ML20196G746
| ML20196G746 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1999 |
| From: | Tuckman M ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9907010256 | |
| Download: ML20196G746 (22) | |
Text
F 4.-
b(O Duke Power Company 4
A Dahr Ewy Company EC07H 1
l dw-w v-r 526 South Church Street o
P.O. Box 1006 j
Charlotte, NC 28201 1006 M. S. Ta-6=
l 5,,,,;g y;,, y;ge,,,
(704)382-2200 omCE Nudear Gen ration (M)3824360 m l
June 22,1999 Document Control Desk U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
McGuire Nuclear Station Docket Nos. 50-369,50-370 Catawba Nuclear Station Docket Nos. 50-413,50-414 Request for Exemption Pursuant tol0 CFR 54.15 and 50.12 -
Exemption to the Schedular Reauirements of 10 CFR 6 54.17(c)
Pursuant to 10 CFR % 54.15 and 50.12, Duke Energy Corporation (" Duke") requests an exemption from the requirement in 10 CFR { 54.17(c) that an application for a renewed j
L operating license not be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC")
i
" earlier than 20 years before the expiration of the operating license currently in effect."
Duke's exemption request is set forth in the attached memorandum. This exemption request seeks scheduler, rather than substantive, relief.
Duke's request is motivated by its need to determine in the near future the feasibility of '
l-filing with the NRC in 2001 concurrent applications for the renewal of the operating licenses for the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, and the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2. By June 2001, McGuire Unit I will have twenty years and McGuire Unit 2 will have eighteen years of operating experience. Catawba Units 1 and 2 will have seventeen years and fifteen years of operating experience, respectively. Absent an exemption, Section 54.17(c) precludes filing renewal applications for McGuire Unit 2 and l
, Catawba Units 1 and 2 in 2001.
The background and supporting bases for Duke's request for regulatory relief are more l-fully addressed in the attached exemption request. Duke appreciates the NRC's j
consideration of this request by October 1,1999. If there are any questions, please f}
I contact Bob Gill at 704-382-3339.
Very truly yours, k.b.
M. S. Tuckman 7 U U I3, l.
m 0
9907010256 990622 PDR ADOCK 05000369 P
FOR L
{;
)
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
Document Control Desk June 22,1999
]
Page 2 xc:
(w/ attachment) i L. A. Reyes D. B. Matthews
)
Regional Administrator, RegionII Dimctor, Division of Regulatory Improvement
. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Programs Atlanta Federal Center Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 23T85 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta, GA 30303 Washington, DC 20555 Senior NRC Resident Inspector C. I. Grimes McGuire Nuclear Station -
Director, License Renewal Project Directorate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Senior NRC Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Catawba Nuclear Station Washington, DC 20555 P.S. Tam F. Rinaldi Senior Project Manager Project Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 V. R. Autry R. M. Fry Director, Division of Radioactive Waste Director, Division of Radiation Protection Management Nonh Carolina Department of Environment, Bureau of Land & Waste Management Health, and Natural Resources S.C. Department of Health and Environmental 3825 Barrett Drive
. Control Raleigh, NC 27609 2600 Bull St.
Columbia, SC 29201 North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Nonh Carolina Electric Membership Corporation Number 1 P.O. Box 27306
. 1427 Meadowwood Boulevard Raleigh, NC 27611 P.O. Box 29513 Raleigh, NC 27626 -
Piedmont Municipal Power Agency Saluda River Electric 121 Village Drive P. O. Box 929 Gmer, SC 2%51 Laurens, SC 29360 i
L
g-.
.,..se U. S. Nuclear Rigulatory Commission Document Control Desk June 22,1999 Page 3 xc:
(w/ attachment)
Industry Contacts John Carey-EPRI Barth Doroshuk - BGE i
l Steve Hale - FP&L Mike Henig - VEPCO Tricia Heroux
- Bill Mackay - Entergy' Operations, Inc.
Charles Meyer - Westinghouse Owners Group
.Teny Pickens - NSP Chuck Pierce - Southern Nuclear l-Fred Polaski-PECO l
Doug Walters - NEI l
l i
l 1
I' I
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 C.F.R. 9 54.17(c)
- 1. Executive Summary Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Q@ 54.15 and 50.12, Duke Energy Corporation (" Duke")
hereby requests an exemption from the requirement in 10 C.F.R. 9 54.17(c) that an application for a renewed license not be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") " earlier than 20 years before the expiration of the operating license currently in effect."' Duke's request is motivated by its need to determine the feasibility of filing with the NRC concurrent applications for the renewal of the operating licenses for the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 ("McGuire"), and the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (" Catawba") in 2001. By June 2001, McGuire Unit 1 will have twenty years and McGuire Unit 2 eighteen years of operating experience. Catawba Units 1 and 2 will have seventeen years and fifteen years of operating experience, respectively. Absent an exemption, Section 54.17(c) precludes filing renewal applications for McGuire Unit 2 and Catawba Units 1 and 2 in 2001.
Duke submits that the issuance of an exemption from the twenty-yeni peded required by Section 54.17(c), limited to the special conditions presented here, is warranted, and would enable Duke and the NRC to realize the benefits of concurrent license renewal applications for McGuire and Catawba. Concurrent submittals for McGuire and Catawba While Section 54.17(c) speaks in terms of years remaining before expiration of a plant's initial operating license, the focus of this provision is on years of operating experience under the current license. Since the operating licenses for McGuire and Catawba were issued for a period of 40 years, for our purposes, Section 54.17 apparently contemplates the licensee's acquisition of 20 years of operating experience prior to submission of a license renewal application. Therefore, this exemption request discusses the issue in terms of years of operation under the initial operating license, as opposed to years before the expiration of the current operating license.
i Duke Energy Corpcration Request for Exemption June 22,1999 would provide Duke and the NRC with the unique opportunity to conduct the necessary j
safety reviews of equipment important to license renewal by contemporaneously and cost-effectively considering the implications of the 69 years of combired operating experience
)
of the four substantially similar units.2 This request has been submitted now because Duke i
will need to know by the fall of 1999 the regulatory conditions under which license renewal j
applications for McGuire and Catawba can be prepared for NRC submittal by 2001.
I This exemption request seeks scheduler, rather than substantive, relief.
3 Significantly, Duke does not seek to be exempted from any of the substantive license renewal criteria in 10 C.F.R. Part 54 or 10 C.F.R. Part 51 in connection with the preparation of license renewal applications for McGuire and Catawba.4 Duke will conduct all of the reviews and evaluations currently required by NRC regulations in Part 54, as well as an environmental review pursuant to Part 51, for both the McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations. In sum, the potential safety and environmental issues raised by license renewal will be fully addressed for both the McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations, in accordance with existing NRC requirements. Public health and safety will not be adversely affected in any way by the granting of this exemption.
2 The extent to which (if at all) Duke would seek to file a single renewal application for both McGuire and Catawba has not been determined, and, in any event, Duke considers that issue to be beyond the scope of this exemption request. Our current view is that Duke would file two separate and complete applications, with some sharing of supporting information, as appropriate, to avoid unnecessary duplication. The applications would be filed with the NRC concurrently. Duke believes that any questions and concems the NRC may have conceming the " formatting" of the renewal applications can be readily resolved by the parties.
8 For example, certain evaluations and analyses relating to the integrated plant assessments and the time-limited aging evaluations must be initiated by September 1999 in order to support the filing of an application by 2001.
Similarly, Duke does not seek an exemption from the forty-year limit imposed on the operating licenses for power reactor facilities licensed under Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
("AEA*),42 U.S.C. 6 2133, as codified in 10 C.F.R. 9 54.31(b).
2
Duke Energy Corporation Request for Exemption June 22,1999 Duke has addressed and satisfied the criteria of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.12 in support of this exemption application. As required by 10 C.F.R. 6 50.12(a)(O, and as more fully l
discussed below, this exemption is authorized by law, will not present an " undue risk" to the public health and safety, and is fully consistent with the common defense and security.
Further, as required by 10 C.F.R. 6 50.12(a)(2), Duke's request demonstrates that at least two "special circumstances" support the granting of this exemption. First, literal i
compliance with the " twenty-year rule" in 10 C.F.R. 6 54.17(c) in this particular circumstance is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of that provision. (See l
Section 50.12(a)(2)(ii).) In promulgating 10 C.F.R. 54.17(c), the NRC intended to assure that a licensee accrues substantial operating experience under its original operating license before it submits a renewal application." This regulation recognizes twenty years of operation as sufficient to reveal any plant-specific concems regarding age-related degradation.' However, in adopting Section 54.17(c), the NRC explicitly stated its willingness to consider exemption requests from applicants who believe they have amassed sufficient information to apply for renewal after less than twenty years of plant l
operation.7 Such is the case here.
l By 2001, Duke will have accumulated " substantial" operating experience for the four l
McGuire and Catawba units. In the case of McGuire and Catawba, the value of these l
plants' collective operating experience is greatly enhanced by the similarities among these four units. In 2001, Duke will have twenty years of actual operating experience on McGuire l
l 8
56 Fed. Reg. 64943,64963 (Dec.13,1991) (Supplementary information accompanying promulgation of the 1991 license renewal rule).
' jd.
7 60 Fed. Reg. 22461,22488 (May 8,1995) (Supplerr.entary Information accompanying promulgation of the 1995 revised license renewal rule.)
3 L
1 Duke Energy Corporation Request for Exemption June 22,1999 Unit 1. In addition, because of Duke's continuous operation of each of the four units, the l
similarities among these units, and the systematic sharing of information among the units, in 2001 Duke will also have the functional equivalent of twenty years of operating experience at McGuire Unit 2 and at Catawba Units 1 and 2. Moreover, Duke's combined operating experience for equipment relevant to license renewal that is substantially similar between McGuire and Catawba will total 69 years. For these and other reasons, concurrent license applications for McGuire and Catawba submitted in 2001 will reflect combined periods of operating experience that are " substantial" as contemplated by 10 C.F.R. 6 54.17(c) and that, for all practical purposes, actually exceed the twenty-year period deemed sufficient by the NRC. Thus, the application of the " twenty-year" rule in this situation is not necessary to achieve that provision's underlying purpose.
Another special circumstance supporting this exemption request is that literal compliance with the " twenty-year rule" set forth in Section 54.17(c) under these circumstances would result in undue hardship and avoidable costs to Duke and the NRC in terms of time, resources, and money that would significantly exceed the costs contemplated when Section 54.17(c) was promulgated. (See Section 50.12(a)(2)(iii).) In comparison, if this exemption is granted, Duke will be able to realize economies of scale by performing certain analyses and studies contemporaneously. Similarly, the NRC will be able to realize certain economies of scale by reviewing the applications concurrently.
The NRC Staff's review will be based upon a larger database of combined operational l
experience than would otherwise be available cost-effectively were the Staff to undertake review of individual renewal applications. In addition, Duke will be able to utilize a team of experienced and highly qualified individuals to prepare these concurrent applications.
Duke established this team to prepare and support the Oconee Nuclear Station license renewal application.
Failure to grant this exemption would cause Duke to incur redeployment costs for the individuals on this license renewal team. In addition, if Duke 4
1 l.
[
Duke Energy Corporation Request for Exemption June 22,1999 elects to pursue license renewal for McGuire and Catawba units at a later date, Duke i
would incur the costs of re-establishing such team. The NRC did not contemplate that licensees would be forced to incur these additional costs or forego these economies and
)
efficiencies at the time Section 54.17(c) was promulgated.
i As set forth herein, Duke has demonstrated that it has met the criteria of 10 C.F.R.
9 50.12 necessary for grant of this exemption request. Therefore, Duke requests that the NRC grant this request for an exemption from the requirement of 9 54.17(c) that an application for a renewed license not be submitted to the NRC earlier than twenty years before the expiration of the operating license currently in effect.
I 5
Duke Energy Corporation Request for Exemption June 22,1999 II. Backaround Duke obtained the initial NRC operating licenses for McGuire and Catawba and has operated and maintained each of the units since initial licensing.8 McGuire and Catawba are each two-unit plants comprised of four-loop pressurized water reactors with ice-condenser containments and a rated power of 3411 megawatts. The NRC issued a 5%
power operating license for McGuise Unit 1 on June 12,1981 (NPF-9) and for McGuire Unit 2 on March 3,1983 (NPF-17). Full power operation was authorized via amendments to the McGuire Units 1 and 2 operating licenses dated July 8,1981 and May 27,1983, respectively. The NRC issued a 5% power operating license for Catawba Unit 1 on December 6,1984 and for Catawba Unit 2 on February 24,1986. These were superseded by full power operating licenses issued for Catawba Units 1 and 2 (NPF-35 and NPF-52) on January 17,1985 and May 15,1986, respectively.
e ~ Duke is the sole owner of McGuire. For Catawba, the North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 1 owns 37.5%, North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation owns 28.125%, Piedmont Municipal Power Agency owns 12.5%, Saluda River Electric Cooperative, Inc. owns 9.375%, and Duke owns 12.5%,
h i
Duke Energy Corporation Request for Exemption June 22,1999 Ill. Duke's Reauest Satisfies The Criteria Of 10 CFR 6 50.12 Requests for exemptions from requirements in 10 C.F.R. Part 54 are subject to the exemption criteria in 10 C.F.R. 6 50.12.10 C.F.R. 9 54.15 (Specific exemptions) provides that: " Exemptions from the requirements of this part [Part 54] may be granted by
. the Commission in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12." For the reasons discussed below, the exemption criteria in Section 50.12 are satisfied by this request.
A.
Ibis Exemption is Authorized Bv Law. Will Not Present An Undue Risk To The Public Health And Safety. And is Consistent With The Common Defense And Secunty 1.
This Exemotion is Authorized By Law 10 C.F.R. 9 50.12(a)(1) requires a demonstration that the NRC's grant of an exemption from the requirements in question is authorized by law. The twenty-year requirement in Section 54.17(c) was adopted solely at the discretion of the NRC in the exercise of its rulemaking authority under Section 181 of the AEA,42 U.S.C. 6 2231. No statute required the NRC to adopt this provision. No other regulation of sither the NRC or another agency required the NRC to adopt this provision. The NRC has authority under Section 50.12 to grant exemptions from the requirements of NRC regulations. Therefore, no statutory or regulatory provision precludes the Commission from granting the requested exemption upon a proper showing. Accordingly, this requested exemption is " authorized by law," as required by Section 50.12(a)(1),
it should be noted that, by submitting this exemption request, Duke does not seek
- an exemption from the forty-year limit imposed on the operating licenses for power reactor 7
i
Duke Energy Corporation Request for Exemption June 22,1999 facilities licensed under Section 103 of the AEA, which is implemented by 10 C.F.R.
$54.31(b) of the NRC's regulations. Section 54.31(b) prov des 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." Duke expects that the NRC will adjust the terms of renewed licenses for McGuire and Catawba accordingly.
2.
Granting This Exemption Will Not Present An Undue Risk To Public Health And Safetv 10 C.F.R. 6 50.12(a)(1) requires a demonstration that the granting of an exemption from the requirements in question "will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety." As demonstrated below, this requested exemption fully satisfies this criteria.
Significantly, Duke's request is only for scheduler relief. Duke will satisfy the substantive license renewal criteria in Part 54 and Part 51 in connection with its preparation of license renewal applications for McGuire and Catawba, and will conduct all of the reviews and evaluations (including, for example, aging management reviews and time-limited aging analysis evaluations) currently required. Duke will perform a.=eparate integrated plant assessment for McGuire and Catawba, and a time-limited aging analysis evaluation for each of the four units. Duke will also conduct a license renewal phase environmental review pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 51 for McGuire and for Catawba. Duke's current plans are to submit concurrently two complete applications that are site-specific, yet similar in format and content. In sum, the potential safety and environmental issues raised by license renewal will be fully addressed for both the McGuire and Catawba 8
6 -
1 Duke Energy Corporation Request for Exemption June 22,1999 Nuclear Stations. For this reason alone, grant of this exemption will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety. However, other reasons also support the conclusion
. that public health and safety will not be compromised in any way by the granting of this exemption.
l As discussed in more detail below,' the concems that originally gave rise to the twenty-year rule in 10 C.F.R. 6 54.17(c) were related to the availability of sufficient information on which to base a license renewal decision. This regulatory provision reflects the NRC's conclusion in 1991 that twenty years of operational experience would provide adequate information to support an evaluation of the safety of extended operation beyond j
the initial forty-year term of an operating license.' However, the NRC did not base this conclusion on a detailed safety analysis. Therefore, it is not surprising that in 1995, the Commission explicitly acknowledged that sufficient information to support renewal of a current license may exist prior to twenty years from the expiration date of the current license, in making such acknowledgement, the Commission specifically offered to consider plant-specific exemption requests by applicants who believe they may have sufficient information to support a renewal request." The Commission would not have l
extended such an invitation if substantial evidence had indicated that information from i
twenty years of operation of the specific unit in question was necessary to support a Part 54 application.
l Consistent with the Commission's guidance, this exemption request shows that by l
2001, adequate information will be available to support the NRC's safety determinations
' ' San Section 111. B.1., in.f,ta.
p
" See 56 Fed. Reg. 64943,64963.
60 Fed. Reg. 22461,22488.
9 L
P
?
Duke Energy Corporation l
Request for Exemption l
June 22,1999 on renewal applications for McGuire and Catawba -- even though somewhat less than twenty years of operating experience will be available for three of the four units by that time. Duke will rely on operating experience from a variety of sources, including relevant I
industry operating experience,12 consistent with NRC pronouncements in this regard.'
In addition, during the last year the NRC Staff has reviewed two operating license renewal applications, thereby adding significantly to the Commission's licensing experience in this area.
1 Finally, Duke wil! utilize the operating experience it has gained by operation of the McGuire and Catawba units. McGuire Units 1 and 2 are substantially similar in design, operation, and maintenance. This is also true of Catawba Units 1 and 2. The aging management programs and activities at each of the four units are also very similar. Given these similarities, the operating experience at McGuire Unit 1 is applicable to McGuire Unit 2, and also to Catawba Units 1 and 2, for purposes of the license renewal program process. The actual twenty years of operating experience of McGuire Unit 1, in conjunction with the actual years of operation of the other three units, provides the l
functional equivalent of twenty years' operating experience at each unit.
In addition to having the functional equivalent of twenty years of operating experience for each unit, by 2001 the aggregated operating experience at the McGuire
" In 1991, the NRC calculated that there were approximately 1,400 reactor years of operational experience in the U.S. nuclear power industry-- all of which is available to the NRC as it evaluates the adequacy of licensee proposals to address age-related degradation. Sag 56 Fed. Reg. at 64963. By 2001, the acur of reactor years of industry operational experience on which the NRC Staff may rely will have grown to approximately 2,400, providing an additional measure of confidence.
in the Supplementary information accompanying publication of the 1991 rule, the NRC stated that "both renewal applicants and the NRC will have the benefit of the operational experience from the nuclear i.
industry and are not limited to information developed solely by the utility seeking a renewed license." 56 Fed. Reg. at 64963. This appears to be a tacit endorsement of the concept of using cumulative operating experience.
10 i
l
L l
l Duke Energy Corporation Request for Exemption June 22,1999 l
un:ts will exceed 38 years and at Catawba will exceed 32 years. Moreover, the combined operating experience for equipment that is substantially similar between McGuire and
- Catawba will total 69 years. Therefore, concurrent license renewal applications for McGuire and Catawba submitted by 2001 will reflect combined periods of operating 4
experience that substantially exceed the twenty-year period deemed sufficient by the NRC.
While our focus for purposes of this exemption request is on similarities between McGuire and Catawba, in Duke's unique circur.: stances, even differences in operating experience at McGuire and Catawba provide support for this exemption request. This is true because differences in operating experience at the two sites have been used to l
enhance certain relevant programs and activities at each station. This is accomplished by the regular and systematic exchange of information on plant-specific operating experience among all three Duke nuclear stations. For example, peer communications occur on an ongoing basis during the normal course of operation and maintenance of the units.
Additionally, during certain infrequent occurrences at 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 plan't programs. Additionally, peer group meetings are held regularly throughout the year to discuss topics of mutual interest. The effectiveness of programs and activities is L
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.
While the value derived from the similarities between McGuire and Catawba is significant, Duke will not rely exclusively on these units' substantial similarity in preparing applications consistent with 10 C.F.R. 6 54.21. In this regard, the twenty-year requirement 11
{o
Duke Energy Corporation Request for Exemption June 22,1999 in 10 C.F.R. 6 54.17(c) is tied to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 54.21 that applicants demonstrate that all aging effects have been identified, and that the effects of aging will be adequately managed so that the intended functions will be maintained consistent with the current licensing basis for the period of extended operation. Operating experience plays a large role in identifying aging effects and the adequacy of existing aging management programs. However, to the extent the operating experience that Duke relies upon is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 54.21, Duke will propose additional programs and activities, such as one-time inspections. For all these reasons, the grant of this exemption will not pose an undue risk to public health and safety and may actually provide a benefit to public health and safety.
3.
Granting This Exemption is Consistent With The Common Defense And Security As noted above, the exemption requested is only a scheduler exemption. All NRC
. requirements relating to license renewal will be fully met by Duke's renewal applications.
Otherwise, the NRC would not grant the renewed licenses. Accordingly, the grant of the requested exemption is consistent with the common defense and security.
i B.
Special Circumstances Support the issuance of an Exemotion 10 C.F.R. 6 50.12(a)(2) requires a showing of only one "special circumstance" to support an exemption request. At least two of the special circumstances identified in a
Section 50.12(a)(2) apply to this exemption request. First, application of the twenty-year time limit in Section 54.17(c) is not necessary, in these circumstances, to achieve the underlying purpose of the provision. Second, such compliance would result in undue hardship and costs to Duke and to the NRC that are significantly in excess of those contemplated by the NRC when the regulation was adopted.
12
4 Duke Energy Corporation Request for Exemption June 22,1999 1.
Application Of Section 54.17(c) In These Circumstances is Not Necessary To Achieve That Reaulation's Underivina Purpose As discussed below, the application of 10 C.F.R. 6 54.17(c) to preclude the submittal of concurrent license renewal applications for McGuire Unit 2 and Catawba Units 1 and 2, along with a renewal application for McGuire Unit 1, is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of that provision. Thus, th9 "special circumstance" delineated in Section 50.12(a)(2)(ii) supports Duke's request, a.
The Underlying Purpose Of Section 54.17(c) Is To Ensure That Substantial Operating Experience is Accrued Before Submittal Of A Renewal Apolication in initially promulgating 10 C.F.R. Q 54.17(c) in 1991, the NRC stated that the purpose of the time limit in this provision is "to ensure that substantial operating experience is accumulated by a licensee before it submits a renewal application."" At that time, the NRC found that twenty years of operating experience provided a sufficient basis for renewal applications, but left open the matter of whether twenty years was actually necessary:
" 56 Fed. Reg. at 64963.
13
Duke Energy Corporation Request for Exemption June 22,1999 While the Commission accepts the premise that operating experience is important, it rejects the suggestion that 20 years of operational and regulatory experience with a particular plant is an insufficient period in which to accumulate information on plant performance. A nuclear power plant will undergo a significant number of fuel cycles over 20 years, and plant and utility personnel will have a substantial number of hours of operational experience with every system, structure, and component. The NRC believes that the history of operation over the minimum 20-year period provides a licensee with substantial emounts of information and would disclose any plant-specific concems with regard to age-related degradation.'8 More importantly, in the 1995 license renewal rulemaking, the NRC explicitly recognized that the twenty-year period in Section 54.17(c) could be shortened under appropriate circumstances." Prior to the promulgation of the revised final rule for Part 54, the Commission had solicited comments on whether less than twenty years of operation could generate sufficient plant-specific history to provide reasonable assurance that aging concems would be identified. In their comments, both the Nuclear Energy Institute ("NEl")
and the U.S. Department of Energy (" DOE") took the position that plants may have sufficient, time-tested operational history to provide such reasonable assurance after less than twenty years of operation.'7 Although the agency did not modify Section 54.17(c) in M.
This position is consistent with the NRC's 1991 rejection of the suggestion that twenty years of operational and regulatory experience with a particular plant is an insufficient period in which to accumulate information on plant performance. Sfte 56 Fed. Reg. at 64963.
NEl suggested that exemptions from Section 54.17(c) could be used, as appropriate, in those cases where a particular licensee had available sufficient operating experience. DOE went further, suggesting a rule change to allow an earlier submittal of a renewal application. DOE took the position that aging effects are generally apparent after only a few years of operation, that industry-wide data provides a sound basis for understanding and addressing the effects of aging even after less than twenty years of operation, and that it foresaw 'no technical impediment" to filing renewal applications prior to twenty years of operation. M.
14
Duke Energy Corporation Request for Exemption June 22,1999 1995 in response to these public comments, the NRC did state:
The Commission is willing to consider, however, plant-specific exemption requests by those applicants who believe that they may have sufficient information available to justify applying for a renewal license prior to 20 years from the expiration date of the current license.
Thus, in 1995, the Commission itself acknowledged that the underlying purpose of Section 54.17(c) is to ensure that an applicant has sufficient information derived from operating experience to support its application for a renewed license, b.
Under The Unique Circumstances Presented By This Exemption Request, More Than Enough Operating Experience is Available To Be Considered " Substantial" Under The NRC Reauirement As discussed above, Duke will use a variety of sources of operating experience in preparing its renewal application for McGuire and Catawba. In addition to industry experience, Duke will use its own operating experience. Information from the operation of McGuire Unit 1 for twenty years, combined with the actual years of operation of the other three units, will provide the functional equivalent of twenty years' operating experience at each of the four similar units. Moreover, the aggregated operating experience for equipment that is substantially similar between McGuire and Catawba will total 69 years.
Therefore, concurrent license renewal applications far McGuire and Catawba submitted in 2001 will reflect combined periods of operating experience that substantially exceed the twenty-year period deemed sufficient by the NRC.
Accordingly, in 2001 Duke will be able to provide sufficient information to justify the consideration of concurrent license renewal applications, even though some of the units to 60 Fed. Reg. at 22488.
15
Duke Energy Corporation Request for Exemption June 22,1999 involved are more than twenty years from the expiration dates of their current licenses.
Because Duke has presented unusual circumstances which assure that the NRC will have all of the operating information it needs to make complete safety evaluations, Duke has brought itself _ squarely into the zone of Commission consideration of plant-specific exemption requests and has justified the grant of its request for the shorter time periods proposed herein.
2.
Application Of The Regulation in These Particular Circumstances Will Result in Undue Hardship And Costs To Duke And The NRC That Are Significantly
]
.in Excess Of Those Contemplated By the NRC When The Reaulation Was Adopted Literal compliance with the time limit in Section 54.17(c) would result in undue hardship and costs to Duke and the NRC that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted. Thus, the "special circumstance" delineated in Section 50.12(a)(2)(iii) also supports Duke's exemption request.
Duke has prepared a preliminary estimate of the costs of preparation and NRC review of two concurrent license renewal applications versus the costs associated with two sequential license renewal applications. The cost estimates are based on actual costs to date associated with the preparation of the Oconee license renewal application and the NRC staff review fees. Due consideration was given to the costs incurred by Oconee being a part of the B & W Owners Group Generic License Renewal Program, the first-of-a-kind staff review, and other factors. After consideration of the relevant costs, Duke estimates that $4 to $6 million could be saved by preparing, submitting and obtaining concurrent NRC review of both the McGuire and Catawba license renewal applications, as compared with a progression of submittals after each unit has obtained twenty years of operating experience.
16
L l-Duke Energy Corporation r
i Request for Exemption June 22,1999 q
l l
l
{
l Business considerations dictate preparation and submittal of concurrent license renewal applications for McGuire and Catawba. Submittal of such renewal applications in 2001, as opposed to some time thereafter, is necessary to obtain the full amount of the potential cost savings. Duke's position in this regard is quite unique. As discussed above,
- Duke submitted a renewal application for its three Oconee units in July 1998. Duke assembled a team of individuals with relevant experience in necessary disciplines to prepare the Oconee renewal application and to remain dedicated to the renewal effort throughout the period of NRC staff review. Granting Duke's exemption request will allow l-Duke to use this same team of qualified and experienced professionals to prepare its McGuire and Catawba renewal applications. Thus, Duke can avoid redeployment costs that would arise if Duke were unable to proceed promptly with preparation of additional renewal applications. Duke would also be able to avoid the costs that would arise if it were i
forced to reassemble and train a new team to prepare McGuire and Catawba applications several years from now.
It is Duke's understanding that similar considerations may be applicable to NRC Staff. Duke has reviewed the number of, and proposed schedules for, announced license renewal application submittals of other licensees. Based on this review, it appears that no applications are currently scheduled for submittal in 2001. However, a number of licensees have announced that they will submit renewal applications after 2001. Thus, Duke's submittal of concurrent applications for McGuire and Catawba in 2001 will allow the NRC staff to levelize its resources over the 2001 time period and avoid augmentation of resources in the post-2001 timeframe, when a significant increase in renewal applications
' will likely occur.
t 17
f Duke Energy Corporation Request for Exemption June 22,1999 l
Literal compliance with Section 54.17(c) would require Duke to incur the costs of duplicating its efforts for the renewal analyses of substantially similar equipment in the McGuire and Catawba plants. Altematively, literal compliance with Section 54.17 would require Duke to delay filing renewal applications for three of these four units for five years, thereby losing the advantage of an assembled team of experienced professionals and incurring the undue hardship of business planning uncertainty until Catawba Unit 2 has operated for twenty years. Both of these attematives result in increased costs to the NRC as well. Neither situation appears to have been contemplated by the NRC when Section 54.17(c) was adopted. (Indeed, the rule appears to have been drafted for a single unit plant.) Accordingly, at the time Section 54.17(c) was promulgated, the NRC did not contemplate that compliance with such regulation would have forced licensees to incur I
these additional costs or forego the economies and efficiencies available under the unique circumstances presented herein, i
1
,e
y Duke Energy Corporation Request for Exemption June 22,1999 W
i@
IV. Conclusion The unique circumstances presented by this exemption request provide. ample grounds to support the issuance to Duke Energy Corporation of an exemption from the
" twenty-year rule" in 10 C.F.R. 9 54.17(c). As required by NRC regulations in Section 50.12, the exemption sought is authorized by law, presents no undue risk to public health and safety, is consistent with the common defense and security, and is clearly supported by "special circumstances."
In addition to the fact that the exemption request satisfies the requirements of Section 50.12, policy reasons also support the granting of this exemption. Duke's exemption request provides the NRC with an exceptional opportunity to conduct a comprehensive, cost-effective review of the operating history of equipment important to
' license renewal at four similar units as part of a request to renew the operating licenses for those plants. Such a combined review provides not only an unusually strong safety basis for license renewal decisions, but also does so in a cost-effective manner for both Duke and the NRC. Moreover, the unique circumstances presented here anable the NRC to maintain its general policy with respect to the operational periods th?.t must be completed by single units before they can apply for renewed licenses, while granting this narrowly tailored exemption. Under these unique circumstances, Duke respectfully requests that the NRC grant the exemption described herein.
19