Advancing district measures for preventing nuclear disasters through the level-headed exchange of opinions and also lessening concern among local residents -- these are the objectives of the safety pacts between electric power companies and local governments in connection with nuclear power plants. This starting point must not be forgotten.
Japan Atomic Power Co. has concluded new safety pacts -- in addition to the one with Tokai, where its Tokai No. 2 Power Station is located -- with five municipalities near the host village, including Mito. The pact stipulates that JAPC must obtain prior approval from these local municipalities for a restart of its power plant and for operations exceeding the regular operating life of 40 years.
Requiring prior approval for a power plant restart, not only from the host community but also from nearby municipalities, is said to be unprecedented.
Although a safety pact is a gentlemen's agreement with no legal grounds, it has effectively become a contract through which local governments tie down a power company.
As long as Tokai or any of the five nearby cities does not consent, the Tokai No. 2 power plant cannot be restarted. Doubts cannot be shaken about having strongly binding power, with no legal grounds, incorporated into the safety accord.
After the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, Tokai's former headman changed tack to adopt a zero-nuclear power policy. Thinking that the conclusion between the power company and the village of Tokai alone would not be enough, the village head began calling for accords that also involve its neighboring municipalities. JAPC apparently had no choice but to consent to the request of the host municipality.
Don't use prior approval as tool
The Nuclear Regulation Authority's screenings over the restart of the Tokai No. 2 nuclear power plant have had rough going. The operation of all JAPC's nuclear power plants has now been suspended. There are no prospects for the power company to secure the construction expenses of about 170 billion yen to heighten the plant's safety, required for the restart.
Given its financial plight, coupled with the safety pact, JAPC can be considered to have been driven into extremely harsh circumstances.
The local municipalities, which have obtained the "authority" of prior approval, should respond in a level-headed manner. This is because an argument concerning a nuclear power plant may cause a rift in the local community, with opinions divided sharply.
As long as the safety pact functions in its original form, it can help deepen the understanding of local residents over a restart of the plant. They would be able to demand that JAPC explain the safety measures in detail. Cooperation in the areas of accident and disaster prevention will also advance. It will offer opportunities to comprehensively discuss such issues as the promotion of local economies and the power supply.
On the basis of these developments, it is reasonable to leave the matter of whether the restart should be allowed up to the outcome of the safety screening by the Nuclear Regulation Authority, an independent expert body.
In other districts, too, there are voices calling for having power companies obtain prior approval of a safety pact from a wider range of local governments. This is because, following the nuclear accident, compiling evacuation plans for areas up to a 30-kilometer radius around power plants has become compulsory.
Local municipalities might exploit the prior approval as a "political tool." As nuclear power plants are situated in a diverse range of locations, safety pacts should take into account the circumstances of the local community and be useful for local residents.
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, April 4, 2018)
Read more from The Japan News at https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/
