58804 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 50 

RIN 3150–AH24 

Industry Codes and Standards; 

Amended Requirements

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is amending its 

regulations to incorporate by reference 

the 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 

Addenda of Division 1 of Section III of 

the American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure 

Vessel Code (BPV Code); the 2001 

Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda 

of Division 1 rules of Section XI of the 

ASME BPV Code; and the 2001 Edition 

and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of the 

ASME Code for Operation and 

Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants

(OM Code) to provide updated rules for 

constructing and inspecting components 

and testing pumps and valves in lightwater cooled nuclear power plants. This 

final rule incorporates by reference the 

latest edition and addenda of the ASME 

BPV and OM Codes that have been 

approved for use by the NRC subject to 

certain limitations and modifications. 

The NRC is also withdrawing its 

approval of Subsection NH of the 1995 

through 2000 Addenda of Section III of 

the ASME BPV Code.

DATES: Effective November 1, 2004. The 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications in this rule is approved by 

the Director of the Office of the Federal 

Register as of November 1, 2004.

ADDRESSES: The NRC maintains an 

Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS), which 

provides text and image files of NRC’s 

public documents. The documents may 

be accessed through the NRC’s Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 

at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

adams.html. If you do not have access 

to ADAMS or if there are problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS, contact the NRC at 1–800–

397–4209, (301) 415–4737, or by e-mail 

to pdr@nrc.gov. The availability of the 

Regulatory Analysis and the 

Environmental Assessment is further 

discussed in Section 5 of this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen Tingen, Division of 

Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. Alternatively, you may contact 

Mr. Tingen at (301) 415–1280, or via email at: sgt@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background 

2. Public Comments Received on Proposed 

Rule; and Final Rule 

2.1 Section III 

2.2 Section XI 

2.3 ASME OM Code 

3. Section-by-Section Analysis 

4. Generic Aging Lessons Learned Report 

5. Availability of Documents 

6. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

7. Finding of No Significant Environmental 

Impact: Availability 

8. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

9. Regulatory Analysis 

10. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

11. Backfit Analysis 

12. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

13. Miscellaneous Public Comments on 

Proposed Rule

1. Background 

On January 7, 2004 (69 FR 879), the 

NRC published a proposed rule to 

amend 10 CFR Part 50, ‘‘Domestic 

Licensing of Production and Utilization 

Facilities.’’ The proposed rule presented 

revised requirements for construction, 

inservice inspection (ISI), and inservice 

testing (IST) of nuclear power plant 

components for public comment. For 

construction, the proposed rule would 

have permitted the use of Section III, 

Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code, 

2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 

Addenda for Class 1, Class 2, and Class 

3 components with one new 

modification. 

For ISI, the proposed rule would have 

permitted the use of Section XI, 

Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code, 

2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 

Addenda for Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, 

Class MC, and Class CC components 

with new modifications and limitations.

For IST, the proposed rule would 

have permitted the use of the ASME OM 

Code, 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 

2003 Addenda for Class 1, Class 2, and 

Class 3 pumps and valves with no new 

modifications or limitations. 

2.0 Public Comments Received on 

Proposed Rule; and Final Rule 

Fifty-five comments on the proposed 

rule were received from utilities, service 

organizations, and individuals. In 

response to the public comments, the 

NRC has either removed or revised some 

modifications and limitations that were 

proposed. A summary of the public 

comments applicable to the proposed 

rule and their resolution are provided in 

the following sections. 

The NRC has considered and resolved 

the public comments and incorporated 

changes into the final rule. The NRC is 

publishing the final rule in § 50.55a to 

incorporate by reference the 2001 

Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda 

of Division 1 rules of Section III of the 

ASME BPV Code; the 2001 Edition and 

the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Division 

1 rules of Section XI of the ASME BPV 

Code; and the 2001 Edition and the 

2002 and 2003 Addenda of the ASME 

OM Code for construction, ISI, and IST 

of components in nuclear power plants. 

The 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 

Addenda of Sections III and XI of the 

ASME BPV Code are acceptable for use 

subject to limitations and modifications. 

The 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 

Addenda of the ASME OM Code is 

acceptable for use with no new 

limitations or modifications. 

2.1 Section III 

The proposed rule would have 

revised § 50.55a(b)(1) to incorporate by 

reference the 2001 Edition and the 2002 

and 2003 Addenda of Division 1 of 

Section III of the ASME BPV Code 

subject to modifications and limitations. 

Accordingly, the existing modification 

and limitation for weld leg dimensions 

and independence of inspection in 

§§ 50.55a(b)(1)(ii) and 50.55a(b)(1)(v), 

respectively, would continue to apply 

when using the 2001 Edition through 

2003 Addenda of Section III, Division 1, 

of the ASME BPV Code. The existing 

modification and limitation in 

§§ 50.55a(b)(1)(ii) and 50.55a(b)(1)(v) 

would continue to apply to the 2001 

Edition through 2003 Addenda of 

Section III because the earlier Code 

provisions on which these regulations 

are based were not revised in the 2001 

Edition through 2003 Addenda of 

Section III to address the underlying 

issues which led to the NRC to impose 

the modification and limitation. There 

were no public comments received on 

§§ 50.55a(b)(1) and 50.55a(b)(1)(v). 

Therefore, §§ 50.55a(b)(1) and 

50.55a(b)(1)(v) are adopted without 

change in this final rule. 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(ii)—Weld Leg 

Dimensions 

One commenter stated that the 

footnote to circumferential fillet welded 

and socket welded joints in Figures NC–

3673.2(b)–1 and ND–3673.2(b)–1 of 

Section III was renumbered in the Code. 

The NRC agrees. Footnote 11 to Figures 

NC–3673.2(b)–1 and ND–3673.2(b)–1 is 

referenced in the existing regulation in 

§ 50.55a(b)(1)(ii). Footnote 11 to Figures 

NC–3673.2(b)–1 and ND–3673.2(b)–1 

was renumbered as Footnote 7 in the 

1997 Addenda. Footnote 7 was 

renumbered as Footnote 11 in the 2000 

Addenda. Footnote 11 was renumbered 

as Footnote 13 in the 2002 Addenda. 

Although the footnote was renumbered 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58805

in the Code, the contents of the footnote 

have not been revised. In consideration 

of this public comment, the existing 

regulation in § 50.55a(b)(1)(ii) is revised 

in this final rule to reference the 

contents of the footnote instead of 

referencing the footnote number. The 

revised § 50.55a(b)(1)(ii) states that the 

footnote to circumferential fillet welded 

and socket welded joints in Figures NC–

3673.2(b)–1 and ND–3673.2(b)–1 that 

permits a socket weld leg dimension to 

be less than 1.09 of the nominal wall 

thickness of the pipe is not approved for 

use when using the 1989 Addenda 

through 2003 Addenda of Section III. 

This revision does not change the 

requirements in a substantive manner. 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(iii) and 10 CFR 

50.55a(b)(1)(vi)—Seismic Design 

The proposed rule would have 

revised the existing limitation for 

seismic design in § 50.55a(b)(1)(iii) to 

prohibit the use of Articles NB–3200, 

NB–3600, NC–3600, and ND–3600 when 

using the 1994 Addenda through 2000 

Addenda of Section III. The proposed 

rule stated that the limitation in 

§ 50.55a(b)(1)(iii) does not apply to the 

2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of 

Section III because the earlier Code 

provisions on which this regulation was 

based were revised in the 2001 Edition 

through 2003 Addenda of Section III to 

address a number of the underlying 

issues which led the NRC to impose the 

limitation on the ASME Code 

provisions. Section 50.55a(b)(1)(vi) in 

the proposed rule would have allowed 

use of these articles when using the 

2001 Edition and 2002 and 2003 

Addenda of Section III with certain 

limitations and modifications. However, 

in consideration of public comment, the 

revisions to § 50.55a(b)(1)(iii) and 

§ 50.55a(b)(1)(vi) in the proposed rule 

are not adopted in this final rule.

Section 50.55a(b)(1)(vi) of the 

proposed rule would have permitted the 

use of the alternative method for 

evaluating reversing dynamic building 

filtered loads and seismic loads in the 

2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 

Addenda of Section III Division 1 of the 

ASME BPV Code subject to 

modifications and limitations. However, 

§ 50.55a(b)(1)(vi)(A) of the proposed 

rule would have prohibited the use of 

the alternative method for evaluating 

reversing dynamic loads for piping 

subject to loads generated by reflected 

waves caused by flow transients in NB–

3200, NB–3600, NC–3600, and ND–

3600. In addition, § 50.55a(b)(1)(vi)(B) of 

the proposed rule would have 

prohibited the use of inelastic analyses 

for evaluating reversing dynamic loads 

in NB–3228.6. Also, § 50.55a(b)(1)(vi)(C) 

of the proposed rule would have 

provided an alternate Level B stress 

limit for reversing dynamic loads. 

Section 50.55a(b)(1)(vi)(D) of the 

proposed rule would have 

supplemented the requirements for the 

calculation of inertial moment. Section 

50.55a(b)(1)(vi)(E) of the proposed rule 

would have prohibited the use of the B2

‘stress indices specified in ND–

3655(b)(3) and would have required that 

the allowable B2 ‘stress indices specified 

in NB–3656(b)(3) and NC–3655(b)(3) be 

used instead of the allowable B2 ‘stress 

indices specified in ND–3655(b)(3). 

Section 50.55a(b)(1)(vi)(F) of the 

proposed rule would have allowed the 

use of an allowable stress limit of 6SM

in the evaluation of the range of 

resultant moment only when it could be 

demonstrated that the global piping 

system response to the anchor 

movement does not create significant 

inelastic strain concentrations when 

using the provisions in NB–3656(b)(4), 

NC–3655(b)(4), and ND–3655(b)(4). SM

is the design stress intensity limit for a 

material and is tabulated in Section II of 

the ASME Code. A demonstration that 

the anchor movement does not create 

significant inelastic strain 

concentrations would not have been 

required if an allowable stress limit of 

3SM were used instead of 6SM in the 

evaluation of the range of resultant 

moment. 

The NRC received a large number of 

public comments on the modifications 

and limitations in § 50.55a(b)(1)(vi). The 

public comments provided technical 

reasoning why the modifications and 

limitations in § 50.55a(b)(1)(vi) were 

unnecessary and recommended their 

deletion. For example, ASME submitted 

an 83 page position paper in response 

to the modifications and limitations in 

(b)(1)(vi) of the proposed rule. It should 

be noted that the NRC’s concerns 

regarding the alternative method for 

evaluating reversing dynamic building 

filtered loads and seismic loads began 

with changes in the 1994 Addenda 

through 1996 Addenda and were 

discussed in an amendment to § 50.55a 

issued in September 1999 (64 FR 

51370). The ASME formed a special 

working group to evaluate the NRC’s 

concerns. Although the special working 

group resolved some the NRC’s 

concerns, a few significant issues 

remain. 

The ASME submittal also 

recommended that the NRC prohibit the 

use of the revised seismic design 

provisions in the 2001 Edition and the 

2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section III 

at this time. The ASME stated that the 

NRC and ASME should resolve their 

technical differences over the 

modifications and limitations in 

§ 50.55a(b)(1)(vi) before permitting the 

use of revised seismic design provisions 

in the 2001 Edition and 2002 and 2003 

Addenda of Section III. The NRC agrees. 

This would allow the NRC to discuss 

the technical details including recent 

piping dynamic testing in a more 

comprehensive manner. In 

consideration of public comments, the 

revision to § 50.55a(b)(1)(iii) in the 

proposed rule and the modifications 

and limitations in § 50.55a(b)(1)(vi) in 

the proposed rule are not adopted in 

this final rule. The existing limitation 

for seismic design in § 50.55a(b)(1)(iii) is 

revised in this final rule to prohibit the 

use of Articles NB–3200, NB–3600, NC–

3600, and ND–3600 when using the 

1994 Addenda through 2003 Addenda 

of Section III.

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(vii)—Subsection 

NH 

Section 50.55a(b)(1)(vii) in the 

proposed rule would have prohibited 

the use of Subsection NH of the 2001 

Edition through 2003 Addenda of 

Section III of the ASME BPV Code and 

would have withdrawn current approval 

of Subsection NH of the 1995 Addenda 

through 2000 Addenda of Section III of 

the ASME BPV Code. The scope of 

Subsection NH includes Class 1 

components that function in water, 

steam, sodium, helium, or any other 

process fluid. The special design 

provisions in Subsection NH apply to 

Class 1 components that are required to 

function at elevated metal temperatures 

where creep and relaxation effects may 

be significant and for which the stress 

limits and design provisions in 

Subsection NB of Section III are not 

applicable. These stress limits and 

design provisions of Subsection NB are 

applicable only to service conditions 

where creep and relaxation effects do 

not exist. The proposed rule stated that 

the elevated temperature provisions in 

Subsection NH, applicable to certain 

Class 1 components in future advanced 

reactor designs such as liquid metal and 

high-temperature gas-cooled reactor 

designs, have not been reviewed by the 

NRC for technical adequacy because the 

design provisions in Subsection NH 

were thought not to be applicable to any 

currently operating nuclear power plant 

nor to any currently approved standard 

advanced light-water reactor plant 

design. 

A commenter stated that prohibiting 

the use of Subsection NH because the 

NRC has not performed a technical 

review is not adequate justification. The 

commenter stated that the NRC should 

provide technical reasons why 

Subsection NH is not approved for use. 

58806 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

The NRC disagrees and, with the 

exception of the application of 

Subsection NH to pressurizer heater 

sleeves constructed from Type 316 

stainless steel, is unable to provide 

technical comments on Subsection NH 

at this time because it has not performed 

a comprehensive review of Subsection 

NH. A public comment on the proposed 

rule indicated that Subsection NH is 

used for the design and construction of 

pressurizer heater sleeves (a pressure 

boundary component). Accordingly, the 

NRC is approving the use of Subsection 

NH for this application. The maximum 

service condition for Type 316 stainless 

steel components that are designed and 

constructed in accordance with the 

currently approved provisions in 

Subsection NB is 800 °F because the 

reduction in material strength due to 

creep and relaxation effects are 

negligible at temperatures below 800 °F. 

