[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 5, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38890-38894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18546]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 50
[NRC-2008-0663]
RIN 3150-AI53
Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The NRC is amending its regulations governing vessel head
inspection requirements. This amendment revises the upper range of the
percentage of axial flaws permitted in a specimen set used for the
qualification of nondestructive examination systems (procedures,
personnel and equipment), which are used in the performance of
inservice inspection (ISI) of pressurized water reactor (PWR) upper
vessel head penetrations. This amendment is being made as a result of
the withdrawal of a stakeholder's recommendation necessitated by a
typographical error in the original recommendation with respect to the
maximum percentage of flaws that should be oriented axially.
DATES: Effective Date: The final rule will become effective October 19,
2009, unless significant adverse comments are received by September 4,
2009. A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter
explains why the rule would be
[[Page 38891]]
inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or
approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change
(refer to ``Direct Final Rulemaking Process'' in the Section III of
this document for further details). If the rule is withdrawn, timely
notice will be published in the Federal Register. Submit comments by
September 4, 2009. Comments received after this date will be considered
if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure only that
comments received on or before this date will be considered.
ADDRESSES: You can access publicly available documents related to this
document by using the following methods.
Federal e Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and
search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2008-0663. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 301 492-3668; e-mail
[email protected].
NRC's Public Document (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 Agency wide 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 site, 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 in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Manash K. Bagchi, Project Manager,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301 415-2905, e-mail
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Discussion
III. Direct Final Rulemaking Process
IV. Voluntary Consensus Standards
V. Plain language
VI. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Environment
Assessment
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
VIII. Regulatory Analysis
IX. Regulatory Flexible Certification
X. Backfit Analysis
XI. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
The NRC published a proposed rule on April 5, 2007 (72 FR 16731),
to incorporate by reference the 2004 Edition of Section III, Division
1, of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler
Pressure Vessel (BPV) Code, and the 2004 Edition of the ASME Operation
and Maintenance (OM) Code to provide updated rules for constructing and
inspecting components and testing of pumps, valves, and dynamic
snubbers in light water nuclear power plants. The proposed rule, among
other things, also incorporated by reference augmented examination
requirements of PWR reactor vessel head penetration nozzles of ASME
Code Case N-729-1, ``Alternative Examinations Requirements for PWR
Vessel Upper Heads with Nozzles Having Pressure Retaining Partial
Penetration Welds, Section XI, Division I'' as conditioned by the NRC.
As part of these conditions, the NRC imposed a qualification program
for volumetric inspections to ensure examinations were effective in
identifying axial and circumferential stress corrosion cracking in the
penetration nozzles. The NRC qualification program included a
requirement for the distribution of cracks within a qualification
specimen set. Essentially a qualification specimen set is a group of
nozzle mockup flaws which are used as part of a test to qualify
inspectors, procedures and equipment. The NRC qualification program, as
stated in the proposed rule, required, ``at least 30 percent, but no
more than 60 percent of the flaws must be oriented axially,'' with the
remaining flaws oriented circumferentially by default.
During the public comment period of the proposed rule, Mr. Jack
Spanner of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), program
manager of the industry generic qualification program for volumetric
inspection of vessel head penetration nozzles, submitted a comment
dated June 19, 2007 (ML071710637). Mr. Spanner requested that the
proposed rule's flaw distribution percentages be changed to be at least
20 percent, but no more than 40 percent of the flaws to be oriented
axially. Mr. Spanner's basis for this change, as well as other
recommendations, was that the requirements of the proposed rule would
require the construction of additional mockups.
The NRC reviewed the requested change to ensure that if
implemented, the qualification process would remain effective. The NRC
concluded that the specific required number of axial flaws in a
specimen set may have some variation so long as a range was defined to
ensure both axial and circumferential flaws in a specimen set, and a
specific set value was not assigned that would limit the effectiveness
of a blind qualification program. The NRC found that Mr. Spanner's
request met these criteria. Therefore, given the reduced burden by
allowing the use of current or planned mockups, the NRC included the
proposed change in the final rule (72 FR 52370; September 10, 2008.)
II. Discussion
After the final rule was published, an e-mail was submitted to the
NRC on behalf of Mr. Spanner dated September 12, 2008 (ML091410089).
Mr. Spanner informed the NRC that, after he submitted his original
recommendation with respect to the maximum percentile range of axial
flaws, he identified a typographical error. Mr. Spanner had only
intended to recommend a change to the minimum axial flaw distribution
percentage from 30 to 20 percent, and did not intend to recommend a
change in the maximum value of flaws from 60 to 40 percent. Mr. Spanner
also stated that use of the maximum value of 40 percent would require
additional mockups to be created in order to meet the NRC volumetric
inspection qualification program at EPRI. As a result, he requested the
maximum percentage be returned to the proposed rule limit of 60
percent.
In reviewing Mr. Spanner's latest proposal, the NRC continues to
believe that the specific value for the number of axial flaws within a
specimen set is open to variation, so long as a reasonable distribution
is maintained. The newly proposed distribution range of 20 percent to
60 percent of axial flaws allowed 80 percent to 40 percent of the total
specimen set flaws to be circumferentially orientated. The NRC finds
that the newly proposed range maintains a reasonable distribution of
circumferential and axial flaws, and does not limit the effectiveness
of a blind qualification test by being too prescriptive. Therefore, the
NRC concludes that the distribution range, modified as recommended by
Mr. Spanner, continues to meet the NRC defined criteria for an
effective qualification specimen set. Given this conclusion and the
representation by Mr. Spanner that using the current rule's maximum
axial flaw distribution range of 40 percent would require the creation
of additional mockups, the NRC determined that the maximum distribution
of allowable axial flaws in
[[Page 38892]]
the specimen set should be changed from 40 percent to 60 percent. The
NRC believes, in light of the September 1, 2009, deadline for
implementation of the qualification requirement for volumetric
inspection of vessel head penetration nozzles, that the time and
resources necessary to design and prepare additional mockups compliant
with the current rule, and to complete qualification of personnel,
procedures, and equipment represents a significant burden on the
licensee with no significant safety benefit. The NRC concludes that the
maximum qualification specimen set axial flaw distribution should be
changed from 40 to 60 percent.
III. Direct Final Rulemaking Process
The NRC is using the ``direct final rule procedure'' to issue this
action because this action is minor, and is not expected to be
controversial. The NRC does not expect any adverse comments for two
reasons. First, as discussed in the discussion of the reasons for this
rulemaking, the change in the maximum axial flaws which must be
included in the qualification sample has no adverse impact on safety.
The NRC has no reason to believe that any external stakeholder
disagrees with the NRC's determination in this regard, and consequently
does not expect any stakeholder to submit adverse comments on this
change. In addition, the NRC's action to change the current requirement
on axial flaw distribution was initiated in response to a comment from
a representative of the industry group responsible for the development
of the welding qualification program for the industry. This increases
the NRC's confidence that the proposed change is not controversial and
will not result in significant adverse comments. Second, the rule
change represents a burden reduction for licensees. Thus, the NRC does
not expect any adverse comment from these stakeholders with respect to
the rule change enabling the burden reduction. Accordingly, the NRC
finds that there is good cause under the Administrative Procedure Act,
5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) for avoiding notice and opportunity for public
comment on the direct final rule. The amendment to the rule will become
effective on October 19, 2009. However, if the NRC receives significant
adverse comments by September 4, 2009, then the NRC will publish a
document that withdraws this action. In that event, the comments
received in response to this amendment would then be considered as
comments on the companion proposed rule published elsewhere in this
Federal Register, and the comments will be addressed in a later final
rule based on that proposed rule. Unless the modifications to the
proposed rule are significant enough to require that it be republished
as a proposed rule, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period
on this action. A significant adverse comment is a comment where the
commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including
challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be
ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and
significant if:
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient
to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For
example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC to reevaluate (or reconsider) its
position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a
substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously
addressed or considered by the NRC.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and
it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable
without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC to make a change (other than
editorial) to the rule.
IV. Voluntary Consensus Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that
are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless
the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Public Law 104-113 requires Federal agencies to
use industry consensus standards to the extent practical; it does not
require Federal agencies to incorporate by reference a standard into
the regulations in its entirety. The law does not prohibit an agency
from generally adopting a consensus standard while taking exception to
specific portions of the standard if those provisions are deemed to be
``inconsistent with applicable law or other wise impractical.''
Furthermore, taking specific exceptions furthers the Congressional
intent of Federal reliance on voluntary consensus standards because it
allows the adoption of substantial portions of consensus standards
without the need to reject the standards in their entirety because of
limited provisions which are not acceptable to the agency.
The NRC is amending its regulations to revise the reactor vessel
head inspections specimen set specifications necessitated by the
withdrawal of a stakeholder's recommendation, incorporated in the 2008
final rule (73 FR 52730), which contained a typographical error. This
latest amendment is consistent with specimen set distribution under
Appendix VIII of Section XI of the ASME Code, a national consensus
standard. The 2008 final rule incorporated by reference the latest
edition of Section III and XI of the ASME BPV Code and ASME OM Code,
for construction, ISI, and in-service testing of nuclear power plant
components. ASME BPV and OM Codes are national consensus standards
developed by participants with broad and varied interests, in which all
interested parties (including the NRC and licensees of nuclear power
plants) participate. If the NRC did not conditionally accept ASME Code
Editions and Addenda, it would disapprove these items entirely. The
effect would be that licensees would need to submit large number of
requests for the NRC's approval of alternatives under 10 CFR
50.55a(a)(3). This would constitute an unnecessary additional burden
for both the licensees and the NRC. Similarly, not adopting the
modification in this final rule may result in a large number of relief
requests without any compensating safety benefits. For these reasons,
the NRC concludes that the treatment of ASME Code Editions and Addenda,
and conditions placed in this final rule does not conflict with any
policy on agency use of consensus standards specified in Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-119.
V. Plain Language
The Presidential Memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled ``Plain
Language in Government Writing,'' directed that the Government's
writing be in plain language. The NRC requests comments on this direct
final rule specifically with respect to the clarity and effectiveness
of the language used. Comments should be sent to the address listed
under the heading ADDRESSES of this document.
VI. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Environmental
Assessment
The Commission has determined that this direct final rule is the
type of action described as a categorical exclusion in Sec.
51.22(c)(2), which states, ``amendments to the regulations which are
corrective or of a minor or nonpolicy
[[Page 38893]]
nature and do not substantially modify existing regulations, and
actions on petition for rulemaking relating.'' This amendment revises
the upper range of the percentage of axially orientated flaws permitted
in a specimen set used in the qualification of nondestructive
examination systems for performance of reactor vessel head penetration
inspections, and is corrective in nature and does not modify the intent
of the existing regulation. Therefore, neither an environmental impact
statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this
direct final rule.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This direct final rule does not contain a new or amended
information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were
approved by the Office of Management and Budget, Approval Number 3150-
0011.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a request for information or an information collection
requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
VIII. Regulatory Analysis
A regulatory analysis has not been prepared for this direct final
rule. This rule amends the NRC regulations to correct the upper range
of the percentage of axially oriented flaws permitted in a specimen set
used in the qualification of nondestructive examination systems, which
are used in the performance of reactor vessel head inspections. This
amendment does not impose any new burden or reporting requirements on
the licensee or NRC for compliance. Also, this rule does not involve an
exercise of Commission discretion and, therefore does not necessitate
preparation of a regulatory analysis.
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the
NRC certifies that this Amendment will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This direct final rule affects only the licensing and operation of
nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall
within the scope of the definition of ``small entities'' set forth in
the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set
forth in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13
CFR Part 121.
X. Backfit Analysis
As described previously, the final rule imposed augmented
examination requirements for PWR reactor vessel head penetrations by
incorporation by reference of ASME Code Case N-729-1. In the final
rule, the NRC concluded that the requirements of Code Case N-729-1,
with the limitations and conditions denoted by the rule, represents an
acceptable approach developed by a voluntary consensus standards
organization for performing future RPV head and head penetration
inspections. Accordingly, the NRC concluded that approval of Code Case
N-729-1, with the limitation and conditions denoted by that rule, by
incorporation by reference of that Code Case into Sec. 50.55a,
constitutes a redefinition of the requirements necessary to provide
reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and
safety. As such, no backfit analysis was prepared for that portion of
the final rule, under Sec. 50.109(a)(4)(iii).
The NRC is using the direct final rule procedure to amend NRC
regulations to revise the upper range of the percentage of axially
oriented flaws permitted in a specimen set for the qualification of
nondestructive examination systems used in the performance of reactor
vessel head inspections as a result of withdrawal of a stakeholder's
recommendations due to a typographical error. This amendment revises
the upper range of the percentage of axial flaws permitted in a
specimen set Sec. 50.55a(g)(6)(D)(4)(ii) from 40 percent to 60
percent, the same as in the proposed rule on this subject (72 FR
16731). This requirement, i.e. an upper range of 60 percent, is similar
to specimen set distribution under Appendix VIII of Section XI of the
ASME Code. The NRC continues to find that the requirements of Code Case
N-729-1, with the limitations and conditions denoted by this rule,
represents an acceptable approach developed by a voluntary consensus
standard organization. Therefore, a backfit analysis has not been
prepared for this direct final rule, under Sec. 50.109(a)(4)(iii).
XI. Congressional Review Act
Under the Congressional Review Act of 1996, the NRC has determined
that this action is not a major rule and has verified this
determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50
Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire
protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and
reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
0
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
0
1. The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 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); Sec.651(e), Pub. L.
109-58, 119 Stat. 806-810 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111).
Section 50.7 also issued under Public Law 95-601, sec. 10, 92
Stat. 2951 as amended by Public Law 102-846, 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,
Public Law 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, Public Law
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 Public Law 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).
0
2. In Sec. 50.55a, paragraph (g)(6)(ii)(D)(4)(ii) is revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 50.55a Codes and Standards
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) * * *
(4) * * *
[[Page 38894]]
(ii) The specimen set must have a minimum of ten (10) flaws which
provide an acoustic response similar to PWSCC indications. All flaws
must be greater than 10 percent of the nominal pipe wall thickness. A
minimum of 20 percent of the total flaws must initiate from the inside
surface and 20 percent from the outside surface. At least 20 percent of
the flaws must be in the depth ranges of 10-30 percent through wall
thickness and at least 20 percent within a depth range of 31-50 percent
through wall thickness. At least 20 percent and no more than 60 percent
of the flaws must be oriented axially.
* * * * *
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of July 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bruce S. Mallett,
Acting Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. E9-18546 Filed 8-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P