WISE - NIRS Nuclear Monitor 604

What happened 25 years ago? We go back to news from our 1979 WISE Bulletin, comparing anti-nuclear news "then" and "now".

Then
In WISE Bulletin 4 we wrote about the plans for a fast breeder reactor in Japan, the Monju reactor: "nine-year old plans for Japan's first indigenous fast breeder reactor are so strongly opposed that they are likely to remain as such. Socialist and Communist members of the prefectural assembly [Fukui], and labor unionists […] are strongly opposed to the nuclear project. They collected signatures of 100,000 citizens opposing the project." (WISE Bulletin 4, March 1979)

Now
Despite strong protests, construction for the 246-MW reactor began in 1984 and by August of that year was connected to the grid after a decade of technical delays and costly preparations. But apparently a long operational life was not anticipated: on 8 December 1995 it was hit by a very serious accident when 3 tons of sodium coolant leaked from its cooling circuit. The possibility of a sodium leak is one of the major disadvantages of breeder reactors as sodium reacts rapidly (or even explosively) with air and water. (WISE News Communique 444, 15 December 1995)

The cause of the leak was found to be a defective weld of a temperature measurement tube, connected to the main coolant pipe. The welding was carried out in 1991 when the whole circuit was remodeled due to a design fault. An old tube had to be removed and replaced, causing the weak weld.

Luckily no radioactivity was released after the accident, but one official did die (by his own hand) one month later. The manager of the Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corp. (PNC), then operator of Monju leapt from the roof of a hotel following a news conference where an extensive cover-up of Monju operators was revealed. It had appeared that plant officials took one hour before notifying authorities about the leak and that a video film of it was edited and concealed from the press and authorities. (WISE News Communique 445, 19 January 1996)

The current operator, the Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute (JNC), has always sought to restart the reactor. Maintaining it in condition for restart presently costs about 10 billion-Yen (US$ 100 million) per year. Monju has played a key role in Japan's nuclear fuel cycle program, including reprocessing and re-use of plutonium in breeders. Re-use of plutonium shifted to the use of MOX in other NPPs due to the shutdown of Monju. The government abandoned new breeder reactors from its 2000 long-term energy program. (The Asahi Shimbun, 29 January 2003; email WISE Japan, 26 February 2004))

Safety reviews for a restart and renovations began in 2001. In December 2003, the federal government approved a modification program but the time schedule is as yet unclear. Members of the Tsuruga City council are divided over the restart and the Fukui Prefecture governor still needs to decide whether he will allow the modification. There is still a process pending at the Supreme Court, following a Nagoya High Court ruling in January 2003 that nullified the original construction license of Monju. (Email WISE Japan, 26 February 2004)

Opposition to the plans continues and anti-nuclear groups, such as Stop Monju and Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, are campaigning for a million petition signatures and have already collected more than 940,000. (WISE News Communique 560, 21 December 2001; email WISE Japan, 26 February 2004)

WISE-Amsterdam/NIRS

ISSN: 1570-4629

Reproduction of this material is encouraged. Please give credit when reprinting.

Editorial team: Tinu Otoki (WISE Amsterdam), Michael Mariotte (NIRS). With contributions from Bellona Foundation and Low Level Radiation Campaign.

The next issue (605/6) will be mailed out March 12, 2004 and will be a special issue on the 25^th anniversary of the Three Mile Island accident. Next regular issue (607) will be mailed out April 2, 2004.

Oops!
In our last issue, we mistakenly referred to Dr. Helmut Hirsch as Hirsh and are of course suitably contrite. Also within Dr. Hirsch's article, we stated that the Gorleben legal case was more complicated than that of the Konrad repository - what we meant to say was that Konrad was the more complex case. Apologies.

	home > newsletter > search > about us > links