ML20209D836
Text
I Y ".'
[n., a aeg%
UNITED STATES 8N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
I wAsminaTom, o. c. 2osss I
L lAN 7 1985 Docket Nos.:
50-275 and 50-323 LICENSEE: ' Pacific Gas and Electric Company FACILITY: Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
SUBJECT:
NRC MEETING WITH PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY -
SEISMIC REEVALUATION PROGRAM FOR DIABLO CANYON A meeting was held on December 11, 1984 in Bethesda, Mary, land regarding the reevaluation program of the seismic design basis for the'Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. The requirement for the program is included as a license condition in the full power license for Unit 1 (issued on November 2,1:84) and is discussed further in SSER-27. The program is to include the following four specific elements:
geology and tectonics, earthquake magnitude, ground motion, and probablistic/ deterministic analyses.
Pacific Gas and Electric Comoany (PG4E) is to submit a program plan by the end of January 1985.
The purpose of the meeting was to address Element 4 of the program, i.e.
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA).
Participants at the meeting were NRC staff, the U. S. Geological Survey as advisors to the staff, agi PG&E staff wf th consultants. A list of attendees is enclosed as Enclosp 1.
s W. White, PG8E Diablo Canyon Project, made the introductory presentation.
PGAE plans to use the PRA to put the conclusions of Elements 1, 2 and 3 of tFe reevaluation program into perspective with respect to risk.
PG&E envisions three stages of risk studies with an evaluation at each stage.
Details of the program organization and a tentative schedule were presented in PG&E viewgraphs (Enclosure 2).
R. Fray, PG&E, presented an overview of the proposed Diablo Canyon PRA, discussed the differences between the proposed program and the 1977 seismic risk study, and introduced the PG&E consultants who will perform the PRA.
Details were presented in the PGSE viewgraphs (Enclosure 3).
B. Garrick, Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc., discussed the program plan and the approach they will take.
A three phased program is piarned.
Details of the plan were presented in PG&E viewgraphs (Enclosure 4).
-% QQ.
e.
y e
Fam% J9/
A' W
.d - / 4.1
. 8.
The staff will consider the PRA with regard to Unit 2.
(License condition Elements 1, 2 and 3 apply to both units).
The PRA should, as a minimum, consider interactions between the two units.
9.
With respect to seismic hazard estimation the staff encourages a more extensive effort than in past industry sponsored PRAs.
The staff suggests that PME use a range of expert opinions on input parameters rather than a single source.
10.
The definition of ground motion may require several parameters.
- 11. With respect to fragility, the staff urges that for the structures, com-ponents and equipment, ductility failure mode and fragility be clearly defined and correlated to ground motion parameters.
12.
PME should address the effects of structural inelastic response on equipment capability.
13.
The staff complemented PME for looking at the PRA in a broad aspect rather than with respect to the license condition only.
- 14. The staff stated that a PRA procedures guide for internal events is available (NUREG-CR 2815) and one for external events will be published in the near future.
PME should be familiar with these documents.
The next meeting on the Diablo Canyon seismic reevaluation was program tentatively scheduled for January 10,and 11, 1985 in Bethesda, Maryland.
r%$
b.
Hans Schierling, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
See next page
a Mr. J. D. Shiffer, Vice President Nuclear Power Generation c/o Nuclear Power Generation, Licensing Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 1451 1
San Francisco, California 94106 Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq.
Resident Inspector /Diablo Canyon NPS Pacific Gas & Electric Company c/o US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 7442 P. O. Box 369 San Francisco, California 94120 Avila Beach, California 93474 Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush Ms. Raye Fleming.
Vice President - General Counsel 1920 Mattie Road Pacific Gas & Electric Company Shell Beach, California 93440 Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Joel Reynolds, Esq.
John R. Phillips, Esq.
Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
Center for Law in the Public Interest California Public Utilities Commission 10951 West Pico Boulevard 350 McAllister Street Third Floor San Francisco, California 94102 Los Angeles, California 90064 Mr. Frederick Eissler, President Mr. Dick Blankenburg Scenic Shoreline Preservation Editor & Co-Publisher Conference, Inc.
South County Publishing Company 4623 More Mesa Drive P. O. Box 460 Santa Barbara, California 93105 Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Ms. Elizabeth Apfelberg Bruce Nnrton, Esq.
,,g.)
1415 Cozadero Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.
JA San'Luis Obispo, California 93401 202 E. Osborn Road
- 5 P. O. Box 10569 Mr. Gordon A. Silver Phoenix, Arizona 85064 Ms. Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street Mr. W. C. Gangloff San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Harry M. Willis, Esq.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Seymour & Willis 601 California Street, Suite 2100 David F. Fleischaker, Esq.
San Francisco, California 94108 P. O. Box 1178 Oklahnma City, Oklahoma 73101 Mr. Richard Hubbard MHB Technical Associates Suite K 1725 Hamilton Avenue San Jose, California 95125 Mr. John Marrs, Manacing Editor C-San Luis Obispo County Telecram Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue P. O. Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406
F~
---~~~*
~ * ~ * - - " - - ' - ~ " ~ ~ ~ ' -
~ ~ - - - '
List of Attendees,
NRC N. Chokshi S. Israel P. T. Kuo G. Lear A. Lee Y. C. Li R. McMullen C. Ong D. Perkins (USGS.)
H. Polk L. Reiter R. Rothman H. Schierling PG8E Diablo Canyon Project D. Brand R. Fray H. Friend J. Hoch R. Locke B. Norton B. Sakar D. Sokolsky W. White W. Wogsland PGAE Consultants /Others B. Garrick, PLG H. Perla PLG D. Bley, PLG R. McGuire, Risk Eng. Inc.
C. Cornell, CAC D. Wesley, SMA P. Docherty, Westinghouse P. West, So. Calif. Ed. Co.
H. Hawking, 50. Calif. Ed. Co.
,oo
.h i
DIABLO CANYON
(:
j LONG-TERM SEISMIC PROGRAM PROPOSED ORGANIZATION i1 j
SEISMIC PROGRAM VICE PRESIDENT CONSULTING BOARD ENGINEERING D. A. Brand t
i i
l
[
1 PROGRAM MANAGER 1
1 J
W. H. While N
i' TECHNICAL ADVISORS I
i.
I I
PRA PROJECT MANAGER ADMINISTRATION R. R Fray COST & SCHEDULING l
I I
I I
I I
I I
PGLE LEAD SEISMIC EARTH-SOIL MSMGHOUSE TECHNICAL PRA FRAGILITY HAZARD OUAKE GRWND STRUCTURE GEOLOGY E
SUPPORT CONSULTANT ANALYSIS ANALYSIS MAGNITUDE
" E INTERACTION l
Gamck
"' 1,0c.-dy McGuire i
PLG SMA RISK ENGR.
Ql c-C r
n C %
N O
ta m"-
MW Y
7 ".'
[ mgDo UNITED STATES 5"
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
g
,i wasmworow. o. c.2osss
?
(CQ*
7 Ok k
l L
JAN 7 1985 Docket Nos.:
50-275 and 50-323 LICENSEE: ' Pacific Gas and Electric Company FACILITY: Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
SUBJECT:
NRC MEETING WITH PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY -
SEISMIC REEVALUATION PROGRAM FOR DIABLO CANYON A meeting was held on December 11, 1984 in Bethesda, Mary, land regarding the reevaluation program of the seismic design basis for the ~Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. The requirement for the program is included as a license condition in the full power license for Unit 1 (issued on November 2, 19841 and is discussed further in SSER-27. The program is to include the following four i
specific elements:
geology and tectonics, earthquake magnitude, ground motion, and probablistic/ deterministic analyses.
Pacific Gas and Electric Comoany (PG8E) is to submit a program plan by the end of January 1985.
The purpose of the meeting was to address Element 4 of the program, i.e.
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA).
Participants at the meeting were NRC staff, the U. S. Geological Survey as advisors to the staff, ag PG8E staff with consultants.
A list of attendees is enclosed as Enclosg 1.
r W. White, PG8E Diablo Canyon Pro,fect, made the introductory presentation.
PGAE plans to use the PRA to put the conclusions of Elements 1, 2 and 3 of tFe reevaluation program into perspective with respect to risk.
PG&E envisions three stages of risk studies with an evaluation at each stage.
Details of the program organization and a tentative schedule were presented in PG&E viewgraphs (Enclosure 2).
