Evaluation method and system for construction problems of nuclear power plants under construction

Abstract

The method for evaluating problems related to the construction of a nuclear power plant under construction according to the present invention includes: step S1 of obtaining a list of problems related to the construction of the nuclear power plant under construction; step S2 of performing quantitative and qualitative evaluations on the problems in the list of construction problems to obtain a problem severity level; and step S3 of determining the final level of the problem from the severity level obtained in the quantitative evaluation and the severity level obtained in the qualitative evaluation to be the more serious level. The quantitative evaluation is performed based on the contribution of the structures, systems and / or equipment related to the problem to the overall risk of the nuclear power plant and the degree to which the problem affects the realization of the function of the structures, systems and / or equipment itself. This enables evaluation by hierarchy and classification of problems, allowing for a scientific evaluation of problems in internal audits discovered during the construction phase and supporting the effective implementation of audit work for nuclear power plants under construction.

Description

TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of nuclear power plants, and in particular, relates to a method and system for evaluating construction issues of a nuclear power plant under construction. BACKGROUND ART

[0002] As the construction of nuclear power plants progresses steadily and the number of nuclear power plants under construction continues to increase, new challenges in the supervision of nuclear safety and status evaluation at the construction stage are being faced, and higher requirements have emerged. In order to ensure the systematicness and scientific nature of supervision and evaluation related to nuclear safety at the construction stage of nuclear power plants, it is necessary to establish a more complete evaluation method adapted to the internal supervision and management at the construction stage, and support the implementation of more accurate construction process management and status evaluation for nuclear power plants.

[0003] In the prior art, there is a reactor supervision process applicable to the construction stage of new nuclear power plants, which includes a framework of supervision regulations, a construction importance determination process, a construction action matrix and related enforcement measures, can provide objective conclusions on the effectiveness of construction quality assurance of the power plant, make predictable responses to the performance degradation of the nuclear power plant, and communicate the performance evaluation results to the public. In addition, there is further a management and evaluation process for the construction quality of nuclear power plants, which periodically counts the number of various important construction issues of nuclear power plants based on the requirements of supervision regulations. For the internal supervision and management of nuclear power plants, the above processes focus on quantitative trend analysis of various issues, no clear management system has been established for hierarchical and categorized evaluation of various issues, and it is not possible to effectively evaluate issues related to supervision and inspection inside nuclear power plants at the construction stage. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION PROBLEMS TO BE SOLVED BY THE INVENTION

[0004] To solve the above problems, this application provides a method and system for evaluating construction problems at a nuclear power plant under construction, which can scientifically evaluate internal audit problems discovered during the construction phase, based on the actual conditions and experience of nuclear power plant construction, and support the effective implementation of audits at nuclear power plants under construction. [Means for solving the problem]

[0005] To solve the above problems, this application provides the following invention.

[0006] According to the first aspect of the present application, the present application provides a method for evaluating construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction, which includes the following steps: Step S1: Obtain a list of construction problems of the nuclear power plant under construction; Step S2: Perform quantitative and qualitative evaluations of the problems in the list of construction problems to obtain a problem severity level; Step S3: The more severe level of the problem severity level in the quantitative evaluation and the problem severity level in the qualitative evaluation is set as the final level of the problem. In Step S2, the quantitative evaluation is based on the contribution of the structures, systems and / or equipment related to the problem to the overall risk of the nuclear power plant, and on the degree of impact of the problem on the realization of the function of the structures, systems and / or equipment itself.

[0007] Preferably, the construction problem list includes problems found in the inspection items included in the annual inspection plan, problems related to regional inspection station work reports and inspection notices, construction accidents and safety quality accidents, and problems found in experience feedback surveys.

[0008] Preferably, in step S2, the affected structures, systems, and / or equipment are selected based on the pre-set basic forms of structures, systems, and / or equipment and the construction problem list, and the problems are determined to be minor according to the evaluation criteria for minor problems in the qualitative evaluation.

[0009] Preferably, in step S2, the qualitative evaluation involves selecting general qualitative evaluation criteria and / or detailed qualitative evaluation rules for each field, performing a qualitative analysis on the problems in the construction problem list, and determining the importance of the problems.

[0010] Preferably, the quantitative evaluation includes the following: determining the structures, systems, and / or equipment affected by the problem, and stopping the evaluation if they are not critical structures, systems, and / or equipment; selecting the affected structures, systems, and / or equipment based on a pre-configured risk importance evaluation table for structures, systems, and / or equipment; determining the degree of impact on structures, systems, and / or equipment and determining the importance level of the problem based on a pre-configured system / column-level failure risk evaluation matrix table.

[0011] Preferably, in step S2, the severity level of the problem is adjusted based on the recurrence rate and the extent of its impact.

[0012] Preferably, the recurring circumstances and scope of impact include: recurring construction problems, construction problems that intentionally violate regulations or requirements, construction problems related to false and falsified information, and management problems related to personnel discrimination.

[0013] A second aspect of the present application provides a system for evaluating construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction, which includes: a data collection module for acquiring a list of construction problems of the nuclear power plant under construction; an analysis module for performing quantitative and qualitative evaluations of the problems in the list of construction problems and acquiring the severity level of the problems; and a level determination module for selecting the more serious level of the problem from the severity level obtained by the quantitative evaluation and the severity level obtained by the qualitative evaluation as the final level of the problem. The quantitative evaluation is based on the contribution of the structures, systems and / or equipment related to the problem to the overall risk of the nuclear power plant, and on the degree of impact of the problem on the realization of the function of the structures, systems and / or equipment itself.

[0014] According to a third aspect of the present application, the present application provides a computer-readable storage medium in which a computer program is stored, and when the program is executed by a processor, the aforementioned method for evaluating the construction problems of the nuclear power plant under construction is performed.

[0015] According to the fourth aspect of the present application, the present application provides an electronic device comprising memory and a processor, wherein a computer program is stored in the memory, and when the processor executes the computer program, the steps of the method for evaluating the construction problem of the nuclear power plant described above are performed.

[0016] Compared to conventional technology, the beneficial effects of the present invention are as follows:

[0017] The method and system for evaluating construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction provided by this invention first performs quantitative and qualitative evaluations of problems in a list of construction problems to obtain a problem severity level. The quantitative evaluation is based on the contribution of the structures, systems, and / or equipment involved in the problem to the overall risk of the nuclear power plant, and also on the degree of impact the problem has on the functional realization of the structures, systems, and / or equipment themselves, thereby improving the accuracy of the quantitative evaluation. Furthermore, the more serious level of the problem severity level obtained from the quantitative evaluation and the problem severity level obtained from the qualitative evaluation is selected as the final level of the problem. This enables hierarchical and categorized evaluation of problems, allowing for the scientific evaluation of problems discovered in internal audits during the construction phase and supporting the effective implementation of audit work for nuclear power plants under construction.

[0018] This invention designs the entire problem evaluation process, taking into account problem input, evaluation process, and analytical statistics, thereby more effectively supporting the supervision, management, and evaluation of construction problems within nuclear power plants. The qualitative evaluation criteria integrate elements such as management requirements, technical judgments, and construction experience within the nuclear power plant, enabling the evaluation and guidance of problems related to various elements such as management, equipment, and personnel. The quantitative evaluation process incorporates risk assessment results from probabilistic safety analysis, assigning clear risk levels to combinations of system chain failures in nuclear power plants, making the risk impact of problems more specific and scientific. Therefore, it is possible to form hierarchical conclusions regarding the clear importance of problems, thereby objectively describing and evaluating the construction quality status and safety management level of nuclear power plant units, and providing a basis for formulating subsequent countermeasures.

[0019] The above description and the detailed explanation below are illustrative and do not limit the present invention. [Brief explanation of the drawing]

[0020] To more clearly describe the embodiments of this application, the drawings necessary for describing the embodiments of this application will be briefly described below. [Figure 1] Figure 1 is a flowchart of a method for evaluating construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction according to an embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 2] Figure 2 is a flowchart for obtaining the importance level of a problem according to an embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 3] Figure 3 is a flowchart for selecting problems related to embodiments of the present invention. [Figure 4] Figure 4 is a flowchart of the quantitative evaluation according to an embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 5] Figure 5 is a flowchart of the qualitative evaluation according to an embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 6] Figure 6 is a structural block diagram of an evaluation system for construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction according to an embodiment of the present invention. [Modes for carrying out the invention]

[0021] In order to better understand the invention of the present application, embodiments of the present application will be described in detail below with reference to the drawings.

[0022] Figure 1 is a flowchart of a method for evaluating construction issues of a nuclear power plant under construction according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0023] In the prior art, in the methods for evaluating construction issues of nuclear power plants under construction, for the supervision and management inside the nuclear power plant, the focus is placed on quantitative trend analysis of various issues, and since a clear management system has not been established for the hierarchical and classified evaluation of issues, it has not been possible to effectively evaluate the supervision and inspection issues inside the nuclear power plant during the construction phase.

[0024] To solve the above problems, the present embodiment provides a method for evaluating construction issues of a nuclear power plant under construction, which includes the following steps as shown in Figure 1. Step S1: Obtain a list of issues related to the construction of the nuclear power plant under construction. Step S2: Perform quantitative evaluation and qualitative evaluation on the issues in the list of construction-related issues to obtain the importance level of the issues. Step S3: Of the issue importance level in the quantitative evaluation and the issue importance level in the qualitative evaluation, the more severe level is set as the final level of the issue.

[0025] In the present embodiment, for the issues found in the supervision and inspection during the construction phase, a comprehensive evaluation is carried out from two aspects of qualitative evaluation and quantitative evaluation, and the more severe level result among the issue importance level in the quantitative evaluation and the issue importance level in the qualitative evaluation is selected as the final level of the issue. According to the importance of the issues, they are classified into critical issues (Class I), important issues (Class II), general issues (Class III), and minor issues (Class IV) in descending order, so that the hierarchical and classified evaluation of issues is realized, the issues in the internal audit found during the construction phase can be scientifically evaluated, and the effective implementation of the audit work for the nuclear power plant under construction can be supported.

[0026] The following explains each step in detail.

[0027] Step S1: Obtain a list of construction problems for nuclear power plants under construction.

[0028] Issues related to supervision and inspection during the construction phase will be organized, and a list of issues awaiting analysis will be created. The scope of relevant issues will include nonconformities of Category C2 and above, issues related to regional supervision station work reports and supervision notices, construction accidents and serious safety and quality accidents, issues discovered in serious experience feedback surveys, and issues discovered in other supervision and inspection items.

[0029] The construction issues list includes issues found in the inspection items included in the annual inspection plan, issues related to regional inspection station communication forms and inspection notices, issues found in construction events and safety and quality events, and issues found in experience feedback surveys.

[0030] Nonconformities include C1, C2, and C3 nonconformities. A C1 nonconformity is an item that deviates from the provisions of the internal standards but does not deviate from the requirements of the procurement technology, and the responsible department may correct it itself (e.g., rework) using the standard method in the original process. A C2 nonconformity is an item that does not conform to the technical requirements of the contract or the provisions of the relevant standards and regulations, but can be corrected by the responsible department in accordance with the contract's specified process or approved procedure. A C3 nonconformity is an item that does not conform to the technical requirements of the contract or the provisions of the relevant standards and regulations, and cannot be corrected by the responsible department in accordance with the contract's specified process or approved procedure.

[0031] Figure 2 is a flowchart for obtaining the importance level of a problem according to an embodiment of the present invention, Figure 3 is a flowchart for selecting problems according to an embodiment of the present invention, Figure 4 is a flowchart for quantitative evaluation according to an embodiment of the present invention, and Figure 5 is a flowchart for qualitative evaluation according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0032] Step S2: Conduct quantitative and qualitative evaluations of the problems in the construction problem list to determine the importance level of each problem.

[0033] The assessment of problem severity is a crucial input element in the safety condition assessment during the supervision and inspection of nuclear power plants during the construction phase, and this assessment must be processed promptly based on the problem reporting status. Specifically, as shown in Figure 2, the following steps are included. Step S21: Select the problems from the list of construction problems. Step S22: Conduct both qualitative and quantitative evaluations of the problem. Step S23: Conduct an overall assessment, adjust the severity level of the issues, determine whether additional assessment is necessary, perform step S231 if additional assessment is necessary, or perform step S232 if additional assessment is not necessary.

[0034] Here, Step S231: Supplement the comprehensive assessment by experts. Step S232: Determine the severity level of the problem.

[0035] As shown in Figure 3, in step S21, problems are selected from the list of construction problems. Specifically, this includes the following steps: Step S211: Identify the safety elements corresponding to the inspection problem, such as welding, concrete work, and equipment installation, to facilitate subsequent statistics. Step S212: Verify the completeness of the detailed information about the problem. Step S213: Based on the predefined basic form of Structures, Systems and / or Equipment (Systems Structures Components: SSCs), select the affected SSCs, and skip the subsequent evaluation steps for SSCs that are not affected. Step S214: Determine minor issues according to the evaluation criteria for minor issues in the qualitative evaluation process.

[0036] In step S22, the importance level of the problem is determined using qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods.

[0037] As shown in Figure 4, the quantitative evaluation method includes the following steps. Step S2211: Determine the SSCs affected by the problem, and if there are no critical SSCs, skip the subsequent evaluation steps. Step S2212: Refer to the SSC Risk Importance Assessment Table and select the affected SSCs. Step S2213: Refer to the system / column-level failure risk assessment matrix shown in Table 2 to determine the extent of the impact on the SSC and determine the severity level of the problem.

[0038] In step S2212, refer to the example SSC risk severity form shown in Table 1 and select the affected SSCs. Here, the SSC risk severity levels include very low, low, medium, and high. In step S2213, refer to the example system / column-level failure risk assessment matrix table shown in Table 2 to determine the extent of the impact on the SSCs and to determine the problem severity level. Here, the problem severity levels include minor, moderate, important, and severe.

[0039] Quantitative assessment is a simplified method for determining the importance of a problem based on quantitative risk results. When the impact of a problem extends to the realization of actual functions, the level of the problem is determined using a quantitative assessment method for the risk impact of SSCs. The above method evaluates based on the contribution of the SSC involved in the problem to the overall risk of the nuclear power plant, while also judging based on the impact on the realization of the function of the SSC itself. By comprehensively considering the impacts of both of these aspects, the quantitative impact of the problem on the overall risk of the nuclear power plant is determined, and the importance level corresponding to the problem is determined.

[0040] As shown in Figure 5, the qualitative evaluation includes the following steps. Step S2221: Select general qualitative evaluation criteria and / or detailed qualitative evaluation rules for each field, and perform the evaluation. Step S2222: Determine the importance level of the problem.

[0041] Qualitative evaluation criteria can be broadly divided into two types: general qualitative evaluation criteria and detailed qualitative evaluation rules specific to each field.

[0042] The general qualitative evaluation criteria qualitatively assess the importance level of a problem using several general selection conditions, and the evaluation criteria are as follows:

[0043] Minor issues (Grade IV) include the following: Safety Level 3 (Shield Safety Level 3, Functional Safety Level 3), where defects occurred in multiple series, but the system function still meets the design requirements. Safety Level 2 (Shield Safety Level 2, Functional Safety Level 2), where a defect occurred in a single series, but the system function still meets the design requirements. A single series of SC(IE) class electrical measuring instruments other than dedicated protection systems, where a defect occurred, but the system function still meets the design requirements. A violation of internal process requirements by the operations department, but with no apparent safety impact.

