METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR EVALUATING CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Abstract

The invention relates to a method and system for assessing construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction. The method for assessing construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction comprises: step S1, collecting a list of construction problems of the nuclear power plant under construction; step S2, performing a quantitative and qualitative assessment of a problem in the list of construction problems to determine the importance of the problem; and step S3, selecting the greater of the importance of the problem in the quantitative assessment and the importance of the problem in the qualitative assessment as the final level of the problem, where the quantitative assessment is based on the degree of contribution of a structure, system and / or equipment related to the problem to the overall risk of the nuclear power plant, and is based on the degree of impact of the problem on the performance of the function of that structure, system and / or equipment.The problem assessment is hierarchical and categorized, allowing for a scientific evaluation of internal monitoring and inspection issues discovered in nuclear power plants under construction, while also supporting and effectively implementing monitoring and inspection work for the nuclear power plant under construction.

Description

A method and system for evaluating construction problems of nuclear power plants under construction

[0001] CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

[0002] This application claims priority to Chinese patent application No. 202311323309.X, filed on October 12, 2023, entitled “A method and system for evaluating construction problems of nuclear power plants under construction,” and the entire contents of that application are incorporated herein by reference. Technical Field

[0003] The present invention relates to the technical field of nuclear power plants, and in particular to a method and system for evaluating construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction. Background Art

[0004] With the progress made in nuclear power plant construction and the increasing number of plants under construction, this has posed new challenges and higher requirements for nuclear safety supervision and condition assessment during the construction phase. To ensure the systematic and scientific nature of nuclear safety quality supervision, inspection, and assessment during the construction phase, it is necessary to establish a comprehensive set of problem assessment methods suitable for internal supervision and management during the construction phase of nuclear power plants, supporting nuclear power plants in carrying out more targeted construction process management and condition assessment.

[0005] The existing technology includes a set of reactor oversight procedures applicable to the construction phase of new nuclear power plants. These procedures include a regulatory framework, a construction importance determination procedure, a construction action matrix, and related enforcement actions. These procedures can objectively determine the effectiveness of the plant in ensuring construction quality, provide predictable responses to performance degradation issues at the plant, and communicate performance evaluation results to the public. There is also a nuclear power plant construction quality management assessment procedure that regularly counts the number of key construction issues at nuclear power plants based on regulatory requirements. The execution methods of these procedures focus on analyzing the number and trend of various issues within the nuclear power plant, and lack a clear management system for the hierarchical and categorized evaluation of issues. This makes it impossible to effectively evaluate internal supervision and inspection issues at nuclear power plants during the construction phase.

[0006] Summary of the Invention

[0007] In view of this, the present invention provides a construction problem evaluation method and system for nuclear power plants under construction. Combined with the actual situation and experience of nuclear power plant construction, it can scientifically evaluate the internal supervision and inspection problems discovered in the nuclear power plant during the construction phase, and effectively support the supervision and inspection work of nuclear power plants under construction.

[0008] In order to solve the above problems, the present invention provides the following technical solutions:

[0009] In a first aspect, the present invention provides a method for evaluating construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction, comprising the following steps:

[0010] Step S1: Obtain a list of construction issues of a nuclear power plant under construction;

[0011] Step S2: performing quantitative and qualitative evaluations on the problems in the construction problem list to obtain a problem importance level;

[0012] Step S3: selecting the more serious level of the problem importance level of the quantitative evaluation and the problem importance level of the qualitative evaluation as the final problem level;

[0013] Wherein, in the step S2,

[0014] The quantitative evaluation is conducted 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 based on the impact of the problem on the functional performance of the structures, systems and / or equipment themselves.

[0015] Preferably, the construction problem list includes problems found in the supervision and inspection projects involved in the annual supervision and inspection plan, regional supervision station work contact forms, problems involved in supervision notices, construction incidents and safety and quality incidents, and problems found in experience feedback inspections.

[0016] Preferably, in step S2,

[0017] According to the preset basic form of structures, systems and / or equipment and the construction problem list, the affected structures, systems and / or equipment are selected, and minor problems are determined according to the minor problem evaluation criteria of the qualitative evaluation.

[0018] Preferably, in step S2,

[0019] The qualitative evaluation selects general qualitative evaluation criteria and / or qualitative evaluation rules for each field to conduct a qualitative analysis on the problems in the construction problem list to determine the importance of the problems.

[0020] Preferably, the quantitative evaluation includes:

[0021] Determine the structures, systems and / or equipment affected by the problem. If no important structures, systems and / or equipment are involved, stop the evaluation;

[0022] Select the affected structures, systems and / or equipment according to the preset structure, system and / or equipment risk importance table;

[0023] According to the preset system / column-level failure system risk assessment matrix form, determine the degree of impact on structures, systems and / or equipment, and determine the importance level of the problem.

[0024] Preferably, in step S2,

[0025] Adjust the importance level of the problem based on the recurrence and impact of the problem.

[0026] Preferably, the retransmission situation and impact range include:

[0027] Recurring construction problems, construction problems involving intentional violations of regulations or requirements, construction problems involving false and falsified information, and management problems involving personnel discrimination.

[0028] In a second aspect, the present invention provides a construction problem evaluation system for a nuclear power plant under construction, comprising:

[0029] The data acquisition module is configured to: obtain a list of construction issues of a nuclear power plant under construction;

[0030] An analysis module is configured to: perform quantitative and qualitative evaluations on the problems in the construction problem list to obtain a problem importance level;

[0031] A level determination module is configured to: select the more serious level of the problem importance level of the quantitative evaluation and the problem importance level of the qualitative evaluation as the final level of the problem;

[0032] The quantitative evaluation is conducted based on the contribution of the structures, systems and / or equipment involved in the problem to the overall risk of the nuclear power plant, as well as the impact of the problem on the functional realization of the structures, systems and / or equipment themselves.

[0033] In a third aspect, the present invention provides a computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program, and when the computer program is executed by a processor, the steps of the above-mentioned method for evaluating construction problems of nuclear power plants under construction are completed.

[0034] In a fourth aspect, the present invention provides an electronic device comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and when the processor executes the computer program, the steps of the above-mentioned method for evaluating construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction are implemented.

[0035] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following beneficial effects:

[0036] The present invention provides a method and system for evaluating construction problems of nuclear power plants under construction. First, problems in a construction problem list are quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated to obtain problem importance levels. 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, as well as the impact of the problem on the functional realization of the structures, systems and / or equipment themselves, thereby improving the accuracy of the quantitative evaluation. Then, the more serious level of the quantitatively evaluated problem importance level and the qualitatively evaluated problem importance level is selected as the final problem level. This realizes a hierarchical and classified evaluation of the problems, can scientifically evaluate the internal supervision and inspection problems discovered in the nuclear power plant during the construction phase, and can effectively support the supervision and inspection work of the nuclear power plants under construction.

[0037] This invention designs a comprehensive problem evaluation process, taking into account problem input, evaluation process, analysis and statistics, to better serve the supervision, management, and evaluation of internal construction issues in nuclear power plants. Qualitative evaluation criteria integrate factors such as internal nuclear power plant management requirements, engineering judgment, and construction experience, providing guidance for the evaluation of issues related to management, equipment, personnel, and other factors. The quantitative evaluation process incorporates the risk assessment results of probabilistic safety analysis and assigns clear risk levels to the system failure combinations of the nuclear power plant, making the risk impact of the problem more specific and scientific. This allows for a clear conclusion on the importance of the problem to be drawn, which can be used to objectively describe and evaluate the unit's construction quality status and safety management level, and provide a reference for the formulation of subsequent response actions.

[0038] It should be understood that the foregoing general description and the following detailed description are merely illustrative and are not restrictive of the present application. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0039] In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present application, the following briefly introduces the drawings required for use in the embodiments of the present application.

[0040] FIG1 is a flow chart of a method for evaluating construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction according to an embodiment of the present invention;

[0041] FIG2 is a flow chart of obtaining the importance level of a question in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0042] FIG3 is a flow chart of a screening problem according to an embodiment of the present invention;

[0043] FIG4 is a flow chart of quantitative evaluation according to an embodiment of the present invention;

[0044] FIG5 is a flow chart of qualitative evaluation according to an embodiment of the present invention;

[0045] FIG6 is a structural block diagram of a construction problem evaluation system for a nuclear power plant under construction according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0046] Reference numerals:

[0047] 1-Data acquisition module;

[0048] 2-Analysis module;

[0049] 3-Level determination module. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0050] In order to better understand the technical solution of the present application, the embodiments of the present application are described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0051] FIG1 is a flow chart of a method for evaluating construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0052] At present, the evaluation methods for power plant construction problems focus more on the quantitative trend analysis of various types of problems for internal supervision and management of nuclear power plants. No clear management system has been established for the hierarchical and classified evaluation of problems, and it is impossible to effectively evaluate the supervision and inspection issues within nuclear power plants during the construction phase.

[0053] To address the above issues, this embodiment provides a method for evaluating construction issues of a nuclear power plant under construction, as shown in FIG1 , comprising the following steps:

[0054] Step S1: Obtain a list of construction issues of a nuclear power plant under construction;

[0055] Step S2: Conduct quantitative and qualitative evaluations on the problems in the construction problem list to obtain the problem importance level;

[0056] Step S3: Select the more serious level between the quantitatively evaluated problem importance level and the qualitatively evaluated problem importance level as the final problem level.

[0057] In this embodiment, through the problems found in the supervision and inspection during the construction phase, a comprehensive evaluation is conducted in terms of both qualitative evaluation and quantitative evaluation, and the more serious level result of the problem importance level of the quantitative evaluation and the problem importance level of the qualitative evaluation is selected as the final level of the problem; according to the importance of the problem, it is divided into serious problems (level I), important problems (level II), general problems (level III), and minor problems (level IV) from high to low, realizing a hierarchical and classified evaluation of the problems, which can scientifically evaluate the internal supervision and inspection problems found in the nuclear power plant during the construction phase, and can effectively support the supervision and inspection work of the nuclear power plants under construction.

[0058] The following is a detailed description of each step.

[0059] Step S1: Obtain a list of construction issues for a nuclear power plant under construction.

[0060] Sorting out the supervision and inspection issues during the construction phase to form a list of issues to be analyzed. The scope of screening for relevant issues includes:

[0061] Non-conformities of category C2 and above;

[0062] Regional supervision station work contact list;

[0063] Issues covered in the supervision notice;

[0064] Construction incidents and major safety and quality incidents;

[0065] Problems discovered during the investigation of major experience feedback;

[0066] Issues discovered in other supervision and inspection projects.

[0067] The construction problem list includes problems found in the supervision and inspection projects involved in the annual supervision and inspection plan, the work contact form of the regional supervision station, the problems involved in the supervision notice, construction incidents and safety and quality incidents, and problems found in the experience feedback investigation.

[0068] Non-conformities include: Category C1, Category C2, and Category C3. Category C1 non-conformities are items that deviate from the requirements of internal standards but do not deviate from the procurement technical requirements. The responsible unit can remedy the situation by using the standard methods of the original process (such as rework). Category C2 non-conformities are items that do not meet the technical requirements of the contract or the relevant standards and regulations, but the responsible unit can correct them by repairing them according to the contract process or approved procedures. Category C3 non-conformities are items that do not meet the technical requirements of the contract or the relevant standards and regulations, and the responsible unit cannot correct them by repairing them according to the contract process or approved procedures.

[0069] Figure 2 is a flowchart of obtaining the importance level of a problem in an embodiment of the present invention, Figure 3 is a flowchart of screening problems in an embodiment of the present invention, Figure 4 is a flowchart of quantitative evaluation in an embodiment of the present invention, and Figure 5 is a flowchart of qualitative evaluation in an embodiment of the present invention.

[0070] Step S2: Conduct quantitative and qualitative evaluations on the problems in the construction problem list to obtain the problem importance level.

[0071] Problem importance assessment is an important input for safety status assessment of nuclear power plants during construction phase supervision and inspection. The assessment needs to be handled promptly based on the reported problems. As shown in Figure 2, the specific steps include:

[0072] Step S21: Screening the problems in the construction problem list;

[0073] Step S22: Perform qualitative and quantitative evaluation on the problem;

[0074] Step S23: Perform a comprehensive evaluation, adjust the problem importance level, and determine whether additional evaluation is required. If additional evaluation is required, execute step S231; if not, execute step S232.

[0075] in,

[0076] Step S231: Supplementary expert comprehensive evaluation;

[0077] Step S232: Determine the problem importance level.

[0078] As shown in FIG3 , in step S21 , the problems in the construction problem list are screened, specifically including the following steps:

[0079] Step S211: Determine the safety factors corresponding to the inspection issues, such as welding, concrete construction, and equipment installation, to facilitate subsequent statistics;

[0080] Step S212: Check the completeness of the detailed information of the question;

[0081] Step S213: Select affected SSCs based on the preset basic table of structures, systems and / or equipment (SSCs). Unaffected SSCs can skip the subsequent evaluation process.

[0082] Step S214: Determine minor problems according to the minor problem evaluation criteria in the qualitative evaluation procedure.

[0083] In step S22, the importance level of the problem is determined through qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods.

[0084] As shown in Figure 4, the quantitative evaluation method includes the following steps:

[0085] Step S2211: Determine the SSCs affected by the problem. If no important SSCs are involved, the subsequent evaluation process can be skipped.

[0086] Step S2212: Refer to the SSC risk importance table and select the affected SSC;

[0087] Step S2213: Refer to the system / column-level failure system risk assessment matrix, as shown in Table 2, to determine the degree of impact of the SSC and determine the problem importance level.

[0088] In step S2212, refer to the SSC risk importance form example shown in Table 1 and select the affected SSC, where the SSC risk importance includes very low, low, medium and high; in step S2213, refer to the system / column level failure system risk assessment matrix example table shown in Table 2 to judge the degree of SSC impact and determine the problem importance level, where the problem importance level includes minor, general, important and serious.

[0089] Quantitative assessment is a simplified method for determining the importance of an issue based on quantitative risk results. If the issue's impact involves the implementation of physical functions, the SSC risk impact quantitative assessment method is used to determine the issue's level. This method evaluates the SSC's contribution to the overall risk of the nuclear power plant and its impact on the implementation of the SSC's own functions. By combining these two factors, the quantitative impact of the issue on the overall risk of the nuclear power plant can be determined and the corresponding importance level can be determined.

[0090] As shown in Figure 5, the qualitative evaluation specifically includes the following steps:

[0091] Step S2221: selecting general qualitative evaluation criteria and / or qualitative evaluation criteria for each field for evaluation;

[0092] Step S2222: Determine the problem importance level.

[0093] There are two major categories of qualitative evaluation criteria design: general qualitative evaluation criteria and qualitative evaluation criteria differentiated by field.

[0094] General qualitative evaluation criteria, through some general screening conditions, qualitatively evaluate the importance level of the problem. The evaluation criteria are as follows:

[0095] Minor problems (Level IV) include: defects in multiple series of Safety Level 3 (Barrier Safety Level 3, Functional Safety Level 3), but it can be confirmed that the system functions still meet the design requirements; defects in a single series of Safety Level 2 (Barrier Safety Level 2, Functional Safety Level 2), but the functions of this series still meet the design requirements; defects in a single series of SC (IE)-level electrical and instrumentation equipment outside the dedicated protection system, but the functions of this series still meet the design requirements; problems that violate the internal procedural requirements of the operating unit and have no obvious safety impact.

[0096] General problems (Level III) include: defects in multiple series of Safety Level 3 (Barrier Safety Level 3, Functional Safety Level 3), resulting in multiple series functions not meeting design requirements or inability to confirm that the system functions meet design requirements; defects in a single series of Safety Level 2 (Barrier Safety Level 2, Functional Safety Level 2), resulting in the series functions not meeting design requirements, but it can be confirmed that the system functions still meet design requirements; defects in a single series of electrical and instrumentation SC (IE) level equipment outside the protection dedicated system, resulting in the series functions not meeting design requirements, but it can be confirmed that the system functions still meet design requirements; defects in a single series of Safety Level 1 (Barrier Safety Level 1, Functional Safety Level 1) equipment, resulting in the series functions not meeting design requirements, but it can be confirmed that the system functions still meet design requirements; The following items are the conditions for the implementation of the following procedures: (1) a single series of Class I seismic resistance equipment (Class I, functional safety level 1) has defects, but the functions of this series still meet the design requirements; (2) a local defect has appeared in a Class I seismic resistance structure, which has affected the local seismic resistance function, but the structure as a whole still meets the seismic design requirements; (3) a single series of SC (IE) level electrical and instrumentation equipment protecting a dedicated system has defects, but the functions of this series still meet the design requirements; (4) obvious defects have appeared in safety-related bulk materials, but they still meet the design requirements; (5) violations of the license application documents, but no substantial impact has been caused; (6) violations of the internal procedures of the operating unit, which have caused certain safety impacts; (7) others (agreed by the power plant supervision working group).

[0097] Important issues (Level II) include: defects in multiple series of Safety Level 2 (Barrier Safety Level 2, Functional Safety Level 2), resulting in the functions of multiple series not meeting design requirements or inability to confirm that the system functions meet design requirements; defects in multiple series of electrical and instrumentation SC (IE) level equipment outside the protection dedicated system, resulting in the functions of multiple series not meeting design requirements or inability to confirm that the system functions meet design requirements; defects in a single series of Safety Level 1 (Barrier Safety Level 1, Functional Safety Level 1), resulting in the functions of the single series not meeting design requirements, but it can be confirmed that the system functions still meet design requirements; large-scale or major defects in seismic Class I structures, which significantly affect the seismic resistance function, but it can be confirmed that the structure as a whole still meets seismic design requirements; defects in multiple series of electrical and instrumentation SC (IE) level equipment for protection dedicated systems, but it can be confirmed that the system functions still meet design requirements; major defects in safety-related bulk materials, but it can be confirmed that the system functions still meet design requirements; issues that violate license application documents and have caused substantial impacts; issues that violate regulations but have no substantial impact on safety or the environment; and others (as agreed upon by the power plant supervision working group).

[0098] Serious problems (Level I) include: defects in multiple series of Safety Level 1 (Barrier Safety Level 1, Functional Safety Level 1), resulting in multiple series functions not meeting design requirements or inability to confirm that the system functions meet design requirements; serious defects in Class I seismic structures, which affect the overall seismic function of the structure and do not meet design requirements, or it is impossible to confirm that the overall seismic function of the structure meets design requirements; serious defects in SC (IE) level electrical and instrumentation equipment protecting dedicated systems, resulting in multiple series functions not meeting design requirements or inability to confirm that the system functions meet design requirements; serious defects in safety-related bulk materials, which do not meet design requirements or inability to confirm that the system functions meet design requirements; violations of regulations, and substantial impacts on safety or the environment; others (agreed upon by the power plant supervision working group);

[0099] The qualitative evaluation criteria are divided according to the fields. These criteria are closely related to the fields they belong to and are more targeted. The relevant fields involve reactor construction, production preparation, quality assurance and security. The specific field divisions are consistent with the internal management of nuclear power plants.

[0100] According to the description of construction problems, based on the general qualitative evaluation criteria and qualitative evaluation rules in various fields, complete the qualitative analysis of construction problems and provide qualitative evaluation results of the importance of the problems.

[0101] In step S23, based on the results of the quantitative and qualitative evaluations of the problem in step S22, step S3 is executed to select the more serious level of the quantitative evaluation or the qualitative evaluation as the final level of the problem. At the same time, step S23 can also be executed to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the quantitative and qualitative evaluations, and the problem importance level results can be adjusted again based on the recurrence of the problem and the scope of impact. It is recommended to appropriately increase the problem importance level for the following construction problems:

[0102] recurring construction problems;

[0103] There are construction issues that intentionally violate regulations or requirements;

[0104] Construction issues involving false or fabricated information;

[0105] Management issues such as serious personnel discrimination, etc.

[0106] Taking into account the potential complexity and importance of the issues, for some issues (such as those with unclear impacts or serious issues requiring review), we will skip the comprehensive evaluation of quantitative and qualitative assessments and conduct a supplementary expert comprehensive evaluation. This evaluation will be conducted by members of a high-level expert group. The evaluation process will consider factors such as defense in depth, engineering experience, accident analysis, and risk assessment. A comprehensive evaluation report will be produced to determine the issue's importance level. Specific evaluation details will be determined by the expert group.

[0107] Table 1 Example of SSC risk importance form

[0108] Table 2 Example of system / column-level failure system risk assessment matrix

[0109] Step S3: Select the more serious level between the quantitatively evaluated problem importance level and the qualitatively evaluated problem importance level as the final problem level.

