 NSnet 37th Peer Review of Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station, Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc., conducted over four-day period starting December 9th, was completed. A summary of the review is shown below.
We will also summarize opinions and feedback from observers other than those from members and publish the results on the NSnet website concurrently when publishing the report.
|
1. Reviewed Establishment (location) |
|
Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station, Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc., located in Naraha-machi and Tomioka-machi, Futaba-gun, Fukushima Prefecture. |
2. Overview of the establishment and targets of review |
|
The Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station is located 210km north of Tokyo in Tomioka-machi and Naraha-machi on the Pacific coast of Fukushima Prefecture. The area, including sea landfill sections, totals 1.5 million m2. Total output is 4,400MW. Units 1 through 4 have an output of 1,100MW each. Unit 1 went online in April 1982, Unit 2 in February 1984, Unit 3 in June 1985 and Unit 4 in August 1987.
|
3. Members of the review team and the method of review
Group A
|
: |
Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.
(Fields of review: organization/operation and education/training) |
| Group B |
: |
The Chugoku Electric Power Co., Inc., Mitsubishi Materials Corporation
(Fields of review: operations/maintenance) |
| Group C |
: |
The Japan Atomic Power Co., Inc., NSnet
(Fields of review: emergency measures, radiation protection and handling of major issues) |
| Method of review |
: |
Field observation, interview with persons involved and examination of documents in the above areas |
|
|
Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station |
Field observation |
|
|
4. Results of this review
|
| (1) Main Conclusions |
|
• |
In summing up this review of Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station, we have not found any item in the nuclear safety field that would lead to a serious accident unless immediate remedies were taken. |
|
• |
This power plant has many approaches to ensure safety such as the establishment of Declaration of Safety Operation of the Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station. |
|
• |
During this review, it was felt that the plant manager and all the staff were actively committing to safe-related activities including measures for current issues in the Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station, recognizing their missions and working with its cooperation firms, with an eye on “regaining trust”, “human development attaching importance to penetration of safety-first policy” and “continuing nuclear safety activities”. |
|
• |
In the future, it is expected that the Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station continue voluntary efforts for improved safety culture. |
| (2) Good Practices and Suggestions for Improvement |
| |
This Peer Review selects good practices that should be widely introduced to other NSnet members and within the nuclear power industry.On the other hand, this Peer Review makes numerous suggestions for improvement that would be useful in improving the safety culture at Fukushima Daini Nuclear  Power Station that were the focus of the Peer Review.
A brief look at Good Practices*¹ and Suggestions for improvement*² follows below. |
|
a. Good Practices
|
Fields of review |
Summary of good practices |
Organization / Administration |
| • |
Display of Safety Operation Declaration and Distribution of handy edition of the Declaration, and chorus of the Declaration |
| • |
Enhanced interactive communication through Intranet BBS |
| • |
Identification of nonconformities and development of responses by the “Nonconformity Management Committee” on a daily basis |
| • |
Nuclear safety approach to the next generation through delivery seminars |
| • |
Collection of opinions and comments from cooperation firms with various methods |
|
Emergency measures |
|
Education / Training |
|
Operations / maintenance |
| • |
Thorough sharing of continued information |
| • |
Modification of RW (Radioactive Waste) job system for improved working environment such as reduction of operator fatigues |
| • |
Increased communication with operators of cooperation firms |
| • |
Early information distribution through “Collabo-net (Collaboration network)” and increased communication with operators of cooperation firms through the use of “Counseling on Field Works” |
|
Radiation protection |
| • |
Approach to improved reliability of provisions involved in information release such as environment monitoring data |
|
Handling of important issues |
| • |
Implementation of repetitive training on basic knowledge on reactors,and subcritical management learned from the JCO accident |
| • |
Proactive approach to utilization of risk-based information |
| • |
Utilization of research results on human errors for prevention activities of the human errors |
| • |
Utilization of “Qs and As Meeting” for identifying root causes of human errors |
| • |
Utilization of Rod Worth Minimizer (RWM) for reliable control rod operation |
|
|
|
b. Suggestions for Improvement
|
Fields of review |
Summary of Suggestions for Improvement |
Organization / Administration |
|
Emergency measures |
| • |
Measures for preventing the falling of book racks and furniture of the Emergency Response Unit during earthquake |
|
Education / Training |
|
Operations / maintenance |
| • |
Establishment of goals based on key safety items that should be implemented every month |
|
Radiation protection |
|
Handling of important issues |
| • |
Review on proactive approach to good practices of other power plants |
| • |
Stipulation of skill requirements for cooperative firms during fuel shipping inspection |
|
|
|
| |
5. Others
|
|
Mr. Masanao Ozaki, Science & Technology Journalist, participated as an observer. |
|
|
*1 : Good Practices
Information on good practices incorporating appropriate, effective, and unique methods into activities to ensure safety should be widely distributed to the members of the NSnet and the nuclear industry.
*2 : Suggestions for Improvement
After comparing the practices of Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Stationwith the best in the nuclear industry, suggestions to improve and enhance safety activities should be implemented to achieve the highest level of nuclear safety.
Even if current activities are equal to or higher than general standards in the nuclear industry, suggestion is taken up in case there is still room for improvement.
|
|
