ML20036C011
| ML20036C011 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/28/1993 |
| From: | Curtiss NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306080294 | |
| Download: ML20036C011 (38) | |
Text
<-
.....ov -
u RELEASED TO THE PDR RESPONSESHEETi 6///9 5 CP i
indals date T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE C0!+1ISSION FROM:
C0fHISSIONER CURTISS
SUBJECT:
COMSECY-93-029 - DRAFT RULEMAKING ON LICENSE RENEWAL (0GC MEMORANDUM 0F 5/14/93)
(VOTE FOR ONE OPTION)
APPROVE DISAPPROVE 1.
RULEMAKING OPTION A.
ENCLOSURE 1 X/in part x/in cart B.
ENCLOSURE 2 x
2.
STATEMENT OF POLICY OPTION A.
MODIFY ENCLOSURE 1 X
B.
MODIFY ENCLOSURE 2 x
3.
REGULATORY GUIDE OPTION A.
MODIFY ENCLOSURE 1 X
B.
MODIFY ENCLOSURE 2 x
OTHER; See attached comments and proposed additional rulemaking.
En ' 88EM s!882 MkN CDRRESPONDENCE PDR SIGNATURE RELEASE VOTE
/X/
May 28, 1993 DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
ENTERED ON "AS" YEs x
NO gg h(
Commissioner Curtiss' comments on COMSECY-93-029:
License renewal, in my judgment, is the singlemost important This issue, more than any issue facing the Commission today.
other currently before the agency, poses a range of complicated policy questions for the agency, ranging'from how to define the detailed technical requirements that must be satisfied as a prerequisite to license renewal, to how much reliance can be placed on the processes and procedures in place for currently operating reactors as a basis for addressing issues in the to how best to integrate the license renewal rule renewal term, with the recently-adopted, performance-based maintenance rule.
But the overriding challenge before us, in my view, can be stated How can we best provide a stable and durable as follows:
regulatory process that defines the Commission's expectations in so that licensees can, in turn, make a clear and unequivocal way, license renewal based upon an evaluation of all decisions about of the relevant considerations, without those decisions being skewed in one direction or another as a result of a regulatory or not process that is perceived to be uncertain, unstable, clearly defined?
With this challenge as the foremost priority, and after carefully considering the staff's recommendations in SECY-93-049 and SECY-as well as the rulemaking options presented in COMSECY-93-113, I have reached the following conclusions concerning the 93-029, course of action recommended by the staff in these documents:
I commend the staff for the hard work and considerable
- First, progress that has been made over the past several months in addressing the myriad issues that have arisen concerning the agency's approach to implementation of the license renewal rule.
The focused and intensive review that has been underway since under the aegis of the senior management December of last year, reevaluation announced on December 7, 1992, has served the agency well in identifying the key policy issues and recommending Indeed, working approaches to the resolution of those issues.I believe the staff has within the confines of the existing rule, approached their task in an open-minded and creative manner.
I believe the time has come for the Commission to move
- Second, The policy forward to address the issues that are now before us.
Many of issues are significant and they are ripe for resolution.
these issues arose out of the agency's interaction with the two lead plant initiatives, Northern States Power's Monticello Plant and have hence been the and Yankee Atomic's Yankee Rowe plant, subject of discussion within the agency and between the agency Beyond and the industry for some considerable length of time.
issues over the past five the intensive focus on these
- that, including the time that the staff devoted in April of
- months, this year to examining several specific examples of selected structures and components for the purpose of determining how they would be treated under the approach proposed in SECY-93-049 and
O
. SECY-93-ll3, has led to the point where the Commission now has before it a comprehensive evaluation of the various policy issues, with recommendations as to how those issues should be addressed.
Accordingly, I favor moving forward at this time, as outlined in more detail below.
I.
Rulemaking vs. Statement of Policy vs. Regulatory Guide Among the questions to be addressed by the-Commission, I view the issue of how the policy ultimately adopted-by the Commission should be formalized -- whether by rulemaking, policy statement, regulatory guide, or some other alternative -- to be an issue of central importance.
How we address this question will,:in turn, in large measure, how stable and durable a process'we
- define, will ultimately have established -- not just from the standpoint of judicial review, but more importantly from the standpoint of future licensing board proceedings or future Commission actions.
After carefully reflecting upon the views of the staff, as well-as the advice that we have received from our General Counsel, I have concluded that there are compelling advantages, and very few to proceeding with a notice and comment rulemaking disadvantages, to codify in 10 CFR Part 54 the decisions ~ reached by the Commission as a result of our current deliberations concerning how we believe the license renewal rule should be implemented.
~
More specifically, if the Commission's objective is, as I believe it should be, to establish a stable, durable process, I believe rulemaking is either essential or highly desirable in three circumstances.
First, it goes'without saying, of course, that we must pursue rulemaking where the action that the Commission wishes to take is inconsistent with the present license renewal rule.1 But more importantly, beyond this, I would strongly support rulemaking where the rule itself is silent on a but the Statement of Considerations contains particular issue, language conflicting with the approach that the Commission wishes or where the rule and the Statement of Considerations, to take; taken together, are ambiguous and hence would lend themselves.to alternative interpretations.2
' This is the case with regard to the staff's proposal that age-related degradation management programs for structures and components which are not of fundamental safety importance need not be subject to the program change and reporting requirements of Sections 54.33(d) and 54.37(c).
My more detailed recommendations concerning the 2
provisions that I believe should be codified in 10 CFR Part 54 are discussed in Section II, infra, and in the attached line-in/line-out modifications to Enclosure 1 of COMSECY-93-029.
j
\\
-3 Failure to codify in the rule itself the approach embraced by the Commission in the first of the foregoing situations will, as the General Counsel has correctly advised, place us at some significant risk if we are challenged in court.
But more importantly, failure to codify in the rule itself the approach encraced by the Commission in either of the latter two situations, while perhaps not posing the same risk of successful judicial challenge, will most certainly leave open the opportunity for a licensing board to reach a different conclusion with regard to how to interpret or apply the license renewal rule.
Indeed, I view the potential uncertainty associated with licensing board proceedings to be of such a magnitude that this consideration, alone, would create great uncertainty if the Commission were simply to set forth its decision in a policy statement, regulatory guide, or staff requirements memorandum, rather than in a binding rulemaking.3 For the foregoing reasons, I support publication of the Notice of Prcposed Rulemaking set forth in Enclosure 1 of COMSECY-93-029, subject to the comments and modifications discussed below.
II.
Technical Issues -- Comments on Enclosure I Rulemaking Proposal In general, I concur in much of what the staff has recommended in SECY-93-049 and SECY-93-ll3.
In particular, I believe the proposal to focus the license renewal process on effects rather than mechanisms represents an important development.
I also generally concur in the staff's recommended approach to section
- 54. 21(a) (5) (ii), wherein the staff proposes to define the circumstances under which no ef fective program is required.
I do, however, have several comments and recommendations:
1)
While I concur in the staff's recommendation to solicit comment on the proposed "like-kind" replacement option, I have two comments about the approach.
First, I believe this option needs to be codified as part of the rule itself.
Since the staff contemplates that l
3 Materials such as Regulatory Guides and general statements of position or policy are not binding and are subject to question in the course of agency adjudications.
Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America v.
AEC, 633 F.2d 1011 (7th Cir 1976); Philadelphia Electric Co.
(Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681, 737 (1985).
In contrast, rules are binding on Licensing Boards and may not be challenged or questioned in an agency adjudicatory proceeding.
10 CFR 2.758; Kansas Gas & Electric Co.
(Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-784, 20 NRC 845, 846 (1984).
4 o
~4 structures or components replaced with "like-kind" structures or components after year 20 of a plant's original operating license would be deemed not to be subject to age-related degradation unique to license renewal, this proposal effectively constitutes an exception to the definition of ARDUTLR in section 54.3.
Accordingly, I would propose amending section 54.3 to codify this option.
The language beginning on page 26, line 51, through page 27, line 8 of the attachment to my vote (hereinafter referred to as "the attachment")
would accomplish this.
Second, I would propose that we explicitly solicit comment on this approach and, specifically, on how to approach the definition of "like-kind."
In this regard, I would recommend adding Question No.
3, beginning on page 22, line 23, through page 23, line 10 of the attachment.
2)
Beyond the "like-kind" replacement option, I believe that we should solicit comment on an option that would permit licensees to rely to a greater degree on their existing programs and processes for the purpose of dispositioning structures or components under section 54.3 as "not subject to ARDUTLR."
In particular, I would propose that we solicit comment on an option that would allow licensees to take credit for timely inspection and routine replacement or refurbishment activities based on established time or performance criteria that they may have in place today, as a basis for concluding that structures or components subject to such routine replacement or refurbishment activities would be deemed to be not subject to ARDUTLR.
Among other things, this approach would bring about a greater degree of integration between the license renewal rule and the maintenance rule; but more importantly, it would recognize that for many short-lived components, the activities that licensees have been carrying out for the first 40 years of a plant's operating life as part of their existing CLBs -- and largely carrying out successfully -- can, if simply continued during the renewal term, effectively serve as a basis for ensuring that such structures or components will continue to be capable of performing their intended function.
The language to accomplish this is set forth on page 27, lines 10 through 12, of the attachment; the accompanying explanation in the SOC is set forth on page 1, lines 26 through 36, page 3, lines 27 through 39, page 16 line 32, through page 18, line 2 of the attachment.
3)
In the proposed questions in Section IV of the Statement of Considerations (beginning on page 21 of the Attachment),
believe questions 1 and 2 are
4
.:. phrased much too broadly and, as a result, might leave the reader with.the impression that we'are' entertaining-suggestions for much broader changes to the license renewal itself.
I recognize that these questions contain the caveat " consistent'with the two fundamental l
principles of' license renewal"; but I view them as-overly broad and, in any event, superfluous.
Accordingly, I would delete these questions.
See attachment, page 21, lines 28 through 42.
4)
Other additional editorial and drafting comments are set forth in the attachment.
III. Solicitation of Public Comment; Workshop In addition to the foregoing comments on the various technical issues, I have three recommendations for how I would propose we-proceed with regard to this rulemaking:
1)
I would propose that we publish the notice of proposed rulemaking for a 90-day comment period, rather than for 60-days.
2)
During this 90-day comment period, I would recommend that the staff schedule a public workshcp to solicit comments from interested members of.the public, as well as industry representatives, on the specific concepts set forth in this rulemaking.
3)
During the proposed notice and comment rulemaking process, I would direct the staff to. continue to work-i and interact in carallel with the owners' groups.(e.o.,
B&W and Westinghouse), as well as with individual licensees who express an interest in license renewal (e.o. Baltimore Gas & Electric).
In this regard, it is my understanding that adequate resources have been approved by the Commission for both fiscal year 1993 and fiscal year 1994 to enable the staff to determine technical and policy issues, resolve licensing issues, and define the criteria and process to review license renewal applications, as well as to place additional-emphasis on ensuring that there is a stable regulatory process for considering license renewal applications and reviewing the B&W Owners Group generic license renewal program.'
' I understand that NRR's authorized staffing level for license renewal activities is 32 FTEs for FY 1993 and 47 FTEs for FY 1994.
The Office of Research is authorized an additional 8 FTEs in each of these fiscal years.
o IV.
Miscellaneous Issues Finally, I have the following comments with regard to several miscellaneous issues that were discussed in SECY-93-049:
1)
I concur in the staff's conclusion to treat equipment qualification and fatigue as potential safety issues within the existing regulatory process for operating plants, rather than as issues unique to license renewal.
2)
I concur in the staff's recommended approach for handling the NUMARC industry reports.
3)
I concur in the staff's conclusion that the form of the renewal license does not affect the scope of the technical issues reviewed or the safety evaluations required.
Attachment:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking line'in/line out 1
ri f m A_m m e 1
~
~-
mc, 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
3 10 CFR Part 54 4
5 RIN 6
7 Satisfying the Requirements of 10 CFR Part 54 8
9 AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
10 11 ACTION-Proposed Rule.
12 13
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to amend the 14 License Renewal Rule, 10 CFR Part 54, for the ourpose of by 15 providing-clarifying interpretation the acolication of certain 16 requirements of an Integrated Plant Assessment (IPA) under Section 17 54.21(a), and providina criteria for determining when a system or 18 component subject to age-related degradation unique to license 19 renewal need not be subject of an effective program under Section 20 54.21(a) (5).
The Commission also proposes to clarify the defini-21 tion of what constitutes a change in the " magnitude" of age-related 22 degradation unique to license renewal.
"inally, Ithe Commission.
23 in addition, proposes to modify the regulatory controls applicable 24 to activities managing age-related degradation unique to license 25 renewal, including the recordkeeping and reporting requirements 26 under Sections 54.33(d) and 54.37.
- Finally, the Commission 27 proposes for consideration and comment a modification to the 28 definition of aue-related dearadation unicue to license renewal 29 that would provide that existina licensee procrams and activities 30 contained in a licensee's current licensina basis which provido for 31 timelv inspection and routine replacement or refurbishment of 32 structures and components based upon established time or oerfor-33 mance criteria. if continued durina the renewal term, could serve 34 as a basis for concludina under the rule that such structures or 35 components would not be subiect to ace-related dearadation uniaue 36 to license renewal.
37 38 DATE:
Comment period expires [M jlq days after publication].
39 Comments received after this date will be considered if it is 40 practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consider-41 ation only for comments received on or before-this date.
42 43 ADDRESSES:
Mail written comments to:
Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear 44 Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing 45 and Service Branch.
46 47 Deliver comments to:
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 48 between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.
49
D 1 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTAC'F:
Contact Steven ~Reynolds, Office 2
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 3
Washington, DC 20555, Telephone (301) 504-1115; and see SECY 4 049, implementation of 10 CFR Part 54, "Recuirements for Renewal jrf.
5 Operatina Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants." March 1.
1993, and 6
SECY-93-113, additional implementation information for 10 CFR Part 7
54.
"Reauirements for Renewal of Operatina Licenses for Nuclear 8
Power Plants." Acril 30.
1993, each of which is available for 9
inspection at th.e Commission's Public Document Room. 2120 L Street.
10 N.W.,
Washincton.
D.C.
20037.
11 12 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
13 14 I.
Introduction 15 16 II.
Background
17 18 III. Areas of Additional Guidance 19 20 A.
Assuming the Existence of Age-Related Degradation Unique 21 to License Renewal When Performing the IPA 22 23 B.
Future Identification of Effects (Versus Mechanisms) and 24 Mitigation of Age-Related Degradation Unique to License 25 Renewal 26 27 C.
Description of an Effective Program 28 29 D.
Reliance on Activities Intended to Demonstrate Compliance 30 with the Maintenance Rule, 10 CFR 50.65, for Effective 31 Procrams Under 54.21(a)(6) 32 33 E.
Change in Magnitude of Age-Related Degradation, and 34 Effect of Like-Kind Replacement on Ace-Related Decrada-35 tion Unicue to License Renewal 36 37 Et Option to Credit Existina Routine Replacement or Refur-38 bishment Activities 39 40 FG.
Need for Effective Program-41 42 GH.
Regulatory Controls:
Changes to Previously-Approved 43 Programs and Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 44 45 IV.
Questions 46 47 V.
Implementation 48 49 VI.
Section-by-Section Analysis 50 51 VII. Conclusion 52
o
-3 1
VIII.
Environmental Impact:
Categorical Exclusion 2
3 IX.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 4
5 X.
Regulatory Analysis 6
7 XI.
Regulatory Flexibility Act 8
9 XII. Non-Applicability of Backfit Rule 10 i
11 12 I.
Introduction 13 14 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to 15 amend the License Renewal Rule, 10 CFR Part 54, for the'ourcose of 16 clarifyina the definition of aae-related dearadation uniaue to 17 Jicense renewal, as well as to clarify tc previde a clarifying 18 interpretction of several different aspects of an Integrated Plant.
19 Assessment (IPA) under Section 54.21(a).
20 21 Under the basic accroach, Rhe Commission proposes to modify-22 the definition of age-related degradation unique to license 23 renewal, to clarify that like-kind replacements of structures and 24 components which do not see a service life of 40 years.throughout-25 the extended period of operation would be deemed not to be subject 26 to a change in.the " magnitude" of age-related degradation unique to 27 durina the license renewal term and, if they are not croiected to 28 be affected by a sianificantly creater dearadation rate durina the 29 renewal term, would be deemed to be not subiect to ace-related 30 dearadation uniaue to license renewal. In addition, the Commission 33 proposes a modification to the definition of ace-related dearada-32 tion uniaue to license renewal that would provide that existina 33 licensee procrams' and activities contained in a licensee's current 34 licensina basis which orovide for timelv inspection and routine 35 replacement or refurbishment of structures and comoonents based 36 upon established time or oerformance criteria.-if continued durina-37 the renewal term, could serve as a basis for concludina under the 38 rule that such structures or components would be deemed to be not 39 subiect to ace-related dearadation uniaue to license renewal.
40 41 The proposed rule confirms the acceptability of performing an 42 IPA which presumes that some or all structures and components (SCs)-
43 important to license renewal (as that term is defined in 10 CFR 44 54.3) are subject to age-related degradation unique to license 45 renewal.
Second, the proposed rule confirms that an IPA which 46 describes the methodology for timely identification and mitigation 47 of the effects of age-related degradation unique to license renewal 48 (as that term is defined in 10 CFR 54.3) in the future, as opposed 49 to describing the age-related degradation effects and the mitiga-50 tive actions in the IPA itself, will suffice to satisfy the 51 requirements of Section
- 54. 21 (a) (5) and the definition of an 52
" effective program" under Section 54.21(a) (6).
An IPA which
9 1 addresses the effects.of age-related Mt-i-gation dectradation unique 2
to license renewal, as opposed to the mechanisms, would also be 3
approved in the proposed rule.
The proposed rule reiterates the 4
criteria which an activity conducted pursuant to the Maintenance 5
Rule, 10 CFR 50.65, must satisfy in order to be considered an 6
"ef fective program" under Section 54.21(a) (6).
7 8
The proposed rule would also set forth a four-part test for 9
determining under section
- 54. 21(a) (5) whether a structure or 10 component (SC) subject to age-related degradation unique to license 11 renewal need be the subject of an " effective program" under 12
- 50. 21(a) (6).
Amendments are also proposed to make clear that only 13
" effective programs" required by Section 54.21(a) (5) and described 14 under Section 54.21(a) (6) are subject to the regulatory controls in 15 Sections 54.33(d) and 54.37.
16 17 II.
Background
18 19 As set forth in the Statement of Consideration (SOC) for Part 20 54 (56 FR 64943, December 13, 1991), the License Renewal Rule was 21 based on two fundamental principles. The first principle was that, 22 because of the breadth and vigor of the licensing and regulatory 23 oversight process for licensed reactors, license renewal did not 24 require a formal review of the full range of safety issues.
25 However, the Commission also concluded that "certain age related 26 degradation that may be important in the period of-extended 27 operation is not required to be addressed during the present 28 license in a manner that would be adequate for the period of 29 extended operation" (56 FR at 64954, Col.
2).
This led the 30 Commission to conclude that "a formal, disciplined licensing review 31 of age-related degradation ur'ique to license renewal is necessary" 32 (Id., Col. 3).
33 34 The second fundamental principle was that "the plant-specific 35 licensing basis (CLB) must be maintained during the renewal term in 36 the same manner and to the same extent as during the original 37 license term" (56 FR at 64953, Col. 1), except that the CLB could 38 be amended in a process separate from and prior to renewal (Id. at 39 Col. 3).
40 il These two fundamental principles are the legal underpinning 42 for the basic theory of license renewal that' applicants need not 43 address the hundreds of safety issues relevant both to current and 44 extended operation, but must effectively manage age related 45 degradation unique to license renewal to assure continued compli-46 ance with the CLB.
These fundamental principles are not under 47 reconsideration in this rulemaking.
48 49 Under the provisions of the License Renewal Rule, a renewal 50 applicant must submit an integrated plant assessment (IPA).
10 CFR 51 54.21(a).
The IPA includes an identification and screening part 52 (Section 54.21(a) (1)-(4)) and an " effective programs" part (Section -
. 1
- 54. 21(a) (5)-(6) ).
Of relevance here, the screening part of the IPA 2
must include identification of a
specified subset of plant 3
structures and components (SCs).
Section 54.21(a) (1)-(2).
For 4
this subset, E applicant must both " identify the SCs that could 5
have age-related degradation that is unique to license renewal" 6
(Section 54. 21(a) (3)), and " describe and justify... the technical 7
criteria to be used in determining whether an SC is subject to age-8 related degradation unique to license renewal" (54. 21(a) (4) (iii).
9 In the effective programs part of the IPA E applicant must either 10 describe the effective programs and " demonstrate that they will be 11 effective in maintaining the CLB during the period of extended 12 operation," or demonstrate that an " effective program" is not 13 needed.
Section 54.21(a)(5)-(6).
Effective programs must, among 14 other things, " ensure identification and mitigation of age-related 15 degradation unique to license renewal."
16 17 The Northern States Power Company (licensee for the Monticello l
18 Nuclear Generating Plant ) prepared a report titled, " Perspectives 19 on tne License Renewal Process (10 CFR Part 54)," dated November 20 20, 1992.
The paper was provided to the Commission for informa-21 tion.
The report included a discussion of several areas that NSP 22 determined needed additional clarification of the Commission's 23 intent with the implementation of the License Renewal Rule (10 CFR 24 Part 54).
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), in a 25 letter to the Commission dated November 25, 1992, stated that EPRI 26 shared the same concerns discussed in the Northern States Power 27 Company's report.
Additionally, the Nuclear Management and 28 Resources Council (NUMARC), in a letter to the Commission dated 29 December 4,
1992, also provided a brief discussion on several 30 issues with the License Renewal Rule.
The overriding concern 31 expressed by the industry in general is that the regulatory process 32 for license renewal needs to be predictable and stable.
f Conies of 33 the referenced documents may be examined at the NRC Public Document 34 Room. 2120 L Street tTW.,
(Lower Level). Washincton, DC between the 35 hours4.050926e-4 days <br />0.00972 hours <br />5.787037e-5 weeks <br />1.33175e-5 months <br /> of 7:45 a.m.
and 4:15 n.m.
on Federal workdays.1 1
i 36 The Northern States Power Company (NSP) -is was the lead 37 boiling water reactor applicant in the nuclear industry's lead 38 plant license renewal program.
The NSP's Monticello plant was 39 selected by the nuclear industry to work with the Commission on 40 developing and implementing the License Renewal Rule, which was 41 issued in final form in December 1991.
NSP had been actively 42 applying the final License Renewal Rule by preparing a license 43 renewal application until the fall of 1992 when NSP placed the 44 application on indefinite hold.
NSP stated the following reasons 45 for this hold:
(1) the uncertain resolution of the high level 46 radioactive waste issue, (2) the uncertain resolution of the low 47 level radioactive waste issue and rising costs resulting from 48 that uncertainty, (3) a need to demonstrate the ability to 49 continue excellent operations while reducing costs, and (4) the 50 regulatory uncertainties of the NRC license renewal process.
4
. 1 The major concerns relevant to the rulemaking are:
(1) the need 2
for an effective and efficient implementation of the IPA provi-3
- sions, 10 CFR 54.21(a), of the License Renewal Rule, (2) the 4
question of whether the maintenance and License Renewal rules (10 5
CFR 50.65 cnd 10 CFR Part 54, respectively) can be integrated in a 6
more comprehensive and ef fective manner further, (3) the appropri-7 ate scope of the License Renewal Rule, (4) the appropriate 8
interpretation of the definition of age-related degradation unique 9
to license renewal contained in 10 CFR 54.3, (5) the role of risk-10 based methodologies in the IPA, and (6) the appropriate level of 11 detail required in an application and in updates to the FSAR 12 required by the license renewal rule.
[Copico of the referenced 13 documenta mcy be examined et the PRC Public Occument nocm, 2120 L 14 6treet F"., (Lower Level), "ashington, DC between the hourc of 7 :45 15 c.n.
cnd 0:15 p.n.
On Feder-a-1--wor-k-dcyc. ]
16 17 The NRC Staf f, in a series of senior staf f management meetings 18 in December 1992 and January 1993, evaluated these issues and 19 recommended approaches and positions to clarify the Commission's 20 intent for these issues.,
The evaluation of the issues and the 21 recommendations are contained in a paper written by the staff and 22 sent to the Commission, SECY-93-049 (March 1, 1993). The following 23 conclusions were made by the staf f in SECY 93-049:
(1) the License 24 Renewal Rule does not need to be changed, since its two key 25 principlesr are logical and practical, and provides a sound basis 26 for safe operation beyond the 40-year term of the original 27 operating license; (2) the license renewal review begins with a 28 defined broad scope but enables the applicant to quickly focus on 29 important equipment that could be negatively affected by aging in 3b the renewal term; (3) an approach (described in SECY 93-049) for an 31 appropriate integration of the Maintenance Rule and the License 32 Renewal Rule requirements can be developed which will enable both 33 the NRC and applicants to use their resources efficiently; (4) the 34 scope of ITLR
- SSCs, including those subject to operability 35 requirements contained in technical specification limiting 36 conditions of operations, is defined in the rule and any change 37 would require a rule change; changes to remove technical specifica-38 tion limiting conditions of operations which are not safety 39 significant can be effected outside of license renewal; (5) in 40 conducting the IPA, ARD UTLR should be viewed broadly and the IPA 41 should focus on effective programs rather than the identification 42 of aging that is or is not unique to the renewal term; although SCs 43 may be demonstrated as not being subject to ARD UTLR, as defined in 44 the rule, such a demonstration would require a detailed analysis by 45 the applicant and review by the NRC Staf f for each SC; (6) programs 46 that involve, in part, performance and condition monitoring can be 47 structured so that they can be relied upon to demonstrate that 48 aging is being effectively managed; (7) the IPA can be carried out 49 so that a large majority of SCs can be demonstrated to be included 50 in existing effective programs as evidenced by (a) the equipment 51 being addressed by regulation or in facility technical specifica-52
- tions, with specified acceptance criteria for performance or i
~
4 1 condition; and (b) inclusion in the maintenance rule scope and 2
requirements; (8) issues, including those related to fatigue and 3
environmental qualification of electrical equipment, that involve 4
the adequacy of the CLB will be addressed as potential safety 5
issues within the existing regulatory process.
Where a facility's 6
current licensing bases includes time-dependent elements, some 7
additional analyses and/or actions may be needed to demonstrate 8
that the CLB requirements continue to be satisfied in the renewal 9
term; (9) the level of detail required for information in the 10 application, and for future reporting, is appropriate and does not 11 result in unwarranted administrative burdens.
Specifically, (a) 12 ITLR SSCs can be identified in the application by means of 13 appropriate groupings rather than the identification of each piece 14 of equipment, (b) reporting requirements for listed ITLR SSCs are 15 applicable to additions and deletions and should not result in 16 additional burdens, (c) requirements in 10 CFR 54.37 (c) for annual 17 reporting of changes will not result in unwarranted burdens for 18 renewal licensees; and (10) the form of the renewal license does 19 not affect the scope of the technical issues reviewed or the safety 20 evaluations required.
21 22 The NRC Staff held public meetings with NUMARC and other 1
23 utility representatives on January 29, 1993, and March 12, 1993, to 24 better understand the industry concerns and to explain the NRC 25 Staff's positions on the various license renewal issues.
Based on 26 these meetings, other interactions with industry groups involved 27 with license renewal,-and questions from individual Commissioners, 28 the NRC staff provided an additional paper to the Commission that 29 clarifies the staff's approach described in SECY-93-049 and 30 proposes resolution of additional implementation issues.
This 31 paper, SECY-93-113 ( April 30, 1993) discussed the following issues:
32 (1) clarification of the term " acceptance criteria" as it applies 33 to effective programs in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 34
- 54. 21(a) (6) (ii),
(2) clarification of the terms " character" and 35
" magnitude" as they apply to the definition of age-related 36 degradation unique to license renewal contained in 10 CFR 54.3, (3) 37 clarification of the necessary descriptions of effective programs 38 in a renewal application as required by 10 CFR 54. 21(a) (6) and 39 explanation of the criteria for deciding that no effective program 40 is needed under 10 CFR 54.21(a) (5) (ii), (4) clarification of the 41 practical implications of the effective program descriptions 42 contained in the renewal applications from an enforcement perspec-43 tive, (5) guidance on the expected level of detail an applicant 44 would submit as part of itc renewal application to justify the 45 continurtion of exemptions and relief as required by -14LQ CFR 46 54.21(c)
(6) guidance for implementing the recordkeeping provi-47 sions of the rule and a discussion of diccuaccc the need to report 48 changes in programs used to manage age-related degradation unique i
49 to license renewal, in accordance with 10 CFR 54.33 and 54.37, (7) 50 clarification of the NRC staff's implementation of Section 51
- 54. 21(a) ( 5) that requires the applicant to demonstrate that age-52 related degradation unique to license renewal for important to 1
. 1 license renewal structures or components is managed and the CLB is 2
maintained.
3 4
In view of the concerns raised by the nuclear utility 5
industry, and the Staff's proposals to address these concerns, the 6
Commission proposes to both endorse SECY 93-049 as modified and 7
supplemented by,and SECY 93-113 as an one acceptable means of 8
meeting Part 54, and adopt limited rule changes that would 9
f acilitate use of the Staf f's proposed approach.
The Commission is 10 also seekina comments on an extension of the staf f's approach that 11 would recoanize that periodic inspections and replacement or 12 refurbishment of some SCs could serve as a basis for concludina 13 under the rule that such structures or components would not be 14 subiect to ace-related dearadation unicue to license renewal.
15 16 III. Areas of Additional Guidance 17 18 A.
Assuming the Existence of Age-Related Degradation Unique to 19 License Renewal When Performing the IPA 20 21 The Commission proposes to allow a licensee to assume, for 22 purposes of 10 CFR 54.21(a) (3) and (a) (4) (iii), that an SC is, or 23 could be, subject to age-related degradation unique to license 24 renewal. Section 54.21(a) (3) currently requires that the applicant 25 identify SCs that "could have age-related degradation that is 26 unique to license renewal;" Section 54.21(a) (4) (iii) requires the 27 applicant to describe the methods used in (a) (3), including "the 28 technical criteria to be used in determining whether an SC is 29 subject to age-related degradation unique to license renewal." 'The 30 Commission's proposed alternative approach would specify that as an 31 alternative to performing-t-he identifying the SCs and describina 32 the methodology used for identifying SCs required by Section 33 54.21(a)(3) and (a) (4) (iii), an applicant could simply assume that 34 an SC is (or could be) subject to ARD UTLR.
35 36 The definition of age-related degradation unique to license 37 renewal in Part 54 includes degradation "whose effects were not 38 explicitly identified and evaluated by the licensee for the period 39 of extended operation and the evaluation found acceptable by the 40 NRC."
See 10 CFR 54. 3.
Therefore, the rule specifically addresses 41 the circumstances where age-related degradation unique to license 42 renewal is not identified and evaluated as part of the screening 43 process for all or some SCs, and provides in effect that in this 44 circumstance the SC is deemed subject to age-related degradation 45 unique to license renewal and therefore must be further addressed 46 within the IPA, either by demonstrating that an effective program 47 is necessary, or that an effective program is not required.
48 Permitting an applicant to assume that most SCs are subject to age-49 related degradation unique to license renewal produces a result 50 contemplated by the rule.
Moreover, at this point in the analysis 51 there is no adverse safety consequence because the result is a 52 broader scope of effective program than the rule might otherwise
4
-9 1
require.
In this regard, the provision in
- 54. 21(a) (4 ) (iii) -
2 requiring identification and justification of the
" technical 3
criteria" used for determining age-related degradation unique to 4
license renewal in the screening process can reasonably be read to 5
refer to those circumstances where applicant does choose to perform 6
an explicit identification and evaluation of age-related degrada-7 tion unique to license renewal for specific SCs in the screening 8
process.
9 10 In sum, while the License Renewal Rule's existing language is 11 consistent with the Staff's proposal, the Commission proposes'to 12 make that clear in the proposed rule.
13 14 B.
Future Identification of Effects (Versus Mechanisms) and 15 Mitigation of Age-Related Degradation Unique to License 16 Renewal 17 18 The Commission proposes to interpret Section 54.21(a) (6) such 19 that timely future identification of age-related degradation 20 effects rather than age-related degradation mechanisms will be-21 sufficient to satisfy the regulatory requirement.
Under this 22 interpretation, the renewal applicant need not identify specific 23 age-related degradation unique to license renewal, and.o_t describe 24 the nature of the activities intended to address sueh each 25 degradation mechanism in the application itself.
Rather, the 26 renewal application would describe the future maintenance 27 activities (e.g.,
surveillance, testing, corrective actions) that 28 provide reasonable assurance that all age-related degradation will 29 be ef fectively managed to assure maintenance of the plant's current 30 licensing basis (CLB).
The focus of an effective program is to 31 ensure that a structure, system, or component (SSC) will continue 32 to perform its required function or that the SSC will not prevent 33 the performance of a required function, and that the program must 34 be effective in maintaining the CLB.
Although the language of 35 Section 54.21(a) (6) is somewhat ambiguous, the License Renewal Rule 36 and the SOC for the rule read tocether would annear to cverall tend 37 to-permit an IPA which is focused on the effects of age-related 38 degradation unique to license renewal.
For One thingIn this 39 recard, the definition of age-related degradation unique to license 40 renewal in 10 CFR 54.3 focuses on effects.
OccOndBeyond this, 41 there are statements in the SOC that would allow an exclusive focus 42 on aging effects. For example, the SOC states, "[T]he IPA should 43 contain... a demonstration that, for all structures or components 44 identified as being subject to degradation mechanisms p_r exhibiting 45 degradation effects..., the degradation mechanisms or effects will 46 be addressed.
(56 FR at 64955, Col. 1).
47 48 The focus of the license renewal rule is to ensure that 49 important plant equipmentstructures and components will perform 50 their required function as necessary and that the current licensing 51 basis is maintained, thus providing an acceptable level of safety.
52 This is also a focus of Commission requirements that exist during
. 1 the current operating license.
If one takes a close look at how 2
the Commission requires licensees with currently operatina olants 3
to ensure that aging is assessed so that equipment performs its 4
required functions and that the current licensing basis is 5
maintained, it will become clear that licensees and the Commission 6
reliccrely on both the initial identification and mitigation of 7
aging mechanisms and the development of future activities to 8
identify the effects of the aging and to mitigate the effects to 9
maintain the performance of the required functions and the current 10 licensing basis.
Structures and components that had degradation 11 evaluated during design and initial licensing established a limit 12 for the current operating term based on analysis.
For example, the 13 aging mechanism of metal fatigue is required to be identified and 14 mitigated prior to initial licensing by designing the equipment to 15 a minimum level for the initial operating license term to ensure 16 the equipment will perform its required functions throughout the 17 initial operating license term.
Alternatively, the Commission 18 relies, in part, on the identification of the effects of radiation 19 embrittlement of the reactor pressure vessel in order to ensure the 20 reactor pressure vessel will perform its required functions and the 21 CLB will be maintained.
Should degradation occur in the vast 22 majority of reactor plant systems, surveillance programs are in 23 place that will detect the degradation through functional tests or 24 condition inspection.
With the possible exception of pcccibly 25 fatigue 1 and cccc ctherc, the Commission relies mainly on the 26 identification and mitigation of the effects of aging degradation 27 and not the aging mechanisms themselves during the current 28 operating term to ensure that an acceptable level of safety is 29 maintained.
30 31 The Commission has determined that future identification of 32 the effects of age-related degradation on performance or condition 33 of a structure or component in the future, as opposed to identify-34 ing degradation mechanisms in the renewal application itself will t
35 not result in any change in safety.
The emphasis here is on the 36 effective management of the effects of age-related degradation on 37 the structure or component and maintenance of the CLB.
The future 38 identification of the effects of age-related degradation in cn 39 ef4ective program is acceptablet since age-related degradation 40 relevant te maintenance of the CLB manifests itself in a change of 41 iD functional performance or condition.
Rather than focus on the 42 degradation or aging mechanism, the IPA would focus on the hdequacy 43 of the program to monitor the structure's or component's functional 44 performance or condition to assure its reliable functioning 45 throughout the renewal
- term, regardless of the degradation 46 mechanisms.
The Commission recognizes that licensees should have 47 a thorough knowledge of the functional requirements of important 48 plant equipment, and have developed and implemented numerous 49 activities and
- programs, both in compliance with Commission 50 requirements and through actions on their own initiative, that 51 effectively identify and mitigate the effects of aging.
The 52 Commission and the licensees have had considerable experience with
. 1 these types of programs and activities and they have been effec-2 tive, when properly implemented, in at--providing an acceptable 3
level of safety.
4 5
As discussed in OGC's memorandum to the Commission (March 9, 6
1993), the most important question presented by this proposal is 7
whether the License Renewal Rule itself requires identification and 8
evaluation of age-related degradation unique to license renewal for 9
specific SCs in the renewal aoolication as part of the step-by-step 10 process required by 10 CFR 54.21.
The relevant provision in the 11 License Renewal Rule is Section 54. 21(a) ( 6 ), which states that 12 effective programs must " ensure identification" of age-related 13 degradation unique to license renewal, but is not crystal clear 14 whether the ef fective program set forth in the renewal acolication 15 must include this identification or whether the application may 16 merely set forth a program for timely future identification.
The 17 use of the term " ensure"1 as opposed to " include", suggests a 18 future identification, but the rule language would allow for either 19 interpretation.
20 21
- However, there are relevant explicit indications in the 22 Commission's explanation of the rule in the rule's SOC that the 23 Commission anticipated that the IPA itself would include identifi-24 cation and evaluation of age-related degradation unique to license 25 renewal for SCs.
The IPA, among other things, " consists (of) 26 an evaluation of the age-related or performance degradation of 27 those SSCs important to license renewal" (56 FR at 64954, Col. 3),
28 and requires the applicant "to gain the necessary understanding of 29 aging mechanisms" and to " review the SSC design, fabrication, 30 installation, testing (including performance and non-destructive 31 testing), inservice inspections, operation, and maintenance to the 32 extent necessary in performing the IPA" (56 FR at 64956, Col. 2).
33 Numerous aspects of an adequate IPA are described as " dependent on 34 f actors such as the specific type of structure or component and the 35 applicable degradation mechanisms" (56 FR at 64958, Col.
1).
36 Existing licensee programs may not constitute an adequate IPA 37 because they may not include "an evaluation of the possibility of 38 age-related degradation problems unique to license renewal" (56 FR 39 at 64956, Col. 2).
"The Commission concludes that a formal review 40 of age-related degradation unique to license renewal is needed g 41 license renewal to ensure that operation during the period of 42 extended operation will not be inimical to the public health and 43 safety," (56 FR at 64946, Col.
1, emphasis added).
The staff's 44 proposal that no specific evaluation of age-related degradation 45 unique to license renewal be performed for most SCs before renewal 46 is at variance with some portions of the statement of consider-47 ations of how it was contemplated the rule would-picht be imple-48 mented when the rule was issued.
49 50 Courts defer to agencies' reasonable interpretation of their 51 own regulations, even where the interpretation may not appear as 52 reasonable as some other alternative.
Udall v.
Tallman, 380 U.S.
. 1 1 (1965).
There is no serious question that Staff's proposal would 2
stand as an initial interpretation of the renewal rule (L_g., as an 3
explanation in the SOC for the final License Renewal Rule).
4 5
The commission has not found any reported cases where, as 6
here, a Federal agency departed from an explicit explanation of the 7
intent of a regulation in the regulation's SOC without going back 8
and amending the rule.
However, as a general rule agencies are not 9
absolutely bound even by prior interpretations and may adjust 10 policies in light of experience.
American Truckina Assoc.
v.
11 Atchison. Topeka & Santa Fe Rv, 387 U.S.
397 (1967); Montana Power 12 Co.
v.
EPA, 608 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1979).
In principle, the 13 explanatory language in a rule's SOC is not binding and merely 14 represents guidance and expression of current intentions and 15 policy.
Powell v.
Andrus, 631 F.2d 699 at 705 (10th Cir. 1980);
16 Attorney General's Manual on the APA, p.
128.
Therefore, in 17 principle an explanation in a rule's SOC may be departed from just 18 as any matter of interpretation may be changed.
However, there are 19 cases indicating that the weight to be afforded a given agency's 20 interpretation depends on its consistency with prior pronounce-21
- ments, e.a.,
Morton v.
Ruiz, 415 U.S.199 (1974).
22 23 In sum, the language of the Section 54.21(a) generally 24 suggests that a program for timely future identification and 25 mitigation of age-related degradation unique to license renewal 26 will be adequate, but some language in the 1991 License Renewal 27 Rule's SOC suggests otherwise.
Nevertheless, to remove any doubt, 28 the Commission is proposing changes to Section 54.21(a) that would 29 add a new paragraph confirming that a program which ensures of 30 timely future identification and mitigation of age-related 31 degradation will be sufficient for license renewal applications.
32 33 C.
Description of an Effective Program 34 35 10 CFR 54.21(a) (6) requires that a licensee submit a descrin-36 tion of the applicable effective programs for each structure or j
37 component and demonstrate that these programs will be effective in 38 managing the effects of ARD UTLR as part of the technical informa-39 tion to be submitted in a renewal application.
In addition, j
40 Section 54.21(a) (6) (ii) indicates that an effective program must j
41
"[c]ontain acceptance criteria against which the need for correc-42 tive action will be evaluated, and ensure that timely corrective 43 action will be taken when these acceptance criteria are not met."
44 Questions have been raised regarding the level of detail which is 45 necessary in the application to " describe" a proposed effective 46 program that satisfies the requirements in the rule.
In particu-47 lar, as an issue has been raised, whether the renewal application's 48 description of the effective program must actually contain the 49 acceptance criteria-as opposed to describing the nature and basis 50 for development of such criteria.
51 1
. 1 The Commission believes that, in order to satisfy Section 2
54.21(a) (6), the renewal application must provide suf ficient detail.
3 for the staff to conclude that all the necessary elements of an 4
effective program are present, and that the acceptance criteria 5
need not be included in the application, so long as the application 6
describes:
(1) how the effective program will ensure the identifi-7 cation and mitigation of any effects of ARD UTLR, (2) the condi-8 tions or parameters used to establish the acceptance criteria, (3) 9 how timely corrective action will be taken if acceptance criteria 10 are not met, and (4) the administrative controls for implementing 11 the effective program.
12 13 The identification and mitigation of the degradation can be 14 described by clearly identifying the function (s) of the structure 15 or component and the program elements that would ensure, by 16 testing, monitoring, or evaluating, the applicable performance or 17 condition regardless of the type of degradation.
These descrip-18 tions could rely to a large extent on methods, processes, and 19 quantitative values that have been previously accepted by the staff 20 (i.e.,
are given in some existing licensing documentation).
The 21
" description" of the effective programs simply refers to the basis 22 for the criteria and identifies ctate the vehicle that implements 23 the specific program actions.
The practical effect of this type of 24 description is that the detailed plant procedures are not drawn 25 into the specific review as part of the renewal application.
26
- Further, should the implementing surveillance procedures be 27 revised, the process in 10 CFR 54.33(d) to determine whether the 28 effectiveness of the programs is decreased would only be initiated 29 if a licensee were to change.an element of the program description.
30 conta.ned in the application (e.g.,
the period of a surveillance, 31 the type of inspections, the value of a minimum wall thickness, or 32 the method for calculating the critical crack size) or if the 33 program description dcccribed incorporates by reference a specific 34 element of the plant procedures.
NRC approval would only be 35 necessary should this determination conclude that the change 36 involved is a decrease in effectiveness of the programs described 37 in the application. Other changes to the implementing surveillance 38 procedures which are not contained in the application or directly 39 referenced in the application would not be reportable in the 10 CFR 40 54.37(c) annual report.
41 42 The commission regards the clarification set forth above as 43 entirely consistent with the language of Section 54.21(a)(6) and 44 the SOC for the final License Renewal Rule.
However, to avoid any 45 argument over the matter, the Commission proposes to add a new 46 paragraph (11) to Section 54.21(a) which states that the descrip-47 tion of an effective program need not contain acceptance criteria, 48 so long as the application sets forth the conditions or parameters 49 used to establish the acceptance criteria.
50
i
- 14 1
D.
Reliance on Activities Intended to Demonstrate Compliance with 2
the Maintenance Rule, 10 CFR 50.65, as Effective Procrams 3
Under 54.21(a)(6) 4 5
The Commission's proposed rule will also clarify that broad-6 scoped maintenance activities which comply with the Maintenance 7
Rule, when coupled with appropriate acceptance criteria, can be 8
relied upon by a renewal applicant as an " effective program" under 9
Section 54.21(a) (6), if the applicant can demonstrate that all age-10 related degradation, including age-related degradation unique to 11 license renewal, will be managed effectively both during the 12 current term and the extended term of operation.
The proposed rule 13 adds a new paragraph (10) to Section 54.21(a) which sets forth the 14 additional criteria (that is, requirements which are in addition to 15 the Maintenance Rule's requirements) which maintenance activities 16 would have to meet in order to be considered an effective program 17 for license renewal.
Under the clarified requirements of Section 18 54.21(a) (12), a maintenance program developed under the Maintenance 19 Rule will constitute an " effective program" under the License 20 Renewal Rule only if the maintenance objectives assure compliance 21 with relevant aspects of the CLB rcther then come other, pcccibly 2
22 different, r ick-bc ced-etj ectivcc.
This is because the License 23 Renewal Rule requires an applicant to " demonstrate that these 24 (effective) programs will be effective in maintaining the - CLB 25 during the period of extended operation," see 10 CFR 54.2 (a) (6).
26 27 The Commission notes that where a licensee relies on the 28 maintenance program together with acceptance criteria in technical 29 specifications and regulations as a basis for a finding of an 30
" effective program," the plant's CLB will have to be reviewed as 31 appropriate, to confirm that the maintenance program objectives, 32 technical specifications and regulations will be effective in 33 maintaining the CLB throughout the extended term of operation.
See 34 10 CFR 54. 21(a) (6).
A proposed acoroach for reliance on replace-35 ment or refurbishment activities carried out oursuant to the 36 Maintenance Rule, 10 CFR 50.65, in determinino whether SCs are 37 subiect to ARD UTLR is discussed in Section III.F. below.
38 39 E.
Change in Magnitude of Age-Related Degradation and Effect of 40 Like-Kind Reolacement on Ace-Related Dearadation Unicue to 41 License Renewal 42 43 The current definition of age-related degradation unique to 44 license renewal (ARD UTLR) identifies three sets of conditions 45 under which degradation would be classified as unique to license 46 renewal.
Part one of the definition states that age-related 47 degradation shall be considered " unique to license renewal" if it
...that occurs during the term of the current 48 is degradation 49 operating license but whose effects are different in character or 50 magnitude after the term of the current operating licanse (the 51 period of extended operation) ;.... "
Effects of degradation that 52 are different in " magnitude" refer to the condition that occurs
. 1 when degradation of a structure or component (1) continues beyond 2
the degradation that would or could have occurred if operation had 3
ceased at the end of the currently licensed term and (2) the 4
degradation that would or could result, if unmitigated by any 5
action, in unacceptable performance or condition of the structure 6
or component (i.e., outside the current licensing basis) during the 7
period of extended operation.
8 9
The Occmiccion propcccc to =cdify the definition Of agc-10 related degradation unique te licence renewal to ackc cicar that 11 eStructures or components that are not normally replaced are 12 subject to cumulative degradation greater than that experienced in 13 the original 40-year license period.
Examples would include 14 primary system piping that would experience continued degradation 15 through erosion, or stainless steel that would experience addition-16 al thermal embrittlement caused by continued exposures to high 17 temperatures during plant operations.
If a licensee evaluates, by 18 inspection and/or analysis, the cumulative effect of such degrada-19 tion and determines that the effect of the degradation will result 20 in a failure to maintain the current licensing basis, then the 21 effects of the degradation are "different in magnitude" and the 22 structure or component is subject to ARD UTLR.
If by evaluation, 23 the licensee determines that the effect of the degradation will not 24 result in the failure to maintain the current licensing basis 25 during the renewal term and that no activity is necessary to. manage 26 the degradation, then the effects of the degradation are not 27 "dif ferent in magnitude. " If the evaluation further concludes that 28 there is no change in the character (e.g., no.significant increase 29 in the rate of degradation in the renewal period), the structure or 30 component is not subject to ARD UTLR.
A licensee could then use 31 the specific structure or component evaluation in its integrated 32 plant assessment as a basis to conclude either:
(1) that, in-33 accordance with 10 CFR 54.21(a) (3), the structure or component'is 34 not subject to ARD UTLR, or- (2) that, in accordance with Section 35
- 54. 21(a) (5) (ii), an effective program meeting the requirements of 36 Section 54.21(a) (6) (i)-(iii) to manage the effect of the degrada-37 tion is not needed.
38 39 The Commission believes that structures or components that are 40 replaced with like-kind replacements such that the service life is 41 precluded from exceeding 40 years, and which are not projected to 42 be affected by a significantly greater degradation rate during the 43 renewal term, would not be subject to ARD UTLR.
This conclusion is 44 viewed as consistent with the Commission's SOC accompanying 10 CFR 45 Part 54 which indicated that a generic conclusion regarding the 46 acceptability of _a_ll periodic replacement programs could not be 47 made at the time the rule was promulgated.
This conclusion is 48 based on the specific requirement that like-kind replacement occurs 49 such that service life will not exceed 40 years.
Accordinalv, the 50 Commission proposes to amend the definition of ARD UTLR to j
51 explicitly provide that structures or components that are replaced 52 with like-kind replacements such that the service life of such j
l
.~.
c 6
- 16 1
structures or components does not exceed-40 = vears durina the L 2
renewal term will be - deemed to be not - subiect to aae-related 3
dearadation uniaue to license renewal. orovided that such structure 4
or component is not subiect to a sianificantly areater dearadation"
~1 5
' rate durina the renewal' term.
6 7
Progrs=c which involve rep: cc=cnt h cd on condition acnitoring 8
and which do not cncurc : cervice life of 40 yearc cr ics: uculd 9
net-permit a conclucien that a ctructurc cr. cc;pencnt 1' M 10 cubjcct to ARD UTLn.
Mcucver, PErograms which rely.on condition 11 monitoring to determine replacement, but_which also ensurenthat 12 service life does not exceed 40 years (e.g.,
replacement has 13 already occurred or a specific replacement commitment'is included)'
14 can be used to justify a' conclusion that a structure'or component 15 is not subject to ARD UTLR.
Using this approach, a greater number 16 of structures and components could be identified as not subject-to 17 ARD UTLR than was indicated.in SF.CY-93-049.
18 19 Should a licensee choose not to perform a specific evaluation 20 of the degradation effect for the period of extended operation in 21 accordance with 10 CFR 54.21(a) (3), then as part.of the integrated 22 plant assessment, the licensee.could assumes that:the-structure or.
23 component.gould be subject to ARD UTLR.
The licensee '.would bei 24 required to discuss how the effects of degradation would be managed 25 during the period of extended operation.
The prc cnce of cxi ting 26 progrs== cr activitics that vculd adcquately :: nag degradstion 27 cffectc that arc cr could bc important to licen : rencu:1 i: MOT n 28 acceptabic colc bi for arguing that a cc;pcncnt could not.
29 experience ARO UTLn but could be uced ac th: = cans cf dc=cn=trating -
30 how the effects of ARO UTLR uculd bc =anaged.
31 32 L'
Option to Credit Routine Reolacement or Refurbishment Activi-33 ties 34 35 ADart from specific instances of like-kind reolacement, many.
36 licensees, as a normal and continuina oractice durina the initial' 37 license
- term, neriodically inspect and routinelv reolace or 38 refurbish various structures and' components in order to maintain 39 the CLB.
Althouah the Commission was'not oreoared to aive credit' 40 for routine reolacement or refurbishment when it initially 2
41 oromulaated Part 54, it has cained additional information on the 42 benefits of such activities.
Throuch the review and assessment of 43 the license renewal orocess and plant-specific evaluations since 44 that time, the Commission has come to recoanize that licensees' 45 activities to periodically monitor and insoect many tvoes of 46 comoonents and refurbish or replace based on established time-or 47 Derf ormance-based 1 criteria do indeed serve-well to maintain the 48 CLB. irrespective of the comoonents' ace or time-in-service.
