[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 15, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63683-63685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-26167]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-410]
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC; Nine Mile Point Nuclear
Station, Unit No. 2; Exemption
1.0 Background
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC (NMPNS, or the licensee) is
the holder of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-63 and NPF-69, which
authorize operation of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and
2 (NMP1 and NMP2), respectively. The licenses provide, among other
things, that the licensee 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 boiling-water reactors (BWRs) located
in Oswego County in New York; this exemption addresses only NMP2.
2.0 Request/Action
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 54,
Section 54.17(c) (10 CFR 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.
NMPNS, however, requested a schedular exemption from the 20-year
restriction specified in 10 CFR 54.17(c) to allow it to submit a
renewal application for NMP2 earlier than 20 years before expiration of
its operating license. Such an exemption would allow NMPNS to submit
one application for renewal of the operating licenses of both NMP1 and
NMP2, with the goal of attaining efficiencies for preparation and
review of the application. The current operating license for NMP1 (DPR-
63) expires on August 22, 2009, and for NMP2 (NPF-69) on October 31,
2026. By the end of 2003, NMP1 will have more than 34 years of
operating experience and NMP2 will have more than 17 years of
experience.
By application dated January 4, 2002, as supplemented by letter
dated June 27, 2002, NMPNS proposed a schedular exemption from the 20-
year restriction in 10 CFR 54.17(c) to allow it to submit a renewal
application for NMP2 earlier than 20 years before expiration of its
operating license.
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 current operating licenses for NMP1 and NMP2 were issued in
accordance with the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amended, 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 term of the renewed
licenses for NMP1 and NMP2, are limited both by Federal statute and the
Commission's regulations to 40 years. Additionally, Section 54.31(b) of
10 CFR 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, due to NMPNS's decision to apply early for
license renewal for NMP2, that the renewed NMP2 license may not have
the maximum 20-year period of extended operation permitted by 10 CFR
54.31(b). Any actual reduction from the maximum of 20 years will depend
on the date the renewed NMP2 license is issued.
The Commission's basis for establishing the 20-year limit contained
in 10 CFR 54.17(c) is discussed in the 1991 Statement of Consideration
for 10 CFR 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 plant-specific
concerns regarding aging would be disclosed. While 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 indicated in the Statement 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
[[Page 63684]]
expiration of the current license. NMPNS's exemption request is
consistent with the Commission's intent to consider plant-specific
requests and is permitted by 10 CFR 54.15 (regarding specific
exemptions to provisions in part 54).
NMPNS stated that the two units have similar operation,
maintenance, use of operating experience, and environment, and, as
such, NMP1 operating experience is directly applicable to NMP2. Both
units employ BWRs with nuclear steam supply systems provided by General
Electric Company, and were constructed by Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation. NMPNS reported that materials of construction for systems,
structures, and components on both units are typically identical or
similar. Moreover, NMPNS stated that many of the maintenance activities
and other existing aging management programs are common to both units;
thus, the effectiveness of aging management programs is demonstrated by
the experience at both units.
NMPNS also stated that many of the procedures that govern site
activities are not unit-specific and require the consideration of
operating experience at both units. If an item is potentially
applicable to both units, the item is addressed in the plant's
corrective action process. Nonconforming or degraded equipment on one
unit necessitates consideration of the same condition on the other unit
because of the similarities between the two units. Further, NMPNS does
not divide the plant organizations by unit and typically assigns
personnel to work on either unit.
While the units have common operation, maintenance, use of
operating experience, and environment, NMP1 and NMP2 are of different
BWR design. NMP1 is a BWR/2 design and NMP2 is a BWR/5 design. The
containment designs and thermal output of these two designs are
significantly different. In a letter dated May 15, 2002, the NRC
requested additional information from NMPNS to justify the
applicability of NMP1's BWR/2 operating experience as the basis for the
schedular exemption request for NMP2, or to discuss how industry-wide
BWR/5 operating experience can supplement NMP2's lack of sufficient
operating experience.
In its June 27, 2002, letter, NMPNS compared the NMP1 and NMP2
containment structures and components to those in the applicable
sections of the Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report. NMPNS
stated that the operating experience from NMP1 is applicable to NMP2
with regard to identifying containment structure-related aging effects.
The NRC staff reviewed the June 27, 2002, letter and determined that,
although there are differences in containment design and configurations
between NMP1 and NMP2, both units do exhibit similar aging effects, and
their aging effects are comparable to those of the GALL Report. The NRC
staff also reviewed NMPNS's assertions that (1) NMP2 also has the
benefit of industry operating experience, particularly for those BWRs
that have Mark II containments; (2) by October 2003, when NMPNS
anticipates submitting the license renewal application (LRA) for NMP2,
two BWR units (i.e., LaSalle 1 and Susquehanna 1) with Mark II
containments will have accumulated at least 20 years of operating
experience and two other units (Columbia and LaSalle 2) will have close
to 20 years of operating experience; and (3) the NMP2 LRA will also
reflect industry experience identified in the GALL Report as well as
other industry programs. The NRC staff finds that the justifications
provided by NMPNS for these assertions are based on factual information
and are reasonable.
NMPNS compared the NMP1 and NMP2 thermal output, which results in
differences in neutron flux and fluence to which the reactor vessel
internals (RVI) and reactor vessels are exposed. NMPNS indicated that
the differences in thermal output do not significantly affect the
reactor coolant temperature. In addition, NMPNS stated that the NMP1
and NMP2 reactor vessel operating temperatures are similar and closely
match those specified in the GALL Report for the BWR reactor vessel
environment. The NRC staff compared the operating temperatures through
the reactor vessel integrity database with those in the GALL Report and
found NMPNS's justification reasonable.
NMPNS also provided additional information regarding neutron flux.
As a result of higher power density, the NMP2 RVI experience greater
neutron flux than the NMP1 RVI. However, as a result of reactor vessel
geometry (i.e., a larger annulus between the core shroud and the vessel
wall), the NMP2 reactor vessel actually experiences a lower flux than
the NMP1 reactor vessel, which results in a lower predicted end-of-life
fluence.
In addition, NMPNS indicated that the higher core power density
and, correspondingly, a higher fluence for NMP2 may result in the
emergence of certain aging effects earlier in plant life than would be
the case for NMP1. However, NMPNS stated that it noted no unique aging
effects for the NMP2 RVI.
NMPNS also stated that, on an industry-wide basis, the BWR Vessel
and Internals Project (BWRVIP) addresses RVI. The BWRVIP reviewed the
function of each internal BWR component (including the BWR/2 and BWR/5
designs). For those internals that could impact safety, the BWRVIP
considered the aging mechanisms that could cause degradation of such
components and developed an inspection program that would enable
degradation to be detected before component function was adversely
affected. Therefore, NMPNS indicated that the operating experience
gained from the BWRVIP could be applied to NMP2 in assisting the
identification of plant-specific concerns regarding aging. The NRC
staff finds this approach acceptable.
An exemption will not be granted unless special circumstances are
present, as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2). Specifically, 10 CFR
50.12(a)(2)(ii) states that a special circumstance exists when
``Application 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.'' As discussed above, the
purpose of the time limit specified in 10 CFR 54.17(c) was ``to ensure
that substantial operating experience is accumulated by a licensee
before it submits a renewal application.'' The 20-year limit was
imposed to ensure that sufficient operating experience was accumulated
to identify any plant-specific aging concerns. Although the 20-year
requirement of 10 CFR 54.17(c) is specifically applicable to the unit
applying for a renewed operating license, the operating experience
available to a license renewal applicant is not limited solely to the
operating experience accumulated by the unit itself. In the
supplementary information accompanying the 1991 publication of the
rule, the NRC stated: ``* * * both renewal applicants and the NRC will
have the benefit of the operational experience from the nuclear
industry and are not limited to information developed solely by the
utility seeking a renewed license.'' As discussed above, such
operational experience aspect has been acceptably addressed by NMPNS.
Therefore, sufficient combined operating experience 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 special
[[Page 63685]]
circumstances are present in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii).
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 NMPNS a schedular exemption
from the requirements of 10 CFR 54.17(c). Specifically, this schedular
exemption allows NMPNS to apply for a renewed license for NMP2 earlier
than 20 years before the expiration of the operating license currently
in effect.
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 (67 FR 62503).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of October, 2002.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John A. Zwolinski,
Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 02-26167 Filed 10-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P