D508 Management And Operations: Probabilistic Assessment Answers

Answer:

Proposal literature review on risk, reliability and probabilistic risk assessment

In the past few years, the industries were hugely affected by natural catastrophes, violent cases and health crises. The NRC (Nuclear Regulatory commission) key role is ensuring the nuclear power plants in the united states and the other nuclear industries with license are operating with less risk to the safety the health of the public (Cheok, Parry & Sherry, 1998). The nuclear regulatory commission applies the science of PRA (probabilistic risk assessment in examining sophisticated system’s possible risks and point out what issue could have resulted in impacting the safety of the public. The NRC is as well performs the role in listing the technical needs on nuclear power plant operation and designs in (10 CFR) the tittle 10 of the code of federal regulations. These criteria are usually documented with regards to operations carried out by the engineers and the safety guidelines in designing, operations and constructions. The probabilistic risk assessment can therefore be very useful in defining the stated guidelines and to some extent give suggestions to improve the nuclear power plant through various analysis. Therefore, this section will provide the history of risk, the reliability and the history of probabilistic risk assessment overwhelming when and how it began and the changes that have occurred up to date (Hayns, 1999).

The risk

The Nuclear reactor commission (NRC) has clearly outlined the three levels in PRA which can be used in combating the risk experienced within the nuclear reactor. The first level is used in estimating the frequencies of the accidents caused by the core of the nuclear reactor. Secondly, the probabilistic risk assessment continues in examining the frequencies of the incidences that produces the radio activities within and the surroundings of the nuclear reactor plant. The third level of the PRA approximates the impact with respect to the injuries and other damages caused to the public environment. Thus, based on the above levels, the framework of the risk can be categorized into operations, the safety risks and financials. With respect to financial, the risk can be within the foreign exchange, resources, the cost of the production, insurance, competition and the interest rates. The operation overwhelms the inventory, training, the human resource and the management. The safety risk constitutes the protecting the environment the radioactive hazards and safety in industries (Atomic, Agency & Nuclear 2000).

After the Chernobyl reactor incidence, various risk researchers from different part of the world provided their assessment on the thrilling issue on the risk within the society. Individuals from various atomic energy industries had to deal with the possibility in either way. Hence, to comprehend the benefits of the risk with the society surrounding such environment. Since the year 1980, risk has established a general type of a banner mostly in which the nuclear reactors’ plants have rallied on (Atomic, Agency & Nuclear 2000). The IAEA (international energy atomic agency) was established by the united nations in the year 1957 with the key role in auditing the safety of the nuclear plants globally. This role was given more attention in as the result of the Chernobyl accident that had taken the life of many individuals (Gheorghe, Mock & Kröger 2000). The auditing involved the prescription of the protocol in establishing the nuclear plants and the reporting the minor cases (Raughley,2000). This is because the nuclear power plants have been designed to operate in a safe manner and risk-free in case of any malfunction or any accidents(IAEA,2001). (Using the nuclear power plants in generating the electricity can be regarded as extremely safe today. In the past few years there is significant environmental and health impact recorded with the nuclear plants, for instance, the Fukushima incidence resulted to zero death as reported by the international atomic energy agency

With respect to the accidents experienced up to 1970, some researchers had to focus on some assumptions about the series of the events. This led to the framing of the regulations and licensing of the nuclear plants within the conservative engineering and public domain. Therefore, in late 1970s, the large-scale testing and analysis of the nuclear plants was initiated. Thus, by the 1979, the Meltdown which harbored the Three Mile Island rector started making explicit reforms such that the worst potential accidents could never cause any harm to the public. The industry still worked hard in minimizing the possibilities of the meltdown risks (Saji,2003).

In the 21st century, the risk part is recognized as a radical violent that happened around the year 1970. This is a reflection of what was started in 1980 in coming up with their initial work which was marked by the first profound difficulties in the form of the social management experienced in the 1970s and 1960s (Vinod, Kushwaha,Verma & Srividya, 2003). Secondly, the risk management is becoming a specific disillusionment and regulations are required in guarding the people against the environment and health hazards to from the nuclear reactors (Dml, 2004). During this time, the sociology discipline sought not only to analyze and describe crises experienced in the environment and health but also in accounting for the changes that ushered the end of the mutation and classes within the society. Atomic energy agencies were able to provide an analytical technique which has helped in interpreting the kind of society individuals are living. The two presented the outline of the recent methods of managing their society to eliminate what was commonly known as the traditional of management comprised of political parties, the trade unions and the class struggle (Kadak & Matsuo 2007). This has dramatically facilitated in explaining the intellectual situation that exists in Europe. The economic events that followed an industrial age exposed the many individuals involved within the physical risk through economic rewards. In the last few years, the advent of the markets and financial apparatus overwhelming the development of leisure business has facilitated the separation of the of the economic and the physical risks (Zio, 2007).

The reliability

The application of the reliability enhanced various components in the late 1960s leading to a development and use of probabilistic risk assessment in the nuclear power plants in 1970s (Modarres, 2009). This is the period when the federal government started investigating the possibilities of disposing the nuclear wastes. The act of passing the atomic energy policy in 1954 was key in the applicability of the reliability. In 1957, the congress had made the agreement in indemnifying the public utilities (Hashemian, 2010). Therefore, for the sake of their success, the congress and the Atomic energy policy makers established the atomic energy act in the year 1964 (Cronvall, 2011).

The atomic energy act was not only concerned with the reliability of the nuclear plants but also the consequences of its failure. Thus, motivating the development of various approaches which one of these techniques was the PRA (Apostolakis, Cunningham, Lui, Pangburn & Reckley, 2012). The application of the nuclear in engineering, incorporates the quality regulation and quality assurance. Nuclear power plants are owned by the very competitive industries that aspire for appropriate performance defined by safety margins. Understanding the emergence of the reliability in nuclear engineering is crucial since the probabilistic risk assessment forms the key subset in the whole issue. In the past various statistical methods have documented a number of engineering industries for example the nuclear industry based on the reliability approach in solving the expected problems (Himanen, Julin,Holmberg & Virolainen 2012). This technique has been used by the structural engineers for some years, though in this period it was adopted by the reliability engineers in eliminating the urge of relying on the life examinations within the nuclear reactor power plants This also reduced the historical breakdown data in the assessment of the reliability of the electronic, electrical, components and mechanical processes (Zio& Pedroni, (2012).

Currently, the competitive model environment needs for an exact reliability prediction within their systems and components (Klüppelberg, Straub & Welpe 2014). The reliability of the complicated nuclear plant system is never completely reliable. Most of the cases their systems fail due to catastrophe. However, the reliability nuclear engineers have significant roles in advancing the operation in the nuclear plants. Hence, monitoring and the digital systems appear to the upgrade in the earlier nuclear power industries. In order to examine the impact of the risk of these digital systems, reliability approaches have been designed in a way to incorporate the probabilistic risk assessment. In the past few years, a number of the digital systems have been developed and installed in the nuclear plant(Hashemian, 2010).

The systems are not only vital in the turbines but also in the automated safety and within the nuclear plant, the system has gone through a vigorous development. The development of technology has enhanced the reliability in nuclear power plants where the digital systems are being used in controlling the nuclear reactors. Thus, enhancing the protective measures in maintaining the nuclear power plant risk measures and at the same time providing the right information to the operators. This means the operation of the digital monitoring systems is directly linked to the economic and safety of the nuclear plant. For instance, the software aging has been designed to provide a reliable data in order to ensure the safe performance in nuclear power plants (Mosleh, A. (2014). 

Probabilistic Risk Assessment

PRA (probabilistic risk assessment) analyses the possible and the probability of an accident together with its potential consequences. The technique plays a key role in the United states NRC's (Nuclear regulatory commission) the regulatory systems which help in improving the effectiveness within the agency. The NRC has combined the qualitative and quantitative probabilities in controlling the activities, and the techniques form what is known as the "risk-informed, performance-based regulation." Application and the development of the probabilistic risk assessment technique were first initiated within the NRC (nuclear power industry) in which it was sponsored by the RSS (Reactor safety study) (Borysiewicz Kowal & Potempski, 2015).

