ML101890047: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
Page 2 3.1 Alternative 1: Take No Action Under this alternative, the NRC would not publish guidance on meeting the deterministic containment performance goals for pressure loads. This alternative is considered the baseline or "no action" alternative. However, if the NRC does not publish guidance on accepted approaches to meet deterministic containment performance goals for pressure loads, the staff position may not be clear. | Page 2 3.1 Alternative 1: Take No Action Under this alternative, the NRC would not publish guidance on meeting the deterministic containment performance goals for pressure loads. This alternative is considered the baseline or "no action" alternative. However, if the NRC does not publish guidance on accepted approaches to meet deterministic containment performance goals for pressure loads, the staff position may not be clear. | ||
3.2 Alternative 2: Publish a New Regulatory Guide Under this alternative, the NRC would publish a new regulatory guide, taking into consideration current regulations, standards, and related staff regulatory positions. | ===3.2 Alternative=== | ||
2: Publish a New Regulatory Guide Under this alternative, the NRC would publish a new regulatory guide, taking into consideration current regulations, standards, and related staff regulatory positions. | |||
One benefit of this action is that it would enhance reactor safety by incorporating the latest technical information for guidance on the containment performance for pressure loads and would address the potential ambiguity associated with other regulatory guidance documents. | One benefit of this action is that it would enhance reactor safety by incorporating the latest technical information for guidance on the containment performance for pressure loads and would address the potential ambiguity associated with other regulatory guidance documents. | ||
The costs to the NRC would be the one-time cost of issuing a new regulatory guide (which is expected to be relatively small), and applicants would incur little or no cost. | The costs to the NRC would be the one-time cost of issuing a new regulatory guide (which is expected to be relatively small), and applicants would incur little or no cost. | ||
: 4. Conclusion Based on this regulatory analysis, the staff recommends that the NRC publish this new regulatory guide. The staff concludes that the proposed action will enhance reactor safety by providing updated guidance on the containment performance assessment for pressure loads.}} | : 4. Conclusion Based on this regulatory analysis, the staff recommends that the NRC publish this new regulatory guide. The staff concludes that the proposed action will enhance reactor safety by providing updated guidance on the containment performance assessment for pressure loads.}} | ||
Revision as of 03:32, 14 October 2018
| ML101890047 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/31/2010 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research |
| To: | |
| Bayssie Mekonen/RES 251-7489 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML093170702 | List: |
| References | |
| DG-1203 RG-1.216, Rev 0 | |
| Download: ML101890047 (2) | |
Text
Page 1 REGULATORY ANALYSIS Regulatory Guide 1.216, "Containment Structural Integrity Evaluation for Internal Pressure Loadings Above Design-Basis Pressure" (Draft was issued as DG-1203, dated December 2008)
- 1. Statement of the Problem Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.57 1 endorsed American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code),Section III, Division 1, with some exceptions, for design and loading combinations for metal primary reactor containment system components for nuclear power plants. Regulatory Guide 1.57 gives brief guidance for ultimate capacity of steel containments.
Revision 3 to Regulatory Guide 1.136 2 endorsed ASME Code,Section III, Division 2, with some exceptions for design, loading combinations, materials, construction, and testing of concrete containments for nuclear power plants. Regulatory Guide 1.136 also gives brief guidance for ultimate capacity of concrete containments.
The staff proposes to include the use of deterministic performance goals for pressure loads in the containments. Therefore, the publication of this regulatory guidance is necessary to provide detailed and up-to-date guidance on deterministic performance goals for pressure loads in steel and concrete containments in evolutionary and Advanced Light-Water Reactor (ALWR) designs.
- 2. Objective The objective of this regulatory action is to provide acceptable methods for demonstrating containment performance in accordance with regulatory requirements and Commission performance goals for pressure loadings of steel and concrete containments, especially for evolutionary and ALWR designs.
- 3. Alternative Approaches The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff considered the following alternative approaches:
- Take no action.
- Publish a new regulatory guide.
1 Regulatory Guide 1.57, "Design Limits and Loading Combinations for Metal Primary Reactor Containment System Components," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
2 Regulatory Guide 1.136, "Design Limits, Loading Combinations, Materials, Construction, and Testing of Concrete Containments," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
Page 2 3.1 Alternative 1: Take No Action Under this alternative, the NRC would not publish guidance on meeting the deterministic containment performance goals for pressure loads. This alternative is considered the baseline or "no action" alternative. However, if the NRC does not publish guidance on accepted approaches to meet deterministic containment performance goals for pressure loads, the staff position may not be clear.
3.2 Alternative
2: Publish a New Regulatory Guide Under this alternative, the NRC would publish a new regulatory guide, taking into consideration current regulations, standards, and related staff regulatory positions.
One benefit of this action is that it would enhance reactor safety by incorporating the latest technical information for guidance on the containment performance for pressure loads and would address the potential ambiguity associated with other regulatory guidance documents.
The costs to the NRC would be the one-time cost of issuing a new regulatory guide (which is expected to be relatively small), and applicants would incur little or no cost.
- 4. Conclusion Based on this regulatory analysis, the staff recommends that the NRC publish this new regulatory guide. The staff concludes that the proposed action will enhance reactor safety by providing updated guidance on the containment performance assessment for pressure loads.