ML19249B631
| ML19249B631 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/14/1979 |
| From: | Volgenau E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-78-310, NUDOCS 7909040619 | |
| Download: ML19249B631 (8) | |
Text
- -
r '
un::Ec s: Arts wcmR asc u CRY COW!ssiOtJ June 14. T973 SECY-78-310 INFORMATION REPORT
! sw
.g".:3g ror:
ine Comissioners N.;,i -
Office of"enau, Director Erns: Voic
. rom:
t Inspection and Enforcement i
Thru:
Executive Direc:cr for Coeratione
,,.u.. cr i w t _i : 2 o c, -, r t.3L3,. n u.r......,'.. J C.
s" ^u l' C.
r^
_. _. ".,, m... :
nr
- a. ;
w en.c. c ru*et v. e__:
.c.
e r...
a s
v
- c. -
v
..w.:m at.,.Y
.r.
n..g,
.pe3.,C J, i
...s e, J.,:.,,.
-,te..
-.,n_,
y o
- urecse:
Tc inform :he Ccmmission of the staff's action plan.
Discussicn:
Eack:rcund
- n Acril 13,1973, -.e
--ission issuec a memcrancum
. s. e..-. -
.- :. 4.,c,,.,,._,.
.2,,...
- o., m...1./ m 3 2.~.
- =..
resuiting ron ne union or cncerneu, acientis s peti-ion dated !cvencer 2, 1977.
Inis paper acdresses Directive #5 which states:
" Provide the Cc=issicn with an analysis of alternatives (including estimates of resource recuirements and ?ctential benefits) for con-ducting incepencent verification testing of environmentally cualified equipment which is recuired to ocerate in safety systems.
Alter-natives to be crovided for information of the Comission in one month, with the full analysis to be completed one month later."
The plan for the analysis is included in Enclosure 1.
pian In essence, the plan ccnsists of analy:ing the folicwing thrse alternatives eacn recresenting a ccurse of action
~
invcivement in ecuipment
-hat w1:i provice greater u..--
-a environmental cuali#ication tnan presently exists.
a p
g p
o u r. e.>. - -
m' m"
-:-2/::'
D 0
eoj 7909040 %
l 9
sai n
The Commissioners NRC environmental test facility MRC contract envircnmental testing to existing DOE or independent laboratories NRC review and witnessing of vender tests conducted to meet NRC reauirements.
Combinations of these alternatives will be considered in search for the optimum method of monitcring and controlling the acequacy of equipment qualiifications.
The concern behind this analysis is already being addressed in IE's ongoing indeoendent verification study program with Sandia Laboratories.
IE's current irceoendent verification stud i is larger in scope in tnat it considers all viable verification options which could be carried out to incependently verify that '.ight water power reactors are designed, constructed, and operated in a safe manner.
The larger study program w91 compare the indeoendent verification testing of quali#%d ecuioment witn all of the options through a value/irract assessment.
Because of the co=onality of the ultimate goals cf Directive 5 a M cur current program and i- :ne interest of minimi::ing tne impact on existing staf# cc=i tren ts the subject indepth analysis of alternatives for concucting independent verification testing will be performec by Sandia Laboratories.
Schedule and Resources The Directive 5 analysis will be completec and subr.itted to the Commission by January 15, 1979.
The estimated resources to complete the analysis include 5 man months of staff manpower and $30,0C0 for the outside study contract.
The Directive 5 analysis will not impact cn the current independent verification study which is scheduled for completion by April 1,1980.
D
- O aa w.yq o r
- g! v.w.. L A
_ d]
_ i
_a a
The Commissioners Coordir.a tion:
This paper has been concurred in by NRR, RES, and MPA.
/
/
,<' ~.
r.,
~
~~r
,...-,~ -
/ Ernst Volge,nac Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Plan for Analysis D: STR I E'J'I C1:
Commissioners Commission Staff Offices Exec. di r. for Opers, Secrecaria:
c.,
..r7
,,u.,.n.---
PLAN FOR ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES FOR CONDUCTING INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION TESTING OF ENVIRONMENTALLY QUALIFIED EQUIPMENT Purcose This plan provides an approach for analyzing the alternatives for conducting independent verificaticn testing of environmentally qualified safety-related equipment required to operate in reactor safety systems.
The concern being addressed deals with the adequacy of equipment environ-mental qualifications performed by the industry and the NRC's method of monitoring this activity.
The plan has been developed in response to Directive #5 in the Commission's April 13, 1978 memorandum and order resulting from a petition from the Union of Ccncerned Scientists dated November 4,1977.
Ob _iectives Detailed objectives to satisfy the purpose of the plan are:
1.
Define viable alternatives for conducting independent verification testing of environmentally qualified safety-related equipment, 2.
Determine the resources recuired for each alternative, 3.
Define any constraints or lir.itations associated witn each alternative, d.
Deternine tne bene #its of eacn alternative, ana 5.
Define a basis for evaluating and selecting the alternative or combination of alternatives that should be implemented.
Sccce Decisions In the plan definition phase tne staff made several basic decisions relative to the scope of the analysis.
1.
Alternatives other than complete, independent testing of all safety equipment shall be considered in the analysis.
2.
The analysis shall address environmentally sensitive safety-related equipment that is located in areas potentially exposed to a harsh environment and that is required to functicn during or following a design basis event for safe plant shutdown or otherwise required to mitigate the consecuences of an accident.
By definition then, the analysis will consider safety significant electrical, instrumentation and control, and electro-mechanical equipment.
3.
The analysis shall address ecuipment currently being supplied and installed in plants under construction and such equipment approved for use in the future.
O.,,
- r., tm
' $deld:
2-Al ternatives Each alternative represents a potential course of action that will provide greater NRC involvement in ecuipment cualifications than presently exists and consecuently provide a higher confidence level in the acequacy of environmentally sensitive safety-related equipment.
1.
Alternative 1 - An NRC owned and operated, environmental test facility capable of accommodating the equipment of interest.
2.
Alternative 2 - NRC contract for independent verification testing of equipment with existing laccratories.
3.
Alternative 3 - NRC review and witnessing of vendor tests conducted to meet NRC reouirements.
Caccination of the alternatives will be considered in the analysis in search of the preferred method.
Tasks "ajor tasks required to ccm:lete tne analysis are identified below.
~
E: i: men: - Ne envircnmentally sensitive ecuipment within the sc :e of ne analysis will be identified by category, tyce/model, qt,antity and size.
A plant study will be usec as a basis for estimating the total quantity of safety significant cmtetypes i r.vo l ved.
2.
Tests - An acceptable test scope for each equipment category will be defined using current standards such as IEEE 323-1974 and censidering current state-of-the-art for such technical areas as accelerated aging practices.
3.
Sample Size - The equipment study will identify the population of prototype safety significant equipment.
This number will be con-sidered the current backlog from which several sample sizes will be selected for analyzing the three alternatives and desirable com-binations.
Upon completion of the backlog a routine test rate representing the equipment modificatica rate will be estimated to establish the continuing work load for equiprrent pro::csed for use in future plants.
D D
].l '[.
wJd_S_I_g a
. 4.
Alternative 1 (NRC test facility) - An outside study contract will be used to estimate the costs involved in construction, equipping and operating a test facility capable of conducting the environ-mental tests in accordance with standards sucn as IEEE 323-1974.
Estimates of facility cost will be made in twc ways.
The first will include a sequential test operation anc contain sufficient equipment to support maximum utilization of one test chamber.
In this case the test rate will be established by the facility and completion of the backlog will be dependent utan the test rate.
The second way will be a parallel test operation site where the equipment will be adequate to accommodate a desired test rate.
5.
Alternative 2 (NRC contracts tests) - This task will include a study of the existing testing capabilities anc availability of facilities.
Eacn facility will be characterized with respect to size and test rate limitations.
The costs associated with contract preparation, monitoring and conducting tests at each facility will be determined with respect to several sample sizes.
6.
Alternative 3 (NRC review and witnessing of vencor tests) - A study of the manpower and expense associatec with this alternative will be estinated using several samole sizes. A subject of this a' ernative will address tne ' enefits of uogradiac ne industry's; prasent acproacn to qualifica:icn testing thrcugn a tniec party effort as an alternative to direct NRC tests.
7.
Test Specimen Costs - An estimate of the test specimen costs will be made for Alternatives 1 and 2.
These costs will include assembly costs where necessary as well as shipment costs.
8.
Evaluation - This task will include identification cf constraints; and limitations associated witn each alternative.
Tne relative benefits of each alternative will include ccsts, degree of verifi'-
cation independence and rate of achieving the desirec confidence level.
A basis for a decision relative to tne appropriate course of action will be provided in the form of a value/ impact assesserment.
k p
9' F I
.j*
r.
Resources The estimated resources to complete the tasks outlined in this plan include 5 man months of IE's staff manpower and SEO,000 for the outside contract study.
The IE manpower will be at the expense of delay in program improvement changes in the Licensee Contractor and Vendor Inspection Program (LCVIP).
The outside contract will be funded from the 1978 and 1979 IE program support funds.
_ Schedule The Directive 5 analysis will be completec by January 15, 1979.
The enclosed schedule identifies planned completion dates for the intermediate tasks.
d% e ' f4 g-o% g
, u._, aswa t..
SCllEDULE Task June July AmJ.
Sept.
Oct.
flov.
Dec.
Jan., 1979 Fe 1.
Equipment Study 2.
lest Study 3.
Saniple Size Study 4.
Alt. #1 Study 5.
Alt. Il2 Study 6.
A1(. #3 Study 7.
Specimen Costs 8.
Evaluation i
9.
Ileport 01 C. 3
. ~.,
- s.. )
.M