ML20081A560
| ML20081A560 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 08/11/1983 |
| From: | Johnson B SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP. (FORMERLY |
| To: | Spano A NRC |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-82-096, CON-NRC-3-82-96 NUDOCS 8310260309 | |
| Download: ML20081A560 (10) | |
Text
ltue.m J 4
o INFORMAL TECHNICA.I. COMMUNICATION August 11, 1983 f TO: Al Spano From:
Bryce Johnson, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Science Applications, Inc.
Washington, D.C. 20555 McLean, Virginia 22102
Reference:
NRC Contract NRC-03-82-096
Title:
Clinch River PRA and Reliability Program Review
Subject:
Informal Meeting on PRA Review of CRBR (8/8/83) FWA 6. Task 4 NRC Concerns With TEC Deliverables Schedule These concerns had been presented verbally on August 4, 1983 by A.
Spano to B. Johnson.
They were discussed with meeting attendees (see attached list). A'sumary of tliese discussions follows.
~
The concern that fault trees and event tNes were being completed and, to some extent, quhatified prior to completing certain inputs to these such as internal common cause, human error, and external events, was discussed. Thegeneralconsensusongthisproblemisparaphrasedbelow.
PRA's are performedkin an iterative fashion, with the All possibility that new information may' cause significant revisions.
- However, the advantages gained L:y establishing the overall f ault-tree event-tree format and performing preliminary quantification prior to final, definitized data give an initial scoping perspective and are felt to outweigh the risks l
of major revisions.
Two quantification effort are planned. The second, or final one will permit all modifications caused'by external events, common caust, "model update" (see below), etc. to be accommodated.
The "model update" in TEC's schedule of deliverables is net a thange in the phenomenological or risk models, but rather in the data that go into these.
The update stems from engineering design changes or better information on phenomenological parameters. It should probably be called
" parameter update."
The fact that 3, rather than 2 documentation points are listed in the schedule is not of particular significance. These points were scheduled to coincide with the completion of a sufficient quantity of products to make l
a documentation effort worth while.,
Meeting participants acknowledged that TEC's schedule indicates a
" bunching up" of deliverables near the end of 1984, felt that these deliverables were of a relatively minor nature so that the review effort
\\
would not be adversely impacted.
I The desirability of having a draft final report available in Cctober, 1984, was mentioned.
3ggigitggD ORich
/
/
8310260309 800811 p*
' /.
- j PDRADOCK05000g3
/ g S.-
7
Meeting participants agreed that a verbal status report and/or preview of approach on futu 9 PRA product deliverables would be desirable at the interaction meetings.
Comunication Communication between participants, primarily TEC and SAI, was discussed. A unanimous concern is that a more effective communications system must be established.
The current length of time required for trans-mittal of documents between TEC and SAI jeopardizes the interactive review process.
Schedule Three suggested schedules for review meetings were presented and discussed. These were:
1.
SAI trial schedule of June 13, 1983 which calls for 7 meetings.
2.
NRC's suggested schedule (given to B. Johnson by A. Spano on August 4) 3.
Schedule of the letter f_ rom Gordon Chipman of DDE's Breeder Project Demonstration Of$1ce to J. Nelson Grace of NRC's CRBR Program Office.
(SAI' scop'ofthisletterisundated).
Ccpies of these three schedBles are attached.
It was noted by TEC -
that the NRC schedule (schadule 2, above) suggested advancing the delivery of certain products by as much as 6 weeks to 2.5 months. It wa.s felt that such a schedule alteration would be difficult to accommodate.
It was decided to schedule the September meeting, then firm up the remainder of the schedule at that meeting.
The September meeting is scheduled for September 8 at the TEC office in Knoxville. The September meeting agenda is:
1.
Set schedule and review topics for remaining meetings.
2.
Establish an efficient comunication mechanism.
3.
SAI review of f a.
o ex-core sources pi e
restructured event trees (These reviews require early submission of the TEC drafts of these subjects to SAI.)
~
4.
TEC presentation of status report on:
3rL o revised fault trees g: o quantifi. cation efforts 5.
TEC preview of planned approach on:
54o human reliability d
jel o CCFA f4o Uncertainty / sensitivity analysti 3
6.
Other concerns of participants.
Attachments:
Suggested Schedules (3)
Meeting Attendees NRC cc:
S. Bajwa (Form only) j5AI cc:
R. Liner J. Swift E. Rumble g
D. Findley S. Frye, DOE Task File 1-186-03-342-04 l
S. Asselin, TEC S
D. Giles, Westinghouse S. Additon, Westinghouse l
l l
l t
~
I Table A-1 Suggested Meeting Times and Topics for Phase II PRA Review Appres.imate Suggested Topics Impact on TEC Deliverables Meeting or Schedule Time Early Sept. 83 Restructured Event Trees None Revised Documer.ted Fault Trees Submit Draft - 2 weeks aheaJ of current schedule Quantification of Internal Provide (preliminary)
Sequences Draft Results in August Ex Core Sources None Mid Dec. 83 Human Reliability Analysis None-Sequence Iteration None None Core Phenomenology ga Early L
Mar. 54 ContainmentPhenomenolo{y None Internal Cormon Cause None Fire Analysis Delay Final Report until after meeting 1st Phase Documentation of Risk Analysis Task None Late May 84 Radionuclide Releases None None Seismic Analysis Other External Events None t
Late Aug. E4 Model Update None 2nd Phase Documentation of Risk Analysis Task None Operator Active Analysis None Input to LCOs None Dec. S4-health Consequence Analysis Delay Final Report until after meeti1g Risk Results None Uncertainty, Sensitivity Analysis None Accident Delineation Delay Final Report until after meeting o
t Table A-1 ' Suggested Meeting Times and Topics for Phase II PRA Review (continued) 5 Apr. 84 Emergency Plan Input Delay Final Report until (final after meeting meeting)
Risk Management Plan None Documentation on Applications Submit draf t -2 weeks Tasks ahead of current schedule y
t..
4 e
t 1
1, s
s e
r e
g u
m n
l i
a t
hc e
@ q;g t
e a
e, l
s.
m u
1 a t i
d r
,A x
e e
o h
rsc p gs O
pn aidte L
e et e
~
t cs I
i.
aie c
g O
- 4 b
rg
.i 5
dou I
njs j
ia O
O
^
b.
me s
t era d_.
, u-noc
.i f i l
d dn l ei l
at O
o aC css ew l
i t go n.
c rgr C
eut i
V sT c
M
=
A n
e
_l u
e d
r h
J' c
=
e a
c S
o g
. h n
l
- r W
i t
r A
e C
c l
I T.
l r
ro k.
. o c
^
j
-a l
F l
=
C w
e d
n e
c o t
rv c
r U
e C
8 m
O S*}{
o s
s
-O o
t A
9-a L
,lj.
i
~
s.
f t
l
~
G e
a t
n i.
i.
A s
l p
l' r
S w
7
~
ss 9
A I.
u.
e 1
T r
p b,
i r
i.
e r
5 s
k o
w i.
t.
r.
as
~
a.
i c
t
- M e
I.
l, i
s s
r
~
U i.
u.
u.
o t
g
)
1 e
e.
o t.
o j
.4 o
ot s
f 1
v I
i
)
t.
p p.bI f
kl l
p h ' {4 A p
l
/
l
(,.H f.sL s
i l
a lp ffl l
e Ayr,.At s es -
nc, Aq+ivec
,%,-n n _ax m-MJ-y&,?] frgejg2)fer a s s %
Gs -%
res m-a ns (i.) levie D u L.a L.,
ns m
('dA usa /Wr!o41 % A& k -
4 yy f
((h.)'-
v) -
~ %w cc es
~
u/s %,,>,4id. cat-st. D >ey on r,ta aes ye n Gns}
m) u Bxem ns (3,r) @ d,G r: E M p y yes m
co&La yes
~
q Fu26 A u L AL.Ircyag
[(7) W/sid-s ~ Q L..
.. e m a
- on
.. w,,
sngy
..or W Ms
'(i,)
(15) 1.
..O/.S,usp,j
@ f u t-4 wp
@) man L a yu n
QL) Fcd hec.c.c p3 m
y.
_2 -2.J' (tg) W
- Q r,i
. tes M 4^*s (n) OQ EtlM' Eve,4 /mgr.i ye,
% Y ea
@) WL,1 h
'ies M
fra.ptned n W 12pc; (69 /{p/r%. v/s Qa
~
@ syst.:(ida.y)
!Q v. kt.*
puq Tt= c bu) 't 4
'{!?)
$% LMR (.,
?c >T Yes i
cu,(L %.)Akou u s
4%. the r
(T.)~id d;4 4 A Yes giph E DLA m C algejcc's (l3'") Q [ E a L/d M rih [d d
/
t ha?'ey H kit G yes
~
9: :=,
do.)
ktilc M (frAe '- 1 A /kyt.
FrAkt n &A:
Top 4
/
(13 )/q, A r A ~ v/s / g ri?
yes P
J fwu 4m wd-g M !. a e, I
3
~
~h, Ee
.g een e
e
Dr.
J. Nelson Grace, Director CRBR Program Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulati'on U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Dr. Grace:
NRC REVIEW SCHEDULE FOR THE PRA Al Spano of the NRC staff has' suggested approximate dates for periodic review of the PRA program.
It is expected that planning the review meetings will facilitate more useful information I
exchanges on the PRA program.
Al Spano suggested meeting dates for review as follows:
Meetinc Dates Discussion Tasks
- Early September,19 83 1, 2, 3 & 12 Mid December,1983 4, 5, 6 & 16 Mid March', 1984 7, 14, & 18 Late May, 1984 8, 15, & 17 Late August, 1994 9, 11, 12, 13, 18, & 19 Early December, 1984 10, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23, & 24
- Discussion task numbers refer ho the listing as outlined in.
Y The Project Office concurs with(this approach and will attempt to i
follow the project schedule as closely as is realistically achievable.
Following this schedule should also reduce the number of meetings to a.more cost ef ficient number for everyone involved.
If you have any additionti comments or questions, please feel free to contact Steve Frye, at F.TS 626-6354.
l Sincerely, n
Gordon L. Chipman, Jr.
Acting Director, Office of Breeder Demonstration Project
Attachment:
As Stated cc:
Stu Asselin, TEC 9
my h*
pe
}
,C
~
o,O 5"l;,
8, r 9sA e
e C
L.
F y
e e4
<-c b
a C
Cs e
tco e
e
@ O O
O C
M A
O eL C
4 3
e e
9 o
y O
C O
ts, a
e e
rib 6
F
- C W
o e
O#
L *
'1 0 e O
t ed C.
C O '
e e
i 8
=
O 7
5 9
O
.i O
O A
u T
)
t
}
l s
s-se er, 9
j p
3 l.
e e
s 1
s g_
s t
e T
l.
l.
t.
n
(
S t
L A
s t
p F
s s
s G
G c
I, A
J.
p n
A 4
ll y
s s
4 n
j.
s.
v o
l s
s I
g e
l A
t N
t s
s
- r.
s u
'F h
i i
l a
l.
s a
w e.
t o
f.
I.
WR i
o g
e a
o s
r
- n n
l e
4 s
u f.
5 s
E t.
u L.i e.
e r
t t
s I,
l.
o S
A j
s 1
o I.
t y
e g
s e.
K u
~
l.
I e
s.
l I
I i
l
- u. *A I.
T e
e l
J s
3 t
e.
r.
1 d
r c
U y
1 b
l.
/
G l.
s J
a p
A a
l e
b (4
r f.
i o
2 l
l A
h L
e.
f.
l..
I.
t l
a A
t i
r.
y
.e n
R y
a.
I.
f t
t
/.
e.
T P
l t
a t.
e.
L.
s t
I e
c l.
r.
a.
M l.
r.
J
.r.
J.
n p
I r
A, o
q I
t.
e.
n.
J_
e.
I.
J.
q r
g a
(
r.
?
n 9
r I
r.
', f wn r
E 2
c n
t s
n n
w i
(
t O
1