[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 135 (Thursday, July 17, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33408-33411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-13356]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-237, 50-249, 50-254, and 50-265; NRC-2025-0096]
Constellation Energy Generation, LLC; Dresden Nuclear Power
Station, Units 2 and 3; Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and
2; Exemption
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice; issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing
exemptions in response to a request dated February 14, 2025, from
Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, to allow the implementation of
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code Case N-921 after the
start dates of the sixth inservice inspection (ISI) and fourth
Containment ISI intervals at Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and
3, and Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2.
DATES: The exemption was issued on July 8, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0096 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You
may obtain publicly available information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2025-0096. Address
questions about Docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Bridget Curran;
telephone: 301-415-1003; email: [email protected]. For technical
questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737,
or by email to [email protected]. The exemption requests dated
February 14, 2025, is available in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML25045A177.
NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies
of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. To make an
appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to
[email protected] or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8
a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time (ET), Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott P. Wall, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2855; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the exemption is attached.
Dated: July 14, 2025.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Scott Wall,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Attachment--Exemption
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Docket Nos. 50-237, 50-249, 50-254, and 50-265
Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, Dresden Nuclear Power Station,
Units 2 and 3, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2
Exemption
I. Background
Constellation Energy Generation, LLC (CEG, the licensee) is the
holder of the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses (RFOLs) Nos. DPR-
19 and DPR-25 for Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3
(Dresden), which consist of two boiling water reactors (BWRs)
located in Grundy County, Illinois; and DPR-29 and DPR-30 for Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (Quad Cities), which
consist of two BWRs located in Rock Island County, Illinois. The
RFOLs provide, among other things, that the facilities are subject
to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
On July 17, 2024, NRC issued a final rule incorporating by
reference Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.147 Revision 21 in Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.55a(3)(ii) (89 FR 58039).
This RG conditionally approved American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI (ASME BPV XI)
Code Case N-921, ``Alternative 12-yr Inspection Interval Duration.''
This code case allows NRC licensees to implement an inservice
inspection (ISI) program based upon a 12-year ISI interval, as
opposed to the traditional 10-year ISI interval required by ASME BPV
XI, Paragraph IWA-2431. RG 1.147 Revision 21 specifies four
conditions on Code Case N-921. Condition 2 states, ``This code case
can only be implemented at the beginning of an ISI interval as part
of a routine update of the ISI program.'' The July 17, 2024, final
rule also added 10 CFR 50.55a(y), which includes a definition for
the term ``inservice inspection interval.'' This definition
specifies that the length of the ISI interval is defined in ASME BPV
XI, Paragraph IWA-2431.
[[Page 33409]]
II. Request/Action
By application dated February 14, 2025 (ML25045A177), the
licensee, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, ``Specific exemptions,''
requested exemptions from certain requirements of 10 CFR
50.55a(a)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.55a(y) to allow the use of Code Case
N-921 after the start dates of the sixth ISI and fourth Containment
ISI intervals at Dresden and Quad Cities which is not in accordance
with Condition 2 on Code Case N-921, as specified in RG 1.147,
Revision 21. The sixth ISI interval at Dresden and Quad Cities began
on January 20, 2023, and April 2, 2023, respectfully. The licensee
stated that the proposed exemptions do not impact the Inservice
Testing (IST) program or snubber program, which are implemented
under the requirements of the ASME Operation and Maintenance Code.
III. Discussion
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), 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 the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common
defense and security and (2) special circumstances are present.
Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), special circumstances are present when at
least one of the following five conditions are met:
(i) Application of the regulation in the particular
circumstances conflicts with other rules or requirements of the
Commission; or
(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 underlying purpose of the rule; or
(iii) 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; or
(iv) The exemption would result in benefit to the public health
and safety that compensates for any decrease in safety that may
result from the grant of the exemption; or
(v) 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; or
(vi) There is present any other material circumstance not
considered when the regulation was adopted for which it would be in
the public interest to grant an exemption.
A. The Exemption Is Authorized by Law
The exemptions would authorize exemption from the requirements
of 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.55a(y) to allow the use of
Code Case N-921, after the start dates of the sixth ISI and fourth
Containment ISI intervals at Dresden, and Quad Cities. As stated, 10
CFR 50.12(a) allows the NRC to grant exemptions from the
requirements of 10 CFR part 50, including 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii)
and 10 CFR 50.55a(y), when the exemptions are authorized by law.
