Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Korean perspective for integrated deterministic-probabilistic safety assessment and its synergetic strategy with conventional methods

  • Gyunyoung Heo (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Dohun Kwon (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyung Hee University)
  • Received : 2023.11.14
  • Accepted : 2024.05.04
  • Published : 2024.10.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The PSA (Probabilistic Safety Assessment) is presented as a method of comprehensively evaluating the types of accidents that can occur at nuclear power plants. One of the key components to obtain technical success was the introduction of event tree analysis, and its strength and weakness has been reviewed and enhanced with the term, for instance, Integrated Deterministic-Probabilistic Safety Assessment (IDPSA) since 1980s. However, the technical and policy maturity of IDPSA appears to have room for improvement: the terminologies need to be arranged internationally, and there are no official standards or guidelines for the method itself. Due to a misperception of IDPSA, there are even concerns that appropriate contribution in risk assessment cannot be made. For this reason, surveys and focus group interviews, sharing development experiences, and the direction of regulation and R&D on IDPSA were conducted targeting PSA experts in Korea. In order to support such process, authors have structured an overview of the development history and technical features of IDPSA. Finally, we will explore the ways to achieve synergy between the deterministic safety analysis and PSA, which may the origin of motivation how to deal with dynamic variability more properly such that an undue risk can be minimized.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Nuclear Safety Research Program through the Korea Foundation Of Nuclear Safety(KoFONS) using the financial resource granted by the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission(NSSC) of the Republic of Korea. (No. 2103081).

