Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

St. Germain, S.

Publications and source records attributed to St. Germain, S..

DYNAMIC PRA OF A MULTI-UNIT PLANT

Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) methods couple stochastic methods (e.g., RAVEN, ADAPT, ADS, MCDET) with safety analysis codes (RELAP5-3D, MELCOR, MAAP) to determine risk associated to complex systems such as nuclear plants. Compared to classical PRA methods, which are based on static logic structures (e.g., Event-Trees, Fault-Trees), they can evaluate with higher resolution the safety impact of timing and sequencing of events on the accident progression. Recently, special attention has been given to nuclear plants which consist of multiple units and, in particular, on the safety impact of system dependencies, shared systems and common resources on core damage frequencies. In the literature, while classical PRA methods have been employed to model multi-unit plants, Dynamic PRA methods have never been applied to analyze a full multi-unit model. This paper presents a PRA analysis of a multi-unit plant using Dynamic PRA methods. We employ RAVEN as stochastic method coupled with RELAP5-3D. The plant under consideration consists of the three units and their associated spent fuel pools (SFPs). The studied initiating event is a seismic induced station blackout event. We will describe in detail how the multi-unit plant has been constructed and, in particular, how unit dependencies and shared resources are modeled.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Multi-Unit Considerations for Human Reliability Analysis

This paper uses the insights from the Standardized Plant Analysis Risk-Human Reliability Analysis (SPAR-H) methodology to help identify human actions currently modeled in the single unit PSA that may need to be modified to account for additional challenges imposed by a multi-unit accident as well as identify possible new human actions that might be modeled to more accurately characterize multi-unit risk. In identifying these potential human action impacts, the use of the SPAR-H strategy to include both errors in diagnosis and errors in action is considered as well as identifying characteristics of a multi-unit accident scenario that may impact the selection of the performance shaping factors (PSFs) used in SPAR-H. The lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi reactor accident will be addressed to further help identify areas where improved modeling may be required. While these multi-unit impacts may require modifications to a Level 1 PSA model, it is expected to have much more importance for Level 2 modeling. There is little currently written specifically about multi-unit HRA issues. A review of related published research will be presented. While this paper cannot answer all issues related to multi-unit HRA, it will hopefully serve as a starting point to generate discussion and spark additional ideas towards the proper treatment of HRA in a multi-unit PSA.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

MODIFICATION OF THE SPAR-H METHOD TO SUPPORT HRA FOR LEVEL 2 PSA

Currently, available Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) methods were generally developed to support Level 1 Probabilistic Safety Analysis (PSA) models. There has been an increased emphasis placed on Level 2 PSA in recent years; however, the currently used HRA methods are not ideal for this application, including the SPAR-H method. Challenges that will likely be present during a severe accident such as degraded or hazardous operating conditions, shift in control from the main control room to the technical support center, unavailability of instrumentation, and others are not routinely considered for Level 1 HRA analysis. These factors combine to create a much more uncertain condition to be accounted for in the HRA analysis. While the SPAR-H shaping factors were established to support Level 1 HRA, previous studies have shown it may be used for Level 2 HRA analysis as well. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in a joint project are investigating modifications to the SPAR-H method to create more consistency in applying the performance shaping factors used in the method for Level 2 analysis.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