I.

Summary

1. Overview of the Reviewed Power Station
The Japan Nuclear Technology Institute (JANTI) conducted a peer review (review) at Fukushima DainiNuclear Power Station (station) of Tokyo Electric Power Company from Monday, July 28 to Friday, August 8,
2008.
The station is located along the coast of the Pacific Ocean in the eastern part of Fukushima Prefecture and issituated extending across both Narahamachi Town and Tomioka Town. It has four Boiling Water Reactor(BWR) units. During the review period all four units were in rated thermal operation. There is one main control
room for Units 1 and 2 as well as one for Units 3 and 4. Also, the point for accessing the radiological control
area is also common to Units 1 and 2 as well as Units 3 and 4.
The Station Director has set forth a management policy of "listening to the community, equipment and site,
striving to improve daily by joining together with our contractors, maintaining safe and reliable operation of theplant, and realizing the world's securest and safest power station," and is undertaking a variety of activities. For
example, station has instituted performance indicators, been monitoring, and monthly evaluated health of thestation. Measures for improvement are implemented when the level of achievement is inadequate. Also,
approximately three years ago, Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) was introduced to clarify any
shortcomings at the power station. Activities are also being conducted by all personnel to prevent any sort ofloss from occurring. The Operations Department recently started work on a management observation program(site observations conducted by managers).
Additionally, work on the stations is currently being conducted to make the station more seismically-resistantbased on the Chuetsu-oki Earthquake and measures, including those to enhance the disaster prevention
facilities and improve the seismic capacity of transformers, are being successively implemented.
As of the beginning of July, 2008, the station has 716 personnel, and there were 2,610 contractor employees.

Operation performance
Rated electric output

Commercial operation(MWe)commencement date(as of July 30, 2008)

Unit
Generated energy*1

Capacity factor*2(billion kWh)

(%)

11100

April 1982

1,950

76.0

21100

February 1984

1,77074.1

31100

June 1985

1,49666.3

41100

August 1987

1,47771.9*1) Generated energy: includes periods of operational testing*2) Capacity factor: since commencement of commercial operation

2. Review schedule
After reviewer training and preparation at the JANTI office from Wednesday, July 23rd to Friday, July 25th,
2008, the review was conducted at the station for two weeks from Monday, July 28th to Friday, August 8th, asshown in Table 1.
Prior to the review, field observations were conducted to observe field works during an outage of Unit 4 at thestation for the three days from Wednesday, March 26th to Friday, March 28th, 2008 (outage observations).
Also, on Thursday, May 8th, 2008, operations shift crew performances during training was observed at thefull-scope simulator facility of the BWR Operator Training Center (Fukushima Center), and similar training
were observed at the on-site simulator on Thursday, June 19th, 2008 (simulator training observation).

Table 1: Review schedule at power station (actual performance)
Matters reviewed
July(Morning)・ Schedule arrangement with station counterparts in each review area

28th (Mon.)(Afternoon)
29th (Tue.)・ Entrance meeting (introduction of review team, review plan, etc.)・ Plant inspection to observe plant equipment conditions, etc.
・ Field observations, interviews, document reviews and discussions about these results with station counterparts.
・ Team meeting including station representatives

30th (Wed.)

・ Field observations, interviews, document reviews and discussion about these results with station counterparts.

31st (Thu.)

・ Team meeting including station representatives

August
1st (Fri.)
2nd (Sat.)Day off

3rd (Sun.)・ Team meeting (refine strengths and areas for improvement)

4th (Mon.)・ Field observations, interviews, document reviews

5th (Tue.)・ Discuss causes and contributors related to problem areas with station counterpart
・ Confirm and review facts related to strengths and areas for improvement
・ Team meeting including station representatives

6th (Wed.)

・ Discussion with station counterpart in each area
・ Discussion between team leader and station representatives regarding strengths and areas for improvement
・ Team meeting including station representatives

7th (Thu.)

・ Review and finalization of strengths and areas for improvement
・ Discussion among exit representative, team leader and station representatives on strengths and areas for improvement
・ Compile material for exit meeting8th (Fri.)(Morning)

・ Exit meeting (explanation from review team regarding strengths and areas for improvement, as well as supplementary
explanations when requested by the station)(Afternoon)・ Press conference organized by JANTI (at Fukushima Daini Power Station Visitors Hall)

3. Review methodology and review scope
The objective of the review conducted by JANTI is to promote further improvements in the safety andreliability of the nuclear power stations.

3.1 Review methodology
The Performance Objectives and Criteria (PO&C) used by WANO*3 (World Association of Nuclear Operators),
were applied to the review as a standard. Besides the WANO standards, INPO*3 (Institute of Nuclear PowerOperations) has also set down its performance objectives and criteria. However, since JANTI and WANO have
implemented reviews with each other and the relationship is mutually complementary, the continuity of bothorganizations' peer reviews was taken into consideration in adopting the WANO PO&C.
This standard was formulated as a guideline to promote the highest level of the performance of nuclear power
plant operations. In the review, the PO&C was used to identify "strengths" and "areas for improvement (AFI)" .
Strengths are items which have been judged to have reached the highest level possible. On the other hand, AFI
are items for which effort is required to reach the highest level possible, but does not always mean insufficient,
inadequate nor poor performance compared with industry standard.
The review team conducted the review as described below, focusing on field observation and closely discussing
with station counterparts in accordance with the INPO and WANO review methodology.
*3)

WANO was founded in 1989 by nuclear operators world-wide, after the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power
Plant made it painfully clear that a global information network of nuclear power utilities was needed. Its mission is toimprove the operational safety and reliability of nuclear power stations to the greatest extent possible, by implementing avariety of support activities for nuclear power stations. These include reviews of nuclear power stations throughout theworld, as well as exchanging information concerning accidents and problematic events.
INPO was established by the US nuclear power industry after the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island nuclear powerstation. Regular review of US nuclear power stations is one of INPO's principal activities, and these are mainly
accomplished by staying at the nuclear power station for two weeks and conduct on-site observations. The JANTI review
follows this method. Since 1990, the contributions of INPO are recognized as being among the most extensive fromthose involved with nuclear power in improving safety and reliability at US nuclear power stations.

3.1.1 Information gathering and analysis
Reviewers for each area analyzed the information provided by the station in advance, which included:

in-station operating experiences, procedures, meeting minutes, and outage observations and simulator training
observations developed by JANTI. This is in order to prepare a review plan for effective implementation ofstation review.

3.1.2 Observations of equipment and facility conditions at station
First of all at the station, all reviewers conducted plant walkdown and observed equipment conditions in thearea assigned to each of them and noted any issues noticed in Units 3 and 4 mainly. The number of collectedissues were 300 total. When sorted by appropriate review area, there were approximately 130 issues inoperations, approximately 80 issues in maintenance, approximately 110 issues in engineering support, andapproximately 20 issues in radiological protection. These records were classified by target area and assigned to
the reviewer responsible. Each reviewer utilized these records as material to understand the current situation of
the station for the subsequent review.
Since the content of many items falls under several categories, the sum of all categories is greater than the total
number of items.

3.1.3 Field observations and follow-up
The reviewers assigned to the specific review area started observations of the condition of the station facilities
and equipment, and performance and behavior of station personnel including contractor employees from apoint of view of expert after conducting plant inspection. Then, they made interviews and reviewed
documentation to follow-up the results obtained through detailed observations according to the pre-developed
review plan. Each reviewer decided whether the gathered information was significant or not based on thereview standard (PO&C) and their own practical experience. The significant facts identified as beneficial orproblematic were recorded and noted as the issues need further evaluation. Each reviewer exchanged opinions
about these facts with station counterpart and, if necessary, employees of contractors over and over.
The results of the aforementioned were presented at the evening review team meeting, and matters considered
as excellent or problematic were deliberated by all members of the team.

3.1.4 Analysis of observation results
Reviewers for each area identified the excellent points and problematic issues according to the review standard(PO&C) from among matters gathered through the processes listed in 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 3.1.3.
The excellent points were consolidated as "strengths," and information about them were included so that otherstations may use them as reference.
The problematic issues were further analyzed to clarify what the problem nature was, why they occurred(causes and contributors), and how they could be solved (how to make improvement). In cases whereadditional information was required for this work process, additional field observations, document reviews, orinterviews were conducted once more, and AFI were developed based on the results.

AFIs including their nature, cause and contributor were presented to the station counterparts with reference tothe PO&C and actual industry best practices. Discussions were repeated until a mutual understanding about thenature of the problem, the cause, and the background.
The details of these discussions and feedbacks from station personnel were presented again at the review teammeeting. All of review team member made further discussion and analysis in order to brush up strengths andAFIs in terms of accuracy and appropriateness from multiple perspectives considering the feedback.

3.2 Review Scope
3.2.1 Review Areas
In the review, six functional areas listed in (1) through (6) below were reviewed. The other areas (7) through(10) were reviewed as required as part of six functional areas.
(1) Organization and administration(2) Operations(3) Maintenance(4) Engineering support(5) Radiological Protection(6) Operating Experience(7) Chemistry(8) Training(9) Fire protection(10) Emergency Preparedness

3.2.2 Review Team Composition
The review team consists of:
Exit Representative:

Matsushita, Director of JANTITeam Leader:

Kawashima, Director of JANTITeam Members:

19 members including team leader(3 WANO personnel; 2 JANTI member organization personnel; 14 JANTI personnel)

4. Summary of results
The following strengths and AFIs were identified by the review team.
4.1 Strengths
The following nine strengths were identified:[Operations](1) A program for management observations in operations department has started in order to improve theperformance of operators since April, 2008. The Operations department managers have so far conducted 21
field observations and identified the weak area and weakness by classifying observation results according tofactors, such as operators' basic behavior.

