ML20029D595
| ML20029D595 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/05/1994 |
| From: | Norsworthy C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Mcknight J NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| FRN-56FR64943, RULE-PR-140, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-54 NUDOCS 9405060249 | |
| Download: ML20029D595 (62) | |
Text
!
Q May 5, 1994 NOTE.TO:
Jim McKnight, P-137 Document Control Desk FROM:
Carol Norsworthy, 11-F-23 Licensing Assistant (Acting)
License Renewal Project Directorate, ADAR, NRR
SUBJECT:
COPIES OF THE FINAL MAINTENANCE RULE AND THE FINAL LICENSE RENEWAL. RULE TO BE PLACED INTO THE NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM Jim:
I am attaching copies of the final Maintenance Rule of July 10, 1991, and the final License Renewal Rule of December 13, 1991, to be placed in the PDR.
I researched NUDOCS for both of these rules and could not find them in the system.
Both documents are designated as being available in the PDR in our proposed amended license renewal rule.
If you have any questions, please call me at 504-3149.
Thank you.
050010 9405060249 940505 PDR PR 2 56FR64943 PDR
Federal Register / Vol. Se, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64943 NUCLEAR REGULATORY
- v. Financial Qualification Considerations.
reasoned process for considering license COMMISSION
- w. Decommissioning Considerations.
renewal for those who may pursue it.
- x. Antitrust Review.
the NRC is establishing the procedures.
10 CFR Parts 2,50,54, and 140 ygQigncew
{Part 140' criteria, and standards governing the l
g RIN 3150.AD04 VI. Findma of No Significant Environmental requirements for renewal of nuclear
- impact, power plant operating licenses.
Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal VII Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.
11* Back Nund I
VIII. Regulatory Analysis.
COENCY: Nuclear Regulatory IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification.
The NRC's research program on the Commission.
X. Non. Applicability of Backfit Rule.
degradation of nuclear power plant ACTION: Final rule.
I. Introduction systems, structures, and components sd
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory The Atomic Energy Act of1954 (AEA) n1 e
e af, recognizing j
Commission is issuing a final rule that limits the duration of most o erating i
the potentialimpact of plant aging establishes the requirements that an licenses for nuclear power p ants to a o
a hd safe applicant for renewal of a nuclear maximum of 40 years but permits their power plant operating license must renewal.The Commission's regulations operation of nuclear power plants.
convened a " Workshop on Plant Aging" meet, the information that must be at 10 CFR 50.511mplement this authority in Bethesda, Maryland. %e purpose of submitted to the NRC for review so that by permitting renewal. However, i 50.51 h
M hm th2 agency can determine whether those provides no standards for procedures for requirements have in fact been met, and renewal applications.The nuclear utility how to best proceed to identify and g
the application procedures. This rule is industry has expressed considerable I d b
M h
o r p nt b o d th Ir itia e of o80
- C' of r ui ments f r xtendin n lea $
power plant operating licenses beyond operation. %e industry has undertaken Nuclear Regulato,ry Research issued the severalinitiatives in support of plant life first comprehensive program plan 40 ears' extension. A Steering Committee on (NUREC-1144) for Nuclear Plant Aging EFFECTIVE DATE: January 13,1992.
Nuclear Plant Life Extension (NUP!IX)
Research (NPAR). By 1986, the FoA FURTHER INFORhtATION CONTACT:
has been formed under the direction of evaluation of age-related degradation in George Sege, Office of Nuclear the Nuclear Management and Resources safety.related SSCs became a more Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Council (NUMARC). The Electric Power important priority with the recognition that utilities were interested in Regulatory Commission, Washington.
Research Institute (EPRI). in cooperation DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 492-3917; or with the U.S. De,partment of Energy extending the life of their existing power 1
Francis Akttulewicz, Office of Nuclear (DOE), and two altties has e sponsored plants beyond the term of their original Reactor Regulation. U.S. Nuclear research on life extension, including operating licenses. In response to the R:gulatory Commission, Washington, pilot studies on two nuclear plants, NPAR program plan, the NRC staff DC 20555, Telephone:(301) 4921136 Surry-1 and Monticello.This has established a TechnicalIntegration suPFtKasENT A8tY 184FORIAATioec.
culminated in DOE fundiry} of two lead Review Group for the Aging and llfe
- 1. Intmduction, applications for renewal of the operating Extension (TIRGALEX). ne obiectives
!!. Background.
licenses for the Yankee Rowe and of TIRGALEX were to clearly define the III. Final Action.
Monticello Facilities.
technical. safety, and regulatory policy IV. Principal Issues.
The nuclear industry has urged the issues associated with plant aging and
- s. Regulatory Philoscphy and Approach:
NRC to develop standards and life extension and to develop a plan for Two Principlu.
procedures for license renewal so that resolving the issues in a timely, well-the utilities would know what will be integrated manner. In May 1987, the
- b. First Principle: Process for Ensuring.
required to obtain a renewed operating NRC issued the TIRCALEX report," Plan pa ty I"8 e
ns ng is
- d. Second Pnnciple: Maintaining the license.The industry states that a to Accomplish Technical 1ntegration for Ucensing Basis During Renewal Term.
license renewal rule is needed now Plant Agmg/ Life Extension."It
- e. Aging Management and 1ntegrated Plant because a significant number of plants identified a broad spectrum of technical.
Assessment.
will be making decisions in the near safety, and regulatory policy issues.
f Renewal Finding and Hearing Scope.
future as to whether to seek license These issues included identification of
- g. Nature of Ucense.
renewal. For the oldest nuclear power SSCs that are susceptible to aging and h.1.atest Data for Ft!mg Renewal plants, the expiration dates of their could adversely affect safety; Application, the Timely Renewal original operating licenses are degradation processes: testing.
\\.
e and Sufficiency of Renewal approaching. Utilities contend that they surveillance, and maintenance will require 10 to 15 years to plan and requirements: and criteria for evaluating L Earliest Date for Filing Applications,
- i. Withdrawal of Application.
build replacement power plants if the residuallif ceccluded that,
- k. Renewal Term.
operating licenses for existing nuclear easyegfag cesste are readily
- L Effective Date of Renewed ucense, power plants are not renewed.They and de not pose major s
- m. Subsequent Renewala.
also contend that the NRC's technical taeuse that would preclude life
- n. Content of Application--Technical requirements for !! cense renewal must exionslosCyrovided that necessary '
information.
be established before.itilities can
==f-hy'shnesures such as '
- o. EnvironmentalInformation.
reasonably determine whether renewal mamm$ ses9edlance, repair, and *
- l of their existing operating licenses is f%'ama=#Est? Miimplemente'd, p
,d o
economically justified. (For more desm $ theFemtended period of operation.
- r. Report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguarda.
Information on the expiration dates of Simultaneously, a request for
- a. Emergency Planning Considerations.
facility operating licenses, see appendix comments on the establishment of a
- t. Plant Physical Security Considerations.
A to the regulatory analyels for license policy statement on life extension was
- u. Operator Ucensing Considerations.
renewal NUREG-1362.) To ensure a published in the Federal Register (51 FR
Federal Register / Vol. 56 No. 240 / Friday. Decernber 13, 1991 / Rules aru Regulations 64945 Proposed Rule on Nuclear Power Plant Coahtion on Nuclear Pollution; and 111. Final Action Ucense Renewal" and NUREG-1362, NIRS and Greenpeace). Fifteen residents
" Regulatory Analysis for Proposed Rule near the Yankee Rowe plant stated their pe t ren of cens e a d the on Nuclear Power Plant License opposition to renewal of that plant's Renewal., A 90-day comment period operating license. Forth.six other Commission't current provision governing license renewal,10 CFR 50.51, wa s provided, which expired on individuals submitted letters supporting do not contain specific procedures.
October 15.1990. Three requests for the proposed rule.The DOE provided criteria, and standards that must be extension of the com, ment period were comments generally in support of the satisfied in order to renew a license, received. The Commission demed these rule.Two agencies from the State of This final rule,10 CFR part 54' requests (55 FR 34939, August 27,1990)
Ohio responded: Ohio EPA and establishes the procedures, criteria, and but reiterated its intention to consider Emergency Management Agency.
standards governing nuclear power comments received after the closing Included in the State agency piant gkense renewsi.
date if practical to do so. Comments classification is the Massachusetts State The most fundamentalissue in this received by December 31.1990, were Senate Office of Senator Joim Olver who considered. In total,197 comment letters represents a district near the Yankee rulemaking is what standards and scope were received, including 121 from Rowe plant.
of review should apply to license anizations and 76 from private An analysis of the public comments apptoa to a d ut n ese and the Commission's response to these issues are discussed in detailin section Eighty.three separate responses were comments are documented in NUREG-IV. In brief,.
received from the nuclear industry. The 1428. " Analysis of Public Comments on the Proposed Rule on Nuclear Power (1)It is not necessary for the most extensive comments were provided by NUMARC. In addition four Ph.nt License Renewal." The Commission to review each renewal other industry organizations responded:
Commission's resolution of principal 8pplic.ation against standards and Electric Power Research Institute, issues raised by the commenters is also criteria that apply to newer plants or l
Nuclear Utility Group on Equipment nearporated in the pertinent sections of future plants in order to ensure that Qualification. Nuclear Utility Backfitting the Statement of Considerations for this operati n during the period of exten,ded and Reform Group, and Utility operation is not inimical to the pubhc l
Decommissioning Group. Eighteen health and safety. Since initial licensing.
organizations representing vendors and Implementation guidance for 10 CFR each operating plant has continually manufacturers of nuclear.related part 54 was drafted on the basis of the been inspected and reviewed as a result squipment submitted comments, proposed rule and issued as drafts for of new information gained from including Westinghouse Corporation pubhc comment on December 10,1990 operating experience. QWooing e and Asea Brown Boveri-Combustion Two staff guidance documents were 34gulatory provide reasonable i
Engineering Nuclear Power. In addition, included: Draft Regulatory Guide DG-aneurinos tias new issues and 3
two ecgineering firms responded.nirty-Techm. Standard Format and Content of N
concerns arisa, measures needed to
- calInformation for Applications ensure that operation la not inimical to five nuclear utility companies provided separate responses. Many of them did to Renew Nuclear Power Plant the public health and safety and not provide detailed comments but Operatina Licenses." December 1990, common defense and security are simply endorsed the comments provided and NUREG-1299. " Standard Review "backfitted" onto the plants.'!%s 1 by NUMARC.
Plan for the Review of License Renewal Commission cannot conclude that its 1
Three law firms submitted comments Applications for Nuclear Power Plants,"
regalation of operating reactors is -
on behalf of utilities. nuclear industry November 1990.%e pubhc comment
" perfect" and cannot be improved, that groups, and other organizations. Spiegel period closed on March 6.1991.These all safety issues applicable to all plants (
and McDiarmid submitted comments on documents will be revised as a result of have been resolved. or that all plants b1 half of the American Public Power public comments, this final rule. and the have been and at all times in the future '
Association (AppA) and the National experience gained during the review of will operata in perfect mmpliance with f,
Rural Electric Cooperative Association the lead plant license renewal all NRC requirements. Ilowever, lg sed cnd Power Systems. Winston and application.
upon its review of the Ngulatorf' Strawn submitted five separate sets of The environmentalimpacts of programs in this rulemaking, the comments.One set was on behalf of the individual nuclear power plant license Commission does conclude that (a) its broad and rigorous to establish that the(
Utility Decommissioning Group, one set renewals are the subject of a generic program of oversight is sufficiently was on behalf of the Nuclear Utility environmentalimpact statement (CEIS)
Bsekfitting and Reform Group and a separate rulemaking action that added discipline of a formallicense *
(NUBARG), two were on behalf of nine will propose changes to to CFR part 51.
renewal review against the full range of 4 utilities. and one was for seven utilities.
An Advance Notice of Proposed current safety requirements would not i Newman and Holtzinger submitted Rulemaking invited early public add signiDeantly to safety, and (b) such 4 comments on behalf of15 utilities.
comments concerning this part 51 a
iaw is not needed to ensure that Non-industry groups comprised 17 rulemaking (55 FR 29964; july 23.1990).
con
'operttfon during the period 4f public interest groups, e publishing A Notice of Intent (NO!) to prepare a extended operstion is not inimical to thes company (Nuclear plant Journal), a GE!S was simultaneously published public health and safety,1 business organization (U.S. Chamber of with the notice of proposed rulemaking The regulatory process also reviews Commerce), a professional organization (55 IR 29967; July 23.1990). The the ownership and operation of the (American Nuclear Society), a law firm proposed revisions to part 51 and the facility to ensure that the operation of
, (Hopkins and Sutter). three Federal supporting documents were published nuclear power plants will not be agencies and nine State agencies. Some for public review and comment on inimical to the common defense and public interest groups submitted September 17,1991 (58 FR 47016). The recurity. Accordingly, the Commission comments jointly with others (e.g.. Joint comment period for this action expires concludes that a formal license renewal response by UCS and New England December 16.1991.
review against applicable common
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 240 / Friday. December 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64947
- 5. First Principle: Process for Ensuring the Commission's consideration of new that would continue during the renewal teceptability of Current Licensing Basis information provides ongoing assurance term. each licensee is required to notify that the licensing bases for all nuclear the Commission promptly of any plant (i) General power plants provide an acceptable event that meets or exceeds the When the Commission issued the level of safety.The process will threshold defined in to CFR 50.72 and to initiz! operating license under 10 CFR continue through the term of a renewed file a written licensee event report for 50.57 it concluded that the facility had license. Similarly, the Commission those events that meet or exceed the
~
been completed and would be operated considers new information on whether threshold defined in 10 CFR 50.73. The in accordance with the operating license the nuclear power plants continue to NRC reviews this information daily and application. the rules and regWations of provide for the common defense and follow-up efforts are carried out for the Commission. and the provisions of security. such as changes in ownership events that appear to be potentially risk the Atomic Energy Act (AEA). Further.
or proposals to use highly enriched fuel.
significant or are judged to be a possible the Commission concluded that the nese processes will also continue precursor to a more severe event.
authorized activities could be conducted throughout the term of the renewed Depending on the significance, further without undue risk to the health and license.
action may be taken to notify all safety of the public and the common in addition to Commission. required licensees or to impose additional defense and security. the applicant was changes in the licensing bases, a requirements. The NRC receives technically quahfied. the applicable licensee may also seek changes to the information on operating events from provisions of 10 CFR part 140 had been current licensing basis for its plant.
licensees in the form of licensee event met and the issuance of an operating However, as a commenter indicated, reports and disseminates infarmation license would not be inimical to the these changes are subject to the that may be relevant to safety, common defense and security or to the Commission's formal regulatory controls safeguards, or environmentalissues in health and safety of the public.nus.
with respect to the changes, including to the form of information notices. The when the Commission issued the initial CFR 50.59. 50.90. 50.91. and 50.92. Under NRC also transmits information to and operating license it made a i 50.59. a licensee may make changes to requests action by licensees through comprehensive determination that the its facility without prior Commission bulletins and other reports such as design, construction and proposed approvalif certain conditions are met; generic letters.Dese documents operation of the facility satisfied the documentation of these changes must be typically require a written response Commission's requirements and maintained for speciDed periods of time. from licensees concerning actions taken provided reasonable assurance of This regulation also requires a licensee or to be taken over a period of time to cdequate protection to the public health to annually submit to the Commission a address matters of safety, safeguards, or cnd safety and common defense and description of the changes made to the environmentalsignificance.lf a sicurity.
facility without prior NRC approval. A licensee's action does not adequately However, the licensing basis upon licensee may also request Commission address items described in a bulletin.
which the Commission determined at approval to change its licensing basis or the staff may consider issuing an order the issuance of the initial operating facility if the conditions stated in 5 50.59 to impose the specific requirement. He license that an acceptable level of safety cannot be met, using the license total program offers a high degree of l
existed, and that the common defense amendment process descnbed in assurance that evects that are and security was provided, does not ll 50.90 and 50.92. These regulatory potentially risk algnificant or precursors remain fixed for the term of the controls ensure that a documented basis to potentisUy signincant events are cperating license. Jhs licensing basis for licensee. initiated changes in the being reviewed and resolved evolves throughout the term of the licensing basis for a plant exists and exPeditiousj,y operatmg beense because of the that Commission nytew and approval is continuing regulatory activities of the obtained prior to implementation if (iii) Ceneric Safety issues ComWanion, as well es the activities of changes to the licensing basis raise As described in SECY-as-138, the the !!cansee. As discussed in sections unreviewed safety questions or involve Commission also maintains an acun IV.b. (ii) through (vi) and IV.c. the changes to the technical specifications.
Commission engages in a large number
%e fmal safety analysis report is program for evaluaung and ruoMng of regulatory activities which, when periodically updated to reflect such generic safety issues that may impact considered together, constitule a changes.
public beslth and safety. A genenc regul tory process th61 provides ongoing In sum, the Commission's regulatory safetyissue A)invoins a safety assurance that the licensing baser of processes provide reasonable assurance concern that may affect the design.
nuclear power plants proy1de ans that the discipline of a formallicense construction, or operation of all. several, acceptable level of safety.This process renewal review against either the fuu or a class of nactors or facihtin. Its includes research. inspections, audits.
range of current safety requirements or resolution may have a potential for invzstigations. evaluations of operating the requirements on common defense safety improvzments and promulgation experience, and regulatory actions to and security would not add significantly of new or revised requirements or resolve identified issues.The to safety or common defense and guidance. De prioritization process, as Commission's activities may result in security and is not needed to ensure that described in NUREG-4933, evaluates the changes to the licensing bases for continued operation during the renewal safety significance of an issue and nuclear power plants through the term is not inimical to the public health classifies the issues as high. medium, or promulgation of new or revised and safety or the common defense and low priority GSIs.CSIs that are regulations, acceptance of licensee security.
categorized as high priority are further commitments for the modification to evaluated to determine whether they riuclear power plant designs and (ii) Review of Operating Events involve questlocs regarding adequate
' procedures, and the issuance of orders he Commission has a program for protection of the public health and or connrmatory action letters or the review of operating events at safety and therefors should be re-confirmation that there is no need to nuclear power plants. As a requirement categorized as unresolved safety issues change the licensing basia. In this way.
of the current licensing basta, and one (US!s). GSIs are issues that involve
Federal Register / Vol. Se, No. 240 / Friday December 13, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64943 NUCLEAR REGULATORY
- v. Financial Qualification Considerations.
reasoned process for considering license COMMISSION
- w. Decommissioning Considerations.
renewal for those who may pursue it,
- x. Antitrust Review.
the NRC is establishing the procedures.
s pli{nca w th to criteria. and standards goveming the
]
Part 140.
10 CFR Parta 2,50,54, and 140 y
g y_
RIN 31$0 AD04 VI. Finding of No Significant Environmental requirements for renewal of nuclear 4
Impact.
power plant operating licenses.
Nuclear Power Plant 1.lconse Renewal VII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.
II. Backgmund Vill. Regulatory Analysis.
t.GaNcy: Nuclear Regulatory IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification.
The NRC's research program on the f
Commission.
X. Non Applicability of Backfit Rule.
degradation of nuclear power plant
{
ACTION: Final rule.
I. Introduction systems, structures, and components Ib 'fgf" 8((8 j summy: The Nuclear Regulatory The Atomic Energy Act of1954 (AEA) g cognizing Commission is issuing a final rule that limits the duration of most o erating the potentialimpa :t of plant aging l
establishes the requirements that an licenses for nuclear power p ants to a phenomena on the continued safe I
applicant for renewal of a nuclear maximum of 40 years but permits their power plant operating license must renewal. The Commission's regulations operation of nuclear power plants, 1
convened a " Workshop on Plant Aging" meet, the information that must be at 10 CFR 50.51 implement this authority in Bethesda, Manland.The purpose of submitted to the NRC for review so that by pennitting renewal. However, I 50.51 the workshop was to focus attention on the agency can determine whether those provides no standards for procedures for how to best proceed to identify and requirements have in fact been met, and renewal applications. The nuclear utility g
gg the application procedures. This rule is industry has expressed considerable necessary to provide the regulatory interest in operating existing nuclear related to plant aging. In 1965, the Division of Engineering of the Office of l
Nuclear Regulatory Research issued the j
p an oper ing c7nses beyond ra io e in ustry h a en pw 40 ears' several initiatives in support of plant life first comprehensive program plan extension. A Steering Cornmittee on (NUREG-1144)forNuclearPlant Aging EFFECTIVE DATE:Januan 13,1992.
Nuclear Plant Life Extension (NUPLEX)
Research (NpAR). By 1986, the Fon FunTurn tNFonwArloN CONTACT:
has been formed under the direction of evaluation of age-related degradation in Giorge Sege, Office of Nuclear the Nuclear Management and Resources safety-related SSCs became a more Regulatory Research. U.S. Nuclear Council (NUMARC).The Electric Power important priority with the recognition that utilities were interested in Regulatory Commission, Washington.
Research Institute (EPRI). in cooperation DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 492 3917; or with the U.S. Dgpartment of Energy extending the life of their existing power Francis Akstulewicz, Office of Nuclear (DOE), and two.mhties has e sponsored plants beyond the term of their original Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear research on life extension, including operating licenses,in response to the Regulatory Commission Washington.
pilot studies on two nuclear plants.
NPAR program plan, the NRC staff DC 20555. Telephone:(301) 4921136.
Surry-1 and Monticello. This has established a Technical Integration SUPPLEssElsT ARY INFoRMATIOIC.
culminatedinDOEfundmg of twolead Review Group for the Aging and Life
- 1. Introduction.
applications for renewal of the operating Extension (TIRCAIEO.Re objectives IL Background.
licenses for the Yankee Rowe and of TIRCALEX were to clearly define the IIL Final Action.
Monticello Facilities.
technical, safety, and regulatory policy IV. Principal!ssues.
The nuclear industry has urged the issues associated with plant aging and
- s. Regulatory Philosophy and Approach:
NRC to develop standards and life extension and to develop a plan for j
Two Principles.
procedures for license renewal so that resolving the issues in a timely, well-i
- b. First Principle: Procesa for Ensuring.
the utilities would know what will be integrated manner. In May 1987, the 1
required to obtain a renewed operating NRC issued the TIRGALEX report. " Plan j
'"'I"8 c.
nt nang is
- d. Second Pnnciple: Maintaining the license.The industry states that a to Accomplish TechnicalIntegration for Ucensing Basis During Renewal Term.
license renewal rule is needed now Plant Aging / Life Extension."It
- e. Aging Management and Integrated Plant because a significant number of plants identified a broad spectrum of technical, i
Assessment.
will be making decisions in the near safety, and regulatory policy issues.
- f. Renewal Finding and Hearing Scope.
future as to whether to seek license Hese issues included identification of
- g. Nature of Ucense.
renewal. For the oldest nuclear power SSCs that are susceptible to aging and
- h. Latest Date for Fahns Renewal plants, the expiration dates of their could adversely affect safety; Application the Timely Renewal original operating licenses are degradation processes; testing.
\\.
ne and Sufficiency of Renewal approaching. Utilities contend that they surveillance, and maintenance L Earliest Date for Filing Applications.
will require 101015 years to plan and requirements; and criteria for evaluating 1.Withdrawalof Application.
build replacement power plants if the residuallif osocluded that r L Renewal Term.
operating licenses for existing nuclear shamyaglag cenema are readily e L Effective Date of Renewed ucense.
power plants are not renewed.They and do not pose major s
- m. Subsequent Renewals.
also contend that the NRC's technical liasisee that would preclude life
- n. Content of Application--Technical requirements for license renewal must extensioeCprovided that necessary '
Information.
be established before.itilities can
==p==*=yse6esures such as reasonably determine whether renewal asedN68htact, thEWE*=. repair, and *
- o. EnvironmentalInformation.
(
MN **j of their existing operating licenses is i=Wa===4a6.Nectively implemented
- t. Report of the Advisory Committee on economically justified. (For more dests4 tid entlessdod period of operation.,
Reactor Safeguards, information on the expiration dates of Simultaneously, a request for a Emergency Planning Considerations.
facility operating licenses, see appendix comments on the establishment of a
- t. Plant Physical Secunty Considerations.
A to the regulatory analysis for license policy statement on life extension was
- u. Operator ucensing Considerations.
renewal. NUREG-1362.) To ensure a published in the Federal Register (51 FR
84944 Federal Register / Vol. So, No. 20 / Frid:y, Decembtr 13, 1991 / Rules cnd Regulstions 40334: November 6,1986). Comments were described and discussed:(1) the neture of a renewed license were requested on seven major policy, Emphaelse maintenance inspection, and (renewed license versus arnendment of technical, and procedural issues (21 reliability assurance, or (2) emphasize existing license), the need for a PRA, separate questions). Two policy areas defense-in. depth. no relative merit of integration with the Individual Plant focused on the timing of regulatory the two alte: natives was the second -
Examination (IPE) process, and action on life extension. including the subject for co nment. Third, the compliance with the National need for a policy statement. and timing advinbility of preparing a generic EnvironmentalPolicy Act(NEPA).
I of resolution of policy, technical, and environmental impact statement (GEIS)
On October 13,19ee (54 FR 41980), the j
proceduralissues. Other issues and the question of whether part 51 Commission announced that a workshop i
addressed included (1) the earliest and should be amended to permit the NRC would be held on November 13 and 14.
latest dates for filing a life extension the option of preparing an toes, to focus on specific techn; cal application and the potential term of environmental assessment (EA) instead issues, including identification of the such an extension:(2) an appropriate nf an environmentalimpact statement significant technicalissues bearing on licensing basis, including the need for were discussed. Finally,12 procedural safety, the nature and content of and role of a probabilistic risk an:t policy issues were discussed.
standards for issuance of a renewed assessment (PRA):(3) the nature of Comaem we invited on the license, and the appropriate role and aging degradation, its identification erd envirwntal, procedaral and policy scope of deterministic and probabilistic mitigation, and the need for research issue.
risk assessments in addition, the and changes to industry codes and Fhty.three written comments were schedule for rulemaking and standards; and (4) h need for teceived for nuclear industry groups and alternatives for addressing compliance procedural changes in the Commission's individual utihties, public interset with NEPA were identified as issues for regulations for handhas life extension groups, and Federal State agencies in discussion. Genersi questions to focus requests. A total of 58 written comments response to the ANPR and NUREG-workshop discussions were provided in were received from the electric utility 1317, An overview and summary the Federal Register notice and later industry, public interest groups, private analysis of the comments are contained
.upplemented by a more detailed set of citisans, independent consultants, and in NUREC/CR-5332 " Summary and questions. In addition, the Federal government agencies.nese comments Analysis of Public Comments on Register notice included a " Preliminary were reviewed and a summary provided NUREG-1317: Regulatory Options for Re culatory Philosophy and Approach for in SECY-47-179," Status of Staff Nuclear Plant Ucensa Renewal" (March Ucense Renewal Regulation" and an Activities to Develop a Ucense Renewal 19es).
" Outline of a Conceptual Approach to a Policy, Regulatione and ucensing Also in 1988, the NRC,in cooperation Ucense Renewal Rule." Written Guidance and to Report on Pubhc with the American Nuclear Society comments on the questions, the Comments"(July 21,1987).
(ANS), the American Society of Civil statement of regulatory philosophy, and Based on these comunents, the staff Engineers (ASCE), the American Society the con t rule outline were began to specifically identify and of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and accepted the agency up to Decembe resolve the wide variety of policy and the lastitute of Electrical and Electronic 1,198B. Transcripts were made of the technicalissues relevant to hfe Engineers (IEEE), sponsored an entire workshop.Two hundred and one extension. In August 1988, the staff International Nuclear Power Plant Aging individuals (not including NRC staff) published an Advance Notice of Symposium.%e symposium, which was representing se organizations registered Proposed RulemaMntr (ANPR)in the held in Bethesda, Maryland, from for the workshop. Comments provided Federal Register (53 FR 32919: August 29, August 30 through September 1.19es, during the workshop were from industry 1988)in which the Commission was attended by more than 550 representatives and individuals announced its intention to bypass a internationally prominent nuclear affiliated with the nuclear industry.
policy statement and go directly to scientists and engineers from 16 NUMARC, Yankee Atomic Electric preparing a proposed rule on license countries.The symposium focused of the Company, and Northern States Power renewat ne ANPR also announced the potential safety issues arising from Company presented prepared comments availability of NUREG-1317 progressive aging of nuclear at each session. In addition, written
" Regulatory Options for Nuclear Plant plants.These issues includ aging of comments were received from 12 Ucense Renewal" and requested insulating materiala, degradation of organlaatione, including substantial comments on the issues discussed in the pumps and valves, reliability of safety submissions by NUMARC, Yankee NUREG report. First, three alternative system components.rediation and Atomic, Northern States Power, licensing bases for assessing the thermal embrittlement of metals, and Westinghouse, the Illmois Dept.rtment cdequacy of a license renewal erosion corrosion of fluid. mechanical of Nuclear Safety, and an independent application were presented and systems. The symposium discussion consultant. DOE was the only Federal d!-"-+ (1)%e existing licensing addressed topics in the staffs report agency submitting written comments.
basis for a facility. (2) supplementation NUREG-1317, which had been published No comments were submitted by any of the existinglicens' basis with immediately precedmg the symposium, public interest group. The issues raised reviews in safety o ' cant areas, or (3) he proceedings of the symposium were in these comments are discussed in compliance with new. plant standards at published as NUREG/CP4100 in March NUREG-1411.
the time the application is submitted.
1989.
On July 17,1990, the Commisshn Commenters were asked to identify The NRC staffs views on specific issued for public comment the proposed whether any other major regulatory license renewal issues, as evolved in rule for license renewal (55 FR 29043).
options for license renewal should be early 1989, were presented to the public Comments were also solicited on the l
considered and whether verification of in an NRC panel discussion and following supporting documents that j
the existing licensing basis at each plant question and answer session at the provided the basis for the rule: NUREC should be required for license renewal.
NRC's Regulatory Information 1412. " Foundation for the Adequacy ot Second. tno alternatives for handling Conference, held on April 18,19, and 20.
the Ucensing Bases"; NUREG-1398.
uncertainties in age-related degradation 1980. Among the issues discussed were
" Environmental Assessment for
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64945 Proposed Rule on Nuclear Power Plant Coalition on Nuclear Pollution: and
!!!, Final Action License Renewal"; and NUREG-1382, NIRS and Greenpeace). Fifteen residents A
" Regulatory Analysis for Proposed Rule near the Yankee Rowe plant stated their p,
,, rene va of icens s a d the on Nuclear Power Plant License opposition to renewal of that plant,:
Renewal. A 90-day comment period operating license. Forth.six other Commission's current provision governing license renewal.10 CFR 50.51, was provided, which expired on mdividuals submitted letters supporting October 15,1990. Three requests for the proposed rule. The DOE provided fr]te la and stan ah must e extension of the comment period were comments generally in support of the satisfied in order to renew a gicense, ecceived. The Commission denied these rule, Two agencies from the State of requests (55 FR 34939 August 27,1990)
Ohio responded: Ohio EPA and f,h '
tab is e th proc ure titeria, and but reiterated its intention to consider Emergency Management Agency.
standards governing nucjear power comments received after the closing included in the State agency plant license renewal.
date if practical to do so. Comments classification is the Massachusetts State The most fundamentalissue in this received by December 31,1990, were Senate Office of Senator John Olver who considered. In total,197 comment letters represents a district near the Yankee rulemaking is what standards and scope were received, including 121 from Rowe plant, f review should apply to license organizations and 78 from private An analysis of the public comments citizens.
approach to and resolution of these and the Commission's response to these Eighty.three separate responses were comments are documented in NUREG-IV,"in brief. """
received from the nuclear industry. The m8, " Analysis of Public Comments on the Proposed Rule on Nuclear Power (1)It is not necenary for the most extensive comments were provided by NUMARC. In addition, four Plant License Renewal." The Commission to review each renewal other industry organizations responded:
Commission's resolution of principal application against standards and j
Electric Power Research Institute, issues raised by the com nenters is also critene that apply to newer plants or Nuclear Utility Group on Equipment incorporated in the pertinent sections of future plants in order to ensure that Qualification, Nuclear Utility Backfitting the Statement of Considerations for this peration during the period of extended and Reform Group, and Utility
- j
operation is not inimical to the public Decommissioning Group. Eighteen health and safety. Since initiallicensing, organizations representing vendors and Implementation guidance for 10 CFR each operating plant has continually manufacturers of nuclear.related part 54 was drafted on the basis of the been inspected and reviewed as a result equipment submitted comments, proposed rule and issued as drafts for of new information ga!ned from including Westinghouse Corporation public comment on December 10,1990.
operating experience. Ogigoing g and Asea Brown Boveri-Combustion Two staff guidance documents were aqquiatory.
provide reasonable Engineering Nuclear Power. In addition, included: Draft Regulatory Guide DG-
,,,g ne, g, as new issues and s two engineering firms responded. nitty. 1009, " Standard Format and Content of concerns arise, measures needed to
- five nuclear utility companies provided TechnicalInformation for Applications ensure that operation is not inimical to separate responses. Many of them did to Renew Nuclear Power Plant the public heelth and safety and not provide detailed comments but Operating Licenses," December 1990, cuernon defense and security are simply endorsed the comments provided and NUREG-1299, " Standard Review "backfitted" onto the plants.%e 1 by NUMARC.
Plan for the Review of License Renewal Commission cannot conclude that its 1
nree law firms submitted comments Applications for Nuclear Power Plants,"
regulation of operating reactors la on behalf of utilities, nuclear industry November 1990. The public comment perfect" and cannot be improved, that g groups, and other organizations. Spiegel period closed on March 6,1991. These all safety issues applicable to all plants and McDiarmid submitted comments on documents will be revised as a result of have been resolved, or that all plants behalf of the Ameri an Public Power public comments, this final rule, and the have been and at all times in the future '
Association (APpA.1d the National experience gained during the review of will operata in perfecisompliance with f,
Rural Electric Cooperative Association the lead plant bcense renewal all NRC requirements. However, ly s ed and Power Systems. Winston and application.
upen its review of thh rWgulatory""
Strawn submitted five separate sets of he environmentalimpacts of programs in this rulemaking, the comments.One set was on behalf of the individual nuclear power plant license Comnission does conclude that (a) its program of oversight la sufficientlytnood Utility Decommissioning Group, one set renewals are the subject of a generic was on behalf of the Nuclear Utility environmentalimpact statement (CElS)
Backfitting and Reform Group and a separate rulemaking action that added discipline of a formallicense *
(NUBARG), two were on behalf of nine will propose changes to 10 CFR part 51.
renewal review against the full range of 4 utilities, and one was for seven utilities.
An Advance Notice of Proposed current safety requirements would not I Newman and Holtzinger submitted Rulemaking invited early public add significantly to safety, and (b) such 4 comments on behalf of 15 utilities.
comments concerning this part 51 a
iaw is not needed to ensure than Non industry groups comprised 17 rulemaking (55 FR 29964; july 23,1990).
openstfon during the period 4I Con public interest groups, e publishing A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a extanded operation is not inimical to thee company (Nuclear Plant Journal), a CElS was simultaneously published pubBe health and safety, i business organization (U.S. Chamber of with the notice of proposed rulemaking The regulatory process also reviews Commerce), a prcfessional organization (55 FR 29967; July 23,1990). The the ownership and operation of the (American Nuclear Society), a law firm proposed revisions to part 51 and the facility to ensure that the operation of
, (Hopkins and Sutter), three Federal supporting documents were published nuclear power plants will not be agencies, and nine State agencies. Some for public review snd comment on inimical to the common defense and public interest groups submitted September 17,1991 (56 FR 47016). The security. Accordingly, the Commission comments jointly with others (e g., joint comment period for this action expires concludes that a formallicense renewal response by UCS and New England December 16,1991.
review against applicable common
l 1
a 64&46 Fed:r:1 R1 gist:r / Vol. 56 No. 240 / Friday. December 134.291n / Rules and Regulstions l
defense and security requirements is not kinds of issues would, by their nature, current term of operation would depend needed to ensure that continued not be addressed in ongoing processes on tha cruelated decision of a licensee optration during the period of extended intended to provide adequete protection to seek license renewal and the timing operation is not inimical to the common during the initial term of operation but.
of the Comrniuion's renewal decision.
defense and security.
because of their plant-specific nature.
In some cases, safety or security may be (21 The Commission's ongoing must be addressed in renewals case by endangeredit the resolution of a safety processes have not. quite logically.
care.
or security matter relevant to both.
i cddressed safety questions which. by (4)ne licensing basis for a nuclear ongoing and extended operation were their nature, become important power plant during the renewal term postponed until the final renewal principally during the period of will consist of the current licensing basis decision (which itself may occur several ext nded operation beyond the initial and new commitments to monitor, years after filing of the rene val (0-year license term. By their nature, manage, and correct age-related application). WMie in theory the these questions have limited relevance degradation un!que to licensa renewa!
Commission could undertake l
to safety under the initial operatir.g as appropriate. The current hcensing duplicative reviews ofissues that are lic:nses. This leads the Commission to basis includes all applicable NRC relevant to both ongoingoperation conclude. as explained in greater detail requirements and h,censee comnutments, during the current lloonse term and in section IV that age-related as defined in the rule.
extended operatton beyond the current d1 gradation of plant systems, structures.
(5) An opportunity for a formal pubh.c term, this would be wasteful of the e.nd components that is unique for the hearing is provided to permit interected extended period of operation must be persons to raise contentions on the Commission'a resources. As part of this slevated before a renewed license is adequacy of the renewal applicant's rulemaking. the Commission has issued. This is a new safety issue that proposals to address age-related carefully considered the desirability of l
has not been treated in a comprehensive degradation unique to license renewal renewal reviews that would duplicate s
fashion in the Commission's ongoing and compliance with applicable the Commission's ongoing review of oversight of operating reactors.
requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Section operating reactors. This consideration However, age related degradation will 2158 of10 CFR part 2 is amended to has nonetheless led the Commission to be critical to safety during the term of specify the circumstances under which formulate the following two principles.
the renewed license.De Commission the 10 CFR part 54 rule may be 4 The first principlede that. with the 4
believes that the disciplme of a formal challenged in such a hearing.
exception of age-related degradation I
integrated plant assessment of age.
(6) A renewalapplication may be unique to license renewal and possibly f
related degradation unique to license made not more than 20 years before renewalisnecessa..The Commission license expiration. It must be made not some few otherissues related to safety
^
I recogn!reethat. as gains more less than 5 years before license onIy during extended operanon, th experience with age-related degradation expiration for the timely renewal mgulatory processis adequate to ensure l
review, it may revisit the netd for such a provision of to CFR 2.109 to apply, that the Ucensing besea of all curmndy disciplined review process and (7) A renewaHicense is effective upon operating plants provide and maintain potentially narrow the scope of the its issuance and supersedes the existirig an acceptable level of safety foe safety review. But for now, the operating license.
operation so that operation will not be Comrnission concludes that a formal (8) A renewallicense may be granted Ipimical to public health and safety or I
review of age related degradation for a term as justified by the licensee, common defense and security.
unique to license renewal is needed at but not for more than 20 years beyond Contmuing this regulatory process in the j
lic:nse renewal to ensure that operation the existing license expiration.
future will ensure that this principle during the period of extended operation W. Principal Issues remains valid during any renewal term j
will not be mimical to the public health if the regulatory process is modified to and safety,
- a. Regulotory Philosophy and Approach include age-related degradation unique (3) Age-related degradation is the Two Pnnciples to license renewal Moreover, result of physical processes and a There is considerable logic to the consideration of the range of issues i
nitural consequence of plant operation.
proposition that Isades that are material relevant ordy to extended operation has Many plant SSCs have been designed-as to whether a nuclear power plant led the Commission to conclude that for a 40 year life.%e design of these operating license may be renewed there is likely only one realissue SSCs has accounted for age related should be conftned to those issoas tfyt generally applicable to all plants--age-factors such as fatigue, corrosion. and are uniquely relevant to protecting me related degradation. The renewal rule other effects of the environment to prblic bealth and safety and common focuses the Commission's review on this which the SSCs are exposed during at defense and security during the renewal one safety issue but provides leeway for least thia 40Lyear period. However, since peridd. Other issues would, by the Commission to consider, on a case-license renewal will result in operatice definition. have a relevance to the safety by-case basis. other issues unique to of these SSCs beyond the 40 years and security of current niant operation..
extended operation.
assumedin their design. additional Civen the CommissicG ongoing analyses and/or actions may be obligation to oversee the safety and 4 The second and equally important necessary to ensure that an acceptable security of operating reactors. Issues principle is that each plant's current level of safety is maintained dunng the that are relevant to both current plang licensing basis must be maintained period of extended operation For operation and operation during the during the renewal term. in part through individual plants, there may be other extended period must be addressed now a program of age-related degradation safety it. sues that may arise in within the present license term rather reanagement for systema, structures, and connection with renewal that, by their than at the time of renewal. Otherwise, camponents that are important to
- nature, are not relevant to safety during the scope of Commission inquiry into license renewat es def' Ted in the find the initial operating license term. These the safety and security during the rule.
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 240 / Friday. December 13, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64947
- 4. Arst Pnnciple: Process for Ensuring the Commission's consideration of new that would continue during the renewal tcceptobility of Current Licensing Basis information provides ongoing assurance term, each licensee is required to notify that the licensing bases for all nuclear the Commission promptly of any plant (i) Ceneral power plants provide an acceptable event that meets or exceeds the When the Comnussion issued the levelof safety He process will threshold defined in 10 CFR 50.72 and to trutial operating license under 10 CFR continue through the term of a renewed file a written licensee event report for 50 57. it concluded that the facility had license. Similarly, the Commission those events that meet or exceed the been completed and would be operated considers new information on whether threshold defined in 10 CFR 50.73.%e in eccordance with the operating license the nuclear power plants continue to NRC reviews this information daily and application. the rules and regulations of provide for the common defense and follow.up efforts are carried out for the Commission. and the provisions of security, sach as changes in ownership events that appear to be potentially risk the Atomic Energy Act (AEA). Further.
or proposals to use highly enriched fuel.
significant or are judged to be a possible the Commission concluded that the Rese processes will also continue precursor to a more severe event.
authorized activities could be conducted throughout the term of the renewed Depending on the significance, further without undue risk to the health and license.
action may be taken to notify all szfety of the public and the common in addition to Commission. required licensees or to impose additional defense and security, the applicant was changes in the licensing bases, a requirements. The NRC receives technically qualified, the applicable licensee may also seek changes to the information on operating events from provisions of 10 CFR part 140 had been current licensing basis for its plant.
licensees in the form of licensee event met, and the issuance of an operating However, as a commenterindicated.
reports and disseminates information license would not be inimical to the these changes are subject to the that may be relevant to safety, common defense and security or to the Commission's formal regulatory controls safeguards, or environmental issues in heelth and safety of the public.hus, with respect to the changes including to the form ofinformation notices.%e when the Commission issued the initial CFR 50.59. 50.90. 50.91, and 50.92. Under NRC also transmits information to and operating license,it made a i 50.59, a licensee may make changes to requests action by licensees through comprehensive determination that the its facility without prior Commission bulletins and other reports such as design construction, and proposed approval if certain conditions are met; generic letters. %ese documents operation of the facility satisfied the documentation of these changes must be typically require a written response Commission's requirements and maintained for specified periods of time. from licensees concerning actions taken provided reasonable assurance of his regulation also requires a hcensee or to be taken over a period of time to cdIquate protection to the public health to annually submit to the Commission a address matters of safety, safeguards, or and safety and common defense and description of the changes made to the ental significance. lf a environm.s action does not adequately security.
facility without prior NRC approval. A gic,3,,,
However, the h,censm, g basis upon licensee may also request Commission address items described in a bulletin.
which the Commission detennined at approval to change its licensing basis or the staff may consider issuing an order the issuance of the initial operating facility if the conditions stated in i 50.59 license that an acceptable level of safety cannot be met. using the license to impose the specific requirement. %e existed. and that the common defense amendment process described in total program offers a high degree of assurance that events that are and secunty was provided. does not il 50 90 and 50.92, hoe regulatory remain fixed for the term of the controls ensure that a documented basis potentially risk significant or precursors D
signifi operating license. De lirenning basis for licensee-initiated changes in the evolves throughout the tasm of the licensing beals for a plant exists and be ^8 re wed and lve operating license because of the that Commiesion review and approvalis expeditiously, continuing regulatory activities of the obtained prior to implementation if (111) Ceneric Safety issues ComW41on. as well as the activities of changes to the licensing basis raise the'tk.aasee. As discussed in sections unreviewed safety questions or involve As described in SECY-aG-138. the IV.b. (ii) through (vi) and IV.c. the changes to the technical specifications.
