NEI 99-03

Control Room
Habitability Assessment
Guidance

Ite: I
H U C L E A R

E N E R G Y

INS TIT U T E

June 2001

1776 I STREET, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20006-3708 202.739.8000 www.nei.org

SUITE 400
 NEI 99-03

Nuclear Energy Institute

Control Room
Habitability Assessment
Guidance

June 2001
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Task Force on Control Room Habitability developed
the ControlRoom HabitabilityAssessment Guidance document. We appreciate the task
force members contributing to its development and the industry contributors who
commented on it to improve the content and clarity.

NOTICE

Neither NEI, nor any of its employees, members, supporting organizations,

contractors, or consultants make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assume
any legal responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of, or assume any liability
for damages resulting from any use of, any information apparatus, methods, or
process disclosed in this report or that such may not infringe privately owned
rights.
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The process described in NEI 99-03 is designed to ensure that the licensing and design
bases associated with control room habitability (CRH) are verified and maintained. The
document provides a comprehensive set of tools that function together to improve overall
CRH program performance. The document's guidance facilitates adequate protection of
control room operators against the effects of postulated releases of radioactive
particulates or gases, toxic gas or external smoke. It also guides the development of a
Control Room Envelope Integrity Program to provide long-term maintenance of the
control room envelope. In summary, its elements define an acceptable method to
demonstrate and maintain CRH.

The document is divided into three parts:

"* Background
"* Assessment Process
"* Establishment and Maintenance of Control Room Envelope (CRE) Integrity

Part 1, Background,provides basic information related to CRH, establishing a foundation

from which the CRH assessment can proceed.

Part 2, Assessment Process,determines if the plant configuration and operation are

consistent with the CRH licensing basis and analysis. Guidance is provided on:

"* Identifying the current plant licensing and design bases for comparison with actual
plant configuration and operation
"* Determining the applicability and recommended actions for generic concerns
associated with:
- Analysis of the limiting design basis accident
- Toxic gas events
- External smoke events
"* Performing a baseline unfiltered control room envelope in-leakage test to determine
conformance with licensee assumed in-leakage values
"* Managing degraded conditions.

Part 3, Establishmentand Maintenance of CRE Integrity, guides development of a

licensee controlled program to manage CRH after the evaluations of Part 2 are
completed. The recommended program includes periodic assessment of in-leakage and
maintenance of CRE integrity.

111
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... iii

PART 1 - BACKGROUND
I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...................................................................................................... 1

1.2 HISTORY ......................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION ..................................................................................... 4
2 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDANCE .................................................. 6

2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ............................................................................................. 6

2.2 REGULATORY REQUIREMENT - GENERAL DESIGN CRITERION 19 .......................... 6
2.3 REGULATORY GUIDANCE .......................................................................................... 6
2.3.1 Regulatory Guides ...................................................................................... 6
2.3.2 NUREGs .................................................................................................. 7
2.3.3 Information Notices .................................................................................... 7
2.4 GENERIC ISSUES ............................................................................................................. 7
3 INDUSTRY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH CONTROL ROOM HABITABILITY ............. 8

3.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................ 8

3.2 LICENSING BASIS DIFFERENT FROM As-BUILT PLANT .......................................... 8
3.3 ANALYSES DIFFERENT FROM As-BUILT OR As-OPERATED PLANT ........................ 8
3.4 DBA ANALYZED NOT MOST LIMITING .................................................................... 9
3.4.1 Adjacent Unit Accident (a special case) ................................................... 9
3.5 SMOKE INFILTRATION .............................................................................................. 9
3.6 Toxic GAS EVALUATION .......................................................................................... 9
3.7 CONTROL ROOM AIR IN-LEAKAGE GREATER THAN ASSUMED .............................. 9
3.7.1 Radiological Considerations ................................................................... 10
3.7.2 Toxic Gas Considerations ....................................................................... 10

PART 2 - ASSESSMENT PROCESS

4 DETERMINING CRH LICENSING BASIS ................................................................ 11

4.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .............................................................................................. 11

4.2 UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF LICENSING BASIS .......................................... 11
4.2.1 Design Basis .............................................................................................. 11
4.2.2 Supporting Design Information ............................................................. 12
4.2.3 Licensing Basis .......................................................................................... 12

V
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

4.3 LICENSING BASIS SOURCES ...................................................................................... 13

4.4 PERFORMING THE LICENSING BASIS REVIEW ........................................................ 14

4.5 ASSEMBLING THE CR11 ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 14
4.6 DOCUMENTATION OF THE EXISTING PLANT CRH LICENSING AND DESIGN
B ASIS ............................................................................................................................. 15
5 COMPARING EXISTING PLANT CONFIGURATION AND OPERATIONS WITH
LICENSING BASES FOR CRH ............................................................................... 16

5.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ............................................................................................... 16

5.2 REVIEW THE As BUILT CONTROL ROOM ENVELOPE AND CONTROL ROOM
VENTILATION SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 16
5.3 REVIEW THE NORMAL AND EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES
AFFECTING THE CONTROL ROOM VENTILATION SYSTEMS ................................... 17
5.4 REVIEW THE TESTING PROCEDURES AFFECTING CONTROL ROOM
VENTILATION SYSTEMS AND THE ASSOCIATED ENVELOPE ................................... 17
5.5 REVIEW THE MAINTENANCE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES FOR EFFECT ON
CRH1 REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................. 17
5.6 REVIEW THE PLANT MODIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF
THE CR11 REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................... 18

5.7 REVIEW THE CRH ANALYSES ..................................................................................... 18

5.8 IDENTIFIED INCONSISTENCIES ..................................................................................... 18

6 ASSESSING INDUSTRY ISSUE APPLICABILITY .................................................... 19

6.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ............................................................................................... 19

6.2 LIMITING DBA ............................................................................................................. 19
6.2.1 Recommended Actions to Evaluate Limiting DBA ............................... 19
6.2.2 Adjacent Unit Accidents .......................................................................... 20
6.3 SMOKE INFILTRATION .............................................................................................. 21
6.3.1 Recommended Licensee Action to Address Smoke Infiltration .......... 21
6.4 ToxIc GAS EVALUATION ............................................................................................. 21
6.4.1 Recommended Licensee Action to Address Toxic Gas Evaluation .......... 21
7 MEASURING AIR IN-LEAKAGE (BASELINE TEST) ................................................ 22

7.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .................................................................................................... 22

7.2 PREPARATION FOR TESTING .................................................................................... 22
7.3 TEST PERFORMANCE .................................................................................................... 22
7.4 RESOLUTION OF IDENTIFIED ISSUES ....................................................................... 23

vi
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

8 DISPOSITIONING AND MANAGING DISCREPANCIES ......................................... 25

8.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .............................................................................................. 25

8.2 GENERIC LETTER 91-18 .......................................................................................... 25

8.3 DETERMINING OPERABILITY AND REPORTABILITY .............................................. 26
8.4 METHODS AVAILABLE TO ADDRESS DEGRADED OR NONCONFORMING
CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................. 27
8.4.1 Compensatory M easures ......................................................................... 27
8.4.2 Dose Analysis Revision Option ............................................................... 27
8.4.3 Repairing or M odifying the Plant ........................................................... 28
8.4.4 Technical Specification Changes ........................................................... 28

PART 3 - ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF CRE INTEGRITY

9 LONG-TERM CRE INTEGRITY PROGRAM .............................................................. 29

9.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .............................................................................................. 29

9.2 CRE INTEGRITY PROGRAM .................................................................................... 29
9.3 PERIODIC EVALUATIONS ........................................................................................ 29
9.3.1 System M aterial Condition ....................................................................... 30
9.3.2 Post-M aintenance Activities ..................................................................... 30
9.3.3 In-Leakage Assessments ............................................................................. 31
9.3.3.1 Assessment Scope ........................................................................................ 31
9.3.3.2 Assessment Frequency .............................................................................. 32
9.3.3.3 Determine Need to Test ............................................................................. 34
9.3.4 Toxic Gas Evaluation ............................................................................. 34
9.4 CONFIGURATION CONTROL .................................................................................... 35
9.4.1 CRE Boundary / Breach Control ........................................................... 35
9.4.2 Procedure Control .................................................................................... 35
9.4.3 Toxic Chemical Control ......................................................................... 35
9.4.4 Design Change Control ........................................................................... 36
9.4.5 Safety Analyses Control ......................................................................... 36
9.5 TRAINING ...................................................................................................................... 36
9.6 TESTING ........................................................................................................................ 36
10 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 38

APPENDICES

A. LICENSING BASIS HISTORY ................................................................................. A-1

B. CONTROL ROOM HABITABILITY REGULATORY INFORMATION .......................... B-1

C. CRH DOSE ANALYSIS: REGULATORY ENHANCEMENTS ....................................... C-1

vii
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

D. ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION .................................................................................... D-I

E. SMOKE INFILTRATION IMPACT ON SAFE SHUTDOWN .......................................... E-1

F. COMPENSATORY MEASURES ALLOWABLE ON AN INTERIM BASIS .................... F-1

G. TOXIC GAS ASSESSMENTS ................................................................................... G-1

H. SYSTEM ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ H-1

I. TESTING PROGRAM ............................................................................................... I-1

J. CONTROL ROOM ENVELOPE SEALING PROGRAM ................................................ J-1

K. CONTROL ROOM ENVELOPE BOUNDARY CONTROL PROGRAM ........................ K-1

L. GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................................ L-1

viii
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

PART 1- BACKGROUND

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

NEI 99-03 provides a comprehensive set of tools that function together to improve overall
control room envelope (CRE) integrity program performance. Since plants differ in the
degree to which their CRE configuration is being maintained, this document is designed to
be used in total or in part to satisfy the needs of particular licensees.

The process described in NEI 99-03 is designed to ensure that the licensing and design
bases associated with control room habitability (CRH) are verified and maintained. The
document's guidance facilitates adequate protection of control room operators against the
effects of postulated releases of radioactive particulates and gases, toxic gas or external
smoke. Figure 1 illustrates the process that will demonstrate adequate protection of the
control room operators based on the limits of the plant's existing design and licensing
bases. The document also guides the development of a Control Room Envelope Integrity
Program to facilitate long-term maintenance of the control room envelope. In conclusion,
these elements define an acceptable method to demonstrate and maintain CRH.

NEI 99-03 does not provide guidance relating to the risk significance associated with
maintaining CRH. Evaluation of the risk associated with potential operator exposure from
radiological releases is not practical because probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) models
assume that the operator will be able to stay on station during an accident and the core
damage has occurred when CRH becomes a concern.

I
Figure 1
Process to
Implement NEI 99-03

Does as-built plant match the

licensing and design basis?
Section 5

- Is plant operated and

maintained in accordance with
the licensing and design
basis?
Section 5

No

* Use guidance per Section 8

2
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Assess in-leakage
vulnerabilities and Perform baseline test to
Prepare contingency
perform pretest establish measured unfiltered operability
maintenance prior to in-leakage value for determination
test, as appropriate. radiological and toxic gas
events Section 7.2
Section 7.2 Section 7

Can compliance with

regulatory requirements be esign
demonstrated using analytical ,nsing
- evaluation? ,quired
tions.*

Perform sealing program,

hardware maintenance or
modifications of hardware.*

Implement liceensee controlled

program to maanage CRH
"*In-leakage vverification
"•Boundary Control
Section 9

* Use guidance per Section 8

3
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

1.2 HISTORY

In 1971, 10CFR50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 19 (GDC-19) became a

regulation. GDC-19 requires protection of the control room operator under normal
and accident conditions against the threat of radiological hazards. Following the
Three Mile Island (TMI) accident in 1979, actions mandated by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) required licensees to evaluate their control rooms to
assure adequate protection of operators. Licensees have different levels of
commitment to GDC-19 and the TMI action plan. The licensee's commitments are
defined in the plant's licensing basis.

Since the mid-i 980s, the NRC has communicated concerns about the adequacy of
control room designs. In the mid-1990s, testing of some control room envelopes
indicated that key assumptions supporting the radiological dose analysis might be
non-conservative. In 1998, the NRC held a public workshop to address CRH
concerns. In late 1998, the NRC and the industry agreed to work together on issues
affecting CRH and develop this guidance document for resolving those issues.

Appendix A contains additional details on the history of the CRH issues and
provides references to related documents.

1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION

This document defines a process for assessing a plant's CRH design and licensing
bases to assure that they are established and maintained throughout the life of the
plant. The main body of the document describes the general process. The
appendices provide technical background information and detailed guidance for
completing the assessment.

The main body of the document is divided into three parts:

"* Background
"* Assessment Process
"* Establishment and Maintenance of CRE Integrity

Part 1, Background, provides basic information related to CRH, establishing a

foundation from which the CRH assessment can proceed. It is composed of:

"* Section 1, Introduction

"* Section 2, Regulatory Requirements and Guidance
"• Section 3, Industry Issues Associated with ControlRoom Habitability.

4
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Part 2, Assessment Process, describes an approach to determine if the plant

configuration and operation are consistent with the CRH licensing basis and
analysis. It is composed of:

"* Section 4, Determining CRH Licensing Basis

"* Section 5, ComparingExistingPlant Configurationand Operations With
LicensingBasesfor CRH
"* Section 6, Assessing Industry Issue Applicability
"* Section 7, MeasuringAir In-leakage (Baseline Test)
"* Section 8, Dispositioningand ManagingDiscrepancies.

Section 4, DeterminingCRH Licensing Basis, provides guidance on identifying

and assembling the current plant licensing and design bases. This information is to
be compared with actual plant configuration and operation as described in Section
5, ComparingExistingPlant Configurationand Operations With LicensingBases
for CRH.

Section 6, Assessing Industry Issue Applicability, provides guidance for

determining the plant specific applicability of the industry issues described in
Section 3 and for identifying appropriate actions.

Section 7, MeasuringAir In-leakage (Baseline Test), recommends the completion

of a baseline test to determine the amount of unfiltered CRE in-leakage and
provides guidance on its performance. The test may be performed using the
ASTM E741 tracer gas methodology or a component test methodology. In
addition, guidance is provided defining alternate test methods. The purpose of this
baseline test is to determine if the in-leakage is consistent with that used in the
CRH evaluation.

Section 8, DispositioningandManagingDiscrepancies,discusses how to manage

degraded and nonconforming conditions consistent with the licensee's Corrective
Action Program. Sections 5, 6 and 7 refer to this section when degraded or
nonconforming conditions are identified.

Part 3, Establishmentand Maintenance of CRE Integrity, provides guidance on

implementing a licensee controlled program to manage CR1H after the evaluations
of Part 2 are completed. It is composed of one chapter:

* Section 9, Long-Term CRE Integrity Program

The recommended program includes periodic assessment of in-leakage and

maintenance of CRE integrity.

5
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

2 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDANCE

2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This section identifies documents containing regulatory requirements and

guidance related to CRH. It provides background information to assess which
requirements are applicable to control room design, analyses and procedures.
Appendix B provides additional details on the requirements and documents
discussed in this section.

2.2 REGULATORY REQUIREMENT - GENERAL DESIGN CRITERION 19

The CRH requirement for operator radiological exposure is stated in 10CFR50

Appendix A, Criterion 19, ControlRoom, and is generally applicable to all
utilities. However, not all plants are licensed to this requirement. Some plants
only committed to selected aspects of GDC-19 or may have other similar
commitments defining acceptable operator radiological exposure. The text of this
rule has been included in Appendix B of this document.

GDC-19 provides acceptance criteria for radiological events. For most plants, the
operator dose criterion limit is 5 rem whole body or its equivalent to any part of
the body for any postulated design basis accident. NRC Standard Review Plan
Section 6.4 interprets this requirement to be satisfied by a thyroid or a beta skin
limit of 30 rem.

The Alternative Source Term (AST) Rule, 1OCFR5 0.67, defines a different
radiological limit of 5 rem Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) for licensees
implementing the AST.

Acceptance criteria for non-radiological accidents (i.e., toxic gas release) are
provided in other guidance documents discussed below.

2.3 REGULATORY GUIDANCE

An overview of various types of documents that supply regulatory guidance

relative to CRH is discussed in this subsection. The documents discussed here are
not requirements. Each plant must determine the extent to which its licensing
basis includes commitments to each of these guidance documents. A plant may
have committed to the guidance or taken exception to it, either in whole or in part.

2.3.1 Regulatory Guides

Regulatory Guides provide one acceptable approach for satisfying

regulations. Licensees may propose alternative approaches for NRC

6
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

approval. In this sense, use of a regulatory guide is voluntary. The

approved approach becomes part of the plant's licensing basis and changes
thereto are subject to 1OCFR50.59. Appendix B lists several regulatory
guides that relate to the evaluation of CRH systems and dose evaluations.
The Regulatory Guides listed in Appendix B include guidance on the
topics of accidents, analysis assumptions and system design.

2.3.2 NUREGs

NUREGs provide results of NRC research and general information on

selected topics. NUJREGs associated with CRH are identified in Appendix
B.

NUREG-75/087, subsequently revised and issued as NUREG-0800,

describes the manner in which the staff performed reviews of applications
for an operating license or a construction permit. Sections of these
NUREGs detailed the manner in which accident analysis consequences
and control room habitability may have been assessed.

Action item III.D.3.4 of NUREG-0737, Clarificationof TMIAction Item

Requirements, deals directly with CRH. NRC Orders associated with this
NUREG directed applicable plants to re-confirm compliance with GDC
19. The licensee response to the TMI action item may be a key
consideration as a plant researches its licensing basis.

2.3.3 Information Notices

Information Notices (IN) previously called Inspection and Enforcement

Notices, (IEN) are issued to inform licensees about events, issues and
generic observations. The documents do not require a response, and
plants generally do not have docketed commitments to incorporate
changes into the design or operation practices as a result of INs or IENs.

IN/1ENs applicable to CRH are identified in Appendix B. These

documents provide information on plant designs or events with an impact
on CRH.

2.4 GENERIC ISSUES

There have been two NUREG-0933 generic safety issues (GSI) related to CRH:
B-66, Control Room InfiltrationMeasurements, and 83, ControlRoom
Habitability. GSI B-66 was closed in 1983. GSI-83 was identified later that same
year and is still open. These GSIs are summarized in Appendix A. This
information provides insight into the historical evolution of the CRH concerns.

7
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

3 INDUSTRY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH CONTROL ROOM

HABITABILITY

3.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This section summarizes a number of industry issues associated with control room
habitability. It is intended that licensees will review these issues for applicability to
their plant and take the appropriate action to resolve any potential concerns.

At the July 1998 CRH workshop, the NRC discussed the following issues:

* Licensing basis different from as-built plant

* Analyses different from as-built or as-operated plant
* Design basis accident (DBA) analyzed not most limiting for CRH
* Smoke infiltration
"* Toxic gas evaluation
"* Control room in-leakage greater than assumed in analyses

This section discusses these issues. Sections 5, 6 and 7 provide guidance on

assessing the applicability of each issue for a particular plant and dispositioning the
results.

3.2 LICENSING BASIS DIFFERENT FROM As-BUILT PLANT

During review of license amendments, licensees and the NRC staff have observed
that some licensees have introduced inconsistencies between the plant's licensing
basis and the as-built plant. Differences between the description of the control
room envelope, the HVAC systems controlling the airflow within the envelope, and
the as-built condition of the plant have been identified and documented.
Modifications to systems or the envelope boundary may have inadvertently changed
the CRH response. Also, maintenance or operations activities may have resulted in
repositioned dampers that could influence the system response or associated control
room boundary integrity. Section 5 provides guidance on assessing this issue.

3.3 ANALYSES DIFFERENT FROM As-BUILT OR As-OPERATED PLANT

The design analyses used to determine the operator exposure to a radiological event
or a toxic gas event include several inputs that are based on system design
parameters and assumed system operation. Licensees and the NRC have observed
that some systems may have been operated differently from the assumptions or
values used in the analyses.

8
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Power up-rates, steam generator replacement and alternate repair criteria for steam
generator tubing are examples of modifications that could impact the results of a
licensee's CRH analysis. Licensees should assess the impact of these types of
changes on CRH and the supporting analyses. Section 5 provides guidance on
assessing this issue.

3.4 DBA ANALYZED NOT MOST LIMITING

Each plant is required to analyze the limiting design basis accident relating to CR1
within the scope of its licensing basis. Most licensees and the NRC assumed that
the large break LOCA was the limiting DBA for CRH. Reanalysis has shown that
other licensing basis accidents can be more limiting. Section 6.2 provides
guidance for assessing this issue.

3.4.1 Adjacent Unit Accident (a special case)

A few plants are within the exposure range for a DBA release from a
nearby nuclear plant or have separate control rooms for multiple units on
the same site. An accident in an adjacent unit should not prevent the safe
shutdown of an operating unit.

3.5 SMOKE INFILTRATION

Smoke infiltration may be a CRH concern if there is significant in-leakage from

outside the envelope. In this situation, smoke from external sources could
challenge the ability of the operator to shut down the reactor from within the
control room or remotely. No regulatory limit exists on the amount of smoke
allowed in the control room. Therefore, the plant's ability to successfully manage
smoke infiltration must be assessed qualitatively. Section 6.3 and Appendix E
provide guidance for this assessment.

3.6 Toxic GAS EVALUATION

Licensees have evaluated their susceptibility to toxic gas events, typically in

accordance with Regulatory Guides 1.78 and 1.95. Those that are susceptible have
committed to the NRC to take appropriate actions. The sources of toxic gas
releases may change over time and should be assessed periodically. Section 6.4
and Appendix G provide guidance on toxic gas assessments.

3.7 CONTROL ROOM AIR IN-LEAKAGE GREATER THAN ASSUMED

Tracer gas tests have been conducted at approximately 25 percent of nuclear power
plant control rooms to determine the total amount of air in-leakage (filtered and
unfiltered). Test results show that measured in-leakage has been greater than the

9
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

amount assumed in CRH design basis analyses. In some cases the difference was
significant. This is a concern because the control room in-leakage value is an input
to the evaluation of both radiological and toxic gas events. Section 7 provides
guidance for assessing control room in-leakage.

3.7.1 Radiological Considerations

The unfiltered in-leakage rate is one of several inputs into the analyses
used to determine operator doses. The term unfiltered refers to air leaking
into the control room envelope that does not pass through an appropriate
filtration device. With higher unfiltered in-leakage, the iodine removal
credited in the accident analyses may be inaccurate and non-conservative.
As a result, increased control room unfiltered in-leakage could result in the
reactor operator being exposed to a larger dose than previously analyzed.

3.7.2 Toxic Gas Considerations

In-leakage is also a concern for toxic gas events. Increases in in-leakage

may negate the conclusions of previous toxic gas analyses. The amount of
in-leakage during a toxic gas event may not be the same as for a
radiological event due to differences in plant alignment. A typical control
room response to a radiological event is to isolate and pressurize; whereas
a typical response to a toxic gas event is to isolate only. The plant
alignment should be considered when determining the amount of in
leakage to be used in the toxic gas analysis.

10
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

PART 2 - ASSESSMENT PROCESS

4 DETERMINING CRH LICENSING BASIS

4.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This section provides guidance that will help the licensee identify the plant's
control room habitability licensing basis. This information will be used
throughout the remainder of this guidance document.

4.2 UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF LICENSING BASIS

To apply the guidance provided by this document, the licensees must know the
plant's CRH licensing basis. In addition, knowledge of the CR1- licensing basis
will assist licensees in:

"* Making informed decisions regarding proposed changes to the physical plant
or its operation,
"* Responding to questions from the NRC staff when license amendments are
proposed,
"* Dispositioning corrective actions for degraded conditions and
"* Processing changes that could affect the level of protection provided to
control room operators.

There are several terms used in reference to basic information for systems,
structures and components:

"* Design basis

"* Supporting design information and
"* Licensing basis.

Understanding the difference implied by these terms is important to determine

what is included in the licensing basis and what is not. A more detailed
explanation of these concepts is provided in NEI 97-04, Design Basis Program
Guidelines. The following paragraphs provide an overview of the concepts
involved.

4.2.1 Design Basis

Design basis is defined in 1OCFR50.2 as follows:

11
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

"Design bases means that information which identifies the specificfunctions to

be performed by a structure, system, or component of afacility and the specific
values or ranges of values chosen for controllingparametersas reference
boundsfor design. These values may be (1) restraintsderivedfrom generally
"acceptedstate-of-the-art"practicesfor achievingfunctional goals
or (2)
requirements derivedfrom analysis (based on calculationsand/or experiments)
of the effects of a postulated accidentfor which a structure,system, or
component must meet its functionalgoals. "

The design basis consists of both design basis functions and design basis values.
Design bases functional requirements are derived primarily from the principal
design criteria (e.g., GDC-19 of Appendix A to 10CFR50) and other NRC
regulations, such as the Emergency Core Cooling Systems, Station Blackout and
Anticipated Transient Without Scram rules.

4.2.2 Supporting Design Information

Supporting design information includes other design inputs (e.g., unfiltered in

leakage), design analyses and design output documents. Supporting design
information may be contained in the UFSAR or other documents. Some
supporting design information is submitted to the NRC and some is not.
Supporting design information is controlled in accordance with Criterion III of
lOCFR50 Appendix B.

4.2.3 Licensing Basis

The licensing basis for a plant establishes its compliance with regulatory
requirements. It describes how the plant meets the appropriate regulations and
may also include, for example, exceptions to specific regulatory guidance that
were approved by the NRC in a Safety Evaluation Report.

Figure 2 presents the relationship of the design basis to the license basis. The
design basis is a subset of a plant's licensing basis. It is important for licensees to
establish the scope of regulatory requirements to which they are licensed. In
general, a licensee is committed to regulations in place at the time of plant
licensing and to other criteria contained in commitments made since the original
license was granted.

12
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Licensing Basis

50.2

Supporting FSAR
Design Information

-Technical Specification
I NRC Regulation
-Plant Specific NRC Requirements
Figure 2 -Orders (NUREG-0737)
-License Conditions
-Exceptions
Relationship of Licensing Basis, Design -License Commitments in:
- Notice of Violation
Basis and Design Information - Bulletin Responses
- Generic Letter Responses
- Licensee Event Reports
- Safety Evaluation Reports

One important source of licensing basis information is licensing actions initiated

after a plant's operating license is granted. A Safety Evaluation Report written by
the NRC typically identifies approved licensing actions. The NRC SERs typically
document the boundaries of the licensing action proposed by the applicant, the
applicant's analysis, the staff's evaluation of the proposed action and the basis of
the staff acceptance. Generally, the information in an SER can be considered as
part of the licensing basis to the extent that the SER reflects the information
docketed by the licensee or documents the basis for the NRC acceptance.

In summary, a plant's licensing basis consists of only those items that it is

required by regulation to meet or to which it has formally committed itself in
written correspondence signed by a utility representative with the appropriate
authority. NEI 99-04, Guidelinesfor ManagingNRC Commitment Changes,
provides more information on this subject.

4.3 LICENSING BASIS SOURCES

Licensees document compliance with regulatory requirements in various

documents. Licensees should consider the following documents when performing
a design basis review:

* UFSAR
9 Licensing correspondence that contains commitments and exceptions to
applicable regulatory requirements and regulatory guidance
@ Operating license and amendments
e Technical Specifications and their bases

13
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

"* Plant-specific NRC staff requirements and positions applicable to the plant,
whether originating from 10CFR50, SERs, generic communications or
regulatory guides
"* Other plant specific licensing documents that list licensing parameters, values
and assumptions.

Appendix B provides a description of the regulatory requirements and guidance

related to CRH.

4.4 PERFORMING THE LICENSING BASIS REVIEW

NEI 97-04, Design Basis Program Guidelines, provides guidelines for identifying
design basis information. Even though design basis information is only a subset
of the licensing basis, the process identified in NEI 97-04 is useful for assembling
the plant's licensing basis.

4.5 ASSEMBLING THE CRH ANALYSIS

An important part of a control room design basis is the CRH analysis. This
analysis is typically performed during initial plant design to determine operator
exposure to the hazards produced by DBAs. For most plants, a CRH analysis will
not be available as a stand-alone document. Rather, the licensee will need to
assemble it from its component parts. These parts should be found as written
design basis documentation and licensing commitments. The following types of
information should be accessed to assemble the CRH analyses:

"* Design basis accident analyses within the plant's licensing basis. Licensees
should have a thorough understanding of the design basis accidents analyzed
for CRH and should know the analysis results (such as radiological
consequences) to ensure that the most limiting accident is identified.
"* Specific performance requirements for components that provide a
radiological, toxic gas or smoke mitigation function along with component
performance data.
"* Analysis inputs, such as the amount of unfiltered in-leakage or control room
volume, their bases and source documents. For example, inputs such as
occupancy factors may have been adopted from the Standard Review Plan.
"* All modes of control room ventilation system operation and system
alignments necessary to mitigate radiological and toxic gas events and
external fires.
"* Component functions. The design basis documents for controlling the
performance of these components should be identified and reviewed to ensure
consistency. Such documents include:
- Design specifications
- P&IDs

14
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

- Logic diagrams
- Wiring diagrams
- Performance test acceptance criteria.
"* Technical Specification performance limits and surveillance requirements for
credited components.
"* Commitments regarding operation of the control room envelope and other
requirements regarding operation of the control room envelope. These may be
identified in such documents as the licensee's Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR), Design Criteria Memoranda, operating procedures,
surveillance test procedures, etc.
"* License submittals that may have an effect on CRH such as steam generator
replacement, steam generator alternate repair criteria and power uprates.

4.6 DOCUMENTATION OF THE EXISTING PLANT CRH LICENSING AND DESIGN

BASIS

The identification of the CRH licensing basis must proceed methodically and be
carefully documented. The process should ensure that all source documentation is
reviewed. When licensing basis information is identified, it should be captured
and accurately referenced to allow subsequent retrieval in its original context to
facilitate review and verification if necessary.

The implementation of a CRH licensing basis identification program will identify

open items that may include questions, concerns and cases of missing
information. Open items that do not conform to the licensing basis or have
potential safety significance are considered discrepancies. The CRH licensing
basis identification program must include means to identify, capture and
disposition these items. Guidance on managing discrepancies is provided in
Section 8.

A process for documenting the information should be developed that allows its
efficient use by subsequent steps of this guidance document.

15
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

5 COMPARING EXISTING PLANT CONFIGURATION AND

OPERATIONS WITH LICENSING BASES FOR CRH

5.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

After the control room habitability design and licensing bases have been
compiled, a comparison to the control room (CR) system configuration, operation
and maintenance should be performed.

This comparison is needed because after years of operation, new procedures and
methods of operation, maintenance and testing may have been developed and
revised during the years of plant operation. Systems may be operated differently
from the assumptions or values used in analyses that determined operator
exposure from radiological or toxic gas events. Given this change process, it is
prudent to confirm that current practices are consistent with the licensing basis.

This section provides a guide for performing this assessment.

5.2 REVIEW THE AS BUILT CONTROL ROOM ENVELOPE AND CONTROL ROOM
VENTILATION SYSTEMS

Review the as built configuration to ensure that the construction and configuration
satisfy the design and licensing bases. For example:

"* Plant drawings should be reviewed to ensure that the design would provide the
desired CR isolation function and support the in-leakage assumptions. For
example, confirm that assumed automatic response functions have been
implemented.
"* Component specifications should be reviewed to ensure that the licensing and
design bases are consistent with current design. For example:
- Do fans provide the required flow rates?
- Do dampers provide the design leak tightness?
- Are duct design requirements for construction quality consistent with
leakage assumptions?
"* A system walk down should be performed to ensure that the actual field
configuration agrees with the plant drawings/design. For example:
- Are the air sources from the appropriate location?
"* The control room envelope assumed for in-leakage evaluations should be
compared to that identified in plant documents or surveillance procedures to
ensure the identified boundaries are consistent.

16
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

5.3 REVIEW THE NORMAL AND EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES AFFECTING

THE CONTROL ROOM VENTILATION SYSTEMS

Review the plant operating procedures to ensure that the licensing and design
bases are maintained. This review should include procedures for both normal and
off-normal conditions. For example:

"* Ensure that emergency operating procedures (EOPs) do not invalidate the
licensing basis while attempting to restore room cooling in certain situations.
"* Ensure that normal operating procedures align the system to establish the
proper flow paths. Damper settings should be correct to establish the
necessary flow rates and isolation capability.
"* Ensure the EOPs place the control room ventilation system in the correct
configuration for the existing plant condition. For example, the proper
configuration may be recirculation for a toxic gas event or pressurization for a
radiological release.

5.4 REVIEW THE TESTING PROCEDURES AFFECTING CONTROL ROOM

VENTILATION SYSTEMS AND THE ASSOCIATED ENVELOPE

Review testing procedures to assure consistency with the following:

"* The procedures should adequately demonstrate the operability of the intended
components.
"* The procedures should ensure that the envelope is not inadvertently breached,
or otherwise made inoperable during the test.
"* The system should be properly realigned after completion of the test.
"* Post-maintenance testing should be sufficient to ensure that the system is
functional and properly configured before being returned to an operable state.
"* If components are being tested for in-leakage, the test configuration and test
conditions must appropriately reflect the leakage expected under accident
conditions.

5.5 REVIEW THE MAINTENANCE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES FOR EFFECT ON

CRH REQUIREMENTS

Assess maintenance procedures to assure that they do not adversely impact the
control room envelope integrity or render a system inoperable. For example:

"* Maintenance planning should consider the required operability of control

room ventilation components for the current plant-operating mode, as defined
in Technical Specifications.
"* Maintenance practices affecting structures should be reviewed to ensure that
the CR envelope could not be inadvertently breached.

17
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

"* Maintenance procedures for system components should address CR integrity

requirements. Procedures should note that removal of inspection plates or
opening access doors might constitute a breach of the CR envelope.
"* Breach control programs and procedures designed to seal, maintain and
inspect the integrity of the control room envelope should be of sufficient detail
to examine all likely sources of control room in-leakage. Easily damaged
components, such as door seals, should be considered for increased scrutiny.

5.6 REVIEW THE PLANT MODIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE

CRH REQUIREMENTS

Evaluate the design control procedures to ensure that changes that may have a
direct or indirect impact on CRH are properly evaluated. Design change
procedures should include a check of the effect of the modification on the control
room envelope integrity. For example:

"* Direct modification of the ventilation system could have the effect of
changing the system's performance characteristics.
"* Modification of ventilation systems in areas adjacent to the control room
could affect the in-leakage values.
"* Electrical work such as installing new conduit or pulling cable could create
new in-leakage paths.
"* Installing floor or equipment drains could result in unexpected in-leakage
paths.

5.7 REVIEW THE CRH ANALYSES

Review the CRH analyses to assure that they are consistent with the licensing
basis and with the current control room envelope and HVAC procedures and
configuration. For example:

"* Do the system lineups assumed in the CRH analyses agree with the current
procedures?
"* Are the in-leakage assumptions in the CRH analyses (radiological and toxic
gas) valid?
"* Are the assumptions in the CRH analyses reasonable in light of current
operations and configurations?

5.8 IDENTIFIED INCONSISTENCIES

Any inconsistencies between the existing plant CRH configuration and operations
and the licensing bases should be reconciled per the plant's corrective action
program as described in Section 8.

18
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

6 ASSESSING INDUSTRY ISSUE APPLICABILITY

6.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This section provides guidance for evaluating the plant specific applicability of the
following industry issues introduced in Section 3.

"* Limiting design basis accident

"* Smoke infiltration
"* Toxic gas evaluation

This section also recommends actions to address the applicable industry issues.

6.2 LIMITING DBA

The Large Break Loss of Coolant Accident (LBLOCA) DBA was frequently assumed by
licensees to be the bounding accident for control room habitability. Licensees frequently
used the LBLOCA dose analyses response to assess the adequacy of the CRH design.
The impact of different plant configurations, responses or atmospheric dispersion from
other accidents, including accidents at adjacent units, on the radiological consequences to
the reactor operators may not have been adequately considered. In addition, changes to
plant design or operations may not have been analyzed adequately over the spectrum of
the plant licensing basis events for the effect on control room habitability.

6.2.1 Recommended Actions to Evaluate Limiting DBA

Examine each DBA listed in the UFSAR for which off site doses have been
reported to determine the event that is limiting with respect to control room dose.
UFSAR-described accident scenarios and postulated source terms should be
combined with a control room model using appropriate system parameters and
responses and event-specific atmospheric dispersion factors. If the facility license
or UFSAR requires consideration of releases from accidents at an adjacent unit,
these events should also be evaluated. If a new CRH limiting DBA is identified,
corrective action in accordance with Section 8 and the plant's corrective action
program should be taken. Appendices C and D provide additional guidance for
performing these evaluations.

Factors that may influence the limiting accident with respect to CRH include:

* The impact of the control room isolation delay on radiological consequences

to the reactor operators.

19
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

-For accidents where the CRH features are actuated by containment

isolation or safety injection (SI) signals 1 , there is little or no delay.
Where the CRH features are actuated by radiation monitor alarm
signals, there may be a time delay to achieve control room isolation.
In such cases, contaminated air may enter the control room for a
longer period.
- Radiation monitor configuration may affect the ability to actuate the
CRH features in a timely manner.
- Differences in source terms for the different postulated (and potential)
accidents can have a significant impact on monitor response.
"* Radiological release locations can dictate which analyzed accident is limiting.
Some considerations are:
- The distance between the control room intake and release points may
be different for each postulated accident.
- Release points for some accidents may be in a direction frequently
downwind of the control room intake, while those for other accidents
may usually be upwind.
- A ground-level release associated with a non-LOCA event may be
more limiting than the elevated release associated with a LOCA at
units with a secondary containment or enclosure building.
" Approved alternate repair criteria (ARC) for steam generators.
- The main steam line break accident is generally the limiting accident
with regard to control room habitability for plants with ARCs since
such facilities may have maximized the postulated control room
operator dose in order to maximize the number of tubes to which the
alternate repair criteria can be applied.

6.2.2 Adjacent Unit Accidents

A special case of limiting DBA could be the presence of an accident release from
an adjacent unit. The release point, atmospheric dispersion and postulated source
term for the adjacent unit should be reviewed to assess the impact on the
operating unit. This potential limiting DBA need only be considered if it is within
the licensing basis of the plant evaluating its control room.

If there are adjacent units with separate control rooms, then an accident in one
unit should not prevent the safe shutdown of the adjacent unit. Atmospheric
transport mechanisms between the accident unit and the HVAC intakes to the
operating unit control room should be reviewed for impact on CRH.

1 Typically, control room isolation is activated by engineered safety feature signals such as containment high
pressure or safety injection, or radiation monitors, or both.

20
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

6.3 SMOKE INFILTRATION

Recent control room in-leakage tests have identified that control rooms may be operated
with significantly more in-leakage than previously assumed and therefore control room
operators may be exposed to a greater amount of smoke infiltration in the event of an
external fire. The increased smoke could make the control room uninhabitable and
impair the operator's access to the remote shutdown locations. Licensees should consider
if they are appropriately prepared to mitigate such smoke infiltration.

Currently, no NRC regulations exist to establish smoke concentration limits. Varied

sources of fire produce different amounts of smoke with different compositions.
1OCFR50 Appendix R, Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities Operating
Prior to January 1, 1979, does not provide guidance in this area. Generic Safety Issue
148, Smoke Controland Manual Fire-FightingEffectiveness, of NUREG-0933, stipulates
that fires are anticipated to be of short duration relative to design basis accidents.

6.3.1 Recommended Licensee Action to Address Smoke Infiltration

Recognizing the importance of the smoke concern, it is recommended that

licensees perform a qualitative evaluation of their smoke management
capabilities. This guidance is provided in Appendix E. The licensee should
assure that it could safely shutdown the reactor in the event of smoke infiltration
into the control room.

6.4 Toxic GAS EVALUATION

Control rooms are typically evaluated to assure that they can manage a toxic gas event.
This evaluation may not have been performed since the early 1980s in response to Three
Mile Island (TMI) (NUREG-0737) item IlI.D.3.4. The amount of in-leakage may be
greater than that assumed in the existing evaluation. This concern is addressed in Section
7 and Appendix G. In addition, the sources of toxic gas may have changed over time and
the existing evaluation may not account for the current toxic gas threats near the plant.

6.4.1 Recommended Licensee Action to Address Toxic Gas Evaluation

Appendix G provides guidance on toxic gas evaluations, and Section 9.3.3

provides recommendations on the frequency of the assessment. If a new toxic gas
survey is appropriate, conduct an inventory of mobile and stationary sources of
hazardous chemicals in the vicinity of the plant in accordance with Appendix G.
If significant new toxic gas sources are identified, revise the control room toxic
gas evaluation in accordance with Appendix G.

21
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

7 MEASURING AIR IN-LEAKAGE (BASELINE TEST)

7.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

As discussed in Section 3.7, unfiltered air in-leakage is one of numerous assumptions

used in radiological and toxic gas evaluations. Approximately 25 percent of the control
rooms have been tested recently for in-leakage. Each test result indicated that the actual
measured value exceeded the value originally assumed in the accident analyses. As a
result, this document recommends that a baseline test be performed to determine a
numerical value for control room in-leakage that can be compared to the accident
analyses assumptions and used to assess the integrity of the control room envelope. This
section provides an overview of preparation for baseline testing, test performance and
resolution of identified issues.

7.2 PREPARATION FOR TESTING

Prior to performing a baseline test, it is recommended that a system assessment be

performed per the guidance provided in Appendix H. The system assessment includes a
walkdown to identify (1) discrepancies in the envelope, and (2) components vulnerable to
in-leakage. The system assessment should help to find potential in-leakage paths that are
candidates for pre-test maintenance or design modifications. The licensee may choose to
perform maintenance to eliminate any suspected in-leakage paths before performing the
baseline test for in-leakage.

It is advisable to plan compensatory measures should the measured in-leakage exceed

design basis assumptions. In addition, if the assumed design basis in-leakage allowance
is small, consideration should be given to performing a reanalysis that provides a larger
allowable in-leakage value. Experience has shown that small values of CR in-leakage
may not be measurable due to the uncertainties in the test methods.

7.3 TEST PERFORMANCE

Licensees should perform a baseline test to determine the actual value of control room in
leakage for use in control room habitability analyses. The baseline integrated in-leakage
test may be performed using a tracer gas test, a component test or an alternative
equivalent methodology. The tracer gas test method is appropriate for all control room
designs; however the component test should only be performed on control rooms
designed to be maintained at a positive pressure. The component test method verifies
that the control room pressure is greater than adjacent spaces and tests all components
that cannot be shown to have a positive differential pressure relative to non-control room
envelope areas. Appendix I further defines test methods. Note that blower door testing
(ASTM E779) and smoke pencil testing (ASTM El 186) may be useful for

22
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

troubleshooting localized or component in-leakage problems, but they are not

recommended as an integrated test method.

7.4 RESOLUTION OF IDENTIFIED ISSUES

Once a measured baseline unfiltered in-leakage value is determined, it should be

compared to the value used in the CRH radiological and toxic gas analyses. If the
measured in-leakage value is greater than the analysis input, the licensee should take
corrective actions through its corrective action program discussed further in Section 8.

In addition, the measured in-leakage value should be evaluated from the perspective of
smoke infiltration into the control room per Appendix E. If a qualitative evaluation
indicates a concern, actions should be taken to address the condition.

Corrective actions may include reanalysis, a design change, sealing and re-baseline
testing to ensure the design and licensing basis are met. Appendices C, D and G provide
guidance that may be appropriate if reanalysis is performed. In addition, the alternative
source term rule, 10 CFR 50.67, and Regulatory Guide 1.183 may provide additional
relief when used for a reanalysis of the radiological challenges. Figure 3 reproduces the
relevant portions of Figure 1 and demonstrates a process to follow.

23
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Figure 3: Relevant Portions of Figure 1

* Use guidance per Section 8

24
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

8 DISPOSITIONING AND MANAGING DISCREPANCIES

8.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

Conditions adverse to quality must be promptly identified and corrected in accordance

with 1OCFR50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI. This is accomplished by each licensee's
Corrective Action Program. The primary guidance for identifying and resolving
degraded and nonconforming conditions is provided by Generic Letter (GL) 91-18,
Revision 1, Information to Licensees RegardingNRC Inspection ManualSection on
Resolution of Nonconforming Conditions. Reportability criteria are specified by
10CFR50.72, Immediate notification requirementsfor operatingnuclearpower reactors
and 1OCFR50.73, Licensee event reportingsystem.

In addition, if changes are required, the criteria of 1OCFR50.59, Changes, tests and
experiments, may apply.

This section provides supplemental guidance for the evaluation of CRH discrepancies
identified in Sections 5, 6 and 7. This section is a summation of practices already defined
by the regulatory process and in place at operating plants.

8.2 GENERIC LETTER 91-18

GL 91-18 informed licensees of the issuance of a revised section to Part 9900, Technical
Guidance of the NRC Inspection Manual. The revised section was entitled Resolution of
Degradedand Nonconforming Conditions. This revised section provides guidance to
NRC inspectors and provides explicit insights on appropriate actions to take when a
degraded or nonconforming condition exists. The document directs assessment of the
following:

"* Operability determination

"* Justification for continued operation
"* Reasonable assurance of safety
"* Compensatory measures (if used).

GL 91-18 describes three potential scenarios for addressing degraded and nonconforming
conditions:

1. The licensee may restore the structure, system, or component (SSC) to the condition
that is described in the licensing basis. For example, if the assumed control room in
leakage is explicitly described in the UFSAR and an in-leakage test reveals excessive
in-leakage, the licensee may take corrective action to repair various seals and
openings to reduce the in-leakage to within the UIFSAR limit. See Appendix J.

25
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

2. The licensee may accept a condition "as-is" which results in something different from
that described in the UFSAR or may modify the plant to something different than that
described in the UFSAR. These options would be considered a change and would be
subject to 10CFR50.59 unless another regulation applies. An example of this is
modifying the control room envelope to enhance the leakage characteristics of the
system. Another example would be revising the appropriate accident analyses to
demonstrate the acceptability of increased in-leakage.

3. The licensee may take interim compensatory measures until the permanent corrective
actions identified in items 1 and 2 above can be fully implemented. These
compensatory measures may be subject to 1OCFR50.59. For example, potassium
iodide (KI) tablets and/or self contained breathing apparatus may be utilized to
minimize operator dose until other actions are taken.

Section 8.4 describes these methods in more detail.

8.3 DETERMINING OPERABILITY AND REPORTABILITY

If a degraded or nonconforming condition is identified, appropriate action must be taken

to maintain the plant in a safe condition. GL 91-18 provides detailed guidance with
respect to performing operability determinations. As pointed out in Appendix I, it is
advisable that contingency plans and operability determination actions be completed
before in-leakage tests are performed. Such planning can provide insights about the
baseline testing acceptance criteria. A licensee may want to determine the maximum in
leakage that can be accommodated:

* Within the current regulatory limits

"* Using the current source term, but with the analysis improvements of Appendices C
and D
" Using the alternative source term (1OCFR50.67 and Regulatory Guide 1.183), with or
without the atmospheric dispersion improvements of Appendix D.

In addition, the compensatory measures of Appendix F (or other, plant-specific

compensatory measures) should be considered for use in case the above levels cannot be
met.

The reportability evaluation ensures timely NRC notification of significant conditions or

events relative to regulatory compliance. The corrective action process should ensure that
an identified discrepancy is evaluated for potential reportability to NRC under the
requirements of 1OCFR50.72 and 1OCFR50.73.

The basis for operability and reportability, including evaluations and analyses, should be
documented and retained for future use.

26
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

8.4 METHODS AVAILABLE TO ADDRESS DEGRADED OR NONCONFORMING CONDITIONS

8.4.1 Compensatory Measures

Compensatory measures may be implemented in the short term to mitigate an

identified discrepancy that may result in the plant being in an unanalyzed
condition or outside its design or licensing basis (i.e., degraded or nonconforming
condition per Generic Letter 91-18). Compensatory measures must provide a
reasonable assurance of safety until final corrective actions are complete.
Compensatory measures can consist of additional administrative or procedural
controls, additional testing or inspection of system components, and additional
protection provided to control room operators through the availability of self
contained breathing apparatus and/or potassium iodide tablets. Licensees must
ensure that compensatory actions can be implemented under 1OCFR50.59 or
request prior NRC approval. Guidance regarding compensatory measures related
to CRH is provided in Appendix F.

8.4.2 Dose Analysis Revision Option

A revised dose analysis may be part of the short-term justification for continued
operation or part of the long-term resolution of the nonconforming condition.

Revision of the analysis of record for the dose consequences to the control room
operator may be an acceptable method for addressing a condition different from
that described in the UFSAR and for meeting the requirements of GDC 19.
Revision of the dose analysis of record may be desirable in combination with
plant modifications to improve the margin to regulatory limits. Appendices C and
D provide acceptable methods that licensees may use to revise their dose analysis.
Appendix C focuses on improvements in the existing approaches (e.g., based on
10CFR100, TID-14844 and Regulatory Guide 1.3 and 1.4) to accident dose
analysis.

An option for consideration in the development of the final resolution of the

degraded condition is to revise the licensing basis. An example of a new
licensing basis would be the implementation of the Alternative Source Term
based on 10 CFR 50.67 and Regulatory Guide 1.183.

An increase in previously calculated operator doses may require NRC review and
approval. In addition, some changes to the licensing basis (e.g., AST) or analysis
methodology may also require prior NRC approval in accordance with
10CFR50.59. Regulatory Guide 1.187 and NEI 96-07, Guidelines for
10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluations, provide detailed industry guidance to address
criteria for making this determination.

27
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

8.4.3 Repairing or Modifying the Plant

The identified in-leakage source may be corrected by a repair of the physical

condition or by sealing the leak path.

In some instances, a plant modification may be desirable. Licensees may decide

to modify their control room envelope boundary by:

"* Moving HVAC equipment within the CRE

"* Replacing ducts with seam-welded heavy construction material to eliminate
ducting as a leakage source
"* Modifying system controls to change actuation signal timing
"• Securing non-emergency ventilation systems that contribute to in-leakage
during operation and pressurization
"* Modifying the system modes of operation.

Modifications may require a retest to ensure that they were successful in

elimination of the in-leakage and provide appropriate validation of the assumed
new in-leakage value.

8.4.4 Technical Specification Changes

Degraded or nonconforming conditions may be addressed by technical

specification changes. The nonconforming degraded condition may be eliminated
if one of the parameters associated with the limiting accident is in the technical
specifications and can be changed. Examples might be reactor coolant activity
levels, containment leak rate and primary-to-secondary leak rates.

28
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

PART 3 - ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF CRE

INTEGRITY

9 LONG-TERM CRE INTEGRITY PROGRAM

9.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This section defines a control room envelope integrity program to verify control room
habitability during the operating life of the plant.

9.2 CRE INTEGRITY PROGRAM

Many activities over the life of the plant may challenge CRH. Physical design
modifications may affect the envelope or the control room HVAC systems. Changes in
maintenance or operating practices may influence material condition or affect the
assumptions in the licensing basis. New sources of toxic gas external to the plant site or
design changes may affect inputs and assumptions in the plant control room habitability
analyses. Thus, it is essential that CRE integrity be considered over the life of the plant.

Attributes of a CRE integrity program include:

"* Periodic evaluations

- System material condition
- Post-maintenance activities
- In-leakage assessments
- Toxic gas evaluation
"* Configuration control (design and operation)
- CRE boundary / breach control
- Procedure control
- Toxic chemical control
- Design change control
- Safety analyses control
"* Training
"* Testing.

These attributes are discussed in the following sections.

9.3 PERIODIC EVALUATIONS

The baseline assessment and test program (per Sections 5, 6 and 7) will demonstrate that
the CR design, configuration, performance and operation meet the plant design and

29
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

licensing bases. However, control room envelope integrity is subject to change over
time. A periodic assessment of the systems, components and key analysis assumptions is
recommended to ensure optimal operation and early detection of problems and that the
licensing basis is being maintained. The periodic assessment may involve design
reviews, material condition assessments, inspections and/or testing as described in the
following subparagraphs.

9.3.1 System Material Condition

Testing of some mechanical CR HVAC components, such as emergency supply

fans and charcoal filters, is normally required by the plant Technical
Specifications. Such testing may identify degradation of these components.
However, degradation of various other components whose impact on CRH may
be less obvious (e.g., manual dampers, control loops, non-safety related
ventilation in adjacent spaces) can also affect safety analysis assumptions of CRE
integrity. In addition, passive components such as door seals, penetration seals
and wall/floor joints can degrade over time, affecting CRE integrity.

The material condition of the above components should be periodically assessed

to ensure there is no degradation that would jeopardize integrity assumptions. In
addition, the performance of HVAC systems in areas adjacent to the CRE should
be reviewed to ensure that the licensing basis is maintained.

9.3.2 Post-Maintenance Activities

During the time interval between periodic assessments and/or testing, various
maintenance activities will occur that affects either the control room envelope or
the performance of the control room HVAC system. This may result from
preventive maintenance, corrective maintenance or implementation of
modifications. It is important to perform a proper post-maintenance test (PMT)
following these activities to ensure that the integrity of the CRE is maintained.
The actual PMT may be a simple inspection to ensure that a gasketed surface has
been sufficiently tightened to eliminate air gaps or it may be a full in-leakage test
if a major modification has significantly changed the boundary of the CRE.

The following examples are provided to illustrate possible PMTs that may be used
to ensure that CRE integrity is maintained:

"* A PMT that is performed under guidance of other documents, such as ANSI
N5 10 for filter changeout, would not require additional testing in accordance
with this document.
"* A pipe that penetrates the CRE has a flange mounted pressure transmitter that
requires replacing. The flange has a bolted gasket connection that is fully
accessible for inspection. An adequate PMT could be a visual inspection to
ensure that proper gasket crush is achieved after the new transmitter is
installed.

30
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

"* A door seal requires replacing. The geometry of the gap between the door and
the frame is such that a visual inspection is difficult to perform. An adequate
PMT could be the use of a "smoke pencil" to verify that the door gasket has
been properly installed to minimize leakage.
"* A major modification has been performed to incorporate the CR HVAC
equipment room into the CRE. A full in-leakage test may be required to
ensure that the new configuration still meets the in-leakage assumptions used
in the accident analyses.
"* A modification has been performed on systems, structures and components
outside the CRE that may affect CRE integrity. The complexity of the PMT
would depend upon the effect of the modification on CRE integrity.

9.3.3 In-Leakage Assessments

The design configuration and material condition of the CRE must be periodically
assessed to ensure that the CRE in-leakage assumption remains valid. This
assessment may be only an engineering evaluation; however the evaluation may
determine that a need to retest CRE in-leakage exists. It is recommended that the
first reassessment be performed within one to three years of the baseline test.
Subsequent to the first reassessment, the frequency of subsequent reassessments of
the CRE is dependent on plant specific considerations as discussed below. The
time of the next assessment should be defined at the conclusion of each assessment
based on the findings.

All assessments should be documented and retrievable.

9.3.3.1 Assessment Scope

The objective of the periodic assessment is to ensure that CRE in-leakage

assumptions remain valid. The scope of the assessment will vary between plants
and over time depending on the condition of the CRE and CRE Integrity Program.
For example:

"* If there is an effective CRE Integrity Program in place and minimal

modification to the CRE has occurred, the periodic assessment may consist of
an engineering evaluation of the CRE condition that takes into account
modifications and age related degradation.
"* If the potential for challenges to CRH assumptions are more probable, the
assessment may also include limited testing on components that have been
modified or that are vulnerable to unfiltered in-leakage or age related
degradation.
"* In the case of a limited CRH Program or extensive changes to the CRE
boundary, a more extensive assessment should be considered including
performance of an integrated in-leakage test.

31
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Appropriate CRH Program personnel should determine the proper scope for
each in-leakage assessment. The basis for the scope of each assessment should
be documented and retained with CRH Program records.

9.3.3.2 Assessment Frequency

The established assessment period must ensure the integrity of the CRE. It
should be based on the safety significance and historical performance of the
CRE and the available in-leakage margin. The CRH program should contain
performance criterion for each of the factors contained in this section.
Assessment frequency should consider:

"* in-leakage rate limits

"* conditions that are indicative of or affect performance
"* performance evaluations of system components (see also paragraph 9.3.1)
"* comparison to previous assessments to examine the performance history
of the overall CRE to limit in-leakage.

The assessment should demonstrate that the in-leakage rate is less than the
assumed in-leakage rate with margin as specified by the plant.

The following factors should be considered when establishing a frequency

for periodic reassessment and the need to retest as opposed to performing an
engineering evaluation. Typical frequencies could be based on refueling
outage intervals, (An 18-month interval is used in examples below. Intervals
of 5 years or 10 years may be used depending on margins and the following
factors.) This is not an all-inclusive list. The basis for an acceptable margin
is plant-specific. Each licensee is to assess its own situation.

"* Confirm that control room envelope breaching controls are in place
(Appendix K). Without breaching controls in place there can be no
assurance that the boundary integrity will remain intact due to
maintenance and/or modification activities. The adequacy of the
breaching controls can be evaluated by determining the number of
breaching problems that occurred or were prevented.
"* Identify the in-leakage vulnerabilities. If the number of vulnerabilities or
the magnitude of the potential leakage is large, then a more frequent
assessment may be needed. Vulnerabilities should not be counted
individually if they can be associated with a single component.
"* Determine the available differential pressure margin between the CRE and
adjacent spaces. If the measured differential pressure is smaller, more
frequent assessments may be necessary to ensure that differential pressure
is maintained. A suggested margin would be 0.05 inches wg above the
design basis requirement. The suggested margin of 0.05 inches water
guage (wg) is based on engineering judgment and experience. It is a high
enough value to allow accurate measurement while providing reasonable

32
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

assurance that flow will be from the area of higher pressure to lower
pressure. It is also sufficiently greater than the typical TS value (1/8
inches wg) to allow correction without going below the TS limit.

- The typical differential pressure maintained by pressurized control

rooms is 1/8 inches wg. Therefore, a total pressure differential of
0.175 inches wg to outside atmosphere is recommended.

- For licensees that do not have limits for pressure differences between
internal building spaces, 0.05 inches wg is recommended. The
suggested margin of 0.05 inches wg is based on engineering judgment
and experience. It is a high enough value to allow accurate
measurement while providing reasonable assurance that flow will be
from the area of higher pressure to lower pressure without the air flow
into the adjacent space being overly burdensome to the utility.

"* Compare the baseline test measured in-leakage to the design basis analysis
in-leakage assumption for both radiation and toxic gas considerations. A
small margin may require a more frequent assessment. This margin would
be plant specific, but an example of suggested margin would be either 10
percent of the acceptable limit or the testing uncertainty value if it is
larger.
"* Confirm that maintenance practices are in place to assure that the
boundary is maintained. This includes periodic inspections and
preventative maintenance (Appendix J). Verify that periodic maintenance
is being performed satisfactorily within the required frequencies.
"* Confirm that the plant configuration control program evaluates the effect
of modifications on CRE integrity. Determine the number and complexity
of design changes that may have affected CRH. Numerous or complex
modifications may indicate the need for more frequent assessment.
"* Examine industry operating experience.
"* Assess plant material condition. Degrading material condition may
indicate the need for more frequent assessment.

As an example, CRE integrity that meets the following attributes may justify
an assessment frequency of 10 years:

"* An effective CRE breach control program is in place.

"* The CRE has a small number of vulnerabilities to in-leakage.
"* The measured CRE boundary differential pressure is significantly greater
than 1/8 inches wg.
"* The measured CRE in-leakage is considerably less than the design in
leakage assumption.

33
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

"* Effective maintenance practices are in place to assure that the boundary is
maintained.
"* The plant configuration control program evaluates the effect of
modifications on CRE integrity.
* Few simple modifications affecting CRH have been performed.
* Retesting of the CRE integrity demonstrates little change in in-leakage
from the baseline test.

As an example, CRE integrity that meets the following attributes may require
an assessment frequency of 18 months (and requires retesting):

* Frequent problems with CRE breach control program.

* The CRE has a large number of vulnerabilities to in-leakage.
* The measured CRE boundary differential pressure is less than the
recommended margin allowed.
* The measured CRE in-leakage is close to the design in-leakage
assumption.
* Maintenance practices do not ensure that the CRE boundary is maintained.
* The plant configuration control program lacks guidance to evaluate the
effect of modifications on CRE integrity.
* Numerous or complex modifications to CR systems or the CRE barrier
have been performed.

9.3.3.3 Determine Need to Test

If the CRE periodic assessment indicates that the actual or potential CRE in
leakage has significantly degraded, then retesting may be required.
Additionally, testing may be required where the assessment alone cannot
provide reasonable assurance that the CRE in-leakage has not degraded or
where changes (such as modifications) to the CRE have invalidated previous
testing. For example, plants with a large number of in-leakage vulnerabilities
and/or a small in-leakage margin may periodically perform testing to ensure
that the actual in-leakage has not increased.

9.3.4 Toxic Gas Evaluation

Each plant typically performed an evaluation of toxic gas sources in the vicinity of
the plant during its initial licensing process and in response to TMI Action Item
III.D.3.4. Many licensees have reviewed their situations more recently and may
have even verified that there are no toxic gas sources that pose a challenge to the
habitability of their control room. While the use of toxic gases on-site is subject to
programmatic controls, fixed off-site and transportation sources are beyond the
direct control of the licensee. It is recommended that each licensee periodically
perform a review of these sources in accordance with Appendix G.

34
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Each licensee should establish a frequency for these periodic assessments, based
on the number, size and type of industrial and transportation activities in the
vicinity of the plant and regional and local changes in land use. New commercial
facilities or expansion/changes to existing facilities within 5 miles of the plant may
present new potential threats to CRH. Likewise, increases in traffic or changes in
nearby transportation routes (waterways, roads, rail lines) may also challenge
design assumptions. The periodicity of reassessments due to changing toxic gas
sources should be plant specific, based upon on-site and off-site challenges. It is
suggested that licensees with plants in industrialized areas perform such an
assessment every 5 years; others should consider an assessment frequency of at
least every 10 years.

9.4 CONFIGURATION CONTROL

There are many changes that can take place on-site under plant control that can
have an impact on CR habitability. The intent of the guidance in this section is to
ensure that plant controls recognize the potential impact of a change on control
room habitability. Licencees are encouraged to review their existing programs and
consider modifying or establishing new programs, if appropriate, to address the
control aspects discussed below.

9.4.1 CRE Boundary / Breach Control

Each plant should have CRE boundary controls in place. Appendix K contains the
guidance for establishing those controls if they do not already exist. The controls
assure that boundary breaches are recognized, that uncontrolled breaches to the
CRE do not exist and that known breaches do not result in an unanalyzed
condition.

9.4.2 Procedure Control

10CFR50, Appendix B Criterion V requires that each licensee establish its

procedure controls. It is recommended that each plant review its existing controls
to assure that potential CR integrity issues are recognized and appropriately
considered when revising procedures.

9.4.3 Toxic Chemical Control

Each licensee should ensure that its chemical controls include a review of new
chemicals brought on-site and that this review consider the impact of a potential
release on the control room. It is recommended the controls also provide guidance
regarding acceptable quantifies or container sizes for chemicals approved for use
on-site.

35
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

9.4.4 Design Change Control

1OCFR50, Appendix B Criterion III requires that each licensee establish design
controls. These controls ensure that the design bases are appropriately
incorporated into the design and operation of the plant. The controls also ensure
that design changes, which include permanent and temporary modifications, are
subject to similar controls. Each plant should understand the design of the CRE
and habitability systems and ensure that they control changes to the design. In
addition, appropriate post-modification testing should ensure that safety analyses
assumptions remain valid. It is recommended that the CR HVAC system engineer
be familiar with habitability issues and review each related modification package.

9.4.5 Safety Analyses Control

Safety analyses are typically covered as part of a plant's design controls. The
safety analyses typically include various assumptions about the CRE for CRH
purposes. Examples are:

"* In-leakage
"* Change in release location
"* Quantity of release
"* System isolation characteristics
"* Assumed accident source term
"* Operator action assumptions.

The various assumptions are addressed in more detail in Appendices C, D and G.

Changes in the inputs and assumptions to these analyses can affect the integrity of
the CRE. The licensee's engineering department should establish good
communications to ensure system features are appropriately modeled and the
potential impact of system changes on the licensing analyses is recognized.

9.5 TRAINING

The complexity and breadth of CRH warrants training of personnel. It is

recommended that a training needs analysis be performed to assess whether operation,
maintenance and engineering support personnel understand the bases for the CRE
integrity program and issues that influence control room habitability. The guidance in
this document along with plant specific information will form a good basis for the
training material.

9.6 TESTING

CRE in-leakage testing will be required to establish a baseline in-leakage measurement

and may be required from time to time as part of the periodic assessment of CRE

36
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

integrity. Guidance on CRE testing is provided in Appendix I and in the various

industry standards referenced in Table I-1. Testing decisions made during the periodic
reassessment and any test results obtained must be documented and retained as part of
the CRH Program records.

37
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

10 REFERENCES

1. NEI, "Design Basis Program Guidelines," NEI 97-04, Nuclear Energy Institute, 1997.

2. USNRC, "Clarification of TMI Action Item Requirements," NUIREG 0737, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, November 1980.

3. USNRC, "A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues," NUREG 0933, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, June 2000.

4. USNRC, "Assumptions for Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant Control
Room During a Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release," Regulatory Guide 1.78, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1974.

5. USNRC, "Protection of Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Operators Against an

Accidental Chlorine Release," Regulatory Guide 1.95, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, January 1977.

6. 10 CFR 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," Part 50, Code
of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records
Administration.

7. NEI, "Guidelines for Managing NRC Commitment Changes," NEI 99-04, Revision 0,
Nuclear Energy Institute, 1999.

8. USNRC, "Information to Licensees Regarding NRC Inspection Manual Section on

Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions," Generic Letter 91-18, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1991.

9. USNRC, "Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions," Inspection Manual,

Part 9900, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

10. J.J. DiNunno et al., "Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and Test Reactor Sites,"
USAEC TID-14844, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (now USNRC), 1962.

11. USNRC, "Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of
a Loss of Coolant Accident for Boiling Water Reactors," Regulatory Guide 1.3, Revision
2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1974.

12. USNRC, "Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of
a Loss of Coolant Accident for Pressurized Water Reactors," Regulatory Guide 1.4,
Revision 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1974.

38
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

13. 10 CFR 100, "Reactor Site Criteria," Part 100, Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the
Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration.

14. USNRC, "Alternative Radiological Source Terms For Evaluating Design Basis Accidents
At Nuclear Power Reactors," Regulatory Guide 1.183, Revision 0, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, July 2000.

15. NEI, "Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations," NEI 96-07, Nuclear Energy
Institute, November 2000.

39
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

APPENDIX A

LICENSING BASIS HISTORY

This appendix provides an overview of the control room habitability regulatory and licensing
history.

1. ORIGIN OF THE CONTROL ROOM GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA AND EARLY REGULATORY
GUIDANCE.

In February 1971, the Atomic Energy Commission published Appendix A, General

Design Criteria(GDC)for Nuclear PowerPlants to 1OCFR50. 1OCFR50.34(a)(3)(i)
requires an applicant for a construction permit to describe the preliminary design of the
facility including the principal design criteria in a preliminary Safety Analysis Report
(PSAR). This paragraph includes a reference to Appendix A as establishing the
minimum requirements. Criterion 19 (GDC 19), ControlRoom, provides for a control
room, alternative shutdown station(s) and habitability requirements. GDC 19, in part,
requires:

"Adequate radiationprotection shall be provided to permit access and occupancy

of the control room under accident conditionswithout personnelreceiving
radiationexposures in excess of 5 rem whole body, or its equivalent to any part of
the body, for the duration of the accident."

Between 1965 and 1971, the NRC staff worked on issuing the final version of the GDCs.
The control room criterion was variously numbered as GDC 11, 13, 17 and finally, 19.
There were several draft versions and much coordination between the Commission, the
staff, and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). In June 1967, the
Commission published a draft of the GDCs in the FederalRegister for public comment
and interim guidance. Applicants for construction permits and operating licenses during
this period may have referenced it in their PSARs and FSARs. Many licensees were
required to meet the draft GDC on control room habitability as a condition for receiving
their construction permit and/or their operating license.

While the GDCs were under development, applicants proposed, and the staff approved,
various criteria for the control room. As an example, at one plant the NRC approved the
criterion of 10 percent of the 10 CFR Part 100, §100.11 dose guidelines.

In the early 1970's, K. Murphy and K. Campe presented a method for evaluating
radiological events in the control room. Additional information can be found in a 1974
paper by Murphy and Campe2 . In 1974 and 1975, NRC Regulatory Guides 1.78 and 1.95
were issued to provide direction on the protection of the control room operator from
accidental releases of hazardous chemicals or chlorine gas respectively.

2 K.G. Murphy and K.M. Campe, Nuclear PowerPlant Control Room Ventilation System Designfor Meeting General Criterion
19, In Proceedingof 13th AEC Air Cleaning Conference, San Francisco,CA, CONF-740807,U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
1974.

A-1
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

2. THREE MILE ISLAND ACCIDENT EFFECT ON CONTROL ROOM HABITABILITY

REQUIREMENTS

As a result of the accident at Three Mile Island the NRC staff developed a number of
proposed actions to be implemented on operating reactors and on plants under
construction. These actions were presented in NUREG-0660, TMI-2 Action Plan. In
October 1980, NUREG-0737, Clarificationof TMIAction Plan Requirements, was
published. NUREG-0737 contained all TMI-related items approved for implementation
by the Commission as of October 31, 1980. The actions in NUREG-0737 were
applicable to operating reactors and applicants for operating licenses. The letter that
transmitted NUREG-0737 was addressed to all licensees of operating plants, and
applicants for operating licenses and holders of construction permits. The letter in
NUREG-0737 stated that the staff "...expected the requirements contained herein will be
met." Pursuant to 1OCFR50.54(f), operating reactor licensees were to confirm that the
implementation dates in Enclosure 1 of NUR-EG-0737 would be met. If they could not, a
revised date was to be provided along with a justification for the delay, a proposed
revised date for completion and any planned safety actions during the interim.

The Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800), Revision 1 was issued by the NRC in July
1981. The Standard Review Plan (SRP) provides standard regulatory acceptance
guidance to the NRC staff for review and approval of Licensee Safety Analysis Reports.
The SRP identified that the limiting design basis accident (DBA) for CRH is the loss of
coolant accident. However, other DBAs were to be reviewed to determine whether they
could be more limiting. Licensees were to provide assurance that the habitability systems
will operate under all postulated conditions (DBA) to permit the control room operators
to remain in the control room to take appropriate actions required by GDC 19. Where
modifications were needed for compliance with CRH requirements, a schedule for
completion of these modifications was required. Sometimes modifications and other
CRH actions were deferred pending future resolution of certain regulatory issues such as
the alternative source term (1OCFR50.67).

In May 1982, Generic Letter 82-10 was issued, that requested licensees to implement on
a timely basis those TMI Action Items from NUREG-0737 which had not been addressed
by Generic Letter 82-05. The Enclosure to Generic Letter 82-10 identified those items
for which a schedule needed to be established or, if a schedule had been previously
submitted, a reconfirmation of those schedule dates. TMI Action Item III.D.3.4, Control
Room Habitability Requirements was in that Enclosure. In March 1983, the NRC issued
an order to each reactor facility confirming licensee's commitment to post-TMI related
issues. The order required each licensee to implement and maintain the specific items
described in the Attachments to the Order in the manner described in the licensee's
submittal noted in the Order.

Two classes of licensees were identified in item III.D.3.4.

9 Licensees with control rooms that meet the guidance of the SRP needed only to
describe their basis for determining that the guidelines were met.

A- 2
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

* Licensees with control rooms that did not meet the guidelines of the SRP were
required to analyze the control room exposures and submit the results.

3. REVIEWS OF CONTROL ROOM HABITABILITY IN THE 1980's

Two issues related to CRH were identified by the ACRS in the early 1980s. These issues,
which are discussed in NUREG-0933, are:

0 GSI B-66, ControlRoom InfiltrationMeasurements, which identified that a key

parameter affecting control room habitability is the magnitude of control room air
infiltration rates.

* GSI 83, ControlRoom Habitability,which identified that loss of control room

habitability following an accidental release of external airborne toxic or radioactive
material or smoke can impair or cause loss of the control room operators capability to
safely control the reactor.

The ACRS issued a letter to the Commission, on August 18, 1982, which identified a
wide range of deficiencies in the maintenance and testing of engineered safety features
designed to maintain control room habitability.

These ACRS concerns encompassed both plant licensing review and operations and
inspection activities.

In January 1983, the NRC staff responded to the ACRS concerns and recommended
increased training of NRC and licensee personnel in inspection and testing of control
room habitability systems. The staff also provided a profile of control room HVAC
system component failures based on an analysis of Licensee Event Reports from 1977
through mid-1982. On April 28, 1983, Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and Office of
Inspection & Enforcement (OIE) representatives met with the ACRS Subcommittee on
Reactor Radiological Effects to discuss the staff response. Based on the
accomplishments above, GSI B-66 was considered resolved.

