ML20212E508
| ML20212E508 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/29/1999 |
| From: | Travers W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Parkhill R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212E401 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9909270029 | |
| Download: ML20212E508 (4) | |
Text
s- .
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. enmas anaq
- April 29, 1999
. MEMORANDUM TO: Ron Parkhill Spent Fuel Project Office Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards .
[
~ _
)
FROM: William D. Travers Ibb %
Executive Director for Operations -
i
SUBJECT:
FINAL DECISION: DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION CONCERNING VOLUMETRIC INSPECTION OF WELDS IN SPENT
'l FUEL STORAGE CANISTERS 1
i Your memorandum to me dated November 30,1998, requested that the arguments of your Differing Professional View (DPV), the resolution of which was expressed in a memorandum to ,
you from Carl J. Paperiello, dated November 24,1998, be considered a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO). The review of your issues has been completed and this memorandum documents my final decision. This action completes the agency's process, as delineated in Management Directive 10.159, for consideration of your issues.
3 On January 5,1999, I appointed a panel consisting of Richard Wessman and Michael Modes to review your DPO. '. Subsequently, Mr. Wessman appointed Edwin Hackett to be the third member on the panel; Dr. Hackett was one of your suggestions for a panel member. I The panel has completed its review and its report is attached. The report, dated April 15,1999, concluded that either ultrasonic testing or multiple dye penetrant testing examinations of the closure weld for the austenitic stainless steel canister provides a reasonable level of assurance i regarding cask integrity. The panel further concluded that, until a specific consensus standard )
regarding dual-purpose dry cask storage systems is developed by the industry and endorsed by NRC, the standard review plan for dry cask storage systems (NUREG-1536) and Interim Staff Guidance (ISG)-4 are reasonable and acceptable. The panel noted that, since no single code covers the design, fabrication, and testing of confinement casks, it is reasonable for the staff to accept casks complying with portions of several codes, with exceptions, and with consideration
. of the overall performance of the cask system. I concur with these conclusions.
I The panel made three recommendations: (1) the staff should continue to work closely with the
. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) to speed the development of a consensus ,
standard specifically applicable to these casks and should take timely action to endorse the
. standard, with limitations, if necessary; (2) the staff should not provide full inspection oversight of the welding and inspection process; and (3) the staff should consider a risk analysis on austenitic stainless steel casks as a followup to the integrated safety analysis work on the ,
Ventilated Storage Cask Model No. 24. I concur with these recommendations. )
.I have requested that the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards continue to work with the ASME on the development nf a consensus standard to deal with dual-purpose dry cask storage systems. Further, I have requested the Director to perform the 9909270029 990719 PDR ORG hE TOP F
I '
kV
\
PDR .
.. .. . t f98z76ozf ]
2 recommended risk assessment, on a schedule that considers other actions in the Office. I have attached a copy of my memorandum to the Director for your information.
This action concludes the agency's consideration of these technicalissues. I want to thank you for your participation in the Differing Professional Opinion procass. The willingness of staff members like you to bring issues to my attention contributes directly to the Agency's accomplishment of its mission.
Attachments: As Stated cc: Richard Wessman Michael Modes Edwin Hackett E. William Brach J. David Woodend t
r 9
2 recommended risk assessment, on a schedule that considers other actions in the Office. I have attached a copy of my memorandum to the Director for your information.
This action concludes the agency's consideration of these technicalissues. I want to thank you for your participation in the Differing Professional Opinion process. The willingness of staff members like you to bring issues to my attention contributes directly to the Agency's accomplishment of its mission. ;
l Attachments: As Stated cc: Richard Wessman j Michael Modes Edwin Hackett E. William Brach J. David Woodend Distribution:
EDO R/F DEDE R/F JAMitchell G19980712 l
I i
g:\4-23-99.wpd TA:DEDEL DEDE OE JAMitchel ' MRKnapp WI vers 4/% /99 4/ /99 4/ 99
)
n d
I Final Decision DPO on NDE of Soent Fuel Storaae Canisters
'The Executive Director for Operations (EDO) issued a final decision on a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) concerning non-destructive examination (NDE) of closure welds in spent fuel l storage canisters. The canisters in question are austinetic stainless steel. The DPO ccmprised I'- two issues: the type of.NDE to be used and the governing code requirements. The EDO agreed with the DPO panel that either ultrasonic testing or liquid dye penetrant testing
! examinations of the closure weld for the austenitic stainless steel canister provides a reasonable level of assurance regarding cask integrity. He further agreed with the panel that, until a specific consensus standard regarding dual-purpose dry cask storage systems is developed by the industry and endorsed by NRC, the standard review plan for dry cask systems (NUREG-1536) and Interim Staff Guidance-4 are reasonable and acceptable. The EDO agreed with the panels recommendations that the staff continue to work closely with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers to speed the development of a consensus standard and to -
consider a risk analysis on austenitic stainless steel casks.
- This action concludes the agency's consideration of these technical issues.
l
)
i 1
I l
1