[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41894-41896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-19962]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No(s). 50-498 and 50-499]


STP Nuclear Operating Company, et al., South Texas Project, Units 
1 and 2; Exemption

1.0  Background

    STP Nuclear Operating Company, et al. (STPNOC or the licensee) is 
the holder of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80, which 
authorize operation of the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 (STP or 
the facilities). 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 or the Commission) now or hereafter 
in effect.
    The facilities consist of two pressurized-water reactors located at 
the licensee's site in Matagorda County, Texas.

2.0  Request/Action

    Under Section 50.49(b) of Title 10 to the Code of Federal 
Regulations, Part 50, [10 CFR 50.49(b)] criteria were established that 
defined the scope of components to be subject to the requirements of 10 
CFR 50.49 [the Environmental Qualification (EQ) Rule]. As defined under 
10 CFR 50.49(b) the scope of electrical equipment important to safety 
that must be included under a program for qualifying equipment includes 
(1) safety-related electric equipment, (2) nonsafety-related electric 
equipment whose failure under postulated environmental conditions could 
prevent satisfactory accomplishment of safety functions (a) through (c) 
specified below, and (3) certain post-accident monitoring equipment. 
Under the regulation, safety-related electric equipment is that relied 
upon to remain functional during and following design-basis events to 
ensure (a) the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, (b) 
the capability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe 
shutdown condition, or (c) the capability to prevent or mitigate the 
consequences of accidents that could result in potential offsite 
exposures comparable to the guidelines in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1), 10 CFR 
50.67(b)(2), or 10 CFR 100.11 as applicable. Further, under the 
regulation, design-basis events are defined as conditions of normal 
operation, including anticipated operational occurrences, design-basis 
accidents, external events, and natural phenomena for which the plant 
must be designed to ensure functions (a) through (c) defined above.
    The purpose of the EQ rule, as defined under 10 CFR 50.49(a), is 
that licensee's shall establish a program for qualifying electric 
equipment. The EQ rule provides detailed requirements for the 
documentation requirements and methodology for qualification that 
licensee's shall implement to meet the purpose of the rule.
    By letter dated July 13, 1999, as supplemented October 14 and 22, 
1999, January 26 and August 31, 2000, and January 15, 18, 23, March 19, 
May 8 and 21, 2001, (hereinafter, the submittal), the licensee 
requested an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49(b) to 
exclude structures, systems, or components (SSCs) categorized as low 
safety significant (LSS) and non-risk significant (NRS), using the 
licensee's categorization process, from the scope of SSCs subject to 
the EQ Rule.

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. Under 10 CFR 
50.12(a)(2)(vi), special circumstances are present whenever there is 
any other material circumstances not considered when the regulation was 
adopted for which it would be in the public interest to grant an 
exemption. If the special circumstance of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(vi) is

[[Page 41895]]

relied on exclusively, the exemption may not be granted until the 
Executive Director for Operations has consulted with the Commission.
    The NRC has completed its evaluation of STPNOC's request for an 
exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49(b). The NRC's 
evaluation is provided in a safety evaluation (SE), dated August 3, 
2001, prepared in support of this exemption.
    The staff has reviewed STPNOC's integrated SSC categorization 
process. The categorization process was found to use both a 
probabilistic and a deterministic based methodology that appropriately 
addressed the issues of defense-in-depth, safety margins, and aggregate 
risk impacts. The staff finds the proposed categorization process to be 
acceptable to categorize the risk significance of both functions and 
SSCs for use in reducing the scope of SSCs subject to special 
treatment. The categorization process provides an acceptable method for 
defining those SSCs for which exemptions from the special treatment 
requirements can be granted. In support of its finding on the 
licensee's categorization process, the staff also found that the 
alternative treatment practices (for example the five methods for 
procuring replacement SSCs that include vendor documentation, 
equivalency evaluation, technical evaluation, technical analysis, and 
testing) provide the licensee with a framework that, if effectively 
implemented, will provide reasonable confidence that safety-related LSS 
and NRS SSCs remain capable of performing their safety functions under 
design-basis environmental conditions.
    In its review, the staff concluded that the requirements of 10 CFR 
50.49(e) related to (1) temperature and pressure, (2) humidity, (3) 
chemical effects, (4) radiation, (5) aging, (6) submergence, and (7) 
synergistic effects represent design requirements that must be 
addressed in the licensee's alternative treatment processes so that the 
licensee could determine that the SSCs remain capable of performing 
their safety functions under design-basis environmental conditions. 
Based on these findings, the staff determined that LSS and NRS SSCs 
could be excluded from the scope of 10 CFR 50.49, except to the extent 
that design requirements are imposed by 10 CFR 50.49(e)(1) through (7), 
without undue risk to public health and safety.
    The staff also found that granting of this exemption is in the 
public interest in that it enhances the effectiveness and efficiency of 
the NRC's oversight of the licensee's activities at STP by focusing its 
resources on those SSCs that are most significant to maintaining public 
health and safety. Likewise, the licensee's resources and attention can 
be focused on those SSCs that have the highest contribution to plant 
risk. Further, the licensee's categorization process provides a method 
for establishing a licensing basis for STP that is consistent with the 
risk-informed approach in the NRC's reactor oversight process. This 
enhances the regulatory framework under which STPNOC operates its 
facility and by which the NRC oversees the licensee's activities.
    As discussed further in the August 3, 2001, SE prepared in support 
of this exemption, the NRC has concluded that the special circumstances 
of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(vi) are satisfied in that the licensee has 
presented a material circumstance (the categorization process) that was 
not considered when the regulations were adopted and that provides an 
acceptable method for refining the scope of SSCs to include under the 
regulations. Furthermore, it is in the public interest to grant such 
exemptions. Finally, as required by 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(vi), the 
Executive Director for Operations has consulted with the Commission in 
the application of this special circumstance during the Commission 
meeting held on July 20, 2001.

4.0  Conclusion

    Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 
50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, will not endanger life or 
property or common defense and security, and is, otherwise, in the 
public interest. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, 
the Commission hereby partially grants, subject to the conditions 
described below, STPNOC the exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 
50.49(b) for SSCs at STP categorized as LSS and NRS to the extent that 
this rule defines the scope of SSCs subject to the requirements of 10 
CFR 50.49 except the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49(e)(1) through (7) 
continue to apply to the extent that these requirements describe the 
design conditions of (1) temperature and pressure, (2) humidity, (3) 
chemical effects, (4) radiation, (5) aging, (6) submergence, and (7) 
synergistic effects. As conditions of this exemption:

    1. The licensee described the categorization, treatment, and 
oversight (evaluation and assessment) processes in its submittal 
dated July 13, 1999, as supplemented October 14 and 22, 1999, 
January 26 and August 31, 2000, and January 15, 18, 23, March 19, 
May 8 and 21, 2001. The licensee has documented these processes in a 
proposed FSAR submittal dated May 21, 2001, found acceptable by the 
staff as the regulatory basis for granting this exemption (see the 
NRC's SE dated August 3, 2001). The licensee shall incorporate this 
proposed FSAR submittal into the STP FSAR and shall implement the 
categorization, treatment, and oversight processes consistent with 
the STP FSAR descriptions.
    2. The licensee shall implement a change control process that 
incorporates the following requirements:
    a. Changes to FSAR Section 13.7.2, ``Component Categorization 
Process,'' dated May 21, 2001, and found acceptable by the NRC as 
described in the NRC's SE dated August 3, 2001, may be made without 
prior NRC approval, unless the change would decrease the 
effectiveness of the process in identifying high safety significant 
and medium safety significant components.
    b. Changes to FSAR Section 13.7.3, ``Treatment of Component 
Categories,'' dated May 21, 2001, and found acceptable by the NRC as 
described in the NRC's SE dated August 3, 2001, may be made without 
prior NRC approval, unless the change would result in a reduction in 
the assurance of component functionality.
    c. Changes to FSAR Section 13.7.4, ``Continuing Evaluations and 
Assessments,'' dated May 21, 2001, and found acceptable by the NRC 
as described in the NRC's SE dated August 3, 2001, may be made 
without prior NRC approval, unless the change would result in a 
decrease in effectiveness of the evaluations and assessments.
    d. The licensee shall submit a report, as specified in 10 CFR 
50.4, of changes made without prior NRC approval pursuant to these 
provisions. The report shall identify each change and describe the 
basis for the conclusion that the change does not involve a decrease 
in effectiveness or assurance as described above. The report shall 
be submitted within 60 days of the date of the change.
    e. Changes to FSAR Sections 13.7.2, 13.7.3, and 13.7.4 that do 
not meet the criteria of a through c above shall be submitted to the 
NRC for prior review and approval.

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, an environmental assessment and finding 
of no significant impact has been prepared and published in the Federal 
Register (66 FR 32397). Accordingly, based upon the environmental 
assessment, the Commission has determined that the granting of this 
exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the 
human environment.
    This exemption is effective upon submittal of a FSAR update 
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.71(e) incorporating the FSAR Sections described 
in the conditions above.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of August, 2001.


[[Page 41896]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John A. Zwolinski,
Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-19962 Filed 8-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P