ML20202C755

Informs That Ofc of Admin Concurs on Draft Proposed Rule That Would Amend Requirements for Applying Industry Codes & Stds to NPPs.Marked-up Copy of Package That Presents Comments Encl

ML20202C755
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/29/1997
From:	Halman E NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Thadani A 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 AE26-1-020, AE26-1-20, NUDOCS 9802130019
Download: ML20202C755 (46)

Text

.

{[pretogt

+

UNITED STATES g M-[

N S O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'! WA9mNGToN D.C. 30mm01 [h

%, ****+/ July 29, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Ashok C. Thsdani, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM: Edward L. Halman, Office of Administra

SUBJECT:

OFFICE CONCURRENCE ON PROPOSED RULE ENTITLED

' INDUSTRY CODES AND STANDARDS; AMENDED REQUIREMENTS * (PART 50)

The Office of Administration (ADM) concurs on the draft proposed rule that would amend the requirements for applying industry codes and standards to nuclear power plants. We have attached a marked copy of the package that presento our comments, if you have any questions, please contact David Meyer, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, on 415-7162 or by e-mail at DLM1.

Attachment:

As stated 9002130019 900206 PDR PR g3 50 62FR63892 PDR

/ m ' '/ 10

• 3 i

e 4

l

[7590-01 P]

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150-AE26 Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements AGENCY: Nuciaar Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule,

,- ~

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulationdo CFR 50.'55af '

V requireg that nuclear power plant owners (1) construct Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 components in accordance with the rules provided in Section lil, Division 1, " Requirements for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components," of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPV Code), (2) inspect Class 1, Class 2 Class 3, Class MC (metal containment) and Class CC (concrete containment) components in acccrdance with the rules provided in Section XI, Division 1,

• Requirements for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components," of the ASME BPV Code, and (3) test Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 pumps and valves in accordance with the rules provided in Section XI,

_nr., aron esuu meu Lee ~i%

Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code.hcensees are requiredbupdate[/very 120emonths')

version of Section XI incorporated by referencadrit'olh months prior to the start of a new 120-month interval. ' a' N I8a'I re g,/gf, w The proposed amendmen 5f55abould 5 require licensees to implement, subject to certain limitations and modifications, the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda of (1)Section XI, and, Division 1, for inspection of Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, Class MC, and Class CC components #2)

l .

\

the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (OM Code) for testing T+ *dd.'How, i t

• t e ste s, wrJ.t b e r ey <1 %

of Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 pumps and valves , ;r.d p) 0: ;JJd;vo.mi expedite implement ppendix Vlil,

• Performance Demonstration for Ultrasonic Examination Systems," to Section XI, Division 1. The proposed amendmen would permit the use of Section 111, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code,1989 Addenda through the 1996 Addenda for construction of Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 components, in addition, based upon supporting x

information received since the last rulemaking, the modification presently in _ for containment isolation valve inservice testing has been deletert.

tL regG5 Implementation of later editions and addenda ensures the use of improved methods for the construction, inservice inspection (ISI), and inservice testing (IST) of nuclear power plant components. Expedited implementation of the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda of Appendix Vill is necessary to ensure that nondestructive examination (NDE) personnel, procedures, and equipment are adequately quali5cd to provide reliable results.

DATES: Submit comments by (insert date 90 davs after oublication in the Federal Realster).

Comments received after this date will be considerer' if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to erisure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 0001. ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch. Hand 4eliver comments o A to 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,20852, between 7- am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.

2 s

,- .e ,

Electronic Access i

Comments may be submitted electronically, in either ASCll text or Wordperfect format (version 5.1 or later), through the NRC Electronic Bulletin Board (BBS) on FedWo id, or connecting to the NRC interactive rulemaking web site, "Rulemaking Forum." The bulletin board may be accessed using a personal computer, a modem, and one of the commonly available communications software packages, or directly via intemet. Background documents on the rulemaking are also available, as practical, for downloading and viewing on tha bulletin board, if using a personal computer and om4m, the NRC rulemaking subsystem on FedWorld can be accessed directly by dialing the toll i;w r. amber 800 303 g672. Communication software parameters should be set as follows: parity to none, data bits to 8, and stop bits to 1 (N,8,1).

Using ANSI or VT-100 terminal emulation, the NRC rulemaking subsystem can then be accessed i

by selecting the " Rules Menu" option from the "NRC Main Menu." Users will find the "FedWorld Online User's Guides" particularly helpful. Many NRC subsystems and data bases also have a

" Help /Information Center" option that is tailored to the particular subsystem.

The NRC subsystem on FedWorid can also be accessed by a direct dial phone number for

- the main FedWorld BBS,703-321-333g, or by using Telnet via Intemet: fedworld. gov. If using 703-321-333g to contact FedWorid, the NRC subsystem will be accessed from the main FedWorld menu by selecting the " Regulatory, Govemment Administration and State Systems,"

then selecting " Regulatory Information Mall." At that point, a menu will be displayed that has an option "U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission" that will take you to the NRC Online main menu.

The NRC Online area also can be accessed directly by typing */go nrc" at a FedWorld command line, if you access NRC fmm FedWorld's main menu, you may retum to FedWorld by selectira 3

- - a

, c ,

the "Retum to FedWorld" optinn from the NRC Online Main Menu. However, if you access NRC at FedWorld by using NRC's toll-free number, you will have full access to all NRC systems, but you will not have access to the main FedWorld system.

If you contact FedWorld using Telnet, you will see the NRC area and menus, including the Rules Menu. Although you will be able to download documents and leave messages, you will not be able to write comments or upload files (comments). If you contact FedWorld using FTP, ell files can be acce. ed and downloaded but uploads are not allowed; all you will see is a list of files without descriptions (normal Gopher look), An indcx file listing all files within a subdirectory, with descriptions, is available. There is a 15-minute time limit for FTP access.

Although FedWorld also can be accessed through the World Wide Web, like FTP, that mode only provides access for downloading files and does not display the NRC Rules Menu, You may also access the NRC's interactive rulemaking web site through the NRC home page (http1/www.nrc. gov). This site provides the same access as the FedWorld bulletin board, including the facility to upload comments as files (any format), if your web browser supports that function.

For more information on NRC bulletin boards call Mr. Arthur Davis, Systems Integration and Development Branch, NRC, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-5780; e-mail AXD3@NRC. GOV, For information about the interactive rulemaking site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher,301-415-6215; e-mail CAG@NRC. GOV.

4

, O 1 l Single copies of this proposed rulemaking may be obtained by vtritten request

! @* k

Distribution Services, Printing and /_:: f <c,5ccb Branch, Office of -/dt C5 e h r m(301-415dr vs e 2260)

' tc e r

-Administration, U.S. Nucker Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001, Certain documents related to this rulemaking, including comments received, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street NW, (Lower Level), Washington, DC. These same docurr.ents may also be viewed and downloaded electronicaly via the Electronic Bulletin Board f

established by NRC for this rulemaking as indicated above, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank C. Chemy, Division of Engineering Technology, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone: 301415-6786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The NRC is proposing to amend 10 CFR 50.55a, which defines the requirements for applying industry codes and standards to nuclear power plants. Section 50.55a presently

- requires that nuclear power plant owners (1) construct Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 components in accordance with the rules provided in the 1989 Edition of Section lil, Division 1,

" Requirements for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components," of he American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPV Code), (2) inspect Class 1, Class 2, C!ss: 3, Class MC (metal containment) and Class CC (concrete containment) components in accordance with the rules provided in the 1989 Edition of Section XI, Division 1, "Requiremsnts for Inservice inspection of Nuclear power Plant Components," of the ASME BPV 5

Code with certain limitations and modifications, and (3) test Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 pumps and valves in accordance with the rules provided in the 1989 Edition of Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code with cerisi.11 imitations and modificationgcensees are required to

, updat 20 month version of Section XI iracorporated by roterence into $ 50.55 12 rd months prior to the start of a new 120-month interval. #

s v%#

w/

The NRC staff has completed its review of the 1989 Addenda through the 1996 Addenda of (1) Section lil, Division 1, ASME BPV Code, (2)Section XI, Division 1, ASME BPV Code, and (3) the ASME OM Code. The NRC staff proposes to amend $ 50.55a by requiring licensees to implement the 1995 Edition with the 196d Addenda of: (1)Section XI, Division 1, for inservice

[

inspection of Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, Class MC, and Class CC components with limitations; (2) the OM Code for inservice testing of Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 pumps and valves with modifications; and (3) Appendix Vill, " Performance Demonstration for Ultrasonic Examination Systems,"Section XI, Division 1, with modifications. It has been determined that Section 111 Divis%n 1,1989 Addenda through the 1996 Addenda, is acceptable for voluntary use, with limitations, in addition, the proposed amendment would delete the modification for containment isolation valve IST that applied to the 1989 Edition of the BPV Code.

The mechanism for endorsement of the ASME standards, which has been used since the first entforsement in 1971, has been to incorporate by reference the ASME BPV Code rules into

$ 50.55a. The regulation identifies which editions and addenda of the BPV Code have been approved for use by the NRC. On August 6,1992 (57 FR 34666), the NRC published a final rule in the Federal Re9ister to amend 10 CFR Part 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities." This final rule amended 5 50.55a to incorporate by reference the 1986 Addenda,1987 Addenda,1988 Addenda, and 1989 Edition of Section lil, Division 1, and the t

6

J, , .. ,

1 .

I 1986 Addenda,1987 Addenda,1988 Addenda, and ig8g Edition of Section XI. Division 1, of the ,

1- - SPV Code, with specified modifications. The amendment imposed an augmented examination of reactor vessel shell welds. The amendment also separated the requirements for IST of pump

! and valves from those for ISI of other components by placing the requirements for inservice i.

