Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Application of probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) to the power reactor innovative small module (PRISM)

  • Alrammah, Ibrahim (General Directorate of RDI National Planning, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST))
  • Received : 2021.10.11
  • Accepted : 2022.04.02
  • Published : 2022.09.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Several countries show interest in the Generation-IV power reactor innovative small module (PRISM), including: Canada, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom. Generation IV International Forum (GIF) has recommended the utilizing of probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) in evaluating the safety of Generation-IV reactors. This paper reviews the PSA performed for PRISM using SAPHIRE 7.27 code. This work shows that the core damage frequency (CDF) of PRISM for a single module is estimated by 8.5E-8/year which is lower than the Generation-IV target that is 1E-6 core damage per year. The social risk of PRISM (likelihood of latent cancer fatality) with evacuation is estimated by 9.0E-12/year which is much lower than the basic safety objective (BSO) that is 1E-7/year. The social risk without evacuation is estimated by 1.2E- 11/year which is also much lower than the BSO. For the individual risk (likelihood of prompt fatality), it is concluded that it can be considered negligible with evacuation (1.0E-13/year). Assuming no evacuation, the individual risk is 2.7E-10/year which is again much lower than the BSO. In comparison with other PSAs performed for similar sodium fast reactors (SFRs), it shows that PRISM concept has the lowest CDF.

Keywords

References

  1. A. Brunett, A Methodology for Analyzing the consequences of Accidents in Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactors, 2010.
  2. D. Grabaskas, Analysis of Transient Overpower Scenarios in sodium Fast Reactors, 2010.
  3. E. Loewen, S. DeSilva, R. Stachowski, PRISM reference fuel design, Nucl. Eng. Des. 340 (2018) 40-53, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NUCENGDES.2018.09.016.
  4. M. Pfeffer, S. Pfeffer, E. Loewen, B. Dooies, B. Triplett, Integrated Fast Reactor, PRISM, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315373829.
  5. E. Loewen, What is a FAST nuclear reactor?. https://engineering.purdue.edu/NE/academics/seminars/2018/eric-loewen, 2018. (Accessed 30 September 2021).
  6. I.A. Alrammah, Issues in incorporating Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) in the design and licensing stages of Generation IV reactors, in: PSAM 2014 - Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management, 2014.
  7. P. Kafka, Probabilistic safety assessment: quantitative process to balance design, manufacturing and operation for safety of plant structures and systems, Nucl. Eng. Des. 165 (1996) 333-350, https://doi.org/10.1016/0029- 5493(96)01207-1.
  8. M. Cepin, Advantages and difficulties with the application of methods of probabilistic safety assessment to the power systems reliability, Nucl. Eng. Des. 246 (2012) 136-140, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NUCENGDES.2011.08.082.
  9. I.A. Alrammah, The application of probabilistic safety assessment in the preliminary reactor design stage: challenges and insights, in: International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1115/ICONE22-31284. Proceedings, ICONE.
  10. C. Bassi, P. Azria, M. Balmain, Level 1 probabilistic safety assessment to support the design of the CEA 2400 MWth gas-cooled fast reactor, Nucl. Eng. Des. 240 (2010) 3758-3780, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NUCENGDES.2010.09.003.
  11. J.H. Lee, Y. Oka, S. Koshizuka, Safety system consideration of a supercriticalwater cooled fast reactor with simplified PSA, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 64 (1999) 327-338, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(98)00080-5.
  12. E. So, M.C. Kim, Level 1 probabilistic safety assessment of supercritical-CO2-cooled micro modular reactor in conceptual design phase, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 53 (2021) 498-508, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NET.2020.07.029.
  13. M.A. Elliott, G.E. Apostolakis, Application of risk-informed design methods to select the PSACS ultimate heat sink, Nucl. Eng. Des. 239 (2009) 2654-2659, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NUCENGDES.2009.07.009.
  14. D. Bley, S. Kaplan, D. Johnson, The Strengths and Limitations of PSA: where We Stand, vol. 38, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 1992, pp. 3-26, https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(92)90102-Q.
  15. T. Sato, A. Tanabe, S. Kondo, PSA in design of passive/active safety reactors, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 50 (1995) 17-32, https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(95)00059-B.
  16. G. Heo, S. Baek, D. Kwon, H. Kim, J. Park, Recent research towards integrated deterministic-probabilistic safety assessment in Korea, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 53 (2021) 3465-3473, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NET.2021.05.015.
  17. M. Fujii, S. Morooka, H. Heki, Application of probabilistic safety analysis in design and maintenance of the ABWR, in: Advances in Light Water Reactor Technologies, 2011, pp. 1-30.
  18. IAEA, Development and application of Level 1 Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Nuclear power Plants, 2010. Vienna.
  19. R. Fullwood, Probabilistic Safety Assessment in the Chemical and Nuclear Industries, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, 2000.
  20. V. Joksimovich, M. Frank, G. Hannaman, D. Orvis, A Review of Some Early Large Scale Probabilistic Risk Assessments, 1983.
  21. U.S.NRC, Technical analysis Approach Plan for Level 3 PRA Project, 2013.
  22. NEA, Use and Development of probabilistic Safety Assessment, 2007.
  23. GIF, Basis for the safety approach for the design & the assessment of Generation IV nuclear systems, in: Generation IV International Forum (GIF), 2008.
  24. C. McMahon, K. Kelleher, P. McGinnity, C. Organo, K. Smith, L. Currivan, T. Ryan, Proposed Nuclear Power Plants in the UK: Potential Radiological Implications for Ireland, 2013. https://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/radiation/RPII_Proposed_Nuc_Power_Plants_UK_13.pdf. (Accessed 9 May 2021).
  25. W.S. Jung, S.K. Park, J.E. Weglian, J. Riley, How to incorporate human failure event recovery into minimal cut set generation stage for efficient probabilistic safety assessments of nuclear power plants, Nucl. Eng. Technol. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NET.2021.04.026.
  26. GE, PRISM Preliminary Safely Information Document, San Jose, California, 1987.
  27. U.S.NRC, Preapplication safety Evaluation report for the power reactor innovative small module (PRISM) liquid-metal reactor. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0634/ML063410561.pdf, 1994. (Accessed 29 September 2021).
  28. S. Kyu Ahn, I.S. Kim, K. Myung Oh, Deterministic and risk-informed approaches for safety analysis of advanced reactors: Part I, deterministic approaches, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 95 (2010) 451-458, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESS.2009.12.005.
  29. I.S. Kim, S.K. Ahn, K.M. Oh, Deterministic and risk-informed approaches for safety analysis of advanced reactors: Part II, Risk-informed approaches, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 95 (2010) 459-468, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESS.2009.12.004.
  30. K. Kim, S. Han, T. Kim, A Preliminary study on level 1 PSA of SFR-600 conceptual design, in: Transactions of the Korean Nuclear Society Spring Meeting, 2012. Jeju, Korea.
  31. U.S.NRC, An Approach for Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for risk-Informed Activities, 2009.
  32. J. Yang, Review of PRA Methodology for LMFBR, 1999.
  33. G. Apostolakis, Risk-informed Balancing of Safety, nonproliferation, and Economics for the SFR, 2011.
  34. W.S. Jung, H.R. Lee, J.R. Kim, G.M. Lee, Development of MURCC code for the efficient multi-unit level 3 probabilistic safety assessment, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 52 (2020) 2221-2229, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NET.2020.03.007.
  35. J. Cho, S.H. Han, D.S. Kim, H.G. Lim, Multi-unit Level 2 probabilistic safety assessment: approaches and their application to a six-unit nuclear power plant site, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 50 (2018) 1234-1245, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NET.2018.04.005.
  36. S.K. Park, W.S. Jung, Probability subtraction method for accurate quantification of seismic multi-unit probabilistic safety assessment, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 53 (2021) 1146-1156, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NET.2020.09.022.
  37. T. Macleod, S. Thompson, Limitations and uncertainties in the analysis of major external and internal hazards, in: Transactions SMiRT-23, 2015. Manchester.
  38. K. Fleming, On the issue of integrated riske a PRA practitioners perspective, in: ANS International Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Analysis, 2005. San Francisco.
  39. I. Ituen, Comparing the Risk of the Pressure Tube-SCWR to the Candu Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tools, 2011.
  40. F. Ferrante, External flooding in regulatory risk-informed decision-making for operating nuclear reactors in the United States, in: PSA 2015: the International Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Analysis, Sun Valley, Idaho, 2015.