The Nuclear Safety Commission announced the completion of the review of the nuclear reactor re-operation plan last Thursday evening. At that time, the Earth Citizen Foundation criticized whether it intentionally evaded supervision and showed a lack of sincerity in communication. Today (29th), the National Nuclear Abolition Action Platform and 34 civil society organizations and enterprises jointly issued a statement stating that the completion of the review does not mean that there is no risk, calling for the expansion of professionalism, disclosure of information, and implementation of democratic participation.
Unit 2 of the No. 3 Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung was shut down and decommissioned on May 17 last year. It has been more than a year since Taiwan entered a non-nuclear homeland. As Blue and White pushed for legislative amendments to restart the nuclear power plant, Taipower also submitted a nuclear power plant re-operation plan to restore the two decommissioned units of the No. 3 Nuclear Power Plant to operation. The Nuclear Safety Commission invited domestic scholars and experts to form a review team. After three reviews, the review of the No. 3 Nuclear Power Plant re-operation plan was completed on the 24th.
Please read on...
Today, a total of 34 civil organizations, trade unions, and enterprises from Hengchun, Pingtung, Kaohsiung to Taipei issued a statement and put forward four major demands. They believe that the subsequent review of the third nuclear power plant should expand the number of professional members, and that the safety review should include geology, earthquakes, climate, complex disasters, emergencies, etc. The medical, transportation, public health and local public safety majors should avoid limiting major nuclear safety decisions to the existing nuclear energy and engineering majors. They should also disclose the complete list of review committee members and experts, their professional backgrounds, selection methods and interest avoidance information, so that the society can test whether the review profession is complete and independent.
The statement also pointed out that the nuclear three restarts involve the environment, energy, fire protection, disaster response, transportation and local governance, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Economics (including the Energy Administration, the Center of Geology and Mineral Resources), the Ministry of the Interior (including the Fire Department), the Ministry of Transportation (including the Highway Bureau, the Central Meteorological Administration), the Ministry of Health and Welfare, as well as the regions that may be affected by the accident. The local government should formally incorporate the risk assessment and decision-making process into the risk assessment and decision-making process, and assume corresponding responsibilities for its decision-making. It also believes that without complete information disclosure, the national referendum should not be used as a political authorization for the restart of Nuclear III. The government should also not assume that Nuclear III will inevitably restart, or use the established political timetable to affect the safety review.
The statement finally pointed out that a democratic participation process should be established where direct risk holders have substantial influence. In particular, residents where nuclear power plants are located and in areas that may be affected by major accidents should have full access to complete and appropriately translated risk information, and have institutional channels to raise objections, participate in deliberations, and substantially influence the final decision. The government should also disclose various review opinions, controversial matters and reasons for adoption or non-adoption, so that stakeholders can understand, examine and participate in safety decision-making.