. testing in a separate paragraph. For IST of pumps and valves, the regulation, through its incorporation by reference of the 1989 Edition of Section XI, endorsed Part 1,

• Requirements for Inservice Performance Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Pressure Relief Devices," Part 6, ainservice Testing of Pumps in LigM-Water Reactor Power Plants," and Part 10, nservice

}

Testing of Valves in Light Water Reactor Power Plants," of ASME/ ANSI OMa-1989 to

j. ASME/ ANSI OM 1987, i

On August 8,1996 (61 FR 41303), the NRC published a final rule in the Federal Register to amend 10 CFR 50.55a to incorporate by reference for the first time ASME Section XI, Division 1

' Subsection IWE," Requirements for Class MC and Metallic Liners of Class CC Components of Light Water Cooled Power Plants," and Subsection IWL, " Requirements for Class CC Conc Components of Light Water Cooled Poww Plants." Subsection IWE provides criteria for visua

Inspection of the surface of metal containments, the steelliners of concrete containments, I

pressure-retaining bolts, and seals and gaskets. Subsection lWL provides criteria for vis

- inspection of concrete pressure-retaining shells, shell componsnts, and for the examinati l unbonded post tensioning systems.

4-l The consensus procer.s, as administered by the American National Standards Institute y.

(ANSI), ensures that the various techn!cel interests (e.g., utility, manufacturing, insurance, regulatory) are represented on standards development committees and that their viewpo

$ addressed fairty. The standards writing process promotes the development of, among other i

4 7

E

- .a , , , - ,

e 4

things, improved methods for the construction, inservice inspection (ISI) of ASME Class 1,2, 3, 1-

MC (metal containment) and CC (concrete containment) nuclear power p' ant components, and i inservice testing (IST) of A3ME Class 1,2, and 3 safety related pumps and valves.

4 Summary of Proposed Revisions to $ 50.55a l

The revisions to 5 50.55a which would result from adoption of the 1995 Edition through the 1996 Addenda have been divided into four groups (i.e., Gensral, Section Ill,Section XI, and OM

Code). A discussion of the proposed revisions, which includes limitations and modifications to i

Code provisions, for each grouping is provided below.

) General

~

This section addresses two limitations on the use of ASME Code provisions. The first -

i limitation would apply to implementation of Section lil and Section XI of the ASME BPV Code, 1

and the second limitation would apply to uplementation of Section lit and Section XI as well as -

the ASME OM Code it should be noted that there are additionallimitations on the use of

) Section ll1 and Section XI, and they are discussed atter this section. Those limitations, however, j apply to either Section ill or Section XI and not to both. The first limitation would address an j- NRC position with regard to the Foreword in the 1992 Addenda through the 1996 Addenda of the

BPV Code. That Foreword addresses the use of " engineering judgement" for construction and 161 activities not specifically considered by the Code Proposed paragraphs 50.55a(b)(1)(i) and 3

4 50.55a(b)(2)(xi) would require that when s' licensee relies on engineering judgement for activities

[ or evaluations of components or systems within the scope of 9 50.55a that are not directly -

)

i i 8

-, .. ., l i

l l

l addressed by the BPV Code, the licensee must receive NRC approval for those activities or - '

evaluations pursuant t 50.55a(a)(3).

9 The second limitation pertains to the use of NQA 1, " Quality Assurance Requirements for

Nuclear Facilhies," with Section lil, Sechon XI, and the OM Code. Section lil,Section XI, and the -

OM Code reference NQA-1 as part of their individual requirements for a quality assurance

' piogram. Section lli integrates portions of NQA 1 into the quality assurance program defined in

. NCA-4000, " Quality Assurance," whereas,Section XI and the OM Code provide for_ NQA-1 to be used as the basis for an Owner's quality assurance program. At present, $ 50.55a endorses the.

.1989 Eddion of the ASME Code which references NQA 1 1996 for Section lli and NQA-1-1979

+

for Section XI and the OM Code. The 1996 Addenda of the ASME Code references NQA-1 1992

. for Section Ill, NQA 1-1969 for Section XI, and NQA-1-1979 for the OM Code.

The NRC staff has reviewed the requirements of NQA-1,1986 Addenda through the 1992 Addenda, that are part of the incorporation by reference of Section Ill,Section XI, and the OM -

, Code, and has determined that the noted versions are acceptable for use in the context of (1) Section 111 activities, provided that the edition and addenda of NQA 1 specified by NCA-4000 '

i of Section ill is used in conjunction with the administrative, quality, and technical provisions contained in the edition of Section til being utilized, and (2)Section XI and OM Cods activities, as L permitted by IWA-1400 and ISTA 1.4, respectively, provided the licensee utilizes its 10 CFR Part -

50, Appendix B, quality assurance program in conjunction with Section XI and the OM Code.

- Commitments contained in the licensees quality assurance program description that are more stringent than those contained in NQA-1 shall govem Section XI activities. Further, where NQA-1 and Section XI or the OM Code do not address the commitments cetained in the licensee's Appendix B quality assurance program description, such commitments shall be

! 9 4

- --- r,, i-. - .. . _ , , . ., m _

applied to Section XI and OM Code activities. Proposed $ 50.55a(b)(1)(v) contal.is the limitation on the use of NQA 1 related to Section Ill. Proposed $ 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) and $ 50.55a(b)(3)(iv),

respectiveh, reiterate licensee's commitments related to See: tion XI and to the OM Code.

Section 111 The NRC staff has reviewed the 1989 Addenda,1990 Addenda,1991 Addenda,1992 Edition,1992 Addenda,1993 Addenda,1994 Addenda,1995 Edition, and 1996 Addenda of Section lil, Division 1, for Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 components, and has determined that they are acceptable for voluntary use with four limitations.

The first proposed limitation that applies only to Section lli pertains to a reference to Section 11, " Materials," Pari D, " Properties." Section ll, Part D, contained many printing errors in the 1992 Edition. These errors were corrected in the 1992 Addenda. Proposed $ 50.55a(b)(1)(ii) would require that Section 11,1992 Addenda, be applied when using the 1992 Edition of Section 111. The limitation is necessary to ensure that users of the Code use the design stresses intended by the ASME Code.

The second proposed limitation applyi.'g only to Section 111 would prohibit licensees from '

using subparagraph NCA-4134.10(a), " Inspection," in the 1995 Edition through the 1996 Addenda Prior to this edition and addenda, NCA 4134.10(a) required that the provisions of NQA-1, " Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Nuclear Facilities," Basic Requirement 10,

" Inspection," and Supplement 10S-1, " Supplementary Requirements for inspection," be utilized without exception. In the 1995 Edition, NCA-4134.10(a) was modified so that paragraph 2 of Supplement 10S-1 and the requirements for independence of inspection were no longer requised.

10

=

Supplement 10S 1,2.1, states that

• Inspection Personnel shall not report directly te the

. immediate supervisors who are responsible for performing the work being inspected."

Subparagraph 2.2 etates "Each person who verifies conformance of work activities for purpose

' of acceptance shall be qualified to perform the assigned task." By exempting Supplement paragrt.ph 2 from the requirements of NCA-4134.10, Section ill could promote noncomp with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B,

• Quality Assurance Criteria for No.' ear Power Plants and Fuel

' Reprocessing Plants," Criterion 1, " organization." This criterion muires that persons quality assurance functions to report to a management level such that authority and 1

organizational freedom, including sufficient indspendence from cost and schedule wh

- to safety considerations, are provided. Proposed $ 50.55a(b)(1)(v)(A) would require license implement NCA-4134.10(a),1994 Edition with the 1994 Addenda in lieu of the 1995 E the 1996 Addenda.

The third proposed limitation that applies only to Section 111 pertains to new requirem piping design evaluation contained in the 1994 Addenda through the 1996 Adden '

Code. The NRC staff has determined that changes to subarticles NB-3200," Design by A NS 3600, " Piping Design," NC 3600," Piping Design," and NO 3600, " Piping Design," o

' ill for Class 1,2, and 3 piping design evaluation for reversing dynamic loads (e.g., earthq and other similar type dynamic loads which cycle about a mean value) are unacceptable.

new requirements no longer require that piping system stresses due to reversing dyn meet the BPV Code primary stress limits; rather, tha new requirements are based on

' that loads such as earthquake loads are not capat 14 of producing collapse or gross a component. Based on testing performed under sponsorship of the Electric pow Institute (EPRI) and the NRC, and the evaluations then pe< formed by General E

/

does not consider the changes acceptable at this time. The ASME has established a s 11

'T 4

,, , , . - ,_ , ,,. . - - - - _. . -.g

o -

l 3

working group to reevaluate the bases for the

eismic design for piping. Thus, for articles NS 3200, NS 3600, NC-3600, and ND 3600, 9 50.55a(b)(1)(lv) would require licensees tu continue to use the requirements contained in Section ill,1989 Edition of the BPV Code.

f The fourth limitation provided in f 50.55a(b'(1)(iii) ) would correct a conflict in the design and .

_ construction requirements in Subsection NB (Class 1 Componenb), Subsection NC (Class 2),

and Subsection ND (Class 3) of Section 111,1983 Addenda through the 1996 Addenda of the BPV Code Two equahns in NS 3683.4(c)(1), Footnote 11 to Figure NC 3673.2(b)-1, and Figure ND 3673.2(b)-1 were modified in the 198g Addenda and are no longer in agreeraent with Figures NS 44271, NC-44271, and ND 4427-1. This change results in a different weld leg dimension

. depending on whether the dimension is derived from the text or calculated from the figures, 1

, Thus, to ensure consistency, proposed 5 50.55a(b)(1)(iii) would require that licensees use the 1989 Edition for the above referenced paMgraphs and figures in lieu of the 1989 Addenda through the 1996 Addenda.

9 L Section XI i;

J The proposed rule would require that licensees implement the 1995 Edition through the

, 19g6 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1, for Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, Class MC, and Class CC -

components, as well as expedite implementation of Appendix Vill, " Performance Demonstration for Ultrasonic Examination Systems.' The proposed rulemaking specifies three limitations that apply only to the use of Section XI They will be discussed later in this section.

- The proposed rule would expedite implementation of mandatory Appendix Vill to Section XI.

This append!x provides the requirements for penormance demonstration for ultrasonic test %

J 12 e

i

(UT) procedures, equipment, and personnel used to detect flaws and size flaws. Its requirements are applicable to all UT performed for Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, and Class MC components. The NRC staff has reviewed the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda of Appendix Vill and has determined that the provisions contained in this appendix are acceptable subject to modification. This mandatory appendix, would normally be adopted as part of the routine 120-month update specified in $ 50.53a(g)(4). Because of the importance of the Appendix Vill program, the NRC staff has determined that its requirements should be implemented within six months of the date of the final rule. The performanca demonstration requirements in /,,pendix Vill would substantially improve the ability of an examiner to detect and characterize flawr, in examined components. The industry's Perfonnance Demonstration initiative (PDI) established a process in accordance with Appendix Vill for reactor vessel, nozzle, piping, and botting d'

examinations. Proposed peregeph 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(C,)(1) would require licensees to utilize the improved requirements in Appendix Vill for all examinations of reactor vessels (including nozzles), piping, and bolting performed within six months of the date of the final rule.

l Appendix Vill requires ultrasonic examination personnel to meet the requirements of Appendix Vil, " Qualification of Non(estructive Examination Personnel for Ultrasonic l

Examination," of Section XI. Appendix Vil first appeared in Section XI in the 1988 Addenda and g;u t cou o u t, hekeel e n A ed G,1992.j was incorporated by reference into $ 50.55a in a previous (57 FR 34606).

Licensees would have implemented the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda of Appendix Vil during the routine 120-month inservice inspection interval update regardless of the action to >

endorse Appendix Vlil. The NRC staff believes that the requirement in Appendix Vil4240 for personnel to receive a 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 annual basis is inadequate.

Proposed 3 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(C)(1) would require that personnel qualified for performing ultrasonic examinations in accordance with Appendix Vill receive 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of annual training which includes 13

a ,-

laboratory work and examination of flawed specimens. Signals can be difficult to interpret, and the examinst mus,t preciice on a frequent basis to maintain the capobility for proper

.interprstation. As detailed in the regulatory analysis for this rulemaking, experience and stud

- have shown that this capability begins to diminish within approximately six months if skills me no -

h 4

maintainsd. The NRC staff believes that a minimum of 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of annual training, not 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />, i

!. it, required to maintain an exammer's abilities in this highly specialized skill area, a

f Appendix Vill is intenud to apply to all UT being performed; i.e., reactor vmel, piping, an 9

. botting. Thus, proposed p)hevepit50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A)($) would require licensees to utiliz i Appendix Vill when implementing the augmented inservice inspection program for reac 1

shell welds presently required by $ 50.55a(g)(6)(li)(A). Licensees would be required to l

o implement the appendix for those examinations performed six months after the effective the rule.

j ,

Proposed $ 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(C)(2) would require that all flaws in the specimen sets use p

performance demonstration for pining, vessels, and nozzles be cracks. For p; ping, A requires that all of the flaws in a specimen set be cracks. However *or vessels and nozz Appendix VIII would allow as many as 50% of the flaws to be notches. For the purpos l

demonstrating NDE capabilities, notches are not realisitic representations of service inducea cracks. An inspector cannot property interpret service induced cracks by qualifying with specimens containing notches. Notches are easier to detect than flaws because notch l in fact, higher amplitude and simpler signal characteristice. Notches are easier to interp the probablility of detecting notches can be much higher than detection of cracks und l  % +-

(

conditions. In addition, Appendix Vill is a screening test quses a relatively small sample

%V are unreWistic, the size containing few flaws. If some of the flaws are rep; aced by notches 1-14

]

f i

j .

screening test becomes ineffective. Because of these considerations, the flaws in the specimen sets utillred by EPRI for the PDi were all cracks. The regulatory analysis for this rulemaking l contains a detailed discussion of the importance of using cracks in the specimens.

4

Pr? posed $ 50.5$a(b)(2)(xii) would require that when a plant which has a low temperature overpressure protection (LTOP) system implements the Section XI 1995 Edition with the 1996 j

Addenda, that Section XI Appendix G, 'Frecture Toughness Criteria for Protection Against

)

I Failure,' contained therein, also be implemented. The HRC staff has determined that in L

j establishing the set point for the LTOP systems, the requirements contairmd in the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda are acceptable. Because Part 50, Appendix G, references the ASME Code for fracture toughness requirements, the utilization of the revised Appendix G of Section XI would mean that an exemption fro" ihe requirements of Part 50, Appendix G, is no longer -

i requered to change the LTOP relief valve set point.

i, j Proposed $ 50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) would incorpointe a limitation on the implemeritation of 1

Section XI IWB 1220, ' Components Exempt from Emmination,' to require licensees to use the

! ~ rules for IW51220 that are contained in the 1989 Edition in lieu of the rules in the 1989 Addenda

! through the 1996 Addenda. These later Code addenda contains provielons of Code Cases i

N 1981, ' Exemption from Examination for ASME Class 1 and Class 2 Piping Located at Containment Penstrations,' N 322, ' Examination Requirements for Integrelly Welded or Forged Attachments to Class 1 Piping at Containment Penetrations,' and N-324,' Examination i

Requirements for integralty Welded or Forged Attachments to Class 2 Piping at Containment

- Penetrations," which were found to be unacceptable. Because these Code cases were

. determined to be unacceptable, they wera not endorsed in Regulatory Guide 1.147, ' inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability ASME Section XI, Division 1.* The provisions of Code 1

15 1

s I

wr

• w ~y w w r-"-'t-t-W vi --*vr -ey--,- , m-m ,- - - - - - . , - w v- we-r - e,+-e- - e --w m yw w w - yn - we y gww t v w---+i-e-Te-r un+e

. i Case N 1981 were determined to be unacceptable because industry experience has shown that t

wolds in servksensitive BWR stainless steel piping, many of which are located in Containment I

Penetrations, which are subjected to an aggressive environment (BWR water at reactor

! operating temperatures) will experience intorgranular J *ess Corrosion Cracking Exempting

, these welds from examination could result in conditions which reduce the required margins to i

lailure to unsoceptable levels. The provisions of Code Cases N 322 and N 324 were determined

to be unsoceptable because of the lenitations on areas to be inspected. The Code has j exempted some areas from examination t,0cause of access difficulties, but the NRC staff developed the break exclusion zone design and examination critoria utilized for most containment penetration piping expecting not only that Section XI inspections would be performed but that I

augmented inspections 2 xld be performed. These design and examination criteria are contained in Branch Technical Poshion MEB 31, an attachment of NRC Stankti Review Plan 3.6.2, " Determination of Rupture Locations and Dynamic Effects Associated with the Postulated Rupture of Piping."

Proposed $ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) wouH incorporate a limitation on the implementation of  !

Section XI lWC-1220, " Components Exempt from Examination," 1989 Addends through the 1996 Addendac Subparagraph IWC-1220 contains rules for determining which Class 2 components are not subject to volumetric and surface examination in order to ensure that safety significant cemponents in the Residual Heat Removal, Emergency Core Cooling, and Containment Heat Removal systems are not exempted from appropriate examination requirements, the NRC staff 1 has determined that the requirements contained in lWC-1220,1989 Addenda through the 1996 Addenda, may be used if the applicant for en operating license defines the Class 2 piping subject to volumetric and surface examination in the Preservice Inspection, ano submits the exarnination information to NRC for approval.

16 i.

Many of the provisions in Sectic-) XI Subsection lWL, 'Requirem'.rd Jr Class CC Concrete Components of Light Water Cooled Power Plants,' pertaining to the inspection of the tendons of concrete containmer'ts were based on guidance contained in Regulatory Guide 1.35, ' inservice inspection of Ungrouted Tendons in Prostressed Concrete Containments.' The Anal rule published on August 8,1996 (61 FR 41303) endorsed the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda of Subsection lWL There were several key positions in the regulatory guide addressing the trending of prostress losses, unanticipated tendon elongation, grease leakage, and excessive water in the sampled sheathing Aller grease that were not contained in the 1992 Edition or 1992 i

Addenda because the ASME had not yet completed consideration of t positions. Due to the importance of these positions, the final rule addressed them in&aragraph(50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(A) through 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(D)(3). In addition, the final rule contained $ 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(E) which addressed an NRC concem regarding the occurrence of degradation in inaccessible areas of concrete containments. Since publication of the 1992 Addenda, most of the regulatory guido positions have been incorporated l'.to subsequent edition and addenda (grease leakage and degradation in inaccessible areas are not addressed in Subsection IWL). The NRC staff has determined that the Code requirements are acceptable. Normally, the latest versions of Subsection IWL (as well as Subsection IWE) would be incorporated by reference through the 1996 Addenda, and the modifications contained in the 1992 rule would be deleted. However, some licensees have already begun development of a containment inspection program based on the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda as modified by $ 50.55a to comply with the required 5 year implementation period. By the time this rule becomes final, some of these licensees will have completed development and initiated containment inspections. Other licensees have indicated that they will seek to utilize later versions of Subsection IWE and Subsection IWL as parmitted under l 50.55a(a)(3). Thus, $50.55a(b)(2)(vi) has been modifed. During this 5 year

. implementation period, licensees can choose to implement the 1992 Edition with the 1992 17

Addenda as presently required by $ 50.55a, or licensees will be able to implement the 1995 Edition w6th the 1996 Addenda.

For those licensees implementing the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda, the initial examinations performed during the 5 year implementation period are to be, per I 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(3)(1), those Subsection lWE examinations which would be performed during the Arst period of the Arst inspection interval. (Since Subsection lWL is based on a 5 year schedule, per6ods do not apply for the examination of concrete containments and their post.

tensioning systems). With completion of the initial examinations, licensees would mwe into the i

second per6od of the Arst interval. The end of the third period would complete the first inspection interval, and licenseees would begin the second inspection interval. -Thie transition between the Arst and second intervals would require a 120 month inspection interval update, and licensees would be required to implement the 1935 Edition with the 1996 Addenda.

F; ,1 ute ebmb'd **9 Due to the need for Sexit@ty during 15e implementation period of ugust 8,1 e -M,0:M: 50.55a(b)(2)(ix) has also been modified. Lloonsees implementing Subsection IWL, 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda, must implement all of the modifications contained in

%t p

$ 50.55a(b)(2)(ix). Those licenbees greceive NRC approval to implement Subsection lWL,

- 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda, must implement $ 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(A), which addresses ';~,.

o grease leakage and deformation of grease caps, l 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(D)(3). which addresses

[

grease leakaga from tendon ducts into the concrete, and $ 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(E), which addresses the occurrence of degradation in inaccessible areas, in addition to the requirements contained in Subsection IWL.

18

.. o

, .l ,

a l As licensees have begun developing their containment ISI programs, the staff has received requests to clartfy the impiemontation schedule for ISI of concrete containments and their post tens 6oning systems. The wording of $ 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(B)(2) to implement the /nservice i examinations which cones.oond to the number of peers of operation which are specMed in Subsection /WL has created confusion regarding whether the first examination of concrete is 4

l required to meet the examination schedule in Section XI, Subsection IWL, lWL 2410, or may be l performed at any time between September 9,1996 and September 9,2001. Per the final rulemaking, the first examination of concrete may be performed at any time b ...sen 1

i September 9,1996, and September 9,2001, and there is no tie to Subsection IWL.2410 or the j

Structural Integrity Test (SIT). The purpose of the italicized words is to maintain the present j 6 year schedule for examination of the post tensioning system as operating plants transition to Subsection lWL. For operating reactors, there is no need to repeat the 1,3, 5 year implomontation cycle. Section 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(B)(2) also stated that the first examination

performed shall serve the same purpose for operating plants as the preservice examination specified for plants not yet in operation. The effected plants are presently operating, but they will i

i be performing the examination of concrete under Subsection lWL for the first time. Because the i

plants are operating, a Section XI preservice examination cannot be performed. Therefore, the .

first concrete examination is to be an inservice examination which will serve as the baseline (the ,

same purpose for operating plants as the preservice examination specified for plants not yet in

! operation) Likewise, examinations of the post tensioning system at the n' year (e.g., the 15th year post tensioning system examination), if performed to the requirements of Subsection lWL, are to be performed to the ISI requirements, not the preservice requirements.

The NRC staff has also been requested to clarify the schedule for future examinations of i

i concrete and their post tensioning systems at both operating and new plants. There is no 19

requirement in Subsection IWL to perform the examination of the concrete and the examination of the poat tensioning system at the same time. The examination of the concrete and the liner plates of concrete containments (per Subsection lWE) may be performed at any time during the 5 year expedited implementation. This examination of the concrete and liner plate provides the baseline. Coordination of these schedules in future examinations is left to each licensee. The examinations pr %yM during the 5 year expedited implementation correspond to the 9xaminations of th6 rnt t.ortod of the Arst interval. The completion of these examinations si9nifies the be9 3r-ing of the second period of the first interval. New plants would be required to follow all of the provisions contained in Subsection lWL, i.e., satisfy tt.4 preservice examination l requirements and adopt the 1,3,6 year examination schedule 181 schedule.

OM Code The proposed amendment to i 50.55a(f)(4) would require that IST of pumps and valves be performed in accordance with the ASME

• Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants'(OM Code 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda), with certain modifications. A proposed new section, l 50.55a(b)(3), would specify the editions and addenda of the OM Code that have been incorporated by reference into $ 50.55a. In addition, the proposed amendment would delete the modification for containment isolation valve IST that applied to the 1989 Edition of the BPV Code, in 1990, the ASME published the initial edition of the OM Code which provides rules for IST of pumps and valves. The requirements contained in the 1990 Edition were identical to the requirements contained in the 1989 Edition of Section XI Subsections IWP (pumps) and IWV

_(valves) previously incorporited by reference in.v i_50.55a (57 FR 34666). The ASME 1990 20

Edition of the OM Code consists of one section (Section IST) entitled ' Rules for Inservice Testing of Light Water Reactor Power Plants.* This section is divided into four subsections, ISTA,

• General Requirements,' ISTS,

• inservice Testing of Pumps in Light Water Reactor Power Plants,' ISTC, ' inservice Testing of Valves in Light Water Reactor Power Plants,' and ISTD,

• Examination and Performanos Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Dynamic Restraints (Snubbers).*

The IST of snubbers is govemed by plant technical specifications, and thus, has never been included in $ 50.55s. Thorofore, this proposed rule would only requ!re implementation of Subsections ISTA, ISTB, and ISTC. Licensees may implement subsection ISTD of the 1996 Addenda by processing a change to their technical specifications. The ASME Board on Nuclear Codes and Standards has transferred responsibility for rules on IST from Section XI to the OM Committee. As such, the Section XI rules for inservice testing of pumps and valves that are presently incorporated by reference into NRC regulations are no longer being updated by Section XI. Therefore, the NRC views the OM Code as a necessary replacement for the Sect;on XI reference in i 50.55a goveming the inservice testing of pumps and valves.

The existing $$ 50.55a(f)(1) and (f)(2) have been interpreted by some licensees to mean i

that all safety related pumps and valves regardless of ASME Code Class (or equivalent) were to be included in the IST program. The NRC staff proposes to modify these paragraphs to clarify that the provisions of 6 50.55a(f)(1) and (f)(2) apply only to ASME Class 1, Class 2, or Class 3 pumps and valves in steam, water, and liquid radioactive waste systems that perform a function in either shutting down the reactor, maintaining the reactor in a safe shutdown condition, in mitigating the consequences of an accident, or in providing overpressure protection for such systems.

21

Proposed $ 50.55a(b)(3)(l) would require that the stroke time testing requ.irement of Subsection ISTC of the OM Code applicable for motor operated valves (MOVs) be supplemented with programs that licensees have previously committed to perform, prior to issuance of this amendment to 5 50.55a for demonstrating the design basis capability of MOVs. Stroke time testing of MOVs has been specified in ASME 6ection XI and is currently required by 9 50.55a(f).

This some testing is required by the OM Code. Such testing consists of stroking Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 valves open and closed, usually withou' fluid pressure or 0,ow in the lines, and measuring stroke timt This testing is a useful tool and complements other tests used to verify MOV function. Variation in measured stroke times can indicate valve degradation.

Additionally, periodic stroMng provides valve exercise and some measure of on-demand reliability.Section XI and the OM Code require corrective action if an MOV does not exhibit its required change of disk position. However, as dircussed in NRC Generic Letter (GL) 8910

• Safety Related Motor-operated Valve Testing and Surveillance" dated June 28,198g, it is now recognized that the stroke time testing alone is not sufficient to provide assurance of MOV capability under design basis conditions, l

l l

Subsequent to licensees implementing programs pursuant to GL 8g 10, the NRC issued Generic Letter 96-05," Periodic Verification of Design-Basis capability of Safety Related Motor operated Valves,* on September 18,1996. This generic letter requested licensees to establish a program, or to ensure the effectiveness of their current program, to verify on a periodic basis that safety-related motor operated valves continue to be capable of performing their safety functicns within the carent licensing bases of the facility. Prior to issuance of this rule, licensees have maos licensing committments pursuant to GL 96-05 that have been reviewed by the NRC staff. Proposed $ 50.55a(b)(3)(i) would require that licensees supplement

__ the stroke time testing requirements of the OM Codo with these commitments.

22

. _a

An altemative to the provisions contained in $ 50.55a(b)(3)(i) is included in proposed

$ 50.55s(b)(3)(ii) which approves voluntary implementation of ASME Code Case OMN 1,

'Altemative Rules for Preservice and inservice Testing of Certain Electric Motor Operated Valve Assemblies in LWR Power Plants,' subject in one modification. The NRC staff has determined that for motor-operated valves, Code Case OMN 1 is acceptable in lieu of Subsection ISTC, except for leakage rate testing (ISTC 4.3) which must continue to be performed. The NRC indicated, in Attachment 1 to GL 96-05, that ASME OM Code Case OMN 1 meets the intent of the genonc letter, with certain limitations which were discussed in the generic letter. O e of these limitations on the use of OMN 1 has been added to the rule as a modification in l 50.55a(b)(3)(ii)(A). Thus, Code case OMN 1 is acceptable in lieu of Subsection ISTC, other than leakage rate testing requirements, with the modification.

The modifk. i 50.55a(b)(3)(ii)(A), to the implementation of Code case OMN 1 would be that five years or ti, o refueling outages (whichever is longer) from initial implementation of Code Case OMN 1, the adequacy of the test intervail for each valve must be evaluated and i

adjusted as necessary. The modification is added as it relates to the original rs:ommendation "j' of GL 8910 which stated that licensees should p6rbdically verify Mo'/ capability every five years

, or three refueling outages. The NRC staff supports the OMN-1 maximum test interval of 10 years based on current knowledge and experience. However, the NRC staff believes it prudent to require that licensees evaluate information obtained during the first five-year or three refueling outage time period to va!idate assumptions made in justifying a longer test interval.

In addition, as noted in GL 96 05, licensees are cautioned when implementing Code Case OMN 1 that the benefits of performing a particular test should be balanced against the potential adverse effects placed on the valves or systems during testing Code Case OMN-1 specifes -

23

that an IST proptom should consist of a mixture of static and dynamic testing. While there may be benefits to performing dynamic testing, there are also potential detriments to its use (i.e.,

- valve damage). Licensees should be cognizant of this for each MOV when selecting the appropriate method or combination of methods for the IST program.

Appendix II, " Check Valve Condition Monitoring Program,' to the OM Code contains an ahome.tive to the requirements of Subsection ISTC for condelioning monitoring. The OM Code requires that the rules in thi appendix become mandatory for those licensees choosing to implement the appendix. However, upon reviewing the appendix, the NRC staff has determined that some aspects of the rules in Appendix ll must be supplemented. The first area that the NRC staff has concluded requires supplemental provisions is the demonstration of ecceptable valve performance. Appendix ll requires no testing or examination of the check valve obturetor movement to both the open and closed positions. Testing or examination of the check valve obturator in one direction only cannot assure the unambiguous detection of a functionally degraded check valve. The valve obturator must be tested or examined in both the opening and closing directions to assess its condition and ace.aptable performance. Proposed I 50.55a(b)(3)(iii)(A) would require bi-directional testing of check valves.

Length of test intervalis the second area of Appendix 11 where the NRC staff believes the '

rules must be supplemented. Appendix 11 was first incorporated into the OM Code la the 1996 -

Addenda. Thus, a sufficient experience data base does not yet exist for this altemative condition monitoring concept. Under the current check valve IST program, most valves are tested quartetty during plant operation. The interval for certain valves has been exter.ded to refueling

. outages. Under the appendix, a licensee would be able to extend the interval without limit. A ptWicy of prudent and safe intervel ex'.orjsion dictates that any additional interval extension must 24

be limited to one fuel cycle, and this extension must be based on sufficient experience to justify the additional time, interval changes or extensions must be justified and limited within the existing performance and experience data base. Condition mor;toring and the current experience data base may qualify some valves for an initial extension to every other fuel cycle, while trending and evaluation of the data may dictate that the testing interval for some valves be reduced. Extensions of IST intervals must consider plant safety and be supported by trending and evalueting both generic and plant specific performance data to ensure that the component can reasonably be expected to be capable of performing its intended function over the entire IST interval. Proposed $ $$a(b)(3)(lii)(B) would limit the time between the initial test or examination and second test or examination to two fuel cycles or three years, with additional extensions i

liwted to one fuel cycle, and the total interval would be limited to a maximum of 10 years. An extension or reduction in the interval between tests or examinations would have to be supported by trending and evaluation of performance data.

