1 |
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Summary Report of the International Workshop on Multi-unit Probabilistic Safety Assessment, CNSC, Ontario, Canada, 2014.
|
2 |
Electric Power Research Unit, PWR Spent Fuel Pool Risk Assessment Integration Framework and Pilot Plant Application, EPRI Report 3002002691, EPRI, Palo Alto (CA), 2014.
|
3 |
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Sharing of structures, systems, and components: general design criterion 5, Appendix A to 10 CFR 50, USNRC, Washington DC, 2007.
|
4 |
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Determination of exclusion area, low population zone, and population center distance, 10 CFR 100.11, USNRC, Washington DC, 2002.
|
5 |
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 Accident, NUREG-0660, USNRC, Washington DC, 1980.
|
6 |
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, State-of-the-art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) Report, NUREG-1935, USNRC, Washington DC, 2012.
|
7 |
M.A. Stutzke, Scoping Estimates of Multiunit Accident Risk, Proceedings from Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference (PSAM 12), Honolulu (HI), 2014.
|
8 |
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, License Structure for Multi-module Facilities Related to Small Modular Nuclear Power Reactors, SECY-11-0079, USNRC, Washington DC, 2011.
|
9 |
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Feasibility Study for a Risk-informed and Performance-based Regulatory Structure for Future Plant Licensing, NUREG-1860, USNRC, Washington DC, 2007.
|
10 |
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century: the Near-term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident, USNRC, Washington DC, 2011.
|
11 |
Nuclear Energy Institute, B.5.b Phase 2 & 3 Submittal Guideline, NEI-06-12, Rev. 2, NEI, Washington DC, 2006.
|
12 |
Nuclear Energy Institute, Diverse and Flexible Coping Strategies (FLEX) Implementation Guide, NEI-12-06, Rev. 0, NEI, Washington DC, 2012.
|
13 |
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Options for Proceeding with Future Level 3 Probabilistic Risk Assessment Activities, SECY-11-0089, USNRC, Washington DC, 2011.
|
14 |
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Staff Requirements - SECY-11-0089 - Options for Proceeding with Future Level 3 Probabilistic Risk Assessment Activities, SECY-11-0089, USNRC, Washington DC, 2011.
|
15 |
Pickard Lowe and Garrick, Inc, Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety Assessment - Section 13.3 Risk of Two Unit Station, Prepared for Public Service Company of New Hampshire, PLG0300, Newport Beach, CA, 1983.
|
16 |
K.N. Fleming, On the Issue of Integrated Risk - a PSA Practitioners Perspective, ANS International Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Analysis, San Francisco, CA, 2005.
|
17 |
T. Hakata, Seismic PSA method for multiple nuclear power plants in a site, Rel. Eng. Sys. Saf. 92 (2007) 883-894.
DOI
|
18 |
T.D.L. Duy, D. Vasseur, E. Serdet, Multi Units Probabilistic Safety Assessment: Methodological Elements Suggested by EDF R&D, Proceedings from Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference (PSAM12), Honolulu (HI), 2014.
|
19 |
S. Schroer, M. Modarres, An event classification schema for evaluating site risk in a multi-unit nuclear power plant probabilistic risk assessment, Rel. Eng. Sys. Saf. 117 (2013) 40-51.
DOI
|
20 |
J. Vecchiarelli, K. Dinnie, J. Luxat, Development of a Whole-site PSA Methodology, CANDU Owners Group, COG-13-9034 R0, 2014.
|
21 |
M. Dennis, M. Modarres, A. Mosleh, Framework for Assessing Integrated Site Risk of Small Modular Reactors using Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Simulation, ESREL, Zurich, Switzerland, 2015.
|
22 |
I.S. Kim, Z. Musicki, G. Kelly, Internal Events Level 1 / Level 2 PRA for Spent Fuel Pool of Barakah Nuclear Power Plant, Prepared for for KEPCO E&C, ISSA Technology, Inc., Germantown, Maryland (MD), USA, 2015.
|