Results and insights from level-1 probabilistic safety assessments for nuclear power plants in France, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States

Werner, W.; Hirano, Mitsumasa; Kondo, Shunsuke; Johanson, Gunnar; Lanore, Jeanne-Marie; Murphy, Joseph; Schmocker, U.

doi:10.1016/0951-8320(95)00016-u

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The CDF for new designs is typically two to three orders of magnitude below the INSAG limit. Gen III/III+ BWR designs tend to have a smaller CDF than PWR designs, as already happens for current reactors [7]. Specific CDF values for Gen III/III+ designs will be presented later.…”

Section: Safety Features Of Generation Iii/iii+ Fission Reactorsmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…Figure 22.1 shows a graphical representation of CDF values (in events per reactor-year) for typical Gen III/III+ PWR and BWR designs, compared with the NRC requirement for current plants, a typical value for current plants, and the INSAG limit. The CDF value taken as representative for current plants is 5 × 10 −5 events per reactor-year, even if this is subjected to large variations by design and country [7]. The CDF for new designs is typically two to three orders of magnitude below the INSAG limit.…”

Section: Safety Features Of Generation Iii/iii+ Fission Reactorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Review of Generation‐III/III+ Fission Reactors

Marques

2011

Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Safety Features Of Generation Iii/iii+ Fission Reactorsmentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Safety Features Of Generation Iii/iii+ Fission Reactorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of Generation‐III/III+ Fission Reactors

Marques

2011

Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The belief that digitalized control room safety can be improved by analysis of human error or inappropriate human behaviors by an average of 60% and up to 85% of accidents in the NPP results from Werner et al (1995), and subsequently correcting the one factor that led to that accident rests on the assumption that operators can, and do, follow normative instructions of how to perform work, and that it is possible to predict up front how the operator might behave in certain situations. This study applied the analytic process of the proposed model to a MCR of the target system (see Figure 2).…”

Section: Team Errors Analysis In the Digitalized Control Roommentioning

confidence: 98%

“…According to Werner et al (1995), an average of 60% and up to 85% of accidents in nuclear power plants (NPP) result from inappropriate human behaviors. Therefore reducing system accidents resulting from human behaviors is critical for ensuring the safe operation of NPPs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Team error analysis in a digitalized control room by using a novel crew reliability model

Yang

Yenn

Lin

2011

Hum Ftrs & Erg Mfg Svc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is designed to develop a crew reliability model (CRM) for analyzing human errors in a digitalized control room. Human-system interfaces (HSIs) in the main control room (MCR) recently have changed most significantly with the digitalization of HSIs. Ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants (NPPs) is an important driver of these changes. Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) is one of the most common methods to respond to these changes. Analysis of the system, structure and components, as well as that of humans, is equally important in the PRA. PRA uses human reliability analysis (HRA) to assess human risk. HRA tools can be classified into first and second generations. However, neither of these generations emphasizes the investigation of crew tasks. This study thus further explores teamwork concepts in the HRA method. This study developed a crew reliability model. Finally, this study implemented an example of the digitalized MCR to describe the CRM procedures. C 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

“…This recommendation has been widely adopted both by utilities and manufacturers for new NPPs . The CDF value taken as representative for current plants is 5×10 −5 events per reactor‐year, even if this is subjected to large variations by design and country …”

Section: Prevention and Mitigation Of Severe Accidentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental characteristics of the current Generation III nuclear power plants

Marques

2013

WIREs Energy & Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The environmental impact of electricity generation sources can be generically characterized by their use of natural resources, the thermal pollution they cause, and their emissions of chemical pollutants and radionuclides. Nuclear power plants generate concern regarding their radioactive emissions, which are often poorly understood. A presentation is made of the known data on the environmental impact of pre-Gen III nuclear power plants during normal operation and as a consequence of severe accidents. The radiation doses received by the public and exposed workers as a consequence of nuclear power are compared with the ones because of natural radioactivity and medical applications. The characteristics of the new Gen III reactors which will bring significant improvements to the environmental impact of nuclear power generation are discussed in detail. C 2013 John

show abstract

Results and insights from level-1 probabilistic safety assessments for nuclear power plants in France, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States

Cited by 13 publications

References 1 publication

Review of Generation‐III/III+ Fission Reactors

Review of Generation‐III/III+ Fission Reactors

Team error analysis in a digitalized control room by using a novel crew reliability model

Environmental characteristics of the current Generation III nuclear power plants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About