Advertisement

Can We Bring Quality of Management into PRAs?

  • D. Okrent
  • S. Arueti
Part of the Advances in Risk Analysis book series (AIRA, volume 6)

Abstract

The basic assumption of this study is that utility and plant corporate management has a significant role in nuclear power plant safety. From this point of view we try to identify paths through which management effectiveness affects plant safety, partly in terms of measurable parameters. Some of the available data is analyzed in light of the proposed parameters, in order to examine possible correlations. As a last step, preliminary proposals are made of methods for including management performance as a variable in future probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) studies.

Keywords

Nuclear power plants quality of management performance indicators probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) reactor safety 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P. Beard, Results of INPO Management Review of Nuclear Power Stations, Remarks to the ANS/ENS Topical Meeting on Thermal Reactor Safety, San Diego, CA, February 4, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    V. Stello, Jr., Performance Indicators, NRC paper SECY-86–144, May 5, 1986.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    NUREG-1154, Loss of Main and Auxiliary Feedwater Event at the Davis-Besse Plant on June 9, 1985, August 1985.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    USNRC Report, Abnormal Occurrences for First Quarter, CY 1986, AO 86–2 Loss of Integrated Control System Power and Overcooling Transient, Rancho Seco, Dec. 26, 1985.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. Stello, Jr. Status of Staff Actions Regarding TVA, NRC paper SECY-86-IC, May 14, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    INSAG Summary Report, Post-Accident Review Meeting on the Chernobyl Accident, IAEA, Vienna, 8/30/1986–9/5/1986.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Diamond, Management cited as Key to Nuclear Safety in U.S., The New York Times, May 23, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. W. Minarick and C. A. Kukielka, Precursors to Potential Severe Core Damage Accidents: 1969–1979, A Status Report, NUREG/CR-2497, June 1982.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. B. Cottrell et al.,Precursors to Potential Severe Core Damage Accidents: 1980–1981, A Status Report, NUREG/CR-3591, July 1985.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. W. Minarick et al.,Precursors to Potential Severe Core Damage Accidents: 1985, A Status Report, NUREG/CR-4674, to be published.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    NRC, Licensed Operating Reactors, Status Summary Report, NUREG-0020, Feb. 1983 through May 1986.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Licensee Event Reports (LERs) of analyzed plants.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. L. Saaty, A New Approach to Performance Measurement, the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Design Methods and Theories 13 (2): 64–72 (1979).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. L. Keeney and H. Raiffa, Decision with Multiple Objectives, John Wiley & Sons (1976).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    NRC, Attachment to Testimony of United States Nuclear Regulator Commission, July 16, 1986, U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee chairman: Edward J. Markey.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Okrent
    • 1
  • S. Arueti
    • 1
  1. 1.University of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations