Overview of JANSI Annual
Conference 2024
 Time & Date: March 13, 2024 (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.
I would like to express my deepest sympathy to those affected by the
Noto Peninsula Earthquake that struck the Ishikawa area this January.
Our respect and gratitude go out to all personnel who work for safety
management at Hokuriku Electric Shika Nuclear Power Station andthose working to restore the electric system for the entire Hokuriku
region.
This 11th JANSI Annual Conference is a time when the nuclear industry comes together andreaffirms our collective commitment to earnestly pursue the highest standards of nuclear
safety.
Today, we have about 100 participants at the venue and about 400 remote participants
including the representatives of JANSI member companies and nuclear-related organizations
as well as domestic institutions and members from the JANSI domestic advisory committee
and international advisory committee. Furthermore, we have representatives frominstitutions abroad and international organizations. Thank you very much for yourparticipation. This Annual Conference is held every March with the aim of reaffirming theseriousness of the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, and renewing ourcollective commitment to never forget the lessons learned from the accident. While listening
to the valuable lectures of the presenters today, we would like to take the lessons learned
from the accident to our hearts again.
Five years ago, with strong industry involvement, JANSI formulated the 10-year strategy.
In this short time, we have restarted seven reactors without serious event, and a total of 12
units have restarted operation. Our peer review program has achieved international

1

Opening Remarks
recognition, and we have developed many training seminars, worked with members to
implement a systematic approach to training, provided start-up assistance for units
returning to service and initiated the early steps for comprehensive performance monitoring
and continuous monitoring program. The business, climate, and geopolitical environment
surrounding the Japanese nuclear industry has greatly changed in the past five years as
well. With increased attention to energy sources that are safe, reliable, economical andproduce low emissions, nuclear energy is once again gaining recognition as an energy
source which satisfies all basic requirements of society.
Considering substantial progress of JANSI programs as well as stellar industry performanceand considering the turbulent global situation regarding renewable energy, this is the righttime for us to review the current strategy and move to the next phase. President & CEO
Yamazaki will introduce the current ideas of the new 10-year strategy. I want to thank all of
you that have put in so much effort in helping us prepare for major revisions in the 10-year
strategy.
JANSI has been taking steady steps as a self-regulatory organization to make
improvements for more than 10 years. With your support and helpful involvement, JANSI
will continue to take on challenges and use our experience to make efforts diligently withwisdom and ingenuity. I believe that the industry’s unified voluntary safety improvement
efforts will generate synergy with the domestic regulations and lead the operators to achieve
further improvement in nuclear power safety.
JANSI’s goal of continuous improvement can be achieved by each employee continuing towork under the slogan of “Excellence Starts at Home”, moving forward towards the common
goals with member companies with all our efforts devoted to further improving theeffectiveness of self-regulatory activities. I would like to ask for your continued
understanding and cooperation in JANSI's business activities.

Guest SpeechCommissioner,
Nuclear Regulation Authority

顔写真

Tomoyuki Sugiyama

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today.
I would like to speak about my current thoughts as a commissioner of
the Nuclear Regulation Authority and my expectations for JANSI.
Japan was struck by natural disaster and experienced a difficult start tothe year 2024. I offer my condolences for those that lost their lives during the Noto
Peninsula Earthquake, and pray that those in the affected region can return to their normallife as soon as possible. At Hokuriku Electric’s Shika Nuclear Power Station, some facilities
were damaged, but thanks to the efforts of many people, the station has been maintained
under stable conditions without any outbreak of serious situations. On the other hand, thisearthquake once again resulted in the public to recognizing the difficulty of preventing
complex disasters involving both natural disaster and nuclear disaster.
My understanding of the subject issue is as follows.

2

Guest Speech・Nuclear facilities that conform with regulatory requirements have greatly reduced
frequency of severe accidents caused by equipment failure and operational error. Any
severe accident is likely to be caused by external events. This implies that the peripheral
region is faced with many difficulties when a nuclear disaster is about to occur.
・We must not cause further difficulties to the already burdened residents in the site
periphery. This means that we must prevent the release of radioactive material outside sitepremises at all costs regardless of the severity of the external event.
Such expression may have been unprecedented. When considering regulatory requirements
established based on lessons learned from TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi accident, it is obviousthat measures to prevent complex disasters in the peripheral region are a must. Nuclear
facilities that have conformed with regulatory requirements should have succeeded in
implementing such measures. We would like nuclear operators to commit their maximum
efforts in adequately reducing the frequency of radioactive materials released outside thesite premises, and expect the achievements, based on long-term performance, to beevident to the public. For JANSI, we ask them to support long-term initiatives taken by
nuclear operators as an organization tasked with fulfilling the role of conducting
autonomous regulatory activities. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of the Nuclear
Regulation Authority to focus on establishing a highly effective defense strategy whichanticipates the release of radioactive material outside site premises.
I will now speak about the long-term use of reactor facilities. As you know, legal revisions
were applied last year to the Electricity Business Act, Reactor Regulation Act and otherrelevant laws; and there is no more limit to the operational duration of commercial powerreactors which was previously set to 60 years. The Nuclear Regulation Authority shall begin
transition to the “long-term facility management plan authorization system” which
integrates the “system for authorizing the extension of operation duration” and “technicalevaluation system for age degradation”. This involves screening the facility management
plan of reactors, that have been in operation for more than 30 years, up to a maximum often years in the future, and also confirms that conformance to regulatory requirements ismaintained even when considering the age degradation status of subject facility. The
existing periodic safety review and safety improvement evaluation shall also be
implemented. Such initiatives will allow for long-term operation. I will now present somepoints that are important regardless of if you are a regulator or operator.
1. The impact of aging is not limited to material degradation, and extends to various areas.
2. Regulatory activity such as screening attracts the attention of society, but field
inspections are just as or even more important.
3. Always commit to gathering new knowledge, and apply them to operator/regulatory
activities.
4. Safety standards will wane without continued efforts.
I have spoken about the same topic at the ATENA forum last month, but this is nothing
new. If you get down to it, it can be said that subject topics represent continuous
improvement which is the theme of today’s panel discussion. To continuously push forward
improvements in safety, we would like JANSI to support autonomous activities of operators
through conducting peer review and identifying plant conditions.
I will now present three requests for JANSI.
The first request is about the peer review. I ask that JANSI conduct these reviews in a strict3

Guest Speechmanner to pressure operators adequately. I understand that it is not possible to conduct
such review in depth over a wide spectrum of areas; and therefore, requires focus areas tobe chosen. But in deciding the focus area, I ask JANSI to consider not only results from theprevious peer review, but also deficiencies that have occurred and weaknesses identified byregulators. I hope that this will result in areas for improvement being identified before the
Nuclear Regulation Authority does, and that issues are resolved at an earlier stage.
Our next request is about finding good practices. As you are probably aware, the Nuclear
Regulation Authority is not very good at giving praise. We have not made progress inestablishing a system for granting operators incentives. While we do recognize that
motivating operators regarding safety is an important role for a regulator, it is difficult toexecute this while trying to enforce strict regulation. Therefore, we request JANSI to fill in
the role of giving praise. Commendable initiatives should be praised to encourage operators.
Our third request is for JANSI and the Nuclear Regulation Authority to strengthencommunication and coordination. JANSI’s booklet lists a figure regarding the use of
information on operating experience, while this figure connects JANSI and the Nuclear
Regulation Authority with an arrow which reads “information exchange,” the exchange islimited to results of screening analysis. I hope this situation is improved with a cooperative
system being established which benefits both sides.
These are our three requests.
Finally, as mentioned previously, a panel discussion will be held today on the topic of“Continuous Improvement”. Unfortunately, I will be unable to join this discussion, but there
was participation by Nuclear Regulation Authority personnel in the past, so please consider
this again. I hope that today’s panel discussion will be beneficial for future JANSI activities
and plans.
This concludes my speech. Thank you.

