[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13596-13598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5396]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-389]


Florida Power and Light Company, et al., St. Lucie Plant, Unit 
No. 2; Exemption

1.0  Background

    The Florida Power and Light Company, et al. (FPL, the licensee) is 
the holder of Facility Operating License No. NPF-16, which authorizes 
operation of St. Lucie Unit No. 2. The license provides, 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 a pressurized water reactor located in St. 
Lucie County, Florida.

2.0  Purpose

    Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 54 
addresses the various requirements for renewal of operating licenses 
for nuclear power plants. Section 54.17(c) of part 54 specifies:

    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 October 30, 2000, the licensee requested an exemption 
from 10 CFR 54.17(c) for St. Lucie Unit 2. At the time of the request, 
there were more than 22 years remaining until the expiration of the 
current operating license for St. Lucie Unit 2. The exemption would 
allow FPL to process and submit the St. Lucie Unit 2 license renewal 
application concurrent with the St. Lucie Unit 1 license renewal 
application. Because of the similarities in design, operation, 
maintenance, operating experience and environments of the two St. Lucie 
units, many of the analyses to be performed for Unit 1 would be 
directly applicable to Unit 2.
    Based on an anticipated submittal of a renewal application in June 
2002, this exemption would permit the licensee to submit a license 
renewal request for St. Lucie Unit 2 approximately 1 year earlier than 
the date specified by 10 CFR 54.17(c), in order to allow it to be 
prepared and submitted concurrently with the license renewal 
application for St. Lucie Unit 1.

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, 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.
    The requirements for exemption are discussed below:

3.1  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 (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

[[Page 13597]]

plant-specific concerns regarding aging would be disclosed. In amending 
the rule in 1995, the Commission indicated 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 earlier than 20 years from expiration of the current 
license. FPL's exemption request is consistent with the Commission's 
intent to consider plant-specific requests and is permitted by Section 
54.15 of its regulations.

3.2  No Undue Risk to Public Health and Safety

    FPL's exemption request seeks only schedular relief regarding the 
date of submittal, and not substantive relief from the requirements of 
parts 51 or 54. FPL 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 St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. 
Following submittal, the staff's review will verify that all applicable 
Commission regulations have been met before issuing the renewed 
licenses. Therefore, the staff finds that granting this schedular 
exemption will not represent an undue risk to public health and safety.

3.3  Consistent With the Common Defense and Security

    As discussed previously, the exemption requested is only a 
schedular exemption. The NRC staff will subsequently review the renewal 
application to be submitted by FPL, pursuant to the requested 
exemption, to determine whether all applicable requirements are fully 
met. Accordingly, granting the requested exemption is consistent with 
the common defense and security.

3.4  Special Circumstances Supporting Issuance of the Exemption

    An exemption will not be granted unless special circumstances are 
present as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2). Specifically, 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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, St. Lucie Unit 2 is sufficiently similar 
to Unit 1, such that the operating experience for Unit 1 is applicable 
to Unit 2. In addition, 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.
    The licensee states that the two St. Lucie units are similar in 
design, operation, maintenance, use of operating experience, and 
environments, and, as such, Unit 1 operating experience is directly 
applicable to Unit 2. Both St. Lucie units are 2700 megawatt (thermal) 
pressurized water reactors designed by Combustion Engineering, Inc., 
with the same architect/engineer. The licensee states that the 
materials of construction for systems, structures, and components on 
both units are typically identical or similar. These statements are 
supported by a review of the St. Lucie Unit 2 Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR). In particular, Section 1.3 of the UFSAR 
describes the similarities in design between the units. Table 1.3-1 of 
the UFSAR lists significant similarities between systems, structures, 
and components installed at both Units 1 and 2, including elements of 
the reactor system, the reactor coolant system, and engineered safety 
features.
    St. Lucie Unit 2 is physically located adjacent to Unit 1. As such, 
the external environments would be similar for both units. Internal 
environments for both units are also similar due to the similarity in 
plant design and operation.
    FPL also stated that many of the procedures that govern site 
activities are not unit specific and require the consideration of 
operating experience at the St. Lucie Plant. An administrative 
procedure governs the review and dissemination of operating experience 
obtained from both internal and external sources. If an item is 
potentially applicable to the St. Lucie Plant, the item is addressed in 
the plant's corrective action process. Nonconforming or degraded 
equipment on one unit must consider the condition on the other unit.
    Because of the similarities between units, FPL does not divide the 
plant organizations by unit and typically assigns personnel to work on 
either unit. Licensed operators at St. Lucie receive training on both 
units and are licensed by the NRC to operate either unit. Having 
personnel assigned to work on both units facilitates the identification 
and transfer of operating experience between the units.
    Given the similarities between units, the operating experience at 
Unit 1 is applicable to Unit 2 for purposes of the license renewal 
review. At the time of the exemption request, Unit 1 had achieved over 
24 years of operating experience, which are applicable to Unit 2. Unit 
2 has operated for over 17 years, which provides a substantial period 
of additional plant-specific operating experience to supplement the 
Unit 1 operating experience. The combined years of operating experience 
of Unit 1 and Unit 2 should be sufficient to identify any aging 
concerns applicable to the two units.
    Therefore, sufficient combined operating experience exists to 
satisfy the intent of Sec. 54.17(c), and the application of the 
regulation in this case is not necessary to achieve the underlying 
purpose of the rule. The staff finds that FPL's request meets the 
requirement in Section 50.12(a)(2)(ii) 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 FPL the exemption sought from 
the requirements of 10 CFR 54.17(c) for St. Lucie Unit 2 based on the 
circumstances described herein.
    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 (66 FR 10759).
    This exemption is effective upon issuance.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of February 2001.


[[Page 13598]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John A. Zwolinski,
Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-5396 Filed 3-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P