29142 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 1996 / Notices

and telephone number, date petition

was mailed, plant name, and

publication date and page number of

this Federal Register notice. 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

Harold F. Reis, Esquire, Newman; and

Holtzinger, 1615 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036, 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).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated June 1, 1996, which

is available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, and at the local

public document room, located at the

Indian River Junior College Library,

3209 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce,

Florida 34954–9003.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of June 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Leonard A. Wiens,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

II–3, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 96–14391 Filed 6–6–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–244]

Exemption

In the Matter of Rochester Gas and Electric

Corporation, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant)

I

On December 10, 1984, the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission issued Facility

Operating License No. DPR–18 to

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation

(RG&E) for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear

Power Plant (Ginna). The license

stipulated, among other things, that the

facility is subject to all rules,

regulations, and orders of the

Commission.

II

The Code of Federal Regulations,

Paragraph I.D.3, ‘‘Calculation of Reflood

Rate for Pressurized Water Reactors

[PWRs],’’ of Appendix K to Part 50 of

Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR) requires that the

refilling of the reactor vessel and the

time and rate of reflooding of the core

be calculated by an acceptable model

that considers the thermal and

hydraulic characteristics of the core and

of the reactor system. In particular,

Paragraph I.D.3 requires, in part, that,

‘‘The ratio of the total fluid flow at the

core exit plane to the total flow at the

core inlet plane (carryover fraction)

shall be used to determine the core exit

flow and shall be determined in

accordance with applicable

experimental data.’’ The purpose of this

requirement is to assure that the core

exit flow during the post-loss-of-coolant

accident (LOCA) refill/reflood phase is

determined using a model that accounts

for appropriate experimental data.

Paragraph I.D.5, ‘‘Refill and Reflood

Heat Transfer for Pressurized Reactors,’’

of Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50

requires that for (1) reflood rates of 1

inch per second or higher, the reflood

heat transfer coefficients be based on

applicable experimental data for

unblocked cores, and (2) reflood rates

less than 1 inch per second during refill

and reflood, heat transfer calculations

be based on the assumption that cooling

is only by steam.

License Condition 2.D provided an

exemption from 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1) that

the emergency core cooling system

(ECCS) performance be calculated in

accordance with an acceptable

calculational model which conforms to

the provisions of Appendix K (SER

dated April 18, 1978). The exemption

will expire upon receipt and approval of

revised ECCS calculations.

By letter dated November 5, 1992, as

supplemented on June 19, 1995, RG&E

(the licensee) requested an exemption

from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K,

Paragraphs I.D.3 and I.D.5 based on

revised ECCS calculations.

The November 5, 1992, exemption

request was supported first by a plant

specific ECCS evaluation model (EM)

using a methodology not yet approved

by NRC (WCAP–10924–P, Volume 2,

Revision 2, Addendum 3). The proposed

EM would have supported the May

1993, 1994, and 1995 core reloads.

However, the WCAP–10924–P, Revision

2, Volume 2, Addendum 3 methodology

has not yet been approved by NRC. On

June 19, 1995, the licensee supported

the November 5, 1992, exemption

request by an updated plant specific EM

using a methodology approved by NRC

(WCAP–10924–P, Volume 1, Revision 1,

Addendum 4). The proposed June 19,

1995, EM includes larger peaking factors

necessary to support conversion to an

18-month fuel-cycle reload to begin in

May 1996.

The specific provision of Paragraph

I.D.3 from which the licensee requested

an exemption, is the calculation of core

exit flow based on carryover fraction.

The licensee stated that the

prescriptions for this calculation given

in Paragraph I.D.3 were based on data

for a bottom-flooding configuration

design. The Ginna design relies on

upper plenum injection (UPI) for the

ECCS injection during the reflood phase

of a large-break LOCA. UPI is not a

‘‘lower flooding design;’’ its ECCS flow

patterns, flow magnitudes, core cooling

mechanisms, and, in fact, the meanings

and impacts of the terms ‘‘inlet’’ and

‘‘exit’’ are different than those of bottom

flooding plants. This EM described in

WCAP 10924–P, Volume 1, Revision 2,

Addendum 4, ‘‘Westinghouse UPI

Model Improvements,’’ dated August

1990, which has been generically

approved in a staff SER of February 8,

1991, determines core flow, including

flow ‘‘exiting’’ the core, flow ‘‘entering’’

the core, and flow within the core and

elsewhere within the reactor coolant

system (RCS) in accordance with

applicable experimental data. The data

are different than that referenced in

paragraph I.D.3, however, they were

found acceptable because they are

specifically applicable to UPI designs.

