[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 173 (Thursday, September 6, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54839-54843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21541]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 50
[NRC-2012-0204]
Clarification of Submission of Requests for Relief or
Alternatives From the Regulatory Requirements Pertaining to Codes and
Standards
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Draft regulatory issue summary; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission)
is seeking public comment on a draft regulatory issue summary (RIS)
that provides information on requests for alternatives to and relief
from the regulatory requirements pertaining to Codes and Standards. The
draft RIS also provides clarification when relief is requested by
licensees and applicants where American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Code requirements are determined impractical, and when proposed
alternatives to the regulations are submitted to the NRC.
DATES: Submit comments by October 22, 2012. Comments received after
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC
is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before
this date.
ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related
to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, by
searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2012-0204.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0204. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: [email protected].
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Alexion, Senior Project
Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1326, email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0204 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses
and is publicly available, by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0204.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC
Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to [email protected]. The draft RIS
``Clarification of Submission of Requests for Relief or Alternatives
Under 10 CFR 50.55a,'' is available electronically under ADAMS
Accession No. ML111150172.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0204 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission.
[[Page 54840]]
The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov
as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not
routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact
information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Discussion
Addressees
All holders of a construction permit and an operating license for a
nuclear power reactor under part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), ``Domestic Licensing of Production and
Utilization Facilities,'' except those who have permanently ceased
operations and have certified that fuel has been permanently removed
from the reactor vessel.
All holders of and applicants for a combined license (COL),
standard design certification, standard design approval, or
manufacturing license under 10 CFR Part 52, ``Licenses, Certifications,
and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.''
Intent
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is
issuing this regulatory issue summary (RIS) to provide information on
requests for alternatives to and relief from the requirements of 10 CFR
50.55a, ``Codes and Standards,'' which incorporates by reference the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code (ASME BPV Code) and Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear
Power Plants (OM Code) for ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components,\1\
and Class MC and CC pressure-retaining components and their integral
attachments. Specifically, this RIS provides clarification when relief
is requested by licensees and applicants pursuant to 10 CFR
50.55a(f)(5)(iii) and 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii) where ASME Code
requirements are determined impractical, and when proposed alternatives
to the regulations in 10 CFR 50.55a are submitted to the NRC under 10
CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i) or 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Incoming inservice inspection requirements of Class MC
components in accordance with ASME Section XI, Subsection IWE and
Class CC components in accordance with Subsection IWL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This RIS requires no action or written response on the part of an
addressee.
Background Information
The NRC requirements for the application and use of industry codes
and standards applicable to nuclear power plants are set forth in 10
CFR 50.55a, Codes and Standards. Paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 50.55a lists
the NRC-approved ASME BPV Codes and Addenda, OM Codes, and ASME Code
Cases that are approved or mandated for use (together with applicable
NRC-imposed conditions on their use). Paragraphs (c) through (g) set
forth the specific regulatory requirements mandating or approving the
application and use of ASME BPV and OM Codes.
Section 50.55a also provides two separate regulatory processes for
applicants or licensees to request NRC approval to depart from the
requirements of these codes and standards. The general process for
seeking NRC approval for use of an alternative to one or more
provisions of a code or standard listed in 10 CFR 50.55a (which
includes Codes other than the various ASME Codes and Code Cases) is set
forth in 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3). The specific process for NRC grants of
relief from inservice testing (IST) and inservice inspection (ISI)
requirements because of impracticality is set forth in 10 CFR
50.55a(f)(5)(iii) and (g)(5)(iii), respectively. The term, ``relief
request,'' is commonly misused to address the request for NRC approval
of alternatives under 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3), as opposed to the correct
usage with respect to claims of IST and ISI impracticality.
For new reactors licensed under 10 CFR Part 52, when a COL holder
finds during plant construction that compliance with ASME Code, Section
III, or Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Standard 603 requirements would result in hardship or unusual
difficulty, or when they would like to use a different approach for
meeting construction \2\ requirements of the ASME BPV Code, Section
III, or the IEEE Standard 603, it must submit a proposed alternative to
(1) the construction requirements of Section III of the ASME BPV Code
for ASME Code Class 1, 2 and 3 components, or (2) the requirements of
IEEE Standard 603 for protection and safety systems for authorization
by the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i) or 10 CFR
50.55a(a)(3)(ii). The alternative is required to be submitted before
its implementation. The timing for submission of alternatives and
relief requests are discussed later in this RIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The term ``construction'' is an all-inclusive term
comprising materials, design, fabrication, examination, testing,
inspection, and certification, as defined in the ASME BPV Code,
Section III, Article NCA-9000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally, relief and alternative requests do not involve license
amendments. Instead, the NRC staff issues a letter with a safety
evaluation on the licensee's or applicant's request to authorize the
alternative to, or grant relief from, an ASME BPV Code (Section III or
XI) or OM Code requirement. However, there are times when relief
requests or alternatives might involve changes to plant technical
specifications or changes to Tier 2* information associated with a
design certification (note that Tier 2* information is defined in 10
CFR Part 52, Appendices A through D). In these cases, a license
amendment would also be needed. In addition, the NRC may authorize an
alternative to an ASME Code design requirement in the context of an
application to certify a standard design.
Summary of Issue
The NRC staff is issuing this RIS to address the following specific
issues associated with submittals under 10 CFR 50.55a:
The content of IST-related or ISI-related requests for
relief or alternatives under 10 CFR 50.55a
The timing of alternatives submitted in accordance with 10
CFR 50.55a(a)(3)
The timing of relief requests submitted in accordance with
10 CFR 50.55a(f)(5) or 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)
The Content of IST-Related or ISI-Related Requests for Relief or
Alternatives Under 10 CFR 50.55a
Licensees requesting relief from the requirements of 10 CFR
50.55a(f)(6)(i) and 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i) due to impracticality must
demonstrate that ASME Code requirements are impractical within the
limitations of design, geometry, and materials of construction. In
addition, the NRC staff may impose alternative requirements and may
grant the relief only if it determines that granting the relief is
authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common
defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest giving
due consideration to the burden upon the licensee that could result if
the requirements were imposed on the facility. In doing this,
[[Page 54841]]
the NRC staff assesses the limitations of the examination or testing,
evaluates the susceptibility to known degradation, mechanisms or
failure modes, the consequences of a failure at the location where the
test or examination is impractical, and if any other inspections or
tests should be implemented to compensate for the impracticality.
Licensees and applicants proposing alternatives in accordance to 10
CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i) or 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii) must demonstrate that
(1) the proposed alternatives would provide an acceptable level of
quality and safety, or (2) compliance with the specified requirements
would result in hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating
increase in the level of quality and safety.
Many initial requests for alternatives to or relief from IST or ISI
requirements in the ASME BPV Code and OM Code submitted by licensees
and applicants have not been supported by adequate descriptive and
detailed technical information, thus necessitating requests for
additional information. Based on whether the submittal involves a
relief or alternative request, detailed information is necessary: (1)
To document the impracticality of the ASME BPV or OM Code requirements
because of the limitations of design, geometry, or materials of
construction of components, and to allow the NRC to make a finding on
plant safety where an ASME BPV Code or OM Code requirement is
determined to be impractical; or (2) to determine whether the use of a
proposed alternative will provide an acceptable level of quality and
safety or whether compliance with the specified ASME Code requirements
would result in hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating
increase in the level of quality and safety.
Licensees and applicants should consider the information needed for
the NRC to make a finding to grant relief or to authorize an
alternative when preparing the request submittal. For example, relief
requests submitted with a justification that the requirements are
``impractical,'' that the component is ``inaccessible,'' or requests
that use any other categorical basis should provide information to
permit an evaluation of that relief request.
The guidance in this section illustrates the extent of the
information necessary for the NRC to make a proper evaluation and to
adequately document in a safety evaluation the basis for granting
relief from or authorizing an alternative to the ASME BPV Code or OM
Code. Requests for additional information and delays in completing the
review can be considerably reduced if the initial submittal by the
licensee or applicant provides this information.
Each submittal for a relief or alternative request should include
the following, with adequate information so that it can serve as a
standalone document:
Provide the start and end date of the current or past 10-
year IST or ISI interval and the applicable edition or addendum of the
ASME BPV or OM Codes from which the relief or alternative is requested.
If the licensee received an approval to update to a later
edition or addendum of the ASME BPV or OM Codes for the current or past
10-year IST or ISI interval, provide the date of the NRC safety
evaluation.
Provide the ASME BPV or OM Code examination or test
requirements for the pump(s), valve(s), weld(s), or component(s) for
which the relief or alternative is requested.
State the number of items associated with the requested
relief or alternative.
Identify the specific ASME BPV Code or OM Code requirement
that has been determined to be impractical or will be replaced by the
alternative.
For relief from or an alternative to the ASME BPV Code ISI
examination requirements, provide an itemized list of the specific
pump(s), valve(s), weld(s), or component(s) for which the relief or
alternative is requested. List the type of valve(s) or pump(s) or the
ASME BPV Code specification of base metal and weld material in weld
joints piping, components (e.g., tees, elbows), nozzles, and vessels.
For relief from or an alternative to the ASME BPV Code ISI
examination requirements, estimate the percentage of the examination
coverage required under the ASME BPV Code that has been completed for
each of the individual existing weld(s) or component(s) associated with
the relief or alternative.
Submit information to support the determination that the
requirement is impractical (i.e., state and explain the basis for
requesting relief) or the basis for the alternative request. If the
licensee cannot perform the examination or testing required by the ASME
BPV or OM Codes because of a limitation or obstruction, describe or
provide drawings showing the specific limitation or obstruction and the
achievable examination coverage or testing that can be performed.
For an alternative request, identify the alternative test
or nondestructive examination methods and techniques proposed (1) in
lieu of the requirements of the ASME BPV or OM Codes, or (2) to
supplement partial ASME OM Code testing or ASME BPV Code examinations
performed or special processes.
Discuss the failure consequences of the weld joint(s) or
component(s) that would not receive the examination specified in the
ASME BPV Code. Discuss any changes expected in the overall level of
plant safety if the licensee performs the proposed alternative
examination in lieu of the examination specified in the ASME BPV Code.
For an alternative request, provide a basis to demonstrate
that (1) the proposed alternative would provide an acceptable level of
quality and safety, or (2) compliance with the specified requirements
would result in hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating
increase in the level of quality and safety.
State when the proposed alternative testing or examination
would be implemented and performed.
State when the request for relief or alternative would
apply during the inspection or testing period or interval (e.g., that
it would occur during the refueling outage or the remainder of
interval, or that the request is to defer an examination or testing to
some other time).
State the time period for which the requested relief or
alternative is needed.
For a performance-based IST relief or alternative request,
discuss the aggregate risk associated with proposed relief or
alternative based on the results of a comprehensive risk analysis.
Also, discuss how the failure of the affected components would impact
core damage frequency and large early release frequency.
Licensees should submit a technical justification or data
to support the relief or alternative request. Stating without
substantiation that a change will not affect the level of quality is
unsatisfactory (e.g., stating that a licensee does not agree with an
ASME BPV or OM Code requirement is not considered adequate
justification for granting relief or authorizing an alternative). If
the licensee is requesting relief or an alternative because of issues
with component inaccessibility, the request should include a detailed
description or drawing that depicts the inaccessibility.
For the NRC staff to make a determination for an alternative for
hardship regarding radiation exposure during an examination or test,
the licensee should submit specific information as noted below:
[[Page 54842]]
Radiation exposures received by test personnel when accomplishing
the testing or examinations prescribed in the ASME BPV or OM Codes can
be an important factor in determining whether, or under what
conditions, a test or examination must be performed. The licensee must
submit for NRC staff approval such a request for an alternative in the
manner described above as a case of hardship because of radiation
exposure.
Some of the radiation considerations will only be known at the time
of the examinations or tests. However, based on experience at operating
facilities, the licensee generally is aware of those areas for which
relief or an alternative may be necessary. In addition to the general
requirements given above, the licensee should submit the following
additional information about the relief or alternative request:
The total estimated person-rem (roentgen equivalent man)
exposure involved in the test or examination after as low as reasonably
achievable aspects are factored into the planning of the job;
The radiation levels at the test or examination area and
the time and number of personnel who will be required in this area;
Flushing or shielding capabilities that might reduce
radiation levels;
A discussion of the considerations involved in remote
inspections; and
The amount of worker radiation exposure that resulted from
any previous ISI for the component weld examinations for which the
relief or alternative is being requested.
The Timing of Alternatives Submitted in Accordance With 10 CFR
50.55a(a)(3)
10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3) states:
Proposed alternatives to the requirements of paragraphs (c),
(d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) of this section, or portions thereof,
may be used when authorized by the Director of the Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation or the Director of the Office of New Reactors, as
appropriate. Any proposed alternatives must be submitted and
authorized prior to implementation.
As required by 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3), licensees and applicants must
submit proposed alternatives to the NRC and obtain NRC authorization
before implementing the alternatives. For operating nuclear power
plants, the licensee must submit the alternative request to allow the
NRC staff ample time (generally less than 1 year) to review and prepare
a safety evaluation before performing an alternative examination,
pressure test, or operational readiness test. This is particularly
important when the licensee plans to use the proposed alternative to
justify the use of a different examination or test or to demonstrate
compliance of a particular component with the ASME BPV or OM Code
requirements in support of facility restart from an otherwise safe-
plant configuration (i.e., shutdown condition). Alternative examination
techniques or tests may be demonstrated in the field for the
feasibility of the proposed alternative. NRC authorization of
alternatives should be factored into the planning schedule as follows:
(1) for design modifications and physical modifications to the plant,
prior to reliance on the components associated with the alternative to
be available to perform their safety function, (2) for tests, prior to
performing the alternative test, and (3) for examinations, prior to
crediting the alternative examination to satisfy an ASME Code or 10 CFR
50.55a requirement.
For nuclear power plants that have not started initial operation,
applicants or licensees may request authorization of alternatives
either during the design stage (e.g., as part of the construction
permit, design certification or COL application review) or during the
construction stage (e.g., after the construction permit or COL is
issued, but prior to plant operation). If an alternative is submitted
during the construction stage, it must be authorized by the NRC before
the components associated with the alternative are installed in the
plant and the ASME Data Report is completed and the Code Symbol Stamp
(or Certification Mark) is applied to the associated system. Although
applicants and licensees may submit an alternative for authorization
after the associated components are fabricated, those applicants and
licensees will be proceeding at the risk of the NRC subsequently
denying the requested alternative. Combined license holders should also
be cautious that the proposed alternative does not adversely impact the
successful closure of applicable inspections, tests, analyses and
acceptance criteria (ITAAC) in plants licensed under 10 CFR Part 52.
Thus, alternatives should be submitted to the NRC for authorization as
early as practicable to avoid impacting final closure of ITAAC, causing
potential hardware changes or affecting scheduled plant start-up.
The submittal of alternatives after they were implemented (e.g.,
within or after 12 months after the end of an inspection interval or
after the plant starts or resumes operation) will be evaluated by the
NRC staff in accordance with the applicable provision of 10 CFR 50.55a.
In addition, they will be forwarded to the appropriate NRC regional
office for enforcement consideration to determine whether such action
complied with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3).
The Timing of Relief Requests Submitted in Accordance With 10 CFR
50.55a(g)(5) or 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(5)
Regulations in 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(5)(iii) and (g)(5)(iii) require a
nuclear power plant licensee to notify the NRC when it has determined
that conformance with certain ASME Code requirements related to the IST
and ISI programs, respectively, are impractical for its facility, and
to submit information to support its determination. The regulations in
10 CFR 50.55a(f)(5)(iv) and (g)(5)(iv) provide requirements for the
timeliness of demonstrating the impracticality of ASME Code
requirements related to the IST and ISI programs, respectively, for
each new 120-month test/inspection interval. These requirements state
that licensees must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the NRC the
basis for determining that the test/examination was impractical not
later than 12 months following the end of that interval in which the
test/examination was attempted. Sections 50.55a(f)(6)(i) and (g)(6)(i)
state that the NRC will evaluate determinations that ASME Code
requirements for IST and ISI programs, respectively, are impractical,
and may grant relief and impose such alternative requirements as it
determines is authorized by law and that will not endanger life or
property or the common defense and security. Such exceptions must be
deemed to be in the public interest, giving due consideration to the
burden upon the licensee that could result if the requirements were
imposed on the facility.
Therefore, licensees should submit requests for relief due to
impracticality under 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii) for a given 120-month
inspection interval after the test or exam has been attempted during
that period and prior to 12 months following the termination of that
interval. Licensees should not submit requests for relief either before
or after this time interval. Requests submitted prior to the acceptable
time frame will not be accepted by the NRC staff for review. Requests
submitted after the acceptable timeframe will be evaluated by the staff
for safety issues but will not be approved. These requests will be
forwarded to the appropriate regional office for potential enforcement
action.
Requests for relief under 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(5)(iii) related to IST
are not subject to the restriction for submittals under 10 CFR
50.55a(g)(5)(iii). However, the NRC staff recommends that
[[Page 54843]]
licensees and applicants consider the guidance discussed in this RIS
regarding the timeliness of submittal of alternative requests when
planning their submittal of IST relief requests.
Backfit Discussion
This RIS requires no action or written response and is therefore,
not a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109, ``Backfitting.'' Consequently, the
staff did not perform a backfit analysis.
Federal Register Notification
[Discussion to be provided in final RIS.]
Congressional Review Act
[Discussion to be provided in final RIS.]
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This RIS references information collection requirements that are
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the existing
requirements under OMB approval number 3150-0011.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, an information collection unless the requesting document
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of August 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David L. Pelton,
Chief, Generic Communications Branch, Division of Policy and
Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-21541 Filed 9-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P