8/2/2019 Engineering Corporate Social Responsibility

1/15

8/2/2019 Engineering Corporate Social Responsibility

2/15

Engineering Corporate social Responsibility

Assessment -1

Mahesh Khupse

Student ID: 1251741

Engineering corporate social Responsibility 709402

8/2/2019 Engineering Corporate Social Responsibility

3/15

Table of Content:

1. Introduction ... 1

2. Analysing the disaster .. 1

3. Duty Ethics Violations .. 2

4. Health and Safety Ethics ... 3

5. Environmental Damages ... 5

6. Use of Nuclear facilities for power Generation .... 7

7. Social responsibility of Nuclear Power Plant Operator ............ 7

8. Code of ethics for engineers . 8

9. References ... 10

10. Appendix ... 11

8/2/2019 Engineering Corporate Social Responsibility

4/15

List of Figures

Figure 1: Typical Evacuation Centre in Japan .... 4

Figure 2: On the left is shown damage due to radiation exposure. On the right isshown the geographical distribution of radiation around Fukushima reactors sinceMarch 11 .5

Figure: 3- Radiation in the environment around the Fukushima Daiichi Plant ..6

8/2/2019 Engineering Corporate Social Responsibility

5/15

1

Introduction

On 11 March 2011, largest earthquake in the history of japan strikes off north east

coast of japan, followed by vast tsunami triggered by earthquake. Facing the coast

was Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant which took the blow of 14-15 meters high

tsunami waves (Headquarters 2011). At the time of earthquake, the reactor 4 hadbeen defueled and reactors 5, 6 were in cold shut down for maintenance. Reactors 1,

2 and 3 shutdown automatically after earthquake, emergency generators starts

supplying power to the reactors, but 14-15 meters high waves of tsunami broke

reactors connection to power grid and flooded the rooms containing the emergency

generators. Eventually complete loss of AC current at all 3 units occurred and

stopped pumps that circulate coolant waters in reactor, which resulted in reactors

being overheated. Eventually reactors 1, 2 and 3 experienced full meltdown and

several hydrogen explosions occurred at the reactors.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant was built on false assumptions that if in case

earthquake occurs in the vicinity of the plant , the maximum height of expected

tsunami is 3.1 meters on design basis (Headquarters 2011). Also, the acceleration

response spectra of the basic earthquake movement observed on the basic board of

the reactor building exceeded the acceleration response spectra of the earthquake

movement in design for partial periodic bands, hence earthquake damaged power

supply (Headquarters 2011).

Analysing the disaster

Japan sits on pacific ring of fire, which is the area where large number of earthquake

and volcanic eruptions occur. Considering the fact that the catastrophic tsunami can

have serious impact on nuclear facility preparedness for any such event was not

observed. After the plant was hit by tsunami ideally the isolation condenser should

take function of ordinary cooling pumps, but the condenser did not function and the

plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) could not confirm whether

a valve was opened.

On 27 December 2011, The japan Times reported (Nagata (2011) some interim

findings of the third party panel set up to investigate the causes of the accident in

Fukushima prefecture. The panel observed that workers at Fukushima plant assumed

that reactor`s isolation condenser was working after tsunami hit, but in reality it was

not working. This report also added that, during power loss the valve in isolation

condenser automatically shuts down, which prevents water from entering the reactor,

but TEPCO`s staff were unaware of this and assumed that the reactor was being

cooled. This mistake delayed the efforts to cool the reactors. Also, at rector no.3

workers switched off one of the cooling system to switch on another cooling system

8/2/2019 Engineering Corporate Social Responsibility

6/15

2

to find that none of them was working. This resulted in seven hours delay in

resuming cooling system, which eventually accelerated core meltdown (Nagata

(2011).

There has been several instances that point fingers towards plant operator TEPCO`s

credibility in matter of safety of the reactor. In 2002 TEPCO admitted that it falsifiedsafety records at the No.1 Reactor at Fukushima Daiichi Power plant. A power

board, which distributes electricity to reactor`s temperature control valves was not

examined for 11 years. Also inspections did not cover devices related to cooling

systems, such as water pump motors ad diesel generators. Deferring or manipulating

maintenance on essential safety system is substantial and grave matter, which can

cause serious safety issues. As a result of scandal TEPCO had to shut down all of its

reactors to take responsibility. Cooling system failure was the main cause of disaster

at Fukushima so this explains the fact the essential safety systems were not

maintained properly.

Duty Ethics Violations

This is disaster is result of cascade of equipment failures and Human errors. The

plant workers false assumption that isolation condenser was working even after

tsunami hit the plant was questionable. The Japan Times reported that (Nagata

(2011) workers of the plant did not had information about the critical safety fact that,

after power loss isolation condenser automatically shuts. It also added that TEPCO`s

staff turned off one emergency cooling system without approval from senior

authority to turn on another, but failed to start any of the system (Nagata (2011).

These are the serious human errors that could have been avoided if the staff at plant

were well trained to handle the worst case situation in all manners. The staffs at plant

were incompetent to handle the situation arisen. The lack of critical information and

lack of training to staff, working real time at the plant accelerated the disaster. Thereport also adds that there was complete chaos after the incident, staff did not had

sufficient information and not trained to handle such events, putting health and safety

of people at risk. This is violation of principle of Ethical Engineering which states

that Members shall undertake their engineering activities with professionalism and

integrity and shall work with their level of competence (IPENZ Code of Conduct

for Engineers).

There are examples from past which shows that plant Operator Company, TEPCO

did not learn from its mistakes in past mistakes. On October 1991, one of the two

backup generators of reactor No.1 did fail, after it was flooded in the basement ofreactor building. An engineer claimed that he mentioned possibility of tsunami could

8/2/2019 Engineering Corporate Social Responsibility

7/15

3

cause damage to the generators in the turbine building near the sea. This was the

chance for company to move generators to higher grounds but it did not. In 2008, in

house study pointed out that there was immediate need to improve the protection of

the power station from flooding by seawater. This study expected that tsunami of

waves up to 10.2 meters can arise based on calculation, but company`s headquarters

insisted that such risk was unrealistic and did not take the report seriously.

Fukushima Daiichi own report on accident management protocol says The

possibility of severe accident occurring is so small that from engineering standpoint,

its practically unthinkable (Dvorak and Landers 2011).

Health and Safety Ethics

The impacts of nuclear accident on health of human are devastating and long lasting.

It was matter of concern for both people living around the plant and workers working

at the plant. Prior to the accident maximum permissible dose of radiation for workers

was 100 mSv per year, but in order to allow workers legally work for more time

government increased it to 250 mSv per year. This Cancer risk increases slightly if

radiation exposure increases 100 mSv per year (Akabayashi and Hayashi 2012). The

decision to increase radiation limit for workers is conflicting with ethical principles.

It endangers the life of workers at the plant; on the other side it was to handle the

Nuclear Emergency situation occurred due to nuclear accident at Fukushima nuclear

plant to prevent further damage to the society and environment at large. This is

critical case where applying an ethical solution to the problem may threat to

organisation.

The radiation exposure limit for evacuation was set to 20 mSv per year by the

government (Headquarters 2011) , on 12th March Japanese government issued an

evacuation guidelines to areas within 20 km radius of the plant . On 22nd April

government designated this area as High alert zone and orders interdict entry to the

zone by anyone and imposed fine of 1300 USD on person violating the order

(Akabayashi and Hayashi 2012). This forced residents to evacuate the homes

compulsorily and the sufferings of horses, cattle, sheep, and other pets that were left

behind. At that time people are forced to live in miserable living conditions at

Evacuation centres due large number of people being evacuated. About 135,000

people were living in 2500 shelters set up in schools, gymnasium and community

centres in Tohoku district (Alabaster J. (2011)). This Evacuation concerning health

and safety of individuals residing around nuclear power plant put them at great

discomfort. A major ethical problems of such evacuation is violation of individual

liberty, violation of privacy, corporal integrity, civil liberties such as freedom of

movement and restriction of individual autonomy (Akabayashi and Hayashi 2012).

8/2/2019 Engineering Corporate Social Responsibility

8/15

4

In the present situation government order to evacuate was certainly purposed to

protect the local residents of area, but imposing them it by law is questionable in

terms ethical principles. The mandatory evacuation of all the individuals cannot be

ethically justifiable, the risk of cancer due to radiation may not be a concern for thosewho are in their 70`s as it is predicted to emerge decades after exposure to the

radiation, for elders evacuation centres posed more urgent and direct serious physical

and mental risk compared to risk of future cancer due to radiation exposure

(Akabayashi and Hayashi 2012).

A typical Evacuation Centre in Japan:

Figure 1: Typical Evacuation Centre in Japan

(Source:http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110314/japan-hospitals-110314)

8/2/2019 Engineering Corporate Social Responsibility

9/15

5

Environmental Damages

The Fukushima nuclear accident was Rated level 7 on International Nuclear andRadiological Event Scale (INES) on 11 April 2011 by the Japanese government'snuclear safety agency (Tabuchi, Bradsher et al. 2011). This means that it was put on

par with Chernobyl nuclear disaster. This is highest level of nuclear accident ratingwhich signifies that major release of radioactive material was taken place and whichcan have widespread impact on health of people and environment.

Figure 2:On the left is shown damage due to radiation exposure. On the right isshown the geographical distribution of radiation around Fukushima reactors sinceMarch 11 (ATSUJI, UEDA et al. 2011).

Measurement taken by Japanese government in 30-50 km radius of plant indicatedthat caesium level is high in the atmosphere which is matter of concern. Theenvironmental damages caused by this disaster are enormous and require manydecades for clean-up. Following is Half-life of radioactive isotopes

Caesium 137: 30 years Plutonium 239: 24,000 years Strontium 90: 29 years Uranium 235: 700-million years Iodine 131: 8 days (Matsui 2011)

8/2/2019 Engineering Corporate Social Responsibility

10/15

6

This show that significant amount of time will be required to overall clean upradioactive elements from environment. Tons of contaminated seawater was dumpedinto ocean and critically destabilizing the ecosystem and marine life at Pacific Ocean.

Figure: 3- Radiation in the environment around the Fukushima Daiichi Plant

(Source:http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1333015769P.pdf)

There were reports of radiation level greater than accepted level in San Francisco

area milk samples (Dr.Perlingieri,I. 2012). This shows how vulnerable we are to the

radiation contamination of food products around the world.There were no immediate

death due to radiation but future cancer deaths due to accumulation of radiation are

estimated between 100 and 1000. This is just estimation, the reality could be farworse than this. The government is trying to cover up the things. The estimated

deaths due to Fukushima related incident in us alone expected to be 14000

(Dr.Perlingieri,I. 2012) by medical journal press release in us. This large scale event

and fearful situation was result of no prudence, no care of humanity or environment.

It is estimated that to clean up the damage caused by Fukushima it will take decades

and billions of US $ (Basdevant and Geneva 2011).

http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1333015769P.pdfhttp://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1333015769P.pdfhttp://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1333015769P.pdf

8/2/2019 Engineering Corporate Social Responsibility

11/15

7

Use of Nuclear facilities for power Generation

Nuclear power is source of 6.3% of total energy produced and 13-15% of electricity

produced in the world, and US, France and Japan accounts for 50% of electricityproduced by nuclear power plants (Another drop in nuclear generation, 2010).Though the use of nuclear facilities for power generation is popular among manycountries, the Fukushima accident had caused caution for those who are onexpansions plans for nuclear power. There are obvious reasons behind thesecautions: is nuclear power really safe? The answer to the question is not in terms ofyes or no, it is complicated and debatable issue. Some believe that technology canmake the nuclear power safe (Basdevant and Geneva 2011) but others believe thatnuclear power are always vulnerable to accident and irreparable damage that theycause to environment and people.

Why nuclear power being used? Because its cheap and considered as clean powerbut the risk that it carries with it are immense, the compensation for nuclear accidentruns into billions UD$ also decommission of nuclear reactor and storage of nuclearwaste are most expensive activities (Basdevant and Geneva 2011). Another risk thatnuclear power carries is misuse of the nuclear materials from their peaceful operationto create nuclear weapons, which possess immense threat to society at large, if fallenin wrong hands. Also the people living around plant are more vulnerable to small orlarge nuclear accidents. It can have devastating impact on their lifes as in case of

Fukushima disaster the population living around plant was evacuated and the lesslikely to return home for months until the plant becomes stable and normalisation ofevents had taken place.

Social responsibility of Nuclear Power Plant Operator

The concept of Corporate Social responsibilities is not just related to modern era of

business, but is has great history. The philanthropy of business organisation comesback from centuries, but the definition of corporate social responsibility hadsignificant change over the period of time (McWilliams and Siegel 2001).There arevast number of definitions for corporate social responsibility,Keith Davis and RobertBlomstrom (1966) defined social responsibility as

Social responsibility, therefore, refers to apersons obligation to considerthe effectsof his decisions and actions on the whole social system. Businessmen apply socialresponsibility when they consider the needs and interest of others who may beaffected by business actions. In so doing, they lookbeyond their firms narroweconomic and technical interests (McWilliams and Siegel 2001).

8/2/2019 Engineering Corporate Social Responsibility

12/15

8

The Nuclear Power Plant Operator TEPCO owes responsibility of the accidenthappened at their Nuclear Power Station. It was responsibility of Operator for thehealth and safety of society at large, which will be affected by this accident. Thediscussion highlighted the negligence of operator for accreting the scale of event. IfTEPCO have applied principles of social responsibility, putting interest of society at

large which may be affected by their business actions ahead of company`s interestthen the scale of accident might have been reduced. There were various opportunitiesfor company to avoid such situation and strengthening safety of plant but companydid not do it as they felt that the plant is literally safe for all the events that mighttake place. The plants management failed to envisage the scale of event that canoccur at Fukushima, which is their biggest failure.

The affected people by this accident were not provided with the information aboutwhat is happening in the plant. There was complete chaos after accident, TEPCO didnot handle the information flow responsively, the operators were trying to cover upthe event and flow of information was restricted. It was responsibility of plant to

inform the public about dangers of the event that was taking place, give guidelinesand assistance to the affected public.

Code of ethics for engineers

The Code of Ethics approved by IPENZ (Institute of professional Engineers NewZealand) quotes its core value as Protection of life and safeguarding people which

in turn says to give priority to the safety and well-being of community. In case ofFukushima disaster this value is grossly ignored, the community was kept at risk oflife due to mismanagement of cascade of events that took place at the site. If thisvalue is imbibed by the plant operator in their management protocol things mighthave been different.

The code of ethics also suggests that Engineers shall undertake their activities withprofessionalism and integrity and shall work within their level ofcompetence. Theengineers working at the plant were incompetent to handle the situation that hasarisen in front of them. There were various mistakes by the engineers working at theplant which questions their ability to competently do the job they are assigned to do.The engineers should have acted competently to the situation, taking right decisionsat the critical point. It was responsibility of engineers working at the plant to handlethe worst case scenario that was taking place.

It also adds that Members shall recognise and respect the need for sustainable

management of planets resources and endeavour to minimise adverse environmental

impacts of their engineering activities for both present and future generations. AtFukushima accident sites significantly large amount of radioactive substance were

8/2/2019 Engineering Corporate Social Responsibility

13/15

9

released in air and sea contaminating them for decades. The engineers should haverecognised the risks of such an event and adverse impact of their activities. Theyshould have done their best to minimize the impact of radioactive release.

The Fukushima reactor buildings are square in design and not circular, so had to

absorb the force of tsunami waves direct on to them. The plant designer should havetaken this into consideration the risk of tsunami might damage the plant. Also thelocation to build plant was a gross mistake, this part of japan has seen manyearthquakes in the past and the plant was not designed specifically to handle such anemergency situation. The plant design engineer never envisaged the scale ofaccidents that can take place at their designed plant. It contradicts the IPENZ code ofconduct which states that Giving engineering decisions that are honest, objectiveand factual. If these are ignored or rejected member should ensure that those affectedwere made aware of the possible consequences. Also decisions by maintenanceengineer are also violates code of conduct for engineers. Deferring maintenance onessential safety systems is serious offence.

8/2/2019 Engineering Corporate Social Responsibility

14/15

10

References:

Alabaster J. (2011, April 26). Evacuation Centres a mixed bag: Remote site Spartan,

others seen as resorts. The Japan Times, p.5.

Akabayashi, A. and Y. Hayashi (2012). "Mandatory evacuation of residents duringthe Fukushima nuclear disaster: an ethical analysis."Journal of Public Health.

Basdevant, J. L. and C. Geneva (2011). "Taming Nuclear Power. What have welearned from the Fukushima disaster?".

Dvorak, P. and P. Landers (2011). "Japanese plant had barebones risk plan." WallStreet Journal.

Nagata,k. (2011)." Report blasts goveremrnts crisis response". The Japan Times,p.1.

Headquarters, N. E. R. (2011). "Report of the Japanese government to the IAEAministerial conference on nuclear safety-The accident at TEPCOs Fukushimanuclear power stations."Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters, Governmentof Japan.

Matsui, T. (2011). "Deciphering the measured ratios of Iodine-131 to Cesium-137 atthe Fukushima reactors." Arxiv preprint arXiv:1105.0242.

Tabuchi, H., K. Bradsher, et al. (2011). "Japan Nuclear Disaster Put on Par WithChernobyl."New York Times, April 12.

ATSUJI, S., K. UEDA, et al. (2011). "Systems Patholopgy of Social Organizations: Fukushima

Nuclear Catastrophe 3.11."

Another drop in nuclear generation. (2010, May 5). Retrieved fromhttp://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=27665&terms=another+drop+

Dr. Perlingieri, I (2012, March 8). Fukushima One Year Later: The Poisoning ofPlanet Earth.( 2012, March 14). Retrieved fromhttp://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1203/S00131/fukushima-one-year-later-the-poisoning-of-planet-earth.htm

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1203/S00131/fukushima-one-year-later-the-poisoning-of-planet-earth.htm#ahttp://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1203/S00131/fukushima-one-year-later-the-poisoning-of-planet-earth.htm#ahttp://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1203/S00131/fukushima-one-year-later-the-poisoning-of-planet-earth.htm#a

8/2/2019 Engineering Corporate Social Responsibility

15/15

11

Appendix

1. IPENZ Code of Ethics