Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16731 

Background Information 

A life-cycle cost analysis that meets 

Rural Development approval will be 

prepared by the project architect. The 

life cycle cost analysis will be used to 

determine the expected usable life of a 

building component and furnishing and 

to determine which building 

components or furnishings are the most 

cost efficient over the life to the 

building. The reserve account deposit 

level will be maintained through steady 

deposits to meet the needs of the project 

as they become due. Adjustments may 

be made at five or ten year intervals, 

either through an updated 

Comprehensive Needs Assessment or a 

part of the original plan. The 

requirement for a life cycle cost analysis 

will be used for new construction rental 

housing funded under Sections 514/516 

and Section 515 of the Housing Act of 

1949. The new requirement is intended 

to assure quality construction as well as 

long term viability of complexes. 

Reserve levels will be based on life 

cycle costs in order to ensure necessary 

resources are available when needed to 

replace essential building components. 

Existing loan agreement forms will have 

an addendum that is properly executed 

by the borrower establishing the terms 

of the life cycle analysis and reserve 

requirement. The current interim final 

rule requires an annual minimum 

deposit of 1 percent of the total 

development cost be put in a reserve 

account. This regulatory change is 

proposed to assure that we have the 

reserve accounts properly sized to meet 

the capital needs anticipated at the time 

of construction. This change will only 

affect reserve account requirements of 

new construction rental housing funded 

under Sections 515 RRH or Sections 

514/516 Farm Labor Housing. Due to the 

recent increase in the use of third party 

money to leverage Rural Development 

funding, the Agency has found that the 

arbitrary nature of the existing reserve 

account funding formula sometimes 

causes the reserve account to be set 

artificially high. While the objective of 

the proposed change is to primarily 

produce an accurately measured reserve 

account funding requirement, the 

change may actually lead to reduced 

funding levels in MFH new construction 

projects that utilize leveraged financing. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR 3560 

Accounting, Accounting servicing, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Aged, Farm labor housing, Foreclosure, 

Grant programs—Housing and 

community development, Government 

acquired property, Government property 

management, Handicapped, Insurance, 

Loan programs—Agriculture, Loan 

programs—Housing and community 

development, Low and moderate 

income housing, Low and moderate 

income housing—Rental, Migrant labor, 

Mortgages, Nonprofit organizations, 

Public housing, Rent subsidies, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Rural areas, Rural 

housing, Sale of government acquired 

property, Surplus government property. 

Therefore, chapter XXXV, Title 7 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 3560—DIRECT MULTI-FAMILY 

HOUSING LOANS AND GRANTS 

1. The authority citation for Part 3560 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1480. 

Subpart B—Direct Loan and Grant 

Origination 

2. Section 3560.65 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 3560.65 Reserve account. 

To meet major capital expenses of a 

housing project, applicants must 

establish and fund a reserve account 

that meets requirements of § 3560.306. 

The applicant must agree to make 

monthly contributions to the reserve 

account pursuant to a reserve account 

analysis developed by Rural 

Development which sets forth how the 

reserve account funds will meet the 

capital needs of the property over a 20- 

year period. The reserve account 

analysis is based on either a capital 

needs assessment or life cycle cost 

analysis, provided to Rural 

Development by the applicant. 

Dated: March 27, 2007. 

Russell T. Davis, 

Administrator, Rural Housing Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–6287 Filed 4–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 50 

RIN 3150–AH76 

Industry Codes and Standards; 

Amended Requirements 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is proposing to 

amend its regulations to incorporate by 

reference the 2004 Edition of Section III, 

Division 1 and Section XI, Division 1 of 

the American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure 

Vessel Code (BPV Code) and the 2004 

Edition 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, valves, 

and dynamic restraints (snubbers) in 

light-water nuclear power plants. NRC 

also proposes to require the use of 

ASME Code Cases N–722 and N–729–1, 

both with conditions, and to remove 

certain obsolete requirements specified 

in § 50.55a. This action is in accordance 

with the NRC’s policy to periodically 

update the regulations to incorporate 

new editions and addenda of the ASME 

Codes by reference and is intended to 

maintain the safety of nuclear reactors 

and make NRC activities more effective 

and efficient. 

DATES: Comments regarding the 

proposed amendment must be 

submitted by June 19, 2007. Comments 

received after this date will be 

considered if it is practical to do so, but 

the Commission is only able to ensure 

consideration of comments received on 

or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of the following methods. 

Please include RIN 3150–AH76 in the 

subject line of your comments. 

Comments on rulemakings submitted in 

writing or in electronic form will be 

made available to the public in their 

entirety on the NRC rulemaking Web 

site. Personal information will not be 

removed from your comments. 

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If 

you do not receive a reply e-mail 

confirming that we have received your 

comments, contact us directly at (301) 

415–1966. You may also submit 

comments via the NRC’s rulemaking 

Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. 

Address questions about our rulemaking 

Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415–

5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov. 

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm 

Federal workdays. (Telephone (301) 

415–1966). 

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 

415–1101. 

Publicly available documents related 

to this rulemaking may be viewed 

electronically on the public computers 

located at the NRC’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), O1–F21, One White Flint 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
16732 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. The PDR reproduction 

contractor will copy documents for a 

fee. Selected documents, including 

comments, may be viewed and 

downloaded electronically via the NRC 

rulemaking Web site at http:// 

ruleforum.llnl.gov. 

Publicly available documents created 

or received at the NRC after November 

1, 1999, are available electronically at 

the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at 

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

adams.html. From this site, the public 

can gain entry into the NRC’s 

Agencywide Document Access and 

Management System (ADAMS), which 

provides text and image files of NRC’s 

public documents. If you do not have 

access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC 

PDR Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 

301–415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee 

Banic, Division of Policy and 

Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, telephone (301) 415–2771, e-mail: 

mjb@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

II. Summary of Proposed Revisions to 10 CFR 

50.55a 

III. Generic Aging Lessons Learned Report 

IV. Availability of Documents 

V. Plain Language 

VI. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

VII. Finding of No Significant Environmental 

Impact: Environmental Assessment 

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

IX. Regulatory Analysis 

X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

XI. Backfit Analysis 

I. Background 

The NRC is proposing to amend 10 

CFR 50.55a to incorporate by reference 

the 2004 Edition of Section III, Division 

1 and Section XI, Division 1 of the 

ASME BPV Code and the 2004 Edition 

of the ASME OM Code. Section 50.55a 

requires the use of Section III, Division 

1 of the ASME BPV Code for the 

construction of nuclear power plant 

components; Section XI, Division 1 of 

the ASME BPV Code for the inservice 

inspection (ISI) of nuclear power plant 

components; and the ASME OM Code 

for the inservice testing (IST) of pumps 

and valves. 

In a separate proposed rule, published 

on March 13, 2006 (71 FR 12781), the 

Commission proposed to add language 

to the introductory paragraph of 

§ 50.55a to establish the applicability of 

the conditions therein to licenses and 

approvals issued under Part 52. 

Specifically, that proposed rule would 

add two new sentences: ‘‘Each 

combined license for a utilization 

facility is subject to the following 

conditions in addition to those specified 

in § 50.55, except that each combined 

license for a boiling or pressurized 

water-cooled nuclear power facility is 

subject to the conditions in paragraphs 

(f) and (g) of this section, but only after 

the Commission makes the finding 

under § 52.103(g)’’ and ‘‘Each 

manufacturing license, standard design 

approval, and standard design 

certification application under part 52 

of this chapter is subject to the 

conditions in paragraphs (a), (b)(1), 

(b)(4), (c), (d), (e), (f)(3), and (g)(3) of this 

section.’’ The Commission expects that 

the March 13, 2006, proposed rule will 

become final before the proposed rule 

updating § 50.55a to the 2004 Edition. 

The net effect then is that combined 

licenses would be subject to the updated 

requirements when the rulemaking 

proposed in this notice becomes final. 

The ASME BPV Code and OM Code 

are national voluntary consensus 

standards, and are required by the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–

113, to be used by government agencies 

unless the use of such a standard is 

inconsistent with applicable law or is 

otherwise impractical. It has been the 

NRC’s practice to review new editions 

and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM 

Codes and periodically update § 50.55a 

to incorporate newer editions and 

addenda by reference. New editions of 

the subject codes are issued every 3 

years; addenda to the editions are issued 

yearly except in years when a new 

edition is issued. The editions and 

addenda of the ASME BPV and OM 

Codes were last incorporated by 

reference into the regulations in a final 

rule dated October 1, 2004, (69 FR 

58804). In that rule, § 50.55a was 

revised to incorporate by reference the 

2001 Edition and 2002 and 2003 

Addenda of Sections III and XI, Division 

1, of the ASME BPV Code and the 2001 

Edition and 2002 and 2003 Addenda of 

the ASME OM Code. 

The NRC is now proposing to 

incorporate by reference: Section III of 

the 2004 Edition of the ASME BPV 

Code; Section XI of the 2004 Edition of 

the ASME BPV Code subject to 

proposed modifications and limitations; 

and the 2004 Edition of the ASME OM 

Code. The NRC is proposing to amend 

its regulations as follows: 

1. Remove 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xi), 

concerning components exempt from 

examination. 

2. Remove 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) 

concerning the provisions of Code Case 

N–523–1, ‘‘Mechanical Clamping 

Devices for Class 2 and 3 Piping.’’

3. Modify 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) to 

implement Appendix VIII of Section XI 

of the 2004 Edition of the ASME BPV 

Code. 

4. Add 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xx) to 

require nondestructive examination 

(NDE) provision in IWA–4540(a)(2) of 

the 2002 Addenda of Section XI when 

performing system leakage tests after 

repair and replacement activities. 

5. Revise 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxi) to 

be consistent with the NRC’s imposed 

condition for Code Case N–648–1 in 

Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.147, Revision 

14. 

6. Add 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) to 

correct a typographical error regarding 

an exponent in the evaluation of 

pressurized water reactor (PWR) reactor 

vessel head penetration nozzles. 

7. Remove 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A) 

and associated paragraphs on the 

augmented examination of the reactor 

vessel. 

8. Add a paragraph (D) Reactor Vessel 

Head Inspections to 10 CFR 

50.55a(g)(6)(ii) to require an inservice 

inspection program augmented by the 

provisions of ASME Code Case N–729–

1, ‘‘Alternative Examination 

Requirements for PWR Reactor Vessel 

Upper Heads With Nozzles Having 

Pressure-Retaining Partial-Penetration 

Welds, Section XI, Division 1’’ subject 

to conditions and remove Footnote 10. 

9. Add a paragraph (E) Reactor 

Coolant Pressure Boundary Visual 

Inspections to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)—

Augmented Inspection of Class 1 

Components Fabricated with Alloy 600/ 

82/182 Materials to require an inservice 

inspection program augmented by the 

provisions of ASME Code Case N–722, 

‘‘Additional Inspections for PWR 

Pressure Retaining Welds in Class 1 

Pressure Boundary Components 

Fabricated with Alloy 60/82/182 

Materials, Section XI, Division 1’’

subject to conditions. 

II. Summary of Proposed Revisions to 

10 CFR 50.55a 

The changes to paragraphs (b) and (g) 

of 10 CFR 50.55a are discussed below. 

Paragraphs (a), (c), (d), (e), and (f) would 

remain unchanged because the 

requirements in these sections would 

not be changed by virtue of the 

incorporating by reference of the 2004 

Edition of the ASME Code, Sections III 

and XI, and the OM Code. 

Section III, ASME BPV Code 

The proposed rule would revise 

§ 50.55a(b)(1) to incorporate by 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16733 

reference the 2004 Edition of Section III 

of the ASME BPV Code. The NRC does 

not propose to adopt any limitations 

with respect to the 2004 Edition of 

Section III. 

Section Xl, ASME BPV Code 

The proposed rule would revise 

§ 50.55a(b)(2) to incorporate by 

reference the 2004 Edition of the ASME 

BPV Code, Section XI, Division 1, 

subject to the proposed modifications 

and limitations discussed below: 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xi)—Class 1 piping 

Paragraph 50.55a(b)(2)(xi) states that 

‘‘licensees may not apply IWB–1220, 

‘‘Components Exempt from 

Examination,’’ of Section XI, 1989 

Addenda through the latest edition and 

addenda incorporated by reference in 

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

shall apply IWB–1220, 1989 Edition.’’

Subarticle IWB–1220 of the 1989 

Edition of the ASME Section XI, 

exempts certain components (such as 

small bore piping) from the volumetric 

and surface examinations. However, 

welds or portions of welds that are 

inaccessible due to being encased in 

concrete, buried underground, located 

inside a penetration, or encapsulated by 

guard pipe were included in 

components for exemption from 

examination and incorporated in the 

edition and addenda of the ASME 

Section XI after the 1989 Edition. The 

NRC did not agree with the 

incorporation of these types of welds for 

exemption from examination because 

the NRC believed that these welds 

should be examined to monitor their 

structural integrity. Therefore, the NRC 

prohibited the use of 1989 addenda 

through the latest editions and addenda 

of the ASME Section XI regarding the 

application of IWB–1220 in Paragraph 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xi) (64 FR 51394). 

The proposed revision would remove 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xi), thereby 

permitting the use of ASME Section XI 

IWB–1220 of any edition or addenda of 

ASME Section XI incorporated by 

reference in 10 CFR 50.55a. The 

condition placed upon Section XI, IWB–

1220 in 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xi) is no 

longer necessary because (1) licensees 

can select an alternate weld for 

inspection that does not have 

limitations, (2) licensees have 

committed to perform augmented 

inspections of break exclusion zone 

(BEZ) welds, which are located in 

inaccessible areas such as containment 

penetrations or encapsulated by guard 

pipe, to the extent practical under the 

BEZ criteria, (3) Boiling water reactor 

(BWR) licensees have followed the 

provisions of Generic Letter 88–01, 

‘‘NRC Position on IGSCC [intergranular 

stress corrosion cracking] in BWR 

Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping,’’ and 

the associated NRC report, NUREG–

0313, ‘‘Technical Report on Material 

Selection and Process Guidelines for 

BWR Coolant Pressure Boundary 

Piping,’’ and the provisions of the BEZ 

criteria (Reference: Branch Technical 

Position MEB 3–1 attached to Standard 

Review Plan 3.6.2) apply to the 

examination of the welds such as those 

that are located inside containment 

penetrations or encapsulated by guard 

pipe, and (4) licensees of plants whose 

construction permits were issued after 

January 1, 1971 are required to have 

ASME Class 1 and Class 2 components 

designed and provided with access to 

enable the performance of inservice 

inspections. 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii)—Mechanical 

Clamping Devices 

Paragraph 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) permits 

licensees to use the provisions of Code 

Case N–523–1, ‘‘Mechanical Clamping 

Devices for Class 2 and 3 Piping.’’ The 

proposed revision would remove 10 

CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) because Code 

Case N–523–2, which provides updated 

requirements to those of Code Case N–

523–1, has been accepted in RG 1.147, 

Revision 14, ‘‘Inservice Inspection Code 

Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, 

Division 1,’’ which is incorporated by 

reference into 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(I) and 

10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(ii). 

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

Specimen Set and Qualification 

Requirements 

Paragraph 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) specifies 

implementation of Appendix VIII of 

Section XI, the 1995 Edition through the 

2001 Edition of the ASME BPV Code 

with regard to ultrasonic examinations 

of piping systems. The proposed change 

would reference and allow the use of 

the 2004 Edition of the ASME Code. 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xx)—System 

Leakage Tests 

Paragraph 50.55a(b)(2)(xx) would be 

revised to require that after system 

leakage tests performed during repair 

and replacement activities by welding 

or brazing under the 2003 Addenda 

through the latest edition and addenda 

incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 

50.55a(b)(2), NDE must be performed in 

accordance with IWA–4540(a)(2) of the 

2002 Addenda of Section XI. This 

provision would require that (1) the 

NDE method and acceptance criteria of 

the 1992 edition or later of Section III 

be met prior to returning the system to 

service, and that (2) a system leakage 

test be performed in accordance with 

IWA–5000 prior to or as part of 

returning the system to service. 

Subarticle IWA–4540(a) of the 1995 

edition of ASME Section XI requires 

that after welding on a pressure 

retaining boundary or installing an item 

by welding or brazing, a system 

hydrostatic pressure test be performed. 

The industry asserted that the 

hydrostatic pressure test creates a 

significant hardship. Subsequently, the 

ASME Committee developed Code Case 

N–416–3, ‘‘Alternative Pressure Test 

Requirements for Welded Repairs or 

Installation of Replacement Items by 

Welding Class 1, 2, and 3, Section XI, 

Div. 1,’’ which provides an alternative 

to the hydrostatic pressure test. (NRC 

has accepted Code Case N–416–3 in RG 

1.147, Revision 14 which has been 

incorporated by reference and approved 

in 10 CFR 50.55a (70 FR 56809; Sept 29, 

2005). 

Code Case N–416–3 allows that 

instead of performing a hydrostatic 

pressure test for welding and brazing 

repair/replacement activities, 

performing a system leakage test if two 

requirements are met. The first 

requirement is that a NDE be performed 

on welded or brazed repairs and 

fabrication and installation joints in 

accordance with the methods and 

acceptance criteria of the applicable 

subsection of the 1992 Edition of 

Section III. Depending on the category 

of the weld, the NDE must consist of, in 

most cases, radiography and 

examination by either the liquid 

penetrant or magnetic particle method. 

The second requirement is that prior to 

or immediately upon return to service, 

a visual examination (VT–2) of welded 

or brazed repairs, fabrication, and 

installation joints be performed in 

conjunction with a system leakage test 

at nominal operating pressure and 

temperature in accordance with 

paragraph IWA–5000 of the 1992 

edition of Section XI. The technical 

provisions of ASME Code Case N–416–

3 were incorporated into the 2001 

Edition of ASME Section XI, IWA–

4540(a) and maintained, with minor 

editorial changes, through the 2002 

Addenda to ASME Section XI. The 2003 

Addenda of the Code, IWA–4540(a) 

eliminated reference to the NDE 

requirements of the 1992 Edition of 

Section III. When the ASME developed 

the 2003 Addenda, the arguments in 

support of the Code action state that 

imposing the NDE requirement in 

accordance with Section III (i.e., 

radiography) on all repair and 

replacement activities is excessively 

burdensome. The industry argued that 

the purpose of the radiography 

requirements is to support the piping 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
16734 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

joint efficiency factors used in the 

design. As such, the requirements are 

appropriately imposed by the 

construction code or the design 

specification but radiography for repair 

and replacement activities would be 

excessive. 

The industry also contended that a 

system leakage test compared to a 

hydrostatic pressure test revealed very 

few cases in which leakage occurred at 

the hydrostatic pressure but not at the 

lower pressure of the system leakage 

test. Those cases involved only a small 

amount of leakage and the source of the 

leakage would not have been detected 

by additional NDE and is therefore not 

warranted. 

NRC observes that the arguments to 

eliminate the NDE are from an 

operational rather than a safety 

perspective. A safety assessment has not 

been provided to demonstrate that 

without volumetric examination, a 

system leakage pressure test alone 

provides a level of safety equivalent to 

a hydrostatic pressure test, only that a 

volumetric examination is excessively 

burdensome. NRC therefore concludes 

that to provide reasonable assurance of 

adequate protection to public health and 

safety, when performing a system 

leakage test in lieu of a hydrostatic test 

after repair/replacement activities, a 

NDE must be performed. It must be 

performed in accordance with the NDE 

provision in IWA–4540(a)(2) of the 2002 

Addenda of Section XI because the 

agency has already accepted this 

provision by virtue of approving Code 

Case N–416–3 in RG 1.147, Revision 14. 

That provision states that: (a) The NDE 

method and acceptance criteria of the 

1992 edition or later of Section III shall 

be met prior to return to service; and (b) 

a system leakage test shall be performed 

in accordance with IWA–5000 prior to 

or as part of returning to service. 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxi)—Table IWB–

2500–1 Examination Requirements 

Paragraph 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxi)(A) 

would be revised to be consistent with 

the condition for Code Case N–648–1, 

‘‘Alternative Requirements for Inner 

Radius Examination of Class 1 Reactor 

Vessel Nozzles, Section XI, Division 1,’’

in RG 1.147, Revision 14, which 

requires the assumption of a limiting 

flaw aspect ratio when using the 

allowable flaw length criteria in Table 

IWB–3512–1 during an enhanced visual 

examination. The proposed revision 

would state: ‘‘A visual examination with 

enhanced magnification that has a 

resolution sensitivity to detect a 1-mil 

(0.001 inch) width wire or crack, using 

the allowable flaw length criteria in 

Table IWB–3512–1, 1997 Addenda 

through the latest edition and addenda 

incorporated by reference in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section, with a limiting 

assumption on the flaw aspect ratio (i.e., 

a/l=0.5, where a and l are the depth and 

length of the crack, respectively), may 

be performed instead of an ultrasonic 

examination * * *’’. This limitation is 

needed because visual examination 

cannot determine the depth of cracks. A 

visual examination requirement may be 

applied only when a limiting flaw 

aspect ratio of 0.5 is assumed. A flaw 

aspect ratio of less than 0.5 would not 

be conservative. As shown in Table 

IWB–3512–1, there are no flaw aspect 

ratios higher than 0.5. 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii)—Evaluation 

Procedure and Acceptance Criteria for 

PWR Reactor Vessel Head Penetration 

Nozzles 

In the 2004 Edition of ASME Section 

XI, IWA–3660 specifies evaluation 

procedure and acceptance criteria for 

flaws that are detected in upper and 

lower reactor vessel head penetration 

nozzles in PWRs. The procedure and 

acceptance criteria in IWB–3660 were 

adopted from Code Case N–694–1, 

‘‘Evaluation Procedure and Acceptance 

Criteria for PWR Reactor Vessel Head 

Penetration Nozzles Section XI, Division 

1.’’ Under IWB–3660, IWB–3662 

specifies that the flaw shall be evaluated 

using analytical procedures such as 

those described in non-mandatory 

Appendix O, ‘‘Evaluation of Flaws in 

PWR Reactor Vessel Upper Head 

Penetration Nozzles,’’ to the ASME 

Code, Section XI. There is a 

typographical error in paragraph O–

3220(b), equation SR = [ 1 ¥0.82R] ¥22. 

The exponent should be ¥2.2, not ¥22. 

Paragraph 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) would be 

added to the regulation to ensure that 

the correct exponent is used. The 

exponent in Appendix O was shown to 

be erroneous by an NRC report, NUREG/ 

CR–6721, ‘‘Effects of Alloy Chemistry, 

Cold Work, and Water Chemistry on 

Corrosion Fatigue and Stress Corrosion 

Cracking of Nickel Alloys and Welds,’’

April 2001. 

10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A)—Augmented 

Examination of Reactor Vessel 

Paragraph 50.55a(g)(6)(ii) which 

requires a one-time augmented inservice 

inspection programs for those systems 

and components for which the 

Commission determines that added 

assurance of structural reliability is 

necessary would be removed. Paragraph 

50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A) was incorporated in 

the regulations in 1992 to require all 

current licensees to conduct a one-time 

expedited implementation of the reactor 

vessel shell weld examinations 

specified in the 1989 Edition of the 

ASME Code, Section XI, Division 1, in 

item B1.10, ‘‘Shell Welds,’’ of 

Examination Category B–A, ‘‘Pressure 

Retaining Welds in Reactor Vessel,’’ in 

Table IWB–2500–1 of the ASME Code, 

Section XI. Since all the licensees have 

completed the subject augmented 

examination of the reactor vessel shell 

welds, the requirements in 10 CFR 

50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A) and associated 

subparagraphs are no longer needed. 

Future licensees need not conduct this 

augmented examination, because new 

Code provisions should adequately 

address the degradation to which the 

augmented examination was directed. 

10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(D)—Augmented 

Inspection of PWR Reactor Vessel 

Heads. 

Paragraph 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(D) of the 

proposed rule would be added to 

require licensees to comply with the 

reactor vessel head inspection 

requirements of ASME Code Case N–

729–1, subject to conditions. 

Compliance to Code Case N–729–1 with 

conditions would be equivalent to 

complying with NRC Order EA–03–009, 

dated February 11, 2003, and First 

Revised Order EA–03–009, dated 

February 20, 2004. Footnote 10 to 10 

CFR 50.55a would be removed because 

Code Case N–729–1, as conditioned, 

would replace the requirements of the 

NRC Order EA–03–009 cited in that 

footnote. That footnote states: 

Supplemental 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. 

Conditions are imposed on Code Case 

N–729–1 regarding inspection 

frequency, examination coverage, 

qualification of ultrasonic examination, 

and reinspection intervals. These 

conditions are being imposed to make 

the requirements in N–729–1 equivalent 

to those of the Order. 

10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(E)—Augmented 

Inspection of Class 1 Components 

Fabricated With Alloy 600/82/182 

Materials 

A new paragraph, 10 CFR 

50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(E) Reactor Coolant 

Pressure Boundary Visual Inspections 

would be added to require all current 

and future licensees to apply ASME 

Code Case N–722, with conditions. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16735 

The application of ASME Code Case 

N–722 is necessary because current 

inspections are inadequate and the 

safety consequences can be significant. 

NRC’s determination that existing 

inspections of the reactor coolant 

pressure boundary (RCPB) are 

inadequate are based upon the 

degradation of RPV head penetration 

nozzles at Davis-Besse and the 

discovery of leaks and cracking at other 

plants, such as Oconee and Arkansas 

Nuclear One Unit 1. The absence of an 

effective inspection regime could, over 

time, result in unacceptable 

circumferential cracking or the 

degradation of reactor coolant system 

components by corrosion from leaks in 

the RCPB. These degradation 

mechanisms increase the probability of 

a loss of coolant accident. The 

inspections required by the 2004 edition 

of the ASME Code, Section are 

inadequate because Table IWB–2500–1, 

‘‘Examination Category B–P of Section 

XI’’ only requires a visual examination 

of the reactor vessel during a system 

leakage test each refueling outage. 

Visual inspections may not detect 

gradual leakage as confirmed by 

industry experience. 

Both the NRC and the industry took 

short-term actions to address primary 

water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) 

in the RCS pressure boundary because 

of limitations of the ASME BPV Code 

inspection programs to address PWSCC 

in the RCPB. In addition to issuing 

bulletins, NRC issued Order EA–03–009 

and First Revised Order EA–03–009 to 

quickly establish interim inspection 

requirements for RPV upper heads at 

PWRs. However, these measures 

addressed the issue only temporarily 

and for specific locations. The industry 

also responded with measures, but these 

were only short term, such as by 

specifying that a one-time bare-metal 

visual inspection of all RCS nickelbased alloy components and weld 

locations be performed within two 

refueling outages. 

ASME also took actions to address 

PWSCC. An ASME task group 

concluded that more rigorous 

inspections than those currently 

provided by the ASME Code are needed 

in the areas most susceptible to PWSCC. 

The task group developed ASME Code 

Case N–722 to enhance the current 

ASME Code requirements for detection 

of leakage and corrosion in the 

components considered to be 

susceptible to PWSCC. The code case 

specifies bare-metal visual examinations 

for all RCS pressure retaining 

components fabricated from Alloy 600/ 

82/182 materials. This Code Case was 

approved by ASME in July 2005 and 

was published in Supplement 6 to the 

2004 Code Cases; however, the Code 

Case is not mandatory for industry to 

follow. The Code Case improves upon 

existing ASME Code inspection 

requirements, because it specifies bare 

metal visual examinations; however, 

such examinations are inadequate. 

Visual inspections do not always detect 

through-wall leakage or related 

corrosion until significant degradation 

has occurred. 

Beyond the base metal visual 

inspection requirements and 

frequencies of inspections, ASME Code 

Case N–722 is relatively limited in 

scope. The NRC proposes to require 

non-visual inspection for items where 

leakage is identified in Class 1 

components. The additional non-visual 

NDE would be required to determine 

whether circumferential cracking is 

present in the flawed material and if 

multiple circumferential flaws have 

initiated. Leakage detected by visual 

examination only identifies that a flaw 

exists, and is not able to characterize 

flaw orientations and locations. The 

NRC proposes to require NDE scope 

expansion once a circumferential flaw is 

identified in these components because 

once flaws are found, favorable 

conditions must be assumed to exist for 

additional flaws to develop in other 

similar components in similar 

environments. Circumferential cracking 

has occurred and is a particularly 

serious safety concern because it could, 

if undetected by NDE, lead to a 

complete severance of the piping and a 

loss-of-coolant-accident. 

Therefore, the NRC proposes to 

require the application of Code Case N–

722 with additional conditions; namely, 

to require additional NDE when leakage 

is detected and expansion of the sample 

size if a circumferential PWSCC flaw is 

detected. Operating experience has 

shown that bare metal visual 

inspections alone are not sufficient and 

that NDE is necessary in order to detect 

cracking. 

ASME OM Code 

The proposed revision to 

§ 50.55a(b)(3) would incorporate by 

reference the 2004 Edition of the ASME 

OM Code subject to no new 

modifications or limitations. 

Paragraph (b)(3)(iv)(D) would be 

revised to be less specific with regard to 

paragraph references in subsection ISTC 

[In-service testing, the Code for 

Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear 

Power Plants] to eliminate 

inconsistencies in paragraph 

numbering. This is considered to be an 

editorial change that does not affect the 

intent or implementation of the current 

modification regarding the 

discontinuance of Appendix II 

condition monitoring programs of check 

valves. 

III. Generic Aging Lessons Learned 

Report 

In September 2005, the NRC issued, 

‘‘Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) 

Report,’’ NUREG–1801, Volumes 1 and 

2, Revision 1, for applicants to use in 

preparing their license renewal 

applications. The GALL report evaluates 

existing programs and documents the 

bases for determining when existing 

programs are adequate without change 

or augmentation for license renewal. 

Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME 

BPV Code is one of the existing 

programs in the GALL report that is 

evaluated as an aging management 

program (AMP) for license renewal. 

Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, 

and IWL of the 2001 Edition up to and 

including the 2003 Addenda of Section 

XI of the ASME BPV Code for in-service 

inspection were evaluated in the GALL 

report and the conclusions in the GALL 

report are valid for this edition and 

addenda. 

In the GALL report, Sections XI.M1, 

‘‘ASME Section XI In-service 

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, IWF, 

and IWL, 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. 

The NRC has evaluated Subsections 

IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, and IWL of 

Section XI of the ASME BPV Code, 2004 

Edition as part of the § 50.55a 

amendment process to incorporate by 

reference the 2004 Edition of the ASME 

BPV Code to determine if the 

conclusions of the GALL report also 

apply to AMPs that rely upon the ASME 

Code edition that is proposed for 

incorporation by reference into § 50.55a 

by this proposed rule. NRC finds that 

the 2004 Edition 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 use Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, 

IWE, IWF, and IWL of Section XI of the 

2004 Edition of the ASME BPV Code as 

acceptable alternatives to the 

requirements of the 2001 Edition up to 

and including the 2003 Addenda of the 

ASME Code, Section XI, referenced in 

the GALL AMPs in its plant-specific 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
16736 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 2004 

Edition of the ASME BPV Code and the 

ASME Code edition and addenda used 

in the plant-specific license renewal 

application 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 AMPs of 

the 2001 Edition through the 2003 

Addenda of Section XI of the ASME 

Code that require augmentation 

(additional requirements) for license 

renewal. These areas that require 

augmentation also apply when 

implementing the 2004 edition. A 

license renewal applicant may either 

augment its AMPs in these areas as 

described in the GALL report or propose 

alternatives for NRC review in its plantspecific license renewal application. 

IV. 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 Electronic Reading Room. The 

NRC’s public electronic reading room is 

located at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. 

NRC Staff Contact. Single copies of 

the Federal Register Notice (which 

includes the draft Environmental 

Assessment) and draft Regulatory 

Analysis can be obtained from Lee 

Banic, Division of Policy and 

Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001 or at (301) 415–2771, or via e-mail 

at: mjb@nrc.gov. 

Document PDR Web ADAMS No. NRC staff 

ASME BPV Code* ............................................................................... .................... .................... N/A ........................................ X 

ASME OM Code* ................................................................................. .................... .................... N/A ........................................ X 

ASME Code Case N–722 .................................................................... X .................... ML070170676 ....................... X 

ASME Code Case N–729–1 ................................................................ X .................... ML070170679 ....................... X 

Proposed Federal Register Notice ..................................................... X X ML070240552 ....................... X 

Draft Regulatory Analysis .................................................................... X X ML070290497 ....................... X 

EA–03–009 .......................................................................................... X X ML030380470 ....................... X 

First Revised NRC Order EA–03–009 ................................................. X X ML040220181 ....................... X 

GALL Report, NUREG–1801 ............................................................... .................... X ML012060392 .......................

ML012060514 .......................

ML012060521 .......................

ML012060539 .......................

X 

Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) dated September 10, 1999 .................... .................... ML003751061.

RG 1.147, Revision 14 ........................................................................ X X ML052510117 ....................... X 

*Available on the ASME Web site. 

V. Plain Language 

The Presidential Memorandum dated 

June 1, 1998, entitled, ‘‘Plain Language 

in Government Writing,’’ directed that 

the Federal government’s writing must 

be in plain language. This memorandum 

was published on June 10, 1998 (63 FR 

31883). The NRC requests comments on 

this proposed rule specifically with 

respect to the clarity and effectiveness 

of the language used. Comments should 

be sent to the address listed under the 

ADDRESSES caption above. 

VI. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. 

104–113, requires agencies to 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; 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 proposing to amend its 

regulations to incorporate by reference a 

more recent edition of Sections III and 

XI of the ASME BPV Code and ASME 

OM Code, for construction, in-service 

inspection, and in-service 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 an 

SRM dated September 10, 1999, the 

Commission indicated its intent that a 

rulemaking identify all parts of an 

adopted voluntary consensus standard 

that are not adopted and to justify not 

adopting such parts. The parts of the 

ASME BPV Code and OM Code that the 

NRC proposes not to adopt, or to 

partially adopt, are identified in Section 

2 of the preceding section and the draft 

regulatory analysis. The justification for 

not adopting parts of the ASME BPV 

Code, as set forth in these statements of 

consideration and the draft regulatory 

analysis for this proposed 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 SRM 

dated September 10, 1999. 

In accordance with the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 and OMB Circular A–119, 

the NRC is requesting public comment 

regarding whether other national or 

international consensus standards could 

be endorsed as an alternative to the 

ASME BPV Code and the ASME OM 

Code. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16737 

VII. Finding of No Significant 

Environmental Impact: Availability 

This proposed action is in accordance 

with NRC’s policy to incorporate by 

reference in 10 CFR 50.55a new editions 

and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM 

Codes to provide updated rules for 

constructing and inspecting components 

and testing pumps, valves, and dynamic 

restraints (snubbers) in light-water 

nuclear power plants. ASME Codes are 

national voluntary consensus standards 

and are required by the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–113, to be used 

by government agencies unless the use 

of such a standard is inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

NEPA requires Federal government 

agencies to study the impacts of their 

‘‘major Federal actions significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment’’ and prepare detailed 

statements on the environmental 

impacts of the proposed action and 

alternatives to the proposed action 

(United States Code, Vol. 42, Section 

4332(C) [42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)]; NEPA 

§ 102(C)). 

The Commission has determined 

under NEPA, as amended, and the 

Commission’s regulations in Subpart A 

of 10 CFR part 51, that this rule, if 

adopted, would not be a major Federal 

action significantly affecting the quality 

of the human environment and, 

therefore, an environmental impact 

statement is not required. 

The proposed rulemaking will not 

significantly increase the probability or 

consequences of accidents; no changes 

are being made in the types of effluents 

that may be released off-site; there is no 

increase in occupational exposure; and 

there is no significant increase in public 

radiation exposure. Some of the 

proposed changes concerning ensuring 

the integrity of the RCPB would reduce 

the probability of accidents and 

radiological impacts on the public. The 

proposed rulemaking does not involve 

non-radiological plant effluents and has 

no other environmental impact. 

Therefore, no significant nonradiological impacts are associated with 

the proposed action. 

The determination of this draft 

environmental assessment is that there 

will be no significant off-site impact to 

the public from this action. However, 

the NRC is seeking public comment of 

the draft environmental assessment. 

Comments on any aspect of the 

environmental assessment may be 

submitted to the NRC as indicated 

under the ADDRESSES heading of this 

document. 

The NRC is sending a copy of the 

environmental assessment and this 

proposed rule to every State Liaison 

Officer and requesting their comments 

on the environmental assessment. 

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Statement 

This proposed rule increases the 

burden on licensees to report 

requirements and maintain records for 

examination requirements in ASME 

Code Section XI IWB–2500(b). The 

public burden for this information 

collection is estimated to average 3 

hours every ten years per request. 

Because the burden for this information 

collection is insignificant, 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 or an 

information collection requirement 

unless the requesting document 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

IX. Regulatory Analysis 

The NRC has prepared a draft 

regulatory analysis on this proposed 

rule. The draft analysis is available for 

review in the NRC’s PDR, located in 

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland. In addition, 

copies of the draft regulatory analysis 

may be obtained as indicated in Section 

4 of this document. The Commission 

requests public comment on the draft 

regulatory analysis and comments may 

be submitted to the NRC as indicated 

under the ADDRESSES heading. 

X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

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

the Commission certifies that this 

proposed amendment will not, if 

promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This proposed 

amendment would affect 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. 

XI. Backfit Analysis 

The NRC’s Backfit Rule in 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, valves, and 

dynamic restraints (snubbers) in 

accordance with the rules provided in 

the ASME OM Code. This proposed rule 

would incorporate by reference the 2004 

Edition 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 ISI 

and IST programs of operating reactors. 

However, the Backfit Rule 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 policy has been to 

incorporate later versions of the ASME 

Codes into its regulations. This practice 

is codified in § 50.55a which requires 

licensees to revise their ISI and IST 

programs every 120 months to the latest 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
16738 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

edition and addenda of Section XI of the 

ASME BPV Code and the ASME OM 

Code incorporated by reference in 

§ 50.55a that is in effect 12 months prior 

to the start of a new 120-month ISI and 

IST interval. 

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 and; 

(3) Modifications and limitations 

imposed during previous routine 

updates of paragraph 50.55a have 

established a precedent for determining 

which modifications or limitations are 

backfits or require a backfit analysis 

(e.g., final rule dated October 1, 2004 

(69 FR 58804). The application of the 

backfit requirements to modifications 

and limitations in the current proposed 

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 

backfit. In these cases, the NRC would 

perform a backfit analysis or 

documented evaluation in accordance 

with paragraph 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, see, e.g., 61 FR 41303 (August 

8, 1996). 

(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, see, e.g., 64 FR 

51370 (September 22, 1999). 

(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, see, e.g., 67 FR 60529 (September 

26, 2002). 

The backfitting discussion for the 

proposed revisions to 10 CFR 50.55a is 

set forth below: 

1. Remove 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xi) 

Concerning Components Exempt From 

Examination 

This change would remove an 

existing limitation on the use of 1989 

Addenda and later editions and 

addenda of the ASME Code, Section XI, 

regarding the use of subarticle IWB–

1220 in the examinations of welds in 

the inaccessible locations. Licensees 

have either committed to perform 

augmented inspection or have followed 

the provisions of Generic Letter 88–01 

and NUREG–0313 in examining the 

inaccessible welds. Therefore, this 

change is not considered as a backfit 

under 10 CFR 50.109. 

2. Remove 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) 

Concerning the Provisions of Code Case 

N–523–1, ‘‘Mechanical Clamping 

Devices for Class 2 and 3 Piping.’’ 

Paragraph 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) 

states that ‘‘Licensees may use the 

provisions of Code Case N–523–1, 

‘‘Mechanical Clamping Devices for Class 

2 and 3 Piping.’’ Paragraph 10 CFR 

50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) does not require, but 

provides an option for, licensees to use 

Code Case N–523–1. In 2000, ASME 

updated Code Case N–523–1 to N–523–

2 without changes to technical 

requirements. Code Case N–523–2, 

‘‘Mechanical Clamping Devices for Class 

2 and 3 Piping,’’ has been accepted in 

RG 1.147, Revision 14, which is 

incorporated by reference into 

paragraphs 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(i) and 

10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(ii). Code Case N–

523–2 may be used by licensees without 

requesting authorization. According to 

RG 1.147, Revision 14, Code Case N–

523–1 has been superseded by Code 

Case N–523–2. It is stated in RG 1.147, 

Revision 14, that ‘‘After the ASME 

annuls a Code Case and the NRC 

amends 10 CFR 50.55a and this guide 

[RG 1.147], licensees may not 

implement that Code Case for the first 

time. However, a licensee who 

implemented the Code Case prior to 

annulment may continue to use that 

Code Case through the end of the 

present ISI interval. An annulled Code 

Case cannot be used in the subsequent 

ISI interval unless implemented as an 

approved alternative under 10 CFR 

50.55a(a)(3) * * *’’ The NRC has not 

annulled or prohibited the use of Code 

Case N–523–1 in RG 1.147, Revision 14. 

Licensees who have used Code Case N–

523–1 may continue to use it. The NRC 

is not imposing new requirements by 

removing 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii). 

Therefore, the removal of 10 CFR 

50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) is not a backfit. 

3. Modify 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) To 

Implement Appendix VIII of Section XI, 

the 1995 Edition through the 2004 

Edition of the ASME BPV Code 

This change would update the edition 

of the ASME Code in 10 CFR 

50.55a(b)(2)(xv), therefore, is not 

considered as a backfit under 10 CFR 

50.109. 

4. Add 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xx) To 

Require NDE Provision in IWA– 

4540(a)(2) of the 2002 Addenda of 

Section XI When Performing System 

Leakage Tests 

Subarticle IWA–4540(a)(2) of the 2002 

Addenda of the ASME Code, Section XI, 

requires a NDE be performed in 

combination with a system leakage test 

during repair/replacement activities. 

Subarticle IWA–4540(a)(2) of the 2003 

Addenda through later editions and 

addenda of the ASME Code, Section XI, 

does not specify a NDE after a system 

leakage test. The proposed addition 

would require, as part of repair and 

replacement activities, that a NDE be 

performed per IWA–4540(a)(2) of the 

2002 Addenda of the ASME Code, 

Section XI, after a system leakage test is 

performed per subarticle IWA–

4540(a)(2) of the 2003 Addenda through 

later editions and addenda of the ASME 

Code, Section XI. 

As it is stated above, when the NRC 

takes exception to a later ASME BPV 

Code provision but merely retains the 

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. The addition retains the 

system leakage test requirement in 

IWA–4540(a)(2) of the 2003 Addenda 

through the later editions and addenda 

of the ASME Code, Section XI, but 

supplements it with the NDE of IWA–

4540(a)(2) of the 2002 Addenda of the 

Code. The proposed addition does not 

represent a new staff requirement 

because the NDE requirement is 

specified in previous addenda of the 

Code. Therefore, this change is not 

considered as a backfit under 10 CFR 

50.109. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16739 

5. Revise 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxi) To Be 

Consistent With the NRC’s Imposed 

Condition for Code Case N–648–1 in RG 

1.147, Revision 14 

This change would align the 

conditions imposed on visual 

examinations in 10 CFR 

50.55a(b)(2)(xxi) with the conditions 

imposed on Code Case N–648–1 in RG 

1.147, Revision 14 (70 FR 5680; Sept 29, 

2005). The imposed conditions do not 

represent a new staff position. 

Therefore, this change is not considered 

as a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109. 

6. Add 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) To 

Correct a Typographical Error 

Regarding an Exponent in the 

Evaluation of PWR Reactor Vessel Head 

Penetration Nozzles 

This change would correct a 

typographical error in an equation used 

in the flaw evaluation in the ASME 

Section XI. Therefore, this change is not 

considered as a backfit under 10 CFR 

50.109. 

7. Remove 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A) 

and Associated Subparagraphs on the 

Augmented Examination of the Reactor 

Vessel 

This change would remove a one-time 

examination requirement which has 

been completed by all current licensees, 

and, therefore, is not considered as a 

backfit under 10 CFR 50.109. Future 

licensees will be subject to other Code 

provisions that preclude the need for 

this one-time examination. 

8. Add Paragraph (D) to 10 CFR 

50.55a(g)(6)(ii)—Augmented Inspection 

of PWR Reactor Vessel Heads 

The requirements in paragraph D, 

which impose ASME Code Case N–729–

1 with conditions, were already 

imposed on existing licensees under 

NRC First Revised Order EA–03–009. 

Therefore, this requirement is not 

considered a backfit under 10 CFR 

50.109(a)(1). 

9. Add Paragraph (E) to 10 CFR 

50.55a(g)(6)(ii)—Augmented Inspection 

of Class 1 Components Fabricated With 

Alloy 600/82/182 Materials 

The NRC proposes to add 10 CFR 

50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(E) to require augmented 

inspections of Class 1 components 

fabricated with Alloy 600/82/182 

materials. The augmented inspection 

will consist of the requirements in Code 

Case N–722 which specifies inservice 

inspection for PWR ASME Code Class 1 

components containing materials 

susceptible to PWSCC and NRC 

imposed conditions to the Code Case to 

require additional NDE when leakage is 

detected and expansion of the 

inspection sample size if a 

circumferential PWSCC flaw is detected. 

The intent of conditioning the Code 

Case is to identify leakage of and 

prevent unacceptable cracks and 

corrosion in Class 1 components, which 

are part of RCPB. The proposed 

requirements may be considered 

backfitting under 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1). 

However, the NRC believes that the 

requirements are necessary for 

compliance with Commission 

requirements and/or license provisions. 

Therefore a backfit analysis need not be 

prepared under the ‘‘compliance’’

exception in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(i). The 

following discussion constitutes the 

documented evaluation to support the 

invocation of the compliance exception. 

As discussed earlier in Section 2, ‘‘10 

CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(E)—Augmented 

Inspection of Class 1 Components 

Fabricated with Alloy 600/82/182 

Materials,’’ failure of the RCPB could 

result in unacceptable challenges to 

reactor safety systems that, combined 

with other failures, could lead to the 

release of radioactivity to the 

environment. Based on PWSCC 

experience in PWRs, the NRC concludes 

that there is a reasonable likelihood that 

PWR licensees would not be in 

compliance with appropriate regulatory 

requirements and current licensing basis 

with respect to structural integrity and 

leak-tightness throughout the term of 

the operating license, should PWSCC 

occur in their plants. The general design 

criteria (GDC) for nuclear power plants 

(Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50) provide 

the regulatory requirements for the 

NRC’s assessment of the potential for, 

and consequences of, degradation of the 

RCPB. The applicable GDCs include 

GDC 14 and GDC 31. GDC 14 specifies 

that the RCPB be designed, fabricated, 

erected, and tested so as to have an 

extremely low probability of abnormal 

leakage, of rapidly propagating failure, 

and of gross rupture. GDC 31 specifies 

that the probability of rapidly 

propagating fracture of the RCPB be 

minimized. 

The nuclear plants that were licensed 

before GDC were incorporated in 10 

CFR Part 50 also would not be in 

compliance with their licensing basis 

which requires maintenance of the 

structural and leakage integrity of the 

RCPB. 

Leakage of primary system coolant as 

a result of PWSCC in Alloy 600/82/182 

material is a non-compliance with GDC 

14 and 31 and licensing bases because 

there have been many cases of leakage 

as a result of PWSCC of Alloy 600/82/ 

182 material in PWRs. Therefore, 

leakage as a result of PWSCC has not 

been shown to be of extremely low 

probability (i.e. a non-compliance with 

GDC 14). In addition, the operating 

experience has shown that the crack 

growth rate of PWSCC in Alloy 600/82/ 

182 material can be rapid. If PWSCC is 

not detected and removed, a crack, 

especially a circumferential crack in a 

pipe, would increase the probability of 

rapidly propagating fracture of RCPB 

(i.e, a non-compliance with GDC 31). 

Therefore, PWSCC in Alloy 600/82/182 

material, if undetected, would be 

detrimental to the structural and leakage 

integrity of the RCPB. Code Case N–722 

with conditions provides inspection 

requirements to detect PWSCC so that 

licensees can repair or replace the 

affected components, thereby 

maintaining the structural and leakage 

integrity of the RCPB, assuring an 

extremely low probability of abnormal 

leakage, and the minimizing the 

probability of a rapidly propagating 

fracture of the RCPB. 

The NRC concludes that licensees 

will not be in compliance with GDC and 

their licensing basis for structural and 

leakage integrity of Class 1 components 

that were made of Alloy 600/82/182 

material throughout the term of their 

license (including any renewal periods) 

absent the imposition of Code Case N–

722 with conditions. The NRC 

concludes, therefore, that the proposed 

10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(E) is a 

compliance backfit under 10 CFR 

50.109(a)(4)(i). 

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 forth 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 proposing to adopt 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, 937, 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, 

2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 

202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
16740 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 Pub. L. 95–

601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). 

Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 

185, 68 Stat. 955 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 

2235), sec. 102, Pub. L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853 

(42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(d), 

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, Pub. L. 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 

revising the introductory text of 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), removing 

and reserving paragraphs (b)(2)(xi) and 

(b)(2)(xiii), revising the introductory text 

of paragraph (b)(2)(xv) and paragraphs 

(b)(2)(xx) and (b)(2)(xxi)(A), adding 

paragraph (b)(2)(xxviii), revising the 

introductory text of paragraph (b)(3) and 

paragraph (b)(3)(iv)(D), removing and 

reserving paragraph (g)(6)(ii)(A), adding 

paragraphs (g)(6)(ii)(D) and (g)(6)(ii)(E), 

and removing 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 2004 

Edition (Division 1), subject to the 

following limitations and modifications: 

* * * * * 

(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 2004 

Edition (Division 1), subject to the 

following limitations and modifications: 

* * * * * 

(xi) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(xiii) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(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 2004 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. 

* * * * * 

(xx) System Leakage Tests. (A) When 

performing system leakage tests in 

accordance with IWA–5213(a), 1997 

through 2002 Addenda, the licensee 

shall maintain a 10-minute hold time 

after test pressure has been reached for 

Class 2 and Class 3 components that are 

not in use during normal operating 

conditions. 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. 

(B) The NDE provision in IWA–

4540(a)(2) of the 2002 Addenda of 

Section XI must be applied when 

performing system leakage tests after 

repair and replacement activities 

performed by welding or brazing on a 

pressure retaining boundary using the 

2003 Addenda through the latest edition 

and addenda incorporated by reference 

in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 

(xxi) * * * 

(A) The provisions of Table IWB–

2500–1, Examination Category B–D, Full 

Penetration Welded Nozzles in Vessels, 

Item B3.40 and B3.60 (Inspection 

Program A) and Items B3.120 and 

B3.140 (Inspection Program B) in the 

1998 Edition must be applied when 

using the 1999 Addenda through the 

latest edition and addenda incorporated 

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

section. A visual examination with 

enhanced magnification that has a 

resolution sensitivity to detect a 1-mil 

width wire or crack, utilizing the 

allowable flaw length criteria in Table 

IWB–3512–1, 1997 Addenda through 

the latest edition and addenda 

incorporated by reference in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section, with a limiting 

assumption on the flaw aspect ratio (i.e., 

a/l=0.5), may be performed instead of an 

ultrasonic examination. 

* * * * * 

(xxviii) Evaluation Procedure and 

Acceptance Criteria for PWR Reactor 

Vessel Head Penetration Nozzles. When 

performing flaw growth calculations in 

accordance with non-mandatory 

Appendix O of Section XI of the ASME 

Code, as permitted by IWB–3660, the 

licensee shall use exponent¥2.2 as the 

exponent in the SR equation in 

Subarticle O–3220. 

(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 2004 Edition 

subject to the following limitations and 

modifications: 

* * * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(D) The applicable provisions of 

subsection ISTC must be implemented if 

the Appendix II condition monitoring 

program is discontinued. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(6) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(D) Reactor Vessel Head Inspections. 

(1) All licensees of pressurized water 

reactors shall augment their inservice 

inspection program by implementing 

ASME Code Case N–729–1 subject to 

the conditions specified in paragraphs 

(g)(6)(ii)(D)(2) through (6) of this 

section. 

(2) Item B4.40 of Table 1 must be 

inspected at least every fourth refueling 

outage or at least every seven calendar 

years, whichever occurs first, after the 

first ten-year inspection interval. 

(3) Instead of fulfilling the specified 

‘examination method’ requirements for 

volumetric and surface examinations of 

Note 6 in Table 1, the licensee shall 

perform a volumetric or surface 

examination or both of essentially 100 

percent of the required volume or 

equivalent surfaces of the nozzle tube, 

as identified by Fig. 2 of ASME Code 

Case N–729–1. A surface examination 

must be performed on all J-groove 

welds. If a surface examination is 

substituted for a volumetric 

examination on a portion of a 

penetration nozzle that is below the toe 

of the J-groove weld (Point E on Fig. 2 

of ASME Code Case N–729–1), the 

surface examination must be of the 

inside and outside wetted surfaces of 

the penetration nozzle not examined 

volumetrically. 

(4) Ultrasonic examinations must be 

performed using personnel, procedures 

and equipment that have been qualified 

by blind demonstration on 

representative mockups using a 

methodology that meets the conditions 

specified in paragraphs (g)(6)(ii)(D)(4)(i) 

through (iv) of this section instead of 

using a methodology that satisfies the 

conditions specified by the qualification 

requirements of Paragraph–2500 of 

ASME Code Case N–729–1. 

(i) The diameters of pipes in the 

specimen set shall be within 1⁄2 in. (13 

mm) of the nominal diameter of the 

qualification pipe size and a thickness 

tolerance of ± 25 percent of the nominal 

through-wall depth of the qualification 

pipe thickness. The specimen set must 

contain geometric and material 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16741 

indications that normally require 

discrimination from primary water 

stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) 

flaws. 

(ii) The specimen set must have a 

minimum of ten (10) flaws that provide 

an acoustic response similar to that of 

PWSCC indications. All flaw depths in 

the specimen set must be greater than 10 

percent of the nominal pipe wall 

thickness. A minimum number of 30 

percent of the total flaws must be 

connected to the outside diameter and 

30 percent of the total flaws must be 

connected to the inside diameter. 

Further, at least 30 percent of the total 

flaws must measure from a depth of 10 

to 30 percent of the wall thickness and 

at least 30 percent of the total flaws 

must measure from a depth of 31 to 50 

percent of the wall thickness and be 

connected to the inside or outside 

diameter, as applicable. At least 30 

percent, but no more than 60 percent, of 

the flaws must be oriented axially. 

(iii) The procedures must identify the 

equipment and essential variable 

settings used to qualify the procedures. 

An essential variable is defined as any 

variable that affects the results of the 

examination. The procedure must be 

requalified when an essential variable is 

changed to fall outside the 

demonstration range. A procedure must 

be qualified using the equivalent of at 

least three test sets that are used to 

demonstrate personnel performance. 

Procedure qualification must require at 

least one successful personnel 

performance demonstration. 

(iv) The test acceptance criteria for a 

personnel performance demonstration 

must meet the detection test acceptance 

criteria for personnel performance 

demonstration in Table VIII–S10–1 of 

Section XI, Appendix VIII, Supplement 

10. Examination procedures, equipment, 

and personnel must be considered 

qualified for depth sizing only if the 

root mean square (RMS) error of the 

flaw depth measurements, as compared 

to the true flaw depths, does not exceed 

1/32-inch (0.8 mm). Examination 

procedures, equipment, and personnel 

must be considered qualified for length 

sizing if the RMS error of the flaw 

length measurements, as compared to 

the true flaw lengths, does not exceed 1/ 

16-inch (1.6 mm). 

(5) If flaws attributed to PWSCC have 

been identified, whether acceptable or 

not for continued service under 

Paragraphs -3130 or -3140 of ASME 

Code Case N–729–1, the reinspection 

interval must be each refueling outage 

instead of the reinspection intervals 

required by Table 1, Note (8) of ASME 

Code Case N–729–1. 

(6) Appendix I of ASME Code Case 

N–729–1 must not be implemented 

without prior NRC approval. 

(E) Reactor Coolant Pressure 

Boundary Visual Inspections. (1) All 

licensees of pressurized water reactors 

shall augment their inservice inspection 

program by implementing ASME Code 

Case N–722 subject to the conditions 

specified in paragraphs (g)(6)(ii)(E)(2) 

through (4) of this section. The 

inspection requirements of ASME Code 

Case N–722 only apply to components 

fabricated with Alloy 600/82/182 

materials not mitigated by weld overlay 

or stress improvement. 

(2) If a visual examination determines 

that leakage is occurring from a specific 

item listed in Table 1 of ASME Code 

Case N–722 that is not exempted by the 

ASME Code, Section XI, IWB–

1220(b)(1), additional actions must be 

performed to characterize the location, 

orientation, and length of crack(s) in 

Alloy 600 nozzle wrought material and 

location, orientation, and length of 

crack(s) in Alloy 82/182 butt welds. 

Alternatively, licensees may replace the 

Alloy 600/82/182 materials in all the 

components under the item number of 

the leaking component. 

(3) If the actions in paragraph 

(g)(6)(ii)(E)(2) of this section determine 

that a flaw is circumferentially oriented 

and potentially a result of primary water 

stress corrosion cracking, licensees shall 

perform non-visual NDE inspections of 

components that fall under that ASME 

Code Case N–722 item number. The 

number of components inspected must 

equal or exceed the number of 

components found to be leaking under 

that item number. If circumferential 

cracking is identified in the sample, 

non-visual NDE must be performed in 

the remaining components under that 

item number. 

(4) If ultrasonic examinations of butt 

welds are used to meet the NDE 

requirements in paragraphs 

(g)(6)(ii)(E)(2) or (g)(6)(ii)(E)(3) of this 

section, they must be performed using 

the appropriate supplement of Section 

XI, Appendix VIII of the ASME Boiler 

and Pressure Vessel Code. 

* * * * * 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day 

of March, 2007. 

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

Luis A. Reyes, 

Executive Director. 

[FR Doc. E7–6379 Filed 4–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27768; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–174–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A330 and A340 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Airbus Model A330 and A340 airplanes. 

This proposed AD would require 

revising the Airworthiness Limitations 

Section of the Instructions for 

Continued Airworthiness to incorporate 

new limitations for fuel tank systems. 

This proposed AD results from fuel 

system reviews conducted by the 

manufacturer. We are proposing this AD 

to prevent the potential of ignition 

sources inside fuel tanks, which, in 

combination with flammable fuel vapors 

caused by latent failures, alterations, 

repairs, or maintenance actions, could 

result in fuel tank explosions and 

consequent loss of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by May 7, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed AD. 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice 

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, 

for service information identified in this 

proposed AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Backman, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS