ML23291A328
| ML23291A328 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/01/2024 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML23291A327 | List: |
| References | |
| NRC-2018-0291, RIN 3150-AK23 | |
| Download: ML23291A328 (27) | |
Text
1 ML23291A328 NRC Responses to Public Comments Final Rule:
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code Cases and Update Frequency NRC-2018-0291; RIN 3150-AK23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission March 2024
2 Table of Contents ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS....................................................................................... 3 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 4 Public Meeting........................................................................................................................... 4 Overview of Public Comments.................................................................................................. 4 Comment Categorization........................................................................................................... 5 Category A: Comments on DG-1405 (Regulatory Guide 1.84, Revision 40)............................ 5 Category B: Comments on DG-1406 (Regulatory Guide 1.147, Revision 21).......................... 6 Category C: Comments on DG-1407 (Regulatory Guide 1.192, Revision 5).......................... 11 Category D: Comments on DG-1408 (Regulatory Guide 1.193, Revision 8).......................... 14 Category E: Specific Request for Comment: Definitions......................................................... 16 Category F: Specific Request for Comment: Superseded and Annulled Code Cases............ 21 Category G: Comments on Code of Record Intervals............................................................. 22 Category H: Comments on the Rule Language...................................................................... 24 Category I: General Comments............................................................................................... 26 Category J: Out-of-Scope Comments..................................................................................... 27
3 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers CFR Code of Federal Regulations DG draft regulatory guide FR Federal Register ISI inservice inspection IST inservice examination and testing ITAAC inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria NPS nominal pipe size NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OM operation and maintenance PSI preservice inspection RG regulatory guide SECY Office of the Secretary
4 Introduction This comment response document contains all public comments received, and the associated U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) responses, on the proposed rule; documents to be incorporated by reference; and related guidance for the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code Cases and Update Frequency proposed rule published in the Federal Register (FR) on March 6, 2023 (88 FR 13717), for public comment with a 60-day public comment period. The NRC published a Federal Register notice on May 3, 2023 (88 FR 27712), to extend the comment period by an additional 42 days. This comment response document formally dispositions the public comments received on the proposed rule.
Public Meeting The NRC held a public meeting on the contents of the proposed rule. The public meeting was attended by 40 NRC staff, 10 members of the industry, and 32 members of the public. The public meeting summary can be accessed in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at accession number ML23083B303.
Overview of Public Comments The NRC received a total of 13 public comment submissions on the proposed rule and draft regulatory guides (RGs). A comment submission is a communication or document submitted to the NRC by an individual or entity, with one or more individual comments addressing a subject or issue. One comment submission was sent shortly after the comment period closed. Although this comment submission came after the comment period closed, the NRC accepted the comment because it was practical to do so. Therefore, the NRC considered the late comment in its analysis. If a response to a public comment resulted in a change to the rule language or the supporting preamble, the NRCs comment response indicates the change made and where the change occurred.
The Comments and Responses section presents the comments and the NRCs responses for each category. The individual comments are identified in the form [XX-YY] where XX represents the comment submittal number in table 1 and YY represents the individual comment number as enumerated in the annotated comment submissions compiled by the NRC (ML23291A337).
Individual public comment submissions are available online in the NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can access web-based ADAMS, which supplies text and image files of the NRCs public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRCs Public Document Room reference staff by calling 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by sending an email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. In addition, public comments and supporting materials related to this final rule can be found at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket ID NRC-2018-0291.
5 Table 1: Comment Submissions Comment Submission ID Commenter Affiliation ADAMS Accession No.
Regulations.gov Submission ID 1
Mark A. Richter Nuclear Energy Institute ML23095A037 NRC-2018-0291-0013 2
Patrick ORegan Private Citizen ML23109A141 NRC-2018-0291-0015 3
Mark Ferlisi Private Citizen ML23109A142 NRC-2018-0291-0016 4
Kevin Hall Iddeal Solutions ML23117A142 NRC-2018-0291-0017 5
Thomas J. Vogan American Society of Mechanical Engineers ML23121A205 NRC-2018-0291-0019 6
Chet A. Sigmon Duke Energy ML23121A206 NRC-2018-0291-0020 7
David P. Helker Constellation Energy Generation ML23128A278 NRC-2018-0291-0021 8
MCQQuestions MCQQuestions ML23164A259 NRC-2018-0291-0022 9
Kathryn Hyam American Society of Mechanical Engineers ML23166B125 NRC-2018-0291-0023 10 Amy C.
Chamberlain Southern Nuclear Operating Company ML23171B002 NRC-2018-0291-0025 11 Thomas Basso Nuclear Energy Institute ML23171B003 NRC-2018-0291-0024 12 Thomas Basso Nuclear Energy Institute ML23177A249 NRC-2018-0291-0026 13 Anonymous Anonymous ML23235A158 NRC-2018-0291-0027 Comment Categorization This document places each public comment into one of the following categories:
Category A: Comments on DG-1405 (Regulatory Guide 1.84, Revision 40)
Category B: Comments on DG-1406 (Regulatory Guide 1.147, Revision 21)
Category C: Comments on DG-1407 (Regulatory Guide 1.192, Revision 5)
Category D: Comments on DG-1408 (Regulatory Guide 1.193, Revision 8)
Category E: Specific Request for Comment: Definitions Category F: Specific Request for Comment: Superseded and Annulled Code Cases Category G: Comments on Code of Record Intervals Category H: Comments on the Rule Language Category I: General Comments Category J: Out of Scope Comments Within each category, the NRC either reproduced comments as written by the commenter or summarized the comments for conciseness and clarity. At the end of the comment or comment summary, the NRC referenced the source of the comment.
Category A: Comments on DG-1405 (Regulatory Guide 1.84, Revision 40)
The NRC received no comments on Draft Regulatory Guide (DG)-1405.
6 Category B: Comments on DG-1406 (Regulatory Guide 1.147, Revision 21)
B-1 Code Case N-860 and RG 1.147 Applicability Comment Summary B-1: A commenter stated that the NRC has not extended the applicability of RG 1.147 (DG-1406), Inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1, to 10 CFR Part 72, Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater-Than-Class C Waste. Therefore, Code Case N-860, Inspection Requirements and Evaluation Standards for Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage and Transportation Containment Systems, cannot be approved in RG 1.147. The commenter suggested the NRC revise the applicability of RG 1.147 to include 10 CFR Part 72. (1-1)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenters statement that DG -1406 is only applicable to reactor licensees and applicants subject to 10 CFR 50.55a. The NRC disagrees with the commenters suggestion to extend the applicability of RG 1.147 to 10 CFR Part 72.
Upon further consideration, Code Case N-860 is not within the scope of this rulemaking and cannot be included in RG 1.147 because RG 1.147 includes code cases that provide alternatives to the requirements currently existing in 10 CFR 50.55a.
As a result of this comment, the NRC removed Code Case N-860 from RG 1.147.
B-2 Code Case N-860 Endorsement Comment Summary B-2: A commenter suggested that Code Case N-860 should not be endorsed in RG 1.147 and should not be incorporated in 10 CFR 50.55a. Code Case N-860 provides inspection requirements and evaluation standards for spent nuclear fuel storage and transportation containment systems, which are not systems, structures, or components of a production or utilization facility. These systems are, therefore, not within the scope of 10 CFR Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, or 10 CFR Part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants, and are currently regulated and licensed in 10 CFR Part 71, Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material, and 10 CFR Part 72. RG 1.147 is for code cases that the NRC has approved for use as voluntary alternatives to the mandatory American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (BPV) Code provisions incorporated by reference into 10 CFR Part 50. There are no mandatory ASME BPV Code provisions for spent nuclear fuel storage and transportation containment systems in 10 CFR Part 50. The commenter recommended that Code Case N-860 be addressed in a separate regulatory action that considers the impact of the code case on the regulations, certificates of compliance, and independent spent fuel storage installations. (13-23)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter that N-860 should not be endorsed in RG 1.147, as RG 1.147 only applies to reactor licensees and applicants subject to 10 CFR 50.55a.