[0110] Taking the "emergency water supply system" as an example, when a defect occurs in a single column of the system and affects its function, according to the quantitative evaluation method, as shown in Table 2, when the emergency water supply system fails in a single column, it is judged as a general problem; according to the general qualitative evaluation criteria, the emergency water supply system is safety level 1, which meets the important problem evaluation criteria of "safety level 1 (barrier safety level 1, functional safety level 1) a single series has a defect, the single series function cannot meet the design requirements, but it can be confirmed that the system function can still meet the design requirements", and is judged as an important problem; based on the results of the comprehensive quantitative and qualitative evaluations, when a defect occurs in a single column of the emergency water supply system that affects the functional construction problem, the final level of the problem is important.

[0111] Taking the "secondary side passive residual heat removal system" as an example, when defects occur in multiple columns of the system and affect its functions, according to the quantitative evaluation method, as shown in Table 2, when any column of the secondary side passive residual heat removal system fails, it is judged as a minor problem; according to the general qualitative evaluation criteria, the secondary side passive residual heat removal system is safety level 1, and meets the serious problem evaluation criteria of "safety level 1 (barrier safety level 1, functional safety level 1) defects in multiple series, resulting in multiple series functions not meeting design requirements or inability to confirm that the system functions meet design requirements", and is judged as a serious problem; based on the results of the comprehensive quantitative and qualitative evaluations, when defects occur in multiple columns of the secondary side passive residual heat removal system and affect the construction function, the final level of the problem is serious.

[0112] Taking the "SBO diesel generator" as an example, when defects in the system affect its functions, according to the quantitative evaluation method, as shown in Table 2, when the SBO diesel generator system fails, it is judged as a minor problem. According to the general qualitative evaluation criteria, the SBO diesel generator is safety level 3, which meets the general problem evaluation criteria of "safety level 3 (barrier safety level 3, functional safety level 3) defects in multiple series, resulting in multiple series functions not meeting design requirements or inability to confirm that system functions meet design requirements", and is judged as a general problem. Combining the results of quantitative and qualitative evaluations, when the SBO diesel generator has defects that affect its functional construction, the final level of the problem is general.

[0113] The importance evaluation results of construction issues will be reviewed and confirmed on a monthly or quarterly basis. For any issues that are controversial, the problem screening step will be re-entered to conduct another issue importance evaluation.

[0114] After completing the analysis of the construction issues in step S3, statistics can be displayed according to their importance levels and field affiliation information.

[0115] The method in this embodiment primarily includes the screening of construction issues, qualitative evaluation criteria, the development of a quantitative risk assessment form, supplementary expert evaluation, and result review and confirmation, completing the overall process design. General qualitative evaluation criteria and qualitative evaluation criteria for each construction area are established for different construction issues. These criteria comprehensively consider factors such as nuclear power plant internal management requirements, engineering judgment, and construction experience. The evaluation process incorporates risk assessment results from probabilistic safety analysis, assigning clear risk levels to system failure combinations. This allows for the quantitative impact of the issue on the overall risk of the nuclear power plant and the determination of its corresponding importance level. Combining qualitative and quantitative construction issue importance results, the issue's recurrence and impact are comprehensively considered to ultimately determine its level.

[0116] FIG6 is a structural block diagram of a construction problem evaluation system for a nuclear power plant under construction according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0117] As shown in FIG6 , the automatic monitoring system for the operation technical specifications of a nuclear power plant includes: a data acquisition module 1 , an analysis module 2 , and a level determination module 3 .

[0118] The data acquisition module 1 is configured to: obtain a list of construction issues of a nuclear power plant under construction;

[0119] The analysis module 2 is configured to: perform quantitative and qualitative evaluations on the problems in the construction problem list to obtain a problem importance level;

[0120] The level determination module 3 is configured to: select the more serious level of the problem importance level of the quantitative evaluation and the problem importance level of the qualitative evaluation as the final level of the problem;

[0121] Among them, quantitative evaluation is carried out according to the contribution of the structures, systems and / or equipment involved in the problem to the overall risk of the nuclear power plant, and according to the impact of the problem on the functional realization of the structures, systems and / or equipment themselves.

[0122] This embodiment provides a computer-readable storage medium for storing a computer program. When the computer program is executed by a processor, the steps of the above-mentioned method for evaluating construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction are completed.

[0123] This embodiment provides an electronic device including a memory and a processor. The memory stores a computer program. When the processor executes the computer program, the steps of the above-mentioned method for evaluating construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction are completed.

[0124] The present embodiment is described with reference to the flowcharts and / or block diagrams of the methods, devices (systems), and computer program products according to the embodiments of the present invention. It should be understood that each process and / or box in the flowchart and / or block diagram, as well as the combination of the processes and / or boxes in the flowchart and / or block diagram, can be implemented by a computer program. These computer programs can be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, a special-purpose computer, an embedded processor, or other programmable data processing device to produce a machine, so that the instructions executed by the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing device generate a device for implementing the functions specified in one or more processes in the flowchart and / or one or more boxes in the block diagram.

[0125] These computer programs may also be stored in a computer-readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing device to operate in a specific manner, so that the instructions stored in the computer-readable memory produce a product including an instruction device that implements the functions specified in one or more processes in the flowchart and / or one or more boxes in the block diagram.

[0126] These computer program instructions can also be loaded onto a computer or other programmable data processing device, and a series of operating steps are executed on the computer or other programmable device to produce a computer-implemented process, so that the instructions executed on the computer or other programmable device provide steps for implementing the functions specified in one or more processes in the flowchart and / or one or more boxes in the block diagram.

[0127] The above description is merely a preferred embodiment of the present application and is not intended to limit the present application. Various modifications and variations are possible for those skilled in the art. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions, or improvements made within the spirit and principles of the present application shall be included within the scope of protection of the present application.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: Step S1: Obtain a list of construction issues of a nuclear power plant under construction; Step S2: performing quantitative and qualitative evaluations on the problems in the construction problem list to obtain the level of importance of the problems; Step S3: selecting the more serious level of the problem importance level of the quantitative evaluation and the problem importance level of the qualitative evaluation as the final level of the problem; Wherein, in the step S2, The quantitative evaluation is conducted 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 based on the impact of the problem on the functional realization of the structures, systems and / or equipment themselves.

2. The method for evaluating construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction according to claim 1, characterized in that: The construction problem list includes problems found in the supervision and inspection items involved in the annual supervision and inspection plan, the work contact form of the regional supervision station, problems involved in the supervision notice, construction incidents and safety and quality incidents, and problems found in the experience feedback investigation.

3. The construction problem evaluation method for a nuclear power plant under construction according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S2, According to the preset basic form of structures, systems and / or equipment and the construction problem list, the affected structures, systems and / or equipment are selected, and minor problems are determined according to the minor problem evaluation criteria of the qualitative evaluation.

4. The method for evaluating construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S2, The qualitative evaluation selects general qualitative evaluation criteria and / or qualitative evaluation rules in various fields to conduct qualitative analysis on the problems in the construction problem list to determine the importance of the problems.

5. The method for evaluating construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction according to claim 1, characterized in that: The quantitative evaluation includes: Determine the structures, systems and / or equipment affected by the problem. If no important structures, systems and / or equipment are involved, stop the evaluation; Select the affected structures, systems and / or equipment according to the preset structure, system and / or equipment risk importance table; According to the preset system / column-level failure system risk assessment matrix form, determine the degree of impact on structures, systems and / or equipment, and determine the importance level of the problem.

6. The method for evaluating construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S2, The importance level of the problem is adjusted according to the recurrence and impact scope of the problem.

7. The method for evaluating construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction according to claim 6, characterized in that: The retransmission conditions and impact range include: Recurring construction problems, construction problems involving intentional violations of regulations or requirements, construction problems involving false and falsified information, and management problems involving personnel discrimination.

8. A construction problem evaluation system for a nuclear power plant under construction, characterized in that: include: The data acquisition module is configured to: obtain a list of construction issues of a nuclear power plant under construction; The analysis module is configured to: perform quantitative and qualitative evaluation on the problems in the construction problem list to obtain the problem importance level; A level determination module is configured to: select the more serious level of the problem importance level of the quantitative evaluation and the problem importance level of the qualitative evaluation as the final level of the problem; The quantitative evaluation is conducted based on the contribution of the structures, systems and / or equipment involved in the problem to the overall risk of the nuclear power plant, as well as the impact of the problem on the functional realization of the structures, systems and / or equipment themselves.

9. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that: The computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program, and when the computer program is executed by a processor, the steps of the method for evaluating construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction as described in any one of claims 1 to 7 are completed.

10. An electronic device, characterized in that: The invention comprises a 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 construction problems of a nuclear power plant under construction as described in any one of claims 1 to 7 are implemented.

Images