Japan’s Policies and Activities for Deep Geological Disposal of HLW &TRU Waste and the Stakeholder Engagement Activities Related1
Shunsuke Kondo
President
Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan (NUMO)

Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen. It is my great pleasure to present you
this afternoon Japan’s Policies and Activities for Deep Geological Disposal ofhigh-level radioactive waste (HLW) and Transuranic Waste (TRU waste) andthe stakeholder engagement activities related.
(Slide 3) In Japan the Government initiated in 1976 research and development(R&D) programs on deep geological disposal (DGD) of HLW separated fromused nuclear fuel by reprocessing when it decided to construct reprocessing
facilities in Japan for recycling nuclear fuel in its nuclear power program.
In 1999 the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) reported that there are
geological areas widely in Japan where we can locate a safe deep geologicalrepository (DGR). After evaluating the validity of the report, the Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC) recommended the Government to establish a system for
implementing DGD of HLW, taking into consideration of the results of ayear-long nation-wide public consultation activity. Upon receipt of the AEC’s
recommendation, the Government enacted in 2000 the Act on Specified
Radioactive Waste Final Disposal that specified that DGD should be
implemented by corporations authorized by the Government at the site selected
through a consent-based multi-stage process.

1

Presented at STIG Risk Governance International Symposium: Risk Governance in HighLevel Waste – Challenge and experience in Germany and Japan – held by STIG (Science,
Technology, and Innovation Governance), University of Tokyo at Daiwa Ubiquitous
Computing Research Bldg., September 6, 2016.
1

Slide 3 shows the timeline of program for DGD of HLW in Japan. In
accordance with the Act, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI)
authorized Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan (NUMO)
established by the HLW producers in the same year as an organization to
implement the DGD of HLW and transuranic (TRU) wastes.
As summarized in Slid 4, the NUMO is currently authorized to pursue;
 Selection of a site for DGD of HLW and TRU wastes through aconsent-based stepwise process that consists of literature survey, preliminary
investigation and detailed investigation;
 Promotion of public information activities and public relation activities as
the public is at the center of decision-making involved in the process; Promotion of the research and development for safe and efficient
implementation of DGD in cooperation with R&D institutions at home andabroad, preparing a Safety Case report of DGR at each step; Collection of fee for final disposal, which is administered by Radioactive
Waste Management Funding and Research Center (RWMC).
Slide 5 depicts the organizational structure for the promotion of DGD in Japan I
have just mentioned briefly, and Slide 6 summarizes the current organization of
NUMO. Considering the fact that the NUMO’s mission is, unlike that of thecounterparts in abroad, limited only to the geological disposal of HLW and TRU
waste, we can say that the current size and budget of NUMO are comparable tothose of GD implementers in other countries.
Slide 7 depicts the idea of three stage consent-based site selection process. In
this process, NUMO can move survey and investigations forward only after it
obtains the approval of the mayor of the municipality the survey orinvestigation area is located.
As mentioned in Slide 8, NUMO informed in 2002 all municipalities in Japanthe open solicitation for the acceptance of a literature survey, the first stage ofthe process, and held seminars and symposia on a nationwide scale since then,2

to communicate with the public on the importance and the safety of dDGD of
HLW in cooperation with the METI. The METI established a system to provide
a subsidy for community development to both a municipality that applies for thesurvey & investigations and the prefecture where the municipality is located, as
an incentive for them to help society solve the problem of managing HLW.
As mentioned in Slide 9, Toyo Town in Kochi prefecture officially submitted its
intention to accept the literature survey in 2007. A strong opposition campaign
spread in the municipality of which population was about 3400, however, andan ensuing mayoral election resulted in the defeat of the incumbent who
promoted the project. The town subsequently withdrew its submission.
After this event, METI started to explore the way to induce municipalities to
accept a literature survey. Japan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) alsodeliberated the issue and, as a result, sent a letter to the Science Council ofJapan (SCJ) requesting opinion on the effective approaches of public outreachwith a view to promoting the final disposal of HLW in September 2010. But
both could not come to concrete conclusions before the occurrence of Great
East Japan Earthquake and the major nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi
triggered by huge tsunami induced by it in March 2011.
The accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station caused public distrustin the Government and amplified public concerns about anything nuclear
including the safety of DGD of HLW. The Science Council of Japan (SCJ)
published in September 2012 in such social environment their opinion in
response to the JAEC’s request for opinion sent two years before.
(http://www.scj.go.jp/ja/info/kohyo/pdf/kohyo-22-k159-1.pdf#search='2012%E5%B9%B49%E6%9C%8811%E6%97%A5+%E5%AD%A6%E8%A1%93%E4%BC%9A%E8%AD%B0+%E6%8F%90%
E8%A8%80')

In the opinion, which is summarized in Slide 10, SCJ advised the Government
thatA) Social consensus on the nuclear energy policy should be pursued before
talking about GD of HLW;
3B) The limitation of scientific and technological capability should berecognized and scientific autonomy for scientific deliberation should besecured;C) A policy framework should be rebuilt centered on temporary storage andthe control of total volume of the waste;D) Socially acceptable procedures should be pursued, formulating policies
based on the principle of fair burden-sharing among people;E) Multi-step procedures should be pursued to build consensus among the
public by establishing proper venues for discussion andF) Need for long-term tenacious efforts to solve the problems should berecognized.
At that time, the JAEC had been publishing a series of statement that included
policy recommendations to the Government in 2012, reviewing the reason why
we had promoted the nuclear energy utilization in Japan and the approach taken
for the assurance of its safety Slide 11 shows the title page of one of suchstatement. (http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/about/kettei/121218_e.pdf)
In the statement on the waste management summarized in Slide 12, AEC
stressed the importance of pursuing the realization of DGD of HLW as a
responsibility of current generation that generate the waste, and advised theGovernment the following four actions, taking into consideration of theaforementioned opinion of SCJ:
A) To review the scientific feasibility of DGD of HLW in Japan taking into
consideration the latest knowledge of geo-science obtained after 2000,
and share the result with the public as well as learned societies;B) To make it clear that the efforts to realize DGD of HLW should bepromoted based on a consent-based stepwise site selection process,assuring the reversibility of policy and the retrievability of waste minedso that the course of action can be modified based on the result ofreviews of technology and policy in the future;C) To share with the public through regular meeting with citizens andmunicipalities the process to decide the site for DGR with a view todeveloping social trust, acting in a competent, predictable and caring
4manner.
D) To cultivate national understanding of the importance of fair andequitable sharing of the benefit arising from areas with geologicalenvironment suitable for DGD between the owners and the public.
In April 2014, the Government published a revised Strategic Energy Plan, afterturns and twists in policy deliberation. It specified, among others, summarizedin Slide 13, that nuclear power should be utilized as an important base-load
power source based on a safety-first policy, maintaining the existing nuclear
fuel cycle program, though the nuclear dependence should be reduced as low aspracticable.
It also stressed that the action to implement the DGD of HLW should not be
postponed by an extended storage of it, while ensuring the reversibility andretrievability mentioned by the JAEC so that the future generation can select a
different solution if it decides so.
A background to this decision was a report from an advisory group on the DGDtechnology METI established in October 2013 that included experts nominatedby learned societies concerned. As depicted in Slide 14, the group reviewed thecurrent status of the scientific feasibility of DGD of HLW based on the latest
scientific knowledge, in accordance with the JAEC’s advice, and released in
May 2014 a report that pointed out thatA) Natural events that could severely disturb the safety functions of DGD
system (containment and isolation) should be avoided in the site selection
process.
B) Areas having the geological characteristics that are required for theassurance of long-term safety of DGD of radioactive waste in such a way
are widely distributed in Japan;
Slide 15 depicts the change of annual outdoor ambient dose equivalent ratearound the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (FDNPS) from Nov. 2011
to Nov. 2015. I am showing you this slide as I think it proper at this juncture toquickly summarize the current on-site and off-site situation at Fukushima and5the situation of nuclear power in Japan to give you some idea of social
environment in which NUMO is struggling to face with the public.
First Fukushima off-site: as summarized in Slide 16, in the area where lands
were highly contaminated by the large scale releases of radioactivity from thetsunami-hit Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station, about 47,000 people arestill requested to evacuate from their home, and about 30,000 people, many ofwhom are families with children, have left their home, having made up theirown mind to do so, due to anxiety about health and health of children inparticular, due to radiation exposure to be continued if they remain there. It is
our great regret that the accident has caused about 2,000 deaths due to theworsening of diseases owing to careless emergency evacuation from hospitals
and/or physical and psychological stress in the life in a shelter after dislocation.
I would like to add hesitantly, as a person once advised the Government torequest nuclear operators to introduce severe accident management features andtherefore responsible for the occurrence of the severe accident at Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, that we and risk governance community, inparticular, should not forget the fact that our society has experienced about
40,000 accidental loss of life and about 30, 000 suicide every year, at the sametime.
As summarized in Slide 17, at Fukushima, comprehensive decontaminations in
the high dose area except highly contaminated area are to be completed within ayear and evacuation orders to Tamura City and Kawauchi Village were upliftedin 2014, and that to Naraha Town was done so in 2015. However,decontamination of highly contaminated forests that are major elements ofhighly contaminated area remained at present is difficult, and it is recognizedthat it will take many years to complete the decontamination of the areas. The
preparation of interim storage facilities for decontamination waste composed ofsoil and plants removed is discouragingly slow, on the other hand, due todifficulties in obtaining the consent of landowners, who are evacuee andsufferer of the accident. This is the reason why we can see a temporarily stored
pile of packed waste in many place in Fukushima prefecture.
6

At Fukushima on-site, on the other hand, the decommissioning of damaged
FDNPS has been promoted in accordance with a roadmap developed by TEPCO
and the Government, as summarized in Slide 18 and 19. The first component of
the roadmap is the activities to stop the leakage of contaminated water to theoutside, establishing walls along the harbor, pumping up groundwater via wells
and discharging it to the sea after decontamination. This has been almost
completed. The second is the activities to reduce the accumulation ofcontaminated water at the site. Although significant progress was made in thisendeavor, we foresee the necessity of further increase in the number of water
storage tank.
The third is to remove the spent fuel from the spent fuel pool in the damaged
reactor buildings. The work was completed at unit 4 and now preparatory civil
works are being promoted at unit 1 & 3. The fourth is to start the removal offuel debris from the damaged units. This activity is still in exploration phase: weare making efforts to determine the location and the chemical composition offuel debris as well as to find ways to remove the debris under extremely highradiation environment. The fifth is to promote stabilization, conditioning andsafe long-term management of radioactive wastes generated in these activities
and the sixth is to promote pubic communication about the progress anddifficulty of these activities including the risk involved steadily.
As for nuclear power generation, many actions and initiatives aimed atstrengthening nuclear safety have been taken by NPP operators and regulators.
Based on the results of comprehensive safety reassessments that evaluate thedesign and safety aspects of NPP and the robustness against extreme events, inparticular, necessary improvements have been identified and implemented
steadily, as shown in Slide 20, which summarized the measures taken against
Tsunami.
The Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) established a new regulation rule fornuclear reactors and facilities based on these assessments and has applied it to
the review of application to restart the NPP after refueling. As summarized in7

