F. D’Auria, Pisa, December 11, 2019. SOAR on Passive systems: Comments and answers from rev-02 (Sept. 20, 2019) to 03 (Nov. 07, 2019), to 04 (Dec. 10, 2019), to 05 (Dec. 11, 2019) and to rev-06 (Dec. 15, 2019). These are reported in the order they have been received and implemented. This report consists of 126 pages including the present one.
All sets of received comments to rev02 of the SOAR on Passive Systems are identified below (bold
characters, Roman numbering), including Institution, acting scientist(s) and date of comment delivery. Each individual comment is identified by Arab digits numbering (in a few cases, in Italics, my comment to the comment). My answer is provided in red color below. Each Lead Author (at least) is expected to read the comments and the answers and to provide additional comments as needed. Starting from page 69, comments from rev03 to rev04 are discussed. Starting from page 107 comments from rev04 to rev05 are discussed. Any addition to the main text or comment to the comments below should be discussed at the December 11-13, 2019 meeting.
An excellent job was done by contributors who provided comments below (although, in a few cases, contributors put questions instead of addressing unclear topics). Furthermore: (in general), my answer ‘Done. Thanks.’ implies that the contributor found an editorial bug; my answer ‘Done.’ implies that the text is improved. I introduced new text as discussed at item 309.
The following documents-files are considered (all documents are available by the author here) from rev02 to re03:
I) USNRC – Peter Lien – Sept. 27, 2019 – items 1 to 30 II) BelV – Anis Bousbia-Salah – Oct. 4, 2019 – items 31 to 60
IIIa) GRS – Sebastian Buchholz and Andreas Wielenberg, Oct. 16, 2019 (e-mail text) – items 61 to 72 IIIb) GRS – Andreas Wielenberg – Oct. 16, 2019 – item 73
IIIc) GRS – S. Buchholz and A. Wielenberg, Oct. 16, 2019 (word attachment to e-mail) – items 74 to 185 IIId) GRS – S. Buchholz and A. Wielenberg, Oct. 16, 2019 (pdf attachment to e-mail) – items 186 to 243 IV) NUBIKI – Barnabas Toth, Oct. 17, 2019 – CH3 – items 244 to 271
IVa) NUBIKI: Barnabas Toth, Oct. 26, 2019 – foreword, Abstract and CH 1 – items 272 to 281 IVb) NUBIKI: Barnabas Toth, Oct. 26, 2019 – CH2 – items 282 to 290
IVc) NUBIKI: Barnabas Toth, Oct. 26, 2019 – CH4 – items 291 to 308
V) UNIPI: Francesco D’Auria, Oct. 28, 2019 – CH1 (new section 1.2.1) – item 309 VI) IRSN: Christophe Herer, Oct. 29, 2019 – section 2.2.4 – item 310
VII) POLIMI: Francesco Di Maio, Oct. 29, 2019 – items 311 to 430 VIII) UNIPI: Marco Lanfredini, Oct. 30, 2019 – items 431 to 447 IX) KAERI: Kyoung-Ho Kang, Oct. 31, 2019 – items 448 to 497 X) KINS: Kyusik Do, Oct. 31, 2019 – items 498 to 530
XI) FRAMATOME & IRSN, Oct. 31, 2019 – items 531 to 606 XII) UNIV. LUXEMBOURG (via Herer), Oct. 31, 2019 – item 607
XIII) IRSN: Christophe Herer (related to CH 1-3), Nov. 1, 2019 – items 608 to 637 XIV) IRSN: Christophe Herer (related to CH 4), Nov. 1, 2019 – items 638 to 651
XV) ENEA: Fulvio Mascari (two files received, both here) Nov. 3, 2019 – items 652 to 701
Activity from rev-03 to rev-04 summarized starting at page 69.
==================================================
I) USNRC – Peter Lien – Sept. 27, 2019
1. Page 247, 2nd paragraph “to remove fission power in nominal operation” replace “to remove fission power in power operation and decay heat in design basis accidents”
Done. Thanks.
2. Pg 248 1st paragraph replace “thephenomena” to “the phenomena” Done. Thanks.
3. Pg 248 6th paragraph Need more elaboration on the relationship between reliability and uncertainty/sensitivity. Uncertainty and sensitivity here often refer to thermal-hydraulic tools and are supposedly different than the reliability tools. Need to add sentences to bridge these two groups of tools together. “…… a reliability study is performed: the uncertainty associated with the adopted
computational tools and related calculation results affect the reliability estimated for the system.” Some sentences have been added. Thanks for checking again that this is in the direction you have suggested.
4. Pg 249 3rd bullet typo replace “theose” to “those” “Countries” to “countries” Done. Thanks.
5. Pg 250 1st bullet Suggestion of rephrase because: 1. scaling analysis includes scaling criteria and distortion evaluation; 2.Scalability is important in applying computational tools “scaling criteria should be justified” to “scaling analysis should be performed” “the scaling issue should be properly addressed” to “ “the scalability issues should be properly addressed”
6. Pg 250 3rd and 4th bullet Typo “chocke and unchocked” to “choked and unchoked” “decaded” to “decades”; “sinonimous” to “synonym”
Done. Thanks.
7. Pg 250 4th bullet rewording “live” to “ongoing” Done. Thanks.
8. Pg 250 last two paragraph Rephrase “not a supported by application proofs” to “not supported by application proofs”
Done. Thanks.
9. Pg 250 last paragraph rephrase “to bring to results valuable” to “to valuable results” Done. Thanks.
10. Pg 251 Suggest rewrite due to confusing of “Fault Trees” , “all Fault Trees” and “Event Trees” “the Fault Trees representing the reliability of the passive system have to be linked to all Fault Trees that
correspond to functional events of the Event Trees where the passive system plays a role in accident mitigation.”
An attempt is made to make more clear the paragraph. Thanks for checking. 11. Pg 251 3rd paragraph Typo “moeling” to ‘modeling”
Done. Thanks.
12. Pg 251 Ch. 4 3rd paragraph Typo “atabase” to “database” Done. Thanks.
13. Pg 251 Ch. 4 3rd paragraph Reword for clarity Please verify. “may be Derived” to “needed“
The paragraph has been partly rewritten. Thanks for checking its clarity, now.
14. Pg 251 last paragraph Reword for clarity “was somewhat forced by” to “was initially urged by “
Concerned word changed to ‘induced’: I hope this is fine.
15. Pg 252 2nd paragraph typo “regardless challenges” to “regardless of challenges” Done. Thanks.
16. Pg 252 5th bullet Rephrase “Answering the question” to “A valid question is” Done. Thanks.
17. Pg 252 6.2 last paragraph rephrase “The picture for passive systems that can be drawn from Chapter 5 can be summarized as follows” to “Some conclusions can be drawn from Chapter 5 as the followings: ”
Done.
18. 6.3 pg 252 1st and 2nd paragraph reword “created “ to “shaped “ “large competence “ to “larger competence“
Done.
19. Pg 253 1st paragraph rephrase “In different words, the applicant may be crushed by the necessary competence which can be derived from the present report; namely, the design of passive systems constitutes a competence-needing process; it may reveal expensive and its finalization, or system construction/operation fulfilling safety requirements, may reveal unfeasible.” to “In other words, the applicant may be crushed by the necessary competence which can be derived from the present report; namely, the design of passive systems constitutes a competence build-up process; it may require expensive analyses, or system construction/operation meeting safety requirements, may eventually reveal
unfeasible.” Done.
20. Page 253 3rd paragraph rephrase “opens a window over” to “enters into” Done.
21. Page 253 4th paragraph Need to explain “It is needed to distinguish the case e.g. of accumulators from the case of …”
The paragraph has been expanded. Thanks for checking whether the new paragraph s clear enough. 22. Pg 253 5th paragraph Typo “deeisgn” to “design”
Done. Thanks.
23. Page 254 1st paragraph reword “imply” to “involve” Done.
24. Pg 254 2nd paragraph rephrase “specific regulatory environemt ” to “specific regulatory requirements related to passive systems”
Done. Thanks.
25. Pg 254 3rd paragraph rephrase “keep an observatory on passive systems also checking that latest finding from research are used for safety evaluation.” To “Keep track of the progress of passive system research and development to further safety evaluation.”
Done.
Below are related to Chapter 2
26. Table 2.2 add NuScale: Decay heat removal system; Emergency core cooling system; Containment heat removal system.
27. Pg 38 4th paragraph More clarification needed for “loading up to nominal parameter” You right. Done (this is the start-up).
28. Pg 39, 3rd paragraph More clarification sentences needed to clarify “…critical parameters direct indicators…” and to connect why the bulleted phenomena are the “critical parameter direct indicators”. You right. The definition ‘critical parameters’ was introduced in the reliability analysis performed by the REPAS method. Reference to this document has been added with some note.
29. Pg40 3rd paragraph Suggest rephrase “Because of limited redundancy,
maintenance and testing activities on passive systems could not be performed without significant loss in the reliability of the safety function.” To “Because of limited redundancy, maintenance and testing
activities on passive systems could not be performed as in the active systems with redundancy. This results in significant loss in the reliability of the safety function.
Done.
30. Pg 45 Define “ITF” as Integral Test Facility. It is defined much later before it is used frequently. First appearance is page 23.
Done. You may have noted: acronyms (too many in this report) constitute an editorial problem.
II) BelV – Anis Bousbia-Salah – October 4, 2019 31. Page 16 Fig.1 -> Fig.1.1
Done. Thanks.
32. Page 22 Fig.1 -> Fig.1.1 Done. Thanks.
33. Page 23 Done. Thanks.
34. Page 24 Fig.1 -> Fig.1.1 Fig.2 -> Fig.1.2 Fig.3 -> Fig.1.3 Fig.4 -> Fig.1.4 Done. Thanks.
35. Page 79 Figure 3-1 –> Fig.3.1 Done. Thanks.
36. Page 79 Fig. A???? block 1 - Block 1 is missing in Fig.3.1 Done. Thanks (block 1 is still missing in the original figure). Now added. 37. Page 93 Line spacing §3.2.5
38. Page 137 Figure 4.2 –> Fig.4.2
Done. Thanks. (the creation of lists of tables and figures was used to avoid this editorial mistake in rev 03)
39. Page 150 No mention in the text for Fig.4.9, 4.10 4.11 and 4.12
The concerned figure were already mentioned in rev 02 (and now in rev 03). Please check again. 40. Page 152 Figure 4.12 –> Fig.4.12
Done. Thanks.
41. Page 153 Figure 4.13 –> Fig.4.13 Done. Thanks.
42. Page 157 Figure 4.16 –> Fig.4.16 Done. Thanks.
43. Page 160 Figure 4.18 –> Fig.4.18 Done. Thanks.
44. Page 163 No mention in the text for Fig.4.21, 4.22 and 4.23
The concerned figure were already mentioned in rev 02 (and now in rev 03). Please check again. Possibly you considered the original submission and not the rev02.
45. Page 170 Fig.25 –> Fig.4.25 Done. Thanks.
46. Page 172 Figure 4.26 –> Fig.4.26 Done. Thanks.
47. Page 179 No mention in the text for Fig.4.29 Done. Thanks. (you right in this case)
48. Page 185 Figure 4.31 –> Fig.4.31 Done. Thanks.
49. Page 223 Figure 5.6 –> Fig.5.6 Done. Thanks.
50. Page 230 No mention in the text for Fig.5.9 Check Same answer as at item 44 above.
Done. Thanks. (see also answer to item 38 above)
52. Page 238 No mention in the text for Fig.5.13 Check
See answer to item 44. above. The problem may come from the fact the ‘Fig.’ is used for captions and ‘Fig.’ or ‘Figure’ is used in the main text. Final editing will take care of this if needed.
53. Page 219 Line spacing §5.3.2.2
The final editing will take care of this as needed (see also answer to item 37 above) 54. Page 220 Line spacing §5.3.2.3
The final editing will take care of this as needed (see also answer to item 37 above) 55. Page 241 Line spacing §5.3.5.1
The final editing will take care of this as needed (see also answer to item 37 above) 56. Pages 243-246 Line spacing §5.3.6
The final editing will take care of this as needed (see also answer to item 37 above)
57. Page 263 Distinguish between 2 references of the same year D’Auria et al 1998 No, the first is D’Auria & Galassi, 1998, the second is D’Auria et al., 1998, (they are already distinguished) 58. Page 264 Distinguish between 2 references of the same year D’Auria et al 2000 Same as above.
59. Page 264 Distinguish between 2 references of the same year D’Auria et al 2002 Same as above.
60. Pages321-323 Reduce the characters Format (too big) Done. Thanks,
IIIa) GRS: Sebastian Buchholz and Andreas Wielenberg, October 16, 2019 (e-mail text)
61. After some discussions with Mr Wielenberg, we have several comments to the draft version of the SOAR on passive safety systems and we think that major revisions have to be made in order to get a meaningful report:
Thanks very much for the deep comments you provided although they are quite negative. I appreciated very much the insights you are providing and my final reply will be in the rev03 (hoping and attempting to consider all your points). Hereafter I just reply to the letter below inside your text. Feel free to react at your early convenience.
This is not my intention: please note that Chapter 1 was available since June 2018 (more than one year ago, two meetings held in meantime). Coming with such a comment now is NOT too late but difficult to manage (feel free to propose anything if not already in your list of corrections that I have not read yet and I will consider).
63. Is this the opinion of the whole group?
Obviously I cannot answer. Chapter 1 is written to solicit thinking about passive systems NOT to judge passive system. COMMON-AGREED judgement evaluations ONLY in chapter 6.
64. A passive system having a reliability as proposed in Fig. 1.2 wouldn’t have been approved by any regulator, since the target mission is never reached.
What above written is simply misinterpretation: vertical and horizontal axis have NO value and
QUALITATIVE curves are reported. A note in parentheses has been added when the fig. 1.2 was called the first time to better clarify this issue.
65. Nobody knows, what the base of the graphs within the figures in the introduction is. Furthermore, they are very hard to understand.
I may agree: there have been two meetings and now there is a third meeting: I will be glad to answer. Anything new (e.g., possibly Figs. 1.2 to 1.4 … although these have been presented and reviewed at German National Conference in 2018) is at first not easy to understand. (Furthermore, Andreas did not attend any passive system meeting and Sebastian did not ask any question in connection with the figures during the meetings. However is NOT too late to do this now.)
66. We should rewrite this chapter.
Thanks for doing that. I cannot do it otherwise anybody may write he does not like and I have to rewrite N times. This is not due. In case you do it I can wait your contribution by October 30, 2019. The contribution provided by Henrique, as mentioned in Acknowledgement of current version (rev02) was NOT considered by Lead Authors of Chapter 2 and 3; indeed, this contribution was only a split of chapter and NOT a rewrite. 67. This is the same with chapter 6, which should also be rewritten.
This comment is obvious and it is the main reason why we have the Meeting Dec. 11-13, 2019. Also in this case you are free to rewrite and to provide a new version to me by October 30, 2019. See also a number of modifications included in Chapter 6 based and documented in the present report. I hope the rev 03 of Chapter 6 is better than the rev02 (of the same chapter)i
68. Here we should give recommendations to the reader, but no meaningful recommendations are proposed.
You might be right. I will check again, but without help from you I cannot improve (again rev03 should be better than rev02).
69. Do we reach the goals defined by the PRG with this report?
PRG will be free to reject the report. I will have no problem: I have done my best. 70. We don’t discuss different positions and opinions and a derived consensus.
Different opinions are clear from the contributions of Chapter2, 3, and especially 4 and 5: Different opinions are in Survey and fully commented in Chapter 2. This comment is NOT clear. Pease clarify what you mean and what you wish.
71. Furthermore we see a lot of redundant information (especially in sections 2, 3 and 5). This redundancies should be deleted, leading to a more streamlined report.
I emphasized this issue in Foreword (of rev02). You are perfectly right. Repetitions are unavoidable unless you wish to spend 2-4 weeks to eliminate all of them. Furthermore, repetitions are actually due to different scientists working in different areas. I fully recognize that the best ideal situation is to avoid repetitions. 72. Finally, after streamlining and a major revision of the report we should strongly consider an external review by further experts (e.g. VTT, etc.) before presenting it to the PRG. Is that possible?
Review will be done by Edf and Framatome as written in rev02. In case you have another reviewer please let us know: surely he will be very much welcome.
III b) GRS: Andreas Wielenberg – October 16, 2019
73. you are right (addressing my reply at item IIIa), some of the comments [in previously reported letter] are somewhat negative. I do believe, however, that there are some factually incorrect statements in the report and some statements are unintentionally misleading or unclear. These need to be addressed. My main observation upon reading the report was that it lacks internal consistency. Similar issues pop up in different sections, without an easily understandable reason why this is the case. In this form, the report is hard to read and likely confusing. Considering that this would be the result of an expert group published by the OECD/NEA, hopefully cited in the future by numerous people due to its high visibility, I feel that this should be a high quality report. And on that front, I think there is room for improvement.
The comments above are fully acceptable. In addition, please note:
a) Unfortunately GRS did not lead any chapter notwithstanding my invitation.
b) Purposely: Chapter 2 is leaded by TSO-regulator with research orientation; Chapter 3 is basically research and university; Chapter4 is research and industry research; Chapter 5 is Regulator & Industry. Chapter 6 shall become common (I tried to create a framework chapter to consider all, rather than finalizing the chapter - I will finalize it before the meeting and Chapter 6 needs further work).
c) the above is the justification for repetitions in different chapters e.g. viewpoint on the same subject from different institutions- I will try to write this in a more clear way in Foreword. d) you may also note that USNRC already commented (in a productive way) on Chapter 6.
e) I believe we should not enter in a quarrel where the concerned industry does not like the passive system and the regulators like it.
f) The main outcome from SOAR (other than creating a wide database of knowledge) should be 'passive systems OK provided a quantifiable reliability analysis is performed with positive output' with methods and approach discussed in the SOAR. I hope you agree on this.
g) the fact that passive systems have been approved by regulators is NOT a motivation to avoid criticism. Definitely NEA and CSNI asked for this activity because of doubts about the reliability of passive systems … We followed on.
IIIc) GRS: Sebastian Buchholz and Andreas Wielenberg, October 16, 2019 (word attachment to e-mail)
74. WIB01 Page 13, line 15: “rare” “are” (?) Done. Thanks.
75. BUS01 Page 3-10 page numbers
Thanks. Page numbering will be fixed by OECD/NEA editorial staff. 76. WIB02 Page 14, line „renowned“ “renewed” (?) Done. Thanks.
77. BUS02 Page 16, line 18 from bottom “Fig. 1“ “Fig. 1.1” Done. Thanks.
78. WIB03 Page18, line 25 “whose evaluation” “which” + comment Done. Thanks.
79. WAD1: Note: The calculational tools are not the only sources of uncertainty. Sources of uncertainty are: a) The lack of knowledge about TH phenomena b) The uncertainty regarding to the
implementation of phenomena in TH codes c) Numerical uncertainties from TH codes (nodalisation, computational methods) d) lack of knowledge about the specific realisation for the passive system
(dimensions, material properties, surface properties, pressure losses, etc.) e) Stochastic effects in system behavior. From e) and d) it follows that there can be no perfect knowledge about performance parameters of a passive safety system and therefore – as with active systems – there will be a-priori uncertainty as to the reliability of a PSS to achieve its target mission. In this sense, the last paragraph of 1.3.2 on page 18 is not really correct. This only makes sense if it is (I believe correctly) pointed out that the uncertainties related to the calculation of TH behaviour are by far greater than the uncertainties inherent in the PSS. With that qualification, the approach is reasonable.
You are perfectly right. As you may know UNIPI and GRS lead many efforts inside OECD/NEA and IAEA to clarify what you mean. I hope this is now standard knowledge for the author of the SOAR on Passive system (At least Lead Authors). Therefore I just added a reference to avoid writing again what you write above (that I fully agree).
80. BUS03 Page 19, line 6 from bottom “resent” “recent” Done. Thanks (bug difficult to find!).
81. WIB04 Page 20, Fig. 1-2 Fig 1.2 Figure with a PSS system characteristic actually meeting the target mission
Considered.
82. WAD2 Note that the PSS assumed here does *never* achieve the TM (=design requirement). This means, that the PSS could never be accepted as a safety system. At least over a relevant part of the missions (assuming underlying is a cumulative df), the PSS needs to fully meet or exceed the TM.
This is not the meaning which results from the text. Actually a passive system must have a reliability target, properly defined (not done in the text) and reliability procedure must be such that its application
demonstrates (if possible) the passive system achieves the TM.
Note also: an active system would typically exceed its TM for a substantial part of its missions as well. This is part of the safety margin.
I fully agree on this statement (100% true). Thus, Fig 1-2 is quite misleading…
Possible misleading comes from NOT considering that the dotted line may be a Beyond DBA or DEC-B situation (a note has been added in the text in the (next) paragraph where active system is discussed). Note also that Fig. 1.3 and 1.4 are quite confusing and do not really improve on Fig. 1.2…
This may be true and ‘un-true’. In principle it is true; however figs 1.3 and 1.4 are with increasing complexity: reporting everything in Fig. 1.4 is (more) rigorous, but more difficult to understand. In a document like the present one I preferred to include three figures (alternatively you are kindly asked to merge the three figures and to create a new text – I will not support this).
83. WIB05 Page 23, Line 11f “epistemic”, “aleatory” Correct definition of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties. The current examples are both related to lack of knowledge, the statement
therefore incorrect.
I modestly contributed to the definition of epistemic and aleatory in IAEA list of definition: therefore I am supposed to have some, very limited, indeed knowledge of this wording. I know that the definition of ‘epistemic’ (well spread in different sectors of science and technology) was brought to the attention of the uncertainty community (in nuclear thermal-hydraulics) around the year 2005 or slightly before (when relevant uncertainty methods were developed) is somewhat ambiguous: in many case one cannot
distinguish between epistemic and uncertainty. I believe that the present report shall not enter too much in this area and current text is not perfect, but acceptable. In case this is possible, please provide more correct and/or more coherent text; thanks (otherwise any new text may disappoint you in this complex matter). 84. BUS04 Page 23, line 10 from bottom “Table I” “Table 1.1”
Done. Thanks.
I could not find. No action taken.
86. BUS06 Page 25, line 8 from bottom “resent” “recent” Done. Thanks.
87. BUS07 Page 27, line 15 Apostrophe before “can” Done. Thanks.
88. BUS08 Page 27, line 15 from bottom “AP100” “AP1000” or “AP600”? I believe AP-1000 is correct in this case.
89. BUS09 Page 28, line 3 in Table 2.1 drawbacks column, 1st cell under NPP Safety “an” “and”
Done. Thanks.
90. BUS10 Page 31, header of Table 2.2 “Passive cooling system” “Natural circulation-based system”
Done.
91. BUS10 Page 31, Table 2.2, KERENA “passive pressure tube transmitters“ “passive pressure pulse transmitters”
Done. Thanks.
92. BUS11 Page 32, 33 “Kerena” (3x) “KERENA” (3x) Done. Thanks.
93. BUS12 Page 33, line 5 “ABWR, ESBWR, LSWR“ “ABWR, ESBWR, LSWR, KERENA“ Done.
94. BUS13 Page 34, Fig 2.1 Source of figure
Thanks for putting the source, if any (BUS or Lead Author of Chapter 2).
95. BUS14 Page 37, lines 9-10 from bottom Sentence is not understandable I introduced minor changes. To my understanding, the English editing was not perfect before (but understandable) and it is not perfect now (BUS may provide better text, if possible).
96. BUS15 Page 38, line 8 “account” after “into” Done. Thanks.
97. BUS16 Page 38, line 15 “be distinguished” “have to be determined” Done.
98. BUS17 Page 41, line 1-4 from bottom Whole last sentence of the paragraph, since it is doubled on the next page top.
Done. Thanks.
99. BUS18 Page 46, line 8 Blank between section and 2.3.2
This could not be found. However, the blank will be fixed (as far as possible) by final editor. 100. BUS19 Page 49, line 6 from bottom “Towards” before “European” Done. Thanks.
101. BUS20 Page 79, Fig. 3-1 Missing item on the top, at which the black arrow starts and the blue and red arrows end.
Thanks. I have added the block 1 that was missing from the original figure received by LA of Chapter 3. Please check this is correct (to Lead Author of Chapter 3).
102. BUS21 Page 79, Label of Figure 3-1 “Figure 3-1” “Fig. 3.1” Done. Thanks.
103. BUS22 Page 84, line 14 and 16 “AC2” “AC2” Done. Thanks.
104. BUS23 Page 91, line 3 and 7 from bottom “AC2” “AC2” Done. Thanks.
105. BUS24 Page 92, line 9 “AC2” “AC2” Done. Thanks.
106. BUS25 Page 92, line 17 “Hristov et al., 2017” “Austregesilo & Hollands, 2017” Done. Thanks.
107. BUS26 Page 93, line 10 “do”, “model” “did”, “models” I modified ‘Before the start of the concerned IAEA actiity ….”
108. BUS27 Page 93, line 14 “circulation at different the core power levels” “circulation at different core power levels”
Done. Thanks. (additional typos corrected in the same paragraph)
109. BUS28 Page 93, second last paragraph Correct line spacing Something done. Thanks. (final editor will take care, hopefully)
110. BUS29 Page 97, first line “it” between “simplified” and “is” Done. Thanks.
111. BUS30 Page 106, line 9 from bottom “make the” Editing has been improved. Thanks
112. BUS31 Page 110, Table 3.5 Add a tab stop to the items of “Aleatory” similar to the other points.
Comment (very detailed editing issue) and not clear. No action taken 113. BUS32 Page 112, line 8 “laekage“ “leakage”
Done. Thanks.
114. BUS33 Page 113, line 7 from bottom “pdfs” “probability density functions (PDFs)” (if this is the meaning)
Done. Thanks. (done a number of other times)
115. BUS34 Section 3.3.3 Correct colour of references Partly done: final editor should take care.
116. BUS35 Page 136, line 13 from bottom “emphasize” (or similar) between “will” and “in”
Done. Thanks.
117. BUS36 Page 137, Fig. 4.3 Picture with higher resolution is needed A better figure is not available to me. Thanks for providing.
118. BUS37 Page 137, Fig. 4.2 and 4.3 “System Type C” and “System Type D” (like Fig. 4.4) Done. Thanks.
119. BUS38 Page 138, Table 4.1, Type C Design “Colling” “Cooling” Done. Thanks.
120. BUS39 Page 139, line 23 and 24 “emergency condenser pool” “flooding pool” Done. Thanks.
121. BUS40 Page 140, Section 13. … “H2”, “N2” “H2”, “N2”
Not sure that this editorial change is really necessary (issue relate to ‘2’ size). No action taken. 122. BUS41 Page 140, line 24 “sever” “severe”
Done. Thanks.
123. BUS42 Page 141, line 8 from bottom “Bucholtz” “Buchholz” Done. Thanks.
Thanks. This might be checked by final editor. No action taken.
125. BUS44 Page 144, 3rd section Correct line spacing Done. Thanks.
126. BUS44 Page 144, figure 4.6 Reference Same reply as at item 124.
127. BUS45 Page 146, figure 4.7 Reference Same reply as at item 124.
128. BUS46 Page 146, 2nd section Correct line spacing Done Thanks (please check).
129. BUS47 Page 147, figure 4.8 Reference Same reply as at item 124.
130. BUS48 Page 149, figure 4.9 Reference Same reply as at item 124.
131. BUS49 Page 150, figures 4.10 and 4.11 References Same reply as at item 124.
132. BUS50 Page 152, figure 4.12 Reference Same reply as at item 124.
133. BUS51 Page 153, figure 4.13 Reference Same reply as at item 124.
134. BUS52 Page 157, figure 4.16 Reference Same reply as at item 124.
135. BUS53 Page 160, figure 4.18 Reference Same reply as at item 124.
136. BUS54 Page 161, figure 4.19 Reference Same reply as at item 124.
137. BUS55 Page 165, figure 4.23 Reference Same reply as at item 124.
Same reply as at item 124.
139. BUS57 Page 171, table 4.9 Reference
Same reply as at item 124.
140. BUS58 Page 173, 1st section Correct line spacing Done Thanks (please check).
141. BUS59 Page 175, 1st section Correct line spacing Done Thanks (please check).
142. BUS60 Page 177, figure 4.28 Reference Same reply as at item 124.
143. BUS60 Page 180, figure 4.29 Reference Same reply as at item 124.
144. BUS61 Page 180, line 3 “cntext” “context” Done Thanks.
145. BUS62 Page 182, figure 4.30a Reference Same reply as at item 124.
146. BUS63 Page 183, figure 4.30b Reference Same reply as at item 124.
147. BUS64 Pages 186 – 187, Tables 4.16a-c Most right vertical line
Obviously better editing is desirable. I am not able to do better in reasonable time. Hopefully the final editor will take care.
148. BUS65 Page 191, line 16 from bottom Verb between “active component” and “.” Some corrections introduced. Thanks. Please check.
149. BUS66 Page 193, figure 5.1 Reference Same reply as at item 124. Same reply as at item 124.
150. BUS67 Page 194, line 5 from bottom “/r-y” “ per reactor year (r-y)” Done (also in other parts). Thanks. Please check.
151. BUS68 Page 196 ff. Unify either level 3.a/3.b or level 3a/3b Done also in other parts of the document. Thanks.
152. BUS69 Page 197, line 19 “principally” “potentially” Done Thanks.
153. BUS70 Page 198, line 1 “exchange”, “incondensable” “transfer”, “non-condensable” Done Thanks.
154. BUS71 Page 199, line 18 “AIEA” “IAEA” Done Thanks.
155. BUS72 Page 202, line 3 “.” “:” Done Thanks.
156. BUS73 Page 205, figure 5.2 Reference Same reply as at item 124.
157. BUS74 Page 217, figure 5.3 Reference Same reply as at item 124.
158. BUS74 Page 218, figure 5.4 Reference Same reply as at item 124.
159. BUS75 Page 220, line 4 “fast or slow” “fast or slowly” after “injected” Done Thanks.
160. BUS76 Page 222, figure 5.5 Reference Same reply as at item 124.
161. BUS77 Page 224, line 3 “SWR-1000” Done Thanks.
162. BUS78 Page 215, figure 5.7 References Same reply as at item 124.
163. BUS79 Page 228, line 7 “motor-driven with” “driven by” Done Thanks.
164. BUS80 Page 230, figure 5.9 Reference for right picture Same reply as at item 124.
165. BUS81 Page 230, line 8 from bottom “water in the” between “the” and “tube bundle”.
Text has been changed. Thanks. Hopefully fine now.
166. BUS82 Page 231, figure 5.10 Colored picture with better resolution Thanks for supplying the figure.
167. BUS83 Page 231, line 14 from bottom “motor-“ Reference
Changes in the main text introduced. Hope this is fine. No reference needed (in case you wish one, please provide).
168. BUS84 Page 232, figure 5.11 Reference for picture on the left Same reply as at item 124.
169. BUS85 Page 240, figure 5.14 References, better picture resolution Same reply as at item 124. & I do not have better picture (please provide if possible)
170. BUS86 Page 247, line 17 “there” Done Thanks.
171. BUS87 Page 248, line 3 Blank in “thephenomena” Done Thanks.
172. BUS88 Page 248, line 6 from bottom “Theregore”, “homogeneizig”, “findigs” “Therefore”, “homogenizing”, “findings”
Done Thanks.
