ML20044G206
| ML20044G206 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/14/1993 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Rogers, Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| RULE-PR-54-MISC NUDOCS 9306020178 | |
| Download: ML20044G206 (43) | |
Text
N
aaasa.a.......e.........
'k.
RELEASED TO THE PDR g~/J /
h h
May 21, 1993
- ~ 6ata init/h l
.....o..................
EXPLANATORY NOTE In addition to SECY-93-049 and SECY-93-113 conveying the new approach developed by the staff for implementing license renewal, the staff has provided the Commission with additional information on the most appropriate mechanism to implement the new approach.
This additional information ranges from a recommendation that the mechanism be a Policy Statement without a rule change, to a recommendation that the mechanism be one of two options for rule change.
The Commission has not made a determination on what the most appropriate mechanism to implement the staff's approach is, nor if it were to be a rule, which rule option might be the most appropriate.
However, the Commission is placing the additional documents it has received in the Public Document Room for information.
They are two draft rulemaking packages and a memorandum from James M.
Taylor to the Commission, " License Renewal" cated May 14, 1993.
May 14, 1993 memorandum from James M. Taylor to the Commission, " License Renewal" Attachments 2 & 3 May 14, 1993 memorandum from William C.
Parler to the Commission, Enclosures 1 and 2 Rano49 k',b2r#l 9306020178 930514 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
4 e
a i-~~-
p g
4 4
f
=
r E
e
.t s
L
?
I
- 1 i
f k
I ATTACHMENT 1 9
Y
.1 S
3 2
5 5
6 5
f t
5 6
F t
~
5
?
m
' h E-.
e
'o UNITED STATES l ' 3,., },
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
\\...,+/
May 14, 1993 MEMORANDUM FOR: The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque FROM:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
LICENSE RENEWAL The staff has reviewed the draft rulemaking package and related legal evalua-tions prepared by the Office of the General Counsel (OGC).
Based on our review and consistent with previous staff conclusions, we recommend that the Commission not undertake rulemaking to amend 10 CFR Part 54. The staff does not view the additional certainty, potentially afforded by such rulemaking, as outweighing the disadvantages, including for example, the potential expansion of the rulemaking scope beyond that intended to endorse staff proposals.
Rather than rulemaking, the staff recommends that the Commission issue a policy statement, for comment, which endorses the staff proposals presented in SECY-93-049 and SECY-93-113.
We understand, based on interactions with CSC, that with the exception of the staff's proposal that programs d
.ribed in the application pursuant to 54.21(a)(5)(ii) need not be subh ct to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of 54.33(d) and 54.37(c), the staff proposals can be endorsed by the Commission and implemented consistent with the existing rule. Although the staff believes that not subjecting 54.21(a)(5)(ii) programs to Part 54 reporting and recordkeeping is the preferred approach, this issue is not viewed as significant and should not form the sole basis for a decision to undertake rulemaking.
If, however, the Commission decides to initiate rulemaking, the staff believes that this issue should be addressed in that rulemaking.
As a result of several industry generic license renewal iriitiatives which are already underway or planned, the staff has begun increasing the number of resources dedicated to license renewal activities. Currently, however, only a relatively few key staff are involved in these programs.
Should the Commis-sion direct the staff to undertake rulemaking, it is estimated that' the existing staff license renewal expertise will be required to support this effort. As a result, carrying out parallel technical reviews of plant specific or generic license renewal proposals is ~ not considered practical, even if the nuclear industry organizations decide not to defer their programs pending such rulemakir.g.
1 CONTACT:
William D. Travers, HRR j
504-1117 i
c The Commissioners In conclusion, the staff believes that the approaches described in SECY-93-049 and SECY-93-113, with the exception noted above, are appropriate and can be endorsed by the Commission in a Policy Statement and effectively implemented, without a rule change.
t a es M. Tay r t
ecutive Director for Operations cc: SECY L
i 1
i l
I I
4-t i
)
i
^ 6 t
e i
t t
i
?
4
- N
.T
- i
{
i t
?
-6 i
' ATTACHMENT 2 t
f
?
t
.?
e
.t E
8 e
f I
1
.,I
.I l,
p i
+-)
}
p
. l,
-f')
e
]
i
'I r
. 1
. ~ -
s m.
t
O t
ENCLOSURE 1 May 14,1993 i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 54
{
RIN Satisfying the Requirements of 10 CFR Part 54 AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
f ACTION:
Proposed Rule.
