ML20209H665
| ML20209H665 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/11/1986 |
| From: | Kato W, Kouts H, Pratt W BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| To: | Bagchi G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209H630 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-A-3852, FOIA-87-7 NUDOCS 8702060111 | |
| Download: ML20209H665 (11) | |
Text
.
unceo. tse u NUCLEAR REcutAToav co ewission s>Ars oseaoeosau
" *** /, s\ AuRust 11. 1986 i PROJECT AND BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR NRC WORK 3) ,,s. l
_ [] Revisic% wo J emosecv virte einsuusea Review of the Energency Planning Sensitivity A-385 2 Study for Seabroek l nRc som muusem NaC C UICE Nuclear Reactor Regulation 20-19-40-41-4 ooscowrametoa Associated Un1versities, Inc. IQ*4',",4 c r c a c c o m l Brookhaven National Laboratory-
~~
I N'W I sitt loossaR=vuesR l Upton, New York 11973~ l 1 coCN#2 ANT PE RDOMNIL ORGANIZAtl0N I FTS PHONE NUR488R fEMOOOFP6AFO h g NRC PROJECT MANAGER l STARTING DATE C. Bagchi NRR/DPLA/EB 492-7070 1 08/15/86 ~
OTHER NRc TECHNICAL STAFF '
ContPLETioN DATE 09/50 87 sc.
DOE PROJECT MAN ACER Brookhav David Schweller AreaOff$nce 666-3424 dDNTR ACTOR-PROJECT MAN AGER M. J. KouCS bbb ONIS W. Y. Kato BNL/DNE 666-I444 PHINCIP A L INVEST 6G ATOR t8)
W. T. Pratt 666-2360 C. Hofr.ayer 666-2317 STAF F YE AR 5 0F E PFORT IJton.nd to n.orant evern of. p,.,/ FY 1986 FY 1987 FY PY o.,.a s. nmiv7..""*'
0.8 0.8 l l Osn** 0 rect forsa.dl 0 0 TOTAL DIRECT STAFF YEARS 0.8 0.8 COST PRO,08AL l j 0.r a s.r., .
56 54 l Meter.ei av 8.<vio.. tE.ciuat,e aop) g i
Aor sws or' 8 8 swimate.cte 0 0 T,e.: c . . . 'ae 0 0 -
1 I Dornostic __ & a _j j laa.,ect Co"'
8702060111 870202 PDR FOIA PDR -
oin.,isoec,r,j SHOLLYB7-7 0 0
- c. ... .ao Aam ni.ir.ii.( 43.5si 38 37
,.T A L ..E R A ,, -, n5 no l 1 CA#iT AL toulPME NT; l l
0 0 .
l j 125 120 ToiAL eRoncT coeT l er .mm _ ...
~
_ ,_ . e .
~
.... ..v
~
~
us r.,o ec.ac.st l
r* l
-... m ,;.- - . ,. - , 1 ARCF;suiga U.S. N U .
a E [ 5 ATf,Af CD.
WM -W fin %UWi& A 4 2.'" A-3852 l
PROJECT AND BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR NRC WORK can Au gu s t 11 1986 0 33sL GT T.T.L o Review of the Emergency Planning Sensitivity Study for Seabrock
"**#"D i'* 19EI- I'* #* I'*
TAs< -
in l2q j are l 4m l in l 2aa j am l 4m tit j 2,ei sis l 4:n in l 2as l 3<e j 4m l in l 2ael sre l den seneouts g4 ,
Task 1 CC87 25K 13K-sCwE0VLE 4 Task 2 ce,7 25K 13K sCMEcuLE gg
- Task 3 CCsT 50K 47K scNicVLE CCst 13K sCwtoutt gg
- 87 12K 13K sCHEDULEf g Task 6 go,7 SCHEDULE CCST SCH E DULE COST SCHE DULE COST SCHEDULE CCIT 8CHEDULE C087 .
TOTAL ESTIMATEo emcJacT Cost 123K 120K c,paava,4,v- . i . - . .u w a r i, a t joave
, _.. /
. . /./
Review of the Emergency Planning Sensitivity Prcject
Title:
_ Study for Seabrook
- p. 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTMN -
- 1. OBJECTIVE OF PROPOSED WORK
- a. Background On July 21, 1986 Public Service of.New Hampshire (PSNR) submitted a sensitivity study on the emergency planning zone (EPZ). The study provides a comparison of dose versus distance curves for the Seabrook plant and site with similar generic curves f rem NURIG-0396 which were used in developing the EPZ regulation in 10 CFR 50.47.
The study concludes that a 1-mile evacuation radius at Seabrook provides for a siai-lar or greater degree of public protection than was shown by NUREC-0396 for a 10-mila evacuation radius around the plants considered by WASH-1400.
The study is largely based on the Seabrook Probabilistic Safety Assessment that PSNH submitted about 3 years ago. The source terms used in the Emergency Planning Sensi-tivity study were drawn from the source terms used in the WASH-1400 calculations, with some modifications under specific scenarios. Also, some of the probabilistic models have been changed from the Safety Assessment. Thus, the report is intended to examine differences made by the Scabrook design and site, plus the improvements in accident sequence modeling capabilities, without credit for source term reduc-tions that may result from recent studies. The EPZ study attributes reductions in their offsite dose predictions to the higher strength of the Seabrook containment, a more refined failure modes analysis for the containment, and a more realistic treet-ment of the initiation and progression of interfacing systems LOCA sequences. Along with the Emergency Planning Sensitivity Study, PSNE has also submitted a report titled "Seabrook Station Risk Management and Emergency Planning Study," which pro -
vides results of Seabrook specific eniculations with new source terms based upon the
( recent IDCOR work.
t -
l- The applicant has requested that the technical merits of the EPZ study be reviewed with respect to its adequacy to support a change to the emergency response process, i The exact nature of the change has not yet been specified. PSNR has further re-quested that the review be completed on an expedited basis.
The conclusions of the EPE 8ensitivity Study are based upon comparison of the re-eults of the study to three acceptance criteria that were drawn from NEC documents.
One of the criteria is a comparison of the individual risk of early fatality in the l population within 1-mile of the plant, assuming no immediate protective action, to -
i i the NRC proposed safety goal. A second criterion is the comparison of early fatali- ,
ties at the Seabrook site, assuming a 1-mile evacuation, to the early fatalities re- !
suits of WASH-1400, which assumed a 25 mile evacuation. The third criterion is the cos;arison of the risks of exposure to 1, 5, 50, and 200 rem whole body doses at t
various distances from the Seab:ook site to the corresponding NUREG-0396 results at ,
10 miles, assuming no immediate protective actions.
I To properly review the EPZ Sensitivity Study, it will be necessary to identify the '
baseline against which comparisons are made, to identify the appropri' ate criteria for making the comparisons, and to review the basic assumptions and the more signif-l icant aspects of the probabilistic calculations.
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ..__._____.._______._a
Review of the E=ergency Planning Sensitivity Project
Title:
Study for Seabrook _
- p. 4
- b. Objective ,
The objective of this ef fort is to assist the NRC in evaluating the technical valid-icy of the applicant's conclusions regarding the Emergency Planning SenJitivity study for Scabrook.
- 2. SGKMARY OF PRIOR EFFORTS (
A review of the Containment Tailure Modes and Radiological Source Terma presented in the Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety Assessment was performed by BNL under FIN A-3778. However, this review did not evaluate in detail the containment performance under severe accident conditions. Nevertheless, the experience gained by BNL staff under F1N A-3778 will provide useful background for the current review of the Energency Planning Sensitivity Study for Seabrook. (
- 3. WORK TO BE PERFORMED AND EXPECTED RESlTLTS _
- a. Work Requirements Task 1: System Evaluation BNL will review those portions of the Seabrook Emergency Planning Sensitivity Study related to system failure to determine the appropriateness of the calculated acci-dont sequence probabilities. In particular, the probability for interf ac.tng system LOCA will be carefully assessed to determine the potential for containment bypass.
RNL wd11 also review the probability of equipment malfunctions, personnel errors, and design errors retulting in containment bypass at the time of a severe accident.
Estimated Level of Effort: (FY 86) 2 Professional Staff Months (psm)
(FY 87) 1 prm Estimated Completion Date: Oc tober 31, 1986 s
Task 2: Containment Event Tree Review BNL will review the conditional probabilities of early containment f ailure given in the Seabrook submittals. In particular, the vulnerability of the Seabrook contain-ment to uncertainties in containment loads will be carefully assessed. This task will be highly coupled to Task 3, which will assess the performance of the Seabrook containment under severe accident conditions. .
Estimated Level of Efforts (FY 86) 2 psa (FY 87) 1 pam Estimated Completion Date: October 31, 1986 Task 3: Evaluation of Containment Behavior .
The purpose of this task is to evaluate the technical validity of the applicant's conclusions regarding the behavior of the Seabrook containment under severe accident conditions.
_c_-. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _
Review of the Emergency Planning Sensitivity Project
Title:
Study for Seabrook _
P. 5 .
- 3. WORK TO BE PERFORMED AND EXPECTED RESULTS (Cont.) _
- a. Work Requirements (Cont.)
Task 3: Evaluation of Containment Behavior (Cont.)
BNL will review and evaluate the relevant containnent structural analyses performed
, by the applicant and its consultants. In addition, a plant site tour and engineer-ing audit at the applicant's (or consultant's) office will be conducted to better understand the containment analyses and design and to identify any unique design features and/or analytical assumptions that merit further investigation.
Based on the above review, BNL will develop an axisymmetric finite element model and
, perform analyses utilizing BNL's NFAP computer code to confirm the applicant's pre-diction of the overall capacity of the containment. Special attention will be given to the post-cracking behavior of the concrete which controls the shear failure mode
. of the containment. To arpedite the performance of this task BNL will utilise, to the maximum extent practical, the input parameters obtained from the applicant's analytical models. In addition, simplified hand calculations will be performed to assess the applicant's conclusions regarding the behavior of selected containment penetration assemblies. Finally, BNL will perform a qualitative sesssement of the j applicant's seismic fragility analysis of the containment structures and components.
- BFL will also support meetings with upper NRC management and the ACRS to describe i the interia status of this review, as well as the final results.
l Estimated Level of Efforts (FY 86) 4 pen (FY 87) 3.5 pen
_. Estimated Completion Date: October 31, 1986.
Task 4: Review of Source Terms c The appropriateness of the new source terms based on RSS methodology used in the Seabrook submittal will be reviewed.
Estimated Level of Effort: (FY 86) 1 pse
~ '
Estimated completion Date: September 30s 1986. - --
Task 5: Site Consequence Modelina The site consequence modeling will be reviewed to determine the appropriateness of the consequence calculations presented in the Seabrook submittel. In addition, any consequence calculations found necessary as a result of the work to be performed under Taske 1 - 4 will be performed.
i Estimated Level of Efforts (FY 86) 1 pse -
(FY 87) 1 pse
! Estimated Completion Date: October 31, 1986 i
i
- i. -
Review of the Emergency Planning Sensitivity Project
Title:
_ Study for Seabrook P. 6
- 3. WORK TO BE PERFORMED AND EXPECTI:D RESULTS (Cont.) ,.
Task 6: Report Preparation and Follow-on Effort A final report will be prepared based on the results of Taske 1 - 5. In addition, any follow-on effort in terms of resolution of issues will be provided under this task. The final report will be issued on 12/31/86 and will address BNL's recommen-dations on procedures, testing or design modifications, to reduce the probability of contain=ent bypass in conjunction with a severe accident.
Estimated Level of Efforts (FY 87) 2.5 psa Estimated Completion Date: September 30, 1987 Level of Effort and Performance The estimated total level of effort is 19 professional staff-months over a period of 14 months.
- b. Nestings and Travel It is expected that there will be two trips, one to the Seabrook plant site and one to UE and C's offices in Philadelphia, PA, for three B"L engineers each lasting 2-3 days. In addition, three one-day meetings in Washington, DC are anticipated. One meeting may require 6 BNL engineers, the other two will require 2 BNL engineers.
- c. NRC Furnished Materials 1 NRC will provide all documents prepared by the applicant or its consultants which are to be reviewed by BNL.
l
! 4. DESCRIPT_ ION OF ANY FOLLOW-ON EFFORTS Not applicable.
- 5. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROJECTS BNL has ongoing efforts for NRR/NRC in the area of severe accident analysis and risk assessment. These include peer review of plant-specific, industry-sponsored prob-abilistic risk assessments. To date BNL has reviewed various aspects of the follow-ing PRAs: Big Rock Point, Indian Point, Zion Limerick, GESSAR, Shoreham, Oconee-3, M111 stone-3, and Seabrook. BNL also has ongoing efforts for RES/NRC dealing with severe core damsge, fission product retsase and transport to the environment. In
' particular, BNL will verify the Source Term Code Package and the calculations to be performed as part of the updating by $ARP of nuclear accident risk (NUREG-1150). In j addition, BNL staff are evaluating uncertainties in source term estimates (FIN A-3286). Finally, BNL staff are providing assistance to the NRC staf.f in developing a technical basis for offsite emergency preparedness under FIN A-3268.
i j
_._,..._--w,-. , - - . , - - _ , - __m,--
Review of the EmerEency Planning Sensitivity Project
Title:
Study for Seabrook p. 7
- 6. REPORTING REQUIRE.'Gh"IS r
Technical Esports Six copies of all technical reports which are required for the program shall be submitted to the NRC Project Manager.
Business Latter Reports .
A monthly business letter report will be submitted by the 20th of the month to Mr.
Goutam Bagchi NRC Project Manager, with copies provided to the Director, Division of PWR Licensing A, Attn D. Fiorvante and M. Kaltman, NRR. The report will iden-tify the title of the project, the FIN, the Principal Investigator, the period of performance, and the reporting period and will contain 2 sectians as follows:
- a. Project Status Section
- 1) A listing of eff orts completed during the period, milestones reac'hed, or if missed, an explanation provided.
- 2) Any problems or delays encountered or anticipated and recommendations for resolution. (NOTE: If the recommended resolution involves a coat-ract modification, i.e., change in work requirements, level of effort (costs), or period of performance, a separate letter will be prepared and submitted to Coutam Bagchi.)
- 3) A summary of progress to date.
- 4) A brief summary of plans for the next reporting period.
- b. Financial Status Section BNL'will provide the personnel time expenditures and the amount of funds expended (costed) by category during the period and total cumulative year-to-data as follows:
Current Month Year-to-Date
- 1. Direct Staff Rffort
($4P Staff Months) -
II. Direct Salaries Material and Services ADP Support Subcontracts Travel Expenses Indirect Expenses General and Adninistrative Total Costs -
Percentage of available funds spent (See Continuation Sheet)
Review of the Emergency Planning Sensitivity Project
Title:
Study for Scabrook _
P. 8
- 7. SUBC0hTRACTOR IST010fATION Bh1 does not intend to subcontract any portion of this work. In the event a subcon-tract is anticipated, Bh1 will notify NRC before it is initiated.
- 8. NEW CAPITAL EQ"IPMENT REQUIRED None. '
- 9. SPECIAL FACILITIES REQUIRED None.
- 10. COSTLICT OF IhTEREST INFORMATION There are neither significant contractual nor organizational relationships of the Department of Energy, BNL and amployees, or expected subcontractors or consultants i on this proposal, with industries regulated by the NRC and suppliers thereof that give rise to an apparent or actual conflict of interest.
- 11. EXPECTED CLASSIFICATION OR SENSITIVITY This is an unclassiffed program. Safeguards, proprietary, or other sensitive infor-nation is not involved.
l O
e
__m____________m_____. - _ _ . _ - - - _ . - - - -- - - - -
. s..
I 1 1
i BROOKHAVEN NAilONAL LABORATCRY ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES. INd Upfon. Long !!!O&d how York i1973 (516)282s 3339 Orfice o' tne C recto, F TS 666 '
August 14, 1986 Mr. David Schweller, Manager Brookhaven Area office U. S. Department of Energy Upton, New York 11973
Dear Mr. Schweiler:
Enclosed is one copy of a proposal to the Nuclear Regulatory Cornission entitled, " Review of the Emergency Planning sensitivity Study for Seabrook,"
FIN A-3852, being submitted for your review and approval. The proposal is being submitted in response to a verbal request from D. Fioravante of the NRC. Two copies have been sent to Mr. R. W. Barber, Department of Energy, one copy has been sent to Mr. M. Kaltman, Nuclear Regulatory Cornission, and three copics have been sent to:
Hs. Diane B. Fioravante, Program Assistant Division of PWR Licensing-A office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co: mission Washington, D. C. 20555 The total cost of this program is $245,000. No funds have been obligated to date.
This proposal has been prepared in accordance with discussions held be-tween W. T. Pratt (BNL), C. Hofmayer (BNL) and NRC staff. If there are any questions regarding the document, please es11 the principal investigator or Mr. A. J. Romano, FTS 666-4024, Department Administrator for the Department of Nuclear Energy.
Sincerely yours,
. ca.A-ew
- 6. Baron Associate Director gy - $ ']-60 7 j for Applied Programs
~
g Enclosures P
cc:
R. W. Barber (2.).
g RAI 19 i
Document the effect that the recent update in seismic fregilities will have on the conclusions of the PSA results.
RESPONSE 19 Seismic sequences dominate release categories S2 and S6 in the Risk
. Management and Emergency Planning Study (RMEPS). The response to question #23 discusses the principal contribution to early health risk andrisk.
health explains how these release categories contribute to early The following explains how the seismic f ragility update is' expected to change the frequency of S2 and S6; it is expected that the ef fect on the frequency of all other release categories will be insignificant.
A complete requantification will be included in the probabilistic safety assesment (PSA) update now in progress and planned for completion 'in 1987.
In the complete seismic risk analysis, a point estimate analysis is first performed using the plant event trees that are quantified for several discrete values of ground acceleration. From the point estimate results, dominant. sequences initiated by -seismic events are identified; then, these sequences are reanalyzed using a computer code called SEIS4. This code is described in the SSPSA Section 4 and 9. In SEIS4, the seismici ty curves and f ragility curves are appropriately combined and uncertainties in these curves are propagated to obtain uncertainty distributions on the final result, which is either a core melt or plant damage state frequency contribution. In the following approximate analysis, the point estimate step is bypassed, so some assumptions are made about dominant sequences. Hence, these results are only rough approximations and should only be used f or order-of-magnitude estimates. Again, a complete reanalysis of seismic events is currently in progress and is planned for completion in 1987.
1.1 RELEASE CATEGORY S2 This release category is dominated by earthquake and transient initiating events.
These sequences can be simply represented as-OG(DT + DG + SSPS) (1) where OG = Of f site Power Fragili ty DT
= Diesel Generator Day Tank Fragility DG = Diesel Generator Fragility SSPS
= Solid State Protection System (SSPS) Fragility (actually 120V AC power panel required for SSPS success) and only seismic unavailabilities are included.
Also, earthquake and large loss of coolant accident (LOCA) initiating events provide a small contribution and can be represented as LL*0G*(DT + DG + SSPS) (2) bM where
6 9
a ~
Equation (1) was quantified with the SEIS4 computer code and resulted in the following annual core melt frequency:
Mean = 2.84 x 10-5 Variance = 2.24 x 10-9 Based on the f ragility update, SSPS and DT can be dropped f rom the model, based on significantly higher capacities. However, a relay chatter in the 4,160V fragility at a relatively lower capacity has been identified switchgear.
e.g., trip out the diesels. This chatter could have a negative effect; Until the consequences of this chatter 1 are evaluated, it is assumed that the chatter fails both diesels.
Therefore, Equation (1) can be changed as follows:
DG*(chatter + DG)
(3)
, where Chat ter = Relay Chatter Fragility (4,160V switchgear)
Quantif ying equations (3) for annual core melt frequency with SEIS4 results in i
Mean = 1.8 x 10-5 Variance = 9.58 x 10-10 I
)
l l Comparing the quantification of Equations (1) and (3) shows a slight l reduction (less than a f actor of 2) in f requency. However, this assumes l the chatter f ails the diesels without recovery. An ongoing relay chatter real concern. review will determine whether this particular chatter is a In addition, this review will determine whether there are any other relay chatters that should be considered in the model.
1.2 RELEASE CATEGORY S6 This initiating events.
release category is dominated by earthquake and transient These sequences can be simply represented as NOG *SSPS (4) where N0G
= Offsite Power Available (negation of OG - fragility)
As described above under release category S2, the solid state protection system can be dropped from the model. Therefore, the simple model in Equation (4) would go to zero. To actually determine the new S6 frequency, the whole plant model needs to be requantified and unraveled to obtain new dominant sequences and frequencies.
However, the trend is a reduced frequency unless the ongoing relay chatter review identifies new sequences.
-. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _