ML20040G371

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Advises That Proposed Amend to 10CFR50.55a Does Not Require Committee for Review of Generic Requirements Approval Since Amend Does Not Impose New Generic Requirements on One or More Classes of Reactors
ML20040G371
Person / Time
Issue date: 02/03/1982
From: Arlotto G
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To: Murley T
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML19252A597 List:
References
NUDOCS 8202120222
Download: ML20040G371 (2)


Text

-~

,/

4 UNITED STATES pnneog g.,

jo,,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{

g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 C[Gg N

G.2 ~ O > [

...../

FEB 3 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas E. Murley, Director Regional Operations & Generic Requirements Staff FROM:

Guy A. Arlotto, Director Division of Engineering Technology 1

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

COMMISSION PAPER FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING, " CODES AND STANDARDS," 10 CFR 50.55a - INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF ASME RULES FOR CLASSES 2 AND 3 COMP 0NENTS f

We have reviewed the requirements for CRGR review as detailed in the memo from Stello to Minogue, dated November 18, 1981, and have decided that this proposed amendment to 10 CFR 50.55a does not need the review of the CRGR before issuance. This decision is based on the judgement that this particular amendment would not impose new generic requirements on one or more classes of reactors. The proposed rule would include the following:

i t

I 1.

New References to Section III of the ASME Code Code requirements for Classes 2 and 3 Components would be incorporated by reference.

Presently, only requirements for Class 1 Components are re ferenced. This action would codify NRC requirements existing prior to November 12, 1981, in Regulatory Guide 1.26.

2.

List of Nuclear Plant Systems that are Classes 2 and 3 These classifications are similar to those in Regulatory Guide 1.26 or in staff positions approved prior to November 12, 1981 (see enclosed memo, Murley to Vollmer, dated February 4,1981).

l l

3.

Deletions of Obsolete References l

References in the rule that were used in the licensing of old plants, l

but are no longer applicable would be deleted. These references have l

been superceded by Section III of the ASME Code. Examples of deletions are ASA B31.1, USAS B31.7, Draft ASME Code for Pumps and Valves for i

Nuclear Power.

l l

8202120222 820210 PDR REVGP NRCCRGR C2-025 PDR

~

  • FEB 3 1982 4.

Procedural Changes Procedures for approving proposed alternatives to the requirements in the rule would be clarified and simplified. Also, an exemption in the rule now considered unnecessary would be removed from the rule. The exemption provides that when constructing nuclear' reactor components to the ASME Code the Code N-Stamp, required by the ASME Code,.need not be applied. This exemption was included to avoid an unwarranted restraint on foreign suppliers.

Such a situation no longer exists since the ASME now has provisions for participation by foreign countries.

Based on the criteria in the Stello letter of November 18, 1981, we believe that the technical positions of this amendment are not new NRC requirements, and thus, this amendment does not need the review of the CRGR. However, item 2 above needs further discussion. Two systems, the Auxiliary Feedwater System for PWRs and ~the Safety / Relief Valve Discharge System for BWRs, were upgraded from Class 3'to Class 2 by NRR in the c. rly part of 1981 (see enclosure). Such new classifications are now in effect in the licensing review criteria but have not been changed as yet in Regulatory Guide 7.26 or the Standard Review gan. These changes are not well known because of the lack of new plant 11 cense applications. Since these actions were taken by NRR management prior to deadline of November 12, 1981, established in the Stello letter, we believe the intent of the letter has'been met.

Further, since t_hi.s is a_ _ proposed rule._if we 'have.made a mistake in our judgement and we receive comments to that'effect, we will take appropriate' action and will inform the CRGR prior to making the rule effective. 'It should be noted that the proposed amendment would apply only to new applications docketed after the effecti e date of the amendment.

s u

A. Arl vo, Director Div sion of Engineering Technology Offi e of Nuclear Regulatory Research l

Enclosure:

Memo, Murley to Vollmer dtd 2/4/81 l