ML20211C641
| ML20211C641 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1984 |
| From: | Cummings G, Ariuska Garcia LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| To: | Davis S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209C800 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-FIN-A-0801, CON-FIN-A-801, FOIA-87-6 NUDOCS 8702200163 | |
| Download: ML20211C641 (5) | |
Text
i b
Lawrence Livermore National Laboraica NUCLEAR SYSTEMS SAFETY PROCRNi August 24, 1984 SS-95-0437A-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 #3 Month of July 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 (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 f requencies of each plant damage state and the associated uncertainty spread l
to determine the accuracy of these estimates. The review will cover methodology, assumptions, data, information sources, models, plant l
understanding, completeness of the analysis and other areas where inconsistencies may arise which could af fect the quantitative or qualitative results.
2.
Progress for Period l
Work continued at a steady pace during the month.
f014'I M b l
0 022h0163 01A PDR l
syOLLys7-6 R
P
,cv w LF.t.
CMa."yn +
- PC Bw S3? :.wnre Ca!?cma M!53
- Teem au :::
?
. Ta. a -:
~
l l
Y D
' j SS-95-0437A- 0037A August 24, 1984 3.
Work to be Accomplished Next Month a.
Continue preparations for a site visit, now scheduled for the last week in August.
b.
Continue the development of questions for the utility on the PRA'.
4.
List of Subcontractors and Consultants We have established subcontractor and consultant agreements with the subcontractors and consultants listed below. We expect to add one or two additional names to this list -- for relatively small efforts in specialized areas, such as the evaluation of fire events.
a.
Subcontractors (1) Applied Risk Technology Corporation (ARTECH); P. J. Amico (2) Jack R. Benjamin and Aesociates, Inc. (JBA); J. W. Reed, i
H. W. McCann, Jr.
b.
Consultants (1)
P. R. Davis 5.
Concerns The concerns reported in June regarding the large event tree models and the very large number of sequences, combined with the difficulty of reproducing quantitative results, have been made even more significant by the recent identification of apparent errors in some of the event tree models.
Although we have not yet completed a full assessment of the impact of these concerns on the project, we expect the impact to be significant. For example,
i it appears that at least some of the event trees will have to be revised, if not redone, and that a substantial amount of requantification will be necessary. Furthermore, it will probably also be necessary to redefine the large number of plant damage states (PDSs) used in the PRA to a smaller number to assist NRC in the (re) evaluation of in plant consequences.
We are also concerned that the basis of the data used in the quantitative evaluation is described as proprietary and not provided in the PRA, nor are the references generally available which are given as the basis for data. In our review, we are comparing the data provided in the PRA to other sources.
If significant differences should be identified, the importance of these differences will necessarily have to be judged by considering how dependent the PRA results are on the numerical values of data elements with which we disagree. The absence of a basis for the data in the PRA will be a major concern only if important disagreements are found which cannot be resolved.
I i
?
6 ss 95-0437A 0037A August 24, 1984 A final concern is that the incremental funding of this project is resulting in the creation of significant additional paperwork, since it becomes necessary to handle subcontracts in a siutilar way. It would be very desirable to complete the funding of this project in one increment to reduce the total effort involved in these cycit.s.
6.
Other Not Applicable M
Abel A. Garcia Principal Investigator
}
s.
..s g' ( 5 MMW [
Garth E. Cummings Deputy Program Laader Nuclear Systems Safety Program AAG:sr Enclosures (2)
Distribution NRC DOE LLNL R. Frahm, DST W. J. Gallagher L. L. Cleland/G. E. Cummings J. Halvorsen, DST J. M. Johnson C. A. Meier,;s F. Rowsome, DST L. Solander, NRR A. C. Thadani, DST f
k
N.
SS-95-0437A-0037A August 24, 1984 l
ATTACHMENT A ESTIMATED PROJECT FINANCIAL STATUS:
JULY FY 1984 FIN AOB01 Summary COST ANALYSIS:*
JULY Year to Date I
Direct Staff Efforts 2.2 FTE-Mo O.3 FTE-Yr II Direct Labor Costs 9.8K 14.6K Materials & Services 0.0 0.0 ADP Support 0.0 0.0 Subcontracts 2.4 2.4 Travel Expenses 0.0 0.0 Indirect Labor Costs 9.2 13.7 Other (TID) 0.0 0.0 Other (LBL) 0.0 0.0 General & Administrative 0.0 0.0 Total Costs 21.4K 4
30.7K Liens O.OK Total Costs + Liens 30.7K Percentage of Available Funds 41.1%
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
$260.OK
$75.OK
$185.OK
- Note: These figures are for cost analysis only, and may differ slightly from final billing figures.
l L.
\\
I SS 95-0437A 0037A August 24, 1984 ATTACHMENT B FEE RECOVERY COST STATUS FIN:
A0801 TITLE: Review of the Probabilistic Risk Assessment for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant PERIOD: July 1984 Docket Costs Facility Name Number Period Cumulative Seabrook 50-443
$20.9K
$ 30K Conunon Coats 50-900 0.5 1
Total Expenses
$21.4K
$ 31K i
J e
-