Commission also maintains an active Commission engages in a large number
%e final safety analysis report is Program for evaluating and resolving of regulatory activities which, when periodically updated to reflect such generic safety issues that may impact considered together. constitt a a regulatory process th61 provi(des ongoing changes, public health and safety. A genenc In sum the Commission's regulatory safety issue (GSI) involves a safety assurance that the licensing basef of processes provide reasonable assurance concern that may affect the design.
nuclear power plants proyide ans that the discipline of a formallicense construction, w operation of all. several, acceptable level of safety.nis process renewal review against either the full or a class of reactors or facilities. Its includes research, inspections, audits, range of ement safety requirements or resolution may have a potential for investigations, evaluations of operating the requirements on mmmon defense safety improvements and promulgation experience. and regulatory actions to and security would not add significantly of new or revised requirernents or i
resolve identified issues.&
to safety or common defense and guidance. %e prioritization procesa, as Commission's activities may result in security and is not needed to ensure that described in NURECHE33 evaluates the changes to the licensing bases for continued operation during the renewal safety significance of an issue and nuclzar power plants through the term is not inimical to the public health classifies the issues as high, medium, or promulgation of new or revised and safety or the common defense and low priority GSIs. CSis that are regulations, acuptance of licenses security.
categorized as high priority are further commitments for the modification to evaluated to determine whether they riuclear power plant designs and (ii) Review of Operating Events involve questions regarding adequete
' procedures, and the issuana of orders ne Commisalon has a program for protection of the public health and i
or confirmatory action letters or the review of operating events at safety and therefore should be re-confirmstion that there is no need to nuclear power plants. As a requirement categorized as unresolved safety issues change the licensing basis. In this way, of the current licensing basis, and one (USts). CSIs are issues that involve l
64948 Fed;r:1 Registir / Vol. So, No. 240 / Friday, Dscsmber 13, 1991 / Rules end Regulations enhancements to safety but do not call between net safety t>cnefit and net cost, protection concerns. (A more detailed into question the adequacy of the the remaining plar.t operating term discussion of this reexamination current licensing basis. By contrast.
ordinanly enters the calculations. Both appears in NUREG-1412. Details of the USIs are defined as issues that the safety value and the cost impact can ocreening are reported in NUREG/CR-potentially involve adequate protection increase with added plant operating 5382. " Screening of Generic Safety of the public health and safety. Thus, a time. The safety value could increase Issues for 1.icense Renewal USI may represent a matter where the over time more than the cost impact, as Consideration," NRC, June 1991.)
adequacy of the current licensing basis would be the case when costs are has not been established. Resolution of largely one time initial costs but the risk (iv) Systematic Evaluation Program a US! may result in a determination that reduction benefit accumulates year after in 1977, the NRC initiated the action is necessary to ensure adequate year with continued operation. As part Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) to protection, or it may result in a ofits efforts toward deve' ping the review the designs of to of the oldest conclusion that. in fact, there are no license renewal rule, the Lommission operating nuclear power plants and concerns as to adequate protection of examined the resolved GSIs for possible thereby confirm and document their the public health and safety and further cases in which consideration of the safety.The reviews were organized into action is not wananted. The licensing additional operating time during the approximately 90 review topics (reduced basis of individual plants includes renewal term might have altered the-by consolidations from 137 originally changes that have resulted from regula tory decision. Since the cases in identified).
resolution of generic issues determined which cost benefit tradeoffs entered the The SEP effort highlighted a group of to be applicable and willinclude decision involved only safety 27 regulatory topics for which corrective applicable generic issue-derived enhancement issues and not issues of action was generally found to be changes in the future.
adequate s:fety, examination of the necessary for the initial SEP plants and A special group of 22 CS!s deemed to effect of the renewal term was not for which safety improvements for other be of sufficient significance to warrant compelled by adequata safety operating plants of the same vintage both a high-prionty resolution effort and considerations. Rather, the Commission could be expected. The topics on this special attention in tracking were undertook the examination as a matter smaller list are referred to as the SEP designated as USIs. All USis have been of prudence to determine if there was a lessons learned, and the Commission resolved. Most of the USI resolutions possible safety enhancement during the expects that these topics would be have been implemented; the remainder renewal term. The examination covered generally applicable to operating plants are being implemented on a satisfactory cases that have the following that received their construction permits schedule. In one case, USI A-46, characteristics:
in the late 1960s or early 1970s.
" Seismic Qualification of Equipment in (1) Beckfitting of a new requirement withio Four of the 27 regulatory topics the Operating Plants " the NRC and the the original licenu term was judged not to 16 highlighted in the SEP effort have been utility groups are negotiating the worthwhile. '
completely resolved and one is of such implementation schedule in accordance (21 Addition of a renewat term could low safety significance as to require no with the NRC policy on integrated inman the safety value without regulatory action.The Commission has schedule for plant modifications, comrnensurate increase in cost impact.
determined that none of the 22 issues l " "
Generic Letter 83-20, dated May 9,1983,
'fal remaining open requires immediate th to cen slues n This process for ensuring impacts are such as to suggest the pouibthey action to protect the public health and implementation of these remaining USIs that with a myear inern u in opnating time safety.The Commission has is the same process used by the NRC in backfitting deserved consideratiort In incorporated the 22 issues into the the past to ensure resolution and addation to operating time, projected established regulatory process for implementation of USIs. Furthermore, population increases near the plant sites determining the safety importance of this process will be used in the future if were taken into account.
CSIs. Further, attention as part of a the NRC identifies new issues that meet Of the 249 CSta that were resolvedt license renewal application is not the definition of a USI.
through October 1990.139 did not restit required. As with the case for GSIs and l
The CSI resolution process, including in backfit requirementat (GSI resolulidh USIs the existing prioritization process USIs. is limited to issues that are not of efforts staded orin progress after j that is being used during the review and such gravity that immediate action October 1990 examine renewal-teraf prioritization of the SEP lessons learned (remedy or shutdown)is required.
effects as part of the originaliss6e issues should prove to be adequate in Several comments were received resolution process.) A screening of these the future to resolve these issues.
suggesting that the implementation of all 139 CSIs led to the identification of" resolved USIs ard GSIs should be a three issues for which a~ reexamination (v) Severe Accident Policy prerequisite to license renewal.The of the backfit deterrfnstion for the The regulatory philosophy containing Commission disagrees.The Commission license renewal period appeared the two fundamental principles is also believes that it has used, and will prudent. In two instances, the consistent with the Commission's policy continue to use, a regulatory process reexamination led to confirmation of thh statement entitled " Severe Reactor that ensures that issues constituting appropriateness of the no.basMit Accidents Regarding Future Designs and USIs will be identified, resolved, and decision for an additional 20 years of Existing Plants"(50 FR 23138. August 8.
implemented with no undue risk to the operation beyond an original 40-year 1985). In this policy statement, the public health and safety or common license term. A third fitushad been Commission concluded that existing defense and security. This process has p! deed til the resolution process fot plants pose no undue risk to pubhc proved effective in the past and will reconsideration aside from license -
health and safety. Moreover, the continue to be used in the future.
renewal and is currently under Commission stated that it has ongoing Cost-benefit analyses were employed reevaluation. All of f!ftissues identified nuclear safety programs, desenbed in as part of the basis of resolving GSIs for reexamination are issues of NUREG-1070, that include the resolution involving safety enhancement above the potentially worthwhile safety of unresolved safet) issues and generic adequate safety level. In these tradeoffs enhancements; none involve adequate safety issues, the Severe Accident
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 240 / Friday. December 13, 1991 / Rules and Regulations G494Y Research Program operating experience specific plant and a licensee's wntten though the backfit rule enhanced the and data evalestion concerning commitments for ensuring compliance discipline of the process.
equipment failures and human error, with and operation within apphcable In view of the regulatory programs and review by NRC inspectors to NRC requirements and the plant-specific and process just described. it is evident monitor the quality of plant design basis (including all modifications that the licensing basis differs among construction. operation and and additions to such commitments over plants.These differences arise from maintenance. If new safety information the life of the license) that are docketed differences in license dale as well as were to become available. from any and are in effect. The CG includes the differenres in such factors as site, plant source. to question the Commission's NRC regulations contained in 10 CFR design, ind plant operating experience.
conclusion of no undue nsk then any pa rts 2,19. 20, 21, 30, 40, 50, 51, 54, 55, 70.
The paragraphs above have described.
technicalissues so identified would be 72,73, and 100 and appendices thereto; in general terms, the process employed resolved by the NRC under its backfit orders. license conditions; exemptions; by the Commission to provide continued policy and other existing procedures.
and technical specifications. It also assurance that the licensing basis at an including the possibility of generic includes the plant-specific design basis operating plant provides an acceptable rulemaking.
information defined in 10 CFR 50.2 as level of safety at any point in time (vi) Probabilistic Risk Assessment d cumented in the most recent final during its operating hfe and that the safety analysis report (FSAR) as current licensing bases of older plants Although a plant. specific probabilistic required by i 50.71(e). In addition the remain acceptable through backfit of risk assessment (PRA) will not be a CG includes the licensee's written new requirements and guidance when requirement for the renewal of plant commitments remaining in effect that that is necessary for adequate safety or operating licenses, the Commission were made in docketed licensing warranted as worthwhile safety recognizes that a plant. specific PRA can correspondence such as licensee enhancements.
be used as an effective tool to provide responses to NRC bulletins, generic A large number of public comments integrated insights into the plant design.
letters, and enforcement actions, expressed concern that the proposed resulting in an additional relative licensee commitments documented in definition of CG restricted the CG to measure of overall plant safety. While NRC safety evaluations, or as desenbed the specific information on the docket at the Commission believes that the in licensee event reports.
the time of the fding of a license renewal methodology for conducting an The CG generally undergoes application. As such, the proposed CW mtegrated plant assessment needed to adjustment from time to time in the light definition suggested that neither a ensure that aging of SSCs is appropriately managed should of new information that develops during licensee nor the staff could make the plant's operating life. The Atomic changes to the axisting to CFR part 50 cmphasize deterministic approaches. the Energy Act directs the Commission to license while the to CFR part 54 renewal Commission also acknowledges that PRA techniques could be used as a ensure that nuclear power plant application was under review. in the operation is not inimical to the health final rule, the Commission has revised supplemental toolin the renewal and safety of the public. However, this the definition of the CG by removing applicant's integrated plant assessment.
The Commission recognizes that PRA standard is not absolute protection or the phrasing that limited the CG to that can be an effective tool to provide zero risk, and therefore safety defined at the time of submittal of the added assurance that all SSCs important improvements beyond the minimum renewal application. The Commission needed to meet this standard are has also revised the rule (i 54.21(e)) to to license renewal have been evaluated, es further discussed in section IV.e.
possible. As new information is include the requirement for licensees to The Commission receis ed a number of develo ed on technical subjects, the provide periodic updates of the renewal NRC i entifies potential hazards and application to reflect changes to the comments concerning the use of PRA or severe accidec' management studies for then may require that plants be able to CG. These updates should contain a cope with such hazards with sufficient determination whether any such license renewal. The industry commented that completion of the safety margins and reliable systems. lf changes would modify the renewal this new information reveals an application.
mdividual plant examination (IPE) and mdividual plant exammation for unreviewed safety question, the Some commenters also raised a external events (IPEEE) programs for Commission may,in light of the concern that the proposed CG infwnation conclude that assurance of definition is too vague and too broad. In severe accident management using PRA-type analysis should not be a an acceptable level of safety requires particular, commenters noted that the prerequisite to license renewal. Current changes in the existing regulations.
words "but are not limited to" are so Therefore, as the Comra.ission identifies broad as to render the definition severe accident programs. namely the new issues or concems, reasoned meaningless, and the proposed IPE and IPEEE programs, although important to the Commission, are engineering decisions occur within the definition did not specify that only considered safety enhancements and as Commission concerning whether any written commitments should be included additional measures must be taken at in the CG. In response to these such their completion wW not be a plants to resolve the issues. When comments, the Commission has revised requirement for license renewal. For specific actions are identified. the the CG definition to restrict many licensees, the IPE and IPEEE programs may be completed before a Commission. through its regulatory commitments to those that are written license renewal application is (rograms, can modify the licensing and on the plant-specific docket. The submM ases at operating plants at any time to Commission has removed the resolve the new concern.This process of ambiguous phrasing and has enhanced
- c. Current Licensing Basis determinations conceming backfitting of the definition to include written evolving requirements to plants already commitments as documented in the NRC
. (i) Current IJcensing Basis Explained licensed is guided by the provisions of safety evaluation reports.
As dermed in 154.3 of the rule. the the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109). Before The Commission has also added to current licensing basis (CG)is the set of promulgation of the current backfit rule.
CW part 51 to the definition of the CG.
NRC requirements apphcable to a similar considerations were applied.
Inclusion of to Cm part 51, which
,4950 Fed:r:l Regisqr / Vol. 56. No. 240 / FridIy Decemb:r 13, 1991 / Rules and R:gulations G
contains environmental protection C1.Bs. In particular, existing NRC Commission to make a decision on regulations. fs necessary to continue the documents were referenced by a whether new requirements should be current licensing bases for a plant commenter to list operational concems backfitted to all plants or a subset of licensed under 10 CFR part 50.
with power oscillations in BWRs. motor-plants and to provide the basis for that (11) Regulatory Processes Underlying perated valve testing potential decision as part of the regulatory record.
Current 1.icensing Bases
".ccidents when shut down. questions on A review of exJsting regulations did not tne allowed cyclic hfetime of identify any grandfather clauses in in suppnrt of the proposed license components, potential hydrogen which the decision to implement the ranewal rule the Commisuon proposed combustion / explosion. and flooding specific regulation included time-to make a seuric finding that the caused by floor drains. Grandfsther dependent factors. In this light, the reasoneble assurance of adequate clauses in existing regulations and Commission continues to believe that protection findmgs for the issuance of exemptions granted to regilations and current regulations, which may contain an operating license continued to be tne previous backfit decisions were raised grandfather clauses, continue to provide at the time of application for license as challenges to the adequacy of the and ensure that all plants provide an renewal.Therefore, they need not be CLB. Additionally, cuts in the research acceptable level of safety.
made anew at the time a renewed budget were challenged as creating Exemptions to the regulations are license is granted. As part of the final regulatory gaps to ensuring adequate granted with an approved plant specific h, cense renewal rule, the Commission no protection. A commenter stated that technical lustifica tion. Generally, longer considers it appropriate to codify stricter safety standards than those of exemptions are granted because the such a ruling in the regulations. The the United States are being applied in licensee has an equivalent but finallicense renewal rule reflects and some European countries, and this was alternative method of satisfying the documents the Commission's belief that-evidence of the inadequacy of the CLB.
intent of the regulation.Thus, unless the with the exception of age-related The Commission does not agree with exemption involves a time-dependent degradation unique to license renewal.
these comments. The examples cited function. the existence of an exemption were allidentified by the NRC through does not change the NRC's conclusion j
c ntl a an n orous and that the inspection and oversight processes.
that the regulatory process is sufficient h
I The identification of these issues to ensure that the CLBs of all plants re sona e assurance t t e t n ed through the regulatory process provide an acceptable level of safety for operation of existing plants would not demonstrates that the Commission's the renewal tenn of operation. The endanger the public health and safety cnd would not be infmical to the pr grams are effective in identifying license renewal applicant will be common defense and security. This new technical and safety issues and required to review all exemptions belief leads the Commission to find in areas of noncompliance and at resolving granted by the Commission. Exemptions this rulemaking that the discipline of a these issues in a timely faslu,on. The that do contam time-dependent r: licensing review process except in the resolution of issues can occur through a considerations will be addressed in the 1
area of age-related degradation unique variety of mechanisms.The NRC used license renewal application, as required to license renewal. is not necessary to rulemaking to address resolution of by 5 54.21(c).
ensure that operation is not inimical to hydrogen combustion / explosion issues Changes in NRC's research funding the public health and safety or common and anticipated transients without are not creating " regulatory gaps." as scrams. The NRC has also issued alleged by a commenter.The NRC's d:fense and security during the period of extended operation. NUREG-1412.
genenc letters requiring licensee research funding is alloca'ad based
" Foundation for the Adequacy of the analysis and description of action taken upon the safety significance and priority Licensing Bases." describes how the in response to the analysis for motor-of the issues involved. The important licensing process has evolved in major operated valves. floor drains, and issues affecting safety are funded, and it safety issue areas under process that potential accidents while the reactor is is expected that they will continue to be have ensured continued adequacy of all shut down. In each example provided by funded in the future. Lower. priority operating plants. NUREG-1412 provides the commenters, appropriate corrective issues are addressed as funding permits.
historicalillustrations of how the action was taken or is being taken on a The Commission does not agree that process has addressed potential safety
{lant specific or on an industry wide stricter safety standards are being issues and new information over the asis to either modify the CLB to resdve applied in some European countries course of time. As such,it provides the concern or to ensure the continued than are those of the United States. In additional suppcrt for the Commission's compliance with the present CLB.
many cases, the standards used by other determination that it is unnecessary to Grandfather clauses in existing countries are identical to those used in r: view an operating plant's licensing regulations and exemptions granted to the United States. In other cases, there basis, except for age-related existing regulations do not change the are differences between standards or d: gradation concerns unique to license Commisnion's conclusion that the approaches to regulation, but these renewal, at the time oflicense renewal.
regulatory process ensures that pla t-differences cannot necessarily be NUREG-1412 does this in generic terms.
specific CLBs provide an acceptable characterized in terms of standards NUREG-1412 also illustrates how the level of safety. Crandfather clauses are being stricter or less strict.The issue is regulatory process has provided and provided in the regulations for one of not a comparison of the strictness of will continue to provide assurance that two reasons. The plants grandfathered specific standards but. rather plant an operating reactor's licensing basis by a specific regulation either have a safety. The requirements and will continue to provide an acceptable technically equivalent (but not an exact) regulations when coupled with the level of safety during any renewal term.
resolution to the action required in the regulatory programs must be adequate Commenters argued that the CLB of a rule or the issue is considered a safety
' to provide reasonable assurance that number of plants is inadequate. Multiple enhancement to be required on new authorized activities can be conducted exemples of operational concerns and designs but not backfitted on older without endangering the health and issues at specific plants were identified plants. In either case, the regulatory safety of the public. As noted to demonstrate the inadequacy of the process of rulemaking requires the previously, the Commission has
l 6
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 1991 / Rules and Rr lations 64951 1
concluded that the regulatory processes periodic basis. Once licensed, a nuclear operational events. These reactive j
are sufficiently broad and rigorous to facility remains under NRC surveillance efforts vary from inspections of minor provide such reasonable assurance, and undergoes periodic safety events and allegations to evaluation of in sum. the NRC's regulatory process inspections dunng construction and major events.They are far. ranging and is sufficiently broad and rigorous to operation. The inspection program is involve assessment of the mitial i
estabbsh that the added disciphne of a designed to obtain sufficient information response to the incident itself.
formal heensing review at license on licensee performance, through direct participation in the restoration of the renewal against the full range of cu rent observation and verification of licensee plant to a safe state, and post-event i
safety requirements is not necessary to activities, to determine whether the evaluation. Frequently, the post-event ensure that extended operation is not facility is being operated safely and analysis points out the need to inspect 1
inimical to the public health and safety, whether the licensee management other plants that may have similar l
c ntrol program is effective and to problems.
i (iii) Compliance With the Licensing ascertain whether there is reasonable Lastly, special emphasis inspections 1
assurance that the licensee is in include mandatory team inspectiona l
The Commission has determined that. compliance with the NRC regulatory that provide for inspection emphasis in i
a finding of compliance of,a plant with requirements.The program meludes its current hcensmg basis is not required inspection of the licensee a performance e selected area of plant operations or gp
, g fg 1
for issuance of a renewed license. When in technical disciplines such as a plant's original operating license was operations. radiological controls and that are generic in nature and special
^
j issued. the Commission made a finding.
protection, maintenance, surveillance, headquarters team inspections that are 1
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.57(a)(1), that emergency preparedness, physical intended to address a specific area of construction of the plant had been secunty. and engineenng.
concern regarding safe operations.
i substantially completed and was in The NRC inspection program relies Multidisciplinary teams, led by a conformity with the construction permit. primarily on audits.Thus. it does not supervisor or an experienced team the operating license application, the necessarily examine every activity or leader, are designed to inspect ongoing requirements of the Atomic Energy Act.
item. but venfies. through carefully engineering and operational activities and the NRC's rules and regulations.
selected samples. that activities are concurrently and audit the j
That finding was essentially equivalent being properly conducted to enhance or administrative controls goverr.ing the i
to a finding that the plant was in ensure safety. The inspection process management of the activities.This type compliance with its licensing basis as it monitors the licensee's activities and of inspection gives NRC an indepth.
existed at the time of issuance of the provides feedback to the licensee's plant detailed look at how the licensee's i
operating license.
management to allow it to take organization functions as a unit.
Once the operating license is issued, appropriate entrective actions.
Additionally, it offers insight into the the licensee must continue to comply The curre,.1 napect.un program overall effectiveness of the licensee's i
with its licensing basis unless the allocates NRC's inspection resources program. Thus, a team inspection 1
licensing basis is properly changed or between three types of inspections.
provides a comprehensive examination the licensee is formally excused by the - These are mandatory inspections, of a licensee's program. whether it is a d
NRC from compliance. Assurance of regionalinitiative and reactive facility under construction or in continued licensee compliance during inspections, and special emphasis operation. Team inspections are the hcense term rests on two factors:(1) inspections and are specified in the NRC manpower intensive, and the-1.icensee programs required by the Inspection Manual Chapters. A multidisciplinary aspect gives an added NRC's rules and regulations to ensure minimum set of mandatory routine perspective that cannot be achieved by continued safe operation of the plant.
inspections. referred to as the Core individual inspectors. For example.
and (2) the NRC's regulatory oversight Program, are performed at each operational readiness team inspections 1
program.
operating unit to evaluate licensee are used by the regional staff to make The licensees, programs include self-performance and identify potential integrated assessments of hardware, inspection, maintenance, and safety concerns in their early stages of procedures and plant personnel surveillance programs that monitor and development. This gmup of inspections performant.e. Most operational test the physical condition of plant is a primary activity for resident readiness team inspections are equipment as the plant operates, as well inspectors and regional specialist conducted during the startup of new as review of systems, structures, and inspectors. These inspections emphas.tre plants or during the startup of currently components.Through these rograms, observation and evaluation of ongoing licensed plants after long outsees. They heensees identify the degra ation of facility operations and ' upporting generally are about a week in ' uration' i
s d
components due to a number of different activities affecting the safety function of and include around.the-clock coverage environmental stressors and are,in facility systems, structures, and during critical evolutions. These general, able to replace or refurbish components.
performance oriented multidiscipline their equipment so that the frequency The inspections known as regional team inspections have been found to be and severity of challenges to plant initiative or reactive inspections are an effective means for assessing systems, structures, and components conducted by the NRC staff in response would be expected to remain within to plant safety performance concerns or licensee performance.
acceptable limita and the necessary where NRC believes the greatest safety It is particularly important to note that safety festures would be expected to benefit can be obtained. The initiative implementation of the NRC inspection work when actually called upon under component of the inspections program is program does not supplant the licensee's transient or accident conditions.
used to follow up on problems identified programs or responsibilities. Rather, it The Commission's inspection program in licensee performance during the provides a feedback mechanism and an has been constructed around a series of mandatory routine inspections. The independent verification of the inspection procedures that provide for reactive component of the inspection effectiveness of the licensee's j
the routine examination of activities at program allows NRC to respond to implementation ofits programs to an operating nuclear facility on a allegations, unusual circumstancet, and ensure that operations are being i
64952 Fed:ral R; gist:r / Vol. 56. No. 240 / Friday, Decembet' 13./1991/' Rules and Regulations conducted safely in accordance with Noncompliances are generally important to license renewal and to be epphcable NRC requirements, independent of(in a casual sense) he considered in the IPA.
The NRC staff performs inspections renewal decision) For example, fa llures He Cosnmission has determined thate on nuclear power reactors both during to comply with station blackout licensees should be provided the.
j construction and throughout the plant requirements are not " caused"by the flexibility to develop the methodology 19, operating life. As a reactor progresses impending expiration of an operating ensure that (1) all SSCs important to y through design. construction, license-preoperational readiness, startup.
license renewal have been identified, y) opIration, and now licensa renewal, the (iv) Consideration of the Current the effects of age-related degradation inspection program changes to meet the I.fcensing Bases unique to license renewal have bey spIcific needs of each phase. An onsite Section 54.21(a) of the proposed rule evaluated, and (3) the necessarye resident inspector provides a continuous would have required that a licer.see programs for management of this age, i
related degradation have been or will &
regulatory presence, as well as a direct
" compile a lbt of documents identifying implemented, rather than contact between NRC and the licensee, portions of Ge current licensing basis Commission explicitly pre $e From the vantage point of NRC, the relevant to the integrated plant senbing resident inspector is a key individual in a ssessmerit." his list was to have been compilation of the CLB.nerefore, the datermining what additional inspections submitted to the NRC as part of the final rule has been revised to require need to be performed at a specific site renewal soplication.The proposed rule license renewal applicants to describe and in ensuring that the overall also woulc have required the licensee to and justify their methods (1) for inspection program at the facility is review the current licensing basis identifying and screening all SSCs accomplished.
compilation for the purpose of important to license renewal;(2) for The regularinspection activity of the determining the systems, structures, and ensuring that the current licensing basis residen* 5spector is supplemented by components to be evaluated and the is used, as necessary, to evaluate and the effons of engineers and specialists acceptance criteria to be used in the establish aging management programs; from the NRC's regional and integrated plant assessment. Finally, and (3) for ensuring that a licensee's hndquarters staff who perform the reposed rule would have required age-related degradation nanagement inspections in a wide variety of the censee to maintain all documents hregram maintains the current licensing foT SS 8 durin df rau n.g th8 period 0f engineering and system disciplines, describing the CLB"in an auditable and 8
ranging from civil and structural to retrievable form. A large' number of ex hetlth physics and reactor core physics, public comments were received on the The specialist inspectors provide a need to compile the CLB. Commenters licensee's inethodology based on aus perspectlye that is different from, but argued that compilation of the CLB in an understaneng that the design d many complementary to, that of the resident auditable form is unnecessary since all compants, including safety margins, inspector. Since the specialists inspect such documents are already on file with was inmally assumed to han a servios many different plants and therefore see the NRC and in its public document life d a yeamThe licensee's m.ny different ways of accomplishing a room. In addition, these commenters methodology should refer to the CLB, as function, they have a comprehensive also indicated that compilation of the necessary, to identify and define the vizw of their specialty, CLB is not necessary for the integrated technicallimits for operation of In summary, the inspection program, plant assessment (IPA) since important components.These technical es discussed in NRC !nspection Manual l 54.21(a)(4) of the proposed rule would limits would need to be evaluated as Chapter (IMC) 2500, Reactor Inspection have required the applicant to describe part of a renewal application to ensure Program, and IMC-2515,IJght-Water and provide the basis for resolving that operation during the renewal term Reactor inspection Prograns issues presented by the age-related would not exceed the design capability Operations phase, and as implemented, degradation of SSCs. Others commented of specific components, including provides reasonable assurance that that the NRC should not only require a appropriate safety margins.The conditions adverse to quality and safe list of the documents comprising the evaluation of the effects of fatigue on operation are identified and corrected CLB, but also the documents themselves. SSCs is an example of how the CLB cnd that a formal review of compliance These commenters stated that the NRC along with other documentation may be by a plant with its licensing bas!s is not should review the documents to enstre used in the IPA. To evaluate the effects needed as part of the review of that that the plant is complyirgwith the CLB, of fatigue, a licensee would have to refer pl nt's renewal application.
After consideration of au comments to the CLD to identify the design Both the licensees' programs for concerning the compilation of the CLB, assumptions affecting service life, actual ensuring safe operation and the the Commission has concluded that it is plant conditions, and applicable Commission's regulatory oversight not necessary to compue, review, and requirements and commitments in order program have been effective in submit a list of documents that comprise to determine whether the character or identifying and correcting plant-specific the CLB in order to identify the systems, magrJtude of fatigue is greater than noncompliance with the licensing bases.
These programs will continue to be structures, and components (SSCs) assumed for the initial operating term'
)
and new actions need to be initiated.
implemented throughout the remaining 1
term of the operating !! cense, as well as i mmr..ueme the wi.ew The Commission has revised I i 54.21(a) the term of any renewed license. In view. heenm. propo d. coon. to.ddren ee+ ret i.d and 54.37 to more clearly set forth the desr dation wuqu. to lac nu renew.1 he. or wui licensee's obligetions with respect to the of the comprehensiveness, effectiveness, ma noncomphenc. with ib. plant'. current CLB. First, the renewal applicant must and continuing nature of these
[' p*,",.79n, g,p.
describe and justify the methodology s
. n programs, the Cor tmission concludes
.ddr,....-r lated desred tion unique io ucen used to identify SSCs trnportant to th:t license renewal should not include renew.Iin n parocu!.r me he or mit cau. ch license renewal. The methodology must a new, broad scoped inquiry into noncomphence durtne the pernad of..t nded include a description of how the CLB
- compliance that is separate from and parallel to the Commission's ongoing lPj','Q".j,j,'"jyj,Q was considered in identifying effective or i3, iicen..,,,,7,m io nddrue se-related programs for SSCs important to license compliance oversight activity.
desr.detion uniq to tic n
- r. newel.
renewal that have age-related 1
\\
1 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 240 / Friday. December 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64953 degradation that is unique to license term of the renewed license in the same changed in accordance with i M.33(d) of renewal.
manner and to the same extent as during the final rule.
Second the licensee is required by the originallicensing term.
(ii)1.icensing Basis Changes 5 5 37(a) to maintain all documents The Commission intends to continue referenced in the IPA in an auditable its regulatory oversight program The principle of maintaining the and retrievable form. By "auditable and throughout the term of renewed licenses. licensing basis does not preclude.
retrievable." the Commission intends This program, discussed in detailin changes to the licensms basisallowever.
that the documents be available for section IV.c. " Current Licensing Basis...
changes to the plant's current bcensm,g
-)
bcensee use and NRC inspection within has been successfulin the past in basis that are unrelated to age-rel*
l o reasonable time period. While the ensuring licensee compliance with degradation unique to license rer r s 1 documents need not be stored together applicable requirements and licensee will not be considered or propos ; ty at the same physical location, the commitments, as well as identifying the Commission in determmmg mether licensee should have a system so that important areas of noncompliance.The to grant the renewal application.
the documents can be retrieved from Commission believes that this oversight.
The current licensing basis for any storage.
when continued throughout the term of plant. as defined in i M.3 of the final Third, the licensee's evaluation of the renewed license and modified as rule. generally continues to evolve and aging management programs includes necessary to reflect new information change as a result of both licensee and consideration of the CLB as appropriate. and experience of extended operation.
NRC action. Licensees may seek to The Commission has also added a will also provide reasonable assurance change the current licensms bas,s for i
supplement.
that licensees are in compliance with their plants as a result of new
' licensing bases during the information learned about systems, i
- d. Second Principle Maintabririg the i
e term of their renewed licenses.
structures. and components used in the i
Licensing Basis During Renewal Term Several commenters expressed operation of their plants. The licensing (i) General concern that the wording of 10 CFR part basis for a plant may also change as the The second principle for license M elevated all commitments of the Commission adopts new requirements renewalis that the plant specific current licensing basis to an equivalent that are implemented by existing plants licensing basis must be maintained level of a license condition for the or as existing requirements are modified during the renewal term in the same renewal term.ne Commission did not and backfit onto the older plants.nese manner and to the same extent as duing intend that all commitments have equal licensing basis changes are not intended 2
the originallicensing term. This safety importance or enforcement to address age-related degradation during the renewal term.To focus the principle is a necessary complement to status. The Commission recognized that the first principle. Several provisions in the current licensing basis consists of NRC's review of a renewal application the rule serve to ensure adherence to the many diverse elements of varying safety on age-related issues and preclude licensing basis:(1) Section 54.22 requires importance and enforcement status.
consideration ofissues not relevant to that the technical specifications be Some elements are formallicense age related degradation that occurs changed as needed for license renewal.
conditions. technical specifica tions, or during the renewal term, the (2) l 54.33(d) requires as a condition of additional conditions that require prior Commission proposed,in 4 54.3, that the the license that the licensee maintain NRC approval before changing: others current licensing basis become fixed at the time of application and remain fixed the effectiveness of programs approved are written commitments on the docket by the staff to manage age-related that may be changed by the licensee.
during the review. Many commenters disagreed with the Commission's degradation unique to license renewal.
By stating that the current licensigg proposal to restrict changes to the (3) l 54.37(b) requires the licensees to basis is maintained for the renewal current licensing basis, pointing out that periodically update their FSAR term. the Commission intends to enstat licensees must have the flexibility to supplement to accurately reflect the the continuation of an acceptable Idel modify their licensing bases to meet current status of systems structures.
of safety for that plary.% rough is operational needs. Some commenters and components important to license review and oversight p the recognized, however, that the licensina renewal and of age-related degradation Commission will ensure t the a basis for the operating license and the management programs. (4) l 54.37(c) operation of the plant will remain within licensing basis for the renewal requires licensees to annually submit a previously established limits.The application must remain consistent j
list of changes to progrs ms managing Commission included i 54.33(e) to throughout the review process.They age related degradation unique to specifically state that the status of suggested that licensees be permitted to license renewal that do not decrease the commitments on the existing to CFR change the licensing bases in the effectiveness of these programs and a part 50 docket would remain unchanged operating license context and summary of safety evaluations by the renewed license. However,if a periodically inform the NRC of such supporting such changes, and (5) licensee's previous commitments are changes and any potential impact upon i 54.33(e) states that the licensing basis relied upon in the renewal application the integrated plant assessment.
for the renewed license shallinclude the as an effective program to manage age-After considering these views. the plant's current licensing basis as defined related degradation during the renewal Commission agrees that licensees in i 54.3(a). which includes those term, these commitinenis will become should be provided the flexibihty to provisions addressing age-related part of the licensing basis for the request changes to the existing degradation. %ese provisiona. togatbar renewal term since they would form part operating license for reasons other than with the continuation of the NRC's of the bases for the Commission's age.related degradation.These changes
, regulatory oversight program throughout finding that age-related degradation must be made using current regulatory the term of a plant's renewed license, unique to license renewal will be practices, e.g under to CFR 50.59 or will ensure that the current licensing effectively managed during the renewal amendment to the existing operstmg basis will be maintained throughout the term.These commitments can only be license pursuant to 10 CFR 50 90 A
i 84954 Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 240 / Friday. December 13. 1991 / Rules and Relr itions i.
i licznse renewal application should not evaluated by the licensee for the period radiation embrittlement in the period of j
incluoe any changes to the current of extended operation and the extended operation.
3 licensing basis other than those evaluation found acceptable by the NRC Aprelated depadauon of SSCs are neesssary to address age-related or (3) It occurs only during the period of important to license meews1if degredation unique to license renewal, extended operetion.
unmitigated. could lead to the loss of An opportunity for hearing on sny Continued safe operation of a uired functions, unacceptable
]
license amendment is provided in commercial nuclear power plant la safety unargins, or hieber i
accordance with section 18e of the requires that SSCs that perform or rates of challenge to plant safety i
Atomic Energy Act.
support safety functions continue to systema during the renewal torna Given i
To ensure that the effect of changes to perform in accordance with the the close connection between renewal a renewal applicant's existing licensing applicable requirements in the licensing and age-related depadation, the basis is evaluated during the review of a basis of the plant and that other plant Commission concludes that a formal.
a renewal application, renewal applicants SSCs do not substantially increase the disciplined licensing review of age-J will be required to update the renewal frequency of challenges to plant safety related depadation unique to license application (including the intepated systems. As a plant ages, a variety of renewalis necessary.
plint assessment) annually. Each update aging mechanisms are operative. They must contain a description of the nature include fatigue, erosion. corrosion.
(W lateFeWant Assessenent of the change in the licensing basis: the erosion / corrosion, wear, thermal and ne approach reDected in the final l
j systems, structures, and componente radiation embrittlement, rule is to require each renewal applicant affected; any additional measures microblologically induced effects creep. to address age related depedation nasded to er sure that age-related and shrinkage.
unique to limnae renewal through an a
j degradation unique to license renewal Existing regulatory requirements, intepeted plant assessment (IPA) that j
can be managed during the renewal j
term: and any change in the ongoing licensee programs, and national. demonstrates that the facility's SSCs consensus codes and standards address important to liconee renewal have been effectiveness of propams credited for the aging mechanisms indicated above
. identifled and that age-related 1
managing age related degradation.
and the means of mitigating age-related degradation unique to license renewal Whether a licensee has correctly degradation. However, the t'a==l==8=
will be managed, as needed, to enetire
)
idtntified the potentialimpact of such believes that certain age-related that the facility's licensing basis will be i
{
chinges in its renewal application may depedation that may be Important in malanalaad throughout the term of the be litigated in a hearing on the renewal the period of extended tien is not renewed beanse.De required j
Cpplication.
sequired to be e dering the assessment consists of a screening
- e. AgirqrManagementandlntegrered present lia==== term in a manner that rocess to select SSCa important to PlantAsanssment would be adequatefor the period of nas renewal, an evaluation of the extended operstiam For example. W a age-related or performance depadation 4
(1) General degradation efect Bret occare only after of those SSCs important to license i
The rule requires that the applicants 40 years or has been deteredned by renewal to determine if the depadation i
for license renewal take necessary analysis or test to be "- r t the is unique to license renewal. and when actions to ensure that the plant will the first 40 years, there we'uld be ne such degradationisidentified an continue to meet the CLB during the regulatory requirement to address this evaluation and demonstration that new
}
renewal term. Required actions would
' aging during the initial eyear term of programs or licensee actions will be include those necessary for the effective license. Alternatively, depedation may implemented to prevent or mitige.te the i
m nagement of agerelated degradation have been analysed, evaluated, and age-related degradation unique to i
of systems, structures, and components acted on in the original design for only license renewal during the period of (SSCs)important to license renewal 40 years, bot not analysed for the period extended operation. In the first 4
i extending beyond to yeare as le generally the case, for exam (ple, with principle, the Commission concluded j
(ii) Effects of W that the regulatory processes provide i
Aging can affect all SSCs to some fatigue and with environmental reasonable assurance that the current drgree. Generally, the changes due to quahfication of equipment).6uch licensing bases of operating plants i
the aging mechanisms involved are situations must be analyzed for the provide an acceptable level of gradualIJcensees are required, by period of extended operation as a basis protection of the public health and cumnt regulations, to develop and for determining any additional aging safety or common defense and secunty
)
implement programs that ensure that management actions that may be so that a broad safety review is not conditions adverse to quality, including required for license renewal.
required at license renewal This d2 graded system performance, are it should be noted that the term conclusion covere ag+related promptly identified and corrected. As a
" unique to license renewal" does not depadstion occurring during the current i '
result of these propams, depadation mean that the timing of required age-licensi term.MMgen(etten at due to aging mechanisms is currently related degradation management beft by agelespropsma to j
being addressed to varying degrees, actions is necessarily limited to the fail' age tiis depadation so either directly or indirectly, for many of period of extended operation. Indeed, thewwrective notien is geken to ensure the SSCs important to license renewal actions may be required well within the continued esfe aparetion. nerefere, for However, age related depedation originallicense term in order to achles e a renewal of an operating license, the becomes a subject of regulatory concern a desired result for the period of Commission has determined that only in the context of license renewal when extended operation. For example,in degradation mechanisms or effects that 4
(1) its effects are different in character connection with the pressurized thermal are unique to the period of operation er magnitude after the term of the shock issue, reduction of neutron flux to beyond the cunent licensed term (as l
i;uktent operating license (the period of the reactor vessel may well need to be defined in 154.3) should be the focus of 4
extended operation) or (2) its effects started years before originallicense evaluation for a renewallicense. In were not explicitly identified and expiration in order to prevent excessive order to accomplish the above, the i
Federal Register / ifoi. 56, No. 240 / Friday. December 13. 1991 f Rules and Regulations 84955 Comanssion has estabhshed in the final have to operate beyond their design support functions. The Commission rule specific requirements that an IPA basis dunng the initial 60 yearlicense.
expects licensees to apply the sarae must satisfy.
Therefore, the Commission has regulatory practice with respect to N 'First theipA mustcontain a determined that. in order to ensure the operability for purposes of determining deItfi' tionof theinethodology to be continued safe operation of the plant SSCs important to license renewal.
p used to identify the plant. specific SSCs during the renewal term.SSCs important in addition. plants typically have five that satisfies the rule definition of SSCs to license renewal should include (1) modes (BWR) or six modes {PWR) of important tc license renewal. The scope safety 4 elated equipment. (2) all non-operation specified in the technical of the rule definit:an of SSCs important safety related SSCs that directly support specifications. De Commission is not to license renewalls discussed in the Ametion of a safety related SSC or restricting the definition of SSCs greater detau below. The methodology whose failure could prevent the important tolicense renewal to any should contain the criteria used to select performanceof a required function of a particular mode of operation and components and to identify components s a fe ty-related S9C, (3) all SSO: nlied considers equipment operab0ity in all th21 contribute to the performance ni a upon to meet a speedic set of modes of operation to be equally required system function or whose Commission eegulatinns,and (t)all important in derming SSCs important to f ilure could prevent the pedonnance of SSCs subject to abe sperabihtY license renewal.
a required system function.The nquirements contained in the facibty in sum. the Commission defines the methodology should also describe the technical specificatmo limitin8 scope of this portion of the dennition of cnteria to t>e used in determining conditions for operatinn.
SSCs irnportant to license renewal to whether the age related degradation of nua. SSCs important to license include atisystems or components individual structures or components is renewal would include tbose ahed on necessaryfor operation in any mode of unique Aolicense renewal.
to remain functionrJ during design basis plant operation that has operability N
cond, thelpA should contain events. including conditions of nocmal requirement:1n the plant technical spect ic irts ofSSCs important to operation. anticipated m.-ual specifications limitmg conditions for license renewal.%elists may be occunences, design basis accidents, provided in a combmed format but must external events, and natural phenomena operation. %1s includes (1) all systems address the specific information for which the plant was designedgCs or components specifically identiDed in required by this rule.
important io hoense renewal als 6e techdcd specificatiodimiting g %J. the renewal applicant must include those man-sadety-nlated 59Cs conditions for operation. (2) any system specificaDy identify those components that function to support safety-related or component for which a functional that are subject to age.nlated systems because theirfailure would requirement is 4pecifically identified in degradation unique to license renewal render a safetyeeistad SScinoperable.
the technicalspecification11 anting cnd provide the technical basis for The Commission has determined that conditions for operation, and (3) any structures and components that the SSCs havmg aperabatty seqmrements in necessary supporting system or j
epplicant hos determined do not have technicalspecification halting caponut est must be geraWe m degradation unique to licenee renewal.
candisons for aperation ase Ernportant to have operability m order Jor a requned
%e justT> cation forescluding beense reneeval. Theammission notes system a cepment Me operah components should addrees such factors that this dermition is notlimited solely hmpha da mapment er symm as Ce design or service life of the to those components that are meetmg category (1)could knolude component or structwe.
specifically sdentified in the technical snubben, rasation anonite, and
- 4. Fourth, the ipa should contain (1) a spectfrcations.This type of specdic emessency em cochng demonstra11on that,for all structmes or interpretation wcold result in only the systems. An ewmpl~ of the tye of components identificid as being subject top levelsystems being evaluated to corsponents that would be in category to degradation mechanisms or exhibiting ensure that the effects of age ralated (2) would be syetems or components degndation effects unique to floenee degradation unique to license renewd that would be necessary for ensurms renewat. the degradation mechanism or would be managed dming the renewal primary containment integrity. Current cffects wi!! be addressed through an term, but all the supportmg systema BWRs are required to have primary effectrve program as defined in the rule, necessary for opention would not be containment Integrity durrng power or (2) e demoostration that an effective sinnlarly evaluated. It would be similar opers tion. nus, all <xmtsinment program is not necessary for a specific to saying that the emergency diesel
{irDportant to license renewal. An etrations and ssolation salves would component.
generators areimportant to license The Commission concludes that renewal but the dieselfuel transfer example ofcomponents cr aystems in applicants ics Nsnse renewalshould system er feel storage tanks are not.
category (3) would imelude all cddnsa ag'
..*d degradation unique Current reguistory practice for technical suppmting systems and counponents,
to license renewal by focusing on the specifications defaces the necessary supporting operation of the rectreulation identiScation and management of see-criteria that must be satisfled for a system in SWRs. As required in the relstzd degradation mechanisms far sy:1em, structure, er component to be sedmical specification hmiting those SSCs that are of principal operable or to have opershihty conditions for operation, one importance to the safetr of the plant.
Specifically, a system, subsystem. train, recirculation loop must be operable.
The Commission also believes that the componerrt, or ded oe is operable when Because any one of the recirculation focus of an ege-related degradation it is capable of performing its specafled locPs codd be used, the operabihty evaluation for a license renewal mmnt function (s) and when aD necessary requirements would have to extend to te dimited toonly those SSCs that the a tt endant ins trumenta tion. controls, all recirculation loops and therefore the Commission has traditionally defined as electrical power, ooeiing or seal water, entire rectretdation system would be safety eelated. The initial review of the lubrication or any other auxiliary defined es important to license renewal.
plant covered both safety-rele ted and eqaipenent tirst are required for the Under the cunent technical n:n-safety <related systems and was sys tem. sabry stem, trasn co mponent, or specifications, the supporting systems primanly concemed with ensuring that derice to perform (ts function (s) are also necessary for the loop operation must the systems and components would not capable of performing their relsted also be operablein orderfor the
64956 Fed:r:1 Regist:r / Vol. So, No. 240 / Friday, D;cembzr 13, 1991 / Rulzs end Regulations recirculation loop to be considered claim by the licensee that they'ais including non safety related.SSCs operable.These would include such subject to an effective program is noten whose failure could prevent satisfactory systems as the non safety.related seal acceptable technical basis since it does' accomplishment of required safety water cooling systems and non-safety.
not include an evaluauon of the functions. It was stated that USI A-17, related power supplies for the possibility of age-related degradation -
Systems Interaction at Nuclear Power recirculation pumps. Thus. these non.
problems unique to license renewal and Plants. was resolved via Generic Lettee safety-related systems would be an evaluation of the adequacy of the (CL) BM8 with no specific action considered important to license renewal. program to manage any such age-related required of licensees.
Screening of SSCs willidentify those dersdetiofi. thsah as approach cogld The Commisalon's interpretation that. by virtue of their roles in ensuring result in elimination of most if not all of differs from that of the commenter.The the safety of plant operations, are the structures and componentamin the inclusion of SSCs whose failure could important to license renewal and, plant from any substantive prevent another SSC from accordingly, could require additional consideration for age-reldted accomplishing a safety function is attention. In connection with the degradation. An acceptable technical intended to provide protectioc. against integrated plant assessment,it is basis should include a demonstrat'on by safety function failure in cases where recognized that there are many SSCa appropriate technical arguments that the the safety-related structure or important to license renewal that are age-related degradation is not unique tv component is not itselfimpaired by age-either covered by the existing ongoing license renewal or programs for related degradation but is vulnerable to NRC requirements and licensee-managing age-related degradation failure of another structure or established programs or are not subject unique to license renewal are effective-component that may be so impaired.
to age-related degradation. The (2)In a related comment, a stated Two examples of these types of SSCs integrated plant assessment is expected concern was that the inclusion of all are:(1) Nonseismically qualified to take such factors into account so that SSCs used in safety analyses or plant equipment located near seismica!!y programs for managing age-related evaluations could include any work qualified equipment and thus potentially degradation could be properly scoped done in response to any NRC inquiry.
affecting seismically qualified rnd focused.
e.g., balance-of plant systems. As s%ted equipment, and (2) the direct connection
)
De renewal applicant is required to in the final rule, the Commission of non-safety.related systems (i.e., some discribe and justify the method to be considers the safety-related SSCs and instrument air systems) with safety-smployed for the SSC selection process.
those relied on to demonstrate related systems. Other examples are ne method should be comprehensive compliance with the Commission's components providing power. cooling, and primarily deterministic so that the regulations for 10 CFR 50.48 (Fire fluid, etc., to safety-related SSCs.
Commission could conclude with Protection),10 CFR 50.49 (Environmental The Commission intends this ressoriable confidence that all SSCs Qualification),10 CFR 50.61 (Pressurized important to license renewal have been Thermal Shock),10 CFR 50.62 provision of the definition of SSCs Identified and evaluated.
(Anticipated Transients Without Scram),
1*1" tant to IICaD8e renewal to apply to The major technicalissues raised in and to CFR 50.63 (Station Blackout) as SSCa with a reasonably direct bearing i
various comments that addressed the important to license renewal. As part of on 6e funedontag he safe [e does not related proposed rule and one or more of its 10 CFR 50.49, certain post-accident SSCa.%is proviskm of the ru supporting documents were related to monitoring equipment specified as include the propagation of fallures that (1) the selection of SSCs important to Category 1 and 2 in Revision 2 of an 6 or unanucipated as included license renewal and (2) what constitutes Regulatory Guide 1.97. "Instrumenta tion in the definition of a system interaction.
G 18, w othe indirect eHects that en established effective program for for Light. Water Cooled Nuclear Power managing aging in operating nucleat Plants to Assess Plant and Environs am so remote w speculauve as to cause power plants. Three key issues related Conditions During and Following an 90 reasonable safety concern. However, to the selection of SSCs important to Accident." are covered in the scope of if a licensee has conducted a partial license renewal and requiring the license renewal rule. Such post-system mteraction study and made management of aging during a renewed accident monitoring equipment is certain commitments on the docket, then license term were raised. These issues important to license renewal. The rule these commitments are part of the cre addressed below:
also includes SSCa that directly support current licensing basis and should be (1) A number of commenters referred the operability of safety-related considered by the licensee in to the NUMARC " Methodology to equipment. The rule has been revised to determining SSCs important to license Identify and Evaluate Plant Equipment include SSCs that have operability renewal.
for License Renewal" (December 1990) requirements contained in technical (iv) Supplementary Use of Probabilistic and proposed changing the rule and its specification ilmitig conditions for Techniques supporting documents in ways that operation in lieu of tne less specific would conform to this methodology or proposed requirement to include all The screening methods-as well es endon e it. The Commission has decided SSCs used in any safety analysis or aging management approaches--
not to.ncorporate a specific plant evaluaN n. This revised scope is selected by the license renewal methodology in the rule. The consistent wLh the Commission's intent applicants may also include use of Nur ission will continue to review the to not reexamine the entire plant for probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)
NUMARC methodology to ensure that license renewal but to ensure that all techniques as a supplement to the 9.e rrdiodology for screening SSCs SSCs important to safe plant operation primarily deterministic methods. The M.tscrtant to license trnewal addresse.,
are identified and evaluated for the public comments at the November 1989 su smportant featurs6 required by the effects of age-related degradation license renewal workshop and those tale. he. Commission notes that 4 t.nique to license renewal.
submitted in writing following the e imination of structures and (3) A commenter fur *her stated that a workshop reflected the view that the use
.. coaiponents important to beense.
system interaction review would be of PRA should be permitted, but not renewal from further aging required to meet the criterion that SSCs required,in the screening process for consideration on the basis of affeprfdri 1:nportant to license renewal are any, SSCs.
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 240 / Friday. December 13,"1991 / Rules and Regulations 6495#
Additionally three comments on the Muntenance. refurtushment, components and structures.This proposed rule recommended the use of replacement of parts and components, technical test related issue is being PRA for the selection of SSCs important residual life assessment, and changes in addressed as part of ongoing regulatory to hcense renewal. A comment was operating environment are other activities.
made to emphasize the importance of elements useful for nutigating age-(S) Commenting on a related iopic, a common-cause failures as an important related degradaten effects. Timely commenter stated that none of the NRC factor in assessing and managing aging.
mitigation of age related degradation The Commission considers that at the through servicing. repair, refurbishment.
goals of the Nuclear Plant Aging Research (NPAlt) program found their present time appropriate aging data and or replacement ofcomponents is the way into the requirements in the models have not been developed for prime function of an effective program.
proposed rule, nough the NPAR goals many SSCs for inclusion in the PRAs.
Management of age-related degradation are not included verbatim as and uniform Criteria do not exist for comprises a collection of activities that requirements in the rule, the NPAR evaluating the PRA results, to a large extant relate directly to results were considered in developmg Nevertheless, at the present time, physical maint=awa of components.
the nde and associated ngulatory probabilistic assesements can be a Operating practices that teduce guldence. Therefens, the Comuniesion useful adjunct to deterministic methods stresses an the aquipment by adjustment believes that a separate mquasernent for to help draw attention to specific of the operating environment are also addressing the elements of she NPAR vulnerabilities and to help guard against important considerations to mitigating goals is unwarranted.
significant oversights in the screening degradation effects. For example, if (4) Comments were received to the process. In view of the PRA limitations warranted, operations could be required effect that the integrated plant discussed, probabilistic assessment in an environment with lower alone is not an acceptable besie for the -
tamperatures, reduced flux, or controlled assessmentis too bmed and that aging exclusion of SSCs to be evaluated as humidity However.in taldng these management is important riot only far part of an ipa.It may be useful to actions. the potential consequences license renewal but for the current identify additional SSCa to be evaluated need to be evaluated and considered in limnsed terms as well. The Comrmasion te part of the ipa.
order to guard against inadvertent has revised the rule so that the (v) Management of Age-Related adnne side eHects on some othu integrated plant assessment is explicitly Degradation Unique to License Renewal aspect ag sa ty, aimed at the raanagement of age-related degradation unique to license tunewal.
te ted e abis e The planning for the management of ef eti ams tae-related degradation uni ue to (EEPs), as that term was used in the og ng management programs need not license renewal reDects thebowledge that materials, stressors. the operating proposed rule, and to integrated plant be nyiewed except to the extant that environment, and their interactions assessment for the management of age-the programa must addnse age related related degradation during a renewed degradation that occurs only ri-y the contribute no age-related degradation in limnee term.nese issues and the Panod of extended operation after the SSCs. When these interactions cause Commission's responses can be term of the carrent license or whose diagradation of reliability and impact summarized es follows.
eHocts are d Naunda charsetar er safety then the effects of age-related (t) Commenten stated that magnitude dunas the period of extended degradation unique to license renewal investigation and mitigation of age.
Operation, must be mitigated to ensure that the related degradation should be notricted A major aspect of the license renewal eged SSCa will adequate 1 perform their to only "signincant" degradation. ne avle and of a h,oessee's afforts t6 F
dIsign safety hmetions.ne acceptable Commission notes that i 54.3 of the rule deterrnine what actions are neamosary to elements of an aging management provides definitions of the terms " aging manage age-related degredation is a i
program are described below, mechanisms" and " age-related precucal understaaAnn of the necessary To geta the necessary understandtog degradation." Draft Regulatory Guide aspects of a program that is technmally i
cf aging mechanisms, the renewal DG-1000 conte (na staff-proposed adequate to manage such degradation, applicants willneed to review the SSSL guidelines as to aspects on which to As a moult of commente mialed to the design, fabricatio6. Instells tion. testing
{ including performance and focus for aging management,as a part of scope and contents of asms integrated plant assessment. without management programs, the rule was nondestructive testing), inservice' inspection, operation, and mainterance quantifying the degree and depth of age, revised to ehminate reference to an releted degradation. Inclusion of the established effective program. Instend.
to the extent necessary in performing terms "algnificant" or "potentially the term effective program (Ep)is used.
thi (pA.
Elements for timely mitigatioc of age-significant" age-related degradation The Commission believes that some related degradation effects include would result in unnecessary definitions license activities or programs are for all sorts of different degrees of adequate to manage age-related inspectson. surveillanos, condition degradations and in subjective degradation willlittle or no monitoring, treading, recordkeeping.
evaluetions and judgments. 'Ihe state of modification. However, since the cnteria d
rei ar==ne refurb6shment, and the art and the e '
knowledge base by which the effectiveness of a progra=
appropnate adiostmenta in the operating have not advanced a ciently at this is judged are the same for programa environment of the eqmprnent in whid time to de6ae precisely what constitutes already established as for new or the deyedatma e xara.
"signifimat" age related degradation.
planned programs " established Adequate recordkeeping is needed on Therefore, the Commission did not effective program" as a special term is items such as transients, component include the torne "significant.
not useful. The actions necessary, as failures, root causes, and repair and degradation"in the rule.
part of the in eysted plant aeseenment.
s r9 placement of components. Records (2) Commenters contact that some of include a nview of the SSCs that are being generated now will be usefulin the ongoing programa cantribute to important to lianse renewal.
providing the technical bases for aging. The Ceaunissias recognises that a identification of ageeelated degradation continued safe operation of nuclear few of the cwrent test programs may unique to license senewal. and an power plants.
sesult in degradetion in some a ssessment cd the applicants' proposals.
64958 Fedar 1 Registir / Vol. 58 No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 1991 / Rules and Regulationa including any existing programs, to the prograr', and so that any program Guide DC-1009 provides guidelines detmnine whether they are technically modifications are adequately reviewed proposed by the staff for evaluating the adequate to manage age related and approved.
effectiveness of replacement programe degradation unique to license renewal.
(5) One commenter suggested that the for managing aging structures and This review should identify what if any, equipment qualification (EQ) programs components after the initial operating changes are necessary to ensure that required by to CFR 50.49 should, by term,
age-related degradation unique to definition, be considered effective Several concerns we e raised by licznse renewal will be managed for all programs. While some components in commenters that the 10 CFR part 54 rule SSCa important to license renewal.
this program are routinely replaced, appeared to apply only at the tinie of While the criteria in to CFR 54 21 are such as those that are considered license renewal and then the special not specific with respect to evaluating consumables, EQ programs cannot be programs initiated because of age.
the effectiveness of current licensee considered to be effective programs related degradation would become fixed programs, there are numerous aspects of without a determmation that the age-in time with no further modification or a technically adequate program that are related degradation applicable to the improvement. This was never the d1 pendent upon factors such as the SSCs in the program will be adequately Commission's intent. To clarify the specific type of structure or component managed after the current operating Commission intent, three new and the applicable degradation term. Further, many components in EQ paragraphs have been added to the part mechanisms. Examples of aspects that programs are pre aged prior to testing. If 54 rule: One paragraph in 154 33 and may be included in an effective program the pre. aging is limited to 40 years, the two paragraphs in i 54.37.
ar2 (a) scheduled inspection and subsequent qualification testing Section 54.33 has been modified to surveillance. (b) condition monitoring.
demonstrates qualification for 40 years (c) functional testmg that may include and not throughout the renewal term. In state that the licensee may not make system or component testing. (d) some instances,it may be necessary to changes to programs or procedures nondestructive testing. (a) refurbishment perform additional qualification testing.
approved by the staff to manage age-end replacement programs, (f) root In some instances, pre aging was not related degradation that decrease the cause determination of degraded conducted for components included in effectiveness of these programs without equipment performance or failures that EQ programs. It should not be assumed prior Commission approval. Changes to specifically includes and addresses that these components are qualified these programs that do not decrease cging mechanisma. (g) corrective action f.eyond the 40 years of the initial their effectiveness can be made without program that evaluates frequency and operating license, and additional testing prior Commission approval.
cause of equipment failure, (h) use of or analysis or both may be necessary to Section 54.37 has been modified to v:ndorinformation to determine determine whether these components add two new requirements. The first is replacement and refurbishment can be demonstrated to meet the that the annual update of the FSAR int:rvals, (1) evaluation of surveillance ' requirements of10 CFR 50.49 during the requ b
e a clude intervals and operational experience to renewal term.
Y dettrmine whether or not degradation is (6) A commenter wanted the rule to deleted from the programa to manage occurring and what further action is specifically state that a periodic age-related degradation. Thus, the hst of appropriate, and (j) residual life replacement schedule is acceptable as SSCs important to license renewal must evaluation and reanalysis.
an (established) effective program, and be updated at lest annually. Second if The Commission has a number of therefore components that are routinely the licensee makes changes to the age-existing requirements that are directed replaced may be excluded from further related degradation management towed detecting and managing age-review. The integrated plant assessment programs that do not require prior reisted degradation in important safety has been revised and, as discussed Commission approval [m, accordance systems. These include the assessment previously, a definition of age related with the new provision of 5 54.33). then and feedback of operational expenence degradation unique to license renewal at least annustly the licensee must through NRC regulations, bulletins, and has been added to the final rule. As a submit the changes to the Commission.
l genenc letters; inservice inspection and result of these changes, a licensee may.
This provision is similar to the tests; surveillance; and technical after evaluation of an SSC and its requirement to notify the Commission of spicification requirements. Commission associated age-related degradation programmatic changes that is presently initiatives such as nuclear plant aging mechanisms, conclude that an SSC is contained in the Commission regulations research and license renewal not subject to age-related degradation governing the emergency preparedness, rulemaking are directed toward unique to license renewal. A routine physical security, and quality assurance providing additional assurance that age-replacement schedule may be a programs. However, because the related degradation is managed for the consideration in reaching such a degradation management programs are hfe of a nuclear power plant. including conclusion. St:silarly,if after evaluating a principal focus of the license renewal continued operation under a renewed an SSC and potential age-relased rule, the Commission desires to be
- license, degradation mechanisme, a licensee notified of changes in these programs; A related aspect of an effective may datarmina that the SSC le subject to therefo.e, a separate report of program program is its implementation and age-related deseadation that is ualque to changes is necessary, and a reporting administrative control. The licensee's the license renewal term. A rosatine requirement has been added to the rule integrated assessment should include a replacement schedule may be a primary review of administrative controls to aspect of an effective program to (vi) Senpe of Subjects for Management sneure that the activities to be included manage age-related degradation.
of Time.Related Changes as part of an effective program to mange However, the Commission does not in the proposed rule published on laly age related degradation in a license believe that 11 can make a gotteric 17,1990, the Commission particularh renewal application e e identified and determination at this time with respect solicited comments on three specific a
controlled so that changes are not made to the neceptability of allpaciodle questions in Section V. Questions (55 FR that could reduce the effectiveness of replacement achedules. Draft Regulatory 29055).
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 240 / friday. December 13, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64959 The first two questions pertained to the ipa are discussed in greater detail in programs that include significant e scope of requirements with respect section IV.e.(iii) of this document and environmental issues. Nevertheless, it is
.: management of age related will not be repeated here.
possible that some issues could be degredation and possible other time.
With regard to the second point the critical only to the operation during the related changes. The third question staff agrees that rnany things change renewallicense term and therefore pertained to certain technical issues with time and must be dealt with on a would not be addressed in ongoing with respect to which requirements have continuing basis, whether it be in the regulatory processes directed at been established but some work on first 40 years of operation or during the ensuring adequate protection during the implamentation remains to be renewal term. Changes in the activities initial license term. These issues could completed.
specifically listed by the commenter that be addressed for renewals on a case-by-(1l Question t reads as follows:
result from age related degradation that case basis under revised 10 CFR 2.758.
Are there any specific equipment items, is not unique to license renewal would One commenter opposed the removal equipment categories. or topics that should be dealt with as they arose, and it is not of emergency preparedness planning be rult be excluded from review under the necessary to readdress the issues from license renewal consideration.
cae related degradation management specifically or license renewal.
while another stated that all site topics progrzm requirements of the proposed rule? If No additional topics or equipment (which are essentially related to so. what equipment or topics should be have been specifically excluded from emergency preparedness) should be h
for uc ex lus5o id be the jusuficanon the rule as a result of the comments excluded from the license renewal received.
proceeding because they do not contain Several comments addressing (2) Question 2 reads as follows:
Qu:stion 1 were received. The scope of SSCs subject to age-related degradation.
should arty equipment items. equipment The issues related to the exclusion of the comments ranged from mcluding in catesones. or topics (including topics related emergency preparedness are discussed the review only items that are to the site. such as nearby hazards or specifically focused on age-related demographyl that may involve changes over in pester detail in Section IV.s of this dochment-degradation to not excluding any tune be added to the review requirements Equipment or topics.
under the proposed rule? tf so what One commenter suggested the One commenter stated that au equipment items, equipment catesories, or following topics should be considered:
programmatic issues that do not involve topics should be added and what would be population changes, transportation and age-related degradation, such as quality the justification for such addition?
traffic factors location of nearby assurance, technical qualifications, and The NRC received comments hazards. global warming, political and mznagement competence, should be addressing Question 2.The scope of sociological changes and instabilities, excluded from review. The Commission these comments included a request for extemal technological advances.
grees that programmatic issues that do the inclusion of specific siting topics, national economic conditions, and it involve age-related degradation emergency planning issues, and a plant.
understanding of the health effects of
,hould not be rereviewed in connection specific site area cancer study. A more environmental pollutants. Effects of with a license renewal application.
detailed discussion of the comments and population changes, transportation and Therefore. the final rule does not require issues raised follows.
traffic factors, and location of nearby a finding of continuing licensee One commenter stated that, although hazards are topics that can be compliance with programmatic no equipment should be added, several addressed through a variety of requirements such as emergency topics should be considered for additian processes Commission regulations preparedness, physical security, and and specifically recommended require that emergency preparedness quality assurance.However,if a biofoulingand geological setting plans be updated to account for changes licensee chooses to rely upon a (erosion or sediment deposition, new er (n population or other factors around a programmatic activity or portion thereof reactiva ted faults. volcanic activity).
i int site. Further. the Commission also to demonstrate that it has an effective Diofouling and erosion are covered in requires, through the annual FSAR program to address age related the regulatory guide and standard updating process, that licensees update degradation unique to license renewal, review plan being developed to support existing analyses of nearby hazards to the adequacy of the referenced portion the rule. New or reactivated faults, the plant. In addition, the Commission of the programmatic activity could be volcanic activity, and sediment has a resident inspector at each reactor reviewed by the NRC to dete'mine deposition are examples of the types of site. The resident inspector has whether it is acceptable to address this issues that would normally be knowledge of and access to the local degradation, addressed as a part of the ongoing media and therefore can be informed of Commenters also stated that anything regulatory process described in Section potential changes in the environment that is important to license renewal IV b above and therefore need not be surrounding the site that could affect should not be excluded from review.
considered as part of the renewal plant safety. However, the Commission Several of these commenters did feel, review. For example, when the eruption acknowledges that the existing however, that a more narrow definition of Mount Saint Helens occurred, procesies in this area are not as of the integrated plant assessment (ipa) questions were raised concerning the disciplined as other a eas of regulatory process should be provided. Another level of safety at potentially affected oversight in some of the areas commenter stated that everything ages nuclear power plants such as Trojan.
mentioned by the commenter. The and should be reviewed and specifically Immediate NRC attention was directed Commission is in the process of revising included design, construction, to these plants to investigate potential the guidance and inspection activities to operational history, QA/QC, waste issues such as excessive silting. When a implement a more disciplined process management, and human factors seismic fault was discovered near that would provide additional assurance nsiderations. With regard to the first Diablo Canyon. the NRC e.aluated the that plants continue to operate withiri Sin't. the NRC agrees that the ipa potential effects of that fault on the their current licensing basis.%e thould be a tiering process.De current operation of Diablo Canyon. Each of Commission is considering global vsrsion of the rule supports this these efforts are examples of actions warming, national and local social and cppro2ch.The specific issues related to initiated as part of the current regulatory economic conditions. and environmental
64960 Faderd Register / Vol. 56, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 1991 / Rules and Rgubtions pollutants where pertinent to the that the existing processes that are Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental protection aspects of currently addressing these unresolved requirennents, as set forth in 10 CFR part license renewal that are required to be and/or unimplemented GSis. USIs. and 51, have been met.
discussed under the requirements of 10 the 22 SEP lessons learned issues are The Commission's conclusion that the CFR part 5: to support license renewal.
sufficient. These regulatory processes, decirion whether toissue a renewed One commenter stated that, despite a whie.h are described and discussed in license will be limited to consideration recently released National Cancer sections IV.a and b of this document of age related degradation unique to lasutute study on cancer around nuclear and in NUREG-1412., have proved license renewal and compliance with power facilities (which basically effective in resolving similar issues in NEPA is mnsistent with the AEA.
concluded that the facilities were not a the past, and there is no reason to Section 103.c of the AEA indicaica that significant contributor to local cancer believe that they will not edequately licenses for nuclear power plants may deaths), a site. specific study concerning resolve these issues in the future. Should be issued and, upon expiration, may be deaths in the enmmunity due to cancer any new GSIs or USIs be identified in renewed.
must be conducted as part oflicense the future, these same regulatory The AEA does not provide guidance renewal.%e caramenter goes on to processes would also provide assurance with respect to the nature and scope of state that a study done at the 40. year that concerns with respect to adequate the "not inimical" standsid (or its po!'It should prcvide valuable data.The protection are addressed in a timely somewhat more familiar statutory statT has concluded that there appears manner. In addition none of the equivalent in section 182.a-4he to be no justiDestion to require a site.
currently identified unresolved or
" adequate protection" standard) as specific study at esery site for license unimplemented USIs, GSis, and SEP applied to renewals. It is the renewel.
lessons learned issues is known to Comrntesion's view that the AEA does in summary, the Commission did not involve age.related degradation not mandate the same scope'of review add any equipment items. equipment concerns uniquely relevant to the for both initial and renewed licenses.
categories, or topics to the rule as a extended penod of operation under a pThe 40 yearlicense term in section result of the comments received, renewed operating hcense %ere is no 103.c which necessitates 11 cense (3) Question 3 reads as follows; necessary and unique oormection
(-
renewal, was adopted for antitrust and For certain limiisd techon1 issues with between these issues and license a
respect to which requirements hue been renewal. Should any CSIslor USIs be f nancial reasons rather than safety or common defense and secudty reasons.
cszablished. some work on implementation identified in the future that do,in fact.
rfIhis is further discussed in section and complzance remains to be completed.
implicate age-related degradation IV.g.) Moreover, unIIke section 103 Unimplemented USIs. such as Stacon urJque to license renewal, the applicant licenses, the Congress imposed no Blackout and Anticipated Transients Without would be required to sddress the men Scram C5tla, sad the " lessons leamed*
and the NRC would be required to make statutoII!!mitation on the term of inues of the systematic Evahnatian Pmgraza e finding with respect to that matter
- U such inues at this tune from the peovision of under the age-related degradation safety difference between the two types sto examples. Is there a basis for removal of I w.29 of the proposed rde that the findms
- 9utrementaof toCFR *rt 54.For ilicenses, this suggests strongly that P
under to CF1t So.1 ia) need not be made in due masm, the Commisslos Congress saw no special safety or order to tasue a renewed license? If so, what concludes that the NRC's renewal common defense and security wou!d that basis be?
decision should not be based, either in significance to the renewing of a license that would require a statutor0y Ite public responses and commenta mandated scope of review similar to me a GS S
that addressed this question covered a lessons teamed lesoes.%erefore, that for luuance of an inMancme.
wide spectrum of opmions.
Second, as the courts have noted I
doe One commenter concluded that work Mpeatedy, the NRC has been gNea En wi h t any C s, USIs, on allissues that pertam to reactor or the SEP lessons teamed iesues as a br ad discretion in the AEA with nperation should be completed and implemented before a renewed bcense prerequisite to inuing a renewed 11wnee respect to structuring its regulatory under to CFR part 54 proceedings.See Union oMonceed is issued and that these issues should be The staff has reviewed resolved GSis Scientists v.NRC,735 F.2d 1437,1448 ineluded in the license renewal rule.
for which new requhernents were not (D.C. Cir.1984) Carstens v. NRC 742 Another commenter presented a requhed to be backfitted to determine F.2d 1548 (D.C. Cir.1964). The failure of different view and noted that many of whether the additional years of plant Congress to provide any criteria in the the issues identified in the proposed rule operation would result tn a di5erent AEA explaining the bounds of the "not are already being reviewed by the NRC mocluelon. This review is discussed in inimical" standard for renewals suggests '
and thet inclusion of these issues in the Secuan IV.b (iii) of this document.
that Congress intended the NRC to have license renewalrule was contrary to the
" substantial discretion in tailoring the e ta ted goal of limiting renewal activities / Renewolfinding and Heoring Scope scope of its licensing review to the to age-related degradation. Other in view of the principles oflicense circumstance and type of regulatory comments addnssed the need to renewal discussed above, the a ction.
reassess any cost-benefit analysis that Comminion concludes that the decision Section 50.57 does not distinguish resulted in not requiring a backfit to issue a renewed operating license between the issuance ofinitial versus analysis based on an assumption that need not involve a licensing review of renewed operating licenses. Howes er.
plant operation would be limited to 40 the adequacy of or compliance with a the absence of such a distinction from
) ea rs.
plant's licensing basis. Ra ther, the i 50.57 cannot be reasonably viewed as Based upon the comments NRC's decision should nonaally be indicative of a prior Commission view summarized above and other comments limited to whether actions have been that the statutory "not inimical" related to these issues. and upon the identiSed and have been or will be standard mandates an identical scopa of staff s review of the technical aspects, taken to address age.related review in both initial and renewal resolution and implementation status of degradation unique to license renewal licensmg. Prior to 1900, the Commission these issues. the Commission concludes and whether the relevant National did not have any section of findings for l
l Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 240 / Friday. December 13, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64961
'ssuance of operating licenses similar to require only information regarding admissible under the new provision of
} 50.57. Rather, there was simply a administrative matters, age related i 2.758 because there is no unique provision that permitted conversion of degradation unique to license renewal.
relevance of the issue to the renewal construction permits to operating technical specification changes, and term. In addition, hypothetical or licenses (now 10 CFR 50 56). Section environmental impact The rule does not speculative projections that a situation 50.57 was adopted for:
require submission of information could occur during the renewal term Procedures and enteria for the issuance of relating to the adequacy of, or would not be a basis for admission of an provisional operstmg bcenses in order to compliance with, the cunent licensing issue under the new provisions of permit orderly and expeditious transition basis. Section 54.29, which defines the 12.758. On the other hand,if an from e construction permit to en operating standard forissuance of a renewed intervenor could make a primo focie license where (al the evidence will not license, does not require a finding demonstration that an issue or support a finding of completion of regarding the adequacy of, or circumstance would occur during the construction in compliance with the tenns compliance with, the plant's licensing renewal term and not during the existing and conditions of the construction permit, or basis. The section clearly sets forth the operating license tenn, and that its ch rectens i. o com of a proposed findings that must be made in crder to resolution is necessary to ensure,
freihty as to which it appears desirable to issue a renewed license.The adequate protection, the Commission obtain actual or further operstmg expenence Commission's procedure for rule would admit that issue for resolution in before issuance of an operating hcense for challenges.10 CFR 2.758, has been the formal renewal hearing. as provided, the full term. up to forty years. requested by amended to permit certain other issues in i 54.29(c).
the cpplicant. 25 FR 8712 (September 9.1960);
unique to license renewal to be cf 25 FR 1225IFeba.ry 11,1960)(proposed addressed formally on a case-by-case 8 NCIC##0[EJC#888
'"I'l-basis.
An issue that the Commission Clrarly, the Commission had in mind Hearings on individuallicense identified early in thie rulemaking is initial licensing and did not consider the renewal proceedings with some whether extended operation (i.e.,
issue of the scope of the statutory exceptions will be limited to contentions ooeration beyond that approved in the finding with respect to issuance of questioning the adequacy of the current license) could be accomplished renewed licenses.
Commission's findings made pursuant to either through issuing a " renewed" In sum, the Commission's authority to 9 54.29. Section 189.a. the only operating license or by amending the issue a renewed license is govemed by potentially applicable provision in the expiration date in the current license to the "not inimical" standard of section AEA relating to hearings, does not by its permit operation beyond 40 years.
103.d. However, the Commission terms apply to renewals of licenses After reviewing the AEA, the relevant concludes that under the AEA it may although it clearly applies to the initial legislative history, and the licensing determine a scope of review in a license granting or amendment of licenses.This regimes for other Federal agencies, renewal proceeding that is more limited is not surprising, given that the Congress including the Federal Communications than the scope of review for initial did not require any renewals and Commission, the Commission concludes licensmg, based upon two aspects of the apparently contemplated unhmited that extended operation of nuclear NRC's regulatory proce ss. The first is license terms for a whole category of power plants licensed under section 103 the scope and effectiveness of the NRC's nuclear power plar.'s-those licensed of the AEA must be accomplished by past and ongoing regulation of operating under section 104.b. Therefore, the reactors to ensure that operation holding of any hearing in connection issuance of renewed operating licenses.
The Commission further concludes that throughout the mitial license term will with a license renewalis a matter of extended operation of nuclest power not be inimical to public health and Commission discretion. Nevertheless.
plants licensed under section 104 of the safety by modifying plants' licensing the Commission has decided that gggs should also be accomplished bases when necessary in light of new hearings should be held,if requested
- information and issues and ensuring Only contentions that question (1) through issuance of renewed operating licenses' compliance with licensing bases. The whether the applicant has properly Section 103.c of the AEA states-second is the NRC's regulatory acfions compiled with the 10 CFR part 54 to ensure that new circumstances are requirements and thereby adequately Each (Section to3ilicense shall be issued not inimical to the common defense and addressed age.related degradation for a specified period, as determined by the security. Taking these factors into unique to license renewal, or (2) whether y(*$ y$" 3Ne%d ng d
account. the Commission concludes that the applicable requirements of 10 CFR forty years. and may be renewed upon the discipline of a formallicense part 51 relating to environmental expiration of such period.
rrnewal review and finding is not protection under NEPA have been needed except for issues that, because satisfied will normally be admitted to a Based upon the explicit statutory they are relevant to adequate protection formal hearing.
prohibition oflicense terms in excess of only for extended operation beyond the However, the final rule amends 40 years, together with the statutory initial license term, are not currently 5 2.758 to also make clear that provision for renewal the Commission considering in ongoing regulatory challenges to the 10 CFR part 54 rule concludes that the term of a section 103 processes. Only one issue falls in this could be made in the formal hearing so category that would be generally that certain other issues claimed to be 8 tlnthem nuclear power planis were bcensed apphcable to all plants-age-related necessary to ensure edequate protection as renarch and development facthties under degradation unique to license renewal.
only during the renewal term could be c,"*",,,' bog
,A t ge 20 i
The final rule is carefully structured to admitted in a formal hearing on a case' nadma for any nuclear power desisrt Such a findms establish a regulatory process that is by-case basis. but only at the direction
.n. necen.ry prequi.iie for inums en Srecisely directed at age-related of the Commission itself. lssues that operanns beenu under the ons neu en.cted r
J1 gradation unique to license renewal.
have relevance and could be completely
- eyI";tg25jn4e S
Sections 54.19. 54.21,54.22, and 54.23.
resolved during the term of operation
.nd to require thai su commert.at nacient power which specify the information that must under the existing operating license as pi.nt, who.e con.in.ction pennits were nied eher be submitted in a renewal application, well as license renewel would not be 1:1 be bcensed under ecction sco
6 64962 Federal R: gist:r / Vol. 56. No. 240 / t'riday. DIc:mber 13<.1991 [ R6]es arid Regulations license may not be extended beyond 40 Section104.b does not contain any A. Latest Date for Aling Renewal years by amendinent. One commenter limit on the term of operating licenses Application, the Timely Renewal argues that Section 103.c "only prohibits for nuclear power plants licensed as Doctrine. and Sufficiency of Renewol issuing a license for more than forty research and development facilities.
Application ye:rs." but does not prohibit amending although the Commission as a matter of the bcense once issued to extend the practice Hmited section 104 b operating Section 9(b) of the Administrative term beyond 40 years, ne Commission licenses to 40 years. Despite any explicit Procedure Act (APA). referred to as the timel renewal doctrine"provides does not believe this is a fair reading of prohibition on the term of section 104.b tha statute.Under the commenter s that. ife licensee of an activity of a licenses, the Commission has decided that extended cperation of nuclear continuing nature makes a " timely and siew the NRC could issue a license with sufficient" application for renewal in a 40-year term limitation and a day later power plants licensed under section accordance with agency rules, the amend the license to specify a 100 year 104.b should also be accomplished existing license does not expire until the s
wa d
through the issuance of renewe'l apphcation has brin finally determined the view that the 40-year limitation in licenses. From the point of view of by the agency. ne timely renewal regulatory stability and consistency, it la doctrine is ambodiedin the end simpler to have one process and one set Commiulon's regulations at to CFR btoibtop eenses. If Congress had only intended f regulations governing license renewal 2.109:
to prohibit perpetual licenses, it would for all nuclear power plants. For all it, at least thirty (sol days prior to the have been sufficient to state in section practical purposes, there is little expiration of an existing license authortzing 103.c that licenses "shall be issued for a technical distinction between the class any activity of a continuins nature a licensee of nuclear power plants licensed under files an app!! cation for a renewal or for a new spIcified period." That Co se included a 40-year limit in tion 103.c section 103 and the class licensed under I
IO CD ff*
as an additionallimitirag clause section le4.b. Only the 1970 change in indicates that the opposite was true, the AEA separates these two classes of expired entil the appheatian has been fmally determined.
viz. that Congress intended a license to plants. Accordingly,10 CFR pan o4 1
have a life of no more than 40 " ears. The makes no distinction between sectien The Commission be!! eves that the 30-commenter's view also fails to explain 103 and section 104.b nuclear power dry deadline for timely renewai why Congress chose to speak of a plants. Nonpower reactors, incleding currently contained in i 2.109 would not lic:nse as being " renewed upon (its) research and test reactors, on the other provide the NRC a reasonable time to expuntion." rather than simply hand. d!!!er as a class from nuc!:ar revim an appucation for a nenmed Indicating that licenses may power planta; they are not covered by 10 o usting licene for a nuclear power pfant. Because the ceview of a renewal subsequently be amended to extend the CFR part 54.
tenn of the haMost importantly, i
the legislative history belies the claim in sum the Commission concludes application willinvotve a review of that the 40 tear term was adopted at extended opeation of secdm 103 many complex technicalissues, the NRC estimates that the techirmi review to limit perpetuallicenses,in and sectie 1M maclear pown plants fact.
limit was a compromise beyond the tenn of their current would take approximately 2 yeara Any between the efforts of the [ntice perating boenses should be achieved neceassry hearing could hkely add an Department and eledric cooperatives, through lesuance of renewed licenses.
a dditional year or more. Therefore, in the proposed rule, the Commission whs championed a 20-year limit on the ra6u than armgh ammdamt of the modified i 2.100 to require that nuclear b: sis of antitrust concerns, and the view existing operating beense's specified power plant operating license renewal of the utility industries t!.at a longer term.The Commisalon wishes to applications be submitted at least 3 pcriod was necessary to ensure full emphasize that the form oflicense with years prior to their expiration in order to amortization of a nuclear power plant.
respect to extended operation does not take advantage of the timely renewal See, e.g. Hearings Before the Joint affect the substantive issues raised by doctrine.
Comm. on Atomic Energy. 83rd Cong.,
extended operation. viz.. whether and No specific comment was received 2nd Sess. (1954) 6.t 711 (statement of under what conditions and restrictions concerning the proposal to add a 3-year Assistant Attorney General J. Lee should a nuclear power plant be provision for the timely renewal Rankin).444 (testimony of Jerry Voorhis, allowed to operate beyond the term of provision for bcense renewal The Executive Director. Cooperative League its existing operating license. Whether current regulathms require bcensees to of the U.S.). 306-307 (testimony of Clyde extended ide is accomplished by submit decormmanionmg plans and T. Ellis. Executrve Manager. National amendment of the existing operating related financial assuranceinformation Rural Electric Cooperative Association). license or by issuance of a new license, on or about 5 years prior to the 227 (statement of E.H. Dixon, Chairman.
the standard of Sections 103.d and 104 of expiration of their operating licenses.
Atomic Power Committee, Edison the AEA must be met, viz. that extended The Commission has concluded that for EhetricInstitute) 711 (crlloquy of Rep.
operation will not be inimical to the consistency,the deadline for the Hohfield).
public health ard safety and common submittal of a license renewal A law firm representing a group of defense and security. Additionally, as application should be 5 years pnor to utilities argues that license renewal discussed in 'he following section, the the expiration of the current opersong should be accomplished by amendment
- censee. applicant for a renewed license license. The timely renewal provisions because Price-Anderson Act coverage is entitled to favorable treatmed under f I 2.109 now reflect the decision that a niay not extend to renewed licenses. For the reasons set forth in section IV.x. the the Timely Renewal Doctrine of the Spar tinw hmn is enore appropnaw Commission concludes that renewed AdministrativeProcedure Act and to Renewal applications should,be
. licenses are afforded Price. Anderson CFR 2.109. This treatment may not be essentially complete and sufficient den 8v8itable I an 8pph. cant for a license filed. Section 9(b) of the APA confers
' Act coverage throughout the renewal term.
arrendment.
the benefit of" timely renewal" to those who make a timely filing of a "sufficieni
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 240 / Faiday, December 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64963 cpplication." Although the current have filed a renewal application shauld plant-specific concerns with regard to wording of the Commission's parallel be given timely notice as to whether age.related degradatian.
j nale in i 2.109 only refers to the timely their application is sufficient. However.
Commenters incorrectly suggest that filing of an " application for a renewal or no speciGc provision need be made in new information about plant systems for a new license * * *" Commission the final rule. The draft SRp-IR contains and components as wellas age-related practice has been to ensure that proposed staff guidance for notifying degradation concerns discovered after su!Ticient applications base been renewal applicants in a timely manner the renewed license is issued would not submitted. In the proposed rule the that a particular application is or is not be considered by the NRC or would not Commission added i 2.109{b) to sufficient.
be factored into a plant's programs.%e incorporate the ApA's provision,
requ nng the submittalof a sufDcaent 7 g,ggggggppyg, C1.8 n'a plant will continue to evolve throughout the term of the renewed applicataan. Other considerations lead Neither the AEA not the license to address the effects of age.
the Commission to incorporate the Commission's currerrt regulations set a related degradation as well as any other specific language into 3 2.1091b). &
limit on how long before expiration of operational conoem that arises.he Commissino discourages the liiling of the operating license e tenewal liwnsee must continue to ensure that pro-forma renewal applications that application may be filed. The the plant is being operated safely and in would be filed simply for the sale of Commission has decided to impose such conformance with its bcensing basis.
meeting the 10 CFR 2.109{b) deadline.
a limit to ensare that substantial N NRC's regulatory oversight However, a determination that an operating experience is occumniated by activities will also assess anynew applicatino is sufficient for purposes of a licensee before it submits a renewal informstion on age-related degradation timely renewal would not be litigable.
application.
or plant operation issues and take SufGeiency is essentially a matter for in the proposed rule, the Commission whatever regulatory action is the ataff todetemnine based on the suggested a 20-year time hmit for filing appropriate for enscring the protection required contents of an application renewal applications. Several of the public health and safety.The established in { } SL29,54.21,54.22, and commenters argued that 20 years would commenters ignore the fact that both 54.23. It is enough that the licensee not be a sufficient period of time to renewal applicants and the NRC will submits the required reports, analyt,es, accumulate an adequate body of base the benefit of the operaMonal and other documents required in such information and experience to support experience from the nuclearindustry application. ht such documents may the agency's consideration of a renewal and are not limited to information require further supplementation or application. Other commenters stated developed solely by the utility seeking a review is of no consequence to that information gained from operating renewed license. For example, there are continued operation under timely experience after the renewallicense is now approximately 1400 reactor years of renewal.
gra.'ed would not be considered by the operating experience in the U.S. nuclear In December 1990, the NRC issued NRC. One commenter alco argued that power industry.This experience will Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1000, even after considering the 10 yoar lead increase each year. All of this i
" Standard Fonnat and Content of time deemed necessary by uti!Itles to experience would be considered by the Technical Information for Applications plan for alternative generating espacity NRC in evalnating the adequacy of to Renew Naclear power Plant and a 3-year period for NRC review of a licensee-proposed activities to address Operating Ucenses " and a draf t renewal application, the proposed 20 age related degradation in co.nection strndard review plan forlicense year limit is too long.The commenter with a renewr.1 applicalion.
re newal (SRp-IR) (NUREG-1239) (55 FR proposed thet a 15-yearlimit should be
& Commission disagrees with a 50385). These documents provide more a compromise acceptable to the coounenter's proposal that a Hear, or specific guidance for preparing e industry. Another commenter stated that even a 15-year, time limit for fding renewal application and for indgmg a 20-year time limit would be an illegal renewal applications will be adequate.
whether the criterion of a sufficient expansion af the initiallicensing period.
In proposing the earliest date of application is met.
In volation of the AEA.but the application, the Commission considered One commenter was coowrned about commenter did not explain the legal the time necessary for utilities to plan the potential for abuse of the timely basis for this conclusion. The for replacement of retired nuclear renewal provisions of the regulations, commenter suggested that a 5-year time plants. Industry studies estirnste that the The Commission has conchrded that the limit would be reasonable.
lead time tobuild a new electric specific lar:guage of 4 5 54.19,54.21.
While the Commission accepts the generation plant is 10 to 12 years for 54.22. and 5023 in combination with the premise that operating expesience is fossil fuels and 12 to 14 years for cuclear specac guidance published in important, it tejects the suggestion that or other new technologies. When the regulatory guidance docurnents should 20 years of operational und regulatory staff reviewis factored into the decision preclude the concerns raised regardmg experience with a particular plant is an process, the Commission cxmcludes tha t the potential for abuse of the insufficient period in which to applications 18 to to years before Comrnission's tirnely renewa]
accumulate information an plant expiration of a licenses are not provisions.
performance. A nuclear power plant will unreasonable. For these reasons. the One commenter noted that there undergo a significant numberof fuel final rule permits the application for a would be substantial adverse impacts if cycles over 20 years, and plant and rearwed hmnse to be filed 20 yeers the NRC finds that a renewal utility personnel will have a substantial before expiratina of an existmg application is insuffic4ent after the term number of hours ofoperaisonal operating license.
of the cunent licensed pmod has experience with every eyswn, structure.
, expired. The commeater urged the NRC and component. The NRC beheres that I gggggg.,
ta mike a findma of application the histcry of operation over the A new ( 5L34 has been proposed by a sufficiency at least 6 months before the minimum 20-year period provides a commenter to permit am applicant for a existing bconee term expues. &
licensee with subs'antial amcnats of renewed operating license to withdraw Commission agrees that Hoensees who information and would disclose any its application at any time during the
64964 Fedir:1 R:gister / Vol. 56, No. 240 / Friday, Decembet 13, 1991 / Rules and Regulations proceeding.The Commission does not applicant's need for longer-term licensing basis for the existing operating believe that such a provision is planning of its electric power generating license remains current and is reflected necessary in part M. Currently, capacity and the cost of preparing and in a timely manner in the renewal epplicants for any NRC license, supporting each renewal application license application.
including a nuclear power plant will ordinarily serve to motivate the operating license under 10 CFR part 50.
applicant to seek longer renewal terms.
Two commenters suggested that the may withdraw their applications at any proposed rule be modified to make clear time and for any reason (subject to J. Effective Date of RenewedLicense that a supersession license is issued payment of applicable fees). This Two alternatives were identified early only after the renewalapplication has opportunity is provided despite the fact by the Commission with respect to the been finally determined and all that there are no explicit provisions in effective date of a renewed license:(1) adrninistrative and judicial appeals are the Commission's regulations permitting A " tack-on, license that takes effect at exhausted. In their view, this withdrawalof applications.The the expiration of the current operating modification is necessary because Commission will not treat applicants for license, and (2) a, supersession license i M.31 stated that the initial operating part M renewed operating licenses any that takes effect immediately upon NRC license is " entirely ineffective and differently with respect to withdrawal.
approval of the renewal application.The superseded" upon issuance of the Accordingly, the Commission declines to tack on approach is initially attractive, renewed license and may be interpreted cdopt this proposal.
since, in general, renewals of licenses to leave a facility without an effective gg take effect upon expiration of the I cense if its renewed license were set existing license. Moreover,it may be as de upon appeal. The Commission "The AEA permits the Commission to argued that ' tack-on" licensing was never intended i M.31(c) to suggest that issue section 103 operating licenses with contemplated by Congress, smce section if a renewed license were somehow set terms up to 40 years and imposes no 103.c of the AEA states that licenses aside upon appeal. the licensee could hmit on section 104.b operating licenses.
"may be renewed upon the expiration of not continue operating under its Nonetheless, the Commission has (the specified license term). However.
previous operating license. The decided to limit the maximum period of extended operation under the renewed as a corl sequence of accommodating the Commission is unaware of any instance utilities asserted need for an early involving supersession licensing where hcense to 20 years beyond the agency decision on renewal such a result occurred. Even if the cxpiration of the existing (previous) applicabons, a potentially long period concern is valid, the commenter3*
operating license. %e Commissior-believes that sufficient technical may occur between the agency decision proposed solution is undesirable. NRC's to approve a renewal application and nuclear power plant licensing actions understanding of age-related the expiration date of the original
{"C l
degradation exists to enable nucle at operating license. lfissuance of the t
t e
power plant licensees to develop renewed license were kept in abeyance Administrative Procedure Act, nor anY activities for ensuring safe operation of for such an extended period, there precept of administrative law compels their plants for en additional 20 years would be a great deal of uncertainty in the NRC to await exhaustion of judicial beyond expiration of existing licenses.
terms of the administrative finality of appeals before it may issue a license. In However, a 20 year limit on extended the renewal decision. As for the "upon order to preclude any future J
1 operation will. in the Commission's expiration" language of section 103.c.
m!
erytandings in this regard.
l judgment, provide a useful opportunity the Commission does not believe that i 5 %) has been modified by the wurds. " entirely ineffective,,delet,ng to validate and reassess. if necessary, Congress intended by that language to and the current understanding of age-relsted preclude supersession licenses. Since adding a sentence clarifying that the degradation effects. As one commenter section 103.c provides for licenses to be prior existing operating license shall be suggests, the Commission may revisit issued for a specified period."it would reinstated if the renewed license is this issue in the future as experience with licensee performance in managing be natural to speak of renewal following subsequently set aside, unless the term the " expiration of such period." On of the prior operating license is expired eg2-related degradation during the balance, the Commission has and the renewal application was not renewal term is gained. lf the determined that a renewed license filed in a timely manner.
Commission has sufficient confidence in should be in the form of a supersession the adequacy of licensee programs to of the existing operating license.
in. Subsequent Renewo/s d2tect end resolve ir a timely manner One commenter suggested that the Section H.31(d) allows a renewed j
e.ny unforeseen age related degradation. supersession approach to licensing may license to be further renewed upon thi 20-year limit may be removed.
lead to "logisticalissues" such as expiration of the renewal term. One However. reappraisal of the use of duplicate submittals since there will be commenter suggests that an additional supersession licensing will be required co-existing dockets for the existing sentence be added to make clear that a at that time.%e Commission therefore operating license and the renewal subsequent renewal application may be reitets a commenter's suggestion that application. %e Commission recognized submitted prior to the expiration of the the renewed licenses should be g anted that this would be an issue and had previous renewal term. The Commission for terms in excess of 20 years.
included a provision in the proposed agrees that a subsequent renewal There is no minimum term for a rule that fixed the CLB for the duration application may be submitted prior to
, renewed license that may be requested of the renewal application to avoid expiration of the previous renewal term by en applicant.The primary reason for these types of coordination problems.
(under i M.17(c). up to 20 years pr:or to such a limitation ivould be to discourage The final rule does not freeze the CLB; that expiration). However I M 3t(d) repetitive renewal periods for relatively instead. I M 21(e) requires renewal makes clear that a renewed license rnay short periods, which may consume an applicants to update their renewal be further renewed in accordance with unwarranted amount of staff resources application to reflect changes to CLB
" applicable requirements." which would
. to review as well as have the potential information. which materially affects the include the provisions of part M (unless for cbuse. Upon consideration, the contents of the renewal application.
the Commission subsequently adopts Commission believes that the renewal This requirement will ensure that the special p ovisions applicable only to
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 240 / Friday. December 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64965 subsequent renewals). Under this not need a completelist of all the staff is also being prepared. In circumstance, a sentence in i 5417(d) exemptions and reliefs in effect but only developing the CEIS, the NRC has expbcitly addrereing the subject may needs a list of those exemptions that followed the general requirements inadvertently gne the Irnpression that contain time. dependent functions.The specified in to CFR part St.
the applicable requirements language Commission does not agree. A complete was intended to have an entirely list of all exemptions and reliefs granted P. Bockfit Considemtians different effect. Accordingly, the and in effect is necessary for several In the proposed rule.the Commission Commission declines to adopt the res sorts. First, it allows the Commission indicated that a specialprovision commenter's proposed addition.
to make an independent assessment that addressing backfitting requirements Another cormnenter observed that the all exemptions and rehefs have been during the review of a renewed license concept of subsequent renewals is not evaluated as part of the license renewal application was not necessary. Instead, developed in the supporting review process. Second, the list is a the Commission discussed how docurnentation for the proposed rule.
summary of the instances in the backfitting would be controlled during The Commission does not believe that licensing basis for the renewal term the renewal review.De Commission further exposition of this concept is where the steff has determined that also indicated that once a renewed necessary at this time. If expenence stnct cornpliana with existin8 license was issued. the normal with renewals discloses a previously regulatory requuements is not noeded to backfitting requirements of10 CFR unknown aging or other time. dependent ensure that public health and safety is 50.109 would apply to NRC-imposed issue, a ppropriate regulatory action, adequately protected.
changes to the renewed license's current includmg modifying the requirements for (4) A description of any plant licensing basis.
obtaining subsequent renewals, can be modifications or administrative implemented. Further discussions of the procedure changes uired foreffective Most of the utility cominenters were dissatisfied with the Commission's concept are not likely to be fruitful at managementof age-ated degradatwn this time.
unique to license renewsL as justified proposal not to include a specific
- n. Cor: tent of Applimtim-Technical by the enessments under paragraphs (2) provision in 10 CFR part 54 addressing the imposition of "backfits" during the Infonn don udO I
review of the mWew of the mnewed hcense
{s) n ne rule ident15es specific renewal application (( R21(c)).
application. In general, these industry requirements for the content of a commenters indicate that, while they renewal application. Unless updated.
- o. EnvironmentalInformation agree with the discussion in the the information submitted in the A license renewal applicant is Proposed rule describing how the previous operating license docket required to submit an environmental backfit rule would apply in the mntext continues to apply and is incorporated report, or supplement to its existing of license renewal, trie Preamble to the into both the renewallicense environmental report, addressing the pmposed rule was not legally binding on cpplication and the renewed license environmentalconsequences of the the Comminaion and staff and only a docket under the provisions of H 54.19 renewal sought.
rule would be hndmg and enforceable and 54 ~l3. In addition the rule (l 5421)
In a separate rulemaking. the NRC is against the stad A omanenterstated 1
requires the eubmittal of the following developing changes to its environmental that backfit analyses are not appropriate technicalinfonnation:
protection rules (10 CFR part SI) to to staff. imposed changes rieeded to (1) An integrated plant arsessment assess the environmental impacts that address age-related degradationwbere (IPA) that demonstrates, throttgh a step-may result fmm the renewal of an degradation is significant and the by-step process specified in the rule operating license and to codify any equipment is important to boense
)
(I S4 21(e)). that the facihty's systems, generic findings so that they may be renewal and not covered by an existing structures, and components important to adopted in future indiddualplant effective program. In the comunenter's license renewal have been identified license renewal environsnental reviews.
view, however, the " agreement and evaluated, and that age-related The proposed rule was published in the evaporatea" because the proposed degradation unique tolicense renewal Federal Register on September 17,1991 license renewal rule did not specify a will be managed to ensufe that the (56 FR 47016). A generic environmental
" focused integrated plant assessment facility's licensing basis will be impact statement (CBS) was prepared similar to the NUMARC methodology" maintained during the renewal term.
as the basic informational and (NUMARC Report Number 90-11.
The IPA is discossed above in section analytical document supporting the
" Methodology to Evaluate Plant IV.e (iii).
proposed rule change. The GDS scope Systems, Structures, and Components."
(2) Identification and justification of includes known environmental issues December 19901 and did not any changes in the C1.B necessary to that may be of reasonable concern in unreservedly accept the adequacy of the address age-related degradation unique renewing the operating license of any of CLB as a standard for license renewal.
to license renewsl of SSCs important to the current population of nuclear power The utihties also argue that, where there license renewal.This requirement is plants. The scope reflects activities, are two or more ways to satisfactorily discussed above in section IV.d.(ii).
including potential plant refurbishment address age-related degradetion, the (3) A listing of all exemptions and a ssociated with license renewal, an licensee should be free to choose the reliefs granted and in effect under the additional 20 years of operation. and most cost-effective attemative. unless exis*.mg hcense in the license renewal possible changes in the environmental the staff determines that it is necessary application. Anyexemption orrelief that setting of the plants. "the CBS study or desirable to designate a specific was granted on the basis of remaining attempts to bound the full range of alternative.There was some lack of plant hfe or that otherwise relates to plants and sites in order that a generic agreement within the industry as to the SSCs sut, ject to age-related degradation conclusion will be applicable to as large amount of documentation that the NRC unique to license renewal must be e number of plants as possible.
was required to geneente to justify that a rejustiLod before it will be granted for af ance on the submission of proposed backfit is necenary to ensure the renewal term. A oomraenter on the evivnmentalinformation and analyses adequate protection orcompliance.
proposed rule argued that the staff does by appbcants and on review criterta for NUMARC's proposed rule would fequire
64966 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 240 / Friday. December 13, 1991 / Rules and Regulations the NRC to comply with the the proposed license renewal rule's regardless of plant design. construction.
documentation requirements of 10 CFR Preamble that the timely renewal or license date. Specifically. 6 50.54(ql 50.109(a)(4). By contrast, a utility doctrine would not assist licensees in regt. ires that a licensee maintain in commenter states that it would be need of" timely contingency planning" effect emergency preparedness plans unreasonable to encumber the NRC with (55 FR 29052). However, the Commission that meet the standard in i 50.47(b) and additional justification requirements contmues to believe that the new the requirements in appendix E to 10 where the backfits truly relate to provisions in to CFR part 2. together CFR part 50. The requirements of I 50.47 edequate protection-with the authority of the Commission and appendix E are independent of the The Commission continues to believe and the Atomic Safety and Ucensing renewal of the operating license, and that a special provision in 10 CFR part Board to adopt a hearing schedule in they will continue to apply dunng the 54 that would impose backfit. style any individual license renewal hearing.
license renewal term.
requirements on the agency is not obviate the need for a hearing schedule To ensure that a licensee's plan neIded. All requirements, whether or in to CR part 54.The Commission remains adequate to protect the health not age-related. necessary to ensure further believes that incorporation of a and safety of the public during the term adequate protection will be required hearing schedule with specific deadlines of the initial license, NRC requires.
without regard to cost.This is analogous into either to Cm part 54 or 10 CFR part under i 50.54[t) a detailed annual to the " adequate protection exemption" 2 could unnecessanly reduce the review of the facility's emergency in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(li). Any additional flexibihty of the Licensing Board. For preparedness plan by persons who have requirements to address age.related example,if a schedule were mandatory.
no direct responsibihty for its degradation unique to license renewal deviations from the schedule may not be implementation. Included within the that are necessary to ensure compliance able to be inade without a i 54.15 review is an evaluation of the continued with the plant's current licensing basis exemption. unless the rule sets forth the adequacy of applicable and appropriate may be imposed without regard to cost.
This is analogous to the " compliance procedure and standards for deviating communication and working esemption"in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(i).
from the 10 CFR part 54 hearing relationships with State and local The NRC need not prepare a separate schedule. Conversely. if the la CFR part governments. Under appendix E to 10 document explaining the basis for such 54 schedule were not binding but merely CFR part 50. licensees must also perform a conclusion. Instead, the basis for such admonitory, the Commission falls to see an annual exercise of their emeagency a conclusion will normally be how such a provision would add to the preparedness plans and be evaluated by documented by the NRC in a safety Commission's or Licensing Board's the NRC against definitive performance evaluation report that presents the authority to adopt a hearing schedule.
criteria.The Commission requires that resultsof the NRC staffs review of the
- f. Report of the Advisory Committee on these periodic exercises be performed to renzwal application. The Commission ReactorSafeguards measure the effectiveness of the plan rejicts a commenter e proposal that Section182.b of the AEA states:
against some or all of the standards on thesa findings must be made separately an annual basis and ensures that within The ACRS shall review each application a 5-year period the plan is tested against va u t o sePat te f g would be unde neu nio or acciion toeb. I r a all i the to standards. Following each unduly burdensome and elevate form construction permit or an operating license above substance since the staff s for a facihty. any appbcation under section of the required exercises, findings are to4c. for a construction permit or an made concerning the success of the plan evaluation should clearly state why an operating bcense for a testing facib*y. any and, in some cases, weak and deficient action is necessa.
oppbcation under section toes. or c.
areas that require correction a re Once a renewe license is issued.
specifically referred to it by the Commission, identified. These processes wdl continue normal backTit protections apply and all and any appbcation for en amendment to a during the renewal term. In conclusion, changes to the current licensing basis of construction permit or an amendment to an the Commission s regulations require the the renewed license would be subject to opnatmg hcense under secuan 103 or 104a.,
routine evaluation of the effectiveness of the backfit rule in accordance with b., or c. speciLcally referred to it by the existing emergency preparedness plans i 54 35 of the final rule.
Comnunmn * *
- against the 16 planning standards and Section 182 b does not explicitly refer the modification of emergency q frecedeforHearm.gs to applications for renewal of an preparedness plans when the 16 The Commission will conduct any operating license as requiring ACRS standards are not met. Through its necessary hearings required by 10 CFR review. However. The Commission standards and required exercises, the part 54 in accordance with eubpart C of beheves that review by the ACRS is Commission ensures that eusting plans 10 CFR part 2. Two commenters urge desirable. Accordingly, t 54.25 of the are adequate throughout the hfe of an>
that the proposed license renewal rule final rule requires ACRS review of a plant even in the face of changing include a requirement that the Atomic license renewal application.
demographics and other site related Safety and Licensing Board be required factors. Thus, these dnlis. performance to adopt a hearing schedule. Responding
- s. Emergency Planning Considerations criteria, and independent evaluations to the Commission's observation in the Sections 50 47. 50.54{q). and 50.54(s) provide a process to ensure continued proposed license renewal rule's through (ul and appendix E to part 50 adequacy of emergency preparedness i.,
preamble (55 FR 29052) that the timely estabbsh requirements and performance light of changes in site characteristics renewal doctrine reduces the burden to objectives to protect the public health that may occur during the term of the the beensee stemming from protracted and safety by ensuring the existence.
existing operating license, such as hearings these commenters point out implementa tion. revision, and transportation systems and that beensees who need to have a maintenance of emergency demographics. There is no need for a definitne agency decision on the license preparedness programs for licensed licensing review of emerpency plannins Jeriewal application 10 to 15 years prior nuclear power plants. These issues in the context oflicense renewat to actual expiration will not be requirements apply to all nuclear power The NRC has determined that the effectively helped by the timely renewal plant licensees and require the specified current requirements. includmg doctrine. The Commission recognized in levels of protection from each licensee continuing update requirements for
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 240 / Friday. December 13, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64967 emergency planning provide reasonable I;censee estabbshes an acceptable that the new waste storage facihties assurance that an acceptable level of physical protection system, changes that would be adequately protected.These emergency preparedness exists at any would decrease the effectiveness of the regulations and requirements must be operating reactor at any time m its system cannot be made without filing an satisfied at any time when a licensee operating lifetime. The Commission has apphcation for license amendment in veould seek to construct such a facility, amended to CFR 50.47 to clarify that no accordance with 10 CFR 50 54(p)(tl.
whether during the initial term or dunng new finding on emergency preparedness Application for a renewed hcense will a renewal term, and the review of the will be made as part of a license not affect the standards for physical physical security measures necessary renewal decision, protection required by the NRC. The for licensing any type of monitored The Commission received a number of level of protection will be maintained retrievable storage facility will occur comments from public interest groups during the renewal term in the same independently of any license renewal contending that current emergency manner as during the originallicense apphcation review. The license renewal preparedness plans are not adequate term, since these requirements remain in rule does not reduce or restrict staff and that periodic revisions to existing effect during the renewal term by the review of the necessary changes to the emergency preparedness plans and the language of l 54.35. The requirements of physical security plans should a licensee execution of emergency plan exercises 10 CFR part 73 will continue to be submit a separate request to construct a veere generally ccr.sidered inadequate to reviewed and changed to incorporate waste storage facility simultaneously keep pace with changing demographics, new information, as necessary The NRC with a renewal application.
land use, and transportation patterns.
will continue to ensure compliance of all One ccmmenter raised the issue that the hcensees, whether operating under an
- u. OperatorLicensing Considerations evacuation time estimates would need original license or a renewed one.
Individuals who manipulate the to be reviewed in light of the changes in through ongoing inspections and controls of nuclear power facilities demography. The issue concerning the reviews. Therefore, the Commission licensed under 10 CFR part 50 and potentialinadequacy of the existing concludes that a review of the adequacy individuals who direct activities of those plans. exercises. or evaluation time of existing security plans is not individuals must be licensed by the estimates to account for such changes necessary as part of the license renewal does not involve matters hmited to the review process.
NRC. Specific criteria for obtaining a renewal of operating licenses.
The NRC has reviewed current license are set forth in 10 CFR isart 55.
In conclusion, the Commission has requirements for physical protection and which establishes the procedures and carefully considered the issues raised by determined that they provide reasonable criteria for issuing operator licenses and commenters on the need to make a assurance that an adequate level of defines the terms and conditions under finding on the adequacy of existing physical protection will exist at any which the NRC grants, modifies, and emergency preparedness plans in order reactor at any time in its operating renews these licenses. The licensing to grant a renewallicense. For the hfetime.
process for individual plant operators is reasons stated above, the Commission The NRC received one comment that Independent of the facilitylicensing concludes that the adequacy of existing stated a need to reexamine. as part of process, and no change to 10 CFR part emergency preparedness plans need not the ipa, physical security plans in 55 la necessary.
be considered anew as part ofissuing a general and one comment that suggested License renewal of the facihty could renewed operating hcense.
a need to review security plans t affect operators, however. in that P
a dditional maintenance. surveillance. or
- t. Plant PhysicalSecurity "f'
' '),
gf,0nal i P
I
' 4"I * **' P
- C' * * * ' ** Y O' le e waste will be temporarily stored on the necessary at some plants. Plant Licensees must establish and maintain site during the renewal term. As for the pns nnel w uld beinformed of and a system for the physical protection of plants and materials,in accordance with need to rereview security plans, the tramed to handle these activities to CFR part 73. to protect the plant from discussion above has indicated why an through training programs. Operators application for a renewed license will are currently required to participate in acts of radiological sabotage and not affect the standttds for physical periodic training programs, which cover prevent the theft of special nuclear material.
protection required by NRC and why the important changes to the facility or The NRC resiews the status of currently approved physical secanty supporting programs an,d procedures.
physical secunty measures at each plans meet the exJeting standards for and to requalify for thett licenses.
physical protection established in 10 demonstrating this knowledge on a mdividual plant during the Systematic CFR 73.55. The level of physical periodic basic. The requirements for Assessment of Licensee Performance.
protection required by to CFR 73.55 will operator knowledge set forth in 10 CFR The NRC has also used Regulatory also remain in effect for the renewal part 55, subpart F. " Written Effectiveness Reviews (RERs) to term. Therefore, the Commission Examinations and Operating Tests." as determine site compliance with 10 CFR 73.55 and ensure that the level of concludes that is not necessary to well as normal NRC review of plant rereview security plans that meet the operations, are adequate to ensure that protection required by part 73 is current standards for physical operators are aware of any license maintained. The RER teams use NRC protection.
renewal development that may affect security personnel and members of the As for the need for a physical security their duties. In addition, the use of U.S. Army Special Forces to test plant plan review for the protection of a waste approved plant simulators for testmg security systems and personnel.
storage facility, the Commission's individual plant operators is required of The requirements of 10 CFR part 73, existmg regulations in 10 CFR parts 72 alllicensees and will not be affected by notably the testing and maintenance and 73 specify the security requirements license renewal.
requirements of to CFR 73.55{g). include for sites where application is made to Ongoing NRC inspection and hcensing
' provisions for keeping up the construct additional high-level-waste efforts will verify that important hcense performance of security equipment storage facilities.These regulations renewal developments are adequately against impairment due to age.related require the staff review of additional addressed in the traming of plant degradation or other causes. Once a physical secunty measures to ensure opera tors.
4 64968 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 240 / Friday, December 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
- v. FinoncialQuohfication shows that these fmdings would not also with a detailed plan for Considerations be true for the pedod of renewal.
in 1984, the NRC adopted changes to The Commission received three decommissioning, in accordance with 10 CR 50.82. If an operating license were il 50.57 and 2.104 concerning the need comments on the need for financial to perform financial qualification qualification reviews. One commenter renewed before the dates set by the reviews of applicants for commercial requested that financial qualification related regulations, both the prehmmary and final decommissioning plannmg nuclear power plant licenses (49 FR reviews be retained if circumstances requirements would be postponed until 35747; September 12.1964). Under the change since initiallicensing. while expiration of the renewed license.
revised rule
- electric utilities that apply an ther commenter stated that financial In the proposed license renewal rule.
8'gd fm g ceys a quahfication reviews should be retained the Commission suggested that licensees
" se a o ta g,
to account for the extended period of who filed license renewal applications qualifications by the NRC during an operation. A third commenter suggested should not file the reports and operating license proceeding In that applicants for license renewal be preliminary plans required fo/ plants p
t a
- e. the required to conduct lesst-cost planning proceeding to decommissior.mg. More for providing service at a reasonable cost.
specifically, the Commissian proposed ne Commlulon believes that the record of De Commission disagrees with these postponing the submi'tu of the spent the rate process assures that funds needed comments, ne commenter suggesting fuel management and the preliminary this rulemaking demonstrates generically that 3
for safe operation will be made avedalde to that financial quahfication reviews be decommissioning plans, required by retained to address changed il 50.54(bb) and 50 75(f). until a final N
"$ s' o$e circumstances pointed to structural determination on the renewal 8
s h es the financial qualification rule, the Commission changes in the electric power industry, application is made.ne Commission concludes that, other than in exceptional the rise of independent power also proposed a change to i 50.82 to i
i cases. no can-by-case heigenen of the Producers. and the use of performance govern the submittal of final financial quahfication of such applicants is incentive rate regulation as the bases for decommissioning plans and application wartanted. (49 FR 35750) its position. nese reasons are not for termination of the operating license his finding was based on a national persuasive. Licensee renewal should not f a final determination is made within survey submitted by the nuclear pose any specialissues regarding the last year of the license period or if a industry and the National Association of Anancial qwahfications. De commentn final determination is made after the Regulatory Unlity Commissioners did not scagest that unique rate-setting license has expired and the licensee has regarding the provisions of operating principles would be applied during the continued operating under the timely funds for nuclear power plants through renewal period, as compared with renewal provisions of to CFR 2.100(b).
the rate making process of State cumnt opnadon. best-cost dannsg is Upon reconsideration of the policy issues Lneolved with the
- t w
commissions. ne study concluded, inter $
decommissioning rulemakings and in l
alia. that rate-making authorities had g,
at r y.
is issue various mechanisms to ensure the is typically the responsibility of Stute
- 8P "** I ' '8""*"
- E" ""
Pubhc comments. the Commission has 3
cvailability of utility revenues sufficient f,ublic utilit(comminions. Herefore.
determined that a waiver of the spent to meet the costs of NRC safety
,,,.co, p nning will not be requirements. More specifically, most addressed by this rulemaking.
fuel management plan and the preliminary decommissioning plan will ra te-making bodies indicated that, while
- w. Decommissioning Considerations not automatically be provided for plants 4
in specific provision was made for NRC safety requirements, rates are generally The Commission's current seeking license renewal.ne regulatory e
{
estimated to produce sufficient overall requirements with respect to mcord of the decommissioning revenues to ensure sound functioning of decornmissioning assume that rulemaking highbghts the importance of electric power systems, includin8 decommissioning is the only option the prehminary plans in ensunng an i
nuclear plants. Some public utihty following the expiration of the nuclear orderly transition from operation to j
commissions indicated that their orders power plant's operation license. Five decommissioning. While hcense renewal 4
specifically allocate funds to meet NRC years before an operating license is to was not censidered an option at the time safety requirements (49 FR 35750).
expire, the licensee is required by 10 of the decommissioning rulemaking. the i
The Commission believes that this CFR 50.54(bb) to submit written Commission has determined that, even finding is also true for renewed notification to the Commission for though a plant may be seeking a operating licenses for nuclear power review and approval of a program for renewed license. some planning for the plants. Therefore. the exclusions in funding of the costs of management of possibihty that a plant would have to i
spent fuel durmg the time between the decommission (i.e., the application is i 50.57(a)(4) and i 2.104(c){4) with expiration of the operating beense and denied) is still appropriate. Therefore.
respect to the need for financial reviews until the spent foelis transferred to the the Commission will not implement a of applications for operating licenses are U.S. Department of Energy for disposal waiver of the requirements of both extended to appbcants for renewal of in a spent fuel repository. Also 5 years il 50.54(bb) and 50.75 for plants seeking operating licenses.The Commission prior to the " projected end of a renewed bcense.
concluded that the rate-making process generally provides assurance that funda operation." the limnsee la required.
he Commission. however, will retam pursuant to 10 CFR 50.75(f). to provide a the proposed modification of I 50 82, needed for safe operation will be made preliminary decommissioning plan. a which postpones the submittal of the a
available to regulated electric utilities. It further concluded that case-by case cost utimate for implementing the plan, final decommissioning plan unhl the and any changes in funding necenary to Commission makes a final litigation of the financial quahfication of ensure that there will be sufficient funds determination on the license renewal appUcants for operating licenses is not for decommissioning Not later than 1 application.ne final rule will amend
,, warranted, except in exceptional cases (49 FR 35750). The Commission has no year before the license is to expire, the i 50 82 such that a licensee who has licensee mm t fils an application to filed a timely renewal opplication and reason to believe or evidence that terminate its operating beense, together either (1) has not yet received a final
s Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64969' detennination on its application or (2)
The exemption process provided by bcense, and also that the form of the has been operating under the timely i 5415 is available to a renewal l
8pP ication for a construction permit may be renewal provisions of 10 CFR 2.109(b) applicant who would like to seek relief such that, from the applicant's standpoint,it when the application is denied would from the need to submit both license u
aie y np ns nt an pp ti "
rol need to file the final renewal and decommissioning p,
, ny decommissioning plan and application information. However, the Commission ap hcanon","an appbcation for a license 3 for termination of the operating license does not expect this circumstance to and "any apphcation." as used in the ci nt,ed and revised section ios e refer to the until 1 year after a final determination routinely occur. The industry's estimates imtio/ application for a construction permit.
on the application is made.
and stated position are that the lead the initiot apphcation for an operating Commenters on the proposed rule time for replacement oflost electrical license, or the initialapplication for a highlighted two issues related to the power would necessitate a final NRC modification which would const tute a new accumulation of funds for eventual determination on license renewal about or substantially different facihty, as the case decommissioning of the facility. One to years prior to expiration of the may be. as determined by the commission."
commenter suggested that the assurance operating license, wellin advance of the I int Committee on Atomic Energy, of adequate funds for decommissioning time when the preliminary Amending the At mic Energy Act, H. Rep. No.
chould be required regardless of the decommissionmg information would UN,$"8$[
pD U
license renewal status of a plant.
need to be submitted.
a added).
Another commenter similarly Some commenters expressed concern commented that the NRC clearly state that the proposed nile, as written, would Therefore, unless the operating license that licensees must collect have required a licensee to submit an renewal application constitutes an decommissioning funds until a final application for termination of its current
" initial application," or an initial NRC determination on license renewal is made and that the fundin8 operating license within 1 year of a application for a "new or substantially denial of a renewal application.The different facility." the AEA does not arrangements specified in the decommissioning rule apply to license proposed rule had the potential to require an antitrust review in connection require licensees with a number of with the renewal application.
renewal. In this ruelmaking. the operating years remaining under their 10 The joint Committee report did not Commission concludes that the funding CFR part 50 license to request explain what modifications would arrangements contained in the final decommissioning rule should remain in termination simply because a request for constitute a "new or substantially license renewal was denied. This was different facility." However guidance on effect for license renewal. As discussed in the Statement of Considerations for not the Commission's intent. Therefore, what constitutes these types of the final decommissioning rule (53 FR the final rule has been revised to clarify modifications may be derived from this requirement. Under the rule as section 185 of the AEA, which requires 24018; lune 2",1988), the combination of Mquirements, that is (1) adequate revised, a licensee need only submit a issuance of a construction permit to financial responsibility early in life. (2) request to terminate its operating license " modify" a production or utilization if: (1) The denial decisions obtained facility.The Commission's requirements periodic adjustments, and (3) evaluation within 1 year of the expiration date of on license amendments, to CFR 50.92.
of specific provisions close to the time of the license in effect, or (2) a licensee has provide that changes constituting a decommissioning. will provide been operating under the timely renewal " material alteration" of a facility require reasonable assurance that, at the time of permanent end of operations, sufficient provision of 10 CFR 2.109(b) and the issuance of a new constructio'n permit.
funds are available to decommission the renewal application is denied.
In the past, the NRC staff has required a i
facility in a manner that protects public
- x. Antitrust Review new construction pennit where the l
health and safety.
licensee sought to replace a research Based on the foregoing. the The final rule does not require reactor's control rods, rod drive Commission has concluded that no antitrust review for either a section 103 mechanisms, and core and control room waiver of the requirements of both or section 104 b operating license instrumentation with components of a il 50.54(bb) and 5015 will be renewal application. Turning first to completely different design. See VirE nio Electric and Power Co. (Surry section 103 plants. the legislative hi i
implemented by the license renewal of section 105 c.2 reflects Congress, story Power Station. Units 1 and 2). DD-7bl9, rulemaking The Commission recognizes intent that operating license renewal 10 NRC 625,656 (1979). In All Chemical that this would require a renewal.
applicant to evaluate decommissioning applications should not normally be Isotope Enrichment. Inc. (AIChemlE subject to antitrust review:
Facility-1 CPDF Facility-2, Oliver needs in a preliminary manner while a license renewal application could also The comnuttee recognizes that applications Springs), LBp-89-5,29 NRC 99 (1989),
be under review. However, the may be amended from time to time. that ther' the licensee was required to obtain a Commission believes that prudent may be appbcations to extend or resiew
- a construction permit to alter a U S.
planning for decommissioning is Department of Energy uranium enrichment facility into a stable isotope appropriate and that waiver of the a The commission beheves this is a typosrephical enrichment facility. On the other hand, requirements for preliminary
'$'"dj,'.h*N"'e e(meen(io use,i,he construction permits were no,t issued con decommissioning, absent a clear
,r p
indication that a license will be with renew makes more sense by ehmmstma th, where a nuclear power plant s steam epponent redandancy with the precedma phrese generators were replaced with renewed, would appear to predetermine More importantly. in the lomi comnuttee s report on generators of a different design. new the outcome of a renewal application. If Q,1f;7,','Q" "j,Y,'l'" "g,'(*],QhS",'l ",
full-flow condensate polishing the current decommissioning
,,por, on H R ins s, with one eme.pnon-the word demineralization systems were requirements are modified in the future.
remw"is replacci with renew No d4scussion as installed, and a new building was the Commission will reconsider the need to the resson for the difference = words appears constructed. Surry, supro. Construction to submit preliminary decommissioning
['jgy' '*l"',,f,',,com egnye ip,uhe permits were also not required for spent mformation while a renewal applicant is n
under review.
in,i,,4 or
,,m,,
in ts,,,c,io..by-sect on fuel pool modifica tions. See, e g.
analysis of H P 1es e Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan
4 64970 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 240 / Friday. December 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulations Nuclear P! ant). IEp-77-69. 6 NRC 1179 renewal applicants include information
%e commenter nonetheters argues (1979h Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
in their renewal application to permit that section 104.b plants should be (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, the NRC to determine whether such subject to antitrust review.De Units 1 and 2). ALAB-880. 26 NRC 449 modifications have occurred.
commenter first asserts that the NRC (198"). Rese cases suggest that material Despite the Commission's has no authority to reticense plants alteration of nudear power plants occur determination m this regard the under section 104.b. ne Commis sion when the fundamental nature of the Commission notes that antitrust disagrees with that assertion.The f acility is altered so that the design bases implementing the principal design conditions on the existing operating commenter cites no statutory provision license are not ended when the license or explanatory Congressional committee criteria for the facility are changed.
is renewed. Existirig antitrust conditions report for this position. In fact, section Such fundamental changes in design would comprise part of the current 102 b of the AEA requires that if the or facdity purpose are not expected to I censing basis for a plant and therefore construction permit for a plant was occur as a consequence of license would continue to remain in effect issued under section 104 license hereafter issued ;b. then
- any renewal Renewal of a nuclear power during the renewed term.
shall be under plant operating license does not serve to A comm
d"" *
"P# U "I
trznsform a nuclear power plant into Commiss. enter challenged the Committee on Atomic Energy on the some other type of facility Hence the m.s proposal not to nquire 1970 amendment states tnat " subsection h "**
fundamental nature of a nuclear power 104 b. licenses would not be com ertible plant wdl not be altered as a result of arg mg that since a tenewa) }itense to section 103 licenses * * *
- H Rep. No.
the renewal application. Moreover, the plainly is a sech n 103 cense,ya focus of the final 10 CFR part 54 rule is subject to section 105 anutrust remw.
1470. 91st Cong. 2d Sess. 28 (1970).
the management of age related Significantly, the commenter did not S Rep. No.1347,91st Cong. 2d Sess. 28 degradation that is expected to occur address the fact that Congress did not gggq i
danng the renewal term. Thus. the intend antitrust review for other than Nonetheless, the commenter claims j
actmties that must be accomplished m.
initial operatinglicenses absent that the antitrust review exemptMn for i
order to demonstrate adequate modifications constituting a new or section 104.b plants does not appit if.
sub n d
subsequent to initial licensing, the mananment of age-related degradation ib facility has been modified to such a occu ring during the renewd term are c,
n t
e degree so as to constitute a,new or not i kely to involve fundamental
{ sage o t me substantially different facility." citing a c
m on w changes in the prmespel design enteria
.m uc on.
ra 9
for e nuclear power plant or the design passage on page 27 of the joint Committee report.The commenter then bases implementmg these criteria.
Po p,
p Activities expected to be accomphshed amortization. and changes in plant argues that section 104.b plants have been altered to sucb an extent after their in support of the renewal application systems. structures, and componenta troy include the replacement of steam argue in favor of a new antitrust review.
nitiallicensing so as to constitute a generators, prircary loop piping. lower The commenter s analysis may be
..new or substantially different facility "
The Commission believes that the reactorinternata electncal power and c rrect, but the AEA does not permit the fristrumentation and control cables. and NRC to take these factors mto account commenter misunderstands the i
the refurbishment of pumps, motor.
in determining the need for antitrust Committee's intent in this regard.
operated valves. and NSSS components. review m license renewals.
Congress never intended that each license amendment or license renewal hfany of these hcense renewal activities Nuclear power plants licensed under application filed after the initiallicense are indistinguishable from the ongoing section 104.b of the AEA are not subject issuance be the occasion for determining mamtenance and overhaul actmtses at to antitrust retiew, since the antitrust anew whether all previous changes now plants. Other actmties while never review provisions of secnon 105.c.(1) constitute a new or substantially before performed on a large scale (e.g..
apply only to plants licensed under different facility. Rather, the test was to replacement of winng and cables). do section 103. See AEA. section 105 c.(2).
be whether the application. considered not intrmsically involve changes m Section 105.c.(3) of the AEA as amended by itself. represents an " initial fundarnental design critena and design in 1970 does provide one circumstance application for a modification which bases. For these reasons, the where antitrust review for section 104.b would constitute a new or substantially Comrnission finds that section 103 plants may be requested. viz., a person different facility loint Committee nuclear power plant heensees are not who sought to raise antitrust issues in a Report. at 29. He Commission beheves expected to undertake plant section 104.b construction permit case that once the inquiry is properly focused modi 6 cations in connection with the could request an antitrust review within upon the changes proposed in the hcense renewal application that would 25 days of the Federal Register notice of renewal application, there is little basis transform their plants into "new or filing of the operating license.nis could for finding that licensees of section 104 b substantially ditierent" facibtjes, be read as providing an cpportunity to plants will undertake modifications m Since renewal applications are neither request antitrust review within 25 days connection with license renewal an "irutial application" for an operating of the Federal Register notice for the applications such that their plants license nor an initial apphcation for a renewal appbca tion. However, as would be transformed into "new or "new or substantially different facility."
discussed above. the legislative history substantially different" facilities, As the Cornmission concludes that antitrust of the 19"O amendments clearly discussed above in connection with considerations are not materialin the discloses Congress' intent that only section 103 plants. the refurbishment er context of heense renewal.nerefore.
initial operating licenses be subject to replacement activitfes that hcensees are the final rule does not contain a antitrust review. We Commission expected to undertake in support of
,pr,ovision requinng antitrust review of a therefore concludes that section 104.
license renewal do not involve section 103 heense renewal application.
facilities are not subject to antitrust fundamental alteration to the purpose of and the Commission declines to adopt a review in connection with renewal of the plant. nor will there be fundamental comroenter's sua,gestion that license their operating licenses.
changes to the design criteria and design
1 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 240 / Friday. December '13,1991 / Rules and Regulations 64971 bases. Section 104.b plants are CFR part 140. Although renewed Wah respect to any production or indistinguishable from section 103 plants operating licenses will now be issued utilization facility for which a construction in this regard. The Commission punuant to to Cm part 54, the permit te lesued between August 30.1954. and concludes that section 104.b plant Commisslon intends nuclear power August 1. to2 the requiremente of this hcensees are not expected to undertake plant licensees holding renewed licenses subsection shall apply to any license issued plant modifications in connection with to continue to be subject to 10 CFR part f r such feethey subsequent to August 1. 2002.
the license renewal application that 140. Therefore, the Commission is It is unclear how the term "any license" would transform their plants into "new modifying 10 CFR 140.2(a)(1) and to CFR could somehow be interpreted not to or substantially different" facilities, and 140.10 to make clear that the applicable include a supersession license issued to therefore no antitrust review need be requirements of to CFR part 140 also effectuate operating license renewal.
conducted for section 104.b plants as a apply to licensees under to CFR part 54.
The commenter does not explain what consequence of license renewal.
he commenter s suggestion in its In accordance with 10 CFR 50.57(a)[5), policy, legal, or technical considera tions supplementary comments that antitrust each licensee was found to be in would serve to distinguish supersession review is particularly compelling in the compliance with the requirements of10 licenses so as to defeat Congress' clear CFR part 140 when the original intent that facilities with construction
[,ch'd f w under perating license was issued.ne permits issued before August 1,2002, an t
Comrnission does not believe that a new enjoy continued Price-Anderson aY e r' finding of complianca with 10 CFR part coverage during the term of"any the Joint C rr ie rt that there was only t one antitrust 140 is necessary when it issues a license lasued after that date.
review, absent modification of a nuclear renewed operating license under 10 CFR Moreover, the commenter a suggested power plant such that it could be part 54. Alllicensees are required to solution to amend the existing license,e regarded as "new or substantially comply with to CFR part 140 throughout term beyond 40 years,is not legally different'"
the term of thel; license. Thereafter, in available to the NRC. (See discussion in The commenter's final point is that the connection with any further licensing section IV.g.) %e Commission Commission as a matter of policy should action (e.g., license amendments), the concludes that Price-Anderson coverage undertake an antitrust review in NRC reviews the indemnity provisions continues to apply to renewed hcenses connection with a ranewel application, and makes any necessary adjustments, for facilities having construction permits Congress has determined the extent of in addition. the nuclear power plant issued prior to August 1,2002.
the NRC's antitrust responsibilities vis.
insurance pools that form the basis for The commenter also addressed the e.vis licensing activities, and the the financial protection requirements of question of whether Price Anderson Commission has long indicated its 10 CFR part 140 inform the NRC each indemnification applies during the unwillingness to expand the scope ofits year regarding any changes in insurance interim period of operation where a inquiry beyond that contemplated by or potential cancellations. For these timely and sufficient renewal statute. See Houston Lighting and rower reasons, the Commission concludes that application was filed, the operating Co., C! 1-77-13, 5 NCR 1303 (1977).
a new finding of compliance with 10 license has expired, and the NRC has Moreover, persons are not precluded CFR part 140 need not be made in yet to act on the application.%e from obtaining relief with respect to connection with any renewal of a Commission concludes that Price-anticompetitive activies described in the nuclear power plant operating license Anderson indemnification continues to comments. %ose who feel they are under 10 CFR part 54.
apply during the interim period of aggneved by anticompetitive conduct A law firm commenting on behalf of a operation. Section 170.c states that an may request action from the U.S.
indemnification contract "shall cover l
Department of justice and the Federal number of individual utilities points out that the attachment to the standard Public liability arising out of or in i
Trade Commission.These Federal indemnity agreement entered into e nnection with the licensed activity."
{
agencies have primary jurisdiction in between licensees and the NRC, at to As discussed in Section IV.b, a license is investigating anticompetitive behavior, possess far greater resources and CFR 140.92, appendix B. would have to not deemed to be expired if a timely and be changed to include the license sufficient renewal 8Pplication has been expertise to investigate such activities, number for the renewed license.The filed with the NRC. Since the operating and have broader authority to seek or order relief. Finally, aggrieved parties law firm suggests that the license license is deemed to still be in effect and can pursue a private antitrust action in renewal application include a re9uest to n t expired, activities conducted m accordance with the operating license l
Federal or State courts.
'8 l
during the interim period of operation t
o e n
6 %,
- y. Complionce with 10 CTR Pon no agreement.%e Commis'slon agrees and y
y ficat on contract.
Section170of the AEA(commonly includes a new provision in 6 5419 that referred to as the Price-Anderson Act) requires a licensee to identify V. Availability of Documents establishes financial protection and confonning changes in the attachment to mdemnity requirements for certain NRC the standard indemnity agreement.
ne principal supporting documents of this supplementary information are:
licensees.The regulations in 10 CFR part De commenter also questions 140 codify the requirements of the Price.
whether Price. Anderson coverage would III MM-"lM*""d*Li"" I ' 'h' Anderson Act.These requirements apply if the renewed license were issued Adequacy f the Ucensing Bases." U.S.
currently apply to " persons who is (sic) in the form of a supersession license.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC).
an applicant for or holder of a license According to the commenter, an
'g' boa. Mronmental issued pursuant to 10 CFR part 50 of this argument could be raised that a Assessment for Final Rule on Nuclear Power l
. chapter to operate a nuclear reactor."
sup ession bcense is a " wholly P! ant IJcense Renewal." USNRC. December l
See 10 CFR 140.2(a)(1). Hus, under difierent" license not covered by Pnce-1991.
l 140.2(a)(1), licensees holding renewed Anderson.%e Commission does not (31 NisREG-1362," Regulatory Analysis for nuclear power plant operating licenses accept this analysis. The final sentence Final Rule on Nuclear Power Plant Uxnee l
ar2 subject to the requirements of10 of section170.c states:
Renewal." l'SNRC, December 1971.
1
(
= _ _ _. ~ - -. - - -----
1 1
64972 Fedtral Regiatte / Vol. 56, No. 240 / Friday, December 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulations (4) NUREG-1428. " Analysis of Public Comments on the Proposed Rute on Nuclear in preparing the EA. the NRC Power Phnt License Renewall' USNRC.
assessed the possible differences in license. renewal systems, structures, and Decembn Mt.
environmentalimpacts that might arise components of the plant that are subjet due to relicensing under the provisions to aging and, during the renewal term, t Ge c Saf ty I e oI ense e wat of 10 CFR part 54 rather than to CFR assess and manage the aging Considershons " The MITRE Corporaten.
50 St.1.icense renewal under either rule degradation of those components December tw1.
would myolve essentially the same Though similar objectives would be (ej NLIRE&t411. Response to Pubhc types of analyses and actions, required under the previous rule, the Comrnents Resultmg from the Public specifically inspection, surveillance, procedures and standards that would be Workshop on Nuclear Power Plant IJcense Renewel." USNRC. luly 1990.
testing, and monitoring (ISTM) and involved are not specified by the repair, replacement, or refurbishment of previous rule.
Copies of all documents cited in the selected nuclear plant components and Annual radioactive waste production supplementary information section of structures that are subject to aging. The is not expected 'o change significantly this fmal rule are available for scope of these activities would be from rates during the origina!1icense inspection, and/or for copying for a fee, specific to each plant and be based on term under either rule. A 20-year in the NRC Public Document Room. 2120 an assessment of plant safe y and addition to a 40 year term of operation L Street. NW. (Iower Level),
pnation. Depending on the specific for a plant would, under eitNr existing Washington:DC.
changes required in each case, the requirements or the finallMense in addition, copies of NURECs cited in feast partly during normal refuelingaMs would make these change renewal nde, result in at out a 50 this document may be purchased from percent increase in the requirement for the Superintendent of Documents. U.S.
shutdowns, but some plants may require high. level waste repository storage.
Government Printing Office. P.O. Box some increase in the spent fuel storage 37082. Washington, DC 200134082.
o nit n
c mp i h capability at each individual plant, and Copies are also available for purchase changes. A work force of from 300 to 950 about a 50 percent increase in Tow. level from the National Technicallnformation could be on site during this period, waste storage capacity.
Service. 5285 Port Royal Road, regardless of whether renewalis under In sum, the environmentalimpact Springfield, VA 22161,
[ cense renewal rule.revious requirements or the final resulting from reticensing under 10 CFR VI. Finding of No Significant The environmental impacts associated relicensing under the previous rule (10 Part 54 would be similar to that for EndronmentalImpact with ISTM and with repair, replacement, CFR 50.51).
this rule has been prepared pursu(ant toAn environmental assessment EA) of d
dd Vll. Paperwork Reduction Act the National Environmental Policy Act other maintenance or replacement Statement (NEPA) and NRC*a regula tions in 10 CFR activities conducted during the previous his final rule amends information part 51. Under NEPA and 10 CFR part operation of the plant. Occupational collection requirements that are subject exposures resulting from these activities to the Paperwork Reduction Act of1980
)
tegral art fits decis o a em expected to range from 2m to W process on the proposed action, the person. rems based on exposure data W ESC 3501 et sed Wng expected environmentalimpacts of from previous major maintenance requirements were approved by the promulgating the rule and reasonable activities. These impacts would not vary Office of Management and Budget i
altematives to the action.The a gnificantly whether renewalis approval number 31504155. The Commission has determined that this accomphshed under previous amended information collection rule is not a major Federal action requirements or the final rule.
requirements contained in the final rule signficantly affecting the quality of The modifications, repairs. and will not become effective until after they human environment. The Commission replacements undertaken in each plant are approved by the Office of has therefore determined not to prepa e would not entail changes to the overall Management and Budget. Notice of en environmentalimpact statement for design of the plant. Thus basic plant OMB approval will be published in the operating parameters Federal Register' this action.The environmental performance, power o such as thermal Public reporting burden for this assessment on which the determination utput. and fuel is based has been issued as NUREG-utilization. would not. in general, be e llecti n finf rmation is estimated to 1398-expected to change during any renewal average 135.000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> per resp term under either the including the time for reviewm, onse.
License renewalis and has been the final rule. Further previous rule or Instructions, searching existing data g
permitted under the AEA and previously occupational was implemented in the Commission's exposure and both radiological and sources, gathering and mainta ning the j
regulations at to CR 50.51. This new nonradiological releases from the plant data needed. and completing and rule (10 CR part 54) differs from the would be essentially the same whether reviewing the collection ofinformation previous rule in that it establishes the renewalis achieved under previous Send comments regarding this burden specific procedural and safety criteria requirements or the final rule and are estimate or any other aspect of this and standards for renewal, whereas the not expected to differ in magnitude from collection ofinformation,includmg previous rule was silent about such those experienced during operation prior suggestions for reducing this burden. to criteria and standards. In either case, to license renewal.The current average the information and Records the Commission's environmental occupational radiation dose per plant of Management Branch (MNBB-77141. U S 425 person. rems per year (based on 1987 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
protectinn regulations.10 CFR part 51.
data)is expected to continue at about Washington, DC 20555: and to the Desk would be applied equally in renewing individual operating licenses under that level orlower through a 20-year Officer, Office ofInformation and rither the old or the new rule. He 10 license renewal term.
Under the finallicense ranewal rule, Regulatory Affairs. NEOB-3019. (3150-CFR part 54 rule does not change the each licensee is required at 6e time of 0136. 0011. 0155, and 0039). Office of requirements of 10 CFR part 51, applica tion to identify important.to.
DC 20503.
Management and Budget. Washington.
1
. = - -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _, - - ~ _ _
f Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 240 / Friday, December 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64973 Vill. Regulatory Analysis degradation unique to licertse renewal Alternative D end the bases for the programs.
The NRC prepared a regulatory Altemative B, which is the selected Extension of Altemative B to require analysis of the benefits and costs of the final rule and of a set of significant approarh. has undergone limited compliance with all new. plant standards, changes as it evolved from the proposed alternatives. The analysis is reported in rule to the final rule, as discussed some limited compromises would NUREG-1362. Sorne highlights of the elsewhere in this document. These necessarily be involved, both in new.
analysis are presented below, changes have been evaluated for their plant requirements that it may not be The specific objectives of the license effect on risk reduction and cost possible orbractical to comply with and renewal rule are to establish the in the fact t t much retained equipment estimates in the regulatory analysis, standards that must be met by license particularly with regard to differences in would not be free of all aging effects.
renewal applicants, to define the scope documentation of the cutrent licensing W thout some tolerance for near-of information required for reviewing basis and the scope of SSCs requiring equivalents or specific exemptions, this the applications, and to specify the procedures for submitting the programs to manage age-related alternative may assimilate to the no-degradation unique to license renewal, renewsl option.
applications. In order to determine the but including other reBnements as well.
'ite objective of this attemative specific content of the rule consistent Risk reduction estimates were not would be to seek the closest possible with these objectives, the NRC staff has appreciably affected. De estimate of safety equivalence of renews! license defined and evaluated a set of specific total costs increased slightly, but not plants with new plants, in neognition of attematives that coser the range of enough to change the conclusion the historic gradual tightening of safery attematives that wou!d meet these regarding the cost effectiveness of requirements over the years and objectives, as summarized below. The Alternative B relative to the other inenasing mludon of mom attematne sets of safety criteria and alternatives conservative, more risk averse public standards, reflecting differing approaches and stringencies. that were Alternative B would provide a formal attitudes towards safety objectives of and consistent structure to the licensee's technological enterprises. nota bly evaluated and compared in the regulatory analysis are as follows:
efforts to assess and manage aging nuclear power plants.
unique to !feense renewal during the Allemative D would be the most Alternative A renewal term.%e results oflicensee ambitious In its safety objectives and assessments also would provide highest in renewal expenditures.
Current licensing basis (original.
l licensing basa. as amended to the time Information for an NRC finding of Conclusion of the renewed license) with no whether or not the renewal tenn additional requirements.
requested by the licensee la justified.
Altemative B was choecn as the This alternative is based on the As compared with Altemative A.
preferred attemauve. its systematic t
Altemative B offers the benefit of a aging management requirement, absent I
proposition that risk-signifiant changes in the plant's materials and equipment more intensive and systematic pmgram from Altemative A,la warranted by the generally occur as a gradual, progressive to manage the effects of aging risks.
Importance of equipment aging as the 110 wever,it foregoes Alternatives C and key safety issue in nuclear plant life process. Knowledge of plant condition.
maintenana actions to keep up an D's new-plant safety enhancements.
extension and license renewal and is Alternative B would involvs greater wetl justified on a cost-benefit basia-adequately safe condition, and agin8 renewalexpenditures than Altemative The enhancement over Alternative B management are all required during the originallicensing term as well se after A. but less than Altematives C and D.
offered by the selective or full renewal "ne current licensing basis, Altern8'iV8 C introduction of new plant standards, as would be the case with Alternatives C together with such future changes in Extension of Alternative B to require and D. are neither necessary for requirements as may become applicable assesstnent of design differences against adequate safety nor worthwhile on a to particular plants, could thus be selected new-plant standards.
cost-benefit basis.
viewed as adequately accommodatin8 The selection of applicable new plant Some commenters arrued that smce the evoking technicalissues of plant aging past the renewal date-standards would be based on potential older plants do not meet the current risk importance and the practicality of licensing standards, these plants abould This alternative would require the overcoming obstacles to the not be relicensed or that they should be l
lowest renewal expenditures but would modifications involved. Applicants required to meet some or all of the l
be least intensive in addressing the would be required to demonstrate, current licensing standards before advancing age-degradation issues.
through PRA.alded analyses, that their relicensing. The Commission disagmes Alternative B specific plants' differences from the and the bases for the selection of selected new-plant standards are not Altemative B have been discussed Extensian of Alternative A to require risk-significant or that the plant and above. In addition, the Commission's assessment and management of aging unique to license renewal.
procedural changes are adequate. The continuir.g regulatory oversight ensures objective of Altemative C would be to that a plant's CLE will evolve as a result This alternative would place the upgrade the safety of renewed.Ilcense of ongoing regulatory initiatives and following requirements on the licensee:
plants above the degree of safety that required backfits during the term of systematic identification of systems, had been deemed acceptable for the operation to incorporate new Ssfety structures, and components important to i
license renewal; selection of structures originallicense term by seeking to attain requirements, thereby continuing to the improvements envisaged for new ensure that an acceptable level of safety and components requiring effective plants in the more promising and less
' programs to manage age-related difficult areas.
would exist at any tirne during operation under a renewed license.De CLB la degradation urdque to license renewal; Alternative C seeks safety also modified as necessary to ensure and descriptions of effective programs enhancements over Altemative B, but its that operation will not be inimical to the to adequately manage age-related renewal exper.ditures would be higher common defense and security. The
64974 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 240 / Friday December 13, 1991 / Rules and Regulations required operation of the plant within backfit rule was " regulatory stability."
the CLB and the Commission's viz., that once the Commission decides material. Classified informa tion.
continued regulatory oversight, together to issue a license, the terms and Environmental protection.
with the management of age-related degradation unique to license renewal.
conditions for operating under that Intergovernmental rela tions. Nuclea r provide reasonable assurance that license would not be arbitrarily changed materials. Nuclest power plants and operation of a nuclear power plant post hoc. Regulatory stability is not a reactorn. Penalties. Sex discrimination, relevant issue with respect to 10 CFR Source material. Special nuclear during the period of extended operation part 54. This rule has only a prospective material. Waste treatment and disposal.
will not be inimical to the public health and safety or common defense and effect upon nuclear power plant 10 CFR Port 50 security.
licensees. There are no licensees There were other comments about the currently holding renewed nuclear Administrative practice and powerplant operating licenses who procedure. Antitrust. Backfitting.
j analysis of consequences for Alternative could be affected by this rule:
Classified informa tion. Criminal penalty.
q B. Commen s from the industry stated that the large risk reduct.ons associated consequently, there are no valid Fire protection. Incorporation by with the aging management activities expectations that may be changed reference. Nuclear power plants and are unrealistic. It was argued that even regarding the terms and cor.ditions for reactors. Radiation protection. Reactor without the formal assessment and obtaining a renewed operating license.
siting criteria. Reporting and management of Alternative B. NRC and As the Commission expressed in the recordkeeping requirements.
the licensees would recognize any Preamble for 10 CFR part 52. which 10 CFR Port 54 prospectively changed the requirements significant increase in risk due to aging for receiving design certifications, the Administrative practice and and take corrective actions. The backfit rule:
procedure. Age-related degradation.
Commission does not agree that it is Backfitting. Classified information.
edequate to wait to address aging was not intended to apply to every Crimir.u penalty. Environmental concerns when they become apparent in regulatory action which changes settled i
plant operations. Analysis of risk due to expectations. Clearly, the backfit rule would protection, incorporation by reference.
cging indicates that core damage not apply to a rule which imposed more Nuclear power plants and reactors.
1 stringent requirements on all future Reporting and recordkeeping frequency can increase to relatively high apphcants for construction permits. even requirements.
levels before failures occur, so though such a rule might arguably.have an 20 CFR Port 140 corrective action after a failure does not sc equately control risk.
yn's o a pc t$u had Insurance. Nuclear power plants and t
t.
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act In this latter case the backfit rtda protects reactors. Reporting and recordkeeping the construction permit holder but not the requirements.
Certification prospective applicant. or even the present appbcant. See 54 FR 153M April 18.1980.
For the reason set out in the preamble F1xbTry S C%05(b)) At the November 1989 license renewal and under the authonty of the Atomic ct o 19 (5 the Commission certifies that this rule 'w rkshop and in written comments, the Energy Act of1954.,as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. as does not have a significant impact on a industry asserted that a backfit analysis amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the substantial number of small entities. The i r part 54 rulemaking is desirable to final rule sets forth application ensure that the NRC engages in Commission is adding a new part 54 to 10 CFR chapter I and is adopting the procedures and technical requirements
" disciplined decisionmaking" when following amendments to 10 CFR parts for renewed operating licenses for determmmg what additional actions 2, 50, and 140.
nuc r power plants. Nuclear power sh b '
ss age-)e efinit on of7maft busi ed e adat n The PART 2-RULES OF PR ACTICE FOR Commission believes that the industry DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS s
a e ined in section 3 of the Small Business Act.15 e neerns in this regard have been U.S C. 632. the Small Business Size addressed by preparation of a
- 1. The authority citation for part 2 Standards of the Small Business regdatory analysis, mternal agency continues to rea i as follows:
Admmistrator (13 CFR part 121), or the reviews of the rule by the Committee to Commission's Size Standards (50 FR Review Generic Requirements (CRGR).
,,,"[$'Yk42
^
8$
d 22 59 b 50241: December 9.1985).
review of the rule and associated amended. Pub. L Br-615. 76 Sta t. 4o0 H2 X. Non-Applicability of Backfit Rule guidance documents by the Advisory U.S C. 2241t sec. 201. 88 Stat. ta2 as This rule addresses the procedural Committee on Reactor Safeguards amended (42 U.S C. 5841). 5 U S C 552 (ACRS). preparation of analyses Section 2.101 also issued under secs 53. 62.
and technical requirements for obtaining required by the paperwork Reduction
- 63. 81.103.104.105. 68 Stat 93o 932. 911935 a tenewed operating license for nuclear Act. and the numerous opportunities for 2092. 2093. 2111. 2133 2134. 2135P see 114M.
936.937.938. as amended (42 U S C. 20 3.
power plants. The Commission has not previously addressed the policy' public comment provided by the NRC Pub. L 9b425. 00 Stat. 2n3. as a.nended (42 technical. and proceduralissues (e g.. public workshops, advance notices U.S C.10234mt sec.102. Pub L 91-190. 83 relevant to renewal of nuclear power of proposed rulemaking)
[SM,,'[1b USd
- da$
In sum. for the reasons set forth plant operatmg licenses either in above. the Commission has determined 2.102,2.103.2.104.2105.2321 also isned rulema king or in guidance documents.
that a backfit analysis pursuant to 10 under secs 102.103.104.105.183.189 68 sut Accordingly. this rule does not CFR 50.109 need not be prepared for the 938. 937. 938. g54. 955. as amended (42 U S C.
constitute a "backfit"its defm' ed in 10 pan.54 rule.
2132. 2133, 2134, 2135, 2233. 2239). Section CFR 50.109(a)(1 and a backfit analysis 2.10s a!so issued under Pub L 9M15. ud
'need not be prep) ared. Moreover. policy List of Subjects la o M2 US C 2239L Section 2 m 206 considerations weigh against 10 CFR Port 2 a s issued undersecs. 186. 234. 68 Stat. 955.
consideration of 10 CFR part 54 as a as Stat. 464, as amended H2 U S C. 2238.
b2ckfit. The primary impetus for the Administrative practice and
[2e a!IosYued procedure. Antitrust. Byproduct 2
Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853. as a mended (42 e:
lo-
l l
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64975 U S C 4332). Section 2.700a. 2J19 also issued for the liensing of production and special circumstances alleged to justify under 5 U.S C 554. Sections 2.754, 2.76o.
utilization facilities, source material, the waiver or exception requested.
2.77o. 2.78o also issued under 5 U.S C 557-special nuclear material, or byproduct (ii) Because of circumstances unique sSued P$b[9-materialis not subject to attack by way to the requested term that result in:
nder ecs 13. 4 f discovery, proof, argument. or other (A) Operation that is inimical to the s
425. 96 Stat. 2232. 2241 (42 U.S C.10155, 10161) Section 2.790 also issued under sec.
means in any adjudicatory procee, din 8 public health and safety or common 1o3. 68 Stat. 9M as amended (42 U.S C. 2133) involving initial or renewal hcensin8 defense and security or and 5 U.S C 552. Sections 2.800 and 2.808 also subject to this subpart.
(B) Noncompliance with the current issued under 5 U.S C. 553. Section 2.809 also (b)(1) A party to an adjudicatory licensing basis during the period of
(
issued under 5 U.S C. 553 and sec. 29. Pub L proceeding involving initial licensing cxtended operation, requirements in 85-256. 71 Stat. 579. as amended (42 U S C subject to this subpart may petition that addition to those in the P ant's current l
2039), Subpart K also issued under sec.189.
the application of a specified licensing basis or otherwise needed for 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S C 2239); sec.134. Pub. L Commission rule or regulation or any c mpliance with to CFR 54.29 must be 97-425. 9e Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C 10154) provision thereof. of t,he type described tmposed to provide compliance with the Subpart L also issued under sec.189. 68 Stat.
in paragraph (a) of this section, be current licensing basis or to ensure that 955 (42 U.S C. 2239). Appendix A also issued watted or an exception made for the operation is not inimical to the public under sec. 6. Pub. L 91 -560. 84 Stat.1473 (42 U.S.C. 2135). Appendix B also issued under particular proceeding.The sole ground health and safety or common defense sec 10. Pub. L 99-240,99 Stat.1842 (42 U.S C.
for petition for waiver or exception is and secunty during the period of 2021b et seq.).
that special circumstances with respect extended operation.
to the subject matter of the particular The petition must be accompanied by
- 2. Section 2.4 is amended by revising proceeding are such that the application an affidavit that identifies the the dermitions of " license" and f the rule or regulation (or provision circumstances, explains how they will
" licensee" to read as follows:
thereof) would not serve the purposes g
, g,p g g, g
i 2.4 Denntt.ons.
for which the rule or regulation was t public hedh and safety or common adopted. The petition must be defense and se urity or noncomphance License means a license including a acco apanied by an affidavit that renewed hcense or construction permit identifies the specific subject matter of with the current licensing basis.
describes what additional requirements t
issued by the Commission.
the proceeding as to which the Licensee means a person who is application of the rule or regulation (or must be imposed, and explains why the authorized to conduct activities under a provision thereof) would not serve the requiremet.ts are necessary for bcense, including a renewed license, or purposes for which the rule or regulation comphance with the current licensing construction permit issaed by the was adopted, and must set forth with basis or to ensure that operation will not Commission.
particularity the special circumstances be int Aal to the public health and alleged to justify the waiver or safety or common defense and security
- 3. Section 2.109 is revised to read as exception requested. Any other party during the period of extended operation.
follows'.
may file a response thereto, by (3) Any other party may file a counteraffidavit or otherwise.
response to a petition submitted i 2.109 Effect of timety renewal (2) A party to an adjudicatory pursuant to paragraphs (b) (1) or (2) of cpplicat6on.
pr'oceeding involving issuance of a this section by counteraffidavit or (a) Except for the renewal of an renewed license under 10 CR part 54 otharwise.
operatmg beense for a nuclear power may petition that the requirements plant under 10 CR 50.21(b) or 50.22,if.
applicable to renewed licenses under at least 30 days pnor to the expiration of this title should be waived or an PART 50.-DOMESTIC UCENSING OF en existing license authorizing any exception made for the particular PHODUCTION AND UTIUZATION activity of a continuing nature, the proceeding.The sole grounds for the FACILITIES bcensee files an application for a petition r'ust be one or both of the hf 50 is renewal or for a new license for the follmng.
revised to read as tollows:
activity so authorized. the existing (i) With respect to the subject matter brense will not be deemed to have of the particular proceeding, special Authority: Secs.102.103.104.105.161.182.
expired until the application has been circumstances pertaining to age.related 183,186.189. 68 Stat. 936. 937. 938. 948. 953.
finally determined.
degradation unique to license renewal 8'4.955 958. as amended, sec. 234. sa Stat (b)If the licensee of a nuclear power (as defined in to CR part 54) or 1/44. as amended (42 U.S C 2132,2133. 2134 plant licensed under 10 CR 50.21(b) or environmental protectiori are such that e 2:39 2gz sccs.
2 2201 2
50 22 files a sufficient application for the application of specific requirements amended. 1244.1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841. 5842.
renewal of an operating bcense at least of 10 CR part 54 or 10 CR part 51 in ggey 5 years prior to the expiration of the question would not serve the purposes Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L 95-existing license. the existing license will for which the rule or regulation was 001. sec.10. 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S C 5651).
not be deemed to have expired until the adopted. The petition must be section 50 to s'io issued under secs.101. las.
apphcation has been finally determined. accompanied by an affidavit that es Stat. 936. 955 as amended (42 U.S C 2131.
- 4. In i 2J58, paragraphs (a) and (b) identifies the specific section (or portion 2235); sec.102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. a53 (42 are revised to read as follows:
thereof) of either 10 CFR part 54 U S C. 4332) Sections 5013. 50.54 (ddl. and Sn 103 also issued under sec.1os. 68 Stat. 939.
addressing age-related degradation or 10 as amended (42 U.S.C 21381. Sections 50.23.
( 2.75e Consideration uf Commission CR part 51 for which a waiver or 50.35,5.55. and so 5e also issued under sec.
exception is so E t the subject matter 185. 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C 2235). Sections h
rules and regulations in adjudicatory
, rocedures.
of the proceeding as to which the sn 33a. 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued p
(a) Except as provided m, paragraphs application of the identified requirement under sec.102. Pub. L R1-190. 63 Stat. 853 (42 (b) (c). and (d) of this section. any rule would not serve the purposes for which U S C 43321 Sections 50 34 and 50.54 also or regulation of the Commission, or any the rule or regulation was adopted, and issued under sec. 204, se Stat. 4245 (42 U.S C rrovision thereof. Issued in its program must set forth with particularity the 58441. Sections 50.58. 50.91. and 50.92 also i
~ ' '
I 64978 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 240 / Friday. December 13, 1991 / Rules and Regulations-l seued'undes Puh L 97-415,9e Stat. 2073 (42 l 50 82 Appucation for termination of sm U.S C. 2239k Secton 278 4.lso issaed under Heente 54 22 Contentsof appbcation.Tednical sec.122. 68 Stat. 939 (42 U S C. 2152). Secuons 50 alb50 87 also issoed under sec.184 S8 Stat.
(a) Any bcensee may apply to the
'p"abca denk j'
su as amended (42 U.S C. 2234). Appendrx P Cornmission for authority to surrender a 54 23 Conwa d arphcah also foeued under see 187. 88 Stat 955 (42 license wohmtarily and to decommission Environmental tnf ormahort 54 25 Report of the Advuory Cnoumtree on U S C. A the facihty. Each application must be For the purposes of sec. 223,60 Stat. 95a. as accompanied, or preceded, by a Reactoe Safeguards.
R27 m@
smeaded (42 U.S C. 2273), il 50.5. 50 46 (a) proposed decommissioning plan.
54.29 Standarde for tuuance d a reoewed and (b). and so.54(c) are issued under sec.
(1) ADer July 27,1988:
licenae.
181b. 64 Stal 944, as amended (42 U.S C. 2201 (b)).11 Sa5. 5a7(a). 50.10 (a).-{c) 234 (a)
(i) For a facility that permanently 54 21 feauance of a rmwed hcense.
and (e). 50 44(aMc). 50 46 (a) and (b).
cessee operation, this application must H 33 Connnuanon d emns Ucmaing basis 50 47(bl. 50 4stai.(ck (d). and (e). 50 49(al-be made within 2 years following and conditions of renewed license 54 35 R 60.541a T. (il. (i)(if,(!Hn). (p). (q). It)' (v1. and permanent cessation of operations, but Nui*nats dmns tenn d renmed hemet e:e than 1 year prior to expiration of n
(yI 50.55(f). 50.55a (el. (cHel. (g1. and (bl.
54.37 50 s9(c). Se cofaJ. 5as2tb). 50 64(b). 50 as. and the operating license.
Additioner recorde and recordleeping requirement.
SC)(a) and (b) are iseued under sec.1811. es (ii) For a nuclear power plant that has Authority:Seca.102.103. m tet.181.182.
Stat. 949, se amended (42 U S C. 22o1(ill and not permanently ceased operation and 183.186.109. BB Stal 93tn 937 938,9486 953, il 50 49 (dx (h). and f;). 50 54 (w). ( )(bb).
for which a timely and sufficient 9x 955, as amended. sec. 234. 83 Stat.1244.
(cr). and (ddl. so.55(e). M 59tb). Sa64 b),
application for a tenewed license under as amended (42 U.S C. 2132,2133. 2134. 2135.
50m(bk sa7o(a). Sa71 (a Hc) and (et to CFR part 54 has been docketed, a 2201, 22312233. 2236, 2239. 22a21. seca. 201.
272(a). 50.71(a) and (b). 50.74. So.7a. and licensee may postpone filing an 202. 200. as Stat 1241 1244. as amended (42 50 m are issued under sec. telo se Stat. 950.
sa amended (42 UAC. 2:01(o)).
apptjcation to decommission the facility U.S C. 5841. 5842). For the purposes of sec for that period of time until a Gnal 223. es Stat.958. as amended (42 U.S C 2273).
- 6. In f 50.47 paragraph (a)(1)is determination of the renewal II ** 13 54 33' 54 35 '"d 54 37 '" 'esued revised to read as follows.
application has been made by the under se'cs telb. teli. or 161o. 6a Stat 948.
Commission.If the application for a
- # ' "' **'"d'd I'#
- 22 *
$ sa42 Emergency pesas-renewed license is disapproved and (A)
(s)(1)Except as provided in paragraph the operating license in effect is within 1 General Provisions (d) of this section. no initial operating year ofits expiration date or (B) the fictnse for a nuclear power reactor will plant has been operating under the I S'A W ""d ***P" be issued unless e finding is made by timely renewal provisions of 10 CFR His part govems the issuance of the NRC that there is reasonable 2.109(b). an apphcation for termination renewed operating licenses for nuclear assurance that edequete protection can of the operating licensemost be power plants licensed pursuant to t
oed wi!! be taken in the event of a submitted within t year of the sections 103 or 104b of the Atomic radiological emergency. No finding disappmvalof the appbcationfor the Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat.
i under this sectiovila necessary for renewed license.
919) and title !! of the Energy issuance of a renewed nuclear power (2) For a facihty that has permanently Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Sta t.
j reactor operstmg license, ceased operation prior to july 27.1988.
1242}-
requirements for contents of the
- 7. Section 50.51 is revised to read as decommissioning plan as specified in g 34,3 g%
follows; paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section Aa used in this part, may be modified with approval of the Age.relateddegmdation means a 9 50.51 Duraeosi of Neenee, rmwat.
Commission to reflect the fact that the change in a system's. structure's, or Each license will be issued for a fixed decommissioning pmcess has been component's performance or physical or period of time to be specified in the initiated previously.
chemicalproperties resulting m whole or license but in no case to exceed 40 years part from one a mwe agmg from date ofissuance. Where the
- 9. Part 54 is added to read as follows:
mechanisms. Examples of this type of operation of a facility is involved, the change include changes m dimension.
Commission will issue the license for PART 54-REQUIREMDfTS FOR ductility fatigue resistance, fracture the term requested by the applicant or RENEWAL OF OPERATINO UCENSES toughness, mechanical strength, for the estimated usefullife of the FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS polymerization. viscosity, and dielectnc facility if the Conunission determmes General Pmvisions I
that the estimated usefuf life Is less than AE*'rel teddegmdation unique to the term requested. Where construction sec.
license renewalls degradation-of a facility is involved, the Commission 54 1 Purpose and secp*
54 3 Denrutkna (1) Dat occurs during the term of the may specifyin the construction permit current operating license but whose the period for which the license will be
$ NnYMbt,oo effects are dfffacent in character or issued if approved pursuant to 6 50.58.
a9 informat,on collection requiremente nW ahar time term of the cumnt Licenses may be renewed by the OMB eppmval operaNug Deense (the pertod of Commission upon the expiration of the M11 Pubhc inspection of applications.
extended operetion) or period. Renewal of operating licenses 54 13 Completeness and accuracy of for truclear power plants is governed by ermation.
(2) Whose effects were not exphettly 10 CFR part 54. Appbcation for R15 Specific exemptions-identified and evaluated by the licensee for the period of extended operation and termination of heense is to be made 37 d '$ '. "y the evaluation found acceptable by the
[
y pursuant to E 50.82.
%g NRC; or
- a. in 15022, paragraph (a)la revised nas Consente of application Technical (3) Nt occurs only durmg the period to read as follows; infannation.
of extended operation.
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 240 / Friday. December 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 649'77 s
Aging mechanism are the physical or during and following design basis events (b) The approved information chemical processes that result in (as defined in 10 CFR 50.49(b)(1)) to collection requirements contained in this degradation These mechanisms include ensure:
part appear in il 54.13.54.17.54.19, but are not limited to fatigue, erosion.
(i) The integrity of the reactor coolant 54.21,54.22,54.23,54.33, and 54.37 corrosion, erosion / corrosion, wear.
pressure boundary; thermal embrittlement, radia tion (ii) The capability to shut down the gg
_~~
embrittlement, microbiologically reactor and maintain it in a safe App!! cations and documents induced effects, creep, and shrinkage.
shutdown condition: or submitted to the Commission in Current licensing basis (CLB)is the set of NRC requirements applicable to a (iii) The capability Io prevent or connection with renewal applica tions specific plant and a licensee's wntten mitigate the consequences of accidents may be made available for public commitments for ensuring compliance that could result in potential offsite inspection in accordance with the with and operation within applicable exposure comparable to the to CFR part provisions of the regulations contained 100 guidelines.
in to CFR part 2.
i gn ba inc! ding 1 odific io (2) All non-safety related SSCa whose f 54.13 completeness and accumey of and additions to such commitments over failure could directly prevent informat6on.
the hfe of the licenselthat are docketed ? satisfactory accomplishment of any of and in effect. The CLB includes the NRC the required functions identified in (a) yeadon provided to the regulations contamed in 10 CFR parts 2 paragraphs (1) (i). (li). or (iii) of this Commission by an applicant for a 19.20.21, 30,40,50.51. 54.55,70.72.73.'
definition
- renewed license or by a licensee or informstion required by statute or by the an 3
1 SC i'd b d 100 and appendices thereto; orders:
Commission's regulations, orders, or eense conditions; exemptions; and ev technical specifications. It also includes demonstrate compliance with the license conditions to be maintained by the plant. specific design basis Commission a regulations for fire the applicant or the licensee must be information defined in 10 CFR 50.2 as pr tection (10 CFR 50 48), environmental complete and accurate in all material cat n1 C 50 9) pressurized respects.
documented in the most recent final ga
),
O (b) Each applicant or 'icensee shall r ui ed b 1 C 7 a d the anticipated transients withou't scram (10 notify the Commission ofinformation licensee's commitments remaining in CFR 62), and station blackout (10 CFR jdentifi d b th pli tr ensee as I en i o
pr n e such as
'(4) All SSCs subject to operability significant implication for public health licensee responses to NRC bulletins.
requirements contained in the facility and safety or common de nae and ginetic letters, and enforcement actions, technical specification limiting s
a can ae as well as licensee commitments conditions for operation.
{
l documented in NRC safety evaluations All other terms in this part have the g
g orli ensee event reports.
same meanings as set out in 10 CFR 50.2 Commission ofinformation that the t
l T
or section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act, applicant or licensee has identified as arm sa
(
j ocumented program to manage age-as applicable, having a significant implication for public health and safety or common re e al ae et a syste
$ 54.5 Interpmtations.
e ns on m structure, or component important to,
Except as specifically authorized by E
license renewal will continue to perform the Commission in writing. no appropriate Regional Office within 2 its required function or will not prevent interpretation of the meaning of the w rking days ofidentifying the the performance of a required function regulations in this part by any officer or infmauonE.is mqdment is not u'
the period of extended operation employee of the Commission other than 8pplicable to information that is already ntegratedplant assessment UFAj is [.
licensee assessment that demonstrates a written interpretation by the General required to be provided to the Counsel will be recognized to be binding Commission by other reporting or that a nuclear power plant facility's upon the Commission.
Updating requirements.
systems, structures, and components important to license renewal have been
$ 54.7 wrttten communications.
i 54.15 Specmc exemptions.
identified and that age related All applications, correspondence.
ExempUons in the mquinents of degradation unique to license renewal reports, and other writter>
this par 1 may be granted by the will be managed to ensure that the communications shall be filed in Commission in accordance with to CFR facility's licensing basis will be accordance with applicable portions of 5a12.
maintained during the renewel term.
Nuclearpowerplant means a nuclear I 54.17 Flang of appuceton.
power facility of a type described in 10 8 54.s informanon conecton (a)The filing of an application for a CFR 50.21(b) or 50.22.
requirements: Otts approvat.
renewed license must be in accordance Renewol term means the period of (a) The Nuclear Regulatory with subpart A of to CFR part 2 and to time that is the sum of the additional Commission has submitted the 7R 50.4 and 50.30.
amount of time beyond the expiration of information collection requirements (b) Any person who is a citizen, the operating license that is requested in contained in this part to the Office of national, or agent of a foreign country, the renewal application plus the Management and Budget (OMB) for or any corporation, or other entity which remaining number of years on the approval as required by the Paperwork the Commission knows or has reason to l,
. operatmg license currently in effect.
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et know is owned, controlled, or Systems, structures, and components seq.). OMB has approved the dominated by an allen, a foreign i
(SSCslimportant fo license renewal are: infortnation collection requirements corporation. or a foreign government. is i
(1) Safety-related SSCs. which are contained in this port under control ineligible to apply for and obtain a those relied upon to remain functional number 3150 4135.
renewed license.
l l
84978 Federal Register / Vol. 5& No. 240 / Friday. December 13. 1993 / Rules and Regulations (c) An application for a renewed the structures and components (SCs bcense may not be subautted to the thet contnbute to the performance o)f athe facility or otherwise related to SSCs subject to ege.related degradation Comnussion earlier than 20 years before required function. or could, if they fail.
unique to bcense renewal, an evaluation the expiration of the operatinglicense prevent an SSC important to license that justiftea the continuatico of these currently in effect.
renewal from performingits required exemptions and reliefs for the renewal (d) An appheant may combine an function.
term must be provided.
epphcation for a renewed hcense with (3) For those SCa identified in (d) Plant mod fications. A description applications for other kinds of licenses, paragraph (a)(2) of this section identify must be ymvMed of any proposed (a) An application may tncorporate by the SCs that could have age-related modificatiana to the facility or its reference informstion contained in degradation that is unique to license administrative control procedum previous applications for licenses or renewal.
necessary to ensure that age related license amendments, statements.
(4) Describe and justify the methods degradation unique to hcense renewal is conespondence or reports filed with the used in paragraph (a)(1) (a)(2), and adequately managed during the renewal 1
Commission; provided that the (a)(3) of this section. The description term.
references are clear and specific, must include:
(e) CLB changes during NRC review of (f)If the application contains (i) ne specific criteria for detennin6g Restricted Data or other defeme whether an SSC is important to license application. Each year following
,ubmittal of the license renewal informat2on. H must be prepared in such renewal:
application and at least 3 months before a manner that au Restricted Data and (ii) The criteria for evaluating whether other defense information are separated an SC is necessary for the performance scheduled completion of the NRC review, an amendment to the renewal from undessified information.in of a required function; and accordance with to CFR 50.33(j).
(iii) The technical criteria to be used application must be submitted that (g) As part ofits application and in in determir.ing whether an SC is subject identifies any change to the current any event prior to the receipt og to age-related degradation unique to licensing basis of the facility that Restricted Data or the issuance of a license renewal.
materlauy affects the contents of the rznewed license. the applicant shall (5) For each SC identified m.
license renewal application. including cgree in writing that it will not permit paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the FSAR supplement.
eny individual to have accesa to demonstrate that the age.related i M.22 Corttents of appaceuonaechnical i'
Rsstricted Data until an investigation is degrada tion unique to license renewal:
speelecesons.
made and reported to the Comrnission (i)Is addressed through an effective Each application must include any en the character, association, and program, a loyalty of the individual and the
(@eed not be addmsh an technical specification changes or Commission shall have determmed that effective prog aan additions necessary to support permitting such person to have access to
@) Duenh me appUcable eHectm.
operation during the renewal term as Restricted Data wili not endanger the programs for each SC identified in part of the renewal application. The common defense and security. The paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section, and technical justification for these changes or additions must be contained in the "stra k at e agreement of the applicant in this regard p{gbr t
d FSAR supplement submitted to support y,
g d Lcense, whe6er l
[,PI
- d""""**
, gd rno the period of extended operation.De evaluation of these programs shall I H.23 Contante of appuest6en-9 5M9 Contents of appsertsor-general include a review of the CLB as environmentalinformatsoru enfmnation.
appropriate. Effective programs must:
Each application rous. include an (a) Each at plication must provide the (i) Ensure ident!!Ication and environmental report that complies with information *oecified in 10 CFR 50.33 (a) mitigation of age related degradation the requirements of subpart A of 10 CFR through (e). [h). and (i). / 'terna tively, unique to license renewal for the SCs part 51.
the apphcation may inr orporate by identified pursuant to paragraph (a)(3) of reference otner documents that provide this section. and i H.25 Repor1 of the Advisory Commttfee the information required by this section.
(ii) Contain acceptance criteria on Reactor Safeguards.
(b) Each apohcation mustinclude against which the need for corrective Eoch renewal application will be conforming changes to the standard action will be evaluated. and ensure referred to the Advisory Committee on indemnity agreement.10 CB 140.92, that timely corrective action will be Reactor Safeguards for a review and appendix B. to account for the taken when these acceptance criteria report. Any report will be made part of 4
expiration term of the proposed are not met: and the record of the application and made 4
renewed bcense.
(iii) Be implemented by the facility available to the public. escept to the 1
operating procedures and reviewed by extent that secunty classification l
9 H 21 Contents of applicetforwtechnical the onsite review committee.
preventa disclosure, information.
(b) CLB Changes. ldentification and Each apphcation must indude a justification of any changesin the i H.27 martnga.
supplement to the final safety analysis current licensing basia suociated with A notice of an opportunity for a 3
report (FSAR) that presents the age.related degradation unique to hearing will be pubhshed in the Federal information required by this part. The license renewat Registar,in accordance with to CFR FSAR supplement shall contain the (c) Exemptions. A list of all plant-2.105. In the absence of a request for a following information specific exemptaons granted pursuant to hearing filed within 30 days by a person 1
(a) Integrated plant assessment (IPA).
10 CFR 50.12 and rebefs granted whose interest may be affected. the i The fpA niust:
pursuant tolo CFR Sassa. For those Commission may issue a renewed (1) Identify and list the SSCs exemptions and reliefs that either were operating license without a hearing.
i irsp'ortant to license renewal.
granted on the basis of an assumed upon 30. day notice and publication once (2) From the list required by service life or period of operation in the Federal Registar of its intent to do pzragraph (a)(1) of this section. identify bounded by the originallicense term of so.
I
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 240 / Friday. December 13, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64979 j
j 54.29 Standards for losuance of a including such provisions with respect ordered pursuant to paragraphs (b) or r*M**d hc*a88-to any uncompleted items of plant (c) of this section.
A renewed license may be issued by modification and such limitations or the Commission. up to the full term conditions as the Commission believes I ms Requkements durtn9 wem of
""*"*d h authorized by I 54.31. based on the are required to ensure that operation following findmgs:
during the period of completion of such During the term of a renewed license.
(s) Actions have been identified and items will not endanger public health licensees shall continue to comply with hsve been or will be taken with resp >ct and safety. Other conditions and all Commission regulations contained in to age-related degradation unique to limitations, including technical 10 CFR parts 2.19,20.21,30,40,50,51, i
license renewal of SSCs important to specifications, that do not address age.
- 54. 55,70,72. 73, and 100 and appendices license renewal. such that there is related degradation unique to license thereto that are applicable to holders of reasonable assurance that the activities renewal continue in effect for the operating licenses.
authorized by the renewed license will renewed license, Addnkna records and be conducted in accordance with the (c) Each renewed license will include cunent licensing basis, and that any those conditions to protect the changes made to the plant's current environment that were imposed (a) He licensee shall retain in an licensing basis in order to comply with pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36(b) and that are audatable and retrievable form for the this paragraph are otherwise in accoM part of the currentlicensing basis for the term of the renewed opera 11ng license with the Act and the Commission's facihty at the time of issuance of the allinformation and documantation regulations.
renewed license.nese conditions may required by, or otherwise necessary to (b) Any applicable requirements of be supplemented or amended as document compliance with the 4
subpart A of10 CFR part 51 have been necessary to protect the environment provisions of, this part.
satisfied.
during the term of the renewed license (b) he annual FSAR update required (c) Any matters raised under 6 2.758 and will be derived from information by 10 CFR 50.71(e) must include any have been addressed as required by that contained in the supplement to the SSCs newly identified as important to e vironmentalreportsubmitted license renewal as a result of generic tetion.
n pursuant to 10 CFR part 51, as analyzed information, research, or other new
$ 54.3t leeuance of a renewed Ncense, and evaluated in the NRC record of information after the renewed license is (t) A renewed license will be of the decision.%e conditions will identify the issued.He update must also identify chss for which the operating license obligations of the licensee in the any SSCs deleted from the list of SSCs currently in effect was issued.
environmental area, including, as important to license rtnewal. This FSAR (b) A renewed license will be,ssued appropriate, requirements for reporting update must describe how the age-i for a fixed period of tune, which is the and recordkeeping of environmental related degradation unique to license sum of the additional amount of time data and any conditions and monitorin8 renewal of newly identified SSCs beyond the expiration of the operating requirements for the protection of the important to license renewal will be license (not to exceed 20 years) that is nonequatic environment.
effectively managed during the period of requested in a renewal application plus [d) ne licensee shallmaintain the extended operation.%e update must the remaining number of years on the
" programs and procedures reviewed and also be accompanied by a justification op rating license currently in effect.%e approved by the staff that manage age-for deleting any SSCs previously total number of years for any renewal related degradation unique to license identified as important to license term may not exceed 40 yeam.
renewal A licenase may make changes renewal.
(c) A renewed license will become to previously approved programs and (c) He licensee shall submit to the effective immediately upon its issuance, procedures referenced in the renewal NRC at least annually a list of all thsreby supeneding the operating application or FSAR without rior s ma e te fo license previously in effect. !f a renewed Commission approvalif the e anges are a[ge gage gredauon license is subsequently set aside upon reviewed by the onsite review further administrative or judicial appeal, committee or equivalent and found not unique t licene renewal that do not the operating license previously in effect to decrease the effectiveness of the decrease the effectiveness of programs t which the licensee committed and a J
will be relutated unless its term has management of age.related degradation expired and the renewal application unique to license renewal of specific brief descrfption, including a summary i
W safety evaluadon of each change was not filed in a timely manner.
systems. structures, or components (d) A renewed license may be previously accepted. Chances that do
%e licensee shall maintain written,
subsequently renewed upon expiration not reduce the effectiveness of documentation that provides the basis of the renewal term. in accordance with previously accepted programs or f r concluding that the change does not reduce the effectiveness of these ell applicable requirementa.
procedures must be documented in accordance with 9 54.37. Proposed pmgrams.
[
changes that decrease the effectiveness rART 140-FINANCIAL PROTECTION 33,g (a) Whether stated therein or not, mNg Nt7ag - INed egradation RE M ME m AM LW W W AMEMEm each renewed license will contain and unique to license renewal must be otherwise be subject to the conditions submitted to the NRC and receive NRC
- 10. He authority citation for part 140 set forth in 10 CFR 50,.54.
approval before implementation.
continues to read in part as follows:
(b) Each renewed beene will be
'ren(e)%e liceuingbesia for b issued in such form and contain such ewed license includes b current
, conditions and limitations. including licensing basis, as defined in i 54.3(a)
Au&arity seca.tets es stat.e4am technical specifications. as the the inclusion in the licensing basis of N.fs, as amended H2 ESN W Commission deems appropriate and matters such as lloensee commitments necessary to addreas age-related does not change the legal statute of it. 5.ection 140.2(a)(1) is revised to degradation unique to license renewal.
those matters unlese specifically so read as follows:
4
64960 Fedzral Ragist r / Vol. 58. No. 240 / Friday, December 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulations i 140.2 Scope.
"accurance" should read " assurance."
20.403. 20.405 and 30.50 or, for licensees (a) The regulations in this part apply:
2.The final rule contained a Summary implementing the provisions of (1) To each person who is an and Analysis of Public Comments.On il 20.1001-20.2201. ll 20.2201-20.2202.
applicant for or holder of a license page 40758. In the third column, the 120.2203 and i 30.50 of this chapter, issued pursuant to 10 CFR parts 50 and response to comment No. 5 has been 54 of this chapter to operate a nuclear revised to provide greater clarity.
reactor and
- 5. Comment: * *
- 1 70.50 [Correctedl Response:In developing the proposed
- 5. In the third line of I 70.50(c)(2), in 1
- 12. Section 140.10 is revised to read as rule, the NRC considered the idea of the third column, on page 40760. the follows:
providing specific activity thresholds for word prepara should read,' submit, each of the new reporting requirements.
Dated at Rockville. Maryland, this 9th day I tao.10 Scope.
However, the NRC felt that thresholds of December,1991.
This subpart applies to applicants for fo'r all of the new reporting requirements For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
and holders of licenses issued pursuant would be cumbersome and difficult to Donale H. Grimsley, to 10 CFR parts 50 and 54 of this chapter develop and use. Many of the licensed authorizing operation of nuclear operations use mixtures ofisotopes in Director. Division o/heedom o/laformation 4
ondPublications Services. Office of reactors, except licenses for the conduct different chemical forms that pose Administration.
of educational activities issued to, or various safety hazards. Nevertheless, (FR Doc. 91-29820 Filed 12-12-9t 8 45 aml applied for, by persons found by the the NRC agrees that thresholds for some
,,,,cong m Commission to be nonprofit educational of the new reporting requirements would institutions and except persons found by help to minimize reports ofinsignificant the Commission to be Federal agencies. events. As a result, the NRC felt that a This subpart also applies to persons set of activity thresholds would be licensed to possess and use plutonium in appropriate for determining what fires a plutonium processing and fuel and explosions cr,d contamination fabrication plant.
events are reportable. Therefore, the Dated at Rockville. Maryland, this 6th day final rule has been revised to require of December 1991 NRC notification only for fires and For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
explosions and contamination events g
involving licensed material in quantities Secretary ofthe Commission.
that are greater than five times the (FR Doc. 91-29608 Filed 12-11-9t 8 45 aml I west annuallimit on intake specified in appendix B of Il 20.1001-20.2401 of to CFR part 20.
j 10 CFR Parts 20,30,31,34,39,40 and
- 3. On page 40764. In the third sentence 70 of the second full paragraph. (i.eventh RIN 3150-AC91 line from the bottom)in the third Notification of incidenta c lumn. "the 20" should read "than 20."
- 4. On May 21,1991 the Nuclear AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Regulatory Commission published in the Commission.
Federal Register (56 FR 23363) a final ActON: Final rule: Correction.
rule revising 10 CFR part 20 et al. The
SUMMARY
- This document corrects a final rule also made conforming final rule appearing in the Federal amendments to i 39.77(b). On page Register on August 16.1991 (56 FR 40768. the conforming amendments 40757), that revised the NRC,s material made on May 21.1991 that added licensee reporting requirements to references to Il 20.1001-20.2401 were ensure that significant occurrences at not tellected in amendatory instruction material licensee facilities are promptly 13 that amended i 39.77.To restore the reported. This action is necessary to omitted references to i 39 77*
I correct minor printing errors and resolve amendatory instruction 13 is set forth en inconsistent reference to an below. For the convenience of the user.
c i
appendix. This action will also add the instruction will present the change language which was inadvertently as a revision of I 39.77(b) and the omitted from the supplementary complete text of the paragraph is mformation to the final rule and restore presented.
r 4
previously added language to i 39.77.
- 13. In l 39.77, paragraph (b) is revised EFFECTIVE DATE: October 15.1991, to read as follows:
FOR FURTHER INFORMAT10N CONTACT:
I 39.77 NottScations of incidents and lost '
i Michael T. Lesar. Chief. Rules Review sources: at>andonment procedures for Section. Regulatory Publications Branch. irretrievable sources.
Division o! Freedom of Information and Publications Services. Office of Administration. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory (b) The licensee shall notify the Commission. Washington. DC 20$$5, Commission of the theft or loss of telephone: 301-492-7758.
radioactive materials, radiation i
- 1. On page 40758. in the second overexposures, excessive levels and sentence of the sixtn full paragraph in concentrations of radiation, and certain the second column. the word other accidents as required by iG 20.402
l.u
.. a v ' Ca*
y 9
Rules and Regulations r d-d "**
j Vol 58. No.182 it Wednesday. >dy teL test i
j The secton of me FEDERAL REGISTER activities as hast ectivity.DVA bas listing for Gampaign Urbana. Elinois, contains requisiory docuneres henne agreed to assume responsibility for the from "DoD" to "VA".
9'"**l W""y and leesi enect, meet survey.no change was discussed at the of which are hayed e and codhed in y,,,.
the Code of Federal Regu!stona, whch is FederalPrevailing Rate Advisory 1
Director.
@hed undw so sees pursuant e M Committee meeting of May 16.1991, and U S C. 1510.
there was unanimous agreement to the (FR Dec. FI-te432 Filed 74e1; s.45 em)
The Coco of Federal Reguistors is sold' abenge.
l ty the S@enntendere of Doesnente-Puresent to sections 853(b)(3)(B) and sE D 7=h
[ y @,EU$ $,y,",,",,,,'j, i
amt E DEPAR M E M N j
general notice of proposed rulemaking immigration and Naturabsetion 4
and for making these regulations servios i
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL effective in less than 30 days.He full-i 08ANAGEMENT scale survey for the Champaign-Urbana. 8 CFR Parts 314,351, and 264 Illinois, wage area is scheduled to be i
8 CFR Part 532 ordered la September 1991. It is ImeMem M l'
necessary to make this change Denialof Crewman Stetua h the Case
,"8 gg j
immediately because of the preliminarF of Certain Labor Disputes and Asanew Office of Personnel work on the survey that must be SpectAcadone of Authertsed 4
Management.
accomplished prior to the actual earvey.
Smployment
~
Acnoec Final rule, including the appointment of the Local I
Wage Survey Committee, the conduct of Aemsem inunigration and Naturalization sutsuanthe Office of Personnel local hearings, and the selemian and Service Justice.
Management (OPM)is issuing a Anal 3
rule to change thelead agency training of data couectors.
Acnostlaterim rule; extension of comument period.
j responsibility for the Champaign-R.O.122st. Federal Regulation Urbans !!!inois. Federal Wage System summaAsm On June 4.1991, en interim j
{FWS) wage tres from the Department Ihave determined that this is not a rule was publishedin the Federal j
of Defense (DoD) to the Department of major rule as defined under section 1(b)
Register at to FR 20016, which necessary becaus(e the ) current hostVeterans Affairs DVA.%is change is of F.O 12291. Federal Regulation.
hoplemented sections 202 and 203 of the i
kamigration Act of1990, Public 14w I
activity for DoD. Chanute Air Force Regulatory Flexibility Act 10144a, passed November as, teso.De l
Base (AFB). Is clos andis unable to I certify that these regulations will not rule Provides guidelines, among other
!t continn M support e surwy.
have a sign!!icant economic hopect on a tMass. Pertaining to the circumtances L
EFFEcWE Daft:]uly 10.19 1.
substanual number of smallentities under which nonimadgrant crewmen are POR PURTMEA MPOAsdAn0ed coef7ACn because they would affect only Federal Penn!Hed to perfonn longshm worun Allan Summers (202) 606-2848 or FTS employees and Federal agencies.
the United States. In response to 206-2848.
requests from representatives of suppi.anstarrAAY BsP0euAnost Under Ust of Subjedsin 5 CFR Past 332 8 hipping companies and other interested the provisions of section 5343(a)(2) of Persons, the Service has extended the i
title 5. United States Code. OPM is Administretive practice and dudline for submitting written responsible for designating a lead procedm.Covermnent employees.
comments to August 9.1891.
agency for each FWS wage area.no Wages.
DAfra %Is rule is affective May 2a.
2 Department of Defense is currently Accordingly.OPM sineeds 5 CFR part 1991 through December 31.1001.The aesigned lead agency responsibility lor sat es fouows:
Immigration and Naturalisation Service i
conducting the local wage survey and (INS) wiu lasus a Baal rule on or before i
issuing the regular wage schedule for the the last effective date of this interim rule Champaign. Urbana. Blinois, wage area.
PART $33--PREVAR200 RATE MSTEMS and after INS has had an opportunity to Chanute AF11 the host activity for the swview public and agency comments.
i.
j purvey,is scheduled for closure in 1 %e eethority for part 832 continues hiterested persons are invuod k suW September 1993.The loss of staff at to read as follows:
wrinen commats en or before August 9 f
Chanute AFB and the extra workload 1991.
associated with closure activities make Avtbartty: s U.S C. 3343, ases: section Aconasaam Please submit written it impossible for the base to continue to 532307 also issued under s UAC. 482, I
act as the host activity. With the closure Freedom ofInformauon Act. Pub. L ss-402.
comment t,. i" triplicate, to the Directoi.
Policy W. se and Instructions of Chanute AFB. the Department of Appenda A to subport # ofport 327-Branch. imaderation and Naturalisativa Veterans Affairs win become the largest Nationwide Schedule ofApproprioted Service. 4as 1 Street. NW., room 8304.
j FWS employer in the wage area.The Nd Argular Wage Surveye Washington. DC 3053lL Please include DVA Medical Center in Danville, INS number 141841 on the mailing l ',
Elinoi:.. is located in the survey area and
- 2. Appendix A to subpart B is envelope to ensure proper and timel) is able to support the wage survey amended by revising the lead agency handling.
31306 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No.132 / Wednesday, July 10, 1991 / Ruiss and Regulations I
poa runTwan insronuATions costTACT:
activitles which require taking program for assuring sustained
{
Diane Hinckley, Assistant Chief equipment out of service, licensees performance in the maintenance area.
inspector, Immigration and should assess the total plant equipment On May 25,1990, the Commission i
Naturall stion Service. 4251 Street, that is out of service and determine the approved these criteris and advised thi NW., room 7123. Washington, DC 20536, overall effect on the performance of staff that additional factors which may telephone number (202) 514-2725.
safety functions, influence the Commission in Dete& luly 1 teet.
RFFECTWE DATE.:De finalrule will determining the need for maintenance Gene McNary, become effective July 10,1996. However, rulemaking were:(1) De ability to
{
comminioner. Immiration and the information coUection requiremente enforce maldtenance programs or Naturchzation Service.
contained in to CFR 50.65 are not standards:(f) the presence of a
[nt Doc m-taus nled 7-&et; sLes am) effective untu the NRC publishes the strengthened commitment by the Office of Management and Budget industry to monitor equ!pment (OMB) clearance in the Federal Register. performance to identd, y problema*ic pon puntwsm uspomuArion coseTact:
components, systems, and functions. to NUCLEAR REGULATORY Robert Riggs. Office of Nuclear conduct root cause analysis to track COMMISSION Regulatory Research. U.S. Nuclear cornettve actions, and to feedback Regulatory Commission. Washington, information into the maintenance 10 CFR Part 50 DC 20555, (302) 492-3732.,
program;and(3) provision of a RW 3150-AD00
,,7,,,,,,,,,,,,,
mechanism by which the NRC could verify the effectiveness of the program.
Background
On May 23,1990, the Commission in tN of Manta On March 23,1968 (53 m 9430), the ameted h sta0o denkp a mond Commission published a final Policy Proposed rule that would be reliability-l asasecy: Nuclear Regulatory Statement on Maintenance of Nuclest based. In addition, the Commission j
Commission.
Power Plants. in the Policy Statement, directed the staff to develop two ecTioec naal rule.
the Commission stated that it expected Proceduralapproaches for to publish a notice of proposed implementation of a rule.%e first sumasAny:The Commission is amending rulemaking and provided the general implementation approach, which its regulations to require commercial framework for the proposed rule. On allowed licensees to use an alternate nucleat power plant licensees to monitor November 28,1968 (53 FR 47822), the NRC approved maintenance standard.
the effectiveoess of maintenance Commission published a notice of was tecorporated into both rules.The activities for safety signiScant plant proposed rulemaking to require second approach was toinclude equipment in order to minimize the commercial nuclear power plant conceptuel considerations for likelihood of failures and events caused licensees to implement a maintenance appheation of a maintenance rule only by the lack of effective maintenance.
program to reduce the likelihood of to licensees exhibiting poor performane he Commission believ,es that, to failures and eventa caused by the lack in the maintenance area.
mairitain safety,it is necessary to of effective maintenance. In support of in SECY-91-110 dated April 26,1991, monitor the effectiveness of this rule, the Corntnission published a the staff reported the results of the maintenance, and take timely and draft regulatory guide on maintenance staffs evaluation of the need for appropriate corrective action, where on August 17.1989 (54 m 33968) for maintenance rulemaking. De evaluation necessary, to ensure the continuing public comment. On December a 1989, was based upon an assessment of effectiveness of maintenance for the lifetime of nuclest power plants, the Commission issued a revised policy licensee progress against the four i
particularly as plants age.%e final rule statement on maintenance (54 m 50811)
Commission approved criteria and the that stated the Commission's intention additional factors identified by the j
mquires that licensees monitor the to hold rulemaking in abeyance for 18 Commission De staff also presented performance or condition of ceMain months while it monitored industry for Commission consideration options structures, systems and components inf tlatives and improvements and to and recommendations pertaining to:(1)
(SSCs) against licensee-established assess the need for rulemaking in the De issuance of a final policy statement; goals in a manner sufficient to provide maintenance area at the end of the 18 (2) the issusace of a final" process-reasonable assurance that those SSCs month period.
oriented" rule and accompanying will be capable of performing their On April 13,1990,in response to a regulatory guide, based upon the intended functions. Ssch monitoring Commission request, the staff forwarded November 1988 proposed rule, the would take into account industry wide the foUowing four proposed criteria to August 1989 draft regulatory guide, and cperating experience. Where monitoring be used in determining the need for public comments received on both the proves unnecessary. licensees would be maintenance rulemaking:
proposed rule and draft regulatory perrnitted the option of relying upon an Criterion 1-1.icensees have guide:(3) the issuance of a proposed appropriate preventive maintenance effectively implemented an adequate
- nliability based" rule and program. Licensees will be required to maintenance program or are committed accompanying draft regulatory guide: (4) i evaluate the overall effectiveness of to and proceeding towards this goal.
the application of a maintenance rule their maintenance programs on at least Criterion 2-Licensees exhibit a only to poor performers.
an annual basta, again taking into favorable tnnd in performance related account industry wide opersting to maintenance.
Need fn Rds experience. and adjust their programs Criterion 3-Ucensees are committed
%e Commission's determination that where necessary to ensure that the to the implementation of a maintenance a maintenance rule is needed rests first prevention of failures is appropriately performance standard acceptable to the on the concluelan that proper balanced with the minimization of NRC.
maintenance is essential to plant safety.
, unavailability of SSCa Finally,in Criterion 4-Ucensees have in place As discussed in the Regulatory Analysir performing menitoring and maintenance or are committed to an evaluation and the Backf't Analysis for this rule.
f Fedcral Register / Vol. 88,' No'. d2' / Wedoksida'3. $1,16,'1961 flttilea Ylidte'gid6 Erns Tio7 there is a ciaar knk between effective that a enfBelent m.maltment by eqvfpment etsflabfBty is an important r
maintenare and safety as it relates to beensees to a maintenance standard measure of maintenance effectiveness.
such factors as number of transients and approved by the NRC has not been Regarding b additionalfactors challenges to safety systems and the received.
canaldered by the Commisalon in associated need for operability.
With ressid tolicensees havingin determining the need for a maintenance ava!! ability and reliability of safety place or being committed to an rule, the hn=t. aran bellevas that there r
equipment. In addition, good evaluation program for ensuring exists a need to broaden its capability to maintenance is also important in austained performanm in the ans of ~
take timeWeaforcement action where providmg assurance that fallares of other then safety related SSCa that maintenance (Criterion 4), the industry.
marnimaanos activlties fa!! to provide through NUMARC, todicated that all could initiate or adversely affect a hcesees wtB perfor'n a compnhenalve reasonable soeurance that safety sign!Beant SSCs are capable of transient or accident are minimized.
assessment of their maintenance performing their intended function. With Minimizing challenges to safety eystems programs against the performance regard to the presence of a strengthened le consistent with the Commission's objectives ofINp0 90-408.%ese one-defense-in depth philosophy.
time assessments were to be conducted ladustry commitment to: Monitor Maintenance is also important to ensure over a four year period. AdditionaDy.
equipment performance to identify that design assumptions and margins in periodic INp0 evaluations which hrahta=auc components, systema and the original design basis are either include the maintenance area wi!!
na; to conduct root cause maintained or are not unacceptably continue to be performed. Hawever, the analysia 2 trod comedve acubad i
degreded Derefore,nuclearpower Commlaafon behevaa that the industry's to feedbad information into plant maintenance is clear important largely programmatic assessments and
,,3,i
& Commision in rotecting the public hea th and evaluations oflicensee maintenance has dMermined upon the programs wiD not alone suffica. Instead, wenha==== Mem@d by b m ad as ety.
'3e results of the Commission's the Com=tanton believes that the the lack of suiBcdont commitments by Main.< rence Team Inspections (MTis) effectiveness of maintenanen must be hou.m 2 a shinance rudard indicated that beensees beve adequate enessed on an ongoms basiain a k dew IHory etn H a k maintenana programs and have manner which ansarea that the daabed hw mem h kd Ceccbs exhibited an improving trend in program result. Masonable assurance that key by ch irnp!ementation (Criterion 1). However, structures, systema, and casaposents are D
,g some common maintenance-related capable of performing their intana.a maintenance Fmgrama, ne%st he weaknenes were identified, such as function, is consistantly achieved.
Covenission nor the industry have been inadequate root cause analysis leading Further, there is a continutng need for able to develop overaD performance to repetitive failures, lack of equfpment feedbeck of the results of such la&catm which wonM m61y pmvMe performance trending, and the assessmente and to factor those resulta ouain h un domaU ma consideration of plant risk in the ~
into programmatic requirements, where maintmance eHecdvens at any gnu prioritization, planning and scheduling assessment resnita indicate ineffective plantana, the Cnunfealu a of maintenance. In general, as evidenced maintenance.
anneideration of these additional factors by plant operational performance data Constdering the above points, the also weighs in few of pmenulgaung a and the results of NRC assessments, the Commiselon is satisfied that the rule est requins se monitoring and industry has exhibited a favorable trend in maintenance performance (Criterion industry has been generaUy =~a==ful ane====at of maintmance -
in bringing about aabetantial effeedwnees. Ad&tionaDy, 2).
Improvement in maintenance programs.
consideration of these factors leads the With regard to licensee commitment Further, the improving tnnd established Coinzninin k conclude &ame to an NRC-approved maintenance over the past sevml years has necessary for such a rule to include performance standard (Criterion 3). the continued. However, the necessity for mquitunata tw concHve acdon k industry, through NUMARC, expressed ongoing result & oriented sesessments of address instances ofineffective to the Commission its commitment,in maintenance effectiveness is indicated maintenance, and feedback of the general, to the goal ofimproving by the fact that, despite significant moults of man!kring and annement performance in the area of maintenance, industry accomplishmmt in the mas of ink licaon maintmance pmgrams.
The industry enerted that alllicensees maintenance ymgram content and In omsideration of the above, the are committed, by virtue of their implementation, plant eventa caused by Commission has determined that a membr. ship in the industry-eponsored the degredation or faGute of plant regulatory framework must be put in Institute for Nuclear Power Operations equfpment continue to occur as a result Place which provides a mechanism for (INPO). to meeting. or striving to meet.
ofinstances of ineffective maintenance.
evaluating the overeU continuing the performance objectivee contained in AdditioneDy, operetional events have effectiveness of!!censee maintenance INPO 90-006, " Maintenance Programs in been exacerbated by or resulted from Pmgrams, particularly as the planta the Nuclear power Indu.try."INPO so.-
plant equfpment being unavailable due continne to age. A. noted previously, 008 la primarily a compilation of to maintenance activities.Under areas directly reisted to this issue were preexisting objectives and criteria exjeting requirements and industry identified as common weaknesses developed by INPO relating to maintenance initiatives, with relatf vely during the NRC's Maintenance Team maintenance. %ese objectives and few exceptions, the avadab!!1tfes of
. Inspections.Dese anas included criteria largely relate to maintenance safety significant structures, syetems, inadequate root cause analysis. lack of
)
program content and programmatic and components are not routinely equipment performance trending. and measures of performance No written assessed. nese events and lack of conalderation of risk in the commitments were received from circumstances further attest to the need prioritisation, planning, and scheduling licensees and the industry-wide for ongoing results.orfented a ssessment of maintenance.De Commisalon commitment which was received was at of maintenance effectiveness since, therefore concludes that a rule requiring best indirect ne Commission believes together with equipment re!! ability, that licensees monitor and assess the
i 31308 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No.132 / Wednesday. July 10. %91 / Rules end Regulations y
effectiveness of maintenance activities modifications "which may affect the functions of the structures, systems.and is necessary.
functioning of safety related structures.
components (SSCs) described in 4
in addition to all cf the above systems or components * * *," The paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) can be j
considerations, the Comminion's Commission has previously interpreted performed; and (2) for the SSCs conclusion that a rule requiring that the its rules and guidance as requiring described in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and t
effectiveness of maintenance be licensees to address the safety aspects (b)(2)(iii) failures will not occur which I
monitored is also predicated on the fact of certain SSCa in the BOP. For example. prevent the fulfillment of safety-related I
that the Commission's current to CFR 50.34(g) requires applicants for functions, and failures resulting in l
ngulations, regulatory guldance, and licenses after 1982 to evaluate their scrams and usy)ecessary actuations of licensing practice do not clearly define facility against the Standard Review safety related systems are minimited.
)
the Commission's expectations with Plan (SRP). NUREG-0800 The SRP Where failures are likely to cause loss of regard to ensuring the continued requires licensees to evaluate a number en intended function, monitoring should sffectiveness of maintenance programs of SSCs in the BOP (this is further be predictive in nature.providing early at nuclear power plants.The discussed in the Commission's response waro ng of degradation. Monitoring Commission has many individualized to Question 7 in the summary of public activities for specific SSCa can bc nquirements relative to maintenance.
comments).
performance oriented (such as the j
including SSCs in the balance of plant Requirements and guidance for monitoring of reliability and (BOP). throughout the regulations. These monitoring maintenance effectiveness availability), condition-oriented d
i include 10 CFR 50.34(a)(3)(i); 50.34(a)(7);
and for taking corrective action when (parameter trending). or both.The i
50.34(b)(6) (i). (ii). (iii), and (iv);
maintenance is ineffective should results of monitoring are required to be 50.34(b)(9); 50.34(f)(1) (i). (ii), and (iii);
enhance the Commiss,lon's capability to evaluated against the licensee-i 30.34(g): 50.34a[c): 50.36(a); 50.36(c) (2),
take timely and effective action against established goals. Goals should be j
(3), (5), and (7): 50.36a(a)(1): 50 49(b);
licensees with inadequate or poorly established commensurste with an conducted maintenance in order to SSC's safety significance. Where 50 55a(g), part 50. appendix A enteria 1.
13.16,21,32,36.37. 40.43,45.46. 52. 53; ensure prompt resumption of effective available, the assumptions in and maintenance activities.
neults of probabilistic risk assessments part 50. appendix B. More generally.10 For these reasons, the Commission (PRAs) or individual plant examinations i
CFR 50.34(b)(6)(iv) requires licensees to i
address their plans for the conduct of c neludes that a regulation that requires (IPEs) should be considered when
" maintenance. surveillance, and aH Mclur Power plant licensees to establishing goals. The licensee is jl monit r the effectiveness of periodic testing of structures, systems, encouraged to consider analytical maintenance activities is warranted.
and components." However, there is no techniques, such as system guidance on exactly what these " plans The rule provides for continued unavailability modeling studies. which for the conduct of maintenance" should emphasis on the defense in-depth may be useful in developing goals:
P b inclede with regard to the monitoring of h",I i
maintenance effectiveness.
,g,,gr en c nsiderat on into "9 '
the maintenance process. provides an De Commission a rules. guidance, enhanced regulatory basis for inspection The purpose of paragraph (a)(2) of the and practice also require clarification as and enforcement of BOP maintenance-rule is to provide an alternate approach to what structures, systems and related issues. and provides a f r those SSCs where it is not necessary components should be subject to strengthened regulatory basis for to establish the monitoring regime.
maintenance requirements. Although ensunng that the progress achieved to required by (a)(1). For example, this 5 50.34(b)(6)(iv) references maintenance date is sustained in the future.
Provision might be used where an SSC.
for ' structures. systems, and without preventive maintenance, has components" without further Descriptico of Rule inherently high reliability and qualification. the guldsnce in Regulatory The objective of the final rule is to availability (e g, electrical cabhng) or i
Guide 1.70. " Standard Fonnat and require the monitoring of the overall where the preventive maintenance Content of Safety Analysis Reports for continuing effectiveness oflicensee necessary to achieve high reliabihty Nuclear Pow er Piants-LWR Ed2 tion."
maintenance programs to ensure that:
does not itself contribute significantly to (Revision 3. November 1978)is silent on (1) Safety related and certain non safety unavailability (e t. moisture drainage l
the scope of SSCa that the maintenance related structures, systems, and from an air system accumulator). The 1
program should cover (see Regulatory components are capable of performing licensee is encouraged to consider the 1
Guide 1.70, section 13.5.2). Regula tory their intended functions; and (2) for non.
use of reliability-based methods for Guide 1.70 also refers to Regulatory safety related equipment failures will d*Veloping the preventive maintenance j
Guide 1.33.* Quality Assurance Program not occur which prevent the fulfillment programs covered under this section of Requirements (Operation)." Regulatory of safety related functions, and failures the rule: however, the use of such l
2 Guide 1.33. which implements portions neulting in scrams and unnecessary methods is not required.
of to CHL part 50, appendix B. Indicates actuations of safety related systems are ne purposes of paragraph (a)(3) of M
in appendix A that "msintenance that minimized All references to the rule are the rule are two-fold:(1)This provision can affect the performance of safety-to the new I 50 65 requires that SSC performance or
(
related equipment should be properly Two approaches which are condition goals performance or preplanned and performed in prescribed in paragraphs (a)(1) and condition monitoring. and preventive accordance with written procedures (a)(2) of the rule, are provided for maintenance activities implemented
- * * "The sample listing of assuring maintenance effectiveness.
pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1) and (s)(2) maintenance operations requiring The intention of paragraph (e)(1) of be evaluated in hght of SSC reliabihties procedures also is limited to safety.
the rule is that the licensee establish a and ava!! abilities In the case of SSCs
, e 4
i related equipment. Regulatory Guide monitoring regime which is suff cient in treated under paragraph (a)(1),
v' i
1.70 also endorses industry standards scope to provide reasonable assurance adjustments are to be made to goals.
for nuclear power plant operations that that (1) intended safety. accident monitoring. or preventive maintenance are limited to maintenance or mitigation and transient mitigation requirements where equipment I
i E
i
s...
Fedital Regist:r / Vol So, No.132 / Wednieday, July 10, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 31309 r
performance or condition have not met scrams and, where scrams due to return to treating the SSC under estabbshed goals. Converseiy, at any equipment failures have been paragraph (a)(2).
time the licensee may elindnate problematic or where such scrams are monitoring activities initiated in anticipated, choose to monitor those h*]
yf' g'$ g i
response to problematic equipment initiators most likely to cause scrams.
g performance or industry experience It is not intended that this monitoring Equipment on Performance of Safety once the root cause of the problem has requirement duplicate activities p g g g,,g g l
)
been corrected or the ade luacy of cunently being conducted, such as Assessing the cumulative impact of i
equipment performance has been technical specification surveillance out of service equipment on the j
f,\\ confirmed in the case of SSCs treated testing. which could be integrated with, performance of safety functions, as 1
9y W I under paragraph (a)(2), adjustment of and provide the basis for, the requisite called for under paragraph (a)(3), is 7
5 preventive maintenance requirements level of monitoring. Consistent with the intended to ensure that the plant is not may be warranted where SSC underlyingpurposes of the rule, placed in risk-significant configurations.
1 availabihty is judged to be maximum flexibility should be offered to Dese assessmenta do not necessarily unacceptable. SSCs treated under licensees in establishing and modifying require that a quantitative assessment of paragraph (a)(2) which experience one their monitoring activities.
probabilistic risk he performed. The or more maintenance preventable Reliability and Avallebility of SSCa level of sophisticauon with which such failures, should become subject to the Subject to Either Paragraph (a)(1) or assessments are performed is expected requirements of(a)(1)(see discussion (a)(2) to vary, based upon the circumstances below) or, where this is not feasible, may require other remedial action, such SSCs which are treated under involved.The assessmenta may range where from simple deterministic anfgments to the use of an on-line living as modification or replacement.
paragraph (a)(1) may have formally lu
(
(2) This provision povides that the established reliability and availability
'q )-
planning and scheduling of maintenance goals against which they are exphcitly PRA. It is to be expected that, over time.
should consider the cumuletive impact monitored, where goals of this nature assessments of this type will be refined of s!! equipment simultaneously out of are appropriate. In addition, and based upon technologicalimproveme st service on plant aarety, ngardless of the natun of the and experience.
A regulatory guide providing an monitoring and goals established to Derivation of the TinclRule acceptable methodology for satisfy paragraph (a)(1), reliability and implementing this rule will be developed availability over the longer term must be The final rule is comprised of a st%et by the NRC staff and issued for pubhc assessed periodically pursuant to the of the aspects of the proposed comment. To permit ample opportunity requirements of paragraph (a)(3), as part maintenance rule and its associated for hcensees to comply with the five of the evaluation of goals, monitoring draft regulatory guide, which were year implementation schedule specified requirements, and preventive issued for pubbe comment on NovemL n 10,1988, and on August 17.1989 x ect to e a ailabl al form te abil ty a d avai ability of respectively.De final rule includes only as a a aa meul two years from the date this rule is a
e are tr'at d und regraph E# '"' E * *' '
,dt
,d under the requirements of paragraph establishment ef goals, monitoring and Additionc/ Cuidance (a)(3), as part of the periodic assessment assessment of maintenance Scope of Monitoring of preventive maintenance effectiveness, feedback and corrective requirements.
actions, and, in a more limited manner, it is not the intent of the Commission predictive and preventive maintenance.
to require a monitoring program so Paragraph (a)(2)Is Not Intended To Be These aspects were detailed in extensive that it detracts from licensees. Used To lustify Continuing the Status Regulatory Positions C.3, C.5, and C.6 of ability to otherwise maintain equipment. Quo, Where the Status Quo is Not the draft regulatory guide and were the The extent of monitoring rnay vary from Effective in Ensuring Acceptable Levela subject of considerable public comment system to system dependmg upon of Ava!! ability and Reliability in response to Questions 3,9.10, and 11 system importance to plant risk. Some Under the terms of paragraph (a)(2),
posed by the Commission when it issued monitoring at the component level may preventive maintenance must be the proposed maintenance rule. These be necessary; however,it la envisioned demonstrated to be effective in comments are addressed in the that much of the monitoring could be controlling the performance or condition summary of public commenta done at the system or train functional of an SSC such that the SSC remains accompanying the final rule. Details of level. For example, for less risk.
capable of performing its intended the derivation are discussed below.
significant systems, indicators of system function. Hence,it is expected that.
rehability (where sufficient perforrnance where one or more maintenance-Estdlishment of Cools andMonitoring data exist) and availability may be all preventable failures occur on SSCs Section 50.65(a)(1) requires the that is necessary. Some parameter treated under this paragraph. the monitoring of performance or condition trending, beyond that already required effectiveness of preventive taaintenance of structures, systems, and components by NRC requirements to provide early is no longer demonstrated. As a result, (SSCs) against licensee-established warning of degradation, may also be the SSC would be required to be t eated goals.nese requirements were drawn necessary for critical components whose under the requirements of paragraph from the requirements of the proposed unavailability causes a system train to (a)(1) until such time as a perio.mance rule,in il 50.65(c) (1) and (2), and be unavailable or whose failure is history is established to demonstrate elements (b) (1)(iii). (5). (10). and (17).
otherwise unacceptable. Rather than that reliability and availability are once The statement of considerations (SOC) rr.onitoring the many SSC: which could again effectively controlled by an for the proposed rule also discussed the cause plant scrams, the licensee may established preventive maintenance process of establishing goals.
choose to establish a perforrnance regimen. Once such a demonstration has monitoring. and taking appropriate indicator for unplanned automatic been made. it would be acceptable to corrective action, see 53 FR 47825.
-.s 2-~
31319 Fedecal RegiaAme / Vol. 56, No. 332 / WednesdaF. July g3, 3992 / Liles and Raguistiarts Commerge oc appropdate metheds of subject to the paaposed rn'le's Tsem isspem 18aentfied a esknesses muitoring, the need for, form of,and maintenance 42as. See in eeme Wcenseme*malmenance possible kinds of effectiveness criteria, proposed ruhe.13045(b). b rapid-y programa.It is expeded that each 9
end the use of perfcrrmance ::dicators guide in&catad that the rsde applies *no licensee seti assoas its program and for component rehabihty and allparts of thzi ent ht osuld take appropeiste adiost to improve %se d
mairstenance performance were sWni6cantly impact safe opeestion and areas arbere essak.nesses were requested, see questions 9 nd 10. 53 R security,indeding the BOP". See identiAad_ Time rule bes a five par 47825. Comments an criteria and Secticas R. Ci c=nmnto en scope of implernensanum schedule with quantitstive goals were also coquested SSCs wen schedad in the SOC for abe supporting capu$ story pide
~
in the Federal R.sglsaar notace pnrposed nde et Questian 7 (53 FR at development and promu!gation expected 3
accompanying the publicat on of the 47a2.5) smd in the proposed regulatory within the first two years.This schedde l
draft regulatory guide, see 54 FR 33943.
guhle at Questum 2 {see 54 m 33963).
allews three rs ler hornee h draft ngulatory guide discussed As shown by the abow., all of the development the time that fmal goal utling and monitoring in sections signiScantprovisioco of the Analrule guidance is expected to be evahble.
C11 Cu C.31 CR4. C.512. C.513, were presaged in the proposed raie and implementation and compliance with C.5.2 4. and Ca.
In the proposed engalatory guide. W the rule la achteved threagh SSC Consideration oiindustry-wide final rule is not a s(gnificant departum performance or condition monitoring cperating experience under i sa65(a)(1) from NRC proposals o!Tered for public against appropriste licensee-estabhshed 4
as well as 15aA5(a)(3) of the finalrule comment except that, as note 5. the final goals or,as an ahemative, through the were anticipated by (1)b proposed rule is a subset of those proposala. Since conduct of preventive maintenance ht i
rule *a discussinn of a draft NUREG all of the eteenents of the final rule were has been demonstrated to be effectie report which surveyed maintenance the subject of coensive public comment. Where the performnce or condition of l
t practices. 53 FR 47824. (2) a there is no need to publish the final cele SSOs is detemined to be anacceptable.
i recommeodation in the SOC comrning as a proposed eule lor still more oprrective action is required.
use of the NFRDS.id and(3)Qumions comment. As noted &cre will be further AdditionaTly. - ic essessment of liance is echieved to and 11 of the SOC. 53 FR 47825.11 comment on ee rele's tmplernenting brough the vias also alluded to in section C.513 of guidance. Ocariy. gim the pelod abonitor'.ng. goals. and preveW!!ve the regulatory guide, and discussed in allowed for implementation, there can maintenance ectivities to ensure that the section C.31 be adjustments mode to the rule befor*
objective of minimlems SSC failms is It becosnes effective shodd furthe beios met, consletent with he objective 1
Corrective Accan developments so requin.
of minimizing S9CunavaCabihty due to corrects a nb fn r Indusky Pmgrem, monitoring and preventive maintenance.
ense to the results of monitoring. and that at h Commission encourages industry k=mey of Pubhc th-h least en annual evaluation of the initiatives and responsibility for The comment period for te propered monitoring. goal estabbshment rnd problem identi$ cation and resolution.
corrective action activities were goveral guidelsnes existin the industry rule closed February 27.1989. and for the draft regulatory guide October 17 presaged by the preposed rule's (e g.. INPO 9MOS. "Msintenance 1989. Thirty fise comments on the requtrement in 150 65(c)(2) for Programs in the Nuclear Power assessment the effectiveness of the industry." Institute of Nuclear Power proposed rule were rearved chrrug the i
maintenance program and making Operations) that are directed toward flicial comment period and ftfty seven ap; repriate ireprovements. Dement provid2r-g performance objectives and were filed after the comment period (1)(11) of the proposed rule, and the criteria for effective maintenance el sed /11nrty-six comments were regulatory guide's discussion on the programs.With naard to the neeived on the ngdetwy guide AU comment letim were considered in functioning of the maintenance process.
program.'natic aspects of maintenasca, farmuistion of he Gael rule. Comment e g. sections C.1. C13 and C.1.4. C.31 the Commission encourages the industry C 4. C.5t and C.e.
to continue the development and letem arm also considered en arriving at the Ocenniasion's decisions to rense improvement of such guidelines and to Ptnantire Maisiencnce standardiee racemmendations and the mompanying ngulatory gtnde 1o Preventive maintenance, which la guidance for plant maintenance nDect the $r. alt le's narrowed focus on endorsed by 150 65(a)(2) of the final programs in acknowiedgement of th, results, to pro @ an opywtumry fm rule, was one of the elements of the generaIly satisfactory state of public commew,a she rensed proposed rule, see 53 FR 4?828, Element maintenanee prog tms, the final rule regulatory guice, and to issue hnal 1(li).The regulatory guide addrened provides sieet flexibility for the industry guidance wellin advanm of the da:e preventive (also referred to as to continue developing. improving and ePecified for rule denp'.ementatmn.
