ML20055C235
| ML20055C235 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/15/1989 |
| From: | Treby S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Beckjord E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055C236 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-59FR979 AC93-1-051, AC93-1-51, AC93-1-52, AX93-1-52, NUDOCS 8903200372 | |
| Download: ML20055C235 (18) | |
Text
. _.. _ _ _ _ -
_ _ - _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _. _ _. ~
i
/ j ase gA UNITED STATES l
[
n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N wsHiNo1ow. D. c. se666 j ( o.... )<
s.
March 15, 1989 i
HEMORANDUM FOR: Eric S. Beckjord, Director I
Office of Nuclear Reguidory Research FRON:
Stuart A. Treb)
Assistant Ge m. Counsel for 3
Rulemaking and Fuel Cycle Office of the Genetal Counsel
$UBJECT:
APPLICATIONCFTHEBACKFliRULE(10CFRI50.109)TO AMENDMENTS TO CODES AND STANDARDS R.1ULATION (10 CFR I 50.b5a)
By menorandum dated October 20, 1988, you requested 0GC concurrence on a pro-posed rulemaking package to amend 10 CFR 50.55a.
- Cedes and standards.* to in-co'<porate by refersnee Subsection !WE of Section XI, Division 1. of the ASME r, oiler and Pressure Vessel Code ("A$t!E Code'). This office reviewed that rule making package. On November 2, 1988, OGC returned the package to the RES con-tact, Mr. W.P.
Norris: noting that althopgh OGC had several editorial comments that it wanted incorporated. 000 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 ef "no leDal objection" to the proposed action and stating OGC's position both on the general applicability of the "backfit rule" to routine updates to i 50.55a and on the specific *backfit' issue raised 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 incorporate by reference new Editions and/or Addenda of the ASME Code, are not subjtct to the backfit provisions of 10 CFR 50.109. The legal bases for this position are:
(1)theSection!!!, Division 1,updatesapplyonlytonewcon-struction (i.e., the Edition and Addenda of the ASME Code to be used in the construction of a plant are selected based upon the date of the construction pemit and are not changed thereafter, except voluntarily by the licensee);
(2) licensees are fully aware that i 50.55a requires that they update their inservice inspection program every 10 years to the latest Edition and Addenda of Section XI of the ASMI Code incorporated by reference into 6 50.55a twelve monthsbeforethestcrtofthenextinspectioninterval;and(3)endorsingand 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-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-can on applicants or licensaes).
N 05632$f87)W w
l i
- + - -
r-
-.----,-m.-.s,-
u.-
..---._-w,._
-,-...ww-_%---~,.-.-..,r w
-,.,-_,,,,-y-%------
-e p+-w-.--,,
w--
.,-ew-,
)
3 Unlike routine upoates to i 50.55a. the proposed action would incorporate by reference the provisions of Subsection IKE of Section XI Division I, of the ASME Code. A Subsection not beretofore incorporated by reference, Subsection IKE 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 i 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.
OGC recognizes that the provisions of Subsection IWE were developed through the process used to fornu.
late national consensus standards and, consequently, received review and com.
rient by NRC personnel and representatives of the regulated ir.dustry as well as by other individuals with expertise in the subject matter ada.essed by Subsec.
tion IWE. OGC also agrees with the RES position that Subsectis' IWE provides acceptable minimum requirements for the inservice inspection of.ertain speci.
fied containment types and, therefore, represents responsible application of engineering judgment to assure adequate protection of the public health and l
safety.
It is, therefore OGS's opinion that il 50.109(a)(2) and (a)(3) of l
the backfit rule do not apply in this particular situation. 0GC notes that the evaluation required by i 50.109(a)(4) is contained in the regulatory anal.
1 ysis accompanying the proposed rule. The justification for imposing the re.
quirements of Subsection IWE as adequate protection of the public health and safety is primarily discussed in the regulatory analysis in the section enti.
tied " Statement of the Problem".
l Stuart A. Treby Assistant General Counsel for Rulemaking and Fuel Cycle Office of the General Counsel DISTRIBUTION:
Tentral Files Regs OGC r/f OGC s/f EJakel STreby CODES & STANDARDS RULE 3/2/89
~
- R5FC/0GC
- D/RlFC/DGC
.......:...............:...s..........:..............:..............:..............:............
MAME EJakel{
4..::S T r e'b/......... :.............. ::...........
DATE
- 3/)$/89
- 3//'/89
l Original: Arlotto cys:
Beckjord
/'s5* *'%,o,,
UNITED STATES Ross
[
p, NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$ngjg g
,f wasumotow.o c.rons AMurnhy Norris l
\\*****f h0V 0 61988 sf 11/10 h
MEMORANDty FOR: Eric S. Beckjord, Director
/ I'
./
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
'// v[/fY l
FROM:
Edward L. Jordan, Director Office for Analysi; and Evaluation of Operational 1,ata
SUBJECT:
INTEROFFICE CONCURRENCE OF PROPOSED PULE FOR IWEOFSECTIONXI. DIVISION 1,y.REFERENCESUBSECTION 10 CFR 50.55a TO INCORPORATE B OF THE ASME B0!Ltd AND PRESSURE VESSEL CODE We have reviewed your October 20, 1988 proposal for e rule change in 10 CFP, l
50.55a to incorporate by reference Subsection IKE (metal containments and metal liners of concrete cor.tainments) of Section XI of the ASME Code. This proposed revision has responded constructively to our coments dated August 2, 1988, especially with the change in implementation schedule to accept 5 years to cunplete initial examinations rather than a possible 18 years in the previous proposal. We concur with the proposed rule change.
h (1b 4tfwar L.
ordan, Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of OpMational Data cc:
J. Portlow, OSP T. Murley, NRR W. Mcdonald, ARM W. Parler, OGC k
p.A[VM
'o UNITED STATES 8"-
/g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
W ASHING T ON, D, C. 20555
....8 December 2, 1988
\\
NEMORANDUM F0k:
Eric Beckjord, Director r
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM:
Frank P. Gillespie,: Director Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR OFFICE CONCURRENCE ON THE PROPOSED RULE FOR 10 CFR 50.55A.T0 INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE SUBSECTION IWE Of SECTION XI, DIVISION 1 0F THE ASME BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL CODE in response to your memorandum of October 20, 1988, requesting NRR concurrence on the subject proposed rule, NRR has no technical objections to the proposed rule. We would agree that rulemaking action to incorporate by reference the 1985 Edition with Addenda of Subsection'IWE, " Requirements for Class MC Components t
of Light-Water Cooled Power Plants," of Section XI (Division I) of the ASME l
. Boiler and-Pressure Vessel Code is technically appropriate.
We note, however, thet the associated Regulatory Analysis does not adequately support the proposed action. On the one hand, the regulatory analysis contains an adequate cost analysis showing that the proposed rulemaking will require a-total industry cost in the order of $100,000,000.. On the other hand, the bene-i fits (especially safety) which should form the essential basis for warranting the rule, are treated superficially and do not provide sufficient basis'for a decision on the proposed action. Also, it is important in the development of a proposed rule that its relat1onship to other related activities and/or on-going actions should be addressed.
It.is our view that a reasonable effort to utilize the guidance presented in NUREG/BR-0058, (Rev. 1, May 1984).will be necessary before NRR can concur as requested.
in accordance with NUREG/BR-0068, Rev.1. May 1984, high quality regulatory analyses should serve as the basis for NRC decisions.
It is stated that for proposed rules, as well as for other regulatory actions, every attempt should be made in the Regulatory Analysis to quantify costs and benefits and, where possible, in as precise and succinct a manner as possible.in order to support the proposed action. Merely stating that the proposed action will improve regulatory efficiency, for example, is considered to. fall short of adequate justification (NUREG/CR-3568, Dec.1983).
Systematic procedures for estimating changes in core-melt frequency, and hence quantitative estimates of the effects of the proposed action on the health and safety of the public, are available and useful for these purposes (NUREG/CR-3568, Dec.1983).
In addition to the development of reasonable quantitative estimates of the costs and benefits, NUREG/BR-0058 requires that the relationship of the
-proposed action to other existing and/or on-going activities be examined in order to possibly reestablish priorities or program reassessments.
In this 4
l i
2 I
a,tacctS.u we note, for example, that in the TIRGALEX report of May 1987,
" Men for integration of Aging and Life Extension Activities," the aging program is to consider structures,- such as containments, as well as nuclear pl.r, components. Moreover, in the development of the proposed rulemaking for tk maintenance of nuclear power plants at least one of the options will look to the aging research program in the development of the Regulatory Guide for the Maintenance rule.
For the sake of completeness the relationship of the subject proposed rule to these and any other such on-going activities should be addressed as' required.
if you have any questions concerning these matters, please contact Bob Colmar (extension 23076) of the PTSB staff.
MM%
Frank P. Gilespie Frank P. Gillespie, Director Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ec:
J. Sniezek F. Miraglia D. Crutchfield Distribution Central Files RBosnak PTSB Rdg JSniezek PMAS Rdg TMurley r
RColmar CYCheng WSchwink KWichman JRichardson WNorris FMiraglia GArlotto LShao AThadani Dt%sgbyg (ASMEBOILER)
- PREVIOUSLY CONCURRED
- GAIS:PTSB
- GAIS:PTSB
- EAD
- DEST
- PTSB
- [
MAS
- D:DRIS RColmar/lt WSchwink JRichardson L5nao CThomas F(il le BKGrimet 11/28/88 11/28/88 11/28/88 11/29/88 11/30/88 127 2/88 11/28/8f-l
8[ycno%
- 'g UNITE D STATES NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
{
l WASHINGTON, D, C,70665
%*....'/.
NOV 0 g gg MEMORANDUM FOR:
Cecil 0. Thomas, Chi,ef Policy Development and Technical Support Branch Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff FROM:-
James E. Richardson, Assistant Director for Engineering Division of Engineering and Systems.
Technology
SUBJECT:
0FFICE CONCURRENCE OF PROPOSED RULE FOR 10 CFR s0.55a TO INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE SUBSECTION IWE OF SECTION'XI.
DIVISION 1, OF THE ASME BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL CODE By memorandum dated October 20, 1988 Eric S. Beckjord, Director, RES, requested concurrence to incorporate by reference the 1986 Edition with Addenda up through the 1987 Addenda of Subsection IWE, " Requirements for Class MC Components of Light-Water Cooled Power Plants", of Section XI, Division 1, of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASMECode).
We have reviewed this package and conclude:
.(1) We have no technical objections to the proposed rule.
(2) We have not detemined the adequacy of the Regulatory Analysis.
(3) We agree that this rulemaking action is necessary and fully concur with the action, mes E. Richardson, Assistant Diree:or for Engineering Division of Engineering and Systems Technology cc:
F. Miraglia L. Shw i
G. Arlotto R. Bosnak l
W. Norris R. Colmar
Contact:
K. Wichman, DEST /EMTB' x20908 e
,.. ~ -
-4,..
/
\\
UNITED $T ATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8'
I waswiuovow. o. c. rosss g' $[
.f-d
\\*.** /
NOV 0 71988 t
/c T/d <g l
s
)
l l
MEMORANDUM FOR: Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research j
FROM:
James G. Partlow, Director Office of Special Projects l-
SUBJECT:
REVIEW 0F PROPOSED RULE FOR 10 CFR 50.55a TO INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE SUBSECTION IWE OF SECTION XI l
Reference:
Memorandum from E. Beckjord to J. Partlow, et al, dated October 20, 1988 In the above referenced memorandum, RES requested an interoffice review of a proposed rule for 10 CFR 50.55a to incorporate by reference the 1986 Edition and Addenda through the 1987 Addenda of Subsection IWE of Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. We have no coments on the proposed rule.
N&
Jam es G. Partlow, Director Offiice of Special Projects cc:
R. Bosnak, RES l
5
~
/
t,
)
[
L Ticket 1
DATE RECEIVEDi 11/08/88 ORIGINAL'DUE DT:
CONTROL NO: 8800425 f
REVISED DUE DT:
DOC DT: 11/03/88' FROM:
TIME:
COMP DT:
WILLIAM G. MCDONALD isrm TO:
ERIC S. BECKJORD
- YEL ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
l DE G. ARLOTTO FOR SIGNATURE OF:
.DESC:
ROUTING:
l l
OFFICE CONCURRENCE:
PROPOSED RULE FOR PART.50, BECKJORD
" CODES AND STANDARDS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS;-
ROSS SUBSECTION IWE" SPEIS l
BOSNAK SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
LAHS FILE (O&M-OARM) p V;
/@ 'dC Y
(
//-/6 5
'g.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
g W ASMNG TON, D. C, 20666 r
- j NOV 3 1988 MEl10RANDUM FOR
Eric S.. :kjord, Director
)
' Of fice o'. Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM:
William G.
' Donald, Director Office of Ao 'nistration and Resources Management SUNECT:
OFFICE CONCURREllCE:
PROPO5ED RULE FOR PART 50,
- CODES AND STAND,MDS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS; SUBSECTION ;ifE" The Offir.e of Administration and Resources Management has reviewed the proposed cmendments to 10 CFR Part 50 that would incorporate by reference Subsection IWE of Section XI, Division 7, of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. We concur with the proposed rule, subject to the modifications l
marked on the enclosed copy. These changes should be made before the proposed rule is submitted for publication in the Federal Register.
If you have any questions, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Lesar. Acting Chief, Rules Review Section, Regulatory Publications Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services (extension 27758), or Alzonia Shepard (extension 27651).
4 William. Mcdonald, Director Office of Administration and Resources Management i
L
Enclosure:
Proposed Rule f or Part 50 i
j i
i
'~'
~s
)
1 i
[7590-01).
L NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION-10 CFR PART 50 Codes and Standirds for Nuclear Power Plants; Subsection IWE
(
l
-AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I ACTION:
ProposeJdule.
/
.i
SUMMARY
The Nucle, r Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to amend its re-gulations to incorporate by reference the 1986 Edition with addenda through-i the 1987 Addenda of Subsection IWE, " Requirements for Class MC and Metallic Liners of Class CC Components of Light-Water Cooled Power Plants", of the Amer-ican Society of Mechanical-Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
(
This subsection of the ASME Code provides the rules-and requirements for inser-l vice inspection, repair, and replacement of Class MC pressure retaining compo-l nents and their integral attachments and of metallic shell and penetration-liners of Class CC pressure retaining components and their integral attach-ments in light-water cooled power plants.
Adoption of this amendment would provide rules to satisfy, in part, the periodic. inspection and surveillance 3 program required by Criterion 53 of the General Design Criteria and the gene-f ral inspection required by the NRC regulation for primary reactor containment (ql eakage ^.esting.
., q p
- t. ^ 'Q{6 DATES:
Comment period expires f. $ Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do
, ( 3 J so,
,4 l
but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments i
received on or before this date.
e..&
, MR*A date will be inserted a110 wing'60 days for public comment.
[7590-01)
ADDRESSES:
Written comments or suggestions may beisubmitted to the Secretary i
of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch, Copies of coments received may be examined in the Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INF0PMATION CONTACT:
Mr. W. E. Norris, Division of Engineering,
(
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone '301)492-3805.
i SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIO In 1977, the NRC requested that the ASME initiate work to establish rules for containment inspection.
This request was made as a result of previously identified as-built con':
nent deficiencies.
A Section XI working-group was established in response to that request.
In 1979, the working group was ele-vated to the Subgroup on Containment under the Section XI Subcommittee on In-service Inspection. The charter for the Subgroup gave it the responsibility for developing and maintaining the rules in Subsection IWE for Class MC contain-ments.
The Subgroup developed rules which were published as Subsection IWE in 1981.
Since that time, Subsection IWE has been expanded to provide a com-prehensive set of rules for the inservice inspection of Class MC components, and the metal liners in concrete containments.
In view of the age-related de-gradation occurring in containments, the NRC now proposes to incorporate by reference Subsection IWE into 10 CFR Part 50.
2
[7590-01]
The NRC has certain principal design criteria which establish the nec-cessary design, fabrication, construction, testing, and perfonnance require-I ments for structures, systems, and components important to safety.
These General Design Criteria establish minimum requirements for the principal de-sign criteria for water-cooled nuclear power plants. Implementing Subsection IWE will satisfy, in part, requirenents specified in certein General Design Criteria, es well as in certain Techn' cal Specifications and Appendix J of 10 CFR Part 50.
Criterion 1 of the General Design Criteria (Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50)-
requires, among other things, that structures and components important to safety be tested to quality standards commensurate with the importance of the i-safety functions to be performed.
It further states that where generally re-cognized codes and standards are used, they shall be supplemented or modified as necessary to assure a quality product in keeping with the required safety function.
Implementation of Section XI, Subsection IWE will ensure that speci-fic containment components will be inspected to an acceptable standa-d (i.e.,
the ASME Code).
Criterion 16 of the General Design Criteria requires ' that reactor con-tainment and associated systems be provided to establish an essentially leak-tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the en-vironment and to assure that the containment design conditions important to safety are not exceeded for as long as postulated accident conditions require.
The containment inspection objective is to assure the pressure-retaining inte-p grity of the containment throughout the plant lifetime.
i 3
L l
l
[7590-01)
Criterion 53 of the General Design Criteria (Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50) requires-that the reactor containment be designed to permit: (1) appropriate 9
l-periodic inspection of all important areas, such as penetrations; (2) an appro-priate surveillance program; and (3) periodic testing, at containment design pressure, of the leak-tightness of penetrations which have resilient seals and expansion bellows.
Subsection IWE sets forth procedures and details for saH s-fying the above three requirements.
l Appendix 0 Primary Reactor Containment Leakag. Testing for Water-Cooled l-Power Reactors, of 10 CFR Part 50, contains-specific rules for leakage testing of containments.
Paragraph V.A of Appendix J requires that a general inspec-tion of the accessible interior and exterior surfaces of the containment I
structures and components be performed prior to any Type A test to uncover any-eviuence of structural deterioration which may affect either the containment i
r,tructural integrity or leak-tightness.
Details for this general inspection, such as what parts of the containment structure must be accessible for in-spection and personnel qualification requirements for examiners, are not specified in Appendix J.
Subsection IWE provides these details.
l In Section 4 (Surveillance Requirements) of the Standard Technical Speci-fications, the subsection titled Containment Surfaces requires that the struc -
tural integrity of the exposed interior and exterior surfaces of the contain-ment, including the liner plate, be determined by a visual inspection during Type A test means tests intended to measure the primary reactor containment overall integrated leakage rate: (1) after the containment has been completed and is ready for operation, and (2) at periodic intervals thereafter.
4
[7590-01) the shutdown for each Type A containment ' leakage rate test. The purpose of this inspection is to verify that there are no apparent changes in appearance or other abnormal degradation of these surfaces.
This is an important consid-eration as many liners have very small design allowances for corrosion.
Sub-section IWE gives acceptance criteria for this visual inspection.
1 i
Section 6 of Standard Technical Specifications requires a periodic inser-vice surveillance program to ensure the functional _ capability of the contain-ment and associated structures, systems,- and components.
Subsection IWE sets forth requirements for this periodic surveillance program.
This proposed amendment would incorporate by reference into 10 CFR Part 50 the ASME Code,Section XI, Division 1, Subsection IWE, rules for contain-ment inservice inspection and would thereby provide systematic examinatian rules for containment structures.
These rules would serve to satisfy the rel-evant requirements of the General De ign Criteria, the Technical Specifica-l tions, and Appendix J.
The NRC staff has reviewed the 1986 Edition with ad-denda through the 1987 Addenda of Subsection IWE and found it to be acceptable-for satisfying the relevant portions of the above requirements with the fol-l lowing modification and limitation.
l A modification has been incorporated into the regulation that_ would re-i quire the examinations for the first inspection interval to be completed with-1 l
in 5 years of the effective date of this rule.
Subsection IWE as written per-mits the deferral of most of the required inspections until the end of the in-spection interval.
A period of 10 years could pass before the first inspec-tions would take place.
in order to establish a baseline for a facility _ and
-5 l
1
L
[7590-01]
to identify any existing problems, the modification to the regulation would require all examinations required by Subsection IWE to be completed during the first five years of the first 10 year inspection interval. The results of these first inspections will be studied before any decision on the timing of the in-spections in the second through fourth inspection intervals is made, i
Since 1981, Subsection IWE has been expanded to provide a comprehensive set of rules for the inservice inspection of Class MC components, and the metal liners in concrete containments.
A limitation is incorporated into the proposed amendment that specifies when using Subsection IWE.. editions and ad-denda no earlier than the 1986 Edition with addenda through the -1987 Addenda shall be used. This ensures that the latest set of rules will be used.
Endorsement of the Subsection IWE rules by the NRC provides a method of improving containment examination practices by incorporating rules into the regulatory process that are acceptable to the NRC and have received industry participation in their development.
1 Environmental Impact:
Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this proposed rule is the type of action des-cribed in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3).
Therefore, neither an en-vironmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement l
l This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are 6
[7590-01) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980-(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This l rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and-approval of the paperwork requirements.
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5,100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> per response, including the time for reviewing instruc-tions, searching existing data sources, gathering and-maintaining. the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.. Send com-i ments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collect), of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Secretary,
)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Docke-l ting and Service Branch; and to the Office of Infomation and Regulatory Af-l fairs, Office of Management and Budget Washington, DC 20503, i
Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation.
The analysis examines the costs. and benefits of-the alternatives considered by the Commission.
The draft analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document-Room, 2120 L Street NW, Washington, DC.
Single hd.
copies of the analysis may obtained from Mr. W. E. Norris, Division of Engi-g neering, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission, Washington,DC20555, telephone (301)492-3805.
t The Commission requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis.
Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under-the ADDRESSES heading.
~
7
i
[7590-01]
l
)
Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with-the Regulatory Flexibility Act of-1980, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Commission hereby certifies that this rule will not, if promul-gated, have - a significant-economic impact on a substantial number of small f
entities.
This proposed rule - affects only the licensing -and operation of nuclear power plants.
The companies that own these plants de not fal1~ within the scope of-the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Ie"ahtory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards.sett out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at' 13 CFR-Part 121.
Since these l
l companies are dominant in their. service areas, this proposed rule doe's not-fall within the purview of-the Act.
Backfit Statement i
L The ASME has defined minimum requirements for. inservice inspection, re-pair, and replacement of Class MC pressure retaining components and their in-tegral atter.hments, and of metallic shell and penetration-liners of Class CC-pressure retaining components' and their integral attachments in light-water cooled power plants. The NRC has determined that Subsection IWE providesL ac-3
,ceptable minimum requirements for the; containment inspections and, therefore, represents responsible applications of engineering judgement to assure ade-i quate protection of the public health and safety.
Therefore the backfit rule does not apply in this particular situation.
8
t E
P
[7590-01]
List of Subjects in 10 CFR PART 50 L
4 Antitrust, Classified information, Fire Frotection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclea' power plants and reactors,
- Penalty, Radiation protection, Reactor shing
- criteria, Reporting and i
recordkeeping requirements.
l Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of' 1954, < as amended, the Energy Reor-ganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 -U.S.C.
533, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50.
PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 1.
The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY:
Sees. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.
936, 937, 938, 948, 953,~954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282);
secs. 201, as amended. 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amendep 1244,1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
l Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851).
Sections 50.10 also istued-under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 936, t
955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec.102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235).
Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix
+
Q also issued under sec.102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
9
..