Probabilistic Risk Analyses: NRC Programs and Perspectives

The historical basis and more recent activities and products of probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) in the Atomic Energy Commission and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) are reviewed. Current NRC program activities and objectives are described. The author's opinions on the best uses of PRA are presented.     

A Nuclear Utility's Views on the Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment

Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) is a relatively new tool in the nuclear industry. The Reactor Safety Study started the present trend of conducting PRAs for nuclear power plants when it was published in 1975. Now, nine years later, those in the industry currently using PRA techniques are frequently asked the same question: Why should the nuclear utility industry, with so many accepted analytical tools already available, invest the time and manpower to develop a new technique with so many uncertainties?     

Nuclear Plant PRA: How Far Has It Come?

Nearly ten years have passed since the publication in August 1974 of the draft Reactor Safety Study (WASH 1400), the first detailed attempt to apply probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) techniques to estimate the public risks posed by commercial nuclear power plants. Now is an opportune time to look back and see how PRA has fared over these ten years. We will not attempt to pass judgement on how the Reactor Safety Study report itself has withstood the test of time, as that task is best left to others less directly involved in preparing the report. Instead, we will examine advances in the understanding, acceptance, and utilization of PRA techniques, as well as technical advances in PRA methods. Some of the significant insights gained from PRAs will be discussed. Finally, some observations on the future of PRA will be offered.     

A Discourse on the Incorporation of Organizational Factors into Probabilistic Risk Assessment: Key Questions and Categorical Review

This article presents a discourse on the incorporation of organizational factors into probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)/probabilistic safety assessment (PSA), a topic of debate since the 1980s that has spurred discussions among industry, regulatory agencies, and the research community. The main contributions of this article include (1) identifying the four key open questions associated with this topic; (2) framing ongoing debates by considering differing perspectives around each question; (3) offering a categorical review of existing studies on this topic to justify the selection of each question and to analyze the challenges related to each perspective; and (4) highlighting the directions of research required to reach a final resolution for each question. The four key questions are: (I) How significant is the contribution of organizational factors to accidents and incidents? (II) How critical, with respect to improving risk assessment, is the explicit incorporation of organizational factors into PRA? (III) What theoretical bases are needed for explicit incorporation of organizational factors into PRA? (IV) What methodological bases are needed for the explicit incorporation of organizational factors into PRA? Questions I and II mainly analyze PRA literature from the nuclear domain. For Questions III and IV, a broader review and categorization is conducted of those existing cross-disciplinary studies that have evaluated the effects of organizational factors on safety (not solely PRA-based) to shed more light on future research needs.     

Analysis of Uncertainties in Interactive Probabilistic Safety Analysis (PSA) Models

Probabilistic safety analysis (PSA) has been used in nuclear, chemical, petrochemical, and several other industries. The probability and/or frequency results of most PSAs are based on average component unavailabilities during the mission of interest. While these average results are useful, they provide no indication of the significance of the facility's current status when one or more components are known to be out of service. Recently, several interactive computational models have been developed for nuclear power plants to allow the user to specify the plant's status at a particular time (i.e., to specify equipment known to be out of service) and then to receive updated PSA information. As with conventional PSA results, there are uncertainties associated with the numerical updated results. These uncertainties stem from a number of sources, including parameter uncertainty (uncertainty in equipment failure rates and human error probabilities). This paper presents an analysis of the impact of parameter uncertainty on updated PSA results.     

Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Wastes Buried in the Ground

The differences between probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and safety analysis (SA) are discussed, and it is shown that PRA is more suitable than SA for determining the acceptability of a technology. Since a PRA by the fault tree-event tree analysis method used for reactor safety studies does not seem to be practical for buried waste, an alternative approach is suggested using geochemical analogs. This method is illustrated for the cases of high-level and low-level radioactive waste and for chemical carcinogens released in coal burning.     

Scheduling Updates of Probabilistic Risk Assessments: The Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 1 Experience

This paper presents the results of a study that identified how often a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)should be updated to accommodate the changes that take place at nuclear power plants. Based on a 7-year analysis of design and procedural changes at one plant, we consider 5 years to be the maximum interval for updating PRAs. This conclusion is preliminary because it is based on the review of changes that occurred at a single plant, and it addresses only PRAs that involve a Level 1 analysis (i.e., a PRA including calculation of core damage frequency only). Nevertheless, this conclusion indicates that maintaining a useful PRA requires periodic updating efforts. However, the need for this periodic update stems only partly from the number of changes that can be expected to take place at nuclear power plants–changes that individually have only a moderate to minor impact on the PRA, but whose combined impact is substantial and necessitates a PRA update. Additionally, a comparison of two generations of PRAs performed about 5 years apart indicates that PRAs must be periodically updated to reflect the evolution of PRA methods. The most desirable updating interval depends on these two technical considerations as well as the cost of updating the PRA. (Cost considerations, however, were beyond the scope of this study.)     

Exploring the Uncertainties in Cancer Risk Assessment Using the Integrated Probabilistic Risk Assessment (IPRA) Approach

Current methods for cancer risk assessment result in single values, without any quantitative information on the uncertainties in these values. Therefore, single risk values could easily be overinterpreted. In this study, we discuss a full probabilistic cancer risk assessment approach in which all the generally recognized uncertainties in both exposure and hazard assessment are quantitatively characterized and probabilistically evaluated, resulting in a confidence interval for the final risk estimate. The methodology is applied to three example chemicals (aflatoxin, N‐nitrosodimethylamine, and methyleugenol). These examples illustrate that the uncertainty in a cancer risk estimate may be huge, making single value estimates of cancer risk meaningless. Further, a risk based on linear extrapolation tends to be lower than the upper 95% confidence limit of a probabilistic risk estimate, and in that sense it is not conservative. Our conceptual analysis showed that there are two possible basic approaches for cancer risk assessment, depending on the interpretation of the dose‐incidence data measured in animals. However, it remains unclear which of the two interpretations is the more adequate one, adding an additional uncertainty to the already huge confidence intervals for cancer risk estimates.     

Nuclear Safety in Ontario: A Critical Review of Quantitative Analyses

In this article quantitative analyses of CANDU nuclear generating stations are evaluated using an explicit set of criteria derived from a decision-analytic framework. A systematic search was made for relevant analyses, including both risk assessments and economic analyses. Only a small number of scientifically sound quantitative analyses that are being used to make decisions about specific safety measures or projects were located. The availability of scientifically sound quantitative data for making major energy policy decisions is even more limited, and what is available has major shortcomings. The province of Ontario is now heavily dependent on nuclear energy. Given the uncertainties surrounding the health, environmental, economic, and social consequences of nuclear energy, there is a need to assemble the information that is available within a comprehensive decision-making framework, and to decide future energy policies for the province in a public forum from a societal perspective.     

An Illustration of Matrix Formulation for a Probabilistic Risk-Assessment Study

A matrix formulation is described and numerically illustrated to calculate the public risk and identify the dominant contributors to it arising from the operation of a nuclear power plant. The matrix methodology is used as a superstructure in a probabilistic risk-assessment study to organize the calculated probabilities and to facilitate the analysis and documentation effort. The matrix structure is built to manipulate the large amount of data arising from event and fault-tree analysis and other supporting analyses. It lends itself easily to computerization and provides an analytic capability to identify dominant contributors to risk. It is a useful tool for aiding sensitivity analyses and also a potential formalism for standardization of risk-assessment studies. This tool is already used in the two recent comprehensive nuclear power plant risk-assessment efforts, the Zion and Indian Point Safety Studies.     

Enhancing the Characterization of Epistemic Uncertainties in PM2.5 Risk Analyses

The Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP) is a software tool developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that is widely used inside and outside of EPA to produce quantitative estimates of public health risks from fine particulate matter (PM_2.5). This article discusses the purpose and appropriate role of a risk analysis tool to support risk management deliberations, and evaluates the functions of BenMAP in this context. It highlights the importance in quantitative risk analyses of characterization of epistemic uncertainty, or outright lack of knowledge, about the true risk relationships being quantified. This article describes and quantitatively illustrates sensitivities of PM_2.5 risk estimates to several key forms of epistemic uncertainty that pervade those calculations: the risk coefficient, shape of the risk function, and the relative toxicity of individual PM_2.5 constituents. It also summarizes findings from a review of U.S.‐based epidemiological evidence regarding the PM_2.5 risk coefficient for mortality from long‐term exposure. That review shows that the set of risk coefficients embedded in BenMAP substantially understates the range in the literature. We conclude that BenMAP would more usefully fulfill its role as a risk analysis support tool if its functions were extended to better enable and prompt its users to characterize the epistemic uncertainties in their risk calculations. This requires expanded automatic sensitivity analysis functions and more recognition of the full range of uncertainty in risk coefficients.     

Probabilistic Models for Risk Assessment

Recent concern with the potential for stray carbon fibers to damage electronic equipment and cause economic losses has led to the development of advanced risk-assessment methods. Risk assessment often requires the synthesis of risk profiles which represent the probability distribution of total annual losses due to a certain set of events or activities. A number of alternative probabilistic models are presented which the authors have used to develop such profiles. Examples are given of applications of these methods to assessment of risk due to conductive fibers released from aircraft or automobile fires. These assessments usually involve a two-stage approach: estimation of losses for several subclassifications of the overall process, and synthesis of the results into an aggregate risk profile. The methodology presented is capable of treating a wide variety of situations involving sequences of random physical events.     

Variability of Site-Reactor Risk

Reactor accident consequence models have been developed (for example, the CRAC model of the Reactor Safety Study (RSS), WASH-1400) to predict the offsite health and economic consequences of severe accidents at a reactor site with generic demographic and meteorological characteristics. Application of a revised RSS accident consequence model, CRAC2, to 91 existing sites results in a band of risk curves around the earlier WASH-1400 average reactor/site predictions. This paper examines these calculations and important model assumptions such as population distribution, emergency response, and meteorological data with respect to their effects on site risk extremes—that is, the combination of high consequence/low probability events.     

Insights into the Societal Risk of Nuclear Power Plant Accidents

The elements of societal risk from a nuclear power plant accident are clearly illustrated by the Fukushima accident: land contamination, long‐term relocation of large numbers of people, loss of productive farm area, loss of industrial production, and significant loss of electric capacity. NUREG‐1150 and other studies have provided compelling evidence that the individual health risk of nuclear power plant accidents is effectively negligible relative to other comparable risks, even for people living in close proximity to a plant. The objective of this study is to compare the societal risk of nuclear power plant accidents to that of other events to which the public is exposed. We have characterized the monetized societal risk in the United States from major societally disruptive events, such as hurricanes, in the form of a complementary cumulative distribution function. These risks are compared with nuclear power plant risks, based on NUREG‐1150 analyses and new MACCS code calculations to account for differences in source terms determined in the more recent SOARCA study. A candidate quantitative societal objective is discussed for potential adoption by the NRC. The results are also interpreted with regard to the acceptability of nuclear power as a major source of future energy supply.     

Integration of Probabilistic Exposure Assessment and Probabilistic Hazard Characterization

A method is proposed for integrated probabilistic risk assessment where exposure assessment and hazard characterization are both included in a probabilistic way. The aim is to specify the probability that a random individual from a defined (sub)population will have an exposure high enough to cause a particular health effect of a predefined magnitude, the critical effect size ( CES ). The exposure level that results in exactly that CES in a particular person is that person's individual critical effect dose ( ICED ). Individuals in a population typically show variation, both in their individual exposure ( IEXP ) and in their ICED . Both the variation in IEXP and the variation in ICED are quantified in the form of probability distributions. Assuming independence between both distributions, they are combined (by Monte Carlo) into a distribution of the individual margin of exposure ( IMoE ). The proportion of the IMoE distribution below unity is the probability of critical exposure ( PoCE ) in the particular (sub)population. Uncertainties involved in the overall risk assessment (i.e., both regarding exposure and effect assessment) are quantified using Monte Carlo and bootstrap methods. This results in an uncertainty distribution for any statistic of interest, such as the probability of critical exposure ( PoCE ). The method is illustrated based on data for the case of dietary exposure to the organophosphate acephate. We present plots that concisely summarize the probabilistic results, retaining the distinction between variability and uncertainty. We show how the relative contributions from the various sources of uncertainty involved may be quantified.     

Risk Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants: A Pragmatic Proposal1

Criteria are proposed for both an acceptable upper bound of nuclear power plant risk and a lower bound as a design target. Recognizing that the public risk associated with a power plant can be estimated only by probabilistic analysis of the design features, the spread between the lower design target and the upper bound provides a margin for uncertainty in th probabilistic estimate. The combination of a low probabilistic design target and this margin provides a reasonable expectation that the overall performance will be in the domain of an acceptable risk level. Because the exposure to potential risk is chiefly in the locality of the nuclear station, it is also proposed that compensatory benefits should be provided locally and that these be included as a cost of operation. It is suggested that the upper bound be set at a risk level equivalent to those risks of routine living which are normally accepted, i.e., about 10^-4 deaths per year per person (100 deaths/yr/million). The proposed lower design target is 10^-8 (0.1 deaths/yr/million), about one-hundredth of the minimal risk from the natural hazards all people are exposed to.     

Probabilistic Risk Analysis and Game Theory

The behavioral dimension matters in Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) since players throughout a system incur costs to increase system reliability interpreted as a public good. Individual strategies at the subsystem level generally conflict with collective desires at the system level. Game theory, the natural tool to analyze individual-collective conflicts that affect risk, is integrated into PRA. Conflicts arise in series, parallel, and summation systems over which player(s) prefer(s) to incur the cost of risk reduction. Frequently, the series, parallel, and summation systems correspond to the four most common games in game theory, i.e., the coordination game, the battle of the sexes and the chicken game, and prisoner's dilemma, respectively.     

核电站非连续性需求条件下的业务外包风险研究

在一般业务外包风险研究的基础上结合非连续性需求条件下供应风险的特点,研究了非连续性需求占优的核电站供应管理中的业务外包风险及其产生的原因。由于非连续性需求的特点,容易造成核心竞争力识别错误,容易被承包商锁定,容易失去对承包商经营状况和技术改进的跟踪,从而带来危害更大、后果更严重的风险。     

Probabilistic Reliability Analysis, Quantitative Safety Goals, and Nuclear Licensing in the United Kingdom

Although unpublicized, the use of quantitative safety goals and probabilistic reliability analysis for licensing nuclear reactors has become a reality in the United Kingdom. This conclusion results from an examination of the process leading to the licensing of the Sizewell B PWR in England. The licensing process for this reactor has substantial implications for nuclear safety standards in Britain, and is examined in the context of the growing trend towards quantitative safety goals in the United States.     

Using Probabilistic Terrorism Risk Modeling for Regulatory Benefit-Cost Analysis: Application to the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative in the Land Environment

This article presents a framework for using probabilistic terrorism risk modeling in regulatory analysis. We demonstrate the framework with an example application involving a regulation under consideration, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative for the Land Environment, (WHTI‐L). First, we estimate annualized loss from terrorist attacks with the Risk Management Solutions (RMS) Probabilistic Terrorism Model. We then estimate the critical risk reduction, which is the risk‐reducing effectiveness of WHTI‐L needed for its benefit, in terms of reduced terrorism loss in the United States, to exceed its cost. Our analysis indicates that the critical risk reduction depends strongly not only on uncertainties in the terrorism risk level, but also on uncertainty in the cost of regulation and how casualties are monetized. For a terrorism risk level based on the RMS standard risk estimate, the baseline regulatory cost estimate for WHTI‐L, and a range of casualty cost estimates based on the willingness‐to‐pay approach, our estimate for the expected annualized loss from terrorism ranges from $2.7 billion to $5.2 billion. For this range in annualized loss, the critical risk reduction for WHTI‐L ranges from 7% to 13%. Basing results on a lower risk level that results in halving the annualized terrorism loss would double the critical risk reduction (14–26%), and basing the results on a higher risk level that results in a doubling of the annualized terrorism loss would cut the critical risk reduction in half (3.5–6.6%). Ideally, decisions about terrorism security regulations and policies would be informed by true benefit‐cost analyses in which the estimated benefits are compared to costs. Such analyses for terrorism security efforts face substantial impediments stemming from the great uncertainty in the terrorist threat and the very low recurrence interval for large attacks. Several approaches can be used to estimate how a terrorism security program or regulation reduces the distribution of risks it is intended to manage. But, continued research to develop additional tools and data is necessary to support application of these approaches. These include refinement of models and simulations, engagement of subject matter experts, implementation of program evaluation, and estimating the costs of casualties from terrorism events.