News Watch (March 23, 2026)
Request for Literature Survey on Minamitorishima
Akazawa Ryosei, Japan’s Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), made a request on March 3 to Shibuya Masaaki, Mayor of Ogasawara Village, for his understanding and cooperation in carrying out a literature survey for selection of a final disposal site for high-level radioactive waste in Minamitorishima, an island belonging to Ogasawara Village, which is administratively part of Tokyo, but lies far to the south in the Pacific Ocean. It was on March 3 that a senior official of METI handed the document in the name of the minister to the mayor, but the document itself was dated February 26.
According to an article dated March 11 on the Japan Atomic Industry Forum’s (JAIF’s) website, at an Ogasawara Village Council meeting on March 10, council member Hirano Yusuke asked about the circumstances of the government’s request. In response, Mayor Shibuya said that the government had explained the necessity of geological disposal and had described to him what the literature survey would include when he was on an official trip to the mainland. He revealed that he had been requested on February 9 to explain to the village that a literature survey was to be implemented in Ogasawara Village.
In the cases of both Kamoenai Village, Hokkaido, and Genkai Town, Saga Prefecture, METI’s request came after the village or town council had passed a measure requesting such a survey. This has been reported as the first case of such a request out of the blue. It was not really unexpected, however.
It may have been the first time, though, that the reaction from Japan’s “Nuclear Village” (as the industrial, governmental and academic proponents of nuclear power in Japan are called, owing to their clannish nature) has not been a unanimous welcoming. Minamitorishima was listed early on as a suitable site for final geological disposal, as it is known to be “located on the world’s most stable oceanic plate and part of Japan’s territory,” in the words of Oike Kazuo, Professor Emeritus at Kyoto University. It lies about 1,280 kilometers from Chichijima in the Ogasawara Islands. It is nationally-owned land, far from Japan’s mainland and free from normal residents, so there have been proponents such as Matsuura Shojiro, advisor to the Japan Nuclear Safety Institute, who argue wildly that it poses no risk of litigation. The “Nuclear Village” hopes for its realization as a disposal site, but on the other hand, the high cost of long-distance transportation has also been noted…
Expressions of doubt like that have never been seen before when a place has been accepted for a literature survey. At a press conference on March 5, Masui Hideki, President and CEO of JAIF, pointed out “A proper security system will be needed to transport the waste.” Ishii Masanori, former technical director of IHI Corporation’s Energy Technology Division posted his views in the “My Opinion” column addressing energy issues on JAIF’s website on July 7, 2025, well ahead of METI’s request, saying, “We must pay attention to specific circumstances such as whether or not it is possible to establish a disposal site on a small island like that, rising only to 8 meters above sea level, as the exclusive economic zone around it could simply disappear, and whether or not it can coexist with the rare-earth mining base that is also planned for the island.”
Many other issues of concern have also been raised by citizens’ groups. See CNIC’s statement on this topic for more information. cnic.jp/english/?p=8967
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Unit 6 Restarted Despite Ongoing Problems
As noted in the previous issue of News Watch, the restart of the Unit 6 reactor at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station, operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), “was railroaded through on January 21, 2026 after a delay of one day. However, on the following day, the 22nd, a malfunction occurred in the control rod drive system, and the reactor was shut down.”
Well, the restart was subsequently railroaded through once again despite ongoing issues.
The reactor was restarted again on February 9, but on the 12th a device for measuring neutrons in the reactor pressure vessel got stuck in the guide tube and wouldn’t move. The next day, the 13th, the reactor was shut down again so that the inside of the containment vessel could be inspected. It was restarted yet again on the 14th, and on the 16th, after a delay of about half a day from the scheduled time, electric power generation resumed after a hiatus of 14 years. Then, on the 17th, another alarm sounded as they withdrew the control rods. That resulted in only temporarily disrupted operation before they continued. The power output was reduced on the 18th for an intermediate halt and the reactor was shut down again on the 19th. The reactor was restarted once again on the 24th, and right away yet another alarm sounded.
On March 12, it was reported that an alarm indicating an electrical leakage in the generator had sounded. It appeared not to be a false alarm, with a high likelihood that an electrical leakage was indeed occurring, so the power generation and transmission were stopped on March 14 to enable a detailed investigation to be undertaken. The output of the nuclear reactor was reduced by 20 percent without halting its operation. Since then, they have been trying to find out what has been causing the electrical-leakage alarm to sound. On March 16, they told the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) that they were postponing the start of commercial operation, which they had planned for the 18th.
Another problem has also come to light regarding this reactor. In November of this year, it will have reached 30 years since the beginning of its operation, but the plans necessary for extending its operation past 30 years will need NRA approval. The submitted application had multiple errors in items such as the address, company president’s name, date and so on, as reported at a meeting of the inspectors on February 17, and it is said that there were also entries that did not comply with inspection criteria. The cause of these oversights was failure of the department in charge to check for changes in the related laws, as reported in a meeting of the inspectors on March 6. Laws relevant to the inspection had been revised in 2025, but TEPCO says, “There was no procedure for confirming legal revisions, so we did not check for them,” and “We did not confirm details such as inspection criteria.”
