Assessment of methodologies for analysis of the dungeness B accidental aircraft crash risk.

LaChance, Jeffrey L. ; Hansen, Clifford W.

Sandia National Laboratories

关键词: Iaea;    11 Nuclear Fuel Cycle And Fuel Materials;    Nuclear Facilities;    Aircraft;    Safety;   

DOI  :  10.2172/1008107
RP-ID  :  SAND2010-6721
RP-ID  :  AC04-94AL85000
RP-ID  :  1008107

美国|英语

来源: UNT Digital Library

【 摘 要 】

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has requested Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) to review the aircraft crash methodology for nuclear facilities that are being used in the United Kingdom (UK). The scope of the work included a review of one method utilized in the UK for assessing the potential for accidental airplane crashes into nuclear facilities (Task 1) and a comparison of the UK methodology against similar International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), United States (US) Department of Energy (DOE), and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) methods (Task 2). Based on the conclusions from Tasks 1 and 2, an additional Task 3 would provide an assessment of a site-specific crash frequency for the Dungeness B facility using one of the other methodologies. This report documents the results of Task 2. The comparison of the different methods was performed for the three primary contributors to aircraft crash risk at the Dungeness B site: airfield related crashes, crashes below airways, and background crashes. The methods and data specified in each methodology were compared for each of these risk contributors, differences in the methodologies were identified, and the importance of these differences was qualitatively and quantitatively assessed. The bases for each of the methods and the data used were considered in this assessment process. A comparison of the treatment of the consequences of the aircraft crashes was not included in this assessment because the frequency of crashes into critical structures is currently low based on the existing Dungeness B assessment. Although the comparison found substantial differences between the UK and the three alternative methodologies (IAEA, NRC, and DOE) this assessment concludes that use of any of these alternative methodologies would not change the conclusions reached for the Dungeness B site. Performance of Task 3 is thus not recommended.