[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 75 (Friday, April 18, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19162-19166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-9606]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 75 / Friday, April 18, 2003 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 19162]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Chapter I
Regulatory Analysis Guidelines: Proposed Criteria for the
Treatment of Individual Requirements in a Regulatory Analysis
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is making available
for public comment proposed criteria for the treatment of individual
requirements in a regulatory analysis. The concern is that aggregating
or ``bundling'' different requirements in a single analysis could
potentially mask the inclusion of an inappropriate individual
requirement. Therefore, the NRC proposes to modify its Regulatory
Analysis Guidelines, NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 3 by adding guidance to
address this concern.
DATES: Submit comments on the proposed criteria by July 2, 2003.
Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical
to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for
comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. ATTN: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff.
Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,
between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays (Telephone 301-415-
1678).
You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking
Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. This site provides the
capability to upload comments as files (any format), if your web
browser supports that function. For information about the interactive
rulemaking website, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905 (e-
mail: [email protected]).
Certain documents related to these proposed criteria, including
comments received and the ``Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,'' NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 3, July 2000, may
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document
Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. The documents listed below are also accessible
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS)
Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html under the following ADAMS
accession numbers:
Regulatory Guide 1.174: ML003740133.
Regulatory Analysis Guidelines, NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 3: ML003738939.
Regulations Handbook, NUREG/BR-0053, Rev. 5: ML011010183.
Commission paper, SECY-00-0198: ML003747699.
SRM regarding SECY-00-0198: ML010190405.
Commission paper, SECY-01-0134: ML011970363.
SRM regarding SECY-01-0134: ML012760353.
Commission paper, SECY-01-0162: ML012120024.
SRM regarding SECY-01-0162: ML013650390.
Commission paper, SECY-02-0225: ML023440333.
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public
Document Room (PDR) Reference Staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or
by e-mail to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Richter, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-
1978, e-mail [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In evaluating a proposed regulatory initiative, the NRC usually
performs a regulatory analysis for the entire rule to determine whether
or not it is justified. However, bundling different requirements in a
single analysis could potentially mask the inclusion of an
inappropriate individual requirement. In the case of a rule that
provides a voluntary alternative to current requirements, the net
benefit from the relaxation of one requirement could potentially
support a second requirement that is not cost-justified. Similarly, in
the case of other types of rules, including those subject to backfit
analysis, the net benefit from one requirement could potentially
support another requirement that is not cost-justified.
The issue of bundling different requirements in a single rulemaking
has been raised by the Commission and the NRC staff in a number of
contexts. In SECY-00-0198, ``Status Report on Study of Risk-Informed
Changes to the Technical Requirements of 10 CFR part 50 (Option 3) and
Recommendations on Risk-Informed Changes to 10 CFR 50.44 (Combustible
Gas Control),'' dated September 14, 2000, the NRC staff discussed
development of a voluntary risk-informed alternative rule. The NRC
staff recommended not to allow selective implementation of parts of the
voluntary alternative and not to apply the Backfit Rule. In a staff
requirements memorandum (SRM) dated January 19, 2001, the Commission
agreed that selective implementation of individual elements of a risk-
informed alternative should not be permitted. The Commission also
agreed that, since implementation of the risk-informed alternative
version of 10 CFR 50.44 is voluntary, a backfit analysis of that
version is not required. Furthermore, the Commission stated that:
[A] disciplined, meaningful, and scrutable process needs to be
in place to justify any new requirements that are added as a result
of the development of risk-informed alternative versions of
regulations. Just as any burden reduction must be demonstrated to be
of little or no safety significance, any new requirement should be
justifiable on some cost-benefit basis. The Commission challenges
the staff to establish such a criterion in a manner that adds
fairness and equity without adding significant complexity. The staff
should develop a proposed resolution for this issue and provide it
to the Commission for approval.
This issue once again surfaced in the fitness-for-duty rule. In
SECY-01-0134, ``Final Rule Amending the Fitness-for-duty Rule,'' dated
July 23, 2001, the NRC staff recommended withdrawing the OMB clearance
request for a final rule and developing a new notice of proposed
rulemaking. In an SRM dated
[[Page 19163]]
October 3, 2001, the Commission approved that recommendation.
