Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

RCD success criteria estimation based on allowable coping time

  • Received : 2018.08.16
  • Accepted : 2018.10.24
  • Published : 2019.04.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

When a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) occurs in a nuclear power plant, accident scenarios which can prevent core damage are defined based on break size. Current probabilistic safety assessment evaluates that core damage can be prevented under small-break LOCA (SBLOCA) and steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) with rapid cool down (RCD) strategy when all safety injection systems are unavailable. However, previous research has pointed out a limitation of RCD in terms of initiation time. Therefore, RCD success criteria estimation based on allowable coping time under a SBLOCA or SGTR when all safety injection systems are unavailable was performed based on time-line and thermal-hydraulic analyses. The time line analysis assumed a single emergency operating procedure flow, and the thermal hydraulic analysis utilized MARS-KS code with variables of break size, cooling rate, and operator allowable time. Results show while RCD is possible under SGTR, it is impossible under SBLOCA at the APR1400's current cooling rate limitation of 55 K/hr. A success criteria map for RCD under SBLOCA is suggested without cooling rate limitation.

Keywords

References

  1. IAEA, Development and application of level 1 probabilistic safety assessment for nuclear power plants, Specific safety guide no, SSG 3 (2010).
  2. D.A. Fynan, J. Cho, K.I. Ahn, Cooldown procedure success criteria map for the full break size spectrum of SBLOCA, Nucl. Eng. Des. 326 (2018) 114-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2017.09.022
  3. M.C. Kim, D.W. Jerng, Feasibility analysis of aggressive cooldown in OPR1000 nuclear power plants, Ann. Nucl. Energy 68 (2014) 89-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2014.01.006
  4. Korea Hydro-Nuclear Power, Status Report 83 - Advanced Power Reactor 1400 MWe (APR1400), 2011.
  5. Korea Electric Power Corporation & Korea Hydro-Nuclear Power, Probabilistic Risk Assessment Summary Report, 2013.
  6. J.T. Kim, Overview of Emergency Operating Guideline, Korea Electric Power Corporation, 2016.
  7. J. Kim, J. Kim, J. Park, S.C. Jang, Y.C. Shin, Some empirical insight on diagnostic performance of the operating crew in a computer-based advanced control room, Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. 21 (4) (2011) 379-396. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20241
  8. Korea Hydro-Nuclear Power, Emergency Operating Procedures of Shin-kori Unit 3&4, 2011.
  9. J. Kim, Timeline Analysis of the Operator Actions Based on Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) to Cope with Early Multiple Events/failures of Accident Scenarios, KAERI/TR-4862/2013, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 2013.
  10. J.J. Jeong, K.S. Ha, B.D. Chung, W.J. Lee, Development of a multi-dimensional thermal hydraulic system code, MARS 1.3.1, Ann. Nucl. Energy 26 (1999) 1611-1642. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4549(99)00039-0
  11. W.J. Lee, et al., Development of Nuclear Thermal Hydraulic Verification Test and Evaluation Technology, KAERI/RR-2235/2001, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 2002.
  12. J. Cho, J.H. Park, D.S. Kim, H.G. Lim, Quantification of LOCA core damage frequency based on thermal-hydraulic analysis, Nucl. Eng. Des. 315 (2017) 77-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2017.02.023
  13. Korea Hydro-Nuclear Power, Final Safety Analysis Report of Shin-kori Unit 3&4, 2010.
  14. OECD/NEA, Task Group on Safety Margins Action Plan (SMAP) Final Report 9, NEA/CSNI/R, 2007, 2007.
  15. W. Jung, J. Cho, Modeling of Aggressive Cool Down in a PSA with a Procedural Change 118, Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2018. June 17-21.
  16. M. Kirk, Development of the alternative pressurized thermal shock rule (10 CFR 50.61a) in the United States, Nucl. Eng. Tech. 45 (3) (2013) 277-294. https://doi.org/10.5516/NET.07.2013.704