Japan's High Court Upholds Sendai Nuclear Plant Permit: Is 'What's Not Anticipated is Tolerated' a Safe Bet Against Catastrophic Eruption?

Photo by gya den on Pexels

A recent ruling by the High Court in Japan has once again brought the contentious issue of nuclear safety, particularly concerning natural disaster risks, to the forefront. The court denied the appeal seeking the revocation of permission for changes to the installation of the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant (川内原発), effectively allowing its operational plans to proceed despite lingering concerns over a "catastrophic eruption risk."

This decision reignites a critical debate, encapsulated by a poignant phrase from the legal proceedings: "想定せぬことが容認されている" – often translated as "what is not anticipated is permitted" or "what is not anticipated is tolerated." But can such an approach truly guarantee safety when dealing with the gravest of natural threats?

The High Court's Stance on Sendai Nuclear Power Plant

The legal challenge aimed to halt specific operational changes or aspects of the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant, located in Kagoshima Prefecture, by revoking its installation change permit. Plaintiffs argued that the plant's safety assessment was insufficient, particularly regarding the potential for a catastrophic eruption risk from nearby volcanoes, which could render the plant inoperable or cause severe accidents.

However, the High Court ultimately dismissed these claims, upholding the regulatory body's assessment and the plant's continued permission. This ruling reinforces the existing framework for nuclear power plant operations in Japan, but it also amplifies the concerns of those who believe current safety standards do not adequately account for extreme, low-probability events.

Unpacking "想定せぬことが容認されている"

The phrase "想定せぬことが容認されている" ("what is not anticipated is permitted/tolerated") has become a flashpoint in the discussion. Critics interpret this as a dangerous loophole in safety protocols, suggesting that if a risk, no matter how severe, is deemed beyond the scope of "anticipation" or "foreseeability" by regulators, then no preventive measures are required, and the status quo is allowed to continue.

In the context of nuclear power, where the consequences of failure are immense, this philosophy raises serious questions. It implies a potential gap between the technical scope of risk assessment and the public's expectation of absolute safety, especially in a nation prone to both earthquakes and volcanic activity.

The Specter of Catastrophic Eruption Risk

Japan is situated in one of the world's most volcanically active regions. The Sendai Nuclear Power Plant itself is located within reach of several active volcanoes, including the Aso caldera, a supervolcano capable of producing a catastrophic eruption risk. Such an event could not only directly damage the plant but also lead to widespread ashfall, infrastructure collapse, and evacuation challenges that would severely complicate any emergency response.

Assessing the probability and impact of a "catastrophic eruption" is inherently complex. Geological science can provide estimates, but the exact timing and scale remain difficult to predict with certainty. The core of the legal dispute, and public anxiety, lies in whether the current regulatory framework and the High Court's interpretation adequately address this profound uncertainty with the necessary caution.

Balancing Energy Needs with Unprecedented Risks

The High Court's decision underscores the ongoing tension between Japan's energy policy, which includes a reliance on nuclear power, and the imperative to ensure public safety against extreme natural phenomena. While legal rulings provide a framework, they do not always quell public apprehension, especially when the language used, such as "what is not anticipated is tolerated," seems to downplay the potential for devastating, albeit rare, events.

This ruling will undoubtedly continue to fuel calls for more rigorous, comprehensive, and publicly transparent risk assessments for nuclear facilities, particularly those located in geologically active zones. The question remains: how much "unanticipated" risk is truly acceptable when the stakes are so high?

Conclusion

The High Court's denial of the appeal for the revocation of permission for changes to the installation at the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant ensures its continued operation under existing plans. However, the underlying debate surrounding catastrophic eruption risk and the principle that "想定せぬことが容認されている" ("what is not anticipated is permitted") is far from settled. As Japan navigates its energy future, the critical challenge will be to reconcile legal interpretations with the highest possible standards of safety, ensuring that even the most extreme and "unanticipated" risks are met with proactive, robust mitigation strategies rather than mere tolerance.