ML20154J898
| ML20154J898 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/27/1985 |
| From: | Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151L097 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-49, REF-GTECI-RV, RTR-REGGD-01.099, RTR-REGGD-1.099, TASK-A-49, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8603110106 | |
| Download: ML20154J898 (2) | |
Text
.
. pur q#
E
/ %,
a UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6 :I, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%....+/
AUG 2 71985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations and Generic Requirements FROM: Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
FURTHER CRGR REVIEW OF PROPOSED REGULATORY GUIDE 1.99, REVISION 2, " RADIATION DAMAGE TO REACTOR VESSEL MATERIALS" When proposed Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, was reviewed at the CRGR meeting on July 24, 1985, you asked for clarification of the relationship of the proposed Guide to the PTS rule. The specific concern was: the proposed Guide contains procedures for calculating the extent of radiation damage. to reactor vessel materials that differ from the formulas for the A memorandum, SECY-85-262, July 26, same p(urpose given 1985, Enclosure 1) wasinsent the to PTS the rule.
Comissioners, a memorandum of July 30, 1985 (Enclosure 2) was sent from Mr. Dircks to Mr. Denton and me, and the issue was discussed at a meeting in the ED0's office on August 2, 1985.
In response to these actions, a memorandum from Mr. Denton and me to Mr.
Dircks, dated August 12, 1985, (Enclosure 3) provided the information requested and outlined a plan for issuance of the proposed Guide for public coment. Following resolution of comments, it will be appropriate to re-evaluate the overall conservatism of the PTS rule and consider whether amendment of the PTS rule is desirable.
To clarify the relationship of the proposed Guide to the PTS rule in the minds of potential comenters, we propose to add a paragraph (Enclosure 4) to the proposed Guide and to include a similar paragraph in the cover letter to licensees and the technical comunity forwarding the Guide for public coment.
The original package forwarded for CRGR review on May 28, 1985 has been revised to make it consistent with the wording of Enclosure 4. Also, the draft Guide has been marked-up in response to coments by M. A. Taylor in his memorandum to CRGR members, dated July 19, 1985. Fifteen copies of the revised package are being delivered to Mr. Taylor for distribution to CRGR members.
se,031go g 8,,p GR p
m,.00 1
2 AUG 2 71985 I understand that you are aware that the ACRS Metal Components Subcomittee has scheduled a presentation on September 4, 1985 of this issue, including not only the technical basis for Revision 2 of the Guide but also its relationship to the PTS rule and the implementation of the Guide. I also understand that, in this case, you do not object to our going ahead with the ACRS presentation before the CRGR has completed its review, provided that fact is made clear to the ACRS and provided the relationship to the PTS rule is fully explained. We will, therefore, proceed in that way.
For further information, contact P. N. Randall, Materials Engineering Branch, RES (37711or28186).
h /I W r -- >
Robert 8. Minogue, irector Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosures:
- 1. SECY 85-262
- 2. W. J. Dircks' Memo of 7/30/85
- 3. H. R. Denton & R. B. Minogue Memo of 8/12/85
- 4. Draft paragraph to add to R.G. 1.99
ENCLOSURE 1
.r"' y i
POLICY ISSUE July 26, 1985 ( nformation) sEcy-85-262 FOR: The Commissioners FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
PRESSURIZED THERMAL SHOCK RULE DISCUS $10N: It came to my attention yesterday that a draft regulatory guide (Revision 2 of R.G.1.99) presently under development by the staff, but not issued, includes a method for calculating RT ndt different from that included in the recently issued Pressurized Thermal Shock rule. The difference does not alter the screening criteria in the rule; however, using the method in the guide one would calculate a different date that the screening criteria would be reached from that calculated using the method specified ,
in the rule.
. We are looking into this issue and will keep you informed.
9 /
W1111a . O'rcks Executive Director for Operations wQlW/rkh'l" lP
- ____- _ ._______ . - - . _ _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _