Published on Dec. 12, 2016: The Denki Shimbun (The Electric Daily News)
Shojiro Matsuura
President & CEO

The Japanese government promised to give a final word on the Monju issue by the end of 2016. As the turn of the year approaches, I noticed the Denki Shimbun and other media increasing coverage on opinions of nuclear industry insiders. The Monju issue is a critical matter in terms of Japan’s development and use of nuclear energy, and of the global energy source for generations to come: I thus welcome lively discussions on this issue.

When I briefly look at the remarks experts have made—allow me to set aside whether or not their argument is appropriate—there seems to be a dichotomy between individuals for and against using and developing nuclear power. It goes without saying that in modern society an endorsement for a particular matter is mostly conditional rather than an outright support, and this is a fact that needs to be taken account of, especially in the field of nuclear power.

Obviously, what the opposition camp claims is the immediate scrapping of the Monju plan and decommissioning of the reactor. They say Monju has yet to produce any marked results despite the government allocating massive amounts of government money, and conclude that infusing more public fund would be a waste. The opposing members, however, do not specify the prospect and resource needed to decommission the prototype reactor.

Those expressing conditional support for Monju have slight differences in their requirements. However, the key issue they share is their awareness of how significant it is to achieve a full nuclear fuel cycle and develop a fast reactor. Supporters point out Monju’s critical role in acquiring foundational information, developing technology, and fostering or maintaining human resources to this end; they claim the government money invested in Monju thus far and the resources needed down the road would adequately pay off.

Meanwhile, some experts are opposed to maintaining the Monju plan despite recognizing the future need of a nuclear fuel cycle and a fast reactor.

Oddly enough, the two camps do not factor in Monju’s maintenance of safety, an issue indicated in the Nuclear Regulation Authority’s (NRA) recommendation. It is also extremely regrettable how both supporting and opposing views refer to the resources infused, but mention nothing about measures and arrangements for the local community—which has thus far offered continued support to the Monju plan. Whatever the issue may boil down to, I think steady advances of the plan cannot be expected unless the understanding of the locals is gained to the extent that they actively participate in the plan.

On another note, the discussion revolving around Monju was ignited by the recommendation NRA issued last November to the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. The opinions I mentioned above are views on fundamental issues related to Monju, but they are not likely to yield results the NRA is seeking for; rather, such opinions should be brought up in discussions at the Atomic Energy Commission of Japan. NRA’s recommendation makes no reference to the significance of the fast reactor plan or a full nuclear fuel cycle. The issue at the center of the recommendation was noncompliance in regards to maintenance for ensuring the safety of Monju.

NRA concluded JAEA as unfit for managing Monju, demanding the appointment of an adequate operator. This is the difficulty that lies in addressing NRA’s recommendation. One can see this complexity also from the fact that the panel (headed by Dr. Akito Arima) to consider the future of Monju—set up on the premise of the MEXT minister’s decision—had serious discussions and indicated prerequisites for an operator in their sincere reviews, but decided not to determine a specific institution to serve in the position. Any individual familiar with the status quo of Japan’s fast reactor development can easily understand the difficulty in dealing with NRA’s recommendation.

In the meantime, JAEA submitted a (revised) report this August, describing results of responses made in regards to NRA’s 2013 orders to take measures concerning the security of Monju. With this report, JAEA is indicating that it made appropriate improvements on maintenance abilities. If that is the case, I look forward to seeing NRA offer administrative wisdom and conscience to review whether the report is acceptable, and find a key to solving the Monju issue from a different route provided in the recommendation.

end