ML20209D479

Review of Seabrook PRA, Monthly Mgt Ltr 5 for Sept 1984

ML20209D479
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/15/1984
From:	Cummings G, Ariuska Garcia LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY
To:	Davis S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20209C800	List: ML20209C798 ML20209C897 ML20209D266 ML20209D278 ML20209D286 ML20209D327 ML20209D479 ML20209D512 ML20209D547 ML20209D870 ML20209E015 ML20209E274 ML20211C165 ML20211C259 ML20211C363 ML20211C389 ML20211C430 ML20211C484 ML20211C558 ML20211C632 ML20211C641 ML20211C679 ML20211C769 ML20211C792 ML20211C841 ML20211C904 ML20211C920 ML20211C942 ML20211D042 ML20211D068 ML20211D076 ML20211D092 ML20211D109 ML20211D129 ML20211D140 ML20211D169 ML20211D178 ML20211D191 ML20211D198 ML20211D208 ML20211D226
References
CON-FIN-A-0801, CON-FIN-A-801, FOIA-87-6 RARE-84-095, RARE-84-95, NUDOCS 8411050170
Download: ML20209D479 (6)

Text

l1 P

. Lawrence Livermore National Laboraio:

HUCLEAR SYSTEMS SAFETY PROGRAM RARE 84-095 r f, J -

October 15, 1984 -V'

'7 Ms. Sarah M. Davis Reliability and Risk Assessment Branch Division of Safety Technology U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

Monthly Management Letter 45 Month of September 1984 NRC FIN-A0801 Review of the Seabrook Probabilistic Risk Assessment

Dear Ms. Davis:

1. Project Description and Objective The Office of Nuclear Rea. tor Regulation is conducting a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) review program in which PRAs performed and submitted to the NRC by license applicants and licensees receive comprehensive review and evaluation. The program is the responsibility of the Reliability and Risk Assessment Branch (RRAB).

A PRA of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant (Seabrook PRA) has been submitted to the NRC by Public Service Company of New Hampshire, an operating license (0L) applicant. The review of this document, whose title is "Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety Assessment," is being performed as one project in the larger NRC program. ,

The objective of this project is to perform an expeditious and cost effective review of those aspects of the Seabrook PRA leading to the estimates of the I frequencies of each plant damage state and the associated uncertainty spread to determine the accuracy of these estimates. The review will cover method-ology, assumptions, data, information sources, models, plant understanding, completeness of the analysis and other areas where inconsistencies may arise which could affect the quantitative or qualitative results.

l

2. Progress for Period Work continued at a steady pace during the month. This included work on the review of the systems analysis, the event trees, and the data and seismic analyses.

3. Work to be Accomplished Next Month foJ/J-67-005 Work will continue on the general review of the PRA.

30 bE119M1?o$b

_ . . . . . . ~ v, , e '-

An Ec. a CWst.n , E~J ',v

• Lr .n W ca"m ' F C E 3 6"! v.vmn ce *m S 250

• Tewo e #5 ::a 'W e 7.. K -3 D . . . .

I

' RARE 84-095 October 15, 1964

4. List of Subcontractors and Consultants We have established subcontractor and consultant agreements with the subcontractors and consultants listed below. We expect to add one or two additional names to this list -- for relatively small efforts in specialized areas, such as the evaluation of fire events.

a. Subcontractors (1) AppliedRiskTechnologyCorporation(ARTECH);P.J.Amico (2) Jack R. Benjamin and Associates, Inc. (JBA); J. W. Reed, M. W.

McCann, Jr.

b. Consultants (1) P. R. Davis

5. Concerns The concerns related to methodology noted in previous monthly program reports have not been resolved, and new concerns (described below) have arisen. A general conclusion has been reached that the performance of a defensible review of the PRA will require a significantly larger effort, particularly in the area of reevaluation /requantification, than was originally envisioned in the statement of work. Details of the required effort were being worked out at the end of September.

A recently developed concern is related to a request for documents and answers to questions discussed with the utility during the site visit in late August. The documents we requested are listed below:

a. seismic fragility calculations

b. tornado missile analysis

c. two copies of the PRA Technical Sumary 1

l d. detailed descriptions of the following systems:

1 engineeredsafetyfeaturesactuationsystem(ESFAS) 2 reactor trip system (RTS) <

3 solid state protection system (SSPS) 4 main steam (MS) 1 1

l l

l l

l

t RARE 84-095 October 15, 1984

5) engineered safety features:

a safety injection system b charging system c residual heat removal system

e. procedures concerned with:

1 pressurizedthermalshock(PTS) 2 steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) 3 terminationofhighpressureinjection(HPI)

f. photographsofthemaincontrolboard(simulator)

g. complete set of the P& ids

h. copies of the detailed analyses for:

1) fires

2) floods

3) high pressure line breaks

1. proprietary date base We noted that the items on this list are of various levels of importance to the review - ranging from items which assist the reviewer by providing complete documentation to items which are essential to the review. An example of the latter is the fragility calculations (item a). We were informed by PSNH personnel that all of the documents could be provided relatively quickly except for the proprietary data base (item i), which they could not provide without authorization from Pickard Lowe and Garrick (PLG), and which they would probably not be able to provide.

Although we expected to receive this material (except for item i) in early September, the only document we have received to date is the tornado missile analysis (itemb).

During the site visit, we also discussed a number of questions which had been previously developed and documented. PSNH personnel agreed to provide answers to these questions no later than mid-October, and most probably by the end of September. However, no response has yet been received to any of these questions.

l l

l

' RARE 84-095 October 15, 1964

6. Other Not Applicable es N Abel A. Garcia Principal Investigator "v::: 3 Garth E. Cummings r ProgramLeader(Acting)

Nuclear Systems Safety Program sr Enclosures (2)

Distribution:

NRC DOE LLNL R. Frahm, DST W. J. Gallagher G. E. Cummings J. Halvorsen, DST F. Rowsome, DST J.M.JohnsoQ-C. A. Meierg L. Solander, NRR N A. C. Thadani, DST

?)

RARE 84-095 October 15, 1984 ATTACHMENT A ESTIMATED PROJECT FINANCIAL STATUS: September FY1984 FIN A0801 Summary COST ANALYSIS

• September Year to Date I Direct Staff Efforts 2.2 FTE-Mo 0.7 FTE-Yr II Direct Labor Costs

• 22.5K $ 36.2K Materials & Services 0.1 0.3 ADP Support 0.0 0.0 Subcontracts 33.7 43.1 Travel Expenses 3.1 5.2 Indirect Labor Costs 17.8 34.9 Other (TID) 0.0 0.3 Other 0.0 0.0 General & Administrative 18.1 18.1 Total Costs

• 95.3K $ 138.1K Liens

• 21.7K Total Costs + Liens

• 159.8K Percentage of Available Funds 61.5%

!!! Funding Status:

Prior Year FY 1984 Projected FY 1984 Funds FY 1984 Funding Carryover Funding Level Rec 'd to Date Bal. Needed

• 0.0K $260.0K $260.0K $ 0.0K

• Note These figures are for cost analysis only, and may differ slightly from final billing figures.

2 RARE 84-095 October 15, 1984 ATTACHMENT B FEE RECOVERY COST STATUS FIN: A0801 TITLE: Review of the Probabilistic Risk Assessment for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant PERIOD: September 1984 Docket Costs Facility Name Number Period Cumulative Seabrook 50-443 $94.8K $136K Common Costs 50-900 $ 0.5 2 Total Expenses 595.3K l][UDC

=