ML20211C430
| ML20211C430 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1984 |
| From: | Tuszka M LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| To: | Speis T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209C800 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-6 NUDOCS 8702200094 | |
| Download: ML20211C430 (1) | |
Text
g Lawrence Uvermore National Laboratory June 22, 1984 Mr. T. Speis Director, Division of Safety Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC. 20555
Subject:
LLNL Proposal, Review of Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant Probabilistic Risk Assessment
Dear Mr. Speis:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory offers for your consideration the subject proposal. The purpose of the work is to review aspects of Seabrook PRA leading to the estimates of the frequencies of each plant damage state to determine the accuracy of these estimates.
The estimated cost to perform this work is $400,000. A detailed breakdown of this cost estimate by UC-LLNL major cost element follows (K$):
FY 1984 FY 1985 Total Hardcore
$ 140.0
$ 120.0
$260.0 Major Procurement 120.0 20.0 140.0 Equipment Facility Total 5 260.0 5 140.0 5400.0 FTE
.8
.5 1.3 When responding to this proposal please refer to Proposal L-519.
Personnel and facilities at the Laboratory can be made available under the terms and conditions of DOE Contract W-7405-ENG-48 with the University of California. If your decision is favorable with respect to this proposal, DOE, on behalf of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, will enter into and execute an interagency agreement, or make other mutually satisf actory arrangements, for performance of this work. Final acceptance of this proposal is contingent upon DOE approval.
Sincerely, c _._1. Q ary
.T ka Contro11e cc: Brechbill, S. Cont. Mgmt. - DOE / SAN g
00208/l
&i.
- v
- .,v.i,.., e
,: n a rc w a. w - n can w w n c w wa nn a...
..~
8702200094 870211 PDR FOIA SHOLLYB7-6 PDR
a.
b g
Lawrence Livermore National Laborate.
(
NUCLEAR SYSTEMS SAFETY PROGRAM June 22, 1984 SS-87-0013u-1148x Ms. Sarah M. Davis Reliability and Risk Assessment Branch Division of Safety Technology U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
SUBJECT:
Monthly Management Letter #1 Month of Mey 1984 NRC FIN-A0801 Review of the Seabrook Probabilistic Risk Asse sment
Dear Ms. Davis:
1.
Project Description and Objective The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is conducting a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) review program in which PRAs performed and submitted to the NRC by *icense applicants and licencees receive comprehensive review and evaluation. The program is the responsibility of the Reliability and Risk Assessment Branch (RRAB).
A PRA of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant (Seabrook PRA) has been submitted to the NRC by Public Service Company of New Hampshire, an operating license (OL) applicant. The review of this document, whose title is "Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety Assessment," is being performed as one project in the larger NRC program.
The objective of this project is to perform an expeditious and cost effective review of those aspects of the Seabrook PRA leading to the estimates of the frequencies of each plant damage state and the associated uncertainty spread to determine the accuracy of these estimates. The review will cover methodology, assumptions, data, information sources, models, plant understanding, completeness of the analysis and other areas where inconsistencies may arise which could affect the quantitative or qualitative results.
2.
Progress for Period a.
The project began on May 15th, b.
Very little review effort was expended during the remainder of the month since the only document available was one copy of the PRA.
Q_CA N Nb I
G/n.
I An Eoua Ch>xtsyyEw
- vwsq o'Ca*tcm
- PO B:w 83E Lwere Canr%1 MY.'
- Teic;m x -
?:: * %.1,..
~
l l
l
% $ Q $ 2.4 0 M k
^
c
~
Or
~
SS-87-0013u-ll48x June 22, 1984 e
c.
Additional copies of the FRA were requested, as well as copies of the FSAR, P&ID's and other relevant documents.
a.
Subcontractor and consultant work in the project was defined and cost proposals requested.
3.
Work to be Accomplished Next Month a.
Establish subcontractor and consultant agreements.
b.
Begin a significant effort on the review work.
4.
List of Subcontractors and Consultants We are in the process of establishing, or have established subcontractor and consultant agreements with the subcontractors and consultants listed below. We expect to add one or two additional names to this list -- for relatively small efforts in specialized areas, such as the evaluation of fire events.
a.
Subcontractors (1) Applied Risk Technology Corporation (ARTECH); P. J. Amico (2) Jack R. Benjamin and Associates, Inc. (JBA); J. W. Reed, M. W. McCann, Jr.
b.
Consultants (1)
P. R. Davis 5.
Concerns None.
6.
Other Not Applicable AA Abel A. Garcia Principal Investigator
.t,m c
w Q?nw < L %[]
Garth E. Cunrnings Deputy Program Leader Nuclear Systems Safety Program AAG:bmc Enclosures (2)
I
.?k SS-87-0013u-ll48x June 22, 1984 v
Distribution NRC DOE LLNL R. Frahm, DST W. J. Gallagher L. L. Cleland/G. E. Cummings J. Halvorsen, DST J. M. Johnson,,
F. Rowsome, DST C. A. Meier,,, %*
L. Solander, NRR A. C. Thadani, DST i
4 i
l l
i l
l l
i I
i
h
. June 22, 1984 SS-87-0013u-1148x ATTACHMENT A MONTHLY PROJECT FINANCIAL STATUS MAY 1984 Review of the Seabrook Probabilistic Risk Assessment FIN-A0801 A. PROJECT COSTS:
Total Projected Funds Obligated Balance of Funds Project Cost to Date by Fiscal Year FY84 FY85
$400K
$75K
$185K
$140K B.
COST ANALYSIS
- Period Cumulative Direct Lab Staff Effort - FTE 0.0 FTE-Mo.
0.0 FTE-Yr.
Direct Salaries 5 0.0K
$ OK Materials & Services 0.
O ADP Support 0.
O Subcontracts 0.
O Travel Expenses 0.
O Indirect Labor Costs 0.
0 Other (TID) 0.
O General & Administrative 0,
0 Total Expenses
$ 0.0K
$ OK Liens 0.
O Total Costs and Liens
$ OK (0%) of funding available
- Note: These figures are for cost analysis only and may differ slightly from final billing figures.
.e h
SS-87-0013u-Il48x June 22, 1984 ATTACHMENT A (continued)
C.
FEE RECOVERY COST STATUS FIN:
A0801 TITLE: Review of the Probabilistic Risk Assessment for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant PERIOD: May 1984 Docket Costs Facility Name Number Period Cumulative Seabrook 50-443
$ 0.0K
$ OK Common Costs 50-900 0.0 0
Total Expenses 5 0.0K 5 OK
k'
\\
/p ara
'o,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 h
a
\\/
.m Docket Nos: 50-443/444 MEMORANDUM FOR: Themis P. Speis, Director Division of Safety Technology FROM:
Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
EXTERNAL EVENTS PROBABILISTIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT (PSA)
REVIEW FOR SEABROOK STATION
Reference:
- 1. Memorandum from T. Speis to All NRR Division Directors, Subject, " Review of the Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety Assessment," June 21, 1984.
Your memo of June 21, 1984 (Ref. 1) requested that DE staff provide support for the review of Seabrook Station external events PSA.
The proposed schedule attached to your memo requests that the staff provide questions and coments by August 1,1984, and a draft review report by 15, 1984. The Geosciences Branch staff, in-charge of October coordinating this review, has discussed this schedule with the reviewers from various DE branches and also with Sarah Davis of RRAB. Based on this discussion, the following revised schedule of review has been agreej upon:
(i) questions and coments August 15, 1984 (ii) site visit Mid-August, 1984 (iii) draft review report to RRAB November 15, 1984 The revised schedule for our review input to RRAB is contingent upon receiving the consultant's review report on or before October 15, 1984, as scheduled.
A list of the assigned reviewers is attached for your reference.
Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
(
Enclosure:
List of External Events PSA Reviewers fgfg - $7WS cc: See next page B/o Wh/234)i8(o (3g
cc:
A. Thadani L. Reiter S. Davis D. Gupta DE BC's W. Gamill
- 0. Parr V. Nerses
)
l n ie muiium i
F Docket Nos. 50-443/444 Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant Reviewers for External Events Probabilistic Safety Assessment Area of Review Responsible Branch Assigned Reviewer seismic GSB/SGEB/MEB/EQB P. Sobel/N. Chokshi, J. Chen/R. Pichumani A. Itasciantonio Aircraft Crash SAB K. Campe Fire ChEB J. Stang External Floods EHEB R. Jachowski Hazardous Chemical SAB K. Campe (Truck Crash)
Wind / Tornado METB/SGEB/ASB J. Fairobent/
N. Chokshi/
R. Anand Turbine Missile litEB J. Schiffgens DE
Contact:
L. Reiter/D. Gupta
g Lawrence Livermore National Laborato:.
i NUCLEAR SYSTEMS SAFETY PRC3 RAM July 17, 1984 SS-92-0351A-0037A Ms. Sarah M. Davis Reliability and Risk Assessment Branch Division of Safety Technology U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
SUBJECT:
Monthly Management Letter #2 Month of June 1984 NRC FIN-A0801 Review of the Seabrook Probabilistic Risk Assessment
Dear Ms. Davis:
1.
Project Description and Objective The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is conducting a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) review program in which PRAs performed and submitted to the NRC by license applicants and licensees receive comprehensive review and evaluation. The program is the responsibility of the Reliability and Risk Assessment Branch (RPAB).
A PRA of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant (Seabrook PRA) has been submitted to the NRC by Public Service Company of New Hampshire, an operating license (OL) applicant. The review of this document, whose title is "Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety Assessment," is being performed as one project in the larger NRC program.
The objective of this project is to perform an expeditious and cost effective review of those aspects of the Seabrook PRA leading to the estimates of the frequencies of each plant damage state and the associated uncertainty spread to determine the accuracy of these estimates. The review will cover methodology, assumptions, data, information sources, models, plant understanding, completeness of the analysis and other areas where inconsistencies may arise which could affect the quantitative or qualitative results.
2.
Progress for Period a.
One copy of the FSAR, two copies of the D&ID's and two copies of the PRA were received during the month, b.
One subcontractor (ARTECH) and one consultant (P. R. Davis) began work on the project.
Fozn ~ 9 7-00 (,
Drile no AMP (%, y\\ -
g/,3
-o s y v iy-c c
A"Eata ctwwp E~r>a,r elnes'. o!Cau:*
- P D Bu eX cemn canv 94550
- Te+0ve '4?N:210: Ts. - :~ A:
- -. a
e SS-92-0351A-0037A July 17, 1984 c.
The level of review effort increased during this month as we received additional documents and subcontractor and consultant agreements were established.
3.
Work to be Accomplished Next Month a.
Continue to increase the level of effort.
b.
Make preparations for a site visit in late July, including the development of questions for the utility on the PRA.
4.
List of Subcontractors and Consultants We are in the process of establishing, or have established subcontractor and consultant agreements with the subcontractors and consultants listed below. We expect to add one or two additional names to this list -- for relatively small efforts in specialized areas, such as the evaluation of fire events.
a.
Subcontractors (1) Applied Risk Technology Corporation (ARTECH); P. J. Amico (2) Jack R. Benjamin and Associates, Inc. (JBA); J. W. Reed, M. W. McCann, Jr.
b.
Consultants (1)
P. R. Davis 5.
Concerns Several problems have already been identified in the course of the review and as a consequence of planning the details of work yet to be done. Two are of particular importance since they have the potential for a significant adverse effect on the project schedule.
The first of these is a general recognition that the S-PRA will be far more difficult to review than was anticipated, due to a combination of the methodology used and what appears to be a serious problem with scrutability.
The methodology used in the PRA provides event tree models that are extremely large and complex.
In the internal events analysis, for example, the transient event tree has more than 5800 sequences for each support system entry state, and there can be as many as 40 of these entry states per initiator. An additional layer of complication is provided by the use of 36 plant damage states.
(
l l
?
2 SS-92-0351A-0037A July 17, 1984 While the level of detail might be expected to make the results easy to reproduce, we have so far been unable to reproduce the quantitative results in several areas that have been explored. An example is the calculation of the interfacingsystemLOCA(EventV).
We are also concerned that a plant visit has not yet been scheduled. The original general plan for this review included a plant visit at about one month after the documents necessary for the review were received, and a target date of mid to late July was established. The importance of the plant visit should not be underestimated. If it is delayed beyond the end of July, a corresponding delay for completion of the project will be necessary.
j A third concern is the need for additional documentation for the review of the seismic portion of the S-PRA. We need a copy of the detailed calculations used to develop the structure and equipment fragilities for the plant, i.e., the " fragility calculations" that were performed by Structural l
Mechanics Associates, Inc. for use in the PRA.
6.
Other Not Applicable A^cN Abel A. Garcia Principal Investigator
& x G Lu% -
Garth E. Cummings Deputy Program Leader ~
Nuclear Systems Safety Program AAG:bmc Enclosures (2) 3 Distribution NRC DOE LLNL R. Frahm, DST W. J. Gallagher L. L. Cleland/G. E. Cumings 1
J. Halvorsen. DST J.M.Johnsonf F. Rowsome, DST C. A. Meier l
L. Solander, NRR O
A. C. Thadani, DST
A i
SS-92-0351 A-0037A July 17, 1984 x
ATTACHMENT A ESTIMATED PROJECT FINANCIAL STATUS:
June FY 1984 FIN AOB01 Summary COST ANALYSIS 8 June
-Year to Date 1
Direct Staff Effort 0.9 FTE-Mo 0.1 FTE_Yr II D1 rect Labor Costs S
4.8K 4.8K Materials & Services 0.0 0.0 ADP Suppo-t O.O O.O Subcontracts 0.0 0.0 Travel Expenses 0.0 0.0 Indirect Labor Costs 4.5 4.5 Other (TID) 0.0 0.0 Other (LBL) 0.0 0.0 General t< Administrative 0.0 0.0 Total Costs 9.3K 9.3K Liens S
0.OK Total Costs + Liens S
9.3K Percentage of Available Funds 13.0%
1 III Funding Status
)
Prior Year FY 1984 Projected FY 1984 Funds FY 1984 Funding Carryover Funding Level Rec'd to Date Ba1. Needed
$0.OK S260.OK
$75.OK
- 105.OK i
$ Note: These figures are f or cost analysis only, and may differ slightly from final billing figures.
l
s,
'\\
SS-92-0351A-0037A July 17, 1984 ATTACHMENT B FEE RECOVERY COST STATUS FIN:
A0801 TITLE: Review of the Probabilistic Risk Assessment for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant PERIOD: June 1984 Docket Costs Facility Name Number Period Cumulative Seabrook 50-443
$ 8.8K
$ 9K Common Costs 50-900 0.5 1
Total Expenses 5 9.3K
$ 10K o
b w
e-m e*=~e
-- m y,e
-%----r-
- - - - - - - - - -