ML20133K573

Summary of 970106 Meeting W/Bwrog in Washington,Dc to Discuss Lessons Learned from PSA Certification Process.List of Attendees & Handouts Encl

ML20133K573
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 9701210271
Download: ML20133K573 (22)

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

SUMMARY

OF PUBLIC MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 6, 1997, TO DISCUSS THE BOILING 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 BWR0G 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.

Greg Krueger, of PECo Energy, gave a presentation based on the vugraphs in ,

Attachment 2. He addressed the background and status of the BWROG effort, 1 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 n iBSheron g3 Document Name: MEETSUM.106 GHolahg\ , f f 0FC PGEB v SC:PGEB AAD:ADTn,Y C:PhEBM NAME JWilson:sw RArchitzel RJones b DMatYhews  ; f DATE 1/ 7 /9h 1/ /97 1//3/97[ 1/lh/97 l OFFICIAL RECORD COPY j 210012 44  !

O 9701210271 960113 (# 48 1#

PDR PROJ 691 PDR (D) ,

- -. _ _ _ . - . . _ _ ~ .- .. . _ - - ,~ _-- - - - . . - - - - .-. - - - , - - -

tA QCICuq oo UNITED STATES p*

s* j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055!H)001

+ January 13, 1997 l

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 NM Generic Issues and Environmental Projects ranch Division of Reactor Program Management, NRR

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 BWR0G 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 BWR0G in its presentation is provided as Attachment 2.

The BWR0G 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.

Greg Krueger, of PEco Energy, gave a presentation based on the vugraphs in Attachment 2. 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 cc w/ attachments:

See next page l

i i .

l Attachment 1 l l

LIST OF ATTENDEES AT MEETING WITH BWROG HELD IN

, WASHINGTON, DC ON JANUARY 6, 1997 l i l M AFFILIATION 2

G. Parry NRR/NRC ,

i M. Check NRR/NRC

, 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 i B. Ford Entergy d

i 7

5 -.

t

ll' ,

j  !  : : i!  ! l  !:!lii' i

n i

o t

a i

c f

i t

r e

p u

o 7 r 9

. Cs s G9 we 1

s r ,

e 6 e c n y

. i vr o wra eP O u R n R

_ a

- r WJ e B

- e P

A S

P

,"i D

^

7;

^f

$.maEaaaaa 3

(

i

]l

{

"? ,

i

aa=mE=

e e a E n a m m B g_

4 4

ill'

e, + .

(([ .?

u lOo Discussion Topics O

O O

O m Background O

m Status O

O D

m Pilot Plant Application m Process Feedback O

o m Results/ Benefits O

O-O

!O.

iO:

kO

cy fra ;-

h- s 2 g3; .

79 y-we ' l p;

p O .

fjy p Background LO O- '

' O o m Catalysts behind development of the PSA O

o O

Peer Review Certification Guidelines were:

O

+ Industry and NRC interest in risk-informed O regulation

+ Increasing use of PSA-based applications 0

O + Issues of perceived differences among PSAs O

o + Desire consistency n

g + Sharing of experience and information ldt .

Edi~

m;. 3 b.dj. <

Li sus ibis x x

,,; a to m:

~5 t

(Ol '

sox  :

lo; Background (continued)

'O 0- l 0

o m Purpose for the development of the process a

o is to provide added assurance that PSA '

a o models are viable tools to be used in O

o decision making and resource allocation.

o o m The process enhances the level of O

o 0

excellence by verifying accuracy, realism, -

o completeness, and documentation of plant g specific PSAs. '

iLIM

I a

• wwmn o a e  :

id!

g '

1. n Status of BWROG Effort 0:

D 0

o m Formulated the Certification Guidelines O

o used in the peer review process 0

8 m Discussed approach with industry and NRC 0

o m Applied process using 3 BWR pilot plants E m Revised Guidelines based on feedback from O . .

lo pilot plant trials n

t01 lLOi hCf l

gy, y + % u.NA k

J

i. . . I f ,_4 Pilot Plant Application

~LJ-0,,

LJ Establish PSA Assure Cons!stency Meet wth NRC Develop V Piht

~l i Cedication _p with the Industry

+ StaM to Explain Lessons Leamed + Plant + Resutts to LJ Process (Conceptual)

Aporoam to PSA t;eftdicaten Pro ss (Cenceptual) for Feedback to BWRT Results NRC and to NEl industry I

O A A

0 V O Estabhsh O  : E% '"

O O v v v 0

] _

Develop Guidance P

'o'Cen ewt SeM Certdcation A Pedon Revew and A gt MMdy Process Process Team Analyss a A y awRs

. I_,_j A Develop and Apply the Process to 3 Pilot Plants La INITIAL SECOND PHASE PHASE

~

ewRoa PsA dmJ-- Certication Pro ss ,

gq.

tLJ-

p-u t , Details of BWROG PSA Certification r~U Implementation Program la

.cr .

.. 6 4 N 4

wMA ere #4 efem v *r /A

, '1

~

b, , < 4 2

STEP-BY-STEP APPLICATION OF d; CERTIFICATION PROCESS AT PILOT PLANT

' [.I

,.s L, 1 siep i I

r. , )k Gather Flant and PSA information I

' L) l

[7 "

OFFSITE step z I lf t Heview Plant and l 1^J L p PSA Information l

- [] step a I

_3g____________________

Interact with FSA Group i 2 l Utahty lm to Obtain Overview of PSA l Presentation step 4 i f

C UnecKHSI  !

Examine tach Level 1 F5A Element l2 l Using Questions and Checklists lm l //

1 siep u l f

Verity by Waikdown Spatel Dependencies O siep s l O

l --'# ""'"P Examine Results of a F5A Sensitivity Run Performed Dunng Review l '#

' ' ' Evaluation r f Example ONSITE I step I l If '

Examine the Level Z l2 l Unecnsist i PSA Elements lm l // l  ;

O i step a l Examine the PSA Maintenance [s I LD'GKH3L

// l and Update Process l' I l L step W

[ l Uevelop Freisminary hnctngs and Certification Results f;.- k l 5tep 10 l

l (*") - Closeout Meeting l l

!M 1f gm ibJ ..

_____________3p____________________

!siep 11 1 4+4B OF ITE erovide snai vocumentation of the Review i

[Lb [

{ p- -

21! kb

%Di j 7

([" nf ns$$bsAnd

y;y"pW -:~ *Gg o

3 thi id?

$ Pilot Plant Application (cont.)

a ,

o '

.O o m Focus of review was on two principal O

o aspects:

a 0

+ Process for maintaining and upc ating t:1e PSA S + Technical details of the PSA O

l 0

a o a Process is hig11y structured, allowing l

R reviewers to investigate, compare, and -

@ assess key PSA elements n

O

~

8 ifbk k.fh m i

r, v >

l 0 ;;

7 5.n

+

Ii s]! Pilot Plant Application (cont.)

o O

O o m Example review item insights 0

0 + Support system failure induced initiators and o subsumed initiators may impact Grade 3 0

o applications.

0 0 + Event tree structures adequate to support most o applications.

0 + Ernancing the link (cross reference) between PO TH analyses and event trees is desirable.

!G kG G 9

[Q a

~

j w .

e 8 y ~

(pg p .

100  ;

101 g Pilot Plant Application (cont.)

'o o

o o m Review item insights (continued)

O O + Data analysis variec from alant to alant 0 + At one plant, failure rates justified by plant specific o data o

o + At another plant, generic data was used o

o + Conservative screening CCF values used at one t l

0 plant l g + Maintenance unavailabilities and transient initiating o event values typically plant specific l p '

l0;; '

O! jo

([Ci u .

m +

Jp B

l$

l .O 0

Pilot Plant Application (cont.)

' -O O m Review item insights (continued)

O o + Timing and impact of a SORV and multiple o SORVs on EOP actions and HPCI/RCIC D

D opera 3ility need some enhancements.

O o + Maintenance and update arocesses typically o under c evelopment but not ful y excercised at

-O o the time of the reviews.

a lo i0:

+ Identiication of aotentia. standardized F3 approaches.

n .

ls$

ii liG -

.k. +

it# -

7.,

1. u Process Feedback ,

-- O O ,

O o m Feedback on the Certification process fell O

O O

into roughly four categories:

O '

O O

O + Streamlining the Process O

o + Improving or Expanding Criteria 0

o + Editorial

O io + Ba ancing of Resources

{ 0--

.Eh t y;I D a i

!(1 1

t n

!Q8 l$

m Process Feedback (cont.) -

0; i O

l o m Pilot Plant excercise collected 82 insights O

o regarding process improvements.

0 0 + 25% c ealt with guideline improvements S + 75% dealt with process streamlining o

o m Major improvements include:

0

+ Ac.ditional preparation by nost utility E + Daily feecaack and calibration among O

o reviewers

o -

C 13

D

m .

I. s Wi$k

e e

f. [h.?f-f??*??: $f??h? ,{

f' *i.

}'

Q t

$o Results/ Benefits ,

D;

D 0

o u Numerical measures (grades) are valuable O

o for several reasons:

a O

0 + Identifies subelement differences

+ Used for communication of potential issues that need to be adc.ressec ,

O

o + Some limited use in comparison among plants O  ;

l ioi + Identifies areas that may require PSA e

l iol application focus or dependence on non-PSA p .

G Input

Di ~

u n

aim m ma

. % s. v ..,v ,- y 7 h r+ -4 i:

lLS

r y S'kN i

fd

,o .

lo

-0 Grades 0

0 O

O Grade 4 p;}~T' ' '

i i

Grade 3 gum O Grade 2 gger-O O Grade 1 ^

O Vulnerabilities Ranking Risk Significance Sole Basis 0 '^SS*SSm*"t

O uq. i

[O.r,. Spectrum of Applications Effectively

!tt h Supported by the PSA

r+ ,

ii LJ .: '

MF,: i pus , e -

P

{:[]{

• q

[0? -

e io Results/ Benefits (cont.)

O O

o m Process establishes a uniform, reproducible O

o method of assessing PSA quality and g provides a useable critique in identifying o areas for improvement.

E m Provides cross pollination among utilities to O

o maximize technology advances through o sharing of successes.

ioJ (o

fC

^

' '; i !Ili~ l!l\,I t [l.! i i! .[! ' ;f s A B C T T T N N N A A A L L L

- P P P DED 6

1

- 4

~

S E -

- D 3

- A R -

G .

F _-

O -

N -

O S

. I E -

T ,D _

U A -

B R -

I G

_ R T

- I S

- D -

-. 2 -

1 g-

. ' - /- /

o 0 0 0 ,

7

• 4 3 2 gy6*

!;23 3

a.

4._  ;

m . h' 5N 5gEEaaEE3EEEEgE E.g' e{ n=

. n J1 '

ki .

O i

GRADES  :

Lowest > Highest GRADE 1 2 3 4 .

- Maint. - IST Risk EXAMPLES IPE Rule - On-Line Based

- GL 89-10 Maint. TS  ;

Qualitative

> Quantitative Simplistic > Comprehensive i i

Increasing Complexity and Integration of Elements r

l f

Risk-Based /

Risk Informed Absolute Risk i Analysis within Deterministic Issue Specific " Risk-based" Framework Risk Optimization Alternative Periodic Updates Limited or Consistent with No Updates Applications Conservative Realistic ATTRIBUTES OF THE PSA GRADES l

l 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 J Nuclear Group Headquarters MC 62C-3 965 Chesterbrook Blvd.

Wayne, PA 19087 L. A. England Entergy Operations Inc.

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station '

PO Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286 K. Sedney  !

GE Nuclear Energy 175 Curtner Ave, M/C 182 l San Jose, CA 95125 l T. J. Rausch '

Commonwealth Edison Company Nuclear Fuel Services 1400 Opus Place, 4th Floor ETWIII l Downers Grove, IL 60515 .

s i

s 8 + .

f