ML20034G708
| ML20034G708 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/03/1993 |
| From: | Shao L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Litenhiser J BECHTEL CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9303110066 | |
| Download: ML20034G708 (10) | |
Text
F l
fS r
MAR 0 3151 Mr. Joe Litehiser Bechtel Corporation P.O. Box 193965 San Francisco, CA 94119-3965
Dear Mr. Litehiser:
In answer to your letter to James M. Taylor of February 15, 1993, I am enclosing a copy of a technical agreement between the NRC and DOE that forms the basis for the work planned for the Phase 2 program described in SECY-92-122. As was noted in the SECY paper, this is a cooperative project that involves DOE and EPRI, in addition to the NRC. A central feature of the program organization is the formation of a Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) to provide scientific guidance for the study.
Equally important is a peer review of the project by a panel convened by the Committee on Seismology of the National Academy of Sciences / National Research Council.
Two lists showing the memberships of both the SSHAC and inc peer review panel are also enclosed.
At the moment there is no plan for re-eliciting opinions from the original expert panel members. However, if the SSHAC decides to acquire additional information from the original experts, they will be contacted.
The work for the Phase 2 study is just getting underway, and the SSHAC is assembled.
It is expected that the study will be finished in 1994.
Sincerely, Originalsigned by L C. Shao Lawrence C. Shao, Director Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosures:
As stated DISTRIBUTION:
RESReading EZurflueh NChokshi AMurphy JCraig LShao TSpeis CHeltemes EBeckjord A. Summercur (ANS. RES. No. 930060)
PDR k z~,
f(i0E/RE$j
'c SSEB/DE/RES SSEB/DE/RES SSEB/DE/RES 'DDhE/RES J
EZurflueh:fkm NChokshi AMurpiy JCraig lLShao i M' ep y
3q/93 3/q/93 3/9/3 3/393 3/3/93 B:\\LITEHISE.LTR [FKM:SSEB]
a 9303110066 930303~
}h)"
PDR al
~
g Arayg'o UNITED STATES 8
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
?
MAR 0 3 1993' Mr. Joe Litehiser Bechtel Corporation P.O. Box 193965 San Francisco, CA 94119-3965
Dear Mr. Litehiser:
In answer to your letter to James H. Taylor of February 15, 1993, I am enclosing a copy of a technical agreement between the NRC and DOE that forms the basis for the work planned for the Phase 2 program described in SECY-92-122. As was noted in the SECY paper, this is a cooperative project that involves DOE and EPRI, in addition to the NRC. A central feature of the program organization is the formation of a Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) to provide scientific guidance for the study.
Equally important is a peer review of the project by a panel convened by the Committee un Seismology of the National Academy of Sciences / National Researt.h Council.
Two lists showing the memberships of both the SSHAC and the peer review panel are also enclosed.
At the moment there is no plan for re-eliciting opinions from the original expert panel members.
However, if the SSHAC decides to acquire additional information from the original experts, they will be contacted. The work for the Phase 2 study is just getting underway, and the SSHAC is assembled.
It is expected that the study will be finished in 1994.
Sincerely, i
j[
J Lawrence C. Shao, Director Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosures:
As stated i
Q TECHNICAL AGREEMENT Between UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Concerning A PROGRAM TO EVALUATE SEISMIC HAZARD METHODOLOGY 1.
INTRODUCTION a.
Backaround Estimates of the seismic hazard affecting a given site have large uncertainty, particularly in the United States where historic records of seismicity cover a relatively short time span, and the causative mechanism of earthquakes remains elusive. During the 1980s, methods of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) were developed that serve to overcome some of the limitations inherent in hazard estimates derived from deterministic methods, such as those historically associated with nuclear power plant siting. The Nucler.r Regulatory Commission (NRC) sponsored a program at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) to develop a PSHA methodology and to evaluate all 69 operating nuclear power plant sites in the eastern U.S.
A second methodology was sponsored by the Seismicity Owners Group of nuclear utilities and developed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). That method was also e ed to analyze 57 of the eastern U.S.
nuclear power plants. The NRC staff and a National Academy of Sciences / National Research Council (NAS/NRC) panel have concluded that both the LLNL and EPRI methods are state-of-the-art methods.
In its 1,afety Evaluation Report on the EPRI method, the staff has stated that it will use results from both methods to make regulatory decisions.
These two PSHA methodologies result in similarly shaped hazard curves for a given site and if used to produce a relative ranking of plant sites in terms of seismic hazard, result in an equivalent ranking list. However, it was also found that absolute levels of hazard can differ by up to two orders of magnitude between the two methods, particularly for mean estimates. With absolute levels of hazard becoming more important for future decisions concerning both nuclear plants and other critical facilities such as those operated by the Department of Energy (DOE), it has become desirable for both NRC and DOE to jointly evaluate seismic hazard methodologies and to eliminate differences between the existing methods. The goal is to implement a methodology, which should be accepted by the scientific community at large.
2 b.
Purpose In recognition of a comon interest in developing a broadly based, state of the art seismic hazard methodology, the NRC and DDE agree to
, cooperate in a program to evaluate existing probabilistic seismic hazard methodologies and to develop recomendations for an improved methodology for the 1990s. The two parties named above enter into this technical agreement to jointly sponsor a program of scientific and technical work to further this comon interest.
c.
Policy It is the general policy of both NRC and DOE to advance the technical state of the art with respect to seismic hazard assessment related to nuclear facility design and evaluation. A technical agreement that will integrate technical talents is a viable approach to achieve advances in the use of seismic hazard studies.
2.
MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM GUIDELINES a.
Manacement and Review (1) Procram Manacement The program will be directed by a Senior Management Group, scientific guidance will be provided by a Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Comittee (SSHAC), and technical support functions will be carried out by national laboratories.
The Senior Management Group with equal representation' from NRC and DOE will be responsible for providing overall program direction and policy guidance and shall review and approve program plans, work assignments, and such other aspects of the program as they deem appropriate. They will have oversight responsibility for the activities of the SSHAC, and one representative from each agency shall act as a DOE and an HRC contract manager, respectively. The DOE and HRC contract managers shall manage the work funded by their respective agencies for the SSHAC, utilizing their own agency's procedures for monitoring work assignments.
The Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Comittee shall be composed of an odd number of technical experts representing the range of disciplines involved in seismic hazard assessments and the members shall be mutually agreed upon by both DOE and HRC. The SSHAC shall prepare detailed requirements, complete work scopes for assignments, test procedures needed to accomplish the program objective through the program plan outlined below, and such other assignments as the Senior Management Group may direct.
j r
3 The 00E has the option of making a separate agreement with EPRI or other entities to participate in the program.~ Such agreements, if entered into, are subject to approval by the Senior Management Group.and will be for the purpose of funding specific portions of the work.
(2) Peer Review Panel j
i The NRC will negotiate a separate agreement with NAS/NRC to form a Peer Review Panel, which shall consist of an independent group of scientists to be chosen by the NAS/NRC. The Peer Review Panel will review and provide written comments on the initial program plans and will review the progress of the research program on a semiannual basis.
b.
Guidelines (I) Prooram Obiective The objective of this progr.w is to consistently address the i
difference between the EPRI and LLNL seismi iazard results in 1
order to arrive at a resolution of the differences, and to arrive at a unified probabilistic seismic hazard methodology.' This will be a generic methodology and not a site specific analysis, although some of the previously analyzed nuclear plant sites and -
DOE sites may be tested for comparison.
To accomplish the objective of arriving at-a scientifically unbiased PSHA methodology, the parties hereto will sponsor work i
to be done by recognized experts in the field and publish reports cf all work performed under this program. To further ensure the scientific credibility of the results, the program will be reviewed by a Peer Review Team assembled by the Committee on Seismology of the NAS/NRC.
(2) Outline of Procram Plan Work to be performed under this agreement will include the following.
(a) Review Methodologies. This includes a review of the LLNL i
and EPRI methodologies taking into account existing reviews j
of there approaches and other PSHA procedures.
(b) Sensitivity Studies. Factors, such as elicitation of expert opinions, seismicity parameters, and ground motion models, will be evaluated including a determination of their effect on hazard models and uncertainties associated with the two
. isting methodologies.
-j
]
i
4 (c) Improved Methodology.
Results from the first two tasks will be used to determine an improved PSHA methodology, combining, as appropriate, features from both the EPRI and LLNL methodologies.
Included may be a revision of the LLNL and EPRI software to accomodate the new results.
(d) Site Tests. A limited number of sites may be reevaluated using the new methodology.
(e) Synthesis and Final Report. A final report will be written sumarizing all results obtained from these studies and describing the improved PSHA methodology.
Specific analyses and detailed tasks will be established by the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Comittee with concurrence from the Senior Management Grou) before the actual work begins. The Statement of Work may be caanged at any time by the Senior Management Group, provided that the guidelines established by l
this technical agreement are followed.
(3) Final Report The Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Comittee shall prepare a draft final report sumarizing and synthesizing the results obtained from the studies and testing. This draft report will be provided to the Senior Management Group and the Peer Review Panel for review and coment. The Peer Review Panel.shall provide its coments to the Senior Management Group, which : thall direct such changes in the report as it deems necessary, taking into account its own judgement, the coments of the Peer Review Panel, and ccmments from the SSHAC. The SSHAC shall incorporate those changes in the final report, The DOE, NRC, the Peer Review Panel, and other participants added via section 2.a.(1) may add their own separate coments, analysis or data to the final report. The SSHAC shall include any such additional materials as attachments to the final report approved by the Senior Management Group. The participants may publish, jointly or separately, the final report and accompanying materials. Publication of results obtained by contractors in peer reviewed journals is also encouraged.
c.
Prooram Fundina funding for this work will be provided in approximately equal amounts by DOE and NRC. Both DOE and NRC shall provide funding in the amount of $750r, but not to exceed $1 million each towards this project over j
calendar years 1992 and 1993. The total amounts to be funded may be l
changed by mutual agreement. The peer review will be funded entirely by NRC.
l
4 5
d.
Manaaement Arranaements This technical agreement envisages direct communication between DOE and HRC technical and management staff involved in managing the work to be performed, through the Senior Management Group described above.
3.
AD' MINISTRATION a.
Patents. Technical Data. and Financial Policy It is the policy of DOE and NRC to make the results of the research, development, or demonstration of work contemplated by this technical agreement tva11able to the public consistent with applicable security and other regulations.
b.
Egblic Information Coordination Subject to the Freedom of Infor. nation Act (5 USC 552), decisions on disclosure of information to the public regarding projects and programs implemented under the technical agreement will be made i
following consultation between DOE and NRC representatives. This includes release of background data derived from this study.
c.
Period of Performance and Resolution of Conflicts This document shall be effective when signed on behalf of botn parties and will remain in force until September 30, 1994, unless terminated by mutual agreement of the parties or as outlined below. The research program described above is expected to be completed within 18 months from the start of the work, and the goal is to complete the work within 12 months. Changes in scheduling are subject to approval by the Senior Management Group.
This technical agreement may be modified or amended by written agreement between DOE and NRC.
If an unresolvable conflict arises within the Senior Management Group concerning the direction to be uken for the research in general or a particular item in the program, the Senior Management Group may decide to pursue two avenues of investigation simultaneously, resulting in l
two separate solutions for the item in question.
If this is not feasible, then a resolution may be sought by referring the problem to the signatories to this technical agreeinent.
Should the members of the Senior Management Group disagree about the conduct of the research program and that disagreement is not resolved i
through these mechanisms, both parties reserve the right to withdraw from the program in accordance with paragraph 3.d., " Termination.*
4
. 4.
6 d.
Termination This technical agreement may be modified or amended by written agreement between DOE and NRC and terminated by mutual agreement of
. DOE and NRC or by either party upon 30-day written notice to the other. The terminating party will bc liable for its full share of costs incurred up to the termination date. The other party may choose to continue all or parts of the work, using all results obtained to the termination date without penalty.
$,.s
& lb. 044b
\\
Eric 5. Be k; rd, Directo v
~
Fate (.
Office of ear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission O baf. /GL
% pr 1 1,i S'1 2.----
Donald F. Knuth Date Deputy Assistant Secretary for Facilities U.S. Department of Energy P
e 4
Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee Members Robert Budnitz - Chairman Future Resources Associates Allin Cornell Stanford University Kevin Coppersmith Geomatrix David Boore USGS Lloyd Cluff Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
George Apostolakis UCLA Peter Morris Consultant
-.______-_._.----,,,-.__,..-._.-.,.-..+_-..-.-_.c c...
_.-.,-~s.-,,
4
_e,
..._m,,
NAS/NRC Peer Review Panel Members Carl Kisslinger - Chairman U. of Colorado Walter Arabasz U. of Utah Thomas Hanks USGS Daniele Veneziano MIT John Ebel Boston College Keiiti Aki U. of Southern Calif.
Norman Rasmussen MIT James Langer UCSB r,.ws.,
, e,
.. +. r
. + - - -,. -.* - - -,,
--~w---,,--.
.m-.
.,., m ww
-w
..w-r-v.. -
w
.-4,
-