Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2331 

inflation adjustment procedures 

prescribed in the Federal Civil Penalties 

Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as 

amended: 

Date of violation Penalty 

Violation occurring between 

Sept. 29, 1999 and Nov. 2, 

2015 .................................. $11,000 

Violation occurring after Nov. 

2, 2015 .............................. 19,639 

(b) This remedy shall be in addition 

to any other remedy available under 

statutory or common law. 

PART 2636—LIMITATIONS ON 

OUTSIDE EARNED INCOME, 

EMPLOYMENT AND AFFILIATIONS 

FOR CERTAIN NONCAREER 

EMPLOYEES 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 2636 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in 

Government Act of 1978); Pub. L. 101–410, 

104 Stat. 890, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (Federal 

Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 

1990), as amended by Sec. 31001, Pub. L. 

104–134, 110 Stat. 1321 (Debt Collection 

Improvement Act of 1996) and Sec. 701, Pub. 

L. 114–74 (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 

Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015); 

E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., 

p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 

42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306. 

■ 6. Section 2636.104 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 2636.104 Civil, disciplinary and other 

action. 

(a) Civil action. Except when the 

employee engages in conduct in good 

faith reliance upon an advisory opinion 

issued under § 2636.103, an employee 

who engages in any conduct in violation 

of the prohibitions, limitations and 

restrictions contained in this part may 

be subject to civil action under 5 U.S.C. 

app. 504(a) and a civil monetary penalty 

of not more than the amounts set forth 

below, as adjusted in accordance with 

the inflation adjustment procedures 

prescribed in the Federal Civil Penalties 

Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as 

amended, or the amount of the 

compensation the individual received 

for the prohibited conduct, whichever is 

greater. 

Date of violation Penalty 

Violation occurring between 

Sept. 29, 1999 and Nov. 2, 

2015 .................................. $11,000 

Violation occurring after Nov. 

2, 2015 .............................. 19,639 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–00688 Filed 1–16–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6345–03–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 50 

[NRC–2012–0059] 

RIN 3150–AJ13 

Approval of American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers’ Code Cases 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is amending its 

regulations to incorporate by reference 

(IBR) the latest revisions of three 

regulatory guides (RGs) approving new, 

revised, and reaffirmed Code Cases 

published by the American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME). This 

action allows nuclear power plant 

licensees and applicants for 

construction permits, operating licenses, 

combined licenses, standard design 

certifications, standard design approvals 

and manufacturing licenses to 

voluntarily use the Code Cases listed in 

these RGs as alternatives to engineering 

standards for the construction, inservice 

inspection (ISI), and inservice testing 

(IST) of nuclear power plant 

components. These engineering 

standards are set forth in the ASME’s 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel (BPV) Codes 

and ASME Operation and Maintenance 

(OM) Codes, which are currently 

incorporated by reference into the 

NRC’s regulations. This final rule 

announces the availability of the final 

versions of the three RGs that are being 

incorporated by reference. Further, the 

final rule announces the availability of 

a related RG, not incorporated by 

reference into the NRC’s regulations that 

lists Code Cases that the NRC has not 

approved for use. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

February 16, 2018. The incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in the regulation is approved by the 

Director of the Federal Register as of 

February 16, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2012–0059 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information for this action. You may 

obtain publicly-available 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–2012–0059. 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. 

• 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Tobin, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301– 

415–2328, email: Jennifer.Tobin@

nrc.gov; or 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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

The purpose of this regulatory action 

is to incorporate by reference into the 

NRC’s regulations the latest revisions of 

three RGs. The three RGs identify new, 

revised, and reaffirmed Code Cases 

published by the ASME, which the NRC 

has determined are acceptable for use as 

alternatives to certain provisions of the 

ASME BPV Codes and ASME OM 

Codes, currently incorporated by 

reference into the NRC’s regulations. 

The three RGs that the NRC is 

incorporating by reference 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. This 

regulatory action allows nuclear power 

plant licensees and applicants for 

construction permits, operating licenses, 

combined licenses, standard design 

certifications, standard design 

approvals, and manufacturing licenses 

to voluntarily use the Code Cases, newly 

listed in these revised RGs, as 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
2332 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1The editions and addenda of the ASME Code for 

Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power 

Plants have had different titles from 2005 to 2012, 

and are referred to collectively in this rule as the 

‘‘OM Code.’’ 

2See Federal Register notice, ‘‘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 to 

be one that does not have any change to technical 

content, but includes editorial changes. 

alternatives to engineering standards for 

the design, construction, ISI, and IST, 

and repair/replacement of nuclear 

power plant components. In this notice, 

the NRC also notifies the public of the 

availability of RG 1.193, ‘‘ASME Code 

Cases Not Approved for Use,’’ Revision 

5. The regulatory guide 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 prepared a regulatory 

analysis (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML16285A013) to identify the benefits 

and costs associated with this final rule. 

The regulatory analysis prepared for this 

rulemaking was used to determine if the 

rule is cost-effective, overall, and to 

help the NRC evaluate potentially costly 

conditions placed on specific provisions 

of the ASME Code Cases, which are the 

subject of this rulemaking. 

TABLE 1—COST-BENEFIT SUMMARY

Objective 

Alternative 2—the 

rule alternative net 

benefits (costs) 

(net present 

value, 7% 

discount rate) 

($ million) 

Industry ........................... 2.42 

NRC ................................ 2.52 

Net Benefit ...................... 4.94 

Table 1 summarizes the benefits and 

costs for the alternative of proceeding 

with the final rule (Alternative 2) and 

shows that the final rule is 

quantitatively cost-beneficial with a net 

benefit of $4.94 million to both the 

industry and the NRC when compared 

to the regulatory baseline (Alternative 

1). The regulatory analysis shows that 

implementing the final rule is 

quantitatively cost-effective and an 

efficient use of the NRC’s and Industry’s 

resources. Uncertainty analysis shows 

that the net benefit ranges from $2.86 

million to $6.90 million with a mean of 

$4.94 million. Because the rulemaking 

alternative is cost-effective, the 

rulemaking approach is recommended. 

There are several benefits associated 

with this final rule. Under this final 

rule, a licensee of a nuclear power plant 

would no longer be required to submit 

a Code Case alternative request under 

the new § 50.55a(z) of Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), 

which would provide an averted cost of 

$7.75 million (7-percent net present 

value) to the licensee. Additionally, the 

NRC would not receive Code Case 

alternative request submittals, which 

would provide an averted cost of $2.52 

million (7-percent net present value) to 

the NRC. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Discussion 

A. ASME Code Cases Approved for 

Unconditional Use 

B. ASME Code Cases Approved for Use 

with Conditions 

• ASME BPV Code, Section III Code Cases 

(RG 1.84) 

• ASME BPV Code, Section XI Code Cases 

(RG 1.147) 

• OM Code Cases (RG 1.192) 

C. ASME Code Cases not Approved for Use 

(RG 1.193) 

III. Opportunities for Public Participation 

IV. Public Comment Analysis 

V. Section-by-Section Analysis 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

VII. Regulatory Analysis 

VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality 

IX. Plain Writing 

X. Environmental Assessment and Final 

Finding of No Significant Environmental 

Impact 

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act 

XII. Congressional Review Act 

XIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

XIV. Incorporation by Reference—Reasonable 

Availability to Interested Parties 

XV. Availability of Documents 

I. Background 

The ASME develops and publishes 

the ASME BPV Code, which contains 

requirements for the design, 

construction, and ISI and examination 

of nuclear power plant components, and 

ASME’s Nuclear Power Plants (OM) 

Code,1 which contains requirements for 

IST of nuclear power plant components. 

In response to BPV Code and OM Code 

user requests, the ASME develops Code 

Cases that provide alternatives to BPV 

Code and OM Code requirements under 

special circumstances. 

The NRC approves and can mandate 

the use of the ASME BPV Codes and 

OM Codes in § 50.55a, ‘‘Codes and 

standards,’’ 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 the regulations. As noted 

previously, ASME Code Cases, for the 

most part, represent alternative 

approaches for complying with 

provisions of the ASME BPV Codes 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 alternatives to the BPV 

Codes and OM Codes.2

This rulemaking is the latest in a 

series of rulemakings that incorporates 

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 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 and are 

published by the ASME. The NRC 

incorporates by reference the RGs, 

listing acceptable and conditionally 

acceptable ASME Code Cases into 

§ 50.55a. Currently, NRC RG 1.84, 

‘‘Design, Fabrication, and Materials 

Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section 

III,’’ Revision 36; RG 1.147, ‘‘Inservice 

Inspection Code Case Acceptability, 

ASME Section XI, Division 1,’’ Revision 

17; and RG 1.192, ‘‘Operation and 

Maintenance Code Case Acceptability, 

ASME OM Code,’’ Revision 1, are 

incorporated into the NRC’s regulations 

in § 50.55a. 

II. Discussion 

This rule incorporates by reference 

the latest revisions of the NRC RGs that 

list ASME BPV and OM Code Cases that 

the NRC finds to be acceptable, or 

acceptable with NRC-specified 

conditions (‘‘conditionally acceptable’’). 

Regulatory Guide 1.84, Revision 37, 

supersedes Revision 36; RG 1.147, 

Revision 18, supersedes Revision 17; 

and RG 1.192, Revision 2, supersedes 

Revision 1. The NRC also publishes a 

document (RG 1.193, ‘‘ASME Code 

Cases Not Approved for Use’’) that lists 

Code Cases that the NRC has not 

approved for generic use. The RG 1.193 

is not incorporated by reference into the 

NRC’s regulations; however, in this final 

rule, the NRC notes the availability of 

RG 1.193, Revision 5. 

The ASME Code Cases that are the 

subject of this rulemaking are the new, 

revised, and reaffirmed Section III and 

Section XI Code Cases listed in 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2333 

Supplement 11 to the 2007 BPV Code 

through Supplement 10 to the 2010 BPV 

Code, and the OM Code Cases published 

with the 2009 Edition through the 2012 

Edition. 

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 

rule incorporates by reference the latest 

revisions of RGs 1.84, 1.147, and 1.192. 

This rule allows nuclear power plant 

licensees and applicants for 

construction permits, operating licenses, 

combined licenses, standard design 

certifications, standard design 

approvals, and manufacturing licenses, 

under the regulations that govern 

license certifications, to voluntarily use 

the Code Cases listed in these RGs as 

suitable alternatives to certain 

provisions of the ASME BPV and OM 

Codes for the construction, ISI, and IST 

of nuclear power plant components. 

This action is consistent with the 

provisions of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, which 

encourages Federal regulatory agencies 

to consider adopting industry consensus 

standards as an alternative to de novo 

agency development of standards 

affecting an industry. This action is also 

consistent with the NRC policy of 

evaluating the latest versions of 

consensus standards, in terms of their 

suitability for endorsement by 

regulations or regulatory guides. 

The NRC follows a three-step process 

to determine acceptability of new, 

revised, and reaffirmed Code Cases, and 

the need for regulatory positions on the 

use of these Code Cases. This process 

was employed in the review of the Code 

Cases in Supplement 11 to the 2007 

Edition through Supplement 10 to the 

2010 Edition of the BPV Code and the 

2009 Edition through the 2012 Edition 

of the OM Code. The Code Cases in 

these supplements and OM Editions and 

Addenda are the subject of this rule. 

First, the ASME develops Code Cases 

through a consensus development 

process, as administered by the 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI), which ensures that the various 

technical interests (e.g., utility, 

manufacturing, insurance, regulatory) 

are represented on standards 

development committees and that their 

view points are addressed fairly. The 

NRC staff actively participates in 

discussions and technical debates of the 

task groups, working groups, subgroups, 

and standards committees regarding the 

development of new and revised 

standards. The Code Case process 

includes the development of a technical 

justification in support of each new or 

revised Code Case. The ASME 

committee meetings are open to the 

public and attendees are encouraged to 

participate. Task groups, working 

groups, and subgroups report to 

respective standards committees. The 

standards committee is the decisive 

consensus committee in that it ensures 

that the development process fully 

complies with the ANSI consensus 

process. 

Second, the standards committee 

transmits a first consideration letter 

ballot to every member of the standards 

committee, requesting comment or 

approval of new and revised Code 

Cases. Code Cases are approved by the 

standards committee from the first 

consideration letter ballot when: (1) At 

least two thirds of the eligible consensus 

committee membership vote approved; 

(2) there are no disapprovals from the 

standards committee; and (3) no 

substantive comments are received from 

the ASME oversight committees such as 

the Technical Oversight Management 

Committee (TOMC). The TOMC’s 

duties, in part, are to oversee various 

standards committees to ensure 

technical adequacy and to provide 

recommendations in the development of 

codes and standards, as required. Code 

Cases that were disapproved or received 

substantive comments from the first 

consideration ballot are reviewed by the 

working level group(s) responsible for 

their development to consider the 

comments received. These Code Cases 

are approved by the standards 

committee on second consideration 

when at least two thirds of the eligible 

consensus committee membership vote 

approved, and there are no more than 

three disapprovals from the consensus 

committee. 

Third, the NRC reviews new, revised, 

and reaffirmed Code Cases to determine 

their acceptability for incorporation by 

reference in § 50.55a through the subject 

RGs. This rulemaking process, when 

considered together with the ANSI 

process for developing and approving 

the ASME codes and standards, and 

Code Cases, constitutes the NRC’s basis 

that the Code Cases (with conditions as 

necessary) provide reasonable assurance 

of adequate protection to public health 

and safety. 

The staff concludes, in accordance 

with the process described, that the 

Code Cases are technically adequate 

(with conditions as necessary) and 

consistent with current NRC 

regulations, and the staff is referencing 

these Code Cases in the applicable RGs, 

thereby approving them for voluntary 

use, without conditions as addressed in 

Section A of this document; subject to 

the specified conditions, or as identified 

in Section B of this document. The staff 

reviewed the new, revised, and 

reaffirmed Code Cases identified in the 

three RGs being incorporated by 

reference into § 50.55a in this 

rulemaking. Therefore, the NRC 

approves revising the § 50.55a 

regulations to incorporate by reference 

the latest revisions of RGs 1.84, 1.147, 

and 1.192. Additionally, the NRC 

announces the availability of the latest 

revision of RG 1.193. 

A. ASME Code Cases Approved for 

Unconditional Use 

The Code Cases that are discussed in 

Table I are new, revised, or reaffirmed 

Code Cases that the NRC is approving 

for use without conditions. The NRC 

concludes, in accordance with the 

process described for review of ASME 

Code Cases, that each of the ASME Code 

Cases listed in Table I are acceptable for 

use without conditions. Therefore, the 

NRC is approving for unconditional use 

the Code Cases listed in Table I. This 

table identifies the regulatory guide the 

applicable Code Case that the NRC is 

approving for use. 

The NRC revised RG 1.147, Revision 

18 to approve Code Case N–786–1 in 

Table 1 to address inconsistencies that 

were identified between the NRC’s 

position in the proposed rule regarding 

the acceptability of Code Case N–786 

and several licensee requests for 

alternatives to ASME Code 

requirements, in accordance with Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(10 CFR) 50.55a(z), that have utilized 

Code Case N–786. The NRC had 

authorized the use of Code Case N–786 

with modifications. The NRC erred in 

not listing N–786 in DG–1296, Table 2 

‘‘Conditionally Acceptable Section XI 

Code Cases’’ with appropriate 

conditions, in order to be consistent 

with modifications that the NRC has 

required for requested alternatives based 

on Code Case N–786. In response to 

modifications to N–786 by licensees 

requesting to use this code case as an 

alternative to ASME Code, ASME 

revised the code case. The revised Code 

Case, N–786–1 ‘‘Alternative 

Requirements for Sleeve Reinforcement 

of Class 2 and 3 Moderate-Energy 

Carbon Steel Piping Section XI, Division 

1,’’ includes modifications that address 

all of the NRC’s concerns that the NRC 

identified in previously approved 

alternatives that were based on N–786. 

Therefore, the NRC has listed Code Case 

N–786–1 in Table 1 of RG 1.147 

Revision 18 in lieu of code Case N–786. 

There were no public comments 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
2334 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

received on the inclusion of N–786 in 

the RG. Code Case N–786–1 is included 

in this final rule because it includes the 

latest ASME guidance and the NRC 

conditions on the use of this method of 

repair. 

TABLE I—ASME CODE CASES APPROVED FOR UNCONDITIONAL USE

Code Case No. Supplement Title 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III 

(addressed in RG 1.84, Revision 37, Table 1) 

N–284–3 .......................................... 7 (10 Edition) ................................. Metal Containment Shell Buckling Design Methods, Class MC, TC, 

and SC Construction, Section III, Divisions 1 and 3. 

N–500–4 .......................................... 8 (10 Edition) ................................. Alternative Rules for Standard Supports for Classes 1, 2, 3, and MC, 

Section III, Division 1. 

N–520–5 .......................................... 10 (10 Edition) ............................... Alternative Rules for Renewal of Active or Expired N-type Certificates 

for Plants Not in Active Construction, Section III, Division 1. 

N–594–1 .......................................... 8 (10 Edition) ................................. Repairs to P–4 and P–5A Castings without Postweld Heat Treatment 

Class 1, 2, and 3 Construction, Section III, Division 1. 

N–637–1 .......................................... 3 (10 Edition) ................................. Use of 44Fe–25Ni–21Cr–Mo (Alloy UNS N08904) Plate, Bar, Fittings, 

Welded Pipe, and Welded Tube, Classes 2 and 3, Section III, Division 1. 

N–655–2 .......................................... 4 (10 Edition) ................................. Use of SA–738, Grade B, for Metal Containment Vessels, Class MC, 

Section III, Division 1. 

N–763 .............................................. 2 (10 Edition) ................................. ASTM A 709–06, Grade HPS 70W (HPS 485W) Plate Material Without Postweld Heat Treatment as Containment Liner Material or 

Structural Attachments to the Containment Liner, Section III, Division 2. 

N–777 .............................................. 4 (10 Edition) ................................. Calibration of Cv Impact Test Machines, Section III, Divisions 1, 2, 

and 3. 

N–785 .............................................. 11 (07 Edition) ............................... Use of SA–479/SA–479M, UNS S41500 for Class 1 Welded Construction, Section III, Division 1. 

N–811 .............................................. 7 (10 Edition) ................................. Alternative Qualification Requirements for Concrete Level III Inspection Personnel, Section III, Division 2. 

N–815 .............................................. 8 (10 Edition) ................................. Use of SA–358/SA–358M Grades Fabricated as Class 3 or Class 4 

Welded Pipe, Class CS Core Support Construction, Section III, Division 1. 

N–816 .............................................. 8 (10 Edition) ................................. Use of Temper Bead Weld Repair Rules Adopted in 2010 Edition and 

Earlier Editions, Section III, Division 1. 

N–817 .............................................. 8 (10 Edition) ................................. Use of Die Forgings, SB–247, UNS A96061 Class T6, With Thickness ≤ 4.000 in. Material, Class 2 Construction (1992 Edition or 

Later), Section III, Division 1. 

N–819 .............................................. 8 (10 Edition) ................................. Use of Die Forgings, SB–247, UNS A96061 Class T6, With Thickness ≤ 4.000 in. Material, Class 2 Construction (1989 Edition with 

the 1991 Addenda or Earlier), Section III, Division 1. 

N–822 .............................................. 8 (10 Edition) ................................. Application of the ASME Certification Mark, Section III, Divisions 1, 2, 

3, and 5. 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI 

(addressed in RG 1.147, Revision 18, Table 1) 

N–609–1 .......................................... 3 (10 Edition) ................................. Alternative Requirements to Stress-Based Selection Criteria for Category B–J Welds, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–613–2 .......................................... 4 (10 Edition) ................................. Ultrasonic Examination of Full Penetration Nozzles in Vessels, Examination Category B–D, Reactor Nozzle-To-Vessel Welds, and Nozzle Inside Radius Section Figs. IWB–2500–7(a), (b), (c), and (d), 

Section XI, Division 1. 

N–652–2 .......................................... 9 (10 Edition) ................................. Alternative Requirements to Categorize B–G–1, B–G–2, and C–D 

Bolting Examination Methods and Selection Criteria, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–653–1 .......................................... 9 (10 Edition) ................................. Qualification Requirements for Full Structural Overlaid Wrought Austenitic Piping Welds, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–694–2 4 ........................................ 1 (13 Edition) ................................. Evaluation Procedure and Acceptance Criteria for [pressurized water 

reactors] (PWR) Reactor Vessel Head Penetration Nozzles, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–730–1 .......................................... 10 (10 Edition) ............................... Roll Expansion of Class 1 Control Rod Drive Bottom Head Penetrations in [boiling water reactors] BWRs, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–769–2 .......................................... 10 (10 Edition) ............................... Roll Expansion of Class 1 In-Core Housing Bottom Head Penetrations in BWRs, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–771 .............................................. 7 (10 Edition) ................................. Alternative Requirements for Additional Examinations of Class 2 or 3 

Items, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–775 .............................................. 2 (10 Edition) ................................. Alternative Requirements for Bolting Affected by Borated Water Leakage, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–776 .............................................. 1 (10 Edition) ................................. Alternative to IWA–5244 Requirements for Buried Piping, Section XI, 

Division 1. 

N–786–1 .......................................... 5 (10 Edition) ................................. Alternative Requirements for Sleeve Reinforcement of Class 2 and 3 

Moderate-Energy Carbon Steel Piping, Section XI, Division 1. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2335 

4Code Case published in Supplement 1 to the 

2013 Edition; included at the request of ASME. 

5Code Case published in Supplement 3 to the 

2013 Edition; included at the request of ASME. 

6Code Case published in Supplement 6 to the 

2013 Edition; included at the request of ASME. 

TABLE I—ASME CODE CASES APPROVED FOR UNCONDITIONAL USE—Continued 

Code Case No. Supplement Title 

N–798 .............................................. 4 (10 Edition) ................................. Alternative Pressure Testing Requirements for Class 1 Piping Between the First and Second Vent, Drain, and Test Isolation Devices, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–800 .............................................. 4 (10 Edition) ................................. Alternative Pressure Testing Requirements for Class 1 Piping Between the First and Second Injection Valves, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–803 .............................................. 5 (10 Edition) ................................. Similar and Dissimilar Metal Welding Using Ambient Temperature 

Automatic or Machine Dry Underwater Laser Beam Welding 

(ULBW) Temper Bead Technique, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–805 .............................................. 6 (10 Edition) ................................. Alternative to Class 1 Extended Boundary End of Interval or Class 2 

System Leakage Testing of the Reactor Vessel Head Flange ORing Leak-Detection System, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–823 .............................................. 9 (10 Edition) ................................. Visual Examination, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–825 5 ............................................ 3 (13 Edition) ................................. Alternative Requirements for Examination of Control Rod Drive Housing Welds, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–845 6 ............................................ 6 (13 Edition) ................................. Qualification Requirements for Bolts and Studs, Section XI, Division 

1. 

Operation and Maintenance Code (OM) 

(addressed in RG 1.192, Revision 2, Table 1) 

OMN–2 ............................................ 2012 Edition ................................... Thermal Relief Valve Code Case, OM Code-1995, Appendix I. 

OMN–5 ............................................ 2012 Edition ................................... Testing of Liquid Service Relief Valves without Insulation. 

OMN–6 ............................................ 2012 Edition ................................... Alternative Rules for Digital Instruments. 

OMN–7 ............................................ 2012 Edition ................................... Alternative Requirements for Pump Testing. 

OMN–8 ............................................ 2012 Edition ................................... Alternative Rules for Preservice and Inservice Testing of Power-Operated Valves That Are Used for System Control and Have a Safety Function per OM–10, ISTC–1.1, or ISTA–1100. 

OMN–13, Revision 2 ....................... 2012 Edition ................................... Performance-Based Requirements for Extending Snubber Inservice 

Visual Examination Interval at [light water reactor] LWR Power 

Plants. 

OMN–14 .......................................... 2012 Edition ................................... Alternative Rules for Valve Testing Operations and Maintenance, Appendix I: BWR [control rod drive] CRD Rupture Disk Exclusion. 

OMN–15, Revision 2 ....................... 2012 Edition ................................... Performance-Based Requirements for Extending the Snubber Operational Readiness Testing Interval at LWR Power Plants. 

OMN–17 .......................................... 2012 Edition ................................... Alternative Rules for Testing ASME Class 1 Pressure Relief/Safety 

Valves. 

B. ASME Code Cases Approved for Use 

With Conditions 

The Code Cases that are discussed in 

Table II, below, are new, revised or 

reaffirmed Code Cases, which the NRC 

is approving 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 is imposing conditions on the use 

of these Code Cases to modify, limit, or 

clarify their requirements. The 

conditions specify, for each applicable 

Code Case, the additional activities that 

must be performed, the limits on the 

activities specified in the Code Case, 

and the supplemental information 

needed to provide clarity. These ASME 

Code Cases with conditions are 

included in Table 2 of each RG (i.e., RG 

1.84, RG 1.147, and RG 1.192). It is 

noted that both RG 1.147 and RG 1.192 

have new ASME Code Cases with 

conditions; however, there are no new 

ASME Code Cases with conditions for 

RG 1.84. 

TABLE II—CODE CASES APPROVED FOR CONDITIONAL USE

Code Case No. Supplement Title 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III 

(addressed in RG 1.84, Revision 37, Table 2) 

No ASME Section III Code Cases are approved for conditional use in this rule. 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI 

(addressed in RG 1.147, Revision 18, Table 2) 

N–552–1 .......................................... 10 (10 Edition) ............................... Alternative Methods—Qualification for Nozzle Inside Radius Section 

from the Outside Surface, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–576–2 .......................................... 9 (10 Edition) ................................. Repair of Class 1 and 2 SB–163, UNS N06600 Steam Generator 

Tubing, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–593–2 .......................................... 8 (10 Edition) ................................. Examination Requirements for Steam Generator Nozzle-to-Vessel 

Welds, Section XI, Division 1. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
2336 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE II—CODE CASES APPROVED FOR CONDITIONAL USE—Continued 

Code Case No. Supplement Title 

N–638–6 .......................................... 6 (10 Edition) ................................. Similar and Dissimilar Metal Welding Using Ambient Temperature 

Machine GTAW Temper Bead Technique, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–662–1 .......................................... 6 (10 Edition) ................................. Alternative Repair/Replacement Requirements for Items Classified in 

Accordance with Risk-Informed Processes, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–666–1 .......................................... 9 (10 Edition) ................................. Weld Overlay of Classes 1, 2, and 3 Socket Welded Connections, 

Section XI, Division 1. 

N–749 .............................................. 9 (10 Edition) ................................. Alternative Acceptance Criteria for Flaws in Ferritic Steel Components Operating in the Upper Shelf Temperature Range, Section 

XI, Division 1. 

N–754 .............................................. 6 (10 Edition) ................................. Optimized Structural Dissimilar Metal Weld Overlay for Mitigation of 

PWR Class 1 Items, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–778 .............................................. 6 (10 Edition) ................................. Alternative Requirements for Preparation and Submittal of Inservice 

Inspection Plans, Schedules, and Preservice and Inservice Summary Reports, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–789 .............................................. 6 (10 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–795 .............................................. 3 (10 Edition) ................................. Alternative Requirements for BWR Class 1 System Leakage Test 

Pressure Following Repair/Replacement Activities, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–799 .............................................. 4 (10 Edition) ................................. Dissimilar Metal Welds Joining Vessel Nozzles to Components, Section XI, Division 1. 

Operation and Maintenance Code (OM) 

(addressed in RG 1.192, Revision 2, Table 2) 

OMN–1 Revision 1 .......................... 2012 Edition ................................... Alternative Rules for Preservice and Inservice Testing of Active Electric Motor Operated-Valve Assemblies in Light-Water Reactor 

Power Plants. 

OMN–3 ............................................ 2012 Edition ................................... Requirements for Safety Significance Categorization of Components 

Using Risk Insights for Inservice Testing of LWR Power Plants. 

OMN–4 ............................................ 2012 Edition ................................... Requirements for Risk Insights for Inservice Testing of Check Valves 

at LWR Power Plants. 

OMN–9 ............................................ 2012 Edition ................................... Use of a Pump Curve for Testing. 

OMN–12 .......................................... 2012 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–16 Revision 1 ........................ 2012 Edition ................................... Use of a Pump Curve for Testing. 

OMN–18 .......................................... 2012 Edition ................................... Alternate Testing Requirements for Pumps Tested Quarterly Within 

±20% of Design Flow. 

OMN–19 .......................................... 2012 Edition ................................... Alternative Upper Limit for the Comprehensive Pump Test. 

OMN–20 .......................................... 2012 Edition ................................... Inservice Test Frequency. 

The NRC’s evaluation of the Code 

Cases and the reasons for the NRC’s 

conditions are discussed in the 

following paragraphs. Notations have 

been made to indicate the conditions 

duplicated from previous versions of the 

RG. 

ASME BPV Code, Section III Code Cases 

(RG 1.84) 

There are no new or revised Section 

III Code Cases in Supplement 11 to the 

2007 Edition through Supplement 10 to 

the 2010 Edition that the NRC is 

conditionally approving in Revision 37 

of RG 1.84. 

ASME BPV Code, Section XI Code Cases 

(RG 1.147) 

Code Case N–552–1 [Supplement 10, 

2010 Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Alternative Methods— 

Qualification for Nozzle Inside Radius 

Section from the Outside Surface, 

Section XI, Division 1. 

The conditions on Code Case N–552– 

1 are identical to the conditions on N– 

552 that were approved by the NRC in 

Revision 16 of RG 1.147 in October 

2010. The reasons for imposing these 

conditions in Code Case N–576 

continue to apply to N–576–2. 

Therefore, these conditions have been 

retained for this Code Case in Revision 

18 of RG 1.147. 

Code Case N–576–2 [Supplement 9, 

2010 Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Repair of Class 1 and 2 SB–163, 

UNS N06600 Steam Generator Tubing, 

Section XI, Division 1. 

The conditions on Code Case N–576– 

2 are identical to the conditions on N– 

576–1 that were approved by the NRC 

in Revision 17 of RG 1.147 in October 

2014. The reasons for imposing these 

conditions are not resolved by Code 

Case N–576–2 and, therefore, these 

conditions have been retained in 

Revision 18 of RG 1.147. 

Public comments on N–576–2 

requested that the NRC revise the 

proposed condition to follow IWA–4200 

in their code of record. In response, the 

NRC revised the ‘‘note’’ in the condition 

in Revision 18 of RG 1.147 to eliminate 

the portion regarding reconciliation. 

The revised ‘‘note’’ will read: ‘‘Note: 

Steam generator tube repair methods 

require prior NRC approval through the 

Technical Specifications. This Code 

Case does not address certain aspects of 

this repair, e.g., the qualification of the 

inspection and plugging criteria 

necessary for staff approval of the repair 

method.’’ 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2337 

Code Case N–593–2 [Supplement 8, 

2010 Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Examination Requirements for 

Steam Generator Nozzle-to-Vessel 

Welds, Section XI, Division 1. 

The first condition on Code Case N– 

593–2 is identical to the condition on 

Code Case N–593 that was first 

approved by the NRC in Revision 13 of 

RG 1.147 in June 2003. The condition 

stated that, ‘‘Essentially 100 percent (not 

less than 90 percent) of the examination 

volume A–B–C–D–E–F–G–H [in Figure 

1 of the Code Case] must be examined.’’ 

The reasons for imposing this condition 

in Code Case N–593 continue to apply 

to Code Case N–593–2. Therefore, this 

condition has been retained for this 

Code Case in Revision 18 of RG 1.147. 

The second condition on Code Case 

N–593–2 is new. Revision 2 of the Code 

Case reduces the weld examination 

volume by reducing the width examined 

on either side of the weld from ts/2 to 1⁄2 in. The basis for this change in 

inspection volume is to revise the 

examination volume for steam generator 

nozzle-to-vessel welds (under Code Case 

N–593–2) to be consistent with that 

specified in Code Case N–613–1 for 

similar vessel nozzles. 

The NRC identified an issue with 

respect to Code Case N–593–2 regarding 

its inconsistency with Code Case N– 

613–1. Code Case N–593–2 and Code 

Case N–613–1 address certain types of 

nozzle-to-vessel welds. Code Case N– 

613–1 states that ‘‘. . . Category B–D 

nozzle-to-vessel welds previously 

ultrasonically examined using the 

examination volumes of Figs. IWB– 

2500–7(a), (b), and (c) may be examined 

using the reduced examination volume 

(A–B–C–D–E–F–G–H) of Figs. 1, 2, and 

3.’’ The keywords are ‘‘previously 

examined.’’ Code Case N–613–1 

requires the larger volume to have been 

previously examined before 

examinations using the reduced volume 

can be performed. This ensures that 

there are no detrimental flaws in the 

component adjacent to the weld that 

would be missed if the inspection was 

performed only on the reduced volume. 

However, Code Case N–593–2 allows a 

licensee to immediately implement the 

reduced volume. Accordingly, the NRC 

is approving Code Case N–593–2 with a 

condition to require that the 

examination volume specified in 

Section XI, Table IWB–2500–1, 

Examination Category B–D, be used for 

the examination of steam generator 

nozzle-to-vessel welds at least once 

prior to use of the reduced volume, as 

allowed by the Code Case. 

Code Case N–638–6 [Supplement 6, 

2010 Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Similar and Dissimilar Metal 

Welding Using Ambient Temperature 

Machine GTAW Temper Bead 

Technique, Section XI, Division 1. 

Code Case N–638–6 allows the use of 

the automatic or machine gas-tungsten 

arc welding (GTAW) temper bead 

technique. The GTAW is a proven 

method that can produce high-quality 

welds because it affords greater control 

over the weld area than many other 

welding processes. 

The NRC first approved Code Case N– 

638 (Revision 0) in 2003 (Revision 13 of 

RG 1.147). Code Case N–638–4 was 

approved by the NRC in Revision 16 of 

RG 1.147 with two conditions. Code 

Case N–638–5 was not approved in RG 

1.147 for generic use but has been 

approved through requests for an 

alternative to § 50.55a. Code Case N– 

638–6 resolves one of the NRC’s 

concerns that were raised when Code 

Case N–638–4 was considered for 

approval and, therefore, the NRC is 

deleting that condition from RG 1.147. 

Many of the provisions for developing 

and qualifying welding procedure 

specifications for the temper bead 

technique that were contained in earlier 

versions of the Code Case have been 

incorporated into ASME Section IX, 

‘‘Welding and Brazing Qualifications,’’ 

QW–290, ‘‘Temper Bead Welding.’’ 

Code Case N–638–6 retains the 

provisions not addressed by QW–290 

and references QW–290 in lieu of 

specifying them directly in the Code 

Case. 

In addition to retaining one of the two 

conditions on Code Case N–638–4, the 

NRC considered adding a new condition 

to address technical issues raised by 

certain provisions of Code Case N–638– 

6. 

The retained condition on Code Case 

N–638–6 pertains to the qualification of 

nondestructive evaluation (NDE) and is 

identical to the condition on N–638–4 

that was approved by the NRC in 

Revision 17 of RG 1.147 in October 

2014. The reasons for imposing this 

condition in Code Case N–638 continue 

to apply to N–638–6. Therefore, this 

condition has been retained in Revision 

18 of RG 1.147. 

The new proposed condition (2) states 

that section 1(b)(1) of the Code Case 

shall not be used. Section 1(b)(1) would 

allow through-wall circumferential 

repair welds to be made using the 

temper bead technique without heat 

treatment. Revisions 1 through 5 of N– 

638 limited the depth of the weld to 

one-half of the ferritic base metal 

thickness and the previously stated 

condition will limit repairs to this 

previously approved value. Repairs 

exceeding one-half of the ferritic base 

metal thickness may represent 

significant repairs (e.g., replacement of 

an entire portion of the reactor coolant 

loop). At the time that this revision of 

the Code Case was approved by ASME, 

the NRC staff had concerns related to 

through-wall repairs. Subsequently, 

through further evaluation related to a 

separate rulemaking, the NRC resolved 

its concerns related to through-wall 

repairs. Therefore, the NRC determined 

that proposed Condition (2) is 

unnecessary and has removed this 

condition from the final RG 1.147, 

Revision 18. 

Code Case N–662–1 [Supplement 6, 

2010 Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Alternative Repair/Replacement 

Requirements for Items Classified in 

Accordance with Risk-Informed 

Processes, Section XI, Division 1. 

The condition on Code Case N–662– 

1 is identical to the condition on N–662 

that was approved by the NRC in 

Revision 16 of RG 1.147 in October 

2010. The reasons for imposing this 

condition were not resolved by Code 

Case N–662–1. Therefore, this condition 

has been retained for this Code Case in 

Revision 18 of RG 1.147. 

Code Case N–666–1 [Supplement 9, 

2010 Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Weld Overlay of Classes 1, 2, 

and 3 Socket Welded Connections, 

Section XI, Division 1. 

Code Case N–666 was 

unconditionally approved in Revision 

17 of RG 1.147. The NRC approves Code 

Case N–666–1 with one condition. 

The condition is that a surface 

examination must be performed on the 

completed weld overlay for Class 1 and 

Class 2 piping socket welds. Code Case 

N–666–1 contains provisions for the 

design, installation, evaluation, pressure 

testing, and examination of the weld 

overlays on Class 1, 2, and 3 socket 

welds. Section 5(a)(1) of the Code Case 

requires NDE of the completed weld 

overlay in accordance with the 

Construction Code. However, various 

Construction Codes have been used in 

the design and fabrication of the nuclear 

power plant fleet. The requirements for 

NDE have changed over the years, as 

more effective and reliable methods and 

techniques have been developed. In 

addition, Construction Code practices 

have evolved based on design and 

construction experience. The NRC is 

concerned that some of the Construction 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
2338 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Codes would not require a surface 

examination of the weld overlay and 

would, therefore, be inadequate for NDE 

of the completed weld overlay. The NRC 

believes that a VT–1 examination alone 

would not be adequate and that a 

surface or volumetric examination must 

be performed on the completed weld 

overlay for Class 1 and Class 2 piping 

socket welds. Fabrication defects must 

be dispositioned using the surface or 

volumetric examination criteria of the 

Construction Code, as identified in the 

Repair/Replacement Plan. 

Public commenters requested that the 

words ‘‘and seal weld’’ be removed from 

the condition because the phrase 

implies that the seal weld requires 

surface examination in addition to 

surface examination of the final overlay. 

The Code Case requires a visual 

examination of the seal weld, remaining 

socket weld, and adjacent base material 

before the weld overlay can be applied, 

which the NRC has determined is the 

appropriate examination prior to the 

application of the weld overlay. 

Therefore, proposed Condition (1) has 

been revised to remove ‘‘and seal weld.’’ 

In the proposed rule, the NRC 

included a second condition, which 

required that if a surface or volumetric 

examination of the completed weld 

overlay was not required by the plantspecific Construction Code, that a VT– 

1 visual examination be performed of 

the weld overlay. Paragraph 5(a) of the 

Code Case requires ‘‘visual and 

nondestructive examination of the final 

structural overlay weld.’’ Paragraph 

5(a)(1) of the Code Case specifically 

requires a VT–1 visual examination of 

the completed weld overlay. Public 

commenters requested that the NRC 

remove the second condition because it 

was redundant and unnecessary. The 

NRC staff agrees and thus Condition (2) 

has been removed from the final rule. 

Code Case N–749 [Supplement 9, 2010 

Edition] 

Type: New. 

Title: Alternative Acceptance Criteria 

for Flaws in Ferritic Steel Components 

Operating in the Upper Shelf 

Temperature Range, Section XI, 

Division 1. 

The NRC has determined that instead 

of the upper shelf transition 

temperature, Tc, as defined in the Code 

Case, the following shall be used: 

Tc = 154.8 °F + 0.82 × RTNDT (in U.S 

Customary Units), and 

Tc = 82.8 °C + 0.82 × RTNDT (in 

International System (SI) Units). 

Tc is the temperature above which the 

elastic plastic fracture mechanics 

(EPFM) method must be applied. 

Additionally, the NRC defines 

temperature Tc1 below, which the linear 

elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) 

method must be applied: 

Tc1 = 95.36 °F + 0.703 × RTNDT (in U.S 

Customary Units), and 

Tc1 = 47.7 °C + 0.703 × RTNDT (in 

International System (SI) Units). 

Between Tc1 and Tc, while the fracture 

mode is in transition from LEFM to 

EPFM, users should consider whether or 

not it is appropriate to apply the EPFM 

method. Alternatively, the licensee may 

use a different Tc value, if it can be 

justified by plant-specific Charpy 

curves. 

Code Case N–749 provides acceptance 

criteria for flaws in ferritic components 

for conditions when the material 

fracture resistance will be controlled by 

upper-shelf toughness behavior. These 

procedures may be used to accept a flaw 

in lieu of the requirements in Section 

XI, paragraphs IWB–3610 and IWB– 

3620, which use LEFM to evaluate flaws 

that exceed limits of Section XI, 

paragraph IWB–3500. Code Case N–749 

employs EPFM methods (J-integral) and 

is patterned after the fracture 

methodology and acceptance criteria 

that currently exist in Section XI, 

paragraph IWB–3730(b), and Section XI, 

Nonmandatory Appendix K, 

‘‘Assessment of Reactor Vessels with 

Upper Shelf Charpy Impact Energy 

Levels.’’ The Code Case states that the 

proposed methodology is applicable if 

the metal temperature of the component 

exceeds the upper shelf transition 

temperature, Tc, which is defined as nilductility reference temperature (RTNDT) 

plus 105 degrees F. The justification for 

this, as documented in the underlying 

White Paper, PVP2012–78190, 

‘‘Alternative Acceptance Criteria for 

Flaws in Ferritic Steel Components 

Operating in the Upper Shelf 

Temperature Range,’’ is that the ASME 

BPV Code, Section XI, K1c curve will 

give a (T¥ RTNDT) value of 105 degrees 

F at K1c of 200 ksi√inch. 

Defining an upper shelf transition 

temperature purely based on LEFM data 

is not convincing because it ignores 

EPFM data and Charpy data and their 

relationship to the LEFM data. The NRC 

staff performed calculations on several 

randomly selected reactor pressure 

vessel surveillance materials with high 

upper-shelf energy values and low 

RTNDT values from three plants and 

found that using Tc, as defined in the 

Code Case, is nonconservative because 

at the temperature of RTNDT + 105 

degrees F, the Charpy curves show that 

most of the materials will not reach 

their respective upper-shelf energy 

levels. The NRC staff’s condition is 

based on a 2015 ASME Pressure Vessels 

and Piping Conference paper (PVP2015– 

45307) by Mark Kirk, Gary Stevens, 

Marjorie Erickson, William Server, and 

Hal Gustin entitled, ‘‘Options for 

Defining the Upper Shelf Transition 

Temperature (Tc) for Ferritic Pressure 

Vessel Steels,’’ where Tc and Tc1 are 

defined as the intersections of specific 

toughness curves of LEFM data and 

EPFM data, as shown in that paper. 

Using the model in the 2015 PVP paper 

is justified because, in addition to its 

theoretically motivated approach in 

applying the temperature-dependent 

flow behavior of body-centered cubic 

materials, the model is also supported 

by numerous LEFM data and 809 EPFM 

data in the upper shelf region. 

While the Tc proposed in Code Case 

N–749 is conservative based on the 

intersection of the mean curves of the 

two sets of data, the NRC determined 

that actual or bounding properties (on 

the conservative side) should be used 

instead of mean material properties for 

evaluating flaws detected in a ferritic 

component using the EPFM approach. 

This will prevent inaccurate component 

failure predictions using the EPFM 

approach, due to overestimated material 

properties. Further, the NRC’s approach 

considers the temperature range for 

fracture mode transition between LEFM 

and EPFM. Based on the previous 

discussion, the NRC is imposing a 

condition on the use of Code Case N– 

749 that: (1) The two equations for Tc be 

used instead of Tc, as proposed in the 

Code Case for requiring EPFM 

application, when the temperature is 

above Tc, and (2) the two equations for 

Tc1 be used for requiring LEFM 

application when temperature is below 

Tc1. Between Tc1 and Tc, while the 

fracture mode is in transition between 

LEFM and EPFM, users should consider 

whether or not it is appropriate to apply 

the EPFM method. 

Alternatively, the licensee may use a 

different Tc value, if it can be justified 

by plant-specific Charpy curves. 

Code Case N–754 [Supplement 6, 2010 

Edition] 

Type: New. 

Title: Optimized Structural Dissimilar 

Metal Weld Overlay for Mitigation of 

PWR Class 1 Items, Section XI, Division 

1. 

The NRC approves Code Case N–754 

with three conditions. Code Case N–754 

provides requirements for installing 

optimized structural weld overlays 

(OWOL) on the outside surface of ASME 

Class 1 heavy-wall, large-diameter 

piping composed of ferritic, austenitic 

stainless steel, and nickel based alloy 

materials in pressurized water reactors 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2339 

(PWRs) as a mitigation measure, where 

no known defect exists or the defect 

depth is limited to 50 percent through 

wall. The upper 25 percent of the 

original pipe wall thickness is credited 

as a part of the OWOL design in the 

analyses performed, in support of these 

repairs. The technical basis supporting 

the use of OWOLs is provided in the 

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 

Materials Reliability Project (MRP) 

Report MRP–169, Revision 1–A, 

entitled, ‘‘Technical Basis for 

Preemptive Weld Overlays for Alloy 82/ 

182 Butt Welds in PWRs.’’ By letter 

dated August 9, 2010 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML101620010), the NRC 

informed the Nuclear Energy Institute 

(NEI) that the staff found that MRP–169, 

Revision 1, as revised by letter dated 

February 3, 2010, adequately described: 

(1) Methods for the weld overlay design; 

(2) the supporting analyses of the 

design; (3) the experiments that verified 

the analyses; and (4) the inspection 

requirements of the dissimilar metal 

welds to be overlaid. However, the NRC 

identified the following conditions. 

The first condition requires that the 

conditions imposed on the use of 

OWOLs contained in the NRC final 

safety evaluation for MRP–169, Revision 

1–A, must be satisfied. Eighteen 

limitations and conditions are described 

in the final safety evaluation that 

address issues such as fatigue crack 

growth rates, piping loads, design life of 

the weld overlay, and reexamination 

frequencies. The imposition of the 

conditions in the safety evaluation 

provide reasonable assurance that the 

structural integrity of the pipes repaired 

through the use of weld overlays will be 

maintained. 

Code Case N–754 references Code 

Case N–770–2, ‘‘Alternative 

Examination Requirements and 

Acceptance Standards for Class 1 

Pressure Water Reactor (PWR) Piping 

and Vessel Nozzle Butt Welds 

Fabricated With UNS N06082 or UNS 

W86182 Weld Filler Material With or 

Without Application of Listed 

Mitigation Activities, Section XI, 

Division 1.’’ The reference to Code Case 

N–770–2 provides the ASME 

requirements for the performance of the 

preservice and ISI examinations of 

OWOLs, with additional requirements if 

the ultrasonic examination is qualified 

for axial flaws. The NRC approved Code 

Case N–770–2 with conditions in 

§ 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F) on July 18, 2017 (82 

FR 32934). Accordingly, the second 

condition on the use of Code Case N– 

754 is that the preservice and inservice 

inspections of OWOLs must satisfy 

§ 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F), i.e., meet the 

provisions of Code Case N–770–2. 

The third condition addresses a 

potential implementation issue in Code 

Case N–754 with respect to the 

deposition of the first layer of weld 

metal. The second sentence in 

paragraph 1.2(f)(2) states that ‘‘The first 

layer of weld metal deposited may not 

be credited toward the required 

thickness, but the presence of this layer 

shall be considered in the design 

analysis requirements in 2(b).’’ The NRC 

found that, among licensees, there can 

be various interpretations of the words 

used in the ASME BPV Code and Code 

Cases. In this instance, the NRC 

determined that the word ‘‘may’’ needed 

to be changed to ‘‘shall’’ in the second 

sentence in paragraph 1.2(f)(2), as a 

condition for use of this Code Case. 

Accordingly, the NRC is adding a third 

condition to clarify that the first layer 

shall not be credited toward the 

required OWOL thickness unless the 

chromium content of the first layer is at 

least 24 percent. 

Code Case N–778 [Supplement 6, 2010 

Edition] 

Type: New. 

Title: Alternative Requirements for 

Preparation and Submittal of Inservice 

Inspection Plans, Schedules, and 

Preservice and Inservice Summary 

Reports, Section XI, Division 1. 

The NRC is approving Code Case N– 

778 with two conditions. Section XI, 

paragraph IWA–1400(d), in the editions 

and addenda currently used by the 

operating fleet, requires licensees to 

submit plans, schedules, and preservice 

and ISI summary reports to the 

enforcement and regulatory authorities 

having jurisdiction at the plant site. In 

the licensees’ pursuit to decrease 

burden, they have alluded to the 

resources associated with the 

requirement to submit the items 

previously listed. Code Case N–778 was 

developed to provide an alternative to 

the requirements in the ASME BPV 

Code, in that the items previously listed 

would only have to be submitted if 

specifically required by the regulatory 

and enforcement authorities. 

The NRC reviewed its needs with 

respect to the submittal of the subject 

plans, schedules, and reports, and 

determined that it is not necessary to 

require the submittal of plans and 

schedules. The NRC made this 

determination because the latest 

up-to-date plans and schedules are 

available at the plant site and can be 

requested by the NRC at any time. 

However, the NRC determined that 

summary reports still need to be 

submitted. Summary reports provide 

valuable information regarding 

examinations that have been performed, 

conditions noted during the 

examinations, the corrective actions 

performed, and the status of the 

implementation of the ISI program. 

Accordingly, the NRC is approving Code 

Case N–778 with conditions to require 

that licensees continue to submit 

summary reports in accordance with 

paragraph IWA–6240 of the 2009 

Addenda of ASME Section XI, as 

addressed below. 

The two conditions are modeled on 

the requirements currently in paragraph 

IWA–6240 of the 2009 Addenda, 

Section XI. The requirements in Section 

XI do not specify when the reports are 

to be submitted to the regulatory 

authority; rather, the requirements only 

state that the reports shall be completed. 

The first condition requires that the 

preservice inspection summary report 

be submitted before the date of 

placement of the unit into commercial 

service. The second condition requires 

that the ISI summary report be 

submitted within 90 calendar days of 

the completion of each refueling outage. 

The conditions rely on the date of 

commercial service and the completion 

of a refueling outage to determine when 

the reports are needed to be submitted 

to the regulatory authority. 

Code Case N–789 [Supplement 6, 2010 

Edition] 

Type: New. 

Title: Alternative Requirements for 

Pad Reinforcement of Class 2 and 3 

Moderate-Energy Carbon Steel Piping 

for Raw Water Service, Section XI, 

Division 1. 

The NRC is approving Code Case N– 

789 with one condition. For certain 

types of degradation, the Code Case 

provides requirements for the temporary 

repair of degraded moderate energy 

Class 2 and Class 3 piping systems by 

external application of welded 

reinforcement pads. The Code Case does 

not require inservice monitoring for the 

pressure pad. However, the NRC 

determined that it is unacceptable to not 

monitor the pressure pad because there 

may be instances where an unexpected 

corrosion rate may cause the degraded 

area in the pipe to expand beyond the 

area that is covered by the pressure pad. 

This could lead to the pipe leaking and 

may challenge the structural integrity of 

the repaired pipe. Therefore, the NRC is 

approving Code Case N–789 with a 

condition to require a monthly visual 

examination of the installed pressure 

pad for evidence of leakage. 

In the proposed rule, the NRC 

expressed concern that the corrosion 

rate specified in paragraph 3.1(1) of the 

Code Case may not address certain 

scenarios. That paragraph would allow 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
2340 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

either a corrosion rate of two times the 

actual measured corrosion rate at the 

reinforcement pad installation location 

or four times the estimated maximum 

corrosion rate for the system. To ensure 

that a conservative corrosion rate is 

used to provide sufficient margin, the 

NRC considered adding a second 

condition that requires that the design 

of the pressure pad use the higher of the 

two corrosion rates calculated, based on 

the same degradation mechanism as the 

degraded location. However, as a result 

of a public comment, the NRC 

reconsidered and determined that using 

a corrosion rate of either two times the 

actual measured corrosion rate in that 

location, or four times the estimated 

maximum corrosion rate for the system, 

already provides a sufficiently 

conservative estimate of the corrosion 

rate; therefore, a condition is not 

needed. 

Code Case N–795 [Supplement 3, 2010 

Edition] 

Type: New. 

Title: Alternative Requirements for 

BWR Class 1 System Leakage Test 

Pressure Following Repair/Replacement 

Activities, Section XI, Division 1. 

The NRC is approving Code Case N– 

795 with two conditions. The first 

condition addresses a prohibition 

against the production of heat through 

the use of a critical reactor core to raise 

the temperature of the reactor coolant 

and pressurize the reactor coolant 

pressure boundary (RCPB) (sometimes 

referred to as nuclear heat). The second 

condition addresses the duration of the 

hold time when testing non-insulated 

components to allow potential leakage 

to manifest itself during the 

performance of system leakage tests. 

Code Case N–795 was intended to 

address concerns that performing the 

ASME-required pressure test for boiling 

water reactors (BWRs) under shutdown 

conditions, (1) places the unit in a 

position of significantly reduced 

margin, approaching the fracture 

toughness limits defined in the 

Technical Specification 

Pressure-Temperature (P–T) curves, and 

(2) requires abnormal plant conditions/ 

alignments, incurring additional risks 

and delays, while providing little added 

benefit beyond tests, which could be 

performed at slightly reduced pressures 

under normal plant conditions. 

However, due to restrictions imposed by 

the pressure control systems, most 

BWRs cannot obtain reactor pressure 

corresponding to 100 percent rated 

power during normal startup operations 

at low power levels that would be 

conducive to performing examinations 

for leakage. The alternative test, 

provided by Code Case N–795, would be 

performed at slightly reduced pressures 

and normal plant conditions, which the 

NRC finds will constitute an adequate 

leak examination and would reduce the 

risk associated with abnormal plant 

conditions and alignments. 

However, the NRC has had a longstanding prohibition against the 

production of heat through the use of a 

critical reactor core to raise the 

temperature of the reactor coolant and 

pressurize the RCPB. A letter dated 

February 2, 1990, from James M. Taylor, 

Executive Director for Operations, NRC, 

to Messrs. Nicholas S. Reynolds and 

Daniel F. Stenger, Nuclear Utility 

Backfitting and Reform Group (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML14273A002), 

established the NRC position with 

respect to use of a critical reactor core 

to raise the temperature of the reactor 

coolant and pressurize the RCPB. In 

summary, the NRC’s position is that 

testing under these conditions involves 

serious impediments to careful and 

complete inspections, and therefore, 

inherent uncertainty with regard to 

assuring the integrity of the RCPB. 

Further, the practice is not consistent 

with basic defense-in-depth safety 

principles. 

The NRC’s position established in 

1990, was reaffirmed in Information 

Notice No. 98–13, ‘‘Post-Refueling 

Outage Reactor Pressure Vessel Leakage 

Testing Before Core Criticality,’’ dated 

April 20, 1998. The Information Notice 

was issued in response to a licensee that 

had conducted an ASME BPV Code, 

Section XI, leakage test of the reactor 

pressure vessel and subsequently 

discovered that it had violated 10 CFR 

part 50, appendix G, IV.A.2.d. This 

regulation states that pressure tests and 

leak tests of the reactor vessel that are 

required by Section XI of the ASME 

Code must be completed before the core 

is critical. The Information Notice 

references NRC Inspection Report 50– 

254/97–27 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML15216A276), which documents that 

licensee personnel performing VT–2 

examinations of the drywell at one BWR 

plant covered 50 examination areas in 

12 minutes, calling into question the 

adequacy of the VT–2 examinations. 

The bases for the NRC’s historical 

prohibition of pressure testing with the 

core critical can be summarized as 

follows: 

1. Nuclear operation of a plant should 

not commence before completion of 

system hydrostatic and leakage testing 

to verify the basic integrity of the RCPB, 

a principal defense-in-depth barrier to 

the accidental release of fission 

products. In accordance with the 

defense-in-depth safety precept, the 

nuclear power plant design provides for 

multiple barriers to the accidental 

release of fission products from the 

reactor. 

2. Hydrotesting must be done 

essentially water solid (i.e., free of 

pockets of air, steam or other gases) so 

that stored energy in the reactor coolant 

is minimized during a hydrotest or 

leaktest. 

3. The elevated reactor coolant 

temperatures, associated with critical 

operation, result in a severely 

uncomfortable and difficult working 

environment in plant spaces where the 

system leakage inspections must be 

conducted. The greatly increased stored 

energy in the reactor coolant, when the 

reactor is critical, increases the hazard 

to personnel and equipment in the event 

of a leak. As a result, the ability for 

plant workers to perform a 

comprehensive and careful inspection 

becomes greatly diminished. 

However, the NRC staff has 

determined that pressure testing with 

the core critical is acceptable, if 

performed after repairs of a limited 

scope, where only a few locations or a 

limited area needs to be examined, and 

when ASME Code Section XI, Table 

IWB–2500–1, Category B–P (the 

pressure test required once per cycle of 

the entire RCPB), has been recently 

performed, thus verifying the integrity 

of the overall RCPB. The NRC also notes 

that Code Case N–795 does not allow for 

the use of the alternative test pressure 

following repairs/replacements on the 

RPV, therefore it does not violate 10 

CFR part 50, Appendix G. The NRC 

determined that the risk associated with 

nuclear heat at low power is comparable 

with the risk to the plant, when the test 

is performed without nuclear heat (with 

the core subcritical) during mid-cycle 

outages, when decay heat must be 

managed. Performing the pressure test 

under shutdown conditions at full 

operating pressure without nuclear heat 

requires securing certain key pressure 

control, heat removal, and safety 

systems. Under such conditions, it is 

more difficult to control temperature 

and pressure, when there is significant 

decay heat production, such as after a 

mid-cycle outage, which may reduce the 

margin available to prevent exceeding 

the plant pressure-temperature limits. 

The scope of repairs should be 

relatively small, when the pressure test 

is conducted using nuclear heat, in 

order to minimize the personnel safety 

risk and to avoid rushed examinations. 

Code Case N–795 does not place any 

restrictions on the size or scope of the 

repairs for which the alternative may be 

used, other than the alternative test 

pressure may not be used to satisfy 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2341 

pressure test requirements following 

repair/replacement activities on the 

reactor vessel. It is impractical to 

specify a particular number of welded 

or mechanical repairs that would 

constitute a ‘‘limited scope.’’ However, 

if the plant is still in a refueling outage 

and has already performed the ASME 

Section XI Category B–P pressure test of 

the entire RCPB, it is likely that 

subsequent repairs would be performed 

only on an emergent basis, and would 

generally be of a limited scope. 

Additionally, the overall integrity of the 

RCPB will have been recently confirmed 

via the Category B–P test. For mid-cycle 

maintenance outages, the first condition 

allows the use of nuclear heat to 

perform the test, if the outage duration 

is fourteen (14) days or less. This would 

tend to limit the scope of repairs, and 

also limit use of the Code Case to 

outages when decay heat was a 

significant problem. Therefore, the first 

condition on Code Case N–795 states: 

‘‘The use of nuclear heat to conduct the BWR 

Class 1 system leakage test is prohibited (i.e., 

the reactor must be in a non-critical state), 

except during refueling outages in which the 

ASME Section XI Category B–P pressure test 

has already been performed, or at the end of 

mid-cycle maintenance outages fourteen (14) 

days or less in duration.’’ 

With respect to the second condition 

and adequate pressure test hold time, 

the technical analysis supporting Code 

Case N–795 indicates that the lower test 

pressure provides more than 90 percent 

of the flow, which would result from the 

pressure corresponding to 100 percent 

power. However, a reduced pressure 

means a lower leakage rate, so 

additional time is required in order for 

there to be sufficient leakage to be 

observed by inspection personnel. 

Section XI, paragraph IWA–5213, ‘‘Test 

Condition Holding Time,’’ does not 

require a holding time for Class 1 

components, once test pressure is 

obtained. To account for the reduced 

pressure, Code Case N–795 would 

require a 15-minute hold time for noninsulated components. The NRC has 

determined that 15 minutes does not 

allow for an adequate examination, 

because it is not possible to predict the 

entire range of scenarios or types of 

defects that could result in leakage. 

While some types of defects could result 

in immediate leakage, such as an 

improperly torqued bolted connection; 

other types of defects, such as weld 

defects or tight cracks could represent a 

more torturous path for leakage and may 

result in delayed leakage. The staff 

determined that, due to the uncertainty 

in the time required for leakage to occur 

to an extent, it would be readily 

detectable by visual examination, hence, 

it is appropriate to conservatively 

specify a longer hold time of 1 hour for 

non-insulated components. Therefore, 

the final rule retains the one hour hold 

time for non-insulated components. 

Code Case N–799 [Supplement 4, 2010 

Edition] 

Type: New. 

Title: Dissimilar Metal Welds Joining 

Vessel Nozzles to Components, Section 

XI, Division 1. 

The NRC approves Code Case N–799 

with four conditions. Code Case N–799 

is a new Code Case developed to 

provide examination requirements for 

the steam generator primary nozzle to 

pump casing attachment weld for AP– 

1000 plants and dissimilar metal welds 

joining vessel nozzles to pumps used in 

recent reactor designs (e.g., AP–1000, 

Advanced BWR). Nuclear power plant 

pump casings are typically 

manufactured from cast austenitic 

stainless steel (CASS) materials. The 

NRC is approving the Code Case with 

conditions to address the shortcomings 

in the Code Case with respect to 

requirements for ultrasonic 

examination. 

The CASS is an anisotropic and 

inhomogeneous material. The 

manufacturing process can result in 

varied and mixed structures. The large 

size of the anisotropic grains affects the 

propagation of ultrasound by causing 

severe attenuation, changes in velocity, 

and scattering of ultrasonic energy. 

Refraction and reflection of the sound 

beam occurs at the grain boundaries, 

which can result in specific volumes of 

material not being examined, or defects 

being missed or mischaracterized. The 

grain structure of the associated 

weldments also impacts the 

effectiveness and reliability of the 

examinations. Accordingly, it is 

paramount that robust examination 

techniques be used. 

Research has been conducted by 

several domestic and international 

organizations attempting to address the 

shortcomings associated with the use of 

conventional methods for the inspection 

of CASS materials. The results of a 

study at Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory (PNNL) were published in 

NUREG/CR–6933, ‘‘Assessment of Crack 

Detection in Heavy-Walled Cast 

Stainless Steel Piping Welds Using 

Advanced Low-Frequency Ultrasonic 

Methods’’ (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML071020409). The study demonstrated 

that additional measures were required 

to reliably detect and characterize flaws 

in CASS materials and their associated 

weldments. 

Performance demonstration 

requirements for CASS components and 

associated weldments have not yet been 

developed by the industry. To ensure 

that effective and reliable examinations 

are performed, the NRC is adopting the 

following four conditions on the Code 

Case. 

The first condition addresses the gap 

between the probe and component 

surface. Industry experience shows that 

effective ultrasonic examinations 

depend, to a great extent, on limiting the 

gap between the probe and component 

surface to less than 0.032-inch. The BPV 

Code does not have any requirements 

with respect to surface smoothness and 

waviness. It has been demonstrated that 

reduced coupling and probe lift-off on 

‘‘rough’’ surfaces have the potential to 

present a scattering effect at an interface 

where an acoustic beam impinges, to 

redirect and mode convert some energy, 

which when returned to the probe can 

be the source of spurious signals, or 

cause flaws to be mis-characterized or 

missed altogether. Accordingly, the first 

condition requires that the scanning 

surfaces have a gap less than 0.032-inch 

beneath the ultrasonic testing probe. 

Gaps greater than 0.032-inch must be 

considered to be unexamined, unless it 

can be demonstrated, on representative 

mockups, that a Section XI, Appendix 

VIII, Supplement 10, demonstration can 

be passed. 

The second condition (No. 2a in DG– 

1296) is that the examination 

requirements of Section XI, Mandatory 

Appendix I, paragraph I–3200(c) must 

be applied. Code Case N–799 does not 

contain specific requirements regarding 

examination techniques. Paragraph I– 

3200(c) contains specific requirements 

that can be applied. 

The third condition (No. 2c in DG– 

1296) is that ultrasonic depth and sizing 

qualifications for CASS components 

must use the ASME BPV Code 

requirements in Section XI, Appendix 

VIII, Supplement 10. Supplement 10 

contains qualification requirements for 

dissimilar metal welds, and the use of 

these requirements will ensure that 

robust techniques are applied. 

The fourth condition (No. 2e in DG– 

1296) is that cracks that are detected but 

cannot be depth-sized with 

performance-based procedures, 

equipment, and personnel qualifications 

consistent with ASME Code Section XI, 

Appendix VIII, shall be repaired or 

removed. 

OM Code Cases (RG 1.192) 

Code Case OMN–1, Revision 1 [2012 

Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Alternative Rules for Preservice 

and Inservice Testing of Active Electric 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
2342 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Motor-Operated Valve Assemblies in 

Light-Water Reactor Power Plants. 

The conditions on Code Case OMN– 

1, Revision 1 [2012 Edition] are 

identical to the conditions on OMN–1 

[2006 Addenda] that were approved by 

the NRC in Revision 1 of RG 1.192 in 

October 2014. The reasons for imposing 

these conditions are not resolved by 

Code Case OMN–1, Revision 1 [2012 

Edition] and, therefore, these conditions 

have been retained in Revision 2 of RG 

1.192. 

Code Case OMN–3 [2012 Edition] 

Type: Reaffirmed. 

Title: Requirements for Safety 

Significance Categorization of 

Components Using Risk Insights for 

Inservice Testing of LWR Power Plants. 

The conditions on Code Case OMN– 

3 [2012 Edition] are identical to the 

conditions on OMN–3 [2004 Edition] 

that were approved by the NRC in 

Revision 1 of RG 1.192 in October 2014. 

The reasons for imposing these 

conditions are not resolved by Code 

Case OMN–3 [2012 Edition] and, 

therefore, these conditions have been 

retained in Revision 2 of RG 1.192. 

Code Case OMN–4 [2012 Edition] 

Type: Reaffirmed. 

Title: Requirements for Risk Insights 

for Inservice Testing of Check Valves at 

LWR Power Plants. 

The conditions on Code Case OMN– 

4 [2012 Edition] are identical to the 

conditions on OMN–4 [2004 Edition] 

that were approved by the NRC in 

Revision 1 of RG 1.192 in October 2014. 

The reasons for imposing these 

conditions are not resolved by Code 

Case OMN–4 [2012 Edition] and, 

therefore, these conditions have been 

retained in Revision 2 of RG 1.192. 

Code Case OMN–9 [2012 Edition] 

Type: Reaffirmed. 

Title: Use of a Pump Curve for 

Testing. 

The conditions on Code Case OMN– 

9 [2012 Edition] are identical to the 

conditions on OMN–9 [2004 Edition] 

that were approved by the NRC in 

Revision 1 of RG 1.192 in October 2014. 

The reasons for imposing these 

conditions are not resolved by Code 

Case OMN–9 [2012 Edition] and, 

therefore, these conditions have been 

retained in Revision 2 of RG 1.192. 

Code Case OMN–12 [2012 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 conditions on Code Case OMN– 

12 [2012 Edition] are identical to the 

conditions on OMN–12 [2004 Edition] 

that were approved by the NRC in 

Revision 1 of RG 1.192 in October 2014. 

The reasons for imposing these 

conditions are not resolved by Code 

Case OMN–12 [2012 Edition] and, 

therefore, these conditions have been 

retained in Revision 2 of RG 1.192. 

Code Case OMN–16, Revision 1 [2012 

Edition] 

Type: Revised. 

Title: Use of a Pump Curve for 

Testing. 

Code Case OMN–16, 2006 Addenda, 

was approved by the NRC in Regulatory 

Guide 1.192, Revision 1. With respect to 

Code Case OMN–16, Revision 1, 2012 

Edition, there was an editorial error in 

the publishing of this Code Case in that 

Figure 1 from the original Code Case 

(i.e., Rev. 0, 2006 Addenda) was 

omitted. Accordingly, the NRC approves 

OMN–16, Revision 1, with a condition 

requiring that Figure 1 from the original 

Code Case be used when implementing 

OMN–16, Revision 1. 

Code Case OMN–18 [2012 Edition] 

Type: Reaffirmed. 

Title: Alternate Testing Requirements 

for Pumps Tested Quarterly Within 

±20% of Design Flow. 

The ASME OM Code defines Group A 

pumps as those pumps that are operated 

continuously or routinely during normal 

operation, cold shutdown, or refueling 

operations. The OM Code specifies that 

each Group A pump undergoes a Group 

A test quarterly and a comprehensive 

test biennially. The OM Code requires 

that the reference value for a 

comprehensive test to be within 20 

percent of pump design flow, while the 

reference value for a Group A test needs 

to be within 20 percent of the pump 

design flow, if practicable. The biennial 

comprehensive test was developed (first 

appeared in the 1995 Edition of the OM 

Code) because pump performance 

concerns demonstrated that more 

stringent periodic testing was needed at 

a flow rate within a more reasonable 

range of the pump design flow rate, than 

typically performed during the pump 

IST in the past. 

Currently, when performing either the 

quarterly Group A test or the biennial 

comprehensive pump test, licensees 

must comply with certain limits for the 

flow Acceptable Range, the flow 

Required Action Range, the differential 

pressure (or discharge pressure) 

Acceptable Range, and the differential 

pressure (or discharge pressure) 

Required Action Range. The limits for 

the quarterly Group A test are obtained 

by using a factor of 1.10 times the flow 

reference value (Qr) or the differential or 

discharge pressure reference value (DPr

or Pr), as applicable to the pump type. 

The limits for the biennial 

comprehensive pump test are obtained 

by using the factor of 1.03 times Qr or 

DPr (or Pr), as applicable to the pump 

type, providing more restrictive test 

ranges and higher quality data. 

Code Case OMN–18, 2012 Edition, 

would remove the Code requirement to 

perform a biennial comprehensive 

pump test, where the quarterly Group A 

pump test is performed within ±20 

percent of the pump design flow rate, 

with instruments having the ability to 

obtain the accuracies required for the 

comprehensive pump test. The NRC 

finds the performance of a quarterly 

Group A pump test, at flow within ±20 

percent of the pump design flow rate, 

will be sufficient to detect mechanical 

and hydraulic degradation of the tested 

pump. The NRC finds that this will 

satisfy the intent of the biennial 

comprehensive pump test, with the 

exception that the test acceptable ranges 

and required action ranges are less 

precise than required for the 

comprehensive test. Therefore, the NRC 

approves Code Case OMN–18, 2012 

Edition, with a condition to specify the 

use of a factor of 1.06 for the Group A 

test parameters, to be consistent with 

the test ranges for the comprehensive 

test. The NRC concludes that the factor 

of 1.06 will provide a reasonable test 

range, when applying Code Case OMN– 

18 to Group A pumps tested quarterly, 

within ±20 percent of the pump design 

flow rate. The NRC finds that the 

quarterly Group A test for pumps within 

±20 percent of the pump design flow 

rate, combined with the provisions in 

the Code Case OMN–18 for the pump 

instrumentation and the conditions in 

RG 1.192 for the test ranges, will 

provide reasonable assurance of the 

operational readiness of these pumps, as 

an acceptable alternative to the 

comprehensive pump test provisions in 

the ASME OM Code. 

Code Case OMN–19 [2012 Edition] 

Type: Reaffirmed. 

Title: Alternative Upper Limit for the 

Comprehensive Pump Test. 

A requirement for a periodic pump 

verification test was added in 

Mandatory Appendix V, ‘‘Pump 

Periodic Verification Test Program,’’ to 

the 2012 Edition of the OM Code. The 

mandatory appendix is based on the 

determination by the ASME that a pump 

periodic verification test is needed to 

confirm that a pump can meet the 

required (differential or discharge) 

pressure as applicable, at its highest 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2343 

design basis accident flow rate. Code 

Case OMN–19, 2012 Edition, would 

allow an applicant or licensee to use a 

multiplier of 1.06 times the reference 

value in lieu of the 1.03 multiplier for 

the comprehensive pump test’s upper 

Acceptable Range criteria and Required 

Action Range, High criteria reference in 

the ISTB test acceptance criteria tables. 

The NRC considers Code Case OMN–19 

to be acceptable where the provisions of 

Appendix V for a pump periodic 

verification test as referenced by ISTB– 

1400 are also satisfied to detect 

mechanical and hydraulic degradation. 

Therefore, the NRC approves Code Case 

OMN–19, 2012 Edition, with the 

condition that the provisions in 

paragraph ISTB–1400 and Mandatory 

Appendix V be applied when 

implementing the Code Case. 

Code Case OMN–20 [2012 Edition] 

Type: New. 

Title: Inservice Testing Frequency. 

Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.3 

from Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.6, 

‘‘Inservice Testing Program,’’ allows 

licensees to apply a delay period before 

declaring the SR for TS equipment ‘‘not 

met,’’ if a licensee inadvertently exceeds 

or misses the time limit for performing 

the TS surveillance. Licensees have 

been applying SR 3.0.3 to inservice tests 

performed in accordance with the 

ASME Codes. The NRC has determined 

that licensees cannot use TS 5.5.6 to 

apply SR 3.0.3 to inservice tests under 

§ 50.55a(f) that are not associated with 

a TS surveillance. To invoke SR 3.0.3, 

the licensee must first discover that a TS 

surveillance was not performed at its 

specified frequency. Therefore, the 

delay period that SR 3.0.3 provides does 

not apply to non-TS support 

components tested under § 50.55a(f). 

The OM Code does not provide for 

inservice test frequency reductions or 

extensions. In order to provide inservice 

test frequency reductions or extensions 

that cannot be provided by SR 3.0.3 

from TS 5.5.6, ASME developed OM 

Code Case OMN–20. The NRC has 

reviewed OM Code Case OMN–20 and 

has found it acceptable for use. The 

NRC determined that OM Code Case 

OMN–20 may be applied to editions and 

addenda of the OM Code that are listed 

in § 50.55a(a)(1)(iv). Therefore, the NRC 

has included a condition in RG 1.192, 

specifying that Code Case OMN–20 is 

applicable to editions and addenda of 

the OM Code listed in § 50.55a(a)(1)(iv). 

C. ASME Code Cases Not Approved for 

Use (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 

the 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; RG 1.193 confirms the Code 

Cases that are not approved for use. The 

NRC is not adopting any of the Code 

Cases listed in RG 1.193. 

III. Opportunities for Public 

Participation 

The proposed rule and draft RGs were 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 2, 2016 (81 FR 10780), for a 75- 

day comment period. The public 

comment period closed on May 16, 

2016. 

After the close of the public comment 

period, the NRC held a public meeting 

on August 22, 2016, to discuss the status 

of this proposed rule. The public 

meeting summary is available in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML16265A001. 

IV. Public Comment Analysis 

The NRC received a total of seven 

comment submissions on the proposed 

rule and draft RGs. Table III lists the 

commenters, their affiliation, and the 

ADAMS Accession Number for each 

submission. 

TABLE III—COMMENT SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED ON THE PROPOSED RULE AND DRAFT RGS

Submission ID Commenter name Affiliation ADAMS 

accession No. 

1 ............................................................. Paul Donavin ......................................... Private Citizen ....................................... ML16063A509 

2 ............................................................. Gregory Frederick and Dan Patten ....... Electric Power Research Institute ......... ML16126A524 

3 ............................................................. Anonymous ........................................... Unknown ............................................... ML16133A422 

4 ............................................................. Charles Pierce ....................................... Southern Nuclear Operating Company ML16137A857 

5 ............................................................. Ralph Hill III ........................................... ASME .................................................... ML16138A835 

6 ............................................................. Mark Gowin ........................................... Private Citizen ....................................... ML16139A798 

7 ............................................................. David Helker .......................................... Exelon Generation Company, LLC ....... ML16153A432 

The NRC reviewed every comment 

submission and identified 32 unique 

comments requiring the NRC’s 

consideration and response. Comment 

summaries and the NRC’s responses are 

presented in this section. At the end of 

each summary, the individual 

comments represented by the summary 

are identified in the form [XX–YY] 

where XX represents the Submission ID 

in Table III and YY represents the 

sequential comment within the 

submission. 

Public Comments on Draft Regulatory 

Guides 

Regulatory Guide 1.84, Revision 37 

(DG–1295) 

No public comments were submitted 

regarding Regulatory Guide 1.84, 

Revision 37 (Draft Guide (DG)–1295), 

therefore no NRC response is needed. 

Regulatory Guide 1.147, Revision 18 

(DG–1296) 

Code Case N–552–1 

Comment: The proposed conditions 

on N–552–1 were incorporated into the 

ASME BPV Code, Section XI, 2005 

Addenda when Code Case N–552 was 

incorporated into the code. However, 

these conditions have never been 

incorporated into the Code Case itself. 

The proposed conditions are identical to 

those imposed on Code Case N–552 in 

Revision 16 of RG 1.147. ASME does not 

object to these conditions. [ASME 5–2] 

NRC Response: The NRC agrees with 

this comment. 

No change was made to the final rule 

as a result of this comment. 

Code Case N–576–2 

Comment: Because the NRC has 

adopted the 2008 Addenda with no 

conditions on IWA–4200, ASME 

recommends that the proposed 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
2344 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

condition be revised to state ‘‘. . . is to 

be performed in accordance with IWA– 

4200 of the code of record for the 

current ISI Program.’’ [ASME 5–3] 

NRC Response: The NRC agrees, in 

part, with this comment. The NRC staff 

has adopted the 2008 Addenda with no 

conditions on IWA–4200. However, the 

staff does not agree that the proposed 

condition/note in Regulatory Guide 

1.147 should be revised to state ‘‘. . . is 

to be performed in accordance with 

IWA–4200 of the code of record for the 

current ISI program’’, because there may 

be licensees whose code of record is 

prior to 2008 and such a condition is 

not necessary because licensees would 

be required to follow IWA–4200 in their 

code of record, if they were to adopt this 

Code Case. As a result, because use of 

the repair method described in this 

Code Case (N–576–2) requires the NRC’s 

review and approval prior to 

implementation and licensees will be 

required to follow IWA–4200 in their 

code of record, the NRC modified the 

‘‘note’’ on this Code Case to eliminate 

the portion of the ‘‘note’’ regarding 

reconciliation. The revised ‘‘note’’ now 

reads: 

‘‘Note: Steam generator tube repair 

methods require prior NRC approval 

through the Technical Specifications. 

This Code Case does not address certain 

aspects of this repair, e.g., the 

qualification of the inspection and 

plugging criteria necessary for staff 

approval of the repair method.’’ 

Code Case N–638–6 

Comment: Condition 1 was 

incorporated into IWA–4673(a)(2) of the 

2013 Edition when N–638–6 was 

incorporated into the Code. This 

condition has also been incorporated 

into N–638–8, which has been 

published in the 2015 Code Case Book. 

Condition (2) was incorporated into 

IWA–4671(b)(1) of the 2013 Edition 

when N–638–6 was incorporated into 

the Code. Because there were no 

conditions imposed on the use of IWA– 

4673(a)(2) or IWA–4671(b)(1) in the 

draft rule, to incorporate by reference 

the 2013 Edition of the ASME BPV 

Code, Section XI, ASME recommends 

that both of the proposed conditions be 

removed and Code Case N–638–6 be 

moved to Table 1 of RG 1.147, Revision 

18. [ASME 5–4] 

NRC Response: The NRC agrees, in 

part, with this comment. Regarding 

proposed Condition (1), the staff agrees 

that Condition (1) was incorporated into 

IWA–4673(a)(2) of the 2013 Edition of 

ASME BPV Code, Section XI, when 

ASME incorporated Code Case N–638– 

6 into the Section XI. Proposed 

Condition (1) was also addressed in 

Code Case N–638–8. However, Code 

Case N–638–6 does not address 

proposed Condition (1) and this version 

of the Code Case will be available for 

use by licensees who will not adopt the 

2013 Edition of Section XI for several 

years. Therefore, the NRC determined 

that it is appropriate to include 

proposed Condition (1) in RG 1.147, 

Revision 18. 

Regarding proposed Condition (2), 

Paragraph 1(b)(1) of Code Case N–638– 

6 contains changes from the previous 

version of the Code Case, which allows 

through-wall circumferential welds and 

includes additional requirements when 

performing repairs that utilize throughwall circumferential welds. At the time 

that this revision of the Code Case was 

approved by the ASME, the staff had 

concerns related to through-wall repairs. 

Subsequently, the NRC resolved its 

concerns. Therefore, the NRC 

determined that proposed Condition (2) 

is unnecessary. 

The NRC has removed proposed 

Condition (2) on Code Case N–638–6 

from the final RG 1.147, Revision 18. 

No change was made to the final rule 

as a result of this comment. 

Code Cases N–666 and N–666–1 

Comment: A new condition has been 

added to N–666, which is listed as a 

Superseded Code Case: A surface 

(magnetic particle or liquid penetrant) 

examination must be performed after 

installing the seal weld and weld 

overlay on Class 1 and 2 piping socket 

welds. The fabrication defects, if 

detected, must be dispositioned using 

the surface examination acceptance 

criteria of the Construction Code 

identified in the Repair/Replacement 

Plan. 

As stated in our comment on N–666– 

1, the phrase ‘‘seal weld and’’ should be 

removed from the first sentence. Also, 

the addition of a new condition to a 

Code Case that was previously 

unconditionally approved in the Reg. 

Guide, and is now superseded, seems 

inappropriate. Several plants would 

likely have this version of the Code Case 

in their Section XI ‘‘tool box’’ until the 

end of their current Inspection Interval, 

and would be apparently (but not 

obviously) bound by the new condition, 

upon issuance of the new revision to 

Regulatory Guide. The third paragraph 

under Section B. DISCUSSION, in the 

draft RG, includes the statement ‘‘If a 

Code Case is implemented by a licensee 

and a later version of the Code Case is 

incorporated by reference into 10 CFR 

50.55a and listed in Tables 1 and 2 

during the licensee’s present 120-month 

ISI program interval, that licensee may 

use either the later version or the 

previous version. An exception to this 

provision would be the inclusion of a 

limitation or condition on the use of the 

Code Case that is necessary, for 

example, to enhance safety.’’ Perhaps 

this could be supplemented with 

another sentence such as, ‘‘In this case, 

the condition will be entered for the 

superseded Code Case under Table 5.’’ 

[EPRI 2–4, Exelon 7–4] 

NRC Response: The NRC agrees with 

this comment. The condition shown in 

Table 5 of DG–1295 for Code Case N– 

666 was in error. 

The condition on Code Case N–666 in 

Table 5 from the final RG 1.147, 

Revision 18 has been removed. 

No change was made to the final rule 

as a result of this comment. 

Comment: Condition 1—The 

construction code may not always 

require a surface examination 

(depending on the construction code) on 

socket welds. This condition is 

appropriate. However, the words ‘‘and 

seal weld’’ in the first sentence should 

be removed from the condition because 

it is inappropriate to require surface 

examination of non-structural seal 

welds whose only function is to seal a 

leak. The ASME recommends revising 

this condition to remove the words ‘‘and 

seal weld’’ in the first sentence. 

Condition 2—This condition should be 

removed as 5(a)(1) already required a 

Visual VT–1 examination of completed 

weld overlays irrespective of the class of 

the joint. This condition is redundant 

and only causes confusion. ASME 

recommends removing this proposed 

condition. [EPRI 2–1, ASME 5–5] 

NRC Response: The NRC agrees with 

this comment. The function of the seal 

weld is to seal a leak so that sound 

weldment for the overlay can be 

applied. The code case requires a visual 

examination of the seal weld, remaining 

socket weld, and adjacent base material 

before the weld overlay can be applied, 

which the NRC has determined is the 

appropriate examination prior to the 

application of the weld overlay. 

Therefore, Condition 1 has been revised 

to remove ‘‘and seal weld.’’ Regarding 

Condition 2, the NRC agrees with the 

commenter. The code case requires a 

visual examination of the seal pass and 

the completed weld overlay and 

provides appropriate acceptance 

criteria. Therefore, the condition is 

redundant and unnecessary. Condition 

2 has been removed from Code Case N– 

666 in Table 2 from the final RG 1.147, 

Revision 18. 

No change was made to the final rule 

as a result of this comment. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2345 

Code Case N–711 

Comment: ASME recommends that 

this Code Case N–711 be removed from 

RG 1.193, Table 2 and added to Table 

2 of RG 1.147 with appropriate 

conditions to address NRC technical 

concerns with the use of this case. 

[ASME 5–10] 

NRC Response: The NRC disagrees 

with this comment. The NRC declines at 

this time to adopt the recommended 

changes to the regulatory guides. It 

would not be appropriate to include the 

Code Case in RG 1.147 without first 

having sought public comment on the 

adoption of the Code Case. Nonetheless, 

the NRC has reviewed the information 

provided by ASME and will consider 

approval of the Code Case in future 

rulemaking activities. 

No change was made to the final rule 

as a result of this comment. 

Code Case N–722–2 

Comment: ASME requests that the 

NRC identify any technical concerns 

with N–722–2 and list these concerns in 

R.G. 1.193, Table 2. [ASME 5–11] 

NRC Response: The NRC disagrees 

with this comment. The NRC disagrees 

with the comment because the NRC 

does not provide comments in the 

Regulatory Guide 1.193 on ASME Code 

Cases, which the NRC mandates for use 

as augmented inservice inspection 

programs under § 50.55a(g)(6)(ii). Any 

conditions that the NRC finds necessary 

to require are included under the 

particular section of § 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(D), 

(E) or (F), as applicable. This is to avoid 

confusion such that a stakeholder does 

not use versions of these ASME Code 

Cases in lieu of the mandated versions 

of the ASME Code Case in 

§ 50.55a(g)(6)(ii). However, in order to 

be responsive to the stakeholder 

comment, the NRC will provide the 

current concerns with the 

implementation of ASME Code Case N– 

722–2, as a response to this comment to 

be included in the Federal Register 

notice. 

The NRC currently finds ASME Code 

Case N–722–2 unacceptable as written 

due to the following main issues. First, 

the basis for the removal of the Parts 

Examined from N–722–1 was found to 

be in error. According to an ASME Code 

interpretation, XI–1–13–27, not all items 

removed in N–722–2 were covered by 

the inspection requirements of ASME 

Code Case N–770–1. The ASME Code 

Case N–722 will need to be revised with 

a new basis for the removal of Parts 

Examined to be considered for approval 

by the NRC. Second, Note 11 is not 

acceptable. The bases for this concern is 

the same basis as § 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F)(2), 

which restricts the application of this 

material condition to exempt volumetric 

and visual examination requirements in 

N–770–1. The NRC is concerned that 

the wording of this exemption may 

allow insufficiently mitigated items to 

be exempt from currently required 

visual inspection requirements for 

components containing alloy 600/82/ 

182 to maintain structural and leak-tight 

integrity. Once again though, it is not 

the intent of the NRC to include these 

items as conditions or limitations in the 

regulatory guide. The current wording 

to redirect the user to the applicable 

section of § 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(E) will 

remain, because versions of this ASME 

Code Case, as well as N–729 and N–770, 

are not alternatives to the Code 

requirements, but are mandated by 

§ 50.55a as augmented ISI requirements. 

For these reasons the NRC disagrees 

with the comment. 

No change was made to the final rule 

as a result of this comment. 

Code Case N–749 

Comment: Public comment 5–6 raised 

two main points: 

1. The comment takes issue with the 

temperature, Tc, above which the staff 

suggests that EPFM techniques should 

be used. The formula for Tc, given in the 

staff’s condition, differs from that 

proposed in Code Case N–749. 

2. The comment takes issue with the 

part of the staff’s condition stating that 

‘‘Tc is the temperature above which 

elastic plastic fracture mechanics 

(EPFM) must be applied.’’ Item 4 of the 

public comment suggests adopting a 

permissive rather than a perspective 

condition by replacing the word ‘‘must’’ 

with the word ‘‘may’’ in the preceding 

sentence. [ASME 5–6] 

NRC Response: The NRC disagrees 

with this comment. The staff’s 

responses to these points are, as follows: 

Concerning point 1, the technical 

bases for the staff’s proposed equation 

for Tc are well documented, as 

discussed previously, and are well 

supported by data for RPV steels both 

before and after neutron irradiation. 

This documentation appears in PVP 

2015–45307. Conversely, the Tc

equation in the proposed Code Case 

relates only to the intersection of the 

ASME KIc curve with a fracture 

toughness (KIc) value of 220 MPa√m, a 

value that does not correspond well to 

any known materials data and, 

moreover, does not account for the 

effects of irradiation embrittlement. The 

NRC staff’s proposal for Tc is thus better 

supported by materials data than is the 

Code Case value. 

Concerning point 2, in order for a 

permissive condition to be acceptable 

(e.g., the use of ‘‘may’’), it would need 

to be demonstrated that application of 

LEFM approaches to flaw assessment on 

the upper shelf fracture behavior is 

always conservative relative to the more 

technically correct EPFM approach. 

This has not been demonstrated in 

either Code Case N–749 or in its 

supporting technical basis document. 

As one example, an approach to using 

LEFM on the upper shelf fracture 

behavior would be to continue to use 

the ASME KIc curve. At upper shelf 

temperatures, the KIc curve overestimates the fracture toughness relative 

to the ductile fracture toughness (i.e., 

J0.1 or J–R), which is non-conservative. 

No change was made to the final rule 

as a result of this comment. 

Code Case N–754 

Comment: The third condition 

proposed for this Code Case inversely 

paraphrases existing statements in the 

Code Case, causing confusion to the 

user as to what the condition actually 

adds to the existing requirements. 

Further, by paraphrasing the 

requirements, essential technical 

requirements, such as chrome content in 

the dilution zone, are omitted which we 

do not believe is the intent of the 

condition. The Federal Register states 

that the reason for this condition is that 

‘‘In this instance, the NRC felt the word 

‘‘may’’ needed to be changed to ‘‘shall’’ 

in the second sentence in paragraph 

1.2(f)(2) as a condition for use of this 

Code Case.’’ In the English language, 

when the term ‘‘may’’ is followed by the 

word ‘‘not’’, the phrase means the same 

as ‘‘shall not.’’ However, if this phrase 

is truly a concern for some, then the 

condition should be written exactly as 

the Code Case except change the one 

word ‘‘may’’ to ‘‘shall.’’ [EPRI 2–2, 

ASME 5–7] 

NRC Response: The NRC disagrees 

with this comment. Condition (3) 

addresses the following two statements 

in Paragraph 1.2(f)(2) of Code Case N– 

754 that reads: ‘‘. . . The first layer of 

weld metal deposited may not be 

credited toward the required thickness, 

but the presence of this layer shall be 

considered in the design analysis 

requirements in 2(b). Alternatively, a 

first diluted layer may be credited 

toward the required thickness, provided 

the layer and the associated dilution 

zone contain at least 24% Cr 

[chromium] . . .’’ The first sentence in 

Paragraph 1.2(f)(2) could be interpreted 

so that the first weld layer could be 

credited toward the required thickness 

because the word ‘‘may not’’ does not 

absolutely prohibit such action. In 

addition, the first sentence in the quoted 

statements does not have restriction on 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
2346 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

the chromium contents for crediting the 

first weld layer toward the required 

thickness. 

The second sentence in the above 

quote limits the chromium content of at 

least 24 percent; however, the second 

sentence began with the word 

‘‘Alternatively.’’ The word 

‘‘Alternatively’’ implies that the 

requirement in the second sentence is 

optional, i.e., a licensee may choose to 

satisfy either the first sentence or the 

second sentence, but the licensee does 

not need to satisfy both. 

For example, a licensee deposits a 

first weld layer that contains less than 

24 percent chromium. The licensee 

could consider the first layer, as part of 

the required weld overlay thickness, 

based on the first sentence above 

because the first sentence does not 

identify a specific chromium content. 

Therefore, it does not restrict the 

consideration of the first layer for the 

required weld overlay thickness. The 

second sentence in the above quote does 

require the chromium content to be at 

least 24 percent. However, the licensee 

could interpret that the second sentence 

does not apply to this case because the 

second sentence is an alternate, optional 

requirement based on the word 

‘‘Alternatively.’’ 

The staff finds that Condition (3) does 

not omit the essential technical 

requirements such as the chrome 

content in the dilution zone. Condition 

(3) requires that if the first weld layer 

cannot achieve a chromium content of 

at least 24 percent, it cannot be 

considered as part of the weld overlay 

thickness. The staff recognizes that 

Condition (3) provides the same 

requirements as in Paragraph 1.2(f)(2). 

However, the purpose of Condition (3) 

is to clarify the requirements in 

Paragraph 1.2(f)(2). 

No change was made to the final rule 

as a result of this comment. 

Code Case N–784 

Comment: This Code Case enables 

personnel to receive credit for 

experience hours for laboratory practice 

beyond the required number of hours of 

laboratory training. For Level II 

certification, the total experience hours 

may be reduced from 800 to 400 if the 

experience consists of a combination of 

80 hours of field experience and 320 

hours laboratory practice by scanning 

specimens containing flaws in materials 

representative of those in actual power 

plant components. The field experience 

will likely be in nuclear plants but there 

is no requirement for UT examiners to 

obtain their experience in a nuclear 

plant. While the experience credited 

would be on samples and mockups, 

those samples would be required to 

contain actual flaws whereas over many 

hours of field experience, fewer flaws 

may be encountered. Further, to ensure 

the effectiveness of the laboratory 

practice, the Level II experience time 

would be credited only after the 

individual passed an Appendix VIII, 

Supplement 2 performance 

demonstration for length and depth 

sizing. Since other performance 

demonstrations are required for 

certification for vessels, ferritic piping 

and bolting, for example, it is 

considered reasonable to only require 

the Supplement 2 performance 

demonstration as a threshold for 

crediting the laboratory practice hours. 

EPRI will provide reports 

(Nondestructive Evaluation: Fast-Track 

NDE Work Force Enhancement, Volume 

1; 1019119 and Nondestructive 

Evaluation: Fast-Track NDE Work Force 

Enhancement, Volume 2, 1021150) to 

the USNRC to support this Code Case 

and address the impact of the reduced 

experience. This case does not reduce 

the training hours. [ASME 5–12] 

NRC Response: The NRC disagrees 

with this comment. The ASME BPV 

Code replaces field experience with 

training hours without a defined 

technical basis. While the NRC is open 

to evidence related to a technical basis 

for the substitution of laboratory 

experience as a substitute for hours of 

work experience, the impact of the 

substitution of laboratory hours for field 

experience and nuclear power plant 

familiarization is unknown. The two 

documents cited in the comment require 

1,050 hours of hands-on practice with 

hundreds of hours of additional 

classwork, not only 320 hours of 

laboratory training. If future work 

showed that 320 hours would be 

sufficient or the Code Case was 

modified to be in line with these 

documents, the NRC would consider 

allowing the use of the Code Case. 

No change was made to the final rule 

as a result of this comment. 

Code Case N–789 

Comment: The NRC Condition [2] 

does not allow the user to apply the 

actual corrosion rate for the pressure 

pad design. This reflects the staff 

position that the factors of 2 and 4 do 

not provide reasonable assurance that 

actual corrosion rate is bounded. 

However, the compensatory measures of 

inservice monitoring and the short 

acceptance period of one operating 

cycle verify and provide assurance that 

both structural and leak integrity will be 

maintained during the temporary 

acceptance period. Condition (2) is 

contrary to several NRC SERs that have 

evaluated and approved the Code Case 

for application at dozens of domestic 

plants. Those SERs require that the 

reinforcing pad be designed to 

accommodate twice the actual measured 

corrosion rate or if unknown, then 4 

times the maximum experienced in that 

or a similar system at the same plant for 

the same degradation mechanism. 

Corrosion rates are dependent upon 

many system variables—one primary 

factor being the amount and frequency 

of fluid flow. To impose the rate that 

may occur on a seldom-used dead-leg of 

a system to an area of active flow, where 

the actual corrosion rate has been 

measured is technically inappropriate. 

Since the monthly monitoring imposed 

by Condition (1) was initiated for the 

same reason that this condition was 

proposed—namely, the potential for an 

unexpected corrosion rate—this 

condition should be removed. [EPRI 2– 

3, ASME 5–8] 

NRC Response: The NRC agrees with 

this comment. The NRC determined that 

the current language in the Code Case, 

which requires using a corrosion rate of 

either two times the actual measured 

corrosion rate in that location, or four 

times the estimated maximum corrosion 

rate for the system, is reasonable and 

provides a conservative estimate of the 

corrosion rate. This conservatively 

estimated corrosion rate, coupled with 

proposed Condition (1) that requires 

enhanced inservice monitoring, 

provides reasonable assurance that 

should corrosion rates be more 

aggressive than originally predicted, 

there will be sufficient time to initiate 

corrective actions prior to excessive 

leakage or loss of structural integrity. 

Therefore, the NRC has determined that 

proposed Condition (2) is not necessary. 

The NRC has removed proposed 

Condition (2) on Code Case N–789 from 

the final RG 1.147, Revision 18. 

No change was made to the final rule 

as a result of this comment. 

Comment: Paragraph 3.2(i) of Code 

Case N–789 has a typographic error 

where it states ‘‘. . . piping designed to 

NC–2650, ND–3650. . . .’’ NC–2650 

should be NC–3650. Code Case N–789– 

2 corrected this statement to read ‘‘. . . 

piping designed to NC–3650 or ND– 

3650. . . .’’ The use of this Code Case 

N–789 should be conditioned to require 

using the corrected language for 

paragraph 3.2(i) in N–789–2. 

[Anonymous 3–1, Exelon 7–1] 

NRC Response: The NRC agrees with 

the commenter. Code Case N–789 

Paragraph 3.2(i) contains a 

typographical error. The code case 

references NC–2650 and the correct 

reference is NC–3650. NC–2650 does 

not exist in ASME Code Section III and 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2347 

NC–3650 is the correct portion of the 

Code to use for the design of reinforcing 

pads. The NRC does not believe that this 

typographical error represents a safety 

concern. In order to prevent the delay of 

issuance of the final rule by including 

a new condition on the code case, the 

NRC will address this issue in a future 

rulemaking. 

No change was made to the final rule 

as a result of this comment. 

Code Case N–795 

Comment: The commenters requested 

that one or both proposed conditions on 

the use of this Code Case in DG–1296 be 

removed: (1) Prohibition of use of 

nuclear heat to perform the leakage test; 

and (2) Hold time for noninsulated 

components must be 1 hour versus 15 

minutes required by Code Case N–795. 

[Southern 4–1, ASME 5–9, and Exelon 

7–2] 

NRC Response: The NRC agrees, in 

part, with this comment. As discussed 

in detail in the proposed rule in 81 FR 

10780, dated March 2, 2016, the 

historical prohibition of the use of 

nuclear heat for pressure testing is based 

on concerns about the quality of the 

VT–2 examinations performed with the 

core critical, due to the high 

temperatures in containment, which 

limit stay times for inspectors, and also 

concerns about personnel safety. 

However, the commenters emphasized 

that Code Case N–795 is only intended 

for use in the case of limited scope 

repairs, such as the replacement of a 

main steam relief valve pilot valve 

(involving a single mechanical joint) 

when the relief valve is found to be 

leaking during startup. Code Case N– 

795 states that the alternative test 

pressure may not be used to satisfy the 

requirements of Table IWB–2500–1, 

Category B–P (the pressure test required 

once per cycle of the entire reactor 

coolant pressure boundary). Code Case 

N–795 does not place any restrictions 

on the size or scope of the repairs for 

which the alternative may be used, 

other than the alternative test pressure 

may not be used to satisfy pressure test 

requirements, following repair/ 

replacement activities on the reactor 

vessel. 

However, upon review of the public 

comments, the staff has determined that 

the risk associated with performing the 

pressure test with nuclear heat at low 

power is comparable with the risk to the 

plant, when the test is performed 

without nuclear heat (with the core 

subcritical) during mid-cycle outages 

when decay heat must be managed. 

Performing the pressure test under 

shutdown conditions at full operating 

pressure without nuclear heat requires 

securing certain key pressure control, 

heat removal, and safety systems. Under 

such conditions, it is more difficult to 

control temperature and pressure, when 

there is significant decay heat 

production, such as after a mid-cycle 

outage, which may reduce the margin 

available to prevent exceeding the plant 

pressure-temperature limits. 

The NRC considers it desirable that 

the scope of repairs be relatively small 

when the pressure test is conducted 

using nuclear heat, in order to minimize 

the personnel safety risk and to avoid 

rushed examinations. The staff 

considers it impractical to specify a 

particular number of welded or 

mechanical repairs that would 

constitute a ‘‘limited scope.’’ However, 

if the plant is still in a refueling outage 

and has already performed the ASME 

Section XI Category B–P pressure test of 

the entire RCPB, it is likely that 

subsequent repairs would be performed 

only on an emergent basis and would 

generally be of a limited scope. 

Additionally, the overall integrity of the 

RCPB will have been recently confirmed 

via the Category B–P test. For mid-cycle 

maintenance outages, the staff proposes 

to modify the condition to incorporate 

a limit on the outage duration of 

fourteen (14) days. This would tend to 

limit the scope of repairs, and also limit 

use of the Code Case to outages when 

decay heat was a significant problem. 

Therefore, the first condition on Code 

Case N–795 in Table 2 of DG–1296, 

which currently reads: 

1. The use of nuclear heat to conduct the 

BWR Class 1 system leakage test is prohibited 

(i.e., the reactor must be in a non-critical 

state). 

a. This condition also applies to pressure 

testing of reactor coolant pressure boundary 

components repaired or replaced in 

accordance with Section XI, IWA–4000. 

is modified to read: 

1. The use of nuclear heat to conduct the 

BWR Class 1 system leakage test is prohibited 

(i.e., the reactor must be in a non-critical 

state), except during refueling outages in 

which the ASME Section XI Category B–P 

pressure test has already been performed, or 

at the end of mid-cycle maintenance outages 

fourteen (14) days or less in duration. 

With respect to the comment on the second 

condition, the NRC disagrees with this 

comment. A one hour hold time is not 

unreasonable for non-insulated components. 

Inspectors do not need to be in containment 

during the hold time. Comment 5–9 (ASME) 

discussed the technical basis for Code Case 

N–795, which stated that pressure testing at 

87 percent of full operating pressure would 

only result in a 7 percent reduction in flow, 

while the hold time is being increased by 50 

percent from 10 minutes to 15 minutes. 

However, it is not possible to predict the 

entire range of scenarios or types of defects 

that could result in leakage. While some 

types of defects could result in immediate 

leakage, such as an improperly torqued 

bolted connection, other types of defects, 

such as weld defects or tight cracks could 

represent a more torturous path for leakage 

and may result in delayed leakage. Because 

the visual examination may be conducted 

with the core critical, stay times for 

examiners in containment may be limited; 

therefore, it is desirable that any leakage be 

readily detectable. The staff determined that, 

due to the uncertainty in the time required 

for leakage to occur, to an extent that it 

would be readily detectable by visual 

examination, it is appropriate to 

conservatively specify a longer hold time of 

1 hour for non-insulated components. 

Therefore, no changes are made to Condition 

(2) requiring a 1-hour hold time for noninsulated components. 

No change was made to the final rule 

as a result of this comment. 

Code Case N–799 

Comment: This is a Code Case to 

define the examination volume/area 

where older Section XI codes (up 

through 2010 Edition) do not recognize 

the defined configuration. The 

conditions proposed in the Code Case 

are not included in the proposed rule to 

accept the 2013 Edition of Section XI 

and the Code Case configuration is 

defined in the 2013 Code Edition. 

Commenters believe that this results in 

inconsistent requirements for plants 

using older Code versions versus newer 

Code versions. The examination 

conditions proposed for this Code Case 

use are not appropriate for a volume of 

interest Code Case. If the NRC considers 

the conditions appropriate, commenters 

believe that they should be included in 

a revision to 10 CFR 50.55a to assure 

consistent application, regardless of 

Code year and Addenda being applied. 

Specifically Conditions (3) and (5) 

should be removed from the Code Case. 

[Southern 4–2, Southern 4–3, and 

Exelon 7–3] 

NRC Response: The NRC agrees, in 

part, with this comment. 

Regarding the removal of proposed 

Condition (3) from N–799, the NRC 

disagrees with the comment. The NRC 

doesn’t find that the examination of the 

inner 1⁄3 of the component-tocomponent weld depicted in Figure 1 of 

Code Case N–799 provides reasonable 

assurance that the integrity of the 

component-to-component welds will be 

maintained throughout the operating 

life of the plant. Code Case N–799 was 

written to support new plant 

construction to provide examination 

requirements for a weld configuration, 

which did not exist in Section XI (i.e., 

component-to-component welds). 

Specifically, the examination 

requirements described in Code Case N– 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
2348 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

799 would apply to the steam generator 

nozzle-to-reactor coolant pump casing 

(SG-to-RCP) weld in the AP1000 design 

and the reactor vessel nozzle-torecirculation pump weld in the 

Advanced Boiling Water Reactor 

(ABWR). The following discussion will 

focus on the AP1000 design, but the 

staff’s overall concern is also applicable 

to the reactor vessel-to-reactor coolant 

pump connection for the ABWR design. 

The AP1000 design is unique in that 

a reactor coolant pump is welded 

directly to each of the two outlet nozzles 

on the steam generator channel head. 

This SG-to-RCP weld is a dissimilar 

metal (low alloy steel to cast austenitic 

stainless steel with Alloy 52/152 weld 

metal) circumferential butt weld with a 

double sided weld joint configuration, 

similar to that of a reactor vessel shell 

weld. Also, this unique component-tocomponent weld is part of the reactor 

coolant pressure boundary and is, 

therefore, subject to the examination 

requirements of ASME Section XI, 

Subsection IWB. 

ASME Section XI, IWB–2500 requires 

a full volume examination of all 

component welds, except those welds 

found in piping and those found in 

nozzles welded to piping. However, for 

the component-to-component welds in 

question, Code Case N–799 only 

requires a licensee to perform a 

volumetric examination of the inner 1⁄3

of the weld and a surface examination 

of the outer diameter. The staff notes 

that the requirements of Code Case N– 

799 are identical to those in ASME 

Section XI, Table IWB–2500–1, 

Examination Category B–F for welds 

between vessel nozzles larger than NPS 

4 and piping. As such, the staff does not 

believe that examination requirements 

proposed in Code Case N–799 are 

appropriate for the component-tocomponent welds because the service 

conditions of the aforementioned welds 

are significantly different from those 

that would be experienced by a 

traditional vessel nozzle-to-piping/safe 

end butt weld. Specifically, in addition 

to the operating environment (RCS 

pressure, temperature, and exposure to 

coolant) and loads expected on a 

traditional nozzle-to-safe end weld, each 

SG-to-RCP weld will support the full 

weight of a reactor coolant pump with 

no other vertical or lateral supports. The 

SG-to-RCP welds will also be subject to 

pump rotational forces and vibration 

loads from both the steam generator and 

the reactor coolant pump during service. 

In the absence of operating experience 

for the weld in question or a bounding 

analysis, which demonstrates that a 

potential fabrication defect in the outer 

2⁄3 of the weld will not experience 

subcritical crack growth, the effects of 

these additional operating loads and 

stresses are indeterminate. Absent either 

of the above, the staff finds that it is 

inappropriate to limit the examination 

volume to the inner 1⁄3 of the weld as 

typical of a piping weld at this time. 

When the examination volume that can 

be qualified by performance 

demonstration is less than 100 percent 

of the weld volume, a licensee should 

include an ultrasonic examination to 

examine the qualified volume and 

perform a flaw evaluation of the largest 

hypothetical crack that could exist in 

the volume not qualified for ultrasonic 

examination. No change was made to 

the rule as a result of this comment. 

The NRC agrees that performing the 

examination in accordance with Section 

XI, Appendix VIII, Supplement 10, for 

detection and sizing would eliminate 

the need for the requirement to perform 

a flaw evaluation, based on the largest 

hypothetical flaw in the unqualified 

examination volume. However, the NRC 

determined a full volume examination 

of the entire weld and heat affected zone 

is required to provide reasonable 

assurance of structural integrity of the 

component-to component welds 

addressed by Code Case N–799. The 

NRC also determined that requiring the 

examination procedures to be qualified 

in accordance with Section XI, 

Appendix VIII, Supplement 10, would 

eliminate the need for several of the 

other conditions that were proposed for 

N–799. Therefore, the final regulatory 

guide was modified to specify only four 

conditions for Code Case N–799, as 

follows: 

(i) Ultrasonic examination procedures, 

equipment, and personnel shall be qualified 

by performance demonstration in accordance 

with Section XI, Appendix VIII, Supplement 

10. When applying the examination 

requirements of Figure IWB–2500–8, the 

examination volume shall be extended to 

include 100 percent of the weld. 

(ii) Examination requirements of Section 

XI, Mandatory Appendix I, paragraph I– 

3200(c) must be applied. 

(iii) Ultrasonic depth and sizing 

qualifications for cast austenitic stainless 

steel components must follow Appendix VIII, 

Supplement 10, using representative cast 

austenitic stainless steel mockups containing 

representative cracks and be independent of 

other Supplement 10 qualifications. 

(iv) Cracks detected and not depth sized to 

Appendix VIII type performance-based 

procedures, equipment, and personnel 

qualifications shall be repaired or removed. 

The NRC agrees with the examination 

requirement regarding the consistency 

between the Code Case and the codes, 

where the Code Case that has been 

incorporated should be consistent. The 

NRC disagrees with the statement that 

the proposed conditions are not 

appropriate for a volume of interest 

Code Case. The NRC is planning to 

include this topic in a future 

rulemaking. 

Code Case N–806 

Comment: ASME stated that it has 

taken action to address some of these 

concerns and has published Code Case 

N–806–1, providing additional 

requirements for determining wall 

thickness loss rates. The ASME 

recommends that the NRC consider 

developing conditions on the use of this 

case that would enable the endorsement 

of the case in Table 2 of RG 1.147. 

[ASME 5–13] 

NRC Response: The NRC disagrees 

with this comment. The NRC recognizes 

that ASME has addressed the NRC’s 

concerns regarding the derivation of the 

corrosion rate in predicting metal loss in 

piping and has incorporated the 

corrosion rate derivation in the 

published Code Case N–806–1. 

However, the current rulemaking is for 

Code Case N–806, which does not 

contain sufficient information regarding 

the corrosion rate. The ASME suggested 

that the NRC develop conditions on the 

use of the Code Case such that the NRC 

could approve the Code Case for RG 

1.147. The NRC has determined that 

approval of Code Case N–806 with 

conditions would require too many 

conditions to address several open 

issues regarding the relationship to the 

derivation of the corrosion rate, which 

still need to be resolved. Therefore, the 

NRC cannot approve Code Case N–806 

in this rulemaking. 

No change was made to the final rule 

as a result of this comment. 

Code Case N–813 

Comment: This Code Case should be 

removed from Table 2 of Regulatory 

Guide 1.193 and added to Table 1 of 

Regulatory Guide 1.147 because of the 

following reasons. 

1. The requirements of Code Case N–813 

are identical to changes made in the 2013 

Edition of Section XI, which are being 

considered under a separate draft 10 CFR 

50.55a rule. The NRC has not proposed any 

conditions on these requirements in the 2013 

Edition. It is inappropriate for the NRC to 

impose conditions on the same requirements 

in Case N–813 as the requirements in the 

2013 Edition. 

2. This Case permits acceptance of 

subsurface flaws detected during preservice 

examination using the same criteria 

applicable to flaws detected during inservice 

examination. There is no greater likelihood of 

subsurface flaws detected during preservice 

examination to grow unacceptably than there 

is for the same flaws to grow during inservice 

examination. Operating experience has 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2349 

shown that the propensity for failure is 

increased by repairing such flaws, whereas 

leaving them in place has never been shown 

to be a precursor to failure. Without weld 

repair, there is no mechanism expected to 

produce unacceptable flaw growth, whereas 

repair welding itself has been repeatedly 

shown to cause flaws to grow to the point of 

failure. The provisions of this Case, and the 

identical provisions in the 2013 Edition, 

improve safety. 

3. The technical basis for this Code Case 

and accompanying Code revision states that 

the action is being sought to prevent the 

unnecessary excavation and weld repair of 

subsurface indications, which can be 

analytically shown to be benign over the 

expected service lifetime of a component. 

Based on operating experience, it is known 

that weld repairs and their associated stress 

fields often serve as points of initiation for 

inservice degradation mechanisms (e.g., 

intergranular stress corrosion cracking, 

primary water stress corrosion cracking, etc.). 

Hence, it is in the best interest of the long 

term safe operation of components being 

placed into service to eliminate the need for 

weld repairs where they are not necessary to 

correct fabrication problems, which will not 

challenge the operability of the component 

over its service lifetime. This can be achieved 

by permitting licensees to effectively utilize 

the flaw evaluation rules of IWB–3600 and 

IWC–3600, which are already accepted for 

the analysis of indications due to inservice 

degradation. 

4. It is important to note that any 

preservice flaw that has been evaluated as 

acceptable is required to receive successive 

examinations under IWB–2420(b) or IWC– 

2420(c) so if the flaw does grow, it will be 

detected during these examinations. [ASME 

5–14] 

NRC Response: The NRC disagrees 

with this comment, in part. The NRC 

has recognized that the provisions in 

Code Case N–813 are identical to 

changes made in the 2013 Edition of the 

ASME BPV Code, Section XI. The NRC 

addressed the contents of the 2013 

Edition of the ASME BPV Code, 

including the Code provisions identical 

to those allowed in Code Case N–813, in 

a separate rulemaking. 

The NRC recognizes that operating 

experience has shown that repairing a 

weld that contains fabrication defects 

may cause the defect to grow in the 

future. On the other hand, permitting a 

weld that contains a known 

unacceptable fabrication defect prior to 

deployment is not appropriate and is 

contrary to the fundamental engineering 

principle of a good design. The 

fundamental engineering design is that 

a component should not contain defects 

before placing it into service. The staff 

has accepted the provision of ASME 

BPV Code, Section III that permits 

acceptable flaws (i.e., small insignificant 

flaws) in a weld to exist before 

deployment. The staff’s objection to 

Code Case N–813 is that the code case 

permits the existence of unacceptable 

flaws, which do not meet the ASME 

Code preservice acceptance criteria, in 

welds before their deployment. The 

code case allows these unacceptable 

flaws to be accepted by analytical 

evaluation. The code case places no 

limits on such flaws (i.e., a weld could 

have more than one unacceptable flaw 

or numerous welds within a piping run 

could have flaws that did not meet the 

preservice acceptance criteria), whereas 

the original fleet of nuclear plants had 

no unacceptable preservice flaws. The 

staff concludes that it cannot approve 

Code Case N–813 in this rulemaking. 

The NRC will continue to evaluate 

operating experience relative to this 

type of flaw to further inform decisions 

on possible approval of this code case 

in future rulemakings. 

No change was made to the final rule 

as a result of this comment. 

Code Case N–818 

Comment: Code Case N–818 should 

be removed from Regulatory Guide 

1.193 and be allowed for use, as the 

reasons given in Regulatory Guide 1.193 

to disallow Code Case N–818 have the 

following issues: (a) The fact that the 

examination will be difficult should not 

be a reason to prohibit it as Mandatory 

Appendix I requires that the 

technique(s) to be applied for the 

volumetric procedure be demonstrated 

on specimens simulating geometric, 

material and surface conditions to be 

encountered during implementation. (b) 

The discussion that ultrasound may 

have difficulties discerning between 

planar and volumetric flaws is not 

relevant. There is no requirement in the 

Code Case to characterize the flaw by 

type (i.e., planar or volumetric). (c) The 

suggestion that its application should be 

limited to ferritic weldments defeats the 

purpose of Code Case N–818. [EPRI 2– 

5, Southern 4–4] 

NRC Response: The NRC disagrees 

with this comment, in part. At present, 

the NRC has not received any 

supporting documents from the industry 

to address the NRC’s concern regarding 

this Code Case, such as a demonstration 

of the adequacy of a full volume 

ultrasonic examination for fabrication 

flaws in austenitic welds. Therefore, the 

wording of the reasons given in RG 

1.193 should not refer to the inspection 

being difficult for austenitic materials 

and dissimilar metal welds, but should 

instead refer to there not being an 

established technical basis for the use of 

ultrasound to find fabrication flaws in 

these materials. Additionally, the 

discussion of planar vs. volumetric 

flaws will be removed from RG 1.193, as 

the Code Case does not require the 

examiner to discriminate between these 

types of flaws. The revised wording for 

RG 1.193 is: 

The NRC has been conducting research at 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory on the 

examination of austenitic and ferritic welds. 

The work has shown that performing a full 

volume ultrasonic examination for 

fabrication flaws is significantly different 

from an inservice examination. For example, 

examination from two directions is necessary 

to detect certain circumferentially oriented 

fabrication flaws such as lack of fusion. The 

work has also shown that the second leg of 

a V-path can be applied to examine ferritic 

materials on a limited basis but to date the 

technical basis has not been established to 

show that these techniques will be effective 

on austenitic materials and dissimilar metal 

welds. Another finding is that surface 

conditions are critical with respect to 

detecting and characterizing fabrication 

flaws. In summary, the NRC finds that an 

analytical approach for the acceptance of 

certain fabrication flaws could be acceptable 

if appropriately justified and the scope 

limited to ferritic materials. The NRC finds 

that significant research will be required to 

demonstrate that full-volume ultrasonic 

examination for fabrication flaws is 

acceptable for austenitic and dissimilar metal 

welds. 

Regulatory Guide 1.192, Revision 2 

(DG–1297) 

Code Case OMN–20 

Comment: Allow the use of Code Case 

OMN–20 for those plants that 

implement ASME OM Code 2015 

Edition and earlier editions and 

addenda. [Gowin 6–1] 

NRC Response: The NRC agrees, in 

part, with this comment. Code Case 

OMN–20 cannot be implemented with 

the 2015 Edition of the ASME OM Code 

because the 2015 Edition has not been 

incorporated by reference into § 50.55a. 

Code Case OMN–20 is currently 

applicable to the 2009 Edition through 

the OMa–2011 Addenda and all earlier 

editions and addenda. Licensees who 

adopt the 2012 Edition of the ASME OM 

Code would not be able to use Code 

Case OMN–20, without submitting a 

relief request to the NRC for approval. 

For this reason, the NRC partially agrees 

with the comment. The NRC believes 

that Code Case OMN–20 should be 

allowed to be implemented with the 

2012 Edition and earlier editions and 

addenda of the ASME OM Code. The RG 

1.192 was updated to add a condition 

stating that Code Case OMN–20 is 

applicable to the editions and addenda 

of the ASME OM Code listed in 

§ 50.55a(a)(1)(iv). 

No change was made to the final rule 

as a result of this comment. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
2350 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule 

Comment: The ASME Code is 

updated every year. Preparations are 

underway to publish the 2017 edition. 

NRC is working on 2010 Edition. It 

appears that NRC is not in compliance 

with National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) by 

passive non-compliance. Since NRC has 

many participants in the Code process, 

they should be prepared to act as soon 

as final standards votes are counted. 

[Donavin 1–1] 

NRC Response: The NRC disagrees 

with this comment. The NRC 

appreciates the ASME’s efforts to 

consider the NRC’s concerns as 

addressed in conditions to § 50.55a. The 

NRC agrees that delays in approving 

new ASME Code editions and Code 

Cases can be counterproductive with 

respect to implementation of 

improvements in ASME Code 

requirements. The NRC continues to 

assess ways to improve the rulemaking 

process to find schedule efficiencies. 

No change was made to the final rule 

as a result of this comment. 

Comment: Many of the conditions are 

historical and are the result of a single 

reviewer’s opinion. An example is the 

rules for the 1994 edition where I 

watched an NRC reviewer living in 

Washington, DC telling a PhD from 

Tokyo, Japan, that his seismic analysis 

defending the edition was non 

conservative. If there are legitimate 

questions, these should be separated 

from the ‘‘not sufficiently conservative’’ 

or ‘‘insufficient information’’ 

justifications. The Commission has set a 

precedent in CVR for SECY–15–0106. 

ASME has endeavored to address 

conditions with docketed letters and 

Code actions. [Donavin 1–2] 

NRC Response: The NRC disagrees 

with this comment. Although a single 

reviewer may state a contrary position, 

NRC reviews all Code Cases and 

comments with appropriate staff and 

management. Code Cases that the NRC 

finds to be conditionally acceptable are 

also listed in RGs 1.84, 1.147, and 1.192, 

which are the subject of this 

rulemaking, together with the 

conditions that must be used if the Code 

Case is applied. The NRC determined 

that this rule complies with the NTTAA 

and OMB Circular A–119, despite these 

conditions. If the NRC did not 

conditionally accept ASME Code Cases, 

it would disapprove these Code Cases 

entirely. 

No change was made to the final rule 

as a result of this comment. 

Comment: ASME believes that it is 

not clear whether the word 

‘‘superseded’’ applies to those Code 

Cases that are superseded by ASME or 

those Code Cases that are listed as 

superseded in Table 5 of Regulatory 

Guide 1.147. 

ASME recommends revising the 

second sentence of this paragraph to 

clarify that ‘‘The older or superseded 

version of the Code Case, if listed in 

Table 5, cannot be applied by the 

licensee or applicant for the first time.’’ 

[ASME 5–1] 

NRC Response: The NRC agrees with 

this comment. The proposed additional 

text will add clarity to the information 

presented in Table 5. The final RG 1.147 

in the introductory paragraph to Table 

5, has been revised to include the 

statement, ‘‘The older or superseded 

version of the Code Case, if listed in 

Table 5, cannot be applied by the 

licensee or applicant for the first time.’’ 

at the end of the explanatory text above 

Table 5. 

No change was made to the final rule 

as a result of this comment. 

Comment: The Code Case [N–711] 

would permit each licensee to 

independently determine when 

achievement of a coverage requirement 

is impractical, and when Code-required 

coverage is satisfied. As a result, 

application of the Code Case for similar 

configurations at different plants could 

result in potentially significant 

quantitative variations. Furthermore, 

application of the Code Case is 

inconsistent with NRC’s responsibility 

for determining whether examinations 

are impractical, and eliminates the 

NRC’s ability to take exception to a 

licensee’s proposed action and impose 

additional measures where warranted in 

accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i). 

ASME recommends that this case be 

removed from RG 1.193, Table 2 and 

added to Table 2 of RG 1.147 with 

appropriate conditions to address NRC 

technical concerns with the use of this 

case. [ASME 5–10] 

NRC Response: The NRC agrees with 

this comment. However, this is a new 

proposal and cannot be included in this 

rulemaking because it was not provided 

for public comment. Rather than 

include the action in this rulemaking, 

the NRC intends to include it within the 

scope of the rulemaking that will 

incorporate by reference the 2015 

edition of the ASME BPV Code. 

No change was made to the final rule 

as a result of this comment. 

Comment: In Section IV, ‘‘Section-bySection Analysis’’ of the Proposed Rule 

dated March 2, 2016 (Federal Register 

Vol. 81, No. 41), ASME believes that it 

is not clear whether the word 

‘‘superseded’’ applies to those Code 

Cases that are superseded by ASME or 

those Code Cases that are listed as 

superseded in Table 5 of Regulatory 

Guide 1.147 and in Table 5 of 

Regulatory Guide 1.84. [ASME 5–1 and 

ASME 5–15] 

ASME provides the following 

recommendations: 

i. ASME recommends that the NRC 

clarify the above concern in the final 

rule. 

ii. ASME recommends that the NRC 

review requirements for superseded 

ASME Section III and OM Code Cases 

in RG 1.84 and RG 1.192 for similar 

clarification. 

NRC Response: The NRC agrees with 

this comment as noted in the response 

to Comment 5–1. In addition to that 

clarifying text being added in the 

introduction to Table 5 in RG 1.147, it 

will also be added to the introduction of 

Table 5 in RG 1.84. The RG 1.192 does 

not contain a table of superseded Code 

Cases, therefore, no change will be made 

to the RG 1.192. 

No change was made to the final rule 

as a result of this comment. 

V. Section-by-Section Analysis 

The following paragraphs in § 50.55a, 

which list the three RGs that are being 

incorporated by reference, are revised as 

follows: 

Paragraphs (a)(3)(i): The reference to 

‘‘NRC Regulatory Guide 1.84, Revision 

36,’’ is amended to remove ‘‘Revision 

36’’ and add in its place ‘‘Revision 37.’’ 

Paragraphs (a)(3)(ii): The reference to 

‘‘NRC Regulatory Guide 1.147, Revision 

17,’’ is amended to remove ‘‘Revision 

17’’ and add in its place ‘‘Revision 18.’’ 

Paragraphs (a)(3)(iii): The reference to 

‘‘NRC Regulatory Guide 1.192, Revision 

1,’’ is amended to remove ‘‘Revision 1’’ 

and add in its place ‘‘Revision 2.’’ 

Overall Considerations on the Use of 

ASME Code Cases 

This rulemaking amends § 50.55a to 

incorporate by reference RG 1.84, 

Revision 37, which supersedes Revision 

36; RG 1.147, Revision 18, which 

supersedes Revision 17; and RG 1.192, 

Revision 2, which supersedes Revision 

1. 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 

rulemaking. 

The approval of a Code Case in the 

NRC 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 are 

responsible for ensuring that use of the 

Code Case does not conflict with 

regulatory requirements or licensee 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2351 

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 the Code Case, 

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. 

Hence, 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 RGs, 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., 10 CFR 50.59)). 

A licensee’s ISI and IST programs 

must be updated every 10 years to the 

latest edition and addenda of 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 who 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 

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. If an applicant or a licensee 

applied a Code Case before it was listed 

as annulled, 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 annulled 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 annulled Code Case. 

Applicants and licensees should not 

begin to implement such annulled Code 

Cases in advance of the rulemaking. 

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. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

5 U.S.C. 605(b), the NRC certifies that 

this rule does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This final 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 (§ 2.810). 

VII. Regulatory Analysis 

The NRC has prepared a final 

regulatory analysis on this regulation. 

The analysis examines the costs and 

benefits of the alternatives considered 

by the NRC. The total estimated net 

benefit of this rule is $4.94 million (7% 

discount rate) and $5.68 million (3% 

discount rate). The regulatory analysis is 

available as indicated in the 

‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section of 

this document. 

VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality 

The provisions in this rule allow 

licensees and applicants to voluntarily 

apply NRC-approved Code Cases, 

sometimes with NRC-specified 

conditions. The approved Code Cases 

are listed in the three RGs that are 

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 

that is inconsistent with any issue 

finality provision in 10 CFR part 52. The 

NRC finds that this 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. 

IX. 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). 

X. Environmental Assessment and Final 

Finding of No Significant 

Environmental Impact 

The Commission has determined 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
2352 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

7State-recognized Indian tribes are not within the 

scope of 10 CFR 2.315(c). However, for purposes of 

the NRC’s compliance with 1 CFR 51.5, ‘‘interested 

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. As 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. 

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule contains new or 

amended collections of information 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

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

collection of information was approved 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (approval number 3150–0011). 

The burden to the public for these 

information collections is estimated to 

average a reduction of 380 hours per 

response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the 

information collection. 

The information collection is being 

conducted to document the plans for 

and the results of inservice inspection 

and inservice testing programs. The 

records are generally historical in nature 

and provide data on which future 

activities can be based. The practical 

utility of the information collection for 

the NRC is that appropriate records are 

available for auditing by NRC personnel 

to determine if ASME BPV and OM 

Code provisions for construction, 

inservice inspection, repairs, and 

inservice testing are being properly 

implemented in accordance with 

§ 50.55a of the NRC regulations, or 

whether specific enforcement actions 

are necessary. Responses to this 

collection of information are generally 

mandatory under § 50.55a. 

You may submit comments on any 

aspect of the information collection(s), 

including suggestions for reducing the 

burden, by the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2012–0059. 

• Mail comments to: Information 

Services Branch, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer, Mail Stop: T–2 F43, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001 or to 

Aaron Szabo, Desk Officer, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(3150–0011), NEOB–10202, Office of 

Management and Budget, Washington, 

DC 20503; telephone 202–395–3621, 

email: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Public Protection Notification 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, a request for information or an 

information collection requirement, 

unless the requesting document 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

XII. Congressional Review Act 

This final rule is a rule as defined in 

the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 

801–808). However, the Office of 

Management and Budget has not found 

it to be a major rule, as defined in the 

Congressional Review Act. 

XIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act of 1995, Public 

Law 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 rule, the NRC is 

continuing to use ASME BPV and OM 

Code Cases, which are ASME-approved 

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 37; RG 1.147, 

Revision 18; and RG 1.192, Revision 2. 

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. 

XIV. Incorporation by Reference— 

Reasonable Availability to Interested 

Parties 

The NRC is incorporating by reference 

three NRC Regulatory Guides that list 

new and revised ASME Code Cases, 

which the NRC has approved as 

alternatives to certain provisions of 

NRC-required Editions and Addenda of 

the ASME BPV Code and the ASME OM 

Code. 

The NRC is required by law to obtain 

approval for incorporation by reference 

from the Office of the Federal Register 

(OFR). The OFR’s requirements for 

incorporation by reference are set forth 

in 1 CFR part 51. On November 7, 2014, 

the OFR adopted changes to its 

regulations governing incorporation by 

reference (79 FR 66267). 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 final rules, as set forth in 1 CFR 

51.5(b). 

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 § 2.810. 

• Large entities 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, a ‘‘large entity’’ is one which 

does not qualify as a ‘‘small entity’’ 

under § 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 § 2.315(c)). 

• Federally-recognized and Staterecognized 7 Indian tribes. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2353 

parties’’ includes a broad set of stakeholders 

including State-recognized 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 regulatory guides being 

incorporated by reference in this 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; e-mail: 

Library.Resource@nrc.gov; url: 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/. 

Because access to the three regulatory 

guides are available in various forms 

and at no cost, the NRC determines that 

the three regulatory guides, RG 1.84, 

Revision 37; RG 1.147, Revision 18; and 

RG 1.192, Revision 2, once approved by 

the OFR for incorporation by reference, 

are reasonably available to all interested 

parties. 

XV. Availability of Documents 

The documents identified in the 

following table are available to 

interested persons through one or more 

of the following methods, as indicated. 

TABLE IV—RULEMAKING RELATED DOCUMENTS

Document title 

ADAMS accession No./ 

Federal Register 

citation/web link 

Proposed Rule Documents: 

Proposed Rule—Federal Register notice, March 2, 2016 ........................................................................ 81 FR 10780. 

Draft Regulatory Analysis ........................................................................................................................... ML15041A816. 

Draft RG 1.84, Revision 37 (DG–1295) ..................................................................................................... ML15027A002. 

Draft RG 1.147, Revision 18 (DG–1296) ................................................................................................... ML15027A202. 

Draft RG 1.192, Revision 2 (DG–1297) ..................................................................................................... ML15027A330. 

Final Rule Documents: 

Regulatory Analysis .................................................................................................................................... ML16285A013. 

RG 1.84, Revision 37 ................................................................................................................................. ML16321A335. 

RG 1.147, Revision 18 ............................................................................................................................... ML16321A336. 

RG 1.192, Revision 2 ................................................................................................................................. ML16321A337. 

Related Documents: 

Draft RG 1.193, ‘‘ASME Code Cases Not Approved for Use,’’ Revision 5. (DG–1298) ........................... ML15028A003. 

Federal Register notice—‘‘Incorporation by Reference of American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

Codes and Code Cases,’’ July 18, 2017.

82 FR 32934. 

Federal Register notice—‘‘Incorporation by Reference of American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

Codes and Code Cases,’’ September 18, 2015.

80 FR 56820. 

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. 

Information Notice No. 98–13, ‘‘Post-Refueling Outage Reactor Pressure Vessel Leakage Testing Before Core Criticality,’’ April 20, 1998.ML031050237. 

Inspection Report 50–254/97–27 ................................................................................................................ ML15216A276. 

Letter from James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, NRC, to Messrs. Nicholas S. Reynolds and Daniel F. Stenger, Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group, February 2, 1990.ML14273A002. 

Materials Reliability Project Report MRP–169 Technical Basis for Preemptive Weld Overlays for Alloy 

82/182 Butt Welds in PWRs (Revision 1), EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2012. 1025295.

ML101660468. 

NUREG/CR–6933, ‘‘Assessment of Crack Detection in Heavy-Walled Cast Stainless Steel Piping 

Welds Using Advanced Low-Frequency Ultrasonic Methods’’.

ML071020409. 

White Paper, PVP2012–78190, ‘‘Alternative Acceptance Criteria for Flaws in Ferritic Steel Components Operating in the Upper Shelf Temperature Range,’’ 2012.http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.

aspx?articleid=1723450. 

White Paper PVP2015–45307, ‘‘Options for Defining the Upper Shelf Transition Temperature (Tc) for 

Ferritic Pressure Vessel Steels,’’ 2015.

http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.

aspx?articleid=2471884. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 

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 out in the 

preamble and under the authority of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; 

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 

as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, 

the NRC is adopting 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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
2354 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

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, revise paragraphs 

(a)(3)(i) through (iii) to read as follows: 

§ 50.55a Codes and standards. 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) NRC Regulatory Guide 1.84, 

Revision 37. NRC Regulatory Guide 

1.84, Revision 37, ‘‘Design, Fabrication, 

and Materials Code Case Acceptability, 

ASME Section III,’’ dated March 2017, 

with the requirements in paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section. 

(ii) NRC Regulatory Guide 1.147, 

Revision 18. NRC Regulatory Guide 

1.147, Revision 18, ‘‘Inservice 

Inspection Code Case Acceptability, 

ASME Section XI, Division 1,’’ dated 

March 2017, which lists ASME Code 

Cases that the NRC has approved in 

accordance with the requirements in 

paragraph (b)(5) of this section. 

(iii) NRC Regulatory Guide 1.192, 

Revision 2. NRC Regulatory Guide 

1.192, Revision 2, ‘‘Operation and 

Maintenance Code Case Acceptability, 

ASME OM Code,’’ dated March 2017, 

which lists ASME Code Cases that the 

NRC has approved in accordance with 

the requirements in paragraph (b)(6) of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day 

of August 2017. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Brian E. Holian, 

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

Editorial note: This document was 

received for publication by the Office of the 

Federal Register on January 3, 2018. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00112 Filed 1–16–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2017–0324; Product 

Identifier 2017–CE–004–AD; Amendment 

39–19157; AD 2018–02–04] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Aerospace 

Welding Minneapolis, Inc., Mufflers 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Aerospace Welding Minneapolis, Inc. 

mufflers, part numbers A1754001–23 

and A1754001–25, installed on 

airplanes. This AD was prompted by 

occurrences of cracks or broken welds 

in the connecting weld of the muffler 

body to muffler cuff that may allow 

carbon monoxide exhaust fumes into 

the cockpit heating system. This AD 

requires an inspection of the muffler for 

leaking to identify cracks and 

replacement of the muffler. We are 

issuing this AD to address the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective February 21, 

2018. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of February 21, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this final rule, contact 

Aerospace Welding Minneapolis, Inc. 

(AWI) 1045 Gemini Road, Eagan, 

Minnesota 55121; telephone: 651–379– 

9888; fax: 651–379–9889; internet: 

www.awi-ami.com. You may view this 

service information at the FAA, Policy 

and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call (816) 329– 

4148. It is also available on the internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2017–0324. 

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–2017– 

0324; 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 final rule, 

the regulatory evaluation, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The address for Docket 

Operations (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

Docket Operations, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Grace, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Chicago ACO Branch, 2300 East Devon 

Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018–4696; 

telephone: (847) 294–7377; fax: (847) 

294–7834; email: mark.grace@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to certain Aerospace Welding 

Minneapolis, Inc. (AWI) mufflers, part 

numbers A1754001–23 and A1754001– 

25, installed on airplanes. The NPRM 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 18, 2017 (82 FR 18265). The 

NPRM was prompted by reports of 

broken or cracked welds in the 

connecting weld of the muffler body to 

muffler cuff. There have been 54 

occurrences identified by maintenance 

and 2 occurrences identified by the 

carbon monoxide (CO) gas monitor 

warning system. The NPRM proposed to 

require an inspection of the muffler for 

leaking to identify cracks and 

replacement of the muffler. We are 

issuing this AD to correct the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this final rule. 

The following presents the comments 

received on the NPRM and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Request To Expand the Applicability 

An anonymous commenter requested 

we expand the applicability of the AD 

to include additional part number 

mufflers produced by the same 

manufacturer as the mufflers affected by 

this AD. The commenter thinks the 

additional part number mufflers may 

share some of the same materials, 

processes, and methods of assembly as 

the mufflers affected by this AD. 

We do not agree with this comment. 

We addressed this concern during the 

investigation of the unsafe condition. 

We found that the unsafe condition is 

related to a design change and was 

applicable to one manufacturing lot. 

The unsafe condition applies to only the 

part numbers and serial numbers 

affected by this AD. 

We have not changed this AD based 

on this comment. 

Request To Prohibit the Installation of 

the Affected Muffler on Cessna 172R 

and 172S Airplanes 

An anonymous commenter pointed 

out that that all 10 SDRs address the 

Models 172R and 172S airplanes. This 

commenter also asks how many of the 

56 parts were installed on Cessna 

Models C172R and C172S airplanes. 

The commenter explains that (AWI) 

mufflers, part numbers A1754001–23 

and A1754001–25, lack the reinforced 

ends and high temperature corrosion 

resistant material specified in FAR Part 

23.1125(a)(1). The material substitution 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES