ML20211D140

Forwards Std Order for DOE Work: Review of Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant PRA, for FIN A-0801.Order Stops Work Effective Immediately Due to Lack of Util Participation & Support

ML20211D140
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/11/1985
From:	Speis T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Duval R ENERGY, DEPT. OF
Shared Package
ML20209C800	List: ML20209C798 ML20209C897 ML20209D266 ML20209D278 ML20209D286 ML20209D327 ML20209D479 ML20209D512 ML20209D547 ML20209D870 ML20209E015 ML20209E274 ML20211C165 ML20211C259 ML20211C363 ML20211C389 ML20211C430 ML20211C484 ML20211C558 ML20211C632 ML20211C641 ML20211C679 ML20211C769 ML20211C792 ML20211C841 ML20211C904 ML20211C920 ML20211C942 ML20211D042 ML20211D068 ML20211D076 ML20211D092 ML20211D109 ML20211D129 ML20211D140 ML20211D169 ML20211D178 ML20211D191 ML20211D198 ML20211D208 ML20211D226
References
CON-FIN-A-0801, CON-FIN-A-801, FOIA-87-6 NUDOCS 8702200336
Download: ML20211D140 (6)

Text

'3 r

MAR 111955 Mr. Richard A. Duval, flanager San Francisco Operations Office U. S. Department of Energy 1333 Broadway, Wells Fargo Building Oakland, California 94612

Subject:

LLNL Technical Assistance to the Division of Safety Technolocy, .

NRR, NRC, " Review of Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant Probabilistic Risk Analysis" (FIN A-0801)

The enclosed NRC Form 173, Standard Order for DOE Work, is hereby submitted in accordance with Section III.P.E of the 00E/f$C Memorandum of Understanding dated February 24, 1978.

Pursuant to llanual Chapter 1102, Part IV(11), the enclosed NRC Form 173 orders all work to be stopped on the subject project immediately. The reascr. for thr Stop Work Order is the lack of utility participation and support. This order becemes effective upon the San Franciscc Operations Office acceptance of an appropriately executed f:FC Fern 173.

Ir addition, we have reviewed your ffonthly Management Letter #8, dated February 4,1985, and we are providing funds of $40,000.

If you have any questions concerning this Stop Work Order, please contact the NRC Project Manager, Sarah Davis, on FTS 492-7546 or Jayne Halvorsen on FTS 492-7932.

Sincerely, , .g k98 Themis P. Speis, Director Division of Safety Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

NRC Form 173 DIST: NRR Contract Files (DiGaloma) RRAB Rdr SDavis RFrahm AThadani DST Chron cc: R. Barber, HQ/ DOE J. M. Johnson, LLNL Davis Rdr AD/T rdr MFarr JHalvorsen A. Garcia, LLNL, L-95 TSpets FRowsome VZeoli, ORM ST DDandois, ORM ZR~osztoczy

/

• See Previous Concurrence J -m omesp ...EE/. DST *,, ,,,BRAB/ DST * .,RRAB/ DST

• _AD/T , PA/D Ti .. .NRRf D/D.S[l

%, SDav,1,s,/vr/ct RFrahm AThadani FRowsome JHalvo{r ,,, .TDi 1,, oms, .TE ei.5,,

ung 2/.22/85.. .. . .2/2.1/85.. . 2/2.1/85.. . 2/21/85.. .2/d785.. .2fN/85.. //185 nac sonu ne no son.acu oua OFFICIAL RECORD COPY uscac - m w 8702200336 870211 PDR FOIA SHOLLYB7-6 PDR

.~

g, Di.c+ribution v NR .ontract files (TDiGaloma) 1 RRAB Rdg file SDavis DAVIS CHRON RFrahm AThadani MFarr FRowsome AD/T Rdg JHalvorsen TSpeis DST CHRON Mr. Richard A. DuVal, Manager VZeoli, OR". '

San Francisco Operations Office DDandois, ORM U. S. Department of Energy 1333 Broadway, Wells Fargo Building ZRosztocz'" '

Oakland, California 94612 ,

Dear Mr. DuVal:

/

Subject:

LLNL Technical Assistange to the Division of Safety Technology, NRR, NRC, " Review of Se4 brook Nuclear Power flant Probabilistic Risk Analysis" (FIN A-0801) ,

\ /

The enclosed NRC Form 173, Standard Order for DOE' Work, is hereby submitted in accordance with Section III.B.2 bf the DOE /NRC Memorandum of Understanding dated February 24, 197 .

Funding authorization in the amount o $75,400 to begin work on this subject project was transmitted on April 3, 1984;/$156,000 on August 28, 1984; and '

$29,000 was transmitted on September 12y'1984. By letter dated January 29, 1985, the period of performance was axi. ended to April 15, 1985. In response to Monthly Management Letter #8, date.d February 4, 1985, we are transmitting the requested amount of $40,000. The purpose of this letter is to issue a stop work order. No further funds hould be-spent on this contract (FIN A-0801). N If you have any questions concp ning acceptance of this order, please contact Ms. Halvorsen on FTS 92-7932.

N Sincerely, s

\

'\

\

Themis P. Speis, Director Division of Safety Technology Office of Nuclear Reacto'r Regulation

Enclosure:

NRC Form 173 cc: R. Barber, HQ/ DOE J. M. Johnson, LLNL AD/T: DST A. Garcia, LLNL, L-95 MFarr 2/ /85 AD/ gT D PA: DST NRR D: DST omcep RMB,; D.ST 9 .RR,AB,;, DST .RRAB,; DST,gt SDavisN RFrahm FRoV.6me JHalvorsen TDiGaloma TSpeir

, _ , , AT.[adani) ,,

,N, om> 2/M.85, 2pf,/85 ,

2/,ti/85 2/f//85 2/, .f 85.. 2L../85.. 2/ . . . ./.8 5..

ecc eoau sia no so. wacu eno OFFICIAL RECORD COPY uscao *-na O

k NRC FoRu 173 u.s. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CommSSON ORDER NUMSER I, (144) 20-85-272 STANDARD ORDER FOR DOE WORK ,

MAR 111985 188UED TO: (DOE ONice) ISSUED SY: (NRC ONice) ACCOUNTING CITATION San Francisco Operations Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, DST

• "flT$1R[7 saR NumeER PEnFORsNNG ORGANIZATION AND LOCAT60N 20-19-40-41-5 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory FIN NUueER Livennore, California A-0801-5 WORK PERIOD - TNIS ORDER FIXED E ESTIMATED -

leEiYwofSeabrookNuclearPowerPlantProbabilistic Risk Analysis (ffff$/84 6%/15/85 08 LIGATION AVAILA81UTY PROVIDED SY:

A TsiS ORDER s40,000 8 TOTAL OF ORDERS PLACEO PRIOR TO THIS DATE wtTH THE PERFORMING ORGANIZATON UNDER THE SAME "APPROPRIATON SYMBOL" AND THE FIRST FOUR DGITS OF THE SaR NUMBER" CITED ABOVE 546,000 C. TOrat OaoERS To oATE cTOTAt A a 83  : g gg D AMOUNT INCLUDED IN "C" APPLICA8LE TO THE " FIN NUMBER" CITED IN THIS ORDER Sggg FINANCIAL FLEX 18tLITY JC FUNOS WILL NOT BE REPROGRAMMED BETWEEN FINS LINE D CONSTITUTES A LsulTATcN ON OBLGATONS AUTHORIZED C FUNDS MAY BE REPROGRAMMED NOT TO EXCEED 10*e OF FIN LEVEL UP TO 150K LINE C CONSTITUTES A LIMITATON ON 06LCATONS AUTHOR:2ED STANDARD TERMS AND CON 0lTONS tsee NRC Manwei Chapies 1102. Appea,a Past a) ARE PART OF TH:S ORDER UNLESS OTHERwiSE NOTED ATTACHMENTS THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT $ ARE HERE8Y MADE A PART OF THis SECURITY ORDER - WORK ON THIS ORDER INVOLVES CLASSIFIED STATEMENT OF woRg $NFORMATON NRC FORM 18715 ATT ACHED ADDITCNALTgRuS AND CONoiTIONS WNK ON THis ORDER INVOLVES UNCLASSIFIED k OTHER (5 lop Work) SAFEGUARDS PAO 8RIET ARY OR OTHEP SENSITIVE INFORM A TON FEE RECOVEPABLE WORK )( WORK ON THIS ORDER IS UNCLASSIFIED AND NOT SENS:TivE T NON FEE RECOVERABLE WORM R E M A RK s <R.,.,.,c. ,a. ,,apo ,, e, ,ir o., ,,,e ,,,, ,,, ,,,,.c.,, ,, ,n, ,, u n., ,,,,,,,,,, o, . . ,,. . , ,,, 00e ,,ox ,r, This order provides $40,000 in resoonse to Monthly Manaaement Letter #8 dated February 4, 1985, and provides that all work on this project be stooped immediately. No further costs are to be incurred under this FIN.

I A please send to the NRC Office of Resource Management, ATTN: D. Dandois,!

fterprovide a nd acceptance,a coa 8 the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation , ATTN: K. McGrath.

.m. _ n/ SUING t apfMORITY ,

, ACCEPTING ORGANIZATION S

cNMRp gjyy ScN.TuaE Themis P. Spets, irector 5' l TITLE fifLE Division of Safety Technology NRC FOAM 17311 64: D'If

(Lv  %

j ,

MEMORANDUM FOR: Themis P. Speis, Director

. Division of Safety Technology ' .

FROM: Ashok C. Thadani, Chief Reliability and Risk Assessment Branch

SUBJECT:

SEABROOK PSA REVIEW - OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE REVIEW The purpose of this memorandum is to apprise you of the status of the review effort and the options and recommendation for the continuation of this review which will affect the Phase I report to be transmitted to Division of Licensing by January 31, 1985 (per the FY84 Operating Plan).

We received a draft review report from Lawrence Livermore Laboratories on December 20, 1984 (Enclosure 3). A summary and evaluation of the salient features of the report is provided as Enclosure 2, and Enclosure 1 is a proposed memo of transmittal to DL to accompany the summary and draft review report, which satisfies our commitment to provide a Phase I report of the Seabrook PRA review by January 31, 1985.

The review has been impeded b'y circumstances and problems in several areas.

This PSA was submitted to the NRC voluntarily by Public Service of New Hampshire during a period of severe financial problems surrounding the completion of the Seabrook plants and the stability of the applica'nt utility.

Since the PSA has not been tied to a specific licensing action, the applicant made the decision that they were not able to allot resources for the support of the review of this document. They did provide staff to conduct a plant visit in late August, but did not provide any further

support in terms of supplying all documentation requested, answers to questions from our contractor and the staff, and, having severed their contract with their consultant who performed the PSA, could not provide an avenue for answers or documentation from the authors of the PSA. We acknowledge these decisions were not made in a spirit of non-cooperation but rather financial circumstances which outweighed their desire to provide support, but nonetheless seriously affected the ability to provide a thorough and conclusive review.

From another source, the PSA itself, problems arose regarding the contractor's ability to perform a review which provided verification of the l methods, assumptions, and results of the PSA. More importantly, they were not able to assess the impact from areas of disagreement on the perception FcJ /1 # 7*# 6 of plant safety, overall risk, and core melt frequency as reported the PSA. S/yg l

cnntart- Sarah Davis. RRAB 49-27546 oreca p . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .

sua =c h ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . -

I o.n > . ............. .. ... . ..

c roau m oo eoseacw om OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usc% =-w

t 0

( However, a qualitative judgment, made by LLNL, is that the overall core melt frequency would not be significantly changed by the differences they cite in areas of disagreement.

All of the above leads us to the situation at hand. The' draft review report from LLNL notes di'sagreements and what they consider to be errors in the PSA, but has not provided a definitive cohesive presentation of the engineering insights obtained from the PSA nor the effects of their conclusions on the results of the PSA. There is information presented that appears to potentially provide useful insight into the understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the design and proposed operation of the Seabrook plant, but it lacks the overall focus of increasing our under-standing of the important contributors to plant safety.

There is a question at this point as to if and how Phase II of the review should proceed. The bounding options are to (1) terminate the review with the transmittal of the Phase I report or to (2) extend the funding and schedule for this review to allow the contractor to pursue an alternative method of identifying and quantifying accident sequences res'ulting from their own contructed event tree / fault tree analyses. 'An option in-between, though not identified by the contractor, would require the expenditure of the remaining funds allotted for this review with a focus on improving the ~

draft report or pursuing individual issues of interest to us as there has not been a. discrepancy or error identified in the review report which is estimated, at this point, to significantly change the results of the Seabrook PSA.

Listed below are primary points in consideration of further action:

1) the circumstances under which the review has been performed have not changed,

2) the feasibility of the review report being substantially improved in a cost effective manner is questionable, and

3) the purpose / focus of the review beyond this point (e.g., specific l licensing actions, hearing contentions, etc.) is not clearly defined.

(Should that become the case, perhaps a more specific and supported review would be appropriate at that time.)

In consideration of the pros and cons associated with the options delineated, we recommend that the review be terminated at this point. There does not appear to be enough conclusive reasons'to expend any further funding and a Phase I report will be delivered to Division of Licensing, per the OP commitment. Should circumstances change, we can initiate further work in the areas that are identified as meriting supported review and analysis.

l Reactor Systems Branch is responsible for a review of containment failure

( modes and consequence analyses. Their input has not been received. They l

c,,.a t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sunanaest ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . .

o.n > .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY aw -w w c eoau vo oo sess acw ono

7--

I C'

f i

expeci to receive a review report from their contractor (BNL) January 24, 1985. Since their input has not been received according to the agreed upon schedule, we can only state in the Phase I report that these areas will be covered in a subsequent document. * .

Ashok C. Thadani, Chief Reliability and Risk Assessment Branch C8FCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,

Semanaut ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

een y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .

a: eoaw sie no aios a.acu on.o OFFiClAL RECORD COPY usc o '*i- n. *-