Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Consideration of quantitative risk reduction and risk achievement measures in safe NPP design Cover

Consideration of quantitative risk reduction and risk achievement measures in safe NPP design

By: Ivan Vrbanic and  Ivica Basic  
Open Access
|Jun 2024

References

  1. International Atomic Energy Agency. (2010). Development and application of level 1 probabilistic safety assessment for nuclear power plants: Specifi c safety guide. Vienna: IAEA. (SSG-3).
  2. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. (2009). Standard for level 1/large early release frequency probabilistic risk assessment for nuclear power plant applications, an American National Standard. New York: ASME. (ASME/ANS RA-Sa–2009).
  3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2018). An approach for using probabilistic risk assessment in risk-informed decisions on plant-specifi c changes to the licensing basis, Revision 3. Washington D.C.: U.S. NRC. (Regulatory Guide 1.174).
  4. Fullwood, R. R., & Hall, R. E. (1988). Probabilistic risk assessment in the nuclear power industry, fundamentals and applications. New York: Pergamon Press.
  5. Henley, E., & Kumamoto, H. (1981). Reliability engineering and risk assessment. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
  6. Barlow, R. E., & Proschan, F. (1975). Statistical theory of reliability and life testing: probability models. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
  7. Vesely, W. E., Davis, T. C., Denning, R. S., & Saltos, N. (1983). Measures of risk importance and their applications. Washington D.C.: U.S. NRC. (NUREG/CR-3385).
  8. Vesely, W. E., Goldberg, F. F., Roberts, N. H., & Haasl, D. F. (1981). Fault tree handbook. Washington D.C.: U.S. NRC. (NUREG-0492).
  9. Papazoglou, I. A., Bari, R. A., Buslik, A. J., Hall, R. E., Ilberg, D., Samanta, P. K., Teichmann, T., Youngblood, R. W., El-Bassioni, A., Fragola, J., Lofgren, E., & Vesely, W. (1984). Probabilistic safety analysis procedures guide. Washington D.C.: U.S. NRC. (NUREG/CR-2815).
  10. Cheok, M. C., Parry, G. W., & Sherry, R. R. (1998). Use of importance measures in risk-informed regulatory applications. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 60(3), 213–226. DOI: S0951-8320(97)00144-0.
  11. Kim, K., Kang, D. I., & Yang, J.-E. (2005). On the use of the balancing method for calculating component RAW involving CCFs in SSC categorization. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 87(2), 233–242. DOI: 10.1016/j. ress.2004.04.017.
  12. Bäckström, O., Krcal, P., & Wang, W. (2016). Two interpretations of the risk increase factor definition. In L. Walls, M. Revie & T. Bedford (Eds.), Risk, reliability and safety: Innovating theory and practice (pp. 2816–2822). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  13. Vrbanic, I., Samanta, P., & Basic, I. (2017). Risk importance measures in the design and operation of nuclear power plants. New York: ASME Press.
  14. Vrbanic, I., Samanta, P., & Basic, I. (2018). Some implications of theoretical relation between RAW and RRW measures on risk reduction strategies. J. Phys. Sci. Appl., 8(3), 38–45. DOI: 10.17265/2159-5348/2018.03.005.
  15. Nuclear Energy Institute. (2005). 10 CFR 50.69 SSC Categorization guideline, Revision 0. U.S.: NEI. (NEI 00-04).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/nuka-2024-0017 | Journal eISSN: 1508-5791 | Journal ISSN: 0029-5922
Language: English
Page range: 119 - 124
Submitted on: Oct 3, 2023
|
Accepted on: Mar 7, 2024
|
Published on: Jun 25, 2024
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2024 Ivan Vrbanic, Ivica Basic, published by Institute of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.