[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 195 (Friday, October 8, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54924-54925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26301]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-413, 50-414 and 50-370]
Duke Energy Corporation et al. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1
and 2) (McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2); Exemption
I
Duke Energy Corporation et al. (the licensee, Duke) is the holder
of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52, for the Catawba
Nuclear Station (CNS), Units 1 and 2, and NPF-9 and NPF-17, for the
McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS), Units 1 and 2. The licenses provide,
among other things, that the licensee is subject to all rules,
regulations, and orders of the Commission now or hereafter in effect.
Each of these facilities consists of two pressurized water reactor
units located at the licensee's Catawba site in York County, South
Carolina, and McGuire site in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
II
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 54,
addresses the various requirements for renewal of operating licenses
for nuclear power plants. Section 54.17(c) of Part 54 specifies:
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.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.15, the Commission may grant an exemption from
the requirements of 10 CFR Part 54 in accordance with the provisions of
10 CFR 50.12, which in turn specifies that 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. The Commission
will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances
are present. Special circumstances are considered to be present under
Section 50.12(a)(2)(ii) where application of the regulation would not
serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve
the underlying purpose of the rule.
III
By letter dated June 22, 1999, the licensee requested an exemption
from 10 CFR 54.17(c) for McGuire, Unit 2, and Catawba, Units 1 and 2.
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, McGuire, Unit 2, and both
Catawba units are sufficiently similar to McGuire, Unit 1, such that
the operating experience for McGuire, Unit 1, should apply to the other
three units. In addition, the other three units have accumulated
significant operating experience. Accordingly, under the requested
exemption, sufficient operating experience will have been accumulated
to identify any plant-specific aging concerns for all four units.
McGuire and Catawba are two-unit stations comprised of four-loop
Westinghouse pressurized water reactors with ice-condenser containments
and a rated power of 3411 megawatts. The licensee states that it will
use the combined experience it has gained by operation of the McGuire
and Catawba units to perform the evaluations required to support the
license renewal applications. The licensee also states that the two
McGuire units and the two Catawba units are similar in design,
operation, and maintenance. This statement is supported by a review of
the McGuire and Catawba Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports (UFSARs).
In particular, Section 1.3 of the Catawba UFSAR describes the
similarities in design between McGuire and Catawba. Table 1-2 of the
Catawba UFSAR lists significant similarities between systems,
structures, and components installed at Catawba and McGuire, including
elements of the reactor system, the reactor coolant system, the
engineered safety features, and the auxiliary systems. Additionally,
Duke indicates that the current aging management programs and
activities are also similar at each of the four units.
The licensee also stated that there are ``regular and systematic
exchanges of information on plant-specific operating experience among
all three Duke nuclear stations'' (McGuire, Catawba, and Oconee). An
example provided was peer communications that occurred on an ongoing
basis during the normal course of operation and maintenance of the
units. Additionally, during certain infrequent occurrences at any one
station, peer observers from the other Duke plants participate to gain
firsthand experience and to provide input based on their own
experiences. These communications provide the means to continually
improve plant programs. Additionally, peer group meetings are held
regularly throughout the year to discuss topics of mutual interest. The
effectiveness of programs and activities is reviewed, and program
changes are often discussed. This sharing of plant-specific operating
experience among the Duke nuclear stations is part of Duke's normal
process to maintain the effectiveness of plant programs and activities
and to continually improve the performance of Duke's nuclear stations.
Given these similarities, the operating experience at McGuire, Unit
1, should be applicable to McGuire, Unit 2, and also to the Catawba
units for purposes of the license renewal review. At the earliest date
for submitting an application, McGuire, Unit 1, will have achieved the
required 20 years of operation and its operating experience will be
applicable to Unit 2 which will have almost met the 20-year requirement
with 18.3 years of operating experience. At this time, the Catawba
units will have operated for a substantial period of time
(approximately 16.5 years for Unit 1 and 15.3 years for Unit 2) which
provides additional plant-specific operating experience to supplement
the McGuire operating experience. The actual twenty
[[Page 54925]]
years of operating experience of McGuire Unit 1, in conjunction with
the substantial number of years of operation of the other three units,
should be sufficient to identify any aging concerns applicable to the
four units.
Therefore, sufficient combined operating experience should exist at
the earliest possible date for submittal to satisfy the intent of
Section 54.17(c), and application of the regulation in this case is not
necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. The staff
finds that Duke's request meets the requirement in Section 50.12(a)(2)
that special circumstances exist to grant the exemption.
IV
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that special
circumstances are present as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii). As
stated in Section III above, the staff finds that the combined
operating experience of the four McGuire and Catawba units would
satisfy the intent of Section 54.17 at the earliest possible date for
submittal of concurrent applications (June 13, 2001), and application
of the regulation in this case is not necessary to achieve the
underlying purpose of the rule. The Commission hereby grants the
licensee an exemption from the requirement of 10 CFR 54.17(c).
Specifically, this exemption removes the scheduler requirement which
prohibits the licensee from applying to the Commission for a renewed
license earlier than 20 years (but no earlier than June 13, 2001),
before the expiration of the Catawba, Units 1 and 2 and McGuire, Unit
2, operating licenses currently in effect.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that
granting of this exemption will have no significant effect on the
quality of the human environment (64 FR 52802 and 64 FR 52803).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of October 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John A. Zwolinski,
Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-26301 Filed 10-7-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
