The world’s worst nuclear accident in 25 years could have been avoided were it
not for “ignorance and arrogance unforgivable for anyone or any organisation
that deals with nuclear power”.
Regulators, it said, had been were reluctant to adopt global safety standards
that could have helped prevent the disaster in which reactors melted down,
spewing radiation and forcing about 150,000 people from their homes, many of
whom will never return.
“We found a disregard for global trends and a disregard for public safety,”
said the panel, which was chaired by Kiyoshi Kurokawa of Tokyo University.
The report commissioned by parliament also blamed cultural conventions and a
reluctance to question authority for the damage to three reactors caused by
a tsunami on March 11 last year.
The report was issued as nuclear power was reintroduced into Japan’s power
grid for the first time since the disaster from a reactor in Ohi, in western
Japan, as the government overcame widespread public objections.
The panel also pointed to problems in the response of plant operator Tokyo
Electric Power Co and then Prime Minister Naoto Kan, who resigned last year
after criticism of his handling of a natural disaster that developed into a
man-made crisis.
“The … Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident was the result of
collusion between the government, the regulators and Tepco, and the lack of
governance by said parties,” the panel said in an English summary of a
641-page report.
Regulators, it said, had been were reluctant to adopt global safety standards
that could have helped prevent the disaster in which reactors melted down,
spewing radiation and forcing about 150,000 people from their homes, many of
whom will never return.
“Across the board, the Commission found ignorance and arrogance
unforgivable for anyone or any organisation that deals with nuclear power.
We found a disregard for global trends and a disregard for public safety,”
the panel said.
The panel’s finding that seismic damage may well have played a role could also
affect the restart of reactors that were taken offline, mostly for
maintenance and safety checks, in the months since Fukushima.
“We have proved that it cannot be said that there would have been no
crisis without the tsunami,” Katsuhiko Ishibashi, a seismologist and
panel member, said in the report.
Experts have said that an active fault may lie under Kansai Electric Power
Co’s Ohi plant in western Japan, whose No. 3 unit began supplying
electricity to the grid early on Thursday. Ohi’s No. 4 unit will come on
line later this month after the government approved the restarts to avoid a
power shortage.
The report by the experts – one of three panels looking into the Fukushima
disaster – follows a six-month investigation involving more than 900 hours
of hearings and interviews with more than 1,100 people, the first such
inquiry of its kind.
Many of the shocking details of the disaster, including operator Tepco’s
failure to prepare for a massive tsunami and a chaotic response by the
utility and government, have already been made public but this report
carried more wait as it was commissioned by parliament.
The report pointed to numerous missed opportunities to take steps to prevent
the disaster, citing lobbying by the nuclear power companies as well as a “safety
myth” mindset that permeated the industry and the regulatory regime as
among the reasons for the failure to be prepared.
Tepco came under heavy criticism in the report, including for putting
cost-cutting steps ahead of safety as nuclear power became less profitable
over the years. “While giving lip service to a policy of ‘safety
first’, in actuality, safety suffered at the expense of other management
priorities,” the team said.
In a report on its own internal investigation issued last month, Tepco denied
responsibility, saying the big “unforeseen” tsunami was to blame –
though it admitted that in hindsight it was insufficiently prepared.
Tepco, struggling under huge costs for compensation, cleanup and
decommissioning, was effectively nationalised last month with a 1 trillion
yen injection of public funds.
Views: 0