ML19252A596
| ML19252A596 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/04/1981 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Vollmer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19252A597 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103310102 | |
| Download: ML19252A596 (4) | |
Text
Di s tr i bu ti on_
Central file SPEB File
- a MEMORANDUM FOR:
Richard H. Vollmer, Director, Division of Engineering, N'(R FROM:
Thomas E. Murley, Director, Division of Safety Tecnnology, Vh
SUBJECT:
REVIEW 0F PROPOSED SYSTEM RECLASSIFICATIONS
References:
1.
Memt randum, R. H, Vollmer to T. E..V ey. "Cl assif t :ntion of B IR Safety / Relief Valve System," dated December 5,1980, 2.
Memo.andum, R. H. Vollmer to T. E. Murley, " Reclassification of the Auxiliary Feedwatt.r System for Pressurized Water Reactors," dated December 9,1980.
The caferenced memoranda, which proposed changes in the quality group classifi-cations of two specific systems, ware sent to the Safety Progt.am Evaluation Branch (SPE3) for review.
SPEB has reviewed the proposed changes and has made the following findings and recommendations.
The portions of the BWR safety / relief valve system discussed in Reference 1 seem to have been properly classified during the licensing review as quality Group C, as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.26.
However, over the years, the BWR safety /
relief valve system has been assigned the additional function of an alternate mode of residual heat removal from the reactor pressure vessel.
Given this additional safety function, this system should now be classified as Quality Group B.
The major differences between the two classifications for this system are in the areas of quality assuranct during fabrication and inservice inspection procedures.
We agree with the recommendations that CP applications upgrade the system to Quality Group B and that OL applications and operating plants upgrade only the inservice inspection requirements to those required in ',SME Code Section XI for Class 2 (Quality Group B) systems.
These recommendations should impose minimal additional costs on licensees /appli-cants, while they provide an additional degree of assurance that the safety relief valve system in BWRs will adequatel perform i' safety function.
In Reference 2 it is recommended that the Auxiliary Feewater System (AFW) in PWRs be reclassified from Quality Group C to Quality Group B, as defined by Regulatory Guide 1.26.
The SPEB concurs with the specific recommendations that CP applications upgrade this system to Quality Group B fo-both construction I
and operation, and that OL applic ationr. ano operating plantsupgrade the inser-vice inspection requirements to ihose required in ASME Code Section XI for
' ? [,. '
Class 2 (Quality Group B) systems,
/
\\
1 ff
\\
(
9103 3 7 O W my y\\ f c,, q.
sw emp OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
=~~
e r
.o 4
1 Richard H. Vollmer FEB 4 sal These recommer.'ations may impose additional costs en license / applicants, however the... ditional degree of assurance that this system will adequately perform its safety function should outweigh any increased cost due to the upgrade in inspec-tion requirements.
Robert Kirkwood, MEB, has informed the SPED that there are plans to revise Regulatory Guide 1.26 to reflect current licensing review practice. Thst is, the referencing of all systems into Regulatory Guide 1.26 which are currently classified into Quility Groups, not just the pressure containing components.
We agree that such a revision should be made.
The Division of Engineering should take the lead in revising the appropriate SRP Sections and Regulatory Guide 1.26 to implement the changes they recommend.
u v aei m n*1 b1 T, E. V u'W Thomas E. Murley, Director Division of Safety Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:
M. Ernst SPEB Members
Contact:
M. L. Boyle X27058 N$gREVIOUS CONCU'<RENCE.
~
- SEE i
""'o>
. DST;SPEB.
. DST:SPEB*
DS.T : A D
- Dpg..
.tToyle;ah
..R1 'tc e r.
.M LE rns t.
.7)ju[.l ey..
"If.2/J/Pd.
.I/21/Al.
.1/ 2 3/ Bl..y 2[7 81.
a u,c no w m,w em. w ie w,
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
'"'o""^*'
H1cnard M.
volimer
-c-These recommendations may impose additional costs on license / applicants, however the additional degree of assurance that this systen will adequately perform its safety function should outweigh any increased cost due to the upgrade in inspec-tion requirements.
The SPEB further recommends that thetDivision of Licensing, Division of Engineering and the Office of Standards Development perform a generic evaluation of all plant systces and components to ensure that they are classified into the quality groups consistent with current t!RC safety philosophy, and revise Regulatory Guide 1.26 such that the ABl is classified as Quality Group B,and, if necestory, any other revisions that may arise from the generic evaluation.
1 Thomas E. Purley, Director Division of Safety Technology Off, ice of fluclear Reactor Regulation cc:
M. Ernst
/
SPEB !1 embers
/
Contact:
ti. L. Boyle X27058
,/
/
/
/
/
/
\\
/
hk);PEB I
c,,m y!
, J JD DST:D D
DST.
DST: g'g k "a"i>
.MQoyle:ab.
_RLBaer
, y rnst TMurley,
4 1/ /81 1
/81 1/ /Pl
_. oa n >L:/d/ 81 1
_...i_...__.-._
._..~.-..-._.
oc. on e n,m r e...o: v o.o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Di s t ri bu tion Central File /.
SPEB File DEisenhut Dross SHanauer Jfnight, DOE
'Miconan PBosnak R F.i r k vloo d HBrammer WMarrison, ODS FC.nautr T!; ova k Glainas TMurley MErnst RCaer MBoyle