Council for Nuclear Fuel Cycle · Only dinosaurs adapted for the reduced concentration of oxygen survived this era. Although the concentration of oxygen decreased to 12% and that

Opinion

What Can We Do to Prevent Global Warming?CNFC Report

• How’re Nuclear Power Plants under Construction Today

• Construction Works of Ohma NPP Shelved at 37.6% for 6 Years

• Restarts Expected for Nuclear Power Plants to Prevent Global Warming

– Chugoku Electric Power Co. Sets to Restart Shimane-2 –

ReportPromotion of Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy in Japan and Nuclear Materials Management

– Contribution of the INMM and Its Japan Chapter –

Council for Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Spring 2017 No.85

ISSN 0919-9748

Contents

• OpinionWhat Can We Do to Prevent Global Warming?

• CNFC Report 1How’re Nuclear Power Plants under Construction Today

• CNFC Report 2Construction Works of Ohma NPP Shelved at 37.6% for 6 Years

• CNFC Report 3Restarts Expected for Nuclear Power Plants to Prevent Global Warming


• ReportPromotion of Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy in Japan andNuclear Materials Management

– Contribution of the INMM and Its Japan Chapter – Masao Senzaki

• Info-ClipPlutonium Management in Japan

1

4

6

13

21

3

Date of Issue : April 11, 2017

Designed by QB System Co., Ltd.

Council for Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Miya Bldg. 8th Fl.4-3-4, Kojimachi, Chiyoda-ku,

Tokyo 102-0083, JapanTEL : 81-3-3239-2091FAX : 81-3-3239-2097

E-Mail [email protected] Site http://www.cnfc.or.jp/

PublisherJun-ichi Nishizawa

Editorial Offi ceCouncil for Nuclear Fuel Cycle

CNFC Members of the BoardChairman

NISHIZAWA, Jun-ichi Emeritus President, Tokyo Metropolitan University Emeritus Professor, Tohoku UniversityActing Chairman

TSUSHIMA, Yuji Former Member of the House of RepresentativesDirectors

ETO, Akinori Member of the House of RepresentativesKIMURA, Taro Member of the House of RepresentativesMORIMOTO, Satoshi Chancellor, Takushoku UniversityNAKAMURA, Kishiro Member of the House of RepresentativesTORII, Hiroyuki Former Professor, Tokyo Institute of TechnologyWATANABE, Shu Member of the House of RepresentativesAuditors

ASANO, Shuichi Certifi ed Public AccountantSHIMOYAMA, Shunji Former President, Japan Chapter Institute of Nuclear Material Management

Ishibei-koji (KYOTO)

Ishibei-koji is a narrow passage (ishibei is a stone fence and koji means a narrow street; so, it literally means a narrow stone-fenced street) located south of Yasaka Shrine. This hideout-like location makes this street rarely crowded with tourists. The fl agstones of the discontinued Kyoto tram system were reused to pave this street. On both sides of the street, there are machiya-style (traditional wooden townhouse-style) ryokans (Japanese inns) and restaurants. It is a winding street wide enough to allow people to pass each other; but not enough to allow the passage of cars. Walk through this quiet street; it will help you unwind.

Spring 2017 No.85

1Plutonium No.85 Spring 2017

Probably the most hospitable environ-ment for human beings in the Earth’s long history should be one in the ages from about 200,000 years ago, when Homo sapiens were believed to appear on this planet for the fi rst time, to the present date. Human beings should thank God for a tem-perate environment during this period.

The primordial atmosphere when the Earth was created about 4.6 billion years ago consisted of hydrogen and helium, of which temperature and pressure were as high as those of the Sun. It was blown away by the intense solar wind from the primitive Sun. This process lasted tens of millions of years. The solar wind was then weakened gradually, but part of the Earth’s atmosphere is still being blown away to-day. In fact, the Earth-derived oxygen was found on the Moon lately. The surface temperature of the Earth then declined, leading to the formation of the crust. The crustal formation induced intense volcanic activities on the Earth, which released a large amount of carbon dioxide and ammo-nia into the atmosphere. The primordial at-mosphere in those times contained a large amount of water vapor as well.

Between 4.1 billion and 3.8 billion years ago, a number of small asteroids and other astronomical objects bombarded the plan-ets in the Solar System including the Earth. Craters found on the surface of the Moon is the evidence of the asteroid impact in those times. The surface temperature of the Earth rapidly dropped 4 billion years ago, which prompted highly concentrated atmospheric water vapor to condense, cre-ating the primordial sea. The origin of life dates back to this time. The fi rst photosyn-thetic organisms emerged 3.2 billion years ago. They fl ourished 2.7 billion years ago, supplying oxygen into the sea water. The dissolved oxygen in the sea water began

to be released into the atmosphere around 2 billion-plus years ago. This released atmospheric oxygen reacted with ultravio-let radiation, creating the ozone layer. As the concentration of atmospheric oxygen increased, the ozone layer rose in altitude, eventually reaching the stratosphere, where the layer has ever since protected the Earth surface from DNA-damaging ultraviolet radiation by reducing the amount reach-ing the said surface. The Earth completed preparation of the land before being colo-nized by terrestrial organisms, which were former aquatic organisms adapted for a lifestyle on land.

The Earth experienced the ice ages sev-eral times between 800 and 650 million years ago, which froze the entire Earth. The concentration of oxygen in the atmo-sphere reached today’s amount (about 21%) 600 million years ago. The Earth also ex-perienced the ice age between 460 million and 430 million years ago, causing a mass extension of life toward the end of this age.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere between 500 and 400 million years ago was about 20 times as high as that of today (the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today is 0.03%). During this period, plants and arthropods began to colonize the land. The Earth’s environment was temper-ate 360 million years ago; in those times, large forests were formed in many places around the globe, which later became the sources of coal. Their active photosynthe-sis consumed carbon dioxide, reducing the greenhouse effect. This process cooled the Earth. In the meantime, the concentration of oxygen, a byproduct of photosynthesis, increased. The Earth then experienced the ice age again between 350 and 250 million years ago. Insects increased their pres-ence 300 million years ago. Cockroaches

emerged in those times. The concentration of carbon dioxide became today’s value, whereas the concentration of oxygen be-came around 35%. The fungi that were able to digest trees then emerged. Their metabolic activity decreased the concentra-tion of oxygen while gradually increased that of carbon dioxide.

A supercontinent Pangaea consisting of today’s divided continents was formed 250 million years ago. The formation of Pangaea triggered global volcanic activi-ties, decimating life on the Earth - about 95% disappeared. The volcanic activities released a large amount of carbon dioxide, increasing the temperature of atmosphere and sea water, which liberated a large amount of methane from methane hydrate that was formed during the ice age and held on the ocean fl oor. Liberated atmo-spheric methane generated a large amount of carbon dioxide and water vapor. This reduced the concentration of oxygen extremely. The resulting environment caused a mass extinction of life again. Only dinosaurs adapted for the reduced concentration of oxygen survived this era.

Although the concentration of oxygen decreased to 12% and that of carbon diox-ide increased between several and ten times as high as that of today 200 million years ago, the climate had been temperate in those times. After that, the concentration of oxygen increased and that of carbon diox-ide decreased. Dinosaurs which survived this climate change fl ourished 100 million years ago, but living organisms includ-ing dinosaurs became extinct 65.5 million years ago. The most supported hypothesis that accounts for this mass extinction is a drastic change of the Earth’s environment because of the impact of meteorites.

A sudden global warming occurred 55 million years ago. This was because of

What Can We Do to Prevent Global Warming?

Opinion

2 Plutonium No.85 Spring 2017

the activity of submarine volcanoes in the North Atlantic Ocean, which released a large amount of greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide and methane into the at-mosphere. Again, methane hydrate on the ocean fl oor melted, liberating methane gas into the atmosphere, which increased carbon dioxide and water vapor in the at-mosphere. This overall process increased the temperature of the surface of the sea by 3-4°C, and the atmospheric temperature by as much as 20°C in the subtropical zone. However, the Earth began to get cold 40 million years ago. During this time, the glacier was formed in Antarctica.

Substantial degree of global climate fl uc-tuations with a typical period of 100,000 years were observed from around 700,000 years ago. For instance, the peak of a warm interglacial period was observed around 230,000 years ago, whereas that of a subse-quent glacial period was observed around 140,000 years ago. After that, the Earth got warmer at a faster rate, and peaked between 130,000 and 120,000 years ago. Then from about 110,000 years ago, the Earth began to get colder again. The Earth slowly repeat-ed cycles of warming and cooling, heading toward a glacial period over time. Homo sapiens emerged in Africa about 200,000 years ago, and spread over the continents around 60,000 years ago.

Afterward, the Earth experienced rapid rise of sea surface associated with global warming. During the Würm glaciation (the Last Glacial Maximum) about 20,000 years ago, the annual average temperature dropped by 7-8°C, glaciers expanded and the sea surface lowered by 100-130 m, as compared with today. Through further small repetitive cycles of global warming and cooling, the Earth got warmer over time. The Earth finally had an environ-ment similar to the one of today between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago.

We have presented so far a brief sum-mary of the transition of the Earth’s envi-ronment. During these considerable fluc-tuations of the Earth’s environment from global warming to cooling or vice versa, all forms of life on the Earth have struggled for their survival and repeated cycles of emergence and extinction. Human beings have thus far enjoyed their life in the cur-rent short-term temperate and hospitable environment. Habitable environmental conditions for human beings are certainly limited as compared with other living or-ganisms which have survived a far greater range of environmental fluctuations. A challenge that God has given us is to fi nd a way to maintain this hospitable environ-ment on the Earth for the future, or improve it in order to maintain its hospitability.

The Industrial Revolution occurred in Britain in the 1760s, and the effect spread over the world. Since then, the Earth has entered into a new era of mass consumption of energy. The world population, which was believed to be about 300 million in 1 A.D., grew to slightly below 1 billion in 1800. It reached about 7.3 billion 210 years later, in 2010. The rapidly growing popula-tion poses a great threat to the Earth’s envi-ronment. This population growth, coupled with the improvement of living standards, will inevitably require a greater consump-tion of energy in the future, which will re-sult in a further increase in the production of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide. This has been a global concern that must be addressed immediately. This view has been shared by many people, including policy makers in many countries around the world.

However, some scientists warn of the possible extinction of Homo sapiens in 200 years, or in the worst case, 80 years, if this emission of greenhouse gases continues as it does today. The accumulation of car-bon dioxide increases the amount of water

vapor, another factor contributing to the greenhouse effect. The synergy between carbon dioxide and water vapor further increases the temperature of atmosphere and sea water. Average 2°C increase in the sea water temperature liberates a large amount of methane in methane hydrate accumulated on the ocean fl oor during the cooling phase of the Earth, which increases the Earth’s temperature further. Liberated methane gas combines with oxygen to exponentially increase atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor. If the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere exceeds 3%, it causes dizziness, headaches, and nausea in people. If it exceeds 7%, people lose consciousness. At this concentration, carbon dioxide not only exacerbates global warming, but also directly affects the sur-vival of human beings.

So, what should we do? Save energy resources? Certainly. In order to reduce unnecessary wasting of energy, developed countries and major fossil-fuel consuming countries must act to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases spontaneously be-yond the target set by the Paris Agreement (COP21). This effort surely includes the promotion of further improvement in the effi ciency of internal combustion engines, but more than that, should include a step-by-step implementation of more immedi-ate effective measures, such as reducing the use of gasoline-fueled cars.

We must also promote the use of alter-native energy sources that replace fossil fuels. The Sun is an absolutely essential source of energy for life on the Earth. So is geothermal energy, which also keeps our planet warm. The energy of the Sun comes from nuclear fusion, whereas half of the geothermal energy comes from nuclear decay heat. Both are nuclear origins that yield an extraordinary large amount of

3

Opinion

Plutonium No.85 Spring 2017

energy for our planet. The nuclear energy sustains even the life of activists against the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and the activity of political parties promoting the abandonment of nuclear power.

Rather than obtain energy from burn-ing fossil fuels to yield carbon dioxide, we should promote the utilization of not only nuclear power but also hydropower, solar

energy, wind power, geothermal, biomass, etc. These production methods have ad-vantages and disadvantages; therefore, they must complement each other to realize an efficient production of energy. What we expect from policy makers and business leaders in the world is to take strong lead-ership to promote global collaboration of technology to develop alternative energy

sources that will replace oil. We may have to face the risk of the ex-

tinction of human species because of an unavoidable environmental change on the Earth in the future, but we must prevent the extinction of our offspring because of our insatiable consumption of fossil fuels.

(Editorial Offi ce)

Japanese inventories of plutonium are made public once a year. Plutonium inventories existing at the end of December 2015 are as follows:

[The tables in parenthesis are previous year values.](Unit: kgPu)

1. Separated Plutonium• Reprocessing Plants

JAEA*1 JNFL*2

Plutonium nitrate, etc.(plutonium at all stages fromthe time it is separated after dissolution until it goesthrough blending and conversion)

266(577)

285(284)

Plutonium oxide(plutonium oxide laid up in storing containers)

246(131)

3,329(3,329)

Subtotal512

(709)3,614

(3,613)

• JAEA Facility for Plutonium Fuel Fabrication

Plutonium oxide(plutonium oxide laid up in storing containers)

2,150(1,974)

Plutonium in stages of experiment and fabrication

999(983)

New fuel products(in fabricated fuel assemblies)

446(446)

Subtotal3,596

(3,404)

• Reactors and Other Facilities

Joyo (experimental fast reactor) 134(134)

Monju(prototype fast breeder reactor)

31(31)

Commercial Reactors2,501

(2,501)

R&D (critical facilities, etc.) 444(444)

Subtotal3,109

(3,109)

Total10,832(10,835)

2. Separated Plutonium at Overseas(Foreign services are commissioned to fabricate most of them into MOX fuel for use in Japan’s light water reactors.)

(Unit: kgPuf)

U.K. 14,032 (13,939)

France 10,542 (10,572)

Total 24,574 (24,511)

3. Separated Plutonium in Use (2015)(Unit: kgPu)

• Plutonium Oxide Recovered

JAEA reprocessing plant308(86)

JNFL Reprocessing plant0

(0)

Total308(86)

• Plutonium in Fuel Fabrication Processes

Monju, Joyo, etc.0

(0)

• Plutonium Loaded in Reactors

Reactors0

(0)

[Reference Data]Each state’s national holdings of civil un-irradiated

plutonium and of plutonium contained in spent civil reactor fuel published by IAEA under “Guidelines for the Management of Plutonium (INFCIRC/549 of March 16, 1998)” as of December 2014 are as follows: (Unit: ton Pu; Civil plutonium and plutonium declared excess to defense needs is contained.)

Non-usedPlutonium

Plutonium inSpent Fuel

U.S.A. 49 637

Russia 6.8 146.5

U.K. 126.3 30

France 78.8 275.6

China (25.4kg) ---*3

Japan 10.8 161

Germany 2.1 113

Belgium 0.9 40

Switzerland (<50kg) 18

*1: JAEA: Japan Atomic Energy Agency*2: JNFL: Japan Nuclear Fuel Limited*3: China published only its national holdings civil

un-irradiated plutonium.

Plutonium Management in Japan


CNFC Report 1

26 Reactors Applied for Review of

Compliance with New Regulatory

Standards While 19 Have Not

Earthquake of magnitude 9.0 oc-curred on March 11, 2011 off the Pa-cifi c coast of Tohoku District, north-eastern part of Japan’s main island, Honshu, and subsequent giant tsu-nami brought about a catastrophe there. The earthquake is known as the Great East Japan Earthquake in Japan. When the earthquake hit the country, 54 nuclear reactors (48,850 MW) were in operation including those suspended for regular main-tenance check. In addition to this, three nuclear reactors (4,140 MW) were under construction and anoth-er four (1,190 MW) were shut down.

New nuclear regulatory standards, becoming effect in July 2013, were established by the Nuclear Regula-tion Authority (NRA), which was founded in September 2012 after the Fukushima Daiichi accident through the reorganization of old regulatory bodies. Based on the new standards, 26 reactors in 16 plant sites of Japa-nese electric power companies sub-mitted applications for the review of compliance with the new standards. The applications were made from July 2013 through November 2015. Meanwhile, as of December 2016 the decommissioning of six reactors (Mi-hama Unit 1 and 2, Unit 1 of Shi-mane, Genkai, Tsuruga and Ikata nuclear power plants respectively) was determined because of various reasons including the costs neces-sary to meet the new standards, which were too high for power com-panies to make economical sense.

Six reactors in the disaster-stricken Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant were also scheduled to be de-commissioned: The decommissioning of Unit 1 to 4 was resolved on April 19, 2012, and the decommissioning of less tsunami-affected Unit 5 and 6 was-without being restarted since the accident-resolved on January 31, 2014.

As of February 28, 2017, out of 26 reactors in the 16 plant sites (one of them is under construction) that applied for the review to com-ply with the NRA’s new regulatory standards, reviews of 10 reactors in 5 plant sites were completed; that is, these reactors passed the review. The number of nuclear reactors that have not submitted application for the review are 17 reactors (under suspension of operation) in 8 plant sites and 2 reactors (under construc-tion) in 2 plant sites. Electric power companies will closely follow the review process, and are expected to make applications of these reactors for the review in due course.

Besides nuclear power plants, oth-er nuclear related facilities must also be reviewed for their compliance with the new regulatory standards. These facilities include a reprocessing plant, a uranium enrichment plant, a MOX fuel fabrication plant, spent fuel storage and radioactive waste management facilities, research reac-tors of universities and national labo-ratories, and nuclear fuel handling facilities. Twenty of these facilities made applications for the review from January 2014 to July 2015.

While some nuclear power plants already resumed operation, we in-

terviewed with the offi cials of nucle-ar power plants that had been under construction when the earthquake hit to find out their current status. Certainly, the nuclear power plants under construction will have to be reviewed for the NRA’s new regu-latory standards. Six years have passed since the 3/11 disaster, but three nuclear reactors are still un-der construction. They are Higashi-dori Nuclear Power Plant (1,385 MW) managed by the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), Ohma (1,383 MW) managed by the Electric Power Development Co. (J-Power), and Shi-mane Unit 3 (1,383MW) of Chugoku Electric Power Co. All of them are the advanced boiling water reactors (ABWRs).

Restart of the Construction Work of

Higashidori N.P.P. Is Unlikely for

the Time Being

Higashidori N.P.P, of which con-struction work has been suspended, is located in Higashidori Village along the Pacific coast of the Shi-mokita Peninsula in Aomori Prefec-ture. Located to the south, just next to TEPCO’s Higashidori N.P.P.(under construction) is another Higashi-dori N.P.P. managed by the Tohoku Electric Power Co. (operation sus-pended), which is under review by the regulatory authority for restart. This mean that, in Higashidori Vil-lage, there are two nuclear power plants named “Higashidori” but managed by two different electric power companies; so, make sure you do not confuse the one under con-struction with the other under sus-pension (the construction was com-

How're Nuclear Power Plants under Construction Today

CNFC Report 1


CNFC Report 1

pleted but the operation has been suspended). We hope for the earliest restart of Unit 1 of Tohoku Electric’s Higashidori N.P.P.

Many energy related facilities are clustered in the Shimokita Penin-sula; hence, it is sometimes called locally the energy peninsula. Apart from the nuclear power plants, in Rokkasho Village, there are plants of Japan Nuclear Fuel Limited for spent fuel reprocessing, uranium enrichment, and MOX fuel fabrica-tion. The last one manufactures the MOX fuel by mixing uranium and plutonium. In Mutsu City, there is Recyclable-Fuel Storage Co., which is responsible for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuels. In Rokkasho Village, there are Mutsu-Ogawara Oil Storage Co., Ltd., which is a na-tional crude-oil storage facility, and Eurus Rokkasho Solar-Energy Park, which is Japan’s largest solar-energy park (115 MW) managed by Eurus Energy Holdings Corporation. There are also wind-power farms scattered in the Shimokita Peninsula.

The construction of TEPCO’s Hi-gashidori N.P.P. began in January 25, 2011. The subsequent works were scheduled to be substantially done in the following April, and on such basis, the construction site preparation work was in progress. However, a little over a month after the construction work had started, the 2011 earthquake off the Pacific coast of Tohoku struck the area. The massive tsunami triggered the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disas-ter, leading to the suspension of the construction work in Higashidori. Similarly, it suspended the construc-

tion works at the Ohma and the Sh imane N.P.P.s, which were finished by 37.6% and 93.6% respec-tively and have been so ever since.

W h e n w e v i s i t e d t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s i te o f f i ce o f the Higash i -dori Plant, we saw it from a distance as the c o n s t r u c t i o n work has been s u s p e n d e d . The aerial pho-tograph might give readers an impression that the preparation of plant site is still in progress and the con -struction of port has been com-pleted, but that is not the case; in fact, since the construction work was stopped prior to the full-scale work, we could see no construction workers around during our visit. We noticed a few heavy vehicles left un-attended.

There are words from the man-agement posted on the Higashidori N.P.P. website: “We are striving to compensate those who were affected for sufferings from the Fukushima

Daiichi nuclear disaster as well as to stabilize affected facilities in the Fukushima Daiichi N.P.P. Our ef-forts have been primarily focused on the compensation, and therefore the construction work of the Higashidori Plant has been set aside for an in-definite period of time.” Therefore, we think that the construction work will not be resumed in the immedi-ate future.

Japan’s largest solar-energy park in Rokkasho Village looks like a lake.

The construction site offi ce is located where you see a few heavy vehicles. Reactor building at left and a stack belong to Tohoku

Electric’s Higashidori Nuclear Power Plant.


CNFC Report 2

Construction Works of Ohma NPP Shelved at 37.6% for 6 Years

At Ohma Sun Rises from the Pacifi c

Ocean and Sets into the Sea of Japan

Ohma town lies at the north tip of the axe-shaped Shimokita Pen-insula, which is the northernmost head of Honshu (the main island of Japan). Ohma is a famous tuna (ku-romaguro, or bluefin tuna) fishing town. From Ohma, one can see Cape Tappimisaki and the Matsumae Peninsula-even Mount Hakodate and Downtown Hakodate in Hok-kaido, Japan’s northernmost island, if weather permits. Ohma offers a small miracle that one can rarely see elsewhere in Japan in Febru-ary and October: during these two months, one can see the Sun rise from the Pacific Ocean and set into the Sea of Japan. The Electric Pow-er Development Co., Ltd. of Japan, perhaps better known as J-Power, is building its fi rst nuclear power plant (NPP) here in Ohma. The construc-tion work is 37.6% completed, but no progress has been made since Mach 2011 because safety reviews by the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) of Japan, which determines if this power station meets the new safety standards adopted after the Fuku-shima Daiichi nuclear accident, have not been fi nished.

The construction of the Ohma NPP was initially invited by the lo-cal community of Ohma. Town’s chamber of commerce began promot-ing the construction of the nuclear power plant as a stimulant for Ohma’s local economy. The Ohma Town Assembly resolved to host the nuclear power plant, and the con-

struction of the plant began. The local community expected this proj-ect to be a goose that would lay the golden eggs. “The goose have not laid any egg yet,” said a guide in the construction site. However, J-Power has always been trying to use as many local products and hire compa-nies as possible. Apart from highly specialized stuff for nuclear power generation, general machinery and equipment are procured from or through local companies in Ohma.

To Be the Largest Installed Capacity

The installed generation capac-ity of the Ohma NPP is to be 1,383 MW. When the construction is com-pleted, it will be the largest nuclear power plant in terms of the output of electricity per reactor unit. The advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR), which was adopted by the Ohma NPP, has already been ad-opted by the Kashiwazaki Kariwa NPP (Unit 6 and 7), the Hamaoka NPP (Unit 5), and the Shika NPP (Unit 2). The ABWR in Ohma will have the largest electric output be-cause the geographical location of Ohma, which is the northernmost among the abovementioned ABWRs, provides it with cooling seawater, thereby allowing Ohma to enjoy a better efficiency of turbine genera-tors. However, if Higashidori Unit-1 of the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), which is under construc-tion in Higashidori Village (located along the Pacific coast of the Shi-mokita Peninsula, where Ohma Vil-lage is also located), is completed, the output of Higashidori Unit-1 will

be 1,385 MW, outperforming Ohma. This is because of the lower seawa-ter temperature in Higashidori. The seawater temperature considerably affects the electrical output of ther-mal power plants.

The world’s largest unit of ABWR can accommodate up to 872 fuel assemblies. The Ohma NPP is de-signed to load mixed oxide fuels, or MOX fuels, made from uranium and plutonium in all fuel rods. This fuel system, called full MOX (core), is a characteristic feature of the Ohma NPP. The reactor core and other equipment of Ohma were designed to provide this feature. The construc-tion of the plant began in May 2008.

A Beacon That Provided Electricity

during Postwar Era of Japan

Until the end of World War II, Nip-pon Hassoden K.K. (Japan Electric Generation and Transmission Co.) was responsible for the generation and transmission of all electricity in Japan. Right after the said War, the company was dissolved by the order of the General Headquarters, perhaps better known as the GHQ, which ruled Japan during the Allied occupation. Namely, it was divided to nine regional electric power com-panies. This was in early postwar days. These nine regional companies were not financially strong enough to supply sufficient electricity to all customers. Blackouts occurred frequently all over Japan in those days. Under such circumstances, the Electric Power Development Co., Ltd. of Japan (J-Power) was found-ed in September 1952, as a semi-


CNFC Report 2

governmental corporation. Since its foundation, J-Power embodied the energy policy of Japan: It had constructed a number of large scale hydraulic and thermal power plants, and supplied electricity to electric power companies in Japan.

J-Power today owns 12 thermal (coal- or oil-fired) and 60 hydraulic power plants. It also constructed a geothermal power plant in Tohoku, which is generating electricity to-day. It owns 20 wind farms across Japan, from Hokkaido to Kyushu. Besides that, it also owns cogenera-tion plants. J-Power also provides consulting services for various types of power plants (hydraulic, coal-fi red, cogeneration, etc.) constructed overseas.

Nine electric power companies eventually became fi nancially strong enough to construct power plants on their own to meet electricity de-mand. To ensure electricity supply to meet a strong demand for the postwar economic development of natural resource-constrained Japan, the Japanese Government laid out the energy and nuclear power policy already in an early postwar days. To embody the visions in the national policy, Japanese electric power com-panies aggressively constructed and ran nuclear power plants. J-Power spent a long time to prepare to construct and run its own nuclear power plant. The Ohma NPP was the first nuclear power plant for J-Power to construct. However, the earthquake off the Pacific coast of Tohoku in March 2011 changed the plan; because of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident caused by the massive tsunami, the construction

work of main facilities has been sus-pended in Ohma since then.

Natural Seawall Surrounds and

Protects Ohma

The construction of the Ohma NPP is at the 1.3 million m2 site, ex-tending about 1.3 km from north to south and about 1.1 km from east to west. The public information house is located at about 40 m above sea level, from where the site gradually descends to the sea. Various facili-ties of the plant were constructed over the slope by creating terraces, just like terraced rice fields. The reactor building and the turbine hall, which are main facilities of the plant, are situated at 12 m above sea level. Steam generated in the reactor produces electricity in the adjacent turbine hall. The electric-ity is boosted up to 500,000 V in the plant, and transmitted to the electri-cal grid of the Tohoku Electric Power

Co. in Higashidori Village about 60 km from the plant.

The construction of the Ohma NPP began in May 2008. The plant was supposed to start commercial operation in November 2014 in the original plan. The construc-tion work itself was supposed to be complete in autumn 2013 because the construction work must finish about a year before the commence-ment of commercial operation to do overall trial operation. Construc-tion work starts usually with the foundation work, which exposes the bedrock whereupon buildings that house main facilities are built. The construction work began in 2008 as said and proceeded fairly smoothly. Then, the earthquake hit Tohoku on March 11, 2011.

The Ohma NPP is situated in a lo-cation that is considered extremely resistant to tsunamis. For tsuna-mis coming from the Pacific Ocean,

Site of the highly tsunami-resistant Ohma Nuclear Power Plant


CNFC Report 2

Cape Shiriyazaki (the tip of the axe-shaped Shimokita Peninsula of Ao-mori Prefecture) and the Kameda Peninsula (the southeastern part of Hokkaido) form natural breakwa-ters against the tsunamis from the Pacific Ocean. The tsunamis are expected to lose most of their energy there, barely reaching Ohma. In fact, on March 11, 2011, an about 10m high tsunami struck the east-ern Shimokita Peninsula, whereas only a 90 cm high tsunami reached Ohma. The earthquake did not dis-turb Ohma.

For tsunamis from the Sea of Ja-pan, Cape Tappimisaki (the Tsugaru Peninsula of Aomori Pref.) and the Matsumae Peninsula (the southwest-ern part of Hokkaido) form breakwa-ters against the tsunamis, reducing the energy of the tsunamis before they reach the Tsugaru Strait. So, Ohma can be said to be a geographi-cally ideal place for habitation.

The estimated maximum height of tsunami (in Japanese, it is called kijun tsunami, literally, the refer-ence height of tsunami, used for de-signing various damage preventive facilities) calculated by the officials of Ohma NPP based on the new standards issued by NRA was 6.3 m. The estimated maximum height calculated based on the guideline of Ohma Town set forth by Aomori Pref. for local disaster prevention was 3.6 m. Accordingly, the plant site is highly resistant to tsunamis.

Therefore, the earthquake and tsunami affected Ohma very little on March 11, 2011. However, the substation of the Tohoku Electric Power Co. supplying electricity in this whole area was affected, and a

blackout occurred in an extensive area. The sudden power outage halted the construction work in the Ohma NPP. Gasoline became in short supply. When the earthquake hit, there were 1,700 workers em-ployed in the construction site, but they could no longer do their jobs because the power outage disabled their commutation to the work place, the operation of heavy equip-ment, and the transportation of materials. Moreover, employees of Hitachi, Toshiba, and construction companies Kajima and Shimizu, etc. stationed in Ohma left for Fukushi-ma to help the Fukushima Daiichi NPP. The electric power was soon restored, but the construction work was not resumed because the Ohma construction site was a heavy user of electricity and had to accept a rota-tional power reduction. Hence, the construction work was suspended.

Construction Works Suspended

– No Progress

From the end of March 2011 on-ward right after the 3/11 disaster, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) under the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), which was the regulatory authority for Japan’s nuclear industry in those days, gave various instructions to J-Power as emergency safety enhance-ment measures, including construc-tion of seawalls in the Ohma NPP (NISA was abolished in September 2012. Its role was transferred to NRA under the Ministry of the En-vironment). Necessary modification of design based on the NISA instruc-tions was studied by J-Power.

When the 3/11 disaster occurred, the energy policy of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) Government (September 16, 2009-December 26,

Mr. Hiroshi Kanaya, Deputy General Manager of the Ohma N.P.P., explains the status of construction work that was fi nished by 37.6% and has been suspended ever since.


CNFC Report 2

2012) described in its 2010 Basic En-ergy Plan was to increase the share of the nuclear generating capacity up to 50% by the year 2030. To ac-complish this objective, the construc-tion of additional 14 nuclear power plants was planned. However, after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear acci-dent, the DPJ Government changed its policy in September 2011; it ad-opted a new energy policy called the Strategy for Innovative Energy and Environment, pledging no further installation of new nuclear power plant or new units at existing nucle-ar power plants. Upon adoption of this new policy, there was a serious debate over the status of the Ohma NPP under construction then wheth-er it was considered a new or exist-ing nuclear power plant. The conclu-sion of the debate in September 2012 was that nuclear power plants under construction were not considered new but existing; consequently, the construction of the Ohma Plant was sustained. Accordingly, in October, the following month of this conclu-sion, the construction work was re-sumed in Ohma.

The outline of the new safety standards was not available at that time, but instructions issued one after another by the authority were expected to be put into a form of new safety standards later; therefore, the resumed work focused on part of the construction program that the new safety standards were not supposed to affect. The new safety standards took effect in July 2013. According-ly, J-Power submitted an application for the approval of nuclear reactor installation and modification com-plied with the new safety standards

in December 2014. The submitted application is still under review.

We just mentioned that the work was resumed from October 2012 for the part that the new standards were not supposed to affect. When the work was resumed, the number of construction workers in the Ohma construction site was about 1,000. The part of the work that can be done without consideration of the new standards was limited. There-fore, as the work advanced, the num-ber of construction workers required to do the remaining job decreased to 700, then 500, and fi nally 300 as of the end of 2016. The part of the work that the new standards did not affect is now all completed. Certain-ly, no work can be done for the part that the new standards were sup-posed to affect. Ongoing work today is machinery maintenance and some site preparation work.

Active Geological Faults May Be

Found at Ground Surface

NRA held 10 review sessions for the Ohma NPP after the application for the approval of reactor instal-lation was submitted in December 2014. The first nine sessions cov-ered all important subjects. At the 10th review session held on Novem-ber 11, solutions for the outstanding issues pointed out by NRA in the fi rst nine sessions were presented by the Ohma NPP.

One of the challenges for the staff of the Ohma construction site is to find a reasonable explanation for the following question raised by NRA in connection with the earth-quake resistance of the site: How did land uplift observed in the western

Shimokita Peninsula occur? And explain the mechanism as well as relevant geologic history of the area. This question originates from a criti-cism made by a professor of dynamic geomorphology, who said that of the Ohma construction site suggests that the site is likely to be sitting on top of active geological faults. J-Power explained in the review ses-sion that both underground and un-derwater exploration data suggested no active geological fault around the Ohma construction site. The request made against this explanation was to explain how this geologic features were formed if there was no active geological fault on the site. This was a homework assignment for J-Power.

The result of the review session on November 11, which was also report-ed in newspapers, was an agreement to conduct a re-survey for a larger area beyond the plant construction site by boring. “The boring sur-vey has already been started from scratch,” said a person in charge at the construction site. This survey will take time. What was told in the review session was: “If I am wrong, show me the proof.” This comment really implies degree of the strength of those who regulate and those who are regulated.

Review by NRA May Be Expedited

This kind of situation gives no clue about when the commercial operation of the Ohma NPP can be started. However, the date of start-up is a great concern to Ohma’s local community, and the soonest restart of the construction work has been requested by local municipalities around Ohma as well. What we un-


CNFC Report 2

derstand is that the expected date of operation is given to the local com-munity based on some assumptions. Some nuclear power plants in Japan have already resumed operations. The authority’s review period for these resumed plants was about four years. The review process is expect-ed to become more effective in the future; accordingly the review period is expected to be shorter. Neverthe-less J-Power considered the review period for Ohma four years. Based on this assumption, J-Power further assumed that the approval of reactor installation would be granted toward the end of 2018, four years after the application submitted in December 2014. It is expected to take further fi ve years to complete the remaining construction work and then one year for trial operation; thus the commer-cial operation is estimated to start from 2020 onward. Anyway, the ex-act date of commercial operation is not fi xed.

From the viewpoint of the regu-latory authority, it is obvious that priority of reviews for restarts of the operational units should be given to nuclear power plants under con-struction. “Nevertheless we are do-ing our best to cooperate with the regulatory authority to expedite the review process,” said the person in charge of the Ohma NPP.

Equipment Must Be Maintained Even

during Suspended Construction

Nuclear reactor building at Ohma is four stories above ground and three under. The construction work so far is done for the first floor, or the ground level of the facilities. They have already installed one

high-pressure, three low-pressure turbines and one electricity genera-tor in the turbine hall.

The construction of nuclear power plant starts from laying the foun-dations and building the basement first: at Ohma, the floor and wall of the third basement are built on the foundations. Then all large pieces of equipment such as pumps, mo-tors, heat exchangers, and tanks are installed inside. Thereafter, the second basement fl oor (this fl oor will be a roof of the third basement) and wall are built on the third basement. Then large pieces of equipment for the second basement are installed. This process-building each floor and installing equipment-is repeated for each fl oor. Unlike the construction of ordinary apartments or condomini-ums, you cannot install all pieces of equipment after completing the con-struction of entire structure including all floors and walls. Presently, the plant is built up to the ground floor, which means large pieces of equip-ment and machinery for the third and second basement were already installed to where they should be.

You cannot just leave installed equipment and machinery there. You must do some regular work to maintain their quality, such as work to keep up the performance of the in-stalled equipment and machinery or to prevent the deterioration of their performance. If some pieces of the machinery and equipment installed before the 3/11 disaster have to com-ply with the new safety standards, necessary additional work will have to be done. Examples of such work include the reinforcement of the support structure of piping system.

Too Costly but Safety First

Ohma is a windy town. A tempo-rary dome was constructed around the reactor building. It is large enough to house the entire reactor building and shields the building from wind and snow. The construc-tion method is well adapted to the climate in Ohma. Wind is so strong that folks here often say it rains in Ohma even it is a fine day. The construction work is done inside this all-weather dome. Its roof can be opened and closed to hoist large equipment.

A rotating crane for lifting heavy equipment in this plant can lift up to 1,000 ton heavy equipment. When people visit the Ohma construction site, perhaps the first thing they notice is this crane, which is so con-spicuous. Its gigantic size is over-whelming. This crane was used for the fi rst time in the construction site of Unit 3 reactor of the Tomari Nu-clear Power Plant operated by the Hokkaido Electric Power Co. Ohma is the second site for this crane. We guess the rental cost for the crane is considerably high. If the construc-tion work is postponed further, we have no idea what the total rental cost will be inconceivable.

Training for plant operators by using the plant operation simula-tor has already begun in Ohma since April 2016. The Ohma NPP is the first nuclear power plant for J-Power. Perhaps because of that, people often ask if J-Power is re-ally prepared for running a nuclear power plant. J-Power transferred its staff to TEPCO and lately to the Chubu Electric Power Co., both of


CNFC Report 2

which have been running the AB-WRs, to get necessary training and do an actual plant operation togeth-er. Before that, the staff of J-Power learned operational skill in the ad-vanced thermal reactor (ATR) even in the days of the Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corpora-tion (PNC), which is the predecessor of the governmental research insti-

tution Japan Atomic Energy Agency.Inviting local people to see such J-

Power’s past experience and its staff being trained with the plant opera-tion simulator, and be convinced with the safety of plant operation is one of the goals of the plant operation training center. We understand that there is a pessimistic view about the future of this construction project in

the local community of Ohma. Some even wonder if J-Power will give up nuclear power eventually and withdraw everything from Ohma. J-Power values the opportunity to let those who are concerned see its un-wavering policy for nuclear power in this training center.

Prompt Action Taken by Aomori Pref.

We are coming back to the subject of the safety enhancement strategies. Measures that Ohma NPP will have to implement to meet the new safety standards are almost the same as those in other electric power com-panies. A characteristic feature of Ohma NPP is its high altitude: main facilities including the reactor is situated at 12m above sea level. The estimated maximum height of tsu-nami there was 6.3m; so, Ohma has a natural barrier against tsunamis without any additional and artifi cial measures, such as seawalls. How-ever, after the 3/11 disaster, Ohma voluntarily built a 3m high seawall on the 12m high plant site. It seems like implementing measures against 15m high tsunamis has become an unwritten law, or norm that any plants must follow, regardless of their geographical features. Under such circumstances of the post 3/11 disaster period, any nuclear power plant sites seemingly had no immu-nity for building seawalls. This is a background that made Ohma build the 3m high seawall.

