Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Multi-unit Level 3 probabilistic safety assessment: Approaches and their application to a six-unit nuclear power plant site

  • Received : 2018.03.15
  • Accepted : 2018.09.26
  • Published : 2018.12.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The importance of performing Level 3 probabilistic safety assessments (PSA) along with a general interest in assessing multi-unit risk has been sharply increasing after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) accident. However, relatively few studies on multi-unit Level 3 PSA have been performed to date, reflecting limited scenarios of multi-unit accidents with higher priority. The major difficulty to carry out a multi-unit Level 3 PSA lies in the exponentially increasing number of multi-unit accident combinations, as different source terms can be released from each NPP unit; indeed, building consequence models for the astronomical number of accident scenarios is simply impractical. In this study, a new approach has been developed that employs the look-up table method to cover every multi-unit accident scenario. Consequence results for each scenario can be found on the table, established with a practical amount of effort, and can be matched to the frequency of the scenario. Preliminary application to a six-unit NPP site was carried out, where it was found that the difference between full-coverage and cut-off cases could be considerably high and therefore influence the total risk. Additional studies should be performed to fine tune the details and overcome the limitations of the approach.

Keywords

References

  1. D.-S. Kim, S.H. Han, J.H. Park, H.-G. Lim, J.H. Kim, Multi-unit Level 1 probabilistic safety assessment: Approaches and their application to a six-unit nuclear power plant site, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 50 (2018) 1217-1233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.01.006
  2. J. Cho, S.H. Han, D.-S. Kim, H.-G. Lim, Multi-unit Level 2 probabilistic safety assessment: Approaches and their application to a six-unit nuclear power plant site, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 50 (2018) 1234-1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.04.005
  3. Lowe Pickard, Garrick, Inc, Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety Assessment, PLG-0300, Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc., Washington DC, 1983.
  4. D.W. Hudson, M. Modarres, Multiunit accident contributions to quantitative health objectives: a safety goal policy analysis, Nucl. Technol. 197 (2017) 227-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2016.1273714
  5. D. Chanin, M.L. Young, J. Randall, K. Jamali, Code Manual for MACCS2, User's Guide, NUREG/CR-6613, 1, U.S. NRC, Washington D.C., 1998. SAND97-0594.
  6. U.S. NRC, Reactor Safety Study: an Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, U.S. NRC, Washington D.C., 1975. NUREG- 75/014 (WASH-1400).
  7. NSSC, Notice 2016-2, Nuclear Safety and Security Commission, 2016.
  8. INES, in: The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale User's Manual, 2008 Edition, IAEA, Vienna, 2013.
  9. EPRI, Modular Accident Analysis Program (MAAP5) Version 5.03 - Windows, Fauske & Associates, Inc, 2014.
  10. KAERI, Development of Site Risk Assessment & Management Technology Including Extreme External Events, KAERI, 2017. KAERI/RR-4225/2016.
  11. S.C. Jang, S.Y. Kim, H.G. Lim, W.J. Yi, Development of Korean Off-site Consequence Analysis Code Package, KOSCA-maccs2, Transactions of the Korean Nuclear Society Spring Meeting, Jeju, Korea, May 12-13, 2016.
  12. S.C. Jang, S.J. Han, S.Y. Choi, S.J. Lee, W.S. Kim, Establishment of Infrastructure for Domestic-specific Level 3 PSA Based on MACCS2, Transactions of the Korean Nuclear Society Spring Meeting, Jeju, Korea, May 7-8, 2015.
  13. N.E. Bixler, S.A. Shannon, C.W. Morrow, B.E. Meloche, J.N. Ridgely, SECPOP2000: Sector Population, Land Fraction, and Economic Estimation Program, NUREG/CR-6525, Rev.1, SNL and U.S. NRC, 2003.
  14. N.E. Bixler, J. Jones, D. Osborn, S. Weber, J. Barr, MACCS Best Practices as Applied in the State-of-the-art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) Project, NUREG/CR-7009, U.S. NRC Washington D.C., 2014.
  15. N.E. Bixler, E. Clauss, C.W. Morrow, J.A. Mitchell, C. Navarro, J. Barr, Synthesis of Distributions Representing Important Non-site-specific Parameters in Offsite Consequence Analyses, NUREG/CR-7161, SAND2010-3380P, U.S. NRC Washington D.C., 2013.
  16. R. Chang, J. Schaperow, T. Ghosh, J. Barr, C. Tinkler, M. Stutzke, State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) Report, NUREG-1935, U.S. NRC Washington D.C., 2012.

Cited by

  1. Multi-unit Level 1 probabilistic safety assessment: Approaches and their application to a six-unit nuclear power plant site vol.50, pp.8, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.01.006
  2. Multi-unit Level 2 probabilistic safety assessment: Approaches and their application to a six-unit nuclear power plant site vol.50, pp.8, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.04.005
  3. AIMS-MUPSA software package for multi-unit PSA vol.50, pp.8, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.06.012
  4. Multi-unit risk assessment of nuclear power plants: Current status and issues vol.50, pp.8, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.09.010
  5. Development of logical structure for multi-unit probabilistic safety assessment vol.50, pp.8, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.10.012
  6. Performing a multi-unit level-3 PSA with MACCS vol.53, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.07.034
  7. A preliminary site risk assessment vol.58, pp.7, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2021.1879687
  8. Multi-unit nuclear power plant probabilistic risk assessment: A comprehensive survey vol.213, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107782