今日は、海外のメディアでは、国会事故調査会が福島第一原発事故は人災だったとの報告をしたことが話題になっていた。Huffington Postにアップされていたロイターの”Japan Nuclear Disaster Was Preventable, Panel Says”という記事の日本語訳が日本語のロイターにあったので紹介したい。
福島原発事故、自然災害でなく「人災」=国会事故調報告書
[東京 5日 ロイター] 東京電力(9501.T:株価, ニュース, レポート)福島第1原発事故を検証してきた国会の事故調査委員会(黒川清委員長)は5日、「事故は自然災害ではなく明らかに人災」とする報告書を衆参両院議長に提出した。
震災前に地震や津波に対する十分な安全対策が取られなかったほか、監視・監督機能が崩壊していたことが根源的原因と結論付け、東電の過酷事故に対する準備不足や政府・規制当局の危機管理体制の不備も批判した。そのうえで国会が電力会社や原子力規制当局を監視することなどを提言した。
報告書はまず、福島第1原発は震災時点で「地震にも津波にも耐えられる保証がない脆弱な状態であったと推定される」とし、必要な対策が先送りされていなければ事故を防げた可能性があると指摘した。また「歴代の規制当局と東電との関係において、規制する立場とされる立場の逆転関係が起き、規制当局は電気事業者の虜となっていた。その結果、原子力安全についての監視・監督機能が崩壊していた」とし、政府、規制当局、東電を批判した。
事故の直接的な理由については「1号機の安全上重要な機器の地震による損傷はないとは確定的には言えない」との見解を示した。
現場の運転上の問題としては、東電が過酷事故に対する十分な準備、知識、訓練などを実施しておらず、「組織的な問題」があったと指摘。事故後の対応では、官邸や規制当局の危機管理体制が機能しなかったほか、東電と政府の責任の境界が曖昧だったことを問題視し、住民への避難指示が的確に伝わらなかったことも被害の拡大を招いたと説明した。
官邸による発電所現場への直接的な介入に関しては、現場対応の重要な時間を無駄にしたほか、指揮命令系統の混乱を拡大する結果となった、と批判。一方で、事故後の東電の情報開示が不十分だったほか、現場の技術者の意向より官邸の意向を優先し、曖昧な態度に終始したことにも問題があると指摘した。東電については、規制された以上の安全対策を行わず、より高い安全を目指す姿勢に欠けていたとし「緊急時に発電所の事故対応の支援ができない現場軽視の経営陣の姿勢は、原子力を扱う事業者としての資格があるのか」との疑問を呈した。
一方、東電が政府に伝えたとされる全面撤退方針については、東電本店で退避基準の検討は進められていたが、全面退避が決定された形跡はなく、「総理によって東電の全員撤退が阻止されたと理解することはできない」との判断を示した。東電と官邸の間で認識ギャップがあり、その根源には「東電の清水社長(当時)が官邸の意向を探るかのような曖昧な連絡に終始した点があった」と指摘した。
<7つの提言>
報告書には、問題解決に向けた7つの提言も盛り込んだ。原子力規制当局を監視するため、国会に原子力問題に関する常設委員会を設置することや、電力会社が規制当局に不当な圧力をかけないよう国会が厳しく監視することを提案。このほか、政府の危機管理体制の見直し、被災住民に対する政府の早期対応、規制組織の抜本的な転換、原子力法規制の見直し、民間中心の専門家からなる独立調査委員会の活用を呼び掛けた。
© Thomson Reuters 2012 All rights reserved.
http://youtu.be/4Njtx7zDHdE
英語の原文には、文末にテンプル大学のキングストン教授(?)のコメントがあって、もし、菅前総理が東電の撤退問題に介入していなかったら、事態はもっと悲惨なことになっていただろうと結んである。
英語原文:
Japan Nuclear Disaster Was Preventable, Panel Says
By Risa Maeda and Linda Sieg
TOKYO, July 5 (Reuters) - Japan's Fukushima nuclear crisis was a preventable disaster resulting from "collusion" among the government, regulators and the plant operator, an expert panel said on Thursday, wrapping up an inquiry into the worst nuclear accident in 25 years.
Damage from the huge March 11, 2011, earthquake, and not just the ensuing tsunami, could not be ruled out as a cause of the accident, the panel added, a finding with serious potential implications as Japan seeks to bring idled reactors on line.
The panel criticised the response of Fukushima Daiichi plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co, regulators and then Prime Minister Naoto Kan, who quit last year after criticism of his handling of a natural disaster that became 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 Japanese document.
The report - issued hours after a reactor began supplying electricity to the grid for the first time in two months - put an official imprimatur on criticism of the cosy ties that have bound a powerful nexus of interests known as the "nuclear village".
Regulators, it said, had been 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 affect the restart of reactors that were taken offline, mostly for maintenance and safety checks, in the months since Fukushima. Japan is one of the world's most quake-prone countries.
"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.
The panel urged strict checks on all reactors against guidelines set in 2006, and said Japan's 21 oldest reactors, whose construction was approved before guidelines were set in 1981, may be at similar risk from a big quake as Fukushima Daiichi.
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.
"This means that all of Japan's reactors are vulnerable and require retro-fitting, calling into question the hasty decision of the (Prime Minister Yoshihiko) Noda cabinet to restart reactors before getting the lessons of Fukushima," said Jeffrey Kingston, Asia studies director at Temple University in Tokyo.
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.
MISSED OPPORTUNITIES
Many of the shocking details of the disaster, including operator Tokyo Electric Power Co's (Tepco) failure to prepare for a big tsunami and the chaotic response by the utility and government, have already been made public.
In an effort to repair tattered public trust in the regulatory regime, the government will in a few months set up a more independent nuclear watchdog that will then draft new safety rules.
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.
Resource-poor Japan has for decades promoted nuclear power as safe, cheap and clean. Atomic energy supplied nearly 30 percent of electricity needs before the disaster.
"As a result of inadequate oversight, the SA (Severe Accident) countermeasures implemented in Japan were practically ineffective compared to the countermeasures in place abroad, and actions were significantly delayed as a result," it said.
Tepco came under heavy criticism in the report, partly 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 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 ($12.53 billion) injection of public funds.
The panel also said it had found no evidence to back up Kan's allegation that Tepco had planned to abandon the tsunami-ravaged plant as the crisis risked spinning out of control.
But fans of Kan, a former civic activist who angered the powerful nuclear industry when he became a harsh critic of atomic power after the disaster, questioned that finding.
"I think the crisis would have been far worse if Kan hadn't intervened," Temple University's Kingston said. ($1 = 79.7950 yen)