Aomori Pref. independently with its initiative established the Nuclear Safety Strategies Review Committee on June 7, 2011 just three months after the earthquake, and released a report on November 10 in the same

Reactor building covered with an all-weather dome

To appreciate the size of crane, compare with a car (passenger car) in the right center of the photo.


CNFC Report 2

year. The committee immediately checked the strength of safety mea-sures adopted in the facilities of nu-clear industry in Aomori. There are five nuclear industry organizations in Aomori Pref., namely, the Tohoku Electric Power Co., TEPCO, Japan Nuclear Fuel Limited (JNFL), Recy-clable-Fuel Storage Company (RFS), and J-Power. These five companies presented their safety enhancement measures to the committee, which were examined accordingly. Though no new safety standards were avail-able from the central Government then, the presented safety enhance-ment measures by the fi ve were ap-proved by the committee.

Here we present the excerpt of analyses relevant to the Ohma NPP in the report released by the com-mittee on November 10, 2011:

• The design of the facilities of the Ohma NPP is the latest one with improved safety. While the risk of tsunamis is relatively low in Ohma, additional measures in compliance with the emer-gency safety measures imposed by the central Government have already been contemplated.

• Necessary measures for the prevention of possible accidents by installing seawalls, etc., the mitigation of possible impact by installing watertight doors, etc., and the recovery of opera-tional function of machinery and equipment from possible damage by securing backup sea-water pump motors, etc., have already been taken, ensuring multiple defensibility of the fa-cilities overall.

• Since the Ohma NPP is still under construction, the plant owner company is contemplating either alterations of part of the design or some additional design relevant to the safety enhance-ment measures that are cur-rently implemented. Upon im-plementing such alterations or additions, the company intends to review all the pros and cons in order to choose optimum design solutions. So, efforts for safety enhancement of the facilities are well observed overall. …

The committee confi rms the effec-tiveness of the measures proposed by the Government against possible fl oods due to tsunamis that are simi-lar to the one that struck the Fuku-shima Daiichi Plant of TEPCO, upon implementing the emergency safety measures this time.

This was fairly prompt action taken by Aomori Pref. The safety enhancement measures that were presented to and subsequently approved by the committee were implemented in individual facili-ties and still in effect today. When the 3/11 disaster occurred, the construction site of Ohma was at a loss, namely did not know what to do because there was no instruc-tion made for safety measures by the Government. “We were really grateful to the prompt action taken by Aomori Pref. The prefectural ini-tiative for the assessment of safety enhancement measures proposed by the local nuclear industry and the subsequent approval, which really encouraged us,” stressed the staff in the construction site.

Avoid Wasteful Measures-Make

Rational Judgment

Certainly, we have no idea what the result of safety review by the regulatory authority of the Govern-ment will be, but if the review is conducted in a scientific manner, we do not expect a non-scientific result. Having said that, we know that instructions already given by the authority to some sites include implementation of measures against the risk of potential tornadoes of which occurrence was neither found in archives nor in local legends.

Plant operating companies must also avoid implementing unneces-sary or even wasteful measures, just to be approved under the safety review simply by complying with whatever is imposed without ques-tioning it. For example, installing watertight doors that are too heavy for people to open manually is a waste. Implementation of well-balanced measures, along with requirements based on the result of safety review, is desirable. The most important of all is for plant operating companies to reorganize the working environment that al-lows their plant operators and site workers to respond immediately in emergency without wasting time. To accomplish this, we should per-haps consider making a permanent information sharing system among nuclear industry that allows them to accumulate necessary know-how that is necessary for plant safety practitioners and share information among them.


CNFC Report 3

Restarts Expected for Nuclear Power Plants to Prevent Global Warming


Application for Review of Unit 3 under

Construction to Be Submitted after

Restart of Unit 2

The Shimane Nuclear Power Plant of the Chugoku Electric Power Co, or Chugoku Electric is located in Matsue City, Shimane Prefecture. It is the only nuclear power plant located in the realm of prefectural capital. Traditionally, disaster pre-vention laws had designated an area within 10 km from a nuclear power plant as a hazard zone. For the Shimane N.P.P., this designation practically applied only to Matsue City; so, Chugoku Electric had the safety agreement only with Matsue City. However, after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, the hazard zone was expanded to 30 km from a plant with all nuclear power plants in Japan; consequently, the number of municipalities within the hazard zone increased. Since then, inten-sive nuclear disaster preventive measures have been implemented in municipalities located within the expanded hazard zone. For the Shi-mane N.P.P., the expanded zone now includes the following six cities in two prefectures: Matsue, Izumo, Ya-sugi, and Unnan cities in Shimane Pref, and Yonago and Sakaiminato cities in Tottori Pref.

Since the Fukushima Daiichi nu-clear accident, the operations of Shi-mane Unit 1 (boiling water reactor, BWR, 460 MW) and Unit 2 (BWR, 820 MW) have been suspended. Shi-mane Unit 3 (advanced boiling water reactor, ABWR, 1,373MW,) was un-der construction when the disaster occurred, but the construction work of Unit 3 has also been suspended since then. Chugoku Electric sub-mitted the application for the safety review of Shimane Unit 2 to verify

the compliance with the new regula-tory standards in December 2013, and further resolved in March 2015 to schedule the decommissioning of Unit 1. It thinks that priority of the review process should be given to Shimane Unit 2, and therefore it plans to make an application for the review of Unit 3, of which construc-tion has not been completed, after the restart of Unit 2. Everything is being prepared on that basis.

Front right is Unit 1 and left is Unit 2. Unit 3 in the back is under construction (By courtesy of the Chugoku Electric Power Co.).


CNFC Report 3

Good Operating Performances Kept by

Unit 1 and 2

Shimane Unit 1, which will be scheduled to be decommissioned by the most recent resolution adopted by Chugoku Electric, began opera-tion in March 1974 and continued for 41 years until April 2015. It was the third nuclear power plant that began electricity production by a BWR in Japan, and the first nuclear power plant that was con-structed solely with Japanese do-mestic technologies (that is, built by using machinery and equipment manufactured in Japan). Shimane Unit 1 had the history of a sound operating performance for 41 years without any damage on the fuel, suggesting that it had achieved the world’s highest level of outstanding operations.

Shimane Unit 2 began commercial operation in February 1989. It was suspended for a scheduled periodical inspection in January 2012 and has been so ever since. The suspension was to verify the compliance of Unit 2 with the new regulatory standards imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Authority. Chugoku Electric made an application for the review on De-cember 25, 2013. 81 review sessions in total were held until the date of this interview in November 2016. Three years have passed since the review session started, but it has not been completed. Chugoku Electric has no idea when it will be done so.

Shimane Unit 3, of which con-struction work was 93.6% completed

but has been suspended ever since, is one of the largest ABWRs in Ja-pan in terms of installed generating capacity. The following four ABWRs had already been in operation in Japan: Unit 6 and 7 of the Kashi-wazaki Kariwa N.P.P. of the Tokyo Electric Power Co, or TEPCO, Unit 2 of the Shika N.P.P. of the Hokuriku Electric Power Co., and Unit 5 of the Hamaoka N.P.P. of the Chubu Elec-tric Power Co, or CEPCO, and the following three ABWRs are under construction: the Ohma N.P.P. of the Electric Power Development Compa-ny (J-Power), the Higashidori N.P.P. of TEPCO of which construction site has been in preparation, and this Shimane Unit 3. Before the 2011 Tohoku earthquake occurred, all the machinery and equipment had already been installed in Shimane Unit 3. New fuels, which were just arrived to the plant, were inspected and kept in dry conditions, that is, in the open air. The new fuels were just about to be loaded in the reac-tor. That was when the 2011 Tohoku earthquake occurred, and everything has been suspended ever since.

Another candidate site for the nuclear power plant of Chugoku Electric is located in Kaminoseki Town, in Yamaguchi Prefecture, but the Shimane N.P.P. is the only one plant currently in operation or under construction. In 2009 -before the Fukushima accident-, Shimane Unit 1 and 2 used to be in opera-tion; the electricity generated by these two nuclear reactors account-ed for 15% of electricity production

by Chugoku Electric, which was almost half of the average share of nuclear source in electricity pro-duction among Japanese electric power companies, which was 29%. The rest was made up with the electricity generated by coal-fired power plants, which accounted for 51% of electricity production by the electric power company, which was twice as high as the average share of the same in electricity pro-duction among Japanese electric power companies, which was 25%. Incidentally, electricity generated by fossil-fuel (coal- and oil-fired) power plants accounted for 78% of electricity production by Chugoku Electric in 2009, whereas the aver-age among Japanese electric power companies was 62%. Electricity generated by hydro-power and the alternative or renewable energy sources accounted for 7% and 1% respectively of electricity produc-tion by Chugoku Electric, whereas the average among Japanese elec-tric power companies was 7% and 5% respectively. Naturally, the company had to compensate the lower dependence on nuclear power with the higher dependence on fos-sil-fueled power.

Aiming Energy Mix Less Dependent

on Fossil Fuels

Shares of electricity generation by energy sources of Chugoku Elec-tric in 2015 were: fossil fuels: 89%, hydro-power: 7%, alternative (re-newable) sources: 5%, and-needless to say-0% for nuclear, which had


CNFC Report 3

been suspended in Japan since the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Those of the average of Japanese electric power companies were: fossil fuels: 85%, hydro-power: 10%, and al-ternative (renewable) sources: 5%. Because of the suspension of opera-tions of nuclear power plants all over Japan, electricity generation by fossil fuels had to be increased substantially to make up the short-fall and maintain a stable electric-ity supply. From the environmen-tal point of view, it was not a good move to restart fossil-fueled power plants that had been suspended for a while. However, Japanese elec-tric power companies had to ignore the issue of global warming for the time being. Most of them chose to

restart their fossil-fueled power plants. So did Chugoku Electric.

