Sequence Analysis After Core Damage To Determine Safety Level Of The Ap1000
Abstract
In safety analysis, one of important parameters is core damage as this occasion can cause fission products to release. In that regard, all possible sequences afterward must be analyzed in order to ensure that all events have been considered, because each sequence has different consequence. The objective of this research is to determine the probability of event sequences after core damage so safety level of AP1000 could be known. The AP1000 reactor is chosen as the research object because currently many units are under construction. In this research the accident sequences were analyzed by using event tree, and the probability of top event was calculated by fault tree analysis. Meanwhile, the failure rates of component or operator action were collected from IAEA documents and also published documents of the AP1000 from Westinghouse Inc. The analysis results show that probability of event sequences which causes fission product release is ranging from 10-2to 10-26 and the total probability is 3,48 x 10-2. Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that the AP1000 has high safety level because the probability of event sequences leading to fission product release is small. Moreover, if these results are joined with core damage probability then probability of fission product release would be less than 10-9.
References
[ 1] IAEA-SSR-2/1, “Safety of Nuclear Power Plant: Design, IAEA, Vienna (2012).
[2] Rangel L. E., Leveque F., “How Fukushima Dai-ichi core Meltdown Changed the Probability of Nuclear Accidents?”, Safety Science, Vol.64, pp.90-98 (2014).
[3] Labib A., Harris M. J., “Learning How to Learn from Failures: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster, Engineering Failure Analysis, Vol.47, Part A, pp.117-125 (2015).
[4] Alvarenga M.A.R.B., Frutuoso e Melo P.F., “Including Severe Accidents in the Design Basis of Nuclear Power Plants: An Organizational Factors Perspective After the Fukushima Accident”, Annals of Nuclear Energy, Vol.79, pp.68-77 (2015).
[5] Sony Tjahyani, D. T., “Analisis Keandalan Sistem Non-Keselamatan Dalam Memperkecil Probabilitas Kecelakaan Parah AP1000”, Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pengembangan Energi Nuklir VI, Jakarta (2013).
[6] Sony Tjahyani, D. T., “Analisis Probabilistik Terhadap Modifikasi Sistem Untuk Meningkatkan Keselamatan Pada Reaktor Daya AP1000”, Prosiding Pertemuan dan Presentasi Ilmiah Penelitian Dasar Ilmu Pengetahuan dan Teknologi Nuklir, Yogyakarta (2013).
[7] Sony Tjahyani, D. T., dkk., “Analisis Skenario Kegagalan Sistem Untuk Menentukan Probabilitas Kecelakaan Parah AP1000 “, Jurnal Teknologi Reaktor Nuklir Tri Dasa Mega, Vol.16, No.3, pp.134–148 (2014).
[8] Volkanovski A., “Impact of Component Unavailability Uncertainty on Safety Systems Unavailability”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol.283, pp.193-201 (2015).
[9] Hashim M., Hidekazu Y., Takeshi M., Ming Y., “Application Case Study of AP1000 Automatic Depressurization System (ADS) for Reliability Evaluation by GO-FLOW Methodology”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol.278, pp.209-221 (2014).
[10] Yu Y., Wang S., Niu F., “Analysis of Common Cause Failure Effect on System Reliability in Seismic PSA, Progress in Nuclear Energy, Vol.75, pp.158-167 (2014).
[11] Kancev D., Cepin M., Gjorgiev B., “Development and Application of a Living Probabilistic Safety Assessment Tool: Multi-objective Multi-dimensional Optimization of Surveillance Requirements in NPPs Considering Their Ageing”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol.131, pp.135-147 (2014).
[12] Kamyab S., Nematollahi M., “Performance Evaluating of the AP1000 Passive Safety Systems for Mitigation of Small Break Loss of Coolant Accident Using Risk Assessment tool-II Software”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol.253, pp.32-40 (2012).
[13] Ahn S. K., Kim I. S., Oh K. M., “Deterministic and Risk-informed Approaches for Safety Analysis of Advanced Reactors: Part 1, Deterministic Approaches”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety”, Vol.95, pp.451-458 (2010).
[14] IAEA-SSG-4, “Development and Application of Level 2 Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant”, IAEA, Vienna (2010).
[15] Yang J., et. All., “Simulation and Analysis on 10-in. Cold Leg Small Break LOCA for AP1000”, Annals of Nuclear Energy, Vol. 46, pp. 81-89 (2012).
[16] Guozhi Z., Xinrong C., Xingwei S., “A Study Using RELAP5 on Capability and Instability of Two-phase Natural circulation Flow Under Passive External Reactor Vessel Cooling”, Annals of Nuclear Energy, Vol. 60, pp.115-126 (2013).