Experiences from the project on Validity of Safety goals

摘要

The outcome of a probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) for a nuclear power plant is a combination of qualitative and quantitative results. Quantitative results are typically presented as the Core Damage Frequency (CDF) and as the frequency of an unacceptable radioactive release. In order to judge the acceptability of PSA results, criteria for the interpretation of results and the assessment of their acceptability need to be defined. Safety goals are defined in different ways in different countries and also used differently. Many countries are presently developing them in connection to the transfer to risk-informed regulation of both operating nuclear power plants (NPP) and new designs. However, it is far from self-evident how probabilistic safety criteria should be defined and used. On one hand, experience indicates that safety goals are valuable tools for the interpretation of results from a probabilistic safety assessment (PSA), and they tend to enhance the realism of a risk assessment. On the other hand, strict use of probabilistic criteria is usually avoided. A major problem is the large number of different uncertainties in PSA model, which makes it difficult to demonstrate the compliance with a probabilistic criterion. Further, it has been seen that PSA results can change a lot over time due to scope extensions, revised operating experience data, method development, or increases of level of detail, mostly leading to an increase of the frequency of the calculated risk. This can cause a problem of consistency in the judgments. The first phase of the project (2006) provided a general description of the issue of probabilistic safety goals for nuclear power plants, of important concepts related to the definition and application of safety goals, and of experiences in Finland and Sweden. The second, third and fourth phases (2007-2009) have been concerned with providing guidance related to the resolution of some of the problems identified, such as the problem of consistency in judgement, comparability of safety goals used in different industries, the relationship between criteria on different levels, and relations between criteria for level 2 and 3 PSA. In parallel, additional context information has been provided. This was achieved by extending the international overview by contributing to and benefiting from a survey on PSA safety criteria which was initiated in 2006 within the OECD/NEA Working Group Risk. Finally, a separate report has been issued providing general guidance concerning the formulation, application and interpretation of probabilistic criteria. The results from the project can be used as a platform for discussions at the utilities on how to define and use quantitative safety goals. The results can also be used by safety authorities as a reference for risk-informed regulation. The outcome can have an impact on the requirements on PSA, e.g., regarding quality, scope, level of detail, and documentation. Finally, the results can be expected to support on-going activities concerning risk-informed applications.