ML19322D261
| ML19322D261 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1974 |
| From: | Schroeder F US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322D256 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8002100101 | |
| Download: ML19322D261 (20) | |
Text
-
. ~
)
.i l
DIPLEMENTATI0t' 0F STANDARD REVIEW PLANS g
.g by Frank schroeder L-Acting Deputy Director for Technical Review j
Directorate of Licensing, USAEC l
To be Given Befcre the AIF Workshop on Reactor Licensing and Safety San Diego, California December 11, 1974 1
One year ago, at the AIF workshop in Orlando, Florida, Jack O' Leary, who was then Director of Licensing for the AEC Regulatory staff, discussed the Regulatory staff's plans for the preparation of a set-of Standard Review-Plans which would describe in detail the m?nner in which the Regulatory staff conducts its safety review of license applications for nuclear power plants. At the time of his remarks, an intensive effort had been under way by the staff for about 6 months on these plans.. None were complete, but many had reached the first
~
e' draft stage. At that time, we expected to develop the plans into a second draft and begin releasing them in the summer of this year. It has taken longer than we had thought. We began releasing the plans in '
batches of 10 to 20 in late September.
To date we have issued about half of ' the approximately 220 individual plans,.and we expect the last -
of the plans to be released within the next month. The attachment to the printed. text of my talk. lists the titles, of all the plans. These
' plans can be obtained upon request to the Director of Licensing, as long as the initial printing lasts. As soon as all the plans are finished, we plan to collect them in a multi-volume set, and make them available for purchase.
7 The preparation of these plans has involved a very significant expendi-gjfj ture of technical manpower by the Licensing staff. The initial drafts fo-23; were prepared by senior professionals in each scientific and engineering L3}':-
discipline represented on our Technical Review staff. These initial P-3 draf ts were reviewed by the first-line supervisors prior to circulation '
T s
for comment by others in the Regulatory staff, and for review by
+'.
Licensing management.
From your own experience, you can undoubtedly appreciate the difficulties inherent in the proc ~ess.. The authors consist C
of about 30 scientists and engineers who have a common overall objective, but each works in different, though interrelated fields.
Each of these individuals was in essence asked to specify what his job is all about; how he works with the others. and how the common objective is met.
We
~
also asked that they continue to do their job in the meantime. Manage.- ~
ment. then had the job of reviewing these individual inputs and developing them into a cicar, consistent, and useful set of Review Plans.
In spite 4
F of the difficulty, I believe 'that the Standard Review Plans we have pro-
' duced are meeting these objectives.
P
~.. '
- ' :)
??~
e s
,I w-g l-8'002100/0 [
~
a r
u
.~
5-m z
2
\\
s 2
r h
I would like to acknowledge at the outset the essential contribution
]
'j made by Dr. Joseph Hendrie in tids process. The work was initiated t
under his direction when he was Deputy Director for Technical Review j
in the Directorate of Licensing. He gave the project high priority and made sure that the staf f did so also. His own diligent and searching review of the staff's work inspired a high quality and thorough job, in spite of conflicting demands.'on everyone's time.
L-Fortunately, his contribution did not come to an end with his depar-ture from Bethesda last June, since he has continued to help us in the final stages of review on a consulting basis.
By now many of you will have seen at least some of the plans, and I.
~
~
expect you may already have formed some. opinions of what' they are and what they are worth to you.
Since the purpose and utility of the plans will_ vary depending on one's point of view, I should emphasize that from.our point of view the plans are intended primarily for internal
~<
use by the Regulatory staff, but we also recognize that there is an important benefit to be derived from the availability of these plans to those outside the staff.
In my reg. arks this morning, I will describe the plans themselves, discuss their use inside and outside the staff, and wind up with a few words about their implementation and revision in the future.
^
First, let me remind you how the staf f conducts its safety review of f
{j the information provided in Safety Analysis Reports. The safety review is conducted by personnel in fif teen specialist branches. These fifteen i
2 -
branches are composed of professionals having a wide variety of educa-tional backgrounds and work experience in the nucicar field. Each of 16 the branches has specific review responsibilities.
One of the first
~
((
tasks in preparing the Standard Review Plans was to enunciate clearly
~
the review responsibilities of each of the reviewing branches and to
'N~
define the often complex interfaces between these responsibilities.
In, fl:4 the list of Standard Review Plans attached to the printed text of this.
k[!, '
paper.I have indicated which of our branches has primary responsibility-for each of the' major subsections of Safety Analysis Reports identified in our " Standard Format and Content" document, which most of you are familiar with'.
Individual Standard Review Plans are being prepared for each of the approximately 220 major subsections of the Standard Format.
f In addition to the areas of primary responsibility shown on that list, each of the branches has secondary responsibilities to assist the primary branches in the review of other sections of the SAR. These o
secondary responsibilities are spelled out in the individual Review +
4 Plans.
- #s,
+
- s. s' c
.m_
W l
N t
. - -,, -~.
X J' "
t._
2 M_
1.
~
3 u,
ud.
w Just as the Standard Format document identifies the information we 9c need to conduct our revica,.the individual Review Plans address in g
detail what is reviewed, the basis for the review, how the review L
[
is accomplished, and the nature of the conclusions that should be u~
reached.
The first major section of each Review Plan, entitled " Areas of Review," describes the scope of review, i.e., what is being reviewed.
A detailed description is provided of the systems, components, analyses, data and other information that is reviewed as part of y
~ '.
the particular Safety Analysis Reports subsection in question.
The second section of each Review Plan, entitled " Acceptance Criteria,"
states the purpose and technical bases for the review. The " bases" [-
consist of,s~pecific criteria such as AEC Regulatory Guides, General Design Criteria, ASME Code Requirements, Branch Technical Positions, or other criteria used in the review.
