ML20129F068
| ML20129F068 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000447 |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1983 |
| From: | GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127A304 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-175, FOIA-84-A-66 NUDOCS 8506060673 | |
| Download: ML20129F068 (16) | |
Text
0 GENERAL EIECTRIC COMPANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION GESSAR II INIERNAL EVENT PRA UNCERTAINIY ANALYSIS GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY OCTOBER 1983 a-
.,#,.."'.'U ~ t,iw".T -.. MO,e 8506060673 841203 OL-PDR m.
-; -m FDIA
- #.,.y_.~
w
..... -, _ ~.
CURRANB4-A-66 PDR Y
7F
- ~ f"u"s m~ r. r
--c
~
7 d
,7, 3,,_
7.,.,_
- . a.
g.
~ ; G,
^
-g (m
\\ ^:
j=
"[*~+.w w.x k,_
k_ !
~~
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY _ PROPRIETARY INFORMATION GESSAR II INTERNAL EVEllT PRA UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS CONTENTS PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 2.0 DISCUSSION 2
3.0 METHODOLOGY 3
4.0 RESULTS 14
5.0 REFERENCES
20 APPENDIX A - UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS EQUATIONS AND DATA BASE A-1
.1.0 Component Lists for Release Categories 2.0 Component Lists for Functional Fault Trees 3.0 Cut Set Suasary 4.0 Sample Equations for Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis 5.0 Acronyms 11
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATIOR
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In March 1982, a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) of the BWR/6 Mark III Standard Plant design was provided to the NRC to aid in the NRC Staff evaluation of that design relative to Severe Accident issues.
The FRA originally considered the effects of internal plant events.
Additional analyses were provided assessing the impact of seismic, fire, flood and other external events. This report provides an uncer-
.tainty analysis of the internal events considered in the original PRA submittal. This analysis was committed in the response to Question 720.143 on the GESSAR II PRA. The impact of uncertainties in the evaluations of seismic, fire and flood events will be addressed in a separate submittal.
The analysis documented herein provides the variability in total inter-nelly initiated core damage frequency which results from propagation of the uncertainties in the mean value estimates through the fault and event trees in order to estimate the uncertainty in the frequency of radionuclide release to the environment. The probability distributions for the following types of values are considered in this uncertainty i
analysis:
l event initiating frequencies component failure rates test and maintenance outage time l.
human error rates recovery rates containment event tree branch probabilities including hydrogen combustion phenomena and containment failure modes i
1 l
..-_.__.__,r-
l 4
2.0 DISCUSSION OF UNCERTAINTY ANA1,YSIS As noted in the FRA Procedures Guide
, ths field of uncertcinty l
j analysis for PBA has not been fully developed, and there are no generally accepted rigorous anthematical bases for PRA uncertainty analysis. There have, however, been evaluations performed in recent PRAs to attempt to quantify uncertainties in the core damage frequency and the frequency of radionuclide release to the environment.
The uncertainties that arise in risk assessments can be of three I8): uncertainties in parameter values, uncertainties in types modeling, and uncertainties in the degree of completeness. Parameter uncertainties arise from the need to estimate parameter values from data. Such uncertainties are inherent because the available data are usually incomplete, and the analyst must aske inferences from a state i
of incomplete knowledge. Modeling uncertainties stem from inadequacies in the various models used to evaluate accident probabilities and consequences, and from the deficiencies of the models in representing l
reality. Completeness uncertainties refer to the problem of assessing l
what has been omitted.
The GESSAR II internal event FRA uncertainty analysis considers input permeter (data values) uncertainties as well as phenomenological modelling uncertaintias (such as hydrogen combustion phenomena) in order to estiaste the uncertainty in the frequency of radionuclide releases to the environment.
The analysis does not address uncertainty resulting from 1) errors in completeness in considering all possible failure modes, 2) andeling uncertainties and 3) all types of persaeter uncertainties.
l l
2
^
vi.. ani.
s.
3.0 METHODOLOGY A quantitative treatment of uncertainty may involve, in v rying d:groo, some or all of the following steps:
1.
Evaluation of input uncertainties.
2.
Propagation of input uncertainties.
3.
Combination of the uncertainties to form the output uncertainty.
4.
Interpretation of the uncertainties in the PgA results.
A number of methods have been developed to treat and propagate the uncertainty measures.
Many codes have been written to perform Monte Carlo computations, The SPASM code (4)was used for this including SAMPLE, STADIC, and SPASM.
uncertainty analysis.
