[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