ML20196K270
| ML20196K270 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/24/1998 |
| From: | Paperiello C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Parkhill R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196K257 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9901080148 | |
| Download: ML20196K270 (2) | |
Text
._ _ _ _ - . _ .
. nary g 5k UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. *nana -i
%,..V ...
[ November 24, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Ronald W. Parkhill Spent Fuel Projects Office Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards FROM: Carl J. Paperiello, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
(
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM DIFFERING PROFESSICNAL VIEW PANEL The Differing Professional View Panel which was convened to review your Differing Professional View, has issued its findings (Attachment). The panel supported employing PT of the weld consistent with the position g;ven in Interim Staff Guidance - 4. That is: determine the critical flaw size from fracture mechanics or other suitable analysis and limit the PT interval to no more than the critical depth. I agree with the conclusion of the panel. However, the panel also had recommendations regarding implementation. j The first recommendation was that an appropriate Code specific to the construction and use of these casks should be endorsed and applied. I agree with the recommendation. As you know, a Code case.ls currently under development and the SFPO staff are active participante. As a result of SFPO's interaction with NEl, the industry has now committed to work to develop this
' Code case such that can be issued. Consistent with agency policy, we would expect to eithar endorse, or endorse with comments, such a Code case and modify our guidance and/or regulations accordingly, in the discussion of the first recommendation, the panel mentioned the inconsistency of requiring volumetric NDE for cask construction and then permitting a surface examination technique for the closure weld. The panel felt it would be appropriate to perform a flaw tolerance evaluation of the cask to determine the appropriate NDE technique, whether volumetric or surface, that could be applied consistently to all welds. Although I understand the logic in that proposal, I continue to consider the volumetric examination to be the preferred method in all cases. As discussed above, the development and endorsement of an appropriate Code would address this inconsistency and I strongly support this activity.
The second recommendation was that if FT is used to verify closure weld integrity, priority should be given to providing NRC inspection oversight of the process. I agree with the recommendation, however, such inspections must be consistent with the availability of resources and other inspection-related issues that may arise.
cc: W. Kane, SFPO T. O. Martin, RES G. Hornseth, NRR D. Jackson, RES W. Hodges, SFPO k
990toso14e 99o1o6 PDR ORG NE ED [M ""I eDR
/Py e
a
% s
, Checklist for Addressina Differina Professional Ooinions 2/21/95 l- Sgnt to the EDO 1 l
Upon receipt, the DP0 will be dated and assigned a green ticket by ACB to an l OEDO staffer who has been designated to respond. The following suspense dates will be established for EDO. signature.
! 1. Five working days from receipt - acknowledgement l letter to Submitter
- 2. 30 calendar days from receipt - interim reply or final
- j. response l
L _
- 3. Date as established in interim reply - final response l I l
Note: Priority must be ghen to DP0's involving immediate or significant !
l health and safety concerns. 1 i
Within the first five working days the staffer must: I
! l
!
- Review the document; contact OP focal point; and verify DP0 I procedures have been met to date. i l
- Determine if all the issues raised in the DP0 are I appropriate for this process. Take steps to reject inappropriate issues.
i
- Check to see if the DP0 has gone through the informal process. If it has not, send the DP0 to the appropriate Regional Administrator or Office Director; if it has, proceed to:
- Rev Dw the issues in the DPO, their disposition and the rationale provided during the informal process.
l
- Send an acknowledgement letter to the submitter informing him or her that the DP0 has been received and will be' handled accordingly or is being returned to the OD for informal processing as a DPV.
l Determine whether additional qualified sources, outside or inside NRC are necessary, and make arrangements as appropriate to have them appointed and the DP0 reviewed.
Prepare reply to the submitter of the DP0, to include disposition and rationale.
Provide the submitter an interim reply should there be a delay in responding within the 30 calendar days timeframe, t
Forward copy of the DP0 documentation to the Office of Personnel. The matter is hereby closed absent significant new information.
File a copy of the ticket under the person's name submitting the DP0 and under a separate tab marked "DP0's."
These procedures are in compliance with Provisions outlined in Management
- Directive 10.159.
[DocumentName: G:\DP0]