国連 核禁止交渉へ勧告、採択 部会報告書 日本は棄権 via 毎日新聞

【ジュネーブ福島良典】スイス・ジュネーブで開かれた国連核軍縮作業部会は最終日の19日、核兵器禁止条約交渉の来年中の 開始を国連総会に勧告した報告書を賛成68、反対22、棄権13の賛成多数で採択し、閉会した。「核兵器のない世界」を最終目標に据えた非核保有国主導の 取り組みが始動した。参加国の大半は総意による採決を目指したが、交渉開始に反対するオーストラリアの要請で投票に持ち込まれた。

 日本は「投票による採択は、核軍縮を巡る国際社会の分断を一層進めることになりかねない」(外務省筋)との判断から棄権した。佐野利男軍縮大使は作業部 会終了後、記者団に対して「今後、(核軍縮に取り組む国々が)団結していけるように最大限の努力を図っていきたい」と述べた。

 採択された報告書は「作業部会は広範な支持を得て、国連総会が法的拘束力のある核兵器禁止文書の交渉会議を2017年に開催するよう勧告した」と明記し た。投票に参加しなかった国々を含め、交渉開始を支持した禁止推進派は「核の傘」に入っていない非保有国107カ国。

 その一方で報告書は、「核の傘」に依存する日本や北大西洋条約機構(NATO)加盟国など24カ国が勧告に「同意しなかった」ことを記録し、安全保障上の懸念に配慮した多国間の核軍縮交渉を前進させるべきだと主張したことを盛り込んだ。

(略)

条約で想定される要素として、核兵器の保有、使用、備蓄、配備や関連融資などの禁止や、核実験などの被害者への援助を列挙している。

(略)

国連核軍縮作業部会の報告書骨子

・「核兵器のない世界」の達成、維持のための法的措置検討を勧告

・国連総会に核兵器禁止条約の来年中の交渉開始を勧告

・一部の国々は現行の枠組み重視の核軍縮の取り組みを支持

・透明性の向上、偶発的事故など危険の削減を勧告

・核兵器の保有、使用、備蓄、配備や関連融資などの条約による禁止を想定

・世界の指導者に広島、長崎訪問を提案

全文は国連 核禁止交渉へ勧告、採択 部会報告書 日本は棄権

関連記事:

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on 国連 核禁止交渉へ勧告、採択 部会報告書 日本は棄権 via 毎日新聞

US Nuclear Submarine Collides With Vessel Near Washington Coast via Sputnik

The US nuclear-powered submarine USS Louisiana has hit a local support vessel in the Strait of Juan de Fuca near the US state of Washington, the US Pacific Fleet said in a statement.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — According to the US navy, no personnel was injured in the incident which is currently being looked into by authorities.

Continue reading at US Nuclear Submarine Collides With Vessel Near Washington Coast 

Posted in *English | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Challenge to nuclear waste facility heads to trial via Cape Cod Times

BOSTON — After two years of waiting, neighbors of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station will go to trial Monday in state Land Court to challenge construction of a massive storage facility for nuclear spent fuel on plant property.
The lawsuit, filed in 2014 by a handful of residents who live within two miles of the plant, alleges that the nuclear waste facility will affect property values. The town of Plymouth improperly granted permits to Entergy, Pilgrim’s owner-operator, in 2013, they say.
They contend a special permit process with a public hearing should have been required.
Defendants in the case are Entergy; Plymouth Building Commissioner Paul McAuliffe, who issued a building permit for a concrete pad where massive dry casks would store spent fuel; and members of the Plymouth Zoning Board of Appeals, who upheld the building commissioner’s actions.
When the suit was filed, the large concrete pad had not yet been built. Since then, Entergy has constructed the pad about 150 feet from the shore of Cape Cod Bay and moved three massive casks that store 200 spent fuel assemblies onto it.
Pilgrim stores more than 3,000 spent fuel assemblies in a large pool above the reactor. Those will eventually be placed in dry casks.
Margaret Sheehan, an attorney for the abutters, said last week the challenge against Entergy and town officials came down to whether the spent fuel facility “is a matter of right or does it require a special permit, which would require a public hearing and allow Plymouth to add conditions.”
No one envisioned that spent fuel would be stored indefinitely at the Pilgrim site more than 40 years ago, when the town granted the original special permit for the operation, Sheehan said.
Neighbors testified last week, along with an economist who backed their argument on property impacts with studies that showed properties near spent-fuel storage facilities would lose value.
After the testimony, Entergy filed a motion to dismiss the case, saying the plaintiffs had failed to prove they had standing to file the suit. Standing requires that plaintiffs show they will suffer more harm than others in the community as a result of whatever action they are protesting.

