ML20006H277
| ML20006H277 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/20/1996 |
| From: | Russell W NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Reedy R REEDY ASSOCIATES, INC. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20006H278 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9602260101 | |
| Download: ML20006H277 (12) | |
Text
._
February 20, 1996 Mr. Roger F. Reedy Reedy Associates, Inc.
15951 Los Gatos Blvd., Suite 1 Los Gatos, California 95032
Dear Mr. Reedy:
Chairman Jackson has requested that I respond to your letter regarding your contention that the NRC staff's implementation of the ASME Code is contrary to federal regulations, pr ^1arily 10 CFR 50.55a. Your letter identified the five following major concerns: 1) Engineering Judgment, 2) ASME Code i
Interpretations, 3) Generic Letters 90-05 and 91-18, 4) Weld Overlays and Information Notice 93-21, and 5) Code Violations. The first four of your concerns have been previously addressed by the NRC staff in letters to you dated November 15, 1993, March 18, 1994, July 24 and September 26, 1995.
I have re-reviewed the positions provided by the staff to you in the above stated correspondence and find them valid with one exception regarding incorporation of the Foreword by reference.
I am enclosing a more comprehensive review of your four earlier concerns as well as addressing your fifth concern.
Since your letter contains statements that could be interpreted as an allegation of NRC staff wrongdoing, I am forwarding your letter to the Office of the Inspector General.
Sincerely, i
OrIginaT Mgned By WILLIAM T. RUSSELL William T. Russell, Director I
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated Approved by Comm. 2/16/96.
Distribution: See Attached List *See Previous Concurrence G:\\RAHermann\\ reedy.FII To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box C= Copy u/o attachment / enclosure E= Copy with attachment / enclosure N = No copy 0FFICE
- DE:EMCB
- DE:D NRR:ADT NAME RAHermann: rah:adl BWSheron AThadani DATE 1/23/96 2/5/96 2/5/96*
mummmmmeummmmmmmmmm mmmmmmme mummme mmma ummmeammu
/
R:D. M 0FFICE
- 0GC EDO _
OCM/SJ NAME JTaflor SJackson dWTRubl DATE _ 2/1/96 dI/96 08 16/96
'1r/(0/96 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 9h
& w 7-M ow~
i y~ - L - 9' - ly Pd,$
y 9602260101 960220 '
N1 b~
~
77 J
CF SUBJ O&M-7ASME CF 4,10 FILE CEBIER COPY J
Enclosure Response to Concerns in Letter Dated November 17, 1995 Roger F. Reedy to NRC Chairman, Shirley Ann Jackson 1.
Engineering Judgment The Foreword, beginning with the 1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda, to Section III and Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Bof 7er and Pressure Vessel Code (the Code) states, in part, the following:
This Code contains mandatory requirements, specific 1
prohibitions, and nonmandatory guidance for construction, and inservice inspection and testing activities. The Code does not address all aspects of these activities and those which are not specifically addressed should not be considered prohibited. The Code is not a handbook and cannot replace education, experience, and the use of engineering judgment. The phrase " engineering judgment" refers to technical judgments made by knowledgeable i
engineers experienced in the application of the Code.
Engineering judgments must be consistent with Code philosophy and such judgments must never be used to overrule mandatory requirements or specific prohibitions i
of the Code.
l Mr. Reedy's letter states, in part, the following: '
[a]
The NRC Staff has stated that they recognize that engineering judgment is required in performing various engineering activities. However, they wouid like to reject the words in the Foreword that state that if the Code does not specifically address an issue, it should not be considered prohibited, and engineering judgment should be used following the principles of the Code.....
The NRC Staff has never provided a legal or regulatory basis for not accepting the provisions in the ASME Code for use of engineering judgment....
NRC Staff Response The NRC has reviewed its previous view that the Foreword is not included in the regulations along with the incorporation of a particular code section. We have determined that the Fcreword is included with the referenced section.
However, the paragraph of the Foreword you quoted is not part of any ASME Code that the Commission has endorsed in 10 CFR 50.55a. The paragraph was added to the Foreword of Section III and Section XI by the 1992 Addenda to the 1992 Edition of the Code. The latest edition of tne Code incorporated by referer.ce
e s
2 in paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 50.55a is the 1989 Edition. Therefore, provisions of the Foreword which you have cited are not relevant.
[b]
....The Code prohibits use of engineering judgment to avoid meetino Code reouirements, so no relief requests are required when following the provisions of the Foreword....
NRC Staff Retponse When analyses, evaluations and engineering judgement are used in lieu of specific evaluation and analysis methods explicitly required by Section III or Section XI, licensees must request review and approval by the NRC for alternatives to the code requirements in accord with provisions in 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3).
i 2.
ASME Code Interpretations Mr. Reedy's letter states, in part, the following:
The NRC Staff agrees that ASME is the official interpreter of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Then contrary to that statement, they stcte that their endorsement of the ASME Code does not extend to interpretations of the ASME Code, which are prepared by ASME, without further NRC Staff review and approval.
Please bear in mind that ASME Interpretations of the Code are part of the Code, and that they are binding on users of the Code....
NRC Staff Response We agree that the ASME is the official interpreter of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. However, the NRC's endorsement in 10 CFR 50.55a is limited only to those editions / addenda of the ASME Code which are specifically identified and approved in that section. The NRC's regulatory endorsement in
~
10CFR50.55a does not extend, absent further NRC review and approval, to interpretations of the ASME Code which are prepared by the ASME.
In the Statements of Consideration to the final rule change to 10 CFR 50.55a published November 4, 1983, the hRC recognized that the foreword of all j
sections of the Code was revised regarding Sterpretations of the code to i
restrict the authority to issue such interpretations to the ASME (reference 48 Federal Register 50878). The ASME, however, in the foreword of each of the publications of the code interpretations states that "[t]hese interpretations are not a part of the Addenda or the Code."
As stated above, the NRC has requirements that transcend the ASME Code. The NRC is not bound by any ASME interpretation of the ASME Code which is contrary to NRC's regulations, or to the expressed purpose of the protection of public health and safety.
If an ASME Code interpretation either contradicts or is inconsistent with the NRC requirements such as regulations, a license condition, a technical specification, or an NRC order, then NRC requirements take precedence over the ASME Code interpretation.
3 3.
GL 90-05 :nd GL 91-18 Mr. Reedy's letter states, in part, the following:
[a]
... If it is not mandatory to fix a leak in a pipe during operating conditions (as long as the leakage meets Tech [nical]
Spec [ification]s), a relief request should not be required, because there are absolutely no provisions in the Code that prohibit leaks in piping during operation.
The Staff letter says that the Code has requirements for minimum wall thickness in piping that precludes leaks.
In addition, the NRC Inspection Manual, Part 9900, Section 6.14 and 6.15 (distributed under Generic letter 91-18) falsely assumes that ASME Section XI contains leakage limits for Code Class 2 and 3 systems, and that the Code does not allow any leakage in those systems.
Paragraph 6.15 states that IWA-5250 requires repair or replacement of leaking components.
It also states that the licensee should declare any Class 1. 2. or 3 system inoperable upon discovery of leakaoe (except as discussed in Generic Letter 90-05 for low energy Class 3 systems).
NRC Staff Response The operability of the systems is not determined solely based on the requirements of Section XI of the ASME Code.
A hole in the wall (through-wall flaw) of any component brings the operability of that component into question. As discussed in paragraph 6.15 of the referenced NRC Inspection Manual, plant technical specifications (i.e., standard technical specifications) require (1) that the structural integrity of ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components be maintained according to Section XI and (2) permit no external leakage in the reactor pressure boundary.
In the latest accepted edition (1989 ed.) of Section XI, Paragraph IWB-3640 contains the 71y specific rules for evaluation of piping that contain flaws in excess of a depth of approximately 10% permitted by IWB-3514.3. The maximum allowable end of evaluation period depth to thickness ratios in Tables IWB-3641-1 through IWB-3641-6 are limited to 0.75. Therefore, a flaw that is through-wall (ratio-1) that causes a leak would not satisfy the end of evaluation acceptance criteria for structural integrity.
ASME Code Inquiry 92-005, March 10, 1992, states corrective measures are required if a leak is found during a pressure test and the acceptance criteria of IWX-3000 are exceeded and that for leakage found during normal plant operation,Section XI, IWA-5250(a) does not apply. However, leakage found during plant operation brings into question the capability of a system, subsystem, or component to fulfill its safety function (i.e., operability).
Additionally, licensees conduct inservice leakage tests with the plant in l
operation and clearly the provisions of IWA-5250(a) apply to leakage identified during these tests.
4 The interpretation could mislead a licensee to conclude that it should take different actions if a leak is discovered by an operator during rounds rather than during the conduction of an inservice leak test because of the difference between the code interpretation and the guidance in GL 91-18. As a result, a r;onconforming condition could remain indeterminable for an extended period of time.
If a licensee has reason to believe that it would fail a required inservice test, such as an inservice leakage test, it should take corrective actions as if the test had identified the failed condition and declare the system inoperable when the acceptance criteria for such a test were not satisfied.
[b]
These statements in Generic Letter [s] 90-05 and 91-18 are completely untrue. ASME Section III allows unreinforced openings or holes in piping.
NRC Staff Response Section III, NCA, Paragraph 1130, " Limits of These Rules," states, in part, that "[t]he rules of this Section provide requirements for new construction and include consideration of mechanical and thermal stresses due to cyclic operation. They do not cover deterioration which may occur in service as a result of radiation effects, corrosion, erosion or instability of the material. These effects shall be taken into account with a view to realizing the design or the specified life of the components."
Thus, the ASME Code clearly recognizes that rules permitted for construction are not necessarily acceptable for operation because they may not adequately account for service-induced degradation. The relevant Code requirements for operation are in Section XI.Section XI requires that the cause of deterioration for the failure be addressed.
In particular,Section XI, Paragraph IWA-4130, states',
in part, that "(b)... a Repair Plan shall identify the following:... (9)
Intended life of the repair, when less than the remainder of the design life j
of the item....
(c) Prior to authorizing a repair, the Owner shall evaluate 1
the suitability of the repair, including consideration of the cause of failure.
(d) The Repair Program and plans shall be subject to review by enforcement and regulatory authorities having jurisdiction at the plant site."
For a repair to be in compliance, these provisions of the Code must be satisfied.
[c]
The NRC Daff has not provided any legal or regulatory basis for not permitting leakage in Code piping during operation.
NRC Staff Response Section 50.55a, paragraph (g)(4) states, in part, that "[t]hroughout the service life of a boiling or pressurized water-cooled nuclear power facility, components (including supports) which are classified as ASME Code Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 must meet the requirements, except design and access provisions and preservice examination requirements, set forth in Section XI..."
As such, the regulations would not be satisfied if deterioration has caused a breach (i.e., leakage) in the wall of components within the scope of Section 50.55a. That is, if a pipe has a through-wall defect that causes a i
l
5 leak, then the pipe obviously has a flaw in it and a licensee could not demonstrate that the structural integrity of the component meets the flaw acceptance criteria of Section XI, IWX-3000 (See 3[a] response). Arguments that Code references do not specifically require the defect causing a leak ta be characterized and flaw evaluation to be performed are insufficient for determining operability.
Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, " Corrective Measures," would require further evaluation of the deterioration to ascertain if the system, subsystem, or component has sufficient safety margin and to ensure that other design basis and regulatory requirements are met (e.g.,
Appendix A, General Criteria 14, 15, 31, 36, 37, 45, 46, and 51, plant SARs, plant technical specifications, etc.).
4.
Weld Overlays and IN 93-21 Mr. Reedy's letter states, in part, the following:
[a]
The NRC staff points out that Code Case N-504 addresses weld overlays for austenitic stainless steel piping. This is true.
However, this Code Case is not now and never was ner :ssary. The NRC Staff members on the Committee have proposed a number of Code Cases to the Subcommittee which other members felt were wrong.
However, the members were threatened that if they did not support i
the [ Code] Case, the NRC would write a regulation which would be much more rostrictive and would be harder to live with.
Because of this type of pressure, some of the Code Cases were passed....
NRC Staff Response Code Case N-504 was not introduced by NRC participants on the Code Committee.
The code case was prepared by an industry consultant who performs repairs and evaluations for intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) of BWR piping.
With regard to Code Case N-504 and the code case that was proposed by NRC staff members on temporary corrective measures, both of these code cases serve to reduce regulatory burden. Code Case N-504 accomplishes this by relieving a licensee from proposing alternatives pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(a)(3) as did the l
proposed code case. This appears to be inconsistent with the assertion that l
NRC staff code members were threatening the industry with punitive regulations.
1 l
[b]
... [T]he ASME Code has always allowed weld overlay to l
compensate for insufficient thickness. ASME has confirmed this l
fact...
l NRC Staff Response Reinforcement and repair of thinned areas of a component during construction is not equivalent to correcting thinning of a component during subsequent operation which is caused by service-induced deterioration. This is specifically addressed in Section III, NCA-1130. The 1989 Edition of Section XI, IWA-4130, " Repair Plan," requires the determination of root cause and accounting for future deterioration in assessing the life of the repair. No evaluation or inspection rules for either flow accelerated corrosion (FAC) or
6 micro-biological corrosion are con +ained in Section XI of the ASME Code. The o,1y criteria provided for such evaluation methodology is contained in Code Case N-480. Therefore, since no rates for deterioration are contained for the base metal or overlay filler material and no examination or re-examination rules exist, the life of the repair cannot be assessed under existing Code rules. The NRC would be unable to conclude that component integrity requirements of Section 50.55a would be satisfied for safe continued operation given the above stated conditions.
What is the NRC's legal or regulatory basis for prohibition of weld overlays on Code piping?
NRC Staff Response You have misunderstood the NRC's position; the staff does not claim that weld overlays, as defined by you, are prohibited in toto.
Rather the NRC staff's po;;ition is that such repairs must be performed in accordance with the applicable requirements of Section XI, which must be met throughout the service life of the plant.Section XI, IWA-4340, states, in part, that:
(a) After final grinding, the affected surfaces, including surfaces of cavities prepared for welding, shall be examined by the magnetic particle or liquid penetrant method to ensure that the indication has been reduced to an acceptabi: limit in accordance with IWA-3000. The original defect shall be removed:
(1) when repair welding is to be performed in accordance with IAW-4510; (2) when repair welding is required in accordance with IWA-l 4520 or IWA4530, and the defect penetrates the base material.
Since IGSCC is usually initiated at the inside of a pipe adjacent to a weld, the practical effect has been that licensees have been unable to comply with the relevant Code requirements for repair of such defects. The NRC staff believes that overlays have shown to be effective in addressing IGSCC which occurs due to (1) a susceptible material (2) in an unfavorable environment (3) being subjected to stresses. An IGSCC resistant filler material is used, putting part of the repaired component in a compressive stress field, thus correcting two of the three elements that caused the problem. Deep IGSCC cracks often propagate through the component wall during repair; thus, it is important to ensure that the overlay is sound prior to taking any cred,it for i
it as a " replaced" pressure boundary.
In fact, Code Case N-504 was introduced to :.odify repair practices that have been submitted as requests by licensees and reviewed on a case basis by the NRC as a non-code repair pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(a)(3). The intent nf this code case was to eliminate unnecessary resource demands on the industry and the NRC and tha objective was successfully met.
5.
Code Yfolations Mr. Reedy's letter states the following:
This is one other issue of concern regarding the NRC Staff and implementation of the ASME Code. Over the past ten to fifteen years,
1
{
1 i
7 the NRC has often fined or threatened to fine nuclear utilities for not meeting the Staff's interpretation of ASME Code requirements.
In these cases, it was the Staff who determined that the ASME Cede was violated.
Howa"er, as stated in the Foreword of the Code, only ASME can make dets.mination of ASME Code violation, and ASME was never contacted in these cases to investigate the alleged violation.
I have reviewed a significant number of these alleged violations and ~have never found any Code violations. Actions resulting from these unfounded accusations have cost the nuclear industry many, many millions of dollars, are unfair, and intimidate the industry. ASME has a process for i
investigating Code violations. The NRC should use that process because it is fair and open.
NRC Staff Response The NRC has a well defined enforcement policy that includes comprehensive review by both technical, managerial and legal members of the staff. As an example, Virginia Power by letter dated February 28, 1994 appealed the staff position with regard to the difference between the code interpretation and GL 91-18. This item was subject to my review which sustained the original staff findings. The appeal was transmitted to the licensee by letter dated May 2, 1994.
l You did not provide us with any specific examples or instances where the staff determined that the ASME code was ' violated" but there was clear evidence to the contrary.
I recognize that you " interpret" the Code differently than the NRC staff in several instances. Therefore, I am unable to respond to your contention.
I i
l
i j
i i
Mr. Ro9er F. Reedy j
Reedy Associates, Inc.
15951 Los Gatos Blvd., Suite 1 Los Gatos, California 95032
Dear Mr. Reedy:
Chairman Jackson has requested that I respond to your letter regarding your contention that the NRC staff's implementation of the ASME Code is contrary to i
federal regulations, primarily 10 CFR 50.55a. Your letter identified the five following major concerns: 1) Engineering Judgment, 2) ASME Code Interpretations, 3) Generic Letters 90-05 and 91-18, 4) Weld Overlays and j
Information Notice 93-21, and 5) Code Violations. The first four of your
(
concerns have been previously addressed by the NRC staff in letters to yo t
dated November 15, 1993, March 18, 1994, July 24 and September 26, 1995.
I have re-reviewed the positions provide by the staff to you in the above stated i
correspondence and find them valid with one exception.
I an enclosing a more comprehensive review of,your four earlier concerns as well as addressing your fifth concern.
4 Since your letter contains statements that could be interpreted as an allegation of-NRC staff wrongdoing, I am forwarding your letter to the f
Office of the InspectoriGeneral.
~x.
f'
/
~
Sincerely,'
/
/
,l
~
William T. Russell, Director /
. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
,As stated
/
/
1 Distribution:' See Attached List *See Previous Concurrence G:\\RAHermann\\ ready.FII
/
To receive a copy of this deement, indicate in the hon C=cepy w/o attachment / enclosure E=cepy with attachment /encleeure N = 50 copy
/
'NRR:ADT[
OFFICE
- DE:ENCB
- DE:D p[j NAME RAHermann: rah:adl' BWSheron
/
AThadani
[dumu DATE 1 23 96 2 5 96
/
/96 mmmu mums unmmmme u
0FFICE
- 0GC EDO
/
OCM/SJ NRR:D NAME JTaylor
/
SJackson WTRussell DATE 2/1/96
/ /96
/ /96
/ /96 CfFICIAL RECORD COPY
//
/
Mr. Roger F. Reedy Reedy Associates, Inc.
