29846 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, located at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the

above date. A copy of the petition

should also be sent to the Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, and to Arunas T.

Udrys, Esquire, Consumers Energy

Company, 212 West Michigan Avenue,

Jackson, MI 49201, attorney for the

licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

If a request for a hearing is received,

the Commission’s staff may issue the

amendment after it completes its

technical review and prior to the

completion of any required hearing if it

publishes a further notice for public

comment of its proposed finding of no

significant hazards consideration in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and

50.92.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated March 2, 2001, as

supplemented by letter dated March 29,

2001, which are available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, located at One White

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

floor), Rockville, Maryland, and

accessible electronically through the

ADAMS Public Electronic Reading

Room link at the NRC Web site (http:/

/www.nrc.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of May 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Darl S. Hood,

Senior Project Manager, Section I, Project

Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–13740 Filed 5–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–272 and 50–311]

PSEG Nuclear LLC; Salem Nuclear

Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2;

Exemption

1.0 Background

PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG or the

licensee) is the holder of Facility

Operating License Nos. DPR–70 and

DPR–75 that authorize operation of the

Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit

Nos. 1 and 2. The licenses provide,

among other things, that the facility is

subject to all rules, regulations, and

orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC, the Commission)

now or hereafter in effect.

The facility consists of two

pressurized water reactors located at the

licensee’s site on the southern end of

Artificial Island in Lower Alloways

Creek Township, Salem County, New

Jersey. Salem, New Jersey, is located

approximately 7.5 miles northeast of the

site.

2.0 Purpose

Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Appendix

G requires that pressure-temperature (P–

T) limits be established for reactor

pressure vessels (RPVs) during normal

operating and hydrostatic or leak rate

testing conditions. Specifically, 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix G states that ‘‘[t]he

appropriate requirements on * * * the

pressure-temperature limits and

minimum permissible temperature must

be met for all conditions.’’ Appendix G

to 10 CFR Part 50 also specifies that the

requirements for these limits are the

American Society of Mechanical

Engineers (ASME) Code, Section XI,

Appendix G Limits. In Generic Letter

88–11, the NRC staff advised licensees

that the staff would use Regulatory

Guide (RG) 1.99, Revision 2, to review

P–T limit curves. RG 1.99, Revision 2,

provides guidance for implementing 10

CFR Part 50, Appendix G, and contains

conservative methodologies for

determining the increase in transition

temperature and the decrease in uppershelf energy (USE) resulting from

neutron radiation.

In order to address provisions of

amendments to the Technical

Specifications (TS) P–T limit curves, the

licensee requested in its application

dated November 10, 2000, that the staff

exempt, as permitted by 10 CFR

50.60(b), Salem, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, from

application of specific requirements of

10 CFR 50.60(a) and 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix G, and substitute use of

ASME Code Case N–640. Code Case N–

640 provides an alternate reference

fracture toughness methodology for

reactor vessel materials for use in

determining the P–T limits. The

proposed action is in accordance with

PSEG’s application for exemption

contained in its November 10, 2000,

letter, as supplemented by letters dated

March 28 and April 2, 2001. The

proposed action is needed to support

PSEG’s license amendment request to

increase thermal power levels by 1.4%

submitted under the same application

(the final revision of the proposed P–T

limit curves was submitted by the

licensee by letter dated March 28, 2001).

The proposed license amendment will,

in part, revise the P–T limits for heatup,

cooldown, core criticality, and

hydrostatic/leak test limitations for the

reactor coolant system (RCS) to 32

effective full power years (EFPYs).

Code Case N–640

The licensee has proposed an

exemption to allow the use of Code Case

N–640, in conjunction with ASME

Section XI, Appendix G, 10 CFR

50.60(a), and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix

G, to determine the P–T limits, and

stated that this proposed alternative

meets the underlying intent of the

NRC’s regulations.

Standard Review Plan (NUREG–0800)

Section 5.3.2 provides an acceptable

method for determining the P–T limit

curves for ferritic materials in the

beltline of the RPV based on the linear

elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)

methodology of Appendix G to Section

XI of the Code. The basic parameter of

this methodology is the stress intensity

factor KI, which is a function of the

stress state and flaw configuration.

Appendix G requires a safety factor of

2.0 on stress intensities resulting from

reactor pressure during normal and

transient operating conditions, and a

safety factor of 1.5 on the same stresses

for hydrostatic testing curves. The

methods of Appendix G postulate the

existence of a sharp surface flaw in the

RPV that is normal to the direction of

the maximum stress. This flaw is

postulated to have a depth that is equal

to 1/4 of the RPV beltline thickness and

a length equal to 1.5 times the RPV

beltline thickness. The critical locations

in the RPV beltline region for

calculating heatup and cooldown P–T

curves are the 1/4 thickness (1/4T) and

3/4 thickness (3/4T) locations, which

correspond to the maximum depth of

the postulated inside surface and

outside surface defects, respectively.

The methodology provided in

Appendix G to Section XI of the ASME

Code requires that licensees determine

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices 29847

the adjusted reference temperature (ART

or adjusted RTNDT). The ART is defined

as the sum of the initial (unirradiated)

reference temperature (initial RTNDT),

the mean value of the adjustment in

reference temperature caused by

irradiation (∆RTNDT), and a margin (M)

term by application of RG 1.99, Revision

2. The ∆RTNDT is a product of a

chemistry factor and a fluence factor.

The chemistry factor is dependent upon

the amount of copper and nickel in the

material and may be determined from

tables in RG 1.99, Revision 2, or from

surveillance data. The fluence factor is

dependent upon the neutron fluence at

the maximum postulated flaw depth.

The margin term is dependent upon

whether the initial RTNDT is a plantspecific or a generic value and whether

the chemistry factor (CF) was

determined using the tables in RG 1.99,

Revision 2, or surveillance data. The

margin term is used to account for

uncertainties in the values of the initial

RTNDT, the copper and nickel contents,

the fluence and the calculational

procedures. RG 1.99, Revision 2,

describes the methodology to be used in

calculating the margin term.

The Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS)

rule, 10 CFR 50.61, requires that

licensees demonstrate that facility RPV

materials will continue to possess an

adequate level of fracture resistance to

protect the RPV from potential failure as

a result of PTS events. Each material’s

PTS reference temperature, RTPTS, is

determined in a manner like that used

to determine ART, except that the

neutron fluence at the clad-to-base

metal interface at end of license (EOL)

conditions is used in lieu of either the

1/4T or 3/4T fluence. Each material’s

RTPTS value is then compared to the

screening limits given in 10 CFR 50.61,

270 °F for plates, forging, and axial

welds, and 300 °F for circumferential

welds. Provided that all RPV materials’

RTPTS values remain below these

screening limits, the fracture resistance

of the RPV is demonstrated to be

adequate to meet the requirements of 10

CFR 50.61 through end of life.

The proposed license amendments to

revise the P–T limits for Salem, Unit

Nos. 1 and 2, rely in part on the

requested exemption. These revised P–

T limits have been developed using the

KIc fracture toughness curve shown in

ASME Section XI, Appendix A, Figure

A–2200–1, in lieu of the KIa fracture

toughness curve of ASME Section XI,

Appendix G, Figure G–2210–1, as the

lower bound for fracture toughness. The

other margins involved with the ASME

Section XI, Appendix G process for

establishing P–T limit curves remain

unchanged.

Use of the KIc curve in determining

the lower bound fracture toughness in

the development of P–T operating limit

curves is more technically correct than

the KIa curve. The KIc curve

appropriately implements the use of

static initiation fracture toughness

behavior to evaluate the controlled

heatup and cooldown process of a

reactor vessel. The licensee stated that

the use of the KIa curve, with its initial

conservatism, was justified when the

curve was codified in 1974. This initial

conservatism was necessary due to the

limited knowledge of RPV materials.

Since 1974, additional knowledge has

been gained about RPV materials, that

demonstrates that the lower bound on

fracture toughness provided by the KIa

curve is well beyond the margin of

safety required to protect the public

health and safety from potential RPV

failure. In addition, P–T curves based on

the KIc curve will enhance overall plant

safety by opening the P–T operating

window with the greatest safety benefit

in the region of low temperature

operations. The operating window

through which the operator heats up

and cools down the RCS is determined

by the difference between the maximum

allowable pressure determined by

Appendix G of ASME Section XI, and

the minimum required pressure for the

reactor coolant pump (RCP) seals

adjusted for instrument uncertainties.

Since the RCS P–T operating window

is defined by the P–T operating and test

limit curves developed in accordance

with the ASME Section XI, Appendix G

procedure, continued operation of

Salem, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, with these P–

T curves without the relief provided by

ASME Code Case N–640 may

unnecessarily restrict the P–T operating

window, especially at low temperature

conditions. The operating window

becomes more restrictive with

continued reactor vessel service.

Implementation of the proposed P–T

curves, as allowed by ASME Code Case

N–640, does not significantly reduce the

margin of safety. Thus, pursuant to 10

CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the underlying

purpose of the regulation will continue

to be served.

In summary, the ASME Section XI,

Appendix G procedure was

conservatively developed based on the

level of knowledge existing in 1974

concerning RPV materials and the

estimated effects of operation. Since

1974, the level of knowledge about these

topics has been greatly expanded. The

NRC staff concurs that this increased

knowledge permits relaxation of the

ASME Section XI, Appendix G

requirements by application of ASME

Code Case N–640, while maintaining,

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

underlying purpose of the ASME Code

and NRC regulations to ensure an

acceptable margin of safety.

3.0 Discussion

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the

Commission may, upon application by

any interested person or upon its own

initiative, grant exemptions from the

requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, when

(1) the exemptions are authorized by

law, will not present an undue risk to

public health or safety, and are

consistent with the common defense

and security; and (2) when special

circumstances are present. Special

circumstances are present whenever,

according to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii),

‘‘Application of the regulation in the

particular circumstances would not

serve the underlying purpose of the rule

or is not necessary to achieve the

underlying purpose of the rule.’’ The

staff accepts the licensee’s

determination that an exemption would

be required to approve the use of Code

Case N–640. The staff examined the

licensee’s rationale to support the

exemption request and concurred that

the use of the code case would also meet

the underlying intent of these

regulations. Based upon a consideration

of the conservatism that is explicitly

incorporated into the methodologies of

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G; Appendix

G of the ASME Code; and RG 1.99,

Revision 2, the staff concluded that

application of the code case as

described would provide an acceptable

margin of safety against brittle failure of

the RPV.

Therefore, since strict compliance

with the requirements of 10 CFR Part

50, Appendix G, is not necessary to

serve the underlying purpose of the

regulation, the staff concludes that

application of Code Case N–640 to the

P–T limit calculations meets the special

circumstance provisions stated in 10

CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), for granting this

exemption to the regulation, and that

the methodology of Code Case N–640

may be used to revise the P–T limits for

Salem, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.

4.0 Conclusion

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR

50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by

law, will not endanger life or property

or common defense and security, and is,

otherwise, in the public interest.

Therefore, the Commission hereby

grants PSEG Nuclear LLC an exemption

from the requirements of 10 CFR Part

50, Section 50.60(a) and 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix G, for Salem, Unit Nos. 1 and

2.

29848 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3Letter from Ivonne Natal, Assistant General

Counsel, Amex, to Nancy Sanow, Assistant

Director, Division of Market Regulation

(‘‘Division’’), Commission, dated April 30, 2001

(‘‘Amendment No. 1’’). Amendment No. 1 states

that on April 30, 2001, a majority of the regular and

options principal members, voting as a single class,

voted in favor of the proposed rule change.

4Letter from Ivonne Natal, Assistant General

Counsel, Amex, to Nancy Sanow, Assistant

Director, Division, Commission, dated May 14, 2001

(‘‘Amendment No. 2’’). Amendment No. 2 requests

the Commission to consider the Plan on a pilot

basis for a minimum of two years and a maximum

of four years, in the event the Seat Fund Committee

exercises its discretion to extend the Plan.

Amendment No. 2 also states that there are

approximately 300 members trading equities on the

Exchange floor.

5Letter from Ivonne Natal, Assistant General

Counsel, Amex, to Nancy Sanow, Assistant

Director, Division, Commission, dated May 17, 2001

(‘‘Amendment No. 3’’). Amendment No. 3 clarifies

that the administrative fee that the Amex would

receive for administering the Plan would be $750.00

per sale/lease and that the administrative fee will

be collected out of the sale proceeds, prior to their

distribution to the members. Amendment No. 3 also

states that Amex members and the Board of

Governors have approved this fee.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment (66 FR 24410).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day

of May 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John A. Zwolinski,

Director, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–13741 Filed 5–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Determination of Quarterly Rate of

Excise Tax for Railroad Retirement

Supplemental Annuity Program

In accordance with directions in

Section 3221(c) of the Railroad

Retirement Tax Act (26 U.S.C., Section

3221(c)), the Railroad Retirement Board

has determined that the excise tax

imposed by such Section 3221(c) on

every employer, with respect to having

individuals in his employ, for each

work-hour for which compensation is

paid by such employer for services

rendered to him during the quarter

beginning July 1, 2001, shall be at the

rate of 26 cents.

In accordance with directions in

Section 15(a) of the Railroad Retirement

Act of 1974, the Railroad Retirement

Board has determined that for the

quarter beginning July 1, 2001, 38.6

percent of the taxes collected under

Sections 3211(b) and 3221(c) of the

Railroad Retirement Tax Act shall be

credited to the Railroad Retirement

Account and 61.4 percent of the taxes

collected under such Sections 3211(b)

and 3221(c) plus 100 percent of the

taxes collected under Section 3221(d) of

the Railroad Retirement Tax Act shall be

credited to the Railroad Retirement

Supplemental Account.

Dated: May 24, 2001.

By Authority of the Board.

Beatrice Ezerski,

Secretary to the Board.

[FR Doc. 01–13766 Filed 5–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7905–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–44341; File No. SR–Amex–

2001–17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by

the American Stock Exchange LLC

Increasing Regular Memberships and

Creating Two-Year Permits

May 23, 2001.

Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on March 19,

2001, the American Stock Exchange LLC

(‘‘Amex’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule

change as described in Items I, II, and

III below, which Items have been

prepared by the Amex. The Exchange

submitted Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3

to the proposed rule change on May 3,

2001,3 May 16, 2001,4 and May 18,

2001,5 respectively. The Commission is

publishing this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule change,

as amended, from interested persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

The Amex proposes to increase the

number of regular memberships and

create 25 two-year permits as a result of

a Regular Seat and Two-Year Permit

Offering Plan (the ‘‘Plan’’). The text of

the proposed rule change is set forth

below. New language is in italics.

Deletions are in brackets.

AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE

CONSTITUTION

Article IV

Admission to Membership

Number of Regular Memberships

SEC. 1(a)(1) Regular Membership—

There shall be up to 889[864] regular

memberships in the Exchange, inclusive

of any regular memberships created

through the options principal

membership upgrade program. The

number of regular memberships shall be

increased only if the Board of Governors

requests The Amex Membership

Corporation to issue additional regular

memberships. Any such issuance of

additional regular memberships shall

require the approval of a majority of the

regular and options principal members

voting together as a single class at a

meeting called for the purpose of

considering the request that new regular

memberships be issued.

(2)–(3) No change.

(b)–(h) No change.

(i) Two-Year Permits

(1) There shall be maximum of

twenty-five two-year permits. Two-year

permits shall expire two years from the

effective date of the membership, but

may be renewed for an additional two

years at the discretion of the Exchange’s

Seat Fund Committee. Two-year permits

are non-transferable. The price for twoyear permits will be determined by the

Exchange’s Seat Fund Committee at the

beginning of a 120-day offering period,

but shall not be less than $14,000. A

two-year permit will automatically

terminate in the event the holder goes

out of business or is delinquent in

payment of dues, fines, fees, charges

and any other financial responsibility

owed to the Exchange for more than

thirty (30) consecutive days. In the event

a two-year permit holder goes out of

business, any monies for unpaid dues,

fines, fees, charges and any other

financial responsibility due to the

Exchange or any other creditor, will be

collected by the Exchange out of the

proceeds of the sale of the two-year

permits.

(2) Requirements for Issuance

A two-year permit holder must:

(i) be at least the minimum age of

majority required to be responsible for

his contracts in each jurisdiction in

which he conducts business:

(ii) agree that his primary occupation

will be the transaction of business on

the Floor of the Exchange in his

capacity as a permit holder; and

(iii) obtain a waiver letter from their

clearing firms waiving their right to file

a claim against the permit should the

permit holder owe them money or,