"proactive") maintenance in sections implementing recommendations and Of the 92 comments on the proposed C.2 and C.4.81 guidanoe concerning maintenance rule.67 wm fWed by utilities, n by industry groups and trade associetiens Scope ofSSCs Subject to Molafenonce pre (rams.The Commiss!on encourages 4 by individoslo. 3 by venders. s by
,,e activities,especially as they The scope of SSca subject to the final support irnprovements in the evaluation pubbe interest groups. I by Federal meenance rule includes safety-related of maintenance prog-am effectiveness.
Agencies, and; 2 by etsie proups/
I'SCs. and certain "non-safety" SSCe in individuals.Of the 36 comments on the the Bop which meet one or more of four Implementation and Caespliance gyy g gg, q;g,4 y, specific citeria See final rule.
The focus of the rule is on the naults utilities. 5 by t=rdustry a nd profes sional l 5085(b). The mattar of scope was achieved through matntenance and in groups.1 by 5tste.5 by corporations :
addressed in the r*roposed rule, which this regard.it is not the Intent of the rule by twdividus)s. and 1 by a vender. The suggested that z.il SSCa in a nudest that existing bcensees necessarily Commissionis appreciative of the tirne power plant.induding those in the develop new maintenance programs.
and effort expended by thoet who balance of plant (BOPJ were to be However becatse the Maintenance submitted comments. Maintenance is a
i Federal Register / Vol. 56 No.132 / Wednesday, July to.1991/ Rules and Regulations 31311 matter of considerable priority and commenters felt that a prescribed set of maintenance stan lard should be 4
importance, and the views expressed in meintenance performance indicators published initially a e guide and not as the comments have been very helpful to (MPIs cannot be used as the sole basis a rule that utilities shoald have the for eva)luating the effectiveness of a the Commisalon in its deliberation.
prerogative to organire in the most Many comments came from individual maintenance program.
resource-effective manner their licensees, but most supported the NUMARC believes that the existing approach to meeting the key comments prepared by the Nuclear regulations do not establish components of the standard.ne i
Mansgement Resource Council requirements similar to the proposed Commission could then evaluate (NUMARC).
rule, especially with regard to BOP experience under the regulatory gulde to in summary, most of the commenters equipment.nerefore, licensees will be determins whether a rule is required.
on the proposed rule stated that there forced to modify their maintenance One individual was against a rule was no need for a separate rule on programs to satisfy new requirements, because the industry has a good safety maintenance for nuclear power plants which means the standards of a backfit record and the rule would be costly and because (1) the NRC already has analysis (10 CFR 50.109) apply, an unnecessary burden on the industry.
regulatory authority and methods in NUMARC further stated that the The comments on the regulatory guide place to provide an overview of
" adequate protection" standard of to
' raised many of the same 1: sues as those maintenance program capability to CFR 50.100(a)(4) does not apply with comments associated with the proposed ensun adequate protection of the public regard to implementing the proposed rule. In teneral the issues addressed bealth and safety,(2) there has been no rule.They feel that this was not were the level of detailin the regulatory demonstration that the rule will increase supported by data provided in the guide; the scope of structures, systems, public safety and it may actually proposed rule or the accompanying and components covend by the guide:
decrease safety by diverting industry regulatory analysis.They felt that the the criteria to be used to determine if a efforts away from maintenance to public risk reduction data used in the maintenance program is effective; the support activities directed toward regulatory analysis was outdated. that use of quantitative goals for determining demonstrating compliance,(3) good recent data by both the industry and the satisfactory level of performance for maintenance assessment indicators NRC should be used to evaluate public plant maintenance programs; the already exist for both industry and the risk reduction, and that the increased quantitative measures for such goals NRC. such as the Institute of Nuclear costs sesociated with implementation the usefulness of NPRDS data for Power Operations (INPO) performance were grossly underestimated.
assessing effectiveness of plant Indicators. Systematic Assessment of NUMARC further believes that maintenance programs; the usefulness of Ucensee Performance (SALp) reviews.
industry objectives and programs are FRAs for plant maintenance programs; the NRC Maintenance Inspection consistent with the NRC expectations the timeliness of corrective actions; the Program, and Ucensee Event Reports stated in the March 1988 Policy definition of maintenance; the (LER's), and (4) the industry already has Statement on Maintenance of Nuclear documentation of the technical besis of maintenance initiatives under way and.
Power Plants. NUMARC believes that a maintenance program; and the extent as a whole, the industry is improving in increased emphasis has been placed on of root cause analysis and feedback, i
the maintenance area.
maintenance. improvements in These comments on the proposed rule Many commenters considered the performance and reliability have been were either repeated or expanded in the proposed rule unbounded in scope achieved, and therefore the commenters' responses to the 12 t>ecause there are no limits established promulgation of a rule is now questions posed by the Commission in for the BOP. They were concerned that, unnecessary and unjustified.They the Statement of Considerations for the i
with such a broad and undefined scope, believe that the NRC should take action proposed maintenance rule.These the industry cannot assess the impact of against the few poor maintenance questions are listed below, and each the proposed rule. Therefore. it was performers. rather than promulgate a response contains a synopsis of the suggested that, at the very least, the rule across the whole industry.
public comment and the Commission final rule should be postponed until Two individuals, three public interest response for that particular question.
issuance of the regulatory guide.
groups, and two State representatives Where appropriate. the responses reflect NUMARC and most utilities were supportive of a maintenance rule the revisions to the final version of the commented that, without measures of but were not necessarily in total maintenance rule.The responses also effectiveness stated in the proposed agreement with the way the rule was include consideration of the public rule. they did not know what formulated or how it should be comments received on the draft requirements or expectations would be implemented. They believed that regulatory guide.
needed to implement the proposed rule nuclear power plant maintenance
- 2. Is it appropriate for the nuclear and determine regulatory compliance.
directly affects the health, safety, and power industry to develop a There was concern that effectiveness as economic well.being of the public and Maintenance Standard and,if so, would specified in the proposed to CFR that nuclear facilities not properly the industry develop such a 50 65(c). is a qualitative matter and maintained will be unsafe and Maintenance Standard?
subject to different interpretation by uneconomical, even with the best Comments-Mest commenters feel both licensees and the NRC.There was design, construction. and cperation.
that another maintenance standard is also concern that the lack of criteria They believe that improper not needed. They W ce that the describing adequate programs places a maintenance, even of components not guldelines deveteved b3 INPO provide burden on the industry and public to previously associated with safety can the basic frsraework of a siendard and assess what is needed for the broad have adverse safety consequences.
could be expanded to accommodate subject area defined in the proposed Furthermore, they believe that the NRC requirements.The Policy rule by the NRC end that the proposed superior performance of nuclear power Statement on Maintenance, existing rule establishes requirements for plants in other countries is attributed to industry standarda. and the INp0 specific progra:n elements (10 CFR their maintenance program. One State Guidelines for the Conduct of 50.65(b)) that are not defined. Most representative believes that the Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants
M312 Fedesa] R gialer / Vol. 56, No.13g / Wednesday, fuly 10. 1991 / Rules and Regulations contain the Infocastbn needad to
- 2. What levolef detail abould be action. W rtedatory guide w11 be ensure e!!cetive mainIenance programa.
lacladed in the Maintenance Standardt sevised to reflect the ade's narrower U a standard is to be devoloped. all Coceents-NUMARC and se docus on resnits and maistenance utilities pnier a standard deieloped by utiliums bellevs that any maintenance propaan affecUvenes s. and will des crib industry rather than by NRC with INPO guidelines or standard should provide a a sneens for meeting the requirements at or NUMARC taldrg theleaA One general description of the cree seary to CFR 30 88 acorptable to the staff. The citizen's grocp stated that the NRC. not elements of a good maintenance rule and synlatog guide comb!. cation the industry, should develop the program, but the details for will provide a hemework for evaluating maintenance stanAnni.No commitment implementation should be Seft to the the continuing overall effecth eaess of waa received during the comment period individual utili., m ernpha pis ehould maintenance, tenslag oc the objective to develop a maintenance atendard.
be on meeting intent so as not ta of an eIIecthe maintenam program.
Response-N Commisslon force a utility to change a welworking while at the same tLane penitting en-aged the indu to develop a indMdual prqgrasa solely far tha licenaces beoed discretion and maintenance standard use the purpose of standardization acrosa de flexibl14y la the formulation smd Commiasjon belleved thal the indusby.The stanetard sbovid have a impt-tation of theirindividual developrnent of a atandard would anow balance af Bexibihty and specificity to maintenance preparna.
maximum utilias tion of current industry avcid vague citaria thet wil]1ead to W rule does esot require a monnorms initiativu toward developing and areas of varying In!arpretation and prqsram sa beoad in acope that it implementing eHective maintenance dispute. The current todustry detracts from a boeesee's ability to programs and thatlicenseeparticipatton performance c ves, altaria. and otherwise nialalain its etmipment. &
in b deveJo;rment of the standard guidelines dev d byINPO ah the extent almonitonng may vary from would provide additionalincentive and flexibility for ual uti!1 tina to meet syneem to eyeiem, dependig upon rnponsibility for improving plant the isteat of the gn!dehnes by meeting system traportanoe to risk. Some maintenance propamc. In addition. the the criteria directly or by other monitoring at the cosaponent level may Commission bekeved that the e!Iort appropria te naa na. Cine ntih ry laels tha t be neoeseary bowever.H is envisioned would benent hem indus try's expertise it would be counterproductive to that the majodty of anonitoring could be in this area and thatit would be more develop a adnimum standard that could dame at the system or arain functiemal likely that the mainteneespractices potentiallylower the levej of level. This raonMccin,g requirement is not from plants wkh good maintenance performance Iar the antire industry inneaded to do;dioete eativities currently programs wocid become part of the when orJy a few plants are everiencing betog MM which could be industry-devaloped matetenance problema. Another utility stated that a integrated with, and provide the basis standard.
new rule or regulatory guldance wiD for, the eequaite level of monitoring The On April 17,1990,NUMARC result in increased dnenm,witation.
Commission responee to Qoestion 7 has subutitled 1NPO 90-008, " Maintenance decreased DexIhllity to change and Lrther details oc scope and level of Programs in the Nuclear Power adjust propams as conditions or datan.
Industry," as the industry maintenance technology change, and decnased J.la two years a reasonable time to standard. h Commission reviewed incentive for the mainfenance staH to develop and implemerrt a etandard7 this document and found that. with improve or enhance theirmaintenance Commeota-NUMARC and the minor modincation,it formed a capability.This could lead to a utilities (+el that two years was enough comprehenshe deauiption of the diversion of utility resources from time to develop a standard dependtna necessary attributes of a maintenance safety related activities and increase on the acope of the BOP SSCs and prog am.In acknowledgement al this costa writh runW benefits.
camponents that need to be addressed document. the genereDy favorable h cominenters generaIJy feel that by stated that the eystematic results of the NRC's Maintenance Tearn any maintena nca standard requiring an evaluation of all SSCa as described in Inspections regarding the adequacy of analysis of all SSCs for function and the peoposed rule alone would require licensees' maintenance progracu. and objective was practically unattamahle more than two years Most of the the many other industry initiatives in and would signiDeantly divert technical industry agrees that it would tale Iwo this area, the Corr. mission revised the resources necessary for safe and years to develop the standard and three rule to etcphasiz.e the effectiveness or rettable operation of a nuclear plant.
to five years to ha results of mairwecance programs and de. with questionablebenett. Any citizen's grouplee/r ement it. One ls that two years is emphasize the programmatic aspects of standards, guidelines, or criteria should tdFlong for developing and maintenance. Also,in acinowledaement be tailored appropriately to the safety implementing a standard, one 3 ear of the generally satisfactory state of significance of the equipmentbeing would be more appropriate.
maintenance programs the Enal rule maintained and the function being Response-During the time the provides peat flexibility for the industry performed.
Commission held rulemah'ng in to continue developing. improving and Respacse-As noted in the abe> ance, the industry des eloped and implementing recommendations and Commission responsa to item 1. the final submittedINPO 90-008 to the guidance conceming maintenance rule has been modiLed to establish a Commf salon. The Comaussion also programs The Commission encourages framework for evabating the developed a regulatory guide that such activities, especially as they effectiveness of rustatenance programs.
incorporated appropriate public support improtements in the etaluation As such, the ru'.e describes the basic comunents Furthersaare, the MTis founc ofinalatenance program effectiveness.
elements for measuri, the ellectiveness that licensee maintenance pregrams However,because the rule has been of maintenance and ta ' appropriate have improved. and there are programs modified to de-emphasize programmatic correcth e :ction where maintenance is for improving maintenance des eloped requirements of maintenance. the found io be icenective. hae elements by the ladustry. Wre Fore, the Commissinn does not currently intend to include establishing goals. monitoring Commission beheves that two years fortnally endorse an industry and assessment against these Jaala.
was ampie time se demlep and rnaintenance program standard.
feedback.and appropriate corrective implerneat a standard
i Federal Eagister / Vol. 56. No.132 / Wednesday, July so.1991 / Rales and'Raundadans 31313 i
The Commtasien schnowledges that a gulde. An ladastry cosanf tment to of the gaaerally ma81afehy state of systemstic evaluation cJ SSCa could develop a maintenance standard, malatenersce prog-uns, the laal rde nquire as mach as two at more yeaza.
connialent whh the Commission'a provides great Eszibt!ity for the industry Consequently, the final rule has a five schedule ao issue a Enalreguletory to con 4 Lave developing, laprovras and yearImplementation schedule which guide by November 1889 would be implementing recommendations and allows alleast three years Int fhase necessary during this public cornmant guidance comemk s malotenance t
evaluations beyond the time when final period.
Da Comadaaios enommages guidance is expected to be avaUebla.
Comments--Most respondents believe activinas, espacjally as they
- 4. Is !! appropriate for a designatea thet issuance of a rule without public suppoet kprovementa la the evalestion third party to ter!1Ty plant maintenance comment on a regulatory gulde was of maintarima program eSeetireness.
programs to comply with the inappropriate.Many feel mal the most However, because the ewle has baan Maintenance Standard;if so, would an important NRC document concerning modif>ed to dewaophasne programmade organization be w1!!ing to perform such maintenance wlIl be the regulatory requiremaats of anelstacance, the cert;ficationi guide and not the maintenance rule.
Comrnisalon does not carready ladend to Commente-Of the comments that industry feels that the current standards formally endorse am industry addressed this question, most statet as embodied in publications such as maintenance program Wmmiant.
that it would be inappropriate for th.r INPO auss are sufficient and that a The Ccaatnfamien does not agree with NRC to delegate certification rule and ngulatory pide are commenters who suggested the laanance responsibility to a third party.The unnecessary.Severalindastry of a regulatory guide without a rule. ne degree of opposition ranged from "not respondents said that they would be Commisaica desires to pet forth neccessry"to vigorously opposed."
willing to participate with the NRC in requitanents far evaluaung ee a
Most comments stated that third party developing a standard but that the effectiveness a(malaienance programs, certification wtmid be armecessary November 1969 time constraint was lac)udmg ee imanam ofimplementing becaure existing meavures that unrealistic. Several respondento g,ta, y,. to clarify NRC esgulatory accomptrih this function each as appeared to feel that the proper way to purview and to provide additsonal maintenance inspections and INPO upgrade maintenance would be by first uforueb' '.De maad readabry evalua tions. Some comments indicated developing a ngulatory guide and then a guide will act the narrower.sesuha-that INPO could perform certrfication rule ff use of the guide indicated that oriehd focus of ee rule.he details for l
but not if a rule existed since that would such a rule was needed. If the enrrent place INPO in the positron of a industry atandards were not enough, ee conduct of activinas supporting rgulator. One respondent clearly sisted most feel that the NRC has the maintenance will not be specified and abodd be denloped by ee lacannes to that INPO should not be allowed to responsibility to develop the regulatory ensure the adequate performance of perform maintenance certif6 cations for guide, though the industry respondents plant equipment.Sewralguidelmas the NRC.
feel that they should have input to such egag,he industry [s4,, INPO eM06
. xist in t Response-4t was the Commission,a a guide. INPO's position is that see of
,,,, p,q,,, g, g, y,cje,
j intent to beild upon industry initsatives INPO 8H38 es a basis for a regulatory Powerindustry,"last.ttute of Noclear to encourage good maintenanoe guide would be ina' ate.
O n nd oth' red practnea and common standards. A Respons&The asion believes "h p certification process againt a that, by clearly putting forth a standard EPRD t'"*'d roviding detailed maintenance standard by a third arty P
was raised as an option that wanfd have for an effectiva maintenance progrum in "C""*"d'N I one domment, guidance and stability i
conduct of maintenance acA!vities.The provided same degree of cons 2stency would be provided to help ensure that and independance without relieving the maintanance prograrns of all industry b smoomraged to emh h d'"
"I aad ve nt of such NRC ofits regulatory responsibibly to licensed plants achieve and maintain a suj[
and u oversee the peocess satisfa ctory levej of effectivensaa. The Because a viable third party Commission beheves that the recosernendations and guidancs for I '*
C' 7'*8'"*
certiLcation process was not offered by development af a standard by industry P '". The Cocamission bebeses that t the industry, the Comrnission is no would suppo 1 industry's current 6
longer pursuirig this as an option.
Titiatives toward developing and proposed maintannoce rule should be Add,tionally, as noted in Question L ap!amentmg efrective taafatenance considered sider 10 CFR 50.100(aX4) of because the rule has been modibed to programs, and that utiltry participation the bacMt rule wklob would exezapt the de-ernphas!ze programmatic in preparing a maintenance standard maintenance rela from backfit requirements of maintenance.the would provide additional experience, requirements based on the precepts that CommissJon does not currently intend to incentive, and responsibihty for effecdve maictenance is necessary to forma!!y endorse an industry improving plant maintenance programa assure adequale public prtHection and maintenance prograin standard.
The Comrnission was encoaraaed by that the sed rule codtfies and
- 5. The Commission plans io inaue by NUMARC's submittal of INPO 9H06 as standa 'ses previously existing November 1989, a regulatory guide an industry ansintenance etendard. In Commission nquirements, both eyhcit estabbshing standards and criteria for acknowledgement of this docurnent, the and bnplicJt,ir plant sechnica!
determining what constitutes an generally favorable results of the NRC, specifications, licansee safety analysis efrective maintenance program. This Majntenance Team inspections Mports, and to CFR part 50, append:x B.
reFulatcry guide is being dessloped in regarding the adequacy ofliceneses' The Comanssion nquesta pubhc parallel with the feel rulemaking The maintenance programs, and the saany comment conceming the need for a Commission encourages the ladustry to other industry initiatives in this area, the backSt maafysis for this rulemaking.
develop standards and acceptance Commisalon erviae the rule to Comments-De nuclearindustry criteria. lf an acceptable Industry emphasize the effectiveness or results of comanenters nalformly bejicse that a atandard is available in this timeframe.
maintenance programs and de-backfit maahejs most be prepared for the Corumission wal consider endorsing emphasize the prog smrasuc aspects of the maintenance rule.The most the industry siandard in the regulatory maintenance. Also,in aclaowledgernent comprehensive responses we-e
31314 Federal Registir / Vol. 56. No.132 / Wednesday. July 10, 1991 / Rules and Regulations submitted by two nuclear industry basis of the criteria contained in the could divert resources that would be groups:The Nucleat Utility Ba6 fitting backfit rule.
mere profitably spent on critical safety and Reform Group (NUBARG). and NUMARC followed and expanded on syste'es and components.The proposed NUMARC. Many utility commenters NUBARC's arguments. NUMARC rule did not define BOP SSCs. thereby endorsed NUMARC's response or asserted that a backfit analysis is not providing a meaningful opportunity
)
repeated arguments made by NUMARC. necessary solely because the for public comment. NRC should i
A law firm, Conner and Wetterhahn, maintenance rule would impose withdraw the proposed rule and develop 1
also provided substantial comments that substantial new requirements on a definition and a list of typical BOP were generally consistent with those licensee and require the expenditure of SSCs that are related or important to from NUMARC and NUBARG. In significant resources by virtue of the nuclear safety. BOP systems were not addition a number of utihty commenters maintenance rule's expansion of built to the standards of safety-related i
loined in NUBARG's comments. The maintenance to the BOP.This argument equipment and will not be capable of U.S. Department of Energy also agrees was echoed by several other utihty being maintained at the same level of with the industry on a need for a backfit commenters. Next NUMARC attacked readiness. For example, the proposed enslysis. Only one commenter, Nuclear the Commission's assertion that the rule would require the proper Information and Resource Service maintenance rule codifies and maintenance of a component that is not 1
(NIRS). supported the Commission's standardizes previcusly existing required to be properly installed.
Position.
requirements by pointing out that the However,if NRC proceeds with NUBARG contends that the rule would require maintenance for rulemaking and if BOP SSCs must be Commission " misapplied" the adequate ESCs in the BOP. NUMARC also considered,it should be on a graded j
protection exemption in the backfit rule followed the NUBARG reasoning that approach depending on a given BOP in four respects. First NUBARG any redefinition of the standard of system's potentialimpact on safety asserted that the Commission prever/ed adequate protection to include functions.ne utility must retain the the public from reasonably commenting maintenance must necessarily presume ability to determine the nquirements on the backfit issue by failing to specify and admit that "all U.S. nuclear power applicable to specific SSCs based on whether it was relying on 10 CFR plants are currently operating at a level safety, reliability, and economic 50109(a)(4)(ii) which exempts from below the ' adequate protectJon* baseline considerationa. Instead ofincluding all cnal) sis those rules that are "necessary until they impr;ve their maintenance BOP SSCa. the rule must focus on the to ensure that [a] facility provides program."
maintenance of functions whose failure adequate protection to the health and Although NIRS agreed with the would threaten pubbe health and safety.
safety of the public." or the provisions of Commission that a backfit analysis need Commenta in favor ofincluding BOP l 50.109(a)(4)(iii), which exempts those not be prepared for the snabitenance SSca are summarized as follows: %e rules that involve " defining or redefining rule. their agreement was partially maintenance rule should coser the what level of protection to the public couched on their position that the 10 whole plant. Unplanned reactor trips health and safety cr common defense CFR 50.109 is an invalid rule.
often originate in BOP systems.
and security should be regarded as Response-%e Commission has Furthermore, seemingly irrelevant parts edequ ate."
determined to prepare a backfit analysis of the plant can affect plant cperations Next, after quoting from two passages for the final rule.
In unforeseen waye-for example, et in the notice of proposed rulemaking for 7.%e Commission believes that the Surry in the aftenneth of the pipe break.
the maintenance rule that sugpst that inclusion of balance of plant (BOP)
Response-%e Commission does not the Commission is relying on both equipment in the proposed maintenance agree that raatntenance of SSCa in the I 50.109(a)(4) (fi) and (iii). NUBARG rule is necessary and proper. However, BOPis beyond the statutory jurisdiction cppeared to centend that such reliance the Commission also recognizes that of the Commission. Pursuant to section
!s logically inconsistent. No reasoned some licensee maintenance programa, as set and 182 of the Atomic Energy Act crgument was presented by NUBARG in presently configured, apply to (AEA). the Commisalon has broad suppor' of its contention, nor did structures. systems, and components authority to protect the public health NUB ARC specifically criticize the that are without question. irrelevant to and safety, and the common defense Commission's reliance on protection of pubbe health and safety and security and to minimize losses to l 50109(a)(4)(ii). Rather. NUBARG from radiological hazards sesociated life and property. Maintenance of SSCs focused on i 50109(a)(4)(iii) arguing with the operation of the nuclear power in the BOP falls within this regulatory that the Commission's position that plant.%e Commission requests public authority because such SSCa can and do cffective maintenance is necessary for comment concerning what limitation. if have a significant effect on safety.
adequate protection must logically rest any, should be placed on the final With regard to safety. SSCs in the en the presumption that none of the maintenance rule to provide some BOP have initiated transients and currently operating nuclear power plants bcensee flexjbibty in this regard.
caused scrams and safety injection.
do provide adequate protection.
Comments opposing including BOP Probab!!istic risk assessments (PRAs)
In any event. NUBARG also argued equipment are summarized as follows:
confirm that, for many plants, dominant that the Commission's decision not to BOP equ4 ment is outside the NRC's accident sequences are initiated by prepare a backfit analysis for the jurisdiction, the statutory jurisdiction of transients in the BOP such as loss of maintenance rule represents an the NRC to regulate BOP components is offsite power or loss of feedwater.
unwarranted departure from the policies limited to those BOP structures, systems. Derefore, to ensure that licensees underlying the backfit rule-an and comments that are related or operate safely NRC's regulatory
" alarming retreat." La stly. NUB ARG important to nuclear safety; the program is intended to ensure both a argued that the Commission's reliance economic impact ofincluding nonsafety low frequency of transients that en the " adequate protection" exemption BOP equipment would be staggering:
challenge safety systems and a high cf I 50.109(a)(4) is in " logical confhet" and the resulting improvement to safe reliabihty of safety systems to respond
. with the Commission's attemative operation of the plant would be to these challenger. nis approach to ground that the rule is justified on the disproportionate to the cost involved or regulation is part of the fundamental
)
i Fadatal Regislar / Vcd. 56. No.132 / Wednesday, July so.1991/ Rules and Jtegulations 31315 principle of dalease4n. depth that shuidown the nsetar a[d maintsia !!In a the worker. One inapondent expressed a underh as all NRC segulation. Dalense, safe shutdon condition. and the capabf!1ty concern that a rule eat included worker in. depth grovides for both accident to prevent or artigste the consegnenen of accountability would be latarprelad as prevention and acddent rnlagation with
"dQhT punitive by asukars.
- CC principal emAasia oc prevantm guidehnes.
Responne-ne Commissicn and Therefore, the Comm!ssion la well gal knaafety nlated shossies.p industry haans baab recognised the j
within its statutory jurisdiction in or ansiponseca.
Impcrians of devaleplag an attitude of requir%g that allSSCs that can (il That are enlied upon to mitigate accoastablhy as the of aach and ofgnincantly affeet salsty, including accidents or translents or are saad in plant every weder la a ear power plaat l
those in the BOP, be properly emersency operating pmcedures TEOPs); or ne tw=Imah
. s with industry mainteined. Indeed, the Comraission*4 fiil Whose feSure eev6d prevent seduty-g,g g.f w g. wea Md W g
o regulations already reDect the MQ%72$ comp difficult to enfome objecthely.He la importana of==W--* of SSCa in gej Whow fadan b-a reecnar Cosamission asacludes that each y
ensuring adequate protection to public scram at acimation afa safety,ra:ated system. licensee should include considerations health and safety. Section 50.34(b)(6)[lv)
- C "8
'Y nisa Pe done not ga beyond ths requires an PSAR to include the " plana
' beand en locad conditions, and the for cocduct of norma] operations, Wh n of k EM i
including maintenance, surveillanca, dariScstion af the SMPe abocdd boamd Censninalon wW mot ananpt to deal specifically with this laaue an abe rale or g
fac, w om maen and pariodic testing of sinctures.
SSCa wt2 h annat sade siMimacs.
8"I** *'F 8"IE I8' d"** 8' 4
systems, and components he E M " "'"
Standard Review Plan (SRP)INUKEG-and redune the cast inspect projadad by h a m mants establamb critetia within the j
0800). against which applicants for The CommNaion recognises that 90P maintenana ruk which mould fom abe bcenses after 1982 are required to SSCs may han been designed and built basis for determining when a es aluate their fac.il4y (see 10 CFR with normal indastrial quahty and may maintenem progmm is is.Dy eSective p
50.34(q)), requires applicants to evaluate not m eet the standards in appendix B to and addttinent impetrveenant is not a number of SSta la the BOP, including toCFR la 11la mot the latent to warmsied from a safety standpoint.
design and installation as they aUect sequiru ' asen k generale paperwork Such critaria saight be either safety.For example, the pressurizer to document the basis for the design.
quantstatin ne quaintatise and could be relief tank systecn. which is nonsafety fabrication, and constructice of BOP based as sped 6c measarable attributes,
]
related?ls add essed in section 5.4.11 of equipment not covated by appenda B.
on overa2 plant paform
.m b SRP. Of note is b rational for Instead, id is the intent to ensure that ProFarn resulta, or os other attributes.
reviewing tbe design of the pressurizer each lioonaae's maintenance program The Conmastoc requests public 1
relief tank:
minimizes failures in thooe BOP SSCa comment ecmcerning the need for auch "The review is primmedy drected toward that affect safe operation of the ant. In criteria, the fon of such criteria, and assunt.g that us operetan h car.sistant with response to comments, security the crfierta e=== ales.
transie.nt aneh ses of related systems and been deleted from to CFR saS5 as it la Coramente-Of the commer.ners that q
that f4!ure or metfunction of the system could not ads erse.!y a?!ect essential ersterna adeqwately addressed in 8 73 46(g) and addressed this (esee, moet believe that or corrpenents is accordante with appbesble l 73.55{g) quethettw hascators could not be
- 8. The Commiss!on belsens that used Dolely to esaluate effectieeness individual workee accountability plays and that the determination of Thus. the Comrnission has previously an important role in an effective e5ectiveness was sobjective Further, receFeized that certair, SSC:In b BOP maintenance program. The C-W the commenters beneve that sufficient can have a sigo1Lesnt effect on safety la, therefore, soliciting commenta on the tools aiready ensted in the form of and has exercised !!a regulatory means for Accorporating this SA1.p. Q A assessments, segulato y i
authority by requiring the evaluation of consideration into a licenaae's inspections. monthly opersting report the potential effect of nonsafety.related maintenance program, data, and management redews.
SSCs on safety /This is the same Comme.sts-Respondents occalatantly One wa.ter noted that l
rstionale for requiring maintenance of agreea that worker accountabaity was effectiveness needs to be defined in SSCs. including those in the BOP, that an important and ascessary part of a terms of a perticular objectin. Another can significantly affect safety.
good mairrtenance program. Severa] of atsted that performance goals such as The Commission agtses with the them gave examples for how their utility the number of maintenance.related comments that the scope of the rule holds its amployees accountable for resetor trips. LERs, etc., should be should be narrowei not all of the BOP their work.These examplee all fell established. One tnd eidual commented has the same safety significance.
within the broad context of the that effectinness needs to focus on Accordingly, the scope has been personne1 management system. l.a functional failures effecting pubbe modified to include only those BOP selection, traln!ng.perfonnance health and safety: another suggested SSCs whose failure could most directly appials al, supervision, pron otional goals associated with general plant threaten public health and safety-policies, etc. Most feel that rulemaking safety performance measures.
Therefore,the scope of the rule has been on worker secountab!11ty is impossible.
Severe 1 commenters expressed modified as fo!!ows:
unneces s ary, or inappropriate. Several concern that the lack of defined Tbc accpe of the anonitoring program * *
- cited the fact that worker accountability performance criteria could generate sh.11 include safety related and nonsafety was a subject of negotfallon between either complacency or a continuous related structures. erstems. and components utility managernent and labor bargaining retchet since there would be no critena 85 IdC" units. Several cited existing regulations for a "fuBy effective program."
(1) Safer) related stmetures, syssevna. of (10 CFR part 2. appendix C, and to CFR Response-The comrnission agrees
$c enaNur rg tYe folben de wn mais 50.110) ae airsady requiring worker that determination of eUectivenes eveus to ecsure tk integrny of the reactor accountability.One respondent said that depends on many factors and that, with coolnet pressure bound ry. the capatahty to the ficensee should be responsfble, not re, gard to programmatic features, it is
31316 Federal Register / Vol. 56, No.132 / Wednesday, July 10, 1991 / Rules end Regulations subjective.ne rule provides flexibility Two utilities stated that there was no Response-%e Commission agrees for each licensee to decide how to need to develop new performance that plant perfortnance indicators that structure a maintenance program and indicators. One added that the have been developed and used by the conduct maintenance to achieve Commission should continue to evaluate NRC and industry are not appropriate at established performance goals.
a given licensee using its current the sole indicators of maintenance Specifically, the rule addresses (1) the technology.ne other suggested that the effectiveness.ne Commission also development of licensee. established existing INPO Performance Indicators agrees that, because ofindividual plant goals for performance. (2) the use of be revised to meet the need for a variations, performance indicators are goals and other quantitative and maintenance standard.
not appropridte for making absolute qualitative means as a measure of the NUMARC expressed the opinion that plant.to. plant comparisons. However, as 1
effectiveness of maintenance programs.
a good maintenance program would use recognised by commenters, indicators i
and (3) the use of monitoring and a combination ofindicators based upon taken in context can be used as an assessment of equipment performance the condition, type, age, etc., of the plant indication of maintenance performance.
or condition against goals, or, and specific equipment in question.
More importantly, indicators can be alternatively, the demonstration of NUMARC believes that prescribiq a used by licensees as an effective preventive maintenance effectiveness.
rigid set ofindicators would not schleve management tool to assess the need for In general, the Commission does not necessary plant flexibility and may corrective actions within a maintenance intend to define specific parameters or preclude focusing on areas of more program.
numerical criteria in either the rule or appropriate concern. Mexibility is Operating characteristica such as regulatory guide; each licensee is to needed to revise, delete, or add conalstently high availabliity or low equj ment caused forced outage rates establish appropriate goals to assist in - performance indicators as appropriate p
monitoring the effectiveness cf to provide information to management over a number of operating cycles are l
maintenance.
to fit circumstances, methods, and indicators of good maintenance
- 10. Are performance indicators that conditions that may pertain to a given effectiveness. However, the plant 1
are being used by industry, may be used plant in a specific situation. In this vein, material condition can degrade in the future, or have been used in the efforts to obtain consistent data would significantly before these indicators arIt ta e meas $es of u qu M n le benefit for regulatory provide identification of degraded ai tenance purposes and may have deleterious maintenance effectiveness; thus these effectiveness? ne Comm:ssion is effects on plant programs.
Indicators are not very timely. Based on particu;arly interested in experience or Another utility does not believe that the results of extensive work on anal sis concernir indicators or the any prescribed set ofindicators can be indicator development, the Commission rehabilit a intena e performance used to judge the effectiveness of a concludes that indicators that are based j
indicators plant s maintenance program. It also upon actualin service component stated that no indicator or combination reliability and failure history provide a Comments-In addressing this item, NUMARC and most utilities stated that ofindicators can give an overall useful measure of maintenance general plant performance indicators measure of maintenance effectiveness.
effectiveness. Also, these indicators est.
that have been developed and used by In its view, such a task must be left to be defined and implemented the industry were not appropriate for the judgment of the individuallicensee, independent of the definitions and j
use as the sole maintenance-INPO, and the NRC.
procedures that the licensee deems effectiveness indicators because of the One individual stated that necessary to manage the flow of number of nonmaintenance.related maintenance effectiveness is a measure maintenance work. Knowledge of data factors included in them. Many of the focused on economics. He went on to showing component failure in excess of proposed maintenance indicators are say that this view clouds the focus on the industry average has the desirable process in6cators, which may or may public beslth and safety According to property of alertinglicensees to not accurately reflect the state of the this commenter, the proper focus of determine whetherimproved overall maintenance program. Such maintenance effectiveness is on maintenance performance is needed. In indicators are useful, but only as one functional failures that threaten public general, the Commission agrees with tool for management evaluation of the health and safety, hvMARC that a good maintenance maintenance program.
NUMARC warned that component program would use a combination of Although stating that there are reliability by itselfis not a good indicators based upon the cond tion, presently no performance indicators in indicator of maintenance performance.
type and age of the plant and the use by the indust.y that directly De reason given for this position was ePecific equipment in question.
measure performance. NUMARC and that component reliability may be an Accordingly, the Commisalon has the utilities recognized that some of the indicator of an application, design, modified the final rule to allow licensees current industry indicators, taken in the component, operating or maintenance flexibility to determine the details of proper context. can provide an problem. NUMARC added that their individual maintenance programs.
Indication of maintenance performance.
assessments by the plant staff or by the St. Should an industry. wide ind cators can be used effectively by a corporate staff, including observation of component failure reporting system. e g.
specific utility as a management tool to work in the field, are necessary NPRDS, be used by all plants in order to assess the trend of performance within a ingredients in the measurement of support the sharing of generic given indicator or set ofindicators.
maintenance performance. NUMARC maintenance experience and facilitate However NUMARC admonished that pointed out that a given component monitoring of maintenance there are individual plant variations that failure or degradation could be effectiveness?
make absolute comparisons misleading, allowable based on engineering Comments--Of the commenters, even for plants with the same licensee.
Judgment without indicating an including NUMARC, who addressed tnis NUMARC also stated that the ineffective maintenance program, item. most recognized the usefulness of comparison of plant specific indicators especially for cases involving redundant the NPRDS as a source of generic failur to industry averages can be misleading.
or nonsignificant equipment.
dets.However.most of the commenters.
l Federal Register / Vol. 56. No.132 / Wednesday July 10, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 31327 including NUMARC, oppose the form but no subetence. I believe it would be very issue %e Commlulon addrened this I
unquehfied use of the NPRDS for more product!ve to delay fuuance of this pc'nt in detsu under & beeding " Adequate monitoring maintenance effectiveness pmPosed rule antil the draft mgulatory guJde Protectlon"in & Response to Comments on for a number of reasons. Some is avallable for comment only then can we the final to mt part to Reviaton of Beckfit mceive sun comments on the Proceu for power Reactore. I,et us remember commentem,includ NUMARC.
rulemeking pa ge.
that there had been concems that in deshng perceive such use of e NPRDS as an I am concerned that this rule goes beyond with the becidit rule, the Comminion would inappropriate regulatory intrusion into a our authority. I cannot agrw with a rule that use h phroes " adequate protection" program designed to improve would have b NRC regulating maintenance arbitrarily.He Commiselon could communications regarding equipment on au systems. structums, and components unwittingly be giving credence to that view, performance within the industry that mgerdlen of whether they have a nexw to Additionally,it sums to me that h would 1end to stifle the free exchange of
'*diological safety or not I am troubled by Commission position on adequate protection information. NUMARC cited the the attitude demonstrated when we mount is intemaUy inconalstent ne Commluion necessary expansion of the reportable public comments on what limitations. !! any.
aseda to scognize that when it states that scope of the NPRDS to cover the entire should be placed on the Anal rule to addmse this rule is needed to maintain adequate structurn, systems and components ht am protection. it is uying that the curmnt BOP as a tremendous undertsking that
" vithout question irrelevant (my empbsels) operstm' g plants now pose undue risk to the could be prohibitively expensive.
to the protection of public heelth and safety."
public which we are pmsently tolerstma tfI NUMARC two utilities, and one his clurly abdicato our ruponsibility to belleved that. I would suggest (as I'm sure individual believe that, although the show that a regulation is needed. We must would the rest of & Comminion) that this NpRDS can be used to obtain gross
- k 'Sr"I'": A" ** proceeding with this rule become immediately effective.nis is indications of a problem,its usefulness rulemaking for te sake of me rule itsem As clearly not se cau. As se Commission in 1
I is restricted because of plant.to-plant attested to by the cases when the h nry name comment shows."* *
- h differences in maintenance practices-Commission cited hcansees, the NRC already proposed rule codifin and standardises has the a uthority to enforca compliance in the previously existirig (my embasis) h component application. design, maintenance ama.
Commission requirements. th exphcit and
]
environment, and the detail with which ne arguments advanced by both the staff impbcit. in plant technical specifications.
failures are reported.
and the Cornmission in trMto tempty with ( licensee safety analyste reporta and to CFR Response-The Commission generally the requirements of the backnt rule have part 30. appendia B."It seems to me that the agrees with the above comments, played a significant role in my deciolon not to Comrnission can't have it both ways.
However, the NPRDS may provide support this proposed rulemaking De staff I mquest comunents on my views.
usefulinformstion for comparing plant.
argu 1 fo e e e ao n
Commenta-Of the commenters who
,3 d
specific experience on equipment with a broader range of industry operating ne staff stata that h backfit analysia,
Meponded to this question. most agreed shows bi"* *
- the rule wiu provide a with the views of Commissioner experience on similar equipment. The substantiat inemen in the protection of the Roberta, while only three commenters
-j data does provide usefulinsights into pubhc health and safety without any disagreed with the Commissioner. Some mainIenance trends at an individual additional cost."I am skeptical of the commenters did not provide any basis plant.
essumptions made in the backfit and for their agreement or disagreement.
- 12. Commissioner Roberts had the resu! story analysis and request commenta on However, a number of commenters following views:
both these documents.1 also request expressed concerns beyond the views I cannot join the mejority in supporting the tfat "* ' '
expressed in Question 12.These are m are s s
of proposed rulemaking on maintenance.1n order to have the benef I of the pubhc,e regulations. and especia!!y the way in which summarized below.
comments. it has been my custom to agree to they em typically enforced. that lead us to A majority of the utility commenters a
beheve that, under a rule, a move toward im licit, " greed with Commissioner n be nce IhaveYo uniformity would occur. and this is likely to Ro erts tnat the proposed rule went oe one fundamentalquestion What are we trying to decrease b effectivene e of some of b beyond the current authority of the accomphsh with this rule that cannot more better existing programs. I share bit Commission by requiring maintenance effectively and innovatively be accomplished concem ht the existence of this rule could without a regulation? ! have not received a make things worse and d2minish rether bn of all SSCa in the BOP. According to these commenters, since many SSCs in estisfactory answer.1 do not beheve b can Comminion appears to bto ectf the Rgadr de ste the BOP have no nexus to pubic health sSe7:r i tenen i
saying that since and safety, the maintenance rule would ta ama t
importantly to me, there ha n no effective maintenance la necessary to require hcensees to spend their demonstration that this rule would improve meintain adequate protection. thle rule resources on unimportant areas, Implementation of existing programs Neither should be excepted under 30.toste)(4). This potentially decressing the level of have I been provided with compelhns exemption would prohibit staff from taking safety. One individual stated that documentation on what the problem is and troplementation costs into consideration.
1 how. specifically, this rule will fix it. On h However,it would requin that a documented regulators have a bias in favor of overb.s regulations on air transportation oard regulations. pointing io the contrary, the trends staff has provided abow evaluation be prepared for public comment.
pg contmued improvement in the maintenance emfgm op i
t e ption is This commenter noted that, unlike the The proposed rule the Comm!nion is now Precedential natum of the use of the adequate scope of FAA's statutory charter which pubbshms fails to provide a basis for protection argument. !st me state that L too, encompasses the development of the air determinmg when a maintenance program la strongly believe that effective maintenance is transportation industry, the NRC's effective or when improvements are necessary to assure that nuclear power authority is limited to the regulation of
" appropriate
- We are even delaying plants are safe and to provide adequate the nuclear industry to protect pubhc pubhcation of the accompanying regulatory protection to the pubhc. I etso beheve, fust as guide until the final rule. Without being strongly, that this rule is not necessary to health and safety.Two utilities argued efforded the opportunity to mvlew this provide that protection, and ht as & ACAS that the maintenance rule falls to posite effect.1 Provide meaningfuI definitions and implementation document, the Commission is noted. it may well ha ve the ofto be careless g
beheve that we cannot affort standards of the activities required.In leit m the position of approving a specious rule. It is no wonder that this rulemaking about the use of the " adequate protection-their view, this can lead to would ehcit such widespmed opposition ne argument for exception to the backfit rule, misinterpretation. arbitrary pubhc is being asked to comment on a rule of De Comminion is in litigation about this enforcement, and endless 4
,,-r,--
i asi8 Federal Ragister / Vol. 5s No.132 / Wednesday. July 10, 1991 / Rules and Regulations
)
ninterpmtations of the rule. One stility heelth and safety.
.as 1968), the Oosmulasloe made it clear suggested that any indestry standard on discussed hi 9ee response to that-maintenance would be tailored to the comments on Qarstion 7, b empe of (fp le h ob>ctive of k Comminion ht lowest comrnoo denominator, amd the rule has been modined to focus on aD componesta, rystems and etn,ctme of l
thenfore there would be no net those SSCs whose fa!!ure could most soclear powe panow be eretrristned so st improvement in the level of safety. It directly threaten public heahh and plam steipment weperfons ses hue ded also argued that, once codified, a safety.
hessies wtso mWmd.To secomphsh thh regulatory standard of acceptance FinaDy daring the time the ob>cen, sasMassasw M dney and maintenance would be difficult to I'-=Wan held r=3=a% tm y
a mah segma M 3
im rove. Finally. NUMARC and the abeyama, the public had the W I*'** W S"*l"** **d sti ties also repeated their general opportunity to coaumerit on the drah F" P N
ciguments why a maintenance rule is mgulatory guide. Considering the a.n.d. [Tibe ymgram should laclude the 4
not necessary. in particular, on the narrowing of the focus of the Anal rule feedbeck of spanfle reenha to eneurs gredualimprovament in the industry to a results/ performance-oriented sorrective acticos, proviewes for overstl maintenance performance, and the INPO approach the supporting story pr, gram evaluetson, and the idenariestion of Self Auessment Program. NUMARC guide will require revision.
the poulble a-r===' and eyensa problems cIso asserted that the Commission has avision process, prev 6ous public sufficient authority to ensare adequate connnents wtD be canaldend and An adequate program should consider protection.
apprognately rvCected in the ory e
ama g-l A Commfufoner on the Public Service gode.h tory guide wfD i
Commission of the State of Vermont revised to eet the rule e narrower p
stated that there is safety significance in fac as on meults and maintenana e Equipment history and trendas the BOP. pointing out that recent NRC Pmgram effectiveness, and w!!! describe (and) staff and industry evaluations show that a mune fu muting es mquirsamts d e Weesums of omen progen improper maintenance of componenta to CR M acceptable to b staH.
effectivame a
not previously associsted with safety Revision of the regulatory guide will b r r== lesion went on to indicate o
has resulted in adverse safety agala include the opportus for peblic in that same fees PoBey Statement l
consequences. In a ddition, the connent.lso ementation the rde is that-2 be de for 8n yeen ak b Commissiocer indicated that superior The Commission ex ets to pubilsh a 1
performance of nuclear plants iuuance ah, we the agulato guMe e
internationally has been associated with expected to be available within nrst Notics of Proposed It emaking in the nur future est wiD estebbsh basic requirements maintecance programs that are stricter two yeanAs schedde wW abw at for plant mobrtenemos progrsme. We believe than those in the U.S., citing the least three yms for licensee that the contents and bonada of the proposed
~
experience of Japan and France.
development beyond the tisne when rule wtu bd! within the gamera! tranwwork i
Response-Two of the issues raised final guidance is expected to be described in thk Policy Statement * * *. We available.
e to provide ther by Commissioner Roberts and by the 4
majority of commenters are similar to Additional Comments of Commissioner CommissiorL even at this early stese of the l
those issues reised in response to Curtiss rulema% process.
Questions 6 and 7. As discussed in the I believe that the approach adopted A3 8
'8l' msponse to comments oc Question 6.
by the rmmlaeon in this nnM mle h y
the Commission agrees that a backSt sound and approprku.The enum hs, early on, the Commrssion began enalysis is required for the maintenance Comm!ssion agrees that it la important 2 consWu se p&cipal elemnts d de 1
rule. Because the current regulations for this agency to have a regulatory Anal rule adopted here by the 1
provide an assurance of adequate framework in place that win provide a Co==f==% caDed on hcemu 2 protection of the public heahh and safety, the Commission is no longer mechanism for evaluating the overs!!.
incorporate those elements into their 4
continuing eHectiveneu d Ecensen maintenance programs, and solicited q
proposing to exempt the maintenance maintenance ams. %is final rule Pabhc commet on such proposals.
rule from the requarements of a backfit will provide t ngulatory framework.
In conjunction with the tasuance of analysis.
I strongly disagme with those who the Final Commission Policy Statement The Commtmalon does not agne that contend that the Comml= alan rushed out on Maintenanca of Nuclear Power the maintenance rule will result in with this maintenance rule without the Plants, the Commission directed the
]
decnased safety by requiring licensees benefit of public comment end with the NRC staff to develop a prefermd
(
to divert their ruources away from attendarrt implication that the final rule maintenance rulemaking option SSCs and activities with greater was not well-considered. In point of requiring licensees to track certain l
importance to safety. The maintenance fact, the reliability. based aspects of maintenance performance indicators rule is being issued to ensure that the maintenance reflected in this Anal rule (See Staff Requirements Memorandum effectiveness of maintenance programs have been at the very heart of what the on COMXC-66-03. June 17.1988). In j
le maintained for the life of the facility Commission has been considering in the response, the staff advised that the and is not expected to require maintenance ans since as early as tees. proposed rulse should contain significant modifications to current Indeed. it is abundantly clear from even
" provisions for performance assessment licensee programs.The regulatory guide a cursory review of the history of this which tioeneen would implement to wul provide flexjbility for a licensee to issue that considerable time and track the effectiveness of their structure its maintenance program in attention have been devoted to the basic maintenance programs"(See SECY-4o-accordance with the safety significance concepts reflected in this final ruie. nat 277, Amendnwnt to 10 CR part 50 of those SSCa. However, the history is briefly summarized below:
Related to Maintenance of Nuclest Commission does agne with the in toe Fina! N=W
!on Policy Power Planta, p. 2. September 30.1988),
comments that not au SSCa in the bop Statement on Maintenance of Noclear Although the stag was not in a position are related to the protection of public Power Plants (53 m 9430t March 23 to suggest the noe of specific A
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No.132 / Wednesday. July 10, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 31319 l
5 maintenance performance indicators, it in how they fashlon theirindividual which requis rote adherence, stific formulated a proposed rule thei-maintenance programa.
taltiativn and depend on punidve l
enforament actions for complianos.There emphesizes that an integrel part of a good Comunlasioner AemicFs Sepomie Comments appears to be a neer. unanimous consensua maintenance program is the monitoring and feedback of results. In this regard. the I respectfully d: Net with my coUeagun that the agency and the industry have inasmuch as ! do not believe that there is a ettmulated initiadves which have produced muntenance prog-ams should utihse quantitstive indicatore that are bemed upon demonstreted need for a mie in light of positive mealta, as outcome not necessarily actual component mhebthty and failure
.significant improvements in maintenance assured seem resulteriented rulemaking j
history to provide the best masaure of resulting from Agency attention I agree wfib view that routine use of &e licensee taltledves.The Commission stars maintenance inspection approach, maintenance eNectivenen.
Indicates in its deciolon to promulgate this etthring the Maintenance Team laspecuon SECY-86-2es. Preliminary Results of the rule that " ' ' b Commluton is satisfied (htn) criteria propowd in conjunction with Trial Program on Maintenance that & industry has been generally the revised policy statement, could ultimately Performance Indicators, p. 5 October 7 auccafulin bringlas about embetanual,,
lead to sewaually the same prescriptive 1988-improvement la maintenance programs.
soeult as a process oriented rule. In the Substantialimprovements and favorable interest of ensuring that b responsibihty for indeed, the staff specillcally noted multa are the goah ht the Comuniulon asaproving, sustaining and wrifying adequate that the goal of the recommendations abould strive for in its regulatory activides by maintenance performance (using industry's contained in the proposed maintenance mulizing h most eNecuve regulatory toch standard document INPO so-cos] remained rule was to provide the NRC staff and for accomphshing thou gosla. As I argw wie h ladustry.! belien ht h heensees "with a practical near terrn below. I am not convinced that in this case a Cocimission abould have directed the staff to method to track maintenance NIe 18 ee mMt 'U'Cd".#7 880II" develop an approach toits routine i
effectiveness * * *"(SECY-ao-239 p.
- ccomphs em goals w,I diner inspections which would han concentrated 5)-the very core of the proposal that sho$d
""""*"8 t
e a e Alth ugh the Commission endorses in this final b rule le a concept worthy of dieeussion. it
[detaYdth rule.
should not have been rushed out but should moess would then have a resernd for use as ne resulting Notice of Proposed han been imued for the benefit of public diagnado ins polin now special Rulemaking on Maintenance and the commet.
com whm was a perceived j
proposed rule published for comment on N h=lamian op ed celtertalo be November 28,1988 (53 R 47822) contain used in determining en induatn progma maintenance pmblenL la my approach. the staFs proposed final pobey statement on the same equipment history and I"$,***,,d[g*$*,"**,"d5 maintenance would han bwn avised to aking trending. effectiveness monitoring. and (SECY memorandum from S. Chilk to I.
1 include em futum acN6es.
4 feedback elements as the l'inal Taylor, dated May 25.18e0). The staN I agm wie ee Wow est it is imPwtant fw I
Commission Policy Statement on performed a detailed evaluation of industry
&la egney to how a msulawn framewwk Maintenance. They also contain clear progress and concluded ht h setteria had in place that will pmvide a mechanism for indications that the Commission been utisfied (SECY 41-110, Staff evaluaung &e omsU conhauing intended Io include requirements for Evalubon and Recommendation on e5ecennus of &e malnkaana programs, monitoring, trending and feedback with M*i j po ey statNent, regard to the effectiveness of
,,nci st N e
at b
'"8 8 'evi i
j g,,g together with b development of mults-maintenance in any maintenance rules that might ultimately be adopted.The rulemaking The ACRS ogreed with the steFs onented in8Pection programs. would have recommendetions. In generalI with the Povided an efective regulatory framework need for, and details of such provisions bem for b stare conclusions.
fon,I ser euch evaluation. I bebeve that the were emphasized in the draft Regulatory approud the staffs recommendation in performance based rule that the majority of J
Guide that was subsequently published SECY-41-no not to the Commimion has approwd has ame for comment as part of this maintenance maintenance rulemakmosed with but instead to leeue innovetfve features, and any be parocularly rulemaking effort. 54 R 33983. In turn, a a finet potiey statement on maintenance of appropriate for moeltoring the eNecovenese number of commenters acknowledged nuclear power planta I also approved the of maintenance programs for b advanced ihe maintenance effectiveness stafra recommendation to remove the reactors. Howwwr.1 do not agree with the maintenance escalation factor and mvise the view that tbs proposed rule in no way measurement, trending, and feedback enforcement po! Icy supplement of10 GR heterfems with the proceu.related activities aspects of the proposed rule and part 2. appendix C to include a specific which the licenm community. to fu provided their views on these matters.
maintenance-mleted saample.
conalderable credit has undertaken in sum,it is abundantly clear from all Furbr,I agme with b stars oceclusloe voluntarily. It may be argued that bcensees of this that the Commission has long ht b indutry document. INp0 eMos, wili not han to change their maintenance been censidering maintenance "Meintenance Programs la the Nuclear Power programe to meet the previolons of the rule as effectiveness monitoring of the sort that Industry," delineetw the necusary elements it is writies, Neverbless the focus of the a majority of the Commission now of effective maintenance pmgrams &
NRC's attention on implementation of a new adopts in this final maintenance rule industry's commitment to monitor the rule almost always carrie, with it the strong and that the industry and the public '
progress of maintenance implementation potential for impact on the licensees' using the performance objectivu ofINPO 30 Initiatim and pmgrams and thus an inherent were given clear notice and the 008, and the staEs intention to name disincentin to not innovate or participate in opportunity to comment on such industry performance and report to the new initiauves.
considerations throughout this Cornminion afler four years with an interim One way of determinity h potential maintenance rulemaking process. The report efter two yeare. are sufficient in my hepact of this rule would have been to issue fmal rule that has resulted from this view to assure that there will be no it for pubhc comment. I think that inuing the careful deliberation will provide the beckshding of h len! ofindustry proposal for pubhc comment would be good reI"letoII framework that all perfonnece M maintenance.
pohey, and consistent wie se Comminin's In Commissioners agree this agency must whickeneral. I support a regulatory approach Princi les of Good Regulation. which state stimula tu beenme' and industry's that ab available facts and opinions be i
have in order to ensure the continuing initiettves. encouraan innovation. permite soushi openly from Ucennes and other effectiveness of maintenance efforts at self. management and produces poeltive internted members of the pubhc.To rush a nuclear power plants, while at the same mults. under agency monitoring. in contreet final rulemaking package that contains some time providing licensees brosd latitude so prescriptive. procesooriented reguletions fundamental chenaes from the dimetion the
~
31320 Fedtral Regist r / Vol. 56. No.13.2 / Wednesday. luly 10, 1991 / Rale / and Regulations CommJssion has taken eser the past sevml maintenanca progran deve.)oyent and el the hforanation reqidresneots before years.without seeking aU avanable facts and innovation. I fear that !Leensees w!D ha]t they wiU become eEective. Notice of opinions. ls likely to lead to imp'e=ta tice further development of their estntenance NRC subnJssion of the information prob! ems that the Commission may not be ialtieuvu to swelt the developmend of ths duon $mts to M and awan of now.
regulatobsuldanca to implamaat h rda.
issuance of the required OMB approval, ne final rde represents a eIq-aficant and that ssees wC refrain from j
departure from the proposed rule The participating in future safety inDistives wiU be ph by the NRC h the i
proposed rule imed in 1968 focussed on bocause they wi!!Interpnt this CommiaaFon Federal Regiatet.
I what the redera! Register notice for the actfon as e eignificant ntreat from ita goals of proposed rde caUed " maintenance practices-achieving a stah!e regu! story environment.
Regulatory W-cmd "the adoption of common maintenance he develepment of an industry malotenance De Commission has prevend a standards"--in a warti. " processes", or propam etandaJt!. the industry's commitment g
. analysis on tb ba}
"eysteIns" of maintenance ($3 77 C3:4). He to setf assessment against that standard.
totice etated that "regulat!on [of INPO's evahastion of matnfenance process regulatletL b anal axammes the i
maintenance] by octeomes rather than against the objectives of tbv standard NRC cesis and benefits o the alternatives processes" wodd be b evb}ect of
- follow.
torpectfon prog sms which wedd considered by the Commhslon.N on ndernaking" (id ). De final rde. bewever, concentrate on effective readts, and b analysia is available for inspection in is focureed on outcomes and thmby seems NRC's exf ating enforcement embrity an the NRC Pubbe Document Room,2120 L to han conchrded the "foMow.on adeqrate to ensure proper maintenance St. NW, Washington. DC. Single copie:
rulemaking"befm tt was begun. Alt!mgh without a new rule.
of the analysis may be obtained from the proposed rule contatned monitming and I would stress. however, the importance of trendmg components. they wm only a few the Commission's mattening to monitor the Robert Rigga. U.S. Nuclear Regulato c2nong seventeen maintenance actirities todestry's propeas to this area. A poDey Commission Waahbgton, DC M covmd by b proposed rGe (oce h statement would be a enitable approach for (301) E"IU2-proposed 50 06(b)). and so cf early wm in no continuing the Commisefon's necessary Regulatory Meidbalty Certincation way intended as a surrogets for a process.
emphasis on maintenance. and at the same oriented nde. However. monitortng is h time a5owing for continuing improvement in In accordance with the Regulatory focus of the final ruFe he rgnincant shifts in maintmnce through Cexhitty. divmtry and Flexibility Act of 1980. 5 UAC. 605(b),
the focus of the rde and in the role of innovetion in the industry's programa-
& r'wat^m hereby cartASes that monitoring to the rate deserved public Mading of No Signincant Envirnamame.1 this regulation does not havs a of h ppowd rde bem Impact AvailabWty alF**nt ecov=* bepaci on a substantial number of amau antities.
rupor.ue to quwtons on mordtortna but h h rw ston has determmed that, questions wm corf.ned large+y to k iseue under the National Environznental Policy W8 Mguladoc a5ects licensus sat of whot epecine menarn meght be und to Act of 1900, as amended, and the own and operste nuclear uhnun at u bcensed under sech W anaen the effecticersees of a memtenance Commisdon's regulations in subpart A
""d * * *
- EY ^'I proram (see 53 IT cs2.5). Not addnued in the notice won certatn matters wtuch are of to CFit P. art St. this rule le not a mafor 19% u amenda hse licensen do cruoal to the fmal rde. %en inctode, for Federal seticm afgnificantly afecting the utlaD & b d & id e d smaH
)
cxample the final rde's requirement to quality of the human environment and bassiness set forth in section 3 of the morutor "asstnst tconsee-estebhshed goals-Enerefore an environmentalimpact SmU Bhs M M E E a which ars *cemmesurste with ufery". Also, state. ment is not required.
i Sass (b)of the Scal rde de$nes b Since this action is directed toward gggg 8 g*
stmcruna. systems, and components (SSCe) maintaining the level of maintena rw Sundarda set M in u 3 part 121.
to be included in h scope of maiatmace effectivenesa of existing plant SSCa to Becifft Analysts amHoring grorsna. His defLataon to bcth minimiza the hkehhood of failures and simdar to and emnt from the dannitaa of events caused by the lack of effective 210 CR SWsX2) 6e a fLnal w ch h -
ion d
snaintmance and does not reqdre any
[,
dcas with h fLnal tde on maint=nans modification of the plant. it wiD not 3
gg Putdac comment aught han addressed adversely afect the quality of the j
whether the dt!'erences between b heen environment.
b basis & adIsia, bt defLnf tions of $5Ce in these two b environmental assessment and ba@tmg of the nquinmnts m. the l
maintenance.rtisted rules an furti$ed or wul finding of no signLficant impact oc maintenanca e wW pmW a pnsent interpretmoon and implementstron which this determmation la bued are substanual haae in de W d protJ*"*
available far inspecitoo at the NRC tecucn d pMaale and safety
{ yond ist currently provMed by 6e if I wm convLwed ht e rule me neded Public Docurnent Room. 2120 L Street so prodace positin resu:ta. ! codd seppet
- #"'" I' "
- P'"P **d 'd**
NW., Lower Level. Weshington. DC.
Comm!niods regulations, and that the prtmded thet I could see hon the etaff would Smgle copies of the environmental mots ofimp1mmting the rule an imp etner t the rule thr:mgh the developenent assessment and finding of no significant N: tined in view d this increased l
ef regu! story guides and inspection modules, impact are avaDable fram Robart -
protection.
and provided that the public was gf von an OfHce of Nuclear Regulatory The maintenance rule requires cpporturuty to corament before proadgation Telephone (301) 4G2-.3732, UA Nuclear licensees to monitne the e!!ectiveneas uf cf a anal rule. But I am not convinced that a Regula tory Commission. Washington, maintenance activities for certam rule is needed to produca positive resu!ta.
DC 20555.
structures, systems and cocuponents De staff has shown that we'n seeing based upon licensee-estabbahed goals substantial positan nru!ts of h mdust.y's Paperwock Reduction Act Stat =mant for performance or condsuoo, and take madenance pregam initaaWu. and the This final rule amends informstion corrective actaon whare necessary (the o W han ben Med in my collection requirements that are enbject requirements of the maintenance rule END g*d* ',**
bd"[
to the Psperwork Reductfon Act of1980 are set forth la greater detail in the the Comerseeon shou]d not change its W U.S C. 3501 et seg l he informa tio-discunion be' sow M adrenn se direction now and that there 6s no seed to requiremmia wiU be submitted by tL.
nine factors of to CFR 50.100(c)).
promu! sate e raaister.ance regulation wh;ch NRC to the OfLee of Management and it le the r-rnission'a ju ment that codd be counter;roductin to further Budget (OMB) for teview and approval maMrsnance, and in pa ' at the 3aal-
1 Federal Registar / Vol. 56. No.132 / WaW, My so spat / tm%si and Resulatians' W33n setting. monitoring and correcties action To obanno a beoeder perspective sa broad esaps afstructaeon, systems and activities required by the maintaannce maintenanea. 6e Cetam!seisa esEDponensa alas orpresenta a safety sale. provide a substandal locrease in performed a survey and assessment of concern bemuse of the poemittal the safety olanclear power plant maintena nce presMees la ed.ber countries adrarse effect en the abihty of the operation. This }wdgement is bened on and indentnes bidenhly verymg Commission to take tinsefy aad effective the direct impact of makf emanca en the approaches to ambhnamca and to regulakry action agn hst ifconsen with reliability and operahibry of ranclear detersdne li there was any tankage poor me>== pracsoes. It le true power plant safety systema, and its between safety and eGective that eens ese a sunber ef edsting I
effect on the other plant structures, maintenanos Spec $cally, the aim of the Commissian poquiremenes thet en systems and asuissia that are stady (NUREG-1333) was ter directly or in relevant to
{
importani Io the protection cd the public
- Review varimas segulatory maintenanas.iaci to C3'R j
health and safety and co==nn dehne approaches and dahrsaine their 80)tfaM241) BRM(aX71: E34(bX6) (i).
and security.
apphcabiliky to the maintenance
($ M sad M 8438(bX9k EM(fR1)
I De Commission's >dgement that rulemaMng, and D). M d M 8 W 3) E Ma M I
e5ccirve maintenance is en important
- Deterumas desmign and damastic 80.36(a) s&36(c) (2). (3), (5) and (7);
opetnbutor to sdefy is confirmed by maintenance practums that mrrerthate
.80.3es(a X1) 50.4p(b); SILWe{g); part 50 1
studies of maintenence es for significantly tMective===senance.
apj=nh A. N 1.13.1& 21,32.3&
domestic nucleer power plants. LERs he etndy cowend French.
- 87. 4D. 43. e. m. 52. 53. part to, appendix compoette data fmen the Commierion;s ars! German p1tG) maintsmance B. Hoarevas, neas requiremente do not j
Sysarmatic Assessment of!)eensee W
w 6e FM apply aMformly a au" safety relsed**
Puformece (M and b Aviation Adummitserstions regulatory '
struckson, aparema and components.
Commieren's inspections et domestic approach to the==*=nce of U.S, and cady ocsasionaDy apply to 1
nuclear power plants. es well as studles W -hdh strsetores, syssoma and componenta of maintenance practices at foreign maintenance programa of the U.S. Navy whid could adversely affect he nuclear power plants. the military, and and Ak Farta. & reauha of she study functioning of safety-related structune, j
the aerospace industry.ne Commission were used in larmalating te proposed systems and compeeram. Any attempt j
first began focusing on maintenance as a
- r. ale.nese stadies confina tiu, on the part af the NRC to take regulatory result ofits obsenation that plant Commission'a dew that good action against a hcenses esith performance, as reflected in euch maintenance la caneteted adth high kredegasts or poorly-hsplemented l
indicators as the number of reh=h hg and ad==hmtion of plast maintenance mast be pursued on an unanticipated scrams. was not tsunalents. and therefore with seclear individuahsed, case by.came improving in the early 19eos.The power smactor safety.
coanderation of the adegaaey of that Commission had expected that as newly An additional concern of the licensee's==W= nance practims and 1
beensed power planta gained operalfag Coerrrin=% is b need use, their dfect on safety.nis replatory experience and took advantage of effective =matenance at nuclear power aPpross is costly la terms of agency lessens learned and oder information someters throushout the terms of melt resoartas. k also elsks the possibility 4
distributed throughout the industry-operatmg bcenses (and any renewed that the NRC will be amable to take problems in plant operation would operating licenaea). Wh!!e k swnnt timely enforcement action in the event
]
3 gradually decrease to a relatively low perfor===m of the nuclear power of a finding ofinadequale licuee j
industry in the ases of sneintenance le perfxrermanca in maintenance. By
)
level. To understand why industry performance was not improvin8 H acceptable and improving in the contrast. time?y regulatory action could e
aggregate, the NRC Staffe Maintenance easily be taken if a licenace were found expected. the Commission performed an Team inspections indicate that then are not to be 6-pf==enting specific actions assessment af maintenance at domestic still cornman weaknesses in discrete required by a rule which addmoses nuclear power plants in NUREG-1212.
areae of remintenance at nuclear power maintenance. In sum, the Coounission
" Status of Maintenance in the Nuclear pf ants. nua. while b Cesruminion concludes that substanuel safety Power Industry " He study found that acknowledges the inavaned emphasis benefits are to be achieved from in 1985. resintenance safety problems by licensees on ineirdenance and adopting the Anal maintenance rule.
were evidenuo varying degrees across significant irnprosement ki performance De Commierion eiso concludes that the ILS. nuclear industry. Wide ofmaintenance programa in te the onets ofimplemenems the variataens were found in maintenance aggregete add!tional attention is maintenance rule et all mielear power practices and effectivenesa, and a warranted. threover. in the absence of plants are justified in view of the safety significant proportion of operational a rule, there la no assurarves that benefits identified above. A regulatory problems was found to be attributable licenseas wonid not relax their analyefs has been prepared to seeist the lo ireproper or inadequate snaintenanca.
commitmerd to e6ective motntenance Commission in determining the benefirs his rmding was corarmed by an practzces in the future. In this reystd, the and costs ofimpiss% the industry study of maintenance Consmasion notes that no licenses has mafntenance rule through a geantitstive condreted about the same time.This made a brmal dnr*>ted commitment to approech. However, the quantitative industry study, which was performed by implement the Inahtute for Nuclear estimates in the regulatory analysis NUMARC Working Group t was Power Operations (INPO) performance how proved to contein varying degives discussed by the Working Group objecttves and criteria on maintenance of uncertainty. Deperdng upon the Chairman durica the July 1988 Public (INPO 91MID8). By adopting a specfre assumptions used in the Workshop on the Maintenance maintenance rule now, the Commission anefyols. e broad reage of values is 3
Rulem aking (NUREC/CP-4090. pp.1.21-will have a regulatnry basis for possible for the estimeted risk reduction 3.3t). The industry study found that 3a%
pres enung Ircensee "backsidag' in the attributable to the meintenance rule (the of the root causes of E50 sigrnnr=nt area of mainknance.
ucertainties and their effect on the events examined were maintenance ne abseem W Cenuaission overall risk reducton and vetoe/tmpact related.
maintenanca requirennenta covering a retiu are discussed in greeter detoilin
~
31322 Feder:1 Registar / Vol. R No.132 / Wsdnesday. July to.1991/ Rules cnd Regulations the reguistory analysis). Because of that the costs cfimplementing the Establish goals for the performance or
'j these uncertainties. the Commission has maintenanca rule are justified, condition of certain structures, systems considered qualitative afety he Commission recognizes that and components to assure that they will considerations and benefits.%us the regulatory action in the area of meet their intended function. (ii) monito.
regulatory analysis' quantitative maintenance should not be overly these structures, systems and cetimates comprise a component of. but prescriptive, but rather be carefully components to determine whether the cre not the primary factor with respect directed to ensuring that unnecessary licensee-established goals have been to the Commission's conclusions on the activities are not required,in view of the met. and (iii) take appropriate corrective l
safety benefits and costs attributable to large degree of uncertainty in action if the goals are not met.nese the final maintenance rule.
quantifying the costs and benefits of the goals are to be established by taking
].
The regulatory analysis estimates that maintenance rule. Accordingly, the final into account industry wide operating implementation of the final maintenance maintenance rule is carefully tailored to experience. Monitoring is not required.
rule could result in a point es'imate of eliminate prescriptive programmatic, however, where the licensee 52.000 person-rems avoided, with an procedural and organizational demonstrates that preventive upper bound of 72.000 and a lower requirernents.Rather the final maintenance is sufficient to assure that bound of 7.300 person rems. The net maintenance rule npresents a neults.
the structures, systems and components costs associated with implementation of oriented approach to assuring that will remain capable of performing their l
i the maintenance rule are estimated to maintenance is effectively conducted at intended functions. See i 50 65[s)(2).
i cntail a point estimate of 44 mil!!on nuclear power nectors.The licensee is Ucensees will be required to evaluate dollars, with an upper bound of 2100 responsible for establishing goals for the effectiveness of their goal setting.
million dollars in cost savings and a structure, system and component monitoring and corrective action lower bound of n00 million dollars The performance or conditions, and the activities on at least an annual besis, resulting value/ impact ratio is a point licensee is free to determine the taking into account industry wide cetimate of 1200 person rems /million monitoring method, the need for operating experience, and adjust their dollars.
corrective action, and the nature of that programs where necessary to ensure l
I Furthermore. the regulatory analysis action. Furthermore. the maintenance ithat failure prevention is balanced for the maintenance rule also contains rule contains a provision (i 50.65(a)(2))
f against unavailabihty of structures.
acme conservatisms which the whereby licensees may forego systems and components. See i
Commission believes underestimates the monitoring The Commission believes I 5045(a)(3). In addition, when I
cost-effectiveness of the fint.1 that the final maintenance rule provides performing monitoring and preventive maintenance rule. In the regulatory the necessary flexibility for licensees to maintenance activities, an assessment enslysis. it was assumed that the core.
tailor their maintenance proFrams to of the total plant equipment out-of-y l
damage frequency and forced outage their specific plant design and service should be taken into account to downtime reductions associated with configuration, organizational structure, determine the overall effect on i
the results oriented rule would be the and personnel, thereby permitting performance of safety functions. See same as those for a process oriented compliance with the maintenance rule in 150.65(a)(3). The structures, systems rule. However, the Commission believes the most cost effective manner. The and components which are subject to that the results oriented approach, by Commission is confident that the the goal-setting, monitoring. and focusing to a greater extent on regulatory real of maintaining safety corrective action requirements of the 1'
equipment perfonnance, would be more has been achieved in the most rule are those which are safety related.
likely to achieve additional reductions reasonable and cost efficient manner and certain non safety related systems, j
in core damage frequency and forced and is consistent with the public structures and components as defined in eutage downtime.The regulatory interest.
I50.65(b).
i analysis also assumed that licensees For the reasons set forth above, the
- 3. Potential change in the risk to the under the final results-oriented rule Commission concludes that, the public from the accidental offsite release would incur most of the costs of maintenance rule will result in s level of of radioactive material.
implernenting programmatic elements safety beyond that currently provided According to the Regulatory Anal) sis similar in scope to those contained in by the Commission's regu!stions and for the maintenance rule, a int i
the 1988 proposed maintenance rule in that is a substantialincrease in the estimate of the potentialns reduction j
addition to the costs ofimplementing the overall protection of the public health to the public is approx.imately 52.000 g
resulta oriented elements which were and safety, and that the net costs of the person-rem, with an upper bound of j
drawn from the proposed maintenance rule are justified in view of this 72.000 person rem and a lower bound of rule and incorporated into the final rule.
increased level of safety.
7.300 person rem.The bases of these The Commission projects that because The nine factors listed in to CFR projections are provided in the 2
j the results onented rule is not a 50.109(c) are discussed below, discussion in the Regulatory Analysis.
)
prescriptive programmatic rule.
- 1. Statement of the specific objectives However, as suggested by the range j
licensees will achieve some cost savings that the backfit is designed to achieve.
between the upper and lower bounds of because they will have flexibility in The purpose of the maintenance rule risk reduction to the public, the determining the manner in which to is to maintain the effectiveness of estimates possess a certain relatis ely improve the programmatic elements of maintenance at operating nuclear power high degree of uncertainty. One factor their maintenance programs.
reactors. thereby maintaining the level contributing to this uncertainty, and Accordingly, the Commission projects of safety at operating nuclear power which tends to suggest that the values that the costs for the performance based reactors.
for the results-oriented final rule are final maintenance rule will be somewhat
- 2. General description of the activity conservative. is that the core damage smaller than that assumed in the required by the licensee or applicant in reduction frequency (CDF) and forced regulatory analys.s.
order to complete the backfit.
outage downtime reductions associated in view of the safety benefits Under i 5035(a)(1) of the maintenance with the results oriented rule are discussed above, the Commission judus rule. licensees will be required to: (i) assumed to be the same as the process-
--r-
l Todenal Regianer / Vcd. 56. No.132 / Wedaeeday. bly 20, 1991 / Buies and Rsymistioses m 23 i
criented rule. However. is la balicesd For ue opecome factoca, the c=a=.e=1 50;4 ontak part 30. appendk A. erfteria 1.
3 that the resulta-orsented twie, by meI cost associated wie imphmmntaihm 13.18. EE.3L 3B.37.44 R R R 52. 53.
f:cusing on equipment performence.
of this rule is Se6 anilhee. Die estumste part 50 appendix B. Licensees mur,t a
would be more likely to achteve breaks down as faHome continue to comply with these odd tional reductions in CDF and forced regstfnrments. However.10 CFR E65 4
outage downtime.
should provide added assurance that
- 4. Potenttalimpact en rediological exposure of facihty employees.
,sa, n,,o,ns these requiremente wSi be eemphed n
wiib. hPo dep$ cation of requirements is mass ne goal. setting. svoniering. and htended.
.f~
availabelity avalestion requirements of e$emenensa ans geene sano the maintenance rule are notIAely to Po-e ras ceeiers em a w y.ne estiammand ausource burden on result in any significant change, either
- '**W
- 881 the NBC asassdated with the hockfit and positive or negative, in occupational
- '""'"8'"*"*"'""
O' MN N d '""""-
esposures. Implernerststion of conective Tomt eeney som as De estirnated resource burden to the actions as required by I 50 65(a)(1) of NRC assochd wtth the maintenance the maintenaam rule can affect rule can be divided into two ajements:
collective occupational exposures both De above cost figures are point (a) Development of a regulatory guide positively and negatively. Incwases in estirnates with a relatively large degree on maintenance siIssthsoesa maintenance activity due to expanded of uncertahtty.De cost estimaies in monnorlag femm nnq sad (b} inspection pnventive maintenance or more parentheses :vpresent cost savings.
and enforcement ta ensure comphance tagressive corrective maintenance (to
- 6. 7 i < *-'itial safety impact of with the rule (assumed to be neghg!ble reduce back!qs. for example) will land chat
,.. or operational over and above axisting inspaction to increase exposure, while productkity complouty, including the relationship to efforta.)
increases and reductions in the amount proposed and ersting regulatory With regard to enforcement. the 3
cf rework will tend to reduce exposons requirements.
The net effeci of then positm and maintenana mle does not require A, u.""-d above. the mairganance licensees to enbmit their matntenence de program to the NRC for review and e eb d to the
" d fi CS f e 88anpt approval and na agency re-a inn other costs and benefits ofimpreved athsn a to changu in
- 8 ago baan included is the ocet estimates for maintensace. Beceuu of the uncertainty are n t assumed to result the in this projection end the relatively this adivtry. MC does not expect to sma!! megnitude of the reduced
'"## "f,"
shcam any Md nsann b 2
g the Regulatory Analysis does not maintenance la aften sonal hpart exposures, the cost benefit analysis of P'*
of operations The maintenance rule 8.The petastJa! Impact of ddlerence account for any changes in occupational nquires licensema to establish goals for in fech type. Mgn, w age on b exposures.
- 5. Inst =!!=rmn armi continuing coats the perfortnanse or canition of certam nieveney and practicabry ohs backfit asa cisted wd Wt. including 6e structures, systems and components, The matntenance rule establisbes cost of facihty downenne ce the cost of monitor the performanca or cenition of generic requirements that are applicable those structures, systems and to afl types of facilities and designs
- [R g-)s Mis im de comp ments and implement corrective regardless of their age.nese s
maintenance rule discusses the costs to acti n if the licensee. established goals requirements (sed therefore the cost of the industry and the NRC associated an not metJt also nquires an annual complying wi% thne npnme'nts) en with the maintenance rule The evaluation of monitoring. goal-essentialty the same regardless of the maintenance rule does not require any establishment and corrective ection type or derign of the facility, change in the design or construction of actirWs. In addition,in performing 9.Whether the backfit is interun or any nuclear power plant. Idor does the m nitermg and maintenance activities, rule apply to activities associated with ee omaH & d eWpment cut-on final end. If interisa, the jost16 cation for the planning. design. and installation of anda on de puformance of safey imposing the backfu on an interim basis The maintenance mle is a final plant modibcations Therefore,there C
8 will be no installation, downtime or gti rovide a requirement. Licensees will have up to construction costs associated with the algn ficant enhancement 6 ufey by fiveyears foBowing pubHeetion of the co tributing to nduced operational final rule in the Federal Register io be in Rather. the meirJenance tule w!!!
complexHy as a neult of fewer comphance wi& de npremu.ts oMe regtrire licensees to establish goals for mairrtenance reworks. fewer unplanned
- rule, a
n s na du
- OM b H M W s ru n err nd oe monitor the performance or condition of the need for operator actions in Adminierrative practice and those structures. systems and response to events. Thus, operetional procedure. Antitrust. Classified components. and irr.plement corrective complexity is not hiely to be adversely informetion. Fire prevention, action if the licensee-established goals a ffected.
Int ergovernmental rela tions. Nuclea r are not met. lt also requires an annual There are a number of existing power plants and reactors. Radia tion evaluation of rnonitonng goal.
Commission regetremente d:rectly or protection. Reportbg and recordkeepiod establishrnent and corrective action indimetly relevent to meintenance, requirements.
3 activities to take ins acccunt indastry.
Including H 50.34(a)(3){ih 50.M(a]I7h wide operstmg expecience and to make 50.M(b)(6) (i). (ii). (iii) and (ivh in comodesation el the faregoing, the adjusrments where necessary to balance 50.34(b)t9h 50.Mtf)(1) (i), (11), and (iiik Nucleer Regulasery Commission amends failure redsdion against structure.
50.Migh 50 Ma(et Se.36(sh 50.35(c)(2).
part 30 af title to of the Code af Federal system. sad component unes silabilrty.
(3). (5) a nd (7). 50.36a[a)(1): 3D.4p(b):
Regulations as set farth.
31324 Tederd Register / Vol. 56. No.132 / Wednesday, July to.1991 / Rules and Regulations M
PART So--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF experience. When the performance or (c)The requirements of this section PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION condition of a structure, system, or shall be implemented by each licenset FACllJTIES component does not meet established no later than July 10.1996.
te is d to ad a f to s I
(2) Mon!!oring as specified in For the Nuclear Regulatory Corranission.
Authority Seca 102.103.104.105.181. la2.
paragra h (a)(1) of this seetion is not gamuel J. CMk.
est 9?5Y9.
nd d.se
. 83 Sta
'* 4"
* U *
- S*Cr*toryofthe Commission.
1244. as amended (42 U.S C 2132,2133,2134, demonstrated that the performaace or riss 2201,2232. 2233,2236,2239. 22a2); seca.
condition of a structure. system. or (nt Doc. 91-18322 Fued 7-441; s.45 am) 201. ae amended. 202. 200, as Stat.1242, as component is being e!Tectively amended.124.124e (42 US C. 5s41. sa42, contro!!ed through the performance of WMMM NNmM ction 501 also issued under Pub. I 95.-
ae a c se soi. sec.10. 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C sast).
component remains capable of Section 5010 also issued under seca 101.1a5, performing its intended function.
Federal Avtation Administration es Stat. 938. 955. as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131.
(3) Performance and condition 14 CFR Part 39 2235). sec.102. Pub. I 91-190. 83 Stat. 853 (42 monitoring activitie: and a:sociated U.S C 4332). Sections 50.13. 50.541dd), and goals and preventive maintenance
[ Docket No.9ME@A&, Amdt.SS-7054:
90.103 also issued under sec.106 68 Stat. 939.
as amended (42 U.S C 2138). Sections 50.23, activities shaU be evaluated at least AD 91-14-13]
50 35. 50 55. and 50 Se also issued under sec.
amuaUy. tahng into account, wgm 185. 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S C. 2235). Sections practical. industry. wide operating Altworthiness Directives; Beech 33,35, gy 5013a. 50.55a. and Appendix Q also issued experience. Adjustments shall be made under sec.102. Pub. L F1-190. 83 Stat. 853 (42 where necessary to ensure that the AetNCY: Federal Aviation U.S C. 4332). Sections 50 54 and 50 54 also objective of preventing failures of Administration (FAA). DOT.
issued under sec. 20s. 88 Stat.1245 (42 U.S C.
structures, systems, and components
- Final rul
5644). Sections 50 58. 50.91, and 50 92 also through maintenance is appropriately i
SC
- 9) Section 50 al o se e balanced against the objective of
SUMMARY
- This amendment adopts a,
sec.122. 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S C 2152). Sections minimizing unavailability of structures.
new airworthiness directive (AD) that is 50 80 50 el also issued under sec.164, se Stat.
systems, and componente due to applicable to certain Beech 33,35, and 954. as amended (42 U.S C 2234) Appendix F monitoring or preventive maintenance.
36 series airplanes. This action requires s!so issued under sec.187, es Stat. 955 (42 in performing monitoring and preventive initialand repetitive inspections for U S.C 2237).
maintenance activities, an assessment cracks in the wing front carry.throust For the purposes of sec. 223. 66 Stat. 958. as amended (42 U.S C 2273). Il 50.46 (a) and of the total plant equipment that is out frame structure and repair or of service should be taken into account reinforcement if found crack ed. Reports to determine the overaU effect on indicate that several of the affected t
as em n ed( US 2
)
Il 50 7(a). 5010 (aHel. 50.34 (a) and (e). 50 64 perfonnance of safety functions.
airplanes have developed cracks in this (aHel. 50 *e (a) and (b). 50 47(b). 50 48 (a).
(b) The scope of the monitoring structure. The actions specified by this (c). (d). and (e). 50 49(a) 50 54(a) (1). (i)(1), (1)-
program specified in paragraph (a)(1) of AD are intended to prevent structural i
(n) (p). (q) (t) (s). and (y). 50.55(f) 50 55a (a).
this section shallinclude safety related damage to the wing that could progress (cHe). (g). and (h). 50.59(c). 50 60(s). 50 a2(b),
and nonsafety related structures, to the pomt of failure.
b) 5 and jdgn 80 kt Hs,,d ibl are 86 systems, and components, as follows:
0 Arts: Effective August 12.1991.The amended (42 U.S C 2201 (i)). and il 50 49 (d).
(1) Safety related structures, systems, incorporation by reference of certain (h). and (jl. 50 54 (w). (s). (bb). (cc). and (dd).
c: components that are relied upon to publications listed in the regulations is 50 55(e). 50 59(b). 50 ettb),50 62(b). 50f0(a),
remain functional during and following approved by the Director of the Federal 5011 (a He) and (e). 5012(a), 5033 (a) and design basis events to ensure the Register as of August 12.1971 (b). 50 74. 50 78. and 50.90 are lasued under integrity of the teactor coolant preesure AcomessEs: Beech Service Bulletin No.
sec.1sito), se Stat. 950. as amended (42 boundary. the capability to shut down 2360. dated November 19sJ. that is CS C 2201(o)).
the reactor and maintain it in a safe discussed in this AD may be obtained
- 2. A new I 50.65 is added to read as shutdown condition, and the capability from the Beech Aircraft Corporation.
follows:
to prevent or mitigate the consequences P.O. Box 85. Wichita. Kansa 67201-of accidents that could result fn 0085. This information may also be En anance at Potential offsite exposare comparable to examined at the FAA. Central Region.
tvae a
m >ta.
the to CFR part 100 gul' elines.
Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel.
d (a)(1) Each bolder of an operating (2) Nonsafety related structures.
room 1558,601 E.12th Street. Kansas license under il 50.21(b) or 50.22 shall systems, or componen*
CHy. Masouri 64106.
monitor the performance or condition of (i) That are relied upon to mitigate FOR P'uRTHER INFORuAnow costTAcT:
structures. systems, or components, accidents or transients or are used in Mr. Larry Engler. Aerospace Engmeer, against licensee. established goals. in a plant emergency operating procedures Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, manner sufficient to provide reasonable (EOPs); or 1801 Airport Road. room 100 %d-assurance that such structures, systems.
(ii) Whose failure could prevent Continent Airport. Wichita, Kansas and components. as defined in safety.related structures, systems, and 67209 Telephone (316) 946-4409 paragraph (b) are capable of fulfilling components from fulfilling their safety.
SUPPt.EMENTA.RY peFORuADoK A their intended functions. Such goals related function; or proposal to amend part 39 of the Fedt shall be established corr.mensurate with (iii) Whose failure could cause a Aviation Regulations to include an Al safety and, where practical, take into reactor scram or actuation of a safety-that is applicable to certain Beech 33. 3a..
account industry. wide operating related system.
and 36 serie, airplanes was pubbshed in
-