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.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

40685 

Vol. 83, No. 159 

Thursday, August 16, 2018 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 50 

[NRC–2017–0024] 

RIN 3150–AJ93 

Approval of American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers’ Code Cases 

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 proposed revisions of three 

regulatory guides (RGs), which would 

approve new, revised, and reaffirmed 

Code Cases published by the American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME). This proposed action would 

allow nuclear power plant licensees, 

and applicants for construction permits, 

operating licenses, combined licenses, 

standard design certifications, standard 

design approvals and manufacturing 

licenses, to use the Code Cases listed in 

these draft RGs as voluntary alternatives 

to engineering standards for the 

construction, inservice inspection (ISI), 

and inservice testing (IST) of nuclear 

power plant components. The NRC is 

requesting comments on this proposed 

rule and on the draft versions of the 

three RGs proposed to be incorporated 

by reference. The NRC is also making 

available a related draft RG that lists 

Code Cases that the NRC has not 

approved for use. This draft RG will not 

be incorporated by reference into the 

NRC’s regulations. 

DATES: Submit comments on the 

proposed rule and related guidance by 

October 30, 2018. Submit comments 

specific to the information collections 

aspects of this rule by September 17, 

2018. Comments received after this date 

will be considered if it is practical to do 

so, but the NRC is able to ensure 

consideration only of comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the proposed rule and related 

guidance by any of the following 

methods (unless this document 

describes a different method for 

submitting comments on a specific 

subject): 

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2017–0024. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions contact the 

individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• Email comments to: 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you 

do not receive an automatic email reply 

confirming receipt, then contact us at 

301–415–1677. 

• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– 

415–1101. 

• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

• Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 

(Eastern Time) Federal workdays; 

telephone: 301–415–1677. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Margaret Ellenson, Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards, 

telephone: 301–415–0894, email: 

Margaret.Ellenson@nrc.gov; and 

Giovanni Facco, Office of Nuclear 

Regulatory Research, telephone: 301– 

415–6337; email: Giovanni.Facco@

nrc.gov. Both are staff of the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

Executive Summary 

A. Need for the Regulatory Action 

The purpose of this regulatory action 

is to incorporate by reference into the 

NRC’s regulations the latest revisions of 

three RGs (currently in draft form for 

comment). The three draft RGs identify 

new, revised, and reaffirmed Code Cases 

published by the ASME, which the NRC 

has determined are acceptable for use as 

voluntary alternatives to compliance 

with certain provisions of the ASME 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPV 

Code) and ASME Code for Operation 

and Maintenance of Nuclear Power 

Plants (OM Code) currently 

incorporated by reference into the 

NRC’s regulations. 

B. Major Provisions 

The three draft RGs that the NRC 

proposes to incorporate by reference are 

RG 1.84, ‘‘Design, Fabrication, and 

Materials Code Case Acceptability, 

ASME Section III,’’ Revision 38 (Draft 

Regulatory Guide (DG)–1345); RG 1.147, 

‘‘Inservice Inspection Code Case 

Acceptability, ASME Section XI, 

Division 1,’’ Revision 19 (DG–1342); and 

RG 1.192, ‘‘Operation and Maintenance 

[OM] Code Case Acceptability, ASME 

OM Code,’’ Revision 3 (DG–1343). This 

proposed action would allow nuclear 

power plant licensees and applicants for 

construction permits (CPs), operating 

licenses (OLs), combined licenses 

(COLs), standard design certifications, 

standard design approvals, and 

manufacturing licenses, to use the Code 

Cases newly listed in these revised RGs 

as voluntary alternatives to engineering 

standards for the construction, ISI, and 

IST of nuclear power plant components. 

The NRC also notes the availability of a 

proposed version of RG 1.193, ‘‘ASME 

Code Cases Not Approved for Use,’’ 

Revision 6 (DG–1344). This document 

lists Code Cases that the NRC has not 

approved for generic use, and will not 

be incorporated by reference into the 

NRC’s regulations. The NRC is not 

requesting comment on DG–1344. 

The NRC prepared a draft regulatory 

analysis to determine the expected 

quantitative costs and benefits of this 

proposed rule, as well as qualitative 

factors to be considered in the NRC’s 

rulemaking decision. The analysis 

concluded that this proposed rule 

would result in net savings to the 

industry and the NRC. As shown below, 

the estimated total net benefit relative to 

the regulatory baseline, the quantitative 

benefits outweigh the costs by a range 

from approximately $6.72 million (7- 

percent net present value (NPV)) to 

$7.48 million (3-percent NPV). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
40686 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1The editions and addenda of the ASME Code for 

Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power 

Plants have had different titles from 2005 to 2017, 

and are referred to collectively in this rule as the 

‘‘OM Code.’’ 

TOTAL AVERTED COSTS (COSTS) 

Attribute Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV 

Industry Implementation .............................................................................................................. $0 $0 $0 

Industry Operation ....................................................................................................................... 6,130,000 5,200,000 5,700,000 

Total Industry Costs ............................................................................................................. 6,130,000 5,200,000 5,700,000 

NRC Implementation ................................................................................................................... (360,000) (360,000) (360,000) 

NRC Operation ............................................................................................................................ 2,380,000 1,880,000 2,140,000 

Total NRC Cost .................................................................................................................... 2,020,000 1,520,000 1,780,000 

Net ................................................................................................................................. 8,150,000 6,720,000 7,480,000 

The regulatory analysis also 

considered the following qualitative 

considerations: (1) Flexibility and 

decreased uncertainty for licensees 

when making modifications or 

preparing to perform ISI or IST; (2) 

consistency with the provisions of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 

which encourages Federal regulatory 

agencies to consider adopting voluntary 

consensus standards as an alternative to 

de novo agency development of 

standards affecting an industry; (3) 

consistency with the NRC’s policy of 

evaluating the latest versions of 

consensus standards in terms of their 

suitability for endorsement by 

regulations and regulatory guides; and 

(4) consistency with the NRC’s goal to 

harmonize with international standards 

to improve regulatory efficiency for both 

the NRC and international standards 

groups. 

The draft regulatory analysis 

concludes that this proposed rule 

should be adopted because it is justified 

when integrating the cost-beneficial 

quantitative results and the positive and 

supporting nonquantitative 

considerations in the decision. For more 

information, please see the regulatory 

analysis (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML18099A054). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting 

Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

B. Submitting Comments 

II. Background 

III. Discussion 

A. Code Cases Proposed to be Approved for 

Unconditional Use 

B. Code Cases Proposed to be Approved for 

Use With Conditions 

1. ASME BPV Code, Section III Code Cases 

(DG–1345/RG 1.84) 

2. ASME BPV Code, Section XI Code Cases 

(DG–1342/RG 1.147) 

3. OM Code Cases (DG–1343/RG 1.192) 

C. ASME Code Cases not Approved for Use 

(DG–1344/RG 1.193) 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

VI. Regulatory Analysis 

VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality 

VIII. Plain Writing 

IX. Environmental Assessment and Proposed 

Finding of No Significant Environmental 

Impact 

X. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

XII. Incorporation by Reference—Reasonable 

Availability to Interested Parties 

XIII. Availability of Documents 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017– 

0024 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information for this 

action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this 

action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2017–0024. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

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

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For the 

convenience of the reader, instructions 

about obtaining materials referenced in 

this document are provided in the 

‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

B. Submitting Comments 

Please include Docket ID NRC–2017– 

0024 in the subject line of your 

comment submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC will post all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as enter the 

comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment into ADAMS. 

II. Background 

The ASME develops and publishes 

the ASME BPV Code, which contains 

requirements for the design, 

construction, and ISI examination of 

nuclear power plant components, and 

the ASME OM Code,1 which contains 

requirements for IST of nuclear power 

plant components. In response to BPV 

and OM Code user requests, the ASME 

develops Code Cases that provide 

voluntary alternatives to BPV and OM 

Code requirements under special 

circumstances. 

The NRC approves the ASME BPV 

and OM Codes in § 50.55a, ‘‘Codes and 

standards,’’ of title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) through 

the process of incorporation by 

reference. As such, each provision of the 

ASME Codes incorporated by reference 

into, and mandated by § 50.55a 

constitutes a legally-binding NRC 

requirement imposed by rule. As noted 

previously, ASME Code Cases, for the 

most part, represent alternative 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40687 

2See Federal Register notice (FRN), 

‘‘Incorporation by Reference of ASME BPV and OM 

Code Cases’’ (68 FR 40469; July 8, 2003). 

3Code Cases are categorized by ASME as one of 

three types: New, revised, or reaffirmed. A new 

Code Case provides for a new alternative to specific 

ASME Code provisions or addresses a new need. 

The ASME defines a revised Code Case to be a 

revision (modification) to an existing Code Case to 

address, for example, technological advancements 

in examination techniques or to address NRC 

conditions imposed in one of the RGs that have 

been incorporated by reference into § 50.55a. The 

ASME defines ‘‘reaffirmed’’ as an OM Code Case 

that does not have any change to technical content, 

but includes editorial changes. 

approaches for complying with 

provisions of the ASME BPV and OM 

Codes. Accordingly, the NRC 

periodically amends § 50.55a to 

incorporate by reference the NRC’s RGs 

listing approved ASME Code Cases that 

may be used as voluntary alternatives to 

the BPV and OM Codes.2

This proposed rule is the latest in a 

series of rules that incorporate by 

reference new versions of several RGs 

identifying new, revised, and 

reaffirmed,3 and unconditionally or 

conditionally acceptable ASME Code 

Cases that the NRC approves for use. In 

developing these RGs, the NRC staff 

reviews ASME BPV and OM Code 

Cases, determines the acceptability of 

each Code Case, and publishes its 

findings in the RGs. The RGs are revised 

periodically as new Code Cases are 

published by the ASME. The NRC 

incorporates by reference the RGs listing 

acceptable and conditionally acceptable 

ASME Code Cases into § 50.55a. The 

NRC published a final rule dated 

January 17, 2018 (83 FR 2331) that 

incorporated by reference into § 50.55a 

the most recent versions of the RGs, 

which are: RG 1.84, ‘‘Design, 

Fabrication, and Materials Code Case 

Acceptability, ASME Section III,’’ 

Revision 37; RG 1.147, ‘‘Inservice 

Inspection Code Case Acceptability, 

ASME Section XI, Division 1,’’ Revision 

18; and RG 1.192, ‘‘Operation and 

Maintenance Code Case Acceptability, 

ASME OM Code,’’ Revision 2. 

III. Discussion 

This proposed rule would incorporate 

by reference the latest revisions of the 

NRC’s RGs that list ASME BPV and OM 

Code Cases that the NRC finds to be 

acceptable, or acceptable with NRCspecified conditions (‘‘conditionally 

acceptable’’). Regulatory Guide 1.84, 

Revision 38, DG–1345, would supersede 

the incorporation by reference of 

Revision 37; RG 1.147, Revision 19, DG– 

1342, would supersede the 

incorporation by reference of Revision 

18; and RG 1.192, Revision 3, DG–1343, 

would supersede the incorporation by 

reference of Revision 2. 

The ASME Code Cases that are the 

subject of this proposed rule are the new 

and revised Section III and Section XI 

Code Cases as listed in Supplement 11 

to the 2010 BPV Code through 

Supplement 7 to the 2013 BPV Code, 

and the OM Code Cases published at the 

same time as the 2017 Edition. 

Additional Section XI Code Cases 

published from the 2015 Edition of the 

BPV Code are also included at the 

request of the ASME. 

The latest editions and addenda of the 

ASME BPV and OM Codes that the NRC 

has approved for use are referenced in 

§ 50.55a. The ASME also publishes 

Code Cases that provide alternatives to 

existing Code requirements that the 

ASME developed and approved. This 

proposed rule would incorporate by 

reference RGs 1.84, 1.147, and 1.192 

allowing nuclear power plant licensees, 

and applicants for combined licenses, 

standard design certifications, standard 

design approvals, and manufacturing 

licenses under the regulations that 

govern license certifications, to use the 

Code Cases listed in these RGs as 

suitable alternatives to the ASME BPV 

and OM Codes for the construction, ISI, 

and IST of nuclear power plant 

components. The ASME publishes Code 

Cases in a separate document but at the 

same time as specific editions of the 

ASME OM Code. The ASME also 

publishes BPV Code Cases in a separate 

document and at a different time than 

ASME BPV Code Editions. This 

proposed rule identifies Code Cases by 

the edition of the ASME BPV Code or 

ASME OM Code under which they were 

published by ASME. This proposed rule 

only accepts Code Cases for use in lieu 

of the specific editions and addenda of 

the ASME BPV and OM Codes 

incorporated by reference in § 50.55a. 

The following general guidance 

applies to the use of the ASME Code 

Cases approved in the latest versions of 

the RGs that are incorporated by 

reference into § 50.55a as part of this 

proposed rule. Specifically, the use of 

the Code Cases listed in RGs 1.84, 1.147, 

and 1.192 are acceptable with the 

specified conditions when 

implementing the editions and addenda 

of the ASME BPV and OM Codes 

incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 

50.55a. 

The approval of a Code Case in the 

NRC’s RGs constitutes acceptance of its 

technical position for applications that 

are not precluded by regulatory or other 

requirements or by the 

recommendations in these or other RGs. 

The applicant and/or licensee is 

responsible for ensuring that use of the 

Code Case does not conflict with 

regulatory requirements or licensee 

commitments. The Code Cases listed in 

the RGs are acceptable for use within 

the limits specified in the Code Cases. 

If the RG states an NRC condition on the 

use of a Code Case, then the NRC 

condition supplements and does not 

supersede any condition(s) specified in 

the Code Case, unless otherwise stated 

in the NRC condition. 

The ASME Code Cases may be revised 

for many reasons (e.g., to incorporate 

operational examination and testing 

experience and to update material 

requirements based on research results). 

On occasion, an inaccuracy in an 

equation is discovered or an 

examination, as practiced, is found not 

to be adequate to detect a newly 

discovered degradation mechanism. 

Therefore, when an applicant or a 

licensee initially implements a Code 

Case, § 50.55a requires that the 

applicant or the licensee implement the 

most recent version of that Code Case, 

as listed in the RGs incorporated by 

reference. Code Cases superseded by 

revision are no longer acceptable for 

new applications unless otherwise 

indicated. 

Section III of the ASME BPV Code 

applies only to new construction (i.e., 

the edition and addenda to be used in 

the construction of a plant are selected 

based on the date of the construction 

permit and are not changed thereafter, 

except voluntarily by the applicant or 

the licensee). Hence, if a Section III 

Code Case is implemented by an 

applicant or a licensee and a later 

version of the Code Case is incorporated 

by reference into § 50.55a and listed in 

the RG, the applicant or the licensee 

may use either version of the Code Case 

(subject, however, to whatever change 

requirements apply to its licensing basis 

(e.g., § 50.59)) until the next mandatory 

ISI or IST update. 

A licensee’s ISI and IST programs 

must be updated every 10 years to the 

latest edition and addenda of ASME 

BPV Code, Section XI, and the OM 

Code, respectively, that were 

incorporated by reference into § 50.55a 

and in effect 12 months prior to the start 

of the next inspection and testing 

interval. Licensees that were using a 

Code Case prior to the effective date of 

its revision may continue to use the 

previous version for the remainder of 

the 120-month ISI or IST interval. This 

relieves licensees of the burden of 

having to update their ISI or IST 

program each time a Code Case is 

revised by the ASME and approved for 

use by the NRC. Code Cases apply to 

specific editions and addenda, and Code 

Cases may be revised if they are no 

longer accurate or adequate, so licensees 

choosing to continue using a Code Case 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
40688 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

during the subsequent ISI or IST 

interval must implement the latest 

version incorporated by reference into 

§ 50.55a and listed in the RGs. 

The ASME may annul Code Cases that 

are no longer required, are determined 

to be inaccurate or inadequate, or have 

been incorporated into the BPV or OM 

Codes. A Code Case may be revised, for 

example, to incorporate user experience. 

The older or superseded version of the 

Code Case cannot be applied by the 

licensee or applicant for the first time. If an applicant or a licensee applied 

a Code Case before it was listed as 

superseded, the applicant or the 

licensee may continue to use the Code 

Case until the applicant or the licensee 

updates its construction Code of Record 

(in the case of an applicant, updates its 

application) or until the licensee’s 120- 

month ISI or IST update interval 

expires, after which the continued use 

of the Code Case is prohibited unless 

NRC authorization is given under 

§ 50.55a(z). If a Code Case is 

incorporated by reference into § 50.55a 

and later a revised version is issued by 

the ASME because experience has 

shown that the design analysis, 

construction method, examination 

method, or testing method is 

inadequate; the NRC will amend 

§ 50.55a and the relevant RG to remove 

the approval of the superseded Code 

Case. Applicants and licensees should 

not begin to implement such superseded 

Code Cases in advance of the 

rulemaking. 

A. Code Cases Proposed To Be 

Approved for Unconditional Use 

The Code Cases discussed in Table I 

are new, revised or reaffirmed Code 

Cases in which the NRC is not 

proposing any conditions. The table 

identifies the draft regulatory guide 

listing the applicable Code Case that the 

NRC proposes to approve for use. 

TABLE I 

Code case No. Published with supplement Title 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III 

(addressed in DG–1345, Table 1) 

N–60–6 ............................... 11 (2010 Edition) ................ Material for Core Support Structures, Section III, Division 1. 

N–249–15 ........................... 7 (2013 Edition) .................. Additional Materials for Subsection NF, Classes 1, 2, 3, and MC Supports Fabricated Without Welding, Section III, Division 1. 

N–284–4 ............................. 11 (2010 Edition) ................ Metal Containment Shell Buckling Design Methods, Class MC, TC, and SC Construction Section III, Divisions 1 and 3. 

N–520–6 ............................. 1 (2013 Edition) .................. Alternative Rules for Renewal of Active or Expired N-type Certificates for Plants Not 

in Active Construction, Section III, Division 1. 

N–801–1 ............................. 11 (2010 Edition) ................ Rules for Repair of N-Stamped Class 1, 2, and 3 Components Section III, Division 

1. 

N–822–2 ............................. 7 (2013 Edition) .................. Application of the ASME Certification Mark Section III, Divisions 1, 2, 3, and 5. 

N–833 ................................. 1 (2013 Edition) .................. Minimum Non-prestressed Reinforcement in the Containment Base Mat or Slab Required for Concrete Crack Control, Section III, Division 2. 

N–834 ................................. 3 (2013 Edition) .................. ASTM A988/A988M–11 UNS S31603, Subsection NB, Class 1 Components, Section III, Division 1. 

N–836 ................................. 3 (2013 Edition) .................. Heat Exchanger Tube Mechanical Plugging, Class 1, Section III, Division 1. 

N–841 ................................. 4 (2013 Edition) .................. Exemptions to Mandatory Post Weld Heat Treatment (PWHT) of SA–738 Grade B 

for Class MC Applications, Section III, Division 1. 

N–844 ................................. 5 (2013 Edition) .................. Alternatives to the Requirements of NB–4250(c), Section III, Division 1. 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI 

(addressed in DG–1342, Table 1) 

N–513–4 ............................. 6 (2013 Edition) .................. Evaluation of Criteria for Temporary Acceptance of Flaws in Moderate Energy Class 

2 or 3 Piping, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–528–1 ............................. 5 (1998 Edition) .................. Purchase, Exchange, or Transfer of Material Between Nuclear Plant Sites Section 

XI, Division 1. 

N–661–3 ............................. 6 (2015 Edition) .................. Alternative Requirements for Wall Thickness Restoration of Class 2 and 3 Carbon 

Steel Piping for Raw Water Service, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–762–1 ............................. 3 (2013 Edition) .................. Temper Bead Procedure Qualification Requirements for Repair/Replacement Activities without Postweld Heat Treatment, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–789–2 ............................. 5 (2015 Edition) .................. Alternative Requirements for Pad Reinforcement of Class 2 and 3 Moderate Energy 

Carbon Steel Piping for Raw Water Service, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–823–1 ............................. 4 (2013 Edition) .................. Visual Examination Section XI, Division 1. 

N–839 ................................. 7 (2013 Edition) .................. Similar and Dissimilar Metal Welding Using Ambient Temperature SMAW 1 Temper 

Bead Technique Section XI, Division 1. 

N–842 ................................. 4 (2013 Edition) .................. Alternative Inspection Program for Longer Fuel Cycles Section XI, Division 1. 

N–853 ................................. 6 (2015 Edition) .................. PWR 2 Class 1 Primary Piping Alloy 600 Full Penetration Branch Connection Weld 

Metal Buildup for Material Susceptible to Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–854 ................................. 1 (2015 Edition) .................. Alternative Pressure Testing Requirements for Class 2 and 3 Components Connected to the Class 1 Boundary, Section XI, Division 1. 

OM Code 

(addressed in DG–1343, Table 1) 

OMN–16 Revision 2 ........... 2017 Edition ....................... Use of a Pump Curve for Testing. 

OMN–21 ............................. 2017 Edition ....................... Alternative Requirements for Adjusting Hydraulic Parameters to Specified Reference 

Points. 

1Shielded metal arc welding. 

2Pressurized water reactor. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40689 

B. Code Cases Approved for Use With 

Conditions 

The NRC has determined that certain 

Code Cases, as issued by the ASME, are 

generally acceptable for use, but that the 

alternative requirements specified in 

those Code Cases must be supplemented 

in order to provide an acceptable level 

of quality and safety. Accordingly, the 

NRC proposes to impose conditions on 

the use of these Code Cases to modify, 

limit or clarify their requirements. The 

conditions would specify, for each 

applicable Code Case, the additional 

activities that must be performed, the 

limits on the activities specified in the 

Code Case, and/or the supplemental 

information needed to provide clarity. 

These ASME Code Cases, listed in Table 

II, are included in Table 2 of DG–1345 

(RG 1.84), DG–1342 (RG 1.147), and 

DG–1343 (RG 1.192). The NRC’s 

evaluation of the Code Cases and the 

reasons for the NRC’s proposed 

conditions are discussed in the 

following paragraphs. Notations have 

been made to indicate the conditions 

duplicated from previous versions of the 

RG. 

The NRC requests public comment on 

these Code Cases and the proposed 

conditions. It should also be noted that 

the following paragraphs only address 

those Code Cases for which the NRC 

proposes to impose condition(s), which 

are listed in the RG for the first time. 

TABLE II 

Code case No. Published with supplement Title 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III 

(addressed in DG–1345, Table 2) 

N–71–19 ............................. 0 (2013 Edition) .................. Additional Materials for Subsection NF, Class 1, 2, 3, and MC Supports Fabricated 

by Welding, Section III, Division 1. 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI 

(addressed in DG–1342, Table 2) 

N–516–4 ............................. 7 (2013 Edition) .................. Underwater Welding, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–597–3 ............................. 5 (2013 Edition) .................. Evaluation of Pipe Wall Thinning, Section XI, Division 1.

N–606–2 ............................. 2 (2013 Edition) .................. Similar and Dissimilar Metal Welding Using Ambient Temperature Machine GTAW 1

Temper Bead Technique for BWR 2 CRD 3 Housing/Stub Tube Repairs, Section 

XI, Division 1. 

N–638–7 ............................. 2 (2013 Edition) .................. Similar and Dissimilar Metal Welding Using Ambient Temperature Machine GTAW 

Temper Bead Technique, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–648–2 ............................. 7 (2013 Edition) .................. Alternative Requirements for Inner Radius Examinations of Class 1 Reactor Vessel 

Nozzles, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–695–1 ............................. 0 (15 Edition) ...................... Qualification Requirements for Dissimilar Metal Piping Welds Section XI, Division 1. 

N–696–1 ............................. 6 (2013 Edition) .................. Qualification Requirements for Mandatory Appendix VIII Piping Examination Conducted from the Inside Surface, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–702 ................................. 12 (2001 Edition) ................ Alternative Requirements for Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Nozzle Inner Radius and 

Nozzle-to-Shell Welds, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–705 (Errata) .................... 11 (2010 Edition) ................ Evaluation Criteria for Temporary Acceptance of Degradation in Moderate Energy 

Class 2 or 3 Vessels and Tanks, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–711–1 ............................. 0 (2017 Edition) .................. Alternative Examination Coverage Requirements for Examination Category B–F, B– 

J, C–F–1, C–F–2, and R-A Piping Welds, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–754–1 ............................. 1 (2013 Edition) .................. Optimized Structural Dissimilar Metal Weld Overlay for Mitigation of PWR Class 1 

Items, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–766–1 ............................. 1 (2013 Edition) .................. Nickel Alloy Reactor Coolant Inlay and Onlay for Mitigation of PWR Full Penetration 

Circumferential Nickel Alloy Dissimilar Metal Welds in Class 1 Items, Section XI, 

Division 1. 

N–824 ................................. 11 (2010 Edition) ................ Ultrasonic Examination of Cast Austenitic Piping Welds From the Outside Surface 

Section XI, Division 1. 

N–829 ................................. 0 (2013 Edition) .................. Austenitic Stainless Steel Cladding and Nickel Base Cladding Using Ambient Temperature Machine GTAW Temper Bead Technique, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–830 ................................. 7 (2013 Edition) .................. Direct Use of Master Fracture Toughness Curve for Pressure-Retaining Materials of 

Class 1 Vessels, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–831 ................................. 0 (2017 Edition) .................. Ultrasonic Examination in Lieu of Radiography for Welds in Ferritic Pipe, Section XI, 

Division 1. 

N–838 ................................. 2 (2015 Edition) .................. Flaw Tolerance Evaluation of Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–843 ................................. 4 (2013 Edition) .................. Alternative Pressure Testing Requirements Following Repairs or Replacements for 

Class 1 Piping between the First and Second Injection Isolation Valves, Section 

XI, Division 1. 

N–849 ................................. 7 (2013 Edition) .................. In situ VT–3 Examination of Removable Core Support Structures Without Removal, 

Section XI, Division 1. 

OM Code 

(addressed in DG–1343, Table 2) 

OMN–1 Revision 2 ............. 2017 Edition ....................... Alternative Rules for Preservice and Inservice Testing of Active Electric Motor. 

OMN–3 ............................... 2017 Edition ....................... Requirements for Safety Significance Categorization of Components Using Risk Insights for Inservice Testing of LWR 4 Power Plants. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
40690 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE II—Continued 

Code case No. Published with supplement Title 

OMN–4 ............................... 2017 Edition ....................... Requirements for Risk Insights for Inservice Testing of Check Valves at LWR Power 

Plants. 

OMN–9 ............................... 2017 Edition ....................... Use of a Pump Curve for Testing. 

OMN–12 ............................. 2017 Edition ....................... Alternative Requirements for Inservice Testing Using Risk Insights for Pneumatically 

and Hydraulically Operated Valve Assemblies in Light-Water Reactor Power 

Plants (OM-Code 1998, Subsection ISTC). 

OMN–18 ............................. 2017 Edition ....................... Alternate Testing Requirements for Pumps Tested Quarterly Within ±20% of Design 

Flow. 

OMN–19 ............................. 2017 Edition ....................... Alternative Upper Limit for the Comprehensive Pump Test. 

OMN–20 ............................. 2017 Edition ....................... Inservice Test Frequency. 

1Gas tungsten arc welding. 

2Boiling water reactor. 

3 Control rod drive. 

4 Light water reactor. 

1. ASME BPV Code, Section III Code 

Cases (DG–1345/RG 1.84) 

Code Case N–71–19 [Supplement 0, 

2013 Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Additional Materials for 

Subsection NF, Class 1, 2, 3, and MC 

Supports Fabricated by Welding. 