Pisure 3-1 illustrates the procedure used in the assessment of uncer-tainty for the GESSAR II PRA. The following paragraphs describe the methodology employed.
4 1
3
GENERAL ELECTRIC C0KTANY DUOR28&JR03Y 120KRn4100
- j FIGUltE 3-1 GESSAR II MLA INTEltNAL EVENT UNCEllTAINTT ANALYSIS BOENTIFY DOMINANT RELEASE CATEGORIES IDENTIFY DORMNANT RELEASE SSOUENCES THIqu CETs Afe AETs 10 ENTIFY DOMINANT ACCIDENT SEOUENCES l
.UTSE,5 DEFINE SAAFLE EQUATIONS ONE PER RELEASE CATEGORY MONTE CARLO ElMULATION SPASM CODE ON INDIVIDUAL SAa4PLE EONS OODE OUTPUTS ONE DISTRIBUTION PER RELEASE CATEGORY ALL DISTRIBUTIONS lirUT l
TO WAS4AODOE RAONTE CARLO SIAAULATION OVER ALL PROSABILITY DISTRIBUTION FOR 00RE DAAAAGE FREQUENCY I
13
p.
..z
'i dBMERAL BLKCTRIC 00RFANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
' 4.0 RkSULTS The resnlts of the GELSAR II internal event PRA uncertainty analysis are
~
listed ir. Table 4-1 a d described below:
4 1.
The errer factor'for core damage frequency associated with uncer-tainties in the point value estimates is 3, based on a 5 and 95 percent confidence limit. The distribution curve obtained through Monte Carlo simulation is shon in Figure 4-1.
4 4
4
%e e
t 1
1
/
Y A
s
~
- l s
l l
14
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATICN TABLE 4-1 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS RESULTS CORE DAMAGE FREQUENCY PARAMETER (EVENTS / REACTOR YEAR)
Mean 3.17 E - 6 Median 2.44 E - 6 5% Confidence Limit, X.05 8.91 E - 7 95% Confidence Limit, X.95 7.72 E - 6 I.95 3
Error Factor =
=
I.05 4
J 9
)
1 15
OENERALiELECTRIC COMPANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION TABLE 4-2 SUl#lARY OF RESULTS OF SYSTEM PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS BY SAMPLING METHODS FOR MAJOR RELEASE CATEGORIES SPASM CODE RESULTS CORE DAMAGE FREQUENCY - EVENTS / REACTOR-YEAR RELEASE CATEGORY NO.
s.
i TOTAL
,k-CORE i
DAMAGE
}[
FREQUENCY (1) g,p,,,1.u r(2nn(M m /M e m M Obtained from Monte Carlo simulation of combined distributions.
16
CFNERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPRIETARY INF0ltMATION Figura 4-1: Core Damaga Frequ;ncy Distribut,lon For Major R21erca'Catcgsrie]-
48 -
44.
40 -
36.
Error Factor = 3 ( Based on 5th and 32 -
Median = 2.44 E-6 95th percentile of the distribution)
-:r S
28.
x e
.S 24 -
t Mean = 3.17 E -6 0
E N
20 -
D e
5 16 -
o D
d 12 -
5 2
8 8-5% Confidence Limit 95% Confidence Limit 8.91E-7 7.72E-6 i
4_
O_ >
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Core Damage Frequency x 10-Events / Reactor-Year i
CENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PRSPRIETARY INFORMATION 5.0 Referenenn 1.
R. A. Bari, A. J. Busiik, R. E. Hall, I. A. Papazoglow, P. K. Samanta, " National Reliability Evaluation Program (NREP)
Procedures Guide", NUREG/CR-2815, June 21,1982 (Draft report).
2.
A. D. Swain, H. E. Guttmann, " Handbook of Human Reliability Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications",
NUREG/CR-1278, Sandia National Imboratories, Sept. 1980.
3.
GESSAR II - 238 NUCLEAR ISLAND, SECTION 15D.3 APPENDIX C and D, GE NO. 22A7007, Draf t revision submitted February,1983.
4.
F. L. Leverenz, " SPASM, A Computer Code for Monte Carlo System Evaluation", EPRI-NP-1685, Electric Power Research Inst.
Palo Alto, CA.
5.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 1975. Reactor Safety Study, NUREG-75/014, Washington, D.C.
6.
F. L. Leverenz, H. Kirch, " User's Guide for the WAM-BAM Computer Code", EPRI-217-2-5, Science Applications Inc., Jan. 1976.
7.
F. L. Leverenz, H. Kirch, "WAMCUT, A Computer Code for Fault Tree Evaluation", NP 803, Electric Power Research Inst., Palo Alto, CA.,
June 78.
8.
"PRA Procedures Guide", U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission, NUREG/CR-2300, January 1983.
l l
l 20
^
CENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SECTION 1.0 COMPONENT LISTS FOR RELEASE CATEGORIES l
l l
1 l
A-3
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SECTION 2.0
\\
COMPONENT LISTS FOR FUNCTIONAL LEVEL FAULT 11 TEES 4
A-10
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Section 3.0 CUT SET SUff1ARY 6
A-15
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Section 4.0 SAMPLE EQUATIONS FOR MONTE CARLO SIMULATION ANALYSIS 9
e S
A-20
CENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SECTION 5.0 ACROYNMS FLF
'_ Functional _Ievel F_ault' tree PRI
_Probabilistic R_isk _ Analysis SPASM System _Probabilistic Analysis by Sampling M_ethods NREP
_ National R_eliability _ Evaluation Program LOSP
_Ioss of all Offsite P_ower RCIC R_eactor Core I_ solation Cooling System HPCS
_High _ Pressure Core Syray System ADS Automatic Depressurization S_ystem A-37
l'..
4 GENERAL $ ELECTRIC NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS DMSION GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY e 175 CURTNER AVENUE
- SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95125 MC 682, (408) 925-2606 MFN-234-83 December 29, 1983 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D.C.
20555 Attention:
Mr. D..G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
IN THE MATTER OF 238 NUCLEAR ISLAND GENERAi. ELECTRIC STANDARD SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT (GESSAR II) SEVERE ACCIDENT REVIEW OF GESSAR II The attached draft report, "GESSAR II Seismic Event Uncertainty Analysis,"
is provided in support of previous GE submittals on the GESSAR docket on severe accident issues.
This analysis provides the variability in total seismic-initiated core damage frequency.
It is anticipated that upon completion of NRC review, a formal amendment on the GESSAR II docket will be submitted including this and other analysis of external events.
This is expected to occur.in early 1984.
We are requesting that the attached information be withheld from public disclosure and considered as proprietary pursuant to Section 2.790 of 10 CFR Part 2.
Very truly yours, J
! Quirk, Manager ljWR Systems Licensing
$uclear Safety & Licensing Operation JFQ:rf/G12272 Attachments cc:
F. J. Miraglia (NRC)
A. Thadani (NRC)
C. O. Thomas (NRC)
L. S. Gifford (GE-Bethesda)
D. C. Scaletti (NRC) t' f
3Y
5 e:
4 GENERA-L ELECTRIC C0MPANY AFFIDAVIT I, Joseph F. Quirk, being duly sworn, depose and state as follows:
1.
I am Manager, BWR Systems Licensing, Nuclear Safety & Licensing Operation, General Electric Company, and have been delegated the 1
function of reviewing the information described in paragraph 2 which is sought to be withheld and have been authorized to apply for its withholding.
2.
The information sought to be withheld is contained in the proprietary l.
submittal on the GESSAR II Seismic Event PRA Uncertainty Analysis in support of the Severe Accident portion of the 238 Nuclear Island
~
General Electric Standard Safety Analysis Report (GESSAR II).
3.
In designating material as proprietary, General Electric utilizes the definition of proprietary information and trade secrets set forth in the American Law Institute's Restatement Of Torts, Section 757.
This definition provides:
"A trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one's business and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over i
competitors who do not know or use it....
A substantial element of secrecy must exist, so'that, except by the use of improper means, there would be difficulty in acquiring informa-tion....
Some factors to be considered in determining whether given information is one's trade secret are:
(1) the extent to which the information is known outsit. of his business; (2) the extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in his business; (3) the extent of measures taken by him to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) the value of the information l
to him and to his competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money expended by him in developing the information; (6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others."'
4.
Some examples of categories of information which fit into the definition of proprietary information are:
Information that discloses a process, method or apparatus where a.
prevention of its use by General Electric's competitors without license from General Electric constitutes a competitive economic I-advantage over other companies; l
b.
Information consisting of supporting data and analyses, includ-ing test data, relative to a process, method or apparatus, the
[
application of which provide a competitive economic advantage, e.g., by optimization or improved marketability; I
i' 1
~ - -
a.
