Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(26,735 posts)
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 11:15 AM Jun 2014

How the Other Fukushima Plant Survived

We've known most, if not all, of this for some time now, but it's well worth the read.



When we hear the words “Fukushima disaster,” most of us think of Fukushima Daiichi, the nuclear power plant wracked by three core meltdowns and three reactor building explosions following the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Without electricity to run the plant’s cooling systems, managers and workers couldn’t avert catastrophe: People around the world watched grainy footage of the explosions, gray plumes of smoke and steam blotting the skyline. Since the tsunami, Daiichi has been consumed by the challenge of containing and reducing the radioactive water and debris left behind.

Less well known is the crisis at Fukushima Daini, a sister plant about 10 kilometers to the south, which also suffered severe damage but escaped Daiichi’s fate. To shed light on how leadership shaped the outcome, we’ve reconstructed that story here—from several firsthand interviews; detailed reports by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the utility that owns both plants; the Nuclear Energy Institute; and a number of public sources. In so volatile an environment, none of the usual rules for decision making and organizational behavior applied. But the site superintendent, Naohiro Masuda, and the rest of Daini’s 400 employees charted their way through the chaos, and the plant survived without a meltdown or an explosion.

...snip...

Without question, Masuda and his team were in a much better position than the workers at Daiichi, where greater physical damage had terrible consequences. Whereas Daini had at least a little electricity on its side, Daiichi lost all its off-site power sources and effectively all its emergency diesel generators. When the control rooms went dark, workers couldn’t even monitor their deteriorating circumstances. The damage and the loss of power were the main contributors to the explosions. With containment breached, workers were potentially exposed to high levels of radiation. The Daiichi workforce at one point shrank to 69 people when employees sought safety, as recently released interviews with the site superintendent, Masao Yoshida, reportedly confirm. At Daini, Masuda had 400.

Still, unexpected challenges came at Masuda and his team thick and fast. In the heat of the crisis, problem by problem, they acted their way toward sense, purpose, and resolution. And three years later, Masuda continues to seek that resolution, now at Daini’s sister plant: In April 2014 he was appointed Daiichi’s chief decommissioning officer.


http://hbr.org/2014/07/how-the-other-fukushima-plant-survived/ar/1
1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How the Other Fukushima Plant Survived (Original Post) FBaggins Jun 2014 OP
There is a failure of comparison. JayhawkSD Jun 2014 #1
 

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)
1. There is a failure of comparison.
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 12:05 PM
Jun 2014

It is an interesting article, and very significantly informative, but there is nothing more than this, "Without question, Masuda and his team were in a much better position than the workers at Daiichi, where greater physical damage had terrible consequences," to compare the process at the other plant. It would have been useful to offer a contrast, if such existed, between the leadership processes at the two plants or to say that the difference consisted merely in the degree of initial damage. Instead, we are left to speculate.

Of great interest to me was the style of leadership displayed at Daini, in which the manager constantly revealed to his team the details of his thinking, including the places and times where his thinking went wrong and it was necessary to change the course of it. Clearly, that did not weaken the confidence of his team, but seems to have actually strengthened it, which I don't really think is surprising.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»How the Other Fukushima P...