1. KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute Statistical evaluation of the on line core monitoring effectiveness for limiting the consequences of the fuel assembly misloading event A. Molnár, A. Keresztúri, E. Temesvári, L. Korpás* KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute *NPP Paks Hungary AER Symposium, Yalta, Crimea, Ukraine, September, 2007

2. KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute 2 Outline The safety related function of the online core monitoring in the defense in depth concept  Indication methods  Uncertainties of the measurements of the temperature rises  Description of the applied Monte Carlo method  The results: confidence level of the indication  Conclusions

3. KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute 3 The role of online core monitoring according to „DEFENSE IN DEPTH IN NUCLEAR SAFETY, INSAG-10, A report by the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, VIENNA, 1996” Level1Prevention of abnormal operation and failures Conservative design and high quality in construction and operation Level2Control of abnormal operation and detection of failures Control, limiting and protection systems and other surveillance features Level3Control of accidents within the design basis Engineered safety features and accident procedures

4. KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute 4 The functions of the on line monitoring 1. Indication of the abnormal events like - fuel assembly misloading; only the online monitoring can detect, - inadvertent misalignment of the Control Assemblies, - partial or full blockage of one or more coolant channels (for example due to crud deposition). 2. Utilizing the measurements for refining the online calculated “frame parameters” of the local power limitations, like maximum linear heat rate, pin power, sub-channel outlet temperature.

5. KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute 5 The objectives, the questions to be answered How to indicate the abnormal event of misloading. What combination of the online measured (and calculated) quantities can be applied as „frame parameters” for this purpose. How to evaluate the uncertainties of the measured data, determining the above “frame parameter” uncertainties. How to built the above uncertainties into the appropriate Operational Indication Level („OIL”) of the abnormal event - in order to indicate it with high confidence level but to avoid the erroneous indication in normal operation at high probability, too.

6. KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute 6 The objectives, the questions to be answered (Cont.) What are those satisfactory configurations of the measurements (number and position of the detectors) at which the above, to some extent contradictory requirements are met, or with other words, the given safety related function of the online monitoring is fulfilled. In the given special case, all the above questions are to be answered as a function of the reactor power, because the abnormal event must be indicated in due time, after the reloading during the uploading phase at lower power rate, when the consequences of the local power perturbations are still milder.

7. KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute 7 Symbolic axes of limits of different sorts and for the consequences Best estimate safety limits (SL) to avoid fuel failure due to DNB (LEVEL3) Safety margin Indication levels TIL: “True” indication level (LEVEL2), enveloping frame parameter for the DBA analyses Normal operation level OIL: Operational early indication level (LEVEL2) M1: Margin for uncertainties M2: Margin for uncertainties „True” characteristics of itnitial and end states of the DBA anelyses (examples) „True” local power limit (LEVEL1), enveloping frame parameter for the DBA analyses Local power limitations at normal operation Margin for uncertainties Operational local power limit (LEVEL1) Reactor states not covered by the DBA analyses and to be indicated with high confidence level in due time

8. KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute 8 Indication methods Evaluation of the measured asymmetry factors for the i-th radial position of a symmetry sector where where - the j index stands for the equivalent positions of the different symmetry sectors - is the average temperature rise of the equivalent positions of the i-th position inside the sector Comparison of the calculated (not refined!) and measured temperature rise values

9. KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute 9 Evaluation of the temperature rise measurement uncertainties Symmetry scattering: where - the j index stands for the equivalent positions of the different symmetry sectors - is the average temperature rise in the i-th position of the symmetry sector at the k-th reactor state - N(i) is the number of available measurements in the symmetric positions

10. KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute 10 Evaluation of the temperature rise measurement uncertainties PowerSymmetry scatteringRelative symmetry scattering 100 %0.53 o C1.6 % 55 %0.33 o C1.8 % 30 %0.25 o C2.3 %

11. KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute 11 Reading the basic input parameters: TIL, OIL, selection parameter for the abnormal states, number of Monte Carlo runs, … Selection of the precalculated “true” normal and abnormal temperature rise distribution according to the reactor power Sampling the calculated and measured normal and abnormal temperature rise distributions Sampling the detector availability Cycle according to the selected abnormal states Cycle according to the Monte Carlo runs Algorithm for indication of the abnormal state, Counting of the indications The Monte Carlo algorithm for evaluation of P(M1) and P(M2)

12. KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute 12 The investigated variants Reactor power  100 %, the relative error of the temperature rise is 1.6 %  55 %, the relative error of the temperature rise is 1.8 %  30 %, the relative error of the temperature rise is 2.3 % Available temperature measurements above the assemblies  All the 210 measurements are available.  75 % of the measurements is available and at least in the second neighbor of each radial position a measurement is existing.

13. KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute 13 The investigated variants (Cont.) Abnormal (and normal) state(s)  The less recognizable but not covered by the DBA analyses abnormal state. According to the investigations this is an exchange of two neighbor assemblies (No. 221 and 222 for Unit 1 Cycle 15) leading to an asymmetry factor of 7.5 %  Statistical selection of the exchanges with equivalent probability  Normal operation state (must not be indicated) Indication method:  Measured asymmetry factor  Comparison of the calculated and measured temperature distributions

14. KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute 14 Probabilities of indicating the less recognizable abnormal state and that for the normal operation, 100 % power, indication based on the asymmetry factor

15. KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute 15 Probabilities of indicating the less recognizable abnormal state and that for the normal operation, 55 % power, indication based on the asymmetry factor

16. KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute 16 Probabilities of indicating the less recognizable abnormal state and that for the normal operation, 30 % power, indication based on the asymmetry factor

17. KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute 17 Probabilities of indicating abnormal, states selected randomly, and that for the normal operation, 30 % power, indication based on the asymmetry factor

18. KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute 18 Probabilities of indicating the less recognizable abnormal state and that for the normal operation, 100 % power, indication based on the comparison of calculation with measurements

19. KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute 19 Summary  A Monte Carlo method was developed for the statistical evaluation of the on line core monitoring effectiveness. The method was applied for the case of the fuel assembly misloading indication.  The standard deviation of measurements, necessary for the Monte Carlo sampling procedure, was obtained from the on line monitoring system measurements, performed at symmetric states. The great advantage of the outlined procedure is that both the uncertainty estimation and the abnormal state indication are based on the same type of measurements.  The investigations proved the satisfactory effectiveness of the online core monitoring down to 55 % power even in case when only the 75 % of the temperature measurements are available and if the indication is based on the measured asymmetry factor.