Joint Assessment of Cable 

Damage and Quantification of 

Effects from Fire 

(JACQUE-FIRE)

Volume 2:

Expert Elicitation Exercise for Nuclear

Power Plant Fire-Induced Electrical

Circuit Failure

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Electric Power Research Institute

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 3420 Hillview Avenue

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1338

NUREG/CR-7150, Vol. 2 EPRI 3002001989

BNL-NUREG-98204-2012 Final Report
NRC Reference Material 

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly released 

records include, to name a few, NUREG-series 

publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, 

licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence; 

NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins 

and information notices; inspection and investigative 

reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers 

and their attachments. 

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC 

regulations, and Title 10, “Energy,” in the Code of

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one 

of these two sources. 

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office

Mail Stop SSOP

Washington, DC 20402–0001

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

Telephone: 202-512-1800

Fax: 202-512-2250 

2. The National Technical Information Service 

Springfield, VA 22161–0002

www.ntis.gov

1–800–553–6847 or, locally, 703–605–6000 

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is 

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 Office of Administration 

Publications Branch

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION.RESOURCE@NRC.GOV

Facsimile: 301–415–2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC’s Web site address 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs 

are updated periodically and may differ from the last 

printed version. Although references to material found on 

a Web site bear the date the material was accessed, the 

material available on the date cited may subsequently be 

removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material 

Documents available from public and special technical 

libraries include all open literature items, such as books, 

journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices, 

Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports. 

Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports 

and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings 

may be purchased from their sponsoring organization. 

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are 

maintained at—

The NRC Technical Library

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852–2738 

These standards are available in the library for reference 

use by the public. Codes and standards are usually 

copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating 

organization or, if they are American National Standards, 

from—

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036–8002

www.ansi.org

212–642–4900 

AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only 

in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical 

specifications; or orders, not in NUREG-series 

publications. The views expressed in contractorprepared publications in this series are not necessarily 

those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and 

administrative reports and books prepared by the staff 

(NUREG–XXXX) or agency contractors (NUREG/CR–

XXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences (NUREG/CP–

XXXX), (3) reports resulting from international 

agreements (NUREG/IA–XXXX), (4) brochures 

(NUREG/BR–XXXX), and (5) compilations of legal 

decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic and 

Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors’ decisions

under Section 2.206 of NRC’s regulations (NUREG–

0750).

DISCLAIMER: This report was prepared as an account 

of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. 

Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any 

agency thereof, nor any employee, makes any warranty, 

expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or 

responsibility for any third party’s use, or the results of 

such use, of any information, apparatus, product, or 

process disclosed in this publication, or represents that 

its use by such third party would not infringe privately 

owned rights.
Joint Assessment of Cable Damage 

and Quantification of Effects from 

Fire (JACQUE-FIRE)

Volume 2: Expert Elicitation Exercise for Nuclear Power 

Plant Fire-Induced Electrical Circuit Failure

NUREG/CR-7150, Vol. 2 EPRI 3002001989

BNL-NUREG-98204-2012

Prepared by

M. Subudhi and G. Martinez-Guridi 

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Final Report

May 2014

G. Taylor

NRC Technical Project Manager

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) 3420 Hillview Avenue

Washington, D.C, 20555-0001 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1338

U.S. NRC-RES Project Manager EPRI Project Managers 

M.H. Salley R. Wachowiak

 A. Lindeman
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES 

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN 

ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH 

INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE 

ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM: 

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) 

WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR 

SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS 

FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR 

INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL 

PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S 

CIRCUMSTANCE; OR 

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER 

(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE 

HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR 

SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, 

PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT. 

REFERENCE HEREIN TO ANY SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, PROCESS, OR SERVICE BY ITS 

TRADE NAME, TRADEMARK, MANUFACTURER, OR OTHERWISE, DOES NOT NECESSARILY 

CONSTITUTE OR IMPLY ITS ENDORSEMENT, RECOMMENDATION, OR FAVORING BY EPRI. 

THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATION(S) PREPARED THIS REPORT: 

Brookhaven National Laboratory 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

Electric Power Research Institute 

THE TECHNICAL CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT WERE NOT PREPARED IN 

ACCORDANCE WITH THE EPRI NUCLEAR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM 

MANUAL THAT FULFILLS THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR 50, APPENDIX B AND 10 

CFR PART 21, ANSI N45.2-1977 AND/OR THE INTENT OF ISO-9001 (1994). USE OF 

THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT IN NUCLEAR SAFETY OR NUCLEAR QUALITY 

APPLICATIONS REQUIRES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS BY USER PURSUANT TO THEIR 

INTERNAL PROCEDURES. 

NOTE 

For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 

800.313.3774 or e-mail askepri@epri.com. 

Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER...SHAPING THE FUTURE OF 

ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. 

Copyright © 2014 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
iii 

ABSTRACT 

The Joint Assessment of Cable Damage and Quantification of Effects from Fire (JACQUEFIRE) is a unique program in using an expert elicitation exercise by a Probabilistic Risk 

Assessment (PRA) panel to build upon information developed in an electrical engineering 

panel’s Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table (PIRT) exercise. These two exercises 

designed to work in series were sponsored by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 

(NRC’s) Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) and the Electric Power Research 

Institute (EPRI) under the NRC-RES/EPRI’s Memorandum of Understanding collaborative 

research agreement. NUREG/CR-7150, Volume 1 of the JACQUE-FIRE program details the 

findings of the PIRT exercise undertaken on the failures of electrical control circuits that may 

occur in nuclear power plants as a result of fire damage to cables. 

Volume 2 documents the results of the PRA panel’s expert elicitation that is used to develop 

conditional probabilities of hot short-induced spurious operation occurrence of various control 

circuit applications and their durations, given fire damage to electrical cables. The PRA panel 

chosen for this expert elicitation comprised a group of ten experts sponsored equally by the 

NRC and the EPRI. Staff from Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) facilitated the efforts of 

the PRA panel and also served as technical evaluators. 

The objective of the PRA panel’s expert elicitation is to estimate the conditional probabilities of 

the hot short-induced spurious operation failure mode of control circuits and its duration, given 

fire-induced cable damage. These results are intended for use in fire PRA applications. Using 

an enhanced Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee’s (SSHAC’s) Level 2 process for the 

expert elicitation (NUREG/CR-6372), the panel suggested parametric distributions of the 

probability of occurrence, and duration of fire-induced circuit-failure phenomena. Distributions 

are developed for control circuit configurations where applicable test data are available, as well 

as when there are none, but expert judgment reasonably can offer quantitative estimates. 

The electrical PIRT study in Volume 1 identified the configurations of the electrical control 

circuits that could be vulnerable to hot short-induced spurious operations, applying the physics 

and physical parameters that influence the modes of fire-induced circuit failure. For these 

control circuits, the PRA panel derived the distributions of conditional probability on the hot 

short-induced spurious operation of certain end devices and also the conditional probability 

distributions of their spurious operation duration. Both conditional probability distributions were 

derived using the results from recent cable-fire tests undertaken by the EPRI, Duke Energy, and 

the NRC and expert judgment. These conditional probabilities advance the state-of-the-art and 

are intended for revising, directly replacing, or creating new probabilities in NUREG/CR-6850 

(Tables 10-1 through 10-5) and in its Supplement 1 (Figure 16-1 and Table 16-1) that the 

nuclear power industry currently use in their fire PRAs. 

Since the information in the supporting appendices of this report is voluminous, some of this 

material is included in an enclosed compact disk located inside the back cover of this report. 

The compact disk also contains the detailed information used by the PRA panel in the 

formulation of this report. 
 
v 

CONTENTS 

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. iii

CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................. v

FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... ix

TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... xiii

EPRI PERSPECTIVE ............................................................................................................... xvii

PREFACE .................................................................................................................................. xix

CITATIONS ................................................................................................................................ xxi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................... xxiii

LIST OF ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................. xxv

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 1-1 

1.2 NRC-RES/EPRI Goals ................................................................................................ 1-5 

1.3 Project Objectives ....................................................................................................... 1-5 

1.4 The Approach .............................................................................................................. 1-6 

1.5 The PRA Panel ........................................................................................................... 1-7 

1.6 Report Organization .................................................................................................... 1-8 

2 OVERVIEW OF PRA PANEL’S ACTIVITIES ...................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Enhanced SSHAC Level 2 Process Used by the PRA Panel ..................................... 2-2 

2.1.1 PRA Panel Participation in SSHAC Workshops .............................................. 2-4 

2.2 Case Studies Considered by the PRA Panel .............................................................. 2-6 

2.2.1 PIRT Results Relating to Control Circuit Configurations ................................. 2-7 

2.2.2 Hot Short Characterization .............................................................................. 2-8 

2.2.3 Initial Case Studies Included in Proponent Reports ........................................ 2-8 

2.2.4 Proponent Expert Input and Technical Integrator Team Assessments ........... 2-9 

2.2.5 Project’s Final Case Studies .......................................................................... 2-10 

2.3 Technical Integration Process to Obtain Community Distributions ........................... 2-11 

2.3.1 Training of PRA Experts ................................................................................ 2-12 

2.3.2 Receiving Input from Proponents .................................................................. 2-13 

2.3.3 Fitting and Feedback from Proponents ......................................................... 2-13 

2.3.4 Consolidating Input from Proponents ............................................................ 2-14 

2.3.5 Deriving a Parametric Community Distribution .............................................. 2-15 

2.3.6 Combining Individual Community Distributions ............................................. 2-18 

2.4 Participatory Peer Review Panel Findings ................................................................ 2-19 
vi 

3 PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL 

PROBABILITY ESTIMATIONS ............................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Information Available to Proponents ........................................................................... 3-2 

3.1.1 PIRT-Identified Influencing Parameters ........................................................... 3-2 

3.1.2 Fire Test Data and Other PIRT Panel Recommendations .............................. 3-3 

3.1.3 Insights on Data from Cable-Fire Tests ........................................................... 3-7 

3.1.4 Overview of Control Circuit Cases Considered ............................................... 3-8 

3.2 Single Break Control Circuits .................................................................................... 3-15 

3.2.1 Approaches Used to Estimate Single Break SOV and MOV Control 

Circuit Probabilities ........................................................................................ 3-16 

3.2.2 Approach Used to Estimate Single Break DC Control Circuits for 

Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker Probability .................................................. 3-20 

3.3 Double Break Control Circuits ................................................................................... 3-21 

3.3.1 Approach Used to Estimate Double Break Control Circuit Probability .......... 3-23 

3.4 Spurious Operation Duration ..................................................................................... 3-26 

3.4.1 Approach Used to Estimate Spurious Operation Duration Probability .......... 3-28 

4 CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR SINGLE BREAK 

CONTROL CIRCUITS ......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 SOV Single Break Control Circuits .............................................................................. 4-2 

4.2 MOV Single Break Control Circuits ............................................................................. 4-4 

4.3 Single Break Ungrounded DC Control Circuits for Medium Voltage Circuit 

Breaker ........................................................................................................................ 4-8 

5 CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR DOUBLE BREAK 

CONTROL CIRCUITS ......................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 SOV Double Break Control Circuits ............................................................................ 5-1 

5.1.1 Ungrounded AC (with Individual CPTs) ........................................................... 5-1 

5.1.2 Ungrounded DC (or Ungrounded Distributed AC) ........................................... 5-4 

5.2 MOV Double Break Control Circuits ............................................................................ 5-6 

5.2.1 Ungrounded AC (with Individual CPTs) ........................................................... 5-6 

5.2.2 Ungrounded DC (or Ungrounded Distributed AC) ........................................... 5-7 

6 CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION DURATION FOR CONTROL 

CIRCUITS .............................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Test Data and CS-Model of Weibull Distribution ......................................................... 6-1 

6.2 Proponent Input and Results of Assessing Duration of Spurious Operation ............... 6-2 

7 GUIDANCE FOR USING CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR 

CONTROL CIRCUITS ........................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Overview of Approach ................................................................................................. 7-1 
vii 

7.2 PRA Panel’s Expert Elicitation Results ....................................................................... 7-2 

7.3 PRA Panel Recommended Guidance for Using the Conditional Probability 

Tables and Duration Plots ........................................................................................... 7-3 

7.3.1 Assumptions .................................................................................................... 7-4 

7.3.2 Compile and Evaluate Prerequisite Information and Data ............................... 7-4 

7.3.3 Perform Circuit Failure Mode Likelihood Analysis ........................................... 7-5 

7.3.3.1 Specific Guidance on Use of Spurious Operation Tables ................. 7-6 

7.3.4 Spurious Operation Duration Analysis ............................................................. 7-7 

7.3.4.1 Determine the Time Available ........................................................... 7-8 

7.3.4.2 Perform the Spurious Operation Duration Analysis .......................... 7-9 

7.3.4.3 Document the Spurious Operation Duration Analysis..................... 7-11 

7.3.5 Apply the Circuit Failure Probabilities and Duration Probabilities .................. 7-11 

7.3.6 Document the Analysis and Uncertainty ........................................................ 7-13 

7.4 PRA Panel Recommendations on Other Cable Configurations ................................ 7-13 

8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 8-1

9 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 9-1

APPENDIX A PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES ................................................... A-1 

APPENDIX B PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS .................................................................. B-1 

APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF PROPONENT REPORTS AND PANEL DISCUSSIONS ....... C-1 

APPENDIX D CABLE-FIRE TEST DATA .............................................................................. D-1 

APPENDIX E TECHNICAL INTEGRATION OF PROPONENT INPUTS ............................... E-1 

APPENDIX F PARTICIPATORY PEER REVIEW PANEL REPORT ...................................... F-1 

APPENDIX G SELECTED PRESENTATION VIEWGRAPHS ............................................... G-1 

APPENDIX H TECHNICAL INTEGRATOR AND PROPONENT OPINION ON 

APPLICATION OF LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES FOR MULTIPLE 

SPURIOUS OPERATION CASES .................................................................. H-1 

ix 

FIGURES 

Figure 1-1 Illustration of Fire-Induced Electrical Circuit Failure Modes ................................. 1-2

Figure 2-1 Illustration of Fire-Induced Hot Short Failure Modes ........................................... 2-6

Figure 2-2 Example of Applying LOP and Fitting a Beta Distribution to the Resulting 

LOP Distribution [SB 01_04] .............................................................................. 2-16

Figure 2-3 Example of Estimating a Beta Distribution Having the LOP’s Mean and 

0.95 Quantile [SB 01_05] ................................................................................... 2-17

Figure 2-4 Example of Determining a Beta Distribution Using the Quantiles 

Generated by SAPHIRE 7 [SB 04_10] ............................................................... 2-19

Figure 3-1 Illustration of Conductor Connection Patterns in EPRI/NEI Testing .................... 3-7

Figure 3-2 Illustration of Example Single Break Control Circuits ......................................... 3-15

Figure 3-3 Generic Event Tree as Used by Proponent #3 .................................................. 3-19

Figure 3-4 Simplified Double Break Control Circuit Design ................................................. 3-22

Figure 3-5 Double Break Control Circuit Configuration (Ungrounded DC) .......................... 3-23

Figure 4-1 Community Distribution for Circuit Breakers Using LOP of Inputs from 

Proponents 1 and 3. ............................................................................................ 4-8

Figure 6-1 Historgram and Weibull Fit to Data ...................................................................... 6-2

Figure 6-2 Community Distribution for AC Duration Floor ..................................................... 6-3

Figure 6-3 Community Distribution for DC Duration Floor ..................................................... 6-4

Figure 6-4 AC Control Circuit Spurious Operation Duration Conditional Probability 

Curve ................................................................................................................... 6-5 

Figure 6-5 DC Control Circuit Spurious Operation Duration Conditional Probability 

Curve ................................................................................................................... 6-5 

Figure 7-1 Flowchart Showing Process Used to Determine Appropriate Spurious 

Operation Table ................................................................................................... 7-6

Figure 7-2 Fault-Tree Modeling of Spurious Operation of SRVs – Example 1 .................... 7-12

Figure 7-3 Fault-Tree Modeling of Spurious Operation of SRVs – Example 2 .................... 7-13

Figure 8-1 AC and DC Spurious Operation Duration Mean Conditional Probability 

Plots ..................................................................................................................... 8-5

 
 
xi 

TABLES 

Table 2-1 SSHAC Roles by the PRA Panel ......................................................................... 2-3

Table 3-1 Conditional Probability of Spurious Operation – Single Break Control 

Circuits ............................................................................................................... 3-11

Table 3-2 Conditional Probability of Spurious Operation – Double Break Control 

Circuit Ungrounded AC and DC Power Supply .................................................. 3-13

Table 3-3 Circuit Breaker Test Data................................................................................... 3-21

Table 4-1 Conditional Probability of Spurious Operation: SOV Single Break-Control 

Circuits ................................................................................................................. 4-3

Table 4-2 Bases for Assignment of Weights to Proponents in Four Sub-cases .................. 4-4

Table 4-3 Conditional Probability of Spurious Operation: MOV Single Break Control 

Circuits ................................................................................................................. 4-7

Table 4-4 Conditional Probability of Spurious Operation: Ungrounded DC Control 

Circuits for Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker ........................................................ 4-9

Table 5-1 Conditional Probability of Spurious Operation: Double Break Control 

Circuits for Ungrounded AC (w/ individual CPTs) Base Case – SOV .................. 5-2

Table 5-2 Conditional Probability of Spurious Operation: Double Break Control 

Circuits Ungrounded DC (or Ungrounded Distributed AC) BASE CASE – 

SOV ..................................................................................................................... 5-5

Table 5-3 Conditional Probability of Spurious Operation: Double Break Control 

Circuits for Ungrounded AC (w/ individual CPTs) Motor-Operated Valve ............ 5-7

Table 5-4 Conditional Probability Of Spurious Operation: Double Break Control 

Circuits Ungrounded DC (or Ungrounded Distributed AC) Motor-Operated 

Valve .................................................................................................................... 5-9

Table 6-1 Pooling of Test Data for Spurious Operation Duration ......................................... 6-1

Table 6-2 Duration Conditional Probability Floors with Uncertainties .................................. 6-4

Table 6-3 Tabulated Spurious Operation Duration Conditional Probability Values for 

AC and DC Control Circuits ................................................................................. 6-6

Table 8-1 Summary of Mean Conditional Probability of Spurious Operation For 

Single Break Control Circuits ............................................................................... 8-3

Table 8-2 Summary of Mean Conditional Probability of Spurious Operation For 

Ungrounded Double Break Control Circuits ......................................................... 8-4 

xiii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The risk from hot short-induced spurious operation resulting from fire damage is currently part of 

the method for quantifying fire risk to nuclear power plants documented in NUREG/CR-6850 

(EPRI 1011989), “EPRI/NRC-RES Fire PRA Methodology for Nuclear Power Plants.” The 

quantification aspect of the current version of NUREG/CR-6850 with respect to hot short 

likelihood is based on a limited set of experimental data and expert judgment performed in the 

early 2000s. NUREG/CR-6850 currently does not provide guidance on the quantification of 

spurious operation duration. 

Over the past decade, there have been numerous studies and testing to advance the 

understanding of cable response from fire effects. Most recently, work sponsored by the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) and 

the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) under the NRC-RES/EPRI’s Memorandum of 

Understanding collaborative research agreement conducted a two part expert panel project to 

better understand the risks associated with fire-induced control circuit damage. 

The Joint Assessment of Cable Damage and Quantification of Effects from Fire (JACQUEFIRE) is a unique program in using an expert elicitation exercise by a Probabilistic Risk 

Assessment (PRA) panel to build upon information developed in an electrical engineering 

panel’s Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table (PIRT) exercise. NUREG/CR-7150 (EPRI 

1026424), Volume 1 of the JACQUE-FIRE program details the findings of the PIRT exercise 

undertaken to evaluate the hot short phenomena that influence failure modes of electrical 

control circuits, which may occur in nuclear power plants (NPPs) as a result of fire damage to 

cables. 

Volume 2 documents the results of the PRA panel’s expert elicitation that is used to develop the 

conditional probabilities of hot short-induced spurious operations of various control circuit 

applications and their durations, given fire damage to electrical cables. Since the information in 

certain appendices of this report is voluminous, some appendix material is included in an 

enclosed compact disk located inside the back cover of this report. The PRA panel chosen for 

this expert elicitation comprised a group of ten experts sponsored equally by the NRC and the 

EPRI. Staff from Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) facilitated the efforts of the PRA panel 

and also served as the technical evaluators. 

The objective of this expert elicitation is to advance the state-of-the-art in estimating the 

conditional probability1

 of (1) hot short-induced spurious operation phenomena in various control 

circuit configurations (e.g., single break and double break) used in NPPs and (2) spurious 

operation durations where the length of their persistence could affect the circuit function of the 

component or device considered. As concluded in Volume 1, these phenomena encompass 

fire-induced intra-cable hot short, inter-cable hot short and ground fault equivalent hot short 

(GFEHS) failure modes of cable conductors that have the potential to cause spurious operation 

in various end devices (e.g., solenoid-operated valve (SOV), motor-operated valve (MOV), and 

 

1

 In this report, the “probability” and “likelihood” were used interchangeably, although the meaning of 

likelihood is the state of being probable. 
circuit breaker). The spurious operation herein, as defined in Volume 1, is a “circuit-fault mode 

wherein an operational mode of the circuit is initiated (in full or in part) due to failure in one or 

more components of the circuit, including the cables.” 

To achieve this objective, the PRA panel started with the information developed by the PIRT 

panel, then followed an enhanced Level 2 expert elicitation process developed by the NRC’s 

Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC). The main objective of the SSHAC 

process is to “provide a representation of the informed scientific community view of the 

important components and issues.” The members of the panel assumed independent roles of 

technical integrator (TI) team member, proponent, resource expert, or member of a participatory 

peer review panel (PPRP). The primary goals of this structured process were to minimize the 

technical- and procedural-biases that might have evolved out of the elicitation process and to 

preserve each proponent’s recommended methods and estimated conditional probability values 

whilst developing the final results representing a larger technical community. Accordingly, the 

eventual goal of this project was to generate a representation of the informed scientific 

community's view of each particular conditional probability of occurrence and duration of 

spurious operation of control devices given that fire damage to their electrical cables has 

occurred. 

The control circuit cases for hot short-induced spurious operation evaluated by the PRA panel 

were categorized in Volume 1 using the following five (5) circuit variables: 

1. Circuit Configurations – Single Break, Double Break 

2. Circuit Type Cases – SOV, MOV, Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker 

3. Circuit Grounding/Power Supply Types – Grounded AC, Ungrounded AC (with Individual 

Control Power Transformers (CPTs)), Ungrounded DC (or Ungrounded Distributed AC) 

4. Target Cable Constructions – Thermoset (TS)-insulated Conductor Cable, Thermoplastic 

(TP)-insulated Conductor Cable, Metal Foil Shield Wrap Cable, Armored Cable 

5. Conductor Failure Modes – Intra-cable hot short, Inter-cable hot short, GFEHS 

These five variables resulted in developing spurious operation conditional probability tables for 

the following two control circuit configurations, namely; 

1. Single Break (or Contact) Control Circuits 

a. Base Case - SOV 

b. MOV 

c. Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker 

2. Double Break (or Contact) Control Circuits (for ungrounded circuits) 

a. Base Case - SOV 

b. MOV 

The evaluation of the duration probability of hot short-induced spurious operation associated 

with these control circuits yielded two probability distributions (with uncertainties); one for ACpowered control circuits, and the other for DC. 

To support the PRA panel’s work, the NRC staff developed a roll-up table containing fire-test 

data from all available cable fire test programs. Typically, the proponents did not base their final 

estimates solely on these values from the roll-up table, but instead, used this information to 

support their final recommendations. The TI team assessed the expert’s inputs and developed 
xv 

a process of integration that was used to calculate the conditional probability distributions for all 

single break and double break control circuit configurations. 

The results from this effort provide realism to advance the state-of-the-art for quantifying circuit 

failure risk in fire PRAs and are intended for revising, directly replacing, or establishing new 

probabilities in NUREG/CR-6850 (EPRI 1011989) for use in fire PRAs. This report (Volume 2) 

documents the technical recommendations made by the panel of experts on quantification of the 

hot short-induced spurious operations and the associated hot short duration. These estimates 

of conditional probability are intended to supersede probabilities for Tables 10-1 through 10-5, 

entitled “Failure Mode Probability Estimates Given Cable Damage,” of NUREG/CR-6850 and for 

Figure 16-1 and Table 16-1 of Supplement 1 to NUREG/CR-6850, and entitled “Fire 

Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods Enhancements.” 

In addition to developing the conditional probabilities, the PRA panel made several 

recommendations for the application of this information in fire PRAs. 
 
xvii 

EPRI PERSPECTIVE 

Under a joint Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), NRC-RES and EPRI initiated a 

collaborative, results-oriented research program with the primary objective to develop improved 

methods for conducting Fire PRA at nuclear power plants. As part of this program, a project 

was initiated to improve on the knowledge of the fire impact upon cables. Tests were conducted 

to measure the failure thresholds of various cable types and to measure the occurrence of 

spurious actuations of equipment due to hot shorts resulting from cable damage. This report 

addresses the PRA application of this data, with the primary objective to develop a set of 

probabilities for spurious actuation of equipment. Additional focus was given with regards to the 

duration of the spurious events. 

To accomplish this goal a PRA expert panel was assembled, sponsored equally by EPRI and 

the NRC, with the intention to be representative of all “stakeholders” including research, 

regulators, and licensees. The panel included representatives with PRA, and/or electrical 

expertise, with backgrounds in the applications of these results. This PRA expert panel, 

therefore, builds upon the PIRT panel’s conclusions provided in NUREG/CR-7150 Volume 1. 

As part of the expert elicitation, a modified SSHAC process was followed. This process 

provided a formal framework intended to make the process efficient and limit potential biases. 

In this regard, the process appears to have been a success. 

The information in this report revises a significant portion of Task 10 of NUREG/CR-6850 (EPRI 

1011989). The results are presented such that the bounding values can be applied based on a 

minimum set of parameters, and more specific values can be applied if more rigors are used to 

define the circuit configuration and conditions. Unfortunately, the application is not a simple 

update of the numbers. The use of Option #2 (Computational Probability Estimates) as a 

technical approach for calculating spurious operation likelihood has been eliminated. Also, a 

new failure mode has been identified, the Ground Fault Equivalent Hot Short (GFEHS). These 

changes may require some previous plant analyses to be updated for future applications. Along 

with updated spurious operation duration probabilities for AC circuits, this report includes 

duration probabilities for DC circuits. The report also provides guidance for use of these values 

in PRA analyses. 

Based on the increased scope refinement of data, and the improved guidance for application, 

this report represents an overall improvement in the state-of-the-art for performing a Fire PRA. 

 
 
xix 

PREFACE 

This report supplements previous work related to the effects of fire on cable failure modes and 

circuit response. 

In 2002, EPRI published EPRI 1003326, Characterization of Fire-Induced Circuit Faults. This 

report documented the results of a comprehensive research and test effort undertaken jointly by 

EPRI and NEI to investigate, characterize, and quantify fire-induced circuit failures. This testing 

series also included monitoring cable electrical performance with a patented system developed 

and fielded by Sandia National Laboratories. The results of which are presented in 

NUREG/CR-6776, Cable Insulation Resistance Measurements Made During Cable-fire Tests, 

June 2002. 

In 2003, NRC published NUREG/CR-6834, Circuit Analysis – Failure Mode and Likelihood 

Analysis, to address weaknesses in existing fire PRA circuit analysis methods. This report 

reviewed the existing data available on fire-induced cable failure and characterized that state of 

knowledge by conducting a formal failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA). 

In 2008, the NRC published NUREG/CR-6931, Volumes 1-3, Cable Response to Live Fire

(CAROLFIRE), documenting the results of fire-induced failure cable test results to support 

resolution of Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-03, Risk-Informed Approach for Post-Fire SafeShutdown Circuit Inspections, and to provide improvements to fire modeling in the area of cable 

response to fires. 

In 2012, the NRC published NUREG/CR-7100, Direct Current Electrical Shorting in Response to 

Exposure Fire (DESIREE-Fire): Test results, documenting the results of fire-induced circuit 

damage to control cables and circuits powered from a direct current power source. 

In 2012, the NRC and EPRI published Volume 1 of this NUREG/CR-7150 (EPRI 1026424), 

Joint Assessment of Cable Damage and Quantification of Effects from Fire (JACQUE-FIRE) - 

Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table (PIRT) Exercise for Nuclear Power Plant FireInduced Electrical Circuit Failure. This report identified configurations of control circuits that are 

vulnerable to fire-induced failure mode, hot short-induced spurious operation of control devices, 

after cables are damaged by fire. Part of the charter for this PIRT panel was to provide the 

information necessary as a starting point for the PRA panel’s expert elicitation documented in 

this Volume 2. 

In 2013, the NRC published the NUREG-2128, Electrical Cable Test Results and Analysis 

during Fire Exposure (ELECTRA-FIRE). This report systematically evaluated the test data from 

the three major fire-induced circuit damage testing programs and provided graphical 

interpretations of various parametric effects on the likelihood of circuit failure modes and the 

associated hot short durations. 

This document does not constitute regulatory requirements. NRC-RES participation in 

this study does not constitute or imply regulatory approval of its applications based 

upon this methodology.

xxi 

CITATIONS 

This report was prepared by the following: 

Brookhaven National Laboratory 

P.O. Box 5000 

Upton, NY 11973 

Principal Investigators: 

M. Subudhi 

G. Martinez-Guridi 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

Contributors: 

R. Gallucci 

N. Melly 

M. Salley 

N. Siu 

M. Stutzke 

G. Taylor 

J. Xing 

Sandia National Laboratories 

P.O. Box 5800 

Albuquerque, NM 87185 

Contributor: 

S. Nowlen 

Electric Power Research Institute 

3420 Hillview Avenue 

Palo Alto, CA 94304 

Contributor: 

R. Wachowiak 

Constellation Energy Group Inc. 

750 East Pratt Street 

Baltimore, MD 21202 

Contributor: 

R. Cavedo 

Hughes Associates, Inc. 

900 Washington St., Suite 830 

Vancouver, WA 98660 

Contributor: 

D. Funk 

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy 

3901 Castle Hayne Road, M/C L30 

Wilmington, NC 28403 

Contributor: 

D. Henneke 

Engineering Planning and Management 

5520 Dillard Drive, Suite 250 

Cary, NC 27518 

Contributor: 

D. Miskiewicz 

ERIN Engineering and Research Inc. 

2001 N. Main Street, Suite 510 

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Contributor: 

K. Zee 

This report describes research sponsored jointly by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 

(NRC) Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) and the Electric Power Research Institute 

(EPRI). 

The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner: 

Joint Assessment of Cable Damage and Quantification of Effects from Fire (JACQUE-FIRE), 

Volume 2: Expert Elicitation Exercise for Nuclear Power Plant Fire-Induced Electrical Circuit 

Failure, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), 

Rockville, MD, 2012, and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA, NUREG/CR7150, BNL-NUREG-98204-2012, and EPRI 3002001989. 
 
xxiii 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This project was completed using an expert panel, which included staff from Brookhaven 

National Laboratory (BNL), Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC), and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). The concept of the 

project was developed for the NRC by Mr. Mark Henry Salley, along with EPRI’s Mr. Kenneth T. 

Canavan and Mr. Richard Wachowiak, who afforded management guidance and technical 

direction throughout the project. Near the completion of this project Ashley Lindeman of EPRI 

replaced Richard Wachowiak and helped with closure of this project and publications. 

Mr. Nicholas Melly and Mr. David Gennardo of NRC offered technical support in developing the 

data file from all recent cable-fire tests so that the panel could use them in estimating the 

probabilities for various control circuit configurations. At BNL, Ms. Maria Anzaldi helped prepare 

this manuscript. 

The authors thank the members of the PRA expert panel, Robert Cavedo, Daniel Funk, 

Raymond Gallucci, Dennis Henneke, David Miskiewicz, Steven Nowlen, Nathan Siu, Gabriel 

Taylor, Jing Xing, and Kiang Zee for their dedication to this process of expert elicitation. We are 

grateful for the support of panel members’ organizations who cooperatively shared some or all 

of the cost and time for their participation in this study. We thank the panel members for 

devoting much time to developing the technical discussions and conditional probability 

distributions reported in this document. 

A special thanks to Mr. David Goforth of Duke Energy for providing the proprietary report 

describing the armored control cable testing that was undertaken in 2006. Because of the 

proprietary nature, the test data in this report was exclusively used by the panel members for 

estimating probabilities. 

We gratefully acknowledge the technical contributions of Martin Stutzke of NRC, who developed 

the “CS-Model” of the Weibull distribution for estimating the spurious operation duration 

conditional probability plots. We also specially thank Gabriel Taylor of NRC for providing 

technical direction and support throughout the project, and assisting in writing and addressing 

peer review comments on the draft version of this report. 

The authors acknowledge and thank members of the entire PRA panel for providing review 

comments on the first draft of this report. Finally, our special thanks to Ms. Avril Woodhead at 

BNL for technically editing the entire report. 

 

xxv 

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

A or Amp Ampere 

AC Alternating Current 

AOV Air-Operated Valve 

AWG American Wire Gauge 

BNL Brookhaven National Laboratory 

CAROLFIRE Cable Response to Live Fire 

CCDF Complementary Cumulative Distribution Function 

CDF Cumulative Distribution Function 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CPT Control Power Transformer 

CSPE Chloro-Sulfonated Polyethylene 

DB Double Break 

DC Direct Current 

DESIREE-Fire Direct Current (DC) Electrical Shorting in Response to Exposure Fire 

ELECTRA-FIRE Electrical Cable Test Results and Analysis during Fire Exposure 

EPM Engineering Planning & Management 

EPR Ethylene-Propylene Rubber 

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 

FAQ Frequently Asked Questions 

FPP Fire Protection Program 

GDC General Design Criteria 

GEH General Electric Hitachi 

GFEHS Ground Fault Equivalent Hot Short 

HAI Hughes Associates, Inc. 

HGL Hot Gas Layer 

IN Information Notice 

IRMS Insulation Resistance Measurement System 

JACQUE-FIRE Joint Assessment of Cable Damage and Quantification of Effects from Fire 

k-s Kolmogorov-Smirnov 

KATE-Fire Kerite Analysis in Thermal Environment of Fire 

LOCA Loss of Coolant Accident 

LOP Linear Opinion Pooling 

MLE Maximum Likelihood Estimate 

MOV Motor-Operated Valve 

MRR Median Rank Regression 

MSIV Main Steam Isolation Valve 

MSO Multiple Spurious Operations 

#/C ‘#’ Number of Conductor 

NC Normally Closed 

NEI Nuclear Energy Institute 

NFPA National Fire Protection Association 

NO Normally Open 

NPP Nuclear Power Plant 

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

P (SO) Probability of Spurious Operation 
xxvi 

PDF Probability Density Function 

PIRT Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table 

PORV Power-operated Relief Valve 

PPRP Participatory Peer Review Panel 

PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment 

PSHA Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses 

PWR Pressurized Water Reactor 

RCIC Reactor Core Isolation Cooling 

RES Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, NRC 

SAFT Scale-Accelerated Failure Time 

SCDU Surrogate Circuit Diagnostic Unit 

SB Single Break 

SNL Sandia National Laboratories 

SOKC State-Of-Knowledge Correlation 

SOV Solenoid-operated Valve 

SRV Safety Relief Valve 

SSCs Structures, Systems, and Components 

SSHAC Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee 

STD Standard 

TFI Technical Facilitator/Integrator 

TI Technical Integrator 

TP Thermoplastic 

TS Thermoset 

US United States 

V Volt 

XLPE Cross-linked Polyethylene 
1-1 

1

INTRODUCTION 

The primary objectives of fire protection programs (FPPs) at U.S. nuclear power plants (NPPs) 

are to minimize the probability of the occurrence of fire, and of its consequences. In meeting 

these objectives, the FPPs for operating NPPs are designed to offer reasonable assurance, 

through defense-in-depth principles, that a fire will not prevent the safe-shutdown of the reactor. 

The goals of the defense-in-depth concept for fire protection are to assure a high degree of fire 

safety in an NPP by preventing fires from starting, timely detecting those that do start, and 

promptly suppressing them. In addition, the defense-in-depth concept offers protection for the 

structures, systems, and components (SSCs) important to safety, so that if a fire is not promptly 

extinguished, it will not prevent the reactor from being shut down safely. 

To achieve defense-in-depth, each operating reactor has a fire protection program approved by 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that, when properly designed, implemented, and 

maintained, will satisfy Section 50.48, “Fire Protection,” of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 50 (10 CFR 50.48) (Ref. 1). This regulation requires that each holder of a 

license issued under 10 CFR 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities” 

(Ref. 2) or 10 CFR 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approval for Nuclear Power Plants” (Ref. 

3), has a fire protection plan that satisfies General Design Criterion (GDC) 3, “Fire Protection,” 

of Appendix A to 10 CFR 50, (Ref. 4). The GDC 3 requires that SSCs important to safety are 

designed and strategically located to minimize the probability and the effect of fires and 

explosions. GDC 3 also establishes the criteria for detecting fires, for firefighting systems, and 

for using noncombustible and heat-resistant materials throughout the plant. 

In recent years, the NRC has encouraged utilities operating NPPs to use risk-informed, 

performance-based approach as an alternative to the existing deterministic fire protection 

requirements (e.g., Appendix R to 10 CFR 50, “Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power 

Facilities Operating Prior to January 1, 1979” (Ref. 5)). The NRC amended these requirements 

in 10 CFR 50.48 to permit existing reactor licensees to voluntarily adopt the fire-protection 

requirements detailed in the National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA’s) Standard 805, 

“Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating 

Plants, 2001 Edition” (Ref. 6). 

1.1 Background 

The Browns Ferry Fire of 1975 (Ref. 7) and confirmatory testing of representative circuits 

revealed that fire-induced failures of electrical circuits, leading to spurious operation of 

equipment, can occur in the event of a fire. The type of circuit failure that may result from fireinduced cable damage depends on many factors, including the type of circuits (i.e., power, 

control, or instrument), the circuit’s specific design and construction, the location and type of 

cable with respect to the site of the fire (e.g., the cable’s jacket and insulation construction, 

orientation, raceway routing and fill, circuit grounding), and the cable’s failure modes. 

Electrical cables damaged from fire are known to exhibit several circuit failure modes, namely, 

open circuit fault, short circuit (e.g., hot short) fault, and short-to-ground fault. An open circuit 
INTRODUCTION 

1-2 

fault is defined as a fire-induced break in the conductor resulting in a loss of continuity. A short 

circuit (or hot short) fault is defined to be a breakdown of the cables’ insulation due to fire 

damage that results in individual conductors of the same or different cables to come in contact 

with each other and may result in an impressed voltage or current on the circuit being analyzed. 

Thus, fire-induced hot short faults could only cause spurious operation(s) in a control circuit that 

could also be recoverable. A short-to-ground fault is defined as a breakdown of the cables’ 

insulation resulting in the potential of a conductor to be applied to ground/neutral. Figure 1-1 

illustrates various fire-induced failure modes using simplistic circuit schematics. 

Figure 1-1. Illustration of Fire-Induced Electrical Circuit Failure Modes 

Once a cable is damaged by fire, short circuit faults can cause the malfunction of a component 

or system, including hot short-induced spurious operation of safety components, or false 

indications of instrumentation and control circuits. As defined by the Phenomena Identification 

and Ranking Table (PIRT) panel in Volume 1 of NUREG/CR-7150, a spurious operation is a 

circuit failure mode wherein an operational mode of the circuit is initiated (in full or in part) due to 

failure(s) in one or more of the circuit’s components (including cables). For example, such 

modes include a pump (starting or stopping) or a valve spuriously repositioning. Even though 

these failure modes were identified to have occurred during the Browns Ferry Fire of 1975, the 

likelihood of these phenomena remained a topic of debate through the early 2000’s (Ref. 8). 

To better understand these hot short-induced spurious operation phenomena, both the NRC’s 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) through Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), and 

the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), in collaboration with the Nuclear Energy Institute 

(NEI), conducted fire testing of various cables in controlled environments. The testing helped in 

determining the likelihood of such failures, and in understanding the effects of those parameters 

affecting the hot short phenomenon in electrical circuits during a fire. More specifically, in 2002, 

EPRI/NEI reported a cable-test program addressing the nature and characteristics of such fireinduced failures of alternating current (AC) control circuits, particularly the potential of hot shorts 
INTRODUCTION 

1-3 

to initiate the spurious operation of equipment (Ref. 9). Subsequently, NRC sponsored the 

CAROLFIRE (CAble Response tO Live FIRE) test program to (1) obtain an experimental basis 

for resolving the issues identified as “Bin 2 Items” in Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-03, “RiskInformed Approach for Post-Fire Safe-Shutdown Circuit Inspections” (Ref. 10); (2) improve firemodeling tools to aid in predicting cable damage under fire conditions; and, (3) complement the 

EPRI/NEI test results for AC control circuits. In 2008, NRC/SNL published the findings from this 

CAROLFIRE test program on electrical performance and fire-induced cable failure (Ref. 11). In 

2012, NRC also published the results of the DESIREE-Fire (Direct Current Electrical Shorting In 

REsponse to Exposure Fire) that encompasses cable-failure modes and effects on the behavior 

of direct current (DC) control circuits (Ref. 12). This project was sponsored by the NRC-RES 

with support from EPRI under a collaborative research agreement termed the NRC-RES/EPRI 

Memorandum of Understanding. 

In May 2002, EPRI published a technical report (EPRI Technical Report 1006961, “Spurious 

Operation of Electrical Circuits Due to Cable-fires – Results of an Expert Elicitation”) detailing 

the results of an expert elicitation process on the results of the EPRI/NEI cable-fire test to 

develop best estimate conditional probabilities for the spurious operation of devices in electrical 

circuits due to fire-induced damage to electrical cables (Ref. 13). These results were 

incorporated into the current method for conducting fire Probabilistic Risk Assessments (fire 

PRAs) documented in NUREG/CR-6850, EPRI 1011989, “EPRI/NRC-RES Fire PRA 

Methodology for Nuclear Power Facilities” (Ref. 14). 

The fire PRA method documented in NUREG/CR-6850, EPRI 1011989 (Ref. 14) contains a 

“Circuit Failure Mode Likelihood Analysis” Task, which estimates the probability of hot short 

cable failure modes of interest, which in turn can be correlated to specific component failure 

modes. This Task 10 of NUREG/CR-6850 relies solely on a subset of the EPRI/NEI test data 

(Ref. 9) and the results of the expert elicitation available at the time of developing the fire PRA 

method (Ref. 13). Within this task, five lookup tables are provided which contain conditional 

likelihood estimates for the various circuit configurations and hot short failure modes. The 

analyst chooses a value based on cable/circuit characteristics, raceway configuration, and hot 

short failure mode(s) of interest. When NUREG/CR-6850 was published, there was no 

guidance on modeling spurious operation duration in the fire PRA. 

Supplement 1 to NUREG/CR-6850 (EPRI 1019259), Section 16, “Hot Short Duration” (Ref. 15) 

offered staff interim guidance on modeling the duration of hot shorts for AC circuits, while noting 

its limitations. Based on then available data, the guidance offers a two-parameter Weibull 

distribution to represent the probability of a hot short lasting greater than or equal to time, t, in 

minutes. The complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) of this Weibull distribution 

is given in Supplement 1 as follows: 

ܲሺܶ൒ݐሻ ൌ exp	ሺെݐߣఉሻ

Where, β is a shape parameter and λ is a scale parameter. 

The interim guidance in Supplement 1 to NUREG/CR-6850, however, included several 

conditions of use, as follows: 

1. The probabilities of hot short duration should not be applied to the spurious 

operation of equipment caused by grounding of one or more conductors (i.e., 
INTRODUCTION 

1-4 

spurious actuations not caused by hot shorts). For them, no credit should be 

given for hot short durations. 

2. The probabilities of the duration of hot shorts should not be applied if the 

spurious operation so caused would not clear once the cable is grounded. For 

these cases, no credit should be given for the duration of the hot short. A review 

should ensure that clearing the hot short will clear the spurious operation; 

including identifying the devices (e.g., fuse or circuit breaker) that would clear the 

hot short after the cable has grounded. 

3. Given a short-to-ground on an auxiliary or “off-scheme” circuit, credit for 

recovering from a spurious operation must include a functional circuit analysis 

demonstrating the effect of a short-to-ground on that circuit. For cases where 

functional circuit analysis cannot demonstrate recovery, no credit can be given 

for the duration of the hot short since the short to ground will not clear by itself. 

4. The probabilities of the duration of spurious operations should not be used for 

DC circuits. 

 

In an effort to advance the state-of-knowledge, the NRC in collaboration with EPRI conducted a 

two-part expert panel exercise program, Joint Assessment of Cable Damage and QUantification 

of Effects from FIRE (JACQUE-FIRE). The JACQUE-FIRE program is unique in using an 

expert elicitation exercise to build upon information developed in an electrical engineering PIRT 

exercise. The results of this PIRT exercise are documented in Volume 1 of NUREG/CR-71501

(Ref. 16). 

The PIRT study used the findings on cable fire tests from EPRI/NEI (Ref. 9) and NRCsponsored testing conducted under the CAROLFIRE (Ref. 11) and DESIREE-Fire (Ref. 12) 

programs; all these three sets of test data were analyzed, and then summarized into a more 

useful format in NUREG-2128 (Ref. 17). Volume 1 details the exercise that PIRT panel 

conducted with experts knowledgeable about the design of NPP electrical circuits, and which 

identified and ranked the parameters that influence the likelihood of occurrence of the modes of 

fire-induced cable-damage failures. Thus, the purpose of Part 1 of the JACQUE-FIRE program 

was to break the problem down by its physical attributes. 

Part 2 of the JACQUE-FIRE program, documented in this report (Volume 2 of NUREG/CR7150), convened a second group of experts with knowledge in fire PRA applications (i.e., 

referred to as “The PRA panel”) to quantify the conditional likelihood for hot short-induced 

spurious operations of control circuits caused by fire damage. The PRA panel members were 

also tasked with quantifying the probability of the spurious operation duration. Specifically, 

there was a need to quantify the durations for both AC and DC control circuits since no 

technically acceptable guidance was available for DC, and also to use the additional data for AC 

control circuits to re-quantify guidance presented in Supplement 1 to NUREG/CR-6850 (Ref. 

15). These estimates of conditional probability advance the state-of-the-art and are intended to 

supersede the probabilities for Tables 10-1 through 10-5, entitled “Failure Mode Probability 

Estimates Given Cable Damage,” of NUREG/CR-6850 (Ref. 14) and for Figure 16-1 and Table 

 

1

 Hereafter the reference to Volume 1 and Volume 2 of NUREG/CR-7150 are identified as “Volume 1” and 

“Volume 2,” respectively. Note that Volume 1 is also recognized as “PIRT Report” and this report is the 

Volume 2 of NUREG/CR-7150. 
INTRODUCTION 

1-5 

16-1 of its Supplement 1, entitled “Fire Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods Enhancements” 

(Ref. 15). 

The use of two panels was chosen to support both performance-based and deterministic fire 

protection regulatory areas. The PIRT panel identified the physical attributes that influence 

cable failure modes. For deterministic fire protection, the PIRT results supported clarification 

and development of new guidance. The PIRT results also served the performance-based arena 

by providing a foundation of valuable information to the PRA panel to start the quantification 

effort. 

1.2 NRC-RES/EPRI Goals 

NRC-RES furthers the regulatory mission of the NRC by providing technical advice, technical 

tools, and information for identifying and resolving safety issues, making regulatory decisions, 

and promulgating regulations and guidance. RES conducts independent experiments and 

analyses, develops technical bases for supporting realistic safety decisions by the agency, and 

prepares the agency for the future by evaluating safety issues involving current and new 

designs and technologies. RES develops its program with consideration of Commission 

direction and input from the program offices and other stakeholders. 

The current state-of-the-art fire PRA method documented in NUREG/CR-6850, EPRI 1011989 

(Ref. 14) was published in 2005. The fire PRA task associated with quantifying the conditional 

likelihood of an electrical cable experiencing a hot short-induced spurious operation (given cable 

damage) was developed based on an expert elicitation by EPRI (Ref. 13) using a limited set of 

18 specific test configurations (Ref. 9). Since the publication of this fire PRA method, the NRC 

in collaboration with EPRI has conducted additional tests to help quantify the likelihood of fire 

damaged cables causing mal-operation of electrical components and systems. 

Thus, the NRC-RES with collaboration from EPRI initiated this project to use the additional data 

and expert judgment to advance the state-of-the-art quantification of the conditional likelihood of 

an electrical cable hot short-induced spurious operation (given cable damage). The eventual 

goal of this NRC-RES/EPRI collaboration effort is to use the results presented in this report and 

replace, and create new likelihood estimates for conducting the circuit failure likelihood analysis 

Task 10 documented in NUREG/CR-6850, EPRI 1011989 (Ref.14). 

1.3 Project Objectives 

The objective of the work documented in this report (Volume 2) is to use an expert elicitation 

process to develop the best estimate conditional probabilities on the likelihood of occurrence of 

hot short-induced spurious operation failure modes to be used in fire PRA applications, given 

the occurrence of fire-induced cable damage, and to assess their durations. The structured 

process for the expert elicitation uses the available data from cable-fire tests (Refs. 9, 11, 12 & 

Duke Energy’s proprietary report2

), to estimate the probabilities of spurious operation 

occurrence and duration for the control circuit configurations identified by the preceding PIRT 

panel. The PRA panel evaluates such configurations, for which there is applicable data, as well 

 

2

 Duke Energy performed tests on armored control cables in 2006 and provided EPRI members of the 

PRA panel with a copy of a proprietary report on these tests. NRC members of the PRA panel had 

access to this report (NRC Agency-wide Document Management and Access and Management System 

(ADAMS) Accession No. ML071200168). 
INTRODUCTION 

1-6 

as for those where there is none, but where expert judgment, PRA application knowledge, and 

plant operating experience reasonably support quantitative estimates. To meet the objectives of 

this work and support fire PRA applications, the best estimates of conditional probabilities 

developed by this panel are represented by parametric distributions that can be used in current 

fire PRAs. 

This expert elicitation project uses all of the available data to re-quantify the estimates 

developed previously by EPRI and it also complements the previous work by providing 

estimates for scenarios that were not addressed by the EPRI work or in the fire PRA method 

documented in NUREG/CR-6850, EPRI 1011989 (Ref. 14). Based on these results, the PIRT 

panel and the PRA panel together, in this two-volume NUREG/CR report set, offer qualitativeand quantitative-information for use in fire PRAs. The results of this work may also be useful for 

informing guidance related to deterministic post-fire safe-shutdown circuit analysis. 

1.4 The Approach 

The expert elicitation process was based on methods employed by other expert panels that the 

NRC has used, where there were only limited data to address the technical issues with the 

desired levels of certainty and accuracy. The staff from NRC and Brookhaven National 

Laboratory (BNL) reviewed several formal expert-judgment processes used previously for 

various purposes to: 

 Assess human performance and reliability (Ref. 18), 

 Assess the performance of radioactive waste repositories (Ref. 19), 

 Support the performance of full-scope PRAs (Ref. 20), 

 Develop seismic hazard curves (Ref. 21), and 

 Estimate the frequencies of loss-of-coolant accidents (LOCAs) (Ref. 22). 

The NRC, EPRI, and BNL staff identified many of the issues to be evaluated during the project’s 

first meeting (January 31st to February 2nd 2012). Subsequently, it was decided to adopt the 

method described in NUREG/CR-6372, “Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard 

Analysis: Guidance on Uncertainty and Use of Experts,” (Ref. 21). This method was developed 

to support the assessment of seismic hazard curves for NPP sites in the United States, but has 

broader applicability. 

The selected method is supported by Section 1-4 of the ASME/ANS RA-Sa, 2009 standard 

(Ref. 23), which offers guidance and requirements regarding the use of expert judgment in the 

following topics: 

 Objective of Using Expert Judgment, 

 Identification of the Technical Issue, 

 Determination of the Need for Outside Expert Judgment, 

 Identification of Expert Judgment Process, 

 Identification and Selection of Evaluator Experts, 

 Identification and Selection of Technical issue Experts, and, 

 Responsibility for the Expert Judgment. 

The approach outlined in NUREG/CR-6372 is one way to meet the standard requirement for the 

use of obtaining expert judgment. 
INTRODUCTION 

1-7 

In NUREG/CR-6372, the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) developed a 

structured, multi-level assessment process3

 that since was employed in numerous studies of 

natural hazards; the NRC’s Regulatory Guide 1.208 (Ref. 24) recommends it for developing new 

models for use in probabilistic seismic hazard analyses (PSHA). NUREG-2117 (Ref. 25), a 

follow-on document to NUREG/CR-6372, provides additional guidance for assessing seismic 

hazards. NUREG-2117 was developed after reviewing and assessing the lessons learned 

during the many projects that were undertaken using the SSHAC guidelines since their 1997 

publication. 

The SSHAC guidelines define four levels at which to conduct hazard assessments, ranging from 

the simplest ones (Level 1) to those most comprehensive and demanding (Level 4). These four 

levels are defined in order of increasing resources (i.e., number of participants and funds 

available), and sophistication. In Levels 1 to 3, a technical integrator (TI) adopts the role of 

“evaluator,” and is empowered to represent the composite state of the information of the 

technical community on a particular issue. The TI develops a composite distribution of 

conditional probabilities representing the community’s viewpoint. Thus, the goal is to represent 

the technical community’s beliefs and not to develop a group consensus distribution. In Level 4, 

the SSHAC process applies the technical facilitator/integrator (TFI) approach wherein a group of 

expert “evaluators” is identified and their judgments (as well as those of other experts) are 

elicited. It involves a two-stage elicitation procedure “...in which the panel members are asked 

in Stage I to represent their own positions as independent evaluators of data, models and 

interpretations (the traditional role of a scientist); and in Stage II, to play the role of integrators 

who attempt to represent the composite position of the community as a whole...”(Ref. 21). 

Other important differences between the simpler processes in Levels 1 or 2 and the more 

involved Levels 3 or 4 concern complexity, cost, and schedule, which also include workshops, 

the inclusion of a participatory peer review panel (PPRP), and generally larger groups of 

experts. 

The main objective of the SSHAC process is “...to provide a representation of the informed 

scientific community's view of the important components and issues ...” (Ref. 21). Based on the 

available resources and the goals of this project, the NRC decided to use an enhanced SSHAC 

Level 2 approach. The enhancement was based on the recognition that a number of aspects of 

the SSHAC Levels 3 and 4 would improve the quality of the expert elicitation process. In 

particular, this project employed a TI team of four experts (rather than a single expert), expert 

interactions at workshops (rather than the TI contacting each expert individually and remotely by 

phone or email), and a PPRP composed of three experts who attended SSHAC workshops. 

1.5 The PRA Panel 

NRC/RES and EPRI spent considerable time before the project began identifying members for 

the expert elicitation PRA panel. As a whole, the panel possesses collective expertise in 

electrical circuits, post-fire safe-shutdown circuit analysis, fire PRA, and reliability modeling. 

The panel representation was balanced between the regulator (i.e., five members from the 

NRC/National Laboratories) and the nuclear power industry (i.e., five members from 

EPRI/Nuclear Power Industry). 

 

3

 This is commonly referred to as “The SSHAC Process.” 
INTRODUCTION 

1-8 

The PRA panel members4

 are listed below, along with their affiliations, and their resumes are 

given in Appendix A. 

Robert Cavedo, Constellation Energy (CE)5

Daniel Funk, Hughes Associates, Inc. (HAI) 

Raymond Gallucci, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

 Dennis Henneke, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) 

 David Miskiewicz, Engineering Planning & Management (EPM) 

Steven Nowlen, Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) 

Nathan Siu, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)5 

 Gabriel Taylor, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)6

 Jing Xing, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)5 

 Kiang Zee, ERIN Engineering & Research (ERIN) 

The project sponsors, NRC-RES’s Mark Henry Salley and EPRI’s Rick Wachowiak, attended a 

number of meetings/workshops and offered general assistance and oversight. Nicholas Melly 

and David Gennardo of NRC organized the EPRI/NEI, NRC/SNL, and Duke Energy’s cable-firetest data in a summary (“roll-up”) table intended to help the panel members when estimating 

conditional probabilities. During deliberations, they also offered insights to the panel regarding 

the data. Finally, BNL’s Mano Subudhi and Gerardo Martinez-Guridi served as evaluators on 

the TI team (e.g., proposing approaches for aggregating the panels input into an integrated 

distribution and performing statistical evaluations), and as moderators of panel meetings held at 

the NRC/RES’s Church Street Office in Rockville, Maryland. 

1.6 Report Organization 

The following sections and appendices document the technical approach and results of the PRA 

panel expert elicitation on estimating the conditional probability distributions for various control 

circuit configurations, given fire has damaged the electrical cables: 

Main Sections 

 Section 2 is an overview of the deliberations of the PRA panel in estimating the 

conditional probability distributions. This encompasses the elicitation process used by 

the panel, defines all case studies included in this project, establishes the generic 

models for integrating the proponents’ inputs, and discusses the PPRP findings on the 

panel’s expert elicitation process. 

 Section 3 discusses the PRA panel, specifically the proponents’ evaluation of single 

break and double break control circuit configurations. Also included are details of the 

panel’s evaluation of SOV, MOV, and circuit breaker control circuits in assessing their 

failure probabilities. Further, the section describes the technical approach used for 

estimating the duration likelihood plots for the spurious operation. 

 Section 4 and Section 5 present the integration of proponent inputs and the final results 

for various end device cases associated with single and double break designs, 

 

4

 Daniel Funk, Steven Nowlen and Gabriel Taylor also participated in the Electrical Expert PIRT Panel. 5

 These members served a peer review role in the SSHAC process. 

6

 Gabriel Taylor replaced Martin Stutzke after first two meetings; both are NRC staff. 
INTRODUCTION 

1-9 

respectively, of control circuits. 

 Section 6 summarizes the results of estimations of the likelihoods of durations for hot 

short-induced spurious operations for AC- and DC-powered control circuits. 

 Section 7 presents guidance for applying the results in Sections 4 through 6 in typical 

plant fire PRA. 

 Section 8 gives the summary discussions and conclusions of the PRA panel. 

 Section 9 lists the references noted in the main body of this report. 

Appendices 

 Appendix A includes the resumes of PRA panel members and moderators. 

 Appendix B presents the project plan and the SSHAC process used in the expert 

elicitation process. Also, it includes an assessment by the moderator of the processes 

of the PIRT and PRA panels’ expert elicitation. 

 Appendix C summarizes the proponent considerations in estimating the conditional 

probabilities for various single and double break configurations. It also describes the 

statistical Weibull Model that was used in developing duration plots for the AC and DC 

control circuits. The proponents’ reports are attached to this Appendix. 

 

 Appendix D details the development of the roll-up table containing all major fire test data. 

 Appendix E summarizes the files used in integrating the proponents’ inputs for 

developing the final conditional probability distributions. 

 Appendix F presents the PPRP report on the PRA panel’s expert elicitation work. 

 Appendix G includes selected viewgraphs that BNL presented to the PRA panel for 

calibration training (regarding the SSHAC process, the estimation of probabilities, and 

potential sources of bias). 

 Appendix H discussed the technical integrator and proponent opinion on application of 

likelihood estimates for multiple spurious operation (MSO) cases. 

Compact Disk (e-files)

The information in some of the appendices is voluminous. In order to preserve the information 

used by the panel in making their decisions, it is included in the compact disk that is part of this 

Volume 2. This disk contains detailed information about the following appendices: 

 Appendix C – Proponent reports. 

 Appendix D – Roll-up table test data files. 

 Appendix E – Calculation files from integrating proponent inputs. 

 Appendix G – Selected viewgraphs used in this project.

2-1 

2

OVERVIEW OF PRA PANEL’S ACTIVITIES 

This section describes activities of the PRA panel in the overall process used for this expert 

elicitation exercise, including the methods and procedures. 

The expert elicitation PRA panel convened five separate times in 21⁄2 to 3-day meetings from 

January 2012 through May 2013 at the NRC’s RES building in Rockville, Maryland. The TI 

team, consisting of evaluator experts met separately for two additional 2-day meetings in 

January and April of 2013 at the same RES building to evaluate the proponents’ estimated 

probability of occurrences and durations of spurious operation for various control circuit 

configurations. 

The first meeting was held from January 31st to February 2nd, 2012. This first meeting served as 

a transition to: 

 Transfer the PIRT panel’s findings to the PRA panel, 

 Familiarize the members of the PRA panel with the control circuits identified by the PIRT 

panel that could be vulnerable to hot short-induced spurious operations in the event of a 

fire, and, 

 Explain the data documented in NUREG-2128 (Ref. 17), including its limitations, that the 

PIRT panel used. 

In this first meeting, the NRC’s staff gave an overview of the project’s goals and objectives, 

along with describing the roles of the participants. BNL’s staff presented a summary of findings 

on the work from the electrical expert PIRT panel, followed by the NRC staff discussing the data 

from the EPRI/NEI and the NRC/SNL testing. Selected viewgraphs from these presentations 

are included in Appendix G. This meeting also served as the PRA panel’s preliminary 

deliberations on the following items: 

 Needed format and data processing1

 from EPRI/NEI and NRC/SNL data for the PRA 

panel to use in estimating the conditional probability distributions for control circuit cases 

for the hot short-induced spurious operation probability of occurrence and their 

durations, 

 The PIRT’s ranking of influencing parameters and the thirteen specific control circuit 

configurations identified by the PIRT panel in the PIRT Report (i.e., Volume 1), Section 

3.3.3, for the PRA panel to consider, and, 

 The expert elicitation process and the statistical estimation methodologies and models 

that could be used in achieving the primary objectives of this project, i.e., estimating the 

 

1

 Experts provided feedback on methods to provide the test data that would be helpful in their analysis. 
OVERVIEW OF PRA PANEL’S ACTIVITIES 

2-2 

spurious operation conditional probability distributions given cable damage from fire for 

various hot short-induced failure modes in PIRT-identified control circuit configurations 

and the associated spurious operation duration estimation. 