[0044] General problems (Grade III) include the following: Safety Level 3 (Barrier Safety Level 3, Functional Safety Level 3), defects occur in multiple series, and the function of the multiple series does not meet the design requirements, or it is not possible to confirm whether the system function meets the design requirements. Safety Level 2 (Barrier Safety Level 2, Functional Safety Level 2), defects occur in a single series, and the function of this series does not meet the design requirements, but it can be confirmed that the system function continues to meet the design requirements. In electrical instrumentation SC(IE) class equipment other than protection-only systems, defects occur in a single series, and the function of this series does not meet the design requirements, but it can be confirmed that the system function continues to meet the design requirements. Safety Level 1 (Barrier Safety Level 1, Functional Safety Level 1), defects occur in a single series, but it can be confirmed that the system function continues to meet the design requirements. In a seismic-resistant Class I structure, a localized defect occurs, affecting the localized seismic function, but the structure as a whole still meets the seismic design requirements. In a protection-only system, defects occur in a single series of electrical instrumentation SC(IE) class equipment, but it can be confirmed that the function of the series continues to meet the design requirements. While key safety-related materials have obvious defects, they continue to meet design requirements. There are violations of the permit application documents, but no substantial impact has occurred. Violations of internal process requirements by the operations department have occurred, resulting in some safety impact. Other issues (agreement reached by the Power Plant Supervision Working Group).

[0045] The following are examples of critical issues (Grade II): Safety Level 2 (Barrier Safety Level 2, Functional Safety Level 2), where defects occur in multiple series, and the function of the multiple series does not meet the design requirements, or it is not possible to confirm whether the system function meets the design requirements. Multiple series of electrical instrumentation SC(IE) class equipment other than protection-only systems, where the function of the multiple series does not meet the design requirements, or it is not possible to confirm whether the system function meets the design requirements. Safety Level 1 (Barrier Safety Level 1, Functional Safety Level 1), where a single series is defective, and the function of the single series does not meet the design requirements, but it can be confirmed that the system function continues to meet the design requirements. Extensive or significant defects occur in seismic Class I structures, and the seismic function is significantly impaired, but it can be confirmed that the entire structure still meets the seismic design requirements. Multiple series of electrical instrumentation SC(IE) class equipment in protection-only systems are defective, but it can be confirmed that the system function continues to meet the design requirements. Major safety-related materials have serious defects, but it can be confirmed that the system function continues to meet the design requirements. There is a violation of the permit application documents, and a substantial impact has occurred. While it violates regulations, it does not have a substantial impact on safety or the environment. Other issues (as agreed upon by the Power Plant Supervision Working Group).

[0046] Major issues (Grade I) include the following: Safety Level 1 (Barrier Safety Level 1, Functional Safety Level 1), defects in multiple series resulting in the functionality of multiple series not meeting design requirements, or inability to verify whether the system functionality meets design requirements. Major defects in Class I seismic structures, affecting the overall seismic function of the structure to such an extent that it fails to meet design requirements, or inability to verify whether the overall seismic function of the structure meets design requirements. Major defects in SC(IE) class electrical instrumentation equipment in protective systems, resulting in the functionality of multiple series not meeting design requirements, or inability to verify whether the system functionality meets design requirements. Major defects in key safety materials, resulting in functionality not meeting design requirements, or inability to verify whether the system functionality meets design requirements. Violations of regulations and substantial impacts on safety or the environment. Other (issues agreed upon by the Power Plant Supervision Working Group).

[0047] The detailed qualitative evaluation rules for each field are closely related to each field and possess a higher degree of accuracy. The fields covered include areas such as reactor construction, production preparation, quality assurance, and security, and the specific field classifications correspond to the management situation inside the nuclear power plant.

[0048] Based on the description of the construction problem, a qualitative analysis of the construction problem will be conducted according to general qualitative evaluation criteria and detailed qualitative evaluation rules for each field, and the qualitative evaluation results regarding the importance of the problem will be presented.

[0049] In step S23, based on the results of the quantitative and qualitative evaluations of the problem obtained in step S22, step S3 is performed, and the more serious level of the problem's severity level, between the quantitative and qualitative evaluations, is set as the final level of the problem. Step S23 is also performed to comprehensively evaluate the quantitative and qualitative evaluations, and the results of the problem's severity level are adjusted again based on the recurrence and overlapping occurrences of the problem and the scope of its impact. For construction problems that fall under the following situations, it is recommended to appropriately raise the severity level of the problem: recurring construction problems, construction problems involving human error and intentional violations of regulations or requirements, construction problems involving false or falsified information, management problems involving serious personnel discrimination, etc.

[0050] Considering the potential complexity and impact on the severity of the problem, for some problems (such as those with unclear impacts or those that are serious and require re-examination), the comprehensive assessment using quantitative and qualitative evaluations will be skipped, and a supplementary comprehensive assessment will be conducted by experts. This assessment will be carried out by members of a high-level expert team, and the evaluation process will involve a comprehensive assessment considering elements such as multi-layered defense, engineering experience, accident analysis, and risk assessment, and a comprehensive assessment report will be prepared to determine the severity level of the problem. Specific evaluation rules will be determined by the expert team.

[0051] [Table 1]

[0052] [Table 2]

[0053] Step S3: The final level of the problem is determined by comparing the severity level of the problem in the quantitative and qualitative evaluations, with the more severe level being the final level of the problem.

[0054] Let's take the "emergency water supply system" as an example. If a defect occurs in a single row of the system and affects its function, as shown in Table 2, the quantitative evaluation method will determine that a single row failure in the emergency water supply system is a general problem. According to the general qualitative evaluation criteria, the emergency water supply system falls under safety level 1 and satisfies the condition in the evaluation criteria for critical problems that "a defect occurs in a single series at safety level 1 (barrier safety level 1, functional safety level 1), and the function of the single series cannot meet the design requirements, but it can be confirmed that the system function continues to meet the design requirements," and is therefore determined to be a critical problem. Combining the results of the quantitative and qualitative evaluations, if a defect occurs in a single series of the emergency water supply system and affects its functional construction, the final grade of the problem will be critical.

[0055] Let's take the "secondary non-active waste heat discharge system" as an example. If defects occur in multiple rows of this system and affect its function, as shown in Table 2, the quantitative evaluation method will determine that any failure in any row of the secondary non-active waste heat discharge system is a minor problem. According to the general qualitative evaluation criteria, the secondary non-active waste heat discharge system falls under safety level 1, and since it meets the condition in the evaluation criteria for serious problems that "defects occur in multiple series at safety level 1 (barrier safety level 1, functional safety level 1), and the function of multiple series does not meet the design requirements, or it is not possible to confirm whether the system function meets the design requirements," it is determined to be a serious problem. Combining the results of the quantitative and qualitative evaluations, if defects occur in multiple series of the secondary non-active waste heat discharge system and affect its functional construction, the final grade of the problem will be serious.

[0056] Let's take the "SBO diesel generator" as an example. If a defect occurs in the system and affects its function, as shown in Table 2, the quantitative evaluation method will determine that the SBO diesel generator is a minor problem if it experiences a system failure. According to the general qualitative evaluation criteria, the SBO diesel generator falls under safety level 3 and satisfies the condition in the general problem evaluation criteria that "defects occur in multiple series at safety level 3 (barrier safety level 3, functional safety level 3), and the function of multiple series does not meet the design requirements, or it is not possible to confirm whether the system function meets the design requirements," and is therefore determined to be a general problem. Combining the results of the quantitative and qualitative evaluations, if a defect occurs in the SBO diesel generator and a problem occurs that affects its functional construction, the final grade of the problem will be general.

[0057] The results of the importance assessment of construction issues are reviewed and confirmed monthly or quarterly. Issues with disputed importance are returned to the issue selection step, and the issue importance assessment is repeated.

[0058] After the analysis of the construction problem is completed in step S3, statistical information is displayed based on the hierarchy of importance and the attribution to the field.

[0059] The method in this embodiment mainly includes the selection of construction problems, qualitative evaluation criteria, quantitative evaluation risk assessment forms, supplementary evaluation by experts, and review and confirmation of results, thereby completing the overall process design. General qualitative evaluation criteria and qualitative evaluation criteria specific to each construction field are established for different construction problems, and these criteria comprehensively consider factors such as the internal management requirements of the nuclear power plant, technical judgments, and construction experience. The evaluation process incorporates the risk assessment results from probabilistic safety analysis and assigns a clear risk level to the chain failure scenario of the system, thereby determining the quantitative impact of the problem on the overall risk of the nuclear power plant and determining the severity level corresponding to the problem. The severity results of the qualitative and quantitative construction problems are combined, and the recurrence rate and scope of impact of the problem are comprehensively considered to finally determine the level of the problem.

[0060] Figure 6 is a structural block diagram of an evaluation system for construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0061] As shown in Figure 6, the automated monitoring system in the operating technical specifications for the nuclear power plant includes a data acquisition module 1, an analysis module 2, and a level determination module 3.

[0062] Data collection module 1 retrieves a list of construction problems for nuclear power plants under construction.

[0063] Analysis Module 2 performs quantitative and qualitative evaluations of the issues in the construction problem list to identify the severity level of each problem.

[0064] Module 3, which determines the level of severity of a problem, sets the final level of the problem to the more serious level of severity, based on either the quantitative or qualitative assessment of the problem's severity.

[0065] Here, quantitative evaluation is based on the contribution of the structures, systems, and / or equipment involved in the problem to the overall risk of the nuclear power plant, and also on the extent to which the problem affects the functional realization of the structures, systems, and / or equipment themselves.

[0066] This embodiment provides a computer-readable storage medium for storing a computer program, and when the computer program is executed by a processor, the steps of the aforementioned method for evaluating the construction problem of a nuclear power plant under construction are performed.

[0067] This embodiment provides an electronic device equipped with memory for storing a computer program and a processor, and when the processor executes the computer program, the steps of the aforementioned method for evaluating the construction problem of a nuclear power plant under construction are performed.

[0068] This embodiment will be described with reference to flowcharts and / or block diagrams of methods, apparatus (systems), and computer program products based on embodiments of the present invention, but it is important to understand each flow and / or block in the flowcharts and / or block diagrams, as well as combinations of flows and / or blocks in the flowcharts and / or block diagrams, that can be realized by computer programs. These computer programs can be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, a dedicated computer, an embedded processor, or other programmable data processing device, and instructions executed by the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing device can form a machine that generates an apparatus for implementing one or more processes in the flowchart and / or one or more blocks in the block diagram.

[0069] These computer programs may also be stored in computer-readable storage devices that operate a computer or other programmable data processing device in a specific manner, and the instructions stored in these computer-readable storage devices generate a product with an instruction unit that performs functions specified by one or more processes in a flowchart and / or one or more blocks in a block diagram.

[0070] These computer program instructions can also be loaded into a computer or other programmable data processing device, which then executes a series of operational steps to generate a computer implementation. Thus, the instructions executed by the computer or other programmable device provide steps for implementing one or more processes in a flowchart and / or one or more blocks in a block diagram.

[0071] Although preferred embodiments of the present invention have been described above, the present invention is not limited to these embodiments. Various embodiments that fall within the technical spirit of the present invention are within the scope of protection of the present invention. Those skilled in the art will know that any changes or modifications made to the above embodiments without departing from the technical spirit of the present invention are within the scope of protection of the present invention. [Explanation of Symbols]

[0072] 1. Data Acquisition Module 2 Analysis Modules 3 Level Confirmed Module

Claims

1. Step S1 involves obtaining a list of problems related to the construction of a nuclear power plant under construction, Step S2 involves performing quantitative and qualitative evaluations on the problems in the aforementioned list of construction-related problems to obtain the importance level of each problem. Step S3, in which the more serious level of the problem's importance in the quantitative evaluation and the qualitative evaluation is set as the final level of the problem, Includes, In step S2, The aforementioned quantitative evaluation is based on the contribution of the structures, systems, and / or equipment involved in the problem to the overall risk of the nuclear power plant, and on the extent to which the problem affects the realization of the functions of the structures, systems, and / or equipment themselves. A method for evaluating problems related to the construction of a nuclear power plant under construction, characterized by the following features.

2. The aforementioned list of construction issues includes issues found in the inspection items included in the annual inspection plan, issues related to regional inspection station communication forms and inspection notices, construction accidents and safety and quality accidents, and issues found in experience feedback surveys. A method for evaluating problems related to the construction of a nuclear power plant under construction, as described in feature 1.

3. In step S2, based on the pre-set basic forms of structures, systems, and / or equipment and the construction problem list, the affected structures, systems, and / or equipment are selected, and it is determined that they are minor problems according to the evaluation criteria for minor problems in the qualitative evaluation. A method for evaluating problems related to the construction of a nuclear power plant under construction, as described in feature 1.

4. In step S2, the qualitative evaluation involves selecting general qualitative evaluation criteria and / or detailed qualitative evaluation rules for each field, performing a qualitative analysis on the problems in the construction problem list, and determining the importance of the problems. A method for evaluating problems related to the construction of a nuclear power plant under construction, as described in feature 1.

5. The aforementioned quantitative evaluation is, Determine which structures, systems, and / or facilities are affected by the problem, and if they are not critical structures, systems, and / or facilities, stop the evaluation. Select the affected structures, systems, and / or equipment based on a pre-defined risk importance assessment table for structures, systems, and / or equipment. Based on a pre-configured system / column-level failure risk assessment matrix, the degree of impact on structures, systems, and / or equipment is determined, and the severity level of the problem is determined. A method for evaluating problems related to the construction of a nuclear power plant under construction, as described in claim 1, characterized by including the following:

6. In step S2, the severity level of the problem is adjusted based on the recurrence status and scope of impact of the problem. A method for evaluating problems related to the construction of a nuclear power plant under construction, as described in feature 1.

7. The aforementioned recurring issues and their scope of impact include recurring construction problems, construction problems that intentionally violate regulations or requirements, construction problems involving false and falsified information, and management problems related to personnel discrimination. A method for evaluating problems related to the construction of a nuclear power plant under construction, as described in claim 6.

8. A data collection module that obtains a list of construction problems for nuclear power plants under construction, An analysis module that performs quantitative and qualitative evaluations on the problems in the aforementioned list of construction-related problems and obtains the importance level of each problem, A level determination module that selects the more serious level of the problem as the final level of the problem from the problem severity level determined by the quantitative evaluation and the problem severity level determined by the qualitative evaluation, Equipped with, The aforementioned quantitative evaluation is based on the contribution of the structures, systems, and / or equipment involved in the problem to the overall risk of the nuclear power plant, and on the extent to which the problem affects the realization of the functions of the structures, systems, and / or equipment themselves. An evaluation system for problems related to the construction of a nuclear power plant under construction, characterized by the following features.

9. A computer-readable storage medium in which a computer program is stored, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor, the method for evaluating construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction as described in any one of claims 1 to 7 is executed. A computer-readable storage medium characterized by the following features.

10. The system comprises memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program, and when the processor executes the computer program, the steps of the method for evaluating problems relating to the construction of a nuclear power plant as described in any one of claims 1 to 7 are performed. An electronic device characterized by the following features.

Images