A lower court ruling that played down the importance of scientific knowledge has been overturned. This is an appropriate decision.
The Kanazawa branch of the Nagoya High Court has reversed a ruling by the Fukui District Court, the court of first instance, that ordered the operation of the Nos. 3 and 4 reactors at Kansai Electric Power Co.'s Oi nuclear power plant to be suspended.
This was the first ruling by a high court on a bevy of lawsuits filed to demand the suspension of nuclear reactor operations following the March 2011 accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. This realistic ruling that allows the operation of nuclear reactors will influence other courts handling similar lawsuits.
The high court said "it should be considered whether the danger is being managed to the extent that [the danger] is negligible under normal social conventions," as the basis for deciding whether to accept the restart of nuclear reactors.
This was in stark contrast to the lower court ruling, which stubbornly stuck to a standard of "zero risk" of a nuclear accident by insisting reactors could be shut down even if there was a remote chance of a specific risk.
The biggest focus in this case was whether the predicted design basis earthquake ground motion -- which forms the premise for evaluating the nuclear facility's quake resistance -- was rationally drawn up.
During the appeal trial at the high court, Kunihiko Shimazaki, who had been the deputy chairman of the Nuclear Regulation Authority, testified, "There is a risk that Kansai Electric's calculation methods will underestimate" the ground motion. In contrast, the court concluded Kansai Electric's calculations were based on meticulous surveys and "it cannot be said they are unreasonable."
Top court precedent needed
In May 2017, the Oi plant's Nos. 3 and 4 reactors passed NRA safety inspections conducted under new, strengthened standards implemented based on lessons learned from the Fukushima No. 1 plant accident. Both reactors have already resumed operations. The high court ruling can be described as respecting the NRA's carefully checked inspection results.
In a 1992 decision in a case over safety inspections at Shikoku Electric Power Co.'s Ikata nuclear power plant, the Supreme Court presented a view that such matters "are left to the government's rational judgment." This was because such a decision required advanced scientific and technical knowledge.
The high court ruling emphasized that the new safety standards were the fruit of "discussions by experts" and respecting their content can be said to be a "suitable attitude for a court to take." This was a common-sense conclusion in line with legal precedents.
District and high courts have been divided over rulings handed down on the restart of nuclear reactors. Some reactors even have been forced to halt operations as a result of temporary injunctions, which immediately have legal effect.
Given that nuclear power plays a role in the nation's stable supply of energy, it is not desirable to have a situation in which lower-court rulings can sway the operation of nuclear reactors. A binding Supreme Court precedent on the framework for decisions on whether nuclear reactor operations should be resumed must be necessary.
Attention will now focus on whether the citizens who had demanded the Oi reactors be shut down will file an appeal.
Of course, it is difficult to perfectly predict a major earthquake. The NRA also has started reexamining potential earthquakes with a hypocenter in unknown areas. Constant efforts are essential for improving the safety of the nation's nuclear reactors.
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, July 5, 2018)
Read more from The Japan News at https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/