In-2 49 S_qe_ 56 Fed. Bea 64943 at 64946, 64954, 64956, 64958,'(De-50 cember 13, 1991) i w
7-
1
- 1 turn, such activities, properly applied, can virtually eliminate i
2 any concern about ARD UTLR.
I 3
4 The Commission recoanizes that licensees have develooed and 5
implemented numerous activities durina the initial license term.
6 both in compliance with Commission recuirements and on their own 7
initiative, that effectively identify the effects of acina and 8
address those ef fects, without recard to the croiected service life 9
of the SC in cuestion.
' Licensees have had considerable experience 10 with these tvoes of activities and the Commission now believes 11
- that, in many cases, they have been effective in orovidina an 12 acceptable level of safety and maintainina the CLB. irrespective of 13 the proiected service life of the SCs to which they acolv.
Since 3
the time Part 54 was promulaated, an additional basis for ensurina 15 that these activities will be carried out by licensees as part of 16 their current CLBs and, as such, durina any renewal term, has been 17 orovided by the Commission's promulaation of 10 CFR 50.65, 18 "Reauirements for Monitorina the Effectiveness of Maintenance at 19 Nuclear Power Plants".
20 21 10 CFR 50.65 recuires that, where eauipment performance 22 history has not demonstrated that preventive maintenance activi-23 ties have been effective in ensurina that systems, structures, or 24 components (SSCs) will remain capable of performina their recuired 25 functions, eauipment oerformance or condition monitorina be 26 undertaken acainst coals which reflect the safety sianificance of 27 the system, structure, or component, as well as industry operatina 28 experience.
A self-correction mechanism is provided which adiusts 29 the coals to the level of detail necessary to monitor and imoreve 30 the performance of SSCs experiencina maintenance preventable 31 failures.
If coals are not met.
10 CFR 50.65 recuires that 32 appropriate corrective action be taken.
Comoliance with the 33 provisions of 10 CFR 50.65 provides reasonable assurance that 34 structures, systems and components will remain capable of nerform-35 ina their recuired functions.
This is. indeed. the same coal that i
36 the Commission soucht to achieve for the term of a renewed license 37 when Part 54 was oriainally adopted.
38 39 Based uoon the forecoina, the commission believes that 40 maintenance activities carried out oursuant to 10 CFR 50.65.
41 includina the periodic replacement or refurbishment of structures 42 and components important to license renewal, could orovide a 43 technical basis for concludina that such structures and components 44 are not subiect to ARD UTLR and that they may be diseositioned as 45 such.
As an additional option, the Commission croposes for 46 consideration and comment a further modification to the definition 47 of ARD UTLR in Section 54.3.
To preclude concerns about ARD UTLR.
48 however. refurbishment must ensure structure or component function-49 ality durina the renewal term.
In proposina the Option to Credit 50 Routine Replacement or Refurbishment Activities, the Commission 51 solicits oublic comment on the auestion of how the term " refurbish-52 ment" micht be cenerically defined such that a determination may be P
4 4 1 made as to whether or not structures or components subiect to 1
2 refurbishment ag_e subiect to ARD UTLR.
3 4
FQ.
Need for Effective Program 5
6 10 CFR 54. 21(a) (5) requires an applicant to demonstrate that 7
structures or components that could have age-related degradation 8
unique to license renewal are either:
(i) addressed through an 9
effective program, or (ii) need not be addressed in an effective 10 program.
However, Section 54. 21 (a) ( 5) does not set forth the 11 criteria for demonstrating that an effective program is not 12 necessary to ' address age-related degradation unique to license 13 renewal.
The Commission proposes the following approach for 14 determining whether'an SC that is or could be subject to age-15 related degradation unique to license renewal must be subject to an 16 "ef f ective program" under Section 54.21(a) (5) :
17 18
- 54. 21(a) ( 5) (i) :
EFFECTIVE PROGRAM IS NECESSARY 19 20 Effective programs would be required for those structures and 21 components of " fundamental safety importance. " Such structures and 22 components pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21(a) (5) (i) would need to meet the 23 specific requirements of 10 CFR 54. 21(a) ( 6).
The Commission 24 proposes to define "SCs of fundamental safety importance" as those i
3 25 SCs which satisfy any one of the following criteria :
26 27 Criterion 1:
Installed instrumentation that is used to detect 28 and indicate in the control room a significant abnormal t
29 degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary.
30 31 Criterion 2:
A SC which include a design feature that is an 32 initial condition of a Design Basis Accident or Transient 33 analysis that either assumes the failure of or presents a 34 challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier.
35 36 Criterion 3:
A SC that is part of the primary success path 37 and which functions or actuates to mitigate a Design Basis 38 Accident or Transient that either assumes the failure of or 39 presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product 40 barrier.
41 42 Criterion 4:
A SC which operating experience or probabilistic 43 safety assessment has shown to be significant to public health 44 and safety.
3 45 These criteria are based upon the criteria in SECY-93-067, 46
" Final Policy Statement on Technical Specifications Improve-47 ments," dated March 19, 1993.
[ Copies of this paper may be 48 examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.,
49 (Lower Level), Washington, DC between the hours of 7:45 a.m. and 50 4:15 p.m.
in Federal workdays.]
. 1 i
2
- 54. 21(a) (5) (ii) :
NO EFFECTIVE PROGRAM NEEDED - NO ACTION 3
4 No ef fective program needed pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21(a) (5) (ii) 5 would apply to those structures and components for which no action 6
would be necessary to manage ARD UTLR such that the current 7
licensing basis is maintained through the renewal term.
8 9
- 54. 21(a) (5) (ii) :
NO EFFECTIVE PROGRAM NEEDED
- ACTION 10 REQUIRED 11 12 Structures and components, which are or could be subject -to 13 ARD UTLR, but which are determined not to be of fundamental safety 14 importance (i.e.,
do not require " effective programs") would be 15 addressed either by current licensee programs or by commitments for 16 future action (e.g., maintenance programs) if they were demonstrat-17 ed to be suf ficient to ensure compliance with the current licensing 18 basis. Although program demonstrations under 10 CFR 54.21(a) (5) (1-19 i) would not need to meet all of the specific requirements for 20 effective
- programs, they would require descriptions in the 21 application which would be reviewed and approved by the staff and 22 found acceptable to manage age-related degradation unique to 23 license renewal.
Such program descriptions would not be subject to 24 10 CFR 54.33(d) or 54.37.
The Commission believes that actions to 25 manage ARD UTLR for SCs which are not_ of fundamental safety 26 importance under 10 CFR 54.21(a) (5) (ii) need not be subject to the 27 regulatory conta.s and recordkeeping requirements of Sections 28 54.33(d) and 54.37 because those activities will be subject. to 29 other programs and controls, such as the activities covered by the 30 Maintenance Rule (10 CFR 50. 65), and 10 CFR Part 50. Anoendix B.
31 To disposition a structure or component under 10 CFR 54.21(a) (5) 32 (ii), a renewal application would need to contain a description of 33 the evaluation or program performed which demonstrates that the 34 effects of ARD UTLR will not adversely affect the performance or 35 condition of the structure or component during the renewal period.
36 Detailed evaluations and implementing procedures need not be 37 submitted but would be retained by the licensee in accordance with 38 the requirements of 10 CFR 54.37(a).
39 40 GH.
Regulatory Controls: Changes to Previously-Approved Programs 41 and Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 42 43 Section 54.21(a) (5) requires the renewal applicant to specify 44 whether an SC which is (or could be) nubject to age-related 45 degradation unique to license renewal is addressed in an " effective 46 program" which meets the requirements of Section 54.21(a) (6), or 47 which "need not be addressed in an effective program."
In SECY 93-48 113, the Staff proposed that only systems and components (SCs) of 49
" fundamental safety importance" need an " effective program" under 50 Section 54.21(a) (5) to manage the effects of age-related degrada-51 tion unique to license renewal for a SC.
This approach, which the 52 Commission proposes to endorse as part of this rulemaking, would
i 1 establish two different categories of program:
(a) " effective 2
programs" to manage the age-related degradation unique to license-3 renewal for SCs of fundamental safety significance; and (b) other 4
programs / activities to manage age-related degradation unique to 5
license renewal for SCs which are not of fundamental. safety 6
significance.
7 8
The significance of the distinction is that
!' effective
'l 9
programs" would be subject to the - regulatory reauirements of 10 ecntrcle in Sectione 54. 21(a) (6), and the reaulatory controls of 11 sections 54.33(d), and 54.37(c), whereas other programs to manage 12 age-related degradation unique to license renewal of SCs which are:
13 not of fundamental safety importance would not be subject to those 14 regulatory reauirements and controls.
Under these sections, it is 15 clear that an effective program is subject to Section l
16
- 54. 21(a) (6) (iii), which requires that an effective program be i
17 implemented by onsite procedures, and that any changes be reviewed
. l 18 by the onsite review committee.
An effective program is-also_
19 subject to Sections 54.33(d) and 54.37(c).
Section 54.33(d) 20 requires NRC approval of any licensee - change that involves a-21 decrease in effectiveness of programs described in the FSAR or 22 application for managing age-related degradation unique to license 23 renewal before it can implement the change.-
Finally, Section 24 54.'3 7 (c) requires the licensee to report annually.to the-NRC any 25 changes that do not decrease the effectiveness of programs j
26 described in the FSAR that manage the effects'of ARD UTLR, and j
27 maintain records of these changes, including a written ' safety 28 evaluation of the bases. for concluding that the changes do not 29 decrease the effectiveness.
30 31 Programs and activities necessary to manage aging but where 32 the Commission finds that an " effective program" is not nv eded, are 33 not subject to the reculatory reauirements and administrative 34 controls in Section 54.21(a) (6). However, the language of Sections 35 54.33(d) and 54.37(c) are unclear :
to whether their pr:visiens j
36 apply er@f both to " effective programs," cr t
=11 ::tivitice 37 managing aging i.e.,
including as well as to those programs 38 addressing aging but which are not " effective programs" pursuant to 39 Section 54. 21. (a) (5) (ii).
The Commission believes it is more 40 reasonable to limit the reach of Sections 54.33(d) and 54.37(c) 41 only to activities and programs which are " effective programs," and' 42 not to the programs and activities which address aging but for
+
43 which the Commission determines need not be covered by " effective 44 programs." The Commission believes that actions to manage ARD UTLR 45 for SCs which are not of fundamental safety importance under 10 CFR l
46
- 54. 21 (a) (5) (ii) need not be subject to the regulatory controls and 47 recordkeeping requirements of Sections 54.33(d) and 54.37 because 48 those activities will be subject to other programs'and controls, 49 such as the activities covered by the maintenance rule (10 CFR j
50 59.65),
and 10 ' CFR 50.59.
To j
51 disposition a structure or component under 10 CFR 54.21(a) (5) (ii),
.i 52 a renewal application would need to contain a description of the b
4
. 1 evaluation or program performed which demonstrates that the ef fects 2
of ARD UTLR will not adversely affect the performance or condition 3
of the structure or component during the renewal period.
Detailed 4
evaluations.and implementing procedures need not be submitted but 5
would be retained by the licensee in accordance with the 6
requirements of 10 CFR 54.37(a).
Furthermore, to read Section 7
54.33(d) and 54.37(c) baoadly to cover all programs and activities 8
to manage aging, rather than limited only to effective programs, 9
would largely eliminate any practical distinction between effective 10 programs and other activities needed to manage aging.
11 12 Therefore, to provide that only those activities constituting 13
" effective programs" are subject to the regulatory controls, 14 including recordkeeping and reporting, in Sections 54.33(d) and 15 54.37(c), the Commission proposes to modify those sections by 16 substituting the
- term,
" effective program" for the
- phrases, 17
" programs and procedures reviewed and approved by the staff that 18 manage age-related degradation unique to license renewal," and 19
" programs for management of age-related degradation unique to 20 license renewal."
21 22 IV.
Questions 23 24 In addition to comments on the proposed clarifying amendments 25 to Part 54 which are discussed above, the Commission would like 26 public comments on the following questions.
27 28 1.
Arc there any cpecific-changcc that the "RC chculd =ake 29 to the Licence RencWal Rule, which arc concictent with 30 the tuc fundamental principles of licence renewal 31 reiterated abcvc in Ocction II?
Previde the specific 32 4enguage that chould be used, clearly ctate the reacenc 33 for the propeced changcc and how the prepcccd changcc 34 receive-the iccuc Of concern.
35 36 2.
Arc there-other-approachec te impicm ntation of the 37 eurrent Licence RencWal Rule that th Ocaniccion chculd 38 purcue er additional alternativec to the procccc prepcced 39 in CECY- 03-0 0 0 and CECY-0 3-113, which arc conciatent-W-i-th 40 the twc principlec cf licence renewal?
Picacc provide 41 the renconc or bas-is-f-or an-j propcccd alt +rnativcc or 42 euggested changcc.
43 44 31 Are the staff's proposed criteria for identifying 45 structures and components which are of fundamental safety 46 importance for license renewal appropriate?
If not, why 47 not? What would be appropriate criteria for identifying 48 structures and components which are of fundamental safety 49 importance?
50 51 41 Will the approach for meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 52 Part 54, as described in SECY-93-049 and SECY-93-113, and
J M 1 as implemented by the rule chances (other than the option 2
to credit refurbishment) proposed here result in the 3
imposition of regulatory requirements for plant 4
structures or components that are not of fundamental 5
safety importance?
6 7
(a)
What are specific examples of SCs equipment that 8
are not of fundamental safety importance but would 9
become newly subject to the regulatory controls as 10 a result of the license renewal process described 11 here?
12 13 (b)
Would any resulting regulatory requirements be 14 needed to satisfy the rule's objective--that age-15 related degradation unique to license renewal will 16 be managed to ensure that the licensing basis will 17 be maintained during the renewal term?
18 19 (c)
Would any such regulatory requirements be overly 20 burdensome? If yes, provide a detailed explanation 21 for your conclusions.
22 23 1.
The Commission proposes that. if structures or components 24 are subiect to like-kind replacement such that a 40-vear 25 service life will not be exceeded durina the renewal 26 term and the structures or components are not subiect to 27 a sionificantly creater dearadation rate over the renewal 28 term, then such structures or components will be deemed 29 to be not sub-iect to ARD UTLR.
This orovision has the 30 ootential to eliminate considerable unnecessary 31 reaulatory burden that the current
- rule, with its 32 extremelv broad definition of ARD UTLR. micht otherwise 33 impose on both acolicants and the acency staff in the 34 development and safety review of license renewal 35 acolications.
It micht also eliminate unnecessary 36 additions to the CLB that miaht otherwise be viewed as 37 compelled by the current rule to address such structures 38 and components durina the renewal term.
The benefits of 39 this proposed accroach concernina like-kind reolacement 40 hinae larcelv upon how the term "like-kind" is to be 41 interpreted and acolied.
A larae number of comoonents 42 which will never see a 40-year service life durina the includina so-called short-lived 43 renewal term are likely to have been replaced at one 44 components 45 time or another durina the oriainal license term with 46 components which are not ohvsically identical to those 47 present when the plant was oriainally licensed, due to 48 obsolescence, discontinuation of component manufacture.
49 or desian improvements.
In view of the forecoina, how 50 should the Commission interpret and apolv the term "like-51 kind" with respect to structures and components which are 52 replaced such that they will not experience a service
- 1 life of creater than 40 years durina the renewal term and 2
thus be deemed not subiect to ARD UTLR?
Should the 3
Commission reauire identicalness. ohysical ecuivalency.
4 or compliance with functional recuirements contained in 5
the CLB?
Would comoliance with the reauirements of 10-6 CFR 50. 59 in instances where structures or components are 7
replaced with ohysically nonidentical replacements 8
constitute an accropriate standard for establishina that 9
such replacements are "like-kind" for the ourposes of 10 license renewal?
11 12 4
With reaard to the proposed accroach to aive credit for 1
13 refurbishment, an issue that has often been raised is how 14 to define refurbishment so as to ensure that a
15 refurbished structure or component is not subiect to ARD 16 UTLR. The Commission believes that it should be nossible 17 and would be useful to develop a
definition of 18 refurbishment or, at least a set of around rules to cuide 19 implementation of this concept.
The Commission reauests 20 comment on specific approaches to definina refurbishment 21 that would permit such a conclusion. either cateaorically 22 or when applied on a case-by-case basis.
23 24 V.
Implementation 25 26 The basic approach for conducting an IPA, as discussed in 27 seet-4en III.L, 3 cnd C above and in SECY-93-049 and SECY-93-113, 28 represents only one method for complying with the requirements of 29 Section 54.21(a).
Licensees are free to implement the IPA. in 30 accordance with the SOC accompanying the final 1991 rule.
31 32 The Commission will evaluate the comments on these proposed 33 rule chances experience cf the first licence rencual applications, 34 in order to identify other alternative ways of accomplishing the 35 IPA which are consistent with Section 54.21(a), and desirable from 36 other standpoints.
37 38 VI.
Section-by-Section Analysis 39 40 Section 54.3 41 42 This section is amended to (1) clarify the definition of ARD 43 UTLR with reaard to the effects of "like-kind replacement" and (2) 44 add a new definition, "SC of fundamental safety importance."
In 45 addition, this section is amended to provide that existina and 46 oncoina activities to timely insoect and routinelv replace or 47 refurbish components can serve as a basis for deemina that such 48 structures or components could not be subiect to ARD UTLR.
49
9
- 24 1
Section 52.21(a) 2 3
Section 54.21(a) is modified to add paragraph (7), which 4
clarifies that an applicant's IPA may assume'the existence of age-5 related degradation unique to license renewal for one or more SCs.
6 This would preclude the need for the applicant to specifically 7
explain whether that SC is subject to age-related degradation 8
unique to license renewal.
9 10 Paragraph (8) is added to Section 54.21(a) to clarify that an 12 applicant need not identify mechanisms, as opposed to the effects, 11 of age-related degradation unique to license renewal unless they 13 are necessary to identify or describe a program which will timely 14 identify the effects of such degradation.
15 16 Paragraph (9) indicates that SCs subject to age-related 17 degradation unique to license renewal will not need " effective 18 programs" meeting the requirements of Section
- 54. 21(a) (6) if 19 either:
(a) no action is necessary to assure compliance with the 20 CLB throughout the renewal term, or (b) the SC is not of 21 fundamental safety importance.
22 23 Paragraph (10) allows the applicant to rely upon future 24 identification, evaluation and appropriate mitigation of age-25 related degradation unique to license renewal.
26 27 Finally, paragraph (11) explicitly states that maintenance 28 activities conducted as required by the Maintenance Rule, 10 CFR i
29 50.65, can be considered to be an " effective program" if the 30 requirements of Section 54.21(a) (6) are satisfied.
31 32 Sections 54.33(d) and 54.37 are amended to make clear that 33 their provisions only apply to " effective programs."
34 35 M4VII.
Conclusion 36 37 The Commission's proposed rule, together with the positions 38 set forth in SECY 93-049 and SECY 93-113, would modify the 39 definition of ARD UTLR to address the circumstances under which a 40 licensee could relv on reolacement and refurbishment as a basis for 41 declarina a structure or component not subiect to ARD UTLR.
Thev 42 would also provide alternative ways of complying with the 43 requirements of an IPA under 10 CFR 54.21(a), and provide revised ~
44 guidance on other requirements of Part 54.
The two fundamental 45 principles of license renewal remain unchanged under the proposed 46 rules and additional option, and there would be no change to the 47 findings in 10 CFR 54,29 which the Commission must make in order to 48 issue a renewed license.
49 j
.l
. 1 VIII.
Environmental Impact:
Categorical Exclusion 2
3 The NRC has determined that this proposal propoccd rule is the 4
type of action described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 5
- 51. 2 2 (c) (2).
Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement 6
nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed 7
rule.
8 9
The NRC has also prepared a draf t Generic Environmental Impact 10 Statement (GEIS) which discusses, in a generic
- fashion, the 11 environmental impacts associated with the renewal of operating 12 licenses for individual nuclear power plants.
The draft GEIS has 13 been published for public comment as part of a proposed rule 14 amending the NRC's requirements for environmental review (56 FR 15 47016, September 17, 1991).
The NRC is currently reviewing public 16 comments and preparing a final GEIS.
17 18 IX.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 19 20 The proposed ruleg does not contain any, new or amended 21 information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork 22 Reduction Act 1980 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).
Existing requirements 23 were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval 24 number 3150-0155.
25
~
26 X.
Regulatory Analysis 27 28 The NRC has not prepared a regulatory analysis for these tMe 29 proposed ruleg because they are it ic not the type of action for 30 which a regulatory analysis is required or would be useful.
31 32 XI.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification 33 34 As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 USC 35 605(b), the Commission certifies that these t-h-le proposed ruleg 36 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 37 of small entities.
The proposed rules concerno itccif themselves 38 with the technical requirements for obtaining renewed operating 39 licenses for nuclear power plants.
Nuclear power plant licensees 40 do not fall within the definition of small businesses as defined in 41 Section 3 of the Small Business Size Standards of the Small 42 Business Administrator (13 CFR Part 21), or the Commission's Size 43 Standards (50 FR 502441; December 9, 1985).
44 45 XII. Non-Applicability of Backfit Rule 46 47 The NRC has determined that the Backfit Rule, 10 CFR 50.109, 48 does not apply to this proposed rule and therefore, that a backfit 49 analysis is not required for this proposed rule, because this 50 proposed rulemaking does not involve any provisions which would 51 impose backfits, as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (a) (1).
52
O 1 List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 54 2
ntergovernmental relations, r
3 Government contracts, Insura..
4 Inventions and patents, Nuclear p..:-
plants and reactors, Age-5 related degradation.
6 7
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the 8
authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy 9
Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, 10 the NRC orocoses adepts the following amendments to 10 CFR part 54.
11 12 PART 54 - Requirements for Renewal 13 of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants 14 15 1.
The authority citation for Part 54 continues to read as 16 follows:
17 18 PART 54 -- REQUIREMENTS FOR RENEWAL OF OPERATING LICENSES FOR 19 NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 20 21 Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 161, 181, 182, 183, 186, 189, 22 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 95S, as amended, sec. 234, 23 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 24 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, 25 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C.
5841, 5842).
~
26 27 2.
Section 54.3 is amended to read as follows:
28 29 554.3 Definitions.
30 31 As used in this part, 32 Age-related degradation means a change in a system's, structure's, 33 or component's performance or physical or chemical properties 34 resulting in whole or part from one or more aging mechanisms.
35 Examples of this type of change include changes in dimension,-
36 ductility, fatigue resistance, fracture toughness, mechanical 37 strength, polymerization, viscosity, and dielectric strength, i
38 39 Aga-related degradation unique to license renewal is degradation ~
40 (1)
That occurs -(cr could-oceurt during the term of the current 41 operating license but whose effects are different in character or i
42 magnitude after the term of the current operating license (the a
i 43 period of extended operation); or 44
)
45 (2)
Whose effects were not explicitly identified and evaluated by 46 the license for the period of extended operation and the evaluation 47 found acceptable by the NRC; or 1
48 49 (3)
That occurs only during the period of extended operation.
30 l
51 Structures and components shall not be considered as beina subiect 52 to ace-related dearadation uniaue to license renewal for ourcoses
4 1 of the forecoina definition if such structures or components are 2
subiect to --
3 4
111 like-kind replacement such that the service life of such.
5 structure or component does not exceed 40 years durina 6
the renewal term.
nrovided that-such structure or 7
component is not subiect to a sianificantly creater 8
dearadation rate durina the renewal term; or 9
10 (ii) timelv inspection and routine
-reolacement or 11 refurbishment pursuant to established time or cerformance 12 criteria.
13 14 Aging mechanisms are the physical or chemical processes that-15 result in degradation.
These mechanisms include -but; are not 16 limited to fatigue, erosion / corrosion, wear, thermal embrittlement, 17 microbiologically induced effects, creep,-and shrinkage.
18 19 Current licensing basis is the set of NRC requirements 20 applicable to a specitic plant and a licensee's written commitments 21 for ensuring compliance with and operation within applicable NRC 22 requirements and the plant-specific design basis (including. all 23 modifications and additions to such commitments over the life of 24 the license) that are docketed and in effect.
The CLB includes the 25 NRC regulations contained in 10 CFR parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 30, 4 0,.
26 50, 51, 54, 55, 70, 72, 73, and 100 and appendices thereto; orders; 27 license conditions, exemptions; and technical specifications.
It 28 also includes the plant-specific design basis information' defined-29 in 10 CFR 50.2 as documented in the most recent final safety 30 analysis report (FSAR) as required by 10 CFR 50.71 and the 31 licensee's commitments that were made in docketed licensing 32 correspondence such as licensee responses to NRC bulletins, generic 33 letters, and enforcement actions, as well as licensee commitments 34 documented in NRC safety evaluations ~or licensee event reports.
35 36 Effective Progran (EP) is a documented program to manage age-37 related degradation unique to license renewal that ensures that a 38 system, structure, or component important to license. renewal will 39 continue to perform its required function or will not prevent the 40 performance of a required function during the period of extended 41 operation.
i 42 43 Integrated plant assessment (IPA) is a licensee assessment 44 that demonstrates that a nuclear power plant facility's systems, 45 structures, and components important to license renewal have been 46 identified and. age-related degradation unique to license renewal 47 will be managed to ensure that the f acility's licensing basis will 48 be maintained during the renewal term.
49 50 Nuclear power plant means a nuclear power facility of a type 51 described in 10 CFR 50.21(b) or 50.22.
52
t d 1 Reneval term means the period of time that is the sum of the 2
additional amount of time beyond the expiration of the operations 3
license that is requested in the renewal application plus the 4
remaining number of years on the operating license currently in 5
effect.
6 7
Systems, structures and components (SSCs) important to license.
8 renoval are:
9 10 (1)
Safety-related SSCs, which are those relied upon to 11 remain functional during and following design basis events (as 12 defined in 10 CFR 50.49 (b) (1)) to ensure:
13 14 (1)
The integrity of the reactor coolant pressure 15 boundary; 16 17 (ii) The capability to shut down the reactor and nintain 18 it in a safe shutdown condition; or 19 20 (iii)
The capability to prevent or mitigate the 21 consequences of accidents that could result in potential 22.
offsite exposure comparable to the 10 CFR part 100 guidelines 23 4
24 (2)
All non-safety-related SSCs whose failure could directly 25 prevent satisfactory accomplishment of any of.the required' 26 functions identified in paragraphs (1(i), (ii), or (iii) of this 27 definition.
28 29 (3)
All SSCs relied on in safety analyses or plant 30 evaluations to demonstrate compliance with the Commission's 31 regulations for fire protection (10 CFR 50.48),
environmental 32 qualification (10 CFR 50.49), pressurized thermal shock (10 CFR 33 50.61), anticipated transients without scram (10 CFR 50.62), and 34 station blackout (10 CFR 50.63).
35 36 (4)
All SSCs subject to operability requirements contained in 37 the facility technical specification limiting conditions for 38 operation.
39 40 SC of fundamental safety importance is a SC which is either:
41 42 (a) installed instrumentation that is used to detect and indicate 43 in the control room a significant abnormal degradation of the 44 reactor coolant pressure boundary; 45 46 (b) a SC which includes a design feature that is an initial 47 condition of a design basis accident or transient analysis that 48 either assumes the failure of, or presents a challenge to the 49 integrity of a fission product barrier; 50 51 (c) a SC that is part of the primary success path and which 52 functions or actuates to mitigate a design basis accident ' or
w s i 1
transient that either assumes the failure of, or presents a 2
challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier; 3
4 (d) a SC which operating experience or probabilistic safety 5
assessment has shown to be significant to public health and safety.
6 7
All other terms in this part have the same meanings as set out 8
in 10 CFR 50.2 or section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act, as 9
applicable.
10 11 12 13 14 15 3.
Section 54.21 is amended to read as follows:
16 17 554.21 Contents of application-technical information.
18 19 (a) 20 21 (1) 22 23 (2) 24 25 (3) 26 27 (4) 28 29 (5) 30 31 (6) 32 33 (7)
The applicant can comply with paragraphs (a) (3) and 34 (a) (4 ) (iii) of this
'section, and with the requirement' for 35 identification of age-related degradation unique to license renewal 36 in paragraph (a) (6) (i) of this section, by assuming that an SC is 37 (or could be) subject to age-related degradation which is unique to 38 licence renewal.
39 40 (8)
In complying with paragraphs (a) (3 ) -(11) of this section, an 41 applicant need not identify-the mechanisms of age-related 42 degradation unique to license renewal, except to the extent this 43 may be necessary to identify or to describe a program which will on 44 a timely basis mitigate the effects of such degradation.
45 46 (9)
An ef fective program is not needed under paragraph (a) (5) (ii) 47 of this section if either:
48 49 (i) the applicant demonstrates that no actions are required to 50 manage age-related degradation unique to license renewal for an SC 51 in order to provide reasonable assurance that the current licensing 52 basis is maintained throughout the renewal term; or
.,, 1 (ii) the SC is determined not to be of fundamental safety 2
importance.
3 4
(10) An description of an effective program under paragraph (a) (6) 5 of this section may either:
6 7
(A) identify and describe the mitigation actions intended to 8
address age-related degradation unique to license renewal; or 9
10 (B) describe the activities for timely future identification,-.
11 evaluation, and appropriate mitigation of the effects of age-12 related degradation unique to license renewal.
13 14 (11) The description of an effective program under paragraph 15 (a) (6) (ii) of this section need not contain the acceptance criteria 16 against which the need for corrective action will be evaluated, if 17 the description contains the conditions or parameters - used to 18 establish the acceptance criteria.
19 20 (12) A maintenance program developed under 10 CFR 550.65, if 21 coupled with appropriate acceptance criteria, will constitute an 22 "ef fective program" under paragraphs (a) (5) and (6) of this section 23 if the applicant demonstrates that all age-related degradation will 24 be ef fectively managed during the current term and.the extended 25 term of operation.
~
26 27 28 29 30 31 4.
Section 54.33 is amended to read as follows:
32 33
$54.33 Continuation of current licensing basis and conditions of 34 renewed licenses.
35 36 (a) 1 37 38 (b) 39 1
40 (c) 41
.42 (d)
The licensee shall maintain the effective programs approved by 43 the staff that manage age-related. degradation unique to license 44 renewal.
A licensee may make changes to effective programs i
45 referenced in the renewal application or FSAR without prior 46 Commission approval if the changes are reviewed by the onsite i
i 47 review committee' or equivalent. and found not to decrease the 48 effectiveness of the effective programs for management of age-49 related degradation uniqu'e to license renewal of specific systems, 50 structures, or components previously accepted.
Changes that do not-51 reduce the effectiveness of effective programs must be documented 52 in accordance with S54.37.
Proposed changes to effective programs l
o 4 1 that decrease the effectiveness of effective programs must be 2
submitted to the NRC and receive NRC approval before 3
implementation.
4 5
(e) 6 7
8 5.
Section 54.37 is amended to read as follows:
9 10 554.37 Additional records and recordkeeping requirements.
11 12 (a) 13 14 (b) 15 16 (c)
The licensee shall submit to the NRC at least annually a list 17 of all changes made to ef fective programs as described in the FSAR 18 that do not decrease the effectiveness of such programs, and a 19 brief description, including a summary of the safety evaluation of 20 each change.
The licensee shall maintain written documentation 21 that provides the basis for concluding that the change does not-22 reduce the effectiveness of these programs.
23 24 i
-