Risk Importance Measures in the Design and Operation of Nuclear Power Plants

Vrbanić, Ivan; Samanta, Pranab; Bašić, Ivica

doi:10.1115/1.861394

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Components with a RAW value equal to or greater than 2, CCF RAW value equal to or greater than 20, or FV equal to or greater than 0.005 were considered to be of significant risk [5].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of the Reliability Assurance Program in a Brazilian nuclear power plant subsidized by a Reliability, Availability and Maintainability Model

Gomes,

Neto,

Maturana

et al. 2023

Braz. J. Rad. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main objective of this work is to present a methodology for the development of a Reliability Assurance Program (RAP) specific to a PWR experimental nuclear installation, through the analysis of the installation and the development of a preliminary RAP subsidized by a Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM) model. The study of an evaluation was carried out in the long-term decay heat removal of the studied experimental plant, whose data were used for application of the RAP. The necessary steps for applying the developed RAP are followed, using the data from the assessment of the studied plant, resulting in a list of components of significant risk for the Program, and in the following steps of sending the list to the experts panel, ranking of SSCs by the panel and development of the final list of significant risk SSCs for using the list in the optimization of the plant. The RAP subsidized by a RAM model will be able to work with the logical relationships between each component of the plant for their effects on energy generation and with the quantitative prediction of the magnitude of each contributor to the occurrence of high-level events, and the developed methodology can be applicable throughout the experimental plant. In this way, it will be possible to implement the RAP in the plant, which will provide a structured way to meet the regulatory requirements for its licensing. Also, it will be possible to complement the plant safety analysis report, which must contain the RAP.

show abstract

“…Components with a RAW value equal to or greater than 2, CCF RAW value equal to or greater than 20, or FV equal to or greater than 0.005 were considered to be of significant risk [5].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of the Reliability Assurance Program in a Brazilian nuclear power plant subsidized by a Reliability, Availability and Maintainability Model

Gomes,

Neto,

Maturana

et al. 2023

Braz. J. Rad. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a measure of the importance of degradation (e.g., due to aging or environmental conditions), a reliability importance can be considered, which is defi ned as (e.g., Ref. [13] and its references):…”

Section: Reducing Facility's Risk Through Consideration Of Risk-impor...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is easy to show, in Ref. [13], that the RAW and RRW for a particular failure event X are related to each other, with the probability of the considered failure event, P(X), as a parameter. Particularly:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consideration of quantitative risk reduction and risk achievement measures in safe NPP design

Vrbanic,

Basic

2024

Nukleonika

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the models developed by probabilistic safety analyses (PSA) and in their applications associated with nuclear power plants (NPPs), the risk importance of a particular feature can be, most generally, divided into two categories: importance with respect to the risk-increase potential and importance with respect to the risk-decrease potential. A representative measure of the first category is risk achievement worth (RAW), while a representative measure of the second category is risk reduction worth (RRW). The present paper discusses the use of RAW and RRW in achieving safe design and points out some implications of their mutual dependency on the selection of a risk-reduction strategy. A simple example is provided to illustrate the differences between the two basic strategies and point out to the main issues and conclusions.

show abstract

“…This cycle is relatively convoluted, is dependent upon interpretation, and now and again requires extra assessments. Accessibility of measures that can be straightforwardly associated with a segment of a safety system, "component level" significance measures, can work on the utilization of these actions in numerous applications [13].…”

Section: Author Detailsmentioning

confidence: 99%