ASAMPSA2 Project

ASAMPSA2 partners
France: IRSN, CEA, AREVA NP SAS • Germany: GRS, VGB, AREVA NP GMBH • Belgium: TRACTEBEL • Spain: IBERINCO • Finland: VTT, FORTUM, STUK • Hungary: NUBIKI • Italy: RSE SpA, ENEA • Netherlands: NRG • Czech Republic : UJV • United Kingdom: AMEC NNC Ltd • Sweden: FKA, SCANPOWER • Switzerland: PSI, Cazzoli Consulting
You are here: Home arrow Technical description arrow Contribution
  • Decrease font size
  • Default font size
  • Increase font size
2. Contribution to the coordination of high quality research Print E-mail

As explained above, in spite of the availability of existing L2 PSA guidelines, the recent comparisons of existing level 2 PSA, performed and discussed in SARNET L2 PSA work packages, but also in CSNI workshops (Koln 2004, Petten 2004, Aix en Provence 2005) have shown that the high differences in practical implementation of level 2 PSAs and integration of probabilistic conclusions into the overall safety assessment of Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs).

The main contribution of the project was the reduction of the lack of consistency between existing practices on L2 PSA in European countries.

The project had strong links with the SARNET Network of Excellence, since it was built on the already published work on Level 2 PSA carried out by SARNET but also departed from the level of progress achieved by different countries and international organisations (e.g., in the USA, regulatory documentation was developed as well as various industry standards (ASME, ANS); the IAEA has almost completed a Safety Standard on Level 2 PSA; work is on-going in OECD/CSNI).

Conclusion of SARNET activities on level 2 PSA harmonization and last version of IAEA Safety Standard on level 2 PSA constituted the departing point of the coordination action.

The Consortium deemed that harmonization of limited scope L2 PSA methodologies was an achievable objective but more difficult than a full scope level 2 PSA. A prudent approach was defined during the project with identification of topics where harmonization was achievable. If the harmonization was not reached for some topics, the reason was described. In that case, this process may have conducted to identification of topics where knowledge was not yet sufficient for risk assessment.

The measures of success ("performance indicators") of the project and its component parts were linked to the furniture of deliverables and organisation of ad-hoc meetings. Nevertheless the following key points were used as performance indicators:

  • the clear definition of End Users needs at the beginning of the project,
  • the detailed work plan taking into account the specificities of limited-scope and full-scope L2 PSAs,
  • the valorisation of SARNET results in the first version of the ASAMPSA2 guidelines in the middle of the project,
  • the End-Users comments on final L2 PSA guidelines.