A comprehensive summary of the course Case Study Fukushima (BSc Security Studies, Leiden University). The Fukushima case is taught by applying knowledge and methods from relevant academic disciplines. Students will learn to review an event, or set of events, through the lenses of various academic p...
Case Study Fukushima
Lecture 1: Introduction to the Fukushima case
The Fukushima nuclear disaster happened on March 11. It is a unique safety case (protection against
accidental harm), with international consequences. The Fukushima case will be discussed with an
interdisciplinary approach, and the perspectives of four disciplines: 1) environmental studies, 2)
engineering, 3) public administration and 4) communication.
Japan was very reliant on nuclear energy, up until the 80s. Japan has very few resources, but they still
need to provide their people with energy. Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) is a well-known
energy operator servicing the Kantō region, Yamanashi and Shizuoka.
The Tōhoku Earthquake was an undersea earthquake with a magnitude of 9.0. It was also felt in
Tokyo and the closest city to the epicentre was Sendai. Within an hour, the earthquake triggered a
tsunami, as the earthquake made the tectonic plates move. The tsunami destroyed, among many
other things, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (FDNPP).
The FDNPP is located in the towns of Ōkuma in the Fukushima Prefecture. The chain of events
caused radiation leaks and permanently damaged the reactors. The FDNPP had six nuclear boiling
water reactors in total, all owned by TEPCO. Three of them were in operation at the time of the
disaster, whereas the remaining two underwent routine maintenance. A boiling water reactor (BWR)
uses demineralised water as a coolant. Heat is produced by nuclear fission in the reactor core, and
this causes the cooling water to boil and thus producing steam. The steam is used to drive a turbine,
after which it is cooled in a condenser and converted back to liquid water. This water is then returned
to the reactor core, completing the loop.
After the earthquake, there was a loss of external power. This triggered an immediate shutdown and
the on-site emergency back-up power generators were turned on. A total blackout happened when
the tsunami also hit the power plant. Most important thing right after the disaster, was to provide
energy again so that the cooling system would work again.
The threat of a nuclear breakdown arose when fuel rods started to overheat. Water turned into
steam, thus there was less water available to cool down the fuel rods. When these fuel rods come in
contact with air, radioactive materials will be released. During the time of the crisis, the pressure was
rising inside the vessels; they therefore had to be opened in order to vent. This can either be done
automatically or manually. However, the automatic system stopped working so they had to do it
manually which carried a lot of risks with it .
Undesirable information and communications problems occurred as the situation quickly developed,
at all levels of decision-making. During the time of crisis, both TEPCO’s chairman and president were
not at TEPCO headquarters which caused a leadership vacuum. A nuclear emergency decree was
insisted. A decree is a rule of law usually issued by a head of state and according to certain
procedures. On 12 March 2011, Prime Minister Kan observed the FDNPP and was heavily involved in
efforts to effectively respond to the disaster. Afterwards, Kan took an increasingly anti-nuclear stance
in the months following the disaster.
R.S.L. van den Nieuwenhof 1
, Block 3 Leiden University Case study Fukushima
Since Japan declared a nuclear emergency, so people had to be evacuated. Prime Minister Kan
issued that people within a 20 km zone around plant must leave, and urged that those living
between 20 km and 30 km from the site to stay indoors; later they were also urged to evacuate (25th
of March). It was however complicated to implement; think of infrastructure. Luckily, there was no
catastrophic containment vessel breach so Tokyo did not have to be evacuated.
Kan set up a joint headquarters, as TEPCO
was unauthorised to make decisions. Important
to understand is that the people who make the
decisions are not the experts, or the people on
site. Nonetheless, it was believed that they
know whats best in order to reduce the impact.
Soon after, there were hydrogen explosions. Hydrogen is created due to the coating of fuel rods. It
is however, a very complex system. Hydrogen was spotted in reactors 1, 2 and 4. The hydrogen of
reactor 3 flowed through tubes to reactor 4. Nevertheless, the fuel rods still needed cooling. They
thought of a solution; namely the injection of seawater. Important to know is that after this, the
reactors could never be used again.
TEPCO requested for abandonment (14 march), as employees wanted to leave the power plant
due to very high levels of radioactivity. 750 people left; 50 people stayed: “The Fukushima 50”.
Turning point: emergency mobilisation. On the 20th of March 2011, large pumps were brought to
the reactors, as well as amounts of water. Japan’s self-defence forces (SDF) were also mobilised. The
areas in and around Fukushima however remain abandoned. The crisis has not ended yet, as the
ground is full of contaminated ground water, which led to the exposure of radiation to a larger
group.
Lecture 2: The politics and culture of nuclear energy in Japan
According to TEPCO, the disaster was a so-called soteigai, referring to something that is beyond
expectations (black swan). Accordingly, it is commonly understood to denote something that can not
be anticipated via existing risk management models and technologies. People disagreed with
TEPCO, because they argued that these risks were known, as many tsunami’s had occurred before.
TEPCO was also warned in 2001 whereas they said “we will consider it”.
The National Diet of Japan was installed to investigate the incident. This was special for Japan and
their parliamentary history. According to Kurokawa, “What must be admitted 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.” According to the Independent
Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident, “The causes of the accident not only
included technical failures, systematic and administrative failures, but also a set of factors that can be
termed as societal failures.”
R.S.L. van den Nieuwenhof 2
, Block 3 Leiden University Case study Fukushima
Historic overview:
I. United States occupation of Japan 1945-1951: The Allied occupation of Japan at the end of
World War II and the Pacific War marks the only time in Japan's history that it has been occupied
by a foreign power. The United States made a new constitution for Japan that would prevent
them from having a military. Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution outlaws war as a means to
settle international disputes. Creation of ‘self-defence forces’.
II. Hiroshima 1945: During World War II, the United States detonated two nuclear weapons over
Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945. The two bombings killed 129,000–226,000
people.
III. Japan goes nuclear & Japanese nuclear policy: According to Nakasone (former Prime Minister)
nuclear energy was necessary. The focus was on power for industrial growth & profit, energy
autonomy/security, technological ambitions & international prestige and national security. After
decided that nuclear energy was good for Japan, the question “how would this be organised?”
arose. They tried to do this through the so-called ‘National Policy-Private Operation’. National
government plans and authorises. Private electric companies operate.
The Ministry of International Trade and Industry was one of the most powerful agencies of the
Government of Japan. At the height of its influence, it effectively ran much of Japanese industrial
policy, funding research and directing investment. In 2001, its role was taken over by the newly
created Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). The Japanese economic miracle was
Japan's record period of economic growth between the post-World War II to the end of the Cold
War.
The Iron Triangle itself is used to refer to a heuristic tool that is
often employed to describe, explain and distinguish interactions
between the Legislation (elected public officials), Bureaucracy
(unelected civil servant) and Big Business. It presents a simplified
model that facilitates an easy understanding of the allocation
question - who gets how much when and why – but also has its
limitations.
IV. Japan’s “1955 system” in politics: The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) was established in 1955,
and was almost continuously in power until 2009. It came entrenched in politics. The 1955 system
also known as the 'one-and-a-half party system', refers to the party system in Japan from 1955 to
1993 in which the (LDP) successively held majority government while the major opposition the
Japan Socialist Party (JSP) was incapable of forming an alternative. The years of Japan under
1955 regime witnessed the economic miracle. Great question remains: “How does a country that
has been hit by nuclear weapons themselves, grow out to be so advanced, since they know what
the impact will be?”
V. Eisenhower’s Speech Atoms for Peace 1953: Atoms for Peace was the title of a speech by
President Eisenhower to the UN General Assembly in New York in 1953. The United States then
launched an Atoms for Peace program that supplied equipment and information to schools,
hospitals, and research institutions within the United States and throughout the world. This was
considered to be a key turning point, as Eisenhower in his speech gives a positive spin to nuclear
energy. A narrative to justify nuclear power.
R.S.L. van den Nieuwenhof 3
Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:
Qualité garantie par les avis des clients
Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.
L’achat facile et rapide
Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.
Focus sur l’essentiel
Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.
Foire aux questions
Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?
Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.
Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?
Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.
Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?
Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur summariesforyou. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.
Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?
Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour €10,19. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.
