Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Realistic estimation framework of radioactive release distributions into the environment during nuclear power plant accidents

  • Wasin Vechgama (Nuclear and Radiation Safety Division, Korea National University of Science and Technology) ;
  • Jaehyun Cho (Energy Systems Engineering, Chung-Ang University)
  • Received : 2023.10.24
  • Accepted : 2024.03.10
  • Published : 2024.08.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Since the level 2 PSA of OPR-1000 was the requirement for regulatory purposes, Cs-137 release estimation was contained as the Nuclear Safety Act of ROK in which the Cs-137 release frequency exceeding 100 TBq was determined to happen less than 1.0E-6 per year after the Fukushima Daiichi Accident. However, Cs-137 release estimation from the conventional level 2 PSA of OPR-1000 provided uncertainty due to dominant accident sequence consideration. Thus, this study aimed to develop systematic methods through the overall framework to quantify realistic uncertainty concerns of radioactive material release using sensitivity and uncertainty analysis methods and apply them to OPR-1000. This framework helped to quantify confidential value for the Cs-137 release under the BEPU approach using both parametric and non-parametric methods to cover both realistic and conservative points. Uncertainty propagation analysis showed the unexpected uncertainty increase of Cs-137 release exceeding 100 TBq. The non-parametric uncertainty analysis provided higher conservative concerns for safety than the realistic concerns in terms of economics when compared with the parametric uncertainty analysis. Wilks' uncertainty analysis showed the importance to consider conservative Cs-137 release in order to reach the higher safety need. Sensitivity analysis showed reasonable relationships between engineering safety parameters with the Cs-137 release.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the Chung-Ang University Research Grants in 2023. This work is also supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT: Ministry of Science and ICT) (No. RS-2022-00143695). Additionally, the authors must thank the opportunity from Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) assnd Korea National University of Science and Technology (UST) for all facility and time resources in research period.

References

  1. International Atomic Energy Agency, Risk Management: A Tool for Improving Nuclear Power Plant Performance, IAEA, Vienna, Austria, 2001. IAEA-TECDOC1209.
  2. S. Kaplan, B.J. Garrick, On the quantitative definition of risk, Risk Anal. 1 (1981) 1, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01350.x.
  3. S. Mahadevan, S. Sarkar, Uncertainty Analysis Methods, CBP-TR-2009-002, Rev. 0, IAEA, Austria, 2009.
  4. International Atomic Energy Agency, Applications of Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) for Nuclear Power Plants, IAEA, Vienna, Austria, 2001. IAEATECDOC-1200.
  5. International Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Power Reactors in the World, IAEARDS-2/42, IAEA, Vienna, Austria, 2022.
  6. D.G. Kang, S.H. Ahn, Reevaluation of station blackout risk of OPR-1000 nuclear power plant applying combined approach of deterministic and probabilistic method, in: Proceedings of the 16th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal Hydraulics (NURETH-16), 2015. Chicago, IL, August 30 - September 4.
  7. T.J. Kim, Y.J. Cho, H.G. Lim, G.C. Park, Thermal hydraulic analysis for accidents in OPR1000 and evaluation of uncertainty for PSA, in: Proceedings of 20th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 20), 2009. Espoo, Finland, August 9-14.
  8. D.S. Kim, J.H. Park, H.G. Lim, A pragmatic approach to modeling common cause failures in multi-unit PSA for nuclear power plant sites with a large number of units, Reliab Eng Syst 195 (2020) 106739, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106739.
  9. J.H. 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) 8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.04.005.
  10. J.H. Cho, S.H. Lee, Y.S. Bang, S.W. Lee, S.Y. Park, Exhaustive simulation approach for severe accident risk in nuclear power plants: OPR-1000 full-power internal events, Reliab Eng Syst 225 (2022) 108580, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2022.108580.
  11. S.Y. Kim, K.H. Lee, S.Y. Park, S.J. Han, K.I. Ahn, S.W. Hwang, Interfacing between MAAP and MACCS to perform radiological consequence analysis, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 54 (2022) 4, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2021.10.001.
  12. International Atomic Energy Agency, Defence in Depth in Nuclear Safety, A Report by the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG), IAEA, Vienna, Austria, 1996. INSAG-10.
  13. K. Silva, K. Okamoto, Discussion on probability of cesium-137 release exceeding 100 TBq as a part of the consideration of nuclear power plant probabilistic risk criteria for environmental protection, Reliab Eng Syst 180 (2018) 88-93, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2018.07.013.
  14. X. Zheng, H. Itoh, H. Tamaki, Y. Maruyama, An integrated approach to source term uncertainty and sensitivity analyses for nuclear reactor severe accidents, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 53 (2016) 3, https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2015.1044262.
  15. X. Shi, J. Sun, Q. Chen, H. Wang, Uncertainty analysis and its application of radioactive source term of HPR1000 under severe accident, Int J Adv Nucl Reactor Des Technol 3 (2021) 134-138, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jandt.2021.07.004.
  16. H. Park, M. Jae, Uncertainty analysis of source term and off-site consequence for WH600 using MELCOR and WinMACCS, Ann. Nucl. Energy 175 (2022) 109175, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2022.109175.
  17. F.D. Auria, Best estimate plus uncertainty (BEPU): status and perspectives, Nucl. Eng. Des. 352 (2019) 110190, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2019.110190.
  18. Fauske & Associates LLC (FAI), Modular Accident Analysis Program 5.05 (MAAP5.05), Electric Power Research Institute, Washington, DC, 2019.
  19. J.D. Sheskin, Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures, second ed., Chapman& Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2000.
  20. H.G. Lim, S.H. Han, J.J. Jeong, Mosaique - a network based software for probabilistic uncertainty analysis of computerized simulation models, Nucl. Eng. Des. 241 (2011) 5, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.01.021.
  21. International Atomic Energy Agency, Best Estimate Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants: Uncertainty Evaluation, IAEA, Vienna, Austria, 2008. Safety reports series No.52, STI/PUB/1306.
  22. S. Han, T.W. Kim, Numerical experiments on order statistics method based on Wilks' formula for best-estimate plus uncertainty methodology, J. Environ. Manag. 235 (2019) 28-33, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.01.050.
  23. J.D. Chee, Pearson's Product-Moment Correlation: Sample Analysis, University of Hawaii at Manoa School of Nursing, Honolulu, HI, 2015.
  24. Centre for Innovation in Mathematics Teaching. Statistics, Chapter 12 Correlation and Regression, Ingram Publisher Services UK, Plymouth, UK, 2000.
  25. A.A.K. Alhameeda, Spearman's correlation coefficient in statistical analysis, Int. J. Nonlinear Anal. Appl. 13 (2022) 1, https://doi.org/10.22075/ijnaa.2022.6079.
  26. Mathematics Education Centre, Statstutor, Spearman's Correlation. Loughborough, Loughborough University, UK, 2004.
  27. R. Sturm, Theoretical models for dynamic shape factors and lung deposition of small particle aggregates originating from combustion processes, Z. Med. Phys. 20 (2010) 3, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zemedi.2010.04.001.