ML20205Q814
| ML20205Q814 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000470 |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1988 |
| From: | Vissing G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| PROJECT-675A NUDOCS 8811090364 | |
| Download: ML20205Q814 (15) | |
Text
P p
pm.m 4
f,k UNITED STATES y
g.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
l W ASHING TO N, D. C. 20555
(
/
November 3, 1988 s....
Project No. 675 APPLICANT:
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
FACILITY:
CESSAR-DC, System 80+ Design
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH COMBUSTION ENCINEERING/IT CORP.
TO DISCUSS ARSAP TOPIC PAPERS SET N0. 3 INTRODUCTION A meeting of the staff with representatives of Combustion Engineering (CE) and IT Corporation was held at the NRC offices in Rockville, Maryland, on Septenber 28, 1988. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the ARSAP Topic Papers, Set No. 3.
ARSAP Topic Papers, Set No. 3, were submitted by letter dated July 29, 1988. provides the list of attendance to the meeting. provides the agenda and viewgraphs which CE and IT Corporation used during their presentation.
DISCUSSION ARSAP Topic Papers Set No. 3 consists of three papers as follows:
1.
External Events (ARSAP Item 3.1) 2.
Success Criteria (ARSAP Item 3.2) 3.
AccidentSequenceSelection(ARSAPItem3.3)
Discussion on External Events This topic paper pro)oses an approach that would be acceptable for handling externa! events in tie PRA.
The general approach includes a listing of external events that would impact on the PRA, to qualitatively assess each event for possible exclusion from the list and provide a detailed analysis on specified external events that have not been eliminated by the qualitative analysis.
Sabotage and terrorism would not be included in the PRA; however, the PRA may provide insights to reduce vulnerabilities of sabotage and terrorism.
It was implied that designs would be such that fire, flood, scismic and high winds would not be issues.
IT Corporation believes that only the seismic issue will require quantitative assessment.
Discussion on Success Criteria This paper provides definition for top level success criteria and corresponding mission time as required to perform a PRA for advanced PWRs.
The main concern rf was directed at mission time in the first 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after an event.
Long terms 3
i ]h, cooling success criteria would be longer than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
IT indicated that core melt would be analyzed from full peer operation.
The staff warned tha 4
yee 88110903A4 081103
$UH ADOCK 05000470 II FDC
November 3, 1988 A
2 the success criteria should be supported by analysis. There was an indication that the references were not complete. ARSAP has produced other reports for DOE that have a bearing on this issue. These reports will be identified and requested by the reviewers.
Discussion on Accident Sequences Selection This paper addresses the need for a standardized method for accident sequence selection that assure that important contributors to risk are included and that insignificant sequences are eliminated from further analyses.
It was indicated that sequences would be chosen from full power operation. The staff warned that sequences from shutdown power operation should not be neglected.
/s/
Guy S. Vissing, Project Manager Standardization and Non-Power Reactor Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects - 11!, IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated DISTRIBUTION:
ScentralFile J NRC PDR '
PDSNP R/F EHylton GVissing
)
OGC-Rockville EJordan BGrimes NRC Participants ACRS(10) i e
i
[.)bJ PH:P M
- P NP 8
E ton GVissing:cw m iiTer i
z / g/88 1
68
// // /88 l
c t
i
.--n.-.
. the success criteria should be supported by analysis. There was an indication that the references were not complete. ARSAP has produced other reports for DOE that have a bearing on this issue. These reports will be identified and requested by the reviewers.
Discussion on Accident Sequences Selection This paper addresses the need for a standardized method for accident sequence selection that assure that important contributors to risk are included and that insignificant sequences are eliminated from further analyses.
It was indicated that sequences would be chosen from full power operation. The staff warned that st-quences from shutdown power operation should not be neglected.
Cuy S. Vissing, P ect Manager Standardization and Non-Power Reactor Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects - III, !Y, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
i As stated t
I i
3
,e
f Enclo ure 1 Atter. dance List for Meeting with CE, IT Corp.
Concerning ARSAP Tolic Papers Set No. 3 Septembr,r 08, 1988 Name Organization Guy S. Vissing NRC/NRR/PDSNP E. S. Che111ah NRC/RES/PRAB Mohsen Khatib-Rahbar NRC/RES Harold Vandermolen NRC/RES/PRAB Leonard Soffer NRC/RES/SAIB t
Bob Jaquith CE Steve Additon IT Corp.
Charles Ferrell NRC/RES/SAIB Ricky Lynn Summitt IT Corp./ARSAP i
Bob Fitzpatrick BNL/ Risk Evaluation Group Tsong-Lun Chu BNL/ Risk Evaluation Group Stan Ritterbusch C-E/ Licensing Kirby Dawson EGAG Idaho-ARSAP 4
Bob Youngblood Brookhaven 1
i 4
4 h
f 4
l t
l
)
I 1
1 4
PROPOSED AGENDA MEETING WITH NRC STAFF ON ARSAP TOPIC SET 3 - SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 9:30 INTRODUCTION S. E. RITTERBUSCH (C-E) 9:35 RELATIONSHIP OF TOPIC R. SumIT (IT)
SET 3 TO OTHER ALWR PRA DOCUMENTATION 9:45
SUMMARY
OF TOPIC SET 3 R. SUMMIT 10:00
SUMMARY
OF REVIEW (NRC)
O ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 0
CURRENT STATUS OF NRR AND RES REVIEWS 0
IMPACT OF NRC PROGRAMS ON REVIEW OF TOPIC SET 3 0
FUTURE SCHEDULE 11:30 PLAN FOR FUTURE ACTION S. RITTERBUSCH AND MEETING i
L >
OVERALL SCHEDULE FOR THE SYSTEM 80+D DESIGN CERTIFICATION PROGRAM i
o CESSAR-DC, SROUP D SEPTEMBER 1988 o
ARSAP TOPIC SET 5 SEPTEMBER 1988 o
ARSAP TOPIC SET 6 OCTOBER 1988 o
CESSAR-DC, GROUP E DECEMBER 1988 o
CESSAR-DC, GROUP F JUNE 1989 i
o FINAL DESIGN APPROVAL JUNE 1990 o
DESIGN CERTIFICATION SEPTEMBER 1991 t
s-i i
l
~
JYhil L-a
NRC INTERACTION MEETING ON ISSUE SET 3 4
RICKY L. SUMMITT PRESENTED TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ROCKVILLE, MD i
SEPTEMBER 28,1988 l
lTC 776
l RELATIONSHIP OF TOPIC SET 3 TO OTHER ALWR PRA DOCUMENTATION i
o ISSUE SET 3 IS COMPLEMENTARY TO OTHER PRA ACTIVITIES o
ARSAP AND COMBUSTION ENGINEERING ARE CLOSELY INVOLVED WITH THE OTHER ONGOING ACTIVITIES
\\
i i
l lTC 777
=.. _ -
. _ - _ = _ -
-. =
2 l
CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT i
i 8
j SEVERE ACCIDENT EPRIREQ. DOC.
POUCY STATEMENT TARGETS i
i s
I j
i i
1 1
CERTIFICATION EPRIREQ. DOC.
PRA I
PRA 1
I I
I t
ISSUE SET 3 EPRI PRA KEY ASSUMPTIONS TOPIC PAPERS AND GROUNDRULES I
I RELATIONSHIP OF ARSAP ISSUE PAPERS ON PRA TO 1
OTHER ALWR PRA ACTMTIES j
I L
i
ISSUE SET 3 - PRA METHODS PAPER 3.1 - EXTERNAL EVENTS ISSUE DEFINITION:
HOW EXTERNAL EVENTS WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT TO BE PERFORMED AS A PART OF THE LICENSING 1
SUBMITTAL THIS INCLUDES:
o DEFINITION OF A COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF EXTERNAL EVENTS WHICH WILL (OR WILL NOT) BE ADDRESSED o
WHAT EXTERNAL EVENTS CAN BE EXCLUDED FROM A DETAILED QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT BY QUALITATIVE EVALUATION o
WHAT EXTERNAL EVENTS SHALL BE 4
QUANTITATIVELY ADDRESSED IN THE PRA ITC-776
.-.___. __ _.._ _ _ _ ____ _ _,~. ___.__,__ _ _.. _ - _. -,. ___ _,.-
1 ISSUE SET 3 - PRA METHODS PAPER 3.1 - EXTERNAL EVENTS ELEMENTS OF TECHNICAL APPROACH TO RESOLUTION ARE:
o DEFINE THE LIST OF EXTERNAL EVENTS AS THAT FOUND IN NUREG-2300 o
PERFORM A QUALITATIVE SCREENING ASSESSMENT OF THE EXTERNAL EVENTS TO SCREEN OUT THOSE CONTRIBUTORS THAT ARE NOT CONTRIBUTORS (DRAFT g
COMPLETE)
NW84 o
PERFORM A QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR THOSE EVENTS WHICH ARE OF POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE USING GUIDELINES OUTLINED IN THE EPRI KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND GROUNDRULES DOCUMENT 4
ITc no 4
ISSUE SET 3 - PRA METHODS PAPER 3.2 - SUCCESS CRITERIA AND MISSION TIME ISSUE DEFINITION:
THIS ISSUE DEALS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA WHICH IS BASIC TO THE PRA ANALYSIS.
IN PARTICULAR, IT ADDRESS:
o WHAT SUCCESS CRITERIA IS NEEDED o
HOW A SUCCESS STATE IS DETERMINED o
WHAT IS THE CORE DAMAGE SUCCESS CRITERIA o
WHAT TIME PERIOD SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BY l
THE ANALYSIS
.I ITC 780
l I
l lSSUE SET 3 - PRA METHODS PAPER 3.2 - SUCCESS CRITERIA AND MISSION TIME 4
l l
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO RESOLUTION:
o THE THRESHOLD FOR CORE DAMAGE WILL BE A PEAK CLADDING TEMPERATURE OF 22000F BASED ON BEST-ESTIMATE ANALYSIS i
o FRONTLINE SUCCESS CRITERIA WILL BE BASED i
ON MEETING THE ABOVE REQUIREMENT USING AN ACCEPTANCE BEST-ESTIMATE CODE AS A MEANS OF ESTABLISHING SUCCESS o
SUPPORT SYSTEM CRITERIA WILL BE BASED ON SPECIFIC BEST-ESTIMATE ANALYSIS WHERE POSSIBLE o
MISSION TIME WILL BE 24 HOURS EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENTS INDICATE A LESSOR TIME IS APPROPRIATE
ISSUE SET 3 - PRA METHODS PAPER 3.3 - ACCIDENT SEQUENCE SELECTION l
lSSUE DEFINITION:
THIS DEALS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ACCIDENT SEQUENCES AND THE COMPLETENESS OF THE ANALYSIS I
THIS INCLUDES:
i o
WHAT OPERATIONAL STATES WILL BE ASSESSED o
WHAT INITIATING EVENTS WILL BE ASSESSED o
HOW PLANT SYSTEMS THAT ARE NOT FULL DEFINED WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE PRA o
WHAT CUTOFF FREQUENCY WILL BE USED d
l l
,re,n
~
ISSUE SET 3 - PRA METHODS PAPER 3.3 - ACCIDENT SEQUENCE SELECTION TECHNICAL APPROACH TO RESOLUTION:
o THE BASE ANALYSIS WILL BE FULL POWER OPERATION. HOWEVER, THE ANALYST WILL PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION FOR WHY OTHER OPERATIONAL STATES WERE OMITTED.
o THE INITIATING EVENTS WILL BE CHOSEN FROM EPRI REPORT NP-2230. A REVIEW OF THE DESIGN WILL BE PERFORMED TO IDENTIFY ANY DESIGN SPECIFIC INITIATING EVENTS.
o SENSITIVITY STUDIES WILL BE PERFORMED ON l
PLANT SYSTEMS WHICH ARE NOT FULLY DEFINED IN THE DESIGN AND ARE IMPORTANT TO PLANT SAFETY TO DETERMINE THEIR IMPACT ON PLANT RISK.
o THE QUANTIFICATION CUTOFF VALUE WILL BE 1.0 x 10-8 FOR THE ACCIDENT SEQUENCE ANALYSIS.
i l
.------------,-,---._-,--n.
.