[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2019-2021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-501]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[ Docket No. 50-425]


Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric 
Generating Plant, Unit 2; Exemption

1.0 Background

    The Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC/licensee), is the 
holder of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81, which 
authorize operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 
and 2 (VEGP Unit 1 and VEGP Unit 2), respectively. The licenses 
provide, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, 
regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the 
Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
    The facility consists of two pressurized-water reactors (PWRs) 
supplied by Westinghouse Electric Corporation, each rated at 3565 
megawatts (thermal). The facility is located in Burke County, Georgia. 
This exemption addresses VEGP Unit 2.

2.0 Request/Action

    Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 54.17(c) 
stipulates that an application for a renewed license may not be 
submitted to the Commission earlier than 20 years before the expiration 
of the operating license currently in effect.
    By letter dated May 22, 2006, the licensee requested a schedular 
exemption from the 20-year restriction specified in 10 CFR 54.17(c) for 
VEGP Unit 2 so that the license renewal application (LRA) for both 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant units can be prepared and submitted 
concurrently, with the goal of attaining efficiencies for preparation 
and review of the application. The current operating license for VEGP 
Unit 1 expires on January 16, 2027, whereas the current operating 
license for VEGP Unit 2 expires on February 9, 2029. At the time the 
exemption request was filed, VEGP Unit 1 had over 19 years of operating 
experience and VEGP Unit 2 had over 17 years of operating experience.
    This exemption is required in order to allow an application for 
renewal of the VEGP Unit 2 license to be prepared and submitted 
concurrently with the LRA for VEGP Unit 1. Based on an anticipated 
submittal of a renewal application on June 28, 2007, VEGP Unit 1 will 
meet the requirements of 10 CFR 54.17(c) and the license renewal 
request for VEGP Unit 2 would occur approximately 2 years earlier than 
the earliest date allowed by 10 CFR 54.17(c).

3.0 Discussion

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.15, the Commission may, upon application by 
any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from 
the requirements of 10 CFR Part 54, in accordance with the provisions 
of 10 CFR 50.12, (1) when 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.

Authorized by Law

    The Commission's basis for establishing the 20-year limit contained 
in Section 54.17(c) is discussed in the 1991 Statements of 
Consideration for Part 54 of 10 CFR (56 FR 64963). The limit was 
established to ensure that substantial operating experience was 
accumulated by a licensee before a renewal application is submitted 
such that any plant-specific concerns regarding aging would be 
disclosed. In amending the rule in 1995, the Commission sought public 
comment on whether the 20-year limit should be reduced. The Commission 
determined that sufficient basis did not exist to generically reduce 
the 20-year limit. However, the Commission did indicate in the 
Statements of Consideration for the amended rule (60 FR 22488), that it 
was willing to consider plant-specific exemption requests by applicants 
who believe that sufficient information is available to justify 
applying for license renewal prior to 20 years from expiration of the 
current license. SNC's exemption request is consistent with the 
Commission's intent to consider plant-specific requests and is 
permitted by 10 CFR 54.15. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by 
law.

[[Page 2020]]

    The current operating licenses for VEGP Unit 1 and Unit 2, were 
issued in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 
(AEA), and 10 CFR 50.51, which limit the duration of an operating 
license to a maximum of 40 years. In accordance with 10 CFR 54.31, the 
renewed license will be of the same class as the operating license 
currently in effect and cannot exceed a term of 40 years. Therefore, 
the terms of the renewal licenses for VEGP Unit 1 and Unit 2, are 
limited both by law and the Commission's regulations to 40 years. 
Additionally, 10 CFR 54.31(b) states that ``A renewed license will be 
issued for a fixed period of time, which is the sum of the additional 
amount of time beyond the expiration of the operating license (not to 
exceed 20 years) that is requested in a renewal application plus the 
remaining number of years on the operating license currently in effect. 
The term of any renewed license may not exceed 40 years.''
    The potential exists that, because SNC's decision to apply early 
for license renewal for VEGP Unit 2, SNC may not obtain the maximum 20-
year extended operation permitted by 10 CFR 54.31(b). Any actual 
reduction will depend on the date the renewed licenses are issued. If a 
reduction in the 20-year extension is required, and SNC desires further 
extension of VEGP Units 2's operating licenses in the future, an 
additional renewal application can be submitted in accordance with 10 
CFR Part 54.
    Therefore, should the Commission determine to renew the VEGP Unit 2 
operating license, the term of the license will not exceed 40 years, 
and granting of VEGP Unit 2's exemption request will not result in 
violation of the AEA or the Commission's regulations.

No Undue Risk to Public Health and Safety

    This exemption will not result in changes to the operation of the 
plant. SNC's exemption request seeks only schedular relief regarding 
the date of submittal, and not substantive relief from the requirements 
of Parts 51 or Part 54. SNC must still conduct all environmental 
reviews required by Part 51 and all safety reviews and evaluations 
required by Part 54 when preparing the applications for VEGP Units 1 
and 2. The NRC staff's review will verify that all applicable 
Commission regulations have been met before issuing the renewed 
licenses. Therefore, the NRC staff finds that granting this schedular 
exemption will not represent an undue risk to public health and safety.

Consistent With the Common Defense and Security

    As discussed previously, the exemption requested is only a 
schedular exemption. The NRC staff will review the LRA SNC submits 
pursuant to the requested exemption, to assure all applicable 
requirements are fully met. This change has no relation to security 
issues. Therefore, the common defense and security is not impacted by 
this exemption.

Special Circumstances

    An exemption will not be granted unless special circumstances are 
present as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2). Specifically, Section 
50.12(a)(2)(ii) states that a special circumstance exists when 
``application of the regulation in the particular circumstances * * * 
is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.'' In 
initially promulgating Section 54.17(c) in 1991, the Commission stated 
that the purpose of the time limit was ``to ensure that substantial 
operating experience is accumulated by a licensee before it submits a 
renewal application'' (56 FR 64963). At that time, the Commission found 
that 20 years of operating experience provided a sufficient basis for 
renewal applications. However, in issuing the amended Part 54 in 1995, 
the Commission indicated it would consider an exemption to this 
requirement if sufficient information was available on a plant-specific 
basis to justify submission of an application to renew a license before 
completion of 20 years of operation (60 FR 22488). The 20-year limit 
was imposed by the Commission to ensure that sufficient operating 
experience was accumulated to identify any plant-specific aging 
concerns. As set forth below, VEGP Unit 1 is sufficiently similar to 
Unit 2, such that the operating experience for VEGP Unit 1 is 
applicable to VEGP Unit 2. In addition, VEGP Unit 2 has accumulated 
significant operating experience. Accordingly, under the requested 
exemption, sufficient operating experience will have been accumulated 
to identify any plant-specific aging concerns for both units.
    SNC stated that special effort was made during construction of VEGP 
to keep the designs of the two units the same. Both units are PWRs 
supplied by Westinghouse Electric Corporation with a design net core 
output of 3565 megawatts (thermal). The containment for each of the 
VEGP units is a steel-lined, prestressed, post-tensioned concrete 
cylinder with a hemispherical dome. SNC states that the two units have 
similar materials of construction of the systems, structures, and 
components and are typically identical.
    These statements are supported by a review of the VEGP Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR for Units 1 and 2). In particular, 
Section 1.3 of the UFSAR describes the similarities in design between 
VEGP Unit 1, VEGP Unit 2, and similar licensed reactor facilities. 
Table 1-3-1 of the UFSAR lists significant similarities between 
systems, structures and components installed at VEGP, including 
elements of the reactor system, the reactor coolant system, the 
engineered safety features, and auxiliary systems.
    SNC also states that the Operating Experience Program ensures that 
operating experience originating from all sources is appropriately 
utilized at VEGP. Specifically, any operating experience originating 
with VEGP Unit 1 is systematically applied to Unit 2. Moreover, SNC 
states that since the two VEGP units are essentially the same in 
design, operation, maintenance, materials and environments, there will 
be little difference in the aging management analyses for the two 
units.
    Based on the above discussion, the NRC staff concludes that, with 
respect to VEGP Unit 1 and VEGP Unit 2 containment design, structural 
configuration, and management of structural-related aging effects, the 
applicant has provided adequate justifications for the NRC 
consideration of granting the VEGP Unit 2 request for exemption from 
the requirements of 10 CFR 54.17(c).
    Therefore, sufficient combined operating experience from VEGP Unit 
1 and industry exists to satisfy the intent of 10 CFR 54.17(c), and the 
application of the regulation in this case is not necessary to achieve 
the underlying purpose of the rule. The NRC staff concludes that SNC's 
request meets the requirement, in Section 50.12(a)(2) of 10 CFR, that 
special circumstances exist to grant the exemption.

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 SNC an exemption from the 
requirements of 10 CFR 54.17(c). Specifically, this schedular exemption 
allows SNC to apply for a renewed license for VEGP Unit 2 earlier than 
20 years before the expiration of the license currently in effect.

[[Page 2021]]

    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 58014).
    This exemption is effective upon issuance.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of January 2007.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John W. Lubinski,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7-501 Filed 1-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P