The suspension of nuclear power operations in Japan caused not only an increase in the emissions of greenhouse gas, but also imbalance of trade and a decrease in Japan’s foreign-exchange reserves. Shares of coal-fi red power plants was large in Chugoku Electric, but since it used a relatively cheaper coal per unit purchase amount, it was able to maintain electricity supply without raising the electricity rate but by increasing electricity production in its fossil-fueled power plants as an emergency situation. Some of the fossil-fueled power plants of Chu-goku Electric are old with poor ther-mal efficiency in today’s standards,

like those of other electric power companies in Japan; a few of them are even feared to be collapsed at any moment.

It hopes that the compliance of Shimane Unit 2 with the new regu-latory standards will be verified soon, leading to its earliest restart, and also hopes the earliest review of Unit 3 now under construction, and the subsequent start of commer-cial operation. Chugoku Electric is making every effort to establish an electricity generating system that is less dependent on fossil fuels. This is why it planned to build the Kaminoseki Nuclear Power Plant, which is under preparation for con-struction in Kaminoseki Town of Yamaguchi Prefecture, and further introduced renewable energy sourc-es aggressively. The company has been making every effort to create a stable electricity supply system with well-balanced energy sources in the Chugoku region and further-more reduce the emissions of green-house gases.

Shutdown of Unit 1 on Economic

Reasons – Against Sound

Performance

Above, I mentioned that Shimane Unit 1 was operated for 41 years -from March 1974- and the resolu-tion for decommissioning the reac-tor was lately adopted. Recently, I often encounter the expression of “40 years” in media reports as a sort of time limit for the service life of a nuclear reactor. There is also a discussion on whether this life-

“Shutdown of Unit 1 and 2 left us no other choice but to restart our fossil-fueled power plants,” said Mr. Masao Kuwatani, Manager of Public Relations of the Shimane N.P.P.


CNFC Report 3

time of 40 years should be extended to 60 years. I also hear some mem-bers of the National Diet use this expression in sessions. Some people mistakenly understand the service life of nuclear power plant to be 40 years, but it is wrong. The service life of nuclear power plants is not set to be 40 years.

Nuclear power plants and fossil-fueled ones-also automobiles in our everyday livings-are regularly checked to ascertain the conditions of machinery, equipment, or compo-nents, which are then repaired or replaced where appropriate. In case of nuclear power plants, everything except for buildings, reactors, and main piping systems is replaced according to the maintenance pro-gram. In case of cars, this is like re-placing all the equipment and com-ponents except for the body, engine, and framework of a car sequentially in regular maintenance checks.

In that sense, even though the exterior of nuclear power plant re-mains unchanged, all the machinery and equipment inside are thorough-ly replaced; therefore, those are not old at all. They are like a 40-year-old classic car with a brand-new engine and equipment on board. Unlike cars, the exterior of nuclear power plant does not usually under-go substantial model changes, and therefore it is by no means.

In case of Shimane Unit 1, it is ex-pected to take a fairly long time and need an enormous money to make the reactor comply with the new regulatory standards introduced by

the NRA. On the other hand, the low electric output of Unit 1 makes additional works required for the compliance poorly cost-effective. These factors seemingly led Chu-goku Electric to the resolution about the decommissioning of Unit 1.

Naturally, workers in the Shi-mane N.P.P. probably felt that Unit 1 was still robust enough to con-tinue commercial production of elec-tricity. Unit 1 may seem like a child for them, who raised it for as long as 40 years. Anyway, it has something to do with a business decision and not much to do with technical views; so, we go nowhere even if we regret the choice.

The above-mentioned relation be-tween the service life and the elapsed years of nuclear power plant, which is well known to power plant engi-neers and electric power company staff, has not been shared very much among the public at large. We be-lieve that an appropriate publication should have been made for the issue. Even members of the National Diet, where all pieces of information are supposed to be discussed, seemingly do not understand the actual situ-ations and spend too much time to clarify the status.

Unit 3 of 1,373 MW Will Greatly

Contribute to Prevent Global Warming

When Shimane Unit 3 now under construction starts commercial op-eration, it will contribute to a reduc-tion in the emissions of carbon diox-ide (CO2) gas by 5 million tons per year. This amount is equivalent to

10-15% of the CO2 emissions of Chu-goku Electric in 2015. The effect of the startup of Unit 3 on the preven-tion of global warming is signifi cant. The combination of Unit 3 and 2 is estimated to reduce the emissions of CO2 by 9 million tons.

The company has many coal-fired power plants, which have been se-quentially replaced with new envi-ronmentally friendly power plants that use new technologies to emit less carbon dioxide even if coal is used as fuel. Chugoku Electric plans to have a well-balanced energy portfolio for its electricity generating facilities, which includes state-of-the-art low-carbon-emission fossil-fuel power plants and nuclear power plants. It still has some 40- or 50-year-old ther-mally ineffi cient power plants among its fossil-fueled power plants, and has a program to replace the inefficient fossil-fuel power plants by a state-of-the-art coal-fi red power plant, which is a 1,000 MW capacity fossil-fueled power plant, and expected to contrib-ute to not only a reduction in the CO2 emissions but also profitability in business.

The advantage of using coal is its low cost. Chugoku Electric is try-ing to develop new coal-based tech-nologies, thereby realizing a highly efficient and low-carbon-emission electricity production. Such new technologies, if they can be estab-lished and shared among other countries, will help prevent global warming, especially in countries that are highly dependent on coal-fi red power plants.


CNFC Report 3

Huge Money Needed for New Safety

Measures and Even in the

Suspension Period

Application for the safety review of Unit 3 -under construction- with the new regulatory standards will be submitted in due course. Any special design alterations are not intended for that purpose. Like any other modern reactors in other elec-tric power companies, Unit 3 was originally built with equipment and features that complied with the new regulatory standards of the NRA, including backup water supply sys-tems, fi re prevention systems, water-proofi ng inside the reactor building, wastewater treatment systems, vent filtration equipment, etc. However, if any parts or sections of the reac-tor should require additional safety measures, which will become evident in the review process of Unit 2, Chu-goku Electric shall implement them immediately.

Even if there is nothing to change in the design of internal structures of the Unit 3 reactor building, there may be something to change outside of it. For example, if the height of the seawall has to be increased or emergency equipment has to be in-stalled at an elevated location within the plant site, then the addition-ally required work will involve not only equipment inside and outside the Unit 2 reactor building but also equipment outside the Unit 3 reac-tor building. The additional work is estimated to cost more than 400 bil-lion yen in total for the Unit 2 and 3

reactor buildings. With this amount of money, another nuclear power plant could be built. Moreover, since Unit 1 is scheduled to be decom-missioned and the startup of Unit 2 is postponed more than five years, Chugoku Electric must rely more on fossil-fueled power plants; hence, the longer it takes for the review, the higher the cost, because it will have to include various incidental costs for maintaining the nuclear power plant and additional fuel cost for running the fossil-fueled power plants. So, the total cost will be extremely high.

Implementing Safety Measures

against Earthquakes, Tsunamis, and

Tornadoes as well

What is the earthquake prepared-ness in nuclear power plants? They

should be designed to have a suf-fi cient margin for safety even in the event of the largest possible earth-quake. To do that, constructors of nuclear power plants must under-stand the underground geological structure of plant sites; that is, they must carry out geological surveys to detect any active faults or rupture zones. For the Shimane N.P.P., none of them was found by the survey. The regulatory authority addition-ally conducted geological surveys for active faults twice up to now, which ascertained the said result.

In order for the power plants to prepare actual strategies against earthquakes, the design-basis earthquake ground motion, or DBEGM, must be defined first by the regulatory authority. The power

Gas turbine generators are placed on standby.


CNFC Report 3

plants are not allowed to choose the DBEGM based on their own survey and prepare strategies against it. So, the regulatory authority must defi ne the DBEGM as soon as pos-sible, which is the responsibility of those who regulate. Prompt action is necessary.

The same goes for the strategies

against tsunamis associated with earthquakes. The safety review of the plant for tsunamis has not been completed. The maximum height of tsunamis associated with earth-quakes in the eastern margin of the Sea of Japan and in sea area in front of reactor sites was estimated by Tottori Prefecture in 2012 after

the 2011 Tohoku earthquake to be 9.5 m. Against this height, the Shimane N.P.P. c ons t ruc ted a seawall that was 15 m high above s e a l e v e l a n d 1,500 m long in total. The Unit 3 site is at 8.5 m above sea level, but the seawall gives an addi-t ional margin for safety, which is probably suf-ficient. These measures should p r e v e n t f l o o d water intrusion due to tsunamis to the plant site.

Various safety m e a s u r e s a r e a l s o t a k e n against torna-d o e s . A l m o s t no tornado oc-c u r r e n c e w a s recorded in the past around the

Shimane Plant. However, safety measures against a 100 m/s tornado were lately adopted. According to the Enhanced Fujita scale, which is an indicator for tornado intensity in the U.S, over 90 m/s tornadoes are classifi ed into the most intense class EF5. The estimated potential dam-age of EF5 tornado is defi ned as the one that makes “automobile sized missiles fly through the air far-ther than 100 meters” -Wikipedia-. Appropriate measures are taken against cars running in nuclear power plant sites as part of the safe-ty measures against tornadoes.

Nuclear power plants by design restrict the access of cars from the point of view of nuclear materials security. The Shimane N.P.P. has a parking lot outside the plant site, from where plant employees are transported to the plant by bus. The plant further restricts the access of commercial and special-purpose vehicles such as cargo transport-ers and construction vehicles to the plant site. The Shimane Plant lately constructed a multi-story car park outside the plant site as part of the safety measures against tornadoes to house cars of commuting employ-ees or visitors. The constructed car park will ensure no car fl own by tor-nadoes, which may block the access route to the plant. The implemented measures against tornadoes are not only for cars, which is only an ex-ample. The tornado safety measures are adopted at the highest level by the Shimane Plant.Machinery and equipment are covered with plastic sheets.

