JP2020087077A - Safety evaluation system, safety evaluation method, and safety evaluation program - Google Patents

Abstract

To evaluate merits of an introduction of plant safety improvement measures by using an evaluation index adopting a sociological viewpoint in addition to a conventional evaluation index.SOLUTION: A safety evaluation system 1 for evaluating validity of a plurality of plant safety improvement measures includes: weight setting means 22; evaluation means 23; and output means 24. The weight setting means 22 sets a weight in each evaluation index of a plurality of evaluation indexes including an evaluation index adopting a sociological viewpoint of the plant. The evaluation means 23 sets a parameter indicating superiority when comparing the plurality of safety improvement measures about each evaluation index, and calculates an individual evaluation value about each evaluation index on the basis of the weight and the parameter. The output means 24 outputs a plurality of individual evaluation values corresponding to the plurality of evaluation indexes as an evaluation value from a display unit 18 or a printer 19.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 1

Description

The present invention relates to a safety evaluation system, a safety evaluation method, and a safety evaluation program for selecting a safety improvement measure against accidents in a plant such as a nuclear power plant.

2. Description of the Related Art Conventionally, there is a system in which a risk against cost of a large-scale power plant such as a nuclear power plant is evaluated and a plant maintenance plan is made based on this evaluation.

Also, based on the lessons learned from the severe accident that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, nuclear plant operators have begun voluntary efforts to improve safety using probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). .. The PRA quantitatively evaluates the assumed risk and is mainly divided into three levels.

Level 1 PRA identifies an accident scenario that leads to core damage in a nuclear power plant, and evaluates the frequency of occurrence of that scenario. In addition to Level 1, Level 2 PRA identifies an accident scenario in which a large amount of radioactive material diffuses from the reactor containment vessel, as well as the thermal hydraulic power inside the reactor cooling system and the containment vessel in the accident scenario, as well as radioactive material. Predict the behavior, etc., and evaluate the type, amount, and frequency of radioactive substances released into the environment. In addition to Level 2, Level 3 PRA predicts the environmental migration of radioactive materials released from nuclear plants in consideration of weather conditions, etc., and evaluates the health effects of the exposure on the general public.

Based on the results of this PRA evaluation, efforts are being made to voluntarily improve the safety of nuclear power plants, and the aim is to reduce risks as much as reasonably possible by actively utilizing PRA.

JP, 2003-114294, A

The risk reduction effect of the safety improvement measure is determined in monetary value in order to judge the justification for selecting the safety improvement measure in consideration of the risk reduction effect of the nuclear plant and the cost balance using the evaluation result of the probabilistic risk assessment. It is useful to evaluate costs and benefits in terms of. However, the CDF (core damage frequency) of nuclear power plants that comply with the new regulatory standards has become sufficiently small, and it is difficult to judge the rationality of additional safety improvement measures from the perspective of PRA and cost benefits alone. Therefore, there is a problem that it is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of safety improvement measures from a viewpoint that has never existed before.

The embodiment of the present invention has been made in consideration of such circumstances, and incorporates a sociological viewpoint in addition to the conventional evaluation indexes (installation cost, core damage frequency, and amount of fission products released during an accident). It is an object of the present invention to provide a safety evaluation system, a safety evaluation method, and a safety evaluation program that can evaluate the merits of introducing a safety improvement measure for a plant using an evaluation index. The sociological point of view is, for example, the necessity of evacuation of local residents and the reliability of nuclear technology.

A safety evaluation system for evaluating the effectiveness of a plurality of safety improvement measures in a plant according to the embodiment includes a weight setting means, an evaluation means, and an output means. The weight setting means sets a weight on each evaluation index of the plurality of evaluation indices including the evaluation index that incorporates the sociological viewpoint of the plant. The evaluation means sets a parameter indicating superiority or inferiority when comparing a plurality of safety improvement measures for each evaluation index, and calculates an individual evaluation value for each evaluation index based on the weight and the parameter. The output means causes the display unit or the printer to output a plurality of individual evaluation values corresponding to the plurality of evaluation indexes as evaluation values.

Depending on the embodiment, in addition to the conventional evaluation indexes (installation cost, CDF (core damage frequency), nuclear fission product release amount at the time of accident), an evaluation index incorporating a sociological perspective (for example, the necessity of evacuation of neighboring residents, etc.) ) Can be used to evaluate the merits of introducing a plant safety improvement measure.

Schematic which shows the structure of the safety evaluation system which concerns on embodiment. The figure which shows the example of each evaluation index as a table in the safety evaluation system which concerns on embodiment. The figure which shows operation|movement of the safety evaluation system which concerns on embodiment as a flowchart. The figure which shows operation|movement of the safety evaluation system which concerns on embodiment as a flowchart. The figure which shows an example of the display screen for displaying the safety improvement measure name of an evaluation object, and an evaluation index in the safety evaluation system which concerns on embodiment. The figure which shows an example of the display screen for displaying weight data in the safety evaluation system which concerns on embodiment. The figure which shows an example of the display screen for displaying a pair of safety improvement measure names in the safety evaluation system which concerns on embodiment. The figure which shows an example of the display screen for displaying the vector element of each evaluation index in the safety evaluation system which concerns on embodiment. The figure which shows an example of the display screen for displaying the evaluation value of the effectiveness of a safety improvement measure in the safety evaluation system which concerns on embodiment. The figure which shows an example of the display screen for displaying the comparison result of the effectiveness of each safety improvement measure in the safety evaluation system which concerns on embodiment. The figure which shows an example of the display screen for displaying the rank of the effectiveness of each safety improvement measure in the safety evaluation system which concerns on embodiment.

Hereinafter, embodiments of a safety evaluation system, a safety evaluation method, and a safety evaluation program will be described in detail with reference to the drawings.

FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram showing a configuration of a safety evaluation system according to an embodiment.

FIG. 1 shows a safety evaluation system 1 according to the embodiment. The safety evaluation system 1 relates to selection of safety improvement measures that incorporate a sociological viewpoint of a nuclear power plant including a nuclear power plant. A nuclear power plant will be described as an example of the plant according to the present invention.

The safety evaluation system 1 has a configuration as a computer. The safety evaluation system 1 includes an information processing unit 11, a program storage unit 12, an evaluation index storage unit 13, an evaluation data storage unit 14, a past data storage unit 15, an input unit 16, a communication unit 17, a display unit 18, and a printer 19. Equipped with.

The information processing unit 11 controls the overall operation of the safety evaluation system 1. The information processing unit 11 means a processor such as a dedicated or general-purpose CPU (Central Processing Unit), MPU (Micro Processor Unit), or GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), as well as an ASIC and a programmable logic device. Examples of programmable logic devices include simple programmable logic devices (SPLDs), complex programmable logic devices (CPLDs), and field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs). Can be mentioned.

Further, the information processing unit 11 may be configured by a single circuit or a combination of a plurality of independent processing circuit elements. In the latter case, the program storage unit 12 may be provided individually for each processing circuit element, or the single program storage unit 12 may store programs corresponding to the functions of a plurality of processing circuit elements. Good.

The program storage unit 12 includes, for example, a semiconductor memory device such as a RAM (Random Access Memory) and a flash memory (Flash Memory), a hard disk, an optical disk, and the like. The program storage unit 12 may be configured by a portable medium such as a USB (Universal Serial Bus) memory and a DVD (Digital Video Disk). The program storage unit 12 stores various processing programs used in the information processing unit 11 (including OS (Operating System) in addition to application programs) and data necessary for executing the programs. In addition, the OS may include a GUI (Graphic User Interface) that allows the operator to display information on the display unit 18 with a large amount of graphics and to perform basic operations with the input unit 16.

The program storage unit 12 stores various programs executed by the information processing unit 11.

The evaluation index storage unit 13 has the same configuration as the program storage unit 12. The evaluation index storage unit 13 stores a plurality of evaluation indexes for evaluating the effectiveness of the plurality of safety improvement measures.

FIG. 2 is a table showing an example of each evaluation index.

Figure 2 shows deterministic considerations, probabilistic considerations, mandatory requirements, security considerations, direct impacts of implementing measures, and sociological considerations (social and economic impacts). ) And other considerations are shown below. For example, from a sociological point of view, economic damage is cited as a quantitative evaluation index, and mental damage, reputational damage, the need for evacuation of the surrounding residents, and confidence in nuclear technology as qualitative evaluation indicators. Gender and social acceptability.

Returning to the description of FIG. 1, the evaluation data storage unit 14 has the same configuration as the program storage unit 12. The evaluation data storage unit 14 stores input data and output data corresponding to each evaluation target stored in the evaluation index storage unit 13.

The past data storage unit 15 has the same configuration as the program storage unit 12. The past data storage unit 15 stores various data evaluated in the past.

The input unit 16 includes an input device that can be operated by an operator, and an input circuit that inputs a signal from the input device. The input device is a mouse, a keyboard, a trackball, a switch, a button, a joystick, a touch pad for performing an input operation by touching an operation surface, a touch screen in which a display screen and a touch pad are unified, and a non-optical touch sensor. It is realized by a contact input circuit, a voice input circuit, and the like. When the input device receives an input operation from the operator, the input circuit generates an electric signal according to the input operation and outputs the electric signal to the information processing unit 11. Further, the input unit 16 may be configured by a tablet terminal or the like that can wirelessly communicate with the main body of the safety evaluation system 1. The operator inputs various input data to the safety evaluation system 1 via the input unit 16.

The communication unit 17 implements various information communication protocols according to the form of the network N. The communication unit 17 connects the safety evaluation system 1 and an external device according to these various protocols. An electrical connection or the like via an electronic network can be applied to this connection. Here, the electronic network refers to all information communication networks using telecommunications technology, and includes wireless/wired hospital backbone LANs (Local Area Networks) and Internet networks, as well as telephone communication line networks and optical fiber communication networks. , Cable communication networks and satellite communication networks.

The display unit 18 is, for example, a liquid crystal display, a CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) display, an OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) display, or the like. The display unit 18 may be a desktop type, or may be a tablet terminal or the like that can wirelessly communicate with the main body of the safety evaluation system 1. The display unit 18 displays the evaluation value of the effectiveness of the safety improvement measures, which will be described later.

The printer 19 prints out the evaluation value of the effectiveness of the safety improvement measures described later and the like.

Various input data to the information processing unit 11 may be input from another computer via the communication unit 17. When the input data is input, it is stored in the evaluation data storage unit 14. Then, the output data calculated based on the input data is also stored in the evaluation data storage unit 14. Further, when a series of evaluation processes are completed, the input data and the output data are stored in the past data storage unit 15 in association with the dates and times when these processes were performed. Various data may be stored in the past data storage unit 15 in association with the user name that can identify each operator.

Here, the information processing unit 11 reads out and executes a program stored in the program storage unit 12 or directly installed in the information processing unit 11, thereby obtaining the acquisition unit 21, the weight setting unit 22, and the evaluation unit. 23, the output means 24, and the order determination means 25 are implement|achieved. Hereinafter, the case where the means 21 to 25 function as software will be described as an example. However, all or some of the functions of the means 21 to 25 are provided in the safety evaluation system 1 as functions of a circuit such as an ASIC. It may be one that is available.

That is, the safety evaluation system 1 has hardware resources such as the information processing unit 11 and various storage units 12 to 15, and the information processing unit 11 executes various programs, so that information processing by software is a hardware resource. It is composed of a computer realized by using.

The acquisition unit 21 has a function of acquiring input data such as weights via the input unit 16 and the communication unit 17.

The weight setting unit 22 has a function of setting a weight to each evaluation index of a plurality of evaluation indices including an evaluation index that incorporates a sociological viewpoint of a plant such as a nuclear power plant.

The evaluation unit 23 has a function of setting a parameter indicating superiority or inferiority when comparing a plurality of safety improvement measures for each evaluation index, and calculating an individual evaluation value as an evaluation value for each evaluation index based on the weight and the parameter. .. The evaluation unit 23 can also calculate, as the evaluation value, the overall evaluation value, which is the sum of the plurality of individual evaluation values corresponding to the plurality of evaluation indexes.

The output unit 24 has a function of causing the display unit 18 or the printer 19 to output a plurality of individual evaluation values corresponding to a plurality of evaluation indexes as evaluation values. Further, the output unit 24 can output the overall evaluation value, which is the sum of the plurality of individual evaluation values, as the evaluation value from the display unit 18 or the printer 19.

The rank determining means 25 has a function of determining the rank of a plurality of safety improvement measures based on the evaluation value (a plurality of individual evaluation values or an overall evaluation value). The presence or absence of the rank determining means 25 is optional, but when the rank determining means 25 is provided, the output means 24 displays the rank of the plurality of safety improvement measures determined by the rank determining means 25 on the display unit 18 or the printer 19. To output from.

Details of the means 21 to 25 shown in FIG. 1 will be described with reference to FIGS.

3 and 4 are diagrams showing the operation of the safety evaluation system 1 as a flowchart. In FIG. 3 and FIG. 4, each step of the code flowchart in which “ST” is numbered is shown.

First, as shown in FIG. 3, the acquisition unit 21 acquires a plurality of security improvement measure names to be evaluated from the input unit 16 or the communication unit 17, and the output unit 24 acquires the acquired plurality of safety improvement measures. The measure name is displayed on the display unit 18 (step ST1). Further, the acquisition unit 21 acquires (reads out) the evaluation index from the evaluation index storage unit 13, and the output unit 24 causes the display unit 18 to display the acquired evaluation index (step ST2). The acquisition unit 21 acquires at least an evaluation index incorporating a sociological viewpoint as an evaluation index. The output unit 24 may print out the plurality of safety improvement measure names acquired in step ST1 and the evaluation index acquired in step ST2 using the printer 19.

FIG. 5 is a diagram showing an example of a display screen for displaying a plurality of safety improvement measure names and evaluation indexes.

As shown in FIG. 5, the display screen includes a plurality of safety improvement measure names “F” to be evaluated, for example, four safety improvement measure names “F1” to “F4”. The display screen also includes the evaluation index stored in the evaluation index storage unit 13.

Returning to the description of FIG. 3, the acquisition unit 21 acquires the weight of each evaluation index (hereinafter referred to as “simple weight”) from the input unit 16 or the communication unit 17, and the output unit 24 acquires the acquired simple weight. Is displayed on the display unit 18 (step ST3). The output unit 24 may print out the simple weight acquired in step ST3 using the printer 19.

Next, the weight setting means 22 standardizes the simple weights of the respective evaluation indexes to calculate standardized weights (hereinafter referred to as “normalized weights”), and the output means 24 calculates the calculated standardized weights. It is displayed on the display unit 18 (step ST4). For example, the weight setting unit 22 calculates the standardized weight of each evaluation index by dividing the simple weight of each evaluation index by the sum of the simple weights of each evaluation index.

The output means 24 may display at least one of the simple weight acquired in step ST3 and the smoothing weight calculated in step ST4 on the display unit 18. Hereinafter, the case where the output unit 24 displays both the simple weight and the smoothing weight on the display unit 18 will be described. The output unit 24 may print out the standardized weight calculated in step ST4 using the printer 19.

FIG. 6 is a diagram showing an example of a display screen for displaying weight data.

FIG. 6 shows a screen in which the display screen shown in FIG. 5 includes the simple weights input for each evaluation index and the standardized weights calculated for each evaluation index. The operator can input the simple weights "w1" to "w21" at the position corresponding to the "simple weight" while looking at the display screen shown in FIG. Here, the simple weight of each evaluation index may be set in advance. For example, "5" is input to the position of the simple weight corresponding to the particularly important evaluation index, and "4" is input to the position of the simple weight corresponding to the considerably important evaluation index, which corresponds to the important evaluation index. "3" is input to the position of the simple weight, "2" is input to the position of the simple weight corresponding to the slightly important evaluation index, and "2" is input to the position of the simple weight corresponding to the slightly important evaluation index. 1” is input. When the predetermined evaluation index is not considered, “0” may be input at the position of the simple weight corresponding to the evaluation index.

Further, by inputting the simple weights “w1” to “w21” to the positions corresponding to the simple weights of the evaluation indexes, the standardized weights “W1” to “W1” to the positions corresponding to the standardized weights of the evaluation indexes, respectively. "W21" is calculated and input. In addition, the sum of all the standardization weights related to the plurality of evaluation indexes is “1”.

Returning to the description of FIG. 3, the acquisition unit 21 sets a pair of security improvement measure names from the input unit 16 or the communication unit 17 among the plurality of safety improvement measure names acquired in step ST1, and outputs the output unit. 24 displays a pair of safety improvement measure names on the display unit 18 (step ST5). The output means 24 may print out the pair of safety improvement measure names set in step ST5 using the printer 19.

FIG. 7 is a diagram showing an example of a display screen for displaying a pair of safety improvement measure names.

FIG. 7 shows a screen in which a pair of safety improvement measure names are included in the display screen shown in FIG. For example, of the four security improvement measure names “F1” to “F4”, a pair of safety improvement measure names “F1” and “F2” are compared. Although not shown, a pair of safety improvement measure names “F1” and “F3” can be set, a pair of safety improvement measure names “F1” and “F4” can be compared, and two safety improvement measures can be performed. Measure names “F2” and “F3” can be compared, a pair of safety improvement measure names “F2” and “F4” can be compared, and a pair of security improvement measure names “F3” and “F4” can be compared. obtain.

Returning to the description of FIG. 3, the acquisition unit 21 sets, for each evaluation index, a parameter indicating the superiority or inferiority of the pair of safety improvement measure names set in step ST5 (for example, a vector element indicating a difference as a vector direction). , And the output unit 24 displays the acquired vector element on the display unit 18 (step ST6). The output unit 24 may print out the vector element acquired in step ST6 using the printer 19.

FIG. 8 is a diagram showing an example of a display screen for displaying the vector element of each evaluation index.

FIG. 8 shows a screen in which the vector elements input for each evaluation index are included in the display screen shown in FIG. The operator can input vector elements "V1" to "V21" at positions corresponding to "vector elements" while looking at the display screen shown in FIG.

As shown in FIG. 8, consider a case where a pair of safety improvement measures “F1” and “F2” are compared. For example, as a vector element of each evaluation index, when the safety improvement measure “F1” is superior to the safety improvement measure “F2”, a vector indicating that the safety improvement measure “F1” is superior If the safety improvement measure "F1" is inferior to the safety improvement measure "F2", the element "+1" is replaced with "-1" indicating that the safety improvement measure "F1" is inferior. If they are equal, "0" is input.

Returning to the explanation of FIG. 3, the evaluation means 23 multiplies the vector element of each evaluation index with respect to the pair of safety improvement measures set in step ST5 by the weight of each evaluation index, to thereby obtain the pair of security. A relative evaluation value of effectiveness (hereinafter, referred to as “individual evaluation value”) when comparing the improvement measures is calculated, and the output unit 24 displays the individual evaluation value on the display unit 18 (step ST7). The output unit 24 may print out the individual evaluation value obtained in step ST7 using the printer 19.

The evaluation means 23 sums the individual evaluation values of the respective evaluation indexes calculated in step ST7 to obtain a relative evaluation value of effectiveness when comparing a pair of safety improvement measures (hereinafter, referred to as “entire evaluation value”). "), and the output means 24 displays the overall evaluation value on the display unit 18 (step ST8). The output unit 24 may print out the overall evaluation value obtained in step ST8 using the printer 19.

FIG. 9 is a diagram showing an example of a display screen for displaying the evaluation value of the effectiveness of the safety improvement measures.

FIG. 9 shows the relative individual evaluation value “Ri” of the i-th evaluation index and the pair of safety improvement measures “F1” when comparing the pair of safety improvement measures “F1” and “F2”. The display screen containing the relative whole evaluation value S when "F2" is compared is shown. The individual evaluation value “Ri” of each evaluation index is obtained by multiplying the weight “Wi (or wi)” of each evaluation index by the vector element “Vi” of each evaluation index.

By outputting the individual evaluation value “Ri” as shown in FIG. 9, the safety evaluation system 1 uses a pair of safety improvement measures “F1”, “F1” and “ The merits of introducing any of the safety improvement measures of “F2” can be evaluated and presented to the operator. The operator can visually recognize the relative individual evaluation value “Ri” of each evaluation index when comparing the pair of safety improvement measures “F1” and “F2” with a list.

On the other hand, the overall evaluation value “S” is obtained by summing the plurality of individual evaluation values “R1” to “R21” related to all evaluation indexes.

By outputting the overall evaluation value "S" as shown in FIG. 9, the safety evaluation system 1 uses a pair of safety improvement measures "F1", "F1" and " The merits of introducing any of the safety improvement measures of “F2” can be evaluated and presented to the operator. The operator can visually recognize the relative overall evaluation value when comparing the pair of safety improvement measures “F1” and “F2”.

Returning to the explanation of FIG. 3, the evaluation means 23 determines whether or not the comparison has been completed for all pairs composed of the plurality of safety improvement measures acquired in step ST1 (step ST9). For example, the evaluation unit 23 compares a pair of safety improvement measure names “F1” and “F2” among the four safety improvement measure names and a pair of safety improvement measure names “F1” and “F3”. And a pair of safety improvement measure names “F1” and “F4”, a pair of safety improvement measure names “F2” and “F3”, and a pair of safety improvement measure names “F2” It is determined whether or not the comparison of “F4” and the comparison of the two security improvement measure names “F3” and “F4” are all completed.

When the determination in step ST9 is NO, that is, when it is determined that the comparison has not been completed for all the pairs composed of the plurality of safety improvement measures acquired in step ST1, the acquisition means 21 determines that the comparison has not been completed. The pair of safety improvement measures is set, and the output means 24 displays the set pair of safety improvement measures on the display unit 18 (step ST5).

On the other hand, if the result of the determination in step ST9 is YES, that is, if it is determined that the comparison has been completed for all pairs of the plurality of safety improvement measures acquired in step ST1, the process proceeds to FIG. The evaluation unit 23 compares the evaluation values (individual evaluation value or overall evaluation value) calculated in step ST8, and the output unit 24 displays the comparison result on the display unit 18 (step ST10). The output unit 24 may print the comparison result obtained in step ST10 using the printer 19.

FIG. 10: is a figure which shows an example of the display screen for displaying the comparison result of the effectiveness of each safety improvement measure.

As shown in FIG. 10, when a pair of safety improvement measures “F1” and “F2” are compared, the safety improvement measure “F1” is used as a reference and the safety improvement measure “F2” is used as a partner. .. The evaluation value of the effectiveness of the safety improvement measure “F1” with respect to the safety improvement measure “F2” is the overall evaluation value “S” shown in FIG. Efficacy evaluation values are also required for the comparison of other security improvement measures. The evaluation value of the effectiveness of the safety improvement measure “F2” with respect to the safety improvement measure “F1” is “−S”.