The first condition on Code Case N– 

71–19 is identical to the first condition 

on Code Case N–71–18 that was first 

approved by the NRC in Revision 33 of 

RG 1.84 in August 2005. The condition 

stated that, ‘‘The maximum measured 

ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of the 

component support material must not 

exceed 170 ksi in view of the 

susceptibility of high strength materials 

to brittleness and stress corrosion 

cracking.’’ When ASME revised N–71, 

the code case was not modified in a way 

that would make it possible for the NRC 

to remove the first condition. Therefore, 

the first condition would be retained in 

Revision 38 of RG 1.84. 

The second condition on Code Case 

N–71–18 was removed because it 

related to materials of up to 190 ksi and 

the first condition has a UTS limit of 

170 ksi on materials. The staff is not 

aware of any materials listed in this 

Code Case to which this condition 

would apply so it was deleted and the 

subsequent conditions renumbered. 

The second condition on Code Case 

N–71–19 is an update to the third 

condition on Revision 18 of the Code 

Case. This condition has been modified 

so that it references the correct sentence 

and paragraph of the revised Code Case 

and now refers to paragraph 5.2 of the 

Code Case, instead of paragraph 5.5 to 

reference ‘‘5.3.2.3, ‘Alternative 

Atmosphere Exposure Time Periods 

Established by Test,’ of the AWS 

[American Welding Society] D1.1 Code 

for the evidence presented to and 

accepted by the Authorized Inspector 

concerning exposure of electrodes for a 

longer period of time.’’ The basis for this 

change is that the paragraph of the Code 

Case identified by this condition has 

been renumbered and is now 5.2. When 

ASME revised N–71, the code case was 

not modified in a way that would make 

it possible for the NRC to remove the 

second condition. Therefore, the second 

condition would be retained in Revision 

38 of RG 1.84. 

The third condition on Code Case N– 

71–19 is substantively the same as the 

fourth condition on Code Case N–71–18 

that was first approved by the NRC in 

Revision 33 of RG 1.84 in August 2005, 

except that it now references the 

renumbered paragraphs of the revised 

Code Case. The condition now reads 

‘‘Paragraph 16.2.2 of Code Case N–71– 

19 is not acceptable as written and must 

be replaced with the following: ‘When 

not exempted by 16.2.1 above, the post 

weld heat treatment must be performed 

in accordance with NF–4622 except that 

ASTM A–710 Grade A Material must be 

at least 1000 °F (540 °C) and must not 

exceed 1150 °F (620 °C) for Class 1 and 

2 material and 1175 °F (640 °C) for Class 

3 material.’ ’’ When ASME revised N– 

71, the code case was not modified in 

a way that would make it possible for 

the NRC to remove the third condition. 

Therefore, the third condition would be 

retained in Revision 38 of RG 1.84. 

The fourth condition on Code Case N– 

71–19 is identical to the fifth condition 

on Code Case N–71–18 that was first 

approved by the NRC in Revision 33 of 

RG 1.84 in August 2005. The condition 

stated that, ‘‘The new holding time-attemperature for weld thickness 

(nominal) must be 30 minutes for welds 

1⁄2 inch or less in thickness, 1 hour per 

inch of thickness for welds over 1⁄2 inch 

to 5 inches, and for thicknesses over 5 

inches, 5 hours plus 15 minutes for each 

additional inch over 5 inches.’’ When 

ASME revised N–71, the code case was 

not modified in a way that would make 

it possible for the NRC to remove the 

fourth condition. Therefore, the fourth 

condition would be retained in Revision 

38 of RG 1.84. 

The fifth condition on Code Case N– 

71–19 is identical to the sixth condition 

on Code Case N–71–18 that was first 

approved by the NRC in Revision 33 of 

RG 1.84 in August 2005. The condition 

stated that, ‘‘The fracture toughness 

requirements as listed in this Code Case 

apply only to piping supports and not 

to Class 1, 2 and 3 component 

supports.’’ When ASME revised N–71, 

the code case was not modified in a way 

that would make it possible for the NRC 

to remove the fifth condition. Therefore, 

the fifth condition would be retained in 

Revision 38 of RG 1.84. 

The sixth condition is a new 

condition, which states that when 

welding P-Number materials listed in 

the Code Case, the corresponding SNumber welding requirements shall 

apply. Previous revisions of the Code 

Case assigned every material listed in 

the Code Case an S-Number designation. 

Welding requirements for materials in 

the Code Case are specified based on the 

S-Number. The current version of the 

Code Case was modified to assign 

corresponding P-Numbers to those Code 

Case materials, which are also listed in 

ASME Code Section IX and have a PNumber designation. However, the Code 

Case was not modified to make clear 

that the Code Case requirements for 

welding S-Number materials are also 

applicable to the P-Number materials, 

all of which were previously listed with 

S-Numbers. Therefore, as written, if a 

user applies this Code Case and uses a 

P-Number material listed in the tables, 

it is not clear that the corresponding SNumber welding requirments apply. To 

clarify the application of S-Number 

welding requirements to P-Number 

materials, the NRC proposes the sixth 

condition as stated. This new condition 

would not impose any additional 

restrictions on the use of this Code Case 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40691 

from those placed on the previous 

revisions. 

2. ASME BPV Code, Section XI Code 

Cases (DG–1342/RG 1.147) 

Code Case N–516–4 [Supplement 7, 

2013 Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Underwater Welding, Section 

XI, Division 1. 

The previously approved revision of 

this Code Case, N–516–3, was 

conditionally accepted in RG 1.147 to 

require that licensees obtain NRC 

approval in accordance with § 50.55a(z) 

regarding the technique to be used in 

the weld repair or replacement of 

irradiated material underwater. The 

rationale for this condition was that it 

was known that materials subjected to 

high neutron fluence could not be 

welded without cracking (this is 

discussed in more detail in the next 

paragraph). However, the condition 

applied to Code Case N–516–3 did not 

provide any guidance on what level of 

neutron irradiation could be considered 

a threshold for weldability. 

The technical basis for imposing 

conditions on the welding of irradiated 

materials is that neutrons can generate 

helium atoms within the metal lattice 

through transmutation of various 

isotopes of boron and/or nickel. At high 

temperatures, such as those during 

welding, these helium atoms rapidly 

diffuse though the metal lattice, forming 

helium bubbles. In sufficient 

concentration, these helium atoms can 

cause grain boundary cracking that 

occurs in the fusion zones and heat 

affected zones during the heatup/ 

cooldown cycle. 

In the rulemaking for the 2009–2013 

Editions of the ASME Code, the NRC 

adopted conditions that should be 

applied to Section XI, Article IWA–4660 

when performing underwater welding 

on irradiated materials. These 

conditions provide guidance on what 

level of neutron irradiation and/or 

helium content would require approval 

by the NRC because of the impact of 

neutron fluence on weldability. These 

conditions provide separate criteria for 

three generic classes of material: ferritic 

material, austenitic material other than 

P-No. 8 (e.g., nickel based alloys) and 

austenitic P-No. 8 material (e.g., 

stainless steel alloys). These conditions 

are currently located in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xii). Although these 

conditions apply to underwater welding 

performed in accordance with IWA– 

4660, they do not apply to underwater 

welding performed in accordance with 

Code Case N–516–4. 

Therefore, the NRC proposes to 

approve Code Case N–516–4 with the 

following conditions for underwater 

welding. The first condition captures 

the § 50.55a(b)(2)(xii) requirement for 

underwater welding of ferritic materials, 

and states that licensees must obtain 

NRC approval in accordance with 

§ 50.55a(z) regarding the welding 

technique to be used prior to performing 

welding on ferritic material exposed to 

fast neutron fluence greater than 1 × 

1017 n/cm2 (E > 1 MeV). The second 

condition captures the § 50.55a(b)(2)(xii) 

requirement for underwater welding of 

austenitic material other than P-No. 8, 

and states that licensees must obtain 

NRC approval in accordance with 

§ 50.55a(z) regarding the welding 

technique to be used prior to performing 

welding on austenitic material other 

than P-No. 8, exposed to thermal 

neutron fluence greater than 1 × 1017 n/ 

cm2 (E < 0.5 eV). The third condition 

captures the § 50.55a(b)(2)(xii) 

requirement for underwater welding of 

austenitic P-No. 8 material, and states 

that licensees must obtain NRC approval 

in accordance with § 50.55a(z) regarding 

the welding technique to be used prior 

to performing welding on austenitic PNo. 8 material exposed to thermal 

neutron fluence greater than 1 × 1017 n/ 

cm2 (E < 0.5 eV) and measured or 

calculated helium concentration of the 

material greater than 0.1 atomic parts 

per million. 

Code Case N–597–3 [Supplement 5, 

2013 Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Evaluation of Pipe Wall 

Thinning Section XI. 

The NRC revised the conditions to 

clarify their intent. The conditions on 

N–597–3 are all carryovers from the 

previous version of this Code Case N– 

597–2. The first condition on Code Case 

N–597–3 addresses the NRC’s concerns 

regarding how the corrosion rate and 

associated uncertainties will be 

determined when N–597–3 is applied to 

evaluate the wall thinning in pipes for 

degradation mechanisms other than 

flow accelerated corrosion. Therefore, 

the NRC is proposing a condition that 

requires the corrosion rate be reviewed 

and approved by the NRC prior to the 

use of the Code Case. 

The second condition on Code Case 

N–597–3 has two parts that allow the 

use of this Code Case to mitigate flow 

accelerated corrosion, but only if both of 

the requirements of the condition are 

met. Due to the difficulty inherent in 

calculating wall thinning, the first part 

of Condition 2 requires that the use of 

N–597–3 on flow-accelerated corrosion 

piping must be supplemented by the 

provisions of Electric Power Research 

Institute (EPRI) Nuclear Safety Analysis 

Center Report 202L– 2, 

‘‘Recommendations for an Effective 

Flow Accelerated Corrosion Program,’’ 

April 1999, which contain rigorous 

provisions to minimize wall thinning. 

The first part of Condition 2 (i.e., 

(2)(a)) on Code Case N–597–3 is 

identical to the first condition on Code 

Case N–597–2 that was first approved 

by the NRC in Revision 15 of RG 1.147 

in October 2007. The condition stated 

that the ‘‘Code Case must be 

supplemented by the provisions of EPRI 

Nuclear Safety Analysis Center Report 

(NSAC) 202L- 2, ‘‘Recommendations for 

an Effective Flow Accelerated Corrosion 

Program’’ (Ref. 6), April 1999, for 

developing the inspection requirements, 

the method of predicting the rate of wall 

thickness loss, and the value of the 

predicted remaining wall thickness. As 

used in NSAC–202L–R2, the term 

‘‘should’’ is to be applied as ‘‘shall’’ (i.e., 

a requirement).’’ When ASME revised 

N–597, the code case was not modified 

in a way that would make it possible for 

the NRC to remove the first part of 

Condition 2. Therefore, the first part of 

Condition 2 would be retained in 

Revision 19 of RG 1.147. 

The second part of Condition 2 (i.e., 

(2)(b)) on Code Case N–597–3 is 

identical to the second condition on 

Code Case N–597–2 that was first 

approved by the NRC in Revision 15 of 

RG 1.147 in October 2007. The 

condition stated that ‘‘Components 

affected by flow-accelerated corrosion to 

which this Code Case are applied must 

be repaired or replaced in accordance 

with the construction code of record 

and owner’s requirements or a later NRC 

approved edition of Section III, ‘Rules 

for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant 

Components,’ of the ASME Code prior 

to the value of tp reaching the allowable 

minimum wall thickness, tmin, as 

specified in –3622.1(a)(1) of this Code 

Case. Alternatively, use of the Code 

Case is subject to NRC review and 

approval per § 50.55a(z).’’ When ASME 

revised N–597, the code case was not 

modified in a way that would make it 

possible for the NRC to remove the 

second part of Condition 2. Therefore, 

the second part of Condition 2 would be 

retained in Revision 19 of RG 1.147. 

The third condition on Code Case N– 

597–3 is identical to the fourth 

condition on Code Case N–597–2 that 

was first approved by the NRC in 

Revision 15 of RG 1.147 in October 

2007. The condition stated that for those 

components that do not require 

immediate repair or replacement, the 

rate of wall thickness loss is to be used 

to determine a suitable inspection 

frequency, so that repair or replacement 

occurs prior to reaching allowable 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
40692 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

minimum wall thickness. When ASME 

revised N–597, the code case was not 

modified in a way that would make it 

possible for the NRC to remove the third 

condition. Therefore, the third 

condition would be retained in Revision 

19 of RG 1.147. 

The fourth condition on Code Case N– 

597–3 is updated from the sixth 

condition on Code Case N–597–2 that 

was first approved by the NRC in 

Revision 17 of RG 1.147 in August 2014. 

This condition allows the use of Code 

Case N–597–3 to calculate wall thinning 

for moderate-energy Class 2 and 3 

piping (using criteria in Code Case N– 

513–2) for temporary acceptance (until 

the next refueling outage). When ASME 

revised N–597, the code case was not 

modified in a way that would make it 

possible for the NRC to remove the 

fourth condition. Therefore, the fourth 

condition would be retained in Revision 

19 of RG 1.147. 

The fifth condition is also updated 

from the sixth condition on Code Case 

N–597–2 that was first approved by the 

NRC in Revision 17 of RG 1.147 in 

August 2014. This condition prohibits 

the use of this Code Case in evaluating 

through-wall leakage in high energy 

piping due to the consequences and 

safety implications associated with pipe 

failure. 

Code Case N–606–2 [Supplement 2, 

2013 Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Similar and Dissimilar Metal 

Welding Using Ambient Temperature 

Machine GTAW Temper Bead 

Technique for BWR CRD Housing/Stub 

Tube Repairs. 

The condition on Code Case N–606– 

2 is identical to the condition on Code 

Case N–606–1 that was first approved 

by the NRC in Revision 13 of RG 1.147 

in January 2004. The condition stated 

that ‘‘Prior to welding, an examination 

or verification must be performed to 

ensure proper preparation of the base 

metal, and that the surface is properly 

contoured so that an acceptable weld 

can be produced. This verification is to 

be required in the welding procedure.’’ 

