ML20029E205
| ML20029E205 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/14/1990 |
| From: | Shao L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Jordan E Committee To Review Generic Requirements |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028G711 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.035, RTR-REGGD-1.035 NUDOCS 9405170216 | |
| Download: ML20029E205 (2) | |
Text
_
,ns
- S\\3% f,h pg UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION sJg j
- . M J
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$55 F EB 14 1990 MEf10RANDUM FOR:
Edward L. Jordan, Chairman Comittee to Review Generic Requirements FROM:
Lawrence C. Shao, Director Division of Engineering, RES S'JBJECT:
MINUTES OF CRGR MEETING 175 This memorandum is in accordance with the E00's July 18, 1983 concerning " Feedback and Closure of CRGR Reviews."
directive with regard to Comittee review of the proposed R I am in agreement with and
" Inservice Inspection of Ungrouted Tendons in Prestressed Concrete C ments," and proposed Reg Guide 1.35.1, " Determining Prestressing Forces Inspection of Prestressed Concrete Containment."
additional coments on the decision to pubTTsh the have prepared the proposed guides based on comments at the meeting Thus, we fit only and will send them to CRGR for concurrence.
In addition, we would like to offer the following coments on the need to implement the backfit rule when amending 50.55a to update ASME Section inservice inspection requirements, and the degree to which the CRGR shou review such amendments.
Recogn uing the need to continue development of amendments to 50.55a and associated regulatory guides in a manner that is timely, but that also ensures appropriate review by the CRGR No.175, unless directed otherwise by the CRGR. follow the
, RES intends to The noted procedure is amendments to 50.55a that simply update the exis addenda of Section III and Section XI of the ASME Code and do not impos limitations and modifications should not be subjected to the backfit provisions in 10 CFR 50.109.
In general, the referenced procedure provides for amendments to 50.55a to issued for public coment without CRGR review when no form of exception is taken by the proposed amendment, and for the final rule to be published without CRGR review when there are no significant public coments.
to 50.55a would be reviewed b Amendments stages in all other cases (e.y the CRGR at both the proposed and final rule limitations, or incorporation of new subsections / divisions of the not previously endorsed).
9405170216940509'3go({~1U35 PDR REVGP NROCROR MEETINGIBO PDR
\\
- EE 14 199?)
Similarly, with regard to Regulatory Guides when no limitations or modifications are imposed o i
instances, where a limitation or modification is imposed on 'a specific code
.In those case that is otherwise incorporated into one of the no 3
-i approval of the noted exceptions,
./n)
)
l
. /
A
.awrence C. Shao, Director Division of Engineering, RES t
cc: CRGR Members H. Graves G. Arndt J. Costello G. Millman 9
e t--'t E
- - - - - - - - - - ~ ~
pm E lc a ru h
' nu sA--
f' UNITED STATr3
-suCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\\
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 6'
k*
/<
Ih Ms~
March 15, 1989 u ' uI L.
)
& h A+,
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Eric S. Beckjord, Director x' P
~~~
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
._/
FROM:
Stuart A. Treby Assistant General Counsel for Rulemaking and Fuel Cycle h
Office of the General Counsel
SUBJECT:
APPLICATION OF THE BACXFIT RULE (10 CFR $ 50.109) TO AMENDMENTS TO CODES AND STANDARDS REGULATION (10 CF By memorandum dated October 20, 1988, you reauested OGC concurrence on a pro-posed rulemaking package to amend 10 CFR 50.55a, " Codes and standards," to in-corporate by reference Subsection IKE of Section XI, Division I, of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code ("ASME Code").
This office reviewed that rule.
making package. On November 2,1988, 0GC returned the package to the RES con-tact, Mr. W.E. Norris, noting that although OGC had several' editorial consents that it wanted incorporated, OGC had no legal objection to the action being proposed.
Because the concurrence package proposing the rulemaking did not include a concurrence page, RES requested a formal written memorandum from OGC confirming its position of "no legal objection"' to the proposed action and stating OGC's position both on the general applicability of the "backfit rule" to routine updates to 6 50.55a and on the specific "backfit" issue raiseo by the proposed action.
Those are the purposes of this document.
With respect to routine updates to 10 CFR 50.55a, it has consistently been the '
position of the Office of the General Counsel that such routine updates, which r
incorporate by reference 'new Editions and/or Addenda of the ASME Code, are subject to the backfit provisions of 10 CFR 50.109.
The legal bases for this i
position are:
(1) the Section III, Division 1,-' updates apply only to new con-struction (i.e., the Edition and Addenda of the ASME Code to be used in the j
construction of a plant are selected based upon the date of the construction -
pennit and are not changed thereaf ter, except voluntarily by the licensee);
(2) licensees are fully aware that 5 50.55a requires that they update their l
I inservice inspection program every I'0 years to the latest Edition and Addenda of Section XI of the ASME Code incorporated by reference into i 50.55a twelve months before the start of the next inspectiorr-interval; and (3) endorsing and updating references to the ASME Code, a national consensus standard developed by participants (including both the NRC and representatives of the regulated industry) with broad and and varied interests, is consistent with both the in-i l
tent and spirit of the backfit rule (i.e., the NRC provides for the protection of the public health and safety but does not unilaterally impose an undue bur-den on applicants er licensees).
-#=$
-3 e
J
%e
=
l s
2_
Unlike routine updates to 5 50.55a, the proposed action would incorn rate by reference the provisions of Subsection IWE of Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME Code. A Subsection not heretofore incorporated by reference Subsection
!WE would impose some new and additional inservice inspection requirements on existing licensees.
Thus, this action raises the question whether such incor-poration by reference constitutes a backfit within the scope of 5 50.109. The specific backfit question raised by the proposed action was addressed at an August 4,1988, meeting between RES and OGC personnel and again at a meeting I
between OGC and NRR personnel on January 23, 1989. 0GC recognizes that the provisions of Subsection IWE were developed through the process uced to formu-late national consensus standards and, consequently, received review and com-ment by NRC personnel and representatives of the regulated industry as well as by other individuals with expertise in the subject matter addressed by Subsec-tion IWE. OGC also agrees with the RES position that Subsection IWE provides acceptable minimum requirements for the inservice inspection of certain speci-fied containment types and, therefore, represents responsible application of engineering judgment to assure adequate protection of the public health and safety.
It is, therefore, 0GC's opinion that 95 50.109(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the backfit rule do not apply because this action is within the scope of
% 50.109(a)(4)(ii).
The justification for imposing the requirements of Subsection IWE as adequate protection of the public health and safety is discussed in Appendix B of the regulatory analysis which is entitled "50.109 Documented Evaluation."
l
./3/
Stuart A. Treby Assistant General Counsel for Rulemaking and Fuel Cycle Office of the General Counsel 1
DISTRIBUTION-d Central Files i
Regs l
OGC r/f j
OGC s/f l
EJakel STreby
{
I COOLS & STANDARDS RULE 1/2'89 F
- R&FC/0GC
- 0/RI.FCA GC
- EJakel $p :STreby NAME
_:_.....____g __:.....:... _.... ____,___ _ _, _,_ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _,,,
DATE
- 3/:3/89
- 3/[ /89
s to the Minutes of CRGR Meeting No. 175 Procosed Revision 3 to Regulatory Guioe 1.35 and Procosea Regulatory Guide 1.35.1
~
December 5, 1989 TOPIC The proposed Revision 3 to Regulatory Guide 1.35 would impleme changes in inservice inspection programs for ungrouted tendons in p concrete containments as currently specified in Revision 2.
exceptions, parallel to the recently issued subsection IWL of ASME Sec It was, with some XI.
The proposed Regulatory Guide 1.35.1 would provide essentially guidance on predicting and evalunting pre stressing forces.
Meeting No. 172 on OctoberAt this meeting the Committee continued 25, 1989.
, begun at Herman Graves (RES) responded to the Committee's previous que were documented in the Minutes of Meeting NO. 172.
, which making the presentation are provided as attachments to this enclosu follows:
1.
Table entitled " Options for Endorsing Subsection IWL."
2.
First two pages of a letter dated November 15, 1989 from Sammataro, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee to Bosnak, NRC.
3.
Memo dated March 15, 1989 for Beckjord from Treby, subject:
Application Regulation (10 CFR 50.55a)of the Backfit Rule (10 CFR 50.109 BACKGROUND additional materials provides by the staff as detaile Meeting No. 172.
CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS proposed guides subject to the conditions discussed b 1.
The proposed guides would be issued irrfinal form.
be coordinated with the CRGR staff. guides forward fit only an Changes to make the 2.
The CRGR staff would obtain any further detailed technical comments f J. Sniezek, G. Arlotto and D. Ross (who were not present at this m for staff consideration in the final guides.
I
' 3.
The staff would proceed in parallel to adopt the recently issued ASME Subsection IWL in 10 CFR 50.55(a)(g).
RES would identify and document differences between the Regulatory Guides and Subsection IWL and forward the differences to ASME to consider for adoption in Subsection IWL before the regulation change was proposed.
would be ironed out with ASME by mid-1992.It was expected that the differences When proposed, it would be decided whether the regulation change would apply to existing plants (rather than be forward fit only).
4 As a backup option, in case of problems with issuing the regulation, the staff might consider adopting Subsection IWL as a code case in the future.
The staff also briefly discussed the following. issues:
10 CFR 50.55(a)(g) updating the ASME Section XI inservice inspection ments were, in general, exempt from the backfit rule, and (2) the degree of CRGR review appropriate for such changes.
CRGR responses resulted from this discussion.No decisions, recommendations, or
)
PROCESSING OF AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR 50.55A RELATIVE TO BACKFIT RULE INVOLVING SECTIONS III AND XI 0F THE ASME CODE TYPE OF AMENDMENT BACKFIT CRGR REVIEW ROUTINE UPDATE WITH NO MODIFICATIONS OR NOT SUBJECT TO BACKFIT PROPOSED:
RULE SUBMITTED LIMITATIONS PROVISIONS OF 50.109 FOR INFORMATION. PRESENTATION NOT REQUIRED.
FINAL: RULE PACKAGE INCLUDING RESOLUTION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS SUBMITTED FOR INFORMATION.
PRESENTATION ONLY IN EVENT OF SIGNIFICANT Pt1BLIC COMMENTS.
UPDATE WITH SPECIFIED OR NRC MODIFICATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS pr PROPOSED AND FINAL -
LIMITATIONS LIMITATIONS SUBJECT PRESENTATION TO CRGR TO BACKFIT. BALANCE ON MODIFICATIONS OF l
l 0F UPDATE NOT SUBJECT LIMITATIONS PORTION TO BACKFIT.
INCORPORATION OF PORTIONS 0F ASME CODE NOT PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO BACKFIT PROPOSED AND FINAL -
ENDORSED PRESENTATIONS TO CRGR
)
i NOTE: WE BELIEVE IN MOST CASES EDO HAS AUTHORITY TO APPROVE ISSUANCE OF RULE.
I
=.
1 ASME CODE CASES IN REGULATORY GUIDES 1.84, 1.85, 1.147 ANNUAL REVISIONS i
. TYPE OF REVISION CRGR REVIEW R0llTINE PICK-UP OF CODE CASES WITH GUIDE SUBMITTED FOR INFORMATION NO MODIFICATIONS OR LIMITATIONS i
..t PICK-UP CASES WITH MODIFICATIONS PRESENTATION TO CRGR ON MODIFICATIONS OR LIMITATIQNS OR LIMITATIONS PORTION i
f i
i I
t e
[
.m
.