ML20137Q706

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Package of Viewgraphs,Including NUREG-1150 Analysis of Risk-Dominant Uncertainties & Emergency Planning & Severe Low Frequency Natural Phenomena
ML20137Q706
Person / Time
Issue date: 10/22/1985
From: Jerome Murphy
NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20137Q693 List:
References
FOIA-85-784, RTR-NUREG-1150 NUDOCS 8602060382
Download: ML20137Q706 (24)
v • d • e


Text

--,

.- k\ -

t Fo!" vr-,2p i

(

NUREG-1150 ANALYSIS OF RISK-DOMINANT UNCERTAINTIES J. A. MURPHY OCTOBER 22, 1985

[

B602060382 860106-PDR I s0cu$sbO784

a

~

NUREG-1150 RISK REFERENCE DOCUMENT o UPDATED, CORE MELT FREQUENCY AND RISK ESTIMATES OF SIX REFERENCE PLANTS (PWR--LARGE DRY, SUBATMOSPHERIC, AND ICE CONDENSER CONTAINMENTS, BWR--MARK 1, MARK 11, AND MARK 111 CONTAINMENTS) o DISCUSSIONS OF UNCERTAINTIES AND SENSITIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH ESTIMATES o EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE RISK REDUCTION MODIFICATIONS o INSIGHTS ON ABILITY TO EXTRAPOLATE FROM REFERENCE PLANTS TO INDUSTRY AT LARGE o EVALUATION OF NEW RISK PERSPECTIVES AND APPLICABILITY OF RESULTS TO REGULATORY ACTIONS o SUGGESTED FRAMEWORK FOR INCORPORATION OF SEVERE ACCIDENT INSIGHTS INTO REGULATORY STRUCTURE o DOCUMENT AVAILABLE IN DRAFT FORM MID-SUMMER, PEER REVIEW WORKSHOP ON DRAFT IN FALL 1986, FINAL REPORT EARLY SPRING 1987

NUREG-1150 SUPPORT RISK REBASEllNING o PERFORMING LIMITED RISK ANALYSES ON SIX PLANTS TO OBTAIN UPDATED ESTIMATES OF CORE MELT FREQUENCY AND FREQUENCY OF PLANT DAMAGE STATES o PERFORMING SEVERAL ADDITIONAL SOURCE TERM CODE PACKAGE RUNS FOR EACH REFERENCE PLANT o ESTIMATING SOURCE TERM UNCERTAINTIES FOR ONE PLANT, PERFORMING SENSITIVITY STUDIES FOR OTHER PLANTS o INTEGRATING INFORMATION AB0VE TO GENERATE RISK ESTIMATES AND RISK REDUCTION INSIGHTS FOR REFERENCE PLANTS o RISK REBASELINING TO BE COMPLETED SPRING 1986

e NUREG-1150 SUPPORT ISSUE RESOLUTION o INVESTIGATING RISK IMPORTANT ISSUES ON ACCIDENT PROGRESSION, CONTAINMENT BEHAVIOR, AND SOURCE TERMS o IDENTIFYING DOMINANT PARAMETERS AND PERFORMING SENSITIVITY STUDIES TO ASCERTAIN IMPACTS ON RISK o DEVELOPING NRC STAFF POSITION ON PARAMETER VALUES TO BE USED IN NUREG-1150 o TYPICAL TOPICS INCLUDE NON-VOLATILE (LANTHANIDE, ACTINIDE) RELEASE FRACTIONS DURING CORE-CONCRETE INTERACTION, DIRECT HEATING, HYDR 0 GEN GENERATION AND OXIDATION WITH RESULTANT CONTAINMENT LOADING, AND REVOLATIZATION

, o EXPANDED EFFORTS TO UNDERSTAND UNCERTAINTIES QUEST-2 CONTAIN O

.. . ~ -

GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR ANALYSIS OF RISK-DOMINANT UNCERTAINTIES o ASSESS IMPORTANCE OF SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY TO DECISIONS o NEED REASONABLE, CREDIBLE RANGE IN WHICH ACTUAL VALUE WILL BE FOUND (90 PERCENT DEGREE OF BELIEF) o NEED NOT BE EXPRESSED IN FORMAL STATISTICAL B0UNDS o PURPOSE IS TO FOCUS ATTENTION ON IMPORTANT ASSUMPTIONS

REPRESENTATIONS OF UNCERTAINTY o RIG 0ROUS B0UNDS TYPICALLY:

EASILY DEFENDED (IN PRINCIPLE)

TOTALLY USELESS (IN PRACTICE) o REFUSE TO STATE (DEMAND MORE RESEARCH)

TYPICALLY:

r EASILY DEFENDED TOTALLY USELESS l 0 PLAUSIBLE RANGES (NOT RIGOROUS)

I SUBJECTIVE 0FTEN DIFFICULT TO DEFEND USEFULNESS DEBATABLE

ACCIDENT SEQUENCES AND CORE MELT FREQUENCY o DETERMINE UNCERTAINTY RANGE BY PROPAGATION OF DATA UNCERTAINTIES o CONDUCT SENSITIVITY STUDIES BY VARYING KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETERS AND RECOMPUTE UNCERTAINTY DISTRIBUTION FOR EACH VARIATION o CONSIDER MULTIPLE VARI ATIONS WHEN CORRELATED OR WHEN LITTLE CONFIDENCE ( ABOUT 50 PERCENT) IN BASE CASE o UNLIKELY TO CONV0 LUTE MORE THAN THREE INDEPENDENT PARAMETERS

(

INTERIM PRODUCT o VARIATION IN MEANS OF VARIOUS DISTRIBUTIONS OF SENSITIVITY STUDIES o 5 AND 95 PERCENT BOUNDS FOR EACH SENSITIVITY STUDY AND BASE CASE o IDENTIFICATION OF FACTORS DRIVING UNCERTAINTY ESTIMATES AND VARIATION OF MEANS o HIGHLY DESIRABLE TO ASSIGN " DEGREE OF BELIEF" TO BASE CASE AND EACH SENSITIVITY STUDY AND COPSINE FOR NUREG-1150

N CONTAINMENT EVENT TREES o AT PRESENT, THREE INDEPENDENT PASSES THROUGH THE TREE (0PTIMISTIC, CENTRAL, PESSIMISTIC). FOR NUREG-1150 CONSIDER ONLY THE CENTRAL CASE AND PERFORM SENSITIVITY STUDIES o ASSIGN DEGREE OF BELIEF (NEUTRAL BETTING ODDS) TO VARIOUS SENSITIVITY STUDIES AND CONVOLUTE TO YIELD AN OVERALL EXPRESSION OF AN APPROXIMATE DEGREE OF BELIEF ASSOCIATED WITH VARIOUS CONTAINMENT FAILURE MODES FOR EACH PLANT DAMAGE STATE 4

SOURCE TERMS o TYPICALLY APPROXIMATELY 15 RELEASE BINS o TYPICALLY APPROXIMATELY 6 STCP RUNS / PLANT o STCP RUNS DIRECTED TOWARD CENTRAL ESTIMATE-o- EXTRAPOLATION REQUIRED FOR REMAINING CENTRAL ESTIMATE OF SOURCE TERMS (IS0 TOPIC RELEASE FRACTIONS, RELEASE ENERGY AND TIMING CHARACTERISTICS) AND ALL OPTIMISTIC AND PESSIMISTIC ESTIMATES o PERFORM SENSITIVITY ANALYSES 0N KEY PARAMETERS, DEVELOP AN ASSOCI ATED DEGREE OF BELIEF FOR EACH SENSITIVITY ANALYSES AND COMBINE APPROPRIATELY n -- - -- , . _ _ , ,

w CONSEQUENCE CALCULATIONS o BASE CASE FOUNDED ON PLANT-SPECIFIC METEOROLOGICAL DATA AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ASSUMPTIONS, BEST ESTIMATE VALUES FOR OTHER PARAMETERS o LIMITED SENS.ITIVITY STUDIES ON THESE ASSUMPTIONS AND

' CODE INTERF.AL PARAMETERS o C0KBINAT10N OF SENSITIVITY STUDIES, WEIGHTED BY DEGREE OF BEllEF, AS AB0VE o FINAL PRODUCT--ENGINEERING ESTIMATE OF REASONABLE B0UNDS AND DISCUSSION OF FACTORS DRIVING ESTIMATES OF RISK DOMINANT UNCERTAINTIES