When ASME revised N–606, the code 

case was not modified in a way that 

would make it possible for the NRC to 

remove the condition. Therefore, the 

condition would be retained in Revision 

19 of RG 1.147. 

Code Case N–638–7 [Supplement 2, 

2013 Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Similar and Dissimilar Metal 

Welding Using Ambient Temperature 

Machine GTAW Temper Bead 

Technique. 

The condition on Code Case N–638– 

7 is identical to the condition on Code 

Case N–638–6 that was first approved 

by the NRC in Revision 18 of RG 1.147 

in the January 2018 final rule and states 

that ‘‘demonstration for ultrasonic 

examination of the repaired volume is 

required using representative samples 

which contain construction type flaws.’’ 

When ASME revised N–638, the code 

case was not modified in a way that 

would make it possible for the NRC to 

remove the condition. Therefore, the 

condition would be retained in Revision 

19 of RG 1.147. 

Code Case N–648–2 [Supplement 7, 

2013 Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Alternative Requirements for 

Inner Radius Examinations of Class 1 

Reactor Vessel Nozzles Section XI. 

The NRC is proposing one condition 

for this Code Case related to preservice 

inspections. The condition on N–648–2 

is that this Code Case shall not be used 

to eliminate the preservice or inservice 

volumetric examination of plants with a 

combined operating license pursuant to 

10 CFR part 52, or a plant that receives 

its operating license after October 22, 

2015. 

The NRC staff’s position regarding 

this Code Case is that the required 

preservice volumetric examinations 

should be performed on all vessel 

nozzles for comparison with volumetric 

examinations later, if indications of 

flaws are found. Eliminating the 

volumetric preservice or inservice 

examination is predicated on good 

operating experience for the existing 

fleet, which has not found any inner 

radius cracking in the nozzles within 

the scope of the code case. At this time, 

the new reactor designs have no 

inspection history or operating 

experience available to support 

eliminating the periodic volumetric 

examination of the nozzles in question. 

Use of Code Case N–648–2 would not 

eliminate preservice examinations for 

the existing fleet since all plants have 

already completed a preservice 

examination. 

Code Case N–695–1 [Supplement 6, 

2013 Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Qualification Requirements for 

Dissimilar Metal Piping Welds Section 

XI, Division 1. 

The NRC proposes to approve Code 

Case N–695–1 with the following 

condition. Inspectors qualified using the 

0.25 root mean square (RMS) error for 

measuring the depths of flaws using N– 

695–1 are not qualified to depth-size 

inner diameter (ID) surface breaking 

flaws greater than 50 percent throughwall in dissimilar metal welds 2.1 

inches or greater in thickness. When an 

inspector qualified using N–695–1 

measures a flaw as greater than 50 

percent through-wall in a dissimilar 

metal weld from the ID, the flaw shall 

be considered to have an indeterminate 

depth. 

Code Case N–695–1 provides 

alternative rules for ultrasonic 

inspections of dissimilar metal welds 

from the inner and outer surfaces. Code 

Case N–695 was developed to allow for 

inspections from the inner surface in 

ASME Code Section XI editions prior to 

2007. However, no inspection vendor 

was able to meet the depth-sizing 

requirements of 0.125 inch RMS error. 

The NRC has granted relief to several 

licensees to allow the use of alternate 

depth-sizing requirements. The NRC 

reviewed the depth-sizing results at the 

Performance Demonstration Institute 

(PDI) for procedures able to achieve an 

RMS error over 0.125 inches but less 

than 0.25 inches. The review found that 

the inspectors tend to oversize small 

flaws and undersize deep flaws. The 

flaws sized by the inspectors as 50 

percent though-wall or less were 

accurately or conservatively measured. 

There were, however, some instances of 

very large flaws being measured as 

significantly smaller than the true state, 

but they were not measured as less than 

50 percent through-wall. 

Code Case N–695–1 changes the 

depth sizing requirements for innersurface examinations of test blocks of 

2.1 inches or greater thickness to 0.25 

inches. This change is in line with the 

granted relief requests and with the 

NRC’s review of the PDI test results. 

The depth-sizing capabilities of the 

inspections does not provide sufficient 

confidence in the ability of an inspector 

qualified using a 0.25 inch RMS error to 

accurately measure the depth of deep 

flaws. The NRC proposes a condition on 

Code Case N–695–1 in that any surfaceconnected flaw sized over 50 percent 

through-wall should be considered of 

indeterminate depth. 

Code Case N–696–1 [Supplement 6, 

2013 Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Qualification Requirements for 

Mandatory Appendix VIII Piping 

Examination Conducted From the 

Inside Surface. 

The NRC proposes to approve Code 

Case N–696–1 with the following 

condition. Inspectors qualified using the 

0.25 RMS error for measuring the depths 

of flaws using N–696–1 are not qualified 

to depth-size ID surface breaking flaws 

greater than 50 percent through-wall in 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40693 

dissimilar metal welds 2.1 inches or 

greater in thickness. When an inspector 

qualified using N–696–1 measures a 

flaw as greater than 50 percent throughwall in a dissimilar metal weld from the 

ID, the flaw shall be considered to have 

an indeterminate depth. Code Case N– 

696–1 provides alternative rules for 

ultrasonic inspections of Supplement 2, 

3 and 10 welds from the inner and outer 

surfaces. Code Case N–696 was 

developed to allow for inspections for 

welds from the inner surface in ASME 

Code Section XI editions prior to 2007. 

However, no inspection vendor was able 

to meet the depth-sizing requirements of 

0.125 inch root mean square (RMS) 

error. The NRC staff granted relief to 

several licensees to allow the use of 

alternate depth-sizing requirements. The 

NRC reviewed the depth-sizing results 

at the PDI for procedures able to achieve 

an RMS error over 0.125 inches but less 

than 0.25 inches. The review found that 

the inspectors tend to oversize small 

flaws and undersize deep flaws. The 

flaws sized by the inspectors as 50 

percent though-wall or less were 

accurately or conservatively measured. 

There were, however, some instances of 

very large flaws being measured as 

significantly smaller than the true state, 

but they were not measured as less than 

50 percent through-wall. 

Code Case N–696–1 changes the 

depth sizing requirements for innersurface examinations of test blocks of 

2.1 inches or greater thickness to 0.25 

inches. This change is consistent with 

the granted relief requests and with the 

NRC staff review of the PDI test results. 

The depth-sizing capabilities of the 

inspections does not provide sufficient 

confidence in the ability of an inspector 

qualified using a 0.25 inch RMS error to 

accurately measure the depth of deep 

flaws. Therefore, the NRC proposes a 

condition on Code Case N–696–1 that 

any surface-connected flaw sized over 

50 percent through-wall should be 

considered of indeterminate depth. 

Code Case N–702 [Supplement 11, 2010 

Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Alternative Requirements for 

Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Nozzle 

Inner Radius and Nozzle-to-Shell Welds, 

Section XI, Division 1. 

The NRC previously accepted with 

conditions Code Case N–702 in RG 

1.147, Revision 18. For Revision 19 of 

RG 1.147 the NRC proposes revisions to 

the conditions on Code Case N–702. The 

original conditions in RG 1.147, 

Revision 17, were consistent with the 

established review procedure for 

applications for use of Code Case N–702 

before August 2014 for the original 40 

years of operation. The previous 

conditions on Code Case N–702 

required licensees to prepare and 

submit for NRC review and approval an 

evaluation demonstrating the 

applicability of Code Case N–702 prior 

to the application of Code Case N–702. 

Subsequent reviews by the NRC of 

requests to utilize the provisions of 

Code Case N–702 show that all licensees 

have adequately evaluated the 

applicability of Code Case N–702 during 

the original 40 years of operation. 

Therefore future review by the NRC is 

not needed. For the period of extended 

operation, the application of Code Case 

N–702 is prohibited. Licensees that 

wish to use Code Case N–702 in the 

period of extended operation may 

submit relief requests based on 

BWRVIP–241, Appendix A, ‘‘BWR 

Nozzle Radii and Nozzle-to-Vessel 

Welds Demonstration of Compliance 

with the Technical Information 

Requirements of the License Renewal 

Rule (10 CFR 54.21),’’ approved on 

April 26, 2017, or plant-specific 

probabilistic fracture mechanics 

analyses. Therefore, the NRC proposes 

to revise the RG 1.147, Revision 17, 

condition to reflect these changes. 

Consistent with the safety evaluations 

for all prior ASME Code Case N–702 

requests, a condition on visual 

examination is being added to clarify 

that the NRC is not relaxing the 

licensees’ practice on VT–1 on nozzle 

inner radii. 

The revised conditions on Code Case 

N–702 state the following: The 

applicability of Code Case N–702 for the 

first 40 years of operation must be 

demonstrated by satisfying the criteria 

in Section 5.0 of NRC Safety Evaluation 

regarding BWRVIP–108 dated December 

18, 2007, (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML073600374) or Section 5.0 of NRC 

Safety Evaluation regarding BWRVIP– 

241 dated April 19, 2013 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13071A240). 

The use of Code Case N–702 in the 

period of extended operation is 

prohibited. If VT–1 is used, it shall 

utilize ASME Code Case N–648–2, 

‘‘Alternative Requirements for Inner 

Radius Examination of Class 1 Reactor 

Vessel Nozzles, Section XI Division 1,’’ 

with the associated required conditions 

specified in Regulatory Guide 1.147. 

Code Case N–705 (Errata) [Supplement 

11, 2010 Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Evaluation Criteria for 

Temporary Acceptance of Degradation 

in Moderate Energy Class 2 or 3 Vessels 

and Tanks. 

The NRC has already accepted Code 

Case N–705 in Regulatory Guide 1.147, 

Revision 16, without conditions. The 

revised Code Case in Supplement 11 

contains only editorial changes. 

However, the NRC has identified an area 

of concern. Paragraph 1(d) of Code Case 

N–705 states that the evaluation period 

is the operational time for which the 

temporary acceptance criteria are 

satisfied (i.e., evaluation period ≤tallow) 

but not greater than 26 months from the 

initial discovery of the condition. The 

NRC finds the 26 months duration 

unacceptable. The Code Case is 

applicable to the temporary acceptance 

of degradation, which could be a 

through wall leak, and would permit a 

vessel or tank to leak coolant for 26 

months without repair or replacement. 

The NRC finds it is unacceptable for 

plant safety to permit a through wall 

leak in vessels or tanks for 26 months 

without an ASME Code repair. 

Therefore, the NRC proposes the 

following condition on Code Case 

N–705: The ASME Code repair or 

replacement activity temporarily 

deferred under the provisions of this 

Code Case shall be performed during the 

next scheduled refueling outage. If a 

flaw is detected during a scheduled 

shutdown, an ASME code repair is 

required before plant restart. 

Code Case N–711–1 [Supplement 0, 

2017 Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Alternative Examination 

Coverage Requirements for Examination 

Category B–F, B–J, C–F–1, C–F–2, and 

R–A Piping Welds. 

Code Case N–711 was first listed as 

unacceptable for use by the NRC in 

Revision 3 of RG 1.193 in October 2010. 

Code Case N–711–1 was created to 

incorporate several NRC conditions for 

the use of Code Case N–711. This Code 

Case provides requirements for 

determining an alternative required 

examination volume, which is defined 

as the volume of primary interest based 

on the postulated degradation 

mechanism in a particular piping weld. 

The NRC finds Code Case N–711–1 

acceptable with one condition. The 

Code Case shall not be used to redefine 

the required examination volume for 

preservice examinations or when the 

postulated degradation mechanism for 

piping welds is primary water stress 

corrosion cracking (PWSCC), 

intergranular stress corrosion cracking 

(IGSCC) or crevice corrosion (CC). For 

PWSCC, the staff finds that the 

examination volume must meet the 

requirements of ASME Code Case 

N–770–1 as conditioned by 

§ 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F). For IGSCC and CC, 

the Code Case does not define a volume 

of primary interest and therefore it 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
40694 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

cannot be used for these degradation 

mechanisms. The Code Case requires 

selection of an alternative inspection 

location within the same risk region or 

category if it will improve the 

examination coverage of the volume of 

primary interest. Use of the Code Case 

must be identified in the licensee’s 90- 

day post outage report of activities 

identifying the examination category, 

weld number, weld description, percent 

coverage and a description of limitation. 

The NRC determined that the Code Case 

provides a suitable process for 

determining the appropriate volume of 

primary interest based on the 

degradation mechanism postulated by 

the degradation mechanism analysis, 

except as noted in the proposed 

condition. 

Code Case N–754–1 [Supplement 1, 

2013 Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Optimized Structural Dissimilar 

Metal Weld Overlay for Mitigation of 

PWR Class 1 Items. 

The first condition on Code Case 

N–754–1 is the same as the first 

condition on N–754 that was first 

approved by the NRC in Revision 18 of 

RG 1.147 in January 2018. The 

condition stated that: ‘‘The conditions 

imposed on the optimized weld overlay 

design in the NRC safety evaluation for 

MRP–169, Revision 1–A (ADAMS 

Accession Nos. ML101620010 and 

ML101660468) must be satisfied.’’ 

When ASME revised 

N–754, the code case was not modified 

in a way that would make it possible for 

the NRC to remove the first condition. 

Therefore, the first condition would be 

retained in Revision 19 of RG 1.147. 

The second condition on Code Case 

N–754–1 is the same as the second 

condition on N–754 that was first 

approved by the NRC in Revision 18 of 

RG 1.147 in January 2018. The 

condition stated that: ‘‘2) The preservice 

and inservice inspections of the overlaid 

weld must satisfy 10 CFR 

50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F).’’ When ASME revised 

N–754, the code case was not modified 

in a way that would make it possible for 

the NRC to remove the second 

condition. Therefore, the second 

condition would be retained in Revision 

19 of RG 1.147. 

The third condition on Code Case N– 

754–1 is new and states that the 

optimized weld overlay in this Code 

Case can only be installed on an Alloy 

82/182 weld where the outer 25 percent 

of weld wall thickness does not contain 

indications that are greater than 1/16 

inch in length or depth. The optimized 

weld overlay is designed with the 

structural support from the outer 25 

percent of the existing weld metal (i.e., 

the base metal) intact. As such, the outer 

25 percent of the weld metal needs to 

be free of degradation prior to the 

overlay installation. The Code Case is 

not clear with regard to the condition of 

the outer 25 percent of the Alloy 82/182 

weld prior to the overlay installation. 

Therefore, the NRC proposes this 

condition to ensure that the outer 25 

percent of the base metal (the weld) has 

no indications greater than 1/16 inches 

so that the structural integrity of the 

repaired weld is maintained. 

Code Case N–766–1 [Supplement 1, 

2013 Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Nickel Alloy Reactor Coolant 

Inlay and Onlay for Mitigation of PWR 

Full Penetration Circumferential Nickel 

Alloy Dissimilar Metal Welds in Class 1 

Items. 

Code Case N–766–1 contains 

provisions for repairing nickel-based 

Alloy 82/182 dissimilar metal butt 

welds in Class 1 piping using weld inlay 

and onlay. The NRC notes that the Code 

Case provides adequate requirements on 

the design, installation, pressure testing, 

and examinations of the inlay and 

onlay. The NRC finds that the weld 

inlay and onlay using the Code Case 

provides reasonable assurance that the 

structural integrity of the repaired pipe 

will be maintained. However, certain 

provisions of the Code Case are 

inadequate and therefore the NRC 

proposes five conditions. The NRC staff 

notes that the preservice and inservice 

inspection requirements of inlay and 

onlay are specified in Code Case N– 

770–1 as stated in Section 3(e) of Code 

Case N–766–1. 

The first condition on Code Case N– 

766–1 is new and prohibits the 

reduction of preservice and inservice 

inspection requirements specified by 

this Code Case for inlays or onlays 

applied to Alloy 82/182 dissimilar metal 

welds, which contain an axial 

indication that has a depth of more than 

25 percent of the pipe wall thickness 

and a length of more than half axial 

width of the dissimilar metal weld, or 

a circumferential indication that has a 

depth of more than 25 percent of the 

pipe wall thickness and a length of more 

than 20 percent of the circumference of 

the pipe. Paragraph 1(c)(1) of the Code 

Case states that: 

. . . Indications detected in the 

examination of 3(b)(1) that exceed the 

acceptance standards of IWB–3514 shall be 

corrected in accordance with the defect 

removal requirements of IWA–4000. 

Alternatively, indications that do not meet 

the acceptance standards of IWB–3514 may 

be accepted by analytical evaluation in 

accordance with IWB–3600 . . . 

This alternative would allow a flaw 

with a maximum depth of 75 percent 

through wall to remain in service in 

accordance with the ASME Code, 

Section XI, IWB–3643. Even if the inlay 

or onlay will isolate the dissimilar metal 

weld from the reactor coolant to 

minimize the potential for stress 

corrosion cracking, the NRC finds that 

having a 75 percent flaw in the Alloy 

82/182 weld does not provide 

reasonable assurance of the structural 

integrity of the pipe. The NRC finds that 

the indication in the Alloy 82/182 weld 

needs to be limited in size to ensure 

structural integrity of the weld. 

The second condition on Code Case 

N–766–1 is new and modifies the Code 

Case to require that pipe with any 

thickness of inlay or onlay must be 

evaluated for weld shrinkage, pipe 

system flexibility, and additional weight 

of the inlay or onlay. Paragraph 2(e) of 

the Code Case states that: 

. . . If the inlay or onlay deposited in 

accordance with this Case is thicker than 

1/8t, where t is the original nominal DMW 

[Dissimilar Metal Weld] thickness, the effects 

of any change in applied loads, as a result of 

weld shrinkage from the entire inlay or 

onlay, on other items in the piping system 

(e.g., support loads and clearances, nozzle 

loads, and changes in system flexibility and 

weight due to the inlay or onlay) shall be 

evaluated. Existing flaws previously accepted 

by analytical evaluation shall be evaluated in 

accordance with IWB–3640 . . . 

The NRC finds that a pipe with any 

thickness of inlay or onlay must be 

evaluated for weld shrinkage, pipe 

system flexibility, and additional weight 

of the inlay or onlay. 

The third condition on Code Case N– 

766–1 is new. The third condition sets 

re-examination requirements for inlay or 

onlay when applied to an Alloy 82/182 

dissimilar metal weld with any 

indication that the weld exceeds the 

acceptance standards of IWB–3514 and 

is accepted for continued service in 

accordance with IWB–3132.3 or IWB– 

3142.4. This condition states that the 

subject weld must be inspected in three 

successive examinations after the 

installation of the inlay or onlay. The 

NRC has concerns regarding the fact that 

the Code Case permits indications 

exceeding IWB–3514 to remain in 

service after inlay or onlay installation, 

based on analytical evaluation of IWB– 

3600. The IWB–2420 requires three 

successive examinations for indications 

that are permitted to remain in service 

per IWB–3600. The Code Case does not 

discuss the three successive 

examinations. If an inlay or onlay is 

applied to an Alloy 82/182 dissimilar 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40695 

metal weld that contains an indication 

that exceeds the acceptance standards of 

IWB–3514 and is accepted for continued 

service in accordance with IWB–3132.3 

or IWB–3142.4, the subject weld must 

be inspected in three successive 

examinations after inlay or onlay 

installation. The NRC proposes this 

condition to ensure that the three 

successive examinations will be 

performed. 

The fourth condition on Code Case 

N–766–1 is new and prohibits an inlay 

or onlay with detectable subsurface 

indication discovered by eddy current 

testing in the acceptance examinations 

from remaining in service. Operational 

experience has shown that subsurface 

flaws on alloy 52 welds for upper heads 

may be very near the surface. However, 

these flaws are undetectable by liquid 

dye penetrant, as there are no surface 

breaking aspects during initial 

construction. Nevertheless, in multiple 

cases, after a plant goes through one or 

two cycles of operation, these defects 

become exposed to the primary coolant. 

The exposure of these subsurface 

defects to primary coolant challenges 

the effectiveness of the alloy 52 weld 

mitigation of only 3mm in total 

thickness. In the upper head scenario, 

these welds are inspected each outage. 

In order to allow the extension of the 

inspection frequency to that defined by 

§ 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F), the NRC found that 

all detectable subsurface indications by 

eddy current examination should be 

removed from the alloy 52 weld layer. 

The fifth condition on Code Case 

N–766–1 is new and requires that the 

flaw analysis of paragraph 2(d) of the 

Code Case shall also consider primary 

water stress corrosion cracking growth 

in the circumferential and axial 

directions, in accordance with IWB– 

3640. The postulated flaw evaluation in 

the Code Case only requires a fatigue 

analysis. Conservative generic analysis 

by the NRC has raised the concern that 

a PWSCC could potentially grow 

through the inner alloy 52 weld layer 

and into the highly susceptible alloy 82/ 

182 weld material, to a depth of 75 

percent through-wall, within the period 

of reexamination frequency required by 

§ 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F). Therefore, users of 

this Code Case will verify, for each 

weld, that a primary water stress 

corrosion crack will not reach a depth 

of 75 percent through-wall within the 

required re-inspection interval due to 

PWSCC. 

Code Case N–824 [Supplement 11, 2010 

Edition] 

Type: New. 

Title: Ultrasonic Examination of Cast 

Austenitic Piping Welds From the 

Outside Surface, Section XI, Division 1. 

Code Case N–824 is a new Code Case 

for the examination of cast austenitic 

piping welds from the outside surface. 

The NRC, using NUREG/CR–6933 and 

NUREG/CR–7122, determined that 

inspections of cast austenitic stainless 

steel (CASS) materials are very 

challenging, and sufficient technical 

basis exists to condition the Code Case 

to bring the Code Case into agreement 

with the NUREG/CR reports. The 

NUREG/CR reports also show that CASS 

materials produce high levels of 

coherent noise. The noise signals can be 

confusing and mask flaw indications. 

The use of dual element phased-array 

search units showed the most promise 

in obtaining meaningful responses from 

flaws. For this reason, the NRC is 

proposing to add a condition to require 

the use of dual, transmit-receive, 

refracted longitudinal wave, multielement phased array search units when 

utilizing N–824 for the examination of 

CASS components. 

The optimum inspection frequencies 

for examining CASS components of 

various thicknesses are described in 

NUREG/CR–6933 and NUREG/CR–7122. 

For this reason, the NRC is proposing to 

add a condition to require that 

ultrasonic examinations performed to 

implement ASME BPV Code Case N– 

824 on piping greater than 1.6 inches 

thick shall use a phased array search 

unit with a center frequency of 500 kHz 

with a tolerance of +/¥ 20 percent. 

The NUREG/CR–6933 shows that the 

grain structure of CASS can reduce the 

effectiveness of some inspection angles, 

namely angles including, but not 

limited to, 30 to 55 degrees with a 

maximum increment of 5 degrees. 

Because the NRC is requiring the use of 

a phased array search unit, the NRC 

finds that the use of the phased array 

search unit must be limited so that the 

unit is used at inspection angles that 

would provide acceptable results. For 

this reason, the NRC is adding a 

condition to require that ultrasonic 

examinations performed to implement 

ASME BPV Code Case N–824 shall use 

a phased array search unit that produce 

angles including, but not limited to, 30 

to 55 degrees with a maximum 

increment of 5 degrees. Therefore, the 

NRC finds Code Case N–824 acceptable 

with the following poroposed 

conditions: (1) Instead of Paragraph 

1(c)(1)(–c)(–2), licensees shall use a 

phased array search unit with a center 

frequency of 500 kHz with a tolerance 

of ± 20 percent, and (2) instead of 

Paragraph 1(c)(1)(–d), the phased array 

search unit must produce angles 

including, but not limited to, 30 to 55 

degrees with a maximum increment of 

5 degrees. 

Existing regulations in § 50.55a 

paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(E) and 

(b)(2)(xxxvii) discuss N–824 and the 

associated conditions. Because N–824 

would now be discussed in RG 1.147, 

the existing requirements are redundant. 

These paragraphs would be removed. 

Code Case N–829 [Supplement 0, 2013 

Edition] 

Type: New. 

Title: Austenitic Stainless Steel 

Cladding and Nickel Base Cladding 

Using Ambient Temperature Machine 

GTAW Temper Bead Technique. 

Code Case N–829 is a new Code Case 

for the use of automatic or machine 

GTAW temper bead technique for the 

repair of stainless steel cladding and 

nickel-base cladding without the 

specified preheat or postweld heat 

treatment in Section XI, Paragraph 

IWA–4411. 

The NRC finds the Code Case 

acceptable on the condition that the 

provisions of Code Case N–829, 

paragraph 3(e)(2) or 3(e)(3) may only be 

used when it is impractical to use the 

interpass temperature measurement 

methods described in 3(e)(1), such as in 

situations where the weldment area is 

inaccessible (e.g., internal bore welding) 

or when there are extenuating 

radiological conditions. The NRC has 

determined that interpass temperature 

measurement is critical to obtaining 

acceptable corrosion resistance and/or 

notch toughness in a weld. Only in 

areas which are totally inaccessible to 

temperature measurement devices or 

when there are extenuating radiological 

conditions shall alternate methods be 

allowed such as the calculation method 

from section 3(e)(2) in ASME Code Case 

N–829 or the weld coupon test method 

shown in section 3(e)(3) in ASME Code 

Case N–829. 

Code Case N–830 [Supplement 7, 2013 

Edition] 

Type: New. 

Title: Direct Use of Master Fracture 

Toughness Curve for Pressure-Retaining 

Materials of Class 1 Vessels. 

Code Case N–830 is a new Code Case 

introduced in the 2013 Edition of the 

ASME Code. This Code Case outlines 

the use of a material specific master 

curve as an alternative fracture 

toughness curve for crack initiation, KIC, 

in Section XI, Division 1, Appendices A 

and G, for Class 1 pressure retaining 

materials, other than bolting. 

The NRC finds the Code Case 

acceptable with one condition to 

prohibit the use of the provision in 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
40696 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Paragraph (f) of the Code Case that 

allows for the use of an alternative to 

limiting the lower shelf of the 95 

percent lower tolerance bound Master 

Curve toughness, KJC-lower 95%, to a value 

consistent with the current KIC curve. 

Code Case N–830 contains provisions 

for using the KJC-lower 95% curve and the 

master curve-based reference 

temperature To as an alternative to the 

KIC curve and the nil-ductility transition 

reference temperature RTNDT in 

Appendices A and G of the ASME Code, 

Section XI. To is determined in 

accordance with ASTM International 

Standard E 1921, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for the Determination of 

Reference Temperature, To, for Ferritic 

Steels in the Transition Range,’’ from 

direct fracture toughness testing data. 

The RTNDT is determined in accordance 

with ASME Code, Section III, NB–2330, 

‘‘Test Requirements and Acceptance 

Standards,’’ from indirect Charpy Vnotch testing data, and RG 1.99, 

Revision 2, ‘‘Radiation Embrittlement of 

Reactor Vessel Materials.’’ Considering 

the entire test data at a wide range of T– 

RTNDT (¥400 °F to 100 °F), the NRC 

found that the current KIC curve also 

represents approximately a 95 percent 

lower tolerance bound for the data. 

Thus, using KJC-lower 95% curve based on 

the Master Curve is acceptable. 

However, since Paragraph (f) provides a 

significant deviation from the KJC-lower

95% curve for (T–To) below ¥115 °F in 

a non-conservative manner without 

justification, the NRC determined that 

Paragraph (f) of N–830 must not be 

applied when using N–830. 

Code Case N–831 [Supplement 0, 2017 

Edition] 

Type: New. 

Title: Ultrasonic Examination in Lieu 

of Radiography for Welds in Ferritic 

Pipe. 

Code Case N–831 is a new Code Case, 

which provides an alternative to 

radiographic testing when it is required 

by the construction code for Section Xl 

repair/replacement activities. This Code 

Case describes the requirements for 

inspecting ferritic welds for fabrication 

flaws using Ultrasonic Testing (UT) as 

an alternative to the current 

requirements to use radiography. The 

Code Case describes the scanning 

methods, recordkeeping and 

performance demonstration 

qualification requirements for the 

ultrasonic procedures, equipment, and 

personnel. 

The NRC finds the Code Case 

acceptable with the condition that it is 

prohibited for use in new reactor 

construction. History has shown that the 

combined use of radiographic testing for 

weld fabrication examinations followed 

by the use of UT for pre-service 

inspections (PSI) and ISI ensures that 

workmanship is maintained (with 

radiographic testing) while potentially 

critical planar fabrication flaws are not 

put into service (with UT). Until studies 

are completed that demonstrate the 

ability of UT to replace radiographic 

testing (repair/replacement activity), the 

NRC will not generically allow the 

substitute of UT in lieu of radiographic 

testing for weld fabrication 

examinations. In addition, ultrasonic 

examinations are not equivalent to 

radiographic examinations as they use 

different physical mechanisms to detect 

and characterize discontinuities. These 

differences in physical mechanisms 

result in several key differences in 

sensitivity and discrimination 

capability. As a result of these 

differences, as well as in consideration 

of the inherent strengths of each of the 

methods, the two methods are not 

considered to be interchangeable, but 

are considered complementary. 

Therefore, the NRC determined that this 

Code Case is not acceptable for use on 

new reactor construction. 

Code Case N–838 [Supplement 2, 2015 

Edition] 

Type: New. 

Title: Flaw Tolerance Evaluation of 

Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping 

Section XI, Division 1. 

The NRC proposes to approve Code 

Case N–838 with the following 

condition: Code Case N–838 shall not be 

used to evaluate flaws in cast austenitic 

stainless steel piping where the delta 

ferrite content exceeds 25 percent. 

Code Case N–838 contains provisions 

for performing a postulated flaw 

tolerance evaluation of ASME Class 1 

and 2 CASS piping with delta ferrite 

exceeding 20 percent. The Code Case 

provides a recommended target flaw 

size for the qualification of 

nondestructive examination methods, 

along with an approach that may be 

used to justify a larger target flaw size, 

if needed. The Code Case is intended for 

the flaw tolerance evaluation of 

postulated flaws in CASS base metal 

adjacent to welds, in conjunction with 

license renewal commitments. The NRC 

notes that the Code Case is limited in 

application and provides restrictions so 

that the Code Case will not be misused. 

For example, the Code Case is 

applicable to portions of Class 1 and 2 

piping comprised of SA–351 staticallyor centrifugally-cast Grades CF3, CF3A, 

CF3M, CF8, CF8A and CF8M base metal 

with delta ferrite exceeding 20 percent 

and niobium or columbium content not 

greater than 0.2 weight percent. This 

Code Case is limited to be applied to 

thermally aged CASS material types as 

listed with normal operating 

temperatures between 500 °F and 

662 °F. The Code Case is not applicable 

for evaluation of detected flaws. Section 

3 of the Code Case provides specific 

analytical evaluation procedures for the 

pipe mean-radius-to-thickness ratio 

greater than 10 and for those with a ratio 

less than 10. Tables 1 through 4 provide 

the maximum tolerable flaw depth-tothickness ratio for circumference and 

axial flaws. 

However, the NRC finds paragraph 

3(c) of the Code Case to be inadequate. 

Paragraph 3(c) specifies that for delta 

ferrite exceeding 25 percent, or pipe 

mean radius-to-thickness ratio, R/t, 

exceeding 10, the flaw tolerance 

evaluation shall be performed except 

that representative data shall be used to 

determine the maximum tolerable flaw 

depths applicable to the CASS base 

metal and R/t in lieu of Tables 1 through 

4 of the Code Case. 

The NRC notes that there are 

insufficient fracture toughness data for 

cast austenitic stainless steel that is 

greater than 25 percent in the open 

source literature. As such, the NRC 

needs to review flaw tolerance 

evaluations to ensure that they are 

performed with adequate conservatism. 

Therefore, the NRC proposes a 

condition to prohibit the use of this 

Code Case where delta ferrite in cast 

austenitic stainless steel piping exceeds 

25 percent. 

Code Case N–843 [Supplement 4, 2013 

Edition] 

Type: New. 

Title: Alternative Pressure Testing 

Requirements Following Repairs or 

Replacements for Class 1 Piping 

between the First and Second Inspection 

Isolation Valves, Section XI, Division 1. 

Code Case N–843 is consistent with 

alternatives that have been granted by 

the NRC. The NRC is concerned about 

return lines being included that could 

allow significantly lower pressures to be 

used on Class 1 portions of return lines. 

Therefore, the NRC proposes a 

condition to ensure the injection lines 

are tested at the highest pressure of the 

line’s intended safety function. If the 

portions of the system requiring 

pressure testing are associated with 

more than one safety function, the 

pressure test and visual examination 

VT–2 shall be performed during a test 

conducted at the higher of the operating 

pressures for the respective system 

safety functions. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40697 

Code Case N–849 [Supplement 7, 2013 

Edition] 

Type: New. 

Title: In Situ VT–3 Examination of 

Removable Core Support Structures 

Without Removal. 

Code Case N–849 is a new Code Case 

introduced in the 2013 Edition of ASME 

Code. This Code Case is meant to 

provide guidelines for allowing the VT– 

3 inspection requirements of Table 

IWB–2500–1 for preservice or inservice 

inspections of the core support 

structures to be performed without the 

removal of the core support structure. 

The NRC finds the Code Case acceptable 

with two proposed conditions. 

The first condition on Code Case N– 

849 limits the use of the Code Case to 

plants that are designed with accessible 

core support structures to allow for in 

situ inspection. Code Case N–849 allows 

the performance of VT–3 preservice or 

inservice visual examinations of 

removable core support structures in 

situ using a remote examination system. 

A provision of the Code Case is that all 

surfaces accessible for examination 

when the structure is removed shall be 

accessible when the structure is in situ, 

except for load bearing and contact 

surfaces, which would only be 

inspected when the core barrel is 

removed. Designs for new reactors, such 

as small modular reactors, may include 

accessibility of the annulus between the 

core barrel and the reactor vessel. 

Unlike new reactor designs, currently 

operating plants were not designed to 

allow in situ VT–3 examinations. There 

are no industry survey results of the 

current fleet to provide an evaluation of 

operating plant inspection findings. 

Therefore, applicability to the designs of 

currently operating plants has not been 

satisfactorily addressed. 

The second condition on Code Case 

N–849 requires that prior to initial plant 

startup, the VT–3 preservice 

examination shall be performed with 

the core support structure removed, as 

required by ASME Section XI, IWB– 

2500–1, and shall include all surfaces 

that are accessible when the core 

support structure is removed, including 

all load bearing and contact surfaces. 

The NRC has concerns that a preservice 

examination would not be performed on 

the load bearing and contact surfaces 

even though the surfaces would be 

accessible prior to installing the core 

support structure. There is also no 

evidence that the in situ examination 

will achieve the same coverage as the 

examination with the core support 

structure removed. 

3. ASME Operation and Maintenance 

Code Cases (DG–1343/RG 1.192) 

Code Case OMN–1 Revision 2 [2017 

Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Alternative Rules for Preservice 

and Inservice Testing of Active Electric 

Motor-Operated Valve Assemblies in 

Light-Water Reactor Power Plants. 

The proposed conditions on Code 

Case OMN–1, Revision 2 [2017 Edition] 

are identical to the conditions on OMN– 

1 Revision 1 [2012 Edition] that were 

approved by the NRC in Revision 2 of 

RG 1.192 in January 2018. When ASME 

revised OMN–1, the code case was not 

modified in a way that would make it 

possible for the NRC to remove the 

conditions. Therefore the conditions 

would be retained in Revision 3 of RG 

1.192. 

Code Case OMN–3 [2017 Edition] 

Type: Reaffirmed. 

Title: Requirements for Safety 

Significance Categorization of 

Components Using Risk Insights for 

Inservice Testing of LWR Power Plants. 

The proposed conditions on Code 

Case OMN–3 [2017 Edition] are 

identical to the conditions on OMN–3 

[2012 Edition] that were approved by 

the NRC in Revision 2 of RG 1.192 in 

January 2018. When ASME revised 

OMN–3, the code case was not modified 

in a way that would make it possible for 

the NRC to remove the conditions. 

Therefore the conditions would be 

retained in Revision 3 of RG 1.192. 

Code Case OMN–4 [2017 Edition] 

Type: Reaffirmed. 

Title: Requirements for Risk Insights 

for Inservice Testing of Check Valves at 

LWR Power Plants. 

The proposed conditions on Code 

Case OMN–4 [2017 Edition] are 

identical to the conditions on OMN–4 

[2012 Edition] that were approved by 

the NRC in Revision 2 of RG 1.192 in 

January 2018. When ASME revised 

OMN–4, the code case was not modified 

in a way that would make it possible for 

the NRC to remove the conditions. 

Therefore, the conditions would be 

retained in Revision 3 of RG 1.192. 

Code Case OMN–9 [2017 Edition] 

Type: Reaffirmed. 

Title: Use of a Pump Curve for 

Testing. 

The proposed conditions on Code 

Case OMN–9 [2017 Edition] are 

identical to the conditions on OMN–9 

[2012 Edition] that were approved by 

the NRC in Revision 2 of RG 1.192 in 

January 2018. When ASME revised 

OMN–9, the code case was not modified 

in a way that would make it possible for 

the NRC to remove the conditions. 

Therefore, the conditions would be 

retained in Revision 3 of RG 1.192. 

Code Case OMN–12 [2017 Edition] 

Type: Reaffirmed. 

Title: Alternative Requirements for 

Inservice Testing Using Risk Insights for 

Pneumatically and Hydraulically 

Operated Valve Assemblies in LightWater Reactor Power Plants (OM-Code 

1998, Subsection ISTC). 

The proposed conditions on Code 

Case OMN–12 [2017 Edition] are 

identical to the conditions on OMN–12 

[2012 Edition] that were approved by 

the NRC in Revision 2 of RG 1.192 in 

January 2018. When ASME revised 

OMN–12, the code case was not 

modified in a way that would make it 

possible for the NRC to remove the 

conditions. Therefore, the conditions 

would be retained in Revision 3 of RG 

1.192. 

Code Case OMN–18 [2017 Edition] 

Type: Reaffirmed. 

Title: Alternate Testing Requirements 

for Pumps Tested Quarterly Within 

±20% of Design Flow. 

The proposed conditions on Code 

Case OMN–18 [2017 Edition] are 

identical to the conditions on OMN–18 

[2012 Edition] that were approved by 

the NRC in Revision 2 of RG 1.192 in 

January 2018. When ASME revised 

OMN–18, the code case was not 

modified in a way that would make it 

possible for the NRC to remove the 

conditions. Therefore, the conditions 

would be retained in Revision 3 of RG 

1.192. 

Code Case OMN–19 [2017 Edition] 

Type: Reaffirmed. 

Title: Alternative Upper Limit for the 

Comprehensive Pump Test. 

The proposed conditions on Code 

Case OMN–19 [2017 Edition] are 

identical to the conditions on OMN–19 

[2012 Edition] that were approved by 

the NRC in Revision 2 of RG 1.192 in 

January 2018. When ASME revised 

OMN–19, the code case was not 

modified in a way that would make it 

possible for the NRC to remove the 

conditions. Therefore, the conditions 

would be retained in Revision 3 of RG 

1.192. 

Code Case OMN–20 [2017 Edition] 

Type: Reaffirmed. 

Title: Inservice Test Frequency. 

This Code Case is applicable to the 

editions and addenda of the OM Code 

listed in § 50.55a(a)(1)(iv). 

With the acceptance of Code Case 

OMN–20 in RG 1.192, Revision 3, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
40698 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(G) and (b)(3)(x) in 

§ 50.55a accepting Code Case OMN–20 

are unnecessary and would be removed 

with this proposed rule. 

C. ASME Code Cases not Approved for 

Use (DG–1344/RG 1.193) 

The ASME Code Cases that are 

currently issued by the ASME but not 

approved for generic use by the NRC are 

listed in RG 1.193, ‘‘ASME Code Cases 

not Approved for Use.’’ In addition to 

ASME Code Cases that the NRC has 

found to be technically or 

programmatically unacceptable, RG 

1.193 includes Code Cases on reactor 

designs for high-temperature gas-cooled 

reactors and liquid metal reactors, 

reactor designs not currently licensed by 

the NRC, and certain requirements in 

Section III, Division 2, for submerged 

spent fuel waste casks, that are not 

endorsed by the NRC. Regulatory Guide 

1.193 complements RGs 1.84, 1.147, and 

1.192. It should be noted that the NRC 

is not proposing to adopt any of the 

Code Cases listed in RG 1.193. However, 

comments have been submitted in the 

past on certain Code Cases listed in RG 

1.193 where the commenter believed 

that additional technical information 

was available that might not have been 

considered by the NRC in its 

determination to not approve the use of 

these Code Cases. While the NRC will 

consider those comments, the NRC is 

not requesting comment on RG 1.193 at 

this time. Any changes in the NRC’s 

non-approval of such Code Cases will be 

the subject of an additional opportunity 

for public comment. 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 

The following paragraphs in § 50.55a 

would be revised as follows: 

Paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(E) 

This proposed rule would remove and 

reserve paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(E). 

Paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(G) 

This proposed rule would remove 

paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(G). 

Paragraph (a)(3) 

This proposed rule would include a 

condition in paragraph (a)(3) stating that 

the Code Cases listed in RGs 1.84, 1.147, 

and 1.192 may be applied with the 

specified conditions when 

implementing the editions and addenda 

of the ASME BPV and OM Codes 

incorporated by reference in § 50.55a. 

Paragraph (a)(3)(i) 

This proposed rule would revise the 

reference to ‘‘NRC Regulatory Guide 

1.84, Revision 37,’’ by removing 

‘‘Revision 37’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘Revision 38.’’ 

Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) 

This proposed rule would revise the 

reference to ‘‘NRC Regulatory Guide 

1.147, Revision 18,’’ by removing 

‘‘Revision 18’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘Revision 19.’’ 

Paragraph (a)(3)(iii) 

This proposed rule would revise the 

reference to ‘‘NRC Regulatory Guide 

1.192, Revision 2,’’ by removing 

‘‘Revision 2’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘Revision 3.’’ 

Paragraph (b)(2)(xxxvii) 

This proposed rule would remove 

paragraph (b)(2)(xxxvii). 

Paragraph (b)(3)(x) 

This proposed rule would remove and 

reserve paragraph (b)(3)(x). 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

As required by the Regulatory 

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

Commission certifies that this rule, if 

adopted, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This proposed 

rule affects only the licensing and 

operation of nuclear power plants. The 

companies that own these plants do not 

fall within the scope of the definition of 

‘‘small entities’’ set forth in the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size 

standards established by the NRC (10 

CFR 2.810). 

VI. Regulatory Analysis 

The NRC has prepared a draft 

regulatory analysis on this proposed 

regulation. The analysis examines the 

costs and benefits of the alternatives 

considered by the NRC. The NRC 

requests public comment on the draft 

regulatory analysis. The regulatory 

analysis is available as indicated in the 

‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section of 

this document. Comments on the draft 

analysis may be submitted to the NRC 

as indicated under the ADDRESSES

caption of this document. 

VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality 

The provisions in this proposed rule 

would allow licensees and applicants to 

voluntarily apply NRC-approved Code 

Cases, sometimes with NRC-specified 

conditions. The approved Code Cases 

are listed in three RGs that are proposed 

to be incorporated by reference into 

§ 50.55a. An applicant’s or a licensee’s 

voluntary application of an approved 

Code Case does not constitute 

backfitting, inasmuch as there is no 

imposition of a new requirement or new 

position. 

Similarly, voluntary application of an 

approved Code Case by a 10 CFR part 

52 applicant or licensee does not 

represent NRC imposition of a 

requirement or action, which is 

inconsistent with any issue finality 

provision in 10 CFR part 52. For these 

reasons, the NRC finds that this 

proposed rule does not involve any 

provisions requiring the preparation of 

a backfit analysis or documentation 

demonstrating that one or more of the 

issue finality criteria in 10 CFR part 52 

are met. 

VIII. Plain Writing 

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. 

L. 111–274) requires Federal agencies to 

write documents in a clear, concise, and 

well-organized manner. The NRC has 

written this document to be consistent 

with the Plain Writing Act as well as the 

Presidential Memorandum, ‘‘Plain 

Language in Government Writing,’’ 

published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). 

The NRC requests comment on this 

document with respect to the clarity and 

effectiveness of the language used. 

IX. Environmental Assessment and 

Proposed Finding of No Significant 

Environmental Impact 

The Commission has determined 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 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; 

therefore, an environmental impact 

statement is not required. 

The determination of this 

environmental assessment is that there 

will be no significant effect on the 

quality of the human environment from 

this action. Interested parties should 

note, however, that comments on any 

aspect of this environmental assessment 

may be submitted to the NRC as 

indicated under the ADDRESSES section 

of this document. 

As voluntary alternatives to the ASME 

Code, NRC-approved Code Cases 

provide an equivalent level of safety. 

Therefore, the probability or 

consequences of accidents is not 

changed. There are also no significant, 

non-radiological impacts associated 

with this action because no changes 

would be made affecting nonradiological plant effluents and because 

no changes would be made in activities 

that would adversely affect the 

environment. The determination of this 

environmental assessment is that there 

will be no significant offsite impact to 

the public from this action. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40699 

X. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

This proposed rule contains new or 

amended collections of information 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This 

proposed rule has been submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for approval of the information 

collections. 

Type of submission, new or revision: 

Revision. 

The title of the information collection: 

Domestic Licensing of Production and 

Utilization. 

Facilities: Updates to Incorporation by 

Reference and Regulatory Guides. 

The form number if applicable: Not 

applicable. 

How often the collection is required: 

On occasion. 

Who will be required or asked to 

report: Operating power reactor 

licensees and applicants for power 

reactors under construction. 

An estimate of the number of annual 

responses: ¥24 (reduction). 

The estimated number of annual 

respondents: ¥24 (reduction). 

An estimate of the total number of 

hours needed annually to complete the 

requirement or request: ¥9,120 hours 

(reduction of reporting hours.) 

Abstract: This proposed rule is the 

latest in a series of rulemakings that 

incorporate by reference the latest 

versions of several Regulatory Guides 

identifying new and revised 

unconditionally or conditionally 

acceptable ASME Code Cases that are 

approved for use. The incorporation by 

reference of these Code Cases will 

reduce the number of alternative 

requests submitted by licensees under 

§ 50.55a(z) by an estimated 24 requests 

annually. 

The NRC is seeking public comment 

on the potential impact of the 

information collections contained in 

this proposed rule and on the following 

issues: 

1. Is the proposed information 

collection necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

NRC, including whether the information 

will have practical utility? 

2. Is the estimate of the burden of the 

proposed information collection 

accurate? 

3. Is there a way to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected? 

4. How can the burden of the 

proposed information collection on 

respondents be minimized, including 

the use of automated collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology? 

A copy of the OMB clearance package 

and proposed rule is available in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18099A046 or may be viewed free of 

charge at the NRC’s PDR, One White 

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room 

O–1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. You 

may obtain information and comment 

submissions related to the OMB 

clearance package by searching on 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket ID NRC–2017–0024. 

You may submit comments on any 

aspect of these proposed information 

collections, including suggestions for 

reducing the burden and on the four 

issues, by the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2017–0024. 

• Mail comments to: Information 

Services Branch, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer, Mail Stop: T–2F43, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001 or to the 

OMB reviewer at: OMB Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(3150–0011) Attn: Desk Officer for the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 725 

17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; 

email: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Submit comments by September 17, 

2018. Comments received after this date 

will be considered if it is practical to do 

so, but the NRC staff is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

Public Protection Notification 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, a collection of information unless the 

document requesting or requiring the 

collection displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. 

104–113, requires that Federal agencies 

use technical standards that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies unless 

using such a standard is inconsistent 

with applicable law or is otherwise 

impractical. In this proposed rule, the 

NRC is continuing to use ASME BPV 

and OM Code Cases, which are ASMEapproved voluntary alternatives to 

compliance with various provisions of 

the ASME BPV and OM Codes. The 

NRC’s approval of the ASME Code 

Cases is accomplished by amending the 

NRC’s regulations to incorporate by 

reference the latest revisions of the 

following, which are the subject of this 

rulemaking, into § 50.55a: RG 1.84, 

Revision 38; RG 1.147, Revision 19; and 

RG 1.192, Revision 3. These RGs list the 

ASME Code Cases that the NRC has 

approved for use. The ASME Code 

Cases are national consensus standards 

as defined in the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

and OMB Circular A–119. The ASME 

Code Cases constitute voluntary 

consensus standards, in which all 

interested parties (including the NRC 

and licensees of nuclear power plants) 

participate. The NRC invites comment 

on the applicability and use of other 

standards. 

XII. Incorporation by Reference 

The NRC proposes to incorporate by 

reference three NRC RGs that list new 

and revised ASME Code Cases that the 

NRC has approved as voluntary 

alternatives to certain provisions of 

NRC-required Editions and Addenda of 

the ASME BPV Code and the ASME OM 

Code. The draft regulatory guides DG– 

1345, DG–1342, and DG–1343 will 

correspond to final RG 1.84, Revision 

38; RG 1.147, Revision 19; and RG 

1.192, Revision 3, respectively. A 

summary of the material the NRC 

proposes to incorporate by reference is 

provided in the ‘‘Discussion’’ section of 

this document. 

The NRC is required to obtain 

approval for incorporation by reference 

from the Office of the Federal Register 

(OFR) as set forth in 1 CFR part 51. The 

OFR regulations require an agency to 

include in a proposed rule a discussion 

of the ways that the materials the agency 

proposes to incorporate by reference are 

reasonably available to interested 

parties or how it worked to make those 

materials reasonably available to 

interested parties. The discussion in this 

section complies with the requirement 

for proposed rules as set forth in 1 CFR 

51.5(a)(1). 

The NRC considers ‘‘interested 

parties’’ to include all potential NRC 

stakeholders, not only the individuals 

and entities regulated or otherwise 

subject to the NRC’s regulatory 

oversight. These NRC stakeholders are 

not a homogenous group, so the 

considerations for determining 

‘‘reasonable availability’’ vary by class 

of interested parties. The NRC identifies 

six classes of interested parties with 

regard to the material to be incorporated 

by reference in an NRC rule: 

• Individuals and small entities 

regulated or otherwise subject to the 

NRC’s regulatory oversight. This class 

includes applicants and potential 

applicants for licenses and other NRC 

regulatory approvals, and who are 

subject to the material to be 

incorporated by reference. In this 

context, ‘‘small entities’’ has the same 

meaning as set out in 10 CFR 2.810. 

• Large entities otherwise subject to 

the NRC’s regulatory oversight. This 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
40700 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

class includes applicants and potential 

applicants for licenses and other NRC 

regulatory approvals, and who are 

subject to the material to be 

incorporated by reference. In this 

context, a ‘‘large entity’’ is one that does 

not qualify as a ‘‘small entity’’ under 10 

CFR 2.810. 

• Non-governmental organizations 

with institutional interests in the 

matters regulated by the NRC. 

• Other Federal agencies, states, local 

governmental bodies (within the 

meaning of 10 CFR 2.315(c)). 

• Federally-recognized and Staterecognized Indian tribes. 

• Members of the general public (i.e., 

individual, unaffiliated members of the 

public who are not regulated or 

otherwise subject to the NRC’s 

regulatory oversight) and who need 

access to the materials that the NRC 

proposes to incorporate by reference in 

order to participate in the rulemaking. 

The three draft RGs that the NRC 

proposes to incorporate by reference in 

this proposed rule are available without 

cost and can be read online, 

downloaded, or viewed, by 

appointment, at the NRC Technical 

Library, which is located at Two White 

Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852; telephone: 

301–415–7000; email: 

Library.Resource@nrc.gov. The final 

RGs, if approved by the OFR for 

incorporation by reference, will also be 

available for inspection at the OFR, as 

described in 10 CFR 50.55a(a). 

Because access to the three draft 

regulatory guides, and eventually, the 

final regulatory guides, are available in 

various forms at no cost, the NRC 

determines that the three draft 

regulatory guides, DG–1345, DG–1342, 

and DG–1343, and final regulatory 

guides 1.84, Revision 38; RG 1.147, 

Revision 19; and RG 1.192, Revision 3, 

once approved by the OFR for 

incorporation by reference, are 

reasonably available to all interested 

parties. 

XIII. Availability of Documents 

The documents identified in the 

following tables are available to 

interested persons through one or more 

of the following methods, as indicated. 

Throughout the development of this 

rule, the NRC may post documents 

related to this rule, including public 

comments, on the Federal rulemaking 

website at: http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket ID NRC–2017–0024. The 

Federal rulemaking website allows you 

to receive alerts when changes or 

additions occur in a docket folder. To 

subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket 

folder (NRC–2017–0024); (2) click the 

‘‘Sign up for Email Alerts’’ link; and (3) 

enter your email address and select how 

frequently you would like to receive 

emails (daily, weekly, or monthly). 

TABLE III—RULEMAKING RELATED DOCUMENTS

Document title ADAMS accession No./ 

Federal Register citation 

Federal Register notice—‘‘Incorporation by Reference of ASME BPV and OM Code Cases,’’ July 8, 2003 ............ 68 FR 40469. 

Federal Register Notice—‘‘Fracture Toughness Requirements for Light Water Reactor Pressure Vessels,’’ December 19, 1995.60 FR 65456. 

Final Safety Evaluation for Nuclear Energy Institute ‘‘Topical Report Materials Reliability Program (MRP): Technical Basis for Preemptive Weld Overlays for Alloy 82/182 Butt Welds in Pressurized Water Reactors (MRP– 

169) Revision 1–A,’’ August 9, 2010.

ML101620010. 

ML101660468. 

EPRI Nuclear Safety Analysis Center Report 202L–2, ‘‘Recommendations for an Effective Flow Accelerated Corrosion Program,’’ April 1999.Available for purchase. 

ASTM International Standard E 1921, ‘‘Standard Test Method for the Determination of Reference Temperature, 

To, for Ferritic Steels in the Transition Range,’’.

Available for purchase. 

ASME Code, Section III, NB–2330, ‘‘Test Requirements and Acceptance Standards,’’ .............................................. Available for purchase. 

Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, ‘‘Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials,’’ ..................................... ML102310298. 

Federal Register notice—‘‘Approval of American Society of Mechanical Engineers’ Code Cases’’ dated January 

17, 2018.

83 FR 2331. 

RG 1.193, ‘‘ASME Code Cases Not Approved for Use,’’ Revision 6. (DG–1344) ....................................................... ML18114A227. 

Draft Regulatory Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. ML18099A054. 

Documents Proposed To Be 

Incorporated by Reference 

The NRC proposes to incorporate by 

reference three NRC RGs that list new 

and revised ASME Code Cases that the 

NRC has approved as voluntary 

alternatives to certain provisions of 

NRC-required Editions and Addenda of 

the ASME BPV Code and the ASME OM 

Code. 

TABLE IV—DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDES PROPOSED TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN 10 CFR 50.55A

Document title ADAMS accession No./ 

Federal Register citation 

RG 1.84, ‘‘Design, Fabrication, and Materials Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section III,’’ Revision 38. (DG– 

1345).

ML18114A228. 

RG 1.147, ‘‘Inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1,’’ Revision 19. (DG–1342) ML18114A225. 

RG 1.192, ‘‘Operation and Maintenance Code Case Acceptability, ASME OM Code,’’ Revision 3. (DG–1343) ........ ML18114A226. 

Code Cases for Approval in This 

Proposed Rule 

The ASME BPV Code Cases that the 

NRC is proposing to approve as 

alternatives to certain provisions of the 

ASME BPV Code, as set forth in Table 

V, are being made available by the 

ASME for read-only access during the 

public comment period on the http://

go.asme.org/NRC-ASME-CC. 

The ASME OM Code Cases that the 

NRC is proposing to approve as 

alternatives to certain provisions of the 

ASME OM Code, as set forth in Table V, 

are being made available for read-only 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40701 

access during the public comment 

period by the ASME on the http://

go.asme.org/NRC-ASME-CC. 

The ASME is making the Code Cases 

listed in Table V available for limited, 

read-only access at the request of the 

NRC. The NRC believes that 

stakeholders need to be able to read 

these Code Cases in order to provide 

meaningful comment on the three RGs 

(listed in Table IV) that the NRC is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

into § 50.55a. It is the NRC’s position 

that the listed Code Cases, as modified 

by any conditions contained in the three 

RGs and thus serving as alternatives to 

requirements in § 50.55a, are legallybinding regulatory requirements. An 

applicant or licensee must comply with 

a listed Code Case and any conditions 

to be within the scope of the NRC’s 

approval of the Code Case as a voluntary 

alternative for use. These requirements 

cannot be fully understood without 

knowledge of the Code Case to which 

the proposed condition applies, and to 

this end, the NRC has requested that 

ASME provide limited, read-only access 

to the Code Cases in order to facilitate 

meaningful public comment. 

TABLE V—ASME CODE CASES PROPOSED FOR NRC APPROVAL

Code case No. Supplement Title 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III 

N–60–6 ...................................... 11 (2010 Edition) .............................................. Material for Core Support Structures, Section III, Division 1 

SUPP 11. 

N–71–19 .................................... 0 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Additional Materials for Subsection NF, Class 1, 2, 3, and MC 

Supports Fabricated by Welding, Section III, Division 1. 

N–249–15 .................................. 7 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Additional Materials for Subsection NF, Classes 1, 2, 3, and 

MC Supports Fabricated Without Welding, Section III, Division 1. 

N–284–4 .................................... 11 (2010 Edition) .............................................. Metal Containment Shell Buckling Design Methods, Class 

MC, TC, and SC Construction Section III, Divisions 1 and 

3. 

N–520–6 .................................... 1 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Alternative Rules for Renewal of Active or Expired N-type 

Certificates for Plants Not in Active Construction, Section 

III, Division 1. 

N–801–1 .................................... 11 (2010 Edition) .............................................. Rules for Repair of N-Stamped Class 1, 2, and 3 Components Section III, Division 1. 

N–822–2 .................................... 7 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Application of the ASME Certification Mark Section III, Divisions 1, 2, 3, and 5. 

N–833 ........................................ 1 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Minimum Non-prestressed Reinforcement in the Containment 

Base Mat or Slab Required for Concrete Crack Control, 

Section III, Division 2. 

N–834 ........................................ 3 (2013 Edition) ................................................ ASTM A988/A988M–11 UNS S31603, Subsection NB, Class 

1 Components, Section III, Division 1. 

N–836 ........................................ 3 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Heat Exchanger Tube Mechanical Plugging, Class 1, Section 

III, Division 1. 

N–841 ........................................ 4 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Exemptions to Mandatory Post Weld Heat Treatment (PWHT) 

of SA–738 Grade B for Class MC Applications, Section III, 

Division 1. 

N–844 ........................................ 5 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Alternatives to the Requirements of NB–4250(c), Section III, 

Division 1. 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI 

N–513–4 .................................... 6 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Evaluation of Criteria for Temporary Acceptance of Flaws in 

Moderate Energy Class 2 or 3 Piping, Section XI, Division 

1. 

N–516–4 .................................... 7 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Underwater Welding, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–528–1 .................................... 5 (1998 Edition) ................................................ Purchase, Exchange, or Transfer of Material Between Nuclear Plant Sites Section XI, Division 1. 

N–597–3 .................................... 5 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Evaluation of Pipe Wall Thinning, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–606–2 .................................... 2 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Similar and Dissimilar Metal Welding Using Ambient Temperature Machine GTAW Temper Bead Technique for BWR 

CRD Housing/Stub Tube Repairs, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–638–7 .................................... 2 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Similar and Dissimilar Metal Welding Using Ambient Temperature Machine GTAW Temper Bead Technique. 

N–648–2 .................................... 7 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Alternative Requirements for Inner Radius Examinations of 

Class 1 Reactor Vessel Nozzles, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–661–3 .................................... 6 (2015 Edition) ................................................ Alternative Requirements for Wall Thickness Restoration of 

Class 2 and 3 Carbon Steel Piping for Raw Water Service, 

Section XI, Division 1. 

N–695–1 .................................... 0 (2015 Edition) ................................................ Qualification Requirements for Dissimilar Metal Piping Welds 

Section XI, Division 1. 

N–696–1 .................................... 6 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Qualification Requirements for Mandatory Appendix VIII Piping Examination Conducted from the Inside Surface, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–702 ........................................ 12 (2001 Edition) .............................................. Alternative Requirements for Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) 

Nozzle Inner Radius and Nozzle-to-Shell Welds, Section 

XI, Division 1. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
40702 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

4The column labelled ‘‘Edition’’ in this table 

refers to the point in time a Code Case was issued. 

For example, an entry associated with the 2017 

Edition means the Code Case was issued at the 

same time as the 2017 Edition of the code. 

TABLE V—ASME CODE CASES PROPOSED FOR NRC APPROVAL—Continued 

Code case No. Supplement Title 

N–705(Errata) ........................... 11 (2010 Edition) .............................................. Evaluation Criteria for Temporary Acceptance of Degradation 

in Moderate Energy Class 2 or 3 Vessels and Tanks, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–711–1 .................................... 0 (2017 Edition) ................................................ Alternative Examination Coverage Requirements for Examination Category B–F, B–J, C–F–1, C–F–2, and R–A Piping 

Welds. 

N–754–1 .................................... 1 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Optimized Structural Dissimilar Metal Weld Overlay for Mitigation of PWR Class 1 Items, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–762–1 .................................... 3 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Temper Bead Procedure Qualification Requirements for Repair/Replacement Activities without Postweld Heat Treatment, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–766–1 .................................... 1 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Nickel Alloy Reactor Coolant Inlay and Onlay for Mitigation of 

PWR Full Penetration Circumferential Nickel Alloy Dissimilar Metal Welds in Class 1 Items, Section XI, Division 

1. 

N–789–2 .................................... 5 (2015 Edition) ................................................ Alternative Requirements for Pad Reinforcement of Class 2 

and 3 Moderate Energy Carbon Steel Piping for Raw Water 

Service. 

N–823–1 .................................... 4 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Visual Examination Section XI, Division 1. 

N–824 ........................................ 11 (2010 Edition) .............................................. Ultrasonic Examination of Cast Austenitic Piping Welds From 

the Outside Surface Section XI, Division 1. 

N–829 ........................................ 0 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Austenitic Stainless Steel Cladding and Nickel Base Cladding 

Using Ambient Temperature Machine GTAW Temper Bead 

Technique, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–830 ........................................ 7 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Direct Use of Master Fracture Toughness Curve for PressureRetaining Materials of Class 1 Vessels, Section XI. 

N–831 ........................................ 0 (2017 Edition) ................................................ Ultrasonic Examination in Lieu of Radiography for Welds in 

Ferritic Pipe. 

N–838 ........................................ 2 (2015 Edition) ................................................ Flaw Tolerance Evaluation of Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel 

Piping, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–839 ........................................ 7 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Similar and Dissimilar Metal Welding Using Ambient Temperature SMAW Temper Bead Technique Section XI, Division 1. 

N–842 ........................................ 4 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Alternative Inspection Program for Longer Fuel Cycles Section XI, Division 1. 

N–843 ........................................ 4 (2013 Edition) ................................................ Alternative Pressure Testing Requirements Following Repairs 

or Replacements for Class 1 Piping between the First and 

Second Injection Isolation Valves, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–849 ........................................ 7 (2013 Edition) ................................................ In situ VT–3 Examination of Removable Core Support Structures Without Removal, Section XI. 

N–853 ........................................ 6 (2015 Edition) ................................................ PWR Class 1 Primary Piping Alloy 600 Full Penetration 

Branch Connection Weld Metal Buildup for Material Susceptible to Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–854 ........................................ 1 (2015 Edition) ................................................ Alternative Pressure Testing Requirements for Class 2 and 3 

Components Connected to the Class 1 Boundary, Section 

XI, Division 1. 

OM Code 

Code case No. Edition 4 Title 

OMN–16 Revision 2 .................. 2017 Edition ..................................................... Use of a Pump Curve for Testing. 

OMN–21 .................................... 2017 Edition ..................................................... Alternative Requirements for Adjusting Hydraulic Parameters 

to Specified Reference Points. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part50 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Antitrust, Classified 

information, Criminal penalties, 

Education, Fire prevention, Fire 

protection, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear 

power plants and reactors, Penalties, 

Radiation protection, Reactor siting 

criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Whistleblowing. 

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. 553, the NRC 

proposes 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: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 

secs. 11, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 122, 

147, 149, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 

187, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2131, 

2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2138, 2152, 2167, 

2169, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2235, 

2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40703 

Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 

206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec. 306 

(42 U.S.C. 10226); National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 

3504 note; Sec. 109, Pub. L. 96–295, 94 Stat. 

783. 

■ 2. In § 50.55a: 

■ a. Remove and reserve paragraphs 

(a)(1)(iii)(E) and (G); 

■ b. Revise paragraph (a)(3) introductory 

text; 

■ c. In paragraph (a)(3)(i), remove the 

phrase ‘‘Revision 37’’ and add in its 

place the phrase ‘‘Revision 38’’; 

■ d. In paragraph (a)(3)(ii), remove the 

phrase ‘‘Revision 18’’ and add in its 

place the phrase ‘‘Revision 19’’; 

■ e. In paragraph (a)(3)(iii), remove the 

phrase ‘‘Revision 2’’ and add in its place 

the phrase ‘‘Revision 3’’; 

■ f. Remove paragraph (b)(2)(xxxvii); 

and 

■ g. Remove and reserve paragraph 

(b)(3)(x). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 50.55a Codes and standards. 

(3) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) Public Document 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852; telephone: 1–800– 

397–4209; email: pdr.resource@nrc.gov; 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/reg-guides/. The use of Code 

Cases listed in the NRC regulatory 

guides in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through 

(iii) of this section is acceptable with the 

specified conditions in those guides 

when implementing the editions and 

addenda of the ASME BPV Code and 

ASME OM Code incorporated by 

reference in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day 

of July, 2018. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Michele G. Evans, 

Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17650 Filed 8–15–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2018–0710; Product 

Identifier 2018–NM–079–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc., Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Bombardier, Inc., Model BD–700–1A10 

and BD–700–1A11 airplanes. This 

proposed AD was prompted by inservice findings that a cotter pin at the 

main fitting joint of the nose landing 

gear (NLG) retraction actuator to the 

NLG strut showed evidence of shearing 

after a NLG retraction-extension cycling. 

This proposed AD would require 

revising the maintenance or inspection 

program, as applicable, a general visual 

inspection for damage of a certain cotter 

pin present on certain configurations of 

the NLG strut assembly and for the 

modification number shown on the 

identification plate for the NLG strut, 

and modification of the NLG retraction 

actuator hardware on any damaged NLG 

strut assembly. We are proposing this 

AD to address the unsafe condition on 

these products. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by October 1, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 

400 Coˆte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, 

Que ́bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 

514–855–5000; fax 514–855–7401; email 

thd.crj@aero.bombardier.com; internet 

http://www.bombardier.com. You may 

view this service information at the 

FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 

South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2018– 

0710; or in person at Docket Operations 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The AD docket contains this NPRM, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for Docket Operations 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe and Mechanical Systems 

Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 

1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, 

Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516– 

228–7318; fax 516–794–5531; email 9- 

avs-nyaco-cos@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposal. Send your comments to 

an address listed under the ADDRESSES

section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2018–0710; Product Identifier 2018– 

NM–079–AD’’ at the beginning of your 

comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this NPRM. We will consider 

all comments received by the closing 

date and may amend this NPRM 

because of those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this NPRM. 

Discussion 

Transport Canada Civil Aviation 

(TCCA), which is the aviation authority 

for Canada, has issued Canadian AD 

CF–2018–05, dated January 23, 2018 

(referred to after this as the Mandatory 

Continuing Airworthiness Information, 

or ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe 

condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., 

Model BD–700–1A10 and BD–700– 

1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states: 

There have been in-service findings 

whereby the cotter pin at the retraction 

actuator to nose landing gear (NLG) strut 

main fitting was observed to be damaged 

after a NLG retraction-extension cycling. This 

condition could lead to a loss of hardware 

and result in an actuator disconnect resulting 

in a failure to retract or extend, or in an 

undamped freefall of the NLG [which could 

adversely affect the airplane’s continued safe 

flight and landing]. 

This AD mandates a revision to the 

approved maintenance schedule. This AD 

also mandates a visual inspection of the 

cotter pin for certain configurations of NLG 

strut assembly, and if found damaged, the 

incorporation of a modification which 

introduces a new castellated nut, spacer, end 

plate and sleeve to the NLG retraction 

actuator to main fitting joint. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS