Towards Nuclear Safety for North East Asia
- Oriental way of thinking after Fukushima Daiichi Accident -October 6-7, 2016
Akihide Kugo, Executive Officer,
Head of International Department of Japan Nuclear Safety Institute
1. Current Situation in Japan
After the nuclear accident at Fukushima, which was caused by the tsunami
disaster that followed the Great East Japan Earthquake, nuclear power units
in Japan were totally shut down by May 2012 for reviewing and verifying theconformity to the new regulatory standards that was required by NRA (JapanNuclear Regulatory Agency).
Increase of fossil power generation due to all nuclear power plants off-line,
which amounts to approximately 90% of generated electricity, has beenbringing fragility to the national energy security in terms of reliance on
imported energy resources.
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan have announced the nuclear
energy policy as the Strategic Energy Plan 2014 that nuclear power will
maintain its share of 20 to 22 % of total electricity as a base load. That means
nuclear industry should make much more effort to be accountable forpromoting nuclear energy. Because more than half of the public in Japan has
not been convinced for the safety of existing nuclear reactors yet. Of course,
Japanese nuclear operators have already introduced countermeasures basedon the operating experience at Fukushima Daiichi Accident. For example, they
have strengthened capabilities for emergency response with variety ofequipment, trained staff, flexible skill, and cooperative system. In addition,ceaseless efforts for risk reduction at all times should be indispensable torestoring nuclear safety. Moreover, it becomes significant for the staff ofnuclear operators to keep motivation for pursuing excellence.
On the other hand, China, Korea and India have the challenging plan toproduce more nuclear power generation to the great part of energy in Asia withstrong political and economic leaderships. Some of other countries in Asia also
have plans for developing nuclear energy. Major part of development of nuclear
energy in the world will be located in Asia by the middle of twenty-one century.

1Based on this situation, safety culture must be more crucial for our Asiancountries. Therefore, discussion on the way of promoting safety culture shouldbe necessary for these Asian countries with not only the International style but
also the Oriental one.
2. Oriental Internalization of Lessons learned
2.1 Continuous Learning
Recently OECD/NEA published the report1) titled by “Five years after theFukushima Daiichi Accident-Nuclear Safety Improvement and Lessons
Learnt-”. In this report, as for nuclear safety, human and organizational factors
and safety culture are described as essential issues to all aspects of nuclear
safety. OECD/NEA emphasizes the necessity for focusing on attitude towardssafety,organizational

capability,decision-making

processes

andthecommitment to learn from experience.
Especially as for the commitment to learning from operating experience, IAEA
stresses the importance of leadership and adequate management withspecification and application of adequate safety measures2). Learning fromoperating experience is certainly one of the key issues of safety culture toprevent the recurrence of safety significant events and to continuous improving
towards excellent plant performance.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission of USA also published NUREG-21653) on
nuclear safety culture to clarify as a common language that described ten traits
such as patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving that emphasize safety.
Continuous learning is one of these traits. The commission said in 4.6
Continuous Learning of NUREG-2165: “Opportunities to learn about ways toensure safety are sought out and implemented”. As for the operating
experience, the commission illustrates the traits of learning attitude ofoperating experience in CL.1 Operating Experience of NUREG-2165 that theorganization should “systematically and effectively collects, evaluates, andimplements relevant internal and external operating experience in a timelymanner”.
However, it is very difficult for those who engage in the nuclear industry if they
do not experience events directly. Indirect experience is likely to put reality
away from their tangible risk awareness. According to the industry statistics ofIAEA, “about 50% of the safety significant events that occurred in the past2

several years could have been prevented or mitigated if the operating
experience from past safety significant events had been internalized andcorrective actions to prevent recurrence had been implemented”4). If thenuclear operator had introduced robust emergency electric supply systems
such as waterproof buttery and emergency diesel generator at the Fukushima
Daiichi site based on the other plant operating experience, the result of theaccident must be completely different.
Therefore, in such a case, the words or phrases that are familiar to the people
should be utilized to be effective to internalize risk awareness. For example,
this learning attitude can be found in the expression in the Orient words or theAnalects of Confucius, the philosopher who left many thoughtful words for
success of business and daily life. For example, in the Analects, “Master said
when we see men of worth, we should think of equaling them; when we see menof a contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves”.
“Master also said learning without thought is labor lost; thought without
learning is perilous”.
Looking back again at cause and analysis of Fukushima Daiichi Accident, I
dear to say that this modest attitude mentioned above was regrettably
insufficient for the nuclear operator to implement proactive measures towards
design basis events and beyond the design basis accident.
2.2 Questioning Attitude
I also would like to introduce the audience into the Buddhism and Zen worldthat roots one of the traditional lives in Asia especially in Japan. Zen is a formof Buddhism developed in China in early T’ang period, that is, in the eighthcentury, responding to Indian thought as represented by Buddhism. Zen aims
at an ultimate objective that discards all the superficialities that haveaccumulated around the daily life through the experiences of human beings.
Daisetz T. Suzuki, one of mentors of Zen priests, assumed that there were
three kind of knowledge.5)
The first was the knowledge gained from reading or hearsay, which wememorize and usually hold as an important possession. The second was theresult of observation and experiment, analysis and speculations. The third was
the one gained from intuitive mode of understanding.
Japanese nuclear operators had regrettably remained at the stage of first3

knowledge pertaining to severe accident while others in overseas tackled tointroduce countermeasures for responding to severe accidents or beyond designbasis events at the second stage of knowledge in 1990s to 2000s.
As one of the Zen-riddle, a cryptic dialogue between Zen priest and his disciple,
I would like to show a phrase of “a piece of hair swallows the huge sea”. It is
certainly illogical and ridiculous due to the meaning beyond real world. Thiskind of phrase, for Zen discipline, illustrates a trial of breaking existing
conceptual image in pieces and disposing existing confidence out. By doing it,
Zen priests and disciples are aiming at attaining the mental stage of the very
foundation of existence. Suzuki assumed “the deprecation of formalism,conventionalism, or ritualism tends to make the sprit stand in all its nakedness
or aloneness or solitariness.” Questioning attitude, another significant
principle of safety culture, stands on such a basement of intellectual dialogue.
Taking it for granted is not always assured by the certainty. Reviewing the fact
whether it is usual or not can lead ourselves to the entrance of pursuit for
tangible safe.
When Nuclear Regulatory Commission of USA says about “QuestioningAttitude” in the NUREG-2165, it emphasizes that those who engage in nuclear
energy “should avoid complacency and continuously challenge existing
conditions and activities in order to identify discrepancies that might result inerror or inappropriate action”. There is no difference between Western concept
and Oriental ones. The question of “How safe is safe enough?” will beequivalent to this Oriental way of thinking.
If people who engage in nuclear energy recognize the importance of thisquestioning attitude with either way of thinking, they could certainly reduce
latent risks and give thanks to the peaceful mind.
2.3 Diversity
Mandala represents the Buddhist universe and is a symbol of fusion and unity,
expressing that the universe and people are fundamentally linked.
From this Mandalas world, I am inspired by the significance of diversity.
Respect for diversity will encourage the nuclear safety from the viewpoint oftotal optimization, not partial one. Introducing diversity will ensure the effectof oversight. The Oriental way of thinking as Mandalas, way of assuming total
optimization, will easily lead us to realize the excellence of nuclear safety.

43. Conclusion
Continuous learning and questioning attitude are essential for people whoengage in nuclear energy.
Questions defying our confidence, like the Zen riddle, make us realize andappreciate the value of the things that rarely exist. Thus, we recognize thevalue of nuclear safety that does not naturally exist but has to be created with
our maximum effort.
Mandala is a symbol of respect for diversity that leads to total optimization in
nuclear safety, but not partial optimization. We, Asians, can respect ourdiversity with Oriental scope of values.
To realize more enhanced nuclear safety in Asia, where nuclear energy isdeveloping in high speed, we need to define nuclear safety culture in Oriental
style of thinking or way of speaking by accepting diversity.

Reference
1) OECD/NEA, Five Year after the Fukushima Daiichi Accident -Nuclear
Safety Improvement and Lessons Learnt-, 2016.
2) IAEA, Leadership and Management for Safety No. GSR Part2, 2016.
3) NRC, Safety Culture Common language NUREG-2165, 2014.
4) IAEA/NSR/2015, Nuclear Safety Review 2015, 2015.
5) Daisetz T. Suzuki, “Zen and Japanese Culture”, Kodan-sya, 2005, originallypublished in England as Zen Buddhism and its Influence on Japanese
Culture, the Eastern Buddhist Society, 1938.

5