ML20203C160
| ML20203C160 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/13/1998 |
| From: | Stewart Magruder NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Essig T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| PROJECT-689 NUDOCS 9802250097 | |
| Download: ML20203C160 (16) | |
Text
.
priog_
y i
UNITED STATES g
,}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
WASHINGTON, D.C. 30666 4 001
%[. g, *$
February 13, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Thomas H. Essig, Acting Chief Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Offic of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4
FROM:
Stewart L. Magruder, Project Manager
.Alb~4 % -
^
Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch v
Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF JANUARY 29,1998, MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI) REGARDING PROBABILISTIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT (PSA) QUALITY On January 29,1998, a public meeting was held at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) offices in Rockville, Maryland between representatives of the NRC, NEl and other interested parties. Attachment 1 provides a list of attendees at the meeting. Attachment 2 is the presentation material provided by NEl for the meeting.
Representatives from NEl and the BWR Owners' Group (BWROG) made presentat.ons on the BWROG PSA peer review certification process. They included discussions on the philosophy regarding PSA quality and the guidelines used to review the technical details and the maintenance and update of the PSA. The process was represented as one approach to achieving the appropriate quality for a specific class of app'ications. Four grades of PSA were identified, corresponding to different classes of applications. The framework for the certification process was defined in the following way:
J Twelve technical elements and one administrative PSA element are identified, For each of these elements, a set of sub-elements is identified, An association is made between each sub-element and one or more application grade.
NEl indicated that, at this time, neither the program sponsor (BWROG) nor NEl were asking for NRC review of their program. The staff and NEl also discussed issues pertaining to PSA W@,
certification in relation to PSA standardization and PSA quality. A major concern expressed by the staff was the lack of documented criteria for determining the grade to be allocated to a Suh.
element.
,I
- .D3
/
a m SCPN L
,,j]
I 9802250097 980213 PDR REVGP ERGNUMRC PDR fC NV &Of
s 4
2-February 13, 1998 T. Essi9 Representatives from the Westinghouse, Babcock & Wilcox, and Combustion Engineering Owners' groups each stated that they are considering the BWROG approach and have funding in 1998 to support pilot projects. NEl stated that there will be an industry workshop (probably in Baltimore) in the first week of April to discuss the certification process with industry representatives. The NRC was invited to observe the workshop.
Project No. 689 l
Attachments: As stated cc w/att: See next page J
f f
't R
i 4
d i
A
.v..
i l~
Distribution: Mtg. Summary w/ NEl Re PSA Quality Dated Jebruary i.
Hard. copy
_ 13,1998 Dochet File PUBLIC PGEB R/F OGC ACRS SMagruder MCheok EMail SCollins/FMiraglia BSheron BBoger JRoe DMatthaws i
TEssig GHolahan SNewberry l
JFlack l
FAkstulewicz i
MRubin MCheok 4
GParry SLong KCoyne SDinsmore MDrouin, RES 2
TKing, RES AHsia, OCM, NJD BHolian, OCM, SAJ
- JMitchell, EDO GTracy, EDO x
O T. Essig February 13, 1998 Representatives from the Westinghouse, Babcock & Wilcox, and Combustion Engineering Owners' groups each stated that they are considering the BWROG approach and have funding in 1938 to support pilot projects. NEl stated that there will be an industry workshop (probably in Baltimore) in the first week of April to discuss the certification process with industry representatives. The NRC was invited to observe the workshop.
Project No. 689 Attachments: As stated cc w/att: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See attached page
- See Previous Concurrence PGEBfd#1 OFFICE PM PGEB SC:SPSB SC:
NAME SMagruder:sf MRubin*
FAkstulewIcz ~
A DATE 2/iS /98 2/12/98 2//3 /98
%v
NRCINEl MEETING ON PSA QUALITY LIST OF ATTENDEES January 29,1998 NAME ORGANIZATION Tony Pietrangelo NEl Biff Bradley NEl Frank Rahn EPRI Greg Krueger PECO Energy /BWROG Barry Sloane -
Westinghouse Dick Hoessler Westinghouse Kenneth Kiper NAESCO Mike Schoppman FP&L David Finnicum ABB Stanley Levinson Frematome Technologies Jim Fulford NUS Listen David Stellfox McGraw Hill Theresa Sutter Bechtel John Flack NRC/NRR Mark Rubin NRC/NRR Mike Chook NRC/NRR Gareth Parry NRC/NRR Steve Lcng NRC/NRR Kevin Coyne NRC/NRR Stephen Dinsmore NRC/NRR Scott Newberry NRC/NRR Mary Drouin NRC!RES Th'smas King NRC/RES
/nthony Hsia NRC/OCM erian Holian NRC/OCM Jocelyn Mitchell NRC/OEDO
-aM
i
[O j
l
!O LO Boiling Water Reactor O
!8 Owners' Group (BWROG)
O PSA Peer Review 0
i Certification Process O
O E
Greg Krueger - BWROG 0o PSA Certification Chairman
,O ll
.O O
i
.O
'O i
- O i
to
- 0-January 29,1998 o
l.
