Safeguard Assessment in Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) Operations Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Production Function

Abstract

The safeguard assessment has been investigated for the nuclear material in the nuclear power plants (NPPs). It is important to keep the secure operation in NPPs against possible terror attacks. The random sampling of Monte-Carlo method is used for the quantification of the basic events in 5 kinds of interested NPPs. Using the matrix form analysis, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is applied as the maximum pair values with multiplications which is decided by reactor characteristics. The range of the secure operation is between 0.006167 and 0.004680 as relative numbers in the lifetime of 60 years. This means the highest value in the range of secure power operation is about 1.3177 times higher than the lowest one. The consistency has the highest consistent values in 14^th and 26^th years as the lowest values of the C.I. (Consistency Index) and C.R. (Consistency Ratio). The value of Nuclear Production Function (NPF) of the Cobb-Douglas function has the maximum value of 0.642836 and the minimum value of 0.0932656, where the refueling period is specialized as the power production change. So, the highest value in the secure power operation is 6.8925 times higher than that of the lowest power operation in this study. Finally, the nuclear safeguard protocol (NSP) is constructed for the safe operation successfully.

Keywords

Safeguard measures factor (SMF)Nuclear power plants (NPPs)Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)Cobb-Douglas function Nuclear safeguard protocol (NSP)

References

Cagno

Caron

and Perego

, 2001. Multi-criteria assessment of the probability of winning in the competitive bidding process. International Journal of Project Management 19, 313–324.

Chatzimouratidis

A.I.

and Pilavachi

P.A.

, 2008. Multicriteria evaluation of power plants impact on the living standard using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 36, 1074–1089.

Cobb

C.W.

and Douglas

P.H.

, 1928. A theory of production. American Economic Review 18, 139–165.

Coyle

, 2004. The Hierarchy Process (AHP). Pearson Education Ltd.

Drake

P.R.

, 1998. Using the analytic hierarchy process in engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education 14, 191–196.

Holder

R.D.

, 1990. Some comment on the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of the Operational Research Society 41, 1073–1076.

IAEA, 2004. Guidelines and Format for Preparation and Submission of Declarations Pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 of the Model Protocol Additional to Safeguards Agreements. IAEA Services Series No. 11.

IAEA, 1980. IAEA Safeguards: Guidelines for States' Systems of Accounting for and Control of Nuclear Materials. IAEA Safeguards Information Series No. 2.

IAEA, 1981. IAEA Safeguards: An Introduction. IAEA Safeguards Information Series No. 3.

10.

IAEA, 1999. Design Measures to Facilitate Implementation of Safeguards at Future Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants. Technical Reports Series No. 392.

11.

Jones

R.D.

and Thomas

P.J.

, 2006. Stupples DW. Numerical techniques for speeding up the calculation of the life extension brought about by removing a prolonged radiation exposure. Process Safety and Environmental Protections 85, 269–276.

12.

Johnson

R.W.

, 2010. Beyond-compliance uses of HAZOP/LOPA studies. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 23, 727–733.

13.

Kaya

and Kahraman

, 2010. Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul. Energy 35, 2517–2527.

14.

KHNP, 2009. A Government Report for Nuclear Power Generation. Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. Ltd.

15.

Lee

S.K.

Mogi

Lee

and Kim

J.W.

, 2011. Prioritizing the weights of hydrogen energy technologies in the sector of the hydrogen economy by using a fuzzy AHP approach. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 36, 1897–1902.

16.

Saunders

H.D.

, 2008. Fuel conserving (and using) production functions, Energy Economics 30, 2184–2235.

17.

Saaty

T.L.

, 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw Hill International.

18.

Shin

C.O.

Yoo

S.H.

and Kwak

S.J.

, 2007. Applying the analytic hierarchy process to evaluation of the national nuclear R&D projects: The case of Korea. Progress in Nuclear Energy 49, 375–384.

19.

Suh

and Han

, 2003. The IS risk analysis based on a business model. Information & Management 41, 149–158.

20.

Sallhammar

Helvik

B.E.

and Knapskog

S.J.

, 2006. On stochastic modeling for integrated security and dependability evaluation. Journal of Networks 1(5), 31–42.

21.

Thomas

P.J.

and Jones

R.D.

, 2009. Numerical techniques for speeding up the calculation of the life extension brought about by removing a prolonged radiation exposure. Process Safety and Environmental Protections 87, 161–174.

22.

Thomas

P.J.

Stupples

D.W.

and Alghaffar

M.A.

, 2006. The extent of regulatory consensus on health and safety expenditure, part 1: Development of the j-value technique and evaluation of regulators' recommendations. Process Safety and Environmental Protections 84, 329–336.

23.

Wang

J.J.

Jing

Y.Y.

Zhang

C.F.

Zhang

X.T.

and Shi

G.H.

, 2008. Integrated evaluation of distributed triple-generation systems using improved grey incidence approach. Energy 33, 1427–1437.

24.

Woo

T.-H.

and Lee

U.-C.

, 2010. Modeling of operational safeguard for power productions in the nuclear power plants (NPPs). Energy Exploration & Exploitation 28(6), 433–450.

25.

Woo

T.-H.

and Lee

U.-C.

, 2011. Safeguard management for operation security in nuclear power plants (NPPs). Annals of Nuclear Energy (in press).

26.

Yun

Rogers

W.J.

and Mannan

M.S.

, 2009. Risk assessment of LNG importation terminals using the Bayesian–LOPA methodology. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 22, 91–96.

27.

Zhong

Liu

Deng

Shi

and Hu

, 2006. Safety evaluation: Important safeguard of work safety for enterprises in China. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 19, 762–768.

28.

Zio

Cantarella

and Cammi

, 2003. The analytic hierarchy process as a systematicapproach to the identification of important parameters for the reliabilityassessment of passive systems. Nuclear Engineering and Design 226, 311–336.