ML20211C363
| ML20211C363 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/03/1984 |
| From: | Speis T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Duval R ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209C800 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-FIN-A-0801, CON-FIN-A-801, FOIA-87-6 NUDOCS 8702200077 | |
| Download: ML20211C363 (16) | |
Text
.
N g
g.:
APR 3 y \] '
D f . 'W Mr. Richard A. DuVal, Acting Manager o San Francisco Operations Office U. S. Department of Energy 1333 Broadway, Wells Fargo Building Oakland, California 94612
Dear 11r. DuVal:
Subject:
LLNL Technical Assistance to the Division of Safety Technology NRR, NRC, " Review of Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant Probabilistic P,isk Analysis" (FIN I 35 ? '[7 0 g l .t ,,
The enclosed HRC Form 173, Standard Order for DOE Work',I is hereby submitted in accordance with Section III.B.2 of the DOE /fiRC Memorandum of Understanding dated February 24, 1978.
Funding authorization in the amount of 575,000 to begin work immediately on the enclosed Statement of Work, which has been discussed with Mr. A. Garcia cf LLNL, is provided herein. The balance of funds required for project cmpletion will be provided incrementally after receipt of an acceptable proposal.
Standard terms and conditions for NRC work, as provided in the DOE /NRC fier.orandum of Understanding of February 24, 1978, and described in NRC Marual Chapter 1102, should be used as the basis for preparing a propssal.
If a portion of this work is to be subcontracted, it is required that LLNL have a professioral assigned to the contract who is qualified to defend the results. Also, prior approval by me in writing is required before initiation of any subcontractor effort. Please submit a proposal containing, as a rinir.un, the information set forth in Enclosure 2, Proposal Content, in the fornat of the Staterent of Work within 40 days to:
lis. Jayne Veillette, Program Assistant Division of Safety Technology, NRR U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 gyg _ gg N.
8702200077 870211 PDR FOIA SHOLLYB7-6 PDR O F FIC E ) , ,
S ur.N Aast ) ,
D A'C > . . . . . . .
.. .. .,.... A C C le 1 A , O C("*t"sD h #"* O O V
/
i r
4 i
Apg 3 If you have any questions concerning acceptance of this order, please contact Ms. Jayne Veillette on FTS 492-7932. .
Sincerely,
/J/
Y Themis P. Speis, Director
' Division of Safety Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation t
Enclosures:
- 1. Statement of Work
- 2. Proposal Content
- 3. NRC Form 173 cc: R. Barber, HQ/ DOE J. M. Johnson, LLNL A. Garcia, LLNL, L-95
- Distribution NRR Contract File (f. 54.de ,' -
RRAB Rdg .-
SDavis Davis CHRON R Frahm M Farr A Thadani F Rowsome AD/T Rdg T Speis DST CHRON -
J Veillette Z Rosztoczy D Dandois, ORM V' Zeoli, CRM M ml
/84 3
r
/ '!1AY i -
RRAB: DST RRAB: DST RRAB :DSTk
...g.g.g. ..AD/T:
.g.g.y(. 'I.. DST PA: DST ig/ ..p ..) N D:D omer > g. . . . . . . . . . . g .. .g.p...;.g.
g.g.g.g.g.g.. ..).g.g.,
g g.g..
,g........
SuaManet ) ... .........g,g,, ..
3 u 3/ *. .'.;.. ./84 3/..7 /84 .o ,.O7 .-/.84 3.4.. ./. .. .. y. . . . .. ../.84 3/... .. .. ./84 . ../....../..../.84 3../. . ....'. l.. ..../. 8. . . . .
oan > . . . .
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY [u - - -:
tec toau sis oo ecmacu ous
u s NvCLE an aEcv6 Af oav CouwissioN oaotRNvuesa NRC somu 173 (2-78' 20-84-304 g
STANDARD ORDER FOR DOE WORK OATE.SPR3 ACCOUNTING CITATION ISSUE D TO. (DOE Of ficel ISSUE D BY: (NRC Of fice)
APPROPRIATION Svusot 0 e Nu r Reactor 31X0200.204 San Francisco Operations Office 9] j9n PERFORMING ORG ANIZATION AND LOCATION 20-19-40-41-5 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory A-3754-4 Livermore, California ,9n g pgRIOD THIS ORDER FIXED D ESTIM ATEC f_
INT (TLEoview of Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant FROM TO Probabilistic Risk Analysis 3/30/84 11/30/8a OBLIG ATION AVAILABILITY PROVIDED BY:
A THis ORoER S75,000 l
-8 TOT AL OF ORDERS PLACEO PRIOR TO THis DATE WITH THE PERFORM 8NG ORG ANIZ51,638.000 ATION SAM PRO i ATION SYMBOL" AND THE FIRST FOUR DIGITS OF THE UNDjR C TOTAL ORDERS TO DATE (TOTAL A & B) 5 1,713,000
- 0. AMOUNT INCLUDE D IN "C" APPLICABLE TO THE " FIN NUMBE R" CITED IN THIS ORDER. S76,QQQ FINANCI AL FLExlBILITY:
i Q AU rUNDS WILL NOT BE REPROGRAMMEO EETWEEN FINS. LINE D CONSTITUT THORIZ E D.-
CN O FuNoS MAY eE REPROGR AMuED NOT TO ExCEEo e ios CF FIN LEVEL UP TO $50K. LINE C CONSTITUTES A LIM ON OBLIGATIONS AUTHOR 12EO.
l STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROV10E0 DOE ARE CONSt0ERED PART OF THis ORDER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
ATT ACHME NTS .
S E CURITY .
THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENTS ARE HERE8Y M ADE A PART OF-THIS ORDE R. G WORK ON THIS ORCER 15 NOT CL ASSiFIE0 QSTATEMENT OF WOR K O WORK ON THis ORDE A INVOLVES CL AS$iFIE0 INFORM ATION. NRC FORM 18715 ATT AC E0 C ADQlTION AL TE RMS AND CONoniONS -
%KOT"5" Proposal Content i l
REM ARKS.
l This order provides incremental funds for init M i n Y work on the attached i Statement of Work that must be urgently begun ar. rea s.its a proposal be submitted within 40 days to Ms. J. Veillette, NRR/ DST ww, a ucf provided to T. DiGaloma, j
NRR/PPAS.
After acceptance, please send to the Office of Resource Management, ATTN: D. Dandois, and provide a c y to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, ATTH: K. McGrath.
ACCEPTlNG ORG ANIZ ATION f
' ) MsulNG AgHORITY s<cua rv at !
wg[NJUp., yXThemisDirector p P. Soeis. bg k (0 mi t i T.,tt l Division of Safety Technology /NRR
^"
NRC sone m i2 7e> l e
T.AY 011553 e'iciic. ing items are required te prepare DOE prcposals (NRC Form 189):
- Project Title - The titl'e should be a unique identifier cf the project reflecting a
. ger.erai ices of the encompassed work. In most cases, the title on the NRC Statement of Work (S0il) should be used.
Cate of prc:Osal - Self explanatory; include revisien number when applicable.
NRC Office - Indicate the NEC Office (s) supporting or recuesting the work.
FIN Nuder and B&R Number - Indicate NRC's FIN Number and B&R Number, as provided on the Statement of Work.
DOE Contractor - Performing organization's name.
Site - Indicate location (s) of organization that will perform the work.
Contractor Account and DOE B&R Number - Provide the information for the highest level feasible.
Coonizant Personnel - NRC Project Manager and other NRC Technical Staff, if applicable; COE Project Manager; and, the performing organization's key personnel: Project Manager and principal investigator (s); and, FTS phone numbers for each; include resumes for contractor
- ersonnel.
Period of Performance - Provide proposed date of commencement of work and best-estimated
, completion cate of tne project. .
. Staff-Years of Effort and Costs - Estimate costs to be incurred by DOE contractors a d su::ccr.;ractors . For consultants, provide the cost of the services on a per staff-year of Technical Support basis. Inis shall include direct salary, indirect expenses and other
' reimbursable amounts; the cost shall also be stated on a per-day basis.
List by fiscal year from start to completion of the project (FIN): Cost estimate will be censistent with DOE Manual 2200, the Pricing Manual, and shown in thousands of dollars.
-- Staff-years of Effort (Laboratory personnel only):
- - Direct Scientific / Technical OtherDirect(Graded) _
-- Costs:
Direct Salaries (FTE's) -
Indirect Labor Costs Material and Services (Excl. ADP) 1/ - Other (specify)
- ADF Sypport - Generai and Admin. Expense ( i)
Subccr. tracts - Total Operating Cost I - Travel Expense - Capital Equip. (FIN charged ( ) _
- o Domestic - Total Project Cost o Foreign Menthly Forecast Excense - Provide the planned monthly rate of costs for first year. If r.ot Known at time of proposal submittal, this may be provided in the first monthly business letter report cnce the project is authorized. At the beginning of each subsequent year, -
include the planned monthly rate of costs for the ensuing year in the first mon bly business letter report.
Ferecast Milestene Chart - Complete as shown on NRC Forin 189.
korcval Authority - Proposal must be signed by an a:prepriat,e laboratcry or field .
I at-ivi:. representative. Note: This individual may or may not be the sare pers:n wio signs the trar.smittal letter.
'. / See *te- 3.c. under Prof.ect Sestriction.
Pritect Descric-ion - provide narrative descriptions of the fo' llc.eing topic's in the crder !
iiste: cn plain paper attached to the NRC Fom 189. If an item is not applicable, s:-
state on the t'RC Fom 189. l
- 1. "tjective of proposed Work E. EacKorounc - Frovice a brief summary of the tech'nical problem, issue, or r. sed so as to orient the reader to the requirements for the work or end project.
- b. Objective - State conciseiy the performir.g crganization's understanding of the cojective(s), i.e., what will be the end result (s). -
- 2. Sun ary of prior Efforts - Not applicable for NRR projects.
- 3. a. Work Reouirements - Describe the tasks and subtasks to be performed in such a manner that a disinterested third party can understand what is to be done and how it will be accomplished for the level of effort and period of perfomance proposed. Describe any assumotions being made pertinent to performing the work.
Provide criteria or otner Dases upon which evaluations, judgment or other action will be taken. Describe potential problems and recommend solutions. State and describe separately any cotions being proposed that require HRC approval before proceeding,
- b. Meetines and Travel - State the number of trips that the performing organ-ization will require to perform the work and identify where and how many people are expected to travel. If no travel is expected or required, state none.
Describe any foreign travel recuirements; approval must be obtained, by pro:essing a HRC Fom 445.
- c. NRC Furnished Material - Specify any equipment (including ADP), background reports or data, or otner specific materials required to be provided by NRC, or equipment t be purchased.
2 tescription of Any Follow-On Efforts - Not applicable for NRR projects.
.5. Relationship to Other Projects - Identify related projects that either (1) generate information that will De needed to accomplish the work proposed under this project er (2) will use infomation generated by this project, and (3) support
~'
a common cbjective. If, none, jLo, state on the NRC Fom 189'.- ~
- 6. Fecortino Reouirements - State the number, type, and other content of the re;cris requestec or' proposed to be provided, to whom and when they are to be submitted,
. and, if requested by NRC, whether drafts will be provided prior to finalization.
- 7. Subcentractor Information - Identify the subcentractor or censultant and describe -
any effort that will be performed by a subcontractor or consultant, and referen:e the task or subtask described under the work requirements that the subcontractor or c nsultant effort will support. Any work performed by the subcontracter en behalf cf the nuclear industry that might give rise to an apparent or actual conflict of ir.terest must be described. If the subcentractcr is not kncwn at the time the proposal is being submitted, so indicate and describe status and expected time frame for selection of the subcontractor (s) or consultant (s). 3
- 8. Uew Caoital Ecuionent Recuired - List all capital equip ent which must be purchased by _
t'.e performing organization to perform the work described and provide the astimated c st _
- 9. Soe:ial Facilities Recuired - Describe any new special facilities required.
IC. brflict of Interest Infer ation - Descrite any significant contractual and c gan-iza 1cnal relationsnics of :ne DOE and its contractor c i this proposal with industries regulated by the NRC (e.g., utilities, etc.) and sucpliers thers:f (e.g., '
arc-itect engineers and reacter : anufacturers, etc.) that right give rise to an a:;arent er actual conflict of inter.est. -
'o r7 _ . . - --
W STATEMENT OF WORK ,
Title:
Review of the Probabilistic Risk Assessment for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant FIN No.: A-3754 B&R No.: 20-19-40-41-5 Program Manager: Sarah M. Davis (FTS 492-7546)
BACKGROUND:
The Reliability and Risk Assessment Branch (RRAB) within the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) has the responsibility of reviewing Probabilistic Risk Assessments (PRAs) submitted to NRC by license applicants and licensees. A PRA has been submitted to NRC by Public Service Company of New Hampshire, an operating license applicant, pertaining to the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant. The study is expected to be a detailed and thorough analysis submitted to the NRC in February 1984.
OBJECTIVE The objective of the present task is to review those aspects of the Seabrook PRA leading to the estimates of the frequencies of each plant damage state to determine the accuracy of these estimates.
WORK REQUIREMENTS Perform a comprehensive, quantitative review and evaluation of the risk assess-ment being submitted by the licensee for the Seabrook PWR power plant to determine if the estimates of the frequencies of the plant damage states reflect appropriate use of risk assessment methods, plant / site information, and reli-ability data. _
The defensibility of the licensee's submittal of the frequencies of plant damage states and the associated uncertainty spread with respect to (1) use of state-of-the-art risk assessment methods, (2) thoroughness and comprehensiveness of analysi,s, (3) availability and appropriate use of data, and (4) realism of modeling assumptions will be evaluated. The impact of deficiencies or understated uncer-tainties in the licensee's analysis of sequences will be displayed. __
The review will cover all aspects of the study up to the point of the calculation of the frequencies of the plant damage states, including methodology, assumptions, data, information sources, models, plant understanding, coupleteness of the analysis, and any other area where inconsistencies may arise which could affect the quantitative or qualitative results. A sensitivity analysis will take alternatives identified in the review in appropriate combinations and detern.ine 1
l l
the incremental change resulting from the use of alternatives in the dominant sequences corresponding to each plant damage state. In general, these alternatives should be evaluated by performing localized calculations within the analysis. For example, inconsistencies identified in the event trees should be reevaluated to determine how alternative approaches would impact the sequence probabilities.
Task 1 Internal Events Evaluation
- Estimated level of effort: 1.2 staff years Estimated completion date: 5 months after receiving PRA (a) Review and evaluate the scope, assumptions, and systems analysis for internal events. Review for completeness the initiating events in the PRA including both the following events and combinations of initiating events with subsequent failures:
- 1. Station blackout (loss of offsite and emergency ac power) a) Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) seal failure (after station blackout) b) loss of de after finite time, due to battery depletion (af ter station blackout), or immediate loss of DC because of prior undetected battery failure (after loss of offsite power).
- 2. Loss of de power
- 3. Loss of instrument and control power
- 4. Multiple instrument tube LOCA below core level
- 5. Overcooling events - (Pressurized thermal shock)
- 6. Steam generator tube failure, including subsequent stuck-open secondary side safety relief valve -
- 7. ATWS
- 8. Stuck open S/R valve
- 9. Loss of main feedwater
- 10. Containment isolation failure
- 11. Turbine trip
- 12. Loss of component cooling water
- 13. Loss of service water 2
a
- 14. Loss of ventilation in auxiliary building
- 15. Pipe creaks in auxiliary building
- 16. Reactor coolant pump seal failure (as contribution to small LOCA initiator)
- 17. Boron dilution
- 18. Excess feedwater events, including their possible contribution to loss of main feedwater f 19. Loss of instrument and control air Assess the completeness and treatment of transients /LOCA initiating events which also degrade mitigating systems.
(b) Develop a table of assumptions used in the analysis and make a finding on the validity. These assumptions include such considerations as pump operabilities with insufficient cooling or net positive suction pressure operability of components in degraded environments, minimum components needed to sustain a function, and availability of equipment based on technical specifications (c) Review the event trees for completeness and validity, and identify all functional and support system interdependencies that were considered or should be considered in the evaluation. This should include coupling with the initiating event. Evaluate the significance of areas which are incomplete.
Review the stated and implicit assumptions associated with sJccess paths in the event trees (e.g., feed and bleed). Review the event tree logic, and assess the validity of assignment of combinations of successes and failures of systems to the plant damage states (system success criteria). Consider system dependencies arising from interactions related to the physical phenomena; identify and evaluate any omissions. Compare system success criteria to those used in other PRAs for similar systems under similar circumstances. Assess the validity of the treatment of transient-induced loss of coolant accidents, and other such transfers from one type of event tree to another.
(d) Review the fault trees to determine their accuracy, validity, and completeness -
in quantifying the high risk sequences. Of particular interest are the
- definition of the top events in fault trees,
- test and maintenance unavailabilities, consistency of fault trees with system success criteria, 3
- common cause interactions, l
3
i
- human errors (cognitive, procedural, latent, dynamic) design errors,
- consequential failures (coupled to initiating event),
- failure rate data and uncertainties, completeness of fault trees.
Identify the dependency of front-line systems on support' systems, and the dependency of support systems on other support systems. Perform this dependency
, analysis on a train-to-train basis - e.g. , which trains of a given front-line
. system depend on which trains of a support system. Display the results in the form of a dependency table or diagram. Identify and evaluate any omissions in the PRA.
(e) Determine whether the limit of resolution in the fault tree analysis is adequate for the identification of common mode failures. Determine the adequacy of the identification and qualitative analysis of common mode failures and systems interactions including the treatment of common mode failures arising from hard-wired coupling, spatial / environmental coupling, coupled human errors, design errors and inadequate testing resulting in the failure to recognize that a system may respond successfully during a test but not during a true demand. Develop a table of common cause considerations and compare quantification in this PRA with previous PRAs.
(f) Assess the completeness, accuracy, and adequacy of the conditional probabilities for some system's success / failure given another system's previous success / failure.
(g) Determine the sources of data used for quantification of the fault trees, and compare them to data sources used in other PRAs. Highlight data used in quantifying trees if the data deviate significantly from data previously used in other PRAs. Particular interest should be accorded recovery or repair rates and failure rates. Examine the validity of the method of combining generic data with plant specific data.
(h) Identify all known omissions and deficiencies in the systems analysis including support system dependencies and estimate the impact where possible.
Include the technical basis for these estimates.
(i) Incorporate MRR technical review comments as provided (success / failure criteria, environmental qualifications, etc.)
(j) Review LERs and other pertinent documents on operating experience, and discuss any significant events which are applicable to Seabrook.
Include such examples as:
4
e environmental conditions of the location, -
- how NUREG/CR-2497, " Precursors to Potential Severe Core Damage Accidents: 1969-1979, A Status Report" relates to the plent and its risk analysis,
- how the recent failure of scram breakers to operate satisfactorily at the Salem plant relates to Seabrook and its risk analysis,
- the conditional probability that " containment fails to isolate on demand" (provide a basis for this value).
(k) Assess the validity of the treatment of human errors, both those occurring.
after an accident (dynamic) and prior to an accident (latent, e.g., test end maintenance errors). Assess the completeness and treatment of cognitive errors.
4 Develop a human error table of significant actions showing time frame and location for action, availability of procedures, manpower requirements and HEP, and compare with HEP from other PRAs. .
(1) Assess the analytical modeling and quantification of accident sequences.
(m) Audit the sequence frequency calculations corresponding to each plant damage state to ascertain accuracy, uncertainty, completeness, and adequacy. Where the reviewers and the PRA authors disagree in a significant way (e.g.,
assumptions, failure rates, success criteria, omissions), the reviewers will recalculate the sequence frequencies to establish their sensitivity.
(n) Compare the dominant sequences corresponding to each plant damage state to existing PWR PRAs, generic data, and operating experience to help assure that no significant sequences are omitted.
(o) Assess the uncertainty analysis. Examine propagation and completeness in treatment of uncertainty, data uncertainty, and modeling sensitivity / uncertainty.
Task 2 External Events Evaluation l
Estimated level of effort: 0.8 staff years -
l Estimated completion date: 5 months after receiving PRA (a) For each type of external event considered, concur with or modify the estimated hazard curves, assess the completeness of the sequences considered for each plant damage state, assess the treatment of common cause interactions and human errors, and evaluate the fragility or failure estimates of the components identified by the appropriate event / fault trees.
(b) Review the event and fault trees to determine their accuracy, validity, and completeness for external events. Review and evaluate the implicit'and explicit assumptions of the external events analysis.
(c) Identify all known omissions and deficiencies in the external event analysis, and estimate the impact where possible. For those omissions and deficiencies for which evaluation is believed to be beyond the state-of-the-art, provide a list and the basis for this belief.
I 5
~
0 (d) Audit the sequence frequency calculations corresponding.to each plant damage state to ascertain accuracy, uncertainty, completeness,.and adequacy. Where the reviewers and the PRA authors disagree in a significant way (e.g., assumptions, failure rates, success criteria, omission), the reviewers will recalculate the sequence frequencies to establish their sensitivity.
(e) Assess the uncertainty analysis. Examine propagation and completeness in treatment of uncertainty, data uncertainty, and modeling sensitivity /
uncertainty.
Task 3 Draft Final Report on Tasks 1 and 2
.i Estimated level of effort: 0.5 staff years Estimated completion date: 5 months after receiving PRA (a) For each of the PRA areas (e.g., initiating events, initiating event frequencies, component failure rates, common cause failures, human reliability analysis, test and maintenance, event trees, fault trees, success / failure criteria, external events, quantification, and uncertainties) define the basis for acceptability and describe what was considered in the review.
The findings will include reestimates, at appropriate, of the dominant sequence frequencies corresponding to each plant damage state, identifi-cation of areas that were not pursued, and identification of grey areas where sensitivity studies might be used to bound a central estimate.
(b) Describe areas of incompleteness (all known omissions and deficiencies) determined in the review. Quantify, where possible, the potential impact of these areas. Discuss the basis for quantification values.
(c) Based on reviewer audits, discuss the accuracy, uncertainty, and adequacy of the PRA author's sequence quantifications.
(d) An approximate outline of the report is given here. -
x
.t 6
- 1. Executive Summary ,
- 2. Introduction
2.1 Background
2.2 Scope 2.3 Assumptions
- 3. Internal Events Analysis 3.1 Initiating Events 3.2 Event Trees LOCA Transient Other 3.3 Success Criteria 3.4 Systems Descriptions Fault Tree Models
- 3. 5 Human Factors ,
3.6 Failure Data 3.7 Operating Experience Analysis 3.8 Analysis Codes 3.9 Accident Sequences 3.10 Dependencies 3.11 Quantification
- 4. External Event Analysis 4.1 Seismic 4.2 Fire 4.3 Industrial Accidents 4.4 Other
- 5. Summary and Conclusions 5.1 Dominant Sequences Corresponding to Each Plant Damage State -
5.2 Important Problems and Omissions 5.3 Treatment of Uncertainties 5.4 Overall Evaluation of Seabrook Risk Assessment
- 6. Appendices (as required)
Task 4 Final Report Estimated level of effort: 0.25 staff years Estimated completion date: 9 months after receiving PRA The final report will take into account pertinent comments on the draft final report by HRC and other interested parties. It will be published as a NUREG/CR.
7
Task 5 Questions to Licensee Estimated level of effort: 0.1 staff years Estimated completion date: 3 months from initiation of work Provide questions for forwarding to the licensee covering all aspects of the systems analysis. (Responses may have already been received informally).
LEVEL OF EFFORT AND PERIOD OF PERFORMAN'CE The estimated level of effort is 2.85 professional staff years over an eight month period.
MEETINGS AND TRAVEL The contractor may attend a 2-day visit at an unspecified site with the licensee to discuss questions on his analysis and may attend six 1-day meetings at NRC headquarters in Washington, DC for four participants.
Four individuals may conduct two three-day visits to the Seabrook site to look for potential common cause vulnerabilities, review of control operations, and a general overview of the plant layout and potential idiosyncrascies.
NRC FURNISHED MATERIALS The risk study will be transmitted when available. Please specify the number of copies needed. NRC will provide the plant FSAR with questions and answers. Additional information will be transmitted on request.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Technical Reporting _
Upon completion of Task 3, the contractor will formally submit a draft final report covering Tasks 1, 2, and 3 as defined in Task 3. Upon completion of
. Task 4, the contractor will submit the final report which takes into account industry and NRC comments.
Upon completion of Task 5, the contractor will submit questions for forwarding to the licensee.
~
8
Monthly Business Letter Report A . monthly business letter will be submitted by the 15th of the month to the NRR Project Manager with copies to the Director, Division of Safety Technology, ATTN:
J. Veillette; A. Thadani, DST; Ronald Frahm, DST; and L. Solander, NRR. These reports will identify .the title of the project, the FIN, the Principal Investigator, the period of performance, and the reporting period and will contain 3 sections as follows:
Project Status Section
- 1. A listing of the efforts completed during the period; milestones
- reached, or if missed, an explanation provided.
- 2. Any problems or delays encountered or anticipated and recommendations for resolution. 1/
- 3. A summary of progress to date (this may be expressed in terms of percentage completion for the project).
4., Plans for the next reporting period.
Financial Status Section
- 1. Provide the total cost (value) of the project as reflected in the proposal and the total amount of funds obligated to date, and the balance of funds required to complete the work by fiscal year as follows:
Total Funds Balance of Funds Projected Obligated By Fiscal Year Projected Cost To Date FY- FY- FY-
- 2. Provide the total direct staff use and amount of funds r pended (costed) during the period and total cumulative to date in the-following categories:
l l 1/ If the recommended resolution involves a Work Order modification, i.e.,
I change in work requirements, level of effort (costs) or period of performance, a separate letter should be prepared and submitted to the Director, Division of Safety Technology, ATTN: Jayne Veillette, and a copy provided to the NRR Project Manager and L. Solander, NRR.
L
Period Cumulative
- a. Direct Lab Staff Effort
- b. Funds ($000)
Direct Salaries Materials and Services (Excluding ADP)
ADP Support Subcontracts Travel Expenses Indirect Labor Costs
.- Other (Specify)
General and Administrative Total ( %) S#
Fee Recovery Cost Status Section Pursuant to the provisions of NRC Regulations,10 CFR 170, provide the total amount of funds expended (costed) during the period and cumulative to date for Projects 2 and 3 by facility (work assignments), and report them on a separate page as part of this report in the following format:
FIN: A-3754 TITLE: Review of the Probabilistic Risk Assessment for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant PERIOD:
Docket Costs Facility Name Number Period Cumulative Seabrook 50-443 Common Costs 3/ 50-900 -
2/ Provide percentage against total funds oblicated to date.
3/ Common costs are for those costs incurred for effort such as preparatory or start-up efforts to interpret and reach agreement on methodology, approach, acceptance criteria, regulatory position, or TER format; efforts associated with the " lead plant" concept that might be involved during the first one or two plant reviews as estimated by the contractor; meetings / discussions involving the above efforts to provide orientation, background knowledge, or guidance at the beginning or during performance of work; and any technical effort applied to a category of facilities, e.g., reactor analyses on all BWR facilities. In the case of the latter example, there costs should be prorated equally to only those facilities to which the effort applies.
Development of methodologies, criteria, or technical positions are not fee-recoverable and, therefore, should not be categorized as common costs. Management and related support costs chargeable directly to the effort are not to be reported as cormon costs and should, therefore, be charged in proportion to the other direct ccsts associated with those facilities during the reporting period.
10
t J
Hote: Common costs are to be accrued on a monthly basis and prorated equally among the facilities identified under the effort at the end of each fiscal year or at the completion of the effort, whichever 4 occurs first.
S m
f 11 d
o 6
\ -
Docket Nos.: 50-443 MAY 7 IBM DISTRIBUTION and 50-444 Docket File 50 443/aa4 NRC PDR Local POR NSIC Mr. Robert J. Harrison PRC System President & Chief Executive Officer LB#3 Reading AThadani Public Service Company of New Hampshire JLee Attorney, OELD Post Office Box 330 VNerses ACRS (161 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 EJordan NGrace
Dear Mr. Harrison:
50 avis Subiect: Seabrook Station Probabilistic Risk Assesement As part of the NRC's activities in support of operating license issuances, we have been routinely reviewing industry-provided probabilistic risk assessment -
(PRA) submittals.
In February 1984, we received a nunber of cooies of the Seabrook Station PRA which we distributed to the cognizant NRC staff and their consultants to begin their review. We find that we need the following additional materials to be sent to the address given below:
Three complete volumes of the "Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety
- Assessment" Two complete updated volumes of the Seabrook Station FSAR.
Two sets of legible P& ids for each frontline and suoport systen that is discussed in the "Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety Assessment" One index that identifies the Seabrook Station operating, emergency, test and maintenance procedures We would appreciate that the above items be sent as soon as possible te the '
'cIlowing address (with a copy of the transmittal letter to the NRC):
Mr. Abel Garcia L-95 Lawerence Livermore National Lab.
Post Office Box 808 Livermore, California 94550 FOM " ~ 6 oqy$4M 0ff)- L 1
1
s, t
Furthemore, we would like to have the name of a person in your organization who is familiar with the contents of the "Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety Assessment" and who our staff may contact to seek answers to staff questions and to provide clarification where necessary.
Questions or additional information regarding this matter, and specifically this letter, should be directed to the Seabrook Project Manager, Mr. V. Nerses, (301) 492-7238.
Sincerely, Orisinal signed by seersew.Maishton George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing cc: See next page l
l 1 e /yt AT ni hton 5/S /84 5/ /84 5/ 84 e c h, '{
1 l
l S.
t Seabrook Mr. Robert J. Harrison President and Chief Executive Officer Public Service Company of New Hampshire Post Office Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Thomas Dignan, Esq. E. Tupper Kinder, Esq.
John A. Ritscher, Esq. G. Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Ropes and Gray Assistant Attorney General 225 Franklin Street Office of Attorney General Boston, Massachusetts 02110 208 State Hosue Annex Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Mr. Bruce B. Beckley, Project Manager Public Service Company of New Hampshire Resident Inspector Post Office Box 330 Seabrook Nuclear Power Station Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 c/o US Nuclear Regulatory Comission Post Office Box 700 Dr. Mauray Tye, President Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 Sun Valley Association 209 Sumer Street Mr. John DeVincentis, Project Manager Haverhill, Massachusetts 01839 Yankee Atomic Electric Company 1671 Worchester Road Robert A. Backus, Esq. Framinghan, Massar:husetts 01701 0'Neil, Backus and Spielman -
116 Lowell Street Mr. A. M. Ebner, Pro.iect Manager Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 United Engineers & Constructors 30 South 17th Street Ms. Beverly A. Hollingworth Post Office Box 8223 7 A Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Hampton Beach, New Hampshire 03842 Mr. Philip Ahrens Esq.
William S. Jordan, III Assistant Attorney General Diane Curran State House, Station #6 Hamon, Weiss & Jordan Augusta, Maine 04333 20001 S Street, NW Suite 430 Washington, DC 20009 Mr. Stephen D. Floyd Jo Ann Shotwell, Esc. Public Service Company of Office of the Assistant Attorney General New Hampshire Environmental Protection Division Post Office Box 330 One Ashburton Place Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League D. Pierre G. Cameron, Jr., Esq. Ms. Jane Doughty General Counsel 5 Market Street Public Service Company of New Hampshire Portsnouth, New Hampshire 03801 Post Office Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Mr. Diana P. Randall 70 Collins Street Regional Administrator - Region I Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
t Mr. Calvin A. Canney, City Manager Mr. Alfred V. Sargent, City Hall Chairman 126 Daniel Street Board of Selectmen Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 Town of Salisbury, MA 01950 Ms. Letty Hett Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Town of Brentwood U. S. Senate RFD Dalton Road Washington, DC 20510 Brentwood, New Hampshire 03833 (Attn: Tom Burack)
Ms. Roberta C. Pevear Senator Gordan J. Humphrey Town of Hampton Falls, New Hampshire 1 Pillsbury Street Drinkwater Road Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Ham 7 ton Falls, New Ham shire 03844 (Attn: Herb Boynton)
Ms. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Owen B. Durgin, Chairman Town of Kensington, New Hampshire Durham Board of Selectmen RDF 1 Town of Durham East Kingston, New Hampshire 03827 Durham, New Hampshire 03824 Ms. Anne Verge, Chairman Charles Cross, Esq.
Board of Selectmen 3haines, Mardrigan and Town Hall McEaschern South Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 25 Maplewood Avenue Post Office Box 366 Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman Portsmouth, NH 03801 Board of Selectmeh for the Town of Newbury Newbury, Massachusetts 01950 Mr. Guy Chichester, Chaiman Rye Nuclear Intervention Ms. Rosemary Cashman, Chairman Committee Board of Selectmen c/o Rye Town Hall Town of Amesbury 10 Central Road Town Hall Rye, New Hampshire 03870 Amesbury, Massachusetts 01913 Honorable Richard E. Sullivan Mayor, City of Newburyport Office of the Mayor City Hall Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950 Mr. Donald E. Chick, Town Manager Town of Exeter 10 Front Street Exeter, New Hampshire 03823
SE^sem sTAm q ': ~\JLJ PUBLIC SERVICE T
,, e, -+,s ou ,
TU ll Comptany of New Hirnps.% e 1671 Wo':ef e' E0od Fr:.r.:rst.am. 9:na:' .,se u 01701 (617). 872 8100 Ma y IE , 1954 S3h- EST T.T. 57.1.2 Pr.ited States Nuclear F.egula t cry Concis sion Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Mr. George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Eranch Ec. 3 Division of Licensing 7eferer.ces: (a; cer.cru tic F e r:f t s CFFF.-13.: and CFFF.-lh , Dacie:
Net. K -a43 and 50 (t) 25S?i Le :ct, dated May 7, Ic54, "Stabrcok Sta:!cr Frobabilisti: hisk Assess:ent, G. i. E.nigF:on t 1., :. M rris:r 5.2: f e r : St a: r. c k -: a: i rt. Frrharilistir 5:,f( :. As *!c er:
.c. Sir:
Yot.r let ter cf May 7,195- recues ted addi: 2cnal infer atier essc.:in ad with the "Se ati ock St a tion Frol.abilistic Saf e ty Assesstent (SSFSA)', w r.i ci. -I subritted to the NRC in February of 1954 We subritted the SSFSA for the staf f's inf or ation and use. We considered the assesstent cc:;le te a t the tite of subrittal, and tertinated our agree:ent with the authers of the safety assesstent. Hence, since we have nc plans to update the codels un::: ' nit I enters cc :ercial operation, we are very reluctant to participa:e in any review or analysis of the report at this ti e.
Our position is further reinforced by the current suspended construction status of the project. Considering this and the greatly reduced staf f in our reproduction group, we do not feel it is appropriate or possible to subsit further cc, pies of the reports requested. We do wish tc er;hasi:e that re;roduction by c:hers is not restricted.
Pleast contact Eruce E. beckley at (603) 669-4000, if there are ar.y further questions on this subject.
Very truly yours, YANKEE ATOMI C ELECTF.!C C '.."FAh" i / /
'( lt rAv N
,, 'm m.1nsgs-sr.
r . : r. < i r a r. ; 2.
rcrHN l- r ! .- i s ;. i r > ..< .:- O Q \
Villia: S. Jordan, III, Esquire Erentwood Board of Sele:tren E.rs:n 6 Veiss kr t a: t er. P.c a d 1725 1 Street, N.V. Suite 506 3,,n.,,3 g, g,, y,;3ggy, c3g3 Va ss ir.gt en, DC 20036 Rey P. Lersy, Jr., Esquire Office of the Executive legal Director Ed..rd T. Meany U.S. 5 :l t ar '< ! : st ery C; -is sier. Lesignated Eepresen:stive of Vashington, D 20555 the 7 .m of Rye 155 Vashington Koad 7:ter: A. !a:ius, Esquire Rye, Nv. 03E70 lif Lt. ell Street 7.C. E:r 516 Calvin A. Cant.ey M.r.c ehst er, KE 03105 City M.ar.ager City Hall Philip Ahrens, Esquire 126 Laniel Street Assistan: A t t o rr.e> Ce r.e r al Ports:outh, NH 03801 Depar: rent of the At t orney General Augus:a, MI 04333 tona Eistee, Esquire Assistan: A:terney Ceretal Mr. J:hn E. Tar.:c: Of fice of the A::cIney Cer.crel esirmated Fe rese.tative cf "C 5 Et a t e Frus e Annex
- he !:. cf E4 ;:en C:n:c td , Fh 03301 i F tri pidt Irive
-r :- !& C .i : * /en t Verge. Chair:*rs:-
. :. r I Ft'_e::: c.
F:ltr:a C. Te vear Tr.n hal".
!ir.r1:efi;eu- s r- vt rf Sr.it Fin-ten. NF C F . :
the Tc.: cf h.:;::: Fa;.s Drin*rw ter Ecad Fatrick J. H: Keen E a:;: c t. Talls, NE 035.4 Selectrer.'s Office IC Central Road Mrs. Sandt. Cavutis Eye, NH 03670 Lesigt.ated Represent.tive cf the Tewn ef Kensingten Carole T. Fagar., Esq.
EIL I Ato.se Safety ~ and L2cens:n; Esard Tar.c:
E.s: KinEston, NH 03527 U.S. Na:1 ear Regulatory c: . : sri:n Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire As s is t ant Attorney General Mr. Angie Machiros Environ ental Protection Eureau Chairrar. of the B:ard ef Sele::ren Depar: cent of the Attcrney General Town of Newbury One Ashburton Place, 19th Tioer Nesbury, MA 01950 5: ster., MA 02105 T o wT. Mar.ager's Cffice Senatcr Gerdon J. Hur.phrey Te.r. Hall - Friend Street U.S. Senate .
Aresbury, Ma. 01913 Vashington, DC 20510 (Attn: Tom Burack) Senator Cerdon J. Hucphrey 1 Pillsbury Stree:
Diana F. Randall Cencord, NH 03301 7C Cellins Street ( A t t r. : Hert Eeynton)
SE.trock, NV 03S74 Eichard E. Sullivar., Mayer Donald E. Chick City Hall Te.r Mo.arer Fe.burypert, Sa 01050 70.: ef L>eter 10 Tr:r.- e:ree:
E>e:c:, FM (1:.:3