ML20133J740
| ML20133J740 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/13/1997 |
| From: | Joshua Wilson NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Matthews D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| PROJECT-691 NUDOCS 9701210122 | |
| Download: ML20133J740 (23) | |
Text
[
January 13, 1997 MEMORANDUM T0:
David B. Matthews, Chief Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management, NRR FROM:
James H. Wilson, Senior Project Manager Original Signed By:
Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management, NRR
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF PUBLIC MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 6, 1997, TO DISCUSS THE B0ILING WATER REACTOR OWNERS' GROUP (BWROG) PSA CERTIFICATION PROCESS On January 6,1997, the staff attended a public meeting in the GE Nuclear Energy offices in Washington, DC to discuss lessons learned from the BWROG probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) certification process. A list of attendees and their affiliations is provided as Attachment 1.
A copy of the handouts used by the BWROG in its presentation is provided as Attachment 2.
The BWROG has developed a certification process to assist its members in achieving two objectives: 1) to assure the quality of PSAs for applications; and 2) to assure that each utility has a process in place for maintaining the l
level of quality.
Effectively, the certification process is a structured peer l
review performed by a team of PSA experts drawn from the utility PSA groups and contractors.
Greg Krueger, of PECo Energy, gave a presentation based on the vugraphs in.
He addressed the background and status of the BWROG effort, discussed the pilot application of the process to three plants, and gave an overview of the results of the application and the lessons learned.
The pilot application is considered to have been very successful, both in terms of providing feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of their PSAs to the utilities involved and in terms of providing useful feedback on the certification process itself, which has been subsequently streamlined and improved.
Rick Hill, GE, stated that he anticipated that a report, describing the results of the pilot application and the certification process, will be made available to the NRC before the end of January 1997.
Project No. 691 Attachments: As stated cc w/ attachments: See next page
>}
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File PUBLIC TMartin RJones AThadani PGEB r/f GParry RZimmerman GHolahy'n fBSheron
\\
Document Name: MEETSUM.106 1/
OFC PGEB v
SC:PGEB AAD:ADT/>,T C:PMB i
I NAME JWilson:sw RArchitzel RJones I'/
DMatThews DATE 1/7/9h 1/ /97 1//)/97 1/lh 97
/
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 210013 qp4 h) -
9701210122 970113 PDR PROJ 691 PDR
e-24c
[
4 UNITED STATES
~
s g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20665-0001 January 13, 1997 MEMORANDUM T0:
David B. Matthews, Chief Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management, NRR FROM:
James H. Wilson, Senior Project Manager Mbb Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch l
Division of Reactor Program Management, NRR
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF PUBLIC MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 6, 1997, TO DISCUSS THE BOILING WATER REACTOR OWNERS' GROUP (BWROG) PSA 1
CERTIFICATION PROCESS On January 6,1997, the staff attended a public meeting in the GE Nuclear Energy offices in Washington, DC to discuss lessons learned from the BWROG probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) certification process. A list of i
attendees and their affiliations is provided as Attachment 1.
A copy of the handouts used by the BWR0G in its presentation is provided as Attachment 2.
The BWROG has developed a certification process to assist its members in achieving two objectives: 1) to assure the quality of PSAs for applications; and 2) to assure that each utility has a process in place for maintaining the level of quality.
Effectively, the certification process is a structured peer review performed by a team of PSA experts drawn from the utility PSA groups and contractors.
1 Greg Krueger, of PEco Energy, gave a presentation based on the vugraphs in.
He addressed the background and status of the BWROG effort, discussed the pilot application of the process to three plants, and gave an overview of the results of the application and the lessons learned. The pilot application is considered to have been very successful, both in terms of providing feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of their PSAs to the utilities involved, and in terms of providing useful feedback on the certification process itself, which has been subsequently streamlined and improved.
Rick Hill, GE, said that he anticipated that a report, describing the results of the pilot application and the certification process, will be made available to the NRC before the end of January 1997.
Project No. 691 Attachments: As stated i
cc w/ attachments:
See next page
l LIST OF ATTENDEES AT MEETING WITH BWROG HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC ON JANUARY 6, 1997 HAME AFFILIATION G. Parry NRR/NRC i
M. Cheok NRR/NRC l
B. Hardin RES/NRC R. Hill GE E. Vezey GE B. Bradley NEI G. Krueger PECO Energy E. Page Detroit Edison C. Nierode NSP L. Bedell Entergy B. Ford Entergy
l
.i.
- i!
i1!l i
i[!![!I!t
.Li n
o i
ta c
if it p
r u
e o
7 r
9 Cs G9 s
s 1
we r
e 6
e c
n y
i O
wr vr O
a eP u
R R
n a
WJ r
e B
e P
A SP a
.k ;1 w.
y c
t 77:5E
.. EEEEE.=am*N=E"
=EEEEEEEgg<,..
=
~
.1 (7
h
'l pmegmmmg n, : a, m
Discussion Topics
=
a
=
E m Background a
=
m Status a
m Pilot Plant Application a
a m Process Feedback I
=
i a
m Results/ Benefits a
U t
.a l
- m
[:9
+..
i
- o; i
!D;
~
EU wa (9,
s.
a g
TYiffWTU
- La
.fs.~S 2-pi:q
Background
~O i
O O
m Catalysts behind development of the PSA ooo Peer Review Certification Guidelines were:
o l
0
+ Inc ustry and NRC interest in risk-informed 0
regulation o
+ Increasing use of PSA-based applications 0o
+ Issues of perceived differences among PSAs i
O i
- o
+ Desire consistency l
o:
i g
+ Sharing of experience and information j
n N%
.l i
nm,--y kb3
?+ N l
rgp IC 1
to.
lg Background (continued) t m-O O
m Purpose for the development of the process o
0 is to provide added assurance that PSA oo o
models are viable tools to be used in O
i decision making and resource allocation.
o 0
m The process enhances the level of o
O excellence by verifying accuracy, realism, o
O completeness, and documentation of plant o
specific PSAs.
o
- D e
iDi 10!
^
a yOs
- 7 3 l
i m m m q z-r lM
^
yn cr33 4
Status of BWROG Effort
- D 0
~
0-O l
o a Formulated the Certification Guidelines O
used in the peer review process o
O i
m Discussed approach with industry and NRC 0
m Applied process using 3 BWR pilot plants o
u Revised Guidelines based on feedback from o
pilot plant trials oo 10 I
iOr
!OL u.
-'?
IC);
I kCI gij m
l
]
["@'YNT7%'NY$$$M */
-h x
h'. ?
Lx rL.l Sj _
j Pilot Plant Application rm l
L;
- u O
i S jV ph %
f Estat*sh PSA Assure Cmsw.tency Meet wth NRC DW
]
cens.cean 4
wth the Wustry 4
StaN to E sptam Lessons tem +
Plant +
ResuRs to (concerth Nuui[
Yo'7[f "My
~5 Ps[Natum I
(concept an O
A A
O 4
i Estatesh O
- c,PX 0
V V
Y O
C Develop Gudance sew pm uwdy
'o'@fg'*'
certs. cation --.->
Review se p
Process I
]
T**m Anaeysts pgy Process OWRs O
A Develop and Apply the Process to 3 Pilot Plants
. b-Fl
..Q INITIAL SECOND ennoa PsA PHASE PHASE
]'
ceredication Process s y fLT l
!O-i i
ym (LJ Details of BWROG PSA Certification
!;C..i implementation Program j
?:: /- ~e.
f)
W a
[$ W7WPWTM-MTnMy v
.3 w-
- a
- f y
e f
-1 STEP-BY-STEP APPLICATION OF CERTIFICATION PROCESS AT PILOT PLANT
)
Gather Fiant and PSA information
- i~l OFFSITE lf step 4 l
("y
}f PSA information l
t Heview Flant and i
L L]
__3g____________________
diep J l
']
Interact with FSA Group 2
l Utility I
to Obtain Overview of PSA m
l Presentaten l
f I Sl*P 4 I
Examine tach Level 1 PSA Liement ls l
Unecust Usmo Questions and Checkhsts Im l
//
f l diepb l
O Vertfy by Waikdown Spatial Dependencies O
V q
step 6 l
b tio"n u
Examine HesuRs of a FSA Sensdivity l "'
P Run Performed Dunng Review p
fgv p
I step i l
Examine the Level 2 s
l UnEcniis
[q PSA Elements m
l
//
u l siep 5 l
LMamine the FSA Maintenance la l
Unecruist
]
and Update Process l'
I
//
r 1r LJ j
diep w l
vevelop Freieminary F maings l
I]_.
and Certification Results l
r,) -
3f L_
isiep io l
1O Closeout Meetog l
y u
m-yy____________________
a mieg u i
OF ITE erovee e mai oocumentanon i
- - p):
y L._
of the Review l
+.
gy-7 a
.Iwaf
'j.
"a Q
j gygrxwrywung l
hk i
$s o;
Pilot Plant Application (cont.)
lg u
l0 l
O-m Focus of review was on two principal O
O aspects:
O O
i
+ Process for maintaining and updating the PSA 0
E
+ Technical details of the PSA 0
0 O
m Process is highly structured, allowing o
- g; reviewers to investigate, compare, and a
1 assess key PSA elements n
!;Ok x
- 3 g
IQ
'a
- , ~ -
- ge
nywem 1
1 I
Pilot Plant Application (cont.)
1 m Example review item insights m
=
+ Support system failure induced initiators and subsumed initiators may impact Grade 3
=e applications.
f a
a
+ Event tree structures adequate to support most applications.
8 E
+ Enhancing the link (cross reference) between TH analyses and event trees is desirable.
i E
IK m
ts Bei y
9
s '
s p!?{ ?! cgm *m llEj
.M e,7
~
[m!
,a y
Pilot Plant Application (cont.)
- .a a
m Review item insights (continued) a a
+ Data analysis varied from plant to plant 8
+ At one plant, failure rates justified by plant specific m
data u
a
+ At another plant, generic data was used a
i a
+ Conservative screening CCF values used at one plant
!o",
+ Maintenance unavailabilities and transient initiating
- o; event values typically plant specific j
foi
!Ok
~
[Oj io l
IQ -
" sj l
gg :
~
a to (D) l
'O
[g:
Pilot Plant Application (cont.)
O
- O i
m Review item insights (continued)
O 0
+ Timing and impact of a SORV and multiple j
0 o
SORVs on EOP actions and HPCI/RCIC 0
operability need some enhancements.
O 0
+ Maintenance and update processes typically 0
o under development but not fully excercised at
.Oo the time of the reviews.
60
{
gl0l
+ Identification of potential standardized approaches.
lQ IQ
!4 u
v,-
,m fmf te;
!a==; Process Feedback
-n.
t a-
=
Feedback on the Certification process fell
=
=
into roughly four categories:
=
a
=
m a
+ Streamlining the Process a
0
+ Improving or Expanding Criteria o
0
+ Editorial 10 lg;
+ Balancing of Resources o
10 lO1 iOi I
jo;
"" ^
u
[bI*f*w l
l l
e 4
f 1TTT^7 MM-4 i5:
llCj m;-
}T) ja g gm g
Process Feedback (cont.)
- Og g
e Pilot Plant excercise collected 82 insights o
O regarding process improvements.
O 0
+ 25% dealt with guideline improvements
+ 75% dealt with process streamlining O
m Major improvements include:
O 0
+ Additional preparation by host utility O
LO;
+ Daily feedback and calibration among
- 0 :
Loy reviewers i(O!:
iG.
i3
[CM jj
c, j;L.ML am y].
is '
7a
- O
' Results/ Benefits t
oio 0-O O
m Numerical measures (grades) are valuable o
0 o
for several reasons:
i 0
0
+ Identifies subelement differences
+ Used for communication of potential issues that need to be addressed 0
i o
+ Some limited use in comparison among plants l
O-lo
+ Identifies areas that may require PSA a
jo application focus or dependence on non-PSA c!
input
[o IQ j
14 i
y.
i
i ne-i ~E 14*
aj i
f.J q%
Eg
\\
n so; ls i
a gg; Grades
- o O
r i
i I
O Grade 4 ge~
O O
Grade 3 gym-Grade 2 ger
[
Grade 1 t
O t
E Vulnerabilities Ranking Risk Significance Sole Basis ofAssessment
'O 0-~
l iO, i
B-
.0; i
pgj Spectrum of Applications Effectively l
- g Supported by the PSA
- O
lO..!,,
,.,/ d m.,
I i
I
t wn gJi
~.
1.1 jij n
j lgl Results/ Benefits (cont.)
Q:
g 0
m Process establishes a uniform, reproducible a
a t
method of assessing PSA quality and o
provides a useable critique in identifying o
areas for improvement.
0 O
m Provides cross pollination among utilities to o
D maximize technology advances through oa a:
sharing of successes.
o D
i
[O:.L.
l
- g7 (Os i
is
[ol!
'f 11 l
rw
- ci l
ji[
!lI!
!iII!l
!lI iI
!!{I 1_
g A B C T T T N N N A A A L L L P P P GEO 6
g, 1
g a
g m,
g j
g m,
g 2
m 4
g i
SE g
D g
u A
3 u
r z
R a
m G
w F
a O
n, u
g s.
N a
A O
S I
T ED u
U A
h B
R m.
I G
R w
T a
m.
S e
ID g
w 2
m.
m m.
a.
a w
=
e mm e.
m u.
-sm.u w
w r
n.
e w
1 m
a.
su m
e h
N h
o-E W
7
/
/
/
S m
M 07 o
M 4
M gy h
{.
l y ;ag g
A j!fk n.
A.
- s h.
m
@/
2 A.
4
^
@', N E' gE'EEEE EgE5Eg E E 5 E E E 5 E E h E E 5g 5
4 Y
7 7
a.
a m
{f!
"#bg1 s
A.
L.
m m.
(
I l
l l
l l'
i
d GRADES 1
l i
Lowest
> Highest GRADE 1
2 3
4
- Maint.
- IST Risk
, EXAMPLES IPE Rule
- On-Line Based
- GL 89-10 Maint.
TS I
Qualitative
> Quantitative Simplistic
> Comprehensive Increasing Complexity and Integration of Elements Risk-Based /
Risk Informed Absolute Risk Analysis within Deterministic issue Specific
" Risk-based" Framework Risk Optimization Alternative Periodic Updates Limited or Consistent with No Updates Applications m
Conservative RealistiE l
l l
ATTRIBUTES OF THE PSA GRADES 1
I I
l I
u-l n
l Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group cc:
C. D. Terry Vice President, Nuclear Engineering Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point-2 PO Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093 D. B. Fetters PECO Energy Nuclear Group Headquarters MC 62C-3 965 Chesterbrook Blvd.
l Wayne, PA 19087 L. A. England Entergy Operations Inc.
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station PO Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286 l
K. Sedaey l
GE Nuclear Energy l
175 Curtner Ave, M/C 182 l
San Jose, CA 95125 T. J. Rausch Commonwealth Edison Company Nuclear Fuel Services 1400 Opus Place, 4th Floor ETWIII Downers Grove, IL 60515 l
1 l
l l
[