(2) Work Management Group have been set up in the Operations department and are actively providing supportfor shifts during operation. The outage preparations conducted by the Work Management Group provides

preparation work for outages and panel monitoring during shift turn over and periodic surveillances, and thisreduces the burden on shifts and improves the quality of shift work.
For example, one member of the Work Management Group is responsible for monitoring the panel for Unit 3
during the startup test of the Unit 3 diesel generator.

[Maintenance](3) Approximately one year prior to the commencement of an outage, station wide project team are formed toundertake preparations for outage such as formulation of a plan. Also, during the outage, project team monitors
the progress of the outage schedule and provides coordination. This has lead to establish highly reliable
schedule and this reduce urgent changes in the planned schedule, human errors resulting from insufficient
communication among the departments, and burden on who involved.

[Engineering Support](4) At the entrances of the reactor building, turbine building and radioactive waste building, hot work maps aredisplayed, which indicates hot works being conducted in the building. This has made it easy for operators,
various employees patrolling on-site and fire protection brigades to identify the place where hot works areconducted in the case of patrol and emergency.

[Radiological Protection](5) The performance of two kinds of monitors (dust monitors and gate monitors) has been improved, and good
progress has been made in increasing the efficiency of radiation control and early detection of abnormal eventsat the plant.
For example, the dust monitor has been improved so that it has the capability to distinguish artificial
radioactivity and natural radioactivity when measuring such radioactivity, and it is being effectively utilized toquickly identify equipment failures and deviations in the radiation work environment.

[Operating Experience](6) An integrated management system for reporting, approval and monitoring the progress of nonconformance
reports is available on the station and contractor intranet. This system provides for the prompt processing ofnonconformance reports and is effectively working through daily work in the station.
The system is easily accessible to station personnel and reinforces to initiate nonconformance reports. It is also
possible to search past nonconformance reports and data from the minutes of nonconformance management
committee meetings by initiated date, grade, cause and other keywords. It is effectively utilized to manage thestatus of progress and analyze past data.

[Organization and Administration]

(7) In order to improve communication with contractors, a feeling of solidarity has been aroused as a result ofvarious measures which have been taken to explicitly glean the opinions and needs of the various positions
which vary by differences in company size, management, site work supervisors, and other factors. Thissolidarity has contributed to the safe and stable operation of the station.

(8) Performance indicators (PI) to measure the performance of the station have been standardized for fleet wide
three nuclear power stations. The ranking of the station in question can be confirmed through a comparison of
the three stations and a comparison with nuclear power stations around the world using the WANO PI.
Also, meetings (performance review meetings, "PRM") are held monthly to confirm the status of performanceachievement using this PI. In the meeting, Issues are identified and the appropriateness and effectiveness ofmeasures to address issues are evaluated so that continuous improvements are systematically achieved in themanner of using PDCA cycle trial.

(9) In order to promote nuclear safety and higher reliability of the station, the Station Director leads the station
by strong leadership. The Station Director establishes clear policy based on the station weakness and problem
in the job site he is aware of. Under the strong leadership of the Station Director, issues of the station areappropriately recognized, clearly reflected in the policy for station management, and this contributes safety andreliably of the station.

4.2 Areas for improvement
The following 7 areas for improvement were identified.
[Operations](1) Operations management does not clearly establish high standards to achieve best performance in theindustry for limit of main control room access, panel monitoring, use of human performance tools such as
three-way communications, use of procedures, nor does thoroughly reinforced.
For example, at the entrance to the main control room, there is a sign indicating "Unauthorized persons areprohibited from entering; the Shift Supervisor," but anyone who has an ID card is able to enter.

(2) There are instances when the shift supervisor and assistant shift supervisor are inconsistent in conducting
their work of supervising.
For instance, during a surveillance test, the assistant shift supervisor stood right next to the control panel andconducted the operations as an operator, confirming and resetting the alarm.

[Engineering Support](3) There is room for improvement as there are some inadequacies in the control, review and monitoring oftemporary modifications.

For instance, the temporary sampling line for the coolant clean-up system was used over a longer period thatinitially planned.

[Radiological Protection](4) Radiological protection has deficiencies in worker’s radiation dose control, contaminated material control
and signs for dose reduction and prevention of spreading contamination.
For example, workers standing outside a contaminated area (Area C) were observed to behave in ways thatwould lead to spreading contamination, such as touching a curing sheet in Area C which had slipped over thefence.

[Operating Experience](5) Use of industry operating experiences is somewhat ineffective and needs to improve
For example, in the pre-job brief of the transporting empty casks for spent fuel, cautionary matters concerning
the work were briefed, but examples of problems related to lifting work were not introduced.

[Organization and Administration](6) Inappropriate circumstances were observed with regard to the wearing of personal protection equipmentduring lifting jobs and other works. There is room for further improvement in order to make it safer whenworking.
For example, when undertaking work to hang an actuator for a valve on the floor during an inspection of an
air-operated valve for high conductivity condensate waste, a worker put his leg under the load of the actuator.

(7) Improvement is needed to establish clear high-level expectations and reinforce them thoroughly in several
areas including operations and radiological protection.
For example, the Operations management has not established high standards to achieve best performance in theindustry nor reinforced throoughly.