Clarification of Submission of Requests for Relief or Alternatives From the Regulatory Requirements Pertaining to Codes and Standards, 54839-54843 [2012-21541]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
54839
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 77, No. 173
Thursday, September 6, 2012
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Utilities Service
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
7 CFR Parts 1710, 1717, 1721, 1724,
and 1730
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Draft regulatory issue summary;
request for comment.
RIN 0572–AC19
SUMMARY:
AGENCY:
Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Loan Program
AGENCY:
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;
correction.
ACTION:
The Rural Utilities Service
(RUS) published a document in the
Federal Register on July 26, 2012,
proposing policies and procedures for
loan and guarantee financial assistance
in support of energy efficiency programs
(EE Programs) sponsored and
implemented by electric utilities for the
benefit of rural persons in their service
territory. The comment period closing
date was incorrect.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michele Brooks, USDA-Rural Utilities
Service, 1400 Independence Avenue
SW., Stop 1522, Washington, DC 20250–
1522, telephone (202) 690–1078 or
email to michele.brooks@wdc.usda.gov.
Correction
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
In the Federal Register of July 26,
2012, in FR Doc. 2012–17784, on page
43723, in the first column, under the
heading ‘‘DATES,’’ the date should read
September 26, 2012.
Dated: August 29, 2012.
Jonathan Adelstein,
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–21779 Filed 9–5–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Sep 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 https://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
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2012–0204. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–492–3668;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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:
Thomas.Alexion@nrc.gov.
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
https://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 https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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.
E:\FR\FM\06SEP1.SGM
06SEP1
54840
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 173 / Thursday, September 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
The NRC will post all comment
submissions at https://
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
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Sep 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
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).
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 NRCapproved ASME BPV Codes and
Addenda, OM Codes, and ASME Code
Cases that are approved or mandated for
use (together with applicable NRCimposed 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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
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 ISIrelated 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 ISIRelated 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,
E:\FR\FM\06SEP1.SGM
06SEP1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 173 / Thursday, September 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Sep 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54841
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:
E:\FR\FM\06SEP1.SGM
06SEP1
54842
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 173 / Thursday, September 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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:
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Sep 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\06SEP1.SGM
06SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 173 / Thursday, September 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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
BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL
PROTECTION
12 CFR Part 1026
[Docket No. CFPB–2012–0028]
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
RIN 3170–AA19
Integrated Mortgage Disclosures
Under the Real Estate Settlement
Procedure Act (Regulation X) and the
Truth In Lending Act (Regulation Z)
Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection.
ACTION: Notice of request for public
comment; extension of comment period.
AGENCY:
On July 9, 2012, the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(Bureau) published on its Web site and
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Sep 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
transmitted to the Federal Register a
notice requesting comment on proposed
rules and forms to integrate certain
disclosure requirements of the Truth in
Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) for
most closed-end consumer credit
transactions secured by real property, as
required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(Dodd-Frank Act). The proposed rule,
which would amend Regulation X
(RESPA) and Regulation Z (TILA), was
published in the Federal Register on
August 23, 2012. See 77 FR 51116 (Aug.
23, 2012). Comments on the integrated
rules and forms are due November 6,
2012. However, the proposed rule set a
comment deadline of September 7, 2012
on two issues: Proposed changes to the
definition of the finance charge; and
whether to delay implementation of
certain disclosure requirements added
to TILA and RESPA by title XIV of the
Dodd-Frank Act. Because of the
relationship of the proposed changes to
other ongoing Bureau rulemakings and
the Bureau’s request for data on the
potential impact of the proposed
changes to the finance charge on those
rulemakings, the Bureau has determined
that an extension of the comment period
until November 6, 2012 is appropriate.
This extension applies solely to the
proposed changes to the definition of
the finance charge.
DATES: The comment period for the
proposed amendments to 12 CFR 1026.4
contained in the Bureau’s notice at 77
FR 51116 (Aug. 23, 2012) is extended to
November 6, 2012. The comment period
for the proposed changes to 12 CFR
1026.1(c) contained in that notice,
which ends on September 7, 2012, is
unchanged. The comment period for all
other proposed amendments in that
notice, which ends on November 6,
2012, is unchanged.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. CFPB–2012–
0028 or RIN 3170–AA19, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier:
Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive
Secretary, Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20552.
Instructions: All submissions should
include the agency name and docket
number or Regulatory Information
Number (RIN) for this rulemaking.
Because paper mail in the Washington,
DC area and at the Bureau is subject to
delay, commenters are encouraged to
submit comments electronically. In
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54843
general, all comments received will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov. In addition,
comments will be available for public
inspection and copying at 1700 G Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20552, on official
business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. You can
make an appointment to inspect the
documents by telephoning (202) 435–
7275.
All comments, including attachments
and other supporting materials, will
become part of the public record and
subject to public disclosure. Sensitive
personal information, such as account
numbers or social security numbers,
should not be included. Comments will
not be edited to remove any identifying
or contact information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Priscilla Walton-Fein, Counsel, or Paul
Mondor, Managing Counsel, Office of
Regulations, at (202) 435–7700.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 9,
2012, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (Bureau) published
on its Web site and transmitted to the
Federal Register a notice requesting
comment on proposed rules and forms
to integrate certain disclosure
requirements of the Truth in Lending
Act (TILA) and the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) for
most closed-end consumer credit
transactions secured by real property
(TILA-RESPA Integration Proposal), as
required by sections 1032(f), 1098, and
1100A of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(Dodd-Frank Act). The proposed rule
would amend Regulation X (RESPA)
and Regulation Z (TILA). The notice
was published in the Federal Register
on August 23, 2012.1 In addition to
requesting comment on the integrated
rules and forms, the TILA-RESPA
Integration Proposal requests comment
on other amendments to Regulation Z,
including proposed provisions to delay
implementation of certain disclosure
requirements added to TILA and RESPA
by title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Act (in
proposed § 1026.1(c)) and proposed
changes to the definition of the finance
charge (in proposed § 1026.4).
Under proposed § 1026.4, most of the
current exclusions from the finance
charge would be eliminated for closedend transactions secured by real
property or a dwelling, resulting in a
simpler, more inclusive definition of the
1 77 FR 51116 (Aug. 23, 2012). The version of the
TILA-RESPA Integration Proposal published in the
Federal Register on August 23, 2012 is identical to
the version of the proposed rule published on the
Bureau’s Web site on July 9, 2012, except for
limited formatting and typographical changes.
E:\FR\FM\06SEP1.SGM
06SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 173 (Thursday, September 6, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54839-54843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0204. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
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:
Thomas.Alexion@nrc.gov.
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 https://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 https://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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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 https://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
