ML23159A104

PR-050 - 64FR22580 - Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements

ML23159A104
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/27/1999
From:	Travers W NRC/EDO
To:
References
PR-050, 64FR22580
Download: ML23159A104 (1)

Text

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 04/27/1999 TITLE: PR-050 - 64FR22580 - INDUSTRY CODES AND STANDARDS; AMENDED REQUIREMENTS CASE

REFERENCE:

PR-050 64FR22580 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

Docket No.: PR-050 03/29/2001 FR Cite: 64FR22580 In the Matter of Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 04/26/1999 04/15/1999 Federal Register Notice -

Supplemental proposed rule William C. Holston Self 06/07 /I 999 06/0 I /1999 2 Dennis M . Swann Self 06/09/1999 06/04/1999 3 Patricia L. Campbell Self 06/15/1999 06/11/1999 4 James A. Perry The American Society of 06/18/1999 06/16/1999 Vice President, et al. Mechanical Engineers

Docket No.: PR-050 03/29/2001 FR Cite: 64FR22580 In the Matter of Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 5 Nathan L. Haskell Consumers Energy 06/21/1999 06/11/1999 Director, Licensing Company 6 Charles W. Rowley Self 06/28/1999 06/21/1999 7 Mark J. Burzynski Tennessee Valley 06/28/1999 06/21/1999 Authority

- 8 James Knubel , Sr.

Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer New York Power Authority 06/28/1999 06/22/1999 9 Owen F. Hedden Self 06/28/1999 06/20/1999 2

Docket No.: PR-050 03/29/2001 FR Cite: 64FR22580 In the Matter of Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number IO James A. Perry Self 06/28/ I 999 06/2111999 11 A. Edward Scherer Southern California 06/28/1999 06/25/1999 Edison 12 David J. Modeen Nuclear Energy Institute 06/28/1999 06/25/1999 Director, Engineering -

Nuclear Generation Division

- 13 Michael R. Kansler Vice President - Operations Support Entergy Operations, Inc. 06/29/1999 06/25/1999 14 Thomas W. Onciger Illinois Department of 06/29/1999 06/24/1999 Director Nuclear Safety 3

Docket No.: PR-050 03/29/2001 FR Cite: 64FR22580 In the Matter of Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 15 Raymond A. West Self 06/29/1999 06/25/ I999 16 M. S. Tuckman Duke Energy Corporation 06/29/1999 06/24/1999 Executive Vice President 17 H. L. Sumner Southern Nuclear 06/29/1999 06/28/ I999 Vice President" Operating Company, Inc.

I 18 Scott Kulat Self 06/29/1999 06/28/1999 19 Garth D. Richmond, Esq., et Nuclear Utility 06/29/1999 06/28/1999 Backfitting and Reform Group 4

Docket No.: PR-050 03/29/2001 FR Cite: 64FR22580 In the Matter of Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 20 Dennis D. Davis Self 06/30/1999 06/28/ l 999 21 Ted C. Feigenbaum North Atlantic Energy 07 /0 l/ 1999 06/25/1999 Exec. VP & CNO Service Corporation 22 R. M. Krich Commonwealth Edison 07/02/1999 06/28/1999 Vice President Company

- 23 Garrett D. Edwards Director - Licensing PECO Energy Company 07/02/1999 06/28/1999 24 James H. McCarthy Virginia Power 07/06/1999 06/17/1999 5

Docket No.: PR-050 03/29/2001 FR Cite: 64FR22580 In the Matter of Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 25 J. C. Fornicola GPU Nuclear, Inc. 07 /06/ I 999 06/28/1999 26 William E. Ide Arizona Public Service 07/07/1999 06/29/1999 Vice President Company 27 Sushi) C. Jain Duquesne Light Company 07/12/1999 06/29/1999 Sr. Vice President 28 James E. Tomkins Pacific Gas and Electric 07/16/1999 07/12/1999 Company 29 R. G. Byram Pennsylvania Power & 07/19/1999 07/12/1999 Sr. VP&CNO Light Company 6

Docket No.: PR-050 03/29/2001 FR Cite: 64FR22580 In the Matter of Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 30 C. Lance Terry TXU Electric (formerly 07/22/1999 07/19/1999 Sr. VP& PNO TU Electric) 08/03/1999 07/28/1999 Letter from James H. McCarthy, Virginia Power to SECY endorsing NEl's comments (Comment No. 12) to eliminate the 120-month update requirements cont1ir,ed in 10 CFR 50.55a 31 W. McGillivray Self 08/12/1999 05/17/1999 32 Kenneth B. Thomas Self 09/02/1999 05/26/1999 33 John R. McGaha Entergy Operations, Inc. 09/20/1999 09/13/1999 Exec. VP & COO 7

Docket No.: PR-050 03/29/2001 FR Cite: 64FR22580 In the Matter of Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 34 M . S. Tuckman Duke Energy Corporation 09/22/ I 999 09/16/1999 Exec. Vice President 35 C.Lance Terry TXU Electric 09/28/1999 09/24/1999 Sr. VP & PNO 36 John A. Scalice Tennessee Valley 10/04/1999 09/21/1999 CNO & Exec. VP Authority

- 37 W. T. Cottle President & CEO South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 10/08/1999 09/29/1999 38 Leslie N. Hartz Virginia Power 10/08/ I999 I 0/05/1999 Vice President 8

Docket No.: PR-050 03/29/2001 FR Cite: 64FR22580 In the Matter of Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 39 W. G. Gates Omaha Public Power I 0/08/ I 999 I 0/01/1999 Vice President District 40 Raymond P. Necci Northeast Nuclear Energy 10/12/1999 10/06/1999 Company 41 Gregg R. Overbeck Arizona Public Service I0/14/1999 09/28/1999 42 C. S. Hinnant Carolina Power & Light 10/14/1999 09/30/1999 Company 43 Ted C. Feigenbaum North Atlantic Energy 11/16/1999 09/21/1999 Executive Vice President Service Corp.

and Chief Nuclear Officer 9

Docket No.: PR-050 03/29/2001 FR Cite: 64FR22580 In the Matter of Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 44 R. L. Wehring Energy Northwest 11/17/1999 10/25/1999 Vice President, Operations Support/PIO 45 Charles H. Cruse Baltimore Gas and 11/17/1999 I 0/28/1999 Vice President Electric Company 46 Ross P. Barkhurst Vermont Yankee Nuclear 12/29/1999 12/20/1999 President and Chief Executive Power Corporation Officer 03/22/2001 03/20/2001 Federal Register Notice - Final rule; correcting amendment JO

ooa~UPJ US NRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 111 MAR 22 P4 :07 10 CFR Part 50 OFFICF Cr SECFk ARY RULEMAf<l~JGS AND RIN 3150-AE26 ADJUDICAflONS STAFF Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment.

SUMMARY

This document corrects a final rule appearing in the Federal Register on September 22, 1999 (64 FR 51370), and reflected in the 2000 revision of the Code of Federal Regulations. This action corrects the final rule by specifying the use of a flaw length sizing criterion for reactor vessel qualification. This correction is necessary for clarity and consistency in the regulations.

tlla-t eJ_ ~(,

DATES: Effective (iR6ert sate of ~ubliee:t1on').

~O?J I FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald G. Naujock [telephone (301) 415-2767, e-mail DGN@nrc.gov] of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

,- Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 22, 1999 (64 FR 51370), a final rule " Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements" was published in the Federal Register. The purpose of the rule was to permit the use of improved methods in§ 50.55a for construction, inservice inspection and inservice testing of nuclear power plant components. The rule, in part, permits licensees to modify implementation of Appendix VIII to Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (the Code) provided that certain provisions

specified in the regulations were followed. Paragraph (b)(2)(:xv)(C) addressed the provisions regarding application of Supplement 4 to Appendix VIII. After the final rule was published, an error was discovered in paragraph (b)(2)(:xv)(C)(1 ). Paragraph (b)(2)(:xv)(C)( 1) properly stipulated the use of a flaw depth sizing criterion, but failed to specify the use of an appropriate flaw length sizing criterion for reactor vessel qualification. It has always been the intent of the NRC to require the use of both depth and length criteria for flaw sizing qualification. This intent is evident in paragraph (b)(2)(:xv)(F)(2) of§ 50.55a which stipulates that length sizing qualifications must satisfy the acceptance criterion of Appendix VIII, Supplement 4.

With respect to a length sizing criterion, it was the intent of the NRC to specify in the final rule, the use of 0.75 inch root mean square (RMS) length sizing criterion in lieu of Appendix VIII, Supplement 4, Subparagraph 3.2(b). Since 1995, the NRC has supported the 0.75inch RMS numeric value as an appropriate length sizing criterion for reactor vessels. This numeric value is the same as the length sizing criterion referenced in (b)(2)(:xv)(E)(3).

Need for Correction As published, the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations contain an error which is misleading and needs to be corrected.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C.

552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendment to 10 CFR part 50.

PART SO-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES

1. The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 102,103,104,105,161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936,937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851).

Section 50.1 O also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 955 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235), sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235).

Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat.

853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat.

2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C.

2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C.

,,- 2234). Appendix Falso issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

2. In§ 50.55a, paragraph (b)(2)(xv)(C)( 1) is revised to read as follows:

§ 50.55a Codes and standards.

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(xv) * * *

(C) * * *

( 1) A depth sizing requirement of 0.15 inch RMS shall be used in lieu of the requirement in Subparagraph 3.2(a), and a length sizing requirement of 0.75 inch RMS shall be used in lieu of the requirement in Subparagraph 3.2(b).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of March, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

.<~ / ~

Michael T. Lesar, Chief Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration .

VERMONT YANKEE r, , ,fO NUCLEAR POWER CORPORA TI 0N 1

l, C 185 Old Ferry Road, Brattleboro, VT 05301-700~

(802) 257-5271 *qq Dq!f'm~ 2 , '99

-- BVY 99-117 The Honorable Richard A. Meserve Chairman 0 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 0-16 Cl Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

10CFR50.55a Supplemental Proposed Rule (64 Fed Reg. 22580)

c' D B'{ ~ Chairman Meserve:

, * -1:he ~RC should be commended for the proposed rulemaking to eliminate the requirement for licensees to

' 2-updk~e their Inservice Inspection and Testing programs beyond an established baseline edition and addenda of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (the Code).

Reconsideration of this requirement is warranted because there is no substantial increase in safety commensurate with the cost of implementing the present regulation. Vermont Yankee also strongly supports adoption of the 1989 edition of the Code, including the 1989 addenda, as the baseline version for use under the proposed rule.

I understand that the ASME, individuals from the industry, and NRC staff involved in ASME activities have communicated views opposing the proposed rule. Nevertheless, rulemaking consistent with the provisions of the backfit rule and the demonstrated threshold of safety improvement afforded by the 1989 Code and addenda represents sound regulatory policy.

In conclusion, I support the proposed rule to eliminate the 120-month update requirement, and also support establishing the 1989 edition of the Code, including the 1989 addenda, as the approved baseline version .

• Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss these matters further.

Sincerely, VER:MONt YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION

. e,/ .

l..J.~.4~ri< I,, ;tflhk !.'7/f P ~ t and ChiefE.J.::e Officer cc: The Honorable Nils J. Diaz, Commissioner, NRC The Honorable Greta J. Dicus, Commissioner, NRC The Honorable Edward M. McGaffigan, Commissioner, NRC The Honorable Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Commissioner, NRC Dr. William D. Travers, Executive Director for Operations, NRC

U.S. NUCLEAR REGUlATORY COMMlb.,:,1 RUI.BtAICINGS &AOJUOICATIONS STA F OFFICE 0FlltEIECRETARY OFTHECOMMJSSION OocumentSlaUstlcs POIMlaltDale  !~p.c;(qt:; F Y~ C<<-f(

=-:~ __ _, , q-s~ ;

.. .._,  !:':)

l":l

(")

' Charles H. Cruse Vice President Nuclear Energy

§ CD 0

to en PJ n

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, Maryland 20657 410 495-4455 b-,

0.,

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR 0 A Member of the (p'ffR~~Sfo Constellation Energy Group October 28, 1999

-J 0

The Honorable Greta J. Dicus Chairman N U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos. 1 & 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 & 50-318 10 CFR 50.55a Supplemental Proposed Rule (64FR22580)

Dear Chairman Dicus:

The NRC should be complimented for the proposed rulemaking to eliminate the requirement for licensees to revise their inservice inspection and testing programs beyond a baseline edition and addenda of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Reconsideration of this requirement is warranted because there is no substantial increase in safety commensurate with the cost of implementation.

We understand that ASME, individuals from the industry, and NRC staff involved in ASME activities have communicated views opposing the proposed rule. Nevertheless, rulemaking consistent with the provisions of the backfitting rule and a demonstrated threshold of safety improvement represents sound regulatory policy.

• In conclusion, we support the proposed rule to eliminate the 120-month update requirement m 10 CFR 50.55a, Codes and Standards.

Should you have questions regarding this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.

Very truly yours, CHC/JKK/dlm cc: Document Control Desk, NRC S. S. Bajwa, NRC N. J. Diaz, NRC A. W. Dromerick, NRC E. McGaffigan, Jr., NRC H. J. Miller, NRC J. S. Merrifield, NRC Resident Inspector, NRC W. D. Travers, NRC R. I. McLean, DNR R. S. Fleishman, Esquire J. H. Walter, PSC J.E. Silberg, Esquire NOY 22 1991 Acknowledged by card

t U.S. NlJQ.EAR REGULATOR l:>bluN AUi BMQ!PS&ADJUl)ICATIONS STAFF a:fll:ECJ="HSECRETARV

<:ETHE COMMISSON Dolulllln ~

Postmelk Dale D 2. q &f'f Copa Raaalfad _ _ _ 1/,

Add'ICopaa~ ~

Spec! . _ _

J:0/ tt>S

EMERGY NORTHWEST

- - - -- ----------------- --------,,...._.-~~-s----'------

P.O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352-0968

• 99 N0 1' 17 A1G :11 October 25, 1999 002-99-185 The Honorable Greta J. Dicus Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOCKET NUMBER Mail Stop 0-16 Cl PROPOSED RULE P 5D Washington, DC 20555-0001 (to</ FR ;).).5<Bo )°

Subject:

10 CFR 50.55a SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED RULE (64 FED. REG. 22580)

Dear Chairman Dicus:

Energy Northwest has participated in, and endorses the Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEI) comments on the subject proposed rule to eliminate the 120-month update requirement in 10 CFR 50 .55a, Codes and Standards. We believe that this rulemaking is warranted and represents sound regulatory policy. Energy Northwest supports the proposed rule.

Respectfully, IRE- BYsf c~

17 NOV 99 9 =R~l . Wehring Vice President, Operations Support/PIO Mail Drop PE 08 cc: The Honorable Nils J. Diaz, Commissioner, NRC . ....

The Honorable Edward McGaffigan Jr., Commissioner, NRC The Honorable Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Commissioner, NRC Dr. William D . Travers, Executive Director for Operations, NRC Mr. Ralph E . Beedle, Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer, NEI Mr. Tom Poindexter, Winston & Strawn 0 22 l99S-...

~edcred by" eard ,-,HNenlllll 11 11 ** - -

.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY ~ V \

RUlBIAIONAS aADJU[)ICATl()NS STAFF

<RU~'RE~ARY a:nE~

De Im zrt ~ /

P1a&t111e11Dml 1!.j}.1{1c; "Su]/_ ~ e~~

~ , _ , _ _ -- 0~ :f.: !'.~ I - 1.G.l 65 I

DOC KETED North u. ~c North Atlantic Energy Se?vice eutysf;Ji0, -

P.O. Box 300 '

Atlantic *99 NO'*; 16 P4 :48 Seabrook, NH 03874 (603) 474-9521 ~s: EDO

-G , ./ , DEDMRS DEOR The Northeast Utilities System o,- September 21, 1999 DEOM AO

,,. l\bM f I

-::--:r NYN-99087 The Honorable Greta J. Dicus DOCKET NUMBER Chairman PROPOSED RULE ~ _,,_5 o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1,'lfR~~S8o Mail Stop 0-16 Cl Washington, DC 20555-0001 @

Seabrook Station 10 CFR 50.55a Supplemental Proposed Rule (64 Fed. Reg.22580)

North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (North Atlantic) endorses the proposed rulemaking to eliminate the requirement for licensees to revise their inservice inspection (ISI) and testing (IST) programs beyond a baseline edition and addenda of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Reconsideration of this requirement is warranted because there is not a substantial increase in safety commensurate with the cost of implementation.

We understand that ASME, individuals from the industry, and some NRC staff involved in ASME activities have communicated views opposing the proposed rule. Nevertheless, completion of the proposed rulemaking, consistent with the provisions of the backfitting rule and A demonstrated threshold of safety improvement, represents sound regulatory policy.

~ conclusion, North Atlantic supports the proposed rule to eliminate the 120-month update requirement in 10 CFR 50.55a, Codes and Standards.

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. James M. Peschel, Regulatory Compliance Manager, at (603) 773-7194.

Very truly yours, NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORP.

Ted C. Feigeum Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer 0 22 1999

~edped by card --11 I --:-.;;.

.., ~uvu:.J'\t\ rtE:uULATORY COMMISSION ULEMAKINGS & ADJUDICATIONS STAFF FACE FTHESECRETARY OF THE liONIIM~;tON ostmark ate -:------#

(;Opi .

_Iv_,_t;+-

/7,"J

/

t ......;~_ <J. ~ /f/tJ/l~ M~

\ dd'I oecia Ols *

., 10 CFR 50.55a DOCr:ET[O CP&L US, 'Pr Carolina Power & Light Company

• 99 OCT 14 Pl2 :01 C.S. Hinnant PO Box 1551 Senior Vice President and Raleigh NC 27602 Of* Chief Nuclear Officer F-1'! .j ADJU Serial: PE&RAS-99-081 September 30, 1999 The Honorable Greta J. Dicus DOCKET NUMBER Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULE PR so i/F~~~sg~

Mail Stop 0-16 Cl Washington, DC 20555-0001 10 CFR 50.55A SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED RULE (64 FED. REG. 22580)

Dear Chairman Dicus:

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) wishes to compliment the NRC for the proposed rulemaking to eliminate the requirement for licensees to revise their inservice inspection (ISi) and testing (1ST) programs beyond a baseline edition and addenda of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Reconsideration of this requirement is warranted because there is no substantial increase in safety commensurate with the cost of implementation.

CP&L understands that ASME, individuals from the industry, and NRC staff involved in ASME activities have communicated views opposing the proposed rule. Nevertheless, rulemaking consistent with the provisions of the backfitting rule and a demonstrated threshold of safety improvement represents sound regulatory policy and protects the health and safety of the public.

In conclusion, CP&L supports the proposed rule to eliminate the 120-month update requirement in 10 CFR 50.55a, Codes and Standards.

Please contact me at (919) 546-6901 if you need additional information.

Sincerely, cs~

RGH OCT 19 1999 4cknowledged by card .................. * ......J:

411 Fayetteville Street Mall Tel 919 546-4222 Fax 91 9 546-2405

U.S. NUCLEAR RE RULEMAKINGS&,_,Jt'l~~J!NtO 0FRCEOF 0FTHECUJIMISI~

DoclBn8r1t ~C!fiN Postmark D te Jo --.-..,-- - -

Copies Received _ _ _ _ _ __

Add'I C ,pies Reproduced ~ ~ =-- -

~ 1'75 ,----- -

.. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission PE&RAS-99-081 Page 2 c: The Honorable Nils J. Diaz, Commissioner, NRC The Honorable, Edward McGaffigan Jr., Commissioner, NRC The Honorable Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Commissioner NRC Dr. William D. Travers, Executive Director for Operations, NRC L. A. Reyes, Regional Administrator - Region II

U BE:R RU SO I ((!)'/FR ~~660)

Gregg R. Overbeck Mail Station 7602 Palo Verde Nuclear Senior Vice President TEL (623) 393-5148 P.O. Box 52034 Generating Station

• Nuclear FAX (623) 393-6077 Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 ID: 035-00884-GRO September 28, 1999

)> 0 0 , ,-;-1 r -

CJ c-:>

~

The Honorable Greta J. Dicus Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 0-16 Cl Washington, DC 20555-001

SUBJECT:

10 CFR 50.55a Supplemental Proposed Rule (64 Fed. Reg. 22580)

Dear Chairman Dicus:

The NRC should be complimented for the proposed rulemaking to eliminate the requirement for licensees to revise their inservice inspection (ISI) and testing {IST) programs beyond a baseline edition and addenda of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Reconsideration of this requirement is warranted because there is no substantial increase in safety commensurate with the cost of implementation.

I understand that ASME, individuals from the industry, and NRC staff involved in ASME activities have communicated views opposing the proposed rule. Nevertheless, rulemaking consistent with the provisions of the backfitting rule and a demonstrated threshold of safety improvement represents sound regulatory policy.

In conclusion, I support the proposed rule to eliminate the 120-month update requirement in 10 CFR 50.55a, Codes and Standards.

Sincerely, x:f-'o/1//~

Gregg R. Overbeck Sr. Vice President, Nuclear cc: The Honorable Nils J. Diaz, Commissioner, NRC The Honorable, Edward McGaffigan Jr., Commissioner, NRC The Honorable, Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Commissioner, NRC Dr. William D. Travers, Executive Director for Operations, NRC OCT 19 1999

~cknowfedged by card *oom I I II 11'4 _ ,

~..EAR REGULATO YC01WV1ti)Qt\.Wi 1

- AKINGS &ADJ AT OFFICE OF THE SECRETAR OF THE COMMISSI Document ~ ~ ir1l OS JOLs 99 Cop MM' ---~

~"****..

~ ~ Northeast Rope Ferry Rd. (Route 156), Waterford, CT 06385

~!f Nuclear E:nergy Millstone Nuclear Power Station Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P.O. Box 128 Waterford, CT 06385-0128 (860) 447-1791

• 99 OCT 12 p J :29 Fax (860) 444-4277 The Northeast Utilities System OCT - 6 1999 Docket Nos. 50-336 50-423 817891 50 Re: 10 CFR 50.55a

( t,,l( FR ololS8o)

Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Washington, D.C. 20555 Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Comments On Supplemental Proposed Rule Change To 10 CFR 50.55a Industry Codes and Standards On April 27, 1999, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a Federal Register Notice (Volume 64, Number 80, pages 22580-22588) requesting public comment on an amendment to a proposed rule change regarding the use of the requ irements cited in 10 CFR 50.55a concerning the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) references with respect to the Edition and Addenda of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV} Code and the currently required 120 month updates to the lnservice Inspection (ISi} and lnservice Test (1ST) Programs.

The proposal under consideration was put forth by the Nuclear Energy Institute on behalf of the industry. The proposal would modify the existing regulatory requirements under 10 CFR 50.55(a) to allow licensees the option of either adopting the referenced ASME B&PV Code editions or to continue to submit updates to their respective ISI/IST program descriptions in the future. The proposal does not restrict the NRC's mandate to safeguard the public health and safety in any way nor does it impose a requirement on licensees to implement the change. For these reasons, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) endorses the NEI proposal and commends the NRC for its support of this and similar regulatory burden reduction initiatives.

NNECO would like to suggest that additional significant burden reduction could be achieved under these regulations by rescinding the requirement that prevents a licensee's implementation, without prior staff review and approval, of those ASME Code Cases, Addendum, and Editions which have been issued in their final form. It is our 0 S3422-5 RE\ '. 12-95 l\ckn

_ ,__,___'BL9'1 Cop _ __,;_I _ __

dd' £

~ )

~£})~'-----=--=-

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 817891/Page 2 belief that this proposed change would have no significant result on overall plant safety and that reliance on existing requirements such as those embodied in 10 CFR 50.59 would provide an appropriate threshold for determining when prior NRC Staff review should be applied.

There are no regulatory commitments contained within this letter.

If the NRC Staff should have any questions or comments regarding this submittal, please contact Mr. David Smith at (860) 437-5840.

Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY Raymond P. Necci Vice President - Nuclear Oversight and Regulatory Affairs cc:

The Honorable Nils J. Diaz, Commissioner, NRC The Honorable Edward M£Gaffingan Jr., Commissioner, NRC The Honorable Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Commissioner, NRC Dr. William D. Travers, Executive Director for Operations, NRC H.J. Miller, Region I Administrator R. B. Eaton, NRC Senior Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 2 D. P. Beaulieu, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit No. 2 J. A Nakoski, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 3 A C. Cerne, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit No. 3

11111111 Omaha Public Power District DOCKETE D iL:IS~'P('

..... ' /t \ ~

444 South 16th Street Mall Omaha, Nebraska 68102-2247 *99 OCT - 8 p 3 :J2 Or ....I I I Rl ADJ1 October 1, 1999 LIC-99-0094 DOCKET NUMBER The Honorable Greta J. Dicus PROPOSED RULE So Chairman

{ "t./ FR atl 58'0)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 0-16 Cl Washington, DC 20555-0001

Reference:

Docket No. 50-285

SUBJECT:

10 CFR 50.55a Supplemental Proposed Rule (64 Fed. Reg. 22580)

Dear Chairman Dicus:

The NRC should be complimented for the proposed rulemaking to eliminate the requirement for licensees to revise their inservice inspection (ISi) and testing (1ST) programs beyond a baseline edition and addenda of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Reconsideration of this

• requirement is warranted because there is no substantial increase in safety commensurate with the cost of implementation.

I understand that ASME, individuals from the industry, and NRC staff involved in ASME activities have communicated views opposing the proposed rule. Nevertheless, rulemaking consistent with the provisions of the backfitting rule and a demonstrated threshold of safety improvement represents sound regulatory policy.

OCT 14 1999 Acknowledged by card *----..u:

4171 Employment with Equal Opportunity

U.S. NUCLEAR REGUW ss, J RUlEMAKINGS --.......-.. ~FF 0

OF

(!µtj fu,w, (! ~~

duce"

. ,- Rt (S' I

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission LIC-99-0094 Page2 In conclusion, I support the proposed rule to eliminate the 120-month update requirement in 10 CFR 50.55a, Codes and Standards.

Sincerely, W. G. Gates Vice President c: The Honorable Nils J. Diaz, Commissioner, NRC The Honorable, Edward McGaffigan Jr., Commissioner, NRC The Honorable Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Commissioner NRC Dr. William D. Travers, Executive Director for Operations, NRC E.W. Merschoff, NRC Regional Administrator, Region IV L. R. Wharton, NRC Project Manager W. C. Walker, NRC Senior Resident Inspector Document Control Desk Winston & Strawn

f=l L--:,

(._)

LL: 0 )

c.::

c-

• -'f' c_,

... ..._~

u

!1111slm" ,f-, /i-d,111,*11/ I ,*,,11/<'r

'olH !/! !)"111/11/"11 !iu11/c'1*11nl I ,kn. II/en. I 'i1:[;i11fr1 ...'_ ;ur,I!

DOCKET .

I IS Hf

• 99 oc~-B PJ :17 VIRGINIA POWER October 5, 1999 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR 5o l 1P'IF~~~5Bo)

The Honorable Greta J. Dicus99-440 Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 0-16 C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

10 CFR 50.55a Supplemental Proposed Rule (64 Fed. Reg. 22580)

Dear Chairman Dicus:

The NRC should be complimented for the proposed rulemaking to eliminate the requirement for licensees to revise their inservice inspection (ISi) and testing (1ST) programs beyond a baseline edition and addenda of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.

Reconsideration of this requirement is warranted because there is no substantial increase in safety commensurate with the cost of implementation.

I understand that ASME, individuals from the industry, and NRC staff involved in ASME activities have communicated views opposing the proposed rule.

Nevertheless, rulemaking consistent with the provisions of the backfitting rule and a demonstrated threshold of safety improvement represents sound regulatory policy.

Recently other rulemaking involving 10 CFR 50.55a has approved the 1995 Edition of the ASME code for inservice inspection with addenda through 1996.

Virginia Power requests that unless there is a safety significant improvement justifying the continued updating to the 1995 Edition with 1996 Addenda, any rulemaking approving the elimination of the 120-month update also not require update beyond the 1989 Edition of the code.

OCT 14 1999

~cknowtedged by card ..._ __,.,;,,,

Pos Co Add Sp

In conclusion, I support the proposed rule to eliminate the 120-month update requirement in 10 CFR 50.55a, Codes and Standards.

Sincerely, Dl~Yv~~

Leslie N. Hartz c: The Honorable Nils J. Diaz, Commissioner, NRC The Honorable, Edward McGaffigan Jr., Commissioner, NRC The Honorable Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Commissioner NRC Dr. William D. Travers, Executive Director for Operations, NRC

1. PT. .

Nuclear Operating Company South Texas Project Electric Generating Station P.O. Box 289 Wadsworth, Texas 77483 -----------~I\/VV\,---

• 99 OCT -8 P3 :15 September 29, 1999 0 1**

f-ki [

ADv._lr), r~F The Honorable Greta J. Discus Chairman DOCKET NUMBER U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 0-16 Cl PROPOSED AUL so Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

10 CFR 50.55a Supplemental Proposed Rule (64 Fed Reg. 22580)

Dear Chairman Dicus:

The NRC should be complimented for the proposed rulemaking to eliminate the requirement for licensees to revise their inservice inspection (ISI) and testing (1ST) programs beyond a baseline edition and addenda of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Reconsideration of this requirement is warranted because there is no substantial increase in safety commensurate with the cost of implementation.

I understand that ASME, individuals from the industry, and NRC staff involved in ASME activities have communicated views opposing the proposed rule. Nevertheless, rulemaking consistent with the provisions of the backfitting rule and a demonstrated threshold of safety improvement represents sound regulatory policy.

In conclusion, I support the proposed rule to eliminate the 120-month update requirement in 10 CFR 50.55a, Codes and Standards.

Sincerely, 11~/-w-r~

W. T. Cottle President &

Chief Executive Officer c: The Honorable Nils J. Diaz, Commissioner, NRC The Honorable, Edward McGaffigan Jr., Commissioner, NRC The Honorable Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Commissioner NRC Dr. William D. Travers, Executive Director for Operations, NRC 9 OCT 99 OCT 14 199

~cknowfedged by card .._......."................=

lJ S. U"LEAR RULEM Kl OF

_. r DOCKET NUMBER op POSED RULF= PR 50 17:¥FR-~:l-:58-o)

• 99 OCT -4 P12 :QQ Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 John A. Scalice Chief Nuclear Officer and Executive Vice President, TVA Nuclear September 21, 1999 The Honorable Greta J. Dicus U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One 1/Jhi te Flint, North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-2732

Dear Chairman Dicus:

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA) - ENDORSEMENT OF 10 CFR 50.55A SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED RULE (64 FED. REG. 22580)

I really appreciate the time we were able to spend together on August 20, 1999. While we discussed a number of important topics, we did not discuss the proposed rulemaking to eliminate the requirement for licensees to revise their inservice inspection and testing programs beyond a baseline edition and addenda of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. The NRC should be complimented for the proposed rulemaking in this area. Reconsideration of this requirement is warranted because there is no substantial increase in safety commensurate with the cost of implementation.

Since we have talked, I have learned that ASME, individuals from the industry, and the NRC staff involved in ASME activities h a ve communicated views opposing the proposed rule. Nevertheless, rulemaking consistent with the provisions of the backfitting rule and a demonstrated threshold of safety improvement represents sound regulatory policy.

Cl

• 7 189

~clmowtedged by card ,.................- - -

REGULATORY COMMISSIO,~

ILEM1AKINGS & AFF OFFICE OFlHE FTHE UUIIIIYJIQ\J p

Co Ad Sp

The Honorable Greta J. Dicus Page 2 September 21, 1999 I want to let you know personally that I support the proposed rule to eliminate the 120-month update requirement in 10 CFR 50.55a, Codes and Standards.

I Commissioner Nils J. Diaz U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint, North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-2732 Commissioner Edward McGaffigan, Jr.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint, North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-2732 Commissioner Jeffrey S. Merrifield U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint, North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-2732 Dr. William D. Travers, Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint, North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-2732

Wednesday DOCKETED September 22, 1999 USNRC "01 MAR 26 P5 :08 OFF1CF er-: SECRETARY RUL.EMA,<INGS AND ADJUC'CATIOt S STAFF Part II

(

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 CFR Part 50 Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements; Final Rule

51370 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations NUCLEAR REGULATORY 2.3.2.3 Clarification of Scope of Safety- and 1996 Addenda of Section XI, COMMISSION Related Valves Subject to IST Division I, of the ASME BPV Code with 2.3.2.4 Limitation: three limitations; and the 1995 Edition 2.3.2.4.1 Quality Assurance 10 CFR Part 50 2.3.2.5 Modification:

and 1996 Addenda of the ASME Code 2.3.2.5.1 Motor-Operated Valve Stroke- for Operation and Maintenance of RIN 3150-AE26 Time Testing Nuclear Power Plants (OM Code) with Industry Codes and Standards; 2.4 Expedited Implementation one limitation and one modification.

Amended Requirements 2.4.1 Appendix VIII The final rule imposes an expedited 2.4.1.1 Modifications: implementation of performance AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 2.4.1.1.1 Appendix VIII Personnel demonstration methods for ultrasonic Commission. Qualification examination systems. The final rule 2.4.1.1.2 Appendix VIII Specimen Set and permits the optional implementation of ACTION: Final rule.

Qualification Requirements 2.4.1.1.3 Appendix VIII Single Side Ferri tic the ASME Code,Section XI, provisions

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory for surface examinations of High Commission is amending its regulations Vessel and Piping and Stainless Steel Piping Examination Pressure Safety Injection Class I piping to incorporate by reference more recent 2.4.2 Generic Letter on Appendix VIII welds. The final rule also permits the editions and addenda of the ASME 2.4.3 Class 1 Piping Volumetric use of evaluation criteria for temporary Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and the Examination (Deferred) acceptance of flaws in ASME Code Class ASME Code for Operation and 2.5 Voluntary Implementation 3 piping (Code Case N-523-1);

Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants 2. 5.1 Section III mechanical clamping devices for ASME for construction, inservice inspection, 2.5.1.1 Limitations: Code Class 2 and 3 piping (Code Case and inservice testing. These provisions 2.5.1.1.1 Engineering Judgement (Deleted) 2.5.1.1.2 Section III Materials N-513); the 1992 Edition including the provide updated rules for the 2.5.1.1.3 Weld Leg Dimensions 1992 Addenda of Subsections IWE and construction of components of light- 2.5.1.1.4 Seismic Design IWL in lieu of updating to the 1995 water-cooled nuclear power plants, and 2.5.1.1.5 Quality Assurance Edition and 1996 Addenda; alternative for the inservice inspection and 2.5.1.1.6 Independence of Inspection rules for preservice and inservice testing inservice testing of those components. 2.5.1.2 Modification: of certain motor-operated valve This final rule permits the use of 2.5.1.2.1 Applicable Code Version for New assemblies (OMN-1) in lieu of stroke-improved methods for construction, Construction time testing; a check valve monitoring inservice inspection, and inservice 2.5.2 Section XI (Voluntary Implementation) program in lieu of certain requirements testing of nuclear power plant 2.5.2.1 Subsection IWE and Subsection IWL in Subsection ISTC of the ASME OM components. 2.5.2.2 Flaws in Class 3 Piping: Mechanical Code (Appendix II to the OM Code); and DATES: Effective November 22, 1999. Clamping Devices guidance in Subsection ISTD of the OM The incorporation by reference of 2.5.2.3 Application of Subparagraph IWB- Code as part of meeting the ISi certain publications listed in the 37 40, Appendix L requirements of Section XI for snubbers.

regulations is approved by the Director 2.5.3 OM Code (Voluntary Implementation) This final rule deletes a previous 2.5.3.1 Code Case OMN-1 modification for inservice testing of of the Federal Register as of November 2.5.3.2 Appendix II 22, 1999. containment isolation valves.

2.5.3.3 Subsection ISTD FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 2.5.3.4 Containment Isolation Valves On December 3, 1997 (62 FR 63892),

Thomas G. Scarbrough, Division of 2.6 ASME Code Interpretations the NRC published a proposed rule in Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor 2. 7 Direction Setting Issue 13 the Federal Register that presented an Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 2.8 Steam Generators amendment to 10 CFR part 50, Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 2.9 Future Revisions of Regulatory Guides "Domestic Licensing of Production and Endorsing Code Cases Utilization Facilities," that would revise 0001, Telephone: 301-415-2794, or 3. Voluntary Consensus Standards Robert A. Hermann, Division of the requirements for construction,

4. Finding of No Significant Environmental inservice inspection (ISi), and inservice Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Impact Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory testing (1ST) of nuclear power plant

5. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 6. Regulatory Analysis components. For construction, the 0001, Telephone: 301-415-2768. 7. Regulatory Flexibility Certification proposed amendment would have

8. Backfit Analysis permitted the use of Section III, Division SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I, of the ASME BPV Code, 1989

9. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement I. Background Fairness Act Addenda through the 1996 Addenda, for

2. Summary of Comments Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 components 2.1 List of Each Revision, Implementation 1. Background Schedule, and Backfit Status with six proposed limitations and a The Nuclear Regulatory Commission modification.

2.2 Discussion 2.3 120-Month Update (NRC) is amending its regulations to For ISi, the proposed amendment 2.3.1 Section XI incorporate by reference the 1989 would have required licensees to 2.3.1.1 Class 1, 2, and 3 Components, Addenda, 1990 Addenda, 1991 implement Section XI, Division I, of the Including Supports Addenda, 1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda, ASME BPV Code, 1995 Edition up to 2.3.1.2 Limitations: 1993 Addenda, 1994 Addenda, 1995 and including the 1996 Addenda for 2.3.1.2.1 Engineering Judgment (Deleted) Edition, 1995 Addenda, and 1996 Class I, Class 2, and Class 3 components 2.3.1.2.2 Quality Assurance Addenda of Section III, Division I, of with five proposed limitations. The 2.3.1.2.3 Class 1 Piping the American Society of Mechanical proposed amendment included 2.3.1.2.4 Class 2 Piping (Deleted) Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure permission for licensees to implement 2.3.1.2.5 Reconciliation of Quality Requirements Vessel Code (BPV Code) with five Code Cases N-513, "Evaluation Criteria 2.3.2 OM Code (120-Month Update) limitations; the 1989 Addenda, 1990 for Temporary Acceptance of Flaws in 2.3.2.1 Class 1, 2, and 3 Pumps and Valves Addenda, 1991 Addenda, 1992 Edition, Class 3 Piping," and N-523, 2.3.2.2 Background-OM Code 1992 Addenda, 1993 Addenda, 1994 "Mechanical Clamping Devices for Class 2.3.2.2.1 Comments on the OM Code Addenda, 1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda, 2 and 3 Piping." The proposed

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations 51371 amendment also would allow licensees a separate rulemaking effort. Following 2.1 List of Each Revision, to use the 1992 Edition including the consideration of the public comments Implementation Schedule, and Backfit 1992 Addenda of Subsections !WE and on the April 27, 1999, proposed rule, Status.

IWL in lieu of updating to the 1995 the NRC may prepare a final rule

• 120-Month Update [in accordance Edition and the 1996 Addenda. The addressing the continued need for the with§§ 50.55a(f) (4)(i) and proposed rule included expedited requirement to update periodically ISi 50.55a(g) (4)(1)]

implementation of Appendix VIII, and 1ST programs and, if necessary,

• Section XI (Not A Backfit)

"Performance Demonstration for establishing an appropriate baseline 2.3.1.1 Class 1, 2, and 3 Components, Ultrasonic Examination Systems," to edition of the ASME Code. Including SupportsSection XI, Division 1, with three 2.3 . 1.2.1 Engineering Judgement proposed modifications. An expedited 2. Summary of Comments (Deleted) examination schedule would also have 2.3.1.2.2 Quality Assurance Interested parties were invited to been required for a proposed 2.3.1 .2.3 Class 1 Piping modification to Section XI which submit written comments for consideration on the proposed rule 2.3.1 .2.4 Class 2 Piping (Deleted) addresses volumetric examination of 2.3.1.2 .5 Reconciliation of Quality Class 1 high pressure safety injection published on December 3, 1997.

Comments were received from 65 Requirements (HPSI) piping systems in pressurized

• OM Code (Not A Backfit) water reactors (PWRs). separate sources on the proposed rule.

2.3.2.1 Class 1, 2, and 3 Pumps and For 1ST, the proposed amendment These sources consisted of 27 utilities and service organizations, the Nuclear Valves would have required licensees to 2.3.2.3 Clarification of Scope of Safety-implement the 1995 Edition up to and Energy Institute (NEI), the Nuclear Related Valves Subject to IST including the 1996 Addenda of the Utility Backfitting and Reform Group 2.3.2.4.2 Quality Assurance ASME OM Code for Class 1, Class 2, and (NUBARG) represented by the firm of 2.3.2 .5.1 Motor-Operated Valve Stroke-Class 3 pumps and valves with one Winston & Strawn, the ASME Board on Time Testing limitation and one modification. The Nuclear Codes and Standards, the

• Expedited Implementation !after 6 proposed amendment included Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), months from the date of the final p*e rmission for licensees to implement the Performance Demonstration rule-Backfit]

Code Case OMN-1 in lieu of stroke-time Initiative (PD!), the Nuclear Industry 2.4.1 Appendix VIII testing for motor-operated valves; Check Valve Group, the State of Illinois 2.4.1.1.1 Appendix VIII Personnel Appendix II which provides a check Department of Nuclear Safety, Oak Qualification valve condition monitoring program as Ridge National Laboratory, the 2.4.1.1.2 Appendix VIII Specimen Set an alternative to certain check valve Southwest Research Institute, three and Qualification Requirements testing requirements in Subsection ISTC consulting firms (one firm submitted 2.4.1.1.3 Appendix VIII Single Side of the OM Code; and Subsection !STD three separate letters), and 24 Ferritic Vessel and Piping and of the OM Code as part of meeting the individuals. The commenters' concerns Stainless Steel Piping Examination ISi requirements in Section XI for related principally to one or more of the 2.4.3 Class 1 Piping Volumetric snubbers. Finally, the proposed rule proposed limitations and modifications Examination (Deferred) would delete the modification presently included in the proposed rule. Many of

• Voluntary Implementation !may be in § 50.55a(b) for !ST of containment these limitations and modifications used when final rule published-isolation valves. have been renumbered in the final rule Not A Backfit]

The NRC regulations currently require because some limitations and

• Section III licensees to update their ISi and !ST modifications that were contained in the 2.5.1.1.1 Engineering Judgement programs every 120 months to meet the proposed rule were deleted. (Deleted) version of Section XI incorporated by 2.5.1.1.2 Section III Materials reference into 10 CFR 50.55a and in The proposed rule divided the 2.5.1.1.3 Weld Leg Dimensions effect 12 months prior to the start of a proposed revisions to 10 CFR 50.55a 2.5.1.1.4 Seismic Design new 120-month interval. The NRC into three groups based on the . 2.5.1.1.5 Quality Assurance published a supplement to the proposed implementation schedule (i.e., 120- 2.5.1.1.6 Independence of Inspection rule on April 27, 1999 (64 FR 22580), month update, expedited, and 2.5.1 .2. 1 Applicable Code Version for that would eliminate the requirement voluntary) . These groupings have been New Construction for licensees to update their ISi and !ST retained in the discussion of the final

• Section XI programs beyond a baseline edition and rule. For each of these groups, it is 2.5.2. 1 Subsection !WE and Subsection addenda of the ASME BPV Code. Under indicated below in parentheses whether lWL that proposed rule, licensees would or not particular items are considered a 2.5.2.2 Flaws in Class 3 Piping; continue to be allowed to update their backfit under 10 CFR 50.109 as Mechanical Clamping Devices

!SI and !ST programs on a voluntary discussed in Section 8, Backfit Analysis. 2.5.2.3 Application of Subparagraph basis to more recent editions and This section provides a list of each IWB-37 40, Appendix L addenda of the ASME Code revision and its implementation

• OM Code incorporated by reference in the schedule, followed by a brief summary 2.5.3.1 Code Case OMN-1 regulations. Upon further review, the of the comments and their resolution. 2.5.3.2 Appendix II Commission decided to issue this final The summary and resolution of public 2.5.3.3 Subsection ISTD rule to incorporate by reference the 1995 comments and all of the verbatim 2.5.3 .4 Containment Isolation Valves Edition with the 1996 Addenda of the comments which were received 2.2 Discussion ASME BPV Code and the ASME OM (grouped by subject area) are contained 2.3 120-Month Update Code with appropriate limitations and in Resolution of Public Comments. This 2.3.1 Section XI modifications. The Commission also document is available for inspection 2.3.1.1 Class 1, 2, and 3 Components, decided to consider the proposal to and copying for a fee in the NRC Public Including Supports eliminate the requirement to update IS! Document Room, 2120 L Street NW Section 50.55a(b)(2) endorses the and 1ST programs every 120 months as (Lower Level), Washington, DC. 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda of

51372 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and RegulationsSection XI, Division 1, for Class I, Class The NRC acknowledges that the use of Code, if the ASME interprets the Code 2, and Class 3 components and their engineering judgment is a valid and in a manner which the NRC finds supports. The proposed rule contained necessary part of engineering activities. unacceptable (e.g., results in non-five limitations to address NRC However, in applying such judgment, compliance with NRC regulatory positions on the use of Section XI: licensees must remain cognizant of the requirements, a license condition, or engineeringjudgment, quality need to assure continued compliance technical specifications), the NRC can assurance, Class I piping, Class 2 with regulatory requirements. Specific take exception to the Interpretation and piping, and reconciliation of quality examples of cases where application of is not bound by the ASME requirements. As a result of public engineering judgment resulted in failure Interpretation. To put it another way, comment, the NRC has reconsidered its to satisfy regulatory requirements are only the ASME can provide an positions on the use of engineering discussed in detail in the Response to Interpretation of the Code, but the NRC judgment and Class 2 piping. These two Public Comments, Section 2.3.1.2.1, may make the determination whether limitations have been eliminated from Engineering Judgment, and Section 2.6, that Interpretation constitutes the final rule. In addition, the NRC has ASME Code Interpretations. Questions compliance with NRC regulations.

modified the scope of the limitation were raised by the industry regarding Hence, licensees need to consider the related to reconciliation of quality Interpretations, the use of engineering guidance on the use of Interpretations requirements. A discussion of each of judgment, and related enforcement contained in the NRC Inspection the five proposed limitations and their actions. At NEI's request, the NRC staff Manual Part 9900, "Technical comment resolution follows. met with NEI on January 11, 1995, to Guidance."

2.3.1. Limitations. discuss the use of engineering judgment 2.3.1.2.2 Quality Assurance.

and Code interpretations. On November 2.3 .1.2.1 Engineering Judgement. 12, 1996, a meeting was held between The second proposed limitation to the The first proposed limitation to the representatives from the NRC and the implementation of Section XI implementation of Section XI ASME to discuss the same issues as well [§ 50.55a(b) (2) (xii) in the proposed rule]

(§ 50.55a(b) (2) (xi) in the proposed rule) as the related enforcement actions. NRC pertained to the use of ASME Standard addressed an NRC position with regard Inspection Manual Part 9900, NQA-1, "Quality Assurance to the Foreword in the 1992 Addenda "Technical Guidance," which had been Requirements for Nuclear Facilities,"

through the 1996 Addenda of the BPV developed in response to industry with Section XI. Six comments were Code. That Foreword addresses the use questions was also discussed. The received and all were considered in of "engineering judgement" for ISi ASME representatives agreed that the arriving at the NRC's decision to retain activities not specifically considered by NRC guidance with respect to the limitation as contained in the the Code. The December 3, I 997, engineering judgment was consistent proposed rule. This limitation has been proposed rule contained a limitation with their understanding of the renumbered as § 50.55a(b) (2) (x) in the which would have specified that relationship between the ASME Code final rule.

licensees receive NRC approval for and federal regulations. The ASME As part of the licensing basis for those activities prior to implementation. stated that the NRC should not establish nuclear power plants, NRC licensees Twenty-three commenters provided a formal method for reviewing ASME have committed to certain quality 30 separate comments on the proposed Code interpretations. This position was assurance program provisions that are limitation to the use of engineering based primarily on the understanding identified in both their Technical judgment with regard to Section XI that it would be tantamount to NRC Specifications and Quality Assurance activities. After reviewing the becoming the interpreter of the Code. Programs. These provisions, as comments, it is apparent that the It is apparent from the comments explained below, are taken from several proposed rule did not accurately received on the proposed limitation that sources (e.g., ASME, ANSI) and communicate the NRC's concerns with there is continuing confusion regarding together, they constitute an acceptable regard to the use of engineering the relationship between ASME Code Quality Assurance Program. The judgment for Section XI activities. All of requirements and NRC regulations. The licensee quality assurance program the commenters construed the NRC incorporates the ASME Code by commitments describe how the limitation to prohibit the use of reference into 10 CFR 50.55a. Upon requirements of Appendix B, "Quality engineeringjudgment for all activities. adoption, the Code provisions become a Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power The NRC understands that the use of part of NRC regulations as modified by Plants and Fuel Processing Plants," to engineeringjudgement is routinely other provisions in the regulations. IO CFR part 50 will be satisfied by exercised on a daily basis at each plant. Several commenters argued that a referencing applicable industry It was not the NRC's intent to interject modification or limitation in the standards and the NRC Regulatory itself in this process by requiring prior regulations cannot replace or overrule a Guides (RGs) that endorsed the industry approval as suggested by most Code provision or Interpretation. They standards (e.g., the ANSI N45 series commenters. The limitation was added also argued that, because the NRC did standards and applicable regulatory to the proposed rule to address specific not accept all ASME Interpretations, the guides or NQA-1-1983 as endorsed by situations where engineering judgment NRC was reinterpreting the Code. The RC 1.28 (Revision 3), "Quality was used and a regulatory requirement NRC recognizes that the ASME is the Assurance Program Requirements was not observed. Upon reconsideration official interpreter of the Code. (Design and Construction)," and by of this issue and after reviewing all of However, only the NRC can determine prescriptive text contained in the the comments, the NRC has deleted this whether the ASME Interpretation is program. Further, owners of operating limitation from the final rule. The acceptable such that it constitutes nuclear power plants have committed to summary and the detailed discussions compliance with the NRC's regulations the additional operational phase quality provided in the responses to the public and does not adversely affect safety. The assurance and administrative provisions

• comments should adequately address NRC cannot a priori approve Code contained in ANSI N 18. 7 as endorsed by NRC concerns with regard to past Interpretations. While it is true that the RC 1.33, "Quality Assurance Program applications of engineering judgment. ASME is the official interpreter of the Requirements (Operations)."

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations 51373 Section XI references the use of either 50.55a, licensees must meet the Twenty-one comments were received NQA-1 or the owner's Appendix B additional quality assurance provisions on this limitation. Some commenters Quality Assurance Program (IO CFR part of their NRC approved quality assurance understood the bases for the limitation 50, Appendix B) as part of its individual program description and other and did not believe that significant provisions for a QA program. However, administrative controls governing hardship would result. Many of the NQA-1 (any version) does not contain operational phase activities. commenters argued that the Code cases some of the quality assurance provisions were developed because these and administrative controls governing 2.3.1.2.3 Class 1 Piping. configurations are generally inaccessible operational phase activities that are The third proposed limitation to the and cannot be examined. Some argued contained in the ANSI standards as well implementation of Section XI that the piping in question is not safety as other documents which, as a group, [§ 50.SSa(b) (2) (xiii) in the proposed rule] significant and, thus, the examinations constitute an acceptable program. When pertained to the use of Section XI, IWB- are unwarranted and the repairs which the NRC originally endorsed NQA-1. it 1220, "Components Exempt from will be required are unnecessary.

did so with the knowledge that NQA- Examination," that are contained in the The NRC disagrees with these 1 was not entirely adequate and must be 1989 Edition in lieu of the rules in the comments. The provisions of supplemented by other commitments 1989 Addenda through the 1996 § 50.55a(g)(2) require that facilities who such as the ANSI standards. The later Addenda. Subparagraph IWB-1220 in received their construction permit on or versions of NQA-1 also, by themselves, these later Code addenda contain after January I, 1971, for Class I and 2 would not constitute an acceptable provisions from three Codes Cases: N- systems be designed with provisions for Quality Assurance Program. Hence, 198-1, "Exemption from Examination access for preservice inspections and NQA-1 is not acceptable for use without for ASME Class I and Class 2 Piping inservice inspections. Several early the other quality assurance program plants with limited access have been Located at Containment Penetrations;"

provisions identified in Technical granted plant specific relief for certain N-322, "Examination Requirements for Specifications and licensee Quality configurations. These exemptions were Integrally Welded or Forged Assurance Programs. The NRC staff has granted on the basis that the Attachments to Class I Piping at received questions regarding the examinations were impractical because Containment Penetrations;" and N-334, relationship between commitments these plants were not designed with "Examination Requirements for made relative to the Appendix B QA access to these areas. Modifications to Integrally Welded or Forged Program and Section XI as endorsed by the plant would have been required at Attachments to Class 2 Piping at 10 CFR 50.55a. It is apparent from great expense to permit examination.

Containment Penetrations," which the Therefore, narrow exceptions were public comments that there is confusion NRC found to be unacceptable. The with regard to Section XI permitting the granted to these early plants. For later provisions of Code Case N-198-1 were plants, however, § 50.SSa(g) (2) required use of either NQA-1 or the owner's QA determined by the NRC to be Program. The proposed limitation that plants be constructed to provide unacceptable because industry access. The rationale for granting clarified that, when performing Section experience has shown that welds in XI activities, licensees must meet other exemptions to early plants is not service-sensitive boiling water reactor applicable to these later plants. In applicable NRC regulations. The (BWR) stainless steel piping, many of limitation has been retained in the final addition, there have been improvements which are located in containment in technology for the performance of rule to provide emphasis that licensees penetrations, are subjected to an must comply with other applicable NRC examination using remote automated aggressive environment (BWR water at equipment. In designs where these regulations in addition to the quality reactor operating temperatures) and will welds are truly inaccessible, relief will assurance provisions contained in experience Intergranular Stress continue to be granted when Section XI. As further clarification, the Corrosion Cracking. Exempting these following discussion is provided. appropriate bases are provided by the welds from examination could result in licensee per§ 50.SSa(g)(S). With regard Although not discussed in the conditions which reduce the required to the safety significance of this piping, proposed amendment to 10 CFR 50.55a, margins to failure to unacceptable failure of Class I piping within a the requirements of§§ 50.34(b)(6)(ii) levels. The provisions of Code Cases N- containment penetration may lead to and 50.54(a) for establishing and 322 and N-334 were determined to be loss of containment integrity and an revising QA Program descriptions unacceptable because some important unisolable pipe break. These areas were during the operational phase are piping in PWRs and BWRs was considered break exclusion zones as required to be followed and are not exempted from inspection. Access part of their initial design, in part, due superseded or usurped by any of the difficulty was the basis in the Code to the augmented examinations requirements presently contained in 10 cases for exempting these areas from performed on this portion of the piping CFR 50.55a. Therefore, even though the examination. However, the NRC system. Further, this issue could affect present text of 10 CFR 50.55a does not developed the break exclusion zone the large early release frequency (LERF).

take exception to applying the quality design and examination criteria utilized For these reasons, the limitation has assurance provisions of NQA-1-1979 to for most containment penetration piping been retained in the final rule ASME Section XI work activities, expecting not only that Section XI (§ 50.SSa(b) (2) (xi)) to require licensees licensees of commercial nuclear power inspections would be performed but to use the rules for IWB-1220 that are plants are required to comply not only that augmented inspections would be contained in the 1989 Edition in lieu of with the QA provisions included in the performed. These design and the rules in the 1989 Addenda through Codes referenced in 10 CFR 50.55a, but examination criteria are contained in the 1996 Addenda.

also the quality assurance program Branch Technical Position MEB 3-1, an developed to satisfy the requirements attachment of NRC Standard Review 2.3.1.2.4 Class 2 Piping.

contained in § 50.34(b) (6) (ii). This Plan 3.6.2, "Determination of Rupture The fourth proposed limitation to the means that, regardless of the specific Locations and Dynamic Effects implementation of Section XI quality assurance controls delineated in Associated with the Postulated Rupture (§ 50.SSa(b) (2) (xiv) in the proposed rule)

Section XI as referenced in 10 CFR of Piping." would have confined implementation of

51374 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and RegulationsSection XI, IWC-1220, "Components address the concern that, due to changes 4200, that the replacement items be Exempt from Examination;" lWC-1221, made to IWA-4200, "Items for Repair/ purchased to the extent necessary to "Components Within RHR (Residual Replacement Activities," in the 1995 comply with the owner's quality Heat Removal), ECC (Emergency Cool Addenda, and lWA-9000, "Glossary," assurance program description required Cooling), and CHR (Containment Heat definition of Construction Code in the by 10 CFR 50.34(b)(6)(ii). The rewording Removal) Systems or Portions of 1993 Addenda, a Section Ill component of the limitation addresses the NRC's Systems;" and IWC-1222, "Components could be replaced with a non-Section Ill concerns with regard to definitions.

Within Systems or Portions of Systems component, or that Construction Codes That portion of the proposed limitation Other Than RHR, ECC, and CHR ear lier than the Code of record might be has been eliminated from the final rule.

Systems," to the 1989 Edition (i.e., it used to procure components.

was determined that the 1989 Addenda Twelve comments were received on 2.3.2 OM Code (120-Month Update).

through the 1996 Addenda were the limitation. Most of the commenters 2.3.2. l Class 1, 2, and 3 Pumps and unacceptable). The provisions of Code stated that the limitation was too Valves.

Case N-408-3, "Alternative Rules for extensive; i.e., rather than taking This rule incorporates by reference for Examination of Class 2 Piping," were exception to Subparagraph lWA-4200, the first time into 10 CFR 50.55a the incorporated into Subsection lWC in the the limitation should specifically address Subparagraph IWA-4222, ASME Code for Operation and 1989 Addenda. These provisions Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants contain rules for determining which "Reconciliation of Code and Owner's (OM Code).

Class 2 components are subject to Requirements." Several comments volumetric and surface examination. suggested that the limitation be 2.3.2.2 Background-OM Code.

The NRC limitation on the use of the simplified to require only that "Code Until 1990, the ASME Code Code case and its revisions has items shall be procured with Appendix requirements addressing 1ST of pumps consistently been that an "applicant for B requirements." Additional comments and valves were contained in Section an operating license should define the were provided relating to the need to XI, Subsections IWP (pumps) and lWV Class 2 piping subject to volumetric and remove the limitation on the definition (valves). The provisions of Subsections surface examination in the Preservice of Construction Code, the use of the

!WP and IWV were last incorporated by Inspection for determination of quality provisions contained in the reference into 10 CFR 50.55a in a final acceptability by the NRC staff." Construction Code, and the historical provisions contained in Section XI for rulemaking published on August 6, Approval was required to ensure that 1992 (57 FR 34666). In 1990, the ASME safety significant components in the reconciling of technical requirements.

The NRC has carefully reviewed the published the initial edition of the OM Residual Heat Removal, Emergency Core Code which provides rules for 1ST of Cooling, and Containment Heat comments and agrees with the conclusions that: (1) A non-Section Ill pumps and valves. The requirements Removal systems are not exempted from item cannot be used to replace a Section contained in the 1990 Edition are appropriate examination requirements.

III item; (2) only the same or later identical to the requirements contained The limitation in the proposed rule editions of the same Construction Code, in the 1989 Edition of Section XL would have extended the approval or one that is higher in the evolutionary Subsections !WP (pumps) and ]WV required for preservice examination to scale of the Code may be used; and (3) (valves). Subsequent to the publication inservice examination. Twenty when using an earlier Construction of the 1990 OM Code, the ASME Board comments were received, all disagreeing Code, licensees must remain within the on Nuclear Codes and Standards (BNCS) with the need for this limitation.

Commenters pointed out that the same Construction Code. The limitation transferred responsibility for information of interest is contained in has been revised in the final rule to maintenance of these rules on !ST from the ISi program plan which is required address the reconciliation requirements Section XI to the OM Committee. As by the Code to be submitted to the NRC. contained in IWA-4222. However, such, the Section XI rules for inservice In addition, the intent of the limitation changes to IWA-4222 in the 1995 testing of pumps and valves that are is current practice, and suitable controls Addenda specifically exempt quality presently incorporated by reference into are presently in place to ensure that assurance requirements from the NRC regulations are no longer being adequate inspections of this piping are reconciliation process. The various updated by Section XI.

being performed. The NRC has changes implemented in the 1995 The 1990 Edition of the ASME OM reconsidered its bases for this limitation Addenda, including the new definition Code consists of one section (Section and agrees with the comments. Hence, of Construction Code, the identification 1ST) entitled "Rules for Inservice the limitation has been eliminated from of new Construction Codes, and the Testing of Light-Water Reactor Power the final rule. specific exemption to reconcile quality Plants." This section is divided into assurance requirements, could result in four subsections: !STA, "General 2.3.1.2.5 Reconciliation of Quality codes and standards being utilized Requirements," ISTB, "lnservice Testing Requirements. which do not contain any quality of Pumps in Light-Water Reactor Power The fifth proposed limitation to the assurance requirements, or contain Plants," ISTC, "Inservice Testing of implementation of Section XI quality assurance requirements which Valves in Light-Water Reactor Power

(§ 50.55a(b) (2) (xx) in the proposed rule) do not fully comply with Appendix B to Plants," and !STD, "Examination and addressed reconciliation of quality 10 CFR part 50. Thus, the NRC has Performance Testing of Nuclear Power requirements when implementing adopted the commenters' suggestion to Plant Dynamic Restraints (Snubbers)."

Section XL lWA-4200, 1995 Addenda clarify that Code items shall be procured The testing of snubbers is governed by through the 1996 Addenda. Specifically, in accordance with Appendix B the ISi requirements of Section XI of the there were two provisions addressing requirements. Hence, when ASME BPV Code. Therefore, the rule the reconciliation of replacement items implementing the 1995 Addenda only requires implementation of

(§ 50.55a(b) (2) (xx) (A)) and the definition through the 1996 Addenda, the Subsections ISTA, ISTB, and ISTC.

of Construction Code limitation (§ 50.55a(b) (2) (xvii) in the Because this final rule for the first time

(§ 50.55a(b) (2) (xx) (B)). The limitation final rule) will require, in addition to incorporates by reference the OM Code, was included in the proposed rule to the reconciliation provisions of !WA- the NRC has determined that the latest

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations 51375 endorsed Edition and Addenda of the not instituted exclusively by the OM language inadvertently expanded the OM Code (i.e., 1995 Edition up to and committees, a backfit analysis is scope to include all pumps and valves including the 1996 Addenda) should be appropriate. With respect to the in safety-related steam, water, air, and used. Therefore, there is no need to addition of the Comprehensive Pump liquid-radioactive waste systems. The incorporate by reference earlier Editions Test, the OM Code committees had scope of pumps and valves to be and Addenda of the OM Code (e.g., 1990 decided to pursue new approaches to included in IST should be dependent on Edition or 1992 Edition). pump testing for a long time before its the safety-related function of the actual development. In some cases, the component rather than the function of 2.3.2.2.1 Comments on the OM Code.

changes resulted in less stringent the system. That is, a safety-related There were four commenters requirements or in the deletion of addressing the proposed endorsement of certain requirements. The NRC staff system might include many pumps and the OM Code. The ASME BNCS valves. However, not all of the pumps raised concerns with certain changes (commenter one) agreed that the action and discussed these concerns with the and valves might have a safety-related was appropriate based on the ASME ASME/OM representatives in ASME/ function. For example, some valves in a moving the responsibility for OM committee meetings. As a result, the safety-related system might be used for developing and maintaining !ST ASME/OM decided to develop an maintenance purposes only although program requirements from Section XI approach to pump testing that would they might be classified as safety-related to the OM Code. A utility (commenter include a nominal "bump" test (i.e., a because they are part of the safety-two) requested clarification as to when more frequent, but less rigorous test) related system pressure boundary.

licensees would be required to begin complemented by a biennial Accordingly, these valves would not using the 1995 Edition with the 1996 "comprehensive" test (i.e., a less need to be tested under the 1ST Addenda for the OM Code. Licensees frequent, but more rigorous test).

• program, but the welds connecting the are presently required by Section XI to Subsequent changes to the 1990 OM valve to the piping might be required to perform 1ST of pumps and valves. The Code were developed and adopted be examined under the !SI program. For regulations in 10 CFR 50.55a currently through a consensus process in which this reason, the NRC further concluded require licensees to update their !ST members of the nuclear industry are the that, unlike the scope issue that arose in (and !SD programs to the latest Code primary participants. The NRC's § 50.55a(f) (!) for 1ST, the scope issue incorporated by reference in§ 50.55a(b) position on the backfit issue is did not apply to ISI, and a modification every 120 months. Hence, there is not a discussed in Section 8, Backfit Analysis, to the language of§ 50.55a(g)(l) need to accelerate the transition to the of the final rule, and in the response to OM Code. pertaining to ISI is not appropriate .

public comments on the proposed rule. Therefore, the existing language of A utility (commenter three) stated that The NRC does not regard the changes to the OM Code that appear in § 50.55a(g)(l) will remain unchanged.

development of the Comprehensive the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Pump Test to be an example of However, the need to modify the Addenda would require their facilities "coercion" by the NRC; rather it is an language for !ST requirements exists.

to modify the test loop piping for example of a properly functioning The final rule revises § 50.55a(f) (1) to demonstrating pump design flow rate. consensus process. ensure that the scope of inservice testing The NRC is aware that some licensees of pumps and valves in earlier plants is may have difficulty fully implementing 2.3.2 .3 Clarification of Scope of Safety-Related Valves Subject to 1ST. consistent with the scope applicable to these tests and in certain cases, due to later plants. This was accomplished by the impracticality of implementation, a The previous language in making the language of§ 50.55a(f) ())

request for relief under§ 50.55a(f) (5) § 50.55a(f)(l) had been interpreted by consistent with the scope of Paragraph would be appropriate. However, the OM some licensees as a requirement to 1.1 in Subsections ISTB and ISTC of the committees developed these provisions include all safety-related pumps and in an effort to improve functional testing valves regardless of ASME Code Class OM Code. Hence, § 50.55a(f) (l) in the of pumps because present pump testing (or equivalent) in the 1ST program of final rule specifies that those pumps programs may not be capable of fully plants whose construction permits were and valves that perform a specific demonstrating that pumps are issued before January 1, 1971. The NRC function to shut down the reactor or performing as designed. Some licensees proposed to revise this paragraph in the maintain the reactor in a safe shutdown have preoperational test loops which draft rule amendment to clarify which condition, mitigate the consequences of may be used to demonstrate full flow for safety-related pumps and valves are an accident, or provide overpressure this testing. Hence, the NRC has addressed by IO CFR 50.55a. The intent protection for safety-related systems concluded that current regulatory of the revision was to ensure that the must meet the test requirements requirements address this issue and a 1ST scope of pumps and valves for these applicable to components which are modification to the final rule in earlier-licensed plants was similar to the classified as ASME Code Class 2 and response to this comment is not scope for plants licensed after January 1, Class 3 to the extent practical. The new required. 1971. A corresponding revision was also language establishes the scope of pumps The fourth commenter (an individual) proposed for§ 50.55a(g)(i) for ISI and valves that are to be included in an stated that the NRC was primarily requirements. 1ST program based on the safety-related responsible for the changes in the 1994 Fifteen separate commenters function of the pump or valve. The Addenda (referred to as the responded to the proposed clarification requirements for pumps and valves that Comprehensive Pump Test) which will to§ 50.55a(f) (1). During consideration of are part of the reactor coolant pressure result in additional pump testing. their comments, it became apparent that boundary have not been changed. This Further, the commenter believes that the the proposed language in§ 50.55a(f)(l) change in the regulation will clarify the changes were more the result of for !ST did not fully accomplish its scope ofIST for earlier-licensed plants pressure by the NRC than actions intended purpose. Instead of narrowing the !ST scope of earlier-licensed plants resulting in a more consistent scope in determined prudent by the OM committees. Hence, the conclusion is to be consistent with the scope of later pump and valve !ST programs for all drawn that, because the changes were plants as intended, the proposed nuclear power plants.

51376 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations 2.3.2.4 Limitation. made relative to the Appendix B QA with the provisions on stroke-time 2.3.2.4. l Quality Assurance. Program and the proposed endorsement testing in the OM Code as well as the of the OM Code by 10 CFR 50.55a. It is programs developed under their The proposed rule contained one apparent from the public comments that licensing commitments for limitation (§ 50.55a(b) (3) (i)) to there is confusion with regard to the OM demonstrating MOY design-basis implementation of the OM Code Code permitting the use of either NQA- capability. This might result in a addressing quality assurance (QA). This 1 or the owner's QA Program. The duplication of activities associated with limitation pertained to the use of ASME proposed limitation clarified that, when inservice testing of safety-related MOVs Standard NQA-1, "Quality Assurance performing Section XI activities, and the periodic verification of the Requirements for Nuclear Facilities," licensees must meet other applicable design-basis capability of safety-related with the OM Code. Three comments NRC regulations. The limitation MOVs at nuclear power plants.

were received and all were considered (§ 50.55a(b)(3)(i)) is retained in the final Since 1989, it has been recognized in arriving at the NRC's decision to rule to provide emphasis that owners that the quarterly stroke-time testing retain the limitation as contained in the must comply with other applicable NRC requirements for MOVs in the Code are proposed rule. regulations in addition to the quality not sufficient to provide assurance of As part of the licensing basis for MOY operability under design-basis provisions contained in the OM Code.

nuclear power plants, NRC licensees conditions. For example, in Generic The following discussion provides have committed to certain quality Letter (GL) 89-10, "Safety-Related assurance program provisions which are further clarification.

Although not discussed in the Motor-Operated Valve Testing and identified in both their Technical Specifications and Quality Assurance proposed amendment to 10 CFR 50.55a, Surveillance," the NRC stated that the requirements of§§ 50.34(b) (6) (ii) ASME Section XI testing alone is not Programs. These provisions are taken sufficient to provide assurance of MOY and 50.54(a) for establishing and from several sources (e.g., ASME, ANSI) operability under design-basis and together, they constitute an revising QA Program descriptions during the operational phase are conditions. Therefore, in GL 89-10, the acceptable Quality Assurance Program. NRC staff requested licensees to verify The licensee quality assurance program required to be followed and are not superseded or usurped by any of the the design-basis capability of their commitments describe how the safety-related MOVs and to establish requirements of appendix B to l O CFR requirements presently contained in l 0 CFR 50.55a. Therefore, even though the long-term MOY programs. The NRC part 50 will be satisfied by referencing subsequently issued GL 96-05, applicable industry standards and the present text of 10 CFR 50.55a does not take exception to applying the quality "Periodic Verification of Design-Basis NRC Regulatory Guides (RGs) which Capability of Safety-Related Motor-endorsed the industry standards (e.g., provisions ofNQA-1-1979 to ASME OM Code work activities, owners of Operated Valves," to provide updated the ANSI N45 series standards and guidance for establishing long-term applicable regulatory guides or NQA commercial nuclear power plants are required to comply not only with the MOY programs. Licensees have made 1983 as endorsed by RG 1.28, Revision licensing commitments pursuant to GL

3) and by prescriptive text contained in QA provisions included in the Codes referenced in 10 CFR 50.55a, but also 96-05 that are being reviewed by the the program. Further, owners operating NRC staff. Most licensees have nuclear power plants have committed to the quality assurance program developed to satisfy the requirements voluntarily committed to participate in the additional operational phase quality an industry-wide Joint Owners Group assurance and administrative provisions contained in§ 50.34(b)(6) (ii). This means that, regardless of the specific GOG) Program on MOY Periodic contained in ANSI Nl8.7 as endorsed by RG 1.33. quality assurance controls delineated in Verification. This program will help the OM Code as referenced in 10 CFR provide consistency among the The OM Code references the use of either NQA-1 or the owner's Appendix 50.55a, owners must meet the additional individual plant long-term MOY quality assurance provisions of their programs.

B Quality Assurance Program (10 CFR At this time, the OM Code committees part 50, appendix B) as part of its NRC approved quality assurance are working to update the Code with individual provisions for a QA program. program description and other respect to its provisions for quarterly However, NQA-1 (any version) does not administrative controls governing MOY stroke-time testing. For example, contain some of the quality assurance operational phase activities. the ASME is considering incorporating provisions and administrative controls 2.3.2.5 Modification. Code Case OMN-1, "Alternative Rules governing operational phase activities for Preservice and Inservice Testing of which would be required in order to use 2.3.2.5.1 Motor-Operated Valve Stroke-Certain Electric Motor-Operated Valve NQA-1 in lieu ofan owner's Appendix Time Testing.

Assemblies in Light-Water Reactor B QA Program Description. When the The proposed rule contained a Power Plants," into the OM Code. These NRC originally endorsed NQA-1, it did modification (§ 50.55a(b) (3) (ii)) provisions would allow users to replace so with the knowledge that NQA-1 was pertaining to supplementing the stroke- quarterly MOY stroke-time testing with not entirely adequate and must be time testing requirement of Subsection a combination of MOY exercising at supplemented by other commitments ISTC of the OM Code applicable for least every refueling outage and MOY such as the ANSI standards. The later motor-operated valves (MOVs) with diagnostic testing on a longer interval.

versions ofNQA-1 also, by themselves, programs that licensees have previously (The NRC has determined that, for would not constitute an acceptable committed to perform, prior to issuance MOVs, Code Case OMN-1 is acceptable Quality Assurance Program. Hence, of this amendment to 10 CFR 50.55a, for in lieu of Subsection ISTC, with a NQA-1 is not acceptable for use without demonstrating the design-basis modification. See Section 2.5.3.1 for the other quality assurance program capability ofMOVs. Stroke-time testing further information.)

provisions identified in Technical of MOVs is also specified in ASME In light of the present weakness in the Specifications and licensee Quality Section XI. Seven commenters information provided by quarterly MOY Assurance Programs. The NRC staff has responded to the proposed change. The stroke-time testing, this modification received questions regarding the primary concern raised was that has been retained in the final rule.

relationship between commitments licensees would be required to comply However, the NRC agrees with the

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations 51377 public comment that the language in the in implementing some Code provisions confirmed proficiency with single sided proposed rule referring to licensing were discovered. Other changes resulted examinations. For the vessel weld, the commitments was cumbersome and the when agreements were reached on volume must be examined in 4 language has been clarified. The final issues such as training. Finally, the directions from the clad-to-basemetal rule supplements the Code requirements program has evolved as programs were interface to a depth of 15 percent for MOV stroke-time testing with a developed for each Appendix VIII through-wall. Examinations performed provision that licensees periodically supplement. from one side of a vessel weld may be verify MOV design-basis capability. The Sixty comments were received related conducted on the remaining portion of changes to§ 50.55a(b)(3)(ii) do not alter to the proposed expedited the weld volume provided the expectations regarding existing licensee implementation of Appendix VIII to procedure shows the ability to detect commitments relating to MOV design- Section XI. The issues raised by the flaws at angles up to 45 degrees from basis capability. Without being overly commenters were generally uniform and normal. In addition, to demonstrate prescriptive, the final rule allows narrow in scope; i.e., in agreement with equivalency to two sided examinations, licensees to implement the regulatory the principles behind the development the NRC staff and POI agree that the requirements in a manner that best suits of Appendix VIII, but opposed to the demonstration be performed with their particular application. The manner in which the proposed rule specimens containing flaws with non-rulemaking does not require licensees to would implement performance optimum sound energy reflecting implement the JOG program on MOV demonstration. In addition, commenters characteristics or flaws similar to those periodic verification. The final rule in argued that implementation of in the vessel or pipe being examined.

§ 50.55a(b)(3)(iii) allows licensees the Appendix VIII within 6 months from the Because Appendix VIII supplements option of using ASME Code Case OMN- date of the final rule was not possible were designed for two-sided I to meet the requirements of because: examinations, given the uniqueness in

§ 50.55a(b) (3)(ii). (I) Some Appendix VIII supplements some instances of single side have not yet been implemented by POI; examinations, requalification may be 2.4 Expedited Implementation. (2) The number of qualified necessary to demonstrate proficiency for 2.4.1 Appendix VIII. individuals is not yet sufficient; these special cases. Single side (3) The rule would require UT examinations are not permitted for 15 The proposed rule contained a personnel to requalify; and percent of the vessel volume adjacent to requirement(§ 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(C)) that (4) POI's implementation of Appendix the cladding, and thus cannot be used licensees expedite implementation of VIII differs from the Code. for Supplement 4 performance mandatory Appendix VIII, The NRC staff met four times with demonstration.

"Performance Demonstration for representatives from POI, EPRI, and NEI Evidence indicates that there are Ultrasonic Examination Systems," to between the dates of May 12, 1998, and shortcomings in the qualifications of Section XI, 1995 Edition with the 1996 November 19, 1998, to discuss items personnel and procedures in ensuring Addenda. Three proposed modifications such as the current status of the POI the reliability of nondestructive were included to address NRC positions program, and Appendix VIII of Section examination of the reactor vessel and on the use of Appendix VIII. The XI as modified by POI during the other components of the reactor coolant proposed rule would have required development of the program. Piping, system, the emergency core cooling licensees to implement Appendix VIII bolting, and RPV samples, for the initial systems, and portions of the steam and for all examinations of the pressure phase of the program, were completed feedwater systems. Imposition of vessel, piping, nozzles, and bolts and in 1994. Procedure and personnel performance demonstration will greatly studs which occur after 6 months from demonstrations were initiated in April enhance the overall level of assurance of the date of the final rule. The proposed of 1994. Since that time, a large number the reliability of ultrasonic examination rule would not have required any of personnel and procedures have been techniques in detecting and sizing change to a licensee's ISi schedule for qualified. However, additional time and flaws. Hence, the final rule will examination of these components, but effort will be required to complete the expedite the implementation of these would have required that the provisions industry qualification process for the safety significant performance of Appendix VIII be used for all remaining supplements of Appendix demonstration programs. The final rule examinations after that date. VIII. will permit licensees to implement The 1989 Addenda to Section XI Subsequent to these meetings and either Appendix VIII, "Performance added mandatory Appendix VIII to consideration of the public comments, Demonstration for Ultrasonic enhance the requirements for the NRC has reviewed the latest version Examination Systems," to Section XI, performance demonstration for of the POI program for examination of Division I, 1995 Edition with the 1996 ultrasonic examination (UT) procedures. vessels, piping, and bolting. The NRC Addenda, or Appendix VIII as executed In 1991, the Performance Demonstration agrees that this version will provide by POI. Because POI is not a consensus Initiative (POI) was organized and reasonable assurance of detecting the standards body, its program document funded. POI is an organization of all U. flaws of concern in ferritic vessels and cannot be referenced in the final rule.

S. nuclear utilities formed for the piping. In addition, adoption in the final Thus, the POI requirements are directly express purpose of developing efficient, rule of Appendix VIII as modified by contained in the final rule in cost-effective, and technically sound POI during the development of the § 50.55a(b)(2) (xv).

implementation of the performance program means that the present test In§ 50.55a(g) (6)(ii) (C), the final rule demonstration requirements described specimens are acceptable. The POI incorporates a phased implementation in the ASME Code Section XI, program requires scanning the of Appendix VIII over a three-year Appendix VIII. The EPRI NOE Center examination volume from both sides of period. Licensees are required to provides technical support and the same surface of piping welds when implement the supplements to administration for this program on it is accessible. Examinations performed Appendix VIII according to the behalf of the utilities. The POI program from one side of a pipe weld may be following schedule:

has been evolving. Changes to the conducted with procedures and (!) Six months after the effective date program were being made as difficulties personnel demonstrated at POI; i.e., of the final rule: Supplement I,

51378 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations "Evaluating Electronic Characteristics of that this requirement was inadequate for For piping, Appendix VIII requires that Ultrasonic Systems," Supplement 2, two reasons. The first reason was that all of the flaws in a specimen set be "Qualification Requirements for the training does not require laboratory cracks. However, for vessels and Wrought Austenitic Piping Welds," work and examination of flawed nozzles, Appendix VIII would allow as Supplement 3, "Qualification specimens. Signals can be difficult to many as 50 percent of the flaws to be Requirements for Ferritic Piping interpret and, as detailed in the notches. The NRC had previously Welds," and Supplement 8, regulatory analysis for this rulemaking, believed that, for the purpose of "Qualification Requirements for Bolts experience and studies indicate that the demonstrating nondestructive and Studs;" examiner must practice on a frequent examination (NOE) capabilities, notches (2) One year after the effective date of basis to maintain the capability for are not realistic representations of the final rule: Supplement 4, proper interpretation. The second service induced cracks. The flaws in the "Qualification Requirements for the reason is related to the length of training specimen sets utilized for piping by Clad/Base Metal Interface of Reactor and its frequency. Studies have shown EPRI for the POI are all cracks.

Vessel," and Supplement 6, that an examiner's capability begins to Thirty-two comments were received "Qualification Requirements for Reactor diminish within approximately 6 on this proposed modification to Vessel Welds Other Than Clad/Base months if skills are not maintained. Appendix VIII. A majority of the Metal Interface;" Thus, the NRC had determined that 10 commenters stated that this (3) Two years after the effective date hours of annual training is not sufficient modification should be deleted from the of the final rule: Supplement 11, practice to maintain skills, and that an rule because it would require the "Qualification Requirements for Full examiner must practice on a more manufacture of new specimens and that Structural Overlaid Wrought Austenitic frequent basis to maintain proper skill the majority of procedure and examiner Piping Welds;" and level. The modification in the proposed qualifications performed to date would (4) Three years after the effective date rule would have required 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of be nullified. Many commenters argued of the final rule: Supplement 5, annual training including laboratory that notches are realistic representations "Qualification Requirements for Nozzle work and examination of flawed of cracks. Another comment was that Inside Radius Section," Supplement 7, specimens. fabrication defects should be permitted "Qualification Requirements for Nozzle- Thirty-five comments were received in order to test an examiner's ability to to-Vessel Weld," Supplement 10, on this proposed modification to discriminate between real flaws and "Qualification Requirements for Appendix VIII. Many of the commenters innocuous reflectors.

Dissimilar Metal Piping Welds," stated that 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of required training The NRC believes that flaws in test Supplement 12, "Requirements for were excessive because: specimens used for UT should be Coordinated Implementation of Selected (1) The EPRI NOE Center did not have representative of the flaws normally Aspects of Supplements 2, 3, 10, and the facilities which would be required found or expected to be found in 11," and Supplement 13, "Requirements to satisfy this requirement; operating plants. Based on the public for Coordinated Implementation of (2) An ample supply of training comments, the final rule in specimens would cost each site $75,000; § 50.55a(b)(2) (xv) permits a population Selected Aspects of Supplements 4, 5, 6, and 7." and of notches and fabrication flaws on a Performance demonstration (3) The requirement would result in limited basis for vessel and nozzle test requirements for Supplement 9, administrative as well as cost burdens specimen sets (Supplements 4, 5, 6, and for both the utility and the vendor. 7). For these components, the NRC has "Qualification Requirements for Cast Based on the public comments and concluded that a mix of cracks and Austenitic Piping Welds," have not yet the meetings with POI and EPRI, the notches is acceptable as long as they been initiated pending completion of NRC has reconsidered its position. The provide a similar detection and sizing the other supplements. Hence, the final POI program has adopted a requirement challenge to that seen in actual service rule does not address Supplement 9. for 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of training, but it is required induced degradation. These types of The final rule has been structured so to be hands-on practice. In addition, the notches will ensure that the that the equipment and procedures training must be taken no earlier than 6 qualification demonstration tests the previously qualified under the POI months prior to performing ability of an examiner to discriminate program are acceptable. Personnel between real flaws and innocuous examinations at a licensee's facility. POI previously qualified by POI will remain reflectors. In addition, a mix of cracks believes that 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> will be acceptable qualified with the exception of a small and notches means that the present relative to an examiner's abilities in this population of individuals qualified for specimens can continue to be used for highly specialized skill area because Supplements 4 and 6. qualification. For wrought austenitic, personnel can gain knowledge of new 2.4.1.1 Modifications. developments, material failure modes, ferritic, and dissimilar metal welds, and other pertinent technical topics however, these flaws can best be 2.4.1.1.1 Appendix VIII Personnel through other means. Thus, the NRC has represented with cracks. Cracks span Qualification.

decided to adopt in the final rule the the ultrasonic spectra of flaw surface The first proposed modification of POI position on this matter. These conditions from rough to smooth, jagged Appendix VIII (§ 50.55a(b) (2) (xvii) in changes are reflected in to straight, single to multiple tip, and the proposed rule) related to its § 50.55a(b) (2) (xiv) of the final rule. tight to wide tip. Notches generally have requirement that ultrasonic examination smooth surfaces that reflect a narrow personnel meet the requirements of 2.4.1.1.2 Appendix VIII Specimen Set ultrasonic spectrum that represents a Appendix VII, "Qualification of and Qualification Requirements. small population of flaws contained in Nondestructive Examination Personnel The second proposed modification of components. Some variations in UT for Ultrasonic Examination," to Section Appendix VIII (§ 50.55a(b) (2) (xviii) in examination techniques may be more XI. Appendix VII-4240 contains a the proposed rule) would have required challenged with a notch located in requirement for personnel to receive a that all flaws in the specimen sets used specific locations, whereas other minimum of 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> of training on an for performance demonstration for variations in UT examination annual basis. The NRC had determined piping, vessels, and nozzles be cracks. techniques may not. With respect to

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations 51379 bolting. the NRC believed it would be acceptable. The POI program requires reliably detecting and sizing flaws in the clear that bolting was not addressed by scanning the examination volume from performance of comprehensive the proposed modification. The NRC both sides of the piping weld on the examinations of reactor vessels and does not consider it necessary to use same surface when it is accessible. piping. The NRC received 16 comment cracks for performance qualification for Examinations performed from one side letters on the generic letter.

Supplement 8 as notches are of a vessel weld may be conducted with Eighteen comments were received on appropriate reflectors in the specimen procedures and personnel demonstrated the summary. Many of the comments test sets. at PDI; i.e., confirmed proficiency with reiterated comments submitted on single sided examinations by a Appendix VIII (i.e., Section 2.4.1). Some 2.4.1.1.3 Appendix VIII Single Side procedure that shows the ability to commenters stated that the summary in Ferritic Vessel and Piping and Stainless detect flaws at angles up to 45 degrees the proposed rule inappropriately Steel Piping Examination.

from the normal. The equipment, categorized and consolidated comments The third proposed modification of procedures, and personnel must providing generalized responses to the Appendix VIII (§ 50.55a(b) (2) (xix) in the demonstrate proficiency with single industry's detailed comments. One proposed rule) would have required that side examination. In addition, to commenter stated that an alternative to all specimens for single-side tests demonstrate equivalency to two sided the proposed rule would be to mandate contain microstructures like the examinations, POI requires that the the use of PD! through a generic letter.

components to be inspected and flaws demonstration be performed with with non-optimum characteristics The NRC disagrees with the specimens containing flaws with non- characterization of its consideration of consistent with field experience that optimum sound energy reflecting provide realistic challenges to the UT the comments submitted on the generic characteristics or flaws similar to those letter. The NRC thoroughly considered technique. The industry would have in the ferritic vessel or pipe being been required to develop specimen sets each comment. Commenters generally examined. Because Appendix VIII were not in agreement with the that contain microstructures similar to supplements were designed for two-the types found in the components to be sided examinations, given the proposed NRC action and a inspected and flaws with non-optimum determination was made to withdraw uniqueness in some instances of single the generic letter pending rulemaking.

characteristics (such as skew, tilt, and side examinations, requalification may roughness) consistent with field Thus, the NRC's action to withdraw the be necessary to demonstrate proficiency generic letter was consistent with the experience that provide realistic for these special cases. Single side challenges for single-sided performance examinations are not permitted for 15 commenters' recommendations. The demonstration. Appendix VIII does not summary of the comments in the percent of the vessel volume adjacent to Statement of Considerations for the distinguish specimens for two-sided the cladding, and thus cannot be used examinations from those used for single- for Supplement 4 performance proposed rule was not intended to sided examination since Appendix VIII provide a detailed response to every demonstration.

was originally developed using UT The final rule recognizes the comment received on the generic letter.

lessons learned from two-sided difficulties of performance The purpose of the summary was to examinations of welds. demonstration for two sided provide some history and background Thirty comments were received on examination of austenitic stainless steel. related to the proposed Appendix VIII this proposed modification to Appendix However, POI does not endorse single action and to alert the industry that it Vil!. Many commenters stated that the side inspection of austenitic welds was the NRC's intent to withdraw the NRC should delete this modification because current technology cannot generic letter. Implementation of because it would invalidate the current consistently satisfy Appendix VIII Appendix VIII was included in the POI test specimens and the procedures criteria. Thus, for certain situations, the proposed and final rules partly as a and examiners already qualified . final rule in§ 50.55a(b) (2) (xvi) contains result of public comment that a generic Another prevalent comment was that criteria for demonstrating equivalency letter should not be used to mandate the flaws being used by PD! in vessel to two sided examinations. new examination requirements.

and piping specimens represent the Single side examination ofwrought- 2.4.3 Class 1 Piping Volumetric microstructure and flaw orientation of to-cast stainless steel is outside the Examination (Deferred).

postulated in-service flaws in vessel scope of the current qualification welds and, therefore, ferritic vessels program for austenitic piping. Current A proposed modification of Section should be exempted from the proposed technology is not reliable for detecting XI (§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) in the proposed reguirement. flaws on the opposite side ofwrought- rule) would have required licensees of Based on the consideration of public to-cast stainless steel welds. Given these pressurized water reactor (PWR) plants comments, the final rule permits either shortcomings. single side examination to supplement the surface examination Appendix VIII, as contained in the 1995 of stainless steel piping is considered of Class l High Pressure Safety Injection Edition with the 1996 Addenda, or "best effort." The results of best-effort (HPSI) system piping as required by Appendix VIII, as modified by POI examination on the cast side of these Examination Category B-J of Table during development of the program, to welds is, in the NRC's view, marginal at IWB-2500-1 for nominal pipe sizes be implemented. The POI program best. (NPS) between 4 (inches) and 1+

requirements are contained in (inches) , with a volumetric (ultrasonic)

§ 50.55a(b) (2) (xv). The NRC agrees that 2.4.2 Generic Letter on Appendix VIII. examination. This requirement was the latest version of the PD! program The proposed rule contained a proposed because:

will provide reasonable assurance of summary of a draft generic letter (1) Inside diameter cracking of HPSI detecting the flaws of concern in ferritic published in the Federal Register for piping in the subject size range has been vessels and piping. In addition, public comment on December 31, 1996 previously discovered (as detailed in adoption in the final rule of Appendix (61 FR 69120). The purpose of the NRC Generic Letter 85-20, "High VIII as modified by PD! during the generic letter was to alert the industry Pressure Injection/Make-Up Nozzle development of the PD! program means to the importance of using equipment, Cracking in Babcock and Wilcox that the present test specimens are procedures, and examiners capable of Plants," and in NRC Information Notice

51380 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations 97-46, "Unisolable Crack in High- caused the thermal fatigue cracking in attention to this issue in those systems Pressure Injection Piping"); the piping is well understood. However, at those facilities. Thermal fatigue (2) Failure of this line could result in current modeling limitations make it damage attributed to diverse initiating a small break loss of coolant accident difficult to predict when this phenomena has been reported at several while directly affecting the system phenomenon will occur and at what facilities in the U.S. and in Europe. As designed to mitigate such an event; locations. At this time, the most reliable discussed, it is difficult to predict when (3) Volumetric examinations are means of detection is volumetric and where this phenomenon might already required by the Code for Class examination of the entire system in occur. Until data consistent with the 2 portions of this system (fable IWC- accordance with Section XI provisions failures that occurred are determined, 2500-1, Examination Category C-F-1) for other Class 1 piping systems. In and the thermohydraulic phenomenon within the same NPS range; and addition, experience has shown that, (4) Surface examinations are not which caused the failures is after initially discovering a section of highly effective in identifying cracks reproducible by analytical means, there degraded HPSI piping via leakage and flaws in piping as evidenced by is limited assurance that a given detection at one unit, it was possible to events at nuclear power plants and successfully identify similar analytical method will provide a comparisons to other examination degradation in the HPSI lines at sister reliable assessment under all potential techniques. units during subsequent ultrasonic cyclic stratification circumstances, Implementation of this requirement examinations (in locations considered except in special cases where the was proposed to be performed during difficult to inspect). Therefore, it is the technique is obviously conservative any ISi program inspection of the HPSI NRC's view that the usefulness of with respect to known data. At this system performed after 6 months from ultrasonic examinations in discovering time, the most reliable means of the date of the final rule. Using a thermal fatigue cracking in these lines detection is volumetric examination.

licensee's existing ISi schedules would has already been demonstrated in General Design Criterion (GDC) 14, result in the volumetric examinations practice. Additionally, it is not clear to "Reactor coolant pressure boundary," of being implemented in a reasonable the NRC that the integrity of this piping 10 CFR part 50, appendix A, or similar period of time while not impacting can be assured in the presence of a provisions in the licensing basis, lengths of outages or requiring facility through-wall flaw under all normal, requires that the reactor coolant shutdown solely for performance of emergency, upset, and faulted operating pressure boundary (of which the these examinations. In light of recent conditions for all PWR facilities. In unisolable portions of the HPSI system industry initiatives to address Class 1 short, the NRC does not believe that are a part) be tested so as to have an piping volumetric examination, the NRC visual walkdowns should be the extremely low probability of abnormal is deferring rulemaking in this area at principal means of detecting leakage from pipes in these safety systems. leakage, of propagating failure, and of this time.

Fifteen comments were received on The NRC is aware that the imposition gross rupture. The ASME Section XI this modification to Section XI. Several of any additional inspections of the Subcommittee on Inservice Inspection is concerns were raised in the comments. reactor coolant pressure boundary may considering the need for volumetric (1) Volumetric examination of piping result in additional cost and/or examination of Class 1 HPSI systems.

components in this size range is not additional worker radiation exposure Further, the nuclear industry has very effective. depending on the plant. Some units initiated a voluntary effort being (2) Given the general ineffectiveness have already implemented these coordinated by the Nuclear Energy of volumetric examination for this examinations in response to occurrences Institute to address the issue of thermal piping, the occupational exposure of thermal fatigue cracking at that unit. fatigue of nuclear power plant piping.

which would be incurred outweighs the Given the safety significance of the HPSI The NRC has decided to defer regulatory perceived need. system (i.e., failure of this line could action on the volumetric examination of (3) The expedited implementation result in a small break loss of coolant Class 1 HPSI system piping while does not allow sufficient time to prepare accident while directly affecting the evaluating the industry initiative and specimen sets to comply with Appendix system designed to mitigate such an determining the need for interim action VIII. event) and the number of failures during performance of the initiative.

(4) There was no evidence that this reported to date (failures have occurred The NRC does not believe that deferral problem would occur in all PWRs (i.e., in the U.S. and several foreign of regulatory action in this rulemaking the concern should be limited to countries), the NRC concludes that the while evaluating the need for interim Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) plants which burden associated with such action for HPSI Class 1 weld have already addressed this problem). examinations is minimal. examinations will significantly affect (5) The ASME Section XI The provisions of Appendix VIII are Subcommittee on lnservice Inspection plant safety, because staff evaluations applicable to these examinations. The has initiated an action to address Class indicate that a minimal increase in core NRC staff has had several meetings with 1 piping. representatives from the industry's damage frequency would result from These five concerns are addressed in Performance Demonstration Initiative potentially undiscovered flaws in HPSI order below. (PD!) group to discuss the status of the Class 1 piping welds over this short As detailed in the regulatory analysis performance demonstration program. It time period. In light of the limited for the proposed rule, the initiation and is the NRC's understanding that the PD! benefit of surface examinations of Class propagation of pipe cracks at several program for piping is complete and can l HPSI system piping and concerns plants have shown that surface be implemented as soon as the regarding occupational radiation examinations alone are not sufficient to administrative procedures have been exposure in the performance of those detect the types of cracks which have developed. examinations, this rule in occurred. It is agreed that these The NRC does not concur that the § 50.55a(g)(4)(iii) endorses but does not examinations for certain configurations absence of piping failures for certain mandate the provision in the ASME may be difficult. The basic portions of the HPSI system in other Code for surface weld examinations of thermohydraulic phenomenon which reactor designs precludes the need for Class 1 HPSI system piping.

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations 51381 2.5 Voluntary Implementation. limitation from the final rule as modified in the 1989 Addenda and are 2.5.1 Section III. discussed in Section 2.3.1.2.1. The no longer in agreement with Figures response to public comments in Section NB-4427-1, NC-4427-1, and ND-4427-The proposed rule stated that the NRC 2.3.1.2.1 addresses all of the comments 1. This change results in a different had reviewed the 1989 Addenda, 1990 which were received and provides weld leg dimension depending on Addenda, 1991 Addenda, 1992 Edition, specific examples of cases where whether the dimension is derived from 1992 Addenda, 1993 Addenda, 1994 application of engineering judgment the text or calculated from the figures.

Addenda, 1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda, resulted in failure to satisfy regulatory Thus, the proposed limitation was and 1996 Addenda of Section III, requirements. included to ensure consistency by Division I, for Class I, Class 2, and specifying use of the 1989 Edition for Class 3 components, and had 2.5.1.1.2 Section III Materials.

the above referenced paragraphs and determined that they were acceptable The second proposed limitation to the figures in lieu of the 1989 Addenda for voluntary use with six proposed implementation of Section III through the 1996 Addenda.

limitations. The final rule contains five (§ 50.55a(b)(I)(ii) in the proposed rule) Four comments were received on this limitations to the implementation of pertained to a reference to Part D, proposed limitation. One commenter Section III. The proposed limitation on "Properties," of Section 11, "Materials." believed that the limitation was the use of engineering judgment during Section II, Part D, contained many necessary. A second commenter Section III activities has been deleted printing errors in the 1992 Edition. believed that it was inappropriate to from the rule. In addition, the proposed These errors were corrected in the 1992 address Code errors in a rulemaking and rule stated that 10 CFR 50.55a would be Addenda. The limitation would require this action should be accomplished modified to ensure consistency between that Section II, 1992 Addenda, be through an information notice. The 10 CFR 50.55a and NCA-1140. The applied when using the I 992 Edition of third commenter agreed that there ASME initiated an action to address this Section III to ensure that the design appears to be a conflict, but they did not issue and requested that the NRC delete stresses intended by the ASME Code are believe that the conflict would result in this modification from the final rule. used. designs which do not satisfy the The NRC agrees in principle with the Four comments were received on the requirements and recommended ASME action and has deleted the proposed limitation. One commenter deletion of the limitation. The fourth modification. agreed with the proposed action. The commenter stated that a conflict did not The version of Section III utilized by second commenter disagreed with the exist as a result of the changes made in applicants and licensees is established severity of the errors but had no the 1989 Addenda; i.e., the changes prior to construction as required by objection to the proposed action. The were deliberate to permit the designer

§ 50.55a(b), (c), and (d). For operating third commenter stated that alerting an option on determining the proper plants, § 50.55a permits licensees to use users of the Code to such errors in a weld size. However, this commenter did the original construction code during rulemaking was inappropriate. The state that a printing error had been made the operational phase or voluntarily fourth commenter argued that every in another change to the 1994 Addenda update to a later version which has been version of Section II contains errors and which has been corrected in the 1998 endorsed by 10 CFR 50.55a. that the NRC should recommend the use Edition.

Accordingly, the limitations to Section of the latest version because it contains The NRC disagrees that the limitation III apply to design and construction of the fewest number of errors. The should be deleted from the final rule.

new nuclear plants and become limitation was not included in the The weld size requirements that were applicable to operating plants only if a proposed rule to initiate a debate over used in the majority of U.S. operating licensee voluntarily updates to a later how conservative the errors were or nuclear power plant piping systems version. whether the errors could cause faulty were provided by ANSI B31.7, Nuclear 2.5.1.1 Limitations. designs. There were over 160 Errata in Power Piping Code, ANSI B3 I. I, Power the 1992 Edition (as identified in the Piping Code, and early editions of the 2.5. 1.1.1 Engineering Judgment 1992 Addenda) apparently because of a ASME Code,Section III. Specifically, (Deleted). printing error. By comparison, there these standards required that the The first proposed limitation to the were only 16 Errata in the 1993 minimum socket weld size equal 1.25 t implementation of Section III Addenda. The NRC was simply but not less than 1/s inch, where t is the

(§ 50.55a(b) (1) (i) in the proposed rule) attempting to alert users of the Code to nominal pipe wall thickness. The same addressed an NRC position with regard that fact. This limitation has been weld size requirements as those to the Foreword in the 1992 Addenda retained in the final rule to ensure that specified in the above listed codes are through the 1996 Addenda of the ASME these particular design stress tables will also required by other nationally BPV Code. That Foreword addresses the not be used. This limitation is contained recognized codes and standards such as use of "engineeringjudgement" for ISi in§ 50.55a(b)(l)(i) in the final rule. ANSI B3 l.3, Petroleum Refinery Piping activities not specifically considered by Code. Those sizes were established as a the Code. The proposed rule would 2.5.1.1.3 Weld Leg Dimensions. result of many years of experience have required licensees to receive NRC The third proposed limitation to the associated with the design and approval for those activities prior to implementation of Section III construction of piping systems, piping implementation. [§ 50.55a(b) (1) (iii) in the proposed rule] equipment, and components. In 1981, Twenty-three commenters provided would correct a conflict in the design Code Case N-316, "Alternative Rules for 26 separate comments on the proposed and construction requirements in Fillet Weld Dimensions for Socket limitation to the use of engineering Subsection NB (Class 1), Subsection NC Welded Fittings," was published judgment with regard to Section III (Class 2), and Subsection ND (Class 3) permitting a reduction in socket weld activities. This proposed limitation has of Section III, 1989 Addenda through sizes to 1.09 t. In essence, the Code case been dealt with in the same manner as the 1996 Addenda of the BPV Code. was developed to provide relief for the proposed limitation on the use of Two equations in NB-3683.4(c)(l), certain utilities having difficulty engineeringjudgment for Section XI Footnote 11 to Figure NC-3673.2(b)-1, complying with the minimum socket activities. The NRC has deleted this and Figure ND-3673.2(b)-1 were weld size requirement of 1.25 t. The L_

51382 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations provisions contained in the Code case criteria, the data support the revised Section III references NQA-1 as part of were incorporated into the 1989 Edition rules. its individual requirements for a QA of the ASME Code. The NRC accepted An extensive discussion of this issue program by integrating portions of this reduction because the new weld is provided in both the regulatory NQA-1 into the QA program defined in size was still greater than the pipe. In analysis and the response to public NCA-4000, "Quality Assurance," rather the 1989 Addenda of Section lII of the comments. In summary, in 1993 prior to than permitting NQA-1 as a stand alone ASME Code, the requirements for the publication of the new ASME Code document similar to Section XI and the size of socket welds were further rules, the NRC initiated a research OM Code. Hence, even though NQA-1 reduced to 0. 75 t which would permit program at the U.S . Department of by itself does not adequately describe welds smaller than the thickness of the Energy (DOE) Energy Technology how to satisfy the requirements of I 0 pipe. The NRC is concerned with the Engineering Center (ETEC) to evaluate CFR part 50, appendix B, the same structural integrity of a joint with a weld the technical basis for the Code changes, concern does not exist regarding Section size which is less than the pipe wall and to assess the impact of the Code III and the use of NQA-1 as exists with thickness. The reduction to 0.75 twas changes. In December 1994, the NRC Section XI. However, the limitation has not supported with test results or informed the ASME that there were been included in the final rule to operating experience. Thus, a good technical concerns regarding the new provide consistency between the technical basis has not been provided criteria, and the NRC would not endorse requirements of Section III,Section XI, for reducing minimum socket weld sizes the criteria changes in the 1994 and the OM Code, and to eliminate any in nuclear power plant piping. It should Addenda pending the results from the possible confusion which could be be noted that the petrochemical research program. By letter dated May created by not addressing the use of industry has not made a corresponding 24, 1995, the NRC restated its technical NQA-1 under each circumstance. The change to the standards governing weld concerns, and transmitted preliminary NRC had reviewed the requirements of sizes in refinery piping. Hence, this findings from those ETEC studies which NQA-1, 1986 Addenda through the limitation has been retained in had been completed to date along with 1992 Addenda, that are part of the

§ 50.55a(b)(l)(ii). the peer review comments. After incorporation by reference of Section III, receiving comments and input from and had determined that the provisions 2.5.1.1.4 Seismic Design. other members of the ASME BPV Code of NQA-1 are acceptable for use in the The fourth proposed limitation to the as well as representatives from other context of Section III activities. Portions implementation of Section III countries, the ASME established a of NQA-1 are integrated into Section III

(§ 50.55a(b)(l)(iv) in the proposed rule) Special Working Group-Seismic Rule administrative, quality, and technical pertained to new requirements for (SWG-SR) in September 1995 to assess provisions which provide a complete piping design evaluation contained in the concerns identified by the NRC and QA program for design and the 1994 Addenda through the 1996 others regarding the new piping design construction. The additional criteria Addenda of the ASME BPV Code. The rules, and provide a proposed resolution contained in Section III, such as nuclear NRC had determined that changes to to address these concerns. accreditation, audits, and third party articles NB-3200, "Design by Analysis," The ETEC efforts are now complete, inspection, establishes a complete NB-3600, "Piping Design," NC-3600, and the results of the research indicate program and satisfies the requirements "Piping Design," and ND-3600, "Piping that the technical bases for the new of 10 CFR part 50, appendix B (i.e., the Design," of Section III for Class 1, 2, and piping design rules as published in the provisions of Section III integrated with 3 piping design evaluation for reversing 1994 Addenda were incomplete. The NQA-1). Licensees may voluntarily dynamic loads (e.g., earthquake and results of the research are contained in choose to apply later provisions of other similar type dynamic loads which NUREG/CR-5361, "Seismic Analysis of Section III. Hence, a limitation was cycle about a mean value) were Piping," which was published in May included in the proposed rule which unacceptable. The new requirements are 1998. The SWG-SR is considering would require that the edition and based, in part, on industry evaluations ETEC's recommendations and is addenda of NQA-1 specified by NCA-of the test data performed under conducting some additional studies. 4000 of Section III be used in sponsorship of the EPRI and the NRC. The NRC has concluded that conjunction with the administrative, NRC evaluations of the data do not additional technical bases need to be quality, and technical provisions support the changes and indicate lower developed before the new rules could be contained in the edition of Section III margins than those estimated in earlier found to be acceptable and will being utilized.

evaluations. The ASME has established continue to interact via normal NRC Five comments were received on this a special working group to reevaluate staff participation with the Code proposed limitation. One commenter the bases for the seismic design for committees. Thus, this limitation has stated that the limitation was piping. been retained in§ 50.55a(b)(l)(iii). reasonable. The other commenters Six comments were received on this Licensees will be permitted to use found the limitation confusing given proposed limitation to Section III. None articles NB-3200, NB-3600, NC-3600, that the NRC had determined that the of the commenters agreed with the and ND-3600, in the 1989 Addenda provisions of NQA-1 were acceptable.

proposed limitation and recommended through the 1993 Addenda, but are Section III is a design and its deletion from the final rule. The prohibited from using these articles as construction code used by the primary argument was that present contained in the 1994 Addenda through manufacturers and suppliers of new seismic design of safety related piping is the 1996 Addenda. Code items. However,Section III is also "overly conservative both as it relates to used for controlling the construction of the seismic capacity of structures which 2.5.1.1.5 Quality Assurance. replacement Code items during the house or support such piping as well as The fifth proposed limitation to the operational phase at nuclear power the potential for a reduction in overall implementation of Section III plants. The basis for the limitation in piping safety and reliability." Several [§ 50.55a(b) (I) (v) in the proposed rule] the proposed rule was that the quality commenters stated that, while it is true pertained to the use of ASME Standard provisions contained in NQA-1 (any that there is an ongoing review within NQA-1, "Quality Assurance version) are not adequate to describe the ASME concerning the revised Requirements for Nuclear Facilities." how to satisfy the applicable 10 CFR

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations 51383 requirements for these activities. The safety-related functions of structures, limitation has been retained in NRC has not taken any exceptions to the systems, and components. In particular, § 50.55a(b)(l)(v). Licensees will be quality or administrative provisions Criterion I states: "These activities permitted to use the provisions contained in Section III. However, in the include both the performing functions contained in NCA-4134. IO(a) in the proposed limitation for Section III, the of attaining quality objectives and the 1989 Addenda through the 1994 NRC emphasized that the quality quality assurance functions. The quality Addenda, but will be prohibited from provisions of NQA-1 are acceptable for assurance functions are those of (a) using these provisions as contained in use in the context of Section III assuring that an appropriate quality the 1995 Edition through the 1996 activities for the construction of new assurance program is established and Addenda.

and replacement Code items. Therefore, effectively executed and (b) verifying, the NRC has concluded that the quality such as by checking, auditing, and 2.5 .1.2 Modification.

provisions contained in Section lJI are inspection, that activities affecting 2.5 . 1.2.1 Applicable Code Version for acceptable for the construction of new safety-related functions have been New Construction.

and replacement items; i.e., NQA-1 is correctly performed." Criterion I not adequate by itself. Thus, the continues by stating that "[t]he persons The modification of Section III limitation has been retained in and organizations performing quality contained in the proposed rule

§ 50.55a(b) (l) (iv). assurance functions shall have sufficient addressed a possible conflict between authority and organizational freedom to NCA-1140, "Use of Code Editions, 2.5.1.1.6 Independence oflnspection.

identify quality problems; to initiate, Addenda, and Cases," and 10 CFR The sixth proposed limitation to the recommend, or provide solutions; and 50.55a for new construction. NCA-1140 implementation of Section III to verify implementation of solutions. of Section III requires that the length of

[§ 50.55a(b)(l)(vi) in the proposed rule] Such persons and organizations time between the date of the edition and related to prohibiting licensees from performing quality assurance functions addenda used for new construction and using subparagraph NCA-4134 . IO(a), shall report to a management level such the docket date of the construction "Inspection," in the 1995 Edition that this required authority and permit application for a nuclear power through the 1996 Addenda. Before this organizational freedom, including plant be no greater than three years.

edition and addenda, inspection sufficient independence from cost and Section 50.55a(b)(l) requires that the personnel were prohibited from schedule when opposed to safety edition and addenda utilized be reporting directly to the immediate considerations, are provided." Criterion incorporated by reference into the supervisors responsible for performing X, "Inspection," of Appendix B requires regulations. The possibility exists that the work being inspected. However, in "[s]uch inspection shall be performed the edition and addenda required by the the 1995 Edition, NCA-4134. IO(a) was by individuals other than those who ASME Code to be used for new modified so that independence of performed the activity being inspected." construction would not be incorporated inspection was no longer required. This The requirements of 10 CFR part 50, by reference into 10 CFR 50.55a. In could result in noncompliance with appendix B could not be met for persons order to resolve this possible Criterion I, "Organization," of 10 CFR performing the quality function of discrepancy, the NRC proposed to part 50, appendix B. This criterion inspection if those persons were modify existing §§ 50.55a(c) (3) (i),

requires that persons performing QA reporting to the individual directly 50.55a(d)(2)(i), and 50.55a(e)(2)(i), to functions report to a management level responsible for meeting cost, schedule, permit an applicant for a construction such that authority and organizational etc. (e.g., the requirement that personnel permit to use the latest edition and freedom, including sufficient performing quality functions, such as addenda which has been incorporated independence from cost and schedule inspection and auditing, shall have by reference into § 50.55a(b) (1) if the when opposed to safety considerations, sufficient authority and organizational requirements of the ASME Code and the are provided. freedom to identify quality problems; to regulations cannot simultaneously be Four comments were received on this initiate, recommend, or provide satisfied.

limitation. One commenter stated that solutions; and to verify implementation the proposed limitation was reasonable. of solutions). Three comments were received The second commenter stated that this As discussed in the first paragraph in regarding this proposed modification to position is consistent with NRC 's this section, earlier versions of Section Section III. The ASME Board on Nuclear previous positions. The third III contained a requirement for reporting Codes and Standards (BNCS) agreed that commenter stated the change in the independence. The requirement was there would be a conflict for new Code provisions had been made because contained in Supplement 1OS- I, construction, but stated that the the previous Code requirements "Supplementary Requirements for modification would preclude a Section exceeded the requirements of appendix Inspection." Supplement I0S-1, III requirement for stamping. The BNCS B. The fourth commenter stated that paragraph 2. I states that, "Inspection recommendation was to delete this there has never been a provision in personnel shall not report directly to the modification. The ASME is considering appendix B that prohibited inspectors immediate supervisors who are a Code case to resolve this by providing from reporting to the supervisor responsible for performing the work an alternative to NCA-1140(a)(2) which responsible for the work being being inspected." The Code change would allow an exception to this inspected. substitutes the more general wording in requirement when permitted by the The NRC disagrees with both the third Basic Requirement 1 that applies to the enforcement authority. The NRC agrees and fourth commenters. Criterion I, overall organization. Applying this with the suggested comment. The NRC, "Organization," of 10 CFR part 50, general requirement for the more through its normal participation in the appendix B requires the establishment specific requirements applied to ASME committee process, will work and execution of a quality assurance independence of inspectors could with the appropriate ASME committees program which includes establishing promote noncompliance with to provide an alternative when the and delineating in writing the authority established licensee QA program requirements of the ASME Code and the and duties of persons and organizations commitments in the absence of regulations cannot simultaneously be performing activities affecting the compensating measures. Thus, the satisfied. Hence, the proposed

51384 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations modification has been deleted from the The commenters indicated that relief implementation status of Subsections final rule. requests relative to these provisions will IWE and IWL from mandatory to be submitted. Because these voluntary. Therefore, the provision has 2.5.2 Section XI (Voluntary implementation difficulties have been not been changed in the final rule.

Implementation).

addressed in the 1998 Edition, However, the proposed provision The proposed rule contained incorporation of the 1998 Edition would (§ 50.55a(b) (2) (ix) in the proposed rule) provisions intended to permit licensees preclude the need to seek relief. Five containing supplemental requirements to voluntarily implement specific commenters believe that the NRC did for the examination of concrete portions of the Code. One provision not perform the mandatory backfit containments has been renumbered as related to Subsection IWE and analysis for the August 8, 1996 {61 FR § 50.55a{b){2){viii) in the final rule. The Subsection IWL of the 1995 Edition 41303), final rule; and, therefore, did proposed provision (§ 50.55a(b)(2)(x) in with the 1996 Addenda. Another not adequately justify its the proposed rule) containing provision related to Code Case N-513, implementation. Further, the supplemental requirements for the "Evaluation Criteria for Temporary commenters believe that the NRC examination of metal containments and Acceptance of Flaws in Class 3 Piping, " responses to the public comments were liners of concrete containments has and Code Case N-523-1 , "Mechanical inadequately substantiated. Based on been renumbered as § 50.55a(b) (2) (ix) in Clamping Devices for Class 2 and 3 this, the comments argued that the the final rule.

Piping." proposed rule should be revised to make As licensees have begun developing 2.5.2.1 Subsection IWE and Subsection these subsections voluntary. Finally, their containment ISI programs, the IWL. one commenter believes that these NRC has received requests to clarify the subsections should be used on a trial implementation schedule for ISI of A final rule was published on August basis before they are mandated. concrete containments and their post-8, 1996 (61 FR 41303) , which The NRC has made a determination to tensioning systems. The current incorporated by reference for the first go forward with the final rule. Given the wording of§ 50.55a(g) (6) {ii) (B) (2) time the 1992 Edition with the 1992 high priority of some of the items requiring licensees to implement "the Addenda of Subsection !WE, contained in the rule, deferral of the inservice examinations which "Require ments for Class MC and final rule to consider the 1998 Edition correspond to the number of years of Metallic Liners of Class CC Components for containment ISI would result in an operation which are specified in of Light-Water Cooled Power Plants," unacceptable delay. Approval of the Subsection IWL" has created confusion and Subsection IWL, "Requirements for 1998 Edition for containment ISI would regarding whether the first examination Class CC Concrete Components of Light- involve not only review of Subsections of concrete is required to meet the Water Cooled Power Plants." The final IWE and IWL but review of the related examination schedule in Section XI.

containment rule contained a Code requirements such as Subsection Subsection IWL, IWL-2410, which is requirement for licensees to develop IWA, "General Requirements," Section based on the date of the Structural and implement a containment ISi V, "Nondestructive Examination," and Integrity Test (SIT), or may be program within 5 years. Some licenseesSection IX, "Welding and Brazing performed at any time between have begun the development of this Qualifications." In addition, September 9, 1996, and September 9, program. However, other licensees have incorporation by reference of these 2001. In addition, the examination expressed an interest in using later additional Code requirements would schedule for post-tensioning systems versions of the Code for this program. result in the renoticing of the rule in the relative to the examination schedule for During review of the 1995 Edition with Federal Register for public comment. concrete was not clear. According to the 1996 Addenda, the NRC determined The NRC staff has met with NEI, EPRI, §50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(B){2) of the final that the provisions contained in and utility representatives to discuss rulemaking of August 8, 1996, the first Subsection IWE and Subsection IWL several industry concerns with regard to examination of concrete may be would be acceptable when used in implementation of a containment ISI performed at any time between conjunction with the modifications program. It is the NRC's understanding September 9, 1996, and September 9, contained in the final rule published on that these concerns can be addressed 200 1. The intent of the rule was that, for August 8, 1996 (61 FR 41303). Thus, the through the use of alternative operating plants, the date of the first proposed rule contained a provision examination requirements provided by examination of concrete not be linked to

[§ 50.55a(b) {2) (vi)] to permit licensees to an ASME Code case or the submittal of the date of the SIT. The first implement either the presently required a relief request (e.g., some containment examination of concrete will set the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda, or designs cannot meet Code access for schedule for subsequent concrete the 1995 Edition with the 1996 examination requirements). examinations. With regard to Addenda. The NRC performed the mandatory examination of the post-tensioning Twenty comments were received backfit analysis for the August 8, 1996, system, operating plants are to maintain related to this provision . One rulemaking. Twelve commenters their present 5-year schedule as they commenter agreed with the action as including NUBARG submitted transition to Subsection IWL. For proposed, and another did not object to comments on the documented operating reactors, there is no need to the action but expressed a preference for evaluation which was performed in repeat the 1, 3, 5-year implementation the 1998 Edition. Three commenters accordance with§ 50. 109{a)(4) . The cycle.

stated that the NRC should give industry developed examination rules Section 50.55a(g) (6) (ii) (B) (2) also consideration to deferring action on this for containments in response to a stated that the first examination proposed amendment so that the 1998 perceived need. The reported performed shall serve the same purpose Edition for containment !SI can be occurrences of containment degradation for operating plants as the preservice incorporated into this rulemaking. and the potential for additional serious examination specified for plants not yet There are several provisions in occurrences was well documented in in operation. The affected plants are Subsections IWE and IWL, 1992 Edition the final rule. No technical basis has presently operating, but they will be with the 1992 Addenda, that licensees been provided for the comment that this performing the examination of concrete are finding cumbersome to implement. rule should be used to revise the under Subsection IWL for the first time.

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations 51385 Because the plants are operating, a Section 50.55a(g)(4) requires that Code Case N- 513 to those applicationsSection XI preservice examination "* *

• components which are for which it was developed.

cannot be performed. Therefore, the first classified as Class CC pressure retaining The first paragraph of Section 4.0 of concrete examination is to be an components and their integral Code Case N- 5 I 3 contains the flaw inservice examination which will serve attachments must meet the acceptance criteria. The criteria provide as the baseline (the same purpose for requirements, except for design and a safety margin based on service loading operating plants as the preservice access provisions and preservice conditions. The second paragraph of examination specified for plants not yet examination requirements, set forth in Section 4.0, however, would permit a in operation). With completion of this Section XI of the ASME Boiler and reduction of the safety factors based on first examination of concrete, the second Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda that a detailed engineering evaluation.

5-year !SI interval would begin. are incorporated by reference in Criteria and guidance are not provided Likewise, examinations of the post- paragraph (b)." Section for justifying a reduction, or limiting the tensioning system at the nth year (e.g., 50.55a(g)(4)(v)(C) has been clarified in amount of reduction. The NRC had the 15th year post-tensioning system this final rule by including determined that this provision was examination), if performed to the "replacement" in order to eliminate any unacceptable because the second requirements of Subsection IWL, are to further confusion. paragraph could permit available be performed to the ISi requirements, margins to become unacceptably low.

not the preservice requirements. 2.5.2.2 Flaws in Class 3 Piping. Hence, § 50.SSa(b) (2) (xvi) (A) of the The NRC has also been requested to Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xvi) in the proposed provision required that, when clarify the schedule for future proposed rule pertained to use of ASME implementing Code Case N-5 I 3, the examinations of concrete and their post- Code Case N-5 I 3, "Evaluation Criteria specific safety factors in the first tensioning systems at both operating for Temporary Acceptance of Flaws in paragraph of Section 4.0 must be and new plants. There is no requirement Class 3 Piping," and Code Case N-523- satisfied.

in Subsection IWL to perform the 1, "Mechanical Clamping Devices for There were seven commenters on the examination of the concrete and the Class 2 and 3 Piping." These Code cases proposed use of these Code cases. One examination of the post-tensioning were developed to address criteria for commenter agreed with the proposed system at the same time . The action. Five commenters believed that temporary acceptance of flaws examination of the concrete under the endorsement of these Code cases in (including through-wall leaking) of Subsection IWL and the examination of a rulemaking is not appropriate. Five moderate energy Class 3 piping where a the liner plates of concrete commenters disagreed with the Section XI Code repair may be containments under Subsection IWE limitations to Code Case N-513.

impractical for a flaw detected during The reason for incorporating the Code may be performed at any time during plant operation (i.e., a plant shutdown the 5-year expedited implementation. cases in the proposed rule was that would be required to perform the Code § 50.55a(g)(4) requires the application of This examination of the concrete and repair) . In the past, licensees had to liner plate provides the baseline for Section XI during all phases of plant request NRC staff approval to defer operation. Under Section XI structural comparison with future containment Section XI Code repair for these Class 3 ISi. Coordination of these schedules in and operability requirements, piping moderate energy (200 °F, 275 psig) containing indications greater than 75 future examinations is left to each piping systems. The NRC had percent of the pipe thickness are licensee. New plants would be required determined that Code Case N-513 is deemed unsatisfactory for continued to follow all of the provisions contained acceptable except for the scope and service. A limitation must be included in Subsection IWL, i.e., satisfy the Section 4.0. Code Case N- 523-1 is in the rulemaking to modify the above preserv!ce examination requirements acceptable without limitation. When mentioned Section XI regulatory and adopt the 1, 3, 5-year examination using Code Case N-523-1, it should be requirements. Because regulatory guides schedule linked to the Structural noted that the Code case erroneously are not mandatory, inclusion of the Integrity Test. The final rule has been clarified in§ 50.55a(g) (6) (ii)(B) (2) with references Table NC-3321-2, rather Code cases in Regulatory Guide 1.14 7 respect to the examination schedules. than Tab le NC-332 1-1 for pressure- would not modify the Section XI repair The NRC has also received a request retaining clamping devices designed by requirements. In addition, the to clarify§ 50.55a(g) (4)(v) (C) regarding stress analysis. The use of Code Case N- preparation of these relief requests the replacement requirements of S I 3, with the limitations, and Code Case consumes considerable industry Subsection IWL-7000 for concrete and N-523-1 will obviate the need for resources, and the review and issuance the post-tensioning systems. Section licensees to request approval for consume considerable NRC staff 50.55a(g)(4)(v)(A) and (B) each state the deferring repairs; thus saving NRC and resources. Therefore, the NRC is inservice inspection, repair, and licensee resources. implementing this limited use of these replacement requirements must be met Section 1.0(a) of the Scope to Code Code cases through the final rule.

for metal containments and metallic Case N-513 limits the use of the With regard to the limitations on the shell and penetration liners, requirements to Class 3 piping. use of Code Case N-513, some respectively. However, However, Section l .0(c) would allow commenters questioned the restrictions

§50.55a(g)(4)(v)(C) states only that the the flaw evaluation criteria to be applied and believe that the Code case should be inservice inspection and repair to all sizes of ferritic steel and austenitic permitted in other applications such as requirements applicable to concrete and stainless steel pipe and tube. Without socket welded connections. The Code the post-tensioning systems be met. This some limitation on the scope of the case has been approved for use on raised a question regarding whether the Code case, the flaw evaluation criteria moderate energy Class 3 piping and omission of the word "replacement" could be applied to components such as tubing (which is the ASME scope of the was intentional. pumps and valves, and pressure Code case). The NRC does not believe The intent of the rule was to require boundary leakage; applications for that the criteria are applicable to socket implementation of all the Articles of which the criteria should not be welds because NDE methods are not Subsection IWL. The failure to include utilized. Thus, paragraph (8) of the available for adequate flaw "replacements" was an oversight. proposed provision limited the use of characterization. In addition, the NRC

51386 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations does not agree that the level of requirements. The first provision plant-specific requests to use OMN-1 reduction of safety margins which involved implementation of ASME Code and has determined that a clarification would be permitted by the Code case is Case OMN-1, "Alternative Rules for of the rule is appropriate regarding the appropriate. The margins available in an Preservice and Inservice Testing of provision in the Code case for the unflawed component are expected to be Certain Electric Motor-Operated Valve consideration of risk insights if higher than for a degraded component. Assemblies in Light-Water Reactor extending the exercising frequencies for Margins less than the minimums Power Plants," in lieu of stroke time MOVs with high risk significance specified for Level A, 8, C, and D testing as required in Subsection ISTC, beyond the quarterly frequency loading conditions are not acceptable. with a modification. The second specified in the ASME Code. In Hence, these restrictions have been provision involved implementation of a particular, licensees should ensure that maintained in the final rule except for check valve condition monitoring increases in core damage frequency and/

the limitation related to original program under Appendix II as an or risk associated with the increased construction. The NRC agrees with alternative to the testing or examination exercise interval for high-risk MOVs are commenters that any defects remaining provisions contained in Subsection small and consistent with the intent of from construction that have been ISTC, with three modifications. The the Commission's Safety Goal Policy determined by evaluation to be third provision involved use of Statement (51 FR 30028; August 21, permissible are acceptable and has Subsection ISTD to satisfy certain ISI 1986). The NRC also considers it removed this limitation from the final requirements for snubbers provided in important for licensees to have rule. Code Cases N-513 and N-523-1 ASME BPV Code, Section XL Each of sufficient information from the specific are addressed in§ 50.55a{b) {2) (xiii) of these provisions is discussed separately MOY, or similar MOVs, to demonstrate the final rule. below. that exercising on a refueling outage frequency does not significantly affect 2.5.2.3 Application of Subparagraph 2.5.3.1 Code Case OMN-1.

component performance. The IWB- 3740, Appendix L. Section 50.55a(b) (3) (iii) of the information may be obtained by Appendix L of Subparagraph IWB- proposed rule addressed the voluntary grouping similar MOVs and staggering 37 40 permits a licensee to demonstrate implementation of Code Case OMN-1 in the exercising ofMOVs in the group that a component is acceptable with lieu of stroke time testing as required for equally over the refueling interval. This regard to cumulative fatigue effects by motor-operated valves (MOVs) in clarification is provided in performing a flaw tolerance evaluation Subsection ISTC . In particular, Code § 50.55a{b)(3) (iii) (8) of the final rule.

of the component as an alternative to Case OMN-1 permits licensees to Thus, Code Case OMN-1 is acceptable meeting the fatigue requirements of replace quarterly stroke-time testing of as an optional alternative to MOY Section Ill. The NRC has reviewed MOVs with a program of exercising on stroke-time test requirements with Appendix L and determined that its use intervals of one year or one refueling (1) The modification that, at 5 years is generally acceptable. However, outage (whichever is longer) and or three refueling outages (whichever is licensees should be aware of the diagnostic testing on longer intervals. longer) from initial implementation of following two items, which have been As indicated in Attachment I to GL 96- Code Case OMN-1, the adequacy of the under consideration by certain ASME 05, the Code case meets the intent of the test interval for each MOY must be committees and may affect future generic letter, but with certain evaluated and adjusted as necessary; revisions of Appendix L. The first item limitations which were discussed in the and is that the assumption of a postulated generic letter. For MOVs, Code Case {2) The clarification of the provision flaw with a fixed aspect ratio of 6 may OMN-1 is acceptable in lieu of in OMN-1 for the establishment of not be conservative depending on the Subsection ISTC, except for leakage rate exercise intervals for high risk MOVs in extent of cumulative usage factor (CUF) testing (ISTC 4.3) which must continue that the licensee will be expected to criteria exceedance along the surface of to be performed. In addition, OMN-1 ensure that the potential increase in the component. The assumption of a contains a maximum MOY test interval core damage frequency and risk fixed aspect ratio can have an impact on of 10 years, which the NRC supports. associated with extending exercise crack growth rates and projected However, the NRC believed it prudent intervals beyond a quarterly frequency remaining fatigue life in a component. to include the modification requiring is small and consistent with the intent The second item pertains to the licensees to evaluate the information of the Commission's Safety Goal Policy influence of environmental effects on obtained for each MOY, during the first Statement.

both fatigue usage and crack growth 5 years or three refueling outages In addition, as noted in GL 96-05, evaluations in Appendix L. (whichever is longer) of use of the Code licensees are cautioned that, when Environmental crack growth data from case, to validate assumptions made in implementing Code Case OMN-1, the laboratory studies indicate the potential justifying a longer test interval. These benefits of performing a particular test for a growth rate which is different from conditions on the use of OMN- 1 were should be balanced against the potential that currently reflected in a draft included in the rule as a modification adverse effects placed on the valves or Section XI Code case which has been [§ 50.55a{b) (3) (iii) (A) in the final rule]. systems caused by this testing. Code under ASME consideration. In addition, Paragraph 3. 7 of OMN-1 discusses the Case OMN-1 specifies that an IST some environmental effects data on use of risk insights in implementing the program should consist of a mixture of fatigue usage are available that may be provisions of the Code case such as static and dynamic testing. While there considered for a revision to Section Ill. those involving MOY grouping, may be benefits to performing dynamic acceptance criteria, exercising testing, there are also potential 2.5.3 OM Code {Voluntary requirements, and testing frequency. For detriments to its use {i.e., valve Implementation). example, Paragraph 3.6.2 of OMN-1 damage). Licensees should be cognizant The proposed rule contained three states that exercising more frequently of this for each MOY when selecting the provisions (§§ 50.55a{b){3){iii), than once per refueling cycle shall be appropriate method or combination of 50.55a{b){3) {iv), and 50.55a{b) (3)(v)] considered for MOVs with high risk methods for the IST program.

pertaining to voluntary implementation significance. Since the proposed rule Seven commenters responded to the of alternatives to specific OM Code was issued, the NRC has reviewed proposed voluntary use of Code Case

Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 183 /Wednesday, September 22, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 51387 OMN-1. All of the commenters agreed the allowable use of Code Case OMN- monitoring program includes bi-with the action to permit use of the I, the amendment states that the directional testing of check valves to Code case. However, four of the adequacy of the test interval for each assess their condition and confirm commenters did not believe that it was MOY shall be evaluated and adjusted as acceptable valve performance (as is appropriate to do so in a rulemaking. necessary but not later than 5 years or presently required by the OM Code).

Two commenters believe that the rule three refueling outages (whichever is The second area needing codifies individual licensee responses to longer) from initial implementation of supplementation is the length of test Generic Letters 89-10 and 96-05 which Code Case OMN-1 . In other words, the interval. Appendix II would permit a is unnecessary. Two commenters did amendment requires when applying licensee to extend check valve test not believe that the NRC had adequately Code Case OMN-1, prior to extending intervals without limit. Under the justified limits on the test intervals. diagnostic test intervals for a specific current check valve IST program, most The proposed rule referenced Code MOY beyond 5 years (or three refueling valves are tested quarterly during plant Case OMN-1 as one method for outages), that the licensee evaluate test operation. The interval for certain developing a long-term MOY program information on similar MOVs to ensure valves has been extended to refueling that satisfies the recommendations of that the aging mechanisms are outages. The NRC has concluded that CL 96-05. This issue is closely related sufficiently understood such that the operating experience exists at this time to Section 2.3.2.5.1. The amendment MOV will remain capable of performing to support longer test intervals for the does not require the use of Code Case its safety function over the entire condition monitoring concept. A policy OMN- 1. Licensees will be allowed the diagnostic test interval. After evaluating of prudent and safe interval extension option of using the Code case as an the test information on similar MOVs, a dictates that any additional interval alternative to the Code-required licensee can extend the diagnostic test extension must be limited to one fuel provisions for MOY stroke-time testing interval on other MOVs beyond 5 years cycle, and this extension must be based with the specified limitation and or three refueling outages up to IO-year on sufficient experience to justify the clarification. The voluntary use of Code limit specified in Code Case OMN-1. additional time. Condition monitoring Case OMN-1 by a licensee (in and current experience may qualify accordance with the rule and GL 96-05) 2.5.3.2 Appendix II . some valves for an initial extension to would resolve weaknesses in the Code Paragraph ISTC 4.5 .5 of Subsection every other fuel cycle, while trending requirements for quarterly MOY stroke- ISTC permits the owner to use and evaluation of the data may dictate time testing, and would also address the Appendix II, "Check Valve Condition that the testing interval for some valves need to establish a long-term MOY Monitoring Program," of the OM Code be reduced. Extensions of IST intervals program in response to CL 96-05. as an alternative to the testing or must consider plant safety and be With regard to the concerns that the examination provisions of ISTC 4.5.1 supported by trending and evaluating rule would require licensees to comply through ISTC 4.5.4. Ifan owner elects to both generic and plant-specific with the provisions on stroke-time use Appendix II, the provisions of performance data to ensure the testing in the OM Code and also with Appendix II become mandatory per OM component is capable of performing its the programs developed under their Code requirements. However, upon intended function over the entire !ST licensing commitments for reviewing the appendix, the NRC interval. Thus, the modification demonstrating MOV design-basis determined that the requirements in (§ 50.55a(b) (3) (iv)(B)) limits the time capability, it has been recognized since Appendix II must be supplemented in between the initial test or examination 1989 that the quarterly stroke-time three areas. The first area is testing or and second test or examination to two testing requirements for MOVs in the examination of the check valve fuel cycles or three years (whichever is ASME Code are not sufficient to provide obturator movement to both the open longer), with additional extensions assurance of MOV operability under and closed positions to assess its limited to one fuel cycle. The total design-basis conditions. For example, in condition and confirm acceptable valve interval is limited to a maximum of 10 CL 89- 10, the NRC stated that ASME performance. Bi-directional testing of years. An extension or reduction in the BPV Code,Section XI, testing alone is check valves was approved by the interval between tests or examinations not sufficient to provide assurance of ASME OM Main Committee for would have to be supported by trending MOY operability under design-basis inclusion in the 1996 Addenda to the and evaluation of performance data.

conditions. Therefore, in CL 89-10, the Code. The NRC agrees with the need for The third area in Appendix II which NRC requested licensees to verify the a required demonstration of bi- the NRC determined should be design-basis capability of their safety- directional exercising movement of the supplemented is the requirement related MOVs and to establish long-term check valve disc. Single direction flow applicable to a licensee who MOY programs. The NRC subsequently testing of check valves, as an interpreted discontinues a condition monitoring issued CL 96-05 to provide updated requirement, will not always detect program. A licensee who discontinues guidance for establishing long-term degradation of the valve. The classic use of Appendix II, under Subsection MOY programs. However, the NRC example of this faulty testing strategy is ISTC 4.5.5, is required to return to the agrees with the public comment that the that the departure of the disc would not requirements of Subsection ISTC 4.5.4.

language in the proposed rulemaking be detected during forward flow tests. However, the NRC has concluded that referring to licensing commitments is The departed disc could be lying in the the requirements of ISTC 4.5.1 through cumbersome. The paragraph has been valve bottom or another part of the ISTC 4.5.4 must be also met. Hence, if revised in the final rule to be system, and could move to block flow the monitoring program is discontinued, performance-based to focus on or disable another valve. Although the the modification [§ 50.55a(b) (3) (iv) (C)]

maintaining MOY design-basis ASME's Working Group on Check specifies that licensees implement the capability. Valves (OM Part 22) is considering Code provisions of ISTC 4.5.1 through ISTC With regard to the question of limits rules for bi-directional testing of check 4.5.4 .

on test intervals, the amendment does valves, Appendix II does not presently Thirty-four comments were received not limit the diagnostic test interval in require it. Hence, the modification in relative to the proposed voluntary Code Case OMN-1 for MOVs to 5 years § 50.55a(b) (3) (iv) (A) was included so implementation of Appendix II. There or three refueling outages. In endorsing that an Appendix II condition were seven comments supporting the

51388 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations option to utilize the requirements of edition or addenda of the ASME Code, modified their Technical Specifications Appendix II. Most of the commenters the regulations in§ 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) allow Snubber Surveillance Requirements to did not agree with the limitations on the the licensee to implement portions of follow the provisions of GL 90-09, use of Appendix II. However, during its subsequent Code editions and addenda "Alternative Requirements for Snubber June 1997 meeting, the ASME's Working that are incorporated by reference in the Visual Inspection Intervals and Group on Check Valves (OM Part 22) regulations subject to the limitations Corrective Actions," to move the identified the following issues related to and modifications listed in the rule, and specific visual inspection and Condition Monitoring (as reported in subject to Commission approval. The functional testing requirements to a the December 1, 1997, meeting minutes) NRC staff will favorably consider a Technical Requirements Manual. The that still needed to be resolved: request by a licensee under NRC has addressed these comments in consideration of safety significance; § 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) to apply Appendix II, the final rule by referencing technical trending; interval limits; step-wise in advance of incorporating the 1995 specifications or licensee-controlled interval limits; and bi-directional Edition with the 1996 Addenda of the documents for snubber test or testing. The proposed modifications ASME OM Code as its Code of record, examination requirements.

addressed these issues. Based on its if the licensee justifies the following in One commenter noted that Article interaction with OM-22, the NRC its submitted request: IWF-5000,Section XI, requires believes the ASME will address these (1) The modifications to Appendix II examination of snubbers be performed issues in future updates of the Code. contained in the rule have been in accordance with ASME OM-1987, Condition Monitoring, as described in satisfied; and Part 4. Licensees of plants with a large Appendix II, is a program consisting of (2) All portions of the 1995 Edition number of snubbers have found the a general process without specified with the 1996 Addenda of the OM Code required visual inspection schedule in requirements, interval extension limits, that apply to check valves are Part 4 to be excessively restrictive. As a and criteria. Condition Monitoring is a implemented for the remaining check result, some licensees have expended a new Code approach with a promise of valves not included in the Appendix II significant amount of resources and better detection of check valve program. have subjected plant personnel to degradation, improved valve 2.5.3.3 Subsection !STD. unnecessary radiological exposure to performance, and maintaining reliable comply with the visual examination component capability over extended Article IWF-5000, "Inservice requirements. Many licensees have been intervals, while adjusting test and Inspection Requirements for Snubbers," granted relief based on application of examination intervals. The Condition of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI, the snubber visual inspection intervals Monitoring approach has not yet been 1996 Addenda, requires examinations contained in GL 90-09. The final rule implemented. Therefore, the nuclear and tests of snubbers at nuclear power allows licensees to use the snubber industry lacks sufficient experience plants as part of the licensee's !SI visual inspection interval contained in upon which to provide confidence of a program in accordance with ASME/ Table ISTD 6.5.2-1, "Refueling Outage-uniform industry application of the ANSI OM, Part 4. Some licensees Based Visual Examination Table,"

process, or that equivalent requirements control testing of snubbers through Subsection ISTD, OM Code, as an and interval extension limits will be plant technical specifications. Although alternative to the Table in OM-1987, applied, or assurance that components the ASME BPV Code,Section XI, Part 4. Table ISTD 6.5.2-1 is are capable of maintaining safe and establishes ISI requirements for substantially similar to the guidance reliable performance over extended examination and tests of snubbers, the provided in GL 90-09 for snubber visual intervals. Failure to ensure proper ASME OM Code also provides guidance inspection intervals. The final rule implementation of the process without on snubber examination and testing in should help resolve the concerns specified requirements, interval Subsection ISTD, "Inservice Testing of regarding the visual inspection schedule extension limits, and criteria could Dynamic Restraints (Snubbers) in Light- in OM-1987, Part 4.

result in inadvertent degradation in Water Reactor Power Plants." The Some commenters proposed safety. Ensuring proper implementation proposed rule(§ 50.55a(b)(3)(v)) stated Subsection ISTD as an acceptable could present an unwieldy compliance that licensees may use the guidance in alternative to the preservice and and inspection process for the NRC and Subsection ISTD, OM Code, 1995 inservice examination requirements in licensees. The modifications to Edition with the 1996 Addenda, for IWF-5000,Section XI. The NRC has not Appendix II contained in the rule testing snubbers. The final rule accepted this suggestion because some provide for a safe and prudent (§ 50.55a(b) (3) (v)) clarifies that preservice and inservice examinations progression of extending test and Subsection ISTD, OM Code, 1995 for snubbers are not included in the OM examination intervals consistent with Edition, up to and including the 1996 Code. For example, Subsection ISTD historical experience and performance Addenda may be used to meet certain does not address inspection of integral expectations. In addition, the  !SI requirements for snubbers provided and non-integral attachments, such as modifications allow the licensee to in IWF-5000 of the ASME BPV Code, lugs, bolting, pins, and clamps. Further, conduct self-compliance inspections Section XI. The licensee must still meet Subsection ISTD does not address and minimize the expenditure of owner those requirements ofIWF-5000, snubbers in systems required to and NRC resources. Hence, the NRC has Section XI, not included in or addressed maintain the integrity ofreactor coolant concluded that the modifications are by Subsection !STD. Consistent with pressure boundary.

justified and they have been retained in IWF-5000, the rule specifies that Section 2.5.3.3, "Subsection ISTD," of the final rule. preservice and inservice examinations the Statement of Considerations for the The NRC considers the Condition must be performed using the VT-3 proposed rule (62 FR 63903; December Monitoring approach of Appendix II for visual examination method in IWA- 3, 1997) stated that inservice testing of check valves to be a significant 2213. dynamic restraints or snubbers is improvement over present Code Eleven comments were received on governed by plant technical requirements, and encourages licensees the endorsement of Subsection ISTD of specifications and, thus, has never been to implement Appendix II. Where a the ASME OM Code. Seven commenters included in 10 CFR 50.55a. It was licensee's Code of record is an earlier indicated that some owners have apparent from comments received on

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations 51389 this section that this statement was requirements including Article IWF- Public Comments. The proposed rule confusing and needed to be clarified. 5000. Inservice testing of snubbers has contained a discussion of NRC concerns First, it is true that 10 CFR 50.55a never been a requirement in IWF-5000 since related to ASME Code Interpretations, directly required inservice testing of Subsection IWF was first issued in the and referenced part 9900, Technical snubbers although the language in the Winter 1978 Addenda of the ASME Guidance, of the NRC Inspection current rule would appear to indicate Code,Section XI. Manual. Part 9900 provides that otherwise. The language in the current licensees should exercise caution when 2.5.3.4 Containment Isolation Valves.

rule states in§ 50.55a(0(4), "Throughout applying Interpretations as they are not the service life of a boiling or The proposed rule contained a specifically part of the incorporation by pressurized water-cooled nuclear power provision to delete the existing reference into 10 CFR 50.55a and have facility, components (including modification in § 50.55a(b) (2) (vii) for not received NRC approval.

supports) which are classified as ASME  !ST of containment isolation valves Twenty-two comments were Code Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 must (C!Vs), which was added to the submitted by 21 separate commenters.

meet the requirements * *

• set forth in regulations in a rulemaking published Interpretations were also discussed in section XI of editions of the ASME on August 6, 1992 (57 FR 34666). That Sections 2.3. l.2. l and 2.5. l. l.l as the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and rulemaking incorporated by reference, use of engineering judgment and Addenda* * *" (emphasis added). among other things, the 1989 Edition of interpretations is intrinsically linked.

Although the language clearly states that ASME Section XI, Subsection IWV that Many of the commenters believe that "components (including supports)" are endorsed part l O of ASME/ANSI OMa- the NRC position on ASME Code within the scope of inservice testing, 1988 for valve inservice testing. A Interpretations is inconsistent. The NRC and it appears that inservice testing of modification to the testing requirements recognizes that the ASME is the official snubbers is included under this of part l O related to CIVs was included interpreter of the Code, but the NRC will statement, this statement was an in the rulemaking indicating that not accept ASME interpretations that, in editorial error. In the 1992 final rule paragraphs 4.2.2.3(e) and 4.2.2.3(0 of NRC's opinion, are contrary to NRC amending 10 CFR 50.55a to more clearly part 10 were to be applied to CIVs. requirements or may adversely impact distinguish the requirements for Since that time, the ASME OM facility operations. It should be noted inservice testing from those for inservice Committee has performed a that, considering the large number of inspection (57 FR 34666; August 6, comprehensive review of OM Part l 0 Code interpretations that are issued, 1992), paragraph (g) was split into two CIV testing requirements and there have been very few cases where acceptance standards, and has the NRC has taken exception to an separate paragraphs-paragraph (0 for developed a basis document supporting ASME interpretation. Interpretations inservice testing and paragraph (g) was removal of the requirements for analysis have been of great benefit in clarifying retained for inservice inspection. In the 1992 final rule, similar requirements of leakage rates and corrective actions in the Code. The NRC is not restricting the Part 10 for those C!Vs that do not use of ASME Code interpretations. A that applied to both inservice inspection provide a reactor coolant system proposed limitation on their use was not and inservice testing were carried over pressure isolation function. The NRC placed in 10 CFR 50.55a; the discussion from paragraph (0 to paragraph (g). The reviewed this OM Committee basis being limited to the Statement of terminology, "components (including document and determined that the Considerations. The purpose of the supports)," which existed in paragraph modification addressing C!Vs could be discussion was to merely alert Code (g) was changed in paragraph (0 to read, removed from the regulation. The "pumps and valves," except in this one users to be prudent when applying requirements of 10 CFR part 50, interpretations.

instance. Therefore, the Commission Appendix J, ensure adequate As discussed in Section 2.3.1.2.1, a views this error as an editorial identification analysis, and corrective meeting was held on November 12, oversight. In the final rule, the language actions for leakage monitoring of C!Vs. 1996, between representatives from the in paragraph (0(4) has been corrected to There were four separate commenters ASME and the NRC (in part because of read, "pumps and valves," instead of on the proposed deletion of this the continuing questions from the "components (including supports)." modification and all were in agreement industry regarding ASME Based on this discussion, § 50.55a with the action. The final rule deletes interpretations). The guidance given in never directly required inservice testing this requirement. NRC Inspection Manual, Part 9900, of snubbers. However, confusion regarding ASME Code interpretations resulted because some licensees 2.6 ASME Code Interpretations. was discussed. ASME representatives interpreted this to mean that the NRC The ASME issues "Interpretations" to stated that the guidance is consistent was implying that inservice testing of clarify provisions of the ASME BPV and with the ASME's understanding of the snubbers was never a regulatory OM Codes. Requests for interpretation relationship between the ASME Code requirement. Inservice testing of are submitted by users and, after and NRC regulations. There were snubbers is a regulatory requirement appropriate committee deliberations discussions regarding the mechanism and has been for many years. Section and balloting, responses are issued by for the NRC to inform the ASME of Code 50.55a(g)(4) requires that ASME Code the ASME. Generally, the NRC agrees interpretations to which the NRC takes Class 1, 2, and 3 components (including with these interpretations. However, in exception. It was agreed that the NRC supports) must meet the inservice a few cases interpretations have been should not establish a formal method for inspection requirements of ASME Code, issued which conflicted with or were reviewing ASME Code interpretationsSection XI. Article IWF-5000 of Section inconsistent with NRC requirements. for acceptance. This conclusion was XI, "Inservice Inspection Requirements Following the guidance in these based primarily on the understanding for Snubbers," provides requirements interpretations resulted in that it would be tantamount to the NRC for the examination and testing of noncompliance with the regulations. becoming the interpreter of the Code. It snubbers in nuclear power plants. Some cases were discussed earlier on was agreed that any concerns the NRC Therefore, inservice testing of snubbers engineering judgment. Additional has regarding specific ASME Code is required by l O CFR 50.55a because it discussion is provided on the use of interpretations would be brought to the incorporates by reference Section XI interpretations in the Response to ASME's attention through the NRC

- I

51390 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations staffs normal interaction with the Code. Thirty-five comments were received consensus process failed to consider the This has been routine practice for many from 21 commenters. Eight of the NRC representatives' comments that the years. commenters supported NRC bases for some of the criteria were Many commenters suggested that the endorsement of the ASME Code, but flawed. This has been conclusively NRC should adopt all interpretations submitted comments encouraging more confirmed through additional testing because the ASME is the official timely endorsement. The Nuclear performed by ETEC. Nearly all of the interpreter of the Code. The NRC cannot Energy Institute (NE!), the ASME Board issues had previously been brought to a priori approve interpretations as on Nuclear Codes and Standards, and the attention of committee members suggested. This would delegate the one utility requested that the NRC hold directly or as a result of public NRC's statutory oversight responsibility public meetings regarding the proposed issuances such as NUREGs and generic to the ASME. In addition, the NRC rule. The reasons cited were: (1) communications.

cannot accept an interpretation when it Difficulties in implementing Appendix On April 2 7, 1999 (64 FR 22580), the conflicts with regulatory requirements. VIII as modified by the NRC; (2) NRC published a supplement to the Finally, an interpretation may not be concerns with the number of proposed rule dated December 3, 1997 accepted that changes the requirements modifications and limitations and their (63 FR 63892), that would eliminate the of the Code subsequent to the NRC content; and (3) licensee use of ASME requirement for licensees to update their endorsement of a particular edition or Code editions later than 1989 should be ISi and 1ST programs beyond a baseline addenda in 10 CFR 50.55a. Several voluntary and NRC staff endorsement edition and addenda of the ASME BPV commenters stated that the NRC should need not be reflected in revisions to 10 Code. Under the proposed rule, accept interpretations because, CFR 50.55a. licensees would continue to be allowed interpretations do not change the Code, With regard to the comments related to update their ISi and 1ST programs to they clarify it. As discussed in the to difficulties in implementing more recent editions and addenda of the responses to the public comments, there Appendix VIII as modified by the NRC, ASME Code incorporated by reference is evidence in a few cases to the as discussed under Section 2.4.1, the in the regulations. In a Staff contrary. NRC staff met with representatives from Requirements Memorandum dated June PD!, EPRI, and NEI on May 12, 1998, 24, 1999, the Commission directed the 2.7 Direction Setting Issue 13.

and again on June 18, 1998, to discuss NRC staff to complete expeditiously the The proposed rule contained a items such as the current status of the issuance of the final rule to incorporate discussion of issues under consideration PD! program, and Appendix VIII as by reference the 1995 Edition with the relative to the Commission's modified during the development of the 1996 Addenda of the ASME BPV Code endorsement of ASME Codes. The first PD! program. The final rule endorses the and the ASME OM Code with item discussed was an October 21, 1993, latest version of Appendix VIII as appropriate limitations and Cost Beneficial Licensing Action (CBLA) modified by PD! during the modifications, and to consider the submittal from Entergy Operations, Inc., development of the PD! program which, elimination of the requirement to requesting relief from the requirement to the NRC believes, satisfies the industry's update ISi and 1ST programs every 120 update ISi and 1ST programs to the concerns relative to this issue. months as a separate rulemaking effort.

latest ASME Code edition and addenda Nine commenters stated that the The NRC is currently reviewing the incorporated by reference into 10 CFR modifications and limitations in the public comments received on the 50.55a. The underlying premise of the proposed rule violate or are contrary to proposed rule dated April 27, 1999. The request was that a licensee should not the spirit of the National Technology NRC will indicate the decision be required to upgrade its ISi and !ST Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, regarding the need for periodic updating programs without considering whether Pub. L. 104-113, which codified 0MB of ISi and 1ST programs and, if the costs of the upgrade are warranted Circular A-119. However, the NRC necessary, an appropriate baseline in light of the increased safety afforded disagrees that Pub. L. 104-113 requires, edition of the ASME Code following the by the updated Code edition and without exception, the use of industry review of public comments.

addenda. The second item discussed consensus standards. Section 12 (d) (3) was the National Technology Transfer 2.8 Steam Generators.

clearly allows agencies to decline to and Advancement Act of 1995, Public adopt voluntary consensus standards if ASME Code requirements for repair of Law 104-113. The Act directs Federal they are inconsistent with applicable heat exchanger tubes by sleeving were agencies to achieve greater reliance on law or otherwise impractical. added to Section XI in the 1989 technical standards developed by Furthermore, the Commission believes Addenda. This portion of the Code voluntary consensus standards that it is in keeping with the intent of contains requirements for sleeving of development organizations. The third the Act if industry consensus standards heat exchanger tubes by several item was Direction Setting Issue (DSI) are endorsed with limitations, rather methods (e.g., explosion welding, fusion 13, which is part of an NRC Commission than failing to endorse them in their welding, expansion, etc.). The NRC has Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining entirety because of a few objectionable reviewed the Code requirements for Initiative. The Commission has directed provisions. Ten commenters suggested sleeving and determined that they are the NRC staff to address how industry that the modifications and limitations, acceptable. However, it should be initiatives should be evaluated, and to in effect, reject the ASME consensus recognized that, typically, there are evaluate several issues related to NRC process. Some further suggested that other relevant requirements that need to endorsement of industry codes and many of the issues had not previously be addressed for the application of standards. As part of this evaluation, the been brought to the ASME's attention. sleeving to steam generator tubing.

NRC staff is addressing issues relevant The NRC disagrees that the limitations Some of the other requirements are as to the NRC's endorsement of the ASME and modifications exemplify NRC's follows: periodic inservice inspections, Code, including periodic updating, the failure to accept the consensus process repair of sleeves containing flaws impact of 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit of standards development. There are exceeding the plugging limit (i.e., tube Rule), and streamlining the process for several examples, such as the new repair criteria), structural design and NRC review and endorsement of the Section III piping seismic design operational leakage limits. All of these ASMECode. criteria, which illustrate that the sleeving requirements (ASME Code and

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations 51391 otheiwise) would need to be addressed inservice inspection, and inservice published on August 6, 1992 (57 FR in the technical specifications sleeving testing as identified in the 34666).

license amendment request. Thus, the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this Actions by applicants and licensees in NRC determination that the ASME Code document. response to the final rule are of the same sleeving requirements are acceptable nature as those applicants and licensees should be kept in perspective. 4. Finding of No Significant have been performing for many years.

Environmental Impact Therefqre, this action should not 2.9 Future Revisions of Regulatory Based upon an environmental increase the potential for a negative Guides Endorsing Code Cases. assessment, the Commission has environmental impact.

Section 50.55a indicates the ASME determined, under the National The Commission has determined, in Code edition and addenda which have Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as accordance with the National been approved for use by the NRC. In amended, and the Commission's Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as addition, Footnote 6 to 10 CFR 50.55a regulations in subpart A of l O CFR part amended and the Commission's references NRC Regulatory Guide 1.84, 51, that this rule will not have a regulations in subpart A of l O CFR part "Design and Code Case Acceptability- significant effect on the quality of the 51, that this rulemaking is not a major ASME Section III Division 1," NRC human environment and therefore an action significantly affecting the quality Regulatory Guide 1.85, "Materials Code environmental impact statement is not of the human environment, and, Case Acceptability-ASME Section III required. therefore, an environmental impact Division l," and NRC Regulatory Guide The final rule is one part of a statement is not required. This final rule 1.14 7, "Inservice Inspection Code Case regulatory framework directed to amends the NRC regulations pertaining Acceptability-ASME Section XI ensuring pressure boundary integrity to ISI and IST requirements for nuclear Division l," which list the ASME Code and the operational readiness of pumps power plant components. The current cases that have been determined and valves. The final rule incorporates regulations in 10 CFR 50.55a suitable by the NRC for use and may be provisions contained in the ASME BPV incorporates by reference the 1989 applied to: (l) The design and Code and the OM Code for the Edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section construction of a particular component; construction, inservice inspection, and III, Division l; the 1989 Edition of the or {2) the performance of inservice inservice testing of components used in ASME BPV Code,Section XI, Division examination of systems and nuclear power plants. These provisions l, for Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 components. A determination has been have been updated to incorporate components; the 1992 Edition with the made that the regulatory guide process improved technology and methodology. 1992 Addenda of the ASME BPV Code, must change in order to assure that the Therefore, in the general sense, the final Section XI, Division 1, for Class MC and Code cases endorsed in the Regulatory rule would have a positive impact on Class CC components; and the 1989 Guides are incorporated by reference the environment. Edition of the ASME BPV Code, Section into the regulations and constitute The final rule endorses ASME BPV XI, Division 1, for Class 1, Class 2, and legally-binding alternatives to the Code,Section XI, 1995 Edition with the Class 3 pumps and valves. The existing requirements in § 50.55a. Draft 1996 Addenda. As most of the technical Commission is amending its regulations Revision 31 to Regulatory Guide 1.84, changes to this edition/addenda merely to incorporate by reference the 1989 draft Revision 31 to Regulatory Guide incorporate improved technology and Addenda, 1990 Addenda, 1991 1.85, and draft Revision 12 to methodology, imposition of these Addenda, 1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda, Regulatory Guide 1.14 7 were published requirements is not expected to either 1993 Addenda, 1994 Addenda, 1995 for public comment in May 1997. The increase or decrease occupational Edition, 1995 Addenda, and 1996 final regulatory guides were published exposure. However, imposition of Addenda of Section III, Division 1, of in May 1999, in accordance with the paragraphs IWF-2510, Table IWF- the ASME BPV Code with five present process. Future revisions to 2500-1, Examination Category F-A, and limitations; the 1989 Addenda, 1990 these regulatory guides, however, will IWF-2430, will result in fewer supports Addenda, 1991 Addenda, 1992 Edition, be accompanied by rulemaking which being examined which will decrease the 1992 Addenda, 1993 Addenda, 1994 will change the footnote reference to occupational exposure compared to Addenda, 1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda, indicate the acceptable regulatory guide present support inspection plans. It is and 1996 Addenda of Section XI, revisions, and to reflect approval for estimated that an examiner receives Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code with incorporation by reference of the approximately l 00 millirems for every three limitations; and the 1995 Edition endorsed Code cases by the Office of the 25 supports examined. Adoption of the and 1996 Addenda of the ASME OM Federal Register. new provisions is expected to decrease Code with one limitation and one the total number of supports to be modification. The final rule imposes an

3. Voluntary Consensus Standards examined by approximately 115 per expedited implementation of The National Technology Transfer unit per interval. Thus, the reduction in performance demonstration methods for and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. occupational exposure is estimated to be ultrasonic examination systems. The l 04-113, requires that agencies use 460 millirems per unit each inspection final rule permits the optional technical standards that are developed interval or 50.14 rems for l 09 units. implementation of the ASME Code, or adopted by voluntary consensus The final rule endorses the 1995 Section XI, provisions for surface standards bodies unless the use of such Edition with the 1996 Addenda of the examinations of High Pressure Safety a standard is inconsistent with ASME OM Code. The provisions of the Injection Class l piping welds. The final applicable law or otheiwise impractical. OM Code are not expected to either rule also permits the use of evaluation In this final rule, the NRC is amending increase or decrease occupational criteria for temporary acceptance of its regulations to incorporate by exposure. The types of testing flaws in ASME Code Class 3 piping reference more recent editions and associated with the 1995 Edition with (Code Case N-523-1); mechanical addenda of the ASME Boiler and the 1996 Addenda of the OM Code are clamping devices for ASME Code Class Pressure Vessel Code and the ASME essentially the same as the OM 2 and 3 piping (Code Case N-513); the Code for Operation and Maintenance of standards contained in the 1989 Edition 1992 Edition including the 1992 Nuclear Power Plants for construction, of Section XI referenced in a final rule Addenda of Subsections IWE and IWL

51392 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations in lieu of updating to the 1995 Edition The environmental assessment is entities. This final rule involves the and 1996 Addenda; alternative rules for available for inspection at the NRC licensing and operation of nuclear preservice and inservice testing of Public Document Room, 2120 L Street power plants. The companies that own certain motor-operated valve assemblies NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC. these plants do not fall within the scope (OMN-1) in lieu of stroke-time testing; Single copies of the environmental of the definition of "small entities" set a check valve monitoring program in assessment are available from Thomas forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or lieu of certain requirements in G. Scarbrough, Division of Engineering, the Small Business Size Standards set Subsection ISTC of the ASME OM Code Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, out in regulations issued by the Small (Appendix II to the OM Code); and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Business Administration at 13 CFR part guidance in Subsection ISTD of the OM Washington, DC 20555-0001, 121. Public comment received on this Code as part of meeting the ISI Telephone: 301- 415-2794, or Robert A. section suggested that the requirements of Section XI for snubbers. Hermann, Division of Engineering, implementation of Appendix VIII of This final rule deletes a previous Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, ASME BPV Code, Section XL on modification for inservice testing of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, performance qualification for ultrasonic containment isolation valves. The Washington, DC 20555-0001, testing might negatively impact small editions and addenda of the ASME BPV Telephone: 301- 415-2768. entities that contract their examination Code and OM Code incorporated by personnel to nuclear power plants.

5. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement reference provide updated rules for the However, the final rule permits construction of components of light- This final rule amends information licensees to implement either Appendix water-cooled nuclear power plants, and collection requirements that are subject VIII as contained in the 1995 Edition for the inservice inspection and to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 with the 1996 Addenda of the ASME inservice testing of those components. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) . These Code, or Appendix VIII as implemented This final rule permits the use of requirements were approved by the by the industry's PDI program. As a improved methods for construction, Office of Management and Budget result, the NRC is unaware of any small inservice inspection, and inservice approval number 3150-001 I. entities in this area of expertise that are testing of nuclear power plant The public reporting burden for this adversely affected such that they cannot components. For these reasons, the information collection is estimated to satisfy either Appendix VIII as written Commission concludes that this rule average 85 person-hours per response, or as implemented by PDI and endorsed should have no significant adverse including the time for reviewing in the rule.

impact on the operation of any licensed instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 8. Backfit Analysis facility or the environment surrounding these facilities. data needed, and completing and The NRC regulations in 10 CFR 50.55a The conclusion of this environmental reviewing the collection of information. require that nuclear power plant assessment is that there will be no Public Protection Notification owners-significant offsite impact to the general (!) Construct Class 1, Class 2, and The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, Class 3 components in accordance with public from this action. However, the and a person is not required to respond the rules provided in Section III, general public should note that the NRC to, a collection of information unless it has also committed to comply with Division 1, "Requirements for displays a currently valid 0MB control Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Executive Order (EO) 12898, "Federal number. Components," of the ASME BPV Code; Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 6. Regulatory Analysis (2) Inspect Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, Low-Income Populations," dated The Commission has prepared a Class MC (metal containment) and Class February 11, 1994, in all its actions. regulatory analysis on this final CC (concrete containment) components Therefore, the NRC has also determined regulation. The analysis examines the in accordance with the rules provided that there is no disproportionately high costs and benefits of the alternatives in Section XI, Division 1, adverse impacts on minority and low- considered by the Commission. The "Requirements for Inservice Inspection income populations. In the letter and analysis is available for inspection in of Nuclear Power Plant Components," of spirit of EO 12898, the NRC is the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 the BPV Code; and requesting public comment on any L Street NW (Lower Level) , Washington (3) Test Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 environmental justice considerations or DC. Single copies of the analysis may be pumps and valves in accordance with questions that the public thinks may be obtained from Thomas G. Scarbrough, the rules provided in Section XI, related to this final rule. The NRC uses Division of Engineering, Office of Division 1.

the following working definition of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. The amendment to 10 CFR 50.55a "environmental justice': the fair Nuclear Regulatory Commission, endorses the 1995 Edition with the 1996 treatment and meaningful involvement Washington, DC 20555- 0001, Addenda of Section XI, Division 1, of of all people, regardless of race, Telephone: 301- 415-2794, or Robert A. the ASME BPV Code for ISi of Class 1, ethnicity, culture, income, or education Hermann, Division of Engineering, Class 2, Class 3, Class MC, and Class CC level with respect to the development, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, components; and the 1995 Edition with implementation, and enforcement of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 1996 Addenda of the ASME OM environmental laws, regulations, and Washington, DC 20555- 0001, Code for IST of Class 1, Class 2, and policies. Comments on any aspect of the Telephone: 301-415-2768. Class 3 pumps and valves. The final rule environmental assessment, including requires licensees to implement environmental justice may be submitted 7. Regulatory Flexibility Certification Appendix VIII, "Performance to the NRC . In accordance with the Regulatory Demonstration for Ultrasonic The NRC will send a copy of this final Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), Examination Systems, to Section XI, rule including the foregoing the Commission certifies that this rule Division 1, as contained in the 1995 Environmental Assessment to every will not have a significant economic Edition with the 1996 Addenda of the State Liaison Officer. impact on a substantial number of small ASME BPV Code, or Appendix VIII as

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations 51393 modified during the development of the The Nuclear Utility Backfitting and periodically ISI and IST programs and, PDI program. Reform Group (NUBARG) and the if necessary, establishing an appropriate Under§ 50.55a(a){3), licensees may Nuclear Energy Institute (NED each baseline edition of the ASME Code.

voluntarily update to the 1989 Addenda raised a concern with regard to the The provisions for IST of pumps and through the 1996 Addenda of Section III NRC's position on routine updates to 10 valves were originally contained in of the BPV Code, with limitations. In CFR 50.55a. Both NUBARG and NEI Section XI Subsections IWP and IWV of addition, the modification for believe that, contrary to the NRC's the ASME BPV Code, but have now containment isolation valve inservice determination, the routine updating of been moved by ASME to a new OM testing that applied to the 1989 Edition 10 CFR 50.55a to incorporate by Code.Section XI, 1989 Edition was of the BPV Code has been deleted. reference new ASME Code provisions incorporated by reference in the August The NRC regulations currently require for ISi and 1ST constitutes a backfit for 6, 1992, rulemaking (57 FR 34666). The licensees to update their ISi and IST which a backfit analysis is required. The 1990 OM Code standards, Parts 1, 6, and programs every 120 months to the NRC has reviewed all of NUBARG's and 10 of ASME/ANSI-OM-1987, are version of Section XI incorporated by NEI's comments in detail and has identical to Section XI, 1989 Edition.

reference into 10 CFR 50.55a 12 months concluded that neither NUBARG nor This amendment is an administrative prior to the start of a new l 0-year change simply referencing the 1995 NE! raise legal concerns which would interval. In the past, the NRC position Edition with the 1996 Addenda of the alter the previous legal conclusion that has consistently been that 10 CFR OM Code. Therefore, imposition of the the Backfit Rule does not require a

50. l 09 does not ordinarily require a 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda of backfit analysis of routine updates to l 0 backfit analysis of the routine 120- the OM Code is not a backfit.

month update to 10 CFR 50.55a. The CFR 50.55a to incorporate new ASME Appendix VIII to ASME BPV Code, basis for the NRC position is that Code ISi and IST requirements. Based Section XI, or Appendix VIII as (1)Section III, Division 1, update on the historical evolution of the ISi modified during the development of the applies only to new construction (i.e., requirements in 10 CFR 50.55a, the NRC PDI program will be used to the edition and addenda to be used in believes it manifest that the "automatic demonstrate the qualification of the construction of a plant are selected update" of ISi programs under personnel and procedures for based upon the date of the construction § 50.55a(g) exists in tandem with the performing nondestructive examination permit and are not changed thereafter, periodic updating and endorsement of of welds in components of systems that except voluntarily by the licensee); new Code editions and addenda for ISi include the reactor coolant system and (2) Licensees understand that l O CFR under§ 50.55a(b), and that the the emergency core cooling systems in 50.55a requires that they update their Commission intended that they be nuclear power facilities. These ISi and IST programs every 10 years to treated as an integrated regulatory performance demonstration programs the latest edition and addenda of the structure for ISi which should not be will greatly increase the reliability of ASME Code that were incorporated by subject to the Backfit Rule except in detection and sizing of cracks and flaws.

reference in 10 CFR 50.55a and in effect limited circumstances as discussed Current requirements have been 12 months before the start of the next above. However, even though the NRC demonstrated not to be able to inspection interval; and has determined that updating and consistently and accurately identify and (3) The ASME Code is a national endorsement of new Code editions and size cracks and flaws and thus are not consensus standard developed by addenda are not subject to the Backfit effective. The Appendix delineates a participants with broad and varied Rule, the NRC is still considering these method for qualification of the interests where all interested parties issues in the context of DSI 13. In personnel and procedures. Appendix (including the NRC and utilities) particular, on April 27, 1999 (64 FR VIII changes the Code rules from a participate; the consensus process 22580), the NRC published a prescriptive set of requirements to a includes an examination of the cost and supplement to the proposed rule dated performance based approach that allows benefits of proposed Code revisions. December 3, 1997 (62 FR 63892), to for implementation of improved This consideration is consistent with eliminate the requirement for licensees technology without changes to the both the intent and spirit of the backfit to update their ISI and IST programs regulations. Performance demonstration rule (i.e., NRC provides for the beyond a baseline edition and addenda would normally be imposed by the 120-protection of the public health and of the ASME BPV Code. Under that month update requirement but, because safety, and does not unilaterally impose proposed rule, licensees would continue of its importance, implementation of undue burden on applicants or to be allowed to update their ISI and IST Appendix VIII is being expedited by the licensees). Finally, to ensure that any programs to more recent editions and rulemaking. Because of the fundamental interested member of the public that addenda of the ASME Code change in the nature of the qualification may not have had an opportunity to incorporated by reference in the requirements, Appendix VIII is being participate in the national consensus regulations. Upon further review, the considered a backfit. The proposed rule standard process is able to communicate Commission decided to complete the would have required licensees to with the NRC, proposed rules are issuance of this final rule endorsing the implement Appendix VIII, including the published in the Federal Register. 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda of modifications, for all examinations of However, it should be noted that the the ASME BPV Code and the ASME OM the pressure vessel, piping, nozzles, and Commission's initial endorsement of Code with appropriate limitations and bolts and studs which occur after 6 new subsections or appendices which modifications and to consider the months from the date of the final rule.

would expand the scope of 10 CFR elimination of the requirement to However, based on public comment, the 50.55a to, e.g., include components that update ISi and IST programs every 120 final rule adopts a phased are not presently considered by the months as a separate rulemaking effort. implementation approach for Appendix regulation (e.g., containment structures Following consideration of the public VIII, ranging from 6 months to 3 years, under Subsection !WE and Subsection comments on the April 27, 1999, depending on the supplement. The final IWL) would be subject to the Backfit proposed rule, the NRC may prepare a rule will not require any change to a Rule, unless one or more of the final rule addressing the continued need licensee's ISI schedule for examination exceptions to 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4) apply. for the requirement to update of these components, but will require

51394 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations that the provisions of Appendix VIII as Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat.

contained in the 1995 Edition with the Washington, DC. Single copies of the 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, 1996 Addenda (as supplemented by the regulatory analysis and documented and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, final rule) or Appendix VIII as modified evaluation are available from Thomas C. 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 during the development of the PDI also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 Scarbrough, Division of Engineering, U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also program (as supplemented by the final Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as rule) be used for all examinations after U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix Falso that date rather than the UT procedures Washington, DC 20555-0001, issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.

and personnel requirements presently Telephone: 301-415-2794, or Robert A. 2237).

being utilized by licensees. Hermann, Division of Engineering, On the basis of the documented 2. Section 50.55a is amended as Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, evaluation required by§ 50.109(a)(4), follows:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC has concluded that imposition Washington, DC 20555-0001, a. By removing paragraph (b) (2) (vii);

of Appendix VIII is necessary to bring Telephone: 301-415-2768. b. By redesignating and revising the facilities described into compliance paragraphs (b)(2)(viii), (b)(2)(ix), and with CDC 14, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 9. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (b)(2)(x) as (b)(2)(vii), (b)(2)(viii), and A, or similar provisions in the licensing (b) (2) (ix), respectively; basis for these facilities, and Criterion II, In accordance with the Small "Quality Assurance Program," and Business Regulatory Enforcement c. By adding paragraphs (b)(l)(i)

Criterion XVI, "Corrective Actions," of Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has through (b)(l)(v), (b)(2)(x) through appendix B to 10 CFR part 50. Criterion determined that this action is not a (b)(2)(xvii), (b)(3), (g) (4)(iii), and II requires, in part, that a QA program major rule and has verified this (g) (6) (ii) (C); and shall take into account the need for determination with the Office of d. By revising the introductory special controls, processes, test Information and Regulatory Affairs of paragraph, the introductory text of equipment, tools, and skills to attain the 0MB. paragraph (b), paragraph (b)(l), the required quality and the need for introductory text of paragraph (b) (2),

verification of quality by inspection and List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 paragraph (b)(2)(vi), the introductory test. Evidence indicates that there are Antitrust, Classified information, text of paragraph (f), paragraphs (f) (1),

shortcomings in the qualifications of Criminal penalties, Fire protection, the introductory text of paragraph (f) (3),

personnel and procedures in ensuring Incorporation by reference, paragraphs (f) (3) (iii), (f) (3) (iv), the the reliability of the examinations. Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear introductory text of paragraph (f) (4),

These safety significant revisions to the power plants and reactors, Radiation paragraph (g) (1), the introductory text of Code include specific requirements for protection, Reactor siting criteria, paragraph (g) (3), paragraph (g) (3) (i), the UT performance demonstration, with Reporting and recordkeeping introductory paragraph of (g)(4), and statistically based acceptance criteria for requirements. paragraphs (g) (4)(v) (C), (g) (6)(ii) (B)( J),

blind testing of UT systems (procedures, For the reasons set out in the and (g) (6)(ii)(B) (2), to read as follows:

equipment, and personnel) used to preamble and under the authority of the detect and size flaws. Criterion XVI §50.SSa Codes and standards.

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, requires that measures shall be the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, Each operating license for a boiling or established to assure that conditions as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, pressurized water-cooled nuclear power adverse to quality, such as failures, the NRC is adopting the following facility is subject to the conditions in malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, amendments to 10 CFR part 50. paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section and defective material and equipment, and each construction permit for a nonconformances, are promptly PART SO-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF utilization facility is subject to the identified and corrected. Because of the PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION following conditions in addition to serious degradation which has occurred, FACILITIES those specified in § 50.55.

and the belief that additional occurrences of noncompliance with l. The authority citation for Part 50 * * * *

• CDC 14, and Criteria II and XVI will continues to read as follows: (b) The ASME Boiler and Pressure occur, the NRC has determined that Authority: Sections 102, 103, 104, 105, Vessel Code, and the ASME Code for imposition of Appendix VIII beginning 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear 6 months after the final rule has been 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, Power Plants, which are referenced in published under the compliance sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. the following paragraphs, were exception to § 50.109(a)(4)(i) is 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135,2201, 2232, 2233, approved for incorporation by reference 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, appropriate. Therefore, a backfit 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, by the Director of the Federal Register.

analysis is not required and the cost- 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846). A notice of any changes made to the benefit standards of§ 50. l 09(a) (3) do Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95- material incorporated by reference will not apply. A complete discussion is 601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). be published in the Federal Register.

contained in the documented Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, Copies of the ASME Boiler and Pressure evaluation. 185, 68 Stat. 955 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, Vessel Code and the ASME Code for The rationale for application of the 2235), sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear.

backfit rule and the backfit justification (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), Power Plants may be purchased from for the various items contained in this and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 the American Society of Mechanical Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).

final rule are contained in the regulatory Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also Engineers, Three Park Avenue, New analysis and documented evaluation. issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. York, NY 10016. They are also available The regulatory analysis and 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix for inspection at the NRC Library, Two documented evaluation are available for Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, White Flint North, 11545 Rockville inspection at the NRC Public Document 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738.

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations 51395 Copies are also available at the Office of (vii)Section XI References to OM Part (3) Grease leakage is detected during the Federal Register, 800 N. Capitol 4, OM Part 6 and OM Part IO ([able general visual examination of the Street, Suite 700, Washington, DC. IWA-1600-1). When using Table IWA- containment surface.

(I) As used in this section, references 1600-1, Referenced Standards and (E) For Class CC applications, the to Section III of the ASME Boiler and Specifications," in the Section XI, licensee shall evaluate the acceptability Pressure Vessel Code refer to Section III, Division 1, 1987 Addenda, 1988 of inaccessible areas when conditions Division 1, and include editions through Addenda, or 1989 Edition, the specified exist in accessible areas that could the 1995 Edition and addenda through "Revision Date or Indicator" for ASME/ indicate the presence of or result in the 1996 Addenda, subject to the ANSI OM Part 4, ASME/ANSI Part 6, degradation to such inaccessible areas.

following limitations and modifications: and ASME/ANSI Part IO must be the For each inaccessible area identified,

{i)Section III Materials. When OMa-1988 Addenda to the OM-1987 the licensee shall provide the following applying the 1992 Edition of Section III, Edition. These requirements have been in the ISi Summary Report required by licensees must apply the 1992 Edition incorporated into the OM Code which is IWA-6000:

with the 1992 Addenda of Section II of incorporated by reference in paragraph (J) A description of the type and the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (b) (3) of this section. estimated extent of degradation, and the Code. (viii) Examination of concrete conditions that led to the degradation;

{ii) Weld leg dimensions. When containments. Licensees applying (2) An evaluation of each area, and applying the 1989 Addenda through the Subsection IWL, 1992 Edition with the the result of the evaluation, and; 1996 Addenda of Section III, licensees 1992 Addenda, shall apply all of the (3) A description of necessary may not apply paragraph NB- modifications in this paragraph. corrective actions.

3683.4(c) (1), Footnote 11 to Figure NC- Licensees choosing to apply the 1995 (ix) Examination of metal 3673.2(b)-1, and Figure ND- 3673.2(b)- Edition with the 1996 Addenda shall containments and the liners of concrete

1. apply paragraphs (b) (2) (viii) (A), containments.

(iii) Seismic design. Licensees may (viii)(D)(3), and (viii)(E) of this section. (A) For Class MC applications, the use Articles NB-3200, NB-3600, NC- (A) Grease caps that are accessible licensee shall evaluate the acceptability 3600, and ND-3600 up to and including must be visually examined to detect of inaccessible areas when conditions the 1993 Addenda, subject to the grease leakage or grease cap exist In accessible areas that could limitation specified in paragraph indicate the presence of or result in deformations. Grease caps must be (b) (l)(ii) of this section. Licensees shall degradation to such inaccessible areas.

removed for this examination when not use these Articles in the 1994 For each inaccessible area identified, there is evidence of grease cap Addenda through the 1996 Addenda. deformation that indicates deterioration the licensee shall provide the following (iv) Quality assurance. When in the ISi Summary Report as required of anchorage hardware.

applying editions and addenda later by IWA-6000:

(B) When evaluation of consecutive (J) A description of the type and than the 1989 Edition of Section III, the surveillances of prestressing forces for estimated extent of degradation, and the requirements of NQA-1, "Quality the same tendon or tendons in a group conditions that Jed to the degradation; Assurance Requirements for Nuclear indicates a trend of prestress Joss such (2) An evaluation of each area, and Facilities," 1986 Edition through the that the tendon force(s) would be less the result of the evaluation, and; 1992 Edition, are acceptable for use than the minimum design prestress (3) A description of necessary provided that the edition and addenda requirements before the next inspection corrective actions.

ofNQA-1 specified in NCA-4000 is interval, an evaluation must be (B) When performing remotely the used in conjunction with the performed and reported in the visual examinations required by administrative, quality, and technical Engineering Evaluation Report as Subsection !WE, the maximum direct provisions contained in the edition and prescribed in IWL-3300. examination distance specified in Table addenda of Section III being used. (C) When the elongation IWA-2210-1 may be extended and the (v) Independence ofinspection. corresponding to a specific load minimum illumination requirements Licensees may not apply NCA- (adjusted for effective wires or strands) specified in Table IWA-2210-1 may be 4134.10(a) of Section III, 1995 Edition during retensioning of tendons differs decreased provided that the conditions with the 1996 Addenda. by more than 10 percent from that or indications for which the visual (2) As used in this section, references recorded during the last measurement, examination is performed can be to Section XI of the ASME Boiler and an evaluation must be performed to detected at the chosen distance and Pressure Vessel Code refer to Section XI, determine whether the difference is illumination.

Division 1, and include editions through related to wire failures or slip of wires (C) The examinations specified in the 1995 Edition and addenda through in anchorage. A difference of more than Examination Category E-B, Pressure the 1996 Addenda, subject to the IO percent must be identified in the ISi Retaining Welds, and Examination following limitations and modifications: Summary Report required by IWA- Category E-F, Pressure Retaining

• * * *

• 6000. Dissimilar Metal Welds, are OE_tional.

(vi) Effective edition and addenda of (D) The licensee shall report the (D) Section 50.55a(b) (2) (ix) (U) may be Subsection !WE and Subsection IWL, following conditions, if they occur, in used as an alternative to the Section XI. Licensees may use either the the ISi Summary Report required by requirements of!WE-2430.

1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda or IWA-6000: ( J) If the examinations reveal flaws or the 1995 Edition with the 1996 (J) The sampled sheathing filler areas of degradation exceeding the Addenda of Subsection !WE and grease contains chemically combined acceptance standards of Table IWE-Subsection IWL as modified and water exceeding IO percent by weight or 3410-1, an evaluation must be supplemented by the requirements in the presence of free water; performed to determine whether

§ 50.55a(b)(Z)(viii) and § 50.55a(b) (2)(ix) (2) The absolute difference between additional component examinations are when implementing the containment the amount removed and the amount required. For each flaw or area of inservice inspection requirements of replaced exceeds 10 percent of the degradation identified which exceeds this section. tendon net duct volume; acceptance standards, the licensee shall

51396 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations provide the following in the ISi (1) Components other than pipe and from the outside surface, the actual Summary Report required by IWA- tube, such as pumps, valves, expansion thickness of the test specimen is to be 6000: joints, and heat exchangers; used to calculate alt.

(i) A description of each flaw or area, (2) Leakage through a flange gasket; (C) When applying Supplement 4 to including the extent of degradation, and (3) Threaded connections employing Appendix VIII, the following provisions the conditions that led to the nonstructural seal welds for leakage must be used:

degradation; prevention {through seal weld leakage is (J) A depth sizing requirement of 0.15 (il) The acceptability of each flaw or not a structural flaw, thread integrity inch RMS shall be used in lieu of the area, and the need for additional must be maintained); and requirements in Subparagraphs 3.2(a) examinations to verify that similar (4') Degraded socket welds. and 3.2(b).

(xiv) Appendix VIII personnel (2) In lieu of the location acceptance degradation does not exist in similar qualification. All personnel qualified for criteria requirements of Subparagraph components, and; performing ultrasonic examinations in 2. 1(b), a flaw will be considered (ii1) A description of necessary accordance with Appendix VIII shall detected when reported within 1.0 inch corrective actions. 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 or IO percent of the metal path to the (2) The number and type of additional training on specimens that contain flaw, whichever is greater, of its true examinations to ensure detection of cracks. This training must be completed location in the X and Y directions.

similar degradation in similar no earlier than 6 months prior to (3) In lieu of the flaw type components. performing ultrasonic examinations at a requirements of Subparagraph 1.1 (e) (l),

(E) A general visual examination as licensee's facility. a minimum of 70 percent of the flaws required by Subsection IWE must be (xv) Appendix VIII specimen set and in the detection and sizing tests shall be performed once each period. qualification requirements. The cracks. Notches, if used, must be limited (x) Quality Assurance. When applying following provisions may be used to by the following:

Section XI editions and addenda later modify implementation of Appendix (i) Notches must be limited to the case than the 1989 Edition, the requirements VIII of Section XI , 1995 Edition with the where examinations are performed from of NQA-1, "Quality Assurance 1996 Addenda. Licensees choosing to the clad surface.

Requirements for Nuclear Facilities," apply these provisions shall apply all of (il) Notches must be semielliptical 1979 Addenda through the 1989 the provisions except for those in with a tip width of less than or equal to Edition, are acceptable as permitted by § 50.55a(b) (2) (xv) (F) which are optional. 0.0 IO inches.

IWA-1400 of Section XI, if the licensee (A) When applying Supplements 2 (iil) Notches must be perpendicular to and 3 to Appendix VIII, the following the surface within +/- 2 degrees.

uses its 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, (4'J In lieu of the detection test matrix quality assurance program, in examination coverage criteria requirements must be used: requirements in paragraphs 1.1 (e)(2) and conjunction with Section XI 1.1 (e) (3), personnel demonstration test requirements. Commitments contained U) Piping must be examined in two axial directions and when examination sets must contain a representative in the licensee's quality assurance distribution of flaw orientations, sizes, program description that are more in the circumferential direction is required, the circumferential and locations.

stringent than those contained in NQA- (D) The following provisions must be 1 must govern Section XI activities. examination must be performed in two used in addition to the requirements of Further, where NQA-1 and Section XI directions, provided access is available.

(2) Where examination from both Supplement 6 to Appendix VIII:

do not address the commitments U) Paragraph 3.1, Detection contained in the licensee's Appendix B sides is not possible, full coverage credit Acceptance Criteria-Personnel are quality assurance program description, may be claimed from a single side for qualified for detection if:

the commitments must be applied to ferritic welds. Where examination from (i) No surface connected flaw greater Section XI activities. both sides is not possible on austenitic than 0.25 inch through wall has been (xi) Class 1 piping. Licensees may not welds, full coverage credit from a single missed.

apply IWB-1220, "Components Exempt side may be claimed only after (i1) No embedded flaw greater than from Examination," of Section XI, 1989 completing a successful single sided 0.50 inch through wall has been missed.

Addenda through the 1996 Addenda, Appendix VIII demonstration using (2) Paragraph 3.1, Detection and shall apply IWB-1220, 1989 flaws on the opposite side of the weld. Acceptance Criteria-For procedure Edition. (B) The following provisions must be qualification, all flaws within the scope used in addition to the requirements of of the procedure are detected.

(xii) Reserved.

Supplement 4 to Appendix VIII: (3) Paragraph I. I (b) for detection and (xiii) Flaws in Class 3 Piping. (J) Paragraph 3.1, Detection sizing test flaws and locations-Flaws Licensees may use the provisions of acceptance criteria-Personnel are smaller than the 50 percent of allowable Code Case N-513, "Evaluation Criteria qualified for detection if the results of flaw size, as defined in IWB-3500, need for Temporary Acceptance of Flaws in the performance demonstration satisfy not be included as detection flaws.

Class 3 Piping," Revision 0, and Code the detection requirements of ASME Flaws which are less than the allowable Case N-523-1, "Mechanical Clamping Section XI, Appendix VIII, Table VIII- flaw size, as defined in IWB-3500, may Devices for Class 2 and 3 Piping." S4-1 and no flaw greater than 0.25 inch be used as detection and sizing flaws.

Licensees choosing to apply Code Case through wall dimension is missed. ( 4') Notches are not permitted.

N-523-1 shall apply all of its (2) Paragraph I. l (c), Detection test (E) When applying Supplement 6 to provisions. Licensees choosing to apply matrix-Flaws smaller than the 50 Appendix VIII, the following provisions Code Case N-513 shall apply all of its percent of allowable flaw size, as must be used:

provisions subject to the following: defined in IWB-3500, need not be (I) A depth sizing requirement of 0.25 (A) When implementing Code Case included as detection flaws. For inch RMS must be used in lieu of the N-513, the specific safety factors in procedures applied from the inside requirements of subparagraphs 3.2(a),

paragraph 4.0 must be satisfied. surface, use the minimum thickness 3.2(c)(2), and 3.2(c)(3).

(B) Code Case N-513 may not be specified in the scope of the procedure (2) In lieu of the location acceptance applied to: to calculate alt. For procedures applied criteria requirements in Subparagraph

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No .. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations 51397 2.1 (b), a flaw will be considered weld centerline of at least 45 degrees, qualify the procedures, equipment, and detected when reported within 1.0 inch the remainder of the examination personnel:

or IO percent of the metal path to the volume is considered fully examined if (i) For detection, a minimum of four flaw, whichever is greater, of its true coverage is obtained in one parallel and flaws in one or more full-scale nozzle location in the X and Y directions. one perpendicular direction. This must mock-ups must be added to the test set.

(3) In lieu of the length sizing criteria be accomplished using a procedure and The specimens must comply with requirements of Subparagraph 3.2(b), a personnel qualified for single-side Supplement 6, Paragraph 1.1, to length sizing acceptance criteria of 0. 75 examination in accordance with Appendix VIII, except for flaw locations inch RMS must be used. Supplement 6. Subsequent specified in Table VIII S6-1. Flaws may (4) In lieu of the detection specimen examinations of this volume may be be either notches, fabrication flaws or requirements in Subparagraph 1.1 (e)(l), performed using examination cracks. Seventy five percent of the flaws a minimum of 55 percent of the flaws techniques qualified for a tilt angle of at must be cracks or fabrication flaws.

must be cracks. The remaining flaws least 10 degrees. Flaw locations and orientations must be may be cracks or fabrication type flaws, (3) The examination volume not selected from the choices shown in such as slag and lack of fusion. The use addressed by § 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(G) (I) is §50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(K)(4), Table VIII--S7-of notches is not allowed. considered fully examined if coverage is 1-Modified, except flaws (5) In lieu of paragraphs 1.1 (e) (2) and obtained in one parallel and one perpendicular to the weld are not I. I (e) (3) detection test matrix, personnel perpendicular direction, using a required. There may be no more than demonstration test sets must contain a procedure and personnel qualified for two flaws from each category, and at representative distribution of flaw single sided examination when the least one subsurface flaw must be orientations, sizes, and locations. provisions of§ 50.55a(b)(2) (xv)(G)(2) are included.

(F) The following provisions may be met. (i1) For length sizing, a minimum of used for personnel qualification for (4) Where applications are limited by four flaws as in combined Supplement 4 to Appendix design to single side access, credit may § 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) (K) (1)(1) must be VIII and Supplement 6 to Appendix VIII be taken for the full volume provided included in the test set. The length qualification. Licensees choosing to the examination volume is covered from sizing results must be added to the apply this combined qualification shall a single direction perpendicular to the results of combined Supplement 4 to apply all of the provisions of weld and the weld volume is examined Appendix VIII and Supplement 6 to Supplements 4 and 6 including the from at least one direction parallel to Appendix VIII. The combined results following provisions: the weld. must meet the acceptance standards (J) For detection and sizing, the total (H) When applying Supplement 5 to contained in § 50.55a(b) (2)(xv) (E) (3 number of flaws must be at least 10. A Appendix VIII, at least 50 percent of the (iii) For depth sizing, a minimum of minimum of 5 flaws shall be from flaws in the demonstration test set must four flaws as in Supplement 4, and a minimum of 50 be cracks and the maximum § 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(K)(J)(1) must be percent of the flaws must be from misorientation shall be demonstrated included in the test set. Their depths Supplement 6. At least 50 percent of the with cracks. Flaws in nozzles with bore must be distributed over the ranges of flaws in any sizing must be cracks. diameters equal to or less than 4 inches Supplement 4, Paragraph 1.1, to Notches are not acceptable for may be notches. Appendix VIII, for the inner 15 percent SuRplement 6. (I) When applying Supplement 5, of the wall thickness and Supplement 6, (2) Examination personnel are Paragraph (a), to Appendix VIII, the Paragraph 1. 1, to Appendix VIII, for the qualified for detection and length sizing following provision must be used in remainder of the wall thickness. The when the results of any combined calculating the number of permissible depth sizing results must be combined performance demonstration satisfy the false calls: with the sizing results from Supplement acceptance criteria of Supplement 4 to (I) The number of false calls allowed 4 to Appendix VIII for the inner 15 Appendix VIII. must be 0/10, with a maximum of 3, percent and to Supplement 6 to (3) Examination personnel are where D is the diameter of the nozzle. Appendix VIII for the remainder of the qualified for depth sizing when 0) When applying the requirements of wall thickness. The combined results Supplement 4 to Appendix VIII and Supplement 5 to Appendix VIJI, must meet the depth sizing acceptance Supplement 6 to Appendix VIII flaws qualifications for the nozzle inside criteria contained in are sized within the respective radius performed from the outside §§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(J),

acceptance criteria of those surface may be performed in accordance 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(E)(J), and supplements. with Code Case N-552, "Qualification 50.55a(b) (2) (xv) (F) (3).

(G) When applying Supplement 4 to for Nozzle Inside Radius Section from (2) For examination of reactor Appendix VIII, Supplement 6 to the Outside Surface," provided that 10 pressure vessel nozzle-to-vessel welds Appendix VIII, or combined CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) (I) (I) is also conducted from the inside of the vessel, Supplement 4 and Supplement 6 satisfied. (i) The clad to base metal interface qualification, the following additional (K) When performing nozzle-to-vessel and the adjacent examination volume to provisions must be used, and weld examinations, the following a minimum depth of 15 percent T examination coverage must include: provisions must be used when the (measured from the clad to base metal (J) The clad to base metal interface, requirements contained in Supplement interface) must be examined from four including a minimum of 15 percent T 7 to Appendix VIII are applied for orthogonal directions using a procedure (measured from the clad to base metal nozzle-to-vessel welds in conjunction and personnel qualified in accordance interface), shall be examined from four with Supplement 4 to Appendix VIII, with Supplement 4 to Appendix VIII as orthogonal directions using procedures Supplement 6 to Appendix VIII, or modified by§§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(B) and and personnel qualified in accordance combined Supplement 4 and 50.55a(b) (2) (xv) (C).

with Supplement 4 to Appendix VJII. Supplement 6 qualification. (i1) When the examination volume (2) If the clad-to-base-metal-interface (I) For examination of nozzle-to- defined in§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) (K)(2) (1) procedure demonstrates detectability of vessel welds conducted from the bore, cannot be effectively examined in all flaws with a tilt angle relative to the the following provisions are required to four directions, the examination must be

51398 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations augmented by examination from the notches may be located within one (ii) Motor-Operated Valve stroke-time nozzle bore using a procedure and diameter of each end of the bolt or stud. testing. Licensees shall comply with the personnel qualified in accordance with (xvi) Appendix VIII single side ferritic provisions on stroke time testing in OM

§ 50.55a{b)(2) (xv) (K){J) . vessel and piping and stainless steel Code ISTC 4.2, 1995 Edition with the (iii) The remainder of the examination piping examination. 1996 Addenda, and shall establish a volume not covered by (A) Examinations performed from one program to ensure that motor-operated

§ 50.55a(b) (2) {xv) (K) (2) (ii) or a side of a ferritic vessel weld must be valves continue to be capable of combination of conducted with equipment, procedures, performing their design basis safety

§ 50.55a{b) {2) (xv) (K)(2) (i) and and personnel that have demonstrated functions.

§ 50.55a{b) {2){xv)(K){2)(i1), must be proficiency with single side (iii) Code Case OMN-1. As an examined from the nozzle bore using a examinations. To demonstrate alternative to § 50.55a{b) {3){ii), licensees procedure and personnel qualified in equivalency to two sided examinations, may use Code Case OMN-1, accordance with§ 50.55a{b) {2) (xv) (K) (J), the demonstration must be performed to "Alternative Rules for Preservice and or from the vessel shell using a the requirements of Appendix VIII as Inservice Testing of Certain Electric procedure and personnel qualified for modified by this paragraph and Motor-Operated Valve Assemblies in single sided examination in accordance §§ 50.55a(b) (2)(xv) (B) through (G), on Light Water Reactor Power Plants,"

with Supplement 6 to Appendix VIII, as specimens containing flaws with non- Revision 0, 1995 Edition with the 1996 modified by §§ 50.55a{b) (2) (xv) (D), optimum sound energy reflecting Addenda, in conjunction with ISTC 4.3, 50.55a{b){2){xv)(E), 50.55a{b){2) (xv) (F), characteristics or flaws similar to those 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda.

and 50.55a(b){2)(xv)(G) . in the vessel being examined. Licensees choosing to apply the Code (3) For examination of reactor (B) Examinations performed from one case shall apply all of its provisions.

side of a ferritic or stainless steel pipe (A) The adequacy of the diagnostic pressure vessel nozzle-to-shell welds test interval for each valve must be conducted from the outside of the weld must be conducted with equipment, procedures, and personnel evaluated and adjusted as necessary but vessel, not later than 5 years or three refueling (i) The clad to base metal interface that have demonstrated proficiency with outages {whichever is longer) from and the adjacent metal to a depth of 15 single side examinations. To demonstrate equivalency to two sided initial implementation of ASME Code percent T, (measured from the clad to Case OMN-1 .

base metal interface) must be examined examinations, the demonstration must (B) When extending exercise test from one radial and two opposing be performed to the requirements of intervals for high risk motor-operated circumferential directions using a Appendix VIII as modified by this valves beyond a quarterly frequency, procedure and personnel qualified in paragraph and§ 50.55a{b) (2)(xv)(A).

licensees shall ensure that the potential accordance with Supplement 4 to (xvii) Recondliation of Quality increase in core damage frequency and Appendix Vlll, as modified by Requirements. When purchasing risk associated with the extension is

§§ 50.55a{b){2){xv) (B) and replacement items, in addition to the small and consistent with the intent of 50.55a(b){2){xv){C), for examinations reconciliation provisions ofIWA-4200, the Commission's Safety Goal Policy performed in the radial direction, and 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda, Statement.

Supplement 5 to Appendix VIII, as the replacement items must be (iv) Appendix II. The following modified by § 50.55a{b){2) (xv) 0), for purchased, to the extent necessary, in modifications apply when examinations performed in the accordance with the owner's quality implementing Appendix II, "Check circumferential direction. assurance program description required Valve Condition Monitoring Program,"

(i1) The examination volume not by 10 CFR 50.34{b)(6)(ii) . of the OM Code, 1995 Edition with the addressed by § 50.55a(b){2){xv) (K) (3) (1) (3) As used in this section, references 1996 Addenda:

must be examined in a minimum of one to the OM Code refer to the ASME Code (A) Valve opening and closing radial direction using a procedure and for Operation and Maintenance of functions must be demonstrated when personnel qualified for single sided Nuclear Power Plants, and include the flow testing or examination methods examination in accordance with 1995 Edition and the 1996 Addenda (nonintrusive, or disassembly and Supplement 6 to Appendix VIII, as subject to the following limitations and ins_pection) are used; modified by §§ 50.55a{b){2) (xv)(D), modifications: (1:3) The initial interval for tests and 50.55a{b){2){xv) (E), 50.55a(b) {2){xv) (F), (i) Quality Assurance. When applying associated examinations may not exceed and 50.55a(b) {2) (xv) (G) . editions and addenda of the OM Code, two fuel cycles or 3 years, whichever is (4) Table VIII-S7-1, " Flaw Locations the requirements of NQA-1, "Quality longer; any extension of this interval and Orientations," Supple ment 7 to Assurance Requirements for Nuclear may not exceed one fuel cycle per Appendix VIII , is modified as follows: Facilities," 1979 Addenda, are extension with the maximum interval acceptable as permitted by ISTA 1.4 of not to exceed 10 years; trending and TABLE VIII-S7-1-MODIFIED the OM Code, provided the licensee evaluation of existing data must be used uses its 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, to reduce or extend the time interval Flaw Locations and Orientations quality assurance program in between tests.

conjunction with the OM Code (C) If the Appendix II condition Perpen- requirements. Commitments contained monitoring program is discontinued, Parallel to dicular to weld weld in the licensee's quality assurance then the requirements ofISTC 4.5.1 program description that are more through 4.5.4 must be implemented.

Inner 15 percent ...... . X X stringent than those contained in NQA- (v) Subsection !STD. Article IWF-OD Surface ............. .. X 1 govern OM Code activities. If NQA- 5000, "Inservice Inspection Subsurface .............. .. X 1 and the OM Code do not address the Requirements for Snubbers, of the commitments contained in the ASME BPV Code,Section XI, provides (L) As a modification to the licensee 's Appendix B quality assurance inservice inspection requirements for requirements of Supplement 8, program description, the commitments examinations and tests of snubbers at Subparagraph I. I (c), to Appendix Vlll, must be applied to OM Code activities. nuclear power plants. Licensees may

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations 51399 use Subsection ISTD, "Inservice Testing be designed and be provided with which are classified as ASME Code of Dynamic Restraints (Snubbers) in access to enable the performance of Class 1. Other safety-related pressure Light-Water Reactor Power Plants," inservice testing of the pumps and vessels, piping, pumps and valves, and ASME OM Code, 1995 Edition up to and valves for assessing operational their supports must meet the including the 1996 Addenda, in lieu of readiness set forth in editions and requirements applicable to components the requirements for snubbers in Section addenda of the ASME OM Code which are classified as ASME Code XI, IWF-5200(a) and (b) and IWF- referenced in paragraph (b) (3) of this Class 2 or Class 3.

5300(a) and (b), by making appropriate section at the time the construction * * *

• changes to their technical specifications permit is issued. (3) For a boiling or pressurized water-or licensee controlled documents. (iv)(A) Pumps and valves, in facilities cooled nuclear power facility whose Preservice and inservice examinations whose construction permit was issued construction permit was issued on or shall be performed using the VT-3 before November 22, 1999, which are after July 1, 1974:

visual examination method described in classified as ASME Code Class 2 and (i) Components (including supports)

IWA-2213. Class 3 must be designed and be which are classified as ASME Code

• provided with access to enable the Class 1 must be designed and be (f) Inservice testing requirements. performance of inservice testing of the provided with access to enable the Requirements for inservice inspection of pumps and valves for assessing performance of inservice examination of Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, Class MC, and operational readiness set forth in such components and must meet the Class CC components (including their Section XI of editions of the ASME preservice examination requirements set supports) are located in § 50.55a(g). Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and forth in Section XI of editions of the (1) For a boiling or pressurized water- Addenda 6 applied to the construction of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code cooled nuclear power facility whose the particular pump or valve or the and Addenda 6 applied to the construction permit was issued prior to Summer 1973 Addenda, whichever is construction of the particular January 1, 1971, pumps and valves must later. component.

meet the test requirements of paragraphs (B) Pumps and valves, in facilities * * * * *

(f) (4) and (f) (5) of this section to the whose construction permit is issued on (4) Throughout the service life of a extent practical. Pumps and valves or after November 22, 1999, which are boiling or pressurized water-cooled which are part of the reactor coolant classified as ASME Code Class 2 and 3 nuclear power facility, components pressure boundary must meet the must be designed and be provided with (including supports) which are requirements applicable to components access to enable the performance of classified as ASME Code Class I, Class which are classified as ASME Code inservice testing of the pumps and 2 and Class 3 must meet the Class 1. Other pumps and valves that valves for assessing operational requirements, except design and access perform a function to shut down the readiness set forth in editions and provisions and preservice examination reactor or maintain the reactor in a safe addenda of the ASME OM Code requirements, set forth in Section XI of shutdown condition, mitigate the referenced in paragraph (b) (3) of this editions of the ASME Boiler and consequences of an accident, or provide section at the time the construction Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda that overpressure protection for safety- permit is issued. become effective subsequent to editions related systems (in meeting the * * * *

• specified in paragraphs (g) (2) and (g) (3) requirements of the 1986 Edition, or (4) Throughout the service life of a of this section and that are incorporated later, of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel boiling or pressurized water-cooled by reference in paragraph (b) of this or OM Code) must meet the test nuclear power facility, pumps and section, to the extent practical within requirements applicable to components valves which are classified as ASME the limitations of design, geometry and which are classified as ASME Code Code Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 must materials of construction of the Class 2 or Class 3. meet the inservice test requirements, components. Components which are

• * * *

• except design and access provisions, set classified as Class MC pressure retaining (3) For a boiling or pressurized water- forth in the ASME OM Code and components and their integral cooled nuclear power facility whose addenda that become effective attachments, and components which are construction permit was issued on or subsequent to editions and addenda classified as Class CC pressure retaining after July 1, 197 4: specified in paragraphs (f) (2) and (f) (3) components and their integral

• of this section and that are incorporated attachments must meet the requirements, except design and access (iii) (A) Pumps and valves, in facilities by reference in paragraph (b) of this whose construction permit was issued section, to the extent practical within provisions and preservice examination before November 22, 1999, which are the limitations of design, geometry and requirements, set forth in Section XI of classified as ASME Code Class 1 must materials of construction of the the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel be designed and be 'provided with components. Code and Addenda that are access to enable the performance of * * * *

• incorporated by reference in paragraph inservice testing of the pumps and (g)*** (b) of this section, subject to the valves for assessing operational (I) For a boiling or pressurized water- limitation listed in paragraph (b)(2)(vi) readiness set forth in Section XI of cooled nuclear power facility whose of this section and the modifications editions of the ASME Boiler and construction permit was issued before listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(viii) and Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda 6 January 1, 1971, components (including (b) (2) (ix) of this section, to the extent applied to the construction of the supports) must meet the requirements of practical within the limitation of design, particular pump or valve or the Summer paragraphs (g)(4) and (g) (5) of this geometry and materials of construction 1973 Addenda, whichever is later. section to the extent practical. of the components.

(B) Pumps and valves, in facilities Components which are part of the * * * *

• whose construction permit is issued on reactor coolant pressure boundary and (iii) Licensees may, but are not or after November 22, 1999, which are their supports must meet the required to, perform the surface classified as ASME Code Class 1 must requirements applicable to components examinations of High Pressure Safety

51400 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 183/Wednesday, September 22, 1999/Rules and Regulations Injection Systems specified in Table specified in § 50.55a(b) (2) {ix) by examination of concrete must be used to IWB- 2500-1, Examination Category B- September 9, 2001. The examination determine the 5-year schedule for J, Item Numbers B9.20, B9.21, and performed during the first period of the subsequent examinations subject to the B9.22 . first inspection interval must serve the provisions of IWL-241 0{c).

• * * *

• same purpose for operating plants as the * * * * *

(v) * *

• preservice examination specified for (C) Implementation of Appendix VIII

{C) Concrete containment pressure plants not yet in operation. to Section XI. (1) The Supplements to retaining components and their integral (2) Licensees of all operating nuclear Appendix VIII of Section XI, Division l, attachments, and the post-tensioning power plants shall implement the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda of systems of concrete containments must inservice examinations which the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel meet the inservice inspection, repair, correspond to the number of years of Code must be implemented in and replacement requirements operation which are specified in accordance with the following schedule:

applicable to components which are Subsection IWL of the 1992 Edition Supplements 1, 2, 3, and 8-May 22, classified as ASME Code Class CC. with the 1992 Addenda in conjunction 2000; Supplements 4 and 6-November

• * * *

• with the modifications specified in 22, 2000; Supplement 11-November (6) * * * § 50.55a{b){2){viii) by September 9, 22, 200 l; and Supplements 5, 7, l 0, 12, (ii) * *

• 2001. The first examination performed and 13-November 22, 2002.

(B) Expedited examination of must serve the same purpose for * * * *

• containment. operating plants as the preservice (1) Licensees of all operating nuclear examination specified for plants not yet Dated at Rockville, MD this 26th day of August, 1999.

power plants shall implement the in operation. The first examination of inservice examinations specified for the concrete must be performed prior to For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

first period of the first inspection September 10, 2001, and the date of the William D. Travers, interval in Subsection !WE of the 1992 examination need not comply with the Executive Director for Operations.

Edition with the 1992 Addenda in requirements of IWL-24 l0{a) or IWL- [FR Doc. 99-24256 Filed 9-21-99; 8:45 am) conjunction with the modifications 2410{b) . The date ofthe first BILLING CODE 7590--01--P

oor- u*,*,

I ,C ET:o TXU Electric C. Lance Terry Comanche Peak Senior Vice President & Principal Nuclear Officer Steam Electric Station P.O. Box 1002

• 99 SEr 28 A10 :46 Glen Rose, TX 76043 Tel: 254 897 8920 Fax: 254 897 6652 0, lterryl @txu.com I 11 AD..*

Log # TXX-99218 File# 10010.1 905.4 Ref. # 10CFR50.55a(g)

September 24, 1999

• The Honorable Greta J. Dicus U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 0-16 Cl Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 10CFR50.55a, REGARDING ELIMINATION OF THE 120-MONTH UPDATE REF: Federal Register Volume 64, No. 80, Pages 22580-22588, dated April 27, 1999

Dear Chairman Dicus:

The NRC should be commended for the proposed rulemaking to eliminate the requirement for licensees to revise their inservice inspection (ISi) and testing (1ST) programs beyond a baseline edition and addenda of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Reconsideration of this requirement is warranted because there is no substantial increase in safety commensurate with the cost of implementation.

TXU Electric understands that ASME, individuals from the industry, and NRC staff involved in ASME activities have communicated views opposing the proposed rule.

Nevertheless, TXU Electric believes that rulemaking consistent with the provisions of the backfitting rule and a demonstrated threshold of safety improvement represents sound regulatory policy.

SEP 3 0 199

.f\cknowledged by card ...- .....- * - - '

U.S UC RULEMAK F

~ ... TXU TXX-99218 Page 2 of2 In conclusion, TXU Electric supports the proposed rule to eliminate the 120-month update requirement in 10 CFR 50.55a, Codes and Standards.

This communication contains no new licensing basis commitments regarding CPSES

• Units 1 and 2.

Sincerely,

~-~~~

C. L. Terry By: R?!ff! £Jr _ct(/~

Roger D. Walker Regulatory Affairs Manager OAB/oab cc: The Honorable Nils J. Diaz, Commissioner, NRC The Honorable Edward McGaffigan Jr., Commissioner, NRC The Honorable Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Commissioner, NRC Dr. William D. Travers, Executive Director for Operations, NRC bee: Mr. E. W. Merschoff, Region IV Mr. J. I. Tapia, Region IV Mr. D. H. Jaffe, NRR Resident Inspectors, CPSES Mr. Alex Marion, NEI

~ Duke Duke Power Company A Duk, Energy Company

, ,Power. . DOCKET ED EC07H A Dulu En"C/ Company US '(l; 526 South Church Street P.O. Box 1006 Charlotte, NC 28201-1006 M. S. Tuckman Executive Vice President *99 SCP 22 P4 :43 (704) 382-2200 OFFICE Nuclear Generation (704) 382-4360 FAX 0,

September 16, 1999 R,.1 AOJI The Honorable Greta J. Dicus, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 0-16 Cl Washington, DC 20555-0001 50

( ~ t/Fl(oMsioj

SUBJECT:

10 CFR 50.55a Supplemental Proposed Rule (64 Federal Register 22580)

Dear Chairman Dicus:

I am writing to compliment the NRC for the recent proposed rulemaking to eliminate the requirement for licensees to revise their inservice inspection (ISI) and inservice testing (IST) programs beyond a baseline edition and addenda of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. The NRC's reconsideration of this regulatory requirement is warranted because there is no substantial increase in safety commensurate with the cost of its implementation. Duke Energy Corporation submitted comments supporting this proposed rulemaking in my letter to the Secretary of the Commission dated June 24, 1999.

