Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumHow 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 plants cooling systems, managers and workers couldnt 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 Daiichis fate. To shed light on how leadership shaped the outcome, weve reconstructed that story herefrom 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 Dainis 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 couldnt 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 Dainis sister plant: In April 2014 he was appointed Daiichis chief decommissioning officer.
http://hbr.org/2014/07/how-the-other-fukushima-plant-survived/ar/1
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)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.