Section 2.1 describes the enhanced SSHAC Level 2 process that was followed in this project. 

Section 2.2 identifies and discusses selection of case studies evaluated by the PRA panel. 

Section 2.3 describes the approach used by the TI team to derive the conditional probability 

distributions of spurious operation given cable damage due to fire. Section 2.4 discusses the 

PPRP’s comments and findings on the PRA panel’s expert elicitation activities. 

2.1 Enhanced SSHAC Level 2 Process Used by the PRA 

Panel 

The expert elicitation process developed by the SSHAC, described in NUREG/CR-6372 (Ref. 

21), has four levels, referred to as “SSHAC Level 1, 2, 3, and 4.” 

In March 2012, BNL presented the information about SSHAC’s levels to get feedback from 

NRC/RES, EPRI, and the panel of experts on the appropriate SSHAC level to apply for this 

study. In this presentation, BNL detailed the differences among all four levels, and discussed 

the expert elicitation processes relating to the following attributes: 

 Number of participants, 

 Interaction among experts, 

 Peer review of the process, 

 Ownership of the final results, 

 Process transparency, 

 Regulatory assurance (i.e., defensible community distribution), 

 Project cost, 

 Project duration, and, 

 Management challenges. 

Considering the specific characteristics of the attributes associated with each of the four levels, 

NRC/RES selected an enhanced SSHAC Level 2 for this project. The approach followed all 

requirements of the Level 2 but added the interaction of experts via in-person workshops, a 

technical integrator team rather than a single technical integrator and also added a PPRP. The 

PPRP were present in all workshops and reviewed the activities of the project from the technical 

and process points of view. These three elements, though not necessary for Level 2, typically 

are required for Level 3 and Level 4. The NRC/RES and EPRI, along with the PRA panel 

considered that these additional elements would enhance the elicitation process in 

understanding the data from resource experts, and in developing methods and models that are 

appropriate for both proponents and the TI team, as well as minimizing any technical and 

procedural biases. 

The experts on the PRA panel were assigned different roles. The three roles included evaluator 

experts that constituted the TI team, resource experts, and proponent experts. The role of 

resource experts included presenting data, models, and methods in an impartial manner and to 

discuss their understanding and limitations of the data, models or methods. Proponent experts 

provided the role of advocating a specific model, method or parameter to use in developing the 

estimates requested by this project. Two members of the PRA panel plus the BNL staff made 
OVERVIEW OF PRA PANEL’S ACTIVITIES 

2-3 

up the TI team. The TI team consisting of evaluator experts, independent of the proponents, is 

ultimately responsible for developing the composite representation of the informed technical 

community. 

Table 2-1 presents the project participants and outlines the roles and responsibilities in this 

enhanced SSHAC Level 2 process. Each individual identified in the table had a specific role. 

Two panel members served a dual role, as resource and proponent experts. Additionally, these 

two experts had served as members of the PIRT panel, and are familiar with (and/or 

participated in) all recent cable-fire test programs conducted by the EPRI, the NRC, and Duke 

Energy. Martin Stutzke of NRC was initially a member of the PRA panel. However, due to 

other developing RES PRA projects he was unable to be a full time member. Regardless, 

though not a member of the PRA panel, he developed a model for assessing the duration of 

spurious operations. He also played an advisory role for modeling and analysis. He developed 

the model that the TI team used in generating the plots of spurious operation duration 

conditional probability. Appendix B presents the project plan, which details the roles and 

responsibilities of each expert in Table 2-1, the goals of each workshop, and other SSHAC 

Level 2 elicitation-process-related activities. 

Table 2-1. SSHAC Roles by the PRA Panel 

ROLE IN SSHAC LEVEL 2 PROCESS PERSONNEL 

Project Sponsor Mark Henry Salley 

Richard Wachowiak 

Project Management Nicholas Melly 

Richard Wachowiak 

Technical Integrator (TI) Team 

(Evaluator Experts) 

Raymond Gallucci 

Gerardo Martinez-Guridi 

David Miskiewicz 

Mano Subudhi (Moderator) 

Proponent Experts 

Dennis Henneke 

Steven Nowlen* 

Gabriel Taylor* 

Kiang Zee 

Resource Experts 

Daniel Funk 

Steven Nowlen* 

Gabriel Taylor* 

Participatory Peer Review Panel (PPRP) 

Robert Cavedo 

Nathan Siu 

Jing Xing 

*During the workshops and conference calls, each of these individuals identified 

when he was acting as a proponent expert and when as a resource expert.

In addition to the first meeting held in January 2012, three additional SSHAC-defined 

workshops2

 attended by all PRA panel members were held. Two additional separate meetings 

 

2

 “Workshop #1,” “Workshop #2,” and “Workshop #3” are SSHAC terms. In this project multiple meetings 

were needed to complete “Workshop #2.” 
OVERVIEW OF PRA PANEL’S ACTIVITIES 

2-4 

were held by the TI team. Numerous interactions3 by the panel members also were employed 

to discuss and clarify issues (both technical and procedural), and their potential solutions. 

2.1.1 PRA Panel Participation in SSHAC Workshops 

The expert elicitation workshops were held to provide information to assist the TI team’s 

technical assessments. BNL staff moderated the workshops and ensured that ground rules for 

the workshops were established and presented at the beginning of each workshop. The ground 

rules were stated consistently and enforced throughout each workshop by the moderator and 

occasionally by the PPRP panel members. The moderators were also responsible for ensuring 

that the agenda was followed and all presentations were delivered in an impartial manner. A 

short time was set aside at the end of each day for any of the observers at the workshop 

(including the project management) or the PPRP members, to make statements or pose 

questions to the panel. 

SSHAC Workshop #1 was held during June 5-7, 2012. The purposes of this workshop were to 

identify (1) the technical issues of highest significance to evaluating the probabilities of spurious 

operations, and, (2) the data and information that was available to support these evaluations. In 

the first part of this workshop, BNL detailed all the attributes associated with the SSHAC Level 2 

process chosen for this project. The presentations encompass the objectives of the project, 

roles and responsibilities of all participants, deliverables, and workshops and their ground rules. 

The second part of Workshop #1 focused on the available fire test data to address the issues 

identified in the first part of the workshop. The discussions included a series of presentations by 

resource experts who had developed specific data-sets. The goal of this part of the workshop 

was to assist the members of the PRA panel in identifying the data and information that became 

part of the project database and commensurate with the technical issues of significance for the 

project, and in understanding the attributes of these data-sets (e.g., any limitations) to the extent 

possible. 

Two meetings were held for SSHAC Workshop #2 during October 9-12 and November 27-29, 

2012. The goals of Workshop #2, “Alternative Interpretations,” were (1) to present, discuss, and 

debate alternative viewpoints on key technical issues; (2) to identify the technical bases for the 

alternative hypotheses, and to discuss the associated uncertainties; and, (3) to provide a basis 

for the subsequent development of preliminary probabilistic evaluation models that consider 

these alternative viewpoints. Workshop #2 also provided an opportunity to review the progress 

being made on developing the roll-up table and to elicit additional input, as needed, about this 

activity. 

A key attribute of Workshop #2 was the discussion and debate of the merits of alternative 

models and viewpoints on key technical issues. Proponents discussed their interpretations and 

the data supporting them. In the spirit of capturing the spectrum of thinking across the entire 

technical community, a goal of this workshop was to offer an effective forum for the exchange of 

ideas. Proponent experts were encouraged to interact within the structure facilitated by the 

moderators. 

After Workshop #2, the proponents were asked to provide their final inputs on three case 

studies (solenoid-operated valve (SOV), motor-operated valve (MOV) and Medium Voltage 

 

3

 Interactions included telephone conferences, email exchanges, and Go-to-Meeting presentations. 
OVERVIEW OF PRA PANEL’S ACTIVITIES 

2-5 

Circuit Breaker) initially identified by the TI team. Accordingly, the proponents developed 

methods and models for estimating the conditional probabilities for these case studies. Each 

proponent provided their report containing technical approaches and estimates of conditional 

probability and the duration of spurious operation for various control circuit configurations. 

By the end of January 2013, all four proponent experts provided their inputs to TI team to 

develop the final conditional probability distributions and duration plots. During January 30-31, 

2013 and April 9-10, 2013, the TI Team members met separately to discuss the inputs from the 

proponents on the three case studies, and to formulate models for integrating the inputs from 

the proponent reports into a representation of the “larger informed technical community,” as 

established by the SSHAC process. 

Some examples of technical issues addressed by the TI team evaluators during these meetings 

involved the following: 

 Developing conditional probability distributions from the proponent’s input for each subcase under three case-studies, 

 Establishing a feedback process between the TI team and the proponents, 

 Integrating the proponent’s estimated conditional probability-distributions, 

 Formulating event-tree-like structures to be used by the proponents for the MOV case, 

 Choosing the models and methods to be used by proponents for the circuit breaker 

case, 

 Detailing the assumptions made and test data used by proponents in their estimations, 

 Using the single break control circuit results to model double break configurations, 

 Developing aggregate4

 conditional probability distributions, 

 Describing the models and methods used in developing a conditional probability 

distribution for the duration of spurious operations, and, 

 Assessing the preliminary results of conditional probability distributions evaluated by the 

TI team. 

Several telephone conferences and individual calls to proponents during and in-between these 

TI team meetings clarified certain technical issues and assumptions made in the proponents’ 

reports. There was considerable interaction between the TI team and the proponents in 

developing the conditional probability distribution for the duration of spurious operations. 

Additional feedback from proponents was solicited for parameters to be used in this model for 

estimating this distribution; it is discussed in Section 3.4. 

SSHAC Workshop #3 was held during May 7-9, 2013, and its goal was to present and discuss 

the preliminary models used and calculations performed. Workshop #3 provided a forum for the 

TI team to receive feedback from the rest of the PRA panel. In addition to the PRA panel, the 

PIRT panel members were invited to attend the final day of this workshop to give their opinions 

on the technical approach and the preliminary results. 

At this workshop, members of the PPRP and the PIRT panel asked questions about the 

preliminary probabilistic models and results. This helped ensure that significant issues were not 

overlooked. It also allowed the TI team to understand the relative importance of their models, 

 

4

 “Aggregate” represents a mathematical summation of probability distributions for all possible circuit 

failure modes due to hot shorts within a specific cable insulation-power supply scenario. 
OVERVIEW OF PRA PANEL’S ACTIVITIES 

2-6 

uncertainties, and assumptions used in their assessment of conditional probability distributions. 

This feedback formed the basis for finalizing the models after the workshop. 

Thus, the final workshop consisted of two parts in which the TI team presented the following: (1) 

preliminary models, particularly emphasizing the manner in which alternative viewpoints and 

uncertainties had been incorporated; and, (2) conditional probability calculations that gave 

insight into the preliminary models. The assumptions made by the TI team in integrating the 

proponent inputs were explained to all proponents and each one was allowed to defend or 

agree with these assumptions. In discussing the preliminary models, the technical bases for the 

assessments were described to support a discussion of the implications and constraints 

provided by the available data. The PPRP questioned and probed aspects of the preliminary 

model to understand the manner in which the views of the larger technical community were 

considered. The final PPRP report summarizing their conclusions is included in Appendix F. 

Following Workshop #3, the TI team adjusted their methods and models to accommodate this 

feedback and evaluated the final community distributions for all cases identified by both panels. 

The final methods and the models used in the development of the “Community Distributions”5

are discussed in Section 2.3. 

2.2 Case Studies Considered by the PRA Panel 

A hot short-induced spurious operation is defined in Volume 1 as follows: “A circuit-fault mode 

wherein an operational mode of the circuit is initiated (in full or in part) due to failure(s) in one or 

more components (including the cables) of the circuit; examples are a pump spuriously starting, 

or the spurious repositioning of a valve.” Fire-induced intra-cable hot short, inter-cable hot short 

and ground fault equivalent hot short (GFEHS) failure modes potentially can cause spurious 

operation in various end-devices (e.g., SOVs, MOVs, and Circuit Breakers). An illustration of 

the intra-cable, inter-cable and ground fault equivalent hot short failure modes is presented in 

Figure 2-1. An intra-cable hot short failure mode occurs when fire damage results in a 

relatively low impedance fault between two or more conductors of the same multi-conductor 

cable. An inter-cable hot short failure mode occurs when fire damage results in a relatively 

low impedance fault between two or more conductors of two or more separate cables (intercable fault). A ground fault equivalent hot short occurs when fire damage results in 

 

Figure 2-1. Illustration of Fire-Induced Hot Short Failure Modes 

 

5

 “Community Distribution” is an expression of the technical community’s knowledge rather than 

consensus.

Bonded to 

Ground

 Hot Short (GFEHS) 

 

- Ground Fault Equivalent Cable 

Short

Inter 

 Hot

 Intra 

 Hot - Cable Short 
OVERVIEW OF PRA PANEL’S ACTIVITIES 

2-7 

conductors of the same or difference cable developing a relatively low impedance fault with a 

ground plane. For the GFEHS to cause a hot short induced spurious operation, both a source 

and target conductor must short to the same ground plane and have a compatible power supply. 

Source conductors are those which can supply energy (voltage, current). Target conductors

are associated with end devices such as a conductor connected to a solenoid or a conductor 

connected to a contactor of a motor starter. 

Additionally, in Tables 3-9 through 3-13 of Volume 1, the PIRT panel set up the tables for 

duration probabilities different from those of the spurious operation probability tables, since the 

physical influencing factors that most affect spurious operation duration differ from those 

affecting its probabilities. Ultimately, these duration tables were not used by the PRA panel. 

2.2.1 PIRT Results Relating to Control Circuit Configurations 

In Volume 1, after identifying all influencing parameters that would have high impact on the hot 

short-induced spurious operation in control circuits during a fire, the PIRT panel identified the 

thirteen (13) circuit configurations. Then, the panel took account of these configurations and 

presented the control circuit characterizations. 

The PIRT panel included the following categorizations in selecting the control circuit 

configurations that are to be considered by the PRA panel; 

For Spurious Operation Conditional Probability 

 Control Circuit Configurations – Single Break (SB), Double Break (DB) 

 Control Circuit Cases – SOV, MOV , Circuit Breaker (single break or contact only) 

 Circuit Grounding/Power Supply Types – Grounded AC, Ungrounded AC (powered from 

individual CPTs), Ungrounded DC (or Ungrounded Distributed AC) 

 Target Cable Constructions –Thermoset (TS) Target from TS Source Conductors, 

Thermoplastic (TP) Target from both TS and TP Source Conductors, Metal Foil Shield 

Wrap Target Cable, Target Cable with Un-insulated Drain Wire, Armored Target Cable 

 Conductor Failure Modes – Intra-cable hot short, Inter-cable hot short, GFEHS 

For Spurious Operation Duration Conditional Probability 

 Fire Exposures – Flame, Plume, and Hot Gas Layer 

 Circuit Grounding/Power Types 

o Spurious Operation Durations – Grounded AC, Ungrounded AC w/CPTs, and 

Ungrounded DC or Ungrounded Distributed AC (≤ 10 amp) Configurations 

o Hot Short Durations – Ungrounded DC or Ungrounded Distributed AC (≤ 10 amp 

and > 10 amp) Configurations 

 Fuse or Breaker Size – ≤ 10 amp and > 10 amp 

 Conductor Failure Modes – Intra-cable hot short, Inter-cable hot short, GFEHS 

The PRA panel discussed and evaluated all PIRT tables representing single and double break 

control circuit spurious operations and their durations taking into account the available data. 

After deliberating during SSHAC Workshops #1 and #2, the PRA panel consolidated many of 

these PIRT tables and simplified them commensurate with the availability of the data and 
OVERVIEW OF PRA PANEL’S ACTIVITIES 

2-8 

considering the practical use of the estimated probabilities in fire PRAs. This is discussed in 

Section 3.1.4. 

2.2.2 Hot Short Characterization 

The PIRT tables in Section 3.4 of Volume 1 identify several cable hot short-induced failure 

mode configurations as implausible or incredible scenarios. These two dispositions are defined 

in Section 2.1.3 of Volume 1. Since the PRA panel used these characterizations for all its case 

studies, the following are the PIRT panel’s definitions of these terms that were acceptable to the 

panel. 

Incredible – The term “incredible” used in conjunction with the phenomenon of a fire-induced 

circuit failure, signifies the PIRT panel’s conclusion that the event will not occur. In these cases, 

the PIRT panel could find no evidence of the phenomenon ever occurring, and there were no 

credible engineering principles or technical arguments to support its happening during a fire. 

Implausible – The term “implausible” when used in conjunction with a fire-induced circuit failure 

phenomenon, supports the PIRT panel’s conclusion that the happening, while theoretically 

possible, would require the convergence of a combination of factors that are so unlikely to occur 

that the likelihood of the phenomenon can be considered statistically insignificant. In these 

cases, the PIRT panel could find no evidence of the phenomenon ever occurring either in 

operating experience or during a fire test. 

The PRA panel accepted and used these definitions6

 and hence, did not determine any 

probability distributions for those scenarios classified as “incredible,” based on the PIRT panel 

recommendations. For those scenarios classified as “implausible” the PRA panel used the 

available test data (if any), expert judgment, or a combination of both to estimate spurious 

operation conditional probability distributions. Additionally, the PRA panel did not use their 

numerical estimates to categorize or re-categorize any of the sub-cases. 

2.2.3 Initial Case Studies Included in Proponent Reports 

The case studies evaluated by the PRA panel evolved during the course of the expert elicitation 

process. Initially the proponent experts were asked to provide probability of occurrence 

estimates for the following case studies: 

Conditional Probability of Occurrence Estimates: 

 Single Break Control Circuits 

o SOV (Base Case) 

o MOV 

o Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker 

 Double Break Control Circuits 

o SOV (Base Case) 

 

6

 The last sentence, “Any likelihood value assigned to these types of phenomena would have little 

meaning” of PIRT panel’s definitions in Volume 1 is deleted from both definitions, per the PRA panel 

recommendation. 
OVERVIEW OF PRA PANEL’S ACTIVITIES 

2-9 

Duration Conditional Probability Estimates: 

 Circuit Grounding/Power Configurations 

o Spurious Operation Durations – Grounded AC, Ungrounded AC w/CPTs, and 

Ungrounded DC or Ungrounded Distributed AC (≤ 10 amp) Configurations 

o Hot Short Durations – Ungrounded DC or Ungrounded Distributed AC (≤ 10 amp 

and > 10 amp) Configurations 

The TI team developed templates that were to be used by the proponents to collect their input in 

a consistent manner. The case studies were extensively discussed and debated by the panel 

members during meetings of the SSHAC Workshop #2. General instructions and sample subcases of the case studies for estimating single break, double break, and duration conditional 

probability are given in Appendix C. As a result of the PRA panel interactions during Workshop 

#2 and #3, these initial case studies were expanded as discussed below. 

2.2.4 Proponent Expert Input and Technical Integrator Team 

Assessments 

All four proponents estimated the conditional probability of occurrence for the 34 sub-cases 

including the aggregate columns for that of the base case, a single break control circuit. Each 

proponent expert used the data and expert judgment in estimating these values. Some 

proponent experts did not provide information for all sub-cases. 

The following are the number of proponents addressing each of the initial case studies: 

 Single Break SOV (Base Case) – All four Proponents 

 Single Break MOV – Three Proponents (Proponents #1, #3, and #4) 

 Single Break Circuit Breaker – Two Proponents (Proponents #1 and #3) 

 Double Break SOV (Base Case) – Three Proponents (Proponents #1, #2, and #3) 

 Spurious Operation Durations – Two Proponents (Proponents #1 and #3) 

 Hot Short Durations – One Proponent (Proponent #4). 

The proponent reports are included in Appendix C. The proponent expert input for the 

conditional probability of spurious operation occurrence was received in a relatively consistent 

format (median and quantiles). This information was then processed by the TI team into the 

community distributions following the process described in Section 2.3. 

Spurious Operation Duration Plots 

The evaluation of the hot short-induced spurious operation duration conditional probability 

evolved substantially from the start of the project to the final estimates. Originally, the approach 

for estimating duration was treated similarly to the likelihood of spurious operation, in that the 

influencing parameters ranked as “highly important” from the PIRT panel were used to structure 

the requested input. When the input was received from the proponents, none evaluated all of 

the sub-cases defined by the PIRT panel. Proponent #1 provided spurious operation 

distributions for a limited subset of the sub-cases. Proponent #3 provided two distributions, one 

for AC and the other for DC powered control circuits. Proponent #4 provided a single 

distribution for hot short duration. Proponent #4’s approach was discarded by the TI team as it 
OVERVIEW OF PRA PANEL’S ACTIVITIES 

2-10 

estimated hot short duration and not hot short-induced spurious operation duration probabilities 

which was of interest for this project. 

Following several discussions at the PRA panel workshops, proponent submittals, and the TI 

team’s preliminary evaluations, the TI team decided to adopt Proponent #3’s approach, 

consisting of a “top-level” evaluation, one distribution for AC and another for DC control circuit 

configurations, rather than the detailed assessment provided by Proponent #1 for sub-cases 

that the PIRT panel recommended. Therefore, for the duration of spurious operation cases, the 

PRA panel concluded that the two plots would be adequate for fire PRA applications. The TI 

team selected the two-plot approach for two reasons. First, limiting the number of duration 

distributions simplifies the analysis in that the user doesn’t have to determine the predominant 

thermal conditions damaging the cable. Second, the TI team believed that having a limited 

number of duration distributions based on a larger data set outweighed alternative approaches 

which used limited data to develop numerous duration distributions. Once the approach was 

selected, the TI team requested the proponents to provide feedback on the approach to interject 

their expert judgment. 

The PRA panel members held several teleconferences and presentations to address the 

spurious operation duration probability for control circuits. The PRA panel concurred with the TI 

team’s decision to apply the approach suggested by Proponent #3, instead of adopting the PIRT 

panel’s recommended duration tables in Volume 1. To adequately represent the informed 

scientific community, a model was developed to allow proponent input to adjust the shape of the 

distribution. This model includes adjustments to the mean value and the uncertainty bounds (by 

introducing a “c-parameter” for the mean adjustment and an “s-parameter” for the uncertainty 

bounds), as discussed in Section 3.4. The proponents were asked to recommend values for 

these two scalar parameters and to provide their best judgment on the floor levels (with 

uncertainty bounds) for AC and DC control circuits. 

Double Break MOV Case 

The initial case studies listed in Section 2.2.3 do not include the MOV cases for double break 

control circuits; therefore, the proponents did not address them in their reports. During BNL’s 

presentation of the draft conditional probability results to both the PRA and PIRT panels in 

Workshop #3, this case was debated by the panel members. Although this circuit design is not 

typical, it likely exists in some NPPs. Therefore, the PRA panel decided to include this case. 

To calculate the conditional probability values for these double break MOV circuits, the 

proponents and other participants suggested methods and approaches to the TI team that could 

be used for ungrounded AC with CPTs and ungrounded DC (or ungrounded distributed AC) 

control circuits. This was discussed later via a teleconference with all members of the TI team. 

Thereafter, the TI team agreed to include an MOV case for the double break control circuits. 

2.2.5 Project’s Final Case Studies 

Based on the discussions detailed in Section 2.2.4, the original set of case studies listed in 

Section 2.2.3 was revised to accommodate changes in the project’s scope. The following final 

set of case studies was included in this expert elicitation: 

 Conditional Probability of Occurrence Estimates 

o Single Break Control Circuits (all power supply configurations) 

 Base Case - SOV 
OVERVIEW OF PRA PANEL’S ACTIVITIES 

2-11 

 MOV 

 Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker 

o Double Break Control Circuits (ungrounded AC and DC power supply) 

 Base Case – SOV 

 MOV 

 Duration Conditional Probability Estimates 

o AC Control Circuits 

o DC Control Circuits 

Section 3 describes the methods and models the proponents used in addressing each of these 

final case studies. The single break SOV and MOV cases each included 34 sub-cases of cable 

and control circuit configurations. There was only one ungrounded DC control circuit for the 

medium voltage circuit breaker case. Double break SOV and MOV cases were considered for 

ungrounded AC (with individual CPTs) and ungrounded DC (or ungrounded distributed AC) 

control circuits. Since in ungrounded AC with individual CPTs power supply the AC test data for 

the GFEHS mode (for single break case) is not explicitly separated from the inter-cable hot 

short mode as in the case of ungrounded DC, there were only 13 sub-cases for each of the 

SOV and MOV cases, comprising of various cable-hot short mode configurations. However, the 

ungrounded DC (or ungrounded distributed AC) for the SOV and MOV cases each 

encompassed 16 sub-cases. 

Section 4 discusses the final conditional-probabilities for single break control circuits, and 

Section 5 presents those for double break cases. Section 6 shows the duration probabilities as 

two plots (with tabulated values) of the duration probabilities for AC and DC control circuits. The 

tables with the final results include the beta-distribution parameters (i.e., alpha and beta) and 

the values of three characteristics of this probability distribution (i.e., 5%, Mean, 95%) that could 

be used directly in fire PRA applications. Since this study encompasses all plausible modes of 

circuit failure for each control circuit configuration, the aggregate columns in these final 

probability tables used the combination (i.e., Boolean OR) of applicable failure-modes for a 

given power supply configuration. 

2.3 Technical Integration Process to Obtain Community 

Distributions 

The main objective of the SSHAC process is “...to provide a representation of the informed 

scientific community's view of the important components and issues ...” “Informed” in this sense 

means that the community of experts was given the same data and level of interaction as were 

the evaluators (Ref. 21). Accordingly, the goal herein was to generate a representation of the 

informed scientific community's view of each particular conditional probability and duration of 

spurious operation, assuming fire damage to the associated cables. As described, this 

representation was in the form of a probability distribution, [i.e., the “Community Distribution”] 

because it is an expression of the community’s knowledge. 

This section describes the process used to arrive at this community distribution, based on the 

proponents’ inputs. It was applied for estimating each community distribution of probability of 

spurious operation under certain conditions; the results are detailed in Sections 4 and 5. The 

“conditions” are the specific circumstances that are fixed in each sub-case representing a circuit 

configuration, such as damage to electric cables due to fire including the target-cable 
OVERVIEW OF PRA PANEL’S ACTIVITIES 

2-12 

configuration (e.g., thermoset-insulated conductors) in a power supply configuration (e.g., 

grounded AC). 

The process used entailed six steps. Training experts in Step 1 was given to the panel 

members at the beginning and reminded during each SSHAC workshop, while Steps 2-6 were 

typically carried out by the TI evaluators for each calculation of the community distribution in the 

order presented below. 

1. Training Experts 

2. Receiving Input from Proponents 

3. Developing Simplified Representation of Proponent Inputs and Incorporating Feedback 

from Proponents 

4. Consolidating Input from Proponents 

5. Deriving a Parametric Community Distribution 

6. Developing Community Distributions for Aggregated Failure Modes 

In practice, however, two reasons made Steps 2-6 an iterative process: 

1. The SSHAC process encourages interactions between the resource experts, proponent 

experts, the TI team, and the PPRP during and between the workshops; hence, 

sometimes the step outcomes required revisions. 

2. The many sub-cases, their complexity and the number of issues addressed required 

refining some steps, or modifying the approach to resolve challenges that initially were 

not evident. 

An exception to this process was the development of the spurious operation duration probability. 

For this, the TI team concluded that the approach offered by one proponent and informed by all 

proponents reasonably represents that of the informed scientific community; this is discussed in 

Section 3.4 and the results are given in Section 6. As the PPRP points out in their report, the 

methods chosen by the panel may underestimate the uncertainties in the early portion (prefloor) of the duration distribution.

2.3.1 Training of PRA Experts 

The experts were trained in two areas: 

1. The SSHAC process. Initially, training was given in the basic concepts of this process, 

including the process goal, different levels of study, different types of experts, their 

associated roles and responsibilities, and the expected deliverables. Appendix G 

contains the viewgraphs for this training. In addition, a brief refresher course was given 

at the beginning of every workshop. 

2. Normative expertise. The experts were trained to help them to express their 

knowledge in probabilistic terms, while minimizing biases. The training focused on 

normative expertise, that is, on expertise to reach coherent, unbiased probability 

assessments. It covered the following topics: Coherence, Calibration, Biases, and a realcase example. 
OVERVIEW OF PRA PANEL’S ACTIVITIES 

2-13 

Since the probability (or duration) of spurious operation is an unknown, it involves uncertainty. 

Therefore, an expert’s probability distribution must be elicited to express such uncertainty. To 

make the best use of available resources, this project requested just a few distribution 

percentiles from each proponent, and then used these percentiles to derive a distribution 

approximating the proponent’s beliefs. Hence, the training included a method of bisection, viz., 

eliciting three quantiles of the expert’s distribution; first, the median (p0.5), followed by the lower 

and upper quartiles (p0.25 and p0.75). Finally, a probability distribution was fitted to these 

quantiles, as explained under “Fitting and Feedback from Proponents,” in Section 2.3.3 below. 

2.3.2 Receiving Input from Proponents 

The input requested of each of the four proponents comprised of three quartiles (p0.25, p0.5, and 

p0.75) for each sub-case that was evaluated. The following are some points relevant to this 

input: 

1. Some proponents chose to provide the 0.05 and 0.95 quantiles (p0.05 and p0.95) for some 

sub-cases instead of the lower and upper quartiles because they felt more comfortable 

expressing their knowledge in this way. 

2. Some proponents provided the 0.05 and 0.95 quantiles for several sub-cases in addition 

to the lower and upper quartiles. The five quantiles (p0.05, p0.25, p0. 5, p0.75, and p0.95) were 

used in the subsequent step, “Fitting and Feedback from Proponents.” 

3. Not all the proponents provided input for all sub-cases; thus, in some instances input 

was available from a subset of the four proponents, for example, only three proponents 

gave input for one particular sub-case, and therefore, the assessment was based only 

on them. 

2.3.3 Fitting and Feedback from Proponents 

After gathering the proponents’ input, a probability distribution was fit to the quantiles given by 

each proponent for each sub-case. The beta distribution was selected for this fitting because of 

three features: 1) its range is the interval [0, 1], corresponding to the values of probabilities; 

and, 2) it is a flexible distribution that can adopt different shapes; and 3) it can be treated using 

standard PRA software tools. The probability density function (PDF) of a beta random variable, 

P, is 

݂ሺ݌ሻ ൌ 	

ሻߚ ൅ ߙሺ߁

߁ሺߙሻ߁ሺߚሻ ݌ఈିଵሺ1 െ ݌ሻఉିଵ

for 0 ≤ p ≤ 1, with parameters α, β > 0. Here, the distribution is denoted as Beta (α, β). Γ is the 

gamma function. 

The basic approach for fitting a beta distribution was to fit it to the three (or five) quantiles given 

by a proponent, plus two additional points that are known: P(P ≤ 0) = 0, and P(P ≤ 1) = 1, 

where P(P ≤ p) is the probability that the random variable, P, is less than or equal to the value p 

(Ref. 26). That is, a beta distribution was fitted to these five (or seven) points. However, the 

points that a proponent supplied did not necessarily follow the shape of a beta distribution (or 

any other parametric probability distribution). Furthermore, from a practical point of view, it 

sometimes was difficult to fit a distribution to all the points available, or, if it was, the resulting 
OVERVIEW OF PRA PANEL’S ACTIVITIES 

2-14 

distribution might not accurately reflect a proponent’s knowledge. To resolve this problem, a 

beta distribution was fitted to each possible combination of a proponent’s quantiles (plus the two 

additional points) for each sub-case, so that the proponent could choose the beta distribution 

most closely representing his knowledge for each sub-case. For example, if a proponent gave 

three quantiles for one sub-case, there are seven possible combinations (three of each quantile 

alone, three of pairs of quantiles, and one having all three quantiles); then, he selected the one 

most appropriate based on his best judgment. If a proponent offered five quantiles for one subcase, that is, thirty-one (31) combinations, a beta distribution was fitted to each of them so he 

could choose one. 

Thus, the beta distributions from all combinations of quantiles for each sub-case assessed by a 

proponent were sent to him, and he then selected the one most closely representing his opinion. 

Hence, each proponent offered feedback on the best distribution for each sub-case that he had 

evaluated. 

Accordingly, the main outcome of fitting and feedback was a beta distribution representing a 

proponent’s judgment for each sub-case he assessed. 

2.3.4 Consolidating Input from Proponents 

As mentioned earlier, the objective of the SSHAC process is to offer a representation of the 

informed scientific community's view; hence, the TI team consolidated into a single distribution 

of the beta distributions from all proponents offering input to a particular sub-case so that it 

encapsulates their opinions; hence, it is named the Community Distribution within the SSHAC 

context. 

The type of consolidation is mathematical aggregation that essentially consists of eliciting one 

distribution from each individual proponent, and then mathematically combining them into a 

single one. The method of mathematical aggregation implemented was the Linear Opinion 

Pooling (LOP) that, according to O’Hagan et al. (Ref. 26), “...provides a simple, robust, general 

method for aggregating expert knowledge...” This widely used technique offers a means 

whereby an integrated distribution f(θ) is obtained as a function of the individual distributions 

{f1(θ), . . . , fn(θ)}, wherein θ is an unknown quantity, such as the probability of spurious 

operation given certain conditions. 

The LOP method is a weighted average of the individual distributions, as shown below. 

݂ሺߠሻ ൌ෍ݓ௜݂௜ሺߠሻ

௡

௜ୀଵ

where fi(θ) is the individual distribution of proponent i, n is the number of proponents providing 

input for a particular sub-case, and f(θ) is the aggregated distribution. The weights, wi, sum to 

1: 

௜ݓ ෍

௡

௜ୀଵ

ൌ 1	
OVERVIEW OF PRA PANEL’S ACTIVITIES 

2-15 

In almost all cases, the TI team assigned equal weights to the individual proponent distributions. 

In only four sub-cases (involving single break SOV circuits) they assigned different weights to 

different proponents (see Section 4). 

2.3.5 Deriving a Parametric Community Distribution 

The aggregated distribution, f(θ), obtained by applying the LOP method to a particular sub-case 

is the community distribution for this sub-case. This distribution also is named as the LOP 

distribution. However, for two reasons, it was considered that providing this distribution was 

impractical: 

1. The distribution resulting from linearly combining several beta distributions typically is 

not a parametric one, so a table of values describing the distribution for each sub-case 

would be needed. This is a cumbersome approach, and it is much easier to enter a 

parametric distribution into a PRA software code than a table of values. 

2. In some sub-cases, the LOP distribution displayed “fluctuations” (i.e., peaks and valleys) 

resulting from differences between the proponents’ distributions. In other words, 

sometimes these distributions differed such that the LOP distribution had several modes, 

and/or steep rises or falls that was not deemed by the TI team representative of the 

assessments of the informed scientific community, but rather, the result of 

mathematically aggregating distributions for a small number of proponents. 

To resolve this issue, a beta distribution was fitted to the LOP curve, and this beta distribution 

then was considered to be the final community distribution for the particular sub-case. This 

approach has the advantages: 1) The beta distribution is completely characterized by its two 

parameters (α and β), and its mean, standard deviation, or any quantile can be obtained with 

this information, 2) the beta distribution is a parametric distribution that can be used in PRA 

codes, and, 3) the beta distribution’s behavior is smooth, and its quantiles are similar to those of 

the LOP distribution. 

Fitting a beta distribution to the LOP distribution entailed two main steps: 

1. Numerically assessing one hundred quantiles of the LOP distribution, that is, from the 

0.01- and 0.02-quantiles to the 0.99- and 1.0-quantiles, so that the fitting process 

accounted for the entire range of the LOP distribution. 

2. Fitting a beta distribution to these quantiles using the statistical computer package 

“rriskDistributions” [Belgorodski et al. 2012 (Ref. 27)] which implements least squares 

estimation with the default value of the absolute convergence tolerance for reaching zero 

of 0.001. 

Finally, we compared the mean values of the LOP distribution and of the fitted beta distributions 

to verify that they were the same when rounded up to two significant digits. 

Figure 2-2 illustrates the process of applying the LOP method and fitting a beta distribution to 

the resulting LOP distribution for one single break sub-case (i.e., SB 01_04)7

 of solenoidoperated valve (SOV). PDF means probability density function, and p(SO/fire) is the probability 

 

7

 For reference, see Table 3-1 for Single Break Sub-Case SB 01_04. 
OVERVIEW OF PRA PANEL’S ACTIVITIES 

2-16 

of spurious operation given fire damage. The dotted distributions are those of four proponents 

(Prop1 to Prop4), the thin continuous curve is the integrated distribution or LOP distribution 

resulting from applying the LOP method, and the thick continuous distribution is the fitted beta 

distribution, that is, the community distribution. The numbers in parentheses are the parameters 

of a beta distribution (e.g., α = 4.6 and β = 2.6 for the Community Distribution identified as “CD” 

in Figure 2-2), and the last number to the right is the mean of the distribution. In this case, the 

means of the LOP distribution and of the fitted beta distribution are the same, viz., 0.64. 

In many sub-cases, the means of the LOP distribution and of the fitted beta distribution were the 

same after rounding to two significant digits, but there were some wherein the means differed. 

For the latter, a different approach was employed consisting of determining a beta distribution 

having the same mean and 0.95 quantile as those of the LOP distribution. Keeping the same 

mean is important because it is the figure that mostly is used in decision-making and in deriving 

point-estimates; preserving the 0.95 quantile is relevant because this is a measure of how large 

a quantity may be, and often decision makers are interested in it. Additionally, several 

proponents were more concerned with ensuring fidelity at the upper end of the distribution and 

were less interested in fitting to the lower percentiles. 

Figure 2-2. Example of Applying LOP and Fitting a Beta Distribution to the Resulting 

LOP Distribution [SB 01_04] 

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

p(SO/fire)

PDF

CD ( 4.6 , 2.6 ) 0.64 

LOP 0.64 

Prop1 ( 4.9 , 3.6 ) 0.57 

Prop2 ( 5.8 , 2.7 ) 0.68 

Prop3 ( 6.6 , 4.5 ) 0.6 

Prop4 ( 4.4 , 1.7 ) 0.72 
OVERVIEW OF PRA PANEL’S ACTIVITIES 

2-17 

Deriving a beta distribution having the same mean and 0.95 quantile as those of the LOP 

distribution consisted of numerically solving the following two equations for the parameters of a 

beta distribution (α and β): 

LOP’s mean = α / (α + β) 

LOP’s 0.95 quantile = F-1 (α, β) 

Where, F-1(α, β), the quantile function of the beta distribution, is the inverse of the cumulative 

distribution function, F, and is a function of α and β. 

The beta distribution with the estimated parameters α and β yields the final community 

distribution. Figure 2-3 is an example of determining the community distribution in this way for 

one single break sub-case (i.e., Single Break 01_05) of SOV control circuits. The LOP 

distribution and the resulting beta distribution representing the Community Distribution 

(identified as “CD” in Figure 2-3) have the same mean (9.7 x 10-4) and 0.95 quantile (3.5 x 10-3, 

not shown in the figure). 

Figure 2-3. Example of Estimating a Beta Distribution Having the LOP’s Mean 

 and 0.95 Quantile [SB 01_05] 

0e+00 1e-03 2e-03 3e-03 4e-03 5e-03 6e-03

0.0e+00 5.0e+02 1.0e+03 1.5e+03

p(SO/fire)

PDF

g

CD ( 6e-01 , 613.3 ) 9.7e-04 

LOP 9.7e-04 

Prop1 ( 1.2 , 856.1 ) 1.36e-03 

Prop2 ( 4.7 , 8700.4 ) 5.4e-04 

Prop3 ( 2e-01 , 251.1 ) 9.2e-04 

Prop4 ( 1.3 , 1199.5 ) 1.07e-03 
OVERVIEW OF PRA PANEL’S ACTIVITIES 

2-18 

2.3.6 Combining Individual Community Distributions 

In many NPPs fire PRA scenarios, any one of the hot short failure modes may trigger a spurious 

operation. For example, a TS-insulated target cable in a grounded AC configuration may fail 

due to an intra-cable or inter-cable hot short. The process described above determines the 

community distribution for each of these failure modes independent of each other. It also is of 

interest to assess the community distribution for the “aggregate” sub-case, that is, a spurious 

operation due to any of these possible failure modes. As several proponents suggested, and 

the TI team agreed, the aggregate of the possible failure modes was evaluated by linking these 

modes under an “OR” gate. 

As mentioned in Sections 4 and 5, individual events were combined by linking the 

corresponding hot shorts by an “AND” gate in some sub-cases. All the fault trees (i.e., “OR” and 

“AND” gates) were implemented with the PRA code SAPHIRE 7 for Windows [Wood et al. 2008 

(Ref. 28)], and uncertainty propagation (i.e., evaluation of parameter uncertainty) was carried 

out using the Latin Hypercube Sampling method (a special type of Monte Carlo simulation) with 

the maximum number of samples (99,998) allowed by this version of SAPHIRE. 

The outcome of the combination of two or more beta distributions is not a beta distribution, or 

any other parametric distribution commonly used in PRAs. The non-parametric distribution 

resulting from propagating the parameter uncertainty can be characterized by the nineteen 

quantiles generated by SAPHIRE 7. A beta distribution was determined from these quantiles 

using the process “Deriving a Parametric Community Distribution” in Section 2.3.5 above. For 

establishing a beta distribution from these quantiles, the only difference with that process is that 

the means of the non-parametric distribution and of the beta distribution should be equal when 

they are rounded off to two significant digits. 

Figure 2-4 is an example of determining the community distribution (i.e., a beta distribution) 

using the quantiles generated by SAPHIRE 7 for one of the aggregate sub-case (i.e., Single 

Break 04_10 in Table 3-1) for SOV control circuits. Here the community distribution of the 

aggregate represents an armored target cable in an ungrounded DC configuration causing 

spurious operation due to an intra-cable hot short or GFEHS. The CDF in this figure stands for 

cumulative distribution function, and the thick curve is the community distribution (identified as 

“CD” in Figure 2-4). The dots in the graph are these quantiles, and the thin line is a straight line 

joining consecutive pairs of quantiles so it approximates the non-parametric distribution, labeled 

“Empirical” in the legend. 

Since the information from the proponents was received in terms of quantiles, it was natural to 

fit the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the beta distribution to the quantiles from each 

proponent (Subsection 2.3.3, “Fitting and Feedback from Proponents”). Then, the LOP 

equation was applied to the resulting CDFs for each sub-case (Subsection 2.3.4, “Consolidating 

Input from Proponents”). The individual proponents’ distributions and the parametric community 

distribution (Subsection 2.3.5, “Deriving a Parametric Community Distribution”) were plotted as 

probability density functions (PDFs) because this kind of graph facilitated understanding and 

discussing the results of the elicitation by the experts (see, for example, Figure 2-2). Finally, as 

described in this subsection, the individual community distributions were combined, as 

necessary, by means of the SAPHIRE code. An individual community distribution resulting from 

this combination was plotted as a CDF (as shown in Figure 2-4) because the output from this 

code was provided in terms of nineteen quantiles. The purpose of this graph is to show the 
OVERVIEW OF PRA PANEL’S ACTIVITIES 

2-19 

fitting of a beta distribution to the quantiles, and this community distribution was the outcome of 

mathematically combining probability distributions, not the result of expert elicitation. 

Figure 2-4. Example of Determining a Beta Distribution Using the Quantiles 

Generated by SAPHIRE 7 [SB 04_10] 

2.4 Participatory Peer Review Panel Findings 

The objective of the participatory peer review panel (PPRP) was to address the project’s 

conformance to the requirements of the enhanced SSHAC Level 2 expert elicitation process 

and the extent to which all technical assessments were adequately defended and executed. 

The PPRP provided useful feedback to this project that helped ensure the intent of the SSHAC 

process being followed and address numerous comments on the technical approach being 

explored during the PRA panel’s deliberations. The PPRP documented its effort in summary 

reports by a panel member after each SSHAC workshop and a final PPRP report by the panel’s 

chairperson after reviewing the final draft version of this report (Volume 2). In addition, the 

PPRP provided suggestions for improving the presentation of information in the final draft 

version of NUREG/CR-7150, Volume 2. Most of these suggestions were incorporated where 

possible prior to the publication of this NUREG/CR report. 

Appendix F presents the final report as received from the PPRP. This report delineates PPRP’s 

observations that were: 

(1) Potential weaknesses in the project’s execution of the SSHAC’s enhanced Level 2 

elicitation process, 

(2) Less clear connection with the project results but suggest lessons for future elicitation 

projects, and, 

(3) Considered to be project’s good elicitation practices. 

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

p(SO/fire)

CDF

CD ( 14.6 , 2.3 ) 0.86 

Empirical 0.86
OVERVIEW OF PRA PANEL’S ACTIVITIES 

2-20 

The report also details suggestions for technical presentation and writing of Volume 2 of 

NUREG/CR-7150, which would make it more accessible to a broader audience. 

 
3-1 

3

PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS 

OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

This section summarizes the technical assessment used for, and the information and 

conclusions from, the proponents’ development of estimating the conditional probabilities of 

spurious operation occurrence and duration for typical control circuits used in NPPs. As 

discussed in Volume 1 of NUREG/CR-7150, fire-induced intra-cable hot short, inter-cable hot 

short, and GFEHS failure modes potentially can cause spurious operation in various end 

devices (e.g., SOV, MOV, and medium voltage circuit breaker). Given these failure modes and 

an understanding of the predominant cable-circuit configurations and phenomena that could 

affect the outcome of fire-induced circuit failure, the proponent experts were asked to do the 

following: 

1. Estimate the conditional probabilities of hot short-induced spurious operation occurrence 

for specific control circuits due to fire damage to electrical cables, and, 

2. Estimate the likelihood of durations of hot short-induced spurious operations due to fire 

damage to electrical cables. 

To support their estimates and better inform the TI team, the proponents were asked for 

technical justification to support their values. Here, the proponents commonly relied upon 

information from the PIRT panel work documented in Volume 1, NRC- and Industry-sponsored 

fire test data, and their own expertise. Section 2.2.3 identified the case studies where estimates 

were desired. 

The estimates developed by the PRA panel addresses control circuits only. Two applications 

where these assessments explicitly do not apply are “Power Circuits and Cables,” and 

“Instrumentation Circuits and Cables.” For the former, the PIRT panel offered guidance in 

Volume 1 by taking technical positions on certain power circuit configurations. For 

instrumentation circuits, they provided an extended discussion of circuit types, their potential 

modes of faulting and other concerns, but concluded that there was no applicable data available 

then to characterize these circuits and their behavior given cable failure due to a fire. The PRA 

panel briefly discussed the quantification of instrumentation circuit with regard to fire-induced 

circuit failure modes, but it was subsequently determined that addressing instrumentation 

circuits would have required significant additional resources that were judged to be outside the 

scope of this project. 

This work does not offer conditional probability estimates for the following specific cable 

configurations: 

 Trunk Cables (high conductor count multi-conductor cables, typically greater than 12 

conductors per cable), 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-2 

 Panel Wiring (i.e., wiring within an electrical cabinet) Cables, and, 

 Instrumentation Cables. 

However, based on the PIRT panel’s recommendations in Volume 1 on these cable 

configurations, the PRA panel, in the interim, offers its guidance in Section 7.4. 

Two major circuit configurations associated with control systems are included in this evaluation 

for hot short-induced spurious operation occurrence conditional probability: 

1. Single Break (or Contact) Control Circuits 

 Base Case - SOV 

 MOV 

 Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker 

2. Double Break (or Contact) Control Circuits 

 Base Case - SOV 

 MOV 

The evaluation also includes the hot short-induced spurious operation duration conditional 

probability for these control circuits. 

3.1 Information Available to Proponents 

3.1.1 PIRT-Identified Influencing Parameters 

The proponents used input from the work of the electrical experts PIRT panel as their key 

source of information. As documented in Volume 1, the PIRT panel ranked the following 

parameters as having a HIGH impact on the hot short-induced spurious operation occurrences: 

 Circuit Wiring Configuration 

o number of sources, targets, ground/neutral, and their locations 

 Cable’s Conductor Insulation Material Type 

o for inter-cable hot shorts (TS versus TP) 

 Grounding Configurations 

o Cable Grounding Configuration (e.g., ground or drain wire, shield wrap) 

o Armor Grounded versus Ungrounded Circuit (for AC) and Armored versus 

Unarmored Cable (for ungrounded DC circuits) 

o Grounded versus Ungrounded Circuits (for inter-cable hot shorts) 

 Cable Routing/Raceway 

o Panel Wiring (ranked as important due to a lack of available test data and the 

belief that testing this parameter is important) 

 Cable Raceway Fill 

o Bundles (The PIRT panel considered this important even though the panel 

ranked this factor as having MEDIUM impact). 

The PIRT Panel also ranked the following parameters as having a HIGH impact on the 

likelihoods of spurious operation durations: 

 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-3

 Fire Exposure Conditions 

o flame, plume, hot gas layer 

 Time-Current Characteristics 

o fuses/breaker size 

 Wiring Configuration 

o number of sources, targets, ground/neutrals, and their locations 

 Cable Routing/Raceway 

o Panel Wiring 

 Cable Raceway Fill 

o Bundles (The PIRT panel considered important even though the PIRT panel 

ranked this factor as having MEDIUM impact.) 

 Latching Circuit Design (e.g., MOVs) 

o This parameter is related to the design of the specific circuit, and not to any 

particular aspect of fire-induced circuit failure. 

There are influencing parameters other than those listed above, associated with cable 

installations in plants, which were judged to have minimal effects on the likelihood of spurious 

operation during a fire. Most of them have not been tested explicitly. In Volume 1, the PIRT 

panel extensively discussed the effect of these parameters, including power supply and circuit 

parameters. Given that a cable has been damaged by a fire, the PIRT and the PRA panels 

judged the following in-plant power supply-circuit configuration parameters to have minimal 

effect on the likelihoods of hot short-induced spurious operations: 

 Conduits versus Tray versus Air Drop Cable Configuration, 

 Straight Cable Runs versus Bends or Risers, 

 Vertical versus Horizontal Cable Routing, 

 Conductor Count in a Cable, 

 Cable Jacket Material, 

 Specific Position of a Cable Within a Raceway, 

 Fire Retardant Coatings, Tray Covers, or Raceway Fire Barrier Systems, 

 Base Ampacity Loading Levels, and, 

 Cable/Conductor size. 

3.1.2 Fire Test Data and Other PIRT Panel Recommendations 

The NRC and EPRI have independently and jointly undertaken fire testing of various cablecircuit configurations. Duke Energy also performed similar tests using armored control cables. 

The PRA panel’s overall determination of the conditional probabilities for various control circuit 

configurations depends primarily on these results and their own expert judgments. Therefore, 

the following provides a discussion of the test data applicability and related limitations of the 

estimation of the conditional spurious operation probabilities and the conditional probability 

values for the duration of spurious operation. Appendix C summarizes this evaluation of these 

fire-test findings for specific control circuit configurations. Additional information on the NRC’s 

and EPRI’s testing can be found in the following reports: 

 NUREG/CR-5546, “An Investigation of the Effects of Thermal Aging on the Fire 

Damageability of Electrical Cables,” May 1991 (Ref. 29) 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-4 

 EPRI TR-1006961, “Spurious Operation of Electrical Circuits Due to Cable-FiresResults of an Expert Elicitation,” May 2002 (Ref. 13) 

 NUREG/CR-6776, “Cable Insulation Resistance Measurements Made During Cable-Fire 

Tests,” June 2002 (Ref. 30) 

 EPRI TR-1003326, “Characterization of Fire-Induced Circuit Faults: Results of Cable-fire 

Testing,” December 2002 (Ref. 9) 

 NUREG/CR-6834, “Circuit Analysis – Failure Mode and Likelihood Analysis,” 

September 2003 (Ref. 31) 

 NUREG/CR-6931, “Cable Response to Live Fire (CAROLFIRE),” Vol. 1-3, April 2008 

(Ref. 11) 

 NUREG/CR-7102, “Kerite Analysis in Thermal Environment of Fire (KATE-Fire): Test 

Results,” December 2011 (Ref. 32) 

 NUREG/CR-7100, “Direct Current Electrical Shorting in Response to Exposure Fire 

(DESIREE-Fire) – Test Results,” April 2012 (Ref. 12) 

 NUREG-2128, “Electrical Cable Test Results and Analysis during Fire Exposure 

(ELECTRA-FIRE),” September, 2013 (Ref. 17) 

All AC tests used a surrogate circuit, known as the surrogate circuit diagnostic unit (SCDU), 

mimicking an AC MOV motor-starter circuit. These test programs exposed the primarily control 

cables connected to these surrogate circuits to either a radiant heat source (in the NRC’s Smallscale testing - Penlight), or to flaming fire conditions (in the NRC’s Intermediate-scale, the EPRI, 

and Duke Energy testing). 

Unlike the AC test configurations in NRC’s CAROLFIRE and EPRI/NEI testing, all MOV circuit 

testing (both AC and DC) in the NRC-sponsored DESIREE-Fire testing used interlocking MOV 

circuits that had two spurious operation targets1

. Duke Energy testing also used an interlocking 

MOV circuit in all its tests. The DC tests performed under DESIREE-Fire included five different 

circuit types (a 1-inch Valve, a Large Coil, an MOV, an SOV, and circuit breaker). Surrogate 

circuits were used to test all but the circuit breaker circuit, which used an actual medium voltage 

circuit breaker with the control cable directly connected to its control circuitry. For these DC 

circuits, the small SOV, the 1-inch Valve, and the large coil had one spurious operation target 

while the MOV included two spurious operation targets. The medium voltage circuit breaker 

had two spurious operation targets, but only one active spurious operation target dependent on 

the position of the circuit breaker (close/trip). 

To support the PIRT panel, the staff from NRC and SNL collected and sorted test data from all 

available sources (except Duke Energy data). This work is documented in NUREG-2128 (Ref. 

17). NUREG-2128 consolidates and analyzes the data from the three major tests of fireinduced circuits and cable failure published between 2001 and 2012. These test programs were 

(1) EPRI/NEI testing in 2002 (Ref. 9), (2) NRC’s CAROLFIRE in 2008 (Ref. 11), and, (3) NRC’s 

DESIREE-Fire in 2012 (Ref. 12). The first two test programs were performed on AC control 

circuits, while the third test program was undertaken predominantly on DC control circuits. The 

primary objective of analyzing these test results was to present the data in a factual, coherent 

format to facilitate the work of the PIRT panel in making informed decisions. The systematic 

 

1

 The EPRI tests used three spurious operation targets per each surrogate circuit diagnostic unit (SCDU): 

two were the same multi-conductor cable similar to all NRC tests, and the third target was located in one 

of the three single conductor cables that surrounded the multi-conductor cable. 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-5

review and analysis of the AC and DC data in light of all influencing parameters that the PIRT 

panel identified revealed several cases where inter-cable hot shorts were experienced in AC 

control circuits. The data on the DC tests revealed a failure mode in which multiple conductor 

shorts to ground from ungrounded circuits and resulted in a spurious operation. The PIRT panel 

defined this mode as “ground fault equivalent hot short (GFEHS)”2

. 

The GFEHS failure mode is possible when conductors short to a ground plane or grounded 

conductors provided that the circuits involved are ungrounded and use a common power supply. 

Although the GFEHS phenomenon was postulated in NUREG/CR-6834 (Ref. 30), the 

DESIREE-Fire testing was the first test program to observe such a phenomenon. As such, the 

testing was not specifically designed to evaluate the various parameters that could affect the 

likelihood of such a failure mode. Several factors are judged likely to affect the fire-induced 

GFEHS failure mode, including the population of cables from the compatible ungrounded power 

source that are damaged by fire and their fuse sizes. Because of the limited data available on 

this specific GFEHS failure mode, the PIRT panel recommended future research focusing on 

the effects and probability of this type of failure mechanism. 

Although the GFEHS failure mode was observed only in DC tests, similar results likely would 

have occurred in the AC testing had it included multiple ungrounded control circuits powered 

from a common AC power supply. Since all AC tests had only one ungrounded circuit per test, 

the test set up could not have exhibited the GFEHS mode. In fact, the PIRT panel did not 

explicitly deliberate this power source configuration until later when the final PIRT tables were 

reorganized for the PRA panel use. This process reflected the fact that, in most NPPs, the 

safety-related control circuits typically are designed either with grounded AC or ungrounded DC 

configurations. A few plants in the United States have safety-related control functions in 

ungrounded systems with AC power supplied via individual CPTs or a distributed system. The 

PIRT panel also concluded that all three fire-induced hot short failure modes identified in testing 

the ungrounded DC control circuits are also applicable to distributed ungrounded AC control 

circuits. 

The test data format in NUREG-2128 and the individual test reports were useful for qualitative 

discussions but the PRA panel found them to have limited direct applicability for any statistical 

analysis without significant effort to understand and consistently extract the data from these 

reports. Available data for several applications such as single-target conductors’ circuits, and 

modeling of MOV control circuit logic also presented an analytical problem. Based on the needs 

of the PRA panel, the NRC’s staff developed a roll-up table of these data sets for applying to 

different circuits. Appendix D presents this roll-up table. 

All proponents were given the roll-up tables. Typically, they did not rely solely on these values 

in the roll-up tables on which to base their final estimates, but instead used this information to 

support their final recommendations. In some cases, the proponents started with the roll-up 

table values and adjusted them accordingly, while, in other cases, a proponent used the 

information in the roll-up table only as information to check their final estimates. Each 

proponent’s use of the information in the roll-up table varied. In addition, the proponents 

 

2

 In PRA applications, the GFEHS failure mode often is identified as multiple shorts to ground (MSG). 

However, the PIRT panel deliberately chose the term “GFEHS" to separate this mode of fire-induced hot 

short from other grounding and conductor-to-conductor shorts caused by electrical phenomena other than 

fire-induced hot shorts. 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-6 

evaluated the test data as needed to better understand certain influences of various 

parameters. The parameters evaluated included wiring configuration, circuit grounding, 

configuration of the circuit protective device, and characteristics of cable failure. Proponents 

also compared test attributes to the actual in-plant applications. They typically started by 

understanding the test data, and then applied their individual judgment as to how well the test 

data represents the conditions in the actual plant. 

The roll-up table, developed by the NRC’s staff, contains limited test configurations involving 

armored cables in the three test programs sponsored by the EPRI/NEI and the NRC. In 2006, 

Duke Energy conducted a proprietary testing program involving armored cables for ungrounded 

and grounded AC control circuits powered from individual CPTs, and ungrounded DC control 

circuit configurations. Testing simulated monitoring systems for MOV circuits in a way similar to 

that used in both EPRI’s and the NRC’s test programs. In 2007, an NRC staff member 

observed the testing and documented his observations in a report that was classified as 

proprietary due to the contents of the report (ADAMS Accession No. ML070740544). 

During the deliberations of the PRA panel in Workshops #1 and #2, half of the panel did not 

have Duke Energy’s test results. In January 2013, Duke Energy provided the proprietary test 

report to EPRI for the exclusive use of the PRA expert elicitation panel. 

Proponents #2 and #3 factored these results in their estimates for armored cables. Proponent 

#4 already had submitted his report to the TI team without considering Duke Energy’s findings. 

Proponent #1 used as much of the Duke Energy’s data as possible since he was on the verge 

of submitting his report to the TI team. The TI team took note of these differences while 

integrating the proponents’ inputs: this was reflected in their choice of the weighing factors used 

for the proponents’ inputs in certain case studies (Table 4-2). 

Considering all test results available to the PRA panel, there are cable and power supply 

configurations of control circuits where limited-to-no test data are available. These are 

associated with ungrounded AC circuits powered from individual CPTs and include the 

following: 

(a) Intra-cable hot shorts for cables with metal foil shield wrap, and 

(b) Inter-cable hot shorts for cables with TS- and TP-insulated conductor. 

In addition, there are tests associated with both grounded AC and ungrounded DC circuits 

wherein the tests were artificially configured to increase the odds of inter-cable hot shorts 

leading to spurious operations. However, the tests revealed virtually no inter-cable hot short 

mode of failures, except one in EPRI tests with an atypical cable configuration (i.e., single 

conductors surrounding a multi-conductor cable). The PRA panel was informed of this and 

used expert judgments and/or statistical methods to estimate conditional probability. 

For developing the duration probability plots, fire exposure test data from all test programs was 

used. This is discussed in Section 6. 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-7

3.1.3 Insights on Data from Cable-Fire Tests 

Spurious Operation Probability Estimates 

Most proponents of the PRA panel believed that two factors give a modest conservative bias to 

the data for estimating spurious operation probability. That is, there is a higher likelihood of 

spurious operation in testing than would be seen with actual in-plant configuration. 

Factor 1 

A large fraction of the circuit tests used the most conservative of the possible cable-to-circuit 

wiring configurations (the so-called “Source Centered” configuration). The EPRI/NEI tests 

evaluated four conductor connection patterns, namely; “Actuation Biased,” “Center Ground,” 

“Source Centered,” and, “Non-Actuation Biased.” Figure 3-1 illustrates these connection 

patterns as presented in the EPRI/NEI report (Ref. 9). The report shows that the Source 

Centered wiring configuration engendered approximately a 28% higher likelihood of spurious 

operation than the average of the other three wiring configurations. Some proponents assessed 

a difference of 40% between the most likely to the least likely wiring configurations. In reality, 

the analyst is unlikely to know the actual circuit-to-cable wiring configuration. The PRA panel 

chose to generalize the quantification by providing a value based on a random conductor 

arrangement and allow the wiring configuration as an uncertainty factor rather than biasing the 

median- or mean-value upwards (bounding analysis) to account for the most conservative one. 

All made some reduction in their final proposed estimates as a result of the wiring configuration, 

although the reduction factor and methods applied by the proponents varied. 

5

7

1 2

4

6

3

6

7

1 2

4

3

5

1

6

7 2

4

3

5

6

7

1 3

2

4

5

Actuation Based Center Ground

Source Centered Non-Actuation Bias

1 = Power Source

2 = Power Source

3 = Dummy Load

4 = Actuating Device

5 = Actuating Device

6 = Ground

7 = Spare

Figure 3-1. Illustration of Conductor Connection Patterns in EPRI/NEI Testing 

Factor 2 

The second adjustment most proponents made to the test data reflected how spare conductors 

were left ungrounded in all tests versus the common practice of grounding them in NPPs. In a 

grounded AC circuit, grounding spare conductors would tend to reduce the likelihood of 

spurious operation, but increase the likelihood of a fuse clear or a circuit trip because, in a multi-
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-8 

conductor cable, there would be more opportunities for energized conductors to interact with the 

grounds. Assuming most circuit designs will ground spare conductors; the likelihood of spurious 

operations would be lower than the test results. The wiring configuration mainly is an issue of 

the proximity of sources and targets to mitigating conductors (e.g., grounds). Adding more 

grounded/mitigating conductors mimics changes in wiring configuration. The proponent experts 

assessed a likelihood reduction factor ranging from 10-to-20%. 

Spurious Operation Duration Plots 

In developing curves for the likelihood of spurious operation duration, the PRA panel and the TI 

team believed that the test data used for plotting duration probability plots is more conservative 

for the early period (i.e., pre-floor) than that would be seen if the complete test data set had 

been used. This is because the statistical pooling of the data removed both long and short 

durations of the hot short-induced spurious operations test data. When evaluating the pooled 

dataset, the PRA panel considered the following: 

 

1. The data for these duration plots does not account for all the influencing parameters with 

a HIGH impact presented in Section 3.1.1, 

2. The method of determining the duration values from plots with multiple hot shorts, such 

as presented in NRC’s roll-up table and in NUREG-2128, and, 

3. The exclusion of some results of short- and long-duration tests based on pooled test 

data-set from NRC’s both AC and DC test programs. 

Therefore, as discussed in Section 6, the mean Weibull distribution based on the pooled test 

data is adjusted to account for the differences estimated by the experts between the test 

configurations and actual in-plant conditions. Further, an uncertainty bound is added to the 

adjusted mean curve to obtain the final plots of spurious operation duration plots. Finally, floors 

for AC and DC control circuits are added to account for all tests of long duration (e.g., model the 

likelihood a hot short would not clear). To make these changes, the Weibull distribution was 

modified with additional parameters (Section 6 and Appendix C). 

3.1.4 Overview of Control Circuit Cases Considered 

The PRA panel’s evaluation of spurious operation likelihood also included the effect played by 

the control circuit’s power supply and grounding configuration. The type of power supply along 

with the characteristics of cable construction have an important role in how likely a specific 

scenario is to experience fire-induced spurious operations. The effect of the configuration of the 

control circuit power supply also was identified by the PIRT panel. 

To support the PRA panel and provide a framework for identifying the phenomena that affect 

spurious operation likelihood and its duration, the PIRT panel developed tables (Figures 3-5, 3-

6, 3-7, and Tables 3-6 and 3-7 in Volume 1) as templates for the PRA panel to populate. At that 

time, the PIRT panel chose to format the tables to include more cable configurations than what 

the panel believed the final tables ultimately would encompass. The concept was that either the 

PRA panel could combine various cells within the table based on the similarity of the derived 

values or they might decide that a configuration may not be important enough for PRA 

applications, and could be removed at their discretion. Ultimately, the PRA panel made several 

modifications to the PIRT panel’s templates. 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-9

After simplifying the PIRT panel templates in Volume 1, the hot short-induced spurious 

operation likelihood cases, evaluated by the PRA panel, were categorized using five (5) 

variables: 

1 Circuit Configuration – Single versus Double Break 

2 Circuit Cases – SOV, MOV, Circuit Breaker (for single break circuits) 

3 Circuit Grounding/Power Supply Type – Grounded AC, Ungrounded AC (powered from 

individual CPTs), Ungrounded DC (or Ungrounded Distributed AC) 

4 Target Cable Construction – Thermoset-insulated Conductor Cable, Thermoplasticinsulated Conductor Cable, Metal Foil Shield Wrap Cable, Armored Cable 

5 Conductor Failure Mode – Intra-cable hot short, Inter-cable hot short, GFEHS 

The most significant change to the original tables was to modify the TS- and TP-insulated 

conductor configuration rows. The PRA panel chose to simplify this table’s row headings only to 

indicate the target cable or conductor as being TS-insulated or TP-insulated. Since the circuit 

analysis typically is based on the target cable rather than the source cable(s), the PRA panel 

combined both TSTP3

 and TPTP in Volume 1 Figures 3-5 through 3-7 into one row as 

“Thermoplastic-Insulated Conductor Cable.” Moreover, the test data available to the PRA 

panel do not separate this difference in the types of source cable. As such, the PRA panel 

decided to combine these two rows to one from all the tables where the PIRT panel included it 

in Volume 1. 

The PIRT panel made these distinctions in the template tables to reflect their judgment on the 

effect that cable insulation has on the likelihood of inter-cable hot-short induced spurious 

operations for single and double break designs (Table 3-3 of Volume 1). Although the PRA 

panel agreed with this assessment, they believed that maintaining the table format could 

confuse the end user, especially for cases other than inter-cable ones. Therefore, the PRA 

panel chose to rename the “Base Case” row heading in Volume 1 as “Thermoset-Insulated 

Conductor Cable” and condensed the two rows of the “TP Cable” case to “ThermoplasticInsulated Conductor cable.” The applicability of the results from these two rows are discussed 

in Section 4 ( single break) and Section 5 ( double break) to ensure that the PIRT panel’s 

conclusions, documented in Table 3-3 of Volume 1 and its associated text, are maintained. 

The second simplification of the PIRT table template was to remove the cable configuration 

identified as “Cable includes an un-insulated grounded drain wire.” Although several cable 

manufacturers provide control cable products that have a drain wire, this application in currently 

operating NPPs is very limited. Additionally, the test data on fire-induced spurious operation 

includes only a few tests wherein a three-conductor (3/C) low-voltage power cable with a drain 

wire was tested. The PRA panel did not believe that this limited data could accurately represent 

the actual influence of an un-insulated grounded drain wire on the likelihood of fire-induced 

spurious operations for control-cable configurations. The panel also believed that given cable 

damage due to a fire, the presence of a grounded drain wire physically resembles that of all 

other fire-damaged conductors within a multi-conductor cable. Figures 3-6 and 3-7 of Volume 1 

do not include a row for cable with drain wire as in Figure 3-5, since the PIRT panel considered 

this not applicable because the presence of a drain wire in a cable for ungrounded circuits is 

 

3

 TS→TP configuration represents a TS-insulated source conductor hot short with a TP-insulated target 

conductor. 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-10 

unlikely. Moreover, for an ungrounded AC circuit involving separate CPTs, a drain wire would 

likely have little or no effect on spurious operation likelihood. 

The third simplification relates to Section 3.3.3 of Volume 1, where the PIRT panel 

recommended thirteen (13) different control circuit scenarios for single and double break circuit 

configurations that are vulnerable to hot short-induced spurious operations. As discussed in 

Section 2.2, they included two separate scenarios for each inter-cable hot short via a ground 

plane (i.e., GFEHS) representing one within the same raceway and the other between different 

raceways (Figure 3-4 in Volume 1). The test data from DESIREE-Fire are not explicit enough to 

differentiate these two scenarios in the probability estimation. Therefore, for the third 

simplification, the PRA panel combined these two into one hot short-induced spurious operation 

failure mode case identified in Table 3-1, as “Ground Fault Equivalent” in Column 9. 

Table 3-1 presents the matrix of the cable configuration and hot short-induced spurious 

operation failure modes for the three power-supply/grounding configurations. The PRA experts 

were asked to offer their best estimates with uncertainty for each of these cells, which are 

applicable to single break control circuits. Shaded light grey cells in this table represent the 

PIRT panels’ conclusion that such case is an “implausible” event, and cells marked “incredible” 

are those considered incredible events. The terms “implausible” and “incredible” are defined by 

the PIRT panel in Section 2.1.3 of Volume 1 and repeated in Section 2.2.2 of this volume. 

Probabilities for all sub-cases except those classified as “incredible” were estimated by the PRA 

panel. All columns and rows denoted in the following discussion refer to this table. 

Column 3 “Aggregate” probability distributions are derived from Column 1 and 2 distributions 

using the Boolean “OR” method (Section 2.3.6) assuming that either of these two hot short 

modes may happen in a fire. Similarly, the values in Column 6 represent an aggregate of those 

in Column 4 and 5, while Column 10 represents an aggregate of the values in Columns 7, 8, 

and 9. 

Table 3-1 includes intra-cable hot short, inter-cable hot short, and GFEHS-induced spurious 

operations for four different target cable-configurations, namely, Thermoset-Insulated Conductor 

Cable, Thermoplastic-insulated Conductor Cable, Metal Foil Shield Wrap Cable, and Armored 

Cable. 

The discussion in Appendix C, presents key information from either the test data or majority of 

the proponents’ judgment for each sub-case (or cell) of this table. Its format presents spurious 

operation probability distributions for single break control circuits used for SOV (Base Case) and 

MOV end devices. The following summarizes how the proponents used the test data and 

expert judgments in assessing the three hot short-induced spurious operation failure modes of 

control circuits for the SOV Case: 

 Intra-cable Hot Shorts: The estimates of spurious operation occurrence probability for 

all sub-cases associated with TS, TP, and Armor Cables under all three power supply 

categories have significant amount of data from the AC and DC test programs. For the 

Metal Foil Shield Wrap Cable, however, there is a limited set of data from the 

CAROLFIRE testing on Japanese cables for the grounded AC and ungrounded DC (or 

ungrounded distributed AC) power supplies and none for the ungrounded AC (with 

individual CPTs) power supply. 

 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-11

 Inter-cable Hot Shorts: All conductor configurations in the AC and DC test programs 

exhibited almost no device failure that could be used in the estimation of spurious 

operation occurrence probability for any sub-case under all three power supply 

categories; even though the tests were artificially configured to increase the odds of 

inter-cable hot shorts leading to spurious operations. For TS and TP cables under 

ungrounded AC (with individual CPTs) there is virtually no test data available. For all 

data-deficient sub-cases, the proponents mostly used their expert judgment in estimating 

the failure probability of occurrence for this failure mode. 

Table 3-1. Conditional Probability of Spurious Operation – Single Break Control Circuits 

Power Supply  Grounded AC Ungrounded AC 

(w/ Individual CPTs) 

Ungrounded DC 

(or Ungrounded Distributed AC) 

Target Cable 

Configurations 

Intra-Cable Inter-Cable Aggregate Intra-Cable Inter-Cable Aggregate Intra-Cable Inter-Cable Ground Fault Equivalent Aggregate 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

ThermosetInsulated 

Conductor 

Cable 

1 SB 

01_01 

SB 

01_02 

SB 

01_01 

+ 

SB 

01_02 

SB 

01_04 

SB 

01_05 

SB 

01_04 

+ 

SB 

01_05 

SB 

01_07 

SB 

01_08 

SB 

01_09 

SB 01_07 

+ 

SB 01_08 

+ 

SB 01_09 

ThermoplasticInsulated 

Conductor 

Cable 

2 SB 

02_01 

SB 

02_02 

SB 

02_01 

+ 

SB 

02_02 

SB 

02_04 

SB 

02_05 

SB 

02_04 

+ 

SB 

02_05 

SB 

02_07 

SB 

02_08 

SB 

02_09 

SB 02_07 

+ 

SB 02_08 

+ 

SB 02_09 

Metal Foil 

Shield Wrap 

Cable 

3 SB 

03_01 

Incredible 

SB 

03_01 

SB 

03_04 

Incredible 

SB 

03_04 

SB 

03_07 

Incredible 

SB 

03_09 

SB 03_07 

+ 

SB 03_09

Armored 

Cable 4 SB 

04_01 

Incredible 

SB 

04_01 

SB 

04_04 

Incredible 

SB 

04_04 

SB 

04_07 

Incredible 

SB 

04_09 

SB 04_07 

+ 

SB 04_09 

Notes:“+” represents the Boolean “OR” operator and not a simple sum 

“SB 0X_0Y” represents Single Break Row X Column Y 

Dark Grey shaded cells represent the aggregate 

Light Grey shaded cells represent “implausible” cases per the PIRT definition 

 Ground Fault Equivalent Hot Shorts (GFEHSs): Significant amount of test data is 

available from the DESIREE-Fire test program for the ungrounded DC (or ungrounded 

distributed AC) power supply associated with TS and TP Cables and a limited number of 

hot short-induced spurious operation occurrences for the Metal Foil Shield Wrap Cables 

and Armor Cable. The proponents used their expert judgment on sub-cases with limited 

data. For ungrounded AC (with individual CPTs), the test programs did not include this 

failure mode. However, the PRA panel, after a long deliberation, concluded that the 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-12 

inter-cable hot short failure mode for this power supply encompasses GFEHS failure 

mode in all tests. 

For single break MOV control circuit sub-cases, a “Multiplier” to the SOV probabilities was used 

and the distribution of this Multiplier for each sub-case was developed using event tree models 

that utilized the test data for the top event probability input into the models. One proponent 

recommended a single distribution of the Multiplier for all MOV sub-cases. 

Similar to Table 3-1, Table 3-2 presents the double break circuit matrix of the target cable 

construction and hot short failure mode combination for ungrounded AC or DC control circuit 

configurations. This table includes all the recommended hot short modes in Tables 3-6 and 3-7 

of Volume 1. The light grey cells in this table represent the PIRT panels’ conclusion that such 

case is an “implausible” event. Cells with “incredible” are those considered as such events by 

the PIRT panel; the probabilities for all cells except those so classified were estimated by the 

PRA panel. All columns and rows referenced in the discussion below are associated with this 

table. 

For both SOV and MOV control circuit double break cases, no test data was directly used in 

estimating the probability of occurrence. Instead, either combinations of spurious operation 

failure modes of single break SOV probability distributions or proponent-recommended 

distributions were used. 

In Section 3.3.3 of Volume 1, the PIRT panel also identified seven double break control circuit 

configurations out of 13 scenarios that are vulnerable to spurious operation events when their 

associated cables are damaged by fire. As detailed for single break circuits, the “Ground Fault 

Equivalent” hot short failure mode in Table 3-2 represents both the scenarios of ground-plane 

interactions associated with the same raceway or different ones for a double break. This 

engenders five specific hot short combination modes that the PIRT panel identified. 

In Columns 1 through 5 in Table 3-2 include all combinations of intra-cable hot short, inter-cable 

hot short, and GFEHS failure modes that could occur in a cable-fire. The only combination not 

addressed involves two concurrent GFEHS failures. As stated in Section 3.4.1.2 of Volume 1, 

GFEHS in combination with another GFEHS would cause a fuse clear failure; hence it is not a 

credible failure mode and is not included in Table 3-2. 

Cell DB 02_03 (outlined in bold) involves two inter-cable hot short interactions for TSTP and 

TPTP configurations. As discussed in the note under Table 3-3, Volume 1, for a double break 

configuration, the PIRT panel did not classify as implausible the inter-cable hot short 

interactions for TPTP because in the PIRT panel’s judgment, the likelihood of this 

configuration lies between a possible and an implausible classification. On the other hand, the 

panel classified the scenario with double inter-cable hot short interactions for TSTP as 

“implausible.” When combined, this cell in Row 2 representing two inter-cable combinations of 

TPTP and TSTP hot short interactions is classified as an “implausible” event. Moreover, 

we note that both of these interactions have to occur concurrently under compatible power 

sources. 

Similarly, Cell DB 02_05 involves the interaction of one inter-cable hot short and one GFEHS for 

both TPTP and TSTP configurations. The PIRT panel classified the former as a plausible 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-13

event while the latter is an implausible event (Tables 3-6 and 3-7 of Volume 1). When they are 

combined, this cell is classified as a plausible event. 

Table 3-2. Conditional Probability of Spurious Operation – Double Break Control Circuit 

Ungrounded AC4

 and DC Power Supply 

Target Cable 

Configuration 

Conductor Hot Short Failure Mode Combinations 

Intra-Cable 

& 

Intra-Cable 

Intra-Cable

& 

Inter-Cable 

Inter-Cable

& 

Inter-Cable 

Intra-Cable 

& 

 Ground 

Fault 

Equivalent 

InterCable 

& 

Ground 

Fault 

Equivalent 

Aggregate 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

ThermosetInsulated 

Conductor 

Cable 

1 DB 

01_01 

DB 

01_02 Incredible DB 

01_04 Incredible 

DB 01_01 

+

DB 01_02 

+

DB 01_04 

ThermoplasticInsulated 

Conductor 

Cable 

2 DB 

02_01 

DB 

02_02 

DB 

02_03 

DB 

02_04 

DB 

02_05 

DB 02_01 

+

DB 02_02 

+

DB 02_03 

+

DB 02_04 

+

DB 02_05 

Metal Foil 

Shield Wrap 

Cable 

3 DB 

03_01 Incredible Incredible DB 03_04 Incredible 

DB 03_01 

+

DB 03_04 

Armored 

Cable 4 DB 

04_01 Incredible Incredible DB 

04_04 Incredible 

DB 04_01 

+

DB 04_04 

Notes: “+” represents the Boolean “OR” operator and not a simple sum 

“DB 0X_0Y” represents Double Break Row X Column Y 

Dark Grey shaded cells represent the aggregate 

Light Grey shaded cells represent “implausible” cases per the PIRT definition 

In Section 3.4.1.1 of Volume 1, the PIRT panel states that a conductor within a multi-conductor 

cable shorting to a grounded conductor (intra-cable hot short) would have the same electrical 

effect as the same conductor shorting to a grounded raceway, grounded armor, or another 

grounded medium (other than a conductor). Thus, the question arose as to where to address 

the intra-cable conductor shorts to grounded conductor(s). To minimize confusion, the PIRT 

panel recommended that the probability of all intra-cable hot shorts should be considered in the 

column “Single intra-cable hot short” in Figure 3-7 in Volume 1, and “Intra + Intra cable short” in 

 

4

 For ungrounded AC with individual CPTs, Columns 4 and 5 do not apply since the corresponding 

GFEHS mode is not separately addressed. Rather, in Table 3-2, the inter-cable hot shorts in Columns 2 

and 3 include (or represent) the GFEHS mode. More detailed information on this appears in Section 

3.1.2 or Section C.1.2 under SB 01_05: Inter-Cable Hot Shorting. However, proponent inputs in Column 

4 and Column 5 are combined, respectively, with Column 2 and Column 3. Consequently, DB 03_02 and 

DB 04_02 no longer are considered “incredible.” 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-14 

Tables 3-6 and 3-7 in Volume 1 for double-break circuits. Thus, a scenario involving an intracable hot short between a grounded conductor and another conductor, both within the same 

cable, should be deemed an intra-cable hot short and not be considered as a GFEHS. 

Although the circuit’s response likely is the same in both, this distinction minimizes the likelihood 

of any double counting when developing and applying the likelihoods of conditional spurious 

operation. 

For each configuration of AC or DC control circuits, the likelihood values (in Columns marked 

“Aggregate”) correspond to all associated possible and implausible (shaded light grey) failure 

modes and are calculated using the Boolean “OR” combination of the failure modes of individual 

hot short-induced spurious operations. Therefore, the probability distributions in Columns 3, 6, 

and 10 (dark grey) in Table 3-1 and Column 6 (dark grey) in Table 3-2 are not discussed in 

Appendix C. 

For example, assume the scenario under evaluation includes the following: 

 TS-insulated target cable 

 Multi-conductor with at least one source conductor 

 Cable tray raceway type 

 Grounded AC circuit 

 Other cables within the tray also powered from an AC source. 

Then, both intra-cable and inter-cable failure modes are possible. The corresponding value in 

Row 1 “Thermoset-Insulated Conductor Cable” and Column 3 “Aggregate” derived using a 

Boolean ‘OR’ operator on SB 01_01 and SB 01_02, should be used to quantify the conditional 

likelihood of fire-induced spurious operations. 

In developing their estimates the proponents also made the following general assumptions. In 

those cases of an ungrounded AC power source with individual CPTs, the experts assumed that 

power is supplied to each circuit from individual ungrounded CPT with each circuit contained in 

its own multi-conductor cable. Hence, inter-cable spurious operations would occur only if the 

CPT for one circuit (one source cable) energizes a second circuit (second target cable). 

However, separate ungrounded CPTs are not considered as compatible power sources. 

Hence, single hot short between separate CPT circuit cables cannot trigger a spurious 

operation. For one circuit to power another, both sides of a common CPT must act as sources 

against the specific target conductors in the target circuit. This requirement significantly 

reduces the likelihood of direct inter-cable hot shorts leading to spurious operation compared to 

the grounded AC circuits where only a single inter-cable hot short is needed. 

Therefore, for ungrounded AC with individual CPT configuration circuits, it was assumed that 

one of the two hot shorts may result from a GFEHS event. That is, if one side of the source 

circuit power supply and one side of the target circuit’s end device become grounded, then a 

single additional inter-cable hot short could cause spurious operation, provided the source 

circuit’s fuses remain intact. Overall, the inter-cable shorting configurations leading to spurious 

operation are specific and must occur concurrently. Hence, this failure mode would be 

considered less likely and consequently, the PIRT panel believed that for ungrounded AC with 

individual CPTs control circuits, the GFEHS mode is the only shorting configuration that has 

merit for causing this mode to spuriously operate an end device. Concurrent shorts between a 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-15

specific conductor pair (i.e., inter-cable hot short) on two separate multi-conductor cables seem 

credible, with a marginal likelihood of happening; the PIRT panel classified this as an 

“implausible” event. Presently, no known tests have been undertaken exclusively on an 

ungrounded AC control circuit powered from individual CPTs. 

3.2 Single Break Control Circuits 

Single break control circuits are defined as designs wherein one side of the actuation device 

(e.g., coil, motor starter/contactors) directly is connected to either the positive-, negative-, or 

return-side of the power supply (through protective devices where required). Alternatively, 

single break control circuits can be considered any wherein the actuation device does not have 

contacts on both sides of the actuation device (i.e., not of a double break design). Although 

many circuit designs require having several contacts for particular end-device to actuate, they 

still may be considered a single break design. Figure 3-2 is an illustration of simplified single 

break circuit designs for reference and is not meant to be all-inclusive. Appendix C of Volume 1 

illustrates and describes several control circuit configurations for single and double break 

designs. 

Within the single break configuration, the proponents were asked for their best estimate 

conditional probabilities for three circuit types, specifically; 

 SOV circuits or circuits with a single spurious operation target 

 MOV circuits 

 Circuit Breaker (i.e., ungrounded DC control circuit for medium voltage circuit breaker) 

Figure 3-2. Illustration of Example Single Break Control Circuits 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-16 

Estimates for these three circuit designs were requested due to the circuit design influence on 

the likelihood of a hot short-induced spurious operation. For example, in an SOV control circuit 

a single hot short which energizes the SOV coil will result in a spurious operation of an initially 

de-energized SOV (see top two circuits in Figure 3-2). For an MOV circuit there are two coils, 

however the MOV is typically either open or closed in the initial state, thus a hot short to only 

one of the coils will result in a spurious operation (see bottom two circuits in Figure 3-2). 

Similarly, the control circuit of a medium voltage circuit breaker have trip and close coils, 

however, only one of these coils can be energized from a fire-induced hot short due to the 

circuit design. 

For the MOV circuit, the proponents ultimately chose to develop event trees using the values of 

SOV probability as an input and various top-events to modify the SOV (single spurious 

operation target) value for the likelihood of MOV. For the case of the circuit breaker, the data 

available from the DESIREE-Fire tests were used, and only one specific case associated with 

ungrounded DC was considered, including all hot short failure modes. 

3.2.1 Approaches Used to Estimate Single Break SOV and MOV 

Control Circuit Probabilities 

The surrogate circuit test data has direct application in determining the likelihood of the spurious 

operation of motor-operated valve (MOV) control circuits. All of the findings from the AC 

surrogate circuit tests are based on an MOV circuit that has two spurious operation targets. The 

results of DC circuits from DESIREE-Fire used MOV and medium voltage circuit breaker control 

circuit simulators, also with two spurious operation targets. Those tests also encompassed 

circuits with one spurious operation target; these included the small solenoid operated valve 

(SOV), 1-inch valve SOV, and the large coil circuit. Therefore, for these cases, each proponent 

manipulated the data for a single-target single-source circuit. Appendix C has a detailed 

discussion of the “Base Case – SOV” control circuit configurations; Section 4 contains estimates 

of the conditional probability distributions. 

The MOV control circuit differs from the SOV control circuit, in that there are two active targets, 

namely, the coils for both the “open” and “close” motor starter’s contact sets. In practice, the 

two are interlocked, mechanically and/or electrically. That is, if one of the two engages, the 

second is locked-out and cannot engage. Should the first contactor subsequently drop out, the 

second contactor once again is enabled and may lock-in if energized. This design feature 

prevents the valve motor from receiving power concurrently from both the open- and closedmotor starter units that, for the example of a three-phase valve motor, would result in phase-tophase shorting on the MOV’s power circuit. 

Another feature of an MOV control circuit that differs from an SOV one is that if the former 

circuit loses power (e.g., due to a fuse blow) the valve motor simply will stop, leaving the valve 

in whatever position it was in at the time power was lost. Depending on valve’s stroke time and 

the duration of the spurious operation signal, the valve may be left in an intermediate position 

(i.e., valve position other than fully open or fully closed). In contrast, an SOV or an air-operated 

valve (AOV) controlled by SOV control circuit(s) will return to its de-energized position when 

control power is lost typically leaving the valve either fully open or fully closed. 

These characteristics raise questions in the PRA context that, to date, have not been factored 

into known PRA analyses. In a fire PRA, the concern relative to spurious operation of a given 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-17

MOV typically focuses on one of two possible outcomes; that is, an MOV may spuriously close 

thereby closing off a desired flow path, or it may spuriously open creating an undesired flow 

path (e.g., a diversion path). 

To further complicate the situation, there may be some fractional limit to the valve’s position 

where concern begins. That is, an analyst might show that as long as the valve remains at least 

50% open, the desired flow path is adequate or, alternatively, as long as the valve remains no 

more than 20% open, an undesired flow path is not consequential to the PRA. This final factor 

was not factored into any current analysis known to either panel. The extent to which such 

considerations can or should be included in Fire PRA circuit analysis is a question that the PIRT 

panel left to the PRA panel to resolve. 

MOVs are infrequently used for modulation, and thus, typically are either closed or open. 

Hence, a hot short to a conductor associated with the MOV open contactor will cause a spurious 

opening of a MOV initially in the closed position. However, a hot short to the conductor 

associated with the close contactor initially will not entail a spurious operation of an MOV in the 

closed position (it already is closed). The reason for this discussion is that the surrogate circuit 

(e.g., surrogate circuit diagnostic unit - SCDU) used in testing did not reflect the valve’s initial 

position so that a hot short to either an open or closed contactor would be classified as a hot 

short-induced spurious operation. In addition, in the EPRI/NEI and CAROLFIRE tests, the 

electrical- and mechanical-interlocks were removed or not used, such that hot shorts to both 

open and close contactors on the same MOV could be classified as spurious operations. 

In typical designs of MOV circuits, limit switches, torque switches, and selector switches control 

the direction in which the MOV can operate spuriously. For instance, if the valve is in the closed 

position, one or both of the close torque and close limit switch contacts are typically open in that 

portion of the circuit associated with the closing coil of the MOV contactor. Likewise, when the 

MOV is in the open position, the open-limit switch is open in the portion of the circuit that is 

associated with the valve’s opening One exception to this logic is related to the NRC’s 

Information Notice (IN) 92-18 concern, where a hot short bypasses the limit and torque switches 

may actuate the valve in the open or closed position. Bypassing these switches could cause 

the valve assembly to become permanently damaged. Nevertheless, the result of such a hot 

short-induced spurious operation is uncertain, and may be system-dependent. 

These aspects of the testing and actual circuit operation raise the question of how to analyze 

the test data to represent real-case scenarios. In SSHAC Workshop #1 and #2, two panel 

members proposed using an event tree that utilizes various split fractions for such events/ 

conditions as valve response, end position, and IN 92-18 protection. These event trees would 

use the proponents’ estimates of an SOV (e.g., single contact) control circuit to assess the 

likelihood of an MOV hot short-induced spurious operation. To support the use of these event 

trees, as discussed during the 1st and 2nd SSHAC Workshops, the MOV data must be analyzed 

by separately assessing each MOV contactor target conductor for spurious operation. To do 

this, the MOV data are detailed on a target-specific basis that offers two benefits: First, the 

MOV is initially either fully closed or fully open and only the hot short-induced spurious operation 

that would change the valve’s position is the failure mode of concern (i.e., only one of the two 

MOV targets is of interest). Under this approach, the appropriate data set for spurious 

operations of one contactor is evaluated and then re-analyzed using the same data set for 

spurious operations as the other contactor, thus doubling the data set and only evaluating one 

spurious operation target at a time for the MOV data set. Second, this method simplified the 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-18 

complexity of the response of the MOV circuit response, and, more importantly allowed the PRA 

panel use of the MOV data to support the evaluation of devices that only have one target 

conductor that can result in a spurious operation. 

Three out of four proponents (Proponents #1, #3, and #4) developed their own event tree 

models and discussed them during the 2nd SSHAC Workshops. Each event tree requires 

estimates for the probabilities of top events. The tree is then used to arrive at a conditional 

probability of spurious operation, given fire damage to an MOV-control circuit cable(s). Each 

model starts with the probability estimates for spurious operation of a single contact (e.g., SOV) 

and for each sub-case (i.e., cable type-control circuit configurations) with different branch-point 

assumptions or input based on the test configurations to yield the MOV probability estimates for 

the spuriously open or spuriously closed failure mode. One proponent used “undesired 

position” as the final result. The following is a general description of what are the important 

decision points in the event tree developed by Proponent #3. The event tree developed by 

Proponent #3 is shown in Figure 3-3. The other proponent’s event trees are provided in 

Appendix C. 

Undesired Contactor Conductor Energized 

The first probability (identified as “P1” in Figure 3-3) represents likelihood of a hot short to a 

control cable conductor that is connected to the MOV contactor associated with moving the 

MOV to an undesired position. This conductor is referred to as the “conductor of concern.” This 

probability is assumed to be the same as the conditional probability of spurious operation of a 

single contactor control circuit (e.g., an SOV). The up-branch accounts for cases where the 

mode of circuit failure mode is a fuse clear or any other mode that does not involve energizing 

the conductor of concern. 

Both MOV Contactors Energized 

The second probability (identified as “P2” in Figure 3-3) addresses whether both conductors 

associated with the MOV contactors (forward/reverse or open/close) are energized during the 

failure of the cable. The up branch accounts for those where only the conductor of concern 

experiences a hot short-induced spurious operation. Then, it is assumed that the valve travels 

to its end position and the valve is assumed to fail in this undesired position. The bottom branch 

accounts for cases where both of the MOV contactors are energized, regardless of the order or 

of the timing of each hot short. The estimates are based on test data where both contactors can 

be energized and then adjusted for factors that the proponent felt to differ from the test cases to 

actuality (e.g., conductor wiring configuration, grounding, cable construction). 

IN 92-18 Failure 

The third probability (identified as “P3” in Figure 3-3) is associated with the likelihood of 

conductor shorts causing a bypass of the limit or torque switches, and the MOV drives itself 

either fully open or fully closed (down branch). The up branch quantifies cases where the failure 

mode does not cause the torque and limit switches to be bypassed, and, since both MOV 

contactors are energized, the MOV cycles until the hot short clears. In this case, the final 

position of the valve position depends on when the hot short abates. The estimates that the 

proponent proposes for this event in the scenarios were also based on test data (when 

available), and adjusted for factors that may influence difference between test data and 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-19

actuality. However, it also was considered that this scenario is highly dependent on the circuit 

design, and the specific cable being evaluated. 

Valve Ends in Desired Position 

This decision-point of the event tree (identified as “P4/P5” in Figure 3-3) quantifies the 

probability of the valve’s end position. The value for the case where IN 92-18 failures could 

occur (torque or limit switches bypassed) simply assumes that there is a probability (P5) of the 

MOV contractor being energized first, and the valve strokes to the either the fully open or closed 

position, or it remains in that position. The first contactor to experience a hot short in 

combination with the IN 92-18 failure caused the valve to stroke in the direction of the MOV hotshorted contactor. When the IN 92-18 failure does not occur, the P4 value quantifies the 

likelihood that the MOV does not cycle to the undesired position. Since this event tree does not 

consider the duration of a hot short, one proponent proposed that, for all scenarios documented, 

(1-P4) to be 80% of the time the valve will be in some position other than desired one. Since 

this aspect of the event tree is so dependent on the valve design, an independent assessment 

by licensees would offer a more realistic value. 

Fire Damage 

Undesired 

Contactor 

Conductor 

Energized 

Both MOV 

Contactors 

Energized 

IN 92-18 

Failure 

Valve 

Ends in 

Desired 

Position 

End 

Position of 

MOV 

 

 (1-P1) Desired 

 No 

Conditional (1-P2) Undesired 

Probability of Cable No 

Damage 

 P4 Desired 

P1 No 

 Yes (1-P3) 

 No 

 (1-P4) Undesired 

 Yes 

P2 

 Yes P5 Desired 

 No 

EVENT TREE FOR P3 

ILLUSTRATION Yes 

PURPOSE ONLY (1-P5) Undesired 

 Yes 

Figure 3-3. Generic Event Tree as Used by Proponent #3 

The event-tree models used by the three proponents were similar, but some involved more 

complex branches to estimate other MOV-failure modes (e.g., failure to open or to close). The 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-20 

PRA panel discussed each model in detail during their deliberations and finally decided to use a 

simplified event tree model preserving all the salient features discussed above. 

Only Proponent #3 used that simplified model. Although the other two proponents (Proponents 

#1 and #4) used different event-tree models, their proposed model parameters or the 

recommended resultant parameter values are consistent with the simplified model. Since each 

model used the SOV values predicted by the proponent, the TI team developed an approach for 

combining all three proposed model inputs using the combined SOV values estimated in 

Section 4 to develop a composite distribution multiplier to the single break SOV conditional 

probabilities. 

3.2.2 Approach Used to Estimate Single Break DC Control Circuits for 

Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker Probability 

Two out of the four proponents analyzed the medium voltage circuit breaker in their reports for 

ungrounded DC power supply and used the same set of data corresponding to an aggregate 

case involving all associated hot short failure modes. Proponent #1 started with his estimate of 

single break (e.g., SOV) failure probability and used various reduction factors to account for 

biases in test data and circuit configuration applicable to circuit-breaker control circuits. 

Proponent #3 provided a more detailed analysis of the test data, discussed below. 

The control circuit of the medium voltage circuit-breaker is either in the closed or tripped position 

and so, only a hot short to the trip or to the closed coil will trigger a spurious operation. From 

the DESIREE-Fire test data, all but one test, Intermediate Scale Test 10, implemented a control 

cabling scheme wherein the trip- and close-circuit conductors were in separate cables. Table 3-

3 tabulates the shorting behavior that occurred in small-scale Penlight and Intermediate Scale 

medium voltage circuit breaker testing. The results for each test are presented in two parts. 

The first part represents the observed test results, identifying the initial position of the breaker 

followed by the time of the first spurious operation that would cause the breaker to change 

position and then any subsequent spurious operation that would cause it to return to its initial 

position. The second part of the table presents the hypothetical response of the circuit, 

assuming that the breaker initially was placed in the opposite position than what was tested. 

The hypothetical spurious operation results are based on the real data by analyzing the timing 

of hot shorts on the spurious operation target conductors that would cause a spurious operation. 

The results in Table 3-3 show that the likelihood of a medium voltage circuit breaker control 

circuit experiencing a spurious operation given cable damage occurred is 81% (29/36). 

Although the data shows a slightly higher likelihood of spurious operation for TP insulated 

cables than TS ones, this could not be substantiated based on the limited number of data points 

and the fact that the other circuit analyses exploring the influence of the insulation material 

influences did not indicate any differences. 

Proponent #3 sorted his results into four bins, specifically, 

A. Initial position OPEN, final position OPEN 

B. Initial position OPEN, final position CLOSED 

C. Initial position CLOSED, final position CLOSED 

D. Initial position CLOSED, final position OPEN. 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-21

Table 3-3. Circuit Breaker Test Data 

Insulation 

Type Test # 

Observed Test Results Hypothetical Test Results 

Breaker’s 

Initial 

Position 

1st S.O. 

(seconds)

2ND S.O. 

(seconds)

Breaker’s 

Initial 

Position 

1st S.O. 

(seconds) 

2nd S.O. 

(seconds)

Thermoset 

Pen. 3 OPEN 719 - CLOSE 667 719 

Pen. 4 OPEN 625 626 CLOSE 589 625 

Pen. 24 OPEN - - CLOSE 2103 - 

Pen. 35 OPEN 1693 - CLOSE - - 

Pen. 42 OPEN 6120 - CLOSE 6041 6120 

IS 1 OPEN - - CLOSE 1361 

IS 3 OPEN 1460 - CLOSE 1363 1460 

IS 4 OPEN - - CLOSE 5237 

IS C1 CLOSE 410 - OPEN - - 

IS P1 OPEN 508 - CLOSE 470 508 

Thermoplastic 

Pen. 10 OPEN - - CLOSE 899 - 

Pen. 29 OPEN 3530 - CLOSE 3420 3530 

Pen. 32 OPEN 607 620 CLOSE 620 - 

Pen. 39 OPEN - - CLOSE 1678 - 

IS 5 OPEN 1424 - CLOSE 546 1424 

IS 6 CLOSE 850 1603 OPEN 158 850 

IS 7 CLOSE 1095 - OPEN 185 1095 

IS C2 CLOSE 334 354 OPEN 354 - 

This data was then used to propose a conditional probability for a change in breaker position to 

an undesired state. 

There was no attempt to account for the effects of the anti-pump circuit, the transient nature of 

the breaker opening and closing, or the duration between spurious operations if multiple 

spurious operations occurred. In fact, the anti-pump circuit should not be credited as a 

means of keeping a breaker tripped for failure modes resulting from fire-induced cable 

damage. This is because if the anti-pump circuit worked as designed, the hot short in the 

closed portion of the circuit would have to be maintained continuously for the duration of the fire 

transient on the corresponding cable. In actuality, it is highly unlikely that such a hot short 

would persist on the correct conductors without momentary interruptions, especially for an 

ungrounded DC. Thus, any perturbation on that portion of the circuit would cause the anti-pump 

relay to drop out and not maintain the breaker in the open position. The test data also support 

this conclusion. 

Section 4 combines the proposed conditional probability values from both proponents and the 

final values for medium voltage circuit breaker with an ungrounded DC control circuit. 

3.3 Double Break Control Circuits 

Figure 3-4 illustrates a design of a “double break” control circuit where two normally open 

contacts surround the target of interest (SOV). In a double break design, the controls switch 

opens and closes both the high and the return sides of the circuit. In this example, there is one 

target end-device of interest, i.e., the SOV, but with a double break design, two hot shorts are 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-22 

required to operate it. One side of the solenoid must short to the high side of a compatible 

power source and the other side of the solenoid must concurrently short to the return side of 

that same, or another compatible, power source. Solenoids in these circuits, either AC or DC 

ones, are not sensitive to the polarity of the energizing power source relative to the two solenoid 

contacts. Thus, two concurrent hot shorts are required and reversing polarity leads to the same 

result. 

 

In the case of the circuit illustrated in Figure 3-4, two concurrent hot shorts are needed to form, 

therefore bypassing both sides of the switch contacts and leading to spurious opening of the 

valve. Here, the shorts must involve the return-side conductor N shorting to one side of the 

solenoid (e.g., either to S1 or S2 conductors since either polarity will energize the solenoid) and 

one of the two high-side source conductors (P or G) shorting to the other side of the solenoid. 

Figure 3-4. Simplified Double Break Control Circuit Design 

Figure 3-5 illustrates another variation of a double break design feature sometimes used as a 

deterministic means to minimize the likelihood of spurious operation. The circuit is 

disconnected from its source of motive power by manually opening a double-pole disconnect 

switch positioned immediately downstream from the circuit fuses and the balance of the control 

circuit. (Note that the same effect could be achieved by removing both circuit fuses). 

As shown in Figure 3-5, the target cable of interest contains conductors P and N, but unlike the 

case discussed in reference to Figure 3-4, the conductors are de-energized relative to the 

battery bank. Hence, they cannot act as energizing sources. In this design, two external shorts, 

one to each side of the solenoid (S2 and N) are required to activate it. The two source 

conductors must be provided from either the same power source (i.e., battery bank) that 

normally powers the circuit or from a second compatible one (i.e., another DC power source). 

Note that, as in the first case, it is assumed that AC power sources cannot activate a DC 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-23

solenoid; but that the relative polarity across the solenoid (i.e., of the shorts to S2 and N) is not 

important. 

Figure 3-5. Double Break Control Circuit Configuration (Ungrounded DC) 

There are two variations on this case: One assumes that the two energizing shorts come from 

direct cable-to-cable interactions, and the second assumes that one of the two results from 

GFEHS. Figures 3-8 and 3-9, respectively, of Volume 1 also illustrate double break control 

circuits for ungrounded AC and DC control circuits. Additional schematics of double break 

configurations are included in Appendix C of Volume 1. 

Three of the four proponents addressed the double break control circuits. Proponent #4 did not 

include them in his report. 

3.3.1 Approach Used to Estimate Double Break Control Circuit 

Probability 

In early panel discussions, a proponent suggested the following: Treat the two hot-short events 

required to induce a spurious operation in a double break (or contact) control circuit design by 

simply assuming two independent events of the hot-short type (e.g., combinations of intra-cable 

hot short, inter-cable hot short and GFEHS). Some panelists suggested that this would ignore 

dependency issues while others stated that “...given hot shorts forming within a faulting cable, 

more than one conductor was typically involved in the shorting behavior.” Given a hot short to 

one conductor, hot shorts to additional conductors are not independent events, and so should 

be assigned a higher probability of occurrence for multiple hot shorts. Therefore, assuming 

independence would underestimate the probability of spurious operation for the double break 

designs. However, the proponent who originally proposed them as independent argued that this 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-24 

is an inappropriate interpretation made about the involvement of multiple conductors in most of 

the cases of cable hot shorting observed in testing. His reasons are discussed below. 

While the prior statements remain true, the above description does not properly interpret 

the effect as applied to the double break case. To explain further, none of the tests to 

date have investigated double break designs. In the AC tests, this was the ‘high’ or ‘hot’ 

side of the AC power source (generally a CPT); in the DC tests, this was the ‘positive’ 

battery potential. Shorts between the opposite side of the power source (i.e., the 

‘return’, ‘neutral’ or ground for AC, and the battery negative for DC) and the ‘target’ 

conductors would not cause a spurious operation. Such shorts were, in fact, a mitigating 

effect that would prevent or disrupt a spurious operation by causing a fuse-blow failure 

after a hot short to the target conductor. In these tests, it was common to see that once 

the hot short source conductors began shorting to other conductors in the cable, the 

shorting rarely was limited to just one pair of conductors. 

With the double break design, there are two energizing potentials that must come into 

proper shorting configurations to cause spurious operation (the hot and return sides for 

AC, and both positive and negative sides for DC). Two independent hot shorts must 

form concurrently before a spurious operation can occur; namely, a short between one 

side of the power source and the conductor for one side of the target end-device, and a 

second separate short between the opposite side of the power source and the opposite 

side of the target’s end device. This is a far different condition from that implied by an 

earlier statement observing that after one side of the power source has shorted to one 

side of the target end-device, the same hot short source also is very likely to impact 

other cable conductors. This would imply that the same side of the power source may 

well hot short to the conductor associated with the other side of the target end-device, 

but that this condition would not induce a spurious operation in a double break circuit. 

However, if one side of energizing power source shorts to several conductors (rather 

than just one), then a spurious operation might be less likely because a spurious 

operation requires that the opposing side of the target end-device remains available to 

receive an energizing hot short from the opposite side of the power source without 

causing a fuse to blow. 

Overall, the dependence implied by the earlier statement actually may imply an inverse 

dependency with respect to the spurious operation in a double break circuit design. That 

is, if the first of the two required hot shorts has formed, there is a certain dependent 

likelihood that the opposite side of the target end device also will short to the same 

energizing source (i.e., to the same side of the power source). If a subsequent hot short 

from the opposite side of the power source subsequently formed, a fuse blow failure 

would occur, not a spurious operation. 

Other factors that would play some role in this problem are the duration and timing of the 

circuit’s hot shorts. That is, the timing of the two shorts required to cause a spurious 

operation event on a double break circuit must overlap. This case is not well 

represented by the data sets available. For intra-cable based cases, shorts among all 

conductors do tend to overlap, so duration and timing likely have little effect on cases 

strictly related to faults within a single cable. For those cases involving external 

interactions, either grounds or inter-cable shorts, in reality there would likely be many 

more potential source-cables surrounding the target cable than were present during the 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-25

tests. Hence, timing constraints would likely be less restrictive than the data sets 

nominally indicate. For the purposes of this assessment, neglecting these two factors, 

timing of circuit damage, and duration of hot shorts, is suggested. 

Overall, the PRA panel judged that the value obtained by simply assuming independent hot 

shorts of the specified type will yield a moderately conservative estimate of the spurious 

operation probability given that this approach ignores the likely negative dependency factors 

described above. However, without testing there is no basis for quantifying that negative 

dependency and it is unwise to speculate on further reducing these values. 

The approach for evaluating a sub-case of the double break control circuit is to treat the two hot 

short events required to cause a spurious operation in a double break (or contact) control circuit 

as two conditionally independent events (they are both dependent on the occurrence of fire 

damage). For example, the community distribution for the intra-cable & intra-cable hot shorts 

was assessed as the combination of the community distributions for two SOV single break 

control circuit intra-cable hot shorts because this spurious operation failure mode requires two 

intra-cable hot shorts. 

Given this assessment, the exercise for estimating the probability distributions for most double 

break sub-cases becomes somewhat direct. As long as the prior single break tables include 

probability distributions for each of the two individual hot shorting modes considered for a subcase, the individual modes (e.g., intra-cable plus intra-cable; intra-cable plus GFEHS) were 

linked under an “AND” gate, and the double-break distribution was obtained by Monte Carlo 

simulation (see Subsection 2.3.6, “Combining Individual Community Distributions,” for a 

description of the process used for combining probability distributions). Thus, the community 

distribution for the intra-cable & intra-cable hot shorts for a double break control circuit was 

assessed by linking under an “AND” gate two SOV single break control circuit intra-cable hot 

shorts (which are characterized by probability distributions). 

For some sub-cases related to the ungrounded AC with CPTs double break control circuits, the 

proponents provided distribution parameters (i.e., quantiles) for hot short combinations [i.e., 

intra-cable & inter-cable (column 2) and inter-cable & inter-cable (column 3)] that were used for 

assessing the final community distributions. These sub-cases included the GFEHS failure 

mode as part of the inter-cable hot short (i.e., columns 4 and 5 in Table 3-2) in an ungrounded 

AC with an individual CPTs control circuits. For double break control circuits powered from an 

ungrounded AC with CPTs the PRA panel merged the data for inter-cable hot short failure mode 

and the GFEHS failure mode (i.e., columns 2 & 4, and columns 3 & 5). Therefore, the hot short 

failure mode combination columns in Table 3-2 involving GFEHS are not applicable to these 

power supply sub-cases (i.e., columns 4 and 5 in Table 3-2 do not apply to this configuration). 

Appendix C, presents a detailed discussion of the double break “Base Case – SOV” control 

circuit configuration. Calculating the conditional probabilities for an MOV control circuit with 

double break design was not included in the original consideration and hence, was neither 

deliberated in Workshop #2 nor addressed in the proponents’ reports. In the last Workshop #3 

attended by both the PIRT and PRA panels, the proponents suggested including the double 

break design of MOV control circuits in the overall scope of this project. The proponents 

concluded that a multiplying factor should be used to modify double break control circuit SOV 

distributions involving intra-cable hot shorts (i.e., Columns 1 and 4) for MOV applications. For 

all other combinations involving either inter-cable hot short or GFEHS failure mode, the double 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-26 

break control circuit SOV values for the single break MOV cases are applicable. However, for 

an ungrounded AC power source from individual CPTs, the inter-cable hot short and GFEHS 

failure modes are not separately addressed for single break cases (Table 3-1), but combined 

within a single column (5). 

The PIRT panel stated that they excluded grounded AC control circuits because members were 

unaware of any applications of double break design for a grounded circuit. Moreover, for a 

grounded circuit a second hot short is not needed for the circuit to engender a spurious 

operation. In fact, a hot short plus a ground would blow the fuse. Therefore, the double break 

design control circuit cases for both SOVs and MOVs are considered only for ungrounded 

circuits. They specifically are those associated with (1) ungrounded AC (w/individual CPTs) 

control circuits where one side of the fault is assumed to arise from a fault to ground and (2) 

ungrounded DC (or ungrounded distributed AC) where a GFEHS situation is involved separate 

from inter-cable hot shorts. 

3.4 Spurious Operation Duration 

The PIRT panel recommended developing spurious operation duration tables for exposure 

conditions to flames, plumes, and hot-gas layer fires for all three specific power-supply 

configurations, taking into account the effect of fuse size. Although not having a “High Impact” 

on the spurious operation likelihood, there is evidence that the mode of fire exposure impacts 

spurious operation duration. Thus, longer duration signals are associated with less intense fire 

exposure conditions and longer times to cable failure. The PRA panel determined that 

developing spurious operation duration probabilities based on fire hazard would be difficult to 

implement primarily due to the difficulty for an analyst in taking credit for shorter spurious 

operation signal durations based on fire exposure conditions. 

Two proponents provided recommendations in their proposals. Proponent #1 estimated the 

mean durations (with uncertainty bounds) by fitting a Weibull distribution and finally, 

recommended using the Weibull distribution exclusively for all cases. 

Proponent #3 reviewed Section 16, “Hot Short Duration (FAQ 08-0051)” of interim NUREG/CR6850, Supplement 1, “Fire Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods Enhancements,” (Ref. 15) 

and stated his estimation of the conditional probability of spurious operation duration for a hot 

short lasting longer than or equal to time, t, in minutes. 

Proponent #3 conservatively modified a data-based Weibull distribution plot to account for his 

beliefs on the effects of parameters identified by the PIRT panel. In addition, for the DC case, 

because there were several tests where spurious operations and hot shorts persisted at the 

time when the test was terminated, this proponent recommended different minimum duration 

probabilities for AC and DC control circuits. These minimum probability values are called 

“Floors” for the duration curve. 

This particular approach for estimating the length of spurious operation was discussed 

extensively among the proponents and the TI team members. The processed used for the 

development of the hot short-induced spurious operation occurrence probability estimation 

where proponents provided input and the TI team integrated the input systematically, was not 

used for the duration probability development. In the latter case, the TI team took one of the 

proponents approach and further developed it with the help of Martin Stutzke (NRC) and 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-27

feedback from the proponent experts. The TI team decided to develop two plots, one for AC 

control circuits and another for DC, encompassing all modes of fire exposure. 

The PRA panel also made the following suggestions: 

 Test data from different fire exposures (i.e., flame, plume, hot gas layer, and radiant 

heat) should be pooled to form one set for AC control circuits and another for DC control 

circuits. If the difference between the two is marginal, both sets may be pooled. 

 Statistical tests for the poolability of data should be used before combining data sets. As 

indicated in Proponent #3 report, this has excluded some of very short (i.e., shorter than 

1 minute) and very long (i.e., longer than 10 minutes) duration tests from the pooled data 

set. As noted in their final report (Appendix F), the PPRP recommended against the 

screening of data purely on statistical grounds. 

 Proponent #1 suggested that a Weibull distribution should be fitted to the combined data 

set. The appropriate adjustments made to this mean (or median) Weibull distribution to 

account for the effects of all other influencing parameters that the PIRT panel identified, 

including the in-plant conditions and tests of shorter durations. 

 Since there are some very long duration DC test cases, this can be represented by a 

“floor” to the Weibull distribution that will differ for AC and DC control circuits. (The 

“floor,” so-called because it provides a lower limit for the complementary cumulative 

probability distribution for duration, is the probability that the spurious operation lasts 

indefinitely.) 

 Appropriate uncertainty bounds should be added to the mean Weibull plots and their 

floor levels. 

To address these suggestions from the PRA panel, a modified Weibull model, known as the 

“CS Model” was formulated. Development of the CS Model is based off of a technique used by 

reliability engineers known as “scale-accelerated failure time (SAFT).” It is often used for 

accelerated testing, but had applicability here as the PRA panel were attempting to model time 

differences between testing and actual plant fire conditions as they relate to spurious operation 

duration. 

The CS Model provides a mathematical format for adjusting the Weibull distribution. As used in 

this project, a ‘c’ value is used to shift the mean Weibull distribution curve, while an ‘s’ value is 

used to adjust the uncertainty of the Weibull distribution. The ‘c’ and ‘s’ values do not represent 

any one physical phenomena, but can be viewed as a tool to model the shape of the 

distribution. Thus, as used in his project, the proponents pick a value (‘c’ and ‘s’) based on the 

shape of the resulting distribution and uncertainty which they fell best represents their informed 

judgment. 

Other factors have not been tested that could lead to spurious operation signals that are not 

self-mitigating via the common occurrence of clearing of protective devices or by other means. 

In particular, disrupting the fire (e.g., via suppression) may disturb the progression of damage 

from fully functional to fully degraded; this disruption can occur at any time. None of the tests of 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-28 

circuit-failure mode tests have explored the effect of extinguishing a fire after initial cable failures 

occur, but before full cable burn-up is observed. For example, given an external exposure fire, 

such as a cabinet fire exposing overhead cables, firefighting efforts will focus first on the fire 

source (i.e., the cabinet). Once the fire is suppressed, the cables likely will self-extinguish 

(unless a very large-scale cable-fire was allowed to develop). In this scenario, the cables may 

very well be left in an intermediate damages state; that is, in some conductors the integrity of 

insulation integrity is lost, while others remain essentially intact, and with the circuit fuses still 

intact. 

It is important to note that the cables in the CAROLFIRE and DESIREE-FIRE tests, which 

constitute the majority of these results, were exposed to severe thermal conditions, such that 

the cable would be damaged in 20-30 minutes, a time frame that was felt to be risk-significant 

during the planning stages of the CAROLFIRE program. In addition, the loading of the cable 

tray was limited in most cases; had the testing involved a more loaded tray, the time to damage 

and durations would likely have been extended. So the question that needs to be answered is 

“How do these exposure conditions correlate to real fires experienced in the plant that are 

severe enough to cause cable damage?” With the limited number of well-documented fires that 

have caused cable damage, and the wide variety of fire scenarios has encountered in the 

plants, this question is not easy to answer. 

The spurious operation signal durations should also consider the probability that a spurious 

operation signal will not clear (i.e., be effectively of infinite duration). In the case of the DC 

testing in particular, several very long duration signals were observed that the PRA panel 

decided should not be dismissed. While most of these occurred in the small scale Penlight 

testing of DESIREE-Fire, the panel determined that they are valid data and should be factored 

into the guidance on duration. Part of the justification for the “floor” value is that the testing may 

not accurately represent the events of an actual fire in this regard; some consideration should 

be given to the potential that spurious operation signals will not self-mitigate. 

3.4.1 Approach Used to Estimate Spurious Operation Duration 

Probability 

After several deliberations among the PRA panel, it was concluded that the pooled data set 

used by Proponent #3 were appropriate to employ in developing the plots of spurious-operation 

duration. Thus, these plots combine duration data from most of the tests; only the duration data 

for both AC flame tests and for DC radiant tests are excluded. In addition, other factors 

affecting duration, as identified by the PIRT panel, were taken into account via a combination of 

modifying the mean of the Weibull distribution and adding an uncertainty bound to the mean of 

this distribution. Based on several telephone discussions and a lengthy discussion during the 

3rd SSHAC workshop, it was decided to adapt a “CS-Model” of the Weibull distribution 

developed by Martin Stutzke (see Appendix C). 

The method of using this model involves the following steps: 

 Model hot short duration as a random variable following a two-piece, discontinuous 

distribution. (Short durations are modeled using a Weibull distribution; long durations 

are modeled using a “floor” value, such that the overall complementary cumulative 

distribution function for the hot short duration never falls below that floor value.) 
PROPONENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF SPURIOUS OPERATION CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

ESTIMATIONS 

3-29

 Develop the mean value of the duration plot using the pooled test data from the 

combined AC and DC fire exposure modes suggested by Proponent #3. This portion of 

the duration plot is common to both AC and DC control circuits and is represented by a 

Weibull distribution, per the above. 

 Adjust the mean value to account for the effect of other influencing factors on duration 

using the CS Model. This model introduces a scaling factor, denoted by “c” in the 

equation below. Estimate the value of c. 

TIP= c TEX 

 Where, 

 

 TIP is a random variable denoting duration of hot short during experiment 

 TEX is a random variable denoting duration of hot short during actual in-plant fire 

 c is the time scaling factor 

 For c, ܴ ቀ

௧

௖

ቁ ൌ exp	ቈെλ෠ ቀ

୲

ୡ

ቁ

ஒ෡

቉

 Estimate the uncertainty bounds (5% and 95%) using the CS-Model. The model 

introduces a parameter, denoted by “s”. Estimate the value of “s” based on various “s 

value curves” provided to proponents. 

For s, ܴ℘ሺݐሻ ൌ ܴ෡ሺݐሻ

ܴ෡ሺݐሻ൅ሾ1െܴ෡ሺݐሻሿ	݁݌ݔቄെ ݖ࢙℘ߪܴሺݐሻ

ܴ෡ሺݐሻሾ1െܴ෡ሺݐሻሿ

ቅ

 To take into account all long duration events observed during tests, estimate the central 

tendency (median) and uncertainty for the “floors” for AC and DC circuits. Approximate 

these floor conditional probability estimates developed by each proponent expert using 

fitted beta distributions (as described in Section 2.3.3) and combined these floor beta 

distributions using the LOP method (as described in Section 2.3.4). 

 Merge the Weibull plot and the floor probability values, along with their uncertainty 

bounds, to represent the final complementary cumulative distribution functions for the 

AC and DC circuits. Thus, the two plots for these circuits represent one Weibull 

distribution period with uncertainty bounds up to the time where the floor values (with 

uncertainty bounds) intersect the plot. Beyond this intersection point (time in minutes), 

the floor probability values represent the likelihood of a spurious operation not clearing. 

The proponents provided their recommended values for “c” and “s”. The final results from the 

average c- and s-values and the integrated floor-level distribution are also included in Section 6. 

The proponents’ input for the spurious operation duration plots is in each proponent’s folder in 

the compact disk attached to this Volume 2. Details about the development of the modified 

Weibull “CS-Model” and the duration probability plots are discussed further in Section 6 and 

Appendix C.

 

4-1 

4

CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS 

OPERATION FOR SINGLE BREAK CONTROL 

CIRCUITS 

This section presents the estimates of the conditional probabilities of hot short-induced spurious 

operations for single break control circuits. 

 

The community distribution results were calculated via the approach discussed in Section 2.3, 

“Technical Integration to Obtain Community Distributions,” that is, the combination of 

proponents’ input by the Linear Opinion Pooling (LOP) method. There is a brief overview of the 

structure and process, followed by the conditional probabilities for the following end devices: 

1. Solenoid-Operated Valve 

2. Motor-Operated Valve 

3. Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker 

The PIRT panel, in Section 3.1 of Volume 1, concluded that the insulation type (i.e., TS versus 

TP) and the specific insulation material had very little effect on the likelihood of intra-cable hot 

shorts leading to spurious operation. However, a strong effect is seen on the likelihood of intercable hot short-induced spurious operation. Therefore, the community distribution for the 

Intra(TS&TP) failure mode was obtained as the average of the two community distributions for 

Intra(TS) and Intra(TP). In general, the average of two probability distributions was obtained by 

applying the LOP method with equal weight (0.5) for each distribution; see Subsection 2.3.4, 

“Consolidating Input from Proponents,” for a description of this method. 

Separate tables are given for Case 1 “SOV” and Case 2 “MOV,” which present the conditional 

probabilities for these types of circuits based on their various attributes (i.e., power supply, 

grounding configuration, cable construction), and specific hot short failure mode (intra-cable hot 

short, inter-cable hot short, or GFEHS). Both cases use the format presented in Table 3-1. 

Case 3 “Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker” is one distribution that bound all three failure modes 

involving fire-induced hot shorts that result in the spurious operation of an ungrounded DC 

control circuit for a medium voltage circuit breaker. Case 3 differs from the other cases in that 

the proponent experts didn’t evaluate the parameters individually for the medium voltage circuit 

breaker case. 

Since cables may fail due to any relevant hot short failure modes, each aggregate sub-case in 

columns 3, 6 and 10 of Tables 4-1 and 4-3 was evaluated as the Boolean OR of the 

corresponding sub-cases, as discussed in Section 2.3.6. For example, for a combination of 

target cable configuration (e.g., TS-insulated Conductor Cable) and a particular power supply 

configuration [e.g., ungrounded DC (or ungrounded distributed AC)], a spurious operation may 

happen due to any of the possible types of hot short failure modes, viz., intra-cable, inter-cable, 

or ground fault equivalent. For this example, the Aggregate for this sub-case in an ungrounded 
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR SINGLE BREAK CONTROL 

CIRCUITS 

4-2 

DC (or ungrounded distributed AC) configuration (row 1, column 10 in Tables 4-1 and 4-3) was 

assessed as follows: 

Aggregate = Intra(TS&TP) + Inter + Ground Fault Equivalent 

Where, 

Aggregate represents the aggregate event, 

Intra(TS&TP) means the intra-cable hot short failure mode for the TS- and TP-insulated 

conductor cables, 

Inter signifies the inter-cable hot short failure mode, 

Ground Fault Equivalent is the GFEHS failure mode, and, 

“+” means sum (i.e., Boolean OR) of the individual failure modes. 