Subsection NH provides specialized 

design and construction provisions 

when temperatures exceed 800 °F. The 

temperature of Type 316 stainless steel 

pressurizer heater sleeves reaches 

approximately 900 °F; therefore, 

Subsection NH is applicable. At 900 °F, 

creep and relaxation effects reduce the 

allowable stress at 800 °F by 

approximately 10 percent for Type 316 

stainless steel. Therefore, a 100 °F 

increase in temperature above 800 °F 

does not significantly reduce the 

material strength of Type 316 stainless 

steel. The use of pressurizer heater 

sleeves constructed of Type 316 

stainless steel is limited to only one 

type of reactor plant design in the 

United States. Pressurizer heater sleeves 

in other reactor plant designs are 

constructed of different materials and 

the temperature of the pressurizer heater 

sleeves in the other designs does not 

exceed 800 °F. Furthermore, many years 

operating experience indicate that 

pressurizer heater sleeves have not 

experienced creep and relaxation 

effects. Accordingly, the NRC concludes 

that the use of Subsection NH for Type 

316 stainless steel pressurizer heater 

sleeves is technically acceptable and 

will provide reasonable assurance of 

adequate protection to public health and 

safety. 

The NRC has not performed a full 

technical review of Subsection NH for 

other Class 1 components in future 

advanced reactor designs such as liquid 

metal and high-temperature gas-cooled 

reactor designs where service conditions 

could reach 1500 °F. At these service 

conditions, creep and relaxation are 

more pronounced. Therefore, the NRC is 

unable to approve the use of Subsection 

NH for components other than Type 316 

stainless steel pressurizer heater sleeves. 

In consideration of public comment, 

§ 50.55a(b)(1)(vii) is revised to allow the 

application of Subsection NH to Type 

316 stainless steel pressurizer heater 

sleeves only where service conditions 

do not cause the component to reach 

temperatures exceeding 900 °F. Section 

50.55a(b)(1)(vii) in the proposed rule is 

renumbered as § 50.55a(b)(1)(vi) in this 

final rule. Section 11, ‘‘Backfit 

Analysis,’’ below, has been revised to 

address this last comment. 

2.2 Section XI 

The proposed rule would have 

revised § 50.55a(b)(2) to incorporate by 

reference the 2001 Edition and the 2002 

and 2003 Addenda of Division 1 of 

Section XI of the ASME BPV Code 

subject to proposed modifications and 

limitations. Accordingly, the existing 

modifications and limitations for quality 

assurance, Class 1 piping, underwater 

welding, reconciliation of quality 

requirements, certification of 

nondestructive examination personnel, 

substitution of alternative method, and 

Table IWB–2500–1 examination 

requirements in § 50.55a(b)(2)(x), 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xi), § 50.55a(b)(2)(xii), 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xvii), § 50.55a(b)(2)(xviii), 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xix), and 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xxi), respectively, would 

continue to apply when using the 2001 

Edition through 2003 Addenda of 

Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME 

BPV Code. The existing modifications 

and limitations in § 50.55a(b)(2)(x), 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xi), § 50.55a(b)(2)(xii), 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xvii), § 50.55a(b)(2)(xviii), 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xix), and 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xxi) would continue to 

apply to the 2001 Edition through 2003 

Addenda of Section XI because the 

earlier Code provisions on which these 

regulations are based were not revised 

in the 2001 through 2003 Addenda of 

Section XI to address the underlying 

issues which led the NRC to impose the 

modifications and limitations. There 

were no public comments on 

§ 50.55a(b)(2), § 50.55a(b)(2)(x), 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xi), § 50.55a(b)(2)(xii), 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xviii), § 50.55a(b)(2)(xix), 

and § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxi). Therefore, 

§ 50.55a(b)(2), § 50.55a(b)(2)(x), 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xi), § 50.55a(b)(2)(xii), 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xviii), § 50.55a(b)(2)(xix), 

and § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxi) are adopted 

without change in this final rule. 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xvii)—

Reconciliation of Quality Requirements 

One commenter stated that the 

existing modification in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xvii) for the reconciliation 

of quality requirements is no longer 

applicable because a footnote was added 

to IWA–4222 that resolves the issue. 

The footnote was added in the 1999 

Addenda to Section XI and clarifies that 

the provision in IWA–4222(a)(2) does 

not negate the requirement to 

implement the Owner’s quality 

assurance program nor does it affect 

Owner commitments to regulatory and 

enforcement authorities. The NRC 

agrees that § 50.55a(b)(2)(xvii) is no 

longer applicable because the footnote 

addresses NRC reasons for initially 

implementing § 50.55a(b)(2)(xvii) in 

final rule dated September 22, 1999 (64 

FR 51374). In consideration of this 

public comment, § 50.55a(b)(2)(xvii) is 

revised in this final rule to be applicable 

only when using the 1995 Addenda 

through 1998 Edition of Section XI.

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)—Footnote 10 

The proposed rule would have added 

Footnote 10 to § 50.55a(b)(2) to indicate 

that the NRC has issued Order EA–03–

009 which imposed enhanced reactor 

pressure vessel (RPV) head inspections 

at pressurized water reactors (PWRs). In 

February 2003, the NRC issued the 

Order to licensees of PWRs to establish 

interim inspection requirements that 

would ensure adequate protection of 

public health and safety. The Order was 

revised on February 20, 2004. The Order 

imposes enhanced requirements for 

PWR licensees that supplement areas of 

Section XI of the ASME BPV Code to 

ensure the structural and leakage 

integrity of the reactor coolant pressure 

boundary. The requirements imposed by 

the Order do not conflict with the 

requirements in Section XI of the ASME 

BPV Code but are needed to enhance 

Code requirements. Licensees are 

required to meet the requirements in the 

Order as a supplement to the 

requirements in the 2001 Edition with 

the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section 

XI of the ASME BPV Code. Licensees of 

PWRs using editions and addenda of 

Section XI of the ASME Code earlier 

than the 2001 Edition are currently 

required to apply the requirements in 

the Order to supplement the use of their 

applicable Code of record. 

One commenter incorrectly 

interpreted Footnote 10 in the proposed 

rule. The commenter stated that 

Footnote 10 would incorporate the 

requirements of the Order into 10 CFR 

50.55a. The NRC notes that it never 

intended to incorporate the 

requirements of the Order into 10 CFR 

50.55a in this rulemaking. This final 

rule does not incorporate the 

requirements of the Order into 10 CFR 

50.55a; it simply alerts the reader to the 

Order. Footnote 10 is adopted without 

change in this final rule. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58807

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(viii)—Examination 

of Concrete Containments 

This proposed rule would have 

revised the existing modification for 

examination of concrete containments 

in § 50.55a(b)(2)(viii) to apply to the 

2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of 

Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME 

BPV Code. The modification in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(viii) continues to apply to 

the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda 

of Section XI because the earlier ASME 

BPV Code provisions on which this 

regulation was based were not revised 

in the 2001 Edition through 2003 

Addenda of Section XI to address the 

underlying issues which led the NRC to 

impose the modification of the ASME 

Code provisions. The proposed rule 

would have also revised the existing 

modification for examination of 

concrete containments in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(viii) to require a new 

modification, which is discussed below, 

when using the 2001 Edition through 

2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1, 

of the ASME BPV Code. There were no 

public comments received on 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(viii) in the proposed rule. 

Therefore, § 50.55a(b)(2)(viii) is adopted 

without change in this final rule. 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(G)—Corrosion 

Protection Medium (CPM) 

Section 50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(G) of the 

proposed rule would have required that 

CPM be restored in accordance with the 

quality assurance program requirements 

specified in IWA–1400 when using the 

2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of 

Section XI. IWL–4110 of Section XI 

defines the scope of the repair and 

replacement activities associated with 

concrete containments. IWL–4110(b) 

specifies those items that are exempt 

from repair and replacement activity 

requirements. A new provision, IWL–

4110(b)(3), was added in the 2002 

Addenda exempting the removal, 

replacement, or addition of the concrete 

containment post-tensioning system 

CPM from repair and replacement 

requirements. Prior to the 2002 

Addenda, IWL–4000 specifies that the 

CPM must be restored following a 

concrete containment post-tensioning 

system repair and replacement activity. 

CPM is applied to containment posttension system components to prevent 

corrosion. The function of the 

containment post-tension system is to 

ensure the structural integrity of the 

concrete containment structure under 

design basis loadings, and CPM is relied 

upon to maintain the integrity of the 

containment post-tension system. 

Therefore, the restoration of the 

concrete containment post-tensioning 

system CPM is important to ensure that 

the containment integrity and load 

capacity satisfy design basis 

requirements under accident conditions. 

For example, the acceptable 

concentration of water soluble 

chlorides, nitrates and sulfides of the 

replacement CPM must be verified. The 

amount of CPM to be installed and the 

method used to apply the CPM must be 

specified. 

One commenter stated that the 

provisions in IWL–2500 must be 

applied to the restoration of CPM, and 

that these provisions were not revised in 

the 2002 Addenda. The commenter 

stated that quality assurance 

requirements must be applied when 

implementing IWL–2500. The NRC 

disagrees. The NRC believes that the 

provisions in IWL–2500 are not 

applicable to items that are exempt from 

Code repair and replacement activity 

requirements. Therefore, 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(G) is adopted 

without change in this final rule.

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)—Examination of 

Metal Containments and the Liners of 

Concrete Containments 

The proposed rule would have 

revised the existing modification for 

examination of metal containments and 

the liners of concrete containments in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(ix) to apply to the 2001 

Edition through 2003 Addenda of 

Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME 

BPV Code. The proposed rule stated that 

with the exception of the visual 

examination requirements specified in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(B), the modification in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(ix) would continue to 

apply to the 2001 Edition through 2003 

Addenda of Section XI because the 

earlier Code provisions on which this 

regulation was based were not revised 

in the 2001 Edition through 2003 

Addenda of Section XI to address the 

underlying issues which led to the NRC 

to impose the modification on the 

ASME Code provisions. The minimum 

illumination and distance visual 

examination provisions in Table IWA–

2210–1 in Section XI were revised in the 

2003 Addenda and are equivalent to the 

minimum illumination and distance 

visual examination requirements in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(B). Therefore, the 

proposed rule revised the existing 

modification for examination of metal 

containments and the liners of concrete 

containments in § 50.55a(b)(2)(ix) to 

specify that § 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(B) does 

not apply when using the 2001 Edition 

with the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of 

Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME 

BPV Code. 

Several commenters stated that the 

revision to Table IWA–2210–1 in the 

2003 Addenda of Section XI was 

rescinded by a special Erratum in 

December 2003. Therefore, the existing 

modification in § 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(B) 

should continue to apply when using 

the 2001 Edition with the 2002 and 

2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1, 

of the ASME BPV Code. The NRC 

agrees. In consideration of the public 

comment, § 50.55a(b)(2)(ix) is revised in 

this final rule to require that 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(B) continue to apply 

when using the 2001 Edition and the 

2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI. 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii)—Flaws in 

Class 3 Piping 

The proposed rule would have 

revised § 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) to eliminate 

the authorization to use Code Case N–

513. The existing regulation in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) authorizes the use of 

Code Cases N–513 and N–523–1. Code 

Case N–513 is now approved in 

Regulatory Guide 1.147, ‘‘Inservice 

Inspection Code Case Acceptability, 

ASME Section XI, Division 1.’’

Regulatory Guide 1.147 (Revision 13) 

was incorporated by reference into 

§ 50.55a in a final rule dated July 8, 

2003 (68 FR 40469). Thus, it is no longer 

necessary to authorize the use of Code 

Case N–513 in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) 

because this code case is included in 

Regulatory Guide 1.147. Section 

50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) would continue to 

approve the use of Code Case N–523–1 

because Code Case N–523–1 is currently 

not included in Regulatory Guide 1.147. 

There were no public comments 

received on § 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) and 

therefore is adopted without change in 

this final rule. 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xiv)—Appendix 

VIII Personnel Qualification 

The proposed rule would have 

revised the existing modification for 

Appendix VIII personnel qualification 

in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) to apply to the 

2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of 

Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME 

BPV Code. The modification in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) continues to apply to 

the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda 

of Section XI because the earlier Code 

provisions on which this regulation was 

based were not revised in the 2001 

Edition through 2003 Addenda of 

Section XI to address the underlying 

issues which led to the NRC to impose 

the modification. The proposed rule 

also revised § 50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) to correct 

an oversight. The existing regulation 

incorrectly states that the annual 

practice requirements in VII–4240 of 

Supplement VII of Section XI may be 

used. The reference to Supplement VII 

is incorrect; it should be Appendix VII. 

58808 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Therefore, the proposed rule stated that 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) should be revised to 

state that the annual practice 

requirements in VII–4240 of Appendix 

VII of Section XI may be used. 

One commenter requested that the 

existing annual training requirements in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) be revised to change 

the required number of hours of training 

that must be completed before 

performing ultrasonic examinations. 

The NRC declines to make this change 

because the proposed rule did not 

suggest an amendment to the required 

number of hours of training that must be 

completed before performing ultrasonic 

examinations, and the NRC currently 

does not have a basis for supporting 

such a change. There were no other 

public comments received on 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xiv). Therefore, 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) is adopted without 

change in this final rule. 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)—Appendix VIII 

Qualification and Coverage 

Requirements 

The proposed rule would have 

revised the existing modification for 

Appendix VIII specimen set and 

qualification requirements in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) to apply to the 2001 

Edition of Section XI, Division 1, of the 

ASME BPV Code. The modification in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) would continue to 

apply to the 2001 Edition of Section XI 

because the earlier Code provisions on 

which this regulation was based were 

not revised in the 2001 Edition of 

Section XI to address the underlying 

issues which led the NRC to impose the 

modification. There were no public 

comments received on 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv). Therefore, 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) is adopted without 

change in this final rule.

The proposed rule would have 

revised the existing regulation in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1) to specify that 

the flaw depth sizing provisions in 

Subparagraph 3.2(c) of Supplement 4 to 

Appendix VIII are not applicable when 

Appendix VIII is implemented in 

accordance with § 50.55a(b)(2)(xv). 

Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) currently 

provides an alternative method that 

licensees may use for implementing 

Appendix VIII and the supplements to 

Appendix VIII. The existing regulation 

specifies that the flaw depth sizing 

provisions in Subparagraph 3.2(a) of 

Supplement 4 to Appendix VIII are not 

applicable when using the flaw depth 

sizing provisions specified in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1). This revision is 

needed to correct an oversight that the 

flaw depth sizing provisions in 

Subparagraph 3.2(c) of Supplement 4 to 

Appendix VIII also do not apply when 

using the flaw depth sizing provisions 

specified in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1). 

Thus, the flaw depth sizing provisions 

in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1) were revised 

in the proposed rule to also reference 

Subparagraph 3.2(c) of Supplement 4 to 

Appendix VIII. There were no public 

comments received on 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1). Therefore, 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1) is adopted 

without change in this final rule. 

The proposed rule would have 

revised the existing regulation in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(J) to eliminate the 

approval to use Code Case N–552. Code 

Case N–552 is now approved in 

Regulatory Guide 1.147, Revision 13, 

which was incorporated by reference 

into § 50.55a in a final rule dated July 

8, 2003 (68 FR 40469). Thus, it is no 

longer necessary to approve the use of 

Code Case N–552 in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(J) 

because this code case is included in 

Regulatory Guide 1.147. There were no 

public comments received on 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(J). Therefore, 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(J) is adopted without 

change in this final rule. 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xx)—System 

Leakage Test 

The proposed rule would have 

revised the existing modification for 

system leakage tests in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xx) 

to continue prohibiting the use of 

certain system leakage test provisions in 

the 1997 Addenda through 2001 Edition 

of Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME 

BPV Code. The proposed rule stated that 

the modification in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xx) 

does not apply to the 2002 and 2003 

Addenda of Section XI because the 

earlier Code provisions on which this 

regulation was based were revised in the 

2002 Addenda of Section XI to address 

the underlying issues which led to the 

NRC to impose the modification of the 

ASME Code provisions. The revised 

system leakage test provisions in IWA–

5213(a) are equivalent to the existing 

requirements in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xx). 

One commenter stated that the system 

leakage test provisions in IWA–5213(a) 

were revised in the 2003 Addenda of 

Section XI not the 2002 Addenda as 

stated in the proposed rule. The NRC 

agrees. In consideration of the public 

comment, § 50.55a(b)(2)(xx) is revised in 

this final rule so that the modification 

applies when using IWA–5213(a), 1997 

through 2002 Addenda. 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxii)—Surface 

Examination 

Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xxii) in the 

proposed rule would have prohibited 

the use of a new provision in IWA–2220 

allowing ultrasonic (UT) examination. 

The provisions of Code Case N–615, 

‘‘Ultrasonic Examination as a Surface 

Examination Method for Category B–F 

and B–J Piping Welds,’’ were 

incorporated into IWA–2220 in the 2001 

Edition of Section XI of the ASME BPV 

Code. Code Case N–615 and IWA–2220 

allow a surface examination to be 

conducted using a UT examination 

method. The UT examination is 

conducted from the inside surface of 

certain piping welds. Other allowable 

surface examination methods (magnetic 

particle or liquid penetrant) are 

conducted from the outside surface of 

certain piping welds. The purpose of the 

these surface examinations is to identify 

flaws in the outer surface of the weld. 

Revision 13 to Regulatory Guide 1.147 

did not approve the use of Code Case N–

615 and the proposed rule would have 

prohibited the use of the same UT 

examination specified in IWA–2220. 

There are no provisions in Section XI 

that address qualification requirements 

and performance demonstration criteria 

and requirements to ensure proper 

consideration of flaws in the outer 

surface of a piping weld when 

conducting a UT examination from the 

inside surface of the piping weld. 

One commenter stated that the 

proposed § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxii) should be 

deleted because IWA–2220 provides an 

acceptable UT performance 

demonstration requirement. The NRC 

disagrees. For example, IWA–2220 does 

not provide test specimen requirements, 

piping weld material requirements, 

acceptable flaw types, performance 

demonstration detection acceptance 

criteria, nor acceptable pipe specimen 

thickness.

A number of commenters requested 

that § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxii) be revised to 

allow IWA–2220 surface examinations 

be conducted by UT examination 

provided that the UT examination 

method has been demonstrated by a 

successful performance demonstration. 

The commenters stated that their 

revision addresses the NRC concern that 

there are no qualification requirements 

or performance demonstration criteria 

in Section XI for conducting a UT 

examination from the inside surface of 

the piping weld. The NRC disagrees. 

The revision, as proposed by the 

commenters, does not address the 

concern in the proposed rule. Appendix 

I of Section XI requires that all piping 

examinations be performed in 

accordance with Appendix VIII 

qualified procedures and personnel. The 

final rule dated September 22, 1999 (64 

FR 51370), requires that licensees 

implement Appendix VIII and the 

supplements to Appendix VIII on an 

expedited basis. The NRC imposed this 

requirement on an expedited basis 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58809

because there were shortcomings in the 

qualifications of personnel and 

procedures in ensuring the reliability of 

nondestructive examination of the 

reactor vessel and other components of 

the reactor coolant system pressure 

boundary. The NRC believes that the 

imposition of performance 

demonstration in Appendix VIII and its 

supplements has enhanced the overall 

level of assurance of the reliability of 

UT examination techniques in detecting 

and sizing flaws. The NRC is not 

approving the use of new UT provision 

in IWA–2220 because qualification 

requirements and performance 

demonstration criteria for the new UT 

provision are not addressed in 

Appendix VIII. Therefore, 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xxii) is adopted without 

change in this final rule. 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxiii)—IWA–

4461.4.2 Evaluation of Thermally Cut 

Surfaces 

Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xxiii) of the 

proposed rule would have required that 

all the adverse effects associated with 

the elimination of mechanical 

processing following a thermal removal 

process listed in IWA–4461.4.2(a)(1) 

through (5) be considered by tests, 

inspections and analyses. Tests, 

inspections and analyses are further 

discussed below. IWA–4461.4 requires 

that the surface left in service after the 

metal is removed by a thermal removal 

process be mechanically processed. A 

thermal removal process is used to 

remove metal from a weld or base metal. 

Thermal removal processes include 

oxyacetylene cutting, carbon arc 

gouging, plasma cutting, metal 

disintegration machining and 

electrodischarge machining. Thermal 

removal processes can leave cracks, 

stress risers, very rough surfaces or 

heavy oxidations on the surface of the 

metal. Mechanical processing involves 

the removal of any defects from a 

surface of the metal by grinding, 

machining or filing, for example. 

Subparagraph IWA–4461.4.2 was added 

in the 2001 Edition to allow the 

elimination of mechanical processing of 

a thermally cut surface when, due to 

field conditions, mechanical processing 

is deemed impractical. IWA–4461.4.2 

allows the elimination of mechanical 

processing of thermally cut surfaces 

provided that the adverse effects 

associated with the elimination of 

mechanical processing listed in IWA–

4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5) are considered 

by an evaluation. The adverse effects 

listed in IWA–4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5) 

include soundness of cut, material 

toughness, corrosion resistance, stresses, 

and oxidation or other contamination. 

The proposed rule stated that it is 

unclear if all the adverse effects listed 

in IWA–4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5) are 

required to be considered by evaluation 

or are licensees supposed to determine 

which of the adverse effects listed in 

IWA–4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5) would 

be applicable. The proposed rule stated 

that tests, inspections, and analyses 

would be required to evaluate the 

adverse effects listed in IWA–

4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5). The proposed 

rule did not describe any specific test, 

inspection or analysis. Licensees would 

be responsible for determining the 

appropriate test, inspection, and 

analysis for each of the items listed in 

IWA–4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5). 

Several commenters explained that 

the provision IWA–4461.4.2(a) requires 

that the evaluation shall include all 

those adverse effects listed in IWA–

4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5) in the 

evaluation. Other commenters stated 

that not all of the adverse effects listed 

in IWA–4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5) are 

applicable to all thermal processes and 

that IWA–4461.4.2(c) requires that the 

evaluation document any adverse effects 

listed in IWA–4461.4.2(a)(1) through 

(a)(5) that are not applicable in the 

Repair/Replacement Plan. Commenters 

also stated that it is unreasonable for 

NRC to require tests, inspections, and 

analyses to address each of the adverse 

effects listed in IWA–4461.4.2(a)(1) 

through (5) to eliminate mechanical 

processing of a thermally cut surface. 

The tests, inspections, and analyses as 

proposed in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxiii) would 

make it impracticable for a licensee to 

use the provisions in IWA–4461.4.2. 

The NRC believes that it is 

impracticable to justify the elimination 

of mechanical processing of a thermally 

cut surface in an evaluation as specified 

in IWA–4461.4.2. It is not possible to 

evaluate the adverse effects that can 

occur as a result of thermal cutting 

without performing appropriate tests, 

inspections, and analyses. For example, 

the provisions in IWA–4461.4.2 could 

be used to eliminate mechanical 

processing for a carbon arc-gouging cut 

that removed a hanger in a high 

radiation area. If the cut is made too 

close to the load-bearing component, the 

metal on the load-bearing component 

could be affected by an errant arc 

touching the load-bearing surface or 

allowing some of the cutting spatter to 

become attached to the load-bearing 

surface leaving an arc strike, a heataffected zone or a stress riser on the 

surface. The area around the cut must be 

inspected to make certain that the 

cutting has not damaged the surface of 

the component. Elimination of the 

inspection in a documented evaluation 

would not be adequate even for this 

simple thermal cutting example. 

Furthermore, the cut must be a safe 

distance from the surface of the 

component to eliminate any possibility 

of leaving a mechanical (a rough, 

oxidized or carburized surface) or 

metallurgical (a heat affected zone) 

stress riser near or in the surface of the 

component. If the cut is made too close 

to the final surface, a heat-affected zone 

from the cut could be left in the final 

load-bearing surface or a very rough, 

highly oxidized or carburized surface 

could be left very near the final loadbearing surface. The exact distance from 

the cut surface must be determined by 

an analysis or qualification testing of the 

configuration, not by a documented 

evaluation.

The NRC agrees with the comment 

that the test, inspection, and analysis 

provisions in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxiii) of the 

proposed rule would make it 

impracticable for a licensee to use IWA–

4461.4.2. Therefore, § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxiii) 

is revised in this final rule to prohibit 

the use of the new provisions in IWA–

4461.4.2. 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxiv)—UT 

Performance Demonstration and 

Coverage Requirements 

Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xxiv) in the 

proposed rule would have prohibited 

the use of Appendix VIII and the 

supplements to Appendix VIII, and 

Article I–3000 in the 2002 and 2003 

Addenda of Section XI of the ASME 

BPV Code. The elements of the 

Performance Demonstration Initiative 

(PDI) program were added to Appendix 

VIII and its supplements and Article I–

3000 in the 2002 Addenda. PDI is an 

organization formed for the purpose of 

developing efficient, cost-effective, and 

technically sound UT performance 

demonstration methods to meet 

Appendix VIII requirements. The PDI 

program has evolved as programs were 

developed for each Appendix VIII 

supplement. Article I–3000, 

Examination Coverage, was also added 

in the 2002 Addenda to provide UT 

examination coverage criteria for certain 

welds. 

The final rule dated September 22, 

1999 (64 FR 51370), requires licensees 

to implement Appendix VIII and its 

supplements. The essential elements of 

the PDI program were added to the final 

rule as § 50.55a(b)(2)(xv). Section 

50.55a(b)(2)(xv) also provides UT 

examination coverage criteria. Licensees 

are currently implementing Appendix 

VIII and its supplements in accordance 

with § 50.55a(b)(2)(xv). Although the 

NRC, ASME, and PDI have made 

considerable progress in the 

58810 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

development of UT qualification and 

inspection requirements, the addition of 

the PDI program into Section XI are not 

complete at this time. As a result, 

differences exist between the 

modifications in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xv), and 

the provisions in Appendix VIII and its 

supplements and Article I–3000 in the 

2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI 

of the ASME BPV Code. Therefore, 

Appendix VIII and its supplements and 

the UT coverage criteria in Article I–

3000 can not be implemented in 

accordance with § 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) when 

using the 2002 and 2003 Addenda. 

Consequently, the proposed rule would 

have prohibited the use of Appendix 

VIII and its supplements and Article I–

3000 beyond the 2001 Edition. 

The proposed rule stated that 

conflicts exist between the 

modifications in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xv), and 

the UT coverage provisions in Article I–

3000 in the 2002 and 2003 Addenda. 

Several commenters stated that the use 

of the term ‘‘conflicts’’ in the proposed 

rule was inappropriate. The NRC agrees 

and should have used term 

‘‘differences’’ instead of ‘‘conflicts.’’

Commenters acknowledged that there 

are differences between the UT coverage 

requirements in Article I–3000 and the 

UT coverage requirements in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv). 

A number of commenters requested 

that the proposed limitation in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xxiv) be revised to allow 

the use of the UT coverage requirements 

in Article I–3000. Commenters stated 

that the NRC should accept the UT 

coverage requirements in Article I–3000 

as an alternative to the UT coverage 

requirements in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xv). The 

NRC disagrees. Article I–3000 requires 

that the UT coverage provisions be 

applied when using UT examination 

procedures, equipment, and personnel 

qualified by performance demonstration 

in accordance with Appendix VIII. The 

NRC believes that allowing the use of 

the UT coverage requirements in Article 

I–3000 would require revising the 

existing UT coverage requirements in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) to provide licensees 

the choice of continuing to use the 

existing UT coverage requirements in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) or using the UT 

coverage requirements in Article I–3000. 

It is not the NRC’s intention to 

periodically revise § 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) to 

add new elements of the PDI program as 

the program evolves. The purpose of the 

modification in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) is to 

provide a short-term solution that 

allows licensees to implement an 

Appendix VIII program. The long-term 

solution is to add the elements of the 

PDI program to Section XI or develop a 

code case that can be used to implement 

Appendix VIII and remove 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) from 10 CFR 50.55a. 

Therefore, § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxiv) is 

adopted without change in this final 

rule. 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxv)—Mitigation of 

Defects by ‘‘Modification’’

Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xxv) in the 

proposed rule would have prohibited 

the use of the provisions in IWA–4340 

when using the 2001 Edition and the 

2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI 

of the ASME BPV Code. IWA–4340 was 

added in the 2000 Addenda and 

provides requirements for the mitigation 

of defects by ‘‘modification.’’ Paragraph 

IWA–4340 allows a defect to remain in 

a component provided that the defect 

can be eliminated from the pressure 

boundary by ‘‘modification.’’

Commenters stated that although 

additional provisions were added in the 

2000 Addenda, Section XI has always 

allowed mitigation of defects by 

‘‘modification.’’ Commenters objected to 

the NRC prohibiting the use of this 

longstanding Code requirement. 

Commenters also stated that prohibiting 

the use of IWA–4340 would 

significantly impact licensees in terms 

of cost, resources, and plant shutdowns. 

IWA–4340 ‘‘modifications’’ can be 

designed and installed by most plants 

within the 72-hour technical 

specification allowed outage time. 

These ‘‘modifications’’ are typically 

used when replacement or excavation 

and repair welding of the defect cannot 

be performed within the technical 

specification allowed outage time. 

Commenters stated that it is not unusual 

for a plant to install several 

‘‘modifications’’ in an operating cycle. 

Commenters stated that licensees would 

have to request authorization of an 

alternative pursuant to § 50.55a(a)(3) to 

install modifications if use of IWA–4340 

is prohibited. This would result in a 

significant increase in regulatory 

burden, costs, and plant outage time and 

would also adversely impact NRC 

resources. The NRC disagrees that the 

mitigation of a defect by ‘‘modification’’

in Section XI is a longstanding Code 

provision. Section XI does not 

specifically address mitigation of 

defects by ‘‘modification’’ in the 

editions and addenda prior to the 2000 

Addenda. The NRC is also unaware of 

any ASME Section XI interpretation that 

specifically addresses mitigation of 

defects by ‘‘modification.’’ Furthermore, 

the NRC has authorized many 

alternatives pursuant to § 50.55a(a)(3) 

that are similar to those in IWA–4340. 

These alternatives were authorized on a 

case-by-case basis and addressed 

pressure testing, flaw growth evaluation, 

and reexamination requirements. 

Licensees believed these modifications 

were not permitted by the ASME Code, 

and therefore, concluded that 

authorizations of alternatives were 

necessary. Although some Section XI 

code cases address repair of defects on 

a limited basis, such as the use of weld 

overlays, new provisions for repairing 

defects were added in the 2000 

Addenda.

One commenter stated that the NRC 

had previously approved the use of 

provisions that are similar to those in 

IWA–4340. The commenter stated that 

the NRC should approve the same 

provisions in IWA–4340. The NRC 

agrees that, in some instances, it had 

previously approved the use of 

mitigative methods or alternatives that 

could fall under the provisions of IWA–

4340, but the methods approved by the 

NRC were significantly more 

comprehensive than those in IWA–

4340. For example, the NRC approved 

the use of Code Case N–504–2, 

‘‘Alternative Rule for Repair of Class 1, 

2, and 3 Austenitic Stainless Steel 

Piping,’’ in Regulatory Guide 1.147. The 

NRC notes that the provisions in Code 

Case N–504–2 are significantly more 

comprehensive than the provisions 

required by IWA–4340. The NRC has 

also authorized use of weld overlays as 

corrective action for intergranular stress 

corrosion cracking in plant-specific 

submittals. Authorization was based on 

adequate flaw evaluation, examination 

frequency, and pressure testing 

provided by licensees in their proposed 

alternative. However, the NRC has also 

disapproved the use of mitigative 

methods that would be allowed under 

IWA–4340. For example, the NRC 

disapproved the use of Code Case N–

562–1, ‘‘Alternative Requirements for 

Wall Thickness Restoration of Class 3 

Moderate Energy Carbon Steel Piping,’’

in Regulatory Guide 1.193, ‘‘ASME Code 

Cases Not Approved For Use.’’ The NRC 

disapproved the use of Code Case N–

562–1 because the ASME Code and the 

code case do not provide criteria for 

determining the rate of the extent of 

degradation of the repair or surrounding 

base metal and do not specify 

examination requirements. 

The proposed rule stated that IWA–

4520(b)(2) exempts piping, pump and 

valve welding or brazing that does not 

penetrate through the pressure 

boundary from any pressure test. Since 

the modification to mitigate the defect 

will become the new pressure boundary 

and the modification may be attached to 

the pressure boundary by welds that do 

not penetrate through the pressure 

boundary, pressure testing would not be 

required. The NRC proposed to not 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58811

accept the elimination of pressure 

testing requirements for a modification 

that will function as a pressure 

boundary. 

Commenters stated that the reference 

to IWA–4520(b)(2) in the proposed rule 

is incorrect. The NRC agrees. The NRC 

intended to reference IWA–4540(b)(3) in 

the proposed rule. IWA–4540(b)(3) 

exempts piping, pump and valve 

welding or brazing that does not 

penetrate through the pressure 

boundary from pressure testing, not 

IWA–4520(b)(2). 

Commenters did not discuss if the 

pressure test exemption in IWA–

4540(b)(3) would be applicable to IWA–

4340 ‘‘modifications.’’ They simply 

stated that Section XI requires a 

pressure test for new welds that are a 

part of the pressure boundary. The NRC 

agrees that pressure testing for new 

pressure boundary weld is a 

requirement. However, the NRC is 

concerned that licensees could interpret 

the provisions in IWA–4540(b)(3) that 

pressure tests are not required for 

certain IWA–4340 modifications such as 

an encapsulation of a defect that does 

not yet, but eventually could, breach the 

pressure boundary for example. The 

NRC believes that pressure testing the 

‘‘modification’’ is necessary to validate 

the structural integrity of the 

‘‘modification.’’

The proposed rule stated that IWA–

4340(c) requires that each licensee 

define the successive examinations to be 

performed after the completion of the 

‘‘modification.’’ The purpose of the 

successive examinations is to monitor 

the defect to detect propagation beyond 

the limits of the ‘‘modification’’ and, 

when practicable, to validate the 

projected growth of the defect. The Code 

is unclear as to whether it permits a 

defect to propagate outside the physical 

boundary of the ‘‘modification’’ or 

requires that a licensee’s examination 

program predict propagation of the 

defect such that the licensee would be 

able to identify, in advance, a defect that 

is expected to propagate outside the area 

physically modified such that corrective 

action could be taken. 

Commenters explained that a flaw 

outside of the modification might be 

acceptable until it reached the condition 

of a defect. The condition would be 

unacceptable if the flaw propagated into 

a defect. Commenters also indicated that 

because each ‘‘modification’’ is unique, 

it is not possible to specify examination 

frequency criteria that could be applied 

to all defects that are mitigated by 

‘‘modification.’’ Commenters stated that 

IWA–4340(c) requires that, if 

practicable, the growth of the defect be 

predicted and licensees establish an 

examination method that would 

demonstrate that the defect has not 

propagated beyond the limits of the 

‘‘modification.’’ The examinations 

would also validate the predicted 

growth assumptions. In other cases, it 

may not be practical to predict the 

growth of the defect. Commenters stated 

that the examination frequency would 

have to account for this condition. The 

NRC believes that IWA–4340(c) is 

unacceptable because it does not specify 

minimum periodic examinations that 

are capable of validating the predicted 

defect growth assumptions. The NRC 

believes that it is appropriate for the 

Code to establish minimum periodic 

examination requirements. Licensees 

may always do more than Code 

minimum requirements.

One commenter states that it is 

inappropriate for the NRC to modify the 

use of Code provisions that were 

previously accepted by the NRC. The 

NRC disagrees. The modification in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xxv) was not included in 

the final rule that incorporated by 

reference the 2000 Addenda of Section 

XI in § 50.55a (67 FR 60520: September 

26, 2002) due to an oversight by the 

NRC. The NRC did not identify that 

these Code provisions were added when 

it reviewed the 2000 Addenda of 

Section XI. The NRC has determined 

that this modification should only apply 

to those licensees who implement the 

2001 Edition and later editions and 

addenda of Section XI, and should not 

be backfit to those licensees who update 

their ISI programs to the 1998 Edition 

with the 1999 and 2000 Addenda in 

accordance with § 50.55a(g)(4)(ii). The 

NRC has determined it is acceptable not 

to backfit the licensees who update their 

ISI programs to the 1998 Edition with 

the 1999 and 2000 Addenda because 

those licensees will be required at the 

next 10-year interval to update their ISI 

programs to prohibit the relevant Code 

provisions. Thus, any problems would 

be caught during the next 10-year 

interval. The prohibition of the relevant 

Code provisions is not considered a 

backfit because they are imposed only 

as part of the routine updating required 

as part of the 120-month updating and 

do not constitute a significant change to, 

or fundamental modification of, the 

existing ISI program. 

Although not discussed in the 

proposed rule, the NRC has additional 

concerns about the use of IWA–4340. 

For example, Section XI, Appendix I, 

Ultrasonic Examination, directs users to 

the specific examination methods to be 

followed, including the performance 

demonstration requirements of 

Appendix VIII for certain components. 

IWA–4340(a) states that defects shall be 

characterized using nondestructive 

examination but has no specific 

requirements regarding nondestructive 

examination methods to be used. The 

NRC believes that IWA–4340(a) should 

specify the qualification requirements 

and examination methods by reference 

to existing rules in the Code where 

applicable, or where not applicable, the 

process to be followed to demonstrate 

the capability of the techniques to be 

used. 

IWA–4340 could be used to mitigate 

non-planar defects, such as caused by 

flow accelerated corrosion or 

microbiological induced corrosion. The 

ASME has issued certain code cases, 

such as Code Cases N–561–1, 

‘‘Alternative Requirements for Wall 

Thickness Restoration of Class 2 and 

High Energy Class 3 Carbon Steel 

Piping,’’ and N–562–1, dealing with 

wall thickness restoration for nonplanar defects. The NRC has found these 

code cases to be unacceptable because 

of the absence of criteria concerning the 

extent and rate of degradation of the 

repair and reinspection frequencies and 

because the root cause of the 

degradation may not be mitigated. For 

similar reasons, the NRC finds IWA–

4340 unacceptable for use to mitigate 

non-planar defects. 

Licensees have proposed to mitigate 

circumferential defects above the partial 

penetration weld in control rod drive 

nozzles by partially removing the defect 

and replacing the removed material 

with weldment, thereby ‘‘embedding’’

the defect. The NRC has found such 

proposals to be unacceptable because of 

the possibility of additional cracking in 

the embedding weld and because of 

safety concerns posed by severance of 

the nozzle. The NRC finds IWA–4340 

unacceptable because it could be used 

to mitigate such defects. 

Under IWA–4340, if a defect were to 

propagate beyond the limits of a 

modification, a licensee could perform 

repeated repairs to the same location. 

The NRC believes this is unacceptable 

because it would represent a failure of 

the original evaluation to correctly 

predict the projected growth of the 

defect. 

For these reasons, § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxv) 

is adopted without change in this final 

rule. 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi)—Pressure 

Testing Mechanical Joints 

Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) of the 

proposed rule would have 

supplemented the test provisions in 

IWA–4540 of the 2001 Edition and the 

2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI 

of the ASME BPV Code to require that 

Class 1, 2, and 3 mechanical joints be 

58812 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

pressure tested in accordance with 

IWA–4540(c) of the 1998 Edition of 

Section XI. The requirements to 

pressure test Class 1, 2, and 3 

mechanical joints undergoing repair and 

replacement activities were deleted in 

the 1999 Addenda of Section XI. 

Therefore, pressure testing of 

mechanical joints is no longer required 

by Section XI when performing IWA–

4000 repair and replacement activities. 

The proposed rule would have retained 

the pressure and testing requirements in 

IWA–4540(c) of the 1998 Edition when 

using the 2001 Edition through 2003 

Addenda because there was no 

justification for eliminating the 

requirements for pressure testing Class 

1, 2, and 3 mechanical joints. Pressure 

testing of mechanical joints affected by 

repair and replacement activities is 

necessary to ensure and verify the 

integrity of the pressure boundary. In 

the proposed rule, the NRC requested 

that commenters provide additional 

information that can be used to justify 

the elimination of the pressure tests 

requirements in IWA–4540(c) of the 

1998 Edition of Section XI.

Several commenters stated that the 

Code requirement to conduct a system 

leakage test during operation at nominal 

operating pressure to verify leakage after 

reassembly of a mechanical joint was 

deleted in the 1999 Addenda of Section 

XI. The commenters indicated that this 

Code requirement was deleted because 

mechanical joint leakage is not 

prohibited by Section XI. The 

commenters contend that Section XI 

does not provide leakage acceptance 

criteria, and it has always been the 

responsibility of each licensee to 

determine if the leakage is acceptable 

and if corrective action is required. 

Furthermore, they contend that the 

purpose of the system leakage test in the 

1998 Edition and earlier editions and 

addenda of Section XI is to monitor for 

leakage not verify the structural 

integrity of the pressure boundary. One 

commenter pointed out that the revised 

system leakage test requirements in the 

1999 Addenda and later editions and 

addenda are consistent with the 

construction requirements for 

mechanical joint leakage in Section III 

of the ASME Code. Section III does not 

prohibit leakage at mechanical 

connections and only requires that 

mechanical connection leakage not 

mask leakage at other joints. 

Commenters stated that operators and 

system engineers periodically monitor 

systems for leakage and evaluate if 

corrective action is warranted when 

leakage is identified. Commenters also 

stated that post maintenance test 

programs specify requirements for leak 

testing mechanical connections 

following reassembly. Section XI does 

not provide any acceptance criteria for 

mechanical joint leakage following 

reassembly, and it has always been the 

responsibility of licensees to determine 

if corrective action is warranted. 

The NRC and commenters generally 

agree that repaired or replaced 

mechanical joints should be pressure 

tested following Code repair and 

replacement activities. However, the 

NRC and commenters disagree on the 

role of the Code for providing this 

guidance. The NRC believes that it is 

inappropriate to rely on regulations or 

programs other than the Code, such as 

testing requirements in Appendix B of 

10 CFR Part 50, ‘‘Quality Assurance 

Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and 

Fuel Reprocessing Plants,’’ to provide 

detailed test requirements for 

mechanical joint repair and replacement 

activities. With the exception of Section 

XI, there are no other NRC regulations 

that provide detailed guidance on 

pressure testing mechanical joints that 

are repaired or replaced in accordance 

with Section XI. The test requirements 

in Section XI are technically correct and 

are also consistent with the test 

requirements in Appendix B of 10 CFR 

Part 50. After consideration of public 

comments, the NRC finds that Code 

pressure testing of mechanical joints 

after repair and replacement activities is 

still warranted, and that reliance on 

programs which are not under Code 

jurisdiction is not an appropriate 

substitute for specifying Code repair and 

replacement requirements. 

One commenter states that it is 

inappropriate for the NRC to modify the 

use of Code provisions that were 

previously accepted by the NRC. The 

NRC disagrees. The modification in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) was not included in 

the final rule that incorporated by 

reference the 1999 Addenda of Section 

XI in § 50.55a (67 FR 60520: September 

26, 2002) due to an oversight by the 

NRC. The NRC did not identify that 

these Code provisions were added when 

it reviewed the 1999 Addenda of 

Section XI. The NRC has determined 

that this modification should only apply 

to those licensees who implement the 

2001 Edition and later editions and 

addenda of Section XI, and should not 

be backfit to those licensees who update 

their ISI programs to the 1998 Edition 

with the 1999 and 2000 Addenda in 

accordance with § 50.55a(g)(4)(ii). The 

NRC has determined it is acceptable not 

to backfit the licensees who update their 

ISI programs to the 1998 Edition with 

the 1999 and 2000 Addenda, because 

those licensees will be required at the 

next 10-year interval to update their ISI 

programs to prohibit the relevant Code 

provisions. Thus, any problems would 

be caught during the next 10-year 

interval. The prohibition of the relevant 

Code provisions is not considered a 

backfit because they are imposed only 

as part of the routine updating required 

as part of the 120-month updating and 

do not constitute a significant change to, 

or fundamental modification of, the 

existing ISI program. 

For these reasons, § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) 

is adopted without change in this final 

rule. 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvii)—Removal of 

Insulation 

The proposed modification in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvii) consisted of two 

parts. The first part would have 

supplemented a new provision in IWA–

5242(a) to require that insulation be 

removed before conducting visual 

examinations on bolting susceptible to 

stress corrosion cracking (SCC). The 

purpose of IWA–5242 is to periodically 

examine bolted connections for 

evidence of boric acid leakage. The 17–

4 precipitation-hardened (PH) stainless 

steels and the 410 stainless steels 

installed in borated systems are 

susceptible to SCC when aged at a 

temperature below 1100 °F or have a 

Rockwell Method C hardness value 

above 30. A–286 stainless steel studs or 

bolts are also susceptible to SCC when 

preloaded to 100,000 pounds per square 

inch or higher. Thus, the insulation 

must be removed to visually examine 

these bolting materials. Code Case N–

616, ‘‘Alternative Requirements for VT–

2 Visual Examination of Classes 1, 2, 

and 3 Insulated Pressure Retaining 

Bolted Connections Section XI, Division 

1,’’ included, among other things, a 

provision allowing bolted connections 

with certain bolting materials to be 

examined without removing the 

insulation. However, this could prevent 

identification of signs of degraded 

bolting if the bolting is susceptible to 

SCC. The provisions of Code Case N–

616 were added to IWA–5242(a) in the 

2003 Addenda of Section XI of the 

ASME BPV Code. The NRC also 

conditionally accepted the use of Code 

Case N–616 in Regulatory Guide 1.147, 

by requiring that insulation be removed 

to examine 17–4 PH stainless steel or 

410 stainless steel studs or bolts aged at 

a temperature below 1100 °F or with a 

Rockwell Method C hardness value 

above 30; and A–286 stainless steel 

studs or bolts preloaded to 100,000 

pounds per square inch or higher.

One commenter stated that the ASME 

determined that a VT–2 visual 

examination may not be able to detect 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58813

SCC in 17–4 PH and 410 stainless steel 

installed in borated systems and 

recommended that NRC not adopt the 

modification in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvii) 

requiring removal of insulation prior to 

examining 17–4 PH and 410 stainless 

steel studs or bolts. The NRC agrees that 

it is not the intent of a VT–2 visual 

examination to detect SCC. However, 

VT–2 visual examination is an effective 

method for determining when 

conditions necessary to support SCC, 

such as boric acid leakage on or near a 

bolted connection, are present. The NRC 

believes that it is not prudent to attempt 

to detect boric acid leakage with 

insulation in place on connections 

bolted with materials susceptible to 

SCC. For these reasons, 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvii) requiring that 

insulation be removed when conducting 

visual examinations on bolting 

susceptible to SCC is adopted without 

change in this final rule. 

The second part of 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvii) in the proposed 

rule would have supplemented IWA–

5242(a) to require that a VT–2 

examination of bolted connections be 

performed during system leakage tests. 

One commenter noted that the reason 

for this part of the proposed 

modification was not specifically 

addressed in the statement of 

considerations for the proposed rule. 

The NRC agrees. The proposed rule 

identified two areas in IWA–5242(a) 

that need to be supplemented, and the 

statement of considerations only 

described one of the areas. The reason 

for the second part of 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvii) is as follows. 

Requirement (a) of Code Case N–533–1, 

‘‘Alternative Requirements for VT–2 

Visual Examination of Class 1, 2, and 3 

Insulated Pressure-Retaining Bolted 

Connections,’’ states that a ‘‘system 

pressure test and VT–2 visual 

examination shall be performed each 

refueling outage for Class 1 connections 

and each period for Class 2 and 3 

connections without removal of 

insulation.’’ With the exception of 

Requirement (a), the other provisions of 

Code Case N–533–1 were added to 

IWA–5242(a) in the 2003 Addenda of 

Section XI of the ASME BPV Code. The 

NRC proposed this modification 

because it appeared that all of the 

provisions of Code Case N–533–1 were 

not added in the 2003 Addenda. After 

further review, the NRC concludes that 

VT–2 examination of insulated bolted 

connections during system leakage tests 

is required by Tables IWB/C/D–2500–1 

and by IWA–5241 of Section XI. Tables 

IWB/C/D–2500–1 require VT–2 visual 

examination during system leakage 

testing for all pressure retaining 

components. Paragraph IWA–5241 

requires VT–2 visual examination of the 

accessible external exposed surfaces of 

pressure-retaining components for 

evidence of leakage and applies to 

insulated and non-insulated 

components. Therefore, the proposed 

requirement that a VT–2 examination of 

bolted connections be performed during 

system leakage tests is not adopted in 

this final rule. 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii)—

Reconciliation of Quality Assurance 

Requirements 

Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) of the 

proposed rule would have 

supplemented a new provision in IWA–

4226.1 to require that repair/

replacement components be 

manufactured, procured, and controlled 

as safety-related under a quality 

assurance program meeting the 

requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR 

Part 50. The proposed rule stated that 

the purpose of IWA–4226.1 (2003 

Addenda) and Code Case N–554–2, 

‘‘Alternative Requirements for 

Reconciliation of Replacement Items 

and Addition of New Systems,’’ Section 

XI, Division 1 is to provide 

requirements for reconciling design 

requirements when using later editions 

of a construction code or Section III. 

The proposed rule stated that IWA–

4226.1 and Code Case N–554–2 do not 

require reconciliation of the quality 

assurance requirements for certification, 

Code symbol stamping, data reports, 

and authorized inspection. For example, 

a component manufactured in a 

commercial shop that does not have a 

quality assurance program could be 

used in a safety-related application 

without having to reconcile quality 

assurance requirements. In Regulatory 

Guide 1.147, the NRC conditionally 

accepted the use of Code Case N–554–

2 by requiring that repair/replacement 

components be manufactured, procured, 

and controlled as safety-related under a 

quality assurance program meeting the 

requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR 

Part 50. The modification in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) in the proposed 

rule would have imposed the same 

quality assurance requirements on 

IWA–4226.1. 

One commenter stated that the 

proposed modification in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) would prevent 

licensees from using a commercial grade 

dedication program to fabricate or 

procure components that are no longer 

available through an Appendix B 

supplier. The commenter proposed a 

revision to § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) that 

would allow licensees to use a 

commercial grade dedication program to 

fabricate or procure components, if 

necessary. The NRC notes that it was 

not the intent of the modification in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) in the proposed 

rule to prevent licensees from using a 

commercial grade dedication program to 

fabricate or procure components that are 

no longer available through an 

Appendix B supplier. Another 

commenter stated the proposed 

modification in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) is 

unnecessary because the revision to 

IWA–4226.1 in the 2003 Addenda is not 

associated with the fabrication or 

procurement of components. This same 

commenter stated that a component 

manufactured in a commercial shop that 

does not have a quality assurance 

program would not be permitted in an 

application within the jurisdiction of 

Section XI unless that practice was 

permitted by the original Construction 

Code. In this case, a licensee may 

purchase replacement material, parts, or 

components from a commercial vendor 

and dedicate them for use in a nuclear 

power plant in accordance with its 

quality assurance program. The NRC 

agrees with the second commenter. The 

proposed modification in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) is unnecessary 

because the revision to IWA–4226.1 

(2003 Addenda) does not change 

component procurement or fabrication 

requirements. Furthermore, the existing 

modification in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xvii), 

Reconciliation of Quality Requirements, 

requires that replacement parts be 

purchased, to the extent necessary, in 

accordance with the licensee’s quality 

assurance program. In consideration of 

public comments, § 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) 

is not adopted in this final rule. 

2.3 ASME OM Code 

The proposed rule would have 

revised § 50.55a(b)(3) to incorporate by 

reference the 2001 Edition and the 2002 

and 2003 Addenda of the ASME OM 

Code. Accordingly, the existing 

modifications for motor-operated valves, 

snubbers, and manual valves in 

§ 50.55a(b)(3)(ii), § 50.55a(b)(3)(v), and 

§ 50.55a(b)(3)(vi), respectively, would 

continue to apply when using the 2001 

Edition through 2003 Addenda of the 

ASME OM Code. The modifications in 

§ 50.55a(b)(3)(ii), § 50.55a(b)(3)(v), and 

§ 50.55a(b)(3)(vi) continue to apply to 

the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda 

of ASME OM Code because the earlier 

Code provisions on which these 

regulations are based were not revised 

in the 2001 Edition through 2003 

Addenda of the ASME OM Code to 

address the underlying issues which led 

to the NRC to impose the modifications. 

There were no public comments 

58814 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

received on § 50.55a(b)(3), 

§ 50.55a(b)(3)(ii), § 50.55a(b)(3)(v), and 

§ 50.55a(b)(3)(vi) and, therefore, these 

provisions are adopted without change 

in this final rule.

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(i)—Quality 

Assurance 

The proposed rule would have 

revised the existing quality assurance 

requirements in § 50.55a(b)(3)(i) to state 

that ISTA–1500 is applicable when 

using the 1998 Edition and later 

editions and addenda of the ASME OM 

Code. Subsections of the ASME OM 

Code were renumbered in the 1998 

Edition; therefore, § 50.55a(b)(3)(i) is 

revised to account for the renumbering. 

This revision does not change 

requirements in a substantive manner. 

There were no public comments 

received on § 50.55a(b)(3)(i) and, 

therefore, this provision is adopted 

without change in this final rule. 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(iii)—Code Case 

OMN–1 

The proposed rule would have 

revised § 50.55a(b)(3)(iii) to eliminate 

the authorization to use Code Case 

OMN–1. The existing regulation in 

§ 50.55a(b)(3)(iii) authorizes the use of 

Code Case OMN–1. Code Case OMN–1 

is now approved in Regulatory Guide 

1.192, ‘‘Operation and Maintenance 

Code Case Acceptability, ASME OM 

Code.’’ Regulatory Guide 1.192 

(Revision 0) was incorporated by 

reference into § 50.55a in a final rule 

dated July 8, 2003 (68 FR 40469). Thus, 

it is no longer necessary to authorize the 

use of Code Case OMN–1 in 

§ 50.55a(b)(3)(iii) because this code case 

is now included in Regulatory Guide 

1.192. There were no public comments 

received on § 50.55a(b)(3)(iii) and, 

therefore, this provision is adopted 

without change in this final rule. 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(iv)—Check Valve 

Monitoring Program 

The proposed rule would have 

revised the existing modification for the 

check valve monitoring program in 

§ 50.55a(b)(3)(iv) to continue prohibiting 

use of the 1995 Edition through 2002 

Addenda of the ASME OM Code. The 

modification in (b)(3)(iv) does not apply 

to the 2003 Addenda of the ASME OM 

Code because the earlier Code 

provisions on which this regulation was 

based were revised in the 2003 Addenda 

of the ASME OM Code to address the 

underlying issues which led to the NRC 

to impose the modification. The check 

valve monitoring program requirements 

in Appendix II of the 2003 Addenda of 

the ASME OM Code are equivalent to 

the check valve monitoring program 

requirements in § 50.55a(b)(3)(iv). There 

were no public comments received on 

(b)(3)(iv) and, therefore, this provision is 

adopted without change in this final 

rule. 

3. Section-by-Section Analysis for 

50.55a 

Paragraph (b)(1). This paragraph 

requires new applicants for a nuclear 

power plant who submit an application 

for a construction permit under 10 CFR 

Part 50 after the effective date of this 

rule use the 2001 Edition and the 2002 

and 2003 Addenda of Section III, 

Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code for 

the design and construction of the 

reactor coolant pressure boundary and 

Quality Group B and C components. 

