ML18017B141: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML18017B141
| number = ML18017B141
| issue date = 01/17/2018
| issue date = 01/17/2018
| title = NRC Slides for Jan 18, 2018, Public Meeting to Discuss Licensee Methods of Accounting for Seismic Risk in 10 CFR 50.69 Applications Without Using a Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment
| title = NRR E-mail Capture - NRC Slides for Jan 18, 2018, Public Meeting to Discuss Licensee Methods of Accounting for Seismic Risk in 10 CFR 50.69 Applications Without Using a Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment
| author name = Miller E
| author name = Miller E
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LSPB
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LSPB

Latest revision as of 16:09, 2 December 2019

NRR E-mail Capture - NRC Slides for Jan 18, 2018, Public Meeting to Discuss Licensee Methods of Accounting for Seismic Risk in 10 CFR 50.69 Applications Without Using a Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment
ML18017B141
Person / Time
Issue date: 01/17/2018
From: Ed Miller
Special Projects and Process Branch
To: Ed Miller
Special Projects and Process Branch
References
Download: ML18017B141 (16)


Text

NRR-DMPSPEm Resource From: Miller, Ed Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 12:27 PM To: Miller, Ed

Subject:

NRC Slides for Jan 18, 2018, Public Meeting on 10 CFR 50.69 Attachments: Jan18_2018_public meeting 10 CFR 50_69 NRC Slides.pdf Slides for the subject meeting are attached.

1

Hearing Identifier: NRR_DMPS Email Number: 98 Mail Envelope Properties (DM5PR0901MB23928383CA83D58F33AA3C61E9E90)

Subject:

NRC Slides for Jan 18, 2018, Public Meeting on 10 CFR 50.69 Sent Date: 1/17/2018 12:26:31 PM Received Date: 1/17/2018 12:26:33 PM From: Miller, Ed Created By: Ed.Miller@nrc.gov Recipients:

"Miller, Ed" <Ed.Miller@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: DM5PR0901MB2392.namprd09.prod.outlook.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 48 1/17/2018 12:26:33 PM Jan18_2018_public meeting 10 CFR 50_69 NRC Slides.pdf 430025 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

50.69 LARs NRC Observations January 18, 2018 public meeting Steve Dinsmore/ Mihaela Biro Division of Risk Assessment Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Topics

  • Status
  • Categorization Process Description
  • PRA Quality Issues
  • F&O Dispositions
  • PRA Model Uncertainties
  • External Hazards
  • Passive Categorization
  • Conclusions 2

Status

  • Pilot submitted August 2012, issued December 2014
  • Draft NEI template provided for NRC comment August 2016

- Template differed from pilot LAR

- Formal NRC review not requested, not performed

  • Public meetings August 2016, January 2017, June 2017, October 2017.
  • As of January 18, 2017, 9 LARs based on template in house, many more LARs expected 3

Categorization Process Description - Pilot

  • The Pilot LAR included a detailed description of the process for categorization

- Procedures governing process

- Observation of trial IDP deliberations

- Observation of results of two systems categorizations

  • The Pilot LAR included explanation of how the process was consistent with process endorsed in NEI 00-04
  • The pilot review revealed the categorization process is fairly complex and flexible 4

Categorization Process Description - Template

  • Template LAR provides no description of process

- states that the categorization process will be "in accordance with NEI 00-04"

- followed by deviations and clarifications

  • Previous staff comments on LAR template

- Text in template descriptive of required information, not boilerplate

- LAR should address plant specific implementation and procedures

  • Template should be revised to provide the required plant specific process description 5

Categorization Process Description - Current LARs

  • NEI 00-04 contains a number of steps performed in certain order

- Changing the steps or the order could impact the results presented to the IDP and thus the categorization

  • Staff has developed an RAI requesting a summary description of the process, e.g.,

- sequence of steps

- when IDP can re-assign preliminary HSS components

- component vs. function categorization

- how the passive categorization integrates in the overall process

  • Expectation is that future LARs will include a plant specific summary description of process that will be implemented at the pant 6

Categorization Process Description - Plant Specific 7

PRA Quality Issues

  • Adequate PRA quality needed
  • Need the peer and F&O review history up to the date of the LAR
  • PRA models need to reflect the current as-built, as operated plant
  • All unclosed F&Os need to be reported in the LAR and dispositioned for this application
  • General statement that only methods acceptable to NRC are used could help minimize RAIs about fire and seismic methods

- Summary about how this conclusion was reached should be added to the LARs

- F&Os should be consistent with this observation 8

F&O Dispositions

  • F&O Disposition should either:

- justify why the F&O has no impact on the categorization, either with a reasonable technical discussion or a sensitivity study, or

- summarize an acceptable change to the PRA and commit to implementing it, followed by a focused scope peer review if it was an upgrade

  • Insufficient to state that the impact of resolving F&O will be evaluated and fixed if it could affect categorization 9

PRA Model Uncertainties

  • NEI 00-04 discusses [A]pplicable sensitivity studies identified in the characterization of PRA adequacy
  • RG 1.201, interprets this as dealing with uncertainties associated with the licensees choice of specific models and assumptions
  • NUREG-1855 discusses identifying key sources of uncertainty and assumptions
  • Includes any not commonly accepted methods and assumptions
  • Like F&O resolution, disposition for each important model uncertainty is PRA model specific and should be reported in the LAR 10

External Hazards

  • Seismic - PRA, updated SMA (screening) in NEI 00-04; generic alternative proposal part of this meeting
  • Other screening (e.g., meets the SRP or low CDF) which assigns nothing to HSS based on low risk does not meet the guidance in NEI 00-04
  • hazards of less magnitude but higher frequency not automatically low risk
  • SSCs that cause low CDF/LERF might be HSS
  • Step in Fig. 5-6 asks if removal of SSC could result in screened scenario becoming unscreened 11

External Hazards (contd)

  • Figure 5-6 in Section 5.4 of NEI 00-04 summarizes the process that begins with the SSC selected for categorization and then proceeds through the flow chart for each external hazard 12

Passive Categorization

  • ANO-2 passive categorization methodology excludes all Class 1 pressure boundary components
  • Code Case N-660 allows including the following Class 1 components, but includes additional steps
i. breaks small enough for makeup provided by the reactor coolant makeup system; or ii. The component is or can be automatically isolated from the reactor coolant system by two valves in series
  • RG 1.147, referenced in RG 1.201, accepted Code Class N-660 with limitation that it must be applied to only Code Class 2 and 3, and non-code
  • Deviation from ANO-2 or accepted N-660 is not a short term solution 13

Conclusions

  • LARs need to include categorization process summary description
  • Any deviations should be minimized
  • Methods not accepted by NRC should be avoided
  • Consistency with Figure 5-6 should be demonstrated in LAR
  • Passive categorization should not deviate from accepted methods in LARs 14