ISSUES IN FORMULATING PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACHES TO REGULATORY OVERSIGHT OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

  • YOUNGBLOOD R. W. (Information Systems Laboratories) ;
  • KIM I. S. (Information Systems Laboratories)
  • Published : 2005.06.01

Abstract

In recent decades, significant effort has led to risk-informed improvements to regulation. Performance-based approaches also promise significant gains in efficiency (level of safety versus effort). However, significant work remains to be done before performance-based approaches realize their full potential in regulation of nuclear power plants. This paper reviews key concepts related to performance-based regulation, discusses some applications of performance-based approaches, and identifies issues that still need to be addressed. Realistic, experience-based models of licensee performance are still lacking; this makes it difficult to assess the prospective effectiveness of any given regulatory approach, in light of the performance issues that it will actually face. Also, while 'compliance' is an intuitively straightforward concept to apply within a prescriptive implementation, its analog in a performance-based approach remains unclear. An overarching theme of the paper is that formal methods of decision analysis are very helpful in developing appropriate regulatory approaches, especially performance-based ones; this theme is illustrated at several points.

References

  1. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50.
  2. 'Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, LWR Edition,' Regulatory Guide 1.70, Rev. 3, USNRC (Nov. 1978).
  3. 'Standard Review Plan,' NUREG-0800, USNRC (July 1981)
  4. 'Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U. S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants,' WASH-1400 (NUREG 75/014), USNRC (1975).
  5. 'Requirements for reduction of risk from anticipated transients without scram (ATWS) events for light-water-cooled nuclear power plants,' U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR 50.62.
  6. 'Loss of all alternating current power,' U. S. Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR 50.63.
  7. 'Additional TMI-Related Requirements,' U. S. Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR 50.34 (f).
  8. I.S. Kim, S. Martorell, W.E. Vesely, and P.K. Samanta, 'Risk Analysis of Surveillance Requirements Including Their Adverse Effects,' Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 45, 3, 225 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(94)90139-2
  9. P.K. Samanta, I.S. Kim, T. Mankamo, and W.E. Vesely, 'Handbook of Methods for Risk-Based Analyses of Technical Specifications,' NUREG/CR-6141, BNL-NUREG-52398 (Dec. 1994).
  10. I.S. Kim, P.K. Samanta, F.M. Reinhart, and M.L. Wohl, 'Application of PSA to Define Technical Specifications for Advanced Nuclear Power Plants,' Proc. Int. Conf. Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA'95), Seoul, Korea, November 26-30, 1995.
  11. I.S. Kim, 'Improving Technical Specifications from a Risk Perspective,' Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 54, 1 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(96)00090-7
  12. 'Individual Plant Examination for Severe Accident Vulne-rabilities - 10 CFR 50.54(f),' Generic letter No. 88-20, USNRC (1988).
  13. 'An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis,' Regulatory Guide 1.174, Rev. 1, USNFC (2002).
  14. 'An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: Inservice Testing,' Regulatory Guide 1.175, USNRC (1997).
  15. 'An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: Graded Quality Assurance,' Regulatory Guide 1.176, USNRC (1997).
  16. 'An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: Technical Specifications,' Regulatory Guide 1.177, USNRC (1997).
  17. 'An Approach for Plant-Specific Risk-Informed Decisionmaking for Inservice Inspection of Piping,' Regulatory Guide 1.178, Rev. 1, USNRC (2003).
  18. Industry White Paper, 'Enhancing Nuclear Plant Safety and Reliability Through Risk-Based and Performance-Based Regulation,' NEI 96-04, Nuclear Energy Institute (May 1996).
  19. N.P. Kadarnbi, 'Guidance for Performance-Based Regulation,' NUREG/BR-0303, USNRC (2002).
  20. 'Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Regulation,' Attachment to SECY 98-144, 'White Paper on Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Regulation,' USNRC (1998).
  21. E.R. Schmidt et aI., 'Risk Analysis and Evaluation of Regulatory Options for Nuclear Byproduct Material Systems,' NUREG/CR-6642, USNRC (2000).
  22. N.Z. Cho, I.A. Papazoglou, and R.A. Bari, 'A Methodology for Allocating Reliability and Risk,' NUREG/CR-4048, USNRC (1986).
  23. 'An Approach to Quantitative Safety Goals for Nuclear Power Plants,' NUREG/CR-0739, USNRC (1980).
  24. R.W. Youngblood and R.B. Worrell, 'Top Event Prevention in Complex Systems,' Proc. 1995 Joint ASME/JSME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conf., PVP-Vol. 296, SERA-Vol. 3, 'Risk American Society of mechanical Engineers, New York, New York 10017 (July 1995).
  25. R.W. Youngblood, 'Applying Risk Models to Formulation of Safety Cases,' Risk Analysis 18, 433-444, Blackwell Publishing (1998). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb00358.x
  26. R.B. Worrell and D.P. Blanchard, 'Top Event Prevention Analysis - A Deterministic Use of PRA,' Proc. Int. Conf. Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA'95), Seoul, Korea, November 26-30, 1995.
  27. R.A. White and D.P. Blanchard, 'Development of a Risk-Informed IST Program at Palisades Using Top Event Prevention,' Proc. $10^th$ Int. Conf. Nuclear Engineering (ICONE 10), Arlington, VA, April 14-18, 2002.
  28. S. M. Wong, J. Chung, and P. Wilson, 'PRA Applications and Technical Issues in NRC Maintenance Rule Baseline Inspections,'' Proc. Int. Conf. Probabilistim Safety Assessment Methodology and Applications (PSAM 4), New York, New York, Sept. 13-18, 1998.
  29. R.T. Clemen, Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis, $2^nd$ed., Duxbury Press (1996).
  30. R. L. Keeney, Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking, Harvard University Press (1992).
  31. 'Recommendations for Reactor Oversight Process Improvements,' SECY 99-007, USNRC (1999).
  32. R.W. Youngblood, R.N.M. Hunt, and E.R. Schmidt, 'Elements of an Approach to Performance-Based Oversight,' NUREG/CR-5392, USNRC (1998).
  33. 'Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants,' U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR 50.62.
  34. H.G. Harnzehee, R.W. Youngblood, S.A. Eide, et al., 'Risk-Based Performance Indicators: Results of Phase I Development,' NUREG-1753, USNRC (2002).
  35. D. A. Dube, C. L. Atwood, S. A. Eide, B. B. Mrowca, R. W. Youngblood, D. P. Zeek,, 'Independent Verification of the Mitigating Systems Performance Index (MSPI) Results for the Pilot Plants, Final Report,' NUREG-1816, USNRC (2005).
  36. C.L. Atwood, 'Constrained Noninformative Priors in Risk Assessment,' Reliability Engineering and System Safety 53, 1, 37 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(96)00026-9
  37. C.L. Atwood and R.W. Youngblood, 'Application of Mixture Priors to Assessment of Performance,' Proc. Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM 7 - ESREL'04), June14-18. Berlin, 1, 444 (2004).
  38. R.W. Youngblood and C.L. Atwood, 'Mixture priors for Bayesian performance monitoring 1: Fixed-Constituent Model,' Reliability Engineering & System Safety 89, 2, 151 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2004.08.015
  39. C.L. Atwood and R.W. Youngblood, 'Mixture priors for Bayesian performance monitoring 2: Variable-Constituent Model,' Reliability Engineering & System Safety 89, 2, 164 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2004.08.016
  40. S.A. Eide, 'Characteristics of Nuclear Power Plant Degraded Performance,' Proc. Int. Conf. Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA'05), San Francisco, CA, September 11-15,2005.
  41. J.A. Swets, R.M. Dawes, and J. Monahan, 'Psychological Science Can Improve Diagnostic Decisions,' Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1:1-26 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.001
  42. R.W. Youngblood and C.L. Atwood, 'Alternative Decision Rules for Assessing Performance,' Proc. Int. Conf. Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA '02), Detroit, Michigan, October 6-9, 2002.
  43. M. Khatib-Rahbar, H. Erikson, and R.T. Sewell, 'A New Approach to Development of a Risk-Based Safety Performance Monitoring System for Nuclear Power Plants,' Specialist Meeting on Safety Performance Indicators, Madrid, Spain, October 17-19, 2000.