Is Japan truly a nation committed to fairness, where citizens can ultimately trust their government?

　　　　　The answer lies in whether the judiciary in Japan is making decisions based on common sense and the spirit of the law. A nation’s judiciary is the last resort for citizens looking to believe in the fairness of their society and their government. The soundness of a country’s judiciary is the crucial key to the trust of its own people—as well as the trust of the international community.

　　　　　China, for example, can hardly be worthy of trust as a democratic state. The 14th Dalai Lama once stated:

　　　　　“The biggest problem and tragedy for today’s China is that its judiciary has no independence. Its judicial system is completely subordinate to the Communist Party. Judges cannot be appointed and the courts cannot hand down rulings without the approval of the party. The Chinese judiciary is incapable of acknowledging facts or truths on its own, and is impairing the Chinese society by supporting dictatorship.”

　　　　　What about the Japanese judiciary? Unlike China, Japan does honor freedom of speech, thought, religion, and other liberties. And the concept of the separation of powers is supposedly put into practice. But I do not believe our judiciary is completely free from the spell of ideology. This, I suspect, has at times undermined the fairness of our judiciary.

　　　　　I was appalled by a recent injunction, issued on March 9 by the Otsu District Court in Shiga Prefecture, that ordered Kansai Electric Power Co. to stop operating its No. 3 and No. 4 nuclear reactors at its Takahama Nuclear Power Station in Fukui Prefecture.

　　　　　In February last year, these two reactors met the new safety requirements implemented by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRA) after being shut down in 2011 immediately following the meltdown at Fukushima no. 1 Nuclear Power Station. Last April, while the operator was preparing for their restart, the Fukui District Court issued a provisional injunction, preventing the planned restart. A different judge of the same court later reviewed the case following an appeal by the operator, cancelling the earlier decision last December.

　　　　　Earlier this year, Kansai Electric finally managed to restart the two reactors. But the Otsu District Court then issued another provisional injunction, and the operations of the two units were suspended once again.

Tainted by Anti-Nuclear Ideology

　　　　　The reasons Chief Justice Yoshihiko Yamamoto gave for the injunction included: 1) Kansai Electric failed to thoroughly probe the causes of the Fukushima meltdown; 2) Simply meeting the NRA’s new safety standards cannot on its own constitute sufficient grounds for the safety of the reactors; and 3) Kansai Electric still has the burden of proving on its own the safety of the two units, and this it has failed to do, the firm’s arguments in several areas proving to be less than convincing.

　　　　　Reading the text of the ruling, one cannot but think that the injunction is unfair no matter how one may look at it. Doesn’t the decision reflect a preconceived conclusion heavily tainted by an anti-nuclear ideology?

　　　　　As for point 2), for instance, NRA Chairman Shunichi Tanaka has declared that there is no need to back off of the general understanding that Japanese nuclear safety standards are nearing the highest level in the world, and that many experts in the international community give similar assessments to our safety standards.

　　　　　As regards the related points in dispute, including points 1) and 3) raised by the court, Kansai Electric has actually prepared detailed explanations supported by a rich assortment of documents. The firm’s attorneys made their point based on 14 statements amounting to 843 pages while submitting 291 documents containing probative evidence.　Kansai Electric claims it was not given a fair chance to fully explain its position on its reactors’ safety to the judges. Might the court not have forged ahead with an arbitrary inquiry, denying the operator the opportunity to fully state its case—rather than Kansai Electric having been incapable of thoroughly explaining its position?

　　　　　Professor Tadashi Narabayashi, a prominent nuclear expert with the Faculty of Engineering at the Graduate School of Engineering, Hokkaido University, points out that the court was mistaken in establishing the premises on which it handed down the provisional injunction.

　　　　　For instance, Chapter 3 of the text of the court decision, entitled “Mechanism of Nuclear Power Generation” (starting on page 2), has a section that states: “When a loss of coolants, commonly called LOCA (Loss-of-Coolant Accident) occurs, it is impossible to cool the entire reactor vessel. The fuel assembly within the vessel is impaired due to the heat generated, causing radioactive materials and the primary coolant to leak outside the vessel…ultimately resulting in radioactive materials being released from the nuclear plant.

　　　　　Explains Professor Narabayashi:

　　　　　“A nuclear reactor is designed in such a way that, when a LOCA causes the loss of primary coolants inside a reactor, a device called an ECCS (Emergency Core Cooling System) is automatically activated. A large volume of water is injected and the entire reactor core is covered with water. Units no. 3 and no. 4 at Takahama are similarly designed. The reactors can be cooled adequately with water, protecting the fuel assembly. These units actually have additional protective devices—built-in container sprays that cool the entire reactor vessel.

　　　　　“A nuclear reactor is recognized as safe and up to the mark only after rigid safety tests are conducted against world standards—to make sure that its cooling devices will work without exception. The fact that the Otsu District Court completely ignored this point in judging the Takahama units as dangerous means its judges have completely failed to understand the achievements of experts around the world who have designed the safest possible nuclear reactors with safety standards that are subsequently ensured by stringently enforced construction permits.”

No Operating Reactor with “Core Catcher”

　　　　　The court’s decision has other inconsistencies. The claim pertaining to countermeasures against terrorists made by the plaintiffs in this case, i.e., local citizens who appealed for the injunction, is explained on page 38: “In the European Union, the standard specification calls for each reactor to be equipped with a ‘core catcher.’
Additionally, the unit’s containment vessel must be two-layered. However, the NRA does not call on Kansai Electric to provide such protections.”

　　　　　A “core catcher” is a heat resistant device provided to catch the molten core material when a reactor core melts down. Prof. Narabayashi points out that this reference is incorrect, explaining:

　　　　　“It is true that a core catcher is being built into an EPR (European Pressurized Water Reactor) that is being constructed in France. However, even in Europe, there absolutely isn’t one single reactor in operation today that is equipped with such a device.”

　　　　　The concept of advocating a “two-layered” container vessel for a reactor, meanwhile, has sprung up as a countermeasure against the possibility of terrorists crashing a plane into a nuclear power station. It may become a standard mechanism in the future, but at least for now a two-layered container vessel is not required as a standard protection.

　　　　　In point of fact, Presiding Judge Yamamoto himself stated on page 52 of his decision (Section 2: Point of Dispute No. 5 , Counter-Terrorism Measures): “As regards counter-terrorism measures, this court recognizes that the defendant (Kansai Electric) has implemented sufficient safety measures against transgressions by a third party that could be generally foreseen…the plant’s safety measures appear to be in no immediate danger of being insufficient, although the defendant has stopped short of implementing all of the counter-terrorism measures stipulated under the NRA’s new safety standards.”

　　　　　If so, there really is nothing about the new NRA safety requirements which does not meet the world’s highest standards. Which part of the requirements does the court view as insufficient? Might it be that the judges, too eager to suspend the restart of the nation’s 40-odd nuclear reactors, are failing to awaken to the realization that their logic is devoid of consistency?

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 697 in the March 24, 2016 issue of
The Weekly Shincho)