Search Options | ||||
Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us |
POLICY ISSUE SECY-03-0122 July 18, 2003
To provide the Commission with the status of Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1122, "An Approach for Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities," including the status of Draft Standard Review Plan (SRP) Chapter 19.1, "Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities," and the status of the staff's endorsement of the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) standards and the industry's peer review program. PRA standards have been under development by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and the American Nuclear Society (ANS). On April 5, 2002, ASME issued a standard for a full-power, internal events (excluding fire) Level 1 (i.e., core damage frequency (CDF) analysis) PRA and a limited Level 2 (i.e., large early release frequency (LERF) analysis) PRA. ANS is developing standards for PRAs for evaluating external events and internal fire and risk from low-power and shutdown modes of operation. In addition, reactor owners' groups have been developing and applying a PRA peer review program for several years that addresses a Level 1 and a limited Level 2 PRA for full-power operation only and for internal events only excluding internal floods and fires. In SECY-02-0070 (April 24, 2002), the staff indicated its plan to develop a new Regulatory Guide and Standard Review Plan chapter that would provide guidance to licensees and the staff, respectively, on how to use the standards and other industry programs in evaluating the technical appropriateness of PRA results for risk-informed applications. In November 2002, the staff published DG-1122, along with the associated Draft SRP Chapter 19.1 for public review and comment. This paper provides a status of DG-1122, SRP Chapter 19.1, the PRA standards development, and industry peer review program, and stakeholder interaction on these items. Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1122 and Draft SRP Chapter 19.1 The purpose of DG-1122 is to describe one acceptable approach for determining that the quality of the PRA (in toto or for those parts that are used to support an application) is sufficient to provide confidence in the results such that they can be used in regulatory decision making for light water reactors. It is also intended to reflect and endorse guidance provided by standards-setting and nuclear industry organizations. As noted in DG-1122, guidance is provided in four areas:
DG-1122 guidance is for a "full-scope" PRA that includes a Level 1 (i.e., CDF) analysis and a Level 2 (i.e., radionuclide release frequency) analysis, addressing all operating modes (i.e., full-power, low-power, and shutdown), and internal (transients, loss of coolant accidents, floods and fires) and external (seismic, high winds, floods) events. The attributes and characteristics provided for each technical element prescribe a PRA that reflects:
SRP Chapter 19.1 provides guidance to the staff on how to assess the adequacy of the PRA results used to support an application. It focuses the staff review on aspects of the PRA model that are not performed in accordance with the standards (as modified to represent the staff position), and on the assessment of the assumptions that have been demonstrated to be critical to the application. DG-1122 does not provide guidance on how PRA results are used in the application-specific decisionmaking processes; that guidance is provided in such documents as:
Consequently, DG-1122 is a supporting document to other NRC regulatory guides that address risk-informed activities. The attached figure shows the relationship of DG-1122 and risk-informed activities, application-specific guidance, consensus PRA standards, and industry programs. The staff has interfaced with various stakeholders on a continual basis. This interaction has involved:
As noted above, DG-1122 and SRP Chapter 19.1 were issued for public review and comment in November 2002. Comments were received from six different organizations of which the majority of the comments concerned staff positions on the ASME standard in Appendix A (see discussion below on ASME standard). Minor comments (e.g., editorial in nature) were submitted on Appendix B (staff positions on NEI-00-02) of DG-1122 (see discussion below on industry peer review program), and no comments were submitted on SRP Chapter 19.1. There was a consensus among the stakeholders that the staff should move forward to publish the regulatory guide "for trial use" and test the guide via pilot applications. South Texas Nuclear Electric Generating Station has submitted a letter of intent indicating their desire to participate in a pilot; other licensees have expressed interest. The ACRS, on April 21, 2003, issued a letter to the staff with recommendations on DG-1122. Three of the recommendations supported the staff position regarding the ASME standard (see discussion below on ASME standard). The remaining three recommendations were:
The ACRS, in a subsequent letter on May 16, 2003, "Improvement of the Quality of Risk Information for Regulatory Decisionmaking," provided the staff with three similar recommendations. The staff agreed in responses to both ACRS letters, to include guidance, as appropriate, on these items in DG-1122. On June 13, 2003, an industry peer review of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) PRA was completed. NRC staff were present during the peer review, but as observers only. This peer review was the first review to use the ASME standard as the basis in evaluating a PRA. This peer review, therefore, both evaluated the SONGS PRA, and tested the ASME standard. Based on the staff observations, the staff provides the following comments:
Standards Development and Industry Peer Review Program ASME and ANS are the two professional societies currently writing the PRA standards. ASME is responsible for the development of a PRA standard for a Level 1 analysis and a limited Level 2 analysis, considering full-power operation and internal events (excluding internal fire). ANS is responsible for PRA standards for external events, low-power shutdown, and internal fires. The ASME and ANS standards are intended to be used together to cover the different aspects of PRA scope. The status of the ASME and ANS PRA standards is discussed below:
NEI issued NEI-00-02 ("Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Peer Review Process Guidance"), which is a process for a PRA peer review and it contains subtier criteria that the peer review team uses to judge the technical adequacy of the PRA. This process is for a peer review of a Level 1 and a limited Level 2 PRA for full-power operation and internal events (excluding internal floods and fires) only. The ASME standard (which references NEI-00-02 as an example of an acceptable review methodology) was issued after the peer reviews had been performed on the majority of the industry's PRAs. The staff noted that there are discrepancies between the ASME standard and the subtier criteria in NEI-00-02. Consequently, NEI submitted draft industry guidance for self-assessment. The purpose of this self-assessment is to provide guidance to industry "for using the results of existing PRA peer reviews (per NEI-00-02), along with supplemental self-assessments, to satisfy the peer review requirements of the ASME standard as endorsed by the NRC." This self-assessment includes guidance for the process, a comparison of the subtier criteria in NEI-00-02 against the requirements in the ASME standard, and the industry actions needed to address the identified discrepancies. It is the staff's understanding that NEI will finalize this draft guidance during the pilot application of DG-1122 and incorporate it into a revision of NEI-00-02. The following summarizes the status, and staff's accomplishments, to date related to its effort to address the issue of technical adequacy of PRA for risk-informed activities:
Attachment: As noted
Attachment 1 |
Privacy Policy |
Site Disclaimer |