[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 31, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61428-61432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-24118]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287; NRC-2025-1799]
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2,
and 3; Exemption
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice; issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an
exemption in response to a request dated May 8, 2025, as supplemented
by letter dated August 21, 2025, from Duke Energy Carolinas, 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) interval and fourth Containment ISI (CISI) at Oconee
Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3.
DATES: The exemption was issued on December 23, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-1799 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-2025-1799. 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 ADAMS Public Search.''
For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at
[[Page 61429]]
301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The exemption
request dated May 8, 2025, as supplemented by letter dated August 21,
2025, is available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML25128A041 and
ML25233A035, respectively.
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: John Klos, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001; telephone: 301-415-5136; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the exemption is attached.
Dated: December 29, 2025.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Lee Klos,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Attachment--Exemption
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Docket No. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287; Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Oconee
Nuclear Station, Units No. 1, 2 and 3; Exemption
I. Background
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy, the licensee) is the
holder of the Subsequent Renewed Facility Operating Licenses
(SRFOLs) Nos DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55 for Oconee Nuclear Station,
Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3), which consist of three
Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) located in Seneca, South Carolina.
The SRFOLs 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 (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), Accession Nos.
ML23291A003), in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR) 50.55a(3)(ii) (89 FR 58039). This RG determined 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, Section XI, Division1,'' to be
conditionally acceptable. 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, Article 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, in part, specifies that the length of the ISI interval
is described in ASME BPV XI, Article IWA-2431.
II. Request/Action
By application dated May 8, 2025 (ML25128A041), as supplemented
by letter dated August 21, 2025, (ML25233A035), the licensee,
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, ``Specific exemptions,'' requested an
exemption 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 CISI intervals at Oconee Units 1,
2 and 3, which is not in accordance with Condition 2 on Code Case N-
921, as specified in RG 1.147, Revision 21. The sixth ISI and fourth
CISI intervals at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3, began on July 15, 2024.
The licensee stated that the proposed exemption does 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 six 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 exemption would authorize exemption 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 CISI intervals at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3. As stated,
10 CFR 50.12(a) allows the NRC to grant an exemption from the
requirements of 10 CFR part 50, including 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii)
and 10 CFR 50.55a(y), when the exemption is authorized by law. An
exemption is authorized by law where it is 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, is 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
exemption. The NRC staff has also determined, as explained below,
that the requested exemption will not present an undue risk to the
public health and safety, is 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
This exemption would allow the licensee to implement Code Case
N-921 after the start dates of the sixth ISI and fourth CISI
intervals at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3. The action does not change the
manner in which the plant operates and maintains public health and
safety because the exemption does not result in a change to the
facility or the current operating license. The licensee stated that
extending the ISI interval by two 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 Attachment 3 of the
licensee's exemption request for ISI interval-related impacts and
identified several common themes in these alternatives and evaluated
the alternatives as described below.
Alternatives With No ISI Interval Relationship
Several of the authorized alternatives in Attachment 3 of the
licensee's exemption request are unrelated to the length of the ISI
interval. The NRC staff's assessment of each of these authorized
alternatives is documented below.
The NRC staff noted that the authorized alternatives identified
by 15-ON-001 and RA-20-0036 are related to repair techniques by
installation of replacement pressure-retaining parts that fully
encapsulate the degraded piping. The NRC staff confirmed that the
authorized alternatives granted by letters dated December 29, 2015
(ML15349A453) and July 30, 2020
[[Page 61430]]
(ML20206K928) for 15-ON-001 and RA-20-0036, respectively, are
unrelated to the length of the ISI interval and are only associated
with repair and mitigation techniques for subject components.
Therefore, the NRC staff's basis for approving this alternative is
not impacted by extending the length of the ISI interval to 12
years.
The NRC staff noted that the authorized alternative identified
by RA-22-0174 is related to the use Code Case N-752, which provides
a process for determining the risk-informed categorization and
treatment requirements for Class 2 and 3 pressure-retaining items or
the associated supports. The NRC staff confirmed that this
authorized alternative granted by letter dated December 13, 2023
(ML23262A967), is unrelated to the length of the ISI interval and is
only associated with the risk-informed categorization and treatment
for repair and replacement activities in Class 2 and 3 systems in
lieu of current regulatory requirements for codes and standards.
Therefore, the NRC staff's basis for approving this alternative is
not impacted by extending the length of the ISI interval to 12
years.
The NRC staff noted that the authorized alternative identified
by RA-23-0018 is related to the use Code Case N-853 (with two
deviations), which provides an alternative to the defect removal
requirements of Section XI of the ASME Code to repair or proactively
mitigate the Alloy 600 nozzle welds. The NRC staff confirmed that
this authorized alternative granted by letter dated October 20, 2023
(ML23285A074), is unrelated to the length of the ISI interval and is
only associated with techniques to preemptively mitigate or repair
the subject components to address Primary Water Stress Corrosion
Cracking susceptibility. Therefore, the NRC staff's basis for
approving this alternative is not impacted by extending the length
of the ISI interval to 12 years.
The NRC staff noted that the authorized alternative identified
by RA-19-0418 is related to the modification in scope and schedule
for required examinations required by IWL, ``Requirements for Class
CC Concrete Components of Light-Water Cooled Power Plants'' of
Section XI of ASME Code. By letter dated August 21, 2025,
(ML25233A035), the licensee confirmed it will maintain the ASME
Section XI, Subsection IWL-2400 inspection schedules after adopting
the 12-year ISI interval per Code Case N-921. The staff noted that
the ASME Section XI, Subsection IWL-2400 inspection schedules are
independent interval dates, since the timing of these inspections
are based on the date of the structural integrity test. Thus, the
NRC staff confirmed that this authorized alternative granted by
letter dated December 7, 2021 (ML21335A106), is unrelated to the
length of the ISI interval and is only associated with deferring
certain required examinations by five years. Therefore, the NRC
staff's basis for approving this alternative is not impacted by
extending the length of the ISI interval to 12 years.
Alternatives Based on Technical Reports With 10-Year ISI Intervals
The NRC staff noted that the authorized alternatives identified
by RA-22-0256 and RA-22-0257 are based on technical reports, as
identified below, which were originally developed based on the
assumption of 10-year ISI intervals:
EPRI Technical Report 3002015906, ``Technical Bases for
Inspection Requirements for PWR Steam Generator Class 1 Nozzle-to-
Vessel Welds and Class 1 and Class 2 Vessel Head, Shell, Tubesheet-
to-Head, and Tubesheet-to-Shell Welds,'' 2019 (ML20225A141).
EPRI Technical Report 3002014590, ``Technical Bases for
Inspection Requirements for PWR Steam Generator Feedwater and Main
Steam Nozzle-to-Shell Welds and Nozzle Inside Radius Sections,''
2019 (ML19347B107).
EPRI Technical Report 3002015905, ``Technical Bases for
Inspection Requirements for PWR Pressurizer Head, Shell-to-Head, and
Nozzle-to-Vessel Welds,'' 2019 (ML21021A271).
These assessments include flaw tolerance evaluations using
probabilistic fracture mechanics and deterministic fracture
mechanics, and a survey of inspection results from 74 domestic and
international nuclear units. Based on the conclusions of the three
reports, the licensee requested an alternative to the ASME Code,
Section XI, examination requirements for the subject steam generator
and pressurizer welds in RA-22-0256 and RA-22-0257, respectively.
While the analyses in these technical reports were developed
based on the assumption of 10-year ISI intervals in calculating
failure probability, the NRC staff noted that there are offsetting
factors that account for potential impacts of a 12-year ISI
interval. First, these technical reports and the licensee's
submittal for the authorized alternatives (see ML23256A088 and
ML23264A853) contain generic and plant-specific sensitivity studies
that considered a pre-service inspection followed by various
scenarios for subsequent inservice inspections as well as a plant-
specific limiting scenario, which was not specifically considered in
these EPRI technical reports. The NRC staff finds that these
sensitivity studies bound the impacts of a 12-year ISI interval,
where the examinations may be more spread out in time but not
eliminated. In addition, the analyses in these technical reports
assume the existence of flaws in the subject welds. This is a
conservative assumption, since the examination history of these
locations does not indicate that significant cracking is occurring.
Additionally, specific inspections to be completed by the licensee
at pre-determined years as part of its performance monitoring plan
are outlined in the respective approval letters for RA-22-0256 and
RA-22-0257. The NRC staff noted that these scheduled inspections at
the Duke Energy fleet addressed within RA-22-0256 and RA-22-0257
ensure that no more than 20 years elapses between the performance of
an ASME Code, Section XI, examination for the respective weld/
component and is scheduled to occur regardless of the length of the
ISI interval. Therefore, the NRC staff's basis for this performance
monitoring plan in those alternatives is not impacted by extending
the length of the ISI interval to 12 years. Finally, the licensee
stated that alternatives RA-22-0256 and RA-22-0257, which addressed
the steam generator welds and pressurizer welds, respectively, are
authorized only through the end of the current license. Therefore,
the licensee must reassess this examination requirement at the end
of the license, regardless of the length of the ISI interval.
Accounting for these factors, as discussed above, the NRC staff
finds that the NRC staff's basis for approving the alternatives in
RA-22-0256 and RA-22-0257 is not impacted by extending the length of
the ISI interval to 12 years.
Furthermore, the NRC staff noted that the authorized alternative
identified by RA-20-0328 is based on an NRC-approved topical report,
as identified below, which was originally developed based on the
assumption of 10-year ISI intervals:
WCAP-16168-NP-A, Revision 3, ``Risk-Informed Extension
of the Reactor Vessel In-Service Inspection Interval,'' 2011
(ML11306A084).
WCAP-16168-NP-A provides the technical and regulatory basis for
decreasing the frequency of inspections by extending the ASME Code,
Section Xl, inservice inspection (ISI) interval from 10 years to 20
years for ASME Code, Section XI, Category B-A and B-D reactor vessel
(RV) welds in pressurized water reactors.
While the methodology and analyses in this topical report were
developed based, in part, on the assumption of 10-year ISI intervals
in calculating failure probability, the NRC staff noted that there
are offsetting factors that account for potential impacts of a 12-
year ISI interval. First, Section 3, ``Pilot Plant Summary,'' and
Section 4, ``Risk Assessment,'' in WCAP-16168-NP-A includes data and
results from a sensitivity study and quantitative risk assessment
that provide the technical basis for extending the ASME Section XI
Inspection interval from 10 years to 20 years for Category B-A and
B-D RV nozzle welds, which bounds the impacts of performing ISI
inspections under a 12-year ISI interval. Second, WCAP-16168-NP-A
also assumes the existence of embedded flaws in welds, plates
(includes forgings), and inner surface breaking flaws in the subject
components. The NRC staff finds this to be a conservative
assumption, because the examination history of these locations does
not indicate that significant cracking is occurring. Additionally,
inspections by the licensee at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3, for the
applicable RPV weld and nozzle components in the years 2032, 2033,
and 2034 refueling outage for each unit, respectively, are pre-
determined as part of its performance monitoring plan outlined in
the approval letter for RA-20-0328. The NRC staff noted that these
scheduled inspections at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3, addressed within
RA-20-0328 are scheduled to occur regardless of the length of the
ISI interval. Therefore, the NRC staff's basis for this performance
monitoring plan in the alternative is not impacted by extending the
length of the ISI interval to 12 years since the alternative
requires deferred 5th Interval reactor vessel exams for Oconee Units
1, 2 and 3, to be completed in the 6th Interval no later than 2032,
2033, and 2034, respectively.
[[Page 61431]]
Accounting for these factors, as discussed above, the NRC staff
concludes that the NRC staff's basis for approving the alternative
in RA-20-0328 is not impacted by extending the length of the ISI
interval to 12 years.
Based on its review of the licensee's analysis of alternatives
in Attachment 3 of the exemption request, the NRC staff concludes
that the exemption would not result in any significant reduction in
the effectiveness of the ISI and CISI programs implemented by the
licensee at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3. Further, based on the above,
the NRC staff concludes that the exemption 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 exemption would allow the licensee to implement
Code Case N-921 after the start dates of the sixth ISI and fourth
CISI intervals at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3. The change is
administrative in nature, adequately controlled by the ISI Programs
criteria and ASME Code requirements and is not related to security
issues. The length of these intervals is also not related to
security issues. Thus, NRC staff determined that the common defense
and security is not impacted by this exemption, and, therefore, the
exemption is 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)(2)(i)-(vi), the conditions under which special
circumstances exist. In the licensee's exemption request submittal
Section III, ``Basis for Approval of Exemption Request,'' item (d),
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.
Table 4 through 6 for Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3, of the
licensee's submittal described the new inspection period dates and
corresponding refueling outages.
The licensee evaluated all NRC-authorized alternative
requests in Attachment 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 staff approves the proposed exemption, the CISI and ISI programs
at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3, 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. The basis for the condition is that 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 concern identified by the NRC
staff with allowing mid-cycle implementation of Code Case N-921
involves potential complications of 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
anticipation of implementing Code Case N-921, it 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 CISI and ISI programs at Oconee Units 1, 2 and
3. Based on the above, the NRC staff determined that the special
circumstances described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) are present for
the requested exemption. Since the regulations require that one of
the special circumstances in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) be satisfied before
the NRC may grant an exemption, the NRC staff did not evaluate the
licensee's additional claims that the special circumstances in 10
CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii) and (vi) are also applicable.
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
exemption only involves a CISI and ISI program implementation
change, which is administrative in nature. The exemption does not
adversely affect plant equipment, operation, or procedures.
Therefore, there are no significant hazard considerations, because
granting the exemption 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 exemption involves only a CISI and ISI program
implementation change, which is administrative in nature, and does
not involve any changes in the types or 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 exemption involves only a CISI and ISI program
implementation change, which is administrative in nature, it does
not contribute to any significant increase in occupational or public
radiation exposure.
[[Page 61432]]
Requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(iv)--There is no significant
construction impact.
Since the exemption involves only a CISI and 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 exemption involves only a CISI and 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 of an
administrative, managerial, or organizational nature.
The exemption involves only a CISI and ISI program
implementation change regarding examination scheduling requirements
and other requirements of an administrative, managerial, or
organizational nature, because it is associated with the marginal
extension from a 10-year to 12-year ISI interval.
Based on the above, NRC staff determined that the exemption
meets 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 Duke Energy
Carolinas, LLC's request for exemption from certain requirements of
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 CISI intervals at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3.
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated: December 23, 2025.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
/RA/
Aida Rivera-Varona,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2025-24118 Filed 12-30-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P