The Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) has approved a new regulatory system to allow nuclear reactors to continue operating beyond the 60-year legal limit.

The nuclear watchdog’s rash decision in line with the government’s radical shift in nuclear power policy could call its independence into question.

The NRA may be failing in its mission as the nuclear regulatory body built on the lessons learned from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Allowing a reactor to operate more than 60 years is part of the government’s “basic policy for achieving GX (green transformation),” a strategy for building a low-carbon society, along with building new reactors. The government is planning to submit related bills to the Diet during the current regular session.

The government recently submitted a proposal to reshape the regulatory framework in line with the GX strategy to the NRA, which in a Feb. 13 meeting decided to vote on the proposal in an unusual fashion by ballot, with one member casting a negative vote.

Akira Ishiwatari, one of the five members of the panel, objected to the proposal, saying the step “cannot be described as a change for increased safety.”

Under the new system, Ishiwatari pointed out, the life span of a reactor will become longer if safety inspections take longer due to the operator's inability to meet standards because the period the reactor is suspended for an inspection is not counted as part of the period of operation.

The fact that one of the five committee members disagreed with the other members on such an important issue is quite significant.

Some of the members who voted to approve the proposal also criticized the decision-making process.

“We have been discussing (the proposal) under pressure to meet the deadline set by outsiders,” one member said. “I feel uncomfortable about how some important matters (like the method of safety inspections for reactors after operation of 60 years) were left until the late stages,” said another.

Asked about the hasty decision-making process at a news conference, Shinsuke Yamanaka, the panel’s chair, said “the deadline (for the committee’s verdict) set by the time frame for submitting bills to the Diet was a predetermined time limit and it could not be helped.”

This is a surprising statement.

If the NRA simply accepted the schedule set by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), which has been eager to revive nuclear power generation, and failed to engage in exhaustive debate on the serious safety issue, the principle of “separation between promotion and regulation” is at risk of ending up an empty slogan.

The Secretariat of the NRA held closed-door meetings with the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, an entity under METI, over the government’s initiative to extend the life span of aging nuclear reactors.

In these meetings, the agency even presented draft revisions to the law under the jurisdiction of the NRA.

Even though the secretariat got the agency to withdraw the draft, saying it was overstepping its competence, there has been no sufficient disclosure or explanation about the information discussed in these meetings.

It is unclear whether the NRA’s independence was protected in the decision-making process.

It has been pointed out that one factor behind the catastrophic nuclear accident was that the regulator became a “prisoner of regulation” and was brought over to the side of the operators.

The question facing the NRA is whether it is giving in to the nuclear power industry under the pretext of a smooth implementation of policy. The nuclear safety watchdog should realize that it is facing the biggest crisis since its founding. 

The Cabinet endorsed the GX policy last week, ahead of the NRA’s decision. The industry ministry quibbled that this was no problem since the policy had nothing to do with the safety regulations.

But there is no doubt that the entire process has been hurried along according to a predetermined conclusion and schedule.

During the period for public comment on the GX initiative and the NRA’s stance, a majority of opinions submitted to the government opposed the proposals.

But these opposing views have not been incorporated into the policy decisions, while the government’s responses to them were all superficial and unsubstantial.

The Diet has the heavy responsibility to stop the government’s reckless policy shift when it considers the related bills.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Feb. 16