  Give up nuclear fuel cycle! -- Akahata editorial, November 10 (abridged)The government's Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) is now working on revising the Atomic Energy Long-Term Plan, the county's basic nuclear energy policy. At a meeting held on November 1, the AEC decided to continue with the so-called nuclear fuel cycle (NFC) program that reuses spent nuclear fuel as a composite fuel. Public distrust in NFC is increasing Japan's nuclear policy has been based on NFC and proliferation of nuclear power plants. This policy, however, is at a crossroads. During the past decade alone, serious accidents in which the safety of NFC was called into question have occurred one after another: liquid sodium leaked and a fire broke out at the fast-breeder nuclear reactor plant Monju in 1995; an explosion occurred in a Tokai reprocessing facility in 1997; and the JCO reprocessing plant in Tokai Village had a nuclear criticality accident in 1999. In August, at the Mihama Nuclear Power Plant, four workers were killed and seven injured when a pipe burst. Public distrust in nuclear power plants and the NFC is increasing. The ongoing discussion to revise the Atomic Energy Long-Term Plan is required to determinate whether or not to keep promoting nuclear power plants and the NFC. Concerning the way to deal with spent nuclear fuel, the AEC has been discussing four options: reprocessing all amounts of spent fuel; partially reprocessing; not reprocessing; or stockpiling for a while. The AEC considered and assessed these options from ten viewpoints such as safety, resource saving, stable supply, environmental suitability, economical efficiency, and nuclear non-proliferation. The AEC discussion, however, did not seriously take people's concerns or distrust in nuclear power plants and the NFC. They focused on safety only once. Their conclusion was that those four possible scenarios do not make much difference by asserting, "Under the appropriate safety regulations, the effects of radiation on the human body can be minimized." The AEC effectively ignored the danger of extracting plutonium from radioactive materials contained in the nuclear fuel and of the use of plutonium. It did not respond to severe public criticism of the lax safety regulations. In discussing how to dispose of spent nuclear fuel, the commission takes land burial for granted. However, the question is whether there are stable locations suitable for land burial in earthquake-prone Japan. The committee closes its eyes to the fact that no safe nuclear fuel disposal technology has been established yet. It has also been revealed that reprocessing is very costly. The Nuclear Power Committee estimates that it will cost about 43 trillion yen to extract plutonium from nuclear fuel by fiscal year 2006. Citizens will be forced to shoulder the burden as part of their electricity bills. It is irresponsible for the government to force the people to cover the cost without responding to their anxiety. Pursue safety-first policy It has recently been discovered that the government had withheld the results of calculations it conducted a number of times to estimate reprocessing costs. Even though the government was aware of the need for additional expenditures, it has been promoting the NFC plan. It must stop ignoring public opinions, otherwise citizens' mistrust of the government nuclear energy policy will increase further. The government must take public criticism seriously and drastically change its policy from one of promoting nuclear plants and NFC. (end) |