IAEA专家组对福岛核事故的调查报告(最终版)
IAEA专家组对福岛核事故的调查报告

02
安全壳无法承受强烈地震和海啸带来的冲击,导致放射性物质
泄漏。
缺乏独立的电源和冷却系统,导致反应堆无法得到有效控制。
03
对未来核能发展的建议
加强核电站安全壳设计,提高其抵御自然灾害的能力 。
加强国际合作,共同制定更加严格的核安全标准和规 范。
为核电站配备独立的电源和冷却系统,确保反应堆在 任何情况下都能得到有效控制。
探讨福岛核事故对全球核安全文化的影响, 包括政策、管理、监管等方面。
主要参考文献
THANKS
感谢观看
iaea专家组对福岛核事故的 调查报告
xx年xx月xx日
目录
• 引言 • 福岛核事故概述 • 国际反应 • 调查方法和发现 • 结论和建议 • 附录和参考文献
01
引言
调查背景
2011年3月11日,日本福岛核电站受到地震和海啸影响,造 成严重核泄漏事故。
国际原子能机构(IAEA)收到日本政府的请求,组织专家组进 行事故调查。
调查目的
分析福岛核事故的原因、过程、后果和教训,为全球核能 发展提供借鉴和指导。
评估日本政府在福岛核事故中的应对措施和经验教训,提 高全球核安全水平。
调查范围
1
调查范围包括福岛核电站的设备、运行、管理 和应急响应等方面。
2
对事故产生的放射性物质、影响范围和程度进 行评估。
3
对日本政府在事故中的应对措施进行评估和总 结。
大气、土壤和水体中检测到了放射性物质,包括 碘、铯、锶等。
周边地区的辐射水平显著升高,对当地环境和居 民造成了严重影响。
对当地环境和居民的影响
福岛核事故对当地环境造成了长期影响。 辐射水平升高对当地居民的健康造成了潜在危害。
福岛核事故调查报告

Fukushima a disaster 'Made in Japan'05 July 2012The faults of every player in last year's Fukushima crisis have been laid out by a parliamentary commission. No organisation was singled-out as responsible - but rather Japanese culture itself.The report published today comes from Japanese Diet's Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, one of three bodies investigating the circumstances of the accident. The 88-page executive summary elaborated in detail the organisational, cultural and technical failings that allowed the accident to occur, as well the issues that stymied the country's response.While it must be remembered that the Fukushima accident was directly cause by the enormous Tohoku earthquake and tsunami of 11 March 2011, the commission report pointedly dubbed it 'man-made'.Chairman KiyoshiKurokawa's forewordexplained: "What must beadmitted – very painfully –is that this was a disaster'Made in Japan.' Itsfundamental causes are tobe found in the ingrainedconventions of Japaneseculture: our reflexiveobedience; our reluctanceto question authority; ourdevotion to 'sticking withthe program'; ourgroupism; and ourinsularity."The mindset of government and industry led the country to avoid learning the lessons of the previous major nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, wrote Kurokawa."The consequences of negligence at Fukushima stand out as catastrophic, but the mindset that supported it can be found across Japan. In recognizing that fact, each of us should reflect on our responsibility as individuals in a democratic society."Opportunities missedLong before the natural disasters, the report said, improvements hadbeen identified for Fukushima Daiichi that would have protected the plant or helped during an emergency. Some of these had been recommended but not required by the regulator NISA, and Tepco had not implemented them on its own volition by the time of the natural disasters.Principal among these were, of course, tsunami and flood mitigation. Tepco had been aware since 2006 that Fukushuima Daiichi could face a station blackout if inundated with water, as well as the potential loss of ultimate heat sink if a tsunami came that exceeded the Japan Society of Civil Engineers' official estimation. However, NISA gave no instruction to the company to prepare for severe flooding, and even told all nuclear operators that it was not necessary to plan for station blackout.During the initial response to the tsunami, this lack of readiness for station black-out was compounded by a lack of planning and training for severe accident mitigation. Plans and procedures for venting and manual operation of isolation condensers were incomplete and their implementation in emergency circumstances proved very difficult as a result.NISA also had a "negative attitude" to learning from its peers overseas. The commission said that the Fukushima accident "may have been preventable" if NISA had set new requirements similar to those brought in by its US equivalent after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. "We have concluded that - given the deficiencies in training and preparation - once the total station black-out occurred, including the loss of a direct power source, it was impossible to change the course of events," said the commission.Poor coordinationAt the national level, plans and procedures were similarly underdeveloped, untested and unknown. NISA had been central to the overall plan for handling nuclear emergencies but failed to respond adequately, while the cabinet did not understand its own role in the plan and began to communicate directly with Tepco - cutting NISA out of the loop.This continued to the point that a cabinet team with "no legal authority" was established at Tepco's Tokyo headquarters, to which Tepco eventually "became subordinate". The operator's absolute responsibility for matters on site was not officially specified and Tepco became "reluctant" to assert it, "prioritising the cabinet's intent over that of the technical engineers at the site." Meanwhile, the "unprecedented intervention" of a personal visit by prime minister Naoto Kan to Fukushima Daiichi distracted workers and confused the chain of command even further.NISA was also criticised for its "negligence and failure over the years" to prepare for a nuclear accident in terms of public information and evacuation, with previous governments equally culpable. Most residents within 10 kilometres of the power plant only learnt of the crisis whenordered to evacuate - some 12 hours after the official notification of an emergency situation, itself delayed by cabinet confusion.What comes nextThe commission concluded that "the safety of nuclear energy in Japan and the public cannot be assured unless the regulators go through an essential transformation process. The entire organization needs to be transformed, not as a formality but in a substantial way. Japan's regulators need to shed the insular attitude of ignoring international safety standards and transform themselves into a globally trusted entity."Furthermore, "Mechanisms must be established to ensure that the latest technological findings from international sources are reflected in all existing laws and regulations." The regulatory body must be monitored by the Diet, which would be supported by an independent expert panel with a global view.Among several recommendation areas, relating to regulation, crisis management and legal frameworks, only one relates to the performance of the nuclear utilities. It specifies that the government's relationship to a nuclear operator must be controlled by rules and openly disclosed. Tepco, and by extension all Japanese nuclear operators, must "undergo dramatic corporate reform, including governance, risk management and informaiton disclosure "with safety as the sole priority." Japanese operators must also "construct a cross-monitoring system" to maintain safety standards at the highest global levels.Kurokawa noted that there were many lessons relating to policies and procedures, "but the most important is one upon which each and every Japanese citizen should reflect very deeply... The consequences of negligence at Fukushima stand out as catastrophic, but the mindset that supported it can be found across Japan. In recognizing that fact, each of us should reflect on our responsibility as individuals in a democratic society."Researched and writtenby World Nuclear News© 2012 World Nuclear News。
福岛核电站事故分析报告

最坏的情况
工程师们需要 恢复电力并获得充 足的水冷却反应堆。 因此,如果他们不 能冷却反应堆,铀 燃料有可能熔化反 应堆封闭罩并泄漏 到主防护罩中。核 分析专家称,主防 护罩并不十分结实, 比切尔诺贝利强, 但不如三哩岛。
五.事后影响
▪ 辐射影响
▪ 电离辐射对人体的危害主要在于,辐射的能量导致构成人 体组织的细胞受到损伤。其引起的生物效应主要有两种分 类方法:分为躯体效应和遗传效应;或分为随机性效应和 确定性效应 。
次定期检查中,这家公司曾篡改数据,隐瞒安全隐患。其中,福岛第一 核电站1号机组,反应堆主蒸汽管流量计测得的数据曾在1979年至1998 年间先后28次被篡改。原东京电力公司董事长因此辞职。 ▪ 2008年6月,福岛核电站核反应堆5加仑少量放射性冷却水泄漏。官员 称这没有对环境和人员等造成损害。
三. 福岛核电站简要系统图
不会比切尔诺贝利事故更严重:切尔诺贝利事故的发生主要源于操作员 操作失误和核电站本身设计缺陷(控制棒控制力不足和缺乏安全壳), 因此在事故发生时无法将核裂变控制在可控范围之内,并且缺乏阻挡核 辐射和爆炸的最后一道屏障;福岛核电站的安全壳可将核辐射及反应堆 本体的爆炸控制住,避免事故的蔓延。
福岛核电站爆炸-泄漏事故图解
地震造成了怎样的损害
周五的地震切断了系统 的电源,海啸还瘫痪了备用 的柴油发电机。作为第三备 份,蒸汽驱动的汽轮机本该 产生足够的电力,驱动水泵 将冷却水注入反应罩内。然 而控制反应堆运行的电量已 经耗尽,只能等待启用新的 柴油发电机。报告称2号反应 堆的燃料棒因缺水导致暴露。 1号反应堆也出现冷却剂泄漏 的状况,控制室的辐射水平 不断上升。
1. 厂址抗震能力--厂址选择 2. 厂址防海啸、洪水能力-经-验设教训计考虑和现行改进 3. 预防严重事故发生--应急电源、应急水源 4. 严重事故缓解--氢气复合器、过滤排放、SAMG 5. 应急响应能力--公众撤离 6. 事故后续处理、放射性物质处理--设备、技术
福岛第一核电站事故调查最终报告

Final Report on the Accident at Fukushima Nuclear Power Stationsof Tokyo Electric Power Company--- Recommendations ---Investigation Committee on the Accident at Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power CompanyJuly 23, 2012On March 11, 2011, the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station (“Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS”) and the Fukushima Dai-ni Nuclear Power Station (“Fukushima Dai-ni NPS”) of the Tokyo Electric Power Company (“TEPCO”) were hit and damaged by the Tohoku District - off the Pacific Ocean Earthquake and accompanying tsunami. Particularly at the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS, a serious severe accident occurred, which was of Level 7 in the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) of the International Atomic Energy Agency.This Investigation Committee was established on May 24, 2011 by a cabinet decision. Its mission is to make policy recommendations, by investigating the causes of the accident and ensuing damage, on measures to prevent the further spread of damage caused by the accident and a recurrence of similar accidents in the future. The Investigation Committee inspected the accident site including the Fukushima Dai-ichi and Dai-ni NPSs, and interviewed many individuals concerned, including the mayors and residents of relevant municipalities. The number of interviewees reached 772 in total. The Investigation Committee published its Interim Report on December 26, 2011 and its Final Report on July 23, 2012.The Investigation Committee continued its multifaceted analysis, after the publication of the Interim Report, on matters including the then-available accident preventive measures and disaster preparedness, emergency response actions taken on-site and off-site at the accident. The results are contained in the Final Report. It became clear through the investigation that the accident had been initiated on the occasion of a natural disaster of an earthquake and tsunami, but that there had been various complex problems behind this very serious and large scale accident, i.e., the problems in the accident preventive measures and disaster preparedness, in on-site emergency responses to the accident, and in preventive measures against the spread of damage outside the nuclear power station.Examples are: the then-available accident preventive measures and disaster preparedness of TEPCO and the Nuclear Industry and Safety Agency (“NISA”) were insufficient against tsunami and severe accidents; the preparedness for a large-scale complex disaster was insufficient; and they were unprepared for the release of a large amount of radioactive materials into the environment caused by a containment failure. Inadequate TEPCO emergency responses to the accident at the site were also identified. Furthermore, in the preventive measures against the spread of damage taken by the central and local governments, problems were identified which lacked consideration to the victims, such as the radiation monitoring operation, the utilization of the System for Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information (SPEEDI), evacuation instructions to the residents, responses to the people’s radiation exposure, or the provision of information to the nation and outside the country. In addition, problems of the crisis management system of the government came to light, too.The investigation thus far has suggested that radical strengthening revision be required of the measures for preventing a recurrence of a grave accident at the nuclear power station, and for limiting/mitigating the spread of damage. In this context, the Investigation Committee has made a number of recommendations in the Final Report (It also reproduces the recommendations made in the Interim Report).This document excerpts the recommendations which the Investigation Committee made in the Final Report. The Investigation Committee believes that the realization of these recommendations be useful and important for preventing a recurrence of a nuclear disaster and mitigating its damage. The central and local governments concerned, nuclear operators and other relevant organizations are strongly urged to incorporate and act upon these recommendations in their safety measures and disaster preparedness.The English version of the Interim Report of the Investigation Committee and its Executive Summary is available on the Committee’s website (http://icanps.go.jp/eng/). The English version of the Final Report and its Executive Summary will also be uploaded shortly.(1)Recommendations for a basic stance for safety measures and disaster preparednessRecommendations for disaster preparedness in light of complex disasters in mind (Final Report VI. 2. (2))When reviewing the existing safety measures at nuclear power stations, risks of a large scale complex disaster should be sufficiently considered in disaster preparedness.●Recommendations for changing an attitude to see risks (Final Report VI. 2. (3))i.It is necessary to humbly face the reality of natural threats, diastrophism and othernatural disasters, which are sizable in scale and time, keeping in mind that Japan has often had them in its long history.ii.Risk reduction should be tackled in a drastically different approach. In the government as well as in private entities, a new approach to safety measures and disaster preparedness should be established for a disaster which potentially brings about serious damage in broad areas like a gigantic tsunami or the severe accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station, regardless of its probability of occurrence.iii.An institutional framework is needed to ensure continued in-depth examination of “residual risks” or “remaining issues” without leaving them behind beyond the predetermined safety measures and disaster preparedness.●Recommendations for “deficiency analyses from the disaster victims’ standpoint” (FinalReport VI. 2. (4))An accident at a nuclear power station has risks to bring about damage in vast areas.Nuclear operators on one hand, nuclear regulators on the other, should establish a systematic activity to identify all risk potentials from the “disaster victims’ standpoint,” when designing, constructing and operating such nuclear systems, for ensuring credible nuclear safety including evacuation planning in the local society. Such an approach should be practiced.Radioactive materials may scatter over vast areas due to an accident at a nuclear power station. The prefecture and local municipalities involved should closely collaborate in building up an effective system through evacuation planning and its drills for minimizing confusion.●Recommendations for incorporating the latest knowledge in the disaster prevention plan(Final Report VI. 2. (5))i.Scientific knowledge of earthquakes is not sufficient yet. The latest research resultsshould be continually incorporated in disaster preparedness. In other words, a policy/rule concluded at a certain point based on the then-available knowledge shouldbe reviewed with flexibility and revised, without groundless procrastination, when newknowledge of earthquakes and tsunami become available.ii.If an area is excluded, due to limited financial resources or other reasons, from the areas for strengthening disaster preparedness because of low or unknown probabilitiesof occurrence, the damage would be extremely serious once a massive earthquake andtsunami hit the area. Administrative bodies should take initiatives of, for instance,launching research projects on earthquake evaluation in specific areas for which someseismologists warn of risks, even if few in number, or which show traces of massiveearthquakes and gigantic tsunami (tsunami deposits, for instance) from the remotepast; or formulating an innovative disaster prevention plan in full cooperation of publicadministration, residents and experts through disclosing relevant information.iii.Disaster risks in nuclear power plant siting regions should be noted. It was the role of NISA to prepare for nuclear disasters at nuclear power stations. However, the policy ofthe Central Disaster Management Council has strong relevance to the disasterpreparedness at nuclear power stations. The Central Disaster Management Councilshould duly consider the nuclear power stations, too, in its policy making.(2)Recommendations for safety measures regarding nuclear power generation●Recommendations for building disaster prevention measures (Final Report VI 2 (1))Quite a number of issues exist, which need highly specialized nuclear knowledge over a wide range for solving technical and nuclear engineering problems concerning the emergency responses to the accident at TEPCO Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS, and the then-available disaster preparedness by the government, TEPCO and other organizations.These issues should be reviewed and resolved, results being shaped into concrete actions, through competent knowledge by stakeholders in nuclear power generation. In doing so, they should sincerely take into consideration the recommendations the Investigation Committee has made and they should do so with accountability to society for its process and results.●Recommendations for the necessity of comprehensive risk analysis (Final Report VI. 2. (4)a. (b))Nuclear facilities are installed in a natural environment, which is really diversified.Nuclear operators should conduct comprehensive risk analysis encompassing the characteristics of the natural environment including the external events, not only earthquakes and their accompanying events but also other events such as flooding, volcanic activities or fires, even if their probabilities of occurrence are not high, as well as the internal events having been considered in the existing analysis. Nuclear regulators should check the operators’ analysis. Nuclear operators should actively utilize currently available methods in their analyses of such external events, even if the Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) approach is not firmly established for them. The government should consider support to promote relevant research programs for such initiatives.●Recommendations for severe accident management (Final Report VI. 1. (4) a. (c))In order to ensure maintaining nuclear safety at nuclear power stations, vulnerability of individual facilities for a wide range of characteristics of various internal and external events should be identified by comprehensive safety analysis, and appropriate measures (severe accident management) against such vulnerability should be examined and placed in shape, assuming a situation in which the core may have serious damage by an accident far exceeding the design basis. The effectiveness of such severe accident management should be evaluated through the PSA or other means.(3)Recommendations for nuclear disaster response systems●Recommendations for reforming the crisis management system for a nuclear disaster (FinalReport VI. 2. (6))Learning from the experience as a result of the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS, the crisis management system for a nuclear disaster should be urgently reformed, in which the nuclear emergency response manual should be revised assuming an occurrence of a complex disaster combining an earthquake/tsunami disaster and a nuclear accident. In its reforming process, the strengthening of response capabilities of off-site centers, which are supposed to serve as the base for response during a nuclear emergency (hereafter simply referred to as “off-site centers”), is needed. In addition, it is also required to build a crisis management system by examining how to respond to a situation which a Local NuclearEmergency Response Headquarters cannot handle by convening personnel from relevant emergency responsebodies.●Recommendations for the nuclear emergency response headquarters (Final Report VI. 2. b.(a))The emergency response headquarters should, in general, be located close to the accident site where the relevant information is easy to obtain in a nuclear emergency, and the activities at the accident site are easy to grasp. To promptly collect accurate information is, needless to say, the fundamental principle in a nuclear emergency. The government emergency response headquarters should be set up in a way which enables the government people access to the necessary information while staying in government facilities like the Prime Minister’s Office, without moving to the nuclear operator’s head office.●Recommendations for off-site centers (Interim Report VII. 3. (1) a.)The Government should take prompt actions to ensure that off-site centers are able to maintain their functions even during a major disaster, learning from the fact that the Off-site Center (in Fukushima) became unusable because the risks of radioactive contamination had not been adequately considered beforehand.●Recommendations for the roles of the prefectural government in nuclear emergencyresponses (Final Report VI. 1. (2) c.)In a nuclear disaster, the prefectural government should take a responsible role in front, because the damage can extend to a regional size. The nuclear disaster prevention plan should take this point into account.(4)Recommendations for damage prevention and mitigation●Recommendations for the provision of information and risk communication (Final ReportVI. 2. (7))It is necessary to build mutual trust between the public and the government and to provide relevant information in an emergency while avoiding societal confusion and mistrust. To this end, a risk communication approach on risks and opinion exchanges thereupon should be adopted for a consensus building among all stakeholders based on mutual trust. The government should examine, by institutionalizing an appropriate body,how to provide relevant information in an emergency to the public, promptly, accurately, and in an easily understandable as well as clear-cut (not misleading) manner. Inappropriate provision of information can lead to unnecessary fear among the nation. Therefore, an expert on crisis communication may be assigned for providing appropriate suggestions to the cabinet secretary responsible for information provision to the public in an emergency.●Recommendations for improving radiation monitoring operations (Interim Report VII. 5.(2) d.)i.To ensure that the monitoring system does not fail at critical moments, and to ensurethe collection of data and other functions, the system should be designed against various possible events, including not only an earthquake but also a tsunami, storm surge, flood, sediment disasters, volcanic eruptions and gale force winds. Measures should be taken to prevent the system from functional failures even in a complex disaster simultaneously involving two or more such events. Furthermore, measures should be developed to facilitate the relocation of monitoring vehicles and their patrols even in a situation where an earthquake has damaged roads.ii.Training sessions and other learning opportunities should be enhanced to raise awareness of the functions and importance of the monitoring system among competent authorities and personnel.●Recommendations for the SPEEDI system (Interim Report VII. 5. (3) c.)In order to protect the lives and dignity of residents caught up in a disaster, and to prevent the spread of harm from the disaster, measures should be developed to improve operational guidelines of the SPEEDI system so that crucial information on radiation dose rates is provided promptly in a manner acceptable to the people. Measures, including hardware and infrastructure-related measures should be developed and implemented to ensure that SPEEDI functions remain operable even during a complex disaster.●Recommendations for evacuation procedures of residents (Items i. to iv. in Interim ReportVII. 5. (4) c. and item v. in Final Report VI. 1. (4) b.)i.Activities to raise public awareness in daily lives are needed to provide residents withbasic, practical knowledge of how radioactive substances are released during a major nuclear accident, how they are dispersed by wind and other agents, and how they fallback to the ground, as well as knowledge of howthe exposure to radiation can affect human health.ii.Local government bodies need to prepare evacuation readiness plans that take into account the exceptionally grave nature of a nuclear accident, periodically conduct evacuation drills in a realistic circumstance, and take steps to promote the earnest participation of residents in those drills.iii.It is necessary to complete, during normal times, readiness preparations, such as drafting detailed plans for ensuring means of transportation, traffic control, securing evacuation sites in outlying areas, and securing water and food supplies at the evacuation site, taking into consideration the situation that the evacuees may number in the thousands to over a hundred thousand . It is especially important to develop measures that support the evacuation of the disadvantaged, such as seriously ill or disabled people in medical institutions, homes for the aged, social welfare facilities, or in their own homes.iv.The above types of measures should not be left up to the local municipal governments, but need in addition to involve the active participation of the prefectural and national governments in designing and operating an evacuation plan and a disaster prevention plan, in consideration of the situation that a nuclear emergency would affect a large area.v.The existing Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) had been set before the accident on the basic assumption of 8 to 10 km from a nuclear power station, so that the situation could be well dealt with even in an incident far exceeding a hypothetical accident. However, the accident has shown the need to reconsider what accidents to assume and how to designate evacuation areas. Furthermore, the roles of the government in a nuclear emergency are so large that the government responses should not be limited to those areas outside nuclear site boundaries such as the residents’ evacuation. It should also be considered what the government should do to cooperate or support the nuclear operator in a nuclear emergency, in consultation with the operator.Recommendations for administering stable iodine tablets (Final Report VI. 1. (3) e. (c)) In the existing emergency preparedness, administration of stable iodine tablets is, inprinciple, subject to the judgment of the government NERHQ. A system which allows local municipalities to independently administer the tablets should be reconsidered, and so is the appropriateness to distribute them in advance to the residents as a precaution.●Recommendations for radiation emergency medical care institutions (Final Report VI. 1. (3)e. (f))A considerable number of medical facilities for initial radiation emergency medicaltreatment should be located in the area which is not likely to be included in an evacuation designated area, so that radiation emergency medical care could be provided even in a severe accident like the accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS. Those medical facilities should not be concentrated in the area close to the nuclear power station. At the same time, such medical care systems in a nuclear emergency would need to be coordinated for collaborating over a wide area across the prefectural borders.●Recommendations for public understanding of radiation effects (Final Report VI. 1. (3) e.(g))As many opportunities as possible should be institutionalized for the public to get knowledge and deepen their understanding of radiation. By doing so, the individuals should be able to judge the radiation risks based on correct information; in other words, they would be freed from unnecessary fears about, or from underestimating, the radiation risks because of the lack of information.●Recommendations for information sharing with, and receiving support from, overseas(Final Report VI. 1. (3) g. (a), (b))Provision of information to overseas countries is equally important as to the Japanese public, especially to neighboring countries or those countries which have many of their nationals residing in Japan. Active and polite responses should be in place for prompt and accurate provision of relevant information with due consideration to language barriers.International support in a nuclear emergency should be accepted and received as early as possible, when offered, for international comity and for urgently meeting national needs. To avoid confusion and inappropriateness experienced in the early stages at the time of the accident in Fukushima, operation manuals of competent ministries, nuclear operator emergency management operation plans and other relevant materials should prescribe howto respond to such international support.(5)Recommendations for harmonization with international practices●Recommendations for harmonization with international practices such as the IAEA safetystandards (Final Report VI. 1. (7))It is necessary to keep the national regulation qualities constantly updated in line with the nuclear knowledge accumulation and technological development in the international and national community. To this end, continuous efforts are needed to keep the national regulatory guides newest and best while monitoring international standards, such as those at the IAEA. Lessons on nuclear safety should be extracted from the accident, and those lessons and relevant knowledge should be provided to the international community so that they could contribute to the prevention of similar accidents, not only in our country but also in other countries. In the process of revising national regulatory guides, international contribution should be pursued by making efforts to propose them to incorporate into the IAEA standards etc., if they turn out to be effective and useful as international standards.(6)Recommendations for relevant organizations●Recommendations for the nuclear safety regulating body.i.The need for independence and transparency(Interim Report VII. 8. (2) a.)An organization with regulatory oversight over nuclear safety must be able to makedecisions effectively and independently, and must be able to function separately from anyorganization that could unduly influence its decision-making process. The new nuclearsafety regulatory organization should therefore be granted independence and shouldmaintain transparency.The new nuclear safety regulatory organization must be granted the authority, financialresources and personnel it needs to function autonomously as an entity concerned withnuclear safety and should also be given the responsibility of explaining nuclear safetyissues to the Japanese people.anizational preparedness for swift and effective emergency response (Interim Report VII. 8. (2) b.)In light of the serious impact of a nuclear disaster on the nation, the nuclear safety regulatory organization, which would play a key role in disaster response, should, during normal times, work out a disaster prevention plan and implement emergency response drills to facilitate rapid response if a disaster occurs. Furthermore it should foster the specialized skills to provide individuals and organizations responsible for emergency response with expert advice and guidance, and should foster as well the management potential to utilize organizational resources effectively and efficiently.In addition, the nuclear safety regulatory organization must be well aware that its role is to respond responsibly to crises. It should beforehand prepare systems that can deal with a major disaster if it occurs, and develop partnerships with relevant government ministries and agencies and with relevant local governing bodies to create mechanisms for cross-organizational response, with the role of the nuclear safety regulatory organization clearly demarcated.iii.Recognition of its role as a provider of disaster-related information to Japan and the world (Interim Report VII. 8. (2) c.)The new nuclear safety regulatory organization must be fully conscious that the way it provides information is a matter of great importance, and must also, during normal times, establish an organizational framework that enables it to provide information in a timely and appropriate manner during an emergency.iv.Development of competent human resources and specialized expertise (Interim Report VII. 8. (2) d.)The new nuclear safety regulatory organization should consider establishing a personnel management and planning regime that encourages personnel to develop lifetime careers. For example, it should offer improved working conditions to attract competent human resources with excellent specialized expertise, expand opportunities for personnel to undergo long-term and practical training, and promote personnel interaction with other administrative bodies and with research institutions, including those involved in nuclear energy and radiation.v.Efforts to collect information and acquire scientific knowledge (Interim Report VII. 8.(2) e.)The new nuclear safety regulatory organization to be established should keep abreast of trends embraced by academic bodies and journals in the field (including those in foreign countries) and by regulatory bodies in other countries, in order to continue acquiring knowledge that will contribute to its regulatory activities. It must also understand the implications of that knowledge, systematically share and sufficiently utilize such knowledge, and resulting outcomes should be archived and continually utilized as an organization.vi.Active relationship with international organizations and regulatory bodies of other countries (Final Report VI. 1. (5))The fixed number of personnel at a government administrative organization is a collective issue of the all administrative organizations, and not limited to an issue of NISA, etc. But that of the new regulatory body should be duly considered, because of the importance of nuclear safety. The new regulatory body should secure its personnel, should establish an organizational system competent for international contribution, and develop human resources who can take a role in personnel interaction with international organizations or regulatory bodies of other countries.vii.Strengthening of the regulatory body (Final Report VI. 1. (5))In order to ensure nuclear power safety, responses to individual problems encountered are not sufficient. Continuous efforts are needed to keep national regulatory guides updated at their newest and best qualities, with consideration to international trends of safety regulations and nuclear security, not only to the latest scientific knowledge in the country and overseas. Considering that the impact of a nuclear disaster on society can be sizable, emergency preparedness should be fully established during normal times by formulating a disaster prevention plan or by conducting nuclear emergency response drills so that effective and prompt responses could be taken in an emergency. The regulatory organization should foster the specialized skills to provide individuals and organizations responsible for emergency response with expert advice and guidance and should also foster the management potential to utilize organizational resources effectively and efficiently. Appropriate size of budget and human resources should be duly examined.●Recommendations for TEPCO (Final Report VI. 6. e.)TEPCO bears critical responsibilities to society as a nuclear operator primarily responsible for nuclear power plant safety. Nevertheless, TEPCO was not sufficiently prepared for such an accident, that natural disasters including tsunami may lead to large-scale core damage. Furthermore, TEPCO had not taken adequate preparedness for tsunami risks beyond design basis at the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS. The accident showed quite a number of problems with TEPCO such as insufficient capability in organizational crisis management; hierarchical organization structure being problematic in emergency responses; insufficient education and training assuming severe accident situations; and apparently no great enthusiasm for identifying accident causes. TEPCO should receive with sincerity the problems which the Investigation Committee raised and should make further efforts for solving these problems and building higher level safety culture on a corporate-wide basis.●Recommendations for rebuilding safety culture (Final Report VI. 2. (8))Well established safety culture is vitally important to people’s lives in the nuclear power industry, which may cause serious situations once an accident occurs. In view of the reality that safety culture was not necessarily established in our country, the Investigation Committee would strongly require rebuilding safety culture of practically every stakeholder in nuclear power generation such as nuclear operators, regulators, relevant institutions, and government advisory bodies.(7)Recommendations for continued investigation of accident causes and damage●Recommendations for continued investigation of accident cause (Final Report VI. 2. (9) a.)The government, nuclear operators, nuclear plant manufacturers, research institutions, academies, all such stakeholders (relevant organizations) involved in nuclear power generation should take active roles in investigating the accident and in fact analyses, and continue, in their respective capacities, their comprehensive and thorough investigations of the remaining unresolved problems. The government, in particular, should not conclude its investigations of the Fukushima nuclear accident at the time when this Investigation Committee or the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission。
IAEA专家组对福岛核事故的调查报告

06
结论和建议
对日本政府的建议
制定更加严格的核安全标准和规范
日本政府应加强对核设施的安全监管,制定更加严格的核安全标准和规范,确保核设施的 安全运行。
加强应急响应能力
日本政府应加强应急响应能力,完善应急预案和预警机制,确保在核事故发生时能够迅速 、有效地应对。
加强信息公开和透明度
日本政府应加强信息公开和透明度,及时向公众公布核事故的最新情况和处理结果,保障 公众的知情权和参与权。
极端天气
在地震发生后,福岛核电站遭到了大雨和海浪的袭击,这使得核电站的冷却系统 无法正常工作,进而导致了核反应堆的过热和熔毁。
人为因素
管理和监督失误
福岛核电站的管理层在事故发生前未能及时采取必要的预防措施,对于核电站的安全风险未进行充分的评估和监 督。
应急响应不足
在事故发生后,福岛核电站的应急响应能力不足,未能及时采取有效的措施控制核事故的发展,导致事故进一步 恶化。
其他相关机构的应对措施
成立国家原子能委员会,负责 协调和监督核能领域的事故应 对工作。
建立核事故应急响应中心,负 责收集和分析核事故信息、协 调救援行动和提供技术支持。
各地方政府也采取了一系列措 施,包括提供应急物资、开展 公共宣传活动和为受灾居民提 供援助。
04
事故对环境和公众的影响
Hale Waihona Puke 辐射对环境和公众的影响生物多样性的减少。
核泄漏对环境和公众的影响
要点一
核泄漏对环境和公众健康的影 响
福岛核事故中,核反应堆发生泄漏,释放出了大量的 放射性物质。这些放射性物质会对环境和公众健康造 成严重影响,如导致癌症、遗传变异和其他健康问题 的风险增加。
要点二
日本国会福岛核事故独立调查委员会正式报告[1](DOC)
](https://img.taocdn.com/s3/m/802aa9a965ce050876321374.png)
日本国会福岛核事故独立调查委员会正式报告环保部核与辐射安全中心政策法规研究所译校2012.7日本国会福岛核事故独立调查委员会(NAIIC)主席:Kiyoshi Kurokawa医学博士,国家政策研究院专业会员,日本科学理事会前总裁成员:Katsuhiko Ishibashi地震学专家,神户大学名誉教授Koichi Tanaka 化学专家,岛津公司Kenzo Oshima日本国际协力事业团主席顾问,前日本驻美国大使Mitsuhiko Tanaka 科学记者Hisako Sakiyama医学博士,国立放射线综合研究所前主席Shuya Nomura中央大学法学院教授,律师Masafumi Sakurai律师,名古屋公共检察官办公室前首席检察官;国防部督察长办公室前法律合规总督察Reiko Hachisuka福岛Okuma镇商会主席Yoshinori Yokoyama社会学家,东京大学执行管理项目主任委员会顾问Itsuro Kimura Tatsuhiko Kodama Tatsuo Hatta审查者Takao IidaMakoto SaitoJun SugimotoIsao NakajimaTakeshi Matsuoka行政办公室Toru Anjo主任Sakon Uda调查常务主任目录主席致辞 (1)概述 (3)委员会的使命 (3)事故 (6)结论和建议 (10)调查结果概要 (21)1 事故可以避免吗 (22)2 事故的扩大 (25)3 事故的应急响应 (28)4 危害的扩散 (34)5 事故防范和响应的组织问题 (39)6 法律体系 (43)附录 (45)福岛核事故人员疏散调查 (45)对福岛核电站工作人员的调查 (62)委员会会议报告 (74)术语表 (93)致:Takahiro Yokomichi先生众议院议长Kenji Hirata先生参议院总裁日本国会下述报告的主题是2011年3月11日突发的核事故,我们将此报告提交给日本国会以审查。
福岛核电站事故调查报告书-东电公司

福島原子力事故調査報告書(中間報告書 別冊)平成23年12月2日東京電力株式会社はじめに○ 福島原子力事故調査報告書(中間報告書)の本編の繰り返しとなりますが、本年3月11日の大震災により被災された方々に、衷心より、お見舞い申し上げます。
また、福島第一原子力発電所における放射性物質を外部に放出させるという大変重大な事故により、発電所の周辺地域そして福島県民の皆さま、更に広く社会の皆さまに、大変なご迷惑とご心配をおかけしていることに対し、心より深くお詫び申し上げます。
避難されている方々の一日も早いご帰宅を実現するとともに、国民の皆さまに安心していただけるよう、福島第一原子力発電所における原子炉の安定的冷却や放射性物質の放出抑制に向け、引き続き、全力で取り組んでまいります。
○ さて、福島原子力事故調査報告書(中間報告書)の本編では、津波により被った設備被害、事故の進展状況等につき、事実を整理、評価・分析するとともに、設備面を中心に再発防止に向けた対策を検討いたしました。
一方、一連の事故経緯等を調査する過程で、特定の論点に焦点を当てた「個別項目」として明らかになって来た事項も、多数出て参りました。
具体的な記載としては、報告書本編で記載している事項につき、特定の論点に絞る形で詳細に記載している項目や、また本編報告書に記載はないものの、経緯として明らかにした方が良いと考えられるもの等があり、事故に係わる事実を正確にお伝えするという観点では、重要な要素であるため、今回は、別冊として、現時点までで整理できた事項を、抽出・記載した次第です。
○ 具体的には、「津波対策やアクシデントマネージメント(AM)策の整備の経緯等」、「地震の襲来によるプラントへの影響評価」のほか、「津波襲来以降の時系列に基づく個別項目の整理」等々に言及していますが、今回の事故全般を概観した報告書本編と異なり、特定の論点に絞り、「個別項目」ごとに整理するといった本編と違ったアプローチをしています。
IAEA派团对福岛核事故场外大面积污染的整治进行考察

分析测量 , 以及用手持剂量率仪和地谱仪在局地
测 量 。大 规模 巡 测 已经 完 成 4次 , 年 春 季 还 将 明 有 1次 。文部 科 学 省 正在 建 立一 个 含 270个 基 0
并通过了《 放射性物质污染对处特措法》 。法案将 于 21 02年 1 1日生 效 , 月 法案 明确 了福 岛核 事 故
机进 行 污染调 查 。
财政资源的保 障等。整治 的基本原则 由环境省根 据这 一法 案 拟 定 , 交 内 阁批 准 。 眼下 已经 开 始 并 的整治活动 , 包括福岛清污促进小组的活动 , 主要
依据 上述 应 急清 污工 作 的基 本政 策 。 已出 台的整 治政 策 、 指南 以及 清 污决 策指 南 , 合 考虑 了各 方 综 面 的意见 , 原 子力 安 全 委员 会 的 咨询 建 议 和 1 如 3 本原 子力 研究 开 发机 构 (A A 的技 术 支持 。 JE ) 福 岛清 污促 进小 组受 命 与地 方上 进行 沟通 与 协调 , 助其 制定 整 治计划 , 协 包括 派专 家参 加整 治 示范 活动 。作 为 其 成员 的 在 与公 众 和 利 益 还 关 方 的互 动 上 扮 演 着 很 重 要 的角 色 。J
环 、 利 用 , 于 污 染 整 治是 很 重 要 的 ; 众 照 射 再 对 公 是 整 治行 动 的重要 依据 , 同时考 察费 用 、 要 废物 管 理 、 会 等多 种 因素 的影 响 。 社 污染监 测 和 调查 分 为 不 同规 模 , 括从 空 中 包 和地 面对 事故 中心 向外 10k 6 m范 围 内 的巡 测 , 在 事 故 中心 以外 10k 范 围 内采 集 大样 、 样 进 行 0 m 水
污染 整治 的 目的 、 相关 方 面 的职责 划分 、 益相 关 利 方 的参 与 , 监 测 、 污 、 物 管 理 的基 本 路 线 和 及 清 废
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。
IAEA调查组敦促国际核能社会考虑下列15个调查结论和16 个经验教训,充分利用此次福岛核事故特有的机会,学习并提高 国际范围的核能安全。
充分地覆盖一站多机组厂址的设计及其严重事故管理的特殊要 求。
结论 11:有必要定期使国家的法规和导则与国际标准和导 则保持一致,特别是吸取世界各地遭外部灾害影响得出的新经验 教训。
结论 12:IAEA 的地震安全中心(ISSC)开展的安全审查能 够有效地帮助日本在下述领域开展工作:
外部事件风险评估; 电站停堆后重启的准备工作; 震前准备。 结论 13:包括应急准备审查(EPREV)在内的后续调查组应 深入研究场内场外应急响应的经验教训。 结论 14: 开展后续调查,以寻求从福岛事故后为提供大规 模辐射防护而采取的有效行动中汲取经验。 结论 15:在 2007 年日本 IRRS 报告基础上开展回访工作, 掌握福岛核事故经验教训,汇总上述结论,促进日本核安全监管 系统的完善。 教训 1:需要确保在外部自然灾害中: 核电站的选址和设计应足以抵御罕见的和复杂组合的外
福岛第一核电站出现全厂断电,海啸又导致1-4号机组的所 有仪控系统全部失ห้องสมุดไป่ตู้,只有应急柴油发电机6B能向5号和6号机组 提供应急电源。海啸及裹挟的大量残毁物对厂房、大门、道路、 储存罐和其他厂内基础设施造成重大破坏,包括热阱的丧失。操 作员面临着前所未有的灾难性紧急情况,丧失了供电、反应堆控 制或仪控。此外,厂内厂外的通信系统也受到严重影响。在几乎 没有仪控系统的情况下,他们只能在黑暗中尽力维持6个反应堆、 6个乏燃料池,1个共用燃料池和干式乏燃料储存设施的安全。
结论 4:对东海 2 号和福岛第二核电站,从短期看,应针对 电站和厂址目前的情况(由地震和海啸引发)以及已改变的外部 灾害重新评估电站的安全性。尤其要注意的是,如果外部事件的 PSA 模型已经完成,这将有助于开展评估。
7
福岛第一核电站的短期措施需要进行规划,直到所有机组恢 复安全稳定。应使用简单的方法来确认抵御外部灾害的优先性措 施,以便及时完成规划。预防性措施固然重要但也有局限,规划 中应包括厂内和厂外缓解措施。一旦达到冷停堆稳定状态,就需 要制定长期规划,包括对系统结构部件(SSC)的实体改进和厂 内厂外的应急措施。
结论 1:国际原子能机构基本安全原则为应对福岛核事故提
6
供了坚实的基础,并且涵盖了此次事故经验教训的各个领域。 结论 2:面对此次事故的极端情况,当地应急组织已经按照
基本原则 3 进行了最大程度的事故管理。 结论 3:对海啸灾害没有充分的纵深防御预案,尤其是: 按照调查组会议中的介绍,虽然福岛第一核电站在选址 评估和设计中都考虑了海啸灾害,并且在 2002 年以后也 调高了海啸的可能高度(许可证文件未作更改),但是海 啸灾害仍然被低估。 考虑到现实中这些运行核电站不是“干厂址”,在 2002 年评估后采取的额外防御措施不足以应对海啸的爬高水 位以及次生灾害性现象(流体动力和大残毁物的高能撞 击)。 这些补充保护措施没有经过核安全监管当局的审评和批 准。 由于受洪水影响的系统结构和部件(SSC)故障通常不是 线性递增的,电站不能够承受超过预期的海啸高度所导 致的后果(陡边效应),以及 严重事故管理预案不足以应对多机组故障。
3、主要成果、结论和经验教训 ...................... 37
3.1 引言 ............................................. 37 3.2 背景 ............................................. 37 3.3 国际原子能机构基本原则:总述 ..................... 40
虽然地震发生时,所有的厂外供电都已经丧失,但东电公司 福岛第一核电站的自动系统在检测到地震时成功地将所有控制 棒插入三个正在运行的反应堆,所有可用的应急柴油发电机也按 设计处于运转状态。第一波海啸浪潮在地震发生后46分钟到达福 岛第一核电站。
海啸浪潮冲破了福岛第一核电站的防御设施,这些防御设施
4
的原始设计能够抵御浪高5.7米的海啸,而当天袭击电站的最大 浪潮预计超过14米。海啸浪潮深入到电站内部,造成除一台应急 柴油发电机(6B)之外的所有电源丧失,厂内和厂外都丧失了可 用的重要供电,且外部援助无望。
除了工业之外,许多核电站设施也由于严重的地振动和大范 围的海啸而受到影响,包括东海、东通、女川、以及东电公司的 福岛第一和第二核电站。这些核电站在设计上都安装有自动停堆 系统,在检测到地震时实现了机组成功停堆。但是,巨大的海啸 对这些核设施造成不同程度的影响,并导致东电公司的福岛第一 核电站发生严重事故。
目前,还没有关于此次核事故的放射性泄漏对人体健康影响 的报告。
按照与日本政府的协定,国际原子能机构组织了初步调查
5
组,探究事实真相并从此次福岛核事故中汲取初步的经验教训, 同时将这些信息在国际核能社会中公布。为此,一个专家组承担 了此次调查任务,时间从5月24日至6月1日。此次调查结果将向 2011年6月20-24日在维也纳国际原子能机构总部举行的部长级 核安全大会进行汇报。这份初步总结报告将向日本政府提供直接 的反馈。
结论 7:忠于职守、勇于奉献的干部和工作人员,再加上组 织良好和灵活的系统,即使在超出预计的情况下也可以有效的做 出响应,并防止事故进一步对公众和设施内工作人员的健康产生 更大影响。
结论 8:后续适当的开展公众辐照和健康监测项目将十分有 益。
结论 9:虽然事件造成严重影响,但对受影响电站的放射性
8
辐照的控制似乎很有效。 结论 10:重新审议国际原子能机构安全标准,确保其能够
结论 5:应当更新监管规定和导则,以体现此次东日本大地 震中获得的经验和数据,并采用国际原子能机构安全相关标准确 立的准则和方法来全面应对海啸以及所有相关联的外部事件。各 国监管文件应当包含与国际原子能机构安全标准相一致的数据 库要求。用于灾害评价和电厂保护的方法应与相关领域的研发进 展相一致。
结论 6:日本有组织良好的应急准备和响应体系,这体现在 福岛核事故的处理过程中。但是复杂的结构和组织体系可能导致 紧急决策的拖延。
2、导致福岛第一核电站的事故序列 ................. 24
2.1 福岛第一核电站 ................................... 24 2.2 福岛第二核电站 ................................... 35 2.3 东海核电站 ....................................... 36
由于没有办法来控制或冷却反应堆机组,在地震发生时还在 运行的福岛第一核电站的3个机组在反应堆衰变热的作用下迅速 升温,虽然操作人员勇敢地尝试了新方法来恢复对反应堆和乏燃 料池的控制和冷却,但还是发生了燃料严重损毁和一系列爆炸。 这些爆炸对电站造成进一步破坏,使操作员面临的情况更加严峻 和危险。此外,放射性污染还扩散到环境中。根据国际核事故分 级系统初步确定这些事件为最高级别的核事故。
4、致谢 ................................................ 57
3
总结
2011年3月11日,日本东部发生9级大地震,地震引发一系列 巨大海啸,袭击了日本东部沿海。最大浪高是在宫古岛的姉吉, 达到38.9米。
地震和海啸给日本大片地区造成打击,15391人死亡,此外 还有8171人下落不明。大部分人口流离失所,他们生活的村镇被 破坏或夷为平地。许多基础设施也由于这次侵袭而瘫痪。
部事件,并在电站安全分析中加以考虑,尤其是那些可
9
能导致电站水淹和引发长期影响的事件。 电站布局应基于维持“干厂址理念”,尽可能的设臵纵深
防御措施抵御电站被淹,并保持关键安全系统的实体隔 离和多样性。 共因故障应作为一站多堆和多个电站的重点考虑内容, 要保证独立的机组恢复可以使用其所有的厂内资源。 定期审议外部事件灾害的变化或对其的认知水平,以便 考虑其对目前电站配臵的影响,以及 建立高效的海啸预警系统,且具有操作员立即行动的预 案。 教训 2:对于严重事故,例如丧失所有电源、热阱和工程安 全系统,应该为严重事故管理提供这些功能的简单替代(如移动 供电、压缩空气和供水)。 教训 3:教训 2 中提出的预案应位于安全位臵,电站操作员 应当受过培训,会使用它们。这也包括集中化的储存和把它们迅 速转移到受影响场址的措施。 教训 4:核电站内要有抗震性能高、适当屏蔽和通风、和装 备精良的厂房,以容纳应急响应中心(与福岛第一核电站和第二 核电站的性能类似),并能够抵御其他外部灾害,如洪水。它们 需要充足的资源准备,必须为事故管理人员保证身体健康并提供 辐射防护。 教训 5:应急响应中心应该有根据可靠的仪表和线路获得的
在调查期间,这支由核专家组成的队伍得到了各方的积极配 合,从许多相关的日本政府机构、核电监管部门和运营单位得到 了有关信息。调查组还走访了三个受影响的核电设施,包括东海 第二核电站、东电公司福岛第一核电站和第二核电站,以便了解 电站的现状和损坏情况。到设施实地考察使得专家们能够与操作 员进行交流,并了解正在进行的恢复和补救工作。
2
3.3.3.1 场外应急准备以保护公众和环境 ................ 49 3.3.3.2 场内应急计划以保护工作人员 .................. 51 3.4 国际原子能机构安全标准 ........................... 52 3.5 国际原子能机构安全活动 ........................... 53 3.4.1 恢复路线图 ................................... 53 3.4.2 外部危机 ..................................... 54 3.4.3 场外应急响应 .................................. 54 3.4.4 严重事故情况下的大规模辐射防护组织 ............... 55 3.4.5 后续 IRRS 审查 ................................. 55