참고문헌 (77)

1. Reliability Engineering and Safety System Hakata 92 883 2007 10.1016/j.ress.2006.04.022 Seismic PSA method for multiple nuclear power plants in a site 

   상세보기

2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Issues and recommendations for advancement of PRA technology in risk-informed decision making (NUREG/CR-6813). Washington, DC; 2003. 

3. Fleming KN. On the issue of integrated risk-A PRA practitioner's perspective. In: Proceedings of the ANS international topical meeting on probabilistic safety analysis. San Francisco, CA; 2005. 

4. Arndt S. Methods and strategies for future reactor safety goals. PhD thesis; 2010. 

5. Omoto A. Design consideration on severe accident for future LWR (IAEA-TECDOC-1020). In: Proceedings of a technical committee meeting of the international atomic energy agency. Vienna; 1996. 

6. Reliability Engineering and System Safety Jung 82 165 2003 10.1016/S0951-8320(03)00140-6 A new method to evaluate alternate AC power source effects in multi-unit nuclear power plants 

   상세보기

7. Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) Sandberg 2009 Probabilistic safety analysis of non-seismic external hazards 

8. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Resolution of generic safety issues: task CH2: design (NUREG-0933). Washington, D.C.; 1981. 

9. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Use of probabilistic risk assessment methods in nuclear regulatory activities (60 FR 42622). Washington, D.C.; 1995. 

10. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Plan for resolving policy issues related to licensing non-light water reactor designs (SECY-02-0139). Washington, D.C.; 2002. 

11. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Policy issues related to licensing non-light-water reactor designs (SECY-03-0047). Washington, D.C.; 2003. 

12. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Policy issues related to new plant licensing and status of the technology-neutral framework for new plant licensing (SECY-05-0130); 2005. 

13. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Staff requirements memorandum-SECY-05-0130-policy issues related to new plant licensing and status of the technology-neutral framework for new plant licensing; 2005. 

14. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Staff plan to make a risk-informed and performance-based revision to 10 CFR Part 50 (SECY-06-0007). Washington, D.C.; 2006. 

15. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Feasibility study for a risk-informed and performance-based regulatory structure for future plant licensing (NUREG-1860). Washington, D.C.; 2007. 

16. Idaho National Laboratory. The NRC's SPAR models: current status, future development, and modeling issues. In: Proceedings of the ANS international topical meeting on probabilistic safety analysis. Knoxville, TN; 2008. 

17. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Staff requirements memorandum-SECY-11-0089-options for proceeding with future Level 3 probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) activities. Washington, D.C.; 2011. 

18. Journal of Power and Energy Systems Muramatsu 2 1 122 2008 10.1299/jpes.2.122 Effects of correlations of component failures and cross-connections of EDGs on seismically induced core damages of a multi-unit site 

    상세보기

19. Muhlheim MD, Wood RT. Design strategies and evaluation for sharing systems at multi-unit plants phase I (ORNL/LTR/INERI-BRAZIL/06-01). Oak Ridge National Laboratory; 2007. 

20. International Atomic Energy Agency. Development and application of Level 1 probabilistic safety assessment for nuclear power plants. Specific safety guide no. SSG-3. Vienna; 2010. 

21. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Risk assessment of operational events handbook: vol. 3-SPAR model reviews, Rev. 2. Washington, D.C.; 2010. 

22. Bogazici University Nuclear Engineering Department. PSA Glossary, [Online]. Available from: 〈http://www.nuce.boun.edu.tr/psa/psaglossary.html〉; [accessed 15.05.12]. 

23. Knochenhauer M, Holmberg J-E Guidance for the definition and application of probabilistic safety criteria. In: Proceedings of PSAM 10 international probabilistic safety assessment and management. Seattle, Washington; 2012. 

24. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Regulatory Guide, 1.174. An approach for using probabilistic risk assessment in risk-informed decisions on plant-specific changes to the licensing basis. Washington, D.C.; 2002. 

25. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Staff requirement memorandum-SECY-90-016-evolutionary light water reactor certification issues and their relationships to current regulatory requirements. Washington, D.C.; 1990. 

26. Pickard Lowe and Garrick, Inc.. Seabrook station probabilistic safety assessment-section 13.3 risk of two unit station. Prepared for public service company of new hampshire, PLG-0300; 1983. 

27. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Industry-average performance for components and initiating events at U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG/CR-6928). Washington, D.C.; 2007. 

28. International Atomic Energy Agency. Extreme external events in the design and assessment of nuclear power plants (IAEA-TECDOC-1341). Vienna; 2003. 

29. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE standard application of the single-failure criterion to nuclear power generating station safety system (ANSI/IEEE Std. 379-1988). New York; 1988. 

30. Tennessee Valley Authority 2011 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3: licensee event report 50-259/2011-001-00 Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

31. Point Beach Nuclear Plant 2000 Licensee event report 2000-010-00 Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

32. Duke energy 2011 Duke energy carolinas, LLC: licensee event report 369/2011-01, Revision 1 Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

33. Florida Power and Light 2005 Turkey point Units 3 and 4: reportable event 2005-006-01 Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

34. PPL Susquehanna 2007 Licensee event report 50-387/2007-001-00 LCC, letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

35. Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant 2006 Licensee event report 2-06-02 Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

36. Point Beach Nuclear Plant 2007 Licensee event report 266/301-2007-006-00 Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

37. Duke Energy 2006 Licensee event report 413/06-003 Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

38. Exelon Nuclear 2001 Licensee event report 2001-001-00, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 2 and 3 Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

39. Exelon Generation Company 2011 Licensee event report 2011-004-00 LLC. Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

40. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NRC inspection manual: manual chapter 0609-significance determination process. Washington, D.C.; 2011. 

41. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NRC enforcement policy. Washington, D.C.; 2011. 

42. Tennessee Valley Authority 2009 Licensee event report (LER) 50-259/2009-003 Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

43. Point Beach Nuclear Plant 2002 Licensee event report 266/2002-003-01 Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

44. PPL Susquehanna 2002 Licensee event report 50-387/2002-005-00 LCC, Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

45. Tennessee Valley Authority 2000 Licensee event report (LER) 50-260/2000-002-00 Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

46. Point Beach Nuclear Plant 2001 Licensee event report (LER) 266/2001-005-00 Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

47. Duke Energy 2002 Licensee event report 269/2002-01 Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

48. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station 2004 Licensee event report 2004-009-01 Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

49. Florida Power and Light. Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Turkey point Units 3 and 4: reportable event 2005-004-00, 2005 

50. PSEG Nuclear LLC. Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. LER 272/02-001-00 Salem Generating Station-Unit 1; 2002. 

51. Southern Company 2002 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant-Unit 1 and 2 licensee event report 1-2005-002 Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

52. Tennessee Valley Authority 2002 Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2-licensee event report 50-327/2002001 Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

53. Westinghouse Nuclear Safety Advisory Letter 02-3. Steam generator mid-deck plate pressure loss issue; 2002. 

54. Exelon Generation Company 2010 Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, licensee event report 2010-007-00 Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

55. Exelon Generation Company 2011 Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, licensee event report 2010-007-00 Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

56. Luminant Power 2011 Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, licensee event report 445/11-001-00 Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

57. Westinghouse Nuclear Safety Advisory Letter 09-8. Presence of vapor in emergency core cooling system/residual heat removal system in modes 3/4 loss-of-coolant accident conditions; 2009. 

58. Exelon Generation Company. Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Braidwood Station, Unit 1, licensee event report 2005-001-00, 2005 

59. Exelon Generation Company 2010 Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, licensee event report 2010-006-00 Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

60. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Guidelines on modeling common-cause failures in probabilistic risk assessment (NUREG/CR-5485). Washington, D.C.; 1998. 

61. Reliability Engineering and System Safety Mohaghegh 94 1000 2009 10.1016/j.ress.2008.11.006 Incorporating organizational factors into probabilistic risk assessment of complex socio-technical systems: a hybrid technique formalization 

    상세보기

62. Reliability Engineering and System Safety Hu 64 241 1999 10.1016/S0951-8320(98)00066-0 Evaluating system behavior through dynamic master logic diagram modeling 

    상세보기

63. IEEE Transactions on Computers Akers C-27 509 1978 10.1109/TC.1978.1675141 Binary decision diagrams 

    상세보기

64. Safety Science Mohaghegh 47 1139 2009 10.1016/j.ssci.2008.12.008 Incorporating organizational factors into probabilistic risk assessment of complex socio-technical systems: principles and theoretical foundations 

    상세보기

65. 10.1115/POWER2011-55324 Mohaghegh Z, Modarres M, Christou A. Physics-based common cause failure modeling in probabilistic risk analysis: a mechanistic approach. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2011 power conference. Denver, Colorado; 2011. 

    

66. Mohaghegh Z, Modarres M. A probabilistic physics-of-failure approach to common cause failures in reliability assessment of structures and components. In: American nuclear society, 2011 winter meeting. Washington, D.C.; October 30-November 3, 2001. 

67. Reliability Engineering and System Safety Trucco 93 823 2008 10.1016/j.ress.2007.03.035 A bayesian belief network modelling of organisational factors in risk analysis: a case study in maritime transportation 

    상세보기

68. 10.1007/3-540-45416-0_4 Gran BA, Helminen A. A Bayesian belief network for reliability assessment. In: SAFECOMP'01 Proceedings of the 20th international conference on computer safety, reliability, and security. London; 2001. 

    상세보기

69. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. PRA procedures guide (NUREG/CR-2300). Washington, D.C.; 1983. 

70. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Procedures for the external event core damage frequency analyses for NUREG-1150 (NUREG/CR-4840). Washington, D.C.; 1990. 

71. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Technical review of risk-informed, performance-based methods for nuclear power plant fire protection analyses-draft report for comment (NUREG-1521). Washington, D.C.; 1998. 

72. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. EPRI/NRC-RES fire PRA methodology for nuclear power facilities (NUREG/CR-6850). Washington, D.C.; 2005. 

73. International Atomic Energy Agency. Probabilistic safety assessment for seismic events. IAEA-TECDOC-724. Austria; 1993. 

74. Chokshi N, Johnson JJ. Methodology of seismic margin assessment and evaluation examples in the US. In: Presentations from the first Kashiwazaki international symposium. Kashiwazaki, Japan; November 24-26; 2010. 

75. International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA safety standards series: external events excluding earthquakes in the design of nuclear power plants (no. NS-G-1.5). Vienna; 2003. 

76. Reliability Engineering and System Safety Chang 92 997 2007 10.1016/j.ress.2006.05.014 Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents, part 1: overview of the IDAC model 

    상세보기

77. Princeton University. WordNet Search-3.1. [Online]. Available from: 〈http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fuzzy%20logic〉; 2005 [accessed 13.04.12].