Use IAEA report to boost nuclear power plant safety
A group of experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency that visited Japan has submitted to the government a summary of its report on the causes of the crisis at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.
The preliminary report said "the risks of tsunami were underestimated" at not only the Fukushima plant but also at several other nuclear plants struck by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.
The summary said safety measures at nuclear power facilities should be designed to handle even the most extreme natural disaster. The report's contents are profound.
The Japanese archipelago is often battered by natural disasters. The government should ensure that the suggestions of the IAEA fact-finding team are used effectively to enhance the safety of nuclear power plants.
The IAEA team inspected several disaster-hit nuclear power facilities, including the Fukushima plant, during their weeklong stay from late May. They talked with technicians during their inspections.
===
Meltdown a taboo topic
As a result, the IAEA team concluded there were a number of problems with measures designed to prevent reactor core meltdowns--the worst of all nuclear power plant accidents--and with the response to the meltdowns at the Fukushima plant.
Tsunami destroyed the plant's emergency backup generators intended to provide power to cool the reactors, and no alternative source of electricity could be found in time.
Although an operation manual stipulated steam should be released through vents in the reactor to reduce internal pressure and prevent a core meltdown, the process took plant workers some time. In addition, the possibility that a building surrounding a reactor could be blown off in a hydrogen explosion had never been imagined before the crisis.
The IAEA report urged Japan to make preparations for dealing with such a grave situation. We think this is an obvious request.
The nation's nuclear power industry had for years insisted there was no way a nuclear core could melt down. It seems they regarded this issue almost as a taboo, and feared that even referring to this danger would heighten public anxiety about nuclear power.
State-run antidisaster drills at the nuclear plants also failed to take into account the possibility of a reactor core meltdown.
This taboo stymied public discussions about preparing for a worst-case scenario and beefing up countermeasures against a possible meltdown. The danger now needs to be faced up to squarely and discussed.
===
Reform of regulatory system
The IAEA team noted Japan's nuclear regulatory authorities should be made independent and their roles clarified. This is in light of the fact that the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, which is in charge of nuclear regulations, is under the wing of the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry--a proponent of nuclear power.
Nuclear regulatory authorities in other countries have, in principle, been independent. Even in this country, some skeptics have questioned the wisdom of having an entity in charge of promoting nuclear power and another charged with regulating it under the same body. The government must swiftly discuss reforming this organization.
The IAEA team will present its full report at a ministerial meeting on nuclear safety in Vienna from June 20 to 24, at which creation of international safety standards for nuclear power plants will be high on the agenda.
One nuclear power plant after another in Japan has been unable to resume operations after regular safety checkups due to mounting public distrust about the safety of nuclear power.
Active government involvement in forging international nuclear safety standards, and improving the safety of domestic nuclear plants, are essential if these mothballed facilities are to resume operations.
Overhaul of nation's politics needed to eliminate distrust
Nothing can be said about the current political situation except how shameful it is. People's distrust in politics will only deepen further.
Prime Minister Naoto Kan expressed his intention to resign shortly before a no-confidence motion against his Cabinet was voted on, but after the motion was rejected he showed a desire to remain in power for the long term.
This left former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama furious, as he had met with Kan to urge him to step down. Hatoyama, claiming a promise had been broken, criticized Kan, even going so far as to call him a "swindler."
===
Disappointing situation
Words and deeds such as these are far from what one would expect from a nation's prime minister and his predecessor.
In the first place, the written memorandum Hatoyama exchanged with Kan did not include a specific reference to the timing of Kan's resignation. The agreement only referred to ensuring early prospects for the compilation of a second supplementary budget--an incredibly elusive document.
What is more problematic, however, has been Kan's insincere attitude.
When asked about when he would step down at a House of Councillors Budget Committee session Friday, the prime minister made remarks that could be interpreted as a denial of his earlier expressed intention to quit. He also said he "made no promise whatsoever" concerning his resignation during the meeting with Hatoyama.
Given these developments, it is only natural to consider Kan's hinting at resigning a mere expedient to stay in power.
When the prime minister asked lawmakers of his ruling Democratic Party of Japan to vote against the no-confidence motion, he argued that it was necessary to do so to avoid destroying the party. But intraparty confrontations have only rekindled in the wake of his ambiguous remarks.
The opposition bloc also has hardened its stance. Sadakazu Tanigaki, head of the main opposition Liberal Democratic Party, said his party would cooperate to pass a basic disaster reconstruction bill, but warned, "We can't extend any more cooperation than that to a lame-duck administration."
So, Kan's presence as prime minister is still a stumbling block in the way of the ruling and opposition parties working together. If he remains in power without clarifying when he will resign, the nation's politics will stall further, which is harmful to national interests.
We believe a good time for him to step down could be after the basic reconstruction bill passes the Diet, which is expected to happen as early as before the end of the month.
In addition to the earthquake response, the nation faces a mountain of issues such as social security, and foreign and security policy.
===
Clear leadership needed
We cannot entrust the reins of the government to an irresponsible prime minister who lacks a sense of urgency in implementing what needs be done. Instead, Kan only keeps repeating an ambiguous mantra that his resignation would come once the disaster response was "settled to some degree."
Business circles are also deeply concerned about the political situation.
Japan Business Federation (Nippon Keidanren) Chairman Hiromasa Yonekura has said that to tackle disaster reconstruction, there is no other option than a grand coalition between the ruling and opposition parties.
Without a thorough overhaul of current politics, the nation will never break through the sense of stagnation blanketing society or eliminate people's distrust in their leaders.
0 comments:
Post a Comment