LyrArc Article Gist
An independent parliamentary panel in Japan described the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster as a "profoundly man-made disaster." It was sharply critical of TEPCO, the company running the plant, and the Japanese government's response. The investigation chairman Kiyoshi Kurokawa said in the report: "What must be admitted- very painfully- is that this was a disaster 'Made in Japan,' its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to 'sticking with the program'; our groupism; and our insularity." This comes as a report by TEPCO shifted public attention to "a tsunami beyond our imagination," creating a large credibility gap with the Japanese people, because the public is skeptical about TEPCO's attention to safety during the period leading to the accident. The parliamentary report calls attention to safety factors that were ignored so that companies would be required to take further steps including costly modifications of plant equipment.
A critical flaw was the lack of a independent safety agency that could enforce safety measures that TEPCO might be reluctant to make because of cost considerations. Astonishing as this may sound, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) in Japan is part of the same government ministry that promotes nuclear power, creating a sort of "nuclear bloc," which before the accident connected the safety agency to the bloc. Because of this the panel report says, NISA did not require TEPCO to prepare for a full station blackout- the loss of main and backup power- because the "probability was small." Other factors that need to be addressed are the breakdown in communication and cooperation between the people operating the plant and the people responsible for Japan's nuclear safety. The prime minister's office waited too long before declaring a state of emergency. To come up with the conclusions the panel made 1000 intervews and conducted 900 hours of hearings. The questions left behind by the nuclear accident in Japan are whether Japan should continue with the same level of dependence on nuclear power, whether it should shift out of nuclear power on a gradual basis as Germany is doing ironically after the Fukushima accident while Japan is reactivating its nuclear plants to meet energy needs. If Japan continues with a smaller reliance on nuclear power what changes have to take place for an effective safety agency completely outside the "nuclear bloc," and the series of other changes that have to take place in the nuclear power industry's handling of safety. Public opposition continues to focus on this because of distrust of the nuclear power industry after the accident....