Florida Power and Light Company; St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2, 40086-40088 [2021-15823]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 140 (Monday, July 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40086-40088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15823]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-389; NRC-2021-0138]


Florida Power and Light Company; St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Exemption; issuance.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, or the 
Commission) has issued an exemption in response to a March 17, 2021, 
request from Florida Power and Light (FPL or the licensee). The 
approval permits a one-time schedular exemption to allow submittal of a 
license renewal application for the St. Lucie, Unit No. 2 facility 
earlier than 20 years before the expiration of the operating license, 
which expires on April 6, 2043.

DATES: The exemption was issued on July 20, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0138 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-2021-0138. Address 
questions about Docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Stacy Schumann; 
telephone: 301-415-0624; 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 access publicly available documents online in the 
ADAMS public document 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 that document is available in ADAMS) is 
provided the first time that a document is referenced.
     Attention: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies 
of public documents, is currently closed. You may submit your request 
to the PDR via email at [email protected] or call 1-800-397-4209 or 
301-415-4737, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (ET), Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Mahoney, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3867; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the exemption is attached.

    Dated: July 20, 2021.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael Mahoney,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 2-2, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

Attachment--Exemption.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Docket No. 50-389

Florida Power & Light Company, St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2, Exemption

I. Background

    Florida Power & Light Company (FPL, the licensee) is the holder of 
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-16, which authorizes 
operation of the St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 (St. Lucie 2), a pressurized 
water reactor. St. Lucie

[[Page 40087]]

Plant, Unit 1, is collocated with St. Lucie 2 in Jensen Beach, Florida; 
however, this exemption is applicable only to St. Lucie 2. The license 
provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all 
rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC, or the Commission) now or hereafter in effect. The 
current renewed facility operating license for St. Lucie 2 expires on 
April 6, 2043.

II. Request/Action

    Part 54 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 
``Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power 
Plants,'' contains the requirements for the renewal of operating 
licenses for nuclear power plants. Section 54.17(c) of 10 CFR states 
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.
    The licensee has informed the NRC that it plans to submit the St. 
Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 subsequent license renewal application 
(SLRA) earlier than 20 years before expiration of the renewed facility 
operating license for St. Lucie 2. Based on the requirement in 10 CFR 
54.17(c), a subsequent license renewal (SLR) application for St. Lucie 
2 cannot be filed prior to April 6, 2023 without an exemption. As a 
result, by letter dated March 17, 2021 (Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML21076A315), pursuant to 10 
CFR 54.15 and 10 CFR 50.12, FPL requested a one-time exemption from the 
10 CFR 54.17(c) schedular requirement.

III. Discussion

    Under 10 CFR 54.15, exemptions from the requirements of part 54 are 
governed by regulations at 10 CFR 50.12. 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 the 
regulations of this part, which 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. However, an exemption will not be 
granted unless special circumstances are present as defined in 10 CFR 
50.12(a)(2). In its application, FPL states that special circumstances, 
as described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) apply to its request, which 
states that special circumstances are present 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.''

A. The Exemption Is Authorized by Law

    The Commission's basis for establishing the 20-year limit contained 
in 10 CFR 54.17(c) is discussed in the 1991 Statements of Consideration 
for 10 CFR part 54 (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 indicated that it would consider plant-specific 
exemption requests by applicants who believe that sufficient 
information is available to justify applying for license renewal 
earlier than 20 years from expiration of the current license. The NRC 
staff has determined that granting 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.

B. The Exemption Presents No Undue Risk to Public Health and Safety

    FPL is seeking an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 
54.17(c) for schedular relief, which would only relieve FPL of the 
schedular requirement to wait until April 6, 2023 to submit an SLRA for 
St. Lucie Unit 2. The action does not change the manner in which the 
plant operates and would maintain public health and safety, because no 
additional changes are made as a result of the action. FPL must still 
conduct all environmental reviews required by 10 CFR part 51 and all 
safety reviews and evaluations required by 10 CFR part 54 when 
preparing the SLRA for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2.
    Pending final action on the SLR application, the NRC will continue 
to conduct all regulatory activities associated with licensing, 
inspection, and oversight, and will take whatever action may be 
necessary to ensure adequate protection of the public health and 
safety. This exemption does not affect NRC's authority, applicable to 
all licenses, to modify, suspend, or revoke a license for cause, such 
as the identification of a serious safety concern. Therefore, the NRC 
finds that the action does not cause undue risk to public health and 
safety.

C. The Exemption is Consistent With the Common Defense and Security

    As discussed previously, the proposed exemption would only allow a 
schedular exemption. This exemption does not change any site security 
features, procedures, staffing, or other security-related matters. 
Therefore, the NRC finds that the action is consistent with common 
defense and security.

D. Special Circumstances

    The regulation at 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) lists special circumstances 
for which an exemption may be granted. Pursuant to the regulation, it 
is necessary for one of these special circumstances to be present in 
order for the NRC to consider granting an exemption request. As noted 
above, FPL stated that the special circumstance that applies to this 
exemption request is found in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), which states, 
``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.''
    In initially promulgating 10 CFR 54.17(c) in 1991, the Commission 
stated that the purpose of the 20-year time limit was ``to ensure that 
substantial operating experience is accumulated by a licensee before it 
submits a renewal application,'' such that any plant-specific concerns 
regarding aging would be disclosed (56 FR 64963). At that time, the 
Commission found that 20 years of operating experience provided a 
sufficient basis for license 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). FPL's exemption request is consistent with the 
Commission's intent to consider plant-specific requests and is 
permitted by 10 CFR 54.15.
    The licensee stated that St. Lucie 2 is the sister unit to St. 
Lucie 1. The two units currently have a combined operating history of 
over 80 reactor-years, with Unit 1 having over 45 years and Unit 2 
having over 37 years of operating experience. St. Lucie 1 operating 
experience is directly applicable to St. Lucie 2 since the two units 
are similar in design, operation, maintenance, use of operating 
experience, and environment.
    According to the licensee, the materials of construction for St. 
Lucie 2 structures, systems, and components are typically identical or 
similar to those used for the corresponding St. Lucie 1 structures, 
systems, and components. The licensee specified that, because of the 
similarities between St. Lucie 1 and

[[Page 40088]]

2, personnel of the various plant organizations (e.g., Maintenance and 
Engineering) are typically assigned work activities on both units. 
Licensed operators at St. Lucie receive training on both units.
    St. Lucie Unit 2 is physically located adjacent to Unit 1. As such, 
the external environments would be similar for both units. Internal 
environments for both units are also similar due to the similarity in 
plant design and operation.
    The licensee stated that an administrative procedure is used by its 
entire nuclear fleet for the review and dissemination of operating 
experience obtained from both external and internal sources. This 
procedure requires screening of information for potential St. Lucie 
applicability; the information is received from such sources as the NRC 
(e.g., NRC Information Notices), industry resources, vendor reports/
notices, and in-house operating experience. If an item is potentially 
applicable to St. Lucie, then the information item is addressed in the 
plant's Corrective Action Program.
    Given the similarities between units, the NRC staff finds that the 
operating experience at Unit 1 is applicable to Unit 2 for purposes of 
the license renewal review. At the time of the exemption request, Unit 
1 had achieved over 45 years of operating experience, which is 
applicable to Unit 2, and that Unit 2, itself, has over 37 years of 
operating experience. The NRC staff has determined that sufficient 
combined operating experience 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. Therefore, the 
NRC staff finds that FPL's request meets the special circumstance 
requirement in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii).

E. Environmental Considerations

    The NRC's approval of an exemption to scheduling requirements 
belongs to a category of actions that the NRC, by rule or regulation, 
has declared to be a categorical exclusion to environmental analysis, 
after first finding that the category of actions does not individually 
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. 
Specifically, the exemption is categorically excluded from further 
analysis under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(G).
    Under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), the granting of exemption from the 
requirements of any regulation of chapter 10 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 if sought involve certain 
categories of requirements, including scheduling requirements. The 
basis for NRC's determination is provided in the following evaluation 
of the requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i)-(vi).
Requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i)
    To qualify for a categorical exclusion under 10 CFR 
51.22(c)(25)(i), the exemption must involve a no significant hazards 
consideration. The criteria for making a no significant hazards 
consideration determination are found in 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff 
has determined that granting the exemption request involves no 
significant hazards consideration because allowing a one-time exemption 
from the 10 CFR 54.17(c) schedular requirement does 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. Therefore, 
the requirements of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i) are met.
Requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(ii) and (iii)
    The exemption constitutes a change to a schedular requirement which 
is administrative in nature, and does not involve any change in the 
types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may 
be released offsite and does not contribute to any significant increase 
in individual or cumulative occupational or public radiation exposure. 
Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(ii) and (iii) are 
met.
Requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(iv)
    The exempted regulation is not associated with construction, and 
the exemption does not propose any changes to the facility or the site, 
does not alter the site, and does not change the operation of the site. 
Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(iv) are met because 
there is no significant construction impact.
Requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(v)
    The exemption constitutes a change to a schedular requirement which 
is administrative in nature and does not impact the probability or 
consequences of accidents. Thus, there is no significant increase in 
the potential for, or consequences from, a radiological accident. 
Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(v) are met.
Requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)
    To qualify for a categorical exclusion under 10 CFR 
51.22(c)(25)(vi)(G), the exemption must involve scheduling 
requirements. The requested exemption involves an exemption from 
scheduling requirements because it would allow FPL to submit an SLRA 
for St. Lucie Unit 2 earlier than 20 years before the expiration of its 
current license. Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi) 
are met.
    Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed 
exemption meets the eligibility criteria for a categorical exclusion 
set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 
51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment 
need be prepared in connection with the approval of this exemption 
request.

IV. Conclusions

    The NRC has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 54.15 and 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, as defined in 10 CFR 
50.12(a)(2), are present. Therefore, the NRC hereby grants the licensee 
a one-time exemption for St Lucie 2, from the requirements of 10 CFR 
54.17(c), to allow the submittal of a subsequent license renewal 
application earlier than 20 years before the expiration of the St. 
Lucie 2 license that is currently in effect.
    This exemption is effective upon issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of July, 2021.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    /RA/

    Bo M. Pham, Director,

    Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 2021-15823 Filed 7-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P