Carolina Power & Light Company, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1; Exemption, 80547-80549 [2010-32145]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices
Authorized by Law
This exemption would allow the use
of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod
cladding material at SURRY. As stated
above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to
grant exemptions from the requirements
of 10 CFR Part 50. The NRC staff has
determined that granting of the
licensee’s proposed exemption will not
result in a violation of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the
Commission’s regulations. Therefore,
the exemption is authorized by law.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
No Undue Risk to Public Health and
Safety
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR
50.46 is to establish acceptance criteria
for adequate ECCS performance. By
letter dated June 10, 2005, the NRC staff
issued a safety evaluation (SE) 2
approving Addendum 1 to
Westinghouse Topical Report WCAP–
12610–P–A and CENPD–404–P–A,
‘‘Optimized ZIRLOTM (these topical
reports are non-publicly available
because they contain proprietary
information),’’ wherein the NRC staff
approved the use of Optimized
ZIRLOTM as a fuel cladding material.
The NRC staff approved the use of
Optimized ZIRLOTM as a fuel cladding
material based on: (1) Similarities with
standard ZIRLOTM, (2) demonstrated
material performance, and (3) a
commitment to provide irradiated data
and validate fuel performance models
ahead of burnups achieved in batch
application. The NRC staff’s safety
evaluation for Optimized ZIRLOTM
includes 10 conditions and limitations
for its use. As previously documented in
the NRC staff’s review of topical reports
submitted by Westinghouse Electric
Company, LLC (Westinghouse), and
subject to compliance with the specific
conditions of approval established
therein, the NRC staff finds that the
applicability of these ECCS acceptance
criteria to Optimized ZIRLOTM has been
demonstrated by Westinghouse. Ring
compression tests performed by
Westinghouse on Optimized ZIRLOTM
(NRC-reviewed, approved, and
documented in Appendix B of WCAP–
12610–P–A and CENPD–404–P–A,
Addendum 1–A, ‘‘Optimized ZIRLOTM’’)
demonstrate an acceptable retention of
post-quench ductility up to 10 CFR
50.46 limits of 2200 degrees Fahrenheit
and 17 percent equivalent clad reacted.
Furthermore, the NRC staff has
concluded that oxidation measurements
provided by the licensee illustrate that
oxide thickness (and associated
hydrogen pickup) for Optimized
2 ADAMS
Accession No. ML051670408.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:24 Dec 21, 2010
Jkt 223001
ZIRLOTM at any given burnup would be
less than both zircaloy-4 and ZIRLOTM.
Hence, the NRC staff concludes that
Optimized ZIRLOTM would be expected
to maintain better post-quench ductility
than ZIRLOTM. This finding is further
supported by an ongoing loss-of-coolant
accident (LOCA) research program at
Argonne National Laboratory, which has
identified a strong correlation between
cladding hydrogen content (due to inservice corrosion) and post-quench
ductility.
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix K, Section I.A.5,
‘‘Metal-Water Reaction Rate,’’ is to
ensure that cladding oxidation and
hydrogen generation are appropriately
limited during a LOCA and
conservatively accounted for in the
ECCS evaluation model. Appendix K
states that the rates of energy release,
hydrogen concentration, and cladding
oxidation from the metal-water reaction
shall be calculated using the Baker-Just
equation. Since the Baker-Just equation
presumes the use of zircaloy clad fuel,
strict application of the rule would not
permit use of the equation for
Optimized ZIRLOTM cladding for
determining acceptable fuel
performance. However, the NRC staff
has found that metal-water reaction tests
performed by Westinghouse on
Optimized ZIRLOTM demonstrate
conservative reaction rates relative to
the Baker-Just equation and are
bounding for those approved for
ZIRLOTM under anticipated operational
occurrences and postulated accidents.
Based on the above, no new accident
precursors are created by using
Optimized ZIRLOTM; thus, the
probability of postulated accidents is
not increased. Also, based on the above,
the consequences of postulated
accidents are not increased. Therefore,
there is no undue risk to public health
and safety due to using Optimized
ZIRLOTM.
Consistent With Common Defense and
Security
The proposed exemption would allow
the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod
cladding material at SURRY. This
change to the plant configuration has no
relation to security issues. Therefore,
the common defense and security is not
impacted by this exemption.
Special Circumstances
Special circumstances, in accordance
with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present
whenever application of the regulation
in the particular circumstances is not
necessary to achieve the underlying
purpose of the rule. The underlying
purpose of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
80547
K to 10 CFR Part 50 is to establish
acceptance criteria for ECCS
performance. The wording of the
regulations in 10 CFR 50.46 and
Appendix K is not directly applicable to
Optimized ZIRLOTM, even though the
evaluations above show that the intent
of the regulation is met. Therefore, since
the underlying purposes of 10 CFR
50.46 and Appendix K are achieved
through the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM
fuel rod cladding material, the special
circumstances required by 10 CFR
50.12(a)(2)(ii) for the granting of an
exemption from certain requirements of
10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K exist.
4.0 Conclusion
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 VEPCO
an exemption from certain requirements
of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K to 10
CFR Part 50, to allow the use of
Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding
material, for SURRY, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
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 as published in the
Federal Register on October 5, 2010 (75
FR 61528).
This exemption is effective upon
issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day
of December 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–32144 Filed 12–21–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–400; NRC–2010–0020]
Carolina Power & Light Company,
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,
Unit No. 1; Exemption
1.0 Background
Carolina Power & Light Company
(CP&L, the licensee) is the holder of
Renewed Facility Operating License No.
NPF–63, which authorizes operation of
the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant
(HNP), Unit 1. The license provides,
among other things, that the facility is
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
80548
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
subject to all rules, regulations, and
orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC, the Commission)
now or hereafter in effect. The facility
consists of one pressurized-water
reactor located in New Hill, North
Carolina.
2.0 Request/Action
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 73, ‘‘Physical
protection of plants and materials,’’
Section 73.55, ‘‘Requirements for
physical protection of licensed activities
in nuclear power reactors against
radiological sabotage,’’ published as a
final rule in the Federal Register on
March 27, 2009, effective May 26, 2009,
with a full implementation date of
March 31, 2010, requires licensees to
protect, with high assurance, against
radiological sabotage by designing and
implementing comprehensive site
security plans. The amendments to 10
CFR 73.55 published on March 27, 2009
(74 FR 13926), establish and update
generically applicable security
requirements similar to those previously
imposed by Commission orders issued
after the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001, and implemented by licensees.
In addition, the amendments to 10 CFR
73.55 include additional requirements
to further enhance site security based
upon insights gained from
implementation of the post-September
11, 2001, security orders.
By letter dated February 24, 2010
(Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS)
Accession No. ML093620908), the NRC
granted an exemption to the licensee for
three specific items subject to the new
rule in 10 CFR 73.55, allowing the
implementation of these items to be
extended until December 15, 2010. The
licensee has implemented all other
physical security requirements
established by this rulemaking prior to
March 31, 2010, the required
implementation date.
By letter dated September 20, 2010,
the licensee requested an exemption in
accordance with 10 CFR 73.5, ‘‘Specific
exemptions.’’ Specifically, the licensee
requested an extension of the
implementation date for one remaining
item from December 15, 2010, to
November 30, 2011. Portions of the
licensee’s September 20, 2010, letter
contain security-related information
and, accordingly, a redacted version of
this letter is available for public review
in the ADAMS No. ML102650191. The
licensee requested this exemption to
allow an additional extension from the
current implementation date granted in
the prior exemption to implement one
remaining item of the requirements that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:24 Dec 21, 2010
Jkt 223001
involves important physical
modifications to the HNP, Unit 1
security system. The licensee identified
several issues that have delayed the
work to this point and impacted the
projected schedule, such as the
existence of safety-related conduit and
dedicated safe shut down equipment of
HNP, Unit 1 within the area where
important security modifications are
planned. These issues were revealed as
the design evolved from the conceptual
state to a detailed design state and led
to a significant increase in the project’s
complexity and scope of tasks to be
performed. The licensee stated that
additional time, beyond that previously
approved, is needed due the extensive
redesign and review effort that was
unforeseen at the conceptual design
stage. Granting an exemption would
allow the licensee time to complete the
necessary security modifications to meet
the regulatory requirements.
3.0 Discussion of Part 73 Schedule
Exemption From the March 31, 2010,
Full Implementation Date
Pursuant 10 CFR 73.55(a)(1), ‘‘By
March 31, 2010, each nuclear power
reactor licensee, licensed under 10 CFR
Part 50, shall implement the
requirements of this section through its
Commission-approved Physical Security
Plan, Training and Qualification Plan,
Safeguards Contingency Plan, and Cyber
Security Plan referred to collectively
hereafter as ‘security plans.’’’ In
accordance with 10 CFR 73.5, the
Commission may, upon application by
any interested person or upon its own
initiative, grant exemptions from the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 73 when
the exemptions are authorized by law,
and will not endanger life or property or
the common defense and security, and
are otherwise in the public interest.
NRC approval of this exemption
would allow an additional extension
from the implementation date granted
under a previous exemption from
December 15, 2010, to November 30,
2011, for one remaining item of the
three requirements of the final rule. As
stated above, 10 CFR 73.5 allows the
NRC to grant exemptions from the
requirements of 10 CFR 73. The NRC
staff has determined that granting of the
licensee’s proposed exemption would
not result in a violation of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the
Commission’s regulations. Therefore,
the exemption is authorized by law.
In the draft final rule provided to the
Commission, the NRC staff proposed
that the requirements of the new
regulation be met within 180 days. The
Commission directed a change from 180
days to approximately 1 year for
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
licensees to fully implement the new
requirements. This change was
incorporated into the final rule.
As noted in the final rule, the
Commission anticipated that licensees
would have to conduct site-specific
analyses to determine what changes
were necessary to implement the rule’s
requirements, and that changes could be
accomplished through a variety of
licensing mechanisms, including
exemptions. Since issuance of the final
rule, the Commission has rejected a
request to generically extend the rule’s
compliance date for all operating
nuclear power plants, but noted that the
Commission’s regulations provide
mechanisms for individual licensees,
with good cause, to apply for relief from
the compliance date (Reference: June 4,
2009, letter from R.W. Borchardt, NRC,
to M.S. Fertel, Nuclear Energy Institute
(ADAMS Accession No.
ML091410309)). The licensee’s request
for an exemption is, therefore,
consistent with the approach set forth
by the Commission and discussed in the
June 4, 2009, letter.
Shearon Harris Schedule Exemption
Request
The licensee provided detailed
information in its letter dated
September 20, 2010, describing the
reason and justification for an
exemption to extend the
implementation date for the one
remaining requirement. Additionally,
the licensee has provided information
regarding the revised scope for projects
at HNP, Unit 1 and the impacts on the
licensee’s ability to meet the current
implementation date of December 15,
2010. The existence of safety-related
conduit and dedicated safe shut down
(SSD) equipment of HNP, Unit 1 within
the area where important security
modifications are planned have delayed
the work and impacted the projected
schedule. A direct outside access route
to the physical construction area has not
been available due to design basis
tornado and missile considerations for
the safety-related conduits and SSD
equipment. The licensee is now
pursuing a design solution that will
allow both temporary and ultimately
permanent direct outside access to the
area to ensure that the new plans will
meet all regulatory requirements. The
extensive redesign and review efforts
that were unforeseen at the conceptual
design stage need additional time
beyond that previously approved.
Portions of the September 20, 2010,
letter contain security-related
information regarding the site security
plan, details of specific portions of the
regulation from which the licensee
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
seeks exemption, justification for the
additional extension request, a
description of the required changes to
the physical security systems, and a
revised timeline with critical path
activities that would enable the licensee
to achieve full compliance by November
30, 2011. The timeline provides dates
indicating when (1) design activities
will be completed and approved, (2) the
exterior missile protection plate will be
modified for entry, and (3) the new and
relocated equipment will be installed
and tested.
The site-specific information
provided within the HNP exemption
request is relative to the requirements
from which the licensee requested
exemption and demonstrates the need
for modification to meet the one specific
remaining requirement of 10 CFR 73.55.
The proposed implementation schedule
depicts the critical activity milestones of
the security system upgrades; is
consistent with the licensee’s solution
for meeting the requirements; is
consistent with the scope of the
modifications and the issues and
challenges identified; and is consistent
with the licensee’s requested
compliance date.
Notwithstanding the proposed
schedule exemption for this one
remaining requirement, the licensee will
continue to be in compliance with all
other applicable physical security
requirement as described in 10 CFR
73.55 and reflected in its current NRCapproved physical security program. By
November 30, 2011, the HNP physical
security system will be in full
compliance with all of the regulatory
requirements of 10 CFR 73.55, as
published on March 27, 2009.
4.0 Conclusion for Part 73 Schedule
Exemption Request
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s submittals and concludes that
the licensee has provided adequate
justification for its request for an
extension of the previously authorized
implementation date from December 15,
2010, with regard to one remaining
requirement of 10 CFR 73.55, to
November 30, 2011. This conclusion is
based on the NRC staff’s determination
that the licensee has made a good faith
effort to meet the requirements in a
timely manner, has sufficiently
described the reason for the
unanticipated delays, and has provided
an updated detailed schedule with
adequate justification to the additional
time requested for the extension.
The long-term benefits that will be
realized when the security systems
upgrade is complete justify extending
the full compliance date with regard to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:24 Dec 21, 2010
Jkt 223001
the specific requirements of 10 CFR
73.55 for this particular licensee. The
security measures that HNP needs
additional time to implement are new
requirements imposed by amendments
to 10 CFR 73.55, as published on March
27, 2009, and are in addition to those
required by the security orders issued in
response to the events of September 11,
2001. Accordingly, an exemption from
the March 31, 2010, implementation
date is authorized by law and will not
endanger life or property or the common
defense and security, and the
Commission hereby grants the requested
exemption.
As per the licensee’s request and the
NRC’s regulatory authority to grant an
exemption to the March 31, 2010,
implementation date for the one item
specified in Attachment 1 of the CP&L
letter dated September 20, 2010, the
licensee is required to implement this
one remaining item and be in full
compliance with 10 CFR 73.55 by
November 30, 2011. In achieving
compliance, the licensee is reminded
that it is responsible for determining the
appropriate licensing mechanism (i.e.,
10 CFR 50.54(p) or 10 CFR 50.90) for
incorporation of all necessary changes
to its security plans.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.32,
‘‘Finding of no significant impact,’’ the
Commission has previously determined
that the granting of this exemption will
not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment (75
FR 77919 dated December 14, 2010).
This exemption is effective upon
issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day
of December 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–32145 Filed 12–21–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–346; NRC–2010–0378]
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
Station; Exemption
1.0 Background
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company (FENOC, the licensee) is the
holder of Facility Operating License No.
NFP–3, which authorizes operation of
the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
Unit 1 (DBNPS). The license provides,
among other things, that the facility is
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
80549
subject to all rules, regulations, and
orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC, the Commission)
now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of one
pressurized-water reactor located in
Ottawa County, Ohio.
2.0 Request/Action
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Appendix
G requires that fracture toughness
requirements for ferritic materials of
pressure-retaining components of the
reactor coolant pressure boundary of
light-water nuclear power reactors
provide adequate margins of safety
during any condition of normal
operation, including anticipated
operational occurrences and system
hydrostatic tests, to which the pressure
boundary may be subjected over its
service lifetime; and Section 50.61
provides fracture toughness
requirements for protection against
pressurized thermal shock (PTS) events.
By letter dated April 15, 2009,
(Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS)
Accession No. ML091130228), as
supplemented by letters dated
December 18, 2009, (ADAMS Accession
No. ML093570103) and October 8, 2010
(ADAMS Accession No. ML102861221),
FENOC proposed exemptions from the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix G and 10 CFR 50.61, to revise
certain DBNPS reactor pressure vessel
(RPV) initial (unirradiated) properties
using Framatome Advanced Nuclear
Power Topical Report (TR) BAW–2308,
Revisions 1A and 2A, ‘‘Initial RTNDT of
Linde 80 Weld Materials.’’
The licensee requested an exemption
from Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50 to
replace the required use of the existing
Charpy V-notch (Cv) and drop weightbased methodology and allow the use of
an alternate methodology to incorporate
the use of fracture toughness test data
for evaluating the integrity of the
DBNPS RPV circumferential beltline
welds based on the use of the 1997 and
2002 editions of American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard
Test Method E 1921, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Determination of Reference
Temperature T0, for Ferritic Steels in the
Transition Range,’’ and American
Society for Mechanical Engineering
(ASME), Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code (Code), Code Case N–629, ‘‘Use of
Fracture Toughness Test Data to
establish Reference Temperature for
Pressure Retaining materials of Section
III, Division 1, Class 1.’’ The exemption
is required since Appendix G to 10 CFR
Part 50, through reference to Appendix
G to Section XI of the ASME Code
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80547-80549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32145]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-400; NRC-2010-0020]
Carolina Power & Light Company, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
Plant, Unit No. 1; Exemption
1.0 Background
Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L, the licensee) is the holder
of Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63, which authorizes
operation of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP), Unit 1. The
license provides, among other things, that the facility is
[[Page 80548]]
subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of one pressurized-water reactor located in New
Hill, North Carolina.
2.0 Request/Action
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 73,
``Physical protection of plants and materials,'' Section 73.55,
``Requirements for physical protection of licensed activities in
nuclear power reactors against radiological sabotage,'' published as a
final rule in the Federal Register on March 27, 2009, effective May 26,
2009, with a full implementation date of March 31, 2010, requires
licensees to protect, with high assurance, against radiological
sabotage by designing and implementing comprehensive site security
plans. The amendments to 10 CFR 73.55 published on March 27, 2009 (74
FR 13926), establish and update generically applicable security
requirements similar to those previously imposed by Commission orders
issued after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and
implemented by licensees. In addition, the amendments to 10 CFR 73.55
include additional requirements to further enhance site security based
upon insights gained from implementation of the post-September 11,
2001, security orders.
By letter dated February 24, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML093620908), the NRC granted
an exemption to the licensee for three specific items subject to the
new rule in 10 CFR 73.55, allowing the implementation of these items to
be extended until December 15, 2010. The licensee has implemented all
other physical security requirements established by this rulemaking
prior to March 31, 2010, the required implementation date.
By letter dated September 20, 2010, the licensee requested an
exemption in accordance with 10 CFR 73.5, ``Specific exemptions.''
Specifically, the licensee requested an extension of the implementation
date for one remaining item from December 15, 2010, to November 30,
2011. Portions of the licensee's September 20, 2010, letter contain
security-related information and, accordingly, a redacted version of
this letter is available for public review in the ADAMS No.
ML102650191. The licensee requested this exemption to allow an
additional extension from the current implementation date granted in
the prior exemption to implement one remaining item of the requirements
that involves important physical modifications to the HNP, Unit 1
security system. The licensee identified several issues that have
delayed the work to this point and impacted the projected schedule,
such as the existence of safety-related conduit and dedicated safe shut
down equipment of HNP, Unit 1 within the area where important security
modifications are planned. These issues were revealed as the design
evolved from the conceptual state to a detailed design state and led to
a significant increase in the project's complexity and scope of tasks
to be performed. The licensee stated that additional time, beyond that
previously approved, is needed due the extensive redesign and review
effort that was unforeseen at the conceptual design stage. Granting an
exemption would allow the licensee time to complete the necessary
security modifications to meet the regulatory requirements.
3.0 Discussion of Part 73 Schedule Exemption From the March 31, 2010,
Full Implementation Date
Pursuant 10 CFR 73.55(a)(1), ``By March 31, 2010, each nuclear
power reactor licensee, licensed under 10 CFR Part 50, shall implement
the requirements of this section through its Commission-approved
Physical Security Plan, Training and Qualification Plan, Safeguards
Contingency Plan, and Cyber Security Plan referred to collectively
hereafter as `security plans.''' In accordance with 10 CFR 73.5, the
Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its
own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part
73 when the exemptions are authorized by law, and will not endanger
life or property or the common defense and security, and are otherwise
in the public interest.
NRC approval of this exemption would allow an additional extension
from the implementation date granted under a previous exemption from
December 15, 2010, to November 30, 2011, for one remaining item of the
three requirements of the final rule. As stated above, 10 CFR 73.5
allows the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR 73.
The NRC staff has determined that granting of the licensee's proposed
exemption would not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the
exemption is authorized by law.
In the draft final rule provided to the Commission, the NRC staff
proposed that the requirements of the new regulation be met within 180
days. The Commission directed a change from 180 days to approximately 1
year for licensees to fully implement the new requirements. This change
was incorporated into the final rule.
As noted in the final rule, the Commission anticipated that
licensees would have to conduct site-specific analyses to determine
what changes were necessary to implement the rule's requirements, and
that changes could be accomplished through a variety of licensing
mechanisms, including exemptions. Since issuance of the final rule, the
Commission has rejected a request to generically extend the rule's
compliance date for all operating nuclear power plants, but noted that
the Commission's regulations provide mechanisms for individual
licensees, with good cause, to apply for relief from the compliance
date (Reference: June 4, 2009, letter from R.W. Borchardt, NRC, to M.S.
Fertel, Nuclear Energy Institute (ADAMS Accession No. ML091410309)).
The licensee's request for an exemption is, therefore, consistent with
the approach set forth by the Commission and discussed in the June 4,
2009, letter.
Shearon Harris Schedule Exemption Request
The licensee provided detailed information in its letter dated
September 20, 2010, describing the reason and justification for an
exemption to extend the implementation date for the one remaining
requirement. Additionally, the licensee has provided information
regarding the revised scope for projects at HNP, Unit 1 and the impacts
on the licensee's ability to meet the current implementation date of
December 15, 2010. The existence of safety-related conduit and
dedicated safe shut down (SSD) equipment of HNP, Unit 1 within the area
where important security modifications are planned have delayed the
work and impacted the projected schedule. A direct outside access route
to the physical construction area has not been available due to design
basis tornado and missile considerations for the safety-related
conduits and SSD equipment. The licensee is now pursuing a design
solution that will allow both temporary and ultimately permanent direct
outside access to the area to ensure that the new plans will meet all
regulatory requirements. The extensive redesign and review efforts that
were unforeseen at the conceptual design stage need additional time
beyond that previously approved. Portions of the September 20, 2010,
letter contain security-related information regarding the site security
plan, details of specific portions of the regulation from which the
licensee
[[Page 80549]]
seeks exemption, justification for the additional extension request, a
description of the required changes to the physical security systems,
and a revised timeline with critical path activities that would enable
the licensee to achieve full compliance by November 30, 2011. The
timeline provides dates indicating when (1) design activities will be
completed and approved, (2) the exterior missile protection plate will
be modified for entry, and (3) the new and relocated equipment will be
installed and tested.
The site-specific information provided within the HNP exemption
request is relative to the requirements from which the licensee
requested exemption and demonstrates the need for modification to meet
the one specific remaining requirement of 10 CFR 73.55. The proposed
implementation schedule depicts the critical activity milestones of the
security system upgrades; is consistent with the licensee's solution
for meeting the requirements; is consistent with the scope of the
modifications and the issues and challenges identified; and is
consistent with the licensee's requested compliance date.
Notwithstanding the proposed schedule exemption for this one
remaining requirement, the licensee will continue to be in compliance
with all other applicable physical security requirement as described in
10 CFR 73.55 and reflected in its current NRC-approved physical
security program. By November 30, 2011, the HNP physical security
system will be in full compliance with all of the regulatory
requirements of 10 CFR 73.55, as published on March 27, 2009.
4.0 Conclusion for Part 73 Schedule Exemption Request
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's submittals and concludes
that the licensee has provided adequate justification for its request
for an extension of the previously authorized implementation date from
December 15, 2010, with regard to one remaining requirement of 10 CFR
73.55, to November 30, 2011. This conclusion is based on the NRC
staff's determination that the licensee has made a good faith effort to
meet the requirements in a timely manner, has sufficiently described
the reason for the unanticipated delays, and has provided an updated
detailed schedule with adequate justification to the additional time
requested for the extension.
The long-term benefits that will be realized when the security
systems upgrade is complete justify extending the full compliance date
with regard to the specific requirements of 10 CFR 73.55 for this
particular licensee. The security measures that HNP needs additional
time to implement are new requirements imposed by amendments to 10 CFR
73.55, as published on March 27, 2009, and are in addition to those
required by the security orders issued in response to the events of
September 11, 2001. Accordingly, an exemption from the March 31, 2010,
implementation date is authorized by law and will not endanger life or
property or the common defense and security, and the Commission hereby
grants the requested exemption.
As per the licensee's request and the NRC's regulatory authority to
grant an exemption to the March 31, 2010, implementation date for the
one item specified in Attachment 1 of the CP&L letter dated September
20, 2010, the licensee is required to implement this one remaining item
and be in full compliance with 10 CFR 73.55 by November 30, 2011. In
achieving compliance, the licensee is reminded that it is responsible
for determining the appropriate licensing mechanism (i.e., 10 CFR
50.54(p) or 10 CFR 50.90) for incorporation of all necessary changes to
its security plans.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.32, ``Finding of no significant
impact,'' the Commission has previously determined that the granting of
this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the
human environment (75 FR 77919 dated December 14, 2010).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of December 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-32145 Filed 12-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
