Paper short abstract:

This paper sheds light on efforts to improve nuclear safety in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear accident. It argues that a struggle emerged over defining nuclear safety driven in large parts by citizen groups filing lawsuits against reactor restarts on the grounds of safety concerns.

Paper long abstract:

The Fukushima accident eroded trust in the safety of nuclear power plants and prompted anti-nuclear protests. In response, government bodies in charge of nuclear safety measures were reformed resulting in the establishment of the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA, Genshiryoku kisei iinkai) in 2012. The NRA pledged to implement strict measures based on latest scientific findings to protect people's lifes and the environment and to reassure citizens' confidence (NRA 2012). Challenging NRA decisions on reactor safety is possible through the legal system and various citizen groups have already filed lawsuits. With courts as the only bodies with the authority to override NRA decisions, the outcome of these lawsuits has strong implications regarding the future of nuclear power in Japan. These lawsuits raise the question how safety is defined among various actors and whether appropriate measures are implemented meeting which bottom-lines. More precisely, the paper illuminates the ongoing struggle over defining nuclear safety among politicians, bureaucrats, scientists and citizens' groups by focusing on the Abe administration, NRA and judges in the different rulings on injunctions against reactor restarts sought on the premise of safety concerns. It argues that considerable tensions are visible between the government's desire to provide reassurance (anshin), the NRA's science-based approach to safety (anzen) and court rulings which diverge on whether the efforts undertaken are sufficient. The findings presented are the result of a three-year research project on nuclear safety governance reform in the wake of the Fukushima accident.