Slide 21, twenty-six NPPs in the country have applied for the review andcurrently only five resumed operations. In the meantime, the district court
imposed a provisional disposition late March this year to hold operation of
Takahama Unit 3&4, both of which had restarted shortly before the action takenby the court.
Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the results of public opinion poll on
nuclear power in recent months indicated as summarized in Slide 22 that a large
share of people supports the gradual reduction of nuclear dependence in theenergy supply for this country and does not support the restart of idling NPPs.
The Government and nuclear industry therefore should make full explanations
about safety and risk management measures strengthened based on the lessons
learned from the accident both for the Japanese public and the arena of theJapanese judicial system, as the Government recognizes in the Strategic Energy
Plan I mentioned before that the operation of NPPs is one of the key conditions
for Japan to achieve the goal set in accordance with the framework of the
COP21 Agreement established in Paris last December.
Now, back to the waste management issue.
In May last year, the Government amended the Basic Policy on the Final
Disposal of the Specified Radioactive Waste in order to reflect the new policy
elements mentioned in aforementioned Strategic Energy Plan published in 2014.
The Government emphasized in the revised basic policy the five points
summarized in Slide 23 and 24;
1. Steadily promote the policy, recognizing it as the responsibility of thecurrent generation that has produced the waste to realize the DGR, while
securing the reversibility and the retrievability, promoting the researchand development of alternative technologies.
2. Communicate with the public as well as diverse communities inmunicipalities on the importance of both realizing a DGR and showing
the public’s respect and gratitude to the communities that volunteer toparticipate in the process for the siting of a DGR.
3. Provide communities in municipalities with information about the8geological and social suitability of their area for siting a DGR.
4. Support the initiative of communities in municipalities to learn the issue,
providing them for information, opportunities and financial support tostudy the importance and the safety of a DGR, clarifying measures toappreciate the community participating in the process of selecting the site
for DGR for the benefit of society.
5. Strengthen the organizations related to implementing a DGR including
NUMO as well as the NRA and the AEC that should independently
review the activities of the Government and NUMO.
In accordance with this revision, the Government decided, as summarized in
Slide25, to add a process of distinguishing all areas in Japan into three
categories, i.e., potentially more suitable, potentially suitable and potentially
unsuitable areas for siting a DGR.
At present, an advisory committee on DGR technology for METI is discussing
the factors for distinguishing these areas. The METI requested the OECD
Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) to conduct an independent technical peer review
on the suitability of this process and the criteria under preparation. Recently the
NEA review team published its conclusion that the process was generally inaccordance with international practices.
The scientific and technological factors to categorize areas established in thelatest session of the committee are as summarized in Slide 26:
A) From the viewpoint of long-term stability of geological environment, thevicinity of volcanoes or active faults should be avoided, and areas whereare susceptible to significant uplift or erosion, or high geo-temperature, orvolcanic thermal water or deep-seated fluid should be avoided: presence ofeconomically valuable resources is also a factor of unsuitability:B) From the viewpoint of safety of surface and underground facilities, areas
where there is a danger that surface facilities are damaged by the
pyroclastic flow and where unconsolidated bedrock is too thick to assure
the integrity of underground facility should be preferably avoided:
9C) From the viewpoint of minimizing social inconvenience due to surface
transportation of HLW, areas within sufficiently short distance, such as
20km, from coast are favorable. Coastal sub-seabed areas and islands
should be considered as favorable from this viewpoint.
Needless to say, the identification of areas is, as depicted in Slide 27, the firststep of a long way to go, as potentially more suitable areas to be identified bysuch factors should cover a significant part of Japan. The identification is just to
inform communities across the country on their potential to host a DGR.
The Government expects, however, that it will spark national and community
debates on the issue, and the Government and NUMO will support the activityof groups of residents in communities in those areas to deliberate the merit andthe demerit of accepting the survey by NUMO as a service to the nation.
As a preparation for the publication of the distinction of all areas in Japan inthree categories planned within this year, the Government and NUMO jointly
held three series of symposia in nine cities of the country from last year to thisyear. As summarized in Slide 28, the Government and NUMO communicated toand discussed with the public in each meeting about- The revision of the basic policy- International recognition of DGD as the preferred approach- Approach to assure the safety of DGD of HLW- Responsibility of the current generation to pursue DGD of HLW- Development of scientific criteria for identifying potentially suitable areas
for siting a DGR- Consent-based stepwise process for selecting a site for DGR,
- The importance of showing the public’s respect and gratitude to themunicipalities that volunteer to participate in the process for the siting of a
DGR, and- NUMO’s determination to contribute to the sustainable development of themunicipality that entertains the siting of DGR.
In every occasion, we had 100-300 audiences in the hall and the meeting wascovered by local newspapers and TV. We posted video of the meetings to
10

NUMO’s website.
We had various questions and comments or expression of outrages from theaudience at these symposia, including those listed in Slide29:
z The Government’s sudden and active initiative to the issue of DGR siting at
this moment is based on the intention to persuade the public to accept therestart of idling NPPs, isn’t it?
z The Government should pursue alternative ways of managing used fuel andwaste, including a long-term storage of used fuel, in accordance with the
SCJ’s suggestion, and abandon the nuclear fuel recycling policy.
z It is doubtful that geological environment in Japan is stable and predictable
and it is arrogant to claim the safety of DGD of HLW for hundred thousand
years: don’t repeat “nuclear safety myth”.
z DGR should be located in the underground of city areas from the viewpointof burden sharing / inequality reduction, considering the fact that
low-population areas have been forced to accept the siting of risky nuclear
power plants. Incentives for community to help society to solve a problem
should not be regarded as a compensation for risk.
As shown in Slide30 and 31, NUMO has also been promoting theunderstandings of geological disposal by information dissemination activities
through website and social media, email magazine and contribution of articles
and talks to magazines on the one hand and the utilization of communication
Vehicle “Geo Mirai” at the bustling places in cities, premises of scientificmuseums etc. on the other.

NUMO has been conducting public opinion survey to measure the effect ofthese activities. The result of the most recent survey summarized in Slide 32
indicates that the recognition of the importance of DGD of HLW is still limited
among the public and that NUMO has to work harder for improving thenationwide awareness of and interest in DGD of HLW, as well as the existence
and activities of NUMO as an implementer of DGD.
11

Slide 33 summarizes the approach NUMO will pursue after the announcementof more suitable areas by the Government. NUMO presented this slide also at
symposia I mentioned before with a view to demonstrating our openness andtransparency. We are also presenting our intention to promote communication
activities in municipalities in the potentially more suitable area, holding
dialogue seminars, expecting the emergence and the development of voluntary
learning activities of communities in the municipalities, which NUMO will
financially support.
Last but not least, as it is essential for NUMO to be recognized by the public asa group of trustworthy experts for implementing a DGR, NUMO has been
carrying out research and development (R&D) to extend the knowledge base forthe safety of the DGRs and for the optimization of design and operation of DGR
facilities, in collaboration with implementers/R&D organizations at home andabroad, as summarized in Slide 35, 36, 37 and 38.
To confirm that the R&D made progress and technological capabilities are built
steadily, NUMO assembled its knowledge on major geological environments inJapan into three geological site models, Pre-Quaternary plutonic bedrock,
Neogene sedimentary bedrock and Pre-Neogene sedimentary bedrock sitemodels, designed a DGR for each model site and demonstrated its technologicalfeasibility and safety based on scientific and technological evidence. As
mentioned in Slide 22, we have been developing a generic safety case reportsince 2014 combining such activities. Entering this year, we compiled its final
draft to be reviewed by domestic and international experts. It is expected thatthe report will be completed by the end of this year.
Before closing I would like to introduce two more information that may be
helpful for farther understanding the current social environment for thepromotion of DGD of HLW. First, as shown in Slide 39, the SCJ that had
published a report to recommend the Government to basically change the policyof managing HLW after the Fukushima accident published last April afollow-up report, in which SCJ proposed interim storage for buying time for theformulation of national consensus on the HLW disposal for 50 years, 30 years
12for DGR consensus making & siting and 20 years for construction of DGR. We
felt the converging trend of policy between the SCJ and the Government, atleast in appearance.
The second is the Opinion Seeking Not to Operate Nuclear Power Plants
Published by Sendai Bar Association this July, summarized in Slide 40. Though
the Association is by no means a part of community of geo-science, it advocatesthat it is extremely difficult to reliably select the site for DGR in Japan that canassure safe management of the waste away from human living environment
over a period of several tens of thousand years in the current scientific level. It
claims that, as an earthquake that may occur, even that in a remote location,
could change the state of the bedrock around the repository and vary the flow
characteristics of the groundwater around the repository, and that such changes
may shorten the time for the radioactive material disposed in the repository toreach human environment. My quick comments are in Slide 41 for yourinformation.
In summary, though our move is slow, the announcement of areas of moresuitable for siting a DGR at the end of this year will surely be a step to start newprocess of engaging with the public and municipalities on the need for and thesafety of deep geological disposal. In the process, we would like to cultivate asocial environment in which the public will support and show respect/gratitude
to municipalities that are interested in hosting the repository for helping society
solve a problem, in the first place.
As mentioned in Slide 40, the public still expresses strong distrust of nuclear
enterprise, mentioning severe consequences caused by the accident at
Fukushima, we must strengthen our efforts for communicating with the public
sincerely, believing that the continuation of an active exchange of opinions withdiverse group of people as a competent, caring and faithful organization willchange the situation.

13

Japan’s Policies and Activities for Deep
Geologicalll Disposall off HLW andd thehStakeholder Engagement Activities Related
September 6, 2016

Shunsuke Kondo
P id tPresident
Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan (NUMO)

Table of Abbreviations
DGD

Deep Geological Disposal

DGR

Deep Geological Repository

FDNPS

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station

HLW

High-Level radioactive Waste

JAEA

Japan Atomic Energy Agency

JAEC

Japan Atomic Energy Commission

METI

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry

NPP

Nuclear Power Plant

NRAg
Authorityy
Nuclear Regulation

NUMO

Nuclear Waste Management Organization of JapanRWMC

g
Fundingg and Research Center
Radioactive Waste Management

SCJ

Science Council of JapanTRU waste

Low-Level
Low
Level waste containing transuranic nuclides which are long
long-life
life
alpha emitters as well as long life radioactive nuclides
1



The Government initiated in 1976 research and development (R&D)
programs on deep geological disposal (DGD) of high-level radioactive
waste (HLW) separated from used nuclear fuel by reprocessing
reprocessing.



As the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) concluded in 1999 that
there are potential areas where a safe deep geological repository(DGR) can be located in Japan, the Japan Atomic Energy Commission((JAEC)) recommended the Government to establish a systemyforimplementing DGD of HLW, after nation-wide public consultation
activities.



Upon receipt of the recommendation, the Government enacted in2000 the Act on Specified Radioactive Waste Final Disposal thatspecified that DGD should be implemented by corporations
authorized by the Government at the site selected through aconsent-based
consent
based multi-stage
multi stage process.
22

Timeline of Program for Deep Geological Disposal((DGD)) of HLW in Japan
p
R&D

2040

Second Progress Report (1999)(technical reliability of DGD)

2030
2020

DG-Repository
operation

2010
First Progress Report (1992)(technical feasibility of DGD)

Start of R&D
program for DGD

2005

Selection of DGD site

2002
2000
Amendment to Final Disposalp
Act forTRU waste (June 2007)

1992

1976

Sta t oStartof opeopen sosolicitation
c tat o oof accepta
acceptancece oofgeological survey by literature (Dec. 2002)

Final Disposal Act (June 2000)

Establishment of NUMO (Oct.
(Oct 2000)

Implementation

3

3

p
 NUMO is a corporation
established byy HLW p
producers andauthorized by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI)
in 2000, of which mission is to implement the deep geologicaldisposal (DGD) of HLW and TRU waste, i.e., wastes from thereprocessing of used nuclear fuel.
 It is currently pursuing; Selection of a site for DGD through a consent-based stepwise
process that consists of literature survey,
survey preliminary
investigation and detailed investigation;
 Promotion of public information activities and public relation
activities as the public is at the center of decision-making
involved in the process; PromotionP
i off theh research
h anddd
developmentlffor safe
f anddefficient implementation of DGD, preparing a Safety Case
report of DGR at each step; Collection of fee for final disposal, which is managed by RWMC.
4Organizational Structure for DGD Program
CAO

METI

MOE

(Cabinet Office, Government of Japan)(Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry)(Ministry of the Environment)

Japan Atomic Energy
Commission(JAEC)

Agency for Natural

Nuclear Regulation
Authority(NRA)

Review

Resources and Energy(ANRE)

Guideline & Safety Regulation

B i Policy
Basic
P li

Outsourcing ofFund Mgmt

NUMO

Reimbursingof Fund

Paying into FundR&D needs
Waste Producers
Electric Power Nuclear FuelCompanies
Reprocessors- HOKKAIDO- TOHOKU- TOKYO- CHUBU- HOKURIKU- KANSAI- CHUGOKU- SHIKOKU- KYUSHU- JAPC- JNFL- JAEA

RWMC
Waste Fund
Administration

R&D outcomes

R&D
Organizations

PrivateCompanies

Universities- Nuclear engineering- JAEA- CRIEPI- RWMC- AIST- Engineering- Material science- Plant engineering- Civil engineering- Construction- Instrumentation
I tt ti- others- others- others
55Organization
gof NUMO
Board of Councilors
ChairmanVice-Chairman
Councilors

AuditorBoard of Councilors
Chairman Kyohei Takahashi Chairman of the Board, Showa Denko K.K.
Vice-chairman Kenji Yamaji
Director, Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth

Board of Directors
President Shunsuke Kondo
Vice-president Yosaku Fuji
Senior Executive Director Minoru Nakamura
No. of Employees䠖116 (as of Sep. 1, 2016) Annual expenditure: JPY 3,910M (FY2015)

6

Three Stage Consent-Based Site Selection Process
NUMO can move forward survey and investigations only when it obtains the approval
off theh mayor off theh municipality
l theh survey or investigation area is located.
ldPreliminary
Investigation
Areas (PIAs)( ) This route was added in(*)
2007 after Toyo town case
Municipalities
invited byy theGovernment(*)

Detailed
Investigation
Areas (DIAs)

Volunteermunicipalities

Detailed Investigation
Preliminary Investigation

Literature Survey- DeskD k top survey

Repository
Site (RS)- Geophysical surveys- Boreholes, etc.

- Excavation of test tunnel- Investigations in the test
tunnelLicensing Process
Selection
criteria

1st
stage

Selection
off PIAs
PIA

Selection
criteria

2nd
stage

Selection
off DIAs
DIA

Selection
criteria

3rd
stage

Selection
off RS
7

Activity of NUMO in Its First Ten Years (1/2)
 The Final Disposal Act provides that NUMO should get a prior consent

of the mayor of the municipality where a site survey area is locatedgovernor of the prefecturepto which the municipalitypy belongsgand the gin the promotion of the stepwise process for selecting a site for deep
geological repository (DGR).
 NUMO announced in 2002 to all municipalities in Japan the open

solicitation for accepting the literature survey.
 NUMO has been holding seminars and symposia on a nationwide scale

since then to communicate with the public on the importance and thesafetyf t off DGD off HLW ini cooperation
ti withith ththe METI
METI.
 The Government established a system to provide a grant forcommunity
it developmentdlt tot bothb th a municipality
i i lit thatth t applies
li ffor th
thesurvey and the prefecture where the municipality is located with aview to appreciating the willingness to participate in the process forthe benefit of the society.
88

NUMO’s Activity
y in the First Ten Years (2/2)()
 In 2007 Toyo-town in Kochi prefecture officially submitted its

acceptance off a literatureli
study
d to NUMO
NUMO. However,H
a strong
opposition campaign spread in the municipality of which population
was about 3400 and an ensuing mayoral election resulted in thed fdefeat
off theh incumbentbwhoh acceptedd theh lliterature survey. Thehtown subsequently withdrew its submission.
 Recognizing the difficulty for municipalities to submit the acceptanceof a literature survey, the METI started to explore the way to reducethe difficulty. JAEC also deliberated the issue and sent a letter to the
Science Council of Japan (SCJ) requesting opinion on the effective
approaches of public outreach.
 But both could not come to concrete conclusions before theoccurrence off Great East Japan Earthquake
h
k and
d the
h major nuclearlaccident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station triggered by it inMarch 2011.

9

Six Advices in the Science Council of Japan (SCJ)’s
Response in Sept. 2012 to the JAEC’s Request for
O i i on theOpinionh Effective
Eff i Communication
Ci i withi h thehpublic for Advancing DGD of HLW in Sept. 2010
a.
b.

c.
d
d.
e
e.
f
f.

Pursue social consensus on nuclear energy policy before
deliberating policies related to DGD of HLW;
Recognize the limitation of scientific and technologicalpy and secure scientific autonomyy for scientificcapability
deliberation;
Rebuild a framework of policy on the premise of temporarystorage of HLW and the control of total amount thereof;
Explore socially acceptable procedures such as those inwhich fair burden-sharing among people is ensured;
Pursue multi-step procedures to build consensus among the
public by establishing venues for discussion among them;
Recognize the need for long
long-term
term tenacious efforts to solve
the problems.
10

10

Renewing Approaches to Deep Geological Disposal of
High-Level Radioactive Waste(Statement)

December 18, 2012
Japan Atomic Energy Commission

1. Approaches to the disposal of HLW in Japan
In Japan, the Special Committee on Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste (Special
Committee) of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) made recommendations a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

11

Recommendation of the AEC to the METI on
Dec 2012
Dec.
a.

Review the scientific feasibility of DGD of HLW in Japan taking into
consideration the latest knowledge of geo-science obtained after 2000, andshare the result with the public as well as learned societies.

b.

Make it clear that the efforts to realize DGD of HLW should be promoted
based on a consent-based stepwise site selection process, assuring thereversibility of policy and the retrievability of waste mined so that thecourse of action can be modified based on the result of reviews oftechnology
gy and p
policyy in the future;;c.

Share with the public the process to decide the site for DGR with a view to
p g social trust: the Government and NUMO should act as adeveloping
competent, predictable and caring organization, introducing systems forindependently reviewing such activities and recommending necessaryi
improvementt tto relevantlt parties.
tid.

Cultivate the understanding of the importance of fair and equitable sharing
off theth benefitb
fit arising
i i ffrom areas withith geologicall i l environmentit suitable
it bl ffor
DGD between the owners and the public.
12

Strategic Energy Plan Published by theGovernment in April 2014
 Promote the utilization of nuclear power as an importantbase-load power source that should be operated based on asafety-first policy under NRA’s risk–informed regulation,
maintaining the existing nuclear fuel cycle program, though
the nuclear dependence should be reduced as low aspracticable.
 Should not postpone the action to implement the deep

geological disposal of HLW as an extended storage of HLW
might put the future generation in a situation difficult topromote DGD of HLW,
HLW while ensuring the reversibility andthe retrievability so that the future generation can select abetter solution.
solution
13

Scientific Reviews by the Government
 The METI established in October 2013 an advisory group on

DGD technology that included experts nominated bylearned societies concerned and asked it to review thecurrent status of the scientific feasibility of DGDof HLW
based on the latest scientific knowledge.
 The group released a summary report in May 2014 thatpointed out that
¾ Areas where natural processes such as igneous activity,
uplift, increased fracturing may severely disturb thesafety functions of DGD system (containment andisolation) in the future should be avoided in the site
selection process.
¾ Areas having the geological characteristics required forlong-term safety of DGD of HLW are widely distributed
i Japan.
inJ
14

Change of Annual Outdoor Ambient Dose Equivalent Rate around the FDNPS*
from Nov. 2011 to Nov. 2015

Resource; 䛂ᾉỤ⏫䛾᚟⯆䛻ྥ䛡䛯ྲྀ⤌䛻䛴䛔䛶䛃䠄H28ᖺ6-7᭶䠅This document was made by Support Team for Residents Affected by Nuclear Incidents in Cabinet
Office based on 4th airborne monitoring data (5th November 2011) and 10th airborne monitoring data
(4th November 2015) .
* FDNPS; Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station
15

15

,
p
p are still requestedqz About 47,000
peopleto evacuatefrom their home.
z About 30
30,000000 people,
people whom are families with children
in many cases, have left their home, having made up
their own mind to do so, due to anxiety about healthand health of children due to radiation exposure, inpparticular.
z About 2,000 persons have died from worsening of
diseases owing to careless emergency evacuation from
hospitals and/or physical and psychological stress in
the life in a shelter after dislocation.
dislocation
16

Decontamination ofContaminated Areas

FDNPS

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/final_report230114. pdf#search='IAEA+FUKUSHIMA+report+Mission+2013+October'z Comprehensivepdecontaminations
are to be completed in these areas
except forest within this year.
z Evacuation orders to Tamura City and
Kawauchi Village were uplifted in2014, and that to Naraha Town was
done so in 2015.
z Decontamination of red areas has notbeen done yet, due to the difficulty inthe decontamination of forest.
forest Only
fallen leaves, lower twigs, pruning etc.
in forests are removed from theborder area of forest (within 20m fromthe border) at present.
z The preparation of interim storage
facilities for decontamination waste is
discouragingly slow due to difficulty inobtaining the consent of landowners,
who are evacuees and sufferers of
the accident.
17At Fukushima: Decommissioning of FDNPS (1/2)
1. Stop the leakage of contaminated water to the outside assoon as possible: completed
2. Reduce the volume of contaminated water generated assoon as possible: significant progress was made.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/decommision/planaction/waterprocessing-e.html
18

At Fukushima: Decommissioning of FDNPS (2/2)
3 R
3.
Remove th
the spentt fuelf l ffrom th
the spentt ffuell pooll iin th
the ddamageddreactor buildings in three years: completed at unit 4:
preparatory civil
i il works
k are iin progress at unit
i 1&3
3.
4. Start the removal of fuel debris ((fuel containing material: FCM))
from the damaged units in ten years: still in exploration phase.
¾ Explore the location and characteristics of FCMs as well as methods for FCM

removal.

5. Promote stabilization, conditioning and safe long term
management of radioactive wastes.
6 P
6.
Promotet pubic
bi communicationi ti aboutb t ththe progressgandd diffidifficultyltof these activities including risk communication.
19

Defense-in-Depth: Tsunami
Prevent – Protect – Diversifya) Seawall designed based on revised design-basis tsunamib) Water
Water-tightness
tightness of safety
safety-significant
significant buildingsc) Bunkered system for essential safety function
Example)F th Tsunami
Further
T
iC
Countermeasurest
att theth Kashiwazaki-Kariwa
K hi
ki K iNPS(Source; TEPCO website, http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/images/f12np-gaiyou_e_5.pdf)

20

Current Status of Nuclear Power in Japanz

NPPs (as of August 2016)¾

The following 5 plants resumed operation among 26 plants whose restart applications
submitted to NRA.
¾ Takahama 3/4 of Kansai Electric Power Co.; however, stopped operation soon after therestart, due to temporary injunction against their operation imposed by a district courton March 9.
¾ Ikata 3 of Shikoku Electric Power Co.; people filed a temporary injunction to a district
court.
¾ Sendai 1/2 of Kyushu Electric Power Co.; started operation last year, but recently the
newly-elected governor requested the company to temporarily suspend operation.

¾

The restart applications of Takahama 1/2, Kansai Electric Power Co., are completed with
two-decade life extension approved
approved.

¾

The restart applications of 17 NPPs are under consideration.

¾

15 NPPs are in the decommissioning phase including 6 plants decided after the new
regulation.
l iz

JNFL postponed the completion of construction of the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant to
2018.
2018

z

JNFL postponed the completion of construction of MOX fuel fabrication plant to 2019.

z

TEPCO postponedd theh start off operation
i off used
d ffuell storage ffacility
ili at M
Mutsu to 2016
2016.

z

The NRA advised the change of operator of Monju.

21Result of Recent Opinion Survey
about the Nuclear Power

Should Japanp use nuclear p
power in the future? (Mainichi Shinbun,,
March 2016)zz

Stop at once: 19%
T k time
Take
ti
on th
the reduction
d ti off nuclearlddependence:d62%
z No need for the reduction of nuclear dependence: 9%
 Are you in favor of restarting idling NPPs?

z Mainichi Shinbun, March 2016••

Yes: 30%
No: 53%z NHK䠄Japan Broadcasting A.)

March 2016

Yes :• No :• That is a tough decision :
•

15%
44%
34%

May 2016
15%
47%
30%

Note: On April 14, a series of earthquakes started to occur at Kumamoto area
in Kyushu region,
region including a magnitude 77.3
3 main shock that struck at 01:25 JST
on April 16. A few aftershocks have been felt daily until now.
22

Revision of the Government’s Basic Policy
for DGD (1/2)
In May 2015,
2015 the Government revised the Basic Policy on the Final
Disposal of the Specified Radioactive Waste established in 2007,
emphasizing the following five points:
1. Steadily promote the policy as the DGD of HLW is a responsibilityof the current generation that has produced the waste,
waste while
securing the reversibility and the retrievability and promoting the
research and development of alternative technologies.
2. Communicate with the public as well as diverse communities inmunicipalities on the safety of DGD and the importance ofa. Implementing DGD of HLW, andb Showing the publicb.
public’ss respect and gratitude to the municipalities
that volunteer to participate in the process for the siting of a DGR
in order to help society solve the problem.
23

Revision of the Government’s Basic Policyyfor DGD (2/2)
3. Provide the public with information about potentially suitableareas for siting a DGR.
DGR
4. Support the initiative of various groups in municipalities tolearn about DGD of HLW and to enter into dialogue among them,
them
providing information and financial support to do so, clarifying
measures to appreciate the municipalities participating in theprocess of selecting the site for DGR for the benefit of society.
5 Strengthen the organizations related to implementing a DGR
5.
including NUMO as well as the NRA and the AEC that should
independently review the activities of the Government and NUMO.

24

Addition of a New Process to the Legal Site
Selection Process for DGD
z In accordance with the revised basic policy, the Government

decidedd
id d to add
dd a new process ffor selectinglia sitei ffor DGR iin
which it would publish the result of nationwide scientificscreening that categorizes all areas in Japan into three
categories, potentially more suitable, potentially suitable, andunsuitable areas for siting a DGR.
z The criteria for the categorization have been under deliberation.

q
the OECD Nuclear Energy
gy Agencygy ((NEA)) to conduct
The METI requested
an independent technical peer review on the suitability of this process
and the criteria under preparation. Recently the NEA review teampublishedbli h d it
its conclusionl i thatth t ththe process was generally
ll iin accordancedwith international practices.
z The
Th criteria
it i compiled
il d as a summary reportt off th
the G
Government’st’advisory group are now subjected to public comment.
z The
h Government planslto publish
bl h theh result
l off theh categorization

within this year.

25Criteria to Categorize Areas in Japan into Three
Categories, i.e. Potentially More Suitable, Potentially
Suitable and Unsuitable Areas for Siting a DGR
A
Areas
to be
b avoided
id d to assure llong-term safetyfz Vicinity of volcanoes or active faults
z Areas susceptible to significant uplift/erosion, highgeo temperature volcanic thermal water or deepgeo-temperature,
deep
seated fluidz Presence of economically valuable resources

All Areas of Japanas

Unsuitable Areas

Areas to be avoided to assure the safety ofsurface/underground facilities
z Areas with a danger that surface facilities aredamaged by the pyroclastic flowz Areas where unconsolidated bedrock is too thick toassure the integrity of underground facilities

Areas preferable from the viewpoint of wastetransport safety (minimum disturbance in civil
life)
z Areas where distance from the coast is short(<20km): including coastal subseabed areas andislands

Potentially Suitable
Areas

Potentially More
Suitable Areas

26

Categorization of All Areas in JapanX

The categorization is the first step of a long way to go, as a significant
part of Japanpp should be in the categoryg y of p
potentiallyy more suitableareas. It is just to inform municipalities across the country on theirpotential to host a DGR.

XThe publication will be expected to spark debates on the issue inmunicipalities located in potentially more suitable areas. NUMO will
supportt th
the activity
ti it off groups off residents
id t iin suchh municipalities
i i liti tto
deliberate the merit and the demerit of accepting the NUMO’s survey
as an important service to the nation.
The Added New Process
Categorize allareas into moresuitable,, suitableand unsuitable
areas

Hold
information
sessions etc.

Proposemunicipalities
to deliberate
the acceptanceof site survey䠇Legal Site Selection Process(NUMO’s Mission)
Literature survey
Preliminary investigation
䠄using bore holes etc.䠅

Detailed investigation (using
underground facilities 䠅Open solicitation to local municipalities
27

Nation-wide Symposia Co-hosted with NUMO andthe Government from 2015 to 2016z Three campaigns of symposia in 9 citiesz Purpose: to communicate to the public about
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾

Revised basic policy,
International recognition of DGD as the preferred approach,
Safety of DGD of HLW,
Responsibility of the current generation to pursue the DGD of HLWDevelopment of scientific criteria for identifying potentially suitable areas for
siting a DGRConsent-based stepwise process for selecting a site for DGR, andWillingness of NUMO to contribute to the sustainable development of themunicipality that entertains the siting of DGRz Program䠖¾ Panel discussion amongg invited ppanelists and METI & NUMO
¾ Discussion involving audiences on the floorz

Audiences and media attention¾ 100-300
100 300 in the hall
hall. Video posted to NUMO website
website.
¾ Covered by local newspapers and TV.
28

Questions from the Audience at the
Symposiaz Nuclear energy policy:• Relation between the initiative to communicate the issue of DGR siting
and the initiative to restart idling NPPs
NPPs.
• Considering the difficulty in waste management, stop the restart of NPP
operation so as to stop waste generation.

z Why DGD:
• Alternative ways of spent fuel and waste management, long-term storageof spent fuel as suggested by Science Council of Japan.

z Safety of DGD:
• Unpredictability of the future of and doubt on the stability of geologicalenvironment in Japan: feel arrogance in the explanation of long-term
safety of DGD of HLW: do not repeat “nuclear safety myth”.

z Siting process:• Locate DGR in the underground of city areas (burden sharing / inequality
reduction).
• Incentives for communityy to help
p societyy solve a problempshould not be
regarded as a compensation for risk.
29

NUMO’ss Communication Activities in 2016
NUMO
 Voluntary group meetingsz Venue: many places in Japanz Typesypes oof meetingeet g
9 Lecture and dialogue sessions, visit of Underground Research Lab. etc.
z Purpose
9 Encourage stakeholders to deliberate the siting of GDF

 Information disseminationz Improve NUMO website
website, including the creation of a flexible knowledge

environment to the request of potentially large number of website
visitorsz Biweekly email magazine
z Promotion of social media utilizationz Contribution of articles and talks to magazines Use of communication vehicle “Geo Mirai”
30

Activity Using Communication Vehicle “GeoGeo Mirai
Mirai”z Purpose
Organize exhibitions in local cities, scientific museums etc. topromote understandingspg of the deeppg
geologicalgdisposal.
pz Contents
Presentation of 3D animation, exhibitions of a model of multib i dibarrier
disposall system/an/ experiment
i
using
i b
bentoniteiz Participants
General public (families): 7
7,727
727 visitors and 3
3,072
072 participants toactivities in “Geo Mirai” at 25 venues (as of 9 March, 2015)

Communication vehicle “Geo Mirai”

3D animation

Experiment using bentonite
31

Public Opinionp
About DGD‫؟‬Feb. 2016
X

I know what is HLW: 28.5%, I have heard about HLW: 56.3%.

X

I know the difference between HLW and the decontamination waste in Fukushima:
35.1%.

X

I am interested in disposalpof HLW: 15.8%,, rather 37.3 %.

X

I think it necessary to dispose HLW: 51.4%, rather27.5 %.

X

I think geological disposal of HLW is safe: 2.7%, rather safe 13.5%, difficult to say, 48.
8%, rather unsafe 19.8%, unsafe 17.3% .

X

I agree geological disposal of HLW: 5.6%, rather 19.5%, difficult to say 54.6%, rather
against 12.1%, against 8.2%.

X

I agree the siting of GD in my neighborhood: 2.7%, rather 6.3%, difficult to say 32.6%,
rather against 23
23.4%,
4% against 35
35.0%.
0%X

I agree to appreciate/pay respect to the area that accepts the siting of DGR: 28.8%,
rather 31.8%,, difficult to sayy 32.1%.

X

I think it proper to economically support the area that accepts the siting of DGR:
30.8%, rather 31.4%, difficult to say, 30.5%.

X

Do you know NUMO: yes in detail, 2%, yes roughly 11.9% yes name only 28.1%.
32

Planned Approach to Communicate with Nation andpotentiallyy moreCommunities after the Publication of p
suitable areas by the Government Deepenp nationwide dialogue,gexpectingpg the development
pofvoluntary learning activities of communities in each area.
Interest and understanding of communities

Publicationof potentiallymore suitableareas byb th
theGovernment

Nation-widedactivities

Regional
activities

Support voluntary
learning activities
of communities ineach municipalities

Promote information activities
in each communities throughdialogue seminars

Expect voluntarydevelopment of thecommunity will to accept
literature survey

ͤ Government will not ask

municipalities to accept
without regional
understanding.

C i
Continuedidialoguelwithi h people
l iin prefecturesfandd municipalities:
i i li i• It is a responsibility of current generation to promote the final disposal of
HLW.
• Disposall in deepdgeologicalll repositories is theh safestf
way to manage HLW.
• It is important for the nation to express respect and gratitude tomunicipalities that contribute to the program.

Continue effort for
raising nationwide
awareness andinterest
33

Considerations from the Viewpoint of
S i lS
SocialSciencesi
X ThereTh
was a didiscussion
i aboutb t theth appropriatenessi t
off ttakingkisocial-scientific viewpoints such as restrictions on land access by
the related laws and regulations and number of landowners andpopulation density (ease of land access) into consideration of
categorization criteria
criteria. It was concluded
concluded, however
however, that thesefactors should be taken into consideration when a municipality
willw
ll designate
des g ate ttheeddistrictst ct foro lliterature
te atu e su
survey.
vey.
X When assessing the district proposed by a municipality

volunteered, NUMO will carefully determine the area forvolunteered
preliminary geological investigation, reviewing the potential
pof sitingg a DGR there on the natural environment of the
impacts
district and on the economics/life/culture of the local
community, jointly with the municipality volunteered.
34

Framework for Promoting
g R&D for DGD
z R&D Organizations

 JAEA,
JAEA AIST: Funded by the Government
 CRIEPI: Funded by EPCs
 RWMC: Funded by the Government
 NUMO:NUMO F
Fundedd db
by FiFinall Di
Disposall F
Funddz R&D Coordination Conference organized by the Government
 Establish an overall R&D Plan Coordinate R&D co-operation among organizations
 Coordinate the integrated evaluation of R&D resultsz Principles for Coordination of R&D tasks

 Pursue the assurance of reliability and confidence in S&T of DGD
 Develop site characterization techniques, engineering for designing
repositories at selected sites
 Task sharing: those to attain TRL level 1-4 should be promoted by R&D
organizations other than NUMO. Those to attain TRL level 5 and 6 should
be promoted in consultation with NUMO. NUMO should demonstrate TRL
7-9, taking into consideration of the characteristics of site.
35

Major R&D infrastructures operated by JAEA
 Horonobe UndergroundResearch Center• Research on the deep
geological environment insedimentary rock
• Improvement of thereliability
li bilit off disposaldiltechnologies• Development of advanced
safety assessment
methods¾ Crystalline rock
¾ Fresh water¾ Sedimentary rock
¾ Saline water

 Tono Geoscience Center
 MIU: Mizunami

Underground ResearchLaboratory• Research on the deep
geologicalgeo
og ca environmenteo e t incrystalline rock

 Nuclear Fuel Cycle Engineering Laboratories
 ENTRY: Engineering Scale Test and Research Facility
 QUALITY: Quantitative Assessment Radionuclide Migration

ExperimentalpFacilityy• Improvement of the reliability of disposal technologies• Development of advanced safety assessment methods
Source from; JAEA‘s web-site, http://www.jaea.go.jp/04/tisou/english/research_facilities/research_facilities.html

36

R&D Activities of NUMO (1/2)
z Systematically promote R&D, in cooperation with relevant R&D
organizations under the initiative of “Coordination Conference”.
z Actively promote international collaborations with IAEA and NEA,
and those with foreign
g implementerspand research institutes.
z In particular, participate in URL projects operated by foreign
implementers positively,
positively in order to tackle key R&D issues,
issuescultivate necessary human resources with technical capability,
accumulate technical experience and knowledge and thus obtainorganizational trust.

37

R&D Activities of NUMO (2/2)
zzPrepare a Generic Safety Case Report to reconfirm in a genericsense the feasibility and safety of the deep geological disposal in
Japan reflecting the latest R&D achievements and the flexibility inJapan,
adapting the design of DGR to three bedrock conditions; PreQuaternary plutonic rock, Neogene sedimentary rock and PrePre
Neogene sedimentary rock to be encountered in the siting process,of which focus is p
put on:

Development of more realistic geological models on the basis of key characteristics,
e.g. distribution of faults, fractures and their hydraulic conductivities, in particularffromstudiesdi iin JAEA’
JAEA’s URLs
URL at HoronobeHb andd Mizunami,
Mi
i and
d



Application of radionuclide transport models, realistically representing thegeometry of the ESB components and geosphere
geosphere, which can allow comparison ofdifferent sites and possible repository concepts by the safety assessment.

The documentation is underway. The final draft report for external
peer review is planned to be published in autumn 2016.
38

The SCJ’s Proposal to Carry out Interim Storage of HLW
Before the Establishment of National Consensus on the
Geological Disposal of HLW, April 28, 2015
Glassified HLW and used fuel should be stored at interim
storage facilities (ISFs) for 50 years (30 years for making
consensus on DGD and selecting a site for DGR and 20 years fortheh construction
i off DGR)
DGR).
2. Recognizing the responsibility of producing the waste, each EPC
shouldh ld fifind
d a site
it ffor an ISF in
i its
it customertarea, exceptt th
thearea that accepts NPP. The restart of idling NPPs should be
conditioned with a plan for interim storage of HLW
HLW.
3. A list of candidate areas for DGR, in addition to the risk
assessment of DGD should be prepared by a third party
committee, assuring its autonomy, fairness and impartiality,from which nuclear energy promoters should be excluded.
1.

4.

Pursue the establishment of a socially acceptable organizationthat proposes nuclear energy policy: the organization should be
operateddb
based
d on theh principle
l off citizen participation, so as
to recover the social trust in the policy.
39

Opinion Seeking Not to Operate NPPs
Sendai Bar Association (July(July, 2016)
X In vview
ew oof ttheep
present
ese t ssituation
tuat o tthat
at thet e opeoperation
at o oof deep

geological repository for HLW is very difficult in Japanesegeological environment, nuclear power plant should not be
operated in Japan.
X Even if a site suitable for deeppg
geologicalgrepositorypy is found inJapan, an earthquake that may occur, even that in a remotelocation, could change the state of the bedrock around therepository and vary the flow characteristics of the groundwateraround the repository. It is undeniable that such changes may
shortenh t ththe titime ffor th
the radioactivediti materialt i l didisposedd iin ththerepository to reach human environment.
X ThisThi means thatth t it is
i extremelytl diffidifficultlt tot reliably
li bl selectl t ththesite for DGR in Japan that can assure safe management of thewaste away from human living environment over a period ofseveral tens of thousand years in the current scientific level.
40

Comment on the Opinion
X

The “opinion”
pmentions the ppossible impact
pof earthquakeqon themobility of radionuclides in the rock. Key issues here are predictabilityof earthquake and whether earthquake wave propagation through rockwill
ill cause changehiin ththe groundwaterd t flflow or not.
t

X

It ignores the fact that:
X Scientists can make reasonably accurate long-term predictions when it

comes to earthquake location and the predictions have been used bymunicipalities to make a hazard map as a part of planning disasterprevention measures.
X The DGR will be located at more than three hundred meter below groundin the rock which contains groundwater of which age is more thanhundred thousand years though the rock should have experienced numberof earthquake in these years as a part of Japanese islandisland. This
characteristics of groundwater in the rock at more than hundreds meter
below ground is not uncommon in Japan.
41

Summaryy The policy of implementing DGD of HLW is maintained by thegovernment even after the Great Earthquake
Earthquake.
 The Government started to be proactive, preparing to identify
potentially highly suitable areas for siting a DGR in order topromote municipalities in these areas to deliberate volunteeringp the Literature Survey,
y, the fist stage
g of the sitinggto accept
process, for the benefit of society.
 As the public expresses strong distrust of nuclear enterprise,mentioning severe consequences caused by the accident at
Fukushima, it is not easy at present to communicate with the
public on this issue: the nuclear element alters the perception of
the issues in the mind of the public.
 NUMO,NUMO however,hwill
ill continuetiefforts
ff t forf communicating
i ti withith
the public about the safety and the importance of DGR sincerely,in parallel with the efforts to be a competent,
competent caring andfaithful organization.
42

Th k you ffor your ki
Thank
kind
d attention!
tt ti !

43