Exemptions are authorized by law where they are not expressly
prohibited by statute or regulation. A proposed exemption is
implicitly authorized by law if it will not present an undue risk to
the public health and safety, are consistent with the common defense
and security, and special circumstances are present, and no other
provisions in law prohibit, or otherwise restrict, its application.
The NRC staff has determined that no provisions in law expressly
prohibit or otherwise restrict the application of the requested
exemptions. The NRC staff has also determined, as explained below,
that the requested exemptions will not present an undue risk to the
public health and safety, are consistent with the common defense and
security, and special circumstances are present. Therefore, the NRC
staff concludes that the exemption is authorized by law.
B. The Exemption Presents No Undue Risk to Public Health and Safety
The exemptions would allow the licensee to implement Code Case
N-921 after the start dates of the sixth ISI and fourth Containment
ISI intervals at Dresden and Quad Cities. The action does not change
the manner in which the plant operates and maintains public health
and safety because the exemptions do not result in a change to the
facility or the current operating license. The licensee stated that
extending the ISI interval by 2 years does not impact the technical
basis supporting any of the currently authorized 10 CFR 50.55a
alternatives and does not create any particular challenge in
reconciling the ISI inspection schedules to conform with the three
four-year periods specified in Code Case N-921. Accordingly, the NRC
staff reviewed the alternatives listed in Attachments 2 and 3 of the
licensee's exemptions request for ISI interval-related risk impacts
and identified several common themes in these alternatives and
evaluated the alternatives as described below.
Alternatives With No ISI Interval Relationship
The majority of authorized alternatives in Attachments 2 and 3
of the licensee's exemptions are unrelated to the length of the ISI
interval. For example, (i) several alternatives approve repair
techniques for a single cycle, and (ii) some alternatives relate to
geometric obstacles due to permanently installed equipment that
inhibit the licensee's ability to perform a qualified examination.
Therefore, the NRC's bases for approving these alternatives are not
impacted by extending the length of the ISI interval to 12 years.
Alternatives Based on Topical Reports With 10-Year ISI Intervals
The NRC staff noted that several authorized alternatives are
based on approved topical reports which were originally generated
assuming a 10-year ISI interval. Each of these topical reports are
described below.
BWRVIP-108NP-A, ``Technical Basis for the Reduction of
Inspection Requirements for the Boiling Water Reactor Nozzle-to-
Vessel Shell Welds and Nozzle Blend Radii'' dated October 2018
(ML19297F806) (BWRVIP-108)
BWRVIP-241NP-A, ``Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics
Evaluation for the Boiling Water Reactor Nozzle-to-Vessel Shell
Welds and Nozzle Blend Radii,'' dated October 2018 (ML19297G738)
(BWRVIP-241)
BWRVIP-108 and BWRVIP-241 provide a basis for reduced sampling
of BWR nozzle-to-vessel shell welds and nozzle-blend radii, relative
to the ASME BPV Section XI requirement. These reports present
probabilistic fracture mechanics results demonstrating that the
likelihood of fracture is insensitive to the frequency of inspection
given known degradation mechanisms. In BWRVIP-108 this was analyzed
for a 40-year operating period assuming a 10-year ISI interval,
showing a very low fracture probability with a bounding analysis
(e.g., demonstrating no higher than a 1 x 10-6
probability of fracture, the real value being lower). In BWRVIP-241,
the industry repeated this analysis for a broader range of nozzle
geometries to investigate stress effects.
While the BWRVIP-108 and BWRVIP-241 analyses assumed a 10-year
ISI interval in calculating failure probability, there are
offsetting factors that account for potential impacts of a 12-year
ISI interval. First, in Section 5.3, ``Assumptions,'' BWRVIP-108
describes a sensitivity study assuming no examination of the subject
locations. This sensitivity case bounds the impacts of a 12-year ISI
interval, where the examinations may be more spread out in time but
not eliminated. Second, the BWRVIP-108 and BWRVIP-241 analyses
assume the existence of flaws in the subject welds and nozzle inner
radii. The NRC staff finds this be a conservative assumption,
because the examination history of these locations does not indicate
that significant cracking is occurring. Finally, in Attachments 2
and 3 of the licensee's exemptions, the licensee stated that
alternatives I6-R04 (Quad Cities) and I6-R05 (Dresden), which
addressed the nozzle shell welds and inner radii examinations, are
authorized only through the end of the current license. Therefore,
the licensee must reassess this examination requirement at end of
license, regardless of the length of the ISI interval. Accounting
for these factors, the NRC staff concludes that the NRC's basis for
approving these alternatives is not impacted by extending the length
of the ISI interval to 12 years.
BWRVIP-05--NRC Safety Evaluation: Supplemental Safety
Evaluation of EPRI Topical Report TR-105697 ``BWR Vessel and
Internals Project, BWR Reactor Pressure Vessel Shell Weld Inspection
Recommendations (BWRVIP-05),'' Dated March 7, 2000 (ML003690281).
BWRVIP-74--NRC Safety Evaluation: Final Safety
Evaluation of EPRI Proprietary Report TR-113596 ``BWR Vessel And
Internals Project, BWR Reactor Pressure Vessel Inspection and Flaw
Evaluation Guidelines (BWRVIP-74)'' and Compliance with the License
Renewal Rule (10 CFR part 54),'' Dated October 18, 2001
(ML012920549).
BWRVIP-05 and BWRVIP-74 provide a basis for bounding
circumferential welds in the reactor vessel through inspection of
axial welds consistent with Generic Letter 98-05, ``Boiling Water
Reactor Licensees Use of the BWRVIP-05 Report to Request Relief from
Augmented Examination Requirements on Reactor Pressure Vessel
Circumferential Shell
[[Page 33410]]
Welds,'' dated November 10, 1998 (ML082460066). The NRC staff's
initial evaluation of the BWRVIP-05 Report was issued on July 28,
1998 (ML20236V551). Under this generic letter, licensees must
demonstrate that (1) at the expiration of their license, the
circumferential welds will continue to satisfy the limiting
conditional failure probability for circumferential welds in the NRC
staff's July 28, 1998, safety evaluation, and (2) licensees have
implemented operator training and established procedures that limit
the frequency of cold over-pressure events to the amount specified
in the NRC staff's July 28, 1998, safety evaluation. Neither of
these criteria are related to the length of the ISI interval.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the bases for approving
these alternatives are not impacted by extending the length of the
ISI interval to 12 years.
Based on its review of the licensee's analysis of proposed
alternatives in Attachments 1 and 2 of the exemption requests, the
NRC staff concludes that the exemptions would not result in any
significant reduction in the effectiveness of the ISI programs
implemented by the licensee at Dresden and Quad Cities. Further,
based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the exemptions
would not present an undue risk to the public health and safety.
C. The Exemption Is Consistent With the Common Defense and Security
The requested exemptions would allow the licensee to implement
Code Case N-921 after the start dates of the sixth ISI and fourth
Containment ISI intervals at Dresden and Quad Cities. The change is
administrative in nature, adequately controlled by the ISI Program
criteria and ASME Code requirements and is not related to security
issues. The length of the ISI interval is not related to security
issues. Because the common defense and security is not impacted by
the exemptions, the exemptions are consistent with the common
defense and security.
D. Special Circumstances
The regulation under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) states, in part, that
``[t]he Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless
special circumstances are present,'' and describes, in 10 CFR
50.12(a)((i)-(vi), the conditions under which special circumstances
exist. In Section III(d) of the licensee's exemptions request, the
licensee stated that three of the six special circumstances listed
in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) are present:
(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 underlying purpose of the rule.
(iii) 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.
(vi) There is present any other material circumstance not
considered when the regulation was adopted for which it would be in
the public interest to grant an exemption.
The NRC staff performed an independent review of the special
circumstances claimed by the licensee.
For the special circumstances in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the
licensee stated that the purpose of the July 2024 final rule (89 FR
58039) was to identify ASME code cases that the NRC determined to be
acceptable for use. The licensee noted that NRC's approval of Code
Case N-921 includes a condition that ``This code case can only be
implemented at the beginning of an ISI interval as part of a routine
update of the ISI program.'' The licensee provided the following
support to the claim that application of the regulation would not
serve the underlying purpose of the rule:
The licensee stated that the exemption would not
inhibit the ability of the licensee to comply with the ASME BPV XI
examination distribution requirements.
Tables 2 through 5 of the licensee's submittal
described the new inspection period dates and corresponding
refueling outages.
The licensee evaluated all NRC-authorized alternative
requests in Attachments 2 and 3 of the licensee's submittal,
consistent with NRC concerns expressed in the 89 FR 58039 final rule
preamble (see NRC staff's independent review in Section III.B
above).
The licensee stated that the site ISI program owners
routinely modify the ISI examination schedule during the ISI
interval due to various reasons, such as evolving availability of
qualified personnel and equipment.
In the 89 FR 58039 final rule preamble, the NRC communicated
that order and predictability of licensee ISI programs is a
paramount consideration. The careful advance planning required by
ASME BPV XI and 10 CFR 50.55a maximizes licensee effectiveness in
successfully executing all ISI requirements. The successful
execution of ISI requirements, in turn, contributes to nuclear
safety by providing a data stream used to continuously evaluate the
structural integrity of safety-related components. The NRC staff
determined that the licensee provided adequate evidence that, if the
NRC approves the proposed exemption, the ISI programs at Dresden and
Quad Cities will be managed in a manner that promotes order and
predictability.
In the 89 FR 58039 final rule, the NRC added a new condition
requiring that Code Case N-921 be implemented at the start of a new
ISI interval. Implementation of Code Case N-921 in the middle of an
ISI interval creates complications related to existing examination
schedules and alternatives that were approved assuming a 10-year ISI
interval. As discussed above, the licensee demonstrated that no
currently approved alternatives are impacted by extending the length
of the ISI interval to 12 years. Another NRC staff concern with
allowing mid-cycle implementation of Code Case N-921 relates to
complications with reconciling ISI inspection schedules to conform
with the three 4-year periods specified in Code Case N-921. As
discussed above, the licensee stated that in anticipated
implementation of Code Case N-921, the licensee proactively adjusted
examination schedules accordingly to maintain compliance with Code
Case N-921 periodic distribution requirements. Therefore, the NRC
staff concludes that application of the regulation would not serve
the underlying purpose of the rule because the licensee demonstrated
that mid-cycle implementation of Code Case N-921 will have no impact
on the ISI programs at Dresden and Quad Cities. Based on the above,
the special circumstances described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) are
present for the requested exemptions. Since the regulations require
that one of the special circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) be
present before NRC may grant an exemption, the NRC staff did not
evaluate the licensee's position that the special circumstances in
10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii) and (vi) are present.
E. Environmental Considerations
The NRC staff determined that the exemption discussed herein
meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth
in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25) because (i) there is no significant hazards
consideration; (ii) there is no significant change in the types or
significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be
released offsite; (iii) there is no significant increase in
individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure;
(iv) there is no significant construction impact; (v) there is no
significant increase in the potential for or consequences from
radiological accidents; and (vi) the requirements from which an
exemption is sought are among those identified in 10 CFR
51.22(c)(25)(vi), including requirements of an administrative,
managerial, or organizational nature. Therefore, in accordance with
10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental
assessment need to be prepared in connection with the issuance of
the exemption. The basis for this NRC staff determination is
discussed as follows with an evaluation against each of the
requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25).
Requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i)--There is no significant
hazards consideration.
The criteria for determining whether an action involves a
significant hazards consideration are found in 10 CFR 50.92(c). The
exemptions only involve an ISI program implementation change, which
is administrative in nature. The exemptions do not adversely affect
plant equipment, operation, or procedures. Therefore, there are no
significant hazard considerations, because granting the exemptions
would not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
Requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(ii)--There is no significant
change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any
effluents that may be released offsite.
The exemptions involve only an ISI program implementation
change, which is administrative in nature, and does not involve any
changes in the types or
[[Page 33411]]
significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be
released offsite.
Requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(iii)--There is no
significant increase in individual or cumulative public or
occupational radiation exposure.
Since the exemptions involve only an ISI program implementation
change, which is administrative in nature, it does not contribute to
any significant increase in occupational or public radiation
exposure.
Requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(iv)--There is no significant
construction impact.
Since the exemptions involve only an ISI program implementation
change, which is administrative in nature, it does not involve any
construction impact.
Requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(v)--There is no significant
increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological
accidents.
The exemptions involve only an ISI program implementation
change, which is administrative in nature and does not impact the
potential for or consequences from accidents.
Requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(I)--The requirements
from which the exemption is sought involve requirements that are
administrative in nature.
The exemptions involve only an ISI program implementation change
regarding examination scheduling requirements and other requirements
of an administrative, managerial, or organizational nature, because
they are associated with the marginal extension from a 10-year to
12-year ISI interval.
Based on the above, NRC determined that the exemptions meet the
eligibility criteria for the categorical exclusion set forth in 10
CFR 51.22(c)(25). Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(b), no
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared in connection with these exemption requests.
IV. Conclusions
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10
CFR 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 CEG's request for
exemptions from 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.55a(y) to
allow the implementation of ASME Code Case N-921 after the start
dates of the sixth ISI and fourth Containment ISI intervals at
Dresden and Quad Cities.
These exemptions are effective upon issuance.
Dated: July 8, 2025.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
/RA/
Jamie Pelton,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2025-13356 Filed 7-16-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P