As a result of this comment, the NRC is not including Code Case N-860 in RG 1.147. The NRC will continue to engage stakeholders on options for approving this code case.
B-3 Code Case N-752-1 Comment Summary B-3: Multiple commenters recommended that the NRC complete the review of ASME BPV Code Section XI Code Case N-752-1, Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment for Repair/Replacement Activities in Class 2 and 3 Systems, and include this code case in RG 1.147. One commenter stated that ASME Code Case N-752 is in Table 5,
7 Section XI Code Cases that have been Superseded. ASME Code Case N-752 is not listed at all in RG 1.147, Revision 20, so it does not seem appropriate to list it in table 5 as superseded in Revision 21. The other commenter stated that DG-1406 does not include ASME Code Case N-752-1, which was published in Supplement 0 of the 2021 Edition. This code case should have been included in DG-1406. (9-1, 11-8)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenters that it should remove ASME Code Case N-752 from table 5 in RG 1.147. As the NRC has not approved or disapproved any version of ASME Code Case N-752, the code case could not be superseded.
The NRC disagrees with the commenters requesting incorporation of ASME Code Case N-752-1 in DG-1406. The NRC has not completed the rulemaking review of ASME Code Case N-752-1. Once the NRC completes its review, it will determine whether Code Case N-752-1 is generally acceptable for use and incorporation in RG 1.147 in a future rulemaking.
In response to these comments, the NRC revised table 5 in RG 1.147, Revision 21, to remove ASME Code Case N-752.
B-4 Code Case N-880-1 Comment Summary B-4: With respect to ASME Code Case N-880-1, Alternative to Procurement Requirements of IWA-4143 for Small Nonstandard Welded Fittings, the commenter stated that the NRC has proposed a new condition that would limit the use of this code case to nominal pipe size (NPS 2) (DN 50) or smaller fittings and that the NRCs analysis of the basis for the original Case N-880 is incorrect. The commenter recommends that the NRC delete the proposed condition from RG 1.147, Revision 21. (9-2)
NRC Response:
The NRC disagrees with this comment because the original revision of the code case (N-880) was specifically for small fittings of NPS 2 and less. The proposed Code Case N-880-1 changed the size limitation to include any size, asserting without sufficient technical basis that the size limitation was arbitrary. In addition, as stated in the comment, the technical basis for the original Code Case N-880 was for NPS 2 and less, which the NRC approved. Therefore, this condition is not arbitrary; it is based on the original revision of the code case and is consistent with the established NRC position. As noted, if use of this code case is needed for fittings larger than NPS 2, an alternative under 10 CFR 50.55a(z) may be submitted for a specific application, with sufficient justification for that particular application.
The NRC made no revisions as a result of this comment.
B-5 Code Case N-921 Condition Comment Summary B-5: Commenters explained that the proposed condition to Code Case N-921, Alternative 12-yr Inspection Interval Duration, in conjunction with revisions to 10 CFR 50.55a, appears to be administrative rather than a safety concern. The commenters argued that licensees that have recently updated their inservice inspection (ISI) programs to editions earlier than the 2019 Edition would have to perform a mid-interval code update or wait until the end of the current interval to adopt this code case. One commenter asked what the safety basis is for updating to the 2019 Edition provided that previous editions and addenda were reviewed and approved for use by the NRC. Another commenter recommended approving Code Case N-921 with no conditions that limit it to the 2019 Edition or later of ASME BPV Code,Section XI, such that owners would be allowed to use Code Case N-921 with any previously
8 approved code of record, with all applicable 10 CFR 50.55a conditions. (6-1, 7-1, 9-3, 10-1, 11-
- 7)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees in part and disagrees in part with the commenters. The NRC originally selected the 2019 Edition of the BPV Code in SECY-21-0029 as representative of a mature edition of ASME BPV Code,Section XI. However, the NRC has verified there are no safety-significant differences between the 2017 Edition and the 2019 Edition of the BPV Code.
The NRCs response to comment summary B-8 gives additional information related to mid-ISI interval updates.
The NRC disagrees with comments recommending that licensees should be able to use Code Case N-921 when implementing any edition of the BPV Code incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a. The condition requiring use of the 2017 Edition, or later, of the BPV Code ensures that ISI program updates and the code of record updates remain consistent with each other and with Commission policy.
The NRC revised the proposed condition on Code Case N-921 in RG 1.147, Revision 21, to require licensees to update to the 2017 Edition, or later, of the BPV Code to extend the ISI interval to 12 years. The NRC added a condition in RG 1.147, Revision 21, on Code Case N-921 to require licensees to implement Code Case N-921 at the beginning of an ISI interval following a routine update. The NRCs response to comment summary B-6 gives additional information related to implementing Code Case N-921 at the beginning of an ISI interval.
B-6 Code Case N-921 Implementation Comment Summary B-6: A commenter suggested that the NRC add a condition to require implementation of Code Case N-921 at the beginning of an ISI interval. The commenter stated that implementing the code case mid-ISI interval could lead to extra burden for the NRC and the industry. Specifically, existing alternatives would likely need to be reauthorized by the NRC. The commenter suggested that the NRC should add a condition requiring that Code Case N-921 only be implemented at the start of a new interval, to eliminate these requests. The commenter stated that NRCs regulatory analysis did not provide or address the additional costs associated with updating to the code cases mid-interval for licensees submitting new alternative requests.
(13-2, 13-3)
NRC Response:
The NRC agrees with the commenter and has added a condition to only allow implementation of Code Case N-921 to occur at the beginning of an ISI interval, rather than allowing implementation during a mid-ISI interval. The NRC agrees that mid-ISI interval implementation of Code Case N-921 would create a significant burden for both the NRC and licensees because of the ongoing schedule for ISI activities and the need to resubmit requests for alternatives authorized based on a 10-year ISI interval. The NRC notes that the ASME BPV Code currently allows a 1-year extension of the 10-year ISI interval with certain conditions, which makes the necessary burden to achieve an extra 1-year ISI interval extension to be of questionable resource value. Licensees wishing to implement Code Case N-921 during a mid-ISI interval should submit an exemption request in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, Specific exemptions, and should review all NRC-authorized alternative requests to determine whether they need to be resubmitted to the NRC for review and authorization.
9 As a result of this comment, the NRC added a condition to RG 1.147, Revision 21, to only allow implementation of Code Case N-921 at the beginning of a new ISI interval.
B-7 Code Case N-921 Implementation Comment Summary B-7: The commenter noted that licensees have approved alternatives to examination frequencies in ASME BPV Code,Section XI, but they do not have approved alternatives to the modified examination frequencies under Code Case N-921. The commenter stated that NRC should clarify if existing NRC approved alternatives would need to be reapproved before implementation of Code Case N-921. The commenter also stated that the NRC should identify whether existing alternatives would need to be approved as alternatives to Code Case N-921 in addition to Section XI. (13-4)
NRC Response: In response to the previous question, the NRC added a condition in RG 1.147, Revision 21, on Code Case N-921 to require licensees to implement Code Case N-921 at the beginning of an ISI interval, and new alternatives would be needed at that time. Licensees do not need to request alternatives to Code Case N-921, since the code case is not a requirement.
The NRC response to comment summary B-6 contains more information on implementing Code Case N-921.
The NRC revised RG 1.147, Revision 21, to add a condition for Code Case N-921 to require that licensees implement Code Case N-921 at the beginning of an ISI interval following a routine update.
