Epistemic Uncertainty in the Ranking and Categorization of Probabilistic Safety Assessment Model Elements: Issues and Findings

In this work, we study the effect of epistemic uncertainty in the ranking and categorization of elements of probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) models. We show that, while in a deterministic setting a PSA element belongs to a given category univocally, in the presence of epistemic uncertainty, a PSA element belongs to a given category only with a certain probability. We propose an approach to estimate these probabilities, showing that their knowledge allows to appreciate "the sensitivity of component categorizations to uncertainties in the parameter values" (U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.174). We investigate the meaning and utilization of an assignment method based on the expected value of importance measures. We discuss the problem of evaluating changes in quality assurance, maintenance activities prioritization, etc. in the presence of epistemic uncertainty. We show that the inclusion of epistemic uncertainly in the evaluation makes it necessary to evaluate changes through their effect on PSA model parameters. We propose a categorization of parameters based on the Fussell-Vesely and differential importance (DIM) measures. In addition, issues in the calculation of the expected value of the joint importance measure are present when evaluating changes affecting groups of components. We illustrate that the problem can be solved using DIM. A numerical application to a case study concludes the work.

[1]  I. Sobol On the distribution of points in a cube and the approximate evaluation of integrals , 1967 .

[2]  Jon C. Helton,et al.  Calculation of reactor accident safety goals , 1993 .

[3]  H Christopher Frey,et al.  OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS , 2001 .

[4]  F. J. Davis,et al.  Illustration of Sampling‐Based Methods for Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis , 2002, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[5]  Andrea Saltelli,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis for Importance Assessment , 2002, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[6]  Curtis Smith Calculating Conditional Core Damage Probabilities for Nuclear Power Plant Operations Reliability Eng , 1998 .

[7]  J C Helton,et al.  Performance Assessment in Support of the 1996 Compliance Certification Application for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant , 1999, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[8]  G. Apostolakis The concept of probability in safety assessments of technological systems. , 1990, Science.

[9]  Michael C. Cheok,et al.  An approach for using risk assessment in risk-informed decisions on plant-specific changes to the licensing basis , 1999 .

[10]  D. Vasseur,et al.  International survey on PSA figures of merit , 1999 .

[11]  W. E. Vesely Reservations on “ASME Risk‐Based Inservice Inspection and Testing: An Outlook to the Future” , 1998 .

[12]  E. Borgonovo Measuring Uncertainty Importance: Investigation and Comparison of Alternative Approaches , 2006, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[13]  George E Apostolakis,et al.  How Useful Is Quantitative Risk Assessment? , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[14]  H Christopher Frey,et al.  Comparison of Sensitivity Analysis Methods Based on Applications to a Food Safety Risk Assessment Model , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[15]  J. C. Helton,et al.  Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in the presence of stochastic and subjective uncertainty , 1997 .

[16]  Z W Birnbaum,et al.  ON THE IMPORTANCE OF DIFFERENT COMPONENTS IN A MULTICOMPONENT SYSTEM , 1968 .

[17]  M. Elisabeth Paté-Cornell,et al.  Uncertainties in risk analysis: Six levels of treatment , 1996 .

[18]  S. Kaplan,et al.  On The Quantitative Definition of Risk , 1981 .

[19]  A. Introduction,et al.  AN APPROACH FOR USING PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT IN RISK-INFORMED DECISIONS ON PLANT- SPECIFIC CHANGES TO THE LICENSING BASIS , 2009 .

[20]  S. A. Eide,et al.  Advanced Test Reactor probabilistic risk assessment , 1993 .

[21]  G. Apostolakis,et al.  Pitfalls in risk calculations , 1981 .

[22]  Stefano Tarantola,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis in Practice , 2002 .

[23]  K. S. Canady,et al.  Probabilistic safety assessment support for the maintenance rule at Duke Power Company , 1999 .

[24]  M. Cheok,et al.  Use of importance measures in risk-informed regulatory applications , 1998 .

[25]  Emanuele Borgonovo Differential, criticality and Birnbaum importance measures: An application to basic event, groups and SSCs in event trees and binary decision diagrams , 2007, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[26]  F. O. Hoffman,et al.  Propagation of uncertainty in risk assessments: the need to distinguish between uncertainty due to lack of knowledge and uncertainty due to variability. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[27]  Jon C. Helton,et al.  Treatment of Uncertainty in Performance Assessments for Complex Systems , 1994 .

[28]  Emanuele Borgonovo,et al.  Comparison of global sensitivity analysis techniques and importance measures in PSA , 2003, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[29]  Jon C. Helton,et al.  Survey of sampling-based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis , 2006, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[30]  Steve Epstein,et al.  Can we trust PRA? , 2005, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[31]  Jon C. Helton,et al.  Summary description of the methods used in the probabilistic risk assessments for NUREG-1150 , 1992 .

[32]  Emanuele Borgonovo,et al.  A new importance measure for risk-informed decision making , 2001, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..