SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
In Rare Victory for Anti-Nuke Activists, Japanese Court Rules Against Reactor Restarts
Court sides with local plaintiffs that plant may be unsafe in case of earthquake or disaster
May 21, 2014
In what's being described as a rare win for anti-nuclear activsts, a Japanese court has ruled against a move to restart two reactors at the Ohi nuclear power plant, west of Tokyo, owned by the Kansai Electric Power Co.
According to Reuters:
Ohi, like all of Japan's nuclear plants, has been idled for safety checks in the wake of the 2011 disaster at Tokyo Electric Power Co's (9501.T) Fukushima Daiichi plant pending safety checks.
The court ruling is likely to be another spanner in the works for the return to operations of reactors, with the safety checks bogged down by paperwork and disputes over interpreting new guidelines.
"Plaintiffs have rarely won. This is right in the middle of the restart process ... it could have very well have repercussions," said Aileen Mioko Smith, executive director of Green Action, which earlier this month had a lawsuit to close the Ohi reactors rejected by a court in Osaka.
National broadcaster NHK said it was the first time anti-nuclear campaigners had won a court ruling against nuclear power, but Smith said there had been two other rulings by courts supporting plant closures.
Those rulings were eventually overturned by higher courts in favor of nuclear operators, she said.
Calls to Fukui District Court went unanswered. Anti-nuclear campaigners were seen on NHK celebrating the ruling.
And the Asahi Shimbum newspaper adds:
The lawsuit's biggest point of dispute was whether an earthquake whose tremors exceed the safety standard could actually occur in the future.
The plaintiffs said that, since 2005, there have been five cases in which the tremors exceeded the predicted standard, including the instance of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant at the time of the Great East Japan Earthquake. Therefore, they claimed that Kansai Electric's estimate of the maximum potential earthquake is too optimistic.
In response, Kansai Electric explained that the maximum possible earthquake vibration in the compound of the Oi nuclear power plant is 700 gals of ground acceleration. It also claimed that even if vibrations of 759 gals were to occur, functions of key facilities could be maintained.
There were also three other points in dispute. One was whether nuclear reactors can be continued to be cooled even if all outside power sources are lost. Another was whether leakage of radioactive materials can be prevented when pools storing spent nuclear fuel rods are damaged. And the third was whether ground slippage could occur due to the movement of active faults or landslides.
Based on the three points, the plaintiffs contended that the Oi nuclear plant is dangerous. However, Kansai Electric disagreed, arguing that it has already taken sufficient measures concerning those concerns.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In what's being described as a rare win for anti-nuclear activsts, a Japanese court has ruled against a move to restart two reactors at the Ohi nuclear power plant, west of Tokyo, owned by the Kansai Electric Power Co.
According to Reuters:
Ohi, like all of Japan's nuclear plants, has been idled for safety checks in the wake of the 2011 disaster at Tokyo Electric Power Co's (9501.T) Fukushima Daiichi plant pending safety checks.
The court ruling is likely to be another spanner in the works for the return to operations of reactors, with the safety checks bogged down by paperwork and disputes over interpreting new guidelines.
"Plaintiffs have rarely won. This is right in the middle of the restart process ... it could have very well have repercussions," said Aileen Mioko Smith, executive director of Green Action, which earlier this month had a lawsuit to close the Ohi reactors rejected by a court in Osaka.
National broadcaster NHK said it was the first time anti-nuclear campaigners had won a court ruling against nuclear power, but Smith said there had been two other rulings by courts supporting plant closures.
Those rulings were eventually overturned by higher courts in favor of nuclear operators, she said.
Calls to Fukui District Court went unanswered. Anti-nuclear campaigners were seen on NHK celebrating the ruling.
And the Asahi Shimbum newspaper adds:
The lawsuit's biggest point of dispute was whether an earthquake whose tremors exceed the safety standard could actually occur in the future.
The plaintiffs said that, since 2005, there have been five cases in which the tremors exceeded the predicted standard, including the instance of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant at the time of the Great East Japan Earthquake. Therefore, they claimed that Kansai Electric's estimate of the maximum potential earthquake is too optimistic.
In response, Kansai Electric explained that the maximum possible earthquake vibration in the compound of the Oi nuclear power plant is 700 gals of ground acceleration. It also claimed that even if vibrations of 759 gals were to occur, functions of key facilities could be maintained.
There were also three other points in dispute. One was whether nuclear reactors can be continued to be cooled even if all outside power sources are lost. Another was whether leakage of radioactive materials can be prevented when pools storing spent nuclear fuel rods are damaged. And the third was whether ground slippage could occur due to the movement of active faults or landslides.
Based on the three points, the plaintiffs contended that the Oi nuclear plant is dangerous. However, Kansai Electric disagreed, arguing that it has already taken sufficient measures concerning those concerns.
In what's being described as a rare win for anti-nuclear activsts, a Japanese court has ruled against a move to restart two reactors at the Ohi nuclear power plant, west of Tokyo, owned by the Kansai Electric Power Co.
According to Reuters:
Ohi, like all of Japan's nuclear plants, has been idled for safety checks in the wake of the 2011 disaster at Tokyo Electric Power Co's (9501.T) Fukushima Daiichi plant pending safety checks.
The court ruling is likely to be another spanner in the works for the return to operations of reactors, with the safety checks bogged down by paperwork and disputes over interpreting new guidelines.
"Plaintiffs have rarely won. This is right in the middle of the restart process ... it could have very well have repercussions," said Aileen Mioko Smith, executive director of Green Action, which earlier this month had a lawsuit to close the Ohi reactors rejected by a court in Osaka.
National broadcaster NHK said it was the first time anti-nuclear campaigners had won a court ruling against nuclear power, but Smith said there had been two other rulings by courts supporting plant closures.
Those rulings were eventually overturned by higher courts in favor of nuclear operators, she said.
Calls to Fukui District Court went unanswered. Anti-nuclear campaigners were seen on NHK celebrating the ruling.
And the Asahi Shimbum newspaper adds:
The lawsuit's biggest point of dispute was whether an earthquake whose tremors exceed the safety standard could actually occur in the future.
The plaintiffs said that, since 2005, there have been five cases in which the tremors exceeded the predicted standard, including the instance of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant at the time of the Great East Japan Earthquake. Therefore, they claimed that Kansai Electric's estimate of the maximum potential earthquake is too optimistic.
In response, Kansai Electric explained that the maximum possible earthquake vibration in the compound of the Oi nuclear power plant is 700 gals of ground acceleration. It also claimed that even if vibrations of 759 gals were to occur, functions of key facilities could be maintained.
There were also three other points in dispute. One was whether nuclear reactors can be continued to be cooled even if all outside power sources are lost. Another was whether leakage of radioactive materials can be prevented when pools storing spent nuclear fuel rods are damaged. And the third was whether ground slippage could occur due to the movement of active faults or landslides.
Based on the three points, the plaintiffs contended that the Oi nuclear plant is dangerous. However, Kansai Electric disagreed, arguing that it has already taken sufficient measures concerning those concerns.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.