SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The text of the exemption is attached.

(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.)

Attachment—Exemption

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Exemption

I. Background

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern, the licensee) is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5 for Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (Hatch), Units 1 and 2, respectively. The licenses provide, among other things, that the licensee is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect. Hatch consists of two boiling-water reactors with licensed power levels of 2,804 megawatts thermal, and it is located in Appling County, Georgia.

On May 15, 2025, Southern submitted to the NRC an application for subsequent renewal of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5 for Hatch, Units 1 and 2, respectively, pursuant to title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 54, “Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power ( printed page 32458) Plants,” requesting subsequent renewal for a period of 20 years beyond the current renewed facility operating licenses' expiration dates of August 6, 2034, for Unit 1, and June 13, 2038, for Unit 2. A final NRC decision on this application is expected on or before June 13, 2026.

The regulations governing license renewal and that are applicable to the Hatch subsequent license renewal application include 10 CFR 54.25, “Report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.” This regulation states that “[e]ach renewal application will be referred to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards for a review and report. Any report will be made part of the record of the application and made available to the public, except to the extent that security classification prevents disclosure.” The December 13, 1991, rulemaking that promulgated 10 CFR 54.25 (Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal (56 FR 64943, 64966)) specifically noted that review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) of license renewal applications was desirable but not required by statute.

On May 23, 2025, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14300 (90 FR 22587), “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” Section 4(b) of E.O. 14300 directs, in part, that “[r]eview by ACRS of permitting and licensing issues shall focus on issues that are truly novel or noteworthy.”

In May 2026, the NRC issued “Safety Evaluation Related to the Subsequent License Renewal of Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2” (ML26131A234) documenting the NRC's safety review of the Hatch subsequent license renewal application. As part of this safety review, the NRC did not identify any issues that are “truly novel or noteworthy.”

Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.15, “Specific exemptions,” exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 54 may be granted by the Commission in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, “Specific exemptions.” Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from its requirements when (1) the exemptions 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 and (2) special circumstances are present. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(vi), special circumstances are present when there is present any material circumstance not considered when the regulation was adopted for which it would be in the public interest to grant an exemption. That regulation also provides that if this condition is relied on exclusively for satisfying the special circumstances requirement, then the exemption may not be granted until the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) has consulted with the Commission.

II. Action

Based on the direction in E.O. 14300, the regulatory history of 10 CFR 54.25, and the fact that the NRC's safety review of the Hatch subsequent license renewal application did not identify any issues that are “truly novel or noteworthy,” the NRC has determined that the granting of an exemption upon its own initiative, pursuant to 10 CFR 54.15 and 10 CFR 50.12, from the requirements of 10 CFR 54.25 with respect to the Hatch subsequent license renewal application would be warranted. Moreover, for the reasons explained below, the NRC has determined that the requirements of 10 CFR 54.15 and 10 CFR 50.12 are met. Therefore, an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 54.25 with respect to the Hatch subsequent license renewal application may be granted.

III. Discussion

As described in 10 CFR 1.13, “Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards,” the ACRS was established by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA). Among other things, the ACRS reviews and reports on safety studies and applications for construction permits and facility operating licenses and advises the Commission with regard to hazards of proposed or existing reactor facilities and the adequacy of proposed reactor safety standards. The ACRS also reviews any generic issues or other matters referred to it by the Commission for advice.

As previously stated, 10 CFR 54.25 requires that each renewal application be referred to the ACRS for a review and report. The rulemaking that promulgated this regulation (56 FR 64966) explained the regulation as follows:

Section 182.b of the AEA states:

The ACRS shall review each application under section 103 or section 104b. for a construction permit or an operating license for a facility, any application under section 104c. for a construction permit or an operating license for a testing facility, any application under section 104a. or c. specifically referred to it by the Commission, and any application for an amendment to a construction permit or an amendment to an operating license under section 103 or 104a., b., or c. specifically referred to it by the Commission. . . .

Section 182.b does not explicitly refer to applications for renewal of an operating license as requiring ACRS review. However, the Commission believes that review by the ACRS is desirable. Accordingly, [10 CFR] 54.25 of the final rule requires ACRS review of a license renewal application.

The Commission has not changed 10 CFR 54.25 since its promulgation. Further, no subsequent amendments of the AEA have set forth a requirement for the ACRS to review license renewal applications.

The Exemption Is Authorized by Law

The exemption would remove the requirement for the Hatch subsequent license renewal application to be referred to the ACRS for a review and report. As previously stated, 10 CFR 54.15 and 10 CFR 50.12 allow the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 54, including 10 CFR 54.25, when the exemptions are authorized by law. The requirement of 10 CFR 54.25 is not required by the AEA or any other law. As noted by the Commission (56 FR 64966), the AEA does not explicitly refer to applications for renewal of an operating license as requiring ACRS review. Therefore, the NRC finds that the exemption is authorized by law.

The Exemption Will Not Present an Undue Risk to the Public Health and Safety

The exemption would remove the requirement for the Hatch subsequent license renewal application to be referred to the ACRS for a review and report. As previously stated, 10 CFR 54.15 and 10 CFR 50.12 allow the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 54, including 10 CFR 54.25, when the exemptions will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety. The standards and criteria that must be met before the Commission issues renewed licenses would not be affected by an exemption from 10 CFR 54.25. That is, regardless of the ACRS review required under 10 CFR 54.25, the regulation at 10 CFR 54.29, “Standards for issuance of a renewed license,” would continue to set forth the safety criteria that must be met before renewed licenses may be issued. Moreover, the NRC staff, which has a robust process for reviewing applications for renewed licenses, has completed its detailed review of how the Hatch subsequent license renewal application addresses the standards in 10 CFR 54.29 (and other relevant ( printed page 32459) regulations). The results of the NRC staff's safety review are documented in its safety evaluation. The safety evaluation confirmed that all of the safety standards required for the issuance of Hatch subsequent renewed licenses have been met. Additionally, the safety evaluation did not identify any “truly novel or noteworthy” issues. On this basis, the NRC finds that the exemption presents no undue risk to the public health and safety.

The Exemption Is Consistent With the Common Defense and Security

The exemption would remove the requirement for the Hatch subsequent license renewal application to be referred to the ACRS for a review and report. As previously stated, 10 CFR 54.15 and 10 CFR 50.12 allow the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 54, including 10 CFR 54.25, when the exemptions are consistent with the common defense and security. The NRC staff has determined that the exemption does not impact the common defense and security because the common defense and security is not within the scope of license renewal reviews, which, instead, focus on the effects of aging on systems, structures, and components. When promulgating revisions to its license renewal rule in 1995 (60 FR 22461, 22463-64), the Commission re-affirmed its philosophy that the existing regulatory process is adequate to ensure that the licensing bases of all currently operating plants provide and maintain an acceptable level of safety so that operation will not be inimical to the public health and safety or common defense and security. Similarly, any ACRS review of a license renewal application would not relate to the issue of the common defense or security. Therefore, the NRC finds that the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security.

Special Circumstances Are Present

The exemption would remove the requirement for the Hatch subsequent license renewal application to be referred to the ACRS for a review and report. As previously stated, 10 CFR 54.15 and 10 CFR 50.12 allow the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 54, including 10 CFR 54.25, when special circumstances are present. One such special circumstance is that there is present any material circumstance not considered when the regulation was adopted for which it would be in the public interest to grant an exemption. The direction in E.O. 14300 to limit ACRS review to issues that are truly novel or noteworthy is a material circumstance and since it was issued in 2025, it was not considered when the NRC adopted 10 CFR 54.25 in 1991 and decided to broadly require all license renewal applications to be referred to the ACRS, even though such referrals are not required by the AEA. Additionally, following the direction of E.O. 14300 is in the public interest, which is served by not performing requirements, such as the referral of the Hatch subsequent license renewal application to the ACRS, that are unnecessary. The NRC staff has reviewed approximately 100 license renewal and 25 subsequent license renewal applications to date and as part of those reviews discussed and took appropriate action upon identifying any novel or noteworthy issues ( e.g., issues related to buried gray cast iron piping). The NRC staff applied this well-established process to its review of the Hatch subsequent license renewal application and did not identify any novel or noteworthy issues. Therefore, the referral of this application to the ACRS is not necessary and it would be in the public interest for the NRC to grant an exemption from the regulation requiring that referral. Finally, because the NRC is exclusively relying on the special circumstance of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(vi) for satisfying 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), the EDO consulted with the Commission, as required. On this basis, the NRC finds that special circumstances are present.

Environmental Considerations

The exemption would remove the requirement for the Hatch subsequent license renewal application to be referred to the ACRS for a review and report. The NRC staff has determined that this exemption changes procedures for reviewing applications. The NRC staff has also determined that a categorical exclusion applies and that special circumstances under 10 CFR 51.22, “Categorical exclusions,” are not present that would preclude reliance on the categorical exclusion. Accordingly, the exemption from 10 CFR 54.25 meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(a)(1) for “Actions that are administrative, procedural, or solely financial in nature.” Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22, no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.

IV. Conclusions

Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 54.15 and 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 54.25 with respect to the Hatch subsequent license renewal application 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 an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 54.25 and, accordingly, the Hatch subsequent license renewal application is no longer required to be referred to the ACRS for a review and report.

The exemption is effective upon issuance.

Dated: May 26, 2026.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Michele Sampson,

Director, Division of New and Renewed Licenses, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

91 FR 32457