R. Fray, PG&E, presented an overview of the proposed Diablo Canyon PRA, discussed the differences between the proposed program and the 1977 seismic risk study, and introduced the PG8E consultants who will perform the PRA.
Details were presented in the PG8E viewgraphs (Enclosure 3).
B. Garrick, Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc., discussed the program plan and the approach they will take.
A three phased program is plarned.
Details of the plan were presented in PG8E viewgraphs (Enclosure 4).
,~
c.
fWEFr% ~!6/
d - 14.1 p Am.
~.
o l
- 0. Bley, Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc., discussed the methodology to be used in the PRA to incorporate the accident sequences and the plant design and pro-cedures to arrive at the risk estimates. Details of this process were presented in PG&E viewgraphs (Enclosure 5).
H. Perla, Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc., discussed the method for incorporating L
external events, including earthquake hazard in the PRA studies.
Details of j
this program were presented in PG8E viewgraphs (Enclosure 6).
l R. McGuire, Risk Engineering, Inc., discussed the seismic hazard program for the Diablo Canyon Plant. This will incorporate information on the tectonics j
of the region, fault characteristics, magnitude distribution, and ground motion estimates to arrive at a probabilistic seismic hazard estimate.
Details were i
presented in PG8E viewgraphs (Enclosure 7).
D. Wesley, Structural Mechanics Associates, presented the plan for the evaluation of the seismic fragility of structures and equipment.
They will use existing i
analytical and test results and perform additional investigations as required to refine fragilities. Details of the program were presented in PGAE viewgraphs (Enclosure 8).
After. these presentations and a caucus by the NRC staff and its advisor, the following coments were provided to PG8E as the opinion of the NRC staff and its advisor based on the PG8E presentation.
i 1.
In general, the staff is impressed with the preparatory work.
The l
approach appears good.
The staff noted its interest in completeness and suggested that all previous Diablo Canyon studies be systematically reviewed for insights pertinent to the PRA, especially the seismic area.
1 2.
The multiphase approach is good in that it promotes discussion.
l 3.
PG8E should take advantage of all plant specific work which has been done for the Diablo Canyon Plant during reanalyses rather than rely
,on generic work.
4.
The development of a risk management program appears to be a good concept.
5.
Documentation should be traceable so that there are no communication problems and the dominant contributors to risk can be identified along with the major vulnerability for each sequence.
6.
Reports should be made available after each phase so that the staff can interact with the program.
I 7.
The comparability between the methods for internal and extern'al events
'should be defined and discussed.
I
. 8.
The staff will consider the PRA with regard to Unit 2.
(License condition Elements 1, 2 and 3 apply to both units).
The PRA should, as a minimum, consider interactions between the two units.
l 9.
With respect to seismic hazard estimation the staff encourages a more extensive effort than in past industry sponsored PRAs.
The staff suggests that PME use a range of expert opinions on input parameters rather than a single source.
10.
The definition of ground motion may require several parameters.
- 11. With respect to fragility, the staff urges that for the structures, com-ponents and equipment, ductility failure mode and fragility be clearly defined and correlated to ground motion parameters.
12.
PME should address the effects of structural inelastic response on equipment capability.
13.
The staff complemented PME for looking at the. PRA in a broad aspect rather than with respect to the license condition only.
- 14. The staff stated that a PRA procedures guide for internal events is available (NUREG-CR 2815) and one for external events will be published in the near future.
PME should be familiar with these documents.
The next meeting on the Diablo Canyon seismic reevaluation was program tentatively scheduled for January 10,and 11, 1985 in Bethesda, Maryland.
%)'
k
Hans Schierling, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
See next page
.. -.l....
.. L L.L.
' - :---. 7 L -
' ~"
^
Mr. J. D. Shiffer, Vice President Nuclear Power Generation s
c/o Nuclear Power Generation, Licensing Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 1451 San Francisco, California 94106 Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq.
Resident Inspector /Diablo Canyon NPS Pacific Gas & Electric Company c/o US Nuclear Regulatory Commissinn Post Office Box 7442 P. O. Box 369 San Francisco, California 94120 Avila Beach, California 93474 i
Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush Ms. Raye Fleming.
I Vice President - General Counsel 1920 Mattie Road Pacific Gas & Electric Company Shell Beach, California 93440 Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Joel Reynolds, Esq.
t John R. Phillips, Esq.
'l Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
Center for Law in the Public Interest California Public Utilities Commission 10951 West Pico Boulevard 350 McAllister Street Third Floor San Francisco, California 94102 Los Angeles, California 90064 j
Mr. Frederick Eissler, President Mr. Dick Blankenburg i
Scenic Shoreline Preservation Editor & Co-Publisher Conference, Inc.
South County Publishing Company 4623 More Mesa Drive P. O. Box 460 Santa Barbara, California 93105 Arroyo Grande California 93420 Ms. Elizabeth Apfelberg Bruce Norton, Esq.
i 1415 Cozadero Norton, Burke, Berry A French, P.C.
San'Luis Obispo, California 93401 202 E. Osborn Road 5
P. O. Box 10569 i
Mr. Gordon A. Silver Phoenix, Arizona 85064 Ms. Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street Mr. W. C. Gangloff i
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 i
Harry M. Willis, Esq.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230
{
Seymour & Willis
{
601 California Street, Suite 2100 David F. Fleischaker, Esq.
i San Francisco, California 94108 P. O. Box 1178 Mr. Richard Hubbard MHR Technical Associates Suite K i
1725 Hamilton Avenue l
San Jose, California 95125 i
Mr. John Marrs, Manacing Editor j
C*
San Luis Obispo County Teleoran Tribune i
1J21 slohnson Avenue P. O. Box 112 l
San Luis Obispo, California 93406 1
l 1
c
. Arthur C. Gehr, Esq..
Mr. Thomas Devine Snell & Wilmer Government Accountability 3100 Valley Center Project Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Que Street, NW Mr. Lee M. Gustafson, Director Washington, DC 20009 Federal Agency Relations Pacific Gas.LElectric Compsny 1050 17th Street, N.W.
Suite 1180 Washington, DC 20036 Regional Administrator - Region V Dr. S.T. Algermissen US Nuclear Regulatory Commission US Geological Survey 1450 Maria Lane P. O. Box 25046 Suite 210 Mail Stop 966 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 Michael J. SL...aasser, Esq.
Special Counsel ;to the Attorney General Mr. Don Bernreuter State of California Lawrence Livermore Laboratory 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800 P. O. Box 808 Los Angeles, California 90010 Livermore, California 94550 Mr. Tom Harris Dr. Morris Reich Sacremanto Bee Structural Analysis Division 21st and 0 Streets Building 129 Sacramento, California 95814 Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, New York 11973 Mr. H Daniel _E4x California Energy Commission Dr. James Davis 1516 9th Street, MS 18 State Geologist Sacramento, California 95814 California Division of Mines and Geology Room 1341
~~
Lewis Shollenberger, Esq.
1416 Ninth Street US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sacramento, California 95814 Region V 1450 Maria Lane Dr.. David.B. Slemmons i
Suite 210 294$ Golden Valley Road Walnut Creek, California 94596 Reno, Nevada 89506 l
l l
i l
l l
\\
._..m LiS_t of Attendees,
NRC N. Chokshi S. Israel P. T. Kuo G. Lear A. Lee Y. C. Li R. McMullen C. Ong D. Perkins (USGS.)
H. Polk L. Reiter-R. Rothman H. Schierling PG8E Diablo Canyon Project D. Brand R. Fray H. Friend J. Hoch R. Locke
- 8. Norton B. Sakar D. Sokolsky W. White W. Wogsland PG&E Consultants /Others
- 8. Garrick, PLG H. Perla, PLG D. Bley, PLG R. McGuire, Risk Eng. Inc.
C. Cornell, CAC D. Wesley, SMA P. Docherty, Westinghouse P. West, So. Calif. Ed. Co.
H. Hawking, 50. Calif. Ed. Co.
Fcrzaer,/E a-
e e
Euclosue 2 O
P e
[
I t-l
- 4 DIABLO CANYON
{
i j
LONG-TERM SEISMIC PROGRAM PROPOSED ORGANIZATION i.
i s
SEISMIC PROGRAM VICE PRESIDENT CONSULTING BOARD ENGINEERING i.
nAhw r
l l
i i.