15951 Los Gatos Blvd., Suite 1 Los Gatos, California 95032
Dear Mr. Reedy:
Chairman Jackson has requested that I respond to your letter regarding your contention that the NRC staff's implementation of the ASME Code is contrary to federal regul ions, primarily 10 CFR 50.55a. Your letter identified the five following maj concerns: 1) Engineering Judgement, 2) ASME Code Interpretation
- 3) Generic Letters 90-05 and 91-18, 4) Weld Overlays and Information Not ce 93-21, and 5) Code Violations. The first four of your concerns have bedg previously addressed by the NRC staff in letters to you dated November 15,\\l993, March 18,1994, July 24 and September 26, 1995.
I have re-reviewed t positions provide by the staff to you in the above stated correspondence and
'nd them valid with one exception.
I am enclosing a more comprehensive review f your four earlier concerns as well as addressing your fifth concern.
Since your letter contai statements that could be interpreted as an allegation of NRC staff wr ngdoing, I am forwarding your letter to the Office of the Inspector General.
- incerely, Will ~am T. Russell, Director Offic of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
S. Jackson Distribution: See Attached List *See revious Concurrence 6:\\RAHermann\\ reedy.FII To receive a copy of this doctaneit, indicate in the box C opy w/n attachment / enclosure E= Copy with attachment / enclosure N
- No copy A
0FFICE
- DE:EMCB
- )E: [ Y
\\
NRR:ADT NAME RAHermann: rah:adl WSheN AThadani g[
smummmm/96mmmmmmmmaseassaammmmem[amm -b DATE 1/23 L /f 96
\\/ /96 summmmmmme z --
mesma mamma 0FFICE
- 0GC ED0 OCM/SJ NRR:D NAME JTaylor SJackson WTRassell DATE 2/1/96
/ /96
/ /96
/ /96 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY e
j
Mr. Roger F. Reedy Reedy Associates, Inc.
15951 Los Gatos Blvd., Suite 1 Los Gatos, California 95032
Dear Mr. Reedy:
Chairman Jackson has requested that I respond to your letter regarding your contention that the NRC staff's implementation of the ASME Code is contrary to federal regulations, primarily 10 CFR 50.55a. Your letter identified the five following major concerns: 1) Engineering Judgement, 2) ASME Code Interpretations, 3) Generic Letters 90-05 and 91-18, 4) Weld Overlays and Information Notice 93-41, and 5) Code Violations. The first four of your datedNovember15,199(iouslyaddressedbytheNRCstaffinletterstoyou concerns have been pre 3,NMarch 18,1994, July 24 and September 26, 1995.
I have re-reviewed the posi ions provide by the staff to you in the above stated correspondence and find th valid with_one exception.
I am enclosing a more comprehensive review of you four earlier concerns as well as addressing your fifth concern.
Sinc' rely, 6.
^
William Russe 11', Director Office of uclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
S. Jackson Distribution: See Attached List G:\\RAHermann\\ reedy.FII To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box C= Copy w attachment / enclosure E= copy with attachment / enclosure W a No copy 0FFICE DE:EMCB E
DE:D NRkADT NAME RAHermatMrah:ad1' BWSheron AThahni
-- /k DATE L/,3l./.96.--
/ ' /96
/
0FFICE OGC J M Sy ED0 OCM/SJ
\\NRR:D l
I NA $t la,"'
JTaylor SJackson bRussell l
NAME DATE I / / /96
/ /96
/ /96
/\\ /96 l
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
... _. ~
.c__..
6 i
o 3.
Tw
'55 a
r
?
Distributie2 l
entral TITC
% B RF ~
~DE RF l
J. Taylor l
G. M11hoan H. Thompson l
J.'Blaha i
W. Russell-
'F. Gillespie A. Thadr.ni F. Miraglia i
R. Zimmerman D. Crutchfield G. Millman l
M. Mayfield J. Craig l
J. Strosnider K. Wichman K. Bohrer L
EDO Chron 0000847 GT 0847 OIG i
I-CRC 95-1026 I
r l
r-l 1
6 j
l i
e
~
,c T*'
9 f
W s,.
4 l
6 s
4 9
i V
i
.s
_.