ML20213D696

Responds to Util 810408 Request for NRC Comments on Policy Toward ASME Code Cases.Requests Div of Licensing Prepare Response to Util

ML20213D696
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	04/14/1981
From:	Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Bosnak R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-WNP-0354, CON-WNP-354 NUDOCS 8104220858
Download: ML20213D696 (1)

Text

,.

l 1

\\

\\

Mr I

[~

\\

l Dis APR 141981

~

LRib o

DLynch i

MRushbrook b

r$

BJYoungblood M

~

gh.

6 fEMORANDUll FOR:

R. Bosnak, Chief, Mechanical Engineering Branch, 4,./

l D

l FR011:

6. J. Youngblood, Chief, Licensing Branch No. 1. DL c)

SUBJECT:

RESPONSE TO WPPSS REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ASi1E CODE CASES Attached is a copy of a letter from WPPSS, dated April 8,1981, in which it requests c,ur comments on its policy toward ASHE Code Cases. Basically, WPPSS makes its own interpretation of the applicability of specific AS!!E Code Cases to its facilities. Under certain circumstances (e.g., no change in the principal engineering and architectural criteria for a given facility), WPPSS will treat the case as an SAR deviation and seek NRC authorization after the fact.

I hereby request that you prepare a response to be forwarded to the WPPSS organization by DL.

In framing this response, I should like to point out that DL (and DPli before that) has attempted a number of tirres over a span of many years to officially define what constitutes the principal engineering and architectural criteria for a facility. To date, we have only fornulated recomended lists but have yet to receive official agency sanction.

In light of this, we believe it would be risky for a utility to attempt to assess ASME Code Cases against undefined principal engineering and architectural criteria. Additionally, it is our understanding that the agency does not always accept AStiE Code Cases.

We propose to indicate to WPPSS in our response that it would be more helpful if WPPSS would direct its future requests to the Director of DL.

Sincerely, Original signed byt B. J. Youngblood B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch Ho. 1 Division of Licensing cc:

R. H. Vollmer D. Eisenhut R. L. Tedesco J. Knight 7

L. Rib bY~'

-f' O

9 F

1 TBU1 l

i

'"'"i;y.

,j., L ',

.L.

.i.

I

• ^W DLynch s...BJYoungblood !

o.u l 4//

81 4

/8'1

_,g c w k.

m, =

{lf%

~

P h

l,P Washington Public Power Supply System A JOINT OPERATING AGENCY b

P.O. BOX 968 3000 GEO. WASHINGTON WAY RICHLAND, WASHINGTON 99352 DHONE (509) 372 5000 April 8,1981 G02-81-74 NS-L-GCS-81-099 Mr. Richard H. Vollmer Director, Division of Engineering U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commise. ion Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

APPLICATION OF ASME CODE CASES Ref.:

1)

Letter, 0.D. Parr, NRC to J.J. Stein, WPPSS,

" Review of PSAR Amendment No. 22," dated November 18, 1976.

2)

Letter, G.D. Bouchey to Secretary of Commission,

" Comments on Advance Notice of Rulemaking," dated February 9,1981.

The purpose of this letter is to provide you with our interpretation of, and to request NRC clarification concerning, the NRC approval required for application of ASME Code Cases which have not yet been listed in Regulatory Guide 1.84 or Regulatory Guide 1.85.

Footnote 6 to paragraph 50.55(a) of 10CFR50 states:

"The use of specific code cases may be authorized by the Commission upon request pursuant to paragraph 50.55(a)(2)(ii)."

It is not clear whether this authorization by the Commission must be granted prior to implementation of the code case or can be requested a f ter-the-fac t. We would appreciate your position on this issue.

Our interpretation of the regulation is that prior authorization by the NRC is not required as long as we have evaluated the proposed code case and have determined that application of the code case is not a change to the principal engineering or architectural criteria for the plant.

This interpretation is in agreement with the guidance we received frem the staff in Reference 1 and the comments we submitted to the Commission in Reference 2.

{ E fMA4-94i ~/

~

//

Mr. Richard H. Vollmer Page Two We recognize that implementation of a code case prior to receipt of authorization by the NRC places us at risk that the code case may not be accepted, as written, by the NRC and that additional constraints may be applied by the Commission when the code case is addressed in Regulatory Guides 1.84 or 1.85.

There are, however, certain situations which arise where we feel that the risk is minimal and is compensated for by the f6ct that construction or fabrication activities may continue undisturbed if we apply the code case prior to requesting authorization from the Commission.

Our procedure in dealing with code cases is to review the case to determine if its implementation would represent a change in the principal engineering or architectural criteria or result in a decrease in the level of safety.

If that determination is positive or we feel the case m'ay not be acceptable to the NRC, prior authoriza-tion is sought.

If, however, we determine that the level of safety has not been decreased, the principal engineering or architectural criteria are unaffected and our assessment of NRC acceptance is favorable, we will treat the case as an SAR deviation and NRC authorization will be sought after-the-fact.

We would appreciate receiving your comments on this matter at your earliest convenience.

Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. G. C. Sorensen, Licensing Manager.

Mr. Sorensen may be reached at (509)372-5238.

Very truly yours, h

G. D. BOUCHEY (-

Director, Nuclear Safety nm Encl.

Ref.1, Letter 0.D. Parr to J.J. Stein Ref. 2, Letter G.D. Bouchey to Secretary of Commission cc:

N. S. Reynolds, D&L B. J. Youngblood, NRC

UNITE 3 STAT 6S v.

't NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O

"I o

WASHING FON, D. C. 20566

E O

g

%; v f

_ DIRECTOR'S OFFICE NOV 181976 Jas _ ADMIN. FILES LLH",6! PROJ. FILES W

My bbS Docket Nos. 50-460 6.T/- W ~38l

~fc 1

and 50-513 7 0tn l

, JSM RH WlI. Cl:vWnd Washington Public Power Supply System

_. v/v,,,,_

ATTN:

Mr. J. J. Stein MAC Managing Director ~

RECEIVED

-W-P. O. Box 98 l pC __._

W 5v-3000 George Washington Way NOV 2 21976 EcHRono Richland, Washington 99352 DIRECTOR'S OFFICE Gentlemen:

WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NOS. 1 & 4 - RP/IEW OF PSAR AMENDMENT NO. 22 Your letter dated October 22, 1976 transmitting Amendment No. 22 L

references year letter of April 23, 1976, wherein the design changes

• • ~r hr incorporated in Amendment 22 were first described to the NRC. In that earlier letter you noted that none of the changes, in your opinion, were b-

"nonconserva':ive departures" from the principal engineering methods and criteria previously committed to in the PSAR. On the basis of the information supplied in your letter, we do not believe you are proposing a change to the principal architectural and engineering criteria you previously committed to in your letter. While we provided preliminary comments on your April 23, 1976, letter in our letter of October 19, 1976, we intend to defer further sttff review on these post-CP design changes until you file an application for operating licenses for the WNP-1, r{

4 planti:.

Regarding your responses to issues previously identified by the staf f (during our construction permit review) as open issues to be worked on f'l during the post CP period, we will review your submittals and report our y

conclusions to you.

The only issue in this category addressed by Amendment No. 22 is item 3 in your October 22, 1976 letter.

,.. s Items 5 and 6 in your letter refer to staff questions concerning both g

reactor vessel support analyses and containment subcompartment design p,';

l analyses.

Several B&W topical reports referred to have not yet been l

submitted for staff review. We believe that further staff effort on the F. J l

vessel support issue on this docket should be scheduled only after the o.

l staff receives at least the planned B&W topical reports concerning pipe a,9.

break criteria and LOCA forcing functions.

l l

W.

Trui -

ce y w,z c n s i l d 21 il7

^

h

,hk)7N$[~. I5

? )'d, '5*2 'tT/.'

.NU *. vI.b

.~.

Washington Public Power Supply System OV 10 B76 i

We also understand that, in response to our concerns for your guard-L-

pipe design. expressed in our letter of October 19, 1976, your staff U"j$~

$h&re is still working on an evaluation of hypothetical pipe breaks that could affect your proposed design and your specification of design loads on subcompartment walls. We will defer further consideration of reactor vessel supports and containment subecmpartment analyses pending your future submittals.

l Regarding future submittals concerning proposed design changes, you first

[

should make your own ffndings as to whether a modification under m 7-consideration represents a change in the principal engineering or 1

architectural criteria.' If you believe that a proposed modification 3-is a change to the principal architectural and engineering criteria, then you should notify us in writing and provide a complete description f __ _

of the proposed modification including the basis for your finding.

If we conclude that a change to the principal architectural and engineering

[

criteria is being propos.ed we will review the proposed modification and g-.

advise you accordingly. We will not initiate a review of a proposed g,,

modification unless you inform us that you believe a change in the p.7-principal architectural and engineering criteria is proposed.

-[,.

s'.. ;

If you require additional clarification or discussion of our intent P""""

regarding post-CP design changes, please contact us.

Sincerely, W$a

~

0c Olan D. Parr, Chief N>b#

P" Light Water Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Project Management cc:

Mr. J. R. Schmieder Mr. E. G. Ward United Engineers & Constructors, Inc.

Senior Project Manager 30 South 17th Street Babcock & Wilcox Company Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 P. O. Box 1260

?',

Lynchburg, Virginia 23505

1 Joseph B. Knotts, Jr.

Esq.

5,;

Conner & Knotts L.-

1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

W shington, D.C.

20036

j. <,,

a

.v 6

S' o

bem A A t

4*

e G

OO

$ sh h

O 4,

.M g

g O

Og #g W

e

' g 4

[

e

,*4

'6 W

g p,

g g

g

THis LET7R sATisPIES CCh. MENT NO.

., X

. um*at eismouwe wis Lanza cocasii cas 907 asTAst:sw A new commiTusn-wPess conaasscucases w.

GD Bouchey--396 KW Cook--1000 OK Earle--9060 KA Hadley--420 AG Hosler--813 PL Powell--906D February 9, 1981 NSL-KAH-81-017 GC Sorensen--420 Admin Files Secretary of the Comission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.

20555 Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch

Subject:

CCPHENTS ON. ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING REGARDING DESIGN CHANGES A Eh ISSUANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT m V

The Supply System has reviewed the adv..

not ec rocc..d rulemaking entitlec, " Design and Other Changes i w I ar w

P ant Facilities After Issuance of Construction Pemit.'

ift -...ents on tr.e five proposed alternatives are provide i h attachment.

In general, the most satisfactory we suggest maintenance of the status qu te k option in the short te for those plants = ich are well along towards completion. NRC St.

deavers would be more appropriately focused on working off the of licensable plants resulting from the TMI Action Plan larift to rocess.

The lo te lution, t

.e pursued on a not-to-interfere basis and only r tr.os an* wn ch will enter the licensing pipeline many

. s,n,i

.- elop a one step licensing review prccess which isu ess litigation.

In that the incustry is already faced w.n pr derance of guidance in the form of Regulatory Guidelines tanda Review Plans and is also confronted with the potentially ntal review task implicit in the Bingham Amendments, the proposed r.u rui king appears unnecessarily duplicative-Pldase contact me if you have any questions regarding our coments.

Very truly yours,

/b 7

r-

/f>,

G. O. Bouchey, Cirtetor y Lb @ u w~ w w w,,er n

m C

Nuclear Safety I

bk Attactrient cc:

N. S. Reynolds, O&L o

. e-n 1

AuTuc a-KA Hadl"sv 7 Z V W i sem sicmarume cet Celic4.#7 sscTicN I

/I I

l I

i i

I l

I FCR AP840 VAL cp !

GC Sorensen l.Q g l

l l

Appmovto s

6 l

l l

cats

.( '

WP 114

~

t COMMENTS ON PR0p0 SED RULEMAKING REGARDING DESIGN CHANGES AFTER ISSUANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT The key question to be posed prior to adopting a new rule is, "have current Construction Permit holders abused the present system to an extent which warrants an enforceable policy to ensure compliance with existing criteria?" We believe the answer to this question is "No."

Contrary to the advance notice's basic premise, an additional rule is not necessary to legally require a Construction Permit holder to obtain NRC approval prior to implementing safety-related changes.

Under the present regulations, an applicant must carefully review proposed design changes to determine if " principal architectural and engineering criteria" are impacted. If so, the staff is advised of this fact and a PSAR amendment, describing the modifications, is filed for NRC staff review.

If principal criteria are not being revised, the changes are documented internally by the applicant for review by NRC Inspection and Enforcement personnel and for future inclusion in the FSAR.

The NRC is notified, through reports filed under 10CFR50.55(e), of changes required to correct design deficiencies in safety-related systems.

We do not feel that the present system represents a problem.of sufficient magnitude to warrant the diversion of industry and staff manpower from other, more pressing needs. We therefore see nc ad-vantage to be gained by adoption of alternatives 2, 3 or 4 In the longer range,for new plants filing for Construction Permits in the future, we agree with the NRC proposal to apply alternative 5.

We feel very strongly that a one-step CP/0L licensing process is required to provide the standardization and stability necessary for the nuclear industry.

Recommendations The following recommendations are proposed:

1.

The status quo should be maintained for those plants currently possessing a construction permit.

2.

Generation of any rule which attempts to define general or principal criteria (alternative 2 and 3) should be indefinitely postponed until the backlog of operating licenses is diminished to a manage-able level. Future devotion of staff resources for the proposed project should proceed only on a basis not to interfere with more pressing issues.

l

[

i i

i t

)

3. The NRC goal should be to make a smooth transition from the pre-sent process to alternative 5.

An intermediate transition to alternate 3 or development of new rules is not warranted, based on our perception of present practice.

i 1

I i

1

)

{

f 4

l 1

i I

I

/

o UNITED STATES

~

E_,',,/jgTJ7

[ g g ~ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,, %,4gbo7gO/A

• h, 7 g g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g vf f April 16,1981

\\dc

\\U-(,

Docket No. 50 397/460/513 tiemorandum to:

M iss. Doris Roberts

, Librarian, Richland, Washington Local Public Document Room From:

Jona L. Souder, Chief Local Public Document Room Branch

Subject:

Transmission of Facility Emergency Planning Information.

WPPSS I II & IV Please note that the material transmitted with this memorandum is Emergency Planning Information, and as such, may be of great public interest. Because of this anticipated public interest, olease make this material available as soon, as possible in a conspicuous area of the collection, such as with the Safety Analysis Report and Environmental Report binders. You might want to let others in your office or department know that this Emergency Planning infomation is in the LPDR collection as they may also receive requests orvestions from the public concerning it.

.s If you have any questions or problems related to this memorandum or-the material that it transmits, please do not h sitate to contact us by writing or calling at (800) 638-8081.

Sincerely, emdv I

Jpna L. Souder, Chief thcal Public Document Room Branch Division of Rules & Records ffice of Administration pu l

cc: Pagano, I&E f

Welch I l

Bournia,&E LB1 l

Lynch,LB1 l

Ketchen,0 ELD Paton,0 ELD l

inst.i :s accession numbe, 8104130728 5104 uu 3fM;hD J

.t