"~~~
Attach.nent 2 I
l BWROG Philosophy Regarding PSA Quality l
u BWROG is taking an active role in ensuring PSA quality to support the use of current a
l PSAs for input to applications.
m A high quality PSA program must be built
=
I around a well structured, well documented, l
thoroughly reviewed, and detailed plant specific PSA study, a
i AC%
=
l BWROG Philosophy Regarding l
PSA Quality (cont.)
I a BWROG developed the Peer Review l
Certification Implementation Guidelines to g
address PSA quality commensurate with the intended applicetion.
e A graded apptoach is used to define the s
necessaiy PSA elements required to support a
a spectrum c" applications, a
$l l
a B WR Owners' Grc;1;;
a.
8,
i I
E' j.
' PSA Peer Certification Guidelines a
~
l u Purpose for the development of the process is to provide added assurance that PSA
=
models are viable tools to be used in
=
l decision making and resource allocation.
I a The process identifies the level of l
excellence by verifying accuracy, realism, g
completeness, and document gt specific PSAs.
.,.Jh} g a.
re,n a,.
t.. p l
PSA Peer Certification Guidelines (cont.)
E l
u The peer review process is focused on two principal aspects:
a
+ Maintenance and update of the PSA
+ Technical details of the PSA e
e; a Process is highly structured, allowing reviewers to investigate, compare, and a
assess key PSA elements.
i:
AR q
- __m, e
l PSA Peer Certification l
Guidelines (cont.)
l m Degree of sophistication of the elements or attributes of a PSA model change as the a
l grades change, a Requirements, detail, and documentation ej are differentiated between grades.
l u Guidelines focus on the level of use of the PSA model rather than the model l
.m-PSA Peer Certification Activities l
m 6/96 Draft Process developed u 8-11/96 Application to 3 pilot plants a 1/97 Certification Guidelines and Pilot Process Summary a
5 Report Issued to NRC a 2/97-1/98 12 BWR PSAs reviewed E
P'
'lant l-Rereview
$ gig 7[]
l BlW7 Qwnern' GIcyr s-4 4
PSA Peer Certification Reviews ea 5
B a Certifications involve 3 utility ee representatives and 3 contractors.
a m Hosted Westinghouse, Framatome, and CE Owners' Group representatives during s
B a
reviews.
a INPO participated in two reviews, TVO participated, and NRC obse ew.
l Industry PSA Certification m
Process
.a
, _2._,
- = *****
g
.* l
.;t,
.,:t. l
~.::,t I
a B
U
_ _~.
..........3 5
y l
N."2" E
=
g E
e#.
- .T k
gh
- N.ps" M#
[
i*
b WR Cvncm' Grcvp g
a i
4
e
- ~
S
.5 !b b h a
8 p
n
[~
g ore pig i,
i p
......p p...g.-.
W g
h
- ..,;,y,,;,,7;,
,,,,; 3, j
I i
rwe-i E
I v.n t;.. ; T:.::.'-'
- =
'n' I
te i
E I
GIJJ';.
I E
W 48
- I
-7'#E*
' * " * ~ " " ' * *
- 5 e
I I
' TJ'G J,'
W -i 77 i g
g te I
g I
' T,7,,.iL;,cc ic 77 I i
E rwe g
I
".P ri 's.V I
g p
( ~ ~ ~-m i
-,t-.,----i. a.,
t e
a_
up ts I
-- ;,c;;
3 I'li, P4
,1("
. se Grade Levels e
a Grade 1 Useful for identifying Severe Accident Vulnerabilities (IPE)
=
El u Grade 2 Useful for Risk Ranking 5
Supplemented by Deterministic Input (MRule, 89-10)
=
E a Grade 3 Useful for Risk Significance with Deterministic Input (IST, ISI, QA)
=-
g a Grade 4 Useful as a Primary);pi Decision Making (ip{, " ?
"l alm owners' ary;n m
l
E E
Grade Levels (cont.)
E E
Wg oree 4 9?'"" ~
E E
E 0* 8 TN.
5 E
a O'** 2 NECf!!
E Eg orek t Wll E:
m,-..
E E
Spectrum of Apphcations Effective i,
m_
G
$upported tiy the PSA 33 ""
y
' nap 3 W W,x 5g s
t-
-g E
E:
GENERAllZED CRITERIA FLOWCHART E
.,__....,s._,,p._.,
E
- Plam siecas dau Ornde d l
E
- Argentse inese) speratrg empenense afletud a puls!
E
- Dread tsied emnefissare le se 30y includr in meutel 5
- boeuwe 3
- Thnrogwuss of 64 stetsabre B
i-E to the sat =leme best slwecuvusd en edeeanu fa sarne6v4 1*
Orode t l
g m.ineati6t= be me, in wrw tw se,reste seemami g
erstcetons g
T se g
la the sdeismse serpweve e,thenhste ad terbeg appbeators sah g
thal De nd sharecentate a bebeved w be ecswan Tins a siwarurved Dr
- piers egen&s irre les E
- lush tuhle annoub
-]
%3, 3 l
E
..u *=e.m E
- saw'vatie ayecu ng pe&marws E
- hm4mme'vatine remrwed E
h 9o E
tei g
is sw sdgnemsni swwwtwe of nd rank's snau eera ponerg numem emmanv. shirwwnste. w se,c nie na g3 h
mm c-:8 c,-w
-a 6
l-Attributes of the Grades EAAM8't( S IPE '
Mg ed e
8 on we
- o ai.
- =:-.
?i2
.n=::.
- w..i ImO.+sw.<n
=:
,ra.:
,... #,. g..
a E'
Review Insights a
a Specific attributes that can be improved to increase the Grade of the subelement are R
identified
=
a All plants except I had at least 1 Grade 1 I
subelement a
m Grade 1 subelements usually represent less than 10% of the Grades a
- !!!! $ g, Q
=
Bl'.7% Owners' Grgit e-
)?
7 s
e
t e
Review Insights (cont.)
l u Grade 4 subelements usually represent less a
than 10% of the Grades e Current generation of updated PSAs have moved beyond the minimum acceptable for aI the IPE a
u Utility resource limitations prevent most subelements from achievein atus g
q.. ;gy rm nmx gg Results/ Benefits l
u Numerical measures (grades) are valuable a
for several reasons:
+ Identifies subelement differences l
+ Used for communication of potential issues that need to be addressed 5
+ Some limited use in comparison among plants
+ Identifies areas that may require PSA 5
application focus or dependene nn
-PSA l
input g.g K 9 sim owncis orgy 8
\\
i Results/ Benefits (cont.)
s I
e Process establishes a unifomi, reproducible method of assessing PSA quality and a
provides a usable critique in identifying a
areas for improvement.
l m Provides cross pollination among utilities to maximize technology advances through sharing of successes.
a
=
rn ~ w.n E
E i
Results/ Benefits (cont.)
h a PSAs reviewed thus far would suppon risk ranking or risk significance type l
applications.
+ PSAs are higher in quality than that required l
for GL 88-20 response.
m No significant weaknesses were identified.
m Generically, improved documentation would be beneficial.
- i B MR Owners' GtSp;>
a-s 9
o
O
.o I
Nuclear Energy Institute Project No. 68g cc:
Mr. Ralph Beedle Ms. Lynnette Hendricks, Director
]
Senior Vice President riant Support and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 Suite 400 17i61 Street, NW 1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 3708 Washington, DC 20006 3708 Mr. Alex Marion, Director i
Programs Nuclear Energy Institute 1
EJite 400 1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 3708 Mr. David Modeen, Director Engineering Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 3708 Mr. Anthony Pietrangelo, Director Licensing i
Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 3708 l
Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activities Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Mr. Jim Davis, Director Operations l
Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 3708
-,i,-r v---
w
v-
,--,w,
,,..,-,,--y, w- - - -~... ~.- - - -
-r-,-
-