Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, the City of Riverside, CA, the City of Anaheim, CA; San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3; Exemption, 38430-38432 [E6-10529]
Download as PDF
38430
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 129 / Thursday, July 6, 2006 / Notices
at the NRC Public Document Room, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Room O–1 F21, Rockville, MD
20852. OMB clearance requests are
available at the NRC worldwide Web
site: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/
doc-comment/omb/. The
document will be available on the NRC
home page site for 60 days after the
signature date of this notice.
Comments and questions should be
directed to the OMB reviewer listed
below by August 7, 2006. Comments
received after this date will be
considered if it is practical to do so, but
assurance of consideration cannot be
given to comments received after this
date. John A. Asalone, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(3150–0031), NEOB–10202, Office of
Management and Budget, Washington,
DC 20503.
Comments can also be e-mailed to
John_A._Asalone@omb.eop.gov or
submitted by telephone at (202) 395–
4650.
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda
Jo. Shelton, 301–415–7233.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day
of June, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brenda Jo. Shelton,
NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information
Services.
[FR Doc. E6–10523 Filed 7–5–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 72–7 and 50–255; License No.
DPR–20]
Nuclear Management Company, LLC;
Consideration of Request for Action
Under 10 CFR 2.206
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Receipt and consideration of
request for action under 10 CFR 2.206.
AGENCY:
L.
Raynard Wharton, Senior Project
Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Telephone: (301) 415–1396; Fax
number: (301) 415–8555: E-mail:
Irw@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Introduction
Notice is hereby given that by petition
dated April 4, 2006, Mr. Terry J. Lodge
(Counsel for Petitioners) has requested
that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) take action with regard to the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:01 Jul 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
Nuclear Management Company, LLC
(NMC) Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP).
The petitioners’ request that the NRC
take enforcement action against PNP by
condemning and stopping the use of the
two independent spent fuel storage
installation (ISFSI) concrete pads,
constructed in 1992 and 2003, which
hold dry spent fuel storage casks at the
plant site.
Request
Further Information
A copy of the petition may be
inspected at NRC’s Public Electronic
Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html. This document
may also be viewed electronically on
the public computers located at the
NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR),
O–1F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
The PDR reproduction contractor will
copy documents for a fee. Persons who
do not have access to the NRC’s
Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) or who
encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, should
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by
telephone at 1–800–397–4209 or (301)
415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 27th day
of June, 2006.
Frm 00075
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362]
As the basis for the request, the
petitioners state that both ISFSI concrete
pads at PNP do not conform to NRC
requirements for earthquake stability
standards and pose a distinct hazard in
the event of an earthquake.
The request concerning slope stability
of the 2003 concrete pad is being treated
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the
Commission’s regulations. The request
has been referred to the Director of the
Spent Fuel Project Office within the
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards. As provided by 10 CFR
2.206, appropriate action will be taken
on this petition within a reasonable
time. Representatives of Mr. Lodge
spoke with the Petition Review Board
on April 26, 2006, to discuss the
petition. The results of that discussion
were considered in the Board’s
determination regarding condemning
and stopping the use of the two ISFSI
concrete pads and in establishing a
schedule for the review of the petition.
By letter dated June 27, 2006, the Spent
Fuel Project Office Deputy Director
accepted the petition for review in part,
specifically with respect to slope
stability of the concrete pad constructed
in 2003.
PO 00000
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Raynard Wharton,
Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project
Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E6–10525 Filed 7–5–06; 8:45 am]
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Southern California Edison Company,
San Diego Gas and Electric Company,
the City of Riverside, CA, the City of
Anaheim, CA; San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 2 and 3;
Exemption
1.0
Background
Southern California Edison Company
(the licensee) is the holder of Facility
Operating License Nos. NPF–10 and
NPF–15, which authorize operation of
the San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station, Unit 2 and Unit 3 (SONGS 2
and 3), respectively. The licenses
provide, among other things, that the
facility is subject to all rules,
regulations, and orders of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC,
the Commission) now or hereafter in
effect.
The facility consists of two
pressurized-water reactors located in
San Diego County, California.
