ML14058A083: 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 15: Line 15:
| page count = 3
| page count = 3
}}
}}
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:qFerrante, FernandoFrom:Sent:To:Cc:
==Subject:==
Aird, David '[-- jFriday, January 13, 2012 1:25 PMFerrante, FernandoPerkins, RichardRE: GI-204 Dam Failure Comm. Plan AnswerFernando, Thanks for taking a look at my various responses.
I agree that we are converging on the same answer andnow understand why not to take ownership of the IPEEE responses especially considering the questionable numbers assigned to dam failures.
-..
naviriOutside of ScopeIn the Oconee Nuclear Station su mi/icensee estimated the im-pact from flooding due to failure of a large upstream dam but also concluded that it this is alow probability event and, therefore, did not pose a severe accident vulnerability.-
Outside of Scope On Oconee, one of the confusions on what the dam frequency represents is that the licensee parsed failuremodes by separating seismic and treating the probability of failure due to overtopping individually (using limitedhydrologic data). This approach came from an earlier PRA study effort titled NSAC-60, specific to Oconee. Thefailure modes which the licensee included were primarily embankment piping and foundation failures with avery narrow focus on dams that met the same characteristics of Jocassee Dam, resulting in a lower value thanwould generally be obtained by using dam failures from all failure modes and years of operations of thegeneral large dam population (which is how they derived the value listed in the IPEEE, which again was basedon NSAC-60 approach).
Outside of Scope
: Richard, "Thanks,David AirdReliability and Risk EngineerRES/DRA/PRB (301) 251 -7926Mailstop:
CSB-4CO7M Location:
04-C25:3}}

Revision as of 13:52, 2 July 2018

Email from D. Aird, RES to F. Ferrante, NRR GI-204 Dam Failure Comm. Plan Answer
ML14058A083
Person / Time
Site: Oconee  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 01/13/2012
From: David Aird
NRC/RES/DRA
To: Ferrante F J
NRC/NRR/DRA
Shared Package
ML14055A421 List: ... further results
References
FOIA/PA-2012-0325
Download: ML14058A083 (3)
v • d • e


Text

qFerrante, FernandoFrom:Sent:To:Cc:

Subject:

Aird, David '[-- jFriday, January 13, 2012 1:25 PMFerrante, FernandoPerkins, RichardRE: GI-204 Dam Failure Comm. Plan AnswerFernando, Thanks for taking a look at my various responses.

I agree that we are converging on the same answer andnow understand why not to take ownership of the IPEEE responses especially considering the questionable numbers assigned to dam failures.

-..

naviriOutside of ScopeIn the Oconee Nuclear Station su mi/icensee estimated the im-pact from flooding due to failure of a large upstream dam but also concluded that it this is alow probability event and, therefore, did not pose a severe accident vulnerability.-

Outside of Scope On Oconee, one of the confusions on what the dam frequency represents is that the licensee parsed failuremodes by separating seismic and treating the probability of failure due to overtopping individually (using limitedhydrologic data). This approach came from an earlier PRA study effort titled NSAC-60, specific to Oconee. Thefailure modes which the licensee included were primarily embankment piping and foundation failures with avery narrow focus on dams that met the same characteristics of Jocassee Dam, resulting in a lower value thanwould generally be obtained by using dam failures from all failure modes and years of operations of thegeneral large dam population (which is how they derived the value listed in the IPEEE, which again was basedon NSAC-60 approach).

Outside of Scope

Richard, "Thanks,David AirdReliability and Risk EngineerRES/DRA/PRB (301) 251 -7926Mailstop:

CSB-4CO7M Location:

04-C25:3

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML14058A083&oldid=794793"