ML19262C599
| ML19262C599 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/26/1979 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-1673, NUDOCS 8002140628 | |
| Download: ML19262C599 (44) | |
Text
__
.s
- ~ ~,, w.
kd /77 7
'5 g
\\l j
' D.\\ 4 j MINUTES OF THE ACR5 dout.umMu FEE ON O%N RELIABILITY AtID PROBASILISTIC ASSESSMEt4T i
s LOS ANGELES, CA fhbk.I ~ / L 73 q')$
k-d D
2,b)
SEPTEMBER 11-12, 1979
~
The ACRS Subccmmittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Assessment met with representatives of the NRC Staff and their contractors in Les Angeles, CA on Sep 11-12, 1979, to discuss the concept of establishing quantitative safety goals for nuclear power plants; to discuss the development of a report to Congressman Udall concerning nuclear power plant. component failure rates; and to review the NRC Probabilistic Analysis Staff's research program in order to develop information for the ACRS annual report to Congress.
A notice of the meeting appeared in the Federal Register en Monday, August 27, 1979 (Attachment A). A copy of the detailed presentation schedule is attached (Attachment B). A list of attendees at the Subcommittee meeting is attached (Attachment C). A list of documents provided to the Subcommittee is attached (Attachment D). There were no written or oral public statements; however, representatives of General Atomic, General Electric, and EPRI did take part in the discussions. The entire meeting was open to members of the public.
MEETING WITH THE NRC STAFF (OPEN SESSION) 1.0 Subccmmittee Chairman's Opening Remarks Dr. Ckrent, Subco=ittee Chairman, introduced the members of the subcomittee and noted the purpose of the meeting.
He pointed out that the meeting was being conducted in accordance with the,Jrovisions of the Federal Advisory Comnittee Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act and that Mr. Gary Quittschreiber was the Designated Federal Employee for the meeting. He stated no requests for oral statements nor written statements from members of the public had been received with regard to the meeting.
2.0 Failure Rate Data Mr. Walt Sullivan, EGLG, described the LER Evaluation Program (Attachments 1-3) noting that EG&G is attempting to provide gross failure rates of comps ts 2$
8002140
~
Rel & Prob Assessment Sep 11-12, 1979 by calculating failure rates for the various components. They intend to issue component failure r' ate reports as follows:
o Pumps - Tentative Issue Date (TID) - October 1979 o Control Rod Drive Mechanisms - TID - October 1979 o Diesel Generators - TID - tiovember 1979 o Valves - TID - Cecember 1979 o Penetrations - TID - 1980 o Instrumentation and Controls - TID - 1980 o Relays - TID - 1980 o fircuit Closers /Interupters - TID - 1980 The LER evaluaticns show no significant impact on WASH 1400 results because the dominant contributors in WASH 1400 are human errors and common cause failures which have not been modified by the new data sources.
Mr. Poloski, EGLG, discussed the strategy of the analysis program they are performing on the Southwest Research Institute flPRDS data base. EG&G is attempting to identify factors which cause significant variations in failure rates within a class of components and will attempt to tabulate failure rate estimates for these factors within a class of components, e.g., size, vendor, environment, time in service, etc. They hope to have the ECCS valves and pumps analyzed in FY 1950. Large variations in failure rates, three orders of magnitude and larger, have been observed with no pattern. This program will analyze the cause of these abnormal behaviors.
Dr. Vesely, f4RC Probabilistic Assessment Staff (PAS) noted that tiPRDS and LER data indicate that common cause failures account for about 10 percent of all reactor component failures (Attachments 6 & 7). Cormon cause failures were defined as multiple components failing on the same day as recorded due to an identifiable common cause, such as a single human error or a single con-tamination problem. A task force made up of various agencies will meet December 3-7, 1979 to re-evaluate WASH 1400's error rates, including updating human error rates. Dr. Gkrent suggested the conclusions from this task force be factored into the ACRS response to Congressman Udall.
Y
~
Rei & Prob Assessmes
-a-Sep 11-12, 1979 PAS will provide the ACRS with a comparisen of some WASH 1400 component failure rate data with failure rate data from 6 or 7 other sources. Problems associated with such a comparison is that scme data is plant specific, has different error spreads, or is in a different form than that provided in WASH 1400. This will be provided to the ACRS in about one mont!'. Mr. Joksimovic, General Atomic, agreed to provide PAS with their componer.t failure rate data. Dr. Okrent suggested that once all the failure rate data was available from the different sources and PAS had it all put together that a working meeting be held with the NRC Staff, ACRS Fellows, ACRS Consultants, etc., to prepare a commentary for the Subcommittee to look at and to present to the ACRS. The Udall response could consist of a 1 or 2 page response which discusses some attached data tables.
3.0 Davis-Besse and Rancho Seco Events Dr. Gordon Edison, PAS, discussed the Davis-Besse and Rancho Seco event proba-bilities (Attachments 8-14).
It was considered to be an inappropriate applica-tion of WASH 1400 to calculate the probability of a unique sequence of events.
WASH 1400 methodology does not consider the system operating in a degraded manner. WASH 1400 only considers yes or no answers as to whether a system will cperate, it does not include cases where system operation is delayed or where human intervention returns systems to operation following failures.
Correct application of the WASH 1400 methodology could include.the Davis-Besse and Rancho Seco events in a category in a sequence along with a number of other series of events which fit in the same sequence, but the WASH 1400 probability will not necessarily be appropriate for the specific Rancho Seco and Davis-Besse events. Dr. Lewis indicated he could write a response to Congressman Udall noting that these events; although peculiar, could be discussed in a broad framework by going step-by-step down the existing WASH 1400 event trees to arrive at a probability of occurrence of the actual sequences. Dr. Rowsome indicated that PAS would break the two events down into successive steps before mid-December and get back t.o the Subcommittee with this information.
4.0 PAS Research Procram Dr. Frank Rowsome, PAS, noted that.tey have initiated the Integrated Relia-bility Evaluatiori Program (IREP) to develop a data bank covering the system W
Sep 11-12, 1979 Rel & Preb Assessmen.
design and operating proc,edures with which to assess.thi susceptibility of the approximately 79 operating LWRs to five dominant risk sequences in WASH 1400 (Attachments 15-18). Depending on the design and procedures of indivi-dual plants, orders of magnitude differences in risk do exist. PAS will develcp plant-specific core damage or melt event trees for all operating LWRs, to be completed in FY 1981.
To encourage support of probabilistic analysis in,the licensing process an executive seminar for branch chiefs on up, from the line offices, is planned for the last week in November 1979 to look at ways in which probabilistic
- afety analysis, reliability engineering, and risk assessment can be used in providing a new foundation for regulation. One or two ACRS membe'rs will be asked to participate, possibly as speakers.
PAS does not have any established criteria for deciding when to advise the ACRS of safety issues they discover during their analyses. Dr. Rowsome indicated PAS would attempt to address this matter and will make it a policy to keep the ACRS informed.
The Subcommittee discussed the advantages of having each licensee perform a risk profile of his reactor doing the necessary fault tree and event tree analyses and quantifying the most probable and important events. Dr. Rowsome indicated it' would be desirable but was reluctant about using NRC authority to require that such be done. Dr. Vesely noted that they have no criteria to evaluate such analyses. Also, PAS does not presently have the available staff to evaluate the analyses if they were provided, since the review requires redoing the fault tree which takes about as long as the original work.
Dr. Rowsome discussed the ACRS comments on the NRC Safety Research Program Sudget provided in NUREG-0603 and generally agreed to implement the ACRS recom-mendations with regard to their activities, except for the recommendation to level the expenditures in the fuel cycle risk work, which PAS consi,ders im-portant for NRC to keep up to the state of the art. (Attachments 19-25).
Rel & Prob Assessment
- Sep 11-12, 1979 It was noted that a major shift in RSR and PAS workload and organization will likely take place as a result of the Kemeny and Rogovin Comittees' recomen-dations,suchthatspecificcommitmentsonissuesatthistimemaybemootdue to the Committee's reccmmended changes which will likely take place within the next several months. Dr. Rowsome said they would have preliminary results of an overhaul of the priorities in a month or two for FY 80 projects.
The flood risk program funding (plant resistance to ficoding)'has been cut to approximately half that proposed. Floods have been identified as a potential high risk contributor, e.g., comparable to WASH 1400 core melt probability for plants.on the Susquehanna River. Several orders of magnitude variation in risk exist for plants due to the differences in design criteria. PAS is reassessing priorities which could affect funding in FY 81. Dr. Vesely indicated that the bases for the probability numbers will be sent to the ACRS within the next several weeks.
Dr. Okrent requested that RES come to the Subcommittee meeting on Reactor Safety Research prior to the November ACRS meeting to discuss priorities of research items. Dr. Rowsome indicated that Bob Budnitz is chairing an RES working group on research priorities which is rethinking the way in which priorities are set. Dr. 0krent also requested that PAS ccme to the October 3rd TMI-2 Implications Subcommittee and discuss their findings of the PWR ice condenser response to a TMI-2 type hydrogen release.
4.0 Establishing Acceptable Quantitative Safety Goals Dr. Rowsome noted that Commissioners Gilinsky and Bradford were behind the idea of acceptable risk criteria. Dr. Vesely discussed the PAS acceptable risk criteria program which is contracted to GRNL at a cost of $200K in FY 78 and 5300K in FY 79. Science Applications Incorporated (SAI) and Perceptronics Incorporated are seccndary contractors (Attachments 26-31). Paul Slovic, Per-ceptronics, is doing a general study to determine the state of the art and.
what factors have to be considered in setting acceptable risk criteria, a draft report is scheduled to be issued in January 1980. SAI is comparing nuclear power plant risks to coal plant risks.
Y
Rel & Prob Assessment Sep 11-12, 1979 An IEEE working group will be developing proposed "strawman" quantitative risk criteria by October 1980. Dr. Vesely proposed that five or six major sequences leading to core melt in WASH 1400 might be used as the unaccepta-bility criteria for nuclear power plants with regard to core melt probability or probability versus consequences. Dr. Vesely said that be firmly believed that had the WASH 1400 unacceptability criteria been in effect and had been performed on TMI-2, that they would have caught and corrected the problem at TMI-2 before it occurred. It was indicated that the core melt probability would have stood out for TMI-2 (about 2 orders of magnitude higher than WASH 1400) due to the fact that the PORV is challenged on every feedwater transient, giving high exposure to a small LCCA leading to the pressurizer level problems.
Dr. Vesely indicated that the extrapolation of WASH 1400 for 100 reactors may have been a mistake due to the large design differences in plant-to-plant variations. BNL will collect information and coordinate the NRC Staff program to look at the implications of any criteria which are proposed. The Subcommittee discussed numerous concerns with the use of WASH 1400 as acceptable or unaccept-able criteria. Dr.VeselyindicatedthattheWASHl}00criteriaaswellas other criteria, such as proposed by Dr. Kinchin, will be assembled by SNL and examined by an IEEE National Task Force (about 40 people divided into separate working groups) which will have through April 1,1980 to review the implica-
- tions, ramifications, attainability, methods of satisfaction, comparisons with other risks, etc., before they propose the strawman criteria for further review by peer groups, outside agencies, and the ACRS.
Dr. Vesely noted that Brookhaven and possibly MITRE will (1) work with other Government agencies to gather information on criteria being used or thought about, or ways of using quantitative risk analysis and (2) gather all calcula-tions of risks to whic h individuals are exposed from other activities. Brook-haven will assist the NRC in determining the system and plant implications of any proposed criteria. The IEEE task force will formulate the criteria, with interaction from industry and other groups.
The following suggestions were made concerning the future path the NRC Staff and ACRS might take with regard to developing criteria for acceptable or nonacceptable risks:
Rel & Prob Assessment Sep 11-17, 1979 Coal vs nuclear risk comparison should include similar aspects, e.g.,
e coal should be looked at for long term storage of wastes and for long term effects of all coal plant air pollutants for the same time period as nuclear.
Study should include a discussion of how the public views risk aversion, e
Risk aversion for nuclear should be discussed on the same basis as for e
other large technologies.
Acceptable risk of nuclear power to the female population, which views e
nuclear power risks different than the male population, should be discussed.
The question of " acceptable to whom?" must be considered. Must the e
criteria be acceptable to the general population or to, smaller groups, such as Congress and other agencies: The Subcomittee generally agreed that Congress was the proper target.
The following organization, and/or individuals were mentioned as doing work' in the area of risk assessment and could be of possible use for the NRC study:
e General Motors Technical Center symposium on October 8-9, 1979 on societal risk assessment. Dr. Okrent plans to attend.
A several day NSF/ NAE workshop motivated by the House Comittee on e
Science and Technology on use of probabilistic techniques in decision making, which is partially funded by the NRC, will be held in early 1980. The Sub-ccamittee suggested that PAS request NSF/ NAE to place emphasis on risk accept-ance criteria instead of tools used to make decisions. PAS was also requested to talk to NSF/NAS about the possibility of holding a second workshop around June 1980 to discuss risk acceptance criteria. Dr. Vesely will call NSF and get back to the Subcommittee. If an NSF/ NAE workshop focuses on the ACRS con-cerns, then maybe the ACRS can work with them, if not, then the ACR.S may wish to hold a separate symposium.
It was suggested that the Subcommittee should plan a meeting around the first of April 1980 to review the IEEE task force strawman criteria.
The area of "how physicians decide on treatments" by risk benefit eval-e uations should be looked at.
How the Food and Drug Administration makes its decisions. Standards for microwave radiation. How standards for nuclear ra-
'diation were arrived at.
T
Rel & Prob Assessment Sep 11-12, 1979 Dr. Vesely noted that the Brookhaven handbook will contain many case e
studies and documentations of past decisions, these case histories.to be provided to the ACRS within the next several weeks. Dr. Yesely suggested the ACRS Fellows might be used to find additional case histories if more are needed.
Dr. Vesely said he would contact the European CSNI concerning setting e
up a working group to examine quantitative risk assessment.
Dr. Okrent suggested that the Subcommittee might want to consider the relation-ship between eccnomic factors and risk acceptance factors from a national point of view, e.g., is there a sum of money which the nation could use to reduce risk, over which if exceeded, would increase risk by an unstable economy, etc?
Are there legal or economic constraints on developing quantitative risk criteria?
Dr. Rowsome suggested that one approach might be to propose a bill to Congress or a policy statement to the White House which provides abstract criteria which sets available ground rules that address such things as hard-and-fast criterion, such as nuclear risks not be among the principal contributors to human mortality and a bound on ALARA with difin~ tion of " reasonable." Perhaps it should touch on such things as proliferation. Once such a proposed bill or policy statement was issued the feedback could be used te develop quantitative criteria.
Dr. Okrent suggested obtaining proposils on formulation of acceptable risk criteria from organizations such as t'.ie Council on Environmental Quality and public interest groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club. He suggested that they might be approached to see if they have approaches within a broad context which include nuclear reactors. Dr. Vesely said he would pursue this and see if a symposium might be the best method fer getting such results. Other organizations suggested were Resources for the Future (which just issued a report on energy risks), Brookings Institute, Peter Hutt with the Food and Drug Administration, AMA group that reviewed the Inhaber Report, and The Committee on Ethics of Experimentation with Human Subjects at Harvard.-
It was suggested that a Subcommittee member call " Science" to see if they would write an article on quantitative risk assessment.
It was suggested that they talk to Dr. Okrent for the information concerning such an article.
Sep 11-12, 1979 Rel & Prob Assessment The meeting was adjourned,at 12:00 noon on September 12, 1979.
For additional details, a complete transcript of the meeting is available in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Docurent Room,1717 H Street, N. W.,
Washington, D. C. 20555, or from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc., 444 North Capitol. Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
l D
=
k 4
9 '
Fedend m 9tnr / V.J..t t. *Jii tr,7 / \\tondav. Anratt :. tro / %tices m
50!til Twe.!.:c. 4"'m:!ve 11 om/ It*c4 f,.
Mu' D Prtmen'$ Wm t that.til N + % r t.'. f u ~tt 't ' m in t..
CCP.
'-'.T OF THE INT"
..O R
. rcs'cd tyrw"u m c t maatmus u.'I anun' ' 1 vi;ch il...
r
.r.m. m th. egne esen o...s the o 'n DEPART 77..
F GT p.,
The F t.. om ntt..e r n mert o f r..i "rj u i l M :e:.,n o "f.r. int i.-ims h aw S mm m 9.iny ofit2 de/w
- M..q Cnviro nment.9, p Statement-W i-i s..
,,g
,, gg m,;, p,csyn,,,o Cant >cu Cc ntion; 6 9 Mee!!ng g;,
actice -.. f:ce of Public. ' -
Forirug en enrormt:cfr nfacT:
cii; bre ud ev S ia:p: 'bnr pri bi iitt i Cinics K.;
rr. O' ace of/ Se!. cit or.
eunucas.ce.rdin: m:mers ahre h di
.i,ut V: Ihe Dep.iriments. nnounce Dc:tinna nt 'tM tate /.RoomtM M be con:.. r: J a.nn; t e meutm; and -
' :3hur; on.
formal..' a rce vt and W,'
.t tM wdi huid pubbe rm.rhr; on 1: th m. : C Su m:d.inon i to 'M fi.il Ca mm,,
b turr.h r il. !9 7. ta di.m I, e N mm02.. V 4 cr 's'idi..n i h iecom:
n oar..tiu1 of an ensi nnnwr.f.d trnpa' Mand dd. OL.
u.msment anJ At ti. cent.!a mn of t! c f%cuena I b:alth.11cpartr/
f State. Rocm ZO.
Scspon. n.e Suhom-ut'ce wdl be.ir pr mut ilth under the pruu[ry,s on Washmgtun. I'[ li (202-03 M 2G).'
presentat ons by and %td dkenwa s st.
5 at.on.d I.ns tronme nt.d. -.a d D'
. h M. m es d b E M the en t.
propowd canbou cumentior and tN,r consult.'nts. peitecnt to ih.s
.he: rt ose of this mei: tin;is to
, Yam ^ Cr*
" t.
deter ne :he ;r. ope of i. ees to h addre o and to ;dentify enh. nt Drreuur.
u #> cpi. h c.
t !.ll, caucus to det;rmine ".!.uther the n.at..
S. rnce.
a s neart.% inte r.
issucs li analved in dept t
milia
, inn time, been a::cquat ny cowird und whet 5 r prepan. the US.
the pr Mt is ready for review by :he D ATE S: 'I
- pu!:he meeting
. be held Ocpus ses to,t S. mtery. Em ire, mr. r.
- '*' ""d N"'" ~" M^'"4'8 *'"
fuit Conunittee.
Septemb.
11.197'>. from ~ a.m. to
'N
Further information r>rardiv, 'opic.
%)p m.y the Departmqli 4 the
"'*''***"'*l to be d;3 cussed whether the meat.n4 Intener. R.
m 7040A.1 '.ind C Streets has beca cancelled er reschedufed. tre
- * '#" C0" *""'
Chanr en's rub: g on scquesis far the NW.WW Won. CC m.
" ~ - -
M ATORY ocporwty to preacnt or,d statements suert.c"Es ny inc
. Tic:n Canbou eeb
. en A!ana.and C1,y :CN and the time a'lutted therefer can be
~ ISS herds th 2t m z C ruda 5.nc :bst d'v i!cchned in obtained by a prepaid tc!rphone call %
numbers in th ' *1 J et ier century.
Advisory Ccmmittc1 on Reccter the Dmnaieil Federal F.mplayce fer
'hes resource by C:.fcquvds Suecemrrittee en this rnreet ::g. Mr. Rich.sl K. Major Jomt manaer.. c the L'mied Sta d C.mada may be Rehac. sty end Prc53bilistic (telephcne 232/604-1114) between 815 3 its conscrsatior't.
Assessment; Meeting a.m. and W p.m.. e sJ.
es iennal to isy u rnira:e thousands of The ACRS Sa,vecm aittee on DM h pse a M 1 smre these v,
miles and fr. s !y r.rora the Reliab.hty and Pro'uabt!istic Assessment JohnC.Ho3e.
1 internit!ca. ot arv. The Secretary will ho'd an upon mcutina, on Scph.mher Adnssge2undra Monument O$cer f
C d
11 and 12.1970. in Century IV floom.
ID' D"owu=4 mn a 4s.ini
,L
. fler Quahty Inn. Air,nrt. 5:49 West Century Fn o: " '.. n ewsc co0c rswet.u Boulevard. Los AnWes CA 90043 to*
D' a'-
of
'1 rn d dis'us me cono pt of estabbshm4 Af fan s
..;t such ;ok t wnagement can quantitatn e sahty goals for nue.! car wiret Nos. 50-361 A and 50-362A best b..ahmented y en internahorn! power reactor *. Se development of a
'mrn Canfornia Edisnn Ca > pan y, So agre< d:rit between t.
two nations.
status report concerning nuclear power et ai Acce'rt ci Additional titrust Ti Umfed States F h and Wddhfe plarJ compcmt fnd'se rates, and a Infor. -tan: Time for Subm' sion of Ser o of the Depart.. nt of the Interior review of the NRC Piobabihstic Views A ntitrust f.tctter he Canad an Wdo fe Scnice have Analysis Staff 2 re:carch program to ar h 4 a number of prelim ary meetings d'".ciop information for the ACRS South n Cahfornia Edi.a Company 1
i stormme what matic diou!d be Annual Report to Congress on thn NRC pursuant Section 103 < J.he Atom:c
!uJed in the proposed' ;rcement.
SJfety Retcarch Program. Nctice cf this Enct;y Ac f 1954. as e e nded. f.ta s cih Senices hoe also
.sulted mactmg was pabhshed August 23.1979.
fded infrm :on reqw ed by the
/ninalty with tocal goscrn In accordance with ti'e procedures Attorney Ce 'ral for ititrust Reviev.
nts, native igroups. and cther interest.
outlined in the Federal Remier en as rectared b 0C Part 50. Appe. l.s October 4.19 a (43 FR 4Wrd. cral or L Ihis inforn5. en # necrns two org inw.itums to determino 'e:r siews on this quesuan.The Depa ent of the wntten stements may be prescnted by propos. d addit.
ownersh:p e
members cf the ;ubhc. record:ng wdi Se parnri: a:.ts. the
> of thverside and Intener "as ahia requested a the Decartment of State at.theris to permitted enly dann: tnose pcruons of the C:tv of Anah t for the San On: h ft,rmaHy necotiata an mtern,. :nal the meeting when a transcript is bein4 Nuclea'r Gener.
.._ atton. Units 2 tri agreement for mi:;ratory cari J.
kept. and quest'ans may be asked oniY
- 3. Thr o.trent Jde. of :he The swu D(partments behe that any by mernbers of :he %bcomrmttee. its const ruchon rmits e Southern agreement should estabush a.
consultants..md Staff. Persons dcs:nn3 Cahfernia F-.on Co.r iny and San compreenue management =c me to to maine oral statemen's should notify Dirco Cu. d Eb ctr'c, 'mpany.
insure the censervanon of canb i herds the Designated F dcral Emplo>ec as far The inic ianon was fi dm that marate between the two ru its advance as prhcticable so that '
conr re.a.
with the apph tion by ans.
Posub!o alternahvcs, however, i !ude appropriate arranaements can be made Southe-ahforma F.disor.ompany
/
more narrow mana:: ment procrad or to aHow the necessary ume danng the and S Fego Cas and F.le 1c no international a greement. The meet:ng for such statements.
Ccmpany for construcnon pc... its ac t Departmrnts wd! prepare an E!S. d The at;enda for subject meeting shall operaung licences for two pressunad wdl conuder it in formulating thei.
waterreactors. Construction was be as,e follows:
pouhons on the proposed agreement.
f h
0~
Ir a 4 m)L j
?.
OETAILED PRESENTATION SCHEDULE ACRS SUSCOMMITTEE MEETING ON RELIABILITY AND PROBASILISTIC ASSESSMENT SEPTEMBER 11-12, 1979 LOS ANGELES, CA 1.
Failure Rate Data (PAS Presentation - 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />) 8:30 - 11:00 am Components and systems for which data will or can be obtained F'orm in which data can be obtained Information which will be available between now and November 1979 and in what form Sources outside the NRC which might logically contribute How outside sources can be made to contribute 2.
Davis-Besse and Rancho Seco Events (PAS presention -
30 minutes) 11:00 - 12:00 khen PAS will have analysis. written How these events will be analyzed What can/will'be completed by November 1979 What sources outside the NRC might logically contribute How outside sources can be made to contribute 3.
PAS Research Program (PAS Presentation - 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />) 12:00 - 3:00 pm Disc;ss response to ACRS recommendations on PAS activities discussed in the July 1979 ACRS letter Discuss research program items related to PAS that are normally covered in ACRS annual reports to Coigress.
LUNCH 1:00 - 2:00 pm 3
~
7
' listi As 'essmen's in the censing' Process
/:00 4: 0 m g
7 4.
Prob-i c.3.,
(NR Prese. tat %n - 30 minutes)
N iscu s ho probab' istic as sment will be sed inttne licensing mlf<
pro ess 5.
Establishing Acce:: table Quantitative Safety Goals 4:00 - 6:00 pm (Sep 11)
(PAS Presentation - I hour 30 minutes) 8:30 - 1:Od pm (Sep 12)
What the past program has shown What next Fiscal Year program will show Thoughts on how to approach this item to come up with alternatives by June 1950 What sources outside the NRC might contribute How these outside sources may be made to contribute.
1:00 pm ADJOURNMENT NOTES:
(1) A maximum or 30 minutes will be allowed for receiving oral statements from members of the public, if requested.
(2) The speakers should limit their prepared presentations to the time allowed. An allowance has been made for questioning by the Subcommittee.
)
ATTEfiDEES LIST RELIABILITY AND PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT MEETING LOS ANGELES, CA SEP 11-12, 1979 NAME AFFILIATION W. E. Vesely NRC/RES/ PAS M. C. Cullingford NRC/P.ES/ PAS G. E. Edison NRC/RES/ PAS F. H. Rowsome NRC/RES/ PAS J. M. Griesmeyer ACRS Fellow D. H. Johnson ACRS Fellow
~
G. Quittschreiber*
ACRS Staff W. Sullivan EG&G J. P. Poloski INEL/EG&G C. Fisher General Atomic V. Joksimovic General Atomic M. I. Temme GA/ARSD G. Cramer
- 50. California Edison G. Apostolakis UCLA Y. Sun BNL A. J. Levine GE C. J. Davey NZEA C. Whipple EPRI R. Smith Nucleonics Week /NRC Designated Federal Employee Attachment C
DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE FOR THIS MEETING Viewgraphs shown at the meeting are provided as Attachments 1-31. A complete set of all handouts are provided in tr)e meeting transcript and in the ACRS Office file for this meeting.
e 9
Attachment D
LER EVALUATION PROGRAM l.
INTENTION OF PROGRAM ANALYZE:
A.
LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS (LERS)
B.
NUCLEAR PLANT RELI ABILITY DATA SYSTEM (NPRDS)
C.
COMMON CAUSE EVENTS.
II.
LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS (LERS)
A.
SYNOPSIS OF LER ANALYSIS 1.
CATEGORIZE LERS BY COMPONENT
'UATE OF FAILURE FAILURE MODE Ai!D CAUSE
' SYSTEM AFFECTED CCMMON CAUSE AND/OR RECURRING ('/HERE APPLICABLE)
ETC 2.
CALCULATE COMPONENT CAILURE RATES FOR
' PLANTS
'NSSS
'PWR/BWR
'0VERALL 3.
WRITE AND SUBMIT REPORT FOR EACH COMPONENT TO
'NRC FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT
'IECHNICAL EDITING FOR FINAL DRAFT
'NRCF$RDISTRIBUTION 1
1 1
f B.
PUMPS 1.
DATA BREAKDOWN (REFER TO PUMP CODING SHEET)
NO ATTEMPT MADE TO CLASSIFY BY SIZE, CAPACITY, TYPE, ETC.
ALL ANALYSES AND CALCULATIONS PER-FORMED FOR GENERIC CLASS - PUMPS.
2.
STATUS OF ANALYSIS IN FINAL STAGES OF CONVERTING REPORT INTO A HUREG.
TENTATIVE ISSUE DATE - OCTOBER.1979.
3.
REMARKS
' OPERATING FAILURE RATES (A0 RUNNING PUMPS-
- 2E-c/HR ALTERNATING PUMPS - lE-5/HR
'.! ASH 1400
- 3E-5/HR CEf1AilD FAILURE RATES (O I
D 0.LTERNATING cut 1PS - 4E-4/D STANDBY PUT.'S
- IE-3/D C.
CONTROL ROD DRIVE MECHANISMS 1.
DATA BREAKDOWN (REFER TO CONTROL ROD DRIVE CODING SHEET)
ALL ANALYSES AND CALCULATIONS PERFORMED FOR THE GENERIC CLASS - CONTROL ROD DRIVE ASSEMBLY.
2.
STATUS OF ANALYSIS IN PROCESS OF INCORPORATING COMMENTS INTO FINAL DRAFT.
IENTATIVE ISSUE DATE - OCTOBER 1979.
3.
REMARKS FAIL TO INSERT CLERS)
- SE-5/D
' FAIL TO INSERT (WASH 1400) - IE-4/D 2
1
D.
DIESEL GENERATORS 1.
DATA BREAKDOWN (REFER TO DIESEL GENERATOR CODING SHEET)
ALL ANALYSES AND CALCULATIONS PERFORMED FOR THE GENERIC CLASS - DIESEL GENERATORS (COM-PLETE PLANT).
2.
STATUS OF ANALYSIS DRAFT REPORT BEING REVIEWED BY NRC.
TENTATIVE ISSUE'DATE - NOVEMBER 1979.
3.
REMARKS OPERATING FAILURE RATE (A0 LERS
- 3E-2/HR
'-! ASH 1400 - JE-5/sR E.
VALVES NAJOR CHAMGES IN REPORT MAY BE ilECESSARY.
DRAFT IS IN REVIEtt BY 7.C.
IENTATIVE ISSUE DATE -
DECEMcER 1979.
F.
PENETRATICi!S LERS HAVE BEEN CODED.
SOME PRELIMINARY SORTING COMPLETE.
IENTATIVE ISSUE DATE - 1980.
G.
FY 80 GOALS 1.
CONTINUE LER CATEGORIZATION 2.
ISSUE i1UREGS FOR COMPONENTS ANALYZED
'fIESELS
' VALVES
' PENETRATIONS
' INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL
' RELAYS
' CIRCUIT CLOSERS / INTERRUPTERS 3
3
3.
CONDUCT LER FLAGGING ANALYSIS (bs. pr
. I! N.
av
'IIME TRENDS
'ANOMALOU$ FAILURE RATES
' RECURRING FAILURES
' COMMON CAUSE FAILURES
'CUALITY C0t1 TROL RELATED FAILURES
' HUMAN ERRORS (SYSTEMATIC & RANDOM)
'ANY OTHER SIGNIFICANT OBSERVATIONS III.
NPRDS 14. a [.'in-Id 0 A.
GOALS 1.
IDENTIFY AND CHaoACTEP.IZE FACTORS 'dHICH CAUSE SIGNIFICANT VARIATICIls Ifl THE FAILURE RATE FOR A GIVEf1 CLASS OF C0fiPO:4ENTS 2.
TABULATE FAILURE RATE ESTIttATES FOR GIVEfl SETS OF FACTOR VALUES 'MITHIN A CLASS OF COMPO*4ENTS 3.
DEFIllE FAILURE P. ATE SPREADS FOR GIVEN SETS OF FACTOR VALUES WITHIfl A CLASS OF COMP 0f1EtiTS.
IIECESSARY COMPUTER FROGRAMS AND ANALYSIS APPROACHES WILL BE ASSEMBLED TO ACCOMPLISH THESE GOALS.
3.
STRATEGY FOR EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS DIVIDED INTO SIX AREAS THAT FOLLOW ONE ANOTHER It1 TIME SEQUENCE.
1.
DATA CLASSIFICATION PLAr4TS (MAY BE LIMITED TO THOSE WITH MORE NEARLY COMPLETE DATA)
' SIZE
' DEMAND FAILURES (STARTUP AND TESTING)
' FAILURES DURING IIORMAL OPERATION I4 O
'IOTAL NUMBER'0F FAILURES
' SERVICE ENVIRONMENT (STEAM, WATER, AIR)
'IEMPORAL PROXIMITY (FOR COMMON CAUSE ANALYSIS)
' CALENDAR CUARTERS
'IIME IN SERVICE
' STATUS AT IIME OF FAILURE (ACTIVE OR STANDBY)
'NSSS VENDOR
' SAFETY CLASS (CLASS 1, IE, AND 2)
' COMPONENT MANUFACTURER 2.
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION
'IIME IREND (COMPUTER CODE COUNIESS OR OTHER TOOLS)
'SEMILOG PLOTS c: FAILURE RATE VERSuS FACTOR LEVELS
' PLOTS OF POPULATION FRACTION FAILING
' HISTOGRAMS 3.
COMPARISON WITH FAILURE P.ATES l' SED IN ,'0Sll-3 99 AND THOSE FROM L:P.S 4.
INVESTIGATION OF ANOMALIES
' VERIFICATION OF DAT' THROUGH SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
' ALERT NRC AB0uT APPARENT PROBLEMS SUCH AS:
A.
IIME IRENDS 3.
failure RATES DIFFERING FRCf. THE AVERAGE AND FROM THOSE USED IN WASH-1400 C,
SERIOUS GENERIC IMPLICATIONS D.
RECURRING FAILURES E.
COMMON CAUSE FAILURES 5
Y
F.
QUALITY CONTROL G.
HUMAN ERRORS (SYSTEMATIC AND RANDOM)
H.
OTHER HIGH RISx CONTRIBUTORS 5.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
'IOLERANCE INTERVALS ON THE VARIOUS DATA "iERARCHIES
'3AYESIAN ESTIMATION IECHNIQUES FOR TOLERANCE INTERVALS
'VERIFICATI,0N OF ORDER-OF MAGNITUDE DIFFERENCES AS NEEDED (STATISTICAL METHOD TO BE DETERMINED) 6.
MATHEMATICAL MODELING
' RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN FAILURE RATE AND. FACTOR LEVELS EY:
A.
CURVE 'ITTING B.
FACTOR 2FFECTS IIODELS, C.
FY 79 RESutTS PLOTTING DATA /FAILUR U.A T E E S T I.".A T E S D.
FY 60 GOALS 1.
ANALYZE ECCS VALVES 2.
ANALYZE ECCS PUMPS IV.
COMMON CAUSE ANALYSIS hU
- f A.
GOALS 1.
DEVELOP ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES COR THE MODEL.
2.
IDENTIFY SUBSYSTEM OF COMPONENTS SUSCEPTIBLE TO PARTICULAR COMMON CAUSE FAILURE MECHANISMS.
3.
ANALYZE EACH SUBSYSTEM USING BINOMIAL FA~ILURE RATE MODEL.
4.
DIAGNOSTIC CHECKS WHETHER DATA SATISFIES ASSIJMPTIONS OF MODEL.
6 1
5.
PUT SUB3YSTEMS AND MECHANISMS TOGETHER TO GET OVERALL COMMON CAUSE FAILURE RATES.
MONTE CARLO SIMULATION WILL BE NECESSARY.
o.
IF DIAGNOSTIC CHECKS SUGGEST MORE COMPLICATED MODEL (3 ETA-31NOMI AL FAILURE RATEh MONTE CARLO SIMULATION WILL BE NECESSARY.
B.
FY 79 RESuLTS 1.
IDENTIFICATION OF COMPONENTS LARGELY DONE.
2.
THEORY ON MODEL COMPLETE.
SOFTWARE FOR MODEL 80% COMPLETE.
3.
IHEORY FOR DIAGNOSTIC CHECKS COMPLETE.
SOFT-WARE HAS TO BE DEVELOPED.
C.
FY 80 GOALS 1.
ISSUE TREE /NURE"- ON 3INOMI AL FAILURE RATE MODEL -
END OF 1C72.
2.
COMPLETE MODELIi!G.
3.
ISSUE REPORT ON 3 ETA-3INC?llAL FAILURE RATE MODEL.
4.
3EGIN ANALYZING LEP DATA.
7.
PROBABILITY ESTIMATES OF DAVIS BESSE AtlD RAllCll0 SECO EVENTS BASED ON WASil-1fl00 DNIE 3 ESSE (9/2'1/77r o
LOSS OF MAIN FEEDWATER = 3/YR.
PRESSURIZER RELIEF VALVE FAILS TO RECLOSE = 1x10-2/DEMAilD o
o PROBABILITY OF' SEQUENCE CLASS WillCll INCLUDES DAVIS BESSE EVENT ~ 3x10-2/ REACTOR-YR.
PROBABILITY ESTIMATES OF DAVIS BESSE AND RAtlC110 SECO EVENTS BASED ON llASil-ll100 IW1010 SECO (3/20/78) o WASil-1'100 DID NOT GUANTIFY lilDIVIDUAL FAILURE MODES OF Tile MAlli FEEDWATER SYSTEM o
ill Tile EVENT, N011AJOR SAFETY SYSTEMS REQUIRED TO PREVENT CORE MELT FAILED TO PERFORM FUNCTION o
RAtlCll0 SECO EVENT IS lilCLUDED (ALTl100Gli A SMALL FRACTION)
Ill Tile AtlTICIPATED TilREE FEEDWATER TRANSIRITR PEP, REACTOR-YEAR 2
6
)
l l
I E
C R S
M E U W L l
l A
C S S O A 0 7 R
E S
L l
I i
S 5 E F G T R E
A E I
P S R
I T
O R S
R P O S A
E R
T F L
0 A
L E R
T R E S l
C l
E 3 A Y E
F O Z C i
I l
R T
A I S 7 I
/
C 2 F
C O
O 0
0 R /
A C A T Y W T 0l 2
7 E 1 E
T F A I
C /
M D
T R D L R
1 l
l l
3 3
E A
E U E
1 l
C A E P f
A
(
0 P
M 1
U F M O R
C N P
O 1
1 I
T D
O O
E Y S Y R
U l
N I
i T.
T A O R B
(
B O
I E
C ID Y
)
U L
Q C
E E
F E
T S
O S
A C
I T
Y 7 G L D E I
N E E S A
1 G
D I
1 V
M V
E S E 8
1 i
L l
5 E
S
)
R l
I l
S 7 E
Y R
i I
E 7 W
D M
R P P L
A F E B /
O I
I E
x P
E 1 O Z R R l
i f
i T T D
S 2 9
0 R
(
I L
E R
/
L I
I 1
E V
L T A
L S U P P E
R U A A U S M
1 l
A E
l i
F R N
V A S u U l
D T
L E
W C E P P l
1 A
l 1 P O
A E R I
L E
O
~
O D
M B P 1 1 L
I B
C A
A I
ERL N
M O
E C R B
I E U E
F_
T 1
A Y
S S l
E R
L S
M R
E E
8 E I
P T
R l
lI O
A R P P
F_
E I
I D
T R R
L 1
A S E
F O T
)
L 1
i t
l 1
A T I
t 9
C T C
)
S f
i o
2 7 R
1 l
C A P
I f
E S M
S
/
E 0 I
9 7
M M D
T R P U Y I
l R
M 2 9
M E
A P L A
I O E P
M l
5 i T 5
l E
M W
l R
U N 2 0
1 C E P
O l
3 T A R
I T
D N
I i
C T
T A O
(
B D I
YR R
O E
T P
W S
I O
~l R
P i
T l
O O
l R
R R
E O
l T
T T
i Do~
C C
B C
A A
R A
W E
E U
E F
l 1
R R
T l
f
TABLE 1 (C0llI.)
IMI-2 DAVIS BESSE RAlicllo SECO U/29/L91
_(9/2il/77)
._0/20ZZ3L AFW NO AFW FOR S filN.
1 PUMP /SG WORKING lllTillil NO AFW FOR 7 fliti, 116 SEC.
1 PUMP "VilAVAILABLE" (TURBINE DEGRADED).
AVAIL-ABLE MANUALLY AFTER 12 filN.
PRESSURIZER OPEllED AFTER 3 SEC. AND OPENED AFTER 1 MIN. 6 SEC.,
PRV OUT OF SERVICE.
RELIEF VALVE STUCK OPEH.
ilLOCK CYCLED RAPIDLY 9 TIMES SAFETY VALVE OPEilED VALVE CLOSED AFTER IN 23 SEC. AND STUCK OPEtl AND RECLOSED.
138 filN.
(STLH GALLING).
BLOCK VALVE CLOSED IH 20 MIN.
PRESSURIZER SEVERELY MISLEADING LEVEL INCREASED OFF N0 LEVEL PROBLEM.
LEVEL INDICATION.
SCALE.
~
)
G l
I lE S S
l l
i l
P E
i R T R R G
U 0
E P Y l
l D D 0
Z B
I L
l T
N 1 R E D S
R O
6 l
I A
R C D U 1
C 1
E 3 l
l
(
1 l
i 1
S 1 L E T
f
(
/
A T T
S D S S 0
U T 3 R E
U R 5 l
0l 2
l 1 A R A R O 7 l
I l
i C /
A M T
P T T 3
H R T S L
A T l
lA
(
E S 0 Y E E R S I
I R T L V R E R R
U E U P l
I Pl l
l I
l F A O L S O F l
I R
L O
A F
M I
0 C L
R 0 E N A 0
l 6 S U U f
1 R N
(
7 A
L 5 O M E E D
T S V U E E
E A L S
)
T D
t i
E C C S 7 R
l E 7 A M T E E R B /
T T S B E Z
4 S 2 I
S 2 0
M 5 N I
/
T T R W R I
)
O U V 9 U A E A
(
A P N D S T
D
)
I T S l
f I
I D M u E K
0 P S N iS P
0 R
l C
P A 3 l
l
(
1 E
L l
P lA 1
i T
u 0 P G 0
R l
i 6 1 E
i 1
N li N T O
(
C U 0 T D E R D
E S T
R C E R 2 E E L W 1
A 0 T S I O F
T L 9
T 2 Z S 2 A 6 0 F
/
0 3 R K
9 T T D M
l I
i T
/
A P
l T U 0
H 2 U A E M
l P
T 3
)
P i
l M M S
l
(
l I
I l
O P S R U
i I
P T
2 P M M
I S
T l
l E
i iuR T
S S
C l
]+
C l
I E
TABLE 2 WASil-11100 FalLURE_EE0BAlllLLUES EALLUI!E_EROBAlllLIl1 l.
flAlH FEEDWATER (TM) 3/YR 2.
REACTOR TRIP (K) 3.6x10-5/ DEMAND 3.
AUXILIARY FEEDWATER (L) 3.7x10-5/D 4.
PRESSURIZER RELIEF VALVE OPENS (P )*
lx10-2/D 1
S.
SAFETY VALVES OPEil (P )
3x10-5/D 2
G.
PRESStiRIZER RELIEF VALVE CLOSES (0 )
1x10-2/D 3
7.
SAFETY VALVES CLOSE (0 )
lx10-2/D 2
8.
ECCS - ll1 PRESSURE lilJECT10:1 (C) 3.7x10-3/D A
9.
ECCS DEGRADED OPERATIO!! (C )
> 3. 7x10-3/D "fl0T EXPLICITLY DOCUMENTED IN WASil-1400.
w s w
O 4
w w
hw w,
-ye a
w-G 41 4 #
AA v
v 9 &
b o<
o.c mb 6b g_
g.
c.
8.,
Et 22
=#
-O
'w
- 9 N.*
y G
wt
&. =ed
- 3 7
m w
t as e
9 m
Q7 6
ed b
am E
em2&
m ed ens ed ad
%p C CD W
W St a
3 W
W W
W W
o o c
E o o
".y J.
=
T
& 4e
==
N P9 er WB een CO
==o
==
m M
l C
Dv On as C "me b g W9 ce g em6 b
1P W
W W w me47' Cl=
b b
G
%f 7
.Q.
w
- M b
O man %J v v
w Ch 2
a l
en e9 we
.ad hO v
ene m O
&W 3,
e.
G se l
e-O I
e C
4
- =a e= 1.J se kd
@ Of GE D 6
a-=
G M
ao 3
V W
C 6
U tem h Ch edo h
9 O
A m M 9 >
eft M a-
=*
4 O
me M
% s
&.o M
w >
2-as D
l ww i
+
= U l
i i
4 i
.- u g
h l
}
o l
== tlL M
v-4.h l
L" n
w em U Q **
.Z w*
3
't-
=" 3 s
3 j
y ll t
3
=
s
Y I
I L
l ll i
TP E
S LL Y
C S
R A
T U
W
(
E S
L I
S R
S G
M A
S H
E V
T E
l C
T S
E S
A Y
D A
R S
I E
W O 0 P
Y T 0 O
E E
K T
t f
l 1
L A
l M
C L
R D
A O
O A
l l
is F
M R
iW A
R M
l GO O
)
O l
l R
F Y
C l
P i N L
C T
S N
A I
I N
W E
O O
S E
O S E R
S T
I T
E C T
T G
A R N N
O E
U U E T
E L
R L
D U N
11 A
U Q
E 0
T T S A
LE V
P I
C N VE O S E
M C
U O SE R
O R
I E
l Y
P T T
C T
T S f
T N
L S N 0
R l
l 1
T D A E
E E
E I
L N N M
V N
E T T
0 E X C
T A
/
I I
I B
M
)
E T
P R E U
N A
N O 1
G C
H T
R E
G D 8
A A
0 R
T V
l M
(
C R O S
E l
I E
S E Y
A A
N E V F
D S
D L S O
E l
l E
E U
C R
l
)
D I
f D
0 F
N E
E Z
D 0 U
O I
R L
E 3
G I
R R
I T
N O O
T R
M T E
I T
E C
E A
D A
A Y
I R
F R
T T
T E C N
F G
E S E
C L
U L
I U
U P
B L T
L E
N V
I O
R' P
F A
h A P S
N T
I I
F 0
D P E
C W M
l E
L O
C C
N A
'R M
l I
T K
C E
L A
W N
E N G
(
P E
)
P T L
I L
A N S
V S D
X N A
R E
E E E O
S T
P B
M T
E T
L
'R I
Z U
T N
N I
, Q O
O O
A A P
N W
C C
T R O
A P L D
E E N
I
(
A E R
L O
R L S O
TA E
P P
P T G A
l l
)
I
[
l 1
u S
C D
Y O
D l
I l
N X S N
I U
E P
P P
i V
O L P
O O T A
E E
L L
R L L E
L L A T
L F T
P C
U E A E
E R S
F O X
P l
l i
f V
V E E
A S
V I
l E F E
E P O
D O o
o
)
I 1
I 1
2 3
l 5
E E
E E
E S
S S
S S
l l
l lA l
A A
A A
i i
i i
P P
iP P
P
OBJECTIVES OF IREP 1.
IDENTIFY OUTLlERS -
CORE i1ELT SCENARIOS fl0RE PROBABLE TilAtl WASil-1'100 2.
PROVIDE F0UtlDAT10ft FOR WIDE RAllGE OF PLAtlT-SPECIFIC RELI ABILITY STUDIES 3.
PROVIDE FRAMEWORK FOR LillE OFFICE PARTICIPAT10il
. NRR COLLABORAT10ft Ifl EVEllT TREE / FAULT TREE DEVELOPMENT PROVIDE LIBRARY OF RELIABILITY l10DELS FOR USE Ill 30Til RES AtlD LIllE OFFICES P10llEER STAllDARDlZED/ AUTOMATED DATA
- (DESIGN ANil PROCEDURAL DATA) e
S E
E S
S l
Y l
L 0
l iC A P
l N
S li A
E W
R R
T D
I l
E E l
N i E
l N T D
)
S A
I L
N C
A
)
C P
E P
I T
A
(
8 1
L R S U
O L D
S
(
A P E
N N
F E G D
)
A O
SE R
0 S
I l
l A
E
)
T L
1 R
I l
(
0 0
P C
R A
U
/ Y G C
(
N S
C D
I
)
0 A
R D B l
I i
1 l
(
L S
O G M
)
l l
(
lA D O
A S
E P
A E
S L R
A T
M M
P N
M
(
O S T T
G P
N A
I R
A E A C M O
(
)
I I
E T E E R
S A
G A
R S
T I
J T P
A O
T G
I C
l 1
R l
1 T L O S A
P R
A O
S E
R Y S
R
(
P D
R Y
P I
P L
S T C P S N
G T
i A
O O
S S
R A
i l
l i
l l
I R
A E
N E
N l
l E F F R f
L 0
A V
O 0 T
P R
T I
F E E
/
A G
G I
B T D C
G O
E R
E T
R O
N R
Z A
Z A
O l
G S
I l
l Y
U S
S A
L P
Y
)
f N
I l
I l
A L
P L
L S L
L R
l l
i V C S
P E
S A A Y
A A
O 0
L A E A
D I
N P T
N V
C 1
O l
E 0
S A
(
E A
E E
T l
V C S R Y
Y F
R A
T G
L O S A
O S
P U
N l
I O
K A
T E S
T N
L l
I i
G T L
S N
R O
T A
W A
M U C
M N
V S
H 0
l I
I l
A T
E E
T S
l E
D R
A D I
C E W V l
D R E M
R A
D 0
K E E O E l
E O
G C S
G R
I O
E C
S J
R L
l R
O O O I
L R R E
R P
C O T L E E
I I
R O Z F
F P P S
P O
A R
1
[
P F
I L
El I
Ti T
l 5
6 7
8 9
U 1
2 3
l v
n M
^
M 1
v 1
v M
H 3W e
Z E
O c
W Z
3 C
m v
W H
=
=
J H Q
O C =
Z W
~
< O O
W
^
d H
W U H
M v
d M
C C
W C.
d t :J C C H
M v
O 1
H O
% W
=
C C d
O Z
^
Z -
e U
=
O J
=
d d
D O
E
^
=
=
c W
H H
Q Z
M
=
M c Z
C W
H v
W v
D C
C C
U C
W C J
W W
W e
v 1
C 1
1 M
c W M
C C
C M
C M
H r d
M 1
=
C H H E
L d
H O
M Z
J W
Q O
=
d
=
~
W J v
J W
H L
J Z
C M
E
=
~
W U M
Z M
M W
Z Z
U
=
M
=
M Q
C O L U
g M
O W
=
W s
J M
M H
+
W W
O H
M W
U C
d C
> c L
H H
Z J
C M
C C
M C Z M
=
H Q
W U
M H
C U
W W
= U H
=
H U
H Z
J 1
W A
=
=
J d
E J
Q E
J W
Z W
M Z
W U C
E O
O c
H U =
J C
H W
W
=
D M
H d
W 3
=
=
m J
M L
J E
W M
M O M W
D E
W H
C J
d M
M d W d
C W d H
O N
m Z
D C
N M
m M
[18
LA S
T N
S N
O E
I A'
T 1t A
C i
O R
C
~
L E
I P
L l
Y L
X P
Cl T
L E
P R
E A
A A
i D
S E
F l
A T S
N Y D S
S E A
A N E
G D
W A I
l C D S
N T
l I
S S R U U
A N
l N B C
E R A Y Y l
l O
S f
S P E A A 1
W W 1
E i 3 F
T P R l
l l
li A 0 N
O C E l
T l
i I
N l
T R 6 D
E L N A A R
E I
I G 0 N
I O
A S
S V E F S P P l
iO R G N
P E i II E P l
P E S
A A D A P R A D
)
l i
S R
E R
i R S I
l l
l l
I T
T P E G 0 C V U T
ul T
S L E S O
A S 0 0 i
)
1 l
Zl 1
l l
I S
E E R S 0 R l R S 1
1 E
R C P A C R L L I
A R
U I
1 I
f-4 E
O O
D 0 S I
L U
C E R
A T
R P E i E S
E 0 E T
T S
R S R N R T A L
L C
S G A G B
E E
l l
1 l
A E A A
E D 1
I S
Y D
S D
I A
U C
L E
T C
A R
S A 1 2
3 R
E N
E G
A B
C 1
1 4 h
t e.$
t ACRS C0fiMENTS Oil IllE IIRC SAFETY RESEARCll PROGRAM HUDGET
!1UREG-0603 (C0llT.)
D.
HOLTEN CORE RETEllT10fl IN VESSEL RETENTION STUDY CORE CATCllER VALUE/ IMPACT STUDY?
RSR MELil PilEN0 MEN 0 LOGY STUDIES E.
PBF CORE DAMAGE STUDIES
!!0N-PAS F.
RESEARCll STEAM EXPLOSIONS SUSCEPTIBILITY TO C0fViON CAUSE liELT AND CONTAlllMENT FAILURE REQUIRES COMPREllEilSIVE REVIEW G.
SITiliG STUDIES - ACRS RECOMMENDS:
L1001D PATilWAYS STUDIES COMPARATIVE AND ABSOLUTE RA 11.
PLANT OPERATIONS - IDENTIFY RESEARCll NEEDS IluMAN ERROR SENSITIVITY STul)Y g',
IlUMAll ERROR DATA AND PRElllCTIVE MODELS SL
S l
l0 1
T CA R
R E
0 I
l 1
l A
I R
E S
P F
M O
O E
G T
D S
N SY E
l I
fA N
S S C I
T l
l T
L E
E N
C S
Y l
T G
E E
I M
i L
R S O
P T
O E L
)
0 Y
O D
F I
T G L G
l N
F D 0 C A
E N E N i A
E U 0 T V
O F T
l E
1 F
I E S l
A T R E L
l i
l l
S E O D A
C 0
V E
1 G
T A
R E
P I
I f
R E E A
T T E E
C D
)
1 1 O N
E C
A S C R 1
R U l
N B T 0 T O F S
A R
ll I
I N
M A D
E N R
O E T
(
E M O L
R O E
B C S
l A C S U E S T
A I
I S
l I
I R
(
U M B E N T N
L L L U L
G T
I R
I A
l C
I O 3 A S O U R
O F l
O l
l iO R 0 T
T D O
D C O A F t
f E
0 B N
B l
P G S
l A
A R N O S D C 1
I l
0 S
I D
E O T L R O R A lC G E S E R A L R
N P P l
I lE R E Z E P
L O O
/ T l
l V
U C I
S A F L M A R I
G Y D M
V A C 0 A i E u R
I f0 S E T A E A
S l
P I
P l
l I
l f
N V S A l
F C E T
A l
I i
l N
O P
E R
0 C R
U I
I E R T /
B P E C N
S P T 1
I A R P N R E
E T
R M
l I
l i
C O
R 0 M E S S R T P A R l
i l
R M
0 S C P A
C T
f I
I I
l S
E I
N T
L A
S P
R Y
P T
S A
J 1
Ns
ACRS COMMEllIS ON IllE IIRC SAFETY RESEARCll PROGRAM lluDGET NUREG20603 (CONT.)
L.
WATER SPECIFICAT10f1 AND CRACK GROWTil fl0ft-PAS fl.
DISTURilAllCE ANALYSIS IRS /RSR/ DOE COLLA 110 RAT 10fl II.
RISK ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS A.
PilASE OUT RA ON CLASS 3-8 ACCIDENTS WILL DE PilASED OUT lll FY '80 11.
DEVELOP ACCEPTAllLE RISK CRITERION WILL D0 C.
LEVEL FUEL CYCLE RISK EXPEllDITURES TIED lilt 0 llMSS/SAFEll/ PAS COLLA 110 RAT 10N IT IS IMPORTAflT TilAT NRC NOT DELAY REPOSITORY LICENSING
ACRS COMMENTS Oil Tile NRC SAFETY RESEARCll Pit 0GRAll BUDGET lluREG-0603 (CONT.)
lilE PROGRAll IS LEAllitlG lilE ADVANCE IN Tile STATE-0F-Tile-ART IllE PROGRAll IS OllR BEST PROTOTYPE FOR:
liULTI-0FFICE COLLABORATION WELL-0RGANIZED PEER REVIEW RESEARCll DIRECTED TilROUGli ITERATIVE REFINEMENT ALTERNATE FUNDill6 SOURCES WILL BE EXPLORED D.
FLOOD RISl(S--PRELIMillARY INPUT INTO LICEllSING BEFORE FY '81 GOOD CANDIDATE FOR ITERATIVE REFINEllENT APPROACll E.
ACCELERATED INPUT INTO GUIDELillES AND PROCEDURES FROM lluMAN ERROR RESEARCll CONCUR F.
DISTURBANCE ANALYSIS SYSTEM
~
DOE /RSR/ PAS COLLABORATION LLIF CALL FOR INSTRUMENTAT10N FOR INADEQUATE CORE C00LillG E
.g j tr p
- _ n....,
I~.
i
~1... -
ACRS COMMENTS Oil Tile llRC SAFETY RESEARCil PROGRAM IluDGET fluREG-0603 (C0flT.)
G.
If1 PROVED TRAIN!!!G CollRSES C0flCUR (DISCUSSED ABOVE)
II.
TIME-1)EPEllDENT FAILIIRES - lHSPEC110fl AND LICEllSING If'll'llI NETil0DOLOGY AND DATA il0RK f
N IREP RISK-BASED REC 0f11ENDAT10NS FOR 18E 1.
lilPUT TO EMERGENCY PLANNiflG - RATES AND TYPES OF RELEASE IIAS IlEEll AllD IS llEING D0flE IN 1)lRECT SUPPORT OF LINE OFFICES 111. GENERAL COMf1EtlTS Oil RISK ASSESSf1EllT A.
HAME " RISK ASSESSMENT" IS OFF-TARGET FOCllS IS ON PR0llAlllLISTIC SAFETY ANALYSIS AND RELIAlllLITY AS WELL AS RISK w
N
i.
ACRS COMMEHIS Oil IllE NRC SAFETY RESEARCll PROGRAM llVDGET lluREG-0603 (CONT.)
11.
RISK-PERSPECTIVE REC 0HMENDAT10tlS FOR RES PRIORITIES - RES CONCllRS REASSESSMEtlT OF PRIORITIES AND FOCUS PAS GU.lDAllCE FOR EXPERIMEllTAL AllD CODE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS PAS C0 ORDINATION OF IN-PLAllT ACCIDEllT RESPONSE AllD WASTE ISOLATI0tl RESEARCll PAS PARTICIPAT10l1 IN SSMRP, CORE MELT PilEll0MEll0 LOGY STUDIES, ETC.
C.
CLOSER INTERACTION WITil LillE OFFICES D&O!F (flRR)
LLlF (IIRR)
SAFETY ISSilES TF (NRR) 1&E IlMSS OSD OIllERS (EMERGENCY PLAllNING) i D.
EXPANDED WORK - TREATED AB0VE
e PAS ACCEPTABLE RISK PROGRAM OBJECTIVE:
PRODUCE A DOCUMEllT DESCRIBIllG Tile STATE-0F-Tile-ART IN METil0DS TO ESTABLISil LEVELS OF ACCEPTABLE RISK AND PROPOSIllG A PLAN FOR RESEARCil TO BETTER j)....t, UTILIZE TilESE METil0DS.
~
CONTRACTOR:
PRIMARY
- ORNL SECONDARY - SAI AllD DECISION RESEARCil COST:
FY 78 - 200K FY 79 - 300K
ll<c.,,feI)/
l( c,,g l-I
% [ f [ ~.\\.f t v.
].
f o g.
lilDIVIDUALS lilVOLVED IN ACCEPTABLE RISK PROGRAM OR6aulZAllDN REIEESEllIAIIVE RESE0HSlBILilY.
ORill FLANAGAN-Il0RKING GROUP COORDINATOR; R&D SUB-CONTRACT TECllillCAL ADMINISTRATOR.
DECISION RESEARCll SLOVIC PSYCll0 LOGICAL ASPECT OF RISK AND CENTER FOR ADVAtlCED STUDY PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF RISK.
IN BEllAVIORAL SCIEllCES KAllNEMAN STANFORD PSYCll0 LOGY DEPT.
TVERSKY
!!ARVARD UtilVERSITY SPENCE ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF ACCEPTABLE RISK, CLARK UtlIVERSITY KASPERSON GEOGRAPillC IMPLICATIONS OF RISK ACCEPTABILITY.
WOODWARD CLYDE CONSULTANTS KEENEY USE OF DECISION ANALYSIS TECllH100ES IN DERBY SETTING ACCEPTABLE RISK CRITERIA.
sal RilYilE NUCLEAR VS. C0AL RISKS.
M
-S.
PAS RISK CRITERIA PROGRAM G0AL:
TO ESTABLISil TEllTATIVE, OUAllTITATIVE R SK CRITERIA TO BE SUBMITTED FOR FUTilER REVIEW.
TIME FRAME:
OCTOBER 1979 - OCTOBER 1980 UTILIZATI0fl:
Tile RISK CRITERIA ARE INTENDED TO BE INTERIM CRITERIA TO BE N0DIFIED, OR BE REJECTED, AFTER EXPERIENCE IS GAlllED IN ATTEMPTlilG TO APPLY Tile CRITERIA.
Y S
T D E l
I f
0 L R I
I I
, T B U S A Q
I Y
C S E l
f L 0 A R I
L I
F EF N A T I
C A M O
C A E
I I
T I
R l
S i
L T N I
l R P L E
l C
C M A E T A
C T X I
O E
A E I
R B Y T U
P T C L D P
O A
A N I
A T L R V A P
E I
L A B S
A A R Y N I
C R T I
L O E P E L
I I
N T E A T l
i l
I C T C A i
C R C I
C E
C A D F
I T
N I
F N D A C
I A N E D M A P O M
W S
S M A
A D
t f
R R 0 N
, E G
T A
N l
I i
O S S M O T R
I E
I P
T C D R D C E E N A
U D N T A I
R O
I R
T R R 0 I
E S
I T
C 0 T
El T
N 1 l
A 1
f 0
I i
R C T N A
C E
M i l
D R M W S K
O E A A 1f S
A F L R W P
T I
R E D M S G L E I
N F B W E
O I
M E R N S E E
O U R I
I S V E E
S E l
S F l
i A R T A O Ti 4
TC U
E E R U
T T
L A S A
t f
V t
0 I
f T 0 1
I C
S T
C
)
N S
E 7 I
O E
L T
R S
l L
0 D
f O 6 T A D
0 C
I A
I S R T
D E O
A l
t i
l f
f C
0
(
R T T
C A
I I
A 1
O T S D R P
L R
A E t
C U
P I
I P
M U A
O M
P R S T K R
I A
O S S S G
W F
I I
C N
K R G
E l
L S
I I
I f
I R
l V
T A
A E C R A K
E E
R R
M T
I M
A T D L O
A S
N C W
D 1
f l
A U R
i I
l G
D T N
E A
O R A Y
N R
0 T T N O
L P
0 S I
O A
C L
S GE E
A D
I O N B C A
L M
T A A R E
I V R O
A I
O R
Y C L F A R E T
E T G
R I
E I
N O
O T R K R S
I R
T S S E R
E A T O C V
l P
A I
i R L O T T
I I
R D
G A
O I
B B S L C S E I
R A A E A T S S
E L B E
E R O l
l f
i T
O T 0 V E P 0
I I
P O L R T
1 I
T T X R T
R A P l
C N
A A E P A
l i
O D M
T R
l l
K F E
K N
O I
I S
T A C E T S O D
A T N I
I I
R N
)
S A A R S S
l U
N l
l 2
t t
l Q
E O 0
N A
i E
D L
C I
V 1 D R D B T 0 E A A L
lA
(
l l
i A 0 S T C A
K S C O P
I I
0 K E
P E L C
0 S E D O C P E
R A E N R C M P
S A P A
B T I
I 7C
]
RISK CRITERIA PROGRAM - FACTORS TO BE C0flSIDERED 1.
RISKS FROM OTilER ACTIVITIES AND PilEll0MEfiA 2.
ATTAINABILITY OF A PROPOSED CRITERI0fl 3.
ACCEPTABLE OR UllACCEPTABLE CRITERIA?
11.
LEVEL OF APPLICABILITY 5.
VALUE If1PLICATI0ils 0F Tile CRITERIA 6.
MEANS OF EXPRESSlilG CRITERIA - UllCERTAlflTY C0flSIDERAT10ils 7.
MEllTOD OF DEM0flSTRATillG ACCEPTANCE 8.
MEANS OF CERTIFICAT10fl - LEGAL, EC0i'9MIC AND REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS E