Advertisement

The Risk from Transients According to Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA)

  • B. John Garrick
  • Vicki M. Bier

Abstract

Transient analysis has been a fundamental part of nuclear safety assessments since the idea of a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction first emerged. The emphasis has changed with the size and type of reactors involved. During the early stages of reactor development, the emphasis was on neutronics; that is, on reactor control and kinetics. The large light water reactors required an understanding of thermal hydraulics during transients, thus shifting the emphasis somewhat from reactor physics considerations to the thermal and pressure response characteristics of the primary system to plant disturbances. Of course, there is the very important area of transient analysis associated with containment and core response following an accident that leads to a damaged core. In the latter category of transient analysis, there are still a number of phenomenological questions at issue. Many of these have to do with the rate and magnitude of rapid pressure increases due to steam generation from the interaction of core debris with water. Some of the concern for these types of transients has subsided with a greater understanding of their contribution to risk. This is because without a simultaneous hydrogen burn, steam spikes in most cases are not likely to cause early overpressure failure of the containment.

Keywords

Pressurize Water Reactor Diesel Generator Probabilistic Risk Assessment Indian Point Boiling Water Reactor 
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. 1.
    Garrick, B. John, “Lessons Learned From First Generation Nuclear Plant Probabilistic Risk Assessments,” Invited paper for Workshop on Low-Probability/High-Consequence Risk Analysis, June 15-17, 1982.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in Nuclear Power Plants,” WASH-1400 (NUREG-75/014), October 1975.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc., “Oyster Creek Probabilistic Safety Analysis: Plant Analysis Update,” GPU Nuclear Corporation, 1982 (unpublished).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc., “Oyster Creek Probabilistic Safety Analysis: Main Report,” Jersey Central Power and Light Company, 1979 (unpublished).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Philadelphia Electric Company, “Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Limerick Generating Station, 1981.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    EG&G Idaho, Inc., “Interim Reliability Evaluation Program: Analysis of the Browns Ferry Unit 1 Nuclear Plant,” NUREG/CR-2802, 1982.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Science Applications, Inc., “Interim Reliability Evaluation Program: Millstone Point Unit 1,” 1982 (preliminary).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Consumers Power Company, “Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Big Rock Point Plant,” 1981.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc., et al, “Zion Probabilistic Safety Study,” Commonwealth Edison, September 1981.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc., et al, “Indian Point Probabilistic Safety Study,” Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., and Power Authority of the State of New York, March 1982.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Science Applications, Inc., “Crystal River 3 Safety Study,” NUREG/CR-2515, 1981.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sandia National Laboratories, “Reactor Safety Study Methodology Applications Program: Calvert Cliffs 2 PWR Power Plant,” NUREG/CR-1659, 1982.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sandia National Laboratories, “Reactor Safety Study Methodology Applications Program: Oconee 3 PWR Power Plant,” NUREG/CR-1659, 1981.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc., “Midland Probabilistic Risk Assessment,” 1983 (unpublished).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc., et al,” Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety Assesment,” PLG-0267, 1983 (draft).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. John Garrick
    • 1
  • Vicki M. Bier
    • 1
  1. 1.Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.IrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations