This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

61321 

Vol. 75, No. 192 

Tuesday, October 5, 2010 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION 

BOARD 

5 CFR Part 1201 

Practices and Procedures 

AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection 

Board. 

ACTION: Interim rule. 

SUMMARY: The Merit Systems Protection 

Board (MSPB or the Board) is amending 

its practices and procedures regulations 

to make clear that the Board may, in its 

discretion, include discussion of issues 

raised in an appeal in a nonprecedential 

Final Order. 

DATES: Effective date: October 5, 2010. 

Submit written comments on or before 

November 4, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to William 

D. Spencer, Clerk of the Board, Merit 

Systems Protection Board, 1615 M 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20419; 

(202) 653–7200; fax: (202) 653–7130; or 

e-mail: mspb@mspb.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William D. Spencer, Clerk of the Board, 

Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20419; 

(202) 653–7200; fax: (202) 653–7130; or 

e-mail: mspb@mspb.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

amendment, adding a new paragraph (c) 

to 5 CFR 1201.117, which reflects recent 

changes in the Board’s internal 

procedures, is intended to give the 

parties greater insight into the reasoning 

supporting the Board’s decision in a 

particular case without requiring the 

Board to issue a precedential decision. 

The Board believes that including more 

information in its nonprecedential 

decisions will be beneficial to both 

appellants and agencies because both 

parties will more fully understand the 

Board’s reasoning and have added 

assurance that the Board fully 

considered their arguments on appeal. 

This amendment to 5 CFR 1201.117 

also revises paragraph (b) to make clear 

that the Board may issue a final decision 

and, when appropriate, order a date for 

compliance with that decision. 

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 1201 

Administrative practice and 

procedure. 

■ Accordingly, the Board amends 5 CFR 

part 1201 as follows: 

PART 1201—[AMENDED] 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1204 and 7701, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 1. Revise § 1201.117 to read as 

follows: 

§ 1201.117 Board action on petition for 

review or reopening. 

(a) In any case that is reopened or 

reviewed, the Board may: 

(1) Issue a decision that denies or 

grants a petition for review, modifies or 

supplements an initial decision, or 

reopens an appeal, and decides the case; 

(2) Hear oral arguments; 

(3) Require that briefs be filed; 

(4) Remand the appeal so that the 

judge may take further testimony or 

evidence or make further findings or 

conclusions; or 

(5) Take any other action necessary 

for final disposition of the case. 

(b) The Board may affirm, reverse, 

modify, supplement, or vacate the 

initial decision of a judge, in whole or 

in part. The Board may issue a final 

decision and, when appropriate, order a 

date for compliance with that decision. 

(c) The Board may issue a final 

decision in the form of a Final Order or 

an Opinion and Order. In the Board’s 

sole discretion, a Final Order may, but 

need not, include additional discussion 

of the issues raised in the appeal. All 

Final Orders are nonprecedential and 

may not be cited or referred to except 

by a party asserting issue preclusion, 

claim preclusion, collateral estoppel, res 

judicata, or law of the case. Only an 

Opinion and Order is a precedential 

decision of the Board, and an Opinion 

and Order may be appropriately cited or 

referred to by any party. 

Dated: September 29, 2010. 

William D. Spencer, 

Clerk of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24864 Filed 10–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7400–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 50 

[NRC 2009–0014] 

RIN 3150–AI37 

Domestic Licensing of Production and 

Utilization Facilities; Updates to 

Incorporation by Reference of 

Regulatory Guide 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is amending its 

regulations to incorporate by reference 

the latest revisions of two previously 

incorporated regulatory guides (RGs) 

approving new and revised Code Cases 

published by the American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME). The RGs 

which are incorporated by reference are 

RG 1.84, ‘‘Design, Fabrication, and 

Materials Code Case Acceptability, 

ASME Section III,’’ Revision 35, and RG 

1.147, ‘‘Inservice Inspection Code Case 

Acceptability, ASME Section XI, 

Division 1,’’ Revision 16. This action 

allows nuclear power plant licensees, 

and applicants for standard design 

certifications, standard design 

approvals, and manufacturing licenses 

under the regulations that govern 

license certifications, and approves the 

nuclear power plants to use the Code 

Cases listed in these RGs as alternatives 

to requirements in the ASME Boiler and 

Pressure Vessel (BPV) Code regarding 

the construction and inservice 

inspection (ISI) of nuclear power plant 

components. Concurrent with this 

action, the NRC is publishing a notice 

of the issuance and availability of the 

RGs in the Federal Register. As a result 

of these related actions, the Code Cases 

listed in these RGs are incorporated by 

reference into the NRC’s regulations and 

are deemed to be legally-binding NRC 

requirements. 

DATES: The rule is effective on 

November 4, 2010. The incorporation by 

reference of RG 1.84, ‘‘Design, 

Fabrication, and Materials Code Case 

Acceptability, ASME Section III,’’ 

Revision 35 (July 2010), and RG 1.147, 

‘‘Inservice Inspection Code Case 

Acceptability, ASME Section XI, 

Division 1,’’ Revision 16 (July 2010) is 

approved by the Director of the Office 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
61322 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1ASME Code Cases can be categorized as one of 

two types: new and revised. A new Code Case 

provides for the first time an alternative to specific 

ASME Code provisions or addresses a new need. A 

revised Code Case is 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 regulatory guides which have been 

incorporated by reference into 10 CFR 50.55a. 

of the Federal Register as of November 

4, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You can access publicly 

available documents related to this 

document using the following methods: 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public 

File Area O1 F21, One White Flint 

North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC are available 

electronically at the NRC’s electronic 

reading room at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, 

the public can gain entry into ADAMS, 

which provides text and image files of 

NRC’s public documents. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s 

PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 

301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public 

comments and supporting materials 

related to this final rule can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching 

on Docket ID: NRC–2009–0014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Manash K. Bagchi, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, telephone 301–415– 

2905, or by e-mail 

Manash.Bagchi@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

II. Response To Public Comments 

A. Overview of Public Comments 

B. NRC Responses to Public Comments 

III. NRC Approval of New and Amended 

ASME Code Cases 

IV. Paragraph by Paragraph Discussion 

V. Availability of Documents 

VI. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

VII. Finding of No Significant Environmental 

Impact: Environmental Assessment 

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Statement 

Public Protection Notification 

IX. Regulatory Analysis 

X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

XI. Backfit Analysis 

XII. Congressional Review Act 

I. Background 

The ASME develops and publishes 

the ASME BPV Code, which contains 

requirements for the design, 

construction, and ISI of nuclear power 

plant components, and the Code for 

Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear 

Power Plants (OM Code), which 

contains requirements for inservice 

testing (IST) of nuclear power plant 

components. In response to BPV and 

OM Code user requests, the ASME 

develops ASME Code Cases which 

provide alternatives to BPV and OM 

Code requirements under special 

circumstances. 

The NRC approves and/or mandates 

the use of the ASME BPV and OM Code 

in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50.55a 

through the process of incorporation by 

reference. As such, each provision of the 

ASME Codes incorporated by reference 

into, and mandated by, 10 CFR 50.55a 

constitutes a legally-binding NRC 

requirement imposed by rule. As noted 

above, ASME Code Cases represent 

alternative approaches for complying 

with provisions of the ASME BPV and 

OM Codes. Accordingly, the NRC 

periodically amends § 50.55a to 

incorporate by reference NRC RGs 

listing new and revised1 ASME Code 

Cases which the NRC approves for use 

as alternatives to the BPV Code and the 

OM Code. See 68 FR 40469 (July 8, 

2003). It should be noted that for this 

particular rulemaking, RG 1.192, 

‘‘Operations and Maintenance Code Case 

Acceptability, ASME OM CODE,’’ is not 

being revised because there are no new 

or revised OM Code Cases considered 

by the NRC in this rulemaking. New and 

revised OM Code Cases published by 

the ASME since RG 1.192 was first 

issued, will be addressed in the next 

proposed amendment. This final rule 

will continue the NRC’s practice of 

incorporating by reference the RGs 

listing the most current set of NRCapproved ASME Code Cases. ASME 

Code Cases may be approved for use, 

either unconditionally or with 

conditions stated in the relevant RGs. In 

developing the RGs, the NRC staff 

reviews ASME BPV and OM Code 

Cases, determines the acceptability of 

each Code Case, and publishes its 

findings in RGs. The RGs are revised 

periodically as new Code Cases are 

published by the ASME. The NRC 

incorporates by reference the RGs listing 

acceptable and conditionally acceptable 

ASME Code Cases into 10 CFR 50.55a. 

Currently, NRC RG 1.84, Revision 34, 

‘‘Design, Fabrication, and Materials 

Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section 

III’’; RG 1.147, Revision 15, ‘‘Inservice 

Inspection Code Case Acceptability, 

ASME Section XI, Division 1;’’ and RG 

1.192, ‘‘Operation and Maintenance 

Code Case Acceptability, ASME OM 

Code’’ are incorporated into the NRC’s 

regulations at 10 CFR 50.55a, Codes and 

standards. 

II. Response to Public Comments 

The NRC published a proposed rule 

that would incorporate by reference RG 

1.84, Revision 35, and RG 1.147, 

Revision 16, on June 2, 2009, 74 FR 

26303. On the same date, the NRC 

published a parallel notice of 

availability of draft regulatory guides 

and opportunity for public comment. 

See 74 FR 26440. The NRC provided a 

75-day public comment period for both 

the proposed rule and the draft RGs, 

which ended on August 17, 2009. 

A. Overview of Public Comments 

The NRC received nineteen comment 

letters on the draft regulatory guides and 

three general comments on the proposed 

rule. The following table lists the 

commenters, their affiliation, and the 

accession number to locate each 

comment letter. In addition, the Code 

Cases for which each commenter 

submitted comments are listed. Several 

general comments were also received. 

COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON DRAFT: REGULATORY GUIDE 1.84, REVISION 35 (DG–1191); REGULATORY GUIDE

1.147, REVISION 16 (DG–1192); REGULATORY GUIDE 1.193, REVISION 3 (DG–1193) 

Commenter No. Name Affiliation/abbreviation ADAMS 

Accession No. 

1 ......................... Raymond West ............................. Private Citizen/RW ................................................................................

N–513–2/N–513–3 

ML091540204 

2 ......................... Ronald Clow .................................. DBA Xcel Energy/Xcel ..........................................................................

N–508–3/N–508–4 

ML091700640 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 61323 

COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON DRAFT: REGULATORY GUIDE 1.84, REVISION 35 (DG–1191); REGULATORY GUIDE

1.147, REVISION 16 (DG–1192); REGULATORY GUIDE 1.193, REVISION 3 (DG–1193)—Continued 

Commenter No. Name Affiliation/abbreviation ADAMS 

Accession No. 

3 ......................... C.L. Funderburk ............................ Dominion Resources Services, Inc./DRS .............................................

N–513–2/N–513–3 

ML091750096 

4 ......................... Brian Erler ..................................... American Society of Mechanical Engineers/ASME ..............................

N–71–18, N–416–4, N–504–4, N–513–2/N–513–3, N–661–1, N–702, 

N–747, N–751 

ML092190138 

5 ......................... Edward Gerlach ............................ Private Citizen/EG ................................................................................

Two general comments—N–416–4, N–504–4, N–638–4, N–661–1 

ML092190139 

6 ......................... Lee Goyette .................................. Pacific Gas & Electric Company/PGE ..................................................

N–597–2 

ML092190140 

7 ......................... Charles Wirtz ................................ ASME BPV Standards Committee on Nuclear Inservice Inspection/ 

CW.

N–619, N–648–1 

ML092220042 

8 ......................... Robert Sisk ................................... Westinghouse Electric Company/WECRS ...........................................

N–655–1, N–757–1, N–759–2, N–782, N–759 

ML092220043 

9 ......................... Patrick O’Regan ............................ Electric Power Research Institute/EPRI ...............................................

N–716 

ML092240576 

10 ....................... Kevin Hall ...................................... Private Citizen/KH .................................................................................

N–716 

ML092250165 

11 ....................... James Riley .................................. Nuclear Energy Institute/NEI ................................................................

General comment—N–504–4, N–508–3/N–508–4, N–597–2 

ML092370059 

12 ....................... R.M. Krich ..................................... Tennessee Valley Authority/TVA ..........................................................

