Current Projects

Search for Projects
View Projects
Project Title
by Subject/Focus Area
by Board/Committee
by Major Unit
Provisional Committee Appointments Open for Formal Public Comments
by Last Update
Meeting Information
Conflict of Interest Policy
Committee Appointment Process
More Project Information and to provide FEEDBACK on the Project

 Printer Friendly Version

Meeting Information

Project Title: Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident for Improving Safety and Security of U.S. Nuclear Plants

PIN: DELS-NRSB-12-01         

Major Unit:
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
Policy and Global Affairs

Sub Unit:
Board on Energy & Environmental Systems DEPS
Committee on International Security and Arms Control
Office of the Foreign Secretaries
Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board

Crowley, Kevin

Subject/Focus Area:
Energy and Energy Conservation; Engineering and Technology; Environment and Environmental Studies; International Issues; National Security and Defense

Committee on Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident for Improving Safety and Security of U.S. Nuclear Plants
April 30, 2013 - April 30, 2013
Keck Center
500 5th Street, NW
Washington D.C. 20001

Web-based media/teleconference

If you would like to attend the sessions of this meeting that are open
to the public or need more information please contact:

Contact Name: Darlene Gros
Phone: (202) 334-3066
Fax: (202) 334-3077


Lessons Learned From the Fukushima Nuclear Accident for Improving Safety and Security of U.S. Nuclear Plants

Meeting Topic: Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA)
April 30, 2013

Meeting broadcast live in Room 105
Keck Center of the National Academies
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

10:00AM-12:00PM EDT How Probabilistic Risk Assessment is Used in Nuclear Plant Safety. Panel discussion via web-based media/teleconference.

Speakers: John W. Stetkar, ACRS member; David H. Johnson, ABS Consulting; James R. Chapman, Scientech, Curtiss Wright Flow Control; Don Dube, Erin Engineering (formerly US NRC)

NB: Instructions on how to connect will be posted before the meeting or visitors may view in Keck Room 105.



Questions on PRA at the WEBEX MEETING
April 30, 2013


What has been the principal value added of PRAs to our understanding of the safety of nuclear plants and how does it rank with other methods of analysis for developing a fundamental understanding of nuclear plant safety? What are the alternatives? Is there a problem of what the standard should be for a PRA? How important a role has peer review played in existing plant-specific PRAs? How much do we know about the use of PRAs by non-US nuclear plant operators and Japan in particular? What is the level of acceptance and use of PRA in the international community?


How have the PRAs been used (maintenance, outage planning, modifications, regulations, operations decisions, accident management, cost savings, etc.) beyond just attempting to answer the risk question? How was PRA used to establish severe accident management guidelines? What is the best strategy for PRA to be a continuous and real time source of supporting evidence for decision making on plant operations? What have we learned about the role of PRA in Japanese nuclear power plants and the Fukushima Daiichi plants in particular?


What lessons have we learned about assuring independence of the PRAs? Does it make a difference institutionally who performs the PRA? Are reactor suppliers capable of performing independent PRAs? Is it possible that strong oversight and peer review could offset any concerns about independence?


What should be the criteria for establishing the scope of a PRA or does it depend on too many variables for there to be one? How should scoping decisions be made with respect to the depth and breadth of internal and external threats to the plants?


What is and should be the role of the regulator and the industry in the deployment of the PRA thought process? Is there a danger of regulatory guidelines becoming so specific and industry becoming so compliance oriented as to cookbook the process? Is the alternative of an industry driven process with strong oversight and peer review more suitable to obtain results that make more transparent a fundamental understanding of nuclear plant safety.

WebEx link

Closed Session Summary Posted After the Meeting

The following committee members were present at the closed sessions of the meeting:
John Garrick
Norman Neureiter
Bob Bari
Jan Beyea
Mike Golay
Paul Locke
Jim Matheson
Najm Meshkati
Emily Roth
Frank von Hippel

The following topics were discussed in the closed sessions:
Topics related to the use of probabilistic risk assessment in nuclear power plant safety, future meetings

The following materials (written documents) were made available to the committee in the closed sessions:

Date of posting of Closed Session Summary: May 2, 2013