[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41903-41904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-19969]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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


STP Nuclear Operating Co., et al., South Texas Project, Units 1 
and 2; Denial of 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 issubject 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

    The General Design Criteria (GDC) of Appendix A to Title 10 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations part 50 (10 CFR part 50, appendix A), 
establish minimum requirements for the principal design criteria for 
water-cooled nuclear power plants. The underlying purpose of the GDC is 
to establish the necessary design, fabrication, construction, testing, 
and performance requirements for structures, systems, and components 
(SSCs) important to safety; that is, SSCs that provide reasonable 
assurance that the facility can be operated without undue risk to the 
health and safety of the public. 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 part 50, appendix A, GDC 1, ``Quality Standards and 
Records,'' GDC 2, ``Design Bases for Protection Against Natural 
Phenomena,'' GDC 4, ``Environmental and Dynamic Effects Design Bases,'' 
and GDC 18, ``Inspection and Testing of Electric Power Systems.'' The 
scope of the exemption is limited to those safety-related SSCs that are 
categorized in accordance with the licensee's risk-informed 
categorization process as low safety significant (LSS) or non-risk 
significant (NRS).

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. Special circumstances are 
present under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(i) whenever application of the 
regulation in the particular circumstances conflicts with other rules 
or requirements of the Commission. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), 
special circumstances are present 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. Special circumstances are present pursuant to 10 CFR 
50.12(a)(2)(iii) when compliance would result in undue hardship or 
other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when 
the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of 
those incurred by others similarly situated. Special circumstances are 
present under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iv) whenever an exemption would result 
in benefit to the public health and safety that compensates for any 
decrease in safety that may result from the granting of the exemption. 
Special circumstances are present under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v) whenever 
the exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable 
regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith efforts to 
comply with the regulation. Special circumstances are present under 10 
CFR 50.12(a)(2)(vi) 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 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(vi) is 
relied on exclusively for satisfying the special circumstances 
provision of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), 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 GDC 1, GDC 2, GDC 4, and GDC 18. The 
NRC has determined that an exemption from these requirements is not 
appropriate as documented in the safety evaluation (SE) dated August 3, 
2001, prepared in support of the licensee's exemption request.
    GDC 1 states, in part, that plant equipment shall be designed, 
fabricated, erected, and tested to quality standards that are 
commensurate with the importance of the safety function performed. GDC 
1 additionally requires that a quality assurance program (QAP) shall be 
established and implemented to provide adequate assurance that plant 
equipment is functional, and that appropriate records be maintained for 
various activities. The NRC concluded that even for LSS and NRS SSCs it 
remains necessary (1) To use appropriate standards (as available and 
applicable) commensurate with the risk significance, (2) to establish 
and implement a QAP, (3) to maintain plant records as determined by the 
licensee, and (4) for the licensee to have confidence, commensurate 
with their risk significance, that LSS and NRS SSCs will be capable of 
functioning

[[Page 41904]]

under design-basis conditions. Further, as discussed in the SE dated 
August 3, 2001, prepared in support of the licensee's exemption 
requests, the NRC has determined that it should deny the related 
licensee requests for exemptions from 10 CFR 50.34(b)(6)(ii) that 
requires the QAP be described in the Final Safety Analysis Report and 
10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) that requires the licensee to submit certain changes 
to the QAP to the NRC for review and approval. In part, the basis for 
the NRC's determination to deny these related exemption requests is 
that the NRC found that the application of a risk-informed 
categorization process or changes to special treatment requirements 
applied to safety-related SSCs does not affect the underlying purpose 
of the requirements. Also, the licensee has submitted a revision to the 
STP QAP that meets the requirements of GDC 1 for LSS and NRS SSCs as 
discussed in the SE, dated August 3, 2001, prepared in support of the 
licensee's requested exemptions. As such, the NRC determined that an 
exemption from GDC 1 is not necessary as the licensee's submittal 
continues to meet the requirements of GDC 1.
    The licensee requested exemptions to GDC 2, 4, and 18 to the extent 
that they require tests and inspections to (1) Demonstrate that SSCs 
are designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena without loss 
of capability to perform their safety functions (GDC 2), (2) are able 
to withstand environmental effects (GDC 4), and (3) be performed for 
individual features, such as wiring, insulation, connections, 
switchboards, relays, switches, and buses (GDC 18). The NRC determined 
that GDC 2, GDC 4, and GDC 18, specify design requirements and do not 
require tests and/or inspections to be performed. Other regulations, 
from which the licensee has requested exemptions, specify testing and/
or inspection requirements on SSCs. Further, the licensee has stated 
that safety-related LSS and NRS SSCs would be designed to satisfy 
original design requirements, including the design requirements of GDC 
2, GDC 4, and GDC 18. Therefore, the NRC determined that an exemption 
from these regulations is not necessary, as the licensee will continue 
to maintain the design of safety-related LSS and NRS SSCs consistent 
with the design requirements of GDC 2, GDC 4, and GDC 18.
    Further, the NRC has found that none of the special circumstances 
described under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) that are necessary for the 
Commission to grant the exemptions are satisfied with regard to the 
specific requirements of GDC 1, GDC 2, GDC 4, and GDC 18. There are no 
conflicts with other rules or requirements of the Commission, the 
underlying purpose of the rules would not be met by granting the 
exemptions, compliance with the rules would not result in undue 
hardship or excessive costs, granting the exemptions would not result 
in either a benefit to the public health and safety or a decrease in 
safety, STPNOC is not seeking temporary relief from the regulations, 
and there are no other material circumstances not previously considered 
for which it would be in the public interest to grant the exemptions.

4.0  Conclusion

    Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 
50.12(a), the exemptions are not appropriate. Further, the Commission 
has determined that special circumstances are not present. Therefore, 
the Commission hereby denies STPNOC the exemptions requested from the 
requirements of GDC 1, GDC 2, GDC 4, and GDC 18 for STP.

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

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John A. Zwolinski,
Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-19969 Filed 8-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P