Because of the differences between UPI

design considerations and those for

bottom flooding designs mentioned

above, the ‘‘carryover fraction’’ as

defined in paragraph I.D.3 is not

calculated in the approved EM and

would not have the same technical

significance if it were. The licensee,

therefore, concludes that, in using the

approved UPI model with its technical

improvements for Ginna, it will not

comply with Paragraph I.D.3. The staff

SER of February 8, 1991, finds WCAP–

10924–P EM contains an empirically

verified model more directly applicable

to top flooding situations to calculate

core exit flow, which satisfies the

technical purpose of this Appendix K,

paragraph I.D.3 requirement to

determine the core exit flow, but does

not comply with the letter of the

requirement.

In more detail, the intent of the

Appendix K, paragraph I.D.3, is to

assure that the calculation of core exit

flow is performed using an EM code

model which has been verified against

appropriate experimental data for LOCA

accident analyses. The Westinghouse

COBRA/TRAC code (WCOBRA/TRAC)

consists of (1) Westinghouse LargeBreak LOCA Best Estimate

Methodology, Volume 1: Model
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 1996 / Notices 29143

Description and Validation, WCAP–

10924–P, April 1986, and (2) a

Westinghouse Large-Break LOCA Best

Estimate Methodology, Volume 2:

Application to Two-Loop PWRs

Equipped with Upper Plenum Injection,

WCAP–10924, Volume 2, Revision 1,

April 1988.

To assess WCOBRA/TRAC’s

capability for predicting the correct

thermal-hydraulic behavior for upper

plenum injection situations, WCOBRA/

TRAC has been compared to the

Japanese Cylindrical Core Test Facility

data which models the interaction

effects of upper plenum injection in a

large scale test facility. WCOBRA/TRAC

predicts the thermal-hydraulic effects of

the upper plenum injection such that

the carryover of steam and water into

the hot legs is more realistically

calculated.

The staff finds that the exemption

from Paragraph I.D.3 requirement is

acceptable because the licensee has

provided an acceptable method to

satisfy the underlying purpose of the

requirement that appropriately models

heat transfer mechanisms in UPI designs

and application of the regulation is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule.

Paragraph I.D.5, dealing with refill

and reflood heat transfer for PWRs,

provides heat transfer prescriptions for

refill, reflood with a flooding rate of less

than 1 inch per second, and reflood

with a flooding rate of more than 1 inch

per second for bottom-flooding PWRs.

The purpose of the paragraph is to

assure that heat transfer in the core is

appropriately calculated in the refill and

reflood phases of post-LOCA recovery.

Paragraph I.D.5.a requires that ‘‘New

correlations or modifications to the

FLECHT heat transfer correlations are

acceptable only after they are

demonstrated to be conservative, by

comparison with FLECHT data, for a

range of parameters consistent with the

transient to which they are applied.’’

The licensee requested an exemption

from the prescriptions of this paragraph

because the FLECHT data do not portray

UPI core heat transfer mechanisms as

realistically as the more recent data

upon which the models in WCAP–

10924 were based. The licensee also

indicates that the Ginna design is not

lower flooding, and that technical

considerations are different between

bottom flooding designs and UPI design

similar to those discussed above for

paragraph I.D.3. The licensee identified

that the WCAP–10924–P EM contains

an empirically verified model which

accounts for refill and reflood heat

transfer, which satisfies the purpose of

the paragraph I.D.5.a requirement. The

heat transfer models in the approved

UPI EM are based on comparisons to

data other than the FLECHT data cited

in Paragraph I.D.5.a, and comparisons to

the applicable data demonstrate

acceptable conservatism (as identified

in the staff SER of February 8, 1991).

Because of the differences in bases, it is

not clear that the licensee can

demonstrate monotonic conservatism

with respect to FLECHT data.

Further, to meet the intent of

Appendix K, paragraph I.D.5, which is

to use the most applicable data for

LOCA accident analyses to

appropriately calculate heat transfer

during the refill and reflood phases; the

WCOBRA/TRAC code has been verified

against two independent sets of

experimental data which model the

upper plenum injection flow and heat

transfer situation.

The first series of tests which have

been modeled by WCOBRA/TRAC are

the Westinghouse G–2 refill downflow

and counterflow rod bundle film boiling

experiments (Westinghouse G–2, 17×17

Refill Heat Transfer Tests and Analysis,

WCAP–8793, August 1976).

