• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "James M. Acton",
    "Mark Hibbs"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie China"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "NPP",
  "programs": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "East Asia",
    "Japan"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Nuclear Policy",
    "Nuclear Energy",
    "Climate Change",
    "Security",
    "Arms Control"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Preventing Another Fukushima

The effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident are still being felt on a daily basis.

Link Copied
By James M. Acton and Mark Hibbs
Published on Mar 13, 2012
Program mobile hero image

Program

Nuclear Policy

The Nuclear Policy Program aims to reduce the risk of nuclear war. Our experts diagnose acute risks stemming from technical and geopolitical developments, generate pragmatic solutions, and use our global network to advance risk-reduction policies. Our work covers deterrence, disarmament, arms control, nonproliferation, and nuclear energy.

Learn More

Source: Kyodo News

On March 11, 2011, we watched in horror as a triple tragedy -- earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown --befell Japan.

One year later, Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station may be in ''cold shutdown'' but the effects of the accident there are still being felt on a daily basis.

In contrast to devastated towns and villages elsewhere, rebuilding of the communities around the plant has barely begun. Inevitably, an unprecedented number of Japanese are asking whether nuclear power should have any place in their country's energy policy.

Whatever Japan decides, however, it needs a much more robust system of nuclear regulation. (After all, even if Japan were to phase out nuclear energy tomorrow -- and that hardly seems possible -- the management of nuclear waste must be overseen.)

Since the accident, criticism of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) has focused on its lack of independence from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, which is responsible for promoting nuclear power. Quite rightly, NISA is now being reconstituted under the Ministry of the Environment. However, regulation in Japan has other problems that must be addressed.

As well as lacking independence from government, NISA also lacked independence from industry. Amakudari (''descent from heaven''), the practice of giving senior regulators jobs at the helm of industry, has been stopped. However, amaagari (''ascent to heaven''), in which industry safety experts are employed by regulators, still continues.

Industry safety experts certainly have an important -- indeed irreplaceable -- role in regulation. However, NISA and its technical support organization, the Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization, have probably become over-reliant on them. Fostering a new generation of independent experts is a key challenge -- and one that cannot be solved by legislation alone.

Perhaps partly because of its over-reliance on industry expertise, NISA showed a lack of imagination about potential threats to nuclear power plants.

Its strong focus on seismic safety appears to have come at the expense of considering other risks. We have no doubt that Japan's new regulator will take tsunami safety very seriously. However, there are many other potential threats, ranging from extreme meteorological effects resulting from climate change to terrorism.

To properly consider all these risks, Japan's nuclear regulator must engage with experts from many different fields and move beyond the relative insularity that has been a hallmark of much of the Japanese nuclear sector in the past.

NISA's most fundamental failing was, however, that it appeared to believe that a major accident was simply not possible. Perhaps only this can explain why it did not issue regulations covering the long-term loss of electricity in a nuclear power plant or insist on the development of robust procedures for managing a severe accident.

In the years to come, a major challenge for the new regulator will be avoiding complacency. Leadership will be required from within -- as will public scrutiny from without. Ultimately, the best way to avoid a repeat of Fukushima is to remember that one is always possible.

This article originally appeared in Kyodo News.

About the Authors

James M. Acton

Jessica T. Mathews Chair, Co-director, Nuclear Policy Program

Acton holds the Jessica T. Mathews Chair and is co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Mark Hibbs

Nonresident Senior Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program

Hibbs is a Germany-based nonresident senior fellow in Carnegie’s Nuclear Policy Program. His areas of expertise are nuclear verification and safeguards, multilateral nuclear trade policy, international nuclear cooperation, and nonproliferation arrangements.

Authors

James M. Acton
Jessica T. Mathews Chair, Co-director, Nuclear Policy Program
James M. Acton
Mark Hibbs
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program
Mark Hibbs
Nuclear PolicyNuclear EnergyClimate ChangeSecurityArms ControlEast AsiaJapan

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Enough with the Annual NATO Summits, Already?

    Over the past ten years, NATO has held almost as many summits as it did during the entirety of the Cold War. Are they still useful, or is it time to stop holding annual meetings?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    What Should We Take From Andrey Melnichenko’s Essay in the Economist?

    Andrey Melnichenko’s essay offers no answer to the fundamental question of how, under any kind of negotiated settlement, Europe can protect itself from the Russian ressentiment that is inevitable in all scenarios except for an outright victory for Putin.

      Leonid Bershidsky

  • Romania Bulgaria Turkey Black Sea naval
    Commentary
    How NATO Became Anchored in the Black Sea

    As Russia's war on Ukraine drags on, NATO is expanding its footprint in the Black Sea. Turkey, Romania, and Bulgaria are upgrading their fleets and deepening trilateral cooperation.

      Dimitar Bechev

  • Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (C) visits the Natanz uranium enrichment facilities April 8, 2008
    Paper
    Demystifying the Nuclear Threshold

    The nuclear weapons threshold is increasingly important for proliferation strategy and policy. Policymakers should better understand the implications of the threshold phenomenon in the current international security environment and plausible strategies to deal with the growing challenge that it presents.

      Ariel (Eli) Levite, Toby Dalton

  • Paper
    Securing America’s Near Abroad: Recalibrating U.S. Policy Toward Haiti

    Helping to stabilize Haiti is in the United States’ national interest and can be done by making wise use of various foreign policy tools in addition to supporting international security forces.

      Christopher Shell

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.