N–520–1/N–520–2, N–702 

ML092370060 

13 ....................... J.A. Gresham ................................ Westinghouse Electric Company/WECJAG .........................................

N–655–1, N–757–1, N–759–2, N–782, N–759 

ML092370665 

14 ....................... Scott Chesworth ............................ Structural Integrity Associates, Inc./SIASC ..........................................

N–716 

ML092370061 

15 ....................... Miroslav Trubelja ........................... Structural Integrity Associates, Inc./SIAMT ..........................................

N–716 

ML092370062 

16 ....................... Sandra Sowah .............................. Structural Integrity Associates, Inc./SIASS ..........................................

N–716 

ML092370063 

17 ....................... Daniel R. Cordes .......................... ASME Section XI Subgroup Non Destructive Examination/DC ...........

N–583 

ML092370064 

18 ....................... Marcus N. Bressler ....................... Private Citizen/MB ................................................................................

N–71–18 

ML092400356 

19 ....................... T.S. Rausch .................................. PPL Susquehanna, LLC/PPL ...............................................................

N–416–4, N–504–4, N–638–4 

ML092590124 

Summary of Comments: 

The proposed rule provided a 75-day 

comment period. A total of 19 comment 

letters were received from four private 

citizens, four utility organizations, 

seven industry groups that provide 

engineering and inspection services to 

the utilities, three associated with the 

ASME, and the Nuclear Energy Institute. 

Three general comments were received 

on the proposed rule regarding the need 

for editorial corrections (although two of 

the comments received from different 

commenters address the same subject). 

The majority of the comments received 

relate to Section XI Code Cases. Two 

comments were submitted requesting 

that the NRC include later versions of 

certain Code Cases in the final guide; 7 

comments request that the NRC 

reconsider conditions on certain Code 

Cases; 1 comment requests clarification 

of a condition; and 3 comments provide 

additional technical information to 

justify moving certain Code Cases from 

RG 1.193 (Code Cases disapproved for 

use) to Regulatory Guide 1.147. 

B. NRC Responses to Public Comments 

on Draft Regulatory Guide 

Responses have been organized in two 

groups: Group I: Adopted Comments, 

that includes comments raising issues 

and concerns directly related to this 

rule, and have been adopted; and Group 

II: Comments not Adopted, that 

includes comments raising issues and 

concerns that are not directly connected 

to this particular rule, although they are 

generally relevant to this rule but have 

not been adopted. 

Group I—Adopted Comments 

General Comments: Edward Gerlach 

commented (comment EG1) that Table 2 

in the proposed rulemaking listed 

accession numbers for Draft Regulatory 

Guides dated April 2009. The NRC’s 

electronic reading room contains later 

versions of these Draft Guides dated 

June 2009. 

Response: The accession numbers in 

Table 2 of the final rulemaking have 

been corrected to reflect the final 

versions of the regulatory guides. In 

addition, the accession numbers for all 

the documents have been verified. 

Comment: Two commenters 

acknowledge that the titles of Code 

Cases N–712 and N–730 in Table 1 of 

the proposed rule had been 

inadvertently switched and should be 

corrected (comments EG2 and NEI3). 

Response: The NRC agrees that there 

was an error in the rulemaking table. 

This table is not included in the final 

rulemaking, and no further NRC action 

is necessary. 

RG 1.84 

Code Case N–71–18 

Comment: Two comments (ASME 1 

and ASME 2) were received from the 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers on Code Case N–71–18, 

‘‘Additional Materials for Subsection 

NF, Class 1, 2, 3, and MC Component 

Supports Fabricated by Welding, 

Section III, Division 1.’’ The first 

comment (ASME1) was that the NRC 

proposed to impose the same conditions 

on Code Case N–71–18 as were imposed 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
61324 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

on Code Case N–71–17, and some of the 

conditions are not appropriate to 

Revision 18 as certain references have 

changed (conditions (3) and (4)). 

The second comment (ASME2) was 

that there appears to be confusion 

regarding whether or not the Code Case 

applies to component supports 

(condition 6). Marcus Bressler also 

commented on this Code Case 

(comment MB1) stating that conditions 

(1) and (2) aren’t applicable to Revision 

18 because the Code Case has no 

materials listed with a minimum tensile 

strength above 125 ksi. 

Response: The NRC agrees with the 

ASME that the paragraphs referenced in 

conditions (3) and (4) should be 

modified. When Code Case N–71–17 

was revised as Code Case N–71–18, 

certain references were rearranged. The 

editorial corrections have been made in 

the final guide so that the conditions are 

consistent with the references in the 

revised Code Case. The requirements for 

weld filler material hydrogen content 

were moved to paragraph 4.2 

(previously in paragraph 5.3), and the 

requirements for postweld heat 

treatment were moved from paragraphs 

16.2.1 and 16.2.2 to paragraphs 15.2.1 

and 15.2.2 (paragraphs 16.2.1 and 16.2.2 

no longer exist). As noted by the 

commenter, the conditions in Draft RG 

1.84 should have been modified to be 

consistent. The conditions have been 

corrected in the final guide. With regard 

to the ASME’s second comment (and 

similar comment from Marcus Bressler) 

on condition (6), the NRC’s 

understanding of the intent of the 

provisions in the Code Case is not in 

agreement with the commenter’s 

understanding, (i.e., that the fracture 

toughness requirements as listed in this 

Code Case address Class 1, Class 2, and 

Class 3 component supports in addition 

to piping supports). The NRC believes 

that the fracture toughness requirements 

listed in Code Case N–71–18 apply only 

to piping supports. Implementation of 

this Code Case was approved by the 

NRC on this basis. Cognizant NRC staff 

will initiate discussions with the 

appropriate ASME committees. 

The NRC agrees with Marcus Bressler 

that Code Case N–71–18 does not list 

materials with a minimum tensile 

strength exceeding the value of 125 

kilograms per square inch. However, the 

NRC believes that conditions (1) and (2) 

are appropriate for this Code Case 

because they provide a cautionary note 

that high strength materials are 

susceptible to brittleness and stress 

corrosion cracking. As such, the NRC 

declines to adopt the comment related 

to conditions (1) and (2), and no change 

was made to the RG as the result of this 

comment. 

RG 1.147 

Code Case N–416–4 

Comment: Three commenters 

(comments ASME3, EG3, and PPL1) 

requested that the NRC should not 

adopt the proposed condition requiring 

that when using Code Case N–416–4 

‘‘Alternative Pressure Test Requirement 

for Welded or Brazed Repairs, 

Fabrication Welds or Brazed Joints for 

Replacement Parts and Piping 

Subassemblies, or Installation of 

Replacement Items by Welding or 

Brazing, Classes 1, 2, and 3, Section XI, 

Division 1,’’ that Nondestructive 

Examination (NDE) be performed for 

welded or brazed repairs and fabrication 

and installation joints as specified by 

the methods and acceptance criteria of 

the applicable subsection of the 1992 

Edition of Section III. The commenters 

believe that the Section III NDE 

requirements are overly conservative 

relative to the NDE requirements of 

Section XI. 

Response: The NRC disagrees that the 

condition is not needed. The NRC does 

not believe that an adequate argument 

was provided to justify deletion of the 

condition to require that NDE be 

performed for welded or brazed repairs 

and fabrication and installation joints in 

accordance with the methods and 

acceptance criteria of the applicable 

subsection of the 1992 Edition of 

Section III. 

As discussed in the proposed rule for 

Draft Regulatory Guide DG–1192 for 

certain welding repairs or replacements, 

the previous version of this Code Case 

(Code Case N–416–3) permitted a 

system leakage test to be performed in 

lieu of performing a hydrostatic 

pressure test provided that certain 

requirements are met. A requirement 

was that NDE be performed on welded 

repairs, and that fabrication and 

installation of joints be as specified by 

the methods and acceptance criteria of 

the applicable subsection of the 1992 

Edition of Section III. When Code Case 

N–416 was originally developed, the 

NRC agreed to the performance of 

system leakage testing in lieu of 

hydrostatic testing provided that NDE 

performed in conjunction with the 

repair met the requirements of the 1992 

Edition of Section III. The requirement 

to perform NDE under Section III was 

removed when Code Case N–416–4 was 

issued. 

The NRC believes that many analyses 

of the effectiveness and reliability of the 

later NDE requirements have 

demonstrated the inadequacies of earlier 

Code NDE requirements. Improvements 

in NDE have significantly increased the 

probability of detecting defects. With 

regard to leakage tests, the NRC staff’s 

position was that even though the 

primary purpose of a leakage test is the 

leak-tightness of the primary pressure 

boundary, some additional assurance of 

primary boundary integrity was 

provided by the higher pressure 

hydrostatic test. Based on the industry 

conclusions that: the increased stress 

from a hydrostatic test is extremely 

unlikely to cause a subsurface defect to 

grow through-wall (and therefore, leak 

during a test) and the stresses involved 

in a hydrostatic test are similarly 

unlikely to cause leakage even with the 

presence of a through-wall flaw, the 

need for effective and reliable NDE is 

even greater. 

Because the NRC has determined that 

pressure tests are not adequate for 

ensuring structural integrity (i.e., 

adequate component repair and 

replacement), the NRC believes it to be 

paramount that high quality NDE be 

performed. Thus, the NRC rejects the 

argument that the lower quality NDE as 

conducted to earlier Codes is adequate. 

Accordingly, the NRC declines to adopt 

the comment, and no change was made 

to the RG as the result of this comment. 

Code Case N–504–3, N–504–4 

Comment: Four commenters 

(comments ASME4, EG4, NEI2, and 

PPL2) believe that all of the conditions 

the NRC proposed for Code Case N– 

504–4, ‘‘Alternative Rules for Repair of 

Class 1, 2, and 3 Austenitic Stainless 

Steel Piping, Section XI, Division 1,’’ are 

unnecessary and should be removed in 

the final RG. One of the conditions 

requires that the provisions of Section 

XI, Nonmandatory Appendix Q, ‘‘Weld 

Overlay Repair of Class 1, 2, and 3 

Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping 

Weldments,’’ Section XI, must also be 

met in addition to the provisions of the 

Code Case was retained from RG 1.147, 

Revision 15, Code Case N–504–3. The 

commenters believe that changes to the 

Code Case and to Appendix Q address 

the NRC’s concerns relative to 

Appendix Q and therefore this 

condition is no longer required. With 

regard to condition (a), the commenters 

believe that criteria in Code Case N– 

504–4 are more conservative than the 

proposed condition, and therefore 

condition (a) is not required. The 

commenters believe that conditions (b) 

and (c) regarding surface finish are 

redundant to criteria in Code Case N– 

504–4 and Supplement 11 of Appendix 

VIII. Finally, it was stated that there is 

no technical basis for restricting the use 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 61325 

of radiographic examination (condition 

(d)). 

Response: The NRC disagrees that the 

conditions should be removed. It is true 

that a number of changes were made to 

the criteria of the Code Case and to 

Appendix Q as a result of concerns 

raised by the NRC. However, differences 

remain between Appendix Q and Code 

Case N–504–4 that were not addressed 

in the public comments submitted. For 

example, Appendix Q has requirements 

pertaining, in part, to the inspection and 

design of a structural weld overlay 

whereas the Code Case does not. Until 

the differences between Appendix Q 

and N–504–4 are addressed, the 

condition to follow Appendix Q must be 

retained. 

It is clear from the comments, 

however, that condition (a) should be 

revised to make the objective clearer. 

The commenters believe that the 

limitations in the Code Case on laminar 

flaw size are more conservative than the 

proposed NRC condition, which 

indicates that the intent of the condition 

was not apparent. It is agreed that Code 

Case N–504–4 addresses laminar flaws, 

but the NRC does not believe that the 

provision is stringent or clear. 

Condition (a) in the regulatory guide 

is needed to limit the number of laminar 

flaws in the weld overlay. If a weld 

overlay contains too many laminar 

flaws, the flaws may affect the structural 

integrity of the weld overlay. 

Accordingly, condition (a) has been 

revised to read ‘‘the total laminar flaw 

area shall not exceed 10 percent of the 

weld surface area, and no linear 

dimension of the laminar flaw area shall 

exceed the greater of 3 inches or 10 

percent of the pipe circumference.’’ 

The NRC does not agree with regard 

to the comment that Code Case N–504– 

4 and Supplement 11 to Appendix VIII 

already address improving the surface 

finish of piping welds and therefore 

conditions (b) and (c) are unnecessary. 

The provision in Code Case N–504–4 

cited by the commenters, ‘‘Grinding and 

machining of the as-welded overlay 

surface may be used to improve the 

surface finish for such examinations’’ is 

not a requirement and does not specify 

any criterion that must be met. 

Supplement 11, 1.1(c) states, ‘‘The 

surface condition of at least two 

specimens shall approximate the 

roughest surface condition for which the 

examination procedure is applicable.’’ 

Thus, there is no specific criterion that 

must be met. 

The NRC does not agree regarding the 

request to delete condition (d) and the 

restriction against radiographic testing 

(RT). Studies have been conducted 

indicating that radiography has the 

potential for detecting planar flaws with 

high reliability only under favorable 

conditions. Code Case N–504–4 

provides alternative provisions for 

repairing austenitic stainless steel 

piping. Thus, the NRC believes this is a 

valid concern that planar flaws, typical 

flaws found during inservice 

inspections as opposed to volumetric 

flaws that result from fabrication, may 

not be detected through RT. Especially 

considering that digital radiographic 

testing may be used and factors such as 

exposure, screens, magnification, and 

source-target-detector distances have yet 

to be clearly defined. Without 

supporting technical information to 

indicate the reliability of RT for the 

particular conditions of interest, the 

NRC concludes that this condition to 

Code Case N–504–4 is necessary. 

Code Cases N–513–2, N–513–3 

Three commenters (comments RW1, 

ASME7, and DRS1) requested that Code 

Case N–513–3 be approved in final RG 

1.147. They assert that licensees that 

have updated their inservice inspection 

(ISI) plans to the 2004 Edition of Section 

XI can no longer use Code Case N–513– 

2 because of limits on its applicability. 

Code Case N–513–3, which was recently 

published by the ASME in Supplement 

8 to the 2007 Edition, addresses the 

applicability issue. 

Response: The NRC agrees with the 

comment with one condition. Code Case 

N–513–2 was unconditionally approved 

in Revision 15 of RG 1.147. The 

applicability of the Code Case was 

through the 2001 Edition with the 2003 

Addenda. The applicability was 

purposefully not extended by the ASME 

beyond the 2003 Addenda by the ASME 

because a revision to the Code Case (N– 

513–3) had been developed for 

application to later edition and 

addenda. The purpose of the revision to 

the Code Case (N–513–3) was to provide 

additional guidance to evaluate throughwall, nonplanar flaws. Users of Code 

Case N–513–2 had found the acceptance 

criterion for the branch reinforcement 

evaluation approach to be ambiguous, 

and there was a lack of adequate 

guidance for dispositioning nonplanar 

flaw combinations. 

The NRC has reviewed the additional 

guidance resulting in Code Case N–513– 

3 and has determined that the additions 

are indeed clarifications and not 

technical changes. However, the NRC 

does not agree with one change 

regarding the time frame for repairs. 

Accordingly, Code Case N–513–3 has 

been conditionally approved in the final 

RG. Code Case N–513 was developed to 

reduce the number of plant shutdowns 

required to immediately correct 

insignificant degradation in Class 2 or 3 

lower energy piping (maximum 

operating temperature of 200 °F and 

maximum operating pressure of 275 

psig). Revisions 0 through 2 of the Code 

Case stated that certain flaws may be 

acceptable without performing a repair 

or replacement activity for a limited 

period, not exceeding the time to the 

next scheduled outage. The time frame 

for temporary acceptance of the 

degradation was modified in Code Case 

N–513–3 from ‘‘next scheduled outage’’ 

to ‘‘not to exceed 26 months from the 

initial discovery of the condition.’’ The 

basis for NRC approval of the original 

time frame was that the degraded 

condition would be monitored and 

evaluated during continued operation, 

and operation was only approved until 

plant shutdown. Once the plant was 

shut down, it was expected that the 

degraded piping would be repaired. The 

extension of the time frame to 26 

months from the discovery of the 

condition could permit operation 

through several outages. The NRC 

believes that the original time frame is 

prudent. The Class 2 and 3 systems 

addressed by the Code Case contain 

safety-significant components, and 

repairs should be performed at the first 

opportunity. Accordingly, Revision 3 of 

the Code Case has been included in the 

final guide with the condition that the 

repair or replacement activity must be 

completed during the next scheduled 

outage. 

Code Case N–583 

Comment: A commenter (comment 

DC1) requests that the NRC consider the 

removal of the conditions on the use 

Code Case N–583, ‘‘Annual Training 

Alternative, Section XI, Division 1,’’ 

requiring practice ‘‘6 months prior’’ to 

performing exams, and leave ‘‘as-is’’ in 

the case to ‘‘annually.’’ The commenter 

further suggests that if this is not 

acceptable, then a 6-month 

‘‘proficiency’’ similar to the ‘‘annual 

proficiency’’ specified and implemented 

by ASNT CP–189 should be adopted. 

The commenter states that performing 

the practice on specimens with actual 

cracks is definitely beneficial, and that 

the ASME should adopt this position. 

However, after 10 years of 

implementation, the twice yearly 

requirement of the ‘‘hands on’’ practice 

has become significantly burdensome, 

specifically with logistics and cost of 

implementation, particularly for owners 

and vendors who generally employ the 

PDI qualified individuals. 

Response: The NRC disagrees with the 

comment that the condition requiring 

practice six months prior to performing 

examinations should be deleted. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
61326 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

With respect to the commenter’s 

recommendation to adopt a 6-month 

proficiency examination, the NRC 

believes this may be a viable option, but 

it would be more appropriate if the 

initiative and the technical basis for 

such an approach were developed by 

the industry. The NRC believes that the 

current requirement is justified. EPRI 

has conducted several studies on the 

relationship of education, training, and 

experience. The correlation was at best 

low and in some instances (such as 

experience versus ability to detect 

intergranular stress corrosion cracking 

(IGSCC)), the data showed a negative 

correlation. For example, a group of 

twelve ultrasonic examiners with 

approximately one-year of ultrasonic 

examination experience but with three 

weeks of quality training had a pass rate 

of 92.7 percent on the IGSCC detection 

practical examination. However, the 

success rate of individuals with 

experience averaging in excess of 7.7 

years was only 37.6 percent. 

One of the major keys to effective 

training is to perform a detailed task and 

skills analysis to determine the NDE 

parameters that impact detection 

performance. A number of these 

parameters such as illumination levels 

and calibration procedures are 

addressed in the conventional training 

course outlines. However, most outlines 

do not address the more subtle 

parameters such as visual search 

procedures and ultrasonic manual 

scanning techniques to assure coverage 

and effective beam orientation, nor do 

the outlines address the evaluation of 

subtle ultrasonic signal characteristics 

such as signal rise, decay time, and 

pulse duration. As appropriate, these 

issues must be identified and included 

in the training provided to examiners. 

Computer-based training, through the 

use of animations, simulation, and 

actual data, is evolving as an effective 

way to transfer this information. 

In addition, many individuals do not 

routinely perform examinations, or they 

may not have recently had to interpret 

signals from cracks. Signals can be 

difficult to interpret. Although programs 

employ ‘‘qualified’’ personnel 

using qualified’’ procedures, operating 

experience, round robin trials, and 

research results have shown that skills 

will diminish without frequent training. 

Personnel and procedures must not only 

be qualified, but must also be effective. 

Experience and studies indicate that the 

examiner must practice on a frequent 

basis to maintain the capability for 

proper interpretation. In addition, these 

studies have shown that this capability 

begins to diminish within 

approximately 6 months if skills are not 

maintained. Class room instruction is 

not sufficient to maintain an examiner’s 

skills in this highly specialized skill 

area. Examiner training needs to focus 

on hands-on training with flawed 

specimens. 

With respect to the commenter’s other 

recommendation to adopt a 6-month 

proficiency examination, the NRC 

believes this may be a viable option, but 

it would be more appropriate if the 

initiative and the needed technical basis 

for such an approach were developed by 

the industry. Accordingly, no changes 

are being made to the conditions at this 

time. 

Code Case N–638–4 

Comments: Two commenters 

(comments EG5 and PPL3) believe that 

Code Case N–638–4, ‘‘Similar and 

Dissimilar Metal Welding Using 

Ambient Temperature Machine GTAW 

Temper Bead Technique, Section Xl, 

Division 1,’’ addresses the NRC’s 

concern that the Section XI examination 

volume and acceptance criteria were not 

appropriate for the subject weld repair. 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Code Case requires 

that the examination of the repair be 

performed as specified by and meet the 

acceptance criteria of the Construction 

Code or Section III. Therefore, the 

condition is no longer necessary. 

Response: The NRC disagrees that 

Code Case N–638–4 addresses the issue. 

The commenter is correct that paragraph 

4(a)(4) of Code Case N–638–4 specifies 

the acceptance criteria for the surface 

and volumetric examination as the 

Construction Code or Section III; 

however, Code Case N–638–4 still does 

not specify that a demonstration must 

be performed with representative 

samples that shows the ultrasonic 

examination technique is capable of 

detecting construction type flaws in the 

repaired volume. Thus, a condition is 

required to address this issue. Based on 

the public comments received, the NRC 

believes that condition (1) on Code Case 

638–4 should be revised to be clearer. 

Accordingly, the condition has been 

reworded to explicitly require 

demonstration with construction type 

flaws. Further, as a result of the review 

of the public comments, the NRC 

realizes that an additional issue must be 

addressed. Paragraph 3(d) of the Code 

Case establishes a maximum weld 

interpass temperature, and paragraph 

3(e) requires that the weld interpass 

temperature be determined through one 

of the methods listed in subparagraphs 

(e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3). Subparagraph 

(e)(1) lists methods by which the 

temperature may directly be 

determined, subparagraph (e)(2) 

provides a method to calculate the weld 

interpass temperature, and 

subparagraph (e)(3) allows the use of a 

test coupon to determine the maximum 

weld interpass temperature. Code Case 

N–638–4 does not restrict or choose one 

method over another. Ensuring that the 

weld interpass temperature is not 

exceeded is important in obtaining a 

quality weld (e.g., in terms of corrosion 

resistance, notch toughness). Direct 

measurement is the most reliable 

method for ensuring that the maximum 

temperature is not exceeded. The NRC 

recognizes that direct measurement is 

not always feasible, but direct 

measurements should be used whenever 

possible before alternatives such as 

those described in paragraphs 3(e)(2) 

and 3(e)(3) are used. This position is 

consistent with past precedent on this 

issue. Thus, a second condition has 

been added in the final guide stating 

that ‘‘The provisions of paragraphs 

3(e)(2) or 3(e)(3) may only be used when 

it is impractical to use the interpass 

temperature measurement methods 

described in 3(e)(1), such as in 

situations where the weldment area is 

inaccessible (e.g., internal bore welding) 

or when there are extenuating 

radiological conditions.’’ 

Accordingly, the condition (1) of the 

Code Case 638–4 in final Revision 16 to 

RG 1.147 has been revised to read as 

follows: ‘‘Demonstration of ultrasonic 

examination of the repaired volume is 

required using representative samples 

which contain construction type flaws.’’ 

Code Case N–661–1 

Comments: Two commenters 

(comments ASME5 and EG6) stated that 

Code Case N–661–1, ‘‘Alternative 

Requirements for Wall Thickness 

Restoration of Class 2 and 3 Carbon 

Steel Piping for Raw Water Service, 

Section XI, Division 1,’’ addresses the 

NRC’s concerns discussed in the 

proposed rule. 

Therefore, the conditions that address 

root cause and weld overlays can be 

deleted. The commenters stated that the 

only issue that may need clarification is 

the definition of ‘‘cycle or refueling 

outage.’’ 

Response: The NRC agrees that 

condition (b) on the Code Case can be 

deleted. The NRC staff has reassessed 

paragraph 1(d) of the Code Case and 

agrees that it addresses the issue of 

multiple repairs to the same location 

through weld overlay. The NRC 

disagrees however, that condition (a), ‘‘if 

the root cause of the degradation has not 

been determined, the repair is only 

acceptable for one cycle,’’ can be 

deleted. The NRC believes that the 

condition is still required to provide the 

needed clarity on two issues. First, the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 61327 

second sentence of paragraph 7(b) of the 

Code Case uses the term ‘‘cause’’ rather 

than ‘‘root cause.’’ These terms have 

specific meaning to licensees. The NRC 

has determined that for the purpose of 

maintaining safety, it is appropriate to 

require a root cause analysis which is 

more rigorous than merely inferring the 

‘‘cause’’ of the degradation. The second 

issue relative to clarity is the use of the 

term ‘‘one fuel cycle.’’ As discussed in 

the proposed rule, it is unclear what one 

fuel cycle actually infers if a repair is 

performed in mid-cycle. It may be 

interpreted that the repair is acceptable 

for the remainder of the current fuel 

cycle plus the subsequent fuel cycle. In 

addition, other terms are used in the 

Code Case such as ‘‘one cycle.’’ Although 

the Code Case provision and regulatory 

guide condition (a) are otherwise nearly 

identical, the NRC believes that for the 

sake of clarity and to ensure that a 

suitable re-inspection frequency has 

been established when the cause of the 

degradation is unknown or when the 

potential for hydrogen cracking exists 

due to the welding conditions, the 

condition is needed so that users are 

clear that what is meant is by ‘‘next 

refueling outage.’’ 

With regard to condition (c) which 

states ‘‘When through-wall repairs are 

made by welding on surfaces that are 

wet or exposed to water, the weld 

overlay repair is only acceptable until 

the next refueling outage,’’ the NRC has 

the same concern regarding ‘‘next 

refueling outage.’’ 

While it is agreed that paragraphs 4(c) 

and 5(b) of the Code Case deal with the 

technical issues, the term one cycle is 

used. Accordingly, the NRC is retaining 

this condition in the final RG to ensure 

that it is clear that the requirement 

applies at the next refueling outage. 

Code Case N–716 

Comment: Five commenters 

(comments EPRI1, KH1, SIASC1, 

SIAMT1, and SIASS1) suggested that 

the NRC conditionally approve Code 

Case N–716, ‘‘Alternative Piping 

Classification and Examination 

Requirements, Section XI, Division 1,’’ 

in the final Revision 16 of RG 1.147. The 

NRC has conditionally approved 

requests from four plants to use 

provisions similar to those in the Code 

Case. Based on the approvals, lessons 

learned from the pilot plant 

applications, as well as a number of 

follow-on applications, the lessons 

learned could be incorporated into the 

final Revision 16 of RG 1.147 to allow 

plants to use this Code Case in the short 

term. Approval of the Code Case for 

generic use will not only result in a 

substantial reduction in worker 

exposure and radwaste, but will also 

reduce unnecessary NRC staff burden, 

as compared to waiting until the Code 

Case is revised by ASME and subjected 

to further NRC review. 

Response: The Code Case has not 

been included in final Revision 16 to RG 

1.147. The NRC is continuing to gain 

experience with the review of riskinformed inservice inspection (RI–ISI) 

programs based, in part, on Code Case 

N–716. The NRC staff has not yet 

systematically identified all differences 

between the method described in the 

Code Case and those approved at 

individual licensees, nor has the staff 

received any such description by 

industry. 

One issue not yet explored in the 

plant specific submittals is the 

application of Revision 2 of RG 1.200, 

‘‘An Approach for Determining the 

Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic 

Risk Assessment Results for RiskInformed Activities,’’ which expands the 

scope of initiating events whose 

evaluation is required to be consistent 

with the ASME/ANS RA–Sa–2009 PRA 

Standard. 

The review of EPRI Topical Report 

1018427, ‘‘Nondestructive Evaluation: 

PRA Technical Adequacy Guidance for 

RI–ISI Programs’’ is proceeding 

according to schedule. A request for 

additional information (RAI) was 

transmitted to EPRI on September 15, 

2009. An NRC staff endorsed document 

describing acceptable PRA quality 

requirements for RI–ISI will be 

necessary for the NRC to endorse some 

version of Code Case N–716 in RG 

1.147. Accordingly, Code case N–716 

has not been included in the final 

revision 16 of RG 1.147. 

Code Case N–751 

The American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (comment ASME6) does not 

believe that Code Case N–751, ‘‘Pressure 

Testing of Containment Penetration 

Piping, Section XI, Division 1,’’ should 

be conditioned because the 

Construction Code, which may or may 

not have included provisions for NDE of 

piping welds in penetrations, continues 

to apply. Therefore, the presence or 

absence of specific NDE provisions in 

the Construction Code should not be a 

reason to condition the use of the Code 

Case. 

Response: The NRC disagrees that 

specific nondestructive examination 

(NDE) requirements are not needed. As 

discussed in the proposed rule, the 

Code Case would allow an Appendix J 

Type C test to be performed as an 

alternative to the ASME Code 

requirement to pressure test piping that 

penetrates a containment vessel, if the 

piping and isolation valves that are part 

of the containment system are Class 2 

and the balance of the piping system is 

outside the scope of Section XI. The 

NDE requirement associated with the 

system leakage test was removed from 

Section XI paragraph IWA–4540 of the 

2003 Addenda (and later edition and 

addenda of the ASME Code). In 

addition, for plants that used the ASME 

B31.1 Code for construction, there was 

no requirement to volumetrically 

examine certain piping components 

during fabrication. 

Section XI requires NDE per the 

construction code as part of repair and 

replacement activities. Thus, if a B31.1 

plant or a licensee using the 2003 

Addenda or later performs a repair to 

certain Class 2 or Class 3 piping, there 

is no requirement to perform NDE. 

Volumetric examination after repair or 

replacement is required to ensure high 

quality welds. It was stated in the public 

comments that the industry has 

concluded that pressure tests are not 

adequate for ensuring structural 

integrity (i.e., adequate component 

repair and replacement). Therefore, it is 

paramount that high quality NDE be 

performed. Volumetric examination 

ensures high quality welds capable of 

performing their design function for the 

life of the component. Therefore, the 

condition on the use of Code Case N– 

751 that when a 10 CFR part 50, 

Appendix J, Type C test is performed as 

an alternative to the requirements of 

IWA–4540 (IWA–4700 in the 1989 

edition through the 1995 edition) during 

repair and replacement activities, 

nondestructive examination must be 

performed as specified by IWA– 

4540(a)(2) of the 2002 Addenda of 

Section XI has been retained in the final 

RG. 

Group II—Comments not Adopted 

Code Case N–508–4 

Comment: Two commenters 

(comments Xcel1 and NEI4) requested 

that Code Case N–508–4 be listed in the 

final RG because the Code Case would 

be beneficial to the industry. 

Response: The NRC declines the 

suggestion to adopt Code Case 508–4 in 

the final guide. It would not be 

appropriate to include Revision 4 to the 

Code Case in the final guide without 

first having sought public comment on 

such a significant expansion of the 

scope of the Code Case. Code Case N– 

508–3, which was unconditionally 

approved in Revision 15 of RG 1.147, 

allowed snubbers and relief valves to be 

rotated from stock and installed on 

components for the purpose of testing or 

preventive maintenance. Code Case N– 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
61328 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

508–4 was published by the ASME in 

Supplement 8 to the 2007 Edition, and 

it significantly expands the list of 

components through the addition of 

pumps, control rod drive mechanisms, 

and pump seal packages. The Code 

Cases listed in this supplement will be 

considered in the next draft of RG 1.47 

giving the public an opportunity to 

comment on the appropriateness of the 

scope change of the Code Case. 

With regard to including Code Case 

N–508–4 in the next draft guide, NRC 

staff have reviewed Code Case N–508– 

4 and identified an issue. It was realized 

that when Section XI is used to govern 

snubber examination and testing, 

Footnote 1, which was later added to 

the Code Case, conflicts with Subsection 

IWF, Section XI, up to and including the 

2004 Edition through 2005 Addenda. 

Footnote 1 directs the user to implement 

the ASME and OM Code for snubber 

examination and testing. 

The OM Code was developed in order 

to have a separate Code for the 

development and maintenance of 

provisions for the IST of pumps and 

valves. In 1990, the ASME published 

the initial edition of the OM Code, 

thereby transferring responsibility for 

these provisions from Section XI to the 

OM Committee. While the use of the 

OM Code is an option under 10 CFR 

50.55a(b)(3)(v), the examination and 

testing requirements for snubbers are 

also provided in the 2005 Addenda and 

earlier editions and addenda of Section 

XI. There is no conflict for licensees 

who have adopted the 2006 Addenda or 

later editions and addenda of Section 

XI. Other than expansion of the list of 

components that may be rotated from 

stock and installed on components for 

the purpose of testing or preventive 

maintenance, Revisions 3 and 4 of the 

Code Case are identical. Thus, Code 

Case N–508–4 as presently constructed 

would have to be conditioned that 

Footnote 1 would not apply when the 

ISI Code of record is earlier than Section 

XI, 2006 Addenda, and Section XI 

requirements are used to govern the 

examination and testing of snubbers. 

Code case N–520–2 

Comment: Tennessee Valley 

Authority suggested that Code Case N– 

520–2, ‘‘Alternative Rules for Renewal of 

Active or Expired N-type Certificates for 

Plants Not in Active Construction,’’ be 

included in the final RG rather than the 

Code Case N–520–1 which was listed in 

the draft regulatory guide. Case N–520– 

2 is representative of the current nuclear 

plants for which construction is likely 

to be renewed. 

NRC Response: The NRC declines at 

this time to adopt the changes in the 

final guide as suggested by the 

commenter. The objective of Code Case 

N–520–1 was to address situations 

where construction on a nuclear power 

plant was halted and thus interrupted 

ASME Code activities but the Certificate 

Holder maintained their certificate. 

Code Case N–520–1 provides guidance 

on what a Certificate Holder has to do 

to document and stamp the completed 

construction work that was performed. 

Code Case N–520–2 is different 

however, in that it addresses the 

situation where the Certificate Holder 

let its N-type certificates expire. 

The revised Code Case would allow 

an organization with an expired 

Certificate to secure an ASME 

Temporary Certificate of Authorization. 

While the NRC recognizes that the 

temporary certificate would only apply 

in situations where the plant was kept 

in an appropriate state where 

completion could be restarted at a later 

date and that the temporary certificate 

would be issued solely for the purpose 

of finishing the documentation and 

stamping required for the construction 

completed prior to work being stopped, 

the NRC has determined that the public 

should have an opportunity to comment 

on this change before a final decision is 

made. Accordingly, Code Case N–520– 

2 and the suggestion provided by the 

commenter will be discussed in the next 

proposed rule. 

The NRC notes that the wording of 

Code Case N–520–2 may create 

confusion regarding the relationship 

between the Authorized Nuclear 

Inspection Agency (ANIA) and the 

Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI). 

Accordingly, it is suggested that the 

wording of the Code Case be modified 

to clearly indicate that the ‘‘ANIA’’ is an 

Authorized Nuclear Inspection Agency 

and the ANIA employs the ANI. 

Code Case N–597–2 

Comment: Two commenters 

(comments PGE1 and NEI1) suggest that 

the method used to evaluate local 

degradation for Code Case, N–597–2, 

‘‘Requirements for Analytical Evaluation 

of Pipe Wall Thinning, Section XI, 

Division 1,’’ should be the same as that 

used in Code Case N–513–2, ‘‘Evaluation 

Criteria for Temporary Acceptance of 

Flaws in Moderate Energy Class 2 or 3 

Piping, Section XI, Division 1.’’ The 

commenters argue that the NRC has 

conditionally approved Code Case N– 

513–2 with an evaluation methodology 

to allow licensees to temporarily accept 

flaws in moderate energy Class 2 or 3 

piping whereas condition (2) on Code 

Case N–597–2 would require NRC 

approval for any amount of local 

degradation beyond that calculated by 

the hoop stress equation. 

The commenters believe that the N– 

513–2 methodology could be used for 

N–597–2 to eliminate the need for NRC 

approval in certain situations. 

Response: The NRC declines the 

suggestion to adopt the Code Case N– 

513–2 methodology in Code Case N– 

597–2 in the final guide. It would not be 

appropriate to include such a significant 

expansion of the scope of the Code Case 

in the final guide without first having 

sought public comment. While the NRC 

agrees that the flaw evaluation 

methodology for analyzing piping 

degradation contained in Code Case N– 

513–2 could under certain 

circumstances be applied for a Code 

Case N–597–2 evaluation (i.e., both 

Code Cases address the analytical 

evaluation of pipe wall thinning), the 

NRC disagrees with the commenters that 

through-wall leakage should be 

included in the scope of such an 

evaluation. 

Code Case N–597 was not developed 

to address leakage, (i.e., it is focused 

only on analytical evaluation of wall 

thinning). The temporary acceptance of 

through-wall leakage is governed by 

other Code Cases such as N–513–2. The 

addition of leakage as a condition to 

Code Case N–597 as suggested would 

imply that leakage could be justified on 

a permanent basis. In addition, Code 

Case N–597–2 is applicable to all ASME 

Code Class piping, which would 

include high energy piping. Code Case 

N–513–2 is limited to Class 2 and 3 

moderate energy piping. The NRC has 

only approved temporary acceptance of 

flaws for moderate energy Class 2 or 3 

piping (maximum operating 

temperature does not exceed 200°F 

(93°C) and maximum operating pressure 

does not exceed 275 psig (1.9 MPa). 

Finally, such a change would redefine 

the defense-in-depth concept. 

Rather than performing inspections to 

detect flaws before structural integrity is 

compromised, degradation would in 

effect be managed after leakage is 

discovered. Thus, no changes have been 

made in the final guide as a result of the 

comments. 

Code Case N–619, Code Case N–648–1 

Comment: One commenter (number 7) 

requests that the NRC reconsider the 

conditions placed on Code Case N–619, 

‘‘Alternative Requirements for Nozzle 

Inner Radius Inspections for Class 1 

Pressurizer and Steam Generator 

Nozzles, Section XI, Division 1,’’ and 

Code Case N–648–1, ‘‘Alternative 

Requirements for Inner Radius 

Examination of Class 1 Reactor Pressure 

Vessel Nozzles, Section XI, Division 1.’’ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 61329 

The commenter believes that the 

conditions on the two Code Cases 

requiring a wire standard to 

demonstrate the resolution capability of 

remote visual examination systems 

should be changed to the ASME 0.044 

inch characters because characters have 

been recognized to be a better resolution 

standard (comment CW1). The 

commenter also raised a question 

regarding the use of Section XI Table 

IWB–3512–1 (comment CW2). The 

condition on Code Case N–619 state that 

licensees may perform a visual 

examination utilizing the allowable flaw 

length criteria of Table IWB–3512–1. 

The commenter believes it is unclear 

how allowable flaw lengths can be 

determined from Table IWB–3512–1. 

The commenter suggested that the same 

acceptance criteria approved by the 

NRC for Code Case N–648–1 be applied 

to Code Case N–619 since both Code 

Cases address the examination of the 

inner nozzle radius. Finally, the 

commenter believes that the condition 

on Code Case N–648–1 addressing the 

examination volume can be deleted as it 

describes the same volume required to 

be examined by the Code Case 

(comment CW3). 

Response: The NRC declines at this 

time to adopt the changes in the final 

guide as suggested by the commenter. It 

would not be appropriate to adopt 

significant changes to visual testing 

resolutions standards in the final guide 

without first having sought public 

comment. 

The NRC agrees that characters have 

been demonstrated to be a better 

resolution standard than the 1-mil wire 

standard. However, the NRC cannot at 

this time support modifying the criteria 

in the RG on these Code Cases to change 

to the ASME 0.044 inch characters as 

suggested. While the NRC staff 

ultimately supports the replacement of 

the wire resolution standard, the staff 

believes that the shift to characters 

should be part of broader changes to the 

visual testing provisions as related to 

Code Cases N–619 and N–648–1. 

Visual examinations are used in 

certain situations as alternatives to 

volumetric and/or surface examination 

tests where it is not possible to conduct 

volumetric examination (e.g., where 

there are limitations due to access or 

geometry) or to reduce occupational 

exposure in high radiation fields. Visual 

testing experts believe that if the camera 

and lighting were sufficient to resolve a 

12 μm (0.0005 in.) diameter wire, then 

the camera system had a resolution 

sufficiently high for the inspection. 

Subsequent investigation of the 

effectiveness and reliability of visual 

examinations has shown that the wire 

resolution standard is not sufficient to 

determine the visual acuity of a remote 

system, (i.e., there are important 

differences between visually detecting a 

wire and a crack). Research conducted 

at the Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory (PNNL) showed that other 

calibration standards be adapted for 

visual testing such as reading charts and 

resolution targets. Results supporting 

this recommendation were published in 

NUREG/CR–6943, ‘‘A Study of Remote 

Visual Methods to Detect Cracking in 

Reactor Components.’’ 

However, as also discussed in the 

reports, other parameters such as crack 

size, lighting conditions, camera 

resolution, and surface conditions were 

assessed. The NRC concluded from the 

investigation that a significant fraction 

of the cracks that have been reported in 

nuclear power plant components are at 

the lower end of the capabilities of the 

visual testing equipment currently being 

used. Code Case N–619 addresses the 

examination of the nozzle inner radius 

of Class 1 pressurizers and steam 

generators. 

Code Case N–648–1 provides an 

alternative for examining the inner 

radius of Class 1 reactor vessel nozzles. 

The NRC investigation of crack opening 

dimensions of service-induced cracks in 

nuclear components included thermal 

fatigue, mechanical fatigue, and stress 

corrosion cracks. The NRC concluded 

that current visual testing systems may 

not reliably detect a significant number 

of these cracks (approaching 50% under 

certain conditions). Research at PNNL 

showed that detection of these cracks 

under field conditions is strongly 

dependent on camera magnification, 

lighting, inspector training, and 

inspector vigilance. 

While this research supports the use 

of characters in lieu of a wire standard, 

the research also shows that other 

changes are warranted to visual testing 

as related to these two Code Cases. The 

NRC believes that such significant 

changes to visual testing criteria should 

be undertaken by the ASME and 

industry in a coordinated manner. 

With regard to comment CW2 that it 

is unclear how allowable flaw lengths 

can be determined from Table IWB– 

3512–1, the NRC agrees that the 

condition to determine allowable flaw 

length criteria could be improved, and 

public comments will be specifically 

sought on Code Case N–619 in the next 

proposed rule on this issue. 

Finally, it is agreed that the condition 

requiring the examination of the surface 

between points M and N is unnecessary 

because Code Case N–648–1 already 

requires this examination. However, the 

NRC will have to request public 

comment on Code Case N–648–1 

regarding this issue in the next 

proposed rule. 

Code Cases N–655–1, N–757–1, N–759– 

1, N–782 

Comment: Westinghouse Electric 

Company (comments WECRS1 and 

WECJAG1) identified four Code Cases 

used in the AP1000 design that were not 

included in the draft of RG 1.84. The 

commenter suggested that the Code 

Cases be included in the next revision 

of RG1.84, (i.e., Code Case N–655–1, 

‘‘Use of SA–738, Grade B, for Metal 

Containment Vessels, Class MC, Section 

III, Division 1),’’ Code Case N–757–1, 

‘‘Alternative Rules for Acceptability for 

Class 2 and 3 Valves, NPS 1 (DN25) and 

Smaller with Welded and Nonwelded 

End Connections other than Flanges, 

Section III, Division 1,’’ Code Case N– 

759–2, ‘‘Alternative Rules for 

Determining Allowable External 

Pressure and Compressive Stresses for 

Cylinders, Cones, Spheres, and Formed 

Heads, Section III, Division 1,’’ and Code 

Case N–782, ‘‘Use of Code Editions, 

Addenda, and Cases Section III, 

Division 1.’’ 

Response: The NRC does not agree 

that these Code Cases should be 

included in the final RG. The Code 

Cases referenced in the comment are not 

currently listed in the latest AP1000 

Design Control Document (DCD). In 

addition, public comment has not yet 

been sought on these Code Cases. 

Accordingly, the NRC will consider 

including Code Cases N–655–1, N–757– 

1, N–759–2, and N–782 in the next draft 

RG (DG–1230; proposed Revision 36 to 

RG 1.84), which is currently under 

development. If Westinghouse includes 

the above ASME Code Cases in its next 

revision to the AP1000 DCD, then the 

NRC staff will provide an evaluation of 

the acceptability of using these four 

ASME Code Cases in a supplement to its 

Final Safety Evaluation Report for the 

AP1000 design certification amendment 

as alternatives to the regulations under 

§ 50.55a(a)(3). 

For the reasons set forth above, the 

NRC declines to adopt the comment and 

no change was made to the RG as the 

result of this comment. 

Code Case N–702 

Comment: Two commenters 

(comments ASME8 and TVA2) request 

that Code Case N–702, ‘‘Alternative 

Requirements for Boiling Water Reactor 

(BWR) Nozzle Inner Radius and Nozzleto-Shell Welds, Section XI, Division 1,’’ 

be conditionally accepted in the final 

RG. The NRC approved use of the Code 

Case with certain criteria in a Safety 

Evaluation of BWRVIP–108: BWR 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
61330 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Vessel and Internals Project, Technical 

Basis for the Reduction of Inspection 

Requirements for the Boiling Water 

Reactor Nozzle-to-Vessel Shell Welds 

and Nozzle Blend Radii,’’ EPRI 

Technical Report 1003557, October 

2002 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML023330203). The commenters believe 

that these criteria provide a basis for the 

NRC to conditionally approve the Code 

Case in RG 1.147. 

Response: The NRC declines at this 

time to adopt the changes in the final 

guide as suggested by the commenter. It 

would not be appropriate to generically 

adopt the alternative nozzle 

examination requirements without first 

having sought public comment on this 

Code Case. The NRC agrees, however, 

that the NRC staff’s Safety Evaluation 

(dated December 18, 2007, ADAMS 

Accession No. ML073600374) provides 

a basis for approving Code Case N–702 

in RG 1.47. Code Case N–702 will be 

addressed the next draft guide. 

Code Case N–747 

Comment: The American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (comment 

ASME9) believes that the basis for 

listing Code Case N–747, ‘‘Reactor 

Vessel Head-to Flange Weld 

Examinations, Section XI, Division 1,’’ 

in DG–1193 (Code Cases not approved 

for use) was flawed, and the Code Case 

should be unconditionally accepted in 

final Revision 16 of RG 1.147. 

Response: The NRC declines at this 

time to adopt the changes in the final 

guide as suggested by the commenter. It 

would not be appropriate to adopt the 

Code Case in the final guide without 

first having sought public comment. 

Nonetheless, the NRC staff has reviewed 

the additional information provided by 

the ASME regarding the expected 

fluence levels of reactor vessel head-toflange welds and believes that an 

adequate technical basis has been 

provided to support a conclusion that 

the fracture toughness will remain high. 

Code Case N–747 will be addressed in 

the next draft guide. 

Code Case With Proposed Conditions— 

No Public Comments 

In the proposed rule, the NRC 

proposed to condition Code Case N– 

570–1. No public comments were 

received on the proposed conditions to 

the Code Case. Thus, no changes have 

been made to the proposed adoption of 

Code Case N–570–1. 

Section III 

Code Case N–570–1, Alternative Rules 

for Linear Piping and Linear Standard 

Supports for Classes 1, 2, 3, and [Metal 

Cladding (MC)], Section III, Division 1. 

Code Case N–570–1 references 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI)/American Institute of Steel 

Construction (AISC) N690–1994 s1, 

‘‘Supplement No. 1 to the Specification 

for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection 

of Steel Safety-Related Structures for 

Nuclear Facilities.’’ However, the AISC 

issued Supplement 2 on October 6, 

2004. Supplement 2 supersedes 

Supplement 1. The updated supplement 

(Supplement 2) is consistent with NRC 

positions and requirements for new 

reactor support design. Thus, the NRC is 

conditioning Code Case N–570–1 to 

require that ANSI/AISC N690–1994 s2, 

‘‘Supplement No. 2 to the Specification 

for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection 

of Steel Safety-Related Structures for 

Nuclear Facilities,’’ be used when this 

code case is implemented. 

III. NRC Approval of New and 

Amended ASME Code Cases 

This final rule incorporates by 

reference the latest revisions of the NRC 

RGs that list acceptable and 

conditionally acceptable ASME BPV 

Code Cases. RG 1.84, Revision 35 would 

supersede Revision 34 (October 2007); 

and RG 1.147, Revision 16 would 

supersede Revision 15 (October 2007). 

RG 1.192 (June 2003) would not be 

revised because there have been no new 

OM Code Cases published by the ASME 

since the last NRC review. 

The ASME Code Cases which are the 

subject of this rulemaking are the new 

revised Section III and Section XI Code 

Cases listed in Supplements 2 through 

11 to the 2004 BPV Code, and 

Supplement 0 published with the 2007 

Edition of the BPV Code (Supplement 0 

also serves as Supplement 12 to the 

2004 Edition) of the code. The NRC 

followed a three-step process to 

determine acceptability of new and 

revised ASME Code Cases and the need 

for conditions on the uses of these Code 

Cases. This process was employed in 

the review of the ASME Code Cases 

which are the subject of this final rule. 

First, NRC staff actively participated 

with other ASME committee members 

with full involvement in discussions 

and technical debates in the 

development of new and revised Code 

Cases. This included a technical 

justification in support of each new or 

revised Code Case. Second, the NRC 

committee representatives distributed 

the Code Case and technical 

justification to other cognizant NRC staff 

to ensure an adequate technical review. 

Finally, the proposed NRC position 

on each Code Case is reviewed and 

approved by NRC management as part 

of the rulemaking amending 10 CFR 

50.55a to incorporate by reference new 

revisions of the RGs listing the relevant 

ASME Code Cases and conditions on 

their use. This regulatory process, when 

considered together with the ASME’s 

own process for development and 

approval of ASME Code Cases, provides 

reasonable assurances that the NRC 

approves for use only those new and 

revised ASME Code Cases (with 

conditions as necessary) which provide 

reasonable assurance of adequate 

protection to public health and safety 

and which do not have significant 

adverse impacts on the environment. 

Code Cases Approved Unconditionally 

for Use 

The NRC concludes, in accordance 

with the process for review of ASME 

Code Cases, that each of the ASME Code 

Cases listed in Table 1 is technically 

adequate and consistent with current 

NRC regulations. 

TABLE 1—UNCONDITIONALLY APPROVED CODE CASES

Code Case No. Code supplement Code case title 

ASME B&PV Code, Section III 

N–4–12 ..................................... 4 ............................................... Special Type 403 Modified Forgings or Bars, Class and CS, Section III, Division 1. 

N–284–2 ................................... 12 ............................................. Metal Containment Shell Buckling Design Methods, Class MC, Section III, Division 1. 

N–373–3 ................................... 3 ............................................... Alternative postweld heat treatment (PWHT) Time at Temperature for P–No. 

5A or P–No. 5B Group 1 Material, Classes 1, 2, and 3 Section III, Division 

1. 

N–621–1 ................................... 3 ............................................... Ni-Cr-Mo Alloy Unified Numbering System (UNS) N06022) Weld Construction 

to 800°F, Section III, Division 1. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 61331 

2The NRC reviews every Code Case to ascertain 

if each of the Code Cases is technically adequate 

and consistent with current NRC regulations. As a 

result of such reviews, the NRC may conclude that 

certain Code Cases are technically adequate or 

require supplemental guidance. In such cases, the 

NRC imposes limitations, modifications, and 

provisions on those Code Cases but is now 

substituting the word ‘‘Conditions’’ throughout 10 

CFR 50.55a. 

TABLE 1—UNCONDITIONALLY APPROVED CODE CASES—Continued 

Code Case No. Code supplement Code case title 

N–699 ....................................... 8 ............................................... Use of Titanium Grade 2 (UNS R50400) Tube and Bar, and Grade 1 (UNS 

R50250) Plate and Sheet for Class 1 Construction, Section III, Division 1. 

N–725 ....................................... 4 ............................................... Design Stress Values for UNS N06690 With Minimum Specified Yield 

Strength of 35 Ksi (240 Mpa), Classes 2 and 3 Components, Section III, 

Division 1. 

N–727 ....................................... 9 ............................................... Dissimilar Welding Using Continuous Drive Friction Welding for Reactor Vessel Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM)/Control Element Drive Mechanism (CEDM)Nozzle to Flange/Adapter Welds, Class 1, Section III, Division 

1. 

N–732 ....................................... 5 ............................................... Magnetic Particle Examination of Forgings for Construction, Section III, Division 1. 

N–736 ....................................... 8 ............................................... Use UNS S32050 Welded and Seamless Pipe and Tubing, Forgings, and 

Plates Conforming to SA–249/SA–249M, SA–479/SA–479M, and SA–240/ 

SA–240M, and Grade CK35MN Castings Conforming to ASTM A 743–03 

for Construction of Class 1, 2, and 3 Components, Section III, Division 1. 

N–738 ....................................... 6 ............................................... NDE of Full Penetration Butt Welds in Class 2 Supports, Section III, Division 

1. 

N–741 ....................................... 7 ............................................... Use of 22Cr-5Ni-3Mo-N (Alloy UNS S32205 Austenitic/Ferritic Duplex Stainless Steel) Forgings, Plate, Welded and Seamless Pipe Tubing, and Fittings to SA–182, SA–240, SA–789, A 790–04a, SA–815, Classes 2 and 3, 

Section III, Division 1. 

N–744 ....................................... 11 ............................................. Use of Metric Units Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1. 

N–746 ....................................... 8 ............................................... Use of 46Fe-24Ni-21Cr-6Mo-Cu-N (UNS N08367) Bolting Materials for Class 

2 and 3 Components, Section III, Division 1. 

N–756 ....................................... 12 ............................................. Alternative Rules for Acceptability for Class 1 Valves, NPS (DN 25) and 

Smaller with Nonwelded End Connections Other than Flanges, Section III, 

Division 1. 

N–759 ....................................... 11 ............................................. Alternative Rules for Determining Allowable External Pressure and Compressive Stresses for Cylinders, Cones, Spheres, and Formed Heads, Section 

III, Division 1. 

ASME B&PV Code, Section XI 

N–494–4 ................................... 7 ............................................... Pipe Specific Evaluation Procedures and Acceptance Criteria for Flaws in 

Piping that Exceed the Acceptance Standards, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–496–2 ................................... 2 ............................................... Helical-Coil Threaded Inserts, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–666 ....................................... 9 ............................................... Weld Overlay of Class 1, 2, and 3 Socket Welded Connections, Section XI, 

Division 1. 

N–686–1 ................................... 12 ............................................. Alternative Requirements for Visual Examinations VT–1, VT–2, and VT–3, 

Section XI, Division 1. 

N–705 ....................................... 11 ............................................. Evaluation Criteria for Temporary Acceptance of Degradation in Moderate 

Energy Class 2 or 3 Vessels and Tanks, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–706–1 ................................... 12 ............................................. Alternative Examination Requirements of Table IWB–2500–1 and Table 

IWC–2500–1 for Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Stainless Steel Residual and Regenerative Heat Exchangers, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–712 ....................................... 2 ............................................... Class 1 Socket Weld Examinations, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–730 ....................................... 11 ............................................. Roll Expansion of Class 1 Control Rod Drive Bottom Head Penetrations in 

Boiling Water Reactors (BWR), Section XI, Division 1. 

N–731 ....................................... 5 ............................................... Alternative Class 1 System Leakage Test Pressure Requirements, Section 

XI, Division 1. 

N–733 ....................................... 6 ............................................... Mitigation of Flaws in NPS 2 (DN 50) and Smaller Nozzles and Nozzle Partial Penetration Welds in Vessels and Piping by Use of a Mechanical Connection Modification, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–735 ....................................... 11 ............................................. Successive Inspection of Class 1 and 2 Piping Welds, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–739 ....................................... 11 ............................................. Alternative Qualification Requirements for Personnel Performing Class CC 

Concrete and Post-tensioning System Visual Examinations, Section XI, Division 1. 

N–753 ....................................... 10 ............................................. Vision Tests, Section XI, Division 1. 

Code Cases Approved for Use With 

Conditions 

As a result of the NRC staff’s review, 

the NRC concludes that certain Code 

Cases are technically inadequate or 

require supplemental guidance. 

Accordingly, the NRC is imposing 

conditions 2 upon the use of these Code 

Cases, and they are listed in Table 2. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
61332 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—CONDITIONALLY APPROVED CODE CASES

Code Case No. Code supplement Code case title Condition 

ASME B&PV Code, Section III 

N–71–18 ............ Revision 18 of the Code Case 

was not new to Draft Revision 35 of Regulatory 

Guide 1.84. The Code 

Case is listed in this table 

because a public comment 

was received suggesting 

editorial corrections.

Additional Materials for Subsection NF, Class 1, 2, 3, 

and MC Component Supports Fabricated by Welding, Section III, Division 1.

(1) The maximum measured ultimate tensile strength (UTS) 

of the component support material must not exceed 170 

Ksi in view of the susceptibility of high-strength materials 

to brittleness and stress corrosion cracking. 

(2) Certain applications may exist where a UTS value of up 

to 190 Ksi could be considered acceptable for a material 

and, under this condition, the Design Specification must 

specify impact testing for the material. For these cases, it 

must be demonstrated by the applicant that: 

(a) The impact test results for the material meet Code 

requirements, 

(b) The material is not subject to stress corrosion 

cracking by virtue of the fact that: 

(i) A corrosive environment is not present, and 

(ii) The component that contains the material has 

essentially no residual stresses or assembly 

stresses, and 

(iii) It does not experience frequent sustained loads 

in service. 

(3) In the last sentence of paragraph 4.2, reference must be 

made to paragraph 4.5.2.2, ‘‘Alternative Atmosphere Exposure Time Periods Established by Test,’’ of the AWS 

D1.1 Code for the evidence presented to and accepted 

by the Authorized Inspector concerning exposure of electrodes for longer periods of time. 

(4) Paragraph 15.2.2 is not acceptable as written and must 

be replaced with the following: ‘‘When not exempted by 

15.2.1 above, the post-weld heat treatment must be performed in accordance with NF–4622 except that ASTM 

A–710 Grade A Material must be at least 1,000 °F (540 

°C) and must not exceed 1,150 °F (620 °C) for Class 1 

and Class 2 material and 1,175 °F (640 °C) for Class 3 

material. 

(5) The new holding time at temperature for weld thickness 

(nominal) must be 30 minutes for 1⁄2 inch or less, 1 hour 

per inch for thickness over 1⁄2 inch to 5 inches, and for 

thicknesses over 5 inches, 5 hours plus 15 minutes for 

each additional inch over 5 inches. 

(6) The fracture toughness requirements as listed in this 

Code Case apply only to piping supports and not to Class 

1, Class 2, and Class 3 component supports. 

N–570–1 ............ 8 ............................................. Alternative Rules for Linear 

Piping and Linear Standard 

Supports for Classes 1, 2, 

3, and MC, Section III, Division 1.

The provisions of ANSI/AISC N690–1994 s2, ‘‘Supplement 

No. 2 to the Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and 

Erection of Steel of Safety-Related Structures for Nuclear 

Facilities,’’ must be met. 

ASME B&PV Code, Section XI 

N–416–4 ............ 4 ............................................. Alternative Pressure Test Requirement for Welded or 

Brazed Repairs, Fabrication 

Welds or Brazed Joints for 

Replacement Parts and 

Piping Subassemblies, or 

Installation of Replacement 

Items by Welding or Brazing, Classes 1, 2, and 3, 

Section XI, Division 1.

Nondestructive examination shall be performed on welded 

or brazed repairs and fabrication and installation joints in 

accordance with the methods and acceptance criteria of 

the applicable subsection of the 1992 Edition of Section 

III. 

N–504–4 ............ 10 ........................................... Alternative Rules for Repair of 

Class 1, 2, and 3 Austenitic 

Stainless Steel Piping, Section XI, Division 1.

The provisions of Section XI, Nonmandatory Appendix Q, 

‘‘Weld Overlay Repair of Class 1, 2, and 3 Austenitic 

Stainless Steel Piping Weldments,’’ must also be met. In 

addition, the following conditions shall be met: (a) The 

total laminar flaw area shall not exceed 10 percent of the 

weld surface area, and no linear dimension of the laminar 

flaw area shall exceed the greater of 3 inches or 10 percent of the pipe circumference; and (b) radiography shall 

not be used to detect planar flaws under or masked by 

laminar flaws. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 61333 

TABLE 2—CONDITIONALLY APPROVED CODE CASES—Continued 

Code Case No. Code supplement Code case title Condition 

N–638–4 ............ 11 ........................................... Similar and Dissimilar Metal 

Welding Using Ambient 

Temperature Machine 

GTAW Temper Bead Technique, Section XI, Division 

1.

Ultrasonic examination shall be demonstrated for the repaired volume using representative samples which contain construction type flaws. 

N–661–1 ............ 7 ............................................. Alternative Requirements for 

Wall Thickness Restoration 

of Class 2 and 3 Carbon 

Steel Piping for Raw Water 

Service, Section XI, Division 1.

(1) If the cause of the degradation has not been determined, the repair is only acceptable until the next refueling outage. 

(2) When through-wall repairs are made by welding on surfaces that are wet or exposed to water, the weld overlay 

repair is only acceptable until the next refueling outage. 

N–751 ................ 11 ........................................... Pressure Testing of Containment Penetration Piping, 

Section XI, Division 1.

When a 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Type C test is performed as an alternative to the requirements of IWA– 

4540 (IWA–4700 in the 1989 edition through the 1995 

edition) during repair and replacement activities, nondestructive examination must be performed in accordance 

with IWA–4540(a)(2) of the 2002 Addenda of Section XI. 

ASME Code Cases Not Approved for 

Use 

ASME Code Cases which 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. The Code Cases 

which are not approved for use include 

Code Cases on high-temperature gas 

cooled reactors; certain requirements in 

Section III, Division 2, that are not 

endorsed by the NRC; liquid metal; and 

submerged spent fuel waste casks. RG 

1.193 is not incorporated by reference 

into § 50.55a. The RG is prepared by the 

NRC as a resource for stakeholders, 

allowing them to easily identify Code 

Cases which the NRC has not approved 

for use as a generic matter. Listing of a 

Code Case in RG 1.193 does not 

preclude an applicant or licensee from 

seeking individual, case-by-case NRC 

approval to use a listed Code Case. 

IV. Paragraph-By Paragraph Discussion 

Overall Considerations on the Use of 

ASME Code Cases 

This final rule amends 10 CFR 50.55a 

to incorporate by reference RG 1.84, 

Revision 35, which supersedes Revision 

34, and RG 1.147, Revision 16, which 

supersedes Revision 15. The following 

general guidance applies to the use of 

the ASME Code Cases approved in the 

latest versions of the regulatory guides 

which are incorporated by reference 

into 10 CFR 50.55a as part of this 

rulemaking. 

The endorsement of a Code Case in 

NRC RGs constitutes acceptance of its 

technical position for applications 

which are not precluded by regulatory 

or other requirements or by the 

recommendations in these or other RGs. 

The applicant and licensee are 

responsible for ensuring that use of the 

Code Case does not conflict with 

regulatory requirements or licensee 

commitments. The Code Cases listed in 

the RGs are acceptable for use within 

the limits specified in the Code Case. If 

the RG states an NRC condition on the 

use of a Code Case, then the NRC 

condition supplements and does not 

supersede any condition(s) specified in 

the code case, unless otherwise stated in 

the NRC condition. 

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, 10 

CFR 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 application unless otherwise 

indicated. 

Section III of the ASME BPV Code 

applies only to new designs and 

construction of new plants. The edition 

and addenda to be used in the design 

and/or construction of a plant are 

selected based on the date of the 

construction permit, combined license, 

design certification, or manufacturing 

license and are not changed thereafter, 

except voluntarily by the applicant or 

the licensee (unless prohibited by 

applicable NRC finality provisions in 10 

CFR Part 52) or as otherwise permitted 

under 10 CFR Part 52). 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 10 CFR 50.55a and 

listed in the RGs, then 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). 

The ISI and OM IST programs for a 10 

CFR Part 50 operating license or 10 CFR 

Part 52 combined license 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 to 10 CFR 

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. Because Code Cases 

apply to specific editions and addenda 

and because Code Cases may be revised 

because they are no longer accurate or 

adequate, licensees choosing to 

continue using a Code Case during the 

subsequent ISI 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 or expired, the applicant or 

the licensee may continue to use the 

Code Case until the applicant or the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
61334 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

licensee updates its construction Code 

of Record (in the case of an applicant, 

updates its application) or until the 

licensee’s 120-month ISI/IST update 

interval expires, after which the 

continued use of the code case is 

prohibited unless NRC approval is 

granted under § 50.55a(a)(3). 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 

effective date of the final rulemaking. 

Concurrent with this action, the NRC is 

publishing in the Federal Register 

Notices of availability of these RGs 

listing acceptable ASME BPV Code 

Cases. 

Section 50.55a(b) 

In paragraphs (b) and (b)(4) of 

§ 50.55a, the reference to the revision 

number for RG 1.84 is changed from 

‘‘Revision 34’’ to ‘‘Revision 35.’’ In 

paragraph (b)(5) of § 50.55a, the 

reference to the revision number for RG 

1.147 is changed from ‘‘Revision 15’’ to 

‘‘Revision 16.’’ 

Sections 50.55a(f)(2), (f)(3)(iii)(A), 

(f)(3)(iv)(A), (f)(4)(ii), (g)(2), (g)(3)(i), 

(g)(3)(ii), (g)(4)(i), and (g)(4)(ii) 

In paragraphs (f)(2), (f)(3)(iii)(A), 

(f)(3)(iv)(A), (f)(4)(ii), (g)(2), (g)(3)(i), 

(g)(3)(ii), (g)(4)(i), and (g)(4)(ii) of 

§ 50.55a, the reference to the revision 

number for RG 1.147 is changed from 

‘‘Revision 15’’ to ‘‘Revision 16.’’ 

V. Availability of Documents 

The NRC is making the documents 

identified below available to interested 

persons through one or more of the 

following: 

Public Document Room (PDR): The 

NRC PDR is located at 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Public File Area O–1F21, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Public 

comments and supporting material 

related to this final rule can be found at 

http://regulations.gov by searching on 

the Docket ID NRC–2009–0014. 

The NRC’s Public Electronic Reading 

Room: 

The NRC’s public electronic reading 

room is located at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm.html. 

TABLE 2 

Document PDR Web e-Reading 

Room 

Final Rule Regulatory Analysis ........................................................................................................ X X ML100560131 

RG 1.84, Revision 35 ....................................................................................................................... X X ML101800532 

RG 1.147, Revision 16 ..................................................................................................................... X X ML101800536 

RG 1.193, Revision 3 ....................................................................................................................... X X ML101800540 

Public Comments .............................................................................................................................. X X ML100670356 

Safety Evaluation Report EPRI Report (BWRVIP–108) (December 18, 2007) BWR Nozzle-toVessel Welds and Nozzle Inner Radius.X X ML073600374 

VI. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act of 1995, Public 

Law (Pub. L.) 104–113, requires Federal 

agencies to use technical standards 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies unless the 

use of such standards is inconsistent 

with applicable law or is otherwise 

impractical. In this action, the NRC is 

amending its regulations to incorporate 

by reference RGs that list ASME BPV 

Code Cases approved by the NRC. 

ASME Code Cases, which are ASMEapproved alternatives to the provisions 

of ASME Code editions and addenda, 

are developed by the ASME whose 

members (including the NRC and 

utilities) have broad and varied 

interests. Therefore, ASME Code Cases 

are national consensus standards as 

defined in Pub. L. 104–113 and OMB 

Circular A–119. 

The NRC reviews each Section III and 

Section XI Code Case published by the 

ASME to ascertain whether it is 

consistent with the safe operation of 

nuclear power plants. Those code cases 

found to be acceptable are listed in the 

RGs that are incorporated by reference 

in § 50.55a(b). Those that are found to 

be unacceptable are listed in RG 1.193, 

but licensees may still seek NRC’s 

approval to apply these Code Cases 

through the relief request process 

permitted in § 50.55a(a)(3). Other Code 

Cases, which the NRC finds to be 

conditionally acceptable, are also listed 

in the RGs that are incorporated by 

reference along with the conditions 

under which they may be applied. If the 

NRC did not conditionally accept ASME 

Code Cases, it would disapprove these 

Code Cases entirely. The effect would be 

that licensees would need to submit a 

larger number of relief requests, which 

would be an unnecessary additional 

burden for both the licensee and the 

NRC. For these reasons, the treatment of 

ASME BPV and OM Code Cases and any 

conditions placed on them in this final 

rule does not conflict with any policy 

on agency use of consensus standards 

specified in OMB Circular A–119. 

The NRC is aware of other voluntary 

consensus standards that exist in other 

countries that generally address the 

subjects covered by the ASME Codes 

and Code Cases. However, the ASME 

Code is itself recognized internationally. 

The adoption of those other voluntary 

consensus standards would not 

materially advance the underlying 

objectives of the NTTAA. Accordingly, 

the NRC is incorporating by reference 

and approving the use the ASME Code 

Cases, instead of incorporating by 

reference and approving the use of other 

countries voluntary consensus 

standards that address nuclear power 

plant piping design, construction, 

maintenance and in-service inspection. 

VII. Finding of No Significant 

Environmental Impact: Environmental 

Assessment 

This final rule action stems from the 

Commission’s practice of incorporating 

by reference the RGs listing the most 

recent set of NRC-approved ASME Code 

Cases. The purpose of this action is to 

allow licensees to use the Code Cases 

listed in the RGs as alternatives to 

requirements in the ASME BPV Code for 

the construction and ISI of nuclear 

power plant components. This action is 

intended to advance the NRC’s strategic 

goal of ensuring adequate protection of 

public health and safety and the 

environment. It also demonstrates the 

agency’s commitment to participate in 

the national consensus standards 

process under the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, 

Pub. L. 104–113. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 61335 

The National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) requires Federal 

government agencies to study the 

impacts of their ‘‘major Federal actions 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment’’ and prepare 

detailed statements on the 

environmental impacts of the action and 

alternatives to the action (United States 

Code, Vol. 42, Section 4332(C) [42 

U.S.C. Sec. 4332(C)]; NEPA Sec. 102(C). 

The Commission has determined 

under NEPA, as amended, and the 

Commission’s regulations in Subpart A 

of 10 CFR Part 51 that this final rule 

would not be a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment. Therefore, an 

environmental impact statement is not 

required. 

As alternatives to the ASME Code, 

NRC-approved Code Cases provide an 

adequate level of safety. Also, use of 

NRC-approved Code Cases does not 

change the probability or consequences 

of accidents compared to the usage of 

ASME Code Cases. 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. 

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Statement 

This final rule increases the burden 

on licensees applying ASME Code Case 

N–730 to maintain repair records of the 

current control dive bottom head 

penetrations in BWRs for the life of the 

reactor vessel (10 CFR 50.55a). The 

public burden for the information 

collection associated with Code Case N– 

730 is estimated to average 5 hours per 

request. In addition, the adoption of 

ASME Code Cases will result in fewer 

relief requests, a burden hour savings of 

20 hours per request. Because the 

burden for the information collections 

in this rule is insignificant, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

clearance is not required. Existing 

requirements were approved by OMB, 

approval number 3150–0011. 

Send comments on any aspect of 

these information collections to the 

Information Services Branch (T–5 F52), 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, or by 

Internet electronic mail to 

Infocollects.Resource@NRC.gov and to 

the Desk Officer, Ms. Christine Kymn, 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, NEOB–10202 (3150–0011), 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Washington, DC 20503. 

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 unless the 

requesting document displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

IX. Regulatory Analysis 

The ASME Code Cases listed in the 

RGs to be incorporated by reference 

provide voluntary alternatives to the 

provisions in the ASME BPV Code for 

design, construction, and ISI of specific 

structures, systems, and components 

used in nuclear power plants. 

Implementation of these Code Cases is 

not required. Licensees use NRCapproved ASME Code Cases to reduce 

unnecessary regulatory burden or gain 

additional operational flexibility. It 

would be difficult for the NRC to 

provide these advantages independently 

of the ASME Code Case publication 

process without expending considerable 

additional resources. 

The NRC has prepared a regulatory 

analysis addressing the qualitative 

benefits of the alternatives considered in 

this proposed rulemaking and 

comparing the costs associated with 

each alternative. The regulatory analysis 

is available to the public as indicated 

under the ‘‘Availability of Documents’’ 

Portion of this document. 

X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the 

Commission certifies that this final rule 

would not impose a significant 

economical impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This final rule 

would affect only the licensing and 

operation of nuclear power plants. The 

companies that own these plants are not 

‘‘small entities’’ as defined in the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size 

standards established by the NRC (10 

CFR 2.810). 

XI. Backfit Analysis 

The provisions in this final rule allow 

applicants and licensees to voluntarily 

use NRC-approved ASME Code Cases, 

sometimes with conditions. Thus, the 

NRC finds that this final rule does not 

involve any provisions that constitute 

backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 

50.109(a)(1), or otherwise violate the 

issue finality provisions in 10 CFR Part 

52. Accordingly, a backfit analysis has 

not been prepared for this rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 

Antitrust, Classified information, 

Criminal penalties, Fire protection, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear 

power plants and reactors, Radiation 

protection, Reactor siting criteria, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

■ For the reasons set forth 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 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 

182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 

948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 

234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 

2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 

202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 

1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 

112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy 

Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109–58, 119 Stat. 

194 (2005). Section 50.7 also issued under 

Pub. L. 95–601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as 

amended by Pub. L. 102–486, sec. 2902, 106 

Stat. 3123 (42 U.S. C. 5841), Section 50.10 

also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 955, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, 

Pub. L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). 

Sections 50.13, 50.54(d), and 50.103 also 

issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). 

Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also 

issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 

2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix 

Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91–190, 

83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 

and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 

1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, 

and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97–415, 

96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 

also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 

U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80–50.81 also 

issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also 

issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 

2237). 

■ 2. Section 50.55a is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) introductory 

text, (b)(4) introductory text, (b)(5) 

introductory text, (f)(2), (f)(3)(iii)(A), 

(f)(3)(iv)(A), (f)(4)(ii), (g)(2), (g)(3)(i), 

(g)(3)(ii), (g)(4)(i), and (g)(4)(ii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 50.55a Codes and standards. 

* * * * * 

(b) Section III and XI of the ASME 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and the 

ASME Code for Operation and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
61336 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, 

which are referenced in paragraphs 

(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this section, 

were approved for incorporation by 

reference by the Director of the Office of 

the Federal Register pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. NRC 

Regulatory Guide 1.84, Revision 35, 

‘‘Design, Fabrication, and Materials 

Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section 

III’’ (July 2010); NRC RG 1.147, Revision 

16, ‘‘Inservice Inspection Code Case 

Acceptability, ASME Section XI, 

Division 1’’ (July 2010); and RG 1.192, 

‘‘Operation and Maintenance Code Case 

Acceptability, ASME OM Code’’ (June 

2003), have been approved for 

incorporation by reference by the 

Director of the Office of the Federal 

Register pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 

1 CFR part 51. These RGs list ASME 

Code cases that the NRC has approved 

in accordance with the requirements in 

paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(6) of 

this section. Copies of the ASME Boiler 

and Pressure Vessel Code and the ASME 

Code for Operation and Maintenance of 

Nuclear Power Plants may be purchased 

from the American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers, Three Park 

Avenue, New York, NY 10016. Single 

copies of NRC RG 1.84, Revision 35; 

1.147, Revision 16; and 1.192 may be 

obtained free of charge by writing the 

Mail and Messenger Services, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001; or by fax 

to 301–415–2289; or by e-mail to 

Distribution.Resource@nrc.gov. Copies 

of the ASME Codes and NRC RGs 

incorporated by reference in this section 

may be inspected at the NRC Technical 

Library, Two White Flint North, 11545 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852– 

2738, or at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

* * * * * 

(4) Design, Fabrication, and Materials 

Code cases. Applicants and licensees 

may apply the ASME Boiler and 

Pressure Vessel Code cases listed in 

NRC RG 1.84, Revision 35 without prior 

NRC approval subject to the following: 

* * * * * 

(5) In-service Inspection Code cases. 

Licensees may apply the ASME Boiler 

and Pressure Vessel Code cases listed in 

RG 1.147, Revision 16, without prior 

NRC approval subject to the following: 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) For a boiling or pressurized watercooled nuclear power facility whose 

construction permit was issued on or 

after January 1, 1971, but before July 1, 

1974, pumps and valves which are 

classified as ASME Code Class 1 and 

Class 2 must be designed and be 

provided with access to enable the 

performance of inservice tests for 

operational readiness set forth in 

editions and addenda of Section XI of 

the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel 

Code incorporated by reference in 

paragraph (b) of this section (or the 

optional ASME Code cases listed in 

NRC RG 1.147, Revision 16 or RG 1.192 

that are incorporated by reference in 

paragraph (b) of this section) in effect 6 

months before the date of issuance of 

the construction permit. The pumps and 

valves may meet the inservice test 

requirements set forth in subsequent 

editions of this Code and addenda 

which are incorporated by reference in 

paragraph (b) of this section (or the 

optional ASME Code cases listed in 

NRC RG 1.147, Revision 16 or RG 1.192 

that are incorporated by reference in 

paragraph (b) of this section), subject to 

the applicable limitations and 

modifications listed therein. 

(3) * * * 

(iii) (A) Pumps and valves, in 

facilities whose construction permit was 

issued before November 22, 1999, which 

are classified as ASME Code Class 1 

must be designed and be provided with 

access to enable the performance of 

inservice testing of the pumps and 

valves for assessing operational 

readiness set forth in the editions and 

addenda of Section XI of the ASME 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code 

incorporated by reference in paragraph 

(b) of this section (or the optional ASME 

Code cases listed in NRC RG 1.147, 

Revision 16 or RG 1.192 that are 

incorporated by reference in paragraph 

(b) of this section) applied to the 

construction of the particular pump or 

valve or the Summer 1973 Addenda, 

whichever is later. 

* * * * * 

(iv)(A) Pumps and valves, in facilities 

whose construction permit was issued 

before November 22, 1999, which are 

classified as ASME Code Class 2 and 

Class 3 must be designed and be 

provided with access to enable the 

performance of inservice testing of the 

pumps and valves for assessing 

operational readiness set forth in the 

editions and addenda of Section XI of 

the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel 

Code incorporated by reference in 

paragraph (b) of this section (or the 

optional ASME Code cases listed in 

NRC RG 1.147, Revision 16, that are 

incorporated by reference in paragraph 

(b) of this section) applied to the 

construction of the particular pump or 

valve or the Summer 1973 Addenda, 

whichever is later. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) Inservice tests to verify 

operational readiness of pumps and 

valves, whose function is required for 

safety, conducted during successive 

120-month intervals must comply with 

the requirements of the latest edition 

and addenda of the Code incorporated 

by reference in paragraph (b) of this 

section 12 months before the start of the 

120-month interval (or the optional 

ASME Code cases listed in NRC RG 

1.147, Revision 16 or RG 1.192 that are 

incorporated by reference in paragraph 

(b) of this section), subject to the 

conditions listed in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * 

(2) For a boiling or pressurized watercooled nuclear power facility whose 

construction permit was issued on or 

after January 1, 1971, but before July 1, 

1974, components (including supports) 

which are classified as ASME Code 

Class 1 and Class 2 must be designed 

and be provided with access to enable 

the performance of inservice 

examination of such components 

(including supports) and must meet the 

preservice examination requirements set 

forth in editions and addenda of Section 

XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure 

Vessel Code incorporated by reference 

in paragraph (b) of this section (or the 

optional ASME Code cases listed in 

NRC RG 1.147, Revision 16, that are 

incorporated by reference in paragraph 

(b) of this section) in effect 6 months 

before the date of issuance of the 

construction permit. The components 

(including supports) may meet the 

requirements set forth in subsequent 

editions and addenda of this Code 

which are incorporated by reference in 

paragraph (b) of this section (or the 

optional ASME Code cases listed in 

NRC RG 1.147, Revision 16, that are 

incorporated by reference in paragraph 

(b) of this section), subject to the 

applicable limitations and 

modifications. 

(3) * * * 

(i) Components (including supports) 

which are classified as ASME Code 

Class 1 must be designed and be 

provided with access to enable the 

performance of inservice examination of 

these components and must meet the 

preservice examination requirements set 

forth in the editions and addenda of 

Section XI of the ASME Boiler and 

Pressure Vessel Code incorporated by 

reference in paragraph (b) of this section 

(or the optional ASME Code cases listed 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 61337 

in NRC RG 1.147, Revision 16, that are 

incorporated by reference in paragraph 

(b) of this section) applied to the 

construction of the particular 

component. 

(ii) Components which are classified 

as ASME Code Class 2 and Class 3 and 

supports for components which are 

classified as ASME Code Class 1, Class 

2, and Class 3 must be designed and be 

provided with access to enable the 

performance of inservice examination of 

these components and must meet the 

preservice examination requirements set 

forth in the editions and addenda of 

Section XI of the ASME Boiler and 

Pressure Vessel Code incorporated by 

reference in paragraph (b) of this 

section) applied to the construction of 

the particular component. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) Inservice examination of 

components and system pressure tests 

conducted during the initial 120-month 

inspection interval must comply with 

the requirements in the latest edition 

and addenda of the Code incorporated 

by reference in paragraph (b) of this 

section on the date 12 months before the 

date of issuance of the operating license 

(or the optional ASME Code cases listed 

in NRC RG 1.147, Revision 16, that are 

incorporated by reference in paragraph 

(b) of this section), subject to the 

conditions listed in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(ii) Inservice examination of 

components and system pressure tests 

conducted during successive 120-month 

inspection intervals must comply with 

the requirements of the latest edition 

and addenda of the Code incorporated 

by reference in paragraph (b) of this 

section 12 months before the start of the 

120-month inspection interval (or the 

optional ASME Code cases listed in 

NRC RG 1.147, Revision 16, that are 

incorporated by reference in paragraph 

(b) of this section), subject to the 

conditions listed in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day 

of September 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Cynthia D. Pederson, 

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24814 Filed 10–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–1069; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–036–AD; Amendment 

39–16442; AD 2010–20–08] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model 747–100, 747–100B, 

747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200C, 

747–200F, 747–300, 747–400, 747– 

400D, 747–400F, and 747SR Series 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD), 

which applies to all Boeing Model 747– 

100, 747–100B, 747–100B SUD, 747– 

200B, 747–200C, 747–200F, 747–300, 

747–400, 747–400D, 747–400F, and 

747SR series airplanes. That AD 

currently requires repetitive inspections 

to find cracking of the web, strap, inner 

chords, and inner chord angle of the 

forward edge frame of the number 5 

main entry door cutouts, and repair, if 

necessary. This new AD requires 

expanding the inspection areas to 

include the frame segment between 

stringers 16 and 23. This AD reinstates 

the repetitive inspections specified 

above for certain airplanes. This AD also 

requires repetitive inspections for 

cracking of repairs. This AD results from 

additional reports of cracks that have 

been found in the strap and inner chord 

of the forward edge frame of the number 

5 main entry door cutouts, between 

stringers 16 and 23. We are issuing this 

AD to detect and correct such cracks. 

This condition, if not corrected, could 

cause damage to the adjacent body 

structure, which could result in 

depressurization of the airplane in 

flight. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

November 9, 2010. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of November 9, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124– 

2207; telephone 206–544–5000, 

extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; e-mail 

me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (telephone 800–647–5527) 

is the Document Management Facility, 

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: Ivan 

Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 917–6437; 

fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD to supersede 

AD 2001–16–02, amendment 39–12370 

(66 FR 41440, August 8, 2001). The 

existing AD applies to certain Model 

747 series airplanes. That NPRM was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 20, 2009 (74 FR 60215). That 

NPRM proposed to continue to require 

repetitive inspections to find cracking of 

the web, strap, inner chords, and inner 

chord angle of the forward edge frame 

of the number 5 main entry door cutouts 

between stringers 23 and 31, and repair, 

if necessary. The NPRM also proposed 

to require expanding the inspection 

areas to include the frame segment 

between stringers 16 and 23; reinstating 

the repetitive inspections specified for 

certain airplanes; and adding repetitive 

inspections for cracking of repairs. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comments that have 

been received on the NPRM. 

Request To Exclude Large Cargo 

Freighters (LCFs) From the AD 

Applicability 

Boeing requests we change the 

applicability in paragraph (c) of the 

NPRM to exclude LCFs. Boeing states 

that during modification into the LCF 

configuration, the 46-section from 

station 1960 to station 2360 was 

removed from the airplane. Boeing also 

states that this segment of the airplane 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES