Effects of Degradation on the Severe Accident Consequences for a PWR Plant with a Reinforced Concrete Containment Vessel

★★★★★ 4.5 55 reviews

US$6.30
Price when purchased online
Free shipping Free 30-day returns

Sold and shipped by prasumaindustrialservices.com
We aim to show you accurate product information. Manufacturers, suppliers and others provide what you see here.
US$6.30
Price when purchased online
Free shipping Free 30-day returns

How do you want your item?
You get 30 days free! Choose a plan at checkout.
Shipping
Arrives Jul 27
Free
Pickup
Check nearby
Delivery
Not available

Sold and shipped by prasumaindustrialservices.com
Free 30-day returns Details

Product details

Management number 237212687 Release Date 2026/07/10 List Price US$6.30 Model Number 237212687
Category

Various forms of degradation have been observed in the containment vessels of a number of operating nuclear power plants in the United States. Examples of degradation include corrosion of the steel shell or liner, corrosion of reinforcing bars and prestressing tendons, loss of prestressing, and corrosion of bellows. The containment serves as the ultimate barrier against the release of radioactive material into the environment. Because of this role, compromising the containment could increase the risk of a large release in the unlikely event of an accident. Previous work in this area has assessed the effects that degradation has on the pressure retaining capacity of the containment vessel through structural analysis that account for degradation. These analyses have provided useful information about the effects of the degradation on the structural capacity of the containment in both deterministic and probabilistic fashions. However, the appropriate metric to use in assessing containment degradation effects during a severe accident was determined to require additional study. The previous work with probabilistic descriptions of the containment capacity were obtained from the results of the structural analysis models, and used as input for the risk models (Probabilistic Risk Assessment analyses). The risk was formulated in terms of the large early release frequency (LERF). The relative LERF values were computed for various postulated cases of degradation. In that study, an instance of degradation was treated as a change in the plant’s licensing basis and assessed with U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.174, “An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis.” The Regulatory Guide provides the limits of the acceptable increases in LERF due to changes in the plant. Many of the cases of postulated degradation were those consisting of local corrosion in the liner or shell that produce leaks that do not contribute significantly to LERF, and in some cases, cause no change in LERF. Early releases due to small leaks were found to contribute to the small early release frequency (SERF). Since Regulatory Guide 1.174 does not provide guidance on the limits of SERF, additional deterministic analyses were performed in this study to assess the effects of degradation on the consequences using metrics other than LERF. This study was performed using the Sandia codes MELCOR and MACCS. These codes were used to simulate two different accident scenarios (long- and short-term station black-outs) and compute the resulting consequences for a PWR plant with a reinforced concrete containment. The structural analyses used in the previous probabilistic study were used to develop the containment behavior models for the accident simulations. Several different postulated cases of liner corrosion were considered to enable a comparison of the consequences. Read more

ISBN10 1499649169
ISBN13 978-1499649161
Language English
Publisher CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform
Dimensions 8.5 x 0.22 x 11 inches
Item Weight 8.5 ounces
Print length 94 pages
Publication date May 22, 2014

Correction of product information

If you notice any omissions or errors in the product information on this page, please use the correction request form below.

Correction Request Form

Customer ratings & reviews

4.5 out of 5
★★★★★
55 ratings | 23 reviews
How item rating is calculated
View all reviews
5 stars
83% (46)
4 stars
4% (2)
3 stars
2% (1)
2 stars
1% (1)
1 star
10% (6)
Sort by

There are currently no written reviews for this product.