JINF
Japan Institute for National Fundamentals

December 4, 2019Japan Institute for National Fundamentals
Council on the Nuclear Energy Issue
Policy proposals

Get Nuclear Power Back to Japan
BackgroundA stable energy supply is the fundamentals of a nation. Yet Japan has not squarely
addressing this issue.
While Japan had more than 50 nuclear reactors, currently only nine are underoperation. The eight years since the Great East Japan Earthquake have been wasted
because of unreasonable delay in safety screenings by the Nuclear Regulation Authority(NRA Japan).
Japan is now entirely reliant on imported fossil fuels and faces significant risks insecuring a stable and inexpensive supply of energy resources. In addition, Japan needs
to take bold action to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions as required by the Paris
Agreement. While continuing to efficiently introduce renewable energy sources, now is
the time to normalize the situation around nuclear power, which can provide a stable
and carbon-free electricity at a large scale. Japan is already shouldering huge costs fromimporting fossil fuels and subsidizing renewable energy. We need to accelerate therestart of nuclear power plants, prevent the further increase of cost burden on the public,
and preserve and develop Japan's nuclear power technology for the sake of future
generations.
With this in mind, we make the following proposals.

1

JINF
Japan Institute for National Fundamentals

I. To the Nuclear Regulation Authority Japan: Restore Scientific Rationality
1. Streamline Japan's regulatory system in line with the recommendations andproposals of the IAEA's Integrated Regulatory Review Service
2. Shift from “regulations for halting nuclear power plants” to “regulations for safely
operating nuclear power plants”
3. Normalize screenings causing extreme delays in restarting reactors, and avoid
repeated shutdowns
4. Present clear conditions and goals for screenings, not changing them midway
through, in line with the Administrative Procedures Law
5. Conduct examinations of on-site faults in accordance with internationallyestablished rules
6. Avoid shutdowns due to delays in building facilities for dealing with severe
accidents and other contingencies

II. To the Japanese Government: Take the Lead in Resolving Nuclear Power Issues
1. Do not push antiterrorism measures onto electric power companies alone
2. Ensure cooperation with the police, Japan Coast Guard, and Self-Defense Forceson anti-terrorism measures
3. Promote the training of human resources and preserve/develop technologies in thefield of nuclear power
4. Enable replacement of existing nuclear plants and construct new ones while
ensuring coexistence with renewable energy
5. Ensure steady development of nuclear reprocessing and waste disposal facilities aspart of the nuclear fuel cycle
6. Make clear explanation about new regulatory standards including filter vents to the
public and reflect these in emergency drills
7. Take responsibility in enhancing people’s understanding of nuclear power

2

JINF
Japan Institute for National Fundamentals

Get Nuclear Power Back to Japan
BackgroundA stable energy supply is the fundamentals of a nation. Yet Japan has failed toproperly confront this issue. While Japan had more than 50 nuclear reactors, currently
only nine are under operation. The eight years since the Great East Japan Earthquake
have been wasted because of unreasonable delay in safety screenings by the Nuclear
Regulation Authority (NRA).
Since Japan has no domestic fossil fuel resources, its energy self-sufficiency ratio is
the lowest among major countries. In addition, Japan does not have pipeline or gridconnection with neighboring countries. All of these make Japan exposed to highgeopolitical risk.
Entry into force of the Paris Agreement has made it a pressing issue to combat
climate change. However, due to already high energy efficiency performance, Japan’s
marginal abatement cost for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is much higher thanother major countries. Japan’s industrial electricity tariff is already the highest amongmajor countries, being 1.5 to 2 times that of nations such as the United States, China,
and South Korea. Among major countries, Japan is the only country facing“quadlemma”, namely, lack of domestic resources, high dependence on the Middle East,
high energy costs, and high costs for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Restarting nuclear power plants is absolutely crucial for realizing a cost-effectiveenergy mix. Japan is already shouldering huge costs from importing fossil fuels andsubsidizing renewable energy. If no nuclear power plants are restarted by 2030 andsubstituted by thermal power generation, it would cost about ¥27 trillion ($225 Billion)
just to import additional fossil fuels. If nuclear is replaced with renewable energy, theadditional cost would be about ¥15 trillion ($125 Billion) for the subsidies alone.
Since the Fukushima nuclear accident, the false argument that “we don't need nuclear
power if we have renewable energy” has been prevailing. Debating renewable andnuclear energy as if it were a binary choice only serves to distort the optimal solution
for Japan's energy and climate policies. Germany has decided to phase out nuclear
power and is promoting renewable of which share has reached 40% out of total power

3

JINF
Japan Institute for National Fundamentals

generation. However, its CO2 emissions are increasing since intermittencies of solar andwind power need to be backed up by fossile thermal power plants. Considering
Germany's failure, it is clear that the only solution is to ensure coexistence of nuclear
and renewable, making use of their respective advantages.

Hydro Power
水力3.2％

Power generation
using coal andlignite, which
generates large
amounts of CO2,
has not been
reduced.
Total coal 38.3%(Total thermal
Power 45.6%)

Gas
7.3%

3.2%

水
力 Biomass
8.2%

Coal
13.9%

Wind

Renewableenergy has
expanded
to total 40.0%

19.7%
Lignite

24.4%

Solor

Nuclear
13.2%

8.9%

Shutting down
nuclear reactors
has
only increased
13.2％
thermal power
generation.
7 Nuclear plants stll
generate 13.2%

Figure: Germany's failed energy policy
Japan's CO2 emissions decreased by 4.8 percent in fiscal 2018 thanks to the restartingof some nuclear power plants and the expansion of renewable energy. Given power
generation from 9 GW (9 units) of nuclear is commensurate with that from 56 GW ofsolar power introduced with heavy dependence on subsidies, we should squarely
recognize the limitations of policies putting excessive priority on renewable.
We need to accelerate the restart of nuclear power plants, prevent the further increaseof cost burden on the public, and preserve and develop Japan's nuclear power
technology for the sake of future generations.
With this in mind, we make the following proposals.

4

JINF
Japan Institute for National Fundamentals

I. To the Nuclear Regulation Authority: Restore Scientific Rationality
To maintain and develop Japan's nuclear power options, first and foremost, we needto reexamine the regulations on nuclear power, which have deviated from the original
mission of reducing risk based on scientific rationality.
1. Streamline Japan's regulatory system e in line with the recommendations andproposals of the IAEA's Integrated Regulatory Review Service
In its report on the 2016 Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) Mission to
Japan, the International Nuclear Energy Agency (IAEA) stated that "the [Japanese]government and NRA should continue their efforts to implement the new regulatory
framework to strengthen nuclear and radiation safety" in line with IAEA safety
standards. The report added that the NRA in particular needs to "complete, document
and fully implement the integrated management system for all regulatory andsupporting processes."
However, at present, such a system has not been completed and the progress of
screenings has not been made public. Regulations to ensure the safety of nuclear power
plants should be based on established international standards. In line with IAEA’s
proposals, there is an urgent need to streamline and document the NRA's regulatory
structure and management – which are now based on its own risk classifications – andensure regulations are predictable. Priority should be given to compliance screenings forrestarting nuclear plants over repeating investigations into ground motion with noidentifiable hypocenter.
2. Shift from “regulations for halting nuclear power plants” to “regulations forsafely operating nuclear power plants”
Although eight years have passed since the Great East Japan Earthquake, only nine
nuclear reactors are currently under operation. Compliance screenings are still stagnant
at most nuclear power plants. Such major delay in resuming operation of nuclear power
plants is attributed to the regulatory administration of the NRA, which was establishedafter the disaster during the administration of Prime Minister Kan Naoto as anindependent committee created based on Article 3 of the National Government

5

JINF
Japan Institute for National Fundamentals

Organization Law. The provisional appointments of Tanaka Shunichi as the authority's
first chairman and four commissioners were officially approved by the Diet when the
Liberal Democratic Party returned to power.
Chairman Tanaka shut down all the nation’s nuclear power plants, saying, “We aretemporarily halting all nuclear power plants to undergo screenings in the next six
months." There was no legal basis in this so-called Tanaka plan. The long-term
shutdown of nuclear power plants has continued under the current chairman, Fuketa
Toyoshi. Such lingering shutdown of nuclear power plants is unprecedented in Europe
or the United States and has caused an tremendous loss of national wealth due to thefuel costs incurred during this time. We must recognize how this burden is being borneby each and every citizen in the form of higher electricity bills. The purpose ofregulations on nuclear power should not be to shut down plants but to ensure they areoperated safely, as was originally intended.
3. Normalize screenings causing extreme delays in restarting reactors, and avoid
repeated shutdowns
Screenings have taken so many years because of time-consuming process forgathering evidence on whether there are any active faults within the grounds of a plant.
Geologic, ground, and seismic assessments—which include analyzing volcanic ash fordating, examining marine terraces to determine if coastal uplift was a result of anearthquake, determining seismic waveforms to use in designs, and finding evidence forliquefaction under important facilities—account for over 70 percent of safety screenings.
This is the reason that even after six years, screenings of more than 10 reactors havebarely progressed or even gone backward in some cases. The incredibly protracted
screening process to resume operations needs to be normalized and repeated shutdownsof nuclear power plants should be avoided.
4. Present clear conditions and goals for screenings, not changing them midway
through, in line with the Administrative Procedures Law
The criteria used in screenings should be clearly specified from the outset and should
not be changed during the process. Screenings should be streamlined so they can be

6

JINF
Japan Institute for National Fundamentals

completed without delay in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Law.
Typical example is the case of facilities for dealing with severe accidents. Their
construction period has become insufficient because additional conditions have been
imposed one after another during screening process and protracted screening process
has shortened grace periods. These problems should be largely attributed to theregulator.
Administrative guidance can only be carried out through the voluntary cooperation of
the other party. Therefore, the NRA exercising administrative guidance must not act in a
detrimental manner to the other party (the operator) when it becomes physically
impossible for the latter to follow guidance because of the time needed to build facilities
as required by additional conditions and changes during the screening. Nuclear power
plants that have been restarted after passing new regulatory standards should not be
halted because new screening conditions are added.
5. Conduct examinations of on-site faults in accordance with internationallyestablished rules
Article 2 section 2 of the Atomic Energy Basic Law states, “The purpose of ensuringsafety is to protect the lives, health, and property of the people, protect the environment,
and contribute to national security in accordance with established international
standards." The current on-site fault screening process requires proving there is no
possibility that on-site faults have moved in the past through assessments of overlying
strata*. However, in most of the existing nuclear power plants, the overlying strata has
been removed so the plant can be built on bedrock, turning this requirement into a kindof “devil’s proof.”
The IAEA's safety guide calls for nations to implement best practices by
incorporating their good practices together with other means. The countermeasuresagainst severe accidents that are already in place greatly reduce the risks from fault
displacement should fault movement occur. Screenings of on-site faults should also be
regulated based on established international rules that have been scientifically shown toeffectively reduce risk.
* This involves proving the existence of a formation that has been stable for at least 120,000 to
130,000 years on top of the formation that contains the fault.

7

JINF
Japan Institute for National Fundamentals

6. Avoid shutdowns due to delays in building facilities for dealing with severe
accidents and other contingencies
Some nuclear reactors that have been restarted are on the verge of shutting down due
to delays in building facilities to deal with severe accidents and other contingencies.
These facilities are part of anti-terrorism measures and are intended to deal withintentional aircraft collisions. The NRA has ruled that if these facilities are notcompleted within a five-year grace period, nuclear reactors that have been restarted will
have to shut down. However, there are grave doubts as to whether the decision to shut
down reactors that had been approved to resume operations is appropriate or actually
reduces risk. First of all, even if plants have these facilities, they are not expected tohave a deterrent effect. Rather than building facilities with no cost ceiling that are of
doubtful efficacy, nuclear reactors could be protected from aircrafts by placing
obstructions around the plants, such as poles, wire nets, antennas, wind power
generators, or barrage balloons. From the standpoint of deterring terrorist attacks, thesewould be effective in preventing aircraft from being able to directly strike a reactor.
If a terrorist attack with an aircraft were to happen, as long as a direct impact on areactor is avoided, there is no difference in the response between a plant with thesefacilities and one without them. Shutting down nuclear power plants that have finallybeen restarted due to costly regulations only creates a risk of power outages, increases
electricity rates and results in harming national interest. To avoid the risk of large power
outages during the Tokyo Olympics, nuclear power plants that have been restarted
should continue operating while constructing such facilities. As for nuclear power plants,
there should be a flexible reexamination about required facilities.

8

JINF
Japan Institute for National Fundamentals

II. To the Japanese Government: Take the Lead in Resolving Nuclear
Power Issues
1. Do not push antiterrorism measures onto electric power companies alone.
Terrorists could attack a nuclear power plant in a variety of ways—from suicide
aircraft collisions and attacks on the heart of the plant using drones or small boats, totaking plant personnel hostage. At present, the police are the only means available forcountering attacks by armed groups, civilian aircraft, or other methods. This represents
a threat to national security, and thus protecting nuclear power plants from terrorism
should not be pushed onto private power companies alone.
2. The police, Japan Coast Guard, and Self-Defense Forces should cooperate on
antiterrorism measures
The National Defense Program Guidelines referred to protections of nuclear power
plants for the first time in 2018. To build on this, it is necessary to amend the relevantlaws and establish new regulations to allow the Self-Defense Forces to cooperate withthe police in normal times, to increase the number of personnel in basic strategic units
responsible for areas where nuclear power plants are located, and to improve theequipment available to these units. There is also an urgent need to develop high-power
microwave (HPM) beams capable of neutralizing missile and drone guidance andattacks.
3. Promote the training of human resources and preserve/develop technologies in
the field of nuclear power
China and Russia are currently making great strides in building and exporting nuclear
power plants. In contrast, Japan's nuclear power technology, which was once among thebest in world before the Great East Japan Earthquake, no longer has a global presence.
Japan has been ardently developing nuclear technologies to date. It is a grave nationalloss to leave them to wither.. Industry, academia, and government must work together toencourage talented young people to enter the nuclear power field. To this end, they needto promote training of next generation nuclear power professionals and to develop

9

JINF
Japan Institute for National Fundamentals

nuclear technologies that can compete globally, such as next-generation light water
reactors with enhanced natural cooling systems and small module reactors (SMR) thatcan coexist with renewable energy.
Training of nuclear human resources and technology development in the field of
nuclear, which enables simultaneous achievement of long-term energy security anddecarbonization, demands clear policy direction on replacement of existing nuclear
power plants and construction of new ones.
4. Enable replacement of existing nuclear plants and construct new ones while
ensuring coexistence with renewable energy
Discussing the possibility of building new nuclear power plants is currently anon-starter. This is due to the persistent negative image of nuclear power among the
public and the media, a mentality that “even if they’re safe, I don’t feel safe,” andgovernment’s evasion from debate on nuclear. In addition, the electricity market
liberalization has made utilities reluctant to build new nuclear power plants due to thehuge initial investment entailed. Unpredictable regulations have further increased
management risk, making new investment impossible. To avoid further deterioration
and uncertainty of investment climate, the government should advance the debate overreplacing existing nuclear power plants and constructing new ones from long-term
national policy perspectives. .
Nuclear power should play the central role in Japan's energy and climate policy as
non-fossil fuel, substituting thermal power currently occupying 80% share of total
power generation and supplementing intermittency of variable renewable energy.
5. Ensure steady development of nuclear reprocessing and waste disposal facilities
as part of the nuclear fuel cycle
Ensuring predictability in screenings of reprocessing facilities making up the nuclear
fuel cycle and starting their commercial operation are necessary steps regardless of how
the debate over nuclear power proceeds. The isolation and vitrification of high-level
radioactive waste offers the highest degree of stability and long-term stability in storagein air cooling facilities and geological disposal. Vitrification contains high-level

10

JINF
Japan Institute for National Fundamentals

radioactive waste through melting and solidifying it to a glass state. The operability of
the Rokkasho Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant has been confirmed in in pre-use testing.
Statements from a few members of the U.S. Congress demanding Japan to reduce its
plutonium stockpile are attributed to information delivered by anti-nuclear groups inJapan (so-called “Washington loudspeaker”). In fact, the IAEA has confirmed thatJapan's protections on radioactive substances are extremely robust.
Selection of suitable deep geological disposal sites requires strong leadership by thegovernment. There should be consideration and support to local governments having
agreed to conduct document studies so as not to cause unnecessary confusion. In thelong term, fast reactors that can incinerate and annihilate high-level radioactive waste
will be needed. Using the Joyo reactor and halting the decommissioning of the Monju
reactor should be placed as the national policy.
6. Make clear explanation about new regulatory standards including filter vents tothe public and reflect these in emergency drills
Explanation of safety measures to the public is an important responsibility of nuclear
regulators. In fact, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) places this as one ofits most important missions. The public needs clear explanations on important items.
They include the progress to date on protective measures such as seawalls andengineering safety facilities (emergency core cooling systems, reactor containment
vessels), water injection and cooling by power generating vehicles, pump cars, fireengines, and other equipment in case of severe accidents and the role of filter vents inremoving radioactive substances. These areas should also be reflected in emergency
drills.
If filter vents are installed, people within a 5-30 kilometer radius of a plant only needto stay indoors, even in a severe accident. Rather than conducting emergency drills thatplace a large burden on the public, it is more pragmatic to conduct them based onrealistic scenario envisioning the use of filter vents and to enhance storage of
emergency food and water as well as practicing their distribution.
7. Take responsibility in enhancing people’s understanding of nuclear power

11

JINF
Japan Institute for National Fundamentals

Public understanding is the indispensable element for maintaining and developing
nuclear option in Japan to the future. The disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Plant has triggered an argument demanding zero risk to nuclear power plants.
The government needs to make it clear to the public that no technology is “absolutely
safe,” and that nuclear safety regulations have been strengthened significantly tominimize risk in the event of an emergency. The government should also strive toenhance public understanding that nuclear power is essential for Japan with vulnerable
energy structure in achieving both long-term energy security and GHG emissions
reduction.
Since the Fukushima disaster, local fishermen and farmers have been complainingthat rumors have damaged their reputations at home and abroad over the alleged
contamination of agricultural and marine products. Moreover, scientifically groundless
opposition campaign is rampant not only against nuclear re-start but also against releaseof decontaminated tritium water into the sea. The government and NRA must countersuch propaganda

andenhanceeffective

public relations(e.g.,

government

advertisements in major media outlets) by providing accurate scientific evidence
showing that radiation levels are no different from natural levels.

12

JINF
Japan Institute for National Fundamentals

Closing: Get nuclear power back to JapanA stable energy supply is the fundamentals of a nation. Nevertheless, Japan has notbeen squarely addressing this issue. Japanese energy situation is on the verge of crisis.
standing at the edge of a cliff. Efficient introduction of renewable energies and theirtechnological development should certainly be promoted. However, ruling out our
nation's precious nuclear power technology will unduly raise the cost of
countermeasures and seriously damage our national security. The status-quo is not an
option. We must normalize and streamline nuclear regulations, create policy andbusiness environment enabling new investment, and improve the public's energy
literacy.
The only thing that can make this possible is unwavering political resolve. The
situation is challenging, with a public skeptical about restarting nuclear power plants
and the presence of media outlets and opposition parties advocating nuclear phase-out.
Yet while public opinion must be taken into consideration in a democracy, there arepolicies that should be undertaken despite their unpopularity for the sake of the nation's
long-term future. Allowing the status quo to continue will negatively impact Japan's
economy, energy security, and greenhouse gas emissions. The Abe administration has
been resolute in its commitment to strengthening national security, such as in its
enactment of security legislation. Although the decisions of the independent
commission should be respected, we strongly urge the government to tackle energy
policy with the same resolution.

13

JINF
Japan Institute for National Fundamentals

Japan Institute for National Fundamentals
Council on the Nuclear Energy Issue
Sakurai Yoshiko

President, Japan Institute for National Fundamentals

Narabayashi Tadashi

Director, Japan Institute for National Fundamentals
Professor, Laboratory for Advanced Nuclear Energy,
Institute of Innovative Research, Tokyo Institute of Technology

Arima Jun

Professor, Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Tokyo

Ono Akimasa

Energy consultant
Former nuclear fuel department chief, Mitsui & Co. Ltd.

Katsuragawa Masami

Coordinator, Customer Support Division, Tokyo Higashi Shinkin
Bank Former Director , International Division, Power Reactor andNuclear Fuel Development Corp.

Hibako Yoshifumi

Director, Japan Institute for National Fundamentals
Former chief of staff, Ground Self-Defense Force

Yamada YoshihikoDirector, Japan Institute for National Fundamentals
Professor, Department of Maritime Civilizations, Tokai University

Japan Institute for National Fundamentals（JINF）
2-6-1 Hirakawa-cho Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-0093 Japan
Phone: +81-3-3222-7822 Fax: +81-3-3222-7821

URL: https://en.jinf.jp

E-mail: info@jinf.jp

14