236 |
J.M. West and L.E. McKinley |
experience, that the new Nuclear Energy Act, in force since February 2005, effectively removes the power of the Cantons to veto any future repository project. This point was the subject of much controversy during the period of consultation on the new Act, with the cantonal power of veto alternating between being included in, and excluded from, the text. It was ultimately decided to remove the power of veto as it was felt that the Cantons should not have the power to effectively block major projects that would effectively benefit the whole nation. The right of the Cantons to participate in the siting process is, however, secured by the Act and is confirmed by a new sectoral plan procedure for geological repositories.
9.4.2. The Japanese programme
Japan has more than 50 nuclear power plants in operation, supplying around one-third of its total energy requirement. As an island nation with no close neighbours, Japan cannot exchange energy with neighbouring countries through power transmission lines or pipelines. Japan is also energy-scarce, depending on foreign countries for about 80 per cent of its energy resources. The government of Japan believes that it is rational to continue making the fullest possible use of nuclear power generation as one of the mainstays of the nation’s energy supply.
The legacy of a series of accidents in Japan (most notably the JNC bituminisation plant fire in 1997, the JCO criticality accident in 1999 and the steam pipe rupture at the Mihama reactor in 2004), which were not always handled in the best and most open way by the nuclear industry, has meant that efforts to build the Japanese public’s confidence in waste management have faced a serious challenge. Essentially, by the end of the 1990s, when the geological disposal programme moved from the generic to the implementation phase, a general feeling of mistrust in all things nuclear was present in much of the Japanese population.
This overall situation is illustrated well by the Japanese HLW programme. Early decisions in the generic phase of the programme tended to be made by groups of experts under the control of the national government. The tendency was to simply announce the results of discussions, with important decisions, such as the definition of the disposal concept, being introduced into the public domain as a fait accompli. The public had virtually no access to, and no influence on, the decision-making process.
With the establishment of NUMO in 2000, the HLW programme entered the early stages of site selection. NUMO has opted to use a novel and transparent approach, based on complete reliance on a volunteer process. This approach is a major departure from those adopted by other countries worldwide. In December 2002, an information package (NUMO, 2002) was sent out to all 3239 municipalities in Japan to provide them with the background needed to consider volunteering for consideration as an area for preliminary investigations2. The information package consists of four documents:
Instructions for Application, explaining the required size of area, exclusion criteria and the procedure following an application;
Repository Concepts, providing information on what the planned repository is and how it will be developed for siting environments at candidate sites;
2 The site selection process proceeds in three phases: selection of preliminary investigation areas, selection of detailed investigation areas and selection of the final disposal site (NUMO, 2004).
Building confidence in the safe disposal of radioactive waste |
237 |
Siting Factors for the Selection of Preliminary Investigation Areas (PIAs), outlining factors that must be considered in selecting PIAs and used as criteria for their assessment based on literature surveys;
Outreach Scheme, explaining the interaction between NUMO and volunteer communities, including grants and compensation schemes, information exchange, community involvement and so on.
Distribution of the information package has been supported by a wide range of additional activities aimed at making contact with potential volunteers. NUMO held public forums in major cities in 31 of all 47 prefectures in 2001 to 2002; approximately 5000 participants attended these events. Local media at each location jointly hosted the events and reported them as feature articles. NUMO and local newspapers have since jointly hosted round-table talks with local opinion leaders at more than 30 locations, with results reported in the local media.
In terms of actual siting, it may be difficult to achieve sufficient public understanding and acceptance through the efforts of the implementing organisation alone. The government is therefore expected to clearly define the role of the implementing organisation in accordance with national policy. The government is also responsible for setting up a system for siting, promotion of public understanding of waste policy and proposals for development of local economies and infrastructure.
On a national level, with the aim of informing the population as a whole, NUMO’s programme has also been advertised in popular magazines and more than 40 newspapers (Fig. 9.5), including major dailies, reaching more than 80 per cent of Japan’s total readership. A poster campaign was conducted at major train stations in October 2002 and May 2003. Two videos have also been produced to help in understanding the concept of geological disposal. An interactive website aimed at promoting public dialogue is also being developed.
NUMO strongly believes that public involvement is vital in pursuing a deep geological disposal project and aims to ensure transparency in its work against the background of the requirements of the ‘‘Specified Radioactive Waste Final Disposal Act’’ of 2000, which states that the opinions of prefectural governors and city (municipality) mayors must be ‘‘heard and fully respected’’ in the site selection process. A review committee of external experts is also responsible for ensuring information disclosure. NUMO also has two technical advisory committees, one domestic and one international. These ensure technical transparency and open meetings involving the public have been held. NUMO also believes that international collaboration plays an important role in contributing to confidence.
It is clear that such a volunteer approach can only succeed with the support of local communities and populations. It thus has high international visibility and, if successful, it will represent a significant step forward in opening up the site selection procedure to the general public. If unsuccessful (i.e., no volunteers come forward), there is, however, a risk of a negative reaction to any subsequent nomination of sites. In this sense, public communication in Japan over the next few years will probably be more critical than in any other national programme.
The overall approach has yielded interesting preliminary results – as of early 2005, three municipalities had expressed initial interest in the programme but then withdrew shortly after following a lack of local support.
238 |
J.M. West and L.E. McKinley |
The approach for HLW adopted by NUMO can be compared to the disposal project for L/ILW at Rokkasho, which is being undertaken by JNFL. Rokkasho is a remote coastal area in northern Honshu, where the local economy is heavily reliant on JNFL and the nuclear industry. Consequently, the local population view the industry in a positive manner because of the considerable benefits it brings to the area. This is particularly illustrated by the area’s recent bid to host the new ITER international fusion power plant project.
Fig. 9.5. Example of NUMO’s advertising campaign in Japanese newspapers. The text says ‘‘By the way, what is NUMO? What is geological disposal? Where will it be?’’ and goes on to introduce geological disposal (image courtesy of NUMO).