In 1960, various concerns were raised on the safety of the people and the environment. Such concerns were basically on the losses from the nuclear power plant accidents leading to the development of the Probabilistic Risk Assessment. This is because the PRA was capable in addressing the challenges linked to design-based accidents. In the year 1974, the nuclear power commission was established with the aim of promoting and regulatings the conflicts associated with the nuclear power plants. In 1979 March, the incidence at the Three Mile Island showed clearly that the nuclear power plants could deal with the design-based accidents technique was effective. (Zubair, Park, Heo, Ul Hassan, & Aamir, 2015). This accident proved that the industry was not safe hence some new techniques and policies were essential. Concerning (Zubair, M., Park, Heo, Hassan & Aamir 2015). from the examinations of the Incidence at the TMI initiated the contingency phenomenology research program. These researchers also recommended that the probabilistic risk assessment should be mostly be used the members of the staff in complimenting their traditions non-probabilistic techniques in analyzing the safety of the nuclear plants. In the preceding years, the atomic reactor commission members of the team offered a sponsorship to the transitional reliability evaluation programs. However, the technique could only be effective in combatting minor risks but not with the other major accidents thus opening initiating the start of the probabilistic risk assessment method. In 1990, the nuclear reactor commission (NRC) offered more guidelines on the release of high frequencies, the safety measures and some key objectives in releasing the high damaging frequencies. Thus, the probabilistic risk assessment was one of the best methods that should be applied in assisting in allocating the few resources in improving the safety within the industries (Aven & Ylönen 2016).

Subsequently other guideline and policy statements provided in the year 1990 and 1995 gave the PRA legitimacy in the nuclear power plant regulations. Adoption of the major tenancy rule in 1996 was the next key factor that contributed in the success of the PRA technique. At this particular period, the maintenance activities could not be prescribed but measuring their effectiveness. The technique offered reliability, efficiency and the effectiveness in maintaining a as well constituting the applicability of the PRA with the nuclear power industries. In 1998, the NRC (nuclear reactor commission) documented a number of guidelines that has changed the nuclear power plants licensing through the probabilistic risk assessment approach (Bartel,2016).

Later in the year 1980, the United states NCR (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) offered a sponsorship to a recent examination of the serious risks for the five nuclear commercial power stations it was the report that was known as the "Severe accident." The news overwhelmed the update of the regulatory safety study assessing the risk of the Peach Bottom and Surry which gave the latest version of the nuclear risk commission Probabilistic risk assessment of state of the art the methods, techniques, and models. Thus, the outcomes were utilized in supporting the prioritizing the safety problems of the industries (Wang, Wang, Wang, Li, Hu & Wu, Y. (2016).

Recently, the nuclear risk commission initiated personal plant assessment programs for deadly accidents. The Commission, therefore, requested every licensed atomic plant to investigate the specific plant vulnerable to severe disasters by performing the first level of the probabilistic risk assessment for the internal activities. The nuclear regulatory commission also gave a recommendation that suggested management of the regulatory risk process that provided in the year 2012. The proposal adopted the risk managed framework although the nuclear regulatory had to take the action of implementing the policy. According to there is a lot to be studied concerning PRA to improve the knowledge, methods and the capability of the individuals within the agency. From the Rasmussen report released recently, the study of reactor safety has made extensive in analyzing the fault tree and the probabilistic risk assessment technique in quantifying and estimating the risk. This has therefore led in proving the reliability and acceptance of the probabilistic risk assessment (Denning & Budnitz, 2018).

References

Cheok, M. C., Parry, G. W., & Sherry, R. R. (1998). Use of importance measures in risk-informed regulatory applications. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 60(3), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00144-0

Hayns, M. R. (1999). The evolution of probabilistic risk assessment in the nuclear industry. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 77(3), 117–142. https://doi.org/10.1205/095758299529947

Atomic, I., Agency, E., & Nuclear, O. (2000). Regulatory review of probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) Level 1, (February).

Gheorghe, A. V, Mock, R., & Kröger, W. (2000). Risk assessment of regional systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 70(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(00)00053-3

Raughley, W. S. (2000). Regulatory Effectiveness of the Station Blackout Rule Regulatory Effectiveness of the Station Blackout Rule. Nureg-1776.

IAEA. (2001). Risk management: A tool for improving nuclear power plant performance, (April), 1–80. Retrieved from https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1209_prn.pdf

Significance Determination Process. (2002).

Saji, G. (2003). Safety goals in “risk-informed, performance-based” regulation. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 80(2), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(03)00026-7

Vinod, G., Kushwaha, H. S., Verma, A. K., & Srividya, A. (2003). Importance measures in ranking piping components for risk informed in-service inspection. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 80(2), 107–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(02)00270-3

Dml, O. (2004). Module n ° 3.

Kadak, A. C., & Matsuo, T. (2007). The nuclear industry’s transition to risk-informed regulation and operation in the United States. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 92(5), 609–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2006.02.004

Zio, E. (2007). An Introduction to the Basics of Reliability and Risk Analysis (Vol. 13). https://doi.org/10.1142/6442

Modarres, M. (2009). Advanced nuclear power plant regulation using risk-informed and performance-based methods. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 94(2), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2008.02.019

Hashemian, H. M. (2010). Applying Online Monitoring for Nuclear Power Plant Instrumentation and Control. October, 57(5), 2872–2878.

Cronvall, O. (2011). Structural lifetime, reliability and risk analysis approaches for power plant components and systems. Retrieved from https://www.vtt.fi/publications/index.jsp

Apostolakis, C. G., Cunningham, M., Lui, C., Pangburn, G., & Reckley, W. (2012). A Proposed Risk Management Regulatory Framework. US NRC, NUREG-2150, Available at: Http://Pbadupws. Nrc. Gov/Docs/ML1210/ML12109A277. Pdf.

Himanen, R., Julin, A., J??nk??l??, K., Holmberg, J. E., & Virolainen, R. (2012). Risk-Informed Regulation and Safety Management of Nuclear Power Plants-On the Prevention of Severe Accidents. Risk Analysis, 32(11), 1978–1993. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01904.x

Zio, E., & Pedroni, N. (2012). Risk-informed decision-making processes.

Klüppelberg, C., Straub, D., & Welpe, I. M. (2014). Risk - A multidisciplinary introduction. Risk - A Multidisciplinary Introduction. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04486-6

Mosleh, A. (2014). PRA: A Perspective on strengths, current Limitations, and possible improvements. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 46(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5516/NET.03.2014.700

Borysiewicz, M., Kowal, K., & Potempski, S. (2015). An application of the value tree analysis methodology within the integrated risk informed decision making for the nuclear facilities. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 139, 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.02.013

Zubair, M., Park, S., Heo, G., Ul Hassan, M., & Aamir, M. (2015). Study on nuclear accident precursors using AHP and BBN, a case study of Fukushima accident. International Journal of Energy Research, 39(1), 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.3222

Aven, T., & Ylönen, M. (2016). Safety regulations: Implications of the new risk perspectives. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 149, 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.01.007

Bartel, R. (2016). WASH-1400 The Reactor Safety Study. The Introduction of Risk Assessment to the Regulation of Nuclear Reactors. Nureg/Km-0010, 60.

Wang, F., Wang, J., Wang, J., Li, Y., Hu, L., & Wu, Y. (2016). Risk monitor riskangel for risk-informed applications in nuclear power plants. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 91(June 1998), 142–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2015.12.019

Denning, R. S., & Budnitz, R. J. (2018). Impact of probabilistic risk assessment and severe accident research in reducing reactor risk. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 102, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.05.021