Is Core Damage Frequency an Informative Risk Metric?

TL;DR

This paper critically examines the use of Core Damage Frequency (CDF) as a risk metric in nuclear safety, questioning its assumptions and the informativeness of its constant value representation.

Contribution

The paper revisits CDF using modern point process theory, highlighting the unrealistic assumptions and questioning its effectiveness as an informative risk metric.

Findings

CDF assumptions are often unrealistic.

Treating CDF as an informative approximation is problematic.

Quantifying CDF's approximation quality is difficult.

Abstract

Core Damage Frequency (CDF) is a risk metric often employed by nuclear regulatory bodies worldwide. Numerical values for this metric are required by U.S. regulators, prior to reactor licensing, and reported values can trigger regulatory inspections. CDF is reported as a constant, sometimes accompanied by a confidence interval. It is well understood that CDF characterizes the arrival rate of a stochastic point process modeling core damage events. However, consequences of the assumptions imposed on this stochastic process as a computational necessity are often overlooked. Herein, we revisit CDF in the context of modern point process theory. We argue that the assumptions required to yield a constant CDF are typically unrealistic. We further argue that treating CDF as an informative approximation is suspect, because of the inherent difficulties in quantifying its quality as an approximation.