~

SUMMARY

SIX FACTORS ANALYZED FOR DOMINANT CONTRIBUTORS TO UNCERTAINTY IN RISK PREDICTIONS:

o BASIC EVENT DATA (COMPONENT FAILURE RATES, HUMAN ERROR PROBABILITIES) o PRE-CORE-MELT PHENOMEN0 LOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH ACCIDENT SEQUENCE FREQUENCIES (SUCCESS / FAILURE CRITERIA) o PHENOMEN0 LOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO CONTAINMENT FAILURE MODE LIKELIH00DS o PHENOMEN0 LOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH FISSION PRODUCT RELEASES TO THE ATMOSPHERE AS A FUNCTION OF ACCIDENT SEQUENCES l

l 0 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABILITY AND EFFECT OF VARIATIONS IN l IMPORTANT CONSEQUENCE MODEL PARAMETERS

o EFFECT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE ASSUMPTIONS 1

l l

L

, gen s  % .-

1o/3t/85 l'O t (+ 25-724 Ge ~ E, EMERGENCY PLANNING .,

AND NATURAL- PHEN 0HENA SEVERE LOW FREQUENCY g

IM_ (T L

. I

_ BACKGROUND O BEFORE DECEMBER 1981 LIMITED CONSIDERATION OF EARTHQUAKES (UP TO SSE)

CASE BY CASE BASIS 0 DECEMBER 1981 - SAN ON0FRE DECISION 0 AUGUST 19J4 - DIABLO CANYON DECISION 0 DECEMBER 1984 PROPOSED RULE PUBLISHED IN FEDERAL REGISTER f

l 0 JULY 1935 -

ACRS MET WITH C0PfilSSION AND STATED THAT "WE...SEE N l

FOR THE EXCLUSION OF EARTHQUAKES FROM THE NATURAL IN OFFSITE PLANNING."

0 SEPTEfSER 9, 1985 -

STAFF PRESENTATION TO COMMISSION PROPOSING LIIIITED CONSIDERATION OF SEVERE, LOW FREQUENCY NATURAL PHENOMENA.

< THE SAN ON0FRE AND DIABLO DECISION AND THE PROPOSED R COMPLICATING EFFECTS OF EARTHQUAKES ON EMERGENCY PLANN l

l t

j .-

_ ALTERNATIVES l

O PROMULGATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE i,

j 0 LEAVING THE ISSUE OPEN FOR ADJUDICATION O L

1 0 PROMULGATE A FINAL RULE WHICH LIMITS T

! EFFECTS OF SEVERE LOW FREQUENCY NATURA i.

.q l

M

1 .-

~

PtalIt COPENTS .

0 61 PUBLIC COMENT LETTERS RECEIVED 0 25 LETTERS FAVORED THE PROPOSED RULE l

O 34 LETTERS OPPOSED THE PROPOSED RULE-9 W FORM WITH 94 SIGNATURES l

' 0 2 TAKING NO OBVIOUS POSITION

\

l 0

JAPAN, FRANCE, SWEDEN, GERMANY s TAIWAN ALL S EFFECTS OF EARTHQUAKES WERE NOT SPECIFICALL 1

l 5

2 i i t

j_. .- .

I I

RErfMGmFD RillE CHANGE i

j l 0 "THE PLMS SHALL ASSURE THAT THE FOLLOWING CAPA COMPLICATING IMPACTS OF SEVERE, LOW FREQUENCY NATURAL P

THE SITE. Id ADDRESSING THE FOLLOWING CAPABILITIES THE LI THAT THE SEVERE NATURAL PHEON0ENON HAS DISRU NETWORKS,"

l

- CAPABILITIES .

- SEVERE, LOW FREQUENCY NATURAL PHENDENA

- ASSUMPTIONS e sm m

' _ RErrveemFf1 CAPABILITIES 1 PROPOSED IMPI FENTATI OVERAIi THRUST 11 IQ CDDIFY FIFXIBILITY IN ORDER TO i NATURAL PHEWOMENA, 4

ABILITY TO TRANSPORT PERSONNEL BACK INTO T 0

i AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN A LICENSEE AND A TRANSPORTA f 0 ABILITY TO CDPMUNICATE PLANT STATUS WITH OFF-SITE

> IMPLEMENTED BY REDUNDANT AND DIVERSE TRANSMITTING C 5

REC 0 MEND THAT STATE AND LOCAL 60VERMENTS I 0

2 MD METHODS FOR DETERMINING WHETHER TO SHELT

/ NATURAL PHEN 0ENA SHELTERING WOULD BE THE ACTION - DO THE BEST YOU CAN UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

l e

b

.I o

__ _ _ _ - _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ ___ _ __ _ _ ____ _ 2 .

m. . - , . .

- f _(') -

N

% M d- b (O i

v  %

. o b

dt

\L 1_ .

E E

e E a, o

m l

l l

l l

l l t j

I BACKGROUND I

0 BEFOREDECEMBER1981-LIMITEDCONSIDERATIONOFEARTHQUAKES(UPTOSSE)ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS I:

,f 0 DECEMBER 1981 - SAN ON0FRE DECISION ll j

0 AUGUST 1984 - DIABLO CANYON DECISION l 0 DECEMBER 1984 - PROPOSED RULE PUBLISHED IN FEDERAL REGISTER '

e Ii THE SAN ON0FRE AND DIABLO DECISIONS AND THE PROPOSED RULE ALL STATED THAT THE POTENTI I COMPLICATING EFFECTS OF EARTHQUAKES ON EMERGENCY PLAMMING NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED.

l , ,

. , I

,i G

N I

T G A N _

C I I N L N P A M L O P -

S C I Y S E C A H N B T E G -

E F R S O E A

C N E M -

O .

Y I N B T O A

E R A -

S E N A D E C I M S O A N N O E N C H O P E

N H L O T AR I

S T S U E A T T V C I A I E I M N T L D I A U U L Y N R J C R D H N E D A C E T E I U L S R H Q A O O WE P F R O E F R N L P E UW P R O E O L H L T E A E U N R F S I E 0 S F V I E N A S O E I H E F T T T O A A G G G S L N L T U I U C M V M E O A O F R E R F P L P E O O 0

_ _ + .. . = . . . . . . _ _.-

-n - --. . . . - - .

m E W b w

cg E tt 5 "'

E 5 8 E

- m W

3 4 o

J us R.

e s' 0 8

=

o EO m =

oW D-

- EE -2 1' b w g E h e 8 m ,_ m -

<w = >&

hh #oM W o=

m . W~ 55 W W a ;5 S w a a m = ga g a E a8 mW m o o- em 5E o N W =5 "3 3 2 2 E 5"

[ E E D Eb fi S a- a-m 'd Eo

?; * "'

R '* M M. wa w i5 i5 >- u.

M o o U oc w w "B w E"g a

w

!EE

< o. o 0 ",_ d m

b m E 4E w

w E a "E W

=

W g ow w =

z-

>= E 8bbua EE 3 ga e en "5-m te x ~ vu oe m

&B

u. x W5

<a e o o o -E M5 E E5 m 5

o. =

e- aC u. m Z o-o to r3 o eC o o o 9

4,.. gy 9;- __ -.-

-m . _ _. _ . . - m. _ _A. .. .

. .. (\

1 W

W E q

=

W M

  • g d

i'

- EE

" $ EMC

  • w W i S w W o5w W S m 5E ,

5 8 b 1 E

c k

- ". l"MW ea >

E N Y N= {

E od "s

p a

gES w ,m &-

" 8 s tw e R .a- 8 * =w a

w W E 8;

w w te'

-<o 5- bc MbE 1

'4 *3 E=w vi '

=

"# D iE d0 2 f y55E w gEM Es t * *-

IWME E =- Eg m - 5"a=

W* EC gew U

$ "E 5g

=Ew B d* = 4 g w" E ,

o W

Ed SE g&

a 8w ESE

=

5 50 'W EE bE=

's "

5 Iw m<

e=

BC m=

smas sing WW E9 ""W-

  • ~ Y d ,-

tE E*

-= "w ea=

E===

= e 5" e W o w

Cg C8 W8*E Um E5 3W E-ESI MbW g

<< <m = x a. ,

o O O i

l l

b

E d 5 I ngs s -

E E

s a

s !a W EB u E .

E e E .. g E I,

E :g n =

5 =8 mg EW E l E

=

je gl E g-l

~

E R N E o gmug - E 's r g

- E g n -

!  ! E!! !2 bI IE E E

l s

E $gg e 5 m g5

    • !f

!$lf E w w E

E=g9

"; g ,g5 -

s g

wg ge na g d l W

5 V E W E

G E lg89 mm s ;

E ICW 8 m f g = s ei *i l IWg;r s ! s E MnEw m ; -

m m ;  ;

=W ga me I -

I l =E =I a

I eEa E8 i EW E B

Me

!.I e 'E e

$~l.;E

~

l' 0, mm g.llE a Si - E EM E

! sa a gg s  :

. i s a s

ua E Ig[;g a g a EE E

=g l sex s.I si Ee E E se el e a n s  :

O O O O

e

_ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - _ - .

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20137Q706&oldid=3372173"