Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Deterministic and Probabilistic Safety Analysis

  • Reference work entry
Handbook of Nuclear Engineering

Abstract

The main theme of this chapter is the process and evolution of deterministic and probabilistic safety analyses that have played a backbone role in assuring public health and safety in the peaceful uses of nuclear power. The chapter begins with a discussion of the origin of nuclear power safety analysis together with the overall perspectives of both deterministic and probabilistic approaches that are still prevalent, although there is an increasing trend in application of probabilistic safety analysis in safety-related decision making. Deterministic approaches, such as the defense-in-depth or safety margin, are regarded as a means to cope with uncertainties associated with adequacy of safety features. As probabilistic methods and applications gain maturity and acceptance, the uncertainties associated with safety features are measured and described probabilistically. The chapter concludes with a detailed discussion of the probabilistic safety assessment and its uses in nuclear power safety analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 1,599.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 1,999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ahearne J et al (2001) The regulatory process for the nuclear power reactors: a review. Report of the CSIS Nuclear Regulatory Process Review Steering Committee

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahn SK, Kim IS, Oh KM (2010) Deterministic and risk-informed approaches for safety analysis of advanced reactors: part I, deterministic approaches. To appear, Reliab Eng Syst Safety

    Google Scholar 

  • AICHE (1989) Guidelines for process equip- ment data. Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldemir T, Siu N (1996) Reliability and safety analysis of dynamic process systems. Reliab Eng Syst Safety (Special Issue) 52:181–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ANS (1973) Nuclear safety criteria for the design of stationary pressurized water reactor plants, ANSI N18.2-1973. American National Standards Institute, American Nuclear Society, Hinsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • ANS (1983) Nuclear safety criteria for the design of stationary pressurized water reactor plants, ANSI/ANS-51.1-1983. American National Standards Institute, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Ascher H, Feingold H (1984) Repairable systems reliability: modeling and inference, misconception and their causes. Marcel Dekker, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Azarkhail M (2007) Agent autonomy approach to physics based reliability modeling of structures and mechanical systems. Ph.d. Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Azarkhail M, Modarres M (2004) A Study of implications of using importance measures in risk-informed decisions. In: PSAM-7, ESREL 04 Joint Conference, Berlin, Germany, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Azarkhail M, Modarres M (2006) An intelligent-agent-oriented approach to risk analysis of complex dynamic systems with applications in planetary missions. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on probabilistic safety assessment and management, PSAM8, New Orleans, USA, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum ZW (1969) On the importance of different components in a multicomponent system. In: Krishnaiah PR (ed) Multivariate analysis II. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle R (1997) Probabilistic risk assessment in nuclear reactors: engineering success, public relations failure. Technol Culture 38:920–941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang YH, Mosleh A, Dang V (2003) Dynamic probabilistic risk assessment: framework, tool, and application. In: Proceedings of the society for risk analysis annual meeting, Baltimore, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Colglazier E, Weatherwas R (1986) Failure estimates for the space shuttle. In: Abstracts of the Society for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting, Boston, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  • Crow LH (1990) Evaluating the reliability of repairable systems. In: IEEE Proceedings of the annual reliability and maintainability sym- posium, pp. 275–279

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Delaney MJ, Apostolakis GE, Driscoll MJ (2005) Risk-informed design guidance for future reactor systems. Nuc Eng Des 235:1537–1556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dezfuli H, Modarres M (1984) A truncation methodology for evaluation of large fault trees. IEEE Trans Reliab R-33:325–328

    Google Scholar 

  • DOD (1995) Military handbook, reliability prediction of electronic equipment. MIL-HDBK-217F, Department of Defense

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugan J, Bavuso S, Boyd M (1993) Dynamic fault tree models for fault tolerant computer systems. IEEE Trans Reliab 40(3):363

    Google Scholar 

  • EPRI (1995) PSA applications guide. Electric Power Research Institute, TR-105396, Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  • EPRI (2005) EPRI/NRC-RES fire PRA methodology for nuclear power facilities. EPRI 1011989, NUREG/CR-6850, Palo Alto, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericson C (1999) Fault tree analysis – A history. In: Proceedings of the 17th international system safety conference, Orlando, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer FR (1967) Reactor safety and siting: A proposed risk criterion. Nucl Safety 8:539–548

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, D (1997) History of the international atomic energy agency: The first forty years. International Atomic Energy Agency

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming KN (2003) Issues and recommendations for advancement of pra technology in risk-informed decision making, NUREG/CR-6813. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming KN, Silady FA (2002) A risk informed defense-in-depth framework for existing and advanced reactors. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 78:205–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford D (1977) A history of Federal nuclear safety assessments: From WASH 740 through the reactor safety study. Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel E (2002) Systems reliability and risk analysis, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Fussell J (1975) How to hand calculate system reliability and safety characteristics. IEEE Trans Reliab 24(3):169–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green A, Bourne A (1972) Reliability technology. Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu YS, Modarres M (1999) Evaluating system behavior through dynamic master logic diagram (DMLD) modeling. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 64:241–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt RN, Modarres M (1984) Integrated economic risk management in a nuclear power plant. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis, Knoxville, TN, October, 1984; published in Risk Abstracts, Vol. 2, No. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • IAEA (1991) Safety culture. 75-INSAG-4, A report by the international nuclear safety advisory group, International Atomic Energy Agency

    Google Scholar 

  • IAEA (1996) Defense in depth in nuclear safety. INSAG-10, A report by the international nuclear safety advisory group, International Atomic Energy Agency

    Google Scholar 

  • IEEE (1984) IEEE guide to the collection and presentation of electrical, electronic, sensing component, and mechanical equipment reliability data for nuclear-power generating stations, IEEE Std 500–1984. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan S, Garrick J (1981) On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal 1:11–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur KC, Lamberson LR (1977) Reliability in engineering design. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemeny JG, Babbitt B, Haggerty PE, Lewis C et al (1979) Staff reports to the President’s commission on the accident at three mile island. Reports of the Technical Assessment Task Force, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim IS (1996) Improving technical specifications from a risk perspective. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 54:83–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim IS (2008) Feasibility study for development of human error pattern analysis methodology for operational experience feedback. Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, Republic of Korea

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim IS, Modarres M (1987) Application of goal tree-success tree model as the knowledge base of operator advisory systems. Nucl Eng Des 104: 67–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim IS, Martorell S, Vesely WE, Samanta PK (1994) Risk analysis of surveillance requirements including their adverse effects. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 45:225–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim IS, Ahn SK, Hong SJ, Lee HJ (2008) New insights on risk-informed performance-based approaches to technology-neutral regulatory framework for generation IV reactors. In: Proceedings of the 9th international probabilistic safety assessment and management conference, PSAM9, Hong Kong, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim IS, Ahn SK, Oh KM (2010) Deterministic and risk-informed approaches for safety analysis of advanced reactors: part II, risk-informed approaches. To appear, Reliab Eng Syst Safety

    Google Scholar 

  • Kouts H (1998) History of safety research programs and some lessons to be drawn from it. In: 26th water reactor safety information meeting, Bethesda, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumamoto H, Henley EJ (1996) Probabilistic risk assessment for engineers and scientists. IEEE Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis H et al (1975) American physical society reactor study review group. Report on WASH-1400

    Google Scholar 

  • Meserve R (2001) The evolution of safety goals and their connection to safety culture. Speech at the American Nuclear Society topical meeting on safety goals and safety culture, Milwaukee, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  • Modarres M (1993) What every engineer should know about reliability and risk analysis. Marcel Dekker, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Modarres M (2006) Risk analysis in engineering, techniques, tools and trends. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Modarres M (2009) Advanced nuclear power plant regulation using risk-informed and performance-based methods. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 94:211–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Modarres M, Kaminskiy M, Krivtsov V (1999) Reliability engineering and risk analysis: A practical guide. Marcel Dekker, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosleh A, Fleming KN, Parry GW, Paula HM et al (1988) Procedure for treating common cause failures in safety and reliability studies, NUREG/CR-4780, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamatelatos M, Apostolakis G, Dezfuli H, Everline C et al (2002) Probabilistic risk assessment procedures guide for NASA managers and practitioners, Vers. 1.1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • NEI (2006) Risk-informed technical specifications initiative 4b, Risk-managed technical specifications (RMTS) guidelines, NEI-06–09, Rev. 0. Nuclear Energy Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • NEI (2007) Risk-informed technical specifications initiative 5b, risk-informed method for control of surveillance frequencies, NEI-04–10, Rev. 1. Nuclear Energy Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson W (1990) Accelerated testing: statistical models, test plans and data analyses. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • NSAC (1979) Analysis of three mile island – unit 2 accident. Nuclear Safety Analysis Center, NSAC-1

    Google Scholar 

  • NUMARC (1993) Industry guideline for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants, NUMARC 93–01. Nuclear Management and Resources Council

    Google Scholar 

  • Poucet A (1988) Survey of methods used to assess human reliability in the human factors reliability benchmark exercise. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 22:257–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reason J, Hobbs A (2003) Managing maintenance error. Ashgate, England

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes R (1986) The making of the atomic bomb. Simon and Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogovin M, Frampton GT Jr. (1980) Three mile island – A report to the commissioners and to the public. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Special Inquiry Group, NUREG/CR-1250, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Samanta PK, Kim IS, Mankamo T, Vesely WE (1994) Handbook of methods for risk-based analyses of technical specifications. NUREG/CR-6141, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sattison MB et al (1990) Analysis of core damage frequency: zion, unit 1 internal events. NUREG/CR-4550, Vol. 7, Rev. 1, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Smidts C (1996) Software reliability. In: Whitaker JC (ed) The electronics handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen J, Apostolakis G, Kress T, Powers D (1999) On the role of defense-in-depth in risk-informed regulation. In: Proceedings of the probabilistic safety assessment PSA’99, Washington, DC., American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamatis DH (2003) Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution, 2nd edn. ASQ Quality Press, Wisconsin, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Starr C (1969) Social Benefit versus technological risk. Science 19:1232–1238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swain AD, Guttmann HE (1983) Handbook of human reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications, NUREG/CR-1278, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • USAEC (1957) WASH-740, Theoretical possibilities and consequences of major accidents in large nuclear power plants. US Atomic Energy Commission, AKA The Brookhaven Report

    Google Scholar 

  • USAEC (1966) Minutes of the AEC general advisory committee. US Atomic Energy Commission

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (1956) Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities, Title 10. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, 21FR355

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (1975) Reactor safety study – an assessment of accident risks in US commercial nuclear power plants. WASH-1400 (NUREG-75/014, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC)

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (1977) Single failure criterion. SECY-77–439

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (1978) Standard format and content of safety analysis reports for nuclear power plants – LWR edition. Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 3

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (1980a) NRC action plan developed as a result of the TMI-2 accident. NUREG-0660, Rev. 1, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (1980b) Severe accident risks: An assessment for five US Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1150, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (1983) PRA procedures guide: a guide to the performance of probabilistic risk assessments for nuclear power plants. NUREG/CR-2300, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (1986) Safety goals for the operation of nuclear power plants; policy statement. 51 FR 30028

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (1988) Individual plant examination for severe accident vulnerabilities – 10 CFR 50.54(f). Generic Lett 1:88–20

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (1991) Individual plant examination of external events (ipeee) for severe accident vulnerabilities – 10 CFR 50.54(f). Generic Lett 4: 88–20

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (1993) Final policy statement on technical specifications improvements for nuclear power plants. 58FR39132

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (1995) Use of probabilistic risk assessment methods in nuclear regulatory activities; final policy statement. 60FR42622

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (1997a) Maintenance rule status, results, and lessons learned. SECY-97–055

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (1997b) Monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants. Regulatory Guide 1.160

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (1998a) White paper on risk-informed and performance-based regulation. SECY-98–144

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (1998b) An approach for plant-specific, risk-informed decisionmaking: inservice testing. Regulatory Guide 1.175

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (1998c) An approach for plant-specific, risk-informed decisionmaking: technical specifications. Regulatory Guide 1.177

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC(1999a) General design criteria for nuclear power plants, Appendix A of 10 CFR 50

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (1999b) General requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 65. 64FR72001

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (1999c) Staff Briefing on reactor inspection, enforcement and assessment

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (2000) Consolidated line item improvement process for adopting standard technical specifications changes for power reactors. Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2000–06

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (2001) Modified reactor safety goal policy statement. SECY-01–0009

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (2002a) Perspectives gained from the individual plant examination of external events (IPEEE) program. NUREG-1742, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (2002b) An approach for using probabilistic risk assessment in risk-informed decisions on plant-specific changes to the licensing basis. Regulatory Guide 1.174, Rev. 1

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (2003a) Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power reactors, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations. Part 46, 68FR54142

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (2003b) An approach for plant-specific risk-informed decisionmaking for inservice inspection of piping. Regulatory Guide 1.178, Rev. 1

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (2003c) NUREG-CR-6813, Issues and recommendations for advancement of PRA technology in risk-informed decision making. Letter of ACRS Chairman M.V. Bonaca to EDO Director W.D. Travers, ACRSR-2034, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (2004) An approach for estimating the frequencies of various containment failure modes and bypass events. NUREG/CR-6595, Rev.1, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (2005a) Technical work to support evaluation of a broader change to the single-failure criterion. Technical report

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (2005b) Independent verification of the mitigating systems performance index (MSPI) results for the pilot plants. NUREG-1816, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (2006) Reactor oversight process. NUREG-1649, Rev. 4, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (2007a) Combined license applications for nuclear power plants (LWR edition). Regulatory Guide 1.206

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (2007b) Standard review plan for the review of safety analysis reports for nuclear powerplants. NUREG-0800, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (2007c) Feasibility study for a risk-informed and performance-based regulatory structure for future plant licensing. NUREG-1860, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (2007d) 19.0 Probabilistic risk assessment and severe accident evaluation for new reactors. In: Standard review plan for the review of safety analysis reports for nuclear power plants. NUREG-0800, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (2007e) An approach for determining the technical adequacy of psrobabilistic risk assessment results for risk-informed activities. Regulatory guide 1.200, Rev. 1

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (2007f) Operating reactor assessment program, inspection manual chapter 0305

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood W (1983) Nuclear safety, risks and regulation. American Enterprise Institute – Public Policy Research

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland, Martin Hall, College Park, MD, USA

    Mohammad Modarres

  2. ISSA Technology, Inc., Germantown, MD, USA

    Inn Seock Kim

Authors
  1. Mohammad Modarres
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Inn Seock Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Nuclear Technology and Reactor Safety, Karlsruher Institut fur Technologie (KIT), Gotthard-Franz-Str. 9, 76131, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Dan Gabriel Cacuci

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry

Modarres, M., Kim, I.S. (2010). Deterministic and Probabilistic Safety Analysis. In: Cacuci, D.G. (eds) Handbook of Nuclear Engineering. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98149-9_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation