DOE-STD-1189-2008, INTEGRATION OF SAFETY
INTO THE DESIGN PROCESS
Dr. Richard Englehart, Epsilon Systems Solutions
Pranab Guha, HS-21
John Rice, Epsilon Systems Solutions
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
EXPECTATIONS
I expect safety to be fully integrated into design early in the project. Specifically, by the start of the preliminary design, I expect a hazard analysis of alternatives to be complete and the safety requirements for the design to be established. I expect both project management and safety directives to lead projects on the right path so that safety issues are identified and addressed adequately early in the project design.
– Deputy Secretary of Energy, December 5, 2005
2
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
PURPOSE
DOE Standard 1189 has been developed to show how project management, engineering design, and safety analyses can interact to successfully implement the Deputy Secretary’s expectations
This course provides the central ideas and themes of 1189 and conveys lessons learned from project implementation of the Standard
3
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
OVERVIEW OF COURSE
• Safety-in-Design Concepts• Applicability • Project Integration and Planning• Design Process• Hazard and Accident Analyses and Inputs to the Design
Process• Appendices A – C • Facility Modifications• Lessons Learned• Q & A• Case Study
4
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
INSTRUCTIONAL GOAL
Upon successful completion of this lesson, students will be able to demonstrate a familiarity level knowledge of the background, philosophy, and contents of DOE-STD-1189, Integration of Safety into the Design Process
5
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
LESSON OBJECTIVES(SLIDE 1 OF 5)
Lesson Objectives
Explain why DOE-STD-1189 was developed.
Identify the “drivers” that require the use of DOE-STD-1189 for integrating safety into design.
Identify and explain the key concepts introduced by DOE-STD-1189.
Identify and explain the guiding principles for integrating safety into design.
6
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
LESSON OBJECTIVES (SLIDE 2 OF 5)
Explain the purpose of the DOE Integrated Project Team.
Explain the purpose of the Contractor Integrated Project Team.
Explain the purpose of the Safety Design Integration Team.
Explain how the Safety Design Strategy is developed. Describe its scope, preparation, format, and approval process.
7
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
LESSON OBJECTIVES (SLIDE 3 OF 5)
Describe how the requirements and deliverables identified in DOE-STD-1189 relate to the Project Lifecycle as described in DOE Order 413.3A.
Explain how the Critical Decision Process can be tailored based on project type, risk, size, duration, complexity and selected acquisition strategy.
8
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
LESSON OBJECTIVES (SLIDE 4 OF 5)
Identify and explain the key safety-related activities in each of the phases of a project:
Discuss the purpose and content of the following documents:
– Conceptual Safety Design Report.
– Conceptual Safety Validation Report.
– Preliminary Safety Design Report
– Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis
– DOE Safety Evaluation Report
9
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
LESSON OBJECTIVES (SLIDE 5 OF 5)
Identify common lessons learned from implementing
DOE-STD-1189.
State the purpose of the following appendices in DOE-STD-1189 and explain how each is used in the design process:
– Appendix A, Safety System Design Criteria
– Appendix B, Chemical Hazard Evaluation
– Appendix C, Facility Worker Hazard Evaluation
– Describe the facility modification process using DOE-STD-1189 10
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
STD-1189 ROADMAP (SLIDE 1 OF 6)
• For all audiences:
– Preface, with the key concepts and guiding principles upon which the Standard was developed,
– Chapter 1, Introduction (background, applicability, must and should) ;
– Chapter 2, Project Integration and Planning; and
– Chapter 3, Safety Considerations for the Design Process, which provides an overall perspective of the Safety-in-Design process through the Critical Decision stages.
11
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
STD-1189 ROADMAP(SLIDE 2 OF 6)
• Project safety personnel and DOE safety reviewers
– Chapter 4, Hazard and Accident Analyses
– Chapter 5, Nuclear Safety Design Criteria
– Chapter 6, Safety Reports
– Appendices A through D,
– Appendix F, Safety-in Design Relationship with the Risk Management Plan
– Appendix G, Hazards Analysis Table Development guides this basic safety-in-design input
12
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
STD-1189 ROADMAP(SLIDE 3 OF 6)
• Project management, both federal and contractor
– Chapter 7, Safety Program and Other Important Project Interfaces
– Appendix E, Safety Design Strategy
– Appendix F, Safety-in-Design Relationship with the Risk Management Plan
13
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
STD-1189 ROADMAP (SLIDE 4 OF 6)
• Project design personnel
– Chapter 5, Nuclear Safety Design Criteria
– Chapter 7, Safety Program and Other Important Project Interfaces
– Appendices A through D, which address safety design classifications for Safety Structures, Systems, and Components (Safety SSCs)
14
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
STD-1189 ROADMAP (SLIDE 5 OF 6)
• Safety Document Preparers and Reviewers
– Appendices H and I provide format and content guidance for the preparation of the Conceptual Safety Design Report (CDSA), Preliminary Safety Design Report (PDSA), and Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis (PDSA)
15
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
STD-1189 ROADMAP (SLIDE 6 OF 6)
• Project teams for potential major modifications of existing facilities:
– Chapter 8, Additional Safety Integration Considerations for Projects
– Appendix J, Major Modification Determination Examples
16
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SAFETY-IN-DESIGN BASIC PRECEPTS
• Appropriate and reasonably conservative safety structures, systems, and components are selected early in project designs
• Project cost estimates include these structures, systems, and components
• Project risks associated with safety structures, systems, and component selections are specified for informed risk decision-making by the Project Approval Authorities
17
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
DEVELOPMENT OF STD-1189 (SLIDE 1 OF 2)
Designed to be guided by and consistent with the principles of ISM and the requirements and guidance of DOE O 413.3A
Correlates with the DOE O 413.3A Critical Decision stages and safety design requirements of DOE O 420.1B and associated guidance documents
18
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
DEVELOPMENT OF STD-1189 (SLIDE 2 OF 2)
• Specifically references 413.3A guidance on
– Mission Need Statements
– Integrated Project Teams
– Project Execution Plans
– Risk Management Plans
19
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
CORRELATION TO ISM CORE FUNCTIONS
Define the work: Mission Need; Alternatives Definition
Analyze the hazards: Conceptual Design and follow on stages, hazards analysis, and design basis accidents
Identify safety controls: Follows from HA and safety classification
Perform the work: Integrate safety in the design process
Feedback and Improvement: Iterative process between design and safety
20
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SUMMARY OF KEY SAFETY-IN-DESIGN CONCEPTS
