This paper describes a study undertaken to explain the risk profile differences in the results of PRAs of two similar VVER-1000 nuclear power plants. The risk profile differences are particularly significant in the area of small steam/feedwater line breaks, small-small LOCAs, support system initiators and containment bypass initiators. A top level (limited depth) approach was used in which we studied design differences, major assumptions, data differences, and also compared the two PRA analyses on an element-by-element basis in order to discern the major causative factors for the risk profile differences. We conclude that the major risk profile differences are due to differences in assumptions and engineering judgment (possibly combined with some design and data differences) involved in treatment of uncertain physical phenomena (primarily sump plugging in LOCAs and turbine building steaming effects in secondary system breaks). Additional major differences are attributable to support system characteristics.
Skip Nav Destination
10th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering
April 14–18, 2002
Arlington, Virginia, USA
Conference Sponsors:
- Nuclear Engineering Division
ISBN:
0-7918-3596-0
PROCEEDINGS PAPER
Comparison of Novovoronezh Unit 5 NPP and South Ukraine Unit 1 NPP Level 1 PRA Results
Zoran Musicki,
Zoran Musicki
Energy & Environmental Sciences, Inc., Stony Brook, NY
Search for other works by this author on:
Ted Ginsberg
Ted Ginsberg
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY
Search for other works by this author on:
Zoran Musicki
Energy & Environmental Sciences, Inc., Stony Brook, NY
Ted Ginsberg
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY
Paper No:
ICONE10-22601, pp. 397-406; 10 pages
Published Online:
March 4, 2009
Citation
Musicki, Z, & Ginsberg, T. "Comparison of Novovoronezh Unit 5 NPP and South Ukraine Unit 1 NPP Level 1 PRA Results." Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering. 10th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, Volume 2. Arlington, Virginia, USA. April 14–18, 2002. pp. 397-406. ASME. https://doi.org/10.1115/ICONE10-22601
Download citation file:
2
Views
0
Citations
Related Proceedings Papers
Related Articles
Analyses of Feedwater Trip With SBO Sequence of VVER1000 Reactor
ASME J of Nuclear Rad Sci (October,2016)
A Simplified ASME Acceptance Test Procedure for Steam Turbines
J. Eng. Power (January,1982)
Nuclear Power Plants With Closed-Cycle Helium Turbine for Industrial Energy Supply
J. Eng. Power (January,1971)
Related Chapters
PSA Level 2 — NPP Ringhals 2 (PSAM-0156)
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment & Management (PSAM)
QRAS Approach to Phased Mission Analysis (PSAM-0444)
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment & Management (PSAM)
A Simplified Expert Elicitation Guideline (PSAM-0089)
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment & Management (PSAM)