Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 2; Exemption, 2019-2021 [E7-501]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Notices
veterans, dependents, and other
authorized individuals request
information from or copies of
documents in military personnel,
military medical, and dependent
medical records, they must provide on
forms or in letters certain information
about the veteran and the nature of the
request. A major fire at the NPRC on
July 12, 1973, destroyed numerous
military records. If individuals’ requests
involve records or information from
records that may have been lost in the
fire, requesters may be asked to
complete NA Form 13075,
Questionnaire about Military Service, or
NA Form 13055, Request for
Information Needed to Reconstruct
Medical Data, so that NPRC staff can
search alternative sources to reconstruct
the requested information. Requesters
who ask for medical records of
dependents of service personnel and
hospitalization records of military
personnel are asked to complete NA
Form 13042, Request for Information
Needed to Locate Medical Records, so
that NPRC staff can locate the desired
records. Certain types of information
contained in military personnel and
medical records are restricted from
disclosure unless the veteran provides a
more specific release authorization than
is normally required. Veterans are asked
to complete NA Form 13036,
Authorization for Release of Military
Medical Patient Records, to authorize
release to a third party of a restricted
type of information found in the desired
record.
Dated: January 10, 2007.
Martha Morphy,
Assistant Archivist for Information Services.
[FR Doc. E7–495 Filed 1–16–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515–01–P
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY BOARD
9:30 a.m., Tuesday,
January 23, 2007.
PLACE: NTSB Conference Center, 429
L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC
20594.
STATUS: The one item is open to the
public.
MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:
7713A Aircraft Accident Report—
Crash During Approach to Landing,
Circuit City Stores, Inc., Cessna Citation
560, N500AT, Pueblo, Colorado,
February 16, 2005 (DCA05MA037)
NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Lauren Peduzzi,
Telephone: (202) 314–6100.
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
TIME AND DATE:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:58 Jan 16, 2007
Jkt 211001
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
license for VEGP Unit 1 expires on
January 16, 2027, whereas the current
operating license for VEGP Unit 2
expires on February 9, 2029. At the time
the exemption request was filed, VEGP
Unit 1 had over 19 years of operating
experience and VEGP Unit 2 had over
17 years of operating experience.
This exemption is required in order to
allow an application for renewal of the
VEGP Unit 2 license to be prepared and
submitted concurrently with the LRA
for VEGP Unit 1. Based on an
anticipated submittal of a renewal
application on June 28, 2007, VEGP
Unit 1 will meet the requirements of 10
CFR 54.17(c) and the license renewal
request for VEGP Unit 2 would occur
approximately 2 years earlier than the
earliest date allowed by 10 CFR
54.17(c).
[ Docket No. 50–425]
3.0
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,
Unit 2; Exemption
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, (1) when 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.
Individuals requesting specific
accommodations should contact Chris
Bisett at (202) 314–6305 by Friday,
January 19, 2007.
The public may view the meeting via
a live or archived webcast by accessing
a link under ‘‘News & Events’’ on the
NTSB home page at https://
www.ntsb.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vicky D’Onofrio, (202) 314–6410.
Dated: January 12, 2007.
Vicky D’Onofrio,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 07–185 Filed 1–12–07; 2:04 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533–01–M
1.0
Background
The Southern Nuclear Operating
Company, Inc. (SNC/licensee), is the
holder of Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF–68 and NPF–81, which
authorize operation of the Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2
(VEGP Unit 1 and VEGP Unit 2),
respectively. The licenses provide,
among other things, that the facility is
subject to all rules, regulations, and
orders of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC, the Commission)
now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of two
pressurized-water reactors (PWRs)
supplied by Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, each rated at 3565
megawatts (thermal). The facility is
located in Burke County, Georgia. This
exemption addresses VEGP Unit 2.
2.0
Sunshine Act Meeting; Agenda
2019
Request/Action
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Part 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.
By letter dated May 22, 2006, the
licensee requested a schedular
exemption from the 20-year restriction
specified in 10 CFR 54.17(c) for VEGP
Unit 2 so that the license renewal
application (LRA) for both Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant units can be
prepared and submitted concurrently,
with the goal of attaining efficiencies for
preparation and review of the
application. The current operating
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Discussion
Authorized by Law
The Commission’s basis for
establishing the 20-year limit contained
in Section 54.17(c) is discussed in the
1991 Statements of Consideration for
Part 54 of 10 CFR (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 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 did indicate
in the Statements 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
expiration of the current license. SNC’s
exemption request is consistent with the
Commission’s intent to consider plantspecific requests and is permitted by 10
CFR 54.15. Therefore, the exemption is
authorized by law.
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
2020
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Notices
The current operating licenses for
VEGP Unit 1 and Unit 2, were issued in
accordance with the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, 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 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 terms of the
renewal licenses for VEGP Unit 1 and
Unit 2, are limited both by law and the
Commission’s regulations to 40 years.
Additionally, 10 CFR 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
SNC’s decision to apply early for license
renewal for VEGP Unit 2, SNC may not
obtain the maximum 20-year extended
operation permitted by 10 CFR 54.31(b).
Any actual reduction will depend on
the date the renewed licenses are
issued. If a reduction in the 20-year
extension is required, and SNC desires
further extension of VEGP Units 2’s
operating licenses in the future, an
additional renewal application can be
submitted in accordance with 10 CFR
Part 54.
Therefore, should the Commission
determine to renew the VEGP Unit 2
operating license, the term of the license
will not exceed 40 years, and granting
of VEGP Unit 2’s exemption request will
not result in violation of the AEA or the
Commission’s regulations.
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
No Undue Risk to Public Health and
Safety
This exemption will not result in
changes to the operation of the plant.
SNC’s exemption request seeks only
schedular relief regarding the date of
submittal, and not substantive relief
from the requirements of Parts 51 or Part
54. SNC must still conduct all
environmental reviews required by Part
51 and all safety reviews and
evaluations required by Part 54 when
preparing the applications for VEGP
Units 1 and 2. The NRC staff’s review
will verify that all applicable
Commission regulations have been met
before issuing the renewed licenses.
Therefore, the NRC staff finds that
granting this schedular exemption will
not represent an undue risk to public
health and safety.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:58 Jan 16, 2007
Jkt 211001
Consistent With the Common Defense
and Security
As discussed previously, the
exemption requested is only a schedular
exemption. The NRC staff will review
the LRA SNC submits pursuant to the
requested exemption, to assure all
applicable requirements are fully met.
This change has no relation to security
issues. Therefore, the common defense
and security is not impacted by this
exemption.
Special Circumstances
An exemption will not be granted
unless special circumstances are present
as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2).
Specifically, Section 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 Section 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, VEGP Unit
1 is sufficiently similar to Unit 2, such
that the operating experience for VEGP
Unit 1 is applicable to VEGP Unit 2. In
addition, VEGP Unit 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.
SNC stated that special effort was
made during construction of VEGP to
keep the designs of the two units the
same. Both units are PWRs supplied by
Westinghouse Electric Corporation with
a design net core output of 3565
megawatts (thermal). The containment
for each of the VEGP units is a steellined, prestressed, post-tensioned
concrete cylinder with a hemispherical
dome. SNC states that the two units
have similar materials of construction of
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the systems, structures, and components
and are typically identical.
These statements are supported by a
review of the VEGP Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR for
Units 1 and 2). In particular, Section 1.3
of the UFSAR describes the similarities
in design between VEGP Unit 1, VEGP
Unit 2, and similar licensed reactor
facilities. Table 1–3–1 of the UFSAR
lists significant similarities between
systems, structures and components
installed at VEGP, including elements of
the reactor system, the reactor coolant
system, the engineered safety features,
and auxiliary systems.
SNC also states that the Operating
Experience Program ensures that
operating experience originating from
all sources is appropriately utilized at
VEGP. Specifically, any operating
experience originating with VEGP Unit
1 is systematically applied to Unit 2.
Moreover, SNC states that since the two
VEGP units are essentially the same in
design, operation, maintenance,
materials and environments, there will
be little difference in the aging
management analyses for the two units.
Based on the above discussion, the
NRC staff concludes that, with respect
to VEGP Unit 1 and VEGP Unit 2
containment design, structural
configuration, and management of
structural-related aging effects, the
applicant has provided adequate
justifications for the NRC consideration
of granting the VEGP Unit 2 request for
exemption from the requirements of 10
CFR 54.17(c).
Therefore, sufficient combined
operating experience from VEGP Unit 1
and industry 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 SNC’s request meets the
requirement, in Section 50.12(a)(2) of 10
CFR, 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. Also, special
circumstances are present. Therefore,
the Commission hereby grants SNC an
exemption from the requirements of 10
CFR 54.17(c). Specifically, this
schedular exemption allows SNC to
apply for a renewed license for VEGP
Unit 2 earlier than 20 years before the
expiration of the license currently in
effect.
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Notices
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 (71 FR 58014).
This exemption is effective upon
issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day
of January 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John W. Lubinski,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7–501 Filed 1–16–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 030–07517]
Issuance of Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for Amendment to
Byproduct Materials License 53–
00017–23 for the University of Hawaii
in Honolulu, HI
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for License
Amendment.
AGENCY:
D.
Blair Spitzberg, PhD., Chief, Fuel Cycle
and Decommissioning Branch, Division
of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Arlington, Texas 76011. Telephone:
(817) 860–8191; fax number: (817) 860–
8188; or by e-mail: dbs@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering the
issuance of an amendment to Material
License No. 53–00017–23. This license
is held by the University of Hawaii (the
Licensee), School of Medicine, located
at Queen’s Medical Center, University
Towers in Honolulu, Hawaii (the
Facility). Issuance of the amendment
would authorize release of the Facility’s
7th floor for unrestricted use. The
Licensee requested this action in a letter
dated January 19, 2006. The NRC has
prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA) in support of this proposed action
in accordance with the requirements of
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based
on the EA, the NRC has concluded that
a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) is appropriate with respect to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:58 Jan 16, 2007
Jkt 211001
the proposed action. The amendment
will be issued to the Licensee following
the publication of this FONSI and EA in
the Federal Register.
II. Environmental Assessment (EA)
Identification of Proposed Action: The
proposed action is to approve the
Licensee’s January 19, 2006, license
amendment request, resulting in release
of the Facility’s 7th floor, for
unrestricted use. License No. 53–00017–
23 was issued on July 29, 1991,
pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30, and has
been amended periodically since that
time. This license authorized the
Licensee to use byproduct material for
purposes of research and development,
calibration of instruments, instructional
purposes, and for use in portable
gauges.
The Facility is situated in three
laboratory rooms (717, 720, and 722) of
the University Towers. The Facility is
located in a commercial area of
Honolulu. Within the Facility, use of
licensed material was confined to these
three rooms.
During December 2002, the Licensee
ceased licensed activities. The Licensee
initiated a survey of the Facility during
June-July 2004. Based on the Licensee’s
historical knowledge of the site and the
conditions of the Facility, the Licensee
determined that only routine
decontamination activities, in
accordance with their NRC-approved,
operating radiation safety procedures,
were required. The Licensee was not
required to submit a decommissioning
plan to the NRC because worker cleanup
activities and procedures are consistent
with those approved for routine
operations. The Licensee conducted
surveys of the Facility and provided
information to the NRC to demonstrate
that it meets the criteria in Subpart E of
10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release.
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The Licensee has ceased conducting
licensed activities at this Facility and
seeks its unrestricted use.
Environmental Impacts of the
Proposed Action: The historical review
of licensed activities conducted at the
Facility shows that such activities
involved use of the following
radionuclides with half-lives greater
than 120 days: hydrogen-3 and carbon14. Prior to performing the final status
survey, the Licensee conducted
decontamination activities, as
necessary, in the areas of the Facility
affected by these radionuclides.
The Licensee conducted a final status
survey during June-July 2004. This
survey covered Rooms 717, 720, and
722 in the University Towers. The final
status survey report was attached to the
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2021
Licensee’s amendment request dated
January 19, 2006. The Licensee elected
to demonstrate compliance with the
radiological criteria for unrestricted
release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402
by using the screening approach
described in NUREG–1757,
‘‘Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning
Guidance,’’ Volume 2. The Licensee
used the radionuclide-specific derived
concentration guideline levels (DCGLs),
developed by the NRC, which comply
with the dose criterion in 10 CFR
20.1402. These DCGLs define the
maximum amount of residual
radioactivity on building surfaces,
equipment, and materials, and in soils,
that will satisfy the NRC requirements
in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for
unrestricted release. The Licensee’s
final status survey results were below
these DCGLs and are in compliance
with the As Low As Reasonably
Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10
CFR 20.1402. The NRC thus finds that
the Licensee’s final status survey results
are acceptable.
Based on its review, the staff has
determined that the affected
environment and any environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action are bounded by the impacts
evaluated by the ‘‘Generic
Environmental Impact Statement in
Support of Rulemaking on Radiological
Criteria for License Termination of NRCLicensed Nuclear Facilities’’ (NUREG–
1496) Volumes 1–3 (ML042310492,
ML042320379, and ML042330385). The
staff finds there were no significant
environmental impacts from the use of
radioactive material at the Facility. The
NRC staff reviewed the docket file
records and the final status survey
report to identify any non-radiological
hazards that may have impacted the
environment surrounding the Facility.
No such hazards or impacts to the
environment were identified. The NRC
has identified no other radiological or
non-radiological activities in the area
that could result in cumulative
environmental impacts.
The NRC staff finds that the proposed
release of the Facility for unrestricted
use and the termination of the NRC
materials license is in compliance with
10 CFR 20.1402. Although the Licensee
will continue to perform licensed
activities at other locations specified in
the license, the Licensee must ensure
that the Facility does not become
recontaminated. Before the license can
be terminated, the Licensee will be
required to show that all areas in which
licensed activities took place, including
previously-released areas, comply with
the radiological criteria in 10 CFR
20.1402. Based on its review, the staff
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2019-2021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-501]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[ Docket No. 50-425]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant, Unit 2; Exemption
1.0 Background
The Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC/licensee), is the
holder of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81, which
authorize operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1
and 2 (VEGP Unit 1 and VEGP Unit 2), respectively. The licenses
provide, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules,
regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the
Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of two pressurized-water reactors (PWRs)
supplied by Westinghouse Electric Corporation, each rated at 3565
megawatts (thermal). The facility is located in Burke County, Georgia.
This exemption addresses VEGP Unit 2.
2.0 Request/Action
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 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.
By letter dated May 22, 2006, the licensee requested a schedular
exemption from the 20-year restriction specified in 10 CFR 54.17(c) for
VEGP Unit 2 so that the license renewal application (LRA) for both
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant units can be prepared and submitted
concurrently, with the goal of attaining efficiencies for preparation
and review of the application. The current operating license for VEGP
Unit 1 expires on January 16, 2027, whereas the current operating
license for VEGP Unit 2 expires on February 9, 2029. At the time the
exemption request was filed, VEGP Unit 1 had over 19 years of operating
experience and VEGP Unit 2 had over 17 years of operating experience.
This exemption is required in order to allow an application for
renewal of the VEGP Unit 2 license to be prepared and submitted
concurrently with the LRA for VEGP Unit 1. Based on an anticipated
submittal of a renewal application on June 28, 2007, VEGP Unit 1 will
meet the requirements of 10 CFR 54.17(c) and the license renewal
request for VEGP Unit 2 would occur approximately 2 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, (1) when 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.
Authorized by Law
The Commission's basis for establishing the 20-year limit contained
in Section 54.17(c) is discussed in the 1991 Statements of
Consideration for Part 54 of 10 CFR (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 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 did indicate in the
Statements 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 expiration of the
current license. SNC's exemption request is consistent with the
Commission's intent to consider plant-specific requests and is
permitted by 10 CFR 54.15. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by
law.
[[Page 2020]]
The current operating licenses for VEGP Unit 1 and Unit 2, were
issued in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 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 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 terms of the renewal licenses for VEGP Unit 1 and Unit 2, are
limited both by law and the Commission's regulations to 40 years.
Additionally, 10 CFR 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 SNC's decision to apply early
for license renewal for VEGP Unit 2, SNC may not obtain the maximum 20-
year extended operation permitted by 10 CFR 54.31(b). Any actual
reduction will depend on the date the renewed licenses are issued. If a
reduction in the 20-year extension is required, and SNC desires further
extension of VEGP Units 2's operating licenses in the future, an
additional renewal application can be submitted in accordance with 10
CFR Part 54.
Therefore, should the Commission determine to renew the VEGP Unit 2
operating license, the term of the license will not exceed 40 years,
and granting of VEGP Unit 2's exemption request will not result in
violation of the AEA or the Commission's regulations.
No Undue Risk to Public Health and Safety
This exemption will not result in changes to the operation of the
plant. SNC's exemption request seeks only schedular relief regarding
the date of submittal, and not substantive relief from the requirements
of Parts 51 or Part 54. SNC must still conduct all environmental
reviews required by Part 51 and all safety reviews and evaluations
required by Part 54 when preparing the applications for VEGP Units 1
and 2. The NRC staff's review will verify that all applicable
Commission regulations have been met before issuing the renewed
licenses. Therefore, the NRC staff finds that granting this schedular
exemption will not represent an undue risk to public health and safety.
Consistent With the Common Defense and Security
As discussed previously, the exemption requested is only a
schedular exemption. The NRC staff will review the LRA SNC submits
pursuant to the requested exemption, to assure all applicable
requirements are fully met. This change has no relation to security
issues. Therefore, the common defense and security is not impacted by
this exemption.
Special Circumstances
An exemption will not be granted unless special circumstances are
present as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2). Specifically, Section
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 Section 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, VEGP Unit 1 is sufficiently similar to
Unit 2, such that the operating experience for VEGP Unit 1 is
applicable to VEGP Unit 2. In addition, VEGP Unit 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.
SNC stated that special effort was made during construction of VEGP
to keep the designs of the two units the same. Both units are PWRs
supplied by Westinghouse Electric Corporation with a design net core
output of 3565 megawatts (thermal). The containment for each of the
VEGP units is a steel-lined, prestressed, post-tensioned concrete
cylinder with a hemispherical dome. SNC states that the two units have
similar materials of construction of the systems, structures, and
components and are typically identical.
These statements are supported by a review of the VEGP Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR for Units 1 and 2). In particular,
Section 1.3 of the UFSAR describes the similarities in design between
VEGP Unit 1, VEGP Unit 2, and similar licensed reactor facilities.
Table 1-3-1 of the UFSAR lists significant similarities between
systems, structures and components installed at VEGP, including
elements of the reactor system, the reactor coolant system, the
engineered safety features, and auxiliary systems.
SNC also states that the Operating Experience Program ensures that
operating experience originating from all sources is appropriately
utilized at VEGP. Specifically, any operating experience originating
with VEGP Unit 1 is systematically applied to Unit 2. Moreover, SNC
states that since the two VEGP units are essentially the same in
design, operation, maintenance, materials and environments, there will
be little difference in the aging management analyses for the two
units.
Based on the above discussion, the NRC staff concludes that, with
respect to VEGP Unit 1 and VEGP Unit 2 containment design, structural
configuration, and management of structural-related aging effects, the
applicant has provided adequate justifications for the NRC
consideration of granting the VEGP Unit 2 request for exemption from
the requirements of 10 CFR 54.17(c).
Therefore, sufficient combined operating experience from VEGP Unit
1 and industry 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 SNC's
request meets the requirement, in Section 50.12(a)(2) of 10 CFR, 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. Also, special circumstances are present.
Therefore, the Commission hereby grants SNC an exemption from the
requirements of 10 CFR 54.17(c). Specifically, this schedular exemption
allows SNC to apply for a renewed license for VEGP Unit 2 earlier than
20 years before the expiration of the license currently in effect.
[[Page 2021]]
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 (71 FR 58014).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of January 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John W. Lubinski,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7-501 Filed 1-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P