 NSnet Peer Review of Oarai Research Establishment, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, conducted over four days period starting August 31st, was completed. A summary of the review is shown below.
|
1. Reviewed Establishment (location) |
|
Oarai Research Establishment, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, located in Oarai-Machi Ibaraki-Ken |
2. Overview of the establishment and targets of review |
|
The Oarai Research Establishment was set up in April 1967. Since then, the establishment has been supporting research and development of reactor fuels and materials using Japan Materials Testing Reactor (JMTR) and developing technologies for industrial applications of radioisotopes. In addition, it started to construct High Temperature engineering Test Reactor (HTTR) in March 1991 to conduct R&D of a high temperature gas reactor for the diversification of nuclear energy applications. The reactor reached first criticality in November 1998.Currently, the Oarai Research Establishment irradiates various samples of fuels and materials for sophistication and advancement of reactors using JMTR and promotes R&D to establish and sophisticate a base for technologies for high temperature gas reactors through operating tests of HTTR, R&D for nuclear thermal application systems and advanced basic research on high-temperature engineering.
As target facility of this review, on-site observations and document checks in terms of "education/training," "operation/maintenance," "radiation protection" and "handling of major issues" were made for HTTR. Furthermore, the overall establishment was reviewed in terms of "organization/operation" and "emergency measures." |
3. Members of the review team and the method of review
Group A
|
: |
Group A: Electric Power Development Co., Ltd. JGC Corporation
(Fields of review: organization/operation, emergency measures and education/training) |
| Group B |
: |
Group B: Hokkaido Electric Power Company, Toshiba Corporation
(Fields of review: operations/maintenance and radiation protection) |
| Group C |
: |
Nippon Nuclear Fuel Development Co., Ltd., NSnet
(Fields of review: handling of major issues) |
| Method of review |
: |
Field observation, interview with persons involved and examination of documents in the above areas |
|
|
Oarai Research Establishment, |
Document examination |
|
|
4. Results of this review
|
| (1) Main Conclusions |
|
• |
In summing up this review of Oarai Research Establishment, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, we have not found any item in the nuclear safety field that would lead to a serious accident unless immediate remedies were taken. |
|
• |
A top manager and employees of the Oarai Research Establishment carry out their duties sincerely, giving top priority to safety. Namely, well understanding that the loss of safety results in research suspension and delay ,which cannot meet social expectations, they are earnestly making efforts for maintenance/improvement of morals, creation/enhancement of compliance consciousness and ensured good communication. |
|
• |
In the future, it is desired that Oarai Research Establishment should increase its own safety efforts toward enhanced safety culture, without accepting things as they are. |
| (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 some suggestions for improvement that would be useful in improving the safety culture at Oarai Research Establishment 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 |
| • |
Check and support by safety inspection group on compliance of laws and regulations. |
| • |
Activities for encouraging local pupils and students to understand the establishment by inviting them to the facility. |
|
Emergency measures |
| • |
Establishment of pioneered surroundings for protection activities |
|
Operations / maintenance |
| • |
HTTR Operation under an "HTTR explanatory session" for all operators prior to startup |
| • |
Ensured share of maintenance information |
| • |
Notifying anomalies to all persons concerned by an "anomaly recording control sheet" and constructing database on the records |
|
Radiation protection |
| • |
Immediate response by the Surveillance System of Unusual Radiation Levels |
|
Handling of major issues
|
| • |
Reflection of operating experiences from leading reactors and avoidance of troubles by voluntary comprehensive inspections |
| • |
Reduction of human errors by re-communication of nonconforming events |
| • |
Improvement of employees' nuclear safety awareness by operation of the "anomaly recording control sheet" |
|
|
|
b. Suggestions for Improvement
|
Fields of review |
Summary of Suggestions for Improvement |
Emergency measures |
| • |
Improvement of system of person responsible for emergency reporting |
|
Education / Training |
| • |
Effective use of education/training history for operators |
|
Operations / maintenance |
| • |
Definition of relation between a test plan and regulations |
| • |
Definition of qualification requirements for contract specifications |
|
|
|
|
|
*1 : Good Practices
Information on appropriate, effective, and unique methods of 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 Oarai Research Establishment with 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, suggestions are taken up in case there is still room for improvement.
|
|