The statement of considerations for the 

proposed rule (69 FR 886) indicated that 

the proposed rule would require, inter 

alia, applicants for design certifications 

under 10 CFR Part 52 to use the 2001 

Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda 

of Section III, Division 1 of the ASME 

BPV Code. However, the language of the 

proposed rule did not provide for such 

applicability, and upon further 

consideration, the NRC believes that 

additional issues relating to the 

application of ASME Code to design 

certifications and other regulatory 

processes in Part 52 need to be 

considered. Accordingly, the NRC has 

decided not to extend by rulemaking 

these ASME BPV Code provisions to 

design certifications, and no rule change 

is necessary to accomplish this. This 

paragraph also requires that existing 

modifications and limitations for weld 

leg dimensions, seismic design, and 

independence of inspection in 

§§ 50.55a(b)(1)(ii), 50.55a(b)(1)(iii), and 

50.55a(b)(1)(v), respectively, apply to 

the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda 

of Section III, Division 1 of the ASME 

BPV Code. 

Paragraph (b)(1)(ii). This paragraph 

reconciles the change in footnote 

numbers in Figures NC–3673.2(b)–1 and 

ND–3673.2(b)–1 in Section III, Division 

1 of the ASME BPV Code that were 

renumbered. There are no substantive 

changes in this paragraph. 

Paragraph (b)(1)(vi). This paragraph 

approves the use of Subsection NH, 

‘‘Class 1 Components in Elevated 

Temperature Service,’’ 1995 Addenda 

through 2003 Addenda, for only the 

design and construction of Type 316 

stainless steel pressurizer heater sleeves 

where service conditions do not cause 

the component to reach temperatures 

exceeding 900 °F. Licensees may not 

employ the special design 

methodologies for high temperatures 

described in Subsection NH for the 

design and construction of other Class 1 

reactor coolant pressure boundary 

component applications absent specific 

approval by the NRC. 

Paragraph (b)(2). This paragraph 

requires licensees of nuclear power 

plants to use the 2001 Edition and the 

2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI, 

Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code when 

updating their inservice inspection 

programs in their subsequent 120-month 

interval under § 50.55a(g)(4)(ii). Existing 

modifications and limitations for quality 

assurance, Class 1 piping, underwater 

welding, certification of nondestructive 

examination personnel, substitution of 

alternative method, and Table IWB–

2500–1 examination requirements in 

§§ 50.55a(b)(2)(x), 50.55a(b)(2)(xi), 

50.55a(b)(2)(xii), 50.55a(b)(2)(xviii), 

50.55a(b)(2)(xix), and 50.55a(b)(2)(xxi), 

respectively, apply to the 2001 Edition 

through 2003 Addenda of Section XI, 

Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code. This 

paragraph also adds Footnote 10 which 

states that enhanced reactor pressure 

vessel head inspections have been 

imposed by order at pressurized water 

reactors, and that the NRC will 

determine the need for supplemental 

inspection requirements to be imposed 

through rulemaking. 

Paragraph (b)(2)(viii). This paragraph 

requires that the existing modification 

for examination of concrete 

containments in § 50.55a(b)(2)(viii) 

apply to the 2001 Edition through 2003 

Addenda of Section XI, Division 1 of the 

ASME BPV Code, and that a new 

modification, § 50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(G), 

apply to the 2001 Edition through 2003 

Addenda of Section XI, Division 1 of the 

ASME BPV Code. 

Paragraph (b)(2)(viii)(G). This new 

paragraph requires that corrosion 

protection medium be restored in 

accordance with the quality assurance 

program requirements specified in 

IWA–1400 following IWL–4000 repair 

and replacement activities conducted on 

concrete containment post-tensioning 

systems when using the 2001 Edition 

through 2003 Addenda Section XI, 

Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code. 

Paragraph (b)(2)(ix). This paragraph 

requires that the existing modification 

for examination of metal containments 

and the liners of concrete containments 

in § 50.55a(b)(2)(ix) apply to the 2001 

Edition through 2003 Addenda of 

Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV 

Code.

Paragraph (b)(2)(xiii). This paragraph 

no longer includes the authorization to 

use Code Case N–513. Authorization to 

use Code Case N–513 is now provided 

in Regulatory Guide 1.147, which has 

been incorporated by reference into 

§ 50.55a. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58815

Paragraph (b)(2)(xiv). The paragraph 

requires that the existing modification 

for Appendix VIII personnel 

qualification in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) apply 

to the 2001 Edition through 2003 

Addenda of Section XI, Division 1, of 

the ASME BPV Code. The paragraph 

also corrects an oversight by clarifying 

that the annual practice requirements in 

VII–4240 of Appendix VII of Section XI, 

Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code may 

be used. 

Paragraph (b)(2)(xv). This paragraph 

requires the existing modification for 

Appendix VIII specimen set and 

qualification requirements in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) apply to the 2001 

Edition of Section XI, Division 1 of the 

ASME BPV Code. 

Paragraph (b)(2)(xv)(C)(1). This 

paragraph specifies that the flaw depth 

sizing provisions in Subparagraph 3.2(c) 

of Supplement 4 to Appendix VIII of 

Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV 

Code are not applicable when Appendix 

VIII is implemented in accordance with 

the provisions in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xv). 

Paragraph (b)(2)(xv)(J). This 

paragraph no longer includes the 

authorization to use Code Case N–552. 

Authorization to use Code Case N–552 

is now provided in Regulatory Guide 

1.147, which has been incorporated by 

reference into § 50.55a. Paragraph 

(b)(2)(xv)(J) is reserved for future use. 

Paragraph (b)(2)(xvii). This paragraph 

limits the existing modification for 

reconciliation of quality requirements in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xvii) to apply only to the 

1995 Addenda through 1998 Edition of 

Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV 

Code. 

Paragraph (b)(2)(xx). This paragraph 

limits the existing modification for 

system leakage tests in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xx) 

to apply only to the 1997 Addenda 

through 2002 Addenda of Section XI, 

Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code. 

Paragraph (b)(2)(xxii). This new 

paragraph prohibits the use of the 

provision in IWA–2220, 2001 Edition 

and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of 

Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV 

Code, that allows the use of an 

ultrasonic examination method to 

conduct a surface examination. 

Licensees must conduct an IWA–2220 

surface examination using magnetic 

particle, liquid penetrant, or eddy 

current method. 

Paragraph (b)(2)(xxiii). This new 

paragraph prohibits the use of the 

provisions for eliminating mechanical 

processing of thermally cut surfaces in 

IWA–4461.4.2 of the 2001 Edition 

through 2003 Addenda of Section XI, 

Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code. 

Paragraph (b)(2)(xxiv). This new 

paragraph prohibits the use of Appendix 

VIII and the supplements to Appendix 

VIII and Article I–3000 of the 2002 and 

2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1 

of the ASME BPV Code. Licensees are 

required to implement Appendix VIII 

and its supplements in accordance with 

the alternative provided in paragraph 

(b)(2)(xv). Licensees are also required to 

use the coverage requirements in 

paragraph (b)(2)(xv). 

Paragraph (b)(2)(xxv). This new 

paragraph prohibits the use of IWA–

4340, 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 

2003 Addenda of Section XI that allows 

the mitigation of defects by 

modification. 

Paragraph (b)(2)(xxvi). This new 

paragraph requires that the Class 1, 2, 

and 3 mechanical joint pressure and test 

provisions in IWA–4540(c) of the 1998 

Edition of Section XI of the ASME Code 

be used when repair and replacement 

activities are conducted in accordance 

with the 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 

2003 Addenda of Section XI of the 

ASME BPV Code. 

Paragraph (b)(2)(xxvii). This new 

paragraph requires that the insulation be 

removed from 17–4 PH or 410 stainless 

steel studs or bolts aged at a temperature 

below 1100 °F or having a Rockwell 

Method C hardness value above 30, and 

from A–286 stainless steel studs or bolts 

preloaded to 100,000 pounds per square 

inch or higher when performing visual 

examinations in accordance with IWA–

5242 of the 2003 Addenda of Section XI, 

Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code. 

Paragraph (b)(3). This paragraph 

requires licensees of nuclear power 

plants to use the 2001 Edition and the 

2002 and 2003 Addenda of the ASME 

OM Code when updating their inservice 

test programs in their subsequent 120-

month inspection intervals under 

§ 50.55a(f)(4)(ii). This paragraph also 

requires the existing modifications and 

limitations for quality assurance, motoroperated valve testing, snubbers, and 

manual valves in §§ 50.55a(b)(3)(i), 

50.55a(b)(3)(ii), 50.55a(b)(3)(v), and 

50.55a(b)(3)(vi), respectively, apply to 

the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda 

of the ASME OM Code.

Paragraph (b)(3)(i). This paragraph 

reconciles the different subsection and 

paragraph numbers of the ASME OM 

Code that were renumbered in the 1998 

Edition and subsequent editions and 

addenda. There are no substantive 

changes in this paragraph. 

Paragraph (b)(3)(iii). This paragraph 

no longer includes the authorization to 

use Code Case OMN–1. Authorization to 

use Code Case OMN–1 is now provided 

in Regulatory Guide 1.192 which has 

been incorporated by reference into 

§ 50.55a. Paragraph (b)(3)(iii) is reserved 

for future use. 

Paragraph (b)(3)(iv). This paragraph 

limits the existing modification for the 

check valve monitoring program in 

§ 50.55a(b)(3)(iv) to the 1995 Edition 

through 2002 Addenda of the ASME 

OM Code. 

4. Generic Aging Lessons Learned 

Report 

In July 2001, the NRC issued, 

‘‘Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) 

Report,’’ NUREG–1801, Volumes 1 and 

2, for use by applicants in preparing 

their license renewal applications. The 

GALL report evaluates existing generic 

programs, documents the bases for 

determining when generic existing 

programs are adequate without change, 

and documents when generic existing 

programs should be augmented for 

license renewal. Section XI, Division 1 

of the ASME BPV Code is one of the 

generic existing programs in the GALL 

report that is evaluated as an aging 

management program (AMP) for license 

renewal. Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, 

IWF, IWE, and IWL of the 1995 Edition 

up to and including the 1996 Addenda 

of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code for 

inservice inspection were evaluated in 

the GALL report, and the conclusions in 

the GALL report are valid for these 

edition and addenda. 

In the GALL report Sections XI.M1, 

‘‘ASME Section XI Inservice Inspection, 

Subsections IWB, IWC, and IWD,’’

XI.S1, ‘‘ASME Section XI, Subsection 

IWE,’’ XI.S2, ‘‘ASME Section XI, 

Subsection IWL,’’ and XI.S3, ‘‘ASME 

Section XI, Subsection IWF,’’ describe 

the evaluation and technical bases for 

determining the adequacy of 

Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWL, 

and IWF, respectively. In addition, 

many other AMPs in the GALL report 

rely in part, but to a lesser degree, on 

the requirements in the ASME Code, 

Section XI (i.e., XI.M3, XI.M4, XI.M5, 

XI.M6, XI.M7, XI.M8, XI.M9, XI.M11, 

XI.M12, XI.M13, XI.M14, XI.M15, 

XI.M16, XI.M18. XI.M24, XI.M25, and 

XI.M32). 

The NRC has completed an evaluation 

of Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, 

IWF, and IWL of Section XI of the 

ASME BPV Code (2001 Edition and the 

2002 and 2003 Addenda) as part of the 

§ 50.55a amendment process to 

determine if the conclusions of the 

GALL report are also applicable for 

AMPs that rely upon the ASME Code 

editions and addenda which are 

incorporated by reference into § 50.55a 

by the final rule. The NRC finds that the 

2001 Edition and 2002 and 2003 

Addenda of Sections III and XI of the 

ASME BPV Code are acceptable and the 

conclusions of the GALL report remain 

valid. Accordingly, an applicant may 

58816 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

use Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, 

IWF, and IWL of Section XI of the 

ASME BPV Code (2001 Edition and the 

2002 and 2003 Addenda) as acceptable 

alternatives to the requirements of the 

1995 Edition up to and including the 

1996 Addenda of the ASME Code, 

Section XI referenced in the GALL 

AMPs without the need to submit these 

alternatives for NRC review in its plantspecific license renewal application. 

Similarly, a licensee approved for 

license renewal that relied on the GALL 

AMPs may use Subsections IWB, IWC, 

IWD, IWE, IWF, and IWL of Section XI 

of the ASME BPV Code (2001 Edition 

and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda) as 

acceptable alternatives to the AMPs 

described in the GALL report. However, 

a licensee must assess and follow 

applicable NRC requirements with 

regard to changes to its licensing basis. 

The GALL report identified areas of 

the 1995 Edition with the 1996 

Addenda of Section XI of the ASME 

Code that require augmentation for 

license renewal. A license renewal 

applicant may either augment their 

AMPs in these areas as described in the 

GALL report or propose alternatives for 

NRC review in its plant-specific license 

renewal application. The GALL report’s 

conclusions with respect to 

augmentation in connection with a 

license renewal application also apply 

when implementing the 2001 Edition 

and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of 

Section XI of the ASME Code. 

5. Availability of Documents 

The NRC is making the documents 

identified below available to interested 

persons through one or more of the 

following methods as indicated. 

Public Document Room (PDR). The 

NRC Public Document Room is located 

at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

Rulemaking Web site (Web). The 

NRC’s interactive rulemaking Web site 

is located at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.

These documents may be viewed and 

downloaded electronically via this Web 

site. 

NRC’s Public Electronic Reading 

Room (PERR). The NRC’s public 

electronic reading room is located at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

adams.html.

NRC Staff Contact. Single copies of 

the Federal Register Notice, Regulatory 

Analysis, Environmental Assessment, 

and Resolution of Public Comments can 

be obtained from Stephen Tingen, 

Division of Engineering, Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

Alternatively, you may contact Mr. 

Tingen at (301) 415–1280, or via e-mail 

at: sgt@nrc.gov.

Document PDR Web PERR NRC staff 

Order EA–03–009 ...................................................................... X X ML 030380470 .................................................. X 

Revised Order EA–03–009 ........................................................ X X ML 040220181 .................................................. X 

SECY–03–0078 .......................................................................... X X ML 030700408 .................................................. X 

Federal Register Notice ............................................................. X X ML 041200758 .................................................. X 

Regulatory Analysis .................................................................... X X ML 041200761 .................................................. X 

Environmental Assessment ........................................................ X X ML 041200768 .................................................. X 

Regulatory Guide 1.147, ‘‘Inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1,’’ Revision 13.X X ML 040230509. 

Regulatory Guide 1.192, ‘‘Operation and Maintenance Code 

Case Acceptability, ASME OM Code,’’ Revision 0.

X X ML 030730430. 

NUREG–1801, ‘‘Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report’’.X X Volume 1—ML 012060392, Volume 2—ML 

012060514.

6. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. 

104–113, requires that if agencies 

establish technical standards, the 

agencies use technical standards that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies unless the 

use of such a standard is inconsistent 

with applicable law or is otherwise 

impractical. Pub. L. 104–113 requires 

Federal agencies to use industry 

consensus standards to the extent 

practical, however, it does not require 

Federal agencies to endorse a standard 

in its entirety. The law does not prohibit 

an agency from generally adopting a 

voluntary consensus standard while 

taking exception to specific portions of 

the standard if those provisions are 

deemed to be ‘‘inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise 

impractical.’’ Furthermore, taking 

specific exceptions furthers the 

Congressional intent of Federal reliance 

on voluntary consensus standards 

because it allows the adoption of 

substantial portions of consensus 

standards without the need to reject the 

standards in their entirety because of 

limited provisions which are not 

acceptable to the agency. 

The NRC is amending its regulations 

to incorporate by reference a more 

recent edition and addenda of Sections 

III and XI of the ASME BPV Code and 

ASME OM Code for construction, 

inservice inspection, and inservice 

testing of nuclear power plant 

components. ASME BPV and OM Codes 

are national consensus standards 

developed by participants with broad 

and varied interests in which all 

interested parties (including the NRC 

and licensees of nuclear power plants) 

participate. In a staff requirements 

memorandum dated September 10, 

1999, the Commission indicated its 

intent that a rulemaking identify all 

portions of an adopted voluntary 

consensus standard which are not 

adopted and to provide a justification 

for not adopting such portions. The 

portions of the ASME BPV Code and 

OM Code which the NRC does not 

adopt, or partially adopts, are identified 

in Section 2 of this final rule and the 

regulatory analysis. The justification for 

not adopting portions of the ASME BPV 

Code, as set forth in these statements of 

consideration and regulatory analysis 

for this rule satisfy the requirements of 

Section 12(d)(3) of Pub. L. 104–113, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular A–119 and the 

Commission’s direction in the staff 

requirements memorandum dated 

September 10, 1999. 

7. Finding of No Significant 

Environmental Impact: Availability 

The Commission has determined, 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the 

Commission’s regulations in Subpart A 

of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule is not 

be a major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment, and therefore, an 

environmental impact statement is not 

required. 

This rulemaking will not significantly 

increase the probability or consequences 

of accidents; no changes are being made 

in the types of effluents that may be 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58817

released off-site; there is no increase in 

occupational exposure; and, there is no 

significant increase in public radiation 

exposure. Therefore, there are no 

significant radiological impacts 

associated with the proposed action. 

The rulemaking does not involve nonradiological plant effluents and has no 

other environmental impact. Therefore, 

no significant non-radiological impacts 

are associated with the action. 

The determination of this 

environmental assessment is that there 

will be no significant off-site impact to 

the public from this action. The NRC 

has prepared an environmental 

assessment on this final rule. The 

environmental assessment is available 

as indicated in Section 5, Availability of 

Documents, under the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION heading. 

The NRC requested the views of the 

States on the environmental assessment 

for the rule and did not receive any 

comments from the States.

8. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

This final rule decreases the burden 

on licensees for recordkeeping 

requirements related to examinations, 

tests, and repair and replacement 

activities. The industry annual public 

burden reduction for this information 

collection is estimated at 713 hours. 

Because the burden reduction for this 

information collection is insignificant, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) clearance is not required. 

Existing requirements were approved by 

the OMB, approval number 3150–0011. 

Public Protection Notification 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, a request for information collection 

or an information collection 

requirement unless the requesting 

document displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

9. Regulatory Analysis 

The NRC has prepared a regulatory 

analysis on this final rule. The analysis 

is available for review in the NRC’s 

Public Document Room, located in One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The 

regulatory analysis is available as 

indicated in Section 5, Availability of 

Documents, under the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION heading. 

10. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), 

the Commission certifies that this rule 

will not, if promulgated, have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule affects only the licensing and 

operation of nuclear power plants. The 

companies that own these plants do not 

fall within the scope of the definition of 

small entities set forth in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act or the Small Business 

Size Standards set forth in regulations 

issued by the Small Business 

Administration at 13 CFR Part 121. 

11. Backfit Analysis 

The NRC’s Backfit Rule, 10 CFR 

50.109, states that the Commission shall 

require the backfitting of a facility only 

when it finds the action to be justified 

under specific standards stated in the 

rule. Section 50.109(a)(1) defines 

backfitting as the modification of or 

addition to systems, structures, 

components, or design of a facility; or 

the design approval or manufacturing 

license for a facility; or the procedures 

or organization required to design, 

construct or operate a facility; any of 

which may result from a new or 

amended provision in the Commission 

rules or the imposition of a regulatory 

staff position interpreting the 

Commission rules that is either new or 

different from a previously applicable 

staff position after issuance of the 

construction permit or the operating 

license or the design approval. 

Section 50.55a requires nuclear power 

plant licensees to construct ASME BPV 

Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components in 

accordance with the rules provided in 

Section III, Division 1 of the ASME BPV 

Code; inspect Class 1, 2, 3, Class MC, 

and Class CC components in accordance 

with the rules provided in Section XI, 

Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code; and 

test Class 1, 2, and 3 pumps and valves 

in accordance with the rules provided 

in the ASME OM Code. This rule 

incorporates by reference the 2001 

Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda 

of Section III, Division 1 of the ASME 

BPV Code; Section XI, Division 1 of the 

ASME BPV Code; and the ASME OM 

Code. 

Incorporation by reference of more 

recent editions and addenda of Section 

III, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code 

does not affect a plant that has received 

a construction permit or an operating 

license or a design that has been 

approved because the edition and 

addenda to be used in constructing a 

plant are, by rule, determined on the 

basis of the date of the construction 

permit and are not changed thereafter 

except voluntarily by the licensee. Thus, 

incorporation by reference of a more 

recent edition and addenda of Section 

III, Division 1 does not constitute a 

‘‘backfitting’’ as defined in 

§ 50.109(a)(1). 

Incorporation by reference of more 

recent editions and addenda of Section 

XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code 

and the ASME OM Code affect the 

inservice inspection (ISI) and inservice 

testing (IST) programs of operating 

reactors. However, the Backfit Rule 

generally does not apply to 

incorporation by reference of later 

editions and addenda of the ASME BPV 

Code (Section XI) and OM Code. The 

NRC’s longstanding policy has been to 

incorporate later versions of the ASME 

Codes into its regulations. This is 

codified in § 50.55a which requires 

licensees to revise their ISI and IST 

programs every 120 months to the latest 

edition and addenda of Section XI of the 

ASME BPV Code and the ASME OM 

Code incorporated by reference into 

§ 50.55a that is in effect 12 months prior 

to the start of a new 120-month ISI and 

IST interval. Thus, when the NRC 

endorses a later version of the Code, it 

is implementing this longstanding 

policy and requirement. 

Other circumstances where the NRC 

does not apply the Backfit Rule to the 

endorsement of a later Code are as 

follows: 

(1) When the NRC takes exception to 

a later ASME BPV Code or OM Code 

provision but merely retains the current 

existing requirement, prohibits the use 

of the later Code provision, limits the 

use of the later Code provision, or 

supplements the provisions in a later 

Code, the Backfit Rule does not apply 

because the NRC is not imposing new 

requirements. However, the NRC 

explains any such exceptions to the 

Code in the Statement of Considerations 

and regulatory analysis for the rule. 

(2) When an NRC exception relaxes an 

existing ASME BPV Code or OM Code 

provision but does not prohibit a 

licensee from using the existing Code 

provision, the Backfit Rule does not 

apply because the NRC is not imposing 

new requirements. 

(3) Modifications and limitations 

imposed during previous routine 

updates of § 50.55a have established a 

precedent for determining which 

modifications or limitations are backfits 

or require a backfit analysis (final rules 

dated August 6, 1992 (57 FR 34666), 

August 8, 1996 (61 FR 41303), 

September 22, 1999 (64 FR 51370), and 

September 26, 2002 (67 FR 60520)). The 

application of the backfit requirements 

to modifications and limitations in the 

current rule are consistent with the 

application of backfit requirements to 

modifications and limitations in 

previous rules.

There are some circumstances in 

which the endorsement of a later ASME 

BPV Code or OM Code introduces a 

58818 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

backfit. In these cases, the NRC would 

perform a backfit analysis or 

documented evaluation in accordance 

with § 50.109. These include the 

following: 

(1) When the NRC endorses a later 

provision of the ASME BPV Code or OM 

Code that takes a substantially different 

direction from the existing 

requirements, the action is treated as a 

backfit. An example was the NRC’s 

initial endorsement of Subsections IWE 

and IWL of Section XI which imposed 

containment inspection requirements on 

operating reactors for the first time. The 

final rule dated August 8, 1996 (61 FR 

41303), incorporated by reference in 

§ 50.55a the 1992 Edition with the 1992 

Addenda of IWE and IWL of Section XI 

to require that containments be 

routinely inspected to detect defects 

that could compromise a containment’s 

structural integrity. This action 

expanded the scope of § 50.55a to 

include components that were not 

considered by the existing regulations to 

be within the scope of ISI. Since those 

requirements involved a substantially 

different direction, they were treated as 

backfits, and justified in accordance 

with the standards of 10 CFR 50.109. 

(2) When the NRC requires 

implementation of later ASME BPV 

Code or OM Code provision on an 

expedited basis, the action is treated as 

a backfit. This applies when 

implementation is required sooner than 

it would be required if the NRC simply 

endorsed the Code without any 

expedited language. An example was 

the rule dated September 22, 1999 (64 

FR 51370), which incorporated by 

reference the 1989 Addenda through the 

1996 Addenda of Section III and Section 

XI of the ASME BPV Code and the 1995 

Edition with the 1996 Addenda of the 

ASME OM Code. The final rule 

expedited the implementation of the 

1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda of 

Appendix VIII of Section XI of the 

ASME BPV Code for qualification of 

personnel and procedures for 

performing ultrasonic examinations. 

The expedited implementation of 

Appendix VIII was considered a backfit 

because licensees were required to 

implement the new requirements in 

Appendix VIII prior to the next 120-

month ISI program inspection interval 

update. Another example was the final 

rule dated August 6, 1992 (57 FR 

34666), which incorporated by reference 

in § 50.55a the 1986 Addenda through 

the 1989 Edition of Section III and 

Section XI of the ASME BPV Code. The 

final rule added a requirement to 

expedite the implementation of the 

revised reactor vessel shell weld 

examinations in the 1989 Edition of 

Section XI. Imposing these 

examinations was considered a backfit 

because licensees were required to 

implement the examinations prior to the 

next 120-month ISI program inspection 

interval update. 

(3) When the NRC takes an exception 

to a ASME BPV Code or OM Code 

provision and imposes a requirement 

that is substantially different from the 

existing requirement as well as 

substantially different than the later 

Code. An example was the adoption of 

dissimilar metal piping weld UT 

examination coverage requirements in 

the final rule dated September 26, 2002 

(67 FR 60529), that incorporated by 

reference in § 50.55a the 1997 though 

2000 Addenda of Section XI. Dissimilar 

metal piping weld examination coverage 

requirements, although contained in the 

1989 Edition and earlier editions and 

addenda of Section XI, are not 

addressed in the 1989 Addenda and 

later editions and addenda of Section 

XI. Therefore, the addition of dissimilar 

metal piping weld examination coverage 

requirements to the regulation was 

necessary.

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(vi)—Subsection NH 

The modification, 

§ 50.55a(b)(1)(b)(vi), adds a new 

limitation on the use of Subsection NH 

of the 1995 through 2003 Addenda of 

Section III of the ASME BPV Code for 

the design and construction of Class 1 

reactor coolant pressure boundary 

components. Subsection NH was added 

to Section III of the ASME BPV Code in 

the 1995 Addenda. The NRC has 

determined that this subsection was 

adopted in a final rule dated September 

22, 1999 (64 FR 51370), without 

performing an adequate technical 

review. 

As discussed earlier, the NRC has 

determined that Subsection NH has 

been used to design and construct Type 

316 stainless steel pressurizer heater 

sleeves that reach temperatures of up to 

900 °F, and that the use of Subsection 

NH for this application is acceptable. 

However, the NRC has not performed a 

full technical review of Subsection NH 

for other Class 1 components in future 

advanced reactor designs such as liquid 

metal and high-temperature gas-cooled 

reactor designs where service conditions 

could reach 1500 °F. Section 

50.55a(b)(1)(vi) in this final rule limits 

the application of Subsection NH to 

only pressurizer heater sleeves 

constructed from Type 316 stainless 

steel material where service conditions 

do not cause the component to reach 

temperatures exceeding 900 °F. The 

Backfit Rule does not apply to this 

limitation because, with the exception 

of Type 316 stainless steel pressurizer 

heater sleeves, licensees have not 

applied the provisions in Subsection 

NH to other Class 1 reactor coolant 

pressure boundary components. The 

Backfit Rule does not apply to rules that 

revise requirements that existing 

licensees have not applied or for future 

combined license applicants and design 

certification applicants even though 

such a rule may impact an applicant or 

licensee who was considering applying 

the provisions of Subsection NH to 

Class 1 reactor coolant pressure 

boundary components. For these 

reasons, the NRC concludes that 

limiting the application of Subsection 

NH to only Type 316 stainless steel 

pressurizer heater sleeves where service 

conditions do not cause the component 

to reach temperatures exceeding 900 °F 

does not constitute a backfit as defined 

in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1). 

12. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

In accordance with the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has 

determined that this action is not a 

major rule and has verified this 

determination with the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB. 

13. Miscellaneous Public Comments on 

Proposed Rule 

Class MC Supports 

Several commenters stated that the ISI 

requirements for Class MC supports are 

not specifically addressed in § 50.55a(g). 

The commenters requested that NRC 

revise § 50.55a(g)(4) to clarify that Class 

MC supports must be included in ISI 

programs. The NRC disagrees with the 

commenters. The existing regulation in 

§ 50.55a(g) states that Class MC 

components and their ‘‘integral 

attachments’’ must meet the ISI 

requirements set forth in Section XI. 

The use of ‘‘integral attachment’’ in the 

regulation is consistent with the 

terminology used in Subsection IWF of 

Section XI (see Figure IWF–1300–1). 

The provisions for the ISI of Class 1, 2, 

3, and MC Component supports are 

included in the scope of Subsection 

IWF. The use of the term ‘‘integral 

attachment’’ is used in Table IWF–

1300–1 and includes welded supports to 

MC components. 

NRC Participation on ASME Code 

Committees 

Several commenters stated that the 

number of modifications and limitations 

imposed by the NRC on later editions 

and addenda of the ASME Codes have 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58819

significantly increased and that the 

ASME and NRC committee members 

should strive to minimize the number of 

modifications and limitations. The NRC 

agrees that the number of modifications 

and limitations should be kept to a 

minimum. OMB Circular A–119, 

‘‘Federal Participation in the 

Development and Use of voluntary 

Consensus Standards and in Conformity 

Assessment Activities,’’ requires agency 

representatives on committees to 

ascertain the views of the agency to the 

extent possible and express views 

consistent with established agency 

views. It should be noted, however, that 

unanticipated events occasionally 

change the NRC position on an issue 

during final consideration.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 

Antitrust, Classified information, 

Criminal penalties, Fire protection, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear 

power plants and reactors, Radiation 

protection, Reactor siting criteria, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

■ For the reasons set out in the preamble 

and under the authority of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the 

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as 

amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the 

NRC is adopting the following 

amendments to 10 CFR Part 50.

PART 50—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF 

PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 

FACILITIES

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 50 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 

182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 938, 948, 

953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 

Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 

2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2239, 2282); 

secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 

1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 

5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 

(44 U.S.C. 3504 note).

Section 50.7 also issued under Public Law 

95–601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951(42 U.S.C. 

5841). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 

101, 185, 68 Stat. 936, 955 as amended (42 

U.S.C. 2131, 2235), sec. 102, Public Law 91–

190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 

50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued 

under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, 

and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 

955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a 

and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, 

Public Law 91–190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 

4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued 

under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 

5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also 

issued under Pub. L. 97–415, 96 Stat. 2073 

(42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued 

under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). 

Sections 50.80–50.81 also issued under sec. 

184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

2234). Appendix F also issued under sec. 

187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

■ 2. Section 50.55a is amended by:

■ (a) Removing and Reserving 

paragraphs (b)(2)(xv)(J) and (b)(3)(iii).

■ (b) Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (b)(1), paragraph (b)(1)(ii), the 

introductory text of paragraph (b)(2), the 

introductory text of paragraphs 

(b)(2)(viii) and (b)(2)(ix), paragraph 

(b)(2)(xiii), paragraph (b)(2)(xiv), and the 

introductory text of paragraph(b)(2)(xv), 

paragraph (b)(2)(xv)(C)(1), paragraph 

(b)(2)(xvii), paragraph (b)(2)(xx), the 

introductory text of paragraph (b)(3), 

paragraph (b)(3)(i), and the introductory 

text of paragraph (b)(3)(iv).

■ (c) Adding paragraphs (b)(1)(vi), 

(b)(2)(viii)(G), and (b)(2)(xxii) through 

(b)(2)(xxvii), and Footnote 10.

§ 50.55a Codes and standards.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) As used in this section, references 

to Section III of the ASME Boiler and 

Pressure Vessel Code refer to Section III, 

and include the 1963 Edition through 

1973 Winter Addenda, and the 1974 

Edition (Division 1) through the 2003 

Addenda (Division 1), subject to the 

following limitations and modifications:

* * * * *

(ii) Weld leg dimensions. When 

applying the 1989 Addenda through the 

latest edition and addenda incorporated 

by reference in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section, licensees may not apply 

paragraph NB–3683.4(c)(1), the footnote 

to circumferential fillet welded and 

socket welded joints in Figure NC–

3673.2(b)–1 that permit a socket weld 

leg dimension to be less than 1.09 of the 

nominal wall thickness of the pipe or 

the footnote to circumferential fillet 

welded and socket welded joints in 

figure ND–3673.2(b)–1 that permit a 

socket weld leg dimension to be less 

than 1.09 of the nominal wall thickness 

of the pipe.

* * * * *

(vi) Subsection NH. The provisions in 

Subsection NH, ‘‘Class 1 Components in 

Elevated Temperature Service,’’ 1995 

Addenda through the latest edition and 

addenda incorporated by reference in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, may 

only be used for the design and 

construction of Type 316 stainless steel 

pressurizer heater sleeves where service 

conditions do not cause the component 

to reach temperatures exceeding 900 °F. 

(2) As used in this section, references 

to Section XI of the ASME Boiler and 

Pressure Vessel Code refer to Section XI, 

and include the 1970 Edition through 

the 1976 Winter Addenda, and the 1977 

Edition (Division 1) through the 2003 

Addenda (Division 1), subject to the 

following limitations and 

modifications:10

* * * * *

(viii) Examination of concrete 

containments. Licensees applying 

Subsection IWL, 1992 Edition with the 

1992 Addenda, shall apply paragraphs 

(b)(2)(viii)(A) through (b)(2)(viii)(E) of 

this section. Licensees applying 

Subsection IWL, 1995 Edition with the 

1996 Addenda, shall apply paragraphs 

(b)(2)(viii)(A), (b)(2)(viii)(D)(3), and 

(b)(2)(viii)(E) of this section. Licensees 

applying Subsection IWL, 1998 Edition 

through the 2000 Addenda shall apply 

paragraphs (b)(2)(viii)(E) and 

(b)(2)(viii)(F) of this section. Licensees 

applying Subsection IWL, 2001 Edition 

through the latest edition and addenda 

incorporated by reference in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section, shall apply 

paragraphs (b)(2)(viii)(E) through 

(b)(2)(viii)(G) of this section.

* * * * *

(G) Corrosion protection material 

must be restored following concrete 

containment post-tensioning system 

repair and replacement activities in 

accordance with the quality assurance 

program requirements specified in 

IWA–1400. 

(ix) Examination of metal 

containments and the liners of concrete 

containments. Licensees applying 

Subsection IWE, 1992 Edition with the 

1992 Addenda, or the 1995 Edition with 

the 1996 Addenda, shall satisfy the 

requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(ix)(A) 

through (b)(2)(ix)(E) of this section. 

Licensees applying Subsection IWE, 

1998 Edition through the latest edition 

and addenda incorporated by reference 

in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, shall 

satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 

(b)(2)(ix)(A), (b)(2)(ix)(B), and 

(b)(2)(ix)(F) through (b)(2)(ix)(I) of this 

section.

* * * * *

(xiii) Mechanical clamping devices.

Licensees may use the provisions of 

Code Case N–523–1, ‘‘Mechanical 

Clamping Devices for Class 2 and 3 

Piping.’’ Licensee choosing to apply 

Code Case N–523–1 shall apply all of its 

provisions. 

(xiv) Appendix VIII personnel 

qualification. All personnel qualified for 

performing ultrasonic examinations in 

accordance with Appendix VIII shall 

receive 8 hours of annual hands-on 

training on specimens that contain 

cracks. Licensees applying the 1999 

Addenda through the latest edition and 

addenda incorporated by reference in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section may use 

the annual practice requirements in VII–

58820 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

4240 of Appendix VII of Section XI in 

place of the 8 hours of annual hands-on 

training provided that the supplemental 

practice is performed on material or 

welds that contain cracks, or by 

analyzing prerecorded data from 

material or welds that contain cracks. In 

either case, training must be completed 

no earlier than 6 months prior to 

performing ultrasonic examinations at a 

licensee’s facility. 

(xv) Appendix VIII specimen set and 

qualification requirements. The 

following provisions may be used to 

modify implementation of Appendix 

VIII of Section XI, 1995 Edition through 

the 2001 Edition. Licensees choosing to 

apply these provisions shall apply all of 

the following provisions under this 

paragraph except for those in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(F) which are optional.

* * * * *

(C) * * *

(1) A depth sizing requirement of 0.15 

inch RMS must be used in lieu of the 

requirements in Subparagraphs 3.2(a) 

and 3.2(c), and a length sizing 

requirement of 0.75 inch RMS must be 

used in lieu of the requirement in 

Subparagraph 3.2(b).

* * * * *

(J) [Reserved]

* * * * *

(xvii) Reconciliation of Quality 

Requirements. When purchasing 

replacement items, in addition to the 

reconciliation provisions of IWA–4200, 

1995 Addenda through 1998 Edition, 

the replacement items must be 

purchased, to the extent necessary, in 

accordance with the licensee’s quality 

assurance program description required 

by 10 CFR 50.34(b)(6)(ii).

* * * * *

(xx) System leakage tests. When 

performing system leakage tests in 

accordance IWA–5213(a), 1997 through 

2002 Addenda, a 10-minute hold time 

after attaining test pressure is required 

for Class 2 and Class 3 components that 

are not in use during normal operating 

conditions, and no hold time is required 

for the remaining Class 2 and Class 3 

components provided that the system 

has been in operation for at least 4 hours 

for insulated components or 10 minutes 

for uninsulated components.

(xxii) Surface Examination. The use 

of the provision in IWA–2220, ‘‘Surface 

Examination,’’ of Section XI, 2001 

Edition through the latest edition and 

addenda incorporated by reference in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section, that 

allow use of an ultrasonic examination 

method is prohibited. 

(xxiii) Evaluation of Thermally Cut 

Surfaces. The use of the provisions for 

eliminating mechanical processing of 

thermally cut surfaces in IWA–4461.4.2 

of Section XI, 2001 Edition through the 

latest edition and addenda incorporated 

by reference in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section are prohibited. 

(xxiv) Incorporation of the 

Performance Demonstration Initiative 

and Addition of Ultrasonic Examination 

Criteria. The use of Appendix VIII and 

the supplements to Appendix VIII and 

Article I–3000 of Section XI of the 

ASME BPV Code, 2002 Addenda 

through the latest edition and addenda 

incorporated by reference in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section, is prohibited. 

(xxv) Mitigation of Defects by 

Modification. The use of the provisions 

in IWA–4340, ‘‘Mitigation of Defects by 

Modification,’’ Section XI, 2001 Edition 

through the latest edition and addenda 

incorporated by reference in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section are prohibited. 

(xxvi) Pressure Testing Class 1, 2, and 

3 Mechanical Joints. The repair and 

replacement activity provisions in IWA–

4540(c) of the 1998 Edition of Section XI 

for pressure testing Class 1, 2, and 3 

mechanical joints must be applied when 

using the 2001 Edition through the 

latest edition and addenda incorporated 

by reference in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section. 

(xxvii) Removal of Insulation. When 

performing visual examinations in 

accordance with IWA–5242 of Section 

XI, 2003 Addenda through the latest 

edition and addenda incorporated by 

reference in paragraph (b)(2) of the 

section, insulation must be removed 

from 17–4 PH or 410 stainless steel 

studs or bolts aged at a temperature 

below 1100 °F or having a Rockwell 

Method C hardness value above 30, and 

from A–286 stainless steel studs or bolts 

preloaded to 100,000 pounds per square 

inch or higher. 

(3) As used in this section, references 

to the OM Code refer to the ASME Code 

for Operation and Maintenance of 

Nuclear Power Plants, and include the 

1995 Edition through the 2003 Addenda 

subject to the following limitations and 

modifications: 

(i) Quality Assurance. When applying 

editions and addenda of the OM Code, 

the requirements of NQA–1, ‘‘Quality 

Assurance Requirements for Nuclear 

Facilities,’’ 1979 Addenda, are 

acceptable as permitted by ISTA 1.4 of 

the 1995 Edition through 1997 Addenda 

or ISTA–1500 of the 1998 Edition 

through the latest edition and addenda 

incorporated by reference in paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section, provided the 

licensee uses its 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix B, quality assurance program 

in conjunction with the OM Code 

requirements. Commitments contained 

in the licensee’s quality assurance 

program description that are more 

stringent than those contained in NQA–

1 govern OM Code activities. If NQA–

1 and the OM Code do not address the 

commitments contained in the 

licensee’s Appendix B quality assurance 

program description, the commitments 

must be applied to OM Code activities.

* * * * *

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) Appendix II. Licensees applying 

Appendix II, ‘‘Check Valve Condition 

Monitoring Program,’’ of the OM Code, 

1995 Edition with the 1996 and 1997 

Addenda, shall satisfy the requirements 

of (b)(3)(iv)(A), (b)(3)(iv)(B), and 

(b)(3)(iv)(C) of this section. Licensees 

applying Appendix II, 1998 Edition 

through the 2002 Addenda, shall satisfy 

the requirements of (b)(3)(iv)(A), 

(b)(3)(iv)(B), and (b)(3)(iv)(D) of this 

section.

* * * * *

Footnotes to § 50.55a:

* * * * * 10Supplemental inservice inspection 

requirements for reactor vessel pressure 

heads have been imposed by Order EA–03–

09 issued to licensees of pressurized water 

reactors. The NRC expects to develop revised 

supplemental inspection requirements, based 

in part upon a review of the initial 

implementation of the order, and will 

determine the need for incorporating the 

revised inspection requirements into 10 CFR 

50.55a by rulemaking.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 14th day 

of September, 2004.

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

Luis A. Reyes, 

Executive Director for Operations.

[FR Doc. 04–21561 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 73 

RIN 3150–AH53 

Criminal History Check: Assessment 

of Application Fee

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is amending its 

regulations to reflect an administrative 

change in the method of calculating the 

agency’s application fee for criminal 

history checks requested by licensees. 

The amendment establishes the 

application fee amount as the sum of the 

user fee charged by the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation (FBI) for performing