Overview of
JANSI Annual Conference 2023
◆Time & Date: March 15, 2023 (Wed), 14:00-17:00◆Venue: Tokyo International Forum Hall D7◆Format: Hybrid (also delivered via Webex)◆Number of participants: Approx. 500 people

Keynote speech

Panel discussion

Opening Remarks
Chairman,Japan Nuclear Safety Institute (JANSI)
William Edward Webster Jr.
As Chairman of JANSI, I am honored to welcome you to the Annual
Conference 2023. This 10th JANSI Annual Conference is a time when
the nuclear industry comes together and reaffirms our collective
commitment to earnestly pursue the highest standards of nuclear safety.
Today, considering the COVID-19 situation and viewer convenience, we decided to holdthe Annual Conference in a hybrid format combining participation at the venue and remoteparticipation. We have 500 participants at the venue and online including therepresentatives of JANSI member companies and nuclear-related organizations as well as
members from the JANSI domestic advisory committee and international advisorycommittee. Furthermore, we have more than 20 representatives from about 14 overseas
and international organizations. Thank you very much for your participation.
This Annual Conference is held every March with the aim of reaffirming the seriousness of
the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and renewing our collective
commitment to never forget the lessons learned from the accident.
November 15 2022 marked the 10th anniversary of the establishment of JANSI. I would
like to express my heartfelt gratitude to all members and stakeholders. JANSI has faced
various difficulties during the 10 years since our founding, but we have been able toachieve great results with the support of all members and stakeholders. Notably, last
October, JANSI’s power plant peer review program was granted equivalency with
WANO (World Association of Nuclear Operators) peer review marking an

1

important achievement for the Japanese nuclear industry.
Four years ago, the JANSI Board of Directors approved a 10-year strategy for
JANSI. As you know, much has changed in the last four years that highlight theimportance of an affordable, reliable, carbon-free, and secure source of energy. Today
nuclear energy is recognized as a source of energy that meets all these fundamental
imperatives. Next fiscal year (FY2023) will be the mid-year of our 10-Year Strategy. Noting
the substantial progress of JANSI programs as well as the demands of dynamic global
energy situation, in FY2023 we will conduct a deep review of our strategy and revise thestrategy for the next 10 years with a focus on FY2033. Based on the above, in this Annual
Conference, we would like to confirm the results of activities over the past 10 years and looktoward future activities, in order to contribute to the formulation of strategies and actionplans for the next 10 years.
In the 10 years since its establishment, JANSI has progressed from a start-up organization
to a mature organization implementing programs important to nuclear safety. We further
recognize that the 10-year anniversary is only a milestone on a long journey. Under theslogan "Excellence Starts at Home," each and every one at JANSI continues to strive forself-improvement including improving technical capabilities and leadership, and we will
do our utmost to further improve the effectiveness of self-regulatory activities inclose cooperation with our member companies and nuclear-related organizations
such as ATENA, WANO and NRRC. I would like to ask for your continued
understanding and cooperation in JANSI's business activities.

Guest Speech
Chairman,
Nuclear Regulation Authority
Shinsuke Yamanaka
This year marks the twelfth year since TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi
NPS Accident. Many organizations were established after much
reflection and review of the accident. JANSI, which was established in2012, has led safety improvement programs taken by nuclear operators
to ensure safety is pursued in Japan’s nuclear industry.
It is my understanding that JANSI is comprised of 200 staff formerly working for nuclear
operators, and are therefore a group of professionals with high practical skills. I believe
JANSI is a nuclear regulatory institution of the private sector. Its organizational size is on parwith that of the NRA. JANSI has a long record of activities conducted and accumulatedcompared to other organizations.
As Chairman of NRA, I would like to speak my expectations for JANSI on four topics:
Sharing technical information, Continuous improvement of safety, Inspection andsafety/security, and Cultivation of human resources.
I would first like to speak about the sharing of technical information. JANSI’s NUCIA
contains a wide range of trouble information, and this is disclosed to the public. In theTechnical Information Review Meeting, NRA also shares information on domestic andoverseas nuclear facilities, and discusses/reviews its significance for improving safety.
We believe NUCIA is an important source of information. With the establishment of
the New Regulatory Requirements in Japan, power and water supply has been2

strengthened, which greatly improved safety. However, when examining
various trouble data in overseas nuclear plants, we are surprised at the methods
employed for screening and inspection which greatly differ from ours. Consideringsuch perspectives, we are currently re-analyzing and reviewing if strengthening
measures applied in Japan can function effectively. I expect JANSI to analyze and evaluatedata, and to propose effective safety improvement measures to nuclear operators, and to
disclose such activities to the public. Please share the results and findings of analysis andreview with NRA so we can hold dialogue and discussions.
My next topic is on the continuous improvement of safety. As one of the lessons learned
from TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi NPS Accident, when new information on nuclear safety is
acquired, NRA immediately applies the new information into the regulatory requirements
and operators are required to conform with back fitting. While this seems like an exceptional
way for improving safety, the primary responsibility for nuclear power safety lies with theoperator. We believe that there are better methods for improving safety and otherautonomous non-regulatory approaches. Regarding measures against common cause failureof digital safety protection systems, instead of applying the back fit policy, the operators
autonomously established technical requirements under the supervision of ATENA
authorized by NRA. While there are areas with inadequate communication between theoperators and ATENA, we expect measures to be implemented in a disciplined and strategicmanner in the future. While JANSI does conduct review on nuclear operators and conducts
regulatory activities in the private sector such as evaluating improvements in safety andproviding support, it is unclear how the results of review have been applied to safety
improvement programs implemented by operators. We would like to hold discussions withJANSI in the future regarding the topic of continuously improving safety.
My next topic is the new inspection system implemented from April 2020 and theimprovement of safety and security. The new performance-based inspection system utilizing
risk information had kicked-off smoothly. Regarding free-access of inspectors, I believe thetrust built in the field is functioning well. JANSI has already developed inspection-related
guidelines such as CAP and CM, and has implemented programs over a wide area toencourage operators to improve safety. On the other hand, the topic of nuclear facility
security, due to its nature, has often been held from being disclosed, and pertaining
activities have only been performed by a limited number of staff by both NRA and operators.
Naturally, the topic of security poses difficulties in information being shared between
operators and issues being identified. We expect JANSI to fulfill the role of taking initiatives
to realize the sharing of information between operators as well as providing support formaking improvements.
My last topic is on the cultivation of human resources in the nuclear area to improve
nuclear safety and security. One of the causes of recent troubles that occurred stems fromthe culture of the nuclear industry not prioritizing safety and security. Another issue thatneeds to be reviewed is the improvement of practical and technical skills of operator
employees. Humans are the core which comprises the culture. The cultivation of humanresources is key for utilizing personnel and strengthening the organization. Considering the
weak state of nuclear education in universities, we expect JANSI to contribute to the issue ofhuman resource cultivation.
We expect JANSI to develop as a private regulatory institution through cooperation withother organizations like ATENA. We also expect various obstacles to be overcome to holddialogue regarding nuclear safety and security with NRA, and hope new initiatives shallbe taken to become an organization open to society. On the other hand, we NRA willcontinue to devote our efforts into nuclear regulation, and strive to hold dialogue
with various stakeholders. We are praying for JANSI’s further development in
the future. This concludes my greetings.

3

Guest Speech
President and CEO,Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO)
Robert Frederick Willard
The Japan Nuclear Safety Institute (JANSI) and the U.S. INPO wereboth established amidst a crisis in each country’s nuclear powerindustry—the Three Mile Island accident for INPO, and the Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (1F) accident for JANSI. Following INPO’s
establishment, the U.S. nuclear industry continued to expand, prompting new construction
projects to proceed rapidly and changes to occur in the organization of power utilities. INPO
has solidified its business and made steady endeavors to affect the safety and reliability
performance of industry. Likewise, JANSI, amidst many challenges and uncertainties inJapan’s nuclear industry, had to launch and execute programs. And through those efforts,
JANSI achieved success and has come to be highly regarded from an international nuclear
industry standpoint, as demonstrated by the institute becoming the first self-regulatoryorganization to gain a WANO-equivalent status with peer reviews (PR).
But neither JANSI nor INPO can keep basking in its past glories. For INPO, repeated use of
its program has significantly affected the safety and reliability performance of industry. But
over time, that performance has plateaued, which we have come to realize a decade ago as
not ideal. INPO needed to review the challenges that the industry has focused on and theapproach to addressing them. So over the next decade, we introduced a continuous
performance monitoring methodology to turn our eyes to and address deterioration trends.
Also, in light of the direct impact that a power utility organization has on power plants, INPO
started to continuously monitor the performance of corporate headquarters, setting new
industry standards in the areas of leadership, technical conscience, integrated risk,
performance of corporate headquarters, and sustainability. We also arranged to takemeasures when levels 1 and 2 INPO event reports showed unfavorable trends in engineering, operation, maintenance, fuel, and plant reliability. Finally, after learning that greatertransparency between INPO and its members enhances self-awareness and coordination, we
started to provide our views on the performance of member companies in near real-time.
The next decade will be an exciting period for both the U.S. and Japan. The demand forclean energy, especially electric power, is ever-growing and calls for the benefits of nuclear
power and the need to utilize and expand existing reactors are increasing to a level
unparalleled in recent decades. Currently, 90% of existing U.S. reactors are expected toapply for a second operation extension, prolonging their service life to 80 years. Fierce
competition is also underway involving new reactor technologies of various scales, shapes,
and operating concepts for new construction projects. What’s critical here is to measure, ina visible way, a model safety and reliability performance of existing reactors. Both JANSI
and INPO play a central role in the future performance of the nuclear industry and areimportant organizations that affect whether or not the nuclear industry would be widely
recognized as a solution for domestic energy needs. INPO has great trust in what thenuclear industry is capable of, and is trying to voluntarily take on challenges. JANSI will also
continue to meet the needs of the Japanese nuclear industry and ensure its globally
acclaimed safety and reliability performance. I am convinced that JANSI and INPO are
not only essential to the future and continued success of the nuclear industry, butalso that they can demonstrate what can be achieved by having the entire
industry pursue excellence and CEOs work united as a team.

4

Guest Speech
Chairman,Federation of Electric Power Companies
Kazuhiro Ikebe
At the end of last year, the “Future Course for Nuclear Energy Policy
and Guidelines for Action (Draft)” was presented in the ministerial
conference for nuclear energy policy, summarizing key challenges for
future nuclear energy policy, course of action for its resolution, as wellas guideline for actions to be taken. This guideline called for initiatives
to be taken for the maximum utilization of existing nuclear power
stations such as by extending duration of operation and accelerating
the process for reprocessing, decommissioning and final disposal. Through statements suchas, never forgetting our failure to prevent a disaster caused by our belief in the myth ofsafety and to continue reforming safety management to continue improving safety evenafter satisfying regulatory requirements, this guideline reemphasized the need for initiatives
to be taken to autonomously improve safety.
The conduct and improvement of strict peer reviews by JANS was also mentioned as oneof the specific initiatives to be taken to develop an environment for the enhancement ofsafeguards. In preparation to implement the details in the guideline, we nuclear operators
are committed to never allow an accident like TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi to occur again. We
will reject the myth of safety, recognize the unique risks involved in the use of nuclear
energy, and are intent on ceaselessly improving safety without becoming content with
conformance to regulatory requirements. Therefore, the importance of JANSI’s role as anautonomous regulatory organization is ever increasing to fulfill our resolve.
JANSI, reaching its tenth-year last November since its establishment, has performed peer
reviews, performance monitoring, and other initiatives as an autonomous regulatoryorganization of the nuclear industry, has promoted improvement by providing peer pressurein the industry, and has driven forward safety improvement initiatives taken by utilities. With
WANO granting qualification for equivalency for the first time internationally regarding
JANSI’s peer review program last October at WANO’s Governing Board Meeting, it was myimpression that visible results were finally achieved as a product of ten years’ worth of hard
work. We nuclear operators have taken initiatives to autonomously and continuously
improve safety without becoming complacent with the safety myth, but it is critical for theentire industry including JANSI to coordinate closely with each other to improve safety under
the spirit of “we are in the same boat” sharing a common destiny. The fiscal year of 2023 isan interim year for JANSI’s ten-year strategy where there is opportunity to confirm resultsof past activities and to confirm the course of action for future activities. With the everincreasing importance of JANSI’s role, please continue your work to maximize theexperience and know-how gained, take initiatives aiming for the pursuit of excellence for thecontinuous improvement of safety and continue your support for nuclear operators.
Finally, opportunities like discussions held during this conference are extremely
valuable for learning initiatives being taken overseas. As nuclear operators, we will
implement lessons learned and insights gained today in our future activities, andcontinue to push forward our activities to improve safety.

5Part 1 Activity Report
President & CEO,Japan Nuclear Safety Institute (JANSI)
Hiromi Yamazaki
JANSI Activity Review and Future Initiatives～ Instillation and Deepening of Self Regulation ～With regard to an overview of JANSI’s 10 years of progress, for the first five years, wewere in the stage of introducing and instilling industry self-regulation. For the latter five
years, we were in the stage of establishing it. In the beginning, there was no common
understanding of the concept of industry self-regulation, and there were issues incommunication between operators and JANSI. These made it difficult to get activities going.
Over the years, we had many discussions with the operators and gradually fosteredcommon understanding with strong guidance from INPO. In addition, with JANSI’s activities
becoming enhanced and functioning effectively, recently we are feeling a certain degree ofeffect in industry self-regulation activities.
JANSI was established under the industry’s strong determination to prevent any events
similar to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station accident. The largest reflections arethat we were complacent that safety of nuclear power stations had been fully achieved andwe lacked the attitude of humbly learning from new knowledge inside and outside Japan andcontinuously improving safety. From this reflection, the industry established self-regulatoryorganization JANSI, copying INPO in the US. Our mission of “untiring pursuit of excellence”
is based on this reflection. Additionally, the vision of “the industry continuously improves by
the initiatives of autonomous safety improvement by operators” is presented.
Industry self-regulation is the activity to pursue excellence by disciplining yourself andeach other without being complacent about the current safety level and not stopping at
satisfying legal regulatory standards, and by autonomously and continuously improving
safety. JANSI takes on the role to assess, monitor and lead from a bird’s eye view as anindependent organization so that self-regulation activities of operators proceed effectively,
efficiently and autonomously. Operators have responsibility of their own power stations forsafety and collective responsibility including power stations of other operators. In otherwords, “We are in the same boat.” JANSI conducts strict assessments from a position
independent from individual operators, but we are a friend who walks together in the circle
of industry.
Strong commitment of top executives of the operators is more important than anything
for a self-regulatory organization to effectively function. Therefore, we have the CEOs of all
utilities and JNFL in the Board of Directors, which is the highest decision-making body at
JANSI, since 2018.
JANSI’s activities originate from “excellence”, or domestic and overseas initiatives
that further increase safety margin and further improve reliability, beyond theregulatory framework, in operation management of power stations. Excellence isdetermined by area, such as operations, maintenance, radiation control, andorganization and administration, and is universal such as at WANO and6

INPO. JANSI also serves as a bridge that brings the world’s excellence to Japan.
In assessments, we identify gaps from excellence, and analyze underlying factors inleadership and management through interviews and discussions with responsible
departments at the power station. JANSI has great advantages when exploring thebackground, such as understanding the Japanese culture and systems and talking anddiscussing with operators in Japanese. Operators themselves proceed with improvement
activities, and JANSI supports this from a professional position. On doing so, communities
are formed among operators according to area such as operations and maintenance, whichfunction as a platform for improvement that shares best practices. To promote these
improvements, peer pressure is made to effectively function in the close-knit communities
among operators through integrated assessment of power stations.
When JANSI was established, various activities including peer reviews individually started.
We developed the 10-year strategy in FY2018. The 10-year strategy organizes critical
success factors for achieving the future vision of the industry and JANSI, and draws aroadmap of main actions, 20 actions organized into five categories, which contribute to suchfactors.
First is peer review. We conduct reviews based on Japanese culture and systems. Last
October, JANSI’s peer review was approved by the General Assembly of WANO that its
process and quality are at world-level standards, after a 3-year review process. In the earlyyears, JANSI’s process was under development and power stations had a sense of burden
and resistance to being pointed out. It took time to build a relationship of trust. Nowadays,
the peer review process has matured, and power stations take it positively as a chance togain improvement tips. We are now able to conduct effective reviews.
The peer reviews have identified improvement items common to domestic power stations.
We have lead and supported improvement activities of operators, by forming communities
by area according to each issue with operators, and having shared best practices,established guidelines and held seminars and trainings.
The second main activity I would like to introduce is continuous monitoring on plant
performance. The peer review can check station performance in detail, but this is conducted
once every four years, or once every two years together with WANO peer review. There
were cases overseas where performance deteriorated without being noticed during thisinterval. Currently we are making systems so that we can take action early on if there aresigns of deterioration while continuously checking the status. INPO began such activity first,
and WANO is now proceeding with it worldwide. In Japan, JANSI and WANO arecollaborating.
Next I would like to explain plant integrated assessment. Operator CEOs are required toshow a strong attitude to take initiative in making improvements as the top leader of thecompany, along with the role and responsibility as a JANSI Board member. And so, we havea system where we encourage improvement through peer pressure of honor and shame by
rating power stations on a 5-point scale based on peer review results and station
performance information, presenting this result at a place for discussion with only CEOs
(CEO session), increasing or decreasing the membership fee according to the result andcommending excellent power stations. This system copies that of INPO, and it is an activity
that encourages fellow passengers on the same boat to fulfill their mutual responsibility forsafety. There were some concerns of whether peer pressure would effectively function in
Japanese society, but we believe that it is functioning effectively, although limited, withfew plants in operation.
In restarting Sendai Nuclear Power station in 2015 for the first time after the
New Regulatory Requirements were enforced, we created a framework forindustry-wide support for restarting plants in long-term shutdown safely and7without any troubles. Initially, there was no such idea among Japanese
operators or at JANSI, but we decided to go with the idea after the importance ofindustry-wide initiative was pointed out by INPO. Currently we continue to support
restart of subsequent plants. Additionally, we conduct training where a power stationthat started operation accepts operators from subsequent plants to experience actual
equipment. We are also supporting preparation of the operation management framework
toward completion of the reprocessing plant, with cooperation from all utilities.
JANSI collects and analyzes a vast amount of operating experience information from insideand outside Japan, and requests operators to take action when necessary. For the analysis,
simple screen-outs due to different equipment are done as little as possible based on thereflection of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station accident, and we try to consider
the significance of the impact of similar events. Opinions are regularly exchanged about theanalysis results with the responsible department of the Secretariat of the Nuclear Regulation
Authority. Additionally, domestic and overseas operating experience information isregistered and disclosed in NUCIA.
JANSI has developed and implements leadership training for fostering the awareness toprioritize nuclear safety and acquiring non-technical skills such as communication andteamwork. The training is conducted by level, starting from CEO and onto field manager. In
the early stage, focus was placed on emergency leadership based on the reflection of the
Fukushima accident, but currently, leadership in both emergency situations and normal
times is handled in a well-balanced manner.
As an activity to foster safety culture of operators, we
conduct field safety culture diagnosis as well as conduct safety
culture questionnaires, caravans and seminars and create
educational materials. In the field safety culture diagnosis,
approximately 50 people from each level are interviewed forabout an hour to analyze their comments in detail and assessorganizational culture characteristics. The results are directly
explained to the operator CEO. Operators actively utilize
JANSI’s assessment results for improvement, in reviewing thestate of their own organization. Recently, interview targets
were expanded to Head Office executives, and improvements
have been made to incorporate a systemic approach that comprehensively assesses
interactions among various elements that contribute to organizational culture for analysis.
Additionally, workshops are held at each operator to support improvement of selfassessment capabilities of the operator themselves.
The corrective action program (CAP) is an important system that serves as the core forthe operator to promote autonomous and continuous improvement. JANSI jointly developed
the CAP system guideline with operators in FY2017 with reference to advanced overseas
initiatives, and has led and supported this system. Presently, the CAP system has been
established at each power station and is effectively functioning.
Understanding and awareness of industry self-regulation was instilled and behavior waschanged, through the activities of JANSI over the 10 years since it was established. Efforts
to autonomously and continuously improve safety, such as the positive use of peer reviews
and the use of community of each specialized area as a platform for improvement, havebecome widespread and are taking root as a culture. Furthermore, the mindset of “We arein the same boat”, in which the entire industry shares a common destiny, is gradually
being fostered. Going forward, we need to instill them in every detail of nuclear
industry.
Next, let’s look at performance of restarted plants so far. Capacity factor isstill unstable due to severe accident response facilities construction work and8litigation factors, and 80 % at most. In view of the US stably maintaining it
higher than 90% for more than 20 years since 2000, there is room for
improvement given the difference in regulations. The number of unplanned
shutdowns has dramatically improved compared to the time before the Fukushima
accident. Since it was a much lower occurrence rate than the US even before the
Fukushima accident, it is assessed that operation is even more reliable. In addition to thevarious actions of operators, we believe that the results of JANSI’s activities were used tosome extent. Across all domestic plants including plants in shutdown, the number of legally
reportable events, number of cases of entry into LCO and number of cases of failure ofimportant equipment have drastically decreased compared to the time before the Fukushima
accident. Industrial accidents and fires have not significantly decreased since large-scaleconstruction work is still ongoing.
As the role of JANSI in the nuclear industry, we do not intervene between the regulatory
authority and operator, in view of our position as a self-regulatory organization. ATENA
functions in this way representing the industry. On the other hand, we believe it is necessary
for the national regulatory authority and industry self-regulatory organization to build amutually complementary relationship. Opinions are regularly exchanged about the analysis
results of domestic and overseas operating experience information. It is required to build a
relationship of trust by further increasing opportunities of opinion exchange, but careful
discussion is needed for confidentiality of information. We closely coordinate information
with ATENA and NRRC, aiming to fulfill each other’s roles through mutual cooperation.
Considering that there is great expectation for nuclear power generation from the public, itwill become more and more important to always “pursue excellence” and build an“organizational culture that makes continuous improvements without giving up thinking”.
I would like to talk about two points about the direction of our future initiatives.
Pursuit of excellence is often compared to continuing a journey. First, we would like toenhance and improve the system of continuous improvement that we have built in the past
10 years without slacking, and make it firmly rooted. To do so, we want to advance ouroperations such as continuously monitoring performance and improving organizational
effectiveness, in addition to our activities that have matured over the years. We also want
the awareness and behavior of continuous improvement to be established down to thefrontline in the field of power stations, and foster awareness among operators to find issues
early on their own accord ahead of a third-party organization and make improvements.
Additionally, we want to form a strong community where operators support each other topursue excellence in the entire industry. For these initiatives, we want to further strengthen
our collaboration with WANO, contribute to the WANO’s Action for Excellence, andimplement initiatives including peer reviews and continuous monitoring on plant
performance effectively and efficiently.
Next, we want to build a relationship of trust with the regulatory authority through
JANSI’s activities, recognizing our complementary roles, and further enhance collaboration
with ATENA and NRRC to make the activities of the entire industry effective and efficient.
Future activities of JANSI will be discussed with operators and related organizations in thereview of the 10-year strategy scheduled in FY2023.
This concludes my review of JANSI’s 10 years of progress and future activities.
JANSI will continue to lead operators and continue our efforts for the culture ofcontinuous improvement to take root, remembering the lessons learned fromthe Fukushima Daiichi accident.

9Chairman,
World Association of Nuclear Operators(WANO)Tom Mitchell
I would first like to congratulate JANSI for its wonderful achievements
over the past decade, as exemplified in its PRs gaining WANOequivalent status. JANSI applied for equivalency in March 2019; WANO
observed three JANSI PRs between February 2020 and August 2022, and subsequently gave
equivalency to JANSI’s PRs in an October 2022 WANO board meeting. This acquisition ofequivalency assures that JANSI’s PRs meet high international standards and accurately andconsistently review nuclear power plants in Japan.
WANO will continue to closely coordinate with JANSI to ensure that members in Japan canpursue the highest level of nuclear safety. This coordination includes not only having JANSI
conduct PRs on behalf of WANO but also introducing enhanced Performance Monitoring(ePM) in Japanese operators’ plants. We are very pleased to have this WANO-JANSI
partnership and look forward to maintaining this relationship and globally pursuing safety
excellence as industry.
A major concern for international industry at the moment is the situation in Ukraine.
Particularly challenging is the state of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. In addition to
WANO cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—which is currently
working to ensure the safety of power plants in Ukraine—staff members at WANO Paris
Centre are endeavoring to support Ukraine’s Energoatom on a regular basis. WANO is anorganization committed to nuclear safety, and has neither influence over nor expertise ingeopolitical issues. This means we need to be careful not to get drawn into the upheaval in
Ukraine.
We support all WANO regional centres and seek to share with them and members our
experience and information relating to operation. Despite the growing difficulty in sharing
information—because of sanctions that governments have been imposing, among otherfactors—all regional centres and members must show solidarity and pursue WANO’s missionof achieving nuclear safety. Geopolitical challenges and other issues should not obstructnuclear safety. WANO is endeavoring to manage risks by doing everything it can forpeople on a global scale.

10Part 2 Keynote SpeechCEO, Energy Northwest
Robert E. Schuetz
Improving Columbia Generating Station Performanceby Embracing Self-Regulation
My company is a small, not-for-profit, public power energy generator located in the UnitedStates Pacific Northwest. We have a 100% clean energy portfolio of about 1500 megawatts.
Our largest asset is the 1200-megawatt Columbia Generating Station, a General Electric
BWR-5 with Mark II containment. I have about 1000 total employees, about 700 of whom
directly support Columbia.
Columbia is very isolated from other nuclear plants which means we have to apply extra
effort for effective collaboration with the industry. Diablo Canyon, currently scheduled toclose in 2025 is the closest and is over 1000 kilometers away. The closest Boiling Water
Reactor, Monticello, is almost 2000 kilometers away. Our federal regulator, the US NRC’sregional office and the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), who facilitates our selfregulation, are much further. We have struggled to stay abreast of industry initiatives andbenchmarking opportunities due simply to the time, distance, and cost of those interactions.
The robust industry collaboration fostered by INPO was a key aspect in overcoming thisnatural isolation.
My somewhat unusual career for a utility CEO helped to shape my approach for improving
performance. I learned early on that the foundation of excellence is a thirst for continuous
improvement and how that thirst is not a process, it’s not a procedure, but for me a way of
thinking, a commitment to making something better each and every day. Nuclear safety
must be the overarching priority of everyone, not just the nuclear professionals, but thefinance department, human resources, legal services. Every nuclear employee will attend a
3-week technical course in boiling water reactor fundamentals. All managers andsupervisors will attend a 4-month management certification course patterned after theoperator licensing curriculum.
Let me start with a brief review of my 28-year career in the US Navy submarine service.
Our submarines are nuclear powered. Over the years the rules and processes arecontinuously updated to push the fleet toward improving performance. They were harsh intheir inspections when gaps were identified. Your performance was graded, and thosegrades were well known throughout the fleet. The ability to operate at the excellence level
was a key measure in determining if a ship’s Captain would be promoted. But beyond that, I
must tell you that pride played a role as well. You didn’t want to be the commander who
got the below average grade.
Only the best and most accomplished nuclear operators were selected to serveon the inspection teams. These were fleet operators who had experienced the11same challenges as those being inspected. They didn’t write trivial issues into
the report which strived to highlight the biggest things that needed to be fixed.
And when it was all said and done, the Captain could expect to receive a phone callfrom the four-star admiral in charge of the program - to check for understanding of theinspection team’s report and to tell you in no uncertain terms that your performance better
improve the next time around.
Following my retirement in 2008, I began my career in the commercial nuclear powerindustry as a Team Leader in the Plant Evaluations Department at INPO. In this role I led
teams of around 20 or so industry peers to conduct biennial 2-week inspections and provide
a report of the results directly to the utility’s Chief Executive Officer. In this assignment I
learned how valuable the industry coming together to essentially regulate themselves can be
and how INPO strived to make it meaningful and effective.
One of my major personal learnings during my time at INPO was understanding thediffering roles and responsibilities of the NRC and INPO and why the arrangement iseffective and mutually supporting. Along the scale of performance, we have two extreme
outcomes: at the bottom we have catastrophe or disaster, where poor operation of the
facility results in a measurable effect on the health and safety of the public. At the top end
perfection, which I have come to learn can never be achieved no matter how hard I work for
it. INPO and the NRC each play to one of these extremes.
Our statutory regulator, the NRC, sees their mission to work with the licensee to protect
the health and safety of the public. The NRC establishes rules and regulations that provide
an adequate margin to ensure a problem or event has no effect on the public. This is thecompliance level of performance. The sole focus of the NRC was the health and safety
aspect, there is no direct interest in long term asset protection, capacity factor of the plant,
cost of power, leadership, organizational effectiveness, and others. From a strictly
regulatory perspective, there is no incentive for a utility to strive for performance above thecompliance level. Performance above this level involves additional cost which can be an
incentive not to improve.
On the other hand, INPO exists to help the industry pull itself up, toward perfection. As
perfection is an unattainable goal, the industry establishes an excellence level that
represents the best performance in each of the areas. In the short term the march toward
excellence may require additional resources. But at the end of the day, improved
performance has reduced our costs and increased our generation, my team has to respondto fewer emergent issues.
Compliance is easy to define, it is written into legislation, rules, and regulations. The
requirements change very slowly, and it is enforced through: public exposure of the
deficiency, increased oversight by the regulator, monetary fines and in extreme cases forcedplant shutdowns. The statutory regulator arrives with a checklist, they examine yourprogram and you either pass or fail. There is no incentive to do more than is required by thechecklist.
Excellence is much harder to define if for no other reason than it is constantly changing,moving ever upward in the direction of perfection. Excellence is understood through aproven process to ensure the right people with the right experience are involved in theprocess at the right time and in the right place. New innovative solutions created at
one plant become known industry wide. That is how excellence is identified.
When I joined INPO, I assumed there was an enforcement mechanism, amethodology to force the utility to improve their performance. In fact, as you

12all know, there are no tools. Self-regulation relies on those being regulated
having the desire to improve their performance. It requires making a commitment
to their industry peers that they will work their hardest to make it happen. And thatcommitment also means you will help them to achieve their own goals. For a plant thatis struggling, INPO will rally the industry to provide assistance to keep that plant moving
forward. And that internal desire to improve is helped along by simple peer pressure.
Everyone wants to be on a winning team. INPO provides monthly data so that you cancompare performance with everyone else in the industry. Show my operations staff thatthey are number two and they will work twice as hard to be number one.
Peer pressure exists at my level too. INPO hosts an annual meeting with one session
exclusively for CEOs. In that session our individual performance is compared to all theothers. The CEOs at the bottom of the list are asked to stand up and explain what they are
doing to improve and to receive critical feedback from our peers. No one wants to stand up
at that meeting. I can’t state this next point strongly enough, this session makes clear that
we are answerable to each other, not to INPO. And that is the essence of self-regulation.
While all of you would struggle to call out one of our peers — we really need to be ready
and willing to do exactly that. A major incident will surely have a negative impact on all of us.
My peer review teams was a collection of nuclear professionals.
Permanent INPO employees were typically former employees
from nuclear utilities who had moved on to a new job at INPO.
They tended to be experts in industry programs and processes
and had broad experience in their area. They understood thevarious IN PO guidance doc uments, and were excellent
communicators, both verbal and written. Their participation
brought credibility to the process and helped ensure we focusedon the largest gaps to excellence. That helped me to create ameaningful message for when I briefed the CEO. For the hostpeers, I wanted mature thinkers who could as much as possible forget they are owners of
the plant’s performance and help the team talk to the right people to understand the gapsthat were being evaluated.
Supporting INPO in staffing is a key learning for me in my current role as CEO. It’s mucheasier to send a mediocre performer. If I send a less capable employee, I can’t complain
when my CEO peers do the same. So, if I want INPO to be the help I need on my company’s
journey to excellence, I have to send my best.
Following my time as Team Leader the next step was an 18-month assignment to Energy
Northwest in the reverse loan program. I learned how a plant really operates on a day-today basis as a Maintenance Manager at Columbia Generating Station. As my 18 months
approached and the time came for me to return to INPO, Energy Northwest made me anoffer to stay on as Plant General Manager. From there I was promoted to Site Vice President
and in 2021 I was selected as Chief Executive Officer. During my time at Energy Northwest
the team of nuclear professionals has taken Columbia Generating Station from the bottom of
the industry to near the top. We were rated 104 out of 104 operating reactors. Today, we
are in the top quartile. Over the last decade we have reduced our cost of power by over
35%, we have increased our generation over 50 MW, we have reduced staffing by morethan 250 people, we have cut our budget or held it flat every year, we had our firstever breaker-to-breaker run and our capacity factor in 2022 was 99.4%. I am sure
we would not have accomplished the improved performance without the13assistance of the rest of the industry, facilitated by INPO. In my current role asa utility chief executive it as my responsibility to ensure we send our best, ourbrightest and our future leaders to help ensure INPO has the right resources, they
produce the product to help move the industry as a whole toward excellence.
Also, we ask them to accredit our licensed operator training programs on behalf of the
NRC. We ask them to collect, screen, trend and distribute industry operating experience. We
ask them to collect, analyze and trend performance metrics. All of this effort does not comewithout a cost. My company is not-for-profit, and every additional dollar spent is charged
directly to the ratepayers. When I have to create operating efficiencies to reduce costs, I
expect INPO will do the same. If my ratepayer directs me to hold rates constant, I need
INPO to feel some of that pain as well.
There is a line not to be crossed here. I feel free to comment and provide input on INPOs
strategic direction, the resource allocation choices they make, their operating budget andcapital spending plans. At the same time, I am careful not to interfere in their daily
operations. If CEO try to argue with INPO leadership to manipulate the message, then theentire self-regulating scheme would be nullified. They must be independent in their daily
work to improve industry operating performance.
Finally, I would like to end with a quick review of my learnings on self-regulation.
- Effective self-regulation is about striving at all times to be the very best, statutory
or compliance regulation alone is about being satisfied with the minimum. Both ofthese approaches working together are important to a well running plant.
- Effective self-regulation is about the industry working together for the benefit ofeach individual plant and the industry as a whole. Effective self-regulation only
works if the participants want to improve their performance. I have seen plants
who fight the INPO process, who don’t value continuous improvement. As a result,
their performance stagnates, or worse it declines.
- Effective self-regulation requires that we make our best, brightest, and mosttalented employees available. An ineffective team made up of those who don’t
understand excellence write a report that makes me work on an issue that doesn’t
need to be worked on.
- The Chief Executives, need to speak openly and honestly about our own
performance and the performance of others.
- Effective self-regulation requires that the eyes and ears of the industry. Whether it
be INPO or JANSI, they can’t make us better. They provide tools, a picture of
excellence, a forum for industry collaboration, and a fair and objective view of aplant’s performance. After that it is up to the plant staff. To fix my plant is my job.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my learnings on self-regulation as a key
element in improved operational and nuclear safety. I wish you all success inyour own journey to excellence.

14

Part 3 Panel Discussion
Expectations and Prospects for Future Activities
Panelists:
Robert E. Schuetz
CEO, Energy Northwest
Akira Yamaguchi
Director, Nuclear Safety Research Association
Professor emeritus, University of Tokyo
Victor M. McCree
Owner & Principal Operating Officer, NucLeader Consulting, LLC
Former Executive Director for Operations for the NRC

Nozomu Mori
Representative Executive Officer & President, Kansai Electric Power Company
William Edward Webster Jr.
Chairman, JANSI
Hiromi Yamazaki
President & CEO, JANSI
Moderator :Yukari Yamashita
Managing Director, the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan

Ms. Yamashita: This panel discussion will cover expectations
and prospects for future activities, looking ahead to the next
decade. I would like panelists to first comment on the activity
report and keynote speeches.
Dr. Yamaguchi, since JANSI’s infancy, you have continued
to offer coaching on the voluntary safety enhancement
endeavors undertaken in Japan’s nuclear industry. I’d like tohear from you first about how you assess Japan’s current
situation.

15

Dr. Yamaguchi: A working group on voluntary safety enhancement wasestablished a decade ago under the Nuclear Energy Subcommittee of Japan’s
Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, and this group compiled a report in May
2014. The report stated that the Japanese public would not trust
nuclear power businesses again unless nuclear power operators bothgain—and get recognized as parties that feature—the purpose andstrength to voluntarily and continuously enhance safety. Hearing
President and CEO Yamazaki’s presentation, I felt that the purpose andstrength aspects are taking root considerably and that there is a solid
level of competence, as demonstrated by JANSI’s PR gaining WANOequivalency. Still, more work is needed in terms of operators getting
recognized from the public as parties that have purpose and strength.
The report also states about harnessing PRs to find weaknesses in operators’ plant
administration, reinforcing ties with WANO, and exercising leadership based on guaranteedindependence from operators. I would like to discuss later the definitions of both guaranteedindependence and the independence that JANSI should have.
Also described in the report is about ramping up communication between JANSI andregulatory authorities, and about a system that does not hamper frank exchanges of
opinions between JANSI and operators. Earlier, Chair Yamanaka mentioned his expectations
about communicating by overcoming various obstacles. My takeaway from that comment
was that the same mindset is shared between the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) andthe report.
Ms. Yamashita: Mr. McCree, you have extensive experience with the NRC—the U.S.
regulatory agency—and you also oversee JANSI’s activities as a member of the institute’s
International Advisory Board. Please share your comments on the things you have noticed
about JANSI and Japan’s industry.
Mr. McCree: A decade after its establishment, JANSI has learned from a broad range ofdomestic

lessonsandhasinteracted

with

INPO,

WANO,

and

other

internationalorganizations to drive its own organizational development. Japan has made great strides innuclear safety and plant reliability as well, but I have three topics to share from my pastexperience.
The first point—based on my experience in the U.S. industry—is that
INPO and the NRC have established a relationship of synergy andmutual trust. INPO aims for excellence, but it’s important for them towork with an independent and trustworthy regulator, which is key bothin terms of the performance of nuclear industry and interactions withthe general public. More work can be done on the front of interfacebuilding, and efforts on this point should be accelerated as it will open
up communication opportunities, provide openings for industry, and improve efficiency.
The second point is learning. The strength of U.S. industry is that it emphasizes
training, certification, and proficiency, and this has been central to INPO since
the founding of the institute. JANSI is developing guidance for building a

16

Systematic Approach to Training (SAT)-based training programs and is alsoenhancing leader training programs. INPO and the WANO Atlanta Centre focus on
excellence to offer opportunities for continuous learning, which I think are areas thatJapan can reinforce as well.
The third point is risk perception; especially eliminating and mitigating risk. Safety is
grounded on compliance with regulatory requirements, so we tend to focus on compliance.
But excellence lies beyond compliance. Using risk information is important in this field aswell. Japan’s NRA decided in 2021 to start applying risk information. This is an importantfocus area, and I hope Japan continues to focus on eliminating risk.
Ms. Yamashita:

Mr. Mori, you manage a power utility in Japan, and you happen to beserving a central role in Japan’s voluntary safety enhancement efforts. In light of what Mr.
Yamazaki and Mr. Schuetz spoke about, could you share your views regarding selfassessments on previous operator activities, as well as challenges to be addressed fromhere on?
Mr. Mori: While each of us nuclear operators worked to voluntarily enhance our safety bydrawing on lessons learned from the 1F accident, we also established JANSI as anorganization to lead our voluntary safety enhancement efforts from an independent
standpoint. Operators need to engage in their individual voluntary safety enhancement
activities by taking full advantage of JANSI’s undertakings.
I have heard that operators initially pushed back against and resisted
findings made through JANSI PRs. Efforts were thus made to change themindset of operators, making them see PRs as invaluable opportunities
to improve activities, humbly respond to findings, and engage indiscussions for improvement. Operators accordingly realized that PRs
can offer findings and advice that may have been missed without
another pair of eyes, and this has allowed for enhancing organizational
culture and improving work in the field. In this sense, operators havedeveloped awareness for voluntary and continuous improvements, and asystem for such improvements is increasingly coming together. We hope to keep
collaborating with JANSI to promote voluntary safety enhancement efforts.
One issue going forward concerns maintaining, transferring, and enhancing skills. There
was a period after the 1F accident when we faced difficulty in hiring employees as well as
an increase in people leaving their jobs. Plants shut down over a certain period as well,during which time we could not adequately transfer skills as a result. Gradually, plants havestarted to get back online, and we are expecting see more plants operate for over 40 years.
Securing personnel under these circumstances and adequately maintaining, transferring,and enhancing skills will be a challenge for us.
Ms. Yamashita: Mr. Webster, you have had many years of experience at INPO and havebeen active as JANSI’s Chairman, meaning you have thorough knowledge of both
Japan and the U.S.’ voluntary safety enhancement efforts. How would you
evaluate the current status of JANSI and Japan’s voluntary safety enhancement?

17

Mr. Webster: Japan’s voluntary safety enhancement efforts have made great
strides over the past decade. PRs have seen strong involvement from power plantstaff and solid support from executives; good conversations have been held in JANSI
board meetings and CEO sessions; and the same is true among Chief Nuclear Officers(CNOs) as well. The structure of programs for training, safety culture diagnoses, operating
experience (OE), safety recommendations and the like are also very sound.
As we look ahead and consider what is expected of us, we need to step into morechallenging areas.

For example,

wemust deal with thecorporate headquarters’

effectiveness and leadership as an organization and company. These were exactly thethemes that drove performance improvement in the U.S. We need to consider how toachieve this in Japan too. On the risk management front, applying risk insights to operation
decision-making is an important point too. And with there being calls for GX, we need toextend the operating cycle and consider operating period extensions and online maintenance.
This will not properly function without the collaborative efforts of JANSI, ATENA, NRRC, andoperators.
Ms. Yamashita: Now let’s get into our discussion. There currently
are increasing hopes for nuclear power from the aspects of energy
security and decarbonization. To maximize the use of existing
nuclear power plants, we need to see further enhancement insafety and reliability, which points to the importance of pursuing
excellence and continuing to enhance performance without being
content with just complying with regulatory requirements.
In light of this, I would like this discussion to focus on whatneeds to be worked on in terms of the system side of things tokeep enhancing performance, and what mindset should be adopted when engaging in thatprocess. And in the latter part of the discussion, I would like the panelists to discuss fromthe standpoint of what Japan’s industry should do to effectively advance its voluntary safetyenhancement activities and what is required in terms of improving efficiency.
I hope our conversation can provide some insight into the future course that JANSI andJapan’s nuclear industry should take toward the next decade.
Ms. Yamashita: Mr. Schuetz, I’d like to hear from you first. Earlier, you shared about
endeavors that U.S. electric utilities are making to improve their performance throughself-regulation efforts. Please share anything to highlight, regarding how specificallycertain efforts proved to be useful in the U.S. or examples that may be informativefor Japan.

18

Mr. Schuetz: Historically, industry focused on supporting underperforming
Plants through INPO. But in 2019, performance degradation became an issue among
high-performing plants in the U.S., pointing both to the risk of the next event occurringat those plants and the possible issue being reduced oversight. It’s not certain whether theplants got carried away with their success or thought noimprovement was necessary, but either way, this trend
prompted INPO to launch a new industry initiative called “Stayon Top.” This program was set to summarize the fivecharacteristics of plants that have successfully maintained
exemplary

performance,

characteristics,

andself-assesscorrect

any

the

aps.

details

INPO

of

the

checkstheresponses provided by the plants, based on an aspect ofmaintaining performance at exemplary levels.
Ms. Yamashita: Mr. Schuetz, we have a question for you from the audience. This personsays “Performance can never be perfect. Is there a method or indicator to measure thelevels of excellence or compliance?” What would your response be?
Mr. Schuetz: Many indicators are available, but they are like canaries in a coal mine—they
do not necessarily identify the issue. They only indicate a potential issue and offer an
incentive for examining why there is a gap to the best in industry. This is why PRs arevaluable: a team can come in completely unbiased, see what the data shows, and point out
areas that could be problematic.
Ms. Yamashita: Mr. Mori, could you share your opinion about what operators in Japan
should focus on going forward, while referencing efforts in the U.S., which Japan ismodeling after?
Mr. Mori: What’s important is to build a system that enables us to proactively make selfassessments and continuously improve ourselves without waiting for findings to be madeby external parties. To this end, we are piloting a system to routinely track plant
performance. The key is for Japan’s operators to promptly identify their deterioration trends
and learn from safety enhancement activities overseas. Looking back on the 1F accident, I
think voluntary improvement efforts were likely insufficient. We Kansai Electric Power
actively gain information from overseas operators and make improvements accordingly.
Using domestic and international OE to raise risk sensitivity and apply collective actions if
necessary—that’s what’s important.
Over the past decade, operators have given major priority to plant restart responses.
Going forward, there still is much to learn from overseas in terms of introducing newtechnologies and improving station operations. What’s important is to amplify peerpressure and share objective and critical opinions with one another to enhance not
only one’s own plant but also Japan’s nuclear power business in its entirety.

19Ms. Yamashita: The U.S. seems to be well ahead of Japan in terms ofenhancing their performance continuously. Mr. Webster, please share with us what
JANSI should focus on from here on.
Mr. Webster: The key is leadership, by which I mean the type of decisions leaders make,the questions they ask, the places they go, and the mindset they
instill in the organization.
Japan’s railroad and bullet train have a world-class reputationand the country’s automotive industry is a global leader too. What
I want to ask everyone is whether you want Japan’s nuclear
power industry to be recognized as world-class, and whether you
truly seek to achieve that.
If so, JANSI can serve as a tool and drive that effort forward.
It’s not something for JANSI to do independently.
Ms. Yamashita: Moving on to the second point, I would like for our discussion to focus on
the mindset required to continuously enhance performance. Mr. Schuetz, I’d like to hearfrom you again about anything to highlight as to the awareness that employees or CEOs
should have.
Mr. Schuetz: Effective efforts of continuous improvement are very similar to industrial andoccupational safety. Conversations need to be had daily while having full awareness ofsafety. This of course involves creating processes and procedures and following a system,
but the system would be of no use if each employee does not believe in it, practice it, andfeel its value. We need to make employees think every day about improving something. This
does not have to be anything significant; for instance, it can be about making a minorchange in a step of a certain process or picking up trash.
Energy Northwest has a model of excellence. We talk with all employees daily about how
they performed on the previous day, and require them to communicate about their failure tomeet expectations or any opportunities for improvement. Initially, there had been somedifficulties as the employees were concerned they might be punished by reporting theirfailure. But now I feel this practice is helping in achieving better performance.
Ms. Yamashita: Now, Mr. Mori, I would like to hear your thoughts on the same question.
Mr. Mori: At Kansai Electric Power, I am committed to enhancing
safety as the head of management and have stipulated myphilosophy on nuclear safety. Despite my efforts to communicate
and instill my thoughts and messages on safety to all employees,
there is a need for the entire organization to understand andpractice safety enhancement.
We also need to proceed by assessing whether voluntary
safety enhancement efforts have really improved safety
culture, safety, and skills, and whether the number of accidents has accordingly
dropped.

20

In addition to creating a conference body and a framework, we need to keep
assessing from the standpoint of capturing critical points. To this end, we annuallyassess safety culture development activities and promote improvement activities
in particular; for example, this year we are supporting mid-career employees. We hope tocontinue to improve our activities by maintaining the safety culture PDCA cycle, and thereby
enhance and improve safety culture awareness.
Ms. Yamashita: Lastly, Mr. Yamazaki, JANSI is in a position to lead Japan’s nuclear
industry. What points should you be aware of when engaging in efforts from here on?
Mr. Yamazaki: Some remarks from Mr. Schuetz’s keynote speech struck a chord with me.
One is about how excellence is grounded on the operators’ desire to continuously improve
themselves—that self-regulation relies on operators wanting to enhance their own
performance, and that peer pressure would not work without this drive.
The current goal for self-regulation in Japan’s industry is toesta blish a m in dset in which every in dividual fr o m t o p
m anagem ent to fr on tline field w orkers is c ommitted t oautonomous and continuous improvement, and to have thismindset manifest in daily behavior, judgment, and comments.
This, in other words, represents an environment that has a wellestablished continuous improvement culture, with a perfect
example being the “Stay on Top” initiative INPO has been
proposing since 2019. But when we look at the front lines ofJapanese plants, they are too busy trying to comply with the new regulatory standards. I
have to say that ingraining a continuous improvement mindset down to the front lines ofthe field is no easy task in this situation.
So what do we do? The first step is for top management to communicate withenthusiasm. The field has increasingly been arranging to make improvements daily.
Steadfast efforts—such as steadily accumulating success by repeating corrective action
programs and other activities—will eventually bring about a continuous improvement
culture. JANSI’s undertakings, including PRs, are designed to establish a continuous
improvement process in the field and make it function effectively too. I hope operators
reform their awareness by actively utilizing JANSI’s activities.
Ms. Yamashita: Dr. Yamaguchi, could you share your request or comment for JANSI or theindustry, if any?
Dr. Yamaguchi: At around 1990, 10 years after INPO’s founding, performance in the U.S.
was not necessarily as good as today’s level. It took around two decades for the capacity
factor to surge from 65% to 90% with the introduction of maintenance rules and theapplication of risks at around 2000. JANSI is 10 years old at the moment, so there’s
no need to panic, but still, the application of nuclear power is important from a
GX perspective as well.

21

The key to achieving better performance is to have a good cycle: enhancing
safety improves performance, which makes the plant perform well and runsmoothly, in turn creating the incentive to further enhance safety again. But Japan has
not reached this stage yet. As Mr. Schuetz has said, upfront costs will be needed, but
clearing this part would usher in better economic efficiency and provide the incentive forenhancing safety. The important point is to trust that this would happen and to make efforts
accordingly.
Ms. Yamashita: Our next discussion point is about promoting more effective and efficient
activities. Mr. McCree, I’d like to hear from you first. I believe safety enhancement has two
aspects: government-imposed regulations, and operator-issued voluntary regulations. My
impression is that in the U.S., these two nicely complement each other like two wheels of a
car and are very well balanced. You gained invaluable experience working at the U.S. NRC;
could you offer any advice to the people in Japan, regarding the roles that national
regulatory bodies and operators play?
Mr. McCree: Everyone in a team is required to have and properly
execute their roles and responsibilities. The same goes for
operators and regulators. The two parties must complement eachother: they should be open but not intimate, and there needs to be
independence but not isolation. I believe success will come if,
under these circumstances, both sides serve their roles. That’s thestrength of the U.S. nuclear power industry. Regulators ensure
public health and safety, while INPO pursues higher levels ofsafety, reliability, and performance.
Regulators are public organizations, so they are obligated to publicly disclose information
about nuclear safety so long as it isn’t confidential. This means information on performance,
be it good or bad, needs to be disclosed. Operators, meanwhile, are primarily responsible
for safety in their day-to-day operations. INPO and JANSI are similarly positioned, and these
institutions and regulators must establish a strong relationship of trust.
Ms. Yamashita: Dr. Yamaguchi, please share your request to and opinion of JANSI or theindustry, if any, regarding what’s needed to further improve effectiveness and what to do toachieve better efficiency.
Dr. Yamaguchi: At the beginning of today’s event, Chair Yamanaka stated his hope toconverse with the NRA by overcoming various obstacles. Likewise, Mr. Schuetz said INPO
and the NRC are in a mutually supportive relationship, and the report of the voluntary safetyenhancement working group that I mentioned earlier also covers revving up communication
with regulators in a way that keeps the exchange of views candid. I think these all point
to how challenging it could be to communicate with regulators. In Japan’s case, thefirst step is to present JANSI’s independence to the public in a visibly recognizablemanner, and present technological excellence after that. Explicitly presenting

22

JANSI’s independence would lead to earning the trust of regulators, and,likewise, JANSI’s self-regulation would benefit the regulators and generate thepublic’s trust. We should thus reconsider what “independence” should look like for
JANSI; I think we need to integrate a perspective that’s slightly different from that of theU.S.
Ms. Yamashita: We would like to have closing remarks from each of you. Mr. Schuetz, Dr.
Yamaguchi, and Mr. McCree, if we can have a message of support for Japan’s nuclear powerindustry. Mr. Mori, Mr. Yamazaki, and Mr. Webster, please share your determination for yourpursuit of safety enhancement for further excellence.
Mr. Schuetz: I trust the power of self-regulation. Despite its very low cost, I think it has
been instrumental in bringing Columbia Generating Station from rock bottom to the top andin enhancing the performance of the entire industry. INPO’s feedback is not music to theears, but voluntary regulation enables plants to demonstrate exemplary performance andprompt external stakeholders to recognize the plants’ competence. The more you practice it,
the more value you obtain, so I hope Japan keeps working on self-regulation.
Dr. Yamaguchi: I think Japan’s efforts to enhance performanceare currently lagging behind those for safety. If JANSI is a party
that features purpose and capability, focusing firmly on enhancing
performance would create a virtuous cycle. I hope JANSI keeps
enhancing its performance with purpose and strength onto the next
decade.
Mr. McCree: Mr. Willard and Mr. Webster mentioned that leaving safety and performance asa legacy is crucial for supplying affordable, safety-guaranteed, and carbon-free energy. Thisis true both in and out of Japan. I think JANSI can become a great organization that helps
Japan’s industry achieve its goal.
Mr. Mori: We, the operators, are the main actors in self-regulation. To keep enhancing
safety in a voluntary and continuous manner, we hope to maintain our attitude—listening
carefully to the opinions of outside parties and constantly improving our efforts. We will
strive to closely communicate with JANSI and shape a better format of self-regulation. The
key is to show the regulators that operators are mutually improving one another on thepremise of independence. To achieve self-regulation, I will propel our business while
maintaining my awareness and purpose as a top executive of a nuclear operator.
Mr. Yamazaki: JANSI’s activities have finally gotten on track, a decade after the institute’s
founding. Operators have started to become aware of self-regulation too, but we stillneed time for that awareness to fully trickle down to the front lines. I think we’re
just at the starting point.

23

I intend to make further advances and develop self-regulatory activities inJapan’s industry to an internationally recognized level that’s on par with those of the
U.S. My hope is to keep promoting effective and efficient activities, bearing in mind the
purpose behind JANSI’s founding—preventing accidents similar to and maintaining lessons
learned from 1F.
Mr. Webster: When I was invited to the conference for establishing JANSI a decade ago, it
was not yet clear whether this endeavor would truly be effective and whether CNOs andCEOs would utilize JANSI. I shared helpful experience that I gained in the U.S., but the key
was whether Japan’s nuclear power industry was willing to change. Now ten years havepassed, and so much has been accomplished. To move forward, we must review our 10year strategy to identify issues, strengthen our partnerships with WANO, ATENA, and the
NRRC, and build a strong, complementary relationship with the NRA. JANSI will support theactivities of industry while addressing various issues. We hope to work together to become aworld-class industry.
Ms. Yamashita: Today we reflected on JANSI’s decade-long history, and, while hearing
about experiences in the U.S., we discussed topics for the future. I am convinced thatJANSI will keep working with operators to improve and enhance safety in acontinuous manner. I look forward to seeing your cooperation in the use of
nuclear power in Japan.

Closing Remarks
President & CEO,Japan Nuclear Safety Institute (JANSI)
Hiromi Yamazaki
We arranged this conference in light of JANSI’s 10th anniversary. Our
goal was to devise strategies for the coming decade by reviewing what
our past activities achieved and looking ahead to future activities. The
event spanned many hours, and I thank you for participating. To meetsociety’s expectations of nuclear power, we—industry members—must continue to pursue
excellence and enhance our performance without being content with meeting regulatory
requirements. Today’s keynote speeches and panel discussion offered many insights into thedirection toward which Japan’s nuclear power industry should head. JANSI will continue
to respond to operators’ mandates and lead their autonomous and continuous
improvement activities as a self-regulatory organization of industry. As the event
organizer, I reiterate my deepest gratitude to our participants. Thank you.

JANSI is responsible for the wording of this document.
Some honorific titles have been omitted.

24