Furthermore, the Commission provided the following specific
instructions on the backfit analysis:
In the new fitness-for-duty rulemaking, the Commission will
conduct an aggregate backfit analysis of the entire rulemaking. If
there is a reasonable indication that a proposed change imposes
costs disproportionate to the safety benefit attributable to that
change, as part of the final rule package the Commission will
perform an analysis of that proposed change in addition to the
aggregate analysis of the entire rulemaking to determine whether
this proposed change should be aggregated with the other proposed
change for the purposes of the backfit analysis. That analysis will
need to show that the individual change is integral to achieving the
purpose of the rule, has costs that are justified in view of the
benefits that would be provided or qualifies for one of the
exceptions in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4).
In SECY-01-0162, ``Staff Plans for Proceeding With the Risk-
informed Alternative to the Standards for Combustible Gas Control
Systems in Light-Water-Cooled Power Reactors in 10 CFR 50.44,'' dated
August 23, 2001, the NRC staff proposed to identify any revisions that
would be needed to existing guidance to put into place a disciplined,
meaningful, and scrutable process for assessing any new requirements
that could be added by a risk-informed alternative rule. Consistent
with past practice and public expectations, the staff indicated that it
planned to seek stakeholder input before reporting its recommendations
to the Commission. In an SRM dated December 31, 2001, the Commission
directed the staff to:
* * * provide the Commission with recommendations for revising
existing guidance in order to implement a disciplined, meaningful,
and scrutable methodology for evaluating the value-impact of any new
requirements that could be added by a risk-informed alternative
rule.
Discussion
In order to obtain stakeholder input before reporting its
recommendations to the Commission, the NRC staff published its
preliminary proposed criteria on February 13, 2002, (67 FR 6663) and
held a public meeting on March 21, 2002. A number of comments and
suggestions were received at the meeting. (The complete Response to
Comments document can be found as Attachment 3 to SECY-02-0225, which
is accessible from ADAMS and at the NRC's Public Document Room as
discussed above.) The three most significant issues raised were:
(1) There is concern about the provision that allows the analyst to
rely on his or her judgment in determining which individual
requirements should be analyzed separately.
In response to this concern, the NRC has expanded the guidance
regarding the appropriate level of disaggregation in an analysis.
Specifically, this guidance states that a decision on the level of
disaggregation needs to be tempered by considerations of reasonableness
and practicality, and that a more detailed disaggregation would only be
appropriate if it produces substantively different alternatives with
potentially meaningful implications on the cost-benefit results. While
the NRC agrees that it often makes sense to divide a rule into discrete
elements in performing regulatory analyses--and this is how the NRC
generally performs these analyses--the NRC does not believe that there
should be a general requirement for a separate analysis of each
individual requirement of a rule. This could lead to unnecessary
complexities. While the decision on the appropriate level of
disaggregation is subjective, this decision--as with any regulatory
decision--must undergo the agency's extensive internal review process.
This typically includes a review by agency staff and management, the
Committee to Review Generic Requirements, appropriate advisory
committees, the Executive Director for Operations, and the Commission.
In addition, the public may comment on the appropriate level of
disaggregation in any public comment opportunity provided in accordance
with standard NRC procedures for the development of generic
requirements.
(2) There should be different guidance for different types of
rules, rather than general guidance for any type of rule.
The NRC disagrees with this comment. The current Regulatory
Analysis Guidelines consistently present broad policy positions that
are designed to be applicable to all regulatory initiatives that are
subject to regulatory analysis requirements. Further, the NRC believes
that having different guidance for different types of rules may
unnecessarily complicate the regulatory analysis process. In addition,
it is possible that some rules may fall into more than one category
(such as a rule that is both risk-informed and a backfit), in which
case it would be unclear which criteria to use when analyzing a rule.
(3) For a risk-informed voluntary alternative to current
regulations, an individual requirement should be integral to the
purpose of the rule and cost-justified rather than integral to the
purpose of the rule or cost-justified.
The NRC maintains that if an individual requirement is integral to
the purpose of the rule, then that fact alone is a sufficient basis for
its inclusion, and in fact, a decision on its inclusion or exclusion is
not discretionary. However, the NRC finds that if a requirement is not
deemed integral, it should be included if it is cost-justified. This
alone is a sufficient basis because cost-benefit methodology directs
one to select the alternative with the largest net benefit. This is
clearly stated in OMB guidance and guidance contained elsewhere in
NRC's Regulatory Analysis Guidelines. Clearly, if an individual
requirement is cost-justified, its inclusion will result in a larger
net benefit than an alternative that excludes the individual
requirement. (Note, the proposed criteria no longer contain the phrase
``integral to the purpose of the rule,'' but rather use the word
``necessary'' and provide examples of when a requirement may be deemed
necessary.)
Internal NRC comments also raised the question of how to perform
analyses of NRC's periodic review and endorsement of new versions of
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) codes.\1\ Such
endorsements typically involve numerous individual code provisions that
are currently evaluated in the aggregate. The concern here is that
these proposed criteria for the treatment of individual requirements in
a regulatory analysis may be interpreted as requiring the justification
of each code change individually. In response to these comments, the
NRC has added specific language which states that while these
regulatory actions must be addressed in a regulatory analysis, it is
usually not necessary to analyze the individual code provisions
endorsed in these regulatory actions, except if these provisions or the
action endorsing them constitute backfits. In these regulatory
analyses, the major features of the codes should be considered, then
aggregated to produce estimates of the overall burdens and benefits in
order to determine if the regulatory action is justified. If there are
some aspects of these regulatory actions that are backfits, these must
be addressed and justified individually (and separately from the
analysis of the
[[Page 19164]]
remainder of the action) as discussed in the Appendix to the proposed
criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NRC's longstanding policy has been to incorporate new
versions of the ASME codes into its regulations. ASME codes are
updated on an annual basis to reflect improvements in technology and
operating experience. The NRC reviews the updated ASME codes and
conducts rulemakings to incorporate the latest versions by reference
into 10 CFR 50.55a, subject to any modifications, limitations, or
supplementations (i.e., exceptions) that are considered necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC has now developed proposed criteria regarding the treatment
of individual requirements in a regulatory analysis and wishes to
obtain input from interested members of the public. The NRC intends to
review and analyze the comments, develop final criteria, and issue the
final criteria if there are no significant changes due to public
comments. However, if there are significant changes to the criteria,
the staff will submit the recommended revised final criteria for the
approval of the Commission.
These proposed criteria address only the treatment of individual
requirements in a regulatory analysis, and if approved, the criteria
will be added to the Regulatory Analysis Guidelines (NUREG/BR-0058,
Rev. 3). These proposed revisions to the Guidelines are not intended to
change the application of the Backfit Rule, 10 CFR 50.109. Analysts and
decision makers must still apply the requirements of this rule in
making analytical and regulatory decisions. In addressing the treatment
of individual requirements in a regulatory analysis, these criteria are
intended to provide guidance to staff and management in making
decisions about which individual requirements may be bundled into a
single regulatory analysis.
Proposed Criteria
In evaluating a proposed regulatory initiative, the NRC usually
performs a regulatory analysis for the entire rule to determine whether
or not it is justified. However, aggregating or ``bundling'' different
requirements in a single analysis could potentially mask the inclusion
of an inappropriate individual requirement. In the case of a rule that
provides a voluntary alternative to current requirements, the net
benefit from the relaxation of one requirement could potentially
support a second requirement that is not cost-justified. Similarly, in
the case of other types of rules, including those subject to backfit
analysis,\2\ the net benefit from one requirement could potentially
support another requirement that is not cost-justified.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``The Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission,'' (NUREG/BR-0058) have been developed so that
a regulatory analysis that conforms to the Guidelines will meet the
requirements of the Backfit Rule and the provisions of the CRGR
Charter.
\3\ This discussion does not apply to backfits that the
Commission determines qualify under one of the exceptions in 10 CFR
50.109(a)(4). Those types of backfits require a documented
evaluation rather than a backfit analysis, and cost is not a
consideration in deciding whether or not they are justified (though
costs may be considered in determining how to achieve a certain
level of protection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, when analyzing and making decisions about regulatory
initiatives that are composed of individual requirements, the NRC must
determine whether or not it is appropriate to include them. Clearly, in
certain instances, the inclusion of an individual requirement is
necessary. This would be the case, for example, when the individual
requirement is needed for the regulatory initiative to resolve the
problems and concerns and meet the stated objectives \4\ that are the
focus of the regulatory initiative. Even though inclusion of individual
requirements is necessary in this case, the analyst should obtain
separate cost estimates for each requirement, to the extent practical,
in deriving the total cost estimate presented for the aggregated
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The stated objectives of the rule are those stated in the
preamble (also known as the Statement of Considerations) of the
rule.
However, there will also be instances in which the individual
requirement is not a necessary component of the regulatory initiative,
and thus the NRC will have some discretion regarding its inclusion. In
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
these circumstances, the NRC should follow the following guideline:
If the individual requirement is related (i.e., supportive but
not necessary) to the stated objective of the regulatory initiative,
it should be included only if its overall effect is to make the
bundled regulatory requirement more cost-beneficial. This would
involve a quantitative and/or qualitative evaluation of the costs
and benefits of the regulatory initiative with and without the
individual requirement included, and a direct comparison of those
results.\5\
\5\ There may be circumstances in which the analyst considers
including an individual requirement that is unrelated to the overall
regulatory initiative. For example, an analyst may consider
combining certain unrelated requirements as a way to eliminate
duplicative rulemaking costs to the NRC and thereby increase
regulatory efficiency. Under these circumstances, it would be
appropriate to combine these discrete individual requirements if the
overall effect is to make the regulatory initiative more cost-
beneficial. In those instances in which the individual requirement
is a backfit, the requirement must be addressed and justified as a
backfit separately. These backfits are not to be included in the
overall regulatory analysis of the remainder of the regulatory
initiative.
In applying this guideline, the NRC will need to separate out the
discrete requirements in order to evaluate their effect on the cost-
benefit results. In theory, each regulatory initiative could include
several discretionary individual requirements and each of those
discretionary requirements could be comprised of many discrete steps,
in which each could be viewed as a distinct individual requirement.
This raises the potential for a large number of iterative cost-benefit
comparisons, with attendant analytical complexities. Thus, considerable
care needs to be given to the level of disaggregation that is required.
In general, a decision on the level of disaggregation needs to be
tempered by considerations of reasonableness and practicality. For
example, more detailed disaggregation is only appropriate if it
produces substantively different alternatives with potentially
meaningful implications on the cost-benefit results. Alternatively,
individual elements that contribute little to the overall costs and
benefits and are noncontroversial may not warrant much, if any,
consideration. In general, it will not be necessary to provide
additional documentation or analysis to explain how this determination
is made, although such a finding can certainly be challenged at the
public comment stage.\6\ For further guidance, the analyst is referred
to principles regarding the appropriate level of detail to be included
in a regulatory analysis, as discussed in chapter 4 of the ``Regulatory
Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See NUREG/BR-0053, Revision 5, March 2001, ``U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission Regulations Handbook,'' section 7.9, for
discussion of how to treat comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In some cases an individual requirement that is being considered
for inclusion in a voluntary alternative to current regulations may be
justifiable under the backfit criteria. In these cases the individual
requirement is both cost-justified and provides a substantial increase
in the overall protection of the public health and safety or the common
defense and security. If so, the NRC should consider imposing the
individual requirement as a backfit (where it would affect all plants
to which it applies) rather than merely including it in a voluntary-
alternative rule (where it would affect only those plants where the
voluntary alternative is adopted).
A special case involves the NRC's periodic review and endorsement
of voluntary consensus standards, such as new versions of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) codes. These NRC endorsements
can typically involve hundreds, if not thousands, of individual
provisions. Thus, evaluating the benefits and costs of each individual
provision in a regulatory analysis can be a monumental task. Further,
the value gained by performing such an exercise appears limited. These
voluntary
[[Page 19165]]
consensus standards tend to be non-controversial and have already
undergone extensive external review and been endorsed by industry.
Therefore, while regulatory actions endorsing these voluntary consensus
standards must be addressed in a regulatory analysis, it is usually not
necessary for the regulatory analysis to address the individual
provisions of the voluntary consensus standards. The NRC believes this
is appropriate for several reasons: (1) It has been longstanding NRC
policy to incorporate later versions of the ASME Code into its
regulations, and thus licensees know when receiving their operating
licenses that such updating is part of the regulatory process; (2)
endorsement of the ASME Code is consistent with the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act, inasmuch as the NRC has determined that
there are sound regulatory reasons for establishing regulatory
requirements for design, maintenance, inservice inspection and
inservice testing by rulemaking; and (3) these voluntary consensus
standards undergo significant external review and discussion before
being endorsed by the NRC. However, some aspects of these regulatory
actions are backfits which must be addressed and justified
individually. For example, NRC endorsement (incorporation by reference)
of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPV) provisions on
inservice inspection and inservice testing, and the ASME Operations and
Maintenance (OM) Code, are not ordinarily considered backfits, because
it has been the NRC's longstanding policy to incorporate later versions
of the ASME codes into its regulations. However, under some
circumstances NRC's endorsement of a later ASME BPV or OM Code is
treated as a backfit. The application of the Backfit Rule to ASME code
endorsements is discussed in the Appendix below. Aside from these
backfits, these regulatory analyses should include consideration of the
major features (e.g., process changes, recordkeeping requirements) of
the regulatory action which should then be aggregated to produce
qualitative or quantitative estimates of the overall burdens and
benefits in order to determine if the remainder of the action is
justified.
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of April, 2003.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
Appendix--Guidance on Backfitting Related to ASME Codes
Section 50.55a requires nuclear power plant licensees to
construct ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (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 Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (OM
Code). From time to time the NRC amends 10 CFR 50.55a to incorporate
by reference later editions and 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.
Section A. Incorporation by Reference of Later Editions and Addenda of
Section III, Division 1 of ASME BPV Code
Incorporation by reference of later editions and addenda of
section III, division 1, of the ASME BPV Code is prospective in
nature. The later editions and addenda do 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 later edition and addenda of section III, division
1, does not constitute a ``backfitting'' as defined in Sec.
50.109(a)(1).
Section B. Incorporation by Reference of Later Editions and Addenda of
Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV and OM Codes
Incorporation by reference of later editions and addenda of
section XI, division 1, of the ASME BPV Code and the ASME OM Code
affect the ISI and 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 (section XI) and OM
codes for the following reasons--
(1) The NRC's longstanding policy has been to incorporate later
versions of the ASME codes into its regulations; thus licensees know
when receiving their operating licenses that such updating is part
of the regulatory process. This is reflected in Sec. 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 Sec.
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 a code, it is implementing this longstanding policy.
(2) 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 utilities)
participate. This consideration is consistent with both the intent
and spirit of the Backfit Rule (i.e., the NRC provides for the
protection of the public health and safety, and does not
unilaterally impose undue burden on applicants or licensees).
(3) Endorsement of these ASME codes is consistent with the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, inasmuch as the
NRC has determined that there are sound regulatory reasons for
establishing regulatory requirements for design, maintenance,
inservice inspection and inservice testing by rulemaking.
Section C. Other Circumstances Where the NRC Does Not Apply the Backfit
Rule to the Endorsement of a Later Code
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 or OM code
provision, but merely retains the current existing requirement,
prohibits the use of the later code provision, or limits the use of
the later code provision, the Backfit Rule does not apply because
the NRC is not imposing new requirements. However, the NRC provides
the technical and/or policy bases for taking exceptions to the code
in the Statement of Considerations for the rule.
(2) When an NRC exception relaxes an existing ASME BPV or OM
code provision but does not prohibit a licensee from using the
existing code provision.
Section D. Endorsement of Later ASME BPV or OM Codes That Are
Considered Backfits
There are some circumstances where the NRC considers it
appropriate to treat as a backfit the endorsement of a later ASME
BPV or OM code--
(1) When the NRC endorses a later provision of the ASME BPV or
OM code that takes a substantially different direction from the
currently 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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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 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
[[Page 19166]]
final 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 UT
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 Sec. 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 or OM code
provision and imposes a requirement that is substantially different
from the current existing requirement as well as substantially
different than the later code.
An example of this is that portion of the final rule dated
September 19, 2002, in which the NRC adopted dissimilar metal piping
weld ultrasonic (UT) examination coverage requirements.
[FR Doc. 03-9606 Filed 4-17-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P