ML20150E825

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to 871022 Request for Review of Amended Final Rule 10CFR50.55a Re Updating Ref to Current ASME Code.Changes to Language in Page 12 Re Authorized Use & Page 5 Re Plant Implementation of Improved Rules,Recommended
ML20150E825
Person / Time
Issue date: 11/06/1987
From: James Keppler
NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
To: Bosnak R
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
Shared Package
ML20150E547 List:
References
FRN-52FR24015, RULE-PR-50 AC29-2-14, NUDOCS 8807150309
Download: ML20150E825 (1)


Text

_.

~M p ara UNITED STATES MM o

"?,,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

'+4..... g November 6, 1987 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Robert J. Bosnak, Deputy Director Division of Engineering, RES FROM:

James G. Keppler, Director Office of Special Projects

SUBJECT:

REVIEW 0F FINAL RULE FOR 10 CFR 50.55a, UPDATING REFERENCES TO CURRENT ASME CODE

Reference:

Memorandum from R. Bosnak to L. Shao and others dated October 22, 1987 on same subject This it in response to the referenced request that OSP review the final rule and regulatory analysis to update 10 CFR 50.55a to reflect the current ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.

Our comments are tabulated by enclosure and page number.

Encl. 1, page 10.

" 650.55 Codes and Standards "

should read

" S50.55a Codes and Standards "

Encl. 1, page 12.

The revision conspicuously states "are authorized for use" in contrast to earlier subsections (i.e., 50.55a (c)(3),

(d)(2), and (e)(2)) that remain unchanged or the earlier version of the rule where it states "have been determined suitable for use."

If there is no specific argument for this subtle change in language, it would be advantageous to maintain consistency among all portions of the rule.

Encl. 2, page 5.

In the regulatory analysis it is stated that "(P)1 ants may implement the improved rules... " when it is appears intended to read "(L)icensees may implement the provisions of later Section III Code editions or addenda..."

If this is correct the wording needs to be clarified.

Finally, should a licensee elect to implement such provisions, the regulatory analysis should clarify the actions the licensee should take (e.g., notify the NRC, revise the FSAR or Technical Specificaticc).

Should you have any questions on our comments, you may contact B. Zalcman of my staff. He may be reached at X29042.

{i i

.lSL.'W James G. Keppler, irector G. Miliman, RES /

cc:

e80715o309 880708

$R Sph24010 PDR

)

_l