Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Holistic Approach to Multi-Unit Site Risk Assessment: Status and Issues

  • Kim, Inn Seock (Nuclear Engineering Service & Solution Company (NESS), Daejeon Business Agency) ;
  • Jang, Misuk (Nuclear Engineering Service & Solution Company (NESS), Daejeon Business Agency) ;
  • Kim, Seoung Rae (Nuclear Engineering Service & Solution Company (NESS), Daejeon Business Agency)
  • Received : 2016.12.02
  • Accepted : 2017.01.02
  • Published : 2017.04.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The events at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station in March 2011 point out, among other matters, that concurrent accidents at multiple units of a site can occur in reality. Although site risk has been deterministically considered to some extent in nuclear power plant siting and design, potential occurrence of multi-unit accident sequences at a site was not investigated in sufficient detail thus far in the nuclear power community. Therefore, there is considerable worldwide interest and research effort directed toward multi-unit site risk assessment, especially in the countries with high-density nuclear-power-plant sites such as Korea. As the technique of probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) has been successfully applied to evaluate the risk associated with operation of nuclear power plants in the past several decades, the PSA having primarily focused on single-unit risks is now being extended to the multi-unit PSA. In this paper we first characterize the site risk with explicit consideration of the risk associated with spent fuel pools as well as the reactor risks. The status of multi-unit risk assessment is discussed next, followed by a description of the emerging issues relevant to the multi-unit risk evaluation from a practical standpoint.

Keywords

References

  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2006.04.022
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.03.005
  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.

Cited by

  1. Feasibility of shared use of alternative AC diesel generator under dual-unit station blackout vol.54, pp.10, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2017.1359123
  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. Recent activities in the field of Nuclear Operational Management and Nuclear Safety Engineering vol.56, pp.5, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2019.1588802
  4. Assessment of Cesium Compound Behavior during Simultaneous Failure of Reactor Pressure Vessels and Spent Fuel Pools Using Modified ART Mod 2: Fukushima Daiichi Accident Simulation vol.2021, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9975014
  5. 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