Returning to the explanation of FIG. 4, the order determining means 25 determines the order of effectiveness of each safety improvement measure based on the evaluation value (individual evaluation value or overall evaluation value) calculated in step ST8, and outputs the result. The means 24 displays the determined rank on the display unit 18 (step ST11). The output unit 24 may print out the rank of effectiveness of each safety improvement measure determined in step ST11 using the printer 19.

For example, the order determination means 25 synthesizes the points according to the difference in the evaluation value of each safety improvement measure when compared with other safety improvement measures, and ranks the effectiveness of each safety improvement measure. decide. Specifically, the order determining means 25 determines “win” when the difference between the evaluation values of the respective safety improvement measures in comparison with other safety improvement measures is positive, and determines that the difference is negative. If it is "lost" and the difference is zero, it is considered as "draw". Then, the ranking determination means 25 calculates the number of wins, the number of losses, and the number of draws for each safety improvement measure, and based on the number of wins, the number of losses, and the number of draws, improves the respective safety by Calculate the points for the strategy. The rank determining means 25 determines the rank of each safety improvement measure based on the size of the points won by each safety improvement measure.
Points = Number of wins x 2 + Number of losses x 0 + Number of draws x 1

FIG. 11 is a diagram showing an example of a display screen for displaying the rank of effectiveness of each safety improvement measure.

Returning to the description of FIG. 4, the order determining means 25 determines whether the order of each safety improvement measure can be determined, that is, whether the same order does not exist (step ST12). If the determination in step ST12 is NO, that is, if it is determined that the order of each safety improvement measure has not been determined, the evaluation unit 23 uses one or a plurality of evaluation indices with the minimum standardized weight (or simple weight). After excluding (step ST13), individual evaluation values are calculated again for each of the remaining evaluation indexes for the pair of safety improvement measure names (step ST7). When excluding one or a plurality of evaluation indexes having the smallest standardized weight (or simple weight), the evaluation unit 23 may set the weight related to the evaluation index to “0”.

On the other hand, if YES in the determination in step ST12, that is, if it is determined that the order of each safety improvement measure has been determined, the safety evaluation system 1 ends the operation.

In addition, in step ST5, the evaluation means 23 is described as calculating the relative evaluation value of the pair of safety improvement measures by comparing the pair of safety improvement measures, but the invention is not limited thereto. is not. For example, the evaluation means 23 may calculate the relative evaluation value of three or more safety improvement measures by comparing three or more safety improvement measures. For example, when calculating the relative evaluation values of the three security improvement measures, the vector element indicating the superiority or inferiority of the first security improvement measure is superior to the second and third security improvement measures. It may be determined by comparison with the person who is present.

Further, as the “plant”, a nuclear power plant including a nuclear power plant is assumed, but it can be applied to a thermal power plant including a thermal power plant, a chemical plant, or the like.

According to at least one embodiment described above, in addition to the conventional evaluation index, the evaluation index incorporating a sociological viewpoint can be used to evaluate the merit of introducing the plant safety improvement measure. Further, even if the absolute value of each evaluation index in the safety improvement measure is not known, the superiority or inferiority of the evaluation index can be evaluated by the paired comparison of the safety improvement measures, which is advantageous in that the safety improvement measures can be ranked.

Although some embodiments of the present invention have been described, these embodiments are presented as examples and are not intended to limit the scope of the invention. These embodiments can be implemented in various other forms, and various omissions, replacements, and changes can be made without departing from the spirit of the invention. The embodiments and their modifications are included in the scope of the invention and the scope thereof, and are included in the invention described in the claims and the scope of equivalents thereof.

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 1... Safety evaluation system, 11... Information processing part, 21... Acquisition means, 22... Weight setting means, 23... Evaluation means, 24... Output means, 25... Rank determination means.

Claims (13)

A safety evaluation system for evaluating the effectiveness of a plurality of safety improvement measures in a plant,
Weight setting means for setting a weight for each evaluation index of a plurality of evaluation indices including an evaluation index incorporating a sociological viewpoint of the plant,
A parameter indicating superiority or inferiority when comparing the plurality of safety improvement measures is set for each evaluation index, and an evaluation unit that calculates an individual evaluation value for each evaluation index based on the weight and the parameter,
Output means for outputting a plurality of individual evaluation values corresponding to the plurality of evaluation indexes from the display unit or the printer as evaluation values;
A safety evaluation system comprising: The evaluation index that incorporates the sociological viewpoint of the plant includes economic damage, mental damage, reputational damage, the necessity of evacuation of neighboring residents, reliability of nuclear technology, and social acceptance. Including at least one of
The safety evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein: The weight setting means adopts, as the weight of each evaluation index, a simple weight of each evaluation index or a standardized weight obtained by normalizing the simple weight,
The safety evaluation system according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that. The evaluation means calculates, as the evaluation value, an overall evaluation value which is a sum of a plurality of individual evaluation values corresponding to the plurality of evaluation indexes.
The safety evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein: Based on the evaluation value, further has a ranking determination means for determining the ranking of each of the safety improvement measures,
The output unit causes the display unit or the printer to output the order of the safety improvement measures.
The safety evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 4, wherein: The rank determining means integrates the respective safety improvement measures of the plurality of safety improvement measures by allocating points according to the difference in evaluation value when compared with other safety improvement measures to improve the respective safety improvement measures. Determine the order of effectiveness of the measures,
The safety evaluation system according to claim 5, wherein: The ranking determination means,
Each safety improvement measure of the plurality of safety improvement measures is a win when the difference in evaluation value when compared with other safety improvement measures is positive, and a loss when the difference is negative , If the difference is zero, calculate the number of wins, losses and draws as draws,
Calculating the number of points for each of the safety improvement measures based on the number of wins, the number of losses, and the number of draws;
Deciding the order of the respective safety improvement measures based on the size of the points of the respective safety improvement measures,
The safety evaluation system according to claim 6, wherein: The evaluation means calculates an individual evaluation value for each of the remaining evaluation indexes excluding the evaluation index having the smallest weight, when the order of the respective safety improvement measures cannot be determined by the order determination means.
The safety evaluation system according to any one of claims 5 to 7, wherein: The plant is a nuclear plant including a nuclear power plant,
The safety evaluation system according to claim 3, 6 or 7, characterized in that. A safety evaluation method for evaluating the effectiveness of a plurality of safety improvement measures in a plant,
For each evaluation index of the plurality of evaluation indices including the evaluation index that incorporates the sociological viewpoint of the plant, set a weight,
Setting parameters indicating the superiority or inferiority when comparing the plurality of safety improvement measures for each evaluation index,
Calculating an individual evaluation value for each evaluation index based on the weight and the parameter,
Outputting a plurality of individual evaluation values corresponding to the plurality of evaluation indexes from a display unit or a printer as evaluation values,
A safety evaluation method characterized by the following. The evaluation index that incorporates the sociological viewpoint of the plant includes economic damage, mental damage, reputational damage, the necessity of evacuation of neighboring residents, reliability of nuclear technology, and social acceptance. Including at least one of
The safety evaluation method according to claim 10, wherein: On the computer,
A function to set weight to each evaluation index of multiple evaluation indices including the evaluation index that incorporates the sociological viewpoint of the plant,
With a function of setting a parameter indicating superiority or inferiority when comparing a plurality of safety improvement measures for each of the evaluation indicators,
A function of calculating an individual evaluation value for each evaluation index based on the weight and the parameter,
A function of outputting a plurality of individual evaluation values corresponding to the plurality of evaluation indexes from a display unit or a printer as evaluation values;
A safety evaluation program that realizes the following. The evaluation index that incorporates the sociological viewpoint of the plant includes economic damage, mental damage, reputational damage, the necessity of evacuation of neighboring residents, reliability of nuclear technology, and social acceptance. Including at least one of
The safety evaluation program according to claim 12, wherein:

Images