Table of Contents
International Journal of Quality, Statistics, and Reliability
Volume 2012, Article ID 176270, 13 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/176270
Research Article

Risk-Based Allowed Outage Time and Surveillance Test Interval Extensions for Angra 1

1Comissão Nacional de Energia Nuclear, DRS/CGRC, 22294-900 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
2Programa de Engenharia Nuclear, COPPE/UFRJ, 21941-972 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

Received 27 February 2012; Accepted 7 May 2012

Academic Editor: Mohammad Modarres

Copyright © 2012 Sonia M. Orlando Gibelli et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. S. P. Sirén and K. E. Jänkällä, “Risk-informed optimization of allowed outage times at Loviisa NPP,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (IAPSAM '06), New Orleans, Fla, USA, 2006.
  2. P. Samanta, I. Kim, T. Mankamo et al., “Handbook of methods for risk-based analyses of technical specifications,” US Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG/CR-6141, Washington, DC, USA, 1994. View at Google Scholar
  3. Eletrobrás Termonuclear, “Final Safety Analysis Report CNAAA,” Unity 1. Rev. 33, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2005.
  4. NRC, “Systems analysis programs for hands-on integrated reliability evaluations (SAPHIRE),” US Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG/CR-6116, Washington, DC, USA, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  5. M. Modarres, Risk Analysis in Engineering: Techniques, Tools, and Trends, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 2006.
  6. NRC, “Regulatory guide 1.174: an approach for using PSA in risk-informed decisions on plant-specific changes to the licensing basis,” US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, USA, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  7. S. Martorell, G. Serradell, G. Verdú, and P. Samanta, “Probabilistic analysis of the interaction between allowed outage time and surveillance test interval requirements,” in IAEA Advances in Reliability Analysis and Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Nuclear Reactors. IAEA-TECDOC-737, pp. 204–212, Vienna, Austria, 1994.
  8. K. N. Fleming and R. P. Murphy, “Lessons learned in applying PSA methods to technical specifications optimization,” in IAEA Advances in Reliability Analysis and Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Nuclear Reactors. IAEA-TECDOC-737, pp. 185–191, Vienna, Austria, 1994.
  9. T. Mankamo, I. S. Kim, and P. K. Samanta, “Risk-based evaluation of allowed outage times (AOTs): considering risk of shutdown,” in IAEA. Advances in Reliability Analysis and Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Nuclear Reactors. IAEA-TECDOC-737, pp. 216–222, Vienna, Austria, 1994.
  10. S. A. Martorell, V. G. Serradell, and P. K. Samanta, “Improving allowed outage time and surveillance test interval requirements: a study of their interactions using probabilistic methods,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 119–129, 1995. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. M. Čepin and B. Mavko, “Probabilistic safety assessment improves surveillance requirements in technical specifications,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 69–77, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. M. L. Shooman, Probabilistic Reliability: An Engineering Approach, Robert E Krieger, Malabar, Fla, USA, 1990.
  13. J. K. Vaurio, “On time-dependent availability and maintenance optimization of standby units under various maintenance policies,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 79–89, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. I. B. Wall, J. J. Haugh, and D. H. Worlege, “Recent applications of PSA for managing nuclear power plant safety,” Progress in Nuclear Energy, vol. 39, no. 3-4, pp. 367–425, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. M. Čepin and S. Martorell, “Evaluation of allowed outage time considering a set of plant configurations,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 259–266, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. S. Martorell, A. Sánchez, S. Carlos, and V. Serradell, “Simultaneous and multi-criteria optimization of TS requirements and maintenance at NPPs,” Annals of Nuclear Energy, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 147–168, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. D. Kancev and M. Cepin, “A new method for explicit modelling of single failure event within different common cause failure groups,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 103, pp. 84–93, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  18. J. K. Vaurio, “Common cause failure probabilities in standby safety system fault tree analysis with testing—scheme and timing dependencies,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 43–57, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. T. M. J. Kivirinta and K. E. Jänkällä, “Determining risk-balanced allowed outage times for Loviisa power plant,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (IAPSAM '06), New Orleans, Fla, USA, 2006.
  20. S. Martorell, S. Carlos, J. F. Villanueva et al., “Use of multiple objective evolutionary algorithms in optimizing surveillance requirements,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 91, no. 9, pp. 1027–1038, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. X. He, J. Tong, and J. Chen, “Maintenance risk management in Daya Bay nuclear power plant: PSA model, tools and applications,” Progress in Nuclear Energy, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 103–112, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. S. Cho and J. Jiang, “Analysis of surveillance test interval by Markov process for SDS1 in CANDU nuclear power plants,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. NRC, “Procedures for treating common cause failures in safety and reliability studies,” US Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG/CR-4780, Washington, DC, USA, 1987. View at Google Scholar
  24. NRC, “Regulatory guide 1.177: an approach for plant-specific risk-informed decision-making: technical specifications,” US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, USA, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  25. NRC, “Guidelines on modeling common-cause failures in probabilistic risk assessment,” US Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG/CR-5485, Washington, DC, USA, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  26. S. M. Ross, Introduction to Probability Models, Academic Press, San Diego, Calif, USA, 1993.
  27. J. K. Vaurio, “Developments in importance measures for risk-informed ranking and other applications,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (IAPSAM '06), New Orleans, Fla, USA, 2006.
  28. R. W. Youngblood, “Risk significance and safety significance,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 121–136, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. NRC, “Study of operational risk-based configuration control,” US Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG/CR-5641, BNL-NUREG-52261, Washington, DC, USA, 1991. View at Google Scholar
  30. NRC, “Handbook of parameter estimation for probabilistic risk assessment,” US Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG/CR-6823, SAND2003-3348P, Washington, DC, USA, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  31. NRC, “Risk-informed decision-making: technical specifications. Standard review plant,” US Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG-0800, Washington, DC, USA, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  32. S. Epstein and A. Rauzy, “Can we trust PRA?” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 195–205, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. NRC, “Probabilistic risk assessment procedures guide,” US Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG/CR-2300, Washington, DC, USA, 1982. View at Google Scholar
  34. R. E. Bryant, “Graph based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 677–691, 1986. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. L. F. S. Oliveira, P. F. Frutuoso e Melo, J. E. P. Lima, and I. L. Stal, “An application of the explicit method for analysing intersystem dependencies in the evaluation of event trees,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 25–41, 1985. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. M. Čepin, “Analysis of truncation limit in probabilistic safety assessment,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 395–403, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. NRC, “Probabilistic safety analysis procedures guide,” US Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG/CR-2815, Washington, DC, USA, 1985. View at Google Scholar