ML19221B115
| ML19221B115 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-75-087, NUREG-75-087-06.1.2, NUREG-75-87, NUREG-75-87-6.1.2, SRP-06.01.02, SRP-6.01.02, NUDOCS 7907120445 | |
| Download: ML19221B115 (3) | |
Text
NURLG-75/087 e
""E%,%
p e
!\\
/ ;,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
<l, a,, i o
WF!
STANDARD REV EW PLAN
% [..'.. /
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SE CTION 6.1.2 ORGANIC MATERIALS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary - Accident f.nalysis Branch ( AAB)
Secondary - None 1.
AREAS OF REVIEW l.
The coating syster.s (paints) used inside the containment are evaluated as to suit-ability for design basis accident (DBA) conditions.
2.
The stability of materials (particularly organics) and their decompositiro produt.'s are examined to determine the pote'itial for interactions with engineered safety features (ESF). Radiation and chemical ef fects are considered.
l The radiation and chemicel environments under DBA conditions are reviewed under Standard Review Plan Section 3.11.
The fission product removal ef fectiveness of *'.e containment spray system is reviewed under Standard Review Plan Section 6.5.2.
II. ACCEFTANCE CRITERl_A A coating system to te applied inside a containment is acceptable if :
1.
It meets Reculatory Guide 1.54 (Ref. 1) and ANSI N101.2 (Ref. 2) or equivalent.
2.
No adverse interactions with engineered safety features are likely as a result of materials released by radiation decoriposition or chemical reaction of the coating system in the containment post-accident environment.
In particular, under normal and DBA conditions:
' combustible gas mixture will not result.
a.
b.
Organic iodide formation will not exceed that assumed in Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4 (Ref s. 3 and 4).
I No solid debris that can fall into the containment sump are ge :erated, unless it c.
can be justified that the debris will not adverseiy af fect the performarce of post-accident flu'l systems.
USNRC STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
......,,....1,................o....,~.e,............................,..........,...........,4 s,.~...,.....,,..
............................c.................~,..,.~,....-..
.......,,,.........~,...................,..........................c.................~
.....................1.....,......
...-....c. _,,,s..... u.....
. ~....
............... ~......,
}Qj
/j i
,,,,,.... ~............................
................m...~..........-.......,,............,.,...~
c......~..,....
..m
.~...
...,,...u
....,,c....
.o,,...
..... o c n.
7 90712 0 4 n
III. REVIEW PROCEDURES The reviewer selects and emphasizes aspects of the areas covered by this review plan as may be appropriate for a particular case. The judgment on the areas to be given attention and emphasis in the review is based on en inspection of the material presented to see whether or not it is similar to that recently reviewed en other plants and whether items of special safety significance are involved.
At the construction permit revie stage, the reviewer verifiee that the applicant has com-mitted to using pr otective coating systtms which meet the acceptance criteria.
At the operating license review stage, the reviewer determines the types and quantities of radiation and chemical decomposition products tnat can be produced from all the paints and organic materials which are erposed to the containment att"osphere. The paints and organic materials to be considered include those paints that are specified in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR), unspecified protective coatings on small machinery and equipment, and organic materials such as uncovered cable insulatinn. The determination is based on documented test data provided by the applicant. If test data are unavailable, a conserva-tive analysis is required. The environmentai conditions for the test and analysis must t'e cueparabla to those specified in Section 3.11 cf the SAR.
If combustible gases such as hydrogen and methane can be generated, the reviewer notifies the Containment Systems Branch if this source is n,t included in Section 6.2.5 of the SAR.
If a system to control conbustible vapors is not prov u'ed, then the release of volatile alkanes tc Turia organic iodides is of additional concern. The yield of organic iodides relative to the total iodine rcleased after a CBA is estimated using the data of Reference S and any applicable experimental results submitted by the applicant. The fomation of organic iodides snould not exceed that assumed in Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4 If solid debris can be produced and can reach the containment recirculation sump, the Con-tainnent Systems Branch and Reactor Systens Branch should be notified ir order that the ef fects of the debris on the operation of post-accident fluid systems may be assessed.
Any exceptior to Regulatory Guide 1.54 involving quality assurance and quality control requirements should be referred to the Quality Assurance Branch for review and resole ion.
IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer verifies that suf ficient information has been pruvided and the review and calculations support conclusions of the following types, to be included in the staff's safety evaluation report:
(
"The containc.ent coating systems have been evaluated as to their suitability to withstand a postulated design basis ace.ident (DBA) environment. Thc coating systems choser, by the applicant have been qualified under conditions which take into account the postulated DBA conditions. No adverse interactions (under DBA conditions) between the decomposition products and the engineered dafety features have been established. The amount of unqualified paint in the containment is not significant.
Rev. 1 6.1.2 -2 147 194
The staf f concludes, therefore, that the coating system will not adversely affect the consequences cf postulated design basis accidents and is acceptable."
V.
REFERENCES 1.
Regulatory Guide 1.54, " Quality Assurance Requirecc.ents for Protective Coatings Applied to Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants."
l 2
ANSI N101.2, " Protective Coatings (Paints) for Light Water Nuclear Reactor Contain-rrent facilities," American National Standards Institute (1972).
3.
Regulatory Guide 1.3, "Assurrptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Loss of-Coolant Accident for Boiling Water Reactors."
4 Regulatory Guide 1.4, "Assurrptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radioiogical Consequences of a Loss-of-Coolant Accident for Pressurized Water Reactors."
5.
A. K. Postina and R. W. Zavadoski, " Review of Ornanic Iodide Fonnation Under Accident Condi tions in Wa ter-Cooled Reactors," WASH-1233 (1972).
\\hl
\\
6.1. 2 -3 Rev. 1