Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Multi-unit risk assessment of nuclear power plants: Current status and issues

  • Yang, Joon-Eon (Nuclear Safety & Environmental Research, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute)
  • Received : 2018.07.15
  • Accepted : 2018.09.14
  • Published : 2018.12.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

After the Fukushima-Daiichi accident in 2011, the multi-unit risk, i.e., the risk due to several nuclear power plants (NPPs) in a site has become an important issue in several countries such as Korea, Canada, and China. However, the multi-unit risk has been discussed for a long time in the nuclear community before the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear accident occurred. The regulatory authorities around the world and the international organizations had proposed requirements or guidelines to reduce the multi-unit risk. The concerns regarding the multi-unit risk can be summarized in the following three questions: How much the accident of an NPP in a site affects the safety of other NPPs in the same site? What is the total risk of a site with many NPPs? Will the risk of the simultaneous accidents at several NPPs in a site such as the Fukushima Daiichi accident be low enough? The multi-unit risk assessment (MURA) in an integrated framework is a practical approach to obtain the answers for the above questions. Even though there were few studies to assess the multi-unit risk before the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear accident, there are still several issues to be resolved to perform the complete MURA. This article aims to provide an overview of the multi-unit risk issues and its assessment. We discuss the several critical issues in the current MURA to get useful insights regarding the multi-unit risk with the current state art of probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) technologies. Also, the qualitative answers for the above questions are addressed.

Keywords

References

  1. Y.A.N.G. Joon-Eon, Fukushima Dai-ichi accident: lessoned learned from the risk perspective, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 46 (1) (Feb. 2014).
  2. A. Stutzke, Scoping estimates of multiunit accident risk, in: Proceedings of Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM 12), June 2014 (Honolulu, Hawaii).
  3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Resolution of Generic Safety Issues: Task CH2: Design (NUREG-0933), Washington, D.C, 2011.
  4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR 50, Appendix a - General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants.
  5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reactor Safety Study - an Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants (WASH-1400), Washington, D.C, 1975.
  6. IAEA, Basic Safety Principles for Nuclear Power Plants, 75-INSAG-3 Rev. 1, INSAG-12, 1999.
  7. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR 100.11, Determination of Exclusion Area, Low Population Zone, and Population Centre Distance.
  8. Pickard Lowe, Garrick, Inc, Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety Assessment - Section 13.3 Risk of Two Unit Station, Prepared for Public Service Company of New Hampshire, PLG-0300, 1983.
  9. K.N. Fleming, Application of probabilistic risk assessment to multi-unit sites, in: Presented to the National Academy of Sciences Fukushima Committee, June 24, 2013.
  10. T. Hakata, Seismic PSA method for multiple nuclear power plants in a site, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 92 (2007) 883-894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2006.04.022
  11. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 Accident (NUREG-0660), Washington, D.C, 1980.
  12. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Proposed Commission Policy Statement on Severe Accidents and Related Views on Nuclear Reactor Regulation, SECY-82-1B, Washington, D.C, 1982.
  13. C.W. Carthew, F.A. Knautz, G.T. Chan, The design of the vacuum building for pickering generating station, Nucl. Eng. Des. 23 (2) (November 1972).
  14. S.D. Weerakkody, Results of screening of proposed generic issue PRE-GI-0001, in: Multiunit Core Damage Events," Memorandum, 2013.
  15. Changkyung Seong, Gyunyoung Heo, Sejin Baek, Ji Woong Yoon, Man Cheol Kim, Analysis of the technical status of multiunit risk assessment in nuclear power plants, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 50 (2018).
  16. T.D. Le Duy, D. Vasseur, E. Serdet, Probabilistic safety assessment of twin-unit nuclear sites: methodological elements, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 145 (2016) 250-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.07.014
  17. S. Zhang, J. Tong, J. Zhao, An integrated modeling approach for event sequence development in multi-unit probabilistic risk assessment, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 155 (2016) 147-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.07.008
  18. C.S. Kumar, V. Hassija, K. Velusamy, V. Balasubramaniyan, Integrated risk assessment for multi-unit NPP sites - a comparison, Nucl. Eng. Des. 293 (2015) 53-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.06.025
  19. US NRC, Research Activities FY 2018-2020, NUREG-1925, Rev, vol. 4, 2018.
  20. Joon-Eon Yang, Development of Site Risk Assessment and Management Technology Including Extreme External Events, KAERI/RR-4225/2016, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 2017.
  21. H.-G. Lim, D.-S. Kim, S.H. Han, J.-E. Yang, Development of logical structure for multi-unit probabilistic safety assessment, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 50 (2018) 1210-1216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.10.012
  22. S.H. Han, K. Oh, H.-G. Lim, J.-E. Yang, AIMS-MUPSA software package for multi-unit PSA, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 50 (2018) 1255-1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.06.012
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. S.-Y. Kim, Y.H. Jung, S.H. Han, S.-J. Han, H.-G. Lim, Multi-unit Level 3 probabilistic safety assessment: Approaches and their application to a six-unit nuclear power plant site, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 50 (2018) 1246-1254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.09.019
  26. IAEA International Workshop on the Safety of Multi-unit Nuclear Power Plant Sites against External Natural Hazards, Mumbai, India, October 17-19, 2012.
  27. Shahen Poghosyan, Ovidiu Coman, IAEA activities on multi-unit PSA and risk aggregation, in: International Workshop on Status of Site Level PSA (Including Multi-unit PSA) Development, Munich, July 2018.
  28. Matthias Krause, IAEA coordinated research project on PSA benchmarks for multi-unit/multi-reactor sites, in: International Workshop on Status of Site Level PSA (Including Multi-unit PSA) Development, Munich, July 2018.
  29. Smain Yalaoui, Akl Yolande, WGRISK Site-level PSA Project: Status Update and Preliminary Insights for the Risk Aggregation Focus Area, PSA 2017, Pittsburgh, PA, September 24-28, 2017.
  30. W.S. Jung, Joon-Eo E. Yang, J. Ha, A new method to evaluate alternate AC power source effects in multi-unit nuclear power plants, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 82 (2003) 165-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(03)00140-6
  31. J.J. Ha, Safety goals - for A unit or site?, in: 2001 ANS Winter Meeting, USA, 2001.
  32. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Regulatory Document REGDOC 2.4.2, Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants, 2014.
  33. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, in: Summary Report of the International Workshop on Multi-unit Probabilistic Safety Assessment, 2014.
  34. Lisa Bengtsson, Jan-Erik Holmberg, Jukka Rossi, Michael Knochenhauer, Probabilistic Safety Goals for Nuclear Power Plants, Phases 2-4/Final Report, 2011. Report number: 2010:35 ISSN: 2000-0456.
  35. M.D. Muhlheim, G.F. Flanagan, W.P. Poore III, Initiating Events for Multireactor Plant Sites (ORNL/TM-2014/533), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 2014.
  36. Keisuke Kondo1, Toshio Teragaki1, Hiroshi Abe, Development of Multi-unit Seismic Response Correlation and Level 1 Seismic PRA Model, SMiRT-23, Manchester, United Kingdom - August 10-14, 2015.
  37. Fukushima Nuclear Accident Analysis Report, Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc., 2012. June 20.
  38. S. Schroer, M. Modarres, An event classification schema for evaluating site risk in a multi-unit nuclear power plant probabilistic risk assessment, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 117 (2013) 40-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.03.005
  39. M. James, Acton and Mark Hibbs, Why Fukushima Was Preventable, The Carnegie Papers, Nuclear Policy, March 2012.
  40. Jung Han Kim, Min Kyu Kim, In-Kil Choi, Daegi Hahm, Preliminary research on the quantification of failure frequency by multi-hazard, in: Transactions of the Korean Nuclear Society Autumn Meeting, Gyeongju, Korea, October 26-27, 2017.
  41. Yasushi Okano, Hidemasa Yamano, Study on combination hazard curve of forest fire with lightning and strong wind, in: Asian Symposium on Risk Assessment and Management 2017, PACIFICO Yokohama, Yokohama, Japan, 13 - 15, November 2017.
  42. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Safety Goals for Nuclear Power Plant Operation, (NUREG-0880), Rev. 1, for Comment, Washington, D.C, 1983.
  43. Mohammad Modarres, Probabilistic risk assessment of multi-unit nuclear power plant sites: advances and implication on the safety goals, in: Seminar Presentation, Ohio State University, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, 2016.
  44. Mohammad Modarres, Some misconceptions about multi-unit PSAs, in: International Workshop on Status of Site Level PSA, Munich, Germany, 2018.

Cited by

  1. Emergence of rechargeable seawater batteries vol.7, pp.40, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1039/c9ta08321a
  2. Simplified Approach for Seismic Risk Assessment of Cabinet Facility in Nuclear Power Plants Based on Cumulative Absolute Velocity vol.206, pp.5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2019.1696643
  3. Methodology of seismic-response-correlation-coefficient calculation for seismic probabilistic safety assessment of multi-unit nuclear power plants vol.53, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.07.032
  4. Sensitivity Study on the Correlation Level of Seismic Failures in Seismic Probabilistic Safety Assessments vol.14, pp.10, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/en14102955
  5. A preliminary site risk assessment vol.58, pp.7, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2021.1879687
  6. Development of Dependence Indexes for Multi-Unit Risk Assessment and its Estimation Using Copula vol.213, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107652
  7. 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