Probabilistic safety assessment for instrumentation and control systems in nuclear power plants: An overview

Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 323-330

  Lu, Lixuan ^a   Jiang, Jin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Common cause failures; Graded quality assurance; Instrumentation and control systems; Nuclear power plants; Power system deregulation; Probabilistic safety assessment; Risk informed regulation

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; CONTROL SYSTEMS; DEREGULATION; ELECTRICITY; FAILURE (MECHANICAL); NUCLEAR ENERGY; NUCLEAR INDUSTRY; QUALITY ASSURANCE;

COMMON CAUSE FAILURES; INSTRUMENTATION; POWER SYSTEM DEREGULATION; PROBABILITY SAFETY ASSESSMENT;

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS;

EID: 2442462439     PISSN: 00223131     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/18811248.2004.9715491     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. J. D. Shiffer, “Issues for nuclear plants in a deregulated electricity supply industry,” Nucl. Energy, 38[4], 259 (1999).
2. L. Philipson, H. L. Willis, Understanding Electric Utilities and De-regulation, M. Dekker, New York, 173 (1999).
3. J. Naser, R. Torok, S. Ramesh, “Modernizing and maintaining instrumentation and control systems to increase the competitiveness of nuclear power plants in a deregulated environment,” The Third American Nuclear Society International Topical Meeting on NPIC&HMIT, Washington, D.C., Nov. 13-17, 2000, (2000).
4. R. N. Kubik, Probabilistic Risk Assessment in the Design of Instrument and Control Systems, IAEA-SM-265, 687 (1999).
5. K. Christian, “On the use of probabilistic and deterministic methods in risk analysis,” J. Loss Prevention Process Ind., 12, 399 (1999).
6. K. N. Fleming, Regulatory Enhancements Through Application of Probabilistic Safety Assessment Technology and Insights, Atomic Energy Control Board, Microfiche, Toronto, Ont., (1999).
7. F. R. Farmer, “Sitting criteria—A new approach,” Symp. On the Containment and Sitting of Nuclear Power Reactors, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, (1967).
8. I. B. Wall, “Probabilistic assessment of risk for reactor design and sitting,” Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc., 12, 1 (1969).
9. H. J. Otway, R.C. Erdmann, “Reactor sitting and design from a risk viewpoint,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 3, 365 (1970).
10. R. M. Lepp, L. M. Watkins, Control and Instrumentation Systems for the 600MWe CANDU PHW Nuclear Power Plants, AECL-7519, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories, Ontario, (1982).
11. R. P. Ornellas, R. S. Gross, “Strategies for instrumentation and control upgrades,” Nuclear Science Symp. And Medical Imaging Conf., IEEE Conference Record, Vol. 3, Oct. 30-Nov. 5, 1994, 1047 (1994).
12. R. T. Fink, J. O. Betlack, R. C. Torok, “Application of guidelines on digital I&C; upgrades,” Nuclear Science Symp. And Medical Imaging Conf., IEEE Conference Record, Vol. 3, Oct. 30-Nov. 5, 1994, 1063, (1994).
13. R. C. Carruth, W. G. Sotos, “Design concepts for the reactor protection and control process instrumentation digital upgrade project at the Donald C. Cook nuclear plant units 1 and 2,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., 43[3], 1899 (1996).
14. B. Gan, J. H. Brendlen, “Nuclear power plant digital instrumentation and control modifications,'' Nuclear Science Symp. And Medical Imaging Conf., IEEE Conference Record, Vol. 2, Oct. 25-31, 1992, 730, (1992).
15. National Research Council, Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems in Nuclear Power Plants: Safety and Reliability Issues, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., (1997).
16. P. V. Varde, D. Y. Lee, J. B. Han, “Reliability modeling of digital safety systems of nuclear power plant,” 11th Int. Conf. On Nuclear Engineering, Japan, April 20-23, 2003, (2003).
17. H. Kumamoto, Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Management for Engineers and Scientists, IEEE Press, New York, 2nd ed., (1996).
18. R. R. Fullwood, Probabilistic Risk Assessment in the Nuclear Power Industry: Fundamentals and Applications, Pergamon Press, Toronto, (1988).
19. M. G. Stewart, Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Engineering Systems, Chapman & Hall, London, UK, (1997).
20. N. J. Bahr, System Safety Engineering and Risk Assessment: A Practical Approach, Taylor & Francis, Washington D.C., (1997).
21. C. J. Garrett, G. E. Apostolakis, “Context in the risk assessment of digital systems,” Risk Anal., 19[1], 23 (1999).
22. M. Borst, H. Schoonakker, “An overview of PSA importance measures,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 72, 241 (2001).
23. Y. Zeng, P. Webster, P. Hessel, “Probabilistic safety assessment in Canada,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 62, 33 (1998).
24. I. B. Wall, J. J. Haugh, et al., “Recent application of PSA for managing nuclear power plant safety,” Prog. Nucl. Energy, 39, 367 (2001).
25. L. Lederman, F. Niehaus, B. Tomic, “Probabilistic safety assessment past, present and future: An IAEA perspective,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 160, 273 (1996).
26. R. F. Cameron, A. Willers, “Use of risk assessment in the nuclear industry with specific reference to the Australian situation,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 74, 275 (2001).
27. H. G. Kang, T. Sung, “An analysis of safety-critical digital systems for risk-informed design,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 78, 307 (2002).
28. R. I. Freeman, G. R. Moir, “What is living PSA?,” Nucl. Energy, 32[6], 355 (1993).
29. P. Kafka, “Living PSA-risk monitoring—Current use and developments,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 175[3], 197 (1997).
30. L. J. Perryman, N. A. S. Foster, et al., “Real time risk assessment of operational events,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 160[1-2], 203 (1996).
31. K. Gotz, T. Richter, “Optimization of power plant operation— Application of plant specific PSA,” Nucl. Eng., 43[3], 71 (2002).
32. M. V. Bonaca, Living Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant Management, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. (1992).
33. C. J. Garrett, G. E. Apostolakis, “Automated hazard analysis of digital systems,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 77, 1 (2002).
34. H. D. Fischer, “Conservative availability analyses including dependent failures in redundant I&C-systems with recurrent tests,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 222, 79 (2003).
35. J. J. Lisboa, “Defense-in-depth concept for nuclear power plant normal plant control systems using probability analysis,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., 36[1], 1284 (1989).
36. S. K. Khobare, S. V. Shrikhande, et al., “Reliability analysis of microcomputer circuit modules and computer based control systems important to safety of nuclear power plants,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 59, 253 (1998).
37. M. Cepin, “Optimization of safety equipment outages improves safety,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 77, 71 (2002).
38. NRC, An Approach for Plant-specific, Risk-informed Decision Making: Graded Quality Assurance. NRC, Regulatory Guide 1.176, (1998).
39. S. Yih, C. F. Fan, “A GQA resource allocation approach for digital I&C project,” Int. Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment, Detroit, MI, Oct. 6-9, 2002, 196 (2002).
40. G. E. Schinzel, T. J. Riccio, et al., “Considerations for adopting risk informed techniques for electrical surveillance testing (future revision of IEEE 338),” Int. Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment, Detroit, MI, Oct. 6-9, 2002, 618(2002).
41. R. Parmar, B. Hryciw, “Optimization of test intervals for dormant components,” Int. Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment, Detroit, MI, Oct. 6-9, 2002, 603 (2002).
42. S. Yih, D. S. Lee, et al., “The applicability of applying risk informed performance based approach to digital I&C regulation,” The Third American Nuclear Society Int. Topical Meeting on NPIC&HMIT, Washington, D.C., Nov. 13-17, 2000, (2000).
43. Use of PRA Methods in Nuclear Regulatory Activities; Policy Statement, Federal Register 60, 42622, (1995).
44. NRC, An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis, NRC Regulatory Guide 1.174, (1998).
45. NRC, An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed, Decision Making: Technical Specifications, NRC Regulatory Guide 1.177, (1998).
46. NRC, An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed, Decision Making: Inservice Testing, NRC Regulatory Guide 1.175, (1998).
47. NRC, An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed, Decision Making: Inservice Inspection of Piping, NRC (for trial use) Regulatory Guide 1.178, (1998).
48. IPSN, EPS 900 A Probabilistic Safety Assessment of Standard French 900 MWe Pressurized Water Reactor Main Report, April, (1990).
49. EDF, EPS 1300 Probabilistic Safety Assessment of Reactor Unit 3 in the Paluel Nuclear Center (1330MWe), EDF Overall, May 31, 1990, (1990).
50. IPSN, PSA for Reactor Shut-Down States, IPSN, (1995).
51. Nuclear Engineering International, EPR Project Status Report. (1997)