ML20202C806
| ML20202C806 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/30/1997 |
| From: | Collins S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Thadani A NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202C086 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-62FR63892, RULE-PR-50 AE26-1-022, AE26-1-22, NUDOCS 9802130031 | |
| Download: ML20202C806 (3) | |
Text
mcmesww
) .. .p .:pm\
- UNITED STATES 86 )I'/
=
d 8 NUCLEAR REEULATORY C3MMISSION eraswiwetow. o c.sseouses ghg
- ...+ July 30,1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Ashok C. Thadani, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM: jskde/b ctor Office of Neelear Reactor Regulation SUSJECT:
OFFICE REVliW AND CONCURRENCE OF PROPOSED
' AMENDMEfC TO 10 CFR 50.55a, " CODES AND STANDARDS
- The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) has completed its review of the proposed amendment to Section 50.55a, ' Codes and Standards," of Title 10 to the Code of Federal Reputations (10 CFR 50.55a). The proposed amendment would update the regulations to reference the 1995 Edition, with the 1996 Addenda, of the American Society of Mechanlual Engineers Soller andPressure VesselCode (the ASME Code) and the 1995 Edition, with the 1996 Addenda, of the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Pients (the OM Code), with certain limitations and modifications.
On the basis of its review of the package submitted by your memorandum of July 7, 1997, NRR concurs in the proposed rulemaking with the following comments, o
First, we note that the proposed rulemaking to amend 10 CFR 50.55a addresses only issues related to the ASME Boller and Pressure Vessel Code. It does not address the need to revise 10 CFR 50.55ath) to delete the reference to the institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard, " Criteria for Protectken Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations" (IEEE 279), because the IEEE has withdrawn IEEE 279 and, instead, reference *lEEE Standard Criteria for Safety Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations" (IEEE-603), which has replaced lEEE 279. We understand that this change to 10 CFR 50.55a(h)is being accomplished in a separate proposed rulemaking effort.
o Second, as a result of a recent event at the Ocones nuclear plant, we have identified an issue concoming a disparity in the Section XI weld examination requirements between Class 1 and Class 2 welds in high pressure safety injection piping systems less than 4 inches nominal pipe size (NPS) in pressurized-water reactors (PWRs). According to Section XI, Table IWC-2500-1 (item C5.20), welds in Class 2 high-pressure safety in}ection piping (greater than Winch nominal wall thickness for piping greater than or equal to NPS 2 and less than or equal to NPS 4) in PWRs must be examined using both a surface and a volumetric examination CONTACT: David Terso, DE: EMES 415 3317 9002130031 980206
- DR PR 50 62FR63892 PDR 9807/3 00l/ .
~
24
l.'
p A. Thedent -2 method. In contrast, in Table IW8 25001 (item Bg.20'), Class 1 piping welds in piping less than P.'PS 4 must be examined using only a surface examination method.
We believe that the examination requirements for wolds in Class 1 piping should be consistent with the requirements for Class 2 piping and that both a surface and a y
volumetric examination method should be required for welds in Class 1 high-pressure safety ir$ection piping (greater than NPS 1 M and less than NPS 4) in PWRs. However, a volumetric examination should only be required for those welds in which the technique used would provide meaningful results (e.g., volumetric examination of socket wolds should not be required).
We request that our proposal to include an increase in Class 1 examination requirements in 10 CFR 50.55a be incorporated into this rulemaking effort.
However, if this approach resutts in significant delay to the issuance of this proposed rulemaking package, then we recommend that it be removed from this package and incorporated in a future rulerr.sking effort.
o Lastly, we note that the proposed (draft) Appendix T on temporary corrective measures for service induced degradation in ASME Code Class 3 piping, which was included in the previous rulemaking package, is no longer part of the proposed rulemaking package. We understand that Appendix T might not be necessary because the ASME Code has prepared an ASME Code case that will address the issue of concom. However,if the ASME Code case is not passaJ by the ASME Code committee, the staff will reconsider the need to include Appendix T in this or a future proposed rulemaking. If the ASME Code case is passed by ASME Code committee, we recommend that the ASME Code case be referenced in 10 CPR 50.55a. The NRR staff will also review the need to supplement the ASME Code case with any limitations so as to include those issues in Appendix T that are not adequately addressed by the ASME Code case and provide those limitations to you within the next two weeks.
The detailed pen-and ink comments on the proposed rulemaking package have been discussed with the cognizant staff of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, and we understand that the appropriate changes will be incorporated into the final proposed rulemaking package, cc: F. Miraglia T. Martin S. Black K. Bohrer L.Shao F. Chemy G. Millman Distribution: ,
File Center HAshar KWc' hman DE R/F -%') 14 ESullivan KManoly RH6tmann Glaims SEE NEXT PAGE FOR CONCURRENCE c, -
. _J
4
{' DOCUMENT NAME: G:\terso\nrr 50.55a
'SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE n m.w e ,y ere - 6.s ., e. 6 : c' cer sma hs v.achmm T - c.,y.m m v.=wn N - No.ory OFC EMEB:DE E EMES:DE E EMCB:DE ECUB:DC E HOMB:DRC , E NAME DTereo' RWessman' JStrosnider GBa0 chi' S8tA' DATE 07/25/97 07/25/97 07/ /97 07/25/97, 07/25/)7,.
OFC DD:DE fl, s' ;$:p)
NAME TECH ED D(MDT $pW GLainas\ M ron BCalure
- TlKartin 1 bddilins DATE 07M97/ /07/P/97 07/25/97 07K4/97 OM /97, OFFICIAL RECORD COPY /
? f* $
9.3d l la' cl
)
4 4
4 eew e* * * *
. . . . _ .