Photo/Illutration The Nuclear Regulation Authority holds an extraordinary meeting in Tokyo on Feb. 13. (Ryo Sasaki)

The Nuclear Regulation Authority panel was divided on the government's plan to extend the operational lives of nuclear reactors beyond 60 years, but approved it in a majority vote on Feb. 13. 

Akira Ishiwatari, one of the five members of the panel, objected to the government’s policy during an extraordinary meeting, saying it is not a change that would make nuclear reactors safer.

“There is no concrete plan about how to regulate nuclear reactors operating beyond 60 years,” Ishiwatari said.

It is rare for the panel to be split on an important topic and decide via a majority vote.

During the Feb. 13 meeting, the NRA’s panel members formally agreed on the outline of a new system that requires nuclear reactors to undergo safety checks every 10 years or less once it has been in service for 30 years.

They also approved the government’s plan to revise the Nuclear Reactor Regulation Law to remove the rule on nuclear reactors’ operational periods, paving the way for them to operate beyond 60 years.

The panel postponed its decision on the outline of the new system at its meeting on Feb. 8 because of Ishiwatari’s objection.

Ishiwatari is tasked with studying plant operators’ measures to safeguard reactors from earthquakes and tsunami.

After the meeting on Feb. 13 went beyond the scheduled one-hour time slot, the panel’s chair, Shinsuke Yamanaka, said, “We now disagree on principles,” and said they would decide by majority vote.

The four members other than Ishiwatari supported the outline of the new system and the revision of the law.

However, even the members who were in support said during the meeting, “There is a severe lack of explanation (about the government’s policy)” and “It feels uncomfortable that important points (such as how to regulate nuclear reactors operating beyond 60 years) weren’t called to attention earlier.”

The government had introduced the restriction as a lesson from the disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in 2011.

“This latest change is due to the actions by the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry,”  Yamanaka said in autumn. “Our panel won’t be proactive (with regard to the change).”

When Ishiwatari asked him, “Will this discussion disappear if the industry ministry doesn’t change the rules (on the nuclear reactors’ operational period)?” Yamanaka replied, “If the trade ministry doesn’t do anything, we will not change the law.”

In December, to prepare for scrapping the nuclear reactor operational period cap, the panel put together the outline of the new system that requires nuclear reactors to undergo safety checks every 10 years or less once they reach 30 years in service.

Meanwhile, the industry ministry compiled a plan to maintain the restriction on nuclear reactors’ operation periods at 40 years, in principle, and a maximum 60 years, but to exclude the time when reactors were offline when counting their operational periods.

Some expressed concern, however, that excluding the shutdown period when counting the operational period will mean the longer nuclear reactors take to obtain approval from the NRA, the longer such reactors can operate.

Under the government plan, if nuclear reactors are shut down due to the NRA’s assessment for a restart, such periods are excluded when counting their operational periods.

Even if the assessment takes longer, it will not reduce the remaining operational period of the nuclear reactor in question. All the while, the nuclear reactor will continue aging.

At the Feb. 13 meeting, Ishiwatari cited a case where an issue at an electricity company suspended the NRA’s assessment.

“It is simply wrong that the operational period (of a nuclear reactor) can be extended later (for the length of the period that the assessment was suspended),” he said. “As someone who conducts such assessments, the thought is unbearable.”

(This article was written by Takuro Yamano and Ryo Sasaki.)

Related News