61200 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 200 / Monday, October 16, 2000 / Notices

possession, use, and operation of the

Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 (the

facility). The facility is located at the

licensee’s site in Will County, Illinois.

II

By application dated July 7, 2000,

ComEd requested approval of the

proposed indirect transfer of the facility

operating licenses to the extent now

held by ComEd to Exelon Corporation,

to be formed in connection with the

proposed merger of Unicom Corporation

(Unicom), the parent of ComEd, and

PECO Energy Company (PECO).

Supplemental information was provided

by letters dated July 13 and September

1, 2000. Hereinafter, the July 7, 2000,

application and supplemental

information will be referred to

collectively as the ‘‘application.’’

Under the proposed merger, ComEd

will become a direct or indirect

subsidiary of Exelon Corporation. The

merger was previously the subject of an

order dated August 3, 2000, by which

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission approved the transfer of

the Braidwood licenses to Exelon

Generation Company, LLC (EGC). EGC

will be formed in connection with the

merger as an indirect subsidiary of

Exelon Corporation to acquire the

generating assets of PECO and ComEd.

The August 3, 2000, order effectively

allows ComEd’s Braidwood assets to be

transferred to EGC. According to the

application here, the transfer of these

assets may be delayed beyond the

closing of the merger. During this

interim period, Exelon Corporation

would be the direct parent of ComEd as

ComEd continues to hold the

Braidwood and other generating assets

pending the receipt of necessary

approvals to allow the generating assets

to be transferred to EGC. Specifically,

ComEd would continue to be the sole

owner and operator of Braidwood, Units

1 and 2.

By a separate application dated July 7,

2000, PECO requested approval of the

indirect transfer of the facility operating

licenses that it holds to Exelon

Corporation, which would occur under

circumstances similar to the above for

ComEd. That application is being

addressed separately.

Approval of the indirect transfer of

the facility operating licenses was

requested by ComEd pursuant to 10 CFR

50.80. Notice of the request for approval

and an opportunity for a hearing was

published in the Federal Register on

August 31, 2000 (65 FR 53042). The

Commission received no comments or

requests for hearing pursuant to such

notice.

Under 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or

any right thereunder, shall be

transferred, directly or indirectly,

through transfer of control of the

license, unless the Commission shall

give its consent in writing. Upon review

of the information in the application by

ComEd, and other information before

the Commission, the NRC staff has

determined that the proposed corporate

restructuring under which Exelon

Corporation will become the parent of

ComEd will not affect the qualifications

of ComEd as holder of the licenses

described above, and that the indirect

transfer of the licenses, to the extent

effected by the proposed corporate

restructuring, is otherwise consistent

with applicable provisions of law,

regulations, and orders issued by the

Commission, subject to the conditions

set forth below.

The findings set forth above, are

supported by a safety evaluation dated

October 5, 2000.

III

Accordingly, pursuant to Sections

161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 of the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42

U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(i), 2201(o), and

2234; and 10 CFR 50.80, It Is Hereby

Ordered that the application regarding

the indirect license transfers related to

the proposed corporate restructuring is

approved, subject to the following

conditions:

(1) ComEd shall provide the Director of the

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation a copy

of any application, at the time it is filed, to

transfer (excluding grants of security interests

or liens) from ComEd to its proposed parent,

or to any other affiliated company, facilities

for the production, transmission, or

distribution of electric energy having a

depreciated book value exceeding ten percent

(10%) of ComEd’s consolidated net utility

plant, as recorded on ComEd’s books of

account, provided, however, this condition

shall apply only for so long as ComEd holds

a license issued pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.

(2) Should the proposed merger and

restructuring not be completed by October 5,

2001, this Order shall become null and void,

provided, however, upon written application

and for good cause shown, such date may in

writing be extended.

This Order is effective upon issuance.

For further details with respect to this

Order, see the initial application dated

July 7, 2000, and supplemental

submittals dated July 13 and September

1, 2000, and the safety evaluation dated

October 5, 2000, which are available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document located at One White

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

floor), Rockville, Maryland, and

accessible electronically through the

ADAMS Public Electronic Reading

Room link at the NRC Web site

(http://www.nrc.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day

of October 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–26485 Filed 10–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301]

In the Matter of Nuclear Management

Company, LLC (Point Beach Nuclear

Plant, Units 1 and 2); Exemption

I

The Nuclear Management Company,

LLC (the licensee) is the holder of

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–24

and DPR–27, which authorize operation

of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant

(PBNP), Units 1 and 2. The licenses

provide, among other things, that PBNP

is subject to all rules, regulations, and

orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) now or

hereafter in effect.

The facility consists of two

pressurized-water reactors (Units 1 and

2) located on the licensee’s Point Beach

site in Two Rivers, Wisconsin. This

exemption refers to both units.

II

Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.60,

and 10 CFR Part 50, require that

pressure-temperature (P–T) limits be

established for reactor pressure vessels

(RPVs) during normal operating and

hydrostatic or leak rate testing

conditions. Specifically, 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix G, states that ‘‘The

appropriate requirements on both the

pressure-temperature limits and the

minimum permissible temperature must

be met for all conditions.’’ Appendix G

of 10 CFR Part 50 specifies that the

requirements for these limits are the

American Society of Mechanical

Engineers Code (ASME Code), Section

XI, Appendix G, limits.

By letter dated July 14, 2000, the

licensee submitted a request for

exemption from the requirements of 10

CFR 50.60 and Appendix G to Part 50,

to allow the use of ASME Code, Section

XI, Code Case N–641, for PBNP, Units

1 and 2. Code Case N–641 combines

former Code Cases N–514, N–588, and

N–640, and provides guidelines for the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 200 / Monday, October 16, 2000 / Notices 61201

appropriate use of the three former Code

Cases in combination.

Code Case N–641, similar to former

Code Case N–588, permits the

postulation of a circumferentially

oriented flaw (in lieu of an axially

oriented flaw) for the evaluation of the

circumferential welds in RPV P–T limit

curves. Also, Code Case N–641, similar

to former Code Case N–640, permits the

use of an alternate reference fracture

toughness (Kia fracture toughness curve

instead of Kla fracture toughness curve)

for reactor vessel materials in

determining the P–T limits. Since the

pressure stresses on a circumferentially

oriented flaw are lower than the

pressure stresses on an axially oriented

flaw by a factor of 2, postulating a

circumferentially oriented flaw for the

evaluation of the circumferential welds

(as permitted by Code Case N–641) in

establishing the P–T limits would be

less conservative than the methodology

currently endorsed by 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix G. Further, since the KIC

fracture toughness curve shown in

ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix A,

Figure A–2200–1, provides greater

allowable fracture toughness than the

corresponding Kla fracture toughness

curve of ASME Code, Section XI,

Appendix G, Figure G–2210–1, using

the KIC fracture toughness (as permitted

by Code Case N–641) in establishing the

P–T limits would be less conservative

than the methodology currently

endorsed by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix

G. Considering both, an exemption to

apply Code Case N–641 would be

required by 10 CFR 50.60.

Postulation of Circumferential Flaws in

Circumferential Welds (formerly Code

Case N–588)

The licensee proposed to revise the

P–T limits in the pressure-temperature

limits report (PTLR) for PBNP, Units 1

and 2, using the postulation of a

circumferentially oriented reference

flaw as the limiting flaw in an RPV

circumferential weld in lieu of an

axially oriented flaw required by the

1995 edition (1996 addenda) of ASME

Code, Section XI, Appendix G.

Postulating the Appendix G reference

flaw (an axially oriented flaw) in a

circumferential weld is physically

unrealistic and overly conservative

because the length of the flaw is 1.5

times the vessel’s thickness, which is

much longer than the width of the

reactor vessel girth weld. Industry

experience with the repair of weld

indications found during preservice

inspections, and data taken from

destructive examinations of actual

vessel welds, confirms that all detected

flaws are small, laminar in nature, and

do not transverse the weld bead

orientation. Therefore, any potential

defects introduced during the

fabrication process that are not detected

during subsequent nondestructive

examinations would only be expected to

be oriented in the direction of weld

fabrication. For circumferential welds,

this indicates a postulated defect with a

circumferential orientation.

An analysis provided to the ASME

Code’s Working Group on Operating

Plant Criteria (WGOPC) (in which the

former Code Case N–588 was

developed) indicated that if an axial

flaw is postulated on a circumferential

weld, then based on the stress

magnification factors (Mm) given in the

Code Case for the inside diameter

circumferential (0.443) and axial (0.926)

flaw orientations, it is equivalent to

applying a safety factor of 4.18 on the

pressure loading under normal

operating conditions. Appendix G

requires a safety factor of 2 on the

contribution of the pressure load in the

case of an axially oriented flaw in an

axial weld, shell plate, or forging. By

postulating a circumferentially oriented

flaw on a circumferential weld and

using the appropriate stress

magnification factor, the margin of 2 is

maintained for the contribution of the

pressure load to the integrity calculation

of the circumferential weld.

Consequently, the staff determined that

the postulation of an axially oriented

flaw on a circumferential RPV weld is

a level of conservatism that is not

required to establish P–T limits to

protect the RCS pressure boundary from

failure during hydrostatic testing,

heatup, and cooldown.

The staff also noted that former Code

Case N–588 includes a revised

methodology for determining the

thermal stress intensity, KIT, which was

later incorporated into Section XI of the

1995 edition (1996 addenda) of the

ASME Code. The licensee used this

methodology to calculate KIT.

In summary, the ASME Code, Section

XI, Appendix G, procedure was

developed for axially oriented flaws,

which is physically unrealistic and

overly conservative for postulating flaws

of this orientation to exist in

circumferential welds. Hence, the NRC

staff agrees that relaxation of the

requirements of ASME Code, Section XI,

Appendix G, by postulating a

circumferentially oriented flaw for the

evaluation of the circumferential welds

(as permitted by Code Case N–641) is

acceptable and would maintain,

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the

underlying purpose of the ASME Code

and the NRC regulations to ensure an

acceptable margin of safety.

Using the KIC Fracture Toughness Curve

(formerly Case N–640)

The licensee proposed to revise the

P–T limits in the PTLR for PBNP, Units

1 and 2, using the KIC fracture toughness

curve in lieu of the Kla fracture

toughness curve as the lower bound for

fracture toughness.

Use of the KIC curve in determining

the lower bound fracture toughness in

the development of the P–T operating

limits curve is more technically correct

than the Kla curve since the rate of

loading during a heatup or cooldown is

slow and is more representative of a

static condition than a dynamic

condition. The KIC curve appropriately

implements the use of static initiation

fracture toughness behavior to evaluate

the controlled heatup and cooldown

process of a reactor vessel. The staff has

required use of the initial conservatism

of the Kla curve since 1974, when the

curve was codified. This initial

conservatism was necessary due to the

limited knowledge of RPV materials.

Since 1974, additional knowledge has

been gained about RPV materials, which

demonstrates that the lower bound on

fracture toughness provided by the Kla

curve is well beyond the margin of

safety required to protect the public

health and safety from potential RPV

failure. In addition, P–T curves based on

the KIC curve will enhance overall plant

safety by opening the P–T operating

window with the greatest safety benefit

in the region of low temperature

operations.

In summary, the ASME Code, Section

XI, Appendix G, procedure was

conservatively developed based on the

level of knowledge existing in 1974

concerning RPV materials and the

estimated effects of operation. Since

1974, the level of knowledge about these

topics has been greatly expanded. The

NRC staff agrees that this increased

knowledge permits relaxation of the

requirements of ASME Code, Section XI,

Appendix G, by applying the KIC

fracture toughness (as permitted by

Code Case N–641) while maintaining,

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the

underlying purpose of the ASME Code

and the NRC regulations to ensure an

acceptable margin of safety.

III

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the

Commission may, upon application by

any interested person or upon its own

initiative, grant exemptions from the

requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when (1)

the exemptions are authorized by law,

will not present an undue risk to public

health or safety, and are consistent with

the common defense and security; and

61202 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 200 / Monday, October 16, 2000 / Notices

(2) when special circumstances are

present. The staff accepts the licensee’s

determination that an exemption from

10 CFR 50.60 and Appendix G to Part

50 would be required to approve the use

of Code Case N–641. The staff examined

the licensee’s rationale to support the

exemption request and agrees that the

use of Code Case N–641 would meet the

underlying intent of these regulations.

Based upon a consideration of the

conservatism that is explicitly

incorporated into the methodologies of

(1) 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, (2)

Appendix G of the ASME Code, and (3)

Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, the

staff concludes that application of Code

Case N–641, as described above, would

provide an adequate margin of safety

against brittle failure of the RPV. This is

also consistent with the determination

that the staff has reached for other

licensees under similar conditions

based on the same considerations.

Therefore, the staff concludes that

requesting exemption under the special

circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)

is appropriate and that the methodology

of Code Case N–641 may be used to

revise the P–T limits in the current and

the proposed TSs for PBNP, Units 1 and

2.

IV

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR

50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by

law, will not endanger life or property

or common defense and security, and is,

otherwise, in the public interest.

Therefore, the Commission hereby

grants the licensee an exemption from

the requirements of 10 CFR 50.60(a),

and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, for

PBNP, Units 1 and 2.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment (65 FR 59472).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day

of October 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Suzanne C. Black,

Deputy Director Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–26472 Filed 10–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–352, 50–353]

In the Matter of PECO Eenergy

Company (Limerick Generating

Station, Units 1 and 2) Order

Approving Application Regarding

Proposed Corporate Restructuring

I

PECO Energy Company (PECO, the

licensee) is the holder of Facility

Operating Licenses Nos. NPF–39 and

NPF–85, which authorize the

possession, use, and operation of the

Limerick Generating Station (Limerick),

Units 1 and 2 (the facility). The facility

is located at the licensee’s site in

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

II

By application dated July 7, 2000,

PECO requested approval of the

proposed indirect transfer of the facility

operating licenses to Exelon

Corporation, to be formed in connection

with the proposed merger of Unicom

Corporation (Unicom), the parent of

Commonwealth Edison Company and

PECO. Supplemental information was

provided by submittals dated July 13

and September 1, 2000. Hereinafter, the

July 7, 2000, application and

supplemental information will be

referred to collectively as the

‘‘application.’’

Under the proposed merger, PECO

will become a direct or indirect

subsidiary of Exelon Corporation. The

merger was previously the subject of an

order dated August 3, 2000, by which

the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission approved the direct

transfer of the Limerick licenses to

Exelon Generation Company, LLC

(EGC). EGC will be formed in

connection with the merger as an

indirect subsidiary of Exelon

Corporation to acquire the generating

assets of PECO and Commonwealth

Edison Company. The August 3, 2000,

order effectively allows PECO’s

Limerick assets to be transferred to EGC.

According to the application here, the

transfer of these assets may be delayed

beyond the closing of the merger.

During this interim period, Exelon

Corporation would be the direct parent

of PECO as PECO continues to hold the

Limerick and other generating assets

pending the receipt of necessary

approvals to allow the generating assets

to be transferred to EGC. Specifically,

PECO would continue to be the sole

owner and operator of Limerick, Units

1 and 2.

By a separate application dated July 7,

2000, Commonwealth Edison Company

requested approval of the indirect

transfer of the facility operating licenses

that it holds to Exelon Corporation,

which would occur under

circumstances similar to the above for

PECO. That application is being

addressed separately.

Approval of the indirect transfer of

the facility operating licenses was

requested by PECO pursuant to 10 CFR

50.80. Notice of the request for approval

and an opportunity for a hearing was

published in the Federal Register on

August 31, 2000 (65 FR 53045). The

Commission received no comments or

requests for hearing pursuant to such

notice.

Under 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or

any right thereunder, shall be

transferred, directly or indirectly,

through transfer of control of the

license, unless the Commission shall

give its consent in writing. Upon review

of the information in the application by

PECO, and other information before the

Commission, the NRC staff has

determined that the proposed corporate

restructuring under which Exelon

Corporation will become the parent of

PECO will not affect the qualifications

of PECO as holder of the licenses

described above, and that the indirect

transfer of the licenses, to the extent

effected by the proposed corporate

restructuring, is otherwise consistent

with applicable provisions of law,

regulations, and orders issued by the

Commission, subject to the conditions

set forth below.

The findings set forth above are

supported by a safety evaluation dated

October 5, 2000.

III

Accordingly, pursuant to Sections

161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 of the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42

USC 2201(b), 2201(i), 2201(o), and 2234;

and 10 CFR 50.80, It Is Hereby Ordered

that the application regarding the

indirect license transfers related to the

proposed corporate restructuring is

approved, subject to the following

conditions:

(1) PECO shall provide the Director of the

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation a copy

of any application, at the time it is filed, to

transfer (excluding grants of security interests

or liens) from PECO to its proposed parent,

or to any other affiliated company, facilities

for the production, transmission, or

distribution of electric energy having a

depreciated book value exceeding ten percent

(10%) of PECO’s consolidated net utility

plant, as recorded on PECO’s books of

account, provided, however, this condition

shall apply only for so long as PECO holds

a license issued pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.