Advertisement

Risk-Based Inspection and Maintenance

  • Truong V. Vo
  • Kenneth R. Balkey

Abstract

Effective inspection or maintenance programs can play a significant role in minimizing equipment and structural failures. All aspects of inspection/maintenance, that is, scope, method, timing, and acceptance criteria, can significantly affect the likelihood of component failure. Most of the present-day in-service inspection and maintenance requirements are based on prior experience and engineering judgment. At best, some include an implicit consideration of risk (probability of failure times consequence).

Keywords

Nuclear Power Plant Failure Probability Interpretive Structural Modeling Nuclear Regulatory Commission Probabilistic Risk Assessment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ANS (American Nuclear Society) and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) (1983). A Guide to the Performance of Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG/CR-2300. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Google Scholar
  2. ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) (1990). Metal Fatigue in Operating Nuclear Power Plants—a review of Design and Monitoring Requirements, Field Failure Experience, and Recommendations to ASME, Section XI Actions. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.Google Scholar
  3. ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) (1991). Risk-Based Inspection Guidelines—Development of Guidelines, Vol. 1: General Document. New York: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.Google Scholar
  4. ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) (1992a). Risk-Based Inspection Guidelines—Development of Guidelines, Vol. 2, Part 1: Light Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plant Components. New York: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.Google Scholar
  5. ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) (1992b). Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.Google Scholar
  6. ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) (1993). Risk-Based Inspection Guidelines—Development of Guidelines, Vol. 3: Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Power Generating Station Application. New York: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.Google Scholar
  7. Balkey, K. R., and D. O. Harris (1991). Risk-based inspection guidelines: The general process from ASME research efforts. In: Fatigue, Fracture, and Risk 1991. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp. 33–38.Google Scholar
  8. Balkey, K. R., and F. A. Simonen (1991). Risk-based inspection guidelines for nuclear power plant components. In: Transactions of the 11 th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology. Berlin, Germany: International Association for Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology.Google Scholar
  9. Canadian Standards Association (1984). Periodic Inspection of CANDUNuclear Power Plant Components. National Standard of Canada CAN3–N285.4-M83. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Standards Association.Google Scholar
  10. Chapman, O. J. V. (1983). A statistical approach to the analysis of ISI data using the Bayes method. In: Transactions of the 7th SMiRT Conference. Berlin, Germany: International Association for Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology.Google Scholar
  11. Chapman, O. J. V. (1989). Probabilistic-based ISI and life extension. In: Transactions of the 10th SMiRT Confer-ence. Berlin, Germany: International Association for Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology.Google Scholar
  12. Chexal, V. K., and J. S. Horowitz (1989). Flow-assisted corrosion in carbon steel piping. In: Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Plant Systems. Google Scholar
  13. Copeland, J. F., et al. (1987). Component Life Estimation: LWR Structural Materials Degradation Mechanisms. Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research Institute.Google Scholar
  14. Dillstrom, P., E Nilsson, B. Bricxstad, and M. Berman (1992). Application of probabilistic fracture mechanics to allocation of NDT for nuclear pressure vessels: A comparison between initiation and fracture probabilities. In: Fatigue, Fracture, and Risk. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp. 127–132.Google Scholar
  15. Frank, L., W. S. Hazelton, R. A. Hermann, V. S. Noonan, and A. Taboada (1980). Pipe Crack Experience in Light Water Reactors. NUREG-0679. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Google Scholar
  16. Iida, K., A. Kurokawa, and Y. Yamada (1990). Present situation of automatic inspection techniques in Japan. In: Proceedings of the 10th ASM International NDE Conference. Materials Park, Ohio: ASM International.Google Scholar
  17. Lercari, F. A. (1989). Guidance for the Preparation of a Risk Management and Prevention Program. Sacramento, California: California Office of Emergency Services.Google Scholar
  18. Nilsson, F., L. Skanberg, and P. Bystedt (1988). New Swedish regulations for safety of pressurized components. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Nondestructive Evaluation in the Nuclear Industry, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  19. NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) (1975). Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. Report No. WASH-1400 (NUREG-75/014). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Google Scholar
  20. NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) (1979). Investigation and Evaluation of Stress Corrosion Cracking in Piping in Light Water Reactors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Google Scholar
  21. NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) (1988). Individual Plant Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities. Generic Letter 88–20. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Google Scholar
  22. NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) (1989). Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants, Vol. 1. NUREG-1150. Final Summary Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Google Scholar
  23. Platten, J. L. (1984). Periodic (inservice) inspection of nuclear station piping welds, for the minimum overall radiation risk. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Meeting on Thermal Nuclear Reactor Safety, Vol. 1. Karlsruhe, Germany: Nuclear Research Center, pp. 617–625.Google Scholar
  24. Sage, A. P. (1977). Methodology for Large Scale System. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  25. Shah, V. N., and P. E. Mcdonald (1989). Residual Life Assessment of Major Light Water Reactor Components-Overview. NUREG/CR-4731. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Google Scholar
  26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1987). Technical Guidance for Hazard Analysis. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  27. Utility Data Institute (1992). Power Plant Reliability Pioneering Effort by Niagara Mohawk. Washington, D.C.: Utility Data Institute.Google Scholar
  28. Vo, T. V., B. F Gore, E. J. Eschbach, and F. A. Simonen (1989a). Probabilistic risk assessment based guidance for piping in-service inspection. Nuclear Technology 88:13–20.Google Scholar
  29. Vo, T. V., B. F. Gore, and M. S. Harris (1989b). Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1 inspection. Nuclear Technology 84:14–22.Google Scholar
  30. Vo, T. V., B. E Gore, F. A. Simonen, and S. R. Doctor (1990). Development of generic inservice inspection guidance for pressure boundary systems. Nuclear Technology 92(3):291–299.Google Scholar
  31. Vo, T. V., P. G. Heasler, S. R. Doctor, F. A. Simonen, and B. F. Gore (1991). Estimates of component rupture probabilities: expert judgment elicitation. Nuclear Technology 94(1):259–271.Google Scholar
  32. Vo, T. V., et al. (1992). Risk-based inspection for management of aging degradation. In: Proceedings of the Aging Research Information Conference. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Google Scholar
  33. Vo, T. V., B. E Gore, F. A. Simonen, and S. R. Doctor (1993). Development of inservice inspection plans for nuclear components at the Surry-1 Nuclear Power Station. Nuclear Technology 102(3):403–415.Google Scholar
  34. Wheeler, T. A., S. C. Hora, W. R. Cramond, and S. D. Unwin (1989). Analysis of Core Damage Frequency from Internal Events: Expert Judgment Elicitation, Vol. 2. NUREG/CR-4550. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nu-clear Regulatory Commission.Google Scholar
  35. Wright, R. E., J. A. Steverson, and W. F Zuroff (1987). Pipe Break Frequency Estimation for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG/CR-4407. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Truong V. Vo
  • Kenneth R. Balkey

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations