0

Full Content is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >

A RISMC Perspective of the Reasonable Risk-Protection Measures

[+] Author Affiliations
Gangyang Zheng

Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, Heilongjiang, China

Paul Nelson, Vera Moiseytseva

Texas A&M University, College Station, TX

Ernie Kee, Fatma Yilmaz

STP Nuclear Operating Company, Wadsworth, TX

Paper No. ICONE22-31174, pp. V003T06A053; 7 pages
doi:10.1115/ICONE22-31174
From:
  • 2014 22nd International Conference on Nuclear Engineering
  • Volume 3: Next Generation Reactors and Advanced Reactors; Nuclear Safety and Security
  • Prague, Czech Republic, July 7–11, 2014
  • Conference Sponsors: Nuclear Engineering Division
  • ISBN: 978-0-7918-4593-6
  • Copyright © 2014 by ASME

abstract

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is mandated to ensure “adequate protection” to the public health and safety, regardless of cost. It also has steadfastly declined to specify precisely what constitutes “adequate protection,” except that it does not mean “zero risk.” Rather it judges on a case-by-case basis whether the “adequate protection” standard has been met. NRC also seems to reserve the right to require an even higher level of protection, when that can be achieved in a manner that it judges to meet similarly imprecisely specified criteria such as “practicality” and “reasonableness.” In Regulatory Guide 1.174 NRC comes close to a concrete specification of “adequate protection,” albeit one that depends upon the historical licensing basis for a specific plant. And the technical portion of this paper begins with a description of how the approach of Regulatory Guide 1.174 can be viewed from the perspective of Risk-Informed Safety Margin Characterization. Meanwhile, in this research, in order to better understand the role of regulation, a microeconomic model of a price-taking nuclear power plant is constructed, particularly of the cost (C) of achieving any specified level of core damage frequency (CDF). Solution of this model reveals an economic optimum, at a point that balances plant value against risk of losing the plant via an accident involving core damage. For CDFs slightly smaller than this economic optimum there is scope for a regulatory mandate of even smaller CDF, should that be deemed either necessary to attain “adequate protection,” or reasonably attainable in order to achieve greater than adequate protection of the public health and safety. It is argued that regulatory bodies must have scope for discretionary decisions, because the information necessary to formulate a reasonable approximation to the cost curve C (fortunately) does not exist.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Topics: Risk

Figures

Tables

Interactive Graphics

Video

Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature

Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In