PROGRAM MANAGER 4
W.H.Whde i
1 I
i j
TECHNICAL l
ADVISORS i.
j I
I PRA PROJECT MANAGER ADMNSTRATION i
l R. R. Fray COST & SCHEDULING I
I I
I I
I I
I l
PGSE LEAD SEISMIC EARTH-SOIL
% "686 TECHNICAL PRA NW HAZARD 00 AXE GROUNO STRUCTURE GEOLOGY j
SUPPORT CONSULTANT ANALYSIS ANALYSIS MMiNITUDE
' ' TON INTERACTION Garck Li,"'ermody McGuire PLG SMA RISK ENGR.
Q) e-C 7
n C %
C ta l
m W
*.a__
A.-.
_m a
e a
a,
-_-,,_-a.
..,..e, s.
a I
g o
e.
we I _
1
~
w il s.
g a
Y E
i 3
l t
=
g
=
l t
l E
l 2
e 5
I I
3
(
~
s --
hi g
g r,
i i
1 1-o or n
a E
o l
l l
,ew-ge.v-v.--,-wy,----,,,w
,-.-,,,.-n-ea---r
--m
..._--,,,,,.,,.-.,_...--._---.w-...
s....-.n..
e a
e P
g Y{
G l
1 l
l
-- m A
Ct1 C (OSprt,b.
~
JC 3 RA.
3 R ES E N-A-~ O N o OVERVIEW OF THE DIABLO CANYON PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT (DCPRA) o KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE DCPRA AND THE 1977 DIABLO CANYON SEISMIC RISK-STUDY o DR. JOHN GARRICK OF PICKARD,LOWE,AND GARRICK (PLG) o DR. ROBIN McGUIRE OF RISK ENGINEERING i
o DR. DONALD WESLEY OF STRUCTURAL MECHANICS ASSOC.
e 4
m + e-= e n ee - w.ee en ae s ee m meme. een e.ee m we en eme w'eme,e-=...=e....ee..wew==<eme ee-we,er- -ee a d' rere<w am gapew seersw e,.w w - e - v + w* e-ers e,-w,eer ar es - e + -s smew e "
N s
-e
e J'C 3 RA 0 3c EC-IVES
~
o DEVELOPMENT OF A DIABLO CANYON PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESMENT (DCPRA)
THAT CAN BE USED BY PGandE AS A RISK MANAGEMENT TOOL FOR THE ESTIMATION OF RISK TO THE PUBLIC FROM POTENTIAL ACCIDENT SEQUENCES AT THE DIABLO CANYON PLANT o
PARTICULAR EMPHASIS WILL BE GIVEN TO. IDENTIFYING AND QUANTIFYING THE SEISMIC CONTRIBUTORS TO RISK l
o PRODUCTION OF A REPORT THAT DOCUMENTS THE DCPRA METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
DC 3RA APP ROAC-o UTILIZATION OF PICKARD,LOWE,AND GARRICK (PLG) AS A LEAD PRA CONSULTANT o
PERFORMING A PLANT AND SITE SPECIFIC PRA THAT WILL RELY HEAVILY ON PGandE KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE o
EXTENSIVE PGondE INVOLVEMENT
-MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT OF PLG
-PERFORMING TECHNICAL PRA WORK UNDER PLG DIRECTION
-REVIEW O.F PRA MODELS AND RESULTS o
E.XTENSIVE TRAINING OF PGandE PERSONNEL IN PRA TECHNIQUES l
o TRANSFER OF PRA METHODOLOGY FROM PLG TO PGandE e
JC D RA
\\ ~~ E R rAC ES PLG 2,
l v
PGandE
~
RISK SMA ENG'G l
O t
{
i
- s.
e 5
9
~
JCORA SCO3 E o
FULL SCOPE PRA
- with INTERNAL INITIATING EVENTS
- with EXTERNAL INITIATING EVENTS
( EMPHASIS ON SEISMIC )
o LEVEL 1 o
PLANT AND SITE SPECIFIC
- Hazards Fragilities
- Systems o
TREATMENT OF UNCERTAINTY s
e O
4 e
. =- _.
JC3RA VERS S ' 977 S~~
JY JCPRA 1977 STUDY o
DEVELOPMENT OF A RISK RISK STUDY MANAGEMENT TOOL o' UTILIZATibN OF A LEAD PGandE LEAD i
PRA CONSULTANT o
FULL SCOPE WITH EXTERNAL CONSIDERATION OF BOTH SEISMIC ONLY' INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL E
INITIATORS o
MORE. PLANT SPECIFIC LESS PLANT SPECIFIC l
o TREATMENT OF UNCERTAINTY DETERMINISTIC o
UTILIZING IMPROVEMENTS IN 1977 METHODOLOGt PRA METHODOLOGY G
1--.
- a u
- =
a.
.a
.--<-.-,s y
9 e
g g
M k cl05 hre 7 o
i Fo u n -39j
~~
~
~
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT W
\\
l l
e PROGRAM PLAN.
i j
e OVERVIEW OF APPROACH i
l e PLANT ANALYSIS
?
72 l
e SEISMIC AND OTHER EXTERNAL EVENTS e SEISMICITY e FRAGILITY e FORM OF THE RESULTS G
e,,
E i
Th l
S.
5 j
Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc. h
. ~
i THREE PHASED PROGRAM i
~
l f )
I I
'I PHASEI PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT (6 - 8 WEEKS)
P H A S E 11 PRELIMINARY SCOPE ASSESSMENT 1
(4 - 6 MONTHS)
PHASEIll FULL SCOPE ASSESSMENT (2 - 3 YEARS)
COMPREHENSIVE SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT TO BE EMBEDDED IN PRA
~
l l
l l
Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
i P H A S E l: PROGRAM PLAN
\\
l e SCOPE OF WORK FOR PHASES 11 AND lil INCLUDING COST AND SCHEDULE i
e RESOLUTION OF METHODOLOGY i
e DEFINITION OF DATA AND INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS l
e PLAN FOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER e ESTABLISHMENT OF TECHNICAL REVIEW PROCEDURES e PLAN FOR USE OF THE RESULTS I
e DEFINITION OF APPROACH TO SUPPORT OPERATING LICENSE 1
l Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
1
PHASE II: PRELIMINARY SCOPE ASSESSMENT e' PRELIMINARY RISK MODEL
. PRELIMINARY RESULTS
- INITIATING EVENT CATEGORIES
- EVENT SEQUENCES, HARDWARE, AND ISSUES IMPORTANT TO RISK e TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND TRAINING e RISK MANAGEMENT EXERCISES Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
<s
PHASE lil: FULL SCOPE ASSESSMENT l
. QUANTITATIVE STATEMENT OF CORE DAMAGE FREQUENCY e ACCIDENT SEQUENCE FREQUENCIES e SYSTEM IMPORTANCE RANKING e DETAILED CAUSES e DATA BANKS e RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN i
i t
i Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
QUANTITATIVE DEFINITION OF RISK ANSWERS TO:
(1) WHAT CAN GO WRONG?
i (2) WHAT IS THE LIKELlHOOD?
(3) WHAT IS THE DAMAGE?
SCENARIO PROBABILITY DAMAGE si pg xi s2 P2 x2 83 Py X3 i
j sN PN
- N R a RISK =
< sg, pg, x; >
'I Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
.cn I
kc irra G
dna 3
e P
wo L
2 P
d X
ra kc iP 1P ST 1
L NN X
U SE R
E H
e T
F O
M R.
O X
E 1
F
- GA M
A D
1
+d u
t 8
.u
t E
STRUCTURING SCENARIOS L
i IN TI^T PLANT LEVEL 81 82 I
CONTAINMENT PLANT STATE
{,
EN n
l I
(%
4 *1Pp
,..Vj ~
L
\\
SYSTEM LEVEL 5
k 3
(LOGIC)
(LOGIC) i.
l ***
COMPONENT i
LEVEL
_C, jr gi C12 C
g C21 C22 C2n I:
'l CAUSE LEVEL LIST OF + S CAUSES LIST OF ~5 CAUSES g
2 LIST OF CAUSES COMMON TOlg AND I2 (S AND IE'S) t DATA LEVEL EXPERIENCE WITH FREQUENCY OF CAUSES pPOSTERIOR GENERIC INFO: E' j
PRIOR l
2 'h POPULATION DATA: E PLANT SPECIFIC DATA : E3, Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
i' I-I' i
SEABROOK STATION RISK RESULTS 4
sur p
.1 a.,
L. OwsmPAsasususafsDia,sG SPRave 1
- 55EseTseWaeOmstaisees ActAasE 1
1 Ev-easessaf esisETnaisses av-smattcossvammesserswass 38' istatemme f<
Nv-tanes contassessest swass w ateene m
Mtf WLT
=
i n
lesvuesmes=vasl A
1 n
... s.4 u. s.*
j i
E' levu esacsuinel g
W 4
,3. se see
... a i
...a
..a w*
w*
ws we or" w*
we e
w are we
,,4 w
wa e
,is
,e
,,4
,, s sw=v easeinwe awars esa esassen vsnas
.,4
,,4 evaar esseusasv suvesseesa esassen venas avser essousac, swers ese nacies vsaae eetm,ar massnes orates ana
'casetste seesnesomeos netsase es asse en vaste 3.s.
carssoness ans pasuweso me vaste s.s. -
FIGURE l-2a. IMCERTAINTV DISTRIBUTION FOR FIGURE 1 26. UNCERTAINTY DI51tiguTim FOR PLANT OAMAGE FIGURE l-2c. UNCERTAINTY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR THE CORE MELT FREQUENCY [WALUATED FOR i
SEAR 200C STATION - $1NGLE UNIT OPERATION STATES MARING SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO FREQUENCIES OF RISK SIGNIFICANT RELEASE CORE MELT FREqufMCT AND RISE CATEGORIES AND CORE MELT 1
Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
g
SEABROOK, STATION RIF'h RESULTS f.
o w=
,, 3 a
I T
g
,ed-5
=
em E
e so S-Ew h io e
n-
'jse 5
,. io e=
of 85 em 1
9 g
c.*-
en 8 s.*' ' " ' ' " " ' * * '. ' "
{=.*-
au -
I
. A.,
G
=a e
3
.N.,
a.y cunvi oa W-32 yE cunvE
-E g g is -%_
e se g
- W,-
em
~
=
a' t
3 m
.sgass 8
0g nasa
=
t gW e se cumvE age e
a se D$
e, g
a o-s, g
l l.
e a
e m
i
.e
,o,
.e t
g EAALY F ATALITIES EAALYe8JuneES THVA000 CAfdCER CASES FIGURE l-la. '*" 0F EARLY FATALITIES
~
FIGURE 1 16. RISK 0F IRJURIES FIGURE l-lC. RISK 0F TNVROIO CANCER CASES i
w?
w' w-9...
m
- 5..
1 h
eng a
ie-T.
l N
p i
e-e.
a_
e.ie w
E38 e es ese e se a
se g
o >,6 638 g,s aos 3
,4-
,o w t
ess o>
en
$5 4f' B5 g
gvi y!,e h--
m-
=Aa gg A-s.
s e:
a.
I tr g=
Br H
l h$ se*-
5 d-ve
~
" h W
~
of B.
Es i
l
$5 g5 g!"
y
,,s is 2
i i
a a
e
.g a
a a
a E
s e
a t e.
a "e
g
,j
.i no io s.*
5 "d
2 a
se' d
ie' io" io LATE Ni CANCE A f AIAllI8II 00A80 - REGO II4OOllAAI i
j I
sans mi
.es n.e see ses.e se' se wi se
,o
,e
,,n e
e s
to l
PERCENT INCRE A$( led CANCER 7 ATALITIES
.003 DOLLARS I
WITHIN 50 eseLES FIGueE l-Id. RI5K OF LATENT CAllCER FATALITIES FIGURE 1.le. RISK 0F MA81-REM FIGURE 1 It. RISK OF PROPERTY DAMAGE
'l (OTHER THAN FATAL THVR010 CAIICER5)
AND EVACUATION COSTS il l
ij l
1 l
Pic'<s-d, Lowe and Garrick, lac.
l l
RISK MANAGEMENT l
e PERFORM A PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT e RANK ORDER CONTRIBUTORS TO RISK BY DAMAGE INDEX l
e DECOMPOSE CONTRIBUTORS INTO SPECIFIC IDENTIFIABLE ELEMENTS e IDENTIFY OPTIONS FOR REDUCING THE IMPACT ON RISK OF THE CONTRIBUTOR UNDER STUDY e MAKE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE RISK MODEL AND RECOMPUTE THE RISK FOR EACH OPTION
)
e FOR EACH PLANT CONFIGURATION, COMPUTE THE COST
~
IMPACTS RELATIVE TO THE BASE CASE, INCLUDING BOTH INITIAL AND ANNUAL COSTS e PRESENT THE COSTS, RISKS, AND BENEFITS FOR EACH OPTION Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
- t i
RISK DECOMPOSITION i:
1 i
(eANATOMY OF RISKS i:
1 a
- l s:
I 8
I LEVEL OF DAMAGE TYPE OF RELEASE l
TYPE OF PLANT DAMAGE l
INITIATINO EVENT g
g
[
i (fMCS) l
((MC, f gS)
I (fM.fLC) 1 (4, (l,M) g
[
l 1
I l
r I
P I
I DRC 1
+ x j= g j
=
i 1
I
[
x t
I f
I f
I I
i i:
1 EVENT SEQUENCE SYSTEM UNAVAILABILITY FAILURE CAUSES INPUT DATA l
l SYSTEM BCAUSE I
lE Al5 C
l B
l l
TABLE
[
I I
- 1. INITIATING EVENTS I
m L/ 1 I
l l
- 2. COM PON ENTS LOGIC
/
CAUSES
+
- 3. M AINTEN ANCE l
/
l l
FREQUENCIES l
- 4. HUM AN ERROR
~~~
/
I l
[
EFFECTS l
- 5. COMMON CAUSE l
1 2
4 n
g g
- 6. ENVIRONM ENTAL.
MAJOR DOMINANT l l
l SYSTEM SEQUENCE l DOMINANT FAILURE l
l
- i MODES
- l teorNo:
OnC 00MINANT $tt( ASE CAf t00RV COF CORE DAMACE FREQUENCF l' '
POS PL ANT OAM AC( $f Af(
Mit NAJ04 INiflAllNC (VENT fI Ficks-J, Lowe and Gerdck. Inc.
p.=,,.
- n.,
... a...
.,n-,...- e
._,n n. n.. w s-,..
u
- - - - ~,. ~.
-- +. - -
n.
,..w w. -. -e.
}
.s s
f i
e i
(l l
a t
4 6
(
o l
6 i
k r
e h
1 I
i.
t
- l t
4 3
a i
t 4
i n
1 j
1 I.
h Y
i 4
I i
I lr S.
ii i
e 4.
4
')
)
4 4
1 L
t i.PT"-rV7'V W7
- 7WWW%m.ye-m---Mt-T-ey,wt--w+.++n3wym-.
- vwe,
-u e eg.wme-W.
.*, _. +.
eJ -.! deEma s 1. 'Im. a
%~.
4.
. = =. ~...
_ ~ - -.. _...
e e
a 8
Ex closa c E O
O I
A 1
OVERVIEW OF THE ASSEMBLY PROCESS, SHOWING RELATIONSHIPS OF PINCH POINTS, EVENT TREES, FREQUENCY VECTORS, I
AND TRANSITION MATRICES i
i 4
I 8E
'l b
g I
s NNCN g
Issef8AT6080 PLANT RELEASE MAGE EvtMT SIATE CAIEGOAV STAtt i
- PLANT MODEL hCONTA80eMENT MODEL SITE MODEL PLANT 8
CONTAINMENT
)
SEcutNT EVENT EVENT CRACIT CALCULATIONS
[
se00Ets:
TREES I
f TREES I
i I
l 1
a 3
1 P
j P
, A E00E,.Cv vEciOAc,'-i,;..i._i e - i,;. f._
,*.- i ;..;. _i
.' - i.',..'. _ i r
lef*0TIATINO IPLA8eT STATE WECTO48 OASLEASE VECTOAl IDAMAGE VECTOAl
[
EVENT WECTOAl 3
3 P".2l
~
~
ii u
..=u-'
T A A,,,,,,0,i
.i.u-MATAICES:
M.
C*
I'
'II
$=
PLANT MAY AIM CO80TA80 ease 8ef MATAIM 88TE MATAtX ASSEMBLY PROCESS:
5' l
,v -,'u O
v 4*. q c - +'uc O O sh
.' = (88 =,YCS - (IMCS N
~
E' X
n Pickard. Lowe and Garrick. Inc.
IJ1; {
I D
~
.cn I
kc irraG d
))
J an e
S y
w E
TI FEE i,
o G8 S
T R
BI T
S OG I
N+#
R L
A O *M L
STE 3
I N
X Y
l S
TI CMCe RNT E
Y VY A TO A
{
D L1 NR OAA d
kA&
TLT T
NT L
I A
ED uPS w
tL I
sA TEC MI C
L A S
A C N PMM UT i
E E
tHE k
mN NI VE EV A A IEV T
A A QNTT S
iCG c
uT S A EAAL O5 R
aS YN RLTE P1 TAA i
L Ou NEM P
l A
SU EPSM M
l OOA C
f CTD
[8 P E
A D
Q [8T E
H
)
ECN Y
.A
)
)
G C SN T
N N T
I E
EE T
R ATU T, TN T
NOA EI C
A I
TEET RA US I
g l
NVRA UM RMS IEFO L
T L
C AI S(E i
T NSD F
OYO CSM W
+
O L
C F
TfliA N C S
AET LP A I
E PSD S
S A
Y S
S A
YN L
T RO A
AI A
B T
Dl L
G C
N A
No E
N D
R IA T
TUN A
E E
E g
S T
N EOO N
EAA E
SSC l
S T
w E
YTD M R e
k G
AAP GO N
BDU DI N
UR S
A F
JP S
M L
4 E
E T
s P
T S
A Y
T N
S S
GS S
Y A
IE N
E P
SR O
E M
O E U S
I L
DD TD M
E T
YST h:
V S
NC RO L
EYI S
KSL E
LRNPE 4
PPAOR A
[I h
Q
)
j S
TER R
E NCO s
ENT T
t o
OEA M
N s Au sUl G
l E
Ri COiT A
A N
i M
I OPS C
iS E CR T
ENe T
9 A
ASiL I G O
8$
s T
L S
44
'M L D t
E 8
v C
0 4
N E
E f
1 D
S4 NA rE AC ER eS I
i T
I tI N UG iN N
EQA W!
4 I
V V
EI E0 kI D. C ESO l
C
[
3A
MASTER LOGIC DIAGRAM 1
OFFSITE nELEASe nELEASE OF nELEASE oF NON.
Cont MATEntAL -
Cone MATERIAL COng CONOfT10N A R.
I SAMAGE CONTAINME N T FUNCTION F AsLisnt LOSS OF cent CoouNa EICESS Cent eowEn l
nEACTon COOLANT INSUFFICsENT Cont j
SoursoAnv rAltunt HEAT nEMovAL
)
sk sk j
DaRECT INOWIECT i
Sf1TIATomb INITIATonS s h sk b b b b.. '
bbbh sh u.
hbhhhh. '
T.
t v.
STEAu ocutnAt CourtETE
,8 13 33.
[5555S ggnuon gggoc kg?,8,y, ngCTon Lo,5,5,37,,,.
Jgat,,
Ng, N,.e,onE QUPTUflES REl.lOVAL COMPONENT TATION INCR E A SE g
Ga9u L sk sk sk sk sk 46 sk sk INT En.N A L INTEnflAL INTEnNAL INTEnNAL INTERNAL INTERNAL INTEnNAL INTERNAL INITIA TOR 3 INITIAfonS INITIATOPS INITIATon$
INITIATOR 3 INITIATORS INITIATORS INITIATORS EXTERNAL EXTCnNAL EXTEnNAL EXTEnNAL EXTEnNAL CITERNAL EITEnNAL EXTEMNAL BfJtil% TOR 3 INITIATORS INITIATont INITIATORS INITIATonS INITIAfonS INlTI A TORS IHaTIATOn$
Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
9
EVENT TREE WITH BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
~
I e MODELS EASIER FOR NUCLEAR PLANT OPERATORS AND ENGINEERS TO UNDERSTAND e DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWS FROM EVENT SEQUENCE DIAGRAMS e EVENT SEQUENCE DIAGRAM DOCUMENTS EVENT TREE e FOCUSES ATTENTION ON KEY DEPENDENCIES
~
i e APPROXIMATIONS TO SIMPLIFY MODEL EXPLICITLY l
CONTROLLED BY ANALYST e QUANTIFICATION REQUIRES CONDITIONAL SPLIT FRACTIONS i
e ENHANCES VALIDITY OF PHASE 11 STUDY i
Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
j
4 THOUGHT PROCESS FOR ACCIDENT i
SEQUENCE DEFINITION t
t
+6+~T+6+'-
- S*O
~
~
T
~
i t
,r
~
~
i e
INITIATING EVENT r
STOCHASTIC EVENT 1
TRANSIENT RESPONSE
~
-.y
..y 1r I
t TERMINATION
~
~
i i
i t
k Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
i
2.
2-
- ... =.=
a.. = :. m..
.... t 5: -
.e w.
.... =
ry I
~
l I
N sa.
[
8ABC5 Simplified Plant Event Tree Diagram 4(S)=4(I)f(All)f(TIIA)f(CIIAT)f(UlIATC) where 4(S)
.the frequency of scenario S
=
4(I) the frequency of initiating event I
=
f(All) the fraction of times system A succeeds given that I
=
has happened f(IIIA) the fraction of times system B fails given that I has
=
happened and A has succeeded j
f(CII Ali) the fracti6n of times C succeeds given that I has
=
happened, that A has succeeded, and B has failed f(NIIATC) =
the fraction of times D fails given I, A, B, and C
$(S) ' &(1) f inI ig ntn g.f,,f,,...
f,,... = n S )
1 n
Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
l SAMPLE PLANT DAMAGE STATES a
Contalanent Intact at Core Melt Initiation Yes No
- RWST, Containment Leak Size Injection Containment Functions Available Inttiated
> 3-Inch Diaseter EqrIvalent
< 3 Inch Diameter Equivalent I
At Vessel Melt-Through Release Containment Functions 4
CHR + FPR CHR Only FPR Only None Flitered Not Filtered CHR + FPR CHR FPR None State A
B C
D E
F G
H I
J No 1
15 ID 1F G
IX N
IJ Yes 2
2A 2B 2C 20 2E 2F 2G 2H
?!
2J I
i k%
Plant Damage State Not Possible L egend:
CHR = Containment Heat Removal FPR = Fission Product Removal Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
h e
4 i
~
OBJECTIVES OF THE PHASE ll STUDY i;
e PROVIDE BASIS FOR COST-EFFECTIVE CONTINUATION i
OF RISK MANAGEMENT AND -LONG TERM SEISMIC
[
PROGRAMS L
i e DEFINE IMPORTANT COMPONENTS FOR SEISMIC n
ANALYSIS L
e EXPEDITE PLANT FAMILIARIZATION
. DEVELOP NUCLEUS OF INTEGRATED RISK MODEL g
j e IDENTIFY IMPACT OF DCNPP DESIGN AND PROCEDURES
[
i' i
l l
l 1
Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
O
!t h
. PHASE ll PLANT EVENT SEQUENCE MODEL i
?
pg=
l e - -
1,,
MEDIUnt I-d W*^
I
-I i
i l-i
-+
Lg__fk LONG M
l TERM e
l l
RESPONSE
~
g
_p ET1 l
SMALL l
s
-+
LOcA ET 4
N.
LONG TERM 4
RESPONSE
y ET 2 18 AUXlLIARY GENERAL 4
I$
f s
lD,
)
INITIATING j*
TEMS SYSTEMS O
?
--p l DA A E l
4 a;
4 I
r 7, gg i
i i
r-+1 a=RM TE 1
O
i i
i r - - - 1_.c;
- l
, ET 3 l.
i 1
L+
I L _ _ _ _1- +)
1R i +1 =.S.Em nOuT i-
-1 i
uoE,,o i
i :.
i r---t-l scaA= u
-l I
' - - -.c +.
i i g,5, l- +
l cO,uTEo M
l, ANO
+
M I
1.C[
l T
l.
EVENT TREE D*LE MOoUu l
i i_,
I L - -
8 c>
- ? INCH POINTS" b -(>l RUPTURE l, s
r--
1 l
l-
[
i COMPLETED. l-@
-"=
NOT g.
i OUANTIFIED 8 i ET MODULE l.
f L _. - __ _r -(>
Pickard, LOwe and Garrick, Inc.
~
.' I s
..i-PHASE ll CONTAINMENT ANALYSIS l
i i
j.
l e CONTAINMENT STRUCTURES AND SYSTEMS REVIEWED s
t.
l
- PLANT DAMAGE STATES DEFINED i-1 hi 1
l l
r i
r, i
r l
\\
I Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
i
-l 3
-j i
i
~.e-..
-.. - - - ~....
.-...L.:-.--..
~~= KaMA e
O e
g o
4 1
I o
ee PcIA Sto-39/
g 24,n
_ -. - - - - - " " - ~ ' " -
Eucl osktc G O
M. Perle v2H Z
D3>
D2 A<
Z A:
D2 N
M D3 E
O o
3,i z
41 4
I".
O I
02 5
U2 C-4 e
w..
i
~
i 1
EXTERNAL EVENTS 1
i e
EARTHQUAKE 3 l
e WIND AND TORNADOES e
FLOODS (INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL) e AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS I
e IIAZARDOUS CHEMICALS AND GASES RELEASES e
FIRES 8
Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
I i
EXTERNAL EVENTS ANALYSIS i
DETAILED ANALYSIS IF:
APPARENT IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES FROM e
OTHER PLANTS REGULATORY OR PUBLIC ISSUE e
INITIAL CORE MELT FREQUENCY COMPARES e
WITH INTERNAL ANALYSIS VALUES 1
i i
i
)
i.
Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
~
i i
I
{
1 r.
i i
- l.l ANALYSIS CONCEPT
~
{
n tr i
i l
j,
c.
{;
i I
HAZARD ANALYSIS
!l 1
)
i i
l PLANT FRAGILITY PDS LOGIC ANALYSIS FREQUENCIES MODEL
^
}^
}, 3 -
i i
I
.I i-
'I t
f:
j Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
tl i
!il e
.cn I
kc irraG 8
d 0
na l
0
,_ =
=
- - ;g Iy
,t w
e y
= -
=
gC
.l o
t 5301
= -
T~
_ N L
i l
3204 i
b0000
= -
b+
- (l(6 bo.13 0 d
a ra
= - _.
=
=
o
=- - K' k
r c
P E
i
- \\N h
P T
\\
67O9 I
S EEEE
\\ \\
\\' \\
\\
E VVVV x
\\
H RRRR N
A
\\
T UUUU y
CCCC x
\\'
R s
s' EEEE
\\
N O
,s
\\\\
ks
\\
TTTT F
A AAAA t
S 0GCG sN\\
)
N E
EEEE 0
s
\\
A w
\\s D
RRRR
\\
V
(
0000 s
R 0000
\\
U AAAA x
N N\\
O D
f!ns==
\\ \\.
C s
N N _\\
I LOT eMWX R
N t
w
\\ \\
- A N
.C A
y.'
~ tN
\\
.I R
t t
m E
Z t
w'
_ 7,x E
.m x
i L
A
(
m.0 2 0 0 228s l
D 9451 i
H b
C a
S ba0000
\\
=
C o
C I
r R
P M
N
'\\
w S
I2346 I
E EEEEE m xf- \\
S VVVVV F
RRRRR UUUUU x
=Y l
O If' CCCCC Y
EEEEE L
TTTTT g
I RAAAA M
OGDGG A
EEEEE F
RRRRR 00000 00000 AAAAA
=
.2 DIOA+X 0
3, i=q?y '
. g;-
,e E
.I 3
4 0
0 0
0 E
C E
t I
I i
3 Eo[ wuM Uxw d@z=
Ilililllllil;llll l
'lll
.I!
il
i e
l r
i 4
l i.
i i
I TYPICAL FRAGILITY FAMILY l
s 3.0 s
/
l o.7s
/
/
i
/
/
V F o.50 5:
RCENTILE F
95 ERCENTILE j
/
i
/
/
o.25
/
/
/
n
/
/
i
--.L "Y
!---_f a
_ J- -t' /
o l
l j
o.1 0.2 c.3 c.4 c.s o.s o.s 1.0 2.0 a.o 1
PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION (s's)
I 1
1 1
3 i,
Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
t 3
t'
4 5
SEISMIC ANALYSIS APPROACH
].
l i
i l
1.0-
,-y l
im-
. -o intoutscv i
sysevises 8.4-pas,,,,,,,g,,y 1.0 -
,, ;. g,g,g,g,g,g,,,,,
[
p
. 5.3.3....l.0 j
g_
8 I
ADO 70 FOS j
IA F AE QUE NCIES 3
F
,' "' t l y 8'
y 3F
= =.
Facu oTHEn 3-as s
f L
40 CONTRISUTOR$
4 e- -
=
a I
1 FRAG 8LITY LOGICIFRAGILITY PLANT LEVEL FAAc8LITV MATasx ANALYS4S OF AGGREGATION FOR EACH fos FORfACMPOS MEY STRUCTURES.
COMPONENTS 9*
.1 g
.2
- E
.1 a
HAZARD ANALY3iS
=
Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
e 9
e
n, fk SEISMIC HAZARD AND FRAGILITY ANALYSES li
- o Yl 1
~
ti p=
t i
i SEISMIC SEISMIC HAZARD f
.1 INITIATING
- TO PDS FREQUENCY ANALYSIS EVENT
" CALCULATIONS
.2 FREQUENCY j
.2 4
i
{
[
FRAGILITIES
SUMMARY
- i. t; j
STRUCTURE /
COMPONENT E
OR EU l
$$!hSISOF 1.0
,-y
=
=
=
KEY STRUCTURES, 1.0
=
=
=
COMPONENTS P
,,g, 3
t i 1.0
-=
=
=
=
!5
~
0-
=
=
=
TO IDENTIFICATION
!y F
[
E#
- =
=
> INITIATORS AND OF ACCIDENT SCENARIO 0-
/
1 a
DISCRETE FAILURE
~
e
~~
~~
~
FRACTIONS 0
a TO LOGIC / FRAGILITY m
" AGGREGATION I
Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
I!
l1 I
FAILURE CONSEQUENCE LOGIC AND MEAN PDS FREQUENCIES l
SEISMICHAZARD ANALYSIS-
)
i 1r l
t-I I
IDENTIFICATION OF i
{
ACCIOENT SCEN ARIO INITI ATO AS. E Ts.
MEAid IE FAEOUENCIES l
1r l
EVENT TREE IMOOlFIED FOR SEISMICI
(
IE I A l e i c I O f f i s l a l eOs P
MEAN 7 AEOUENCY i
a l
I PLANT MODEL
~
i
.E
'1
?"0llWIC""
-+
-+
STAUCTURE/
3e INITIATORS 28 CouPotaENT I*
I 0
l A
0 g
l g
24 a
g-~~
~_
- ~~
~. [_ _7 SEISMIC IMPACT VECTORS
(
~
~
COM9.
If A 9 C O
E F O x
g x
x x
x x x x
O x
MEAN CONOsTIONAL FAILUAE PROSAetLITV' ACCELEAATION lel ET TOP
.1
.2
.4
.7 10 1.4 A
a
=
=
a
=
=
=
=
=
=
c
=
=
=
=
=
=
~
0
=
=
T
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
- Fo A silSMIC FAILUAES ANO NONSEISMIC UNAVAILABILITIES P Ckard, LOWe and Garrick, Inc.
I 4
l QUANTIFICATION OF PDS FREQUENCY I
- L DISTRIBUTIONS FOR MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS f
~
FULL FAMILY OF SEISMIC HAZARD CURVES l
l l
i:
1 F
FREQUENCY I
PDS PROSASILITY Y
.1.2.3... 1.0 CONVOLUTION 1A 3F C r.
~ fREQUENC ES FROM OTHER SEIS CODE CONTRIBUTORS ff 4g J L i
i SEISMIC MATRIX l
FOR EACH PDS I
w SEISMIC MEAN 1.0 l
POS FREQUENCIES PDS 1 A =@ al@ v 65 v @l 3p. g, gg, gg LOGIC / FRAGILITY i
Jk AGGREGATION COMPARISON WITH SEIS CODE i
PDS FREQUENCIES I
FROM OTHER JL INITIATORS BOOLEANS FOR MAJOR SEISMIC CONTRIBUTORS 88 TO PDS FREQUENCIES PLANT LEVEL FRAGILITY FOR EACH PDS FULL FAMILIES OF FRAGILITY CURVES Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
L
[
i l
SOME SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT RESULTS l
1 REDUCTION FACTOR IN MODIFICATION CORE MELT FREQUENCY l
i I
INDIAN POINT UNIT 2 CONTROL BUILDING SEPARATION i,
20 k
I BEZNAU j
TRANSFORMER SUPPORTS AND 2
DIESEL STARTUP PROCEDURES I
j SEABROOK. MIDLAND ZION, NONE WARRANTED INDIAN POINT UNIT 3 1
i i
l
,1 Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.
~
1 I
I
..-ww..
1
-m'-
- =
G g
>h
-5
~m 39/
4we
EatIoiac'c7 R, Mc(ruirt DIABLO CANYON PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT SEISMIC FRAGILITY EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT -
PLANNING PHASE I PHASE II -
INITIAL FRAGILITIES PHASE III - FINAL FRAGILITIES O
A
=.. - - -..
.~.-
PHASE II COMPARABLE IN SCOPE AND LEVEL OF DETAIL TO MOST CURRENT PRA FRAGILITY EVALUATIONS PURPOSE e
DEVELOP PRELIMINARY FRAGILITIES FOR STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT e
IDENTIFY CONTROLLING STRUCTURES AND COMPONENTS e
DETERMINE SENSITIVITY OF PLANT RISK TO ASSUMPTIONS ON CONTROLLING FAILURE MODES e
IDENTIFY STRUCTURES / EQUIPMENT' COMP 0NENTS WHERE ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION IS WORTH-WHILE PHASE II WILL USE EXISTING ANALYTICAL AND TEST RESULTS PHASE II WILL USE EXISTING GE0 TECHNICAL INFORMATION; MULTI-PARAMETER HAZARD DESCRIPTION MAY BE USED
~
i PHASE III l
FINAL FRAGILITIES WILL BE DEVELOPED IN PHASE III e
RESULTS OF ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED l
t GE0 TECHNICAL l
S0ll-STRUCTURE INTERACTION INCORPORATE AS-BUILT PLANT CONDITIONS e
PERFORM ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS AS REQUIRED TO REFINE FRAGILITIES DUCTILITY MODIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA NONLINEAR STRUCTURE / EQUIPMENT ANALYSIS i
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS FRAGILITY TESTING OF CONTROLLING EQUIPMENT
^
1_. ; _i. -
. _ _ _ -.... ~ _.
. 32_...
's
~ +
. "...L.
^
....,-__,s.~
DEFINITION OF SEISMIC FAILURE STRUCTURES e
STRUCTURE DAPAGE WHICH RESULTS IN EXPECTED i
LOSS OF ESSENTIAL EQUIPMENT LOSS OF CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY EQUIPMENT o
STRUCTURAL i
ANCHORAGE OR SUPPORTS FAILURE PRESSURE B0UNDARY RUPTURE i
8 FUNCTIONAL l
UNACCEPTABLE RELAY CHATTER BREAKER TRIP EXCESSIVE DEFLECTION CAUSING RUBBING OR BINDING BEARING FAILURE i
i
'l l
_._,--,,.__,r,.__,[
PHASE II CAPACITY EVALUATION DETERMINATION OF SEISMIC CAPACITY IS CONVENIENTLY TREATED USING FACTORS OF SAFETY BASED ON CURRENT EARTHQUAKE ANALYSIS AND TEST DATA TO ACCOUNT FOR SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES VARIABLES INCLUDE:
e STRENGTH e
DUCTILITY
~
e STRUCTURE / EQUIPMENT RESPONSE e
e s
I 1
. =. -.
r
~
i PHASE II i
MEDIAN FRAGILITY EVALUATION h=fAg f
=
MEDIAN FACTOR OF SAFETY ON CAPACITY ABOVE THE APPLICABLE EARTHQUAKE LEVEL CONSIDERING STRENGTH, DUCTILITY, AND SEISlilC RESPONSE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION OF THE APPLICABLE A
=
g EARTHQUAKE (HOSGRI) b
=
h, h
h y
g f
=
STRENGTH FACTOR s
u-DUCTILITY FACTOR f, =
RESPONSE FACTOR e
l 1
_.-..,w.--. - - -.. -
,,,...,v.m,,--ww-w-.
-r-.
,--..r---------
m-
SEISMIC FPAGILITY DESCRIPTION SEISMIC CAPACITIES ARE DEFINED AS A CUMULATIVE i
1 DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION REFERENCED TO A SEISMIC INPUT FUNCTION FAILURE CAPACITY A=
c,cu
=
MEDIAN GROUND ACCELERATION CAPACIlY l
ARE LOGNORMAL RANDOM VARIABLES, c,e a
u MEDIAN
=
1 e,s E
- A NEE UUU g
u O
I
- ~ ^ ~
~ ~ - -
-.. i-
.a..
t_.
i,.
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
Ns a
% y
'A
'g N
~
N N
N N
g E
N
\\
w N
gw
\\
-g E
\\
C w
e N
m w
\\
a
\\
\\
e
\\
\\
t w
\\
w
\\
g
\\
2:o w
\\
m
\\
\\~
a:
C
\\
g 3
N g
w
\\
J w
g U
J.
w e-C 4,
o E
e.
u e
cm e
M ac:
w CL w
N C
e
\\
\\
e
\\
L",
M v
C N.
CC.
N.
v.
=
O i
C C
C H
H N
M 3
- 3ll, Sr.
C
~
i i
i i
t C.
CO.
W3 w
N.
c O
C C
C 38011VJ 30 A3N3fl038J J
s c.,
--,.--.--,.-.-,...r,_
STRUCTURAL STRENGTH ACCOUNT FOR CONSERVATISM IN CURRENT ALLOWABLES EVALUATE EXPECTED VARIABILITY IN STRENGTH PARAMETERS e
MEDIAN VS, CODE ALLOWABLE STRENGTH FROM CONCRETE CYLINDER TEST DATA e
AGING EFFECTS ON CONCRETE e
MEDIAN VS, CODE ALLOWABLE REINFORCING, STRUCTURAL, OR COMPONENT STEEL STRENGTH e
CODE IMPOSED CONSERVATISM FOR VARIOUS ELEMENT CONFIGURATIONS AND FAILURE MODES i
i
)
1
-,r--we-
.,w.,,-m,-w~.~~,e---rm-e-
-,---,,,-ewe-,m__,w-w-.,e
=.- _.. = : _..
=
...:2.=.-.-.
~ -... -.
T PHASE II DUCTILITY l
e MOST STRUCTURE AND MANY EQUIPMENT FAILURE H0 DES DEVELOP CONSIDERABLE INELASTIC RESPONSE BEFORE J
FAILURE OCCURS e
CONSIDERATION OF DISSIPATION OF INELASTIC ENERGY RESULTS IN MORE REALISTIC STRUCTURE RESPONSE LEVELS THAN SCALING ELASTIC VALUES 1
I o
PHASE II FRAGILITIES WILL BE DEVELOPED USING THE RIDDELL-NEWMARK APPROACH MODIFIED TO ACCOUNT FOR EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDES l
i e
r m
___,_,__..m__
__._,-._,______.-___._,___-_____,w_.mm.
.r..,. _.. _,,
l PHASE II
RESPONSE
l VARIABLES INCLUDE SPECTRAL SHAPE EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE AND DURATION DAMPING J
MODELLING ACCURACY l
COMBINATION OF MODES AND DIRECTION COMPONENTS S0lb-STRUCTUREINTERACTION l
TESTING METHODS (SI BEAT, BROADBAND, ETC.)
MULTIAXIAL COUPLING (EQUIPMENT) l L
l
..m...._.
.._m_.-
z.
PHASE II SOURCES OF INFORMATION e
STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS t
e MATERIAL (CONCRETE / STEEL) TEST DATA e
EXISTING STRUCTURE / EQUIPMENT ANALYSES EQUIPMENT PLANT-SPECIFIC TEST QU'ALIFICATION REPORTS e
GENERICHIbHSEISMICZONETESTQUALIFICATIONREPORTS e
~
e MILITARY GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT FRAGILITY AND
~
QUALIFICATJ0N TEST REPORTS HISTORICAL [ DATA e
o
~-W-.m I
PHASE III POTENTIAL AREAS FOR N0DIFICATION OF THE SEISMIC FRAGILITIES OF CONTROLLING ITEMS e
IMPLEMENT IMPROVED GE0 TECHNICAL DATA SHAPE (S) 0F ELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRA l
DUCTILITY MODIFIED SITE SPECIFIC RESPONSE SPECTRA 1
e IMPLEMENT REFINED S0ll-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS RESULTS e
DEVELOP NONLINEAR LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS OR PERFORM
~
NON!!INEAR RESPONSE ANALYSES FOR SELECTED FAILURE MODES 5
e PERFORM FRAGILITY TESTING 0F SELECTED COMPONENTS a
W e
+ - -,. -
e+p mW ** e-4=@$-m & he'*e eO e
-deMbee ews'-D ph e
e-Ame he
.-mu.
4 g<
-ge-we=
a 0
48 e
Eudo suu 8 e
t 0
?
c.
Eae'lo's6e8 D. LJe3 ley i
SEISMIC HAZARD PROGRAM FOR DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT PHASE I A. ' SCOPING.
~
l PHASE E A.
DEVELOP PRELIMINARY LOGIC TREE.
~
B.
OBTAIN PRELIMINARY HAZARD ESTIMATES CHARACTER! ZED SY PEAK ACCELERATION AND SEVERAL ' SPECTRAL SHAPES.
C.
DETERMINE GROUND MOTION CHARACTERIZATION FOR PHASE M PHASE M l
A.
FINALIZE LOGIC TREE.
B.
DERIVE FINAL HAZARD REPRESENTATION l
USING FINAL GROUND MOTION CHARACTERIZATION.
l l
Risk Engineering, Inc.
l
i
- l i
GROUND SOIL-STRUCTURE 1
GEOLOGY SEISMOLOGY MOTION INTER ACTION l
I A
A A
A f
T f Tf T f 1
I; M 1, P 1 a
I.,
STRIKE-SLIP r E ARTHOUAKE, M2. P2 _
'l SIZET f
i.
MS. P3 INTERMEDIATE M 1, P4 LOW.P_
REGIME GROUND MOYlON
( S P E C T FI A L i
TECTONIC
_ ; E ARTHOUAKE, Mt. PS _
GROUND 3 33
.MED.,P_,
EFFECTS O R D I N A 1*E S.
,i.
INTERPRETATION?
~1 R
MOTIOh?
I o
GIgET DURATION) AT MS. PS HIG H.' P ASE MAT CONvERGENoE
[
,,,,7 REGIME 1
E ARTHQUAKE, M2, PS _
2
~
SIZE 9 s
MS, PS EXAMPLE OF ELEMENTS IN SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS FOR DIABLO CANYON i
e Risk Engineering, Inc.
MOVEMENT CONCENTR ATED ON S AN ANDRE AS i-STRIKE-SLIP MOVEMENT DIVIDED SETWEEN S AN ANDRE AS AND RESIME SENSE OF PARALLEL DISCRETE ZONES 1,
CRUSTAL 2
r
,' MOVEMENT SROAD ZONE OF DISTRISUTJD SHEAR STRIKE-SLIP PREDOM., SECOND ARY DIP-SLIP r
PACIFIC INTERMEDIATE r CONTINENTAL RESIME SENSE OF EQUAL STRIKE-SLIP AND DIP-SLIP l
M ARGIN l
2; CRUSTAL l
SETTING
)
MOVEMENT REVERSE. THRUST. AND FOLDING PREDOM.,
SECOND. STRIKE-SLIP MASTER DECOLLEMENT CONVERSENCE i
RESIME SENSE OF I
LOCAL DETACHMENTS AND REVERSE FAULTS. FOLDS C,
CRUSTAL l
1 MOVEMENT DISTRIS. STR AIN. REVERSE FAULTS. FOLDS
=
l
~
1 i
EXAMPLE OF LOGIC TREE FOR TECTONIC SETTING i
i i
. Risk Engineering, Inc.
...-._..=x c.
DATA RELEVANT TO TECTONICS AND SENSE OF SLIP i
FAULTS FOLDS GEOLOGIC ANOMALIES TOPOGRAPHIC ANOMALIES GEOPHYSIC AL ANOM Ai.lES 4
FAULT PLANE SOLUTIONS FFSHORE GEOPHYSICS AFTERSHOCK PATTERNS GEODETIC D ATA LOMPOC EARTHQUAKE SANTA LUCIA BANK EARTHOUAKE L-Risk Engineering, Inc.
TECTONIC SETTING
\\
t\\
NONE r
\\
88 SMALL ASSOC.
IGH l SEIS.,
I SENSE THRUST F AULT GEOMETRv'
"*"h SE[r, "Y**"*E I uSEMENrt l
vES OF Slip LARGE LOW QUATER.
OSLIQuI i
VOuNa l
I MOVEMENT (s uv8P)
NO r
AGE OF l
l F AULTING?
l l
i l
OLD (PRE-S MVPS) i EXAMPLE OF LOGIC TREE FOR FAULT CLASSIFICATION Risk Engineering, Inc.
1 l1 1
l cY!t i - *
)
f'
[! !
k i1 E.
Z P I
I S L c
S n
E Y
I K F A
R O T g
UO E
n E
i H
M r
S TR N O e
A E E e
E S G n
i 4
y 8
g n
P P
P n
1 I
3 E
P
~
P_
1 2
3 M
M M
k 1
3 s
i M
- M R
E S
E K
R K
A A
US E
US QE T
Z E
QE H
HZ TS M
I T
X R
A I
S A
R R
A A
M R
E A
A E
M R
P H
A C
E b
H M
K C
A e
M E
U T
X A
A Q
E T
R H
M A
T M
M S
R S
b R
R A
E E
E
.a T
T E
E R
M M
O A
A F
R R
A A
E P
P E
R T
C I
G O
+
L C
L A
I T
I T
S F
O N
I N
R E
E O E
N DI E
T O
U T L
C P
P T U A
S M
X I
E NI R
A G
A A
H X
M C
E s
\\
lllll
t
~
I I
J L
W "HIGH" I
PEAK ACCEL l
EA37HOUAKE SIZE.
CHOICE OF OUR ATION*
MOTION l
SENSE OF Slip, P AR AMETERS:
AVERAGE GROUND
'1 MOTION p
SPECTR AL ORD.,
8 81 AT S ASE SECMETRY STRSSS DROP.
E STIM ATE W AVE PHASING RUPTURE DIR.
AT ETC.
- LOW"
=
EXAMPLE OF LOGIC TREE FOR GROUND MOTION AND SSI
~
Risk Engineering, Inc.
...a s.
...s-.-......:
...--a.
.,--~e
..--...:...:.-=.-... -- a
,>e i
O 5
M = 8 ON DISTANT FAULT 5 (P = HIGH)
NEARSY FAULT A (P = Low)
SPECTRAL AMPLITUDE (LOG SCALE) ok*l
?E b
(BOO ANNUAL FREQ. OF
=
OCCURRENCE io-a ig-2 (LOG SCALE) t EXAMPLE OF GROUND MOTION SPECTRA Risk Engineering, Inc.
POSSIBLE SEISMIC HAZARD REPRESENTATIONS
- 2. EL ASTIC RESPONSE SPECTR A
AT ALL FREQUENCIES
- b. SCENARIOS: SPECTRAL ORDINATES LINKED
- 3. ELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTR A PLUS DUR ATION i
- 4. INELASTIC RESPONSE: A M P LITUD E, D UCTILITY, D U R A TIO N i
Risk Engineering, Inc.
~...
as e.5
?. s
.L.-
o s
.s' s
.w.
....b
.n
.m..-
3 6-f[ [ (V RC I to[dC YCA e A'%aA
- 1. R kpt-kRC-DE S LLter y WC - S L L
Bucovm 04 rte _ - DL s ) e --
c0w NRc Mg /Q/dm st/2C
- GS& k~
/
K FM 96
/ M+Hr u's&s P. t 2
Kuo Nec
.ps
/.JEE/}&.
/1//2C-DG -SW8 c
A beC 3yt O.6. h vLs
% c a s. m sc.s:..
E v. & Nyc F G.ac4 E.
F. ba. $uoy PG*E d'2(dibyda'm O /e PaAv/eu~
e 9.
d 4 - N s,,
A Cs,. &.
1 &/. twr
= G,. 6 H. s h,:. a u % U k d e.
DC?
.wm ham
.P e P
'[ d 394mD TOF-
&i6m C.i a.A b..F.,
s r
.s f
LAURA SANTO 3 ECP L-I
/CdW Sfo ' 3f/
L4-M2
_