This section is not merely a tabulation of the pertinent criteria.
The application of these cri-teria to the review area in question is discussed.
The third section of each Review Plan, the " Review Procedures," dis-cusses how the review is accomplished. This section describes the procedures in use for reviewing and approving the systems, components,
{
data, etc., that are described in the first section of the Review Plan, using the criteria delineated in the second section. This section is f
generally a step-by-step procedure that the' reviewer goes through to provide reasonable verification' that the applicable safety criteria
?
have been met.
The procedures vary considerably for the individual 9(
plans. For example, in some cases the procedure may involve a check by the reviewer to ascertain that the applicant has specified the use
?~ ~
of appropriate codes and criteria.
In other cases, the procedure may '
--n E5:I involve a detailed review of the applicant's design methods, and in
'6 some instances may call for independent calculations by the staff.
k '? -.
The fourth Review Plan section, entitled 'l Evaluation Findings," pre-
'..9
~
r sents the ' type of conclusions that are sought regarding the accepta,
bility of the particular review area. The final section lists the
+
refer ~ences utilized in the review process.
Some Review Plans have Branch Technical Positions and' Appendices attached. These documents ' typically set forth the solutions and approaches determined to be acceptable in the past by che Licensing staff in dealing with a specific safety problem or safety-related These solutions and approaches are codified in this
's design area.
form so that staff reviewers can take uniform and agreed upon positions
~
-E in all cases.
Some Branch Technical Positions and Appendices may be:
n l
~
a E'
{'
((.'
~
s 3
- 4-
~,
~
nd GiO' -
L2
'__a_.
i s.
1 1.
a
y converted into Regulatory Guides if it appears that this step would h
aid the review process. Like Regulatory Guides, the Branch Technical Positions and Appendices represent solutions and approaches that arel
+
acceptable to the Licensing staff, but they are not required as the only possible solutions. However, applicants should recognize.that substantial time and effort on the part of the_ staff has gone into i,
I the development of these Branch Technical Positions and Appendices L
and realize that our evaluations of proposed approaches different from
['
those described may require longer review times and more extensive questioning by the staff.
~
i TheStandard'ReviewPlansare'rittentocoveravarietyifsite w
conditions and plant designs. For'any given application, the staff p
reviewers will' select and emphasize particular aspects of each plan L f as is appropriate for that application.
In some cases, the major
[
portion of the review of a plant feature is done on a generic basis'
-f,
with the designer of that feature, rather than in the context of L
reviews of particular applications from utilities.
In ether cases a plant feature may be sufficiently similar to that of a previous.
plant so that a de novo review of the feature is not needed. For
. J. T J these and'other similar reasons, the Licensing staff does not expect ~
T,-
Iw to carry'out in detail all of the review steps listed in each plan in -
the review of every application.
N
' ~
2
's-I'm sure that most'of you recognize some of the' problems that have accompanied the rapid growth of the Regulatory staff in the past few' years. When the staff was reorganized in the spring of 1972,- we had -
approximately 70 professionals engaged in the conduct of safety reviews ~
^
(exclusive.of supervisory and clerical personnel). At present (2 years later) we have about 220 professionals doing safety, reviews. This means.
p n.q that we have a large number of reviewers who, while highly qualified L'i technically, do not have a long background of experience with the evolu ~-
,b y
~,
. tion of Regulatory procedures and policies.. These new professiona1 Q f-f. Q{
reviewers need guidance and orientation in the procedures and standards Qij;q used in our' safety evaluations. There has also been a substantial influx; q
of new licensing project managers who have similar needs. The Standard',
y Review Plans offer,.a valuable training tool that will reduce,the' 4]
required assimilation time for new reviewers, and new project managers, by providing a detailed description of how the review is accomplished, who is responsible, and how the review groups interface with each other.
- 2
^
The primary benefit'of the Standard Revica Plans from the point of view.
.li 34
{.
of the Regulatory staff members (new or old) is that they provide each -
'1 M reviewer with a management-approved statement of 1) ~ the areas he is O
responsible for, 2) the' depth of review expected, 3) the other groups-
-[_
3
,c 2
m J
-%g 3%
..~T y
ff f b
W lI
(
e
[h
_4 y-a F.m _
> ~
4
~
-l
.cm 4
a.
)
.,.4'
^'
^
a..
r s
- L _.
zw ' n J._. ^:- :.n h
'ii ':
~
'T
.].
d 5
- l
>~j A
he must interface with, and 4) the b.ases for acceptability.
It is j
our intent that by use of the Review Plans we can promote stabiliza-
'i tion of the review process, while at the same time assuring complete-ness and increased consistency.
Once the first edition of the Standard Review Plans is coupleted and in place, Regulatory managemenc will have available a yardstick by.
which to measure current practice.
In preparing these plans, we Instructed the individual authors (who are our senior reviewers in each branch) to write down what we are doing today and not consciously to break new ground in the plans.
I am aware that many of you in
.,. ~
reading these plans may identify what appear to you to be " ratchets."
Let me assure you that in our management review of these plans we have attempted to make them a " snapshot" of currently approved practices in the staff's review. It was not our intent to expand either the scope or the rigor of our requirements in the course of preparing the plans.
I am sure you will recognize, however, that the mere act of -
writing down with s ne precision and clarity exactly what we are doing inevitably reveals d tails and nuances previously' unperceived by many of you.
s Many of you are aware of the formation some months ago of the Regulatory Requirements Review Committee, composed of senior members of the Regula-t tory management. The principal function of this review committee is to provide systematic management review of any proposed changes in our licensing requirements, whether " ratchets" or "deratchets." The Standard Review Plans will be used by the committee as a point of reference for such reviews, since they enunciate what we are doing y
,.f today. As changes are proposed, reviewed, and approved by the Regula-tory Requirements Review Committee, we will revise individual sections
.of.the Standard Review Plans to reflect the new base.
Although we hope
,W
.that the number of such changes.will be small,- the intent is not to' s
it
, prevent change,.but rather~to control changes in a. dis'ciplined way.
~
[
The preparation of the first edition of the Standard Review Plans has already revealed the need for substantial revisions to the Standard-Format docu' ment to provide greater clarity and specificity on the information needed by the Regulatory staff in conducting our licensing reviews. These revisions are being issued individually as Regulatory
- [
Cuides (in the 1.70 series), and when the Review Pltns a a all com-pleted, Revision 2 to the Standard Format document will be published..
'f The Review Plans are keyed to Revision 2~of the Standard Format, and 4
I; are numbered according to the section numbers in Revision 2.
We recog -
nize - that for some time af ter the Review Plans and the Revised Standard 4.
V F
y.-
~
f 1
- -~ _
6 S~
2
?: 'l b ~l Format are published, applications being reviewed by the Licensing staff will have been prepared in accordance with Revision 1 of the Standard Format.
Staff reviewers will adapt their use of the Review 3
Plans for applications based on Revision 1.
Staff reviewers will i
also make appropriate allowance for the differences in information p'"
requitements between Revision 1 and Revision 2 when determining the acceptability of applications for docketing.
Like the Standard Format, the Review Plans are directed toward water-cooled reactor power plants.
Staff reviewers will adapt the plans for use in the reviews of other reactor types where applicable.
Since the Review Plans specify the criteria and standards used in th,e b
review of each major section of the Safety Analysis Report, another important byproduct of their preparation is the identification of those areas where criteria and guidance to the industry is either lacking or l.
In need of supplementation.
This feedback is being provided to the.
Directorate of Regulatory Standards for use in the preparation of new or revised Regulatory Guides.
Now let me say a few words about the use of our_ Review Plans by the industry.- Let me first ca'ution those of you who have not read any of the plans that they ar.2 not light reading.
In spite of the substantial amount of_ time we have spent in the final editing, they are not models of literary art.
They'do not attempt to explain technical matters to a nontechnical audience. Each plan is written for the knowledgeable
'{
professional reviewer in the discipline needed for each area of review.
- } ~
Thus,I would expect there will be few, if any, Individuals in industry-x who wil wish to read the whole multi-volume set of plans. What then y
are the benefits of their release outside the staff? First, we want to y
f
, show you and the interested public that our process is open and above board, and give any interested party an opportunity to understand our h' P9
, internal procedures.
Secondly, while the Standard Format document pg specifies the information needed in your Safety Analysis Reports, we believe~ that the individual specialists preparing Safety Analysis Reports 5"
could benefit from a better understanding of how we conduct our review in each area.j We have found over the years that many of the objections of applicants to staff questions in given areas can be resolved easily, once the applicant understands why the staff needs the information, and hoV.it will be used in our review.
n d
~
The title I was given for my talk is " Implementation of Standard Review Plans."
I'm not quite sure what the organizers of this workshop really C*
had in mind by that title.
I have described to you this morning what
-]
these plans are and how we have gone about preparing them. To the extent l~N,'
~
c rllv ' h J
i i
b n
u m
m
o i
L i
j 7
I that we have accomplished our objectives in writing these plaas, we 7
have set down on paper, and in a form for everybody to see, uhat
,s we have been doing for some time, or at Icast what we have intended to do.
Thus, in a very real sense, these plans have already been l
implemented in the review of liccase applications for the past year or two.
Several months ago we asked our reviewers to begin using the draf t versions of the plans on a trial basis to test their complete-ness and utility.
Obviously some licensing requirements have changed'in the last several months, and ue have attempted to make the plans as up-to-date as possible in reflecting current regulatory positions and current Regulatory Guides, Industry Codes, and Standards. There is no question that the standards foc, and the quality of, our reviews have improved substantially in the Inst 2 to 3 years.
Thus, some of you who had experience with the review process some years ago and who are now entering into it again nay per-
~
ceive a substantial upgrading in the quality and quantity of information that we require of you and in our review.
By making use of the Standard Review Plans and the Revised Standard Format document, you should be able
" ~. '
to reduce the number of surprises during the review process.
~
in Once our Re~ view Plans are on the street, and experts in the various tech-nical disciplines have had an opportunity to become familiar uith the Individual plans, we expect that there will be questions, comments, and i- '
probably objections to' thin'as in the plans.
As probicas or questions arise on individual plans, or groups of plans, we expect to arrange meetings with interested parties, including industry groups, to discuss
' j..?
them and determine whether changes in the plans are warranted.
It is obvious to us that a general meeting or series of meetin'as that attempted'
- ^
1 to cover all 220 Review Plans'with one' audience would be unworkable _and
\\
~
interminable. Thus, we hope that' industry representatives, perhaps working
,'~D 9?
through the AIF, and other ' interested parties, will identify selected
.U plans for discussion with staff representatives in given disciplines, so t'F,-
that a series of such' meetings of limited scope can be scheduled, as appro-priate.
- /
4 The preparation of the Review Plans has required, and is still requiring,
[l '
~
C the expenditure of a substantial a=ount of manpower on the part of the y I?
Regulatory staff. ' This expenditure comes at a time when' the staff is heavily impacted with licensing reviews, standard plant reviews, generic-h, [ 's, '
safety problems,-and standards development activities. The fact that we
~ ' - -
have been willing to expend this sizable block of manpoacr serves notice
.as to the importance we place on the Review Plans. We are convinced that
/
the completion of this task is an important near-term mechanism for main-L taining, and improving, the quality and uniformity of our reviews, while-I
&. ) N f-n
. u n.
n
(
._x
~_
o 7
[
s
_na ta m
__T1
'm..