- A Information which if used by a competitor, would reduce his c.
expenditure of resources or improve his competitive position in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation, assurance of quality or licensing of a similar product; d.
Information'which reveals cost or price information, production capacities, budget levels or commercial strategies of General Electric, its customers or suppliers; Information which reveals aspects of past, present or future e.
General Electric customer-funded development plans and programs of potential commercial value to General Electric;
{
f.
Information which discloses patentable subject matter for which it may be desirable to obtain patent protection; Information which General Electric must treat as proprietary g.
according to agreements with other parties.
5.
In addition to proprietary treatment given to material meeting the standards enumerated above, General Electric customarily maintains in confidence preliminary and draft material which has not been subject to complete proprietary, technical and editorial review.
This practice is based on the fact that draft documents often do not appropriately reflect all aspects of a problem, may contain tentative conclusions and may contain errors that can be corrected during snormal review and approval procedures.
Also, until the final document is completed it may not be possible to make any definitive determination as to its proprietary nature.
General Electric is not generally willing to release such a document to the general,public in such a preliminary form.
Such documents are, however, on occasion furnished to the NRC staff on a confidential basis because it is General Electric's belief that it is in the public interest for the staff to be promptly furnished with significant or potentially significant information.
Furnishing the document on a confidential basis pending completion of General Electric's internal review permits early acquaintance of the staff with the information while protecting General Electric's potential proprietary position and permitting General Electric to insure the public documents are technically accurate and correct.
6.
Initial approval of proprietary treatment of a document is made by the Subsection Manager of the originating component, the man most likely to be acquainted with the value and sensitivity of the information in relation to industry knowledge.
Access to such documents within the Company is limited on a "need to know" basis and such documents at all times are clearly identified as proprietary.
4
,o 7.
The procedure for approval of external release of such a document is reviewed by the Section Manager, Project Manager, Principal Scientist or other equivalent authority, by the Section Manager of the cognizant Marketing function (or his delegate) and by the Legal Operation for technical content, competitive effect and determination of the accuracy of the proprietary designation in accordance with the standards enumerated above.
Disclosures outside General Electric are generally limited to regulatory bodies, customers and potential j
customers and their agents, suppliers and licensees only in accordance i
with appropriate regulatory provisions or proprietary agreements.
8.
The document mentioned in paragraph 2 above has been evaluated in accordance with the above criteria and procedures and has been found to contain information which is proprietary and which is customarily held in confidence by General Electric.
9.
The information mentioned in paragraph 2 provides additional informa-4 tion in support of the severe accident portion of GESSAR II contained in Section 15D.3 of the GESSAR II submittal.
10.
The information to the best of my knowledge and belief, has consistently been held in confidence by the General Electric Company, no public disclosure has been made, and it is not available in public sources.
All disclosures to third parties have been made pursuant to regulatory provisions of proprietary agreements which provide for maintenance 3
of the information in confidence.
l 11.
Public disclosure of the information sought to be withheld is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the General Electric Company and deprive or reduce the availability of profit-making l
opportunities because:
It was developed with the expenditure of resources exceeding a.
$500,000.
b.
Public availability of this information would deprive General Electric of the ability to seek reimbursement, would permit competitors to utilize this information to General Electric's i
detriment, and would impair General Electric's ability to maintain licensing agreements to the substantial financial and competitive disadvantage of General Electric.
Public availability of the information would allow foreign c.
competitors, including competiting BWR suppliers, to obtain containment information at no cost which General Electric developed at substantial cost.
Use of this information by foreign competitors would have given them a competitive advantage over General Electric by allowing foreign competitors to produce their containments at lower cost than General Electric.
h e
i STATE OF CALIFORNIA
) ss:
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
)
Joseph F. Quirk, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That he has read the foregoing affidavit and the matters stated therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief.
Executed at San Jose, California, this 29 day of December
, 198 3.
b8 Josep[a'F.] Qu'i W/'
Gene 1 l Electric Company d
Subscribed and sworn before me this 29 day of December 1983.
Leecocececeeemm OFFICIAL SEAL O NOTARY PUSUC.CAUFORNIA KAREN 5. VOGELHUBER s c C/
3 /N A J),
I SANTA CLARA COUNTY NdfARV POBLIC, STATE pF CALIFORNIA My Commission Empires Dec. 21,1984 pooooooooooom m m m onoo KH:rf/G12273
.