Judges tend to side with utilities in atomic power plant cases
Apr. 25, 2011
The risk of an earthquake causing critical damage to a nuclear power plant has been the subject of lawsuits filed by local residents in various parts of Japan over the years, but to date none of these legal actions has led to operations at a plant being suspended.
Since the outbreak of the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station triggered by the March 11 quake and tsunami, criticism is being directed at judges because of their tendency to side with the state and power companies in their rulings.
The courts have been inclined to accept arguments that nuclear power plants are safe, citing the highly technical nature of atomic power generation. In light of the ongoing crisis at Fukushima, however, critics say the judges should be held accountable for abandoning their role to properly scrutinize such cases.
The focal point of debate is the degree to which judges are capable of deliberating on the complexities of nuclear power generation, which brings together highly complex technology and science.
In a 1992 ruling, the Supreme Court presented a framework on how courts may approach cases involving nuclear power plants, noting the reasonableness of following expert opinion.
''Should there be a serious error in judgment made by experts on whom the state depended, then the issuing by the state of a permit for construction (of a nuclear power plant) shall be deemed illegal,'' the court said in a ruling.
The ruling threw out a lawsuit by residents who wanted the central government to withdraw a permit for Shikoku Electric Power Co. to build a nuclear reactor in Ikata, Ehime Prefecture.
In a rare decision, the Kanazawa District Court issued a ruling in 2006 that called for the suspension of operation of the No. 2 reactor of Hokuriku Electric Power Co.'s Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa Prefecture. ''There are concrete risks of residents being exposed to radiation in an earthquake that is beyond the assumed level,'' the court of first instance said.
In an appellate ruling, however, those risks were dismissed and the decision was reversed. Last year, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal against this decision.
Just after a high court issued a ruling on a lawsuit involving the No. 1 reactor of Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa station in Niigata Prefecture, a magnitude 6.8 quake struck in 2007 off the coast of the prefecture, exceeding the level assumed in the design of the plant and causing some -- though not critical -- damage.
The Supreme Court eventually affirmed a defeat for residents in the lawsuit, saying, ''The earthquake does not affect this decision'' in view of what had been deliberated, the history of the lawsuit and other issues.
The greatest public attention is perhaps focused on Chubu Electric Power Co.'s Hamaoka nuclear power plant in Omaezaki, Shizuoka Prefecture, built in a region where a major quake is anticipated, given the history of cyclical quakes in the Pacific off the coast of the region.
Residents there filed a lawsuit to suspend reactor operations at the plant.
In 2007, however, the plaintiffs lost in a ruling by the Shizuoka District Court that recognized the central government's antiquake guidelines and accepted the utility's arguments.
The court described as ''appropriate'' the expected standard seismic impact that would be caused by the maximum assumed earthquake and said that the plant's design ''ensures ample margin for safety.''
Yoshika Shiratori, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, which is now pending in the Tokyo High Court, said, ''So far, residents and scientists have pointed out risks, but courts have never paid serious attention. The judicial branch (of the government) bears a great responsibility for not preventing the accident in Fukushima.''
Deliberations in the case could be protracted. ''The accident recreated what we argued in court in Shizuoka. A ruling should be issued immediately to halt operations'' at the Hamaoka plant, he said.
(Distributed by Kyodo News on April 25, 2011)
Since the outbreak of the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station triggered by the March 11 quake and tsunami, criticism is being directed at judges because of their tendency to side with the state and power companies in their rulings.
The courts have been inclined to accept arguments that nuclear power plants are safe, citing the highly technical nature of atomic power generation. In light of the ongoing crisis at Fukushima, however, critics say the judges should be held accountable for abandoning their role to properly scrutinize such cases.
The focal point of debate is the degree to which judges are capable of deliberating on the complexities of nuclear power generation, which brings together highly complex technology and science.
In a 1992 ruling, the Supreme Court presented a framework on how courts may approach cases involving nuclear power plants, noting the reasonableness of following expert opinion.
''Should there be a serious error in judgment made by experts on whom the state depended, then the issuing by the state of a permit for construction (of a nuclear power plant) shall be deemed illegal,'' the court said in a ruling.
The ruling threw out a lawsuit by residents who wanted the central government to withdraw a permit for Shikoku Electric Power Co. to build a nuclear reactor in Ikata, Ehime Prefecture.
In a rare decision, the Kanazawa District Court issued a ruling in 2006 that called for the suspension of operation of the No. 2 reactor of Hokuriku Electric Power Co.'s Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa Prefecture. ''There are concrete risks of residents being exposed to radiation in an earthquake that is beyond the assumed level,'' the court of first instance said.
In an appellate ruling, however, those risks were dismissed and the decision was reversed. Last year, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal against this decision.
Just after a high court issued a ruling on a lawsuit involving the No. 1 reactor of Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa station in Niigata Prefecture, a magnitude 6.8 quake struck in 2007 off the coast of the prefecture, exceeding the level assumed in the design of the plant and causing some -- though not critical -- damage.
The Supreme Court eventually affirmed a defeat for residents in the lawsuit, saying, ''The earthquake does not affect this decision'' in view of what had been deliberated, the history of the lawsuit and other issues.
The greatest public attention is perhaps focused on Chubu Electric Power Co.'s Hamaoka nuclear power plant in Omaezaki, Shizuoka Prefecture, built in a region where a major quake is anticipated, given the history of cyclical quakes in the Pacific off the coast of the region.
Residents there filed a lawsuit to suspend reactor operations at the plant.
In 2007, however, the plaintiffs lost in a ruling by the Shizuoka District Court that recognized the central government's antiquake guidelines and accepted the utility's arguments.
The court described as ''appropriate'' the expected standard seismic impact that would be caused by the maximum assumed earthquake and said that the plant's design ''ensures ample margin for safety.''
Yoshika Shiratori, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, which is now pending in the Tokyo High Court, said, ''So far, residents and scientists have pointed out risks, but courts have never paid serious attention. The judicial branch (of the government) bears a great responsibility for not preventing the accident in Fukushima.''
Deliberations in the case could be protracted. ''The accident recreated what we argued in court in Shizuoka. A ruling should be issued immediately to halt operations'' at the Hamaoka plant, he said.
(Distributed by Kyodo News on April 25, 2011)
