In the nuclear power domain, Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is used to inform decision-making for Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs). Recently, there has been an increase in the utilization of modeling and simulation (M&S) to support the estimation of PRA inputs. Risk analysts should carefully select the PRA items that require M&S and their degree of realism (DoR) with consideration of the required resources. To support this selection, this article formulates a systematic decision-making approach for the DoR selection. The DoR selection is made based on two predictive decision-making attributes: the predicted differences in safety risk estimate (ΔSaRi) and the cost of analysis (ΔCAN). This research also develops and quantifies causal models to estimate ΔSaRi and ΔCAN. The causal model-based prediction of ΔSaRi and ΔCAN helps reduce the trial-and-error nature of the DoR selection in the PRA screening analysis and provides insights for DoR selection and the gradual refinements of PRA realism. This approach is demonstrated for a case study on fire PRA of NPPs, where an adequate DoR is selected from two fire models: an engineering correlation and a zone model.
AvenTRennO.On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. J Risk Res2009; 12: 1–11.
2.
AvenT.On how to define, understand and describe risk. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf2010; 95: 623–631.
3.
KaplanSGarrickBJ.On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal1981; 1: 11–27.
4.
FlageRAvenT.Expressing and communicating uncertainty in relation to quantitative risk analysis. Reliabil Theory Appl2009; 4: 9–18.
5.
AvenT.The risk concept—historical and recent development trends. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf2012; 99: 33-44.
6.
BjergaTAvenTZioE.An illustration of the use of an approach for treating model uncertainties in risk assessment. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf2014; 125: 46–53.
7.
AvenTYlönenM.Safety regulations: Implications of the new risk perspectives. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf2016; 149: 164–171.
8.
AvenTKristensenV.How the distinction between general knowledge and specific knowledge can improve the foundation and practice of risk assessment and risk-informed decision-making. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf2019; 191: 106553.
9.
AskelandTFlageRAvenT.Moving beyond probabilities–Strength of knowledge characterisations applied to security. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf2017; 159: 196–205.
10.
Bani-MustafaTZengZZioE, et al. A practical approach for evaluating the strength of knowledge supporting risk assessment models. Saf Sci2020; 124: 104596.
11.
Bani-MustafaT.Multi-hazards risk aggregation considering the trustworthiness of the risk assessment. Université Paris Saclay (COmUE), 2019.
12.
PaltrinieriNComfortLReniersG.Learning about risk: Machine learning for risk assessment. Safety Science2019; 118: 475–486.
13.
AvenT.Improving risk characterisations in practical situations by highlighting knowledge aspects, with applications to risk matrices. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf2017; 167: 42-48.
MoeWLAfzaliA.Modernization of technical requirements or licensing of advanced non-light water reactors: probabilistic risk assessment approach. Idaho Falls, ID: Idaho National Lab, 2019.
16.
MoeWLAfzaliA.Modernization of technical requirements for licensing of advanced non-light water reactors selection and evaluation of licensing basis events. Idaho Falls, ID: Idaho National Lab, 2019.
PaceD.Fidelity, Resolution, Accuracy, and Uncertainty. In: LoperM. (eds) Modeling and Simulation in the Systems Engineering Life Cycle. Simulation Foundations, Methods and Applications. Springer, London, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5634-5_3
19.
RozaZ.Simulation fidelity theory and practice. PhD dissertation, TU Delft, 2005.
20.
ASME/ANS. Standard for Level 1/Large Early Release Frequency Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications. ASME/ANS RA-S-1.2-2022. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers / American Nuclear Society, 2022
21.
AlkhatibSSakuraharaTReihaniS, et al. Academia-industry collaboration to advance screening processes in fire PRA of nuclear power plants. In Proceedings of the 30th European Safety and Reliability (ESREL) Conference and the 15th Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM) Conference, Venice, Italy (Online), 01–05 November 2020. Research Publishing.
22.
AlkhatibSSakuraharaTReihaniS, et al. I-PRA Risk- and cost-informed decision-making algorithm for nuclear power plants. In: Proceedings of the 2021 ANS International Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Analysis (PSA 2021), 2021. American Nuclear Society.
23.
DroguettELMoslehA.Bayesian methodology for model uncertainty using model performance data. Risk Anal2008; 28: 1457–1476.
24.
DrouinMGilbertsonAParryG, et al. Guidance on the treatment of uncertainties associated with PRAs in risk-informed decisionmaking, final report (NUREG-1855, Revision 1). 2017. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
25.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Glossary of risk-related terms in support of risk-informed decisionmaking (NUREG-2122), 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
26.
PulkkinenUHuovinenT.Model uncertainty in safety assessment. Espoo, Finland: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 1996.
27.
HuangDAbdel-KhalikHS.Nuclear data uncertainty propagation and modeling uncertainty impact evaluation in neutronics core simulation. Prog Nucl Energy2020; 128: 103443.
28.
AvenT.Risk assessment and risk management: review of recent advances on their foundation. Eur J Oper Res2016; 253: 1–13.
29.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). An approach to risk aggregation for risk-informed decision-making, 2015. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute.
30.
BernerCLFlageR.Comparing and integrating the NUSAP notational scheme with an uncertainty based risk perspective. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf2016; 156: 185-194.
31.
WoodPJGaertnerJPWallIB.The practical application of PRA: an evaluation of utility experience and USNRC perspectives. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf1989; 24: 167-198.
32.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. PRA procedures guide: a guide to the performance of probabilistic risk assessments for nuclear power plants (NUREG/CR-2300). Washington, D.C: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1983.
33.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. SECY-11-0089, options for proceeding with future level 3 probabilistic risk assessment activities. Washington, D.C: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2011.
34.
PenceJAbolhelmMMohagheghZ, et al. Methodology to evaluate the monetary benefit of Probabilistic Risk Assessment by modeling the net value of Risk-Informed Applications at nuclear power plants. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf2018; 175: 171–182.
35.
MohagheghZBuiHSakuraharaT, et al. I-PRA decision-making algorithm and computational platform to develop safe and cost-effective strategies for the deployment of new technologies. Final Report for DOE Nuclear Energy University Programs (NEUP) Project 19-16298, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 2023.
36.
BuiHSakuraharaTPenceJ, et al. An algorithm for enhancing spatiotemporal resolution of probabilistic risk assessment to address emergent safety concerns in nuclear power plants. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf2019; 185: 405–428.
37.
CornerJBuchananJHenigM.Dynamic decision problem structuring. J Multi-Criteria Dec Anal2001; 10: 129–141.
38.
ClemenRTReillyT.Making hard decisions with decision tools. Duxbury, Pacific Grove, CA, 1999.
39.
EPRI/NRC-RES fire PRA methodology for nuclear power facilities: Volume 2: detailed methodology. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Rockville, MD: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), 2005
40.
Verification and validation of selected fire models for nuclear power plant applications, volume 1: Main report. Rockville, MD: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), 2007.
41.
Nuclear Power Plant Fire Modeling Analysis Guidelines (NPP FIRE MAG). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), 2012.
42.
RozaZC.Simulation fidelity theory and practice: A unified approach to defining, specifying and measuring the realism of simulations, 2004.
43.
KasparKRatteBBillingsMA, et al. Integrated fire probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) modeling in support of operational efficiency. Urbana, IL: Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Delft, Netherlands: Delft University Press, 2022.
44.
LevyH.Stochastic dominance and expected utility: survey and analysis. Manage Sci1992; 38(4): 555–593.
45.
HardakerJBRichardsonJWLienG, et al. Stochastic efficiency analysis with risk aversion bounds: a simplified approach. Austr J Agric Resour Econ2004; 48: 253–270.
46.
WolfstetterEDulleckUInderstR, et al. Stochastic dominance: theory and applications. Wirtschaftswiss: Humboldt-University, 1993.
47.
LevyM.Almost stochastic dominance and stocks for the long run. Eur J Operat Res2009; 194: 250–257.
48.
PastoreMCalcagnìA.Measuring distribution similarities between samples: a distribution-free overlapping index. Front Psychol2019; 10: 1089.
49.
InmanHFBradleyEL.The overlapping coefficient as a measure of agreement between probability distributions and point estimation of the overlap of two normal densities. Commun Stat Theory Methods1989; 18: 3851–3874.
50.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Regulatory guide 1.200 revision 3, acceptability of probabilistic risk assessment results for risk-informed activities, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 2020.
51.
BuiHSakuraharaTReihaniS, et al. Probabilistic validation: theoretical foundation and methodological platform. ASCE-ASME J Risk Uncertain Eng Syst Part B Mech Eng2023; 9: 021204.
52.
KeeEHasenbeinJZolanA, et al. RoverD: use of test data in GSI-191 risk assessment. Nucl Technol2016; 196: 270–291.
53.
WangJYangJSenP.Safety analysis and synthesis using fuzzy sets and evidential reasoning. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf1995; 47: 103-118.
54.
GuoXJiJKhanF, et al. Fuzzy Bayesian network based on an improved similarity aggregation method for risk assessment of storage tank accident. Process Saf Environ Prot2021; 149: 817–830.
55.
GuoCWuW.Fuzzy dynamic Bayesian network based on a discrete aggregation method for risk assessment of marine nuclear power platform hinge joints accidents. Appl Ocean Res2023; 138: 103674.
56.
FrigyikBAKapilaAGuptaMR. Introduction to the dirichlet distribution and related processes. (UWEE Technical Report UWEETR-2010-0006). Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
57.
LiuYNandramB.Sampling methods for the concentration parameter and discrete baseline of the dirichlet process. Stat Transit New Series2022; 23: 21–36.
LuaiALZarepourM.The dirichlet process with large concentration parameter. arXiv pre-print server, 2011.
60.
AntonelliJTrippaLHaneuseS.Mitigating bias in generalized linear mixed models: The case for Bayesian nonparametrics. Stat Sci2016; 31: 80–95.
61.
PeacockRDMcGrattanKBForneyGP, et al. CFAST, the consolidated model of fire growth and smoke transport, volume 1: technical reference guide. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2023.
62.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation (FIVE), REV. 2Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 2014.
