ML20202C305

Forwards Comments in Response to Requesting Review of Certain Portions of Normal 10CFR50.55a, Codes & Stds, Rule Package

ML20202C305
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/14/1997
From:	Rosenthal J NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD)
To:	Coffman F NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
Shared Package
ML20202C086	List: ML20202C082 ML20202C108 ML20202C124 ML20202C153 ML20202C163 ML20202C190 ML20202C196 ML20202C229 ML20202C250 ML20202C263 ML20202C271 ML20202C276 ML20202C288 ML20202C305 ML20202C363 ML20202C412 ML20202C755 ML20202C791 ML20202C806 ML20202C840 ML20202C854 ML20202C871 ML20202C885 ML20202C912 ML20202C925 ML20202C937 ML20202C948 ML20202C958 ML20202C961 ML20202C970 ML20202C978 ML20202C988 ML20202D009 ML20202D012 ML20202D018
References
FRN-62FR63892, RULE-PR-50 AE26-1-017, AE26-1-17, NUDOCS 9802120215
Download: ML20202C305 (2)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -

r* s,., 4 %

p4

, U./

May 14, 1997

)p/

f DL NOTE TO: Franklin Coffman, RES/DET/EMEB

~~ '

FROM: Jack E. Rosenthal, AEOD/SPD/R AB -

SUBJECT:

BRANCH LEVEL REVIEW AND COMMEN1 ON PROPOSED REVISION TO 10 CFR 50.55a - CODES AND STANDARDS RULE These comments are in response to your note dated May 2,1997, which requested review of certain portions of a normal 10 CFR 50.55a " Codes and Standards" rule package. From a broad overview perspective, we believe the current draft proposed rule responds constructively to the previous AEOD review comments from D. F. Ross, Jr. to D. L. Morrison dated

, January 10,1997, because it retains the historical approach that endorses the recent ASME  :

Code and continues the 120 month update requirement. Our detailed comments are provided in the attachment. These comments were also discussed with your staff.

I Subsequent to our review, an RES proposed addition to the statement of consideration was brought to our attention. Although that effort has not been finalized, we have some concems about sending a proposed rule for comment which endorses use of the recent Code and l maintains the 120 month update, and yet has a discussion in the statement of considerations l that indicates we are considering establishing a base Code and not having updates. We i believe this would confuse the public. We remain committed to endorsing the recent Code with 120 month updates.

Attachment:

As stated cc w/att.:

J. Strosnider, NRR R. Westman, NRR l

9002120215 980206 PDR PR 9vvv u. epFR63892 PDR 77

COMMENT ON PROPOSED CODES AND STANDARDS RULE DRAFT DATED MAY 2,1997 ATTACHMENT 6

1. Page CT 'l. In items (iii) and (iv), change the "'hould" to "shall" J. , Page CT-3. In item (v), change "by" to "in"

3. Page CT-6. - In item (A), change the word " area" to "are"

4. Page CT-10. In item (xiii), the first sentence is not clear. I believe some words may have been omitted.

5. Page CT-12. In item (A), insert the following phrase after the word necessary:

"but a test interval shall not be extended more than" 6, Page CT-12. In item (iii), delete the phrase " licensees may implement" in the second line.

Insert the phrase "are acceptable" after the word Code in the third line.

7. Page CT-12. Item (B) is not clear. Please contact us to discuss.

8. Page CT-30. Item (3) is a strong position that all specimen set flaws must be cracks. Have we developed an evaluation to support the need and do we have a voting record to substantiate this position?

A'ITACHMENT 1

1. Page 17. The first sentence of the paragraph that begins with " Proposed" is not clear. A 4

word may be missing.

2. Page 20. In the paragraph that begins "An alternative," insert the phrase (ISTC 4.3) between

" rate" and " testing"

3. Page 23. At the top of the page, change that portion beginning with Appendix II to read "ISTC4 5.5 requires return to the requirements ofISTC 4.5.4. However, the staff believes the requirements of ISTC 4.5.1 through ISTC 4.5.4 must be met."

J