臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

核能電廠實施風險告知營運期間測試（Risk-informed Inservice Testing,簡稱RI-IST）可成為電廠持照者替代過去依據美國機械工程學會規範第11章及聯邦法規10 CFR 50.55a中所訂定的營運中測試方案，此方案可集中測試資源於高安全顯著度相關設備、減少不必要的設備測試、增進電廠設備可用性、抑低人員輻射劑量、以及在安全管制要求下降低運轉與維護成本。此外風險告知相關測試計畫也可成為持照變更申請相關基礎之審查及參考的依據。
有鑑於美國近年來大力推行採用風險告知應用於核能電廠各項營運及檢測措施，國內外核能產學業界也相繼發展營運期間檢測及營運期間測試相關技術納入風險告知觀念以成為一完整的檢測作業程序。目前國內外管制法規也相當完整，能使電廠及相關管制單位有所遵循。再者採用安全度評估之風險告知方案能夠為電廠節省功率運轉或停機大修期間龐大的維護費用及人員的劑量，此評估技術不但可以發現電廠各個結構、系統及設備的弱點加以改進，還可以將有效的資源集中在高安全顯著性的結構、系統及設備上以確保核能電廠的深層防禦(Defense In Depth)。
本文將針對國內沸水式(BWR)核能電廠營運期間測試計畫下的逆止閥(Check Valves)進行安全度評估及風險告知，因逆止閥在核能電廠眾多閥類中屬於數量較少、功能較為簡單及相關測試法規要求較低之閥類，且在分析過程中相關資料及趨勢較易掌握，所以本文將鎖定逆止閥進行先導型研究以提供爾後其他閥類研究之參考與方向，並結合相關法規的要求使成為一本土化之先導型風險告知營運期間測試計畫，提供電廠日後執行風險告知營運期間測試計畫相關決策時之參考依據。

Implementing Risk-informed Inservice Testing program provides good aspect to the nuclear power plant licensee as an alternating program in current ASME Section XI and 10 CFR 50.55a relevant testing programs. RI-IST concentrates testing resources on high significant components, reduces exceeded tests, increases plant’s availability, lows down Dose rate on the plant’s staff and achieves cost saving on plant’s operation and maintenance under nuclear safety expectation. Further more, implementing RI-IST also gives a feature on prospective licensing change basis to licensee.
Based on current trend in United States, numbers of nuclear power plants have implemented RI-IST as an alternative program for their Inservice Testing program. Several investigations also enclose both probability risk assessment and traditional engineering analysis concepts into practical practices for the nuclear industry either domestic or international. With completed regulations regarding to risk-informed implementation, certain regulation provides clear rules for both management and licensee to follow and be able to determine on decision making for Inservice Testing program. Implementing Risk-informed also identifies the vulnerabilities of the structure, system and components which are very helpful for the plant’s staff in order to improve SSCs reliability and maintain plant’s defense-in-depth.
This study will focus on safety related Check Valves under Inservice Testing program in BWR type nuclear power plant. As an initiating RI-IST, this study chooses check valve as evaluating object. Due to check valve composing less regulatory criteria and quantities under IST program, therefore, data acquisition and management are easier than other types of valves in the system during analyzing process. This evaluating establishment will incorporate with current probabilistic risk assessment and traditional analytical method relevant techniques to assess safety significant for the check valves under current Inservice Testing program. With this initiating achievement, it can provide a cornerstone for the further study on the other types of valves and pumps in RI-IST program and be able to provide valuable references for proposing license change to the licensee.

摘要 I
ABSTRACT III
誌謝 V
目錄 VI
表目錄 VIII
圖目錄 X
第一章 緒論 1
1.1前言 1
1.2研究背景 2
1.3文獻回顧 3
1.4研究動機與方向 4
1.5本文內容架構 5
第二章 核能電廠風險告知介紹 7
2.1 風險之定義 7
2.2 安全度評估介紹 8
2.3 安全度評估分析 10
2.4 安全度評估重要衡量指標 14
2.5風險告知營運期間測試相關法規評估介紹 15
2.5.1法規導引1.174介紹 15
2.5.1.1背景及目的 16
2.5.1.2風險告知決策方式 17
2.5.2法規導引1.175介紹 19
2.5.2.1 背景及目的 19
2.5.2.2 風險告知營運期間測試計畫決策 19
2.5.3美國機械工程學會運轉及維護法規個案4介紹 20
第三章 沸水式反應器逆止閥風險顯著度分析 30
3.1逆止閥基本功能與測試 30
3.2逆止閥安全度評估分析 32
3.2.1個別故障樹求解分析 32
3.2.2全廠求解分析 34
3.3逆止閥傳統工程分析 36
第四章 結果與討論 72
4.1安全度評估模式下逆止閥風險告知分析 72
4.2非安全度評估模式逆止閥風險告知分析 74
4.3風險告知結果 76
第五章 結論 84
未來展望 85
參考文獻 86

1.USNRC, ”Reactor Safety Study”: An assessment of accident risks in U.S. commercial nuclear power plants, WASH-1400(NUREG-75/014),1975.
2.USNRC, ”Sever Accident Risks: An Assessment for five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants,”NUREG-1150,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission,1989.
3.USNRC, ”Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods in Nuclear Regulatory Activities: Final Policy Statement, ”Federal Register, Vol.60,p42622, August 16,1995.
4.USNRC, ”Framework for Applying Probabilistic Risk Analysis in Reactor Regulation,” SECY-95-280, November 27,1995.
5.USNRC, Regulatory Guide 1.174,”An approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment On Plant-Specific Changes to The Licensing Basis”,1998.
6.USNRC, Standard Review Plan, Chapter 19, “Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessments in Plant Specific Risk-Informed Decision Making: General Guidance,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January , 1998.
7.USNRC, Regulatory Guide 1.175,”An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: In Service Testing”,1998.
8.USNRC, Regulatory Guide 1.176, “An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: Graded Quality Assurance,”1998.
9.USNRC, Regulatory Guide 1.177, “An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: Technical Specification,”1998.
10.USNRC, Regulatory Guide 1.178, “An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: Inservice Inspection of Piping,”1998.
11.K.Ting, ”The Applications of Risk-informed Inservice Inspection”,18th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 18) Beijing, China, August 7-12, 2005.
12.ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, “Rules for Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components”, 1995.
13.ASME OM CODE-1998,”Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants” with 1999,2000 addenda.
14.ASME OM CODE CASE OMN-3,”Requirements for Safety Significance Categorization of Components Using Risk Insights for Inservice Testing of LWR Power Plants”,1998.
15.ASME OM CODE CASE OMN-4,”Requirements for Risk Insights for Inservice Testing of Check Valve at LWR Power Plants”,1998.
16.ASME OM CODE CASE OMN-10,”Requirements for Safety Significance Categorization of Snubbers Using Risk Insights and Testing Strategies for Inservice Testing of LWR Power Plants”,1998.
17.USNRC, Standard Review Plan, Section 3.9.7, “Risk-Informed Inservice Testing,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August , 1998.
18.C.W. Rowley, ”Cost/Benefit Evaluation of Implementing Pump and Valve RI-IST at a Nuclear Power Plant”, ICONEE8-8212, Proceedings of ICONE8, 8th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, Baltimore, MD, USA, April 2-6,2000.
19.D.W. Henneke, G. Chung, M. Coveney, “Relief Request for Risk-informed Inservice Testing – San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station”, PSA International Meeting, 1999.
20.I. Mach, R. Losa, L. Mendez and J.Faig, “ASCO NPP Risk-informed In-service Testing Program for Check Valves”, ICONE8-8340, Proceeding of ICONE8, 8th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, Baltimore, MD, USA, April 2-6, 2000.
21.K.Ushijima, K. Yonebayashi, Y. Narumiya, K. Sakata and T. Kumano, “Feasibility study of Component risk ranking for plant maintenance”, ICONE-7068, Proceedings of ICONE7, 7th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, April 19-23,1999.
22.M.Watnabe,Keisuke.Ito,Y.Naurse,Y.Ohta,KunioIto and J. Dozier, “Development and Application of a Semi-Quantitative RCM approach to the reactor and turbine closed cooling water system in BWR”, ICONE-7323, The 7th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, April 19-23,1999.
23.H. Iwami, M. Yokoe and C. Kojima, “Operation and Maintenance Guideline on IST of Dynamic Restraints (Snubbers) for Nuclear Power Stations in Japan”, ICONE8-8748, Proceedings of ICONE8, 8th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering Baltimore, MD, USA, April 2-6,2000.
24.D.I. Kang, K. Y. Kim and J.J. Ha, “Importance analysis of in-service testing components for Ulchin UNIT3”, ICONE10-22180, Proceedings of ICONE10, 10th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, Arilington, VA, USA, April 14-18,2002.
25.http://vm.nthu.edu.tw/science/shows/nuclear/safety/index4.html
26.李敏，”核電廠安全度評估方法之理論與應用”，國立清華大學工程與系統科學系、台灣電力公司核能安全處，1996年6月。
27.“核一廠功率運轉活態安全度評估”，核能研究所，1995年12月。
28.USNRC, NUREG/CR-2300 , “PRA procedure Guide-A Guide to the Performance of Probabilistic Risk Assessments of Nuclear Power Plants”,1983.

29.D.F. Haasl, N.H. Roberts, W.E. Vesely and F.F. Goldberg, “Fault Tree Handbook”, 1981.
30.W.S. Lee, D.L. Grosh, F.A. Tillman and C.H. Lee, “Fault Tree Analysis Methods and Applications”, IEEE Trans. Reliability, 1985.
31.D.J. Mahar and J.W. Wilbur, “Fault Tress Analysis Application Guide”, Reliability Analysis Center, Rome & New York, 1990.
32.M. Modarres, “What Every Engineer Should Know about Reliability and Risk Analysis”, New York,1993.
33.H Kumamoto and E.J. Henley, “Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Management for Engineers and Scientist 2nd Edition, IEEE Press, New York,1996.
34.Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineer, “Quantitative Risk Analysis 2nd Edition, New York, 2000.
35.Scientech WinNUPRA 2.1, SR-3 Verified and Validated, copyright 1997-2000.
36.吳永富，”風險告知在運轉決策上的應用”，台灣電力公司核能安全文化專欄，第105期，2000年8月。
37.USNRC, ”Safety Goals for the Operations of Nuclear Power Plants; Policy Statement,” Federal Register, Vol. 51,August 4, 1986.
38.第一核能發電廠第三個十年營運期間檢測計畫書，台灣電力公司，1995年5月。
39.Office of the Federal Register, Title 10 – Chapter1, Part 50, Section 50.55(a) “ Code of Federal Regulations – Energy”, 1989.
40.Office of the Federal Register, Title 10 – Chapter1, Part 50, Appendix J, 1989.
41.ASME, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, “Rules for Inspection of Nuclear Power Division 1 Plant Components”, 1989.
42.ASME, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, “Rules for Inspection of Nuclear Power Division 1 Plant Components”, 1992 Edition with 1992 Addenda.
43.ASME OMa-1988 Part 1, “Requirements for Inservice Performance Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Pressure Relief Devices”, 1989.
44.ASME OMa-1988 Part 4, “Examination and Performance Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Dynamic Restraints”, 1989.
45.ASME OMa-1988 Part 6, “Inservice Testing of Pump in Light-Water Reactor Power Plant”, 1989.
46.ASME OMa-1988 Part 10, “Inservice Testing of Valves in Light-Water Reactor Power Plant, 1989.
47.ASME, “Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components”, 1968 and 1969a Summer Edition.
48.NEI, “Industry Guideline for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants”, NUMARC 93-01 Revision 2, 2000.
49.Paul Kales, “Reliability for Technology, Engineering and Management”, 1998.
50.Greg Krueger, “PSA Peer Review Process”, NEI Risk-informed Regulation Forum, 2000.