1、ASME/ANS RA-S INTERPRETATIONSASME/ANS RA-S INTERPRETATIONSVOLUME 3Replies to Technical InquiriesJuly 2008 Through June 2013FOREWORDEach interpretation has been reviewed for applicability to the edition and supplements listedfor that inquiry. In some instances, a review of the interpretation revealed
2、 a need for correctionsof a technical nature. In these cases, a revised interpretation is presented bearing the originalinterpretation number with the suffix R and the original file number with an asterisk.ASME procedures provide for reconsideration of these interpretations when or if additionalinfo
3、rmation is available which might affect any interpretation. Further, persons aggrieved by anyinterpretation may appeal to the cognizant ASME committee or subcommittee. ASME does not“approve,” “certify,” “rate,” or “endorse” any item, construction, proprietary device, or activity.For detailed instruc
4、tions on the preparation of technical inquiries, refer to Preparation ofTechnical Inquiries to the Committee on Nuclear Risk Management (p. v of ASME/ANS RA-S2008).I-7ASME/ANS RA-S INTERPRETATIONSInterpretation: 1-1RSubject: ASME RA-Sb2005, Table 4.5.6-2(c); ASME/ANS RA-Sb2013, Part 2, Table 2-2.6-4
5、; Sup-porting Requirements for HLR-DA-C, Index number DA-C6Date Issued: June 6, 2013File: 05-1605*Question: Should the second action verb in Supporting Requirement DA-C6 of RA-S2002,Addendum a (and unchanged in Addendum b RA-Sb2005 and RA-Sb2013) be interpreted asfollows: those (additional) demands
6、that might have been performed during troubleshooting todetermine the cause of the fault should not be included, since they are part of the repair process?A single demand related to full functional testing of the component after maintenance, but priorto declaring it operable, may or may not be inclu
7、ded, depending on the relationship betweenthe maintenance and the functional test.Reply: Yes.Interpretation: 1-2RSubject: ASME RA-Sa2003, Section 4, Risk Assessment Technical Requirements;ASME/ANS RA-Sb2013, Part 2Date Issued: June 6, 2013File: 06-609*Question: Is it a requirement of Table 4.5.4-2(c
8、) Table 2-2.4-4 in RA-Sb2013, Index num-berSY-C1;Table4.5.8-2(f)Table2-2.7-7inRA-Sb2013,IndexnumberQU-F1;andTable4.5.9-2(g)Table 2-2.8-8 in RA-Sb2013, Index number LE-G5 that the lists prefaced by “documentationtypically includes” are provided as minimum requirements for documentation?Reply: No, the
9、 lists in SY-C1, QU-F1, and LE-G5 are provided as examples of documentationforms or types that may be used to meet the documentation requirements of the PRA Element.They should not be interpreted as specific requirements for the documentation. This is clarifiedby the language used in Addendum (b); f
10、or specific locations, see Note (1) below.NOTES:(1) When the inquiry was posed, the supporting requirements designator correctly referred to “documentation”lists. With the release of Addendum (b), these designators have changed, and there are “documentation” listsin other tables of Section 4. These
11、are as follows:Table 4.5.1-2(d) Table 2-2.1-5 in RA-Sb2013 IE-D2Table 4.5.2-2(c) Table 2-2.2-4 in RA-Sb2013 AS-C2Table 4.5.3-2(c) Table 2-2.3-4 in RA-Sb2013 SC-C2Table 4.5.4-2(c) Table 2-2.4-4 in RA-Sb2013 SY-C2Table 4.5.5-2(i) Table 2-2.5-10 in RA-Sb2013 HR-I2Table 4.5.6-2(e) Table 2-2.6-6 in RA-Sb
12、2013 DA-E2Table 4.5.7-2(f) See Note (2) below regarding RA-Sb2013. IF-F2Table 4.5.8-2(f) Table 2-2.7-7 in RA-Sb2013 QU-F2 (An error in the Standard identifiesthis as QE-F2.)Table 4.5.9-2(g) Table 2-2.8-8 in RA-Sb2013 LE-G2(2) With regard to ASME/ANS RA-Sb2013, Part 2, the first two sentences of the
13、Reply remain applicable. Theaffected supporting requirements are as listed in Note (1) above (although the tables have been renumbered),with the exception that IF-F2 is now a Part 3 (Internal Flood) requirement.I-8ASME/ANS RA-S INTERPRETATIONSInterpretation: 1-3RSubject: ASME RA-Sa2003, Section 4, R
14、isk Assessment Technical Requirements, Table 4.5.5-2(g),Index number HR-G3; ASME/ANS RA-Sb2013, Part 2, Table 2-2.5-8Date Issued: June 6, 2013File: 06-610*Question: Is it the intent of Table 4.5.5-2(g) Table 2-2.5-8 in RA-Sb-2013, Index number HR-G3,Capability Categories II and III that an explicit
15、evaluation of the impact for each of the listedperformanceshapingfactors(PSF)isnotrequirediftheselectedhumanresponseanalysismethod-ologyaddressesthesePSFsimplicitlyandprovidesameansforestablishingreasonableconfidencethat the results implicitly include these considerations?Reply: Yes.Interpretation:
16、1-5RSubject: ASME RA-Sb2005, Section 4, Risk Assessment Technical Requirements;ASME/ANS RA-Sb2013, Part 2, Table 2-2.1-2Date Issued: June 6, 2013File: 06-1060*Question: Is it a requirement to include “non-forced” manual trips that are part of the normalshutdown procedure when counting initiating eve
17、nts?Reply: No, a normal controlled shutdown would not present the same challenges as a tripfrom full power. This event is more appropriate for a transition model and outside of the scopeof this Standard. If the manual trip was prompted by conditions other than the normal shutdownprocedure that could
18、 occur at full power, it should be counted. This guidance is consistent withIE-A5(a) IE-A7(a) in RA-Sb2013 and IE-C4 IE-C6 in RA-Sb2013.Interpretation: 1-6RSubject: ASME RA-Sb2005, Section 4, Risk Assessment Technical Requirements;ASME/ANS RA-Sb2013, Part 2, Table 2-2.1-2Date Issued: June 6, 2013Fil
19、e: 07-213*Question: Is it a requirement to include “forced” (e.g., technical specification 3.03 actions) or“non-forced”(e.g.,manual shutdownsforrefueling)whentheresulting shutdownfollowsnormalplant procedures with no off-normal conditions requiring a reactor scram?Reply: No, the risk needs to be cap
20、tured in a transition risk or low power risk model, whichis outside the scope of RA-Sb2005 and RA-Sb2013.I-9ASME/ANS RA-S INTERPRETATIONSInterpretation: 3-1Subject: ASME RA-Sc2007, Section 4, Supporting Requirement (SR) AS-A9;ASME/ANS RA-Sb2013, Part 2, SR AS-A9Date Issued: February 9, 2009File: 08-
21、493Question: Do the requirements in Supporting Requirement AS-A9 mean that plant-specificthermal-hydraulic calculations are not required to achieve Capability Category II?Reply: Yes.Interpretation: 3-2Subject: ASME RA-Sc2007, Section 4.3, Expert Judgment; ASME/ANS RA-Sb2013, Part 1, Sub-section 1-4.
22、3Date Issued: February 9, 2009File: 08-501Question (1): Do the requirements in Section 4.3 of the Standard subsection 1-4.3 in RA-Sb2013 mean that it is necessary to apply and document the expert judgment process describedin Section 4.3 subsection 1-4.3 in RA-Sb2013 to a PRA Level 2/LERF model solel
23、y on the basisthat the model was developed by an entity (e.g., consultant, consulting company, etc.) outsideof the PRA owner?Reply (1): No.Question (2): Do the requirements in Section 4.3 of the Standard subsection 1-4.3 in RA-Sb2013 mean that it is necessary to apply and document the expert judgmen
24、t process describedin Section 4.3 subsection 1-4.3 in RA-Sb2013 to usage of reports that involve expert judgment(e.g., NUREG-1829, NUREG/CR-6936) in support of the PRA simply on the basis that expertjudgment was used in preparation of those reports?Reply (2): No.Interpretation: 3-3Subject: ASME RA-S
25、c2007 up to and including ASME/ANS RA-Sb2013, Supporting Require-ment IF-C2c IFSN-A5 in RA-Sb2013Date Issued: September 10, 2009File: 08-503Question: Is it the case that SR IF-C2c IFSN-A5 can only be met if individual componentslocated in the flood area are documented?Reply: No. However, if individu
26、al components are not identified, adequate justification tosupport the level at which SSCs are modeled should be documented.I-10ASME/ANS RA-S INTERPRETATIONSInterpretation: 3-4Subject: ASME RA-Sc-2007 up to and including ASME/ANS RA-Sb2013, Supporting Require-ments IF-E3 and IF-E4 IFQU-A2 and IFQU-A
27、4, respectively, in RA-Sb2013Date Issued: September 10, 2009File: 08-505Question: Is it the case that SR IF-E3 IFQU-A2 and IF-E4 IFQU-A4 can only be met ifindividual components located in the flood area are modeled as failed?Reply: No.The level of detailshould be consistentwith IF-C3 IFSN-A6. Howeve
28、r,if individualcomponents are not identified, adequate justification to support the level at which SSCs aremodeled should be documented.Interpretation: 3-5Subject: ASME RA-Sa2009 and ASME/ANS RA-Sb2013, Supporting Requirement AS-A9Date Issued: April 29, 2013File: 13-53Question: Does the phrase “oper
29、ability of the mitigating systems” in AS-A9 mean the abilityof the mitigating systems to support the key safety functions (as stated in HLR-AS-A)?Reply: Yes.I-11INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKI-12ASME/ANS RA-S INTERPRETATIONSASME/ANS RA-S INTERPRETATIONSVOLUME 2Replies to Technical InquiriesApril 2007 Thro
30、ugh June 2008FOREWORDEach interpretation applies to the edition and supplements listed for that inquiry. Many ofthe Rules on which the interpretations have been made have been revised in later editions orsupplements.Wheresuchrevisionshavebeenmade,theinterpretationsmaynolongerbeapplica-ble to the rev
31、ised requirement.ASME procedures provide for reconsideration of these interpretations when or if additionalinformation is available which might affect any interpretation.Further, persons aggrieved by any interpretation may appeal to the cognizant ASME committeeorsubcommittee.ASMEdoesnot“approve,”“ce
32、rtify,”“rate,”or“endorse”anyitem,construction,proprietary device, or activity.An interpretation applies to the edition or addenda stated in the interpretation itself, or, ifnone is stated, to the latest published edition and addenda at the time it is issued. Subsequentrevisions to the rules may have
33、 superseded the reply.For detailed instructions on the preparation of technical inquiries, refer to Preparation ofTechnical Inquiries to the Committee on Nuclear Risk Management (p. v of ASME/ANS RA-S2008).I-5ASME/ANS RA-S INTERPRETATIONSInterpretation: 2-1Subject: ASME RA-Sb2005; Table 4.5.1-2(c),
34、Supporting Requirement IE-C4(c)Date Issued: June 17, 2008File: CNRM Tracking No. 07-207Question:Incriterion(c),isitthecasethattheparenthetical“(basedonsupportingcalculations)”may be met through either of the following means of demonstrating that the need to curtailnormal plant operation following th
35、e initiating event conditions in question would be unlikely:(a) a formal calculation in the sense generally applied by nuclear power plant licensees (e.g.,a documented analysis with formal preparer, reviewer, and acceptance sign-offs), or(b) through alternative means of establishing the “high degree
36、 of certainty” (e.g., documentedreference to historical experience with similar events, documented reference to applicable plantprocedural guidance for dealing with such initiating event conditions, or similar documentedbases for reaching this conclusion)?Reply: Yes.Interpretation: 2-2Subject: ASME
37、RA-Sb2005, Section 4, Risk Assessment Technical Requirements Table: 4.5.5-2(d),Index number HR-D6Date Issued: June 17, 2008File: CNRM Tracking No. 08-506Question: The basic human error probabilities presented in NUREG/CR-4772 are medians withanassociatederrorfactor.Thesevaluesareknowntobeconservativ
38、ewithrespecttotheequivalentvalues in NUREG/CR-1278. When quantifying the HEPs using the ASEP detailed approach, isit acceptable to treat these median values as mean values to remove some of the conservatism?Reply: No.I-6ASME/ANS RA-S INTERPRETATIONSASME RA-S/ANS INTERPRETATIONSVOLUME 1Replies to Tec
39、hnical InquiriesApril 2006 Through March 2007FOREWORDEach interpretation applies to the edition and supplements listed for that inquiry. Many ofthe Rules on which the interpretations have been made have been revised in later editions orsupplements.Wheresuchrevisionshavebeenmade,theinterpretationsmay
40、nolongerbeapplica-ble to the revised requirement.ASME procedures provide for reconsideration of these interpretations when or if additionalinformation is available which might affect any interpretation.Further, persons aggrieved by any interpretation may appeal to the cognizant ASME committeeorsubco
41、mmittee.ASMEdoesnot“approve,”“certify,”“rate,”or“endorse”anyitem,construction,proprietary device, or activity.An interpretation applies to the edition or addenda stated in the interpretation itself, or, ifnone is stated, to the latest published edition and addenda at the time it is issued. Subsequen
42、trevisions to the rules may have superseded the reply.For detailed instructions on the preparation of technical inquiries, refer to Preparation ofTechnical Inquiries to the Committee on Nuclear Risk Management (p. v of ASME/ANS RA-S2008).I-1ASME/ANS RA-S INTERPRETATIONSInterpretation: 1-1Subject: AS
43、ME RA-Sb2005; Table 4.5.6-2(c), Supporting Requirements for HLR DA-C, Indexnumber DA-C6Date Issued: April 4, 2006File: 05-1605Question: Should the second action verb in Supporting Requirement DA-C6 of RA-S2002,Addendum a (and unchanged in Addendum b) be interpreted as follows: those (additional)dema
44、nds that might have been performed during troubleshooting to determine the cause of thefault should not be included, since they are part of the repair process? A single demand relatedto full functional testing of the component after maintenance, but prior to declaring it operable,may or may not be i
45、ncluded, depending on the relationship between the maintenance and thefunctional test.Reply: Yes.Interpretation: 1-2Subject: ASME RA-Sa2003, Section 4, Risk Assessment Technical RequirementsDate Issued: April 4, 2006File: 06-609Question: Is it a requirement of Table 4.5.4-2(c), Index number SY-C1, T
46、able 4.5.8-2(f), Indexnumber QU-F1, and Table 4.5.9-2(g), Index number LE-G5 that the lists prefaced by “documenta-tion typically includes?” are provided as minimum requirements for documentation?Reply: No, the lists in SY-C1, QU-F1, and LE-G5 are provided as examples of documentationforms or types
47、that may be used to meet the documentation requirements of the PRA Element.They should not be interpreted as specific requirements for the documentation. This is clarifiedby the language used in Addendum b; for specific locations, see Note below.NOTE: Whentheinquirywasposed,thesupportingrequirements
48、designatorcorrectlyreferredto“documentation”lists. With the release of Addendum b, these designators have changed, and there are “documentation” lists inother tables of Section 4. These are as follows:Table 4.5.1-2(d) IE-D2Table 4.5.2-2(c) AS-C2Table 4.5.3-2(c) SC-C2Table 4.5.4-2(c) SY-C2Table 4.5.5
49、-2(i) HR-I2Table 4.5.6-2(e) DA-E2Table 4.5.7-2(f) IF-F2Table 4.5.8-2(f) QU-F2 (An error in the Standard identifies this as QE-F2.)Table 4.5.9-2(g) LE-G2I-2ASME/ANS RA-S INTERPRETATIONSInterpretation: 1-3Subject: ASME RA-Sa2003; Section 4, Risk Assessment Technical Requirements; Table 4.5.5-2(g),Index number HR-G3Date Issued: April 4, 2006File: 06-610Question: Is it the intent of Table 4.5.5-2(g), Index number HR-G3, Capability Categories II andIII that an explicit evaluation of the impact