The third area in Appendix 11 which would be supplemented is implementation of the attemetive condition monitoring program. The appendix is a voluntary altomative to the requirements of Subsection ISTC for conditioning monitoring. Should a licensee discontinue use of the altamative appendix, ISTC 4.5.5 requires retum to the requirements of ISTC 4.5.4, However, the staff believes the requirements of ISTC 4.5.1 through ISTC 4.5.4 must be met.

Hence, if the monitoring program is discontinued, proposed $ 50.55a(b)(3)(iii)(C) would require a licensee to implement the provisions of ISTC 4.5.1 through ISTC 4.5.4.

The proposed amendment would delete the existing modification specified in

$ 50.55a(b)(2)(vii) for IST of containment isolation valves (CIVs), which was added to the angulations in a rulemaking effective on August 6,1992 (57 FR 34686). That rulemaking 25

incorporated by refe:ence, amorig other things, the 198g Edition of ASME Section XI, Sub IWV that endorsed Part 10 of ASME/ ANSI OMa 1988 for vaive inservice testing. A modificati to the testing requirements of Part 10 related to CIVs was included in the rulemaking indicatin that paragraphs 4.2.2.3(e) and 4.2.2.3(f) of Part 10 were to be applied to CIVs. As noted

' Supplementary infwini# for the rulemaking, the ASME Operations and Maintenance (O Committee had initia;od ection to: (1) perform a comprehensive review of OM Part 10 CIV te requirements and acceptance standards; and (2) develop a basis document that would as a minimum, a documented basis for not including the requirements for ans)ysis of leakage

! roles and correctiva actions in Part 10 for those CIVs that do not provide a reacter coolant system pressure isolation function. The NRC staff was to reevaluate the need for the l

modification to Section XI, Subsection IWV, following review of this basis document. As a of the evaluation, the NRC staff has determined that the rWE% can be deleted without an adverse impact on the capability of the valves to perform their containment isolation function.

There are two items which did not result in a revision to $ 50.55a, but need to be discus to avoid possible confusbn. The first item is dynamic restraints or snubbers. The IST of snubbers is govemed by plant technical specifications, and thus, has nevet been included in 3 50.55a. Therefore, Subsection ISTD is not included in the proposed mandatory req of the rulemaking. However, the NRC stM has reviewed Subsection ISTD,1995 Edition wit 1996 Addenda, and has determined that the rules for inservice inspection of dynamic res (snubbers) are acceptable. Subsection ISTD,1996 Addenda, includes new provision service life monitoring of snubbers. The new provisions require that the service lives of s be predected and evaluated to ensure that the service life will not be exceeded befor scheduled refueling outage. These new provisions simply formalize preventative maintenance practices presently found in most plants. Because the IST of snchbers is govem6 26

O technical specifications, licensees may implement Subsection ISTD of the 1995 Edit 1996 Addenda, by processing a change to their technical specifications.

The second item portains to the NRC position on ASME Code Interpretations, which i contained h Part 9000, Technical Guidance, of the NRC Inspection Manual. The ASME interpretations to provide clarifications of specific provisions of the Code Requests interpretations are submitted by users of the Code, and responded to by Section XI Soiler and Pressure Vessel Committee. Generally, the NRC and the ASME agree to the meaning of the Code. The NRC incorporates by reference specific editions and a l

regulationsc The NRC has a certain understanding of the M when it incorpora reference into the regulations, interpretations are twcassarily issued subsequent to the specific editions and addenda to which they refer. While the NRC acknowledge ASME is the offlolalinterpreter of the Code, the regulations transcend the Code. Of pa concem are Code interpretations that may be issued following initiation of enforcem the NRC. Implorr.entation of an interpretation without spoolfic NRC approval could or be inconsistent with NRC requirements, a license condition, a technical specification, or NRC order, in addition, the Foreword of each Volume of ASME SPV Interpretations "Special Notice" in the Summary of changes issued with each Addenda to th clear that ASME rublished interpretations of Code requirements are not part of the Cod addenda.

Unlike previous revisions of 10 CFR 50.55a endorsing the ASME Code, this pr revision has taken an unacceptably long time to issue for public comment. The package would have endorsed the ASME Code through the 1992 Edition. A revision to 10 CFR 50.55a was being prepared, Entergy Operations, Inc., submi 27

continue use of earlier editions and addenda of the ASME Code rather than updating to a later edition as required by $ 50.55a. The submittel was viewed by the NRC staff as a Cost Beneficial Licensing Action (CBLA). As a resuN of the submittal, the rulemaking approach was 16 viewed as the NRC staff considered the issues associated with the CBLA request. Although the licensee ultimately withdrew the request and updated to the 1992 Edition, the NRC staff continued its consideration of integrating the elements of the CBLA request into the rulemaking. During this process, the scope of the proposed rule was revised to consider later editions and addenda -

throJoh the 1996 Aedenda.

The CBLA request was based upon consideration that the cost of performing sa update mey not have a commensurate increase in safety. The continued use of earlier editions and 1

addendra would have required the staff to approve an altemative to the provisionc c f I 50.55a for the mandatory 120 month update as currently required by $ $0.55a, or required a revision to l 50 55a to eliminate the requirement for a 120 month update. Several perspectives related to this request were considered by the NRC staff. Orie perspective was that the mandatory update resulted in increased licensee costs without a corresponding increase in safety. Another perspective was that, if the required 120 month updr.te was eliminated, only those provisions of

. later code editions and addenda involving substantial safety benefit would be required, and licensees should be allowed to voluntarily update their programs to later code editions and addenda. Yet another was that, whether updates were voluntary or mandatory, complete

- editions and addenda of the Code should be incorporated because (1) provisions of multiple Code sections are required for many activities, and (2) in many cases, relaxations in one portion of the Code may be a result of consensus agtsoment for increased requirements in other portions of the Code. As the staff continued its rsview of the issues related to the Entergy rvquest, various questions were identified related to revising $ 50.55a. These questions included 28

lesues such as potential diffeculties in implementation, the potentialimpact on safety if the mandatory update were eliminated, and the cost of updating to more current editions and addenda of the ASME Code, in addition, issues related to nuclear insurers, States, and-manufacturers use of the ASME Code were identified. i While the staff was reviewing these issues, two significant additional activities related to codes and standards occurred. One was the NRC Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining initWive which identified, among other things, the role of indi stry as a Directim Setting issue (DSI). This initletive was undertaken to identify and classify the issues that affect the basic l nature of NRC activities and the means by which this work is accomplished. For DSI 13, Role of i

lottastry, the issue was 'In performing its regulatory responsibilities, what consideration should NRC give to industry activities?' This issus paper stated 'To optimize the balance between reliance on industry measures and on Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) independent regulatory action to ensure safety and maintain the public trust, ni overall agency position should be considered regarding the credit that should be given to industry activities that contribute to the achievement of necessary safety objectives.' The existing interaction evolved absent an overall f explicit policy statement. Various options related to the role of industry in the regula, tory process are discussed in the issue' paper as well as the utilization of industry codes and standards. A copy of this paper may be obtained electronically at http://www.ntc. gov /NRC/ strategy.html. The Commission's decisions on this and other direction setting issues are being used to develop the NRC's Stratonic Plan.

For DSl 13, the Commission direct 6d the staff to develop guidance to describe the process and the general c'ocision criteria the NRC would use to increase its focus and emphasis on  ;

interacting with both industry groups and professional societies, and technical institutes to 9

2g L

-^ , t i

develop the new codes, standards, and guides needed to support efficien  !

l consistent performance of industry activities important to safety, These l r l '

guides would then be endorsed by the NRC, in addition, the staff w I

an implementation plan that addressed the need to streamline and sim  ;

l process for reviewing and endorsing codes and standards, r

l The second significard activNy was issuance of the revised Office of Ma f

(OMB) Circular A 1 3, ' Federal Participation in the Development and Us >

! The cittular provided policies on Federal use of private t

' Standards," on October 26,1993. l standards, and agency participation in voluntary standards bodies and sl l

' groups. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement l Act of 1 ,

1 signed into law on March 7,1996, The Act directs the National InstH l

(NIST) to coordinate with other fedeial agencies to achieve greater rel s

standards and conformity assessment bodies with lessened dependence on in regulationsi Consideration of these documents and their directiv ,

in further schedldly ueea,  ;

As the staff develops the action plan for D8113, defines activities to im Circular A 119, and addresses potentialinitiatives proposing further NR activities as an altomative for NRC regulatory activities, various Wu codes and standards will be evaluated and discussed with professio d

the public, and industry, These issues include the processes used t standards, the process to revise existing codes and standards to c changes as part of developing the change to the code or standar l t d to the

- or standardize the process for endorsing codos and standards, and other is i

30 i

==Wm+t--- *-re**, w- >p- ey -w m- -- ---s-,-- --wy- r-pe --e--my- -wese,--ww--gemwa--- '

..C ,

O utilization of codee and standards in the regulatory process, This proposed rulemaking does not include issues thal will be addressed or subsumed in ar"alties related to DSI 13, such as those related to the Entergy request. As the staff works with stakeholders to increase focus and emphasis on utilization of codes and standards, these issues will be addressed.

4 Finding of No signWicant Environmentalimpact l The Commission has determined, under the National Environmental Policy Act F 1969, as

amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if

! adopted, would not be a major Federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment and therefore an environmental impact statement is not required.

The proposed rule is one part of a regulatory framework directed to enuuring pressure 4

boundary integrity, and the operational reediness of pumps and valves. Therefore, in the general

sense, the proposed rule would have a positive impact on the environment. The proposed rule incorporates provisions contained in the BPV Code and the OM Code for the construction, inservice inspection, and inservice testing of components used in nuclear power plants.

4 The proposed rule would impose the Section XI 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda. As most of the technical changes to this edition / addenda merely incorporate improved technology and methodology, imposition of these requirements is not expected to either increase or decrease occupational exposure. However, imposition of paragraphs IWF 2510, Table IWF 25001, Examination Category F-A, and IWF 2430, would result in fewer supports being examined which would decrease the occupational exposure compared to present support inspection plans. It is estimated that an examiner receives approximately 100 millirems for every 31

j_ 25 supports examined. Adoption of the new provisions is expected to decrease the total number of supports to be examined by soproximately 115 per unit per interval. Thus, the reduction in

{-

occupational exposure is estimated to be 460 millirems por unit each inspection interval or 50.14 roms for 109 units.

, The proposed rule would impose Appendix Vill to Section XI,1995 Edition with the 1996

Addenda, SPV Code, for the first time and would expedNe he implementation. Appendix Vlli provides rules for the per*wmance demonstration of ultrasonic examination systems, procedures, 4 i and personnel, implementation of this appendix should result in a decrease in occupational exposure. Appendix Vill qualified procedures and personnel should reduce repeat uNresonic testing (UT), which could reduos occupational exposure. In addition, flaws should be detected at an seriier stage of 9towth resulting in less extensive repair operations, which could further reduce occupational exposure.

The proposed rule would incorporate by reference into the regulations the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda of the OM Code. Imposition of the OM Code is t.ot expected to either increase or doorosse occupational exposure, The types of testing associated with the 1995 ,

Edition with the 1996 Addenda of the OM Code are essentially the same as the OM standards

@ul .uk ,. ta n W A 3, s e ( , Mb contained in the 1989 Edition of Section XI referenced in a previous C.7.ic'(57 FR 34565).

I Actions required of applicants and licensees to implement the proposed rule are of the same nature that appilaants and licensees have been performing for many years. Therefore, this action should not increase the potential for a negative environmental impact.

32

- f

-,J..----,,-- -,.-...,.-_-.,-._,.,,-r ..- - , , _ -._ . - _ - , _ - - - - , . - ~ ~ . - . . . _ - , _ , _ - _ , , - - - _ . - _ _ - . - - . _ . -

e +' .

The NRC has sont a copy of the Environmental Assessinent and the proposed rule to every State Liaison Officer and requested their comments on the Environmental Assessment. The environmental assessment a )d finding of no sign g:ent impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection at the NRC ic Document Room,2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the environmental mesessment and the finding of no significant impact are available from Frank C. Chemy, Division of Engineering Technology, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone: 301415 6706.

Paperwoet Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the l

1 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule has been submitted to the Office of f.'.anagerrent and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements.

The public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average 50 person-hours por response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and complet:ng and reviewing the collection of information. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the information collections contained in the proposed rule 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?

33

,.t .

2. Is the estimate of burden accurate?

3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?

l

4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimited, including the use of '

i automated collection techniques?

Send comments on any aspect of this proposed collection of information, including suggestions for further reducing the burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (T 6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555 0001, or by Intemet electronic mail at BJSi@NRC. Gov; and to the Desk Office Omco of Information and Regulatory \

Affairs, NEOB.10202, (3150 0011), Omco of Management and Budget, Washington DC 20503.

Comments to OMB on the information collections or on the above issues should be submitted by (insort date 30 days after publication in the fadaral Ranister). Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurrence of consideration cannot be given to comments >ceived after this date.

Public Protection Notification The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a cunently valid OMB contiol number.

4 34

Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the attomatives considered by the Commission. The draft analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington DC. The Commission requests public comment on the draft analysis.

Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Frank C. Chemy, Division of Engineering Technology, Office of Nuclear Regulatcry Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC P0555-0001 Telephone: 301415 6786.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification l

In accortlance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U,0.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule will not, if promulagated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule affects onY 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 entitles" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

Backfit Analysis The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations,10 CFR 50.55a, requires that nuclear power plant owners (1) construct Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 components in accordance with the rules provided in Section 111, Division 1,

• Requirements for Construction of 35

Nuclear Power Plant Components," of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)

Bo:ler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPV Code), (2) inspect Class 1, Class 2. Class 3, Class MC (metal containment) and Class CC (concrete containment) components in accordance with the rules provided in Section XI, Division 1, ' Requirements for Inservice inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components,* of the BPV Code, and (3) test Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 pumps and valves in accordance with the rules provided in Section XI, Division 1. Licensees are required to update 'every 120 months to the version of Section XI incorporated by reference into $ 50.55a 12 months prior to the start of a new ten year interval.

(.

The proposed amendment tol>CFR 50.55a would require licensees to update 161 in accordance with Section XI of the ASME BPV Code and IST in accordance with the ASME OM Code. Licensees would be required to implement the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda of (1)

Section XI, Division i for Class 1, Class 2 Class 3, Class MC, and Class CC components; (2) the " Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants"(OM Code) for Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 pumps and valves; and (3) Appendix Vill,

• Performance Demonstration for Ultrasonic Examination Systems,' to Section XI, Division 1. As permitted by $ 50.55a(a)(3),

licensees may voluntarily update to the 1989 Adder da through the 1996 Addenda of Section lli of the BPV Code, with limitation. In addition, the modification for containrMnt isolatkn valve inservice testing that applied to the 1989 Edition of the BPV Code hu been (*I a. Licensees qqr e es e <Im will continue lo be required to updater every 120 months to the versioa of Secu , r and the OM Code incorporated by reference 12 months prior to the start of a new 120 month interval.

0 / l< a.rt Tne CSC position on the routine 120-month update to $ 50.55a has consistently been that 10 CFR 50.109 does not require a backfit analysis of the routine 120-month update to i 50.55a.

The rationale first appeared in the regulatory analysis for a final rule published in the Federal 36

.J

Register on June 26,1987 ($2 FR 24015). The regulatory anahsis stated that *lt is the opinion of the Office of the General Counsel that this amendment should not be subjected to the backfit provisions in 10 CFR $50.109. The rationale is that, (1) Section lil, Division 1, applies only to new construction (i.e., the edhion and addenda to be used in the construction of a plant are selected based upon the date of the construction permM and are not changed thereafter, except voluntar#y by the licensee, (2) licensees are fu#y aware that $ 50.55a requires that they update their inservice inspection program every 10 years to the latest edition and addenda of Section XI that were incorporated by reference in $ 50.55a 12 months before the start o"5e next inspection interval, and (3) endorsing and updating references to the ASME Code, a national consensus standard developed by the participants (including the NRC) with broad and varied interests, is consistent with both the intent and spirit of the backfit rule (i.e., NRC provides for the protection of the public heahh and safety, and does not unilaterally impose undue burden on applicants or licensees.'

It should be noted that imposition of the 1995 E'd ition with the 1996 Addenda of the OM Code would not be a backfit because the OM standards, Parts 1,6, and 10 of ASME/ ANSI OM-1987, that were incorporated into the OM Code were originally referenced in Subsections IWP and IWV of the 1989 Edition of Section XI and incorporated in the August 6,1992 rulemaking (57 FR 34666).

Appendix Vill, ' Performance Demonstration for Ultrasonic Examination Systems,' to Section XI would be used to demonstrate the qualification of personnel and procedures for performing nondestructive examination of wolds in components of systems that include the reactor coolant system and the emergency core cooling systems in nuclear power facilMies. In additinn, Appendix Vill would greatly enhance the reliability of detection and sizing of cracks and 37 I

flaws. Appendix Vill delineates a method for qualification of the personnel and procedures. The i appendix would normally be imposed by the 120 month update requirement, but because of its Importance, implementation of Appendix Vill is being expedited by the rulemaking. Because of the expedited implementation schedule, the imposition of Appendix Vill is being considered

subject to the provisions of the backfit rule. The NRC staff has concluded, on the basis of the  ;

G documented evaluation required by .10g(a)(4), that imposition of Appendix Vill, which

. would greath enhance the overalllevel of assurance of the safety and reliability of ultrasonic ,

examination tech. : ques in detecting and sizing flaws, is necessary to bring the facilities described into compliance with licenses or the rules and orders of the Commission, or into conformance with written commitments by the licensees. Therefore, a backfit anarysis is not required and the cost benefit standards of 50.109(a)(3) do not appy The basis for invoking the exception is that inspections are currenth require d by Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion IX, to be performed using qualified personnel and procedures. Evidence indicates that there are shortcomings in the qualifications of person'wl and procedures in ensuring the reliability of the I

examinations. A complete discussion is contained in the documented evaluation attached to the regulatory anahsis for this rulemaking.

List of Subjecta in 10 CFR Part 50 j Antitrust, Classified information, Fire protection, incorporation by reference, Intergovemmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, i

l 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,553, the 38 ,

i

. _ _ _ . . - . ._. ._. - ._. ._ ___. _ _ _ _ . ~ _ _ _ _ _ - .

NRC is proposin9 to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50.

PANT 80 - DOMESTIC LICENSING 4 E6F ktODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES

1. The authoriy cMation for Par 150 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs.102,103,104,105,181,182,183,186,180,68 Stat. 936,937,938, 948,953,954,955,956, as amended, sec. 234,83 Stat. 44, as amende1 (42 U.S.G. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amenowd, 202, 206, 88 Stat.1242, as amended, 1244,1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841,5842,5846).

y Section 50.7 also issued ender Pub. L.95-601, sec.10, 9R; Stat. 2951 ee =nd:I by Pd "-

d102-486, sec 2905,108 Stat. 3M42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs.

O 101,185,68 Stat.I93 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. 2133). 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) Gection 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 at. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also issued under sec.187, N 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

39

, 7, 5 5%,*t.; f *D%$ h>\ Es rk :l hr.t#Y M $Ifsw 7 6 50.8 information collection requirements: OM8 approval.

G' d W < h (b) The approved information collection requirements contained in this part appear in

$$50.30, 50.33, 50.33a, 50.34, 50.34a, 50.35, 50.36, 50.36a, 50.36b, 50.44, 50.46, 50.47, 50.48, 60.4g, 50.54, 50.55, 50.55a, 50.5g, Str.60, 50.61, 50.62, 50.63, 50.64, 50.65, 50.66, 50.71, 50.72, 50.74, 50.75, 50.60, 50.82, 50.g0, 50.g1, 50.120, and Appendices A, 8, E, G, H, I, J, K, M, N,0, Q, R, and 8 to this part.

4 * < < 'V cb

/.),50.55a is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(iii), (b)(1)(iv),

(b)(1)(v), (b)(1)(v)(A), (b)(2)(xi), (b)(2)(xii), (b)(2)(xiii), (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(2)(xv), (b)(3), (b)(3)(i),

(b)(3)(li), (b)(3)(l!)(A), (b)(3)(lii), (b)(3)(iii)(A), (b)(3)(iii)(8), (b)(3)(iii)(C), (f)(3)(iii)(8), (f)(3)(iv)(8),

(g)(6)(A)(6), (g)(C)(C)(1), and (g)(6)(C)(2), and revising paragraphs (b), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(2)(iv)(A),

(b)(2)(iv)(8), (b)(2)(vi), (b)(2)(viii), (b)(2)(ix), (e)(2), (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3)(iii)(A), (f)(3)(lv)(A), (f)(4),

(f)(5)(;l), (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3)(l), (g)(4), (g)(6)(ii)(A)(.1), (g)(6)(ii)(A)(2), (g)(6)(ii)(A)(A), Footnote 4, Footnote 5, and Footnote 7, and deleting the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2)(vii), (f)(3)(v),

(f)(4)(iv), (g)(3)(v), and (g)(4)(I.') as folle./s :

8 50.55a Coden and standards.

(b) The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, and the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nudear Power P! ants, which are referenced in the following paragraphs, were approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register, A notice of any changes made to the materialincorporated by reference will be published in the Federal 40

Register. Copies of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants may be purchased from the American l l

Society of Mechanical Engineers, United Engineering Center,345 East 47th Street, New York, l NY 10017. They are also available for inspection at the NRC Library, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852 2738. I (1) As used in this section, references to Section lil of the ASME Boiler and Pressure

- Vessel Code refer to Sectl: n ill, Division 1, and include addenda through the 1996 Addenda and ,

editions through the 1995 Edition subject to the following limitations and modifications:

(i) Enninaarina ludnament. When a licensee relies on engineering judgment for activities or evaluations of components or systems within the scope of 10 CFR 50.55a that are not directly addressed by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vesssi Code, the NRC must approve the activities or evaluations pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(s)(3).

(ii) Section til Materials. When implementing the 1992 Edition of Section lil, licensees must implement the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda of Section ll of the ASME Boiler and -

Pressure Vessel Code.

(iii) Wald leg dimensions. When implementing the 1989 Addenda through the 1996 Addenda of Section ill, licensees shall not implement paragraph NS 3683.4(c)(1), Figure NC-3673.2(b) 1, and Figure ND 3673.2(b) 1, and shall continue to use the requirements in the 1989 Edition for this paragraph and figures.

41

e ,

(iv) Salamic dealgn. When implementing the 1994 Addenda through the 1996 Addenda of Section Ill, licensees shall not implement Articles NS 3200, NS 3600, NC 3600, and ND 3600 and shall use the requirements in the 1993 Addenda for these Articles.

s (v) Quaktg assuranca. When implementing editions and addenda later than the 1989 Editioti of Section lil, the requirements of NQA 1,

• Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear 4

Facilities,' 1986 Edition through the 1992 Edition are acceptat;le for use provided that the edition and addenda of NQA 1 specified in NCA-4000 is used in corQunction with the administrative, quality, and technical provisions contained in the edition and addenda of Section lil being utilized.

(A) When implementing the 1995 Edition of Section 111, licensees shall implement NCA 4134.10(a),1994 Addenda. NCA 4134.10(a),1995 Edition through the 1996 Addenda shall not be implemented.

(2) As used in this section, references to Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure i

Vessel Code refer to Section XI, Division 1, and include addenda through the 1996 Addenda ana 4

editions through the 1995 Edition, subject to the following limitations and modifications:

(iv) Pressure-retalnina walda in ARME Code Clana 2 nielna (maa!Ma to Takke IWC-28i2Q or lWC-25201. Category C F) (A) Appropriate Code Class 2 pipe welds in Residual Heat Removal Systems, Emergency Core Cooling Systems, and Containment Heat Removal Systems, must be examined. When applying editions and addenda up to the 1983 Edition through the Summer 1983 Addenda of Section XI of the ASME Code, the extent of examination for these 42

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

systems must be determiaod by the requirements of paragreph IWC 1220 Table IWC-2520 Category C-F and C-G, and paragraph IWC 2411 in the 1974 Edition and Addenda through the Summer 1975 Addenda.

(B) For a nuclear power plant whose application for a construction permit was docketeo prior to July 1,1978, when applying editions and addenda up to the 1983 Edition through the Semmer 1983 Addenda of Section XI of the ASME Code, the extent of examination for Code Class 2 pipe welds may be determined by the requirements of paragraph IWC-1220, Table IWC-2520 Category C F and C-G and pareyaph IWC-2411 in the 1974 Eddion and Addenda through the Summer 1975 Addenda of Section XI of the ASME Code or other requirements the Commission may adopt, t

i l . . .

(vi) Effective edition and addenda of subsedian IWE and Subsection l'NL. 8tadlan XI, When performing containmerv. examinations, licensees shall ust versions of Subsection IWE and Subsect!on lWL no earlier than the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda as modifwd and

- supplemented by the requirements in $ 50.55a(b)(2)(ix) and $ 50.55a(b)(2)(x). Licensees may implement the complete Sut section IWE or Subsection IWL,1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda, before September 9,2001. Licensees implementing the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda shallirrp'ement the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda with completion of the first containment 120 month inspection interval.

(vii) [ Reserved) 43

(viii) Santion XlReferences to_QMRar1LOM ir,A jnd ou Part 9 (Table .

lWA 16001). When using Table IWA 16001,

• Referenced Standards and Specifications"in the Section XI, Division 1,1987 Addenda,1988 Addenda, or 1989 Edition, the specified " Revision Date or Indicator" for ASME/ ANSI OM Part 4, ASME/ ANSI Part 6, and ASME/ ANSI Part 10 shall be the OMa 1988 Addenda to the OM 1987 Edition. These requirements have been incorporated into the 1990 Edition of the OM Code which is incorporated by reference in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.

(ix) N7qtait.GQ0ialomania. Licensees implementing Subsection IWL, 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda, must implement the following modifications. Licensees choosing to implement the 1995 Edition with the 1996 A&Mda must implement (ix)(A),

(ix)(D)(3), and (ix)(E).

(xi) Engineenng Judgement When a licensee relies on engineering judgment for activities or evaluations of components or systems within the scope of 10 CFR 50.55a that are not directly addressed by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, the NRC must approve the activities or evaluations pursusnt to 10 CFR 50.55a(s)(3).

(xii) Low temoerature ovemressure orotection (LTOP). When implementing the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda, lionsees with plants having LTOP systems shallimplement the provisions of Appendix G," Fracture Toughness Criteria for Protection Against Failure."

44

)

,o- .

(xiii) Quality Assurance. When implementing Section XI editions and addenda later than the 1989 Edition, the requirements of NQA-1," Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facilities," 1979 Addenda throu9h the 1989 Edition are acceptable as permitted by IWA 1400 of Section XI, provided the licensee utilizes its 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, quality assurance i

program, in conjunction with Section XI requirements. Commitments contained in the licensee's quality assurance program description that are more stringent than t?nse contained in NQA-1 shall govem Section XI activities. Further, where NOA 1 and Section XI do not address the commitments contained in the licensee's Appendix B quality assurance progr...; description, such commitments shall be applied to Section XI activities, (xh') Class 1 ninina. Licensees shallimplement the requirements contained in

! IWB-1220, " Components Exempt from Examination," of the 1989 Edition in lieu of IWB-1220 in the 1989 Addenda through the 1996 Addenda.

(xv) Class 2 einMa. When implementing IWC-1220, ' Components Exempt from Examination," 1989 Addenda through the 1996 Addende, licensees must define the Class 2

- piping subject to volumetric and surface examination in the Preservice Inspection for determination of acceptability by the NRC staff.

(3) As used in this section, references to the OM Code refer to the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, and include addenda through the 1996 Addenda and editions through the 1995 Edition subject to the following limitations and modificatiora:

45 i L

s.~ .

(i) Licensees shall supplement the provisions on stroke time testing in OM Code ISTC 4.2,1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda, with programs developed under their licensing commitments for demonstrating design basis capability of motor operated valves.

(ii) In lieu of $ 50.55a(b)(3)(i), Code Case OMN 1, "Altemative Rules for Preservice and Inservice Testing of Certain Electric Operated Valve Assemblies in LWR Power Plants," Rev. O, may be used in conjunction w;th ISTC 4.3,1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda.

(A) The adequacy of the test interval for each valve shall be evaluated and adjusted as necessary but not later than five years or three refueling outages (whichever is longer) from initial implementation of ASME Code Case OMN-1.

(iii) The following limitatior and modifications apply when implementing Appandix II,

" Check Valve Condition Monitoring Program," of the OM Code,1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda:

l I

l (A) Valve opening and closing functions must be demonstrated when flow testing or examination methods (nonintrusive, or disassembly arsd inspection) are used; (B) The initialinterval for tests and associated examinations shall not exceed two fuel cycles or 3 years, whichever is longer; any extension of this interval shall not exceed one fuel cycle per extension with the maximum interval not to exceed 10 years; trending and evaluation of existing data shall be used to reduce or extend time interval between tests.

46 s .

t (C) If the Appendix ll condition monitoring program is discontinued, then the requirements of ISTC 4.5.1 through 4.5.4 shall be implemented.

(iv) Quality Assurance. When implementing editions and addenda of the OM Code,1990 and later, the requirements of NQA-1,

• Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facilities,"

1979 Addenda, are acceptable as permitted by ISTA 1.4 of the OM Code, provided the licensee utilizes its 10 CFR Part 50, Appundix B, quality assurance prJgram, in conjunction with the OM Code requirements. Commitments contained in the licersees quality assurance progr m description that are more stringent than those contained in NQA-1 shall govem OM Code activities. Further, whare NQA 1 and the OM Code do not address the commitments contained -

0 in the licensee's Appendix B quality assurance program description, such commitments shall be applied to OM Code activities.

l l

l . . .

(e)

(2) The Code Edition, Addenda, and optional Code Cases' to be applied to the systems and components identified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section must be determined by the rules of paragraph NCA-1140, Subsection NCA of Section 111 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, but (i) ino s Jition and addenda must be those which are incorporated by reference in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, (ii) the ASME Code provisions applied to the systems and components may be dated no earlier then the 1980 Edition, and (iii) the ASME Code Cases' must have been determined suitable for use by the NRC.

47

(f) inservice testina r=a"%ments. (1) For a boiling or pressurized water cooled nuclear power facility whose construction permit was issued prior to January 1,1971, pumps and valves must meet the test requirements of paragraphs (f)(4) and (f)(5) of this section to the extent practical. Pumps and valves which are part of the reactor coolant pressu o boundary must meet the requirements applicable to components wisch are classifed as ASME Code Class 1. Other steam , water , and liquid radioactive weste containing pumps and valves that perform a function in shutting down the reactor or maintaining the reactor in a safe shutdown condition, in mitigating the consequences of an addent, or in providing overpressure protection for such systems (in meeting the requirements of the 1986 Edition, or later, of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel or OM Code), must meet the test requirements applicable to components which are classifed as ASME -

Code Clan 2 or Class 3.

(2) For a boiling or pressurized water-cooled nuclear power facility whose construction permit was issued on or after January 1,1971, but before July 1,1974, pumps and valves which are classified as ASME Cods Class 1 and Class 2 must be designed and be provided with access to enable thJ performance of inservice tests for operational readiness set forth in editions of Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda'in effect six months prior to the date of issuance of the construction permit. '

(3)

(iii)(A) Pumps and valves, in facilities whose constru:: tion permit was issued before (insert effective date of the final rule), which are classified as ASME Code Class 1 must be designed and be provided with access to enable the performance of inservice testing of the pumps and valves for assessing operational readiness set forth in Section XI of editions of the 48

0 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda' applied to the construction of the particular pump or valve or the Summer 1973 Addenda, whichever is later, (B)- Pumps and valves, in facilities whose construction permit is issued on or after (inand aNedive data of the final rule), which are classified as ASME Coo class 1 must be designed and be provu$od with access to enable the performance of inservice testing of the pumps and

, valves for assessing operational readiness se' 'h in editions and addenda of the ASME OM I

Code referenced in paragrt.ph (b)(3) at the timi .e construction permit is issued.

(iv)(A) Pumps and valves, in facilities whose construction permit was issued before (insert effective data of rule), which are classified as ASME Code Class 2 and Class 3 must be 4

designed and be provided with access to enable the performance of inservice testing of the pumps and valves for assessing operational readiness set forth in Section XI of editions of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and Addends' applied to the construction of the particular pump or valve or the Summer 1973 Addenda, whichever is later.

(B) Pumps and valves, in facilities whose construction permit is issued on or after (inaan effective date of the final rule), which are classified as ASME Code Class 2 and 3 must be

~

designed and be provided with access to enable the performance of inservice testing of the pumps and valves for assessing operational reae.tess set forth in editions and addenda of the ASME OM Code referenced in paragraph (b)(3) at the time the construction permit is issued.

(v) [ Reserved) 49 l

(4) Throughout the service life of a boiling or pressurized water cooled nuclear power facility, pumps and valves which are required to be classified as ASME Code Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 must meet the inservko test requirements,3xcept design and access provisions, set forth in the ASME OM Code and addenda that become effective subsequent to editions and addenda specified in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this section and that are ineorporated by referenc'. ;.. paragraph (f) of this section, to the extent practical within the limitations of dvc, geometry snd materials of construction of the components.

(iv)[ Reserved)

(5)

(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 six months before the start  ?

of the period curing which the provisions become applicable, as determined by paragraph (f)(4) of this section.

(g) * *

• 50

(1) For a boiling er prpssurized water cooled nuclear power facility whose construction permit was issued prior to January 1,1971, components (including supports) must meet the requirements of paragraphs (g)(4) and (g)(5) of this section to the extent practical. Components which are part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and their supports must meet the requirements applicable to components which are classifed as ASME Code Class 1. Other steam , water , and liquid-radioactive weste containing pressure vessels, piping, pumps and valves, and their sup,wts, that provide pressure boundary integrity for riystems that perform a function in shutting down the reactor or maintaining the reactor in a safe shutdown condition, or in mitigating the consequences of an accident, must meet the requirements applicable to components which are classified as ASME Code Class 2 or Class 3.

(2) For a boiling or pressurized water-cooled nuclear power facility whose construction permit was issued on or after January 1,1971, but before July 1,1974, components (including supports' which are classified ast ASME Code Class 1 and Class 2 must be designed and be provided with access to enable the performance of inservice examination of stx:h components -

(including supports) and must meet the preservice examination requirements set forth in editions I

of Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda'in effect six months prior to the date of isscnce of the construction permit.

(3)

(i) Components (including supports) which are classified as ASME Code Class 1 must be designed and be provided with access to enable the performance of inservice examination of such components and must meet the preservice examination requirements set forth in Section XI 51

, j

of editions of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda5 applied to the conssruction of the particular component.

(iii)-(v)[ Reserved)

(4) Throughout the service life of a boiling or pressuri:.ed water cooled nuclear power (F

facility, components (including suppotts) which are required to be classified as ASME Code g

Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 must meet the requirements, except design and access provisions

. and preservice examination requirements, set forth in Section XI of editions of the ASME Boiler an' Nasure Vassel Code and Addenda that become effective subsequent to editions specified in , fragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of this section and that are incorporated by reference in paragraph l (b) of this section, to the extent proclical within the limitations of design, geometry and materials i

of construction of the components. Components which are classified as Class MC pressure retaining components and their integral attachments, and components which are classified as Class CC pressure retaining components and their integral attachments must meet the requirements, except design and access provisions and preservice examination requirements, set forth in Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and Addenda that are incorporated by reference in paragraph (b), subject to the limitation listed in paragraph (b)(2)(vi) i and the modifications listed paragraph (b)(2)(ix) and (b)(2)(x) of this section, to the extent practical within the limitation of design, geometry and materials of construction of the components.

52 m .

e-(iiiiv) [ Reserved)

(6)

(ii)

(A)(1) All previously granted reliefs under $ 50.55a to licensees for the extent of volumetric exam; nation of reactor vessel shell welds specified in item B1.10 of Examination Category B A," Pressure Retaining Welds in Reactor Vessel," .) Table IWB-2500-1 of Subsection IWB in applicable edition and addenda of Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, during the inservice inspection interval in effect on September 8,1992 are hereby revoked, subject to the specific modification in 6 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A)(3)(iv) for licensees i that defer the augmented examination in accordance with $ 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A)(3),

(2) Ali licensees shall augment their reactor vessel examination by implementing once, as part of the inservice inspection interval in effect on September 8,1992, the examination requirements for reactor vessel shell welds specified in item B1.10 of Examination Category B-A,

" Pressure Retaining Welds in Reactor Vessel,"in Table IWB-25001 of Subsection lWB of the 1989 Edition of Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, subject to the conditicns specified in $ 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A)(3) and (4). The augmented examination, when not deferred in accordance with the provisions of $ 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A)(3), shall be performed in accordance with the related procedures specified in the Section XI edition and addenda applicable to the inservice inspection interval in effect on September 8,1992, and may be used 53 l

l a

l

as a substitute for the reactor vessel shell weld examination scheduled for implementation during the inservice inspection interval in effect on Septwrnber 8,1992. For the purpose of this augmented examina' ion, " essentially 100%" as used in Table IWB-2500-1 means more than 90 percent of the examination volume of each weld, where the reduction in coverage is due to interference by another component, or part geometry.

g . . .

(y) Licensees with fewer than 40 months remaining in the inservice inspection !nterval in effect on September 8,1992 may extend that interval in accordance with the provisions of L

Section XI (1989 Edition) IWA-2430(d) for the purpose of implementing the augmanted examination during that interval.

(gi) The deferred augmented examination shall be performed in accordance with the related procedures specified in the Section XI edition and addenda applicable to the inspection interval in which the augmented examination is perfor:ilva.

(R) Augmented examinations of reactor vessel shell welds that are performed in accordance with $ 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A) after { insert six months from the date of the final rule) must be performed in accordance ' ith $ 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(C).

54 j

ee 9 .

e*

(C) Imoosition of lmolementation of M_lan XI. Anaandix Vill. " Performance Demonstration for Ultr==^nic Framin=% Systems". (1) All reactor vessel (including noules) ultrasonic examinations, all piping ultrasonic examinationsi and all bolting ultraf,onic examinations performed after finsert six moriths from the date of the final runei must be performed iri accordance with Appendix Vill of Section XI, Division 1.1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Personnel qualified for perfc.. ming ultrasonic examinations in accordance with Appendix Vill, Vill 2200 shall receive 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of ,

annual training that includes laboratory work and examination of flawed specimens.

I (2) All flaws in the specin.en sets used for performance demonstration f:r piping, vetseis, and noules shall be cracks.

(h) -

~d USAS and ASME Code addenda issued prior to the Winter 1977 Addenda are considered to be "in effect" or " effective" six months after their date of issuance and after they -

are incorporated by reference in paragraph (b) of this section. Addenda to the ASME Code issued after the Summer 1977 Addenda are considered to be "in effect" or " effective" after the des of publication of the addenda and after they are incorporated by reference in paragraph (b) of this section.

s For ASME Cnde Editions and Addenda issued prior to the Winter 1977 Addenda, the Code Edition and Addenda applicable to the component is govemed by the order or contract date 55 u

,. *e ' -

e l

for the component, not the contract date for the nuclear energy system. For the Winter 1977 addenda und subsequent editions and addenda the method for determining the applicable Code edt'>ns and addenda is contained in Paragraph NCA 1140 of Section til of the ASME Code.

7 For purposes of this regulation the proposed IEEE 279 became "in effect" on August 30, 1968, and the revised is'. ) IEEE-2791971 became "in effect" on June 3,1971. Copies may be I

obtained from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, United Engineering Center, 345 East 47th St., New Yo,k, NY 10017. Copies are available for inspection at the NRC Library, Two White Flint North,11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738.

Dated at this day of 19_

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

L. Joseph Callan / #

Executive Director for Operations.

e i

. . . . - -