Reducing digital risks and improving reliability in nuclear power integrated energy systems
Not Available
21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
Engineering topics
Youngblood, Robert
Publications and source records attributed to Youngblood, Robert.
Advanced Reactor Safeguards & Security 2024 Program Roadmap
The Advanced Reactor Safeguards and Security (ARSS) program was established to provide research support addressing near term challenges that advanced nuclear reactor vendors face in meeting domestic Material Control and Accounting (MC&A), Physical Protection System (PPS), and Cybersecurity requirements for U.S. construction. The technical work in the program is meant to (1) support nuclear reactor vendors with advanced MC&A, PPS, and Cybersecurity designs for next generation reactors, (2) provide technical bases for the regulator, and (3) promote the integration of Safeguards and Security by Design early in the design process. Existing domestic regulations for safeguards and security, as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations, were written for large light water reactors, and rule-making efforts are underway to develop regulations more suited to different reactor designs. The ARSS program seeks to remove roadblocks in the deployment of new and advanced reactors by solving regulatory challenges, reducing safeguards and security costs, and utilizing the latest technologies and approaches for robust plant monitoring and protection. This roadmap discusses the goals of the ARSS program, current research, and program plan for the next five years.
22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
Risk-Informing Critical Digital Assets (CDAs) for Nuclear Power Systems
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Muhlheim, Michael↗
Development of a nearly autonomous management and control system for advanced reactors
This presentation discusses the development of a Nearly Autonomous Management and Control (NAMAC) system for advanced reactors. This presentation first introduces the NAMAC-enabled plant control. Next, this presentation introduces major technologies of implementing NAMAC, including operational workflow, digital twin, and advanced machine learning algorithms. To demonstrate the capability of the NAMAC system, NAMAC is connected with a simulator of the Experimental Breeder Reactor II, where NAMAC is activated to provide recommendations during a single loss of flow accident.
22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
Digital-twin-based improvements to diagnosis, prognosis, strategy assessment, and discrepancy checking in a nearly autonomous management and control system
We report the Nearly Autonomous Management And Control System (NAMAC) is a comprehensive control system to assist plant operations by furnishing control recommendations to operators in a broad class of situations. This study refines a NAMAC system for making reasonable recommendations during complex loss of flow (LOF) scenarios with a validated EBR-II simulator, digital twins improved by machine-learning algorithms, a multi-attribute decision-making scheme, and a discrepancy checker for identifying unexpected recommendation effects. The performance of each NAMAC component is assessed, while the capability of NAMAC is demonstrated and evaluated in a class of LOF scenarios.
22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
Development and Application of a Data-Driven Methodology for Validation of Risk-Informed Safety Margin Characterization Models
The document is the Final Technical Progress Report for the Nuclear Energy University Program’s Integrated Research Project (IRP) on “Development and Application of a Data-Driven Methodology for Validation of Risk-Informed Safety Margin Characterization Models” that supports the LWR Sustainability Program’s RISMC R&D Pathway. The project goal is to develop and demonstrate a data-driven methodology for validation of advanced computer models used in nuclear power plant safety analysis. Specifically, the advanced computer models are those in the toolkit developed to support risk-informed safety margin characterization (RISMC), an integrated deterministic/probabilistic safety analysis methodology developed in the Department of Energy’s Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWR-S) program. The report reflects the progress made towards the project’s stated goal by contributions by researchers and graduate students from universities, with support from researchers from national laboratories and industry companies. The project organization, effort coordination and technical implementation are summarized, followed by discussion of main findings, issues, and path forward. Selected chapters provide a more detailed description of tasks, approaches and respective findings and recommendations. Noteworthy are contributions that serve as guidelines for methodology development. It is also noted that this report is complemented by other milestone reports (as stand-alone deliverables) that provide detailed discussion of the technical developments. The project results have been documented in a number (12) dissertations and these, 50+ peer-reviewed publications in technical journals and conference proceedings.
42 ENGINEERING↗
Using deep learning to explore local physical similarity for global-scale bridging in thermal-hydraulic simulation
Not Available
Bao, Han (ORCID:0000000190598824)↗
Plant-Level Scenario-Based Risk Analysis for Enhanced Resilient PWR – SBO and LBLOCA
This report documents the activities performed during the FY2018 for the DOE Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program, Risk-Informed System Analysis (RISA) Pathway, Enhanced Resilient Plant (ERP) Systems research. The purpose of the RISA Pathway research and development is to support plant owner-operator decisions with the aim to improve the economics, reliability, and maintain the high levels of safety of current nuclear power plants over periods of extended plant operations. The concept of ERP refers to the combinations of Accident Tolerant Fuel (ATF), optimal use of Diverse and Flexible Coping Strategy (FLEX), enhancements to plant components and systems, and the incorporation of augmented or new passive cooling systems, as well as improved fuel cycle efficiency. The objective of the ERP research effort is to use the RISA methods and toolkit in industry applications, including methods development and early demonstration of technologies, in order to enhance existing reactors safety features (both active and passive) and to substantially reduce operating costs through risk-informed approaches to plant design modifications to the plant and their characterization. There are two main focus areas in FY2018 for the ERP R&D efforts. One is to evaluate the risk impact brought by the ATF designs and FLEX in the selected accident scenarios. The other is to investigate various approaches to accomplish the ERP research objective, i.e., use RISA methods and toolkit to enhance existing reactors safety features and reduce plant operating costs.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Modeling the Risk of U.S. Offshore Oil & Gas Exploration-Well Drilling, Commercial Nuclear Plants, and Human Spaceflight
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) has been applied in different industries for many years. Each industry and technology area presents varying challenges and priorities, and the risk models therefore need to be somewhat different. This paper compares aspects of risk modeling of offshore drilling, nuclear plant operation, and human spaceflight. Risk models in all three technology areas have certain high-level similarities: (1) they employ redundancy and diversity in their means to prevent or mitigate risk, including a mix of active and passive systems designed to respond to off-normal evolutions; (2) they are affected by human reliability; (3) their models require consideration of coupling between scenario structure and scenario phenomenology. But in examining the models in more detail, one sees important differences in methodology and emphasis. For purposes of comparison, this paper discusses aspects of a risk model of an offshore drilling operation in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, focusing on where such a development differs in important ways from models of commercial U.S. nuclear plants and models developed for human spaceflight.
Boyer, Roger L.↗
Modeling the Risk of U.S. Offshore Oil & Gas Exploration-Well Drilling, Commercial Nuclear Plants, and Human Spaceflight
Nuclear power, offshore oil & gas exploration, and human spaceflight all have high consequence potential if something goes wrong. Each has had at least one major incident that pointed to a need for improved risk assessment. Careful risk analysis is very important for technologies having complexity, uncertainty, and high consequence potential. All rely on multiple barriers/controls/redundancy to minimize risk. NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) has moved towards risk informed regulation with Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) as a major input.
PRA↗
Study of Data-Driven Mesh-Model Optimization in System Thermal-Hydraulic Simulation
Quantification of nuclear power plant safety risk requires a systematic and yet practical approach to identification of accident scenarios, assessment of their likelihood and consequences. Instrumental to this goal is risk-informed safety margin characterization (RISMC) framework, whose realization requires computationally robust and affordable methods for sufficiently accurate simulation of complex multi-dimensional physical phenomena, such as turbulent and multi-phase flow. The CFD-like correlation-based codes with 3D simulation capability (e.g., GOTHIC) ensure computational efficiency using coarse mesh size and the sub-grid phenomena in the boundary layer that can be captured by adequate constitutive correlations. However, the error sources and user effects on the selection of mesh size and models lead to unpredictable simulation error, while rich High-Fidelity (HF) data from experiments and numerical simulation using validated code or DNS are not fully explored. It would be useful to have a “smart” data-driven multi-scale framework in which the low-resolution models can be “taught” to emulate high-resolution models. The objective of this work is to develop and evaluate a physical-based data-driven mesh-model optimization approach (Optimized Mesh/Model Information System, OMIS) to estimate the simulation error and give advice on the optimized selection of coarse mesh size and Low-Fidelity (LF) models for System Thermal Hydraulic (STH) simulation to achieve accuracy comparable to that of HF models. This approach takes advantages of computational efficiency of coarse-mesh simulation and application of Machine Learning (ML) algorithms.
97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
Construction of a cyber attack model for nuclear power plants - 115
The consideration of how a compromised digital component can impact neighboring components is critical to understanding the progression of cyber attacks. The degree of influence that one component may have on another depends on a variety of factors, including the sharing of resources such as network bandwidth or processing power, the level of trust between components, and the inclusion of segmentation devices such as firewalls. The interactions among components via mechanisms that are unique to the digital world are not usually considered in traditional probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). This means potential sequences of events that may occur during an attack may be missed if one were to only look at conventional accident sequences. This paper presents a method where, starting from the initial attack vector, the progression of a cyber attack can be modeled. The propagation of the attack is modeled by considering certain attributes of the digital components in the system. These attributes determine the potential vulnerability of a component to different classes of attack and the capability gained by the attackers once they are in control of the equipment. The use of attributes allows similar components (components with the same set of attributes) to be modeled in the same way, thereby reducing the computing resources required for analyzing large systems. (authors)
22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
Construction of a Cyber Attack Model for Nuclear Power Plants
The consideration of how one compromised digital equipment can impact neighboring equipment is critical to understanding the progression of cyber attacks. The degree of influence that one component may have on another depends on a variety of factors, including the sharing of resources such as network bandwidth or processing power, the level of trust between components, and the inclusion of segmentation devices such as firewalls. The interactions among components via mechanisms that are unique to the digital world are not usually considered in traditional PRA. This means potential sequences of events that may occur during an attack may be missed if one were to only look at conventional accident sequences. This paper presents a method where, starting from the initial attack vector, the progression of a cyber attack can be modeled. The propagation of the attack is modeled by considering certain attributes of the digital components in the system. These attributes determine the potential vulnerability of a component to a class of attack and the capability gained by the attackers once they are in control of the equipment. The use of attributes allows similar components (components with the same set of attributes) to be modeled in the same way, thereby reducing the computing resources required for analysis of large systems.
22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
NASA System Safety Handbook. Volume 2: System Safety Concepts, Guidelines, and Implementation Examples
This is the second of two volumes that collectively comprise the NASA System Safety Handbook. Volume 1 (NASASP-210-580) was prepared for the purpose of presenting the overall framework for System Safety and for providing the general concepts needed to implement the framework. Volume 2 provides guidance for implementing these concepts as an integral part of systems engineering and risk management. This guidance addresses the following functional areas: 1.The development of objectives that collectively define adequate safety for a system, and the safety requirements derived from these objectives that are levied on the system. 2.The conduct of system safety activities, performed to meet the safety requirements, with specific emphasis on the conduct of integrated safety analysis (ISA) as a fundamental means by which systems engineering and risk management decisions are risk-informed. 3.The development of a risk-informed safety case (RISC) at major milestone reviews to argue that the systems safety objectives are satisfied (and therefore that the system is adequately safe). 4.The evaluation of the RISC (including supporting evidence) using a defined set of evaluation criteria, to assess the veracity of the claims made therein in order to support risk acceptance decisions.
Safety Case↗
Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide for NASA Managers and Practitioners (Second Edition)
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is a comprehensive, structured, and logical analysis method aimed at identifying and assessing risks in complex technological systems for the purpose of cost-effectively improving their safety and performance. NASA's objective is to better understand and effectively manage risk, and thus more effectively ensure mission and programmatic success, and to achieve and maintain high safety standards at NASA. NASA intends to use risk assessment in its programs and projects to support optimal management decision making for the improvement of safety and program performance. In addition to using quantitative/probabilistic risk assessment to improve safety and enhance the safety decision process, NASA has incorporated quantitative risk assessment into its system safety assessment process, which until now has relied primarily on a qualitative representation of risk. Also, NASA has recently adopted the Risk-Informed Decision Making (RIDM) process [1-1] as a valuable addition to supplement existing deterministic and experience-based engineering methods and tools. Over the years, NASA has been a leader in most of the technologies it has employed in its programs. One would think that PRA should be no exception. In fact, it would be natural for NASA to be a leader in PRA because, as a technology pioneer, NASA uses risk assessment and management implicitly or explicitly on a daily basis. NASA has probabilistic safety requirements (thresholds and goals) for crew transportation system missions to the International Space Station (ISS) [1-2]. NASA intends to have probabilistic requirements for any new human spaceflight transportation system acquisition. Methods to perform risk and reliability assessment in the early 1960s originated in U.S. aerospace and missile programs. Fault tree analysis (FTA) is an example. It would have been a reasonable extrapolation to expect that NASA would also become the world leader in the application of PRA. That was, however, not to happen. Early in the Apollo program, estimates of the probability for a successful roundtrip human mission to the moon yielded disappointingly low (and suspect) values and NASA became discouraged from further performing quantitative risk analyses until some two decades later when the methods were more refined, rigorous, and repeatable. Instead, NASA decided to rely primarily on the Hazard Analysis (HA) and Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) methods for system safety assessment.
Stamatelatos,Michael↗
NASA Risk Management Handbook
The purpose of this handbook is to provide guidance for implementing the Risk Management (RM) requirements of NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) document NPR 8000.4A, Agency Risk Management Procedural Requirements [1], with a specific focus on programs and projects, and applying to each level of the NASA organizational hierarchy as requirements flow down. This handbook supports RM application within the NASA systems engineering process, and is a complement to the guidance contained in NASA/SP-2007-6105, NASA Systems Engineering Handbook [2]. Specifically, this handbook provides guidance that is applicable to the common technical processes of Technical Risk Management and Decision Analysis established by NPR 7123.1A, NASA Systems Engineering Process and Requirements [3]. These processes are part of the \Systems Engineering Engine. (Figure 1) that is used to drive the development of the system and associated work products to satisfy stakeholder expectations in all mission execution domains, including safety, technical, cost, and schedule. Like NPR 7123.1A, NPR 8000.4A is a discipline-oriented NPR that intersects with product-oriented NPRs such as NPR 7120.5D, NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements [4]; NPR 7120.7, NASA Information Technology and Institutional Infrastructure Program and Project Management Requirements [5]; and NPR 7120.8, NASA Research and Technology Program and Project Management Requirements [6]. In much the same way that the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook is intended to provide guidance on the implementation of NPR 7123.1A, this handbook is intended to provide guidance on the implementation of NPR 8000.4A. 1.2 Scope and Depth This handbook provides guidance for conducting RM in the context of NASA program and project life cycles, which produce derived requirements in accordance with existing systems engineering practices that flow down through the NASA organizational hierarchy. The guidance in this handbook is not meant to be prescriptive. Instead, it is meant to be general enough, and contain a sufficient diversity of examples, to enable the reader to adapt the methods as needed to the particular risk management issues that he or she faces. The handbook highlights major issues to consider when managing programs and projects in the presence of potentially significant uncertainty, so that the user is better able to recognize and avoid pitfalls that might otherwise be experienced.
Dezfuli, Homayoon↗
NASA System Safety Handbook: System Safety Framework and Concepts for Implementation - Volume 1
System safety assessment is defined in NPR 8715.3C, NASA General Safety Program Requirements as a disciplined, systematic approach to the analysis of risks resulting from hazards that can affect humans, the environment, and mission assets. Achievement of the highest practicable degree of system safety is one of NASA's highest priorities. Traditionally, system safety assessment at NASA and elsewhere has focused on the application of a set of safety analysis tools to identify safety risks and formulate effective controls.1 Familiar tools used for this purpose include various forms of hazard analyses, failure modes and effects analyses, and probabilistic safety assessment (commonly also referred to as probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)). In the past, it has been assumed that to show that a system is safe, it is sufficient to provide assurance that the process for identifying the hazards has been as comprehensive as possible and that each identified hazard has one or more associated controls. The NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) has made several statements in its annual reports supporting a more holistic approach. In 2006, it recommended that "... a comprehensive risk assessment, communication and acceptance process be implemented to ensure that overall launch risk is considered in an integrated and consistent manner." In 2009, it advocated for "... a process for using a risk-informed design approach to produce a design that is optimally and sufficiently safe." As a rationale for the latter advocacy, it stated that "... the ASAP applauds switching to a performance-based approach because it emphasizes early risk identification to guide designs, thus enabling creative design approaches that might be more efficient, safer, or both." For purposes of this preface, it is worth mentioning three areas where the handbook emphasizes a more holistic type of thinking. First, the handbook takes the position that it is important to not just focus on risk on an individual basis but to consider measures of aggregate safety risk and to ensure wherever possible that there be quantitative measures for evaluating how effective the controls are in reducing these aggregate risks. The term aggregate risk, when used in this handbook, refers to the accumulation of risks from individual scenarios that lead to a shortfall in safety performance at a high level: e.g., an excessively high probability of loss of crew, loss of mission, planetary contamination, etc. Without aggregated quantitative measures such as these, it is not reasonable to expect that safety has been optimized with respect to other technical and programmatic objectives. At the same time, it is fully recognized that not all sources of risk are amenable to precise quantitative analysis and that the use of qualitative approaches and bounding estimates may be appropriate for those risk sources. Second, the handbook stresses the necessity of developing confidence that the controls derived for the purpose of achieving system safety not only handle risks that have been identified and properly characterized but also provide a general, more holistic means for protecting against unidentified or uncharacterized risks. For example, while it is not possible to be assured that all credible causes of risk have been identified, there are defenses that can provide protection against broad categories of risks and thereby increase the chances that individual causes are contained. Third, the handbook strives at all times to treat uncertainties as an integral aspect of risk and as a part of making decisions. The term "uncertainty" here does not refer to an actuarial type of data analysis, but rather to a characterization of our state of knowledge regarding results from logical and physical models that approximate reality. Uncertainty analysis finds how the output parameters of the models are related to plausible variations in the input parameters and in the modeling assumptions. The evaluation of unrtainties represents a method of probabilistic thinking wherein the analyst and decision makers recognize possible outcomes other than the outcome perceived to be "most likely." Without this type of analysis, it is not possible to determine the worth of an analysis product as a basis for making decisions related to safety and mission success. In line with these considerations the handbook does not take a hazard-analysis-centric approach to system safety. Hazard analysis remains a useful tool to facilitate brainstorming but does not substitute for a more holistic approach geared to a comprehensive identification and understanding of individual risk issues and their contributions to aggregate safety risks. The handbook strives to emphasize the importance of identifying the most critical scenarios that contribute to the risk of not meeting the agreed-upon safety objectives and requirements using all appropriate tools (including but not limited to hazard analysis). Thereafter, emphasis shifts to identifying the risk drivers that cause these scenarios to be critical and ensuring that there are controls directed toward preventing or mitigating the risk drivers. To address these and other areas, the handbook advocates a proactive, analytic-deliberative, risk-informed approach to system safety, enabling the integration of system safety activities with systems engineering and risk management processes. It emphasizes how one can systematically provide the necessary evidence to substantiate the claim that a system is safe to within an acceptable risk tolerance, and that safety has been achieved in a cost-effective manner. The methodology discussed in this handbook is part of a systems engineering process and is intended to be integral to the system safety practices being conducted by the NASA safety and mission assurance and systems engineering organizations. The handbook posits that to conclude that a system is adequately safe, it is necessary to consider a set of safety claims that derive from the safety objectives of the organization. The safety claims are developed from a hierarchy of safety objectives and are therefore hierarchical themselves. Assurance that all the claims are true within acceptable risk tolerance limits implies that all of the safety objectives have been satisfied, and therefore that the system is safe. The acceptable risk tolerance limits are provided by the authority who must make the decision whether or not to proceed to the next step in the life cycle. These tolerances are therefore referred to as the decision maker's risk tolerances. In general, the safety claims address two fundamental facets of safety: 1) whether required safety thresholds or goals have been achieved, and 2) whether the safety risk is as low as possible within reasonable impacts on cost, schedule, and performance. The latter facet includes consideration of controls that are collective in nature (i.e., apply generically to broad categories of risks) and thereby provide protection against unidentified or uncharacterized risks.
Dezfuli, Homayoon↗
PRA in Design: Increasing Confidence in Pre-Operational Assessments of Risks (Results of a Joint NASA/NRC Workshop)
In late 2009, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) jointly organized a workshop to discuss technical issues associated with application of risk assessments to early phases of system design. The workshop, which was coordinated by the Idaho National Laboratory, involved invited presentations from a number of PRA experts in the aerospace and nuclear fields and subsequent discussion to address the following questions: (a) What technical issues limit decision-makers' confidence in PRA results, especially at a pre-operational phase of the system life cycle? (b) What is being done to address these issues'? (c) What more can be done ? The workshop resulted in participant observations and suggestions on several technical issues, including the pursuit of non-traditional approaches to risk assessment and the verification and validation of risk models. The workshop participants also identified several important non-technical issues, including risk communication with decision makers, and the integration of PRA into the overall design process.
Youngblood, Robert↗