(SLIDE 1 OF 4)
Establishment and early involvement of Integrated Project Teams (IPT) and their coordination
Federal and Contractor IPTs; Contractor Safety Design Integration Team (SDIT)
Defining the overall strategy for the project, including how safety integration is to be accomplished, and obtaining DOE approval of the strategy
Safety Design Strategy, derived from DOE safety expectations defined in the pre-conceptual phase, is formalized and approved during conceptual design phase
21
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SUMMARY OF KEY SAFETY-IN-DESIGN CONCEPTS
(SLIDE 2 OF 4)
Identifying CD-1 as the key point in a project when major safety systems and design parameters should be defined
Focus on high potential cost safety implications: Hazard Category; building and major components seismic design categories; building confinement strategy; fire protection and power supply system classification
Establishing objective criteria for the designation and design of safety structures, systems, and components
STD-1189 Appendices A, B, and C (seismic design basis; collocated worker SSC safety classifications; in-facility worker safety classifications)
22
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SUMMARY OF KEY SAFETY-IN-DESIGN CONCEPTS
(SLIDE 3 OF 4)
A conservative front-end approach to safety-in-design that is reflected by a “risk and opportunities” assessment
Conservative approach early-on based on assumptions and incomplete information: input to project risk management plan (Risk and Opportunities Assessment) and information for cost estimates
Identifying key project interfaces (physical and programmatic) that affect design decisions
Project Interfaces: e.g., site infrastructure, security, waste management, emergency preparedness, DNFSB
23
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SUMMARY OF KEY SAFETY-IN-DESIGN CONCEPTS
(SLIDE 4 OF 4)
Ongoing involvement of DOE in safety-in-design decisions
Safety Design Strategy (SDS)
Conceptual and Preliminary Safety Design Reports (CSDR, PSDR)
Preliminary Documented Safety Design Analysis (PDSA)
Related DOE reviews and approvals
24
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
GUIDING PRINCIPLES (SLIDE 1 OF 3)
Derived from DOE O 420.1B, DOE O 413.3A, and their associated Guides
1. Use of O 420.1B and clearly articulated strategies to satisfy requirements
2. Control selection strategy order of preference
3. Following the design codes and standards in O 420’s associated Guides
4. Use of risk and opportunities assessments
25
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
GUIDING PRINCIPLES (SLIDE 2 OF 3)
5. Conservative early project safety decisions input to cost/schedule
6. CD packages describe safety decisions
7. Project team includes appropriate expertise
8. Safety personnel involved from onset of project planning
26
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
GUIDING PRINCIPLES (SLIDE 3 OF 3)
9. Important safety functions addressed during conceptual design
10.SDIT invokes the safety-in-design process
11. All stakeholder issues identified early and addressed
12.Bases for safety related decisions are documented
27
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
APPLICABILITY
The Standard applies to the design and construction of:
– New DOE hazard category (HC) 1, 2, and 3
nuclear facilities
– Major modifications to DOE HC 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities (as defined by 10 CFR 830)
– Other modifications to DOE HC 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities managed under the requirements of DOE O 413.3A
28
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SAFETY AND DESIGN INTEGRATION
Project Integration and Planning
29
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
KEY COMPONENTS OF PROJECT INTEGRATION AND PLANNING
• Federal Integrated Project Team
• Contractor Integrated Project Team
• Safety Design Integration Team
• Safety Design Strategy
• Risk and Opportunities Assessments
• DOE and Contractor Roles and Responsibilities
Saf
ety
Des
ign
Pro
ject Man
agem
ent
Interfaces
Safety-in-Design
30
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189 31
RELATIONSHIPS OF MAJOR PROJECT ENTITIES
Acquisition Executive
DOE SBAA/SBRT
Contractor IPT
Engineering
Design
Safety Analysis
SDIT
Contractor ProjectManager
DOE Program Manager
Federal IPTFederal Project
Director
31
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
FEDERAL INTEGRATED PROJECT TEAM(SLIDE 1 OF 3)
FPD leads an IPT with representation necessary for project success
FPD and IPTs must aggressively lead the project (not passively monitor and review)
IPT formally established at CD-1 (really needs to be established at the beginning of Conceptual design)
Roles, responsibilities, and functions of the Federal IPT are provided in DOE G 413.3-18, Integrated Project Teams Guide for Use with DOE O 413.3A
32
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
FEDERAL INTEGRATED PROJECT TEAM (SLIDE 2 OF 3)
From DOE G 413.3-18: The IPT is the primary tool for breaking down the
walls that can exist between different organizations, different professions, and different levels within the different organizations’ command structures. A successful IPT brings these diverse elements together to form a unit that willingly shares information, balances conflicting priorities and ideologies, and jointly plans and executes the project mission. (¶ 2.2)
33
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
FEDERAL INTEGRATED PROJECT TEAM (SLIDE 3 OF 3)
From DOE G 413.3-18 (Continued): The initial requirement imposed upon the IPT by
DOE O 413.3A is to support the FPD by providing individual expertise to fill the voids in his or her knowledge base in the areas of planning and implementing the project… (¶ 2.4.1)
34
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
WHAT IS THE CONTRACTOR INTEGRATED PROJECT TEAM?
Standard 1189 encourages the formation of the Contractor IPT; similar makeup to Federal IPT
Comprised of personnel who ensure integration of mission need, safety analysis, and design
Diversity of expertise is essential
Project process understanding very helpful
Strong upper management support to IPT members
Need consistency and longevity of team members
Team formed after approval of CD-0
35
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
Typical Contractor IPT Representation
Facility Owner/Operator
Funding Organization
Project Management
Health, Safety, and Radiation Protection
Nuclear Safety
Engineering
Waste Management
Procurement
Safeguards and Security (as needed)
Quality Assurance
Computing, Communications and Networking
DOE Representative
36
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
CONTRACTOR IPT KEY POINTS (SLIDE 1 OF 2)
Parallel management functions as the Federal IPT, but from the contractor’s perspective
Safety Design Integration Team (SDIT) directly supports the CIPT, and through it, the Federal IPT
37
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
CONTRACTOR IPT KEY POINTS (SLIDE 2 OF 2)
Lesson Learned:
Biggest challenge for the CIPT/SDIT is to assure active and effective communications between engineering design activities and safety analysis activities
Especially true when they are not collocated
Failure to support the iterative interactions between safety analysis and design is equivalent to failure to implement the processes of STD-1189
38
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
WHAT IS THE SAFETY DESIGN INTEGRATION TEAM (SDIT)?
• Provides working-level integration of safety into design for the project
• Usually composed of subset of Contractor IPT plus other specialties as needed
• Core team
– Safety
– Design
– Operations (including maintenance)
• Additional composition depends on the hazards, safety, and security issues
Operations
SafetyDesign
39
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SDIT OBJECTIVES
• Ensure integration of safety in design by adherence to the key concepts and guiding principles of DOE-STD-1189
• Document the bases for all safety in design decisions
• Maintain consistency of and configuration management between safety and design work
• Resolve initial uncertainties and assumptions for safety in design
• Achieve consensus and approvals for direction of safety in design progress
40
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SDIT FUNCTIONS (SLIDE 1 OF 2)
Timely communications with and support to CIPT and IPT
Conduct Risk and Opportunities Assessment (input to RMP)
Draft safety documents (CSDR, PSDR, PDSA)
41
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SDIT Functions (SLIDE 2 OF 2)
Ensure the iterative safety/engineering design process is effective and that the identified safety functions:
Lead to selection of controls that are adequate to serve the safety functions and are consistent with operational needs
Are classified appropriately
Are accommodated in project cost and schedule estimates
42
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SDIT Best Practices
SDIT should have a charter
– Define membership (core team and SMEs)
– Designate lead
– Define roles and responsibilities
– Specify required training for members
SDIT should use formal processes
43
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SAFETY DESIGN STRATEGY (SDS) (SLIDE 1 OF 3)
“…must be developed for all projects subject to this Standard.” (¶ 2.3)• Developed from CD-0 definition of DOE
expectations for execution of safety during design
• Prepared by SDIT; reviewed by DOE Safety Basis Review Team (SBRT); approved by Federal Project Director and Safety Basis Approval Authority (SBAA)
44
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SAFETY DESIGN STRATEGY (SDS) (SLIDE 2 OF 3)
• Is a living document, updated throughout the project stages as needed
• Provides the mechanism by which all elements of the project and approval authorities can agree on basic safety in design approaches
• Single source for project safety policies, philosophies, major safety requirements, and safety goals to maintain alignment of safety with the design basis during project evolution
45
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SAFETY DESIGN STRATEGY (SLIDE 3 OF 3)
Addresses:
– Guiding philosophies or assumptions to be used to develop the design
– Safety-in-design and safety goal considerations for the project
– Approach to developing the overall safety design basis for the project
– Significant discipline interfaces affecting safety
46
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SDS UPDATES
Focus is on those major safety decisions that influence project cost (e.g., seismic design criteria, confinement ventilation, safety functional classification, and strategy)
Provide a means by which all parties are kept informed of and agree with important changes due to safety in design evolution between Critical Decision points
47
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SDS FORMAT(SEE APPENDIX E)
1. Purpose
2. Description of the Project
3. Safety Strategy
3.1 Safety guidance and requirements
3.2 Hazard identification
3.3 Key safety decisions
4. Risks to Project Decisions
5. Safety analysis approach and plans
6. SDIT – Interfaces and integration
48
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
Risk Assessment
DOE O 413.3A CD-1 requirement: “Prepare a preliminary Project Execution Plan, including a Risk Management Plan (RMP) and Risk Assessment… “ (Table 2)
Risk management strategies must address
- All technical uncertainties (including schedule and cost implications)
- Establishment of design margins
- Increased technical oversight requirements
49
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
RISK AND OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT
(R & OA) (SLIDE 1 OF 2)
DOE-STD-1189 Risk and Opportunities Assessment is:
Required by the Order and the Standard and
Provides the safety-related input to the Project Risk Management Plan
Purpose is to recognize and manage risks of proceeding at early stages of design on the basis of incomplete knowledge or assumptions regarding safety issues
50
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
RISK AND OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT (R & OA)
(SLIDE 2 OF 2)
SDIT prepares R & OA and updates it throughout the project phases
Reviewed by IPT and DOE Safety Basis Review Team and approved by the Federal Project Director
Discussed in DOE STD-1189 Appendix F
51
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
EXAMPLE RISK AREAS (SLIDE 1 OF 2)
Technical
Uncertain seismic requirements (seismic geotechnical investigation)
SSC classifications (safety and seismic)
Interfaces with site infrastructure and boundaries of safety SSCs with them
Undefined, incomplete, unclear safety functions and requirements
New or undecided technology
52
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
EXAMPLE RISK AREAS (SLIDE 2 OF 2)
Programmatic Level:
Interfaces with other facilities (inputs and outputs)
Coordination between design and safety organizations (if different)
Implications of less than optimum dedicated IPT support for FPD
Including ability to actively manage risks, including programmatic
53
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (SLIDE 1 OF 2)
Product/Document
Responsibility Interface with
Other Documents/
ProductsPrepare Review Approve
SDS SDIT IPT and SBRT FPD and SBAADOE
expectations in Mission
Need Statement
R&OA SDIT IPT and SBRT FPD Input to RMP
CSDR SDIT IPT and SBRT Via CSVR CDR
CSVR SBRT IPT SBAA with FPD Concurrence
CSDR and CDR
PSDR SDIT IPT and SBRT Via PSVRPreliminary
Design54
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (SLIDE 2 OF 2)
Product/Document
Responsibility Interface with
Other Documents/Produ
ctsPrepare Review Approve
PSVR SBRT IPT SBAA with FPD Concurrence
PSDR
PDSA SDITIPT and SBRT
Via SER Final Design
SER SBRT IPT SBAA with FPD Concurrence
PDSA
DSA and TSR
SDIT and Operations
Team
IPT and SBRT Via SERPDSA
TSR is based on the DSA.
SER SBRT SBAA DSA and TSR55
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
WHAT PARTS OF THE STANDARD ARE MANDATORY?
(SLIDE 1 OF 2)
Originating with STD-1189– Safety Design Strategy
– Risk and Opportunities Assessment
– CSDR and PSDR (and DOE reviews)
– Appendix A seismic design basis and collocated worker safety significant SSC criteria
– Major Modification Determination (documented in SDS)
– Key Concepts and Guiding Principles (for full implementation of STD-1189)
56
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
WHAT PARTS OF THE STANDARD ARE MANDATORY?
(SLIDE 2 OF 2)
Derivative 10 CFR 830.206: PDSA; design criteria of O 420.1B
DOE O 413.3A Chg. 1: requires implementation of STD-1189
DOE O 420.1B: nuclear safety, fire safety, criticality, NPH
57
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
Safety and Design Integration DOE-STD-1189-2008
Design Process by Project Phase
58
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
PROJECT LIFECYCLEP
re-P
roje
ct
Pla
nnin
gP
re-C
once
ptua
l
Con
cept
ual
Pre
limin
ary
Des
ign
Fin
al D
esig
n
Con
stru
ctio
nTu
rnov
er/A
ccep
tanc
e
Ope
ratio
ns
CD-0 CD-1 CD-2 CD-3 CD-4
59
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
PRE-CONCEPTUAL PHASE
• Objective is to identify and assess a program gap and then to propose a project to close the mission related performance gap
• Analysis focus:– Special Safety Requirements– New facility or modification– Available technology– Process material inputs and outputs– Upper level facility functions
– Results in the development of Mission Need which becomes a baseline document in the project if CD-0 is granted
60
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SAFETY-RELATED ACTIVITIES IN PRE-CONCEPTUAL PHASE
(SLIDE 1 OF 2)
Assign project safety lead (establishes continuity)
Initial assessment of project safety issues
Identify top level hazards (including process inputs and
outputs)
Determine preliminary hazard categorization
Identify unique constraints affecting project safety
approach
Develop DOE expectations for safety activities
61
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
DEVELOP DOE EXPECTATIONS FOR EXECUTION OF SAFETY ACTIVITIES
(SLIDE 1 OF 2)
Examples:
Anticipated safety issues/hazards and goal (if any) for hazard category
(Can affect process capacity through MAR limits; can affect issues regarding criticality hazards; could affect siting)
Potential need for improvements in site infrastructure to support facility safety systems (an interface issue that might expand scope of the project)
62
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
DEVELOP DOE EXPECTATIONS FOR EXECUTION OF SAFETY ACTIVITIES
(SLIDE 2 OF 2)
Potential need for geotechnical studies
Expectations regarding confinement strategy
Project tailoring (e.g., PDSA only for a major mod)
Anticipated need for exceptions to O 420.1B and associated guides
63
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189 64
PRE-CONCEPTUAL PHASECD-0, Establish Mission Need
Pro
ject
E
ngin
eerin
gP
rogr
am a
nd P
roje
ct
Man
agem
ent
Saf
ety
Des
ign
Bas
is Identify Safety Hazards
3.1Pre-conceptual
Hazards Analysis and Categorization
3.1
Safety in Design Tailoring Strategy
3.1
DOE Expectations for Safety in
Design3.1
Mission Needs Statement
Program Requirements
Document (NNSA only)
Mission Requirements
Initial Alternatives
Analysis
CD-0 Approval
A
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
Identify Important Project Interfaces
Criticality
Quality Assurance
Fire Protection
Emergency Management
Human Factors
Site Infrastructure
Worker Safety and Health (10 CFR 851)
Radiological Protection
Hazardous Waste Management
Safeguards and Security
Transportation
Environmental Protection
Coordination with the DOE SBRT
65
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PHASE
Goal for safety-in-design in this phase is to evaluate alternative design concepts, prepare the SDS, and provide a conservative design basis for the preferred concept
Perform sufficient analysis to make informed safety decisions for this phase
Document risks and opportunities for selections including cost and schedule range impacts
Begin considerations of quality requirements, Quality Assurance Program (QAP) established
(This phase is the best opportunity for safety analysis to cost-effectively influence design)
66
67
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PHASEPre-CD-1, Conceptual Design
Proj
ect E
ngin
eerin
gSa
fety
Des
ign
Basi
sPr
ogra
m a
nd P
roje
ct
Man
agem
ent
Identify Project Functional and
Operational Requirements
Safety in Design Considerations
3.2
Project Alternative Analysis
Recommended Alternative(s)
DOE O 420.1 Nuclear Safety Design Criteria
5.0
CDR
Safety Design Strategy
2.3
Preliminary Hazards Analysis
4.2CSDR
4.2
Facility-Level DBA Unmitigated
Analysis4.2
Specify Safety Functions &
Classifications4.2
Conceptual Safety Validation Report
Preliminary Security
Vulnerability Assessment
Risk Management Plan
Project Cost/Schedule Range
Estimates
Conceptual Design Package Submittal
Alternative Selection Approval & Cost/Schedule
Range Established
Project Risk Considerations
Safety in Design Risk and
Opportunities Assessment
3.2
Required Technical Studies
Identification
Conceptual Design for Recommended
Alternative(s)
Design Reviews (Fed and/or
Contractor, as appropriate)
CD-0 Approval
Update SDS, as needed
2.3
A
CD-1 Approval
B
B
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
KEY SAFETY-RELATED ACTIVITIES(SLIDE 1 OF 3)
Form Integrated Project Teams (both DOE and Contractor) and SDIT
Develop Preliminary Security Vulnerability Assessment
Develop Preliminary Fire Hazards Analysis
Develop Safety Design Strategy
Establish Configuration Management
68
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
KEY SAFETY-RELATED ACTIVITIES (SLIDE 2 OF 3)
Evaluate alternatives and provide recommendations
Assess risks and opportunities as input to the Risk Management Plan
Develop preliminary hazard analysis (PHA) for recommended alternative
– Define safety functions
– Identify high-cost safety systems
– Initiate hazard analysis data capture (Appendix G)
69
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
KEY SAFETY-RELATED ACTIVITIES
(SLIDE 3 OF 3)
Identify facility-level design basis accidents (DBAs)
– Bounding consequences
– Safety and seismic classification
Commit to nuclear safety design requirements (DOE O 420.1B) and place under design control
Develop Conceptual Safety Design Report (CSDR)
Maintain project interfaces focus (see Ch 7 of STD-1189)
70
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
CONCEPTUAL SAFETY DESIGN REPORT (CSDR)
(SLIDE 1 OF 2)
Document and establish a preliminary inventory of hazardous materials
Establish a preliminary hazard categorization
Identify and analyze facility-level DBAs
Assess the need for facility-level hazard controls (safety SSCs)
71
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
CONCEPTUAL SAFETY DESIGN REPORT (SLIDE 2 OF 2)
Preliminary assessment of appropriate seismic design bases (facility structure and SSCs)
Evaluate security hazards that can impact the safety design basis
Commitment to nuclear safety design criteria
Format and content of CSDR in Appendix H
72
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
CONCEPTUAL SAFETY VALIDATION REPORT (CSVR)
CSVR prepared to confirm an appropriately conservative basis to proceed to preliminary design, based on:– preliminary hazard categorization of the facility– preliminary identification of facility DBAs– assessment of the need for SC and SS facility-level hazard
controls– preliminary assessment of the appropriate seismic design
bases– position(s) taken with respect to compliance with the safety
design criteria of DOE O 420.1B
73
74
PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE
Pre- CD-2, Preliminary Design
Saf
ety
Des
ign
Bas
isP
roje
ct E
ngin
eerin
gP
rogr
am a
nd P
roje
ct
Man
agem
ent
CD-1 Approval
Initiate Preliminary Design
Update Security Vulnerability Assessment
Update Risk Management Plan
Establish Technical, Cost, & Schedule Baseline
CD-2 Preliminary Design Package
Identify Detailed Nuclear Safety Design Criteria DOE O 420.1
5.0Validate Design
vs. Desired Control Functions
& Criteria3.3
Develop Design Output Documents
Design Reviews (Fed and/or
Contractor, as appropriate)
Hazards Analysis4.3
System Level DBA Unmitigated
Analysis4.3
Update Safety SSC Functions
and Classification4.3
PSDR4.3
Preliminary Safety Validation Report
DOE Approves Technical, Cost, & Schedule Baseline
Update Safety in Design Risk & Opportunities Assessment
3.3
Baseline Validation
Independent Review
Updated SDS, as needed
2.3
Update Project Risk
Considerations
CD-2 Approval
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE
Advance conceptual design toward final design
Evolve the Hazard Analysis (HA) to include process level HA
Develop design-specific solutions based on safety design requirements
Prepare for final design
Complete NEPA documentation by end of design phase
75
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SAFETY ACTIVITIES IN PRELIMINARY DESIGN
(SLIDE 1 OF 2)
Update Security Vulnerability Assessment
Update hazard analysis (HA) to address process level hazards based on the selected design
Evaluate and apply DOE O 420.1B and associated guides
Evolve system-level DBAs with appropriate added specificity based on selected design
76
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SAFETY ACTIVITIES IN PRELIMINARY DESIGN
(SLIDE 2 OF 2)
Update Risk and Opportunity Assessment
Update SDS reflecting design and safety evolution
Develop the Preliminary Safety Design Report (PSDR)
77
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
PRELIMINARY SAFETY DESIGN REPORT(PSDR)
Developed to demonstrate safety adequacy of the preliminary design effort
Limited to the extent that design information is also limited
Format and content guide in DOE STD 1189 Appendix I
DOE prepares Preliminary Safety Validation Report (PSVR) to approve PSDR, similar to (CSVR) in purpose and scope
78
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SAFETY ACTIVITIES IN FINAL DESIGN
Update and finalize preliminary safety in design analyses, information and documentation
Update Risk and Opportunity Assessment (as needed)
Update SDS reflecting design and safety evolution (as needed)
Develop Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis
DOE prepares a Safety Evaluation Report
79
80
FINAL DESIGN PHASE Pre - CD -3, Final Design
Safe
ty D
es i
gn B
asis
Pro
ject
Eng
inee
r ing
Prog
ram
and
Pro
ject
M
anag
em
ent
CD- 2 Approval
Initiate Final Design
Update Security Vulnerability Analysis
Update Risk Management Plan
Baseline Management
CD-3 Final Design Package
Validate Design vs. Desired
Control Functions & Criteria
3. 4
Develop Design Output Documents
Design Reviews ( Fed and/ or Contractor, as appropriate )
Update Hazards Analysis
4.4
Mitigated Accident Analysis 4 .4
Update Safety SSC Functions
and Classification4.4
PDSA4 .4
Safety Evaluation Report
DOE Authorizes Procurement ,
Construction , & Final
Implementation
Update Safety in Design Risk & Opportunities Assessment
3 .4
Execution Readiness
Independent Review
Updated SDS, as needed
2 .3
Update Project Risk
Considerations
CD- 3 Approval
Construction, Transition , &
Closeout7 .0
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
FINAL DESIGN PHASE
Finalizes HA and DBAs (mitigated analysis)
Evolves the preliminary design to the point where
– Specifications are developed
– Security Vulnerability Assessment is finalized
– Procurement and construction can be accomplished
– Test, inspection, and commissioning requirements are developed and detailed
– System Design Descriptions (SDD) and Facility Design Description (FDD) are completed
81
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTED SAFETY ANALYSIS (PDSA)
Evolves from the PSDR
Completes the analysis of the design
Format and content covered in Appendix I
– Based on DOE-STD-3009 format
– Minimizes need to rewrite for DSA
Provides the basis for design adequacy with respect to safety
Change control of PDSA is established
82
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
CONSTRUCTION ,TRANSITION, AND CLOSEOUT PHASE DESIGN RELATED
ISSUES
Field Changes
Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) and other equipment not part of primary design
Revisions to PDSA
Changes to comply with readiness review issues
Input to Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) and Technical Safety Requirements (TSR)
83
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING PDSA REVISION
(SLIDE 1 OF 2)
The change:
- alters a safety function for a safety SSC identified in the current PDSA
- results in a change in the functional classification, reliability, or rigor of the design standard for an SSC previously specified in the PDSA configuration baseline
84
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING PDSA REVISION
(SLIDE 2 OF 2)
• requires implementation of new or changed safety SSC or proposed TSR controls
• significantly alters the process design or its bases, such as increased material at risk, changes to seismic spectra, major changes to process control software logic, new tanks, new piping, new pumps, or different process chemistry
85
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
Safety and Design Interactions
Hazard and Accident Analyses and Inputs to the Design Process
86
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
Hazard and Accident Analysis:Initial Information Needed
(SLIDE 1 OF 2)
Facility site/location
General arrangement drawings
MAR estimates or assumptions and material flow balances
Sizing of major process system containers, tanks, piping
87
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
Hazard and Accident Analysis:Initial Information Needed
(SLIDE 2 OF 2)
Process block flow diagrams for:
– Ventilation
– Electrical power
– Special mechanical handling equipment (e.g., gloveboxes)
– Instrumentation and control (I&C) system architecture
Summary process design description and sequence
Confinement strategy
88
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
Hazard and Accident Analysis (SLIDE 1 OF 2)
At conceptual design stage (facility level analyses)
- Building structure
- Building and process confinement
- Power systems, including Safety Class single failure criteria
- Fire protection provisions
- Special mechanical equipment (e.g., gloveboxes)
Initial focus on high-cost safety functions and design requirements
89
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
Hazard and Accident Analysis (SLIDE 2 OF 2)
At preliminary and final design stages
- Update and refine conceptual design analyses
- Extend to process and activity level and safety functions and SSCs
90
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
Hazard and Accident Analysis:
Accident Types to Consider
Fires
Explosions
Loss of confinement/containment
Process upsets (starting in preliminary design)
Natural Phenomena Hazards
Design basis accidents (for the accident types)
Beyond design basis accidents (starting in preliminary design)
91
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
Hazard and Accident Analysis:Outputs to Engineering Design
For Structures, Systems, and Components (SSCs), based on DOE O 420.1B safety design requirements
- Performance Categories (wind, flood, etc.)
