Moves to fix problems within the set framework, such as finding visual means of
explaining the official position, and elaborating on the compensatory measures,
have been studied and adopted in abundance. There have also been moves to
shift—less from the localities, more to the national government—the political
weight of applying to the siting process. All have ended to no avail as of today.
Meanwhile, opposition against the present method of disposal of high level
radioactive waste (and of its by-production) has been repeatedly put forth by the
concerned public in the form of public comments on policy drafts and opinions
gathered at public hearings. These opinions have been presented both prior to [1]
and after [2] legislation, but close inspection reveals that it is hard to say they have
been given a substantial response [3]. Much of the official publications and discussion events have dismissed other methods of disposal on grounds of their
political and technical challenges to realization, arguing instead on the safety of
geologic disposal, or what can be done for localities accepting site exploration.
This apparent evasion of debate occurs not necessarily because geologic disposal
cannot withstand counterarguments, but rather, because the choice of geologic
disposal relied heavily on politically top-level selection based on prior international
debate and engineering perceptions. This means that, in the Japanese context, it is
difficult to give a logical explanation why the choice of disposal method was made;
what criteria were considered, whether the choice of criteria or their relative significance were democratically or scientifically warranted. Albeit mention in the
present policy of securing a margin for the ‘future generations’ to reform the present
policy, doubts arise whether anyone can recognize a “betterment” coming along
when there has been no attempt to substantiate what “better” actually means.
Such a history suggests, both in practicality and in democratic theory, that more
radical reconsideration of policies is due.
1.2 Overarching Aims
This research aims to contribute to realizing some form of disposal in Japan, by
suggesting an improved institutional scheme for radical (re)consideration of high
level radioactive waste disposal policies. The improvisation will center on problems
of how decision making agendas have been limited/assigned to certain actors over
time. This direction will lead further to questions such as, “How should the public
participate?” or “What is the role of certain specialists in policy making?” which are
both questions echoed from related studies [4, 5].
To reconsider institutional schemes in this view, the history of decision making
on high level radioactive waste disposal will be reviewed with a mind to discern
what agendas have been heretofore assigned to which actors, while consciously
inquiring how agendas and actors could or should be defined. These queries are of
importance, since determining ways in which agendas/actors could be categorized,
and being able to position existing issues within the spectrum of these categories
(e.g. from the technically general to the specific, from national to local, etc.) is
326
R. Watanabe
explaining the official position, and elaborating on the compensatory measures,
have been studied and adopted in abundance. There have also been moves to
shift—less from the localities, more to the national government—the political
weight of applying to the siting process. All have ended to no avail as of today.
Meanwhile, opposition against the present method of disposal of high level
radioactive waste (and of its by-production) has been repeatedly put forth by the
concerned public in the form of public comments on policy drafts and opinions
gathered at public hearings. These opinions have been presented both prior to [1]
and after [2] legislation, but close inspection reveals that it is hard to say they have
been given a substantial response [3]. Much of the official publications and discussion events have dismissed other methods of disposal on grounds of their
political and technical challenges to realization, arguing instead on the safety of
geologic disposal, or what can be done for localities accepting site exploration.
This apparent evasion of debate occurs not necessarily because geologic disposal
cannot withstand counterarguments, but rather, because the choice of geologic
disposal relied heavily on politically top-level selection based on prior international
debate and engineering perceptions. This means that, in the Japanese context, it is
difficult to give a logical explanation why the choice of disposal method was made;
what criteria were considered, whether the choice of criteria or their relative significance were democratically or scientifically warranted. Albeit mention in the
present policy of securing a margin for the ‘future generations’ to reform the present
policy, doubts arise whether anyone can recognize a “betterment” coming along
when there has been no attempt to substantiate what “better” actually means.
Such a history suggests, both in practicality and in democratic theory, that more
radical reconsideration of policies is due.
1.2 Overarching Aims
This research aims to contribute to realizing some form of disposal in Japan, by
suggesting an improved institutional scheme for radical (re)consideration of high
level radioactive waste disposal policies. The improvisation will center on problems
of how decision making agendas have been limited/assigned to certain actors over
time. This direction will lead further to questions such as, “How should the public
participate?” or “What is the role of certain specialists in policy making?” which are
both questions echoed from related studies [4, 5].
To reconsider institutional schemes in this view, the history of decision making
on high level radioactive waste disposal will be reviewed with a mind to discern
what agendas have been heretofore assigned to which actors, while consciously
inquiring how agendas and actors could or should be defined. These queries are of
importance, since determining ways in which agendas/actors could be categorized,
and being able to position existing issues within the spectrum of these categories
(e.g. from the technically general to the specific, from national to local, etc.) is
326
R. Watanabe