Analysis of Steam Generator Tube Rupture Accidents for the Development of Mitigation Strategies
1
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
We analyzed mitigation strategies for steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) accidents using MARS code under both full-power and low-power and shutdown (LPSD) conditions. In general, there are two approaches to mitigating SGTR accidents: supplementing the reactor coolant inventory using safety injection systems and depressurizing the reactor coolant system (RCS) by cooling it down using the intact steam generator. These mitigation strategies were compared from the viewpoint of break flow from the ruptured steam generator tube, the core integrity, and the possibility of the main steam safety valves opening, which is associated with the potential release of radiation. The “cooldown strategy” is recommended for break flow control, whereas the “RCS make-up strategy” is better for RCS inventory control. Under full power, neither mitigation strategy made a significant difference except for on the break flow while, in LPSD modes, the RCS cooldown strategy resulted in lower break and discharge flows, and thus less radiation release. As a result, using the cooldown strategy for an SGTR under LPSD conditions is recommended. These results can be used as a fundamental guide for mitigation strategies for SGTR accidents according to the operational mode.
Abstract
We analyzed mitigation strategies for steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) accidents using MARS code under both full-power and low-power and shutdown (LPSD) conditions. In general, there are two approaches to mitigating SGTR accidents: supplementing the reactor coolant inventory using safety injection systems and depressurizing the reactor coolant system (RCS) by cooling it down using the intact steam generator. These mitigation strategies were compared from the viewpoint of break flow from the ruptured steam generator tube, the core integrity, and the possibility of the main steam safety valves opening, which is associated with the potential release of radiation. The “cooldown strategy” is recommended for break flow control, whereas the “RCS make-up strategy” is better for RCS inventory control. Under full power, neither mitigation strategy made a significant difference except for on the break flow while, in LPSD modes, the RCS cooldown strategy resulted in lower break and discharge flows, and thus less radiation release. As a result, using the cooldown strategy for an SGTR under LPSD conditions is recommended. These results can be used as a fundamental guide for mitigation strategies for SGTR accidents according to the operational mode.
참고문헌 (23)
- Khnp, "Hanuel 3,4 Final Safety Analysis Report", ~ (1998)
- EPR: Steam Generator Tube Rupture Analysis in Finland and in France, "S. Israel", IRSN, ~ (2006)
- Steam Generator Tube Failures, "P. MacDonald", ~, pp.NUREG (1996), CR-6365
- Evaluation of Thermal-hydraulic Behavior Following the Steam Generator Tube Rupture Event of Ulchin Unit 4, "KINS", KINS, ~, pp.KINS (2003), ER-056
- Shutdown and Low Power Operation at Commercial Nuclear Power in the United States, "U. Nrc", US NRC, ~, pp.NUREG-1449 (1993)
- M. Barriere, "An Analysis of Operational Experience during Low Power and Shutdown and a Plan for Addressing Human Reliability Assessment Issues", Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1994)
- W. Werner, "Results and insights from level-1 probabilistic safety assessments for nuclear power plants in France, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States", Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf, 48(3), pp.165~179 (1995)
- Evaluation of Potential Severe Accidents during Low Power and Shutdown Operations at Surry, Unit-1: Analysis of Core Damage Frequency from Internal Events during Mid-loop Operations. Appendix I, Volume 2, Part 5, "T. Chu", Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ~ (1994)
- I. Low-Power, "S.O. MODES, Unclassified NEA", CSNI, pp.1998, ~
- J. H. Jeong, "Effects of tube rupture modeling and the parameters on the analysis of multiple steam generator tube rupture event progression in APR1400", Nucl. Eng. Des, 224(3), pp.313~336 (2003)
- U. Nrc, "SECY-93-087,“, policy, technical, and licensing issues pertaining to evolutionary and advanced light-water (ALWR) designs", ~ (1993)
- C. -K. Lim, "Best-estimate analysis for a MSGTR accident of CANDU-6 plants using the MAAP-ISAAC code", Nucl. Eng. Des, 359, pp.110452~ (2020)
- MARS Code Manual Volume I: Code Structure, System Models, and Solution Methods, "B. D. Chung", Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, ~ (2010)
- W. -J. Lee, "Characteristics analysis of SGTR accidents under the shutdown conditions", Transactions, 115(1), pp.885~887 (2016)
- E. H. Lee, "Comparison of SGTR accident under full-power and shutdown conditions", 17th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal Hydraulics, 2017 (2017), NURETH
- Y. -S. Son, "Thermal-hydraulic calculations using MARS code applied to low power and shutdown probabilistic safety assessment in a PWR", Nucl. Eng. Des, 235(15), pp.1571~1581 (2005)
- 1400 Standard Safety Analysis Report Chapter 5, "A.P.R. Khnp", ~ (2002)
- V. Bencik, "Analysis of steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) accident for NPP Krsko", International Conference Nuclear Energy for New Europe (2012)
- Takeshi Takeda, "ROSA", LSTF test and RELAP5 code analyses on PWR steam generator tube rupture accident with recovery actions, 2018, pp.50(6), 981~988[DOI]
- Considerations on the Application of the IAEA Safety Requirements for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants, "I. A. E. Agency", IAEA, ~ (2016)
- Estimating Loss-, "R. Tregoning", United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory, ~ (2008)
- NRC Integrated Program for the Resolution of Unresolved Safety Issues A-3, A-4, and A-5 Regarding Steam Generator Tube Integrity, "N. R. Commission", Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ~, pp.NUREG-0844 (1988)
- KwangWonSeul, "Simulation of Multiple Steam Generator Tube Rupture (SGTR) Event Scenario", Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 35(3), pp.179~190 (2003), 한국원자력학회