The spreadsheets (in the attached compact disk) in Appendix E show the plot, for each 

individual sub-case, of integrating the individual proponent distributions into a LOP distribution, 

and the beta distribution that was fitted to the LOP distribution, that is, the final community 

distribution. For each aggregate sub-case, Appendix E also includes the plot of the beta 

distribution that was fitted to the quantiles resulting from the combination of several probability 

distributions, as described above. Subsection 2.3.5, “Deriving a Parametric Community 

Distribution,” gives a brief description of the approach for fitting a beta distribution. 

4.1 SOV Single Break Control Circuits 

All four proponents provided input to this case study. The SOV case is considered as the “Base 

Case.” The estimation of conditional probabilities (i.e., given cable damage) for it follows the 

SSHAC process using the LOP method of combining expert input. 

Table 4-1 contains the results of applying the process outlined in Section 2.3. Each sub-case 

includes five characteristics of the beta distribution (i.e., the community distribution): The two 

distribution parameters (alpha and beta), the 5th percentile, the mean, and the 95th percentile (in 

that order). As discussed above, the community distributions for the TS- and TP-insulated 

target conductors were averaged for the intra-cable hot short failure mode for all three power 

supply control circuits. Therefore, the conditional probability distribution parameters in the first 

two rows for TS- and TP-insulated conductor cables for the intra-cable hot short failure mode 

are the same (see rows 1 and 2 probabilities for columns 1, 4, and 7 in Table 4-1). 
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR SINGLE BREAK CONTROL CIRCUITS 

Table 4-1. Conditional Probability of Spurious Operation: SOV Single Break-Control Circuits

Power Supply  Grounded AC Ungrounded AC (w/ Individual CPTs) Ungrounded DC (or Ungrounded Distributed AC) 

Target Cable 

Configuration 

Beta Distribution 

Characteristics 

Conductor Hot Short Failure Mode 

Intra-Cable 

Inter-Cable 

Aggregate 

Intra-Cable 

Inter-Cable 

Aggregate 

Intra-Cable 

Inter-Cable 

Ground Fault 

Equivalent 

Aggregate 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

ThermosetInsulated Conductor Cable 

1 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95%

8.54 

11.74 

2.5E-01 4.2E-01 6.0E-01 

0.36 

35.25 

4.6E-06 1.0E-02 4.3E-02 

8.79 

11.81 

2.6E-01 4.3E-01 6.1E-01 

4.73 2.69 

3.4E-01 6.4E-01 8.9E-01

0.60 

613.31 

8.9E-06 9.7E-04 3.5E-03

4.74 2.69 

3.4E-01 6.4E-01 8.9E-01 

10.16 11.70 

2.9E-01 4.6E-01 6.4E-01

0.32 

50.01 

1.2E-06 6.3E-03 2.8E-02

2.27 

11.45 

3.8E-02 1.7E-01 3.5E-01

12.76 10.18 

3.9E-01 5.6E-01 7.2E-01 

ThermoplasticInsulated Conductor Cable 

2 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95%

8.54 

11.74 

2.5E-01 4.2E-01 6.0E-01

0.85 

32.67 

8.6E-04 2.5E-02 7.9E-02 

9.19 

11.90 

2.7E-01 4.4E-01 6.1E-01 

4.73 2.69 

3.4E-01 6.4E-01 8.9E-01

0.27 

17.16 

5.2E-07 1.5E-02 7.2E-02

4.86 2.71 

3.5E-01 6.4E-01 8.9E-01 

10.16 11.70 

2.9E-01 4.6E-01 6.4E-01

0.92 

44.19 

8.7E-04 2.0E-02 6.2E-02

1.83 

10.36 

2.6E-02 1.5E-01 3.4E-01

12.66 10.19 

3.8E-01 5.5E-01 7.2E-01 

Metal Foil Shield Wrap Cable 3 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95%

1.22 3.77 

2.5E-02 2.4E-01 5.9E-01 

Incredible 

1.22 3.77 

2.5E-02 2.4E-01 5.9E-01 

2.63 2.24 

1.9E-01 5.4E-01 8.7E-01

Incredible 

2.63 2.24 

1.9E-01 5.4E-01 8.7E-01 

2.54 2.79 

1.6E-01 4.8E-01 8.1E-01

Incredible 

1.97 4.54 

6.7E-02 3.0E-01 6.1E-01

4.68 2.69 

3.4E-01 6.3E-01 8.9E-01 

Armored Cable 4 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95%

0.22 4.52 

2.3E-07 4.7E-02 2.4E-01

Incredible 

0.22 4.52 

2.3E-07 4.7E-02 2.4E-01 

4.00 4.93 

1.9E-01 4.5E-01 7.1E-01

Incredible 

4.00 4.93 

1.9E-01 4.5E-01 7.1E-01 

9.82 3.59 

5.2E-01 7.3E-01 9.0E-01

Incredible 

2.77 2.97 

1.7E-01 4.8E-01 8.0E-01

14.63 

2.34 

7.1E-01 8.6E-01 9.7E-01 

4-3 
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR SINGLE BREAK CONTROL 

CIRCUITS 

4-4 

As detailed in Section 2.3.4, the TI team assigned equal weights to the distributions of individual 

proponents in almost all sub-cases when applying the LOP method. In only four sub-cases of 

single break SOV circuits were different weights assigned. Table 4-2 shows the weights used 

for these sub-cases and the TI team justifications for selecting them. The weights were 

discussed and finalized with each proponent during the SSHAC Workshop #3. 

Table 4-2. Bases for Assignment of Weights to Proponents in Four Sub-cases 

Sub-Case1 Proponent’s Weight Bases for Assigning Weights 

1 2 3 4 

SB 

01_02 

0.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 1. The TI team's confidence in the individual 

proponent’s representation of this sub-case. 

2. The weights were adjusted according to the TI 

team's interpretation of the PIRT's 

recommendation for “implausible” in Volume 1. 

SB 

01_08 

0.38 0.12 0.38 0.12 1. The TI team's confidence in the individual 

proponent’s representation of this sub-case. 

2. The weights were adjusted according to the TI 

team's interpretation of the PIRT's 

recommendation for “implausible” in Volume 1. 

SB 

04_01 

0.2 0.35 0.35 0.1 1. Proponents 2 and 3 were considered to better 

capture the information available, specifically 

the proprietary test data from Duke Energy on 

armored-control cable testing (Proprietary). 

2. Proponent 1 was considered to have less 

knowledge about this sub-case than proponents 

2 and 3. 

3. Proponent 4 did not use the data from Duke 

Energy. 

SB 

04_09 

0.2 0.4 0.4 0.0 1. The TI team gave lower weight to Proponent 1 

than to Proponents 2 and 3 because his data 

set did not include the information from Duke 

Energy. 

2. The TI team gave a weighting of 0 to Proponent 

4 because the data set used was not correct for 

this case. 

4.2 MOV Single Break Control Circuits 

As discussed in Section 3, the proponents developed event trees using SOV estimates as the 

starting point of the tree to develop MOV likelihood of occurrence estimates. However, each 

proponent used a different logic structure, and the TI team could not identify a practical way of 

 

1

 Refer to Table 3-1 in Section 3 of this report. 
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR SINGLE BREAK CONTROL 

CIRCUITS 

4-5 

consolidating the structures into a “unified” event tree. Nevertheless, a commonality between 

the logic structures lays the following basic formulation: 

For each sub-case (or cell) of the conditional probability table for the single break MOV 

control circuits, 

P (MOV) = P (SOV) * MOV Multiplier2

Where, 

P (X) is the probability of an event X. 

P (MOV) is the conditional probability of spurious operation of single break MOV control 

circuits. Values of P (MOV) are given in Table 4-3. 

P (SOV) is the conditional probability of spurious operation of single break SOV control 

circuits. Values of P (SOV) are given in Table 4-1. 

“MOV Multiplier” is a factor developed from the aggregation of the proponent estimates 

obtained from their event-tree models. 

* denotes the product of random variables. 

All the probabilities in the previous equation depend on the conditions established by each subcase, that is, a particular combination of target-cable configuration (e.g., Thermoset-insulated 

conductors) and a type of hot short failure mode (e.g., intra-cable hot short) in a power supplygrounding configuration (e.g., a grounded AC). 

Since the P (SOV) was evaluated in Section 4.1 for each sub-case, this section focuses on 

assessing the “MOV Multiplier” for each of them. The assessment entailed two main steps: 

Step 1: Determining the MOV Multiplier (i.e., a beta distribution) from each proponent’s 

(Proponents #1, #3, and #4) input for each sub-case. 

The MOV Multiplier for each sub-case was evaluated for each of the three proponents, as 

follows (Recommended by the TI team): 

Evaluation of Proponent #1’s Individual Distributions 

Proponent #1 offered three quantiles for one MOV multiplier for all sub-cases. A beta 

distribution was fitted to each of the seven combinations of the quantiles, and he selected the 

beta distribution (44.03, 19.06) from them. This distribution was used for Proponent #1’s MOV 

multiplier for all sub-cases. 

 

2

 MOV Multiplier is a statistical distribution (i.e., a beta distribution) function. 
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR SINGLE BREAK CONTROL 

CIRCUITS 

4-6 

Evaluation of Proponent #3 and #4’s Individual Distributions 

Section 3.2.1, “Approaches Used to Estimate Single Break SOV and MOV Control Circuit 

Probabilities,” shows the event-tree-like logic structure that Proponent #3 used in Figure 3-3, 

and gives a detailed description of this model. The first event, “Undesired Contactor Conductor 

Energized” (identified as “P1” in Figure 3-3) corresponds to the event Single Break-SOV. 

Hence, the approach to assess this proponent’s MOV multiplier was to evaluate the three 

sequences of this structure leading to the outcome “Undesired End Position of MOV,” 

conditional on this event Single Break-SOV happening for each sub-case. This model was 

implemented and evaluated using the code SAPHIRE 7 for Windows (Ref. 28), as described 

generically in Section 2.3.6 under “Combining Individual Community Distributions.” The 

outcome of this process was Proponent #3’s MOV multiplier in the form of a beta distribution for 

each individual sub-case of MOV single break control circuit. 

Proponent #4 also developed an event-tree logic structure, but structured differently from the 

one that Proponent #3 used. Application of the same process used for Proponent #3 on the 

input provided by Proponent #4 resulted in an MOV multiplier for Proponent #4 in the form of a 

beta distribution for each individual MOV sub-case. 

Step 2: Aggregating the three Beta Distributions (representing proponents’ MOV Multipliers) 

using the LOP method to obtain the Community Distribution for the MOV multiplier for each subcase. 

The MOV multipliers for each sub-case were obtained by aggregating the three proponents’ 

beta distributions using the LOP method to obtain the community distribution for the overall 

“MOV Multiplier” for the sub-case. 

Finally, for each sub-case, the P (MOV) was evaluated as the product of P (SOV) and “MOV 

Multiplier”, according to the above equation. This operation involved the product of two random 

variables obtained in terms of two beta distributions. 

Table 4-3 gives the resultant P (MOV) for each sub-case of a single break circuit, that is, the 

values therein are the conditional probability values for an MOV control circuit with a single 

break design and includes five characteristics of the beta distribution (i.e., the community 

distribution): The two distribution parameters (alpha and beta), the 5th percentile, the mean, and 

the 95th percentile (in that order). Similar to the SOV control circuits, the community 

distributions for the TS- and TP-insulated target conductors were averaged for the intra-cable 

hot short failure mode for all three power supply control circuits for the MOV results. Therefore, 

the conditional probability distribution parameters in the first two rows for TS- and TP-insulated 

conductor cables for the intra-cable hot short failure mode are the same (see rows 1 and 2 

probabilities for columns 1, 4, and 7 in Table 4-3). 
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR SINGLE BREAK CONTROL CIRCUITS 

Table 4-3. Conditional Probability of Spurious Operation: MOV Single Break Control Circuits 

Power Supply 

 Grounded AC Ungrounded AC (w/ Individual CPTs) Ungrounded DC (or Ungrounded Distributed AC) 

Target Cable 

Configuration 

Beta Distribution 

Characteristics 

Conductor Hot Short Failure Mode 

Intra-Cable 

Inter-Cable 

Aggregate 

Intra-Cable 

Inter-Cable 

Aggregate 

Intra-Cable 

Inter-Cable 

Ground Fault 

Equivalent 

Aggregate 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

ThermosetInsulated Conductor Cable 

1 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95%

5.55 

14.98 

1.3E-01 2.7E-01 4.4E-01 

0.36 

40.31 

4.1E-06 8.8E-03 3.8E-02 

5.80 

15.16 

1.3E-01 2.8E-01 4.5E-01 

4.81 7.69 

1.8E-01 3.8E-01 6.1E-01 

0.58 

687.61 

7.1E-06 8.5E-04 3.1E-03 

4.81 7.68 

1.8E-01 3.9E-01 6.1E-01 

5.53 

12.03 

1.5E-01 3.1E-01 5.0E-01 

0.32 

56.43 

1.0E-06 5.6E-03 2.5E-02 

1.93 

14.97 

2.1E-02 1.1E-01 2.6E-01 

7.65 

11.63 

2.2E-01 4.0E-01 5.8E-01 

ThermoplasticInsulated Conductor Cable 

2 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95%

5.55 

14.98 

1.3E-01 2.7E-01 4.4E-01 

0.84 

37.19 

7.2E-04 2.2E-02 7.0E-02 

6.20 

15.43 

1.4E-01 2.9E-01 4.5E-01 

4.81 7.69 

1.8E-01 3.8E-01 6.1E-01 

0.27 

19.75 

4.5E-07 1.3E-02 6.3E-02 

5.02 7.75 

1.9E-01 3.9E-01 6.2E-01 

5.53 

12.03 

1.5E-01 3.1E-01 5.0E-01 

0.91 

49.25 

7.4E-04 1.8E-02 5.6E-02 

1.50 

13.25 

1.3E-02 1.0E-01 2.5E-01 

7.58 

11.55 

2.2E-01 4.0E-01 5.8E-01 

Metal Foil Shield Wrap Cable 3 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95%

1.20 6.15 

1.5E-02 1.6E-01 4.2E-01 

Incredible 

1.20 6.15 

1.5E-02 1.6E-01 4.2E-01 

3.64 6.15 

1.5E-01 3.7E-01 6.3E-01 

Incredible 

3.64 6.15 

1.5E-01 3.7E-01 6.3E-01 

2.62 5.95 

8.9E-02 3.1E-01 5.8E-01 

Incredible 

2.11 7.41 

4.9E-02 2.2E-01 4.6E-01 

4.85 5.72 

2.2E-01 4.6E-01 7.1E-01 

Armored Cable 4 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95%

0.21 5.94 

6.7E-08 3.4E-02 1.7E-01 

Incredible 

0.21 5.94 

6.7E-08 3.4E-02 1.7E-01 

3.76 

10.05 

1.0E-01 2.7E-01 4.8E-01 

Incredible 

3.76 

10.05 

1.0E-01 2.7E-01 4.8E-01 

7.52 9.24 

2.6E-01 4.5E-01 6.5E-01 

Incredible 

3.10 7.72 

9.5E-02 2.9E-01 5.2E-01 

10.97 

7.12 

4.2E-01 6.1E-01 7.8E-01 

4-7 
4-8 

4.3 Single Break Ungrounded DC Control Circuits for Medium 

Voltage Circuit Breaker 

For the medium voltage circuit breaker case, only one generic distribution was developed. This 

estimation is based on two proponents’ inputs using the DC fire-test data as discussed in 

Section 3.2.2 for the circuit breaker from the DESIREE-Fire testing. Two proponents provided 

input for this case which was subsequently fit to a beta distribution. These two distributions 

were combined using equal weights when applying the LOP method. The results are shown in 

Figure 4-1. Table 4-4 presents the resulting community distribution Beta (5.54, 8.47). These 

results are applicable to all circuit failure modes (i.e., “aggregate”) for ungrounded DC medium 

voltage circuit breaker control circuit. 

Figure 4-1. Community Distribution for Circuit Breakers Using LOP of Inputs 

from Proponents 1 and 3 

CD in the legend represents the Community Distribution. 

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

012345

p(SO/fire)

PDF

CD ( 5.5 , 8.5 ) 0.4 

LOP 0.4 

Prop1 ( 10.5 , 22.8 ) 0.32 

Prop3 ( 11.3 , 12.2 ) 0.48 
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR SINGLE BREAK CONTROL 

CIRCUITS 

4-9 

Table 4-4. Conditional Probability of Spurious Operation: Ungrounded DC 

Control Circuits for Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker 

Characteristics 

of Beta Distribution

Probability 

Value 

Alpha 5.54 

Beta 8.47 

 

5% 2.0E-01 

Mean 4.0E-01 

95% 6.1E-01 

Thus, the conditional probability estimate in Table 4-4 represents the aggregate as this estimate 

was developed assuming that the data includes all three individual hot short-induced spurious 

operation failure modes (i.e., intra-cable hot short, inter-cable hot short, and GFEHS). Since 

these individual failure modes were not developed for the circuit breaker case, the PRA panel 

recommended that for inter-cable hot short and GFEHS failure modes the corresponding SOV 

values (Table 4-1) should be used to quantify the circuit breaker conditional spurious operation 

probability for the respective failure mode (inter-cable hot short or GFEHS). The PRA panel 

also recommended using the aggregate value in Table 4-4 for the medium voltage circuit 

breaker intra-cable failure mode3

. 

 

3

 Note that the aggregate value in Table 4-4 for a circuit breaker was evaluated using the SSHAC process 

that led to developing the community distribution. For other sub-cases (i.e., intra-cable, inter-cable, and 

ground fault equivalent hot shorts), the conditional probability values are based on the panel’s 

recommendation (i.e., consensus). 

5-1 

5

CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS 

OPERATION FOR DOUBLE BREAK CONTROL 

CIRCUITS 

This section presents the estimates of the conditional probabilities of hot short-induced spurious 

operations for double break control circuits. Hot short-induced spurious operation for double 

break control circuits is assumed to require two concurrent fire-induced failure modes to actuate 

an end device (e.g., SOV, MOV). The conditional probability tables in this section include five 

characteristics of the community distribution [i.e., a beta distribution]: The two parameters 

(alpha and beta); the 5th percentile; the mean; and the 95th percentile (in that order). Appendix 

E details the findings for each sub-case. 

The procedures used in estimating the conditional probabilities for spurious operation of double 

break control circuits are described for the following two end devices: 

1. Solenoid-Operated Valve 

2. Motor-Operated Valve 

The above two double break control circuit cases for the SOV and MOV are associated with 

ungrounded circuits, namely, ungrounded AC (with individual CPTs) and ungrounded DC (or 

ungrounded distributed AC). Both cases were assessed for the same four target-cable 

configurations as was done for single break control circuits: 1. Thermoset-insulated conductor 

cable; 2. Thermoplastic-insulated conductor cable; 3. Metal-foil shield wrap cable; and, 4. 

Armored cable. 

5.1 SOV Double Break Control Circuits 

The TI team used the same approach discussed in Section 3.3.1 for deriving the double break 

spurious operation conditional probability distributions for SOV circuits. That is, corresponding 

SB-SOV values were assumed to be independent and combined as such, using the single 

break distributions in Table 4-1 for the SOV base-case. 

5.1.1 Ungrounded AC (with Individual CPTs) 

Double break SOV control circuits powered from individual CPTs in an ungrounded AC 

configuration are susceptible to the following failure modes; 

 Intra-cable & Intra-cable hot shorts (Column 1), 

 Intra-cable & Inter-cable hot shorts (Column 2), and, 

 Inter-cable & Inter-cable hot shorts (Column 3). 
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR DOUBLE BREAK 

CONTROL CIRCUITS 

5-2 

The intra-cable hot short & GFEHS and the inter-cable hot short & GFEHS (columns 4 and 5 of 

Table 3-2) are not applicable failure modes to the Ungrounded AC (with individual CPTs) control 

circuits. 

Table 5-1 presents the estimated conditional probability distribution community distributions for 

double break SOV control circuits powered from an Ungrounded AC with individual CPTs power 

supply. 

Table 5-1. Conditional Probability of Spurious Operation: Double Break Control Circuits 

for Ungrounded AC (w/ individual CPTs) 

Base Case – SOV 

Note: Inter-cable hot shorts are assumed to involve GFEHS failure modes. 

The following describes the approach for evaluating each of the conductor hot short failure 

mode combinations in columns 1-3. Target Cable Configuration Beta Distribution Characteristic

Conductor Hot Short Failure Mode Combinations 

Intra-Cable & 

Intra-Cable 

Intra-Cable & 

Inter-Cable 

Inter-Cable & 

Inter-Cable Aggregate 

1 2 3 4 

ThermosetInsulated 

Conductor 

Cable 

1 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95% 

2.12 

2.78 

1.2E-01 

4.3E-01 

7.8E-01 

0.68 

9.83 

1.1E-03 

6.5E-02 

2.1E-01 

Incredible

2.58 

2.92 

1.5E-01 

4.7E-01 

8.0E-01 

Thermoplastic

-Insulated 

Conductor 

Cable 

2 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95%

2.12 

2.78 

1.2E-01 

4.3E-01 

7.8E-01 

0.34 

3.85 

3.2E-05 

8.2E-02 

3.5E-01 

0.48 

89.92 

1.6E-05 

5.3E-03 

2.1E-02 

2.52 

2.71 

1.6E-01 

4.8E-01 

8.1E-01 

Metal Foil 

Shield Wrap 

Cable 

3 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95%

1.18 

2.35 

3.6E-02 

3.3E-01 

7.5E-01 

0.88 

6.43 

5.0E-03 

1.2E-01 

3.5E-01

Incredible 

1.86 

2.64 

9.4E-02 

4.1E-01 

7.8E-01 

Armored 

Cable 4 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95%

1.56 

5.34 

3.4E-02 

2.3E-01 

5.1E-01 

0.86 

4.42 

6.8E-03 

1.6E-01 

4.6E-01

Incredible 

2.44 

4.50 

1.0E-01 

3.5E-01 

6.5E-01 
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR DOUBLE BREAK 

CONTROL CIRCUITS 

5-3 

Intra-cable & Intra-cable Hot Shorts (Column 1 of Table 5-1) 

This failure mode was assessed as the product of the community distributions for two SOV 

single break control circuit intra-cable hot shorts given in Table 4-1. 

Intra-cable & Inter-cable Hot Shorts (Column 2 of Table 5-1) 

The proponents suggested using their actual input values (in lieu of the single break community 

distributions in Table 4-1) for this combination of hot short failure modes. The TI team agreed 

with this approach and followed a three-step process described below: 

1. Proponents #1 and #3 both provided distributions (i.e., quantiles) for the intra-cable & 

inter-cable hot shorts, and the intra-cable & ground fault equivalent hot shorts. The 

distribution for each proponent was evaluated as the sum of his distributions for the 

intra-cable & inter-cable hot shorts (column 2), and the intra-cable & ground fault 

equivalent hot shorts (column 4) given in his input table. 

2. Proponent #2 considered that inter-cable hot shorts that mimic the fault mode of 

GFEHSs are encompassed under the intra & inter cable hot shorts, so accordingly he 

did not offer input for the combination, intra-cable hot short & GFEHS failure modes. 

Hence, as he suggested, his intra-cable & inter-cable hot short-induced spurious 

operation occurrence distribution was selected (which was derived as the product of his 

distributions for SOV single break intra-cable and inter-cable hot short failure modes). 

3. The community distribution for each sub-case in column 2 was obtained by applying the 

LOP method and then fitting a beta distribution. 

Inter-cable & Inter-cable Hot Shorts (Column 3 of Table 5-1) 

This type of hot short is considered incredible for the sub-cases of TS-insulated conductor target 

cable, metal-foil shield wrap target cable, and armored target cable1

. Accordingly, it was 

evaluated only for the TP-insulated conductor target cable. The overall approach consisted of 

adding the proponent’s inputs for the double break distributions for the inter-cable & inter-cable 

hot shorts (column 3), and the inter-cable & ground fault equivalent hot shorts (column 5). 

Specifically, the proponent expert process was used as follows: 

1. Proponent #1 considered that the inter-cable & inter-cable failure mode is incredible, and 

gave a distribution (i.e., quantiles) only for the inter-cable & ground fault equivalent hot 

shorts. It was used by this proponent in aggregating the all proponents’ input, described 

in step 4 below. 

2. Proponent #2 offered a distribution (i.e., quantiles) for the inter-cable & ground fault 

equivalent hot shorts that are the same as that he gave for the SOV single break intercable hot short. For the inter-cable & inter-cable failure mode, he suggested using the 

product of this distribution with itself; however, the resulting distribution then would have 

 

1

 PIRT panel, as documented in Volume 1 of NUREG/CR-7150, concluded that the likelihood of two intercable hot shorts occurring for these cable configurations is incredible. 
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR DOUBLE BREAK 

CONTROL CIRCUITS 

5-4 

a mean that is over two orders-of-magnitude less than the mean of the individual 

distribution, so its contribution was considered negligible compared to that from the latter 

distribution. Accordingly, he used his distribution for the inter-cable & ground fault 

equivalent hot shorts (i.e., his distribution for the SOV single break inter-cable hot shorts) 

in aggregating all the proponents’ inputs, described in step 4 below. 

3. The distribution for the inter-cable & inter-cable hot short for Proponent #3 was 

evaluated as the sum of his distributions for the inter-cable & inter-cable hot shorts 

(column 3) and the inter-cable & ground fault equivalent hot shorts (column 5) given in 

his input table. 

4. The community distribution was obtained by integrating, via the LOP method, the 

distributions from Proponents 1, 2, and 3, obtained in the previous three steps and then 

fitting a beta distribution. 

5.1.2 Ungrounded DC (or Ungrounded Distributed AC) 

The conductor hot-shorting failure modes of interest are those in Table 3-2, namely, 

 Intra-cable & Intra-cable hot shorts (Column 1), 

 Intra-cable & Inter-cable hot shorts (Column 2), 

 Inter-cable & Inter-cable hot shorts (Column 3), 

 Intra-cable & Ground Fault Equivalent hot shorts (Column 4), and, 

 Inter-cable & Ground Fault Equivalent hot shorts (Column 5). 

The community distribution of each sub-case was assessed as the product of the corresponding 

community distributions of the SOV single break control circuits (Table 4-1) for control circuits. 

Table 5-2 presents the spurious operation conditional probabilities for the SOV control circuits 

for an ungrounded DC (or ungrounded distributed AC) double break circuits. 

Since cables may fail due to any combination of hot short failure modes, each aggregate subcase in column 6 of Table 5-2 was assessed as the Boolean OR of the corresponding preceding 

columns 1 through 5. 
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR DOUBLE BREAK CONTROL CIRCUITS 

Table 5-2. Conditional Probability of Spurious Operation: Double Break Control Circuits 

Ungrounded DC (or Ungrounded Distributed AC) 

BASE CASE – SOV 

Target Cable 

Configuration 

Beta Distribution 

Characteristics 

Conductor Hot Short Failure Mode Combinations 

Intra-Cable & 

Intra-Cable 

Intra-Cable & 

Inter-Cable 

Inter-Cable & 

Inter-Cable 

Intra-Cable & 

Ground Fault 

Equivalent 

Inter-Cable & 

Ground Fault 

Equivalent 

Aggregate 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

ThermosetInsulated Conductor Cable 

1 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95% 

3.90 

13.36 

8.5E-02 2.3E-01 4.0E-01 

0.32 

109.19 

5.1E-07 2.9E-03 1.3E-02 

Incredible 

2.21 

26.64 

1.6E-02 7.7E-02 1.7E-01 

Incredible 

4.66 

11.64 

1.2E-01 2.9E-01 4.8E-01 

ThermoplasticInsulated Conductor Cable 

2 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95% 

3.90 

13.36 

8.5E-02 2.3E-01 4.0E-01 

0.87 

90.66 

3.4E-04 9.5E-03 3.0E-02 

0.30 

352.91 

9.7E-08 8.6E-04 3.9E-03 

1.80 

24.12 

1.1E-02 7.0E-02 1.7E-01 

0.60 

193.16 

2.8E-05 3.1E-03 1.1E-02 

4.67 

11.56 

1.2E-01 2.9E-01 4.8E-01 

Metal Foil Shield Wrap Cable 

3 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95% 

1.06 2.92 

2.1E-02 2.7E-01 6.5E-01 

Incredible Incredible 

1.53 9.16 

1.9E-02 1.4E-01 3.4E-01 

Incredible 

1.48 2.63 

5.7E-02 3.6E-01 7.5E-01 

Armored Cable 4 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95% 

4.45 3.65 

2.7E-01 5.5E-01 8.1E-01 

Incredible Incredible 

3.04 5.55 

1.2E-01 3.5E-01 6.3E-01 

Incredible 

6.07 2.60 

4.3E-01 7.0E-01 9.1E-01 

5-5 
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR DOUBLE BREAK 

CONTROL CIRCUITS 

5-6 

5.2 MOV Double Break Control Circuits 

For MOV circuits with a double break design, the TI team used an “MOV Multiplier” approach 

similar to the single break control circuits. However, the derivation of this MOV multiplier was 

different from that used for single break control circuits. As noted previously, this input from the 

proponent for this case was not included in the initial request. It was only during Workshop #3 

that the PRA panel agreed to develop a spurious operation likelihood of occurrence estimate for 

this case. It is the PRA panel’s belief that this case is not common, but does exist in a small 

number NPP circuit designs. It should be noted that the estimates for this case do not follow the 

SSHAC Level 2 process. The specifics of the approach used are described below. 

The MOV multiplier and the process used for MOV double break control circuits were those 

suggested by members of the PIRT and PRA panels during SSHAC Workshop #3. Members 

from both panels (PIRT and PRA) agreed to use the single “MOV Multiplier” applied to all 

double break sub-cases as suggested by Proponent #1 for single break sub-cases. 

Proponent #1 offered three quantiles for a single MOV multiplier for all sub-cases. This MOV 

multiplier is represented as a beta distribution (Beta (44.03, 19.06)). This “MOV Multiplier” was 

used for all sub-cases involving MOV double break control circuits with both ungrounded AC 

(with individual CPTs) and ungrounded DC (or ungrounded distributed AC) cases. 

5.2.1 Ungrounded AC (with Individual CPTs) 

The failure modes of conductor shorting of interest for MOV double break control circuits are the 

same as those for the SOV double control circuits, assuming both have the same power supply 

configuration (i.e., ungrounded AC (with individual CPTs)). The following process, as suggested 

by both panel members during Workshop #3, was applied: 

1. The community distribution of the intra-cable & intra-cable failure mode (column 1 of 

Table 5-3) was assessed as the product of the community distribution of the SOV double 

break control circuits for intra-cable & intra-cable hot shorts in Table 5-1, and Proponent 

#1’s single distribution of his “MOV Multiplier.”2

2. The community distribution of each of the intra-cable & inter-cable hot shorts (column 2 

of Table 5-3), and inter-cable & inter-cable hot shorts (column 3 of Table 5-3) sub-cases 

was considered to be approximated by the corresponding community distributions of 

SOV double break control circuits in Table 5-1. 

Table 5-3 presents the estimations of the conditional probabilities for double break MOV control 

circuits. Each aggregate sub-case in column 4 of Table 5-3 was determined as the sum of the 

community distributions of the corresponding sub-cases in the preceding columns (i.e., 1, 2, and 

3). 

 

2

 This case was developed during Workshop #3. Because of this, other proponent experts didn’t have 

sufficient time or resources to complete the detailed analysis for the double break MOV case. During 

Workshop #3 the proponents agreed that the MOV multiplier suggested by Proponent #1 was adequate 

for this case on a consensus basis. 
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR DOUBLE BREAK 

CONTROL CIRCUITS 

5-7 

Table 5-3. Conditional Probability of Spurious Operation: Double Break Control Circuits 

for Ungrounded AC (w/ individual CPTs) 

Motor-Operated Valve 

Note: Inter-cable hot shorts are assumed to involve GFEHS failure modes. 

5.2.2 Ungrounded DC (or Ungrounded Distributed AC) 

The failure modes of conductor shorting of interest for MOV double break control circuits are the 

same as those for the SOV double control circuits, assuming both have the same power supply 

configuration (i.e., ungrounded DC (or ungrounded distributed AC)). The following process, as 

suggested by both panel members during Workshop #3, was used: 

1. The intra-cable & intra-cable failure mode (column 1 of Table 5-4) was assessed as the 

product of the community distribution of the ungrounded DC (or ungrounded distributed 

AC) SOV double break control circuit intra-cable & intra-cable hot shorts in Table 5-2, 

and Proponent #1’s single distribution of his “MOV Multiplier.” Target Cable Configuration Beta Distribution Characteristics 

Conductor Hot Short Failure Mode Combinations 

Intra-Cable & 

Intra-Cable 

Intra-Cable & 

Inter-Cable 

Inter-Cable & 

Inter-Cable Aggregate 

1 2 3 4 

ThermosetInsulated 

Conductor 

Cable 

1 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95% 

2.96 

6.84 

9.8E-02 

3.0E-01 

5.5E-01 

0.68 

9.83 

1.1E-03 

6.5E-02 

2.1E-01 

Incredible

3.28 

6.10 

1.3E-01 

3.5E-01 

6.1E-01 

ThermoplasticInsulated 

Conductor 

Cable 

2 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95%

2.96 

6.84 

9.8E-02 

3.0E-01 

5.5E-01 

0.34 

3.85 

3.2E-05 

8.2E-02 

3.5E-01 

0.48 

89.92 

1.6E-05 

5.3E-03 

2.1E-02 

2.96 

5.17 

1.2E-01 

3.6E-01 

6.5E-01 

Metal Foil 

Shield Wrap 

Cable 

3 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95%

1.53 

5.03 

3.5E-02 

2.3E-01 

5.3E-01 

0.88 

6.43 

5.0E-03 

1.2E-01 

3.5E-01

Incredible 

2.24 

4.59 

8.4E-02 

3.3E-01 

6.3E-01 

Armored 

Cable 4 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95%

1.72 

9.20 

2.6E-02 

1.6E-01 

3.6E-01 

0.86 

4.42 

6.8E-03 

1.6E-01 

4.6E-01

Incredible 

2.40 

5.77 

7.9E-02 

2.9E-01 

5.7E-01 
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR DOUBLE BREAK 

CONTROL CIRCUITS 

5-8 

2. Similarly, the intra-cable & ground fault equivalent hot short failure mode (column 4 of 

Table 5-4) was evaluated as the product of the community distribution of the ungrounded 

DC (or ungrounded distributed AC) SOV double break control circuit intra-cable & 

ground fault equivalent hot shorts in Table 5-2 and Proponent #1’s single distribution of 

his “MOV Multiplier.” 

3. The community distribution of each of intra-cable & inter-cable hot shorts (column 2 of 

Table 5-4), inter-cable & inter-cable hot shorts (column 3 of Table 5-4), and inter-cable & 

ground fault equivalent hot shorts (column 5 of Table 5-4) was approximated by the 

corresponding community distributions of ungrounded DC (or ungrounded distributed 

AC) SOV double break control circuit in Table 5-2. 

Table 5-4 shows the estimations of the double break control circuit for the MOV. Since any 

combination of hot short failure modes may cause the cables to fail, each aggregate sub-case in 

column 6 of Table 5-4 was evaluated as the sum of the community distributions of the 

corresponding preceding columns, 1 through 5. 

 
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION DURATION FOR CONTROL CIRCUITS

Table 5-4. Conditional Probability Of Spurious Operation: Double Break Control Circuits 

Ungrounded DC (or Ungrounded Distributed AC)

Motor-Operated Valve 

Target Cable 

Configuration 

Beta Distribution 

Characteristics 

Conductor Hot Short Failure Mode Combinations 

Intra-Cable & 

Intra-Cable 

Intra-Cable & 

Inter-Cable 

Inter-Cable & 

Inter-Cable 

Intra-Cable & 

Ground Fault 

Equivalent 

Inter-Cable & 

Ground Fault 

Equivalent 

Aggregate 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

ThermosetInsulated Conductor Cable 

1 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95% 

4.11 

21.86 

5.9E-02 1.6E-01 2.9E-01 

0.32 

109.19 

5.1E-07 2.9E-03 1.3E-02 

Incredible 

2.21 

38.98 

1.1E-02 5.4E-02 1.2E-01 

Incredible 

4.83 

18.74 

8.6E-02 2.0E-01 3.5E-01 

ThermoplasticInsulated Conductor Cable 

2 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95% 

4.11 

21.86 

5.9E-02 1.6E-01 2.9E-01 

0.87 

90.66 

3.4E-04 9.5E-03 3.0E-02 

0.30 

352.91 

9.7E-08 8.6E-04 3.9E-03 

1.81 

35.42 

7.9E-03 4.9E-02 1.2E-01 

0.60 

193.16 

2.8E-05 3.1E-03 1.1E-02 

4.88 

18.48 

8.9E-02 2.1E-01 3.6E-01 

Metal Foil Shield Wrap Cable 

3 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95% 

1.19 5.17 

1.7E-02 1.9E-01 4.7E-01 

Incredible Incredible 

1.58 

14.13 

1.4E-02 1.0E-01 2.4E-01 

Incredible 

1.61 4.50 

4.3E-02 2.6E-01 5.8E-01 

Armored Cable 4 

Alpha 

Beta 

5% 

Mean 

95% 

6.53 

10.50 

2.0E-01 3.8E-01 5.8E-01 

Incredible Incredible 

3.46 

10.47 

8.7E-02 2.5E-01 4.5E-01 

Incredible 

7.18 6.31 

3.1E-01 5.3E-01 7.5E-01 

5-9 

6-1 

6

CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS 

OPERATION DURATION FOR CONTROL CIRCUITS 

Testing has shown that the duration of most hot short-induced spurious operations were 

typically finite in duration, and relatively short. As such, modeling the duration of hot shortinduced spurious operations may enhance the reality of the fire PRA model. Based on the 

available data, this section presents the results on the estimated conditional probability of 

duration of hot short-induced spurious operation. 

6.1 Test Data and CS-Model of Weibull Distribution 

The TI team determined that a simplified model, presented by Proponent #3, was technically 

adequate to quantify the likelihood of the duration of spurious operation. This approach 

evaluated the various bins of duration data by using Kolmogorov-Smirnov (k-s) statistical tests 

and developed a single data-pool. The k-s test affords a distribution-independent comparison of 

two data sets and rejects the null hypothesis (i.e., the distributions are the same) depending on 

the number of data points in the data sets and the deviations between the sets. Table 6-1 lists 

the data bins assessed. 

Table 6-1. Pooling of Test Data for Spurious Operation Duration 

For AC Test Data 

+ Grounded AC Hot Gas Layer Thermoset 

+ Grounded AC Hot Gas Layer Thermoplastic 

+ Ungrounded AC Hot Gas Layer Thermoset 

+ Ungrounded AC Hot Gas Layer Thermoplastic

+ Grounded AC Plume Thermoset 

+ Grounded AC Plume Thermoplastic 

+ Ungrounded AC Plume Thermoset 

+ Ungrounded AC Plume Thermoplastic 

- Grounded AC Flame Thermoset 

- Grounded AC Flame Thermoplastic 

- Ungrounded AC Flame Thermoset 

- Ungrounded AC Flame Thermoplastic 

For DC Test Data 

+ Ungrounded DC Flame Thermoset 

+ Ungrounded DC Flame Thermoplastic 

+ Ungrounded DC Hot Gas Layer Thermoset 

+ Ungrounded DC Hot Gas Layer Thermoplastic 

+ Ungrounded DC Plume Thermoset 

+ Ungrounded DC Plume Thermoplastic 

- Ungrounded DC Radiant Thermoset 

- Ungrounded DC Radiant Thermoplastic 

“+” represents data sets included in the pooled data set 

“-” represents data sets not included in the pooled data set 

The k-s tests showed that for the AC test data, all could be pooled except the flame exposure 

condition. The k-s tests of the DC data also revealed that all but the radiant thermal conditions 

could be combined. Further, a k-s test, conducted on the AC and the DC data pools confirmed 

that the two pools could be grouped into one. The PRA panel noted that the k-s test run to 

develop the pooled dataset removed approximately five (5) spurious operation durations longer 

than eight (8) minutes. Additionally, several very short duration (<1 minute) test data points 
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION DURATION FOR CONTROL 

CIRCUITS

6-2 

were also removed. The proponent experts were informed of the removed data, especially the 

long duration data points. These data points were used to inform the proponent experts such 

that their duration floor estimates were informed from the test data and didn’t rely solely on the 

pooled k-s dataset. In the list of bins above, the “+” symbol represents data bins that are in the 

pooled data set, while the “-“ symbol represents those data bins that were NOT included in the 

pooled data set. A Weibull distribution was then fit to the pooled data set (Figure 6-1). 

Figure 6-1. Historgram and Weibull Fit to Data 

Since the original model developed by Proponent #3 was based on both test data and expert 

judgment, the TI team asked other proponents to provide input to reflect their judgment in 

calibrating this model and to offer estimates of uncertainty. To assure that the proponent input 

was evaluated consistently, Martin Stutzke, an NRC Senior PRA Technology Specialist, 

developed a “CS-Model” of the Weibull distribution that consolidates the input of individual 

proponents into distribution curves for the AC and DC circuits. Details of the development of 

this CS-model are documented in Appendix Section C.3. 

6.2 Proponent Input and Results of Assessing Duration of 

Spurious Operation 

To develop the spurious operation duration probability estimates, the proponents were asked to 

estimate ‘c’ and ‘s’ values of the CS-model as well as quantiles representing the probability 

distributions of the floors for the AC and DC duration curves. 

The c-value shifts the distribution to the right and intrinsically widens uncertainty, while 

accounting for the effect of the influencing parameters identified by the PIRT panel. The 

Time (minutes)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

PDF

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Histogram pooled data

Weibull PDF

BETA = 0.9544

LAMBDA = 0.9106

n=106
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION DURATION FOR CONTROL 

CIRCUITS

6-3 

average of the experts’ input resulted in a ‘c-value’ of 1.41

. The s-value, on the other hand, 

directly widens the uncertainty. The inputs of the PRA panel experts set the s-value equal to 

1.92

. Applying these values in the CS-Model generated the modified Weibull distribution plot. 

For the floor values, the experts were asked to provide the central tendency (median) and 

uncertainty estimates (quantiles). Using the LOP method, the results from the expert elicitation 

on the distribution curve floors for AC and DC control circuits are shown in Figures 6-2 and 6-3, 

respectively. The numerical values characterizing the floor value community distributions are 

listed in Table 6-2. 

Figure 6-2. Community Distribution for AC Duration Floor 

 

1

 For c-value, proponents recommended the following values: Proponent 1 – 1.2; Proponent 2 – 1.0; 

Proponent 3 – 2.2 for DC (and 2.5 for AC); Proponent 4 – 1.2. 

2

 For s-value, proponents recommended the following values: Proponent 1 – 2.0; Proponent 2 – 2.0; 

Proponent 3 – 2.0 for DC (and 2.5 for AC); Proponent 4 – 1.5. 

0.0e+00 5.0e-04 1.0e-03 1.5e-03 2.0e-03 2.5e-03

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Duration Floor

PDF

CD ( 3e-01 , 37 ) 7.1e-03 

LOP 7.1e-03 

Prop1 ( 2.3 , 99.1 ) 2.28e-02 

Prop2 ( 4.7 , 4346.9 ) 1.1e-03 

Prop3 ( 5e-01 , 110.8 ) 4.5e-03 

Prop4 ( 1.8 , 7554.1 ) 2e-04 
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION DURATION FOR CONTROL 

CIRCUITS

6-4 

Figure 6-3. Community Distribution for DC Duration Floor 

Table 6-2. Duration Conditional Probability Floors with Uncertainties 

Beta 

Distribution 

Parameter 

AC Control 

Circuits 

DC Control 

Circuits 

Alpha 0.27 0.88 

Beta 36.99 39.28 

 

5th 2.4E-07 8.2E-04 

Mean 7.1E-03 2.2E-02 

95th 3.4E-02 6.8E-02 

This modified Weibull distribution plot and the floor probability values, along with their 

uncertainty bounds, are merged together to represent the final plots for the AC and DC control 

circuits. Thus, the two plots for these circuits represent one Weibull distribution with uncertainty 

bounds up to the time where the floor values (with uncertainty bounds) intersect the modified 

Weibull distribution plot. Beyond this intersection point (time in minutes), the floor probability 

values represent the likelihood of a spurious operation not clearing. Figure 6-4 for AC and 

Figure 6-5 for DC illustrate these duration plots for control circuits. Table 6-3 shows the 

tabulated values from the distribution curves at 1 minute intervals. 

0e+00 2e-02 4e-02 6e-02 8e-02 1e-01

0 50 100 150

Duration Floor

PDF

CD ( 9e-01 , 39.3 ) 2.2e-02 

LOP 2.2e-02 

Prop1 ( 2.3 , 99.1 ) 2.3e-02 

Prop2 ( 4.6 , 424.7 ) 1.1e-02 

Prop3 ( 5.5 , 106.9 ) 4.9e-02 

Prop4 ( 8e-01 , 187.1 ) 4e-03 
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION DURATION FOR CONTROL 

CIRCUITS

6-5 

Figure 6-4. AC Control Circuit Spurious Operation Duration Conditional Probability Curve 

Figure 6-5. DC Control Circuit Spurious Operation Duration Conditional Probability Curve

Time (minutes)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Spuriuos Operation Duration 

Probability, Pr{T>t}, CCDF

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Time (min) vs AC 5th 

Time (min) vs AC Mean 

Time (min) vs AC 95th 

Time (minutes)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Spuriuos Operation Duration 

Probability, Pr{T>t}, CCDF

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Time (min) vs DC 5th 

Time (min) vs DC Mean 

Time (min) vs DC 95th 
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION DURATION FOR CONTROL 

CIRCUITS

6-6 

Table 6-3. Tabulated Spurious Operation Duration Conditional Probability Values 

 for AC and DC Control Circuits 

AC Pr{T>t} CCDF Time 

(minutes) 

DC Pr{T>t} CCDF 

5th Mean 95th 5th Mean 95th 

1.0 1.0 1.0 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

3.91E-01 5.12E-01 6.31E-01 1 3.91E-01 5.12E-01 6.31E-01 

1.82E-01 2.74E-01 3.90E-01 2 1.82E-01 2.74E-01 3.90E-01 

8.31E-02 1.49E-01 2.52E-01 3 8.31E-02 1.49E-01 2.52E-01 

3.68E-02 8.17E-02 1.71E-01 4 3.68E-02 8.17E-02 1.71E-01 

1.59E-02 4.51E-02 1.21E-01 5 1.59E-02 4.51E-02 1.21E-01 

6.76E-03 2.51E-02 8.86E-02 6 6.76E-03 2.51E-02 8.86E-02 

2.82E-03 1.40E-02 6.65E-02 7 2.82E-03 2.20E-02 6.80E-02 

1.16E-03 7.85E-03 5.10E-02 8 1.16E-03 

4.74E-04 7.10E-03 3.98E-02 9 8.20E-04 

1.91E-04 3.40E-02 10 

7.64E-05 11 

3.03E-05 12 

1.19E-05 13 

4.67E-06 14 

1.82E-06 15 

7.03E-07 16 

2.71E-07 17 

2.40E-07 18 

 19 

20 

2.40E-07 7.10E-03 3.40E-02 >20 8.20E-04 2.20E-02 6.80E-02 

The PPRP provided feedback on the development and use of this model throughout the SSHAC 

Workshops and discussions where these estimates were developed. As discussed in their 

report (Appendix F), the PPRP believes that the estimated duration curves for spurious 

operation may underestimate the uncertainty in the region of the curve where the Weibull 

models these likelihood estimates (i.e., pre-floor region). This is a result of the CS-Model using 

scalar values for ‘c’ and ‘s’ rather than distributions. 

The PPRP point is important, however, two points need to be clarified. First, the ‘c’ and ‘s’ 

values are not meant to model any specific physical quantity. They are parameters that were 

used to adjust the shape of the mean Weibull distribution curve (‘c’ value) along with the 5th and 

95th percentile uncertainty distributions (‘s’ value). In application of the model, the proponents 

were given plots with numerous ‘c’ value distributions to choose from which they believed best 

represents their beliefs. Likewise, once the average ‘c’ value was identified, another plot with 

numerous ‘s’ values was provided to the proponents to help them select the uncertainty bounds 

that best represents their knowledge. The second point is the understanding that a majority of 

the application of the spurious operation duration distribution will use the floor values. That is, 

the values that were based on proponent input and application of the LOP method to derive the 

floor community distributions for both AC and DC circuits.
7-1 

7

GUIDANCE FOR USING CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 

OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR CONTROL CIRCUITS1

Conducting a fire PRA for an NPP requires analyzing fire-induced circuit failures. One such 

failure involves the hot short-induced spurious operation of end devices in control circuits. One 

task of the fire PRA analysis includes a “Circuit Failure Mode Likelihood Analysis” (Task 10). 

Section 10 in Volume 2 of NUREG/CR-6850, EPRI 1011989, “Fire PRA Methodology for 

Nuclear Power Facilities,” (Ref. 14) offers such a method for analyzing this likelihood. 

The method in NUREG/CR-6850 for analyzing the likelihood of the circuit failure mode offers 

two options (Option #1 and Option #2) for assigning estimates of the likelihood of hot shortinduced spurious operation to be used in fire PRA. Option #1, “Failure Mode Probability 

Estimate Table,” is used for most circuit analyses scenarios. It consists of five look-up tables 

which contain likelihood estimates for several configurations. Option #2, “Computational 

Probability Estimates,” is an alternative method generally used when the look-up tables cannot 

be applied. It consists of formulas developed by applying a reverse-engineering technique to 

the best fit of the EPRI/NEI fire-test data (Ref. 9). The approach considers various circuit and 

cable parameters that could affect the likelihood of hot short-induced spurious operations due to 

fire damage in electrical cables. 

The information in this report on the conditional probability estimates is based on a larger data 

base involving several test programs (including the EPRI/NEI testing). Therefore, the 

conditional probabilities herein supersede the values in NUREG/CR-6850 (Ref. 14) and in its 

Supplement 1 (Ref. 15). This section provides an overview of an approach for conducting a 

circuit failure mode likelihood analysis, a summary of pertinent information, and recommended 

guidance for using the conditional probabilities developed in this report. It should be noted that 

this guidance was developed outside of the SSHAC process, but received feedback from both 

the PRA and PIRT panel members. As documented earlier in this report, this guidance does 

not represent regulatory requirements. 

7.1 Overview of Approach 

This section offers guidance for applying the results of the conditional probabilities of spurious 

operations in single and double break control circuits summarized in Sections 4 and 5, as well 

as those of the duration of spurious operation given in Section 6. The guidance is similar to the 

approach in Section 10 of NUREG/CR-6850 (Ref. 14), with the stipulation that Step 2 (Select 

Analysis Approach) will use the methodology described herein. Additionally, new guidance is 

offered for applying the conditional probabilities of spurious operation duration to the fire PRA. 

NUREG/CR-6850, Supplement 1 (Ref. 15) currently addresses duration only for AC circuits 

based on a limited test data set. 

 

1

 Methods and information included in this section was developed by the PRA panel members on a 

consensus basis, and therefore, should be construed as outside the scope of the SSHAC expert 

elicitation process. 
GUIDANCE FOR USING CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR 

CONTROL CIRCUITS

7-2 

The general approach for applying the results of this report to a circuit analysis includes the 

following steps detailed in Section 7.3: 

1. Compile prerequisite information, including the results of “Detailed Circuit Failure 

Analysis,” (Task 9 in NUREG/CR-6850) and the important cable and configuration 

attributes. If the duration of spurious operation is to be credited, the circuit analysis 

should determine the final component state once the cable conductors are grounded 

(other than the GFEHS that could be recovered) or the circuit fuse clears (Sections 7.3.1 

and 7.3.2). 

2. Analyze the likelihood of circuit failure from the tables in Sections 4 or 5 (Section 7.3.3). 

3. In applying values for the duration of spurious operation, determine the time available, 

so that if the spurious operation is terminated, the system will successfully perform its 

safety function (Section 7.3.4). 

4. Calculate the probability of duration of spurious operation (Section 7.3.4). 

5. Apply the probabilities of circuit failure and duration to the fire PRA plant response model 

(Section 7.3.5). 

6. Document the analyses of these probabilities in the fire PRA (Section 7.3.6). 

7. Document the uncertainty in the analysis (Section 7.3.6). 

Note that using conservative assumptions in applying each step can reduce the overall PRA 

effort: (1) For example, applying the probabilities of the duration of spurious operation may be 

limited to only scenarios involving significant spurious operation in the fire PRA. (2) It may be 

less effort to credit spurious operation duration/termination than undertake the detailed circuit 

analysis needed to apply circuit-failure likelihoods; therefore, an analyst may choose to use 

circuit failure probabilities of 1.0 as a starting point in the fire PRA (for selected circuits). 

Regardless of the analytical approach, a sufficient level of circuit analysis needs to be done 

such that there is confidence that the undesired spurious operation is caused by a hot short and 

that the ultimate grounding of the affected conductors will result in the component passively 

returning to the desired (pre-spurious) state. Recommendations presented in Section 7.3 

should also be considered when developing a technically sound analytical approach. Any 

simplifications and conservatisms in the assumptions and/or analysis should be documented. 

7.2 PRA Panel’s Expert Elicitation Results 

As covered in this Volume 2 of NUREG/CR-7150, the following recommendations of the PRA 

panel are applicable to Fire PRA. The section numbers below refer to Volume 2. This 

guidance is applicable to control circuits only. 

 The tables in Sections 4 and 5 should replace the conditional probability tables for 

Option #1 in NUREG/CR-6850; these tables include two major circuit designs of control 

systems: 
GUIDANCE FOR USING CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR 

CONTROL CIRCUITS

7-3 

1. Single Break (or Contact) Control Circuits 

a. Base Case – SOV (Table 4-1) 

b. MOV (Table 4-3) 

c. Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker (Table 4-4) 

2. Double Break (or Contact) Control Circuits 

a. Base Case – SOV (Tables 5-1 and 5-2) 

b. MOV (Tables 5-3 and 5-4) 

 Option #2 and its technical basis in Appendix J of NUREG/CR-6850 (Ref. 14) should not 

be used since it does not offer an adequate method for quantifying the likelihood of hot 

short-induced spurious operation. It was based on a limited test data obtained from, and 

an engineering evaluation conducted on the results from the EPRI/NEI testing. 

Additionally, Option #2 was never validated to quantify the uncertainties associated with 

applying it. Considering the substantial additional data from the NRC, EPRI, and Duke 

Energy sponsored tests, the electrical expert PIRT results, and the level of refinement in 

the tables developed by the PRA panel that are as documented in this report, the panel 

does not endorse the continued use of Option #2 in NUREG/CR-6850 (Ref. 14). 

 The plot of the probability of spurious operation duration in Figure 6-4 for AC control 

circuits (data listed in Table 6-3) should replace the plot of AC duration (Figure 16-1 and 

Table 16-1) for FAQ 08-0051 in Section 16 of Supplement 1 to NUREG/CR-6850 (Ref. 

15). In addition, Figure 6-5 for DC control circuits (data listed in Table 6-3) now provides 

the plot for DC duration. 

 Aggregate values are given for every case where all potential hot short-induced failure 

modes are applicable. Unlike the current method in NUREG/CR-6850, the new 

estimates of the PRA expert elicitations are explicit parametric distributions. The 

aggregate row in the probability tables represents the summation from using these 

parametric distributions for all applicable modes of hot short failure. Therefore, unless it 

is demonstrated that a cable under evaluation is only susceptible to a single failure 

mode, the aggregate values given herein should be used to represent the conditional 

probability of fire-induced spurious operation to an end device under evaluation.2

 

7.3 PRA Panel Recommended Guidance for Using the 

Conditional Probability Tables and Duration Plots 

This section is a revision of NUREG/CR-6850, Section 10.5, “Procedure,” which analyzes the 

circuits located within a plant’s fire area or compartment. This procedure assesses the 

likelihood of specific cable-failure modes that could negate the functionality of components 

credited in a fire PRA. The resulting probability estimates are documented for various possible 

 

2

 Ungrounded DC (or ungrounded distributed AC) control circuits are subject to three possible hot short 

failure modes. The Aggregate column provides the conditional probability when all three hot short modes 

are applicable. When two out of these three hot short modes are applicable; the combined conditional 

probability of the two hot short failure modes must use their sum. 
GUIDANCE FOR USING CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR 

CONTROL CIRCUITS

7-4 

hot short cable failure modes caused by fire damage. This procedure is applied to PRA 

scenarios where the configuration of interest reasonably conforms to, or is bounded by, the 

various circuit configurations included in this Volume 2. 

The duration data in this report does not apply to shorts-to-ground (other than GFEHS failure 

mode)3

 or open circuits that de-energize a cable, triggering a component repositioning. These 

events are not considered recoverable by the short-to-ground clearing (there was no evidence 

in the testing to show this could occur). The application of spurious operation conditional 

probabilities or their durations should only be applied to circuit types covered in this report. In 

addition, neither the likelihood of hot short-induced spurious operation nor the duration 

probability results apply directly to instrument cables. 

7.3.1 Assumptions 

 Requisite cable and configuration attributes are available or can be determined as part 

of the analysis. 

 The normally operating position or condition of equipment at the onset of the fire must be 

determined. Where a component’s status is indeterminate or could change as a result of 

expected plant conditions, the analyst should assume the worst-case initial conditions, 

consistent with the detailed circuit analysis. 

 Users of this procedure are knowledgeable and are experienced in designing circuits, 

analysis methods, and estimating probability. 

7.3.2 Compile and Evaluate Prerequisite Information and Data 

This step ensures that prerequisite information and data are available before beginning the 

analyses of the likelihood of circuit failure modes. 

 Confirm that a detailed circuit failure analysis was completed and documented for the 

control circuit end device of interest (i.e., SOV, MOV, and Circuit Breaker). 

 Confirm that analysis has covered or conducted additional circuit failure analysis on 

failure modes not covered in NUREG/CR-6850, but identified by the PIRT panel in 

Volume 1 of this report as being possible or implausible, such as GFEHS. 

 Collect data on attributes of target cable and its configuration, including the following: 

o Single break or Double break control circuit design, 

o Cable’s construction attributes (i.e., insulation material [TS or TP], robust metal 

shield wrap, armor), 

o Type of power source (i.e., AC or DC), 

o Circuit Grounding Condition (i.e., grounded or ungrounded), 

 

3

 Shorts to ground that de-energize a cable (without any possibility of a recovery) are different from that 

for GFEHS failure mode, which provide a surrogate path to energize conductors for a short duration in 

certain circuit configurations. 
GUIDANCE FOR USING CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR 

CONTROL CIRCUITS

7-5 

o Applicable fire-induced circuit hot short failure modes (i.e., Intra-cable, Intercable, Ground fault equivalent), and, 

o Identify whether multiple hot shorts (i.e., a combination of concurrent hot short 

failure modes) are required. 

7.3.3 Perform Circuit Failure Mode Likelihood Analysis 

This step conducts the likelihood analysis to decide which table in Sections 4 and 5 of this 

Volume 2 is best suited for conducting the evaluation, and then determines the appropriate 

estimate to use for the particular scenario. The approach has the following steps: 

Step 1: Determine the appropriate table to use based on 

i. Circuit Design (Single Break or Double Break) 

ii. Circuit Type (SOV, MOV, Circuit Breaker) 

Step 2: Determine the proper value to use from the table selected in Step 1 based on 

i. Cable Insulation Type (Thermoset or Thermoplastic) 

ii. Special cable construction attributes, if any (e.g., Metal foil Shield Wrap or 

Armored) 

iii. Power Supply and Grounding Configuration 

iv. Hot Short Failure Mode(s) of Concern 

v. Appropriate Estimate of Conditional Probability Estimate 

Step 1 identifies the appropriate table to use from Sections 4 and 5 of this report. All values for 

circuits with a single break design appear those in tables in Section 4, while all values for double 

break design appear in Section 5. Figure 7-1 is a flowchart for identifying them. 

Having identified the table, the analyst can use the information from Steps 2.i through 2.v to 

determine the cell containing the needed conditional probabilities for the particular scenario. 

Steps 2.i and 2.ii identify the applicable row in the table. If the cable has armor, or a robust 

metal-foil shield wrap, the corresponding row should be selected regardless of insulation type 

(i.e., TS or TP) of its conductors. For example, if a 7/C 12 AWG XLPE insulated/CSPE jacketed 

cable with square lock steel armor is being evaluated, the “Armored Cable” row should be used 

regardless of the fact that it is a Thermoset-insulated cable. Next, Step 2.iii and Step 2.iv 

support the identification of the appropriate column. Step 2.iii “Power supply and Grounding 

configuration” narrows the appropriate columns down to a subset of columns. Once the subset 

of the column is identified, the exact one to use can be selected. In most cases, all failure 

modes are applicable and the analyst selects the “aggregate” column. However, occasionally, 

only one or two failure modes are applicable. If so, the analyst should identify the failure modes 

and justify not using the aggregate column. Once the appropriate row and column are 

identified, in Step 2.v the appropriate values (typically the mean or, if performing a distributional 

analysis, the corresponding beta distribution parameters) in the corresponding cell can be used 

in estimating the conditional hot short-induced spurious operation probability. 

Each of the conditional probabilities in Sections 4 and 5 above also have uncertainty quantities. 

These quantities should be used when performing a fire PRA uncertainty analysis. 
GUIDANCE FOR USING CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR 

CONTROL CIRCUITS

7-6 

Figure 7-1. Flowchart Showing Process Used to Determine 

Appropriate Spurious Operation Table 

7.3.3.1 Specific Guidance on Use of Spurious Operation Tables 

The PRA panel also made the following recommendations when using the results of Section 4 

and 5. 

1. The “Aggregate” estimate should be used unless a detailed circuit analysis is completed 

to justify the use of a specific hot short failure mode for the target conductor of interest. 
GUIDANCE FOR USING CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR 

CONTROL CIRCUITS

7-7 

That is, justification should be provided for excluding a failure mode from the 

quantification analysis. 

2. For cables constructed with a robust metal foil shield wrap cables or armor cable; the 

respective rows labeled “Metal Foil Shield Wrap” or “Armored Cable” of the applicable 

table (Tables 4-1, 4-3, 5-1 or 5-4) should be used regardless of the cables insulation 

material type. For example, an armored TS insulated cable should use the applicable 

estimate documented in row 4 “Armored Cable” rather than the estimate documented in 

Row 1 “Thermoset-Insulated Conductor Cable.” This is based on PIRT panel’s finding 

that the effect of a ground plane outweighs that of the cable’s conductor insulating 

material on the fire-induced hot short failure modes in control circuits. 

3. For medium voltage circuit breaker case, the estimate documented in Table 4-4 

represents the aggregate as this estimate was developed assuming all failure modes 

(i.e., intra-cable hot short, inter-cable hot short, and GFEHS). Since individual failure 

modes were not developed for this case, the PRA panel recommends that for inter-cable 

hot short and GFEHS failure modes the corresponding SOV values (Table 4-1) should 

be used to quantify the circuit breaker conditional spurious operation probability for the 

respective failure mode. The PRA panel also recommends using the aggregate value in 

Table 4-4 for the medium voltage circuit breaker intra-cable failure mode. 

7.3.4 Spurious Operation Duration Analysis 

With a few exceptions, primarily involving DC circuits where the hot shorts never clear, testing 

has shown that fire-induced spurious operations typically do not persist for long times. Thus, 

the analysis of the length of spurious operation attempts to quantify the likelihood that a hot 

short-induced spurious operation will last for more than a specified amount of time (necessary 

for PRA-component failure). The specific amount of time depends on the system and its 

components and typically requires some type of analysis (e.g., thermal hydraulic) to determine 

the time available for a hot short-induced spurious operation to clear before failure of the safety 

function occurs. 

As a caution to the analyst, using the probability of duration of a spurious operation in a fire PRA 

can be a time- and resource-consuming process, as this involves the performance of 

engineering calculations to determine the length of time the spurious operation must persist to 

ensure failure of a safety function. The analyst should determine if such an analysis is suitable 

for that particular scenario. The application of duration probability to a spurious operation 

typically is not required to complete a circuit failure likelihood analysis. 

In many instances, if a flow diversion or other system response that causes equipment 

functional failure is terminated (spurious operation clears) within a predetermined time, there will 

be minimal or no adverse consequences from it. In the case of valves, one of the most common 

issues is the spurious opening of a pressurizer power-operated relief valve (PORV) in a 

pressurized water reactor (PWR) plant, which results in a LOCA. If the PORV LOCA is 

terminated within a specified time, core damage is avoided altogether. 

In general, MOVs fail as-is when the hot short-induced spurious operation clears, while many of 

the SOVs/AOVs return to a fail-safe position once this spurious operation clears. Thus, only 

circuits that return to their desired position upon clearing of a spurious operation should be 
GUIDANCE FOR USING CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR 

CONTROL CIRCUITS

7-8 

analyzed and credited for duration. Valves that transfer to the undesired position and remain so 

should not receive any credit for the duration time, which only is relevant if they transfer, not for 

how long (since they do not “recover”). This should be confirmed before applying the recovery 

event for hot short-induced spurious operation duration. Therefore, application of a probability 

that the hot short causing the spurious event will “self-clear” within the appropriate time window 

can result in a lower assessment of the frequency of core damage. In this report the terms 

“recovery event” and “self-clear” are synonymous with each other and represent the occurrence 

of a hot short-induced spurious operation terminating due to a protective device (fuse) clearing 

as a result of fire damage. 

Duration curves have been provided in Section 6 that assesses the likelihood of a spurious 

event clearing. To use these curves, a defendable success criterion is needed, i.e., how much 

time is available to return the component or circuit to its fail-safe position before the adverse 

effects are manifested. 

Analyzing the probability of safety system functional failure due to a fire-induced spurious 

operation entails three steps, namely; 

1. Determine the time available (for the component or system under evaluation), 

2. Analyze the spurious operation duration, and, 

3. Document that analysis. 

The conditional probability of failure can be illustrated in the following formula. Were a hot short 

induced spurious operation has occurred; the probability of failure is equal to the probability of a 

spurious operation duration lasting longer than the time available to recover the safety system. 

P{failure} = P{spurious operation duration > time available} 

7.3.4.1 Determine the Time Available 

The time available is defined as the time between the calculated occurrence of fire damage and 

the time to recover the safety function. Thus, the time available is based on the time between 

fire damage occurring and the minimum time the spurious operation needs to clear to recover 

the function. This may be the time when core damage occurs; the time for an operator to 

perform a recovery action; the time when a safety function is fully recovered; the time to fail a 

safe shutdown function; or some other defined state. Clearing of a hot short-induced spurious 

operation involves removal of the hot short, which typically involved a fuse clear in the firedamaged circuit. Regardless of the state, the time available must be determined. 

The success criteria for determining the available time may need to include a thermal-hydraulic 

analysis similar to that performed for determining other success criteria in a fire PRA accidentsequence. The documentation of this analysis should be equivalent to that of the previously 

analyzed success criteria. For multiple spurious operations (MSOs), the success criteria should 

also consider if one MSO clearing will recover safe shutdown function, or if more than one (or 

all) SOs in the MSO scenario need to be cleared. For example, with most main steam-isolation 

valves (MSIVs) an MSO (2 spurious operations) could result in the MSIV failing to close. 

Generally clearing either of the spurious operations (hot shorts) will result in the MSIV closing 

and isolation of the steam line (assuming fail-closed MSIVs). 
GUIDANCE FOR USING CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR 

CONTROL CIRCUITS

7-9 

Regardless of the success or failure state used to determine the time available, an “adequate 

analysis” must be performed and documented to identify the time available. 

7.3.4.2 Perform the Spurious Operation Duration Analysis

The probability that the spurious operation will self-clear is calculated by using the time available 

calculated in Section 7.3.4.1 to derive a probability from the duration curves in Section 6. This 

probability is referred to in the section below as “conditional duration probability.” The estimated 

duration probability must not be lower than the recommended minimum probability. In 

determining the conditional duration probability for self-clearing the spurious operation (or 

MSOs), the following should be applied: 

1. When a single circuit failure or hot short can result in single- or multiple-spurious 

operations (e.g., multiple components operating as a result of a single hot short), then 

the dependencies should be modeled in the PRA. Typically, this involves applying the 

same basic event name both to the spurious operation and the conditional duration 

probability. 

2. For MSOs, since only a limited number of tests were performed and analyzed for this 

report, with a limited analysis of dependencies between spurious operation events or 

duration; the dependency between the duration of events is not fully known and is highly 

uncertain. Consequently, limited credit is recommended for the MSO conditional duration 

probabilities, based on the following rules4

: 

a. If the MSOs result from damage to the same cable, only one conditional duration 

probability is recommended [i.e., the second spurious operation is assumed to not 

self-clear (non-clearance probability is set to be 1.0)]. 

 Analysis of the circuits with multiple targets in the same cable (e.g., two MOV 

coils) shows that in a majority of cases, both targets were energized 

simultaneously. Additionally, the targets were energized and de-energized at the 

same or similar times in most cases. As a result, a conservative approach 

(setting the second conditional duration non-clearance probability to 1.0) is 

recommended. 

 The above is considered conservative for trunk cables with significantly more 

than the 12 conductors present in the cables on which the tests were based. It is 

likely that for trunk cables with more than 12 conductors (e.g., 37 conductors), 

the durations may be somewhat independent. 

b. For MSOs occurring due to fire in separate cables, (for both AC and DC circuits) the 

application of conditional duration probabilities for MSO’s should be limited to a joint 

minimum value of 1.0 E-05. This limitation on the application of conditional duration 

probabilities is being recommended due to several scenario dependent variables that 

 

4

 The rules described here were developed by the PRA panel outside of any formal SSHAC Workshop. 

Therefore, development of these rules does not have the same rigor as the material documented in the 

rest of the report. 
GUIDANCE FOR USING CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR 

CONTROL CIRCUITS

7-10 

may influence dependencies among MSO’s with regard to spurious operation 

duration. 

 Given all of the views expressed by the proponents on several conference calls, 

the TI team could not reach a consensus opinion on a method to quantitatively 

bound these dependencies. Therefore, Item 2.b represents a compromise 

between the feedback received from the proponents and the views expressed 

among the TI team members. However, the TI team did agree on the minimum 

value of 1.0 E-05 as applied to duration probabilities for MSO scenarios. One TI 

team member’s views which differed from the approach outlined above is 

described below. 

“The Expert Elicitation focused on single SOs in estimating both 

occurrence and duration exceedance probabilities. At least one 

proponent considered the potential dependence among the duration 

exceedance probabilities as mentioned in Appendix H, and concluded 

some degree of dependence existed. To accommodate this, the floor of 

1E-5 on joint duration exceedance probabilities for MSOs has been 

recommended, with which I agree. Not really examined was the potential 

for similar dependence among the occurrence probabilities themselves, 

even if not as evident to the PIRT Panel or the proponents. To 

accommodate this possibility as well, I recommended the imposition of a 

floor on BOTH the joint occurrence AND duration exceedance 

probabilities, suggesting a numerical value of 1E-8 as discussed in 

Appendix H, but willing to consider lower values. No other member of the 

TI team was comfortable with this, hence my differing opinion.” 

Additional technical discussion on this TI team member’s views and recommendations 

are documented in Section H.1 of Appendix H. The appendix also includes the technical 

views discussed by the proponents on this subject area. 

3. For double break failures (e.g., the two hot shorts required to engender a single spurious 

operation), the above rules also apply. If the spurious operation requires two separate 

cable failures, then the application of two conditional duration probability values is 

acceptable based on item 2 discussed above. However, if a single cable is involved, 

only a single conditional duration probability is recommended. 

The above guidance is recommended for spurious operation duration only, and is not applicable 

to the spurious operation conditional probabilities, which may be treated as independent. 

As noted in Section 6, the conditional probabilities of duration are not separated for intra-cable, 

inter-cable, or aggregate spurious operation events. Therefore, regardless of the cable failure 

that occurs, the conditional duration probabilities are applicable to any spurious operation 

caused by hot short events. The conditional duration probability values are not applicable to 

spurious operations resulting from shorts either to ground (other than GFEHS failure mode) or 

to open circuits. 

The resulting spurious operation duration probability values applied to the fire PRA should also 

include the estimated uncertainty bounds given in Section 6.
GUIDANCE FOR USING CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR 

CONTROL CIRCUITS

7-11 

7.3.4.3 Document the Spurious Operation Duration Analysis 

Documentation of the duration analysis should include the supporting documentation for the 

following three areas: 

1. The safe-shutdown function is restored, given the spurious operation clears. 

2. The timing analysis is described in Section 7.3.4.1. 

3. The duration probability analysis is described in Section 7.3.4.2. 

Documentation for restoring the safe-shutdown function should consider the circuit-specific 

impact on the component, as well as the circuit-specific impact for clearing of each hot short. 

For example, even for an SOV that returns to its fail-safe position, the spurious operation of an 

auxiliary- or actuation-circuit may result in a seal-in of the valve. When the hot short on the 

auxiliary circuit clears, the valve may remain as-is. However, clearing of a hot short on the main 

control switch circuit most likely would result in the SOV returning to its fail-safe position; since 

power would be removed from the seal-in circuit when the circuit clears. This example 

demonstrates that, when the component returns to a fail-safe position (restoring safe shutdown 

function); not all circuits, when cleared, result in the recovery of the component and function. 

7.3.5 Apply the Circuit Failure Probabilities and Duration Probabilities 

Application of the circuit failure probabilities and duration recovery events would depend on the 

method used for quantifying the fire PRA model. In general, there are two approaches that are 

possible. A common approach is the use of a database substitution method, where the spurious 

operation probability is substituted for the random failure event such as “valve fails to remain 

closed” or similar. This substitution process may or may not result in a new name for the 

existing basic event (in some fire PRAs, the event is renamed with a “SO” at the end or similar). 

The second approach is to add the spurious operation event in the system fault trees prior to the 

fire PRA solution process. For these spurious operation events, the modeling or solution 

process must ensure the spurious operation event is applied only to fires where the control 

circuit is damaged by the fire. 

In either approach, the probability calculated in Section 7.3.4.2 above is used as the best 

estimate probability for either the substituted event or event added to the system fault tree. 

Similarly, adding credit for the limited duration for the spurious operation can be performed by 

either modifying the spurious operation probability above, or through use of a separate 

conditional duration probability value to the model. Addition of a separate event can be 

performed through the fire PRA recovery file, or directly into the fire PRA fault trees. 

Application of the duration recovery event should be applied to the model considering the rules 

discussed in Section 7.3.4 above (e.g., multiple events from the same cable, and limiting the 

application of recoveries to a minimum floor value of 1.0 E-05). An example fault tree modeling 

spurious operation of SRVs in a plant PRA is shown Figure 7-2. 
GUIDANCE FOR USING CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR 

CONTROL CIRCUITS

7-12 

Figure 7-2. Fault-Tree Modeling of Spurious Operation of SRVs – Example 1 

Assuming that each SRV in the above example is spuriously operated by fire damage of 

separate cables, the conditional duration probability event can be applied to each of the SRV 

spurious operation basic events in the model. This is shown in Figure 7-3. 

Note in the above example that if all of the three SRVs were involved in an MSO scenario (e.g., 

gate GIORV-MSO was an AND gate), then the combined duration probabilities need to be 

evaluated to ensure it doesn’t fall below the floor value of 1.0 E-05. In the modified case above 

where all three SRVs were to be involved in an MSO scenario (2.2E-02)^3 = 1.06E-05 is greater 

than 1.0 E-05 and thus no limitation on the duration recovery credit is needed for this example. 

In the fire PRA, the concept of conservation of probability can be applied. Specifically, if a 

single cable can cause a component to have competing failure modes, only one can occur in a 

given scenario. If the probability of a valve spuriously opening is 0.4, then the probability that 

the valve fails to open would be the complement or 1-0.4 = 0.6. 

Another example of a conservation of probability would involve multiple PORV or safety relief 

valve (SRV) openings. Assuming two PORVs for a given plant, the probability of two PORVs 

spuriously opening would be the probability of spurious operation, P (SO), squared. For a 

single PORV opening, however, the probability of one and only one specific PORV opening out 

of two PORVs is then equal to P(SO) * [1-P(SO)]. 

ADDITIONAL LOGIC

ADDED TO FPRA FOR SRV

SPURIOUS OPENS

GSRV-MSO

FIRE EVENT IE GATE

FIRE CAUSES DAMAGE TO

SRV CABLES

GFIRE

FIRE EVENT IE

%FIRE

0.00E+00

SPURIOUS OPERATION OF

ANY ONE OF THREE SRV

GIORV-MSO

ADS VALVE 3E SPURIOUS

OPERATION

1ADASSRV-3E--U--

4.00E-01

ADS VALVE 3C SPURIOUS

OPERATION

1ADASSRV-3C--U--

4.00E-01

ADS VALVE 3D SPURIOUS

OPERATION

1ADASSRV-3D--U--

4.00E-01
GUIDANCE FOR USING CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR 

CONTROL CIRCUITS

7-13 

Figure 7-3. Fault-Tree Modeling of Spurious Operation of SRVs – Example 2 

7.3.6 Document the Analysis and Uncertainty 

The analysis of circuit failure and its duration should be performed in accordance with the fire 

PRA plan similar to that discussed in NUREG/CR-6850, Section 10.5.4. During this process, the 

uncertainty values also are developed, and should be documented as an integral part of the 

analysis. The standard State-of-Knowledge-Correlation (SOKC) employed when the underlying 

failure data are based on common data sets needs to be evaluated and any increase in the 

mean value relative to the point or best estimate reported (along with the uncertainty range). 

Documentation should also include a discussion on the assumptions used in the analysis as 

well as the sources of uncertainty introduced after exploring circuit failure and duration. 

7.4 PRA Panel Recommendations on Other Cable 

Configurations 

From the results detailed in Volume 1 and discussions during the PRA expert elicitation 

workshops, several cable configurations are not covered explicitly in the information presented 

above. To support fire PRA application and provide the current state of knowledge on these 

specific cable configurations, the PRA panel makes the following recommendations for panel 

wiring, trunk cables, and instrumentation cable. These recommendations are made based on a 

consensus of the PRA panel and not by the use of the SSHAC process. 

 

Panel Wiring 

There are no test data for evaluating the likelihood of hot short-induced spurious operations for 

panel wiring. A hot short in the panel wiring’s conductor bundles within a cabinet could behave 

similarly to any of the failure modes of an electrical cable (i.e., intra-cable, inter-cable, or 

ADDITIONAL LOGIC

ADDED TO FPRA FOR SRV

SPURIOUS OPENS

GSRV-MSO

FIRE EVENT IE GATE

FIRE CAUSES DAMAGE TO

SRV CABLES

GFIRE

FIRE EVENT IE

%FIRE

0.00E+00

SPURIOUS OPERATION OF

Any One of Three SRVs

GIORV-MSO

SRV SPURIOUS OPENS

AND REMAINS OPEN FOR

GREATER THAN 15

MINUTES

G001

ADS VALVE 3E SPURIOUS

OPERATION

1ADASSRV-3E--U--

4.00E-01

SPURIOUS OPERATION

CLEARS IN 15 MINUTES

SPUR-RECOVER-1

2.20E-02

SRV SPURIOUS OPENS

AND REMAINS OPEN FOR

GREATER THAN 15

MINUTES

G004

ADS VALVE 3C SPURIOUS

OPERATION

1ADASSRV-3C--U--

4.00E-01

SPURIOUS OPERATION

CLEARS IN 15 MINUTES

SPUR-RECOVER-2

2.20E-02

SRV SPURIOUS OPENS

AND REMAINS OPEN FOR

GREATER THAN 15

MINUTES

G009

ADS VALVE 3D SPURIOUS

OPERATION

1ADASSRV-3D--U--

4.00E-01

SPURIOUS OPERATION

CLEARS IN 15 MINUTES

SPUR-RECOVER-3

2.20E-02
GUIDANCE FOR USING CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION FOR 

CONTROL CIRCUITS

7-14 

GFEHS) depending upon the proximity of the conductors to the fire and the tightness of their 

bundles. The conditional probability of hot short-induced spurious operation most likely is 

affected by the configuration and tightness of the conductor bundles, along with the proximity of 

source and target cables. Considering the lack of applicable test data and the potential risk 

importance of panel wiring, the PRA panel recommends using aggregate values in the tables in 

Sections 4 and 5. 

Trunk Cables

Duke Energy conducted a few tests using armored trunk cables. Because of the many 

conductors in a trunk cable, the PIRT panel noted that the greater availability of target and 

source conductor interaction could affect the spurious operation above that seen in Duke 

Energy’s tests. In addition, each trunk cable contains multiple circuits (Duke Energy had four 

circuits in a 37/C trunk cable) and the analysis should treat each circuit independently. While 

this may be plausible, there is a large uncertainty due to the limited test data and the 

applicability to armored trunk cables. Because of this dearth of data, the PRA panel 

recommends using the aggregate values to quantify trunk cable conditional spurious operation 

estimates. Per the documentation found in Volume 1, trunk cables are commonly classified as 

cables containing greater than 12 conductors. 

Instrument Cables 

These low voltage circuits typically comprise instrument-signal cables for monitoring, protection 

systems, or control valve circuits. Shielded twisted-pair signal cables commonly are used for 

these applications. The spurious operation of instrument circuits can result in a circuit-fault 

mode wherein the circuit’s instruments may give false indications or readings without initiating 

an operational mode or a movement of the indicating light or process equipment. We also note 

that the probability results for control circuits in this Volume 2 are based on the PIRT panel’s 

definition of circuit-fault mode. Thus, the low energies of instrumentation circuits could cause 

them to perform and fail differently under fire-induced fault conditions than those of higher 

energy control circuits. Therefore, the PRA panel concluded that the spurious operation 

conditional probability tables provided in Sections 4 and 5 and spurious operation 

duration probability in Section 6 should not be used for instrument circuits. Based on the 

current state of knowledge, the panel recommends that the analyses assume that the 

instrument cable fails in the worse-case state for the individual scenario involved, and assigns a 

1.0 or 0 depending on state (Task 9 of NUREG/CR-6850). 
8-1 

8

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

The objective of this expert elicitation was to develop best estimates for the conditional 

probability occurrence of hot short-induced spurious operation phenomena in various control 

circuit configurations used in nuclear power plants. The durations of those phenomena where 

the length of its persistence could affect the circuit function of the component or device also was 

considered. These phenomena include fire-induced intra-cable hot short, inter-cable hot short 

and GFEHS failure modes of cables and potentially can cause spurious operation in various end 

devices (e.g., SOV, MOV, and circuit breaker). The spurious operation here is defined as a 

circuit-fault mode wherein an operational mode of the circuit is initiated (in full or in part) due to 

failure(s) in one or more components (including the cables) of the circuit. 

To achieve this objective, the PRA panel used an enhanced Level 2 expert elicitation process 

defined by the NRC’s SSHAC (Ref. 21). Its primary reasons were to minimize, if not eliminate, 

the technical and procedural biases that might have evolved out of the elicitation process and to 

preserve, as much as technically possible, each proponent’s recommended methods and 

estimated values while developing the final intended to represent a larger technical community. 

Accordingly, the objective of this project was to generate a representation of the informed 

scientific community's view of each particular probability of occurrence and duration of spurious 

operation conditional on fire damage. 

Unlike the current method in Section 10.5.3.1, Option 1, item 3 of the NUREG/CR-6850 (Ref. 

14), the probability estimates here are parametric distributions (beta distributions). Thus, where 

more than one fire-induced hot short failure mode is applicable, we used the combination of the 

probability distributions for each applicable failure mode. The aggregate columns in the 

conditional probability result tables in Sections 4 and 5, and Tables 8-1 and 8-2 represent this 

calculation for all applicable hot short failure modes under the given power supply-grounding 

configuration. 

The control circuit cases for hot short-induced spurious operation evaluated by the PRA panel 

were categorized in Volume 1 using the following five (5) circuit variables: 

1. Circuit Configurations – Single Break, Double Break 

2. Circuit Type Cases – SOV, MOV, Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker 

3. Circuit Grounding/Power Supply Types – Grounded AC, Ungrounded AC (with Individual 

CPTs), Ungrounded DC (or Ungrounded Distributed AC) 

4. Target Cable Constructions – TS-insulated Conductor Cable, TP-insulated Conductor 

Cable, Metal Foil Shield Wrap Cable, Armored Cable 

5. Conductor Failure Modes – Intra-cable hot short, Inter-cable hot short, GFEHS 

These five variables resulted in developing spurious operation conditional probability tables for 

the following two control circuit configurations, namely; 

1. Single Break (or Contact) Control Circuits 

a. Base Case - SOV 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

8-2 

b. MOV 

c. Medium Voltage Circuit Breaker 

2. Double Break (or Contact) Control Circuits (for ungrounded circuits) 

a. Base Case - SOV 

b. MOV 

The evaluation of conditional probability of the duration hot short-induced spurious operation 

associated with these control circuits included two likelihood plots; one for AC power supply, 

and the other for DC. 

With the fire-induced hot short failure modes and an understanding of the predominant cablecircuit configurations and phenomena that could cause spurious operation of these above end 

devices, the proponent experts were asked to: 

1. Estimate the conditional probabilities of hot short-induced spurious operations for 

specific control circuits due to fire damage to electrical cables, and, 

2. Estimate the likelihood of various durations of hot short-induced spurious operations due 

to fire damage to electrical cables. 

The NRC staff developed a roll-up table containing fire test data from EPRI/NEI (Ref. 9), NRC’s 

CAROLFIRE (Ref. 11) and DESIREE-Fire (Ref. 12) test programs (Appendix D). Also, the 

Duke Energy testing on armor cables (Proprietary) was available to proponents. They used 

these test data from the NRC’s roll-up table or directly from the source documents published by 

EPRI, NRC, and Duke Energy. Typically, they did not base their final estimates solely on the 

roll-up table values, but instead used this information to support their final recommendations. In 

some cases, the proponents started with these table values and adjusted them accordingly, 

while, in other cases, a proponent only used the information in the roll-up table to check their 

final estimates. 

The TI team assessed the proponents’ inputs and developed an integrating process that was 

used to calculate the conditional probability distribution for all single break and double break 

cases. In addition to training the experts in the PRA panel, this entailed the following calculation 

steps: 

1. Receiving Input from Proponents 

2. Fitting and Feedback from Proponents 

3. Consolidating Input from Proponents 

4. Deriving a Parametric Community Distribution 

5. Combining Individual Community Distributions 

The steps generally were carried out in the order listed. However, in practice, two main reasons 

made this an iterative process: 

1. The SSHAC process encourages interactions between the resource experts, proponent 

experts, the TI team, and the PPRP during and between the workshops; and sometimes 

the outcomes thereof required revising certain steps. 

2. The many sub-cases, along with the complexity and number of issues addressed 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

8-3 

required refining some of the steps, or modifying the approach to resolve challenges that 

initially were not evident. 

Conditional Probabilities of Spurious Operation 

Single Break Control Circuits 

Table 8-1 summarizes “mean conditional probabilities” of spurious operation for single break 

control circuits of SOV, MOV and circuit breaker end devices. A complete description of these 

conditional probability distributions is included in Section 4 of this report. As shown in the table, 

there are 34 sub-cases each for the SOV and MOV control circuits. Only one sub-case 

(representing both TS and TP cable) is analyzed for the circuit breaker based on the DESIREEFire test data for ungrounded DC control circuit for medium voltage circuit breaker. The PRA 

panel recommends that for the intra-cable hot short failure mode the aggregate value for the 

circuit breaker should apply. However, for inter-cable hot short and GFEHS failure modes one 

should use the corresponding SOV values. 

Table 8-1. Summary of Mean Conditional Probability of Spurious Operation 

For Single Break Control Circuits 

Power Supply  Grounded AC Ungrounded AC 

(w/ Individual CPTs) 

Ungrounded DC 

(or Ungrounded Distributed AC) 

Target Cable Configuration Device Type 

Conductor Hot Short Failure Mode 

Intra-Cable Inter-Cable Aggregate Intra-Cable Inter-Cable Aggregate Intra-Cable Inter-Cable Ground Fault Equivalent Aggregate 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

ThermosetInsulated 

Conductor 

Cable 

1 

SOV 0.42 0.01 0.43 0.64 9.7E-04 0.64 0.46 6.3E-03 0.17 0.56

MOV 0.27 8.8E-03 0.28 0.38 8.5E-04 0.39 0.31 5.6E-03 0.11 0.40

Circuit

Breaker 0.40 6.3E-03 0.17 0.40

ThermoplasticInsulated 

Conductor 

Cable 

2 

SOV 0.42 0.025 0.44 0.64 0.015 0.64 0.46 0.02 0.15 0.55

MOV 0.27 0.022 0.29 0.38 0.013 0.39 0.31 0.018 0.10 0.40

Circuit

Breaker 0.40 0.02 0.15 0.40

Metal Foil 

Shield Wrap 

Cable 

3 

SOV 0.24

Incredible◊

0.24 0.54

Incredible◊

0.54 0.48

Incredible◊

0.30 0.63

MOV 0.16 0.16 0.37 0.37 0.31 0.22 0.46

Armored 

Cable 4 

SOV 0.047

Incredible◊ 0.047 0.45Incredible◊ 0.45 0.73Incredible◊ 0.48 0.86

MOV 0.034 0.034 0.27 0.27 0.45 0.29 0.61

◊ “Incredible” represents a sub-case where no numerical estimates were developed 

because it is believed that the event will not occur. 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

8-4 

In addition, the conditional probability values for metal foil shield wrap and armored cables 

should be used regardless of their conductor insulating material type (i.e., TS or TP). 

Double Break Control Circuits 

Table 8-2 summarizes the “mean conditional probability” of spurious operation for double break 

control circuits for SOV and MOV end devices. This table is applicable to control circuits 

powered from an ungrounded AC (with individual CPTs) and ungrounded DC (or ungrounded 

distributed AC). A complete description of these conditional probability distributions is included 

in Section 5 of this report. There are 13 sub-cases each for SOV and MOV circuits for 

ungrounded AC (with individual CPTs) and 16 sub-cases each for ungrounded DC (or 

ungrounded distributed AC) control circuit configurations. 

Table 8-2. Summary of Mean Conditional Probability of Spurious Operation 

For Ungrounded Double Break Control Circuits 

* DC (AC w/o CPTs) represents ungrounded DC (or ungrounded distributed AC) power supply configuration. 

◊ “Incredible” represents a sub-case where no numerical estimates were developed 

because it is believed that the event will not occur. 

Target Cable Configuration Power Supply Configuration Device Type 

Combinations of Conductor Hot Short Failure Modes 

Intra-Cable & Intra-Cable Intra-Cable & Inter-Cable Inter-Cable & Inter-Cable Intra-Cable & Ground Fault Equivalent Inter-Cable & Ground Fault Equivalent Aggregate 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

ThermosetInsulated 

Conductor 

Cable 

1 

AC 

w/CPTs 

SOV 0.43 0.065 

Incredible◊

0.47 

MOV 0.30 0.065 0.35 

DC 

(AC w/o 

CPTs)* 

SOV 0.23 2.9E-03 0.077 

Incredible◊ 0.29 

MOV 0.16 2.9E-03 0.054 0.20 

ThermoplasticInsulated 

Conductor 

Cable 

2 

AC 

w/CPTs 

SOV 0.43 0.082 5.3E-03 0.48 

MOV 0.30 0.082 5.3E-03 0.36 

DC 

(AC w/o 

CPTs)* 

SOV 0.23 9.5E-03 8.6E-04 0.07 3.1E-03 0.29

MOV 0.16 9.5E-03 8.6E-04 0.049 3.1E-03 0.21 

Metal Foil 

Shield Wrap 

Cable 

3 

AC 

w/CPTs 

SOV 0.33 0.12 

Incredible◊

0.41 

MOV 0.23 0.12 0.33 

DC 

(AC w/o 

CPTs)* 

SOV 0.27 

Incredible◊ 0.14 

Incredible◊ 0.36 

MOV 0.19 0.10 0.26 

Armored 

Cable 4 

AC 

w/CPTs 

SOV 0.23 0.16 

Incredible◊

0.35 

MOV 0.16 0.16 0.29 

DC 

(AC w/o 

CPTs)* 

SOV 0.55 

Incredible◊

0.35 

Incredible◊

0.70 

MOV 0.38 0.25 0.53 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

8-5 

As for the single break circuits, the conditional probability values for metal foil shield wrap and 

armored cables should be used for the double break circuits regardless of their conductor 

insulating material type (i.e., TS or TP). 

Conditional Probabilities of Duration of Spurious Operation 

Figure 8-1 includes the spurious operation duration plots of the “mean conditional probability” for 

the AC and DC control circuits. Each plot represents the Weibull distribution up to the time (in 

minutes) where the floor value intersects the Weibull plot. Beyond this intersection, the floor 

probability values represent the likelihood of a hot short-induced spurious operation not clearing. 

The floors are different for AC and DC control circuit configurations. A complete description of 

these conditional probability distributions is included in Section 6 of this report. The mean 

conditional probability value of the AC floor at 9 minutes is 0.0071 and that of the DC floor at 7 

minutes is 0.022. 

Figure 8-1. AC and DC Spurious Operation Duration Mean Conditional Probability Plots 

The PRA panel recommends the following fire PRA applications for the control circuits: 

 Section 10.5, Revising the “Procedure,” for both Option #1 and Option # 2 in 

NUREG/CR-6850 to include the findings from both the PIRT panel’s and PRA panel’s 

expert elicitations. 

o For Option #1, the conditional probability tables in Section 10 (Tables 10-1 

through 10-5) should be replaced by the tables in Sections 4 and 5 of this 

Volume 2. 

Time (minutes)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Spurious Operation Duration Probability, Pr{T>t}, CCDF 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Time (min) vs AC Mean 

Time (min) vs DC Mean 

AC Floor Mean = 7.1E-03

DC Floor Mean = 2.2E-02
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

8-6 

o Option #2 should not be used since it was based on reverse engineering of the 

EPRI/NEI test data. The current state-of-knowledge and available test data 

(EPRI/NEI, NRC’s CAROLFIRE, NRC’s DESIREE-Fire, and Duke Energy’s) 

cannot validate its use. 

 Section 16, “Hot Short Duration (FAQ 08-0051)” of NUREG/CR-6850, Supplement 1, 

“Fire Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods Enhancements,” should be replaced with 

conditional probability plots for duration of the spurious operation for AC and DC control 

circuits discussed in Section 6. 

 Section 7 of this Volume 2 offers guidance in applying the spurious operation conditional 

probability tables, the spurious operation duration plots, and related issues that should 

be considered in analyzing the fire PRA circuit. 

In conclusion, this work represents the current state-of-the-art knowledge and methods for 

quantifying the conditional probabilities of hot short-induced spurious operation occurrence and 

its duration of control circuit end devices due to fire damage of cables. 

Identification of Future Research 

During the course of the work, several areas for additional future research have been identified. 

Section 7 of Volume 1, to NUREG/CR-7150 identifies several areas where additional work could 

benefit industry, stakeholders and the NRC. During the PIRT exercise, several issues were not 

addressed specifically, but either passed on to the expert elicitation panel to solve (if possible) 

or was intended to be addressed by industry and the NRC. This included: 

 Quantification of instrumentation circuit failure mode likelihoods, 

 Use risk-insights to inform revision of qualitative classification, and 

o quantitative insights could be used to inform the qualitative classification of two 

inter-cable thermoplastic hot shorts to resolve the NOTE to Table 3-3 of 

Volume 1 

 Classification of systems and circuits as “high consequence.” 

The results of this Volume 2, indicate that the current method for quantifying instrumentation 

circuit risk has not advanced since the issuance of NUREG/CR-6850 (EPRI 1011989). Thus, 

the panel restates the need to advance the knowledge of fire-induced circuit failure for 

instrumentation circuits and the associated fire PRA modeling of such failures. 

During the course of the expert elicitation exercise, there was reluctance from the experts to use 

risk-insights to make qualitative judgments that would modify the work previously completed by 

the PIRT panel. Although nothing was identified that contradicts the acceptability of the PIRT 

results, the PRA panel members believe that use of the risk-insights from this quantification 

effort could help enhance the classification of several qualitative judgments made by the PIRT 

panel. 
9-1

9

REFERENCES 

1. 10 CFR 50.48 (Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Section 50.48), “Fire 

Protection.” 

2. 10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

3. 10 CFR Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approval for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

4. Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, “General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,” GDC 3, 

“Fire Protection.” 

5. Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50, “Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities 

Operating Prior to January 1, 1979.” 

6. NFPA 805, “Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light-Water Reactor 

Electric Generating Plants,” 2001 Edition, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA. 

7. NUREG -0050, “Recommendations Related to Browns Ferry Fire; Report by Special Review 

Group,” February 1976. 

8. Information Notice 99-17, “Problems Associated with Post-Fire Safe-Shutdown Circuit 

Analysis,” June 3, 1999. 

9. EPRI 1003326, “Characterization of Fire-Induced Circuit Faults: Results of Cable-fire 

Testing,” Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, December 2002. 

10. Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-03, “Risk-Informed Approach for Post-Fire Safe-Shutdown 

Circuit Inspections,” Revision 1, December 29, 2004. 

11. NUREG/CR-6931, “Cable Responses to Live Fire (CAROLFIRE),” SAND2007-600/V1, V2, 

and NISTIR 7472 Vol. 3, April 2008. 

12. NUREG/CR-7100, “Direct Current Electrical Shorting in Response to Exposure Fire 

(DESIREE-Fire) - Test Results,” SAND2012-0323P, April 2012. 

13. EPRI 1006961, “Spurious Operation of Electrical Circuits Due to Cable-fires – Results of an 

Expert Elicitation” Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, May 2002. 

14. NUREG/CR-6850 and EPRI 1011989, “EPRI/NRC-RES Fire PRA Methodology for Nuclear 

Power Facilities,” Volumes 1 and 2, September 2005. 

15. NUREG/CR-6850, Supplement 1, “Fire Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods 

Enhancements,” Supplement to NUREG/CR-6850, EPRI 1019259, September 2010. 
REFERENCES

9-2 

16. NUREG/CR-7150 and EPRI 1026424, “Joint Assessment of Cable Damage and 

Quantification of Effects from Fire (JACQUE-FIRE) - Phenomena Identification and Ranking 

Table (PIRT) Exercise for Nuclear Power Plant Fire-Induced Electrical Circuit Failure,” BNLNUREG-98204-2012, Volume 1, October 2012. 

 

17. NUREG-2128, “Electrical Cable Test Results and Analysis during Fire Exposure (ELECTRAFIRE) – A consolidation of the three major fire-induced circuit and cable failure experiments 

performed between 2001 and 2011,” September 2013. 

18. NUREG/CR-4106, “Application of SLIM-MAUD: A Test of an Interactive Computer-Based 

Method for Organizing Expert Assessment of Human Performance and Reliability,” BNLNUREG-51828, Volumes 1 and 2, September 1985. 

19. NUREG/CR-5411, “Elicitation and Use of Expert Judgment in Performance Assessment for 

High-Level Radioactive Waste Repositories,” SAND89-1821, May 1990. 

20. NUREG-1150, “Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants,” 

Volumes 1, 2, and 3, December 1990. 

21. NUREG/CR-6372, “Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: Guidance 

on Uncertainty and Use of Experts,” Volumes 1 and 2, April 1997. 

22. NUREG-1829, “Estimating Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) Frequencies Through the 

Elicitation Process,” Volumes 1 and 2, April 2008. 

23. ASME/ANS RA-Sa–2009, “Standard for Level 1/Large Early Release Frequency 

Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications,” Addenda to 

ASME/ANS RA-S–2008, 2009. 

24. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.208, “A Performance-Based Approach to define the Site-Specific 

Earthquake Ground Motion,” March 2007. 

25. NUREG-2117, “Practical Implementation Guidelines for SSHAC Level 3 and 4 Hazard 

Studies,” Revision 1, April 2012. 

26. O’Hagan, A., Buck, C.E., Daneshkhah, A., Eiser, J.R., et al., “Uncertain Judgements: 

Eliciting Experts’ Probabilities,” John Wiley & Sons, 2006. 

27. Belgorodski, N., Greiner, M., Tolksdorf, K., and Schueller, K., “rrriskDistributions: Fitting 

distributions to given data or known quantiles,” R package version 1.8. September 26, 

2012. URL http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rriskDistributions/index.html. 

28. Wood, S.T., Smith, C. L., Kvarfordt, K. J., and Beck, S.T., “Systems Analysis Programs for 

Hands-on Integrated Reliability Evaluations (SAPHIRE),” NUREG/CR-6952, September 

2008. 

29. NUREG/CR-5546, “An Investigation of the Effects of Thermal Aging on the Fire 

Damageability of Electrical Cables,” May 1991. 
REFERENCES 

9-3

30. NUREG/CR-6776, “Cable Insulation Resistance Measurements Made During Cable-fire 

Tests,” June 2002. 

31. NUREG/CR-6834, “Circuit Analysis – Failure Mode and Likelihood Analysis,” 

September 2003. 

32. NUREG/CR-7102, “Kerite Analysis in Thermal Environment of Fire (KATE-Fire): Test 

Results,” December 2011. 

A-1

APPENDIX A 

PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES

Robert Cavedo, Jr., Constellation Energy 

Summary of Qualifications 

My professional work experience spans a twenty-four year career working as a Reliability 

Engineer for the Constellation Energy Group (CEG). My current role as a principal engineer can 

best be described as the technical lead in PRA for the CEG Fleet. 

Education 

B.S. Nuclear Engineering – December, 1989 

University of Maryland – College Park, MD 

Graduate studies include course work in Reliability Engineering and Software Engineering 

Professional Experience 

Constellation Energy Group 

Baltimore, MD 

Principal Reliability Engineer 

Sept. 2006 to Present 

Lead PRA Engineer for Constellation transition to Risk-Informed Fire protection using NFPA805Transition requires risk-informed change analysis of multiple spurious actuations and 

required manual actions. Analysis involves the performance of a Fire PRA for all Constellation 

sites using the new Fire PRA methods in NUREG/CR-6850. Provided PRA support for NRC 

Triennial Fire Inspections and Self Assessments, including Fire PRA and SDP review of issues 

raised during the inspections. Member of the NEI NFPA805 PRA Task Force. Calvert technical 

lead in converting RISKMAN into CAFTA which includes some model upgrades in support of 

EOOS usage and Regulatory Guide 1.200 compliance. 

PRA Consultant May 2004 to Sept. 2006 

Perform Significance Determination Process (SDP) for numerous issues within the fleet. The 

technical lead on the Calvert Cliff DG AOT extension request. This included significant model 

upgrades to support of 14-day AOT. Provided training to plant personnel related to the first 

Component Design Basis Inspection. Developed the Calvert Cliffs Integrated Leak Rate Testing 

(ILRT) AOT extension. Developed the Ginna Mitigating System Performance Indicators. 

Participated in numerous Emergency Response Drills as the Technical Analyst. 

Senior Reliability Engineer Feb. 1995 to April 2004 

Perform risk analyses on major modifications. Perform system analyses as needed. Provide 

training to Reliability Engineers within our group as part of the qualification process. Continue to 

improve the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) Risk Model. Review the CCNPP on-
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES

A-2 

line risk assessment process. Maintain and improve the on-line risk assessment software. 

Participate in NRC inspections and related meetings. Developed the plan for the Fire Portion of 

the Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE). Created the Fire portion of the 

IPEEE plant model. Provided technical expertise in the development of the Seismic and Wind 

portion of the IPEEE plant model developments. Coordinate and evaluate the efforts of 

contractors as they assist our unit. Developed the Performance Indicators for the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) mandated Maintenance Rule. Performed the Severe Accident 

Mitigation Alternative (SAMA) analysis for the CCNPP License Renewal Effort. Participated in 

the Fort Calhoun, Milestone, Palo Verde, and ANO Station Combustion Engineering Owners 

Group Peer Review. Was the system analyst technical lead in the first RG.1200 pilot peer 

review at SONGS. Participated in the Watts Bar Westinghouse Owners Group Peer Review. 

PRA representative for the Pressurized Thermal Shock Code of Federal Change working group. 

Reliability Engineer May 1992 to Feb. 1995 

Perform risk analyses for the Individual Plant Examination (IPE). The analyses performed 

included: Safety Injection System, Auxiliary Feedwater System, Component Cooling Water 

System, Containment Spray System, Containment Air Cooler System, and other analyses as 

needed. Developed the method and software for the CCNPP On-line Risk Assessment 

Process. Created the CCNPP Risk Model submitted in the IPE. Attended Users Group 

meetings associated with the Software used to quantify the CCNPP Risk Model. Provided 

training sessions on statistics and systems analyses methods to work group members. Tested, 

trained and qualified each member of our unit in the Risk Assessment Area. Provided required 

training to all technical staff members at the CCNPP in the areas of risk assessment and the 

results of our IPE. 

Associate Reliability Engineer Jan. 1990 to May 1992 

Developed the format, including tools and procedures, used to perform risk analyses in the 

Reliability Engineering Unit. Created the failure database used within system analyses and the 

plant model. Performed IPE related risk analyses on the Salt Water System, the Service Water 

System and the 4 kV System. 

Summer Student Strategic Engineering Department May 1989 to November 1989 

Performed elementary risk analyses on the Salt Water and Service Water Systems. Assisted 

with the plant condition-monitoring program. 

Summer Student Technical Services Engineering Department May 1988 to August 1988 

Wrote several programs including programs used to monitor xenon reactivity and boron 

concentrations found in the core and reactor coolant system. Performed elementary reactivity 

analyses. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 

Research Assistant Materials Department June 1987 to January 1988 

Developed a program, which acoustically evaluated the ultrasonic wave forms used to predict 

the point at which certain materials become super conductive. 

 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES 

A-3

Daniel Funk, Hughes Associates, Inc. 

Summary 

Mr. Funk is Manager of the Engineering Analysis Section within the Power Systems Division of 

Hughes Associates, Inc. In this capacity he directs technical and business operations for the 

Section. The Engineering Analysis Section provides consulting services to the nuclear power 

industry, specializing in all aspects of analysis relating plant response to fire, safe shutdown 

capability, and risk-informed analysis. Mr. Funk maintains an active technical role in his specific 

area of expertise – electrical power and control. He has 30 years of engineering, testing, and 

management experience, and has held positions as engineering manager, principal engineer, 

engineering supervisor, and project manager. 

Mr. Funk is highly proficient at completing complex, multi-discipline projects on time, within 

budget, and to high quality standards. He is an accomplished project manager and has 

established expertise in the design, analysis, evaluation, testing, maintenance, modification, and 

operation of electrical power systems, instrumentation & control systems, and complex industrial 

equipment. Mr. Funk has extensive experience with nuclear power plants, Department of 

Defense facilities, electrical power distribution systems, industrial power and control systems, 

electrical and fire safety, and codes and standards. 

Education 

Registered Professional Engineer: 

 Oregon No. 13734 Electrical and Control Systems 

 Washington No. 30516 Electrical 

 California No. E17744 Electrical 

Bachelor of Science Degree, Electrical & Computer Engineering, Oregon State University, 1981 

Naval Nuclear Power School 

Professional Affiliations 

Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) 

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 

IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 29 (1995 – 2003) 

Experience 

Senior Technical Consultant November 2011 – Present 

Hughes Associates, Inc. 

Mr. Funk joined Hughes Associates, Inc. in November 2011 as a Senior Technical Consultant 

and Manager of the Engineering Analysis Group. He oversees the group’s activities and 

maintains an active technical role in projects and nuclear industry research activities. Mr. Funk 

continues his efforts to advance and promote state-of-the-art methods, techniques, and tools for 

addressing fire risk at nuclear plants. Mr. Funk’s primary areas of expertise and recent 

accomplishments are summarized below: 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES

A-4 

Fire Protection – Extensive experience with fire protection requirements and issues for 

electrical systems and equipment at nuclear power plants and hazardous industrial facilities. 

Mr. Funk’s expertise and experience includes both traditional deterministic fire safe shutdown 

analysis and fire probabilistic analysis. 

Appendix R and NFPA 805: 

o Over his career Mr. Funk has participated in or managed Appendix R and NFPA 805 

deterministic safe shutdown analysis activities for many nuclear plants, including 

Southern Nuclear Fleet (Vogtle, Hatch, Farley), Entergy (Palisades, Waterford 3, River 

Bend, Grand Gulf, Pilgrim, Indian Point 2/3), Progress Entergy (Harris, Brunswick, 

Robinson), PSE&G (Salem, Hope Creek), Diablo Canyon, SONGS, Columbia Station, 

Point Beach, Palo Verde, Duane Arnold, Turkey Point, Browns Ferry, VC Summer, 

Limerick, Milestone, and Nine Mile Point. 

o Specific expertise in the evaluation and analysis of fire-induced circuit failures, spurious 

operations, and associated circuits. 

o Fully versed in all aspects of fire safe shutdown analysis for Appendix R and NFPA 805. 

Serving as project manager and/or lead electrical for numerous Appendix R, NFPA-805, 

Fire PRA, and Multiple Spurious Operation projects. 

o Providing direction and technical consulting to utilities for major projects involving NFPA 

805 transition and implementation, multiple spurious operation analysis, and fire-induced 

circuit failure issues. 

o Expertise in the use of ARCPlus® and CAFTA software as applied to safe shutdown 

analysis, nuclear safety capability assessment, and multiple spurious operations. 

Developer of the Fire Data Manager (FDM®) module of ARCPlus. 

o Member of project team to develop optimization techniques for fire protection equipment 

maintenance programs at nuclear plants (EPRI 1006756). The performance-based 

techniques developed by the project are being introduced into NFPA codes and 

standards. 

o Principle author for several EPRI projects involving surveillance and calibration reduction 

efforts for fire protection equipment, emergency lighting and instrumentation (EPRI 

Reports 1006756, 106154, 106752-R2, and 100249-R1). 

o Conduct fire risk assessments for electrical process equipment as part of U.S. and 

European Union equipment safety certifications. 

Fire PRA: 

o Over the past 10 years Mr. Funk has participated in numerous key activities for Fire 

PRA, including research, analytical methods development, and application. His specific 

areas of expertise are PRA circuit analysis, associated circuits, spurious operations 

likelihood analysis (including MSO), Fire PRA equipment selection, and Fire PRA data 

management. 

o Mr. Funk has participated in PRA activities for EPRI, NEI, and numerous nuclear plants, 

including Southern Nuclear Fleet (Vogtle, Hatch, Farley), Entergy (Palisades, Waterford 

3), Progress Entergy (Harris, Brunswick, Robinson), Diablo Canyon, SONGS, Palo 

Verde, Turkey Point, Browns Ferry, VC Summer, Milestone, and Nine Mile Point. 

o Industry representative for joint NRC/EPRI expert panel for assessment of fire-induced 

circuit failures (Electrical PIRT Panel and Fire PRA Panel). These two panels are 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES 

A-5

developing the circuit analysis failure modes and spurious operation probabilities that 

are to be used in future Fire PRA analysis. 

o Co-author of NUREG 6850, with primary responsibility for development of advanced 

analytical methods for the analysis of fire-induced circuit failures. Primary author for 

Task 3, Task 9, Task 10, and related appendices. 

o Participated in three Fire PRA peer reviews as lead for cable selection and circuit failure 

supporting requirements. 

o Principal instructor for on-going EPRI/NRC Fire PRA course. Instruct the circuit analysis 

module. 

o Currently supporting six plants with NFPA 805 RAI responses for Fire PRA issues 

pertaining to circuit analysis, failure probability sensitivity studies, model continuity 

issues for interlocks, and spurious operations. 

o Active participant in industry and NRC fire-induced circuit failure tests, including 

EPRI/NEI, CAROL-FIRE, and DESIREE-FIRE. These tests serve as the basis for 

industry and regulatory guidance for Fire PRA circuit analysis. 

o Principal author for report of EPRI/NEI fire-induced cable failure test program (EPRI 

1003326). 

o Member of industry-wide Expert Panel to assess spurious operation likelihood (EPRI 

1006961). 

 Conduct fire risk assessments for electrical process equipment as part of U.S. and 

European Union equipment safety certifications. 

Electrical Power Systems – Extensive engineering design and analysis expertise with 

electrical power systems for nuclear power plants, DoD facilities, DoE facilities, and hazardous 

industrial facilities: 

 Conducted numerous full-scope electrical engineering studies, including short circuit, 

power flow, electrical protection and coordination, arc flash, motor starting, and power 

quality. 

 Familiar with design requirements, equipment specifications, codes/standards, and 

construction support for electrical power distribution systems, including medium voltage, 

low-voltage, overhead, and underground distribution. 

 Extensive experience with and knowledge of electrical analysis software, including 

EasyPower®, Etap®, SKM PowerTools, and ArcView/ArcMap® (Geobase software) 

 Directed managed comprehensive master planning studies of electrical distribution 

systems at DoD facilities. Projects typically involve: 100% field walkdown of equipment 

regeneration of one-line and layout drawings  Geobase satellite coordinate 

determination  characterization of all equipment and development of Geobasecompliant equipment databases  development of electrical software models  full-scope 

electrical analysis  reliability and vulnerability assessment  10-year system plan. 

 Managed all aspects electrical design projects requiring professional engineer 

certification. Prepared designs for projects with construction value up to $50M. 

 Developed operation, maintenance, and training manuals for electrical distribution 

systems. 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES

A-6 

 Provide electrical analysis, electrical design, and electrical safety training to engineers 

and electrical linemen. 

 Experienced in the design, analysis, maintenance, and testing of batteries and critical 

DC power systems. Received national recognition for accomplishments in advancing 

techniques for battery performance testing. 

Codes and Standards – Broad knowledge of electrical and fire safety codes and standards, 

including IEEE, ANSI, NFPA, UL, NEMA, NETA, SEMI, IEC, UFC, MIL, and European 

Directives. 

Publications 

 NUREG/CR-7150, Joint Assessment of Cable Damage and Quantification of Effects 

from Fire (JACQUE-FIRE), Volume 1: Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table 

(PIRT) Exercise for Nuclear Power Plant Fire-Induced Electrical Circuit Failure, October 

2012. 

 Advanced Circuit Analysis Methods Development for Fire-Risk Analyses, presented at 

2005 ANS Conference 

 NUREG/CR-6850, Fire PRA Methodology for Nuclear Power Facilities, September 2005 

 EPRI Report 1003326, Characterization of Fire-Induced Circuit Faults: Results of Cablefire Testing, December 2002 

 Air Force Manual 32-1181, Design Standards for Facilities Interior Electrical Systems

 EPRI Report 1006756, Fire Protection Equipment Surveillance Optimization and 

Maintenance Guide, July 2003 

 EPRI Report 1969001, Spurious Actuation of Electrical Circuits Due to Cable Failures: 

Results of an Expert Elicitation, May 2002 

 EPRI Report 1006522, Stationary Battery Monitoring by Internal Ohmic Measurements

 EPRI Report 106154, Instrument Monitoring and Calibration Product Guide, October 

2000 

 EPRI Report 106752-R2, Instrument Performance Analysis Software System (IPASS), 

July 1999 

 Air Force Pamphlet 32-1186, Valve Regulated Lead Acid Batteries for Stationary 

Applications, January 1999 

 EPRI Report 100249-R1, Emergency Battery Lighting Unit Maintenance and Application 

Guide, June 1997 

 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES 

A-7

Ray Gallucci, NRC 

Licensed Professional Engineer (since 1985) specializing in applied research and problemsolving through risk, reliability, safety and maintainability analyses and probabilistic and 

statistical modeling. Doctorate in Nuclear Engineering and Science with extensive experience 

in the government regulatory arena and the commercial power industry. Innate ability to 

complete projects within tight deadlines. Intuitive decision-maker willing to try new approaches. 

Skilled technical writer. 

Selected Accomplishments 

 Analyzed and resolved over 100 nuclear industry safety issues in six months to clear the 

backlog at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 

 Have served as first and only prime technical lead for Fire Probabilistic Risk Analysis 

(PRA) in Fire Protection Branch of the USNRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

including technical lead for Fire PRA for pilot plant program to transition commercial 

reactors from deterministic to performance-based, risk-informed fire protection licensing 

bases. 

 Created predictive models to extend the operating lives of 10 electric generating plants 

built and serviced by Asea-Brown Boveri Combustion-Engineering, Inc. 

 Demonstrated that the risk to the public from cross-country shipment of radioactive 

waste from Three-Mile Island would be less than natural background radiation (for the 

US Department of Energy [DOE]). 

 Served as a Peer Reviewer of the landmark US NRC Procedures Guide for PRA and 

authored the Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook. 

 Proved the acceptability of statistically-based instrument set points for all Asea-Brown 

Boveri Combustion-Engineering nuclear utilities, saving them costly hardware upgrade 

expenses. 

 Quantified the improvements in health and safety to the public and worker resulting from 

environmental restoration and security consolidation at the US DOE Hanford Site. 

 Characterized the spectrum of potential accidents (nuclear and explosive detonations, 

fires, transportation) in Hazard and Safety Analysis Reports for nuclear weapon 

dismantlement at the US DOE Pantex Plant. 

 Served on Technical Review Committee of the Westinghouse Owners Group Risk 

Management Subcommittee and as PRA Representative for RE Ginna Maintenance 

Rule (10CFR50.65) Expert Panel. 

 Used analytical techniques to demonstrate frequency for catastrophic external flooding 

at RE Ginna fell below regulatory acceptable threshold, saving costly hardware upgrade 

expenses without compromising public safety. 

 Published and presented numerous technical conference and journal articles 

(publication list available upon request). 

 Won the J. Erik Jonsson Prize as valedictorian at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, 

New York. 

 Received seven “Leading Edge” Awards for extraordinary contributions at Ginna Nuclear 

Plant. 

 Received five Annual Performance Awards since joining the US NRC (2005-2009). 

 Secretary (2006), Vice-Chair (2007) and Chair (2008) of the American Nuclear Society’s 

Nuclear Installations Safety Division Program Committee (Member since 2002). 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES

A-8 

 Hold L-level security clearance. Held an Unescorted Access security clearance to Ginna 

Nuclear Plant from the US NRC. Held both L- and Q-level security clearances while 

employed for contractors to the US DOE. 

Professional Experience 

Senior Fire Probabilistic Risk Analysis Engineer 

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD 

Senior Probabilistic Safety Analysis Engineer 2003 - present 

Rochester Gas & Electric Corp., RE Ginna Nuclear Plant, Rochester, 

New York. 1997 - 2003 

Senior Research Scientist/Engineer 

Battelle-Columbus Operations @ Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas 1997 - 2003 

Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, Richland, Washington 1991 - 1997 

Principal Engineer 

Asea-Brown Boveri Combustion-Engineering, Inc., Windsor, Connecticut 1984 - 1991 

Research Engineer 

Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, Richland, Washington 1980 - 1984 

Education 

Ph.D., Nuclear Engineering and Science, 1980 

M.Eng., Nuclear Engineering and Science, 1976 

B.S., Nuclear Engineering and Science, 1975 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York 

Memberships 

Society for Risk Analysis 

American Nuclear Society 

 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES 

A-9

Dennis Henneke, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy 

Current Title: Consulting Engineer, Risk and Reliability (PRA) 

Nuclear Experience: 31 Years 

Education 

MS, Nuclear Engineering, University of Florida, 1982 

BS, Nuclear Engineering, University of Florida, 1981 

Advanced Training and Certification 

Professional Engineer (PE) License, State of North Carolina, 2002 

Six Sigma Green Belt Training 

Project Management Training 

Experience 

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY – 6 YEARS 

Consulting Engineer - GEH Nuclear Engineering 

 Chairman, Joint ANS/ASME Fire PRA Writing Group developing the Fire PRA Standard, 

2001-2013. 

 Peer Review Team Lead for most BWROG Fire PRA Peer Reviews and numerous 

Internal Events and Flooding PRA Peer Reviews against Regulatory Guide 1.200 and the 

ASME PRA Standard. 

 Vice Chair for ASME/ANS JCNRM overseeing all PRA standard development and 

maintenance activities. 

 Technical Program Chair, PSA 2011 (www.psa2011.org), March 13-17, Wilmington NC. 

Conference was attended by approximately 300 PRA/PSA experts from approximately 35 

countries. 

 IAEA Support for International Workshops on Risk-Informed Decision Making (RIDM). 

Support includes 1 week-long workshop per year on RIDM, and publication of an IAEA 

report on issues discussed during the workshops. Presentations include a wide variety of 

risk applications, include methods on risk monitor development and use. 

 Member ASME CNRM supporting development and updating of the ASME Internal Events 

PRA Standard and development of the Advanced Light Water Reactor Standard. Member, 

ANS RISC Committee overseeing the development of all ANS PRA Standards including 

Shutdown PRA, External Events PRA, Level II and Level III. 

 Development of the BWR Owner’s Group and NEI guidance on Fire PRA Peer Review 

(NEI 07-12). 

 Fire PRA Support for three US BWR utilities in support of Fire PRA development under 

NFPA 805. Support includes methodology development and review of existing Fire PRA 

interim results. 

 Co-Author, NUREG/CR-6850, Supplement 1; EPRI TR-1019259, December 2009. Report 

includes new Fire PRA methods developed under the NFPA 805 FAQ process. Author of 

5 of the FAQs published in Supplement 1. 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES

A-10 

 Development of the BWR Owner’s Group and NEI guidance on response to the NRC 

Generic Letter on Circuit Analysis for non-NFPA 805 plants (NEI 00-01, Revisions 0, 1 and 

2 – Coauthor of each). 

 Lead for Fire PRA training courses in Spain and Wilmington, NC in 2009. FPRA methods 

include NUREG/CR-6850, recent advances, and FPRA Standard overview. 

 Lead for ABWR PRA development for new ABWR reactors. Supporting activities for COL 

submittal for South Texas ABWR. 

 PRA Support for ESBWR PRA Licensing, including Aircraft and Security Assessments, 

Fire PRA, and Human Factors Engineering. 

 PRA support for PRISM Sodium Cooled Reactor. 

 QRA support for Global Laser Enrichment Licensing and Global Nuclear Fuels Facility 

Integrated Safety Assessments (ISAs). 

DUKE POWER COMPANY - 6 YEARS 

Senior Engineer - PRA Section 

Senior Engineer, Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Section supporting Duke Power’s three 

nuclear sites, McGuire, Oconee, and Catawba Nuclear Stations. Responsibilities include interface 

responsibility with the three Duke Power sites as well as national and international organizations 

for the following technical areas: 

 Lead PRA Engineer for Duke Power transition to Risk-Informed Fire protection using 

NFPA-805. This process began in early 2005 with Duke’s Oconee Nuclear Plant. 

Transition requires risk-informed change analysis of multiple spurious actuations and 

required manual actions. Analysis involves the performance of a Fire PRA for all three 

Duke sites using the new Fire PRA methods in NUREG/CR-6850. 

 Provided PRA support for all three plant’s NRC Triennial Fire Inspections and Self 

Assessments, including Fire PRA and SDP review of issues raised during the inspections. 

 American Nuclear Society: Chairman, Fire PRA Standard Writing Group. As chairman, 

responsible for coordination and development of the ANS Fire PRA Standard, due to be 

complete in late 2006. Member of the ANS RISC committee, which oversees and 

approves all ANS PRA standards. 

 Session organizer and presenter, ANS Utility Working Conference, August 2004, Amelia 

Island, Florida, and presenter for 2005. Both presentations were on Risk-Informed, 

Performance-Based Fire Protection. Track Organizer for PRA track at 2006 meeting, 

scheduled for August 2006. 

 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME): Member of the Joint ANS/ASME PRA 

Standards integration committee, formed in late 2004. This committee is tasked with 

integrated all level 1 PRA standards into a single PRA standard. 

 Nuclear Energy Institute: Member of three advisory committees, including the Circuit 

Analysis Task Force, Fire Protection Rule Making Task Force and the newly formed 

NFPA-805 working group. Committees are responsible for recommending revisions to the 

Fire Protection regulations and development of industry guidance on Risk-Informed Fire 

Protection. Developed Report NEI-00-01, guidance on analysis of circuit failures for 

Nuclear Plants. PRA Lead Engineer for McGuire Circuit Analysis Pilot project, which is 

one of two pilot applications of NEI-00-01. Lead PSA Engineer for Pilot Application of NEI 

Implementation Guide for NFPA-805 at the McGuire Nuclear Plant, documented in EPRI 

Report TR-1001442. Reviewer for NEI Implementation Guide on Risk-Informed Fire 

Protection, NEI-04-02. Participated in the development of an NEI Self-Assessment Guide 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES 

A-11

on Fire-Induced Multiple Spurious Operation, NEI-04-06. Have presented at the last 4 NEI 

Fire Protection Information Forum. In 2005, presentations include a presentation on the 

Duke transition to NFPA-805, and use of Fire SDP Zone of Influence tables for issue 

resolution. 

 IAEA: Support in the development of technical report “Peer Review of PSA Applications,” 

Instructor for Advanced PSA applications training (4 courses), and support IAEA mission 

work in PSA for Bulgarian and Russian Nuclear Sites. Scheduled as an instructor for the 

IAEA training in Shanghai, China, June 2006. 

 EPRI: Peer reviewer for the development of the revised Fire PRA method (2003-2005), 

co-developed by EPRI and the NRC (NUREG/CR-6850). Attended Fire PRA Training on 

the new methods, June 2005. Presenter in the EPRI Configuration Risk Management 

Forum (CRMF) discussing shutdown PRA. 

 Project Manager in the development of a Shutdown PSA for all three Duke Power sites. 

Developing Shutdown PSA for Oconee Plant based on Framatome generic shutdown 

guidance. 

 Coordinating Training for new PRA engineers. Training includes 19 basic modules of 

training based on the draft EPRI guidance on PRA qualifications and training. Provided 

Internal Training to Site Fire Protection Staff on Fire Significance Determination Process 

and Fire PRA. Provided Fire PRA and Circuit Analysis Training to Duke Power PRA Staff. 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON – 3 YEARS 

Senior Engineer - PRA Group 

Senior Engineer in the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stations (SONGS) Units 2/3 PRA Group. 

Focus areas included activities to ensure SONGs lead the industry in PSA and Risk-Informed 

Activities: 

 Co-winner of the 2000 William R. Gould Award for Engineering and Operational 

Excellence at Southern California Edison. 

 Co-winner of the 2000 Top Industry Practice (TIP) Vendor Award, presented by the 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) for PRA work on extending the SONGS Diesel Allowed 

Outage Time from 3 to 14 days. 

 Lead Engineer for the Risk-Informed Technical Specification project. SONGS is the 

industry lead plant for this NEI sponsored project, which included participation from all 

owners’ groups, EPRI, and NEI. Performed analysis in support of End State Optimization 

task, Mode restraints task, and 3.0.3 relaxation task. Developed a transition mode model 

in support of End State task, and integrated this model into the SONGS 2/3 Safety 

Monitor. 

 Vice-Chairperson of the Safety Monitor User’s Group. Lead PRA Engineer for 

development and use of the SONGS Shutdown Safety Monitor. The Shutdown Safety 

Monitor has been used for the last 2 plant outages for both SONGS Units 2 & 3 for outage 

planning, and is being used by plant staff for the most recent outages to meet the 

Maintenance Rule (a)(4) requirements. The shutdown model includes Mode 5, Mode 6 

and de-fueled operations, resulting in a Safety Monitor model which analyzes all possible 

modes and plant operational states. Future plans include the substitution of the Defensein-Depth program presently used with the Shutdown Safety Monitor. Lead PRA Engineer 

for development and use of the full power Safety Monitor Model. This model was 

improved to include Level II/III and LERF results, External Events including Fire and 

Seismic Events, and expansion of point estimate initiating events into fault tree initiating 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES

A-12 

events. Seismic modeling included all seismic sequences. Fire modeling included all 

possible fire sequences with core damage greater than 1E-09/year, or approximately 100 

fire sequences. 

 Lead PRA Engineer for the Risk-Informed In-service Testing (IST) project. SONGS was 

the second plant to receive IST relief from the NRC. Analysis was performed using Reg. 

Guide 1.174, 1.175 and ASME ONM-3 guidance. This analysis included first of a kind 

estimation of component importance for shutdown, multi-importance rankings including all 

internal and external events, and an analysis of the cumulative effect of IST changes using 

actual plant out of service data. 

SCIENTECH – NUS – 10 YEARS 

Executive Consulting Engineer and Senior Risk and Reliability Engineer 

Responsibilities include project management and technical support of Qualitative and Quantitative 

Risk Assessments (QRA) for Industrial and Nuclear Plants. Risk Assessment techniques 

performed include Fault Tree and Event Tree Analysis, Fire-induced Vulnerability Evaluation 

(FIVE), FMEA, HAZOP analysis, GO analysis, Failure Data Analysis, Human Reliability Analysis 

(HRA), as well as other specialized risk assessment techniques. 

 Lead Engineer for a total of six (6) Safety Monitor projects used for evaluation of plant 

safety during various plant operation and maintenance configurations. Lead Engineer for 

the development of the logic models, Safety Monitor software development and database 

development for the Wolf Creek, Callaway and Comanche Peak Safety Monitors. Model 

development performed for Full Power Level I and Level II, Shutdown Modeling, and 

External Events. Lead Engineer for the development of the Safety Monitor logic models 

for San Onofre Units 2 and 3 and the Timeline Nuclear Plant. Provided training on Safety 

Monitor and Top Logic development to over 10 organizations. 

 Project Manager and lead analyst for the Wolf Creek Fire PRA. Analysis included a 

modified FIVE methodology, with additional COMPBRN runs and scenario analysis 

performed. Performed analysis for all project phases and assisted client in the preparation 

of the IPEEE submittal. 

 Lead analyst for the Brunswick Fire PRA, including performance of the Fire Screening, 

walkdowns, detailed analysis, and Sandia Fire Scoping Study issues. Project analyst for 

the Fire Analysis of the Westinghouse AP600 Advanced Light Water Reactor design. 

TENERA, L.P. 

Senior Engineer Energy Services 

 Performed Human Reliability Analysis for the Big Rock Point IPE, and Prairie Island IPE 

including the performance of Human Factors reviews and plant validation walkdowns. 

 Performed a Root Cause Analysis review for Quad Cities Nuclear Plant, and a Nuclear 

Safety Review evaluation for Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Plants. 

 Project manager for a FIVE analysis for TVA’s Sequoyah Plant. Responsibilities included 

performance of Seismic Fire interactions review and analysis of Sandia fire issues. 

 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES 

A-13

Gerardo Martinez-Guridi, BNL 

Fields of Expertise

Probabilistic Risk Assessments (PRA) of nuclear power plants (NPPs): applications of PRA; riskinformed regulation and inspection of NPPs; digital systems; LOCA with consequential LOOP; 

reactor coolant pump (RCP) seal loss of coolant accident (LOCA). Software Engineering: 

development of software and software reliability. 

 

Education

 

2003 - Graduate Certificate in Software Engineering, Polytechnic University, New York, USA. 

1983 - M.S., Nuclear Reactor Science and Engineering, University of London, England. 

1979 - B.S., Energy Engineering, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana, Mexico. 

 

Experience 

1992 – Present Brookhaven National Laboratory. Principal Investigator in projects related 

to Probabilistic Safety Assessments, Risk-Based Regulation, and Software 

Development. 

 

1979 - 1992 Instituto de Investigaciones Electricas (Mexico). Head of a Research 

Project on Applications of PRA. Collaboration on projects of nuclear and 

non-nuclear PRA, Expert Systems, Software Development, and Simulation 

of Dynamic Systems. 

 

1985 - 1986 RISO National Laboratory (Denmark). Visiting Researcher. Collaboration 

with the Danish team on a Benchmark Exercise on Common Cause 

Failures for the European Economic Community. Participation in a 

Scandinavian project t on Common Cause Failures. Development of 

Software for PRA calculations. 

 

1990 - 1992 International Atomic Energy Agency (Austria). Consultant on the 

Development and Use of Software for PRA. 

 

Selected Publications 

 

1. T. L. Chu, G. Martinez-Guridi, M. Yue, et al., “Traditional Probabilistic Risk Assessment 

Methods for Digital Systems,” NUREG/CR-6962 Report, September 2008. 

 

2. G. Martinez-Guridi, T. L. Chu, M. Yue, “Building a Reliability Model of a Digital System,” 

Transactions of the American Nuclear Society: 2008 Annual Meeting, Volume 98, 

Anaheim, California, June 2008. 

 

3. T. L. Chu, G. Martinez-Guridi, M. Yue, et al., “A Review of Software-Induced Failure 

Experience,” 5th American Nuclear Society International Topical Meeting on Nuclear 

Plant Instrumentation, Controls, and Human Machine Interface Technology 

(NPIC&HMIT 2006), November 12 - 16, 2006, Albuquerque, NM, USA. 

 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES

A-14 

4. G. Martinez-Guridi, A. Kuritzky, R. Fitzpatrick, and J. Lehner, ”Conditional Probability of 

LOOP Given a LOCA: An Approach to Assessment Within the Framework of a Risk 

Informed Alternative to 10 CFR 50.46 and GDC 35,” presented at 2002 International 

Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment, October 8, 2002. 

 

6. G. Martinez-Guridi, P. Samanta, T-L. Chu, and J.W. Yang, “LOCA with Consequential 

or Delayed LOOP: Modeling of Accident Sequences and Associated Core Damage 

Frequency,” Journal Nuclear Technology, Volume 131, Number 3, September 2000. 

 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES 

A-15

David Miskiewicz, Engineering Planning & Management, Inc. 

Current Position 

Risk Services Division Manager 

Engineering Planning & Management, Inc 

Summary 

Nuclear engineer with over 30 years of experience working in the nuclear power industry. 

Currently Mr. Miskiewicz is managing the Risk Services Division for EPM. David has been a 

practicing PRA engineer for more than 20 years with extensive industry involvement including 

leading, presenting and instructional roles, and is a recognized expert in PRA. He has additional 

experience with software development and systems and design engineering activities including 

work related to reactor internals and reactor vessel integrity. 

Education 

1975–1979 B.S., Nuclear Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA 

Experience 

2012–Present EPM, Inc., Raleigh, NC 

 Manage operations and personnel within the Risk Services Division of EPM. 

 Project manager and technical lead for development of Robinson Fire PRA to support 

NFPA-805. 

 Project oversight and consulting support for completion of Point Beach Fire PRA and LAR 

preparation to support NFPA-805 transition. 

 Member NEI 805 Task Force and Fire PRA Task Force 

 Member of ASME CNRM Subcommittee on Model Maintenance, Special Committee on 

Inquiries, and the Part 4 (Fire PRA Standards) writing team 

 Participant in various EPRI/NRC MOU projects 

2005–2012 Progress Energy, Raleigh, NC 

 Support the Progress Energy Fleet of Nuclear Plants. Responsibilities include maintaining 

PSA models, performing PSA applications, and responding to emergent plant issues. 

 Project management and technical lead for development of fire PRAs to support transition 

of the Progress Energy fleet to NFPA-805. 

 Software owner for PSA software used at Progress Energy. Upgraded and completed inhouse SQA for the latest versions of EPRI R&R software in 2006. 

 Participated in Limerick Peer Review against the ASME Standard 

 Member NEI 805 Task Force and Fire PRA Task Force 

 Member of ASME CNRM Subcommittee on Technology, Special Committee on Inquiries, 

and the Fire PRA Standards writing team 

 Participant in various EPRI/NRC MOU projects 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES

A-16 

2001–2005 Progress Energy, Crystal River, FL 

 Support the Progress Energy Fleet of Nuclear Plants 

 Primary responsible individual for CR3 PRA models and applications. Extensive interface 

experience with plant engineering, operations, work controls, and licensing groups. 

 Applications performed include 14day Emergency Diesel AOT extension, One time AOT 

extensions for Service water, Chilled water, Emergency Diesels, Emergency Feedwater, 

and ILRT extensions for several plants. 

 Experienced with product development and regulatory interface related to the Significance 

Determination Process. 

 Chairman of B&W Owners Group Risk Applications Committee 

 Member NEI Risk Applications Task Force 

 Member ASME PSA Standard Addendum B writing team 

 Participated in 3 external NEI PSA Peer Certification Teams. 

 Developed Tool and database for reviewing PRAs against the ASME Standard which was 

a prototype for the ePSA module offered by EPRI. 

1987–2001 Florida Power Corporation, Crystal River, FL 

 Responsible for the CR3 PRA model and applications 

 Completed extensive models updates resulting from CR3 1.5 year design outage. 

 Temporarily served as the Maintenance Rule Supervisor responsible for setting up CR3 

expert panel and preparing for baseline 10CFR50.65 inspection. Also, served as 

Chairman of Maintenance Rule Expert Panel for several years. 

 Member of B&W Owners Group Risk Applications Committee 

 Involved in the preparation and submittal of IPE and IPEEE for Crystal River unit 3. 

 Developed various in-house software applications which significantly increased the 

efficiency of certain aspect of PSA analysis. These included and online risk monitoring at 

CR3 (pre-EOOS), a plant specific data management tool, a fire scenario evaluation tool, 

HRA and maintenance unavailability calculators, a level 2 bridge tree tool, and a 

component risk ranking tool. 

1983–1998 Florida Power Corporation, Crystal River, FL & St. Petersburg, FL 

 Chairman and/or member of B&W Owners Group Materials Committee and Reactor 

Vessel Working Group respectively from 1986-1998. 

 Technical lead for development of LTOP technical specifications for CR3. Also responsible 

for implementation of PLTR and management of the reactor vessel surveillance program 

at CR3. 

 Engineer in Mechanical Design group responsible for plant modifications including 

replacement of reactor vessel internals bolting and HPI nozzle safe ends. 

1979–1983 Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Reading, PA 

 Field engineer working as consultant/contractor for nuclear utilities. Primary field was 

radioactive waste system upgrades. 

 Design engineer in the radwaste management section. Participated in radwaste 

reduction, spent fuel storage and decommissioning projects. 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES 

A-17

Steven Nowlen, SNL 

Employer: Sandia National Laboratories 

 Title/Position: Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff 

Employed Since: October 17, 1983 

Education and Honors 

Appointed to the rank of Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff at Sandia National 

Laboratories, October 2001, an honor reserved for no more than 10% of the SNL 

engineering/science staff. 

Master of Science, Mechanical Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing Michigan, 

March 1984. 

DuPont Research Fellow, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Michigan State University, 

1981-1983. 

Bachelor of Science with High Honor, Mechanical Engineering, Michigan State University, East 

Lansing Michigan, December 1980, Graduated Phi Beta Kappa. 

Professional Experience 

Since joining Sandia in 1983, I have been active in both experimental and analytical research in 

the fields of nuclear power plant safety with a focus on fire safety and quantitative fire risk 

analysis. I have been Sandia’s technical and programmatic lead for the nuclear power fire 

research programs since 1987. My responsibilities include direct technical contributions, 

technical team leadership, sponsor interactions, program planning and program management. 

The most important application of my research has been in the development and application of 

probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) methods for fires in nuclear power plants; that is, 

quantitative assessments of the impact of fires on nuclear power plant safety and operations. I 

also have experience in harsh environment equipment qualification testing and accelerated 

thermal and radiation aging of materials. 

My experimental work has included the planning, execution, evaluation, and reporting of fire 

safety experiments, as well as the interpretation, evaluation, and application of experimental 

results generated by other researchers. Specifically, I have experience in the testing of fire 

growth behavior, large-scale room fires, enclosure ventilation and smoke purging, cable and 

electrical equipment fire-induced damage, smoke particulate characterization, fire barriers, 

smoke damage effects on digital equipment, and cable ampacity and ampacity derating. 

As a secondary aspect of my experimental experience, I have also participated in Equipment 

Qualification tests assessing the performance of electrical equipment in the harsh steam and 

radiation environments associated with nuclear power plant severe accidents. This work has 

included both accelerated thermal and radiation aging of electrical cables and the evaluation of 

equipment performance during harsh environmental exposures such as loss of coolant 

accidents. 

Related analytical efforts in the area of fire safety have included the evaluation and validation of 

computer fire simulation models, the review and analysis of actual fire events in nuclear power 

plants, fire risk assessment analytical support work, the development and evaluation of fire risk 

assessment methods, and the development and evaluation of analytical methods for cable 

ampacity and fire barrier ampacity derating assessments. I have also participated as an expert 

consultant in various inspection activities for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES

A-18 

I have performed training for the NRC staff in the application of the NRC Significance 

Determination Process (SDP) for fire protection inspection findings. I am currently participating 

in an effort to develop and deploy inspector training for application to those NRC licensees 

transitioning to the new risk-informed, performance-based fire protection requirements. I also 

act as technical coordinator and classroom instructor for the annual Fire PRA training course 

offered as a part the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Research (RES) and Electric Power 

Research Institute (EPRI) collaboration on fire research. This training course has been 

conducted annually since 2005 and routinely attracts well over 100 participants per year. 

I was a member of the U.S. NRC Senior Review Board for the review of Individual Plant 

Examination for External Events (IPEEE). I am currently a member of the ASME/ANS Joint 

Committee on Nuclear Risk Management Subcommittee on Standard Maintenance. I also cochair the associated working group on fire risk. 

My publication list is available on request and includes 10 journal articles, approximately 30 

formal SNL technical reports, five invited conference papers and over 20 other general 

conference papers. I also co-authored a section of the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection 

Engineering entitled “Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

Notable Roles and Accomplishments 

SNL technical area lead and program manager for nuclear power plant related fire research 

(1987-present) 

Voting member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) American Nuclear 

Society (ANS) Joint Committee for Nuclear Risk Management (JCNRM) Subcommittee on 

Standards Maintenance 

Co-Chair of the ASME/JCNRM Standard for Level 1 / Large Early Release Frequency 

Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications Fire Working Group (RASa-2009) 

Leading member of the core writing team for the American Nuclear Society (ANS) Standard on 

Fire PRA methodology (ANSI/ANS-58.23-2007) 

Lead author and NRC technical team lead for the consensus Fire PRA methodology 

NUREG/CR-6850 which was developed as a collaboration between the NRC and the Electric 

Power Research Institute (EPRI)) 

Technical Coordinator for development of the U.S. NRC Significance Determination Process 

(SDP) for risk-informed fire inspections (2003-2004) 

Technical coordinator and instructor for the annual NRC/EPRI Fire PRA methodology training 

sessions (2004-present) 

Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC’s) Senior Review Board for the review 

and evaluation of licensee submittals under the Individual Plant Evaluation of External Events 

Program (1995-2001) 

Technical advisor to the U.S. NRC staff during development of the National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) Performance-Standard for Fire Protection for Light Water Nuclear Reactor 

Electric Generating Plants (NFPA 805) (1995-2001). 

Qualified as an expert witness in nuclear power plant fire safety in U.S. Federal Criminal District 

Court (1995). 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES 

A-19

Nathan Siu, NRC 

Senior Technical Adviser for PRA Analysis 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Education 

 B.S. (Engineering), University of California, Los Angeles, 1977 

 M.S. (Nuclear Science and Engineering), University of California, Los Angeles, 1980 

 Ph.D. (Nuclear Science and Engineering), University of California, Los Angeles, 1984 

Employment 

 1977-84: Postgraduate Research Assistant, UCLA 

 1980-84: Associate Consultant, Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc. 

 1984-85: Postdoctoral Scholar, UCLA 

 1984-86: Consultant, Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc. 

 1986-91: Assistant Professor of Nuclear Engineering, MIT 

 1991-92: Associate Professor of Nuclear Engineering, MIT 

 1992-96: Technical Staff Consultant, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

 1996-97: Engineering Fellow, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

 1997-present: Senior Technical Adviser, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Areas of Expertise 

 Probabilistic risk assessment, external events risk analysis, uncertainty analysis, 

dynamic systems analysis 

Research Interests 

 Probabilistic risk assessment methods development. Specific areas include: treatment 

of risk of dynamic accident sequences (including process variables and operator 

actions), human reliability analysis, simulation-based risk assessment, and fire risk 

assessment. 

Honors and Awards 

 NRC Meritorious Service Award (2004) 

 NRC Senior Level System Performance Awards (multiple) 

 Fellow, American Nuclear Society (2003) 

 Lockheed-Martin Award for Excellence (1996) 

 Phi Beta Kappa (1977-present) 

 Graduated Summa Cum Laude (1977) 

Committees and Memberships 

 Chair, OECD/NEA/CSNI Working Group on Risk Assessment (2007-present) 

 Associate Technical Program Chair, 1996 ANS international topical meeting on PRA 

(PSA ’96) 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES

A-20 

 Member Technical Program and Organizing Committees, numerous PRA technical 

conferences and workshops 

 Member, American Nuclear Society (ANS) National Program Committee (1996) 

 Chair, ANS Nuclear Reactor Safety Division (NRSD) Technical Program Committee 

(1995) 

 Member, ANS NRSD/NISD Technical Program Committee (1989-1996) 

 Member, American Nuclear Society (1985-present) 

 Principal Member, NFPA Technical Committee on Fire Risk Assessment Methods 

(2000-present) 

 Member, National Fire Protection Association (2002-present) 

 Member, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (1994-1996) 

 Research Affiliate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1992-1997) 

 Member, IAPSAM Board of Directors (1994-2004) 

 Member, Reliability Engineering and System Safety Editorial Board (1997-1999) 

 

Experience and Accomplishments 

 Currently serving as a Senior Technical Adviser in Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) 

for the Division of Risk Analysis of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research for the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Responsible for advising management on 

PRA issues, for developing PRA research programs to address key issues, for providing 

PRA-related advice and support to technical staff, for supporting PRA-related 

cooperative research activities with U.S. and international organizations, and for 

supporting technology transfer to other technical communities (e.g., the fire safety 

community). Established technical direction for current NRC research activities in fire 

risk assessment and human reliability analysis, initiated, and provided oversight on 

research programs in these areas. Developed technical approach for treatment of 

uncertainties across multiple disciplines in NRC’s research program on pressurized 

thermal shock. Played a leading role in post-9/11 security-related assessments. 

Current Chair of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development/Nuclear 

Energy Agency/Committee for the Safety of Nuclear Installations/Working Group on Risk 

Assessment (OECD/NEA/CSNI/WGRISK). 

 While at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), directed the Center for 

Reliability and Risk Assessment, Risk Assessment and Applied Mathematics Group. 

(The Center performs advanced PRA research and development.) Co-organized a 

NATO Advanced Research Workshop on PRA for dynamic process systems and an 

international, multi-sponsored workshop series on advanced topics in reliability and risk 

analysis. Served as principal investigator for a number of risk-related projects, including 

an investigation of pitfalls with risk importance measures and a study of the use of risk 

assessment in oil spill prevention. Served as the Associate Technical Program Chair for 

the 1996 ANS international topical meeting on PRA (PSA ’96), held in Park City, UT. 

 While on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) faculty, directed or co-directed 

a number of research projects in PRA methods development and applications, including 

investigations of: emergency planning strategies, process variable associated 

dependencies in accident sequences, and simulation techniques in reliability 

assessment. Key research outputs included: a dynamic event tree methodology that 

explicitly incorporate operating procedures and a simulation-based operator crew model 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES 

A-21

that treats the cognitive behavior of and communications between individual operators. 

Was also responsible as primary lecturer for regularly offered courses on reliability 

analysis and risk assessment (with emphasis on process facilities). Co-organized and 

taught short course on Individual Plant Examinations. 

 While at Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc., participated in numerous nuclear power plant 

probabilistic risk analysis studies. Managed spatial interactions analyses, performed fire 

risk analyses, performed systems analyses, developed software for linking event tree 

modules. Also participated in the assessment of hazard of chemical plants and gas 

pipelines to nearby nuclear plants, in the analysis of the frequency of transportation 

accidents involving radioactive waste, and in a comparative risk study of PCBs and 

mineral oil in transformers. 

 During postgraduate studies at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), 

developed fire growth model COMPBRN which was used in several nuclear plant fire 

risk assessments, and supported the development of a methodology to directly integrate 

code results into a PRA. Developed stochastic model for fire suppression process. 

Assisted USNRC Research Review Group on Fire Risk in preparing program guidelines 

and prioritizing research needs; served as peer reviewer for USNRC RMIEP study in the 

area of fires, floods, and other dependent events. 

 Has served on the technical program committees of numerous technical workshops and 

conferences. Has served on the Editorial Board of Reliability Engineering and System 

Safety. 

 Has consulted on various risk assessment topics (including fire risk analysis, uncertainty 

analysis, systems analysis, hazardous materials transportation risk analysis; and 

common cause failure analysis) for: Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.; Electric Power 

Research Institute; Factory Mutual Research Corp.; American NuKEM Corporation; 

Arthur D. Little, Inc.; Brookhaven National Laboratory; and the U.S. Department of 

Energy. 

Publications 

Has authored or co-authored over 100 technical papers and summaries as well as numerous 

technical reports, and has served as co-editor for collections of invited papers on specific 

subjects. See attached list for a sample of publications. Full publication list available upon 

request. 

 

Sample Publications 

1. D. Helton, N. Siu, J. LaChance, T. Aldemir, R. Denning, and A. Mosleh, “U.S. NRC activities 

in the area of dynamic level 2 probabilistic safety assessments,” Proceedings of ESREL 

2010 – Reliability, Risk and Safety: Back to the Future, Rhodes, Greece, September 5-9, 

2010. 

2. R. Youngblood, N. Siu, and H. Dezfuli, “PRA in design: increasing confidence in preoperational assessments of risks (results of a joint NASA/NRC workshop),” Proceedings of 

PSAM 10, Tenth International Conference of Probabilistic Safety Assessment and 

Management, Seattle, WA, June 14-19, 2010. 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES

A-22 

3. N. Siu, A. Mosleh, and B. Meacham, “September 11, Columbia, Davis-Besse, and PRA: 

Business as Usual?” Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Managemen: PSAM 7 – ESREL 

’04, C. Spitzer, U. Schmocker, and V. Dang, Eds., Springer-Verlag, London, 2004. 

4. J. Forester, D. Bley, S. Cooper, E. Lois, N. Siu, A. Kolaczkowski, J. Wreathall, "Expert 

Elicitation Approach for Performing ATHEANA Quantification," Reliability Engineering and 

System Safety, 83, No. 2, 207-220, 2003. 

5. N. Siu, “Nuclear Power Plant Risk Assessment,” in The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection 

Engineering, 3rd Edition, National Fire Protection Association, 2002. 

6. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “CSNI Technical Opinion Paper 

No. 1: “Fire Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants,” Nuclear Energy 

Agency, Committee for the Safety of Nuclear Installations, 2002. (Lead Author) 

7. R. Woods, N. Siu, A. Kolaczkowski, and W. Galyean, “Selection of Pressurized Thermal 

Shock (PTS) Transients to Include in PTS Risk Analyses,” International Journal of Pressure 

Vessels and Piping, 78, 179-183, 2001. 

8. N. Siu and M. Cunningham, “Using Risk Information: Lessons Learned from One Agency’s 

Approach,” Proceedings of United Engineering Foundation Conference on the Technical 

Basis for Performance-Based Fire Regulations, San Diego, CA, January 7-11, 2001, pp. 

130-140. 

9. H. Blackman, N. Siu, and A. Mosleh, Human Reliability Models: Theoretical and Practical 

Challenges, Center for Reliability Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 

1998. 

10. N. Siu and D.L. Kelly, "Bayesian Parameter Estimation In Probabilistic Risk Assessment," 

Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 62, 89-116, 1998. 

11. A. Mosleh, N. Siu, C. Smidts, and C. Lui, Model Uncertainty: Its Characterization and 

Quantification, Center for Reliability Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 

1995. 

12. T. Aldemir, N. Siu, A. Mosleh, P.C. Cacciabue, G. Goktepe, Reliability and Safety 

Assessment of Dynamic Process Systems, Springer-Verlag, 1994. 

13. N. Siu, "Risk Assessment for Dynamic Systems: An Overview," Reliability Engineering and 

System Safety, 43, No. 1, 43-73, 1994. 

14. N. Siu, D. Karydas, and J. Temple, "Bayesian Assessment of Modeling Uncertainty: 

Application to Fire Risk Assessment," in Analysis and Management of Uncertainty: Theory 

and Application, B.M. Ayyub, M.M. Gupta, and L.N. Kanal, eds., North-Holland, 1992, pp. 

351-361. 

15. N. Siu, "A Monte Carlo Method for Multiple Parameter Estimation in the Presence of 

Uncertain Data," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 28, No. 1, 59-98, 1990. 

16. N. Siu and A. Mosleh, "Treating Data Uncertainties in Common Cause Failure Analysis," 

Nuclear Technology, 84, No. 3, 265-281, March 1989. 

17. N. Siu and G. Apostolakis, "A Methodology for Analyzing the Detection and Suppression of 

Fires in Nuclear Power Plants," Nuclear Science and Engineering, 94, 213-226, November 

1986. 

18. M. Kazarians, N. Siu, and G. Apostolakis, "Fire Risk Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants: 

Methodological Developments and Applications," Risk Analysis, 5, 33-51, March 1985. 

19. N. Siu and G. Apostolakis, "Probabilistic Models for Cable Tray Fires," Reliability 

Engineering, 3, 213-227, 1982.

 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES 

A-23

Mano Subudhi, BNL 

Field of Expertise: Mechanical Engineering: Codes and Standards; Piping and Equipment 

Design and Analysis; Equipment Qualification; Electrical Equipment Aging; Materials Science; 

Structural Engineering; Seismic Analysis 

Education 

1969 - B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Banaras Hindu University, India 

1970 - M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

1974 - Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of New York 

Experience 

1976-Present 

Brookhaven National Laboratory, Currently performing piping design certification reviews for 

ESBWR, APWR and EPR and revising design-specific review standards (DSRSs) for small 

modular reactors. Conducted workshops and classes on various topics associated with NRC 

regulations in FSU countries. 

Developed SER templates for the new reactor licensing. Moderator and Technical lead for 

expert panel for material degradation PIRT. Served as lead engineer, principal investigator, and 

group leader. Completed engineering projects for NRC, DOE, and other federal agencies. 

Developed qualification guidelines for the dynamic and seismic evaluation of Class 1E 

equipment. Studied alternate procedures for calculating the inertia and pseudo-static responses 

for multiple supported piping systems. Developed the EPIPE finite element computer code for 

benchmarking and confirmatory analyses of several as-built piping systems. Principal 

Investigator for the NRC’s equipment aging research program to develop maintenance practices 

including ISI/IST to mitigate equipment failures. Conducted tests on equipment performance. 

Studied impact of aging on seismic capacity in the event of an earthquake. Evaluating 

environmental qualification procedures for cables. Completed studies and issued reports on: 

NPP EDG performance, reliability, and inspection techniques; snubber performance and 

inspection; risk-based inspection; system performance and aging; and component performance 

and aging. Reviewed relief requests for ISI requirements and applications for license renewal. 

The LR review primarily included reactor coolant system in PWR plants (e.g., ANO1, North 

Anna and Surry, and Catawba and McGuire). Performed LRA audits of reactor coolant system 

at BWR sites (e.g., Brown’s ferry, Brunswick, Oyster Creek and FitzPatrick). 

1975-1976 

Bechtel Power Corp., Mechanical Engineer. Involved in the stress analysis of nuclear power 

plant components subjected to thermal, dead weight, seismic, thermal transients, pressure and 

fatigue loads; special problems including water hammer, flow-induced vibrations, and sudden 

valve closures; and preparation of Nuclear Class I Reports for licensing purpose. Represented 

Bechtel in the interfacing with manufacturers, clients and vendors. 

Selected Publications 

"Seismic Evaluation of the Brookhaven High Flux Beam Research Reactor," BNL Technical 

Report, December 1979. 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES

A-24 

"Seismic Analysis of Piping Systems Subjected to Independent Support Excitations by Using 

Response Spectrum and Time History Methods," BNL Technical Report No. BNL-NUREG31296, April 1982. Also, Presented at the ASME Summer PVP Conference, Portland, Oregon, 

PVP-Vol. 73, June 1983. 

"The Assessment of Alternate Procedures for the Seismic Analysis of Multiply Supported Piping 

Systems," Proceedings of the 1985 ASME PVP Conference, New Orleans, PVP-Vol. 98.3, June 

1985. 

"Seismic Upgrading of the Brookhaven High Flux Beam Research Reactor," Proceedings of 

DOE Natural Phenomena Hazards Mitigation Conference, Las Vegas, October 1985. 

"Improving Motor Reliability in Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG/CR-4939, BNL-NUREG-52031, 

Vols. 1,2,3, November 1987. Also, Proceeding of the 15th WRSM, October 1987. 

"Age-Related Degradation of Westinghouse 480-Volt Circuit Breaker," NUREG/CR-5280, BNLNUREG-52178, Vols. 1&2, November 1990. 

"Degradation Modeling with Application to Aging and Maintenance Effectiveness Evaluations," 

(Co-author), NUREG/CR-5612, BNL-NUREG-52252, March 1991. 

"Life Testing of a Low Voltage Air Circuit Breaker to Assess Age-Related Degradation", Nuclear 

Technology, Vol. 97, pp.362-370, March 1992. 

“Managing Aging in Nuclear Power Plants: Insights from NRC’s Maintenance Team Inspection 

Reports,” Nuclear Safety, Vol. 35, No. 1, January-June 1994. 

 

“Literature Review of Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electric Cables,” 

NUREG/CR-6384, BNL-NUREG-52480, Vols. 1&2, April 1996. 

“RAPTOR Gas Gun Testing Experiment,” (Co-author) Proprietary, CRADA BNL-C-96-01, June 

1998. 

“Review of Industry Responses to NRC Generic Letter 97-06 on Degradation of Steam 

Generator Internals,” NUREG/CR-6754, BNL-NUREG-52646, December 2001. 

“A Reliability Physics Model for Aging of Cable Insulation Materials,” NUREG/CR-6869, BNLNUREG-73676-2005, March 2005. 

“Application of laser generated ultrasonic pulses in diagnostics of residual stresses in welds,” 

Proc. of SPIE, 2005. 

“Expert Panel Report on Proactive Material Degradation Assessment,” NUREG/CR-6923, BNLNUREG-77111-2006, February 2007. 

“Joint Assessment of Cable Damage and Quantification of Effects from Fire (JACQUE-FIRE): 

Volume 1 – Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table (PIRT) Exercise for Nuclear Power 

Plant Fire-Induced Electrical Circuit Failure,” NUREG/CR-7150, Vol. 1, BNL-NUREG-98204-

2012, EPRI 1026424, October 2012. 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES 

A-25

GABRIEL TAYLOR, NRC 

Education 

The University of Maryland – College Park, MD 

Masters of Science in Fire Protection Engineering 

Graduated: May 2012 

Thesis: Evaluation of critical nuclear power plant electrical cable response to severe thermal fire 

conditions, 2012 

The Pennsylvania State University – University Park, PA 

Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering 

Graduated: December 2004 

Registered Professional Engineer 

Maryland, Reg. No. 38236, Fire Protection 

Experience 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission – Rockville, MD 11/2007–Present 

Fire Protection Engineer Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) 

 Panel Member of NRC/EPRI Electrical Expert PIRT (NUREG/CR-7150, Vol. 1) 

 Instruct NRC-RES/EPRI fire PRA electrical circuit analysis training 

 Witnessed fire testing, analyzed results and wrote test reports 

o Duke Armored cable testing 

o Navy Digital I&C testing 

o Progress Penetration Seal Testing 

 International OECD Fire-Events Database and High Energy Arching Fault Task Group 

 International OECD Digital Instrumentation and Control Failure Modes Task Group 

 Managed DOE work on fire-induced failure circuit testing and conducted supplementary 

data analysis 

 Supported NRR and RES meetings and activities and presentations at numerous 

conferences 

 Presented CAROLFIRE research to Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) 

2/2008 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission – Rockville, MD 4/2005–10/2007 

NSPDP General Engineer Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

 Graduate of Nuclear Safety Professional Development Program (NSPDP) Class of 2007 

 DORL: Evaluated proposed changes to license amendments in regards to their effect to 

public safety 

 ACRS: Prepared summary report for committee members and assisted with meeting 

preparations 

 RII/Watts Bar Resident Office: Basic inspector qualified IMC 1245 Appendix A 

 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES

A-26 

The Pennsylvania State University – University Park, PA 8/2003–2/2004 

Undergraduate Research Assistant Semiconductor Spectroscopy Lab Dr. P. M. Lenahan 

 Modified magnet power supply to operate correctly using U.S. power system 

 Designed data acquisition system to signal average ESR and SDR signals using LabVIEW 7 

 Reviewed, ordered, and installed SDR spectroscopy system 

OSRAM Sylvania Inc. – St. Marys, PA 1–3/2005 & 1– 8/2003 

Process Engineer & Engineering Co-Op (R&D, Process, EH&S, Electrical Departments) 

 Developed and conducted tests to examine customer complaints and analyzed the safety of 

products 

 Developed a recycling program to reduce net residual waste and increase gain from 

recyclable goods 

 PLC programming using VersaPro for GE PLC’s (Latter-logic) 

 Designed and constructed electrical cabinet using AutoCAD (ergonomic layout for operator 

and maintenance) 

Publications

 ANS PSA 2013, Fire PRA Advancements in Estimating the Likelihood of Fire-Induced 

Spurious Operations, September 2013. 

 NUREG-2128, Electrical Cable Test Results and Analysis During Fire Exposure 

(ELECTRA-FIRE), February 2013

 NUREG/CR-7150, Joint Assessment of Cable Damage and Quantification of Effects 

from Fire (JACQUE-FIRE), Volume 1: Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table 

(PIRT) Exercise for Nuclear Power Plant Fire-Induced Electrical Circuit Failure, October 

2012. 

 ANS 2011 Annual Meeting, Electrical Failure Behavior of Kerite® FR Insulated Electrical 

Cable, June 2011

 INTERFLAM 2010, Electrical Circuit and Cable Testing, July 2010 

 PSAM 2010, Fire-Induced Failure Mode Testing for dc-Powered Control Circuits, June 

2010. 

 NUREG-1924, Electric Raceway Fire Barrier Systems in U.S. Nuclear Power Plants, 

May 2010. 

Achievements 

Eagle Scout – Troup #95, Bucktail Council 

Dean’s List – The Pennsylvania State University (Fall 03, Fall04) 

Eta Kappa Nu (HKN)-Epsilon Chapter–National Electrical/Computer Engineering 

 Honors Society 

Dale Carnegie Program Graduate 

Penn State Conservation Leadership School Graduate 

Rivers Conservation Leadership School Graduate 

Member of IEEE, PES, ICC, SFPE, HKN 

 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES 

A-27

Jing Xing, NRC 

Core Skills 

 

Managing and Conducting Human Factors engineering in multiple domains including human 

performance analysis and experiments, human error identification, human-system 

interface design and evaluation, and human reliability analysis. 

Collaborating and maintaining effective work relationships with technical and non-technical 

personnel. 

Education 

 

Ph.D in Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania, 1993 

 M.S in Computer Vision and Biophysics, China Academy of Science, 1986 

 B.S in Electrical Engineering, Shandong University, China, 1983 

Professional Experience 

09/2008 - Present, Sr Human Factors Engineer and tech lead, Human Factors and 

Reliability Branch, Division of Risk Analysis, RES, NRC. Rockville, MD 

 

Responsibilities: Served as a project manager and technical expert for conducting and 

directing human factors and reliability research for nuclear safety. Responsibilities included: 

 Initiated, planned, and managed human factors (HF) and human reliability analysis 

(HRA) research projects for the NRC’s regulatory activities. 

 Integrated and coordinated the Branch’s human factors (HF) and human reliability 

analysis (HRA) programs. 

 Identified technical issues, applied HF and HRA methods/tools to develop resolutions, 

and made recommendations to management for decision-making. 

 Maintained and facilitated communications among users, contractors, research 

colleagues, and management. 

 Established and coordinated collaborations with research institutes, other government 

agencies, and international research communities. 

 Provided technical support and supervision for the Halden Reactor Project as the NRC’s 

HF and HRA representative. 

09/2002 – 08/2008, Engineering Research Psychologist (FV-0180-J), Human Factors 

Research Division, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Oklahoma City, OK. 

 

Responsibilities: Served as a principal investigator, project manager, and internal 

consultant in multiple domains of human factors and cognitive engineering. Areas of 

practice areas included human performance analysis, performance measurements, humansystem interface design and evaluation, personnel selection and training, and safety 

intervention. Responsibilities included 

 Developed, managed, and executed human factors research and engineering in air 

traffic control systems. 

 Conducted all phases of human factors practices: identifying operational requirements, 

performing needs analysis, assessing solutions, developing research plans and 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES

A-28 

executing them, constructing theories/models, and delivering off-the-shelf products and 

strategic solutions to the agency. 

 Analyzing operational issues and making recommendations to senior management on 

policy-making. 

 Solicited, initiated, evaluated, and managed grants and contracts. 

 Wrote reports/plans/proposals; made presentations to technical and non-technical 

audiences; organized meetings and work groups; coordinated collaborations within the 

FAA and between government agencies and industrial partners. 

2000 – 2002 Senior Research Scientist, San Jose State University Foundation at Human 

Factors Division, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 

Responsibilities: Conducted research for space shuttle cockpit design, focusing on 

perceptual learning, attention, and image quality assessment. Conducted human factors 

engineering and practices in aerospace systems. Developed research programs and 

conducted full-cycle research; operated the visual psychophysics lab; written and verbal 

communications with grant monitors and stakeholders. 

1998 - 1999 NIH Research Fellow, Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, 

CA 

Responsibilities: Conducted research in Cognitive psychology, visual attention, object 

representation, and human performance measurement. Independently completed several 

research projects involving psychometric experimental design, statistic data analysis, and 

human performance modeling. 

1993 - 1997 Research Associate, Brain and Cognitive Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA, and 

Computational Neural Systems, Caltech, Pasadena, CA. 

Responsibilities: Conducted research in brain learning, attention and memory, neural 

network, and planning and cognitive control. Developed computational models to predict 

human learning performance and action intention; reviewed grant proposals and papers for 

journals and conferences; supervised graduate students; delivered presentations to 

academic audience and industrial founders. 

 

1988 - 1993 Biomedical Fellowship Research Assistant, Departments of Physiology and 

Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 

 

Responsibilities: Graduate study focused in cognitive neuroscience, behavioral 

psychology, and modeling/ simulation of complex systems. Thesis addressed brain 

learning, memory, and visual information processing. Independently constructed a set of 

heuristic learning rules, performed a series of neural network simulation of brain learning 

mechanisms, and developed models to predict learning performance under different ways of 

training. This research was a milestone in modeling of complex neural systems. 

 

1986 - 1988 Engineering Researcher, National Laboratory of Pattern Recognition and 

Institute of Automation, China Academy of Science, Beijing, China 

Responsibilities: Developed algorithms of image processing and prototyped pattern 

recognition systems for industrial applications. 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES 

A-29

Kiang Zee, ERIN Engineering and Research 

Areas of Expertise: PRA/Fire PRA; 10 CFR 50.48(c) – NFPA 805; Electrical System Design; 

Single Failure Analysis; Electrical Separation; Reliability Analysis; Systems Engineering; 

Instrumentation and Controls; AC and DC Power Systems 

Education 

B.S., Electrical Engineering, San Jose State University 

Work Experience Summary 

Mr. Zee has over 30 years of experience in the nuclear and fossil power industries. His 

experience encompasses the broad spectrum of activities associated with power plant 

systems, electrical distribution systems, I&C systems, battery systems, protective relaying and 

coordination, PRAs and Fire PRAs, licensing and regulatory compliance, and circuit and 

raceway tracking systems. He has extensive experience in the development and application of 

Fire PRAs, design, review, and analysis of electrical systems, compliance with regulatory 

requirements and industry standards, 10CFR50 Appendix R, station blackout, and application 

PRAs. Mr. Zee is also fluent in applicable NRC requirements and industry standards and 

practices associated with electrical system operation, maintenance design, protection, and 

installation. 

Work Experience 

Mr. Zee is Vice President of the Engineering Services Group and has overall responsibility for 

all technical activities performed by that group. He has served in both project management and 

technical expert roles. He was the Project Manager and Lead Analyst for the updating of the 

Fire PRAs for the Exelon fleet as well as many plants transitioning to 10 CFR 50.48(c) – NFPA 

805. These updates have reflected a graded approach to the application of state-of-the-art 

analysis methods which includes selected elements of NUREG-6850 as well as analysis 

refinements beyond that discussed in NUREG-6850. He participated in the development of the 

ANS Fire PRA Standard as a section writer and has participated on Peer Reviews. He assisted 

in the preparation of risk assessments in support of a R.G. 1.174 Exemption Request for Farley 

Plant that applied elements of the risk-informed/performance-based methods of NFPA-805. This 

Exemption Request was approved by the NRC. 

Mr. Zee has provided technical support services related to at-power and shutdown fire risk 

studies for a number of nuclear facilities. These services have ranged from technical oversight 

and peer reviews to performing complete Fire PRAs. He has also performed detailed fire risk 

studies for the plant shutdown operating mode. He has provided fire risk related services for a 

significant fraction of the US Commercial Nuclear Industry. Mr. Zee is fluent with the applicable 

industry guidance associated with Fire PRA development. He has also developed detailed fire 

risk assessments in support of the Significance Determination Process (SDP). Mr. Zee is an 

active participant in industry activities related to fire risk technology. These activities include the 

development of the NEI Implementation Guide for NFPA 805 (NEI 04-02) as well as ongoing 

industry activities associated with enhancing and improving Fire PRA methods. 
PANELIST AND FACILITATOR RESUMES

A-30 

He has personally performed numerous other projects involving the application of probabilistic 

and deterministic technologies. These projects include fire risk assessments, plant system 

design as part of original facility design and construction as well as operating plant support, 

preparation of electrical design analyses, electrical separation and single failure analyses, 

Station Blackout, and R.G. 1.97 studies, maintenance program optimization, plant PRAs and 

Fire PRAs, USAR updates, and Design Basis Reconstitution. 

He has developed innovative and cost effective solutions. His project-specific activities have 

included both the performance of detailed technical tasks as well as overall project 

management. Mr. Zee has performed detailed electrical system design adequacy reviews for 

many nuclear power plants. These reviews have included the comprehensive examination of 

the AC and DC system voltage and short circuit analyses, diesel generator analyses, 

coordination studies, and supporting analyses. The scope of reviews has also included those in 

preparation and/or support of an NRC SSFI and a subsequent EDSFI. 

Mr. Zee has performed numerous plant modification reviews and prepared supporting safety 

evaluations as required by 10CFR50.59. He provided key technical oversight to ensure that 

required technical, installation, licensing, and design basis issues were properly addressed. This 

included issues such as interface with plant programs (IST, Appendix R, EQ, plant procedure, 

etc.), Single Failure, Electrical Separation, and Seismic. 

He conducted regulatory compliance reviews for issues such as Electrical Separation, Single 

Failure, Station Blackout, R.G. 1.97, Appendix R, Generic Letters 89-10 and 96-01. Mr. Zee 

assisted in a comprehensive Electrical Separation assessment for SONGS-1 in support of SEP 

Topic closure. SONGS-1 was designed and constructed prior to the issuance of industry and 

regulatory guidance and presented numerous unique challenges. The scope of work required 

the development of an appropriate review criteria, evaluation methodology, and resolution plan 

for discrepant conditions. He also performed detailed Single Failure analyses for service water 

and electrical systems, as well as the ECCS for BWRs. 

Mr. Zee performed reviews and evaluations relating to compliance with 10CFR50, Appendix R. 

His expertise includes safe shutdown equipment selection, safe shutdown logic development, 

support system reviews, identification of cabling vulnerabilities, hot short assessments, multiple 

high impedance short circuit studies, and regulatory compliance. His support of other industry 

issues includes Generic Letter 89-10 and 96-01. He has developed and implemented an 

analysis methodology for evaluating DC valve motor speed under reduced voltage and elevated 

temperature conditions. He has also performed comprehensive reviews of plant surveillance 

procedures to verify compliance with plant Technical Specification requirements. 

He has participated in the development of the UFSAR for SONGS-1. This project was unique in 

that it was the Revision 0 document following completion of the SEP effort. Mr. Zee developed 

Design Basis and Criteria Documents for Electrical Separation and Single Failure and 

performed a detailed electrical separation review for SONGS-1. This plant was constructed prior 

to the development of industry standards and required the development of unique review 

criteria. He also performed detailed Single Failure reviews for both NSSS and BOP systems and 

participated in projects to support both original plant construction and operating plants, and has 

addressed configuration control issues. 

PE License in Electrical: Alabama, California, Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, and South 

Carolina. 
B-1

APPENDIX B 

PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS

This appendix presents the project plan that was used in the PRA panel’s expert elicitation 

process. This project plan details the roles and responsibilities of each expert in Table 2-1, the 

goals of each workshop, and other SSHAC Level 2 elicitation-process-related activities. 

Attachment 1 discusses moderator’s insights gained from the PIRT and the PRA panel expert 

elicitation exercises undertaken in the JACQUE-FIRE program. 

B.1 Background 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) introduced numerous initiatives to transition 

from prescriptive rules and practices towards using risk information in decision-making. For fire 

protection, the NRC amended its requirements in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

Part 50 (10 CFR 50), Section 50.48 to permit existing reactor licensees voluntarily to adopt the 

risk-informed fire-protection requirements in the National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA’s) 

Standard 805, “Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light-Water Reactor 

Electric Generating Plants,” 2001 Edition. This standard serves as an alternative to the existing 

deterministic fire-protection requirements in 10 CFR 50, Appendix R. The development of riskinformed/ performance-based approaches and insights are needed, in general, to support fireprotection decision-making. 

Over the past decade, nuclear power industry and the NRC have conducted several testing 

programs, including the Electric Power Research Institute’s (EPRI)/Nuclear Energy Institute 

(NEI) tests in 2002, the NRC’s CAROLFIRE alternate current (AC) circuit tests in 2008, and the 

direct-current (DC) circuit testing of the NRC/EPRI’s DESIREE-Fire program in 2012. The 

objectives of these programs varied, but all provided valuable data and identified the hot shortinduced spurious operation phenomena associated with failures of electrical circuits in the event 

of a fire. The testing also offered insights on the risks of spurious operations for electrical 

circuits used in a Nuclear Power Plant (NPP). We can use the results of these tests to improve 

the application for licensees in both deterministic fire-safety protection and fire probabilistic risk 

assessments (Fire PRAs). 

One key input to the latter is quantifying the probabilities related to the likelihood of spurious 

operation, after cable damage due to fire. The results from the tests mentioned above can be 

used to derive such probabilistic information, so to characterize the risk of fire-induced cable 

failure previous work undertaken by the EPRI in 2002 is documented in EPRI technical report 

1006961, “Expert Elicitation on Fire-induced Circuit Actuation.” However, this study was limited 

to data from only 18 tests. The recent test results of the CAROLFIRE and DESIREE-Fire 

program offer an additional 175 tests supporting the refinement of the best estimates of circuit 

failure probabilities given in the EPRI report, in addition to providing new data on ungrounded 

DC-circuit configurations. 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

B-2 

B.2 Summary of Prior Efforts 

Previously under Job Code Number (JCN) N6866, “Electric Circuit PIRT,” Brookhaven National 

Laboratory (BNL) completed a Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table (PIRT) study on 

the fire-induced effects of cable failure. A PIRT study constitutes a systematic approach to 

expert elicitation so to improve understanding of a technical issue and/or prioritize research. 

The results from the PIRT (NUREG/CR-7150, Volume 1) afforded qualitative insights on the 

importance of various circuit failures that will provide guidance for future research and for 

identifying any circuit configurations that may have been overlooked in the past testing 

programs and circuit analyses. The electrical PIRT study outlined the physics and physical 

parameters that influence fire-induced circuit-failure modes. These results offered qualitative 

information for the Fire PRA’s expert elicitation panel and recommendations for the NRC’s 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to consider in their regulatory applications of deterministic 

fire protection. 

Based on the electrical PIRT panel’s recommendations, the NRC consolidated and analyzed the 

experimental data on fire-induced circuit and cable failure obtained from the EPRI/NEI- and 

NRC/SNL-tests for both AC and DC control circuits. The outcome was presented to the PIRT 

panel members in NUREG-2128 to aid them in assessing the effects of several influencing 

parameters on the spurious operations of electrical circuits. 

The results of the electrical PIRT conducted under JCN N6866 will be used in the process of 

expert elicitation to focus research on developing best estimate conditional probabilities of 

various control circuit configurations for using in fire PRAs. The derived probabilities will reduce 

uncertainty with current estimates and also provide interim guidance on the conditional 

probabilities of spurious operations in control circuits. 

B.3 Planning Meeting 

This project selected a panel of fire PRA experts for a planning meeting held from January 31-

February 2, 2012 during which the results of the electrical PIRT were presented to the PRA 

expert panel. They included examples of the control circuits most vulnerable to hot shortinduced spurious operations of certain electrical end devices given a fire event in an NPP. They 

also encompassed the test data and their analyses from the EPRI/NEI and NRC/SNL cable-fire 

tests when affected by certain physical parameters on various control circuit configurations. 

Based on the discussions of the PRA experts, it was decided that the sorting of the test data 

needed revision to obtain some meaningful estimation of certain circuit configurations 

associated with various end devices (e.g., MOVs, SOVs, Circuit Breakers). Additionally, certain 

control circuits with latching or a seal-in provision and other physical- and regulatory-factors 

(e.g., hot short duration, stroke time, end state, alternate shutdown panel) need to be 

considered in estimating the probabilities. 

In addition, it was decided that an expert elicitation process, such as Senior Seismic Hazard 

Analysis Committee (SSHAC), must to be followed by the PRA experts to estimate the 

conditional probabilities of fire-induced spurious operation. A follow up “Go-To-Meeting” 

conference on March 22, 2012 among the PRA experts was held, and BNL presented the four 

Levels of SSHAC methodologies for the expert elicitation process. 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

B-3

B.4 Objectives 

The objective of this project is to provide best estimate conditional probabilities on the likelihood 

of hot short-induced spurious operation given fire-induced cable damage for use in fire PRAs. 

These conditional probabilities are intended to revise, directly replace, or create new 

probabilities for Table 10 of NUREG/CR-6850 (Tables 10-1 through 10-5) and Figure 16-1 and 

Table 16-1 of its Supplement 1. 

Specifically, using the SSHAC process, the project will achieve the following: 

a. Estimate the distributions of the conditional probabilities and conditional duration 

probabilities of fire-induced cable and circuit failure phenomena for configurations 

where applicable test data are available, and, 

b. Assess the distributions of the conditional probabilities and conditional duration 

probabilities of fire-induced cable and circuit failure phenomena for configurations 

where there are no applicable test data but expert judgment reasonably can offer 

quantitative estimates. 

The hot short-induced spurious operation, a fire-induced cable and circuit-failure phenomenon, 

is defined as a circuit-fault mode wherein an operational mode of the circuit is initiated (in full or 

in part) due to failure(s) in one or more components of the circuit, (including the cables); 

examples are the spurious starting of a pump , or the spurious repositioning of a valve. 

A fire-induced failure of a control cable for an end device (e.g., MOV or Circuit Breaker) may 

engender multiple possible failure modes of the device. To make the probabilities more useful 

in a fire PRA, the final state or failure mode of the end device, resulting from the hot shotinduced spurious operation signal from the control circuit, also expectedly will be assessed. 

For example, in case of an MOV, given a fire-induced failure of its control cable, the valve may 

 Remains as-is, 

 Stroke into the full open- or full closed-position, or, 

 Stroke continuously and randomly stop in some intermediate position as the valve 

cycles. 

Assessing the final state or failure mode of the end device is an extension of the original 

objectives of the study that only considered estimating the distributions of the probabilities and 

durations. 

B.5 Selection of SSHAC Level 

The Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) process, described in NUREG/CR6372, has four Levels of Study referred to as SSHAC Level 1, 2, 3, and 4. The objective is to 

assess all four to determine the appropriate Level that will be applied to this study. 

The four Levels of study are defined in order of increasing resources (i.e., number of 

participants and funds available), and sophistication. In Levels 1 to 3, the technical integrator 

(TI) adopts the role of the “evaluator.” The TI develops the composite distribution of probability 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

B-4 

of spurious operation [P (SO)], i.e., an explicit probability distribution that can be incorporated in 

the fire PRA calculations. For Level 4, it applies the technical facilitator/integrator (TFI) 

approach in which a group of expert “evaluators” is identified and their judgments elicited. It 

involves a two-stage elicitation procedure. Each panelist playing an evaluator role provides 

mean estimate and uncertainty in the mean of P (SO) and each panelist playing an integrator 

role provides composite mean and composite uncertainty of P (SO). In its role as Integrator, the 

TFI develops a final composite assessment of P (SO) and the explicit probability distribution that 

can be incorporated in the fire PRA calculations. The important differentiation in terms of 

complexity, cost, and schedule exist between the simpler processes of Levels 1 and 2, and the 

more involved processes of Levels 3 and 4 that include workshops, a participatory peer review 

panel (PPRP), and, generally, larger groups of experts. 

Based on the attributes associated with each of the four levels, the project management 

decided to adapt the SSHAC Level 2 approach for this project. However, the project will have 

the expert interactions via in-person workshops rather than individually. It also is desirable to 

include the PPRP in every workshop, though not strictly necessary. 

B.6 Project Organization 

The following table lists the project’s participants and their main roles in the Level 2 SSHAC 

process for estimating the probabilities of hot short-induced spurious operations. Each 

individual identified below is expected to fulfill their specific role. 

Role Personnel 

Project sponsor Mark Henry Salley 

Richard Wachowiak 

Project manager Mark Henry Salley 

Richard Wachowiak 

Nicholas Melly 

David Gennardo 

Technical Integrator (TI) team 

(Evaluator experts) 

Raymond Gallucci 

Dave Miskiewicz 

Mano Subudhi (Moderator) 

Gerardo Martinez-Guridi 

Proponent experts Dennis Henneke 

Steve Nowlen * 

Gabe Taylor* 

Kiang Zee 

Resource experts Steve Nowlen * 

Dan Funk 

Gabe Taylor* 

Participatory Peer Review Panel (PPRP) Nathan Siu 

Robert Cavedo 

Jing Xing 

* During the meetings and conference calls, each of these individuals 

should identify when he is acting as a proponent expert and when as a 

resource expert. In layman terms, the “hat” that he is wearing when 

offering his input should be clear to the rest of the experts. 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

B-5

The SSHAC’s goal is “...Regardless of the scale of the ... study the goal remains the same: to 

represent the center, the body, and the range that the larger informed technical community 

would have if they were to conduct the study...” Once a group of experts have evaluated all the 

available data, the center of these interpretations can be thought of as the best estimate or 

central value of the distribution of possible outcomes, that group determined. The term ”body” 

can be thought of as the shape of the distribution of interpretations that lie around this best 

estimate, and capture the major portion of the mass of the distribution. The term “range” refers 

to the tails of this distribution and the limiting credible values. 

In the rest of this section, each of the different roles is described in terms of the role of the 

individual or group in the process, the responsibilities that the individual or group assumes in the 

project, and the attributes that an individual should possess to contribute effectively in that 

particular position. In this discussion, attributes often are referred to as being required or 

necessary. In some cases, they may be considered desirable rather than indispensable, but a 

project is more likely to function successfully the more each participant is able and willing to 

conduct himself in accordance with the attributes of their assigned role. 

Project Sponsor 

The Project Sponsor is the entity that supports the project financially, hires the study team, and 

“owns” the study's results in the sense of property ownership. 

Project Manager 

The Project Manager (PM) is the point-of-contact between the project and the project sponsor, 

and is responsible for ensuring adherence to scope, schedule, and budget. The PM develops 

contracts with all technical personnel and subcontractors, organizes the workshops (including 

issuing invitations to all participants and observers), and keeps the sponsors apprised of 

progress in terms of scope, schedule, and budget. The responsibilities of the PM include 

holding each participant to their contractual roles and responsibilities. 

Technical Integrator Team 

The Technical Integrator (TI) team is responsible ultimately for developing the composite 

representation of the informed technical community (called the integrated distribution) for each 

conditional probability of spurious actuation. The main attributes of a TI are the ability to 

objectively evaluate the views of others in developing models and expressions of uncertainty, 

and to fully appreciate the influences of different models and parameters on the probabilities of 

spurious actuations. The TI also must be able to generate large volumes of clear, complete 

documentation on schedule, as well as to critically review all contributed documentation. The TI 

must be willing and able to make a major commitment of time and effort to the project. 

In a Level 2 SSHAC process, the TI team comprises evaluator experts who play the most 

important role in this process. Their role is to examine objectively the data and diverse models, 

challenge their technical bases and underlying assumptions, and, where possible, test the 

models against observations. The process of evaluation includes identifying the issues and the 

applicable data, interacting with the experts (i.e., challenging other evaluators and proponent 

experts, interrogating resource experts), and finally considering alternative models and 

proponents’ viewpoints. 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

B-6 

The responsibility of the evaluator is to identify existing data, models, and methods as well as 

alternative technical interpretations and to evaluate them in terms of their general quality/ 

reliability and their specific applicability to the assessments being made. Evaluators must 

present a clear defense and rationale for their choices of selected models. They are not obliged 

to include in the models all proponent viewpoints, but must document their justification for 

excluding any particular model. 

The attributes required for an evaluator expert include possession of a strong technical 

background, the ability to objectively evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of alternative 

models, and have at least some familiarity with approaches to quantifying uncertainties for PRA. 

A strong technical background is essential in enabling the evaluator to make informed decisions 

on existing models. For this reason, evaluator experts also should understand the basic 

mechanics of assessing probability distributions, and how those elements that they are charged 

with evaluating influence and impact estimates of the probabilities of spurious actuations. 

Evaluator experts also must be able to work in teams; a congenial and respectful approach to 

other team members undoubtedly is very desirable. At the same time, an evaluator expert 

should have good communication skills to challenge a proponent’s views and to defend their 

own assessments. In addition, an evaluator must act with objectivity and be willing to forsake 

the role of proponent, up to and including critical assessment of models that they may have 

developed. An evaluator expert also must commit significant time and effort to the project. 

Because interaction among evaluators is an integral and valuable part of the process, it is 

important that they bring different perspectives to the project. For this reason, it is desirable that 

no single organization or group is heavily represented within the team of evaluators. 

Proponent Expert 

The role of a proponent expert is to advocate a specific model, method, or parameter to use in 

assessing the probabilities of spurious actuations. The expert will advocate the model within the 

forum of a workshop. The proponent may be invited to present a model, usually his own, either 

because the model has been published, is widely known, and therefore, is considered a credible 

option or because the model is controversial. In some cases, a proponent may be invited to 

present a relatively new model, which may not have even been published, if it is thought that the 

model is directly relevant to the assessment and is credible. 

The responsibility of a proponent is to promote the adoption of his model as input to calculating 

the probabilities of spurious actuations. The proponent is required to justify this assertion, to 

demonstrate the technical basis for the model, and to defend the model against technical 

challenges. The proponent also is charged with making full disclosure about the model in this 

process, including all underlying assumptions. A proponent expert has full responsibility for the 

material that he presents but does not participate in any way in evaluating alternative 

hypotheses or in the ownership of the models used for estimating probabilities. 

An individual who has another role in the project (such as resource expert or a member of the 

evaluation team) could adopt the role of a proponent expert at a specific moment during the 

project. This necessitates assuring that everyone present is clearly aware of the switch of roles 

and that (in the case of an evaluator) the individual is prepared to subsequently revert to the role 

of impartial evaluator. This flexibility is useful, not least because in practice individuals have 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

B-7

been willing to reveal in this way specific weakness or limitations of models that they developed, 

and, in some cases, even to propose that their models should not be adopted. 

The attributes required of a proponent expert are knowledge (the same criteria as described for 

a resource expert) and the ability to defend his model and its basis. 

Resource Expert 

The role of a resource expert is to impartially present data, models, and methods, making this 

presentation in a workshop setting. The expert is expected to discuss his understanding of a 

particular data set, including how the data were obtained, or to present a model or a method 

with their limitations and caveats. In all cases, resource experts are expected to make the 

presentations without any interpretation, in terms of input, to estimating the probabilities of 

spurious actuations. The reason for this is that they are not undertaking the role of proponents 

or advocates of particular models or methods. 

The main responsibility of resource experts is to share their technical knowledge impartially in 

their presentations to the evaluator experts. Accordingly, their presentation should make a full 

disclosure, including all caveats, assumptions, and limitations. The resource expert also is 

expected to respond candidly and impartially to questions from the evaluator experts. A 

resource expert has full responsibility for the material that they present, but does not participate 

in any way in the ownership of the models for assessing the probabilities of spurious actuations. 

In this project, the resource experts are expected to prepare the “project database” containing 

all the data available for supporting the evaluation of probabilities of spurious actuations. As the 

project progresses and assessments are made, additional analysis may be needed to provide 

the information and analyses that the evaluators need for their assessments. As part of the 

project database, a comprehensive bibliography should be complied of applicable literature for 

the evaluators’ use, as well as providing documentation that the evaluators had knowledge of 

the literature during their assessments. 

The necessary attributes of a resource expert are knowledge and impartiality. They must have 

a deep and broad knowledge of the subject, and often will have worked on that topic for many 

years and have publications related to their presentation. They must be able to withhold their 

judgment about the implications of the material that they present to estimating the probabilities 

of spurious actuations. 

Participatory Peer Review Panel (PPRP) 

The purpose of the peer review is to assure that a proper process was followed, that the study 

incorporates the diversity of views prevailing within the technical community that uncertainties 

were properly considered and incorporated into the analysis, and the documentation of the 

study is clear and complete. 

The Project Sponsor or Project Manager assembles a peer review panel, possibly headed by a 

Chairman who is responsible for writing the panel's report (with a provision for expressing 

minority views if appropriate). The panel report is addressed to the Project Sponsor or the 

Project Manager, depending on the sponsor’s desires, provided that the peer reviewers can act, 

and feel that they can act, to provide independent comments. 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

B-8 

A Level 2 SSHAC process requires a “late-stage peer review” that occurs after the project is 

almost completed. Usually, it occurs when a draft of the final report has been prepared, or 

when the project's bottom-line results are close to being in final form. However, this project will 

incorporate a Participatory Peer Review Panel (PPRP) that is a feature of SSHAC Level 3 or 4 

studies. The characteristics of this panel are described next. 

Following the issue of the final project report, the PPRP must concur that the project conformed 

to the requirements of the specified study-level and that all technical assessments are 

adequately defended and documented. 

The PPRP fulfills the following two parallel roles that collectively imply oversight to assure that 

the assessment is performed appropriately: 

 Technical peer review is the review of the probabilistic aspects of the study, such as the 

models used for deriving the probability distributions of the spurious operations, and the 

completeness and quality of the data set used to derive these distributions. It also 

includes reviewing the assumptions, calculation methods, and the final results. This 

aspect requires expertise in interpreting the results of fire experiments, and in relevant 

probabilistic- and statistical-methodologies. 

 Process peer review is the review of how the study is structured and executed, thus 

ensuring that the project conforms to the requirements of the selected SSHAC processlevel. Because this study must rely heavily on expert interpretations of data that are 

sometimes scarce (or non-existent), the process peer review must concentrate on 

assuring that the uncertainties and the elicitation and incorporation of expert judgments 

is well considered. Reviewing this aspect requires expertise in expert elicitation, 

statistical analysis, and related disciplines, as well as adequate familiarity with the 

technical issues and methods related to the disciplines mentioned above (interpreting 

the results of fire experiments, and probabilistic- and statistical-methodologies). 

One important point to emphasize is that membership of the PPRP always rests on an individual 

basis and not as an affiliate of any organization. Each member of the PPRP in the employ of an 

organization must ensure that it is clearly understood that they are not representing their 

employer or organization on the panel, but are serving in their own right as a recognized leader 

in their respective fields. 

The responsibility of the PPRP is to provide clear and timely feedback to the TI and project 

manager to ensure that any technical- or process-deficiencies are identified at the earliest stage 

so that they can be corrected. More commonly, the PPRP provides its perspectives and advice 

on the manner in which ongoing activities can be improved or carried out more effectively. In 

terms of technical review, a key responsibility of the PPRP is to highlight any data, models or 

proponents that have not been considered. The PPRP also judges the justification provided for 

the models included or excluded. 

 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

B-9

The PPRP has the clear responsibility to be present as observers at all the formal workshops, 

and subsequently to submit a consensus report containing comments, questions, and 

suggestions. The basic responsibilities of the PPRP are the following1

: 

 Review the project plan. 

 Review the workshop’s agenda and lists of invited resource- and proponent-experts. 

 Attend all workshops and submit written reports in a timely manner. 

 Participate in daily debriefings with project or leaders at workshops. 

 Directly challenge the evaluators’ assessment at Workshop #3. 

 Review the preliminary models for capture the center, body, and range of technically 

defensible interpretations. 

 Review the draft of the final project report. 

 Issue a consensus letter report after the final project report is completed. 

One more responsibility of a PPRP member is to preserve their independent status throughout 

the project. On the one hand, this means not being drawn into the technical assessments to 

maintain objectivity. On the other hand, it involves resisting any temptation to represent the 

corporate views of the organization to which they are affiliated because PPRP members must 

always serve in an individual capacity on the panel, rather representative one. 

The attributes of the PPRP can be defined both for individuals, and, in collective terms, for all of 

the members of the panel as a group. A key requirement is that each member of the group has 

an understanding of, and commitment to, the principles of the SSHAC process. In addition, the 

members of the panel must collectively cover all technical aspects of building models and of 

conducting a fire PRA. Similarly, it is desirable that the members of the PPRP are highly 

regarded within their technical communities. The members of the PPRP also should be 

prepared to commit sufficient time to the project to become fully familiar with the issues, data, 

and models, and to be able to review thoroughly the documentation developed. 

The panel report will incorporate the two aspects of the review (i.e., technical- and processpeer reviews), and include a final evaluation of whether the TI team has considered the 

technical community’s viewpoints, and has made a concerted attempt to capture the center, 

body, and range of the technical defensible interpretation in their final probability distributions. 

The report also should address the panel’s final assessment of the process followed by the 

project, and whether or not that process is acceptable as a SSHAC process. The panel’s 

assessment will be included in the final report of the project. 

B.7 Work Plan’s Key Task Areas 

Workshops play a vital role in the SSHAC process in offering opportunities for key interactions 

to occur; for models and interpretations to be presented, debated, and defended; and, for 

sponsors and reviewers to observe the progress being made on the study. On the other hand, 

they are not the place where models are developed and technical assessments are made; that 

will occur between the workshops. 

 

1

 Another PPRP responsibility is to highlight interface issues if these are not being addressed adequately. 

Such issues may arise when a project is divided into subprojects, each of which must interface correctly 

with the rest of the subprojects. However, for this particular project, there were no plans for such partition 

into subprojects at the time when the project plan was prepared. 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

B-10 

The hallmark of a SSHAC process is the interaction that takes place in a series of structured, 

facilitated workshops. Each workshop has a specific focus and goal, and each requires that 

particular work activities have been conducted before its occurrence and certain work activities 

will occur following it. The ground rules for the workshops need to be established and 

presented at the beginning of each one, so that the attendees understand and can fulfill their 

particular roles. The ground rules also must be enforced consistently. 

Three SSHAC workshops were planned for this project. 

Workshop #1 Significant Issues and Available Data 

The goals of workshop #1 are to identify (1) the technical issues of highest significance to 

evaluating the probabilities of spurious operations, and, (2) data and information that is available 

to support this evaluation. 

At Workshop #1, the Technical Integrator (TI) team will establish the ground rules for all of the 

workshops. The workshop will begin by clearly defining its goals, explaining the process that 

will be followed, and defining the roles of all attendees. 

First and foremost, the workshops are intended to provide information to assist the TI Leads and 

the evaluator experts in their technical assessments. Therefore, it is essential that they are 

given ample opportunity to ask questions and to thoroughly understand what is being presented. 

All other workshop attendees are “observers”, except as their participation is required. For 

example, at the first workshop, resource experts are asked to present and discuss the project’s 

database. Questions after each presentation first should come from the evaluator experts, not 

from other resource experts or other attendees. The TI is responsible for ensuring that the 

agenda is kept and all presentations occur equitably. A short period will be set aside at the end 

of each day for any observer at the workshop, including the PPRP, to make statements or to 

pose questions. 

Before Workshop #1, the TI Leads should undertake preliminary evaluations and sensitivity 

studies to assist in identifying issues relevant to assessing the probabilities of spurious 

actuations based on the available data. The sensitivity analyses should be presented and 

discussed at the workshop; they can be supplemented by considering issues that experience 

generally showed to be important. The purpose of identifying these issues first is to provide a 

basis for focusing and prioritizing the development of the database; this part of the workshop 

should conclude with a listing of the issues for evaluating the probabilities, and a listing of the 

data available for resolving the issues. 

The second part of Workshop #1 should focus on the data available to address the issues 

identified in the first part. The discussions of these data should be through a series of 

presentations by resource experts who have developed specific datasets. The goal of therein is 

to assist the TI members in identifying the data and information that should be made part of the 

project database, and in understanding, as far as possible, the attributes of the available data 

sets (e.g., any limitations or drawbacks) The resource experts also can offer their knowledge of 

additional data—beyond that given in their presentations—that the project should consider. 

One concern that often emerges in the first workshop is the tendency for the resource experts to 

move from merely a presentation of available data into discussions of their interpretations of the 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

B-11

data and the models that they have developed from it. In many science- and engineeringproblems, no clear-cut boundary exists between what we call “data” and what we call 

“interpretations.” The point here, from the standpoint of the SSHAC process, is that evaluator 

experts do evaluations of the data for the purpose of evaluating the probabilities of spurious 

operations. Moreover, Workshop #2 is the forum for hearing and debating alternative 

interpretations of the data. 

On the other hand, since a project meeting already took place where resource experts initially 

presented the data available to all the experts (January 31 to February 2, 2012), part of 

Workshop #1 also may be allocated to initiate the activities in Workshop #2, as discussed next. 

Workshop #2 Alternative Interpretations 

The goals of Workshop #2 “Alternative Interpretations” are (1) to present, discuss, and debate 

alternative viewpoints on key technical issues; (2) to identify the technical bases for the 

alternative hypotheses and to discuss their associated uncertainties; and, (3) to offer a basis for 

the subsequent development of preliminary probabilistic evaluation models that consider these 

alternative viewpoints. The second workshop also affords an opportunity to review the progress 

being made on developing the database and to elicit additional input, as needed, on this activity. 

A key attribute of this workshop is the discussion and debate of the merits of alternative models 

and viewpoints about key technical issues. Proponents and resource experts should discuss 

their interpretations and the data supporting them. Presentations of alternative viewpoints on 

the same topic should be compared, if possible, and a facilitated discussion should focus on the 

implications of the inputs to the evaluation of probabilities (not just on scientific viability) and on 

uncertainties (e.g., what alternative conceptual models would capture the range of 

interpretations and their relative credibility). 

In capturing the spectrum of thinking across the entire technical community, a goal of this 

workshop is to provide an effective forum for exchanging ideas. More importantly for the 

SSHAC process, the workshop offers a unique opportunity for the evaluator experts to begin 

their consideration of the range of models and methods held by the larger technical community. 

Therefore, they should strive to not only understand these alternative interpretations, but also 

the degree to which each is supported by data. The proponent experts should be asked to be 

prepared to discuss the uncertainties in their interpretations, the strengths and weaknesses in 

their arguments, and their view of the degree of support that their interpretations have within the 

larger technical community. It often is useful for presenters to be given a list of questions 

developed by the TI so they can focus their presentations on areas of interest to model 

development. A role of the TI should be to offer support, as needed, to proponents to ensure 

that interpretations are not judged on the basis of presentation skills. Proponent experts should 

be encouraged to interact among themselves within the structure facilitated by the TI Leads. 

Some experience showed that asking proponents to consider the views of others in the 

community encourages useful discussion. 

Workshop #3 Feedback 

Following Workshop #2, the evaluator experts develop their preliminary models, based on 

which, preliminary calculations, and sensitivity analyses are conducted. The goal of Workshop 

#3 Feedback is to present and discuss the preliminary models and calculations in a forum 

offering feedback to the evaluators. It is given in the form of probability results and sensitivity 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

B-12 

analyses that illuminate the most important technical issues. Ideally, feedback is also given at 

this workshop via the participation of the peer review members in allowing them to ask 

questions about the preliminary probabilistic models and results. Feedback also is given at this 

workshop by the participation of the PPRP and allowing them to question the preliminary 

evaluation models. These interactions at this workshop will ensure that no significant issues 

were overlooked and will allow the evaluators to understand the relative importance of their 

models, uncertainties, and assessments of probabilities that will provide a basis for finalizing the 

models thereafter. 

The workshop consists of two parts: (1) The evaluators presenting their preliminary models, 

particularly emphasizing the manner in which alternative viewpoints and uncertainties have 

been incorporated; and, (2) sensitivity analyses and probability calculations that affords insight 

into the preliminary models. In discussing the preliminary models, the technical bases for the 

assessments should be described to support discussions of the implications and constraints 

provided by the data. The PPRP will be expected to question and probe aspects of the 

preliminary model to understand the way in which the views of the larger technical community 

have been considered, and the range of technically defensible interpretations included. 

In the second part of the workshop, the presentation of the sensitivity analyses and preliminary 

probability calculations will offer a means of focusing the discussions on those issues of the 

greatest probabilistic significance, including the largest contributors to uncertainty. In turn, this 

will focus the assessments undertaken after the workshop on those technical issues of most 

importance to the probabilistic results. It is important to include not only probability calculations 

and associated sensitivity analyses, but also sensitivity analyses that offer insights into the 

models themselves. For example, the relative contribution that the epistemic uncertainty in a 

particular element of the model has to an intermediate output can be explored. It is noted that 

these feedback calculations are not intended to afford a basis for artificially truncating or 

otherwise limiting the models that the evaluators developed. Rather, they are intended to give a 

basis for prioritizing the activities involved in developing the final models. 

B.8 Project Schedule 

As discussed earlier, this project will use the results from the electrical PIRT in determining the 

most vulnerable electrical control circuits in a typical nuclear power plant. Also, to calculate the 

best estimates of conditional probabilities for the hot short-induced spurious operations and their 

durations for these control circuits, the PRA expert panel will use the applicable EPRI/NEI- and 

NRC/SNL- cable test data. 

The project involving the expert elicitation of PRA panel started at the beginning of this calendar 

year and will be completed by December 2013. The planning meeting during January 31-

February 2, 2012 identified the appropriate control circuits and the types of data that will be 

available to the expert panel for their probability estimations. 

On March 22, 2012, via a “Go-To-Meeting” BNL presented the overall training material entitled 

“Selecting an Appropriate SSHAC Level for Assessing the Probabilities of Fire-Induced 

Spurious Actuations” to all PRA expert panel members describing the roles and responsible that 

should be followed during the SSHAC Level 2 expert elicitation process. 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

B-13

The first and second workshops were planned for June 2012 and December 2012. Two 

separate Workshop #2 meetings of the PRA panel took place to discuss and determine the 

appropriate methods and processes to be used by all proponents for various cable-power 

supply configurations. The third workshop was held sometime in May 2013. 

The draft NUREG report documenting the results from the expert elicitation of the PRA panel is 

now scheduled to be completed by September 30st 2013. 

B.9 Deliverables 

The project deliverable is a joint EPRI/NRC publication documenting the expert elicitation 

process and the best estimate probabilities of those control circuits vulnerable to hot shortinduced spurious operations in the event of a fire in NPPs. 

 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

B-14 

ATTACHMENT 1 

INSIGHTS FROM EXPERT ELICITATION EXERCISES 

USED FOR ELECTRICAL PHENOMENON IDENTIFICATION AND 

REVIEW TABLE (PIRT), AND PRA EXPERT ELICITATION ON 

HOT SHORT-INDUCED SPURIOUS OPERATION OF DEVICES IN 

ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS 

Mano Subudhi 

Brookhaven National Laboratory 

Over the past decade, the nuclear power industry and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) conducted several cable-fire testing programs to identify the phenomena associated with 

electrical circuit failures, so that a better understanding of the phenomena could be used to 

improve fire safety and fire Probabilistic Risk Assessments (fire PRAs). The testing also 

provided insights into the risks of spurious actuations of safety devices in electrical circuits used 

in nuclear power plants (NPPs).

Under the auspices of NRC’s Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (NRC-RES), Brookhaven 

National Laboratory (BNL) performed two separate expert elicitation exercises on the Electrical 

Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table (PIRT) project (JCN N6866), and the PRA Expert 

Elicitation project (JCN N6980) under the JACQUE-FIRE program. In the PIRT study, the 

expert panel consisted of electrical and fire protection engineers with a balanced composition of 

panel members from the NRC and the nuclear power industry. The primary goal of this 

elicitation was to identify the electrical circuits (limited to control circuits) that are vulnerable to 

hot short-induced spurious operation of certain end devices (e.g., solenoid-operated valves 

(SOVs), motor-operated valves (MOVs), or circuit breakers). This phenomenon is conditional 

upon fire damage to associated electrical cables in NPPs. In the PRA expert elicitation project, 

the expert panel consisted of electrical and fire PRA engineers, with some basic knowledge of 

statistical- and reliability-analyses. Here also, the PRA panel comprised a balanced composition 

of regulators and industry members. The goal of this elicitation was to estimate the conditional 

probabilities of the hot short-induced spurious operations and their durations for the control 

circuits identified by the earlier Electrical PIRT program. The final outcome of these two 

exercises will aid in advancing the state-of-the-art of fire PRAs. Both qualitative- and 

quantitative-results can be used in fire PRAs in applying the National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA) 805. In addition, these results could be incorporated into analyses of deterministic postfire safe-shutdown circuits.

Both the Electrical PIRT expert panel and PRA expert panel utilized the same sets of test data 

obtained from cable-fire tests performed by the NRC, the EPRI, and Duke Energy. Expert 

judgment based on actual plant experience was used for cases where there are no test data. 

The PIRT process systematically gathers information from experts (through open discussions) 

about those concerns that are not well understood and often require the convergence of a 

combination of several influencing factors that likely cause the occurrence of the phenomenon 

of interest . A test or an analysis may not address this happening absolutely with the desired 

level of certainty. Therefore, the expert elicitation by the Electrical PIRT panel was required to 

be comparatively unrestricted by rules so to harness the knowledge on the phenomenon from 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

B-15

engineers with electrical-, testing-, and fire-safety background and to identify those electrical 

circuits that are vulnerable to hot short-induced spurious operations after the electrical cables 

were damaged by fire. 

Once the PIRT panel identified the circuit configurations that are vulnerable to such failure 

modes, the PRA panel focused their elicitation process on assessing the conditional failure 

probabilities of these electrical devices. The objectives of the PRA panel are well defined by the 

test data and by the circuit configurations identified by the PIRT panel; therefore, a more 

restricted expert elicitation process governed by certain rules was considered appropriate in 

characterizing the analytical methods and processes that would estimate these conditional 

probabilities accurately from the findings from cable-fire tests. Unlike the PIRT panel that 

looked for circuit configurations influenced by the individual- and synergistic-effect of many 

physical parameters, the PRA panel’s primary focus was in appropriate analytical procedures 

and sorting of the fire test data that could be used, along with its expert judgment, in developing 

the probability estimates. 

The details of all meetings associated with the Electrical PIRT program are given below.

PIRT MEETINGS

• FIRST PIRT MEETING (November 16-18, 2010)

• Developed PIRT Process – Figures of Merit, Cable-Fire-Related Definitions, 

Excel® Scoring Sheets

• Indentified Influencing Parameters for all Circuit Types

• SECOND PIRT MEETING (January 20-22, 2011)

• Evaluated Panel Scores for all Circuit Types

• Determined that because of lack of sufficient Test Data only Control Circuits were 

considered for the PIRT process. Power circuits – considered for certain open or 

unresolved cable-fire-related issues. Instrument Circuits – Panel suggested for 

future testing

• THIRD PIRT MEETING (February 16-18, 2011)

• Determined that for Control Circuits, Test Data Analysis was needed

• Formulated the analysis procedures for addressing all Influencing Parameters

• Developed preliminary Ranking Tables

• FOURTH PIRT MEETING (May 11-13, 2011)

• Discussed Both ac/dc Test Data Analysis (Preliminary)

• Discussed Power Circuit and Instrument Circuit Issues

• Re-scored (as a consensus) Influence Parameters based on AC/DC Preliminary 

Data Evaluation

• Discussed PIRT Ranking Tables and Corresponding ac/dc Circuit Types to be 

addressed by the Panel

• FIFTH PIRT MEETING (September 27-29, 2011)

• Evaluated Both AC/DC Test Data Analysis - Control Circuit Influencing 

Parameters

• Discussed Power Circuit and Instrument Circuit Issues – Developed Scope and 

Resolutions

• Re-evaluated Consensus Scores for Control Circuits and PIRT Ranking Tables
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

B-16 

• SIXTH PIRT MEETING (November 29 – December 1, 2011)

• Finalized PIRT Process Results for Control, Power and Instrument Circuits when 

subject to Hot Short-Induced Spurious Operations

• Discussed the Framework for the PIRT Report

• Discussed the 15 Control Circuit Configurations that are vulnerable to Hot ShortInduced Spurious Operation of SOVs, Breakers, and MOVs

• Obtained Suggestions for Preparing the Volume 1 of NUREG/CR-7150

NUREG/CR-7150, Volume 1 documents the Electrical PIRT program’s activities and the results 

of the expert elicitation exercise. The PIRT panel used the results from all fire tests to identify 

and rank the parameters that can influence the hot short-induced failure modes of electrical 

control circuits. Using these influencing parameters, the results of cable-fire tests, expert 

judgment, and operating experience, the PIRT panel identified several circuit configurations that 

could be vulnerable to hot short-induced circuit failure modes resulting in spurious operation of 

certain end-devices. In addition to completing the PIRT exercise on control circuits, the PIRT 

panel reached technical consensus on several legacy issues associated with fire-protection 

circuits, such as power-cabling consequential hot shorts, open circuits on the secondary of 

current transformers, and multiple high-impedance faults. The panel noted a dearth of test data 

on instrument circuits and recommended future testing.

Utilizing the PIRT program’s results for various control circuit configurations, the PRA panel 

used the expert elicitation process recommended by the NRC’s Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis 

Committee (SSHAC) to estimate the conditional failure probabilities of certain end devices. 

Based on the attributes associated with each of the four levels of the SSHAC process, the 

project’s sponsors decided to adapt the SSHAC Level 2 approach for this program. They also 

added several attributes of the SSHAC Level 3 and 4, such as expert interactions during inperson workshops rather than individually, included the participatory peer review panel (PPRP) 

in every workshop, and a technical integrator (TI) team. The details of all meetings and 

workshops associated with the PRA expert elicitation program are listed below.

PRA EXPERT ELICITATION WORKSHOPS

• INITIAL PRA EXPERT PANEL MEETING (January 31-February 2, 2012)

• Introduced Control Circuit Results from the PIRT Exercise and Analysis of Test 

Data from NRC, EPRI, and DUKE 

• Discussed Elicitation Process and Methodology to be adapted in Estimating the 

Likelihood and Duration parameters

• Reviewed the Project Plan describing the Scope and Roles of Individual Panel 

Members in accordance with the SSHAC Level 2 Process

• SSHAC LEVEL 2 WORKSHOP # 1 – Significant Issues and Available Data (June 5-7, 

2012)

• Defined and Assigned Roles for Expert Panel Members

• Formed a Participatory Peer Review Panel per SSHAC Process

• Discussed the Scope for Five Specific Circuit Cases and Decided Sorting of Test 

Data for each Case

• Trained the Panel Members to follow the SSHAC Process
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

B-17

• SSHAC LEVEL 2 WORKSHOP #2 (MEETING #1) – Alternate Interpretations (October 

9-12, 2012)

• Discussed Approaches for Generating Conditional Probabilities of Spurious 

Operations

• Debated Preliminary Results performed by One Proponent

• Re-sorted the Test Data to obtain the Conditional Probabilities for Various Circuit 

Configurations

• SSHAC LEVEL 2 WORKSHOP #2 (MEETING #2) – Alternate Interpretations (November 

27-29, 2012)

• Discussed Different Approaches Recommended by Proponents

• Incorporated PPRP Suggestions

• Considered Approaches for Aggregating Proponent Inputs

• Debated Methods for Estimating Likelihood and Duration Parameters

• SSHAC LEVEL 2 TECHNICAL INTEGRATOR (TI) TEAM MEETING #1 (January 30-31, 

2013)

• Formulated Aggregating Methods of the Information provided by Proponents

• Devised Methods and Analysis Procedures for Developing the Community 

Distributions for Each Case

• SSHAC LEVEL 2 TECHNICAL INTEGRATOR (TI) TEAM MEETING #2 (April 9-10, 

2013)

• Finalized Conditional Probability and Duration Distributions

• Incorporated Suggestions for Fine Tuning the Final Results for Each Control 

Circuit Cases

• SSHAC LEVEL 2 WORKSHOP # 3 – Feedback (May 7-9, 2013)

• Presented the Final Results to the Full PRA Expert Panel

• Presented the Final Results to the PIRT Panel Members

• Finalized Procedures to Recalculate Probabilities Based on Recommendations 

from Both Panels

• Obtained Suggestions for Preparing the Volume 2 of the NUREG/CR-7150

NUREG/CR-7150, Volume 2 (i.e., this report) documents the findings of the PRA expert 

elicitation and includes the best estimate conditional probabilities of hot short-induced spurious 

operations of control circuits, given fire damage to electrical cables.

The Table B-1 below presents several insights gleaned from the two expert elicitation 

processes. 

 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

B-18 

Table B-1. Insights from Electrical PIRT and PRA Expert Elicitation Processes 

 ELECTRICAL PIRT (NON-STRUCTURED) PRA EXPERT ELICITATION (STRUCTURED)

A. Expert Panel 

1. Individual panel member(s) may freely 

discuss anything and therefore, some may 

dominate the elicitation process 

Each panel member participates in the 

elicitation process in a well-defined 

independent role(s)

2. Role(s) of each panel member is not predefined and most members serve multiple 

roles (such as proponent, peer reviewer, 

integrator) 

Role(s) of each panel member is pre-defined. 

Overlap may be assigned of certain roles by 

an individual panel member (if deemed 

necessary)

3. More likely that one individual’s agenda is 

discussed extensively 

Less likely that one individual’s agenda is 

discussed, unless the entire panel decides to 

include it in the scope

4. Moderator may control the panel or may 

let the panel control itself 

Moderator controls the panel and the agenda 

of the meeting at all times 

5. Less expensive and number of 

participants may be smaller 

Costs more and number of participants is 

typically larger

B. Elicitation Process 

6. Elicitation of the same topic can be 

repeated as panel members revisit the 

topic (i.e., elicitation process is nonstructured) 

Avoids or minimizes duplicate elicitation of the 

same topic (i.e., elicitation process is 

structured and restricted)

7. The elicitation process allows free 

discussions and, therefore, panel 

members openly discuss their views 

The elicitation process is governed by rules 

and therefore, panel members are restricted in 

openly discussing their views

8. Each workshop is characterized only in 

general, and the panel often restructures 

the agenda 

Each workshop is clearly defined and the 

moderator controls the agenda

9. Requires no outside peer review during 

the elicitation process 

Participatory Peer Review Panel (PPRP) 

provides guidance throughout the elicitation

10. Analysis requirements of input information 

from various sources (e.g., experience 

data, test data) change more often 

Manipulation of input information is dictated by 

the proponents’ direct need 

11. The entire elicitation process dynamically 

changes with the panel discussions and 

needs 

The elicitation process is structured and 

openly discussed. The agenda of each 

workshop is defined and followed by the panel
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

B-19

Table B-1. Insights from Electrical PIRT and PRA Expert Elicitation Processes 

 ELECTRICAL PIRT (NON-STRUCTURED) PRA EXPERT ELICITATION (STRUCTURED)

12. Feedback is part of the general 

discussions by the panel in each workshop 

or meeting 

Feedback is done at the last workshop or 

meeting after proponents and integrators 

complete their roles

C. Results 

13. The elicitation process ends with a 

consensus approach. May introduce 

biases due to pressure from a member(s) 

Individual proponents provide inputs that are 

considered by the technical integrator(s). 

Biases are minimized

14. Often, results from the elicitation process 

are qualitative and may reflect an 

individual member’s idea or suggestion 

Results are based on proponents’ proposed 

methods and values. The technical integrators 

decide the final outcome and technically justify 

their approach and values

15. Final results are the opinions of the panel, 

which may not include members with 

diverse attributes (e.g., academicians) 

outside the primary stake holders 

Final results are designed to be a composite 

representation of the knowledge of the group 

and of the technical community at large 

D. Miscellaneous 

16. Controlling the panel to stay on course 

and on schedule can become difficult 

Controlling the panel to stay on course and on 

schedule become less problematic

17. Documentation becomes more difficult in 

presenting the information in a structured 

manner, when discussions are so wideranging 

Documentation is structured to the elicitation 

process

Lessons Learned 

 A diverse panel is beneficial to both elicitation processes. For example, an 

academician may have added different views for the phenomena or the method of 

estimating probability 

 Moderator or facilitator needs to have a general understanding of the subject area

 Goals and Figure-of Merits or methods of analysis should be characterized clearly

 Information must be sorted or analyzed to support the panel’s needs (e.g., the 

same fire-test data was sorted by influencing parameters for the PIRT panel, and by 

the failure mode for the PRA panel)
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

B-20 

 Stakeholders’ need must be clearly stated (e.g., NRC’s needs: identification of hot 

short-induced spurious operation phenomena in control circuits of interest and 

estimation of conditional probabilities for these phenomena)

 Participating members must commit to, and perform their assignments for the entire 

period (Typically, each member spends very little preparation time before attending 

the meetings or workshops – this was a problem for both panels)

 Views of experts in a focused subject area may be invited to better understand the 

physical process or mathematical approach (e.g., a statistician may suggest 

appropriate method of aggregating proponent numbers)

 Experts must be willing to write their ideas, conduct research, collect and review 

data collection (i.e., each member should spend additional time in writing down his 

ideas, undertake research if necessary, and read recent published materials on the 

subject).

 Standby experts participated the elicitation process are available and may act as 

substitutes if an active panel member decides to drop out. 
C-1 

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY OF PROPONENT REPORTS AND PANEL 

DISCUSSIONS 

The purpose of this appendix is to offer readers an overview of how the proponents performed 

their assessment for each failure mode-circuit configuration in light of the data on cable-fire tests 

available to them. Sections C.1 and C.2 herein provide additional details on the estimations 

discussed in Section 3 of this report. In particular, they elaborate on the estimations of the 

conditional probabilities of spurious operation for specific cases associated with single break 

and double break control circuits. The information herein is a consolidation of that obtained from 

the fire testing and from the experts as delineated in proponents’ reports, and as discussed 

during both the PRA and PIRT panels’ deliberations. Therefore, this information should be 

considered as a summary rather than the consensus opinion of either panel. 

Section C.3 contains a technical discussion on developing the “CS-Model” of the Weibull 

distribution for estimating the probability of spurious operation duration. Martin Stutzke and 

Gabriel Taylor of NRC developed this model; Section 6 gives the results of duration probabilities 

for AC and DC control circuits. 

The individual reports from all four proponents are included in a compact disk accompanying 

this Volume 2. Since each proponent provided his input in different format, Section C.4 offers a 

road map to better understand these e-files. 

Attachment 1 to this Appendix includes sample templates of proponent inputs that the PRA 

panel presented to each of them to address each cell of Tables 3-1 and 3-2 associated with 

single break and double break spurious operation probability, and the estimation of duration 

likelihood. 

C.1 Single Break Control Circuits (Base Case – SOV) 

This section addresses only the SOV Base Case. The MOV case employs the estimated 

probabilities for the SOV sub-cases using a ‘MOV Multiplier’ approach, as discussed in Section 

4.2. All rows and columns referred in Section C.1 are associated with Table 3-1 of the main 

report, and “SB 0X_0Y” below represents Row X Column Y of the Single Break sub-case cell in 

this table. 

C.1.1 Grounded AC Power Source (Columns 1-3) 

For the grounded AC power source, most proponent’s assessments for thermoset (TS)-

insulated, thermoplastic (TP)-insulated, and armored target cables are largely based on direct 

analysis of test data, adjusted by the individual expert’s judgment. The case with the least test 

data is the “metal foil shield wrap cable” that was analyzed by extrapolating available test data, 

expert judgment, and an assumption that the cables are to have a robust metallic shield wrap. 

An aluminized Mylar type shield wrap, and the like, do not constitute a robust metallic shield. 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-2 

These cases should use the base case spurious operation probability values for TS- or TPinsulated conductor cable in Row 1 or 2, respectively. 

The Column 3 probability values are derived from Column 1 and 2 numbers using a Boolean 

“OR” method described in Section 2.3.6, assuming that either one of these two hot short modes 

could occur in a fire. 

Thermoset-Insulated Conductor Target Cable (Row 1) 

In general, Table 3-1 applies only to any source cable; therefore they are not noted therein. 

However, Row 1, the “Thermoset-insulated Conductor Cable” case applies only to a cable 

configuration of TS source cable. For the inter-cable failure mode, the PIRT panel concluded 

that the case with TP source cable and TS target cable (i.e., TPTS) is an incredible scenario 

(Table 3-3 in Volume 1)1

, and therefore, is excluded from this evaluation. In actual plant 

configurations, the PRA panel believed that there would be a few cases where a TS-insulated 

(target) cable is surrounded solely by TP-insulated cables with no other TS-insulated cable 

within the same raceways. Thus, the PIRT and PRA panel agree that a TP-insulated source 

cable causing a spurious actuation in a TS-insulated target cable via an inter-cable failure mode 

is incredible. The PRA panel also thought that this case is an uncommon configuration. 

Note that this case of a specific, grounded AC, single break circuit with a single target has not 

been tested explicitly, but is analyzed by extrapolation from the test data on a grounded ACsimulated MOV circuit (with two targets) done under the EPRI/NEI, Duke Energy, and NRC/SNL 

(CAROLFIRE and DESIREE-Fire) programs. 

SB 01_01: TS Intra-cable Hot Shorting (Column 1) 

The PIRT panel initially assumed that the spurious operation probability numbers are weakly 

dependent on the types of conductor insulation (TS versus TP). However, a direct evaluation of 

the test data does not convey this. The differences are not large, but are enough to warrant 

separating the two cases at the beginning of the analysis, and allowing for the possibility of 

convergence after the likelihood estimates. As a practical matter, the two aggregates of 

probabilities for TS- and TP-insulated target cables are very similar. Having one aggregate 

number applicable to both would allow analysts to complete the analysis without needing to 

determine the cable type, which clearly is a desirable simplification. 

For this expert elicitation, each proponent treated these cases separately; their findings later 

were combined by the technical integrators (TIs) into one number for intra-cable hot shorts 

regardless of insulation type, since the final probability numbers were very comparable. During 

deliberations, the PIRT and PRA panels concluded that the type of insulation material has no 

effect on the conditional probabilities of intra-cable hot short-induced spurious operation given 

cable damage2

 due to a fire. The insulation material already is consumed by the fire; the copper 

conductors are exposed for interaction with adjacent conductors within the same cable, or the 

 

1

 Fire tends to char thermoset (TS) insulation material (at a relatively higher temperature) rather than 

melting it like thermoplastic (TP) material. TP insulation material tends to melt away from the conductors 

early at a lower temperature under a fire than does TS material, thereby allowing more direct access to 

the conductors from external cables or ground. 

2

 Cable damage here assumes that fire has consumed the insulation materials leaving the copper 

conductors bare in TP-insulated conductor cables, and charred in place for TS-insulated ones. 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-3

ground in the case of TP-insulated cable; any mechanical force (e.g., water spray, movement of 

the cable during fire) would expose the copper conductors for a similar interaction in TSinsulated cables. However, for inter-cable hot shorts in Column 2 and aggregates in Column 3 

both panels believed that type of insulation influences the likelihood of hot shorts (HSs) because 

of their timing of cable damage (and threshold-damage temperatures) that could influence the 

interaction with conductors from adjacent cables or the ground; therefore, they are kept 

separate. 

SB 01_02: TS Inter-Cable Hot Shorting (Column 2) 

Despite many opportunities for interaction between multi-conductor cables in tests, there was no 

occurrence wherein a direct ‘TSTS’ inter-cable spurious operation occurred. There was one 

relevant case in CAROLFIRE, where the insulation-resistance monitoring system (IRMS) 

recorded a TSTS inter-cable short formed as a primary failure mode. The mitigating 

consideration here is that the IRMS is non-specific to source/target configuration; that is, it says 

only that conductors in two separate multi-conductor TS cables shorted together before any 

other failures were observed. Had those two conductors in that test case been associated with 

a source and target conductor, it would have been highly likely that a spurious operation would 

have occurred. While not an actual spurious operation event, the IRMS does suggest that such 

interactions between two cables could occur. 

The spurious operation event would depend on the random chance that one conductor was a 

compatible source and the other the target of concern. The lack of any other cases outside of 

the one IRMS event argues for a probability estimate less than that for the intra-cable case. 

Thermoplastic-Insulated Conductor Target Cable (Row 2) 

The “TP-insulated Conductor Cable” target cable case includes configurations of both TS and 

TP source cables (TSTP and TPTP). The analysis of test data and expert judgment here 

parallels that for the TS target cable case and many of the comments given above also apply to 

the TP target cable. 

SB 02_01: TP Intra-Cable Hot Shorting (Column 1) 

The test numbers for spurious operation occurrences are slightly lower (~10%) than those seen 

for the TS target cable case. Testing showed that TP cables tended to have more wide-spread 

conductor involvement in hot shorting groups; that is, once shorting begins, many conductors 

tended to become involved compared to TS cables where the shorting was somewhat more 

restricted. 

SB 02_02: TP Inter-Cable Hot Shorting (Column 2) 

Inter-cable interactions from both TS and TP source conductors to TP target conductors 

(TSTP and TPTP) were observed in CAROLFIRE and EPRI testing. The former noted a few 

instances where inter-cable hot shorts were caused by a TS-source partially energizing a TPtarget cable. The latter observed inter-cable TPTP interactions but the test configuration is 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-4 

not typical (i.e., single conductors surrounding a multi-conductor cable)3. 

Metal Foil Shield Wrap Target Cable (Row 3) 

This analysis assumes a grounded robust metallic shield wrap (not simply aluminized Mylar). 

In addition to the shield wrap, a drain wire may or may not be present and the results still apply. 

If the shield wrap is not grounded or is similar to a Mylar construction, the base cases for 

“Thermoset- or Thermoplastic-insulated Conductor Cable” are applicable. 

For this case, there are only three tests, all based on a Japanese-manufactured cable; no 

spurious operation events were observed in any. This supports the idea that a robust grounded 

shield wrap will reduce the probability of spurious operation. However, the evidence is 

considered rather weak, due to the small sample of cables tested. 

SB 03_01: Shield Wrap Intra-cable Hot Shorting (Column 1) 

The presence of a robust shield wrap much enhances the ground plane that is a mitigating 

effect for grounded circuits. The likelihood of interactions between the source conductors and 

ground rises, likely by a significant amount compared to the base case (TS without drain wire or 

shield wrap). No tests have been undertaken to show whether the shield wrap has an effect as 

strong as armor. 

SB 03_02 - Incredible: Shield Wrap Inter-cable Hot Shorting (Column 2) 

Both panels deemed inter-cable hot shorting through a robust grounded shield wrap 

independent of ground as “incredible”. 

Armored Target Cable (Row 4) 

The primary test data for armored cable was from Duke Energy’s testing. It had the two unique 

attributes. 

 First, the motor starter relays were mechanically and electrically interlocked. Hence, 

both motor starters could not pick up at the same time. However, the voltage data for 

these devices was acquired upstream of the interlock, as shown in the electrical 

diagrams in the Duke Energy report. Hence, had both targets seen hot shorts, this 

would be reflected in the data, at least “nominally.” 

 Second, the Duke Energy tests used a relatively slow data-scan rate (in every 15 

seconds) so that the data often missed the voltage and current pickup associated with 

hot shorts and spurious operations. The test report includes alternative observations 

(i.e., visual observations) of the spurious operation events based on the actual lock-in on 

the motor starters, so it is unlikely that any actual spurious operation events were 

missed. Indeed, it also appears that the spurious operation duration times were 

 

3

 However, none of the follow-up testing programs was designed to look for TPTP inter-cable 

interactions. The test results might lead to the conclusion that the TPTP inter-cable hot shorts could 

occur with greater likelihood than TSTS. 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-5

determined independently (from visual observation) since most reported durations were 

less than a full data-scan cycle. 

The main shortcoming of using a slow rate of data acquisition is that it is not possible to 

determine reliably if or when both motor starter relay conductors may have exhibited hot shorts. 

Any hits to the first coil activated were identified. Therefore, a slow scan rate is not a problem 

for counting the first spurious operation’s lock-in since we do not have to rely on only the 

electrical data; we have an alternate basis (i.e., visual) for identifying spurious operation of first 

target hit. It appears that, similar to other tests undertaken by the EPRI and the NRC, where, in 

many cases, there were hot shorts to both conductors as evidenced by increased voltage and 

current reading on both the relay targets. However, the slow scan rate makes it impossible to 

determine the peak values. Hence, an analysis of the data similar to that of other tests, where 

the active targets are counted individually, is not applicable to Duke Energy’s test data. 

The test circuit design and slow data rate together mean that one cannot split the two targets 

and derive individual target counts for the SOV cases in the way that was done for the EPRI/NEI 

and NRC/SNL test data. One can see the first motor starter locking-in via data and visual 

observations, but once one relay locks-in, the second is locked-out. Therefore, “nominally” is 

added to the first bullet above because one should have seen a voltage spike to the conductor 

leading to the second starter coil because the voltage monitoring appears to be up-stream of the 

electrical interlock. Theoretically, if there was a hot short to that conductor, it should show in the 

data. However, the slow scan rate means those data are not reliable indicators because they 

easily could have missed a hit to the second coil if the hot short persisted less than 15s (one 

scan interval), and most of them were less than 15s. For the second coil, there is no visual 

observation to act as backup because the second relay is locked-out and never moves. Thus, 

one cannot use the “count two independent SOVs” approach. 

In view of the comparatively short duration of the spurious operation signals reported by Duke 

Energy tests for the armored cables compared to the non-armored ones, it does not appear 

appropriate simply to apply a reduction factor based on the non-armored tests. Clearly, duration 

and timing play a key role in the behavior leading to both targets seeing spurious operation 

signals; the armored and non-armored tests do not agree well in this regard. 

Accordingly, the test data were considered to be a single target circuits. This decision may 

represent a very modest conservatism, but seemingly is the only reasonable way to look at the 

data. 

SB 04_01: Armored Intra-Cable Hot Shorting (Column 1) 

The test data for grounded AC and armored cable are sparse, but some information is available 

from the EPRI/NEI tests and those tests from Duke Energy based on their proprietary test 

report. 

The EPRI/NEI tests showed 1 out of 7 spurious operations, but that case is suspect because it 

violated the requirement for the cable bend radius. Duke Energy’s testing included a fairly large 

number of additional test cases (i.e., 6 tests each with 8 possible SOs) where no spurious 

operations were observed for grounded AC circuits. Overall, the testing shows that the 

presence of the grounded armor has a strong mitigating effect on spurious operation likelihoods 

for grounded AC circuits. Note that actual proprietary test data details from Duke Energy’s 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-6 

testing are not stated here, although they are included in the estimation of probabilities for this 

sub-case in Section 4. 

SB 04_02 - Incredible: Armored Inter-Cable Hot Shorting (Column 2) 

Both panels considered that inter-cable hot shorting through grounded armor to a target cable 

associated with a grounded circuit is “incredible.” 

C.1.2 Ungrounded AC with Individual CPTs Power Source 

 (Columns 4-6) 

There are no test data to directly support most cases under this power-supply configuration. 

There are limited data from the CAROLFIRE program for an ungrounded CPT-driven MOV 

circuit with TS- and TP-insulated cables, but, at most, for a single circuit per test (there is no 

possibility of circuit-to-circuit interactions). Hence, most cases were developed largely from 

extrapolations from other, via expert judgment. For armored cables, all proponents except one 

considered the Duke Energy test data; he reported his evaluation before receiving the 

proprietary Duke Energy Test Report late in the expert elicitation process. 

Column 6 probability values are derived from Columns 4 and 5 numbers using Boolean “OR” 

method described in Section 2.3.6, assuming either one of these two hot short modes may 

happen during a fire. 

Thermoset-Insulated Target Conductor Cable (Row 1) 

SB 01_04: TS Intra-Cable Target Hot Shorting (Column 4) 

CAROLFIRE testing included this cable-circuit configuration indicating higher spurious 

operations due to intra-cable shorting. The ungrounded AC w/CPTs case resulted in slightly 

higher SOs than the corresponding grounded AC based mainly on the fact that for ungrounded 

circuits; grounded conductors and external grounds do not act as mitigating factors until multiple 

shorts occur. That is, a single short to ground does not clear circuit protection here (whereas it 

does for grounded AC) leaving more opportunity for hot shorts and spurious operation given 

intra-cable shorting. The only single short that will cause a fuse-clear failure is when an 

energized conductor shorts with a common return conductor from the same power supply. 

SB 01_05: TS Inter-Cable Target Hot Shorting (Column 5) 

The ungrounded AC power source cases assume power is supplied to each circuit from an 

individual ungrounded CPT with each circuit contained in its own multi-conductor cable. Hence, 

inter-cable spurious operations would occur only when the CPT for one circuit (one source 

cable) energizes a second circuit (target cable). However, separate ungrounded CPTs are not 

considered as compatible power sources. Hence, a single hot short between separate CPT 

circuit cables cannot cause a spurious operation. For one circuit to power another, both sides of 

a common CPT must act as sources against the specific target conductors in the target circuit. 

This requirement sharply reduces the likelihood of direct inter-cable hot shorts leading to 

spurious operation compared to the grounded AC case where only a single inter-cable hot short 

is needed. 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-7

It is assumed that one of the two hot shorts may result from a ground fault equivalent hot short 

(GFEHS) event. That is, if one side of the source circuit power supply and one side of the target 

circuit end device become grounded, then a single additional inter-cable hot short could cause 

spurious operation provided that the source circuit fuses are intact. Overall, the inter-cable 

shorting configurations leading to spurious operation are specific and must occur concurrently. 

There are no test data for this sub-case. The PIRT panel did not explicitly consider this powersource configuration in its deliberations; rather, it was added later as the final tables were reorganized for this expert panel’s use. The GFEHS configuration is the only shorting 

configuration that has any chance for causing failure from spurious operation. Concurrent direct 

conductor-to-conductor shorts between specific conductors pair on two separate multiconductor cables under a compatible power source was judged implausible. 

Table 3-1 does not include the GFEHS mode for this power supply case, since there are no test 

data, unlike the ungrounded DC (or ungrounded distributed AC) power supply cases. 

Therefore, the TI team considered in their probability estimates the GFEHS mode as part of the 

inter-cable hot short mode, even though proponents proposed their estimates separately, as 

discussed in Section 3.1.2. 

Thermoplastic-Insulated Target Conductor Cable (Row 2) 

SB 02_04: TP Intra-Cable Hot Shorting (Column 4) 

This is another case with minimal test data set in the CAROLFIRE. The raw number of spurious 

operation events there is 60-80% given the small number of trials (i.e., ~5 trials). As discussed 

for the “Thermoset-insulated Conductor Cable” target cable the lack of a grounded power 

source appears to increase likelihood of spurious operation, although the wiring configuration is 

important too. 

Overall, the TP target intra-cable numbers are consistent with those seen for TS target cables 

under SB 01_04. 

SB 02_05: TP Inter-Cable Hot Shorting (Column 5) 

This case parallels that described for the “TS-insulated Conductor Cable” for SB 01_05. 

Metal Foil Shield Wrap Target Cable (Row 3) 

SB 03_04: Intra-Cable hot Shorting (Column 4) 

No test data is available for this case. The assessment is compared the Thermoset- or 

Thermoplastic-Insulated Conductor Cable” case and that of the “Armored Cable.” The armor’s 

effect was to marginally lower spurious operation probability. The armor likely has a much 

stronger ground-plane effect than does a metal-shield wrap. 

SB 03_05 - Incredible: Inter-Cable Hot Shorting (Column 5) 

Both panels considered this case “incredible.” 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-8 

Armored Target Cable (Row 4) 

Discussions under grounded AC power supply cases (Row 4, Columns 1 and 2) in Section 

C.1.1 apply here. 

SB 04_04: Intra-Cable Hot Shorting (Column 4) 

The data for ungrounded AC with armored cable is based exclusively on the results from the 

Duke Energy tests since there are none from tests undertaken NRC or EPRI. The Duke Energy 

tests included a fair number of tests and had eight circuits per test. Overall, they indicated 

spurious operation in approximately 58% of their tests. Similar to NRC programs Duke Energy 

used the source-centered wiring configuration known to produce more conservative results (i.e., 

more spurious operations). 

SB 04_05 - Incredible: Inter-Cable Hot Shorting (Column 5) 

Both panels considered this case “incredible.” 

C.1.3 Ungrounded DC (or Ungrounded Distributed AC) Power Source 

 (Columns 7-10) 

Both the PIRT and PRA panels concluded that ungrounded DC powered circuit failure modes 

also are applicable to circuits powered from an ungrounded distributed AC power supply, since 

the hot short modes of failure for these two configurations are presumed to behave similarly 

under fire. 

There are considerable data for the ungrounded DC power source from DESIREE-Fire, 

KATEFIRE, and the Duke Energy tests. Hence, most of these cases are based on data rather 

than extrapolation. The major exception is the case of the metal-foil-shield wrap target cable 

(Row 3) for which there is no tests data or a limited amount (from Japanese cables tested by 

NRC/SNL). Therefore, extrapolation between the Thermoset-insulated or Thermoplasticinsulated base cases and the armored target cable was used for Row 3, in addition to expert 

judgment. 

One of the more significant challenges related to DC circuits is the GFEHS failure mode 

observed in the DESIREE-Fire testing. As described in the findings of data analysis in the rollup table, a substantive number of these events were seen during the DESIREE-Fire test 

program. The data analysis, presented in the data spreadsheets by the NRC staff, cites the 

number of GFEHS-induced spurious operation events that occurred for various cable groups 

and, as a companion datum, the number of “tests” associated with these events. However, the 

companion datum actually is the number of individual circuit trials for each group (i.e., each 

individual test had more than one circuit present, so there are far more circuit trials than 

separate tests). In total, there were 30 GFEHS spurious operation events (16 from Intermediate 

Scale and 14 from the small-scale Penlight tests) in 169 individual circuit trials where the 

opportunity existed. This is a larger number of events indicating roughly a 1-in-6 overall rate of 

GFEHS spurious operations. 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-9

One question concerns the applicability of the small-scale Penlight test data. In some cases, a 

higher percentage of events are associated with Penlight tests, while in others, more are 

associated with the Intermediate Scale tests. Overall (blending all cases), the fractions are 

similar (Table C-1). 

The final spurious operation ratio values are similar, well within the general uncertainty bounds. 

From this testing, it essentially is inevitable that, as a result of the battery bank, will be grounded 

due to cable failures. Hence, the question is whether or not an appropriate target conductor 

experiences a short to ground concurrent with the appropriate side of the battery bank (e.g., the 

positive side) being grounded. 

Table C-1. Comparison of Intermediate Scale and Penlight Test Data 

For GFEHS Spurious Operation Failure Mode 

Test Scale Total Circuit 

Trials 

GFEHS Spurious 

Operation Events 

Nominal Ratio 

(Spurious Operation 

Events/Circuit Trial) 

Intermediate Scale 97 16 0.16 

Small Scale Penlight 72 14 0.19 

Both combined 169 30 0.18 

Another aspect of analyzing a GFEHS-induced spurious operation event is that in other cases 

(e.g., intra-cable shorting modes) adjustment factors typically are applied to account for 

experimental biases related to wiring configuration, and the fact that spare conductors were not 

generally grounded, as discussed in Section 3.1.3. For GFEHS-induced spurious operations 

neither factor applies. In an ungrounded circuit, spare conductors would not be grounded. It is 

unclear how the wiring configuration would impact the likelihood of GFEHS-induced spurious 

operation events. There likely is some effect, but no basis for assessing it. 

Column 10 aggregate probability values are derived from Columns 7, 8 and 9 numbers using 

the Boolean “OR” method described in Section 2.3.6, assuming that any one of these three hot 

short modes may happen in a fire. 

Thermoset-Insulated Conductor Target Cable (Row 1) 

SB 01_07: TS Intra-Cable Hot Shorting (Column 7) 

There is sufficient data for different types of circuits (MOV1, MOV2, SOV1, SOV2, Large Coil 

and 1” valve SOV) to form a set for evaluation. Penlight data also is available for this intra-cable 

case. 

SB 01_08: TS Inter-Cable Hot Shorting (Column 8) 

Many tests were performed, and no inter-cable hot shorts were found in them. There are no 

new data or insights on this case beyond that considered in that of the grounded AC. It was 

recommended that due to the locations of cables within the test chamber that the data from the 

Penlight tests should not be combined with that from the Intermediate Scale test. 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-10 

SB 01_09: Ground Fault Equivalent Hot Shorting (Column 9) 

For the TS cables, there were 14 GFEHS-induced spurious operations in 87 circuit-test trials. 

Including the Penlight test data was recommended since there is not much difference in the two 

test conditions of the DESIREE-Fire program. 

Thermoplastic-Insulated Conductor Target Cable (Row 2) 

SB 02_07: TP Intra-Cable Hot Shorting (Column 7) 

The discussions under TS-insulated Conductor Cable SB 01_07 above apply. 

SB 02_08: TP Inter-Cable Hot Shorting (Column 8) 

This case has no data or insights to offer beyond that considered in the grounded AC case in 

Section C.1.1. 

SB 02_09: Ground Fault Equivalent Hot Shorting (Column 9) 

This is an interesting case and one that is an outlier in some respects. This is the one case 

where the disparity between Penlight and Intermediate Scale results is large. In Penlight there 

were six GFEHS spurious-operation events in 28 trials, yielding a ratio of 0.21 spurious 

operation events per trial. In the Intermediate Scale there were just three GFEHS spurious 

operations 35 trials for a ratio of 0.09 spurious operation events per trial. Why the two test 

scales differ is not understood. 

For consistency, it is appropriate to look at the aggregate of the two test scales yielding nine 

GFEHS spurious operation events in 63 total trials for a ratio of 0.14 events per trial. This value 

once again is surprisingly consistent with the nominal ratios of 0.16 events per trial illustrated in 

Table C-1. Consequently, the Penlight and Intermediate Scale test data are combined as the 

basis for this case. 

Metal Foil Shield Wrap Target Cable (Row 3) 

SB 03_07: Intra-Cable Hot Shorting (Column 7) 

This case has three spurious operation events in seven trials for a nominal likelihood of 0.43, 

again a very limited data set. As with other shield-wrap cases, the probability numbers to fall 

somewhere between the TS- and TP-base cases (Rows 1 and 2), and that of the armored cable 

(Row 4). The basis for this assessment matches the discussions for grounded and ungrounded 

AC with individual CPTs cases. 

SB 03_08 - Incredible: Inter-Cable Hot Shorting (Column 8) 

Both panels considered this case “incredible.” 

SB 03_09: Ground Fault Equivalent Hot Shorting (Column 9) 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-11

This is a case with only seven trials. There were two GFEHS spurious operation events in them 

for a nominal ratio of 0.29 spurious operation events per trial, is consistent with other effects for 

the shield-wrap case. That is, in other cases the behaviors of the shield-wrap cable fell inbetween the base TS- and TP-cables and the armored cable. This applies here to the TSinsulated or TP-insulated at point estimates of 0.16 and that for the armored cable of 0.50. 

Armored Target Cable (Row 4) 

SB 04_07: Intra-Cable Hot Shorting (Column 7) 

This case is difficult given the small set of experimental trials from the DESIREE-Fire tests. 

There are some fairly serious issues and spurious operation events with the Duke Energy 

testing that forms part of the basis for this case. In some of those tests their measurement 

shunts, and some test-relay target coils ignited. One of the two relevant tests was ended early 

due to safety concerns; only five of the eight circuits present failed in testing. 

This assessment is based, in part, on the MOV and SOV cases from DESIREE-Fire that 

encompasses six circuit trials with armored cables. Since three of them involved the dual-target 

MOV circuits, they were analyzed using the target approach as in other cases, yielding nine 

total circuit/target trials (identified in the roll-up table: MOV tests D-IT-9-MOV2, D-P-22-MOV1, 

D-P-22-MOV2, and SOV tests D-IT-9-SOV2, D-P-20-SOV1, D-P-20-SOV2). The overall results 

for these cases are consistent. Considering all the individual targets, there were a total of six 

spurious operation events in nine circuit/target trials giving a nominal 0.66 probability of spurious 

operation. 

The Duke Energy tests included two with ungrounded DC MOV circuits (Tests 13 and 14). In 

Test 13, there were eight spurious coil operations out of a possible 16, but, in some cases, the 

shunts in the circuit burned early in testing and this may have prevented additional spurious 

operations from being observed. More telling is Test 14 that was ended due to safety concerns 

when five of the eight circuits had failed. However, all 10 of the target coils in the five damaged 

circuits experienced spurious operation for a nominal 100% ratio. If the two tests are taken as 

cited, this represents 18 out of 26 spurious operations, or a point estimate of 0.7. However, this 

figure may be low due to the problematic burning of the shunts and, in some cases, the coils 

themselves, plus the early termination of the second test. 

SB 04_08 - Incredible: Inter-Cable Hot Shorting (Column 8) 

Both panels considered this case “incredible.” 

SB 04_09: Ground Fault Equivalent Hot Shorting (Column 9) 

This case had very few trials, but a relatively high number of GFEHS-induced spurious 

operation events, viz., 6 in just 12 circuit trials giving a nominal ratio of 0.5 events per trial. i.e., 

higher than any other case, but likely reflects the prevalent role of the grounded armor in the 

shorting behavior. That is, with grounded armor present, the cable conductors have ready 

access to that ground plane, so that when the battery becomes grounded, a GFEHS-induced 

spurious operation event seems likely. This conclusion is consistent with the fact that for 

grounded AC circuits, the grounded armor virtually eliminated spurious operations. 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-12 

C.2 Double Break Control Circuits 

All rows and columns referred to Section C.2 are associated with Table 3-2 in Section 3 of this 

report and “DB 0X_0Y” below represents Row X Column Y of Double Break sub-case cell in this 

table. 

C.2.1 Ungrounded AC (w/ Individual CPTs) 

As discussed in Section 3.1.2, one of the two hot shorts in an ungrounded AC circuit, with power 

from individual CPT is the result of a GFEHS. Examples of such circuits are illustrated in 

Appendix C of Volume 1. The GFEHS is the only shorting configuration that has any real 

chance for causing this configuration to fail from a spurious operation. Concurrent direct intercable hot shorts seem more unlikely. Therefore, there is no particular difference either between 

Column 2 and Column 4 or between Column 3 and Column 5 in Table 3-2, since to have an 

intra-cable or an inter-cable hot short-induced spurious operation in such an ungrounded circuit, 

one of the two needed hot shorts must be a GFEHS, as discussed in Section C.1.2, under SB 

01_05. 

Therefore, the Columns 4 and 5 for this power source configuration are eliminated from the 

Table 3-2 in the result in Section 5. Also, there is no corresponding single break test data 

available in Table 3-1 for the GFEHS mode of failure for this power-source configuration. 

All cells marked “incredible” in Table 3-2 are considered so by both panels; therefore, the PRA 

panel did not consider the probability values for their spurious operation. However, when 

Column 2 and Column 4 are merged for the Rows 3 and 4, those in the resulting Column 2 

represent the Column 4 values instead of the originally marked “incredible” events. 

However, for this power supply, the new Column 4 ( Column 6 in Table 3-2) represents the 

aggregate and its probability values are derived from the numbers in Columns 1, 2, and 3 using 

the Boolean “OR” method described in Section 2.3.6, and assuming that any one of the 

combinations of these three hot short modes may happen in a fire. 

For this power-supply proponents differed in providing their inputs for all columns of Table 3-2. 

The TI team, in consultation with the proponents, concluded that the proponents’ inputs in 

Column 4 and Column 5 should be combined to Columns 2 and 3 using Boolean “OR” method, 

respectively. Because of this, revised cells in DB 03_02 and DB 04_02 will include the 

proponent inputs for DB 03_04 and DB 04_04, respectively. Thus, unlike the cases for 

ungrounded DC (or ungrounded distributed AC) power supply sub-cases (where single break 

hot short failure mode values were used), both Columns 2 and 4 for AC with CPTs power supply 

will use the proponent inputs for their double break sub-cases. Note that no values for single 

break hot short failure mode for the GFEHS mode are calculated, as shown in Table 3-1. 

C.2.1.1 SOV Control Circuits (Base Case) 

Intra-Cable Plus Intra-Cable Double Contacts (Column 1) 

DB 01_01 to DB 04_01: Intra-Cable Plus Intra-Cable Hot Shorts (Rows 1-4) 

The results directly from the single break table assuming independence of the faults as 

discussed in Section 3.3, are used to determine the probability numbers. 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-13

Intra-Cable Plus Inter-Cable Double Contacts (Column 2) 

DB 01_02 and DB 04_02: Intra-Cable Plus Inter-Cable (including Ground Fault Equivalent) 

Hot Shorts (Rows 1-4) 

For the ungrounded AC with separate CPT power sources, there was no specific consideration 

of the likelihood of the GFEHS case. The only distinction between the cases in Column 2 and 

Column 4 is that the one of the two shorts required for their spurious operation occurs via two 

conductors in the cable shorting to ground for Column 4 versus the same two conductors 

shorting directly to each other for Column 2. In a practical application, no analyst will make 

such subtle distinctions when the circuit/cable wiring requirements and the net effect on the 

circuit both are identical. That is, all of the interactions are occurring based on the faulting of a 

single cable, and whether an external ground becomes involved is not relevant to a practical 

analysis. The fact is that the cable has the required conductors present and a single composite 

number is needed to reflect the likelihood that shorting among those conductors entails spurious 

operation, and the involvement of the ground plane is irrelevant. 

Overall, the results that were provided for Column 2 (intra-cable plus inter-cable) bound the 

contribution from the very specific faulting configuration assumed in Column 4. That is, Column 

2 is redefined as “intra plus inter“, and includes GFEHS cases involving only the conductors of 

the target cable and any available ground plane. 

Inter-Cable Plus Inter-Cable Double Contacts (Column 3) 

DB 02_03: Inter-Cable Plus Inter-Cable (including Ground Fault Equivalent) Hot Shorts 

(Row 2) 

The configuration required for an ungrounded AC circuit with individual CPTs to power a target 

circuit involves two concurrent hot shorts; one on each side of the power source, and that the 

most likely mode of such interaction would involve one inter-cable short and a GFEHS, i.e., 

identical to the requirement for the double break case. Hence, assessing the likelihood for 

double break cases in Column 3 and Column 5 is considered to be identical. 

C.2.1.2 MOV Control Circuits 

Intra-Cable Plus Intra-Cable Double Contacts (Column 1) 

DB 01_01 to DB 04_01: Intra-Cable plus Intra-Cable Hot Shorts (Rows 1-4) 

As proposed by the proponents during the last SSHAC Workshop #3, the results for the double 

break control circuit cases (Base Case - SOV) in Section C.2.1.1 are multiplied by a factor (0.7 

for median, 0.6 for lower bound, and 1.0 for upper bound) to take into account all conditions 

associated with the MOV’s functional requirements discussed in Section 3.2.1. 

Intra-Cable Plus Inter-Cable Double Contacts (Column 2) 

DB 01_02 and DB 04_02: Intra-Cable Plus Inter-Cable (and Ground Fault Equivalent) Hot 

Shorts (Rows 1-4) 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-14 

The results for the cases of double break control circuits in Section C.2.1.1 apply. 

Inter-Cable Plus Inter-Cable Double Contacts (Column 3) 

DB 02_03: Inter-Cable Plus Inter-Cable (and Ground Fault Equivalent) Hot Shorts (Row 2) 

The results for the cases of double break control circuits in Section C.2.1.1 apply.

C.2.2 Ungrounded DC (or Ungrounded Distributed AC) 

Column 6’s aggregate-probability values are derived from the numbers in Columns 1 through 5 

using the Boolean “OR” method detailed in Section 2.3.6, assuming that any one of these five 

hot short mode combinations may happen in a fire. 

C.2.2.1 SOV Control Circuits (Base Case) 

The ungrounded DC double breaks are easier to resolve because the GFEHS case was 

analyzed independently under the single break analysis. Hence, essentially all of these cases 

are covered by the sum of two single break cases as discussed in Section 3.3. 

C.2.2.2 MOV Control Circuits 

The results for the double break control circuit (Base Case - SOV) cases in Section C.2.2.1 

apply to Columns 2, 3 and 5. For Columns 1 and 4, the same multiplier to the double break 

control circuits for Column 1 in Section C.2.1.2 applies. 

C.3 Development of the CS-Model for Estimating the 

Probability of the Duration of Spurious Operation 

The development of the CS-Model of the Weibull Distribution for the duration of spurious 

operation is described here. We used the c-value and s-value recommended by the proponents 

(discussed in Section 6 of this report) to plot the spurious operation durations for AC and DC 

control circuits. The test data used to fit this modified Weibull distribution model is discussed in 

Section 6, while the corresponding calculation files are in Appendix E. 

Let T be a random variable that denotes the duration of a hot short-induced spurious operation. 

Assume that T has a Weibull distribution in the form: 

ܴሺݐሻ ൌ Prሼܶ൐ݐሽ ൌ exp	ሺെݐߣఉሻ (1) 

Where, 

β is a shape parameter 

λ is a scale parameter 

R(t) is commonly called the reliability function or survival function; it is the complementary 

cumulative distribution function (CCDF) of T. 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-15

We have the experimental pooled data set {t1, t2,..., tn}, and want to estimate the parameters λ

and β, and the bounds on R(t). 

Weibull Probability Plot 

First, we must confirm that a Weibull distribution is an appropriate characterization of the 

experimental data. One way to do so is to construct a probability plot. Equation (1) can be 

linearized such as; 

 (2) ܾ ൅ ݔ݉ ൌ ݕ

Where, 

ݔ ൌ ln	ሺݐሻ

ݕ ൌ ln	ቄln	ቂ ଵ

ோሺ௧ሻቃቅ

ߚൌ݉

ܾ ൌ ln	ሺߣሻ

If the pooled data set {t1, t2,..., tn} are sorted (low to high), then R(ti) can be approximated by its 

median rank: 

ܴሺݐ௜ሻ ൎ ௡ି௜ା଴.଻

௡ା଴.ସ (3) 

To recap the approach, 

1. Sort the data {t1, t2,..., tn} from low to high 

2. For each ti, use Equation (3) to find R(ti) 

3. Use Equation (2) to transform each pair [ti, R(ti)] into (xi, yi) 

4. Plot yi vs. xi

5. Provided that the (xi, yi) pairs fall on or near a straight line, then it is reasonable to 

describe T with a Weibull distribution. 

Figure C-1 shows a Weibull plot for the pooled set of duration data; it graphically confirms that T 

can be described with this distribution. 

Median Rank Regression 

One approach to estimating the parameters λ and β is to apply the method of least squares to 

the plot of Weibull probability. This approach is called median rank regression (MRR). It is a 

straightforward “engineering” approach to estimating parameters; however, the estimates that it 

produces are not necessarily the “best” statistically. 

Figure C-1 shows the results of applying MRR to the pooled data on duration. 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-16 

Figure C-1. Weibull Probability Plot and Median Rank Regression 

Estimation of Maximum Likelihood 

From Equation (1), the probability density function (pdf) of T is: 

݂ሺݐሻ ൌ ݐߚߣሺఉିଵሻ

exp	ሺെݐߣఉሻ (4) 

The likelihood function, ࣦሺߣ, ߚሻ, is the product of the pdfs evaluated at each data point: 

௜ݐߚߣቄ ∏ ൌ ࣦ

ሺఉିଵሻ

exp	ሺെݐߣ௜

ఉሻቅ ௡

௜ୀଵ (5) 

It is convenient to work with the log-likelihood function, ܮሺߣ, ߚሻ ൌ lnሾࣦሺߣ, ߚሻሿ; 

ܮ ൌ ݊ ln ߚ ൅ ݊ ln ߣ ൅ ሺߚെ1ሻ ∑ ሼ݈݊ݐ௜ሽ ௡

௜ୀଵ െ ߣ ∑ ቄݐ௜

ఉቅ ௡

௜ୀଵ (6) 

The maximum likelihood estimate, MLE, is the pair (λ, β) that maximized Equation (6). That is, 

the MLE is the pair (λ, β) that satisfies the following: 

డ௅

డఉ ൌ0ൌ ௡ఉ ൅ ∑ ሼln	ݐ௜ሽ ௡

௜ୀଵ െ ߣ ∑ ቄݐ௜

ఉ ln ݐ௜ቅ ௡

௜ୀଵ

(7) 

ܮ߲

߲ߣ ൌ0ൌ

݊

௜ݐ෍െ ߣ

ఉ

௡

௜ୀଵ

After some algebra, we see that 

‐6

‐5

‐4

‐3

‐2

‐1

0

1

2

3

‐5 ‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐10 1 2 3

y = 0.9424x ‐ 0.0979

R2 = 0.9919

 = 0.9424

 = exp(‐0.0979) =  0.9067
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-17

∑ ቄ୲౟

β

୪୬ ௧೔ቅ ೙

೔సభ

∑ ቄ௧೔

ഁቅ ೙

೔సభ

െ ଵ

௡ ∑ ሼln ݐ௜ሽ ௡

௜ୀଵ െ ଵ

ఉ ൌ 0 (8) 

௡ ൌ ߣ

∑ ቄ௧೔

ഁቅ ೙

೔సభ

 (9) 

Equation (8) must be solved numerically; we note that the MRR estimates make a good starting 

point. The theory of maximum likelihood estimate provides a method for determining the 

uncertainty in the maximum likelihood (ML) estimates. The covariance matrix of the ML 

estimates is 

Ε෠ ൌ ቈ Varሺβ෡ሻ Covሺβ෡, λ෠ሻ

Covሺβ෡, λ෠ሻ Varሺλ෠ሻ ቉ ൌ Iିଵ (10) 

where; 

Var(β)= variance of β

Var(λ)= variance of λ

Cov(β,λ) = covariance of β and λ

I = Fisher information matrix 

The Fisher information matrix, I, is 

ܫൌ቎ െ డమ௅

డఉమ െ డమ௅డఉడఒ

െ డమ௅

డఉడఒ െ డమ௅డఒమ

቏ (11) 

where, the partial derivatives are evaluated at the ML estimates. Differentiating Equation (7) 

yields 

డమ௅

డఉమ ൌ െ ௡ఉమ െ ߣ ∑ ቄݐ௜

ఉሺln ݐ௜ሻଶቅ ௡

௜ୀଵ (12) 

డమ௅

డఉడఒ ൌ െ ∑ ቄݐ௜

ఉ ln ݐ௜ቅ ௡

௜ୀଵ (13) 

డమ௅

డఒమ ൌ െ ௡ఒమ (14) 

Applying the pooled data set 

ߚመ ൌ 0.9544, ߣመ ൌ 0.9106

ܧ ෠ൌ ቂ 0.005103 െ0.002550

െ0.002550 0.009097 ቃ

Note that the ML and MRR estimates are similar. 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-18 

Bounds on R(t) 

For large samples, it is acceptable to estimate the mean and variance of R(t) using the method 

of statistical error propagation: 

ܴ෠ሺݐሻ ൌ ݉݁ܽ݊	݋݂	ܴሺݐሻ ൎ exp	ሺെߣመݐఉ෡

ሻ (15) 

Var[R(t)]= variance of R(t)ൎ ቀ

డோ

డఉቁ

ଶ

ܸܽݎ൫ߚመ൯൅2 ቀ

డோ

డఉቁ ቀడோడఒቁ ݒ݋ܥ൫ߚመ, ߣመ൯ ൅ ቀ

డோ

డఒቁ

ଶ

መ൯ߣ൫ݎܸܽ

Again, the partial derivatives are evaluated using the ML estimates. 

డோ

డఉ ൌ െߣ exp൫െݐߣఉ൯ ݐఉ ln ݐ ൌ െݐߣఉ ln ݐ െ ܴሺݐሻ 

(16) 

߲ܴ

߲ߣ ൌ െݐఉ exp൫െݐߣఉ൯ ൌ െݐఉ െ ܴሺݐሻ

We seek bounds on R(t) such that: 

 ܲݎሼܴሺݐሻ ൑ ܴ௅ሺݐሻሽ ൌ 0.05

(17) 

ܲݎሼܴሺݐሻ ൑ ܴ௎ሺݐሻሽ ൌ 0.95

Note that 0 ≤ R(t) ≤ 1 for any t. Define a new random variable G(t) as the transformation of R(t): 

ܩሺݐሻ ൌ ln ቂ ோሺ௧ሻ

ଵିோሺ௧ሻቃ (18) 

As R(t)0, G(t)  െ∞

As R(t)1, G(t) ∞

With the shape of the uncertainty distribution unknown, assume that G(t) has a normal 

distribution with mean μG and standard deviation σG, then: 

ܲݎ൛ܩሺݐሻ ൑ ݃ऀൟ ൌऀൌ Φ ൬

୥ऀିμऀ

σऀ

൰ (19) 

As a result: 

 (20) ऀߪऀݖ ൅ ऀߤ ൌ ݃ऀ

Where ݖऀ is the ऀth percentile of the standard normal distribution. Specifically, ݖ଴.଴ହ ൎ െ1.645

and ݖ଴.ଽହ ൎ ൅1.645. Also: 

ߤீ ൌ ln ቈ ܴ෠ሺݐሻ

1െܴ෠ሺݐሻ቉

 (21) 

ߪீ ൌ ඨ൬

ܩ߲

߲ܴ൰

ଶ

ܸܽݎሾܴሺݐሻሿ ൌ ߪோሺݐሻ

ܴ෠ሺݐሻൣ1 െ ܴ෠ሺݐሻ൧
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-19

Where, 

ߪோሺݐሻ ൌ ඥܸܽݎሾܴሺݐሻሿ

Figure C-2. Probability of Hot Short Duration (Maximum Likelihood 

Estimate with Approximate Normal Confidence Bounds) 

Making further algebraic reductions: 

ܴ℘ሺݐሻ ൌ ோ෠ሺ௧ሻ

ோ෠ሺ௧ሻାሾଵିோ෠ሺ௧ሻሿ	௘௫௣൜ି ೥℘഑ೃሺ೟ሻ

ೃ෡ሺ೟ሻൣభషೃ෡ሺ೟ሻ൧

ൠ

 (22) 

Figure C-2 shows R(t) and the approximate normal confidence bounds. 

Adjusting for In-plant Conditions 

The data {t1, t2,...,tn} was collected from a series of experiments, and may not be representative 

of the actual in-plant conditions that exist during a fire. For example, the rate of heat release 

and the geometry associated with an in-plant fire will differ from the experimental conditions 

used to measure the duration of hot shorts. In general, adjusting experimental data to reflect inplant conditions is complex. 

One possible approach to doing so is to scale the duration of hot shorts: 

TEX : random variable denoting duration of hot short during experiment 

TIP : random variable denoting duration of hot short during actual in-plant fire 

Assume: TIP = cTEX (23)

where c is the time scaling factor. 

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0123456789

Hot Short Duration Probability, Pr{T > t}

Time (minutes)

mean

lower (5th percentile)

upper (95th percentile)
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-20 

Reliability engineers often use accelerated testing to “make time go more quickly” so that 

reliability information can be obtained rapidly. Using a time scaling factor is called a scaleaccelerated failure time (SAFT) model. In applying a SAFT model to hot short durations, we 

expect that “c” is greater than 1(that is, the duration of hot shorts in actual fires is longer than in 

experiments). The time-scaling factor, c, is established by engineering judgment. The 

parameters λ and β are determined by ML estimation to the experimental data, as before. 

Figure C-3 illustrates the effect of the scaling factor c=1.4. 

ܵመሺݐሻ ൌ ܲݎሼܶூ௉ ൐ ݐሽ ൌ ܲݎሼܿܶா௑ ൐ ݐሽ ൌ ܴ ቀ

௧

௖

ቁ ൌ exp	ቈെλ෠ ቀ

୲

ୡ

ቁ

β෡

቉ (24) 

Using statistical error propagation: 

ܸܽݎሾܵሺݐሻሿ ൌ ߪௌ

ଶ ൎ ቀ

డௌ

డఉቁ

ଶ

ఉߪ

ଶ ൅ 2 ቀ

డௌ

డఉቁ ቀడௌడఒቁ ݒ݋ܥሺߚ, ߣሻ ൅ ቀ

డௌ

డఒቁ

ଶ

ఒߪ

ଶ (25) 

డௌ

డఉ ൌ െߣመ ቀ

௧

௖

ቁ

ఉ෡

ln ቀ

௧

௖

ቁ ∙ ܵመሺݐሻ (26) 

డௌ

డఒ ൌ െ ቀ

௧

௖

ቁ

ఉ෡

∙ ܵመሺݐሻ (27) 

ܵ℘ ൌ ௌመሺ௧ሻ

ௌመሺ௧ሻାሾଵିௌመሺ௧ሻሿ	௘௫௣൜ି ೥℘഑ೞሺ೟ሻ

ೄ෡ሺ೟ሻൣభషೄ෡ሺ೟ሻ൧

ൠ

 (28) 

Figure C-3. Comparison of In-Plant and Experimental Durations 

(Time-scaling Factor c=1.4) 

The uncertainty or bounds of ܴ෠ሺݐሻ at ℘th percentile 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Hot SHort Duration Probability, Pr{T > t}

Duration (minutes)

in‐plant, mean

in‐plant, 5th percentile

in‐plant, 95th percentile

experiment, mean

experiment,5th percentile

experiment, 95th percentile

Comparison of In‐Plant and Experimental Durations

(time scaling factor c = 1.4)
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-21

ܴ℘ሺݐሻ ൌ ோ෠ሺ௧ሻ

ோ෠ሺ௧ሻାሾଵିோ෠ሺ௧ሻሿ	௘௫௣൜ି ೥℘഑ೃሺ೟ሻ

ೃ෡ሺ೟ሻൣభషೃ෡ሺ೟ሻ൧

ൠ

 (29) 

where ݖ ℘is the ℘th percentile of the standard normal distribution. Specifically, z0.05 ≈ -1.645, z0.5 

= 0, and z0.95 ≈ +1.645. ߪோሺݐሻ is a function of c, λ, and β. Adding the “s” scalar term to the 

equation allows adjustment to the uncertainty distribution without affecting the median. Since 

z0.5 = 0, “s” has no effect on the median. 

ܴ℘ሺݐሻ ൌ ோ෠ሺ௧ሻ

ோ෠ሺ௧ሻାሾଵିோ෠ሺ௧ሻሿ	௘௫௣൜ି ࢙഑℘೥ೃሺ೟ሻ

ೃ෡ሺ೟ሻൣభషೃ෡ሺ೟ሻ൧

ൠ

 (30) 

Figure C-4 presents the duration curve with c = 1.4 and s=1.9 without the floors. 

Figure C-5 adds the floors to the plots of AC and DC durations. Section 6 describes the 

development of these plots using the methodology presented here and Figure C-5 illustrates the 

same plots as shown in Figures 6-4 and 6-5. 

Figure C-4. Duration Curve with c=1.4 and s=1.9 

Pooled Dataset adjusted by setting

c value = 1.4

s value = 1.9

Time (minutes)

0 5 10 15 20

Spurious Operation Duration Probability, Pr{T>t}

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Mean (c=1.4,s=1.9) 

5th % (c=1.4, s=1.9) 

95th % (c=1.4, s=1.9) 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-22 

Figure C-5. AC and DC Duration Curves with Floors 

C.4 Reports Submitted by Proponents 

None of the four proponents addressed or offered recommendations for all the case studies 

associated with two major control circuit designs identified in the introductory part of Section 3. 

Proponents #1 and #3 provided a complete set4

. Proponent #2 did not include the circuit 

breaker and spurious operation duration. Proponent #4 did not include the cases of circuit 

breaker, double break, and spurious operation duration. Proponents #2 and #3 gave their 

opinions in a report form, each of which is included as one Word file. Proponents #1 and #4 

used the PRA panel’s guidance templates discussed in Section 2 for estimating spurious 

operation probability for single break “Base Case – SOV”. They also added several other files 

and emails that either revised their original input values for certain sub-cases, or included other 

case studies, such as spurious operation duration probability and double break spurious 

operation probability estimations. 

We note that the proponent names are not included. The proponent’s reports were updated 

with the final material submitted by each proponent. 

C.4.1 Proponent # 1 

Files contained in file folder of Proponent #1 include: 

 Proponent #1’s Word File 

 Analysis of Breaker 

 Double Break Analysis 

 Analysis of Duration Data 

 MOV Spurious Operation and Final Position 

 

4

 The proponent’s reports do not include the double break MOV control circuit since this was added 

during the last workshop by members of both the PIRT and PRA panels. 

Time (minutes)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Spuriuos Operation Duration 

Probability, Pr{T>t} 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Time (min) vs AC 5th 

Time (min) vs AC Mean 

Time (min) vs AC 95th 

Time (minutes)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Spuriuos Operation Duration 

Probability, Pr{T>t} 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Time (min) vs DC 5th 

Time (min) vs DC Mean 

Time (min) vs DC 95th 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-23

C.4.2 Proponent # 2 

Files contained in file folder of Proponent #2 include: 

 Proponent #2’s Report Word File 

C.4.3 Proponent # 3 

Files contained in file folder of Proponent #3 include: 

 Proponent #3’s Report Word File 

C.4.4 Proponent # 4 

Files contained in file folder of Proponent #4 include: 

 Proponent #4’s Word File 

 MOV Spurious Treatment, Rev C 

 Single Break – Duration Estimates Excel® File 

 MOV Treatment R1 – Grounded AC 

 MOV Event Trees 

 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-24 

ATTACHMENT 1 

REQUESTED INFORMATION FORMAT FOR PROPONENTS 

I. INSTRUCTIONS 

A. INSTRUCTIONS FOR DOCUMENTING THE PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION 

(SINGLE BREAK) 

This document gives instructions for each Proponent to document his evaluation of the 

probability of spurious operation given certain conditions [P (SO/C)] for the Single Break 

configuration. 

There are two top-level files giving an overview of the information about this configuration. 

File “Probability Single Break Table Values 09-14-12.docx” 

It contains the latest counts of hits (SOs) out of the number of tests for each case being 

evaluated, as prepared by NRC staff. 

File “Probability Single Break Table Reference 09-14-12.docx” 

Note the following points about this file: 

1. Each cell in the table gives an identifier for the case that comprises the row and column 

of the cell. For example, case P_SB_01_01 stands for Probability, Single Break, Row 1 

and Column 1. The row and column numbers are in the table to facilitate identifying 

each cell. 

2. There is a separate file for each identifier, named a “case file.” Each Proponent is 

expected to fill out each file. If you consider that the evaluation of one case can be used 

as-is for another case, then it is not necessary to fill out the file again; write a note in the 

file indicating the file containing the complete evaluation. 

3. According to this table, there are 44 cases (and corresponding files) to be evaluated for 

the Single Break configuration. 

Case File 

The event being evaluated is spurious operation, which is defined as “A circuit fault mode 

wherein an operational mode of the circuit is initiated (in full or in part) due to failure(s) in one or 

more of the circuit’s components (including cables).” 

The file is divided into four main sections: 1. General Information, 2. Statistical Analyses, 3. 

Expert Judgment, and 4. Expert’s Additional Comments. In principle, statistical analyses are 

preferred because experimental data can be used to support the evaluation. Expert judgment is 

typically used as a last resort when data are scarce or lacking. Accordingly, a Proponent may 

use statistical analyses only (Section 2), expert judgment only (Section 3), or a combination of 

both (Sections 2 and 3) for assessing each case. 

The ultimate goal is to obtain both a point estimate of each P(SO/C), and a distribution for this 

probability. The distribution reflects the uncertainty about the probability’s value, and then can 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-25

be entered into a PRA code5. 

The following text in italics gives instructions for filling out a case file: 

1. General Information 

Expert Enter your name 

Date Enter the date of your evaluation 

Quantity Already filled. You do not need to change. 

Case Already filled. You do not need to change. 

Applicable 

diagrams 

Generic diagrams are already in this row. Feel free to add, modify, or delete 

diagrams as you consider appropriate for each case. 

2. Statistical Analyses 

If you carry out statistical analyses, document your evaluation in the following table. 

Description of 

Analyses 

Describe the assumptions, considerations, and evaluations that you carried 

out within the framework of statistical analyses. Make sure to clearly identify 

the data used, such as the cell(s) from file “Probability Single Break Table 

Values.docx”, and any other data or relevant information. 

Distribution 

obtained 

If you estimate the probability distribution, specify it here preferably in terms 

of the type of distribution (e.g., beta, gamma) and the parameters of the 

distribution. Otherwise, assess the median and two quartiles, include them in 

the corresponding rows in Section 3, and also fill out the row “Justification of 

median and quartiles.” 

3. Expert Judgment 

If you use expert judgment, please document your evaluation in the following table. 

Median Enter the median 

Lower 

Quartile 

Enter the lower quartile 

Upper 

Quartile 

Enter the upper quartile 

Justification of 

median and 

quartiles 

Justify the median and two quartiles. 

Fitted 

distribution 

This is a place holder for the distribution that best fits the median and two 

quartiles. You may leave this row empty; BNL will carry out the fitting. 

4. Expert’s Additional Comments

State here any additional information that you consider relevant for evaluating this case, 

including the references to publications that you quote. Leave it empty if there is no additional 

information. 

 

 

5

 Once the distributions of basic events are entered into the code, the parameter uncertainty of a risk 

metric can be assessed. 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-26 

II. SAMPLE TEMPLATES 

A. ASSESSING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SINGLE BREAK 

PROBABILITY OF SPURIOUS OPERATION (SAMPLE CASE)

1. General Information 

Expert 

Date 

Quantity Probability of Spurious Operation 

Case P_SB_01_01 

Single Break Generic 

Grounded AC 

Intra-Cable 

TS target cable 

Applicable 

diagrams 

2. Statistical Analyses 

If you carry out statistical analyses, please document your evaluation in the following table. 

Description of 

Analyses 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-27

Distribution 

obtained 

3. Expert Judgment 

If you use expert judgment, please document your evaluation in the following table. 

Median 

Lower 

Quartile 

Upper 

Quartile 

Justification of 

median and 

quartiles 

Fitted 

distribution 

4. Expert’s Additional Comments 

B. ASSESSING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE DOUBLE BREAK PROBABILITY OF 

SPURIOUS OPERATION (SAMPLE CASE) 

1. General Information 

Expert 

Date 

Quantity Probability of Spurious Operation 

Case P_DB_DC_01_01 

Double Break Ungrounded DC 

Intra + Intra cable short 

TS insulated source and target cables 

Applicable 

diagrams 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-28 

2. Statistical Analyses 

If you carry out statistical analyses, please document your evaluation in the following table. 

Description of 

Analyses 

Distribution 

obtained 

3. Expert Judgment 

If you use expert judgment, please document your evaluation in the following table. 

Median 

Lower 

Quartile 

Upper 

Quartile 

Justification of 

median and 

quartiles 

Fitted 

distribution 

4. Expert’s Additional Comments 

C. ASSESSING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE DURATION OF SPURIOUS OPERATION 

(SAMPLE CASE) 

1. General Information 

Expert 

Date 

Quantity Duration of Spurious Operation 

Case 

Applicable 

diagrams 

2. Statistical Analyses 

If you carry out statistical analyses, please document your evaluation in the following table. 

Description of 

Analyses 

Distribution 

obtained 

3. Expert Judgment 

If you use expert judgment, please document your evaluation in the following table. 

Plausible 

range 

Median 
PROJECT PLAN AND INSIGHTS 

C-29

Lower 

Quartile 

Upper 

Quartile 

Justification of 

range, median 

and quartiles 

Fitted 

distribution 

4. Expert’s Additional Comments 

 

D-1 

APPENDIX D 

CABLE-FIRE TEST DATA

The NRC’s staff in collaboration with an NRC contractor reviewed and analyzed the test data to 

support the PIRT and fire PRA expert elicitation panels. Much of this work is documented in 

NUREG-2128, “Electrical Cable Test Results and Analysis during Fire Exposure (ELECTRAFIRE), “A consolidation of three major fire-induced circuit and cable failure experiments 

performed between 2001 and 2011.” After completing this work, the fire PRA expert elicitation 

panel requested access to the Microsoft Excel® database containing the consolidated test data 

to support their evaluation. The NRC staff developed a roll-up table appropriate for their use. 

The pdf file contains the instructions for using the Excel® test data file. The Excel® database 

that contains this roll-up table is included in the compact disk attached to the back cover of this 

report. 

E-1 

APPENDIX E

TECHNICAL INTEGRATION OF PROPONENT INPUTS 

BNL’s technical evaluators (members of the TI team) undertook all statistical calculations of the 

probabilities for single break and double break control circuits. The results, presented in 

Sections 4, 5, and 6 of this report had undergone many intermediate steps from the proponents’ 

inputs to the final probability tables. This appendix contains all these intermediate files as 

discussed in the respective sections. The pdf file contains the instructions for all other Excel®

files. They are contained on the compact disk located inside the back cover of this report. 

F-1 

APPENDIX F

PARTICIPATORY PEER REVIEW PANEL REPORT 

The participatory peer review panel was an integral part of the SSHAC process that improved 

the quality of this work. This appendix includes panel’s final report summarizing panel’s overall 

assessment of the elicitation process and the technical evaluation methods. Many of the 

suggestions documented in this appendix were subsequently incorporated into the final report. 

The PPRP also provided individual comments on the final draft version of NUREG/CR-7150, 

Volume 2, which were incorporated where possible prior to the publication of the joint 

NRC/EPRI publication. 

F.1 Background 

The “Estimating Conditional Probabilities of Hot Short-Induced Spurious Operations” expert 

elicitation project, although following a SSHAC Level 2 process [1]1, involved a Participatory 

Peer Review Panel (PPRP), a feature of the more resource intensive SSHAC Level 3 and Level 

4 processes. The purpose of the PPRP was, as stated in the project plan [2]: 

“...to provide assurance that a proper process has been followed, that the study 

incorporates the diversity of views prevailing within the technical community that 

uncertainties have been properly considered and incorporated into the analysis, 

and the documentation of the study is clear and complete.” 

 

To meet this purpose, the PPRP was charged with: 

1) providing clear and timely feedback during the course of the study on both technical and 

SSHAC process matters, and 

2) writing a final peer review report documenting the conclusions of the PPRP. 

The PPRP was requested to address the project’s conformance to the requirements of a 

SSHAC Level 2 process and the extent to which all technical assessments were adequately 

defended and documented. 

F.2 Process 

As a participatory panel, the PPRP provided input throughout the course of the project. 

The PPRP members participated in project workshops and other meetings, providing comments 

and suggestions during group discussions as well as during periods identified in meeting 

agendas set aside for PPRP input. These comments and suggestions covered the goals of the 

SSHAC process (the principal goal being the development of community distributions for fire 

PRA parameters of interest, rather than group consensus distributions), the project’s 

implementations of that process, and various technical issues regarding modeling and 

computation. The PPRP also supported the development of the project’s training materials 

 

1

 [ ] identifies the reference number listed in Section F.4. 
PARTICIPATORY PEER REVIEW PANEL (PPRP) REPORT 

F-2

authored by Brookhaven National Laboratory (see Appendix G) and reviewed the project’s draft 

final report. 

F.3 PPRP Conclusions 

The following conclusions are derived from the PPRP’s observations over the course of the 

project and from the PPRP’s review of the project’s draft final report [3]. The discussion is based 

on the main report’s description of project elements (which, for example, covers the activities of 

two expert panels: the electrical PIRT panel, whose work is more fully discussed in Vol. 1 [4]; 

and the PRA panel, whose work is the subject of this report). 

F.3.1 Technical Approach and Results 

The overall assessment of the PPRP is that the elicitation approach used by the project (an 

enhanced SSHAC Level 2 process) was reasonable for the problem and the approach was 

reasonably executed. The goals of the elicitation process and the participants’ various roles in 

achieving these goals were clearly communicated, and the participants performed in 

accordance with their roles. The workshop interactions were constructive (viewpoints were 

supported with technical arguments, challenges to proponent positions were generally made to 

enhance group understanding) and the participants exhibited appropriate levels of flexibility in 

their positions following group discussion. 

The following observations concern potential weaknesses in the project’s execution of the 

SSHAC elicitation process. Because relevant test data were available for most of the cases 

considered, these weaknesses are not believed to be sufficiently great to significantly affect the 

central tendencies of the quantities addressed by the PRA panel. However, they are likely to 

affect the uncertainty in a few of the derived community distributions for those quantities. 

 The PRA panel was charged with developing estimates (including uncertainties) for a 

very large number of parameters. In the absence of large amounts of directly relevant 

data, the careful expression of beliefs is a time-consuming process. Perhaps as a 

consequence, some of the PRA panel’s proponents did not address all cases of interest. 

In at least one case (see Section 5.2.1), it appears the assessment relies entirely on the 

estimate provided by one proponent. The PPRP believes that the distributions derived 

for cases involving limited panel input are likely to under-represent the full range of 

uncertainty of the informed, technical community. 

 Although the PRA panel was charged with estimating the likelihood of both spurious 

operation occurrences and durations, the panel spent most of its time on the former (the 

treatment of occurrences). Partly for this reason,2

 while agreeing with the PIRT panel 

that the duration of a spurious operation is dependent on a number of scenario-specific 

factors, the PRA panel chose to develop only two distributions for spurious operation 

duration: one for AC circuits and one for DC circuits. Moreover, the parameters 

characterizing these distributions were treated as single values (estimated by averaging 

inputs from proponents), rather than as distributed quantities. The PPRP expects that 

 

2

 Practicalities in the performance of fire PRA (e.g., potential difficulties in obtaining the information 

needed to determine the fire exposure environment for a target cable) also influenced the panel’s chosen 

approach. 
PARTICIPATORY PEER REVIEW PANEL (PPRP) REPORT 

F-3

the stated uncertainties in the early (pre-“floor”) portion of the spurious operation 

duration distribution likely under-represent the full range of uncertainty of the informed, 

technical community. We note that as a matter of general principles, further efforts to 

characterize uncertainty might shift the central tendency of the distribution as well as 

increase its breadth. 

 In order to develop results that could be easily used by current PRA software, the project 

placed a heavy emphasis on using a standard probability function (the beta distribution) 

to approximate the spurious operation probability estimates of individual experts and of 

the panel as a whole. In some cases, the fitting process was straightforward. In others, 

because of the limited flexibility of the beta distribution, choices had to be made as to 

which portions of the experts’ distributions should be emphasized in the fitting process.3

In a few cases, the use of the beta distribution may have masked situations where multimodal distributions (representing the possibility of distinct, competing “models of the 

world”) accurately represent the current state of knowledge.4

 Overall, it is not clear 

whether the use of the beta distribution has a positive or negative effect when 

representing the range of uncertainty of the informed, technical community.5

The PPRP also observes that modeling guidance on the treatment of multiple spurious 

operations, provided in Section 7.3.4.2 of the main report, was developed following the 

completion of the last SSHAC workshop and therefore outside of the SSHAC process used in 

this project. Recognizing that the modeling guidance could be useful to some readers, the 

PPRP recommends that this guidance be moved to an appendix to the main report. 

The following observations have a less clear connection with the project results but suggest 

lessons for future elicitation projects. 

 Initially, a number of PRA panel members were reluctant to exercise their judgment for 

cases for which test data were lacking. Some appeared to question the premise of the 

elicitation process, dismissing their own expertise (e.g., via statements such as “I have 

no basis to quantify”) even when they had opinions regarding phenomenology and 

expected trends. Over the course of the project, most of the experts appeared to 

become more comfortable with the process. Nevertheless, as shown in the main report, 

the panel employed various strategies (e.g., grouping of cases, excluding cases) to 

avoid providing estimates for a number of data-poor situations. Recognizing that the 

experts’ reluctance to provide estimates based on holistic judgments (rather than 

discrete, easily identified sets of test data or mathematical model predictions) may be 

difficult to change, the training portion of future elicitation projects should nevertheless 

spend more time addressing panelist qualms and empowerment. 

 

3

 The PPRP notes that the panel’s proponents did verify that the beta distributions fitted to their input 

were reasonable representations for ranges of values they were most concerned about (typically, the 

larger values). In some cases, however, this fitting resulted in relatively poor matches of the experts’ input 

for other ranges of values. 

4

 The PPRP notes that this is only a possibility. Although workshop discussions addressed the rationale 

supporting each proponent’s input, they did not explore whether differences in rationale suggested the 

need for a multi-modal community distribution. 

5

 The PPRP notes that more flexible, yet relatively simple parametric distributions (e.g., the Pearson 

family of probability distributions [5]) are available and may be worth considering in future projects. 
PARTICIPATORY PEER REVIEW PANEL (PPRP) REPORT 

F-4

 As likely side effect of the experts’ reluctance to express their judgments concerning 

data-poor cases, the PRA panel spent a considerable amount of time discussing 

situations for which there were relatively ample data (by normal PRA standards). 

Although there were some differences between the experts’ estimates (due to 

differences in interpretations and treatments of the data), these differences were 

relatively minor (again, by normal PRA standards). (See, for example, Figure 2-1, which 

shows that for one case, the experts’ best estimates range from 0.57 to 0.72.) Future 

elicitation projects should try to ensure that the panel spends a greater fraction of time 

on issues of greatest uncertainty. The training for such projects should address the 

sensitivity of parameter estimates to changes in data sets. For example, for a given 

sample size, what kinds of changes are needed to make a large difference in the 

estimate? (Or, similarly, the extent to which changes in the parameter of interest can 

explain changes in the observed data). Such training can also help avoid expert 

overcompensation for the overconfidence biases identified in current training. 

 The training should also remind the experts that even in situations where empirical data 

are available (e.g., as the result of a testing program), their expert judgment is needed in 

assessing the relevance of that data to the practical (field) situations of interest. 

Mechanical processing of such data using standard statistical techniques may not result 

in appropriate representations of parameter central tendencies, let alone uncertainties. 

 Also regarding training, the expert elicitation training for this project included a calibration 

exercise intended to provide the experts with some practice in quantifying their beliefs 

regarding event probabilities. The particular exercise involved predicting the results for a 

number of events in the 2012 Summer Olympic Games. This exercise, although 

potentially of interest to some panelists, was not particularly analogous to the problem 

faced by this project since it involved the outcome of a one-time event (as opposed to 

the outcome of a repeated series of trials). The exercise was not performed by a number 

of panelists. Future elicitation projects should employ exercises more closely aligned to 

the problem at hand. 

 As indicated earlier, this project required the elicitation of a very large number of 

parameters. The panelists employed a number of strategies to enable project completion 

within available time and resource constraints. Nevertheless, it appeared that there were 

considerable demands on panelists during meetings, and the quality of the elicitation 

may have been affected. Future elicitation projects should consider and counter, to the 

extent possible, the effect of “meeting fatigue” on the elicitation process. 

 In addition to the previously mentioned grouping of cases and exclusion of others, the 

experts used a number of heuristics to simplify the judgment process. One of the most 

common heuristics used was “anchoring and adjustment:” the identification of a similar 

situation for which an estimate was already available, and then adjusting that estimate 

(the “anchor”) to account for differences between the case at hand and the anchoring 

case. As pointed out by the training performed for this project, the anchoring and 

adjustment heuristic is a potentially important source of bias; the anchor may be 

incorrectly selected, the adjustment may be insufficient, or both. Nevertheless, the 

experts appear to have little else to rely upon when addressing a situation for which they 

have no directly applicable data. Future elicitation training materials should re-examine 

guidance in this area, including the implications of different adjustment strategies (e.g., 
PARTICIPATORY PEER REVIEW PANEL (PPRP) REPORT 

F-5

using absolute values versus relative values or percentages or such approaches as 

“splitting the difference” between bounding estimates). 

 Another simplification employed by the expert panel involved the pooling of hot short 

duration data. This simplification, which reduces the numbers of parameters to be 

estimated, was facilitated through the use of statistical tests determining whether it is 

appropriate to model a set of data as coming from the same underlying population. 

These same tests identified statistical outliers (i.e., data that don’t appear to belong to 

the population), which were explicitly discussed and dispositioned by the panel. In 

general, the PPRP notes that empirical data can reveal realistic behaviors not included 

in models and that, therefore, data outliers should not be discarded based solely on 

statistical arguments. Similar to this project, future elicitation projects should ensure that 

any data screening be done with caution, that any screening have a sound 

phenomenological or practical applications basis, and that the basis be carefully 

documented. 

 In one case (the treatment of motor operated valves), the panel did not, at the beginning 

of the project, have a common understanding of what constituted a “spurious operation.” 

This common understanding was developed after considerable discussion. Recognizing 

that analogous situations might arise dynamically over the course of any project, 

nevertheless future elicitation projects should try to ensure that the subjects of the 

elicitation are clearly defined prior to engaging the expert panel. 

 In a number of cases (involving the spurious operation of motor-operated valves, the 

treatment of “double break” circuits, and the duration of a spurious operation), the 

elicitation process required estimates for a parameter that was not directly elicited. 

Instead, the parameter was represented as the output of a mathematical model whose 

parameters were the ones actually elicited. 

o The SSHAC process allows (and calls) for the proponents to bring their models 

to the workshop discussions. The proponents can agree upon a consensus 

model, but care should be taken to ensure that the workshop discussions do not 

force a consensus model. 

o When using a mathematical model for the parameter of interest, the probability 

distribution for that parameter is a mathematical function of the distributions for 

the elicited parameters. When developing a project team, care should be taken 

that the team has sufficient expertise (or access to such expertise) to understand 

how the project’s chosen software tools develops the output distribution, what are 

the potential cautions in using such tools, and how to develop the distribution if a 

software solution is not readily available. 

 As indicated in the main report, although the Technical Integration (TI) team requested 

that the proponents provide their estimates in the form of a set of pre-designated 

quantiles,6

 some of the proponents had alternate, preferred ways of expressing their 

uncertainties and didn’t always comply with the TI requests. Over the course of the 

project, this difference led to some angst on the part of some TI team members. The 

PPRP observes that quantitatively expressing one’s uncertainties on a particular matter 

 

6

 These quantiles were suggested by the TI team’s review of the literature on expert elicitation. 
PARTICIPATORY PEER REVIEW PANEL (PPRP) REPORT 

F-6

involves a certain degree of introspection, and that many analysts do not think naturally 

in terms of the quantiles requested by the TI team. The PPRP recommends that future 

elicitation projects continue to provide guidance as to the desired format for reporting 

uncertainties, but remain flexible in accepting expert input in the form the expert feels 

most representative of his/her beliefs. Furthermore, as indicated earlier, the project 

should ensure that any mathematical representations of these beliefs do not unduly 

distort the beliefs for the sake of convenience. 

Finally, the PPRP notes that the project demonstrated a number of good elicitation practices. 

These practices are worth emulating in future elicitation projects. 

 At every elicitation session, remind the participants regarding: 

o the basic SSHAC philosophy of developing a community distribution (not the 

“right answer”); and 

o the participants’ assigned SSHAC roles (be it technical integrator, resource 

expert, proponent, or participatory peer reviewer). 

 Encourage participants to openly share their point of view, even if it is not shared by 

others. Find ways to help an expert overcome his/her reluctance to quantify his/her 

beliefs even when test data or mathematical model predictions are not available. 

 Ensure panel discussions include adequate consideration of application issues, 

including: a) the effect of potentially key differences between test and field conditions 

when interpreting test data (e.g., hundreds of conductors in a typical tray versus 10 in a 

typical test; a predominance of one particular polarity in the field versus an even polarity 

distribution in a typical test), and b) how the elicitation results are likely to be used in 

PRA studies. 

 Ensure panel discussions include adequate consideration of previous, relevant efforts 

(e.g., the PIRT panel discussions in this case). 

 Perform sanity checks to ensure the estimates are consistent with the experts’ beliefs. 

o Check elicited and derived estimates for implications regarding the random 

variable (e.g., the number of failures in a set of trials), not just the parameter 

(e.g., the failure probability). 

o Check estimates for trends across cases and determine if there is a justification 

for those trends. 

o Check uncertainty representations for consistency with the amount of 

information. (In general, the uncertainties should be larger when less information, 

including data from tests and information regarding actual plant conditions, is 

available.) 

F.3.2 Technical Presentation and Writing 

The PPRP believes that the draft final report provides a reasonable description of the project 

objectives, approach, and results. It also believes that the report is most accessible to experts 

already familiar with the technical issues associated with the treatment of fire-induced spurious 
PARTICIPATORY PEER REVIEW PANEL (PPRP) REPORT 

F-7

operations in fire PRA. Most of the following suggestions are aimed at making the report more 

accessible to a broader audience. Some suggestions are aimed at clarifying the technical basis 

for the project results. 

 Expand the background discussion to provide more details regarding: 

o the fundamental physical situation7

; 

o why the project needed separate PIRT and PRA panels;8

o what is the relationship between this work and the earlier EPRI/NEI work (and, in 

particular, are the earlier results being “supplemented” or “replaced”); 

o the motivation behind using an expert elicitation process; and 

o the key philosophy behind the SSHAC process, i.e., the goal of representing the 

informed technical community’s beliefs (as opposed to developing a panel 

consensus). 

 Reduce the use of acronyms, particularly of those (e.g., HS, SO, CD, SBD) not already 

in common usage. 

 Reduce or provide an early explanation of technical jargon. In particular, define “Boolean 

OR” and “Boolean AND,” taking care to distinguish between the logical (true/false) 

variables representing event occurrences, the event probabilities (or split fractions) 

quantifying the likelihood of these event occurrences, and the probability distributions 

quantifying the uncertainties in the event probabilities. The arithmetic operations for 

these three types of quantities are different; errors in the draft report should be 

corrected. Provide an appendix showing the different operations. 

 Reduce or eliminate chronologically-oriented discussions of process. Focus only on 

those elements of the process that would affect the credibility of the results. If it’s 

important from a historical perspective to document the evolution of the results, relegate 

that material to an appendix. 

 Similarly, consider if it’s important to indicate exactly which proponent suggested what. 

The important issue at the end is whether the product reasonably represents the 

informed technical community’s range of views. 

 Simplify the writing style. 

o Break long, complex sentences into pieces. 

o Eliminate repetitive phrases and unnecessary modifiers (e.g., “standard beta 

distribution” vs. “beta distribution”). 

o Avoid using multiple terms for the same concept (e.g., “LOP curve” vs. “LOP 

distribution”). 

 

7

 For example, one such description is that: a fire has damaged a cable or cables; this damage can lead 

to one or more “hot shorts” which: a) can cause spurious operation of equipment, and b) can last some 

period of time before “clearing”; and both the occurrence of a spurious operation and the duration of that 

spurious operation are random. 

8

 Note that the PIRT panel assessed certain cases as being “implausible” or “incredible,” but these were 

consensus judgments; the PIRT panel was not charged with developing community distributions. 
PARTICIPATORY PEER REVIEW PANEL (PPRP) REPORT 

F-8

 Consider re-organizing the report material. 

o Consider whether detailed explanations are needed early in the report. 

o Reduce the amount of overlap from chapter to chapter. 

o Consider making a stronger separation of methods-related discussion from 

results-related discussion. 

 Ensure the report provides appropriate emphasis to important points. 

o Highlight those sub-cases where expert opinion was truly needed (particularly 

when data are sparse or entirely lacking). 

o Highlight those sub-cases where there were significantly divergent points of view 

and the reasons for these divergences. 

o Provide a technical discussion of the results addressing, for example, 

 cross-comparisons of different sub-cases (including discussions of 

consistency and trends, considering both mechanistic and statistical 

issues); 

 situations where the results are sufficiently close that grouping-related 

simplifications might be warranted (see, for example, the MOV and 

breaker results); and 

 any caveats in the use of the results (e.g., where uncertainties in the 

community distribution may be understated due to the project approach). 

o Identify and discuss potentially important technical issues that the panel 

considered but then decided not to address (e.g., the effects of field wiring 

practices on the likelihood of ground fault equivalent hot shorts). 

o Discuss the ultimate role of any data processing (particularly the preparation of 

summary tables) in the final elicitation results. 

o Identify any key differences of opinion between the PIRT and PRA panels and, if 

such exist, discuss the PRA panel’s rationale for divergence. 

o Consolidate important modeling guidance in one place (Chapter 7). 

o Reduce the emphasis on issues not addressed in the SSHAC workshops 

(particularly, the treatment of multiple spurious operations). 

 Ensure that: key equations (particularly, for the “CS-model”) are provided in the main 

report, the terms are fully defined and explained, and the derivation of these equations is 

fully documented in Appendix C. 

F.4 References 

1) R. J. Budnitz, G. Apostolakis, D. M. Boore, L. S. Cluff, K. J. Coppersmith, C. A. Cornell, 

and P. A. Morris, “Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: 

Guidance on Uncertainty and Use of Experts,” NUREG/CR-6372, Vols. 1 and 2, 1997. 

2) M. Subudhi and G. Martinez-Guridi, “Estimating Conditional Probabilities of Hot ShortInduced Spurious Operations – Project Plan,” May 25, 2012. 

3) NUREG/CR-7150 and EPRI 3002001989, “Joint Assessment of Cable Damage and 

Quantification of Effects from Fire (JACQUE-FIRE) - Expert Elicitation Exercise for 
PARTICIPATORY PEER REVIEW PANEL (PPRP) REPORT 

F-9

Nuclear Power Plant Fire-Induced Electrical Circuit Failure,” Draft Report, BNL-NUREG98204-2012, Volume 2, November 15, 2013. 

4) NUREG/CR-7150 and EPRI 1026424, “Joint Assessment of Cable Damage and 

Quantification of Effects from Fire (JACQUE-FIRE) - Phenomena Identification and 

Ranking Table (PIRT) Exercise for Nuclear Power Plant Fire-Induced Electrical Circuit 

Failure,” BNL-NUREG-98204-2012, Volume 1, October 2012. 

5) N.L. Johnson and S. Kotz, Distributions in Statistics, Wiley, New York, 1976. 

G-1 

APPENDIX G

SELECTED PRESENTATION VIEWGRAPHS 

During the meetings of the fire PRA expert elicitation BNL presented the panel with numerous 

data in a power point format. This appendix includes a selected number of these presentations 

to document the information given to panel members. The information found in this appendix is 

for reference only, and is superseded by any and all information detailed in the main body of this 

report. The viewgraphs are contained on the compact disk included in the back cover of this 

report. 

H-1 

APPENDIX H 

TECHNICAL INTEGRATOR AND PROPONENT 

OPINION ON APPLICATION OF LIKELIHOOD 

ESTIMATES FOR MULTIPLE SPURIOUS OPERATION 

CASES 

Section 7 provides guidance on the application of the likelihood estimates developed by the 

expert elicitation panel for multiple spurious operation (MSO) scenarios. Although an evaluation 

of MSOs was not in the original scope of this project, the team believed that guidance would 

benefit the fire PRA applications. Since this MSO guidance was added late in the project it 

didn’t follow the strict application of the SSHAC process. 

Development of the MSO guidance consisted of a proponent developing the base guidance, 

and then several interactions between the TI team and both the PRA panel and the PIRT panel 

members. During these calls the technical experts voiced their opinion on the MSO guidance to 

the TI team. In November, the TI team had a conference to finalize the guidance as 

documented in Section 7.3.4.2. During this conference the TI team could not reach a consensus 

and one TI team member’s opinion which differed is documented in Section 7.3.4.2. The PPRP 

did not take any part in this effort. 

This appendix serves to document the PRA expert panel TI team members’ technical position 

and the proponent members’ opinion on the method for application of the likelihood estimates 

for various MSO scenarios. 

H.1 One TI-Team Member’s Views 

This section describes the opinion of one member of the TI team who did not agree with the 

team’s consensus. The majority opinion is described in Section 7.3.4.2 and individual 

proponent opinions are provided in Section H.2. 

“The proponent who addressed dependence among the duration exceedance probabilities 

recommended using the 95th percentile probability for the second spurious operation and 1.0 

for all subsequent (see Section H.2). Relaxing this somewhat, if one allows the 95th percentile 

for the second and third, and 1.0 thereafter, the minimum joint probability on duration 

exceedance, based on the AC “individual “floor” (lower than DC) is 0.0071 x 0.034 x 0.034 = 

8.2E-6, which is just around the recommended “floor” limit for joint human error probabilities 

(HEPs) of 1E-5 (discussed below), which is the same value as recommended in Section 7.3.4.2 

for duration exceedance. However, since these duration exceedance probabilities are 

conditional upon the occurrence of the SOs, there are also three occurrence probabilities that 

would multiply these. I’m not sure what the electrically allowed minimal triplet would be, but if I 

just pick the lowest mean value from the various occurrence probability tables, I get (8.5E-4)3

 = 

6.1E-10, which compounds to a ridiculously low value of 5.0E-15. Using a more typical value, I 

get 0.423

 = 0.074. This is compounded with the floor value of AC yielding 6.1E-7. 
TECHNICAL INTEGRATOR AND PROPONENT OPINION ON APPLICATION OF 

LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES FOR MULTIPLE SPURIOUS OPERATION CASES 

H-2

While I recognize that there is no strict justification for any specific numerical value for a joint 

floor, if I halved the occurrence probabilities used in the estimate of 6.1E-7, I would lower this 

minimum by a factor of 8 to ~ 8E-8; if I “thirded” them, by a factor of 27 to ~ 2E-8. “Fourthing” 

brings it to ~ 1E-8. While I recognize that this is not strict justification, it may lend some 

credence to what I would propose as a floor on BOTH the joint occurrence AND duration 

exceedance probabilities of ~ 1E-8. Note this aligns on an order of magnitude basis to the 

product of an occurrence floor of 0.001 (0.1 occurrence probability triplet) and duration floor of 

1E-5 (recommended above). I was willing to consider even a lower joint floor for both 

occurrence and exceedance duration, but disagree with recommending no floor, either 

individually or as part of a joint restriction, on the occurrence probability. 

I partially support this with an analogy to human reliability analysis, where common-cause 

failures (CCFs) are not modeled, but dependencies are. For HEPs, a floor on their joint product 

of ~1E-5 (or, in special cases, 1E-6) is recommended. Since SOs are not modeled via CCFs, 

similar to HEPs (no CCFs) but different from non-fire (random) equipment failures (CCFs), I 

favor this analogous joint “floor” approach as a guard against non-conservatism for a 

phenomenon not thoroughly examined at this point in time.” 

H.2 Proponents’ Technical Views 

Proponent #1 

“I disagree with the floor value used, and would like to document an opinion in the report with 

this disagreement. I have mentioned before my belief that there is dependency between the first 

and second spurious operation, particularly in the area of duration. I did a quick review of the 

data, and re-confirmed that I did not see a pattern on spurious operation probability, other than 

spurious operation of the other contact in the same cable (previously discussed as 78%). In 

essence, I would expect to see a random distribution of spurious operations in other cables in 

the same test, around 30-40% of cables; and this is what I see. If there were high dependence, I 

would see a lot of spurious operations in a limited number of tests, and a lot of tests with zero 

spurious operation. 

On duration; I partially completed a dependency analysis that is presently showing dependency 

on duration. My initially simplistic analysis was to look for the probability of long duration 

spurious operations, given a long duration spurious operation occurred. So the simplified 

analysis was simply to look for tests where the following occurred: 1) a long duration spurious 

operation occurred, as defined by being above the mean duration of approximately 1 minute, 

and 2) a second spurious operation occurred. 

So the test is that, given the long duration occurred, there should be a 50/50 probability that the 

second spurious operation is above 1 minute. In fact, the way the analysis is being performed, 

given I am looking at both durations, the probability should be less than 50/50; but I am using 

50/50 as the starting point for the test. 

My initial look was on Grounded AC – one I was proposing no dependency in my previous 

proposal. So in starting with HGL (where I think the dependency is greatest); I found 6 tests 

where two spurious operations occurred, and a greater than 1 minute duration in at least one of 
TECHNICAL INTEGRATOR AND PROPONENT OPINION ON APPLICATION OF 

LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES FOR MULTIPLE SPURIOUS OPERATION CASES

H-3

the two spurious operations. Of the 6 tests; 4 of the other spurious operation circuits also had a 

spurious operation of greater than 1 minute. These included the following: 

- C-IT-1-CK4 

- D-IT-12-CK1 (counted as both 1 above and 1 below due to three spurious) 

- E-I-7-CK1 (counted as 2 above) 

So using the above, I am getting a 66% change of a long duration spurious operation on the 

second, given the first is long duration (as defined as being above the mean). This clearly 

shows dependency. 

When I look at HGL for DC – The number above is 100% for HGL. In other words; all of the DC 

HGL Hot Shorts (all tests) and SOs (D-IT-2) were greater than 1 minute for both hot shorts/SOs, 

when more than 1 occurred. This is a clear trend; in other words, there is dependency between 

long duration spurious operations. 

The problem, of course, is showing this translates into the probability of both being above a 

certain time. The probability is not 66% for AC and 100% for DC, but it can easily be derived 

(given a few days of analysis). I tried this with the HGL Grounded AC, and got the following: 1) 

The conditional probability of the second hot short exceeding the first is 0.625, and 2) The time 

for the second hot short, given it exceeds the first is shown below. This curve demonstrates 

that not only is the second hot short duration longer; but also higher than the 95th percentile 

curve in the NUREG. Of course, this is only for HGL AC; but it demonstrates again that the 

duration of the second is dependent on the first. 

HGL – Grounded AC – Hot Short Duration of the Second Hot Short 

So just looking at HGL; there is clear evidence of dependence. For me there are two ways to 

address this: 1) Develop a separate duration curve for HGL, which will overly complicate the 

FPRA, or 2) Develop a dependent number for the second Spurious Operation. 

I would like my strong disagreement on the use of a floor value in place of a dependency 

evaluation noted in the report.” 
TECHNICAL INTEGRATOR AND PROPONENT OPINION ON APPLICATION OF 

LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES FOR MULTIPLE SPURIOUS OPERATION CASES 

H-4

Proponent #2 

No feedback provided 

Proponent #3 

“Regarding the “likelihood of spurious operations for MSO scenarios”; based on my through 

review of the data and analytical techniques used to evaluate the data, I cannot identify any 

generic phenomena that would contribute to a dependency on hot short occurrence for MSO 

scenarios, provided that the hot shorts are in the different cables. The only potential 

dependency for hot short likelihood of occurrence for MSOs would be cases were armored or 

shielded cables are used. In these cases, the ground plan interaction may play a role in 

influencing the occurrence of spurious operation, however, I believe that thermal conditions in 

the vicinity of the cables associated with the MSO play a substantially more dominate role. 

Regarding the “duration of spurious operation for MSO scenarios,” I believe that dependencies 

can exist, but are highly dependent on the thermal conditions and physical arrangement of the 

cables associated with the MSO scenario. Again, this view does not include multiple hot shorts 

within the same cable, as those have a direct dependency. As documented in Volume 1, the 

PIRT panel concluded that thermal conditions have a “HIGH IMPACT” on spurious operation 

duration. From the data presented in NUREG-2128, there is a general trend for longer duration 

when cables are exposed to a slower heat up rate (or hot gas layer [HGL]) exposure than fast 

heat up rates observed in flame and plume exposure data. Although there is some aleatory 

nature to the duration of the spurious operation for the individual bins (HGL, plume, flame), HGL 

exposure typically were longer in duration. Due to the longer duration likelihood for single 

events, there is more opportunity for other hot shorts to occur during this time that could result in 

a MSO scenario. Thus, because for these phenomena, I believe that there can be 

dependencies for the application of duration likelihoods for MSO scenarios. Therefore, I agree 

with the guidance provided in Section 7.3.4.2 of this report because it provides a conservative 

approach where there is limited data and large dependence on the thermal conditions and 

physical arrangement.” 

Proponent #4 

No feedback provided 





UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

------------------

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
NUREG/CR

-7150, Vol. 2

Final

Joint Assessment of Cable Damage and 

Quantification of Effects from Fire (JACQUE-FIRE)