Published on Jun.6 ,2013 : The Denki shinbun(The Electric Daily News)
Shojiro Matsuura
Chairman of JANSI

The report by the National Diet’s Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, which was released last summer, indicated that regulatory capture was one of the main causes as to why accident prevention had not been perfected. Although this was written so in the report, I was left feeling that this explanation did not sound quite right either because, from my own experience working as a regulator and nuclear operator, I could not recall anything of the sort.

Since last autumn, I have had many opportunities to exchange opinions with people who have ever worked as a nuclear operator. What emerged out of these conversations is the question: “While it might not be possible to reject the view that the regulator had been captured by operators, weren’t operators also held excessively captive to regulations? Wasn’t each side held captive by the other?”

It is not uncommon that even if an operator knows a regulatory request is technically absurd, being fixated on remedying the situation will only eat up time, not allowing the job at hand to move forward. So, it is good policy to handle such situations by doing as one is told with a wink and nod. More importantly, even though it is determined that facilities or equipment authorized at the time of construction are in need of improvement from the standpoint of safety, any subsequent procedures, inspections and so on become inordinately difficult when the reasoning is “safety improvement.” Consequently, there are cases where the excuse given is “operational convenience,” so the improvement can be dispensed with quickly. Given such a situation, it appears as though operators in the field are held captive by strict regulations.

Although not limited to Japan, in societies where there is a long history of authoritarianism, the enactment of laws and regulations has been wholly the province of those in power, the regulators (“powers that be”), and operators are singularly required to observe that which has been enacted. In such an environment, it is quite difficult to expect operators to have a high regard for statutory law. Incidentally, I took a look in Japan’s dictionary of quotations, but was unable to find anything references to the effect that the spirit of the “law need be followed.” However, there were several sayings with just the opposite meaning, such as “you can’t fight city hall.”

Conversely, as the authoritarian tendency of those instituting laws and regulations grows, the insistence on infallibility in order to protect regulatory authority becomes even greater, resulting in a more pronounced tendency to over-regulate and exceed actual regulatory purpose. Moreover, overlapping this tendency with “just-to-make-sure” paternalism often produces an overabundance of completely irrational regulations.

This sort of situation brings about unnecessary misery on society. Under unreasonably excessive regulation, the operator falls into a trap of self-satisfaction that any regulatory purpose is sufficiently achieved just by simply observing the regulation, and no longer has the desire to advance to a higher standard. Also, overregulation backed by authoritarianism diverges from the true nature of the regulatory purpose, leading to a tendency toward stressing perfunctory compliance in both the regulating and regulated entities. Ultimately, the desire for more practical and resource effective regulations, that is the advancement of regulations, is lost on both sides. Such is the tragedy of both the regulator and the operator being captive to the other.

Appropriate and efficacious regulations are those realized in an environment where the regulator and operator share necessary and sufficient information with each other as well as the value of the purpose to be achieved by the regulation, which is implemented according to a standard laid down that both sides accept. This may, however, be merely an illusive hope.

Nevertheless, if we look out across the history of social progress, we can also call it the “process of realizing illusions.” Weren’t the abolition of slavery as well as the achievement of equal human rights and fundamental freedoms surely the realization of illusions?

If we take a look at the progress in US nuclear safety regulation, the United States appears to have been steadily achieving this process of realization. Of course, we cannot ignore many differences between us and them. However, aren’t we also permitted to earnestly pursue such a path deliberately and systematically? The effort and time taken in doing so will by no means be inconsequential, and, most importantly, societal acquiescence is indispensable. In any event, we will not be able to move forward even one step while we are “mutual captives.” Yet, there is no other way out, but to break these shackles ourselves.

end