These experiments were performed as

a full length 17×17 Westinghouse rod

bundle array which had a total of 336

heated rods. The injection flow was

from the top of the bundle and is

scalable to the UPI injection flows. The

pressures varied between 20–100 psia

which is the typical range for UPI top

flooding situations. Both concurrent

downflow film boiling and

countercurrent film boiling experiments

were modeled using WCOBRA/TRAC.

Both these flow situations are found in

the calculated core response for a PWR

with UPI.

In addition to modeling these separate

effects tests, WCOBRA/TRAC has been

used to model the Japanese Cylindrical

Core Test Facility experiments with

upper plenum injection. The tests

which have been modeled included: (1)

A symmetrical UPI injection with

maximum injection flow, (2) minimum

injection flows with a nearly

symmetrical injection pattern, (3) a

minimum UPI injection flow with a

skewed UPI injection, and (4) a cold leg

injection reference test for the UPI tests.

The results of these comparisons are

documented and show that WCOBRA/

TRAC does predict heat transfer

behavior for these complex film boiling

situations as well as the system

response for upper plenum injection

situations.

The effect of flow blockage due to

cladding burst is explicitly accounted

for in WCOBRA/TRAC with models

which calculate cladding swelling,

burst, and area reduction due to

blockage. These models are based on

previously approved models used in

current evaluation models and on flow

blockage models determined to be

acceptable by the staff. The effect of

flow blockage is accounted for from the

time burst is calculated to occur. The

fluid models in WCAP/TRAC calculate

flow diversion as a result of the

blockage and take into account of the

blockage from the time the cladding

burst is calculated to occur. Thus, the

heat transfer behavior is predicted for

these complex film boiling situations

and, thus, the intent of Appendix K,

paragraph I.D.5, which requires flow

blockage effects be taken into account,

is met.

The staff finds that the exemption

from the paragraph I.D.5.a requirement

is acceptable based on the provision of

an acceptable method to satisfy the

purpose of the paragraph and the

application of the regulation to calculate

core reflood rates and heat transfer

during a LB LOCA.

Paragraph I.D.5.b requires that

‘‘During refill and during reflood when

reflood rates are less than one inch per

second, heat transfer calculations shall

be based on the assumption that cooling

is only by steam, and shall take into

account any flow blockage calculated to

occur as a result of cladding swelling or

rupture as such blockage might affect

both local steam flow and heat transfer.’’

The EM approved for UPI plants which

the licensee proposes to reference does

base heat transfer on cooling other than

steam if other regimes are calculated to

occur. The bases of acceptability,

including data comparisons, for this are

discussed in the generic SER for the EM.

By using this methodology, the licensee

does not comply with this requirement,

since the methodology recognizes that

for a top flooding design, the

preponderance of cooling water falls

down into the core from above and may

or may not be vaporized. Because the

licensee’s model does not meet the

‘‘steam cooling only’’ requirement of

I.D.5.b, but provides an approved

alternate methodology (which does

consider the thermal and hydraulic

effects of cladding swelling and rupture,

as also required in paragraph I.D.5.b) for

calculating heat transfer, the staff finds

the exemption from the requirement of

I.D.5.b acceptable, as compliance is

demonstrated not to be necessary to

achieve the underlying purpose of the

rule.

III

Section 50.12 of 10 CFR permits the

granting of an exemption from the

regulations under special

circumstances. According to 10 CFR
29144 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 1996 / Notices

50.12(a)(2)(ii), special circumstances are

present whenever application of the

regulation in question is not necessary

to achieve the underlying purpose of the

rule.

The staff finds that the requested

exemptions for Ginna are acceptable,

since compliance with the literal

requirements of the paragraphs cited is

not necessary given that the approved

EM is based upon appropriate

experimental data, the approved EM

satisfactorily accounts for the cooling

mechanisms in the Ginna UPI design for

calculations of core reflood rates and

heat transfer during a LB LOCA, and

that the approved EM satisfies the

purpose of the exempted requirements.

Thus, using the best-estimate thermalhydraulic approved LBLOCA EM, the

underlying purpose of the Appendix K,

paragraphs I.D.3 and I.D.5 requirements

can be achieved.

IV

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR

50.12, this exemption is authorized by

law, will not present an undue risk to

the public health and safety, and is

consistent with the common defense

and security.

Accordingly, the Commission hereby

grants an exemption from 10 CFR Part

50, Appendix K, paragraphs I.D.3 and

I.D.5. The staff also finds that the LB

LOCA EM described in any approved

version of WCAP–10924–P incorporated

in the Ginna Technical Specifications

may be used in core operating report,

and licensing analyses, and that further

exemptions will not be necessary unless

the updated approved versions of the

EM do not meet other requirements of

10 CFR 50.46 and/or Appendix K.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of the exemption will have no

significant impact on the quality of the

human environment (61 FR 13891).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day

of May 1996.

Steven A. Varga,

Director, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II

1Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 96–14395 Filed 6–6–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL

REVIEW BOARD

Board Meeting: Exploration and

Testing Activities, Past and Future

Climates and Hydrology at Yucca

Mountain

Pursuant to its authority under

section 5051 of Public Law 100–203, the

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act

of 1987, the Nuclear Waste Technical

Review Board will hold its summer

meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday,

July 9–10, 1996, in Denver, Colorado.

The meeting will be held at the Red

Lion Hotel, 3203 Quebec Street, Denver,

CO 80207; (tel) 303–321–3333; (fax)

303–329–9179. To receive the preferred

rate, reservations must be made by June

16, 1996; please tell the hotel you are

attending the Nuclear Waste Technical

Review Board meeting. The meeting is

open to the public and will begin at 8:30

A.M. both days.

The Board will explore two basic

themes during the meeting: activities in

the Yucca Mountain exploratory studies

facility (ESF), and past and future

climates and their associated effects on

the hydrology at Yucca Mountain. The

Board has invited representatives of the

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

Management (OCRWM) and its

contractors, as well as independent

consultants, to make presentations on

the issues. Specific topics concerning

the ESF will include updates on tunnel

boring machine operations and

scientific activities, the status of the

waste isolation strategy, thermal testing,

and advanced conceptual design for the

repository. Presentations on climate and

its effects on hydrology will include the

geological structure at Yucca Mountain,

historical perspectives and current

views on both climate and hydrology,

and climate modeling. Time has been

set aside on the second day for a roundtable discussion of all topics covered by

the meeting.

Time also has been set aside for

public comment and questions on both

days. To ensure that everyone wishing

to speak is provided time to do so, the

Board encourages those who have

comments to sign the Public Comment

Register, which will be located at the

sign-in table. Depending on the number

of people wishing to speak, a time limit

may have to be set on the length of

individual remarks. However, written

comments of any length may be

submitted for the record.

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review

Board was created by Congress in the

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act

of 1987 to evaluate the technical and

scientific validity of activities

undertaken by the DOE in its program

to manage the disposal of the nation’s

spent nuclear fuel and defense highlevel waste. In that same legislation,

Congress directed the DOE to

characterize a site at Yucca Mountain,

Nevada, for its suitability as a potential

location for a permanent repository for

the disposal of that waste.

Transcripts of this meeting will be

available via e-mail, on computer disk,

or on a library-loan basis in paper

format from Davonya Barnes, Board

staff, beginning August 21, 1996. For

further information, contact Frank

Randall, External Affairs, 1100 Wilson

Boulevard, Suite 910, Arlington,

Virginia 22209; (Tel) 703–235–4473;

(Fax) 703–235–4495.

Dated: June 4, 1996.

William Barnard,

Executive Director, Nuclear Waste Technical

Review Board.

[FR Doc. 96–14375 Filed 6–6–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–AM–M

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Agency Forms Submitted for OMB

Review

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad

Retirement Board has submitted the

following proposal(s) for the collection

of information to the Office of

Management and Budget for review and

approval.

Summary of Proposal(s)

(1) Collection title: Application for

Survivor Insurance Annuities.

(2) Form(s) submitted: AA–17, AA–

17b, AA–18, AA–19, AA–19a, and AA–

20.

(3) OMB Number: 3220–0030.

(4) Expiration date of current OMB

clearance: June 30, 1996.

(5) Type of request: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

(6) Respondents: Individuals or

households.

(7) Estimated annual number of

respondents: 5,765.

(8) Total annual responses: 5,765.

(9) Total annual reporting hours:

2,864.

(10) Collection description: Under

Section 2(d) of the RRA, monthly

survivor annuities are payable to

surviving widow(er)s, parents,

unmarried children, and in certain

cases, divorced wives (husbands),

mother (fathers), remarried widow(er)s

and grandchildren or deceased railroad

employees. The collection obtains

information needed by the Railroad