Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Generic and adaptive probabilistic safety assessment models: Precursor analysis and multi-purpose utilization

  • Received : 2021.10.22
  • Accepted : 2022.03.08
  • Published : 2022.08.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Motivated by learning from experience and exploiting existing knowledge in civil nuclear operations, we have developed in-house generic Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) models for pressurized and boiling water reactors. The models are computationally light, handy, transparent, user-friendly, and easily adaptable to account for major plant-specific differences. They cover the common internal initiating events, frontline and support systems reliability and dependencies, human-factors, common-cause failures, and account for new factors typically overlooked in many PSAs. For quantification, the models use generic US reliability data, precursor analysis reports, the ETHZ Curated Nuclear Events Database, and experts' opinions. Moreover, uncertainties in the most influential basic events are addressed. The generated results show good agreement with assessments available in the literature with detailed PSAs. We envision the models as an unbiased framework to measure nuclear operational risk with the same "ruler", and hence support inter-plant risk comparisons that are usually not possible due to differences in plant-specific PSA assumptions and scopes. The models can be used for initial risk screening, order-of-magnitude precursor analysis, and other research/pedagogic applications especially when no plant-specific PSAs are available. Finally, we are using the generic models for large-scale precursor analysis that will generate big picture trends, lessons, and insights.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge the continuous support provided by the Gosgen and the Leibstadt nuclear power plants in Switzerland throughout the project.

References

  1. IAEA, Probabilistic Safety Assessment, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Vienna, 1992.
  2. D. Sornette, W. Kroger, S. Wheatley, New Ways and Needs for Exploiting Nuclear Energy, Springer, 2018.
  3. P. Davis, PRA Methods and applications in operational transients, Nucl. Eng. Des. 83 (2) (1984) 225-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(84)90098-0
  4. J. Saleh, E. Saltmarsh, F. Favaro, L. Brevault, Accident precursors, near misses, and warning signs: critical review and formal definitions within the framework of Discrete Event Systems, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 114 (2013) 148-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.01.006
  5. D.J. Jang, H.J. Shim, Development of a regulatory framework for risk-informed decision making, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 52 (1) (2020) 69-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2019.06.029
  6. A. Ayoub, W. Kroger, O. Nusbaumer, D. Sornette, Simplified/harmonized PSA: a generic modeling framework, in: Proceedings of the International Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Analysis (PSA 2019), Charleston, SC, USA, 2019.
  7. IAEA, Probabilistic Safety Assessment, INSAG-6, in Safety series, 1992. Vienna.
  8. S. Epstein, A. Rauzy, Standard Model Representation Format for Probabilistic Safety Assessment. Technical Report, The Open PSA Initiative, 2007-2008.
  9. The Open PSA Initiative, Retrieved from, www.open-psa.org.2021.
  10. E. Melendez, M. S anchez-Perea, C. Queral, J. Mula, A. Hern andez, C. Paris, Standardized probabilistic safety assessment models: first results and conclusions of a feasibility study, in: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM 13), Seoul, Korea, Oct. 2016, pp. 2-7.
  11. J. Holmberg, U. Pulkkinen, Experience from the Comparison of Two PSA-Studies, 2001.
  12. C. Andersson, S. Authen, J.E. Holmberg, User-friendliness and transparency in PSA modelling, in: Proceedings of the International Probabilistic Safety Assessment & Management Conference. Seattle, Washington, USA. 7-11 June, 2010.
  13. T. Friedlhuber, M. Hibti, A. Rauzy, Variant management in a modular PSA, in: Proceedings of the 11th International Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference and the Annual European Safety and Reliability Conference, 2012.
  14. A. Ayoub, W. Kroger, D. Sornette, Generic probabilistic safety assessment models for international precursor analysis applications, in: Proceedings of the International Youth Nuclear Congress, IYNC), 2020.
  15. C.L. Smith, E. Wood, J. Knudsen, Z. Ma, Overview of the SAPHIRE Probabilistic Risk Analysis Software, Idaho National Lab.(INL), Idaho Falls, ID, 2016 (United States).
  16. A. Ayoub, A. Stankovski, S. Wheatley, W. Kroger, D. Sornette, ETHZ Curated Nuclear Events Database, 2020 retrieved from, http://er-nucleardb.ethz.ch/.
  17. A. Ayoub, A. Stankovski, W. Kroger, D. Sornette, The ETH Zurich curated nuclear events database: layout, event classification, and analysis of contributing factors, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 213 (2021), 107781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107781
  18. A. Ayoub, A. Stankovski, W. Kroger, D. Sornette, Precursors and startling lessons: statistical analysis of 1250 events with safety significance from the civil nuclear sector, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. (2021), 107820.
  19. D. Okrent, S. Guarro, Reflections on the study of precursors to potential severe core damage accidents, Nucl. Saf. 24 (6) (1983) 836-850.
  20. J.S. Kim, M.C. Kim, Consistency issues in quantitative safety goals of nuclear power plants in Korea, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 51 (7) (2019) 1758-1764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2019.05.019
  21. A. Rauzy, Notes on computational uncertainties in probabilistic risk/safety assessment, Entropy 20 (3) (2018) 162. https://doi.org/10.3390/e20030162
  22. S. Wheatley, W. Kroger, O. Nusbaumer, D. Sornette, Analysis of precursor accidents in nuclear power, in: Proceedings of the Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference, PSAM), 2018.
  23. S.A. Eide, T.E. Wierman, C.D. Gentillon, D.M. Rasmuson, C.L. Atwood, Industryaverage Performance for Components and Initiating Events at U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR6928, January, 2007.
  24. J.C. Joe, R.B. Shirley, D. Mandelli, R.L. Boring, C.L. Smith, The development of dynamic human reliability analysis simulations for inclusion in risk informed safety margin characterization frameworks, Procedia Manuf. 3 (2015) 1305-1311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.278
  25. E. Dougherty, Technical note, human errors of commission revisited: an evaluation of the ATHEANA approach, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 60 (1998) 71-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00044-6
  26. A.D. Swain, H.E. Guttmann, Handbook of Human-Reliability Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications, Sandia National Labs, 1983. Final report.
  27. R.J. Belles, J.W. Cletcher, D.A. Copinger, B.W. Dolan, J.W. Minarick, M.D. Muhlheim, P.D. Oreilly, S. Weerakkody, H. Hamzehee, Precursors to potential severe core damage accidents: 1997, A status report, NUREG/CR 4674 (1998) 157.
  28. M. Van der Borst, H. Schoonakker, An overview of PSA importance measures, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 72 (3) (2001) 241-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(01)00007-2
  29. S. Hirschberg, G.W. Parry, L. Carlsson, T. Mankamo, A. Mosleh, W.E. Vesely, Procedures for Conducting Common Cause Failure Analysis in Probabilistic Safety Assessment, IAEA, Vienna, 1992.
  30. H. Chatri, G. Johanson, J. Wood, Y. Akl, Recent insights from the international common cause failure data exchange (ICDE) project, in: Proceedings of the 30th European Safety and Reliability Conference and 15th Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference (ESREL2020 PSAM15), 2020.
  31. J.A. Forester, D.B. Mitchell, D.W. Whitehead, Precursors to Potential Severe Core Damage Accidents. A Status Report, 1982-1983, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (United States), 1997.
  32. D.F. Cox, J.W. Cletcher, D.A. Copinger, A.E. Cross-Dial, R.H. Morris, L.N. Vanden Heuvel, B.W. Dolan, J.M. Jansen, J.W. Minarick, W. Lau, Precursors to potential severe core damage accidents: 1992, a status report, in: Main Report and Appendix A, vol. 17, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (United States), 1993.
  33. USNRC, Severe Accident Risks: An assessment of five US commercial nuclear power plants. NUREG-1150, 1989.
  34. W.F. Werner, M. Hirano, S. Kondo, G. Johanson, J.M. Lanore, J.A. Murphy, U. Schmocker, Results and insights from level-1 probabilistic safety assessments for nuclear power plants in France, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 48 (3) (1995) 165-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(95)00016-U
  35. H. Watanabe, S. Sancaktar, S. Dennis, Generic PWR PRA Model (ML19008A133), 2018.
  36. E. Turski, S. Sancaktar, S. Dennis, Generic BWR PRA Model (ML19008A134), 2018.
  37. S. Jang, S. Park, M. Jae, Development of an accident sequence precursor methodology and its application to significant accident precursors, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 49 (2) (2017) 313-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2017.01.014
  38. A. Mosleh, PRA: a perspective on strengths, current limitations, and possible improvements, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 46 (1) (2014) 1-10. https://doi.org/10.5516/NET.03.2014.700