I understand that the ASME, individuals from the industry, and NRC staff members involved in ASME activities have communicated views opposing the proposed rule. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that rulemaking consistent with the provisions of the backfitting rule and a demonstrated threshold of safety improvement represents sound regulatory policy.

In conclusion, I support the proposed rule to eliminate the 120-month update requirement in 10 CFR 50.55a, Codes and Standards.

Very truly yours,

~-J.[\~

M. S. Tuckman

[P 28 1999

~cknowfedged by card ...- ...".........._ ..-,.-r

u.S. NUCLEAR REGULA Y ,

RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS OFFICE OF THE SECRETA OFTHECOM, I

The Honorable Greta J. Dicus September 16, 1999 Page 2 MST/JSW xc: The Honorable Nils J. Diaz, Commissioner, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission The Honorable, Edward McGaffigan Jr., Commissioner, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission The Honorable Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Commissioner, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. William D. Travers, Executive Director for Operations, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

'I

• -=-Entergy Entergy Operations , Inc.

PO Box 31995 Jackson . MS 39286- 1995 Tel 601 368 5690 John R. McGaha Exeec utive Vice Presid ent

• 99 S[ 20 P12 :QB and Ch ,ef Operating Officer September 13, 1999 if REC'O BY SECY The Honorable Greta J. Dicus 17 SEP W 2..J Chairman 3lJ.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOCKET NUMBER PR Mail Stop 0-16 C1 PROPOSED RULE. 5~

Washington, DC 20555-0001 -C ft,</ FR~ ;isa-oJ

SUBJECT:

10 CFR 50.55a Supplemental Proposed Rule (64 Fed. Reg. 22580)

CN RO-99/00024

Dear Chairman Dicus:

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) compliments the NRC for the proposed rulemaking to eliminate the requirement for licensees to revise their inservice inspection (ISi) and testing (1ST) programs beyond a baseline edition and addenda of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. NRC's reconsideration of this requirement is warranted because there is no substantial increase in safety commensurate with the cost of implementation.

I understand that ASME, individuals from the industry, and NRC staff involved in ASME activities have communicated views opposing the proposed rule. Nevertheless, rulemaking consistent with the provisions of the backfitting rule and a demonstrated threshold of safety improvement represents sound regulatory policy. As such, eliminating the mandatory 120-month update will not prevent the NRC from imposing ASME Section XI changes that are necessary to ensure safety, but will eliminate the undue burden associated with updating to Section XI changes that do not provide a needed enhancement to safety.

In conclusion, Entergy supports the proposed rule to eliminate the 120-month update requirement in 10 CFR 50.55a, Codes and Standards and encourages the Staff to give due consideration to the proposed rule change.

Sincerely,

~~\\lll JRM/MAK/GHD/baa cc: (see next page) p 22 l99L-el<now1 ged bV card _..... '" ,,,,_...,ir.x

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOf"i RULEMAKINGS &AOJll>ICA110N8 STAFF OFFICE OF"fHIIIEFEi~

OFTHECONIB~

DoclinantRIIIII.._

9ft3/qq I

10CFR50.55a Supplemental Proposed Rule CNRO-99/00024 September 13, 1999 Page 2 of 2 cc: The Honorable Nils J. Diaz, Commissioner, NRC The Honorable, Edward McGaffigan Jr., Commissioner, NRC The Honorable Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Commissioner NRC Dr. William D. Travers, Executive Director for Operations, NRC Mr. C. M. Dugger (W-3)

Mr. W. A. Eaton (GGNS)

Mr. R. K. Edington (RBS)

Mr. C. R. Hutchinson (ANO)

Mr. J. W. Yelverton (ECH)

From: "Thomas, Kenneth B." <kbthoma@nppd.com>

To: "'USNRC Records Management Branch"' <BJS1 @NRG.GOV> DOCKETED Ic*

Date: Wed, May 26, 199912:53 PM I-*-Jn:,

lJ 0

\ t.,

Subject:

Proposed Amendment to 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Amendment to 10 CFR 50.55a *99 SEr -2 P 1 :47 Gentleman: OFF 1 R1 I object to the proposed change to delete the requirement for the 120-month ADJL ) .

update of the ISi and 1ST programs. I have over 25 years of experience in FF the implementation of these requirements and currently serve on the ASME XI Working Group, Inspection of Systems and Components (WGISC).

DOCKET NUMBER PR In my opinion the proposed rule would have a slight negative effect on plant PROPOSED safety. The 120-month update has frequently found errors in the RULE O ~

t,t/;:f ~:J.58()

implementation of Code requirements for the preceding interval, e.g. Nine Mile Point in 1989 and Cooper Nuclear Station in 1994. Without the periodic update, utility personnel are not likely to make a comprehensive review of the programs and implementing procedures. Thus, certain components would not have been tested or examined in accordance with code rules and potential flaws would go undiscovered until failure occurred.

Selecting the 1989 edition of the code as the base code ignores the considerable work that has been done by the industry and ASME in updating the code. Utilities updating to 1989 would have to submit relief requests for examination that are not required by the latest edition of the code.

This puts a burden on both the utility and the regulator. It also ignores the latest efforts to base inspection and test requirements on the risk significance of the component.

Without the 120-month update, many utilities would not be active in supporting the ASME Committees. Some of the benefits of active ASME participation are: a better understanding of the code; developing code changes and code case to incorporate industry experience; information exchange with peers; and, information exchange with NRC participants in the code committees. Some utility executives think the code is a "cook book" and that anyone can read and follow it. This is not the case. There are many "grey areas" in the code and the interaction between the different code sections can not be fully understood or effectively implemented without relevant experience in inspection, pressure testing, and repairs and replacements. The interaction between ASME XI requirements and construction code requirements is another area that is not well understood. This opinion is supported by the number of requests for interpretation that ASME XI receives.

In my experience, the burden of updating a well maintained ISi or 1ST program is minor. The major cost is from ineffective implementation of the previous interval. Several LERs have been generated over the years for missed inspections. In some case, utilities have left entire safety systems out of their ISi programs. The periodic update is one method that identifies these errors. Most utilities will bring in industry experts to review their programs near the end of the interval. Without the 120-month update requirement, this review will no longer occur.

Although the content of licensee submitals may change without the 120-month tfl'Vli/ SEP - 6 19.99-__

~eknowfedged by ...................~ *111*ar.

!J.B. lUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMfSSK)N RUL MAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OFlHESECRETAR OFTHE CO ISSIO

update requirement, the number of submittals will not. The utilities will submit more relief requests to adopt code cases or other provisions of later addendas. This is especially true since the NRC has not been timely in their review of code cases.

I do not think there will be any significant impact on most states. In general the states are not involved in ISi or 1ST. There might, however, be some effect on insurance companies or inspection agencies. Inspection agencies might be less like to fund research on improved inspection techniques if the code remains static.

I urge you not to support the proposed rule change .

Hi Adria I am helping Tom Scarbrough address public comments on a proposed rulemaking (elimination of the 120-month ISI/IST update requirement). As I was going through the stack of comments, I noticed that one of them isn't stamped and numbered.

I was told that I should send the comment to you so that it can be docketed and numbered. I have attached it to this note. The stamp on the other public comments is: PR 50 (64FR22580).

Also, the last comment was #31.

If you need more information, call me at 415-2737.

Thank you, Margie Kotzalas

II '* AT~ ' Tue Jun 011999 01:26 pn Page 1 of 1 I

DO 1.1KET NUMBER

(!!)

I 06-01-99 SECOND REQUEST PROPOSED RULE SO DOC~CETEC 05-17-99 { /,'ffR"~58o) Us 1.I' 'f'.,

FRON:

ADVANCE TOOL COMPANY TELE 616-587-9196 407 ROSE STREET P.O. BOX 588 FAX 616-587-5744 *99 AUG 12 P3 :43 MANCELONA, MI 49659 I

TO:

NRC ATTN. THOMAS G. SCARBROUGH TELE 301 415-2794 FAX 301115-2444

, I

SUBJECT:

Definition of 'extent practical' Dear Mr. Scarbrough; Would you please furnish ne with the definition of the tern

'extent practical' The phrase appears in 10 CFR 50 under II. Proposed Elimination of the 120-Nonth Update Requ irenents Ctwice) , 50 . 55a Cf )( 1 )( D ,

(ii), (iii), and 50.55a(f)(4)(iii)(A).

It is a legal tern that does not appear in any dictionary including Oxford English Language, Black's Law Dictionary, and LJords and Phrases .

I define 'extent practical' as: 'If it's at all possible to do it, then you'ue got to do it; Howeuer, if it's impossible to do it, then you don't haue to do it.'. Others, it seems, define it downhill toward: 'maybe', 'if conuenient or useful', and euen to:

'it's not really necessary, at all'.

1 *** * *** - * - - * * * - * - ***-*- -*u--.*----**

Would you please be so kind as to prouide a solid legal definition of 'extent practical'. i I

A faxed response, rather than uerbal. would be greatly I appreciated.

i I

Thank you, W. Ne Gi 11 i uray I,

U l 199 4ckno11Aedged by card .-............ ,.._..... ..::~

T 'S TAff ETAR'.

OF THE COMMISSIO

July 28, 1999 NOTE TO: Carol Gallagher ADM/DAS FROM: Tom Scarbrough --;{;;S NRR/DE/EMEB

SUBJECT:

COMMENT RECEIVED BY FAX ON PROPOSED RULE PUBLISHED ON APRIL 27, 1999 I received the attached comment by fax on the proposed rule published on April 27, 1999, on the requirement for licensees to update their inservice inspection and inservice testing programs every 120 months.

Please forward the attached faxed comment for appropriate docketing.

Attachment:

As stated

mu.svrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 DOCKET NUMBER OOCKETEO PROPOSED RULE.PR 5 0 USHRC 7bl/FR :/11580)

• w AUG -3 P4 :54 OF I-f u-ADJU~ ,;

VIRGINIA POWER July 28, 1999 99-191 Ms. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Washington, D. C. 20555-0001

Dear Ms. Vietti-Cook:

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE, INDUSTRY CODES AND STANDARDS; AMENDED REQUIREMENTS Virginia Power appreciates the opportunity to comment on the supplemental proposed rule to eliminate the 120-month update requ irements contained in 10 CFR 50.55a .

• Virginia Power endorses the industry comments submitted by NEI.

If you need further information, please contact Mr. Ernest Throckmorton at 804/273-2521 .

Respectfully, arthy, Manager ing and Operations S pport

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY liUIVIIII, AUI.EMAKINGS&ADJUOfCATIONSST OFFICE OFTflE SECRETARY OFTHECOMMISSION

.. ... Log # TXX-99169 File #10185 OOCKFfED US~ RC 1UELECTRIC Ref # 10CFR50. ~ JUL zz p J :S l July 19, 1999 OFF C. Lance Terry RU Senior Vice President ADJLL

& Principal Nuclear Officer Secretary of the Commission, DOCKET NUMBER R PROPOSED RULE .P S 0 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff ~ IP'IFRJQ58o)

SUBJECT:

SOLICITATION FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS, PROPOSED RULE; INDUSTRY CODES AND STANDARDS;

• REF:

AMENDED REQUIREMENTS (64 FEDERAL REGISTER 22580)

1) Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) letter to the NRC dated June 25, 1999 TXU Electric 1 has reviewed the above referenced NEI letter to the NRC. TXU Electric generically endorses NEl's Joint industry response to the proposed rule.

If you require any further information, please contact Mr. Obaid Bhatty (817) 897-5839.

This communication contains no new licensing basis commitments regarding CPSES Units 1 and 2.

Sincerely,

.a. 3/4

• t9_ >, hJ,.

C. L. Terry__... --

By:£,1Pz Roger. Walker

-7

~fW'.J&io Regulatory Affairs Manager cc: Mr. E.W. Merschoff, Region IV Mr. J. I. Tapia, Region IV Mr. D. H. Jaffe, NRR Resident Inspectors, CPSES TXU Electric was formerly TU Electric. A license amendment request (LAR 99-003) was submitted per TXX-99122, dated May 14, 1999, to revise the company name contained in the CPSES operating licenses COMANCHE PEAK S 11::AM ELECTRIC ST ATION P.O. Box 1002 Glen Rose, Texas 76043-1002 JUL 2 6 1999 _

~cknowfedged by'card 11111111111 llltlllll S ..,;ill!ll:

lJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY GUMM,.., I RULEMAKINGS&AOJUOICATIONS STA OFRCE OFTHESECRETAR OFTHE 1SS10

DOCKET NUMBER

• PROPOSED RULE.PR 5 O 7"b=;/F lf:1~58())

Robert G. Byram PP&L, Inc.

Senior Vice President Two North Ninth Street Generation and Chief Nuclear Officer Allentown, PA 18101-1179 Tel. 610.774.7502 Fax 610.774.5019 Tel. 610.774.5151 c_

TM E-mail: rgbyram@papl.com http://www.ppl-inc.com/ c::::: ,J")~

JUL 12 1999

-'° r-

-0

~--. ........

~

.,..* 1

~

\_,J CP The Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION COMMENTS ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED RULE TO REVISE 10CFR50.55a Docket Nos. 50-387/NPF-14 PLA-5078 and 50-388/NPF-22 PP&L, Inc. supports the concept of the supplemental proposed rule to eliminate the requirement for licensees to update their Inservice Inspection (ISI) and Inservice Testing (IST) programs beyond the baseline edition and addenda of the ASME BPV Code provided the following clarifications/comments are incorporated in the final rule.

1. The proposed rule change that was issued in December 1997 proposed the endorsement of the ASME Section III and XI 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda. A significant amount of work regarding the acceptability of this Edition and Addenda has already been performed by the NRC. Therefore, we propose that this Edition and Addenda be included in the final rule for voluntary use .

• 2. Since the NRC is in the process of approving the use of the 1998 Edition of ASME Section XI for two utilities, we would propose that the 1998 Edition of ASME Section XI also be included in the final rule for voluntary use.

3. The baseline edition of ASME Section XI for Subsections IWE and IWL is the 1992 edition with the 1992 addenda. Since 10CFR50.55a was revised mandating this edition and addenda, the industry has recognized that many portions of this rule are impractical to implement. Substantial work has been completed on these Subsections since 10CFR50.55a was revised. The baseline edition for Subsections IWE and IWL should be the 1998 edition.

If this cannot be accomplished, the final rule should include the standardized relief requests developed by NEI and EPRI.

JIJL 2 2 1999

~cknowfedged by card

• o o H O H _ . . h...: - : : ~

U.S. NOClEAR REGULATOR CUMMtvv

&ADJUDiCATIC S TAFF l'lel::l*"Co THE RETAR COMMI ION

PLA-5078 The Secretary of the Commission

4. The requirement to implement entire future editions of Section XI already incorporated by reference in the Regulations, or get prior NRC approval to implement a portion of a future code is new. It is not clear how, or why, this requirement applies to repairs. The final rule should clearly state how this requirement applies to repairs. Also, the proposed rule directly conflicts with the provisions of IWA-4120. This conflict should be eliminated in the final rule.

5. It is also unclear if the requirement on implementing future referenced editions would apply to replacements considering IWA-7210 (c). Again, this rule could be read to conflict with the provision to use later portions of the Construction Code or Section III.

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. C. T. Coddington at (610) 774-4019 .

• Sincerely, copy: NRC Region I Mr. S. Hansell, NRC Acting Sr. Resident Inspector Mr. V. Nerses, NRC Sr. Project Manager

Pacific Gas and Electric Company James E. Tomkins Oiablo Canyon Power Plant Manager PO. Box 56 Nuclear Safety Assessement Avila Beach, CA 93424 and Licensing

• 99 JUL 16 P2 :S 7 805.545.4052 Fax: 805.545.4234 July 12, 1999 0 C

• I ADJl Secretary Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Comments on Supplemental Proposed Rule, 10 CFR 50.55a, Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements (64 FR 22580)

The subject Federal Register notice requested comments on the supplemental proposed rule to eliminate the 120-month ASME Code update requirement contained in 10 CFR 50.55a, Industry Codes and Standards. This rulemaking also requires licenses to implement the ultrasonic qualification requirements of Appendix VIII of Section XI of the ASME Code. By letter dated June 25, 1999, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) submitted comments on the supplemental proposed rule.

PG&E has reviewed the NEI letter, and endorses the comments made by NEI.

In addition, PG&E recommends establishing the 1989 edition of ASME Section XI, Subsection IWA, General Requirements, as the baseline edition for all applications, including Subsections IWA and IWL of Section XI. This will eliminate redundant administrative requirements that would otherwise be applicable.

Sin _rely, mes E. Tomkins cc: David B. Miklush David H. Oatley Gregory M. Rueger Lawrence F. Womack David J. Modeen, NEI Jfll 2 2 1999

~cknOwfedged by cmd *- ,. ...,

• viw,m,...,._, Iv,~

.l'IIN\ll'O.."'""....

,"""',~ FF

Duquesne Lig,t Company Beaver Valley Power Station P.O. Box 4 Shippingport, PA 15077-0004 June 29, 1999 SUSHIL C. JAIN L-99-106 (412) 393-5512 Senior Vice President Fax (724) 643-8069 Nuclear Services Nuclear Power Division DOCKET NUMBER Ms. Annette L. Vietti-Cook

u. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff PROPOSED RULE 5 0

'Fl?~~S8if)

O - 10 Washington, DC 20555-0001 c.... -~..,..

~

c:,

~ co r- U>C'")

Subject:

Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 and No. 2 ___. ,,,

x BV-1 Docket No. 50-334, License No. DPR-66 N C") rr, BV-2 Docket No. 50-412, License No. NPF-73 -0 CJ

~

Industry Codes and Standards; _.

Amended Requirements ~

Duquesne Light Company (DLC), operating company for Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2, is providing comments on the subject proposed rule announced in the Federal Register April 27, 1999 at page 22580. We have supported the efforts of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) to consolidate industry comments that have been submitted to you under NEI letterhead on June 25, 1999, and endorse the NEI submittal.

DLC supports elimination of the 120-month update requirement. The mandatory adoption of the Appendix VIII criteria is opposed because the rulemaking inappropriately relies on the compliance exception permitted in the 10 CFR 50.109 backfit rule .

• The rulemaking identified ten associated issues that the NRC staff would consider as part of the final rulemaking decision. NEI developed responses to these issues with input from licensees, the NEI 50.55a Task Force, and insights gained during the May 27, 1999 public workshop. DLC also supports the NEI responses to these ten issues provided in Enclosure 1 of the NEI response letter.

DLC recommends that the NRC continue to work with the industry, through the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), to further clarify applications of the subject requirements.

Sincerely, Sushil C. Jain c: Mr. D. S. Collins, Project Manager Mr. D. M. Kem, Sr. Resident Inspector DELIVERING Mr. H. J. Miller, NRC Region I Administrator QUALITY Mr. Anthony R. Pietrangelo, NEI ENERGY JUl 14 lltL-

~cknOWledged by emd I II 1111 ~

u.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS5 ~

RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE vum1~10N

JWS Commitment. Innovation. Energy.

0 CFR 50.55a WilliamE. lde Mail Station 7605 Palo Verde Nuclear Vice President P.O. Box 52034 Generating Station Nuclear Engineering Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 I/SAB/RKB The Secretary of the Commission, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff

Subject:

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)

Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Nos. STN 50-528/529/530 Comments on Supplementary Notice of Rulemaking to Eliminate the 120-month Requirement to Update the ASME Code lnservice Inspection and lnservice Testing Programs Arizona Public Service Company (APS) hereby submits comments in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRG) request for comments on proposed supplementary rulemaking to 10 CFR 50.55a, regarding the elimination of the 120-month requirement for licensees to update their American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code inservice inspection (ISi) and inservice testing (1ST) programs

• (Fed. Reg. Vol. 64, No. 80, Pages 22580-22588, April 27, 1999).

APS fully endorses the comments provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). In addition, specific APS comments are provided in the enclosure.

This letter does not make any commitments to the NRC. Please contact Mr. Scott Bauer at (602) 393-5978 if you have any questions.

Sincerely, WEI/SAB/RKB/rlh cc: E. W. Merschoff M. B. Fields J. H. Moorman JUl 13 1999

~eknowledged by card**--.... ~

U.S. UCLEAR REGULATORY COM 1&~1v,~

RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETAR OF THE C01MM1.:"'1*0N qq I - -

---Z!(;~ ~ ~~ ~ 'l>,~ _ 1?. ~

ENCLOSURE APS Comments on Proposed Rulemaking (10 CFR 50.55a)

APS Comments on Proposed Rulemaking (10 CFR 50.55a)

General Comments APS supports the proposed rulemaking to 10 CFR 50.55a, which would eliminate the mandatory 120-month update requirements for ISi and 1ST programs. In addition, APS fully endorses the comments provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on behalf of the industry.

Elimination of the 120-Month Update Requirement

• Establishing baseline editions of the ASME Code, eliminating the 120-month ISi and 1ST program update, and permitting licensees to voluntarily revise their programs to more recent or future editions and addenda are worthwhile enhancements to the regulation. Although, as stated in the supplementary information accompanying the supplement to the proposed rule, elimination of the 120-month update could result in plants being on a wider range of code editions and addenda, this is an administrative concern not a safety issue. In fact, APS believes that elimination of the 120-month update will improve plant safety because plant resources that would otherwise be allocated to the 120-month update can be used for activities with greater safety benefit.

In addition, by reducing the number of 120-month updates that need to be reviewed by the NRC, (i.e, the associated relief requests) it is anticipated that the NRC will be more responsive to licensee cost-benefical licensing actions, relief requests, and timely endorsements of code editions and code cases. Finally, eliminating the 120-month update will result in typical savings to licensees of at least $500,000 every 10 years (estimated minimum cost of $250,000 each to update both ISi and 1ST programs). The cost associated with the most recent 120-month 1ST update at PVNGS was more than

$400,000, with minimal safety benefit.

APS believes that the 1989 edition of the ASME Code is a good choice for the baseline code. The ISi and 1ST programs at most plants (including PVNGS) have already adopted this edition or are planning to do so soon as part of the 120-month update process. APS concurs with the position stated in Section II of the Supplement, "Elimination of 120-month Update Requirement," which concluded that although the evolution of the ASME Code has tended to result in net improvements in plant safety, as the code matures, the overall safety increase associated with periodic revisions is becoming smaller. The 1989 edition offers improvements over earlier codes, while the safety increase resulting from using editions of the code later than 1989 would be relatively small. However, some licensee's may find it advantageous to voluntarily update to later editions of the code because of the additional clarity provided in later code editions. The proposed rule would not prohibit this option.

APS does not believe that elimination of the 120-month update requirement will reduce the effectiveness of the ASME Code or the importance of participation on ASME Code Committees. On the contrary, we believe that making the code updates voluntary will provide incentive for ASME to make changes to the code that provide real safety benefit in return for any increased costs of implementation.

APS supports the addition of a provision to the proposed rulemaking that each edition and addenda of the ASME Code automatically become effective within a reasonable amount of time (e.g. within 6 months of publication). However the current rulemaking is a step in the right direction. If consideration of this additional enhancement would delay the current rulemaking, provisions for automatic code endorsement should be considered for future rulemaking efforts.

Additionally, should this rulemaking be approved, we anticipate that the list of code cases and portions of codes approved for use in Section (b)(4) would be updated periodically. However, deletion of code cases and portions of codes from this section could result in compliance issues for licensees. For example, if a licensee adopted a portion of a code that was subsequently deleted from Section (b)(4), the licensee could unknowingly be using an unapproved document. It is recommended that code cases and portions of codes not be deleted from Section (b)(4), or that other provisions be made to avoid this situation.

ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII The supplemental proposed rule stated that the NRC intends to require licensees to implement the ultrasonic qualification criteria contain in Appendix VIII of Section XI to the ASME Code, as discussed in the initial proposed rule (62 Fed. Reg. 63892). The initial proposed rule stated that the Appendix VIII criteria was justified under the provisions of the compliance exception contained in the 10 CFR 50.109 backfit rule.

The use of the compliance exception for implementation of this new requirement is unsupported. The technology and methods contained in Appendix VIII did not exist when the rule cited in 62 Fed. Reg. 63906 was written. The incorporation of Appendix VIII requires a cost benefit analysis in accordance with 10 CFR 50.109. Appendix VIII should not be added to the regulations unless a positive cost benefit is demonstrated.

In addition, the compliance exception should only be used when there is a failure to meet an explicit regulatory requirement (or written commitment), i.e., a "known and established standard," in the words of the Commission in the statement of consideration for the 1985 backfitting rule. Citing broad standards such as General Design Criteria or 10 CFR 50, Appendix B as a compliance justification results in regulatory instability through constant reinterpretation of requirements.

If the NRC does satisfy the backfit criteria defined above and imposes Appendix VIII, the baseline criteria should be ASME Code Case N-622, not the editions cited in the supplemental proposed rule (1995 edition including the 1996 addenda). The 1995 edition with 1996 addenda contain criteria that are impractical to implement. The NRC staff acknowledged this at the May 27, 1999, public workshop. Code Case N-622 provides appropriate criteria that can be implemented by the Performance Demonstration Initiative.

Subsections IWE and IWL The current regulatory requirement for the IWE and IWL subsections of Section XI is the 1992 edition through the 1992 addenda. Some licensees have implemented the 1992 edition including the 1992 addenda, but needed numerous relief requests to have a functional program. The 1998 edition of ASME Section XI addressed the relief

• request issues. However, if the final rule requires a baseline using the 1998 ASME Code edition, then licensees using the current requirement will either need to adopt the later editions or seek a relief request. Therefore, we recommend that the baseline edition for the IWE and IWL requirements remain the 1992 edition with the 1992 addenda. In addition, the supplemental proposed rule should endorse the 1998 edition of the ASME Code for voluntary adoption by licensees. This action will eliminate needless relief requests.

Code Case ONM-1 The first sentence of the Summary Section on page 22580 states that this is a supplement to the proposed rule published on December 3, 1997. As such, it is APS'

• understanding that the final rule will include the provisions of both the December 3, 1997 and April 27, 1999 proposed rules. The December 3, 1997 proposed rule included endorsement of Code Case OMN-1 . APS believes this to be important because Code Case OMN-1 and Appendix II to the OM Code offer significant improvements to licensees.

Summary APS concludes that the proposed rule to eliminate the 120-month ISi and 1ST program update requirement is a significant improvement over the existing rule for both technical and administrative reasons. The proposed rule is generally formatted and written clearer and easier to understand than the existing rule. It will allow the NRC staff and licensees to better focus resources on issues of safety versus administrative update requirements, and will provide substantial cost savings. However, APS does not believe the Commission has met the necessary requirements of 10 CFR 50.109, Backfitting, to impose ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII on licensees.

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE p So DOCKE TD {gl/FR;?asso)

S .!RC u

NUCLEAR

• 99 JUL -6 A9 :so GPU Nuclear, Inc.

One Upper Pond Road Parsippany, NJ 07054-1095 Tel 973-316-7000 Of--, June 28, 1999 H..,L ADJU r 1900-99-032 The Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Reguiatory Commission Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Washington, DC 20555-0001 Ladies and Gentlemen:

Subject:

GPU Nuclear, Inc. Comments on Proposed Change to 10 CFR 50.55a GPU Nuclear, Inc. provides the following comments on the proposed rule change to 10 CFR 50.55a as supplemented in the Federal Register, dated April 27, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 80).

As requested by the notice in the federal register, the comments are discussed by topics defined in the notice prefaced by GPU Nuclear's overall position.

General Comment

• GPU Nuclear fully supports the supplement and the elimination of the requirement to perform mandatory 10-year updates to the ISI and IST programs. GPU Nuclear agrees with the comments on the draft supplement provided by NEI. This position is based on the determination that there is no impact on safety associated with not performing the update and the potential burden associated with the update can be substantial with no significant increase in safety.

GPU Nuclear considers that timely review and approval of ASME B&PV Code Section XI and ASME Code for Operation & Maintenance (OM) Edition and Addenda, including Code Cases, will effectively improve ISi and IST programs and facilitate upgrades to the programs to enhance quality and efficiency.

The continuity and quality of the ASME Code process needs to be preserved to ensure alternatives and improvements in repairs and replacements, analysis methods, inspection criteria, and other requirements included in Section XI and OM. The effect that this change will have on Code progress needs to be monitored.

The implementation of risk-based ISI and 1ST programs will naturally eliminate the mandatory update process because the risk-based approach will force a continuing assessment and improvement effort.

l I 3 1999

~cknowfedged by card *.- ...."..- ............... ,;~

lJ.S. EGULATORY COMMt 'SION RULEN'JWNC:iS&NN\lllllVl"I ONS STAFF OFRCEOF ARY OFlllE ION

" ~c-,L"",---

Dfst!ibiar;__ ~

1900-99-032 Page2 of4 This supplement allows plants with ISi and 1ST programs on Code editions earlier than 1989, a five year implementation period to upgrade to a new base Code. It is our interpretation that this is independent of the current mandatory update based on current interval timing. In effect, since TMI-1 and Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS) are on the 1986 base code, we will need to update prior to 2005 (assuming the mle is issued in early 2000).

Each of these areas is more fully discussed in the appropriate topic below.

Potential Effect on Safety GPU Nuclear believes that there is no potential effect on safety. If new Code rules were to be issued and they were determined to represent an increase in safety upon application, the current mandatory update process would not enforce the new rules for up to 10 years. In these cases the utilities have always updated or adopted the new rules on their own or the regulation has been

• changed to expedite their use. While there is concern that the ASME Code process will stagnate due to a lack of continued attendance by utility personnel, there is no concern this will affect the safe operations of the plants.

Potential Reductions in the Effectiveness of the ASME Code There is concern that the Code participation will be reduced, particularly by utility members, once the incentive of the required update is eliminated. While this may be true, it is not clear what impact this will have on the Code. Other sections of the Code have faced similar challenges, such asSection III concerning nuclear plant construction, and no impact on that Code has been observed to date. Code participation is based on economics whether updates are required or not.

Utility participation may increase with new efforts such as risk-based initiatives or other new initiatives that could have potentially significant impact, and with NRC recognition of Code work

• such as Code Cases and updates to the Code.

This concern is valid and needs to be evaluated over time to ensure the Code continues to advance and improve the present rules for analysis, inspection, repairs, and evaluation criteria.

Selection of the Proper Baseline Edition and Addenda of the ASME Code in Terms of Safety, Resources and Efficiency The different editions and addenda of the code have no significant impact on plant safety, therefore safety consideration is not a criteria for selection of the baseline Code. Also, there may not be an appreciable difference in the Codes available in terms of burden to update. Since most of the plants are already on the 1989 Code, selection of this Code is the most economical from an industry perspective. However, it does not offer the benefits of improvements of future Codes in terms of application of risk-based approaches, improvements in pump and valve test technique and evaluation of test results, or changes to containment inspection methods. Another example of improvements in newer versions is the addition of Appendix H for evaluating flaws in thin-wall, ferritic piping.

1900-99-032 Page 3 of 4 Since TMI-1 and OCNGS will have to update, GPU Nuclear's Code preference is the 1998 Code for the ISi and 1ST programs to take advantage of the advances and efficiencies made in the 10 years since our last update.

Regulatory Benefits and Burdens to Licensees, Industry Suppliers (Including Vendors),

Nuclear Insurers, States, and Standards Organizations No additional comments.

Burden on Licensees to Update Their ISi and 1ST Programs and Related Procedures The burden to update the ISi program is estimated at $ l 50k to $200k, including contractor dollars and time required by utility personnel . The entire process is estimated to take 12 to 15 months to complete. The estimate burden to update the 1ST program is on the order of $SOK to $75.

If a mandatory update is not required it is still expected that some upgrade and relief will be pursued by plants to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of their programs, such that there will still be a burden associated with upgrading programs. This may offset the burden discussed above by some amount. It is expected that the voluntary upgrades will be more focussed and therefore spread out over a number of years and be significantly less than the current update process.

However if a plant is forced to update to a Code, the potential exists there will be no benefit from efficiency and that in addition to the update, continuous upgrade is necessary to improve the effectiveness of the program, in which case the plant will absorb both burdens. For instance, many plants currently on the 1986 Code may have to update to the 1989 Code which offers no advantages. This would result in an enormous burden for the next interval.

Therefore, for estimating burden of a mandatory update, the numbers included above should still be used.

Potential Effect on the Number and Detail of Licensee Submittals Associated with ISi and 1ST Programs It is suspected that the number of submittals will decrease just due to the fact that relief requests will not have to be reissued every ten years. In addition, most if not all utilities will have been through one or two 10 year inspection programs and many of the inspection difficulties have been identified and will remain in effect. Therefore, additional relief requests based on specific plant conditions and configuration will not be required. Licensee submittals are expected to become more focussed on specific issues and should result in more detailed submittals with less changes.

If however, the base Code is the 1989 Edition, and NRC has not approved the use oflater editions, we see no changes in the submittals allowed by 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3) in order to implement requirements from later editions (see statement above regarding Appendix).

1900-99-032 Page4 of4 Changes to the Range of ASME Code Editions and Addenda Applied by Licensees The range of ASME Code editions and addenda will be determined more by the consolidation of nuclear plant owners and their desire to have consistent programs rather than impact from this rule. With risk based programs becoming a reality, this will create plant specific ISi and 1ST programs where Code editions and addenda may not be obvious.

Potential Effect on Processing of Licensing Actions and Evaluations Related to Changes to ISi and 1ST Programs , Preparation of Regulatory Guides Endorsing ASME Code Editions and Code Cases, and Risk Informed ISi and 1ST Initiatives.

These are not expected to affect risk-based ISi and 1ST programs. These programs will continue to improve and be adopted by plants. In effect, risk-based programs may make the Code upgrade process moot since they will be in continuous change by their nature.

Potential Effect on State and Other Organizations that Rely an the ASME Code in Their Interactions with Nuclear Power Plant Owners No effect is seen in this area. Many of the states currently defer to the Authorized Nuclear Inservice Inspection Agencies for interaction and monitoring of the ISi and 1ST programs. This is not expected to change.

Applications of Portions of the ASME Code Incorporated by Reference in the Regulations Subsequent to the Baseline Edition.

As advantages in quality or economic benefits are realized in future Codes, programs will adopt the new requirements. Risk-based programs and consolidation ofISI and 1ST programs among

• plants having the same owner will control this more than the effect of eliminating the mandatory update.

Clarity of the Rule Additional clarification of the implementation time frame is requested. It appears that for all plants still on Code Editions earlier than the 1989, an update is not required for 60 months from the date the rule is issued. Consideration should be given to those plants with ISi and 1ST program intervals ending before that date. These plants could update at the end of the interval as scheduled and not wait the 5 years described in the proposed supplement.

n:7f*

~

irector, Nuclear Safety and Assessment cc: NEI

(BJ DOCKET NUMBER pa mnsorook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard PROPOSED RULE 5° ) Glen Allen, Virginia 23060

( re,4 Ff<~ '-~fro DOCKETED

, ,c-,m r "99 ~'UL -6 P4 :18 0 VIRGINIA POWER June 17, 1999 GL99-030 Ms. Annette L. Vietti-Cook The Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20055-0001 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjud ications Staff

Dear Ms. Vietti-Cook:

INDUSTRY CODES AND STANDARDS; AMENDED REQUIREMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 50 Virginia Power appreciates the opportunity to comment on the NRC's supplemental proposed rule to allow licensees to update their ISi and 1ST programs to more recent editions and addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in the regulations. Those changes were published in the Federal Register {Vol. 64, No. 80) on April 27, 1999.

Virginia Power endorses the industry comments submitted by NEI.

If you need further information, please contact either:

Alex McNeil! Alex_McNeill@vapower.com or (804) 273-2528 Gwen Newman Gwen_Newman@vapower.com or (804) 273-4255 JUL 13 19..... 91.___.

~etmowtedqed bv card u UL ZIEi LILI IIZEUI.,,,...._

U.S. NUa.EAR REGULATOR 1.iUM~ON RUI..E:MAKNiS&

OFFICEOF a=nEaNB~ON

Station Support Department PECO NUCLEAR PECO Energy Company 965 Chesterbrook Boulevard A Unit of PECO Energy Wayne, PA 19087-5691

• 99 JUL - 2 P2 :5 9 or-June 28 , 1999 DOCKET NUMBERPR PROPOSED RULE 5o

( ~L/FR~~580)

Ms. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Comments Concerning Supplemental Proposed Rule 10CFR50, "Industry Codes and Standards Amended Requirements" (64FR22580, dated April 27, 1999)

Dear Ms. Vietti-Cook:

This letter is being submitted in response to the NRC's request for comments concerning Supplemental Proposed Rule 10CFR50, "Industry Codes and Standards Amended Requirements, " which was published in the Federal Register (i.e ., 64FR22580, dated April 27 ,

1999). This proposed rule supplements an earlier proposed rule (i .e., 62FR63892, dated December 3, 1997) that would eliminate the requirement for licensees to update their lnservice Inspection (ISi) and lnservice Testing (1ST) Programs beyond a baseline edition and addenda of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (BPV) Code.

PECO Energy appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule. We offer the following comments for consideration by the NRC.

General Comments PECO Energy is not opposed to the proposed change to eliminate the mandatory 120 month inspection and testing program updates. We support the NRC's efforts to reduce burdensome and low safety-value regulations. To this end PECO Energy suggests that more expedient regulatory approval of industry consensus standards is key to this goal. Without such increases in regulatory approval efficiencies, rule changes such as the elimination of the mandatory 120 month update will have little overall benefit.

JUl - 7 19_9_9 _

~cknowfedged bv card....... *--

lJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMlSSlv. ~

AULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICA11CIG STAFF OFFICE OFlffEl!aEIARY OFTHEOCMISSION DoGlll8AISlsllalca Poalmlrk Dala fo f?o/'f 9 Cq>iesRGCetted _ ____,___ __

June 28, 1999 Page 2 Specific Comments The following comments respond to the specific issues identified by the NRC in the proposed rule.

1. Potential effect on safety, including potential reductions in the effectiveness of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and the Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants; PECO Energy does not foresee negative impacts on safety, especially for the near term.

PECO Energy is aware of the potential impact on the ASME Code process, but is optimistic that this potential can be effectively monitored and managed to assure that any impact will only result in a "different" process, and not a "less effective" process.

2. Selection of the proper baseline edition and addenda of the ASME Codes in terms of safety, resources, and efficiency;

• Selection of the 1989 Edition (no addenda) of the ASME Section XI Code as the baseline edition of the Code for ISi Programs is reasonable from the safety and resources perspective. However, this version of the Code does not offer the efficiencies available from later editions (i.e., reduction of some unnecessary requirements). Additionally, the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda of the Section XI Code, for Containment Vessel ISi Programs, while effective from a safety standpoint, is not effective from a resources and efficiency perspective. The 1998 Edition of the Section XI Code would more fully satisfy all three perspectives. Selection of the 1989 Edition (no addenda) of the ASME Section XI Code for 1ST Programs is not very appropriate from either of the three (3) perspectives. The guidance provided in later versions of the ASME O&M Code is far more comprehensive, and more efficient.

3. Regulatory benefits (or hardships) to licensees, industry suppliers (including vendors),

nuclear insurers, States, standards organizations, and others; From a licensee perspective, the initial regulatory benefit expected would be a potential stabilization in the spectrum of Code inspection and testing program versions. However, PECO Energy is cautious about any further regulatory actions which could come about as a result of the elimination of the long standing regulatory update requirement.

4. Reduction in burden on licensees to not update their ISi and /ST programs and related procedures; PECO Energy believes that there would be a reduction in the burden to licensees. PECO Energy does question the extent of savings discussed in the SECY 99-017, since portions of licensees' programs will likely be updated voluntarily; bringing with it the associated costs.

However, the burden associated with review and potential update of all elements of a program (no matter how insignificant) would be done away with, thus resulting in savings.

June 28, 1999 Page 3

5. Potential effect on the reduction in number of licensee submittals (e.g., relief requests) associated with ISi and /ST programs; A reduction in the number of relief requests would be expected, based on the fact that current requirements recognize the relief requests as valid for 120 months only.

Accordingly, even if no change in program requirements resulted from the mandatory 120 month update, the original relief requests would need to be resubmitted. However, the number of licensee requests for use of proposed alternatives (1 0CFRS0.55a (3) i or ii) would likely increase in association with the proposed rule change. This increase would be the direct result of requests to use specific Code Cases in lieu of the baseline Code Edition, or later endorsed Code Editions (in their entirety) for various aspects of the ISi and 1ST programs. Further, this expected increase in the number of requests for proposed alternatives could cause a regulatory resource scheduling problem, due to the random nature of submittal of such requests. Under the current regulations, most of the licensees' requests would be grouped with the mandatory program update submittal. Since the scheduling of licensees' mandatory program updates are defined by regulatory requirements and are linked to the date of initial commercial operation, planning for review of such submittals is possible.

Without mandatory update requirements, such submittals could be made by licensees at any time, rendering planning on the part of the regulators extremely difficult.

6. Consistency in the range of ASME Code editions and addenda that will be applied by licensees; It is likely that the resultant Code programs will be more consistent, since licensees do tend to drive toward cost effective, safe programs. With all licensees starting at a baseline edition of the Code, and adding various approved alternatives, the spectrum of program variations should be narrower. This however, is not much different than exists under the current requirements (i.e., licensees' programs although required to meet varying specific editions and addenda, all contain relief requests and alternative requirements, which results in programs containing very similar overall requirements).

7. Potential effect on risk-informed ISi and /ST initiatives; As noted in the response to item 1 above, the potential for negative impact on the ASME Code process does exist. Since most of the risk-informed ISi and 1ST initiatives have been developing in the ASME forum, any negative impact on that forum would have a negative impact on the initiative.

8. Potential effect on States and other organizations that rely on the ASME Code in their interactions with nuclear power plant owners; Since most States acknowledge and accept the ASME Code requirements, which are imposed by Federal Regulations, they are in fact deferring to the regulations. Therefore, changes in those regulations could affect the State's current practices. Additionally, as discussed in items 1 and 7 above, impact on the ASME Code process could have an impact on other stakeholders (e.g., the State jurisdictions). If there is no negative impact on the ASME, then there should be no negative effect on the relationships between the plant owner and these stakeholders.

June 28, 1999 Page 4

9. Applications of porlions of the ASME Codes incorporated by reference in the regulations subsequent to the baseline edition; As noted in Items 5 and 6 above, the quantity of requests for proposed alternatives will likely increase. This increase is expected to be associated with the request for use of later Code Cases issued by the ASME. The Code Cases would be used to achieve specific improvements in the programs, without having to utilize an entire edition of the Code or requesting relief from all portions of that edition beyond the area of need.

10. Clarity of the supplement to the proposed rule.

The supplemental proposed rule was not completely clear which resulted in some additional questions. Therefore, PECO Energy recommends that the NRC provide additional clarification with regard to the issues identified below:

The life of relief requests or alternatives under the revised rule .

• The intent to continue with finalization of the endorsement of the 1995 Edition with 1996 Addenda of the applicable Codes (i.e., original proposed rule change).

The applicability of the 5 year phase-in period for the baseline code (i.e., 5 years for all licensees or 5 years for licensees not required to normally update their ISi program within 5 years of the effective date of the rule change?)

The guidance for those licensees who have recently updated their programs to Code Editions different than the recommended editions (i.e., later than the 1989 Edition), was not addressed. Added costs would result if these fell within the 5 Year applicability.

Furthermore, we endorse the Nuclear Energy lnstitute's (NEl's) response to this proposed rule.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours, Garrett D. Edwards Director - Licensing

] i l l') ( 'I 1,

• l I I<<

l )1)\\111*r  ! 1 ,,,:.: II 1 )p=, 1~.:.. ~, I OOCl'.E ! LD 11.ilWC

• 99 JUL -2 P2 :46 CotnEd June 28, 1999 Secretary I\, I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 DOCKET NUMBER Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff PROPOSED RULE1R 50 IPl/FR:/R58tJ

Subject:

Proposed NRC Rule, "Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements"

References:

(1) Volume 64, Federal Register, Page 22580 (64 FR 22580), dated April 27, 1999.

(2) Letter from David J. Modeen (NEI) to U.S. NRC, "Comment on Proposed Rule, Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements," dated June 25, 1999.

This letter provides Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) comments on the supplemental proposed rule published in the Federal Register at 64 FR 22580. ComEd fully endorses the industry' s comments submitted in Reference 2. The industry comments were developed with the assistance of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) through the NEI 50.55a Task Force.

ComEd has one recommendation in addition to the NEI comments. Supplemental proposed rule Section (g)(4)(i) will specify three different Section XI Editions/Addenda for American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 components, Class MC and Class CC components, and Appendix VIII in paragraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively. However, there is no clarification concerning the Edition/Addenda of Section XI to be used for the associated requirements that are referenced by ASME Code Subsections IWE and IWL and Appendix VIII, and found in other Code Subsections (e.g., requirements of Subsection IWA). Without such clarification, the proposed rule could create the burden of conducting these Section XI program elements under different sets of associated requirements. Our recommendation is that the licensee should be allowed to choose one of the three Code Editions/Addenda for these referenced requirements and apply those requirements to all three Section XI program elements.

Respectfully, R. M. Kri Vice President - Regulatory Services JUL* 71999__

k:\cultice\indcodes.doc

~cknowledged vcard .......,................ 44,e<<

,\ l nwom Crnn p:1 11\"

U.S. NUCLEAR AEGUL4TORY CO Iv.~

RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATD4S STAFF OFACEOFlllEERETARY OFTHECONIMISl:IION

OOCKE1 [(J North 115*1,,,,

f I "ij - '.

l\,_f North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation P.O. Box 300 Atlantic Seabrook, NH 03874 (603) 474-9521

'99 JUL -1 P3 :24 The Northeast Utilities System June 25, 1999 NYN-99062 Ms. Annette L. Vietti-Cook DOCKET NUMBER Secretary of the Commission PROPOSED RULE PR 50 Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudication's Staff ( foL/ PR~~ sso)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Seabrook Station Comments on Proposed Rule, Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements (64 Fed. Reg. 22580)

This letter provides the North Atlantic Energy Service Company (North Atlantic) comments on the supplemental proposed rule to eliminate the 120-month update requirement contained in 10 CFR 50.55a.

North Atlantic has reviewed the comments submitted separately by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on behalf of the nuclear energy industry and endorses those comments. North Atlantic is particularly concerned with the provision of the supplemental proposed rule which would require licensees to implement the ultrasonic qualification criteria contained in Appendix VIII of

• Section XI to the ASME Code. We believe the incorporation of Appendix VIII requires a cost benefit analysis in accordance with 10 CFR 50.109 and Appendix VIII should not be added to the regulations unless a positive cost benefit is demonstrated.

If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Mr. James M. Peschel, Regulatory Compliance Manager, at (603) 773-7194.

Very truly yours, NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORP.

1'ed C. Feigenbaum E::::e~and Chief Nuclear Officer JUL ~7 1999 -

~cknowledged by card *OO,UIII I I I ......

IJ. . , uut:AH t:GULATORY COMMISSlv.

RUL MAKINGS &ADJUDICATI STAFF FFICE OFTHE~""-'HV'>

OF THE OOMMB:5ION

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission NYN-99062 I Page 2 cc: H.J. Miller, NRC Region I Administrator J. T. Harrison, NRC Project Manager, Project Directorate 1-2 R. K. Lorson, NRC Senior Resident Inspector United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn.: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE ( _50 _)

(pl/ FR~~ 5'80 June 28, 1999

• 99 JUN 30 Pl2 :32 Orr-- '

Secretary of the Commission H °L '--

ADJL ,,r r~

,r-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attn.: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff I have reviewed the Supplemental Proposed Rule (64 Fed. Reg. 22580) issued in the Federal Register on April 27, 1999, entitled, "Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements" and offer the following comment:

• I find it unreasonable and irresponsible to propose that our nuclear power plants be permitted for their remaining life, to continue examining and testing their most significant safety related equipment to outdated 1989 standards, for another 20 to 30 years, or more.

Baselining to the 1989 standards implies that the standards are adequate "as is" for the foreseeable future, which is inconsistent with the current recognized need for risk-informed inspection programs. If risk-informed inspection programs reduce risk, personnel radiation exposure, and costs, as proclaimed by both the NRC and the industry, then the standards for examination and testing should be revised accordingly and mandated as such, in lieu of baselining the industry to standards that are already 10 years oot~dAfe.

• Sincerely, Dennis D. Davis 301-A Bay Shore Avenue Long Beach, California 90803 (562) 438-7311

~ .1 ,tL_

~cknowtedged by card ....." 1111 "'"""' * ....-,,,T

U.S. UClEAR REGULATORY COMMISSi-.,*,.J RULEMAKINGS &ADJUOICATIONS STAFF

~ rr~,.c: Of"fflE SECRETARY THE COMMI ION DocamentStatistics osttAa111:D 1

e~~ t/f I ~ ~~

June 29, 1999 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch FROM: Carol Gallagher ADM,DAS

SUBJECT:

DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED RULE -

INDUSTRY CODES AND STANDARDS; AMENDED REQUIREMENTS Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject proposed rule. This

• comment was received via the rulemaking website on June 28, 1999. The submitter's name is Dennis D. Davis, 301-A Bay Shore Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90803. Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Thomas Scarbrough (mail stop O9-E-23) for his records.

Attachment:

As stated cc w/o attachment:

T. Scarbrough

WINSTON& DOC r. .,"ED

!JS: PC Electronic STRAWN I 400 L STREIT, N.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20005-3502

'99 JUN 29 P :o~tterhead 202-37 1-5700 0 -T Rl_,,

200 PARK A VENUE 35 W . WACKER DRIVE 4~ )(tU RHONE 2 I AVENUE V ICTOR HUGO NEW YORK, NY IO I 66-4193 CHICAGO , IL 6060 I *97O3 I 204 GENEVA , SWTTZERLANO 75 I I 6 PARIS, FRANCE 212-294-6700 31 2*558*5600 41-22*3 I 7-75-75 33* I *53*64-82-82 June 28, 1999 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR 5O (111/FR~~sao)

• Ms. Annette L. Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 RE: Comments on Supplemental Proposed Rule: Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements, 64 Federal Register 22,580 (April 27, 1999)

Dear Ms. Vietti-Cook:

The following comments are submitted on behalf of the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group (NUBARG) 1 on the above-captioned rulemaking. The comments are focused on the soundness of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposal to eliminate the 120-month update requirement for inservice inspection and testing (ISi and 1ST) programs. NUBARG NUBARG is a consortium of fifteen utilities (representing 43 power reactors) which was formed in the early 1980s and actively participated in the development of the NRC's backfitting rule in 1985. NUBARG has subsequently monitored the NRC' s implementation of the backfitting rule.

JU 3 0 1999

~owledged by card .......................... .....-n,*

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY UI.BWU<INGS&

Offa()f OFTtECClllllll[Jt

Ms. Annette L. Vietti-Cook June 28, 1999 Page 2 representatives participated in the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Section 50.55a Task Force and NUBARG fully supports the comments submitted by NEI on behalf of the industry on the supplemental proposed rule.

The NRC proposes to establish (for current licensees) the 1989 Edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (BPV) Code,Section XI, as the baseline standard for ISi and 1ST programs (with certain limitations) for ASME Code Class 1, 2, or 3 pumps, valves, and components. The NRC also proposes to establish (for current licensees) the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda of Subsections IWE and IWL of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI, as the baseline standard for containment ISi programs (with certain limitations) for ASME Code Class MC and Class CC components and their integral attachments.

Thus, licensees will no longer be required to periodically update their ISi and 1ST programs to meet the requirements of subsequent editions of the ASME Code that become effective and that are incorporated by reference in NRC regulations. Instead, licensees will have the option of voluntarily complying with new ASME Code editions as those editions are endorsed by the NRC. Subject to NRC approval, licensees will be permitted to selectively implement portions of these ASME Code editions.

The NRC indicates that it plans to assess whether future revisions to the ASME Code which can be justified as backfits should be made mandatory. As the NRC observes, under the supplemental proposed rule the "NRC retains authority to require by rule or order implementation of ASME Code requirements if the appropriate backfit standard of 10 CFR 50.109(a) is met, e.g.,

that the ASME Code requirement to be imposed represents a substantial increase in the protection of the public health and safety whose cost is justified in light of this increased protection, or is considered necessary for continued compliance with the regulations." 64 Fed. Reg. 22,581-82. As structured, the supplemental proposed rule will give the NRC ample flexibility to ensure that any new ASME Code sections that will substantially enhance public health and safety will be imposed on licensees.