All due care has been taken.


CNFC Report 3

Water Purifi ers Were Installed in the

Reservoirs; Emergency Generators

Have Already Complied with the New

Regulatory Standards

The Shimane N.P.P. has water reservoirs which could be used as a supply source of emergency cooling water for reactors. The reservoirs were included in the original design of the plant. The new regulatory standards required Chugoku Elec-tric to enhance the earthquake resis-tance of the reservoirs and introduce additional safety measures against volcanic eruptions. Water purifiers were then installed to the reservoirs to ensure the availability of reser-voir water as cooling water even un-der the fallout of volcanic ashes. The plant has two reservoirs located east and west of the site. The western reservoir is covered, and can hold up to 10,000 tons of water. If the com-pany only considers the compliance of Unit 2 with the new regulatory standards, the western reservoir alone can provide enough cooling water to cool Unit 2 reactor for one week. The eastern reservoir is not covered, but a similar arrangement can be done. Both reservoirs were well designed to have an appropri-ate earthquake resistance.

Ensuring the availability of elec-tric power supply source in case of emergency is the most important issue to prevent a catastrophic di-saster. When nuclear reactors are shut down in an emergency, elec-tric power supply from an external source is vital. The Fukushima Dai-

ichi nuclear accident served as a les-son to the Shimane Nuclear Plant, which is now equipped with mul-tiple sources of external power sup-ply. Furthermore, emergency large-capacity generators are installed in the plant. They are gas turbine gen-erators for indoor installation. Prior to this installation, Chugoku Elec-tric submitted an application to the

regulatory authority for deploying emergency high-voltage generator vehicles, each of which has a large-capacity gas turbine generator on board. However, taking into account the safety measures implemented by other Japanese nuclear power plants that had taken measures fast to comply with the new regulatory standards, Chugoku Electric on its

Entrance to the reactor containment vessel. Notice the thickness of wall.


CNFC Report 3

own initiative made a decision in 2015 to choose indoor installation type gas turbine generators as main sources of emergency power supply and use gas turbine generator ve-hicles as auxiliary sources.

The gas turbine generators has an electric power of 6,000 kVA, or about 5,000 kW. Three gas turbine genera-tors in total will be installed in the Shimane Plant: one each for Unit 2 and 3 and one kept as a spare. The generator for Unit 2 and a spare generator were installed in Septem-ber 2016, and the generator for Unit 3 will be installed within the fiscal year 2017. This means that the Shi-mane Plant will have implemented necessary safety measures in com-pliance with the new regulatory standards already even before it submits an application to the regu-latory authority for safety review.

None of the BWRs Has Been Approved

for Restart

Increasing numbers of members in the National Diet begin to feel that the NRA’s review process with the new regulatory standards is too slow. Japanese nuclear power plants, based on their past experi-ences in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident and the emergency

actions taken in the Fukushima Daini-Second-Power Plant, have already implemented various mea-sures on their own initiative before the requirements with the new stan-dards become completely clear to them, and applied for the review by the regulatory authority.

Thus far 26 reactors in 16 nuclear power plants in Japan have sub-mitted applications-the number of applications submitted from July 8, 2013 to November 5, 2015- to the NRA for the review of compliance with the new regulatory standards. Of them, the drafts of the safety review reports of 10 reactors in 5 nuclear power plants were admit-ted by the NRA as of February 27, 2017; that is, they passed the review. All of them were pressurized water reactors -PWRs-. None of the boil-ing water reactors -BWRs- has been approved so far under the new regu-latory standards. We have no idea why the approvals for the BWRs were late. No explanation has been given by the NRA about the reason for this delay.

Certainly, the NRA’s review period varies by the status of each nuclear power plant. Unit 1 and 2 of the Takahama N.P.P. of the Kansai Electric Power Co. were approved

in 11 months after the application was submitted, but we need to bear in mind that this application was submitted after Unit 3 and 4 of the same plant had been approved-the review period was a year and five months. Apart from that, the review period varies from three years seven months to one year one month. The PWRs that have not been approved yet are only the following six reac-tors: Unit 1 to 3 of the Tomari N.P.P. of the Hokkaido EPC -application submitted on July 8, 2013-, Unit 3 and 4 of the Ohi N.P.P. of Kansai EPC-application submitted on July 8, 2013- and Unit 2 of the Tsuruga Power Plant of the Japan Atomic Power Co.-application submitted on November 5, 2015.

The number of the BWRs -the same type as the Fukushima Daiichi N.P.P. - that have submitted appli-cations is 10 reactors in 9 plants. As of February 2017, a year and eight months to three years and fi ve months have passed since these applications were submitted. The reviewers may have varying degrees of familiarity by reactor types. For now, much of the attention of the world’s nuclear power countries was focused on the review results of the BWRs.


Report

Preface

Since the early days of the develop-ment of the peaceful uses of nuclear en-ergy, Japan has maintained a nuclear fuel cycle policy based on the peaceful uses of plutonium recovered by the reprocess-ing process of spent nuclear fuels. This policy was adopted in order to accomplish the two goals: securing a stable source of energy for natural resource-constrained Japan, and sustaining Japan’s nuclear energy policy. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident and its impact still over-shadows Japan’s peaceful uses of nuclear energy. A great challenge that Japan faces under such circumstances is to fi nd the right path for Japan’s nuclear energy policy as one of the responsible players of the world. This includes the policy for Monju, Japan’s fast breeder reactor (at the time of this writing).

Under these circumstances, the current U.S.-Japan Nuclear Cooperation Agree-ment (valid for 30 years) will expire in July 2018. This agreement granted Japan to make a broad range of peaceful uses

of plutonium under the general approval scheme. To maintain the current agree-ment without substantial alteration, Japan must develop and implement a nuclear fuel cycle policy that is more convincing in Japan as well as overseas. At the same time, Japan must take into consideration a recent worldwide trend of international threats, such as nuclear and cyber terror-ism and North Korea’s nuclear weapons development, and vigorously promote the implementation of nuclear security, non-proliferation, and safeguards, while ensur-ing the safety of nuclear energy. Japan must also make contributions to the world community in those areas.

In this report, overviews of Japan’s great past efforts to promote the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and relevant nego-tiations with the U.S. over nuclear non-proliferation, etc. are given. In this con-text, the roles played by the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management (INMM) and its Japan Chapter, their various activi-ties, and their contribution to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy are explained.

What Is the INMM?

The Institute of Nuclear Materials Management (INMM) was founded in 1958 as a scientifi c and educational orga-nization to contribute to the advancement worldwide of skills for the practical man-agement of nuclear materials. The skills that the INMM aims to develop include the application and review of the manage-ment skills of nuclear materials in nuclear fuel cycle facilities, mathematics, statis-tics, physics, and chemistry in the nuclear materials management, and relevant safeguards. How was the international political climate for nuclear energy in those days? The then President of the U.S. Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered a speech “Atoms for Peace” to the UN General Assembly in 1953 leading to the founda-tion of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 1957. The Euratom Treaty, officially the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, took effect in 1958, and subsequently the Euratom Cooperation Act was concluded between the European Atomic Energy

Promotion of Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy in Japan and Nuclear Materials Management– Contribution of the INMM and Its Japan Chapter –

Masao Senzaki

President, Japan Chapter, INMM


Report

Community and the U.S. In Japan, the re-search reactor, JRR-1, reached criticality in 1957. Japan concluded the agreement for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy respectively with the U.S. and the UK. It was the dawn of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy in Japan.

The INMM is an international non-profit organization, headquartered in the U.S. The members consist of experts (managers, engineers, researchers, etc.) in the fi eld of nuclear materials manage-ment. The organization promotes the re-search and development of new concepts, approaches, technologies, and devices and machinery in the fi eld of nuclear materials management, which includes international safeguards, nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, nuclear security, the trans-port of nuclear materials, and the manage-ment of radioactive waste. The INMM members have opportunities to publish technical papers and practice the effective and effi cient management of nuclear ma-terials by participating in workshops and various committees.

Presently, the INMM conducts various activities through its professional chap-ters worldwide: six chapters in the U.S, Japan Chapter, Korean Chapter, and other 17 chapters; and furthermore, through 24 student chapters primarily in the U.S. The INMM hosts an annual meeting ev-ery July in the U.S. as its main activity. These meetings provide opportunities for participants to present research on various topics that are relevant to the management of nuclear materials and share informa-tion among around 800 participants dur-ing several days. The program includes lectures given by prominent researchers in the fi eld of nuclear materials accounting,

over 500 presentations of recent research, various INMM technical workshop meet-ings, exhibitions of the latest measure-ment technologies and instruments for nuclear materials organized by instrument manufacturers, career fairs for students, award ceremonies, conferrals of various qualifications on the INMM members. Besides that, the INMM hosts a number of technical seminars, symposiums, and workshops focused on respective related fi elds throughout the year.

The INMM publishes an academic journal, the Journal of Nuclear Materi-als Management, four times a year. This journal carries the latest topics about the INMM’s various activities and nuclear materials management. The information about the INMM’s activities are posted on the INMM’s website (URL: https://www.inmm.org/Home.htm), and they contribute greatly to ensuring nuclear non-proliferation, safeguards, nuclear se-curity, and disarmament, and ultimately to the promotion of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

INMM Japan Chapter’s Activities

The INMM Japan Chapter was estab-lished in July 1977, as the first chapter outside the U. S. for the INMM. Mr. Yo-shiro Kawashima, the fi rst senior manag-ing director of the Nuclear Material Con-trol Center (Public Interest Incorporated Foundation) of Japan, was appointed the chair. The INMM Japan Chapter has the largest membership in the world (about 120 members at present). Its activities have been valued by the U.S. Govern-ment and U.S. national laboratories as well as the nuclear energy industry and academic societies. It was established in

the early days of peaceful uses of nuclear energy, just after Japan’s ratification of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and before the completion of the Tokai Reprocessing Plant.

In October 1976, U.S. President Jim-my Carter introduced a new nuclear non-proliferation policy, which imposed a de-facto ban on reprocessing and uranium enrichment. This ban suspended the op-eration of the Tokai Reprocessing Plant. Later on, Japan entered into negotiations with the U.S. for reprocessing (Japan-U.S. Reprocessing Negotiation), and imple-mented the Tokai Advanced Safeguards Technology Exercise (TASTEX) pro-gram and the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) proposed by President Carter. These two addition-ally introduced procedures led to the conclusion that they would ensure both peaceful uses of nuclear energy and NPT, which resulted in the negotiations of the revision of the U.S.-Japan Nuclear Coop-eration Agreement.

The Japan Chapter since its foundation has been involved in various activities aimed at the development, international collaboration, and education of manage-ment skills of nuclear materials such as nuclear non-proliferation, safeguards and nuclear security. These activities have been undertaken in collaboration with the IAEA, various Japanese ministries and agencies, research and development insti-tutions, industry, and academic societies, which has contributed to the promotion of peaceful uses of nuclear energy in Ja-pan. In particular, the Nuclear Material Management Center extended coopera-tion and support to the activities of the Japan Chapter since the early days. For


Report

this contribution, the supportive organiza-tion award was conferred on the Nuclear Material Management Center in the 1944 INMM Annual Meeting.

The Japan Chapter today organizes the board of directors meetings four times a year. Its directors are chosen from 10 domestic organizations involved in the development of nuclear energy uses in Ja-pan. Within the Japan Chapter, there are two committees working for the INMM Annual Meeting: the planning committee is responsible for planning workshops, compiling the periodicals, and prepar-ing the programs of the INMM Annual Meeting. The program committee is responsible for organizing the Annual Meeting of the Japan Chapter. Its Annual Meeting is held every fall. The program contains special lectures given by experts involved in the nuclear materials manage-ment either in Japan or overseas, over 30 presentations of the recent researches, poster presentations, excellent paper award ceremony, the Japan Chapter Gen-eral Assembly, etc. Apart from that, the Japan Chapter organizes several research meetings, public workshops, and techni-cal seminars focused on timely topics. It also organizes joint workshops with the INMM headquarters and the European Safeguards Research & Development As-sociation (ESARDA), which is a unique research and development organization of safeguards technology in Europe. Papers presented in the Japan Chapter’s Annual Meeting and the INMM Japan Newslet-ters providing a summary of its recent activities are posted on the member page of the INMM Japan website (URL: www.jnmcc.or.jp/inmm).

Roles and Contribution of INMM and

Its Japan Chapter to the U.S.-Japan

Nuclear Cooperation

The INMM was established with the initiative of the U.S. during the Cold War era, as one of the academic societies dedi-cated to the global promotion of peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The activities are aimed at promoting not only technolo-gies that are related to the management of nuclear materials in general, but also relevant nuclear policies and institutional systems. Its Japan Chapter has been ac-tively involved in these activities. While it closely follows the development of nu-clear energy and non-proliferation polices of the U.S. administration, it vigorously disseminates information about Japan’s policies in nuclear energy: for instance, the status of Japan’s nuclear energy devel-opment, its research and development of nuclear non-proliferation, safeguards, and nuclear security. The Japan Chapter has encouraged its members to deepen discus-sions with nuclear experts worldwide. By doing that, the INMM Japan has tried to contribute to nurturing the understanding of Japan’s peaceful uses of nuclear energy in the U.S. and the international commu-nity at large.

Next, recent activities of the INMM Ja-pan Chapter will be explained.

(1) In the 50th INMM Annual Meeting in 2009, a special session was held to discuss the U.S.-Japan cooperation about safeguards, Japan’s efforts to implement the safeguards and develop safeguards technology in the Rokkasho Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities, and the cooperation be-tween U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

and the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) in the development of advanced safeguards technology. The session was organized in cooperation between the U.S. DOE, the U.S. national laboratories, the IAEA, and the JAEA.

Nine invited guest speakers gave presentations, which were followed by discussions. Among topics covered in the presentations were: (1) review of international cooperation that led to the establishment of safeguards in Japan, (2) identification of challenges that we face to implement effective and effi cient safe-guards, and (3) advanced safeguards for the future nuclear energy development systems. Importance of international cooperation—especially, the U.S.-Japan cooperation—in developing the future safeguards was emphasized.

(2) In the 53rd INMM Annual Meeting in 2012, a special session focused on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident and the management of nuclear materi-als was held. We considered that the INMM Japan Chapter was responsible for disseminating the information about the situations of the Fukushima accident and the management of nuclear materials from Japan to the rest of the world, to let the global community correctly under-stand the situations. For that, we orga-nized a session, inviting representatives of the Governments of Japan, the United States, and Europe, and the IAEA as participants. The conclusion of the spe-cial session reconfirmed the following: Nuclear materials have been under strict control in cooperation with the Japanese Government, Tokyo Electric Power Co, and the JAEA, which was verifi ed by the


Report

IAEA; In Japan’s effort to remove the melted fuel out of the damaged reactors in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, the U.S. and Europe will extend various support, which includes the shar-ing of data on the Three Mile Island and the Chernobyl accidents, which may be facilitated by relevant institutions in the U.S. and Europe; and support to imple-ment the nuclear materials accounting and safeguards.

In the INMM Annual Meetings of re-cent years, usually about 15 to 20 presen-tations are given by Japanese researchers about their research results. They often volunteer for the role of chair in sessions. Over 20 experts and students from Japan attend the meeting every year. Recently, the author also attends the meeting every year. While participating as a member of the panel for debates, chair of session, or speaker in the fi eld of my expertise, I also attend various meetings focused on par-ticular topics held between the sessions. I take these opportunities to exchange views with many experts from the U.S. DOE and U.S. national laboratories over various topics, ranging from strategies for nuclear non-proliferation, safeguards, and nuclear security, to the U.S.-Japan coop-eration issues.

A number of experts and students from all over the world – North America, Eu-rope, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Russia-come to participate in the INMM Annual Meetings, which provide us a good opportunity to mingle each other. The results are reported in the Japan Chapter Annual Meeting or other relevant meetings, and shared among people in-volved in the nuclear materials manage-ment in Japan.

The Japan Chapter since its foundation has been involved in various activities aimed at promoting Japan’s peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and the necessity of nuclear fuel cycle and transparency in implementing the fuel cycle. There are also activities aimed at ensuring the im-plementation of safeguards and nuclear security as well as the dissemination of information on Japan’s substantial inter-national contribution to the U.S. and the rest of the world. These activities have been undertaken in collaboration and co-operation with the INMM headquarters, the U.S. Government, U.S. national labo-ratories, and the IAEA. We believe that the Japan Chapter has considerably con-tributed to deepening the international understanding of Japan’s peaceful uses of nuclear energy as well as strengthen-ing global nuclear non-proliferation, safeguards, and nuclear security.

Afterword

Since the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, Japan’s peaceful uses of nuclear energy has been stalled. Japan faces the challenges of the fast breeder reactor Monju (at the time of writing this report), the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant, and the promotion of recycling of plutonium. In contrast, the development of nuclear energy has been in progress in the rest of the world, according to the IAEA survey. Recent opinion polls in the U.S. also in-dicate a gradual shift to a positive attitude toward nuclear energy, and some develop-ment has already been seen. In the last U.S. Presidential election, there was a noticeable change in the public views and movements on various challenges that the U.S. faces inside as well as outside the

country. While we have not been able to fi gure out the nuclear energy and non-proliferation policy of the Trump Admin-istration yet, we cannot exclude the possi-bility of a change in the U.S. approach to Japan’s nuclear fuel cycle policy.

If we just exploit great efforts made by our predecessors, the future of Japan’s peaceful uses of nuclear energy will be uncertain. I think that Japan should clearly show the policy of peaceful uses of nuclear energy again, especially the policy concerning plutonium cycle, and pursue the understanding of our policy in the global community-among oth-ers, from the U.S. Once humans chose to promote the uses of nuclear materi-als, they must ensure not only nuclear disarmament but also the management of nuclear materials; that is, humans must prepare and implement appropri-ate frameworks (technologies, systems, regulations, etc.) to prevent nuclear proliferation or terrorism and continue such efforts to make absolutely sure the nuclear materials are kept under control until the distant future.

The INMM Japan Chapter will make every effort to contribute to facilitat-ing the promotion of peaceful uses of nuclear energy, by further increasing the chapter activities about nuclear non-proliferation, safeguards, and security, and vigorously promoting collaboration and cooperation domestically among academic societies and institutions as well as internationally together with the INMM headquarters. We look forward to your continued support.

Editor's Postscripts

Globalism is seemingly suffering a setback, or rather moving backward to nationalism these days. What really struck us was the renewed impact of the U.S. presidency on the global politics-in a good way or a bad way. All we can do is watch how things develop.

Cold winter is almost over and spring is just around the corner in Japan, whereas

winter is lingering in the ISIL-occupied territories. The media are reporting how people in the occupied territories are surviving with a single meal in two days. There is not much we can do here. All we can do is pray for them.

Japan is fi nally about to introduce leg-islation banning smoking in restaurants. The legislation is in progress toward the

2020 Tokyo Olympic Games. The inten-tion of the new legislation is to ensure a better environment in public spaces for athletes and tourists visiting Japan in the Olympic Games. Non-smokers and small children in Japan will finally be able to enjoy a smoke-free environment-like other countries.

Council for Nuclear Fuel Cycle · Only dinosaurs adapted for the reduced concentration of oxygen survived this era. Although the concentration of oxygen decreased to 12% and that

Documents