ML21267A098

Rulemaking: Final Rule: Annotated Public Comments Document: Incorporate by Reference American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and Operations and Maintenance Code

ML21267A098
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/30/2022
From:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:
Huckabay, Victoria
Shared Package
ML21267A036	List: ML21267A091 ML21267A092 ML21267A094 ML21267A098
References
10 CFR Part 50, ASME 219-2020, Final Rule, NRC-2018-0290, RIN 3150-AK22
Download: ML21267A098 (96)

Text

Annotated Public Comments on Proposed Rule:

American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2019-2020 Code Editions September 2022 Proposed rule: 86 FR 16087 (March 26, 2021)

NRC-2018-0290; RIN 3150-AK22 Comment Submission ID Commenter Name and Affiliation ADAMS Accession Number 001 Jeffrey D. Stumb, Dominion Energy ML21140A358 002 Mark Gowin, Inservice Testing Owners Group ML21141A263 003 Terence Chan, Private Citizen ML21144A032 004 Thomas Basso, Nuclear Energy Institute ML21145A172 005 Thomas Vogan, American Society of Mechanical Engineers ML21146A041 006 David P. Helker, Exelon Generation Company, LLC ML21146A042 007 Ronald Swain, Electric Power Research Institute ML21146A043 008 C.J. Riedl, Tennessee Valley Authority ML21146A150

[ML21267A098]

Submission ID 001 Jeffrey D. Stumb, Dominion Energy ADAMS Accession No. ML21140A358 1

From:

Jeffrey.D.Stumb@dominionenergy.com To:

RulemakingComments Resource Cc:

Wolfgang, Bob; Scarbrough, Thomas

Subject:

[External_Sender] Docket ID NRC-2018-0290 Date:

Thursday, May 20, 2021 11:15:51 AM Attachments:

JStumb Comments on NRC-2018-0290.pdf NRC Staff, I attempted to upload my comments at regulations.gov, but I received an error message upon uploading my comment file. Please reference my comments on Docket ID NRC-2018-0290 attached to this email. Feel free to reach out to me if there are any questions regarding my input.

Thank you, Jeff Stumb Innsbrook - 3NW Cell Phone 703-928-1983 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message contains information which may be legally confidential and or privileged and does not in any case represent a firm ENERGY COMMODITY bid or offer relating thereto which binds the sender without an additional express written confirmation to that effect. The information is intended solely for the individual or entity named above and access by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.

2

May 20, 2021 Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Public Comments on American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2019 - 2020 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference [RIN 3150-AK22; Docket ID NRC-2018-0290]

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(xi) OM Condition: Valve Position Indication This condition is applicable when implementing the 2012 or later editions of the ASME OM Code. This requirement stipulates that licensees shall verify that valve operation is accurately indicated by supplementing valve position indicating lights with other indications, such as flow meters or other suitable instrumentation, to provide assurance of proper obturator position.

In the last rulemaking, 10CFR50.55a(b)(3)(xi) was updated to increase the scope of the OM condition to include valves covered in all of the mandatory appendices within the ASME OM Code. This change also allows other test methods and frequencies used in Subsection ISTC and the mandatory appendices to verify obturator position on a test interval longer than every two years as prescribed by ISTC-3700.

Establishing a requirement to verify obturator position on every valve in the IST program with remote position indication can place a significant burden on the licensee to develop new test methods and procedures for valves that do not have supplemental means available, such as flow or pressure indication. In these cases, it may be necessary to purchase special equipment and deploy personnel to high radiological areas to verify obturator position on a frequency that may not add any increase in safety.

Recently, utilities have received NRC approval to use performance-based test methods, such as the 10 CFR 50 Appendix J test program, to verify obturator position. Performance-based test programs allow for valves to be tested at frequencies greater than every two years and require more frequent testing for poor performing valves. Other performance-based test programs include OM Code Cases OMN-23 and OMN-27, as well as the Check Valve Condition Monitoring program in Mandatory Appendix II, the inservice (diagnostic) test on motor-operated valves in Mandatory Appendix III, and the performance assessment test on air-operated valves in Mandatory Appendix IV.

The NRC expectations versus what is required in this condition is confusing. ISTC-3700 prescribes the position indication test be performed on a 24M frequency and the supplemental position verification test prescribed by this condition can be performed at a 24M frequency or other verification methods and frequencies. Is prior NRC approval required to deviate from the 24M frequency for obturator verification when using the performance-based Appendix J test program? The condition states that other verification methods and frequencies within Subsection ISTC and its mandatory appendices can be used to verify obturator position. The 10 CFR 50 Appendix J test program is prescribed in Subsection ISTC, but the NRC has also stated in a recent public meeting that prior NRC approval would be needed to credit the verification methods and frequencies from the Appendix J program.

3 001-01

If the NRC currently believes that prior NRC approval is required to use performance-based test methods and frequencies for supplemental obturator position verification then the OM condition could be modified to allow performance-based test methods to verify obturator position while still maintaining reasonable assurance of the valve condition. The NRC staff should not be concerned with the performance history on specific valves within the scope of performance-based test programs since this type of test program requires more frequent testing for poor performance and valve degradation.

Performance-based test programs provide the reasonable assurance necessary to meet the intent of this OM condition on a frequency greater than every two years and would greatly reduce the burden on the licensee and the NRC staff.

It is recommended that the following wording be used to enhance the condition to provide greater flexibility in how licensees meet the intent of this OM condition:

When implementing paragraph ISTC-3700, Position Verification Testing, in the ASME OM Code, 2012 Edition through the latest edition of the ASME OM Code incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section, licensees must verify that valve operation is accurately indicated by supplementing valve position indicating lights with other indications, such as flow meters or other suitable instrumentation to provide assurance of proper obturator position for valves with remote position indication within the scope of Subsection ISTC including its mandatory appendices the ASME OM Code and its performance-based verification methods and frequencies. For valves not susceptible to stem-disk separation, the supplemental position verification testing specified in paragraph ISTC-3700 this condition may be performed based on guidance in Code Case OMN-28. on a 10-year interval where the licensee documents a justification, which is made available for NRC review, demonstrating that the stem-disk connection is not susceptible to separation based on the internal design and evaluation of the stem-disk connection using plant-specific and industry operating experience and vendor recommendations.

This change allows for the supplemental position obturator verification test to be credited by existing performance-based test methods and frequencies such as 10 CFR 50 Appendix J, Code Cases OMN-23 and OMN-27, and performance-based testing in Mandatory Appendices II, III and IV.

10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4), Inservice Testing Standards Requirement for Operating Plants The proposed rulemaking currently deletes the phrase...without requesting relief under paragraph (f)(5) of this section or alternatives under paragraph (z) of this section. This deletion implies that there may be some cases where non-Code Class components will require prior NRC approval to deviate from ASME OM Code requirements. Licensees currently have justifications for non-Code Class components justifying that Code deviations demonstrate an acceptable level of quality and safety, or that implementing the Code provisions would result in a hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety. The NRC staff will need to provide examples of when prior NRC approval would be required and when prior NRC approval would not be required prior to implementing this change in order for licensees to determine if the currently implemented justifications need prior NRC approval and allow the NRC staff adequate time to review any needed requested alternatives.

4 001-02

10 CFR 50.55a(f)(7), Inservice Testing Reporting Requirements The proposed 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(7) wording would expand the requirement of licensees to submit their IST Plans and interim IST Plan updates related to pumps and valves, and IST Plans and interim Plan updates related to snubber examination and testing to the NRC when the final safety analysis report for the applicable nuclear power plant is updated. Submittal of interim IST Plan updates for pumps and valves and snubber examination and testing is not currently required. The new requirement to submit IST Plan updates to the NRC is considered unnecessary and overly burdensome. Currently, program plans associated with the ASME OM Code are submitted to the NRC for information prior to the beginning of each 10-year interval. These program plan submittals are deemed adequate for the NRC to perform their technical reviews of any associated alternative and relief requests.

The current revision of the ASME OM Code IST program Plans are available to onsite resident inspectors, who can provide the latest revision to interested NRC technical staff and regional inspectors upon request. Furthermore, NRC inspectors typically request licensees to either provide, or have available upon arrival, the latest Plan documents prior to scheduled inspections. An OM Code IST program Plan is considered a living document and could go through several revisions within a 10-year interval. The proposed requirement may result in licensees not updating their ASME OM Code program plans as often due to the extra burden of having to send revisions to the NRC.

In summary, since the NRC Resident Inspector currently has access to the most recent revision of a licensees ASME OM Code program Plan and is able to distribute them to others within the NRC organization upon request, it is recommended that the additional proposed requirement to submit interim IST Plan updates be deleted.

I hope that the NRC staff find these comments helpful and informative.

Sincerely, Jeffrey Stumb 5

001-03

Submission ID 002 Mark Gowin, Inservice Testing Owners Group ADAMS Accession No. ML21141A263 6

From:

Gowin, Mark Allen To:

RulemakingComments Resource

Subject:

[External_Sender] Public comments on Proposed Rule 10 CFR 50.55a (Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57)

Date:

Thursday, May 20, 2021 6:17:43 PM Attachments:

ISTOG Comments on proposed rulemaking for 10 CFR 5055a - signed.pdf Please see attached public comments provided by the Inservice Testing Owners Group for your consideration.

Mark Gowin Chairman - Inservice Testing Owners Group

Tennessee Valley Authority Program Manager - IST and App. J Asset Mgt Programs - OM Code Work - 423-751-3669 Cell - 423-503-5931 1101 Market St.

LP D 2S336 Chattanooga, TN 37412

7

ISTOG Comments on Proposed Rule for 10 CFR 50.55a Page 1 of 5 Introduction The Inservice Testing Owners Group (ISTOG) welcomes this opportunity to provide public comments on the proposed rule for 10 CFR 50.55a (Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57). The following ISTOG comments were developed during a membership-wide virtual meeting where each proposed change affecting Inservice Testing (IST) was discussed. In addition, membership-wide ISTOG polls were conducted to gain more specific details where needed.

Comments (b)(3)(iv) OM Condition: Check Valves (Appendix II)

Comment / Recommendation:

10CFR50.55a(b)(3)(iv) OM Condition: Check Valves (Appendix II) should be revised to be applicable to all addenda and editions of OM endorsed for use. In addition, the overly restrictive language At least one of the identified activities for a valve group shall be performed on each valve of the group at approximately equal intervals not to exceed the maximum interval shown in Table II-4000-1 should be revised to simply require compliance with the maximum intervals (both columns) shown in Table II-4000-1. This will provide flexibility for those CVCM plans that are not at the maximum intervals while also ensuring activities on individual valves are not deferred to the end of the group interval.

A similar comment has already been provided to chairman of the ASME OM, Subgroup - Check Valves for consideration.

Bases for Comment /

Background:

This condition was first imposed as part of final rulemaking dated July 17, 2017 and became effective on August 17, 2017 (Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 136). This condition effectively implemented new requirements which were added to the 2017 Edition of OM, Appendix II, II-4000(b)(1)(e) that require distribution of Check Valve Condition Monitoring (CVCM) activities for each valve in a multi-valve group at approximately equal intervals across the interval for the group.

The language in the 2017 Edition of OM and this condition are essentially the same.

While the goal for this condition and clarification in 2017 Edition of OM is appropriate, the actual language of these two documents have lead to unintended consequences. The statement, At least one of the identified activities for a valve group shall be performed on each valve of the group at approximately equal intervals not to exceed the maximum interval shown in Table II-4000-1 has resulted in significant burden for licensees to the revise their CVCM program plans for compliance. The requirement to distribute the CVCM activities across each valve at equal intervals is more prescriptive than necessary to ensure a licensee doesnt defer activities for all valves in a group to the end of the group interval.

Before this condition and OM change, most licensees performed CVCM activities on pairs of valves in a group or staggered the activities across the valve group interval in a manner that met the goal of distributing activities of multi-valve groups. However, the method of staggering activities did not meet the prescriptive language of this condition. As a result, the only way to comply with this condition and optimize testing is to split the group into smaller groups of valves or groups of one as permitted by II-2000(a). This is a significant burden on licensees and does not necessarily ensure a better distribution of activities.

8 002-01

ISTOG Comments on Proposed Rule for 10 CFR 50.55a Page 2 of 5 Example:

Assume all activities for the group have not been completed such that interval extension is not allowed at the time the condition becomes effective.

Before Condition:

1 group of 4 valves where activities on 2 valves in the group are performed every other outage Group Outage 1 Outage 2 Outage 3 Outage 4 4 valves (A, B, C, D)

A, C B, D After Condition:

One group of four valves where activities on 1 valve in the group are performed every outage Group Outage 1 Outage 2 Outage 3 Outage 4 4 valves (A, B, C, D)

A C

B D

OR Two groups of Two valves where activities on one valve in the group are performed every other outage Group Outage 1 Outage 2 Outage 3 Outage 4 2 valves (A, B)

A B

2 valves (C, D)

C D

The example above demonstrates a case where a CVCM plan that met the original intent of OM to stagger activities yet still must be revised to comply with the condition. In addition, the example shows two different ways the CVCM program may be revised to order to comply with this condition.

The last method shows how the revised CVCMP can comply with the condition without changing the schedule of activities. The end result is that compliance with this condition imposed significant burden to revise CVCM plans with no increase in the level of safety.

9

ISTOG Comments on Proposed Rule for 10 CFR 50.55a Page 3 of 5 (b)(3)(XI) OM Condition: Valve Position Indication First Comment / Recommendation:

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(XI) OM Condition: Valve Position Indication should be removed.

Bases / Background ISTOG provided comments (ML16015A352) on the rulemaking in which this condition was first proposed on Friday September 18, 2015 (Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181). Specifically, one of those comments stated, in part, ISTOG disagrees with proposed rulemaking and the rulemaking statement that changing the should to a shall in ISTC 3700 is not a new requirement but a clarification of the intent of the existing ASME OM Code. The proposed rulemaking goes against the recognized authority of the OM Code interpretation and change processes. See the ASME OM Interpretation 12-01... Review of the NRCs Analysis of Public Comments (ML16130A531) shows there were numerous other public commenters stating this condition represented a new requirement contrary to NRCs assertion that it was merely a clarification.

In response to public comments, the final rulemaking was modified to defer the requirement to implement this condition until licensees perform the 120 month update of their IST program to incorporate the 2012 Edition or later of OM. This relaxation of implementation dates (from 30 days to up to 120 months) makes it clear that NRC recognized this condition would be a significant burden for licensees to implement.

Some licensees have started implementation of this condition and, as a result, they have had to submit requests for alternatives to address issues with implementation. In other cases, licensees are considering changing the valve design to remove the position indication as a more effective way of complying with this condition.

None of the actions described above (multiple public comments, deferral of implementation to next interval update, new requests for alternatives, and potential design changes to remove indication) would be necessary if this condition were just a clarification. This information clearly demonstrates this condition is a new requirement and was incorrectly evaluated against the backfit rule in the original rulemaking that imposed this condition.

Second Comment / Recommendation:

If the first comment above is not accepted, then ISTOG would like to thank NRC for adding language in this condition to address those valves that are non-susceptible to stem-disc separation.

This is an important change that will benefit the industry by reducing burden of testing valves that are shown to have little to no history of stem-disc separation and providing more focus on those valves that warrant additional attention.

Recently approved ASME OM Code Case OMN-28 provides a structured approach for position indication testing of non-susceptible valves. It provides guidance for determining the scope of valves, describes testing requirements (methods and frequency), as well as necessary corrective actions upon failure of testing.

Recommend NRC endorse the use of Code Case OMN-28 in this rulemaking in lieu of the proposed new language of this condition.

10 002-02 002-03

ISTOG Comments on Proposed Rule for 10 CFR 50.55a Page 4 of 5 Third Comment / Recommendation:

If the first comment above is not accepted, then ISTOG recommends this condition be revised to clarify the starting point for this condition or the time frame implementation must be completed.

Bases / Background ISTOG members have unanimously interpreted the condition language which states, When implementing paragraph ISTC-3700, Position Verification Testing, in the ASME OM Code, 2012 Edition through the latest edition to mean the implementation clock starts on the first day of the IST interval that requires compliance with the 2012 Edition or later edition of OM. Further, they believed there was two years from the start date of the interval to be in full compliance with the condition.

This interpretation is based on the principle that requirements imposed based on an interval start date could not or did not extend back into the previous interval where the 2012 Edition or later edition was not applicable. In addition, the ISTOG members also recognize that in many cases, the supplemental verification of both open and closed valve positions may not be able to be performed concurrently. Also, it also may not be possible to perform concurrent with the ISTC-3700 required local observation of stem travel. The provisions of ISTC-3700 clearly state that when using supplemental observations such as flow meters, the observations need not be concurrent.

(f)(4) Inservice testing standards requirement for operating plants Comment / Recommendation:

The proposed rulemaking removes a portion of sentence which states, without requesting relief under paragraph (f)(5) of this section or alternatives under paragraph (z) of this section...

Recommend this phrase is retained in the final rule. This language is necessary to clarify that formal submittals of requests for relief or alternatives are not required for augmented IST program related components. As an option, this language could be relocated to (f)(6)(ii) along with the subsequent sentence regarding the use of an augmented IST program.

11 002-04 002-05

ISTOG Comments on Proposed Rule for 10 CFR 50.55a Page 5 of 5 (f)(7) Inservice testing reporting requirements Comment / Recommendation:

Recommend revising (f)(7) to only require submittal of IST plans when there is a demonstrated need (e.g., planned inspection) or at the beginning of each IST interval.

Bases / Background An ISTOG poll was conducted and of the 23 respondents: 13 stated they submitted their IST plans only at the beginning of the interval; 8 stated they submitted their IST plans after major revisions; and 2 stated they submitted their IST plans both at the start of the interval and after major revisions.

No one responded that they submitted more frequently.

Licensee processes for making formal docketed submittals to NRC are very time and labor intensive. The process requires each element of the submittal to be validated with supporting documentation. This effort would be a significant burden considering IST plans includes hundreds of components and technical requirements.

IST plans are frequently revised (sometimes multiple times per year) to address modifications or other changes in the program. Therefore, the proposed (f)(7) timing for submitting IST plans when the final safety analysis report for the applicable nuclear power plant is updated would not ensure the NRC has the latest version of a sites IST plan.

This proposed change represents a new requirement which would require changes to several licensee procedures for licensing activities and IST program activities. This new requirement would create a significant burden on licensees to submit their IST plans at least every two years without any compensating increase in quality or safety.

Conclusion These comments are provided for your consideration. Please dont hesitate to contact Mark Gowin at the contact information below if you have any questions.

Sincerely, Mark Gowin Chairman, ISTOG 423-503-5931 magowin@tva.gov Gowin, Mark A.

Digitally signed by Gowin, Mark A.

Date: 2021.05.20 18:10:57 -04'00' 12 002-06

Submission ID 003 Terence Chan, Private Citizen ADAMS Accession No. ML21144A032 13

From:

Terence Chan, PE To:

RulemakingComments Resource; Hoffman, Keith Cc:

Collins, Jay

Subject:

[External_Sender] Comment to Proposed Rulemaking Docket NRC-2018-0290, ASME Code Date:

Saturday, May 22, 2021 8:18:14 PM In the proposed rulemaking 86 FR 16087 dated March 26, 2021, NRC proposes to amend 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) to require a licensee-defined leak test rather than a Code-required pressure test, to demonstrate leak tightness of ASME Class 1, 2 and 3 mechanical joints.

The NRC correctly notes that such a test would not need to meet ASME Code requirements, nor would the examiners of such a test be required to meet ASME personnel qualification requirements. Furthermore, although not specifically mentioned by the staff, such testing procedures also would not need to meet ASME requirements, any ASME documentation requirements would not need to be met, nor would any Authorized Nuclear Inservice Inspector (ANII) involvement be required. In fact, because a leak test under this amended provision is not considered a Code activity, ANII involvement could be specifically disallowed by the licensee.

While it would be good practice by an Owner to document or reference such a test to the associated repair/replacement plan of the affected component, there is no requirement to do so, either within the proposed amendment to this paragraph, or by ASME since all activities related to the leakage test permitted by this amendment is outside the jurisdiction of the ASME Code,Section XI. As a result, if the NRC feels it is important to ensure linkage between the leak test performed to the associated repair/replacement activity in order to effectively "...

continue to monitor operating experience related to mechanical joints

...", it is suggested that NRC consider adding to this amended paragraph, a requirement that states to the effect that the licensee-defined leak test shall be referenced on the relevant repair/replacement plan and/or Form OAR-1, as appropriate for the relevant repair/replacement plan.

