ML20063N594

Forwards Comments on Applicant 820618 Proposed Probabilistic Risk Assessment Plan.Items Addressed Include Content, Resource Allocation & Phenomenological Tasks

ML20063N594
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	07/07/1982
From:	Johnson B SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP. (FORMERLY
To:	Spano A NRC
Shared Package
ML20063N588	List: ML20063N590 ML20063N592 ML20063N593 ML20063N594 ML20063N595
References
CON-NRC-03-82-096, CON-NRC-3-82-96, FOIA-82-342 NUDOCS 8210040351
Download: ML20063N594 (3)

Text

.

' ' ' INFORMAL TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION 1

Date July 7, 1982 T0-

[

Al Spano FROM: B. Johnson United States Nuclear Regulation Commission Science Applications, Inc.

Washington, D.C. 20555 1710 Goodridge Drive '

> McLean, VA 22102 Attention: .

Reference:

SAI Project 1-186-03-020-XX NRC Contract NRC-03-82-096 Assignment 6, Task 3 NRC TAC No. SAI Task _1-186-03-342-03

Attachment:

Comments on PRA Plan of June 18, 1982 Message: In accordance with Task 3 of assignment 6 (Clinch River PRA Review) which requires participation in the planning of the PRA review, we hereby transmit our coments on the applicant's proposed PRA plan.

NRC cc: H. Silver SAI cc: B. Johnson A. Thadani D. Findley (form only)

J. Swift R. Liner E. Rumble Task File 8210040351 820820 PDR FOIA WEISS82-342 PDR

3 i

Review of PRA Program Plan of June 18, 1982 (Submitted to CRBR Program Officer, Mr. Paul S. Check in a Letter Dated June 21, 1982 from John R. Longenecker)

Science Applications, Inc. (SAI) has reviewed the above plan and has the following comments relative to content as well as format. (Our comments are concerned not only with content of the plan but with the effectiveness with which it can be reviewed on an interactive basis.)

Content The overall subject matter suggested is reasonable. With copro-priate resource allocation to each topic, SAI regards the plan to be complete.

Resource Allocation The plan as presented contains no indication of the relative resource allocation, i.e. what fraction of the total effort is to be devoted to cach subtopic. SAI feels that this type of information is important for an interactive review. With this information we can ascertain that appropriate priorities have been established for the various subtasks.

This information should constitute an overall " strategy" for performance of the work. We would like an indication of the depth and breadth of effort planned for the subtasks.

Details of Plan The plan is lacking in sufficient detail to permit the evolution of' a meaningful review plan. The schedule of figure 4 is too broad to allow us to alfocate resources for a review. For example, we need to know details of when various types and quantities of event trees or f ault trees will be av..ilable for our review. There is no review (i.e. no preliminary draf t)

~

' , indicated for health efforts or study applications. According to the plan of Figure 4, some draft initiating events, event trees, and fault trees should have already been available for review.

(

'I I

It is planned that all event trees and all f ault trees will be presented at the same time for our review? A staged submittal would be preferable for our purposes.

Also, it would be helpful to indicate (as on Figure 4) how the external event evaluation will interf ace with the remainder of the program. 1 l

Phenomenological Tasks There is currently inadequate information on the phenomenological

, tasks. We need to know the codes (or other analytical means) and data which are to be used to develop event trees in order to perform a meaningful review.

In this regard, we question the use of the code, CACECO. We feel CONTAIN is a better code.

G

• O 4

2

.. . . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _