ML011130001
| ML011130001 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/17/2001 |
| From: | Reinhart F NRC/NRR/DSSA/SPSB |
| To: | Modeen D Nuclear Energy Institute |
| hayes j | |
| References | |
| TAC MA5437, TAC MB0449 | |
| Download: ML011130001 (5) | |
Text
April17,2001Mr.AlexMarionDirectorofEngineering NuclearEnergyInstitute Suite400 1776IStreet,NW Washington,DC20006-3708
SUBJECT:
DearMr.Marion:
AttachedpleasefindtheNRC'sassessmentoftheOctober13,2000draftofNEI99-03.AnoverviewofoursuggestedrevisionsandrecommendationsarecontainedinAttachment1to thisletter.Ourassessmentispresentedintheformofaredlineandstrikeoutversionin MicrosoftWord
©(Attachment2).AlsoattachedforclarityisaversionofNEI99-03whicheliminatesthestrikeoutportion(Attachment3).Attachments2and3areinMicrosoftWord
©ratherthatCorelWordPerfect
©.WewereunabletoaltertheFiguresinMicrosoftWord
©toincludeourcomments.Consequently,ourcommentsontheFiguresarepenandinkrather thantyped.TheactiontoprovidethisassessmentinaMicrosoftWord
©formatresultedinsomeadditionalformattingproblems,someofwhichwewereunabletoovercome.OurreviewofNEI99-03focusedontheaccuracyandcompletenessofthetechnicalinformationpresentedinthedocument.Wedidnotaddresspolicyissues.Policyissues concerningcontrolroomhabitabilitywillbeaddressedduringthepublicreviewandcomment processassociatedwiththedevelopmentofthegenericcommunicationoncontrolroom habitabilityandrelatedRegulatoryGuides.Areasofconcentrationinourassessmentincluded themannerinwhich(1)systemconfiguration,operationandperformanceisverified,(2)control roomenvelopeintegrityistestedandinleakageisdetermined,(3)radiologicaldoseanalyses areperformed,and(4)controlroomenvelopeinleakagegreaterthanthelicensingbasesfor radiological,chemicalorfirechallengesisresolved.WehaveprovidednocommentsonAppendicesCandG.WepreviouslyprovidedcommentsonthoseAppendicesduringtheJanuary11,2001,publicmeetingwithrepresentativesofthe NEIAnalysesSubgroup.Sincerely,/RA/MarkReinhart,ActingBranchChiefProbabilisticSafetyAssessmentBranch OfficeofNuclearReactorRegulation April17,2001Mr.AlexMarionDirectorofEngineering NuclearEnergyInstitute Suite400 1776IStreet,NW Washington,DC20006-3708
SUBJECT:
DearMr.Marion:
AttachedpleasefindtheNRC'sassessmentoftheOctober13,2000draftofNEI99-03.AnoverviewofoursuggestedrevisionsandrecommendationsarecontainedinAttachment1to thisletter.Ourassessmentispresentedintheformofaredlineandstrikeoutversionin MicrosoftWord
©(Attachment2).AlsoattachedforclarityisaversionofNEI99-03whicheliminatesthestrikeoutportion(Attachment3).Attachments2and3areinMicrosoftWord
©ratherthatCorelWordPerfect
©.WewereunabletoaltertheFiguresinMicrosoftWord
©toincludeourcomments.Consequently,ourcommentsontheFiguresarepenandinkrather thantyped.TheactiontoprovidethisassessmentinaMicrosoftWord
©formatresultedinsomeadditionalformattingproblems,someofwhichwewereunabletoovercome.OurreviewofNEI99-03focusedontheaccuracyandcompletenessofthetechnicalinformationpresentedinthedocument.Wedidnotaddresspolicyissues.Policyissues concerningcontrolroomhabitabilitywillbeaddressedduringthepublicreviewandcomment processassociatedwiththedevelopmentofthegenericcommunicationoncontrolroom habitabilityandrelatedRegulatoryGuides.Areasofconcentrationinourassessmentincluded themannerinwhich(1)systemconfiguration,operationandperformanceisverified,(2)control roomenvelopeintegrityistestedandinleakageisdetermined,(3)radiologicaldoseanalyses areperformed,and(4)controlroomenvelopeinleakagegreaterthanthelicensingbasesfor radiological,chemicalorfirechallengesisresolved.WehaveprovidednocommentsonAppendicesCandG.WepreviouslyprovidedcommentsonthoseAppendicesduringtheJanuary11,2001,publicmeetingwithrepresentativesofthe NEIAnalysesSubgroup.Sincerely,/RA/MarkReinhart,ActingBranchChiefProbabilisticSafetyAssessmentBranch OfficeofNuclearReactorRegulationDISTRIBUTION:SJCollinsJJohnsonRWBorchardtGMHolahanBWSheronOGCJBirmingham,SPSBReadingFileDOCUMENTNAME:G:\SPSB\HAYES\MODEENLE.WPDLogNo.:01-112Toreceiveacopyofthisdocument,indicateinthebox:" C"=Copywithoutattachment/enclosure" E"=Copywithattachment/enclosure" N"=NocopyOFFICESPSB:DSSAESPSB:DSSAEBC:SPSB:DSSANAMEJJHayes:rmcFMReinhart RJBarrettReinhartforDATE4/14/014/17/014/17/01OFFICIALRECORDCOPY STAFF'SASSESSMENTOFNEI99-03Sections1-9ThestaffhasproposedthatFigure1ofSection1bemodified.ProposedchangesincludedreferencingAppendicesinthedocumentandclarificationandrefinementoftheactionstobe taken.Withtheserevisions,amoredetailedroadmapofuseofthedocumentisprovided.It hasalsobeenrecommendedthatSection2.1berevisedtoeitherembodytheinformationin AppendixBor,inlieuofthat,toreferenceAppendixB.Invariouspartsofthedocumentthestaffhascalledattentiontothefactthatnotonlymustthecontrolroomenvelopeventilationsystemsbeassessed,butalsothoseventilationsystems whichserveareasadjacenttothecontrolroomenvelope.Theseventilationsystemshavean impactupontheinleakagecharacteristicsofthecontrolroomenvelope.Therefore,itis imperativethattheperformanceofventilationsystemsservingareasadjacenttothecontrol roomenvelopebeassessedinconjunctionwiththecontrolroomenvelopeventilationsystems.Theverificationprocessofthelicensingbasesofthedesign,configurationandoperationofthecontrolroomenvelope,itsassociatedventilationsystemsandthoseventilationsystemsserving areasadjacenttothecontrolroomenvelopeisverydetailedbutseemstohaveomittedone aspect.Theverificationprocessdoesnotappeartoaddressperformance.Itisequally,ifnot moreimportant,toverifythatcontrolroomenvelopeandassociatedareasventilationsystems andtheboundaryaredeterminedtobeperforminginamannerconsistentwiththefacility's licensingbasis.TheNRCstaffhasconductedmeasurementsofcontrolroomventilation systems'performanceatseveraloperatingplants.Onnumerousoccasions,thestaffhas identifiedinstanceswherethecontrolroomventilationsystemswerealignedasdesigned, operatedasspecifiedbyproceduresandfunctioningasdescribedinlicensinganalysesbut actualperformancewasinconsistentwiththelicensingbases.Problemsincludedthe misappropriatedsource(s)ofairand/orthequantityofair.Consequently,thestaffhas recommendedthatthosesectionsofNEI99-03whichdescribetheverificationofsystem performance,alignmentandconfigurationbesupplementedtoincorporateasectionwhich addressesperformance.ItwouldappearthatSection5andAppendixIwouldbecandidatesfor suchasupplement.ManyoftherevisionswhichthestaffhasproposedtoNEI99-03reflectthe incorporationoftheperformanceelementintotheverificationprocess.ThestaffhassuggestedthatasectionaddressingtechnicalspecificationsbeaddedaspartofthereviewprocessofSection5toassurethatthetechnicalspecificationsareconsistentwith thelicensingbases.Inaddition,itwasalsoproposedthatanewsectionbeaddedto Section8whichacknowledgesthatonepossiblemeansofaddressingdegradedornon-conformingconditionsmaybethroughtechnicalspecificationchanges.InSection9,thestaffproposedemphasizingthatmaterialdegradationofthecontrolroomenvelopeiscauseforrequiringinleakagetesting.Increasinginleakageisanindicationthatthe controlroomenvelopeintegrityprograms,whichhavebeenimplemented,areineffective.Attachment1 2AppendicesThestaffrecommended,andthestaffbelievesthattheNEITaskForceonControlRoomHabitabilityisalreadyinagreement,thatthematerialpresentedinAppendixDontheMurphy-CampemethodologyisaduplicationoftheinformationcontainedintheMurphy-Campepaper.
ItshouldbesufficienttoreferencetheMurphy-CampepaperinNEI99-03.Thestaffalso recommendedthatthesectioninAppendixDonwindtunneltestingbedeletedsinceitmay implyalevelofsuccessthathasnotbeendemonstratedinlicensee'ssubmittalsinvolving atmosphericdispersionandwindtunnels.InAppendixEofNEI99-03,thestaffproposedwordingtoemphasizethatGDC19requiresthatthereactorbeabletobecontrolledfromeithertheremoteshutdownpanelsorthemain controlroom.Therefore,whenaddressinginleakageorfireissues,anassessmentmustbe madeastowhethereitherissuecanresultinthesimultaneouslossofreactorcontrolatboth areas.Ifsuchaconditionisidentified,thenitisrequiredthatactionsbetakentoprecludethe simultaneousloss.ThestaffhasalsoproposedsomechangestoFigureE.1toamplifythe needtobeabletocontrolthereactorfromeitherthecontrolroomorthealternateshutdown
panels.ThestaffhasnotedthatAppendixF,whichaddressestheuseofcompensatorymeasures,onlydoessoinassociationwithradiologicalchallenges.Itdoesnotofferanyguidanceon compensatoryactionsfortoxicgasorsmokechallenges.Staffhasproposedthatanew Section4beaddedtotheAppendixwhichproposesalternativecompensatoryactionstothose presentedintheOctober2000draftandthatsuchaproposalnotbelimitedtoradiological challengesalonebutincludefireandtoxicgases.ThestaffproposedextensivemodificationstoAppendixJ.ThePurposeoftheAppendixwasrestatedaswastheScopestatement.Itwasrecommendedthattheattributesassociatedwith anacceptabletestbeaccentuated.Thiswasbelievedtobeimportantbecauseoncethetest attributesaredefined,theselectionofatestmethodbecomeslesssubjective.Itwasproposed thatadiscussionintheAppendixwhichdetailswhatanacceptabletestentailswouldbe valuable.Consequently,suggestedwordingwasprovided.Clarifyinginformationonthe determinationoftheacceptancecriteriaforradiological,smokeandtoxicgaschallengesprior totheperformanceofanytestwasalsoprovided.TheproposedrevisiontoAppendixJwas lessdetailedthantheOctober2000draftofNEI99-03.Itwasconcludedthattheextensive detailsprovidedintheOctober2000draftofNEI99-03wereprobablymoreappropriatefor inclusioninaplantdocumentthaninNEI99-03.TheTablesoncomponenttestingwerenot recommendedduetothelackofanycorrelatingevidenceoftheuseofsuchtestsforthe particularcomponentorapplication.ItwasproposedthatAppendixKbeexpandedtoincludeInspectionandMaintenance.AppendixKwasviewedasonlyaddressingcontrolroomenvelopesealingwhichwastoo limited.Preservationofcontrolroomenvelopeintegrityrequiresmuchmore.Theproposed changestoAppendixKreflectthat.Accordingly,revisionstotheScopeandthePurposeofthe Appendixwereproposed.ItwasalsosuggestedthataSectiontotheAppendixentitled, Discussion,beaddedwhichwouldexplainthatanactiveinspection,testingandmaintenance programisrequiredifcontrolroomenvelopeintegrityistobemaintained.Itwasalso suggestedthatitbenotedintheDiscussionSectionthatsomecontrolroomenvelopedesigns areinsufficientlyrobusttoassureintegrity.Forsomeplants,asealingprogramimproves overallqualityofthecontrolroomenvelope.However,whilethesealingimprovesthequality,it isnotapermanentfix.Withtime,sealsdegrade.Therefore,itisnecessarytofrequently inspectthoseareaswhichhavebeensealedandtotesttheseals.Inotherinstances,there 3mayexistareasofthecontrolroomenvelopeandtheventilationsystemswhicharefreefromsealingsothatthedegradationofsealsisnotanissue.Nevertheless,degradationofthe componentsorthesystemremainsanissue.Inthosecasestherealsoneedstobeperiodic inspectionsandtesting.Consequently,associatedwithanysealingprogrammustbean inspectionandmaintenanceprogramanditwasproposedthatInspectionandMaintenancebe addedtothetitleofSection4,SealingProgramofAppendixK.InexpandingSection4ofthe Appendix,aclarificationconcerningvisualinspectionsandwalkdownswasrecommended.
Visualinspectionsandwalkdownscannotquantifyinleakage.Onlytestingcandothat.A benefitoftestingwhichseemedsuitableforhighlightingwasthattheresultsofcontrolroom envelopeinleakagetestingmayallowaplanttolimitthesealingprogramtoonlythoseportions oftheventilationsystemsorenvelopewhichhavedemonstratedsignificantinleakage.Thishas certainmonetarybenefits.ItwasproposedthatSection4beclarifiedtoindicatethatthe source(s)ofinleakageandtheirpotentialinleakageratemightbethebasisforthe determinationofthemethodandfrequencyofinspection,repairsandmodificationofthecontrol roomenvelope.Regardlessofthefacility,inallcases,anactivemaintenanceprogramis requiredtoassureintegrityonceintegrityisestablished.Anycontrolroomenvelopeintegrity programshouldassurethatdegradationisquicklyidentifiedandrepairsinitiated.RevisionswereproposedtoAppendixLwhichwouldhaveplantoperatorsassessingtheimpactsofbreechesuponthecontrolroomenvelope'sabilitytowithstandradiological,toxicgas andfirechallenges.Inaddition,aprecautionarynotewasproposedtotheAppendixtoindicate thatplantoperatorsshouldassesstheimpactofabreachtoassurethatitdoesnotresultinan inducementofnewand/oradditionalinleakageintothecontrolroomenvelope.