14 003-01

Submission ID 004 Thomas Basso, Nuclear Energy Institute ADAMS Accession No. ML21145A172 15

From:

BASSO, Thomas To:

RulemakingComments Resource Cc:

Veil, Andrea; Kock, Andrea; Taylor, Robert

Subject:

[External_Sender] NEI Comments on proposed amendment of 10 CFR 50.55a to incorporate by reference ASME 2019-2020 Code Editions (Docket ID NRC-2018-0290)

Date:

Tuesday, May 25, 2021 11:14:53 AM Attachments:

05-25-21_NRC_Industry Comments on Proposed 50_55a Rule Change.pdf THE ATTACHMENT CONTAINS THE COMPLETE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER

May 25, 2021

Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff

Project Number: 696

Subject:

NEI Comments on proposed amendment of 10 CFR 50.55a to incorporate by reference ASME 2019-2020 Code Editions (Docket ID NRC-2018-0290)

Submitted via regulations.gov

Dear Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff,

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), on behalf of our members, appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendments to 10 CFR 50.55a and respectfully requests that you review the comments in the attachment. The industry continues to review these regulations for opportunities to reduce regulatory burden to ensure that attention and resources remain focused on safe, reliable facility operation and that any changes to NRC requirements result in improved safety and efficiency.

We appreciate the NRCs effort in endorsing the latest editions of the ASME codes and standards and encourage your consideration of all stakeholder comments prior to finalizing the rule change.

We trust that you will find these comments useful and informative.

Please contact me at tbb@nei.org or (202) 739-8049 with any questions or comments about the content of this letter or the attached comments.

Sincerely,

Thomas Basso Senior Director Generation & Suppliers

Nuclear Energy Institute 16

1201 F St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004 www.nei.org

P: 202.739. 8049 E: tbb@nei.org

This electronic message transmission contains information from the Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. The information is intended solely for the use of the addressee and its use by any other person is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or by electronic mail and permanently delete the original message. IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS and other taxing authorities, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Sent through www.intermedia.com 17

THOMAS BASSO Senior Director, Engineering and Risk 1201 F Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 200 P: 202.739.8049 tbb@nei.org nei.org May 25, 2021 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Project Number: 696

Subject:

NEI Comments on proposed amendment of 10 CFR 50.55a to incorporate by reference ASME 2019-2020 Code Editions (Docket ID NRC-2018-0290)

Submitted via regulations.gov

Dear Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff,

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)1, on behalf of our members, appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendments to 10 CFR 50.55a and respectfully requests that you review the comments in the attachment. The industry continues to review these regulations for opportunities to reduce regulatory burden to ensure that attention and resources remain focused on safe, reliable facility operation and that any changes to NRC requirements result in improved safety and efficiency.

We appreciate the NRCs effort in endorsing the latest editions of the ASME codes and standards and encourage your consideration of all stakeholder comments prior to finalizing the rule change. We trust that you will find these comments useful and informative.

1 The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is responsible for establishing unified policy on behalf of its members relating to matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEIs members include entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect and engineering firms, fuel cycle facilities, nuclear materials licensees, and other organizations involved in the nuclear energy industry.

18

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff May 25, 2021 Page 2 Please contact me at tbb@nei.org or (202) 739-8049 with any questions or comments about the content of this letter or the attached comments.

Sincerely, Thomas Basso Attachment c:

Andrea Veil, NRR/NRC Robert Taylor, NRR/NRC Andrea Kock, NRR/NRC 19

Industry Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50.55a Rule Change Affected Section Comment Recommendation

1. 50.55a(b)(1)(xiii)

Section III Condition (xiii)Section III Condition: Preservice Inspection of Steam Generator Tubes. Applicants or licensees applying the provisions of NB-5283 and NB-5360 in the 2019 Edition of Section III, must apply paragraphs (b)(1)(xiii)(A) through (B) of this section.

Comments:

Prior to the 2017 Code edition, the Section III requirement for PSI for steam generator tubes was required by Section XI and existed to provide a baseline for Section XI exams. It was not related to any inspections or testing required to construct, stamp, or complete the NV-1 form.

Therefore, it had no relevance on the Section III construction of the Steam generator. It was just provided to support a requirement in Section XI.

Section XI deleted the requirements for PSI as a Section XI requirement in IWB-2200 via record 10-129 (incorporated in the 2017 Code Edition) and now just states that "Steam generator examinations are conducted in accordance with the program required by the plant Technical Specification."Section XI action 10-129 (incorporated in the 2017 Code Edition) changed IWB-2200(a) to remove steam generator tubing from the category of items requiring PSI prior to initial plant startup and created new Table IWB-2500-1 (B-Q) which states that steam generator examinations are conducted in accordance with the program required by the plant Technical Specification. Therefore,Section XI does not require a Section III manufacturer to provide a PSI for steam generator tubes, nor do they require a PSI for steam generator tubes to be completed prior to initial plant startup.

At the time of the Section III Construction when the manufacturer would perform the PSI, the manufacturer does not have access to the plant Technical Specifications. Therefore, the Section III manufacturer needs to NEI recommends 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(xiii)

Section III Condition: Preservice Inspection of Steam Generator Tubes not be added to the rule, allowing licensees to determine and specify the requisite testing and inspection, including the appropriate and applicable criteria.

20 004-01

Industry Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50.55a Rule Change Page 2 of 15 Affected Section Comment Recommendation be provided with the inspection requirements and criteria. To accomplish this a requirement to conduct the PSI with the appropriate inspection criteria would need to be in the Section III Design Specification. Lacking this information any inspection done by the Section III manufacturer could be a meaningless activity at additional cost, since there is no certainty the inspection would meet the requirements of the plant Technical Specifications.

Since the only reason for the Section III requirement for a PSI of steam generator tubes was to support a Section XI requirement, and Section XI removed that requirement, this change to Section III was made to align Section III with the change that had already been incorporated in Section XI. The USNRC condition to require a specific PSI for steam generator tubes be done by the Section III manufacturer imposes additional costs on the manufacturer, is not required for Section III construction, may end up being not used, and is not consistent with Section XI requirements.

2. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi)

Section XI Condition (xxvi)Section XI condition: Pressure testing Class 1, 2, and 3 mechanical joints. Mechanical joints in Class 1, 2, and 3 piping and components greater than NPS-1 which are disassembled and reassembled during the performance of a Section XI repair/replacement activity requiring documentation on a Form NIS-2 shall be leak tested to ensure leak tightness. The owner shall establish the type of leak test, test medium, test pressure, acceptance criteria that would demonstrate the joints leak tightness, and the qualifications of the personnel who will perform the leak test.

Comments:

NEI recognizes that the NRC has revised this condition to make it somewhat more flexible for licensees. However, the condition still adds unnecessary burden by requiring licensees to make significant changes to NEI recommends 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi)

Section XI Condition: Pressure Testing of Class 1, 2, and 3 Mechanical Joints be completely deleted from the new rule since it results in no additional safety benefit while increasing unnecessary administrative burden for licensees.

21 004-02

Industry Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50.55a Rule Change Page 3 of 15 Affected Section Comment Recommendation their ISI repair replacement programs to establish the type of leak test, test medium, test pressure, acceptance criteria that would demonstrate the joints leak tightness, and the qualifications of the personnel who will perform the leak test. Additionally, the condition will add administrative burden to implement these new requirements; all for no additional safety benefit. Licensees Appendix B quality and maintenance programs with the requisite site procedures to inspect and monitor for leakage at mechanical joints are and have been adequate to maintain the integrity of mechanical joints.

The NRC states on FR-2021-03-26 page 16093,. failure of a mechanical joint in the absence of a pressure test and VT-2 exam is unlikely, and the corresponding condition for Section XI pressure testing after repair/replacement activities is not needed for safety. The ASME agrees with this position and accordingly per IWA-4540(b)(1) exempts the replacement of bolts, studs, nuts, or washers from pressure testing.

The revised condition wording still does not address the conflict with the exemptions allowed per ASME IWA-4540(b)(1) without licensees having to submit a letter to obtain NRC approval for a previously approved code allowance.

3. 50.55a(b)(3)(iv)

OM Condition 10CFR50.55a(b)(3)(iv) OM Condition: Check Valves (Appendix II)

Comment:

Bases for Comment /

Background:

This condition was first imposed as part of final rulemaking dated July 17, 2017 and became effective on August 17, 2017 (Federal Register / Vol.

82, No. 136). This condition effectively implemented new requirements which were added to the 2017 Edition of OM, Appendix II, II-NEI recommends 10CFR50.55a(b)(3)(iv) OM Condition: Check Valves (Appendix II) be revised to be applicable to all addenda and editions of OM endorsed for use. In addition, the overly restrictive language At least one of the identified activities for a valve group shall be performed on each valve of the group at approximately equal intervals not to exceed the maximum interval shown in Table II-4000-1 should be revised to simply 22 004-03

Industry Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50.55a Rule Change Page 4 of 15 Affected Section Comment Recommendation 4000(b)(1)(e) that require distribution of Check Valve Condition Monitoring (CVCM) activities for each valve in a multi-valve group at approximately equal intervals across the interval for the group. The language in the 2017 Edition of OM and this condition are essentially the same.

While the goal for this condition and clarification in the 2017 Edition of OM is appropriate, the actual language of these two documents have led to unintended consequences. The statement, At least one of the identified activities for a valve group shall be performed on each valve of the group at approximately equal intervals not to exceed the maximum interval shown in Table II-4000-1 has resulted in significant burden for licensees to the revise their CVCM program plans for compliance. The requirement to distribute the CVCM activities across each valve at equal intervals is more prescriptive than necessary to ensure a licensee doesnt defer activities for all valves in a group to the end of the group interval.

Before this condition and OM change, most licensees performed CVCM activities on pairs of valves in a group or staggered the activities across the valve group interval in a manner that met the goal of distributing activities of multi-valve groups. However, the method of staggering activities did not meet the prescriptive language of this condition. As a result, the only way to comply with this condition and optimize testing is to split the group into smaller groups of valves or groups of one as permitted by II-2000(a). This is a significant burden on licensees and does not necessarily ensure a better distribution of activities.

Example:

Assume all activities for the group have not been completed such that interval extension is not allowed at the time the condition becomes effective.

require compliance with the maximum intervals (both columns) shown in Table II-4000-1. This will provide flexibility for those CVCM plans that are not at the maximum intervals while also ensuring activities on individual valves are not deferred to the end of the group interval.

23

Industry Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50.55a Rule Change Page 5 of 15 Affected Section Comment Recommendation Before Condition:

1 group of 4 valves where activities on 2 valves in the group are performed every other outage Group Outage 1 Outage 2 Outage 3 Outage 4 4 valves (A, B, C, D)

A, C B, D After Condition:

One group of four valves where activities on 1 valve in the group are performed every outage Group Outage 1 Outage 2 Outage 3 Outage 4 4 valves (A, B, C, D)

A C

B D

OR Two groups of two valves where activities on one valve in the group are performed every other outage Group Outage 1 Outage 2 Outage 3 Outage 4 2 valves (A, B)

A B

2 valves (C, D)

C D

The example above demonstrates a case where a CVCM plan met the original intent of OM to stagger activities yet still must be revised to comply with the condition. In addition, the example shows two different 24

Industry Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50.55a Rule Change Page 6 of 15 Affected Section Comment Recommendation ways the CVCM program may be revised to order to comply with this condition. The last method shows how the revised CVCM plan can comply with the condition without changing the schedule of activities.

The end result is that compliance with this condition imposed significant burden to revise CVCM plans with no increase in the level of safety.

4. 50.55a(b)(3)(xi)

OM Condition (xi) OM condition: Valve Position Indication. When implementing paragraph ISTC-3700, Position Verification Testing, in the ASME OM Code, 2012 Edition through the latest edition of the ASME OM Code incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section, licensees must verify that valve operation is accurately indicated by supplementing valve position indicating lights with other indications, such as flow meters or other suitable instrumentation to provide assurance of proper obturator position for valves with remote position indication within the scope of Subsection ISTC including its mandatory appendices and their verification methods and frequencies. For valves not susceptible to stem-disk separation, the position verification testing specified in paragraph ISTC-3700 may be performed on a 10-year interval where the licensee documents a justification, which is made available for NRC review, demonstrating that the stem-disk connection is not susceptible to separation based on the internal design and evaluation of the stem-disk connection using plant-specific and industry operating experience and vendor recommendations.

Comments:

1. There were no changes made to the condition to clarify implementation of Supplemental Position Indication (SPI). Changes are required to eliminate interpretation differences between the NRC and Licensees:

NEI recommends considering the following as part of the revision to § 50.55a(b)(3)(xi):

Licensees must verify that valve operation is accurately indicated by supplementing valve position indicating lights with other indications such as flow meters or other suitable instrumentation during performance of remote position indication testing by ISTC-3700 to provide assurance of proper obturator position for valves with remote position indication. ISTC-3700 requires remote position indication testing every 2 years and the (b)(3)(xi) condition applies when the remote position indication test is performed (2 years from the previous remote position indication test). Supplemental position verification must be performed in conjunction with but not concurrent with remote position indication testing.

Supplemental position verification for MOVs within the scope of Mandatory Appendix III must be performed in conjunction with but not concurrent with III-3300(e) remote 25 004-04B 004-04A 004-04A

Industry Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50.55a Rule Change Page 7 of 15 Affected Section Comment Recommendation

a. Utilize modified wording that was presented by the NRC during public meeting: ISTC-3700 requires valve position verification testing every 2 years and the (b)(3)(xi) condition applies when the ISTC-3700 test is performed (2 years from the previous [ISTC-3700] test).

b. Clarify SPI is required to be performed in conjunction with (i.e.,

same surveillance) but not required to be concurrent with (i.e.,

not at the same time as) Position Verification testing following adoption of the ASME OM Code, 2012 Edition though the latest edition of the ASME OM Code.

c. Clarify SPI required surveillance due date for MOVs in Appendix III as Position Verification testing shifted from 2Y to the Appendix III inservice testing frequency. For example, is the SPI test due date X years from the previous Position Verification test or X years from the previous diagnostic test (where X years represents the Appendix III inservice test interval).

d. Clarify required surveillance due date when implementing extended frequency testing for valves not susceptible to stem-disc separation. For example, can SPI be performed 10Y from the last performance of a Position Verification test prior to implementing the latest edition of the Code?

e. Confirm that MOV Position Verification testing, and therefore SPI testing, will follow the extended inservice test interval per OMN-26 application. OMN-26 provides an alternate inservice test interval based on individual valve Risk and Margin. The alternate interval is applicable to III-3300 Inservice Test including III-3300(e) remote position indication and therefore SPI.

2. Passive Valves - Sites are performing modification where possible or removing valves from the IST program to eliminate the need to do SPI testing. The condition should be changed to eliminate SPI for passive position indication testing. Supplemental position verification can be observed using performance-based verification methods and frequencies within the scope of the ASME OM Code.

Supplemental position verification observations are not required for passive valves.

Supplemental position verification observations are required to start during performance of the first remote position indication test following licensee implementation of the ASME OM Code, 2012 Edition through the latest edition of the ASME OM Code incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section. If plant conditions prohibit the initial supplemental position verification within the 2-year period of the previously performed remote position indication test, then it shall be done at the next opportunity but prior to 24 months from the implementation of ASME OM Code, 2012 Edition.

26 004-04C

Industry Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50.55a Rule Change Page 8 of 15 Affected Section Comment Recommendation valves. If this change is not agreeable, then the condition should be changed to only perform SPI testing of passive valves in the valves normal passive position. Since these valves are not required to change position to perform their safety function, SPI verification and especially verification in both positions does not provide any benefit to safety.

a. As stated in EPRI 3002019621: The NRC monitors current industry-average nuclear power plant equipment performance on its website Industry Average Parameter Estimates. This website currently contains component reliability data through 2015, based on data from INPO. The Component Reliability Data Sheets on this website summarize failure data for various component types, including valves. The failure data is categorized by failure mode (e.g., failure to open), and the details of the failure (such as whether it was due to a stem-to-disk separation) are not included. This data is used by the NRC as input to their Standardized Plant Analysis Risk models and by nuclear plants in the Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) models and provides a reference point against which the stem-to-disk failure data summarized later in this section can be compared.

This data should have identified any concerns with stem-to-disc failure, however, the NRCs SPAR modeling and industry use for PRA does not appear to identify any industry concerns of stem-to-disc failures. This would provide more documented data that passive valves and Non-susceptible stem-to-disk connections should be exempted for SPI.

3. Endorse ASME Code Case OMN-28s 12-year extended frequency for non-susceptible valves as approved or by name, versus the proposed NRC extended frequency wording of 10 years. OMN-28 provides additional guidance compared to the NRC proposed wording and will ensure there 27 004-04D

Industry Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50.55a Rule Change Page 9 of 15 Affected Section Comment Recommendation are no interpretation issues that would require sites to prepare additional relief.

4. The proposed rulemaking has reduced the burden of testing valves not susceptible to stem-disc separation by allowing the test frequency to occur at a 10-year interval based on a sites justification. However, if a valve is determined to not be susceptible to stem-disc separation, then NEI recommends that SPI testing is not required at all and Position Verification testing (excluding SPI) continue once every 2 years. If a valve is non-susceptible, then the burden of adding additional testing to verify stem-to-disc integrity doesnt add value or benefit to safety.

5. Due to the detail provided in the EPRI Technical Report for evaluation of valve susceptibility, Susceptibility of Valve Applications to Failure of the Stem-to-disk Connection, it is recommended that it be referenced as an acceptable method for determination of valve susceptibility in support of implementing the proposed rulemaking or OMN-28.

6. The current condition states that SPI must be performed on valves with indicating lights that are within the scope of Subsection ISTC including applicable mandatory appendices. The condition also states that SPI can be performed by using other verification methods and frequencies within Subsection ISTC and applicable Mandatory Appendices that are performed at intervals greater than every two years.

The Local Leak Rate Testing (LLRT) prescribed by 10 CFR 50 Appendix J programs is also prescribed by Subsection ISTC. Based on the condition wording, licensees believe that prior NRC approval is not required for SPI testing to be performed on the LLRT frequency because it is prescribed by Subsection ISTC. However, to ensure alignment on this interpretation, and prevent additional burden, the condition should clarify that it is permitted to use NRC-approved seat leakage performance-based 28 004-04G 004-04F 004-04E

Industry Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50.55a Rule Change Page 10 of 15 Affected Section Comment Recommendation frequencies for SPI, such as 10 CFR 50 Appendix J, approved performance-based Code Cases (OMN-23 and OMN-27), or NRC-approved site-specific relief requests, without having to seek approval of more relief requests which would be redundant to already approved alternatives.

7. Stop check valves should be excluded from SPI. Per valve design, the disc is not connected to the stem. In this case, position indication is for the valve stem only and not the check valve disc.

5. 50.55a(f)(4)

Inservice testing standards requirement for operating plants (4) Inservice testing standards requirement for operating plants.

Throughout the service life of a boiling or pressurized water-cooled nuclear power facility, pumps and valves that are within the scope of the ASME OM Code must meet the inservice test requirements (except design and access provisions) set forth in the ASME OM Code and addenda that become effective subsequent to editions and addenda specified in paragraphs (f)(2) and (3) of this section and that are incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section, to the extent practical within the limitations of design, geometry, and materials of construction of the components. The inservice test requirements for pumps and valves that are within the scope of the ASME OM Code but are not classified as ASME BPV Code Class 1, Class 2, or Class 3 may be satisfied as an augmented IST program in accordance with paragraph (f)(6)(ii) of this section without requesting relief under paragraph (f)(5) of this section or alternatives under paragraph (z) of this section. This use of an augmented IST program may be acceptable provided the basis for deviations from the ASME OM Code, as incorporated by reference in this section, demonstrates an acceptable level of quality and safety, or that implementing the Code provisions would result in hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety, where documented and available for NRC review.

NEI recommends that the phrase without requesting relief under paragraph (f)(5) of this section or alternatives under paragraph (z) of this section be retained in 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) or this change be analyzed for justification under the backfit rule per 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).

29 004-05 004-04H

Industry Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50.55a Rule Change Page 11 of 15 Affected Section Comment Recommendation Comment:

10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) requires that pumps and valves classified as ASME BPV Code Class 1, 2, 3, and non-Code Class be included within the scope of the IST program. Non-Code Class components are allowed to deviate from ASME OM Code requirements without asking for prior NRC approval, provided that the basis for the deviation is justified to meet an acceptable level of quality and safety, or that implementing the Code requirements would result in hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety and the justification is documented in the Owners IST Program Plan. In the draft Rulemaking the phrase without requesting relief under paragraph (f)(5) of this section or alternatives under paragraph (z) of this section" has been deleted.

The deletion of this phrase implies that there are some cases where non-Code Class components will require prior NRC approval without stating what those cases are. Owners currently maintain justifications for non-Code Class components that deviate from ASME OM Code requirements without prior NRC approval as allowed in 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4). If the phrase is deleted these currently implemented justifications could be determined to require prior NRC approval even though the current CFR allows this. It appears that the deletion of this phrase imposes a new generic requirement causing licensees to modify procedures and therefore meeting the definition of a backfitting under 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).

6. 50.55a(f)(7)

Preservice and inservice testing requirements (7) Inservice testing reporting requirements. Inservice Testing Program Test and Examination Plans (IST Plans) for pumps, valves, and dynamic restraints (snubbers) prepared to meet the requirements of the ASME OM Code must be submitted to the NRC as specified in § 50.4. IST Plans must NEI recommends that § 50.55a(f)(7) not be included in the rule change to be consistent with Inservice Inspection plans or as a 30 004-06

Industry Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50.55a Rule Change Page 12 of 15 Affected Section Comment Recommendation be submitted within 90 days of their implementation for the applicable 120-month IST Program interval. IST Plan revisions must be submitted when the final safety analysis report for the applicable nuclear power plant is updated. Electronic submission is preferred.

Comment:

The proposed addition of § 50.55a(f)(7) will increase the frequency of the IST program plan submittals, thereby resulting in additional, unnecessary regulatory burden. The new wording ties the IST Program Plan submittals to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) submittals. Section 50.71 (e)(4), requires that licensees file updated UFSARs annually or 6 months after each refueling outage provided the interval between successive updates does not exceed 24 months. Tying submittal of IST Program Plans to UFSAR updates will require the filing of IST Plans multiple times each interval. In contrast, the current editions of the ASME OM Code allows for a single submittal for the new 10-year interval and possible updates during the 10 years. If included in the final rule, this change will result in increased costs due to additional internal processing and reviews and will require changes to plant procedures (in many cases both regulatory procedures and IST program procedures).

In the proposed rule, NRC explained the need for this change stating that the agency needs these IST Plans for use in evaluating relief and alternative requests and to review deferral of quarterly testing to cold shutdowns and refueling outages. (86 Fed. Reg. 16,087, 16,096) But, as implemented in current editions of the ASME OM Code, IST Program Plans are not submitted until implemented at the beginning of each interval, i.e., after the start of the interval. Licensees typically submit relief requests prior to the start of the interval such that intervals are started with the appropriate code reliefs in place. Submitting an updated minimum only require submittal of IST Plans as part of interval updates.

If the NRC includes the proposed section 50.55a(f)(7) in the final rule, then the agency should provide a backfitting analysis supporting imposition of the amended regulation, as required by section 50.109(a)(3).

31

Industry Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50.55a Rule Change Page 13 of 15 Affected Section Comment Recommendation IST Program Plan after the start of the interval does not aid the NRC in the review of these relief requests.

Additionally, even an updated IST Program Plan submitted on the schedule proposed in section 50.55a(f)(7) may contain outdated information if it is used by NRC to review relief requests that are submitted after the start of the 10-year interval, but prior to the next UFSAR revision. If the NRC requires information from a licensees current IST Program Plan in order to review a relief request, the staff may request that information as part of its review of that specific relief request. This is the most efficient way for the NRC staff to ensure that it has the most up-to-date information necessary to complete its review.

Thus, there is no safety benefit associated with increasing the frequency of IST Plan submittals.

We also note that Code Case N-778, Alternative Requirements for Preparation and Submittal of Inservice Inspection Plans, Schedules, and Preservice and Inservice Inspection Summary Reports,Section XI, Division 1, as endorsed in the most recently approved Revision to Regulatory Guide 1.147, has eliminated the submittal of the Inservice Inspection Program Plans for the Inservice Inspection Program. If the proposed section 50.55a(f)(7) is included in the final rule, it will unnecessarily create inconsistencies between the IST and ISI programs, with no corresponding benefit to safety.

As discussed in the Federal Register Notice that endorsed the use of Code Case N-778 (83 FR 2331, dated January 17, 2018):

The NRC reviewed its needs with respect to the submittal of the subject plans, schedules, and reports, and determined that it is not necessary to require the submittal of plans and schedules. The NRC made this 32

Industry Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50.55a Rule Change Page 14 of 15 Affected Section Comment Recommendation determination because the latest up-to-date plans and schedules are available at the plant site and can be requested by the NRC at any time.

We see no reason why having current program plans available at plant sites and furnished by licensees upon request would be sufficient for the ISI program, but insufficient for the IST program.

Finally, from a backfitting perspective, section XII of the Federal Register notice states that the proposed rule would:

Add § 50.55a(f)(7) to state that IST Plans and interim IST Plan updates for pumps, valves, and dynamic restraints (snubbers) must be submitted to the NRC. This requirement was specified in the ASME OM Code up to the 2020 Edition, but the ASME removed this requirement from the 2020 Edition of the ASME OM Code as more appropriate to the regulatory authority responsibilities. Therefore, this rule change is not a backfit because the NRC is continuing the current requirement and is not imposing a new requirement.

But this description does not acknowledge that tying the submittal of IST Program Plans to submittal of the UFSAR will increase the frequency of the filings and is thus substantially different from current OM Code language. As proposed, section 50.55a(f)(7) would impose a requirement that is substantially different from the existing requirement (i.e., the pre-2020 Edition of the ASME OM Code), as well as the 2020 Edition of the ASME OM Code that is being incorporated-by-reference in this rulemaking (which eliminates the requirement to submit IST Plans altogether).

As described in NUREG/BR-0058, Appendix D Guidance on Regulatory Analysis Related to ASME Code Changes, one of the scenarios in which 33

Industry Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50.55a Rule Change Page 15 of 15 Affected Section Comment Recommendation the NRC considers adoption of a later code provision backfitting is when the NRC takes an exception to an ASME BPV or OM code provision and imposes a requirement that is substantially different from the current existing requirement as well as substantially different than the later code... This is precisely what will result if section 50.55a(f)(7) is included in the final rule - the pre-2020 OM Code requirement allows a single submittal of the IST Plans at start of the interval, the 2020 OM Code does not require submittal at all, and the proposed section 50.55a(f)(7) would require submittal at least once every 24 months with the FSAR updates.

Further, as state above, if this change in finalized it will require licensees to modify procedures required to implement their ASME Code programs and FSAR updates. Thus, this proposed amendment to section 50.55a meets the definition of backfitting contained in 10 CFR 50.109 and must meet the requirements of section 50.109(a)(3) prior to being imposed on licensees.

34

Submission ID 005 Thomas Vogan, American Society of Mechanical Engineers ADAMS Accession No. ML21146A041 35

From:

Kathryn Hyam To:

RulemakingComments Resource Cc:

Nove, Carol; Mark Ferlisi; Tom Vogan; rcl@tnorthconsulting.com; PRESSBURGER, MAURY A; Oliver Martinez; Kimberly Verderber; Daniel Miro-Quesada; Adams, Timothy; Rick Swayne; skulat@inserviceeng.com; dlamond@tnorthconsulting.com; cnpendle@southernco.com; trugs@comcast.net; Allyson B. Byk; Robert Keating; MATTHEWS Dale (Framatome) (dale.matthews@framatome.com); MCINTYRE, JAMES W; sparkmand@sparkmanandassociates.com; tauniav@lanl.gov; Kathryn Hyam

Subject:

[External_Sender] ASME Comments on Draft 50.55a 2019-2020 Edition Rule - RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC-2018-0290 Date:

Tuesday, May 25, 2021 3:09:51 PM Attachments:

ASME Comments on Draft 50.55a 2019-2020 Edition Rule 05-24-2021.pdf Importance:

High To whom it may concern:

ASME is pleased to have the opportunity to provide comments and suggestions on Incorporation by Reference of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Codes and Code Cases, 10 CFR Part 50, RIN 3150- AK22, Docket ID NRC-2018-0290.

Please find attached the compiled comments from ASME for consideration during this rulemaking.

Sincerely,

Kate Hyam

Kate Hyam Director Nuclear Codes and Standards ASME 1828 L St. N.W.,

Washington, DC 20036-5104 Tel 1.212.591.8704 hyamk@asme.org

36

May 24, 2021 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff

Subject:

Comments on Incorporation by Reference of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Codes and Code Cases, 10 CFR Part 50, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC-2018-0290

Reference:

1. Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114 / Friday, March 26, 2021/Proposed Rule

2. Federal Register/ Vol. 86, No. 90, pp. 25977-25978 / Wednesday, May 12, 2021, Proposed Rule; Correction

Dear Sir or Madam:

ASME is pleased to have the opportunity to provide comments and suggestions on your Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 10 CFR Part 50, RIN 3150-AK22, Incorporation by Reference of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Codes and Code Cases, Proposed Amended Requirements, published in Reference 1, as corrected in Reference 2.

Specifically, ASME supports the NRCs endorsement of later editions, addenda, and revisions to its Nuclear Codes, Standards, and Code Cases in the Code of Federal Regulations in 10 CFR 50.55a. It is our understanding that within this proposed rulemaking, the NRC is amending this regulation to incorporate by reference the following ASME Codes, Standards, and Code Cases:

1.

The 2019 Editions of Section III, Division 1 and Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (BPV) Code, with conditions

2.

The 2020 Edition of the ASME Operation and Maintenance (OM) Code, with conditions

3.

NQA-1b-2011 Addenda, and the 2012 and 2015 Editions of ASME NQA-1, Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications The ASME comments included in Enclosures 1 and 2 are intended to support the nuclear industry while protecting the health and safety of the public, without placing unnecessary burden on licensees. Thus, Enclosures 1 and 2 are provided for the use by the NRC staff to support, reconsider, remove, or modify its proposed (and existing) conditions where comments are provided. It is hoped that upon review of these ASME comments that the NRC staff will be able to allow the necessary changes to be made or modify the conditions in the final rule to such a degree as to fully endorse the ASME Nuclear Codes and Standards contained in this proposed rulemaking.

37

May 24, 2021 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 If you have any questions concerning the contents of this letter, please direct them to Ms.

Kathryn Hyam, Director, ASME Nuclear Codes & Standards by telephone (212) 591-8704 or by e-mail hyamk@asme.org.

Very Truly Yours, Thomas J. Vogan, Chair ASME Board on Nuclear Codes and Standards Tomvogan45@gmail.com

Enclosures:

1. ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule

2. ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xl) Condition in the Proposed Rule cc:

Carol Nove, USNRC (carol.nove@nrc.gov)

Officers of the ASME Board on Nuclear Codes and Standards Officers of the ASME Standards Committee on Nuclear Inservice Inspection Officers of the ASME Standards Committee on Construction of Nuclear Facility Components Officers of the ASME Standards Committee on Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants Officers of the ASME Standards Committee on Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA) 38 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 1 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes

§50.55a(b)(1)

(1) Conditions on ASME BPV Code Section III. Each manufacturing license, standard design approval, and design certification under 10 CFR part 52 is subject to the following conditions. As used in this section, references to Section III refer to Section III of the ASME BPV Code and include the 1963 Edition through 1973 Winter Addenda and the 1974 Edition (Division 1) through the 2017 Edition (Division 1), subject to the following conditions:

(1) Conditions on ASME BPV Code Section III. Each manufacturing license, standard design approval, and design certification under 10 CFR part 52 is subject to the following conditions. As used in this section, references to Section III refer to Section III of the ASME BPV Code and include the 1963 Edition through 1973 Winter Addenda and the 1974 Edition (Division 1) through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, subject to the following conditions:

ASME has no comments on the proposed change.

§50.55a(b)(1)(ii), Table I Table I - Prohibited Code Provisions.

Table I - Prohibited Code Provisions.

ASME has no comments on the proposed changes to §50.55a(b)(1)(ii), Table I - Prohibited Code Provisions.

Editions and addenda Code provision Editions and addenda Code provision 1989 Addenda through 2013 Edition Subparagraph NB-3683.4(c)(1);

Subparagraph NB-3683.4(c)(2).

1989 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.

Subparagraph NB-3683.4(c)(1);

Subparagraph NB-3683.4(c)(2).

1989 Addenda through 2003 Addenda Footnote 11 to Figure NC-3673.2(b)-1; Footnote 11 to Figure ND-3673.2(b)-1.

1989 Addenda through 2003 Addenda Footnote 11 to Figure NC-3673.2(b)-1; Note 11 to Figure ND-3673.2(b)-1.

2004 Edition through 2010 Edition Footnote 13 to Figure NC-3673.2(b)-1; Footnote 13 to Figure ND-3673.2(b)-1.

2004 Edition through 2010 Edition Footnote 13 to Figure NC-3673.2(b)-1; Note 13 to Figure ND-3673.2(b)-1.

2011 Addenda through 2017 Edition Footnote 11 to Table NC-3673.2(b)-1; Footnote 11 to Table ND-3673.2(b)-1.

2011 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.

Footnote 11 to Table NC-3673.2(b)-1; Note 11 to Table ND-3673.2(b)-1.

§50.55a(b)(1)(iii)

(iii)Section III condition: Seismic design of piping. Applicants or licensees may use Subarticles NB-3200, NB-3600, NC-3600, and ND-3600 for seismic design of piping, up to and including the 1993 Addenda, subject to the condition specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section. Applicants or licensees may not use (iii)Section III condition: Seismic design of piping. Applicants or licensees may use Subarticles NB-3200, NB-3600, NC-3600, and ND-3600 for seismic design of piping, up to and including the 1993 Addenda, subject to the condition specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section. Applicants or licensees may not use ASME has no comments on the proposed change.

39 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 2 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes these subarticles for seismic design of piping in the 1994 Addenda through the 2005 Addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, except that Subarticle NB-3200 in the 2004 Edition through the 2017 Edition may be used by applicants and licensees, subject to the condition in paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A) of this section. Applicants or licensees may use Subarticles NB-3600, NC-3600, and ND-3600 for the seismic design of piping in the 2006 Addenda through the 2017 Edition, subject to the conditions of this paragraph corresponding to those subarticles.

these subarticles for seismic design of piping in the 1994 Addenda through the 2005 Addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, except that Subarticle NB-3200 in the 2004 Edition through the 2017 Edition may be used by applicants and licensees, subject to the condition in paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A) of this section. Applicants or licensees may use Subarticles NB-3600, NC-3600, and ND-3600 for the seismic design of piping in the 2006 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, subject to the conditions of this paragraph (b)(1)(iii) corresponding to those subarticles.

§50.55a(b)(1)(iv)

(iv)Section III condition: Quality assurance.

When applying editions and addenda later than the 1989 Edition of Section III, the requirements of NQA-1, "Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications," 1994 Edition, 2008 Edition, and the 2009-1a Addenda specified in either NCA-4000 or NCA-7000 of that edition and addenda of Section III may be used by an applicant or licensee, provided that the administrative, quality, and technical provisions contained in that edition and addenda of Section III are used in conjunction with the applicant's or licensee's appendix B to this part quality assurance program; and that the applicant's or licensee'sSection III activities comply with those commitments contained in the applicant's or licensee's quality assurance program description. Where NQA-1 and Section III do not address the commitments contained in the applicant's or licensee's appendix B quality assurance program description, those licensee commitments must be applied to Section III activities.

(iv)Section III condition: Quality assurance.

When applying editions and addenda later than the 1989 Edition of Section III, an applicant or licensee may use the requirements of NQA-1, Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications, that is both incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section and specified in either NCA-4000 or NCA-7000 of that Edition and Addenda of Section III, provided that the administrative, quality, and technical provisions contained in that Edition and Addenda of Section III are used in conjunction with the applicants or licensees appendix B to this part quality assurance program; and that the applicants or licenseesSection III activities comply with those commitments contained in the applicants or licensees quality assurance program description. Where NQA-1 and Section III do not address the commitments contained in the applicants or licensees appendix B quality assurance program description, those licensee commitments must be applied to Section III activities.

ASME supports the proposed revision to

§50.55a(b)(1)(iv).

40 005-01 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 3 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes

§50.55a(b)(1)(vii)

(vii)Section III condition: Capacity certification and demonstration of function of incompressible-fluid pressure-relief valves.

When applying the 2006 Addenda through all editions and addenda up to and including the 2017 Edition, applicants and licensees may use paragraph NB-7742, except that paragraph NB-7742(a)(2) may not be used. For a valve design of a single size to be certified over a range of set pressures, the demonstration of function tests under paragraph NB-7742 must be conducted as prescribed in NB-7732.2 on two valves covering the minimum set pressure for the design and the maximum set pressure that can be accommodated at the demonstration facility selected for the test.

(vii)Section III condition: Capacity certification and demonstration of function of incompressible-fluid pressure-relief valves. When applying the 2006 Addenda through all editions and addenda up to and including the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, applicants and licensees may use paragraph NB-7742, except that paragraph NB-7742(a)(2) may not be used. For a valve design of a single size to be certified over a range of set pressures, the demonstration of function tests under paragraph NB-7742 must be conducted as prescribed in NB-7732.2 on two valves covering the minimum set pressure for the design and the maximum set pressure that can be accommodated at the demonstration facility selected for the test.

ASME has no comments on the proposed change.

§50.55a(b)(1)(x)

(x)Section III Condition: Visual examination of bolts, studs and nuts. Applicants or licensees applying the provisions of NB-2582, NC-2582, ND-2582, NE-2582, NF-2582, NG-2582 in the 2017 Edition of Section III, must apply paragraphs (b)(1)(x)(A) through (B) of this section.

(A) Visual examination of bolts, studs, and nuts:

First provision. When applying the provisions of NB-2582, NC-2582, ND-2582, NE-2582, NF-2582, NG-2582 in the 2017 Edition of Section III, the visual examinations are required to be performed in accordance with procedures qualified to NB-5100, NC-5100, ND-5100, NE-5100, NF-5100, NG-5100 and performed by personnel qualified in accordance with NB-5500, NC-5500, ND-5500, NE-5500, NF-5500, and NG-5500.

(B) Visual examination of bolts, studs, and nuts:

Second provision. When applying the provisions of NB-2582, NC-2582, ND-2582, NE-2582, (x)Section III Condition: Visual examination of bolts, studs and nuts. Applicants or licensees applying the provisions of NB-2582, NC-2582, ND-2582, NE-2582, NF-2582, NG-2582 in the 2017 Edition of Section III through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, must apply paragraphs (b)(1)(x)(A) through (B) of this section.

(A) Visual examination of bolts, studs, and nuts: First provision. When applying the provisions of NB-2582, NC-2582, ND-2582, NE-2582, NF-2582, NG-2582 in the 2017 Edition of Section III through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the visual examinations are required to be performed in accordance with procedures qualified to NB-5100, NC-5100, ND-5100, NE-5100, NF-5100, NG-5100 and performed by personnel qualified in accordance with NB-5500, NC-5500, ND-5500, NE-5500, NF-5500, and NG-5500.

ASME has no comments on the proposed change.

41 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 4 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes NF-2582, and NG-2582 in the 2017 Edition of Section III, bolts, studs, and nuts must be visually examined for discontinuities including cracks, bursts, seams, folds, thread lap, voids, and tool marks.

(B) Visual examination of bolts, studs, and nuts: Second provision. When applying the provisions of NB-2582, NC-2582, ND-2582, NE-2582, NF-2582, and NG-2582 in the 2017 Edition of Section III through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, bolts, studs, and nuts must be visually examined for discontinuities including cracks, bursts, seams, folds, thread lap, voids, and tool marks.

§50.55a(b)(1)(xiii)

N/A (xiii)Section III Condition: Preservice Inspection of Steam Generator Tubes. Applicants or licensees applying the provisions of NB-5283 and NB-5360 in the 2019 Edition of Section III, must apply paragraphs (b)(1)(xiii)(A) through (B) of this section.

(A) Preservice Inspection of Steam Generator Tubes: First provision. When applying the provisions of NB-5283 in the 2019 Edition of Section III, a full-length preservice examination of 100 percent of the steam generator tubing in each newly installed steam generator must be performed prior to plant startup.

(B) Preservice Inspection of Steam Generator Tubes: Second provision. When applying the provisions of NB-5360 in the 2019 Edition of Section III, flaws revealed during preservice examination of steam generator tubing performed in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(xiii)(A) of this section must be evaluated using the criteria in the design specifications.

Prior to the 2017 Code edition, the Section III requirement for PSI for steam generator tubes was required by Section XI and existed to provide a baseline for Section XI exams. It was not related to any inspections or testing required to construct, stamp, or completed the NV-1 form.

Therefore, it had no relevance on the Section III construction of the Steam generator. It was just provided to support a requirement in Section XI.

Section XI deleted the requirements for PSI as a Section XI requirement in IWB-2200 via record 10-129 (incorporated in the 2017 Code Edition) and now just states that "Steam generator examinations are conducted in accordance with the program required by the plant Technical Specification."Section XI action 10-129 (incorporated in the 2017 Code Edition) changed IWB-2200(a) to remove steam generator tubing from the category of items requiring PSI prior to initial plant startup and created new Table IWB-2500-1 (B-Q) which states that Steam generator examinations are conducted in accordance with the program required by the plant Technical Specification. Therefore,Section XI does not require a Section III manufacturer to provide a PSI for Steam Generator tubes nor do they require a PSI for steam generator tubes to be completed prior to initial plant startup.

42 005-02 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 5 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes At the time of the Section III Construction when the manufacturer would perform the PSI, the manufacturer does not have access to the plant Technical Specifications. Therefore, the Section III manufacturer needs to be provided with the inspection requirements and criteria. To accomplish this a requirement to conduct the PSI with the appropriate inspection criteria would need to be in the Section III Design Specification.

Lacking this information any inspection done by the Section III manufacturer, could be a meaningless activity, at additional cost, since there is no certainty that the inspection would meet the requirements of the plant Technical Specifications.

Since the only reason for the requirement for the Section III requirement for a PSI of steam generator tubes was to support a Section XI requirement and Section XI removed that requirement, this change to Section III was made to align Section III with the change that had already been incorporated in Section XI. The USNRC conditions to impose a specific PSI for steam generator tubes be done by the Section III manufacturer imposes additional costs on the manufacturer, is not required for Section III construction, may end up being not used, and is not consistent with Section XI requirements.

Therefore, ASME strongly recommends that this condition be removed in the final rule.

§50.55a(b)(2)(viii)

(viii)Section XI condition: Concrete containment examinations. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWL, 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda, must apply paragraphs (b)(2)(viii)(A) through (E) of this section. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWL, 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda, must apply paragraphs (b)(2)(viii)(A),

(viii)Section XI condition: Concrete containment examinations. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWL, 2001 Edition through the 2004 Edition, up to and including the 2006 Addenda, must apply paragraphs (b)(2)(viii)(E) through (G) of this section. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWL, 2007 Edition up to and including the 2008 Addenda must apply paragraph This condition removes references to several older editions and addenda of Section XI that are no longer in use in the United States.

ASME supports the proposed revision to

§50.55a(b)(2)(viii).

43 005-03 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 6 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes (b)(2)(viii)(D)(3), and (b)(2)(viii)(E) of this section. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWL, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda, must apply paragraphs (b)(2)(viii)(E) and (F) of this section. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWL, 2001 Edition through the 2004 Edition, up to and including the 2006 Addenda, must apply paragraphs (b)(2)(viii)(E) through (G) of this section. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWL, 2007 Edition up to and including the 2008 Addenda must apply paragraph (b)(2)(viii)(E) of this section. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWL, 2007 Edition with the 2009 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, must apply paragraphs (b)(2)(viii)(H) and (I) of this section.

(b)(2)(viii)(E) of this section. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWL, 2007 Edition with the 2009 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, must apply paragraphs (b)(2)(viii)(H) and (I) of this section.

§50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(A)

(A) Concrete containment examinations:

First provision. Grease caps that are accessible must be visually examined to detect grease leakage or grease cap deformations. Grease caps must be removed for this examination when there is evidence of grease cap deformation that indicates deterioration of anchorage hardware.

(A) [Reserved]

ASME supports the proposed deletion of

§50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(A).

§50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(B)

(B) Concrete containment examinations:

Second provision. When evaluation of consecutive surveillances of pre-stressing forces for the same tendon or tendons in a group indicates a trend of pre-stress loss such that the tendon force(s) would be less than the minimum design pre-stress requirements before the next inspection interval, an evaluation must be performed and reported in the Engineering Evaluation Report as prescribed in IWL-3300.

(B) [Reserved]

ASME supports the proposed deletion of

§50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(B).

§50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(C)

(C) Concrete containment examinations:

Third provision. When the elongation (C) [Reserved]

ASME supports the proposed deletion of

§50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(C).

44 005-04 005-05 005-06 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 7 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes corresponding to a specific load (adjusted for effective wires or strands) during re-tensioning of tendons differs by more than 10 percent from that recorded during the last measurement, an evaluation must be performed to determine whether the difference is related to wire failures or slip of wires in anchorage. A difference of more than 10 percent must be identified in the ISI Summary Report required by IWA-6000.

§50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(D)

(D) Concrete containment examinations:

Fourth provision. The applicant or licensee must report the following conditions, if they occur, in the ISI Summary Report required by IWA-6000:

(1) The sampled sheathing filler grease contains chemically combined water exceeding 10 percent by weight or the presence of free water; (2) The absolute difference between the amount removed and the amount replaced exceeds 10 percent of the tendon net duct volume; and (3) Grease leakage is detected during general visual examination of the containment surface.

(D) [Reserved]

ASME supports the proposed deletion of

§50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(D).

§50.55a(b)(2)(ix)

(ix)Section XI condition: Metal containment examinations. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWE, 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda, or the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda, must satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(ix)(A) through (E) and (b)(2)(ix)(K) of this section. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWE, 1998 Edition through the 2001 Edition with the 2003 Addenda, must satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(ix)(A) and (B) and (b)(2)(ix)(F) through (I) and (b)(2)(ix)(K) of this section.

Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWE, 2004 Edition, up to and including the 2005 (ix)Section XI condition: Metal containment examinations. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWE, 2001 Edition up to and including the 2003 Addenda, must satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(ix)(A) and (B), (F) through (I), and (K) of this section. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWE, 2004 Edition, up to and including the 2005 Addenda, must satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(ix)(A) and (B), (F) through (H), and (K) of this section. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWE, 2004 Edition with the 2006 Addenda, must satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(ix)(A)(2) and (b)(2)(ix)(B) and This condition removes references to several older editions and addenda of Section XI that are no longer in use in the United States.

ASME supports the proposed revision to

§50.55a(b)(2)(ix).

45 005-07 005-08 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 8 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes Addenda, must satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(ix)(A) and (B) and (b)(2)(ix)(F) through (H) and (b)(2)(ix)(K) of this section.

Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWE, 2004 Edition with the 2006 Addenda, must satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(ix)(A)(2) and (b)(2)(ix)(B) and (b)(2)(ix)(K) of this section. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWE, 2007 Edition through the 2015 Edition, must satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(ix)(A)(2) and (b)(2)(ix)(B) and (J) and (K) of this section. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWE, 2017 Edition, must satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(ix)(A)(2) and (b)(2)(ix)(B) and (J) of this section.

(K) of this section. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWE, 2007 Edition through the 2015 Edition, must satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(ix)(A)(2) and (b)(2)(ix)(B),

(J), and (K) of this section. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWE, 2017 Edition, through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section must satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(ix)(A)(2) and (b)(2)(ix)(B) and (J) of this section.

§50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(B)

(B) Metal containment examinations: Second provision. When performing remotely the visual examinations required by Subsection IWE, the maximum direct examination distance specified in Table IWA-2210-1 (1992 Edition through 2004 Edition) or Table IWA-2211-1 (2005 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1) of this section) may be extended and the minimum illumination requirements specified may be decreased provided that the conditions or indications for which the visual examination is performed can be detected at the chosen distance and illumination.

(B) Metal containment examinations: Second provision. When performing remotely the visual examinations required by Subsection IWE, the maximum direct examination distance specified in Table IWA-2210-1 (2001 Edition through 2004 Edition) or Table IWA-2211-1 (2005 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1) of this section) may be extended and the minimum illumination requirements specified may be decreased provided that the conditions or indications for which the visual examination is performed can be detected at the chosen distance and illumination.

ASME supports the proposed revision to

§50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(B).

§50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(C)

(C) Metal containment examinations: Third provision. The examinations specified in Examination Category E-B, Pressure Retaining Welds, and Examination Category E-F, Pressure Retaining Dissimilar Metal Welds, are optional.

(C) [Reserved]

ASME supports the proposed deletion of

§50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(C).

§50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(D)

(D) Metal containment examinations: Fourth provision. This paragraph (b)(2)(ix)(D) may be used as an alternative to the requirements of (D) [Reserved]

ASME supports the proposed deletion of

§50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(D).

46 005-09 005-10 005-11 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 9 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes IWE-2430. If the examinations reveal flaws or areas of degradation exceeding the acceptance standards of Table IWE-3410-1, an evaluation must be performed to determine whether additional component examinations are required. For each flaw or area of degradation identified that exceeds acceptance standards, the applicant or licensee must provide the following in the ISI Summary Report required by IWA-6000:

(1) A description of each flaw or area, including the extent of degradation, and the conditions that led to the degradation; (2) The acceptability of each flaw or area and the need for additional examinations to verify that similar degradation does not exist in similar components; (3) A description of necessary corrective actions; and (4) The number and type of additional examinations to ensure detection of similar degradation in similar components.

§50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(E)

(E) Metal containment examinations: Fifth provision. A general visual examination as required by Subsection IWE must be performed once each period.

(E) [Reserved]

ASME supports the proposed deletion of

§50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(E).

§50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(J)

(J) Metal containment examinations: Tenth provision. In general, a repair/replacement activity such as replacing a large containment penetration, cutting a large construction opening in the containment pressure boundary to replace steam generators, reactor vessel heads, pressurizers, or other major equipment; or other similar modification is considered a major containment modification. When applying IWE-5000 to Class MC pressure-retaining components, any major containment (J) Metal containment examinations: Tenth provision. In general, a repair/ replacement activity such as replacing a large containment penetration, cutting a large construction opening in the containment pressure boundary to replace steam generators, reactor vessel heads, pressurizers, or other major equipment; or other similar modification is considered a major containment modification. When applying IWE-5000 to Class MC pressure-retaining components, any major containment modification ASME has no comments on the proposed change.

47 005-12 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 10 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes modification or repair/replacement must be followed by a Type A test to provide assurance of both containment structural integrity and leak-tight integrity prior to returning to service, in accordance with 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J, Option A or Option B on which the applicant's or licensee's Containment Leak-Rate Testing Program is based. When applying IWE-5000, if a Type A, B, or C Test is performed, the test pressure and acceptance standard for the test must be in accordance with 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J.

or repair/replacement must be followed by a Type A test to provide assurance of both containment structural integrity and leak-tight integrity prior to returning to service, in accordance with appendix J to this part, Option A or Option B, on which the applicants or licensees Containment Leak-Rate Testing Program is based. When applying IWE-5000, if a Type A, B, or C Test is performed, the test pressure and acceptance standard for the test must be in accordance with appendix J to this part.

§50.55a(b)(2)(x)

(x)Section XI condition: Quality assurance.

When applying the editions and addenda later than the 1989 Edition of ASME BPV Code,Section XI, the edition and addenda of NQA-1, "Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications," 1994 Edition, the 2008 Edition, and the 2009-1a Addenda specified in either IWA-1400 or Table IWA 1600-1 of that edition and addenda of Section XI, may be used by a licensee provided that the licensee uses its appendix B to this part quality assurance program in conjunction with Section XI requirements and the commitments contained in the licensee's quality assurance program description. Where NQA-1 and Section XI do not address the commitments contained in the licensee's appendix B quality assurance program description, those licensee commitments must be applied to Section XI activities.

(x)Section XI condition: Quality assurance.

When applying the editions and addenda later than the 1989 Edition of ASME BPV Code,Section XI, licensees may use any edition or addenda of NQA-1, Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications, that is both incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section and specified in Table IWA 1600-1 of that edition and addenda of Section XI, provided that the licensee uses its appendix B to this part quality assurance program in conjunction with Section XI requirements and the commitments contained in the licensees quality assurance program description. Where NQA-1 and Section XI do not address the commitments contained in the licensees appendix B quality assurance program description, those licensee commitments must be applied to Section XI activities.

ASME has no comments on the proposed change.

§50.55a(b)(2)(xii)

(xii)Section XI condition: Underwater welding. The provisions in IWA-4660, "Underwater Welding," of Section XI, 1997 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, are approved for use on irradiated material with the following conditions:

(xii)Section XI condition: Underwater welding.

The provisions in IWA-4660, Underwater Welding, of Section XI, 2001 Edition through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, are approved for use on irradiated material with the following conditions:

ASME has no comments on the proposed change.

48 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 11 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes (A) Underwater welding: First provision.

Licensees must obtain NRC approval in accordance with paragraph (z) of this section regarding the welding technique to be used prior to performing welding on ferritic material exposed to fast neutron fluence greater than 1 x 1017 n/cm2 (E > 1 MeV).

(B) Underwater welding: Second provision.

Licensees must obtain NRC approval in accordance with paragraph (z) of this section regarding the welding technique to be used prior to performing welding on austenitic material other than P-No. 8 material exposed to thermal neutron fluence greater than 1 x 1017 n/cm2 (E <

0.5 eV). Licensees must obtain NRC approval in accordance with paragraph (z) regarding the welding technique to be used prior to performing welding on P-No. 8 austenitic material exposed to thermal neutron fluence greater than 1 x 1017 n/cm2 (E < 0.5 eV) and measured or calculated helium concentration of the material greater than 0.1 atomic parts per million.

(A) Underwater welding: First provision.

Licensees must obtain NRC approval in accordance with paragraph (z) of this section regarding the welding technique to be used prior to performing welding on ferritic material exposed to fast neutron fluence greater than 1 x 1017 n/cm2 (E > 1 MeV).

(B) Underwater welding: Second provision.

Licensees must obtain NRC approval in accordance with paragraph (z) of this section regarding the welding technique to be used prior to performing welding on austenitic material other than P-No. 8 material exposed to thermal neutron fluence greater than 1 x 1017 n/cm2 (E < 0.5 eV).

Licensees must obtain NRC approval in accordance with paragraph (z) regarding the welding technique to be used prior to performing welding on P-No. 8 austenitic material exposed to thermal neutron fluence greater than 1 x 1017 n/ cm2 (E < 0.5 eV) and measured or calculated helium concentration of the material greater than 0.1 atomic parts per million.

§50.55a(b)(2)(xiv)

(xiv)Section XI condition: Appendix VIII personnel qualification. All personnel qualified for performing ultrasonic examinations in accordance with Appendix VIII must receive 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of annual hands-on training on specimens that contain cracks. Licensees applying the 1999 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section may use the annual practice requirements in VII-4240 of Appendix VII of Section XI in place of the 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of annual hands-on training provided that the supplemental practice is performed on material or welds that contain cracks, or by analyzing prerecorded data from material or welds that contain cracks. In either case, training must be completed no earlier than 6 months prior to (xiv)Section XI condition: Appendix VIII personnel qualification. All personnel qualified for performing ultrasonic examinations in accordance with Appendix VIII must receive 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of annual hands-on training on specimens that contain cracks. Licensees applying the 2001 Edition through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section may use the annual practice requirements in VII-4240 of Appendix VII of Section XI in place of the 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of annual hands-on training provided that the supplemental practice is performed on material or welds that contain cracks, or by analyzing prerecorded data from material or welds that contain cracks. In either case, training must be completed no earlier ASME has no comments on the proposed change.

49 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 12 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes performing ultrasonic examinations at a licensee's facility.

than 6 months prior to performing ultrasonic examinations at a licensees facility.

§50.55a(b)(2)(xv)

(xv)Section XI condition: Appendix VIII specimen set and qualification requirements.

Licensees using Appendix VIII in the 1995 Edition through the 2001 Edition of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code may elect to comply with all of the provisions in paragraphs (b)(2)(xv)(A) through (M) of this section, except for paragraph (b)(2)(xv)(F) of this section, which may be used at the licensee's option. Licensees using editions and addenda after 2001 Edition through the 2006 Addenda must use the 2001 Edition of Appendix VIII and may elect to comply with all of the provisions in paragraphs (b)(2)(xv)(A) through (M) of this section, except for paragraph (b)(2)(xv)(F) of this section, which may be used at the licensee's option.

N/A ASME recommends that the condition be revised to apply only to the 2001 Edition and later editions and addenda. ASME notes that the NRCs markup of the existing regulations included this change, but the proposed change was not included in the Federal Register Notice for the proposed rule.

§50.55a(b)(2)(xviii)(A)

(A) NDE personnel certification: First provision. Level I and II nondestructive examination personnel must be recertified on a 3-year interval in lieu of the 5-year interval specified in the 1997 Addenda and 1998 Edition of IWA-2314, and IWA-2314(a) and IWA-2314(b) of the 1999 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.

(A) NDE personnel certification: First provision. Level I and II nondestructive examination personnel must be recertified on a 3-year interval in lieu of the 5-year interval specified in IWA-2314(a) and IWA-2314(b) of the 2001 Edition through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.

ASME has no comments on the proposed change.

§50.55a(b)(2)(xviii)(D)

(D) NDE personnel certification: Fourth provision. The use of Appendix VII, Table VII-4110-1 and Appendix VIII, Subarticle VIII-2200 of the 2011 Addenda through the latest edition incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section is prohibited. When using ASME BPV Code,Section XI editions and addenda later than the 2010 Edition, licensees and applicants must use the prerequisites for ultrasonic examination personnel certifications in Appendix VII, Table VII-4110-1 and Appendix VIII, Subarticle VIII-2200 in the 2010 Edition.

(D) NDE personnel certification: Fourth provision. The use of Appendix VII, Table VII-4110-1 and Appendix VIII, Subarticle VIII-2200 of the 2011 Addenda through the latest edition incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section is prohibited. When using ASME BPV Code,Section XI editions and addenda later than the 2010 Edition, licensees and applicants must use the prerequisites for ultrasonic examination personnel certifications in Appendix VII, Table VII-4110-1 and Appendix VIII, Subarticle VIII-2200 in the 2010 Edition.

ASME supports the proposed changes to provide alternative personnel qualification provisions.

50 005-13 005-14 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 13 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes (1) As an alternative to Note (c) in Table VII-4110-1 of ASME BPV Code,Section XI, 2010 Edition, the 250 hours0.00289 days <br />0.0694 hours <br />4.133598e-4 weeks <br />9.5125e-5 months <br /> of Level I experience time may be reduced to 175 hours0.00203 days <br />0.0486 hours <br />2.893519e-4 weeks <br />6.65875e-5 months <br />, if the experience time includes a minimum of 125 hours0.00145 days <br />0.0347 hours <br />2.066799e-4 weeks <br />4.75625e-5 months <br /> of field experience and 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> of laboratory practice beyond the requirements of for training in accordance with Appendix VII Subarticle 4220, provided those practice hours are dedicated to the Level I or Level II skill areas as described in ANSI/ ASNT CP-189.

(2) As an alternative to Note (d) in Table VII-4110-1 of ASME BPV Code,Section XI, 2010 Edition, the 800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> of Level II experience time may be reduced to 720 hours0.00833 days <br />0.2 hours <br />0.00119 weeks <br />2.7396e-4 months <br />, if the experience time includes a minimum of 400 hours0.00463 days <br />0.111 hours <br />6.613757e-4 weeks <br />1.522e-4 months <br /> of field experience and a minimum of 320 hours0.0037 days <br />0.0889 hours <br />5.291005e-4 weeks <br />1.2176e-4 months <br /> of laboratory practice. The practice must be dedicated to scanning specimens containing flaws in materials representative of those in actual power plant components. Additionally, for Level II Certification, the candidate must pass a Mandatory Appendix VIII, Supplement 2 performance demonstration for detection and length sizing.

§50.55a(b)(2)(xix)

(xix)Section XI condition: Substitution of alternative methods. The provisions for substituting alternative examination methods, a combination of methods, or newly developed techniques in the 1997 Addenda of IWA-2240 must be applied when using the 1998 Edition through the 2004 Edition of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code. The provisions in IWA-4520(c), 1997 Addenda through the 2004 Edition, allowing the substitution of alternative methods, a combination of methods, or newly developed techniques for the methods specified in the Construction Code, are not approved for use. The provisions in IWA-4520(b)(2) and (xix)Section XI condition: Substitution of alternative methods. The provisions for substituting alternative examination methods, a combination of methods, or newly developed techniques in the 1997 Addenda of IWA-2240 must be applied when using the 2001 Edition through the 2004 Edition of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code. The provisions in IWA-4520(c), 2001 Edition through the 2004 Edition, allowing the substitution of alternative methods, a combination of methods, or newly developed techniques for the methods specified in the Construction Code, are not approved for use.

The provisions in IWA-4520(b)(2) and IWA-ASME has no comments on the proposed change.

51 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 14 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes IWA-4521 of the 2008 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, allowing the substitution of ultrasonic examination for radiographic examination specified in the Construction Code, are not approved for use.

4521 of the 2008 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, allowing the substitution of ultrasonic examination for radiographic examination specified in the Construction Code, are not approved for use.

§50.55a(b)(2)(xx)(A)

(A) System leakage tests: First provision.

When performing system leakage tests in accordance with IWA-5213(a), 1997 through 2002 Addenda, the licensee must maintain a 10-minute hold time after test pressure has been reached for Class 2 and Class 3 components that are not in use during normal operating conditions. No hold time is required for the remaining Class 2 and Class 3 components provided that the system has been in operation for at least 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> for insulated components or 10 minutes for uninsulated components.

(A) System leakage tests: First provision.

When performing system leakage tests in accordance with IWA-5213(a), 2001 Edition through 2002 Addenda, the licensee must maintain a 10-minute hold time after test pressure has been reached for Class 2 and Class 3 components that are not in use during normal operating conditions. No hold time is required for the remaining Class 2 and Class 3 components provided that the system has been in operation for at least 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> for insulated components or 10 minutes for uninsulated components.

ASME supports the proposed change to limit the condition to the 2001 Edition through the 2002 Addenda. ASME also recommends that the NRC consider removing this condition in the subsequent §50.55a rule to incorporate by reference the 2021 Edition of Section XI if the 2001 Edition through the 2002 Addenda is no longer incorporated by reference in §50.55a(a).

§50.55a(b)(2)(xx)(B)

(B) System leakage tests: Second provision.

The NDE provision in IWA-4540(a)(2) of the 2002 Addenda of Section XI must be applied when performing system leakage tests after repair and replacement activities performed by welding or brazing on a pressure retaining boundary using the 2003 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.

N/A ASME continues to believe that this condition is unnecessary for reasons documented in our letter dated November 30, 2015 to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,

Subject:

Comments on Incorporation by Reference of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Codes and Code Cases, 10 CFR Part 50, RIN 3150-AI97.

§50.55a(b)(2)(xx)(C)

(C) System leakage tests: Third provision.

The use of the provisions for an alternative BWR pressure test at reduced pressure to satisfy IWA-4540 requirements as described in IWA-5213(b)(2), IWB-5210(c) and IWB-5221(d) of Section XI, 2017 Edition may be used subject to the following conditions:

(1) The use of nuclear heat to conduct the BWR Class 1 system leakage test is prohibited (C) System leakage tests: Third provision. The use of the provisions for an alternative BWR pressure test at reduced pressure to satisfy IWA-4540 requirements as described in IWB-5210(c) of Section XI, 2017 Edition and IWA-5213(b)(2) and IWB-5221(d) of Section XI, 2017 Edition through the latest edition incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section may be used subject to the following conditions:

ASME continues to support the Section XI Code requirements and original technical white paper developed to support the current IWA-5213(b)(2). To date, ASME has not received any technical analysis or evaluation supporting the increased hold time of 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> for non-insulated components.

52 005-15 005-16 005-17 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 15 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes (i.e., the reactor must be in a non-critical state),

except during refueling outages in which the ASME Section XI Category B-P pressure test has already been performed, or at the end of mid-cycle maintenance outages fourteen (14) days or less in duration.

(2) In lieu of the test condition holding time of IWA-5213(b)(2), after pressurization to test conditions, and before the visual examinations commence, the holding time shall be 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> for non-insulated components.

(1) The use of nuclear heat to conduct the BWR Class 1 system leakage test is prohibited (i.e., the reactor must be in a non-critical state),

except during refueling outages in which the ASME Section XI Category B-P pressure test has already been performed, or at the end of mid-cycle maintenance outages fourteen (14) days or less in duration.

(2) In lieu of the test condition holding time of IWA-5213(b)(2), after pressurization to test conditions, and before the visual examinations commence, the holding time shall be 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> for non-insulated components.

§50.55a(b)(2)(xxi)(B)

(B) Table IWB-2500-1 examination. Use of the provisions of IWB-2500(f) and (g) and Table IWB-2500-1 Notes 6 and 7 of the 2017 Edition of ASME Section XI for examination of Examination Category B-D Item Numbers B3.90 and B3.100 shall be subject to the following conditions:

(1) A plant-specific evaluation demonstrating the criteria of IWB-2500(f) are met must be maintained in accordance with IWA-1400(l).

(2) The use of the provisions of IWB-2500(f) and Table IWB-2500-1 Note 6 for examination of Examination Category B-D Item Numbers B3.90 is prohibited for plants with renewed licenses in accordance with 10 CFR part 54.

(3) The provisions of IWB-2500(g) and Table IWB-2500-1 Notes 6 and 7 for examination of Examination Category B-D Item Numbers B3.90 and B3.100 shall not be used to eliminate the preservice or inservice volumetric examination of plants with a Combined Operating License pursuant to 10 CFR part 52, or a plant that receives its operating license after October 22, 2015.

(B) Table IWB-2500-1 examination. Use of the provisions of IWB-2500(f) and (g) and Table IWB-2500-1 Notes 6 and 7 of Section XI, 2017 Edition through the latest edition incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, for examination of Examination Category B-D Item Numbers B3.90 and B3.100 shall be subject to the following conditions:

(1) A plant-specific evaluation demonstrating the criteria of IWB-2500(f) are met must be maintained in accordance with IWA-1400(l).

(2) The use of the provisions of IWB-2500(f) and Table IWB-2500-1 Note 6 for examination of Examination Category B-D Item Numbers B3.90 is prohibited for plants with renewed licenses in accordance with 10 CFR part 54.

(3) The provisions of IWB-2500(g) and Table IWB-2500-1 Notes 6 and 7 for examination of Examination Category B-D Item Numbers B3.90 and B3.100 shall not be used to eliminate the preservice or inservice volumetric examination of plants with a Combined Operating License pursuant to 10 CFR part 52, or a plant that ASME has no comments on the proposed change.

53 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 16 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes receives its operating license after October 22, 2015.

§50.55a(b)(2)(xxv)

(xxv)Section XI condition: Mitigation of defects by modification. Use of the provisions of IWA-4340 shall be subject to the following conditions:

(A) Mitigation of defects by modification: First provision. The use of the provisions for mitigation of defects by modification in IWA-4340 of Section XI 2001 Edition through the 2010 Addenda, is prohibited.

(B) Mitigation of defects by modification:

Second provision. The provisions for mitigation of defects by modification in IWA-4340 of Section XI 2011 Edition through the 2017 Edition may be used subject to the following conditions:

(1) The use of the provisions in IWA 4340 to mitigate crack-like defects or those associated with flow accelerated corrosion are prohibited.

(2) The design of a modification that mitigates a defect shall incorporate a loss of material rate either 2 times the actual measured corrosion rate in that pipe location (established based on wall thickness measurements conducted at least twice in two prior consecutive or nonconsecutive refueling outage cycles in the 10 year period prior to installation of the modification), or 4 times the estimated maximum corrosion rate for the piping system.

(3) The licensee shall perform a wall thickness examination in the vicinity of the modification and relevant pipe base metal.

Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2)(xxv)(B)(3)(i) and (ii), the examination must be performed during each refueling outage cycle to detect propagation of the defect into the (xxv)Section XV Condition: Mitigation of defects by modification. Use of the provisions of IWA-4340 must be subject to the following conditions:

(A) Mitigation of defects by modification: First person. The use of the provisions for mitigation of defects by modification in IWA-4340 of Section XI 2001 Edition through the 2010 Addenda, is prohibited.

(B) Mitigation of defects by modification:

Second provision. The provisions for mitigation of defects by modification in IWA-4340 of Section XI, 2011 Edition through the latest edition incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, may be used subject to the following conditions:

(1) The use of the provisions in IWA 4340 to mitigate crack-like defects or those associated with flow accelerated corrosion are prohibited.

(2) The design of a modification that mitigates a defect must incorporate a loss of material rate either 2 times the actual measured corrosion rate, which must be established based on wall thickness measurements conducted at least twice, in that pipe location or another location with similar corrosion conditions, similar flow characteristics, and the same piping configuration (e.g., straight run of pipe, elbow, tee) as the encapsulated area, or 4 times the estimated maximum corrosion rate for the piping system.

(3) The licensee must perform a wall thickness examination in the vicinity of the modification and relevant pipe base metal at half its expected life or, if the modification has an ASME provides the following comments on the proposed changes to §50.55a(b)(2)(xxv):

1.

ASME notes that there are two typographical errors in the proposed revision to this condition. In §50.55a(b)(2)(xxv),

Section XV Condition should be changed to Section XI Condition, and in 50.55a(b)(2)(xxv)(A), First person should be changed to First provision.

2.

ASME supports the proposed change to

§50.55a(b)(2)(xxv)(B)(2) to clarify that corrosion rates may be determined at alternative locations.

3.

ASME recommends that the re-examination required by §50.55a(b)(2)(xxv)(B)(3) be changed from once per interval to once every ten years to clarify that the re-examination need not be performed in the current inspection interval if less than 10 years remain in that inspection interval.

4.

ASME suggests that

§50.55a(b)(2)(xxv)(B)(3)(ii) might be clearer if revised to read as follows:

(ii) For buried pipe locations where loss of material has occurred due to external corrosion, the modification must be examined at half its expected life or 10 years, whichever is sooner. Alternatively, when the modification has been recoated prior to return to service, the modification may be examined at half its expected life or during the subsequent 10-year inspection interval after installation, whichever is sooner.

54 005-18 005-19 005-20 005-21 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 17 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes material credited for structural integrity of the item unless the examinations in the two refueling outage cycles subsequent to the installation of the modification are capable of validating the projected flaw growth. Where the projected flaw growth has been validated, the modification must be examined at half its expected life or once per interval, whichever is smaller.

(i) For buried pipe locations where the loss of material has occurred due to internal corrosion, the refueling outage interval wall thickness examinations may be conducted at a different location in the same system as long as:

Wall thickness measurements were conducted at the different location at the same time as installation of the modification; the flow rate is the same or higher at the different location; the piping configuration is the same (e.g., straight run of pipe, elbow, tee), and if pitting occurred at the modification location, but not the different location, wall loss values must be multiplied by four. Where wall loss values are greater than that assumed during the design of the modification, the structural integrity of the modification shall be reanalyzed. Additionally, if the extent of degradation is different (i.e.,

through wall, percent wall loss plus or minus 25 percent) or the corrosion mechanism (e.g.,

general, pitting) is not the same at the different location as at the modification location, the modification must be examined at half its expected life or 10 years, whichever is smaller.

(ii) For buried pipe locations where loss of material has occurred due to external corrosion, the modification must be examined at half its expected life or 10 years, whichever is smaller.

expected life greater than 19 years, once per interval, and the results must be used to confirm corrosion rates, determine the next inspection date, and confirm the design inputs.

(i) For buried pipe locations where the loss of material has occurred due to internal corrosion, the wall thickness examinations may be conducted at a different location in the same system as long as: Wall thickness measurements were conducted at the different location at the same time as installation of the modification; the flow rate is the same or higher at the different location; the piping configuration is the same (e.g., straight run of pipe, elbow, tee); and if pitting occurred at the modification location, but not the different location, wall loss values must be multiplied by four (instead of two) times the actual measured corrosion rate. Where wall loss values are greater than that assumed during the design of the modification, the structural integrity of the modification must be reanalyzed.

Additionally, if the extent of degradation is different (i.e., percent wall loss plus or minus 25 percent) or the corrosion mechanism (e.g.,

general, pitting) is not the same at the different location as at the modification location, the modification must be examined at half its expected life or 10 years, whichever is sooner.

(ii) For buried pipe locations where loss of material has occurred due to external corrosion, the modification must be examined at half its expected life or 10 years, whichever is sooner. Alternatively, when the modification has been recoated prior to return to service, the modification may be examined at half its expected life or during the first full 10-year inspection interval after installation, whichever is sooner.

55 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 18 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes

§50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi)

(xxvi)Section XI condition: Pressure testing Class 1, 2, and 3 mechanical joints. When using the 2001 Edition through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, licensees shall pressure test in accordance with IWA-5211(a) mechanical joints in Class 1, 2, and 3 piping and components greater than NPS-1 which are disassembled and reassembled during the performance of a Section XI repair/replacement activity requiring documentation on a Form NIS-

2. The system pressure test and NDE examiners shall meet the requirements of the licensee's/applicant's current ISI code of record.

(xxvi)Section XI condition: Pressure Testing of Class 1, 2, and 3 Mechanical Joints. Mechanical joints in Class 1, 2, and 3 piping and components greater than NPS-1 which are disassembled and reassembled during the performance of a Section XI repair/ replacement activity requiring documentation on a Form NIS-2 shall be leak tested to ensure leak tightness. The owner shall establish the type of leak test, test medium, test pressure, acceptance criteria that would demonstrate the joints leak tightness, and the qualifications of the personnel who will perform the leak test.

ASME supports the NRCs proposal to eliminate the requirement to perform a pressure test and VT-2 examination in accordance with IWA-5211(a) of mechanical connections in Class 1, 2, and 3 piping and components greater than NPS-1 which are disassembled and reassembled during the performance of a Section XI repair/replacement activity requiring documentation on a Form NIS-2. However, ASME continues to believe that this condition, including the proposed change, is unnecessary, based on comments submitted during the previous rulemaking to incorporate by reference the 2017 Edition of the ASME Code,Section XI, and for reasons listed below:

1. ASME considers the disassembly and reassembly of a mechanical joint to be a maintenance activity that is not subject to Section XI repair/replacement requirements, unless the reassembly involves the installation of replacement pressure retaining parts or components in the mechanical joint, or the activity involves welding or brazing on parts or components in the mechanical joint. ASME also considers the disassembly of a mechanical joint solely to facilitate the performance of a repair/replacement activity that does not affect the mechanical joint to be a maintenance activity.

As proposed, Owners could interpret this condition to apply, even if the repair/replacement activity is not being performed on items within the mechanical joint, or if the repair/replacement activity is exempt from pressure testing in accordance with IWA-4540(b). In these cases, ASME believes that there is no technical reason to require Section XI pressure testing and VT-2 examination. Post-maintenance pressure testing performed in accordance with an Owners procedures should be sufficient to verify that the reassembled mechanical joint is leak-tight.

56 005-22 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 19 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes

2. In order to comply with the proposed condition, an Owner would be required to document the type of leak test, test medium, test pressure, acceptance criteria, and personnel qualifications for leakage tests that would demonstrate the joints leak tightness following a repair replacement activity requiring documentation on an NIS-2 form. Currently, this level of detail may not exist in the Owners procedures for post-maintenance leakage testing, and the addition of these requirements creates an unnecessary burden for the utilities with no corresponding increase in quality or safety. To comply with the proposed condition, an Owner may have to revise their post-maintenance test procedures to include these additional requirements.

3. Owners quality assurance programs already require verification of leak tightness following maintenance activities, and ASME believes that the leak-tight integrity of mechanical connections can be assured without the proposed condition.

ASME strongly recommends that this condition be removed from the final rule.

If the NRC does not accept ASMEs recommendation to remove this condition in the final rule, ASME recommends that the NRC consider revising this condition to address the following:

1. In lieu of specifying that The owner shall establish the type of leak test, test medium, test pressure, acceptance criteria that would demonstrate the joints leak tightness, and the qualifications of the personnel who will perform the leak test, ASME recommends that this sentence be deleted, and instead specify that Leak-testing mechanical joints shall be performed in accordance with IWA-5211(a) in the 57 005-23 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 20 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes 2001 Edition through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, or in accordance with requirements of the Owners Quality Assurance Program. This would allow Owners to avoid having to revise their current procedures to implement the revised condition.

2. This condition should not apply to mechanical joints that are disassembled and reassembled during the performance of a repair/replacement activity requiring documentation on an NIS-2 Form if the pressure retaining parts or components in the mechanical joint are not affected by the repair/replacement activity.

ASME notes that a pressure test in accordance with IWA-4540 would be required if a repair/replacement activity performed by welding or brazing on pressure retaining parts or components in the mechanical joint is not exempt by IWA-4540(b).

§50.55a(b)(2)(xxix)

(xxix)Section XI condition: Nonmandatory Appendix R. Nonmandatory Appendix R, "Risk-Informed Inspection Requirements for Piping," of Section XI, 2005 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, may not be implemented without prior NRC authorization of the proposed alternative in accordance with paragraph (z) of this section.

(xxix)Section XI condition: Nonmandatory Appendix R. (A) Nonmandatory Appendix R, Risk-Informed Inspection Requirements for Piping Supplement 1Risk-Informed Selection ProcessMethod A, of Section XI, 2005 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, may not be implemented without prior NRC authorization of the proposed alternative in accordance with paragraph (z) of this section.

(B) Nonmandatory Appendix R, Risk-Informed Inspection Requirements for Piping, Supplement 2Risk-Informed Selection Process Method B of Section XI, 2005 Addenda through the 2015 Edition, may not be implemented without prior NRC authorization of the proposed alternative in accordance with paragraph (z) of this section.

ASME supports the endorsement of Nonmandatory Appendix R, Supplement 2 in the 2017 Edition and appreciates the NRC proposing this change to allow use of Appendix R, Supplement 2 without requiring prior NRC authorization in accordance with §50.55a(z).

58 005-24 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 21 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes (C) Nonmandatory Appendix R, Risk-Informed Inspection Requirements for Piping, Supplement 2Risk-Informed Selection Process Method B of Section XI, 2017 Edition through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, may be implemented without prior NRC authorization of the proposed alternative in accordance with paragraph (z) of this section.

§50.55a(b)(2)(xxxii)

(xxxii)Section XI condition: Summary report submittal. When using ASME BPV Code,Section XI, 2010 Edition through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, Summary Reports and Owner's Activity Reports described in IWA-6230 must be submitted to the NRC.

Preservice inspection reports for examinations prior to commercial service shall be submitted prior to the date of placement of the unit into commercial service. For preservice and inservice examinations performed following placement of the unit into commercial service, reports shall be submitted within 90 calendar days of the completion of each refueling outage.

(xxxii)Section XI condition: Summary report submittal. When using ASME BPV Code,Section XI, 2010 Edition through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, Summary Reports and Owners Activity Reports described in IWA-6230 must be submitted to the NRC. Preservice inspection reports for examinations prior to commercial service must be submitted prior to the date of placement of the unit into commercial service. For preservice and inservice examinations performed following placement of the unit into commercial service, reports must be submitted within 120 calendar days of the completion of each refueling outage.

ASME supports the proposed change to these administrative requirements, but recommends that the condition not be limited to the 2010 Edition and later editions and addenda. Some U.S. plants may still be using the 2007 Edition with the 2008 Addenda, and ASME would like to see the use of the extended timeframe for submitting the Owners Activity Reports permitted for those plants, as well as those using the 2010 Edition and later editions and addenda.

§50.55a(b)(2)(xxxvi)

(xxxvi)Section XI condition: Fracture toughness of irradiated materials. When using the 2013 through 2017 Editions of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI, Appendix A paragraph A-4400, the licensee shall obtain NRC approval under paragraph (z) of this section before using irradiated T0 and the associated RTT0 in establishing fracture toughness of irradiated materials.

(xxxvi)Section XI condition: Fracture toughness of irradiated materials. When using the 2013 Edition through the latest edition incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI, Appendix A paragraph A-4400, the licensee shall obtain NRC approval under paragraph (z) of this section before using irradiated T0 and the associated RTT0 in establishing fracture toughness of irradiated materials.

ASME has no comments on the proposed change.

§50.55a(b)(2)(xxxix)

(xxxix)Section XI condition: Defect Removal.

The use of the provisions for removal of defects by welding or brazing in IWA-4421(c)(1) and (xxxix)Section XI condition: Defect Removal.

The use of the provisions for removal of defects by welding or brazing in IWA-4421(c)(1) and IWA-4421(c)(2) of Section XI, 2017 Edition ASME has no comments on the proposed change.

59 005-25 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 22 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes IWA-4421(c)(2) of Section XI, 2017 Edition may be used subject to the following conditions:

(A) Defect removal requirements: First provision. The provisions of subparagraph IWA-4421(c)(1) shall not be used to contain or isolate a defective area without removal of the defect.

(B) Defect removal requirements: Second provision. The provisions of subparagraph IWA-4421(c)(2) shall not be used for crack-like defects.

through the latest edition incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section may be used subject to the following conditions:

(A) Defect removal requirements: First provision. The provisions of subparagraph IWA 4421(c)(1) shall not be used to contain or isolate a defective area without removal of the defect.

(B) Defect removal requirements: Second provision. The provisions of subparagraph IWA-4421(c)(2) shall not be used for crack-like defects.

§50.55a(b)(2)(xl)

(xl)Section XI condition: Prohibitions on use of IWB-3510.4(b). The use of ASME BPV Code,Section XI, 2017 Edition, Subparagraphs IWB-3510.4(b)(4) and IWB-3510.4(b)(5) is prohibited.

(xl)Section XI condition: Prohibitions and Restrictions on use of IWB-3510.4(b), IWC-3510.5(b), Table A-4200-1, and Table G-2110-

1. The use of Subparagraphs IWB-3510.4(b)(4) and IWB-3510.4(b)(5) of ASME BPV Code,Section XI, 2017 Edition through the latest edition incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section is prohibited. The use of ASME BPV Code,Section XI, 2019 Edition, Subparagraphs IWC-3510.5(b)(4) and IWC-3510.5(b)(5), is prohibited. For ASME BPV Code,Section XI, 2019 Edition, Table A-4200-1 and Table G-2110-1, use of Figure A-4200-1 and Figure G-2210-1 to describe the toughness of material SA-533 Type B Class 2 is prohibited without satisfying the requirements of IWB-3510.4(c) or IWC-3510.5(c).

ASME provides the following comments on the proposed condition:

1.

ASME does not support the restriction on the use of IWB-3510.4(b)(5) and IWC-3510.5(b)(5) for SA-508 Class 1 material, and recommends that this condition be revised in the final rule so that it does not apply to SA-508 Class 1 material.

2.

The proposed condition (restriction or prohibition) on SA-533 Type B Class 2 is unnecessary and ASME recommends that this condition be removed in the final rule.

Information supporting the above comments and recommendations is provided in Enclosure 2.

§50.55a(b)(2)(xliii)

N/A (xliii)Section XI condition: Section XI Condition: Regulatory Submittal Requirements.

Licensees shall submit for NRC review and approval the following analyses: (A) The analytical evaluation determining the effects of an out-of-limit condition on the structural integrity of the Reactor Coolant System, as described in IWB-3720(a);

ASME has no comments on the proposed conditions.

60 005-26 005-27 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 23 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes (B) Determination of T0 and RTT0, as described in Nonmandatory Appendix A, A-4200(c); and (C) Determination of T0 and RTT0, as described in Nonmandatory Appendix G, G-2110(c).

§50.55a(b)(3)(iii)

(iii) OM condition: New reactors. In addition to complying with the provisions in the ASME OM Code with the conditions specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors that received construction permits under this part on or after the date 12 months after August 17, 2017, and holders of combined licenses issued under 10 CFR part 52, whose initial fuel loading occurs on or after the date 12 months after August 17, 2017, shall also comply with the following conditions, as applicable:

(A) Power-operated valves. Licensees shall periodically verify the capability of power-operated valves to perform their design-basis safety functions.

(B) Check valves. Licensees must perform bi-directional testing of check valves within the IST program where practicable.

(C) Flow-induced vibration. Licensees shall monitor flow-induced vibration from hydrodynamic loads and acoustic resonance during preservice testing or inservice testing to identify potential adverse flow effects on components within the scope of the IST program.

(D) High risk non-safety systems. Licensees shall assess the operational readiness of pumps, valves, and dynamic restraints within the scope of the Regulatory Treatment of Non-Safety Systems for applicable reactor designs.

(iii) OM condition: New reactors. In addition to complying with the provisions in the ASME OM Code with the conditions specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors that received construction permits under this part on or after August 17, 2018, and holders of combined licenses issued under 10 CFR part 52, whose initial fuel loading occurs on or after August 17, 2018, must also comply with the following conditions, as applicable:

(A) Power-operated valves. Licensees must periodically verify the capability of power-operated valves to perform their design-basis safety functions.

(B) Check valves. Licensees must perform bi-directional testing of check valves within the IST program where practicable.

(C) Flow-induced vibration. Licensees must monitor flow-induced vibration from hydrodynamic loads and acoustic resonance during preservice testing or inservice testing to identify potential adverse flow effects on components within the scope of the IST program.

(D) High risk non-safety systems. Licensees must assess the operational readiness of pumps, valves, and dynamic restraints within the scope of the Regulatory Treatment of Non-Safety Systems for applicable reactor designs.

ASME has no comments on the proposed changes to these conditions.

61 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 24 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes

§50.55a(b)(3)(viii)

(viii) OM condition: Subsection ISTE.

Licensees may not implement the risk-informed approach for inservice testing (IST) of pumps and valves specified in Subsection ISTE, "Risk-Informed Inservice Testing of Components in Light-Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants," in the ASME OM Code, 2009 Edition through the latest edition and addenda of the ASME OM Code incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section, without first obtaining NRC authorization to use Subsection ISTE as an alternative to the applicable IST requirements in the ASME OM Code, pursuant to paragraph (z) of this section.

(viii) OM condition: Subsection ISTE.

Licensees may not implement the risk-informed approach for inservice testing (IST) of pumps and valves specified in Subsection ISTE, Risk-Informed Inservice Testing of Components in Light-Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants, in the ASME OM Code, 2009 Edition through the 2017 Edition, without first obtaining NRC authorization to use Subsection ISTE as an alternative to the applicable IST requirements in the ASME OM Code, pursuant to paragraph (z) of this section.

ASME has no comments on the proposed change to this condition.

§50.55a(b)(3)(ix)

(ix) OM condition: Subsection ISTF.

Licensees applying Subsection ISTF, 2012 Edition or 2015 Edition, shall satisfy the requirements of Mandatory Appendix V, "Pump Periodic Verification Test Program," of the ASME OM Code in that edition. Subsection ISTF, 2011 Addenda, is prohibited for use.

(ix) OM condition: Subsection ISTF. Licensees applying Subsection ISTF, 2012 Edition must satisfy the requirements of Mandatory Appendix V, Pump Periodic Verification Test Program, of the ASME OM Code in that edition.

ASME has no comments on the proposed change to this condition.

§50.55a(b)(3)(xi)

(xi) OM condition: Valve Position Indication.

When implementing paragraph ISTC-3700, "Position Verification Testing," in the ASME OM Code, 2012 Edition through the latest edition and addenda of the ASME OM Code incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section, licensees shall verify that valve operation is accurately indicated by supplementing valve position indicating lights with other indications, such as flow meters or other suitable instrumentation to provide assurance of proper obturator position for valves with remote position indication within the scope of Subsection ISTC including its mandatory appendices and their verification methods and frequencies.

(xi) OM condition: Valve Position Indication.

When implementing paragraph ISTC-3700, Position Verification Testing, in the ASME OM Code, 2012 Edition through the latest edition of the ASME OM Code incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section, licensees must verify that valve operation is accurately indicated by supplementing valve position indicating lights with other indications, such as flow meters or other suitable instrumentation to provide assurance of proper obturator position for valves with remote position indication within the scope of Subsection ISTC including its mandatory appendices and their verification methods and frequencies. For valves not susceptible to stem-disk separation, the position verification testing specified in paragraph ISTC-3700 may be performed on a 10-year interval ASME supports the relaxation of this condition for valves that are not susceptible to stem-disk separation.

62 005-28 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 25 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes where the licensee documents a justification, which is made available for NRC review, demonstrating that the stem-disk connection is not susceptible to separation based on the internal design and evaluation of the stem-disk connection using plant-specific and industry operating experience and vendor recommendations.

§50.55a(f)(4)

(4) Inservice testing standards requirement for operating plants. Throughout the service life of a boiling or pressurized water-cooled nuclear power facility, pumps and valves that are within the scope of the ASME OM Code must meet the inservice test requirements (except design and access provisions) set forth in the ASME OM Code and addenda that become effective subsequent to editions and addenda specified in paragraphs (f)(2) and (3) of this section and that are incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section, to the extent practical within the limitations of design, geometry, and materials of construction of the components. The inservice test requirements for pumps and valves that are within the scope of the ASME OM Code but are not classified as ASME BPV Code Class 1, Class 2, or Class 3 may be satisfied as an augmented IST program in accordance with paragraph (f)(6)(ii) of this section without requesting relief under paragraph (f)(5) of this section or alternatives under paragraph (z) of this section. This use of an augmented IST program may be acceptable provided the basis for deviations from the ASME OM Code, as incorporated by reference in this section, demonstrates an acceptable level of quality and safety, or that implementing the Code provisions would result in hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety, where documented and available for NRC review.

(4) Inservice testing standards requirement for operating plants. Throughout the service life of a boiling or pressurized water-cooled nuclear power facility, pumps and valves that are within the scope of the ASME OM Code must meet the inservice test requirements (except design and access provisions) set forth in the ASME OM Code and addenda that become effective subsequent to editions and addenda specified in paragraphs (f)(2) and (3) of this section and that are incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section, to the extent practical within the limitations of design, geometry, and materials of construction of the components. The inservice test requirements for pumps and valves that are within the scope of the ASME OM Code but are not classified as ASME BPV Code Class 1, Class 2, or Class 3 may be satisfied as an augmented IST program in accordance with paragraph (f)(6)(ii) of this section. This use of an augmented IST program may be acceptable provided the basis for deviations from the ASME OM Code, as incorporated by reference in this section, demonstrates an acceptable level of quality and safety, or that implementing the Code provisions would result in hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety, where documented and available for NRC review. When using the 2006 Addenda or later of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI, the inservice examination, testing, and service life monitoring requirements for ASME believes that the §50.55a(f) requirements for snubbers has been confusing to Owners, so the proposed change may help clarify these requirements. ASME questions whether the conditions specified in §50.55a(b)(3)(v) are still needed as a result of the proposed changes to

§50.55a(f)(4) and §50.55a(g)(4).

ASME also suggests that the reference to (b)(3)(v) in the last sentence of this condition be changed to (b)(3)(v)(A) for clarity.

63 005-29 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 26 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes dynamic restraints (snubbers) must meet the requirements set forth in the applicable ASME OM Code as specified in paragraph (b)(3)(v)(B) of this section. When using the 2005 Addenda or earlier edition or addenda of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI, the inservice examination, testing, and service life monitoring requirements for dynamic restraints (snubbers) must meet the requirements set forth in either the applicable ASME OM Code or ASME BPV Code,Section XI as specified in paragraph (b)(3)(v) of this section.

§50.55a(f)(7)

N/A (7) Inservice testing reporting requirements.

Inservice Testing Program Test and Examination Plans (IST Plans) for pumps, valves, and dynamic restraints (snubbers) prepared to meet the requirements of the ASME OM Code must be submitted to the NRC as specified in § 50.4. IST Plans must be submitted within 90 days of their implementation for the applicable 120- month IST Program interval. IST Plan revisions must be submitted when the final safety analysis report for the applicable nuclear power plant is updated.

Electronic submission is preferred.

ASME has no comment on the proposed administrative condition.

§50.55a(g)(4)

(4) Inservice inspection standards requirement for operating plants. Throughout the service life of a boiling or pressurized water-cooled nuclear power facility, components (including supports) that are classified as ASME Code Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 must meet the requirements, except design and access provisions and preservice examination requirements, set forth in Section XI of editions and addenda of the ASME BPV Code (or ASME OM Code for snubber examination and testing) that become effective subsequent to editions specified in paragraphs (g)(2) and (3) of this section and that are incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) or (iv) for snubber examination and testing of this section, to the extent practical within the limitations of design, (4) Inservice inspection standards requirement for operating plants. Throughout the service life of a boiling or pressurized water-cooled nuclear power facility, components (including supports) that are classified as ASME Code Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 must meet the requirements, except design and access provisions and preservice examination requirements, set forth in Section XI of editions and addenda of the ASME BPV Code that become effective subsequent to editions specified in paragraphs (g)(2) and (3) of this section and that are incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) or (iv) of this section for snubber examination and testing of this section, to the extent practical within the limitations of design, geometry, and materials of construction of the components. Components ASME believes that the §50.55a(g) requirements for snubbers has been confusing to Owners, so the proposed change may help clarify these requirements.

64 005-30 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC 2018-0290 Page 27 of 27

§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.55a Regulations (as of 03/26/2021)

Proposed Changes to §50.55a Regulations ASME Comments on §50.55a Regulations Existing and Proposed Changes geometry, and materials of construction of the components. Components that are classified as Class MC pressure retaining components and their integral attachments, and components that are classified as Class CC pressure retaining components and their integral attachments, must meet the requirements, except design and access provisions and preservice examination requirements, set forth in Section XI of the ASME BPV Code and addenda that are incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section and the conditions listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(viii) and (ix) of this section, to the extent practical within the limitation of design, geometry, and materials of construction of the components.

that are classified as Class MC pressure retaining components and their integral attachments, and components that are classified as Class CC pressure retaining components and their integral attachments, must meet the requirements, except design and access provisions and preservice examination requirements, set forth in Section XI of the ASME BPV Code and addenda that are incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section subject to the condition listed in paragraph (b)(2)(vi) of this section and the conditions listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(viii) and (ix) of this section, to the extent practical within the limitation of design, geometry, and materials of construction of the components. When using the 2006 Addenda or later of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI, the inservice examination, testing, and service life monitoring requirements for dynamic restraints (snubbers) must meet the requirements set forth in the applicable ASME OM Code as specified in paragraph (b)(3)(v)(B) of this section. When using the 2005 Addenda or earlier edition or addenda of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI, the inservice examination, testing, and service life monitoring requirements for dynamic restraints (snubbers) must meet the requirements set forth in either the applicable ASME OM Code or ASME BPV Code,Section XI as specified in paragraph (b)(3)(v) of this section.

65 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xl) Condition in the Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC2018-0290 Page 1 of 6 ASME Section XI Working Group on Operating Plant Criteria Comments to proposed Section XI condition: Prohibitions and Restrictions on use of IWB-3510.4(b), IWC-3510.5(b), Table A-4200-1, and Table G-2110-1 Proposed Condition §50.55a(b)(2)(xl):

Per the 2019-2020 Code Editions Proposed Rule, (see Federal Register/Vol. 86, No.57/Friday, March 26, 2021, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/03/26/2021-06085/american-society-of-mechanical-engineers-2019-2020-code-editions), the above condition is placed on ASME Section XI IWB-3510.4(b), IWC-3510.5(b), Table A-4200-1, and Table G-2110-1 in the 2017 to latest Edition of ASME Code,Section XI.

Two grades of ferritic steels are affected by the above condition:

SA-508 Class 1, which is listed in IWB-3510.4(b)(5) of 2017 and 2019 editions, and in IWC-3510.5(b)(5) of 2019 edition.

SA-533 Type B Class 2 (former designation SA-533 Grade B Class 2), which is listed in IWB-3510.4(b)(4) of 2017 and 2019 editions, in IWC-3510.5(b)(4) of 2019 edition, and in Table A-4200-1 and Table G-2110-1 of 2019 edition.

Comment on proposed condition on SA-508 Class 1 SA-508 Class 1 designation was changed to SA-508 Grade 1 during the 1990s. SA-508 Class 1 has a specified minimum yield strength (YS) at room temperature of 36 ksi as provided in ASME Section II Part A and Part D. Because its specified minimum YS does not exceed 50 ksi, SA-508 Class 1 is among the permitted materials by IWB-3510.4(a) and IWC-3510.5(a). Furthermore, SA-508 Class 1 has always been permitted by Section XI Appendix G-2110(a) to use the minimum curve in Figure G-2210-1 since Section XI Appendix G was first adopted in 1987. Note, SA-508 Class 1 is listed as SA-508-1 in G-2110(a), and the minimum curve of Figure G-2210-1 was changed from KIa to KIc in 1999.

As a background, IWB-3510.4(b)(5) and IWC-3510.5(b)(5) were provided in those paragraphs for information purposes only, and for ease of use to the Code users. The long-term goal of the IWB-3510.4 and IWC-3510.5 paragraphs were to identify commonly used ferritic materials in the nuclear industry when applying the Acceptance Standards in IWB-3500. It should be noted, neither ASME Section XI nor 66 Additional information for comment 005-26 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xl) Condition in the Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC2018-0290 Page 2 of 6 10CFR50 Appendix G requires fracture-mechanics test data of ferritic steels with specified minimum YS not higher than 50 ksi (including SA-508 Class 1).

In light of the above, the proposed condition (restriction or prohibition) on IWB-3510.4(b)(5) and IWC-3510.5(b)(5) should be removed for SA-508 Class 1.

Comment on proposed condition SA-533 Type B Class 2 Prior to the 2019 edition,Section XI G-2110(b) requires fracture-mechanics test data for materials with specified minimum YS between 50 and 90 ksi before the lower-bound minimum KIc curve in Figure G-2210-1 can be used. The minimum KIc curve is identical in Figure A-4200-1 and Figure G-2210-1.

SA-533 Type B Class 2 has a specified minimum YS of 70 ksi; therefore, fracture-mechanics test data were required by Section XI Appendix G-2110(b) prior to the 2019 edition. The fracture-mechanics test data requirement of G-2110(b) is also imposed by 10CFR50 Appendix G. The 2019 edition of Section XI Appendix G-2110(b) and Code Case N-890 exempted the following four grades of ferritic steels with specified minimum YS of 65 or 70 ksi:

SA-508 Grade 2 Class 2 (former designation SA-508 Class 2A)

SA-508 Grade 3 Class 2 (former designation SA-508 Class 3A)

SA-533 Type A Class 2 (former designation SA-533 Grade A Class 2)

SA-533 Type B Class 2 (former designation SA-533 Grade B Class 2)

Per the Proposed Rule for Approval of ASME Code Cases, 86 FR 7820, NRC-2017-0025, (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/02/2021-00890/approval-of-american-society-of-mechanical-engineers-code-cases), the Staff stated that the condition on SA-533 Type B Class 2 material in Code Case N-890 was because:

SA-533 Type B, Class 2 materials, the NRC observed that in the technical basis document, there is no fracture toughness data associated with the weld and heat affected zone to support exclusion of the fracture toughness testing requirements for these materials The technical basis including supporting fracture-mechanics test data was presented in PVP2019-93988 Technical Basis for Expansion of ASME BPVC Section XI, KIc Curve Applicability. Of the four grades of ferritic steels, only SA-533 Type B Class 2 will be restricted or prohibited by the proposed rules, due to a lack of fracture-mechanics test data for weld and HAZ.

The following fracture-mechanics test data for SA-533 Type B Class 2 were not included in PVP2019-93988 because they were uncovered after the paper was already accepted for publication:

J.R. Hawthorne and T.R. Mager, Relationship Between Charpy V and Fracture Mechanics KIc, Assessments of A533-B Class 2 Pressure Vessel Steel, Fracture Toughness, Proceedings of the 1971 National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, Part II, ASTM STP 514, 1972, pp. 151-263 K. Hayashi, et al., High Performance Steel Plates for Tanks and Pressure Vessels - High Strength Steel Plates with Excellent Weldability and Superior Toughness for Energy Industry, JFE No. 5, 20048 p. 56-62 [JEF Technical Report No 5, p. 56-62, August 2004]

Hawthorne, 1972 The testing was performed by Naval Research Laboratory and Westinghouse. The test material was removed from a 6-3/8-thick plate per ASTM A-533 Type B Class 2. ASTM A-533 Type B Class 2 is identical to SA-533 Type B Class 2. Table 1 lists the chemical composition and unirradiated room-temperature tensile property, which met SA-533 Type B Class 2 requirements.

Figure 1 plots the unirradiated KIc data assuming RT-NDT = 0°F. The unirradiated T-NDT was 0°F; RT-NDT was not reported because RT-NDT was first adopted by Section III, NB-2300 in 1973. Judging from the unirradiated Charpy curve, the unirradiated RT-NDT per NB-2300 definition may be higher than T-67 Additional information for comment 005-27 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xl) Condition in the Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC2018-0290 Page 3 of 6 NDT. If RT-NDT were higher than 0°F, the plotted KIc test data in Figure 1 would shift toward the left, resulting in higher margin against the minimum KIc curve than shown in Figure 1. Therefore, the KIc test data exceeded the minimum KIc curve in Figure G-2210-1 and Figure A-4200-1.

Hayashi, 2004 The testing was performed by JEF Steel in Japan. The test material was removed from a 120-mm-thick (4.7-thick) plate of Japanese SQV2B steel, which is equivalent to ASME SA-533 Type B Class 2. Table 2 lists the chemical composition and room-temperature tensile property, which met SA-533 Type B Class 2 requirements.

Figure 2 plots the KIc and KId test data. The RT-NDT was -33°C (-27°F). Figure 2 shows that the KIc test data exceeded the minimum KIc curve in Figure G-2210-1 and Figure A-4200-1. The KIc test data were significantly above the KId test data, and even the KId test data met the minimum KIc curve.

Discussion The above test data for SA-533 Type B Class 2 were not included in PVP2019-93988; they provide additional support to the PVP2019-93988 conclusion that the four grades of ferritic steels can be considered as one group for the applicability of the minimum KIc curve in Section XI Appendix A and Appendix G. In light of the additional test data, the proposed condition (restriction or prohibition) on SA-533 Type B Class 2 is unnecessary.

Table 1, ASTM A-533 Type B Class 2 [Hawthorne, 1972]

Composition SA-533 Type B (Class 1 and 2)

A533B Class 2, Hawthorne-1972 C

0.25 max 0.24 Mn 1.15 - 1.50 1.27 P

0.025 max 0.008 S

0.025 max 0.015 Si 0.15 - 0.40 0.19 Ni 0.40 - 0.70 0.53 Cr Not specified 0.14 Mo 0.45 - 0.60 0.48 Cu Not specified 0.09 V

Not specified 0.02 Al Not specified 0.031 Room Temperature Tension SA-533 Type B Class 2 A533B Class 2, Hawthorne-1972 Yield Strength 70 ksi min 74.2 ksi 75.6 ksi Tensile Strength 90 - 115 ksi 94.2 ksi 94.5 ksi 68 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xl) Condition in the Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC2018-0290 Page 4 of 6 Table 2, SQV2B [Hayashi, 2004]

Composition SA-533 Type B (Class 1 and 2)

SQV2B, Hayashi-2004 C

0.25 max 0.17 Mn 1.15 - 1.50 1.44 P

0.025 max 0.005 S

0.025 max 0.001 Si 0.15 - 0.40 0.25 Ni 0.40 - 0.70 0.66 Cr Not specified 0.13 Mo 0.45 - 0.60 0.55 Room Temperature Tension SA-533 Type B Class 2 SQV2B, Hayashi-2004 Yield Strength 70 ksi min 75 to 79 ksi Tensile Strength 90 - 115 ksi 93 to 98 ksi Figure 1, KIc vs T-RTNDT for ASTM A-533 Type B Class 2 [Hawthorne, 1972]

0 50 100 150 200

-350

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50 0

50 100 150 200 250 300 KIc, ksiin T - RTNDT, °F A533B Class 2 Unirradiated, KIc KIC Curve KIR Curve 69 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xl) Condition in the Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC2018-0290 Page 5 of 6 Figure 2, KIc and KId vs T-RTNDT for SQV2B [Hayashi, 2004]

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

-200

-150

-100

-50 0

50 100 150 200 250 KIc or KId, ksiin T - RTNDT, °F ASME KIC ASME KIR SQV2B, KIc at 1/4-T SQV2B, KIc at 1/2-T SQV2B, KId at 1/2-T 70 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xl) Condition in the Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 57, pp. 16087-16114, Friday, March 26, 2021, RIN 3150-AK22, Docket ID NRC2018-0290 Page 6 of 6 Code Interpretation on ASME Section III Appendix G-2110 (b) requirements The original technical basis for the ASME IWB-3510.4(b), was based on data presented in PVP2010-25214, Facture Toughness of Pressure Bo0undary Steels with Higher Yield Strength, by Gupta, Hoffman, Hamilton, DeLose, July 2010.

As discussed in PVP2010-25214, the authors submitted an ASME Section III Inquiry in November 2008 on the amount of testing data required per G-2110(b) for similar materials with minimum specified yield strength greater than 50 ksi. The ASME Section III Committee provided the interpretation (III-1-07-47, File 08-1636) that the ASME Section III Appendix G-2110(b) requirements (same asSection XI G-2110(b))

apply to a group of like materials rather than to each specific grade of material. Based on this inquiry (as shown below), the fracture toughness testing data for SA-533 and SA-508 Class 2 materials can be used as a combined set to determine that the KIc curve can be used to bound similar types of base materials, including HAZ and weld metals.

Therefore, since the Staff has already approved the use of SA-508 Grade 2, Class 2, SA-508 Grade 3, Class 2, and SA-533 Type A Class 2 in ASME Section XI IWB-3510.4(b), then per the Code Interpretation III-1-07-47 (shown below), SA-533 Type B Class 2 is also an acceptable material for use as part of IWB-3510.4(b) and IWC-3510.5(b) ), based on the combined set of fracture toughness data for (65 ksi and 70 ksi) materials of SA-533 and SA-508, which also include HAZ and weld metals, as provided in PVP2010-25214.

Subject:

Section III, Division 1, Nonmandatory Appendix G, Fracture Toughness Criteria for Protection Against Failure, Para. G-2110(b)

Date Issued:

11/24/2008 Record Number:

08-1636 Interpretation Number:

III-1-07-47 Question:

Does a combined set of fracture toughness data for SA-533 plate and SA-508 forging Class 2 materials, with minimum specified yield strengths greater than 50 ksi (350 MPa) but not exceeding 90 ksi (620 MPa), satisfy the requirements of G-2110(b), when three or more heats of base metal test data are available for plates and for forgings and at least three sets of test data are available on HAZ and weld metal for each specification for one or more grades of the plate and forging materials?

Reply:

Yes.

71

Submission ID 006 David P. Helker, Exelon Generation Company, LLC ADAMS Accession No. ML21146A042 72

From:

Gropp Jr, Richard W:(Exelon Nuclear)

To:

RulemakingComments Resource

Subject:

[External_Sender] Proposed Rule Comments - 10 CFR 50 ASME 2019-2020 Code Editions (Docket ID NRC-2018-0290)

Date:

Tuesday, May 25, 2021 3:11:23 PM Attachments:

10 CFR 50 Proposed Rule ASME Codes - Exelon Comments 05-25-21 (Docket ID NRC-2018-0290).pdf Please find attached comments on the NRCs Proposed Rule 10 CFR 50, "American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2019-2020 Code Editions" (Docket ID NRC-2018-0290). The attached comments are submitted on behalf of Exelon Generation Company, LLC.

Thank you,

Richard Gropp Exelon Generation 200 Exelon Way Kennett Square, PA 19348 This Email message and any attachment may contain information that is proprietary, legally privileged, confidential and/or subject to copyright belonging to Exelon Corporation or its affiliates ("Exelon"). This Email is intended solely for the use of the person(s) to which it is addressed. If you are not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this Email to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this Email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete this Email and any copies. Exelon policies expressly prohibit employees from making defamatory or offensive statements and infringing any copyright or any other legal right by Email communication. Exelon will not accept any liability in respect of such communications.-

EXCIP 73

200 Exelon Way Kennett Square, PA 19348 www.exeloncorp.com May 25, 2021 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Comments Concerning Proposed Rule 10 CFR 50, "American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2019-2020 Code Editions" (86FR16087, dated March 26, 2021, Docket ID NRC-2018-0290)

This letter is being submitted in response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) request for comments concerning Proposed Rule 10 CFR 50, "American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2019-2020 Code Editions," published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2021 (i.e., 86FR16087).

The NRC is proposing to amend its regulations to incorporate by reference the 2019 Edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and the 2020 Edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, Division 1: OM Code: Section IST, for nuclear power plants. The NRC is also proposing to incorporate by reference the 2011 Addenda to ASME NQA 2008, Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications (ASME NQA-1b-2011), and the 2012 and 2015 Editions of ASME NQA-1, Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications. This action is in accordance with the NRCs policy to periodically update the regulations to incorporate by reference new editions and addenda of the ASME codes and is intended to maintain the safety of nuclear power plants and to make NRC activities more effective and efficient.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) appreciates the opportunity to comment and offers the attached comments on certain sections on this proposed rule for consideration by the NRC. In addition, Exelon fully supports the comments submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on behalf of the industry related to the subject proposed rulemaking.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Richard Gropp at (610) 765-5557.

Respectfully, David P. Helker Sr. Manager, Licensing Exelon Generation Company, LLC Attachment 74

Attachment Comments Concerning 10 CFR 50 Proposed Rule Docket ID NRC-2018-0290 Page 1 of 4 Comments Concerning Proposed Rule 10 CFR 50, "American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2019-2020 Code Editions" 10 CFR 50.55a Section Proposed Change Discussion Comments on Proposed Changes

§50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi),

Section XI Condition:

Pressure Testing of Class 1, 2, and 3 Mechanical Joints NRC proposes to amend § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) to remove references to Section XI pressure test and VT-2 examination. The NRC proposes to relax the requirement to perform an ASME Section XI pressure test in accordance with IWA-5211(a) and VT-2 examination of mechanical joints disassembled and reassembled during the course of repair/replacement activities.

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi)Section XI condition: Pressure Testing of Class 1, 2, and 3 Mechanical Joints.

Mechanical joints in Class 1, 2, and 3 piping and components greater than NPS-1 which are disassembled and reassembled during the performance of a Section XI repair/replacement activity requiring documentation on a Form NIS-2 shall be leak tested to ensure leak tightness. The owner shall establish the type of leak test, test medium, test pressure, acceptance criteria that would demonstrate the joints leak tightness, and the qualifications of the personnel who will perform the leak test.

Exelon recommends (xxvi)Section XI condition: Pressure Testing of Class 1, 2, and 3 Mechanical Joints not be added to the Rule as currently proposed, but rather we suggest it should be deleted entirely.

Licensee's Appendix B Quality Assurance programs already address leakage inspections of mechanical connections outside of ASME Section XI IWA-5000 pressure testing requirements. The language of the proposed Rule creates a new qualification and inspection program for leak checks by requiring licensees to establish the type of leak test, test medium, test pressure, acceptance criteria that would demonstrate the joints leak tightness, and the qualifications of the personnel who will perform the leak test. Based on the previous requirements under this paragraph most licensees adopted using the 2017 Edition of ASME Section XI for exemptions from the IWA-4540(b) requirements without adding any conditions for standard leak checks performed at nominal operating pressure and temperature outside of ASME Section XI required tests.

75 006-01

Attachment Comments Concerning 10 CFR 50 Proposed Rule Docket ID NRC-2018-0290 Page 2 of 4 10 CFR 50.55a Section Proposed Change Discussion Comments on Proposed Changes Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xxxii)

Section XI Condition:

Summary Report Submittal NRC proposes to amend the condition in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxxii) to relax the timeframe for submittal of Summary Reports (pre-2015 Edition) or Owner Activity Reports (2015 Edition and later) for inservice examinations and repair replacement activities. The NRC has no objections to allowing licensees up to 120 days to submit the reports.

§ 50.55a(b)(2)( (xxxii)Section XI condition:

Summary report submittal. When using ASME BPV Code,Section XI, 2010 Edition through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, Summary Reports and Owners Activity Reports described in IWA-6230 must be submitted to the NRC. Preservice inspection reports for examinations prior to commercial service must be submitted prior to the date of placement of the unit into commercial service. For preservice and inservice examinations performed following placement of the unit into commercial service, reports must be submitted within 120 calendar days of the completion of each refueling outage.

Exelon recommends "(xxxii)Section XI condition: Summary report submittal" not be added to the Rule as proposed, and instead of requiring submittal of Summary Reports and Owners Activity Reports, that these reports be made available upon request to the regulatory authority having jurisdiction at the plant site and to the enforcement authority. Based on numerous information requests associated with the NRC IP 71111.08 Inservice Inspection Activities it does not appear that NRC staff is actively reviewing submitted Summary Reports or Owners Activity Reports until prior to the next scheduled refueling outage when requests for information associated with the IP 71111.08 inspection are developed. Allowing licensees to prepare the Summary Reports or Owners Activity Reports without formally submitting them alleviates administrative burden while still making these documents available to NRC staff for review if requested.

76 006-02

Attachment Comments Concerning 10 CFR 50 Proposed Rule Docket ID NRC-2018-0290 Page 3 of 4 Additional Comments

§ 50.55a(b)(3)(xi) - OM Condition:

1. Exelon requests further clarification concerning Supplemental Position Indication (SPI) implementation timeline and test due dates as no changes were made to the Condition to eliminate interpretation differences between the NRC and Licensees. Additionally, there should be clarification of SPI being required to be performed in conjunction with, but not required to be concurrent with, ISTC-3700 testing following adoption of the ASME OM Code, 2012 Edition, through the latest edition of the ASME OM Code.

2. Exelon requests further clarification of the SPI required testing due date for motor operated valves (MOVs) in Appendix III as the ISTC-3700 testing has shifted from 2 years to the Appendix III Inservice Testing (IST) frequency.

3. Exelon suggests eliminating the supplemental verification requirement for passive valves or at a minimum only require it in the required valve position. Sites are performing modification where possible or removing valves from the IST program to eliminate the need to do supplemental testing.

4. Exelon is requesting further clarification regarding why supplemental verification testing needs to be performed for valves that are determined to be not-susceptible to stem-disc separation.

5. Exelon suggests that the NRC consider endorsing ASME Code Case OMN-28 (instead of the proposed NRC revision) for valves that are not susceptible to stem-disc separation "similar to what was done with OMN-20."

6. Exelon requests further clarification concerning the required testing due date when implementing the conditions for valves not susceptible to stem-disc separation or OMN-28. For example, can SPI be performed 10 years from the last performance of an ISTC-3700 test prior to implementing the latest edition of the Code?

7. Exelon suggests adding a reference to the EPRI document as acceptable method for determination of valve stem-disc separation susceptibility.

8. Exelon suggests adding an approval to utilize NRC-approved, performance-based, frequencies for SPI such as Appendix J or other approved performance-based Code Cases or site-specific relief requests.

Suggested wording to address start of SPI testing (draft):

Licensees must verify that valve operation is accurately indicated by supplementing valve position indicating lights with other indications such as flow meters or other suitable instrumentation during performance of ISTC-3700 testing to provide assurance of proper obturator 77 006-03 006-04 006-05 006-06 006-07 006-08 006-09 006-10

Attachment Comments Concerning 10 CFR 50 Proposed Rule Docket ID NRC-2018-0290 Page 4 of 4 position for valves with remote position indication. Supplemental verification must be performed in conjunction with, but not concurrent with ISTC-3700, "Position Verification Testing." Supplemental verification for MOVs within the scope of Mandatory Appendix III must be performed in conjunction with but not concurrent with III-3300(e) position verification. Supplemental testing is required to start during performance of the first Position Verification Test following licensee implementation of the ASME OM Code, 2012 Edition, through the latest edition of the ASME OM Code incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section.

§ 50.55a(f)(4) - Inservice Testing Standards Requirement for Operating Plants:

1. With regard to the statement: "for pumps and valves that are within the scope of the ASME OM Code but are not classified as ASME BPV Code Class 1, Class 2, or Class 3 may be satisfied as an augmented IST program in accordance with paragraph (f)(6)(ii) of this section,"

Exelon requests clarification whether the citation should be (f)(7)(ii) since it appears that the NRC is adding Section (7).

2. Exelon is requesting clarification concerning the removal of the statement: "without requesting relief under paragraph (f)(5) of this section or alternatives under paragraph (z) of this section." Is the intent of this change to require prior NRC approval for non-Code Class components to deviate from ASME OM Code requirements? Exelon believes further clarification is needed.

§ 50.55a(f)(7) - Preservice and Inservice Testing Requirements:

1. Regarding the proposed requirement to provide IST plans on a periodic basis, Exelon believes that this will impose an undue burden with no added value and safety benefit and requests further clarification. Inservice Inspection (ISI) does not have the same requirement.

78 006-11 006-12 006-13

Submission ID 007 Ronald Swain, Electric Power Research Institute ADAMS Accession No. ML21146A043 79

From:

Swain, Ronald To:

RulemakingComments Resource Cc:

Chengelis, Steve; Selby, Greg; Lindberg, John; Latiolais, Carl; Kull, Doug; Orihuela, Mike; Dunlap, Myles; Langevin, John; Hoffman, Keith; Nove, Carol; Cumblidge, Stephen

Subject:

[External_Sender] Comments to Proposed Rulemaking Docket ID NRC-2018-0290 Date:

Tuesday, May 25, 2021 4:44:57 PM Attachments:

NDE 20210525-001_Comments to Proposed Rulemaking_FINAL.pdf

Dear Sirs,

Attached are comments to Proposed Rulemaking in Docket ID NRC-2018-0290.

Regards,

Ronnie Swain Senior Technical Executive Plant Support - NDE EPRI l Electric Power Research Institute Office: 704-595-2514 Cell: 704-724-5452 Email: rswain@epri.com

• • • This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.

Unless otherwise expressed in this message by the sender or except as may be allowed by separate written agreement between EPRI and recipient or recipients employer, any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others of this message is prohibited and this message is not intended to be an electronic signature, instrument or anything that may form a legally binding agreement with EPRI. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and permanently delete all copies of this message. Please be advised that the message and its contents may be disclosed, accessed and reviewed by the sender's email system administrator and/or provider. ***

80

Nondestructive Evaluation Program 20210525-001 Via Email May 25, 2021 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards and Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20055-001 ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff

Subject:

Proposed Rulemaking Comments (Docket ID NRC-2018-0290)

Dear Sir or Madam,

This letter provides comments to the subject proposed rulemaking on behalf of the Nuclear Nondestructive Examination (NDE) Program at the Electric Power Research Institute.

Our comment pertains to the proposed rulemaking posted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Mar 26, 2021, and specifically to Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xviii)(D) NDE Personnel Certification: Fourth Provision. According to the subject proposed rulemaking (Docket ID NRC-2018-0290), the NRC proposes to amend the condition found in

§50.55a(b)(2)(xviii) to address the removal of ASME BPV Code,Section XI, 2011 Addenda from §50.55a(a)(1)(ii). In addition, the NRC has stated that research performed at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has shown that laboratory practice can be effective in developing the skill to find flaws, and on-the-job training is effective at developing the ability to perform examinations in a nuclear reactor environment. Based on the research described in Technical Letter Report PNNL-29761 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20079E343), the NRC is proposing that the 250 experience hours for a Level I certification can be reduced to 175 hours0.00203 days <br />0.0486 hours <br />2.893519e-4 weeks <br />6.65875e-5 months <br />, with 125 experience hours and 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> of laboratory practice, and the experience hours for Level II certification can be reduced to 720 hours0.00833 days <br />0.2 hours <br />0.00119 weeks <br />2.7396e-4 months <br />, with 400 experience hours and 320 hours0.0037 days <br />0.0889 hours <br />5.291005e-4 weeks <br />1.2176e-4 months <br /> of laboratory practice, without significantly reducing the capabilities of the examiners to navigate in a nuclear reactor environment. The NRC is therefore proposing to add an option to

§50.55a(b)(2)(xviii) to allow these requirements as an alternative to Appendix VII, Table VII-4110-1 and Appendix VIII, Subarticle VIII-2200 in the 2010 Edition.

81

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 25, 2021 Page 2 EPRI NDE Comment - EPRI agrees that laboratory practice can be effective in developing UT examiner skills. As a matter of fact, we have been studying this question as part of a project we are working on to develop a technical basis for nondestructive examination (NDE) experience requirements for ASME Section XI, Appendix VII, which is scheduled to be published by the end of July, 2021. As part of that project work, we have determined that experience gained in many aspects of ultrasonic testing (UT) in the lab can be superior to experience gained performing the same examinations in the field, in terms of providing the opportunity for learning and improvement. Some of these skills are listed below:

Inspecting UT equipment for wear/damage/operation Linearity checks Use of common calibration standards Applications of common UT mathematics Calibration and examination using shear wave transducers Calibration and examination using longitudinal wave straight beam transducers Calibration and examination using refracted longitudinal wave angle beam transducers Review of UT procedures and preparation for examinations (including equipment/angle selection)

Examination of ferritic piping welds Examination of austenitic piping welds Examination of dissimilar metal piping welds Examination of cast austenitic piping welds Examination of carbon steel vessels Examination of bolts and studs Taking thickness and contour information of a component Recording and plotting of UT indications Reporting of UT examination results Reporting examination coverage limitations and performing calculations of coverage Advanced flaw detection techniques Through-wall sizing of flaws 82 007-01

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 25, 2021 Page 3 We also recognize that there are certain skills associated with performing UT examinations in a nuclear power plant that would not easily be replicated in a lab and, therefore, are advantageous to learn and practice in the field. These include:

Reviewing historical examination data Providing radiological protection for UT equipment Reading plant isometric and fabrication drawings Location and positive identification of field components Assessing the accessibility and condition of a component for UT examination Performance of UT in difficult field conditions and environments So, while it is recognized that are aspects of the performance of UT in nuclear power plants that are not conducive to learning in a lab environment, many aspects of the examination process are easily replicated and can be fully exercised in the lab environment and include the added advantage of knowing the truth information (location, type, size, and orientation of defects as well as geometric and metallurgical reflectors) about the components being examined.

Additionally, radiological hazards and other safety issues and stressful conditions are not present in the lab. These advantages enable meaningful feedback to be provided to the examiner and, if necessary, the technician can even be allowed to re-examine components to reinforce learning.

Lab Time for the Skills Development of a UT Level II Borrowing from the ASME ANDE job task analysis information for UT as well as taking inputs from numerous industry UT Level III technicians, on what the required skills are to become an eligible candidate for Level II in the nuclear industry, our project team has determined that a majority of those hours would apply to learning and practicing skills that could be gained in a laboratory environment. Certainly, considering the goal of producing Level IIs that are capable of performing consistent and reliable examinations, the idea of allowing a significant portion of their experience to be garnered in the lab should be seriously considered. During our in-depth review of the skills and knowledge required of a UT technician, and a corresponding review of the hours needed to obtain proficiency in each skill area, we have determined that at least 65% of a technicians working time is spent mastering skills that can be replicated in the lab.

83

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 25, 2021 Page 4 Now, we are not recommending that all of the experience needed to master a skill should be obtained in the lab environment, even where that is demonstrably possible. We recognize that there are some situations and issues that will be experienced in the field that are unlikely to occur in the lab and that those experiences are also valuable to the overall development of a well-rounded technician. But given the advantages to learning so many of these skills in a lab setting, we would suggest that up to 45% of the overall experience hours required for a technician to be considered eligible for UT Level II should be allowed to be obtained in the laboratory.

This aligns with the current NRC proposal for 320 of the 720 experience hours for a Level II to be allowed to be conducted in the lab, since 320 is approximately 45% of 720. But we think that the percentage is more important than the actual number, because once EPRI has completed the development of its technical basis for experience hours, there is a likelihood that a code action will be forwarded that, backed by technical basis, will propose a change in the experience hours in Appendix VII. If the NRC uses the percentage, in lieu of the number, then the regulation can still be applied to the overall experience hours, regardless of the actual number that is published in Appendix VII.

Lab Time for the Skills Development of a UT Level III The subject proposed rulemaking does not currently address any reduction in experience hours for eligibility for UT Level III, nor does it provide any provision for lab time that can be substituted for these experience hours. However, as part of the afore-mentioned project and using the same methodology applied to the Level II question, we have carefully thought about the experience needed to become skillful and knowledgeable enough to be eligible for initial certification to UT Level III. Many of the skills that a UT Level II gains through experience, which goes toward their qualification to become a UT Level III, are the same skills that have been outlined in this letter as being needed for qualification to UT Level II.

By scrutinizing the entire list of skills needed for this certification level and thinking about the time needed to become proficient in those areas, we have determined that 39% of the overall experience needed could be gained in the lab.

Similar to the discussion in the previous paragraphs on the unique learning opportunities afforded by field experience, we again would only suggest that 27%

of the experience hours needed to qualify an individual to be a candidate for UT Level III be allowed to be obtained via lab practice. Based on the logic provided in the previous section of this letter, we think this would result in improved technical skills leading to more consistent and reliable examination results.

Lab Time for the Skills Development of a UT Level I At present, EPRI has not studied the specific skills and knowledge needed to be a candidate for UT Level I, nor the time required to obtain proficiency in those 84

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 25, 2021 Page 5 areas. Therefore, we are unable to propose modifications to that aspect of the proposed rulemaking.

Summary of Changes Requested to the Proposed Rulemaking Based on the discussion provided in this letter, which is geared toward improving the overall capabilities and reliability of nuclear industry UT examiners, we request that the NRC consider modifying the proposed rulemaking with regard to

§50.55a(b)(2)(xviii) to include allowing up to 45% of required experience hours for initial certification to UT Level II to be obtained through laboratory practice and to allow up to 27% of required experience hours for initial certification to UT Level III to be obtained through laboratory practice.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments to this proposed rulemaking.

Should you have any questions pertaining to the comments provided in this letter, please contact Ronnie Swain for clarification.

Sincerely, Ronnie Swain Senior Technical Executive EPRI Nuclear Plant Support Department 704-595-2514 - office 704-724-5452 - mobile rswain@epri.com Cc:

Steve Chengelis Greg Selby John Lindberg Carl Latiolais Doug Kull Mike Orihuela Myles Dunlap John Langevin 85

Submission ID 008 C.J. Riedl, Tennessee Valley Authority ADAMS Accession No. ML21146A150 86

PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 5/26/21 10:26 AM Received: May 25, 2021 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. kp4-xni5-sbgo Comments Due: May 25, 2021 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2018-0290 2020 Edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Operations and Maintenance Code Comment On: NRC-2018-0290-0001 American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2019-2020 Code Editions Document: NRC-2018-0290-DRAFT-0002 Comment on FR Doc # 2021-06085 Submitter Information Email: cjriedl@tva.gov Government Agency Type: Federal Government Agency: TVA General Comment See Attachment 1 - TVA Comments NRC-2018-0290 Attachments - TVA Comments NRC-2018-0290 87

Tennessee Valley Authority Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50 Rule Incorporating American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2019-2020 Code Editions (Docket ID NRC 2018 0290)

CNL-21-057 Page 1 of 8 Comment #/Section Comment Recommendation

1. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxv)

On page 16111 of Reference 1, 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxv) heading,Section XV Condition is incorrect, and, as noted in 86 FR, in the proposed section (xxv)(A), First person should be changed to First provision.

On page 16111 of Reference 1, 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxv) heading, change Section XV Condition to Section XI Condition, and, as noted in Reference 2, in the proposed section (xxv)(A), change First person to First provision.

2. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi)

TVA concurs with the NRCs proposal to eliminate the ASME Code pressure test and VT-2 examination of mechanical connections in

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) because the same leak test procedures that are used for non-ASME Code repair and replacement will provide adequate assurance of leak tightness. However, TVA recommends to accomplish this objective that 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) be deleted entirely, or, alternatively, replaced with the following:

Mechanical joints in Class 1, 2, and 3 piping and components greater than NPS-1 which are disassembled and reassembled during the performance of a Section XI repair/replacement activity shall be verified to be leak tight in accordance with the licensees Appendix B program.

This would eliminate requirements that may be more specific than those utilized in licensees existing non-Code leak test procedures, and for which the technical basis for such differentiation is unclear.

First, the proposed rule requires the owner document the type of leak test, test medium, test pressure, and acceptance criteria that would demonstrate TVA recommends that 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) be deleted entirely, as it increases licensee burden, but provides no quality or safety benefit.

Alternatively, 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) should be replaced with Mechanical joints in Class 1, 2, and 3 piping and components greater than NPS-1 which are disassembled and reassembled during the performance of a Section XI repair/replacement activity shall be verified to be leak-88 008-01 008-02

Tennessee Valley Authority Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50 Rule Incorporating American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2019-2020 Code Editions (Docket ID NRC 2018 0290)

CNL-21-057 Page 2 of 8 Comment #/Section Comment Recommendation

2. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi)

(continued) the joints leak tightness when performing a leakage test following a repair/

replacement activity requiring a NIS-2 form. Specifics with these details may not exist in the licensees non-Code leak test procedures, which are developed and maintained in accordance with the licensees Appendix B QA program, and which, as noted in the proposed rule discussion, support the qualitative risk analysis that concluded elimination of the Section XI pressure test and VT-2 examination resulted In a very low risk of failure.

Therefore, TVA recommends that the proposed rule language be revised to either 1) eliminate the requirement entirely, or 2) revise the language to simply require verification of leak tightness in accordance with the sites QA program requirements.

Second, the proposed rule requires licensee to specify the qualification requirements for the person performing the leak test. Typically, maintenance organization personnel qualified in accordance with the sites Appendix B program will perform the field walkdown, in accordance with site Appendix B procedures, to ensure no leakage exists following reassembly of a mechanical connection. This method of leak detection has been successfully utilized for many years in the industry. Creation of an additional personnel qualification requirement in the sites non-Code leak inspection program, even if owner-defined, creates an unnecessary burden for the utilities with no corresponding increase in quality or safety. It is recommended that this requirement be removed from the proposed rule.

Lastly, the technical basis for these proposed additional requirements is unclear, particularly when applied only to mechanical connections assembled as part of a repair or replacement activity requiring an NIS-2 form. Hypothetically, if a 2-inch ASME Code Class 2 socket weld fails due to thermal fatigue, and the adjacent mechanical connection is disassembled tight in accordance with the licensees Appendix B program.

89

Tennessee Valley Authority Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50 Rule Incorporating American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2019-2020 Code Editions (Docket ID NRC 2018 0290)

CNL-21-057 Page 3 of 8 Comment #/Section Comment Recommendation

2. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi)

(continued) and later reassembled to support the performance of that socket weld repair/replacement activity, that mechanical connection should not necessitate any more rigorous leakage test than it would if the same connection were disassembled and reassembled for any other reason. It is appropriate for mechanical connections to be subject to a leakage test when reassembled, regardless of the reason for the disassembly and reassembly, and the standards applied to those tests should be the same. The purpose of this post-maintenance leakage test is to verify adequate maintenance practices and ensure good housekeeping. By design, leakage at mechanical connections is not a condition that affects the structural integrity of a piping system. For that reason, TVA recommends that 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) should be deleted altogether or rewritten to state simply that verification of leak tightness according to the licensees Appendix B program is required for Class 1, 2, and 3 mechanical joints.

3. 50.55a(b)(3)(iv)

This condition was first imposed as part of final rulemaking dated July 17, 2017 and became effective on August 17, 2017 (Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 136). This condition effectively implemented new requirements which were added to the 2017 Edition of OM, Appendix II, II-4000(b)(1)(e) that require distribution of Check Valve Condition Monitoring (CVCM) activities for each valve in a multi-valve group at approximately equal intervals across the interval for the group. The language in the 2017 Edition of OM and this condition are essentially the same.

While the goal for this condition and clarification in 2017 Edition of OM is appropriate, the actual language of these two documents has had unintended consequences. The statement, At least one of the identified activities for a valve group shall be performed on each valve of the group at TVA recommends that 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(iv) OM Condition: Check Valves (Appendix II) be revised to be applicable to all addenda and editions of OM endorsed for use. In addition, the overly restrictive language At least one of the identified activities for a valve group shall be performed on each valve of the group at approximately equal intervals 90 008-03

Tennessee Valley Authority Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50 Rule Incorporating American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2019-2020 Code Editions (Docket ID NRC 2018 0290)

CNL-21-057 Page 4 of 8 Comment #/Section Comment Recommendation

3. 50.55a(b)(3)(iv)

(continued) approximately equal intervals not to exceed the maximum interval shown in Table II-4000-1 has resulted in significant burden for licensees to the revise their CVCM program plans for compliance. The requirement to distribute the CVCM activities across each valve at equal intervals is more prescriptive than necessary to ensure a licensee doesnt defer activities for all valves in a group to the end of the group interval.

Before this condition and OM change, licensees regularly performed CVCM activities on pairs of valves in a group or staggered the activities across the valve group interval in a manner that met the goal of distributing activities of multi-valve groups. However, the method of staggering activities did not meet the prescriptive language of this condition. As a result, the only way to comply with this condition and optimize testing is to split the group into smaller groups of valves or groups of one as permitted by II-2000(a). This requires new test procedures and additional scheduling for all the new groups, and substantially increases the burden on licensees without necessarily ensuring a better distribution of activities.

Example:

Assume all activities for the group have not been completed such that interval extension is not allowed at the time the condition becomes effective.

Before Condition:

One group of four valves where activities on two valves in the group are performed every other outage Group Outage 1 Outage 2 Outage 3 Outage 4 4 valves (A, B, C, D)

A, C B, D not to exceed the maximum interval shown in Table II-4000-1 should be revised to simply require compliance with the maximum intervals (both columns) shown in Table II-4000-1. This will provide flexibility for those CVCM plans that are not at the maximum intervals while also ensuring activities on individual valves are not deferred to the end of the group interval.

91

Tennessee Valley Authority Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50 Rule Incorporating American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2019-2020 Code Editions (Docket ID NRC 2018 0290)

CNL-21-057 Page 5 of 8 Comment #/Section Comment Recommendation

3. 50.55a(b)(3)(iv)

(continued)

After Condition:

One group of four valves where activities on one valve in the group are performed every outage Group Outage 1 Outage 2 Outage 3 Outage 4 4 valves (A, B, C, D)

A C

B D

OR Two groups of two valves where activities on one valve in the group are performed every other outage Group Outage 1 Outage 2 Outage 3 Outage 4 2 valves (A, B)

A B

2 valves (C, D)

C D

The example above demonstrates a case where a CVCM plan that met the original intent of OM to stagger activities still must be revised to comply with the condition. In addition, the example shows two different ways the CVCM program may be revised to order to comply with this condition. The last method shows how the revised CVCMP can comply with the condition without changing the schedule of activities. The end result is that compliance with this condition imposed a significant burden to revise CVCM plans with no increase in the level of safety.

4. 50.55a(b)(3)(xi)

TVA acknowledges that the proposed change to condition (b)(3)(xi) provides some relief from a burdensome requirement imposed by the rule. However, in collaboration across the industry, a detailed alternative to compliance with TVA recommends that the proposed change to the CFR be replaced as follows: For 92 008-04

Tennessee Valley Authority Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50 Rule Incorporating American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2019-2020 Code Editions (Docket ID NRC 2018 0290)

CNL-21-057 Page 6 of 8 Comment #/Section Comment Recommendation

4. 50.55a(b)(3)(xi)

(continued) the condition was created and approved in ASME OM Code Case OMN-28.

Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed change to the CFR be replaced as follows: For valves not susceptible to stem-disk separation, ASME OM Code Case OMN-28 may be used to satisfy the valve position verification requirements in ASME OM Code, Subsection ISTC, paragraph ISTC3700.

valves not susceptible to stem-disk separation, ASME OM Code Case OMN-28 may be used to satisfy the valve position verification requirements in ASME OM Code, Subsection ISTC, paragraph ISTC3700.

5. 50.55a(b)(3)(xi)

OM Condition (b)(3)(xi) provides a requirement for plants in the process of an interval update from any edition older than the 2012 ASME OM Code.

There has been confusion regarding the initial test requirement and initial performance date. Given the potentially significant burden imposed by this new test requirement, additional guidance should be provided for the initial implementation timeframe to minimize confusion.

While Condition (b)(3)(xi) is based upon a test currently contained in the Code, the modification of the existing test is such that an entirely new test requirement is being created through this condition. The NRC is proposing a risk-based modification to the implementation with the proposed change.

Specifying an initial test date of no later than 2 years (ISTC-3700 Frequency) from the start of the interval matches the historical precedent for a new requirement.

TVA recommends that NRC specify an initial test date of no later than 2 years (ISTC-3700 Frequency) from the start of the interval for which the newer Code applies.

6. 50.55a(f)(4)

The proposed change to 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) removes valuable wording and changes implementation requirements in a manner that could result in excessive and potentially unexpected relief requests from licensees, and could represent a significant administrative burden for many licensees and the NRC. The current wording allows licensees to document an alternative position for components not classified as ASME BPV Code Class 1, Class 2, or Class 3 without requiring regulator approval. The proposed removal of TVA recommends that the current statement, without requesting relief under paragraph (f)(5) of this section or alternatives under paragraph (z) of this section remain unchanged in the 93 008-05 008-06

Tennessee Valley Authority Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50 Rule Incorporating American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2019-2020 Code Editions (Docket ID NRC 2018 0290)

CNL-21-057 Page 7 of 8 Comment #/Section Comment Recommendation

6. 50.55a(f)(4) this wording would indicate that the NRC expects to approve relief for components within the augmented IST program. TVA recommends that the current statement, without requesting relief under paragraph (f)(5) of this section or alternatives under paragraph (z) of this section. remain within the CFR as currently approved. This statement was included to minimize the burden on licensees for non-Code components, and should be retained unless the need for additional review requirements is demonstrated.

As an example, there are numerous non-Code valves that perform a safety function that may not have been designed to be explicitly tested to ASME OM Code Requirements. At present, licensees may internally document deviations from the ASME OM Code relying on technical positions within the respective augmented IST programs. The proposed CFR change above would immediately result in each of these positions requiring relief from the NRC, and may place licensees in violation of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4).

TVA perceives that this change would be an expansion of regulatory oversight and burden, and as such, would be a backfit that requires analysis and justification to implement.

CFR. If this statement is to be removed as proposed, TVA recommends that it be evaluated and justified as a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109.

7. 50.55a(f)(7)

The proposed addition of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(7) is a burdensome change with no commensurate benefit to public health and safety. TVA recommends removal of this proposed requirement. This new administrative requirement would require a broad revision of licensee administrative procedures and processes, without commensurate benefit. Even without this proposed regulation, the licensee must work to the latest approved program document, and it must be available to the regulator upon request. During any inspection or event that requires the NRC to review an IST Program for requirements, the latest copy is generally requested and duly provided by the licensee. Additional preparation, verification, and review time for the increased frequency required by the proposed change for submittal of IST Program documents, which are typically several hundred pages, could TVA recommends removing the addition of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(7) from this proposed change. If addition of 50.55a(f)(7) is pursued, TVA recommends that it be evaluated and justified as a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109.

94 008-07

Tennessee Valley Authority Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50 Rule Incorporating American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2019-2020 Code Editions (Docket ID NRC 2018 0290)

CNL-21-057 Page 8 of 8 Comment #/Section Comment Recommendation

7. 50.55a(f)(7)

(continued) require significant additional resource burden without commensurate benefit to safety or quality. While TVA recommends removal of this proposed change, if NRC pursues implementation, this change should be evaluated and justified as a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109.

95