ML20202C263
| ML20202C263 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/18/1997 |
| From: | Cyr K NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Morrison D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202C086 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-62FR63892, RULE-PR-50 AE26-1-013, AE26-1-13, NUDOCS 9802120205 | |
| Download: ML20202C263 (2) | |
Text
UNITCD STATES
'O((**to\ NUCLEAR RECULATCRY C MMISSEN CASHCoT!N. D.C. 20660-4001 A b 2 It ~-!
k March 18, 1997 ornet or TH GtNERAL CouNstL l
MEMORANDUM TO: David L. Morrison, Director '
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
FROM: Karen D. Cyr ' la General Couns , fo
SUBJECT:
APPLICABILITY OF BACKFIT RULE TO 10 CFR 50.55a This responds to your Memorandum of February 28,1997 requesting our office to reaffirm and update out opinion on the applicability of 150.109 to the 120 month update provision
- of $50.55a. Your memorandum states that the Staff is preparing an amendment to 10 CFR 50.55a that would,intor alia, update the reference to the ASME Soller and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code), Sec0un XI and would for the first time incorporate by reference the ASME Operations und Maintenance Code (OM Code). Your mernorandum indicates that the new version of Section XI addresses ISI only; the current provisions in Section XI addressing IST are now contained in the new OM Code. Finally, your memorandum states that your request is predicated upon a recent cost beneficiallicensing action (CBLA) request which requested that the licensee be required to update to only the safety significant provisions of the ASME, Code, with all other provisions to be voluntary.
After reviewing the information in your memorendum and revisiting the legal analysis in our 1989 memorandum, we continue to believe that 10 CFR 50.109 does not require a backfit analysis of the routine 120 month update to 10 CFR 50.55a, but that the Commission's initial endorsement of new t,ubsections, addenda and appendicos of the ASME Code containing additional requirements which are not in the current ASME Code will require a backfit analysis, unless one or more of the exceptions in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4) apply. Since it is our understanding that the new OM Code meroly incorporates the IST requirements that were formerly in Section XI of the ASME Code, we do not believe that a backfit analysis is required for NRC endorsement of the OM Code'.
We wish to note that while the Backfit Rule doas not legally require a backfit analysis for the 120 month update rulemaking, the Staff and,'or Commission may decide that as a matter of policy a backfit analysis should be performed. We also point out that the Staff is required by Commission directives to prepare a regulatory analysis 6ddressing the purpose of proposed regulatory initiatives, together with an analysis of the anticipated costs and benefits. A regulatory analysis for an amendment to 50.55a would present much of the same information that would be presented in a backfit analysis under 'io CFR 50.109(a).
' If the OM Code contains new requirements not within the general scope of existing IST requiren ents in Section XI, a backfit analysis should be performed for those new requirements.
'l 9002120205 900206 PDR PR g ,50 ,62FR63892 PDR
/3
< * *)
- Distribution:
Central Files OGCs#
COCr#
R&FC s#
RAFC r#
. Mizuno/Chron Syr/Chron' Olmstead 4
~ Bums Treby 4
i
.i 4
4 4
l DOCUMENT NAME: _ G:\Codeback.GSM j - 73 teceive a sepy of this document. Indicate in the bos: "C" = Copy without enclosures *E" = Copy wth englosures "Na e No copy 0FFICE OGC l c OGC n,/ I OGC l OGC J///, 1/ l NAME GM12uno t,M W STreb)(I i W01mstead KCyrb " ]
DATE- 03/n /97 03/#1 /97 03/ /97 03/'y/97 03/ /97 1 -
0FFICIA RECORD COPY
=
T 4
4
, . - , , - . . . + , , ,,,,, .,v,aw . .,. .,,,..,,,.-,_.---a. - ,, s ,w-.+.~,,,,n-,.,, a w s. ,m,,,, - -