The NRC's stated basis for eliminating the updating requirement is that, over time, the incremental safety increase gained by periodic revisions to the ASME Code has diminished, raising doubt about whether the burden placed on licensees for updating ISi and 1ST programs can be justified. Furthermore, the NRC believes that the establishment of the ASME Code provisions noted above as baselines will ensure an adequate level of protection to public health and safety. We agree with the NRC that the ASME Code has matured to the point that these provisions now provide an adequate baseline for compliance and that only those revisions to the Code that can be justified under the backfitting rule should be imposed on licensees as mandatory requirements We believe that the proposed elimination of the 120-month update requirement for ISi and 1ST programs is a valid and appropriate exercise of the NRC's discretion. Although the Staff is correct that the elimination of the update requirement constitutes a significant change to past practice, it does not represent a significant change to the rule itself since the rule does not currently provide for "automatic" incorporation by reference of subsequent editions of the ASME Code.

Ms. Annette L. Vietti-Cook June 28, 1999 Page 3 Moreover, the routine updating aspect of Section 50.55a is unique; eliminating the updating requirement will make the rule consistent with other regulations and the NRC's regulatory scheme in general. In our view, the supplemental proposed rule will eliminate what has been an anomalous exception to the requirements of the backfitting rule.2 To facilitate the voluntary implementation of new Code provisions, we strongly encourage the development of an expedited process for endorsing ASME Code Cases and subsequent editions of the ASME Code for voluntary use by licensees on either a generic or plant-specific basis. The current process for endorsing Code Cases and later Code editions and addenda is too slow -- often taking several years. Providing for more timely endorsement of Code Cases and later Code editions and addenda would also help maintain licensee interest in developing the ASME Code and keeping it current. Not only should the NRC streamline its process of endorsing Code Cases and Code provisions for generic use, we urge the NRC to consider improvements on a plant-specific basis to the current process for obtaining NRC approval for using Code Cases and Code provisions where a generic endorsement has not yet been made.

Sincerely, Daniel F. Stenger Garth D. Richmond Counsel to the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group Although beyond the scope of the supplemental proposed rule, we note that it remains our position that the NRC's reliance on the compliance exception to the backfitting rule in proposing to adopt the new ultrasonic testing requirements in Appendix VIII,Section XI of the ASME Code is inappropriate. See NUBARG comments on the proposed rule, "Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements," dated April 3, 1998.

June 28, 1999 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch FROM: Carol Gallagher ADM,DAS

SUBJECT:

DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED RULE -

INDUSTRY CODES AND STAND ARDS; AMENDED REQUIREMENTS Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject proposed rule. This comment was received via the rulemaking website on June 28, 1999. The submitter's name is Garth D. Richmond, Winston & Strawn, 1400 L Street N.W., Washington DC 20005. Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Thomas Scarbrough (mail stop O9-E-23) for his records.

Attachment:

As stated cc w/o attachment:

• T. Scarbrough

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RU June 28, 1999 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ATTENTION: Secretary of the Commission

SUBJECT:

Response to Proposed Rulemaking Revision of 10CFR50.55a Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 80, dated April 27, 1999

Dear Secretary of the Commission:

In the Federal Register, Volume 64, No. 80 dated April 27, 1999, the NRC proposed a rule change to 10CFR50.55a that would eliminate the requirement to update Inservice Inspection (ISi) Programs on a 120 month basis. Subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule change, there has been a good deal of discussion on this topic, especially in how it relates to safety. Revisions to ASME Section XI have been debated, and the potential effect of future Code changes have been somewhat extrapolated. However, the consequences of eliminating the update process itself has not been sufficiently considered.

Over the past 20 years, there has been a fundamental shift in how ASME Section XI is viewed at nuclear facilities . Fifteen to twenty years ago, as plants moved from the construction phase to the operational phase,Section XI was treated as a lower tier document. Construction Codes and original construction documents were often given precedence, even when ASME Section XI applied. As a result,Section XI ISI Programs were not given the attention needed to establish a solid inspection program.

Over the course of the past 20 years, the pcr~tptioa of ASME Section XI ha.:; ch~ngd, such that it is now given the level of attention required to govern operating plants. During this period of time, plants discovered that their ISI Programs were inadequate. This problem was corrected through ISi Program update projects that were conducted for subsequent intervals. These projects were not simply an update of Code criteria, but were rather a complete overhaul of all the documents supporting the ISi Program. Activities during a typical ISi Program update project included the following:

• Databases were generated from scratch or drastically revised

• Classification boundary drawings and ISI isometric drawings were prepared or extensively revised to change incorrect or outdated information JU 3 O19

lJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMJSSlv.~

RUl EMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE Of THE SECRETARY OFTHECOMlmB~

DocllnardStalab lo ~9

• W alkdowns were performed on systems to verify piping configurations, and to determine optimum inspection locations based on access and radiation considerations

• Walkdowns were performed on piping systems being added to the ISi Program due to changes in the Code or plant modifications

• Items that were previously selected for inspection by random sampling were rescheduled to optimize ISi resources, incorporate industry-wide experience, and minimize unnecessary radiation exposure and cost

• Augmented examination commitments were combined with ISi Program to efficiently monitor all examinations

• Supports were verified and support drawings were created or updated to show as-built configurations

• Former non-conformances were resolved As a result of these update activities and associated improvements, ISi Programs were raised to a higher level of quality and safety. As a side benefit, the increased level of ASME Section XI Code visibility resulted in more utilities and industry representatives supporting the ASME Section XI consensus process. As a result, the Code has undergone significant improvements that keep up with industry-wide issues and technological advances. Elimination of the ISi Program updates will reverse this trend, as fewer and fewer utilities send representatives to work on "non-mandatory" Code revisions.

By eliminating the periodic updates, the NRC is establishing a means to have ISi Programs digress. Without the requirement to update, some plant will give the ISi Program less consideration, and leave it as a "status quo" document. Improvements will not be funded, personnel will be reduced, and the ISi Program will ultimately return to the state that it was in 15 to 20 years ago. It is imp01tant to recognize that periodic updates provide an important benefit to the plants, similar to the way that periodic maintenance is essential in keeping plant components running efficiently and safely.

Elimination of the ISi Program update requirement will also widen the gap in safety between various plants. Some utilities will do what they can to maintain the program, while others will cut staff and funding with the unrealistic expectation that the ISi Program can run itself One of the biggest questions to consider is if, or when, this decay in the ISi Program will become a safety issue. It is reasonable to assume that the elimination of the ISi Program update requirement will not increase safety. Although safety may remain the same, the prevalent trend will be for safety to decrease. Even the most conscientious utilities will have issues to contend with. Over the life of a plant, the ISi coordinator will typically 2

change a number of times. Each time a change is made, some of the history behind the ISI Program gets lost. A decrease in priority ofISI Program update activities will only serve to worsen the situation. Instead of reviewing, updating and improving the program on a regular basis, ISI Programs may go many years without review. This lack of review, combined with changes in personnel, will create situations where the reasons behind performing certain examinations may get lost, and important examinations may be inadvertently eliminated.

Of course, it is almost impossible to quantify what effect the elimination of ISI Program updates will ultimately have on safety over the life of a plant. In the risk-informed arena, the NRC has established criteria where the risk associated with core damage frequency needs to be considered down to levels of I o-6 . Risk-informed applications need to justify very small increases in risk. The NRC should consider what change in risk would result from the elimination ofISI Program updates. For example, what affect would a missed examination or incorrectly postponed pressure test have on core damage frequency or large early release frequency?

An additional factor to consider is changes that could occur in the industry over the life of a plant. If licensing renewal is granted, there could be plants operating for 40 years on the criteria established in 1989. Technology will change drastically in this period of time.

Although ASME Section XI has improved over the years, it would be presumptuous to think that it has addressed every possible examination technique, degradation mechanism and outside factor that could arise during the next 40 years. Granted, the NRC could mandate future Code requirements in a piecemeal fashion, but this would defeat the cost savings of eliminating the updates.

Finally, the cost and time estimates provided in the Federal Register need to be reconsidered. As described earlier, the first major update at many plants ended up being a complete overhaul that was time consuming and expensive. However, these large scale updates were one time events that are not nearly as extensive in subsequent intervals.

Older plants that have undergone a complete overhaul, as well as newer plants that have lear11ej from industf'/ experience, do ;ivt require expen~:i'-e tipdates ~\'ety' interva!~

provided the ISI Program is reasonably maintained during the previous 10 years. Plant personnel have a better understanding of the importance of Section XI requirements, and realize the importance of meeting Code requirements from both a safety and financial standpoint. Therefore, although plants benefit from periodic review and revision to incorporate updated criteria and industry advances, they will typically not require the complete overhaul required in the past. Consequently, ISI Program updates are currently performed at a fraction of the cost of previous updates. As a result, the cost and time estimates provided in the Federal Register for ISI Program updates are unrealistically high.

In particular, the 7500 hours0.0868 days <br />2.083 hours <br />0.0124 weeks <br />0.00285 months <br /> per plant estimated in Section VI is not accurate.

Contributing 3 1/2 years out of 10 per plant to the update process is an extreme overestimate. In addition, the cost of ISI Program changes that will still be required to implement future NRC mandated requirements, increased relief requests, or voluntary 3

updates were not considered in the cost and time estimates. These activities will offset the overall cost benefit of eliminating the 120 month update.

Overall, the elimination of the 120 month update is not a prudent action. It will halt the headway made by ASME Section XI to establish appropriate industry guidelines, and will reverse the trend toward increased safety. If the ISI Program updates are eliminated, many ISI Programs will remain stagnant or will diminish due to the probability that they will be assigned decreasing priority. The cost savings do not justify the elimination of the benefits provided by the 120 month update.

Sincerely, Scott Kulat Mr. Scott Kulat 5417 Challen Pl.

Downers Grove, IL 60515 4

Lewis Sumner Southern Nuclear Vice President Operating Company, Inc.

Hatch Project Support 40 Inverness Parkway Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 ooca,eo Tel 205.992 7279 Fax 205 992.0341 -- JUN 2 9 1999

\

-:, RILEIIWGNUANO

°'UTHERfol <<\

,0:J-,-- 6 rrlll /nergy t o Serve COMPANY Your World "'

June 28, 1999 DOCKET NUMB R Ms. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary PROPOSED RULF /

50 V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l f,C/fR~:/58'0 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Washington, D. C. 20555 Comments on Supplemental Proposed Rule "Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements" (64 Federal Register 22580 dated April 27, 1999)

Dear Ms. Vietti-Cook:

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern Nuclear), the licensed operator for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant and the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, has reviewed the supplemental proposed rule, "Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements," published in the Federal Register on April 27, 1999. In accordance with this request, Southern Nuclear is in total agreement with the comments that are to be provided to the NRC by the Nuclear Energy Institute .

• Respectfully submitted, H. L. Sumner HLS/JDB cc: Southern Nuclear Operating Company Mr. D. N. Morey, Vice President - Farley Mr. J. B. Beasley, Jr. Vice President - Vogtle REES File: G.03.09

~cknowledged by card ... ~~~..L.. J!!L~ .

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULAT RY COM ION RUll'.'.".IVIJoU'\ll'l'GS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF FFICE F'FHE SECRETAR OFTHE SSI

. . Duke DOCKET NUMBERPR Duke Power Company

,_Power. . PROPOSED RULE So DOCKET:O A Duk, Energy Company

[ IP'IFI< Pt5l58'tJ) II C' 'J ' " EC07H A Dulu Energy Company .. .) l, 526 South Church Street P.O. Box 1006 Charlotte, NC 28201-1006

'QQ M. S. Tuckman JUN 29 P2 :,1fi Executive Vice President (!(}4) 382-2200 OFFICE (704) 382-4360 FAX 0 t.

Nuclear Generation I

/l r-1U AD,A, June 24, 1999 Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ATTENTION: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff

SUBJECT:

Duke Energy Corporation Comments on Supplemental Proposed Rule 10 CFR Part 50, Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements (64 Federal Register 22580)

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) is hereby commenting on the NRC's supplemental proposed rule to amend the regulations contained in 10CFR50.55a. These regulations govern the industry codes and standards that are applicable to nuclear power plants. This supplemental proposed rule was published for public comment in the Federal Register on April 27, 1999 (64 FR 22580). Duke is the owner/operator of seven operating nuclear power plants that are subject to the regulations affected by this supplemental proposed rule, and consequently has a significant interest in the effects that would be caused by its implementation.

Based upon Duke experience, implementation of the supplemental proposed rule would result in the estimated ten-year cost savings listed below for each nuclear unit, with no identified adverse impact on continued safe plant operation.

IST Program $600K ISI Program $450K IWE/IWL Program $60K This would result in a total cost savings of $1,110,000 for each nuclear unit every ten years.

Duke agrees with the selected baseline codes for the various ISI/IST activities that are specified in the supplemental proposed rule, and should the final rule change any of JUN J o1999

-'cknowtedged bv cam .............."__..._,,,..,

ARRE

!ONG$ &ADJI~~~~~

OFFJCEOF

• OFTHECON!tlll!ID OIOC11119'111 Elllllllm Postmark Date tpj;;.3/9q C .. . _ '_ _

• _.;...-- -

S

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission June 24, 1999 Page 2 these, it should be reissued for public comment prior to becoming effective.

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) established an industry-wide 50.55a Task Force to review the supplemental proposed rule. Duke is a member of this group, and Duke representatives participated in all of its meetings. Duke personnel also attended the public workshop on the supplemental proposed rule, which was conducted at NRC headquarters on May 27, 1999.

The NEI is also submitting a letter to the NRC that contains comments on the supplemental proposed rule. The NEI letter states that the industry finds the rule beneficial, with the exception of the rule which imposes Appendix VIII of Section XI of the ASME Code, and encourages the NRC to issue it consistent with the previously announced schedule.

Duke endorses the conclusions contained in the NEI letter and agrees with the comments included in the enclosure to this letter. The NEI comments also contain estimated cost savings based on reduction in burden upon licensees. The savings estimates tabulated by NEI are consistent with those itemized above, which are based on Duke experience.

Inquiries on this matter should be directed to J. S. Warren at (704) 382-4986.

Very truly yours, M. S. Tuckman

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR s ()

l tr,lfl=R~:J.Sffo) DO ~'- l :0 Raymond A. West, Concerned Citizen, P. 0. Box 713, Colchester, <rtf D6::t15 June 25, 1999 "99 JUN 29 A8 :23 The Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff

Subject:

Comments on Proposed Rule 10 CFR 50.55a; [Federal Register: April 27, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 80)] Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements

Attachment:

May 27, 1999 Write-up for Discussion On Proposed 10 CFR 50.55a

• Amendment To Eliminate ISI/IST 120 Month Updates On May 27, 1999 there was a public workshop held on this subject in the auditorium at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Maryland which I attended on my own behalf. The attachment to this letter is a write-up that I provided for a presentation I gave concerning my comments for discussion related to this proposed amendment. I heard nothing at this workshop that has changed my overall opinion and concerns contained in the attachment.

I still believe that THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS A MISTAKE and if approved and incorporated into the regulations IT WILL RESULT IN A VERY LARGE POTENTIAL TO DECREASE SAFETY by baselining the requirements to immature Code Editions and Addenda, loosing focus on the programs, increasing costs, and creating a potential disparity with state and jurisdictional requirements .

• Before I begin to address the specific Areas/Items that the NRC has requested comments on related to this proposal, I would like to address 2 items of relevance as follows:

( 1) The real problem here is not with this proposed amendment by itself, but it lies with the ineffectiveness of the NRC Staff to approve later Code Editions and Addenda and new Code Cases in a timely manner. This amendment if approved still will rely on the Staff to make this approval process effective and I have heard nothing that would indicate any change will occur in this area once this amendment is approved or not approved; and (2) How the term SAFETY is used and what it means from my perspective. The regulations use this term over 468 times and supplement it with additional words such as reasonable, public health, quality, related, and so forth, but the bottom line is that SAFETY as defined in Webster's Dictionary is what it means to most people and that is a condition of being safe from not undergoing hurt, injury, or loss. The use of this term encompasses the safety of the public at large and plant personnel. So from my perspective any change to the regulations that increases the possibility of anyone of these attributes occurring or by general public perception occurring should be

~cknowledged by card **.d.L!!~

• S. NUCI.EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RUt.J31AKWGS &ADJI.UCATioNs STAFF Cffk:EOFHSBJEtARY THE COMMIB>N DoanedllalJr8a

-::-r-'--'-1 *, '. ( ,,U 1,/ ~ ~~

considered very carefully. This is how I have applied the potential effects of this amendment to SAFETY in my comments below.

1. Potential Effect On Safety: The elimination of the 120-month update has a very strong potential to effect safety.

During the workshop results of a review were presented by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) that addressed changes between the 1989 Edition and the 1992 Edition of Section XI. Their results concluded that most of the changes that occurred were Editorial, Errata, and a significant number of changes that did not effect requirements and were not safety significant because they were broad brushed away by these groupings.

I take issue with this perception that these changes have no safety significance. First

• editorial changes have a large potential for safety significance when they are the result of needed clarification in the requirements. If you need wording changes to accurately depict the requirements it may or may not be a safety significant issue.

Each one stands by itself, but you will never know if you don't routinely compare your program with the latest requirements and that will not happen without a mandatory 10-year update.

Errata changes don't get identified until the next Addenda is published and you would totally miss these changes if you didn't look at the next Addenda. For example an Errata change in the 1989 Addenda related to the acceptance criteria of IWB-3641.3 in the 1989 Edition where greater than signs were changed to less than signs, a mistake, but potentially one with safety significance. If you are analyzing a flaw for acceptance under the 1989 Edition to this criteria it is highly possible that this change would never be identified and the analysis would be totally incorrect. Most people don't realize the significance of Errata and it can be back fitted many Editions and Addenda and chances are without a required 10-year update later Editions and Addenda will never be looked at for these Errata changes.

Reductions in examinations has to be considered safety significant in light of the fact that they reduce personnel radiation exposure Section XI has made many improvements in this area. Just looking between the 1989 Edition and the 1992 Edition, a change to the 1990 Addenda incorporated Code Case N-491 which has resulted in a substantial reduction in the examination requirements for supports and thus a reduction in personnel radiation exposure.

Both of the above examples provide just two instances where the perception of safety significance gets broad brushed and put aside for Code changes between the 1989 Edition and the 1992 Edition by classifying these changes in seemingly minimum importance groupings.

One more point that was brought up in the workshop related to issuance of NRC generic letters that are considered in the scope of Section XI and the perception that 2

the ASME Code has failed to address these issues initially when they occur. It was inferred that because the ASME Code did not make any direct changes related to these issues immediately that the Code added no safety significant value to the industry by making changes later that had already been made through individual Licensee commitments. The ASME is well aware of these types of issues and concerns. As the Code approaches these types of concerns it is not a reactionary organization. The two biggest questions that the Code has to resolve are: Is the issue safety significant?, and if the issue is safety significant; Does it have generic applicability? If the answers to these questions are "Yes"; then, What if any minimum requirements need to be changed or added to the Code? Many times these issues are resolved within the industry without Code action and rightly so. Because no major changes were made to the Code is not a basis to infer that the ASME is ineffective when it comes to dealing with these issues.

Example: Reactor vessel core support structure examinations for Boiling Water

• Reactor (BWR) shroud cracking. The Code began to write a whole new IWG Subsection devoted to this issue covering core support structures, but it was determined not to be necessary. The BWR Owner's Group addressed the concern by providing specific examination guidance and so the work on the new subsection was stopped. One thing that has changed in the Code as a result of the lessons learned from the BWR Owner's Group effort relates to 1WA-2216 which now requires remote visual examination systems be capable of distinguishing colors. This change was determined to be minimum and necessary generically for any remote visual examinations that would be expected to find cracks. Not surprisingly the change has been brushed over as not being safety significant and it was incorporated in the 1993 Addenda. Please note that this requirement is not in the 1989 Edition and will in all likelihood never be used if this amendment is approved.

The biggest potential safety effect with this amendment is just not looking at what has changed at your plant or within the Code because you will loose the focus on your program by not being required to update it. Errors will happen as they have in the past, but if this amendment goes into effect they won't be caught by the required update any longer. See attachment comments on FOCUS.

2. Potential Reductions In The Effectiveness Of The ASME Code: Participation in the ASME Code process has been specifically identified by NEI and others as a professional development activity for personnel involved and on that basis it is believed that licensees will continue to support Code activities. I know for a fact that this is not the whole story. In my 13 years participating with the Code committees I have had at times taken personal vacation and paid my own way to attend certain meetings. This was because my company was cutting costs and restricting travel at those times. I cannot afford to participate in these committees without my company's support. I have seen this happen to other members time and time again, but generally people do not attend the meetings if they are not supported by their company. If the Staff thinks participation will continue at the same level it does now without a 3

mandatory update where Code changes can really make a difference, it will be a grave error in judgement. Additionally, once the support erodes it will become questionable as to whether the ASME is truly adequate or capable of making the right decisions in the future. You can't do the work without the expertise and it will dwindle.

To put this all in perspective deregulation means profit and survival first with an extra effort to meet an acceptable level of safety to support that goal, but it is only a level of safety relating to a snapshot in time, no extras, no insurance, and if this amendment is approved it says to everyone that we have accomplished that short sighted goal and we do not need to improve any longer. This is the wrong message to send to the public at a time that this industry needs to be boosted and not stagnated. The first cuts that will occur if this amendment is approved are travel and support budgets for activities such as ASME. It's happening now without the amendment and approval of the amendment will only exacerbate the situation. The Staff should not be so naive as to believe that this amendment will not effect participation in ASME Code activities.

3. Selection Of The Proper Baseline Edition And Addenda Of The ASME Code In Terms Of Safety, Resources, And Efficiency: The details on MATURITY provided in the attachment outline my comments associated with this area.

4. Regulatory Benefits And Burdens To Licensees, Industry Suppliers (Including Vendors), Nuclear Insurers, States, And Standards Organizations: I see no benefits or burden reduction as a result of this amendment and in contrast to what is being touted as benefits only the same level of burden or additional burden will actually occur as follows:

• (a) Regulators will have to continue to review for approval new Code Cases and later Code Editions and Addenda regardless of this amendment.

(b) Licensees will be forced to take advantage of many more Code Cases in conjunction with the baseline Codes than they use today or actively pursue voluntary use of later Codes and all this effort takes resources.

(c) Vendors that supply Nondestructive Examination (NDE) services do not in general only service nuclear plants and thus they are going to have to maintain special procedures that are written to the baseline Codes and Code Cases used at nuclear plants. This situation exists today without the amendment, as vendors generally write their NDE procedures to the latest Code requirements and they have to be backfitted for nuclear plant use. However, with the approval of this amendment the distance and disparity between the new and the old requirements will increase with time. As time goes on and methods and technology improve an increased level of error will occur when workers performing an NDE method for a different industry are continually having to go back and use old requirements in our industry. This is a recipe for error that the amendment would continually cause to grow and feaster in the future.

4

(d) Nuclear Insurers will have to be more versed in all the exceptions provided by Code Cases and Licensees individual programs to the extent that they will have to be cognizant of many more exceptions based on plant specific criteria.

(e) I am still not sure how the states and jurisdictions are going to respond to this amendment. If you are a Code state normally Codes are implemented for use 6 months following their publication dates. Fortunately, up to this point the states have been tolerant of the Federal Regulations and have followed them regarding nuclear applications. However, the perception of this amendment is that it is no longer necessary to require improvements to safety by the use of later Codes and this may not set well with the state regulators. The only state that was represented at the workshop was Illinois and they had no formal position on this as of yet.

(f) Finally is the effect on Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) which I believe will be the most dramatic. Many concessions have been made by SDOs to

• address the requirements in the Federal Regulations for nuclear applications. For instance ASME Code Cases are not allowed to expire until they are approved in the NRC' s Regulatory Guides or incorporated into later ASME Code Editions and Addenda approved by the NRC. With no incentive provided by the NRC to mandate later Editions and Addenda it is obvious that these concessions will be reevaluated. I do not believe that changes in SDO processes will tolerate the concessions any longer if this amendment is approved.

5. Burden On Licensees To Update Their ISi And 1ST Programs And Related Procedures: I addressed this issue under COSTS in the attachment and I can only speak to ISi and not 1ST. One area that I did not address in the attachment was the cost to update ISI/NDE procedures for a 10-year update and by my experience it only costs about $20K of in-house support dollars. This cost is included in the costs of the 10-year ISi update cited in the Federal Register Notice as $200K to $300K which is a realistic estimate for this activity.

6. Potential Effect On The Number And Detail Of Licensee Submittals Associated With ISi And 1ST Programs: Basically if the NRC does not improve the timeliness of its approval process for Code Cases this amendment will require a dramatic increase in the numbers of submittals that will be required to allow Licensees the use of new Code Cases. This is provided that the SDOs don't change their processes on publishing Code Cases as outlined in the comments provided in Item 4.

7. Changes To The Range Of ASME Code Editions And Addenda Applied By Licensees: With the way the amendment is worded I find it very difficult to believe that any Licensee will voluntarily update to a complete new Edition and or Addenda of Section XI in its entirety. The NRC is going to have a real dilemma here if there's some part of a later Edition and Addenda that they believe the industry should apply.

5

It is the Staff that will control just how mixed-up the industry is in this area. The real gamut in differences will be in the use of Code Cases, but only if they are still available from the ASME. My concern about the continued availability of Code Cases to the industry is provided under the comments about SDOs in Item 4.

8. Potential Effect On Processing Of Licensing Actions And Evaluations Related To Changes To ISi And 1ST Programs, Preparation Of Regulatory Guides Endorsing ASME Code Editions And Code Cases, And Risk-Informed ISi And 1ST Initiatives: As I have stated previously I think there is going to be an increased amount of submittals if this amendment is approved. I do not understand the reference to Regulatory Guides being provided to address later Editions of Codes to be used by Licensees. I did not see this addressed in the proposed amendment. As of now only Code Cases are addressed for approval with the Regulatory Guide process and that process has not been effective in a timely manner. If it is the plan of the

• NRC to also address approval of later Code Editions and Addenda by this Regulatory Guide process, then as I have commented up front, the Staff has to dramatically improve its effectiveness in this area.

Finally, the direct relevance of this amendment to Risk-Informed Initiatives is that at the present time this amendment will have no effect on Licensees applications to use these approaches, but as knowledge is gained in this area and it is incorporated into the ASME Code there could be significant impact from this amendment. Today Licensees are focusing their activities in the Risk-Informed area purely on a voluntary basis. The Staff has accepted for now that the applications at least in the ISi of piping area may be applied to either Class 1, 2, or 3 piping, but as plants get into developing their programs currently exempt piping and Non-Code Class piping is being identified as important to safety. If this trend continues I find it hard to believe that rules for developing these RI-ISi programs will not become mandatory within the ASME Code. Changing the regulations now to not require a mandatory update with that knowledge is both short sighted and irresponsible and a very good reason not to support this amendment.

9. Potential Effect On State And Other Organizations That Rely On The ASME Code In Their Interactions With Nuclear Power Plant Owners: I believe that I have addressed this area by comments contained in Item 4.

10. Application Of Portions Of The ASME Code Incorporated By References In The Regulations Subsequent To The Baseline Edition: I don't believe that the proposed amendment is going to be able to accomplish this activity any faster than it does today. I disagree with making these updates voluntary and there is no basic improvement to the process contained in this amendment.

6

11. Clarity Of The Supplement To The Proposed Rule: It appears that the supplement is clear.

Sincerely, Raymond A. West (860) 447-1791 Ext.2282 7

NRC PUBLIC WORKSHOP May 27, 1999 NRC Headquarters, Two White Flint North Rockville, Maryland Comments For Discussion On Proposed 10CFR50.55a Amendment To Eliminate 1S1/IST 120 Month Updates Prepared By:

Raymond A. West Concerned Citizen 8

Comments For Discussion On Proposed 10CFR50.55a Amendment To Eliminate 1S1/IST 120 Month Updates

SUMMARY

This proposed amendment is billed as a burden reduction to the nuclear industry, but burden in itself is not always recognized by dollars and cents alone and I BELIEVE THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS A MISTAKE. My 28 years of work experience has been primarily related to Inservice Inspection (ISi) and so I am limiting my comments on that part of this proposal. Putting a fixed cost savings on eliminating a 10-year ISi program update is a misrepresentation without giving due consideration to the working level details and safety significance of such a proposal. To that end I have provided several concerns for discussion and an alternative proposal that should be considered by all the Stakeholders as they proceed with evaluation of this proposed amendment.

CONCERNS

• Maturity - The referenced Code Editions and Addenda that are cited in this proposal to be used as the baseline requirements for General ISi, Containment ISi, and Appendix VIII requirements are all outdated from a practical implementation standpoint. None of these referenced documents will stand by themselves when used by any Licensee. The Code is a living document and it is wrong to ignore that fact by effectively locking the regulations into one Edition and Addenda.

Examples:

1989 Edition for General ISi - Currently the Millstone Unit No. 2 ISi program uses this Code reference and was just updated at the end of 1998. This program contains 17 relief requests that have been approved by the Staff, 15 that relate to the use of Code Cases as alternatives to this Code Edition, and 2 which are plant specific.

1992 Edition with 1992 Addenda Containment ISi - As a result of the activities that the EPRI Containment Inspection Advisory Committee took in regards to implementing a Containment ISi program approximately 7 to 9 relief requests will be required to be filed by each Licensee just to write a program to these requirements. Millstone Unit No. 2 and Unit No. 3 have submitted to use the IWE & IWL rules from the 1998 Edition, because even with the 50.55a rule exceptions you shouldn't have to file this number of relief requests just to write your program. It is almost guaranteed that implementation of these programs will require another set of relief requests.

9

1995 Edition with 1996 Addenda Appendix VIII - These requirements are outdated before they are even required to be used as part of the original rule change. Understanding the difficulties with the implementation requirements in Appendix VIII, the industry working within the ASME process has developed a new Code Case N-622 that will be published in Supplement 4 to the ASME Nuclear Code Cases Book by the end of this June. I would not anticipate any Licensee using the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda in light of the alternatives provided in this Code Case.

• Focus - With the current update requirements there is a level of importance associated with performing updates to an ISi program. That level will be lowered and eroded if the changes in this amendment are approved.

Example:

• These programs are implemented over a 10-year interval by performing the required examinations and tests as outlined in a typical ISi program which usually in my company contains around 4,500 to 7,000 items per plant. I have personally performed 2 of these updates myself and reviewed at least 4. Items in these programs change routinely through plant design changes, repair and replacement activities, and plant modifications. During these updates classification boundaries are reviewed, numbers of items are counted, and inevitably from my experience items get deleted and added as part of this process. Without some type of periodic focus on the ISi program such as a 10-year update mistakes and errors will occur. Hopefully, what gets lost will not be safety significant, but it could be. So what this means is that there is only one time that these programs really get reviewed to the requirements and that is during the required 120 month update. Do away with the requirement and you do away with the focus. What you will have under this amendment is a low priority program that gets no attention until something goes wrong. This is not a position that any Stakeholder in this industry wants to see occur.

• Costs - There are estimates in this amendment that talk to $200K to $300K to perform a 10-year program update. My experience would indicate that these numbers could be a little less in some cases. This would depend on the level of contractor verses in-house support that is provided for these updates. What is not talked about here is the additional costs that will be incurred by Licensees who wish to improve their programs voluntarily in the future. The development and availability of Code Cases will be crucial to making this amendment cost beneficial. I personally believe that their will be no incentive for the ASME to continue to modify its approval process of Code Cases to fit the NRC' s regulations. Right now ISi type Code Cases are not allowed to expire unless they are incorporated into the US NRC Regulatory Guide 1.147 or into a version of the Code that the NRC has accepted in the regulations. Locking the Code into one Edition or Addenda as proposed in this amendment will certainly cause a reevaluation of this process within the ASME.

Example:

Costs for relief requests that are backed by Code Cases is somewhere around

$1 OK to $15K per request. If a plant has to pursue plant specific relief requests it has been my experience that these costs will grow dramatically. Non-supported industry type relief requests (i.e., Relief Requests not supported by Code Cases or Topical Reports) can range from $50K to $500K depending on the complexity of the issue. It is a certainty that if this amendment is approved relief requests will dramatically increase. What is unknown is how many of these will be non-supported by industry Code Cases or Topical Reports and tied directly to an individual plant. The costs could far outweigh any gain perceived by this amendment.

• State Requirements - If this amendment is approved what will the State Regulatory Agencies do with this amendment? If States decide to put their own regulations into effect how will this be perceived on a National level?

ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL The NRC should consider using the ASME process in a reverse order to its current regulations. It should continue to require the 10-year update, but allow the use of later Code Editions and Addenda, and Code Cases as soon as they are published. The regulations should be changed to a reverse emphasis that would not allow a licensees ISI/IST programs to be used with a Code Edition and Addenda that is more than 10 years old. It is obvious that the current length of time the Staff takes to make these decisions is not optimal to say the least. It is a pretty sad situation that this proposed amendment references the 1989 Edition of Section XI when the 1998 Edition is currently published .

• This alternative would provide for necessary updates to address a minimum level of safety while allowing each licensee the opportunity to improve their programs with a true burden reduction. NRC Regulatory control can still be maintained through their Code Committee representatives by providing input to and feedback from the process. These individuals generally know what is objectionable to the Staff before it gets published. If the Staff is in disagreement with any part of a Code document (Edition, Addenda, or Code Case) they can publish that disagreement in the Federal Register and address individual items that they find objectionable for generic use. Once a year the NRC can review these objections in relation to the backfit rule and determine what objections are legally enforceable through the regulations. No Licensee would be allowed to use that part of a Code document that the NRC found objectionable until the backfit rule was applied or 1 year has lapsed since its listing in the Federal Register. RESPONSIBILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND BURDEN REDUCTION ON BOTH SIDES WILL BECOME PREDOMINANT WITH THIS TYPE OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENT.

11

June 25, 1999 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch FROM: Carol Gallagher ADM.DAS

SUBJECT:

DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED RULE -

INDUSTRY CODES AND ST AND ARDS; AMENDED REQUIREMENTS Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject proposed rule. This comment was received via the rulemaking website on June 25, 1999. The submitter's name is Raymond A. West, P.O. Box 713, Colchester, CT 06415. Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Thomas Scarbrough (mail stop O7-E-23) for his records.

Attachment:

As stated cc w/o attachment:

• T. Scarbrough

DEPARTME 1035 OUTER LINOIS 62704 2 - D) *99 JUN 29 A9 :51 Thomas W. Ortciger Governor Director 0. =*

it A'C;e,I,_,

June 24, 1999 The Secretruy of the Commission DOCKET NUMBER U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, PROPOSED RULE.PR 50 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (rc'-/FR:JR5to)

Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Re: 10 CFR Part 50, Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Regulations

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (IDNS) provides the following comments on the referenced topic. The IDNS is opposed to the elimination of the 120-month update requirement for inservice inspection (ISi) and test (1ST) programs. There are several potential effects on safety.

Incremental changes in each addendum to the Code will be lost without an ongoing mandatory update. The cumulative effects of these incremental changes will either be lost or be only implemented voluntarily by those few utilities willing to spend the money to complete an update and, if necessruy, pursue a relief request.

Eliminating the mandatory update removes the real and potential benefits provided by program review that occurs at the end of each 10-year interval. Often these reviews result in identifying errors in the ISI program or discrepancies between the program and current plant configuration.

Implying that the ASME Code Section XI has reached a certain level of maturity and is perfectly acceptable for all future applications is incorrect. As power plants continue to age,Section XI will be required to address issues emerging from the aging of the nuclear power plants. Examples of Code changes that have been recently incorporated into the 1991 addenda include resistance and laser beam welding techniques and hard surfacing using the spray fuse method. The development and issue of the Code Cases for Risk-Informed Inservice Inspection and their potential inclusion in the Code are recent examples of Section XI responding to emerging issues.

JUN 3 0 1999

~cknowledged by card ......... ................,,.,.

~ MHAEGULATOR OONIMISISKlN INGS &,,_.r:....--..-YIIII-OFf1CE OF 'RE 1!1Dm'61:rf OFTHECONINIIION 0""""'-~......

mark Dete _ ~to/~r;i;....;<1,1-

/ ..:...

c; ...!-

7 _ _

Cop' I Ad I Sp

The Secretary of the Commission Page 2 June 24, 1999 Illinois' boiler code legislation incorporates references to specific editions of nationally recognized codes and standards. In Illinois, the Rules for Safe Operation of Boilers and Pressure Vessels at Nuclear Facilities and the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act incorporate and require the use of nationally recognized standards. The State periodically updates the Rules to incorporate the latest editions of the ASME Code. This is the case for all book sections, except for Sections III and XI where the Rules are synchronized with the versions accepted by the NRC. If Illinois decides to update the nuclear ASME Code Sections to the latest editions, this could cause a concern over disagreement between federal and State usage of this national code.

A comparison with State Rules exists in the inspection of non-nuclear boilers and pressure vessels. IONS and the Office of the State Fire Marshal require inspection of all boilers and pressure vessels, other than nuclear, and testing of their pressure relief

• devices, to be performed using the latest edition and addenda of the National Board Inspection Code (NBIC) referenced in the rules. As they are issued, new editions and addenda of the NBIC are considered by each agency and may be adopted. Neither agency, however, has contemplated fixing the referenced NBIC at a specific edition.

Finally, we have considered the three-tiered level of baselines for the various specific programs. The proposal to adopt the 1989 edition for ISI/IST, the 1992 edition with 1992 addenda for containments, and the 1995 edition through 1996 addenda for ultrasonic performance demonstration invites confusion. IONS inspectors have observed problems caused by the implementation of a second program to administer the 1992 edition/1992 addenda requirements for visual examination personnel. The application of two different sets of general requirements between differing versions of Section XI is an administrative burden and cause for misapplication of these requirements. Introducing a third set of general requirements affecting UT performance demonstration and related requirements will only create ambiguity.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions relative to these comments, you may contact Cecil Settles at (217) 557-4618.

Thomas W. Ortciger Director TWO:sld

• Entergy

-===- DOCKETED usn°r:

Entergy Operations, Inc.

PO Box 31995 Jackson. MS 39286-1995 Tel 601 368 5760 Michael R. Kansler

@)

Vice Preside11t

'99 JUN 29 A9 '.5 1 Operations S11pport 0 1},

R1.

June 25, 1999 ADJU, r I

Ms. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE . _

PB 5D \

(~lf FR~~ 5~o,J 1 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff

Subject:

Comments on Suriplemental Proposed Ru!e 10 CFR 50.55a, "lndustr/

Codes and Standards"

Reference:

Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 80, Pages 22580 - 22588, dated April 27, 1999 CNRO-99/00019

Dear Ms. Vietti-Cook:

In the referenced Federal Register notice, the NRC published a supplement to a proposed rule originally published on December 3, 1997 (62 FR 63892) amending the current regulations for the use of industry code and standards in 10 CFR 50.55a. By this supplemental notice, the NRC requested comments with respect to the proposed elimination of the 120-month update requirement for lnservice Inspection (ISi) and lnservice Testing (1ST) programs.

With the exception of imposing Appendix VIII of Section XI to the ASME Code, Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) supports the proposed rule. Entergy agrees, as stated in the proposed rule's Statement of Consideration, the safety significance of the periodic updates has declined; therefore, the periodic update requirement imposes an unnecessary burden on licensees.

Regarding Appendix VIII of ASME Section XI, Entergy firmly believes imposing this new requirement does not meet the provisions of the compliance exception contained in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4). The technology and methods contained in Appendix VIII did not exist when the rule cited in 62 FR 63906 was written. Incorporating Appendix VIII requires a cost benefit analysis in accordance with 10 CFR 50.109. Appendix VIII should not be included in the regulations unless a positive cost benefit is demonstrated.

Along with these comments, Entergy endorses the comments submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI).

JON 3 O1999-

-clmowledged by card ..................~"""

REGULATORY CO RJI.EIMKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF C:~~OFltlESl!DETARY 0caanaat5fatlsl:ics ro/:15/97

Comments on Supplemental Proposed Rule 10 CFR 50.55a CNRO-99/00019 June 25, 1999 Page 2 of 2 Thank you for the opportunity to provi e our comments.

Sincerely, cc: Mr. C. M. Dugger (W-GSB-300)

Mr. W. A. Eaton (G-ESC3-VPO)

Mr. R. K. Edington (R-GSB-40)

Mr. C. R. Hutchinson (N-GSB)

Mr. J. R. McGaha (M-ECH-65)

Mr. G. F. Dick, NRR Project Manager, Entergy Mr. R. J. Fretz, NRR Project Manager, RBS Mr. N. D. Hilton, NRR Project Manager, ANO-1 Mr. M. C. Nolan, NRR Project Manager, ANO-2 Mr. C. P. Patel, NRR Project Manager, W3 Mr. S. P. Sekerak, NRR Project Manager, GGNS

U.S. UClEAR REGULATORY COMM!SSION RULEMAKtlGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF l m,.w:::()f'ftiE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION DoallerdSmtistlcs P'O&IRllk CqaReclwed _ _ _ _ _ __

MftCqa RepromJced _ _ _ __

SpeclalflstrlblllDl_ _ _ _ __

NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE

• 99 JU~J 28 P3 :53 David J. Modeen DIRECTOR, ENGINEERING NUCLEAR GENERATION DIVISION l

June 25, 1999 AD Ms. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary DOCKET NUMBER U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff PROPOSED RULE PB $"0 Washington, DC 20555-0001 ( IP'IFK~:158t;}

SUBJECT:

Comment on Proposed Rule, Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements (64 Fed. Reg. 22580)

Request for Comments PROJECT NUMBER: 689

Dear Ms. Vietti-Cook:

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 1 submits these comments on the supplemental proposed rule to eliminate the 120-month update requirement contained in 10 CFR 50.55a. With the exception of the rule imposing Appendix VIII of Section XI to the ASME Code, we find this rule beneficial and encourage the NRC to issue it on the previously announced schedule after addressing the comments provided in Enclosure 1.

• NEI agrees with the NRC staffs comment from the Statement of Consideration that some ASME Code revisions have strengthened requirements while others have relaxed requirements, but that in recent years the safety significance of the periodic revisions has declined. This places an unnecessary burden on licensees. Therefore, we conclude that the 120-month update should be eliminated from 10 CFR 50.55a and that later editions of the Code should be adopted by the NRC for voluntary use by licensees.

1 NEI is the organization responsible for establishing unified nuclear industry policy on matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEI's members include all utilities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect/engineering firms, fuel fabrication facilities, materials licensees, and other organizations and individuals involved in the nuclear energy industry.

JU 3 0 1999

~cknowtedged by card *---......._.. .... ,.

1776 I STREE T , N W SU ITE 400 WASH IN GT ON, DC 20006-370 8 PHO N E 202 739 . 8000 FAX 202 78 5 4019

tJ *~CU:AR REGULATORY COMMISSK)N RULEMAKINGS &ADJtDCATIONS STAFF OFflCE OFlHE Sl!DETARY OF THE COMMl88ION DocwnanlSNlatlc&

P ~ark oats ro/;;s/q '1 Cooies Received_,_ _,___ __

Ms. Annette L. Vietti-Cook June 25, 1999 Page 2 The supplemental proposed rule states that the NRC intends to require licensees to implement the ultrasonic qualification criteria contained in Appendix VIII of Section XI to the ASME Code, as discussed in the initial proposed rule (62 Fed. Reg. 63892). The initial proposed rule stated that the Appendix VIII criteria was justified under the provisions of the compliance exception contained in 10 CFR 50.109 backfit rule. The use of the compliance exception for implementation of this new requirement is inappropriate. The technology and methods contained in Appendix VIII did not exist when the regulations cited as the basis for the compliance exemptions were issued. Therefore, it is unclear how the cited rules have always required the application of the Appendix VIII methodologies. The incorporation of the Appendix VIII criteria requires a cost-benefit analysis in accordance with 10 CFR 50.109. Appendix VIII should not be added to the regulations unless a positive cost benefit is demonstrated.

The NRC staff conducted a public workshop on May 27, 1999, to discuss additional areas that would assist the NRC in deciding on whether or not to issue the supplemental proposed rule. Using input from utilities, the NEI 50.55a Task Force developed responses to the topics identified in the Federal Register. Enclosure 1 provides a summary of these responses. No response was provided to the issue on Potential Effect on State and Other Organizations that Rely on the ASME Code in their Interactions with Nuclear Power Plan Owners.

At the workshop, ASME code representatives expressed concern that the 120-month update requirement would impact the level of participation in the ASME Code and would therefore reduce the level of balanced deliberations. It is difficult to state with absolute certainty the effect of eliminating the 120-month update on utility participation. However, it is reasonable to conclude that individuals participated in standards development activities because of the perceived value to the individual as well as to the sponsoring organization. The ASME Code has traditionally provided value to the industry and we believe it will do so in the future. Other standards development organizations have adequate industry participation without updating requirements mandated by regulation. Therefore, we believe that industry will continue to appropriately participate in ASME Code activities when the 120-month update requirement is eliminated.

Some members of the NRC staff expressed concern that the elimination of the 120-month update would result in a reduction of their ability to impose new requirements, thereby resulting in a more cumbersome regulatory process. The current regulatory process is adequate. The elimination of the 120-month update will not change this; the NRC staff will still have the ability to impose new requirements that are necessary to assure public heath and safety.

Ms. Annette L. Vietti-Cook June 25, 1999 Page 3 The supplemental proposed rule (64 Fed. Reg. 22580) and the initial proposed rule (62 Fed. Reg. 63892) failed to address an important implementation issue. Neither defined a method to adopt revisions of the ASME Code or ASME Code Cases in a timely manner. Whether or not the 120-month update requirement is eliminated, the timeliness of the NRC adoption of new editions and addenda of the ASME Code and Code Cases will remain a significant issue. If the NRC staff cannot develop a process to rapidly adopt new editions and addenda of the ASME Code and Code Cases, licensees will continue to make unnecessary submittals to obtain approval to use new criteria. The NRC should either implement an automatic process to adopt new Code editions, addenda, and Code Cases, or revise 10 CFR 50.55a to eliminate adoption of the ASME Code and Code Cases by reference.

If you have questions, please contact Kurt Cozens at (202) 739-8085 or koc@nei.org .

Jc- David J. Modeen KOC/edb Enclosure c: Mr. Stewart L. Magruder, Jr., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Thomas G. Scarbrough, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Brian W. Sheron, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Jack Strosnider, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC Public Document Room, Project 689

ENCLOSURE 1 NEI RESPONSES TO THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED RULE Item 1- Potential Effect on Safety: The elimination of the 120-month update will not have a negative safety impact.

Most of the changes made to the ASME Code in recent years are editorial, errata, neutral, or a reduction in requirements. An evaluation of ASME Code changes that updated the 1989 edition to the 1992 edition was performed. The evaluation identified 84 changes, of these 77 were editorial, 8 were errata, 52 did not change requirements, 22 reduced requirements, and 25 increased requirements. None of these were safety-significant or even addressed a specific safety issue. These ASME Code changes have no safety significance.

Of 25 generic letters issued by the NRC concerning issues considered within the scope of Section XI, none were initially addressed through changes in the ASME Code. In some cases, the ASME Code was revised to match up with licensee commitments after the fact. Industry does not typically use the standards development process to address emerging safety issues. If a safety issue should be addressed through the ASME Code, the 10 CFR 50.109 provides method for adoption of the appropriate criteria.

Item 2 - Selection of the Proposed Baseline Code Editions: The 1989 edition of the ASME Code is an acceptable baseline for ISI and IST, since more than 80% of licensees have already adopted this edition and the remainder will adopt it in the next few years. The 1989 edition provides an adequate level of safety .

• The current regulatory requirement for the IWE and IWL subsections of Section XI is the 1992 Edition through the 1992 Addenda. Some licensees have implemented the 1992 edition including the 1992 Addenda, but needed numerous relief requests to have a functional program. The 1998 Edition of the Section XI addressed the relief request issues. However, if the final rule requires a baseline using the 1998 Code edition, then licensees using the current requirement will either need to adopt the later editions or seek a relief request. Therefore, we recommend that the baseline edition for the IWE and IWL requirements be the 1992 edition with the 1992 addenda. In addition, the supplemental proposed rule should adopt the 1998 edition of the ASME Code for voluntary adoption by licensees. This action will eliminate needless relief requests.

The supplemental proposed rule would require licensees to implement Appendix VIII of Section XI in accordance with the 1995 edition with the 1996 addenda. The initial proposed rule, December 1997, improperly imposed Appendix VIII based on the compliance exception to 10 CFR 50.109, Backfitting. The compliance exception should only be used when there is a failure to meet an explicit regulatory 1

requirement (or written commitment), i.e., a "known and established standard," in the words of the Commission in the Statement of Consideration for the 1985 backfitting rule. Citing broad standards such as the General Design Criteria (GDC) or Appendix B results in regulatory instability through constant reinterpretation of requirements, something the Commission warned against when it promulgated the backfitting rule.

Consistent with the Commission's stated intent in the backfitting rule, the compliance exception should only be used in the following circumstances where:

• A licensee fails to meet an explicit regulatory requirement (or written commitment) because of omission or mistake of fact

• Plant systems structures or components fail to meet regulatory requirements, such as the functional requirements of a Technical Specification

• The NRC staff has not made this case in imposing Appendix VIII.

If the NRC does satisfy the backfit criteria defined above and imposes Appendix VIII, the baseline criteria should be ASME Code Case N-622, not the editions cited in the supplemental proposed rule (1995 Edition including the 1996 Addenda). The 1995 edition with 1996 addenda contain criteria that is impractical to implement.

The NRC staff acknowledged this at the May 27, 1999, public workshop. Code Case N-622 provides appropriate criteria that can be implemented by the Performance Demonstration Initiative.

Item 3 - Regulatory Benefits (or Hardships) to Licensees, Industry Suppliers (Including Vendors), Nuclear Insurers, States, Standards

• Organizations, and Others: The elimination of the 120-month mandatory update will increase the regulatory stability at nuclear power plants. The establishment of baseline ASME Code editions will reduce the unnecessary burden to make changes not essential to safety. The continuing plant implementation activities will be correspondingly reduced. The result of this stability will be higher quality inspections by the licensee and its vendors with more efficient use of resources on matters directly related to safety. In addition, licensees will eliminate the re-submittal of relief requests associated with the 120-month update. We estimate that this will eliminate between 20 to 30 re-submitted relief requests for each plant.

This will result in a reduction of 2000 to 3000 re-submitted relief requests to the NRC staff every 10 years.

At the NRC workshop, the representatives of the ASME Code expressed a concern that licensee participation at its meetings would decline if the mandatory 120-month update was eliminated. This might, in their opinion, result in a future reduced ability to develop necessary safety improvements. In summary, the ASME Code representatives indicated that elimination of the 120-month mandatory update would be a hardship. The logic for this conclusion is not readily apparent.

2

Revisions to the standards of other standards development organizations (SDO) are not regulated by the NRC. Yet, these SDOs are still viable and provide value to the industry. We believe that as long as the ASME Code provides value to the industry that utilities will participate in the Code process. It is also noted that the SDO activities and resulting standards should not be used as a surrogate for regulatory activity managed by the NRC staff.

Item 4 - Reduction in Burden on Licensees to not Update their ISi and 1ST Programs and Related Procedures: Based on inputs from several licensees, it is estimated that a typical plant will spend between $550,000 and $1,550,000 to update their 1ST, ISi, and IWE/IWL programs each IO-year interval. The elimination of the 120-month update provision of §50.55a will save the nuclear utilities between $55 million to $155 million every 10 years. Further details of these cost estimates are provided in Enclosure 2.

Item 5 - Potential Effect on the Reduction in Number of Licensee Submittals (e.g. Relief Requests) Associated with ISi and 1ST: The elimination of the 120-month update requirement will delete the need for licensees to re-submit its relief requests because of the update. Currently, a typical plant has 20 to 30 relief requests that could require re-approval by the NRC staff as a result of the 120-month update. Implementation of the proposed rule could eliminate the need for the NRC staff to re-approve 2000 to 3000 relief requests.

Some relief requests occur because the NRC staff has not endorsed published ASME Code revisions, updates and code cases. This rulemaking does not contain any provisions for the NRC staff to expedite adoption of these documents. Therefore, licensees are likely to continue to have a need to submit relief requests for later ASME Code criteria. However, these are only a fraction of the total number of relief requests requested by each licensee. In addition, some licensees are likely to choose to selectively implement a portion of a later edition of the ASME Code rather than to adopt an entire edition of a revised Code edition due to cost benefits.

At the May 27 NRC public workshop, a question arose concerning how many of these relief requests would be eliminated if later editions of the Code were adopted by a licensee. While a rigorous survey of licensees has not been performed, we did obtain input on the number of relief requests submitted by one licensee to the NRC staff in the interval between 120-month updates. This licensee submitted 35 relief requests to the NRC during the IO-year interval period. Of these, 24 relief requests sought NRC permission to waive an inspection due to lack of access or undue hardship. These 24 relief requests are likely to require NRC re-approval if the 120-month update requirement is retained. The other 11 relief requests sought NRC permission to use a Code Case or other special criteria. Some of these 11 relief requests would have been absorbed into the licensee's programs if later editions of the ASME Code were adopted as a result of a 120-month program update.

3

This is the same situation that exists today because of the inability of the NRC to adopt later editions of the ASME Code in a timely fashion. We recommend that the NRC automatically adopt published versions of the ASME Code six months after its publication unless a direct conflict exists with current regulations.

Item 6 - How will this Rule Change Affect the Range of Code Editions Applied by Licensee: The supplemental proposed rule will have little effect on the range of code editions applied by licensees and the adoption of unique plant specific criteria.

Over 80% of licensees have currently adopted the 1989 Edition of the ASME Code as the requirement for existing ISI and IST programs. In the next few years, the remaining licensees are expected adopt the same edition. Baselining the ISI and IST programs to the 1989 edition will bring greater uniformity to the basic set of requirements that the NRC finds adequate and sufficient. If the NRC staff had updated 10 CFR 50.55a approximately every 3 years as they have said in previous meetings, approximately one-third of the licensees would be on one of the editions of the ASME Code adopted by the NRC over a ten-year period. In contrast, the elimination of the 120-month update will provide greater consistency than the present regulation.

In the future, the most licenses will be using the same edition of the ASME Code for the plant programs (ISI, IST, IWE or IWL). However, focused ASME Code criteria may be unique for specific topics. This situation exists because of the following reasons:

• Existing regulations permit licensees to use later editions of the ASME Code adopted in 10 CFR 50.55a

• Current regulations allow licensees to adopt portions or editions or addenda adopted in 10 CFR 50.55a as long as all related requirements are met

• Regulations allow for relief from impractical requirements and allows for technically justified alternatives

• The NRC adopts ASME Code Cases and permits licensees to implement these alternative criteria Item 7 - Relationship of Risk-Informed ISi and 1ST Developments in Relation to ASME Section XI and OM Codes: The elimination of the 120-month update requirement from 10 CFR 50.55a will not have any impact on licensees adopting the ASME Code Cases or ASME Code criteria related to risk-informed ISI or IST.

The ASME Code has adopted several Code Cases on risk-informed ISi and IST. By definition, ASME Code Cases are alternative Code requirements that licensees may voluntarily adopt for use. It is understood that the Code Cases when incorporated into the text of the ASME Code will be implemented as non-mandatory appendices 4

for voluntary use. Currently, the NRC has not adopted the Code Cases in 10 CFR 50.55a nor in the regulatory guide used to adopt Code Cases.

According to the provisions of the supplemental proposed rule, future editions of the ASME Code will be adopted for voluntary implementation by licensees. Hence, the conclusion that the elimination of the 120-month update will not have any impact on the licensees adopting risk-informed ISI or IST is valid.

Item 9 - Application of Portions of the ASME Codes Incorporated by Reference in the Regulations Subsequent to the Baseline Editions:

Whether or not the NRC issues the supplemental proposed rule, licensees are likely to seek relief requests to adopt a portion of the ASME Code rather than implement the entire edition of the ASME Code. We anticipate that licensees will maintain the current frequency of submitting relief requests. This conclusion is based on the following:

• In recent years, the typical Code revision has reflected more realistic criteria by defining new techniques, improved methods, and a better understanding of plant operating experience. These changes reflect an understanding that previous Code criteria posed unnecessary burdens that were not technically justified. The revised Code criteria are typically issued first as a Code Case for voluntary licensee use.

• Traditionally, licensees have selectively adopted these new ASME Code criteria using a relief request that references the Code Case as the technical basis. This is necessary because the NRC process to adopt new editions of the ASME Code or Code Cases takes several years. This process is not timely for licensees; their needs are measured in months, not years.

The proposed regulatory changes do not correct these situations. Licensees will still need to seek relief requests to implement revised ASME Code criteria on a timely basis. The regulations should be revised to automatically adopt Code Cases and revisions to the ASME Code within 6 months of their publications. The NRC should take exception to this automatic adoption only when Code revisions are inconsistent with existing regulations.

The NRC should also consider implementing changes that will permit issuance of generic relief requests to adopt Code revisions for direct use by all licensees. In addition, the NRC should revise the regulations to permit licensees to selectively use portions of an ASME Code edition or addenda adopted in the regulations by reference without requiring the licensees to submit a relief request. This is reasonable because the NRC has approved the ASME Code and the licensee will be required to adopt all related provisions of the later criteria being implemented.

5

Item 10 - Clarity of Supplemental Rule: The previous items and the enclosure's cover letter provide comments on the supplemental proposed rule language. The following comments are additional to those previously provided:

• Federal Register, volume 64, page 22584, paragraph I, states that time limits could be imposed on ISi relief requests. The purpose of this time limit would be to ensure that the licensee considers future plant conditions or equipment that might enable the examination to be conducted. The supplemental proposed rule does not explicitly address this. An unnecessary burden could be placed on licensees should this type of limitation be placed on all relief requests issued.

This could result in 2000 to 3000 additional relief requests needlessly being submitted to the NRC staff because a random time limit is placed on all relief requests. Such a relief request limitation should be founded on a direct regulatory requirement or it should not be used by the NRC staff to require it to be resubmitted based on time.

The initial proposed rule 62 FR 63892, found the ASME Code 1995 Edition through the 1996 Addenda to be technically acceptable. This edition and addenda should be adopted in this final rule for voluntary licensee use.

• The final rule should not establish, as the baseline ASME Code, any editions and addendum other than as specified in the supplemental proposed rule or in our comments. Requiring any other baseline Code could result in industry missing an opportunity to identify significant public comments.

6

Enclosure 2 ITEM 4 - REDUCTION IN BURDEN ON LICENSEES TO NOT UPDATE THEIR ISi AND 1ST PROGRAMS AND RELATED PROCEDURES ACTUAL COST FOR 1ST UPDATE AT ONE PLANT

= IST Program Costs Program development and supervision Contractor hrs 2220 Program engineer/supervision hrs 890 Total hrs 3110 x $80.00/hr $248,800

= IST Program Costs System Engineering review Contractor hrs 3279 System engineer/supervision hrs ~

Total hrs 3359 x $80.00/hr $268,720

= 1ST Implementation Costs Revision of test procedures Program engineer hrs 960 Reviewer hrs 300 Review of data sheets 600 Revision of IST base Document 200 Total hrs 2060 X $ 80.00/hr $ 164,800

= IST Implementation Costs Operations surveillance procedure revisions hrs 1,730 Engineering review hrs 1,134 Total hrs 2,864 x $ 80.00/hr $229,120

= IST Total Cost -- Example Total program development $ 517,520 Total implementation costs $393,920 NRC review of relief requests $ 50,000 Total cost for 1ST update at one plant I 9611440 1

OTHER PROGRAMS ESTIMATES 1

• Inservice Inspection Program Update

= Range $200,000 to $500,000 per unit

= Easier characterization of hardware

• IWE/IWL Updates

= Costs $50,000 to $100,000 per unit estimated

= No plants updated yet Less prescriptive Less chance of boundary changes

• Estimated Cost to Update Per Unit

= 1ST Program $300K to $950K2

= ISi Program $200K to $500K

- IWE/IWL Program $ 50K to $ l00K

= Total Cost Per Unit $550K to $1550K

= Total Cost to Industry $55M to $155M 1 Estimates for these programs were provided by several licensees. These estimates did not include the level of detail discussed on the IST program. The cost ranges provided in this section were based on these licensee inputs and the technical insights of the NEI 50.55a Task Force.

2 The cost example for the IST program represented the actual level of effort for one licensee's program update. Other licensees provide cost estimation, but these did not include the same level of detail. The cost ranges provided for the IST program updates were based on these licensee inputs and the technical insights of the NEI 50.55a Task Force.

2

A. Edward Scherer O DOCKET NUMBER Managfl"@C r<. ET E An !:DISON INTl:RN.-ff/ON,\L"' Company PROPOSED RULE PR 5D Nuclear R ~ U-f.i\ffairs

{ (pif FR~~5'lo}

• 99 JUN 28 P3 *.53 June 25, 1999 0:-r 1**,*\'

hU The Secretary of the Commission ADJ 1 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-001

Subject:

Southern California Edison (SCE) Comments on Supplemental Proposed Rulemaking on 10 CFR 50.55a, "Codes and Standards,"

and NRC Workshop Announcement (64 FR 22580)

• Gentlemen:

In response to the subject Federal Register Notice of supplemental proposed rulemaking, Southern California Edison (SCE) is providing the following comments.

SCE has participated in, and supports Nuclear Energy lnstitute's (NEI) comments on this proposed rule and, specifically, the following points.

1) We believe the 1989 edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code should be established as the baseline for In-Service Inspection (ISi) and In-Service Testing (1ST). Based on our operating experience, we believe that the 1989 edition has provided and will continue to provide an appropriate level of safety. We believe that the current 120-month update requirement adds no significant safety benefit, and therefore its proposed removal is appropriate.

2) We also agree that the baseline edition for the requirements in subsections IWE and IWL (Metallic Liners and Concrete Components) should be the 1992 edition with the 1992 addenda. In addition, the supplemental proposed rule should allow voluntary adoption of the 1998 edition of the ASME Code by licensees.

This action will eliminate unnecessary relief requests.

3) We expect that the Staff will review the imposition of Appendix VIII requirements with respect to the backfit criteria of 10CFR50.109. Nevertheless, we believe that use of Code Case N-622 should be allowed as an acceptable alternative to the Appendix VIII requirements. As noted in NEl's comments and as acknowledged by NRG staff at the May 27, 1999 public workshop, implementation of Appendix VIII of Section XI in accordance with "1995 edition and 1996 addenda" would not be practical.

P. 0. Box 128 San Clemente, CA 92674-0128 949-368-7501 JUN 3 0 1999 Fax 949-368-7575 ~cknowledged bv card *"-..........................,,,,.

U.S. NUa.EAR REGULATORY COMMISSt ,

RULEMAKINGS&ADIEO\TIONS srAfF OFFEEOF'N&aa!TART OFnEOOMrMl8ION DoctllaltStallstlcs PostfMrt Dale lo)f)5/ q q Coples Racelvad r r I

• Ml'ICqa~ ~

~ ~ - -- ---- fl>.

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff June 25, 1999 In summary, SCE believes that establishment of the proposed baseline editions will eliminate unnecessary regulatory and financial burden. If you should have any questions or require further information, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

' DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSED RULE ( 50 -:,

(p'f fR~25io1 OOCFFTEO James A. Perry, PE, Consultant 1220 Willow Ct. Florence, OR 97439 USHRC

• 99 JUN 28 P3 :52 June 21, 1999 or~ 1 The Secretary of the Commission r,L' U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ADJL.L \!I Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff

Subject:

Federal Register: April 27, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 80)

Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements The following comments are submitted in response to the request in the subject Federal Register Notice proposing to eliminate the 120 month requirement for licensees to update their inservice inspection and inservice testing programs.

Based on my forty years of experience in the nuclear industry including VP at a utility during the construction, startup and operation of nuclear power plants that included implementation and the ten-year update of the inservice inspection programs, I urge that reconsideration be given to retaining the current requirements. It was during what was supposed to be a routine completion of the ten year ISi period and the update of the program to the later ASME code requirements that we discovered that not all of the required inspections had been performed. While in an outage, we committed to the NRC not to restart the plant until we verified that all of the prior ten-year ISi requirements had been completed. We discovered that many of the inspections had not been performed. At this point a complete reevaluation took place to assure all missing inspections were performed and that the updated program conformed to the later code requirements. We also uncovered errors in the program itself that would not have been detected had we not been required to update the ISi program. The NRC Regional Office issued a Confirmatory Action letter that resulted in the utility agreeing to not restart the plant until first getting agreement from the NRC to do so. As a result, the plant was down for an extended period of time before all the restart requirements had been met and verified by the utility and the NRC.

I provide this example to illustrate what can and did happen when, over a ten-year period, complacency set in and the implementation of the ISi program continued through organizational changes in accountability and responsibility that lacked periodic evaluations and reassessments. The ten year up-date forces utilities to reevaluate the adequacy of their ISi program in terms of the later ASME codes that incorporate the lessons learned, changes in technology, improvements in methods and techniques that enhance safety and provide cost benefits that are to be implemented over the remaining life of the plant.

JO 3 0 1999

-'cknowfedged by card*----~**

U.S. NUClEAA REGULATORY COMMtSStON RtJt.EMAKINGS&ADJUDtCATIONS STAFF OFRCE OF1'HE81!CRETARY OF THE OOMIISSION Docrlnant Slldlstlcs lPosSaalt oate

~ReceMld

{p 1

~~ I,, I

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission June 21, 1999 Page2 Over the past twenty-seven years I have been actively involved in and have participated in ASME nuclear codes and standards committees and activities. This involvement included ASME Section XI Subcommittee on Inservice Inspection and the Operations and Maintenance Committee on Inservice Testing. Through my direct involvement I have been party to the many changes that have been made over the years. These changes have a good basis and require a consensus approval before they can be issued. On the surface one might judge a change to the code as simply a few word changes, however those word changes are important because they frequently are brought about to solve a problem, resolve confusion or misinterpretations. Changes may also reflect feedback and lessons learned, incorporate results of research, or reflect new technology and methods.

Since these ASME documents are safety codes, the changes are intended to protect the health and safety of the public. A secondary purpose is to provide cost benefits that must be justified based on experience or technological advancements.

Comparing the 1989 ASME Code to the 1995 or 1998 Code Editions, there have been cumulative, significant beneficial effects of many small and subtle changes that improved safety and reduced personnel exposure to radiation. These changes relate not only to reductions in the number and extent of examinations and tests but also to new methods and techniques. In my judgement the benefits of implementing the later ASME codes over the life of the plant clearly out weigh the administrative cost of updating the ISi and 1ST programs.

Sincerely, a U.

es A Perry, ~

DOCKET N BERp DRQPOSED RULE 50 I 1,1FR~~s80 D

DOCl'E 1EO Owen F. Hedden US 'F ' ;

3110 Phelps Road West Suffield, CT 06093 Tel/Fax 860-668-5712 *99 JUN 28 P3 :S 2 heddeno@asme.org The Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudication Staff These comments address a supplement to the proposed rule published December 3, 1998 regarding 10CFR50.55(a). The supplement regarding industry Codes and Standards was published in the Federal Register on April 27, 1999. The comments oppose the part of the supplement that would eliminate the requirement for licensees to update their inservice inspection (ISI) programs beyond the baseline 1989 Edition of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI. I present these comments based on my experience with Section XI since its beginning.

I am presently Chairman of the ASME Subcommittee responsible for Section XI. I have participated in the comments presented to NRC by ASME at the workshop in White Flint on May 27, and in the subsequent submittal to the Commission. However, I wanted to present a brief overview in my own words.

My primary concern is the potential loss of the cumulative beneficial improvements in safety resulting from many small changes. These have occurred in the form both of revisions and of Code Cases developed since the 1989 Edition. Many specific items have been mentioned in the above-noted submittals, and I will not repeat them here.

Many of the changes are responsive to ALARA concerns. Reduction in radiation exposure to plant personnel is an improvement in plant safety. With the benefit of hindsight, many of the examinations we imposed 20 or more years ago have been shown to be pointless. Elimination or reduction in the extent of examinations, in Code revisions or in Code Cases, invariably results in direct reductions in personnel exposure. Indirect reductions result from new repair processes, and from improved flaw evaluation methods that may sometimes show that repairs are unnecessary.

The NRC and factions in the industry are concerned that cost burden of the 120-month update of ISI and pressure test programs is not justified by safety improvements. If that is so, then those requirements should be separated from the orderly and prompt mandatory update of the other technical aspects of Section XI. These are the "lessons learned" and new/improved techniques for repairs, NDE, and analytical evaluation. These "free" revisions should be mandated because they represent either improvements in "state-of-the-art" or needed modification of 1989 and earlier prov1s1ons.

JU 3 O1999

~eknowledged by card ....... . ...-~

ORY COM ISSION

&ADJUDICATIONS STAFF

'PHESECRETARY

Finally, a definite effect of the mandatory 120-month update is to uncover prior omissions and errors. As a Section XI committee member, I sometimes receive informal questions regarding Section XI. Within the past year, I recall discussions with individuals updating ISi programs in 3 units. They were concerned with their interpretation of Section XI requirements, indicating that too much time had elapsed between successive examinations, or that the same examination was being counted as part of two cycles. I was able to confirm their concerns. Given the complexity of the systems, and revisions to the systems, I do not think that isolated errors are unusual. All of us should regard such errors/omissions as safety concerns. Mandatory updates are one positive way of addressing these concerns.

Very truly yours, Owen F. Hedden

123 Main Street (j)

W hite Plains. New York 10601 9 14 681.6950 9 14 287.3309 (Faxi DOCVET[O IJ5*1r*

I . I ,,

, . NewVorkPower "99 JUN 28 P12 :29 James Knubel Senior Vice President and

. , Authority Chief Nuclear Officer DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSED RULE. S__O )

<s,t/ f.R .:l~580 June 22, 1999 JPN-99-022 IPN-99-067 The Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff

SUBJECT:

Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-286 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333 Comments on Amended Requirements for Industry Codes and Standards - Need for periodic updates to lnservice Inspection (ISi), lnservice Test (1ST) Programs

REFERENCES:

1. Federal Register, April 27, 1999, Volume 64, Number 80, page 22580.

2. NEI letter, R. E. Beedle to USNRC regarding the same subject.

Dear Sir:

The Authority has reviewed the supplemental proposed rule (Reference 1) that would eliminate the requirement for licensees to update their inservice inspection (ISi) and inservice test (1ST) programs beyond a baseline edition and addenda of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (BPV) Code.

The Authority agrees that the ASME code, and the inspection and testing it requires has matured and that the necessity for updates to keep up with the state of the art is reduced.

Overall, safety benefits associated with adopting periodic code revisions have become smaller and the potential benefits of preparing and implementing new ISi and 1ST programs has decreased since the ASME BPV code was first endorsed by the NRC in 1971. If adopted, these changes will be another step towards eliminating unnecessary burdens on commercial nuclear power plant licensees like the Authority. The Authority supports NRC staff's initiative and encourages them to identify other areas where burden reduction can be achieved .

JUN 3 D1999-_

~cknowfedged bv card *"i'"'""""'"" ... *in-

U.S. NUa.EARREGULATORY COMMISSION

&ADIIDIDCSSTAFF

._............,.,CJ=lNIEIIIH!IMT a:11ECDU1!1JON

The comments of the New York Power Authority on this supplement are summarized below.

Adoption of a baseline ASME Code Edition for IWE/IWL If the supplemental proposed rule is issued as written, it would require that the baseline Code for ISi requirements for metal and concrete containments (Classes MC and CC) and their integral attachments to remain the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda of Subsections IWE and IWL of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code. Because of the number of clarifications and industry relief requests associated with the 1992 Edition, the Authority suggests that a more recent edition of the Code be considered an option for use as a baseline. The 1998 Edition of ASME XI for both IWE and IWL are clearer than the 1992 Edition with 1992 Addenda and could reduce the necessity for relief requests.

Inspector Qualifications Another unnecessary burden that should be addressed as part of this rulemaking is the qualifications for Quality Assurance inspectors. Different editions of the ASME code invoke different QA inspector qualifications (SNT-TC-1 A for the 1989 ASME XI Code vs.

ANSI/ASNT CPT-189 for the ASME XI 1992 ASME XI Code - Refer to IWA-2000). If a single code edition and addenda were adopted as a baseline, licensees could reduce costs with one inspector certification program for piping, components, pressure vessels and containment inspections.

Alternately, the NRC should consider rulemaking that would require inspectors to be certified to a single industry standard -- SNT-TC-1 A for example. During a recent FitzPatrick refueling outage, inspection personnel qualified to two different standards performed containment inspections with no apparent difference in the quality of the data or inspection results. This was permitted by an NRC-approved code relief.

Increased Costs Associated with Adoption of Ultrasonic Testing - Appendix VIII The proposed rule would require licensees to implement the ultrasonic (UT) performance demonstration and training requirements contained in Appendix VIII of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code using the 1995 Edition, as amended by the 1996 Addenda. As ISi programs move towards a risk-based approach, the inspection of piping and components not required by the ASME XI Code may be performed. The application of Appendix VIII performance demonstration and training is unwarranted in these cases since wall thinning is readily detected using a simple examination technique and would raise the cost of inspections without a commensurate improvement in safety or results.

For example, increased volumetric inspections on ISi Class 3-service water piping to detect MIC (microbiologically induced corrosion) or corrosion may be considered as a result of risk-based evaluations. These inspections are currently performed by the Authority as augmented inspections. The Authority also monitors portions of ISi Class 2 piping systems at FitzPatrick by using volumetric inspections to detect wall thinning. These are areas where cavitation is a concern or where high fluid velocities are present, such as in "minimum flow" lines . The UT performance demonstration in Appendix VIII should not be required in cases like this, where augmented volumetric inspections to detect wall thinning 2

are performed, but not required by the ASME XI Code.

Process to Permit Industry-Wide Use of NRC Approved Relief Requests The NRC staff should consider permitting licensees to adopt ASME code relief requests which were reviewed and approved by the NRC for plants other than their own, without prior NRC re-review. The Authority, utility sponsored groups and presumably other licensees, are always looking for methods and techniques to improve the quality, and reduce the costs associated with ISi and 1ST. One effective way of identifying possible improvements is to review NRC-approved relief requests for applicability at either of our two nuclear plants. Often times, these new or different ISi or 1ST techniques and methods require relief from code requirements. In some cases, identical or very similar conditions that prompted the relief request exist at other plants. In this situation, the preparation, submittal and review of essentially identical relief requests are redundant and unnecessary.

The Authority suggests that the NRC consider how relief requests, reviewed and approved by the NRC, could be used by licensees on other plants without the burdensome, costly and time-consuming relief process. This potential method of further reducing burden on licensees was not addressed in the proposed rulemaking and warrants further consideration by the NRC.

Improved Use of ASME Code Cases Rulemaking should be considered that would allow licensees to adopt ASME code cases 6 months (or other reasonable time period) after they are published unless the NRC publishes guidance stating otherwise.

This rulemaking would replace the currently used policy of issuing Regulatory Guides 1.84, 1.85 and 1.147 which list ASME code cases approved by the NRC staff. This approach would speed the application of new code cases, and avoid a second round of code case reviews by the NRC staff when updating the currently used regulatory guide. Sometimes these guides are not revised until years after the cases were first published.

The NRC should work closely with the ASME and its committees to develop consensus standards (code editions, code cases and addenda) that meet the requirements of the NRC, as well as those of the nuclear power industry. The NRC is well-represented on ASME code committees and has considerable influence on the code and code cases.

This approach is also consistent with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L 104-113 which encourages Federal regulatory agencies to consider adopting industry consensus standards as an alternative to de nova agency development of standards affecting an industry.

Cost Estimates The Authority agrees that the potential cost savings associated with this change are difficult to quantify, and the Authority has not attempted to develop cost estimates for either of its two plants. However, the cost to prepare and implement ISi or 1ST programs is significantly more than the $200,000 to $300,000 mentioned in the Federal Register notice 3

(Reference 1 ). Other changes , such as the adoption of Appendix VIII ultrasonic test requirements, will further increase the cost associated with this proposed rule .

NEI Comments The Authority has also reviewed the comments submitted on behalf of the nuclear power industry by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEil, Reference 2. In general, the Authority endorses and supports NEl's comments. In particular, the mandatory adoption of Appendix VIII criteria inappropriately relies on the compliance exception in the backfit rule ( 10 CFR 50.109) and a positive cost benefit should be demonstrated before this provision is added to the regulations.

This letter does not contain any new commitments. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the Director - Nuclear Licensing, Ms. C. D. Faison.

Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer cc: Next page 4

cc: Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Office of the Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant P.O. Box 136 Lycoming, NY 13093 Office of the Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant P. 0 . Box 337 Buchanan, NY 10511 Mr. George F. Wunder, Project Manager Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 8C4 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. J. Williams, Project Manager Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 8C2 Washington, DC 20555 5

(j)

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR S"0 DOCKETED USH C IP'-1 f R~~580 nm Tennessee Valley Authority, 11 0 1 Market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37 402-2801

• 99 JUN 28 Pl2 :29 June 21, 1999

-J-F Secretary of the Commission ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Gentlemen:

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) - REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON INSERVICE INSPECTION (ISI) AND INSERVICE TESTING (IST) - INDUSTRY CODES AND STANDARDS On April 27, 1999, the NRC staff issued Federal Register 64 FR 22580 to solicit public comments on NRC's supplement to the proposed rule regarding Industry Codes and Standards. In this notice, NRC requested comments only with respect to the proposed elimination of the 120-month update requirement for ISI and IST programs. TVA has reviewed the proposed supplement and offers the following comments:

1. TVA agrees to eliminate the 120-month update requirement for ISI and IST programs contained in 10 CFR 50.55a. By this, we endorse the Nuclear Energy Institute's position on this issue.

2. The proposed Code changes are not clear as to how future updates to the "approved" editions and addenda of the ASME Code will be incorporated by licensees. For example:

• How wil~ a licensee handle relief req~ests if they cheese to maintain a base ASME Code (1989) ISI and IST program for the life-of-plant?

• Will established relief requests remain applicable for the life-of-plant?

• Will a licensee be required to review existing relief requests and obtain renewed approval for any future Code changes?

3. The omission of 10-year ASME Code updates should result in considerable industry cost savings. These savings will be realized only if licensees are not required to make frequent changes that precipitate additional costs associated with training, procedure updates, and possible administrative confusion.

JUM 3 0 1999

~cknowledged by card *MJIIIU 11111 Ill flll-wtlb!

Printed on recycled paper

~

I I I

_,') fj I aI ,

..ii I; 11*

Secretary of the Commission Page 2 June 21, 1999

4. The supplemental proposed rule (64 FR 22580) and the initial proposed rule (62 FR 63892) failed to address an important implementation issue. Neither defined a method to adopt revisions of the ASME Code or ASME Code Cases in a timely manner. Whether the 120-month update requirement is eliminated, the timeliness of the NRC adopting new editions and addenda of the ASME Code will remain a significant issue.

If the NRC staff cannot develop a process to rapidly adopt new editions and addenda of the ASME Code and Code Cases, licensees will continue to make unnecessa~y submittals to obtain approval to use new criteria.

The NRC should also consider implementing changes that will permit issuance of generic relief requests to adopt Code revisions for direct use by all licensees. In addition, the NRC should revise the regulations to permit licensees to selectively use portions of an ASME Code edition or addenda adopted in the regulations by reference without requiring the licensees to submit a relief request. This is reasonable because the NRC has approved the ASME Code, and the licensee will be required to adopt all related provisions of the later criteria being implemented. It has been TVA's experience that the burden of three NRC submittals to obtain one generic relief request has been necessary in order for TVA to maintain consistency at three operating sites.

TVA appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on this supplemental rule proposal. If you have questions, please contact R. M. Brown at (423) 751-7228.

Sincerely,

~~

Man~g~~

Nuclear Licensing cc: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 cc: Continued on page 3

Secretary of the Commission Page 3 June 21, 1999 cc: Mr. Ronald W. Hernan, Senior Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Mr. W. 0. Long, Senior Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9ne White Flint, North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Mr. Robert E. Martin, Senior Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint, North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 NRC Resident Inspector Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 10833 Shaw Road Athens, Alabama 35611 NRC Resident Inspector Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 2600 Igou Ferry Road Soddy Daisy, Tennessee 37379 NRC Resident Inspector Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 1260 Nuclear Plant Road Spring City, Tennessee 37381

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE.PR So

( lP'IFR:2:ISSo} OO CK FTEO CHARLES WESLEY ROWLEV 5N,~c 5905 East 114th Street '99 JUN 28 Pl2 :29 Tulsa, OK 74137 office 918-299-0255 / fax 918-299-0256 Or , i.. ,

RL 21 June 1999 AD,.JJL The Secretary of the Commission Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Comments on Proposed Rulemaking for 10 CFR 50.55a, Codes and Standards, dated 15 April 1999

Reference:

(a) ASME B&PV Code,Section XI (for ISi and RRM)

(b) ASME OM Code, Section 1ST (for 1ST)

Good Morning:

My comments, based on being a long term member (engineering consultant) of the nuclear industry, are as follows:

(1) The early pioneers of reactor safety developed a partnership between the AEC (later the NRC) and the ASME to ensure Defense-In-Depth with conservative reactor vessel and containment design, conservative systems design (including repairs, replacements, and modifications), periodic inservice inspection, and periodic inservice testing. There is a balance in these aspects ofD-I-D that must be maintained for the "minimal safety net" . As knowledge of these aspects ofD-1-D improves, some of these areas must be "tightened up" and others can be "loosened up". That is the job of the ASME consensus committees for areas under ASME cognizance and of course the overview monitoring of the NRC Staff.

(2) The real issue is what is the "minimal safety net" provided by ISi and 1ST programs? Is it the 1989 version of the ASME Code or is it the 1996 version of the ASME Code or is it the 1999 version of the ASME Code? I believe it is the latest version of the ASME Code ... .. that is why there is a latest version of the ASME Code. When the ASME Code reaches the point that it does not change (for example when there are only Code Cases being created), then the nuclear industry will have reached the perfect "minimal safety net" .

(3) Since there is no "bar" as to what is a significant improvement to reactor safety fro qi ISi and 1ST, various people and organizations have attempted to invent one. NEI stated at the recent workshop that creating an ISi program, an RRM program, a pressure test program, and an 1ST program in the early 1970s was a significant safety improvement, but that nothing since 1989 was "significant" . The ASME could have (via hindsight) made a policy over the years that the only time the ASME Code would be changed would be for a "significant" safety issue. Since the ASME had no such policy, the various changes to the ASME Code include significant safety issues, insignificant safety issues, user friendly issues, editorial issues, etc.

1 JOI 3 0 1999

~et<nowtedged bv card._.............- -,,,.

~

. I I P8Al<<J8l:j S8fdoo bb/ ee/ q 8'90~

K4PIPISltlfllDIOCJ al BlfllCO :lil::K>

ll:N1BlilliNl.:<<J D:ldO SMOlMDIOViSfN)MB101d

,._ ........."""00 AMO.Mn831:t ffi100N -s*n

(4) A good recent example of a significant safety issue that affects 1ST is the "comprehensive pump test" that was placed into the ASME OM Code (Subsection ISTB) after 1989. The ASME O&M Committee became aware (through performance data) that PWR ECCS pump testing was damaging the pumps, because many have a small diameter mini-flow line that causes the pump to run at an extreme end of the pump/flow curve (for the 1ST test). This change in 1ST requirements is mandatory in later versions of the Code. Obviously the NRC Staff does not agree with the ASME Code that this is a significant safety issue or they would have made it one of their exceptions to the subject rulemaking proposal.

(5) The ASME recognized many years ago that Code Class 1/2/3 boundaries are very germane for ISi (pressure boundary integrity), but not so good for 1ST. The ASME has redefined the scope or boundary for 1ST, but the NRC Staff still uses the old boundary in their 10 CFR 50.55a endorsement. Interestingly enough the NRC Staff published NUREG-1484 to get licensees expand their 1ST scope beyond Code Class 1/2/3 voluntarily. This is obviously an example of where the NRC Staff does not agree with the ASME Code.

(6) The Public Law encourages federal agencies to use consensus standards. With this proposed

• rulemaking, the NRC appears to be reversing their tauted role as one of the best federal agencies using the Public Law and its predecessor, the 0MB circular.

(7) Note that the NRC has a terrible track record of updating 10 CFR 50.55a to endorse later versions of the ASME code (ten years so far on this update) and almost as bad a record of updating ASME Code Case endorsements (the Reg Guide was finally issued this year but does not address any ASME Code Cases within the last several years) . By the way that was the original reason for the Code Cases and the Reg Guides - to quickly endorse acceptable alternatives to the Code. The NRC ought to seriously consider automatic update of ASME Codes and Code Cases, with some kind of exception process if the NRC Staff really needs the extra time to reflect on the technical viability of a particular Addenda or Code Case requirement.

(8) Since every plant has a PRA which allows the real reactor safety issues to be identified (especially for core damage), it seems to me that RI-initiatives will likely affect all plant programs someday, including ISi and 1ST. This rulemaking initiative is moving in the opposite direction. I fully expect RI-ISi and RI-IST to move from Code Cases to actual ASME Code revisions someday (will likely take many years since a plant should really apply risk to all SSCs . .... that means multiply plant regulatory programs ...... so RI 10 CFR 50 may be the easier vehicle to see the value to safety ..... and economics).

(9) The freezing of the required ISi and 1ST requirements circa 1989, misses important changes to the code reflecting better knowledge of safety issues, improved technology, and utilization of performance data to better focus the requirements to enhance nuclear power plant reactor safety. The NRC Staff has already picked out some later portions of the ASME Code for mandatory use (later than 1989).

(10) Are other regulatory programs frozen in time? Examples of programs that could be argued to be frozen are EQ and GL-89-10. Examples of programs that could be argued to be not frozen are AOVs, 50.59, 50.65, and Appendix R. All of these example programs have ties to the components affected by 1ST.

(11) The freezing of the required ISi and 1ST requirements circa 1989 also makes a big assumption that the other regulatory programs are either also frozen (not the case to my 2

knowledge) or that the various regulatory programs (other than ISi and 1ST) have so much margin in them that should the ISi and 1ST program freeze be a bad idea in hindsight that it does not matter.

(12) The ASME Code requirements are developed by a consensus group of experts, that includes multiple sectors of the nuclear industry so that technical issues are examined carefully. These ASME consensus committees meet publicly and visitors are welcome to contribute their comments and observations. These technical requirements are typically well thought out and are sometimes changed again when more technical information becomes available to apply to the issue.

(13) The ASME Code is certainly not perfect in how it states the ISi and 1ST requirements.

Some owners recognize this and send technical inquiries to the ASME, for 1ST many owners send their 1ST engineer to the biannual Joint ASME/NRC Symposiums, and some send their ISi or 1ST engineer to the quarterly Code Committee meetings. On the other hand some owners minimize the expertise and experience of their ISI and IST program engineers (a side effect of over-optimizing another aspect of plant operations). Frequently during the ten year program update, errors have been found (and corrected). Without the ten year update the ISi or IST program would likely continue to drift off course due to these errors. Would they cause a TMI-2 event? ...... most would probably not but some might ..... that is what reactor safety programs are all about.

This letter has attempted to point out a few points for consideration by the NRC for the subject rulemaking proposal. The overriding issue of reactor safety continues to be just as important today as it was in the early days of the nuclear industry. D-1-D is just as important today as it was decades ago. ISi and 1ST are aspects ofD-I-D that are just as important today as they were decades ago . So is the partnership between the NRC and the ASME for these reactor safety programs as important today as it was decades ago? That is the real issue!

i lyYo Charles W. Rowley, P Engineering Consultant 3

(j)

Consumers Energy DOC ,ETEO A CMS Energy Company Palisades Nuclear Plant Tel: 616 764 2276 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Fax: 616 764 3265

• 99 JUN 21 P3 :38 Covert, Ml 49043 Nathan L. Haskell Director, Licensing OFt I Rl_ f ADJU., J - DOCKETN BER June 11, 1999 PROPOSED RULE PR 50 (pl/FR~ .zsso)

Ms. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Comment on Proposed Rule, Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements (64 Fed. Reg. 22580)

Consumers Energy Company is pleased to provide the following comments on proposed changes to 10 CFR 50.55a as published in 64 FR 22580.

First, we strongly support the NRC proposal to eliminate the requirement for updating lnservice Inspection and Testing Programs to later editions and addenda of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, each ten years. We believe that the periodic wholesale update to the latest code specified in 10 CFR 50.55a has resulted in significant, unwarranted expenditures of resources for minimal safety benefit.

Utilization of the 1992 edition of the Code for the baseline requirement as opposed to the 1989 edition currently specified in 10 CFR 50.55a appears to be acceptable .

We are very concerned, however, about the staff's attempt to impose Appendix VIII to Section XI as a compliance backfit. This claim appears to be an inappropriate effort to circumvent the requirements of 10 CFR 50.109. The safety benefit versus the cost of implementation of Section VIII should be assessed utilizing a scrutable, publicly available cost-benefit analysis.

During the Consumers Energy Company consideration of these proposed changes, we had the opportunity to review the comments prepared on behalf of the nuclear industry by the Nuclear Energy Institute. Those comments will be submitted to NRC in a separate letter. Consumers Energy hereby endorses those comments.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO~ON RUILEMJWNl~&ADADCl\ll)N8 Sl'AFF OFFICE <:ElMEIIERllMT OFlllE cal DB D PosiAalk Dala _ ..,Jl;,l..r...L.j,-:...1 - - - -

Copies R9c1Wad _ _-"__ _ __

(j)

ASME lnterM~P~~, :-

Robert E. Nickell t'S n Three Park Avenue President, 1999-2000 New York, NY 10016-5990 212-591-8130 DOCKET NUMBER U.S.A. *99 JU~J 18 P3 :09 FAX: 212-591-7739 nickellr@asme.org PROPOSED RULE PR 5O

{ fol/ ~R ~:l58o) Ot June 16, 1999 AD,*

The Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Re: Federal Register Notice (Volume 64, Number 80 April 27, 1999) Solicitation of Public Comments Regarding Proposed Supplement To The Proposed Rule Published On December 3, 1997 (62 FR 63892) That Would Eliminate The 120 Month Requirement For Licensees To Update Their lnservice Inspection And lnservice Testing Programs To Whom It May Concern:

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), also known as ASME International, is a not-for-profit engineering society focused on technical, educational, and research issues. There are 125,000 ASME members worldwide; there are no corporate members. ASME conducts one of the world's largest technical publishing operations, holds some 30 technical conferences and 200 professional development courses each year, and sets industrial and manufacturing codes and standards used throughout the world ; there are ASME accredited manufacturers in 58 countries.

The enclosure provides the position of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, which is in response to the supplement to the proposed rule.

ASME opposes the NRC supplement to the proposed rule for the reasons summarized below and as expanded upon in the enclosure:

• The benefits gained in implementing the 120 month update outweigh the cost of making the update.

• The Codes are living documents that are moving from prescribed repetitive inspection and tests to a more risk-informed and performance-based approach that both the NRC and ASME are moving toward as a high priority.

The ASME standards development process and system provide a multiplier effect that captures all Code changes and collective committee experience in direct support of the 120-month update.

• Elimination of the 120-month update is considered contrary to the spirit of the intended implementation of Public Law 104-113 and 0MB A-119.

The 120-month update has served as a mechanism for licensees to keep their ISi and 1ST programs consistent with current improvements in technology reflected in codes and standards, including improvements affecting health and safety and increased efficiencies, and ongoing assessment of the process by NRC. It provides for systematic implementation of safety enhancements with a minimum of bureaucratic involvement. Updating focuses on an evaluation of the entire program to later code requirements, identifies errors and deficiencies and forms the basis for making corrections and enhancements to ISi & 1ST Programs. It reflects the latest edition and addenda to the ASME Codes endorsed by the NRC. It will maintain a more current, JUN 22 \99.L_

~cknowledged by card eot>illllll IIRHI II JJ *J!'Jt T h e Ame r ican Soc i ety o f Mechanica l En g i neers

lJ.-,. 1 UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS;:;IU1'4 RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE FTHE SECRETARY OFTHECONIMB~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission June 16, 1999 Page2 consistent and uniform standard for the entire industry that will minimize separate submittals and evaluations on a case-by-case basis between utilities and NRC staff.

The effect of savings from many Code revisions over several Code editions must be taken into account including, for example, the cumulative significant beneficial effect of many small and subtle changes that improved safety and reduced personnel exposure to radiation. Updating to the latest Code requirements will result in a net reduction in work required, personnel exposure and continue to increase economic benefits over the remaining life of the plant.

Sincerely,

• £~,~&dent Nuclear Codes and Standards d~}Di,e Nuclear Codes and foA.r~~~...,

tandards Enclosure Cc with enc D.A.. Powers, Chairman, USNRC-ACRS Dr. W. D. Travers, Executive Director of Operations-USN RC Richard E. Feigel, ASME Sr. VP-C&S Domenic A Canonico, Chairman ASME B&PV Committee Members, ASME Board on Nuclear Codes and Standards Members, ASME Council on Codes and Standards June Ling, ASME AED C&S

Enclosure ASMERESPONSETOSUPPLEMENTTO PROPOSED RULE PUBLISHED DECEMBER 31 1997: 10CFR50.55a June 16, 1999

Background

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is publishing a supplement to the proposed rule published on December 3, 1997 (62 FR 63892) that would eliminate the requirement for licensees to update their inservice inspection (ISi) and inservice testing (1ST) programs beyond a baseline edition and addenda of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPV Code).

The proposed rule would establish the 1989 Edition of ASME BPV Code,Section XI, as the baseline Code for 1ST requirements (except for design and access provisions and preservice examination requirements) for pumps and valves that are classified as ASME Code Class 1, 2, or 3 components in currently operating nuclear power plants. As required by 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(viii),

references in ASME BPV Code Section XI to OM standards, Parts 4, 6, and 10 will mean the OMa-1988 Addenda to the OM-1987 Edition . The proposed rule would also establish the 1989 Edition of ASME BPV Code,Section XI as the baseline Code for ISi requirements for components (including supports) classified as ASME Code Class 1, 2, or 3.

The NRC proposes to eliminate the requirement to update ISi and 1ST programs every 120 months for licensees applying the baseline or later editions and addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in the regulations. As proposed, licensees may update their ISi and 1ST programs to subsequent Code editions or addenda that have been incorporated by reference in the regulations in their entirety without prior NRC approval when implemented in accordance with the regulations. A licensee intending to implement only a portion of a subsequent Code edition or addenda incorporated by reference in the regulations would be required to obtain prior NRC approval by demonstrating that the specific portion of the edition or addenda presents an acceptable level of quality and safety, and that all related requirements are satisfied .

The NRC proposes that the baseline Code for ISi requirements for metal and concrete containment {Classes MC and CC) components and their integral attachments be the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda of Subsections IWE and IWL of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code. Finally, the proposed rule would require that ASME Code Class 1, 2, or 3 components conform to the requirements in Appendix VIII of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code, 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda.

The NRC believes that the overall level of safety achieved by adherence to a baseline edition or addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in the regulations would be sufficient and adequate, and that unnecessary burden might be placed upon licensees by the required updating of their ISi and 1ST programs. The NRC also believes that the establishment of a baseline edition and addenda of the ASME Code for ISi and 1ST requirements would ensure adequate protection of public health and safety without periodic updating of ISi and 1ST programs at nuclear power plants.

ASME Response ASME opposes the NRC supplement to the proposed rule described above for the following reasons:

1. The benefits gained in implementing the 120 month update outweigh the costs of making the update

+ The Federal register notice cites a cost of approximately $200,000 for the 120 month update for each licensee, or $20,000 per year. This is not a significant cost when you consider the potential number of relief requests if the update were eliminated.

ASME RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENT TO JUNE 16, 1999 PROPOSED RULE PUBLISHED DECEMBER 3, 1997:

10CFR50.55a Page2 By baselining the code to the 1989 Edition, licensees will be forced to submit numerous relief requests that will be required to implement portions of later editions of the Code. This will result in use of greater licensee and NRC resources than if the most recent Edition of the Code were imposed in the regulations.

• Representatives of some utilities have requested elimination of the120 month update based on its expense. From an administrative view, the update would clearly call for an increase in the budget for a particular department once every 10 years. This would appear attractive to eliminate. However, the effect of savings from many Code revisions over several Code editions must be taken into account. Updating to the latest Code requirements will result in a net reduction in work required, personnel exposure and economic benefits that will continue over the remaining life of the plant.

For an example, a code action to reduce inservice inspection (ISi) of Class B-J piping welds could save several hundred thousand dollars per plant.

• Since the 1989 Edition of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (the most recent edition referenced in the regulation) , there have been numerous revisions and Code Cases that have been characterized as economically beneficial to the utilities. The contributions to safety are also significant. A primary justification for the revisions and Code Cases is to achieve ALARA objectives. Examples follow:

• Cases N-458-1 and N-485-1 permit surface examination of painted surfaces.

This reduces personnel exposure by eliminating the need for paint removal before a surface examination, and repainting after.

• Case N-463-1 provides criteria for analytical evaluation and acceptance of flaws that would otherwise result in component repair or replacement, avoiding exposure of personnel engaged in repair/replacement activities.

• Case N-481 provides criteria for analytical evaluation and acceptance of flaws, that would otherwise require nondestructive examination. Thus, exposure of personnel engaged in repair/replacement activities is avoided.

• Case N-480, which introduces examination and analytical evaluation methods for pipe wall thinning due to single-phase erosion and corrosion, was initiated to address safety concerns. It has recently been superseded by Case N-597.

• Case N-557, which provides criteria for in-place dry annealing of a PWR reactor vessel , also addresses safety concerns.

• Case N-560 permits reduction in examination of Class 1 Category 8-J piping welds from 25% to 10%, provided a specified risk-importance ranking selection process is followed. The selection process has been shown to improve safety, because it focuses examinations on critical areas in place of the current shotgun approach . The reduction also reduces NDE personnel exposure

• Cases N-509, N-524, and N-547 reduce examinations with reduction in plant personnel exposure.

• Updating will maintain a more current, consistent and uniform standard for the entire industry that will minimize separate submittals and evaluations on a case by case basis between utilities and NRC staff.

• Updating to the more recent ASME codes would provide for more cost-effective inspections and tests at lower occupational exposure.

• It took over 9 years for the NRC to produce an update to 10CFR50.55a to address later editions of ASME Section Ill,Section XI, NQA-1 and to introduce a baseline for the OM Code for mandatory requirements in the regulation. With voluntary updates, it would appear that there would be a reduction in emphasis on evaluation and less timely endorsement of Code changes by NRC staff.

ASME RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENT TO JUNE 16, 1999 PROPOSED RULE PUBLISHED DECEMBER 3, 1997:

10CFR50.55a Page 3

• Since major updates of the ISi & 1ST programs underwent major improvements at the time of the update, a disparity over time will occur if these updates are not required in the future. Updating focuses on an evaluation of the entire program to later code requirements, identifies errors and deficiencies and forms the basis for making corrections and enhancements to ISi & 1ST Programs.

The update provides for standardization and consistency in implementation of requirements. If future changes to the ASME Code become voluntary, the impact on changes to the range of code editions and addenda applied by licensees is expected to be great. This will have a negative impact due to inconsistent implementation, and lack of uniformity and consistency in verifying conformity.

2. The Codes are living documents that are moving from prescribed repetitive inspection and tests to a more risk-informed and performance-based approach that both the NRC and ASME are moving toward as a high priority.

One of the arguments in support of the proposed NRC action is that the Code is "Mature". In a sense this is true, in terms of years since inception; however,Section XI is in the midst of a change in philosophy and scope, moving from prescribed repetitive inspections to risk-informed programs. Lessons learned from the pilot applications are being used to support Code Case actions.Section XI inspection requirements were originally based on fossil service experience, and recent revisions to the Code implement the lessons learned in over 25 years of nuclear power plant operating experience. Many of these have been implemented since the 1989 edition, and others are in development.

The NRC has not provided a basis to support the contention that the 1989 Code is "mature" for current application.

The Code is a living document and it would be improper to ignore that fact by effectively locking the Regulations into one edition and addenda.

3. The ASME standards development process and system provide a multiplier effect that captures all Code changes and collective committee experience in direct support of the 120 month update Operational experience has, and will continue to be incorporated in ASME Code revisions to assure appropriate implementation of safety provisions and ALARA considerations.

• A broad-based group of experts collectively produce Code changes using the consensus process.

• Research resources and new technology are available as input to the committee.

• User feedback to the committee on operating experience, application and lessons learned results in needed refinement and adjustment to the Code. There has been a cumulative, significant, beneficial effect of small and subtle revisions that improved safety and reduced personnel exposure to radiation. These were related not only to the reductions in the number and extent of examinations, but also to new methods for performing repairs and flaw analysis.

• The committee process provides continuous addenda & edition updates. Thus, with timely endorsement, the120 month update ensures that licensees reevaluate and update ISI/IST programs to reflect experience and Code improvements from Code application . With more timely NRC endorsement of later code editions and addenda in the future, licensees should be encouraged to update their ISi and 1ST programs on a more frequent basis; e.g. at the time of each new edition. This would reduce the number of changes being made at a given time and would reduce the administrative cost burden of making the update. With elimination of the120 month update, the owners groups, NEI and EPRI would continue to approach the NRC staff directly for relief on behalf of their utility members. A net increase on the number and detail of licensee submittals associated with ISi & 1ST would be expected. The NRC staff would deal with the utilities one-on-one more often on issues that to this point have been resolved by code committee action. While called a 'voluntary update, each

ASME RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENT TO JUNE 16, 1999 PROPOSED RULE PUBLISHED DECEMBER 3, 1997:

10CFR50.55a Page4 request would be scrutinized and each applicant would need to provide justification for adoption of portions of code. This would have the affect of skewing individual ISi and 1ST programs in a manner that fosters increased inconsistency in implementing Code requirements as time passes with reduced oversight by NRC. There is a risk that picking and choosing of selected revisions may result in omission of correlative revisions or requirements, introducing ambiguities.

• The staff decisions on these one-at-a-time issues would not receive the same scrutiny as that given to changes in the Regulation. This will have the effect of diminishing the role of the consensus standards development process.

• The NRC position under IX Backfit Analysis of this Supplemental Proposed Rule supports the endorsement of the later ASME Code by the statement that "the NRC has reviewed those comments and has concluded that neither NUBARG nor NEI raises legal concerns that would alter the previous legal conclusion that the Backfit Rule does not require a backfit analysis of routine updates to incorporate new ASME Code ISi and 1ST requirements."

• Elimination of 120 month update could have major detrimental impact on the committee infrastructure. By baselining the 1989 Edition of the BPV Code, there will be little incentive for US utilities to provide resources to support further Code revisions. It is questionable whether US utilities, manufacturers, laboratories, insurance companies, consultants, designer-constructors and others would maintain significant committee participation, except to pursue specific needs. Innovation would be discouraged. This contrasts with the experience of the last 30 years when Code Committees, through an established infrastructure, produced changes to the Code which relied upon broad based research and operating experience.

• The update provides for a continuous improvement process. Initially the Code was written in a conservative manner until more experience and advancements in technology were realized. Changes that were made to eliminate or reduce certain examinations served to reduce occupational exposure in certain areas. With regard to the OM Code, the current edition (1998) provides a baseline for significant improvements in testing efficiency through the use of risk insights and operational experience. This provides for a more effective use of resources and provides for more cost-effective inspection. This becomes significant with initiatives in risk-informed regulation that should reference the appropriate current Code requirements.

• The process used over the past 30 years involving updating the ISi & 1ST

• 4.

Programs every 120 months is well known and is working very well. If the process were changed to delete the update requirement, it would involve many unknowns that cannot be predicted at this time. This uncertainty is unacceptable.

Elimination of the 120-month update is considered contrary to the spirit of the intended Implementation of Public Law 104-113 and 0MB A119

• Public Law 104-113, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 0MB and Circular A-119, "Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities" addresses the use of voluntary consensus technical standards by Federal Agencies.

Supplementary Information, item X. "National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995", indicates the need for the NRC to evaluate the relationship of the public law to the proposal to eliminate the 120 month update and, as a result, determine whether a report (or periodic reports) must be provided to the Office of Management and Budget if the 120-month update requirement is eliminated. We believe that elimination of the 120-month update is contrary to the spirit of the intended implementation of PL 104-113 and 0MB A-119. Although the NRC would consider endorsement of later editions of the BPV Code and licensee implementation on a voluntary basis, the current proven process would be replaced by one that introduces many unknowns and uncertainties. The resultant required evaluation and reports referenced in item: X. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

ASME RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENT TO JUNE 16, 1999 PROPOSED RULE PUBLISHED DECEMBER 3, 1997:

10CFR50.55a Page 5 would cause an increased burden on NRC staff that would be avoided by retaining the 120-month update.

• By baselining to the 1989 Code Edition, imposing the 1992 Edition (with 1992 Addenda) for Subsections IWE & IWL, and imposing the 1995 Edition (with 1996 Addenda) of Section XI for Appendix VIII, the NRC is applying only selected parts of different code Editions on licensees. This will create confusion regarding proper overall implementation of the Code, and could have an adverse impact on maintaining proper configuration control.

• Since states routinely update references in their regulations to require the latest editions of ASME codes and standards, the proposed rulemaking would create greater inconsistencies between Federal and state requirements. Such inconsistencies between Federal and state jurisdictions would have a negative impact on Code users.

Conclusion The 120-month update has served as a mechanism for licensees to keep their ISi and 1ST programs consistent with current improvements in technology reflected in codes and standards, including improvements affecting health and safety and increased efficiencies, and ongoing assessment of the process by NRC. It provides for systematic implementation of safety enhancements with a minimum of bureaucratic involvement. Operational experience has, and will continue to be incorporated in ASME Code revisions to assure appropriate implementation of safety provisions and ALARA considerations. The 120-month update reflects the latest edition and addenda to the ASME Codes endorsed by the NRC. The NRC need only review and approve new editions and addenda and to incorporate them by reference into 10CFR50.55a to have the provisions incorporated by licensees. Improvements in the Code that reduce burden are also implemented at the same time. It will maintain a more current, consistent and uniform standard for the entire industry that will minimize separate submittals and evaluations on a case-by-case basis between utilities and NRC staff. It would facilitate the transition from the deterministic approach to a more risk-informed and performance-based approach that both the NRC and ASME are moving toward as a high priority. Without it, the entire burden of operational continuous improvement and upgrade of programs rests with the licensees, with diminished oversight by the NRC, and only those very large and infrequent enhancements that pass the backfit rule would be mandated in the regulation.

The Nuclear Utility industry is experiencing, and will continue to experience, significant restructuring as deregulation is implemented. Chief Nuclear Officers and management teams will change. Industry events, primarily through aging and technology improvements will drive changes to the code. The code is a reflection of these forces and will be upgraded. As stakeholders in this proposal, the ASME, NRC and Utilities have unique and interdependent roles in the regulatory framework that maintains the pressure boundary integrity and operational readiness of mechanical equipment. This is key to maintaining nuclear safety. The impact of the proposed rulemaking could be to upset the balance of that regulatory framework.

) DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE ft 5O

~ ~i/FR~JS8o)

I agree with the NRC's proposal to eliminate the 120-month update requirement. This will allow industry resources to be more appropriately focused on issues of higher risk and safety significance. However, the restrictions placed on the use of portions of a Code edition or addenda that is not pre-approved in § 50.55a(a)(3) (i.e., that prior NRC approval is required) should not be specifically included in the regulations. For example, this precludes incentives for the ASME Committee to prepare Codes, Standards, and Guides in a manner that could identify those portions that could be implemented without creating a conflict with other portions of the Codes, Standards, or Guides. Consideration should also be given to allowing licensees to make a determination under 10 CFR 50.59 that no unreviewed safety question is created by implementing a portion of a Code.

Additionally, the NRC should address how the NRC intends to use, and how licensees may apply, other industry Codes, Standards, and Guides. The NRC should consider a forum in line with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, which requires all Federal agencies and departments to use technical standards that are

• developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

)> 0 0::rJ'l c_c..,...

~

c._ D c::: ,-.0 2  ;-;:; "")

z~

VJ

-0

-=-~

~ ) !"Tl D

U1

~~edged by card OM U 22 1999 I IIIIIIUIIR Da,,1111lJJU.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO RULEMAKINGS &ADJll)ICAllONS STAFF OFFICE a=MsmETARY OF THE VUffl~ION

June 11, 1999 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch FROM: Carol Gallagher ADM,DAS

SUBJECT:

DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED RULE -

INDUSTRY CODES AND STANDARDS; AMENDED REQUIREMENTS Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject proposed rule. This

• comment was received via the rulemaking website on June 11, 1999. The submitter's name is Patricia L. Campbell, 12420 Star Hill Trace Avenue, Jackson, LA 70748 . Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Thomas Scarbrough (mail stop O7-E-23) for his records.

Attachment:

As stated cc w/o attachment:

T. Scarbrough

The below comments are independent from those provided by Southern Nuclear Operating Company via NEI.

DOC,TTE*

Deletion of the 10-year mandatory ISI/IST Program update will have no negativ~ifJcts on the quality and/or safety of nuclear power plant operation because:

• 99 JUt -9 P 2 :47

1) The ASME Code is a mature Code which has seen very little technical change since the early 1980s. The ISi examination scope requirements have actual 1decreased based on industry experience and the Codes move away from a purely random seleot:icm criteria . The basic 1ST requirements have changed very little since the early 1980s an mp and valve testing is still conducted the same as it was since development of these Code requirements;

2) Virtually all plants are looking at adoption of Risk-Informed (RI) technology for ISi in the relatively near future. RI techniques are aimed at examination/testing of the safety significant components with no real consideration for their ASME classification. Therefore, examination/testing selection based on ASME Code scope requirements becomes irrelevant. RI applications also include requirements for a feedback mechanism which provides for update of the program on a periodic basis;

3) Virtually all safety significant issues within the ISi and 1ST realm have been handled independently from the ASME Code since the 1970s (e.g., NUREG-0313, NUREG-0619, GLs 79-04, 88-01, 89-04, 89-10 and many more, BWR RPV shell weld examinations, PWR steam generator tube examinations, BWR Reactor Internals issues (BWRVIP), etc.). The NRC will continue to address any significant safety related issues independent from the ASME Code due to the lengthy code development process; Therefore, the NRC should progress with issue of Supplement 1 to the proposed 10 CFR 50.55a Rule change and eliminate the requirement for a mandatory once every 10-year ISI/IST program update.

Additional comments are provided below.

The NRC previously performed a review of the ASME OM Code and stated that the 1990 Edition is equivalent to Parts 1, 4, 6, and 10 of the ASME OMa-1988 S/Gs which is referenced in the 1989 Edition of ASME Section XI and the proposed change to 10 CFR 50.55a. It is inappropriate to reference an ASME Standard or Guide in the CFR and the reference should be changed to the ASME OM Code 1990 Edition for the baseline 1ST Code. S/Gs are not stand alone, they require reference back to another document for general requirements (in this case ASME XI, Article 1WA). ISi and 1ST are different subjects and should be addressed by different Codes, the ASME recognized this back in the 1980s. The first edition of the ASME OM Code is a stand alone document which requires no reference to ASME Section XI. Plants that have already updated to the OMa-1988 Standards should be allowed to continue with their testing programs until their next normally scheduled update and then should be required to update to the baseline 1990 edition of the OM Code or a later approved version.

Plants with less than 12-months remaining in their interval when the rule is published should be allowed to update to either the ASME OMa-1988 SIG or the ASME OM Code-1990 Edition. Plants with more than 12-months remaining in their interval when the rule is published should be required to update to the ASME OM Code-1990 Edition. This applies to pump and valve testing only since the proposed rule addresses a later OM Code version for snubber testing.

Virtually all cost estimates developed in response to the NRC 's request related to 10-year updates were related to ISi. 1ST updates require significantly more man-power, time and expense since all 1ST is Page 1 of 2 JD 15 1999

~cknowledged by card ... .... ... *, .............

U.S. UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS1v1>J RULEMAKINGS&AOJUOICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF'fHE SECRETARY OFTHE SSION

implemented via site surveillance or testing procedures. A typical IST plan will reference 100+

surveillance procedures to implement all of the required pump, valve, and relief valve testing. A significant number of engineering and operations personnel are required to update such a large number of procedures and plants have struggled for years on how to actually implement new IST requirements (i.e., when do I quit doing the old and start doing the new and how do I account for changes in reference valves and acceptance criteria). Therefore, I am not surprised that industry estimates have ranged for a couple of $100K to more than $1000K for the 10-year update.

The ASME argues that deletion of the 10-year update will lessen industry participation on Code Committees. While this may be true, I do not see what safety significance this has given the prior track record for how the NRC has had to deal with safety issues within the nuclear industry. I believe that most utility companies support ASME Code work not for what they will get in return, but for what their representatives get in return (i.e., industry contacts and communications, experience with other peoples problems and concerns, enhanced awareness of Code requirements and their application, exposure and development opportunities, etc.). Southern Nuclear Operating Company does not support my participation on the ASME OM Code Committee because of particular problems or concerns, they support me because it has increased my knowledge base, helped make me a better contributor for 1ST issues, provided me with a broad database of industry contacts, and given me the opportunity to become a better employee. My participation has contributed to the safe and efficient operation of our nuclear power plants because the company has a commitment to the industry and the Code as a whole to do what's safe and right.

Dennis M. Swann (205) 992-5788 dmswann@southernco.com June 4, 1999 Southern Nuclear Operating Company P.O. Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201 Page 2 of 2

June 8, 1999 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch FROM: Carol Gallagher ADM,DAS

SUBJECT:

DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED RULE; INDUSTRY CODES AND STANDARDS Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject supplemental proposed rule. This comment was received via the rulemaking website on June 4, 1999. The submitter's name is Dennis M. Swann, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, PO Box 1295, Birmingham, AL 35201. Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Thomas Scarbrough (mail stop 07-E-23) for his records.

Attachment:

As stated

• cc w/o attachment:

T. Scarbrough

(D OOCt~f- TE O US C William C. Holston P. 0. Box 457 Dunkirk, Maryland 20754

'99 JUN - 7 A1 1 :36 June 1, 1999 OF ~I Secretary of the Commission Hl, -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis~ ~f ,l

• I f-Washington, DC 20555-0001 DOCKET NUMBER Attn.: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff PROPOSED RULE .PR 0 foL/ FR_;JJSfO)

Dear Sir:

I have reviewed the Proposed Rulemaking relating to 10CFR50.55a issued on April 27, 1999, Industry Codes and Standards~ Amended Requirements. I offer the following two comments.

I believe that there is a significant improvement ~hat can be made to this rulemaking relating to the provision for utilities to adopt later Editions and Addenda of ASME Section XI. The specific wording in the proposed rulemaking is as follows.

The NRC staff's view is that, if the 120-month update requirement is eliminated, the rule would specify that licensees, which voluntarily choose to adopt a later Code edition or addenda, would be required to implement all provisions of that edition or addenda. If they wish to deviate from this approach, these licensees will be allowed to follow existing provisions in JO CFR 50.55a to request NRC approval for use of alternatives to, or relief from, specific provisions of applicable ASME Code editions and addenda.

By requiring the utilities to adopt all of the provisions of a later Edition and Addenda of Section XI or submit extensive justifications for using only portions of the later Code, there will be little incentive to use new provisions of the Code. I attended the Public Workshop on Update Requirements held on May 27, 1999. Based on several comments made by NEI representatives, the cost to update a utility's entire Section XI program can represent several hundreds of thousand dollars. The principal purpose of the proposed rulemaking is to decrease this economic burden.

By requiring a complete update or justification for using portions of the Code, the burden is not as relaxed as it should be and utilities will not benefit from quality, cost saving and safety enhancements from later Code provisions ..

The Repair, Replacement and Modification rules of Section XI, as currently contained in 1WA-4000 are sufficiently independent of the other portions of the Code (i.e., ISi, 1ST and flaw evaluation requirements) to allow their use while the remainder of a utility's program is to an earlier Edition or Addenda. There have been many significant improvements in Article 1WA-4000, particularly in light of the fact that the baseline Code will only be the 1989 Edition. These improvements have included quality, cost and safety enhancements. Examples are as follows:

~cknowfedged by card *. JUN

• llllllltlllllllll I "...-Kt'

lJ.S UCLEAR REGULATORY CO ION RULE KINGS&

OFFICE Of THE SECfETARY OF THE COMMl88ION Do Co

~

• Incorporation of Code Case N-523 into Section XI. This Code Case, and now the Code, allows the installation of engineered clamps to repair leaks detected during operation. This provides uniform requirements to the industry and thus enhances safety. It also saves cost as the utility may be able to avoid a costly shutdown to perform a repair on an item.

• Code Case N-589, not yet incorporated into Section XI. This Case allows the repair of underground cooling water piping by a cured in place insertion of a non metallic sleeve.

• Procurement rules are in the process of being enhanced. These new rules will allow additional flexibility for sources of replacement items that could significantly reduce cost.

• Rules for the use of Section XI NDE methods and acceptance criteria for repair/replacement activities. This action will save the Owners the expense of documenting NDE requirements to two separate programs (i.e., Construction Code and Section XI requirements).

• Code Case N-606 allows ambient temperature GT AW temper bead repairs which can significant reduce dose when repairing BWR CDR Housings. Another Case is being

• developed, N-638 that allows this in a generic application. These Cases will be incorporated into the Code. This provision allows for significantly reduced radiation exposure for these repairs because water does not have to be drained from the vessel.

• New rules were provided for the analysis and documentation of modifications (i.e.,

1WA-4300). These new requirements were developed when it was determined that some utilities were not updating their analyses while designing modifications. Thus this change improved quality.

• New reconciliation rules have been developed that allow the Owner to procure items to earlier, as well as later Construction Codes. The requirements for reconciliation were simplified. These new rules provide for a significant cost savings while at the same time enhance quality because they provide a focused set of requirements to ensure the proper parameters are evaluated.

Therefore, the NRC should add a provision to 10CFR50.55a that will allow a utility to use a later Edition or Addenda of the Repair, Replacement and Modification provisions of Section XI (i.e.,

1WA-4000), as long as they adopt all of the provisions of the Subarticle and that particular Edition and Addenda has been approved. I would suggest that the NRC adopt the 1998 Edition for purposes of the use of lWA-4000.

My second comment relates to the impact of this change on committee work for Section XI. I have been attending Section XI meetings since 1985. I started working as a member on various committees in 1990. I chaired the Working Group Design Reconciliation and served as secretary for Subgroup Repairs, Replacements and Modifications for several years. I am currently the chairman of Subgroup Repairs, Replacements and Modifications and a member of Subcommittee XI. I believe that this rulemaking will negatively impact committee operations.

• Some utilities will decline to send their employees based on the fact that they will not see any value in continuing to work on a Code that will not be mandated by law and will cost a significant amount of money to voluntarily adopt.

• The focus of committee work will shift to Code Cases. As stated above, it will be prohibitively expensive to adopt all of the provisions of a later Code, therefore there

will be a great deal of emphasis on developing Code Cases for all new improvements.

These Code Cases will have to remain in effect for the life of the industry because they would not have been incorporated into a Code that all utilities have adopted. As the number of Code Cases expands, it will become an increasingly costly burden to revise old Code Cases to keep them current.

I believe that there was too high a level of confidence from some participants at the public meeting in the fact that committee work will not be impacted because the NRC will allow voluntary updating and thus utility interest would be maintained. It should be remembered that the principle purpose of this change is to avoid the economic burden of the update process. Few utilities will expend the resources to update and thus, improvements to the Code beyond Code Cases will become irrelevant to many in the industry.

Should you have any questions I can be reached at (410) 495-4466.

William C Holston

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR 50 DOCKETED (CPl/FR;t~58o) US 117590-01-P]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION *99 APR 26 AB :55 10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150-AE26 r .

Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is publishing a supplement to the proposed rule published on December 3, 1997 (62 FR 63892) that would eliminate the requirement for licensees to update their inservice inspection (ISi) and inservice testing (1ST) programs beyond a baseline edition and addenda of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPV Code). The proposed rule would establish the 1989 Edition of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI, as the baseline Code for 1ST requirements (except for design and access provisions and preservice examination requirements) for pumps and valves that are classified as ASME Code Class 1, 2, or 3 components in currently operating nuclear power plants. The proposed rule would establish the baseline Code for ISi requirements for components (including supports) classified as ASME Code Class 1, 2, or 3 as the 1989 Edition of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI. The proposed rule would establish the baseline Code for ISi requirements for Class MC and Class CC components and their integral attachments as the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda of Subsections IWE and IWL of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI. Finally, the proposed rule would require that, as discussed in 62 FR 63892, ASME Code Class 1, 2, or 3 components conform to the requirements in Appendix VIII of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code, 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda. Licensees would be allowed to

update their ISi and 1ST programs to more recent editions and addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in the regulations. In this supplementary notice, the NRC is requesting comments only with respect to the proposed elimination of the 120-month update requirement for ISi and 1ST programs.

~ ~~ lti99 DATES: Submit comments on this supplement to the proposed rule by (60 eloys after tl=te elate ef

-911hlicaiioaj. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: The Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4: 15 p.m. on Federal workdays .

You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking website through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc.gov). From the home page, select "Rulemaking" from the tool bar. The interactive rulemaking website can then be accessed by selecting "New Rulemaking Website ." This site provides the ability to upload comments as files (any format), if your web browser supports that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking website, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, 301-415-5905; e-mail: cag@nrc.gov.

Certain documents related to this rulemaking, including comments received, and the draft regulatory analysis, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, D.C. Single copies of the regulatory analysis may be obtained from Thomas G. Scarbrough, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 2

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., telephone (301) 415-2794; e-mail:

tgs@nrc.gov.

The NRC has scheduled a public workshop to discuss this supplement to the proposed rule on eliminating the requirement for licensees to update their ISi and 1ST programs every 120 months. This workshop will also include discussion of an appropriate baseline Code edition for ISi and 1ST requirements. The workshop will be held on Thursday, May 27, 1999, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the Two White Flint North Auditorium at the NRC headquarters office located at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738 .

• FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas G. Scarbrough, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone : 301-415-2794, e-mail: tgs@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

11. Proposed Elimination of 120-Month Update Requirement 111. Analysis of Proposed Revision to 10 CFR 50.55a IV. Plain Language V. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Environmental Assessment VI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement VII. Regulatory Analysis VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification IX. Backfit Analysis 3

X. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 I. Background The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 50.55a require that nuclear power plant owners:

(1) construct Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 components in accordance with the rules stated in the 1989 Edition of Section Ill, Division 1, "Requirements for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components," of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPV Code); (2) inspect Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 components in accordance with the rules stated in the 1989 Edition of Section XI, Division 1, "Requirements for lnservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components," of the ASME BPV Code with certain limitations and modifications; (3) inspect Class MC (metal containment) and Class CC (concrete containment) components in accordance with the rules stated in the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code with certain modifications; and (4) test Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 pumps and valves in accordance with the rules stated in the 1989 Edition of Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code with certain limitations and modifications. The NRC regulations-also require licensees to update their ISi and 1ST programs every 120 months to comply with the version of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code incorporated by reference into 10 CFR 50.55a and in effect 12 months preceding the start of a new 120-month interval.

On December 3, 1997 (62 FR 63892), the NRC proposed amending 10 CFR 50.55a to revise the requirements for construction, ISi, and 1ST of nuclear power plant components to incorporate by reference recent editions and addenda of the ASME BPV Code and the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (OM Code). The proposed rule 4

contained a discussion of specific items under active consideration relative to NRC endorsement of ASME Codes. One item involved Direction Setting Issue (OSI) 13, "Role of Industry," of the NRC's Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining Initiative, which includes an evaluation of NRC endorsement of industry codes and standards. The proposed rule retained the requirement that licensees update their ISi and 1ST programs every 120 months. However, the proposed rule indicated that this position might be modified before publication of the final rule. Based on further consideration, the NRC is re-evaluating the need for licensees to update their ISi and 1ST programs every 120 months. Upon request, the NRC plans to allow licensees scheduled to update their ISi and 1ST programs in the near term to delay submittal of their updates pursuant

• to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i) while the NRC considers the elimination of the 120-month update requirement.

II. Proposed Elimination of 120-Month Update Requirement The ASME BPV Code has been revised on a continuing basis over the years to provide improved requirements for inspecting pressure boundary components and testing pumps and valves in nuclear power plants. Certain 1ST provisions for pumps and valves originally contained in Section XI of the ASME BPV Code are now replaced in Section XI by references to

• ASME OM standards on which the ASME OM Code is based . Although some Code revisions have strengthened requirements and others have relaxed requirements, the NRC has generally considered the evolution of the ASME Code to result in a net improvement in the measures for inspecting piping and components and testing pumps and valves. However, neither the NRC nor ASME has performed a detailed quantified cost/benefit analysis of the general evolutionary changes to the ASME Code. As the ASME Code matures, the NRC finds that the overall safety increase associated with periodic revisions to the ASME Code is becoming smaller. The NRC 5

believes that the overall level of safety achieved by adherence to a baseline edition or addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in the regulations would be sufficient and adequate, and that unnecessary burden might be placed upon licensees by the required updating of their ISi and 1ST programs. The NRG also believes that the establishment of a baseline edition and addenda of the ASME Code for ISi and 1ST requirements would ensure adequate protection of public health and safety without periodic updating of ISi and 1ST programs at nuclear power plants. The NRG plans to continue to review the periodic revisions to the ASME Code to determine whether any new ISi or 1ST provisions meet the backfit requirements of 10 CFR 50.109 to mandate their implementation by nuclear power plant licensees.

In this supplement to the proposed rule published on December 3, 1997 (62 FR 63892),

the NRC proposes to establish the 1989 Edition of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI, as the baseline Code for 1ST requirements, except for design and access provisions and preservice examination requirements, for pumps and valves that are classified as ASME Code Class 1, 2, or 3 components in currently operating nuclear power plants. As required by 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(viii), references in the ASME BPV Code,Section XI, to OM standards, Parts 4, 6, and

• 10 will mean the OMa-1988 Addenda to the OM-1987 Edition. The NRG proposes that the baseline Code for ISi requirements for components (including supports) classified as ASME Code Class 1, 2, or 3 be established as the 1989 Edition of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI.

The NRC proposes that the baseline Code for ISi requirements for metal and concrete containment (Classes MC and CC) components and their integral attachments be the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda of Subsections IWE and IWL of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code. The NRC proposes that, as discussed in 62 FR 63892, ASME Code Class 1, 2, or 3 6

components comply with the requirements in Appendix VIII of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code, 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda . The NRC proposes that licensees of currently operating nuclear power plants comply with these ISi and 1ST requirements, according to the limitations and modifications specified in the regulations, to the extent practical within the design, geometry, and materials of construction of the components. The NRC is continuing its evaluation and may determine as part of the review of public comments that a later edition or addenda, or portions thereof, constitute an appropriate baseline for ISi and 1ST requirements for currently operating nuclear plants. As discussed below, licensees may implement more recent editions or addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in the regulations .

• In this supplement, the NRC proposes to allow licensees that are currently applying earlier editions of the ASME BPV Code up to 5 years to implement the baseline or later editions and addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in the regulations . However, the proposed rule would establish a separate implementation schedule for the ISi provisions of Appendix VIII of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI. The NRC proposes to eliminate the requirement to update ISi and 1ST programs every 120 months for licensees applying the baseline or later editions and addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in the regulations. As proposed, licensees may update their ISi and 1ST programs to subsequent

• Code editions or addenda that have been incorporated by reference in the regulations without prior NRC approval when implemented in accordance with the limitations and modifications specified in 10 CFR 50.55a(b), (f), and (g), as applicable. In particular, they need to be implemented in total. Should a licensee intend to implement only a portion of a subsequent Code edition or addenda incorporated by reference in the regulations, the NRC proposes to require that the licensee obtain prior NRC approval by demonstrating that the specific portion of the edition or addenda presents an acceptable level of quality and safety, and that all related 7

i requirements are satisfied. The NRC intends to review future Code editions and addenda and approve them for voluntary use (in their entirety) by licensees through future rulemakings .

However, should the NRC determine that a Code requirement is necessary for reasonable assurance of adequate protection, the NRC would by rulemaking (or order) require licensees to implement the relevant Code requirement. In addition, the NRC retains authority to require by rule or order implementation of ASME Code requirements if the appropriate backfit standard of 10 CFR 50.109(a) is met, e.g ., that the ASME Code requirement to be imposed represents a substantial increase in the protection of the public health and safety whose cost is justified in light of this increased protection, or is considered necessary for continued compliance with the

• regulations.

For future nuclear power plants, the NRC intends to continue the regulatory requirement that components conform to ISi and 1ST requirements stated in the latest edition and addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in the regulations 1 year before issuance of the operating license. Future licensees would meet these ISi and 1ST requirements, according to the limitations and modifications specified in the regulations, to the extent practical within the design, geometry, and materials of construction of the components . Similar to existing licensees, the NRC proposes to eliminate the requirement for future licensees to update their ISi

• and 1ST programs periodically.

The NRC does not propose to alter the regulatory requirements for implementation of Section Ill of the ASME BPV Code for the design and construction of nuclear power plant components. The NRC regulations would continue to require future applicants for a construction permit to implement the latest edition and addenda of Section Ill of the ASME BPV Code incorporated by reference in the regulations when the construction permit is issued.

The NRC has determined that the regulatory requirement for licensees to update their ISi 8

and 1ST programs every 120 months could be eliminated without requesting public comment on this issue. This position is based on the indication in the statement of considerations of the proposed rule published on December 3, 1997, that elimination of the update requirement was under consideration. However, in light of the significance and complexity of this issue, the NRC considers it prudent to obtain specific public comment on the proposal to eliminate the 120-month update requirement before reaching a final decision on this issue.

Some of the major considerations to be addressed regarding the potential benefits and impact of the proposal to eliminate the 120-month update requirement for ISi and 1ST programs are summarized in the following paragraphs.

One important consideration in the elimination of the 120-month update requirement for ISi and 1ST programs involves the proposed use by licensees of editions and addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in the regulations subsequent to the baseline edition and addenda of the ASME Code. The NRC's current view is that licensees should be allowed to implement without NRC review and approval subsequent editions and addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in the regulations, when implemented in accordance with the limitations and modifications in the regulations. This view is conditional upon the assumption that licensees will implement later editions of the ASME Code in total. It is also the NRC's view that licensees be required to request NRC approval for use of portions of subsequent editions and addenda of the ASME Code, unless use of those portions is pre-approved in the rule. In requesting NRC approval, licensees must demonstrate that the proposed portion of the ASME Code presents an acceptable level of quality and safety, and that all related requirements are satisfied.

The cost savings to nuclear power plant licensees resulting from eliminating the 120-month update requirement for ISi and 1ST programs are difficult to quantify. A typical ISi or 9

1ST program update may cost a licensee $200,000 to $300,000 every 10 years. Because more recent editions of the ASME Code tend to relax certain requirements of previous editions, some licensees may conclude that implementing a newer edition of the ASME Code would result in cost savings that outweigh the implementation costs and, thus, will update their programs to implement more recent ASME Code editions and addenda. The NRC requests specific comment from licensees on the burden associated with updating their ISi and 1ST programs and related procedures.

The NRC may or may not achieve a resource savings if the requirement for licensees to update their ISi and 1ST programs every 120 months is eliminated. On the one hand, the NRC

• would not receive for review those relief requests that would have been submitted by licensees as part of their 120-month program updates. On the other hand, the NRC currently plans to continue to review future Code revisions and Code cases for incorporation by reference in the regulations. The NRC would determine whether any specific safety-related Code provisions warrant mandatory implementation in accordance with 10 CFR 50.109 backfit provisions. The NRC would continue to review requests submitted by licensees for relief from the requirements of the specific Code editions and addenda to which they are committed in accordance with regulatory requirements .

• In addition to resource expenditures, eliminating the requirement for licensees to update their ISi and 1ST programs every 120 months might affect license amendments, inspections, enforcement actions, and Code effectiveness related to ISi and 1ST programs. For example, the current requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a determine the ASME Code edition and addenda in effect during each 120-month interval for a given plant. When a licensee implements a subsequent edition or addenda of the ASME Code, the licensee's commitment may be documented in a periodic update of the licensee's Final Safety Analysis Report. However, if a 10

licensee seeks to adopt something less than the entire Code, as approved by the NRC, a relief request to use the proposed alternative would be necessary. With respect to inspection activity, elimination of the 120-month update requirement could result in NRC inspectors having to evaluate a wider range of Code editions and addenda, and portions thereof. Also, eliminating the 120-month update requirement might affect the staff's process for preparing regulatory guides that endorse ASME Code cases, or current initiatives by the NRC staff and industry on risk-informed ISi and 1ST programs. Over the long term, the elimination of the periodic update requirement might affect the technical quality of the ASME Code as a result of reduced interest in future editions of the Code by the NRC and industry organizations with the establishment of a baseline Code edition .

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-113, requires all Federal agencies and departments to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using these technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments. This requirement only applies when the participation of voluntary consensus standards bodies is in the public interest and is compatible with agency and departmental missions, authorities, priorities, and budget resources. The NRC will evaluate the relationship of Pub. L. 104-113 to

• the proposal to eliminate the regulatory requirement for licensees to update their ISi and 1ST programs every 120 months to the most recent ASME Code incorporated by reference in the regulations. The NRC's evaluation will determine whether a report (or periodic reports) must be provided to the Office of Management and Budget if the 120-month update requirement is eliminated.

This supplement is based on the proposed rule published on December 3, 1997, and does not reflect NRC reconciliation of public comments received on the proposed rule. The 11

NRC will discuss the resolution of comments on the proposed rule, including this supplement, when the final rule is issued. In this supplement to the proposed rule, the NRC is requesting comments only with respect to the proposed elimination of the 120-month update requirement for ISi and 1ST programs. To assist in the consideration of this issue, the NRC requests comments on the proposal to eliminate the 120-month update requirement in the following areas:

• Potential effect on safety;

• Potential reductions in the effectiveness of the ASME Code;

• Selection of the proper baseline edition and addenda of the ASME Code in terms of safety, resources, and efficiency;

• Regulatory benefits and burdens to licensees, industry suppliers (including vendors), nuclear insurers, states, and standards organizations;

• Burden on licensees to update their ISi and 1ST programs and related procedures;

• Potential effect on the number and detail of licensee submittals associated with ISi and 1ST programs;

• Changes to the range of ASME Code editions and addenda applied by licensees;

• Potential effect on processing of licensing actions and evaluations related to changes to ISi and 1ST programs, preparation of regulatory guides endorsing ASME Code editions and Code cases, and risk-informed ISi and 1ST initiatives;

• Potential effect on state and other organizations that rely on the ASME Code in their interactions with nuclear power plant owners;

• Application of portions of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in the regulations subsequent to the baseline edition; and 12

• Clarity of the supplement to the proposed rule.

Ill. Analysis of Proposed Revision to 10 CFR 50.55a In preparing this supplement to the proposed revision to 10 CFR 50.55a, the NRC has focused on the substantive changes to the regulations that would result from eliminating the specific requirement in Section 50.55a for licensees of nuclear power plants to update their ISi and 1ST programs every 120 months .

• A. Section 50.55a(b)(4)

A new§ 50.55a(b)(4) would be added to group several ASME Code cases and specified portions of later ASME Codes (i.e., editions and addenda issued subsequent to the 1989 Edition of the ASME BPV Code) that are not required to be used, but that are acceptable to the NRC and may be used on a voluntary basis without prior NRC approval. The identified portions of later ASME Codes are Appendix 11 of the ASME OM Code, 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda ;

Subsection ISTD of the ASME OM Code, 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda, for inservice testing; and Table ISTD 6.5.2-1, "Refueling Outage-Based Visual Examination Table," of the

• 1996 Addenda of the ASME OM Code. The NRC will be considering the appropriate mechanism for endorsing Code Cases, i.e., through the regulations or regulatory guides.

B. Section 50.55a(f)(4)(i)

Section 50.55a(f)(4)(i) would be revised to establish the 1989 Edition of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI, as the baseline Code for 1ST requirements, except for design and access provisions and preservice examination requirements addressed in§§ 50.55a(f)(1) through (3),

13

for pumps and valves that are classified as ASME Code Class 1, 2, or 3 components in currently operating nuclear power plants. This supplement would require licensees to meet these 1ST requirements, according to the limitations and modifications specified in the regulations, to the extent practical within the design, geometry, and materials of construction of the pumps and valves. Under the periodic update requirement currently specified in§ 50.55a, the 1ST programs at all operating nuclear power plants would have been required to implement the 1989 Edition of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code within 3 years. This supplement would allow licensees that are currently applying earlier editions of the ASME BPV Code up to 5 years to implement the baseline or later editions or addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in the regulations . This supplement would eliminate the requirement to update 1ST programs every 120 months for licensees currently applying the 1989 Edition or a later edition of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in the regulations.

C. Section 50. 55a(f)(4)(ii)

Section 50.55a(f)(4)(ii) would be revised to specify that, for future nuclear power plants, pumps and valves that are classified as ASME Code Class 1, 2, or 3 components must conform to the 1ST requirements (except for design and access provisions and preservice examination requirements) stated in the latest edition and addenda of the ASME OM Code incorporated by reference in the regulations 1 year before issuance of the operating license. This supplement would require future licensees to meet these 1ST requirements, according to the limitations and modifications specified in the regulations, to the extent practical within the design, geometry, and materials of construction of the pumps and valves. This supplement would eliminate the requirement for future licensees to update their 1ST programs periodically.

14

D. Section 50.55a(f)(4)(iii)

Section 50.55a(f)(4)(iii) wo.uld be revised to allow licensees to apply 1ST requirements specified in more recent editions and addenda of the ASME BPV Code or ASME OM Code.

[Section 50.55a(f)(3)(iv) allows pumps and valves to be designed to meet test requirements in subsequent editions and addenda of the ASME Code.] In particular, this supplement would state that licensees may apply the full requirements of subsequent editions or addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in the regulations, subject to the specified limitations and modifications, without requesting specific NRC approval. However, should a licensee intend to apply only a portion of a Code edition or addenda that is not pre-approved in § 50.55a(b)(4), this supplement would require the licensee to obtain prior NRC approval under§ 50.55a(a)(3), and in addition demonstrate that all related requirements are satisfied. This provision is proposed in anticipation of possible modification of 1ST requirements in subsequent editions or addenda of the ASME Code to improve test methods or to present more significant performance information. As a result of modifying those 1ST requirements, some aspects of the ASME Code might become more difficult to implement and other aspects might be relaxed. This supplement would ensure that the licensee satisfies the intent of the 1ST requirements when applying only a portion of subsequent editions or addenda of the ASME Code. Whether a licensee applies all or

• a portion of a subsequent edition or addenda of the ASME Code, the subsequent edition or addenda would become the effective Code of record for the facility.

E. Section 50.55a(f)(5)

Section 50.55a(f)(5) would be revised to require licensees to update their 1ST programs when a later Code edition or addenda (or portions thereof) that has been incorporated by reference in the regulations is used on a voluntary basis. Accordingly, the NRC is retaining the 15

provision for licensees to request relief from those Code requirements that are impractical. This supplement would require that, if a pump or valve test is found to be impractical, the licensee notify and submit to the NRC information to support its determination within 1 year from the date on which the test was determined to be impractical. The NRC considers this 1-year period to be ample time for licensees to submit a relief request to the NRC staff relating to the impracticality of a specific test. In addition, when a licensee voluntarily chooses to update its 1ST program to a later Code edition or addenda, the licensee is required to submit to the NRC the basis for those test requirements determined to be impractical before the start of the revised 1ST program . This supplement would eliminate the requirement that licensees justify the impracticality of performing the tests every 120 months. In granting requests for relief from specific 1ST requirements, the NRC may apply a time limit on the acceptability of the relief to ensure that the licensee considers future plant conditions or equipment that might enable the test to be conducted .

F. Section 50.55a(g)(4)(i)

Section 50.55a(g)(4)(i) would be revised to establish a baseline for ISi requirements (except for design and access provisions and preservice examination requirements) of specific components for currently operating nuclear power plants, subject to the limitations and modifications identified in the regulations. In particular, this supplement would require components (including supports) classified as ASME Code Class 1, 2, or 3 to meet the ISi requirements in the 1989 Edition or a later edition of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI. As discussed for 1ST requirements, this supplement would allow licensees 5 years to implement this provision. This supplement would require Class MC and Class CC components and their integral attachments to meet the ISi requirements in the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda of 16

Subsections IWE and IWL of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI, according to the implementation schedule in § 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(B). Finally, this supplement would require ASME Code Class 1, 2, or 3 components to comply with the provisions in Appendix VIII to Section XI of the ASME BPV Code, 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda, according to the implementation schedule in

§ 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(C).

G. Section 50.55a(g)(4)(ii)

Section 50.55a(g)(4)(ii) would be revised to require components in future nuclear power plants to meet the ISi requirements (except for design and access provisions and preservice examination requirements) stated in the latest edition and addenda of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI, incorporated by reference in the regulations 1 year before issuance of the operating license. This supplement would require components to conform to these ISi requirements, according to the limitations and modifications specified in the regulations, to the extent practical within the design, geometry, and materials of construction of the components . This supplement would eliminate the regulatory requirement for licensees of future plants to update their ISi programs periodically .

• H. Section 50.55a(g)(4)(iii)

Section 50.55a(g)(4)(iii) would be revised to allow licensees to apply the full ISi requirements of more recent editions or addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in the regulations, subject to the specified limitations and modifications, without requesting prior NRC approval. [Under§ 50.55a(g)(3)(ii), components may be designed to conform to ISi requirements in subsequent editions and addenda of the ASME Code.] Similar to 1ST requirements in § 50.55a(f)(4) which permits a licensee to request approval under 17

§ 50.55a(a)(3) to use a portion of a Code edition or addenda that is not pre-approved in

§ 50.55a(b)(4), the licensee must demonstrate compliance with the criteria in § 50.55a(a)(3) as well as demonstrate that all related requirements in the Code are satisfied. In that the ISi requirements for Class MC and Class CC components and their integral attachments would be baselined to the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda of Subsections IWE and IWL of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code, a licensee would be allowed to update the ISi requirements for Class 1, 2, and 3 components (including supports) to editions or addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in the regulations, subject to the specified limitations and modifications, without requesting prior NRC approval while maintaining the requirements for Class MC and Class CC components to the 1992 baseline edition of the ASME Code. Also, similar to 1ST, the applied edition or addenda of the ASME Code would become the Code of record.

I. Section 50.55a(g)(5)

Section 50.55a(g)(5) would be revised to require licensees to update their ISi programs when a later Code edition or addenda (or portions thereof) that has been incorporated by reference in the regulations is used on a voluntary basis. Similar to 1ST requirements, this

• supplement would require that, if an examination is found to be impractical, the licensee notify and submit to the NRC (for review to grant relief) information to support its determination within 1 year from the date on which the examination was determined to be impractical. In addition, when a licensee voluntarily chooses to update its ISi program to a later Code edition or addenda, the licensee is required to submit to the NRC the basis for those examinations determined to be impractical before the start of the revised ISi program. This supplement would eliminate the requirement that licensees justify the impracticality of performing the examinations 18

every 120 months. However, the NRC could apply a time limit on the acceptability of an ISi relief request to ensure that the licensee considers future plant conditions or equipment that might enable the examination to be conducted.

IV. Plain Language The Presidential memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled, "Plain Language in Government Writing," directed that the Federal government's writing be in plain language. The NRC requests comments on this proposed rule specifically with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used. Comments should be sent to the address listed above.

V. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Environmental Assessment As discussed in the proposed rule (December 3, 1997; 62 FR 63892), based on an environmental assessment, the Commission determined, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that the proposed amendment to§ 50.55a, if adopted, would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The environmental assessment of the proposed rule is available for public inspection, and copying for a fee, at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

This supplement to the proposed rule focuses on the NRC's consideration of the elimination of the regulatory requirement for nuclear power plant licensees to update their ISi and 1ST programs every 120 months to the latest edition or addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in the NRC regulations. The ASME Code is revised on a continuing basis to provide improved requirements for inspecting pressure boundary components and 19

testing pumps and valves in nuclear power plants. In reviewing those periodic Code revisions, the NRC has generally considered the evolution of the ASME Code to result in a net improvement in the measures for inspecting piping and components and testing pumps and valves. However, the NRC is finding that the safety significance of the periodic revisions to the ASME Code is declining as the Code matures. As a result, the NRC considers that the establishment of a baseline edition and addenda of the ASME Code with the limitations and modifications specified in the NRC regulations would provide acceptable ISi and 1ST requirements to ensure the capability of nuclear power plant components to perform their safety functions. Further, the NRC plans to continue to review the periodic revisions to the ASME

• Code to determine whether any new ISi or 1ST provisions meet the backfit requirements of 10 CFR 50.109 to mandate their implementation by nuclear power plant licensees. The NRC believes that the establishment of an acceptable baseline of ISi and 1ST requirements including the limitations and modifications specified in the NRC regulations, and the continued review of new Code provisions for appropriate application in accordance with 10 CFR 50.109, would ensure the adequate protection of public health and safety without the need for licensees to update their ISi and 1ST programs periodically to the latest edition or addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in the regulations. Therefore, the NRC finds that the proposed

• action to eliminate the periodic updating of ISi and 1ST programs should not increase the potential for a negative environmental impact. This discussion constitutes the environmental assessment for the elimination of the 120-month update requirement.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement The proposed rule published for public comment on December 3, 1997, amended information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 20

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval number 3150-0011.

This supplement would reduce the proposed rule burden by eliminating the requirement to update the ISi and 1ST programs every 120 months. The burden reduction attributable to information collections, including revising affected reports, records, and procedures is estimated to be 7500 hours0.0868 days <br />2.083 hours <br />0.0124 weeks <br />0.00285 months <br /> per plant every 10 years for an average of 750 hours0.00868 days <br />0.208 hours <br />0.00124 weeks <br />2.85375e-4 months <br /> annually. This burden reduction includes the time required for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the information collection. The burden reduction will be included in the revised 0MB clearance package

• prepared for the final rule . The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the information collections contained in the proposed rule supplement and on the following issues :

1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the information will have practical utility?

2. Is the estimate of paperwork burden accurate?

3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?

4. How can the paperwork burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques?

Send comments on any aspect of this proposed information collection, including suggestions for further reducing the paperwork burden, to the Records Management Branch (T-6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 , or by Internet electronic mail at BJS1@NRC.GOV; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and 21

Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Comments to 0MB on the information collections or on the above issues should be submitted by (insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register). Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.

Public Protection Notification If a means used to impose an information collection does not display a currently valid 0MB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information collection.

VII. Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis for this supplement to the proposed amendment to 10 CFR 50.55a published for public comment on December 3, 1997.

The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission with respect to the proposed elimination of the requirement for licensees to update their ISi and 1ST programs at nuclear power plants every 120 months.

The Commission requests public comment on the draft analysis for this supplement to the proposed amendment to 10 CFR 50.55a. Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the Addresses heading.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the 22

Commission certifies that this rule will not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" stated in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards stated in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

IX. Backfit Analysis The NRC regulations in 10 CFR 50.55a require that nuclear power plant owners (1) construct Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 components in accordance with the rules stated in the 1989 Edition of Section 111, Division 1, "Requirements for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components," of the ASME BPV Code; (2) inspect Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 components in accordance with the rules stated in the 1989 Edition of Section XI, Division 1, "Requirements for lnservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components," of the ASME BPV Code with certain limitations and modifications; (3) inspect Class MC (metal containment) and Class CC (concrete containment) components in accordance with the rules stated in the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code with certain modifications; and (4) test Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 pumps and valves in accordance with the rules stated in the 1989 Edition of Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code with certain limitations and modifications. The NRC regulations also require licensees to update their ISi and 1ST programs every 120 months to comply with the version of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code incorporated by reference into 10 CFR 50.55a and in effect 12 months before the start of a new 120-month interval.

23

The NRC position on the routine 120-month update of ISi and 1ST programs is that 10 CFR 50.109 does not require a backfit analysis. In their comments on the proposed rule, the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group (NUBARG) and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) asserted that the routine updating to incorporate by reference new ASME Code provisions for ISi and 1ST constitutes a backfit for which a backfit analysis is required. The NRC has reviewed those comments and has concluded that neither NUBARG nor NEI raises legal concerns that would alter the previous legal conclusion that the Backfit Rule does not require a backfit analysis of routine updates to incorporate new ASME Code ISi and 1ST requirements.

Notwithstanding the NRC backfit position on the 120-month update requirement, the

• NRC has determined that the overall level of safety achieved by adherence to the currently applicable ASME Code, and the potentially unnecessary burden on licensees caused by updating ISi and 1ST programs every 120 months, warrant reconsideration of the 120-month update requirement. The ASME Code has been revised on a continuing basis over the years to provide updated requirements for inspecting pressure boundary components and testing pumps and valves in nuclear power plants. The NRC has generally considered the evolution of the ASME Code to result in a net improvement in the measures for inspecting piping and components and testing pumps and valves. As the Code has matured, the NRC considers the safety significance of periodic revisions to the ASME Code to be declining.

On the basis of the maturity of the ASME Code, the NRC is proposing to modify 10 CFR 50.55a to eliminate the requirement for licensees to update their ISi and 1ST programs beyond a baseline edition and addenda of the ASME Code. For future nuclear power plants, the NRC intends to continue the requirement that components conform to the ISi and 1ST requirements stated in the latest edition and addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in the regulations 1 year preceding issuance of the operating license. The NRC also 24

proposes to eliminate the requirement for future licensees to update their ISi and 1ST programs periodically. The NRC has concluded that establishment of a baseline edition of the ASME Code for ISi and 1ST requirements does not constitute a backfit, since it represents a relaxation when compared with the current 120-month update requirement.

X. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires all Federal agencies and departments to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using these technical standards as a means

• to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments. This requirement only applies when the participation of voluntary consensus standards bodies is in the public interest and is compatible with agency and departmental missions, authorities, priorities, and budget resources. The NRC will evaluate the relationship of Pub. L. 104-113 to the proposal to eliminate the regulatory requirement for licensees to update their ISi and 1ST programs every 120 months to the most recent ASME Code incorporated by reference in the regulations. The NRC's evaluation will determine whether a report (or periodic reports) must be provided to the Office of Management and Budget if the 120-month update requirement is

• eliminated.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

25

For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the proposed rule published on December 3, 1997 (62 FR 63892), is proposed to be further amended as follows .

PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES

1. The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936,937,

• 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S .C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851 ).

Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131 ,

2235); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S .C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138) . Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235) .

• Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat.

853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Section 50.37 also issued under E.O. 12829, 3 CFR 1993 Comp., p. 570; E.O.

12958, as amended, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 333; E.O. 12968, 3 CFR 1995 Comp., p. 391 .

Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S .C.

2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152) . Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234).

26

Appendix Falso issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

2. Section 50.55a is amended by adding paragraph (b)(4), removing paragraph (f)(4)(iv),

removing and reserving paragraph (g)(4)(iv), and revising paragraphs (f)(4)(i), (ii), (iii), and (f)(5),

and (g)(4)(i), (ii), (iii), and (g)(5) to read as follows:

§ 50.55a Codes and standards.

(b) * * *

(4) The following ASME Code cases or specified portions of the ASME Codes may be used with the indicated limitations and modifications without prior NRC approval.

• (i) [Reserved]

(ii) [Reserved]

(iii) Check valves. Licensees may use Appendix II, OM Code, 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda, provided that all portions of the OM Code, 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda, that apply to check valves and the modifications specified in § 50.55a(b)(3)(iv) are also implemented.

(iv) Snubber inservice testing. Licensees may use Subsection ISTD, OM Code, 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda, for inservice testing (but not Section XI inservice

• inspection) of snubbers by making a change to their Technical Specifications in accordance with applicable NRC requirements. Licensees choosing to apply the subsection shall apply all of its provisions.

(v) Snubber visual examinations. When using versions of Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code up to and including the 1995 Edition, Table ISTD 6.5.2-1, "Refueling Outage-Based Visual Examination Table," of the 1996 Addenda of the ASME OM Code may be used for scheduling snubber examinations in lieu of the table in OM-1987 Part 4.

27

(f) * * *

(4)(i) Throughout the service life of a boiling or pressurized water-cooled nuclear power facility whose construction permit was issued before {the effective date of this rule}, pumps and valves that are classified as ASME Code Class 1, Class 2, or Class 3 must comply with the requirements, except for design and access provisions and preservice examination requirements, as stated in Section XI of the 1989 Edition of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code subject to the limitations and modifications listed in § 50.55a(b) to the extent

• practical within the limitations of design, geometry, and materials of construction of the pumps and valves. Licensees shall implement these requirements within 60 months following {the effective date of this rule}.

(ii) Throughout the service life of a boiling or pressurized water-cooled nuclear power facility whose construction permit was issued on or after {the effective date of this rule}, pumps and valves that are classified as ASME Code Class 1, Class 2, or Class 3 must comply with the requirements, except design and access provisions and preservice examination requirements, as stated in the latest edition and addenda of the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of

• Nuclear Power Plants that are incorporated by reference in § 50.55a(b) on the date 12 months preceding the date of issuance of the operating license subject to the limitations and modifications listed in § 50.55a(b) to the extent practical within the limitations of design, geometry, and materials of construction of the pumps and valves.

(iii) (A) lnservice tests of pumps and valves may comply with the requirements stated in subsequent editions and addenda of the ASME Codes that are incorporated by reference in

§ 50.55a(b) , subject to the limitations and modifications listed in§ 50.55a(b) , to the extent 28

practical within the limitations of design, geometry, and materials of construction of the pumps and valves.

(B) Portions of those editions or addenda may be used subject to Commission approval.

The licensee shall demonstrate compliance with the criteria in§ 50.55a(a)(3), and in addition demonstrate that all related requirements are satisfied.

(5)(i) The inservice test program for a boiling or pressurized water-cooled nuclear power facility must be revised by the licensee to comply with the requirements of§ 55.55a(f)(4)(iii) when used in lieu of meeting the requirements of either§§ 55.55a(f)(4)(i) or (f)(4)(ii), as applicable.

(ii) If a revised inservice test program for a facility conflicts with the technical specification for the facility, the licensee shall apply to the Commission for amendment of the Technical Specifications to conform the technical specification to the revised program. The licensee shall submit this application, as specified in § 50.4, at least 6 months before the start of the period during which the provisions become applicable.

(iii) If the licensee has determined that conformance with certain Code requirements is impractical for its facility, the licensee shall notify the Commission and submit, as specified in

§ 50.4, information to support the determination within one year from the date on which the test was determined to be impractical.

(iv) Where a pump or valve test requirement by the Code edition or addenda is determined to be impractical by the licensee and is not included in the revised inservice testing program as permitted by § 50.55a(f)(4)(iii), the basis for this determination must be submitted to the Commission before the start of the revised inservice testing program.

29

(g) * * *

(4)(i) Throughout the service life of a boiling or pressurized water-cooled nuclear power facility whose construction permit was issued before {the effective date of this rule}, and subject to the limitations and modifications listed in § 50.55a(b) to the extent practical within the limitations of design, geometry, and materials of construction of the components:

(A) Components (including supports) that are classified as ASME Code Class 1, Class 2, or Class 3 must meet the requirements, except for design and access provisions and preservice examination requirements, stated in Section XI of the 1989 Edition of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, within 60 months following {the effective date of this rule};

(B) 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 comply with the requirements, except for design and access provisions and preservice examination requirements, stated in the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda of Subsection IWE and Subsection IWL of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI; and (C) Components that are classified as ASME Code Class 1, Class 2, or Class 3 must comply with the requirements stated in Appendix VIII of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda.

(ii) Throughout the service life of a boiling or pressurized water-cooled nuclear power facility whose construction permit was issued on or after {the effective date of this rule},

components (including supports) that are classified as ASME Code Class 1, Class 2, or Class 3; 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 comply with the requirements, except for design and access provisions and preservice 30

examination requirements , stated in the latest edition and addenda of Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code that are incorporated by reference in§ 50.55a(b) on the date 12 months preceding the date of issuance of the operating license subject to the limitations and modifications listed in § 50.55a(b) to the extent practical within the limitations of design, geometry, and materials of construction of the components.

(iii) (A) lnservice examination of components and system pressure tests may comply with the inspection requirements stated in subsequent editions and addenda of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code that are incorporated by reference in § 50.55a(b), subject to 31

the limitations and modifications listed in§ 50.55a(b), to the extent practical within the limitations of design, geometry, and materials of construction of the components.

(B) Portions of those editions or addenda may be used subject to Commission approval.

The licensee shall demonstrate compliance with the criteria in§ 50.55a(a)(3), and in addition demonstrate that all related requirements are satisfied.

(iv) [Reserved]

(5)(i) The inservice inspection program for a boiling or pressurized water-cooled nuclear power facility must be revised by the licensee to meet the requirements of § 50.55a(g)(4)(iii) when used in lieu of compliance with the requirements of§§ 50.55a(g)(4)(i) or (g)(4)(ii).

(ii) If a revised inservice inspection program for a facility conflicts with the technical specification for the facility, the licensee shall apply to the Commission for amendment of the Technical Specifications to conform the technical specification to the revised program. The licensee shall submit this application, as specified in § 50.4, at least 6 months before the start of the period during which the provisions become applicable.

(iii) If the licensee has determined that conformance with certain Code requirements is impractical for its facility, the licensee shall notify the Commission and submit, as specified in

§ 50.4, information to support the determinations within one year from the date on which the examination was determined to be impractical.

(iv) Where an examination requirement by the Code edition or addenda is determined to be impractical by the licensee and is not included in the revised inservice inspection program as permitted by§ 50.55a(g)(4)(iii), the basis for this determination must be submitted to the Commission before the start of the revised inservice inspection program.

Dated at Rockville, MD this15day of April 1999.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

U!Jt-"'-1---- ~

William D. Travers, Executive Director for Operations.