- Seismic Design Basis
- Safety Class functions
- Safety Significant functions
- Defense in depth /Important to Safety (ITS) safety functions
Design codes and standards from Guides associated with DOE O 420.1B
92
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
HAZARD ANALYSIS AND DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENTS (DBAS)
AT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
Simple DBAs are postulated based on facility level upsets involving limiting quantities of MAR and facility layout
Unmitigated consequences are assessed to help establish both needed safety function and safety classification of that function
These accidents are analyzed for both collocated workers and public impact; they are to help define safety functional and design requirements
DBAs are refined and expanded upon in later stages of project
93
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
HAZARD ANALYSIS (HA) AT THE PROCESS LEVEL
HA and design iteration– HA activities support identification of safety functions and
selection of DBAs– Includes consideration of in-facility workers– DBAs and safety functions support design selection and
associated design criteria– Design selection / criteria support development of a refined
HA for the PSDR– Several iterations may be necessary as preliminary design
progresses– Hazard Analysis table updated as necessary
94
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
Design Basis Accidents in Preliminary Design
The Design Basis Accidents (DBAs):– Refined from Conceptual Design based on system design
– Provide input for new or revised design criteria
– Establish system-level safety classification
DBAs are selected based on safety function and magnitude of hazard– Consider public and collocated worker consequences
95
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SAFETY INTERFACE WITH DESIGN (SLIDE 1 OF 2)
Assist designers in understanding and addressing
– Safety requirements from hazards and accident analyses
– Safety implications associated with design alternatives and trade studies
– Safety interpretation of DOE O 420.1B and DOE G 420.1-1 requirements and recommendations
96
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SAFETY INTERFACE WITH DESIGN(SLIDE 2 OF 2)
Safety input into System Design Descriptions (SDD)
– System boundaries
– Safety functions and requirements
– Supporting analyses (safety SSCs can provide safety function when called upon)
Project design reviews
– Include safety design basis information and information included in design products (e.g., SDDs)
97
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
WHEN TO COMMUNICATEBETWEEN
DESIGN AND SAFETY
Factor Engineering Design Safety
Potential Accident Scenarios
• Changes in facility or process layout• Barriers to accident propagation established, changed, or
removed (e.g., fire barriers, separation of hazardous materials)
• Introduction of new sources of energy or hazard (e.g., chemical, mechanical, kinetic, potential, flammable, explosive)
Effect of any design factor where change:
• Introduces a new accident scenario
• alters a safety function for an SSC
• results in a change in safety functional classification, reliability, or design standards
• requires a new safety SSC or implies a new TSR control
• significantly alters process design or its basis
Material at Risk (MAR)• Tank Size• Process details (e.g., inventory in gloveboxes)• Total facility inventory, including all hazardous materials
Damage Ratio (DR) Facility and/or process layout, including fire barriers
Airborne Release Fraction MAR material type and form (gaseous, powder, solid)
Leakpath Factor (LPF)• Physical barriers to release of hazardous materials• Building seismic design basis (SDB: Seismic Design
Category/Limit State (SDC/LS))
Chi over Q (X/Q) • Location change• Definition of site boundary
98
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMACTIVITIES FOR DESIGN PROCESS
Establish formal work processes (document control, verification processes, configuration management)
Training on standards, requirements, work processes
Periodic assessments of documentation
Independent design verifications, validations, assessments
Controlling documents and drawings and changes to them to approved processes
Identifying and controlling design interfaces
99
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SAFETY AND DESIGN INTEGRATION DOE-STD-1189-2008
Appendix A – Safety System Design Criteria
100
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
Purpose of Appendix A
Provides objective criteria requirements for specification of the seismic design basis and for safety classifications of safety SSCs
Seismic design basis includes specification of seismic design category (SDC) and limit state (LS) for a safety SSC based on radiological hazards
Adds collocated worker Safety Significant radiological classification criterion along with Safety Class criterion for the public
101
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
Seismic Design Basis
Applies recently published national standards for seismic design of non-reactor nuclear facilities
ANSI/ANS 2.26-2004, Categorization of Nuclear Facility Structures, Systems and Components for Seismic Design; and
ASCE/SEI 43-05, Seismic Design Criteria for Structures, Systems, and Components in Nuclear Facilities.
102
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
Seismic Design Standards
ANSI/ANS 2.26 provides seismic design bases (SDC and LS) for safety SSCs based on unmitigated radiological dose (as modified by DOE) to collocated workers and to the public and on the safety function of the safety SSC.
ASCE/SEI 43-05 provides the design criteria to use with the seismic design basis (SDB)
103
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
Seismic Design Criteria
* Using the safety classification methodology for public and collocated workers
** If the public dose for SDC-3 is exceeded significantly for any project (between one and two orders of magnitude), then the possibility that SDC-4 should be invoked must be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Unmitigated Consequence of SSC Failure from a Seismic Event
Category Collocated Worker* Public*
SDC-1 Dose < 5 rem Not applicable – Defaults to SDC-1
SDC-2 5 rem < dose < 100 rem 5 rem < Dose < 25 rem
SDC-3 100 rem < dose 25 rem < dose**
104
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
LIMIT STATES (EXAMPLES FROM ANS 2.26)
SSC Type Limit State A Limit State B Limit State C Limit State D
Building structural components
Substantial loss of SSC stiffness; some margin against collapse
Some loss of SSC stiffness; substantial margin against collapse
SSC retains nearly full stiffness and strength; passive components will perform normal and safety functions
SSC damage is negligible
Structures or vessels for containing hazardous material
Low hazardous material; vessel not likely to be repairable
Moderate hazardous liquids; cleanup and repair expeditious
Low pressure vessels with worker hazard if contents released; damage minor
Leak tightness must be assured; moderate to high hazard gases/liquids
Other SSCs covered include: confinement barriers (glove boxes, ducts), equipment support structures, filter assemblies and housings, etc.
105
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
COMPARISON OF SDB TO PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
1A
1B
1C
2A
2B
3A
3B
3C
3D
4A
4B
4C
4D
5A
5B
5C
5D
Sei
smic
Des
ign
Bas
is
Seismic Ruggedness Factor
PC-4
PC-3
PC-2
PC-1
106
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE FOR ANS 2.26 WHEN SELECTING SDCS
AND LIMIT STATES (SDB)
Safety analyst, seismic design engineer and the equipment design engineer evaluate the functional requirements for the safety SSC and its subcomponents to determine the appropriate Seismic Design Basis (SDB).
If the safety functions of a safety SSC include confinement and leak tightness, a Limit State C or D must be selected.
Guidance is provided for an SDC-1 or SDC-2 SSC having safety functions requiring Limit States A, B, C or D.
107
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SAFETY CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY:
PUBLIC PROTECTION
The guidance of DOE G 421.1-2 and DOE-STD-3009, Appendix A, should be used in classifying SSCs as Safety Class (SC) for radiological protection
– The words “challenging” or “in the rem range” in those documents should be interpreted as radiological doses equal to or greater than 5 rem, but less than 25 rem
– In this range (5 to 25 rem), SC designation should be considered, and the rationale for the decision to classify an SSC as SC or not should be explained and justified
108
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SAFETY CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY:
COLLOCATED WORKER PROTECTION
Use unmitigated accident analysis source term guidance in DOE-STD-3009, Appendix A, Section A.3.2 and DOE G 420.1-1
Use dose of 100 REM TEDE at 100 m
Use ICRP 68 dose conversion factors
Apply X/Q value at 100 m of 3.5E-3 sec/m3 for the dispersion calculation
109
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
BACKFIT FOR MAJOR MODIFICATIONS
For major modifications of existing facilities, Appendix A criteria are applicable
Backfit analyses should examine:
– The need to upgrade interfacing structures, systems, and components in accordance with these criteria, and
– Whether there should be relief for the modification from the design requirements that application of these criteria in design would imply
110
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
ADDITIONAL NOTES
ANS 2.27, Criteria for Investigations of Nuclear Facility Sites for Seismic Hazard Assessments, and ANS 2.29, Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Analysis, have been completed and approved
DOE plans to adopt them and to update DOE G 420.1-2 (Natural Phenomena Hazard guide)
111
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SAFETY AND DESIGN INTEGRATION DOE-STD-1189-2008
Appendix B, Chemical Hazard Evaluation
112
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
PURPOSE OF APPENDIX B
DOE is not invoking mandatory classification of safety SSCs or specifying nuclear design requirements based on chemical hazards alone, but the Standard does provide advisory chemical safety criteria.
The guidance provides a sense of scale as to what is meant by a “significant exposure” in the criterion for classifying SSCs as safety significant.
Note: DNFSB has advised DOE to consider the need to effectively implement controls for chemical hazards, including guidance on the design of hazard controls (ref. letter dated 2/22/08, Dr. Eggenberger to Mr. Sell).
113
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
CONTENT OF APPENDIX B
Guidance for consideration of Safety Significant designation of SSCs for significant chemical exposures is based on a process of:
– Screening chemicals (hazardous materials) to determine those that may have the potential to immediately threaten or endanger collocated workers or the public and
– Evaluating the severity of potential exposures against advisory classification criteria for collocated workers and the public
Note: Chemical exposure for facility workers is addressed in Appendix C.
114
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
APPENDIX B METHODOLOGY
Methods for estimating chemical exposures are detailed in Appendix B
Unmitigated chemical consequence analysis should use reasonably conservative values for the parameters related to material release, dispersal in the environment and health consequences
It is desirable to reduce any tendency toward over-conservatism to achieve the risk-informed balance in the design of the SSCs
115
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
ADVISORY CRITERIA FOR SAFETY SIGNIFICANT CLASSIFICATION
Public – Exposure > AEGL-2/ERPG-2/TEEL-2
(Potential for irreversible or serious long-lasting health effects)
Collocated Worker– Exposure > AEGL-3/ERPG-3/TEEL-3
(Potential for life threatening health effects or death)
Hierarchy– AEGL, ERPG, TEEL
116
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
ADDITIONAL NOTES
DNFSB issue on design guidance for Safety Significant SSCs is being addressed:
– in a new draft DOE standard implementing ANSI/ISA-84.00.01(ISA-84), Functional Safety: Safety Instrumented Systems for the Process Industry Sector,
– by a revision to DOE G 420.1-1.
NNSA and EM each have issued guidance for Natural Phenomena Hazard (NPH) classification based on chemical hazard levels to the public and to workers
117
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
EM CHEMICAL HAZARD NPH GUIDANCE
Reference: 4/15/09 memo from Owendoff on Implementation of DOE-STD-1189, Integration of Safety into the Design Process for Environmental Management Activities
– Note: also addresses non-seismic NPH
– For chemical hazards, use Appendix A X/Q unless heavy gases or high wind/tornados are involved
– Criteria of Appendix B will be applied for safety significant designation and PC-3 designation, subject to cost/benefit analysis and consultation with EM HQ
Consult the referenced document for details
118
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
NNSA CHEMICAL HAZARD NPH GUIDANCE
(SLIDE 1 OF 2)
Reference: 7/9/2009 memo from D’Agostino to the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs (and others), Guidance and Expectations for DOE-STD-1189-2008, Integration of Safety into the Design Process, Natural Phenomena Hazard Design Basis Criteria for Chemical Hazard Safety Structures and Components
– Note: also addresses non seismic NPH
– Guidance mandatory for projects not yet in preliminary design (July, 2009)
119
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
NNSA CHEMICAL HAZARD NPH GUIDANCE
(SLIDE 2 OF 2)
– Appendix B criteria suggested for use for safety significant classification and initial categorization of SDC-3 or PC-3 (rad and non-rad)
• SDC-2 or PC-2 may be justified based on technical or cost/benefit considerations with approval of Acquisition Executive
– Similar guidance for in-facility worker protection (SDC-3 or PC-3) when it is necessary for them to remain in the facility after an accident for safety related purposes
– Appendix C criteria suggested to be used for safety significant classification for in-facility workers
Consult the referenced document for details
120
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SAFETY AND DESIGN INTEGRATION DOE-STD-1189-2008
Appendix C – Facility Worker Hazard Evaluation
121
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
HAZARD ANALYSIS
A qualitative evaluation of unmitigated consequence to the facility worker (FW) considering:
- energetic releases of radiological or toxic chemical materials where the FW would be unable to take self-protective actions;
- deflagrations or explosions where serious injury or death to a FW may result;
- chemical or thermal burns to a FW that could reasonably cover a significant portion of the FW’s body; and
- leaks from process systems where asphyxiation of a FW normally present may result.
122
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE
For radiological consequences, the suggested evaluation criterion is 100 rem TEDE.
For chemical exposure, the evaluation criterion is AEGL-3 or equivalent (e.g., ERPG-3, TEEL-3).
123
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
QUALITATIVE RESULTS
By comparing the qualitatively derived FW radiological or chemical consequence to these evaluation criteria, an assessment can then be made about the need for SS preventive or mitigative controls.
Where the qualitative consequence assessment yields a result that is not clearly above or below the evaluation criteria, then the need for SS FW controls shall be more closely considered by the project.
124
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SAFETY AND DESIGN INTEGRATION DOE-STD-1189-2008
Facility Modifications
125
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
Facility Modifications
The process for integration of safety into the design of facility modifications is similar to that for new facilities, but it is tailored to the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the modification.
126
127
FACILITY MODIFICATION PROCESS
Facility Modification
Evaluate Need For PDSA
Major Modification Involved?
YN
Develop SDS
- Address need for CD phases/CSDR/PSDR- Graded PDSA- 420.1 Design Criteria- Interface with existing facility /construction
Does 413.3 Apply?
Y
N
Tailor Per 413.3
Integrate With Existing Facility
Does 413.3Apply?
Y
N
Tailor Per 413.3
Change Control Process
- SDS-Safety Documentation- CSDR/PSDR/PDSA not required
- Possible SB Amendment
Screening CriterionDesign & Implementationof Physical Modification?
Execute SDS
Execute SDS
Simple Modification?
Y
N
- New / revised HA not required- New / revised accident analysis not required- New / revised controls not required- Changes to SB, if needed, are descriptive only
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
MAJOR MODIFICATION DEFINITION AND IMPLICATIONS
As defined by 10 CFR 830.3, major modifications are those that “substantially change the existing safety basis for the facility.”
A major modification requires the development of a Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis (PDSA) (830.206) and approval of the PDSA by DOE (830.207) prior to procurement or construction of the modification
128
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
EVALUATING MODIFICATIONS(SLIDE 1 OF 2)
Simple modifications - existing hazard analysis is adequate for the modification; hazard controls adequately address the modification and associated activities; implementing the existing change control processes is adequate to support the proposed change.
129
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
EVALUATING MODIFICATIONS (SLIDE 2 OF 2)
Note that a simple modification or a less-than-major modification might invoke DOE O 413.3A, and therefore STD-1189, under cost criteria. In those cases, a Safety Design Strategy (SDS) is required, wherein the bases for the modification classification must be described. The SDS also provides the mechanism for tailoring the application of STD-1189.
130
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
DETERMINING A MAJOR MODIFICATION
It is important to determine the need for a Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis (PDSA) as early as feasible in planning for a modification.
In many situations, the need for a PDSA may be readily discernable with little or no detailed evaluation required.
The Standard establishes criteria for evaluating the need for a PDSA. If a PDSA is warranted, the facility modification is a Major Modification.
131
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
MAJOR MODIFICATION CRITERIA(SLIDE 1OF 2)
Add a new building or facility with a material inventory > HC 3 limits or increase the HC of an existing facility?
Change the footprint of an existing HC 1, 2 or 3 facility with the potential to adversely impact any SC or SS safety function or associated SSC?
Change an existing process or add a new process resulting in the need for a safety basis change requiring DOE approval?
132
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
MAJOR MODIFICATION CRITERIA(SLIDE 1OF 2)
Utilize new technology or Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) not currently in use or not previously formally reviewed and approved by DOE for the affected facility?
Create the need for new or revised Safety SSCs?
Involve a hazard not previously evaluated in the DSA?
133
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
Safety Design Strategy for Major Modification
Where a major modification is found to exist, an SDS should be developed that addresses:
- The need for a CSDR or PSDR (as well as the required PDSA) to support project phases
- The graded content of the PDSA necessary to support the design and modification
- The application of nuclear safety design criteria
- The interface with the existing facility, its operations, and construction activities
134
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SUMMARY OF MAJOR MODIFICATION DETERMINATION PROCESS
Determine whether the modification is a major modification
Determination involves qualitative evaluations of six criteria
No one criterion is determining
Process relies on judgment based on consideration of all the criteria evaluations, on balance
Process and criteria are described in Ch 8 of the Standard
Specific examples are in Appendix J of the Standard
135
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SAFETY AND DESIGN INTEGRATION DOE-STD-1189-2008
Lessons Learned
136
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SOURCES OF LESSONS LEARNED
DOE Project Reviews
DNFSB Project Reviews
Project Implementation Experience
Implementation Questions from Field
Questions During 1189 Training Sessions
137
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
LESSONS LEARNED (SLIDE 1 OF 5)
Need for detailed training on STD-1189 for FPDs, safety leads, engineering leads
– Surface level review of the Standard; focus on products (SDS, CSDR, PSDR, etc. instead of understanding the integrating process approach)
– Project management, safety, and engineering design personnel should have a level of familiarity with the requirements and guidance relevant to the other disciplines
138
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
LESSONS LEARNED (SLIDE 2 OF 5)
Issues missed in application:
– Level of HA as function of design stage;
– Nuclear criticality safety not included in HA/control identification;
– Risk and Opportunity Assessments not carried into Project Risk Management Plan;
– Security not included in SDIT
139
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
LESSONS LEARNED (SLIDE 3 OF 5)
Need for formality in establishment and activities of Safety Design Integration Team (SDIT)
Project management commitment; designation of an SDIT lead (forcing function for effective communication between safety, design, and engineering)
140
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
LESSONS LEARNED (SLIDE 4 OF 5)
Importance of a requirements management system
(e.g., Dynamic Object Oriented Requirements System)
– Need flowdown of functional requirements to design documentation [System Design Descriptions (SDDs)]
– Need management of change
– Don’t let development of SDDs get out of sync with safety input and documentation in CSDR, PSDR, PDSA
Need to assess/validate ability of safety SSCs to provide the safety function indicated by hazards analysis
141
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
LESSONS LEARNED (SLIDE 5 OF 5)
Role of the Safety Design Strategy (SDS) document
– Tailoring of CD phases and safety documentation
– Revising conservative safety assumptions with better information as design proceeds
– Real time mechanism to achieve consensus on safety in design approaches (living document)
142
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
FAQs
Does commitment to O 420.1B criteria mean commitment to the associated guides as well?
- Means for choosing/justifying alternative safety design criteria.
Level of detail of DOE review of safety design documents (CSDR/PSDR/PDSA) in meeting O 420.1B safety design requirements.
How to modify early conservative safety design assumptions/approaches. Considerations.
What is Code of Record?
143
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
COMMITMENT TO DOE O 420.1B GUIDES
Does commitment to O 420.1B criteria mean commitment to the associated guides as well?
– Guides are not requirements (unless committed to by contract)
– DOE expectation is that guides will be followed
Considerations?
– Cost
– Schedule implications
– Equivalent or better outcomes/demonstration thereof
144
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
LEVEL OF DOE REVIEW OF SAFETY DESIGN DOCUMENTS
What is the level of detail of DOE review of safety design documents (CSDR/PSDR and PDSA) in meeting O 420.1B safety design requirements?
– A function of the stage of design
– Sufficient to identify issues that need to be addressed in the next stage
– Sufficient to determine acceptability of safety-in-design approaches
145
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
How to Modify Early Conservative Safety Design Assumptions/Approaches
Potentials for this should be identified in the Safety Design Strategy (SDS, Risk & OA, and the Project RMP)
Modify the SDS and get approval of the update
Considerations
– Refined design inputs (process design, MAR, new information…)
– Cost and schedule impacts of redesign(e.g., redesign of building structure for lower Seismic Design Category/Limit State (SDS/LC)
146
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
WHAT IS THE CODE OF RECORD?
Set of design codes, standards, and other requirements that are the bases for design and operation
Originates at CD-2 (preliminary design approval) and is important to cost basis
Documented through design documents and PSDR/PDSA
Can be added to or modified throughout the life of a facility
147
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SUMMARY (TAKE AWAYS)
1. The importance of the SDS as a consensus document for planning the path forward.
2. The importance of the SDIT and timely communications in the iterative nature of feedback and improvement between safety input and design outputs
3. The importance of the CDSR and PSDR and their approvals as timely communication documents to provide the safety-in-design basis for proceeding to the next design stage
148
SAF-280 Integration of Safety into the Design Process, DOE-STD-1189
SUMMARY (TAKE AWAYS)(CONTINUED)
4. Management support and utilization of the 1189 process; utilization of the R &OA; conformance of the project to the Key Concepts and Guiding Principles of 1189
5. The importance of a proactive approach in identifying and addressing safety in design issues in a timely fashion
149