[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 96 (Friday, May 17, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35160-35162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-12419]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-412]


FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., Beaver Valley Power Station, 
Unit No. 2; Exemption

1.0  Background

    The FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC/the licensee) is 
the holder of Facility Operating License No. NPF-73, which authorizes 
operation of Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2 (BVPS-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 (PWR) located 
in Beaver County, Pennsylvania.

2.0  Request/Action

    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 December 17, 2001, the licensee requested an 
exemption from 10 CFR 54.17(c) for BVPS-2. At the time of the request, 
there were more than 25 years remaining until the expiration of the 
current operating license for BVPS-2. The exemption would allow FENOC 
to process and submit the BVPS-2 license renewal application concurrent 
with the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 (BVPS-1) license 
renewal application. Because of the similarities in design, operation, 
maintenance, operating experience and environments of the two Beaver 
Valley units, many of the analyses to be performed for Unit 1 would be 
directly applicable to Unit 2.
    This exemption is required in order to allow an application for 
renewal of the BVPS-2 license to be prepared and submitted concurrently 
with the license renewal application for BVPS-1. Based on an 
anticipated submittal of a renewal application in September 2004, such 
a license renewal request for BVPS-2 would occur approximately 3 years 
earlier than the earliest date allowed by 10 CFR 54.17(c).

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 Sec. 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 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. FENOC's 
exemption request is consistent with the Commission's intent to 
consider plant-specific requests and

[[Page 35161]]

is permitted by Sec. 54.15 of the Commission's regulations.
    The current operating license for BVPS-2, was issued in accordance 
with the Atomic Energy Act, as amended (AEA), and 10 CFR 50.51 which 
limit the duration of an operating license to a maximum of 40 years. In 
accordance with Sec. 54.31, a 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 a renewed license for BVPS-2 would 
be limited both by law and the Commission's regulations to 40 years. 
Additionally, Section 54.31 (b) 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 that, because of FENOC's decision to apply 
early for license renewal for BVPS-2, FENOC might not obtain the 
maximum 20-year period of extended operation permitted by 
Sec. 54.31(b). Any actual reduction will depend on the date that a 
renewed license is issued. If a reduction in 20-year extension is 
required and FENOC desires further extension of the BVPS-2 operating 
license in the future, an additional renewal application can be 
submitted in accordance with part 54.
    Therefore, should the Commission determine to renew the BVPS-2 
operating license, the term of the license will not exceed 40 years, 
and granting of FENOC's exemption request will not result in violation 
of the AEA or the Commission's regulations.

3.2  No Undue Risk to Public Health and Safety

    FENOC's exemption request seeks only schedular relief regarding the 
date of submittal, and not substantive relief from the requirements of 
parts 51 or 54. FENOC must still conduct all environmental reviews 
required by part 51 and all safety reviews and evaluations required by 
part 54 when preparing a license renewal application for BVPS-2. 
Following submittal, the staff's review will verify that all applicable 
Commission regulations are met before issuing a renewed license. 
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 review any renewal application 
for BVPS-2 submitted by FENOC, 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, BVPS-1 and 2 are sufficiently similar, 
such that the operating experience for BVPS-1 is applicable to BVPS-2. 
In addition, BVPS-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 BVPS-1 and 2 are similar in design, 
operation, maintenance, use of operating experience, and environments, 
and, as such, BVPS-1 operating experience is directly applicable to 
BVPS-2. Both Beaver Valley units are 2689 megawatt (thermal) PWRs 
designed by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and the same 
architect/engineer designed and built the entire site. The licensee 
states that the materials of construction for systems, structures, and 
components on both units are similar. These statements are supported by 
a review of the BVPS-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 BVPS-1 and 2, including elements of the engineered safety 
features, containment concepts, instrumentation systems, electrical 
systems, and waste management system.
    BVPS-2 is physically located adjacent to BVPS-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.
    FENOC also stated that many of the procedures that govern site 
activities are not unit specific. The Beaver Valley Plant Condition 
Report procedure governs the documentation, analysis, and corrective 
action associated with plant non-conformances and other conditions of 
concern. Non-conformance or degraded equipment on one unit is cause to 
investigate the possibility of the same condition on the other unit.
    Because of the similarities between BVPS-1 and 2, FENOC does not 
divide the plant organizations by unit with the exception of the 
operations area, which is a unit-specific organization. The 
Superintendent for BVPS-1 Operations and the Superintendent for BVPS-2 
Operations both report to the Plant General Manager, who reports to the 
Beaver Valley Senior Vice President. Additionally, various plant 
organizations such as Maintenance and Engineering are not divided into 
separate Unit 1 and Unit 2 groups, and personnel from these 
organizations may be assigned work activities on both units.
    Given the similarities between units, the operating experience at 
BVPS-1 is applicable to that of BVPS-2 for purposes of the license 
renewal review. At the time of the exemption request, BVPS-1 had 
achieved over 25 years of operating experience, which are applicable to 
BVPS-2. Unit 2 has operated for over 14 years, which provides a 
substantial period of additional plant-specific operating experience to 
supplement the BVPS-1 operating experience. The combined years of 
operating experience of BVPS-1 and 2 should be sufficient to identify 
any aging concerns applicable to the two units.

[[Page 35162]]

    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 FENOC's request meets the 
requirement in Sec. 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. Additionally, special circumstances are present. 
Therefore, the Commission hereby grants FENOC the exemption sought from 
the requirements of 10 CFR 54.17(c) for BVPS-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 (67 FR 31384).
    This exemption is effective upon issuance.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of May 2002.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John A. Zwolinski,
Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 02-12419 Filed 5-16-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P