Chairman,Federation of Electric Power Companies
Kazuhiro Ikebe
Firstly, I would like to express my deep condolences for those who losttheir lives during the Noto Peninsula Earthquake. I would also like toexpress my deep sympathies for all those affected. While safety at thepower station has been confirmed after the earthquake, it did havevarious impact on the power station. We believe it is important for nuclear operator to
conduct thorough investigation to improve power station safety. Thus, a system with FEPC
and ATENA which connects operators with vendors was established and the impact of theearthquake is being investigated. In addition to investigation from a technical standpoint,
status of damages to the power station shall be identified and operational challenges suchas communication of information shall be reviewed. Findings shall be shared with operators
to be used in the review of safety measures to further enhance safety.
Regarding recent trends in international nuclear energy policy, five countries: Japan, US,
UK, France and Canada, agreed last April at the G7 Minister’s Meeting in Sapporo on a jointstatement to commit to the maximum use of nuclear power generation. At the COP28 held4

Guest Speechin December, nuclear power was designated as a zero/low emission technology for reducing
greenhouse gas, and over 20 countries have declared to increase the capacity of global
nuclear power generation facility threefold by 2050. The use of nuclear power being criticalfor achieving of carbon neutrality was accepted on a global scale.
Domestically, the GX Promotion Act and the GX Decarbonization Electricity Act wereapproved in May, and the strategy of securing stable supply of energy and realizing carbon
neutrality were established as pillars of our national policy. Legislation which defined thevalue in the use of nuclear power, clarified responsibilities of the government and operatorsand redefined extension of operation period were established to allow the maximum use of
nuclear power. In a cabinet meeting held in August, a decision was made regarding policy
for the ocean discharge of ALPS treated water. Following this, TEPCO is strategically making
progress for the ocean discharge of treated water, an important step in decommissioning the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. Its safety is being checked in review missions
conducted by the IAEA based on international safety standards. Regarding final disposal,
revisions were made in the basic policy last April, and the draft reference survey report wasdisclosed by February 13th. It is very important for the government to be at the front line,
and for operations to take place under government responsibility.
As the autonomous regulatory organization of the nuclear power industry, JANSI pushes for
improvement through peer reviews and regular performance monitoring/evaluation, etc.,
and leads initiatives taken by operators to enhance safety. To maximize the use of nuclear
power to realize both the stable supply of energy and carbon neutrality, the securing ofsafety is a major prerequisite. We nuclear operators are taking autonomous and continuous
initiatives to enhance safety without becoming complacent with the safety myth, but toincrease its effectiveness, it is necessary for the entire industry to work closely together
under the principle “Excellence Starts at Home”. JANSI’s peer review has gained equivalencywith WANO, and its role as an autonomous regulatory organization has become even more
important. To fully enhance nuclear safety in the industry by fully utilizing experience andknow-how and implementing effective and efficient initiatives, we ask for your continued
efforts in aiming for excellence.
Finally, learning from initiatives taken abroad through discussions in this conference is avaluable opportunity. We nuclear operators shall use what we have learned and our insightsfrom today in our future activities to continue striving to enhance safety.

5Keynote SpeechCEO, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

顔写真

Jeff Lyash

Continuous Improvement
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) delivers power to 10 million people across the sevenstate Tennessee Valley region. At TVA, we operate the nation’s third largest nuclear power
fleet, which comprises 40 percent of TVA’s generation. Our three nuclear facilities – Browns
Ferry, Sequoyah, and Watts Bar – safely and reliably deliver 8,300 megawatts of capacity –enough to power more than 8.5 million homes. Today, TVA operates one of the top nuclear
fleets in the U.S., but for many years, TVA’s nuclear fleet was known for poor performance.
In 1985, TVA shut down all three of its Browns Ferry units to address performance andmanagement issues. TVA received NRC approval to restart the final unit in 2007. Following
the recovery at Browns Ferry, TVA resumed construction on Watts Bar Unit 2, which had
been paused in 1985. Watts Bar Unit 2 began commercial operation in October 2016,
making it the first new commercial nuclear unit in the United States in the 21st century.
During that period, TVA’s nuclear operating performance remained cyclical. However, within
the past year, all seven of TVA’s nuclear units have reached exemplary performance for the
first time in our fleet’s history. To address our performance challenges, we focused on three
critical elements to improve our individual site and fleet cultures: our people, our culture andthe reliability of our plants and equipment. I want to focus today mostly on the first twoelements.
To improve in those areas, we had to ask ourselves tough internal questions about ourstandards. For example, did our actions at each site and for each employee match ourorganizational commitment to nuclear safety? We looked across all aspects of safety – public
safety, plant safety, nuclear safety and employee safety. Where our actions did not meet ourdesired standards, we addressed it through training, through employee conversations,listening to feedback from employees and through employee-led safety teams. We invested
in our fleet, and took initiatives that communicated to employees that safety is ouroverriding priority.
We used safety as part of the foundation of our overall culture. We confirmed if managers
and employees started each job with a focus on safety and if peers were willing to coacheach other and point out safety issues. Were employees willing to communicate safetyconcerns or safety improvements to management? Did management address safetysuggestions to demonstrate they listened and that it was truly a priority? There is a quotefrom the late U.S. General and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, “The day soldiers stopbringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost
confidence that you can help or concluded you do not care.” Our people had to know thatwhen they raised an issue, we listened, we cared and we addressed it.
We applied this principle to safety – first and foremost. Because if our team is united andfocused on this essential core value, the culture we were building would carry forward toother areas. As we shaped the culture around safety, we could also address our
performance culture. We looked at two specific areas: procedure adherence and humanperformance. Both are harbingers of overall fleet performance, and we decided to look atthese through a slightly different lens. In terms of procedure adherence, we looked for6Keynote Speechbarriers that caused issues for workers in the field and asked for their feedback. For
example, was each procedure accurate, was each procedure executable in the field, didprocedures at each unit align with best practices and lessons learned from other units andsites, did procedures include unnecessary steps and was there knowledge that workers in
the field had that was not included in the procedure?
And, in the human performance category, would our workers stop a job if the procedure
was unclear, if the employee was uncertain or if equipment conditions did not match
expectations? And lastly, how did supervisors and leaders react when a job was stopped by
employees with questions? Were those workers supported and rewarded, or were theypushed to proceed due to schedules or other pressures? When issues like safety, procedure
adherence and human performance became management focuses — from our fleet and siteleaders down to employees — our site and fleet culture began to change.
To further improve our culture, we had to improve our teamwork; teamwork encompassing
every level of our organization and industry resources. What was the leadership like in thehigh-performing groups vs in the low-performing groups? Did teams across our sites work
together, or did they function in individual silos? Did they consult with each other and share
best practices, or did they try to resolve all issues independently? And lastly, as workgroups, sites and a fleet, did we incorporate expertise, learnings or insights from around theindustry — experts like other nuclear fleet operators, INPO, WANO, our Nuclear Safety
Review Boards and JANSI? Or did we just want to get a passing grade from them during
evaluations so we could keep doing it our way?
This brings me to another quote, this from National Basketball Association coach Doc
Rivers: “Average players want to be left alone. Good players want to be coached. Great
players want to be told the truth.” We want to be great players. When our standards werelower, we did not want anyone to question them or us as nuclear professionals. When ourstandards were set higher, we welcomed conversation, ideas and feedback, because it madeus even better and helped us achieve those standards. It began a focus on continuous
learning between employees and we sought out improvements.
The final piece of the puzzle in changing our culture was ensuring everyone across our
nuclear fleet understood our long-term focus, direction and strategy. In 2018, Tim Rauschjoined TVA as Chief Nuclear Officer and set a new path for the TVA Nuclear Fleet to become
top quartile by the end of 2022 and the top fleet by the end of 2025. First, we
communicated and reinforced this long-term goal across our fleet. We focused oncontinuous learning, and requested ideas for improvement and feedback.
Secondly, we listened to opinions from our nuclear fleet, individual power station personnel
and others from the industry to encourage more critical questions aimed at ourselves toenable self-corrections to be made autonomously. We tried to actively identify potential
issues. By setting higher standards and sharing fleet and site metrics, we enabled our entire
team to see where they stood and our progress as a fleet against measurable performancestandards.
Furthermore, we reinforced our leadership commitment to our fleet performance goal. We
made decisions based on our long-term goals and not short-term needs. We highlighted
equipment upgrades and plant investments we were making as a fleet to demonstrateorganizational commitment to our long-range goals. We asked for and then celebrated ideas
and innovations that moved us toward this goal — especially when they came from workers
performing the tasks. Also, we recognized employee behaviors that moved us toward oursite and fleet goals.
When you put all these actions together, it looks like what INPO calls its “Staying on Top”
model. Within our fleet, we called it our “Continuous Improvement Culture” model which
includes upholding high excellence standards, leadership and talent development,
continuous learning, self-awareness, self-correction and setting long-term direction.

7

Keynote Speech
Implementing this over time, we learned two major lessons at TVA. First is that excellencein nuclear operations is about people and culture. What typically makes nuclear performancecyclical is our standards, our culture and employee/leadership factors that lead toperformance decline. We also learned that culture only improves through consistent, aligned
leadership reinforcing high standards and continuous improvement. If leaders let standards
slip in one area — safety, procedure adherence, human performance — standards began tofall across many areas. If leaders at all levels are not fully aligned on the standards and longterm goals, employees will not be aligned, and performance will wane. Leaders closest to theemployees have the greatest impact on culture and performance because that’s who
employees interact with most. We focused on that level of leadership to have clear
expectations, acceptable behaviors and increased training. if leaders are not actively seeking
input, ideas, solutions and feedback from employees — those closest to the work — youcannot build a high-performing, self-correcting and continuous improvement culture.
Workers will not raise up issue, barriers or challenges that can be quickly addressed before
they become larger challenges to performance later.
Beyond individual nuclear sites and fleets setting high standards, we also need to set andreinforce the highest of standards across our entire industry. This is the critical role of anorganization like JANSI. In the US nuclear industry, we are exceptionally strong at supporting
each other. It has helped propel our performance results across our nation. CEOs identify
shortfalls in performance with honestly, sincerity and transparency, and support each otherto cooperate in taking initiatives to achieve excellence. At the same time, we also uniformly
support INPO, working closely with the organization’s team and valuing their feedback.
JANSI should establish a similar role and pursue robust initiatives across the Japanese
nuclear industry. The first step is to be thoughtful and deliberate about improvements you
want to achieve in this country. Establish strategic outcomes across the entire industry, andconduct continuous performance monitoring and monitor corporate performance. Meaningful
feedback and learning should be realized. Then, CEOs and other nuclear fleet leaders mustvisibly and verbally support JANSI. Everyone must champion standards and initiatives fromJANSI. You must be responsive to performance feedback from JANSI. This will further
establish mutual standards and support between JANSI and nuclear operators, so that allsites participate in continuous performance improvements.
Allow me to share with you a couple of questions I try to ask myself each day as the head of
TVA. How high are my standards and how am I demonstrating them to the organization? Is
this communicated appropriately in a manner which does not invite misinterpretation? Do
people across all levels of our organization know and understand my long-term goals andvision for TVA? How have I aligned people to that? Is more of our input across TVA from the
management level or from those closest to the work and those who execute the work? Are
these inputs considered thoroughly? What is the difference between what I perceive as ourworkplace culture and what employees perceive as their workplace culture? How do we closethat gap? As an organization, do we seek out and rapidly implement external feedback andlessons, or are we pushing it aside because we know best?
Culture drives repeatable success and high performance. Let us build, nurture and reinforce
a continuous improvement culture at the fleet and site level, and at the industry level.

8Panel Discussion
Theme:
Continuous Improvement: How to extend in Japan
Panelists:
Jeff Lyash: CEO, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Hiroyuki Yamaguchi: Professor, Graduate School of Human-Environment
Studies, Kyushu University
Kingo Hayashi: President and Director, Chubu Electric Power Co., Inc.
Hiromi Yamazaki: President & CEO, Japan Nuclear Safety Institute(JANSI)

Moderator:

Akio Yamamoto: Professor, Graduate School of Engineering, Nagoya
University

Opening remarks:
Professor,
Graduate School of Engineering, Nagoya University
Akio Yamamoto
The theme of today’s panel discussion is how to extend continuous
improvement in Japan.
My understanding is that following the accident at the Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (1F), continuous improvement has
become a very significant keyword in terms of enhancing safety.
You may also be aware that the continuous safety enhancement consideration team at the
Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) held a discussion relatively recently.
Operators and other parties have maintained their continuous improvement efforts for overa decade, but the time has come to move on to the next phase. It is my hope to engage indiscussions together with the panelists and the audience today.
Our event will first start by having the three panelists—who will give their presentations
later—offer short speeches. Then we will proceed with the discussion based on the threepoints that we prepared today.

9Panel Discussion
Short Speech:
President & CEO,Japan Nuclear Safety Institute (JANSI)
Hiromi Yamazaki
Today, I would like to talk about the status quo and future trajectory of
JANSI’s efforts towards enhancing and expanding self-regulation. JANSI
was established in November 2012 to realize industry self-regulation,
which refers to operators going beyond just fulfilling legal regulatory
requirements, disciplining themselves and one another toautonomous/continuously enhance safety, and thereby pursuing
excellence. A self regulatory organization is a party that leads operators while maintaining an
independent standpoint so that the self-regulation of operators advances effectively andefficiently.
This, in the context of a power station, without a doubt, points to activities that promote
daily improvement on a autonomous/continuous basis: repeating the cycle of performancemonitoring, identifying gaps to excellence and analyzing their causes, devising/implementing
solutions, and monitoring the results. To effectively promote this effort, operators haveintroduced many systematic improvement promotion systems, including CAP, performanceindicators, management observations, and risk management. Safety culture and personnel(leadership, knowledge, and skills) carry significance as the driving force behind these efforts
as well. JANSI rigorously evaluates from a third party’s standpoint regarding whether theautonomous/continuous improvements are effectively implemented and whether the efforts
are continuously undertaken, and offers support in the areas of system introductions,effectiveness enhancements, safety culture, and personnel training.
Many of the systems for improvement were fully introduced after the 1F accident. These
have become reliably established and are starting to function, and are currently in a phase tofurther enhance their effectiveness. As for the driving force, our evaluation is that the idea ofself-regulation—learning from other companies and promoting continuous improvement—isbecoming increasingly established, as seen in the drastic change in attitudes toward theacceptance of peer reviews (PRs) and other examples.
Excellence in power station operation management is the starting point for JANSI’s activities.
This excellence standard is consistent with WANO and INPO, and is shared worldwide.
Serving as a bridge between Japan and global excellence, JANSI evaluates gaps between
excellence through PRs and other means to support improvement efforts. JANSI’s platform
is functioning in terms of support (e.g., operators learning each other’s good practices);
operator executives share comprehensive evaluation results of their power stations, thereby
encouraging improvements through peer pressure.
Since its establishment, JANSI has enhanced its activities including PRs, strengthened thecommitment of executives by having all operator presidents participate as JANSI board
members, started an integrated assessment system, devised the 10-year strategy, and has
thereby endeavored to enhance the institute’s functions. We consider that JANSI now has asystem ready for leading operators. Incidentally, the institute has become the firstorganization in the world to have its power station PR program approved as WANOequivalent based on international standards.
Regarding the current status of power station performances, the number of unplanned
shutdowns at restarted plants has dropped significantly from pre-1F times, showing thathighly safe/reliable operations are conducted. However, the availability factor is unstablebecause of the installation work for specialized safety facilities and other factors: thepercentage, even when high, stays at around 80%, which is significantly lower than in the10Panel Discussion
U.S. where the rate has been maintained at 90% or above for over two decades. There has
been a major decline in the number of events subject to reporting under laws andregulations, regarding all domestic plants including those under long-term shutdowns, aswell as deviations from limiting conditions of operation (LCO) and failures of importantequipment, compared to before the 1F accident. I am confident that JANSI’s activities tosome extent contributed to the improvement of performances.
JANSI is currently revising its 10-year strategy and is in a phase to further deepen, expand,and enhance the effectiveness of industry self-regulation efforts. The institute is also making
considerations based on new changes in the environment, particularly regarding the rising
expectations of nuclear power, and U.S. benchmarking.
As the direction for future activities, JANSI has presented (1) having an attitude ofautonomous/continuous improvement be instilled from executives and down to the front
lines of the field; (2) building a sound community in which operators improve one another;(3) effectively implementing both PRs and (4) continuous performance monitoring incollaboration with WANO so that operators autonomously detect and respond to challenges
early; and (5) achieving the world’s highest level of safety and reliability. JANSI particularly
hopes to further strengthen ties with WANO and boost the effectiveness ofautonomous/continuous improvement by harnessing the characteristics of both WANO (i.e.,
global perspective) and JANSI (i.e., understanding Japan’s culture and institutions, andbeing capable of performing in-depth reviews in Japanese).
Based on this mindset, JANSI devised a new Vision, through which Japan’s operators are toaim for a state in which the world’s highest level of safety/reliability is achieved and thisstate is maintained and continued by establishing autonomous/continuous safetyenhancement efforts, and, further, JANSI is to aim for a state in which it leads operatorsfrom an independent standpoint as a global excellence authority. To achieve this Vision,
JANSI has defined the universal elements of self regulation as safety culture, systems,
personnel, and JANSI’s foundations; arranged critical success factors based on these fourpillars; and set contributing activities.
JANSI and INPO annually hold Japan-U.S. CNO Leadership Meetings as a platform for CNOs
in Japan and the U.S. to exchange opinions and learn from each other. At last year’s
meeting, Ameren’s CNO Fadi Diya said “Continuous improvement is like climbing uphill on abicycle. To move forward, one must keep pedaling; once you stop pedaling, falling or
moving backward are the only options left.” The idea behind the new 10-year strategy is tohave people with a healthy safety culture, leadership, and knowledge/skills that boldly
facilitate a continuous improvement system to keep climbing uphill, with JANSI standing
beside them to provide leadership and support so that the bicycle keeps moving forward.
JANSI will never forget the lessons learned from the 1F accident, lead operators to maintainthe autonomous/continuous safety enhancement efforts, and thereby endeavor to establish
a culture of continuous improvement in the nuclear industry.

President and Director,
Chubu Electric Power Co., Inc.
Kingo Hayashi
I would like to share efforts for autonomous/continuous safetyenhancement at Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station.
To start off, allow me to introduce the three characteristics of the
Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station. First, the power station stands 25
km from Tokaido Shinkansen’s Kakegawa Station, and is at the
hypocentral area of the potential Tokai region earthquake.

11

Panel Discussion
Second, many people, approximately 820,000 residents, live within a 30 km PAZ/UPZ
radius.
Third, Units 1 and 2 stopped operating in 2009 and are being dismantled(decommissioned).
Moving on to status of the review process, Units 3 and 4 are under review for natural
phenomena regarding the reactor establishment modification permit. The NRA expressed
general understanding for the reference seismic motions in September 2023, and wethereby consider that things are proceeding steadily, though we understand there still is along way ahead.
Now I would like to share our autonomous/continuous safety enhancement efforts. Let me
begin by our governance and organizational system.
We have established the Chubu Electric Power Group Nuclear Safety Charter and the
Nuclear Safety Improvement Committee as a permanent management committee helmedby the President, and have also established organizations that feature two major
characteristics; one is the Nuclear Safety Improvement Committee Advisory Board thattakes opinions and reports for the Nuclear Safety Improvement Committee to incorporate
the knowledge of outside experts, while the other is the Hamaoka Nuclear Safety Advisory
Board (HaABS) to have internal and external experts review the field and report thesituation directly to the President.
Allow me to give specific examples on this. The HaABS activity involves staying at the
Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station for around a week twice a year to check the field, discusswith station employees, and have findings and advice directly reported to me, thePresident; it is a very valuable opportunity to hear honest opinions.
The next example, the Nuclear Safety Improvement Committee Advisory Board, features
diverse members including an outside risk management expert.
I would like to share a very memorable point that Mr. Hiroyuki Kobayashi, a former JAL
pilot and crisis management expert, made at a recent Board meeting on a recent crash
accident that occurred at Haneda Airport.
Around half of the nine cabin attendants on board during the accident were new recruits.
Of the eight emergency exits, the front two could be opened, but it was difficult to decide
whether opening the exit on the left side at the very back was acceptable or whether it
would worsen the fire. The cabin attendants made this high-level decision while neither thecaptain nor higher-ranking cabin attendants could be contacted. In a discussion about the
profound unease revolving around 13 years having passed since the Hamaoka Nuclear
Power Station suspended operations and half of its operators already lacking operation
experience, Mr. Kobayashi said things would turn out fine if thorough drills and simulations
are made daily—being a new recruit or lacking experience would not matter. This comment
has left a strong impression on me.
Now I would like to talk about communication with the field (station employees).
As a CEO’s effort, I visit fields to discuss and observe. There are two points about which I
am particularly mindful; the first is about ensuring psychological safety. I focus on listening
to the station employees’ opinions as much as possible in a way that makes them feel
comfortable talking. Given the difficulty to have them share what they are really feeling inperson, I seek opinions from employees by asking them to submit various opinions—
including non-station topics as well—to me online on an anonymous basis. I receive a lot of
critical feedback, which I see as a very good thing.
The second is that I focus on discussing with younger section manager- and managerclass individuals in particular, and these conclude the general characteristics of my effort.
Now I would like to share what expectations of a self-regulatory organization. The key
point is that we hope to see a steady implementation of the 10-year strategy. First, we
would like JANSI to issue areas for improvements (AFIs) that will lead us to global

12Panel Discussion
excellence. We would accordingly observe the gap between the status quo and work to
improve it.
Second, we would like JANSI to make visual representation efforts so that we canconstantly identify our standing. If we have inferiorities, it is important for us to both know
about and identify them.
The third (promotion of operators’ autonomous activities through peer pressure) and fourth
points (support for operators to establish self-reliance) expect support to be provided for
operators to become self-reliant. Please refer to the slide.
To add one thing, for the last part on the fourth point, we hope to strengthen our
relationship with various organizations: ones including operator-JANSI, inter-operator, andother manufacturers, with JANSI serving at the core. Reinforcing relationships and becoming
a better organization, both in terms of rigor and as an information-exchanging platform, will
likely help to bring the entire industry up to a higher level.

Professor, Graduate School of Human-Environment Studies,
Kyushu University
Hiroyuki Yamaguchi
I specialize in the fields of organizational psychology and groupdynamics, and have been researching management approaches tosecuring safety in an organizational manner, based on humans’
psychological issues and behavior levels. In this context, to improve
continuously or to enhance a team’s sustainability, I consider it
important to advance improvement in a visible manner and on a teambasis instead of improving an entire organization with a single stroke.
Individual training is of course important, but while it must be provided, one should not
expect it to result in ensuring safety, because the human cognitive system is full of biases.
Considering the possibility that people may act incorrectly by assuming something is correct,
there is a need to prevent situations where one person’s failure immediately leads to ateam-wide accident; instead, the team needs to ensure safety by quickly pointing out andmaking improvements if someone makes a mistake, or sharing noticed findings to prepare
against risks.
One should, however, stay vigilant even when acting as a team. The failure to detect, point
out, and correct have been pointed out as errors unique to a team. The failure to detect isabout “not noticing”; the causes of which include working styles where, for instance, people
are too occupied with their own work and not interested in anything else, or only do what
one is instructed to do. The failure to point out becomes the biggest issue for an
organization. This is an issue universally seen across industries, and involves people feeling
uncomfortable pointing out incorrect actions made by supervisors and senior employees, or
keeping quiet based on concerns of being subject to hostility or experiencing a negative
impact on personnel evaluations down the line. This results from a shortfall in psychologicalsafety and can be considered a cultural issue of an organization. The failure to correct
pertains to an issue of shortfalls/lack of proactivity (e.g., being unable to act by thinking
ahead; working passively).
Transforming an organization from one with flawed safety management to a proactive oneis the key point to changing into an organization capable of continuous improvement. Thisrequires a culture that takes on challenges; one that allows people to pursue fresh
endeavors, and voice opinions about perceived wrongs. To that end, psychological safety isnecessary. Psychological safety is not about working amicably with everyone, but about a13

Panel Discussion
state in which people are guaranteed they can offer criticism and have that acceptedwithout any subsequent backlash.
The traditional approach to organizational management has mainly been a top-down one,
where people are ruled by power and jobs are controlled by rules. However, in this age of
VUCA (a state of uncertainty where predicting the future is difficult), if the future is
uncertain and there exists difficulty in predicting it, free and active exchanges of opinions
between people inspire the courage and spirit to take on new challenges. Looking atorganizations across Japan today, all industries are in a reactive state, working passively
and doing what they are told to do.
What’s important is to take the initiative, think ahead, take assertive action—in a positive
sense—and be capable of taking on challenging initiatives. To that end, working by having
people mutually and actively present their opinions, rather than the leader controlling people
through top-down instructions/orders, will likely be key in leadership from here on.

Discussion:
Mr. Yamamoto: Now, let us have a panel discussion about
leadership and the significance of promoting continuous
improvement, human resources development efforts, andimpact of communication.
First, we would like to ask Mr. Hayashi and Mr. Lyash about
leadership and the significance of promoting continuous
improvement. In the keynote speech, you introduced themindset and efforts to promote autonomous continuous
improvement. What does continuous improvement meanfor stakeholders in the broad sense, or what incentive canbe given to operators to make continuous improvements inlight of this?
Mr. Hayashi: This is a very important and difficult question. We have many stakeholders.
When we think about what we can provide, we owe it to all stakeholders to accomplish thetough mission of achieving stable energy supply and increased security in Japan throughnuclear power generation as well as carbon neutrality all at the same time. The mostimportant thing for this is pursuit of safety and trust. This does not mean simply following
rules and working according to manuals but enhancing safety to a culture that enables
maintaining high performance and further improving it. To foster such culture, it is essential
to always be aware of gaps between excellence and performance and autonomously andcontinuously make proactive improvements to resolve this. I believe it is important for thecompany president and leaders to present a long-term vision within the company and strive
to secure and develop human resources, and for all employees to have a strong sense ofawareness and self-criticism and proceed with the determination to notice and correct
matters on their own.
Mr. Lyash: There are several necessary elements for an organization to commit tocontinuous improvement. The first element is to understand the impact on the mission. For
example, our stakeholders want affordable, reliable, resilient and cleaner energy supplies.
Each and every employee needs to understand such mission as well as its impact.
The second element is that we must understand our behavior and performance as
individuals, as a team, and as an organization, by the minute. We have to figure out if it is aplus or minus for what we want to achieve. We need to understand that our behavior
ultimately has a large impact.

14

Panel discussion
It is also important to guarantee transparency for our stakeholders, although it is difficult in
the nuclear energy business. Transparency is to clarify areas where performance is lacking
as well as corrective actions, which is sometimes painful, but this leads to building trust withstakeholders.
The role of leadership is essential for continuous improvement. Leadership is not simply
owned by CEO and executives. Behavior of leadership comes down to each and every
employee. Even the lowest level employee can exercise leadership. We need to empowereach and every person to make them feel they are responsible and have something they
can do.
Mr. Yamamoto: Mr. Lyash, what is your definition of stakeholders?
Mr. Lyash: There are internal and external stakeholders.
Internally, each and every employee is a stakeholder. We needto mutually understand that everyone has their own
perspective, rather than being the same. Our clients are also
stakeholders, who have expectations for us. For example, they
expect reliable, resilient, affordable and clean energy.
Politicians and elected people are also stakeholders. What we
do must be consistent with what the national government orstate is trying to do. In addition, environmental conservation
organizations are interested in environment-related matters,
and economic organizations are concerned about how we
impact the economy. The nuclear energy business is very
complicated, and there are no other products that have such
implications for safety, people’s QOL, and economic prosperityat the national level.
Mr. Yamamoto: I was impressed by your answer of having a very broad view ofstakeholders. Mr. Yamazaki, after hearing what Mr. Hayashi and Mr. Lyash said, can we hear
about what initiatives you think are especially important as JANSI?
Mr. Yamazaki: There are three most important initiatives. First is firmly establishedmechanism for improvement which is effectively functioning, second is leadership to run
such mechanism, and third is sound safety culture ensured to run such mechanism. It
differs among operators from those that have just introduced the mechanism to those thatare quite advanced. As JANSI will provide support according to the situation, I believe themechanism will eventually be in place at every power station in Japan. Next are leadershipand safety culture to run such mechanism. If there is a problem here, the mechanism
cannot be run. Mr. Lyash said what remains at the end is people and culture. He also added
equipment reliability, but mechanism building was done 10 or 20 years ago in the US, so I
think he mentioned equipment as the next issue. In Japan, we need to build the mechanismand focus on people and culture for the time being.
Mr. Yamamoto: Leadership in Japan is often misunderstood as something exercised by CEO
and top executives, but what Mr. Lyash said was that leadership is exercised by people of alllevels. In a book about teaming I read in the past said there are two types of leadership,
one with a capital “L” and the other with a lowercase “l”. Mr. Yamaguchi, what are yourthoughts on the importance and continuous improvement of the two types of leadership as
well as their relationship?
Mr. Yamaguchi: In a hierarchical organization like a company, I think leadership of top

15

Panel discussion
executives can be what is conventionally referred to as, but there is another hierarchy
under the top executives, and another hierarchy under that, each with its own group ofsubordinates. Recognize such group as your own team and exercise leadership to make theteam better. To do so, we need to listen to the opinions of our subordinates instead ofsimply giving your opinions from a higher position.
Leadership is not exercised only by leaders and people in such positions but refers tohaving a good impact to accomplish goals raised by each and every member.
There is of course leadership to look at the whole picture from a top executive position,
properly present one's vision, and pull others toward it, but characteristics of leadership tobe exercised by each level are also gradually changing. However, what is in common is that
focus is placed on getting subordinates to speak rather than speaking yourself and on
eliciting their opinions. Especially for continuous improvement, such leadership will be
important to elicit the awareness to do things on our own with a sense of ownership.
Mr. Yamamoto: Mr. Hayashi, you exercise leadership with a capital “L” on a daily basis, but
I believe you are also mindful of exercising leadership with a lowercase “l”. How would you
describe this?
Mr. Hayashi: Let me introduce what I keep in mind.
Leadership roles exist at various levels. What is in common
is that each person should listen to the opinions of theirrespective subordinates and peers. We often ask aboutareas that we do not know about and areas that we areunfamiliar with, but we tend to ask less about areas ofexpertise and areas where we grew up in. So, I have anawareness that even areas that I know well are completely
different between now and 10 years ago and try to thinkthat people who are doing it now have a higher level ofknowledge than myself. You stop learning when you think
you know everything, so we should start by keeping in
mind that your subordinates may know more than you do
and younger people may know more than even your subordinates.
I try to speak after listening to the opinions of as many people as possible at various
meetings. I think it is important to make such detailed rules for myself. This is extremely
important.
Mr. Yamamoto: Mr. Lyash, do you have any comments or opinions on our discussion about
leadership?
Mr. Lyash: To create a continuous improvement culture, it is essential to clarify what is
expected at which level regarding leadership behavior. I try to tell it in a story as much as
possible. I talk about how someone in this department of this organization did this to make
operation better and how it led to a very good result. I think it is important to tell people ofdifferent levels examples of leadership behavior of their level.
Mr. Yamamoto: I felt it is extremely important that continuous improvement leads toleadership development at various levels.
The second topic is human resources development. First, Mr. Yamazaki, JANSI is also
working to develop human resources in the broad sense. From such perspective, what areapproaches and mindsets that you would like to have the people being developed to have?

16

Panel discussion
Mr. Yamazaki: JANSI currently has two main initiatives. One is leadership training by level,
where CEO training, CNO training, site superintendent training and shift supervisor training
are conducted at their respective levels. The other is support to improve the quality of
training conducted by each power station on their own accord. Power stations are now
working on SAT, and it is already in place at some stations.
Especially in leadership training, we keep in mind that leaders must never forget the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station accident in operating power stations in Japan.
Based on the lessons learned from the accident, we conduct training to be prepared toproperly instruct your subordinates in such kind of situation as if you were the President orsite superintendent. This is leadership in a crisis, but as it has been conducted for more than
10 years, we have gradually shifted to training to develop leaders who can think about whatkind of organization and culture should be created to prepare for a crisis from normal times.
We expect two things from training participants. One is to have them set high goals forthemselves and feel they must work together toward such goals, while understanding theimportance of autonomous and continuous improvement based on their reflections on the
Fukushima Daiichi accident. When your standards are low, you stop learning from outsideand be satisfied with the status quo. So, it is important to be aware that you need to always
work with high standards, which will lead to self-awareness and self-correction. I would liketo have all levels feel this way, so that autonomous improvement is not a task they areforced to do but something that is their own.
The other point was discussed under the theme of Safety Ⅱ and resilience in the Annual
Conference two years ago. Behind the success of various operations on a daily basis, people
in the field flexibly address slight deviations from normal conditions using their knowledge
and experience 99% of the time, and if something does not go well and results in an
accident, we need to educate people that people should not be regarded as the cause ofhuman errors but resources for resilience. In specific, this means not just following manuals
but also understanding the background of the manual and developing the ability to think on
your own. This leads to autonomous improvement, but it cannot be done by JANSI alone,
so we need to have each operator have such initiative in their training.
Mr. Yamamoto: Mr. Lyash, we have some questions from our participants.
In the keynote speech, you talked about adding knowledge that only workers in the field
have, which are not written in the procedures, in the procedures. Was this successful? If so,
how did you devise ways and what kind of difficulties did you face?
Mr. Lyash: This is something ongoing, so we cannot say that it has been successful and hascome to an end. It is important to have workers sufficiently incorporate their knowledge intraining materials and procedures to support others. This was very important especially inthe replacement of people at the workplace and in plant revitalization projects. The key is tohave workers themselves have ownership of the procedures and instill a sense of ownershipin them. If the procedures are unclear or incomplete, it is their responsibility to stop theirwork until the procedures have been revised.
Mr. Yamamoto: Another question for Mr. Lyash. Browns Ferry Unit 1 restarted its operation
after being shut down for an extremely long period of 22 years. BWR plants in Japan are
also in long-term shutdown, and operators are struggling to develop human resources andmotivate workers. Can you give a message to Japanese operators on this matter?
Mr. Lyash: It takes a tremendous amount of effort, because you are trying to rebuild local
culture, rebuild decision-making for station operations and rebuild teamwork in an operating
environment. And such effort must continue. It does not end at restart; in fact, it starts

17Panel discussion
there and continues as long as the operating cycle continues. One advice is to involve others.
For example, get JANSI, WANO or colleagues involved to build teams and performance.
Then, make gaps objectively visible, acknowledge it, and make an effort to resolve them. It
is important to use industry resources as broadly as possible, rather than doing things on
your own.
Mr. Yamamoto: I took what you just said also as a great expectation for JANSI. Anotherquestion. Mr. Lyash, in your keynote speech, you talked about reliability of people, culture
and equipment. If you were to ask operators and the regulatory authority in Japan, you
would expect them to set the order or priority in the reverse order. Was it in this order in
the US from the beginning?
Mr. Lyash: In the history of the industry, there was a time when we focused on equipment
first, but equipment performance is, after all, human performance. Engineers design
equipment, maintenance personnel provide equipment maintenance, and operators operate
equipment. It is also up to people whether to accept it if equipment performance isinsufficient. Equipment performance is important, but in the end, that is the result of people
and culture, so it goes in that order.
Mr. Yamamoto: Mr. Yamaguchi, your expertise is people and teams. Before the Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Station accident, ensuring nuclear safety in Japan was biased toward
equipment reliability, which is said to be one of the causes of the accident. Importance ofpeople and culture is gradually recognized, but I don't think we necessarily made the switch
completely. Based on the situation of other industries, what are your thoughts on thecurrent situation of nuclear energy?
Mr. Yamaguchi: I have visited Fukushima Daiichi and
Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Stations and the Training
Center with members of the Central Research Institute ofElectric Power Industry, and gave my opinion on what kindof safety management training should be conducted. In
past trainings, manuals were created and people weretrained to behave according to the manual, but in reality,
things do not go according to the manual, or things slip
from their minds in the face of reality and people panic
because they cannot determine what they need to do. I feel
it is important to provide coaching rather than training,where we can determine the situation on our own andautonomously act.
This is an issue of how we regard people. People can think for themselves, make their own
decisions, and act on their own. We believe in that power, and we should enhance it. We
need to work not only individually but also as a team to share and enhance each otherwhile working together. I believe this is a small shift in perspective when thinking about
people, for those who work with safety as key performance.
Mr. Yamamoto: What Mr. Yamaguchi just said goes hand-in-hand with the actions of flightattendants during the accident at Haneda Airport mentioned by Mr. Hayashi in his shortspeech. I understood your point to be that it is important to work on continuously updating
ourselves, but in order to make this possible, I personally think it is extremely important tokeep learning. On the other hand, looking at the “Future Human Resources Vision” reportof the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry,18

Panel discussion
I must say that Japanese people unfortunately do not have much of a habit of continuing
to learn after entering the workforce. Mr. Yamaguchi, where should we start in our initiative
to update ourselves in such kind of situation?
Mr. Yamaguchi: Human motivation is most heightened for goals set by oneself. It does notresonate well if someone from outside tells you what they expect of you or how they want
you to be. It is important to give the individual more opportunities to think about what kindof work they can do and what kind of person they want to become, and communicate withthe person in a companionable way what kind of learning we should continue to do on adaily basis to achieve this.
Mr. Yamamoto: Mr. Lyash, in the nuclear industry in the US, has the importance ofcontinuing to learn always been recognized, or has it been recognized at some point intime and continues to this day? Please tell us about the historical background.
Mr. Lyash: In 1979, the Three Mile Island accident occurred, which led to theestablishment of INPO. As a result of INPO and the industry working hard for decades fromthere, a perception emerged to seek excellence and not simply comply with regulations.
Moreover, the perception was that it is not something that ends somewhere but an ongoingprocess. The perception matured that the key to achieving and maintaining excellence is tocontinuously improve your abilities and performance to always be proactive in finding
opportunities to become better.
In the past 10 years, such commitment seems to have accelerated in the US. As a result,“staying on top” is talked about at INPO more recently, and the key to this is continuous
learning. The American industry is finally starting to get the gist of it after decades, andthere is still some groping to be done.
Mr. Yamamoto: The third topic is communication. Mr. Hayashi, what do you emphasize themost when communicating with internal and external parties?
Mr. Hayashi: Let me introduce this specifically for the nuclear business. In the nuclear
business, communication is extremely characteristic. For example, there are manyoccasions that require special communication, since there is a very high degree ofexpertise in the topic itself, there is a great deal of dependence on the knowledge,
experience and skills of individuals, and it is very closed and confidential in some ways. To
pursue safety in this context, it is important to share our skills, experience and knowledge
with you, and to do so, it is important to have thorough discussions within each team,organization and company. This will allow sharing tacit knowledge held by individuals andsome organizations and turning it into formal knowledge. As you voluntarily repeat suchformal knowledge in your own work, it will turn into your tacit knowledge. I think the startis to listen, and it is important to create an environment where psychological safety is
maintained.
Mr. Yamamoto: Mr. Yamaguchi’s presentation materials said that psychological safety is astate where everyone is sure that they do not have to worry about being evaluatednegatively even if they freely speak their mind. In a situation of regulatory authority versus
operator, where it is difficult to ensure such psychological safety, what kind ofcommunication do you think should be used?

19

Panel discussion
Mr. Yamaguchi: No matter what industry, Western or Eastern, there is fear and anxiety
when trying to communicate within an organization. It used to be said that it is important tosomehow shake them off, say what needs to be said, and have the courage to say it out
loud, but it is cruel to ask individuals to have that kind of courage. So, it is important toengage in lively discussions on a regular basis, and when opinions are at odds, it isimportant for managers and leaders to say that it is a good opinion and encourage people
to share their opinions more and more, because although it may be painful to hear, it will
actually lead to new insights and help eliminate assumptions.
Leaders should encourage people to learn from each other rather than hide it, because
everyone makes mistakes, and someone else's mistakes may be a learning experience forothers. Or, if they are too busy to take time immediately, leaders should always make anopportunity at a later time. It is important to continue to encourage everyone to work
together to improve the team.
Mr. Yamamoto: Mr. Lyash, authority gradient with NRC is an issue in the US. Has its impact
changed between the past and recently?
Mr. Lyash: There have been times in the past when the relationship between the NRC andoperators was strained and not transparent or open. However, the industry and regulatory
authority matured, and its relationship greatly improved. After the establishment of INPO,
the relationship between the regulatory authority and operators improved, and therelationship between the regulatory authority and INPO also improved. The regulatory
authority has become accustomed to the industry exercising self-regulation and haschanged to a more appropriate regulatory role. Currently, communication is relatively good.
Mr. Yamamoto: How much time did it take for the regulatory authority and industry tomature?
Mr. Lyash: I think it took too much time. Moreover, this is a “long and difficult journey”, and
it is still continuing. I think we need a few decades to get there. However, I think the more
we continue our journey, the more positive results we will produce, and the more we will
want to build such relationship.
Mr. Yamamoto: Mr. Yamaguchi, Japan is said to represent high context culture and the US
to represent low context culture. Can you explain how a high context culture affects
continuous improvement or safety improvement?
Mr. Yamaguchi: High context culture is a culture where a high degree of exchange is madewhen interacting, assuming that we can understand each other without having to explain
everything when having a conversation. Low context culture is a culture where you have to
put what you are thinking into words to be understood. High context culture has both goodand bad sides, but when it comes to safety, it tends to lead to assumptions, in principle. In
fact, in the field of rail transportation, there have been many cases where this has led tosecondary disasters.
Mr. Yamamoto: After hearing this, I feel JANSI needs to be careful when communicatingwith operators or when providing education. Mr. Yamazaki, what do you think?
Mr. Yamazaki: We must be very careful of high context in station operations aside from
communication with operators. In protecting safety of the power station, we need to20

Panel discussion
properly say necessary information out loud or put it in writing, and convey them atappropriate timings.
Currently in Japan, most continuous improvement mechanisms of the industry originate
from the US. This means that the mechanisms were successful in a low context culture, but
it probably will not be run properly if this is adopted in Japan only in form. For example,
when CAP was initially adopted, it was asked to report everything out of the ordinary, butthey did not come up easily. I think it was not reported because people in the field thought,“We do not have to go into such detail.” or “They must already know it.”This will never make the mechanism work, so we need to ask people to report any
information to share that information with everyone and build up experience where
everyone can feel that matters are properly addressed after determining the order ofpriority and improvements are made due to the report. In that sense, we need to adapt themechanism to Japan based on the culture of the original country, instead of just using themechanism adopted from the US as is. I believe JANSI’s role is to bridge the gap by goingback to the original idea of how the mechanism was created.
Mr. Yamamoto: Mr. Lyash, in past discussions, the trend is that low context culture fits wellwith safety. Is this really so?
Mr. Lyash: We are a low context society, so we must create the context for continuous
improvement and safety improvement. Low context is inefficient. It requires much work,
and it tends to create conflicts as differences of opinions are brought to light. That is why
we need to create the context. This will create a sense of ownership and eliminate
assumptions or eliminate blind spots. It could also lead to supporting continuous
improvement and learning.
High context culture like in Japan is more efficient in their approach to problems and haveadvantages in terms of psychological safety. The disadvantage is that built-in biases andblind spots could remain as is. While we create the context, in Japan, the context may need
to be dismantled once and recreated.
Methods of the US may not be used in Japan as they are. The underlying ideas andphilosophy are probably applicable in Japan, but we need to change the tactics.
Mr. Yamamoto: Lastly, we would like to have each panelist given their comments on
today’s discussion.
Mr. Hayashi: The discussion was about safety of the nuclear business, but there were also
many discussions about management itself. Among them, I was impressed that putting
people first is the basis for everything, whether it is safety, efficiency or management, as it
was mentioned in Mr. Lyash’s presentation. As a leader with a capital “L”, I reaffirmed theimportance of top executives sending out a message to their employees, who are especially
important stakeholders, that people are important, showing their passion, and actuallyinvesting in human resources.
Another point from what Mr. Yamaguchi said, it is not a person's job to simply comply withthe rules. It is important to once again discuss with everyone what is a job that only people
can do. If mechanization advances and generative AI becomes more practical, we may nothave to do operations in the indirect sector. However, there will always be work that can
only people can do, and that is where we should invest. Therefore, I would like us to keep
discussing what that is.

21

Panel discussion
Mr. Yamaguchi: As it was mentioned by President Hayashi, I felt that if we develop humanresources regarding each working person not as a cog in a machine but as a being with theability to make decisions autonomously, and consider safety management from there, wewill be able to improve even further. I think we are going the right way in our path ofpractice and our efforts for continuous improvement, so I appreciate if we could move
forward with a better view of people.
Mr. Lyash: Nuclear technology is essential to helping people around the world escapepoverty and protecting the environment. I would like the nuclear industry in Japan to take aleadership position that the world needs. You have an excellent record and have excellent
organizations involved. The world expects you to advance to the next level overcoming thetragedy of Fukushima. I think discussions like today are truly important, so please continue
to have them. It is important for various leaders of the nuclear industry to encourage andhelp each other to realize the highest level of performance. Please utilize JANSI for this.
INPO became the key in the US, so I hope you can make it happen also in Japan.
Mr. Yamazaki: I strongly felt that we were not mistaken in
our year-long discussion on the importance of mechanism,
people and culture, especially people and culture, which area particular focus in JANSI’s new 10-year strategy. I
thought that a continuous improvement culture could becreated by having leaders aim higher with high standards,
involving leaders at all levels with a strong will, having themcontinue to improve on a daily basis as if it were their own
responsibility, and accumulating successful experiences in
the process. I hope we can work together with the leadersgathered here to achieve the world’s highest level of safety
and reliability, which is raised in the future vision of JANSI,
without being satisfied with the status quo in theirrespective positions. JANSI will always be by your side tosupport this.
Mr. Yamamoto: It was a short time, but we had an interesting discussion on three themes.
I would like to give my gratitude to the four panelists.

22

Closing remarks

President & CEO,Japan Nuclear Safety Institute (JANSI)
Hiromi Yamazaki
The purpose of this year’s conference was to raise awareness of theindustry through discussions with relevant personnel and obtain valid
suggestions, regarding our challenges for the next 10 years.
In the keynote speech, Mr. Lyash, CEO of TVA in the US, gave a valuable and practicaltalk about continuous improvement initiatives based on his own experience, which is sureto have been a great stimulus for the participants.
In the panel discussion, Mr. Yamamoto led the discussion on how to develop autonomousand continuous improvement in Japan with CEO Lyash, Mr. Yamaguchi of Kyushu University
and President Hayashi of Chubu Electric Power. We obtained various beneficial insights,
such as autonomous improvement initiatives, fostering of such culture, efforts as top
executives, leadership, and communication.
In order to meet the expectations of the society toward nuclear energy, it is important for
us nuclear industry to continue to pursue excellence and improve performance, without
being satisfied with compliance with the regulatory requirements. I would like us to utilize
the many suggestions obtained today in our respective positions.
JANSI will continue to respond to operators’ mandates and lead their autonomous andcontinuous improvement activities as a self-regulatory organization of the industry. Thankyou for your participation today.

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

23