+
.. i
.u
8 i
a 4,
I I believe at the saac time atte=pting to expedite the review process.
)
that use of the Review Plans by the staff and by Regulatory canagement as a tool to assure uniformity, consistency, and quality of our safety reviews will have a stabilizing ef fect en the licensing process that
+
will help in necting the nation's energy needs, while at the same time providing for the protection of the public health and safety.
Attachment:
List of Standard Review Plans O
e
,e
.e
~
gs 9
- ge:
2 P
/
i
't et
~..
m
.m_
^
4
Aeeach ent LIST OF STANDARD REVIEW PLANS _
ts,.
B J m R m Cuos.........................................................
3 Responsible Branch
- i CHAPTER 2.0 SITE CHAoACTERISTICS AAB 2.1.1 S i te Loc a ti on a nd Ce s cr i p ti on............................
n 2.1.2 Exclusion Area Authority and Contro1.....................
90 I
2.1. 3 Popul att an D i s tribu ti on..................................
n 2.2.1-2.2.2..
Locations and Routes. Cascriptiens.......................
2.2.3 Ev aluation of Potenti al Acci dents........................
SAB Regi onal C11ra tology.....................................
2.3.1
^
SAB 2.3.2 Loc al Met e o ro1 csy........................................
Et
- 2.3.3 Cnsite Hateorological Haasurecents Prograns..............
Of 2.3.4 Saort Tern (Accident) Olffusion Esticates................
n 2.3.5 Leng Term (Routir.e) Diffusion Estirates..................
30 2.4.1 Hydrol o gi c D e scrip ti on...................................
n s
2.4.2 F1oods...................................................
n Pretable Maxinus Flood (FHF) on Strea:::s and Rivers.......
2.4.3 n
2.4.4 Fotential Dam failure.s (Seismically Induced).............
n 2.4.5 Probable Haximus Surge and Seiche Flooding...............
n 2.4.6 F rob able 14aximum Tsunami Fl ooding........................
n 2.4.7 Ice F1 ceding.............................................
2.4.8 Cool ing 'Jater Canal s and Res ervo1 rs......................
4 2.4.9 Channel Diversions.............~..........................
Bt C.
2.4.10 F1 cod Protec ti on Requi rements............................_
n
~
2.4.11 Low Water Conside ra tions.................................
2.4.12 Dispersion. Dilution, and Travel Tires of Accidental n
,Ral eas es o f Liqui d E f fl uen ts.............................
n 2.4.13 Groundwater..........'....................................
n 2.4.14 Technical Specifications and Ecergency Operation Require ents.............................................
n 2.5.1 Basic Geologic and Seismic Inforr4 tion...................
4^
Vibratory Ground Hotion................'..................
.s
, f 2.5.2
.n.
I
, f 2.5.3
. Sur f a ce F aul t i ng.........................................
n 2.5.4 Stabili ty of Subsurface Material s........................
J 1
n 2.5.5 Sl op e S t ab l1 1 ty..........................................
j f
h
- See attached key.
v t+
e v
1 p'.
[#
j l
Y h-
^ ^
~
2
^
~
f i
l
}
LIST OF STANDARD REVIEW PLANS - Contf r.ued
,)
CHAPTER 3.0 DESIG1 0F STRUCTURE % COMPONENTS, Responsible j
MU!sIM 73 ftir 1TT{
Eraneh j
RSB j
3.2.1 Se l t.mi c Cl a s s i f i c at i on...................................
k' t
n 6
3.2.2 System Quali ty Group C1'assi fi cation......................
SEB 3.3.1 Wind Loadings............................................
n-3.3.2 To rn a d o Loa d 1 n 9 5.........................................
t APCS 3.4.1 F l ocd P r o t ec t i c n.........................................
SEB 3.4.2 An alys i s Procedu res....................................
l.
3.5.1.1 Internally Generated Missiles (Outside Containment)......
APCS 3.5.1.2 Interr. ally Generated Missiles (Inside Ccntal'nment).......
RSB AAB t
3.5.1.3 Turbine H!ssiles.........................................
AAB 3.5.1.4 His siles Generated by Natural.Phenecena..................
i n
3.5.1.5 Site Proximity Missiles (Except Aircraf t)................
98 3.5.1.6 A i rc ra f t Ha z a rd s.........................................
3.5.2 Structures, Systeos, and Components to be Protected APCS f rca Ex ternal ly Gen era ted M i s sil es.......................
3.
SEB 3.5.3 B a rr i er De s i g n Proc ed ure s................................
..P ant Design for Protection Against Postulated Piping
- APCS, l
3.6.1 Tallures in Fluid Systems Cutside Containment............
L ll ^ -
3.6.2 Deternination of Break Locations and Dpamic Effects EB
- s.
Associated with the Postulated Rupture of Piping.........
4 SEE S'
3.7.1 S e i sm i c I npu t............................................
g-3.7.2 S ei smi c Sys tem An alys i s..................................
N.'
y P'
3.7.3 Sei smic Subsys tem Analysi s...............................
L s
f?'
3.7.4 '
Sei smi c I n s trumen tati on Program..........................~, ".
,c w
A 3.8.1 Concre t e C on ta i nment.....................................
3.8.2 S te el C onta i nmen t........................................
N '~
3.8.3
~ of S teel or Concre te Con ta1 nmen ts........................
Concrete and Structural Steel Interns 1 Structures H
p p
3.8.4 Cther Catagery I Stru:tures..............................
3.8.5 Foundations...............................................
f~.
EB y
3.9.1. -
Special Topics for !!echanical Components..'...............
p 3.9.2
_ Dynamic Testing and Analysis of Systems, Components,
{
and Equipment..'...............................;.........
au..
3.9.3 ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 Components. Component f &}
?
Support s, and Core Support Structures.................... _
n 3.9.4 Con trol Rod Dr i v e Systems................................
yg g
,i
- s. '."
a
. r. - ~. ;...
e--.~. y.
4 L.-3..,,,...
.s, e
e g
h p
p l
4
_ ' ^
- O 1
'EE'_'_'-
1
% a x
f_. y l,,
v LTST OF ST.t?~D *JD REVIEW PIM;S - Continnd Respon:ible g
__yranch i
3.9.5 Reactor Press ure Ves sel Internals........................
IIE3 n
1 8
3.9.6 Inservf ce Testing of Pumps and Valves....................
HE3 r
'l 3.10 S'aisafe Qualificatica of Category I'Instrumentatten and
)
E1ce tric a l Equ !p:en t.....................................
ME3 3.11 Envircnmental Design of Mechnical and Ele,:trical 4
Equip:ent................................................
EICS 4
j 3.11.5 Chemical and Radiological Envf rcncental Estimates........
- AAB,
.]
I CFAPTER 4.0 PE'CDR 4.2 Fuel Systes Des! n.......................................
CP3 5
4.3 Jiucl e a r De s 1 g n...........................................
4.4 Thermal and Ilydra ul ic Des ign.............................
RS3
- 4. 5.
Reactivity Control Systems Functicnal Design,,,,,,
p 4.5.1 Centrol Ecd Systei Structural H$tarf als.................
m'E3 4.5.2 Reac tor In tern al s Ma teric1 s.~.............................
MTE3 CMPTER 5.0 REACTCR C00LkiT SYSTEM kid CC?iNECTED SYSTEMS 5.2.1.3 Comp 11ance w f th 10 CFR I.50.55a..........................
RS3 5.2.1.4 Appl ica bl e Ccde Ca s es.................................... '
4.
5.2.2 Overpressure Protecti on..................................
<a-5.2.3
. Reactor Ccolant Pressure Beundary Materials.............._~
hTEB
~
5.2.4 RCF3 Ins erv ice Inspection & Testing......................
5.2.5 RC PB Lea k a g e Detecti on................... l...............
RSB 5.3.1 Reactor Vessel Materials.................................
37g3 5.3.2 Pre s sure -Temp e ra ture L1mi ts..............................
5.3.3 Rea c t or Ve s s el In teg r f ty................................. C -
.~
t
! _ _ y, Preface to Section 5.4..................................
6 5.4.1.1 Pu:p Flywheel Integri ty (FWR)............................
M 5.4.2.1 S team Genera tor Ma ter ial s................................
/
5.4.2.2 Steam Generator Inservice Inspection.....................
g 5.4.6 Reactor Core Isolatico Cooling System (BWR)..............
RS3 r
5.4.7 Res idua l' Hea t Remova l (RHR) Sys tem.......................
RSB
~
5.4.8 Reactor Water Cleanup System (BWR)..'.....':...
,. :1 ETSB
- C' 5.4.11
- Pre s surizer R el ie f Tank..................................
APCS l
I l
611 y,
vit h.
^
p i
i d
.c.-
r 4 s'"
-+
.o k5 x
1
LIST OF STANDARD PIVIN PIJJ!S - Contlug Ecsponsible CMPTER 6.0 EZ INEERED SAFETY FEATURES _
Ernnch
'i
)
6.1.1 Engineered Safety Features Metallic Materials.......... NEEB 6.1.2 Org a n i c Ma te ri a l s........................................ AAB s
'I 5.1.3 Po s t-Acc i d e n t Chemi s try..................................
6.2.1 Cen tainment Functional Design. ;.......................... CSB tt.
6.2.2 Con ta i nmen t Hes t Rroval Sys t e :s.........................
6.2.3 Seccnd ary con tair.:en t functicnal C2 sign..................
n 6.2.4 Conta inmen t Isola ti on Systes............................
6.2.5 Ccobus tible Cas control in Centainment....'...............
6.2.6 Conta i nment Le akage Tes ting.............................. CSB
'""3 6.3 Energe ncy Core Cool ing Sys tem............................
Hab i ta bi l i ty Sy stems..................................... AA3 6.4 ETSB 6.5.1 ESF Filter Systx s.......................................
AAB 6.5.2 Containment Spray as a fission Product Cleanup Systen....
6.5.3 Fi s si en Froduct Ccn trol Sys tems.......................... AAB I ce Ccndenser as a Fission Prcduct Cleanup System........ -
I 6.5.4 6.6 Inservice Inspecticn of Class 2 and 3 Cocponents.......... MTEB
- CHAPTER 7.0 INSTRUMENTATICN AN') CCNTROLS 7.1 I n t r od uc t i cn............ '.................................
EICS' n
~
7.2 R e a c t or Tr i p Sy s tam......................................
n
,'s 7.3 Engineered Safety Feature Systecs.'.......................
7.4 Systems Required for Safe Shutdown............. d.....;..
.r #
y ".
. Sa fe ty-Rela ted Display Instruren tati on.............~......,
J 7.5
. e-All Other Instrurentation Systems Required for Safety....
7.6 7.7 Control Systems la' t Required for Safety..................
~
Appendix 7-A Branc h Technical Posi ti ons (EICS3).....................
- n
.b;endix 7-3 G en eral Ag ends.' S t& tion Si ta Vi si ts....................
n Table 7-1.
Acceptance Criteria for Controls.......................
a ps s-CHAPTER 8.0 Et.ECTRIC PG1ER_
- 1:
=
'f-8.1 Introduction.............................................
8.2 Offsite Pcwer System.....................................
n 8.3.1 A-C Power Sys tms ( Cns i te)...............................
viii
-A.
Y 1
.,,.n.-e
- - - e w.a.z
...,_q
,,,,n.+n y
,)
es s;
s ar.--
~
Responsible
.]'
LIST OF STMOARD REVIBi ?LANS - Continued Branch
' 1 8.3.2 0.C Fewar Sy strs (Cas 1te)...............................
EICS 1*
f' Table 8-1 Acceptance Criteria for Electric Pcwer...................
t CHAPTER 9.0 AUXILIARY SYSTEMS _
y
?
9.1.1 New Fuel Storage.........................................
APCS s
n 1
9.1.2 Spen t Fuel Stera g e.......................................
I 9.1.3 Spent Fu el ' Pool Cool ing and Cle anup System...............
n 9.1.4 F u si H andl i ng Sy s t un.....................................
Sta tion Sarvice Water System (5W5).......................
9.2.1 n
9.2.2 Cc ol i n g W at er Sy s tem.....................................
9.2.3
, Domi nerali zed Water Hake-up Sys te:m (C' M5)................
[
J
, ETS3
^
9.2.4 Potabl e and Sani tary Water Systems.......................
APCS 9.2.5 U l t i ra t e H ea t S 1 nk.......................................
n 9.2.6 Condansa te Storag e Facili ties............................
4 n
9.3.1 Cccpres sed Air System (CAS)..............................
ETSB 9.3.2 I Freces s Sampil ng Systen (PSC)............................
APCS 9.3.3 Equip::ent and Ficor Drainage System (EFDS)..............
9.3.4 Chaatcal and Volur:e Control System (PAR) r (Including Baron Recovery System)........................
n 9.3.5 StandbyliquidCentrolSystem(SLCS).....................
99 9.4.1 Ccntrol Roos Area Ventilation System (CRAVS).............
Spent Fuel Pool Area Ventilaticn System (SFPAVS).........
9.4.2 Auxiliary ar.d Radwaste Area Vent 1Iation System (ARAVS)...
9.4.3 A
a
~(
9.4.4 ~
. Turbine Area Ventilation System (TAVS)...................-.
Engineered Safety Feature Ventilation System (ESFVS)....,, -
~
!(;
9.4.5 F i re Fro tec t i on Sy s t em..................................'.
b 9.5.1 f
9.5.2 Coxunica t ion s Sy s tem (CS)...............................
9.5.3 -/ Li ghting Systems (LS)....................................
9.5.4 Diesel Engine Fuel Oil Storage and Transfer System.......
Et 9.5.5 Diesel. Generator Ccoling Water 3ystem...................~.
N 9.5.6 '
Diesel Generator S tarting 5ys tem.........................
..4 M
~
D! csel Engine Lubrica tion Systen.........................
9.5.7.
Diesel Generator Ccnbustica Air Intake and Exhaust System 9.5.8 Pain Steamline Isolation Valve Sealing Systas (BWR)......
9.5.9 L
4
}
),.
s h
- r.,
.__s
-r.+-.,.
~__.-,.
g
~
\\
~ '
1
'l-L& Sqn 2
e m_
- i
^t LIST OF STANDARD REVIEW PLAUS - Continued i
s
~
Responsible
_'i CRtPTER 10.0 STE/.1/?i0 POWER CCNVERSIC'l SYSTEN-Branch 10.2 Tu rb i n e G e n e ra tor........................................
APCS 10.2.3 Turbine Disc Integrity...................................
MTES 10.3 Main Steam Supply System (M555)..........................
APCS 10.3.6 Steam and Fe edwa ter Sy s tem M s teri s1s.'....................
MTEB 10.4.1 tsinCondensars(PC).....................................
A?CS 10.4.2 Main Condensar Evacuation System (MCES)..................
ETSB 4
10.4.3 TurbineGlandScalingSystem(TGSS)......................
~
10.4.4 Tu rbine Bypas s Sys tem (T85)..............................
APCS 39 O
10.4.5 Ci rcul a ting Water System (CWS)..........................".
n 10.4.6 Cordens a te Cl eanu p System (CC5)..........................
I 10.4.7 Condansate and Feedwter System (C1FS)...................
'99 n
10.4.8 Steam Generator Bl ewdown Sys tem (SG35)...................
n 10.4.9 AuxiliaryFeedaterSystem(fFS).........................
CHAPTER 11.0 RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT 11.1,
Sou rc e T e rm s.............................................
ETSB s.
11.2 LJ gu i d Wa s t e Sy s t e ms.....................................
11.3 Ga s eou s Wa st e Sy s tem s....................................
11.4 Solid Waste Systems......................................
11.5 Process and Effluent Radiological Monitoring and f.s.
Sampling Systems....................'....................
[
CHAPTER'12.0 RADIATICN PROTECTION
^
- s t.
-r Assuring That Occupational Radiation Exposures are As tcw 12.1 q
L As Pra c ti cabl e ( AL.AP)....................................
RAB J'
12.2 Ra d ia t i on S ources........................................
/
~ 12.3 Radiation Protective Design Features.....................
12.4 D os e A s s e s sa.e n t..........................................
[
12.5 Hea l th Phys ic s Prog ram...................................
CHAPTER 13.0 C09 0CT OF OPERATIONS
- 'k-13.1.1
' Managen:ent and Technical Su' pport Organization...........
QA t -
13.1.2 Opera ti ng Organt za ti on..................................
~
a i
a "t -
13.1.3 Qualifications of Nuclear Plant Personnel...............
d
~
13.2 Training...............................................
.w.
y ; ).'
r oE
~
et
+
.) ;
}', :),
y g
s R
1
~
.2--.
.*,u.
}
W*
.x
+
LIST OF STADARD REVIEW PLCS - Continued Responsible Branch s.
ISEP 13.3 Erergency Planning........................................
QA 13.4 Review and Audit..........................................
OLB 13.5 P l a n t Pr oc ed u re s... 4.....................................
ISEP
'l 13.6 Indus tr i a l S ecur i ty......................................
l CPAPTER 14.0_ PLANT TEST PROGRAMS 4.1.l*
Ini ti al Pl an t Tes t Prog racs - FSAR........................ Q.D 4.1.2 Ini ti al Plan t Te st Programs - FSAR........................
CHAPTER 15.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSES RSB 15.0 Introd :tien.............................................
15.1 INCREASE IN HEAT RD:0 VAL BY THE SECONCARY SYSTEM 13.1.1-15.1.4 Decrease in Feedater Tcnperature Increase in Feedwater t -
Flow, Increase in Stea:s Flcw, and. Inadvertent Opening of c
a Stea:n Generatcr Relief or Safety Valve.................
15.1.5 Spectru:a of Stea:n Sye. tera Piping Failures Inside and Outside of Ccc.tainment.(P4R)
~
15.2 DECREASE IN HEAT REMOVAL BY )HE SECONDARY SYSTEM 15.2.1-15.2.5 Stea:a Pressure Regulator Failure (Closed), Loss of Ex-
~
. ternal Load or Turbir.e Trip, Closure of Main Stea:n Isolation Valve (BWR), an.! Loss of Condenser Vacuu:n.~.....
RSB 15.2.6 Less of Non-Frergency A-C Power to the Station Auxi1laries..............................................
^ '
15.2.7 Los s of Nonnal Feedster F1cw........................'....
15.2.8 Feedwater Syste:n Pipe Breaks Inside and Outside Con-1.1 tainment(PWR)...........................................
4
[
15.3 DECREASE IN REACTOR COOLANT FLCW ' RATE _
I m
15.3.1-15.3.2 Loss of Forced Reactor Coolant Flew Including Trip of O
Ptnp and Fl ow Controll er Mal func ti ons....................,"
~/
15.3.3-15.3.4 -
~ Reactor Coolant Ptr.p Shaft Seizure and Reactor Ccolant
. "~
Pump Sha f t B re ak.........................................
15.4 REACTIVITY AhD POW ~'4 DISTRIS'JTION ANOMALIES
+
i1 i 15.4.1 Uncontrolled Control Rod Assembly Withdrawal Frors a CPB g
Subcritical or low Power Startup Condition...............
4 n
15.4.2 Uncontrolled Control Rod Assembly Withdrawal at Pcwer...._
'15.4.3 Control Rod Hisoperation (System Malfunction or Operator
.N
- l Error)...................................................
1q ey a
f a
v
--; s-
,1
~
- Q
.".: ~
t r
a
~,
I t
Respons1'olo LIST OF ST.UMRD REVIE'l P!ES - Continued _
Eranch 1
15.4.4-15.4.5 Startup of an Inactiva Lcop ce Recirculation loop at an V:
Inccerect Temperature, and Flow Controller Malfunctica 4
~
]j Causing an Increase in B%R Reactor Ccolant ficw Rate.....
RSB i
15.4.6 Chunical and Volume Ccatrol System h1 function That n
Results in a Decrease in the Boren Concentration in the Reac tor Coolan t ( niR)................................
i 15.4.7 Inadvertent Loading and Operation of a Fuel Assembly
~
i n an Inp rcp er Pos i ti on.................................
CPB s
15.4.8 Sp ectrua of Rc4 Ej ec tica Accid ents (NR).................
~
15.4.9 Spectrum of Rod Drop Accidents (2:iR).................... -
15.5 INCREASE IN F: ACTOR COOLANT INVENTORY _-
15.5.1-15.5.2 Inadvertant Operation of ECCS and Chemical and Volw.e.
Centrol System Malfuncticn That Increases Redctor RSB Co ol a n t I n v en to ry........................................
4 e
s 15.6 DECREASE IN REACTOR COOLANT INVENTORY
/
w
~
15.6.1 Inadvertent Opening of a PWR Pressurizer Safety / Relief
-Valve or a BWR Safety / Relief Va1ve.......................
15.6.2 Break in Instrucent Line or Other Lines fran Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary That Penetrate Containment..... AAB 15.6.3.
S team Genera tor Tube Fail ure.*.cci dent (PWR).............. - "
d 15.6.4 Main Steam Line Break Accident (SMR).....................
F f
15.6.5 Loss of Coolant Accidents Resulting From Spectrum of -
?. d.*
Postulated Piping Breaks Within the Reactor Coolant
- ~
j P res sure B ounda ry........................... ;............ RSB c
T~e !
RADICACTIVE RELEASE FRCH A SU35YSTs4 OR COMpb';ENT_
e J. )
15.7 U N'
(.
15.7.1 Wa s te Ga s Sys ten Fa i l u re..................... !........... AAB; Q-m Radicactive Liq 0id Waste System Leak or Failure......... 7"~ ~
a.f :
@.a' 15.7.2 15.7.3 Postulated Radicactive Releases due to Liquid ETSB.
< -(
[~ '[m Tank Failures............................................
I
/
/
J
<-"4W d
se IF M I
I;
's "t..
4
. A '
. ~ -
s e
m.
.%l
,q'
,)
t
- 4 a.
y >k.
y w'
's h
g
!Ia" i
a l
?
b.
xii t,'.?f
,o
~
=
. e,
'I
.~
]
6 j
L2 1
e b
s
~
4
' - 4
.P
' d' Y
.L _ _ '
.,*a
, y _
E'.
? cap nsible f
LIST OF STA'iDARD REVIEW PLCS - Continued Branch AAB 8
15.7.4 Fu21 Har.dling Accidents..................................
15.7.5 Spent fuel Cask Crep Accidents...........................
i 15.8 AriTICIPATED TWISIENTS WITdOUT SCP.Ni t
RSB 15.8 Anticipsted Transients Without Scram.....................
i
_CP. APTER 16.0 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS _-
16.0 Technical Sp ecif1:a t t ens.................................
\\
~
CHAPTER 17.0 f/'ALITY ASSUWiCE 17.1 Quality Assurance During Desirjn and Ccnstruction.........
gr 17.2 Quality Assurance During the Operations Phase............
qA
_ i l
- -w' y.
/
/
i s
T 4
r I
i-xiii
.,:t L
i lW~
-~~
KEY TO LICENSING BRA':CH t
o.,;
>*-(-
t-P,4-AAT
- Accident Analysis Branch s
'..t i
CPB
- Core Perforcance Branch l'
a h..
CSD
- Containment Systems Branch M33
- Machanical Engineering Branch l..I~
MTEB - Materials Engineering Branch
^
- Radiological Assessment Branch RAB RSB
- Reactor Systess Branch SAB
- Site. Analysis Branch SEB.
Structural Engineering Branch QAB
- Quality Assurance Branch' OSB
- Operational Safety Branch ETSB - Fffluent Treatment Systems Branch APCS - Auxiliary & Power Conversion Systems Branch. ~
EICS.- Electrical, Instrumentation & Control Systems Branch
.;L. _
ISEP. - Industrial Security'and Emergency Planning Branch
- P n
. ' - Operator Licensing Branch OLB d-d
~~
4 s
g
' v.'
i g
j
's;
~
~ ' '
f._
fi
,M J.g,
' be
~
- W
~
l5Y '
c
/
p_r
+
/-
e
~
S..
b 2
g i
e 4
g*
7
, 'b _
('j~.D s.
-e%
'V
- Lp,..,
- <. + -
- _Qf.,'). ;
b 9
.(^
n
[.k..
l n
la I
e O
$ 9
,e' N' {
4 3
,y yn. _
lE
.L..,.+ :- l sng-.,,, d w.n;., % y -,,
+ :,
y, a
Y
- '1
.+
~,
3., c -et 4' a
.,I
'e'
,$2
.. %, t.
.r.
,r 2_...'
n+-
t. n y. f.pf e_ _; b : j:.; ;., - 7,(
,',;.j..,
_, },.
3
~
- %7
m'6-v>
+
-y t
UPdlTED STATES
[
m NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIGPd WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 nm No.75-289 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE b,A
Contact:
Carl Gustin (Ma'Ied - December 22,.1975)
~
Tel.
301/492-7771 NRC PUBLISilES STANDARD RELIEW PLAN tem The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has published a Standard Review Plan for the NRC staf f's sa fety review of applications to build and operate light water-cooled nuclear power reactors.
g'g The purpose of the plan is to improve the quality,
~ uniformity and predictability of the NRC staf f's review of ta h/[p=
applications to build new nuclear power facilities as well as i.
the quality and uniformity of information supplied by appli-hS cants as the basis for the s ta ff's review.
The plan is a L
n maj or s tep in advancing the Nuclear Regulatory Commissien's I
goal of enhanced consistency and predictability in the
[
licensing process.
By providing more specific guidance to applicants on the kinds of sa fety-related info rmation needed to review applica-tions to build and operate light water-cooled nuclear power 2n plants and specific information as to the basis for the staf f's gt review, it is intended that there will be a stabilizing effect DN on the licensing process that will benefit both the public and the nuclear industry.
q The Standard Review Plan describes in detail tne various sa fety-related technical areas reviewed by the NRC staff, the h
basis for the review, the procedures for accomplishing the f#
review, and the conclusions which are sought in each area.
The format of the Standard Review Plan is consistent with 5'.fi-Revision 2 of the NRC's Regulatory Guide 1.70 " Standard Format Q,
?.
and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power g gl,.
Plants - Light Water Reactor Edition."
lhe The 1,414-page Standard Review Plan comprises 224 sub-
$$ph sections that have been made available to the public during
@n1%e (L
the past year in separate groups as they were completed.
The' Ikq complete plan incorporates some changes to improve clarity and incorporate comments received.
M.
en N#
- L ao y
..>...~..~-p.,...av,;.a,.,..,,,,,. w :..,,; s.......,-;.>.......
s z w.. ;.. ; 4~k'_
' Y' i~h.
-' I"~ $$Y**YT $ b.".?'.D ~ *$YDb $ h"$'O=':t.? 'S *$( '.$b..,.,
u.
~~ a-C.* ' _I ', ^2
.a E'= Y L?:Y*$
- -_= -
=
.'l 2-75-289 e
g#;)
<.c. < '
@)Di F#
Copics of the Standard Review Plan, which has been iden-tified as NUREG-75/087, are available from the National ye Technical Info rmation Se rvice, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
The domestic price is $60 and the foreign price $75 including pg;.
first-year supplements.
The domestic price for individual
.g) sections is $3.50 and the foreign price is $5.00.
.'.O5 9
,4 A
.d* ?g*l
I.1
=..wd j'y, e r^. 1
-4
.d m!
oQrN L'g@
7,'4d
+.cm L~.2 is
. J,h,
~, ',,
j
.n e
g i
U 98 4
l I$$
n mn
- s i"l 3"8 4
Ea-5 re
.. m,
\\
t.!jW:
5 j
gr,Er aj
, wee h,
.I '".:,u a
t g,,
- 0 S 'i
=9,
-r 8 3,g n
$,k, I
?
.a
.,. i a
3 1
3 r
s