Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Exemptions, 54948-54951 [2018-23840]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 212 (Thursday, November 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54948-54951]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23840]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026; NRC-2008-0252]


Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric 
Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Exemptions

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Exemption; issuance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an 
exemption in response to a June 27, 2018, request from Southern Nuclear 
Operating Company, Inc., as applicable to Vogtle Electric Generating 
Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4. Specifically, SNC requested an exemption 
that would modify the requirement for the level 1 and level 2 PRA for 
VEGP Units 3 and 4 to cover those initiating events and modes for which 
Regulatory Guide 1.200, Revision 2, endorses standards.

DATES: The exemption was issued on October 26, 2018.

[[Page 54949]]


ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 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-2008-0252. Address 
questions about Regulations.gov Docket IDs to Jennifer Borges, 
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: [email protected]. For technical 
questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this document.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS 
Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 
by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each 
document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first 
time that it is mentioned in this document. The request for the 
amendment and exemption was submitted by letter dated April 20, 2018, 
and available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18110A113.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chandu Patel, Office of New Reactors, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; 
telephone: 301-415-3025; email: [email protected].

I. Background

    Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., and Georgia Power 
Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC, MEAG Power 
SPVJ, LLC, MEAG Power SPVP, LLC, and the City of Dalton, Georgia 
(collectively SNC) are the holder of facility Combined License (COL) 
Nos. NFP-91 and NPF-92, which authorize the construction and operation 
of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4. The COLs, 
issued under part 52 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 
CFR), provide, among other things, that the facilities are subject to 
all rules, regulations, and orders of the NRC or the Commission now or 
hereafter in effect. The facilities consist of two AP1000 pressurized-
water reactors located in Burke County, Georgia.
    Section 10 CFR 50.71(h)(1) requires each holder of a COL, no later 
than the scheduled date for initial loading of fuel, to develop a level 
1 and a level 2 probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) that covers those 
initiating events and modes for which NRC-endorsed consensus standards 
on PRA exist one year prior to the scheduled date for initial loading 
of fuel. Based on the anticipated timing of the VEGP Unit 3 fuel load, 
the PRA development for VEGP Units 3 and 4 is proceeding in accordance 
with the current PRA consensus standards in Regulatory Guide (RG) 
1.200, ``An Approach for Determining the Technical Adequacy of 
Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities,'' 
Revision 2. However, the next revision to RG 1.200 may take place more 
than one year prior to fuel load at VEGP Unit 3 and/or VEGP Unit 4; 
therefore, it is possible that the PRA for VEGP Unit 3 and/or VEGP Unit 
4 could be required to cover new initiating events and modes. Based on 
a review of the scope of work for SNC's PRA development, a requirement 
that SNC meet new PRA standards established one year or more prior to 
the scheduled fuel load date could delay fuel load until the PRA was 
completed. It is, therefore, not practicable for SNC to shift PRA 
development from Rev. 2 of RG 1.200 to newly endorsed standards as 
required by 10 CFR 50.71(h)(1).

II. Request/Action

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, ``Specific exemptions,'' SNC requested, 
by letter dated June 27, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18178A533), an 
exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(h)(1), as applicable to 
VEGP Units 3 and 4. Specifically, SNC requested an exemption that would 
modify the requirement for the level 1 and level 2 PRA for VEGP Units 3 
and 4 to cover those initiating events and modes for which RG 1.200, 
Rev. 2, endorses standards. Thus, under the requested exemption, SNC 
would be required to meet the PRA standards in RG 1.200, Rev. 2, for 
initial fuel loading at VEGP Units 3 and 4, even if the NRC endorses 
new standards on PRA one year or more prior to the scheduled fuel load 
date at VEGP Unit 3 or Unit 4. The requested exemption from 10 CFR 
50.71(h)(1) applies to the development of the VEGP Units 3 and 4 level 
1 and level 2 PRA, but SNC still must follow the PRA upgrade 
requirements in 10 CFR 50.71(h)(2). Therefore, the effect of the 
requested exemption would be temporary, as the upgraded PRA must cover 
initiating events and modes of operation contained in NRC-endorsed 
consensus standards on PRA in effect one year prior to each required 
upgrade under 10 CFR 50.71(h)(2).

III. Discussion

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by 
any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from 
the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) the exemptions are 
authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health and 
safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and 
(2) when special circumstances are present. These special circumstances 
include, among other things, when 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.

 The Exemption Is Authorized by Law

    This exemption would allow SNC to modify the requirement for the 
level 1 and level 2 PRA developed prior to initial fuel loading for 
VEGP Units 3 and 4 to cover those initiating events and modes for which 
RG 1.200, Rev. 2, endorses standards. 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 SNC'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.

 The Exemption Presents No Undue Risk to Public Health and 
Safety

    The proposed exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(h)(1) 
would allow SNC to develop the level 1 and level 2 PRA to cover those 
initiating events and modes for which RG 1.200, Rev. 2, endorses 
standards. The change is needed to allow SNC sufficient time to fulfill 
the requirement.
    Making the changes proposed in the exemption request would not 
adversely affect SNC's ability to satisfy other PRA requirements in the 
regulations or COLs. Using the standards currently endorsed by RG 
1.200, Rev. 2, instead of potential newly endorsed standards, will 
continue to provide adequate protection of public health and safety. 
Risk insights from the design certification have already been 
incorporated into the design. Additionally, the proposed exemption does 
not introduce any new industrial, chemical, or radiological hazards 
that would present a public

[[Page 54950]]

health or safety risk, nor does it modify or remove any design or 
operational controls or safeguards intended to mitigate any existing 
on-site hazards. The proposed exemption does not allow for a new 
fission product release path, result in a new fission product barrier 
failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that would result in 
fuel cladding failures. Accordingly, the exemption does not present an 
undue risk to the public health and safety.

 The Exemption Is Consistent With the Common Defense and 
Security

    The exemption would allow SNC to develop the level 1 and level 2 
PRA prior to initial fuel loading for VEGP Units 3 and 4 to cover those 
initiating events and modes for which RG 1.200, Rev. 2, endorses 
standards. The change does not alter or impede the design, function, or 
operation of any plant structures, systems, or components associated 
with the facility's physical or cyber security and, therefore, does not 
affect any plant equipment that is necessary to maintain a safe and 
secure plant status. In addition, the changes have no impact on plant 
security or safeguards. Therefore, the staff has determined that this 
exemption does not adversely impact common defense and security.

 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 would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is 
not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. The 
underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(h) is to require COL holders to 
maintain and upgrade a PRA to meet endorsed standards over the lifetime 
of the facility. Under the proposed exemption SNC would be required to 
use the endorsed standards in RG 1.200, Rev. 2, which would provide 
sufficient time for SNC to develop the level 1 and level 2 PRA required 
by 10 CFR 50.71(h)(1). Subsequently, 10 CFR 50.71(h)(2) and 10 CFR 
50.71(h)(3) will continue to require SNC to maintain and upgrade the 
VEGP Units 3 and 4 PRA to meet future endorsed standards over the 
lifetime of the facilities.
    Moreover, the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(h)(1) is to ensure 
that before beginning to operate, SNC has developed a PRA that 
accurately models the plant as it has been built and as it will be 
operated. The requested exemption from 10 CFR 50.71(h)(1) serves only 
to remove a degree of uncertainty as to which consensus standards will 
apply to the PRA model for VEGP Units 3 and 4. A plant-specific PRA 
that meets the standards endorsed by RG 1.200, Rev. 2, has been and 
will remain adequate until it is upgraded in accordance with 10 CFR 
50.71(h)(2). Therefore, the underlying purposes of 10 CFR 50.71(h)(1) 
would be achieved by requiring the level 1 and level 2 PRA to meet 
currently endorsed standards. For the reasons discussed above, applying 
the provisions of 10 CFR 50.71(h)(1) addressed by the exemption request 
is not necessary to meet the underlying purpose of the rule. Therefore, 
the special circumstances required by 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) for the 
granting of an exemption from 10 CFR 50.71(h)(1) exist.
    Additionally, special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 
50.12(a)(2)(iii), are present whenever 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. The time 
required to update the PRA model to the new standards (which may 
include new initiating events and modes), peer review the model, 
resolve facts and observations from the peer review, and perform the 
plant walkdown is likely to take longer than one year, which could 
delay fuel load until the PRA was completed. In that case, compliance 
with 10 CFR 50.71(h)(1) would result in undue hardship or other costs 
that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the 
regulation was adopted with no significant benefit to safety; 
therefore, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR 
50.12(a)(2)(iii) for the granting of an exemption from 10 CFR 
50.71(h)(1) exist.

 Environmental Considerations

    The NRC staff determined that the exemption discussed herein meets 
the eligibility criteria for the categorical exclusion set forth in 10 
CFR 51.22(c)(25) because the request seeks to change the timing of 
standards required by 10 CFR 50.71(h)(1) but does not make changes to 
the facility or operating procedures. Under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), 
granting of an exemption from the requirements of any regulation of 
chapter I to 10 CFR is a categorical exclusion provided that (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 involve certain categories of requirements, such as 
reporting requirements related to the timing of using NRC-endorsed 
consensus standards on PRA, which detail the initiating events and 
modes that must be covered in the PRA.
    As required by 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i), and using the criteria set 
out in 10 CFR 50.92(c), the NRC staff reviewed whether the exemption 
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    (1) Does the requested exemption involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    No. The proposed exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 
50.71(h)(1) would allow SNC to develop the level 1 and level 2 PRA to 
cover those initiating events and modes for which RG 1.200, Rev. 2, 
endorses standards. The requested exemption does not alter the design, 
function, or operation of any plant equipment. Therefore, granting this 
exemption would not involve a significant increase in the probability 
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    (2) Does the requested exemption create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    No. The requested exemption does not alter the design, function, or 
operation of any plant equipment. The requested exemption does not 
create any new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 
initiators. Therefore, granting this exemption does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    (3) Does the requested exemption involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety?
    No. A PRA is an analysis to determine the relative risk 
(probability) of an undesirable outcome, specifically, core damage 
frequency and large early release frequency.
    While the PRA uses the design attributes of structures, systems, 
and components (SSCs), the PRA does not affect SSCs. As a result, a 
change to the PRA description or PRA results does not affect an SSC, 
SSC design function, or method of performing or controlling a design 
function. While the PRA uses the design attributes of SSCs, the PRA is 
not used to establish the design bases of an SSC nor is it used in the 
safety analyses. Furthermore, the requested exemption

[[Page 54951]]

does not exceed or alter a design basis or safety limit. Therefore, 
granting this exemption does not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.
    As all of the responses to the above questions are in the negative, 
under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i), the NRC staff has concluded that the 
requested exemption involves no significant hazards consideration.
    The requested exemption does not alter the design, function, or 
operation of any plant equipment. There are no changes to effluent 
types, plant radiological or non-radiological effluent release 
quantities, any effluent release path, or the functionality of any 
design or operational features credited with controlling the release of 
effluents during plant operation or construction. Therefore, under 10 
CFR 51.22(c)(25)(ii), the NRC staff concludes that the proposed 
exemption does not involve a significant change in the types or 
significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be 
released offsite.
    There are no changes to plant radiation zones and no changes to 
controls required under 10 CFR part 20, which preclude a significant 
increase in occupational radiation exposure. Therefore, under 10 CFR 
51.22(c)(iii), the NRC staff concludes that the proposed exemption does 
not involve a significant increase in individual or cumulative public 
or occupational radiation exposure.
    The requested exemption does not alter the design, function, or 
operation of any plant equipment. No change to the facility is being 
made as a result of this exemption. Therefore, under 10 CFR 
51.22(c)(iv), the NRC staff concludes that the proposed exemption does 
not involve a significant construction impact.
    The requested exemption does not alter the design, function, or 
operation of any plant equipment. There are no changes to plant 
radiation zones and no changes to controls required under 10 CFR part 
20, which preclude a significant increase in occupational radiation 
exposure.
    Therefore, under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(v), the NRC staff concludes that 
the proposed exemption does not involve a significant increase in the 
potential for or consequences from radiological accidents.
    The requested exemption involves reporting requirements related to 
the timing of using NRC-endorsed consensus standards on PRA which 
detail the initiating events and modes that must be covered in the PRA. 
Therefore, under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(vi)(B), the NRC staff concludes that 
the proposed exemption involves a reporting requirement.
    Based on the evaluation above, the NRC staff concludes that the 
exemption meets the criteria of 10 CFR 51.22(c). Therefore, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(b), an environmental impact statement or 
environmental assessment is not required for the NRC staff's 
consideration of this exemption request.

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 SNC an exemption from 10 CFR 
50.71(h)(1) to modify the requirement for the level 1 and level 2 PRA 
for VEGP Units 3 and 4 to cover those initiating events and modes for 
which RG 1.200, Rev. 2, endorses standards.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of October 2018.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael D. McCoppin,
Deputy Director (Acting), Division of Licensing, Siting, and 
Environmental Analysis, Office of New Reactors.
[FR Doc. 2018-23840 Filed 10-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P