2.0
Request/action
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Appendix
G, which is invoked by 10 CFR 50.60,
requires that pressure-temperature (P-T)
limits be established for reactor pressure
vessels (RPVs) during normal operating
and hydrostatic or leak rate testing
conditions. Specifically, 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix G, states that ‘‘[t]he
appropriate requirements on both the
pressure-temperature limits and the
minimum permissible temperature must
be met for all conditions,’’ and ‘‘[t]he
pressure-temperature limits identified
as ‘ASME [American Society for
Mechanical Engineers] Appendix G
limits’ in Table 3 require that the limits
must be at least as conservative as limits
obtained by following the methods of
analysis and the margins of safety of
Appendix G of Section XI of the ASME
Code [Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code].’’ Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, Appendix G,
also specifies that the editions and
addenda of the ASME Code, Section XI,
which are incorporated by reference in
10 CFR 50.55a, apply to the
requirements in 10 CFR Part 50,
E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM
06JYN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 129 / Thursday, July 6, 2006 / Notices
Appendix G. In the 2005 Edition of the
Code of Federal Regulations, the 1977
Edition through the 2003 Addenda of
the ASME Code, Section XI are
incorporated by reference in 10 CFR
50.55a. Finally, 10 CFR 50.60(b) states
that, ‘‘[p]roposed alternatives to the
described requirements in Append[ix] G
* * * of this part or portions thereof
may be used when an exemption is
granted by the Commission under [10
CFR 50.12].’’
In the licensee’s January 28, 2005,
license amendment request to
implement a pressure-temperature
limits report (PTLR) for SONGS 2 and
3, the licensee identified Combustion
Engineering (CE) Owners Group Topical
Report NPSD–683–A, ‘‘The
Development of a RCS [Reactor Coolant
System] Pressure and Temperature
Limits Report for the Removal of P-T
Limits and LTOP [low temperature
overpressure protection] Setpoints from
the Technical Specifications,’’ as the
PTLR methodology that would be cited
in the administrative control section of
the SONGS 2 and 3 Technical
Specifications governing PTLR content.
CE NPSD–683–A refers to an NRCapproved version of Topical Report CE
NPSD–683. The NRC staff evaluated the
specific PTLR methodology in CE
NPSD–683, Revision 6. This evaluation
was documented in the NRC safety
evaluation (SE) of March 16, 2001,
which specified additional licensee
actions that are necessary to support a
licensee’s adoption of CE NPSD–683,
Revision 6. The final approved version
of this report was reissued as CE NPSD–
683–A, Revision 6, which included the
NRC SE and the required additional
action items as an attachment to the
report. One of the additional specified
actions stated that if a licensee proposed
to utilize the methodology in CE NPSD–
683, Revision 6, for the calculation of
flaw stress intensity factors due to
membrane stress from pressure loading
(KIM), an exemption was required since
the methodology for the calculation of
KIM values in CE NPSD–683, Revision 6,
could not be shown to be conservative
with respect to the methodology for the
determination of KIM provided in
editions and addenda of the ASME
Code, Section XI, Appendix G, through
the 2003 Addenda. Therefore, in
connection with the licensee’s January
28, 2005, license amendment request, as
supplemented by its letter dated January
12, 2006, the licensee also submitted an
exemption request, consistent with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.60, to apply
the KIM calculational methodology of CE
NPSD–683–A, Revision 6, as part of the
SONGS 2 and 3 PTLR methodology.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:01 Jul 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
During the NRC staff’s review of CE
NPSD–683, Revision 6, the NRC staff
evaluated the KIM calculational
methodology of CE NPSD–683, Revision
6, versus the methodologies for KIM
calculation given in the ASME Code,
Section XI, Appendix G. In the staff’s
March 16, 2001 SE, the staff noted,
‘‘[t]he CE NSSS [nuclear steam supply
system] methodology does not invoke
the methods in the 1995 edition of
Appendix G to the Code for calculating
KIM factors, and instead applies FEM
[finite element modeling] methods for
estimating the KIM factors for the RPV
shell * * * the staff has determined that
the KIM calculation methods apply FEM
modeling that is similar to that used for
the determination of the KIT factors [as
codified in the ASME Code, Section XI,
Appendix G]. The staff has also
determined that there is only a slight
non-conservative difference between the
P–T limits generated from the 1989
edition of Appendix G to the Code and
those generated from CE NSSS
methodology as documented in
Evaluation No. 063–PENG–ER–096,
Revision 00. The staff considers that this
difference is reasonable and that it will
be consistent with the expected
improvements in P-T generation
methods that have been incorporated
into the 1995 edition of Appendix G to
the Code.’’
