese electric companies are hiding the costs and safety problems associated with nuclear energy, while successfully selling the idea of reprocessing to the Japanese public as “recycling uranium.” He asserted that Japan’s reprocessing program had been conceived as part of a nuclear cycle designed to use reprocessed fuel in fast breeder reactors (FBR). However, these reactors have not been successfully deployed, and Japan’s prototype FBR at Monju is still off-line after an accident in 1995.
¶3. (C) Kono said following the accident at the Monju FBR, rather than cancel plans to conduct reprocessing, the electric companies developed the Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel program. However, Kono criticized the MOX program as too expensive, noting it would be cheaper to just “buy a uranium mountain in Australia,” or to make a deal to import uranium from other sources. Kono claimed the high costs of the reprocessing program were being passed to Japanese consumers in their power bills, and they were unaware of how much they paid for electricity relative to people in other countries. In describing the clout wielded by the electric companies, Kono claimed that a Japanese television station had planned a three part interview with him on nuclear issues, but had canceled after the first interview, because the electric companies threatened to withdraw their extensive sponsorship.
¶4. (C) In addition to the electric companies, Kono was also very critical of the Japanese ministries, particularly the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI). He claimed the ministries were trapped in their policies, as officials inherited policies from people more senior to them, which they could then not challenge. As an example, Kono noted that Japanese radiation standards for imported foods had been set following the Chernobyl incident, and had not changed since then, despite other nations having reduced their levels of allowable radiation.
¶5. (C) In a similar way, he alleged, METI was committed to advocating for nuclear energy development, despite the problems he attributed to it. Kono noted that while METI claimed to support alternative energy, it in actuality provides little support. He claimed that METI in the past had orchestrated the defeat of legislation that supported alternatives energy development, and instead secured the passage of the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) act. This act simply requires power companies to purchase a very small amount of their electricity from alternative sources. Kono also criticized the government’s handling of subsidies to alternative energy projects, noting that the subsidies were of such short duration that the projects have difficulty finding investors because of the risk and uncertainty involved. As a more specific example of Japan neglecting alternative energy sources, Kono noted there was abundant wind power available in Hokkaido that went undeveloped because the electricity company claimed it did not have sufficient grid capacity. Kono noted there was in fact an unused connection between the Hokkaido grid and the Honshu grid that the companies keep in reserve for unspecified emergencies. He wanted to know why they could not just link the grids and thus gain the ability to add in more wind power.
¶6. (C) He also accused METI of covering up nuclear accidents, and obscuring the true costs and problems associated with the nuclear industry. He claimed MPs have a difficult time hearing the whole of the U.S. message on nuclear energy because METI picks and chooses those portions of the message that it likes. Only information in agreement with METI policies is passed through to the MPs. Elaborating on his frustrations with the ministries, Kono noted that the Diet committee staffs are made up of professional bureaucrats, and are often headed by detailees from the ministries. He said he had no authority to hire or fire committee staff, and that any inquiries he made to them quickly found their way back to the ministries.
¶7. (C) Kono also raised the issue of nuclear waste, commenting that Japan had no permanent high-level waste storage, and thus no solution to the problem of storage. He cited Japan’s extensive seismic activity, and abundant groundwater, and questioned if there really was a safe place to store nuclear waste in the “land of volcanoes.” He noted that Rokkasho was only intended as a temporary holding site for high-level waste. The Rokkasho local government, he said, had only agreed to store waste temporarily contingent on its eventual reprocessing. Kono said that in this regard, the US was better off that Japan because of the Yucca mountain facility. He was somewhat surprised to hear about opposition to that project, and the fact that Yucca had not yet begun storing waste.
¶8. (C) In describing how he would deal with Japan’s future energy needs, Kono claimed Japan needed to devise a real energy strategy. He said while he believed Japan eventually would have to move to 100% renewable energy, in the meantime he advocated replacing energy produced by nuclear plants ready for decommissioning with an equal amount of energy from plants using liquid natural gas. To this he would add new renewable energy sources.
¶9. (C) Kono also made a few side remarks concerning the Japanese election process. He expressed dissatisfaction with the current election campaign law, which he called outdated. He noted, for example, that during the official campaign period he was not allowed to actively campaign on the Internet. He said he could print flyers during this time, but only a limited number, which had to be picked up by constituents at his campaign office. So, to get around these and other limitations, MPs had to campaign before the official campaign period began. Given the current uncertainty on a date for elections, he noted in a humorous manner that if the government delayed elections long enough, he and the other MPs would go broke.
SCHIEFFER
I hope this doesn't get me banned :\.
I believe this is what they are talking about on the news, might not be though...
Here's the other 2:
Take the info as is and nothing more, I don't need to start probs...
Quote:
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 TOKYO 001592
SIPDIS
DEPT FOR EAP/J AND ISN/NESS
DOE FOR NA-23
DOE FOR NE SJOHNSON AND AFERREIRA
DOE FOR P1 RPRICE, JNAKANO, KREES
DEPT PASS TO NRC FOR FOGGIE
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ENRG TSPL KSCA SOCI JA
SUBJECT: LOCAL COURT ORDERS SHUTDOWN OF NUCLEAR REACTOR
REF: A. 05 TOKYO 4067
¶B. NAGOYA 003
TOKYO 00001592 001.2 OF 003
-- Summary --
¶1. (SBU) On March 24, the Kanazawa District Court ordered the Hokuriku Electric Power Company (Rikuden) to shut down operations at Unit Two of its Shika Nuclear Power Plant due to safety concerns over its ability to withstand powerful earthquakes. The court ruled that there was a real possibility that the plaintiffs might be exposed to radiation if there was an accident at the plant. The operator called the ruling "unreasonable" and said it would immediately file an appeal to a higher court. The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) believes the reactor is safe and that all safety analyses were appropriately conducted. As a result, the GOJ sees no reason why Rikuden should shut down the unit. Though not legally obligated to cease operations in this case since this is a civil suit, Rikuden will face an uphill battle to regain the support of local citizens for operating a nuclear facility in their backyards. End summary.
-- The Case --
¶2. (U) On March 24, the Kanazawa District Court ordered the Hokuriku Electric Power Company (Rikuden) to shut down operations at Unit Two of its Shika Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) due to safety concerns over its ability to withstand powerful earthquakes. A group of 135 plaintiffs from across the country filed the suit against Rikuden in May 2005, after the operator began trial operations, arguing that its anti-seismic design was insufficient and the advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR) design was inherently dangerous. The suit followed up on an earlier unsuccessful attempt to halt the construction of the new reactor. The plaintiffs pointed to a study commissioned by the GOJ's Earthquake Research Committee that concluded there was a two percent chance that an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.6 or higher could occur along the 44-kilometer long Ochigata fault, which runs near the NPP. The unit was built to withstand a magnitude 6.5 earthquake. The plaintiffs claimed that Unit Two was built to seismic specifications established more than two decades earlier and therefore posed a direct threat to their safety.
¶3. (U) According to press coverage, the presiding judge said that Rikuden had not taken into consideration an earthquake that may occur along the Ochigata Fault when building the new reactor. In addition, the judge stated that there was a real possibility that the plaintiffs might be exposed to radiation if there was an accident at the plant due to a large earthquake. The court argued that Rikuden's estimates of potential earthquakes in the area were too conservative. The court, however, rejected the group's claim that the ABWR design was unsafe, citing lack of evidence.
-- Rikuden's Response --
¶4. (U) Rikuden President Isao Nagahara issued a press release later on the same day in which he called the Kanazawa District Court's decision not to recognize the safety of Unit Two "truly regrettable". He also said that it was an "unreasonable ruling" and that Rikuden would immediately file an appeal to a higher court. The President also stated that the GOJ is currently examining its anti-seismicity design specifications, and if there were to be a change to those specifications, Rikuden would ensure that the safety of its reactors would be up to par
with any new requirements. Unit Two began operations on March 15 after successfully passing the final government required inspections and, according to the operator, is currently operating safely. Nagahara concluded his statement by promising that Rikuden was sufficiently ensuring the operational safety of the reactor, and as a result, would continue operating it even in light of the court decision.
TOKYO 00001592 002.2 OF 003
¶5. (SBU) An official at the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) explained to ESToff that the case in question was a civil lawsuit and that the ruling did not require immediate implementation of the order to shut down the reactor. Had the ruling directly questioned the validity of the national regulations themselves through an administrative lawsuit -- as in the case of the earlier Monju litigation -- then Rikuden would have been obliged to shut the reactor down. Given the legal differences,
however, the official said that Rikuden could continue operating as is.
¶6. (U) In its 2005 annual report, Rikuden wrote that it places top priority on the safe and stable operation of the Shika NPP. The operator said it was determined to continuously improve its quality management system through auditing and by taking into consideration the advice of an outside experts' panel on nuclear power safety and quality. Because the operator is convinced its plant is safe, Rikuden has announced it will continue operating Unit Two for the time being.
-- Government Regulators Surprised at Ruling, but not Concerned over Safety --
¶7. (U) Most of the national dailies ran stories covering the court decision, and speculated that it would send shivers throughout the industry. The Yomiuri quoted NISA's Director-General Kenkichi Hirose as saying "I've never thought that a court would order the cessation of the plant's operation." Other dailies wrote that as a result of the decision, Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission was scrambling to formulate new anti-seismic design regulations by this summer.
¶8. (SBU) ESToff called NISA's International Affairs Office Director Michio Hashimoto to obtain further information on the regulator's position on the court ruling. Hashimoto said that NISA believes the reactor is safe and that all safety analyses were appropriately conducted. As a result, NISA saw no reason why Rikuden should shutdown Unit Two.
¶9. (SBU) EST FSN also called Takuya Itoh, Staff Manager of the Federation of Electric Power Companies' Public Relations Department for the industry group's position on the court ruling. Itoh said that the Federation was taking the decision seriously. The group will continue its efforts to ensure that all of Japan's nuclear facilities operate safely and will work to obtain public acceptance of the facilities. As an aside, he told EST FSN that he personally does not feel that others in the Federation were overly concerned about the result of the lawsuit.
-- About Shika NPP --
¶10. (U) The Hokuriku Electric Power Company operates the Shika Nuclear Power Plant, which is located in Shikamachi, Ishikawa Prefecture. It is the power company's sole nuclear facility. Unit Two is an advanced boiling water reactor or ABWR that began limited commercial operations on March 15, 2006. The unit was built at a cost of 375 billion yen (USD 3.2 billion). Its projected output is 1,358MW.
-- Comment --
¶11. (SBU) The suit against Rikuden claiming the Shika NPP is unsafe due to seismic concerns is not surprising, given the many similar lawsuits that have been filed in the past. ESToff had previously attended an anti-nuclear symposium where civic leaders called for the immediate shutdown of Chubu Electric's Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant, where they also argued the NPP presented a serious radiological threat to Tokyo and surrounding areas if a massive earthquake were to occur in the Tokai region of Japan. (For more see Nagoya 003). What is surprising in this case, however, is the fact that the plaintiffs won. The only previous
TOKYO 00001592 003.2 OF 003
successful suit against operating nuclear facilities was the case brought against the Monju fast breeder reactor several years ago. In January 2003, the Nagoya High Court's Kanazawa Branch nullified the GOJ's May 1983 construction approval for Monju by supporting a suit filed by 32 plaintiffs who claimed that a massive leak of sodium coolant at the reactor resulted from shortcomings in the government's safety assessment for the reactor prior to its construction. On May 30, 2005, however, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that no unacceptable flaws or faults existed in the original safety assessment, thus overturning the lower court's decision. (For more see 05 Tokyo 4067).
¶12. (SBU) Though not legally obligated to shut down operations in this case, Rikuden will face an uphill battle trying to regain the support of local citizens for operating a nuclear facility in their backyards, especially if they are now convinced that the next big quake will bring radiological devastation. Given the potential public relations ramifications from the court decision, the national government decided to act quickly in a public way - on April 1, NISA will establish a new inspection office to deal specifically with anti-seismic safety issues, as a result of the ruling. End comment.
SCHIEFFER
Quote:
UNCLAS TOKYO 003432
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
DEPT FOR ISN/NESS, EAP/J
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM ENRG TRGY NRR MNUC PUNE JA
SUBJECT: 3-4 DECEMBER NUCLEAR SAFETY AND SECURITY GROUP
MEETING
¶1. (SBU) Summary: During the third meeting of the G8 Nuclear Safety and Security Group (NSSG) held in Tokyo December 3-4, NSSG members reviewed the status of ongoing projects, discussed the future of initiatives proposed during Japan's 2008 G8 presidency, and reviewed a draft plan of work for the 2009 Italian presidency. Members agreed the 3S initiative proposed by Japan and adopted in the Hokkaido Summit Leaders' Statement will continue during the Italian
presidency, with Japan serving as coordinator for 3S-related activities. Regarding next year's meetings, Italy announced Germany has asked the NSSG to discuss approaches to and criteria for cooperation with emerging nuclear countries, and Germany will send out a draft paper to start discussion on that topic. Finally, Italy noted it will distribute a
detailed plan of work to NSSG members before the next meeting. End Summary.
¶2. (SBU) Delegations from the G8 countries plus representatives of the European Union, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and the International Atomic Energy Agency met in Tokyo December 3 and 4 for the Third Nuclear Safety and Security Group (NSSG) meeting of 2008. The meeting was chaired by Japan and included 47 representatives from the various parties.
¶3. (SBU) Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director of International Nuclear Energy Cooperation Tsutomu Arai opened the meeting by noting several key objectives: discussing implementation of programs in Armenia and Ukraine, preparing for the upcoming EBRD Chernobyl Shelter Fund and Nuclear Safety Account meetings in London, and reviewing Italy's work plan for its upcoming presidency. The draft agenda was adopted with one member comment: The Russian delegation noted it was acceptable to discuss work being undertaken on the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, but substantive decision-making for the program should remain in those fora where it has been traditionally handled.
¶4. (SBU) The first items discussed were ongoing programs in Armenia and Ukraine. The IAEA presenter described the Agency's objectives and efforts for 2008 in Armenia, specifically noting several technical cooperation meetings it held on the subjects of design safety, seismic safety, and operational safety. Regarding the Ukraine/IAEA/European Union joint project, the presenter noted the effort had fallen behind schedule. However, the IAEA, he reported, hopes to gain lost time and meet the original deadline of 2010. He said that the IAEA is very satisfied with the project. Representatives from Russia and the EU, as well the U.S. delegation, then described various support provided
those projects.
¶5. (SBU) In response to a U.S. question about the ability of Armenia's regulatory body to obtain sufficient staff, the IAEA representative suggested several positive developments were occurring in Armenia: regulatory body had been placed under the PM almost at ministry level, that organization's budget has been increased, its chairman was confirmed in September, and finally, it had agreed to work with the IAEA to conduct a comprehensive review of its legal and regulatory framework.
¶6. (SBU) On earthquakes and nuclear safety, the IAEA presenter noted the Agency has officials in Japan to learn from Japan's recent experience dealing with earthquakes and described several areas of IAEA focus. First, he explained that safety guides for seismic safety have only been revised three times in the last 35 years and that the IAEA is now reexamining them. Also, the presenter noted recent earthquakes in some cases have exceeded the design basis for some nuclear plants, and that this a serious problem that is now driving seismic safety work. The IAEA is issuing a new guide on seismic evaluation to accompany existing guidelines on seismic hazard and design. Finally, the IAEA noted it had launched an International Seismic Safety Center at its September general conference to enhance safety, develop standards, pool and share knowledge.
¶7. (SBU) Turning to EBRD-administered Chernobyl projects, the chair noted there was still a financial gap between pledges and the estimated cost of the projects and invited the EBRD representative to give a presentation. Regarding the Nuclear Safety Account project, the EBRD representative reported good progress was being made overall, but that required redesign of the transport cask would result in a five month extension to Work Release 1. The presenter noted the overall schedule continues to experience delays and the current estimated completion date is October 2010. The chair asked the EBRD to produce a document detailing the delays so that members could explain the costs involved to their financial authorities. Responding to a U.S. question, the EBRD rep noted the hope to have members re-confirm their existing pledge and ask non-G8 members to pledge. The rep stated the Bank hopes to have a better idea of the costs by
February.
¶8. (SBU) On the Chernobyl Shelter Fund, the EBRD rep described several positive developments, e.g., the completion of roof repair, but commented the lack of sufficient local work force threatens to cause delays. He went on to describe the New Safe Confinement (CDSD) effort, noting the builders have selected a design different from the original concept, but still hoped to have it approved by December. He said the planners have not yet assessed the impact of CDSD-related
delays, but noted current cost estimates show a possible increase of 50 million euros.
¶9. (SBU) The IAEA then gave a presentation describing its creation of a Code of Conduct and Guidance on Import & Export of Radioactive Sources. The presenter noted the code is non-binding, but enjoys widespread support. As of November, 92 states had written to the Director General expressing support for the Code of Conduct. The U.S. delegation followed by giving its presentation on the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, which described the plan of work, the exercise program, and the Information Portal.
¶10. (SBU) On the Global Nuclear Safety Network (GNSN), the IAEA presenter described the GNSN as a set of internationally-accessible networks and resources for information exchange and cooperation in nuclear safety matters. The speaker noted that while initial development of the network occurred in Germany, the IAEA had agreed to take over hosting responsibilities and the network can now be accessed at gnsn-iaea.org. Japan noted the Asian Nuclear Safety Network (ANSN) shares the same goal of information sharing, but adds encouraging regional cooperation to its objectives. Like the GNSN, the ANSN relies on the IAEA for some hosting support, but also has hubs in China, Japan, and Korea.
¶11. (SBU) Regarding its International Initiative on 3S-based Nuclear Energy Infrastructure, which was adopted by consensus in the Hokkaido Summit Leaders' Statement, Japan proposed a framework covering the next five years. Japan suggested NSSG members and the IAEA make voluntary reports on their activities during the first two years, related to the safety, security and safeguards. At each regular NSSG meeting, members will also be able to make observations on challenges surfacing in infrastructure development and the IAEA could propose projects for consideration. Delegations broadly agreed that considering all three issues (safety, security, and safeguards) together, rather than breaking them up for discussion, is the best plan of action, especially since the NSSG mandate is not well-suited to discussing safeguards by itself. Following the initial two years of reports, the NSSG members could then discuss and decide on follow-on projects for the next three years.
¶12. (SBU) French, Canadian, EU, and U.S. delegations spoke in general support of Japan's proposal. However, Canada's delegation noted asking the IAEA to suggest projects will create expectations; a different role for the IAEA might be better. The U.S. delegation noted support for the Initiative and the plan, but said it cannot commit now to financial assistance to 3S projects. The Russian delegation commented that safeguards, nominally a part of the 3S initiative, fall under the IAEA's purview and asked NSSG members to take into account the outcomes of upcoming IAEA events for 3S planning.
The IAEA representative noted the IAEA already covers safety, security, and safeguards as part of the broader issue set in which it works. As such, it would be difficult for the IAEA to propose new standards in those areas. However, he said the Agency supports the effort with that condition. Japan then volunteered to serve as organizer for ongoing 3S work during the upcoming Italian presidency.
¶13. (SBU) The U.S. delegation began the second day of meetings by giving a presentation on the Nuclear Regulatory Committee's education grant program. In response, several delegations asked questions about the intent of the program, the IAEA noted several programs of its own and the Russian delegation offered to give a presentation at a future meeting on Russia's education efforts. Japan, describing its concerns about maintaining a sufficient workforce in the face of population decline and upcoming retirements, noted that it has been subsidizing education in the field since 2007 as part of a Human Resources Development Program. Related to this effort, the Japan Association of Nuclear Industry is working to draw up a roadmap for human resources development in Japan.
¶14. (SBU) The Italian delegation followed by describing a proposed program of work for its 2009 G8 presidency. In addition to ongoing Chernobyl projects, Italy noted it would work to focus efforts on improving the safety of plants in operation, strengthening safety and security related to earthquakes and radioactive source, the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, Multilateral Approaches to the Fuel Cycle, the GNSN, and the 3S Initiative, with special emphasis on nuclear education and training. The Italian delegation noted, based on a German request, that it may be useful for the NSSG to discuss different kinds of approaches to, and different criteria for, cooperating with emerging nuclear countries. Italy proposed the topic for the first meeting of 2009. Responding to concerns it could be a sensitive topic, the Italian rep noted it does not intend for emerging nuclear countries to be a permanent part of the 2009 agenda, merely an additional topic for discussion at the first meeting. Italy noted it had asked Germany to prepare a non-paper to distribute to NSSG members to create a starting point for discussion. After a comment by the EU on putting this discussion in the context of international cooperation, Italy noted it in no way wanted to diminish the rights of countries to go nuclear, but wanted to discuss the basis for cooperation with such countries. The Japanese and Canadian delegations asked whether such a discussion would be constructive for the NPT. Finally, Italy noted it is preparing a detailed work plan document that will be provided to members before the next meeting.
¶15. (U) This message has been cleared by ISN/NESS. SCHIEFFER
