The latest court decision is based on sensible judgment. There was every reason to overturn a provisional injunction that adhered to a zero-risk bias.
The Hiroshima High Court has allowed the restart of the No. 3 reactor at Shikoku Electric Power Co.'s Ikata nuclear power plant in Ehime Prefecture. Last December, a different presiding judge of the court issued a temporary restraining order to suspend the operation of the reactor, but a court examination regarding the company's objection to the order has now reversed it.
The greatest point of contention was how volcanic eruption risk should be assessed. The controversy was centered on whether a pyroclastic flow would cross the sea to reach the Ikata power station, supposing a catastrophic eruption were to occur at Mt. Aso in Kumamoto Prefecture, about 130 kilometers from the facility, a situation that could happen about once in 10,000 years.
Basing the latest decision on a "socially accepted idea," the examination of the objection rejected the injunction, which asserted the risk of a pyroclastic flow reaching the power plant is not nil.
The frequency of a catastrophic eruption devastating a large area, including the Kyushu region, is extremely low. To begin with, there exist no regulations or disaster-prevention measures that anticipate such a situation. The decision handed down in the examination also concluded, "The great majority of the public do not particularly regard this as a problem."
The latest judgment is extremely reasonable, given the probability of a catastrophic eruption occurring during the operational period of a nuclear power station, which has been set at 40 years as a general rule.
Deepen volcanic risk talks
A similar point of view was also demonstrated in court judgments on provisional injunctions against Kyushu Electric Power Co.'s Sendai and Genkai nuclear power plants. Such a standpoint seems to have become gradually established as a judicial judgment.
It should be noted that the latest decision described a guide to assessing the impact of volcanic activities, which was compiled by the Nuclear Regulation Authority, as "unreasonable." The decision regards it as a problem that the guide lays down procedures for pertinent inspections on the assumption that the time and scale of a volcanic eruption can be predicted.
The same opinion has been expressed by other courts of justice. The NRA should promote in-depth discussions on volcanic risks.
Several applications for a provisional injunction against the No. 3 reactor at the Ikata plant have been filed with other courts. If even one injunction is issued, that decision will immediately become effective, making it impossible to continue operating the facility.
In examining an application for an injunction, decision-making is based on limited evidence, so as to promptly discern imminent danger and other matters. The level of substantiation in that process is different from that of an ordinary lawsuit in which procedures such as cross-examining witnesses are followed.
Apart from a full-fledged lawsuit, are injunction procedures suited to judge the safety of a nuclear power plant, a deed that requires advanced scientific knowledge?
In the wake of an accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, applications have been filed for provisional injunctions against nuclear power stations in various places, and several decisions have been made to approve of such demands.
There is no denying that provisional injunction applications are being improperly used as a means of preventing the restart of nuclear power plants. Electric power corporations cannot take the increase in judicial risk lightly, as they regard nuclear power generation as a baseload power source.
Shikoku Electric has emphasized that the restart of nuclear power plants will be conducive to a stable supply of electricity. Smooth reactivation is required.
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Sept. 26, 2018)
Read more from The Japan News at https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/
