JAPAN TO CONTINUE DELIBERATING CONVENTION ON

C O N F I D E N T I A L TOKYO 003169

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR EAP/J, ISN/NESS JAN FLADEBOE, DOE FOR GC-52
BEN MCRAE, NE-6 CRAIG WELLING

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/18/2018
TAGS: PARM ENRG TRGY NRR MNUC PUNE JA
SUBJECT: JAPAN TO CONTINUE DELIBERATING CONVENTION ON
SUPPLEMENTARY COMPENSATION

REF: STATE 054213

Classified By: Ambassador J. Thomas Schieffer for reasons 1.4 (b) and (
d).


1. (SBU) Summary: Japan sees no need to join the Convention
on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC)
immediately, but has concluded the CSC is the "realistic
future choice." The GOJ, therefore, will continue its
internal deliberations. Despite comments from a MEXT
official that U.S. firms are not pushing their Japanese
counterparts on the issue, and that such efforts are needed
for progress, Tokyo-based representatives of one U.S. firm
note they have in fact been advocating for the CSC. End
summary.

MEXT COMMENTS REGARDING CSC
--------------


2. (C) Econoff met with Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) official Taro Hokugo
November 5. Hokugo, the deputy director of the Atomic Energy
Division's Research and Development Bureau, provided a short
update on CSC-related deliberations within the Japanese
government. He also provided a draft document entitled
"Recent Development on the Revision of Nuclear Liability
System", which post is sending by e-mail to State ISN/NESS
and DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy.


3. (C) Hokugo noted MEXT's Nuclear Liability System Review
Committee had examined various nuclear liability treaties,
including the CSC, the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability
for Nuclear Damage, and the Convention on Third Party
Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (Paris Convention).
After review, MEXT decided the Vienna Convention would be
insufficient and the Paris Convention would be too difficult
to join. The Committee concluded the CSC was Japan's
"realistic future choice" and the Committee will establish a
working group to continue discussions on CSC issues.


4. (C) Hokugo said MEXT sees no need to act quickly on the
issue of CSC because there is little interest on the part of
Japanese firms Toshiba and Hitachi. These firms, he claimed,
are not receiving any pressure from their American
counterparts regarding the CSC. Hokugo suggested if the U.S.
wants Japan to join the convention, American firms need to
put pressure on their Japanese counterparts, which they would
then transfer to MEXT.


5. (C) According to the document provided by Hokugo, the
Committee's report is out for public comment and a final
version will be released in December. Post will forward a
copy of the full report (in Japanese) for those interested in
having a copy for the record. To move the issue forward with
MEXT, Post has plans for a more in-depth meeting with
officials responsible for nuclear liability policy.

INDUSTRY COMMENTS
--------------


6. (SBU) DOE Nuclear Energy Attache and Econoff also met
with Tokyo-based representatives of GE Japan November 10 to
discuss the firm's interactions with Japanese industry
regarding the CSC.


7. (SBU) In contrast to MEXT comments about the need for
U.S. companies to put pressure on their Japanese
counterparts, the GE officials said their company had in fact
urged Japanese companies at the staff level to support
ratification of the CSC. After discussions, GE reps agreed
that perhaps higher-level advocacy was called for and noted
they have been deliberating whether to deliver comments at
the senior level.


8. (SBU) In discussing the challenges GE faces, reps
commented that Japanese industry does not share GE's
awareness of the vulnerabilities caused by liability.
Furthermore, Japanese firms are hesitant to support CSC
because of cost concerns. For its part, reps noted, U.S.
industry has been reluctant in some quarters to describe the
need for CSC too starkly for fear it would discourage the
Japanese from pursuing joint business efforts.


9. (SBU) Emboffs and GE reps further discussed Japanese
power companies' apparent opposition to the CSC. The GE reps
noted this was somewhat confusing, given that it seemed plant
suppliers would be liable for CSC-related costs, and not the

utilities companies. Econoff inquired if the utilities had
any business plans, perhaps involving partnering with
suppliers for overseas ventures, that could affect their
outlook and reps agreed this issue needs further
investigation.
SCHIEFFER