ML17272B038
| ML17272B038 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1979 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Fox C FOXBORO CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17272B039 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903300226 | |
| Download: ML17272B038 (4) | |
Text
?
~'t i,l
/
J J
. NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION o<
WASHINGTONoD C 20555 5NR 4
1979 Mr. Charles J.
Fox Fox Industri es 722 Folger Avenue Berkeley, California 94710
Dear Mr. Fox:
Your letter to Chairman Hendrie of February 2, 1979, has been referred to me for reply.
I have reviewed the records and correspondence relating to your interaction with thi s agency since 1972 and can easily understand and be sympathetic with your difficultyin attempting to get a formal approval by the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of your topical report,'"Performance Tests and Engineering Evaluation of Fox-Howlett No-Slip Couplers for Reinforcing Steel Bars."
You should be aware that staff approval merely means that a topical report can be referenced in specific nuclear power plant applications.
It is not a certification or endorsement of a particular component or subsystem.
However, I would like to point out that a basis for accepting your product has received consideration and informal acceptance by the technical personnel of the NRC staff on the AC1 359 Code, Commi.ttee. who. reviewed and commented on Code Case 1758, "Reqiiirements for Materials ahd gualification and Per--
formance Testing of Reinforcing Bar Splice-'Systems (Taper Threaded Splices)".
This Code Case was voted affirmatively by the NRC member at the ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Main Committee level, then it was approved and issued in 1976.
This informal acceptance is being extended to the Code change identi-fied as JC 8-13, "Incorporatin of Various Splice Systems Now Permitted by Code Cases".
NRC staff are members on The Subgroup on Materials, Construct-ion and Examination, The Joint Committee, and other ACl 359 subgroups and working groups.
FoImal approval of your topical report by the NRC staff is not a prerequisite for NRR acceptance for use of your product in nuclear power plants.
All utilities and architect-engineering firms can utilize your splice system in the construction of nuclear power plants subject to the normal review by the NRC staff of any docketed application.
Publication of the Code Case 1758 by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code provides a basis for such staff review.
At the present, we have no procedural difficultyin starting our technical review, but as our letter to you of March 22, 1978, (from Mr. Karl Kniel) indicated, priority consideration of more pressing matters delayed initiation of a formal review of your'topical report.
Unfortunately, this situation has continued during the past eleven months.
r=imtImrm p
MAR 1 2'1979
- REUANCE sHEET; & srglp tm.
~-~ 5 b
t l
j Charles J.
Fox Mith respect to your understanding of NRC regulatory guides, this agency does have two different ways of promulgating written guidance and direction.
A regulation, which is published in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, describes requirments that must be complied with by the industry.
By contrast, regulatory guides (such as 1.10 on Cadweld Splices) describe an acceptable method.
As noted in the enclosed preamble to Regulatory Guide Series, "guides are not intended as substitutes for regulation, and, therefore, compliance with these guides is not required."
In addition, note that the regulatory guide on Cadweld Splices was written when there were no other available splice systems in the industry other than the Cadweld Splice.
Also, I would like to-inform you of a current NRC staff effort-to delete the regula-tory guide on Cadweld Splices after publishing one that. would endorse the qualification criteria for all splice systems identified by the Code.
Our view of your correspondence with TVA is that it is a matter between you and them.
If TVA had proposed use of your product during our review of Yellow Creek, we would have reviewed it and the acceptance of the Code Case by our code representatives would have played a part in our review.
Me will attempt to reschedule the review of your topical report.
- However, that review should not be a determining factor in; tPe use. of your product by the nuclear industry.
I trust that the above, documentation will'aid. you in discussions with utilities planning'to b'uild. nucl'ear power'lants and-will help assure that you receive reasonably fair treatment by potential users of your product.
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
0 v.
,)
l