Outline of Judgment on Claim for Injunction on

Operation of No. 3 and No. 4 Units at Ohi Nuclear Power Plant

Fuui !istrict Court" #a$ %& %'&4
&

#ain (e)t

& (he !efendant must not operate No. 3 or No. 4 *eactors at the Ohi Nuclear Power
Plant" at &+& ,-a .oshimi" Oshima" /i+cho" Oi+gun" Fuui Prefecture" in respect of the
relationship to each Plaintiff 0&11 persons li2ing within the %3' m radius of the Ohi
Nuclear Power Plant4 listed in the Plaintiff 5ist & attachment.
%. ,ll of the claims of each Plaintiff 0%3 persons li2ing outside the %3' m radius of the
Ohi Nuclear Power Plant4 listed in the Plaintiff 5ist % attachment are dismissed.
3. Costs arising in relation to each Plaintiff in relation to paragraph % are to 6e 6orne
6$ said Plaintiffs" and the remaining costs are to 6e 6orne 6$ the !efendant.
*easons
& Introduction
It is appropriate that" if in2ol2ed in a 6usiness where6$ se2ere damage would 6e caused to
the li2es" health" and li2elihood of man$ people should a serious accident occur" an
organi-ation should 6e e)pected to pro2ide safet$ and a high degree of relia6ilit$ in
accordance with the si-e and e)tent of that damage. (his is a reasona6le social
re7uirement and" gi2en that personal rights ha2ing sur2i2al as the 6asis therefore ha2e the
highest 2alue in all fields of law" 6e the$ pu6lic or pri2ate law" this should 6e the guiding
principle for the interpretations made in this case.
1 Professional translation of formal summary of ruling from original Japanese for Greenpeace.
Interests relating to the life" 6od$" soul" and lifest$le of an indi2idual are fundamental to the
indi2idualit$ of each person" and the entiret$ of these can 6e considered to 6e personal
rights. Personal rights are enshrined in the Constitution 0,rticles &3 and %34" are the
foundation for people8s li2es" and under the laws of our countr$ there are no rights that
ha2e greater 2alue. ,ccordingl$" when there is a ris of a tangi6le 2iolation of a
fundamental aspect of these personal rights" namel$ the personal right to protect life and
maintain one8s lifest$le" a claim can 6e made for an injunction against 2iolating acts on the
6asis of these personal rights. Personal rights 6elong to each indi2idual" 6ut when the form
of the 2iolation has the characteristics of simultaneousl$ 2iolating the personal rights of
man$ people" it stands to reason that the claim for an injunction there against is strong.
% Fuushima Nuclear ,ccident
(he Fuushima nuclear accident forced some &3'"''' residents to e2acuate and at least
1' people" including hospitali-ed patients" lost their li2es in the e2acuation process. It is
eas$ to imagine that man$ more people ha2e had their li2es shortened as a result of their
families 6eing scattered and from ha2ing to li2e in difficult e2acuation conditions.
Furthermore" the Chair of the ,tomic 9nerg$ Commission considered the possi6ilit$ of
issuing an e2acuation ad2isor$ for residents in a %3' m radius from the Fuushima
!aiichi Nuclear Power Plant" which is the same scale as the e2acuation area for residents
after the Cherno6$l disaster.
(here are 2arious 2iews a6out how much damage is done to people8s health 6$ how man$
millisie2erts of radiation per $ear" and the si-e of the recommended e2acuation areas
differs depending on which 2iew is taen" 6ut the Urainian go2ernment and the *epu6lic
of :elarus which ha2e continued to face this issue for o2er %' $ears ha2e large e2acuation
areas in place e2en now. :oth go2ernments ha2e wanted to repatriate the residents as
7uicl$ as possi6le" and residents ha2e the same strong desire to return home. (his is no
dou6t no different from our own countr$. (he fact that 6oth these go2ernments
ne2ertheless had to tae the aforementioned measures casts gra2e dou6ts on the
legitimac$ of an optimistic 2iew of the health pro6lems caused 6$ radioacti2e material and
from it the assertion that a minimum e2acuation area is sufficient. (he figure of %3' m
was merel$ an estimate made in a time of emergenc$" 6ut that does not mean that this
figure can 6e automaticall$ judged as 6eing e)cessi2e.
3 ;afet$ that ;hould 6e *e7uired of the Nuclear Power ;tation in (his #atter
0&4 ;afet$ *e7uired of Nuclear Power ;tations
In light of the issues identified in & and %" a6o2e" an e)tremel$ high le2el of safet$ and
relia6ilit$ must 6e re7uired of nuclear power stations and thorough measures must 6e
implemented in order to protect citi-ens from e2en the remote possi6ilit$ of the danger
from radioacti2e materials..
Nuclear power stations fulfill the important social function of producing electricit$" howe2er"
since the use of nuclear power is limited to peaceful purposes 0,tomic 9nerg$ :asic ,ct"
,rticle %4 and" as a result" the operation of nuclear power plants as one means of
producing electricit$ is legall$ associated with freedom of economic acti2it$ 0Constitution"
,rticle %%" Clause &4 and has a lower raning in the Constitution than the central tenet of
personal rights. Furthermore" it is difficult to imagine" outside of a large+scale natural
disaster or a war" an$thing other than an accident at a nuclear power plant that could ha2e
the potential to cause a situation where6$ these fundamental rights are e)tensi2el$
compromised. 92en if it is considered too e)treme to argue that the 2er$ e)istence of an
economic acti2it$ ha2ing such danger" e2en a6stractl$" is not permitted under the
Constitution" it is natural for an injunction against the same to 6e allowed if the tangi6le ris
e)ists" howe2er remotel$" of such a situation occurring. (his is clear when contrasted to
e2en claims in respect of the right to petition for the statement of interference or the right to
petition for the pre2ention of interference" on the 6asis of land ownership" that are
sustained if the fact of interference or the tangi6le ris of interference is found" without
7uestioning the circumstances on the infringing part$8s side" namel$ whether or not the
infringing part$ was negligent and the scale of the disad2antage to the infringing part$
incurred as a result of a claim 6eing sustained.
;ociet$ would not continue to de2elop if latent ris were not permitted in new technolog$"
therefore it is e)tremel$ difficult to determine in a court of law the propriet$ of an injunction
on the implementation of such technolog$" if the nature of the ris inherent in the
technolog$ or the scale of the damage that would 6e caused there6$ is unclear. <owe2er"
when the nature of the riss inherent in the technolog$ and the scale of the damage
caused there6$ are esta6lished" safet$ commensurate with the nature of the ris and the
scale of the damage is re7uired when the technolog$ is implemented" therefore a
determination needs simpl$ to 6e made as to whether or not this safet$ is maintained" and
no turmoil arises as to whether or not social de2elopment would 6e hindered if a certain
le2el of ris is not allowed. (he true nature of the riss of nuclear power plant technolog$
and the scale of the damage caused there6$ ha2e 6ecome eminentl$ clear as a result of
the Fuushima nuclear accident. (he issue of whether or not tangi6le ris that would lead
to such a situation e)ists" e2en remotel$" at the power plant in 7uestion is a matter that
should 6e determined in this case and to a2oid such a determination" after the Fuushima
nuclear accident" would 6e to a6dicate the most important o6ligation imposed on the
Court.
0%4 *elationship to 9)amination :ased on Nuclear *eactor *egulation 5aw
(he reasoning in 0&4 deri2es from the position and reasona6leness" etc." of the personal
rights under the legal s$stem of our countr$" as outlined a6o2e" and is not affected 6$ the
form or content of the Nuclear *eactor *egulation 5aw or other administrati2e laws and
regulations.
,ccordingl$" e2en if there is a pro2ision where6$ decisions are entrusted to the electric
utilit$ with regards to some of the issues related to safet$ of nuclear power plants under
the new regulator$ standards 6ased on the re2ised Nuclear *eactor *egulation 5aw"
determinations 6$ the Court should e)tend to such matters also" and should do so" not
from the perspecti2e of conforming to the new regulator$ standards in relation to matters
su6ject to the new regulator$ standards or from the perspecti2e of the appropriateness of
the Nuclear *egulation ,uthorit$8s e)amination of conformance to the new regulator$
standards" 6ut on the 6asis of the reasoning in 0&4.
4 ;pecial Characteristics of Nuclear Power Plants
Nuclear power plant technolog$ has the following special characteristics= namel$" 6ecause
the total amount of energ$ generated at a nuclear power plant is enormous" e2en after a
plant has 6een shut down" nuclear reactors need to 6e cooled continuousl$ 6$ using
electricit$ and water> simpl$ losing power for se2eral hours during that time leads to an
accident> and once an accident occurs" it worsens with the passage of time. (hese
constitute an inherent and intrinsic danger in the case of nuclear power plants that differs
from most other technologies" where most of the causes of the spread of damage can 6e
remo2ed 6$ the simple act of stopping operation.
,ccordingl$" if an earth7uae occurs that ma$ lead to facilit$ damage" operation of the
facilit$ must 6e 7uicl$ shut down" the nuclear fuel must continue to 6e cooled 6$ water" 6$
using electricit$" e2en after shutdown" and radioacti2e material must 6e pre2ented from
leaing outside the power plant site e2en under the remote circumstance in which
e)traordinar$ e2ents occur. (hese three steps of shutdown" cooling and containment need
to all 6e in place 6efore the safet$ of a nuclear power plant can 6e ensured. If" for
e)ample" the plant was not a6le to 6e stopped" damage and malfunctions caused 6$ e2en
a slight earth7uae could lead to a catastrophic accident. Operation of the plant was a6le
to 6e stopped during the Fuushima nuclear accident" 6ut cooling was not possi6le so
radioacti2e material was discharged e)ternall$. In addition" in Japan the safet$ of nuclear
fuel is considered to 6e ensured onl$ when the fuel is enclosed in fi2e wall la$ers and the
most important wall among these is considered to 6e the nuclear reactor containment that
has a highl$ ro6ust structure.
<owe2er" the nuclear power plant in this matter has the following defects in the cooling
function and in the encasing structure in the e2ent of an earth7uae.
3 Preser2ation of the Cooling Function
0&4 9arth7uaes 9)ceeding &%1' gal
Nuclear power stations use a 6asic s$stem where6$ water is circulated 6$ using an
e)ternal ,C current" for the cooling function after an emergenc$ shutdown as a result of an
earth7uae. 9arth7uaes e)ceeding &%1' gal cause this s$stem to collapse and it is nearl$
impossi6le for emergenc$ e7uipment or a reser2e means to compensate" which leads to a
meltdown. (he !efendant has admitted that there are almost no effecti2e means that could
6e used if an earth7uae of this scale were to occur.
It is a well+nown fact that the ;eismological ;ociet$ of Japan has ne2er 6een a6le to
predict the occurrence of an earth7uae of this scale. 9arth7uaes are a phenomenon that
occur deep underground" therefore anal$sis of the mechanism of their occurrence must
depend on supposition and conjecture" and argument a6out and 2erification of h$potheses
must rel$ on past data 6ecause e)periments cannot 6e performed. 9arth7uaes ha2e
certainl$ e)isted since ancient times and are phenomena that occur repeatedl$" howe2er
the$ do not alwa$s occur fre7uentl$ and relia6le records are limited to those of recent
times" which means there is 2er$ limited past data to rel$ on. ,ccordingl$" it is essentiall$
impossi6le to mae a prediction 6ased on relia6le scientific e2idence that an earth7uae
e)ceeding &%1' gals will not strie the Ohi Nuclear Power Plant. In fact" the greatest
magnitude in the past recorded in Japan was 4'%% gals during the Iwate?#i$agi Nairiu
9arth7uae and the figure of &%1' gals is far 6elow this le2el> the Iwate?#i$agi Nairiu
9arth7uae was an inland crustal earth7uae of the t$pe that could occur at Ohi> no
significant difference is recogni-ed in the fre7uenc$ of earth7uae occurrences 6etween
the (ohou district which is where this earth7uae occurred" the <ouriu district were the
Ohi Nuclear Power Plant is located or the adjacent @ini district" and e2en the nown
acti2e faults in the Aaasa region alone are numerous 6oth on land and under the sea>
and gi2en that the concept itself of the largest earth7uae e2er does not mean the
largest earth7uae in the world since histor$ has 6een recorded" 6ut merel$ the largest
earth7uae in Japan in recent histor$" the ris e)ists of an earth7uae greater than &%1'
gal affecting the Ohi Nuclear Power Plant.

0%4 9arth7uaes e)ceeding B'' gals 6ut less than &%1' gals
a. 92ent tree claimed 6$ !efendant
(he !efendant claims to ha2e anticipated the e2ents that would occur if an earth7uae of
o2er B'' gals struc and ha2e corresponding countermeasures in place. (he !efendant
has prepared an e2ent tree listing these e2ents and countermeasures" and claims that if
the listed countermeasures are used in se7uence" no damage will occur to the reactor
core and no large+scale accident will occur in the case of earth7uaes no greater than
&%1' gal.
<owe2er" in order for these countermeasures listed in the e2ent tree to 6e trul$ effecti2e
countermeasures" three aspects must all 6e in place= firstl$" e2ents connected to the
causes of accidents resulting from earth7uaes or tsunamis must 6e e)amined without fail>
secondl$" technologicall$ effecti2e countermeasures must 6e planned for these e2ents>
and thirdl$" these technologicall$ effecti2e countermeasures must 6e a6le to 6e
implemented in the e2ent of an earth7uae or tsunami.
6. 92ents listed in the e2ent tree
Ci2en that" during a serious accident" one e2ent that occurs might lead to a new e2ent or
occurring e2ents might o2erlap" it is e)tremel$ difficult to identif$ all the e2ents that are
connected to the primar$ cause of the accident.
c. 9fficac$ of Countermeasures 5isted in 92ent (ree
Furthermore" e2en putting aside the 7uestion of whether or not the countermeasures listed
in the e2ent tree for the e2ents are effecti2e measures" the more serious an e2ent is" once
it occurs" emplo$ees of the nuclear power station cannot 6e e)pected to implement these
measures appropriatel$ and promptl$ amidst the confusion and agitation that such an
e2ent generates. In particular" the difficult$ of doing so 6ecomes e2en more e2ident in light
of the following facts=
Firstl$" the characteristics of earth7uaes are such that the$ ha2e the same pro6a6ilit$ of
occurring during the night" when there are fewer emplo$ees present" as during the da$. In
realit$" how well personnel can immediatel$ respond to a sudden crisis situation and
whether or not the chief manager of the plant who ser2es as the center of the chain of
command is on site are clearl$ significant factors.
;econdl$" implementation of countermeasures from the e2ent tree is premised on the
a6ilit$ to grasp what e2ents ha2e occurred 6ut grasping the situation is in itself e)tremel$
difficult. (he National !iet of Japan Fuushima Nuclear ,ccident Independent
In2estigation Commission has poured energ$ into the anal$sis of the earth7uae in relation
to the causes of the Fuushima nuclear accident and has identified" 6$ anal$-ing the time
of the earth7uae and the time of the tsunami and 6$ inter2iewing emplo$ees" the
possi6ilit$" in addition to the issue of e)ternal power suppl$" that damage was caused 6$
the earth7uae prior to the arri2al of the tsunami and was directl$ connected to the
accident. <owe2er" the Commission has not reached findings that would su6stantiate what
ind of damage the earth7uae caused at what locations" and what e2ents were caused
there6$. Cenerall$" when an accident occurs" the cause of the accident is in2estigated"
findings are made" and the safet$ of the technolog$ is impro2ed on the 6asis of those
results" 6ut in the case of nuclear power plant technolog$" once a major accident occurs
there is an e)tremel$ high lielihood that the cause of the accident will remain un2erified
6ecause the accident site cannot 6e entered" and in the case of the Fuushima nuclear
accident" there is no guarantee that the cause will e2er 6e 2erified. ;imilarl$" and e2en
more so" while an accident is in progress at a nuclear power plant" it is difficult to grasp
what damage has occurred where and what e2ents are 6eing caused there6$.
(hirdl$" e2en if" for argument8s sae" the e2ents that ha2e occurred ha2e 6een identified" it
can 6e assumed that there would 6e an e)tremel$ large num6er of matters that need to 6e
dealt with" such as damage at multiple locations" at the same time as the loss of e)ternal
power suppl$ caused 6$ the earth7uae. On the other hand there is little time a2aila6le
6ecause there is just o2er fi2e hours 6etween loss of all ,C power suppl$ and the start of
damage to the reactor core" and once damage to the reactor core has started less than
two hours remain until meltdown 6egins.
Fourthl$" some of the measures that need to 6e implemented are measures that" 6$ their
2er$ nature" are onl$ implemented out of necessit$ during an emergenc$" and do not lend
themsel2es to regular drills or trial runs.,n e)ternal power suppl$ is relied on to cool
nuclear reactors during a shutdown" and although water+cooled emergenc$ diesel
generators" air+cooled emergenc$ generators" and 2ehicle+mounted electricit$ generators
are said to 6e in place for emergenc$ situations" there is no possi6ilit$ of" for e)ample"
performing a test to find whether the air+cooled emergenc$ generators alone can actuall$
cool the nuclear reactors" 6ecause it would 6e too dangerous to do so.
Fifthl$" it is concei2a6le that the s$stem for the protecti2e measures that should 6e taen
can itself 6e damaged 6$ an earth7uae. If e2en onl$ a portion of the emergenc$ water
inlet channel that e)tends for some hundreds of meters at the Ohi Nuclear Power Plant are
damaged 6$ an earth7uae e)ceeding B'' gals" it can 6e assumed that all of the water+
cooled emergenc$ diesel generators that rel$ on the function of the emergenc$ water inlet
channel would no longer 6e a6le to operate. Furthermore" it can 6e assumed that it would
6e impossi6le or at least e)tremel$ difficult to mo2e what can 6e said to 6e the last+resort
means for cooling" the 2ehicle+mounted generators" 6ecause of the 6acfilled soil sections
ha2ing 6ecome une2en due to the earth7uae.. Using the identified points a6o2e as an
e)ample" multiple pieces of e7uipment could 6e e)pected to fail at the same time or in
succession after an earth7uae" gi2en the nature of machiner$" therefore the pro2ision of
multiple pieces of pre2entati2e e7uipment cannot 6e considered to greatl$ impro2e safet$
in the e2ent of an earth7uae.
;i)thl$" if a portion of the radioacti2e material has actuall$ 6een leaed" that site cannot
e2en 6e approached.
;e2enthl$" there are a limited num6er of roads that lead to the Ohi Nuclear Power Plant
site" and support from outside the facilit$ cannot 6e e)pected.
d. *elia6ilit$ of :asic 9arth7uae Cround #otion
(he !efendant claims that when acti2e faults in the 2icinit$ of the Ohi Nuclear Power Plant
are considered on the 6asis of research results for those acti2e faults" the ma)imum
num6er of gals that can 6e deduced using seismological logic is B'' and it would 6e
unthina6le for an earth7uae greater than B'' gals to occur. *ather than deli6erating the
appropriateness and accurac$ of numerical calculations 6ased on this logic" it is onl$
natural to attach importance to the fact that earth7uaes e)ceeding the anticipated
earth7uae ground motion ha2e occurred fi2e times" at four nuclear power plants at the
fewer than %' nuclear power plant sites" in the period of less than &' $ears since %''3.
(he reason for the repeated errors in earth7uae prediction is a matter to 6e resol2ed
through future scientific research and is not a matter that this Court needs to mae a
finding on. ,ll these e)amples ser2e to show the limits of human capa6ilities in the face of
natural e2ents such as earth7uaes. (he earth7uae+related assumptions for the nuclear
power plant in this matter ha2e 6een undertaen on the 6asis of records of past
earth7uaes and on the 6asis of e)amination and anal$sis of near6$ acti2e faults in
fundamentall$ the same wa$ as the a6o2e four nuclear power plants. No 6asis can 6e
found which would indicate that the !efendant8s earth7uae assumptions are the sole
relia6le assumption.
e. #argin of ;afet$
(he !efendant claims" on the premise that no damage occurred to important safet$
facilities at nuclear power plants as a result of the fi2e e)ample earth7uaes discussed in
this matter" that 6ecause there is a margin of safet$ or a safet$ tolerance at nuclear power
plant facilities" e2en if an earth7uae e)ceeding the 6asic earth7uae ground motion did
occur" no immediate ris of damage to important safet$ e7uipment would occur.
,ccording to the o2erall gist of the pleadings" generall$ when facilities are 6eing designed"
the design pro2ides a margin that does not simpl$ meet the re7uired standards 6ut
e)ceeds the standards man$ times o2er" 6ecause issues of 2ariation in the material 7ualit$
for 2arious structures and uncertain elements such as good or 6ad welding or
maintenance management come into pla$. <owe2er" e2en if designed in this wa$" safet$ of
e7uipment cannot 6e guaranteed in the e2ent that the standards are e)ceeded. Of course
e7uipment ma$ not 6e damaged e2en if a load e)ceeding the standards is applied" 6ut this
merel$ means that the uncertain elements referred to a6o2e were relati2el$ sta6le" and is
not the result of safet$ ha2ing 6een guaranteed.
,ccordingl$" e2en if it is esta6lished as fact that" for e)ample" in the past nuclear power
generating facilities withstood an earth7uaes e)ceeding the 6asic earth7uae ground
motion" that fact does not pro2ide an$ 6asis for the claim that in the future e7uipment
would not 6e damaged if an earth7uae e)ceeding the 6asic earth7uae ground motion
were to occur at the Ohi Nuclear Power Plant.
6. 5oss+of+Power+;uppl$ ,ccidents
(he spent nuclear fuel pool in this matter can no longer maintain the su6merged state after
less than three da$s from when ,C power suppl$ is completel$ lost. 92en though the
damage resulting would 6e so great that it would affect the continued e)istence of our
nation" a critical situation would 6e reached in less than three da$s after the total loss of
,C power suppl$". ;uch material is 6eing left without 6eing contained within highl$ ro6ust
e7uipment" in other words" as it were" in a naed state.
044 ;ummation
It must 6e stated that the measures that are in place ha2e 6een 6ased not on a 2iew that
the safet$ of our citi-ens should 6e gi2en priorit$ a6o2e all else" 6ut on the 2iew that
serious accidents onl$ occur 2er$ infre7uentl$ and that the pro2ision of strong e7uipment
to encase the spent nuclear fuel would incur a colossal e)pense gi2en that spent nuclear
fuel is created on a dail$ 6asis 6$ the operation of the nuclear power plant in this matter.
B Current ;afet$ at this Nuclear Power Plant
,s seen a6o2e" from the perspecti2e of protecting personal rights that ha2e as the
foundation therefor the sur2i2al of our citi-ens from the dangers of radioacti2e material" not
onl$ does dou6t remain a6out whether or not the safet$ technolog$ and e7uipment at this
nuclear power plant are flawless" 6ut rather" it must 6e admitted that said safet$
technolog$ and facilities are 2ulnera6le and could onl$ 6e concei2ed of 6ased on an
optimistic 2iew for which there is no su6stanti2e 6asis.
D Other Claims 6$ the Plaintiffs
(he Plaintiffs claim riss ha2ing a 2ariet$ of causes" and claim" e.g." that the function for
stopping the plant when an earth7uae has occurred is defecti2e at this nuclear power
plant. <owe2er" these claims of ris are interpreted as selecti2e claims" therefore no
determination is re7uired in relation to same. (he claims on the 6asis of en2ironmental
rights are also selecti2e" and therefore" similarl$" no determination is re7uired in relation to
the 2eracit$ of these claims.
(he Plaintiffs claim as reasons for an injunction the lac of a decision a6out where the
high+le2el radioacti2e waste will 6e disposed" the e)tremel$ high riss of said waste" and
the 6urden of this disposal issue on future generations gi2en that se2eral tens of
thousands of $ears are re7uired 6efore the riss disappear. In relation to this morall$ most
serious of issues" namel$ the responsi6ilit$ of people of our generation to the people of
future generations" there is dou6t that the Court hearing an injunction application on the
6asis of the current legal rights of our citi-ens has the 7ualifications to determine this
issue" 6ut the finding is that" on the 6asis of the e)planation pro2ided at B" no
determination is re7uired regarding this..
E Other Claims 6$ the !efendant
On the other hand" the !efendant claims that the operation of the nuclear power plant in
7uestion leads to sta6le power suppl$ and reduced costs" 6ut it is not legall$ legitimate for
this Court to tae part in the argument that compares rights relating to the 2er$ sur2i2al of
an e)tremel$ large num6er of people to the issue of whether electricit$ costs are high or
low" or to mae a determination a6out the merits of said argument. (here is an argument
a6out the outflow or loss of national wealth in relation to this cost issue. <owe2er" it is the
2iew of this Court that e2en if a large trade deficit occurred as a result of stopping the
operation of this nuclear power plant" this should not 6e considered an outflow or loss of
national wealth. (his Court considers national wealth to 6e the rich land and the people
li2elihoods that ha2e taen root there" and that 6eing una6le to reco2er these is the true
loss of national wealth.
Furthermore" the !efendant claims that the operation of the nuclear power plant is
e)cellent from an en2ironmental perspecti2e 6ecause of the contri6ution to reducing CO%
emissions. <owe2er" the en2ironmental contamination incurred if one serious accident
occurs at a nuclear power plant would 6e horrific and it would 6e seriousl$ ill+founded to
use en2ironmental concerns as the 6asis for continuing operation of a nuclear power plant"
in light of the largest e2er pollution and en2ironmental contamination in the histor$ of our
countr$ ha2ing 6een caused 6$ the Fuushima nuclear power plant accident.
&' Conclusion
On the 6asis of the a6o2e" the Court rules that there is tangi6le ris that people 0each
Plaintiff listed in the Plaintiff 5ist & attachment4 li2ing within a %3' m radius of the Ohi
Nuclear Power Plant will ha2e their personal rights directl$ infringed 6$ the operation of the
nuclear power plant in this matter. (herefore" the claims of these Plaintiffs should 6e
sustained.
Fuui !istrict Court ? Ci2il ;ection %
Presiding Judge= <ideai <ICUC<I
Judge= ,ihiio I;<I!,
Judge= .oshio #I.,@9