Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 73 /Thursday, April 16, 1998 / Notices 18943

G requires that P–T limits be established

for reactor pressure vessels (RPVs)

during normal operation and vessel

hydrostatic testing. In particular, 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix G, Section IV.2.b.,

requires that these limits must be ‘‘at

least as conservative as limits obtained

by following the methods of analysis

and the margins of safety of Appendix

G of Section XI of the ASME Code.’’ The

Code of Federal Regulations at 10 CFR

50.55(a) specifies that the applicable

ASME Code is the 1989 Edition. The

Code of Federal Regulations at 10 CFR

50.60, which broadly addresses the

establishment of criteria for fracture

prevention, states that ‘‘proposed

alternatives to the described

requirements in Appendices G and H of

this part or portions thereof may be used

when an exemption is granted by the

Commission under § 50.12.’’ The

licensee used the CE methodology for

constructing its P–T limits in place of

the 1989 ASME Appendix G

methodology approved by the staff in

the regulations; therefore, the licensee

applied for an exemption to use the CE

methodology.

IV

In the submittal, the exemption was

requested under the special

circumstances given in 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(ii). The provisions of this

section state that special circumstances

are present whenever ‘‘Application of

the regulation in the particular

circumstances would not serve the

underlying purpose of the rule or is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule.’’ In the application,

the licensee stated that ‘‘The use of

ABB–CE alternate methodology

requested by this exemption provides

greater operational flexibility while still

maintaining reactor vessel integrity. In

addition, the use of the ABB–CE

methodology to generate pressuretemperature curves yields comparable

results to the use of the ASME

Appendix G methodology. Therefore,

the reactor vessel is protected against

nonductile failure and the underlying

purpose of the rule is achieved.’’

The staff reviewed the licensee’s

application and the CE methodology

and has concluded that this alternative

method meets the underlying intent of

the regulations. The thermal analysis

method of the CE methodology consists

of a plant-specific thermal analysis and

a fracture mechanics analysis based on

influence coefficients from finite

element analyses under thermal loading.

The staff review determined that this

thermal analysis method is more

rigorous than that of the 1989

methodology and that the rest of the CE

methodology is the same as the 1989

ASME Appendix G methodology. The

staff concludes, therefore, that an

exemption under the special

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

is appropriate, and that the application

of the CE methodology meets the

underlying intent of the regulations.

V

For the foregoing reasons, the NRC

staff has concluded that the licensee’s

proposed use of the alternative

methodology in determining the P–T

limits will not present an undue risk to

public health and safety and is

consistent with the common defense

and security. The NRC staff has

determined that there are special

circumstances present, as specified in

10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), in that

application of 10 CFR 50.60 is not

necessary in order to achieve the

underlying purpose of this regulation.

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR

50.12, this exemption is authorized by

law, will not present an undue risk to

public health and safety, and is

consistent with the common defense

and security.

Therefore, the Commission hereby

grants the following exemption:

The Power Authority of the State of

New York is exempt from the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.60 in that

they are permitted to use the CE

methodology detailed in their

application for exemption dated January

28, 1998, for developing P–T limits for

the Indian Point Nuclear Generating

Station Unit No. 3.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will have no

significant impact on the quality of the

human environment (63 FR 17902).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day

of April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–10102 Filed 4–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–286]

In the Matter of Power Authority of the

State of New York; (Indian Point

Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3);

Exemption

I

The Power Authority of the State of

New York (the licensee) is the holder of

Facility Operating License No. DPR–64,

which authorizes operation of the

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit

No. 3 (IP3). The license provides that

the licensee is subject to all rules,

regulations, and orders of the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the

Commission) now or hereafter in effect.

The facility is a pressurized water

reactor located in Westchester County,

New York.

II

The Code of Federal Regulations, 10

CFR 50.60, states that the reactor

coolant pressure boundaries for light

water reactors must meet the fracture

toughness and material surveillance

program requirements set forth in

Appendices G and H to 10 CFR Part 50.

By letter dated November 3, 1997, the

licensee requested an exemption from

10 CFR 50.60 to allow the use of the

American Society of Mechanical

Engineers (ASME) Code Case N–514 for

the determination of the low

temperature overpressurization system

(LTOP) parameters in place of the

margins required by Appendix G to 10

CFR Part 50. The Code Case limits the

overpressurization system (OPS) curve

to not greater than 110% of the pressure

determined to satisfy Appendix G,

paragraph G–2215 of ASME Code,

Section XI, Division 1, further reduced

to allow for static head due to elevation

differences and dynamic head effect of

the operation of the four reactor coolant

pumps. The Code Case also allows some

latitude in determining the OPS enable

temperature.

III

The NRC has established

requirements in 10 CFR Part 50 to

protect the integrity of the reactor

coolant system pressure boundary. As a

part of these, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix

G, requires that P–T limits be

established for reactor pressure vessels

(RPVs) during normal operation and

vessel hydrostatic testing and as stated

in Appendix G, ‘‘The appropriate

requirements on * * * the pressuretemperature limits * * * must be met

for all conditions.’’ The Code of Federal
18944 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 73 /Thursday, April 16, 1998 / Notices

Regulations, 10 CFR 50.60, states that

‘‘Proposed alternatives to the described

requirements in Appendices G and H of

this part or portions thereof may be used

when an exemption is granted by the

Commission under § 50.12.’’ Since the

licensee wishes to use Code Case N–514

as opposed to the requirements of

Appendix G, an exemption to the

regulations is necessary.

IV

In referring to 10 CFR 50.12 on

specific exemptions, the licensee cited

special circumstance 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(ii) on achieving the

underlying purpose of the regulations,

10 CFR 50.12(a)(iii) on undue hardship,

and 10 CFR 50.12 (a)(iv) on good faith

compliance as their bases for requesting

this exemption.

The licensee noted in support of the

10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) criterion that the

underlying purpose of the subject

regulations is to establish limits to

protect the reactor vessel from brittle

failure during low temperature

operation and that the OPS provides a

physical means of protecting these

limits. The licensee proposed that

establishing the OPS pressure setpoint

per the N–514 provisions such that the

vessel pressure would not exceed 110

percent of the P–T limit allowables

‘‘* * * * reduces the unnecessary

actuation of the LTOP system due to

normal pressure surges that occur

during low temperature operation * * *

while maintaining acceptable safety

margins.’’ The staff determined that the

‘‘acceptable level of safety’’ using N–514

was based on the conservatism which

has been explicitly incorporated into the

procedure for developing the P–T limits.

This procedure, referenced from

Appendix G to Section XI of the ASME

Code, includes the following

conservatisms: (1) a safety factor of 2 on

the pressure stresses; (2) a margin factor

applied to RTNDT using Regulatory

Guide 1.99, Revision 2; (3) an assumed

1⁄4 T flaw with a 6:1 aspect ratio; (4) a

limiting material toughness based on

dynamic and crack arrest data.

The licensee noted in support of the

10 CFR 50.12(a)(iii) criterion that, as the

reactor vessel ages, the operating

window for the LTOP system is

reduced. This reduced window could

lead to inadvertent actuation of the

LTOP system which could, in turn, lead

to rapid pressure changes.

The licensee noted in support of the

10 CFR 50.12(a)(iv) criterion that the

plant is currently in conformance with

10 CFR 50.60 and that relief is being

requested in order to maintain sufficient

operating margin. The licensee also

notes that the staff, in Draft Regulatory

Guide 1050, has proposed to endorse

Code Case N–514.

The staff reviewed the licensee’s

rationale to support the exemption

request on the basis of 10 CFR

50.12(a)(iii) and the staff concluded that

the use of Code Case N–514 would also

meet the underlying intent of the

regulations. Based upon a consideration

of the conservatism which is explicitly

defined in the Appendix G methodology

(as listed Section 3.0 above), the staff

concluded that permitting the OPS

setpoint to be established such that the

vessel pressure would not exceed 110

percent of the P–T limits would provide

an adequate margin of safety against

brittle failure of the reactor vessel. This

is also consistent with the

determination that the staff has reached

for other licensees under similar

conditions based on the same

considerations.

The staff reviewed the licensee’s

rationale to support the exemption on

the basis of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(iii). The

staff has previously granted exemptions

for other licensees under similar

circumstances; therefore, the staff has

determined that operating with a

reduced LTOP window would result in

an undue hardship that is significantly

in excess of that incurred by others

similarly situated.

The staff reviewed the licensee’s

rationale to support the exemption on

the basis of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(iv) and has

determined that the licensee has made

a good faith effort to comply with the

regulation.

V

The NRC staff has determined that

there are special circumstances present,

as specified in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), in

that application of 10 CFR 50.60 is not

necessary in order to achieve the

underlying purpose of this regulation.

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR

50.12, this exemption is authorized by

law, will not present an undue risk to

public health and safety, and is

consistent with the common defense

and security.

Therefore, the Commission hereby

grants the following exemption.

The Power Authority of the State of

New York is exempt from the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.60 in that

they are permitted to use Code Case N–

514 in place of the safety margins

required by Appendix G to 10 CFR Part

50 to determine the LTOP parameters.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will have no

significant impact on the quality of the

human environment (63 FR 17903).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance. Dated at Rockville, Maryland,

this 10th day of April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–10103 Filed 4–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

which provides opportunity for public

comment on new or revised data

collections, the Railroad Retirement

Board (RRB) will publish periodic

summaries of proposed data collections.

Comments are Invited on

(a) Whether the proposed information

collection is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information has practical utility; (b) the

accuracy of the RRB’s estimate of the

burden of the collection of the

information; (c) ways to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected; and (d)

ways to minimize the burden related to

the collection of information on

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Title and Purpose of Information

Collection

Report of Medicaid State Office on

Beneficiary’s Buy-In Status; OMB 3220–

0185

Under Section 7(d) of the Railroad

Retirement Act, the RRB administers the

Medicare program for persons covered

by the railroad retirement system. Under

Section 1843 of the Social Security Act,

states may enter into ‘‘buy-in

agreements’’ with the Secretary of

Health and Human Services for the

purpose of enrolling certain groups of

needy people under the Medicare

medical insurance (Part B) program and

paying the premiums for their insurance

coverage. Generally, these individuals

are categorically needy under Medicaid

and meet the eligibility requirements for

Medicare Part B. States can also include

in their buy-in agreements, individuals

who are eligible for medical assistance

only. The RRB uses Form RL–380–F,

Report to State Medicaid Office, to

obtain information needed to determine

if certain railroad beneficiaries are