In May 1983, the ACRS issued a letter to the Executive Director of Operations (EDO)
that expressed continuing concerns about control room habitability and provided both
general and specific comments and recommendations for further staff evaluation. This
basically defined GSI 83. In July 1983, NRR transmitted to the EDO a joint NRR/OIE
proposal for evaluating the ACRS comments and recommendations and the adequacy of
the control room habitability licensing review process and criteria. In August 1983, the
EDO indicated agreement with the proposal and directed NRR to coordinate with OIE
and the NRC Regional Offices to complete the program and submit a report to the EDO
by June 1, 1984. In September 1983, NRR established a Control Room Habitability
Working Group and a Steering Group for conducting and guiding the proposed review.
The Control Room Habitability Working Group was expected to identify any
recommended actions that would correct significant deficiencies in control room
habitability design, installation, test or maintenance.

A- 3
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Following issuance of NUREG/CR-4960, it was recognized that the methodology used to

evaluate control room habitability system design needed improvement. Accordingly, the
NRC staff initiated activities to develop:

"* improved methods for calculating control room dose and exposure levels,
"* improved meteorological models for use in control room habitability calculations and
"* revised exposure limits to toxic gases for control room operators.

The results of the improved methods were documented in NUREG/CR-5669 and

NUREG/CR-62 10. The HABIT Code was developed to provide an integrated code
package for evaluating control room habitability. In 2000, the NRC issued a new
regulation (10 CFR 50.67) allowing licensees to voluntarily request license amendments
to revise their design basis to use alternate source term information in radiological
consequence assessments, including those for control room habitability.

As recommended by the ACRS, the staff was expected to consider National Institution
for Occupational Safety and Health recommendations for toxic chemicals in its revision
of Regulatory Guide 1.78.

4. TRACER GAS TESTING AND THE EVOLUTION OF INDUSTRY ACTIVITIES

As of the date of this document, approximately 25 percent of the control rooms have been
tracer gas testing to determine the amount of in-leakage into the control room envelope.
The NRC reported early testing results at a July 16, 1998, public meeting on control room
habitability. The testing data indicated that actual in-leakage was much greater than the
amount assumed in control room habitability analyses. Licensees embarked on sealing
programs, design improvements and/or revision to dose consequence analyses to ensure
regulatory requirements were met.

NUREG/CP-0167, Proceedingsof the 2 5 `h DOE/NRC NuclearAir Cleaning and

Treatment Conference, reported on control room envelope reconstitution efforts at one
nuclear power plant and control room air in-leakage testing results at two nuclear power
plants. Some of the conclusions from these reports were:

"* Tracer gas testing was instrumental in definition and quantification of unfiltered
leakage paths and represented documented measured in-leakage rates. The constant
injection tracer technique was considered the most useful method.
"* Well-managed sealing efforts are instrumental for assuring control room integrity.
"* Proper airflow balancing is essential to obtaining control room envelope and adjacent
area HVAC system design basis.

Following the July 1998 public meeting with NEI, utility representatives and
representatives from the Nuclear HVAC Users Group, the NRC staff agreed to work with
the industry to resolve issues regarding control room habitability.

A- 4
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

NEI agreed to take the lead. This document, NEI 99-03, presents the results of a joint
industry and NRC effort to develop guidance to address CRH.

5. REVISION TO GENERAL DESIGN CRITERION 19

In conjunction with the January 2000 issuance of the Alternative Source Term regulation,
10CFR50.67, GDC-19 was revised to allow licensees to use a dose criterion of 0.05 Sv (5
rem) total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) when implementing an alternative source
term. Regulatory Guide 1.183, Alternative RadiologicalSource Terms ForEvaluating
Design Basis Accidents At Nuclear PowerReactors, was issued in July 2000 to provide
guidance on implementing an alternative source term.

A- 5
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

APPENDIX B
CONTROL ROOM HABITABILITY REGULATORY INFORMATION

1. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

General Design Criterion (GDC) 19 of Appendix A to 10CFR50 is the controlling

requirement for control room habitability (CRH). As discussed in Appendix A, plants
licensed or issued construction permits before 1971 may not be committed to GDC 19. The
text of this criterion, as amended in December 1999 with the issuance of 1OCFR50.67, is
provided below:

Criterion 19-Controlroom. A controlroom shall be providedfrom which actions can be

taken to operate the nuclearpower unit safely under normal conditionsand to maintain it in
a safe condition under accident conditions, including loss-of-coolant accidents. Adequate
radiationprotection shall be provided to permit access and occupancy of the control room
under accident conditions without personnelreceiving radiationexposures in excess of 5 rem
whole body, or its equivalent to any part of the body, for the duration of the accident.

Equipment at appropriatelocations outside the controlroom shall be provided (1) with a

design capabilityfor prompt hot shutdown of the reactor,including necessary
instrumentationand controls to maintain the unit in a safe condition during hot shutdown,
and (2) with a potentialcapabilityfor subsequent cold shutdown of the reactorthrough the
use of suitableprocedures.

Applicantsfor and holders of constructionpermits and operatinglicenses under this part

who apply on or after January 10, 1997, applicantsfor design certificationsunderpart52 of
this chapter who apply on or after January10, 1997, applicantsfor and holders of combined
licenses underpart52 of this chapterwho do not reference a standarddesign certification,
or holders of operatinglicenses using an alternativesource term under § 50.67, shall meet
the requirements of this criterion, except that with regardto control room access and
occupancy, adequate radiationprotectionshall be provided to ensure that radiation
exposures shall not exceed 0. 05 Sv (5 rem) total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) as defined
in § 50.2for the duration of the accident.

It is important to note that although GDC-19 provides a specific numeric criterion for only
radiation doses, the scope of the GDC applies to other conditions that would prevent the
requisite actions from being performed.

2. REGULATORY GUIDES

The control room is expected to be habitable following design basis events. The design basis
events that establish the parameters for the design of control room features may vary from

B-1
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

plant to plant. The Regulatory Guides listed below address various events and define some
of the assumptions to be considered in the analysis and evaluation of each event.

* Regulatory Guide 1.3 - Assumptions Usedfor Evaluatingthe PotentialRadiological

Consequences of a Loss of CoolantAccident for Boiling Water Reactors
"* Regulatory Guide 1.4 - Assumptions Usedfor Evaluating the PotentialRadiological
Consequences of a Loss of CoolantAccidentfor Pressurized Water Reactors
* Regulatory Guide 1.5 - Assumptions Usedfor Evaluating the PotentialRadiological
Consequences of a Steam Line Break Accidentfor Boiling Water Reactors
"* Regulatory Guide 1.24 - Assumptions Usedfor Evaluatingthe PotentialRadiological
Consequences of a Pressurized Water Reactor Radioactive Gas Storage Tank Failure
"* Regulatory Guide 1.25 - Assumptions Usedfor Evaluatingthe PotentialRadiological
Consequences of a Fuel HandlingAccident in the Fuel Handling and Storage Facility
for Boiling and PressurizedWater Reactors
"* Regulatory Guide 1.52 - Design, Testing, and Maintenance Criteriafor Postaccident
Engineered-Safety-FeatureAtmosphere Cleanup System Air Filtrationand Adsorption
Units of Light-Water-CooledNuclear Power Plants
Regulatory Guide 1.77 - Assumptions Usedfor Evaluatinga Control Rod Ejection
Accidentfor Pressurized Water Reactors
"* Regulatory Guide 1.78 - Assumptionsfor Evaluatingthe Habitability of a Nuclear
Power Plant Control Room during a PostulatedHazardous Chemical Release
"* Regulatory Guide 1.95 - Protectionof Nuclear Power Plant ControlRoom Operators
Against an Accidental Chlorine Release
"* Regulatory Guide 1.98 - Assumptions Usedfor Evaluating the PotentialRadiological
Consequences of a Radioactive Offgas System Failurein a Boiling Water Reactor
"* Regulatory Guide 1.145 - Atmospheric DispersionModels for PotentialAccident
ConsequenceAssessments at NuclearPower Plants
"* Regulatory Guide 1.183 - Alternative RadiologicalSource Terms for Evaluating
Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear PowerReactors

3. NUREGs

The technical reports listed below provide general information and results of research related
to CRH.

* NUREG-0737 - Clarificationof TMIAction Plan Requirements

As noted in Appendix A, Generic Letter 82-10 required licensees to submit a report

describing their efforts to address the TMI Action Plan Requirements and provide
schedule commitments. The NRC issued orders confirming these commitments. The
applicability of any NUREG-0737 item to a particular facility is dependent on the
specific commitments made by the licensee.

B-2
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

NUREG-0737, Action Item III.D.3.4, ControlRoom HabitabilityRequirements, is one

of the activities identified by the NRC after the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident.
Each licensee and applicant were required to make a submittal addressing several
questions regarding the design of their control room and habitability systems. On the
basis of a review of these responses, the NRC typically documented the closeout of
this TMI issue in a safety evaluation report (SER).

As a part of the CRH assessment effort, each utility should consider the response it
provided to this issue, determine whether it still reflects the current design of the CRH
features and confirms that there is a SER closing out the issue for its plant.

For a few plants, the NRC issued SERs that allowed some control room habitability
issues to remain open due to pending anticipated NRC actions. The NRC has
permitted some plants to use temporary compensatory measures, such as the use of
self-contained breathing apparatus or potassium iodide pills to mitigate radiological
dose after an accident.

With the issuance of the accident source term rule, 10CFR50.67, the NRC encouraged
licensees to comply with TMI Action Item III.D.3.4 without compensatory measures.

* NINREG-0800 - StandardReview Planfor the Review of Safety Analysis Reportsfor

NuclearPower Plants

The Standard Review Plan (SRP) was developed to provide guidance primarily for the
NRC staff performing reviews of license applications. It was intended to better assure
the quality and consistency of the review effort. It also offered a means of
communication for information about regulatory matters and the license process.

The SRP was originally issued in 1975 as NUREG-75/087. The SRP was revised in
its entirety in 1981 and republished as NUREG-0800. The new revision outlined the
requirements and acceptance criteria for each topic and also incorporated new
regulatory positions, including several derived since the Three Mile Island accident
(see NUREG-0737, discussed above).

The SRP follows much the same outline as that for the Final Safety Analysis Report
(at least for those plants that followed the standard format of Regulatory Guide 1.70).
The key sections that relate to control room habitability include:

- Section 6.4 - Control Room Habitability Systems

- Section 9.4.1 - Control Room Ventilation Systems
- Section 11.3 - Waste Gas System Failure and Liquid Tank Rupture Events
- Chapter 15 sections - Accident Analysis

The SRP typically identified the applicable regulatory requirements, outlined the
regulatory considerations and often provided acceptable values for analysis
assumptions. The following excerpt from NUREG-0800, Section 6.4 is provided as an
example:

B-3
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

The LOCA source terms determinedfrom the EAB review in accordancewith

Appendix A to SRP Section 15.6.5 are routinely used to evaluate radiationlevels
external to the control room.... Other DBAs [Design Basis Accidents] are
reviewed to determine whether they might constitute a more severe hazardthan
the LOCA. If appropriate,an additionalanalysis is performedfor the suspect
DBAs.

NUTREG-0933 A Prioritizationof Generic Safety Issues

NUREG-0933 presents the priority rankings for generic safety issues related to nuclear
power plants. The purpose of these rankings is to assist in the timely and efficient
allocation of NRC resources for the resolution of those safety issues that have a
significant potential for reducing risk. Two issues related to CRH are Items GSI-B66
and GSI-83 (Appendix A). These issues are considered to be resolved with no new
requirements for licensees to implement.

NUREG-1465 Accident Source Terms for Light Water Nuclear PowerPlants

In 1962, the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission published TID-14844 to specify the

release of fission products from a postulated accident involving a substantial meltdown
of the core. This source term was used by nearly all licensees to demonstrate
compliance with the reactor siting criteria of 10CFR100 and has subsequently been
used to estimate control room doses.

In 1995, the NRC published NUREG-1465 and provided more realistic estimates of
the source term released from the core. This updated source term guidance was
specifically applicable to future reactors. The Alternative Source Term Rule
(1OCFR50.67) was issued in December 1999 and provided for the implementation of
the new source term insights of NUREG-1465 by currently licensed facilities.
Regulatory Guide 1.183 provides a PWR and BWR alternative source term acceptable
to the NRC staff and provides guidance regarding the attributes of an acceptable
source term.

The NRC staff has also rebaselined a PWR and BWR using the NUTREG-1465 source
terms (SECY-98-154) and concluded the alternative source term need not be imposed
on licensees because use of TID-14844 provides adequate protection of the public.
The NRC concluded that voluntary application of the alternative source term by
licensees of currently operating plants would be acceptable as an opportunity for
burden reduction. Implementation must be approved by the NRC in an amendment to
the plant operating license.

While not directly associated with the CRH issue, the alternative source term does
offer an improved basis for a larger control room in-leakage value than initially
assumed. The new source term, in conjunction with its switch to total effective dose
equivalent acceptance criteria, may yield acceptable calculated dose consequences for
the postulated accidents in a plants' licensing basis. Appendix C provides additional

B-4
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

details concerning the use of the alternative source term.

* NUREG/CP-0167 25th DOE/NRCNuclearAir Cleaning and Treatment Conference

NUREG/CP-0 167 contains papers presented at the conference without associated

comments. Major topics included control room safeguards. For example, one session
was "HVAC Systems for Control Rooms and Other Nuclear Facilities."

* NJUREG/CR-4960 Control Room HabitabilitySurvey of Licensed CommercialNuclear

Power GeneratingStation

NUREG/CR-4960 presents the results of a survey of 12 plants regarding the design of

their systems used for control room habitability. The survey was conducted from 1986
to 1988 and was published in September 1988. The observations may offer insights to
licensees preparing to assess the integrity and effectiveness of their own control room
envelope.

* NUREG/CR-6210 Computer Codesfor Evaluationof ControlRoom Habitability

(HABIT)

NUREG/CR-6210 describes the HABIT package of computer codes designed to be

used for the evaluation of control room habitability in the event of an accidental
release of toxic chemicals or radioactive materials.

HABIT is an integrated package of several programs that previously needed to be run

separately and required considerable use intervention. Two of these modules,
EXTRAN and CHEM, are used for estimating chemical exposures. EXTRAN
determines the release rate of a chemical in the event of leaks or ruptures of liquid or
gas tanks. It also uses a model that computes atmospheric dilution, including the
effects of building wakes, to determine the chemical concentration arriving at the
intake to the control room. CHEM models the dilution of the chemical by flows in the
control room and determines the chemical exposure to control room personnel.

Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1087 (Proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.78),

Evaluatingthe Habitabilityof a NuclearPower Plant ControlRoom duringa
PostulatedHazardous ChemicalRelease, endorses the use of EXTRAN to model the
atmospheric transport of a released hazardous chemical as part of a licensee's toxic gas
assessment. The use of EXTRAN as part of a toxic gas assessment is also discussed in
Appendix G.

* NUREG/CR-633 1, Rev. 1 Atmospheric Relative Concentrationsin Building Wakes

(ARCON96)

NUREG/CR-6331 describes the Atmospheric Relative Concentration in Building

Wakes (ARCON96) computer code. ARCON96 is an atmospheric dispersion code
intended for use in control room habitability assessments. The code uses hourly

B-5
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

meteorological data and refined methods for estimating dispersion in the vicinity of
buildings to calculate relative concentrations at control room air intakes that would be
exceeded no more than 5 percent of the time. These concentrations are calculated for
averaging periods ranging from one hour to 30 days in duration.

The use of ARCON96 as part of a radiological dose analysis is discussed in Appendix

D.

0 NJUREG/CR-6604 RADTRAD: A Simplified Model for Radionuclide Transportand

Removal and Dose Estimation

NUREG/CR-6604, documents the RADTRAD computer code developed for the NRC
to estimate transport and removal of radionuclides and dose at selected receptors. The
code can be used to estimate releases using various source terms. Additionally, the
code can account for a reduction in the quantity of radioactive material due to
containment sprays, natural deposition, filters and other natural and engineered safety
features.

4. INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT NOTICES (IEN) AND INFORMATION NOTICES (IN)

The following notices provide information regarding designs or events that had an identified
impact on control room habitability.

"* IEN 83-41 -Actuation of Fire Suppression System CausingInoperability of Safety

Related Equipment
"* IEN 83-62 - Failureof Redundant Toxic Gas Detectors Positionedat ControlRoom
Ventilation Air Intakes
* IEN 83-69 - Improperly Installed FireDampers at Nuclear Power Plants
* IEN 86-76 - Problems Noted in ControlRoom Emergency Ventilation Systems
* IN 88-61 - ControlRoom Habitability- Recent Reviews of OperatingExperience
• IN 89-44 - Hydrogen Storage on the Roof of the ControlRoom
* IN 91-56 - PotentialRadioactiveLeakage to Tank Vented to Atmosphere
* IN 92-18 - Potentialfor Loss of Remote Shutdown Capabilityduring a ControlRoom
Fire
"* IN 92-32 - Problems Identified with Emergency Ventilation Systems for Near-Site
(within 10 Miles) Emergency OperationsFacilities& Technical Support Centers
"* IN 93-06 - PotentialBypass Leakage PathsAround FiltersInstalled in Ventilation
Systems
"* IN 97-01 - ImproperElectrical GroundingResults in Simultaneous Fires in the
Control Room and the Safe Shutdown Equipment Room

B-6
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

"* IN 97-79 - PotentialInconsistency in the Assessment of the Radiological

Consequences of a Main Steam Line Break Associated With the Implementation of
Steam GeneratorTube Alternate Repair Criteria
"* IN 97-82 - Inadvertent ControlRoom Halon Actuation Due to a CameraFlash
"* IN 99-05 - Inadvertent Dischargeof Carbon Dioxide FireProtectionSystem and Gas
Migration

5. Regulatory Issue Summaries

* RIS 2001-09 - Control ofHazardBusiness

6. Generic Letters
"* GL 82-05 -Post TMIRequirements
"* GL 82-10 - Post-TMILessons Learned
"* GL-99-02 - Laboratory Testing ofNuclear-GradeActivated Charcoal

B-7
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

APPENDIX C

CRH DOSE ANALYSIS: REGULATORY ENHANCEMENTS

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This appendix summarizes dose analysis information provided by regulatory guides and
NUREG-0800, the Standard Review Plan. Furthermore, it incorporates improvements in
analytical methods and assumptions based on CRII Task Force discussions with the NRC
3
staff. A

This appendix describes radiological analysis assumptions for use in conjunction with the
Source Term Technical Information Document (TID) 14844, Calculationof Distance
Factorsfor Power and Test Reactor Sites. In 10 CFR Part 50, Domestic Licensing of
Productionand UtilizationFacilities,Section 50.34, Contents of Applications; Technical
Information, requires that each applicant for a construction permit or operating license
provide an analysis and evaluation of the design and performance of structures, systems
and components of the facility with the objective of assessing the risk to public health
and safety resulting from operation of the facility. Applicants are also required by 10
CFR 50.34 to provide an analysis of the proposed site. 10 CFR Part 100, Reactor Site
Criteria,Section 100.11, Determinationof Exclusion Area, Low PopulationZone, and
Population Center Distance,provides criteria for evaluating the radiological aspects of
the proposed site. A footnote to 10 CFR 100.11 states that the fission product release
assumed in these evaluations should be based upon a major accident involving substantial
meltdown of the core with subsequent release of appreciable quantities of fission
products.

This appendix provides guidance for performing control room dose calculations in
support of control room habitability analyses for design basis radiological accidents. As
described in Sections 3.4 and 6.2 of the main body of this document, this includes an
assessment of each accident within the licensing basis of the facility. The purpose of this
assessment is to determine the limiting event with respect to control room dose. Some
licensees have previously evaluated the control room dose only for the design basis
accident (DBA) Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA), which is typically the limiting event
for off-site radiological releases. The DBA LOCA is generally the large break LOCA
event analysis with the radioactive source term specified in Regulatory Guide 1.3 or 1.4.
Other events may be analyzed as part of the design basis accident evaluation for the
facility. Although these events may have been shown to be non-limiting with respect to
offsite dose, control room dose analyses should be performed for these events to identify
the limiting event for the GDC 19 control room dose design criterion.

The DBAs that should be examined are those described in the final safety analysis report
(ESAR) or licensee commitments. The assumptions used in the analyses of these events

3 Endnotes are designated by uppercase letters. Section 8 of this appendix provides the endnotes with a statement of their purpose.

C-1
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

remain as stated in the plant licensing basis. For example, assumptions in the licensing
basis analyses regarding concurrent loss of off-site power for accidents do not change.

TID-14844 is cited in 10 CFR Part 100 as a source of further guidance on these analyses.
Although initially used only for siting evaluations, the TID-14844 source term has been
used in other design basis applications, such as environmental qualification of equipment
under 10 CFR 50.49, Environmental Qualificationof ElectricEquipment Important to
Safety for Nuclear Power Plants, and in some requirements related to Three Mile Island
(TMI) as stated in NUREG-0737, Clarificationof TMIAction Plan Requirements. The
analyses and evaluations required by 10 CFR 50.34 for an operating license is
documented in the facility FSAR. Fundamental assumptions that are design inputs,
including the source term, are to be included in the FSAR and become part of the facility
design basis. The DBAs were not intended to be actual event sequences, but rather, were
intended to be surrogates to enable deterministic evaluation of the response of a facility's
engineered safety features. These accident analyses are intentionally conservative to
compensate for known uncertainties in accident progression, fission product transport and
atmospheric dispersion. B

2. USE OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCE TERMS

Since the publication of TID- 14844, significant advances have been made in
understanding the timing, magnitude and chemical form of fission product releases from
severe nuclear power plant accidents. In 1995, the NRC published NUREG-1465,
Accident Source Terms for Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants.NUREG-1465 used this
research to provide estimates of the accident source term that were more physically based
and that could be applied to the design of future light-water power reactors. NUREG
1465 presents a representative accident source term for a boiling-water reactor (BWR)
and for a pressurized-water reactor (PWR). These source terms are characterized by the
composition and magnitude of the radioactive material, the chemical and physical
properties of the material, and the timing of the release to the containment. The NRC
staff considered the applicability of the revised source terms to operating reactors and
determined that the current analytical approach based on the TID-14844 source term
would continue to be adequate to protect public health and safety. Operating reactors
licensed under that approach would not be required to reanalyze accidents using the
revised source terms. The NRC staff also determined that some licensees might wish to
use an alternative source term (AST) in analyses to support cost-beneficial licensing
actions. Therefore, the NRC staff initiated several actions to provide a regulatory basis
for operating reactors to use an AST in design basis analyses. These initiatives resulted
in the development and issuance of 10 CFR 50.67 and Regulatory Guide 1.183.

Licensees planning to use an AST methodology should refer to Regulatory Guide 1.183.

3. ACCIDENT SOURCE TERM FOR TID-14844 ANALYSES

This section describes an accident source term for TID-14844 analyses. It provides
guidance on the fission product inventory, release fractions, timing of the release,

C-2
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

radionuclide composition, chemical form and the fuel damage for DBAs. In general, the
content of the guidance in this section follows the form of Regulatory Guide 1.183. A

3.1 Fission Product Inventory

The inventory of fission products in the reactor core and available for release to the
containment should be based on the maximum achievable, full-power operational history
of the core with the assumed core power equal to the current licensed rated thermal
power times the ECCS evaluation uncertainty.' Fuel enrichment values and tolerances
and the licensed fuel burnup range should be examined to maximize fission product
inventory. The period of irradiation should be of sufficient duration to allow the activity
of dose-significant radionuclides to reach equilibrium or to reach maximum values. The
core inventory should be determined using an appropriate isotope generation and
depletion computer code such as ORIGEN 2 or ORIGEN-ARP. Core inventory factors
(Ci/MWt) provided in TID-14844 and used in some analysis computer codes were
derived for low bumup, low enrichment fuel and should not be used with higher burnup
and higher enrichment fuels.

For the DBA LOCA, all fuel assemblies in the core are assumed to be affected and the
core average inventory should be used. For DBA events that do not involve the entire
core, the fission product inventory of each of the damaged fuel rods is determined by
dividing the total core inventory by the number of fuel rods in the core. For events where
it is appropriate to consider differences in power level across the core, analyses should
incorporate peaking factors from the facility's core operating limits report or technical
specifications in determining the inventory of the damaged rods.

No adjustment to the fission product inventory should be made for events postulated to
occur during power operations at less than full, rated power or those postulated to occur
at the beginning of core life. For events postulated to occur while the facility is shut
down, e.g., a fuel handling accident, radioactive decay from the time of shutdown may be
modeled.

3.2 Release Fractionss

The core inventory release fractions, by radionuclide group, for the DBA LOCAs are
listed in Table 1 for BWRs and PWRs. These fractions are applied to the equilibrium
core inventory described in Section 3.1.

For non-LOCA events, the fractions of the core inventory assumed to be in the gap for
the various radionuclides are given in Table 2. The release fractions from Table 2 are
used in conjunction with the calculated fission product inventory as described in Section

4 The uncertainty factor used in determining the core inventory should be that value provided in Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50, typically 1.02.
A value lower than 1.02, but not less than the licensed power level may be used provided the proposed alternative value has been demonstrated to
account for uncertainties due to power level instrumentation level. See Federal Register Notice Volume 65, Number 106, June 1, 2000, for
details.

5 The release fractions listed here have been determined to be acceptable for use with currently approved LWR fuel with a peak bumup up to
62,000 MWD/MTU. The data in this section may not be applicable to cores containing mixed oxide fuel.

C-3
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

3.1. For non-LOCA DBAs where fuel melt is postulated, the core inventory release
fractions, by radionuclide group, are listed in Table 1 for BWRs and PWRs.

Table 1

BWR AND PWR CORE INVENTORY FRACTION

RELEASED INTO CONTAINMENT ATMOSPHERE

Group Release
Fraction

Noble Gases 1.0

Iodines 6 0.5
Other Nuclides 0.0

Table 27

NON-LOCA FRACTION OF FISSION PRODUCT

INVENTORY IN GAP
Group Fraction

1-131 0.08
Kr-85 0.10
Other Noble Gases 0.05
Other Iodines 0.05
Other Nuclides 0.0

3.3 Timing of Release Phases

For LOCA analyses, the core activity released is assumed to be immediately available for
release from the containment. For non-LOCA DBAs in which fuel damage is projected,

6 If containment sprays are not modeled mechanistically, such as in SRP Section 6.5.2, revision 2, one half of the equilibrium radioactive iodine
inventory may be assumed to be deposited on the walls of the containment. The net value of core inventory available for release from the
containment would, therefore, be 0.25 for a non-mechanistic spray representation. Please note that SRP Section 6.5.2, revision 2 erroneously
states that 25 percent of the equilibrium radioactive iodine inventory developed from maximum full power operation of the core should be
assumed to be immediately available for the leakage from the primary reactor system. This value should be 50 percent of the equilibrium
radioactive iodine inventory. Revision 2 erroneously accounted twice for the iodine deposited on the wall of the containment.

7 The release fractions listed here have been determined to be acceptable for use with currently approved LWR fuel with a peak bumup up to
62,000 MWD/MTU provided that the maximum linear heat generation rate does not exceed 6.3 kW/ft peak rod average power for bumup
exceeding 54,000 MWD/MTU. As an alternative, fission gas release calculations performed using NRC-approved methodologies may be
considered on a case-by-case basis. To be acceptable, these calculations must use a projected power history that will bound the limiting projected
plant-specific power history for the specific fuel load. For the BWR rod drop accident and the PWR rod ejection accident, the gap fractions are
assumed to be 10 percent for iodines and noble gases.

C-4
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

the activity available for release from the fuel is assumed to be immediately available for
release from the containment or the building where the fuel is damaged.

3.4 Radionuclide Composition

Table 3 lists the elements in each radionuclide group that should be considered in design
basis analyses.

Table 3
RADIONUCLIDE GROUPS

Group Elements
Noble Gases Xe, Kr
Iodines I

3.5 Chemical Form

Of the radioiodine released from the reactor coolant system (RCS) to the containment in a
postulated LOCA, 5 percent should be assumed to be particulate iodine, 91 percent
elemental iodine and 4 percent organic iodide. This includes releases from the gap and
the fuel pellets. The same chemical form is assumed in releases from the fuel pins
through the RCS in non-LOCA DBAs other than fuel handling accidents (FHAs). The
chemical form assumed in releases from fuel pins in FHAs is addressed in Section 6.2 of
this appendix. The transport of these iodine species following release from the fuel may
affect these assumed fractions. The accident-specific descriptions in Section 6 of this
appendix provide additional details.

3.6 Fuel Damage in Non-LOCA DBAs

The amount of fuel damage caused by non-LOCA design basis events should be analyzed
to determine, for the case resulting in the highest radioactivity release, the fraction of the
fuel that reaches or exceeds the initiation temperature of fuel melt and the fraction of fuel
elements for which the fuel clad is breached. Although the NRC staff has traditionally
relied upon the departure from nucleate boiling ratio as a fuel damage criterion, licensees
may propose other methods to the NRC staff, such as those based upon enthalpy
deposition, for estimating fuel damage for the purpose of establishing radioactivity
releases.

The amount of fuel damage caused by a FHA is addressed in Section 6.2 of this
appendix.

C-5
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

4. DOSE CONSEQUENCES CALCULATION METHODOLOGY

The guidance of this section applies to all dose calculations performed with TID-14844
source terms. Section 4.1 describes the determination of consequences for off-site
receptor evaluations. Section 4.2 describes comparable assumptions for control room
personnel evaluations. Section 4.3 presents the acceptance criteria for each scenario
described in Section 6 of this appendix. Although the main focus of this appendix is the
analysis of CR dose, the guidance in this appendix, in general, may also be applied to the
evaluation of off-site dose.

4.1 Off-site Dose Consequences

The following assumptions should be used in determining the whole body and thyroid
dose for persons located at or beyond the exclusion area boundary (EAB):

4.1.1 The dose conversion factors for inhalation of radioactive material may be derived from the
data provided in ICRP Publication 30, Limitsfor Intakes of Radionuclidesby Workers. Table
2.1 of Federal Guidance Report 11, Limiting Values of RadionuclideIntake and Air
Concentration and Dose Conversion Factorsfor Inhalation, Submersion, and Ingestion,
provides tables of conversion factors acceptable to the NRC staff. C

4.1.2 For the first 8 hours, the breathing rate of persons off-site should be assumed to be
3.5 x 10. cubic meters per second. From 8 to 24 hours following the accident, the
breathing rate should be assumed to be 1.8 x 10. cubic meters per second. After that and
until the end of the accident, the breathing rate should be assumed to be 2.3 x 104 cubic
meters per second.

4.1.3 The whole body dose should be calculated assuming submergence in a semi-infinite
cloud with appropriate credit for attenuation by body tissue. Table 111. 1 of Federal
Guidance Report 12, External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water, and Soil,
provides external dose conversion factors acceptable to the NRC staff.

4.1.4 Doses determined for the most limiting receptor at the EAB and at the outer boundary of
the low population zone (LPZ) should be used in determining compliance with the dose
criteria in 10 CFR 100.11.

4.1.5 No correction should be made for depletion of the effluent plume by deposition on the
ground.

C-6
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

4.2 Control Room Dose Consequences

The following guidance should be used for calculating doses to persons located in the
control room:

4.2.1 The dose analysis should consider all sources of radiation that will cause exposure to
control room personnel. The applicable sources will vary from facility to facility, but
typically will include:

"* Contamination of the control room atmosphere by the intake or infiltration of the
radioactive material contained in the radioactive plume released from the facility,

"* Contamination of the control room atmosphere by the intake or infiltration of

airborne radioactive material from areas and structures adjacent to the control room
envelope,

"* Radiation shine from the external radioactive plume released from the facility,

"* Radiation shine from radioactive material in the reactor containment,

"* Radiation shine from radioactive material in systems and components inside or
external to the control room envelope, e.g., radioactive material buildup in
recirculation filters.

4.2.2 The radioactive material releases and radiation levels used in the control room dose
analysis should be determined using the same source term, transport and release
assumptions used for determining the EAB and the LPZ dose values.

4.2.3 The models used to transport radioactive material into and through the control room 8 , and
the shielding models used to determine radiation dose rates from external sources, should
be structured to provide suitably conservative estimates of the exposure to control room
personnel.

4.2.4 Credit for engineered safety features that mitigate airborne radioactive material within the
control room may be assumed. Such features may include control room isolation or
pressurization, or intake or recirculation filtration. Refer to SRP Section 6.5.1, ESF
Atmospheric Cleanup System, to Regulatory Guide 1.52, Design, Testing, andMaintenance
Criteriafor Post-accidentEngineered-Safety-FeatureAtmosphere Cleanup System Air
FiltrationandAdsorption Units of Light-Water-CooledNuclear Power Plants, and to
Generic Letter 99-02 (Refs. 14 and 15), for guidance. The control room design is often
optimized for the DBA LOCA and the protection afforded for other accident sequences
may not be as advantageous. In most designs, control room isolation is actuated by

8 The iodine protection factor (IPF) methodology of Reference 11 may not be adequately conservative for all DBAs and control room
arrangements since it models a steady state control room condition. Since many analysis parameters change over the duration of the event, the
IPF methodology should only be used with caution. The NRC computer codes HABIT (Ref. 12) and RADTRAD (Ref. 13) incorporate suitable
methodologies.

C-7
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

engineered safety feature (ESF) signals or radiation monitors (RMs). In some cases, the
ESF signal is effective only for selected accidents, placing reliance on the RMs for the
remaining accidents. Several aspects of RMs can delay the control room isolation,
including the delay for activity to build up to concentrations equivalent to the alarm
setpoint and the effects of different radionuclide accident isotopic mixes on monitor
response.

4.2.5 Credit should generally not be taken for the use of personal protective equipment or the use
of potassium iodide as a thyroid prophylaxis. Additional guidance for use of such
equipment for temporary compensatory measures is provided in Appendix F. Deviations
may be considered on a case-by-case basis.

4.2.6 The dose receptor for these analyses is the hypothetical maximum exposed individual
who is present in the control room for 100 percent of the time during the first 24 hours
after the event, 60 percent of the time between 1 and 4 days, and 40 percent of the time
from 4 days to 30 days9 . For the duration of the event, the breathing rate of this
individual should be assumed to be 3.5 x 10-4 cubic meters per second.

4.2.7 Control room doses should be calculated using dose conversion factors identified in
Section 4.1 above for use in off-site dose analyses. The whole body dose from photons
may be corrected for the difference between finite cloud geometry in the control room
and the semi-infinite cloud assumption used in calculating the dose conversion factors.
The following expression may be used to correct the semi-infinite cloud dose, WB., to a
finite cloud dose, WBfintte, where the control room is modeled as a hemisphere that has a
volume, V, in cubic feet, equivalent to that of the control room.

0 33 8
WB V -
WBinte
- 1173

This correction is not applied to the beta skin dose estimates, as the range of beta
particles in air is less than the typical control room dimensions. The skin dose conversion
factors (DCFs) presented in Federal Guidance Report 12 are based on both photon and
beta emissions. Without the geometry correction, the photon dose component will be
overestimated. If the geometry correction is included, the beta component will be
underestimated. DOE/EH-0070 tabulates the beta and photon skin DCFs separately.

4.3 Acceptance Criteria

The radiological criteria for the EAB and the outer boundary of the LPZ and the criteria
for the control room are specified in 10 CFR 100.11 and 10 CFR 50, respectively. These
criteria are stated for evaluating reactor accidents of exceedingly low probability of
occurrence and low risk of public exposure to radiation, e.g., a large-break LOCA. The
control room criterion applies to all accidents. For events with a higher probability of

9 This occupancy is modeled in the X/Q values determined in Reference II and should not be credited twice. The ARCON96 code (Ref. 16) does
not incorporate these occupancy assumptions, making it necessary to apply this correction in the dose calculations.

C-8
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

occurrence, postulated EAB and LPZ doses should not exceed the criteria tabulated in
Table 4.

The acceptance criteria for the various NUREG-0737 items generally reference General
Design Criteria 19 (GDC 19) from Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 or specify criteria
derived from GDC-19. These criteria are generally specified in terms of whole body
dose, or its equivalent to any body organ. Standard Review Plan 6.4 allows for higher
beta dose exposure provided that protective clothing is used. For facilities applying for,
or having received, approval for the use of an AST, the applicable criteria should be
updated for consistency with the TEDE criterion in 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(iii).

C-9
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Table 4 D

Accident Dose Acceptance Criteria (rem)

Control Room EAB / LPZ
Accident or Case Thyroid Whole Skin Thyroid Whole Analysis Release Duration
Body Body
LOCA (BWR & PWR) 50 5 30 300 25 30 days for containment, ECCS
_ _I and MSIV (BWR) leakage
BWR MAIN STEAM LINE
BREAK ACCIDENT Instantaneous puff
0 FuelDamage orPre- 50 5 30 300 25
incident Spike
* Equilibrium Iodine 50 5 30 30 2.5
Activity
BWR CONTROL ROD 50 5 30 75 6.3 24 hours
DROP ACCIDENT
PWR STEAM GENERATOR Affected SG: time to isolate;
TUBE RUPTURE10 Unaffected SG(s): until cold
shutdown is established
0 Fuel Damage or Pre- 50 5 30 300 25
incident Spike
* Coincident Iodine Spike 50 5 30 30 2.5
PWR MAIN STEAM LINE Until cold shutdown is established
BREAK ACCIDENT
* Fuel Damage or Pre- 50 5 30 300 25
incident Spike
0 Coincident Iodine Spike 50 5 30 30 2.5
PVWR LOCKED ROTOR 50 5 30 30 2.5 Until cold shutdown is established
ACCIDENT
PWR ROD EJECTION 50 5 30 75 6.3 30 days for containment pathway;
ACCIDENT until cold shutdown is established
for secondary pathway
FUEL HANDLING 50 5 30 75 6.3 Off-site Pathway: 2 hours
ACCIDENT Control Room: 30 days

The column labeled Analysis Release Duration is a summary of the assumed radioactivity release
durations identified in Section 6 of this appendix. Refer to Section 6 for complete descriptions of
the release pathways and durations.

10 For PWRs with steam generator alternate repair criteria, different dose criteria may apply to steam generator tube rupture and main steam line
break analyses as described in Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1074, "Steam Generator Tube Integrity," USNRC, December 1998 (Ref. 18).

C-10
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

5. ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY

5.1 General Considerations

5.1.1 Analysis Quality

These analyses should be prepared, reviewed and maintained in accordance with quality
assurance programs that comply with Appendix B, Quality Assurance Criteria for
Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants, to 10 CFR Part 50.

5.1.2 Credit for Engineered Safety Features

Credit may be taken for accident mitigation features that are classified as safety-related,
are required to be operable by technical specifications, are powered by emergency power
sources and are either automatically actuated or, in limited cases, have actuation
requirements explicitly addressed in emergency operating procedures.

An adequate failure mode analysis is to be performed to justify the selection of the most
limiting single active failure for use in the radiological consequence analysis of each
accident to be evaluated. When required in a plant's licensing basis, coincident loss of
off-site power is assumed at the time of the accident.

5.1.3 Assignment of Numeric Input Values

The numeric values that are chosen as inputs to the analyses should be selected with the
objective of determining a conservative postulated dose. In some instances, a particular
parameter may be conservative in one portion of an analysis but be non-conservative in
another portion of the same analysis. For example, assuming minimum containment,
system spray flow is usually conservative for estimating iodine scrubbing, but in many
cases may be non-conservative when determining sump pH. Sensitivity analyses may be
needed to determine the appropriate value to use. As a conservative alternative, the
limiting value applicable to each portion of the analysis may be used in the evaluation of
that portion. A single value may not be applicable for a parameter for the duration of the
event, particularly for parameters affected by changes in density. For parameters
addressed by technical specifications, the value used in the analysis should be that
specified in the technical specifications."1 If a range of values or a tolerance band is
specified, the value that would result in a conservative postulated dose should be used. If
the parameter is based on the results of less frequent surveillance testing, e.g., steam
generator nondestructive testing, consideration should be given to the degradation that
may occur between periodic tests in establishing the analysis value.

11 Note that for some parameters, the technical specification value may be adjusted for analysis purposes by factors provided in other regulatory
guidance. For example, ESF filter efficiencies are based on the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.52 (Ref. 14) and in Generic Letter 99-02
(Ref. 15) rather than the surveillance test criteria in the technical specifications. Generally, these adjustments address potential changes in the
parameter between scheduled surveillance tests.

C-11
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

5.1.4 Applicability of Current Licensing Basis

Applicability of current licensing basis is discussed in Sections 4.5 and 6.2 of the main
body of this document.

5.2 Meteorology Assumptions

Atmospheric dispersion values (X/Q) for the EAB, the LPZ and the control room that
were approved by the staff during initial facility licensing or in subsequent licensing
proceedings may be used in performing the radiological analyses described in this
appendix. Methodologies that have been used for determining x/Q values are documented
in Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4, Regulatory Guide 1.145, Atmospheric Dispersion
Modelsfor PotentialAccident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants,and
the Murphy-Campe paper, Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Ventilation System
Designfor Meeting General Criterion 19 (Refs. 11, 19, 20, and 21).

References 11 and 21 should be used if the FSAR z/Q values are to be revised or if
values are to be determined for new release points or receptor distances. Fumigation
should be considered where applicable for the EAB and LPZ. For the EAB, the assumed
fumigation period should be timed to be included in the worst 2-hour exposure period.
For TID source term applications, where immediate release is assumed, this will be the
zero to 2-hour exposure period. The NRC computer code PAVAN implements
Regulatory Guide 1.145 and its use is acceptable to the NRC staff. The methodology of
the NRC computer code ARCON96"2 is generally acceptable to the NRC staff for use in
determining control room x/Q values. Meteorological data collected in accordance with
the site-specific meteorological measurements program described in the facility UFSAR
should be used in generating accident x/Q values. Additional guidance is provided in
Regulatory Guide 1.23, On-site MeteorologicalPrograms.All changes in x/Q analysis
methodology should be reviewed by the NRC staff.

Further guidance for performing atmospheric dispersion calculations in support of CRH

analysis is provided in Appendix D.

12 The ARCON96 computer code contains processing options that may yield X/Q values that are not sufficiently conservative for use in accident
consequence assessments or may be incompatible with release points and ventilation intake configurations at particular sites. The applicability of
these options and associated input parameters should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The assumptions made in the examples in the
ARCON96 documentation are illustrative only and do not imply NRC staff acceptance of the methods or data used in the example.

C-12
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

6. CONTROL ROOM HABITABILITY ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS

6.1 Assumptions for Evaluating the Radiological Consequences of a LWR Loss of

Coolant Accident

The assumptions discussed in this section are for evaluating the radiological
consequences of LOCAs at light water reactors (LWRs). These assumptions supplement
the guidance provided in Sections 1 through 5 of this appendix.

Appendix A, GeneralDesign CriteriaforNuclear PowerPlants, to 10 CFR Part 50

defines LOCAs as those postulated accidents that result from a loss of coolant inventory
at rates that exceed the capability of the reactor coolant makeup system. Leaks up to a
double-ended rupture of the largest pipe of the reactor coolant system are included. The
LOCA, as with all DBAs, is a conservative surrogate accident that is intended to
challenge selective aspects of the facility design. Analyses are performed using a
spectrum of break sizes to evaluate fuel and emergency core cooling system (ECCS)
performance. With regard to radiological consequences, a large-break LOCA is assumed
as the design basis case for evaluating the performance of release mitigation systems and
the containment and for evaluating the proposed siting of a facility.

6.1.1 Source Term Assumptions

Recommended assumptions regarding core inventory and the release of radionuclides

from the fuel are provided in Section 3 of this appendix.

6.1.2 Assumptions on Transport in Primary Containment

Recommended assumptions related to the transport, reduction, and release of radioactive

material in and from the primary containment in PWRs or the drywell in BWRs are as
follows:

6.1.2.1 The radioactivity released from the fuel should be assumed to initially mix
instantaneously and homogeneously throughout the free air volume of the primary
containment in PWRs or the drywell in BWRs. This distribution should then be adjusted
as a function of time if there are internal compartments that have limited ventilation
exchange. The suppression pool free air volume may be included provided there is a
mechanism to ensure mixing between the drywell and the wetwell.

6.1.2.2 Reduction in airborne radioactivity in the containment by natural deposition within the
containment may be credited. An acceptable model for removal of iodine and particulates
is described in Section 6.5.2, ContainmentSpray as a FissionProduct Cleanup System,
of the Standard Review Plan (SRP), NUREG-0800.

C-13
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

6.1.2.3 Reduction in airborne radioactivity in the containment by containment spray systems that
have been designed and are maintained in accordance with SRP Section 6.5.2"3 may be
credited. An acceptable model for the removal of iodines is described in SRP Section
6.5.2.

The evaluation of the containment sprays should address areas within the primary
containment that are not covered by the spray drops. The mixing rate attributed to natural
convection between sprayed and unsprayed regions of the containment building, provided
that adequate flow exists between these regions, is assumed to be two turnovers of the
unsprayed region volume per hour, unless other rates are justified. On a case by case
basis containment mixing rates determined by the cooldown rate in the sprayed region
and the buoyancy-driven flow that results may be considered.E The containment building
atmosphere may be considered a single, well-mixed volume if the spray covers at least 90
percent of the volume and if adequate mixing of unsprayed compartments can be shown.

The SRP sets forth a maximum decontamination factor (DF) for elemental iodine,
defined as the ratio of activity in the primary containment atmosphere when the sprays
actuate to the activity remaining at some time after spray actuation. The SRP also states
that the particulate iodine removal rate should be reduced by a factor of 10 when a DF of
50 is reached.

6.1.2.4 Reduction in airborne radioactivity in the containment by in-containment recirculation

filter systems may be credited if these systems meet the guidance of Regulatory Guide
1.52 and Generic Letter 99-02.

6.1.2.5 Reduction in airborne radioactivity in the containment by suppression pool scrubbing in

BWRs is given in SRP Section 6.5.5. For suppression pool solutions having pH less than
7, molecular iodine vapor should be conservatively assumed to evolve into the
containment atmosphere. F

6.1.2.6 Reduction in airborne radioactivity in the containment by retention in ice condensers, or

other engineered safety features not addressed above, should be evaluated on an
individual case basis. See SRP Section 6.5.4.

6.1.2.7 The primary containment (drywell for BWRs) should be assumed to leak at the peak
pressure technical specification leak rate for the first 24 hours. For PWRs, the leak rate
may be reduced after the first 24 hours to 50 percent of the technical specification leak
rate. For BWRs, leakage may be reduced after the first 24 hours, if supported by plant
configuration and analyses, to a value not less than 50 percent of the technical
specification leak rate. Leakage from subatmospheric containments is assumed to
terminate when the containment is brought to and maintained at a subatmospheric
condition as defined by technical specifications.

13 Note that SRP Section 6.5.2, revision 2 erroneously states that 25 percent of the equilibrium radioactive iodine inventory developed from
maximum full power operation of the core should be assumed to be immediately available for the leakage from the primary reactor system. This
value should be 50 percent of the equilibrium radioactive iodine inventory. Revision 2 erroneously accounted twice for the iodine deposited on
the wall of the containment.

C-14
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

6.1.2.8 If the primary containment is routinely purged during power operations, releases via the
purge system prior to containment isolation should be analyzed and the resulting doses
summed with the postulated doses from other release paths. The purge release evaluation
should assume that 100 percent of the radionuclide inventory in the reactor coolant
system liquid is released to the containment at the initiation of the LOCA. This inventory
should be based on the technical specification reactor coolant system equilibrium activity.
Iodine spikes need not be considered.

6.1.3 Assumptions on Dual Containments

For facilities with dual containment systems, the recommended assumptions related to the
transport, reduction and release of radioactive material in and from the secondary
containment or enclosure buildings are as follows.

6.1.3.1 Leakage from the primary containment should be considered to be collected, processed
by engineered safety feature (ESF) filters, if any, and released to the environment via the
secondary containment exhaust system during periods in which the secondary
containment has a negative pressure as defined in technical specifications. Credit for an
elevated release should be assumed only if the point of physical release is more than two
and one-half times the height of any adjacent structure.

6.1.3.2 Leakage from the primary containment is assumed to be released directly to the
environment as a ground-level release during any period in which the secondary
containment does not have a negative pressure as defined in technical specifications.

6.1.3.3 The effect of high wind speeds on the ability of the secondary containment to maintain a
negative pressure should be evaluated on an individual case basis. The wind speed to be
assumed is the 1-hour average value that is exceeded only 5 percent of the total number
of hours in the data set. Ambient temperatures used in these assessments should be the
1-hour average value that is exceeded either 5 percent or 95 percent of the total number
of hours in the data set, whichever is conservative for the intended use. If high
temperatures are limiting, use that value exceeded by only 5 percent. If low temperatures
are limiting, use that value exceeded by at least 95 percent.

6.1.3.4 Credit for dilution in the secondary containment may be allowed when adequate means to
cause mixing can be demonstrated. Otherwise, the leakage from the primary containment
should be assumed to be transported directly to exhaust systems without mixing.
Dilution credit from mixing, if evaluated to be applicable, will generally be limited to 50
percent This evaluation should consider the magnitude of the containment leakage in
relation to contiguous building volume or exhaust rate, the location of exhaust plenums
relative to projected release locations, the recirculation ventilation systems, and internal
walls and floors that impede stream flow between the release and the exhaust.

6.1.3.5 Primary containment leakage that bypasses the secondary containment should be
evaluated at the bypass leak rate incorporated in the technical specifications. If the bypass
leakage is through water, e.g., via a filled piping run that is maintained full, credit for

C-15
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

retention of iodine and aerosols may be considered on a case-by-case basis. Similarly,

deposition of aerosol radioactivity in gas-filled lines may be considered on a case-by-case
basis.

6.1.3.6 Reduction in the amount of radioactive material released from the secondary containment
because of ESF filter systems may be taken into account provided that these systems
meet the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.52 and Generic Letter 99-02.

6.1.4 Assumptions on ESF System Leakage

ESF systems that recirculate sump water outside the primary containment are assumed to
leak during their intended operation. This release source includes leakage through valve
packing glands, pump shaft seals, flanged connections and other similar components.
This release source may also include leakage through valves isolating interfacing
systems. The radiological consequences from the postulated leakage should be analyzed
and combined with consequences postulated for other fission product release paths to
determine the total calculated radiological consequences from the LOCA. The following
assumptions are recommended for evaluating the consequences of leakage from ESF
components outside the primary containment for BWRs and PWRs.

6.1.4.1 With the exception of noble gases, all the fission products released from the fuel to the
containment should be assumed to mix instantaneously and homogeneously in the
primary containment sump water (in PWRs) or suppression pool (in BWRs) at the start of
the accident. As shown in Table 1 in Section 3 of this appendix, this applies to the release
fraction of 50 percent of the core iodine inventory. In lieu of this deterministic approach,
suitably conservative mechanistic models for the transport of airborne activity in
containment to the sump water may be used. Note that many of the parameters that make
spray and deposition models conservative with regard to containment airborne leakage
are non-conservative with regard to the buildup of sump activity.

6.1.4.2 The leakage should be taken as two times the sum of the simultaneous leakage from all
components in the ESF recirculation systems above which the technical specifications, or
licensee commitments to item III.D. 1.1 of NUJREG-0737, would require declaring such
systems inoperable. G The leakage should be assumed to start at the earliest time the
recirculation flow occurs in these systems and end at the latest time the releases from
these systems are terminated. Consideration should also be given to design leakage
through valves isolating ESF recirculation systems from tanks vented to atmosphere, e.g.,
ECCS pump miniflow return to the refueling water storage tank.

6.1.4.3 With the exception of iodine, all radioactive materials in the recirculating liquid should
be assumed to be retained in the liquid phase.

6.1.4.4 If the temperature of the leakage exceeds 212'F, the fraction of total iodine in the liquid
that becomes airborne should be assumed equal to the fraction of the leakage that flashes
to vapor. This flash fraction, FF, should be determined using a constant enthalpy, process,
based on the maximum time-dependent temperature of the sump water circulating outside
the containment:

C-16
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

FF=h; -h1
hkg

where hf1 is the enthalpy of liquid at system design temperature and pressure, hf2 is the
enthalpy of liquid at saturation conditions (14.7 psia, 212TF) and hfg is the heat of
vaporization at 212°F.

6.1.4.5 If the temperature of the leakage is less than 212TF or the calculated flash fraction is less
than 10 percent, the amount of iodine that becomes airborne should be assumed to be 10
percent of the total iodine activity in the leaked fluid, unless a smaller amount can be
justified based on the actual sump pH history and area ventilation rates.

6.1.4.6 Reduction in release activity by dilution or holdup within buildings, or by ESF ventilation
filtration systems, may be credited where applicable. Filter systems used in these
applications should be evaluated against the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.52 and
Generic Letter 99-02.

6.1.5 Assumptions on Main Steam Isolation Valve Leakage in BWRs

For BWRs, the main steam isolation valves (MSIVs) have design leakage that may result
in a radioactivity release. The radiological consequences from postulated MSIV leakage
should be analyzed and combined with consequences postulated for other fission product
release paths to determine the total calculated radiological consequences from the LOCA.
The following assumptions are recommended for evaluating the consequences of MSIV
leakage.

6.1.5.1 For the purpose of this analysis, the activity available for release via MSIV leakage
should be assumed to be that activity determined to be in the drywell for evaluating
containment leakage (see Section 3 of this Appendix). No credit should be assumed for
activity reduction by the steam separators or by iodine partitioning in the reactor vessel.

6.1.5.2 All the MSIVs should be assumed to leak at the maximum leak rate above which the
technical specifications would require declaring the MSIVs inoperable. The leakage
should be assumed to continue for the duration of the accident. Postulated leakage may
be reduced after the first 24 hours, if supported by site-specific analyses, to a value not
less than 50 percent of the maximum leak rate.

6.1.5.3 Reduction of the amount of released radioactivity by deposition and plateout on steam
system piping upstream of the outboard MSIVs may be credited, but the amount of
reduction in concentration allowed will be evaluated on an individual case basis.
Generally, the model should be based on the assumption of well-mixed volumes, but
other models such as slug flow may be used ifjustified.

C-17
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

6.1.5.4 In the absence of collection and treatment of releases by ESFs such as the MSIV leakage
control system, or as described in paragraph 6.1.5.5 below, the MSIV leakage should be
assumed to be released to the environment as an unprocessed, ground-level release.
Generally, holdup and dilution in the turbine building should not be assumed.

6.1.5.5 A reduction in MSIV releases, which is due to holdup and deposition in main steam
piping downstream of the MSIVs and in the main condenser, may be credited if the
components and piping systems used in the release path are capable of performing their
safety function during and following a safe shutdown earthquake. The amount of
reduction allowed will be evaluated on an individual case basis. References 25 and 26
provide guidance on acceptable models.

6.1.6 Assumption on Containment Purging

The radiological consequences from post-LOCA primary containment purging as a

combustible gas or pressure control measure should be analyzed. If the installed
containment purging capabilities are maintained for purposes of severe accident
management and are not credited in any design basis analysis, radiological consequences
need not be evaluated. If the primary containment purging is required within 30 days of
the LOCA, the results of this analysis should be combined with consequences postulated
for other fission product release paths to determine the total calculated radiological
consequences from the LOCA. Reduction in the amount of radioactive material released
via ESF filter systems may be taken into account provided that these systems meet the
guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.52 and Generic Letter 99-02.

C-18
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

6.2 Assumptions for Evaluating the Radiological Consequences of a Fuel Handling

Accident

This section provides assumptions for evaluating the radiological consequences of a fuel
handling accident at light water reactors. These assumptions supplement the guidance
provided in Sections 3 through 5 of this appendix.

6.2.1 Source Term Assumptions

Recommended assumptions regarding core inventory and the release of radionuclides

from the fuel are provided in Section 3 of this appendix. The following assumptions also
apply.

6.2.1.1 The number of fuel rods damaged during the accident should be based on a conservative
analysis that considers the most limiting case. This analysis should consider parameters
such as the weight of the dropped heavy load or the weight of a dropped fuel assembly
(plus any attached handling grapples), the height of the drop, and the compression,
torsion, and shear stresses on the irradiated fuel rods. Damage to adjacent fuel
assemblies, if applicable (e.g., events over the reactor vessel), should be considered.

6.2.1.2 The fission product release from the breached fuel is based on Section 3.2 and the
estimate of the number of fuel rods breached. All the gap activity in the damaged rods is
assumed to be instantaneously released. Radionuclides that should be considered include
xenons, kryptons and iodines.

6.2.1.3 The iodine gap inventory is composed of inorganic species (99.75%) and organic species
(0.25%).

6.2.1.4 A conservative approach to determining the quantity of radioactive material available for
release from a fuel assembly is to assume that the assembly with the peak inventory is the
one damaged. The fission product inventory for the peak assembly represents an upper
limit value and is not expected to be exceeded. The inventory should be calculated
assuming the maximum achievable operational power history at the end of core life
immediately preceding shutdown. This inventory calculation should include appropriate
assembly peaking factors. H

6.2.2 Pool Decontamination Factor

If the depth of water above the damaged fuel is 23 feet or greater, the decontamination
factors for the elemental and organic species are 500 and 1, respectively, giving an
overall effective DF of 200' (i.e., 99.5% of the total iodine released from the damaged
rods is retained by the water). This difference in DFs for elemental (99.75%) and organic
iodine (0.25%) species results in the iodine above the water being composed of 44
percent elemental and 56 percent organic species. If the depth of water is not at least 23
feet, the DF will have to be determined on a case-by-case method. Proposed increases in

C-19
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

the pool DF above 200 will need to address re-evolution of the scrubbed iodine species
over the accident duration and should be supported by empirical data.

For release pressures greater than 1200 psig J or water depth less than 23 feet, the iodine
DFs will be less than those assumed in this section and must be calculated on an
individual basis using assumptions comparable in conservatism to those herein.

6.2.3 Noble Gases and Particulates

The retention of noble gases in the water in the fuel pool or reactor cavity is negligible
(i.e., decontamination factor of 1). Particulate radionuclides are assumed to be retained by
the water in the fuel pool or reactor cavity (i.e., infinite decontamination factor).

6.2.4 Fuel Handling Accidents Within the Fuel Building

For fuel handling accidents postulated to occur within the fuel building, the following
assumptions apply.

6.2.4.1 The radioactive material that escapes from the fuel pool to the fuel building is assumed to
be released to the environment over a 2-hour time period. The release rate is a function
of the plant configuration but is generally assumed to be a linear or exponential function
over this time period.

6.2.4.2 A reduction in the amount of radioactive material released from the fuel pool by ESF
filter systems may be taken into account provided these systems meet the guidance of
Regulatory Guide 1.52 and Generic Letter 99-02 (Refs. 14 and 15). Delays in radiation
detection, actuation of the ESF filtration system or diversion of ventilation flow to the
ESF filtration system"4 should be determined and accounted for in the radioactivity
release analyses.

6.2.4.3 The radioactivity release from the fuel pool should be assumed to be drawn into the ESF
filtration system without mixing or dilution in the fuel building. If mixing can be
demonstrated, credit for mixing and dilution may be considered on a case-by-case basis.
This evaluation should consider the magnitude of the building volume and exhaust rate,
the potential for bypass to the environment, the location of exhaust plenums relative to
the surface of the pool, recirculation ventilation systems, and internal walls and floors
that impede stream flow between the surface of the pool and the exhaust plenums.

6.2.5 Fuel Handling Accidents Within Containment

For fuel handling accidents postulated to occur within the containment, the following
assumptions apply.

14 These analyses should consider the time for the radioactivity concentration to reach levels corresponding to the monitor setpoint, instrument
line sampling time, detector response time, diversion damper alignment time and filter system actuation, as applicable.

C-20
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

6.2.5.1 If the containment is isolated"5 during fuel handling operations, no radiological

consequences need to be analyzed.

6.2.5.2 If the containment is open during fuel handling operations, but designed to automatically
isolate in the event of a fuel handling accident, the release duration should be based on
delays in radiation detection and completion of containment isolation. If it can be shown
that containment isolation occurs before radioactivity is released to the environment, no
radiological consequences need to be analyzed.

6.2.5.3 If the containment is open during fuel handling operations (e.g., personnel air lock or
equipment hatch is open),"6 the radioactive material that escapes from the reactor cavity
pool to the containment is released to the environment over a 2-hour time period. The
release rate is a function of the plant configuration but is generally assumed to be a linear
or exponential function over this time period.

6.2.5.4 A reduction in the amount of radioactive material released from the containment by ESF
filter systems may be taken into account provided that these systems meet the guidance of
Regulatory Guide 1.52 and Generic Letter 99-02 (Refs. 14 and 15). Delays in radiation
detection, actuation of the ESF filtration system or diversion of ventilation flow to the
ESF filtration system should be determined and accounted for in the radioactivity release
analyses.

6.2.5.5 Credit for dilution or mixing of the activity released from the reactor cavity by natural or
forced convection inside the containment may be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Such credit is generally limited to 50 percent of the containment free volume. This
evaluation should consider the magnitude of the containment volume and exhaust rate,
the potential for bypass to the environment, the location of exhaust plenums relative to
the surface of the reactor cavity, recirculation ventilation systems, and internal walls and
floors that impede stream flow between the surface of the reactor cavity and the exhaust
plenums.

6.3 Assumptions for Evaluating the Radiological Consequences of a BWR Rod Drop
Accident

This section provides assumptions for evaluating the radiological consequences of a rod
drop accident at BWR light-water reactors. These assumptions supplement the guidance
provided in Sections 3 through 5 of this appendix.

15 Containment isolation does not imply containment integrity as defined by technical specifications for non-shutdown modes. The term isolation
is used here collectively to encompass both containment integrity and containment closure, typically in place during shutdown periods. To be
credited in the analysis, the appropriate form of isolation should be addressed in technical specifications.

16 The staff will generally require that technical specifications allowing such operations include administrative controls to close the airlock, hatch
or open penetrations within 30 minutes. Such administrative controls will generally require that a dedicated individual be present, with necessary
equipment available, to restore containment closure should a fuel handling accident occur. Radiological analyses should generally not credit this
manual isolation.

C-21
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

6.3.1 Source Term Assumptions

Recommended assumptions regarding core inventory are provided in Section 3 of this

appendix. For the BWR rod drop accident, the release from the breached fuel is based on
the estimate of the number of fuel rods breached and the assumption that 10 percent of
the core inventory of the noble gases and iodines is in the fuel gap. The release attributed
to fuel melting is based on the fraction of the fuel that reaches or exceeds the initiation
temperature for fuel melting and on the assumption that 100 percent of the noble gases
and 50 percent of the iodines contained in that fraction are released to the reactor coolant.

6.3.2 Coolant Activity Assumptions

If no or minimal 7 fuel damage is postulated for the limiting event, the released activity
should be the maximum coolant activity (typically a pre-existing spike of 4 jICi/gmn DE
1-131) allowed by the technical specifications.

6.3.3 Transport, Reduction and Release Assumptions

The assumptions acceptable to the NRC staff that are related to the transport, reduction
and release of radioactive material from the fuel and the reactor coolant are as follows.

6.3.3.1 The activity released from the fuel from the gap and/or fuel pellets is assumed to be
instantaneously mixed in the reactor coolant within the pressure vessel.

6.3.3.2 Credit should not be assumed for partitioning in the pressure vessel or for removal by
the steam separators.

6.3.3.3 Of the activity released from the reactor coolant within the pressure vessel, 100% of the
noble gases, 10 percent of the iodine and 1 percent of the remaining radionuclides are
assumed to reach the turbine and condensers.

6.3.3.4 Of the activity that reaches the turbine and condensers, 100 percent of the noble gases
and 10 percent of the iodine are available for release to the environment. The turbine
and condensers leak to the atmosphere as a ground-level release at a rate of 1 percent
per day' 8 for a period of 24 hours, at which time the leakage is assumed to terminate.
No credit should be assumed for dilution or holdup within the turbine building.
Radioactive decay during holdup in the turbine and condensers may be assumed.

17 Minimal fuel damage is defined as an amount of damage that will yield reactor coolant system activity concentration levels less than the
maximum technical specification limits. The activity assumed in the analysis should be based on the activity associated with the projected fuel
damage or the maximum technical specification values, whichever maximizes the radiological consequences. In determining the dose equivalent
1-131 (DE 1-131), only the radioiodine associated with normal operations or iodine spikes should be included. Activity fromprojected fuel
damage should not be included.

18 If there are forced flow paths from the turbine or condenser, such as unisolated mechanical vacuum pumps or unprocessed air ejectors, the
leakage rate should be assumed to be the flow rate associated with the most limiting of these paths. Credit for collection and processing of
releases, such as by off gas or standby gas treatment, will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

C-22
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

6.3.3.5 In lieu of the transport assumptions provided in paragraphs 6.3.3.2 through 6.3.3.4
above, a more mechanistic analysis may be used on a case-by-case basis. Such analyses
account for the quantity of contaminated steam carried from the pressure vessel to the
turbine and condensers based on a review of the minimum transport time from the
pressure vessel to the first MSIV and considers MSIV closure time.

6.3.3.6 The iodine species released from the reactor coolant within the pressure vessel should
be assumed to be 5 percent particulate, 91 percent elemental and 4 percent organic.

6.4 Assumptions for Evaluating the Radiological Consequences of a BWR Main Steam
Line Break Accident

This section provides assumptions for evaluating the radiological consequences of a main
steam line accident at BWR light water reactors. These assumptions supplement the
guidance provided in Sections 3 through 5 of this appendix.

6.4.1 Source Term Assumptions

Recommended assumptions regarding core inventory and the release of radionuclides

from the fuel are provided in Section 3 of this appendix. The release from the breached
fuel is based on Section 3.2 and the estimate of the number of fuel rods breached.

6.4.2 Coolant Activity Assumptions

If no or minimal"9 fuel damage is postulated for the limiting event, the released activity
should be the maximum coolant activity allowed by technical specification. The iodine
concentration in the primary coolant is assumed to correspond to the following two cases
in the nuclear steam supply system vendor's standard technical specifications.

6.4.2.1 The concentration that is the maximum value (typically 4.0 gCi/gm DE 1-131)
permitted and corresponds to the conditions of an assumed pre-accident spike, and

6.4.2.2 The concentration that is the maximum equilibrium value (typically 0.2 gCi/gm
DE 1-131) permitted for continued full power operation.

6.4.3 Reactor Coolant Mixing Assumptions

The activity released from the fuel should be assumed to mix instantaneously and
homogeneously in the reactor coolant. Noble gases should be assumed to enter the steam
phase instantaneously.

19 Minimal fuel damage is defined as an amount of damage that will yield reactor coolant system activity concentration levels less than the
maximum technical specification limits. The activity assumed in the analysis should be based on the activity associated with the projected fuel
damage or the maximum technical specification values, whichever maximizes the radiological consequences. In determining the dose equivalent
1-131 (DE 1-13 1), only the radioiodine associated with normal operations or iodine spikes should be included. Activity from projected fuel
damage should not be included.

C-23
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

6.4.4 Transport, Reduction and Release Assumptions

Assumptions acceptable to the NRC staff related to the transport, reduction and release of
radioactive material to the environment are as follows.

6.4.4.1 The main steam line isolation valves should be assumed to close in the maximum time
allowed by technical specifications.

6.4.4.2 The total mass of coolant released should be assumed to be that amount in the steam
line and connecting lines at the time of the break plus the amount that passes through
the valves prior to closure.

6.4.4.3 All the radioactivity in the released coolant should be assumed to be released to the
atmosphere instantaneously as a ground-level release. No credit should be assumed for
plateout, holdup or dilution within facility buildings.

6.4.4.4 The iodine species released from the main steam line should be assumed to be 5 percent
particulate, 91 percent elemental and 4 percent organic.

6.5 Assumptions for Evaluating the Radiological Consequences of a PWR Steam

Generator Tube Rupture Accident

This section provides assumptions for evaluating the radiological consequences of a

steam generator tube rupture accident at PWR light-water reactors.20 These assumptions
supplement the guidance provided in Sections 3 through 5 of this appendix.

6.5.1 Source Term Assumptions

Recommended assumptions regarding core inventory and the release of radionuclides

from the fuel are in Section 3 of this appendix. The release from the breached fuel is
based on Section 3.2 of this appendix and the estimate of the number of fuel rods
breached.

20 Facilities licensed with, or applying for, alternate repair criteria (ARC) should use this section in conjunction with the guidance that is being
developed in Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1074, "Steam Generator Tube Integrity," USNRC, December 1998 (Ref 18), for acceptable
assumptions and methodologies for performing radiological analyses.

C-24
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

6.5.2 Coolant Activity Assumptions

If no or minimal 21 fuel damage is postulated for the limiting event, the activity released
should be the maximum coolant activity allowed by technical specification. Two cases of
iodine spiking should be assumed consistent with the current licensing basis of the
facility.

6.5.2.1 A reactor transient has occurred prior to the postulated steam generator tube rupture
(SGTR) and has raised the primary coolant iodine concentration to the maximum full
power value (typically 60 gCi/grn DE 1-13 1) permitted by the technical specifications
(i.e., a pre-accident iodine spike case).

6.5.2.2 The primary system transient associated with the SGTR causes an iodine spike in the
primary system. The increase in primary coolant iodine concentration is estimated
using a spiking model that assumes that the iodine release rate from the fuel rods to the
primary coolant (expressed in curies per unit time) increases to a value 335
times greater Kthan the release rate corresponding to the iodine concentration at the
equilibrium value (typically 1.0 gCi/gm DE 1-131) specified in technical specifications
(i.e., concurrent iodine spike case). A concurrent iodine spike need not be considered if
be 8 hours. L
fuel damage is postulated. The assumed iodine spike duration should
Shorter spike durations may be considered on a case-by-case basis if it can be shown
that the activity released by the 8-hour spike exceeds that available for release from the
fuel gap of all fuel pins.

6.5.3 Reactor Coolant Mixing Assumptions

The activity released from the fuel, if any, should be assumed to be released
instantaneously and homogeneously throughout the primary coolant.

6.5.4 Transport, Reduction and Release Assumptions

Recommended assumptions related to the transport, reduction and release of radioactive

material to the environment are as follows:

6.5.4.1 The primary-to-secondary leak rate in the steam generators should be assumed to be the
leak rate limiting condition for operation specified in the technical specifications. The
leakage should be apportioned between the affected and unaffected steam generators in
such a manner that the calculated dose is maximized.

6.5.4.2 The density used in converting volumetric leak rates (e.g., gpm) to mass leak rates (e.g.,
lbmJhr) should be consistent with the basis of surveillance tests used to show compliance
with leak rate technical specifications. These tests are typically based on room

21 Minimal fuel damage is defined as an amount of damage that will yield reactor coolant system activity concentration levels less than the
maximum technical specification limits. The activity assumed in the analysis should be based on the activity associated with the projected fuel
damage or the maximum technical specification values, whichever maximizes the radiological consequences. In determining the dose equivalent
1-131 (DE 1-131), only the radioiodine associated with normal operations or iodine spikes should be included. Activity from projected fuel
damage should not be included.

C-25
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

temperature liquid. Facility instrumentation used to determine leakage is typically

located on lines containing cool liquids. In most cases, the density should be assumed to
be 1.0 gm/cc (62.4 lb..Ift3).

6.5.4.3 The primary-to-secondary leakage should be assumed to continue until the primary
system pressure is less than the secondary system pressure, or until the temperature of
the leakage is less than 100°C (212'F). The release of radioactivity from the unaffected
steam generators should be assumed to continue until shutdown cooling is in operation
and releases from the steam generators have been terminated.

6.5.4.4 The release of fission products from the secondary system should be evaluated with the
assumption of a coincident loss of off-site power when this assumption is part of the
licensing basis of the facility.

6.5.4.5 The transport model used for iodine releases from the steam generators is shown in
Figure 6.1 and is summarized below:

Figure 6.1

Transport Model

Steam Space.

Primary
Leakage
Bulk Water

"* A portion of the primary to secondary leakage will flash to vapor, based on the
thermodynamic conditions in the primary and secondary coolant. With regard to the
unaffected steam generators used for plant cooldown, the primary-to-secondary leakage
can be assumed to mix with the secondary water without flashing during periods of
total tube submergence.

" The primary to secondary leakage that immediately flashes to vapor will rise through
the bulk water of the steam generator and enter the steam space. Credit may be taken
for scrubbing in the generator, using the models in NUREG-0409, "Iodine Behavior in
a PWR Cooling System Following a Postulated Steam Generator Tube Rupture
Accident", during periods of total submergence of the tubes.

C-26
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

"* The primary to secondary leakage that does not immediately flash is assumed to mix
with the bulk water.

"* The radioactivity in the bulk water is assumed to become vapor at a rate that is the
function of the steaming rate and the partition coefficient. 22 A partition coefficient of
100 for iodine may be assumed.

6.5.4.6 Operating experience and analyses have shown that for some steam generator designs,
tube uncovery may occur for a short period following any reactor trip. The potential
impact of tube uncovery on the transport model parameters (e.g., flash fraction,
scrubbing credit) needs to be considered. The impact of emergency operating procedure
restoration strategies on steam generator water levels should be evaluated.

6.5.4.7 All noble gas radionuclides released from the primary system are assumed to be released
to the environment without reduction or mitigation.

6.6 Assumptions for Evaluating the Radiological Consequences of a PWR Main Steam
Line Break Accident

This section provides assumptions for evaluating the radiological consequences of a main
steam line break accident at PWR light water reactors. 23 These assumptions supplement
the guidance provided in Sections 3 through 5 of this appendix.

6.6.1 Source Term Assumptions

Recommended assumptions regarding core inventory and the release of radionuclides

from the fuel are provided in Section 3 of this appendix. The release from the breached
fuel is based on Section 3.2 and the estimate of the number of fuel rods breached. The
fuel damage estimate should assume that the highest worth control rod is stuck at its fully
withdrawn position.

6.6.2 Coolant Activity Assumptions

If no or minimal24 fuel damage is postulated for the limiting event, the activity released
should be the maximum coolant activity allowed by the technical specifications. Two

22 The PartitionCoefficient is defined as:

PC = (mass of12 per unit mass ofliquid) /(mass of 12 per unit mass ofgas)

23 Facilities licensed with, or applying for, ARC should use this section in conjunction with the guidance that is being developed in Draft
Regulatory Guide DG-1074, "Steam Generator Tube Integrity," (USNRC, December 1998 (Ref. 18), for acceptable assumptions and
methodologies for performing radiological analyses.

24 Minimal fuel damage is defined as an amount of damage that will yield reactor coolant system activity concentration levels less than the
maximum technical specification limits. The activity assumed in the analysis should be based on the activity associated with the projected fuel
damage or the maximum technical specification values, whichever maximizes the radiological consequences. In determining the dose equivalent

C-27
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

cases of iodine spiking should be assumed consistent with the current licensing basis of
the facility.

6.6.2.1 A reactor transient has occurred prior to the postulated main steam line break (MSLB)
and has raised the primary coolant iodine concentration to the maximum full power
value (typically 60 ýtCi/gmn DE 1-13 1) permitted by the technical specifications (i.e., a
pre-accident iodine spike case).

6.6.2.2 The primary system transient associated with the MSLB causes an iodine spike in the
primary system. The increase in primary coolant iodine concentration is estimated using
a spiking model that assumes that the iodine release rate from the fuel rods to the
primary coolant (expressed in curies per unit time) increases to a value 500 times greater
than the release rate corresponding to the iodine concentration at the equilibrium value
(typically 1.0 gtCi/gm DE 1-13 1) specified in technical specifications (i.e., concurrent
iodine spike case). A concurrent iodine spike need not be considered if fuel damage is
postulated. The assumed iodine spike duration should be 8 hours. Shorter spike
durations may be considered on a case-by-case basis if it can be shown that the activity
released by the 8-hour spike exceeds that available for release from the fuel gap of all
fuel pins. L

6.6.3 Reactor Coolant Mixing Assumptions

The activity released from the fuel should be assumed to be released instantaneously and
homogeneously through the primary coolant.

6.6.4 Chemical Forms Assumptions

The chemical form of radioiodine released from the fuel should be assumed to be 5
percent particulate, 91 percent elemental and 4 percent organic. These fractions apply to
iodine released as a result of fuel damage and to iodine released during normal
operations, including iodine spiking.

6.6.5 Transport, Reduction and Release Assumptions25

Recommended assumptions related to the transport, reduction and release of radioactive

material to the environment are as follows.

6.6.5.1 For facilities that have not implemented alternate repair criteria (ARC), the primary-to
secondary leak rate in the steam generators should be assumed to be the leak rate
limiting condition for operation specified in the technical specifications. For facilities
with traditional generator specifications (both per generator and total of all generators),

1-131 (DE 1-] 31), only the radioiodine associated with normal operations or iodine spikes should be included. Activity from projected fuel
damage should not be included.

25 Faulted refers to the state of the steam generator in which the secondary side has been depressurized by a MSLB such that protective system
response (main steam line isolation, reactor trip, safety injection, etc.) has occurred. This is also referred to as the affected steam generator.

C-28
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

the leakage should be apportioned between affected and unaffected steam generators in
such a manner that the calculated dose is maximized.

6.6.5.2 The density used in converting volumetric leak rates (e.g., gpm) to mass leak rates (e.g.,
ibm/hr) should be consistent with the basis of the parameter being converted. The ARC
leak rate correlations are generally based on the collection of cooled liquid. Surveillance
tests and facility instrumentation used to show compliance with leak rate technical
specifications are typically based on cooled liquid. In most cases, the density should be
assumed to be 1.0 gmr/cc (62.4 lbm/ft3).

6.6.5.3 The primary-to-secondary leakage should be assumed to continue until the primary
system pressure is less than the secondary system pressure, or until the temperature of
the leakage is less than 100°C (212°F). The release of radioactivity from unaffected
steam generators should be assumed to continue until shutdown cooling is in operation
and releases from the steam generators have been terminated.

6.6.5.4 All noble gas radionuclides released from the primary system are assumed to be released
to the environment without reduction or mitigation.

6.6.5.5 The transport model described in Section 6.5.4 should be used for iodine and
particulates. During periods of dryout in the faulted steam generator, all of the primary
to-secondary leakage is assumed to flash to vapor and be released to the environment
with no mitigation.

6.7 Assumptions for Evaluating the Radiological Consequences of a PWR Locked Rotor
Accident

This section provides assumptions for evaluating the radiological consequences of a

locked rotor accident at PWR light water reactors.26 These assumptions supplement the
guidance provided in Sections 3 through 5 of this appendix.

6.7.1 Source Term Assumptions

6.7.1.1 Recommended assumptions regarding core inventory and the release of radionuclides
from the fuel are in Section 3 of this appendix. The release from the breached fuel is
based on Section 3.2 and the estimate of the number of fuel rods breached.

6.7.1.2 If no fuel damage is postulated for the limiting event, a radiological analysis is not
required as the consequences of this event are bounded by the consequences projected
for the main steam line break outside containment.

26 Facilities licensed with, or applying for, ARC should use this section in conjunction with the guidance that is being developed in Draft
Regulatory Guide DG-1074, "Steam Generator Tube Integrity," USNRC, December 1998 (Ref. 18), for acceptable assumptions and
methodologies for performing radiological analyses.

C-29
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

6.7.1.3 The activity released from the fuel should be assumed to be released instantaneously and
homogeneously through the primary coolant.

6.7.1.4 The chemical form of radioiodine released should be assumed to be 5 percent

particulate, 91 percent elemental and 4 percent organic.

6.7.2 Transport, Reduction and Release Assumptions

Recommended assumptions related to the transport, reduction and release of radioactive

material to the environment are as follows.
6.7.2.1 The primary-to-secondary leak rate in the steam generators should be assumed to be the
leak-rate-limiting condition for operation specified in the technical specifications. The
leakage should be apportioned between the steam generators in such a manner that the
calculated dose is maximized.

6.7.2.2 The density used in converting volumetric leak rates (e.g., gpm) to mass leak rates (e.g.,
lbm/hr) should be consistent with the basis of surveillance tests used to show
compliance with leak rate technical specifications. These tests are typically based on
room temperature liquid. Facility instrumentation used to determine leakage is typically
located on lines containing cool liquids. In most cases, the density should be assumed to
be 1.0 gm/cc (62.4 lb/ft3).

6.7.2.3 The primary-to-secondary leakage should be assumed to continue until the primary
system pressure is less than the secondary system pressure, or until the temperature of
the leakage is less than 1000 C (212'F). The release of radioactivity should be assumed
to continue until shutdown cooling is in operation and releases from the steam
generators have been terminated.

6.7.2.4 The release of fission products from the secondary system should be evaluated with the
assumption of a coincident loss of off-site power when this assumption is part of the
licensing basis of the facility.

6.7.2.5 All noble gas radionuclides released from the primary system are assumed to be released
to the environment without reduction or mitigation.

6.7.2.6 The transport model described in Section 6.5.4 should be utilized for iodine.

C-30
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

6.8 Assumptions for Evaluating the Radiological Consequences of a PWR Rod Ejection
Accident

This section provides assumptions for evaluating the radiological consequences of a rod
ejection accident at PWR light water reactors.2 7 These assumptions supplement the
guidance provided in Sections 3 through 5 of this appendix.

6.8.1 Source Term Assumptions

6.8.1.1 Recommended assumptions regarding core inventory are in Section 3 of this appendix.
For the rod ejection accident, the release from the breached fuel is based on the estimate
of the number of fuel rods breached and the assumption that 10 percent of the core
inventory of the noble gases and iodines is in the fuel gap. The release attributed to fuel
melting is based on the fraction of the fuel that reaches or exceeds the initiation
temperature for fuel melting and the assumption that 100 percent of the noble gases and
25 percent of the iodines contained in that fraction are available for release from
containment.2" For the secondary system release pathway, 100 percent of the noble
gases and 50 percent of the iodines in the fuel melt fraction are released to the reactor
coolant.

6.8.1.2 If no or minimal2 9 fuel damage is postulated for the limiting event, a radiological
analysis is not required as the consequences of this event are bounded by the
consequences projected for the LOCA, main steam line break, and steam generator tube
rupture.

6.8.1.3 Two release cases are to be considered. In the first, 100 percent of the activity released
from the fuel should be assumed to be released instantaneously and homogeneously
through the containment atmosphere. In the second, 100 percent of the activity released
from the fuel should be assumed to be completely dissolved in the primary coolant and
available for release to the secondary system.

6.8.1.4 The chemical form of radioiodine released to the containment atmosphere should be
assumed to be 5 percent particulate, 91 percent elemental and 4 percent organic. If
containment sprays do not actuate or are terminated prior to accumulating sump water,
or if the containment sump pH is not controlled at values of 7 or greater, the iodine
species should be evaluated on an individual case basis. Evaluations of pH should
consider the effect of acids created during the rod ejection accident event, e.g., pyrolysis
and radiolysis products.

27 Facilities licensed with, or applying for, ARC should use this section in conjunction with the guidance that is being developed in Draft
Regulatory Guide DG-1074, "Steam Generator Tube Integrity," USNRC, December 1998 (Ref. 17), for acceptable assumptions and
methodologies for performing radiological analyses.

28 Note that Regulatory Guide 1.77 may be misleading when it states that 25 percent of the radioactive iodine inventory contained in that fraction
is available for release from containment. This applies to the use of an instantaneous plateout assumption. When plateout removal is modeled
mechanistically, the initial value should be 50 percent rather than 25 percent.

29 Minimal fuel damage is defined as an amount of damage that will yield reactor coolant system activity concentration levels less than the
maximum technical specification limits.

C-31
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

6.8.2 Transport, Reduction and Release from Containment

Recommended assumptions related to the transport, reduction and release of radioactive

material in and from the containment are as follows.

6.8.2.1 A reduction in the amount of radioactive material available for leakage from the
containment that is due to natural deposition, containment sprays, recirculating filter
systems, dual containments or other engineered safety features may be taken into
account. Refer to Section 6.1 of this appendix for guidance on acceptable methods and
assumptions for evaluating these mechanisms.

6.8.2.2 The containment should be assumed to leak at the leak rate incorporated in the technical
specifications at peak accident pressure for the first 24 hours, and at 50 percent of this
leak rate for the remaining duration of the accident. Peak accident pressure is the
maximum pressure defined in the technical specifications for containment leak testing.
Leakage from subatmospheric containments is assumed to be terminated when the
containment is brought to a subatmospheric condition as defined in technical
specifications.

6.8.3 Transport, Reduction and Release from the Secondary System

Recommended assumptions related to the transport, reduction and release of radioactive

material in and from the secondary system are as follows.

6.8.3.1 A leak rate equivalent to the primary-to-secondary leak rate limiting condition for
operation specified in the technical specifications should be assumed to exist until
shutdown cooling is in operation and releases from the steam generators have been
terminated.

6.8.3.2 The density used in converting volumetric leak rates (e.g., gpm) to mass leak rates (e.g.,
lbm/hr) should be consistent with the basis of surveillance tests used to show
compliance with leak rate technical specifications. These tests typically are based on
cooled liquid. The facility's instrumentation used to determine leakage typically is
located on lines containing cool liquids. In most cases, the density should be assumed to
be 1.0 gm/cc (62.4 lbm/ft3).

6.8.3.3 All noble gas radionuclides released to the secondary system are assumed to be released
to the environment without reduction or mitigation.

6.8.3.4 The transport model described in Section 6.5.4 of this appendix should be utilized for
iodine.

C-32
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

7. REFERENCES

1. USNRC, "Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for
Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-0800, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

2. J.J. DiNunno et al., "Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and Test Reactor
Sites," USAEC TID-14844, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (now USNRC),
1962.

3. USNRC, "Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements," NUREG-0737, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 1980.

4. L. Soffer, et al., "Accident Source Terms for Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants,"
NUREG-1465, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 1995.

5. USNRC, "Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis

Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors," Regulatory Guide 1.183, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, July 2000.

6. A.G. Croff, "A User's Manual for the ORIGEN2 Computer Code," ORNL/TM
7175, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, July 1980.

7. S.M. Bowman and L.C. Leal, "The ORIGEN-ARP Input Processor for ORIGEN
ARP," Appendix F7.A in SCALE: A Modular Code System for Performing
StandardizedAnalysesfor Licensing Evaluation,NUREG/CR-0200, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, March 1997.

8. ICRP, "Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers," ICRP Publication 30,

International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1979.

9. K.F. Eckerman et al., "Limiting Values of Radionuclide Intake and Air

Concentration and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and
Ingestion," Federal Guidance Report 11, EPA-520/1-88-020, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1988.

10. K.F. Eckerman and J.C. Ryman, "External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air,
Water, and Soil," Federal Guidance Report 12, EPA-402-R-93-081,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1993.

11. K.G. Murphy and K.W. Campe, "Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Ventilation
System Design for Meeting General Criterion 19," published in Proceedingsof
13th AEC Air CleaningConference, San Francisco,CA, CONF-740807, U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission (now USNRC), August 1974.

C-33
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

12. J.V. Ramsdell and S. A. Stage, "Computer Codes for Evaluation of Control Room
Habitability (HABIT VI.1)," NUREG/CR-6210, Supp. I, PNNL-10496, Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, November 1998.

13. S.L. Humphreys, et al., "RADTRAD: A Simplified Model for Radionuclide

Transport and Removal and Dose Estimation," NUREG/CR-6604, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, April 1998.

14. USNRC, "Design, Testing, and Maintenance Criteria for Postaccident

Engineered- Safety-Feature Atmosphere Cleanup System Air Filtration and
Adsorption Units of Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants," Regulatory
Guide 1.52, Revision 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 1978.

15. USNRC, "Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal," Generic

Letter 99-02, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 3, 1999.

16. J.V. Ramsdell and C.A. Simonen, "Atmospheric Relative Concentrations in

Building Wakes," NLTREG-6331, Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, May 1997.

17. USDOE, "External-Dose Rate Conversion Factors for Calculation of Dose to the
Public," DOE/EH-0070, U.S. Department of Energy, July 1988.

18. USNRC, "Steam Generator Tube Integrity," Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1074,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, December 1998.

19. USNRC, "Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological

Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident for Boiling Water Reactors,"
Regulatory Guide 1.3, Revision 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June
1974.

20. USNRC, "Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological

Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident for Pressurized Water Reactors,"
Regulatory Guide 1.4, Revision 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June
1974.

21. USNRC, "Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence

Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants," Regulatory Guide 1.145, Revision 1, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 1982.

22. T.J. Bander, "PAVAN: An Atmospheric Dispersion Program for Evaluating

Design Basis Accidental Releases of Radioactive Materials from Nuclear Power
Stations," NUREG-2858, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 1982.

C-34
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

23. USNRC, "On-site Meteorological Programs," Regulatory Guide 1.23, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 1972.

24. USNRC, "Potential Radioactive Leakage to Tank Vented to Atmosphere,"

Information Notice 91-56, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 19,
1991.

25. J.E. Cline, "MSIV Leakage Iodine Transport Analysis," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, March 26, 1991.

26. USNRC, "Safety Evaluation of GE Topical Report, NEDC-31858P, Revision 2,

(Proprietary GE report) 'BWROG Report for Increasing MSIV Leakage Limits
and Elimination of Leakage Control Systems,' September 1993," letter dated
March 3, 1999, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

27. G. Burley, "Evaluation of Fission Product Release and Transport," Staff

Technical Paper, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1971.

28. USNRC, "Iodine Behavior in a PWR Cooling System Following a Postulated

Steam Generator Tube Rupture Accident," NUREG-0409, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, January 1978.

29. USNRC, "Steam Generator Tube Rupture Analysis Deficiency," Information

Notice 88-31, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 25, 1988.

30. USNRC, "Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods in Nuclear Activities;

Final Policy Statement," FederalRegister, Volume 60, page 42622 (60 FR
42622), August 16, 1995.

31. USNRC, "Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological

Consequences of a Fuel Handling Accident in the Fuel Handling and Storage
Facility for Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors," Regulatory Guide 1.25
(Safety Guide 25), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 1972.

8. APPENDIX C ENDNOTES

The structure of this document follows the format and guidance content of Regulatory
Guide 1.183 wherever practical and applicable. This approach was used to capture the
results of the interactions of the CRH Task Force and the NRC staff in a form that takes
advantage of work performed recently by the NRC. Regulatory Guide 1.183 has already
benefited from substantial industry review and comment. In addition, much of the
guidance developed in Regulatory Guide 1.183 is applicable to the analyses described
here. The common platform will facilitate communication and documentation of future
developments in dose analysis assumptions, methods and applications. To retain this

C-35
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

format to the greatest degree, these endnotes are structured to facilitate additional
industry comments that provide important clarification and guidance.

A. The following approaches from Regulatory Guide 1.183 represent a relaxation from
current regulatory guidance as applied to analyses with TID-14844 source terms. They
were identified by examining performance features that are not a function of the timing or
chemical assumptions of the alternate source term, and therefore are applicable to the
traditional TID-14844 source term. This process was established as a result of the CRH
Task Force discussions with NRC staff. The sections of Appendix C that describe
implementation of these approaches are shown in parentheses.

1. Non-LOCA gap fractions consistent with those allowed in RG 1.183. (Section 3.2:
Table 2, including footnote)

2. Consideration of enthalpy deposition methodology for assessing the amount of fuel

damage from non-LOCA design basis events. (Section 3.6)

3. The assumption of a gross failure of a passive component (leading to a 50 gpm leak

for one-half hour beginning at 24 hours following the start of the accident) was
previously required for those plants with potential leak points not served by safety
related filtered exhaust. This assumption, which is described in Appendix B of SRP
Section 15.6.5, is no longer required. Such a failure is extremely unlikely and the
control room dose consequences would be expected to be low independent of safety
related ventilation. However, an assumption that should be made is that the ESF
leakage used in the radiological analysis will be twice that which, as specified in the
Technical Specifications or in licensee commitments to item III.D. 1.1 of
NUREG-0737, would require declaring such systems inoperable. (Section 6.1.4.2 and
Endnote G)

4. The assumed BWR primary containment leak rate can be reduced after the first 24
hours following a LOCA to a value not less than 50 percent of the technical
specification leak rate if supported by plant configuration and analysis. (Section
6.2.1.7)

5. An iodine decontamination factor of 200 allowed for 23 feet of water in a fuel

handling accident. (Section 6.2.2)

6. An iodine spiking factor of 335 has been justified for application for steam generator
tube rupture in comparison to the previous regulatory guidance of 500. (Section
6.5.2.2)

7. The iodine spiking duration of 8 hours for SGTR and main steam line break has been
prescribed, along with the possibility of'justifying a shorter duration. (Section 6.5.2.2
and Endnote J, and Section 6.6.2.2)

8. Use of ARCON96 computer code for determining control room X/Q values.
(Section 5.2 and Appendix D)

C-36
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Additionally this appendix recommends the use of ICRP-30 Dose Conversion Factors
(Sections 4.1.1 and 4.2.7) and an increase in the thyroid dose limit for Control Room
operators from 30 Rem to 50 Rem. (Section 4.3: Endnote D in Table 4)

B. Although probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) can provide useful insights into system
performance and suggest changes in how the desired depth is achieved, defense in depth
continues to be an effective way to account for uncertainties in equipment and human
performance. The NRC's policy statement on the use of PRA methods calls for the use of
PRA technology in all regulatory matters in a manner that complements the NRCs
deterministic approach and supports the traditional defense-in-depth philosophy.

C. Licensees using or proposing to use ICRP-30 DCFs in accident calculations should

determine whether this will require a revision of the facility's technical specification
definition for dose equivalent 1-131 to reflect these new DCFs.

D. If thyroid dose is used as the dose measure, then 50 rem or greater thyroid is more closely
equivalent to five rem whole body than is the 30 rem thyroid from the SRP. General
Design Criterion 19 requires that "Adequate radiation protection shall be provided to
permit access and occupancy of the control room under accident conditions without
personnel receiving radiation exposures in excess of 5 rem whole body, or its equivalent
to any part of the body, for the duration of the accident." SRP Section 6.4 establishes a
Guideline of 30 rem to the thyroid as meeting the requirements of GDC 19. This
interpretation has been present since the 1975 version of the SRP, NUREG-75/087. This
guideline is consistent with the maximum permissible annual doses recommended in
paragraph 56 of ICRP Publication 9 [1966] to the skin, thyroid and bone of 30 rem. It's
also consistent with the permissible occupational dose rate of 0.6 rem/week established
on page 19 of ICRP Publication 2 [1959], which equates to an annual dose limit of 0.6
Rem/week * 50 weeks. 1OCFR20 has since been revised to implement the guidance of
ICRP Publication 30 [1978] for annual limits on intake: "Annual limit on intake (ALI)
means the derived limit for the amount of radioactive material taken into the body of an
adult worker by inhalation or ingestion in a year. ALI is the smaller value of intake of a
given radionuclide in a year by the reference that would result in a committed effective
dose equivalent of 5 rem (0.05 Sv) or a committed dose equivalent of 50 rem (0.5 Sv) to
any individual organ or tissue." Based on this, a guideline value of 50 rem to the thyroid
is supported as equivalent to the 5 rem whole body limit of GDC 19.

E. The bases for using containment mixing rates determined by the cooldown rate in the
sprayed region and the buoyancy-driven flow that results are under current review by the
NRC staff. Based on work performed by the industry to validate and demonstrate the
performance of these models, improvements to containment mixing rates on the order of
three to five turnovers of the unsprayed region per hour may by achievable for some
system configurations and conditions. The industry position was presented to the NRC
team in September 2000. Review questions highlighted the desire for additional
benchmarking experience for the approach and methods. Industry responses are being
reviewed by the NRC staff at the time of publication of this document.

C-37
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

F. The treatment of the evolution of molecular iodine vapor into the containment
atmosphere in cases where the suppression pool solution maintains a pH of less than 7 is
under current review by the NRC staff.

G. The assumption of a gross failure of a passive component (leading to a 50 gpm leak for
one-half hour beginning at 24 hours following the start of the accident) previously
required in Appendix B of SRP Section 15.6.5 for those plants with potential leak points
not being served by safety-related filtered exhaust is no longer required. Such a failure is
extremely unlikely and the control room dose consequences would be expected to be low
independent of safety-related ventilation. However, an assumption that should be made
is that the ESF leakage used in the radiological analysis will be twice that specified in the
Technical Specifications or licensee commitments to item IlI.D.1.1 of NUREG-0737 and
would require declaring such systems inoperable.

H. Regulatory Guide 1.25, Safety Guide 25, prescribes that the fuel handling accident
inventory calculation should include an appropriate radial peaking factor. Minimum
acceptable radial peaking factors given in Regulatory Position C.1.e of this Safety Guide
are 1.5 for BWRs and 1.65 for PWRs.

I. This has been established based on CRH Task Force discussions with NRC staff.

J. For internal fuel pin pressures greater than 1200 psig, it is necessary to provide
justification for the DF value that is assumed. The original database that was used to
determine the DF performance needs to be examined to provide justification.

K. This has been established based on CRH Task Force discussions with NRC staff.

L. Based on CRH Task Force discussions with NRC staff, 8 hours has been determined as
the maximum time of duration of the spike. The CRH Task Force has provided
additional justification for a reduction in these release times. This issue is under NRC
review.

C-38
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

APPENDIX D

ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION

1. PURPOSE/SCOPE

This appendix provides guidance for performing atmospheric dispersion calculations in

support of control room habitability analyses for design basis radiological accidents as
described in Appendix C. Note that guidance on atmospheric dispersion analyses contained
in this section applies only to radiological analyses; guidance for performing atmospheric
dispersion calculations in support of toxic gas assessments is contained in Appendix G.

2. PERFORMING ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION ANALYSES

A major factor in most control room radiological analyses is the dispersion of the radioactive
plume and the resulting concentration at the control room intake. Various studies have been
made over the last 50 years to quantify atmospheric dispersion. The most widely used
empirical fit to field data is a model based on plume dispersion with a Gaussian distribution
of pollutants in all three dimensions.

Atmospheric dispersion factors (also known as relative concentration or X/Q values) are
generally difficult to determine when both the release point and the receptor are located
within or near atmospheric turbulence created by a complex of buildings. Several attempts
have been made to overcome this shortcoming since an accurate prediction of X/Q values for
short distances in the vicinity of buildings is needed for control room habitability analyses.

Licensees have the option to use the methodology currently in their licensing basis in lieu of
the methodologies presented in this appendix.

2.1 MURPHY-CAMPE

2.1.1 BACKGROUND

The Murphy-Campe methodology was first proposed by U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC) staff members K. G. Murphy and K. M. Campe in a paper presented at the 13th
AEC Air Cleaning Conference (Reference 1). It was later cited in Section 6.4 of the
Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800) as the appropriate method for evaluating
atmospheric dispersion for the design basis accidents. The Murphy-Campe methodology
has been in use since the mid-1970s and is the standard for most modem plants.

Murphy and Campe based their methodology on a number of wind tunnel and field tests
that had been performed on specific building configurations that were available when they
wrote their paper. Although these wind tunnel and field tests had resulted in usable

D-1
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

information for specific situations, Murphy and Campe acknowledged that general
applicability was not assured. However, to provide a basis for evaluations, the AEC staff
formulated an interim position using conservative interpretations of the available data.
Thus, the Murphy-Campe methodology was intended to be a bounding-type calculation
requiring little site-specific information.

2.1.2 IMPLEMENTATION

The Murphy-Campe methodology consists of first determining the five percentile x/Q
value (defined as the X/Q value that is exceeded not more than 5 percent of the time at the
specific site in question) which is used as the X/Q value for the first post-accident time
interval. Meteorological conditions typically associated with the Murphy-Campe five
percentile X/Q values are F stability with wind speeds around one meter/sec. The
determination of X/Q values for subsequent time intervals involves corrections for long
term meteorological averaging for wind speed and wind direction.

To perform calculations using the Murphy-Campe methodology, refer to SRP 6.4 and its
reference to the Murphy-Campe paper presented at the 13th AEC Air Cleaning
Conference.

2.2 ARCON96

2.2.1 BACKGROUND

By the mid-1980s, after a number of atmospheric dispersion field tests were conducted
within building complexes, it became apparent the Murphy-Campe methodology tended to
overestimate relative concentrations during low wind speed conditions. Consequently, the
development of a more robust methodology that would better describe atmospheric
dispersion near buildings became desirable. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
under contract with the NRC subsequently developed ARCON96 (Reference 2). The
model uses detailed meteorological field data and, as such, shows improved performance
in predicting the effect of building wakes, particularly under light wind conditions.

2.2.2 DESCRIPTION

Per NUREG/CR-6331, the basic diffusion model implemented in the ARCON96 code is a
straight-line Gaussian model that assumes the release rate is constant for the entire period
of release. This assumption is made to permit evaluation of potential effects of accidental
releases without having to specify a complete release sequence.

ARCON96 permits evaluation of ground level, vent and elevated releases. Building wake
effects are considered in the evaluation of relative concentrations from ground level
releases. Vent releases are treated as a mixed mode (part time ground level, part time
elevated) release where the proportion of the ground-vs.-elevated mixture is determined by

D-2
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

the ratio between the effluent vertical velocity and the release-height wind speed.
Elevated releases are corrected for stack downwash and differences in terrain elevation
between the stack and the receptor (e.g., control room intake).

Diffusion coefficients used in ARCON96 have three components. The first component is
the diffusion coefficient used in other NRC models such as XOQDOQ (Reference 3) and
PAVAN (Reference 4). The other two components are corrections to account for
enhanced dispersion under low wind speed conditions and in building wakes.

Derivations of the low wind speed and building wake corrections are based on analysis of
diffusion data collected in various building wake diffusion experiments (Reference 5).
The experiments were conducted under a wide range of meteorological conditions. The
wake correction model included in ARCON96 treats diffusion under low wind speed
conditions with improved results.

ARCON96 calculates relative concentrations using hourly meteorological data. The

resulting hourly averages are then combined to estimate concentrations for periods ranging
in duration from 2 hours to 30 days. Wind direction is considered as the averages are
formed. As a result, the averages account for persistence in both diffusion conditions and
wind direction. Cumulative frequency distributions are prepared from the average relative
concentrations. Relative concentrations that are exceeded no more than 5 percent of the
time are determined from the cumulative frequency distributions for each averaging
period. Finally, the relative concentrations for 5 standard averaging periods used in
control room habitability assessments are calculated from the 5th percentile relative
concentrations.

Although ARCON96 is based on a simple Gaussian dispersion model, the X/Q values
predicted by the model do not vary inversely with the wind speed for all wind speeds
because the building wake correction is not a linear function of wind speed. In addition,
the building wake corrections are not particularly sensitive to atmospheric stability.
Consequently, unlike the Murphy-Campe methodology, F stability and a wind speed of 1
meter/sec do not generate the five percentile X/Q values for ground level releases and
receptors. The ARCON96 five percentile X/Q values are typically associated with wind
speeds of 3 to 4 meter/see.

2.2.3 IMPLEMENTATION

The May 9, 1997, version of the ARCON96 computer code as described in Revision 1 to
NUREG/CR-6331 is an acceptable methodology for assessing control room X/Q values for
use in design basis accident radiological analyses, unless unusual siting, building
arrangement, release characterization, source-receptor configuration, meteorological
regimes or terrain conditions indicate otherwise. Use of the ARCON96 computer code is
subject to the conditions discussed below. In addition, Table D-1 identifies each
ARCON96 input and acceptable values (or range of values) for each input.

D-3
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

a. Software QA Program

The ARCON96 code should be obtained and maintained under an appropriate

software quality assurance program that complies with the applicable criteria of
1OCFR50 Appendix B and meets other applicable industry consensus standards.
Each licensee is ultimately responsible for the accuracy and appropriateness of
use of the ARCON96 results.

b. Meteorological Data Base

Meteorological data input to ARCON96 should be obtained from instrumentation

that is maintained under the site's meteorological measurements program as
described in the facility's licensing basis. Three to five years of hourly
observations should be used. If fewer data are used, additional evaluations may
be necessary to demonstrate that the lesser data period used is representative of
long-term meteorological trends at the site.

c. Receptor Location Selection

All potential locations from which the control room may draw air from the
environment must be considered as an intake. This includes all ventilation system
intakes and infiltration locations, such as doors and penetrations. The potential
intakes may change over the course of the accident due to plant system response
or manual operator actions. The system assessment outlined in Appendix H can
be used to identify the potential locations of significant infiltration.

"* A X/Q value should be evaluated for each release-intake combination. It may
be possible to qualitatively show that the X/Q values for some release-intake
combinations would be bounded by values calculated for other combinations
and thereby reduce the number of needed calculations.
"* The most restrictive (highest) x/Q value for each release-intake combination
should be used.
"* For control rooms with dual intake designs, the guidance of Section III.D and
Figure 1 of the Murphy-Campe paper should be applied. In addition, the
practice of determining the x/Q value for the more restrictive intake and
dividing by two is acceptable only if it can be shown that the two intakes have
equal flow rates and are not simultaneously within the wind direction window
for any given wind direction.

D-4
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

d. Release Types

ARCON96 models three different release types: ground level, vent and stack.

i. Ground Level Release

The ground level release type is appropriate for the majority of control room
atmospheric dispersion assessments. The default ground level source is
typically treated as a point-source formulation. However, in some situations,
ground level releases can be better classified as area sources. Examples
might include postulated releases from the surface of a reactor or secondary
containment building or releases from multiple points such as the roof vents
on typical turbine buildings. ARCON96 reduces an area source to a virtual
point source using two initial diffusion coefficients provided by the code
user.

"* LOCA radiological analyses have typically assumed that the containment
structure could leak anywhere on the exposed surface. As such, these
analyses typically use the shortest distance between the containment
surface and the control room intake and treats the containment as a point
source. This approach may have been unnecessarily conservative. A
more reasonable approach is to model the containment surface as a
vertical area source with ARCON96. This treatment is acceptable for
design basis calculations provided that it is used in conjunction with the
total release rate (e.g., Ci/sec) from the containment.
"* Since leakage is more likely to occur at a penetration, the potential impact
of containment penetrations exposed to the environment within the
modeled area should be considered. It may be necessary to consider
several cases to ensure that the X/Q value for the most limited location is
assigned. Penetrations that are exposed within safety-related structures
need not be considered.
"* The height and width of the area source (e.g., the containment surface)
should be the maximum vertical and horizontal dimensions of the building
cross-section area perpendicular to the line of sight to the control room
intake. In the absence of site-specific empirical data, the initial diffusion
coefficients are found by:

Uy = (area source width)/6

CTz = (area source height)/6

The shortest horizontal distance from the building surface to the receptor
should be used as the source-receptor distance. The release height should
be set on the surface of the area source that will result in the shortest slant
path.

D-5
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

* Multiple roof vents can be modeled as a rectangular area source if the

assumed rectangle encompasses all the vents and the release rate from
each vent is approximately the same. The distance to the receptor is
measured from the closest point on the assumed rectangular source and, in
the absence of site-specific empirical data, the initial diffusion coefficients
are found by:

ay = (length of the nearest side of the rectangular area source)/6

oz= 0.0

If vents are clustered such that a rectangular area cannot adequately

represent the postulated effluent release distribution, then another
approximation methodology should be used.

ii. Vent Release

The vent release type was intended for use with uncapped upward-directed
vents on or slightly above building surfaces. This model is considered
appropriate for use in long-term routine effluent calculations but is considered
inappropriate for the short-term releases associated with accident assessments.
As such, the vent release type should not be used in design basis accident
applications.

iii. Stack Release

The stack release type is appropriate for releases from standalone stacks that
are 2.5 times the height of adjacent solid structures, or as established in the
plant's licensing/design basis. Otherwise, the release should be considered a
ground level release. At this time the NRC does not allow the use of plume
rise from buoyancy and mechanical jet effects in determining an effective
stack height. Use of the elevated plume option may lead to unrealistically low
concentrations at control room intakes located close to the base of tall stacks.
If the x/Q values calculated in this situation are all extremely low, other
models should be used to estimate the potential control room intake x/Q
30
values.

Fumigation conditions should be considered using the guidance of regulatory

positions 1.3.2.b, 2.1.2, and 2.2.2 of Regulatory Guide 1.145.31 Ground level
x/Q values generated by ARCON96 may be substituted for values generated
with Equation 5 of Regulatory Guide 1.145.

30 At the time this appendix was being written, consideration was being given to upgrading ARCON96's handling
of stack releases to allow its unconditional use in generating x/Q values for stack releases.
31 For facilities that are implementing or have implemented an alternative source term, fumigation conditions
should be assumed to exist at the onset of the major radioactivity releases in lieu of the start of the accident as
specified in Regulatory Guide 1.145.

D-6
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

3. SITE SPECIFIC DIFFUSION TESTS

Appropriately structured site-specific atmospheric diffusion tests can be considered as an

alternative to the analytical methods presented above. Such tests (e.g., field, wind tunnel)
must encompass a sufficient range of meteorological and, if appropriate, modeling
conditions applicable to the site so as to ensure that the limiting case(s) have been
evaluated. The testing and results obtained should be verified and validated.

At this time the NRC staff has not accepted the results from site-specific wind tunnel tests
for use in licensing analyses. Direct comparisons between wind tunnel test results and
applicable field measurements may facilitate staff acceptance.

4. REFERENCES

1. K.G. Murphy and K.W. Campe, "Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Ventilation
System Design for Meeting General Criterion 19," published in Proceedingsof 13th
AEC Air Cleaning Conference, San Francisco,CA, CONF-740807, U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission (now USNRC), August 1974.

2. J.V. Ramsdell, Jr. and C.A. Simonen, "Atmospheric Relative Concentrations in

Building Wakes," NUREG-6331, Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
May 1997.

3. USNRC, "XOQDOQ: Computer Program for the Meteorological Evaluation of Routine

Releases at Nuclear Power Stations," NUREG/CR-2919, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, 1982.

4. T.J. Bander, "PAVAN: An Atmospheric Dispersion Program for Evaluating Design

Basis Accidental Releases of Radioactive Materials from Nuclear Power Stations,"
NUREG/CR-2858, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 1982.

5. J.V. Ramsdell, Jr. and C.J. Fosmire, "Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates in the Vicinity
of Buildings," PNL-10286, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington, 1995.

6. USNRC, "Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence

Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants," Regulatory Guide 1.145, Revision 1, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reissued February 1983.

D-7
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Table D-1
ARCON96 Invut Parameter Guidance
Parameter Parameter Discussion Acceptable Input
Type
Meteorological Lower This value is used to adjust wind speeds for Use the actual instrumentation height when known;
Data Measurement differences between the heights of the otherwise, assume 10 meters. This value may not
Height instrumentation and the release. exceed 100 m.
(meters)
Upper This value is used to adjust wind speeds for Use the actual instrumentation height; otherwise, use
Measurement differences between the heights of the the height of the containment or the stack height, as
Height instrumentation and the release. appropriate. If wind speed measurements are available
(meters) at more than two elevations, the instrumentation at the
height closest to the release height should be used. This
value may not exceed 300 m.
Wind Speed Wind speed can be entered as either miles per Use the wind speed units that correspond to the units of
Units hour, meters per second or knots. the wind speeds in the meteorological data file.
Receptor Data Distance to This value is used for calculating the slant Use the actual straight-line horizontal distance between
Receptor range distance for ground level releases and the release point and the receptor of interest (e.g.,
(meters) the off-centerline correction factors for stack control room intake). For ground level releases, it may
releases. be appropriate to consider flow around an intervening
building if the building is sufficiently tall that it is
unrealistic to expect flow from the release point to go
over the building. This distance may not exceed 10,000
m. NOTE: If the distance to the receptor is less than
about 10 meters, ARCON96 should not be used to
derive relative concentrations.
Intake Height This value is used for calculating the slant Use the height of the intake above ground level. If the
(meters) range distance for ground level releases and intake height is not available for ground level releases,
the off-centerline correction factors for stack assume the intake height is equal to the release height.
releases. This value may not exceed 100 m.

D-8
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Table D-1
ARCON96 Input Parameter Guidance
Parameter Parameter Discussion Acceptable Input
Type
Elevation This value is used to normalize the release Use zero if the release point and the receptor are on the
Difference heights and the receptor heights in those same structure or the heights of the release point and
(meters) cases where the two heights are specified as the receptor are measured from the same reference
"above grade" with different grades for the plane. If there is a difference in height between the
release point and intake height, or where one release point and receptor reference planes, enter a
measurement is referenced to "above grade" positive value if the grade elevation at the release point
and the other "above sea level." is higher or enter a negative value if the grade elevation
at the receptor is higher. This value must be between
1,000 m and +1,000 m.
Direction to This value is used along with the wind Use the direction from the receptor back to the release
Source direction window to establish the range of point. The direction entered must have the same point
(degrees) wind directions that should be included in the of reference as the wind directions reported in the
assessment of x/Q values, meteorological data (i.e., some facilities list a "plant
north" on-site arrangement drawings that differ from
"true north"). For ground level releases, if the plume is
assumed to flow around a building rather than over it,
the direction may need to be modified to account for the
redirected flow. In this case, x/Q values should be
calculated assuming flow around and flow over
(through) the building and the higher of the two values
should be used.
Source Data Release Type Releases can be identified as ground, vent or All releases should be classified as either ground or
stack. Building wake effects are considered in stack releases; the vent release model should not be
the evaluation of ground level releases; vent used for DBA accident calculations. Unless the actual
releases are treated as a mix of ground level release point is more than 2.5 times the height of
and elevated releases; and stack releases are structures in the vicinity of the stack, or the plant's
treated as elevated releases. licensing basis has already defined the release point as
an elevated release, the release should be classified as
ground.

D-9
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Table D-1
ARCON96 Input Parameter Guidance
Parameter Parameter Discussion Acceptable Input
Type _
Release Height This value is used to adjust wind speeds for Use the actual release height whenever available;
(meters) differences between the heights of the otherwise, set the release height to the intake height.
instrumentation and the release, to determine This value must be between 1 m and 300 m.
the slant path distance for ground level
releases and to correct off-centerline data for Plume rise from buoyancy and mechanical jet effects
elevated releases. may be considered in establishing the release height if
it can be demonstrated with reasonable assurance that
the vertical velocity of the release will be maintained
32
1-
during the course of the accident.
Building Area This value is used in the high wind speed Use the actual building vertical cross-sectional area
(mI2) adjustment for the ground level and vent perpendicular to the wind direction whenever available;
release models. otherwise, use a default value of 2000 m 2 . This value
must be between 0.01 m2 and 10,000 M 2.

This building area is for the building(s) that have the

largest impact on the building wake within the wind
direction window (usually the reactor containment).
Note that, for diffuse sources, the building area entered
here may be different from that used to establish the
i -
diffuse source.
Vertical Exit This value is used for determining the amount Use a value of zero unless it can be demonstrated with
Velocity of the plume that enters the building wake for reasonable assurance that the value will be maintained
(m/sec) the vent release model and for stack during the course of the accident. If the vent or stack is
downwash calculations for the vent and stack capped, use a value of zero. This value must be
release models. between 0 m/sec and 50 m/sec.

32 At the time this appendix was being written, consideration was being given to upgrading ARCON96 to perform plume rise calculations for high energy releases such as
atmospheric dump valve, power-operated relief valve, or main steam safety valve discharges associated with a steam generator tube rupture DBA.
D-10
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Table D-1
ARCON96 Input Parameter Guidance
Parameter Parameter Discussion Acceptable Input
Type
Stack Flow This value is used for all release models to Use a value of zero unless it can be demonstrated with
(m3/sec) ensure that the near field concentration is not reasonable assurance that the value will be maintained
greater than the concentration at the release during the course of the accident. This value must be
point, between 0 m 3/sec and 100 m 3/sec.3 3
Stack Radius This value is used for the vent and stack If the vertical velocity entered is not zero, use the actual
(meters) release models to determine the maximum stack internal radius; otherwise, use a value of zero.
stack height reduction during downwash This value must be between 0 m and 10 m.
conditions.
Default Data Surface This value is used in adjusting wind speeds to In lieu of the default value of 0.1, use a value of 0.2 for
Roughness account for differences in meteorological most sites. Valid values range from 0.1 for sites with
Length instrumentation height and release height. low surface vegetation to 0.5 for forest covered sites.
(meters)
Wind Direction This value is used along with the direction to Use the default value of 90 degrees (which represents a
Window source to establish the range of wind range of wind direction 45 degrees on either side of line
(degrees) directions to be included in the assessment of of sight from the source to the receptor).
X/Q values.
Minimum Wind This value is used to identify calm conditions. Use the default wind speed value of 0.5 m/sec
Speed (regardless of the wind speed units entered earlier)
(m/sec) unless there is some indication that the anemometer
threshold is greater than 0.6 m/sec.
Averaging Sector This value is used to prevent inconsistency Use a value of 4.3 in lieu of the default value of 4.0.
Width Constant between the centerline and sector-average X/Q
values for wide plumes (has largest effect on
ground level plumes).

33 The 100 m3/sec stack flow limit is an arbitrary upper range check value programmed into the graphical program interface. If justifiable, the user can execute ARCON96 with
higher stack flow values by editing the input file generated by the graphical program interface with a text editor and executing the code in batch mode.
D-11
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Table D-1
ARCON96 Input Parameter Guidance
Parameter Parameter Discussion Acceptable Input
Type
Initial Diffusion These values define the initial diffusion For an area source such as a containment surface, in
Coefficients coefficients that define area sources. the absence of site-specific empirical data, use:
(meters) ay = (area source width)/6
az = (area source height)/6
For an area source such as multiple roof vents that can
be modeled as a rectangular area source, in the absence
of site-specific empirical data, use:
ay = (length of the nearest side of the rectangular
area source)/6
UZ = 0.0
Otherwise, use •y=cY=O.
Hours in These values specify the number of hours for Use the default values.
Averages each averaging period.
Minimum These values specify the minimum number of Use the default values.
Number of hours for a valid average.
Hours

D-12
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

APPENDIX E

SMOKE INFILTRATION IMPACT ON SAFE SHUTDOWN

1. PURPOSE/SCOPE

This appendix provides a qualitative assessment tool for managing the issue of smoke
infiltration as described in Section 6. The guidance ensures that the operator maintains an
ability to safely shut down the plant during a fire/smoke event originating outside the
control room.

2. ASSESSMENT

Perform an assessment to assure that the operator has the capability to safely shut down
the plant from either the control room or the remote shutdown locations during a single
credible fire/smoke event. The following items should be considered:

"* Verify that the remote shutdown panel or controls are not located within the control
room habitability envelope.
"* Verify that the remote shutdown panels or controls and the control room are
adequately separated by distance, or appropriate fire barriers, such that a single
credible fire/smoke event in one area could not affect the habitability of the other.
"* Verify that a credible fire/smoke event does not exist that could affect control room
habitability while simultaneously blocking the normal egress path to the remote
shutdown panels or controls. If not, verify that an alternate egress path exists and that
it is addressed in plant procedures. Although desirable, this guidance does not require
that the alternate route be equipped with emergency lighting to specifically cover this
scenario.
"* Verify that sufficient procedural guidance exists to mitigate credible fire/smoke
events. Fire/smoke response procedures should contain provisions to manually align
ventilation systems to exhaust smoke away from the control room when practical.
"* Verify that a sufficient number of control room operators per shift are qualified in the
use self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) to safely shut-down the plant. Certain
success paths to achieve the stated goal above may require the limited use of SCBA.
"* Verify that the appropriate SCBA and smoke removal equipment are available and
properly staged.
"* Verify that initial and continuing training is performed to ensure familiarity with the
success paths discussed in this appendix.

E-1
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

3. SUCCESS PATH LOGIC

The steps below outline possible success paths to ensure safe shutdown capability is
maintained during a smoke infiltration event. These paths should provide confidence that
a serious smoke infiltration event can be mitigated.

"* Should an excessive amount of smoke infiltrate the control room envelope, the
operators may isolate the ventilation system if the outside air intake is the primary
entry point of the smoke. Efforts should then be taken to clear the smoke using either
an installed smoke removal system or portable blowers. A short-term limited use of
SCBAs may be expected in this situation. The ability to clear the smoke in a
reasonable period of time would be considered a success path.
"* If smoke removal is not a success path in the short term, then assess if the smoke is
having a detrimental effect on the operator's ability to control the plant.
Consideration should be given to evacuate to the remote shutdown panels or controls.
This decision would be based on the severity of the situation and the availability of a
safe egress path to the remote shutdown panels.
"* If the remote shutdown panels or controls are also contaminated with smoke, it may
be advantageous to remain in the control Room using SCBAs until smoke can be
cleared from one of the locations.
" If the decision is made to evacuate the control room, choose a primary or an alternate
path to the remote shutdown panels or controls that is least affected by the event. It
may be necessary to use SCBA while transiting to the remote shutdown panels or
controls.
"* If the assessment determines that a potential situation exists where a success path is
not assured, the condition should be entered into the plant's corrective action process
to ensure an appropriate resolution.

E-2
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

APPENDIX F

COMPENSATORY MEASURES ALLOWABLE ON AN INTERIM BASIS

1. PURPOSE/SCOPE

Licensees may need to implement compensatory measures as part of the plant corrective
action program. This appendix identifies two actions that may be considered for use as
compensatory measures in the event of unacceptable radiological release consequences.
These actions are the use of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and the use of
potassium iodide (KI) tablets. Other plant specific compensatory actions may be
appropriate. The use of any compensatory measure will require a plant specific
evaluation to justify its use.

The use of SCBA and KI has been determined to be acceptable for addressing control
room envelope integrity in the interim situation until the licensee remediates the issue.
However, use of SCBA or KI in the mitigation of situations where in-leakage does not
meet design basis limits is not acceptable as a permanent solution. 1OCFR20.1701
essentially says that engineering/process controls shall be used to the extent practical. If
not practical, then 1OCFR20.1702 methods should be used. Therefore, the use of SCBAs
should be a last resort. The length of time for which credit is allowable should be
determined on a case-by-case basis. If credit is currently part of the licensing basis,
special considerations may be necessary.

2. COMPENSATORY MEASURES

In addition to the compensatory measures addressed in this appendix, plant modifications

such as the installation of local toxic gas monitors should be considered in the event of
unacceptable toxic gas release consequences. Additional guidance is provided in Draft
Regulatory Guide DG-1087, Evaluatingthe Habitabilityof a Nuclear Power Plant
Control Room Duringa PostulatedHazardous Chemical Release.

Credit for SCBA as a compensatory measure is allowed provided an approved respiratory

protection program is in effect. The following are key considerations for crediting SCBA
use in support of control room habitability assessments.

2.1 An Approved Respiratory Protection Program Should be in Effect

a) An approved respiratory protection program in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20,

Appendix H, Regulatory Guide 8.15, Rev. 1, Acceptable Programsfor
RespiratoryProtection and NIJREG-0041, Rev. 1, Manual of Respiration,
ProtectionAgainst Airborne RadioactiveMaterials is established and in place.

F-1
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

i. Maintaining an adequate respiratory protection program is vital to

workers' safety and, thus, to their ability to respond in a timely
fashion to emergencies.
ii. Plant operators and emergency response workers can face not only
radiological airborne hazards, but, in many cases, are challenged by
unknown and potentially immediately dangerous to life and health
(1IDLH) conditions. Therefore, non-radiological hazards should also
be considered.
b) Plans for dealing with emergencies should include consideration of:
i. Postulated duration of SCBA use
ii. Quantities and kinds of materials against which protection must be
provided
iii. Physical characteristics of the hazardous area
iv. Access requirements
v. Numbers of people and technical skills needed
vi. Amounts, types and locations of equipment necessary
vii. Need for and availability of backup/replacement supplies for use in
emergencies
viii. Enhancement of communications
ix. Capability of control room faculties to accommodate operators
operating with SCBA
x. Visual impairment

2.2 Sufficient Number of Operators Should be Trained and Qualified in SCBA Use.

a) The licensee should ensure there will always be sufficient numbers of control
room operators on shift that are qualified for SCBA use.
b) Since SCBA use is expected to be infrequent, there should be adequate periodic,
hands-on training and practice with donning and wearing SCBA including
communication techniques and vision impairment during SCBA use.
c) Additionally, operators should be trained and practiced to change out air cylinders
and know where spare charged air cylinders are stored for emergency use.
d) Effective program oversight and controls should be in place for tracking and
maintaining operators' required periodic retraining and SCBA fit testing.

2.3 Adequate Supplies of Equipment Should be Available.

a) Sufficient dedicated, surveyed, and inventoried equipment with various size face
pieces should be available for use by control room operators at all times.

F-2
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

b) A sufficient number of support personnel should be assigned to transport and

replenish supplies for the duration of the need for SCBA.

2.4 Corrective Lenses (If required) Should be Available for SCBA Users.

a) In accordance with 10 CFR Part 20.1702(e), all those requiring vision correction
should use contact lens or approved spectacle adapters.
b) A lack of required vision correction could hamper the control room operator's
performance of licensed duties, including timely and effective response to
emergencies.
c) Corrective lenses with temple bars interfering with the sealing surface of any
respirator facepiece shall not be worn while using such equipment.
d) Semi-permeable prescription contact lenses may be worn if their use has been
satisfactorily demonstrated.
e) Hard contact lenses should not be worn with full-facepiece respirators. Hard
contact lenses present a distinct hazard to the individual due to the possibility of
the lenses slipping because of pressure on the outside comers of the eye from a
full face mask or a speck of dirt getting under them while the respirator is being
worn.

2.5 Persons Using Tight Fitting (Facepiece) Respirators Should Not Have Any Facial
That Interferes With the Sealing Surfaces of the Respirator.

2.6 The Required Minimum Staffing of Control Room Operators Qualified in SCBA
Use Should be Clean-Shaven. Adequate Method(s) to Refill SCBA Air Cylinders
Should be Available.

a) This includes proper location of air compressor intakes (e.g., not down-wind from
release points).
b) When a compressor is used, it should be properly monitored and attended to
ensure that the air intake remains in an uncontaminated atmosphere.

2.7 Provide For Adequate Relief From Respirator Use.

a) Provisions should be considered for operators wearing SCBA to leave the area if
necessary.

2.8 Ensure an Appropriate Monitoring Program Exists.

a) An appropriate air sampling program should be implemented to monitor control

room airborne radioactivity levels to determine individual exposure levels based
on stay times, protection factors and respirator usage.

F-3
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

b) Protection factors apply only in a respiratory protection program that meets the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 20.
i) These protection factors are applicable to radiological hazards, oxygen
deficiency, toxic gas and smoke/fire hazards and may not be appropriate
for hazards that involve skin adsorption.
ii) Prompt emergency response does not lend itself to pre-work assessment of
airborne hazards. In emergency situations, it is clearly illogical to take a
"no-protection" assumption for entry into IDLH areas of unknown
hazards.

3. USE OF POTASSIUM IODIDE AS A COMPENSATORY MEASURE FOR CONTROL ROOM

THYROID DOSE

Certain forms of iodine help the thyroid gland work correctly. Most people consume the
iodine their thyroid needs from foods such as iodized salt and fish. However, the
thyroid can hold or store only a certain amount of iodine. In the event of a nuclear
accident involving the release of large amounts of radioiodines, significant uptake of
radioiodines by the thyroid could occur from inhalation and ingestion. The basis for
using KI to limit thyroid dose is that administration of stable iodide as a prophylaxis can
prevent thyroidal uptake of radioiodines, and thus reduce radioactive dose to the thyroid
post-accident.

KI is an effective thyroid blocking agent when administered immediately before or after

an exposure to radioactive iodine (that is, within one to two hours). If KI is
administered more than four hours after an acute inhalation or ingestion of radioiodine,
then its effectiveness as thyroid blocking agent is substantially reduced. The prompt
administration of KI in the event of a nuclear accident is critical to its effectiveness as a
protective measure. Credit may be taken for a factor of 10 reduction in thyroid dose due
to the administration of KI. Plant procedures should be in place to ensure KI can be
administered to control room operators (and to oncoming shifts) soon after the start of an
event where radioiodine has been released or could be released.

The recommended dose is 130 mg (one tablet) of potassium iodide, equivalent to 100
mg of iodide, taken by mouth. Higher doses are not required or beneficial. Additional
daily administration may be required (i.e., 3 to 7 days after the accident if radioiodine
releases continue). To take credit for KI as a protective measure for control room
operator thyroid dose, the following actions should be implemented. Some of these
actions may already be in place as part of the licensee's emergency plan procedures.

F-4
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

3.1 Key Considerations for Crediting KI Use in Support of Control Room Habitability
Assessments

3.1.1 Although KI is a non-prescription medication, the licensee's internal policies on

administering medications to employees should be reviewed and followed as
required.

3.1.2 Personnel who are candidates for receiving KI must be screened for possible
allergic reactions to iodine. Shift personnel who are allergic to KI may need to be
temporarily reassigned, or provisions made for relieving them from duty in the
event of a radioiodine release.

3.1.3 Personnel who are identified as candidates to receive KI after an accident must be
on an approved list. The approved list should be readily accessible so that prompt
administration can be performed.

3.1.4 It is not mandatory for control room operators to take KI as a protective measure.
Those who choose not to take KI should evacuate the control room and be replaced
by another qualified operator.

3.1.5 Adequate supplies of KI must be available in the control room for control room
operators. Provisions must be made for storing KI tablets properly, and for periodic
replacement prior to the shelf life being exceeded. Adequate supplies should also
be available to administer KI to relief personnel.

3.1.6 Plant procedures should be in place to direct administration of KI to control room

personnel within two hours of a radioiodine release. Procedures should also be in
place to administer KI to on-coming shifts as necessary if radioiodine releases
continue.

3.1.7 Controls should be in place to determine if follow-up administration of KI is

required. The decision to have follow-up administration of KI should be done in
consultation with the licensee's company medical representative and the plant's
emergency response organization. If required, administration should occur within
3 to 7 days following the accident.

F-5
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

4. REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

1. USNRC, "Task mI.D.3: Worker Radiation Protection Improvement (Revision 3), TMI
Action Item III.D.3.2 (4), Develop Air Purifying Respirator Radioiodine Cartridge
Testing and Certification Criteria," Clarificationof TMIAction Item Requirements,
NUREG-0737, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1980.
2. 10 CFR 20, "Respiratory Protection and Controls to Restrict Internal Exposures," Part 20
(RIN 3150-AF81), Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, National
Archives and Records Administration.
3. 10 CFR 20, Appendix A, "Assigned Protection Factors (APF) for Respirators," Part 20,
Appendis A, Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, National
Archives and Records Administration.
4. USNRC, "Problems With Emergency Preparedness Respiratory Protection Programs,"
NRC Information Notice 98-20, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 3, 1998.
5. USNRC, "Acceptable Programs For Respiratory Protection," Regulatory Guide 8.15,,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1976.
6. USNRC, "Manual of Respiratory Protection Against Airborne Radioactive Materials,"
NUREG-0041, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1976.
7. USNRC, "Inadvertent Discharge Of Carbon Dioxide Fire Protection System And Gas
Migration," NRC Information Notice 99-05, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
March 8, 1999.
8. USNRC, "Guidance Concerning 10 CFR 20.103 and Use of Pressure Demand SCBA's,"
HPPOS-094, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1991.
9. USNRC, "OSHA Interpretation: Beards and Tight-Fitting Respirators," HPPOS-l 16,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1991.
10. David C. Aldrich and Roger M. Blond, "Examination of the Use of Potassium Iodide
(KI) as an Emergency Protective Measure for Nuclear Reactor Accidents," NUREG/CR
1433, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1980.
11. H. Behling, K. Behling and H. Amarasooriya, "An Analysis of Potassium Iodide (KI)
Prophylaxis for the General Public in the Event of a Nuclear Accident," NUREG/CR
63 10, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1995.
12. NCRP, "Protection of the Thyroid Gland in the Event of Releases of Radioiodine,"
NCRP Report No. 55, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements,
August 1, 1977.

F-6
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

APPENDIX Q

TOXIC GAS ASSESSMENTS

1. PURPOSE

Guidance is provided on performing an assessment of a hazardous chemical challenge to

control room habitability. In addition, this appendix provides guidance for determining
when a periodic reassessment of toxic gas challenges is warranted.

2. SCOPE

This appendix applies to the release of hazardous chemicals from mobile or stationary
sources, located off-site or on-site. It does not consider the explosive or flammability
hazards of these chemicals, which are considered beyond the scope of this appendix.

3. REGULATORY BASIS

General Design Criterion (GDC) 4, Environmentaland Missile Design Basis, of

Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 requires that structures, systems and components
important to safety be designed to accommodate the effects of and to be compatible with
the environmental conditions associated with normal operation, maintenance, testing and
postulated accidents. GDC 19, ControlRoom, requires that a control room be provided
from which actions can be taken to operate the nuclear power plant safely under normal
conditions and to maintain it in a safe condition under accident conditions.

4. PERFORMING THE Toxic GAS ASSESSMENT

The control room of a nuclear power plant should be appropriately protected from
hazardous chemicals that may be discharged as a result of equipment failures, operator
errors or events and conditions outside the control of the nuclear power plant. Potential
sources of hazardous chemicals may be mobile or stationary and include storage tanks,
pipelines, fire-fighting equipment, tank trucks, railroad cars and barges.

Much of the guidance presented in this appendix was obtained from Regulatory Guide
1.78, Assumption for Evaluatingthe Habitabilityof a NuclearPower Plant ControlRoom
Duringa PostulatedChemicalRelease.34 This appendix also provides guidance beyond

34 Proposed revisions to Regulatory Guide 1.78 have been issued by the NRC in draft guide DG-1087. The
proposed revision incorporates Regulatory Guide 1.95 (Reference 2) for protection of control room operators against
accidental chlorine releases. The guidance related to chlorine releases provided in Regulatory Guide 1.95 and in
DG-1087 is not presented in this appendix; the reader is encouraged to refer to the above publications for chlorine
specific concerns.

G-1
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

that contained in Regulatory Guide 1.78 in the areas of specifying toxicity limits,
identifying sources of on-site and off-site hazardous materials, determining hazardous
chemical release characteristics and applying updated atmospheric dispersion modeling
techniques, including dense gas atmospheric dispersion models.3 5 Licensees following
the guidance of this appendix may use the:

"* methodology that currently serves as their licensing basis,

"* immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH) exposure levels,
"* guidance presented in Regulatory Guide 1.78 as supplemented by this appendix or
"* other regulatory guidance (e.g., DG-1087) that is subsequently published by the
NRC.

4.1 Identifying Hazardous Materials

4.1.1 Off-Site

Two federal laws were developed to provide information regarding hazardous

chemicals at industrial facilities. The EPA and state and local governments
maintain these data. Much of the information is easily available on the Internet or
from state and local governments who receive reports from facilities.

The U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Special Program

Administration maintains a HAZMAT database. The Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and the Clean Air Act Risk
Management Program (RMP) require facilities to report on hazardous chemicals
they store or handle. Both provide for public access to the information on these
chemicals. The two regional government agencies that receive the information
are the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) and the State Emergency
Response Commission (SERC). The information available from reporting
facilities includes annual chemical inventories or lists of chemicals stored or
handled, and accident data like worst-case release scenarios.

It is important to remember that only certain toxic chemical releases need to be

considered. The number of facilities covered, for example, may be limited
because only certain chemicals and threshold settings are required for reporting.
Also the quantities for chemicals, if reported, are in broad ranges; it may not be
possible to tell actual quantity. Therefore, a local resource (such as the fire
department) is sometimes the best resource. Fire departments receive the same
information as the LEPC but possess a broader knowledge of the community and
smaller facilities.

Information on hazardous materials transported throughout the state via the

highways can be obtained from the SERC or the state transportation department.

35 Some of the guidance presented here that is related to Regulatory Guide 1.78 is contained in NUREG/CR-6624
(Reference 3)

G-2
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

The same agencies may have information on the transport of hazardous materials
via railways. The railways should also be contacted directly. Information on the
transportation of chemicals via rivers, the Great Lakes and coastal marine traffic
can be obtained from the U.S. Coast Guard.

Internet sources of data on hazardous materials available at the time this appendix
was written include the following:

LEPC/SERC contacts: RMP data:

www.rtk.netflepc www.epa.gov/enviro
Toxic release information: Right-to-Know data:
www.epa.gov/tri www.rtk.net or www.scorecard.org

Hazardous substances profiles: Material Safety Data Sheets:

www.epa.gov/ceppo/ep chda.htm#ehs www.hazard.com

4.1.2 On-Site

A facility's EPCRA and RMP reporting information is a good first step to

determine the types and quantities of hazardous materials on-site. This
information should be compiled with a site-wide "walk through" using as a
checklist the list of EPCRA and RMP hazardous chemicals. The checklist should
be compared against a recent chemical inventory, which can usually be supplied
by a facility department like purchasing, chemistry or stores. The walk through
should also emphasize identifying permanent or temporary use of bulk storage
containers or tanks such as propane as well as storage of asphyxiates like nitrogen
and carbon dioxide.

4.1.3 Toxic Limits

The hazardous chemical toxicity limits that can be used for control room
evaluations include those listed in Table C-1 of Regulatory Guide 1.78 or the
IDLH exposure levels published by the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health. Note that DG-1087 presents toxicity limits that may differ from those
presented in Regulatory Guide 1.78.

The IDLH limits are based on 30-minute exposure levels defined as likely to
cause death or immediate or delayed permanent adverse health effects. For the
purposes of conducting control room habitability evaluations, the IDLH limits
should be considered as toxicity limits for two-minute exposures. This provides
an adequate margin of safety in that control room operators are expected to avail
protective measures within two minutes of detection of hazardous chemicals, thus
avoiding prolonged exposure at the IDLH concentration levels.

G-3
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Asphyxiating chemicals should also be considered, if they are stored on-site in

significant quantities such that an accidental release could result in the
displacement of a significant fraction of the control room air. According to
OSHA Regulations, an oxygen deficient atmosphere (for permit-required
confined spaces) is one containing less than 19.5 percent oxygen by volume (29
CFR 1910.146).

4.2 Evaluating Potential Accidents

Whether a hazardous chemical source constitutes a hazard requiring a toxic gas control
room evaluation is determined on the basis of the quantity of chemicals, the distance
from the plant, the in-leakage characteristics of the control room and the applicable
toxicity limits.

Section 4.2.1 presents screening criteria adopted from Regulatory Guide 1.78 for
identifying release events that can be exempted from a detailed evaluation of control
room habitability. For release events not meeting the screening criteria, Section 4.2.2
provides a basis for performing detailed evaluations of control room habitability.

4.2.1 Screening Criteria

Hazardous chemicals that meet the following criteria can be excluded from a toxic
gas control room evaluation.

0 Distance Criterionfor StationarySources

- Hazardous chemicals that are stored at distances greater than five miles from
the plant can be excluded from a detailed toxic gas control room evaluation.
- For those hazardous chemicals stored within a five-mile radius of the plant
(except those hazardous chemicals stored in weights greater than 100 pounds
either on-site or within 0.3 miles of the control room), Table C-2 of
Regulatory Guide 1.78 gives the criterion in terms of the quantity of
chemicals that would constitute a hazard for a given toxicity limit, stable
meteorological conditions and a control room envelope with a given air
36
exchange rate.

* Distance Criterionand FrequentShipment Criterionfor Mobile Sources

- Hazardous chemicals that are transported at distances greater than five miles
from the plant can be excluded from a detailed toxic gas control room
evaluation.
- Frequent shipments are defined as 10 or more total shipments per year for
truck traffic, 30 or more total shipments per year for rail traffic or 50 or more
total shipments per year for barge traffic. Mobile sources need not be

36 Appendix A to Regulatory Guide 1.78 contains a procedure for adjusting the quantities given in Table C-2 to
appropriately account for the toxicity limit of a specific chemical, meteorological conditions of a particular site and
air exchange rate of a control room.

G-4
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

considered further if the total shipment frequency of all hazardous chemicals

does not exceed the specified number by traffic type.

If the above screening criteria are not met, detailed evaluation as discussed in the
following subsection should be performed to show that the control room is
habitable in the event of an accidental hazardous chemical release.

4.2.2 Detailed Evaluations

An existing toxic gas evaluation should be revised if: (1) the assumed in-leakage
value is found to be non-conservative; (2) a new significant source of hazardous
chemical is identified in the vicinity of the plant; or (3) the quantity of chemicals
is greater than previously assmned.

For each chemical considered, the value of importance is the maximum

concentration that can be tolerated for two minutes without inducing physical
incapacitation (i.e., severe coughing, eye burn or severe skin irritation) of an
average human. The two-minute criterion is based on the time a control room
operator is expected to take to don respirator and protective clothing. As stated in
Section 4.1.3, the two-minute toxicity limit is based on the exposure limits.

If detailed calculations show that the two-minute toxicity limits will be exceeded
in the control room for any time period for any given release scenario,
compensating measures should be implemented. 7 As a minimum, a detection
mechanism for each hazardous chemical release should be available. Such a
system could include the installation of detectors or, if the buildup of the
hazardous chemical in the control room is at a slow rate, human (i.e., smell)
detection may be appropriate. 38 The detailed evaluation should demonstrate that if
detection results in placing the control room in accident mode (i.e., automatic or
manual closure of isolation dampers), the two-minute toxicity limits will not be
exceeded. Otherwise, it would be expected that the control room operators will
take protective measures (i.e., don protective equipment) within two minutes after
the detection to avoid prolonged exposure at the two-minute toxicity limit levels.

There are several aspects that should be modeled when performing detailed
evaluations of control room habitability due to potential accidental toxic gas
releases: accident type, release characterization, atmospheric dispersion and
control room air infiltration.

37 Compensating measures are not required for transportation-related accidents if it can be shown that the
probability of occurrence of the initiating events leading to control room concentrations exceeding toxicity limits are
less than 10-7 per year as discussed in Sections 2.2.1-2.2.2 of NUREG-0800.
38 The American Industrial Hygiene Association has established odor thresholds for a number of toxic chemicals.
Some of these data are presented in NUREG/CR-6624.

G-5
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

" Accident Type. Two types of industrial accidents should be considered for
each source of hazardous chemicals: maximum concentration accidents and
maximum concentration-duration accidents.

- For the maximum concentrationaccident, the quantity to be considered for

each chemical is the instantaneous release of the total contents of one of
the following:

1) the largest storage container failing the screening criteria outlined

in Section 4.2.1;

2) the largest shipping container (or for multiple containers of equal

size, the failure of only one container unless the failure of that
container could lead to successive failures) failing the screening
criteria outlined in Section 4.2.1; or

3) the largest container stored on-site (normally the total release from
this container unless the containers are interconnected in such a
manner that a single failure could cause a release from several
containers).

- For the maximum concentration-durationaccident, the continuous release

of hazardous chemicals from the largest safety relief valve on a
stationary, mobile or on-site source failing the screening criteria outlined
in Section 4.2.1 should be considered.
"* Release Characterization. The release characterization defines the physical
state of the chemical as it leaves its containment and the manner in which it
enters the atmosphere to form a vapor cloud. Since hazardous chemicals may
be stored under pressure or under refrigeration, they can be emitted from a
container as a liquid, a vapor or both, depending on the chemical's physical
properties. For example, released liquids may form a vapor cloud through
volatilization. A liquid can be volatized either completely or partially as it is
released, forming a vapor cloud or a vapor and droplet mixture. Conversely,
chemicals stored as a gas may partially or completely condense to form liquid
droplets when released. Condensed vapor may fall to the ground to form a
pool that, in turn, volatizes to the atmosphere.
"* Atmospheric Dispersion: The resulting plume may be positively buoyant,
neutrally buoyant or denser-than-air, based on the initial contaminant density
compared to air. For dense gas releases, consideration can be given to
modeling the release using a dense gas model; otherwise, standard passive
dispersion modeling should be applied.
"* Control Room Air Infiltration: The air flows for infiltration, makeup and
recirculation should be considered for both normal and accident conditions.
The volume of the control room and all other rooms that share the same
ventilating air, during both normal conditions and accident conditions, should
be considered.

G-6
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Regulatory Guide 1.78 can be consulted for more specific details concerning
performing evaluations of control room habitability for potential toxic gas
releases.

Regulatory Guide 1.78 suggests using algorithms presented in its Appendix B for
performing atmospheric dispersion modeling for instantaneous (puff) releases and
algorithms presented in Regulatory Guides 1.3 Assumptions Usedfor Evaluating
the PotentialRadiologicalConsequences of a Loss of CoolantAccidentfor
Boiling Water Reactors and 1.4 Assumptions Usedfor Evaluating the Potential
RadiologicalConsequences of a Loss of CoolantAccidentfor PressurizedWater
Reactors for performing atmospheric dispersion modeling for continuous releases.
Other options for performing atmospheric dispersion modeling analyses for
hazardous gases whose densities are not significantly different than air include
using Murphy and Campe (Reference 5.10) for releases near the control room
(within 100m or so) and Regulatory Guide 1.145 Atmospheric Dispersion Models
for PotentialAccident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants for
releases further from the control room.

NUREG-0570 "Toxic Vapor Concentrationsin the ControlRoom Following a

PostulatedAccidental Release, " is another accepted source of information for
performing control room habitability evaluations. NUREG-0570 presents
algorithms for calculating the fraction of a toxic release that flashes, along with
algorithms for determining the evaporation rate of the remaining pooling liquid.
Guidance for determining atmospheric dispersion and subsequent toxic gas
buildup in the control room is also provided.

The NRC sponsored the development of a computer code system for evaluating
control room habitability called HABIT (References 5.13 and 5.14). Two of the
HABIT program modules, EXTRAN and CHEM, can be run in sequence to
predict chemical concentration and exposures in the control room. The EXTRAN
program computes atmospheric chemical concentrations associated with a release
of a toxic chemical and the CHEM program use the results of EXTRAN to
determine the associated chemical exposures in the control room.

In executing EXTRAN, the user should be aware of the following:

"* EXTRAN does not calculate release rates and, as such, the user must calculate
the release rate outside the model for the maximum concentration-duration
accident.
"* Regulatory Guide 1.78 suggests the atmospheric dilution factors to be used in
the analysis should be that value which is exceeded only 5 percent of the time.
Although EXTRAN uses a simple Gaussian dispersion model, the
concentrations predicted by the model do not vary inversely with the wind
speed because building wake correction is not a linear function of wind speed.
In the case of evaporation, the highest emission rates are also related to high

G-7
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

wind speeds. In addition, the building wake corrections are not particularly
sensitive to atmospheric stability. Consequently, a range of meteorological
conditions should be executed for determining the 5 percent atmospheric
dilution factors.

Several references describing methodologies for calculating release

characterizations (including release rates) include EPA's "Workbook of Screening
Techniques for Assessing Impacts of Toxic Air Pollutants" (Reference 6.15),
"Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analyses"
(Reference 6.16) and "Guidance on the Application of Refined Dispersion Models
to Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutant Releases" (Reference 5.17). The latter
reference also provides guidance on how to execute several generally available
dense gas atmospheric dispersion models.

5. REFERENCES

1. USNRC, "Assumptions for Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant Control
Room During a Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release," Regulatory Guide 1.78, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1974.

2. USNRC, "Protection of Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Operators Against an

Accidental Chlorine Release," Regulatory Guide 1.95, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, January 1977.

3. L. B. Sasser, et al., "Recommendations for Revision of Regulatory Guide 1.78,"

NUREG/CR-6624, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, November 1999.

4. H.R. Ludwig, S.G. Cairelli and J.J. Whalen, "Documentation for Immediately
Dangerous to Life or Health Concentrations (IDLH)," National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, 1994.

5. NIOSH, "NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards," National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1997.

6. USNRC, "Standard Review Plan," NUREG-0800, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, July 1981.

7. AIHA, "Odor Thresholds for Chemicals with Established Occupational Health

Standards," American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), 1989.

8. USNRC, "Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of

a Loss of Coolant Accident for Boiling Water Reactors," Regulatory Guide 1.3, Revision
2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1974.

G-8
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

9. USNRC, "Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of

a Loss of Coolant Accident for Pressurized Water Reactors," Regulatory Guide 1.4,
Revision 2, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1974.

10. K. G. Murphy and K. M. Campe, "Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Ventilation
System Design for Meeting General Criterion 19," published in Proceedingsofl3th AEC
Air CleaningConference, San Francisco,CA, CONF-740807, U. S. Atomic Energy
Commission, (now USNRC), August 1974.

11. USNRC, "Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence

Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants," Regulatory Guide 1.145, Revision 1, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 1982.

12. J. Wing, "Toxic Vapor Concentrations in the Control Room Following a Postulated
Accidental Release," NUREG-0570, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1979.

13. S.A. Stage, "Computer Codes for Evaluation of Control Room Habitability (HABIT),"
NUREG/CR-6210, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1996.

14. J.V. Ramsdell and S. A. Stage, "Computer Codes for Evaluation of Control Room
Habitability (HABIT V1.1)," NUREG/CR-6210, Supp. I, PNNL-10496, Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, November 1998.

15. USEPA, "Workbook of Screening Techniques for Assessing Impacts of Toxic Air
Pollutants (Revised)," EPA-454/R-92-024, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
December 1992.

16. USEPA, "Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analysis,"
EPA-550-B-99-009, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 1992.

17. USEPA, "Guidance on the Application of Refined Dispersion Models to

Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutant Releases," EPA-454/R-93-002, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, April 1993

G-9
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

APPENDIX H

SYSTEM ASSESSMENT

1. PURPOSE

This appendix provides guidance on performance of walkdowns and inspections

of the control room envelope and associated ventilation systems to identify
potential vulnerabilities to in-leakage.

2. SCOPE

These guidelines assist personnel in the performance of assessment activities of

the control room envelope and the associated ventilation systems with the
intended purpose of:

(1) identifying potential vulnerabilities to in-leakage into the control room

envelope,

(2) determining whether the system is configured and will align in a

manner consistent with its licensing basis,

(3) identifying areas where maintenance activities should be directed,

(4) determining whether the control room envelop (CRE) and adjacent area
ventilation systems are performing in a manner consistent with their
licensing basis.

This appendix does not provide guidance for minimizing in-leakage

vulnerabilities. Appendix J provides the guidance for minimizing vulnerabilities
and sealing once the in-leakage source is identified.

3. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

3.1 Identify the Boundary

This section ensures that the user has a good understanding of the boundaries and
performance requirements for the control room envelope (CRE) and the
ventilation system(s). The following process is recommended:

3.1.1 Obtain copies of the controlled as built drawings (e.g., flow, physical,
general arrangement, etc.) that show the envelope and surrounding areas, the

H-1
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

envelope ventilation system(s), and ventilation systems that traverse the

envelope boundary.

3.1.2 Highlight the following on the drawings. This may require more than
one set of drawings if the system response is different for different types of
events:

* Boundaries of the envelope,

* Boundaries of the ventilation system(s) that serve the CRE,
* Portions of the ventilation system(s) that are physically located outside
the boundary or perform a boundary isolation function (e.g., dampers).
This should include system alignments for response to both
radiological and toxic gas events, and
* Ventilation system(s) that traverse the CRE boundary. (Highlight and
label on the drawings the routing of other ventilation systems that
traverse the envelope.)

3.2 Identify Operating Configurations

Control room in-leakage must be measured with affected systems in their accident
configuration. The next step is to determine whether the ventilation systems can
be operated in the accident modes consistent with the licensing bases. Review
available documentation (UFSAR, Operating Procedures, Emergency OPS,
Abnormal Ops, etc.) to determine the various modes of operation. See Appendix I
Section 5.2 for additional guidance with regards to operating modes for the
systems.

3.2.1 Identify Operating Parameters

Establish the design performance parameters for the ventilation systems

for the different challenges (radiological, toxic gas). These parameters
include but are not limited to differential pressures, makeup and
recirculation flow rates, duct static pressures and filter differential
pressures. The purpose of this activity is to verify that the as-built system
is consistent with controlled documents and to identify portions of the
CRE that are at lower pressure than the surrounding areas. Identify
ductwork of non-CRE HVAC systems that traverse the envelope and are
at a higher pressure than the envelope. If this was done earlier as part of
the design bases review for other sections of this document, simply refer
to that work.

H-2
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

3.2.2 Consider the Challenges

During review of the pressures in the envelope and adjacent areas,

consider all accident configurations of the control room ventilation system
and of the ventilation systems in adjacent areas. A typical item that has
been overlooked in the past and that should be factored into this review is
the determination of automatic and/or manual response of the system to
different challenges (examples: LOCA, FHA, MSLB, SGTR, and Toxic
Gas). For example:

"* A control room envelope could be pressurized during a radiological

event and not pressurized during a toxic gas event.
"* Operator actions taken per operating procedures during post-accident
mitigation to realign ventilation systems can result in system
alignments different than configurations due to automatic starting
signals. Section 5, Comparing Existing Plant Configuration and
Operations with Licensing Basis for CRH, provides more detailed
guidelines for ensuring that operating procedures are consistent with
design and analyses.
"* The response of ventilation systems in adjacent areas can be different
for a safety injection (SI) event vs. a control room high radiation event
(non-SI event).

3.2.3 LOOP vs. a Non-LOOP Event

Ventilation system alignments serving the envelope and serving adjacent

areas should consider the most limiting configurations. Consistent with
the licensing basis for the facility, the user may consider a loss of off-site
power (LOOP) coincident with the event. A LOOP is typically assumed
to occur concurrent with an accident, but not with a toxic gas release.
However, the user should recognize that assuming a LOOP coincident
with the event may not provide the limiting condition for control room in
leakage. For example, ventilation systems in adjacent spaces may
continue to operate during a non-LOOP situation and result in a less
favorable differential pressure condition across the control room
boundary. In other words, if the assumption of a LOOP results in the
envelope being positive to all adjacent spaces, it may be more
conservative to assume a non-LOOP event. This would need to be
factored in with the overall accident response.

The CR operator analysis should be performed in a manner that

maximizes the dose. The consideration of a LOOP may provide the
highest in-leakage but not the highest calculated dose. Other factors need
to be considered for the determination of dose.

H-3
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

3.2.4 Single Active Failure

Consideration of single active failures should be consistent with the

licensing basis for the facility. Cases may exist where assuming all trains
function as designed (i.e., no single failure occurs) could be more limiting
from an in-leakage perspective. For example:

" For a neutral pressure control room, running both trains can result in
an increased number of rooms within the control room envelope that
have negative pressure relative to the adjacent areas.

" For a positive pressure control room, running both pressurization

systems can result in increased unfiltered in-leakage if the fans are
located outside the envelope.

3.2.5 Seasonal or Diurnal Changes

The alignment of ventilation systems and the corresponding pressures in

the adjacent compartments (from those alignments) can also be sensitive
to the time of year or the time of the day. That is, during different seasons
or different times of the day, the ventilation systems serving these areas
may be operated in different configurations depending on such things as
outside air temperature.

3.3 Performing the Walkdown

There are several methods available to determine potential leak locations. Some
of these are described below. These methods do not provide quantitative methods
for determining in-leakage; they only aid the user in determining potential
locations for in-leakage.

The walkdown should:

"* Confirm that all components can be configured in their accident modes

"* Verify that the normally indicated system parameters in the various operating
configurations are consistent with the design and licensing parameters

"* Verify the proper operation of ventilation systems adjacent to the control
room boundary for the various challenges.

Section 3.4, below, provides a more detailed discussion of the types of items to
consider during these inspection activities.

H-4
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

3.3.1 Visual Examination

During the walkdown, the inspectors need to be very deliberate in looking

at details. Numerous small openings can yield relatively large leakage
rates. The visual examination consists of a thorough walkdown of both
the inside and the outside of the envelope boundary, where practical, to
determine the physical condition and identify any unwanted openings.
Specific areas to be visually inspected are identified in Section 3.4

Tools such as smoke pencils can be helpful to determine if leakage exists.

Smoke pencils should be used deliberately to distinguish between a leak
and random air currents (see guidance in ASTM E 1186).

Out-leakage may affect the ability of a positive pressure system to

sufficiently pressurize the envelope. Out-leakage requires additional
makeup air to maintain the positive pressure; even though this air is
usually filtered, it still affects radiological and toxic gas assessments.

It should be noted that only easily accessible or large in-leakage sources

are likely to be identified via walkdown.

3.4. Specific Considerations

Table H-I provides a list of items to consider when evaluating potential

vulnerabilities to control room in-leakage. The items in the table are
applicable to several different potential system and envelope
configurations, but not all of these may be applicable to any given plant.
Table H-1 is not to be considered an all-inclusive list but only as guidance
for the types of potential vulnerabilities. It may be helpful to list the
vulnerabilities by type (e.g., doors, dampers, structural joints, etc.) and
rank them in order of importance or suspected leakage.

The additional description below is to aid the user in the use of the Table
H-1.

3.4.1 Control Room Ventilation System

For portions of ventilation systems located outside the control room

envelope:

"* CR ventilation systems that are located outside the control room
envelope can experience in-leakage if portions of these systems (e.g.,
return ducting) are at a negative pressure relative to the area(s) they
pass through.
"* Some ventilation ducting (commercial, pocket lock, non-seal welded,
non-bolted connections, etc.) can be a source of potential leakage

H-5
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

locations. Insulated ductwork can be difficult to inspect but can be a

leakage source. If the ducting is a potential leakage source, the
insulation may need to be removed to facilitate inspection.
"* Air Handling Unit (AHU) housings can be a source of in-leakage if
they are not welded or their integrity is compromised. For example,
the underside of the housing can be a location of corrosion due to
moisture accumulation.
"* AHU electrical and instrumentation penetrations can be a source of
unfiltered in-leakage.
"* AHU and ventilation system doors, hatches, etc., can be a source of
unfiltered in-leakage. Inspect such items as latches, sealing surfaces,
seal compression, etc.
"* Fan shafts can be a source of in-leakage if not sealed. This is due to
the negative pressure at the fan shaft location.
* Loop seals and drains can be a source of in-leakage.

For portions of ventilation systems located inside the control room

envelope:

"* Portions of pressurization ductwork upstream of the filter and within

the control room envelope can be a potential source of in-leakage.
This portion of the system may operate at a higher pressure than the
pressure in the envelope.
"* Ducting that is isolated can be a source of unfiltered in-leakage if the
isolation dampers are not leak tight. Typically this is a concern if the
ductwork interfaces with the suction side of a fan (recirculation, AHU,
etc.).

3.4.2 Other Ventilation System Ducting Within the Control Room

Envelope

Ducting associated with other ventilation systems may be routed

through the control room envelope. These can be a source of in
leakage if the system(s) operate at a higher pressure than the pressure
within the envelope. Also note that control room pressure (or in some
cases no pressure - example: isolation only for a toxic gas event) can
influence the leakage from this ducting such that the lower the control
room pressure the more the duct leaks. As an alternative to duct
sealing or replacement, it is acceptable to change the operating mode
of the subject ventilation system or secure it to ensure that it operates
with a lower pressure than the envelope pressure. Isolating the ducting
during post-accident mitigation does not exclude it from being a
source of in-leakage because damper leakage in isolated ductwork may
provide a potential source of in-leakage.

H-6
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Ventilation ducting (commercial, pocket lock, non-seal welded, non

bolted connections, etc.) can be a potential leakage location. Seal
welded ductwork should be visually inspected to ensure the integrity
of the welds. Insulation may need to be removed from the ductwork to
facilitate inspection to locate leaks.

3.4.3 Control Room Envelope Boundary Penetrations

"* Penetrations such as cables and conduits, small pipes, etc., can be a
potential source of in-leakage. To the extent practical, both the inside
of the conduit and the conduit/wall penetration should be inspected for
proper sealing.
"* Other items such as concrete anchors through block walls, if not
sealed, can be a leakage source at the interface.
"* Ventilation equipment drains, system drains, floor drains, etc.,
commonly penetrate the envelope boundary. To prevent leakage
through these lines, check valves or loop seals should be installed. If
used, verify that the check valve design is appropriate for this
application and the loop seals are maintained to keep them filled.

3.4.4 Doors in Control Room Envelope Boundary

Door seals can be a potential significant source of in-leakage. Experience

has indicated that the door to door frame (sides and top of door) and the
floor (bottom of door) can be significant leak locations. The inspection
should ensure not only the integrity of the seals but verify that the door is
properly compressing the seals.

3.4.5 Ventilation System Isolation Dampers

Control room ventilation system isolation dampers that close to ensure the
integrity of the system and the envelope during an event can be potential
sources of in-leakage. Redundant dampers should exist at each location to
meet single active failure criteria.

Louvered dampers have historically proven to be unreliable isolation

devices. This does not mean that these types of dampers are unacceptable,
but louvered dampers are more susceptible to leakage than other designs.
This does not imply that other types of isolation dampers cannot be a
source of leakage.

Leakage can also occur through damper shafts or other associated sub
components that penetrate the ducting pressure boundary.

H-7
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

3.4.6 Other Non-HVAC Systems in the Envelope

Instrument air and/or service air systems can enter the envelope to provide
air for damper controls, breathing air, etc. The compressors for these
systems may be located outside the envelope and provide a means of
unfiltered in-leakage if the components inside the envelope leak, or
venting of air is part of the component operation.

Radiation monitors outside the envelope that draw samples from inside the
control room envelope can be a source of in-leakage if the sample lines
leak.

3.4.7 General Boundary Construction

Certain construction configurations or deficiencies are more susceptible to

in-leakage. For example, porous (non-filled) block walls can leak, where
poured intact concrete walls should not leak. Deficiencies such as cracks
or inadequate sealing materials can be locations for in-leakage. Deficient
expansion joints can be a source of leakage.

Areas that have been overlooked are those that are not readily visible; e.g.,
above dropped ceilings, below raised floors, against walls behind panels,
etc. These should be inspected to the extent practical. In some cases, it
may be easier to verify the boundary by looking at the other side.

3.4.8 System Flow Measurements

Airflow rates should be measured to ensure that the system flow rates are
as expected for the various configurations. This document does not
provide guidance on determining system flow rates. These measurements
must be obtained from test results and compared with applicable limits to
ensure that control room HVAC and interfacing systems are operating as
designed. Ensure the tests were performed within appropriate time frame
and represent current system parameters.

Significant discrepancies in air flow rates (i.e., the sum of the individual
flow rates do not equal the whole) need to be evaluated. These types of
conditions indicate the possibility for leakage and unwanted airflow.
Differences may also be due to the uncertainty of the measurements.

The ventilation system should be properly balanced to ensure that

ventilation flow rates are consistent with the design basis and to enhance
pressurization (pressurized control room) or minimize differential
pressures across the envelope boundaries (neutral control room).

H-8
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

4. Documentation

Document the control room boundary, the modes of operation, and the walkdown
results including any in-leakage vulnerabilities (list vulnerabilities identified).

This information is to be used in performing testing per Appendix I.

H-9
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Table H-1 DETERMINATION OF VULNERABILITY SUSCEPTIBILITY

System / Component Determining In-Leakage Vulnerability

Control Room Ventilation System Determine that ventilation systems are properly balanced
Operation (Section 3.3.2)
Determine that ventilation system air flow rates and air sources are as expected
Control Room Ventilation System Determine ifcontrol room ducting and/or HVAC equipment located outside the envelope is at a negative pressure
Integrity (Section 3.4.1) with respect to adjacent areas. This is applicable to both operating and non-operating equipment. If this
condition exists, consider the following vulnerabilities:

* Ductwork including previous repairs with RTV sealant

* Bellows, flanged and flexible joints

* Equipment housings

* System penetrations such as chiller lines, electrical and instrumentation

* Accesses such as doors or hatches

6 Fan shaft (AHU, Recirculation fan, etc).

Determine ifportions of the pressurization ducting inside the envelope between the envelope boundary and the
filter are operated at a higher pressure than the envelope pressure (for portions of the ductwork located inside the
envelope).

Determine ifAHU fans have the potential to draw air from isolated ducting lines (i.e., damper leakage) that
penetrate the envelope boundary.
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Table H-1 DETERMINATION OF VULNERABILITY SUSCEPTIBILITY

System / Component Determining In-Leakage Vulnerability

Other Ventilation Systems Determine if other system ducting is routed through the envelope when the control room is isolated. If so:
(Section 3.4.2)
"* Determine the post-accident pressure in the ducting relative to the pressure in the envelope (consider
the effects of this ducting both as a means of in-leakage and out-leakage).

"* Ifthe ducting is isolated, consider the potential for damper leakage.

* Determine the integrity of this ducting. Consider the items identified above under CR HVAC integrity.
Penetrations in the Envelope Determine that wall, floor and ceiling penetrations (i.e., conduits, electrical cable trays, etc.) are properly sealed.
Boundary (Section 3.4.3)
Check for voids inside cable bundles that may be covered with cable coating or voids under the cable in the tray.

Check for non-leak-tight flexible conduit or armored cables passing through penetration seals.

Check seals inside the conduit and between the conduit and the wall.

Check conduit connectors, couplings and terminations.

Check caps on spare embedded sleeves.

Determine that ventilation ducting penetrations and dampers are properly sealed.

Check for space around fire damper sleeves.

Check for concrete anchors or other bolts through block walls that are not sealed.

Determine that drains (floor or equipment) have loop seals or check that valves and abandoned drains are
sealed. If used, verify that the check valve design is appropriate for this application.
Determine if there are other types of penetrations that can provide potential leakage pathways.
Envelope Doors (Section 3.4.4) Determine that there are no defects in the doors.

Determine that door seals (including sweeps) are not cracked, are not missing and have proper fit.
Determine that doors are properly compressed or fitting against the door seals.
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Table H-1 DETERMINATION OF VULNERABILITY SUSCEPTIBILITY

System / Component Determining In-Leakage Vulnerability

Determine that door latches are functioning properly to maintain the door securely closed.

Determine that doorframes are properly sealed.

Isolation Dampers Determine that control room isolation damper seals are not cracked, are not missing seals and have proper fitting
(Section 3.4.5) seals.

Determine that control room isolation damper linkages are functioning properly to assure compression of the
seals against the damper blade(s).

Determine that damper shaft penetrations are properly sealed.

Other Non-HVAC Systems in the Determine if there are instruments or service air lines that enter the envelope boundary and could provide
Envelope (Section 3.4.6) potential unfiltered air sources due to leakage or operational venting of air operated components.

Consider other equipment operations providing a mechanism for air in-leakage such as radiation monitors that
are located outside the envelope and draw a sample from within the envelope.
General Boundary Construction Determine that the general envelope boundary is in good condition, including:
(Section 3.4.7)
* Block walls - unsealed or unpainted, cracked or missing mortar

* Metal deck - joints and ceiling interfaces with walls

* Plaster or drywall - unsealed over armor plate

* Steel/concrete interfaces - structural steel, doorframes

* Concrete - cold joints, expansion joints, seismic gaps

* Hidden or abandoned chases or spaces or joints hidden under carpet.

Fireproofing - penetrating envelope or covering joints or penetrations

 NEI 99-03
June 2001

APPENDIX I

TESTING PROGRAM

1. PURPOSE

This appendix provides guidance on preparing for and performing control room
envelope in-leakage tests to demonstrate conformance to the plant licensing and
design bases.

2. SCOPE

This appendix focuses on conducting a test that will quantify in-leakage into the
control room envelope. The guidance includes the attributes of an acceptable test
program, acceptable testing options, preparation for testing, performance of testing,
and test frequency. This appendix is intended to aid plant personnel in the
development of a plant specific procedure for testing.

3. REGULATORY BASIS

Criterion III of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B requires that design control measures provide
for verifying or checking the adequacy of design. One of the methods identified to
accomplish this for control room integrity is the performance of a suitable testing
program.

4. TEST ATTRIBUTES

The attributes of an acceptable test program are:

"* The test must be comprehensive.

"* Integrated system testing must be conducted with systems and components in their
accident configuration lineups. Component testing must be conducted in a manner
that bounds accident conditions.
"* Testing methods should be performed using a consensus standard.

4.1 Comprehensive

Any acceptable test method should be comprehensive. A test is considered

comprehensive if it quantifies all of the in-leakage associated with a control room
envelope. A comprehensive test program will determine the total control room
envelope in-leakage for each challenge (e.g., toxic gas, radiological) that may be

I-1
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

encountered. Some plant designs may be such that the control room envelope
ventilation system(s) and associated components function in the same manner
regardless of the challenges. In those cases, the results of one test will identify the
leakage associated with both challenges.

4.2 Configured and Operating

Test conditions should be consistent with the limiting conditions in the licensing basis.

Tests that are performed to determine control room envelope (CRE) in-leakage should
be performed with the envelope, its associated ventilation systems, and ventilation
systems in adjacent areas all aligned and functioning the way they would if a
radiological or toxic gas event were to occur. Alternatively, individual leakage sites
may be tested with the ventilation systems in a non-accident alignment providing the
test conditions for the components are representative of the accident condition. For
example, damper leakage may be tested in a static condition as long as the ambient
temperature and pressure differential are at the level expected with the accident
ventilation systems operating.

4.3 Industry Standard

Tests that demonstrate control room envelope integrity should be performed using a
recognized industry standard. The industry standard should be relevant to the
determination of in-leakage.

5. Testing

This section provides guidance on developing a test program and choosing an

appropriate test method.

5.1 Prerequisites to Testing

" An assessment of the control room boundary should be performed in accordance

with Appendix H of this document. This includes the walkdown portion of the
appendix plus any sealing/refurbishment/repairs needed as identified in the
assessment.

"* Determine acceptance criteria.

" Plants should have contingency plans in place to address results that may
challenge the operability of the control room ventilation system. Development of
contingency plans should include calculations on maximum allowable radiation
in-leakage, maximum allowable radiation in-leakage for operability
determinations, and maximum allowable toxic gas in-leakage. (Appendix C

1-2
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

provides analytical guidance on the calculations, Appendix F has guidance on

compensatory measures.)

" HVAC systems (including adjacent spaces HVAC systems) should be properly
aligned and balanced to meet air flows and pressures consistent with the licensing
basis. This information is verified in Appendix H.

" The impact of other plant activities on the test, and of the test on other plant
activities, should be assessed. The ingress and egress of the control room
boundary may need to be limited during the test.

" Plants that use outside air for pressurizing their control rooms will still need to
continue to verify that the amount of pressurizing air is within acceptable limits.

5.2 Determine System Mode of Operation for Testing

Two common modes of operation are pressurization (isolation with pressurization)

and isolation (isolation without pressurization). The pressurization mode is generally
for protection from radiological events and the isolation mode is generally for
protection from toxic gas events. However, this varies among plants and the possible
system alignments that need to be tested should be carefully determined by each
licensee.

Testing should be performed with a sufficient number of different system modes of

operation to verify the adequacy of the system for all design basis events. For
example, if the plant has a licensing basis toxic gas event that results in a required
isolation of the control room, the system should be tested in the isolated mode and in
leakage determined (this includes not only the HVAC serving the control room but
also adjacent spaces HVAC).

If the plant can show that one test configuration encompasses all operational
configurations (i.e., the mode being tested will yield the highest in-leakage value and
this value can support all applicable analysis) then multiple tests are not required39 .
The system modes for testing should be documented along with the basis for the
system mode tested.

5.3 Determine Method of Baseline Testing

In-leakage baseline values must be determined for control room envelopes (CREs)
for radiation dose considerations and toxic gas concerns if applicable. This section
provides guidance on two methods of baseline testing and allows for alternative tests

39 For the case of a plant designed for positive pressure to radiation but neutral for toxic gas, leakage through the
envelope boundaries in the neutral configuration can be either in or out, depending on the direction of the
differential pressure. Therefore, performing two separate tests should be considered for the toxic gas and the
radiological control room response.

1-3
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

that may be applicable in certain situations. The first method determines total
leakage into the control room envelope by an integrated tracer gas test. The second
method determines control room in-leakage by testing individual components and
summing the results to obtain total leakage.

The method of testing selected depends on the vulnerability of the CRE to in-leakage.
For neutral pressure control rooms or for positive pressure CREs with a large number
of vulnerabilities or where testing a specific component vulnerability is not feasible,
an integrated tracer gas test is recommended. For plants with positive pressure
control rooms, small assumed in-leakage values, minimal vulnerabilities, and where
methods to test the vulnerable components are feasible, component testing may be an
acceptable method. The plant may perform an economic evaluation of the different
acceptable test methods to determine the optimum choice. The type of testing that is
to be performed (tracer gas, component, alternate) must be documented along with
the basis for the test chosen. Sections 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 provide additional
information that will assist in determining the type of testing to be performed.

5.3.1 Tracer Gas Testing

For control room envelopes that are not positive to all adjacent areas or have
numerous vulnerabilities to in-leakage, tracer gas testing is likely the most
effective test method. A number of plants in the nuclear industry have used
this test method for measuring control room envelope in-leakage.

This test method determines total in-leakage of the CRE by one of three
techniques. They are (1) concentration decay, (2) constant injection and (3)
constant concentration. These techniques are described in ASTM E741,
"Standard Test Method for Determining Air Change in a Single Zone by
Means of a Tracer Gas Dilution." Depending upon the technique, they involve
the measurement of makeup flow to the control room envelope, the
concentration of the tracer gas in the control room envelope, and the injection
rate of the tracer gas. The concentration decay method has generally proven the
most effective method for systems with no makeup while the constant injection
technique has generally proven the most effective method for systems with
high makeup flow rates for pressurization. These measurements result in the
determination of the volume rate across the boundary. The in-leakage can be
inferred from these measurements.

The tracer gas test may not identify the in-leakage contribution of individual
components or the specific location of the problem areas. That is dependent
upon the tester and the limitations and complexity associated with the facility
to be tested. However, tracer gas testing has been used to measure the
component leakage associated with dampers, shaft seals, etc.

ASTM E741 provides a description of the limitations associated with the tracer
gas test and identifies the knowledge and expertise requirements of individuals

1-4
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

using the test method. These aspects should be understood prior to the
performance of any test. Consider the following items when performing a
tracer gas test:

"* This test is dependent upon ensuring uniform tracer gas concentration
throughout entire control room volume and upon appropriate sampling
techniques.
"* Proper selection of the best measuring points for tracer gas test and
injection points for tracer gas prior to test initiation is important to the
success of this test method.
"* Determination of the net volume of the control room envelope may also be
important. This volume enters into the calculations of in-leakage. The
more accurate the value, the more accurate the results of the tracer gas test.
"* Effects of the environment on the test results should be considered.
Performing the test to minimize environmental influence is recommended.
The test instruction should contain guidance on environmental effects. For
example, the test should not be performed if there is a strong consistent
wind (>15 mph) and the control room envelope is significantly exposed to
the outside environment. The lower the wind speed, the more accurate the
test results.
"* Because of test complexity, plants typically require outside expertise to
perform this test.

All system testing within the scope of this appendix requires that systems be
tested in their accident configuration lineup or in a configuration that will
result in a conservative in-leakage measurement.

5.3.2 Component Testing

For positive pressure CRE designs with a small number of vulnerabilities to in

leakage, component testing may be an effective method for determining in
leakage. Control room designs with the following features support this method
of testing:

"* CREs that are maintained at positive pressure with respect to all adjacent
spaces.
"* Majority of control room HVAC equipment and ducting is located within
the control room envelope.
"* Minimal non-control room ventilation ducting or air system piping
penetrate the control room envelope.
"* Ventilation ducting located outside the CRE is of the seam welded design
and is in good material condition.

1-5
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

This method is dependent upon a thorough assessment of the control room

envelope boundary and ventilation systems to ensure all potential
vulnerabilities are properly evaluated. Missed vulnerability results in
indeterminate test results due to an undefined uncertainty. The use of
independent peer industry personnel on the assessment team is a good practice.
Thorough documentation of the assessment results is required for providing
assurance that in-leakage vulnerabilities are not overlooked.

This test method relies on pressure or vacuum decay testing for measuring
leakage. It is based on the fact that air moves from a region of high pressure to
a region of low pressure. Table I- 1 provides information on some industry
testing standards that can be used for a component test.

Two steps are performed to quantify total CRE in-leakage.

"* First, the CRE differential pressures must be measured in enough areas to
ensure that the envelope is maintained positive with respect to adjacent
non-CRE spaces. This provides assurance that any leakage through
boundary walls floors, ceilings/roofs will be out-leakage.
"* The second step is to test all components that were identified as vulnerable
to in-leakage by the Appendix H assessment. These are component
boundaries where differential pressure conditions can not be verified. The
sum of the individual component in-leakage values will become the total
unfiltered in-leakage rate.

Component testing results in identification of a total CRE in-leakage rate in

CFM. A comprehensive assessment must accompany this testing to assure that
all potential in-leakage pathways are tested. Each component test should be
performed per an acceptable consensus standard such as those listed in Table I
1.

Component testing is to be performed in a manner that reflects accident

configuration leakage. The test differential pressure across the component
must reflect the differential pressure that would be observed in the component
during accident conditions. The effect of HVAC systems in adjacent areas that
may not operate in accident conditions must be accounted for when
establishing component test conditions.

Component testing is probably within the capability of the plant staff.

This test method is not considered applicable to control room designs that are
not pressurized in the emergency mode or where a large vulnerability to in
leakage may exist. Therefore it is important that a thorough evaluation per
Appendix H is performed and that accurate differential pressure measurements
are made.

1-6
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

5.3.3 Alternate Test Methods

Licensees may propose alternate test methods. Alternate test methods must
meet the following criteria:

"* Test all potential leak paths and produce an overall in-leakage value in
CFM for the entire CRE.
"* Performed in accordance with a consensus test standard such as those listed
in Table I-1.
"* Conducted in a manner that reflects accident configuration leakage.

Licensees that propose to measure in-leakage using an alternate test method

should include a detailed description and justification of the proposed method
to allow a knowledgeable reviewer to ascertain the acceptability of the test.

See the attached Table I-1 for methods that may be considered for
development as an alternative test method. Note that a combination of
methods may be necessary to produce an overall in-leakage value in CFM for
the entire envelope.

5.4 Performance of Baseline Testing

Based on the determination made in Section 5.3 either Section 5.4.1 (tracer gas) or
5.4.2 (component) may be used. If an alternate test method is chosen then the utility
should establish the guidance related to the alternate test.

5.4.1 Integrated Tracer Gas Testing

The industry standard currently being used for a tracer gas test to determine in
leakage is ASTM E741, StandardTest Methodfor DeterminingAir Change in
a Single Zone by Means of a Tracer Gas Dilution. It is beyond the scope of
NEI 99-03 to provide a detailed procedure applying ASTM E741; however
general guidance is presented in preparing and conducting the test.

After Sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3.1 above are completed a sequence of three steps
is recommended to prepare for and conduct the integrated tracer gas test.
These steps are:

"* Determine if the test is to be performed in-house or using a contractor.

"* Perform a walkdown of the CRE (including sealing of potential leak paths
identified in Appendix H.
"* Perform the test.

These steps are described in greater detail in Section 5.4.1.

1-7
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

5.4.1.1. Preliminary Actions

The following steps should be performed prior to performing a tracer gas

test.

a. Determine the test configuration for the CRE, CR HVAC and adjacent
space HVAC (i.e., damper positions, equipment lineups, control of
personnel entry/exit, pressurization mode, etc.). If using a contractor
this should be done prior to bringing them on-site.
b. Obtain Material Safety Data Sheets for the tracer gas for
incorporation/approval by the site's material control program.
c. Determine the net volume of the CRE, if needed. This volume enters
into the calculations of in-leakage. The more accurate the value, the
more accurate the results of the tracer gas test.
d. Determine if the test is to be performed in house or by a contractor.
e. If a contractor is to perform the test then:
"* Ensure the contractor is familiar with this type of testing.
"* Determine if the contractor has a 10 CFR 50 Appendix B QA
program. This will play a major role in deciding whose QA
program will apply and whether the vendor can provide calibrated
measuring and test equipment.
"* Familiarize contractor personnel with the plant configuration, the
purpose of test and the control room HVAC mode to be tested prior
to arrival on-site.
"* Review the CRE Boundary and CREVS configuration and
operation (on-site) in detail with the tracer gas testing contractor
identifying:
1. test configuration(s)
2. measured data required for habitability analysis
3. CRE boundary and boundary condition walk-down
4. CREVS configuration walkdown
"* Walkdown the CRE with contractor to select best measuring points
and injection points for tracer gas prior to test initiation. This
should be conducted with a set of as-built drawings.
"* Select the method of measurement that is appropriate for the CRE
to be tested (examples: concentration decay, constant injection and
constant concentration).
"* Verify that contractor test procedures are compatible with plant
procedures (includes but not limited to):
- Test equipment calibrations
- Test personnel qualifications
- Tracer gas test compatibility with plant chemical tracking
program.

1-8
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

5.4.1.2. Performing the Tracer Gas Test

To the greatest extent possible the test conditions should correspond to

the analysis of the system. The minimum time recommended to perform
the test is provided in ASTM E741 as a function of the method of
measurement.

Key factors affecting accurate testing are:

"* Uniform mixing within a zone,

"* Representative sampling (multiple samplers),
"* Determination of CRE net volume and
"* Measurement of pressurizing flow rate, if applicable.

Additional considerations for performing an effective test are:

* Follow all appropriate Technical Specification limiting condition for

operation and plant operating procedures

Consider the effects of the environment on the test results consistent

with the plant design basis assumptions. The test instruction should
contain this guidance on environmental effects. For an example: the test
should not be performed if there is a strong consistent wind (>15 mph)
and the CRE is exposed significantly to the outside environment. The
lower the wind speed, the more accurate the test results.

"* Prepare plant specific test procedure (s) in accordance with plant
requirements. The test procedure should allow for using the
contractor's actual tracer gas test methodology (if a contractor was
selected).
"* Brief plant operations personnel.
"* Consider including a requirement to limit door openings/closings
during true test.
"* Perform testing in accordance with plant procedures.
"* Retest, if necessary.

5.4.2 Component Testing

This test is dependent upon the premise that the CRE is at a positive pressure
to all adjacent areas; however, testing must validate this premise. In this
respect, the differential pressure measurements are critical. These differential
pressure measurements are used to demonstrate that there is only out leakage
across the boundary walls, floors and roofs/ceilings. This includes the doors
and all penetrations in the boundary. Any component that cannot be verified

1-9
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

to have a positive differential pressure across the boundary must be tested for
in-leakage. See Table 1-2 for more discussion of the components and testing of
those components.

5.4.2.1 Differential Pressured Measurements

Note: This step shows that the CRE is at a positive pressure

and therefore it can be concluded that in-leakage will not occur
across the CRE walls, floors and ceiling/roof.

Air flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure. Thus,
leakage through the envelope boundary occurs from the area(s) of high
pressure to the area(s) of lower pressure. Therefore, it is crucial to
determine the pressure(s) within the envelope relative to the adjacent
areas outside the envelope boundary when identifying the potential
sources of in-leakage. This is valid regardless of the ventilation system
design (pressurized control room or neutral pressure control room).

For a positive pressure envelope design, leakage occurs outward from

rooms within the envelope to adjacent areas provided the space in the
envelope is at a higher pressure relative to the adjacent space. Even
with a positive pressure CRE design, in-leakage can occur at walls,
ceilings, floors, ventilation ducting, dampers, drain lines, from other
systems that traverse the envelope, etc., unless those areas are shown to
be at a positive pressure relative to adjacent spaces. Note that excessive
out-leakage from the envelope should be minimized as this places an
increased demand on the pressurization system and increases the filtered
in-leakage value in the dose assessments.

To determine if there are any adjacent areas that could be at a higher

pressure than the rooms within the CRE, a control room positive
pressure test must be performed. This test measures the control room
pressure relative to spaces adjacent to the CRE. The plant must identify
acceptance criteria for an acceptable positive pressure. For adjacent
spaces that are essentially outside atmosphere a positive 1/8 (0.125) inch
water gage pressure differential is recommended to allow for
atmospheric variation. For adjacent areas inside a building where
conditions are more stable, a positive pressure of 0.05 inches water gage
is sufficiently high enough to allow accurate measurements. Precision
digital barometers can be used. Barometers of accuracy of +/-0.03
inches of water are readily available. Precision digital manometers
capable of sensing pressure changes of 0.0001 psi are also available.
The use of two precision instruments is recommended. The adjacent
measurements should be timed and corrections made for elevation
differences and other environmental influences between different

1-10
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

spaces. Items to consider when measuring the differential pressure

include:

"* Use a drawing to identify all the control room areas and adjacent
spaces to be measured.
"* The system mode of operation when the pressure measurements are
taken must be consistent with the modes of operation defined in
Section 5.2 of this appendix.
"* The preferable method is to measure with a differential pressure
(d/p) gage for accuracy considerations. If a d/p gage is not available,
measuring the pressures with a pressure gage is acceptable. If
smoke pencils are used to show a positive pressure then it should be
noted on the test report.
"* Measure the pressures in all adjacent areas to the envelope. The
control room positive pressure test must be done in sufficient areas
to assure that a comparison is made with all adjacent areas.
"* Measure the pressure in all rooms within the envelope. Take enough
measurements within a given room to ensure that pressure variations
in the room do not result in any negative pressures relative to
adjacent non-CRE areas. For example, complicated room
configurations with restrictions to air flow (panels, half walls, etc.)
can result in pressure variations within the room. Elevation and
temperature differences can also affect pressure differential and
should be accounted for. All areas adjacent to the boundary must be
represented by a pressure measurement.
"* Care should be taken to measure pressures in hard to get areas such
as above dropped ceilings or below raised floors to ensure that these
areas are not at a negative differential pressure relative to adjacent
non CRE areas.
"* Record and compare the pressures of the adjacent spaces to the areas
inside the control room boundary to show the control room is at a
positive pressure to all adjacent spaces. The control room must be at
a higher pressure than the adjacent spaces.
"* Monitor outside pressure while taking differential readings across
the CRE boundary. Many instruments are very sensitive and
changes such as the passing of a weather front can inject significant
changes in data readings.

If it is discovered that adjacent area(s) are at a higher pressure than the

pressure inside the CRE, actions may be taken to reduce the pressure in
the adjacent area. Ventilation system operating configurations should be
considered as well as securing fans (if feasible) and providing pressure
relief paths. This is addressed in more detail in Appendix J.

1-11
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

If the system is rebalanced or in any way changed such that the

differential pressure measurements are affected, then sufficient
additional measurements must be taken to assure that the CRE walls,
floors, ceiling/roofs are still positive to all adjacent spaces.

If it cannot be shown that the CRE is positive relative to adjacent areas,

then a component test cannot be performed and another test method
must be used.

5.4.2.2 Determine Scope

Any component that cannot be verified to have a positive differential

pressure across the boundary must be tested for in-leakage. Use the
differential pressure measurements from Section 5.4.2.1 and Table 1-2 to
make this determination. Each vulnerability (i.e., component) identified
in Appendix H must be addressed (some items such as doors may not
need a test if the CRE positive pressure test confirms that any leakage
would be out-leakage from the envelope). Record the components that
are to be tested. Examples of components that could be tested
individually are air handling units, ductwork and isolation dampers.

5.4.2.3 Select Test Method for the Component

Available methods for testing the leak tightness of components 40 are

provided in Table 1-2.

Document the type of component test that will be used for each
component.

5.4.2.4 Perform the Applicable Test

"* Perform each test as identified in 5.4.2.3.

"* Record the leakage measurements made41 .
"* Sum all the leakage measurements. This is the total unfiltered in
leakage.

40 Dampers that close when ventilation systems realign to the emergency mode such that the pressure inside the damper is negative with
respect to the outside air may become a potential source of additional in-leakage into the control room envelope that can be filtered or
unfiltered depending upon the damper location in the system. ANSI N510-1989 provides methods to test this leakage using a totalizing gas
flow meter or possibly a calibrated rotating vane anemometer. Industry standard ASTM E 2029-99, "Standard Test Method for Volumetric
and Mass Flow Rate Measurement in a Duct Using Tracer Gas Dilution," discusses the use of tracer gas on a component level by a constant
injection at the damper air intake with measurements downstream of the closed damper. The constant injection method is considered
advantageous in that control test volumes are not required that may require fabrication within the installed ductwork. Measurement
uncertainties can be determined using ANSI Standard PTC 19.1, "Measurement Uncertainty."
41 For control room envelopes that can tolerate large amounts of unfiltered in-leakage, flow measurements are acceptable provided the
measurements consider instrument error.

1-12
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

5.5 Test Results

* Document the components to be tested as identified in Section 5.4.2.2;

if a component test is being performed.
* Document all test results including leakage measurements.
* Provide one value for in-leakage for each lineup tested. The test results
must account for the uncertainties associated with performance of the
test including the accuracy of the test equipment used.
* If measured values are higher than acceptance limit, compensatory
measures may need to be taken to maintain the control room ventilation
system operable until permanent resolution is achieved (See Section 8.0
and Appendix F for guidance). In-leakage values that result in doses
greater than that currently reported in the UFSAR will require
evaluation per the plant's corrective action program.

5.6 Documentation

Table 1-3 identifies recommended documentation.

1-13
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

TABLE I-1
TESTING OPTIONS
Type of Test Standard Advantages Disadvantages Performed with Optimum Quantitative
systems in their accuracy
accident
configuration
Tracer Gas ASTM E741 1. History of use 1. Wind effects Yes +_10% Yes
(SF6) within the industry 2. Disrupts plant (Note 1)
(Note 3) 2. Test method 3. High cost
acceptable to NRC 4. Leak location not identified
5. Tests from inside out
Pressure Test ASTM E779 1. Performed under 1. Req. CR HVAC shutdown No. CR HVAC is +5% Yes
(Blower Door) positive or negative 2. Tests from inside out shutdown (Note 2)
press 3. No leak location identified
2. Requires CR HVAC 4. Impact on operations
shutdown 5. Wind effects
6. Seal supply and return duct
Leak Detection ASTM E1186 1. Identifies location 1. Cannot quantify leakage Yes N/A. No.
2. Inexpensive
3. No effect on
Operations
Component Test ASTM E779 1. Potentially lower 1. Requires isolation of Section by section Test Yes
ASTM E1186 cost individual components dependent
ASTM E741 2. Low impact on
ASME N510 operations
ASME AG-1 3. Identifies leak
10CFR50, location
App J, Type
C LLRT
method (Note
4)

Notes:

1. Tracer gas testing is comprehensive for neutral pressure control rooms but requires flow measurements for positive pressure control rooms, which increases the overall uncertainty of the test result.
If the actual unfiltered in-leakage is small (< 100 CFM) and the pressurizing air flow is relatively large (>1000 CFM), the uncertainty in the air flow measurement causes the accuracy of the tracer
gas test to become very poor (30% - 60%). Using the parenthetical numbers as an example, an uncertainty of 10 percent in the airflow measurement yields an error band of at least +/- 100 CFM.
When this error is compared to the measured in-leakage, the overall test uncertainty approaches 100 percent measured.

2. Accuracy depends on how the flow measurement is made. Blower door testing provides an indication of structural leak tightness rather than a good measure of in-leakage. This test method does
not measure air leakage rates under normal conditions of weather and building operation.

3. Testing developed by Haven Brook National Labs using multiple tracer gases has the potential for conforming to an acceptable test; but has not been researched for NEI 99-03. This method has
the ability to discriminate and quantify leakage through different barriers (web site http:www.bnl.gov/ecd.htm ). WEB SITE current as of 9/3/00.

4. The volume between closed isolation dampers installed in tandem can be pressurized and the volumetric flow required to maintain the test pressure measured as the leakage. One of the two
dampers will be tested in the direction opposite the normal differential pressure condition. The results should be conservative since damper leakage in this direction should be greater than if it is
tested in the normal differential pressure direction.
1-14
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

TABLE 1-2
SEIECTTON OF COMPONENTS FOR COMPONENT TEST
SELECTION OF COMPONENTS FORCOMPONENT TEST

Vulnerability Discussion Component Acceptable

Area Test Component
Required/Not Test
Required
CRE ceiling/roof The positive pressure measurements of the CRE would show that Not required as NA
this vulnerability would not exhibit in-leakage as the leakage positive pressure
would be out of the CRE. precludes in
leakage
CRE walls The positive pressure measurements of the CRE would show that Not required as NA
this vulnerability would not exhibit in-leakage as the leakage positive pressure
would be out of the CRE. precludes in
leakage
CRE floor The positive pressure measurements of the CRE would show that Not required as NA
this vulnerability would not exhibit in-leakage as the leakage positive pressure
would be out of the CRE. precludes in
leakage
CRE penetration in This is the external portions of the penetrations. The positive Not required as NA
roof/ceilings; walls; pressure measurements of the CRE would show that the positive pressure
floor perimeter of these penetrations would not exhibit in-leakage as precludes in
the leakage would be out of the CRE. This also includes other leakage
types of penetrations that can provide potential leakage pathways;
for example, concrete anchors through block walls, which are not
sealed.
CRE doors The positive pressure measurements of the CRE would show that Not required as NA
this vulnerability would not exhibit in-leakage as the leakage positive pressure
would be out of the CRE. precludes in
leakage
Electrical conduits Determine that wall, floor and ceiling penetrations (i.e., conduits, Not required NA, otherwise
electrical cable trays, etc.) are properly sealed internally. If the provided that the use smoke
internals are not sealed then smoke pencils may be used to verify conduits, etc. are pencils. See
I no leakage through the open conduit, etc. However, if there is flow properly sealed discussion.
1-15
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Vulnerability Discussion Component Acceptable

Area Test Component
Required/Not Test
Required
indicated passing through the open conduits then an integrated internally
tracer gas test may be required.
Ducting, housings Determine if control room ducting and/or HVAC equipment Required See
located outside the located outside the CRE is at a negative pressure with respect to Acceptable
CRE adjacent areas. This is applicable to both operating and non- Method this
operating equipment, and to both HVAC ducting and filter system table
ducting. Any ducting andlor housings under a negative pressure
are a potential source for in-leakage. Access doors, hatches,
instrument lines, drain lines (should have loop seals to prevent
leakage), damper and fan shafts,
Isolation dampers Determine if AHU fans have the potential to draw air from Required See
located outside the isolated ducting lines (i.e., damper leakage) that penetrate the Acceptable
CRE and the ducting envelope boundary. Dampers may leak at the damper seals plus Method this
between the CRE the ducting may leak. table
wall/floor/ceiling and
the damper
Ducting, housings Determine if AHU fans have the potential to draw air from Required for See
located within the isolated ducting lines that penetrate the envelope boundary. ducting that is Acceptable
CRE susceptible to in- Method this
leakage table
Isolation dampers Determine if AHU fans have the potential to draw air from Required See
within the CRE and isolated ducting lines (i.e., damper leakage) that penetrate the Acceptable
the ducting between envelope boundary. Dampers may leak at the damper seals plus Method this
the CRE the ducting may leak. table
wall/floor/ceiling and
the damper
Ducting passing Determine if internal pressure of ducting is greater than the CRE. Required See
through the CRE Ducting may leak into the boundary and be a source of in-leakage. Acceptable
that is not isolated Method this
and is not part of the table
CR HVAC.
1-16
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Other systems Radiation monitors and pneumatic air airlines may be a source of Not required if it NA
in-leakage. These systems should be reviewed for leakage. can be shown that
Constant bleed air regulators can be a source of unfiltered in the lines do not
leakage along with operational venting of air operated leak. For
components. pneumatic air bleed
of the maximum
amount of design
bleed of a
component
(continuous or as
cycled) shall be
used. No test
required for this
item.
_______________ 1 4 -

1-17
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Component Acceptable Method*

Dampers 1. Direct Measurement Method of ANSI N510 Standard

2. Tracer Gas Technique using ASTM E 2029 Standard
3. ANSI ANS-56.8, "Containment System Leakage Testing Requirements"

Ducting and housings 1. Direct Measurement Method of ANSI N510 Standard

2. ASME AG-1-1997, "Code of Nuclear Air & Gas Treatment," Section TA, Mandatory Appendix TA-III, "Duct
and Housing Leak Test Procedural Guidelines"

*Other methods may be acceptable if they are associated with a standard.

The methods presented above are already accepted by the industry and
NRC for measuring leakage in ducts, housings and dampers.

1-18
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Table 1-3
Appendix I
Critical Documentation Requirements

Section Type of Test Selected*

Tracer Component Alternate

Gas
5.1 Acceptance Criteria Documented Yes Yes Yes
5.2 System Mode (s) for Testing Yes Yes Yes
5.3 Selection of Baseline Test - Basis Yes Yes Yes
5.3.2 Components selected to be tested NA Yes NA
5.4.2.4 In-leakage values measured for each mode selected in 5.2 Yes Yes Yes
NA - Not Applicable
* - One type of test should be selected for toxic gas, and one type of test should be selected for radiation. If the plant
response to both events is the same, then only one test that covers both toxic gas and radiation need be performed.

1-19
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

APPENDIX J

CONTROL ROOM ENVELOPE SEALING PROGRAM

1. PURPOSE/SCOPE

The purpose of a control room envelope (CRE) sealing program is to monitor and
maintain the pressure boundary penetrations such that the CRE habitability design and
licensing bases are met and maintained.

2. CRE BARRIER CONTROL

Control of the CRE pressure boundary should be maintained at all times (see Appendix
K). In the event that planned maintenance work, testing or plant conditions will affect
the CRE boundary, administrative control of the boundary should be procedurally
maintained.

3. SEALING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

A CRE assessment, as outlined in Appendix H, should consider the vulnerability of the

envelope to leakage. The assessment should include a review of applicable building and
system drawings and walkdowns. This information can then be used to identify all
penetrations, prioritize them according to safety significance and develop a cost-effective
sealing program. Such a program should include required inspection frequency, type of
acceptable materials, and repair and test procedures. The method and frequency of
inspection/repair/modification will depend on the type and safety significance of the seal.

The following is a list of typical penetrations and/or items that may have seals that would
allow in-leakage.

Abandoned pipe chases

AHU drains
AHU housing
Cable trays
Card readers
Conduits
Conduit penetrations
CR pressure boundary ducting outside CRE
CRE walls/ceilings/floors
Doors
Duct access panels
Duct expansion joints
Duct penetrations

J-1
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Ducting traversing CRE and at higher pressure

Expansion joints or seismic gaps
Fan housing/shaft
Fire dampers
Filter housing/drains
Flanged joints
Gaps at building wall/floor/ceiling intersections
Instrument air lines supplying CRE pneumatic components
Isolation dampers / shafts and gaps
Gaps (required for fire damper thermal expansion) around fire dampers
Other instrument lines
Previous repairs with RTV sealant
Through bolts for hangers or equipment

Basic guidelines for inspection are as follows, however, specific requirements will vary
with application, equipment vendor, type of sealant, etc. The term "approved," as used
below, means that the material, component or technique has been approved by the plant
engineering staff for the particular application.

3.1 Doors and Door Seals

The door should fit properly in the frame, with hinges securely attached. Door sweep
should be in continuous contact with the floor or threshold for the entire width of the
door. The gasket or seal should be an approved type, be free of cracks and should form a
contact seal around the entire perimeter of the door. The door and frame should be free
of breaks or open holes. With the door closed, the seal should be compressed against the
door at all points.

3.2 Dampers

Dampers, associated linkages and actuators should be inspected for proper movement
throughout the entire range of travel. If applicable, response to actuation signals and
required cycle time should be verified. Commensurate with the design and safety
analysis requirements, seal tightness should be verified. Frames should be checked for
dimensional stability and be structurally sound. Frame-to-wall gaps should be minimized
and consistent with vendor and UL requirements. Damper gaskets or seals, if required,
should be an approved type, be free of cracks and should form a contact seal around the
entire perimeter of the damper or where installed. The damper and frame should be free
of breaks or open holes. With the damper closed, the seal should be evenly compressed
against the damper at all points.

J-2
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

3.3 Gaps At Building Wall/Floor/Ceiling Intersections

All walls and intersections of the CRE should be visually inspected for integrity.
Deficiencies in original construction, building differential settlement and deterioration of
sealing materials can result in significant but unnoticed openings in the CRE. Due to
equipment, cabling and other interferences, these areas are difficult to inspect. Repairs
should be made using approved sealants or grouts, in accordance with vendor
instructions.

3.4 Ducting, Duct Penetrations, Expansion Joints

Welded ducting is preferable for CR HVAC ducting outside the CRE and for other
ductwork running through the CRE. For other types, all seams and connections should be
sealed with an approved sealant, such as room temperature vulcanization or hardcast, and
tested for leak tightness (Snoop or pressure decay methods). Duct penetrations should
also be sealed with an approved sealant or grout.

Expansion joints should be sealed and firmly clamped at each end, and should be free of
cracks, holes and or tears. If replacement of the joint is necessary, old adhesive should be
removed from the mating surfaces should be inspected for defects. The length and width
of the joint should allow for at least a one-inch overlap at each end. If the duct is located
outside, additional width should be included for slack, and the material should be rated
for sun and weather exposure, or be covered with an approved coating.

3.5 Electrical Cables, Conduits, Cable Trays

All electrical conduits and cable trays penetrating the CRE should be sealed with an
approved sealant. Sealing of the inside of the conduits is especially important due to the
large potential flow areas that may not be readily apparent during a normal visual
walkdown or inspection.

Close attention should be paid to the condition of penetrations. Typically, many wall and
floor penetrations are sealed with a silicone foam. Although the penetration may appear
to be sealed, in-leakage may still be occurring due to shrinkage of the foam, voids in the
seal due to cable relaxation, voids between the cables in cable bundles and improper cure
of the foam. Delamination of material in wall seals is also possible.

Electrical conduits and cable trays provide a significant potential source of in-leakage due
to the large number of these components. Normal problem areas include unsealed
conduits that terminate inside the CRE, intermediate connectors, junction boxes and
panels, and non-leak-tight flexible conduit. Cable trays that are not filled completely by
cable may leave voids that may have been overlooked during initial construction and
sealing efforts.

J-3
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

3.6 Instrumentation Or Air Tubing

All instrumentation or air tubing penetrating the CRE should be inspected for potential
leakpaths such as open valves in abandoned lines or insufficient seal around the tubing.

3.7 Air Handling Unit (AHU) / Fan Housings And Shafts

Inlet and outlet flanges should be sealed with approved sealants, or preferably
continuously welded on both sides. Any fan housing drains should have plugs installed.
AHU drain loop seals should be verified periodically. Separate sections of AHU
housings should have individual drains. High quality or double gaskets (not sealants)
should be used on cover plates and access doors. Bolts on cover plates and access doors
should be spaced on 3" to 4" centers. Recommended shaft seals are stuffing box seals,
lip seals or mechanical type seals. An arrangement using a neutral purge gas is also
effective.

3.8 Plumbing Equipment

All plumbing-related equipment in the CRE should be checked for potential leak paths.
Floors, restrooms, kitchens, showers and water fountains have drains. These drains must
have traps and should be inspected regularly to verify they are filled. Abandoned traps
and piping should be permanently closed or sealed.

4. Alternatives to Sealing

As indicated above, there are many opportunities for degradation of the CRE to occur,
such as normal equipment wear and changing operational practices. It may be
advantageous, therefore, to consider alternatives to supplement the sealing program.

"* Problem: Major equipment (AHUs, filters, dampers, etc. ) and long duct runs located
outside the envelope significantly increase the potential for unfiltered in-leakage, and
the effort required to detect and measure the in-leakage.
"* Solution: Permanently moving this equipment or ducting inside the envelope by
expanding the boundary walls, floors, etc, may be a cost-effective means of reducing
this problem.
"* Problem: Airflow balance inside the CRE may produce unfavorable pressure
differentials within separate spaces in the CRE, leading to potential positive pressure
differentials relative to the outside or adjacent spaces.
"* Solution: Careful flow balance testing may be required to resolve this problem.
Maintaining CRE internal doors open, adding door louvers to internal doors or
installing additional supply/return registers can improve pressure communication
within the CRE and prevent this problem.

J-4
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

The design and operation of ventilation systems serving adjacent spaces, safety
related as well as non safety-related, should be reviewed to prevent unfavorable CRE
adjacent space pressure differentials post accident.
This evaluation should consider scenarios both with and without off-site power.
From a CRE perspective, an accident without a loss of off-site power (LOOP) may
actually be worse due to continued operation of non-safety ventilation systems in
adjacent spaces. In some cases, modifications should be considered to shut off
non-safety exhaust or supply fans in the event that a LOOP does not occur.

J-5
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

APPENDIX K

CONTROL ROOM ENVELOPE BOUNDARY CONTROL PROGRAM

1. PURPOSE/SCOPE

This appendix provides guidance to control breaches of the CRE and may be used to
develop plant specific procedures.

2. SCOPE

A boundary control program should manage activities that breach the CRE such as:

"* The creation of a new penetration in the CRE

"* Opening of an existing penetration in the CRE
"* Any activity that restricts the normal closure of a CRE door
"* The removal of a CRE door/hatch from its design location
"* The blockage or breach of a CRE ventilation duct
"* Removal of or changes to structural components such that CRE boundary leak
tightness may be affected
"* Removal of fire, steam, high energy line break or flood barriers that also serve as the
CRE boundary
"* Any piping system breach (e.g., valves, pumps or pipes) that creates an air flow path
through the CRE boundary.
"* The removal of equipment and/or floor drain plugs from the CRE boundary.

3. DiscussiON

The physical CRE boundary is a fundamental element of CRE integrity. It is important

to control the CRE boundary to ensure that the design is maintained such that the
accident analyses remain valid. In the event that planned maintenance, testing or plant
conditions have potential to affect the CRE boundary, administrative control of the
boundary should be procedurally maintained. This includes controlling openings in the
boundary required for maintenance and modifications as well as preventing inadvertent
openings. A program should be in place to:

"* Evaluate the impact on the accident analyses when breaching the boundary
"* Monitor active breaches
"* Ensure pre-planned responses to close the breach in the event of a toxic gas or
radiological challenge are in place
"* Ensure that the boundary is restored.

K-1
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

Baseline testing measured the actual CRE in-leakage. This measured value is typically
less than the maximum in-leakage that can be tolerated and still meet regulatory limits.
The difference between these two values establishes a margin that can be used to
determine the maximum allowable size of a CRE breach to ensure that system operability
is maintained.

The breach size can impact the ability of a positive pressure control room to maintain the
minimum required differential pressure across the CRE boundary. If positive pressure
cannot be maintained, this may result in greater in-leakage. Additionally, the maximum
pressurization airflow rate allowed by the accident analyses may be adversely affected.

4. PROCESS

4.1 Impact Evaluation

Prior to breaching the CRE boundary, the activity should be evaluated for the
impact on control room habitability. This evaluation should consider, as a
minimum, the breach size and the ability to maintain the CRE integrity or rapidly
restore the boundary. The impact on fire boundaries, tornado protection
boundaries, security boundaries, etc., should also be considered when opening up
a boundary.

4.2 Breach Size

Evaluate the effect the breach has on in-leakage margin, pressurization flow rate
and required differential pressure across the boundary.

The first step in determining the maximum breach size is to identify the allowable
in-leakage based on the margin of the accident analyses. The second step is to
determine the impact on the differential pressure across the boundary that will be
breached under accident conditions. The third step is to calculate the maximum
breach size using the allowable in-leakage and differential pressure as inputs to
the orifice equation. If the anticipated breach size is less than the maximum
breach size, the activity is allowed.

For positive pressure control rooms, a test should be performed to verify that the
breach size does not adversely impact the CRE differential pressure and
pressurization air flow requirements.

If it can be demonstrated that the breach will not be open long enough to result in
exceeding toxic gas or dose limits, then the maximum breach size does not need
to be calculated.

If the breach size adversely impacts the accident analyses or system performance
requirements, compensatory measures may be necessary. These compensatory
measures may need a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation.

K-2
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

4.3 Ability to Rapidly Restore the Boundary

Breaches such as blocking doors open do not require evaluation if the breach can
be quickly restored. To make use of this exception, a person must be assigned
whose primary responsibility is to shut the door at the onset of abnormal
conditions. The assigned individual must also be in communication with the
control room.

4.4 Breach Monitoring

At any given time, multiple breach activities may be in progress. Controls should
be in place to monitor the number of breaches and ensure that the sum effect of all
the active breaches does not result in exceeding regulatory limits. This may be
accomplished via a breach permit tracking system, differential pressure
monitoring or controlling the number of work orders that impact control room
habitability.

4.5 Boundary Restoration

The breach shall be verified closed when the barrier has been restored (e.g.,
qualified penetration seal installed) and work-related compensatory measures
removed. All restoration activities should be documented.

K-3
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

APPENDIX L

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

1. PURPOSE / SCOPE

This appendix contains abbreviations, acronyms, and definitions applicable to the entire
document.

2. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACRS Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

ADV Atmospheric dump value

AEC Atomic Energy Commission (U.S.)

AFW Auxiliary feedwater

AHU Air handling unit

ANSI American National Standards Institute

AST Alternative source term

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

ATWS Anticipated transient without SCRAM

BBP Barrier breach permit

BWR Boiling water reactor

CEA Control Element Assembly

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

COLR Core operating limit report

CPR Critical power ratio

L-1
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

CR Control room

CRE Control room envelope

CREVS Control room emergency ventilation system

CRH Control room habitability

DBA Design basis accident

DCF Dose conversion factor

DEQ Dose equivalent

DEI Dose equivalent iodine

DF Decontamination factor

DNB Departure from nucleate boiling

DOE Department of Energy (U.S.)

ECCS Emergency core cooling systems

EDG Emergency diesel generator

EDO Executive director of operations

EAB Exclusion area boundary

EOP Emergency operating procedure

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

ERDA Emergency response data alarm

ESF Engineered safety feature

FHA Fuel handling accident

FSAR Final safety analysis report

GDC General design criteria(on)

L-2
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

GL Generic letter

GSI Generic safety issue

HELB High-energy line break

HFP Hot full power

HPSI High pressure safety injection

HVAC Heating, ventilation and air conditioning

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

IDLH Immediately dangerous to life and health

IEN Inspection and enforcement notice

IN Information notice

INPO Institute of Nuclear Power Operations

IPF Iodine partition factor

JCO Justification for continued operation

KI Potassium Iodine tablet

LCO Limiting condition for operation

LEPC Local emergency planning committee

LOAC Loss of AC

LOCA Loss-of-coolant accident

LOOP Loss of off-site power

LPZ Low population zone

LRA Locked rotor Accident

LWR Light water reactor

L-3
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

MHA Maximum hypothetical accident

MSLB Main steam line break

MSIV Main steam isolation valve

MSIVLCS MSIV leakage control system

MTC Moderator temperature coefficient

M&TE Measuring and test equipment

NEI Nuclear Energy Institute

NHUG Nuclear HVAC Utilities Issues Group

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NOV Notice of violation

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S.)

NRR Nuclear Reactor Regulation

OIE Office of Inspection & Enforcement

PMT Post-maintenance test

PNL Pacific Northwest Laboratories

PORV Power operator relief valve

PSAR Preliminary safety analysis report

PWR Pressurized water reactor

RAI Request for additional information

RCP Reactor coolant pump

RCS Reactor coolant system

REA Rod ejection accident

L-4
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

REM Roentgen equivalent man

RHR Residual heat removal

RMP Risk management program

RTV Room temperature vulcanization-as used in this document

commonly refers to sealants containing silicon that cure at room
temperature.

RWA Rod withdrawal accident

RG Regulatory guide

SBO Station blackout

SCBA Self-contained breathing apparatus

SER Safety evaluation report

SERC State emergency response commission

SG Steam generator

SGTR Steam generator tube rupture

SGTS Standby gas treatment system

SI Safety injection

SIAS Safeguards initiation activation signal

SMACNA Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National

Association

SRP Standard review plan

SSC Structure, system or component

SSE Safe shutdown earthquake

TEDE Total effective dose equivalent

TMI Three Mile Island

L-5
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

UFSAR Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

A/Q Atmospheric dispersion coefficient typically pronounced "chi

over q"

L-6
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

3. DEFINITIONS

AIR CHANGE FLOW (from ASTM E741): The total volume of air passing through the
zone to and from the outdoors per unit of time.

AIR CHANGE RATE (from ASTM E741): The ratio of the total volume of air passing
through the zone to and from the outdoors per unit of time to the volume of the zone.

ATTENDANT: The individual assigned to carry out the compensatory actions defined in the
barrier breach permit.

BOILING WATER REACTOR: A reactor in which water, used as both coolant and
moderator, is allowed to boil in the core. The resulting steam can be used directly to drive a
turbine and electrical generator, thereby producing electricity.

BOUNDARY: A combination of walls, floor, roof, ducting, doors, penetrations and

equipment that physically form the CRE.

BREACH: Any work activity or testing that creates or enlarges an opening through a barrier,
which would allow the propagation of a hazard through the barrier.

"* Modification (addition, removal or degradation) of a penetration seal or structural

component
"• Core boring
"* Blocking open a door/hatch or damper
"• Modification (addition, removal, or degradation) of a door/hatch or damper

DEPARTURE FROM NUCLEATE BOILING: The point at which the heat transfer from
a fuel rod rapidly decreases due to the insulating effect of a steam blanket that forms on the
rod surface when the temperature continues to increase.

DESIGN BASES: Information that identifies the specific functions to be performed by a

structure, system or component of a facility and the specific values or ranges of values
chosen for controlling parameters as reference bounds for design. These values may be (1)
restraints derived from generally accepted "state-of-the-art" practices for achieving
functional goals or (2) requirements derived from analysis (based on calculations and/or
experiments) of the effects of a postulated accident for which a structure, system or
component must meet its functional goals. (1OCFR50.2)

DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENT: A postulated accident that a nuclear facility must be

designed and built to withstand without loss to the systems, structures and components
necessary to assure public health and safety.

EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEMS: Reactor system components (pumps,

valves, heat exchangers, tanks and piping) that are specifically designed to remove residual

L-7
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

heat from the reactor fuel rods should the normal core cooling system (reactor coolant
system) fail.

ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURE: Features that are designed to automatically start to

mitigate the consequences at an accident. These systems help to prevent and/or control the
release of radiation.

FILTERED IN-LEAKAGE: This is leakage that occurs at a location that allows

contamination to be filtered prior to the air entering the habitability zone. An example is
duct leakage on the suction side of a pressurization filter system where the duct is outside the
control room envelope. Radionuclides are removed from this air prior to it entering the
habitability zone. There is no filtering assumed for toxic gas events.

GAP: The space inside a reactor fuel rod that exists between the fuel pellet and the fuel rod
cladding.

HAZARD: A condition or event that could jeopardize the operation of risk significant
equipment. Examples are fire, water, air, steam, smoke, CO 2, toxic gas, hot gas and security.

HAZARD BARRIER: A wall, floor/ceiling, penetration, door or hatch constructed of

building materials used to physically separate areas and contain hazards.

HAZARD DOOR/HATCH: barriers used to physically separate areas and contain hazards.
Examples are doors, blowout panels, dampers, or hatch plugs.

INOPERABLE BARRIER: A barrier that is inoperable such that it can not fully perform its
intended function.

INTEGRATED TRACER GAS TEST: A tracer gas test to determine total leakage of the
CRE. The tracer gas test is actually measuring the amount of air changing in the space (i.e.,
the air going out is being replaced by the air going in). This particular test does not locate
leaks; it only provides a value for total in-leakage.

LICENSING BASIS IN-LEAKAGE: This is the in-leakage that is used in the plant design
basis radiological analysis with design basis values of other plant parameters to calculate
control room operator dose during a licensing basis accident.

LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION: The section of Technical Specifications

that identifies the lowest functional capability or performance level of equipment required for
safe operation of the facility.

LOSS-OF-COOLANT ACCIDENT: Those postulated accidents that result in a loss of

reactor coolant at a rate in excess of the capability of the reactor makeup system from breaks
in the reactor coolant pressure boundary, up to and including a break equivalent in size to the
double-ended rupture of the largest pipe of the reactor coolant system.

L-8
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RADIATION IN-LEAKAGE: This is the value assumed in

the current licensing basis analysis. Calculated in-leakage value in cfm that will result in the
control room operators receiving the maximum allowable dose with design basis inputs of all
other parameters to the plant radiological analysis. This value must be calculated for each
plant.

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RADIATION IN-LEAKAGE FOR OPERABILITY

DETERMINATION: This is the calculated in-leakage value in cfm that will result in the
control room operators receiving the maximum allowable dose with realistic but verifiable
inputs of all other parameters to the plant radiological analysis. This value may take credit
for compensatory measures allowed by GL 91-18.

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TOXIC GAS IN-LEAKAGE: This is the maximum

calculated in-leakage of toxic gas that will result in the control room remaining habitable for
the bounding toxic gas hazard evaluation.

MAXIMUM HYPOTHETICAL ACCIDENT: The design basis accident that results in

the largest off-site dose.

MOX: Mixed oxide nuclear fuel

NDT: Non-destructive testing

PENETRATION: An opening in a CRE boundary wall or floor/ceiling, other than a

door/hatch, which contains materials or mechanical devices that prevent the propagation of a
hazard through the barrier. Some examples are:
"* Penetration seals
"* Structural material
"* Dampers for example, fire, tornado, etc.

PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR: A power reactor in which heat is transferred from

the core to an exchanger by high temperature water kept under high pressure in the primary
system. Steam is generated in a secondary circuit. Many reactors producing electric power
are pressurized water reactors.

RESPONSIBLE ENGINEER: Designated engineer for hazard barrier programmatic

controls.

ROENTGEN EQUIVALENT MAN: A standard unit that measures the effects of ionizing
radiation on humans.

SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE: A design-basis earthquake.

SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT: A report attached to an NRC approval letter that

documents the NRC's basis for approval of a submittal.

L-9
 NEI 99-03
June 2001

SAFETY INJECTION: The rapid insertion of a chemically soluble neutron poison (such as
boric acid) into the reactor coolant system to ensure reactor shutdown.

STATION BLACKOUT: Loss of all AC power at a single unit plant or on one of the units
at a dual unit plant.

TID: Technical information document

TRACER GAS (from ASTM E741): A gas that can be mixed with air in very small
concentrations in order to study air movement.

UNFILTERED IN-LEAKAGE: This is leakage that occurs at a location in the habitability

system that allows air to enter the control room envelope without any contaminants being
removed at the point of entry. Examples would be penetrations and dampers that are at a
negative pressure with respect to potentially contaminated surroundings and located such that
radionuclides are not removed prior to the in-leakage entering the control room.

L-10