1 / 6

OECD/NEA International Workshop on L2 PSA and SAM, 29 th -31 st March 2004, Koln

OECD/NEA International Workshop on L2 PSA and SAM, 29 th -31 st March 2004, Koln. A Review of OECD Report on Level 2 PSA and SAM Ming L Ang NNC Charles Shepherd NII. Level 2 PSA methodology (Chapters 5 & 6). No major omission of methods for direct application or support role identified

rae
Download Presentation

OECD/NEA International Workshop on L2 PSA and SAM, 29 th -31 st March 2004, Koln

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. OECD/NEA International Workshop on L2 PSA and SAM, 29th-31st March 2004, Koln A Review of OECD Report on Level 2 PSA and SAM Ming L Ang NNC Charles Shepherd NII

  2. Level 2 PSA methodology (Chapters 5 & 6) • No major omission of methods for direct application or support role identified • Future revision on L2 methods may consider the following: • ROAAM methodology and case studies • case studies for L2 methods listed should be included (CET is exception) • critique of methods, e.g. current use of CET in the context of epistemic uncertainty • Approaches to ‘subjective judgement’, i.e. making normative expression in L2 PSAs, should be discussed • Review of CET case studies on uncertainty treatment and rationale • Discussion in most areas still biased towards NUREG-1150 study, can benefit from more recent PSAs

  3. Results and insights from recent Level 2 PSA (Chapter 2) • Discussion based on results applicable to PWRs and BWRs. Further examples of similar reactor designs may not be beneficial • Examples from other key groups of reactor designs should be considered, e.g. VVER, RBMK and advanced reactor

  4. Severe accident phenomena and modelling (Chapter 3) • Description of SA phenomena well supported by a number of SOAR reviews (OECD, EC). Consideration should be given to include: • Phenomena relevant to shutdown, e.g. air ingression impact on accident progression and fp behaviour • Further discussion on uncertainty characterisation of phenomena based on more recent studies (e.g. EC STU project on significance of ST uncertainty) • No major omission of SA analysis codes identified. Consideration should be given to: • Update on modelling improvement, benchmark/validation of major integrated codes • Restrict Chapter 3 to current codes in use and major code activities (e.g. ASTEC, codes used for VVER and RBMK analysis)

  5. Severe Accident Management (Chapter 4) and RI applications (Chapter 7) • No major omission of high level candidate strategies (both preventive and mitigative) identified • Update should reflect the significant international SAMG development and implementation programme (e.g. SAMIME review, COG SAMG development) • Discussion on probabilistic measure should be updated and included in Chapter 7 on RI applications • RI applications should be updated with recent studies and some discussion on the decision making process

  6. Conclusions • Recent L2 PSAs have largely conformed to the approaches identified in the OECD report • Report can benefit with an update in most areas to reflect recent development • Current report does not cover SAM aspects on training and optimisation as defined in the study objective • Consideration should be given to include a discussion on source terms and L2/L3 interface • Revision as an addendum to report is recommended

More Related