ML20215H687

Recommends That Commission Approve Subj Amends to 10CFR50 Re Codes & Stds for Nuclear Power Plants & Technical Info

ML20215H687
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/16/1975
From:	NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:
Shared Package
ML20215H685	List: IA-87-136, Recommends That Commission Approve Publication of Subj Amends to 10CFR50 Re Codes & Stds for Nuclear Power Plants & Technical Info in Effective Form (Encl D of SECY-75-283) ML20215H682 ML20215H687 ML20215H692 ML20215H695
References
FOIA-87-136 SECY-75-283, NUDOCS 8705050114
Download: ML20215H687 (55)

Text

,

MHCRL USE ONL

'3% f E C STATFS June 16, 1975 NilCL F AR REGtst ATORY COMMISSIONSECY 28 3 e ewwm*

• POLICY SESSION ITEM For: The Ccruissioners ,

Thru: Executive Director for Operation #

Subject:

AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 50: CODES AND STANDARDS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION

Purpose:

Approval of publication of the subject amendments in effective form.

Category: -

This paper covers a routine matter requiring Comission approval.

Issue: Modification of proposed rule in view of comments received.

Discussion: The proposed amendments were published in the FEDERAL REGISTER for public coment on September 30, 1974, following AEC approval of staff paper SECY-R-75-64.

No substantive changes have been made to the proposed rule, except that paragraph 50.55a(g) was modified as a result of the coments received. Minor editorial changes were also made.

A sumary of the amendments and associated public /

comments follow: (A more detailed discussion of the amendnents is contained in Enclosure A.)

1. Require plants to comply with codes and standards effective a certain length of time before the docket date of their application for a construction pe rm i t , ratner than with codes and standards effective a certain length of time before the construction pennit date, as is presently required.

s This change grants considerable relief to applicants c who procure canponents in advance of the construction pennit date (an uncertain date and later than the docket date) and subsequently must modify the components to canply with new code provisions. By eliminating the need for repeated engineering reviews and possible modifications, a more orderly licensing

, , process should result, with considerable savings g l\j t b .,h#>t Is (perhaps millions of dollars) for the licensees and P

G705050114 870501 ONHCHAL USE ONLY POR FOIA TRANTZ87-136 PDR I l '

o

o -

c The Commissioners i the Government, without significantly affecting safety. Comments received were unanimous in support of this that (a) proposal. Some corrents, however suggested the limiting date of reference co, des should be further extended to the tendered date of the applica-tion and that (b) the rule should treat standardized plants in a separate manner. After considering these suggestions, tne staff concluded that using the docket date of the aaplication, as indicated in the proposed rule, is preferable for establishing limiting dates for all plants (standardized or custom) since such dates can more readily be controlled to avoid abuse.

Because this oroposed rule provides a high level of flexibility and is keyed to long established industry practices of procuring components to codes in effect on the date of the purchase order the staff believes -

this proposed rule is compatible with the objectives of standardized plants. j

2. Modify inservice inspection requirements to require periodic uodating of inservice inspection programs in operating facilities.

This amendment would require reactor licensees to update their inservice inspection program at 40-month intervals by adopting, to the degree practical, new code requirements approved by the Commission. Updating of these programs is essential in view of the widely perceived need for improvements in this area. A great deal of work is underway to improve testing technology which is expected to be incorporated into this relatively new and still maturing code. New requirements would, in part, be responsive to problems which evolve during operation of plants.

Adverse conments on this proposed change objected to the imposition of new standards on an operating plant and recommended that (a) inservice inspection requirements be limited to those requirements in effect on the docket date of the application for a construction pennit or that (b) the change be deferred for further study. The staff believes these suggestions are unacceptable since they would pemit the use, for up to 50 years, of inspection -

procedures that might be obsolete.

1 i

The Comissioners In response to public concern over the impact of code changes on operating plants, the proposed paragraph 50.55a(g), " Inservice Inspection Requiremenr.s,"

has been rewritten to make it clear that code changes to be imposed on operating plants apply primarily to requirements for examination, testing, and flaw evaluation that have minimal impact on the plant design.

Code changes woald not be imposed on operating plants if inspection to new requirements would necessitate significant redesign or modification.

Although the magnitude of the code changes that will develop cannot de predicted, the staff believes that the Licensees are adequately protected against an intolerable impact on plant availability or cost since changes will not involve design modifications and because the statement of consideration comits the Comission to review such code changes with respect to impact on existing plants prior to approving the changes. The cost of additional reviews, procuring new testing equipment, and training inspection personnel should be offset by the increased safety that should result from the new technology developed during the 40-year life of these plants.

Enclosure "B" contains an analysis of comments received on the proposed amendaents noted above, and Enclosure "C" lists the organizations that submitted coments.

3. Incorporate new addenda to reference industry codes.

4. Delete references to obsolete cocuments.

5. Make minor changes to Appendixes A, G, and H of Part 50.

No public contents were received on the above three proposed amendments and consequently they have not been revised.

Recommendation: That the Comission:

1. Approve publication of the subject amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 in effective form (Enclosure "0").

The Comissioners -

4-

2. Note:;

(a)I The notice of rule making (Enclosure "0")

will be published in the FEDERAL REGISTER -

to become. effective,30 des efter publication;:-

(b); That the staff has determined that these:

smendnents are insignificant from the stand, po ht of environmental impact. Therefore, pursuant to 151,5(d)(3) of the Commission's.

regulations,ino envirorsnental. impact statement',

negative declaration or environmental impact .

appraisal need be prepareds (c) > Thatt the JCfE will be informed; and (d) Thatia pub.lic announcement will be issued (Enclosure "E").

Coordination:

The Offices of Nuclear Reactor. Regulation, Inspection and Enforcement.: Executive Legal Director, and Public i Affairs concur in the reconnendations of this paper.

Scheduling: 'Early Policy Session.

0 Rober.t B. Minogue, Acting Director

• Office of Standards Development

Contact:

A. Taboada 443-6927

Enclosures:

1. "A" Discussion of Prop > sed A$endments

2. "B" Analysis of Coments

3. "C" List of Responders :

4. "D"' Notice of Rule Making

5. "D" Draft.-Public Announcement

6. Original AEC Decision Paper 1 e

--.-m. . - - - - - - - - , - --

s DISTRI30 TION NO. OF COP!ES Secretary 11 Chairman Ray 3 Commissioner Kriegsman .

2 Commissioner Anders 2

Commissioner 1 Commissioner 1 General Manager .

1 Deputy Gen. Mgr. 1 Exec. Asst. to Gen. Mgr. 1 General Counsel 4 Asst'. Gen. Mgr.-Controller 1 Planning 5 Analysis 2 Information' Services 2 g

-Inspection 1

Director of Regulation. 1 l

Deputy Dir. of Regulation 1 Asst. Dir. of Regulation 1 Dir. , Off. of Admin. -REG. 3.

Dir. ,0ff.of Gov't. Liaison-REG. 1 Dir., Program Analysis-REG. 1 Dir. of Regulatory Standards 3 Dir. of Regulatory Operations 7 I Director'of Licensing 2 I Dep.Dir.for Reactor Projects,L 3 i Dep.Dir.for Tech. Review,L 1 '

Asst. Gen. Counsel for L4R 1 l

e t

0 6

4 0

• M **

• M **s3 g e s.

09 b***ul

$a a e, **NLi. .h\ sk 4 O). bah". u // I \'l d . lf i

• _ _ _ _U

~

7. .

'D . -

( - EhCLOSURE A 4

DISCUSSION OP PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RT 50: TO 1

, CODES AND STANDARDS POR NUCLEAR TECHNICAL POWER PLA INPORMATION A.

Channe the basis for establishing the effective dates '

_for referenced codes and standards Section 50.55a requires holders of constru ction '.

t-permits to conform to referenced industry code s_in ,

the design, fabrication, construction, testing ~and k inspection of reactor components I

Presently, this section requires that the applicable editions of the '

i referenced codes be those in effecton the date of' I order of the components.

However, to prevent abuse of this provision and I to minimize the use of out-  !

dated codes, limitations are established I for the applicable

• editions. The .

limiting dates are 18 months prior to {

the construction permit (C.P.)

date for vessels, 12 months prior to the C.P.

date i i

for pumps and valves and 6 months prior to the C.P.

date for pipe. Since the construction permit date ,

l is frequently unknown (and difficult to p redict) at the )

time procurement of long lead time j components is l initiated, this requirement impedes the  :

I construction i ,

i i

i I

• of such components by compelling the licenses to make modifications to the component'to accommodate'aev I

code provisions that differ from those called for  ;

I in the ordering data. Alternatively the 11eemsee  ;

may, elect totreguest waivers of the requiranants -

because of> hardship which involves a time consuming review on the part of the NRC staff. This,probles,will become more acute for new plants with sh'orter i construction-cycles.since long lead time cokyopeats t

would needito be procured earlier 4 ,

{

To ameliorate this problem, the proposed amendments '

would relate the limiting dates of referenced codes i

to the docket date of the application for a. con-  ;

struction permit, instead of.the construction permit data. Thus the limiting date would be based on a ,

i more predictable date.thattoccurs. earlier in-the -

cycle.. The limiting date would be 18 months prior i i

to the docket date for pressure vessels: 12 months I prior to the' docket date for pumps and valves; and .

6 months prior to the docket date for pipe. All of j i

the limiting dates would be expected to predate  :

normaliprocurement activities for new plants with -

I 6 year cycles.

Enclosure "A" '

i e

4

Although ,the proposed change would apparently result in the ref erencing o.f older codes, these : requirements would be expected.to' provide a relativa level:of i quality consistant with past practices :in view of tha shorter cycles espected in new plants. Further,.new.

requirementa adopted sby the. coda may set 111 be . imposed. ,

if essential to asfety, e The staff hasiraviewed this21ssue and has. concluded that-the resultantihene'itsito f

theelicensing/had- ,.

construction processes that shou,1d. result free thiai proposed change would outweigh.the.incrementals increase in safety .that 4 may result in . applying .mo're recent codes :provided that newicode requirements .

essential to safety are impplied through .the backfitting rule.i 3.

Modify tuservice insonetion reenirements for onoratina nuclear power sients While the design and construction code- (ASME Secties. III):

is applied tonly once (i.e. .during i the . design and een-struction stages of'a plant), th.e iins e rvi ce inapaction i code- (ASMg 'Section II), except' for design and access provisions ,' is applied sover the s entire 40 year life of .

Enclosure "A"

M a plant. Experience indicates that during a 40 year plant life, new and significent inspection requirements are expected to be developed and incorporated into this code which is still evolving. Present practice is'to require the review of inservice inspection programs and to incorporate new requirements on an ad hoc basis.

The proposed amendments would eliminate Ehe ad hoc nature of present practices and require the adoption of significant new code developments in a reasonable and timely manner. This proposed change would amend the inservice inspection requirements for components oI. nuclear power plants to include new inspection and testing requirements adopted by the referenced code (ASME, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI) that become effective throughout the service life-time of the facility, provided that the requirements have been found acceptable by the staff and are incorporated by reference in the regulations. These requirements would be imposed only to the degree practical within the limitations of design and access. A reasonable period (40 months for inspection, 20 months for testing) would be allowed for implementing new provisions to permit procuring equipment, training personnel and, if necessary, developing capability for remote operations

-4 -

Enclosure "A"

to avoid undue radiation exposure of personnel.

The change also would provide for 'a review of detarminations that a requirement continues to be impractical after the expiration of 120-month intervals.

Comments received on the proposed amendments for inservice inspection requirements and modifications to the proposed amendments are discussed in Enclosure C.

C.

Incorporation of new addenda to referenced industry codes Sections 50.55a presently require constructioh

• permittees to conform to referenced industry codes and standard to include editions through 1971 and Addenda through Summer 1973 in the design, fabrication, construction, testing and inspection of spacIfic reactor components and systems. The statement of considerations for the August 24, 1972 amendments of 150.55a and 115.43a published in the Federal Register (37 FR 17021) states, "As new or amended editions of applicable Codes, Code Cases, or Addenda are issued, the Commission will review them and amend the provisions of 550.55a and 115.43a as appropriate."

Accordingly, the staff has reviewed the Addenda through Winter 1973 and found them acceptable and not inconsistent with regulatory criteria. The recommended amendments would require compliance with Addenda of referenced codes and standards, which have been issued through Winter 1973.

5- Enclosure "A"

4 4

D. Deletien of references to obsolete documents The reference in Section 50.34 to documents that provide guidance on information needed in the FSAR for preoperational testing and initial operations would be delet ed. These documents have been superseded by Regulatory Guide 1.68, "Preoperational and Initial Start-up Test Programs for Water-Cooled Power Reactors,"

which is available in the Regulatory Guice Series.

E. Minor changes to Appendix A, G, and H of Part 50 Appendix.G, " Fracture Toughness Requirements,"

would be amended to (a) make the referenced editions and addends of the ASME Code consistent with those-incorporated by 850.55a(b), (b) change the ,

reference to a subparagraph in the ASME Code to refer to the whole paragraph in order to be consistent with upcoming changes in that paragraph and (c) change the proviso for exceptions to the 75 ft lb requirement fc- Charpy test upper-shelf energy of vessel beltline asterial to broaden the basis that may be cited to justify a lower value.

Proposed amendments to Appendix A and H correct typographical errors.

- 6- Enclosure "A"

a ENCLOSURE B ,

ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS Fourteen letters commenting on the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 50, codes and Standards, were received including seven from utilities, four from reactor system suppliers, two from architect-engineers and one from a trade association (AIF). The organizations responding are listed in Enclosure C.

Of the replies, three supported the proposed amendment as a whole and thirteen supported the proposed change to relate

~

the limiting effective date of codes and standardssto the.

docket date although five of the thirteen also suggested modifications to this provision. Four of the replies disagreed with the provision to 10 CFR 50.55a(g) requiring operating plants to up-date inservice inspection' requirements.

The following is an analysis of the salient cocments received on the proposed, amendments. Copies of the comments are available in the Office of Standards Development.

s.

A. Suggestion that the limiting date of applicable codes be related to the tendered date of a PSAR Comments Two of the replies (Sargent and Lundy, Cincinnati' Gas and Electric) which f avored the p roposed change to extend the limiting dates of codes and standards to the

4 f

docke't date of an application (rather than to the

. construction permit date as presently required) suggested that the limiting date be further extended to the tendered date of the application since this is a date over which the applicant has control and 9

h can be reasonably certain about.

~

Staff Response -~'""

l

• The staff considered this option during the initial preparation of the proposed amendment but selacted the docket date instead since it is an NRC established date

~

and can be regulated to avoid abuses. The use of the tendered date might encourage hurried and incomplete submittals to avoid new requirements, thus increasing b

, k the licensing work load and adversely affecting the scheduling of licensing reviews. Further, based on present day construction schedules and procurement lead times, there appears to be little practical <

, .-j c i 'r; difference (2 to 6 months) between normal docket i and tendered dates. ,

The staff continues to prefer the use of docket'date I

for limiting the effective dates of codes, espncially

?

, l ,

Enclosure "B" w-

since,the proposed amendment was supported by thirteen replies which included all of the nuclear suppliers, the group most affected by this requirement.

B. Suggestion that the regulation address the special situations of standardized plants and plants delayed for various reasons 4

Five of the replies, (AIF, Combustion Engineering, General Atomics, Sargent & Lundy, and Cincinnati Gas and Electric) alsofavoringtheuseofthedo'cket -

date as a baseline, indicated a need to address code applicability for several special situations including (1) plants utilizing standardized reference systems, duplicate or replicate plant designs, (2) p1'hnta built under a license to manufacture, and (3) plaats with delays scheduled by the applicant. The

~

recommendation was made in three of the replies (AIF, GA, GE) that rules governing standardized plants should be focused on the base plant application rather than individual plant filings. This would maximize the benefits of standardization for suppliers of ,

duplicate plants who enter single orders for multiple components.

3- Enclosure "B" i

i i

l l

i

__:

• _ _ _ ~ _ . - _ _ _ _ , _ . - - . _ _ - - - _ . _ . . - - - . , _ . _ . - . . _ _ _ _ _

Staff Response Individual plant filings that utilize standard designs must conform to the-provisions of 50.55a. The licensing procedures applicable to nuclear plants I- utilizing standard designs are givenLin 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix.0f. Any modification of this policy should be implemented through changes in Appendix 0 rather than.this amendment. With regard to the impact-of delays and deferrals of nuclear plant applications, the staff is reviewing the overall impact on the i

regulatory process and on the individual plant.

l Because of the great variation in status of delayed

~

plants , j udgments with respect to changing the applicability of codes and standards for these plants should be made on a case-by-case basis.

C. Recommendation that the proposed change for periodic ,

updatina of the inservice inspection programs for operating plants not be imposed Comments Four adverse replies were received concerning the proposed change to 150.5 5a(g) ' requiring the periodic updating of the inservice inspection for operating plants.

Enclosure "B"

,, .-.v .,,,,,.n , ,.-,- ,- -, ., , . , . . , , , , . , . _ , , . - - = , , , , , .

,n . ...-,..n.--, ,

' ENCLOSURE A ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION' ~

(10'CFR Parts 50, 115)

NUCLEAR ?OWER PLANTS Codes and Standards and Technical Information The Atomic Energy Commission has under consideration amendments to its regulations, 10 CFR Part 50, " Licensing of Production and Utili-zation Facilities," and 10 CFR Part 115. " Procedures' for Review of Certain Nuclear Reactors Exempted from Licensing Requirements," which would delete references to obsolete documents, incorporate by reference new addenda to specified published industry codes, modify applicability dates for specified codes and standards, and-modify inservice inspection requirements for operating utilization facilities, and make minor changes to Appendices A, G and H of Part 50.

The proposed amendments to 6850.55a and ll5.43a set forth below would change th, references to published codes and addenda whose re-quirements must be met, to include Addenda through the Winter 1973 Addenda.

The proposed amendments to 6850.55a and 115.43a also would relate

~'

the limiting date of the applicable codes or addenda to the docket date of the application for a construction permit, rather than to the date of issuance of the construction permit. This proposed change should permit a more accurate assess =ent by the applicant of the codes and addenda that will be in effect and thereby facilitate his procurement

+w . .- -. -,n _ _ . , _ ,v-- e , , , - - - ry -r, p,.,, m- .--:--,- - ---. .. --+ 9

i of long lead time cc ponents, which cust be ordered well in advance of the date of issuance of a construction per=it. The proposed change would apply to all facilities receiving construction per=its' l -

l on or af ter July 1,1974, but is particularly ai=ed at nau facilities for which the overall planning, construction and licensing cycle is expected ,

I to be about six years and for which long lead ti=e components cust be ordered in advance.cf the docket date.

The proposed acendments to i!50.55a and ll5.43a would codify inservice inspection require =ents applicable to co=ponents and syste=s throughout the service life of a facility. Inspection and testing require =ents that become effective in new editions and addenda of Section XI of the AS!:E Code and are incorporated by reference in these sections of the Co=sission's regulations would become applicable to all operating plants to the degree practical. The Co= mission will review '

such code changes with respect,to i= pact on the existing operating ,

facilities prior to incorporating by reference any new editions and addenda of Section XI.

The proposed amendments to Appendix G would conform the referenced edition and addenda of the ASME Code in that Appendix to those specified by sf50.55a(b), including the periodic amend =ents.

The proposed amendments to Appendix G also would clarify the upper-shelf energy require =ents for beltline materials.

Other amendments would delete references to obsolete docu=ents

,and correct typ ;raphical errors. ,

Enclosure "A" O

3

( \

Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and section 553 of title 5 of the United States Code, notice is hereby

~

given that adoption of the following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 115 is contemplated. A'll interested persons who wish to submit written comments or suggestions in connection with the proposed amend-ments should send then to the Secretary of the Commission, U. S.

Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. 20545, Attention: Chief, Docketing 6 Service Section .

• Copies of comments '

received may be examined in the Commission's Public Document Room at l'717 H Street, N.W. , Washington, D.C.

1. In 5 50.34 of 10 CFR Part 50, the second sentence of paragraph (b)(6)(iii) and the associated footnote 3 are deleted.

2. In 5 50.55a of 10 CFR Part 50, the prefatory language and paragraph (b) are amended; in paragraphs (c)(2), (d)(2), (e)(2), and 1 (f)(2) the first sentence is amended by adding the words "but before July 1, 1974," following the words "after January 1, 1971,"; new paragraphs (c)(3), (d)(3), (e)(3), and (f)(3) are added; and para-i graphs (g) and (h) are revised to read as follows:

350.55a Codes and Standards.

Each construction permit and operating license for a utilization facility shall be subject to the following conditions in addition to those specified in 150.55.

• A date will be inserted allowing 30 days for public comment.

3- Enclosure "A"

+

-w ,--.*ey y e- ,q --m. y -m- p,y am-7e-4.-g .yrrw--+yyg r.,ys- y- 7g--r4g- - - - y, ww-

(b) As used in this section, references to editions of Criteria, Codes and Standards include only those editions through 1971; references1 to Addenda include only those Addenda through the Winter 1973 Addenda.

(c) Pressure vessels:

(3) For construction pernits issued on or af ter July 1,1974, pressure vessels which are part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary shall meet the require =ents for Class 1 co=ponents set forth in Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda in effect on the date of order of the pressure vessel or 18 months prior to the for al docket date of the application for construction per=it, whichever is later: Provided, that the applicable provisions ,

4 for pressure vessels shall be no earlier than those of the Sum =er 1972 Addenda of the 1971 edition. The pressure vessels may meet the requirenents set forth in subsequent editions of this Code and Addenda which become effective.  !

(d) Piping:

(3) For construction per=its issued on or after July 1,1974, piping which is part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary shall These incorporation by reference previsions were approved by the Director of the Federal Register on March 17, 1972, and May 4, 1973.

, Enclosure "A"

, s

.neet the requirements for Class 1 components set forth in Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda in effect on the date o'i order of'the piping or 6 months prior to the for:al docket date of the application for construction permit, whichever is later: Provided, That the applicable ASME Code provisions for piping shall be no earlier than those of the Winter 1972 Addenda of the 1971-edition. The piping =ay meet the requirements set forth in subsequent editions of this Code and Addenda which become effective.

(e) Pumps:

(3) For construction permits issued on or af ter July 1,1974, pumps which are part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary shall meet the requirements for Class 1 components set forth in Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda in effect' i on the date_of order of the pump or 12 months prior to the for=al docket date of the application for construction per=it, whichever is later: Provided, That the applicable ASME Code provisions for pumps shall be no earlier than those of the Winter 1972 Addenda of o the 1971 edition. The pumps may meet the require =ents set fotth l-in subsequent editions of this Code and Addenda which become effective.

(f) Valves:

(3) Fr.r construction permits issued on or af ter July 1,1974, valves which are part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary shall meet I

the requirements for Class 1 co:ponents set forth in Section III of Enclosure "A" e

m-- y-w -

y a,a y - - - - -

vte- w- -wy g ,w, - --- g- --

I the ASME Boiler and 7: essure Vessel Code and Addenda in effect on the date of order of the valve or 12 conths prior to the for:a1 docket date of the application for construction per=it, whichever is later: Previded, That the applicable ASME Ccde provisions for valves shall be no earlier than those of the k' inter 1972 Addenda of the 1971 edition. The valves =ay meet the require =ents set forth in subsequent editions of this Code and Addenda which beco=e effective.

(g)

Inservice inspection requirements: For construction permits issued on or af ter January 1,1971, systems and ce=ponents (including component supports) of nuclear power plants shall meet the requirements set forth in editions of Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda ' in ef fect on the for=al docket date of the application for. construction per=1: or the 1970 edition, whichever is '

later.

In addition, throughout the service life of the facility, the systems and co=ponents shall meet the require =ents, ez=ept for design and access provisions, set forth in editions of this Code and Addenda that become effective af ter the formal docket date of the application for a construction permit to the extent practical within the li=itations

. .s.

of design, geometry, and materials of construction of the systems and components: Provided, however, That (1) inservice inspection requirements nay be li=ited to requirements in effect 40 months prior to the date of schedulefinspectionand(2)testingrequire=entsmaybell=itedto requirementsineffect12monthspriortothedateofscheduleftesting.

The inservice inspection progras for the facility shall *oe codified by Enclosure "A"

F '

the . licensee, as necessary, prior to .the start of each' one-third of :he inspection interval (described in Section XI of- the ASME Boiler ~and Pressure Vessel Code) .for those inspections to be conducted during that one-third of the inspection interval. Each modification of the inservice-inspection1 program and all licensee deter =inations that certain requirerents are impractical'shall be subject to approval by the Commission at least 6 months prior to the start of the one-third of the inspection interval.

In the case of requirements determined to be impractical. for 3 periods (120 months) of the inspection interval, the licensee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission at least 12 months prior to the start of the subsequent one-third of the inspection interval that

, minor modifications of the facility to permit compliance with such:re-quirements are not practical or new developments in examination' and testing-techniques to permit compliance with such requirements have not become

• available.

g (h) Protection systems: For construction permits issued after-January 1, 1971, protection systems.shall meet.the requirements set forth in editions or-revisions of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard: " Criteria for Protection Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations," (IEEE-279) in effect on the formal docket date of the application for a construction permit. Protection' systems may meet the requirements set forth in subsequent editions or revisions of i

IEEE-279 which becone effective.

. 3. In Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50, criterion 23 is a= ended by L

deleting the word " fall" and substituting therefor the word " fail".

Enclosure "A"

, _._ -. _ , _ . _ . , - - - - ..m..... . . - . . . , . . , . . , - , - . _ - . _ . , . . . . . _ - _ . _ _ - _ _ . , , , . _ . - - - - -

I

~

4.

In Appendix G, paragraph II.A is amended by deleting the phrase "1971 Edition, and addenda through the Winter 1972 Addenda ." and substituting therfor the phrase " edition and addenda l as specified by 250.~55a, Codes and Standards."

5.

In_ Appendix G, paragraph IV.3. is revised to read as follows:

" Reactor vessel beltline materials shall have minimus upper-shelf energy ,

as determined from Charpy V-notch tests or unirradiated spec 1= ens in accordance with paragraph NB-2322.2(a) of the ASME Code of 75 ft lbs unless it is demonstrated to the Commission by appropriate data and analyses that lower values of upper shelf fracture energy still provide adequate cargin for deterioration from irradiation."

6.

In Appendix H, paragraph II.A. is amended by deleting the term

"(E -lMeV)" and substituting the/for the term "E >1MeV) g",

7.

In Appendix.H, paragraph II.C.3.a. is amended by deleting the term "IV.B." and substituting the/for "III.B.".

8.

In 2115.43a of 10 CFR Part 115, the prefatory language and paragraph (b) are amended; in paragraphs (c) (2), (d)(2), (e)(2), and (f)(2) the. first sentence is amended by adding the words "but before July 1,1974," following the words "af ter January 1,1971,"; new paragraphs (c)(3), (d) (3) , (e) (3) ,

and (f)(3) are added; and paragraphs (g) and (h) are revised to read as follows:

4115.43a ~ Codes and standards.

Each construction authorization 'and operating authorization shall be subject to the [ollowing conditions in addition to those specified in 5115.43a:

Enclosure "A" l

k ._

g7 t-

~

• .* *

• x

-(b) As used.in this,sec:fon, references ~ to editions of Cri:cr;a, codes and Standards include only those editicas throu h 1471; ~rciersn:c;' .

to Addenda include only those Addenda throu;h :ha ai..:er 1971 A: snc- .

• *

• x =

(c) Pressure vessels:

(3)

..:or construction au:hort:at;cas issued on or a:.:e r a. .u.y .., .,,

pressure vessels which are part of :ha reac:or coclan: pressure boundary shall meet the require =ents for Class 1 cesponents set forth in Sect on III of the AS'iE 3 oiler and Pressure Vassel Code and Addendain effect

on the date of order 5 of the pressure vessel or.18 =on:hs prior to the formal docket date of the application f or construc:fon au:horization, whichever is later: Provided, Tha: the applica;;e ASMZ Code provisions-for vessels shall be no ' earlier :han :h:se of the Su==er 1972 Addenda of the 1071 edition. The pressure vessels may nee: :he require:en:s set forth in subsequent editions of this Code anc Accenda which Secc e er.2ective.

(d) ?iping:

• * < w =

(3)

. For construction authorica: ions issued on or af:er July 1, 1974. pipins which is part of the reac er coolant pressure bouncary shall neet the requirements for Class 1 co=ponents set for:h in Section !!I of the ASX2 Soiler and Pressure Vessel Code and

-Addenda in effect on the date of orcac of the piping or 6 :onrhs prior 1

These incorporation by reference provisions were approved tr :ne Director of the Federal Aeg; ster on :arca 17,1972 and ;<ay 4, 1973.

_g_ -* nc., o s'.r e a .s. ..

r i ~ to the formalodoCket de:c of the a;;.ic s.on for constri.c:i.:t  :; nc :.:n 4

.hichever is later: .Provided, "'.a: c'..c a?pucable ASXE Code prov m an, for piping shall'be no earlier chan the h'.n:er 1972 J.cdends of .L.e .:-~..

.a -. .:

ec..a..on. ene p.r,i r .6 ay . ee.. ... a e . . . ...ce.. ..

.2 e .. .t . . .....j.....% . e . ...

-..ec.t,0 o.:...<.S c

.. S Code a a....w; e. ..... .... . . . , . . _..e .

1. . . . 3 . . .- ..

(e). Pu=ps: *

• *

• e e 2

(g .O . CONS ...,C.1w. . .. g, ..w . 1 a. ..,.. .

. . . c .. 3...  : . r.

... .. .. ,/ ,

7,.,

pumps which are part of the re20:c cce .. ' : j: tsn.re bouncar*; . hall =ee:

the re uire=ents ,or

. u,, . ass. . c=7c:.ena . e ; c ar:a in wc::.c t.. or :he 4512 Boiler and Pressure Vessel ~-de 2:.;. .sc. a c.d/ in efle :' on the date

5 of order -of the o.u=P or 12 :on:.s :: :.: to :he L:=al docke: date of the ,

a,p e . -

w p al,.a..:uo n . O C. C nS. uw. . . e.w. n . . .

. a. . ...v.. 3....,

. . . . . . . 4 s..eV e r la.

. . . . .La.a,... . .  %. . r..c ..d.2, i

-s. 2. .e apy14

• evr.e. *

.wOsd r * ' * ' S - - - & p. ena*-

....4 .w A.

. ... .. u .D.C .sa. .

.Je . O e a. . . .. .3 s1 .

m ..-;a ..e ..e w - -

..a ' .*'s.. .. .e.. 9.9 7 .7 .w..a

... . ee . . s.

. .e

...,.,.,"a.~.~5 ' '-

. . . . . . L. . S f.t ".* #.*.-~.k..

.s ' .'s 5 d g'

• c .*. .* ....w*.- * . C '.#, . . . . . ,s... ~...# .w' d. . d *. . .*. a-

hICh'

. 'OdCC".*.a af f eO iV8.

t i . ,. .

g :m, wSAVCS:

4 W M

• 1*

b) 7,.

w. .... .. u u . .w..

+ - --

. . .. .f . , . .'1 1 ,

/ ,,.a 3 VOS %c...s.

...s 1 c. .. < .

.. . J. .e . ,.

c .. . .. . . . .

0

• 1 .t .n . .. -. .-.

..eSSU.e w,CL.nda ,. f 5., .. a A. .. e.. .e.. . . . . .

.....2e....

. . e. .s .

O.,.C.e.,S .. . . . . et .cO.... L. . e.. ., ts. . ... -...- - ., ..: . _ , .- .L . . w n.

s

. .,. 4 4. gI 9

. 9 4%. ~

. b* $. *s 4 . ' -w.i. e * * - . . . .. .

..w *. *' . . . . . -

y. ...'...-*.....

t i

.4..J

9. 4. %e G - V-

.tw g...,,j w G.# is . .. -J

. .. e4. .,8. - . . . - . .

. . = . . . . *.s . .

k.

t q.d ..g . . . . a., .. .... aw d./ .

Q. .E . ,Jh . . .4. .. ., 1%. e 1 .*1. . . . . . -- ..

i I

i

. e.. ..

i.

- , . _ , . , 4.-.,._..__-_,,.. , , . . . , . _ . - . , . . , . . . . . , _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . , . - _ _ .~- ___ .~ , _. .

whichever is later: Provided, That the' applicable ASME Code provisions for valves shall be no earlier than those of the Winter 1972 Addenda of the 1971 edition. 'The valves may neet the requirements set forth in subsequent editions of this Code and Addenda which become effective.

(g) Inservice inspection requirements: For construction authorizations issued on or af ter January 1,1971, systems and components (including component. supports) of nuclear power plants shall meet the requirements set forth-in editions of Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel-Code and Addenda '0 in effect on the formal docket date of the application for. a construction authorization er the 1970 edition, whichever is later.

In addition, throughout the service life of the facility, the systems

.and components shall meet the requirements,- except for design and access.

provisions, set forth 'in editions of this Code and Addenda that become effective after the formal docket date of the application for a construction authorization to the extent practical within the limitations of design, geometry, and materials of construct? of the systems and components:

Provided. however, That (1) inservice inspection requirements may be limited to requirements in effect 40 =onths prior to the date.of scheduled inspection and (2) testing requirements may be limited to requirements in

- effect 12 nonths prior to the date of scheduled testing. The inservice inspection program for the facility shall be modified by the holder of the authorization, as necessary, prior to the start of each one-third of the inspection interval (described in Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Enclosure "A" 4

Pressure Vessel Code) for those inspections'to be conducted during that one-third of the inspection interval. Each =odification of the inservice inspection program and all licensee deter =inations that certain requirements are impractical shall be subject to approval by the Com=ission at least 6 months prior to the start of the one-third of the inspection interval.

In the case of requirements determined to be impractical for 3 periods (120 months) of the inspection interval the holder of the authorization shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission at least 12 months prior to the start of the subsequent one-third of the inspection interval that minor modifications of the facility to permit compliance with such requirements are not impractical or new developments in examination and testing techniques to permit compliance with such requirements have not become available. '

(h) Protection systems: For construction authorizations issued after January 1,1971, protection systems shall meet the requirements set forth in editions or revisions of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard: " Criteria for Protection Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations," (IEEE-279) in effect on the for=al docket date of the application for construction authorization. Protection systems may meet the requirements set forth in subsequent editions or revisions of IEEE-279 which have become effective.

Enclosure "A" 4

. . j

-l

- (Secs. 103, 104, 1611, 183; Pub. Law 83-703; 68 Stat. 936, 937, 948, 954 (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201(i), 2233)).

Dated at this day of , 1974, FOR THE ATOMIC ENERGY CO W.ISSION Secretary of the Co::::nissica Enclosure "A" 1

i

q ENCLO3URE E DPMT PUBLIC NMOUNCO: CUT AEC Considers Rule Channes on _Industrv Codes and Stand The Atomic Energy Con. mission is considering amendments to its reactor licensing Regulations relating to referenced industry codes and standards for nuclear power plants.

The changes would incorporate new addenda to published codes, change the dates when certain codes and standards are applicable and modify inservice inspection require-ments for operating plants.

AEC Regulations require construction permit holders to conform to

.the requirements of specified industry codes and standards in the d

^

fabrication, construction, testing and inspection of reactor components and systems.

As new and amended' editions of the applicable codes and standards are issued, they are incorporated into the Regulations af ter AEC review for acceptability and consistency with regulatory criteria .

The proposed amendments would require compliance'with Winter 1973 a.- a Currently, the Regulations relate the limiting dates of applicable industry _ codes to the date of issuance of the construction per=it .

This requirement has been impeding the construction of long lead time components procured before the applicable code and standards were known with certainty.

Under the proposed amendments, the limiting date would related' instead to the docket date of the application. The limiting i

dates would be 18 months prior to the docket date for pressure vessels ,

12 months for pumps and valves, and 6 months for pipe.

t

. . ~ . , - _ _ - . - - - - . . , - - - , _ . - - -

f -

This propss:d chang 2 should per-it a more accurate identification by'the applicant and evaluation by the Regulatory staff of the codes e

and standards that will be 'in effect at the time components are ordered.

This would. result in fewer changes later during fabrication and would provide more accurate and' timely information 'to the public. The change would apply to all reactors receiving construction per=its on or after July 1,1974 but is aimed primarily at new facilities for which the overall planning. construction 4 and licensing cycle is expected to be about six years, making it necessary for long lead time co=ponents to be ordered earlier in the cycle.

Another proposed change would require that any new inservice inspection and testing requirements that become effective thrcughout the service life-time of the facility be adopted co the degree practical within limitations ,

of design and access.

Interested persons who wish to submit written com=ents or suggestions concerning the proposed amendments to Parts 50 and 115 of AEC Regulations should send them to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. 20545. Attention: Chief, Public Proceedings Staff, within 30 days after publication in the Federal Register on

, 1974.

~

- 2- Enclosure "B"

~~ ~~

a

OFFHCML USE ONLY DISTRIBUTION NO. OF COPIES Secretary 5 Chairman Anders 4 Commissioner Rowden 2 Commissioner Mason 3 Commissioner Gilinsky 2 Commissioner Kennedy 2 Exec Dir for Operations 2 Agency Inspector 6 Auditor 1 Congressional Affairs 1 Public Affairs 2 General Counsel 2 Exec Legal Director 2 Administration 3 Asst Exec Dir for Operations 1 Policy Evaluation 1 Planning 6 Analysis 1 Nuclear Reactor Regulation 2 Reactor Licensing 3 Technical Review 1 Standards Development 5 Inspection 6 Enforcement 3 AS6LBP 2 AS6 LAP 2 i

t l

OFFECHAL USE ONLY

.g Combustion Engineering indicated concern that the rule would inhibit code committees from addins_new improved requirements to the referenced code (Section XI) because of the possible impact on the components already in service. They also indicated a belief that the applicability of specific requirements may differ if imposed at different stages of design, construction and operation, a distinction not covered by the rule, f ,

Duke Power objected to new inspection requirements i after the start of operation which would not permit a direct comparison with preservice base line inspection.

In their view this might negate the purpose'Iof.these inspections. Also, thay were concerned that new more sensitive inspections might locate indications which were acceptable or not detectable under earlier inspection requirements but which are not acceptable.

under current code criteria, thus requiring repair of the component in question. Duke Power also objected to the increased economic (paperwork) and ,

engineering burden. They noted the possibility for 5- Enclosure "B"

disagreement on what is practical that might' lead to "a continual process of design modification" to satisfy new code requirements.

Wisconsin Electric also was adverse to having the inservice inspection program of an operating plant i

continually reviewed, revised, upgraded and approved by the Commission. They sited the lack of base-line a

data for comparison evaluation and objected yb continual upgrading of components to new standards.

However, they found no objections to performing for the purpose surveillance and inservice inspection of monitoring and f orewarning of possible problems.

GPU took the position that this provision should only apply to,the reactor coolant pressure boundary and that new inspection requirements should be imposed benefits only on a case-Sy-case if determined that

outweigh the to the health and saf ety of the public disadvantages of added cost, increased radioactive exposures, and plant outages. .

Enclosure "B" ..

- 6- ,

7 e

• b The recommendations in these replies suggested that inservice inspection re.quirements be limited 'to those requirements in effect on the docket date of the .

application, and that new requirements be imposed only on a case-by-case basis. Combustion Engineering recommended that the change be deferred for further study. , . . . _ . .

Staff Response

~

The staff believes it would be unacceptable to 1imit.

the inservice inspection program of a reactor to the code requirements in effect on date of docketing, since this would permit the use for up to 50 years of potentially obsolete inspection and testing procedures. The proposed rule would require that i

new inspection and testing requ.rements be incorporated into the prgram_only to the degree practical.

Modification of the plant to accom=ocate any new requirement would not be required except for minor modifications deemed practical and necessary for implementation of inspection or testing requirements.

Designi access and preservice inspection requirements of the inservice inspection code (Section XI) would be based on the same edition whien applies to the Enclosure "B"

• '?.._.

construction code (Section III). The staff believes that ample time is allowed for scheduling (40 months for inspection), and that the frequency for program modification called for in the proposed amendment is, reasonable.'

It appears that several of the letters have misinterpreted the meaning and intent of the proposed s,mendment as

• well as some of the new changes to the inservice inspection code (Section XI). Similar - misint'hrp re tations .

have been reported to the staff by other licensees. In no casa do these documents call for upgrading of the materials or the redesign of components, the require-ments for which are established by the construction code (Section III). Rather these changes generally result in improved inspection techniques, improved characterization of indications found by these inspections, and in new rules for evaluating these indications so that greater flexibility exists in establishing which flaws must be repaired and which are permitted to be left in the components. .

In view of the misinterpretation of this proposed change the staff has prepared a modification of 8- Enclosure "B" t

50.55,a(g) and the prefatory language to make it-more specific and to clarify its meaning withIout changing the substance of the p'aragraph significantly.

These modifications would include the following:

a. The prefatory language would contain a statement that an operating licence for a utilization facility is subject to the conditions specified in 350.55a(g), " Inservice Inspection Requirements."

b. To eliminate the misconception that the sdesign of components need to be continually modified and to provide a consistency between the design requirements for inspectability and the design requirements for construction, the prov,,ision on design requirements for inspectability of components would refer to the same code edition which was appli'ed to the construction of such components.

c. The changes would specify that the requirements for examination and testing also ap p ly (to the degree practical) to facilities whose construction

permits were issued prior to January 1, 1971.

I

d. The changes would simplify the requirements for compliance with new editions of codes and would l

9- Enclosure "B" l

l t

l

.a w . - . . . _

permit examination and testing requirements to be updated at intervals of 40- and 20-months, respectively.

e. The changes would specify-action to be taken by a licensee when a revised inservice inspection program for a facility conflicts with the . . . . .

technical specifications or when a' requirement is deemed impractical by the licensee an,d is not included in the inservice inspection p rogram.

f. A provision would be added to the rule that the Commission may either exempt the licensee from certain requirements determined to be inequitable and for which compliance may result in an undue burden without providing a significant increase in safety or require the licensee to follow an augumented program when the Commission deems that additional assurance of structural reliability is necessary.

l l The staff believes that such changes, if adopted would permit the orderly application to an operating facility of the inservice inspection requirenents of Enclosure "B" i

I I

i

.e 8 's .

l 1

the ASME Code which are incorporated by refe'rence without causing significant modifications to the facility or an intolerable impact on the inservice inspection program. Also, the staff helieves.that I

the changes, 1f adopted would provide protection of the health and safety of the public equivalent to that which would be provided by the proposed rule.

s  :

Enclosure "B"

M ENCLOSURE C List of Responders to Proposed' Amendment to '

10 CFR Parts 50y. codes and Standards ,

Utilities-Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company Detroit Edison , , , , _ _

Duke Power Company ',

General Public Utilities Service Corporation .

Ohio Edison Company Northeast Utilities Wisconsin Electric Power Company -

Nuclear Reactor Svntem supplia,%

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

General Atomic Company General Electric Company Westinghouse Electric Company Architect -_ Engineers i

Commonwealth Associates Inc.

Sargent and Lundy Engineers Trade Associations Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.

ENCLOSURE D TITLE 10 -- ENERGY.

CHAPTERI--NUCLEARREGULATORhCOMMISSION PART 50 - LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES Codes and Standards for Nuclear Power Plants an'd Ie chnical Information on September 30, 1974, the Atomic Energy Commission published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (39 FR 35180) proposed amendments to its regulations, 10 CFR Part 50, " Licensing '

s .

of Production and Utilization Facilities," which would modify the basis for establishing which revisions of referenced codes and standards should be applied to chah s

t

, construction and operation of certain components of watar- -

cooled nuclear power plants. Also the proposed. amendments. j would incorporate by reference new addenda to the referenced i i

codes and standards, delete obsolete references, correct typographical errors and make minor changes to Appendix G of Part 50. Interested persons were invited to submit written comments for consideration in connection with the proposed amendment by October 30, 1974. Y On October 11, 1974 the Energy Reorganization Act o'f 1974* was enacted into law. This Act provided for the abolition of the Atomic Energy Commission. Section 201 of

. e Public Law 93-438 (88 Stat. 1233).

'l

.p

,,.~.,,-..------.,,.

) - -

1- ,

4

, e

~,

,, :r .

i i

3

, 7,,

i h-this Act provided for the establishment ofahuclear

't Regulatory Commission and a trans'fer to this new' Commission it .

i, ,

of all tha licens'ing and related regulatory functions of g

,y the Atomic Energy [ Commission. In addition, Section 301 of Y' ,

the Act provided th'at any proceedings pending before the l

AEC at the time of'its ab'olition shall, to the extent that

r. .

such proceedings ~ relate to funct' ions transferred by,,the.-_ J -

1 " ,k Act, be cont.tnued.

y' ,-

~

s Upon cons'ideration of the comments received and other t ,

< <- s . .

factora involved, the'Nublear Regulatory Comm'ission as has ,

adopted the proposed amend:r.ents with certain modifications Q ,

in the form set fordh below. These amendments have been 4..

changed substantially in 850.55a(g), " Inservice Inspection

. (.

Requirements", to provide consistency in design requirements a'nd to minimize Interference with thetestablished equipment procurement p ra c ti'c e s and inservice exam,ination practices

' , e

\.

', of the nuclear powey industry.

Some of tLe,more significant changes to 550.55a(g)' f rom the > proposed rule are:

a. The' effective rule requires that an operating license l4 s G ,

for a otilization f acility be subjhet to the conditions

t. R \ .

it ,

specified in 350.55a(g), " Inservice Inspection '

Requirements." '

2 i

1 1 Enclosure "D" 1

i

?

l 1

t

b. To eliminate the misconception that the design of components need to be continually modified and to provide a consistency between the design requirements f or inspectability and the design requirements for construction,-the provision on design-requirements for inspectability of components has been changed to refer to the same code edition which is applied co-the construction of such components.

c. The rule specifies inservice inspection requifements which apply to utilization facilities whose construction permits were issued prior to January 1, 1971.

d. Provisions in.the rule for continued updating of requirements for inservice inspection to-achieve compliance with more recent editions of the referenced code have been simplified and permit examination and testing programs to be updated at intervals of 40-and 20-month, respectively.

l

e. The_ rule specifies actions to be taken by a licensee when a revised inservice inspection program for a I

l facility conflicts with the tech'nical specifications or when a requirement of a subsequent edition of the referenced code is deemed impractical by the licensee and is not included in the inservice inspection program.

l l

- 3- En clos u re *D" .

r i

i

1 e

f. A pro. vision has beeiradded to the rule that the Commission may either'(1) exempt the licensee from.

certain requirements determined to be inequitable and for which compli4n.ca may result in-an undue burden without providing a significant increase in safety or (2) require the licensee to follow an augumented

, program when the Commission deems that additional --

i assurance of structural reliability is 'necessary.

The Commission-believes these changes adopted will, facilitate ,

the orderly application of new inservice inspection require-ments in Section XI of the ASME Code which are incorporated by reference to operating nuclear power plants without '

causing'significant modifications to the plant or.an intolerable impact on the inservice in'spection program.

~ Also the. Commission believes these changes adopted will provide an equivalent increase in the protection of the health and safety of the public to that which would be provided by the proposed rule, i

The amendments to 850.55a set forth below which the Commission has adopted include the following:

a. References to published codes and addenda whose requirements must be met were changed to include Addenda through the Winter 1973 Addeuda.

Enclosure "D"

)

..n. . , . - , . .- . . . , . , . . , - , . ,, , . . . . . , . . . - _ . - . ~ , , - . , +n ., -

-n , ,

i w

b. For a utilization facility for which a construction ,

i .

parait is issued on or after July 1, 1974 the- rule

! requires that the determination of which code revision applies to a component be based on the docket date of the application for a construction permit rather than the date of issuence of.the construction permit. This change should permit a more accurate assessment by the applicant of the code edition and addenda that will -

be in effect at the time components are ordered and s .

thereby facilitate his procurement of long lead time components which are ordered well in advance of the construction permit date. .

c. The rule modifies-inservice inspection requirements s I I

applicable to components of nuclear power plants throughout the service life of the facility.

Examination and testing requirements that become effective in new editions and addenda of Section XI of the /.SME Code and are. incorporated by reference in 350.55a would become applicable to all operating plants to the degree practical. The Commission will review such code changes with respect to impact on the exis ting operating f acilities prior to incor-porating by reference any new editions and addenda of Section XI.

4 5- Enclosure "D" i

M k

i The a,mendments to Appendix G conform the referenced edition and addenda of the ASME Code in that Appendix to those specified by 550.55a(b), including the periodic amendments and also clarify the upper-shelf ene rgy require-ments for beltline materials.

Other amendments delete references to obsolete documents

~

and correct. typographical errors. - * '

Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and Sections 352 and 553 of Title 5 of the United States Code, the following amendments to Title 10, Chapter I, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 are published as a document subject to codification.

1.- In 850.34 of 10 CFR Part 50, the second-sentence of paragraph (b) ( 6) (iii) and the associated footnote 3 are deleted.

2. In 850.55a of 10 CFR Part 50, the prefatory language and paragraph (b) are amended; in paragraphs (c) (2) ,

(d)(2), (e)(2), and (f)(2) the first sentence is amended by adding the words "but before July 1, 1974," following the words "after January 1, 1971,"; new paragraphs (c) ( 3) , (d) (3) ,

(e) ( 3) , and (f)(3) are added; and paragraphs (g) and (h) are revised to read as follows:

Enclosure "D"

. . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .- - J

150.55a Codes and Standards Each operating license for a utilization facility shall be subj ect to the conditions in paragraph (g) and each construction permit for a utilization facility shall be subject to the following conditions in addition to these specified in 850.55s .

(b) As used in this section, references to editions of Criteria, Codes and Standards include only those, editions through 1971; references to Addenda include only those Addenda through the Winter 1973 Addenda.

(c) Pressure vessels ,

(3) For construction permits issued on or after July 1, 1974, pressure vessels which are part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary shall meet the requirements for Class 1 components set forth in Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda in effect on the date of order of the pressure vessel or 18 months prior to the formal docket date of the application for I

i

! construction permit, whichever is later; Provided, That the i

1 These incorporation by reference provisions were approved by the Director of the FEDERAL REGISTER on March 17, 1972, and May 4, 1973.

i -7 -

Enclosure "D"

8 applicable -provisions for pressure vessels shall be no earlier than those of the Summer 1972 Addenda of the 1971 edition. The pressure vessels may meet the requirements set forth in subsequent editions of this Code and Addenda which become effective.

(d) Piping:

(3) For construction permits issued on or after July 1, 1974, piping which is part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary shall meet the requirements f or Class 1 composents set forth in Section III of the ASME Boiler and

,6 Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda in effect on the date 5

of order of the piping or 6 months prior to the formal docket date of the application for construction pe mit, whichever is later: Provided, That the applicable ASME Code provisions f or piping shall be no earlier than those of the Winter 1972 Addenda of the 1971 edition. The piping may meet the requirements set forth in subsequent editions of this Code and Addenda which become effective.

(e) Pumps:

(3) For construction permits issued on or after July 1, 1974, pumps which are part of the reacto r coolant pressure boundary shall meet the requirements for Class 1 components set forth in Section III of the ASME Boiler and 1

Enclosure "D"

-,r- W , yw ---y y -- + ,w-,

Pressure Vessel Code and' Addenda '

in effect on the date 5

of order of the pump or 12 months prior to the formal

-docket date of the application for construction permit, whichever is later: Provided, That-the applicable ASME Code provisions for pumps shall be no earlier than those of the Winter 1972 Addenda of the 1971 edition. The pumps may meet the requirements set forth in subsequent editions of this Code and Addenda which become effective.

(f) Valves: ,

s ,

• * *

• a (3) For construction permits issued on or after July 1, 1974, valves which are part of the reactor coolant pressure' boundary shall meet the requirements for Class 1 components set forth in Section III of the ASME Boiler

,6 4 and Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda in effect on the 5

date of order of the valve or 12 months prior'to the formal docket date of the application for construction permit, whichever is later: Provided, That the applicable ASME Code provisions for valves shall be no earlier than those of the Winter 1972 Addenda of the 1971 edition. The valves may meet the requirements set forth in subsequent editions of this Code and Addenda which become effective.

(

9- Enclosure "D"

.4 (3) Insarvica 1.nspection requirements;_

~

(1) 'For a facility whose construction permit,was issued prior to January 1, 1971, components (including supports) shall' meet the requirements of paragraphs (g) (4) and (g)(5) to the extent practical. Components which are part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and their supports shall meet the requirements applicabla to components which are classified as ASME Code Class 1. O,ther' safe y-related' pressure vessels, piping, pumps and valves shall meet the requirements applicable to components whihh are * '

I classified as ASME Code Class 2 or Class 3.

(2)1 For a facility whose construction permit was issued on or after January 1, 1971, but before July 1, 1974, components (including supports) which are classified as ASME Code Class 1 and Class 2 shall be designed.and be provided with access to enable the performance of (1) inservice examination of such components (including supports) and (ii) tests for operational readiness of pumps and valves, L and shall meet the preservice examination requirements set forth in editions of Section XI of the ASME Boiler and

'O in effect 6 months prior Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda Enclosure "D" l

l l.

I

- . .-- - - - . ._. , , - ~ , _ . - - - . ,. . , . - - - _ , - .. - .- -.

r -

a to the date of issuance of the construction permit. The components.(including supports) may 5eet the r e q uir'e men t s set forth in subsequent editions of this code and. addenda which become effective.

(3) For a facility whose construction permit was issued on or after July 1, 1974:

(1)~ Components which are classified as ASME Code Class 1 shall be designed and be provided with access to enable the performance of inservice examination of such components and shall meet the preservice examination requirements set forth in Section XI of editions of the ASME Boiler.and Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda '0 applied to the construction of the particular component in,accordance with paragraph (c), (d), (e), or (f) of this section.

(ii) Components which are classified as ASME Code Class 2 and Clase 3 and supports for components which are classified as ASME Code Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 shall be designed and be provided with access to enable the performance of inservice examination of such components and shall meet the preservice examination requirements set forth in Section XI of editions of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda '

applied to the construction of the particular component.

Enclosure "D

(iii) Pumps and valves which are classified as ASME Code Class 1 shall be designed and be provided with' access to' enable the performance of inservice testing of the pumps and valves for assessing operational readiness set forth in Section-XI of editions of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda '0 applied to the construction of the particular pump or valve in accordance with paragrap,hs..

(e) and (f) of this section or the Summer 1973', Addenda, whichever is later. .

(iv) Pumps and valves which are classified as ASME Code Class-2 and Class 3 shall be designed and be provided with access to enable the performance of inservice testing of the pumps and valves for assessing operational readiness set forth in Section XI of editions of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda applied to the construction of Ihe particular pump or valve or the Summer 1973 Addenda, whichever is later.

(v) All components (including supports) may meet the requirements set forth in subsequent editions of codes and addenda or portions thereof which become effective.

Enclosure "D"

.,.+m, .. .. ... .- +em.= -+

g, )

(4) Throughout the service life of a facility, components (including supports) which are classifie'd as ASME Code Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 shall meet the requirements, except design and access provisions and preservice examination requirements, set forth in Section XI of editions of the ASME Boiler'and Pressure Vessel Code and

~ Addenda '

that become effective subsequent to editions specified in paragraphs ( g) ( 2) and (g)(3) and are incorporated by reference in paragraph (b), to the extent'practioels .

within the limitations of design, geometry and materials of construction of the components.

(1) The initial inservice examinations-conducted during the first 40 months shall comply with the requirements in the editions of the code and addenda ir effect no more than 6 months prior to the date of start of facility-commercial operation. -

(ii) The inservice examinations conducted during successive 40-month periods throughout the service life of the facility thereafter shall comply with those requirements in editions of the code and addenda in effect no more than 6 months prior to the start of each 40-month period.

Enclosure "D"'

1 l

l

~

L

. (111). The initial inservice tests of pumps and valves for assessing operational. readiness and_ system pretsure testa l conducted during the first 20 months shall comply with those requirements in editions of the code and addenda in effect no more'than 6 months prior to the-start of facility commercial operation.

(iv) Inservice tests of pumps and valves for assessing operational readiness and system pressure test's conducted-during successive 20-month periods throughout the se,rvice .. .

life of the facility shall comply with those requirements in editions of the code and addenda in effect no more than 6 months prior to the start of each 20-month period. .

(v) For an operating facility whose-operating license was issued prior to July 1, 1975, the provisions of paragraph (g) (4) shall become effectiva after January 1, 1976, at the start of'the n e x,t regular 40-month period of a series sf such periods beginning at the start of facility commercial operation.

(5) (1) The inservice inspection program for a facility shall be revised by the licensee, as necessary, to meet the requirements of paragraph (g)(4) .

Enclosure "D" I

- _ _ _ .- .. . . - , . . . - . _ . _ - - . - - , _ _ _ . - _..e,,. .- .,- ~ .r.. _ . ,,e.- . , - - . , - _ , . . .

(ii) If a revised inservice inspection program for'a facility c,onflicts with the technical specification for the facility, the licensee chall apply to the Commission for amendment of the technical specifications to conform the technical specification to the revised program. This application shall be submitted at least 6 months before the start of the period ' during which the provisions become applicable as-determined by paragraph (g) (4) .

(iii) Where an examination or test requi.rement by the code or addenda is determined to be impractical hy,the licensee and is not included in revised inservice inspection program as permited by paragraph (g)(4), the basis for this determination shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction'of the Commission not later than 12 months after the-expiration of the initial 120-month period of operation from start of facility commercial operation and each subsequent 120-month period of operation during which the examination or test ta determined to be impractical.

(6) For specific facilities,the Commissi.on may either (1) exempt the licensee from requirements of paragraph (g)(1) and (g)(4) for which compliance may result in an undue burden without a significant increase in safety or (11) require the l licensee to follow an augmented inservice inspection program for systems and components for which the Commission deems that added assurance of structural reliability is necessary.

Enclosure "D"

-, ,--. --- ,- n n _ ,nn n n - n ,,n - . - , , , , .~,,---n..n,.. - - . , , - - , - -

-(h) Protection: systems: . For construction permits 1 issued afterfJanuary;1 -1971, protection systems shall meet the requirements set-forth in editions or revisions of the

Instituta of' Electrical and: Electronics Engineeru Standard:

"Criteriaffor Protection Systems for Nuclear Power Generating-S ta tions ,'" '(IEEE-2 79) in effect 7 on the formal docket date of the application for a construction permit. Protection systems may meet the requirements set forth in subsequent '

editions or revisiona of IEEE-279 which becoma effective. ~

3. In Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50, Criterion 23-is .

amended by deleting the word " fall" and substituting therefor the word " fail". .

4 In Appendix G, paragraph II.A is-amended'by deleting the phrase "1971 Edition, and Addenda throughE the Winter.-1972 Addenda ." and substituting therefor the phrase

" edition and addenda as specified by 250.55a, Codes and Standards."

5. In Appendix G, paragraph IV.B. is revised to read as follows: " Reactor vessel beltline materials shall have minimum upper-shelf energy, as determined from Charpy V-notch tests on ucirradiated specimens in accordance with paragraph NB-2322.2(a) of the ASME Code of 75 ft lbs unless it is demonstrated to the Commission by appropriate data and analyses that lower values of upper-shelf fracture energy still provide adequate margin for deterioration from irradiation."

Enclosure "D"

-. I

6. In Appendix H, paragraph II.A. is amended by deleting the term "(E 1MeV)" and t ubstituting therefor the term "(E<1MeV)".

7. In Appendix H, paragraph _II.C.3.a. is amended by deleting the term "IV.B." and substituting therefor "III.B".

Effective date: - These amendments become effective ,, _. . -

on *. '

(Sees. 103,~104, 1611, Pub. Law 83-703; 68 Stat. 936,

'e .

937, 948, (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201(1)))

. Dated at this day of 1975. .

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Secretary of the Commission The rule will become effective 30 days after publication i

in the FEDERAL REGISTER.

Enclosure "D" i

e D -

V ENCLOSURE E NRC AMENDS RULE ON INDUSTRY C0 DES AND STANDIRDS The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its reactor. licensing regulations relating to referenced The

~

.ind ustry cod es and standards for nuclear power plant.

changes incorporate new addenda to published codes, change.

the dates when certain codes and standards-are applicabfe "~

.and modify inservice inspection requirements for operating

' plants. [ .

NRC regulations require construction permit holders' to conform to the requirements of specified industry codes and st2ndards in the design, fabrication, construction,:

testing'and inspection of reactor components and systems.

As new-and amended editions of the applicable codes and standards are issued, they are incorporated into the regulations af te'r NRC review f or accep tability and consistency with regulatory cr'iteria. The new amendments require compliance with Winter'1973 addenda.

Previously, the regulations have related the limiting dates of applicable industry codes to the date of issuance of the construction permit. This requirement has been impeding the construction of long lead tice components

7.

I procured before the applicable code and standards were j

• l 1

known with certainty, Under the amendments, the limiting i i

dates relata instead to the docket date of the application.

I The limiting dates are 18 months before the docket date for pressure vessels, 12 months for pumps and valves, and 1

r 6 months for pipe.

This change should permit a more accurate identifi. cation by the applicant and evaluation by the NRC sta'ff of the codes and standards that will be in effect at the time comp on en t s are ordered. This will result in fewer changes later during l

fabrication and will provide more accurate and timely information to the'public. The change applies to all reactors receiving construction permits on or after July 1, 1974 but is aimed primarily at new facilities for which the overall planning, construction and licensing cycle is expected to be about six years, making it necessary for long lead time components to be ordered earlier in the cycle.

Another change requires that any new inservice examina-tion and testing requirements in referenced codes that become effective throughout the service lifetime of the facility be adopted to the degree practical within limitations of design and access.

The amendments to Part 50 of NRC regulations are being published in the Federal Register on and will be effective .

2- Enclosure "E"

-.2 - .

m. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,, ,, ~~~~~

. #"[% ~ 4 jm.. 3 ,

w.m

. August 20, 1974 .

r

• h/

• SECY - R - 7 5- 64

%, '- (,hJ,gf

,, , . ~

CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM For: The Cot =aissioners Thru: Director of Regulation /

Subject:

PROPOSED A>ENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PARTS 50 AND 115:

CODES AND STANDARDS FOR NUCLF.tR POWER PLANTS

Purpose:

To seek Co mission approval of proposed amendments to 10 C?R Parts 50 and 115 which would =odify applicability dates for specified codes and standards, modify inservice inspection require-ments for operating utilization facilities, incorporate by reference new addenda to speci-fled pu'olished industry codes, delete references to obsolete documents and =ake minor changes to Appendices A, C and H of Part 50.

Category:

This paper covers routine matters requiring

. Cotenission approval.

' Issues:

As part of the continuing effort to improve codes and standards for nuclear power plants the staf f has proposed changes that would up-date and permit more timely use of codes and standards referenced in Sections 50.55a and ll5.43a.

n y

4 C Issue 1. Should the basis be modified for

1. establishing which edition of referenced codes C 3-

,1 are applicable to reactor components?

C .n

..s I*

W Issue 2. Should new inservice inspection c:3  ?

N requirements incorporated into the referenced

%{, ,

. c_,

$tu code be applied to operating plants through e a c:odification of the Codes and Standards rule?

a-t-

c>

c-OFFICl A L USE ONL'/ entiosure 6 ux+ . ~ < - ~

) )

Decision Criteria: Sections'50.55a and 115.43a, which require that nuclear planta conform to referenc3d codes, should permit identification of the applicable editions of such codes at the time components are ordered and safety analysis reports are prepared.

practical. Referenced codes should be as current as is The present requirements, that relate - applicable editions of codes to construction permit dates, are impeding the construction of long lead time components for which procurement must be initiated prior to the issuance of the applicable code. In such cases, the required. code changes are not known until after the component is partially fabricated, and it is necessary to either make modifications to the component to accommodate these changes or waive the requirement because of aardship. This problem is expected to become more acute for new plants with six year cycles since long Isad time components would be ordered earlier. The staff has concluded that changes to the regulations are needed to mitigste the problem. Several reactor system suppliers have requested such changes.

While tne design and construction code (AShE Section III) ~

- is applied only once (i.e. during the desiga and con-

• struction stages of a plant), the inservice inspection code (ASNE Section XI), except for design and access provisions, is applied over the entire 40 year life of a plant. Experience indicates that during a 40 year plant-life, new and significant inspection requirements are expected to be developed and incorporated into this code which is still evolving. Present Licensing practice is to require the review of inservice inspection programs and to incorporate new requirements on an ad hoc basis.

i The problem is to eliminate the ad hoc nature of present practices, to avoid overburdening applicants by requiring changes to approved designs and construction and also to assure adequate plant safety by requiring adoption of i

significant new code developments in a reasonable and

! timely manner ' throughout the life of the plant. The design i'

and access requirements of this code should be treated in the same manner as the design and construction code require-i ments above. Also, within the limitations established by existing designa and accessibility, significant modifica- .

j tions to the referenced inservice inspection code should be adopted, and in an orderly manner rather than on an j

ad hoc basis. Because new requirements may involve new testing equipment, procedures, and training, the licensee should be allowed adequate time for planning and implementa-j tion of these requirenents.

i

~ . - . _ _ , _ . - _ . . , . _ _ , , - . _ _ . . - . . _ _ _ _ , _ . - _ . _ . . - - . , _ - - . _ . - , . _ . . - - - . . , - _ _ , - _ . . - . - , _ - . _ .

8 y

It is the Commission policy. that as new or _ amended editions of applicable codes or addenda are issued '

the staff revi2w them and reco= mend' amendment to Sections 50.55a and 115.43a as appropriate.

Alternatives: Issue 1. Should the bases 1be modified for establish-ing which editica of referenced codes are applicable to reactor components?

Alternative 1. Continue the present practice of relating referenced codes to the construction permit date.

Pro: In general *, never editions of codes would -

be applicable.

Con: The applicable editions of codes would not

'be known by licensees at the time certain components are ordered. Subsequent _re-adjustments to comply with the regulations would frequently involve the imposition of new code requirements.

Orderly production of long lead time com-ponents would be impeded when modifications were required to acco=modate the new code requirements.

Additional reviews by Licensing would be required when. safety analysis reports were amended to incorporate new code requirements or when the licensee _ requested waivers of the new code requirements due to hardship.

~

Alternative 2. -Relate the applicable date of codes to an earlier stage of the licensing process; specifically, the date of docketing of the applica-tion for a construction permit.

Pro: The applicable edition of codes would generally be known to the licensee at the time components were _ ordered, thus avoiding the need for chang-ing requirements and associated modifications

. of components or requests for waivers.

S I

.+ . .

~

4

, e Con:

It may be argued that older codes would be used but as a practical ma; tar this should .

not be a significant item since with accelerated review of applications for construction permits, it is' anticipated that_there would be fewer new requirenants imposed by the codes during the shortened review periods.

Issue 2. ~

Should new inservice inspection require-ments incorporated into the' referenced code be applied to operating plants through modification of the Codes and Standards Rule? .

Alternative 1. Make no change in the regulation.

Pro:

InseYvice inspection pro 3 rams for a facility would be the same for each repetitive inspection thereby facilf-tting the evaluation 1 of any change in a system.

' Con:

No new inspection _and testing developments would be required for. nuclear planta dur1ng the forty year life of the plant unless required on an ad hoc basis by the Consission.

Such ad hoc action has occurred frequently in the past since i significant improvements important to safety have been made to the inservice inspection code including the addition of new sections for components not previously covered. Additional new sections to thf.s~ code are presently in the course of preparation, including requirements

~for examination of steam generators. It is anticipated that as experience with nuclear -

. systems inservice inspection accumulates, further improvements will evolve.

Alternative 2. Require operating plants to apply .

new inspection and testing requirements adopted by the referenced code that become effective through-out the life of the facility with the Ce= mission giving due consideration to the problems of implementing these requirements.

Pro: Nuclear plants would have an up-to-date i inspection program to the degree practical throughout the life of the plants. All nuclear reactors systems would have comparable

! inspection and testing requirements regardless of the period of construction.

oga m em. p. G

-S-(

Con: Inspection program.4 would need to be modified and'new equipment procured, imposing additional costs on the ,

' licensee. Additional reviews (three J I

per ten year period) would be re-l quired on the part of Regulatory.

Discussion:

Sections 50.55a and 115.43a presently relate the liniting dates of industry codes and standards for reactor cceponents to the date of issuance of the construction permit for the reactor plant. For example, the issue of-the ASME Code applied to the construction of a pressure vessel may be the edition or addenda in'effect on the date of order of the vessel or a more recent issue, but it may not pradate the issue in effect 18 months prior to the date of the.construc-tion permit. The present requirement has the effect of impeding construction of long lead time components in as much as changes of code requirements are frequently

, not known until a component is partially l fabricated. Modification of the component may be required or it may be necessary for the Co= mission to waive the requirement r because of hardship. This problem will become more acute for new plants since [

.l~

long lead time components would need to

. be procured prior to the application date.

The proposed amendment would relate the limiting dates of applicable codes to the docket date of the application for a construction permit, instead of the con-struction permit date. Thus, the limic-ing dates would be 18 months prior to the docket dare for pressure vessels; 12 months prior to the docket date for pumps and valves; and 6 months prior to the docket data for pipe. All of the limit-ing dates would be expected to predate normal procurement activities for new plants with 6 year cycles.

l I

Although the proposed change would apparently result in :he ref arencia,; of older codes, these requirements would be expected to pro-vide a relative level of. quality consistent with past practices in view of the shorter cycles expected in new plants. Further, new-requirements adopted by the code may still be imposed, if essential to safety, using the backfit:ing rule. The staff has re-viewed this issue and has concluded that the resultant benefits to the licensing and construction processes that should re-sult from this proposed change would outweight the incremental increase in safety that may result in applying more recent codes provided that new code requirements essential to safety are applied through the backfitting rule.

The proposed change also would amend the inservice inspection requirements for com-ponents of nuclear power plants to include new inspection and testing requirements adopted by the referenced code (ASMI, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI) l that become ef fective throughout the service lifetime of the facility. These require- j ments would be imposed only to the degree  ;

practical within the limitations of design and access. A reasonable period (40 months for inspection, 12 months for testing) is allowed for implementing new provisions to permit procuring equipment, training per-sonnel and, if necessary, developing capability for remote operations to avoid undue radiation exoosure of personnal. The change also requires that inservice inspection programs be updated prior to each one-third inspection, interval (an inspection period established by the ASMI Code) and provides for a review of determinations that a re-quirement continues to be impractical after the expiration of an inspection interval (10 years).

e

Sections 50.55a and ll5.43a require holders of construction permics and authorizations to conform to the requirements of specified industrv codes and standards in the design, fabrication, const action, testing and . inspection of specified reactor c ponents and systems. As new and amended editions of the applicable codes and standards are issued the Commission reviews them and acends the provisions to Sections 50.55a and 115.43a as appropriate. New addenda to the referenced codes and standards through the Winter 1973 Addenda have been reviewed by the staff and found acceptable and not inconsistent with regulatory criteria. The recom-mended amendments would require compliance with addenda of referenced codes and standards which have been issued through the Winter 1973 addenda.

The proposed amendments also would provide several editorial and minor changes including the following.

The reference in Section 50.34 to documents thac provide guidance on infermation needed in the FSAR for preoperational testing and initial operations would be deleted. These documents have been super-seded by Regulatory Guide 1.58, "?reoperational and Initial Start-up Test Prograas for Water-Cooled Power Reactors," which is available in the Regulatory Guide Series. Appendix G, " Fracture Toughness Requirements," would be amended to (a) make the referenced editions and addenda of the ASME code consistent with those made effective by Section 50.55a(b), (b) change the reference to a subparagraph in the ASME Code to refer to the whole paragraph in order to be consistent with upcoming changes in that paragraph and (c) change the proviso for exceptions to the 75 f t Ib requirement for Charpy test upper-shelf energy of vessel beltline caterial to broaden the basis that may be cited to justify a lower value.

e 0

__-m-. _ _ . ______ __

1 Reconmendations:- The Commission:

(a) Approve for publication in the Federal Register the enclosed notice of proposed rule making which would amend Parts 50 and 115:

Codes and Standards.for Nuclear Power Plants. (Issue 1. , Alternative 2; Issue 2, Alternative 2) .

(b) Note:

1) The proposed amend =ents will be published in the Federal Register, allowing 30 days for public comment;

2) If after expiration of the comment period, no significant adverse com-ments or significant questions have been received and no substantial changes in the text of the rule are i indicated, the Director of Regulation will arrange for publication of the a=endment in final form. If significant adverse comments or significant questions have been received or substantial changes l in the text of the rule are indicated, the revised amendment will be submitted to the Commission for approval;

3) The staff has determined that these amendments are insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact.

Therefore, pursuant to s 51.5(d)(3) of

, the Commission's regulations, no environ-mental impact statement, negative declaration, or environmental impact

! appraisal need be prepared.

4) The JCAE will be informed; and i

5) A public announcement will be issued.

e l

1 4

Coordination. the amendments set out in the Notice of Procosed Rule Making were prepared by the Directorate of Regulatory deandards. The Directorate of Licensin' the Directorate or Regulatory Operations, the O' oftheGeneralCounsel,andtheofficeofInfodk.^[<'-

Services concur in the recom:aendations of th"' P3P'--

The dra.-. pub 1ic announcement was prepared bv the Office of Inrormation Services.

~

Scheduling:

(a) Approvals or comments by August 23, 1974, (b) - -

c i

'or attirmation at an early Policy Session.

i >

I

-ester Roge,s Director of Regulatory Standards

Contact:

A. Taboada Ext. 153-36927 e

b a

1 i

1 1

, l i

I i

l i

9 I

r i

~ , . . _ - _ . , _ _ . , _ . , . _ . _ - . - . . - - . . . _ - - . . _ - - . .m..~._ ,..m.,_.. . . _ . . _ , _ - . . _ _ _ . - _ . _ , . _ , , _ . . - . . _ , . , _ , _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _.