[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 130 (Friday, July 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38672-38673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-10622]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457; STN 50-454 and STN 50-455; 50-
461; 50-10, 50-237, and 50-249; 50-373 and 50-374; 50-352 and 50-353; 
50-219; 50-171, 50-277, and 50-278; 50-254 and 50-265; 50-289; and 50-
295 and 50-304]


Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Amergen Energy Company, LLC; 
Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; 
Clinton Power Station, Unit 1; Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 
2, and 3; Lasalle County Station, Units 1 and 2; Limerick Generating 
Station, Units 1 and 2; Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Peach 
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 1, 2 and 3; Quad Cities Nuclear 
Power Station, Units 1 and 2; Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 
1; and Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2; Exemption

1. Background

    Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and AmerGen Energy Company, LLC 
(the licensees) are the holders of the Facility Operating License (FOL) 
Nos. NPF-72 and NPF-77 for the Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 
(Braidwood), which consists of two pressurized-water reactors (PWRs) 
located in Will County, Illinois; NPF-37 and NPF-66 for the Byron 
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Byron), which consists of two PWRs located 
in Ogle County, Illinois; NPF-62 for the Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 
(Clinton), which consists of a boiling-water reactor (BWR) located in 
DeWitt County, Illinois; DPR-2, DPR-19, and DPR-25 for the Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Dresden), which consists of 
three BWRs located in Grundy County, Illinois; NPF-11 and NPF-18 for 
the LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 (LaSalle), which consists of 
two BWRs located in LaSalle County, Illinois; NPF-39 and NPF-85 for the 
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (Limerick), which consists 
of two BWRs located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania; DPR-16 for 
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek), which consists 
of a BWR located in Ocean County, New Jersey; DPR-12, DPR-44, and DPR-
56 for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Peach 
Bottom), which consists of three BWRs located in York and Lancaster 
Counties, Pennsylvania; DPR-29 and DPR-30 for the Quad Cities Nuclear 
Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (Quad Cities), which consists of two BWRs 
located in Rock Island County, Illinois; DPR-50 for the Three Mile 
Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (Three

[[Page 38673]]

Mile Island), which consists of a PWR located in Dauphin County, 
Pennsylvania; and DPR-39 and DPR-48 for the Zion Nuclear Power Station, 
Units 1 and 2 (Zion), which consists of two PWRs located in Lake 
County, Illinois. The licenses provide, among other things, that the 
facilities are subject to all the rules, regulations, and orders of the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, Commission) now or hereafter in 
effect.

2. Request/Action

    Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 
50.54(a)(3), requires that changes to the quality assurance program 
description that do not reduce commitments must be submitted to the NRC 
in accordance with the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e).
    The regulation at 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) requires that revisions to the 
final safety analysis report (FSAR) be submitted annually or six months 
after a refueling outage, provided the interval between updates does 
not exceed 24 months. As an alternative, the licensees propose that 
changes to the quality assurance program that do not reduce commitments 
be submitted on a 24-month calendar schedule, not to exceed 24 months 
from the previous submittal. The exemption would apply to each of the 
licensees' plants identified above.

3. 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 and 
safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and 
(2) when special circumstances are present. Special circumstances are 
present whenever, according to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), ``Application of 
the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the 
underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the 
purpose of the rule''. Operational quality assurance programs are 
generally described in Chapter 17.2 of a licensee's Updated Safety 
Analysis Report (USAR) or, alternately, in a topical report 
incorporated into the USAR by reference. The licensees' quality 
assurance program, described in the Quality Assurance Topical Report 
(QATR), is common to the 21 units requesting the exemption. Compliance 
with 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) would require these changes to be submitted 
annually or after a refueling outage for each of the licensees' units.
    The licensees stated that the proposed exemption is strictly 
administrative and does not reduce commitments or effectiveness of the 
quality assurance program as described in the QATR, and does not 
adversely affect plant equipment, operation, or procedures. The 
exemption will not alter the manner in which changes to the common QATR 
are evaluated in order to ensure that there is no reduction in 
commitment. Changes to the common QATR will be reviewed through the 
existing applicable administrative and programmatic control processes 
to ensure that QATR changes are properly evaluated and implemented. The 
methods and procedures used to evaluate changes to the common QATR are 
not changed or modified.
    The underlying purpose of the rule is to ensure that periodic 
submittals required under 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) would allow the NRC staff 
to provide regulatory oversight of changes to the licensees' quality 
assurance program, and to ensure that the changes are consistent with 
the regulations.
    The exemption requested by the licensees only extends the reporting 
period, and does not exceed the time period between successive updates 
established by 10 CFR 50.71(e). Reporting of routine and administrative 
changes to the quality assurance program that do not reduce commitments 
for each of the licensees' units over a 2-year period is not consistent 
with the underlying purpose of the rule, nor is it necessary to achieve 
the purpose of the rule. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that, 
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), special circumstances are present.
    The NRC staff examined the licensees' rationale that supports the 
exemption request and concluded that the alternative reporting cycle of 
24 months for submitting QATR changes specified under 10 CFR 
50.54(a)(3) provides adequate control and is consistent with the 
underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3).
    Based on the foregoing, the NRC staff concludes that the changes 
specified in 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) are administrative and routine in 
nature. Also, the NRC staff concludes that the requested exemption 
would not result in any significant reduction in the effectiveness of 
the quality assurance program implemented by the licensees. Therefore, 
the NRC staff concludes that the proposed exemption would not present 
an undue risk to the public health and safety.

4. Conclusion

    Accordingly, the Commission has determined that pursuant to 10 CFR 
Part 50.12, 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 the licensees an exemption from 
the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) for Braidwood, Byron, Clinton, 
Dresden, LaSalle, Limerick, Oyster Creek, Peach Bottom, Quad Cities, 
Three Mile Island, and Zion stations.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the 
granting of this exemption will have no significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment (71 FR 29359).
    This exemption is effective upon issuance.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of June 2006.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Catherine Haney,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E6-10622 Filed 7-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P