Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Law, regulation and treaties · Japan · 1967–2011

Onagawa and Fukushima Daiichi site elevation decisions

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 2 none on record · 1 not measured · 4 disputed See the gaps

Two Japanese nuclear plants on the Tohoku coast were built at different heights above sea level in the 1960s and 1970s. When the 2011 tsunami arrived, the heights set decades earlier had different consequences at each site.

14.8 m (Onagawa) vs about 10 m (Fukushima Daiichi)Site elevation set for the plant, above sea level
Figures as stated in the sources reviewed; other publications give slightly different numbers.

Status The sources reviewed give no development after the 2011 tsunami; no ruling or official finding on the site-height decisions is on record in them.

What?
Siting decisions for two nuclear plants: TEPCO cut the Fukushima Daiichi bluff from about 35 m to about 10 m in 1967, and Onagawa was built with a site height of 14.8 m above sea level.
Where?
Fukushima Daiichi (Fukushima) and Onagawa (Miyagi), on Japan's Tohoku coast.
When?
Daiichi bluff cut in 1967; Onagawa site height decided in the late 1960s (committee formed 1968); tsunami on 11 March 2011.
Who?
Gained
  • TEPCO — Lower running costs for the seawater cooling pumps, lower construction costs and easier transport of equipment, as the reasons given for Daiichi.
Lost
None on record
Harmed
None on record
Why?
Daiichi: pump operating costs, solid bedrock and easier transport and construction. Onagawa: press accounts cite the 869 Jogan tsunami and a design keeping cooling water available when the sea drew back.
How?
TEPCO removed about 25 m of the bluff; Tohoku Electric set the Onagawa site at 14.8 m and its first floors at 15.0 m.
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

The Fukushima Daiichi site was a natural bluff about 35 m above sea level. In 1967 TEPCO removed about 25 m of it, which put the reactor buildings at about 10 m. The reasons given were lower running costs for the seawater cooling pumps, reaching solid bedrock, which helps against earthquakes, and easier transport of equipment with lower construction costs. TEPCO engineer Hiroshi Kaburaki wrote in January 1969 that the decision compared construction costs with the operating costs of the circulation water pumps.

At Onagawa, run by Tohoku Electric, the site height was set at 14.8 m above sea level, with the first floors of the main buildings and key outdoor structures at 15.0 m. Press accounts credit Yanosuke Hirai (1902–1986), Tohoku Electric's vice president from 1960 to 1975, as the one member of the planning committee who argued for 14.8 m while colleagues thought about 12 m was enough. According to those accounts he cited the 869 Jogan tsunami and argued for an intake design that kept cooling water available when the sea drew back. Tohoku Electric's own 2024 paper credits an in-house committee of experts and does not name Hirai.

The committee for the Onagawa site height was formed in 1968 and the decision was made in the late 1960s; no exact date has been published. Construction started in 1980, and Unit 1, a 524 MW boiling water reactor, entered commercial operation in June 1984. Tohoku Electric says the tsunami assumed at the time was only about 3 m.

The 2011 tsunami was about 13 m at the Onagawa plant, according to Tohoku Electric and the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (JAIF). The earthquake also lowered the land by about 1 m, bringing the Onagawa site to about 13.8 m, so the remaining margin was under 1 m. Other publications give different figures: The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists gives 14.3 m at Onagawa and 13.1 m at Daiichi, and Wikipedia gives 15 m at Onagawa fishing port, which is the town and not the plant.

  1. 1967TEPCO removes about 25 m of a bluff about 35 m high at Fukushima Daiichi; reactor buildings at about 10 m
  2. 1968Tohoku Electric forms the committee on the Onagawa site height
  3. 1969TEPCO engineer Hiroshi Kaburaki writes that the decision compared construction costs with pump operating costs (January)
  4. 1980Onagawa construction starts
  5. 1984Onagawa Unit 1 enters commercial operation (June)
  6. 2011Tsunami about 13 m at Onagawa; land lowered by about 1 m, leaving a margin of under 1 m

What was said

Claims, in the words of those who made them.

Where accounts differ

Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.

Who decided the Onagawa site height of 14.8 m?
Press and investigations
Press accounts (Mainichi and others)

Credit Yanosuke Hirai, Tohoku Electric's vice president, as the lone voice for 14.8 m while colleagues thought about 12 m was enough.

Company or project
Tohoku Electric

Its 2024 paper credits an in-house committee of experts, without naming Hirai.

Tohoku Electric
Why was the Fukushima Daiichi site cut down from about 35 m to about 10 m?
Company or project
TEPCO engineer Hiroshi Kaburaki (1969)

Wrote that the decision compared construction costs with the operating costs of the circulation water pumps.

Researchers
Other reasons on record

The reasons given were also reaching solid bedrock, which helps against earthquakes, and easier transport of equipment with lower construction costs; pumping cost was not the sole reason.

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

  • Tohoku Electric's 2024 paper attributes the Onagawa site height to an in-house committee of experts, without naming Hirai.
    Tohoku Electric · Tohoku Electric

Recorded

  • Fukushima Daiichi: bluff of about 35 m reduced by about 25 m in 1967, putting the reactor buildings at about 10 m.
  • Onagawa: site height 14.8 m above sea level; first floors of the main buildings and key outdoor structures at 15.0 m.
  • The earthquake lowered the Onagawa land by about 1 m, to about 13.8 m; the tsunami at the plant was about 13 m.

Who gained

Money that reached nature, beside money that stayed elsewhere.

Reached nature or the ground

Not published
No figure published.

Gained elsewhere

Not totalled
Currency: JPY · Window: 1967–2011. All figures cover the same period. * Estimate built from cited figures.

Responses on record

  • tohoku-electric (2024): Its 2024 paper credits an in-house committee of experts for the Onagawa site height and says the tsunami assumed at the time was only about 3 m. · Tohoku Electric

In court and with insurers

Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

Lawsuits and rulings

No court case on record. No court has ruled on this case.

Insurers

No insurer decision on record.

What nature saw

Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.

Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.

Onagawa site height
14.8 m
Above sea level; first floors at 15.0 m
Fukushima Daiichi reactor buildings
about 10 m
After about 25 m of a roughly 35 m bluff was removed in 1967
Onagawa margin after the 2011 earthquake
under 1 m
Land lowered by about 1 m to about 13.8 m; tsunami about 13 m at the plant

What we don't know

Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.

Nature

  • Not measured Harm to nature: No independent ecological evaluation is on record.

Court

Accounts

  • Disputed Who decided the Onagawa site height of 14.8 m?
  • Disputed Why was the Fukushima Daiichi site cut down from about 35 m to about 10 m?

Record

  • None on record No exact date for the Onagawa site-height decision has been published; the sources give the late 1960s.
  • Disputed Accounts differ on who drove the 14.8 m decision: press accounts credit Yanosuke Hirai, while Tohoku Electric's 2024 paper credits an in-house committee of experts without naming him.
  • Disputed Published tsunami and elevation figures differ between sources (13 m, 14.3 m or 15 m at Onagawa; 13.1 m at Daiichi), and some articles describe the 14.8 m as a seawall or breakwater, or as 14.7 m.

Did the harm stop?

Not applicable; the record covers siting decisions made between 1967 and the late 1960s and their effect in 2011.

Who paid?

The sources reviewed do not say.

Sources

Voices on record: ✓ Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations✓ Communities and civil society— Researchers

Company or project

Press and investigations

Communities and civil society

  1. Subsidence at the Onagawa and Fukushima sites
    CNIC (Citizens' Nuclear Information Center) ·

Connected cases

Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.