173. BUS89 Page 249, line 1 “drivng” “driving” Done Thanks.
174. BUS90 Page 247 ff (chapter 6) Several writing corrections needed
I realize this and I apologize for this (too big file for my computer). I did my best to correct all. Thanks for another check in rev03.
175. BUS91 Page 250, line 9 “AC2” somewhere in the listing Done Thanks.
176. BUS92 Page 310, line 1 Complete line “-“ All answers should go under quotation. No action taken.
177. BUS93 Page 357, table A3.4 (GRS line) “Models of Chen (macroscopic part only, forced
convection), Nusselt (laminar condensation) and Carpenter and Colburn (turbulent condensation)” “The Models of Chen (macroscopic part only, forced convection), Nusselt (laminar condensation) and Carpenter and Colburn (turbulent condensation) have been replaced by models of Nusselt (laminar condensation), Kutateladze (laminar wavy condensation) and Chen (turbulent condensation)”
Done.
178. BUS94 Page 358, GRS Part, last column, line 6 “[12]” “Papini D., Cammi A., 2010” Done.
179. BUS95 Page 360, line 8 “HPX” “HXP” Done Thanks.
180. BUS96 Page 362, line 16 “GRS (ATHLET) used a developer version of ATHLET introducing Kutateladze correlation (for laminar wavy condensation) and Chen correlation (for turbulent
condensation)” “GRS (ATHLET) used a developer version of ATHLET introducing Nusselt correlation (for laminar condensation), Kutateladze correlation (for laminar wavy condensation) and Chen correlation (for turbulent condensation)“
Done.
181. General remarks1: In general, we should write either in BE or AE (e.g. behaviour or behavior). Up to now, it is mixed.
Done Thanks.
182. General remarks2: Sometimes the AP1000 is written as AP-1000 or AP 1000. We should unify this. Done Thanks.
183. General remarks3: SWR1000 could be substituted by KERENA A note has been included in list of abbreviations. Hope this is fine.
184. General remarks4: General remarks1Several headlines are located at the end of a page w/o any text below them. They should be moved to the next page.
To be done by the final editor.
185. General remarks5: Do we have to consider the copyright of the figures (especially of the facilities, described in chapter 4.2)? And do we have to ask for permission to use them?
The copyright issue is an issue of the publisher (not of authors, not of editor). NEA/CSNI will handle this issue. I expect that this will not be a problem because each figure used has been drawn by at least on author/contributor of the current SOAR. However final decision will be from NEA/CSNI and they will eventually contact me on this issue.
IIId) GRS: Sebastian Buchholz and Andreas Wielenberg, October 16, 2019 (pdf attachment to e-mail) 186. page 191, 2nd paragraph: wib. Badly written. Improve wording.
Done as far as possible (Chapter 5 LA might further improve). 187. page 191, 3rd paragraph, 2nd line: wib. improve wording.
Done as far as possible (Chapter 5 Lead Author might further improve).
188. page 191, line 7 from bottom: wib. Wrong. The reason for 4x100 is OPERATIONAL. You want to do on-line maintenance. That is not in itself a safety feature.
Thank you very much. I am sure the text is not perfect and that you are right. But in order to satisfy you, I will wait for the new text by you. I believe nobody want to do on-line maintenance.
189. page 192, line 3: wib. rewrite paragraph.
I tried to improve. Hope you satisfied. Then same note as at item 188 (please provide satisfactory text). 190. page 192, line 6: wib. It is no longer a passive actuation
Perfect editing needs contributors like you. Thanks for providing a better sentence and paragraph keeping the understandable meaning provide by LA of Chapter 5.
191. page 192, line 8: wib. Rewrite paragraph
Done to my best (in available time and under the condition to keep the LA meaning) . See alao answers above
192. page 192. 3rd paragraph. wib Well, yes, water hammers shall be prevented, but I doubt that there is a fundamental difference between active and passive systems here. Note also that valve opening implies a certain category of PSS...
There may be a large difference between active and passive systems in relation to water hammer. For instance, low fluid velocities (typical of passive systems) more easily cause CIWH (sentence added in the text).
193. page 192, paragraph before the last one. wib. Why is there a presentation and discussion of specific designs here. A lot of this was already done in section 2.
As now (rev03) written in Foreword (please check), and before (rev02) spread in the report, view points from different institutions are given: this might not avoid text duplications (although these are minimized). Furthermore, directly addressing your question, information addressing the same topic in chapter 2 is different from information in chapter 5 (though the concerned topic is the same!).
194. page 193 , last paragraph. Wib. Not necessarily. Design dependent. For a closed loop, you loop the coolant in the PSS, not the coolant from the primary system. These are two different issues...
The paragraph has been modified hopefully accounting the comment above. Please check and let me know. 194. page 194, 1st paragraph. Wib. Paragraph not really consistent. Importantly: Design of the reactor needs to facilitate the meaningful functional testing of the PSS.
I believe everybody agrees with the sentence above: this has been added to the paragraph, in rev03 (thanks).
195. page 194, section 5.2.1 1st paragraph. Wib. Paragraph not really consistent. Importantly: Design of the reactor needs to facilitate the meaningful functional testing of the PSS.
I believe everybody agrees with the comment: the paragraph has been re-edited (hopefully to clarify this issue). Thanks.
196. page 194, section 5.2.1 top: wib. Why not above, before coming up with recommendations on specific generic designs? What is the logic of this section?
The section provides material (not necessarily comprehensive and systematic) to support conclusions to be achieved and agreed in Chapter 6: this is the objective of this and of other sections. Therefore, as already mentioned, any imperfection of the section should be minimized, but accepted in view of the stated objective. I hope this is an answer to both the two above questions.
197. page 194, section 5.2.1 bot: wib. This is one position (recommendations in IAEA reports) but not a consistent one over OECD countries. Without referring to extant OECD-reports on that topic, this discussion is incomplete and needs revision.
The answer to the previous (196. Questions) is also applicable here.
198. page 195, 2nd paragraph, wib: is there a reference or is this speculation?
The paragraph has been re-edited with minor modifications that make it (to my understanding) more clear. The statements in the (rev03) paragraph fully reflect the motivation why the present SOAR has been requested. Therefore the question mark is simply not applicable (and in any case what was written in rev02 is NOT speculation, but established understanding). Hopefully this is agreeable to the questioner
(Alternatively rewrite the paragraph or provide detailed motivation.
199. page 195, 5th paragraph, wib: CCF just because the same physical principles are used is a new one. Strange. I doubt that is a reasonable statement.
I believe the paragraph clear enough: the concern is that NC appears in different levels of the DID; or NC failure causes the collapse of different DID levels. I hope this is clear and acceptable to the questioner (minor modifications added in the rev03 text).
200. page 195, 6th paragraph, wib: We already had a lot of this. Make this report consistent.
The reviewer is, in principle, right. He should note again (new paragraph added in Foreword) that the repetition of the same statement provided by a regulator and a designer has a value within the present international context.
201. page 196 , 4th paragraph from bottom, wib: This is a very specific scheme. Clarify!
Very minor changes introduced. The questioner understood that this is ‘a very specific scheme’. Maybe this is the message (lead Author please add anything here).
202. page 196, 2nd paragraph from bottom, line 2, wib: Problematic. Provisions on level 3a and 3b are specifically *on the same level*. They may not be independent.
It seems to me that this item has been clarified in relation to 199. Please check and eventually confirm. No action taken.
203. page 196, 2nd paragraph from bottom, line 3, wib: Again: Problematic. The containment (itself) is a structure. It is not assigned to a specific DiD level. Specify the meaning of the comment.
It seems that the ‘questioned’ comment part of the 2nd paragraph (from bottom on page 196) is clear to the questioner. I looked at this again and the paragraph was clear to me. The questioner shall recall that top expert in the area have been asked by CSNI to write this section. Therefore, what the questioner consider as ‘problematic’ is not considered problematic by the concerned Lead Author, by contributors and, possibly, by other who will read this statement. In case anybody, including the questioner, has proposal to reformulate this section he is welcome.
204. page 196, 2nd paragraph from bottom, last line, wib: That is a no-brainer: Of course. In active systems, most use electricity. No reasonable person would claim that this in itself constitutes a problem with DiD... Apparently, it is not clear to the questioner that the topic under discussion (as clearly stated in different parts of the report, may be repeated) is NOT the passive system intended like a SSC but the transient TH performance of the passive system. The questioner is kindly asked to consider carefully this answer and to provide any constructive reaction. No action taken in rev03 (this does not exclude clarification or
modification in possible rev04 of this document, or even in rev03 if other contributors propose below any change).
205. page 197, 3rd paragraph from bottom: Don't write such a sentence. Regulators are not impairments -e.g. obstacles - (to safety).
All contributors to the SOAR agree that regulators are not impairments to safety. So, questioner is kindly required to avoid introducing (in the future if possible) this comment. Then the sentence has been slightly modified, possibly to make it more understandable (w/o changing its meaning).
206. page 198, 2nd paragraph, wib: this section rambles on
The scientific meaning of ‘rambles on’ is not clear. The only action I have taken is to re-edit the paragraph without changing its meaning (so it is still rambling-on, whatever this does mean).
207. page 198, 4th paragraph, wib: Is this so?
This seems to be the case. In case needed, please reformulate or propose a reformulation.
207bis. Page 198 4th paragraph. They remain on the same level of DiD. Full stop. What actually happens in the safety demonstration: The failure of a certain safety provision is postulated as a DBA or DEC, and then a provision needs to be in place to protect against that sequence.
What is written above is not in contradiction with what in written in the paragraph: namely what is written by questioner is the general case; in rev02 a special (exceptional) case-situation is emphasized. No action taken.
208. page 198, 6th paragraph, wib: Again, this 3a and 3b distinction is very specific to WENRA reports. This is not found in SSR 2/1 and it is not practice in several NEA member countries. This discussion is quite one-sided. Revise!
Yes. Thanks for providing new text. I have just added again references to WENRA. 209. page 198, 7th paragraph, wib: demonstration
The request (in relation to which you ask a demonstration) may come from a safety regulator not necessarily in Germany. I reformulated the paragraph to make it acceptable (to you).
210. page 198, last paragraph, wib: covered by IAEA. Added in the new text.
211. page 199, 3rd paragraph from bottom, 1st line wib: No. This is due to the fact that this is required e.g. in SSR 2/1. It is NOT linked to features of a PSS.
Reference to IAEA 2016 added.
212. page 199, 3rd paragraph from bottom, last line, wib: We had these already. Revise the report to get it streamlined.
Repetitions shall be minimized and cannot be avoided in this report. (otherwise ask to edit it and do it). 213. page 204 2nd bullet item, wib: Is that so? I doubt it.
I also doubt (but I cannot find anything better). Please provide your doubt.
214. page 204, section 5.2.4.1, 1st paragraph, wib: Strange sentence. I PSA figure of merit needs to be demonstrated with DSA? Revise.
The sentence is a bit cryptic (I agree). However no surprise DSA can be used in PSA. In case the Lead Author has a clear example, please provide it.
215. page 204, section 5.2.4.1, 2nd paragraph, wib: That might have been the history in France, but actually the deterministic analysis is different: You postulate DBA. These define your design envelope. PIE in the DBA envelope are usually specified at frequencies down to ~ 1E-5/yr. You then need to expand your analysis to specific sequences (e.g. with multiple failures for certain PIE), to cover DEC. This should cover those fault sequences not claimed to be practically eliminated. For those, you need DEC provisions. There is no need for a PSA target here.
The paragraph above has been included in the text as a (slightly) different view point. Please check. 216. page 205, fig. 5.2, wib: This is from a very specific approach (EDF for the EPR?). Clarify.
I introduced a new (simple) statement, please check (e.g. Lead Author) and eventually introduce a reference, if available.
217. page 205, line 9 from bottom, wib: In a specific approach. In the UK, they want to see a classification in frequent and infrequent faults. Other designers might come up with different classes. Explain this.
It seems to me that there is NO inconsistency between the original text (now slightly re-edited) and the sentence above. No action taken. In case you need an action please specify a text that has a clear difference from the original one.
218. page 207, 5th paragraph, wib: this sentence is incorrect.
I do not see anything wrong (in case I am wrong, please explain what is wrong in the sentence). No action taken.Definitely, my understanding is that a qualified passive system is considered acceptable if it correctly starts its operation when requested. There is no check whether operation conditions modify the quality of the response of the passive system.
219. page 207, 6th paragraph, wib: They must always be considered, if they have a detrimental impact on the delivery of a classified safety provision, i.e. result in failure of a safety function. That is true for active and passive systems.
What written above is (at least, it seems to me) true and consistent with what written in the text. No action taken.
220. page 208, line 4, wib: No. Of course the designer has to justify that its systems meets its performance claims for all conditions within its design envelope. The SFC is completely independent from that
demonstration!
I believe everybody agrees that ‘designer has to justify …’ and that ‘SFC is completely independent ...’. So, I do not see any contradiction in the main text with statements above, though I slightly modified the text. 221. page 209, line 7 from bottom, wib: if not a PIE within the DBA envelope …
This comment is not clear. The questioner should complete the ‘…’ in order to clarify his concerns. No ction taken (but time spent to try to understand this comment).
222. page 210, line 5 from bottom, wib: of PSS? Unclear. Yes, PSS, words added in the main text .
223. page 226, section 5.3.4, wib: All of the following could be also in a different section, e.g. section 2. This report urgently needs streamlining.
You might be completely right. We need help (in the fixed timing, also agreed by GRS) to finish the report on time. Please provide further comment or take the action to rewrite the report. Thanks very much for this.
224. page 247, 1st paragraph, wib: not really.
NuScale submitted a request for licensing to USNRC. Your comment ‘not really’ cannot be understood (thanks for clarification).
225, page 247, 2nd paragraph, wib: Nowhere to be seen where different views are presented and a common position is defined.
Possibly you did not read Appendix 2 and the different views expressed in Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Furthermore the only place where we are trying to reach a consensus is Chapter 6. You contribution in this framework is highly appreciated, if possible and worthwhile for you.
226. page 247, 5th paragraph, wib: The main problem is that the report is not streamlined. There are multiple repetitions and duplications.
This has been written many times (not streamlined and repetitions). Any SOAR issued in the past suffers of those two problems. In case we try to put together regulators, industry and (fundamentals) researchers, UNAVOIDABLY the report suffers of repetitions (from different view-points) and looks like
“non-streamlined”. This is also the difference between reports issued by “consistent” – strategy and funding oriented company and an international group.
Obviously this is not a conclusion: this is the introduction in the text (of Conclusions) of a sentence which appears useful for the conclusions. Hopefully, this comment is not a request to discuss sensitivity studies (see ASAP, GASAP, etc. of Cacuci) in this report.
228, page 248, line 4 from bottom, wib: A lot of stuff relevant to that is found also in Chapter 5. You appear to be perfectly right: same answer as under item 226. Furthermore, the word ‘stuff’ is not commonly used in technical reports. Thanks for being more precise, if possible.
229. page 249, line 17, wib: Previously there was a statement that this was not a major issue.
The list you are commenting is a list of ‘final remarks’. Wording can be improved; however the evaluation whether this is a major or a minor issue is NOT concerned. Thanks for rephrasing your comment.
230. page 249, line 20, wib: Factually correct? I doubt it. Thanks for considering carefully the information in Appendix 2. 231. page 249, line 22, wib: Needs better wording.
You right: at least a couple of words was missing. Thanks
232. page 249, line 24, wib: Not a valid conclusion or remark. If that were an issue, the expert group composition would be a problem. Redo the report with more experts?
You are right (the original statement is actually valid in some situations as pointed out not very clearly in one parenthesis). The statement has been deleted. A mistake like this, in a draft document where top level scientists are called to review and to comment does NOT deserve the statement “Redo the report with more experts?”
233. page 249, line 9 from bottom, wib: Well; actually I'd say the main challenges are:* Designing the systems so that it delivers its functions within its design envelope;* Demonstrating systems performance for all relevant operating modes and fault conditions.
Thanks. Text has been rephrased.
234. page 249, last line, wib: ?? (good question)
You right. Text has been rephrased. Hopefully in the right direction. 235. page 250, 6th paragraph, last line, wib: ?? (good question)
Thanks. Original text was quite cryptic. Hopefully new text is acceptable, thanks for checking. 236. page 250, 7th paragraph, wib: Where is that discussed previously?
Thanks: a note has been added in parentheses; hope this is fine.
237. page 250, 8th paragraph, wib: explain yourself (very good that this contributor uses different symbols and expressions to state the same think, e.g. ??, unclear, etc.: nevertheless everything is accepted and very much welcome!)
238. page 250, as above next two lines, wib: needs better explanation (another way to state the same think, see previous statement in italics).
Thanks: again, a note has been added in parentheses; hope this is fine. Thanks for checking 239. page 250, line 6 from bottom, wib: This is not supported by Section 5 …
A disclaim statement is added (again) in the main text: different Lead Authors in Chapter 2 to 5 provide different views; attempt to get a consensus in Chapter 6. Hope this is sufficient.
240. page 250 last line, wib: Vendors have design, licensed and built designs with PSS. This included PSA studies. There obviously are approaches that are considered to be sufficiently mature by regulators. Where is the problem?
This is a good and very fundamental question: possible answer is not easy. I can try the following answers: a) in case there is no problem why CSNI asked for this SOAR?, b) at the beginning to the year 2000 and till 2008 methodologies to evaluate passive systems reliability were proposed (REPAS, RMPS, APSRA … + new recent methods now) and never applied (to my knowledge) in licensing. The full answer may require further argumentations. Please come to the December 11-13, 2019, Meeting in Pisa and discus in the group your (valued) question.
241. page 253, line 3, wib: The same applies to the design of active safety systems or in fact a new NPP. Is this a statement that NPPs cannot be successfully designed because it is bloody complicated and we all give up and go home?
Obviously you are perfectly right!. The (not so small) point is that in the a case of active systems research went on since 1950 till (at least) 2000 – i.e. 50 years with huge investment and safety of NPP equipped with active systems was demonstrated. For passive systems research activities started much later and did not benefit of similar resources. At least I am convinced that passive systems may be fine and safe enough, but their safety and compliance with DiD are not fully demonstrated yet. I have added a paragraph like the above statement (with very minor changes) in the Foreword of the rev03 text. I hope this answers (at least partly) your remark..
242. page 253, line 5 from bottom, wib: this is very likely factually incorrect.
You might be right (or wrong). Representatives of regulators in passive system working group (including USNRC) will carefully check the statement and propose needed changes. Please DO NOT forget that the rport you have commented is a DRAFT (some statements, specifically in Chapter 6 are formulated in a provocative way to raise attention by other contributors… I hope this is very clear to you.)
243. page 253. Line 3 from bottom, wib: come up with meaningful recommendations! Redo the whole section.
Some modifications (better editing) have been considered. Here we need your help. Feel free to propose anything better.
244. BAT01 page 74, line 13-14 from bottom ‘reproduce the qualitatively and quantitatively physical’ should be corrected as ‘reproduce qualitatively and quantitatively the physical’ Done. Thanks.
245. BAT02 page 74 line 4 from bottom ‘is discussed’ should be corrected as ‘are discussed’ Done. Thanks.
246. BAT03 page 75 line 4 ‘with respect the’ should be corrected as ‘with respect to the’ Done. Thanks.
247. BAT04 page 76 and generally the listing symbols and the punctuation marks at the end of the lines should be harmonized in the whole document
Done to my best. Thanks (the list of abbreviations has been kept coherent with the abbreviations suggested by various authors, although in a few case more than one abbreviation is used for the same ‘meaning’) 248. BAT05 page 76 and generally for chapter 3.2.1 a schematic (or a simplified P&ID) of all discussed passive system should be added to the document for easier understanding
I do not believe this is possible: this needs a lot of editorial work with little benefit for the readers since most of the information is given in cited reference. In case you wish to do it you are welcome. Pease let me know. No action taken.
249. BAT06 page 76 line 15 and 16 from bottom please add closing brackets when discussing Category D and B passive systems
Done. Thanks.
250. BAT07 page 76 line 6 from bottom ‘deal with’ should be corrected as ‘are taken into account’
Done. Thanks.
251. BAT08 page 77 line 14 ‘Due’ should be corrected as ‘due’ Done. Thanks.
252. BAT09 page 79, figure ‘Figure 3-1’ should be replaced as ‘Fig. 3.1.’ in order to harmonize the denotation of figures
Done. Thanks.
253. BAT10 page 79 line 9 from bottom ‘Fig. A block 1’ reference should be corrected Done. Thanks.
254. BAT11 page 81 line 7 ‘the’ should be deleted from ‘should be the fully’ Done. Thanks.
255. BAT12 page 83 line 14 from bottom ‘con-figuration’ should be corrected as ‘configuration’
Done. Thanks.
256. BAT13 page 84 line 9 please add closing bracket Done. Thanks.
257. BAT14 page 85 line 5 ‘takes place’ should be deleted Done. Thanks (although in another way).
258. BAT15 page 93 line 3 ‘an helical’ should be corrected as ‘a helical’ Done. Thanks.
259. BAT16 page 93 line 14 ‘the’ should be deleted from ‘different the core’ Done. Thanks.
260. BAT17 page 93 paragraph 2 from bottom the distance between the lines should be harmonized within the whole document
You perfectly right. This has done to the best in rev03. Further work needed possibly by the final editor.
261. BAT18 page 94 line 13 from bottom ‘event thought’ should be corrected as ‘even though’
Done. Thanks.
262. BAT19 page 97 line 1 please correct ‘model is’ to ‘model it is’ Done. Thanks.
263. BAT20 page 97 line 3 ‘calculations were’ should be corrected as ‘calculations where’ Done. Thanks.
264. BAT21 page 106 line 5 from bottom ‘and’ should be deleted from ‘Section and 3.3.3’ Done. Thanks (other typos have also been corrected).
265. BAT22 page 110 Table 3.5 the table should be unified with respect to listing format as it is not clear whether ‘System failure analysis’ belongs to ‘Epistemic’ uncertainties or not. Moreover, the items under ‘aleatory’ are not organized in the same manner as under ‘epistemic’.
I agree with all comments above. In my view the distinction between epistemic and aleatory is not possible in many cases: both of these contribute to uncertainty and to un-reliability. However I left (with minor editorial change the original author text including Table 3.5 – in relation to which I have same
desirable but it implies a lot of work (final editor could do something, though in this case I doubt he can achieve a perfect result).
266. BAT23 page 111 line 4 from bottom please add closing bracket Done. Thanks.
267. BAT24 chapter 3.3.4 a reference to chapter 3.3.3 should be added when discussing alternative Monte Carlo methods
Done. Thanks (I hope in the right place).
268. BAT25 page 120 line 6 ‘sparse on not’ should be corrected as ‘sparse or not’ Done. Thanks.
269. BAT26 page 120 line 3 from bottom ‘mainly in’ should be corrected as ‘mainly of’ Done. Thanks.
270. BAT27 page 126 chapter 3.3.5.2 the whole chapter should be harmonized with chapter 3.3.3 as some information is repeated
This is surely true. As I answered many times repetitions cannot be avoided in different chapters; however repetitions in the same chapter should be avoided. Here the Lead Author to act.
271. BAT28 page 128 line 11 please add ‘is’ to ‘This because’ Done. Thanks (sentences re-edited) .
IVa) NUBIKI: Barnabas Toth, October 26, 2019 – foreword, Abstract and CH 1 272. BAT01 page 11 line 13 ‘o f’ should be corrected as ‘of’ Done. Thanks
273. BAT02 page 12 line 6 ‘mixure’ should be corrected as ‘mixture’ Done. Thanks
274. BAT03 page 12 line 7 ‘theactivity’ should be corrected as ‘the activity’ Done. Thanks
275. BAT04 page 15 list of scope To further specify the scope of the study, it is suggested to add the following item: “systems dedicated to severe accident management and Gen. IV reactors were not considered within the framework of the current work.
Done. (I further extended the scope).
Done. Thanks
277. BAT06 page 19 lines 9-10-11 from bottom In my opinion the wording of sentence ‘reliability of a passive system may be reduced to the reliability of thermal-hydraulic phenomena…’ may be misleading since the reliability of the passive systems may also include the reliability of components and in some cases even human reliability too (see Chapter 3.3.5.3.1). Please consider the reformulation of the sentence in accordance with the comment above.
Yes, you right (although this was not the impression that I wished to provide). Text has been modified. 278. BAT07 page 19 line 6 from bottom ‘resent’ should be corrected as ‘recent’
The correct word is ‘present’. Thanks.
279. BAT08 page 20 lines 2-3 above figure There seems to be a contradiction between ‘Figure 1.2 ‘Un-reliability’ region for a passive system’ and the text above the table ‘The system reliability may be assumed as connected with the integral of the dotted region above the reliability line.’ with respect to the interpretation of the region above the reliability line. Please indicate clearly in the text and on the Figure whether the region above the reliability line refers to the reliability region or the unreliability region. Yes, there can be some mis-interpretation, in principle. However please note what is at the basis of the diagram (this is true for any diagram like this one where two regions are distinguished by a line): (a) the reliability = 1 means no curve in the diagram; (b) a line, (in Fig. 2 the green line with open dots) separates two regions of the identified space: the upper ‘unreliable’ region and the lower ‘reliable’ region; (c) being the total area = 1 reliability (in wording or in writing) can be defined by each of the two regions. Obviously, the numerical value of the system reliability is given by the integral (less than one) of the region below the green line. All of the above is true for any diagram built like this. It seems (too) trivial to report this
discussion in the main text (in case you like I can do it). So, no action is taken at this moment. 280. BAT09 page 22 line 6 ‘Fig. 1.’ should be corrected as ‘Fig. 1.1’
Done. Thanks
281. BAT10 page 23 line 10 from bottom ‘Table I’ should be corrected as ‘Table 1.1’ Done. Thanks
IVb) NUBIKI: Barnabas Toth, October 26, 2019 – CH2
282. BAT01 page 27 line 15 from bottom ‘AP100’ should be corrected as ‘AP1000’ Done. Thanks
283. BAT02 page 28 1st row in Table 2.1 under NPP safety ‘relays’ should be corrected as ‘relies’
(minor) Editorial changes introduced in the Table.
284. BAT03 page 28 3rd row in Table 2.1 under NPP safety ‘measurement an’ should be corrected as ‘measurement and’
As above.
285. BAT04 page 30 description of PRHR ‘It actuated’ should be corrected as ‘It is actuated’ Done. Thanks
286. BAT05 page 33 line 22 ‘related passive’ should be corrected as ‘related to passive’ Done. Thanks
287. BAT06 page 38 line 8 ‘into’ should be deleted from its current position and ‘into account’ should be added to the end of the sentence
Done. Thanks
288. BAT07 page 45 and generally the listing symbols and the punctuation marks at the end of the lines should be harmonized in the whole document
Thanks. I did some effort in this connection. Full harmonization of punctuation at the end of each dotted line should be done by final editor.
289. BAT08 page 46 line 11 ‘even thought’ should be corrected as ‘even though’ Done. Thanks
290. BAT09 page 54 line 10 from bottom ‘Romania’ should be deleted as it is duplicated Done. Thanks
IVc) NUBIKI: Barnabas Toth, October 26, 2019 – CH 4
291. BAT01 page 135 last line please add closing bracket Done. Thanks
292. BAT02 page 136 line 17 from bottom ‘In order enhance’ should be corrected as ‘In order to enhance’
Done. Thanks
293. BAT03 page 140 line 18 ‘gasses can accumulated’ should be corrected as ‘gases can accumulate’
Done. Thanks
294. BAT04 page 140 line 24 ‘sever’ should be corrected as ‘severe’ Done. Thanks
295. BAT05 page 145 paragraph 1 the distance between the lines should be harmonized within the whole document
I improved this in rev 03. Final editor shall try to make this perfect.
296. BAT06 page 146 paragraph 2 from bottom the distance between the lines should be harmonized within the whole document
As above.
297. BAT07 page 159 line 14 from bottom ‘is consists’ should be corrected as ‘consists of’ Editorial changes introduced.
298. BAT08 page 161 paragraph 2 the distance between the lines should be harmonized within the whole document
Thanks. Same answer as at item 295.
299. BAT09 page 162 line 20 the bracket ‘)’ should be deleted following the word ‘facility’
Done. Thanks
300. BAT10 page 168 line 4 from bottom ‘rube’ should be corrected as ‘tube’ Done. Thanks
301. BAT11 page 170 line 8 the reference ‘Fig.25’ should be corrected as ‘Fig. 4.25’ Done. Thanks
302. BAT12 page 173 paragraph 1 the distance between the lines should be harmonized within the whole document
I improved this in rev 03. Final editor shall try to make this perfect (see also answer to 295.).
303. BAT13 page 175 paragraph 1 the distance between the lines should be harmonized within the whole document
As above.
304. BAT14 page 178 line 5 from bottom ‘per-formed’ should be corrected as ‘performed’ Done. Thanks.
305. BAT15 page 178 line 1 from bottom ‘deter-mine’ should be corrected as ‘determine’ Done. Thanks.
306. BAT16 page 180 line 2 ‘cntext’ should be corrected as ‘context’ Done. Thanks.
307. BAT17 page 180 line 10 from bottom ‘nor-mal’ should be corrected as ‘normal’ Done. Thanks.
308. BAT18 page 181 paragraph 2 the distance between the lines should be harmonized within the whole document
Same answer as at item 295.
V) UNIPI: Francesco D’Auria, Oct. 28, 2019 – CH1 (new section 1.2.1) 309. FDA01 page 16 – end of section 1.2.
A new 1.2.1 section has been added. Thanks for checking the new text aimed at better fixing the scope for the document.
VI) IRSN: Christophe Herer, Oct. 29, 2019 – section 2.2.4
310. E-mail request for a new section 2.2.4., provided as attachment. Done, including an additional figure (current Fig. 2.3).
VII) POLIMI: Francesco Di Maio, Oct. 29, 2019
Francesco Di Maio provided comments from Luciano Burgazzi (LB) Anis Bousbia Salah (ABS) Barnabás Tóth (BAT) Francesco Di Maio (FDM) and Enrico Zio (EZ). Comments from ABS and BATwere communicated before to me and have considered above (i.e. not below) in the list.
311. LB (1) Page 107 lines 13-16 x The uncertainties in t-h passive systems address the deviations of the system performance from the expectation, mainly because of the onset of thermal-hydraulic phenomena infringing the system performance or changes in the initial/boundary conditions of system operation, so that the passive system may fail to meet the required function.
Done.
312. LB (2) Page 113 lines 7-8 x Two likely modes of failure are considered to assess natural circulation failure because of insufficient heat transfer to external source:
Done.
313. LB(3) Page 124 line 12 Burgazzi et al., 2007: there isn’t in the list of references You right . I substituted with Burgazzi, 2007c: I am not sure this is the best substituting reference (if needed) in that place.
314. FDM (1) Page 2, title of Section 1.3.5 - 1.3.5 Origins of uncertainty and unreliability Done. Thanks.