B-8 Code Case N-921 Mid-Interval Updates Comment Summary B-8: A commenter suggested that the NRC identify whether licensees can implement the extended ASME ISI interval through Code Case N-921 and the extended code of record interval through 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(iv) in the middle of an ISI interval. The commenter indicated that NRC would need to consider the implications of transitioning in the middle of a 10-year interval to a possible 12-year ISI/inservice testing (IST) interval and a 24-year code of record interval on a plant-specific basis. The commenter also noted there may be unforeseen consequences associated with mid-interval updates that would require significant industry and NRC resources to resolve. The commenter suggested that if the NRC wants to allow mid-interval updates, this should be done through a rule change rather than requiring plant-specific licensing actions. (13-5)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter that the NRC would need to consider all implications of transitioning from a 10-year interval to a 12-year interval at mid-interval for both ISI and IST programs. Based on this comment and other comments received, the NRC added a condition to Code Case N-921 to require implementation at the beginning of an ISI interval, and new alternatives would be needed at that time. The NRCs response to comment summary B-6 contains more information on implementing Code Case N-921.
Regarding mid-ISI interval updates to a more recent code edition, the NRC agrees that complications can arise because of reconciling ASME BPV Code,Section XI, requirements and alternative requests that were approved relative to the edition originally referenced in the licensees ISI program. The NRC will continue to review mid-ISI interval requests in accordance with the existing process described in 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(iv) and Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-12, Clarification on Use of Later Editions and Addenda to the ASME OM Code and Section XI, dated July 28, 2004. Licensees making such requests should evaluate the impact of updating the code of record and on their inspection programs and authorized alternative requests. Such a request should also state whether the licensee intends to apply
10 Code Case N-921, to provide a complete picture of the licensees updated ISI program.
However, once such reviews and approvals have taken place, licensees may take advantage of the extended code of record interval afforded by the rule. The NRC notes that the code of record interval is defined as two consecutive ISI intervals (rather than 20 or 24 years). A licensee that updates in the middle of an interval would be able to maintain the same code of record for the remainder of the current ISI interval and the entirety of the subsequent ISI interval. At the end of the subsequent ISI interval, however, the licensee should update its code of record, since two consecutive ISI intervals have passed. For example, a licensee begins a new ISI interval in January 2020. It asks to implement N-921 and the 2017 Edition of ASME BPV Code,Section XI, in 2025. If authorized, the ISI interval would extend to January 2032, and the code of record interval would extend to 2044.
The NRC made no revisions as a result of this comment.
B-9 Code Case N-921 Implementation Mechanism Comment Summary B-9: A commenter suggested that if the NRC desires licensees to update to the 2019 Edition of ASME BPV Code,Section XI, to use Code Case N-921, the final rule could be made effective 18 months following incorporation by reference of the 2019 Edition into 10 CFR 50.55a. (13-1, 13-7)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees that using the effective date of a specific code editions final rule could be a viable option. However, the NRC disagrees with the commenters recommendation for using the effective date to determine the code editions required for implementing Code Case N-921 especially because NRC revised the proposed condition on Code Case N-921 in RG 1.147, Revision 21, to require licensees to update to the 2017 Edition, or later, of the BPV Code to extend the ISI interval to 12 years. The 2017 Edition of the ASME BPV Code was incorporated by reference effective June 3, 2020. The implementation date of this final rule is well beyond 18 months following incorporation by reference of the 2017 Edition.
The NRC prefers the condition to be as specific as possible with the expectation that a specific code edition of the ASME BPV Code will be implemented for use of Code Case N-921.
The NRC made no revisions as a result of this comment.
B-10 Code Case N-921 Comment Summary B-10: A commenter noted that the regulations in 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(iv) allow a licensee to use all or portions of a later edition of ASME BPV Code,Section XI, that has been incorporated by reference into 10 CFR 50.55a, subject to NRC review. The commenter further stated that a licensee may adopt all or portions of a later edition of Section XI that has not been incorporated by reference into 10 CFR 50.55a through a proposed alternative under 10 CFR 50.55a(z). The commenter also stated that a licensee may be approved to use an earlier edition (or portions thereof) of Section XI than required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g) as an alternative under 10 CFR 50.55a(z). The commenter stated that the NRC should not allow the general use of Code Case N-921 when only a small portion of the code of record is the 2019 Edition or later, but most of the code of record is an earlier edition. Similarly, the commenter stated that the NRC should not prohibit the use of Code Case N-921 if a small portion of a licensees ISI program is on an earlier edition. (13-8)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees that complications arise when the licensees ISI program is governed by different editions of ASME BPV Code,Section XI. In the interest of promoting transparency, order, and predictability on the administration of these programs, the NRCs
11 position is that all portions of the licensees ISI program should be on the 2017 Edition or later, to take advantage of the extended code of record interval and Code Case N-921.
The NRC made no revisions as a result of this comment.
B-11 ISI Programs Comment Summary B-11: A commenter suggested that two ISI intervals may overlap, meaning that two code editions are implemented simultaneously. Specifically, the containment ISI program may not coincide with the remainder of the ISI program. This can create ambiguity in the code of record definition if an earlier edition is used in one of the ISI programs. (13-9)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees that licensees may have different code editions implemented for different ISI programs. To ensure there is no confusion or ambiguity in a licensees code of record, the NRC has revised the definition for ISI code of record to say edition(s). The specific ISI programs using the 2017 Edition, or later, of the BPV Code may implement the extended ISI interval in accordance with Code Case N-921 at the start of their ISI interval.
As a result of this comment, the NRC revised the definitions in 10 CFR 50.55a(y) to say edition(s), rather than edition.
B-12 Code Case N-921 Condition Comment Summary B-12: A commenter noted that Code Case N-921 does not identify any exceptions to table 1 in paragraph-2431. The commenter recommends that the NRC condition Code Case N-921 to provide for the same exceptions listed in ASME BPV Code,Section XI, IWX-2411 applicable to subparagraph-2430(a) of Code Case N-921. (13-22)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment. The NRC approved the exceptions listed in IWX-2411 as part of its incorporation by reference of ASME BPV Code,Section XI, into 10 CFR 50.55a. Conditioning the code case to allow the exceptions found in Section XI may alleviate unnecessary regulatory burden associated with alternative requests that do not impact nuclear safety.
As a result of this comment, the NRC revised RG 1.147, Revision 21, to add a condition on Code Case N-921 to allow the exceptions found in ASME BPV Code,Section XI, IWX-2411.
Category C: Comments on DG-1407 (Regulatory Guide 1.192, Revision 5)
C-1 Code Case OMN-31 Comment Summary C-1: Multiple commenters noted that the word implementing is ambiguous because the NRC condition could be interpreted to mean that licensees that are in the process of implementing the 2020 Edition of the ASME Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, Division 1, OM Code: Section IST (OM Code), for their next IST program update may use OMN-31 because they are implementing or moving to the 2020 code. The commenters recommended clarifying in table 2 of RG 1.192 (DG-1407), Operation and Maintenance Code Case Acceptability, ASME OM Code, whether a licensee that is in the process of implementing the 2020 Edition of the OM Code may use OMN-31, Alternative to Allow Extension of ISTA-3120 Inservice Examination and Test Intervals From 10 Years to 12 Years, to extend their current IST program interval to provide more time for implementing the 2020 Edition of the ASME OM Code, or if the 2020 Edition needs to be fully implemented. (6-2, 7-3, 11-10)
12 NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment that it needs to clarify the condition on Code Case OMN-31 in RG 1.192, Revision 5. The intent of the condition was that a licensee may apply OMN-31 when the IST code of record for the IST program at the nuclear power plant is the 2020 Edition, or later, of the ASME OM Code, as incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a. When a licensee formally begins its code of record interval with the 2020 Edition, or later, of the ASME OM Code, as incorporated by reference into 10 CFR 50.55a, specified in the IST program plan for that code of record interval, the proposed rule would have allowed the licensee to apply OMN-31 with the extension of the interval specified in ISTA-3170.
As discussed elsewhere in this document, the NRC has determined that licensees may implement OMN-31 when the code of record is the 2017 Edition, or later, of the ASME OM Code. This decision is reflected in the revision to RG 1.192 in response to this comment.
As a result of this comment, the NRC revised the condition for OMN-31 in RG 1.192, Revision 5, to read that a licensee may apply OMN-31 when the IST code of record for the IST program at the nuclear power plant is the 2017 Edition, or later, of the ASME OM Code, as incorporated by reference into 10 CFR 50.55a.
C-2 Code Case OMN-31 Comment Summary C-2: Multiple commenters noted that there have been no substantive changes in requirements to the OM Code from Editions 2017 to 2020. The commenters recommended revision of the condition placed on the use of OMN-31 to apply to licensees implementing the ASME OM Code 2017 Edition through the latest edition of the ASME OM Code. (7-2, 11-9)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with this comment and has verified that there have been no substantive changes related to nuclear power plant safety in the requirements specified in the OM Code from Editions 2017 to 2020. In particular, the NRC evaluated whether any significant technical differences exist between the 2017 and 2020 Editions of the ASME OM Code. Based on this review, the NRC agrees with the public comments that most of the changes in the 2020 Edition are improvements and clarifications that do not change the safety basis for extending the code of record update interval.
The NRC has updated the condition for implementing Code Case OMN-31 in RG 1.192, Revision 5, to require licensees to implement the 2017 Edition, or later, of the OM Code.
C-3 Code Case OMN-31 Implementation Comment Summary C-3: A commenter suggested that the NRC add a condition to require implementation at the beginning of an ISI/IST interval following a required update rather than allow early implementation mid-interval using 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv). The commenter stated that implementing Code Case OMN-31 mid-interval could lead to extra burden for the NRC and the industry. Specifically, existing alternatives would likely need to be reapproved by the NRC. Conditioning implementation to be at the start of a new interval would eliminate these requests. The NRCs regulatory analysis did not provide or address the additional costs associated with updating to the code cases mid-interval for licensees submitting new alternative requests. (13-2, 13-3)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter and has added a condition to only allow implementation of Code Case OMN-31 to occur at the beginning of an IST interval, rather than allowing implementation during a mid-IST interval. The NRC agrees that mid-IST interval implementation of Code Case OMN-31 would create a significant burden for both the NRC and licensees because of the ongoing schedule for IST activities and the need to resubmit requests
13 for alternatives and relief based on a 10-year IST interval with certain conditions, which makes the necessary burden to achieve an extra 1-year IST interval extension of questionable resource value. Licensees wishing to implement Code Case OMN-31 during a mid-IST interval should submit an exemption request in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12 and should review all NRC-authorized alternative requests and NRC-granted relief requests to determine whether they need to be resubmitted to the NRC for review and authorization.
As a result of this comment, the NRC added a condition in RG 1.192, Revision 5, to only allow implementation of Code Case OMN-31 at the beginning of a new IST interval.
C-4 Code Case OMN-31 Mid-Interval Updates Comment Summary C-4: A commenter suggested that the NRC should determine whether licensees can implement the extended ASME ISI/IST intervals mid-interval by using 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv). The commenter indicates the NRC would need to consider the implications of transitioning in the middle of a 10-year interval to a possible 12-year ISI/IST interval and a 24-year code of record on a plant-specific basis. The commenter also notes there may be unforeseen consequences associated with mid-interval updates that will require additional resources. The commenter suggested that, if the NRC wants to allow mid-interval updates, this should be done through a rule change rather than requiring plant-specific licensing actions. (13-5)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment that the NRC would need to consider all implications of transitioning from a 10-year interval to a 12-year interval at mid-interval for both ISI/IST programs. For example, Code Case N-921 only provides 1 extra year in the first and third ISI periods (for a total of 2 extra years in the interval). Based on other comments, the NRC has added a condition to Code Case N-921 to require implementation at the beginning of an ISI interval following a routine update. The agency has added a similar condition to Code Case OMN-31, although Code Case OMN-31 implementation of the extra 2 years is not restricted to a specific timeframe within the IST interval. The NRC response to comment summary C-3 contains further information regarding mid-interval implementation of Code Case OMN-31.
As noted in the response, the NRC has included the revisions to the conditions on the use of Code Cases N-921 and OMN-31 in the applicable RGs.
C-5 Code Case OMN-31 Implementation Mechanism Comment Summary C-5: A commenter suggested that if the NRC desires licensees to update to the 2020 Edition of OM Code to use Code Case OMN-31, the final rule could be made effective 18 months following incorporation by reference of the 2020 Edition into 10 CFR 50.55a. (13-1)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees that this approach is a viable option, as the 2017 Edition was incorporated by reference on June 3, 2020, and the code case can only be implemented following a routine update in which licensees would implement the most recent edition 18 months before the start of the interval. However, the NRC disagrees with the comments recommendation for using the effective date to determine the code editions required to implement Code Case OMN-31. The NRC prefers that the condition be as specific as possible with the expectations for implementing Code Case OMN-31. Requiring a specific code edition of the ASME OM Code will continue to be a condition, as proposed, to implement Code Case OMN-31.
The NRC made no revisions as a result of this comment.
14 C-6 OMN-31 Condition Correction Comment Summary C-6: A commenter noted that requiring licensees to implement the 2020 Edition through the latest edition is not reasonable, as the licensees cannot apply multiple editions of the OM Code to the same parts of the IST program simultaneously. The commenter provided an edit for requiring licensees to implement the 2020 Edition or later. (13-10)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment evaluation of the verbiage for the proposed condition for OMN-31 and agrees with the suggested phrasing.
As a result of this comment, the NRC revised the condition on Code Case OMN-31 in RG 1.192, Revision 5, to remove the through the latest edition language and apply the suggested phrasing.
C-7 OMN-31 and Edition Sufficiency Comment Summary C-7: A commenter proposed that the NRC determine what is sufficient to consider the code of record to be on the 2020 Edition, or later, of the OM Code. Licensees are allowed to use all or portions of subsequent editions. In addition, a licensee may be approved to use alternatives from an earlier edition or a later edition that has not yet been endorsed. The commenter argued, for example, that general use should not be allowed if only a small portion of the code of record is on 2020, and that general use should be allowed if only a small portion of the code of record is not on 2020 (or later). (13-11)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter that the NRC should clarify what it determines to be sufficient for an edition to be used as the code of record. The NRC considers the code of record for a particular IST program to be the OM code edition used for the IST program. The NRC understands that some portions of the IST program may implement different code editions that are approved through exemption requests or alternatives, but the overall code of record will be the main OM Code edition in use.
The NRC is modifying the rule language to clarify the code of record definitions.
Category D: Comments on DG-1408 (Regulatory Guide 1.193, Revision 8)
D-1 Code Case N-907 Comment Summary D-1: Several commenters recommended that the NRC reconsider disapproving Code Case N-907, Rules for Performing Preservice Inspection (PSI) During Construction,Section III, Division 1, and include it in RG 1.84, Design, Fabrication, and Materials Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section III, Revision 40, for approval without conditions or with necessary conditions. Commenters noted that the code case states that it is targeted toward the 10 CFR Part 52 license or the associated 10 CFR Part 52 inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC). In addition, a commenter cautioned against the use of background information from C&S Connect since (1) C&S Connect information is proprietary to ASME and is not intended for public dissemination or use, and (2) the implied intent may be inaccurate and, therefore, inappropriate for determining the acceptability of the code case. One commenter noted that the code case does not eliminate the requirement to perform the PSI as required in NB-5281(a), explaining that the code case simply provides an option for PSI to be performed after the N-5 Data Report form is completed by the certificate holder but before the owners completion of the N-3 Data Report form. The commenter noted that the code case has no impact on the PSI requirements, and it only changes the timing when the PSI is completed, which provides valuable flexibility and efficiencies in the construction process. In addition, the same commenter noted that Code Case N-907 does not change the
15 NB-5332 requirement that any unacceptable indications found during the PSI must be repaired and that items with unacceptable flaws cannot be placed in service unless they are repaired and made code compliant, or the licensee seeks and is granted a proposed alternative to place the components in service with an identified flaw in place, as may be permitted by the NRC. The commenter argued that issues such as 10 CFR Part 50 or 10 CFR Part 52 licensing, or 10 CFR Part 52 ITAAC closure, are controlled by NRC regulation and are not under the scope of ASME BPV Code,Section III, and are not germane for consideration of the acceptability of this code case. One commenter noted that approval of Code Case N-907 would provide needed flexibility during construction with no adverse impact to safety, since all testing would still be required and completed. (5-1, 7-4, 11-11)
NRC Response:
The NRC disagrees with this comment because Code Case N-907 would delay the performance of the PSI up to the completion of the ASME Code N-3 Data Report, which is just before fuel load or the 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding. This delay could allow the PSI of components to take place years after fabrication of the component. Experience has shown that detecting defects many years later at the plant site instead of at the time of fabrication at the vendor site does not facilitate necessary repairs for these components. In particular, field repairs may be difficult to perform, and depending on the material or extent of the flaws, other processes such as postweld heat treatment would be necessary, which could be difficult or impractical to perform, depending on the component size or heat treatment temperatures required to ensure adequate postweld heat treatment. This leads to unnecessary burden on the NRC and the licensee in determining the corrective action (repair plan and analytical evaluation) for these flaws in the field rather than in the shop environment where the component was fabricated. This could leave flaws in the welds and reduce the structural margin present in these safety-related Class 1 and Class 2 components when they are initially put into service.
In addition, the code case does not provide the necessary reporting requirements and associated responsibilities of scheduling, performing, and documenting the PSI. The N-3 Data Report is an owners report that does not include the type of information necessary for the NRC and licensee to verify the PSI results and disposition, including actions necessary to close the ITAAC before the 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding. The NRC is currently participating with ASME through the ASME consensus process to determine the information necessary to revise the code case.
The NRC made no revisions as a result of this comment.
D-2 Code Cases N-915 and N-916 Comment Summary D-2: Several commenters noted that Code Case N-915, Extension of Internal Audit and Supplier Audit Due Dates in Exigent ConditionsSection III, Division 1;Section III, Division 2;Section III, Division 3;Section III, Division 5, and Code Case N-916 Remote Verification and Witness of ActivitiesSection III, Division 1;Section III, Division 2;Section III, Division 3;Section III, Division 5, were developed in response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to facilitate the required audits and verifications by other means, when or if various restrictions are imposed. The commenters argued that these alternatives would provide more than adequate means to perform and complete these audits and verifications, should such similar conditions or events occur and restrictions be imposed.
The commenters also argued that there are likely other intangible benefits and efficiencies to have such alternatives available for these ASME BPV Code,Section III, requirements, which should be explored and discussed further. The commenters recommended that ASME and the NRC have detailed discussions on the NRCs concerns with the code case and work through
16 the ASME consensus process to revise the code cases, such that these alternatives are in place and available. (5-2, 7-5, 11-12)
NRC Response:
The NRC disagrees with the comment for the following reason. The President declared that the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic ended on May 11, 2023. As such, any attempt to incorporate extensions to the frequency of internal and external audits, as well as to allow for remote source verifications, will have to be done through rulemaking. The current regulations in Appendix B, Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants, to 10 CFR Part 50 do not allow for these alternatives to be permanently available.
The NRC made no revisions with respect to Code Cases N-915 and N-916 as a result of this comment.
D-3 Code Case N-897 Comment Summary D-3: A commenter noted that Code Case N-897, Analytical Evaluation Procedures for Axial Flaws in Partial-Penetration Nozzle Welds,Section XI, Division 1, still requires owners to submit relief requests to the NRC for nondestructive examination procedures to determine acceptance of a repaired flaw. The commenter stated that Code Case N-897 provides information needed to perform an evaluation in a detected or postulated flaw. The commenter requested the NRC to consider adding this code case to RG 1.147 with conditions, or to identify changes to address the concerns presented in DG-1408. (9-4)
NRC Response:
The NRC disagrees with the comment because, as stated by the NRC during the ASME code review process and in the proposed rule, this code case does not address each specific repair to which it applies, to address the necessary nondestructive examination requirements to allow an analyzed flaw to remain in service. Therefore, this code case is only allowed for use with NRC review and approval of the specific repair.
The NRC made no revisions as a result of this comment.
Category E: Specific Request for Comment: Definitions NRC Question 1: The NRC proposes to add §50.55a(y) to include definitions of certain terms that may be important for delineating requirements related to IST and ISI programs. Are the proposed definitions appropriate for their intended purpose? Should the NRC consider defining other terms related to IST and ISI?
E-1 Support for Definitions Code of record and Code of record interval Comment Summary E-1: Multiple commenters supported the proposed definitions for code of record and code of record interval in 10 CFR 50.55a(y) and stated that the definitions seem appropriate with the proposed changes to the intervals in the rule change. (7-6, 11-1, 13-13)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment that the proposed definitions in 10 CFR 50.55a(y) are appropriate and support the changes to the code of record interval in the rule language. As a result of other edits to 10 CFR 50.55a(y), each definition no longer is a separate numbered paragraph.
The NRC made no revisions as a result of these comments.
17 E-2 No clear need for Inservice Examination and Test Interval and Inspection Interval Comment Summary E-2: Multiple commenters stated that the proposed definitions for inservice examination and test (IST) interval and inspection interval in 10 CFR 50.55a(y) are not definitions but are pointers to ASME OM Code and ASME BPV Code,Section XI, requirements for intervals, and that there is no clear need for these definitions. (7-8, 10-2, 11-4)
NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with the comment that there is no clear need for these proposed definitions in 10 CFR 50.55a(y). The purpose of the definitions inservice examination and test interval and inservice inspection (ISI) interval is to create consistent and clear terminology throughout 10 CFR 50.55a as it pertains to the aforementioned intervals. Based on other changes to 10 CFR 50.55a(y), each definition does not have its own paragraph.
The NRC made no revisions as a result of this comment.
E-3 Inservice Examination and Test Interval and Inservice Inspection Interval Definitions are appropriate Comment Summary E-3: One commenter stated that the definitions are appropriate to delineate between the intervals described in ASME BPV Code,Section XI, and the OM Code and the code of record interval described in 10 CFR 50.55a(y). The commenter recommended revision of the title of inservice inspection in 10 CFR 50.55a(y) to read Inservice inspection (ISI) interval for consistency with the formatting of the definition inservice examination and test (IST) interval. (9-10)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with this comment since this change to the terminology provides consistency between the two definitions. Inservice was added to the inspection interval definition in 10 CFR 50.55a(y). The definitions in 10 CFR 50.55a(y) no longer contain separate paragraphs for each definition.
The NRC revised 10 CFR 50.55a(y) to include Inservice inspection (ISI) interval and it reads as follows:
Inservice inspection (ISI) interval, as used in this section, means the inservice inspection interval described in Article IWA-2432 of ASME BPV Code,Section XI, 1989 Edition with 1991 Addenda through the 2008 Addenda, or Article IWA-2431 of ASME BPV Code,Section XI, 2009 Addenda and later.
E-4 No clear need for definitions for Inspection Program and Inservice Examination and Testing Program Comment Summary E-4: Multiple commenters stated that the proposed definitions for inspection program and inservice examination and testing program in 10 CFR 50.55a(y) could create confusion, since they include items not discussed in the ASME OM Code or ASME BPV Code,Section XI, references to Program. The commenters recommend not including these definitions in the rule change. (7-9, 9-11, 10-3, 11-5)
NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with the comment that the definitions inspection program and inservice examination and testing program in 10 CFR 50.55a(y) create confusion and are not needed. The purpose of the definitions is to ensure that terminology used within 10 CFR 50.55a is clear and consistent.
The NRC made no revisions as a result of this comment.
18 E-5 Defining Other Terms Comment Summary E-5: Multiple commenters recommended that the NRC not define other terms related to ISI/IST since the standards development organization consensus process is bypassed from establishing these terms as part of the standards. This may result in conflicts between the applicable codes and 10 CFR 50.55a, depending on the timing when such definitions are being developed or revised in either the code(s) or the rule. This may result in the NRC definitions differing from the standards. (7-7, 11-2)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment that additional definitions are not needed at this time in 10 CFR 50.55a(y). The purpose of the definitions is to ensure that terminology used within 10 CFR 50.55a is clear and consistent. It is not the purpose nor intent of the definitions in this section to define or to relate directly to items discussed in the ASME OM Code or BPV Code,Section XI, standards, nor to influence the definitions developed through the ASME consensus process. Definitions may be added in the future as the need arises.
The NRC made no revisions as a result of this comment.
E-6 Terms Defined in 10 CFR 50.55a(y)
Comment Summary E-6: A commenter requested clarification as to whether defined terms in 10 CFR 50.55a(y) apply to the RGs incorporated by reference. The commenter observed that the term code of record appears in multiple places in RG 1.147. (13-12)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter that the terms defined in 10 CFR 50.55a(y) apply to the RGs incorporated by reference. RG 1.147 mentions the Construction code of record, which was not defined in the proposed definitions. At this time, the revision to 10 CFR 50.55a is only applicable to ISI and IST programs, where licensees are required to make periodic updates in a manner consistent with Commission policy. The NRC agrees it is appropriate for the terms to have the same definitions.
As a result of this comment, the NRC added a footnote to RG 1.147 and RG 1.192 to define code of record interval to be consistent with the definition in 10 CFR 50.55a(y).
E-7 Separate ISI and IST Code of Record Comment Summary E-7: A commenter suggested that, instead of a single definition for code of record, the NRC consider an ISI code of record and an IST code of record. The commenter stated that a definition for code of record is only needed for those codes that are associated with a program update. The commenter stated that ASME BPV Code,Section III (or the Construction Code), does not need to be included in the definition for code of record. The commenter stated that the proposed definition of code of record is not consistent with the NRCs previous definitions of this term in NUREG-1482, Guidelines for Inservice Testing at Nuclear Power Plants, and Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-12. The commenter proposed definitions that were similar to those found in the cited documents. (13-14)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter that a single definition for code of record is insufficient. The NRC also agrees with the proposed definitions that the commenter provided but modified the IST definition to include restraining devices (e.g., snubbers). Finally, the NRC agrees that a definition for Construction code of record is not needed.
As a result of this comment, the NRC revised 10 CFR 50.55a(y) to include separate definitions of IST code of record and ISI code of record. The revised definitions are as follows:
19 Inservice examination and test (IST) code of record means the specific edition(s) and addenda of the ASME OM Code required by (f)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section, subject to the conditions listed in paragraph (b) of this section, and applicable NRC endorsed code cases, for inservice test to verify operational readiness of pumps, valves, and dynamic restraints, whose function is required for safety.
Inservice inspection (ISI) code of record means the specific edition(s) and addenda of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI, required by paragraphs (g)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section, subject to the conditions listed in paragraph (b) of this section, and applicable NRC endorsed code cases, for the inservice examination of components and system pressure tests.
E-8 Code of Record Definition Comment Summary E-8: A commenter stated that different aspects of the ISI/IST programs (e.g., containment ISI) may be on different editions. The commenter noted that the proposed definition uses the phrase the edition, which is singular and does not permit multiple editions for different aspects of the programs.
The commenter noted that the regulations in 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv) allow a licensee to use all or portions of a later edition of the ASME OM Code or BPV Code,Section XI, if approved by the NRC. The commenter stated that the proposed definition may exclude those portions of later editions approved through 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv).
The commenter suggested that NRC clarify the proposed definition for code of record to address these identified issues. (13-15)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter that licensees may have different code editions for different ISI/IST programs. To ensure there is no confusion or ambiguity in a licensees code of record, the NRC has revised the definitions for ISI and IST code of record to say edition(s) to address this issue. If portions of a later edition are approved for use, these editions are not considered to be part of the code of record. For example, if a licensee is using the 2017 Edition of the BPV Code for its ISI interval, the ISI code of record interval is the 2017 Edition. If that same licensee has approved alternatives allowing portions of the 2019 Edition of the BPV Code, the ISI code of record is still the 2017 Edition, as this is the fundamental edition being incorporated.
The NRC revised the definitions for Inservice inspection (ISI) code of record and Inservice examination and test (IST) code of record in 10 CFR 50.55a(y) to state the specific edition(s) and addenda to account for different programs being on different editions.
E-9 Code of Record Definition Comment Summary E-9: A commenter suggested that the code of record should be defined by what the NRC requires rather than implementation of an edition. Specifically, the code of record for the next interval is established 18 months before the start of the interval even though that edition has not been implemented yet. (13-16)
NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with the commenter that the code of record should be defined by something other than the implementation of a specific edition. The commenter suggests that the NRC define code of record to be what the NRC requires. The NRC has reviewed and incorporated by reference, with conditions for use, the ASME code editions listed in 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(1). When a licensee implements a specific ASME code edition as
20 incorporated by reference into 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(1) as its code of record, the licensee is implementing what the NRC requires. The code of record, despite being established 18 months before the start of the interval for planning purposes, is not officially in use until the new interval begins.
The NRC made no revisions as a result of this comment.
E-10 Code of Record Interval Correction Comment Summary E-10: A commenter stated that the definition for code of record interval incorrectly states that ISI is under 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) and IST under 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4).
(13-17)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter that 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) relates to the IST program and that 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) relates to the ISI program.
The NRC updated the definition in 10 CFR 50.55a(y) in the final rule to reference the correct programs as a result of this comment.
E-11 Snubber Program Comment Summary E-11: A commenter noted that definitions of code of record interval, IST interval, and ISI interval do not encompass the snubber program. (13-18)
NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with the commenter that the proposed definitions do not encompass the snubber program. The snubber program is currently required by the ASME OM Code but was previously in the BPV Code. The NRC recognizes that there may be a select number of licensees that are implementing the snubber program in accordance with the BPV Code. In response to comment summary E-7, the NRC created separate definitions for the ISI code of record and IST code of record in 10 CFR 50.55a(y). Rather than create a separate definition for the snubber program, the NRC incorporated it into the definition for the IST code of record in 10 CFR 50.55a(y). The NRC recognizes that some licensees with an older code of record might be implementing the BPV Code for the snubber program. However, the licensee will be required to address snubbers as part of the IST Program when updating to the 2017 Edition, or later, of the OM Code. The NRC provided a summary in the Federal Register notice discussing the snubber program.
As a result of this comment, the NRC modified the definition for inservice examination and test (IST) code of record in 10 CFR 50.55a(y) to include applicability to the snubber program.
E-12 Code of Record Definition Comment Summary E-12: The definition of code of record does not encompass the initial code of record, as it is not an update. The definition also should be revised to allow for the code of record to be voluntarily updated every ISI/IST interval. (13-19)
NRC Response: The NRC disagrees that the code of record definition does not encompass the initial code of record. The definition of code of record is the edition (and addenda) implemented in accordance with the requirements of this section (i.e., 10 CFR 50.55a). Therefore, the definition does include the initial code of record as it specifies the edition and addenda used by the licensees at that time. Based on other comments, the NRC has revised the code of record definition as follows:
21 Inservice examination and test (IST) code of record means the specific edition(s) and addenda of the ASME OM Code required by (f)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section, subject to the conditions listed in paragraph (b) of this section, and applicable NRC endorsed code cases, for inservice test to verify operational readiness of pumps, valves and dynamic restraints, whose function is required for safety.
Inservice inspection (ISI) code of record means the specific edition(s) and addenda of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI, required by paragraphs (g)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section, subject to the conditions listed in paragraph (b) of this section, and applicable NRC endorsed code cases, for the inservice examination of components and system pressure tests.
The NRC agrees that it should revise the rule language so that licensees may voluntarily update the code of record every ISI/IST interval. The NRC disagrees that it should place this information in the definition for code of record.
As a result of this comment, the NRC updated 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv) to allow for routine updates for a subsequent ISI/IST interval such that the editions are used in their entirety and the subsequent ISI/IST interval has not yet begun.
E-13 ISI/IST Interval Definition Comment Summary E-13: A commenter noted that the proposed ISI/IST definitions do not allow for modification of the intervals through Code Cases OMN-31 and N-921. The definitions include the edition (and addenda) but do not include code cases, as the code cases are not editions or addenda. Further, the commenter stated that specific paragraphs within the ASME OM Code (e.g., ISTA-3120) and ASME BPV Code,Section XI (e.g., IWA-2431), are specified in the proposed interval definitions, but the proposed definitions do not permit alternatives to these paragraphs. (13-20)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter that the ISI and IST definitions do not include the possibility of being modified by approved code cases in addition to the edition (and addenda). The NRC intends that these definitions include not only the edition (and addenda) but also applicable approved code cases.
As a result of this comment, the NRC revised the definitions for IST code of record and ISI code of record in 10 CFR 50.55a(y) to include applicable NRC endorsed code cases, in addition to the edition(s) and addenda.
Category F: Specific Request for Comment: Superseded and Annulled Code Cases NRC Question 2: The NRC proposes to revise §50.55a(b)(5)(ii) and (iii) to relate those requirements regarding superseded and annulled code cases to the code of record interval, as defined in §50.55a(y) of the proposed rule. Should the NRC instead consider relating those requirements to the ISI and IST interval? Please provide the basis for your response.
Comment Summary F-1: One commenter supports the proposed revision and stated that licensees should be permitted to continue using superseded or annulled code cases if they are applicable to their current code of record. Specifically, if the NRC has determined that use of a specific ASME BPV Code,Section XI, or OM Code edition is acceptable for a code of record interval as long as 25 years, then the code cases applicable to that edition should also be permitted to be used for that code of record interval. (9-5)
22 NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment that annulled or superseded code cases can be used until the end of the code of record interval if the code case was not annulled or superseded when applied during that code of record interval.
The NRC made no revisions as a result of this comment.
Comment/Response Summary F-2: Multiple commenters noted that 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(5)(ii) and (iii) only apply to ISI, so it appears that this question should also apply to 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(6)(ii) and (iii) for IST. The commenters noted that the NRC should not consider relating those requirements to the ISI and IST interval. Additionally, the commenters recommend the NRC use and keep the proposed definitions for code of record interval and code of record. (9-6, 11-3)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with this comment. The question was intended to apply to 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(5)(ii) and (iii) and 10 CFR 50.55 a(b)(6)(ii) and (iii). Additionally, the NRC agrees that superseded and annulled code cases should relate to the code of record interval and not the ISI or IST interval.
The NRC made no revisions as a result of this comment.
Category G: Comments on Code of Record Intervals Comment Summary G-1: Multiple commenters noted there is no safety reasoning behind restricting the use of the extended code of record intervals described in 10 CFR 50.55a(y) to the 2020 Edition, or later, of the OM Code. Further, multiple commenters explained that there is no safety reasoning behind restricting the use of the extended code of record intervals described in 10 CFR 50.55a(y) to licensees that are using the 2019 Edition, or later, of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI. The commenters recommended that the 2017 Edition, or later, of the OM Code, and any edition of Section XI incorporated into 10 CFR 50.55a(a), should be used when implementing the proposed code of record interval extensions. (7-10, 9-7, 11-6, 12-1)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenters that there are no safety-significant changes between the 2017 Editions of the BPV/OM Codes and the 2019 BPV Code and 2020 OM Code. The NRC chose the 2019 Edition of the BPV Code and the 2020 Edition of the OM Code as representative of mature editions and to be consistent with Commission direction in SRM-SECY-21-0029. The NRC analyzed the 2017 Editions of ASME BPV Code,Section XI, and the OM Code and verified that there are no safety-significant changes.
As a result of this comment, the NRC has revised the definition for code of record interval described in10 CFR 50.55a(y) to require implementation of the 2017 Editions, or later, of the ASME BPV and OM Codes.
Comment Summary G-2: A commenter suggested the NRC implement the new language concerning extended code of record intervals by using the effective date of the final rule. The commenter suggested that the longer code of record intervals should only be permitted at the next code of record update following a routine update (i.e., not following a mid-interval update using 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv)). To ensure a specific edition is used, the rule could become effective for those portions 18 months from publication of edition endorsement. (13-1)
NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with the commenters recommendation to implement the code of record update by using the effective date of the rule. As a result of other comments, the
23 NRC has updated the extended code of record interval requirement to be the 2017 Code Editions, or later, of the ASME BPV and OM Codes. The final rule approving the incorporation by reference of these code editions was published on May 4, 2020, and became effective on June 3, 2020. The NRC response to comment summary B-8 provides an overview of the NRCs position on implementing the code cases and extended code of record intervals while an ISI/IST interval is ongoing.
The NRC made no revisions as a result of this comment.
Comment Summary G-3: A commenter suggested that the NRC determine whether licensees can implement the extended code of record mid-interval by using 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv). The commenter indicated that the NRC would need to consider the implications of transitioning in the middle of a 10-year interval to a possible 12-year ISI/IST interval and a 24-year code of record on a plant-specific basis. The commenter also notes that there may be unforeseen consequences associated with mid-interval updates that will require significant resources to resolve. The commenter suggested that if the NRC wants to allow mid-interval updates, this should be done through a rule change rather than requiring plant-specific licensing actions. (13-5)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees that the proposed rule was not clear on implementing the extended code of record interval during the current code of record interval (i.e., mid-interval).
For licensees already using the 2017 Editions, or later, of the ASME BPV and OM Codes, implementation of the extended code of record interval occurs on the date of the final rule even if the licensees are currently in the middle of an ISI/IST interval. Licensees would not be required to submit a request to update their code of record interval by using 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv). The benefit of the extended code of record is that the licensees would not need to update to the most recent code editions after their subsequent ISI/IST interval. Licensees would still be required to update their ISI/IST programs at the end of the ISI/IST interval and would need to resubmit their alternative and relief requests to support the subsequent ISI/IST interval but would not be required to update the code of record. This would not be considered an update using 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) or (g)(4)(iv), as the licensees would not be asking to use a later edition of the ASME Code.
The NRC made no revisions as a result of this comment.
Comment Summary G-4: A commenter suggested that the code of record definition should be revised to allow the code of record to voluntarily be updated following every ISI/IST interval. The commenter explained that the proposed rule, as written, is a backfit because it does not allow for licensees to maintain the status quo of updating their code of record following every ASME ISI/IST interval. As written, the proposed rule would require licensees implementing the 2019 Edition, or later, of the BPV Code and the 2020 Edition, or later, of the OM Code, to submit requests in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv) to update their code of record following the first ASME ISI/IST intervals. (13-6)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees, in part, with the commenter. The NRC agrees that licensees should be able to update their code of record following every ISI/IST interval, if desired, without having to submit a request in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv). The proposed rule language, as written, would have required licensees to update in the manner the commenter discusses. The NRC agrees that licensees should be able to maintain the status quo of updating following every ISI/IST interval if they desire. The NRC disagrees that the definition is the best location for accomplishing this. Rather, the NRC has updated
24 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv) to be clear that licensees may update at the completion of their ISI/IST intervals without NRC approval.
As a result of this comment, the NRC has updated the rule texts in 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv) to clarify that licensees may continue to perform routine updates following the completion of their ISI/IST interval, including updating their code of record, without NRC approval.
Category H: Comments on the Rule Language Comment Summary H-1: A commenter noted that, as part of this rulemaking, several paragraphs in 10 CFR 50.55a are being revised to allow a code of record update every 20-25 years. However, the commenter explained that there are two locations in 10 CFR 50.55a that need to be revised to include conforming and clarifying changes: 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and 10 CFR 50.55a (g)(4)(iv). The commenter noted that this rulemaking approves the use of Code Case N-921, provided that licensees update to the 2019 Edition of ASME BPV Code,Section XI, and of Code Case OMN-31, provided that licensees update to the 2020 Edition of the ASME OM Code. The commenter added that the current editions approved for use in 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(1) are the 2019 Edition for ASME BPV Code,Section XI, and the 2020 Edition for the OM Code. The commenter argued that, since 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv) state that the NRC is satisfied with the requirements contained in the 2019 Edition of ASME BPV Code,Section XI, and the 2020 Edition of the OM Code, provided all conditions in 10 CFR 50.55a(b) are met, the NRC should consider revising the requirement that licensees submit a request for NRC approval before updating their IST or ISI programs to a newer code of record, as follows:
Use of later Code editions and addenda. Inservice tests of pumps and valves may meet the requirements set forth in subsequent editions and addenda that are incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section, subject to the conditions listed in paragraph (b) of this section, and subject to NRC approval. Portions of editions or addenda may be used, provided that all related requirements of the respective editions or addenda are met and subject to NRC approval.
Applicable ISI Code: Use of subsequent Code editions and addenda. Inservice examination of components and system pressure tests may meet the requirements set forth in subsequent editions and addenda that are incorporated by reference in paragraph (a) of this section, subject to the conditions listed in paragraph (b) of this section, and subject to Commission approval. Portions of editions or addenda may be used, provided that all related requirements of the respective editions or addenda are met, and subject to Commission approval.
Multiple commenters also acknowledged that the NRC should review submittals in which a licensee is adopting portions of later editions. However, the commenters argued that there is no technical justification to support the need for additional NRC approval for the use of a later code edition in its entirety that has already been approved in 10 CFR 50.55a. According to the
25 commenters, these changes would reduce the burden to the licensees and the NRC by completing all necessary changes to implement the new requirements. (4-1, 9-9)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees, in part, with the commenters. The NRC agrees that once the NRC has endorsed a code edition, with any applicable conditions, and incorporated it by reference into 10 CFR 50.55a, licensees should be able to update their ISI/IST programs to those editions without NRC approval under the following conditions: following completion of their ISI/IST interval (i.e., not during the current interval) and when using a later edition in its entirety as incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a.
As a result of this comment, the NRC revised 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv) to allow licensees to use a later edition with the conditions described in the above paragraph.
Comment Summary H-2: One commenter disagrees with requiring a licensee to use the same code of record for two consecutive ISI or IST intervals. The commenter argued that licensees should be permitted to continue updating their code of record for inspection or examination and test intervals every inspection interval, if desired, without having to submit a request to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv). The commenter explained that the proposed change would impose an unnecessary administrative burden on licensees wishing to update their inspection programs to a later ASME BPV Code,Section XI, or OM Code edition every inspection interval. Further, the commenter argued that, if licensees meet all of the requirements in a later Code edition, 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv) should be modified to allow them to use a later code edition in its entirety at any time during the code of record interval without having to obtain NRC approval. (9-8)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees in part and disagrees in part with the commenter. The NRC agrees that licensees should be able to update their code of record following every inspection or testing interval, if desired, without having to submit a request in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv). The proposed rule language, as written, would have required licensees to update in the manner the commenter discusses. The NRC agrees that licensees should be able to maintain the status quo of updating following every ISI/IST interval if they desire.
The NRC disagrees with the commenter that licensees should be able to update their code of record to a subsequent edition of the code during an ISI/IST interval without NRC approval. If a request to update the code of record occurs and was submitted to the NRC within an ISI/IST interval, the NRC would ensure that all code requirements (and associated alternative and relief requests) in the new code edition would be met for the remainder of that interval before approving the request.
As a result of this comment, the NRC has updated the rule texts, 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv), to be clear that licensees may continue to perform routine updates following the completion of their ISI/IST interval, including updating their code of record, without NRC approval.
Comment Summary H-3: A commenter noted that the regulations in 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(E) specify augmented inspections. The commenter also noted that code cases cannot provide alternatives to the regulations. The commenter stated that the final rule should clarify whether Code Case N-921 can be applied to augmented inspections. (13-21)
26 NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter that clarification is needed on whether Code Case N-921 can impact the augmented inspection rules of 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(E).
The NRC also agrees that ASME code cases cannot provide alternatives to NRC regulations.
Beyond just 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(E), the augmented inspection rules are specified by three code cases, as conditioned, incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a: N-722, N-729, and N-770. These code cases specify how often certain safety-related welds are inspected for primary water stress corrosion cracking. Extension of the ISI interval through Code Case N-921 cannot supersede the inspection frequencies in the three code cases referenced in the augmented inspection rules, since Code Case N-921 is only an alternative to ASME BPV Code,Section XI, requirements. As a result of public comments, the NRC added a condition to Code Case N-921, stating that licensees may only implement Code Case N-921 at the beginning of a new ISI interval. Additionally, due to the variation in language of the once per interval inspection frequencies for these ASME code cases and their conditions for use, such as MRP-335, Revision 3-A, Materials Reliability Program: Topical Report for Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking Mitigation by Surface Stress Improvement, published November 7, 2016, the NRC cannot issue a blanket authorization for each of these augmented inspection programs at this time. Therefore, the NRC will include a new specific condition on the use of Code Case N-921 that it cannot be used to modify the examination frequencies of any augmented ISI requirement under 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii).
The NRC will request a specific review of each ASME code cases technical basis for inspection frequencies by the ASME BPV Code to determine whether Code Case N-921 should apply to augmented examinations in a future rulemaking. In the interim, licensees seeking to apply Code Case N-921 should assess how their ASME BPV Code,Section XI, ISI program and their augmented inspection program interact with the respective inspection frequency language, with attention to specific or nominal years and calendar years, when preparing for the upcoming ISI interval. They may submit alternative requests under 10 CFR 50.55a(z), with a sufficient technical basis to support any extension of examination frequencies. The NRC will engage the ASME code committees on evaluating the specific language of the three code cases referenced in the augmented inspection rules to determine whether they should be updated to account for licensee implementation of Code Case N-921. The NRC may revisit the relationship between Code Case N-921 and augmented inspections in a later rulemaking.
As a result of this comment, the NRC updated RG 1.147, Revision 21, to impose an additional condition on ASME Code Case N-921 such that Code Case N-921 cannot be used to modify examination schedules for augmented inspections under 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii).
Category I: General Comments Comment Summary I-1: Two commenters requested that the comment period for the proposed rule be extended by an additional 1 to 2 months. The commenters explained that the ASME code committee meetings were scheduled for May 2023, and that these ASME meetings would be beneficial to allow discussions of the proposed rule before submission of any further public comments. (2-1, 3-1)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comments. The NRC seeks to ensure that the public and other stakeholders have a reasonable opportunity to provide the NRC with comments on this proposed action. The NRC acknowledges that discussions at the ASME code committee meetings may assist in the development of comments. Accordingly, the NRC extended the comment period for the proposed rule for an additional 42 days to June 16, 2023, which
27 provided a reasonable opportunity for all stakeholders to review the documents and to develop informed comments.
The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on May 5, 2023, and the NRC extended the comment period until June 16, 2023.
Comment Summary I-2: One commenter stated that the proposed rule does not provide guidance on whether licensees may use alternatives approved in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(z) during the code of record interval or whether use of alternatives may be authorized only for a single inspection interval. (9-12)
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment that the rule does not provide guidance on alternatives. The regulation in 10 CFR 50.55a(z) states, in part, that Alternatives to the requirements of paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section or portions thereof may be used when authorized by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Since the defined term, code of record interval, is used in these sections, an alternative to the requirements imposed during that interval may be submitted for consideration. The NRC decision, as documented in the staffs safety evaluation, will clearly state the timeframe in which the alternative is approved.
When a licensee updates its code of record interval to either 20 or 24 years, it will still need to meet any requirements from safety evaluations in place for the time period listed in that safety evaluation or until another alternative is approved.
The NRC made no revisions as a result of this comment.
Category J: Out of Scope Comments Comment Summary J-1: One commenter provided an advertisement for engineering services.
This comment is out of scope. (8-1)
NRC Response: This comment submission does not require a response.