References

  1. N. Siu, Probabilistic risk assessment and regulatory decisionmaking: some frequently asked questions, NUREG-2201, United States Nuclear Regulator Commission (2016). 
  2. J. Yang, Current status and strategy for the development of the Korean PSA standard, in: Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM16), 2022. 
  3. H. Lim, D. Kim, S. Han, J. Yang, Development of logical structure for multi-unit probabilistic safety assessment, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 50 (8) (2018) 1210-1216. 
  4. K. Oh, H. Jeon, J. Park, Modelling approaches in KHNP multi-unit PSA project. Transactions of the Korean Nuclear Society Autumn Meeting, 2018. 
  5. C. Smith, et al., A Framework to Expand and Advance Probabilistic Risk Assessment to Support Small Modular Reactors, Idaho National Lab(INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States), 2012. No. INL/EXT-12-27345. 
  6. J. Beal, et al., An algorithm for risk-informed analysis of advanced nuclear reactors with a case study of pipe failure rate estimation, in: 30th European Safety and Reliability Conference, ESREL 2020 and 15th Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference, PSAM, 2020. 
  7. International Atomic Energy Agency, Risk Informed Approach for Nuclear Security Measures for Nuclear and Other Radioactive Material Out of Regulatory Control, IAEA Nuclear Security Series No. 24-G, IAEA, Vienna, 2015. 
  8. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Risk-informed decision-making for nuclear material and waste applications, United States Nuclear Regulator Commission (2008). 
  9. R. Bartel, WASH-1400 (the reactor safety study), Tech. Rep. NUREG/KM-0010, United States Nuclear Regulator Commission (2016). 
  10. W. Keller, M. Modarres, A historical overview of probabilistic risk assessment development and its use in the nuclear power industry: a tribute to the late Professor Norman Carl Rasmussen, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 89 (3) (2005) 271-285. 
  11. G. Apostolakis, T.L. Chu, Time-dependent accident sequences including human actions, Nucl. Technol. 64 (2) (1984) 115-126. 
  12. D.R. Karanki, T. Kim, V.N. Dang, A dynamic event tree informed approach to probabilistic accident sequence modeling: dynamics and variabilities in medium LOCA, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 142 (2015) 78-91. 
  13. G. Heo, et al., Recent research towards integrated deterministic-probabilistic safety assessment in Korea, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 53 (11) (2021) 3465-3473. 
  14. T. Aldemir, Advanced Concepts in Nuclear Energy Risk Assessment and Management, vol. 1, World Scientific, 2018. 
  15. N.E. Wiltbank, C.J. Palmer, Dynamic PRA prospects for the nuclear industry, Front. Energy Res. 9 (2021) 750453. 
  16. R.G. Maidana, et al., Supervised dynamic probabilistic risk assessment: review and comparison of methods, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 230 (2023) 108889. 
  17. S. Kaplan, B.J. Garrick, On the quantitative definition of risk, Risk Anal. 1 (1) (1981) 11-27. 
  18. S. Guarro, D. Okrent, The logic flowgraph: a new approach to process failure modeling and diagnosis for disturbance analysis applications, Nucl. Technol. 67 (3) (1984) 348-359. 
  19. A. Amendola, G. Reina, DYLAM-1: A Software Package for Event Sequence and Consequence Spectrum Methodology, Commission of the European Communities, 1984. No. EUR-9224. 
  20. T. Matsuoka, M. Kobayashi, GO-FLOW: a reliability analysis methodology-its basic concept and applicability, Probabilistic safety assessment and risk management PSA'87 1 (1987). 
  21. P. Vestrucci, R. Santucci, R. Calderan, Monte Carlo simulation of crew responses to accident sequences, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 31 (2) (1991) 129-144. 
  22. C. Acosta, N. Siu, Event trees and dynamic event trees: applications to steam generator tube rupture accidents, Use of probabilistic safety assessment for operational safety (1992). PSA'91. 
  23. J. Devooght, C. Smidts, Probabilistic dynamics as a tool for dynamic PSA, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 52 (3) (1996) 185-196. 
  24. K. Hsueh, A. Mosleh, The development and application of the accident dynamic simulator for dynamic probabilistic risk assessment of nuclear power plants, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 52 (3) (1996) 297-314. 
  25. B. Tombuyses, T. Aldemir, Dynamic PSA of process control systems via continuous cell-to-cell mapping, Probabilistic safety assessment and management PSAM3 1.1 (1996) 1541-1546. 
  26. E. Melendez, A. Perez, J.M. Izquierdo, On the application of the ISA methodology to the study of accident sequence precursors, ESREL 97 (1997). 
  27. J. Peschke, et al., Probabilistic dynamics in level 2 PSA: an application of the stochastic module MCDET with the deterministic dynamic code MELCOR, in: Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM6), 2002. 
  28. A. Hakobyan, et al., A methodology for generating dynamic accident progression event trees for level-2 PRA, in: PHYSOR-2006, ANS Topical Meeting on Reactor Physics, 2006. Vancouver, BC, Canada.
  29. J.M. Izquierdo, et al., SCAIS (simulation code system for integrated safety assessment): current status and applications, Safety, Reliability and Risk Analysis (2008) 159-166. 
  30. H. Chraibi, Dynamic reliability modeling and assessment with PyCATSHOO: application to a test case. PSAM Congress, 2013. 
  31. C. Rabiti, et al., Deployment and Overview of RAVEN Capabilities for a Probabilistic Risk Assessment Demo for a PWR Station Blackout, Idaho National Lab.(INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States), 2013. No. INL/EXT-13-29510. 
  32. E. Zio, Integrated deterministic and probabilistic safety assessment: concepts, challenges, research directions, Nucl. Eng. Des. 280 (2014) 413-419. 
  33. S. Lee, et al., Development of DICE (dynamic integrated consequence evaluation) for procedure coverability studies: conceptual design phase, Korean Nuclear Society Autumn Meeting, Yeosu (2018). 
  34. X. Zheng, et al., Severe accident scenario uncertainty analysis using the dynamic event tree method, in: Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM 14), 2018. 
  35. S. Prescott, C. Smith, L. Vang, EMRALD, dynamic PRA for the traditional modeler, in: Proceedings of the 14th International Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference, 2018. Los Angeles, CA. 
  36. H. Sezen, et al., A computational risk assessment approach to the integration of seismic and flooding hazards with internal hazards, Nucl. Eng. Des. 355 (2019) 110341. 
  37. E. Hofer, et al., Dynamic Event Trees for Probabilistic Safety Analysis, GRS, Garsching, Germany, 2004. 
  38. S. Baek, G. Heo, Development of dynamic integrated consequence evaluation (DICE) for dynamic event tree approaches: numerical validation for a loss of coolant accident, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. (2023) 109425. 
  39. J. Gil, et al., A code for simulation of human failure events in nuclear power plants: SIMPROC, Nucl. Eng. Des. 241 (4) (2011) 1097-1107. 
  40. M.A. Diaconeasa, A. Mosleh, Discrete dynamic event tree uncertainty quantification in the ADS-IDAC dynamic PSA software platform, in: Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM14), 2018. 
  41. W. Jo S, J. Lee, Human reliability evaluation method covering operator action timing for dynamic probabilistic safety assessment, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 241 (2024) 109686. 
  42. D'Auria FRANCESCO, Best estimate safety analysis for nuclear power plants, Uncertainty Evaluation. IAEA Safety Report Series 52 (2008) et al. 
  43. N. Siu, Dynamic PRA for Nuclear Power Plants: Not if but when, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, DRAFT, 2019. Technical Opinion Paper.