The Fukushima Nuclear Accident: Insights on the Safety Aspects

DOI: 10.4236/wjnst.2015.53017   PDF   HTML   XML   5,646 Downloads   6,903 Views   Citations


The Fukushima nuclear accident has generated doubts and questions which need to be properly understood and addressed. This scientific attitude became necessary to allow the use of the nuclear technology for electricity generation around the world. The nuclear stakeholders are working to obtain these technical answers for the Fukushima questions. We believe that, such challenges will be, certainly, implemented in the next reactor generation, following the technological evolution. The purpose of this work is to perform a critical analysis of the Fukushima nuclear accident, focusing at the common cause failures produced by tsunami, as well as an analysis of the main redundant systems. This work also assesses the mitigative procedures and the subsequent consequences of such actions, which gave results below expectations to avoid the progression of the accident, discussing the concept of sharing of structures, systems and components at multi-unit nuclear power plants, and its eventual inappropriate use in safety-related devices which can compromise the nuclear safety, as well as its consequent impact on the Fukushima accident scenario. The lessons from Fukushima must be better learned, aiming the development of new procedures and new safety systems. Thus, the nuclear technology could reach a higher evolution level in its safety requirements. This knowledge will establish a conceptual milestone in the safety system design, becoming necessary the review of the current acceptance criteria of safety-related systems.

Share and Cite:

Thomé, Z. , Gomes, R. , Silva, F. and Vellozo, S. (2015) The Fukushima Nuclear Accident: Insights on the Safety Aspects. World Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 5, 169-182. doi: 10.4236/wjnst.2015.53017.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (2011) Special Report on the Nuclear Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station—INPO 011-005. INPO, Atlanta.
[2] The National Diet of Japan (2012) The Official Report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission. The National Diet of Japan, Tokyo.
[3] Thomé, Z.D., Gomes, R.S., Silva, F.C. and Gomes, J.D.R.L. (2012) An Attempt to Confirm the Origin of 135Xe Detected in the Fukushima Daiichi II Nuclear Power Plant. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 247, 123-127.
[4] International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (1992) The Chernobyl Accident: Updating of INSAG-1, INSAG 7. IAEA, Vienna.
[5] International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (1991) Safety Culture, INSAG 4. IAEA, Vienna.
[6] International Atomic Energy Agency (2002) Self-Assessment of Safety Culture in Nuclear Installations—Highlights and Good Practices—TECDOC-1321. IAEA, Vienna.
[7] International Atomic Energy Agency (2003) Flood Hazard for Nuclear Power Plants on Coastal and River Sites— Safety Standard Series NS-G-3.5. IAEA, Vienna.
[8] International Atomic Energy Agency (2011) Meteorological and Hydrological Hazards in Site Evaluation for Nuclear Installations, Specific Safety Guide SSG-18. IAEA, Vienna.
[9] International Atomic Energy Agency (2011) International Fact Finding Expert Mission of the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP Accident Following the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, Mission Report. IAEA, Vienna.
[10] Japan Society of Civil Engineers (2002) Tsunami Assessment Method for Nuclear Power Plants in Japan. JSCE, To- kyo.
[11] Acton, J.M. and Hibbs, M. (2011) Why the Fukushima was Preventable. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington DC.
[12] Suzuki, T. (2011) The Fukushima Nuclear Accident: Lessons Learned (So Far) and Possible Implications. Special Seminar on the Fukushima Dai-ichi Incident: Implications for the UK, France, Japan and the International Community, London, 6 July 2011.
[13] Preckshot, G.G. (1994) Method for Performing Diversity and Defense-in-Depth Analyses of Reactor Protection Systems. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC.
[14] Hatamura, Y., Oike, K., et al. (2012) Investigation Committee on the Accident at Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company.
[15] Kaufmann, A., Grouchko, D. and Groun, R. (1977) Mathematical Models for the Study of the Reliability of Systems. Academic Press, New York.
[16] Kelly, D.L. (1991) Overview of Containment Venting as an Accident Mitigation Strategy in US Light Water Reactors. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 131, 253-261.
[17] Dallman, R.J. and Galyean, W.J. (1988) Containment Venting as an Accident Management Strategy for BWRs with Mark I Containments. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 121, 421-429.
[18] United States Nuclear Regulatory (1989) Installation of a Hardened Wetwell Vent (Generic Letter 89-16).
[19] Davies, L. (2011) Beyond Fukushima: Disasters, Nuclear Energy, and Energy Law. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2011, 1937-1989.
[20] Greene, S.R. (1990) The Role of BWR Secondary Containments in Severe Accident Mitigation: Issues and Insights from Recent Analyses. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 120, 75-86.
[21] Tokyo Electric Power Company (2012) Investigation of the Cause of Hydrogen Explosion at the Unit 4 Reactor Building.
[22] Schlueter, R.O. and Schmitz, R.P. (1990) Filtered Vented Containments. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 120, 93- 103.
[23] Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (1988) Filtered Containment Venting Systems. Note on the Outcome of the May 1988 Specialists Meeting on Filtered Containment Venting Systems, Paris, 17-18 May 1988.
[24] Muhleim, M.D. and Wood, R.T. (2007) Design Strategies and Evaluation for Sharing Systems at Multi-Unit Plants, ORNL/LTR/INERI-BRAZIL/06-01. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge.
[25] US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1975) Shared Emergency and Shutdown Electric System for Multi-Unit Nuclear Power Plants, Regulatory Guide 1.81. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC.
[26] US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2003) Control Room Habitability at Light-Water Nuclear Power Reactors, Regulatory Guide 1.196. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC.
[27] Hirano, M., et al. (2012) Insights from Review and Analysis of the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 49, 1-17.
[28] International Atomic Energy Agency (2009) Severe Accident Management Programmes for Nuclear Power Plants, IAEA Safety Guide NS-G-2.15. IAEA, Vienna.
[29] Cook, D.H., Greene, S.R., Harrington, R.M., Hodge, S.A. and Yue, D.D. (1981) Station Blackout at Browns Ferry Unit One—Accident Sequence Analysis, NUREG/CR-2182. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge.
[30] International Atomic Energy Agency (2011) Mitigation of Hydrogen Hazards in Severe Accidents in Nuclear Power Plants, IAEA-TECDOC-1661. IAEA, Vienna.
[31] Reineck, E., Tragsdorf, I.M. and Gierling, K. (2004) Studies on Innovative Hydrogen Recombiners as Safety Devices in the Containments of Light Water Reactors. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 230, 49-59.
[32] Heck, R., Kelber, G., Schmidt, K. and Zimmer, H.J. (1995) Hydrogen Reduction Following Severe Accidents Using the Dual Recombiner-Igniter Concept. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 157, 311-319.
[33] Bröckerhoff, P., von Lensa, W. and Reinecke, E. (2000) Innovative Devices for Hydrogen Removal. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 196, 307-314.
[34] Electric Power Research Institute (2011) Silicon Carbide Provides Opportunity to Enhance Nuclear Fuel Safety.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.