In summary, the staff concluded in its
March 16, 2001, SE that the calculation
of KIM using the CE NPSD–683, Revision
6, methodology would lead to the
development of P-T limit curves, which
may be slightly non-conservative with
respect to those which would be
calculated using the ASME Code,
Section XI, Appendix G, and that such
a difference was to be expected with the
development of more refined
calculational techniques. Furthermore,
the staff concluded in its March 16,
2001, SE that P-T limit curves that
would be developed using the
methodology of CE NPSD–683, Revision
6, would be adequate for protecting the
RPV from brittle fracture under all
normal operating and hydrostatic/leak
test conditions.
3.0
Discussion
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the
Commission may, upon application by
any interested person or upon its own
initiative, grant exemptions from the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when (1)
the exemptions are authorized by law,
will not present an undue risk to public
health or safety, and are consistent with
the common defense and security; and
(2) when special circumstances are
present.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38431
This exemption results in changes to
the plant by allowing the use of an
alternative methodology for calculating
flaw stress intensity factors in the
reactor pressure vessel due to membrane
stress from pressure loadings in lieu of
meeting the requirements in 10 CFR
50.60. As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12
allows NRC to grant exemptions from
the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50. In
addition, the granting of the exemption
will not result in violation of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the
Commission’s regulations. Therefore,
the exemption is authorized by law.
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR
50.60 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G,
is to ensure that appropriate pressuretemperature limits and the minimum
permissible temperature are established
for the reactor pressure vessel under
normal operating and hydrostatic or
leak rate conditions. The licensee’s
alternative methodology for establishing
the P-T limits and low-temperature
overpressure protection setpoints are
described in Combustion Engineering
Owners’ Topical Report NPSD–683–A,
and has been approved by the NRC staff.
Based on the above, no new accident
precursors are created by using the
alternative methodology, thus, the
probability of postulated accidents is
not increased. Also, based on the above,
the consequences of postulated
accidents are not increased. In addition,
the licensee will use an NRC-approved
methodology for establishing P-T limits
and minimum permissible temperatures
for the reactor vessel. Therefore, there is
no undue risk to the public health and
safety.
The exemption results in changes to
the plant by allowing an alternative
methodology for calculating flaw stress
intensity factors in the reactor vessel.
This change to the calculation of
stresses in the reactor vessel material
has no relation to security issues.
Therefore, the common defense and
security is not impacted by this
exemption.
Special circumstances, pursuant to 10
CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present in that
continued operation of SONGS 2 and 3
with P-T limit curves developed in
accordance with the ASME Code,
Section XI, Appendix G, without the
authorization to utilize the alternative
KIM calculational methodology of CE
NPSD–683–A, Revision 6, is not
necessary to achieve the underlying
purpose of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G.
Application of the KIM calculational
methodology of CE NPSD–683–A,
Revision 6, in lieu of the calculational
methodology specified in the ASME
Code, Section XI, Appendix G, provides
an acceptable alternative evaluation
E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM
06JYN1
38432
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 129 / Thursday, July 6, 2006 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
procedure, which will continue to meet
the underlying purpose of 10 CFR Part
50, Appendix G. The underlying
purpose of the regulations in 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix G, is to provide an
acceptable margin of safety against
brittle failure of the RCS during any
condition of normal operation to which
the pressure boundary may be subjected
over its service lifetime.
Based on the staff’s March 16, 2001,
SE regarding CE NPSD–683, Revision 6,
and the licensee’s rationale to support
the exemption request, the staff accepts
the licensee’s determination that an
exemption would be required to
approve the use of the KIM calculational
methodology of CE NPSD–683–A,
Revision 6. The staff concludes that the
application of the technical provisions
of the KIM calculational methodology of
CE NPSD–683–A, Revision 6, by SONGS
2 and 3 provides sufficient margin in
the development of RPV P-T limit
curves such that the underlying purpose
of the regulations (10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix G) continues to be met.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that
the exemption requested by the licensee
is justified based on the special
circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii),
‘‘[a]pplication of the regulation in the
particular circumstances would not
serve the underlying purpose of the rule
or is not necessary to achieve the
underlying purpose of the rule.’’
Based upon a consideration of the
conservatism that is explicitly
incorporated into the methodologies of
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, and ASME
Code, Section XI, Appendix G, the staff
concludes that application of the KIM
calculational methodology of CE NPSD–
683–A, Revision 6, as described, would
provide an adequate margin of safety
against brittle failure of the RPV.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the
exemption is appropriate under the
special circumstances of 10 CFR
50.12(a)(2)(ii), and that the application
of the technical provisions of the KIM
calculational methodology of CE NPSD–
683–A, Revision 6, should be approved
for use in the SONGS 2 and 3 PTLR
methodology.
4.0 Conclusion
Accordingly, the Commission has
determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR
50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by
law, will not present an undue risk to
the public health and safety, and is
consistent with the common defense
and security. Also, special
circumstances are present. Therefore,
the Commission hereby grants Southern
California Edison Company an
exemption from the requirements of 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix G, to allow
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:01 Jul 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
application of the KIM calculational
methodology of CE NPSD–683–A,
Revision 6, in establishing the PTLR
methodology for SONGS 2 and 3.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the
Commission has determined that the
granting of this exemption will not have
a significant effect on the quality of the
human environment (71 FR 19553;
dated April 14, 2006).
This exemption is effective upon
issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day
of June 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Catherine Haney,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6–10529 Filed 7–5–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Upon written request, copies available
from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and
Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.
Extension: Rule 20a–1, SEC File No. 270–
132, OMB Control No. 3235–0158.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the
‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments
on the collection of information
summarized below. The Commission
plans to submit the existing collection
of information to the Office of
Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for
extension and approval. The title of the
collection of information is ‘‘Rule 20a–
1 under the Investment Company Act of
1940, Solicitation of Proxies, Consents
and Authorizations.’’
Rule 20a–1 (17 CFR 270.20a–1) under
the Investment Company Act of 1940
(15 U.S.C. 80a–1 et seq.) requires that
the solicitation of a proxy, consent, or
authorization with respect to a security
issued by a registered investment
company (‘‘fund’’) be in compliance
with Regulation 14A (17 CFR 240.14a–
1 et seq.), Schedule 14A (17 CFR
240.14a–101), and all other rules and
regulations adopted under section 14(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78n(a)). It also requires a
fund’s investment adviser, or a
prospective adviser, to transmit to the
person making a proxy solicitation the
information necessary to enable that
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
person to comply with the rules and
regulations applicable to the
solicitation.
Regulation 14A and Schedule 14A
establish the disclosure requirements
applicable to the solicitation of proxies,
consents and authorizations. In
particular, Item 22 of Schedule 14A
contains extensive disclosure
requirements for fund proxy statements.
Among other things, it requires the
disclosure of information about fund fee
or expense increases, the election of
directors, the approval of an investment
advisory contract and the approval of a
distribution plan.
The Commission requires the
dissemination of this information to
assist investors in understanding their
fund investments and the choices they
may be asked to make regarding fund
operations. The Commission does not
use the information in proxies directly,
but reviews proxy statement filings for
compliance with applicable rules.
It is estimated that funds file
approximately 1,565 proxy solicitations
annually with the Commission. That
figure includes multiple filings by some
funds. The total annual reporting and
recordkeeping burden of the collection
of information is estimated to be
approximately 166,203 hours (1,565
responses × 106.2 hours per response).
Written comments are invited on: (a)
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate
of the burden of the collection of
information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including
through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology. Consideration will be given
to comments and suggestions submitted
in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
Please direct your written comments
to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way,
Alexandria, VA 22312, or via e-mail to:
PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov.
Dated: June 20, 2006.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6–10491 Filed 7–5–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM
06JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 129 (Thursday, July 6, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38430-38432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-10529]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362]
Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas and Electric
Company, the City of Riverside, CA, the City of Anaheim, CA; San Onofre
Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3; Exemption
1.0 Background
Southern California Edison Company (the licensee) is the holder of
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15, which authorize
operation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 and Unit
3 (SONGS 2 and 3), respectively. The licenses provide, among other
things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and
orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission)
now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of two pressurized-water reactors located in
San Diego County, California.
2.0 Request/action
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50,
Appendix G, which is invoked by 10 CFR 50.60, requires that pressure-
temperature (P-T) limits be established for reactor pressure vessels
(RPVs) during normal operating and hydrostatic or leak rate testing
conditions. Specifically, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, states that
``[t]he appropriate requirements on both the pressure-temperature
limits and the minimum permissible temperature must be met for all
conditions,'' and ``[t]he pressure-temperature limits identified as
`ASME [American Society for Mechanical Engineers] Appendix G limits' in
Table 3 require that the limits must be at least as conservative as
limits obtained by following the methods of analysis and the margins of
safety of Appendix G of Section XI of the ASME Code [Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code].'' Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Appendix G, also specifies that the editions and addenda
of the ASME Code, Section XI, which are incorporated by reference in 10
CFR 50.55a, apply to the requirements in 10 CFR Part 50,
[[Page 38431]]
Appendix G. In the 2005 Edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, the
1977 Edition through the 2003 Addenda of the ASME Code, Section XI are
incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a. Finally, 10 CFR 50.60(b)
states that, ``[p]roposed alternatives to the described requirements in
Append[ix] G * * * of this part or portions thereof may be used when an
exemption is granted by the Commission under [10 CFR 50.12].''
In the licensee's January 28, 2005, license amendment request to
implement a pressure-temperature limits report (PTLR) for SONGS 2 and
3, the licensee identified Combustion Engineering (CE) Owners Group
Topical Report NPSD-683-A, ``The Development of a RCS [Reactor Coolant
System] Pressure and Temperature Limits Report for the Removal of P-T
Limits and LTOP [low temperature overpressure protection] Setpoints
from the Technical Specifications,'' as the PTLR methodology that would
be cited in the administrative control section of the SONGS 2 and 3
Technical Specifications governing PTLR content. CE NPSD-683-A refers
to an NRC-approved version of Topical Report CE NPSD-683. The NRC staff
evaluated the specific PTLR methodology in CE NPSD-683, Revision 6.
This evaluation was documented in the NRC safety evaluation (SE) of
March 16, 2001, which specified additional licensee actions that are
necessary to support a licensee's adoption of CE NPSD-683, Revision 6.
The final approved version of this report was reissued as CE NPSD-683-
A, Revision 6, which included the NRC SE and the required additional
action items as an attachment to the report. One of the additional
specified actions stated that if a licensee proposed to utilize the
methodology in CE NPSD-683, Revision 6, for the calculation of flaw
stress intensity factors due to membrane stress from pressure loading
(KIM), an exemption was required since the methodology for
the calculation of KIM values in CE NPSD-683, Revision 6,
could not be shown to be conservative with respect to the methodology
for the determination of KIM provided in editions and
addenda of the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G, through the 2003
Addenda. Therefore, in connection with the licensee's January 28, 2005,
license amendment request, as supplemented by its letter dated January
12, 2006, the licensee also submitted an exemption request, consistent
with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.60, to apply the KIM
calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, as part of the
SONGS 2 and 3 PTLR methodology.
During the NRC staff's review of CE NPSD-683, Revision 6, the NRC
staff evaluated the KIM calculational methodology of CE
NPSD-683, Revision 6, versus the methodologies for KIM
calculation given in the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G. In the
staff's March 16, 2001 SE, the staff noted, ``[t]he CE NSSS [nuclear
steam supply system] methodology does not invoke the methods in the
1995 edition of Appendix G to the Code for calculating KIM
factors, and instead applies FEM [finite element modeling] methods for
estimating the KIM factors for the RPV shell * * * the staff
has determined that the KIM calculation methods apply FEM
modeling that is similar to that used for the determination of the
KIT factors [as codified in the ASME Code, Section XI,
Appendix G]. The staff has also determined that there is only a slight
non-conservative difference between the P-T limits generated from the
1989 edition of Appendix G to the Code and those generated from CE NSSS
methodology as documented in Evaluation No. 063-PENG-ER-096, Revision
00. The staff considers that this difference is reasonable and that it
will be consistent with the expected improvements in P-T generation
methods that have been incorporated into the 1995 edition of Appendix G
to the Code.''
In summary, the staff concluded in its March 16, 2001, SE that the
calculation of KIM using the CE NPSD-683, Revision 6,
methodology would lead to the development of P-T limit curves, which
may be slightly non-conservative with respect to those which would be
calculated using the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G, and that such a
difference was to be expected with the development of more refined
calculational techniques. Furthermore, the staff concluded in its March
16, 2001, SE that P-T limit curves that would be developed using the
methodology of CE NPSD-683, Revision 6, would be adequate for
protecting the RPV from brittle fracture under all normal operating and
hydrostatic/leak test conditions.
3.0 Discussion
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by
any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from
the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when (1) the exemptions are
authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or
safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and
(2) when special circumstances are present.
This exemption results in changes to the plant by allowing the use
of an alternative methodology for calculating flaw stress intensity
factors in the reactor pressure vessel due to membrane stress from
pressure loadings in lieu of meeting the requirements in 10 CFR 50.60.
As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows NRC to grant exemptions from the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 50. In addition, the granting of the
exemption will not result in violation of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the
exemption is authorized by law.
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.60 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix
G, is to ensure that appropriate pressure-temperature limits and the
minimum permissible temperature are established for the reactor
pressure vessel under normal operating and hydrostatic or leak rate
conditions. The licensee's alternative methodology for establishing the
P-T limits and low-temperature overpressure protection setpoints are
described in Combustion Engineering Owners' Topical Report NPSD-683-A,
and has been approved by the NRC staff. Based on the above, no new
accident precursors are created by using the alternative methodology,
thus, the probability of postulated accidents is not increased. Also,
based on the above, the consequences of postulated accidents are not
increased. In addition, the licensee will use an NRC-approved
methodology for establishing P-T limits and minimum permissible
temperatures for the reactor vessel. Therefore, there is no undue risk
to the public health and safety.
The exemption results in changes to the plant by allowing an
alternative methodology for calculating flaw stress intensity factors
in the reactor vessel. This change to the calculation of stresses in
the reactor vessel material has no relation to security issues.
Therefore, the common defense and security is not impacted by this
exemption.
Special circumstances, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are
present in that continued operation of SONGS 2 and 3 with P-T limit
curves developed in accordance with the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix
G, without the authorization to utilize the alternative KIM
calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, is not
necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix
G. Application of the KIM calculational methodology of CE
NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, in lieu of the calculational methodology
specified in the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G, provides an
acceptable alternative evaluation
[[Page 38432]]
procedure, which will continue to meet the underlying purpose of 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix G. The underlying purpose of the regulations in 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix G, is to provide an acceptable margin of safety
against brittle failure of the RCS during any condition of normal
operation to which the pressure boundary may be subjected over its
service lifetime.
Based on the staff's March 16, 2001, SE regarding CE NPSD-683,
Revision 6, and the licensee's rationale to support the exemption
request, the staff accepts the licensee's determination that an
exemption would be required to approve the use of the KIM
calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6. The staff
concludes that the application of the technical provisions of the
KIM calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6,
by SONGS 2 and 3 provides sufficient margin in the development of RPV
P-T limit curves such that the underlying purpose of the regulations
(10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G) continues to be met. Therefore, the NRC
staff concludes that the exemption requested by the licensee is
justified based on the special circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii),
``[a]pplication of the regulation in the particular circumstances would
not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to
achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.''
Based upon a consideration of the conservatism that is explicitly
incorporated into the methodologies of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, and
ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G, the staff concludes that application
of the KIM calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A,
Revision 6, as described, would provide an adequate margin of safety
against brittle failure of the RPV. Therefore, the staff concludes that
the exemption is appropriate under the special circumstances of 10 CFR
50.12(a)(2)(ii), and that the application of the technical provisions
of the KIM calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A,
Revision 6, should be approved for use in the SONGS 2 and 3 PTLR
methodology.
4.0 Conclusion
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR
50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue
risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common
defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present.
Therefore, the Commission hereby grants Southern California Edison
Company an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix
G, to allow application of the KIM calculational methodology
of CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, in establishing the PTLR methodology for
SONGS 2 and 3.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the
granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment (71 FR 19553; dated April 14, 2006).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of June 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Catherine Haney,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-10529 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P