A court ruling ordering Kansai Electric Power Co. not to restart the No. 3 and No. 4 reactors of the Oi nuclear power plant in Fukui Prefecture has called into question the legitimacy of ongoing safety screenings of nuclear plants across Japan.
A court ruling ordering Kansai Electric Power Co. not to restart the No. 3 and No. 4 reactors of the Oi nuclear power plant in Fukui Prefecture has called into question the legitimacy of ongoing safety screenings of nuclear plants across Japan.
While the Nuclear Regulation Authority is currently inspecting 18 reactors that operators aim to reactivate at 11 nuclear plants, the Fukui District Court decided that no safety measures could ever be sufficient, as it is impossible for modern science to predict the biggest possible earthquake that could strike.
In handing down the ruling May 21, Presiding Judge Hideaki Higuchi said that the people’s safety must not be dealt with on the same basis as cost efficiency.
“People’s right to life is the very foundation of personal rights, which are protected by the Constitution. It must be regarded with the highest respect in the field of law,” the judge said.
“While Kansai Electric says the operation of the plant will secure a stable supply of electricity, comparing the fundamental rights of so many people to survive and the utility prices on equal grounds is not a legitimate argument for this legal authority to consider,” he added.
The ruling was the first handed down by a court in Japan in response to a lawsuit seeking the suspension of operations of nuclear reactors in the wake of the March 2011 accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.
Kansai Electric appealed the ruling on May 22.
Until the ruling is finalized, the utility can still restart the Oi plant if the NRA finds that the two reactors meet new safety standards. But if Kansai Electric ignores the ruling and resumes plant operations, it will face immense opposition from local residents and others.
The focal point of the trial was whether the Oi plant’s quake-resistant capability, which Kansai Electric says can withstand tremors with a maximum ground acceleration of 1,260 gals, is sufficient in securing its safety.
According to the utility, the maximum limit is 1.8 times stronger than the predictable strongest tremors of 700 gals that can hit the plant compound.
The ruling, however, said, “It is essentially impossible to eliminate the possibility of an earthquake stronger than 1,260 based on hard scientific evidence,” citing the 2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku Earthquake, which registered a maximum ground acceleration of 4,022 gals.
It also noted the fact that four nuclear power plants have experienced tremors stronger than their maximum standard since 2005.
Presiding Judge Higuchi added that the Fukushima nuclear disaster has clearly shown “the fundamental danger of nuclear power generation technologies” and the extensive damage an accident can cause.
The decision is likely to have a major impact on other trials concerning nuclear plants across Japan that are now being heard.
The NRA’s new safety standard requires utility companies to map out safety measures at nuclear plants, based on calculations of the strongest potential earthquake at the sites, taking into account active faults running in the areas, ground conditions and other factors.
Kansai Electric used the same method in drawing up safety standards for the Oi plant, but the ruling challenged the capability of calculating maximum strongest earthquake at nuclear plants, citing the limitations of scientific knowledge.
The ruling added that centers of seismic activity are often located deep underground and it is impossible to predict the scale of future earthquakes without relying on hypothesis and presumptions. Data from the past earthquakes is also very limited, it said.
“The ruling is right in pointing out the limitation of the precision of earthquake prediction today,” said Kazuki Koketsu, a professor of seismology at the University of Tokyo, who was involved in the NRA’s safety screenings. “It is apparent that the ruling flatly denies the ways the NRA is screening the safety of each plant.”
Even if the NRA’s methods are questioned by the court, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government has made it clear that it will push for the resumption of nuclear plants if they pass the NRA’s safety screening.
On May 21, industry minister Toshimitsu Motegi said the ruling will not have an impact on the NRA’s safety regulation standards and its ongoing safety screening of nuclear plants, including the Sendai nuclear plant in Kagoshima Prefecture.
The government has a reason to be optimistic. In past lawsuits related to nuclear power plants, there have been two court rulings in favor of residents, but higher courts overturned them and those rulings became finalized.
One was a 2003 order handed down by the Kanazawa branch of the Nagoya High Court, which nullified the government’s approval of the installation of the Monju prototype fast-breeder reactor in Tsuruga, also in Fukui Prefecture.
Another was the 2006 Kanazawa District Court’s ruling that ordered a halt to operations of the Shika nuclear power plant in Shika, Ishikawa Prefecture.
“Everything depends on how the high court will rule on the case, although higher courts have tendency to judge more in line with the government’s intentions,” said Taro Kono, deputy secretary-general of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. Kono is known for his anti-nuclear stance.
During a news conference May 21, the NRA's chairman, Shunichi Tanaka, confirmed the nuclear watchdog’s stance that the ruling has no impact on its safety screening of nuclear plants.
“I have nothing to say about the judicial judgment. We have our own concepts and will proceed with the safety screening based on our scientific knowledge,” Tanaka said.