Evaluation of Containment Failure Probability by Ex-Vessel Steam Explosion in Japanese LWR Plants

Abstract

The containment failure probability due to ex-vessel steam explosions was evaluated for Japanese BWR and PWR model plants. A stratified Monte Carlo technique (Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS)) was applied for the evaluation of steam explosion loads, in which a steam explosion simulation code JASMINE was used as a physics model. The evaluation was made for three scenarios: a steam explosion in the pedestal area or in the suppression pool of a BWR model plant with a Mark-II containment, and in the reactor cavity of a PWR model plant. The scenario connecting the generation of steam explosion loads and the containment failure was assumed to be displacement of the reactor vessel and pipings, and failure at the penetration in the containment boundary. We evaluated the conditional containment failure probability (CCFP) based on the preconditions of failure of molten core retention within the reactor vessel, relocation of the core melt into the water pool without significant interference, and a strong triggering at the time of maximum premixed mass. The obtained mean and median values of the CCPF were 6:4Â10 À2 (mean) and 3:9Â10 À2 (median) for the BWR suppression pool case, 2:2Â10 À3 (mean) and 2:8Â10 À10 (median) for the BWR pedestal case, and 6:8Â10 À2 (mean) and 1:4Â10 À2 (median) for the PWR cavity case. The evaluation of CCFPs on the basis of core damage needs consideration of probabilities for the above-mentioned preconditions. Thus, the CCFPs per core damage should be lower than the values given above. The specific values of the probability were most dependent on the assumed range of melt flow rate and fragility curve that involved conservatism and uncertainty due to simplified scenarios and limited information.

Nuclear Power - Operation, Safety and Environment

“…To be able to perform a series of simulations of different ex-vessel steam explosion scenarios, the reactor cavity was modelled in a simplified 2D geometry, as is common practise (Meignen et al, 2003;Kawabata, 2004;Esmaili and Khatib-Rahbar, 2005;Moriyama et al, 2006;OECD/NEA, 2007). The 2D geometry has to be appropriately defined to assure that the 2D simulation results reflect qualitatively and quantitatively as closely as possible the conditions in a real 3D reactor cavity.…”