[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41907-41909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-19972]


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

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

    Section 50.34(b)(10) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
part 50 [10 CFR 50.34(b)(10)], states for operating license holders 
whose construction permit was issued prior to January 10, 1997, that 
the earthquake engineering criteria in Section VI of Appendix A to 10 
CFR part 100 continues to apply. For operating license holders whose 
construction permit was issued prior to January 10, 1997, 10 CFR 
50.34(b)(11) states that the reactor site criteria in 10 CFR part 100, 
and seismic and geological siting criteria in Appendix A to 10 CFR part 
100 continues to apply. Section VI.(a)(1) of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 
100, requires that those structures, systems, and components

[[Page 41908]]

(SSCs) that are necessary to assure (1) the integrity of the reactor 
coolant pressure boundary, (2) the capability to shut down the reactor 
and maintain it in a safe condition, or (3) the capability to prevent 
or mitigate the consequences of accidents which could result in 
potential offsite exposures shall remain functional during a safe 
shutdown earthquake (SSE). Further, in addition to seismic loads, 
including aftershocks, these SSCs shall be designed to take into 
account applicable concurrent functional and accident-induced loads. 
Section VI.(a)(2) of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 100, requires that all 
SSCs of the nuclear power plant necessary for continued operation 
without undue risk to the health and safety of the public shall be 
designed to remain functional and within applicable stress and 
deformation limits when subject to the effects of the vibratory motion 
of the operating basis earthquake (OBE) in combination with normal 
operating loads. Both Sections VI.(a)(1) and (2) provide a description 
of the methods for seismically qualifying these SSCs. These methods 
involve either a suitable dynamic analysis or a suitable qualification 
test to demonstrate that the SSCs can withstand the seismic and other 
concurrent loads, except where it can be demonstrated that the use of 
an equivalent static load method provides adequate conservatism.
    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 testing and specific types of analyses 
required to demonstrate that SSCs are designed to withstand the SSE and 
OBE for those safety-related SSCs that are categorized in accordance 
with its risk-informed categorization process as low safety significant 
(LSS) or non-risk significant (NRS). The licensee would not maintain 
safety-related LSS and NRS components in a seismically qualified 
condition in accordance with the requirements specified in 10 CFR part 
100. Further, the licensee could replace a safety-related LSS or NRS 
SSC with an SSC that is not seismically qualified in accordance with 
the requirements specified in 10 CFR part 100.

3.0  Discussion

    There are no specific provisions in 10 CFR part 100 for granting 
exemptions. However, the licensee has also requested an exemption from 
10 CFR 50.34(b)(10) and 10 CFR 50.34(b)(11), which can be granted 
provided the provisions of 10 CFR 50.12 are met. As discussed in the 
August 3, 2001, safety evaluation (SE) prepared in support of this 
exemption, the staff determined it is consistent with Commission policy 
to apply the exemption provisions of 10 CFR 50.12 to exemptions from 
the requirements of 10 CFR part 100, Appendix A, Sections VI.(a)(1) and 
(2) to the extent requested by the licensee. The staff informed the 
Commission of the decision to apply the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12 to 
the exemptions requested from Appendix A to 10 CFR part 100, Sections 
VI.(a)(1) and VI.(a)(2), during the Commission meeting on July 20, 
2001.
    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 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 10 CFR 50.34(b)(10), 10 CFR 
50.34(b)(11), Section VI.(a)(1) of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 100, and 
Section VI.(a)(2) of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 100. The design aspects 
of these regulations would continue to apply, that is, the design 
requirements related to the capability of the SSCs to remain functional 
considering SSE and OBE seismic loads shall be maintained and must be 
included as a design requirement or procurement requirement of 
replacement SSCs. The NRC's findings are documented in a SE dated 
August 3, 2001, prepared in support of the requested 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 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 conditions. Based on these 
findings, the staff determined that LSS and NRS SSCs could be excluded 
from the scope of 10 CFR 50.34(b)(10), 10 CFR 50.34(b)(11), Section 
VI.(a)(1) of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 100, and Section VI.(a)(2) of 
Appendix A to 10 CFR part 100, 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

[[Page 41909]]

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 grants, subject to the 
conditions described below, STPNOC the exemption from 10 CFR 
50.34(b)(10), 10 CFR 50.34(b)(11), and Sections VI.(a)(1) and VI.(a)(2) 
of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 100, to the extent that these regulations 
require testing and specific types of analyses to demonstrate that SSCs 
are designed to withstand the SSE and OBE for those safety-related SSCs 
categorized as LSS or NRS at STP. 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 Final Safety Analysis Report (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.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John A. Zwolinski,
Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-19972 Filed 8-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P