Govt must present clear nuclear safety measures

The Yomiuri Shimbun

The government needs to explain explicitly how it will ensure nuclear power plants are safe.

The Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan, an organization under the Cabinet Office, has started examining the first-stage stress test results for the idled Nos. 3 and 4 nuclear reactors at Kansai Electric Power Co.'s Oi plant in Fukui Prefecture.

The tests were conducted to calculate and confirm the safety levels of the nuclear plant on the assumption that it had been hit by an earthquake or tsunami.

The government has said that passing stress tests is a key condition for restarting reactors suspended for periodic checks. The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) of the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry earlier this month endorsed the stress test results. We hope the commission will hasten its deliberations on the evaluation of the first-stage test results.

Based on the commission's evaluation, the government plans to obtain approval from local governments around the plant to turn the two reactors back on.

===

Panel head stirs controversy

However, commission Chairman Haruki Madarame muddied the waters at the commission's meeting Tuesday when he objected to the plan, saying, "The first-stage stress tests alone aren't sufficient to confirm the safety of the plant."

Since the crisis began at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, the government has been pressed to present reference materials for confirming the safety of the nation's nuclear power plants. Madarame called into question the first-stage stress tests that the government had regarded as one pillar of the reference materials.

Madarame questioned the advisability of the first-stage tests that he said are "an abridged edition" of tests conducted in Europe. His doubts were raised because tests conducted in Japan did not confirm in detail the weak points of plant facilities and equipment.

The commission originally called for conducting stress tests on a par with those in Europe. However, NISA, which wants to get idled reactors up and running as soon as possible, set the first-stage stress tests and rendered the commission's tests secondary.

Furthermore, it remains uncertain how the second-stage tests will be treated because an overhaul of the nuclear regulation system is scheduled for April.

Discontent with this process apparently was behind Madarame's comment that the checks were "not sufficient." But isn't it the commission's responsibility to present concrete measures to improve safety by closely examining the content of the first-stage evaluation?

===

Steps to bolster power

Fukui Prefecture, among other local governments, has been urging the central government to present more understandable and detailed safety guidelines instead of conducting stress tests.

After learning lessons from the crisis at the Fukushima plant, which lost all power sources after being swamped by the March 11 tsunami, NISA has put together 30-point safety improvement measures, including bolstering electricity supply sources. Could these be used as references to win over local governments and residents concerned?

If the government neglects efforts to obtain local understanding and support, resuming operation of nuclear reactors cannot be realized.

Operation of the No. 3 reactor at Kansai Electric Power Co.'s Takahama nuclear power plant in Fukui Prefecture was suspended this week for a regular check, leaving just two commercial reactors operational in Japan. This number will fall to zero at the end of April. Utility companies are walking a tightrope to meet the demand by sharing power supply with each other. However, the situation will become even more precarious.

Confusion within the government, and its inaction, must not be allowed to create a permanent electricity crisis.

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Feb. 22, 2012)