ML19338F747
| ML19338F747 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/10/1980 |
| From: | Schroeder F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-75-087, RTR-NUREG-75-87 NUDOCS 8010270144 | |
| Download: ML19338F747 (5) | |
Text
e -
Td &
h i.
00P 1 o 1980 MEMORANDUli FOR: NRR Branch Chiefs FROM:
Frank Schroeder, Acting Director Division of Safety Technology
SUBJECT:
GUIDANCE OU REASSESSMENT OF SECONDARY REVIEW RESPONSIBILITY ASSIGNMENTS FOR STANDARD REVIEW 1
PLAN REVISIONS In preparing revisions to SRP sections as requested by Mr. Denton's remoranduas of September 15, 1980, attention should be given to the assignment of secondary review responsibilitics, so that. the revised SRP will accurately reflect our current review process and provide assurance that the integrated review is corplete and well-coordinated anong branches.
Harold Denton's remorandun to NRR Division Directors of August 12, 1980 assigned pricary and secendary review responsibilities to specific branches and instructed these branches to reassess their secondary review assign-ments in light of the criteria contained in the ncno. At present,175 SRP sections have over 650 secondary review responsibilities assigned. We expect that application of the criteria (which liett the designation of secondary review responsibility to cases where a branch provides written infernation routinely to the project nanager or the primary review branch) will result in a decrease by sixty percent or core in secondary review assignnents. The basic reason for this is that previeusly the secondary review responsibility assignment was used as a iteans to define the sometimes complex interfaces that occur anong branches or among other SRP sections. In most cases, the needed infornation or support was ninor in nature so that it did not represent a direct input into the primary branch's SER write-up. What was reflected was the effort involved in coordinating the overall review to assure conpleteness.
As secondary review responsibilities are deleted, the interaction between branches for providing needed infornation or identifying the review cxpected fro other branches that are required to permit the primary review branch to cocplete its review will be c1 carer. But the coordinating effort with other branches not now listed as secondary reviewer could be lost. Ve belfove that a clear picture of the treans used to coordinate the review effort between branches rust be preserved. Thus, individual SRP sections should indicate in some canner this necessary coordination.
In the present version of the SRP, a branch designated as a secondary reviewer was often only expected to examine sone aspect of the design where its arca of expertise could be used in the review.
In riany such cases, the secondary branch performs the intended review in the context of another SRP section where it is the prinary branch. The revised SRP sections should document the staff's actual review process, so that the integrated review can ha tra ct a frn hrneh tn brenrh Thnrnenre,..bnn, enenn.<w.y ruiro ec<-r.--nt orrect) suRNoc)..............
80 1 0 M.0....
.l4.4..
om>................
N2C FORM 318 (9 76) NRCM O240 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289-369
Dh 10 880 NRR Branc itefs ',
is deleted, in many cases it may be appropriate to replace it with a reference that instructs the reviewer to coordinate his review effort with the branch -
that was previously listed as secondary reviewer, identify what portion of soce particular design aspect they are reviewing, and identify the SRP section under which the review is performed. This aspect is especially significant when the reviewing branch for one SRP section is indicating that a requirc-nent has been satisfied (fw the systems under review in that SRP section),
but conplete satisfaction o that requirenent is detemined by additional d
reviews being performed r 16r other SRP sections.
Threc subject areas: Fire Protection, Technical Specification, and the Quality Assurance have been identified where reviews are perforced for the cost part entirely and completely by the branches responsible for those SRP sections. Any effort necessary to coordinate the review uill be directed by those branches. For each of these reviews approximately 80 to 90 percent of the SRP sections could and/or should list one or core of the Title 10 regelations that are associated with these subjects.
Since the review of each of these subjects is done in an integrated nanner j
within a specific SRP section, it will suffice that the other SRP sections to which each topic app'fes make specific reference to the review conducted elsewhere (see example). Each SRP should only address these subject areas (with review procedures and evaluation findings) when review aspects beyond the norpal scope in the referenced areas are necessary to make the review sufficiently complete.
The enclosure provides an exceple of the sort of reanalysis and revision of seccndary review responsibilities we believe is appropriate. !!ote that it is provided only for illustration and nay not accurately reflect the situation for the SRP section chosen.
~
Original signed Lgj l' rank Schmedens /
Frank Schroeder, Acting Director Division of Safety Technology
Enclosure:
Exarple of Reassessacnt of Secondary Review Responsibilities and Oristant signed ha Revfew Process Interfaces with I' rank Schroedes other Branches cc:
H. Denten DISTRIBUTION COPIES:
E. Case CENTRAL FILES DST c/f LRIANI IRR Div,ision Directors NRR READING FILE # RA DSK0VHOLT fjRQD s n LGB/RD FILE NRC POR FSCHROEDER
...o, u.,
3 Orr Cc)....LG8........
....LG8
~ ~ -..
^-
LRiani DSkovhol t F chroeder suRNwcg. 10/"" 10/-
/80" 10/g/8&" "
/
NQC FORM JIS (9-76) NRCM 0240 U U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 289 369
c.
EXAMPLE OF REASSESSMENT OF SECONDARY REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES AND REVIEW PROCESS INTERFACES WITH OTHER BRANCHES A.
Excerpt from Present SRP Write-up SECTION 9.1.1 NEW FUEL STORAGE REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary -
Auxiliary Systems Branch ( ASB)
Secondary - Mechanical Engineering Branch (MEB)
Structural Engineering Branch (SEB)
Materials Engineering Branch (MTEB)
Core Performance Branch (CPB)
Radiological Assessment Branch (RAB)
Equipment Qualification Branch (EQB) 1.
AREAS OF REVIEW
[ Secondary Responsibilities are generally discussed af ter the discussion of specific review areas.]
Secondary reviews are performed by other branches ~and the results used by the ASB to complete the overall evaluations of the system.
The scenadary reviews are as follows:
the SEB determines the acceptability of the design analyses, procedures, and criteria used to establish the ability of facility structures to with-stand the effects of natural phenomena such as the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE), the probable maximum flood (PMF), tornadoes and tornado missiles.
The MEB reviews the seismic qualification of components and confirms that components and structures are designed in accordance with applicable codes and standards. The MTEB veri-fies, upon request, the compatibility of the materials of construc-tion with service conditions.
The CPB verifies, upon request, that the K f 1 aded storage racks is acceptable. The RAB reviews eff the adequacy of the radiation monitoring system.
B.
Reassessment Analysis 1.
The Equipment Qualification Branch is the only branch listed as a secondary reviewer that intends, or needs, to provide direct input into the Auxiliary Systems SER write-up for this Systems review
[this is an assumption for the convenience of this example, and therefore, does not necessarily represent the actual case].
Enclosure L
2.
The interactions with Structural Engineering Branch, Mechanical Engineering Branch, and Radiological Assessment Branch reviews should coatinue to be noted, but the discussion should refer to the SRP section under which each branch performs the review as the primary i
review branch.
3.
The Core Performance Branch and the Materials Engineering Branch provide an evaluation upon request; they do not as a matter of normal routine perform a safety review of New Fuel Storage for each plant.
i 4.
The Fire Protection review, the Technical Specification review, and the Quality Assurance review are performed in accordance with
.SRP sections 9.5.1, 16.0 and 17.0, respectively.
We would conclude that the secondary review branches listed in items 2 and 3 above should be deleted from the assignments for the reasons stated. As part of the reassessment exercise each primary branch should review each regulation listed in the acceptance criteria to determine that all branches associated with the coordinated review are identified and referenced as in items 2 oc 3 above.
The branches identified must perform a portion of the review th,at contributes to the conclusion that, based on the integrated l
a l'
review, the requirements of the regulation are met. Delete references to regulations that pertain to fire protection,. technical specification or.
iw quality control in the acceptance criteria and evaluation findings sub-sections of this SRP section and replace with a reference as indicated below.
2 C
C.
Excerpt from Revised SRP Writeup SECTION 9.1.1 NEW FUEL STORAGE REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary -
Auxiliary Systems Branch ( ASB)
Seccodcry - Equipment Qualification Branch (EQB) 1.
Areas of Review
[Same as before, except delete some regulations as noted above.]
A secondary review is performed by the Equipment Qualification Branch, and the results are used oy the ASB to complete the overall i
evaluation of the system.
The EQB will provide a listing [ state what is needed by ASB] and verify that components can function in
'[
the environmental conditions for which they are designed [and any-
,,- +
(
4 thing else necessary to support ASB conclusions or analysis in the SER writup].
In addition, the ASB will also coordinate other branches evaluations that interface with the overall review of the i
system as follows: SEB determines the acceptability of the design i
analyses, procedures, and criteria used to establish the ability of facility structures housing the system to withstand the effects of natural phenomena such as the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE), the probable maximum flood (PMF), tornadoes and tornado missiles as part of their primary review respor.sibility for SRP section 3.X.X. The RAB reviews the location and adequacy of the radiation monitoring system as part of their primary review responsibility for SRP sec-tion 12.XX. -The MTEB verifies, upon request of ASB, the compatibility of the materials of construction with service conditions. The CPB verifies by independent analysis, upon request of ASB, that for plant unique designs the K f 1 aded storage racks is acceptable. The eff reviews for Fire Protection Technical Specifications, and Quality Assurance are coordinated and performed by Chemical Engineering Branch, Licensing Guidance Branch, and Quality Assurance Branch as part of their primary review responsibility for SRP sections 9.5.1, 16.0, and 17.0, respectively.
}
e 1
1 1
g,
,v-
-m
-