Published on Jul.30 ,2014 : The Denki shinbun(The Electric Daily News)
Shojiro Matsuura
Chairman of JANSI

At its regular meeting on July 16, 2014, the Nuclear Regulation Authority (“NRA”) presented its draft assessment report equivalent to the approval of alternation in reactor establishment licenses for Units 1 and 2 of Sendai Nuclear Power Station of Kyushu Electric Power Co., Inc. This means that the NRA concluded these reactors meet the new regulatory standards established by it.

There are multiple gates to be opened toward the actual resumption of operation. These include a thirty-day acceptance for public offering of scientific and technical comments starting from the next day, i.e. July 17, 2014, the establishment of a final examination report, the approval of construction plans, the approval of changes in Operational Safety Program, the acceptances of local communities, and pre-service inspections. It is certain, however, that the first of these gates has been opened.

The Japanese government has shown its stance that “the operation of nuclear power stations will be resumed as their safety is verified by the NRA and accepted by the local communities.” On the other hand, those who are opposing to the use of nuclear power generation are strongly arguing against the restart of operation from various viewpoints mainly because they have concern about safety verification.

The NRA showed its basic stance when it started assessment. “We have established the world’s most stringent regulatory standards and will conduct assessment based on them.” At the press conference held after the meeting during which the draft assessment report was presented, Chairman Shunichi Tanaka showed his view, saying “The new regulatory standards have set the criteria considerably high. Safety has been improved by a certain level. I think it is time to appreciate it.”

Some people are very critical about this. “The new standards are not necessarily the world’s most stringent standards. It is absolutely intolerable to restart operation without waiting for the causes of the Fukushima accident to be clarified. In particular, preparedness for severe accidents with respect to disaster response is seriously incomplete.”

These criticisms are totally off the track because they are not in line with the subjects of examination or outside the scope of regulation by the NRA, e.g. off-site response to a severe accident. In particular, requiring safety based on fundamentalist precautionary principles will not address realistic problems. However, it is inevitable for the entire nuclear administration to be accountable and take practical actions.

By the way, Chairman Tanaka said on another occasion, “I am not saying that it is safe.” I think he should provide a clear explanation so that there will be no misunderstandings at the social level. He might have said so because he was concerned that the moment he said “It is safe,” a widespread misunderstanding would result, “He claimed that it would be absolutely safe with zero risks.”

In present society, no one would think that he or she can live free from any risk if he or she uses common sense to make judgments. When it comes to nuclear power, however, we often hear arguments that it is natural to require zero risks.

This sort of confusion arises because some words whose meanings are difficult to define clearly and are widely variable are used for discussion, for example, safety and sense of security. To make judgments based on responsible discussions, we should use words that can clearly be defined conceptually.

Dr. Kiyoshi Kurokawa, former Chairman of the National Diet Fukushima Accident Investigation Commission, who was invited as a key figure to the July 11 meeting of the Nuclear Energy Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee for Natural Resources and Energy, pointed this out very clearly. At present, the world is changing rapidly. The keywords to cope with this are “transparency and accountability.” He stated that some basic forms of thinking and acting should be changed immediately and explicitly. As one of the most important basic forms of thinking that should be changed is a shift from “safety and sense of security” to “risk”. We are compelled to realize that the world is moving in the direction necessitating this change. It is far more explicit to reduce risks than to improve safety.

end