ML20202C250
| ML20202C250 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/1997 |
| From: | Morrison D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Cyr K NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202C086 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-62FR63892, RULE-PR-50 AE26-1-012, AE26-1-12, NUDOCS 9802120202 | |
| Download: ML20202C250 (1) | |
Text
. - .- -- - - - - - - - --
3 7
- . February 28, 1997 '
. MEP MANDUM 10: Karen D. Cyr, General Counsel @'
o Office of the General Counsel ,'l FROM: David L. Morrison, Director /s/ Joseph A. Murphy for
/\hw T Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
ApPLICABilliY OF BACKFli RULE 10 10 CFR 50.55A *) 2 gftn~ P g",
f_
l 1
Reference:
Memorandum from S. A. Treby to E.S. Beckjord on Ap)11 cation of Backfit Rule to Codes and Standards, dated Marca 15, 1989 The Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) is preparing an amendment to .
10 CFR 50.55a, ' Codes and standards,' that would, among other things, update the reference to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC)Section XI and would for the first time incorporate by reference the ASME Operation and Maintenance (OH) Code. Provisic.;s for inservice inspection (ISI) and inservice testing (IST) are provided, respectively, by Section XI and the OM Code; present provisions for IST are contained in Section XI. Paragraphs 50.55a(f)(4)(ii) and (g)(4)(ii) requires plants to update, respectively, thc'r 151 and 151 programs every 120 months in accordance with the edition / addenda referenced in the regulation 12 months prior to the start of the next 120-month interval. Licensees have implemented this update process, which has t, involved the backfit rule, on a regular basis.
The applicability of 10 CFR 50.109, *Backfitting," to the update provision of 650.55a was raised by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CP.GR) during review of the 1992 rulemaking package. At that time, the referenced memorandum (Enclosure), which states that backfitting does not apply to routine updates served as the basis, along with a fuller regulatory analysis, for moving forward without a documented backfit analysis, in 1993, a Cost Beneficial Licensing Action (CBLA) was submitted in which the position was expressed that only safety significant revisions should Lo required and the remaining revisions should be voluntary. This CBLA has resulted in considerable staff discussion on the pro and cons of the 120-month update versus baselining to an existing Code version, and for subsequent edition / addenda requiring implementation of safety significant revisions, as justified by a backfit analysis, and making all other provisions voluntary.
Because of the pivotal nature of the backfit issue in determining which path to follow, it is requested that OGC provide a contemporary opinion on the applicability of 550.109 to the 120-month update provision of 150.55a. It is expected that this opinion would take into account the referenced memorandum and, as well as, subsequent information.
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution:
DLMorrison MMayfield '
GCMillman EJordan CF Y N JAMurphy Dross PDR Y N .LCShao SC0111ns
..m . . - .m , =rnm , i,.im e i. , .o. .c. c., m , n .n u . fin town , ... co,, m ,,, ..,,. nf e, ter , . . ,o e o,,
OFC :lifM/ 8&DJRf, NAME:$N11 man:s MNo$
DATE:2/27/97 f/f//97 -
0 FIG'IAL RECORD COPY
)
9802120202 980206 PDR PR
, 50 62FR63892 PDR
.. ______ _. _ __ _ . _ /d