[…]

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

川内避難計画「見直す」 三反園知事が周辺視察via 東京新聞

鹿児島県の三反園訓(みたぞのさとし)知事は十九日、九州電力川内(せんだい)原発(薩摩川内市)周辺を視察し、前知事時代に作成された原発事故時の避難計画を見直す考えを示した。避難道路の状況を確認し、住民からも意見を聞き「道路や避難訓練の問題など、早急に対応が必要なことが分かった」と述べた。記者団の質問に答えた。
 今回の視察は、七月の知事選で川内原発の一時停止を公約として掲げて当選した三反園知事にとっては、実現に向けた初めての具体的な行動。
 三反園知事はこの日、薩摩川内市や原発三十キロ圏内のいちき串木野市を視察。避難道路となっている橋などを見て回り、県職員から住民の避難方法について説明を受けた。川内原発の施設内には入らなかった。住民らは主要な避難道路が一本だけで幅も狭く、緊急時の移動に不安があると訴えた。三反園知事は視察結果を踏まえ、今月下旬から九月上旬の間に、熊本地震の影響の点検で川内原発を一時停止するよう九電に求める考えを示している。知事に原発を止める法的権限はないが、原発稼働に関してできるだけ地元の理解を得たい九電側とどう調整を図るか、今後の対応も注目される。
[…]

もっと読む。

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , | Comments Off on 川内避難計画「見直す」 三反園知事が周辺視察via 東京新聞

福島第2原発の存廃判断、経産相「他と同列でない」 via 日本経済新聞

 世耕弘成経済産業相は19日、福島県庁で内堀雅雄知事と会い、県側が求める東京電力福島第2原子力発電所の廃炉について「県民の心情を察すると(再稼働をめざす)他の原発と同列に扱うことは難しい」と述べた。同時に「一義的には東電が地元の声に真摯に向き合って判断すべきもの」と改めて政府側の姿勢を伝えた。

 世耕氏は同日、福島第1原発事故の被災自治体のうち浪江、楢葉、富岡3町を視察し、町長らと面会した。福島市内では被災事業者とも意見交換
[…]

全文を読む。

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , | Comments Off on 福島第2原発の存廃判断、経産相「他と同列でない」 via 日本経済新聞

57年の時を経てゲバラの献花を再現!オダギリジョー主演作の撮影が開始 via Yahoo! (Movie Walker)

革命家チェ・ゲバラのボリビア戦線の部隊に参加していた実在の日系人、フレディ・前村の生涯を描いた『エルネスト』(2017年秋公開)。主演にオダギリジョー、監督を阪本順治が務めることが明らかになっていた本作の撮影が8月18日より広島で始まった。

19 日にはチェ・ゲバラ達が1959年7月25日にキューバ親善使節団として来日した際に、広島平和記念公園内の慰霊碑を訪れ、献花をしたシーンの撮影が行わ れた。

(略)

撮影後には阪本監督、ゲバラ役のバレロ、そしてゲバラに興味を持つ地元中国新聞社の森記者を演じる永山絢斗が同作についての会見を行った。阪本監督は「今 回の映画で広島のゲバラの献花シーンを入れたのは、核戦争が起きるかもしれないときに、その核を実体験していたのが、広島で原爆資料館を見学したゲバラ だったからです」と思い入れのあるシーンの撮影であったことを明かした。

バレロは「世界的に有名なゲバラ役に選ばれて光栄です。フレディ・前村をキューバだけでなく、世界に知ってもらえる作品だと思います。今回の撮影で広島に 来てすぐに資料館などにいきました。悲しみのエネルギーが込み上げ、言葉にならなかったです」と作品についての思いとともに、広島で忘れがたい経験をした ことを語った。

全文は57年の時を経てゲバラの献花を再現!オダギリジョー主演作の撮影が開始

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on 57年の時を経てゲバラの献花を再現!オダギリジョー主演作の撮影が開始 via Yahoo! (Movie Walker)

Nuclear power plant? Or storage dump for hot radioactive waste? via Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

[…]

Spent nuclear power fuel accumulated over the past 50 years is bound up in more than 241,000 long rectangular assemblies containing tens of millions of fuel rods. The rods, in turn, contain trillions of small, irradiated uranium pellets. After bombardment with neutrons in the reactor core, about 5 to 6 percent of the pellets are converted to a myriad of radioactive elements with half-lives ranging from seconds to millions of years. Standing within a meter of a typical spent nuclear fuel assembly guarantees a lethal radiation dose in minutes.

Heat from the radioactive decay in spent nuclear fuel is also a principal safety concern. Several hours after a full reactor core is offloaded, it can initially give off enough heat from radioactive decay to match the energy capacity of a steel mill furnace. This is hot enough to melt and ignite the fuel’s reactive zirconium cladding and destabilize a geological disposal site it is placed in. By 100 years, decay heat and radioactivity drop substantially but still remain dangerous. For these reasons, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) informed the Congress in 2013 that spent nuclear fuel is “considered one of the most hazardous substances on Earth.”

US commercial nuclear power plants use uranium fuel that has had the percentage of its key fissionable isotope—uranium 235—increased, or enriched, from what is found in most natural uranium ore deposits. In the early decades of commercial operation, the level of enrichment allowed US nuclear power plants to operate for approximately 12 months between refueling. In recent years, however, US utilities have begun using what is called high-burnup fuel. This fuel generally contains a higher percentage of uranium 235, allowing reactor operators to effectively double the amount of time the fuel can be used, reducing the frequency of costly refueling outages. The switch to high-burnup fuel has been a major contributor to higher capacity factors and lower operating costs in the United States over the past couple of decades.

[…]

High burnup significantly boosts the radioactivity in spent fuel and its commensurate decay heat. Of particular concern is the effect of high-burnup fuel on the cladding that contains it in the fuel assemblies used in commercial reactors. Research shows that under high-burnup conditions, that cladding may not be relied upon as the primary barrier to prevent the escape of radioactivity, especially during prolonged storage in the “dry casks” that are the preferred method of temporary storage for spent fuel. Resolution of these problems remains elusive.

[…]

The NRC and the nuclear industry do not have the necessary information to predict when storage of high-burnup fuel may cause problems. To err on the side of caution, high-burnup fuel might have to be left in cooling pools for 25 years—as opposed to the current three to five years for lower burnup spent fuel— to allow cladding temperatures to drop enough to reduce risks of cladding failure before the fuel is transferred to dry storage. Also, the cooling pools at US commercial reactors are rapidly filling, with more than 70 percent of the nation’s 77,000 metric tons of spent fuel in reactor pools, of which roughly a fourth is high burnup. So far, a small percentage of high-burnup used fuel assemblies are sprinkled amid lower burnup fuel in dry casks at reactor sites. But by 2048—the Energy Department’s date for opening a permanent geologic disposal site—the amount of spent fuel could double, with high burnup waste accounting for as much as 60 percent of the inventory.

[…]

These concerns were given greater prominence in May of this year by a National Academy of Sciences panel established by Congress to review the response of the NRC to the Fukushima nuclear accident. In its report, the panel warned the NRC about terrorist attacks for the second time since 2004 and urged the agency to “ensure that power plant operators take prompt and effective measures to reduce the consequences of loss-of-pool-coolant events in spent fuel pools that could result in propagating zirconium cladding fires.” Allison Macfarlane, then chair of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), noted in April, 2014 that “land interdiction [from a spent nuclear fuel pool fire at the Peach Bottom Reactor in Pennsylvania] is estimated to be 9,400 square miles with a long term displacement of 4,000,000 persons.”

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Nuclear power plant? Or storage dump for hot radioactive waste? via Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

CNSC review dismissing nuclear-safety concerns called a ‘sham’ via The Globe and Mail

An internal review by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission dismisses allegations that important information was withheld during the licensing of nuclear plants but two nuclear scientists say the review is “less than impartial” and a “sham” that should give Canadians no comfort.

In June, CNSC president Michael Binder received an anonymous letter, purported to have been written by employees at the nuclear regulator, that pointed to five separate cases in which the commission’s staff sat on relevant information that might have called the safety of a nuclear plant into question.

Peter Elder, a strategic adviser within the CNSC’s regulatory operations branch, who says he was able to maintain a neutral position because he did not work on the safety of nuclear power plants between 2008 and 2015, conducted a review that concluded late last week that none of the five cases point to any safety issues.

[…]

But two nuclear experts have written subsequent letters to Mr. Binder asking him to discard Mr. Elder’s review and to allow an arm’s-length inquiry into the allegations of the anonymous whistle-blowers.

Frank Greening, a nuclear chemist who is a former senior research scientist at Ontario Hydro, the predecessor of Ontario Power Generation, wrote that Mr. Elder’s claim to have conducted an independent investigation was “quite extraordinary and ridiculous.”

Mr. Elder “cannot possibly be independent because he is an employee of the CNSC,” wrote Dr. Greening. He asked Mr. Binder to “reject Mr. Elder’s less than impartial review.”

Read more at CNSC review dismissing nuclear-safety concerns called a ‘sham’ 

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

The First Nuclear Power Plant in Belarus Is a Dangerous Fiasco via GIZMODO

In July, construction workers at the Astravets nuclear power plant in Belarus dropped a 330 ton reactor shell. Weeks went by before the government admitted an “abnormal situation” had occurred, prompting international concerns about safety at the Russian-built facility—and the Belarusian government’s unwillingness to disclose information in a timely manner.

Mounting mishaps at the construction site are raising concerns over safety, particularly in the neighboring country of Lithuania. Troublingly, government authorities in Belarus and those involved in the construction have been accused of withholding information, eliciting comparisons to Soviet-style secrecy during the Cold War.

Belarus, in an effort to free itself from Russia’s energy grip, is building a nuclear power plant in Astravets, a district located about 96 miles (155 km) from the capital Minsk, and just 30 miles (50 km) from Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania. Initial plans to build the plant were announced in the 1980s, but the Chernobyl disaster, which contaminated a quarter of Belarus, quickly put the kibosh on those plans. Now, some thirty years later, Belarus is going ahead with the nuclear plant. Things are not going well.

Last month, a member of the opposition United Civic Party claimed that a 330 ton nuclear reactor shell had been dropped from a height of somewhere between 6 to 13 feet (2 to 4 meters) in preparation for installation. Two weeks went by before the Belarusian Energy Ministry confirmed that an “emergency situation” had happened. Work has now been suspended at the construction site.

[…]

Back in April, a structural frame of the nuclear service building collapsed after workers, who were pressured to meet a deadline, poured too much concrete into the frame. As with the recent incident, Belarusian officials failed to divulge details.

The president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, was suspiciously quiet after both accidents, drawing ire from domestic critics and the Lithuanian government. After downplaying the recent incident, a Lithuanian minister dismissed the “childish” explanations about the accident. Lithuania is threatening to block the plant coming online should Belarus fail to meet international safety standards. In response, Lukashenko told Lithuania to stop complaining and start helping his country run the plant. Meanwhile, the European Commission is looking into Lithuania’s complaints.

Read more at The First Nuclear Power Plant in Belarus Is a Dangerous Fiasco

Posted in *English | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The First Nuclear Power Plant in Belarus Is a Dangerous Fiasco via GIZMODO

チェルノブイリ事故の被災地ベラルーシ、新原発建設中だけどいろいろとずさん via GIZMODO

原子炉容器落っことしたけど、平気平気!みたいなノリ。

7月、ベラルーシで建設中のアストラベツ原子力発電所で、原子炉容器が落下する事故がありました。ローカルニュースがその事故を伝えてからベラルーシ政府が事実を認めるまでに2週間もかかったことで、国内だけでなく周辺国からも懸念の目が向けられています。

アストラベツ原発建設現場での事故はこれが初めてではなく、安全性全体が疑問視されています。特にお隣のリトアニアにとっては、心配では済まされない大問題です。しかも工事の質そのものだけでなく、ベラルーシ政府とか建設関係者が情報を抱え込んでいてチェルノブイリ事故を10日間も隠していた冷戦時代のソ連みたいだとも言われています。ベラルーシはチェルノブイリ原発事故で大きな被害をこうむった地域なのに、同じことにならないように慎重に…といった考え方じゃないようです。

ベラルーシでは必要な電力の90%がロシアからの輸入なので、そこから脱却すべく、初の原子力発電所をアストラベツに作ることを決めました。その現場は首都ミンスクから155km、リトアニアの首都ヴィニリュスからは50kmしか離れていません。

アストラベツでの原発計画は1980年代に発表されていましたが、チェルノブイリ原発事故でベラルーシの4分の1が放射能で汚染されたために頓挫していました。でもそれから30年たつ今、ベラルーシはやはり原発を作ることにしたんです。

そして7月、野党・統一市民党が、原発建設現場で330トンもある原子炉容器2〜4mの高さから落下したことを暴露しました。さらに問題なのは、その事実をエネルギー大臣が認めるまでに2週間もかかったことです。それ以来、建設作業はストップしています。

(略)

今年4月には、原発敷地内ビルのフレームが崩壊しました。その原因は、納期に間に合わせるべくプレッシャーをかけられた作業員たちがフレームにコンクリートを入れすぎたことでした。安全第一の原発を突貫工事で作っているってことなんでしょうね…。またこの件についても、政府は詳細を明らかにしていません。

ベラルーシのアレクサンドル・ルカシェンコ首相はこの事故の後も沈黙を貫き、国内からもリトアニア政府からも批判を浴びました。リトアニアの大臣は、事故についての説明が「子どもみたいだ」と切り捨てました。またリトアニア政府は、ベラルーシが原発の国際安全基準を満たせなければこの原発を稼働させないよう国際社会に働きかけると警告しています。それに対しルカシェンコ首相は、文句言ってないで協力しろと言い返していますが、欧州委員会はリトアニア側の主張を調査しています

全文はチェルノブイリ事故の被災地ベラルーシ、新原発建設中だけどいろいろとずさん

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on チェルノブイリ事故の被災地ベラルーシ、新原発建設中だけどいろいろとずさん via GIZMODO