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to amend the License Renewal Rule, 10 CFR Part 54, by providing clarifying interpretation of certain requirements of an Integrated Plant Assessment (IPA) under Section 54.21(a),
and criteria for determining when a system or component subject to age-related degradation unique to license renewal need not be subject of an effective program under Section 54.21(a) (5).
The Commission also i
proposes to clarify the definition of what constitutes a change in the
" magnitude" of age-related degradation unique to license renewal. Finally, the Commission proposes to modify the regulatory controls applicable to activities managing age-related degradation unique to license
- renewal, including the recordkeeping and reporting requirements under Sections 54.33(d) and 54.37.
J DATE:
Comment period expires
[60 days after publication).
Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure i'
consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES:
Mail written comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear f
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing l
and Service Branch.
Deliver comments to:
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven
- Reynolds, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: (301) 504-1115.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
I.
Introduction i
II. - Background III. Areas of Additional Guidance i
~
?
f
t 2
A.
Assuming the Existence of Age-Related Degradation Unique r
to License Renewal When Performing the IPA f
B.
Future Identification of Effects (Versus Mechanisms) and Mitigation of Age-Related Degradation Unique to License f
Renewal C.
Description of an Effective Program D.
Reliance on Activities Intended to Demonstrate Compliance with the Maintenance Rule, 10 CFR 50.65 i
E.
Change _in Magnitude of Age-Related Degradation F.
Need for Effective Program G.
Regulatory Controls:
Changes to Previously-Approved Programs and Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements IV.
Questions j
V.
Implementation VI.
Section-by-Section Analysis VII. Conclusion VIII.
Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion IX.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement X.
Regulatory Analysis XI.
Regulatory Flexibility Act XII. Non-Applicability of Backfit Rule j
I.
Introduction l
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to amend the License Renewal Rule, 10 CFR Part S4, to provide a clarifying interpretation of several different aspects of an Integrated Plant Assessment (IPA) under Section 54.21(a).
i The Commission proposes to modify the definition of age-related degradation unique to license renewal, to clarify ; that like-kind replacements of structures and components which do not see a service life of 40 years throughout the extended period of operation would be deemed not to be subject to a change in_the-
" magnitude of age-related degradation unique to license renewal.
i l
,l 3
I The proposed rule confirms the acceptability of performing an l
IPA which presumes that some or all structures and components (SCs) important to license renewal (as that term is defined in 10 CFR 54.3) are subject to age-related degradation unique to license i
renewal.
Second, the proposed rule confirms that an IPA which describes the methodology for timely identification and mitigation of the effects of age-related degradation unique to license renewal
?
(as that term is defined in 10 CFR 54.3) in the future, as opposed to describing the age-related degradation effects and the i
]
mitigative actions in the IPA itself, will suffice to satisfy the j
requirements of Section 54. 21(a) (5) and the definition of an j
" effective program" under Section 54.21(a) (6).
An IPA which addresses the effects of age-related mitigation unique to license renewal, as opposed to the mechanisms, would also be approved in the proposed rule. The proposed rule reiterates the criteria which an activity conducted pursuant to the Maintenance Rule, 10 CFR 50.65, must satisfy in order to be considered an " effective program" under Section 54.21(a) (6).
The proposed rule would also set forth a four-part test for deter =ining under Section 54. 21(a) (5) whether a structure or component (SC) subject to age-related degradation unique to license
^
renewal need be the subject of an " effective program" under 50.21(a) (6).
Amendments are also proposed to make clear that only j
" effective programs" required by Section 54.21(a) (5) and described under Section 54.21(a) (6) are subject to the regulatory controls in 1
Sections 54.33(d) and 54.37.
2 II.
Background
As set forth in the Statement of Consideration (SOC) for l
Part 54 (56 FR 64943, December 13, 1991), the License Renewal Rule l
was based on two fundamental principles.
The first principle was i
that, because of the breadth and vigor of the licensing and l
regulatory oversight process for licensed reactors, license renewal did not require a formal review of the full range of safety issues.
However, the Commission also concluded that "certain age related degradation that may be important in the period of extended operation is not required to be addressed during the present license in a manner that would be adequate for the_ period of extended operation" (56 FR at 64954, Col.
2).
This led the l
Commission to conclude that "a formal, disciplined licensing review of age-related degradation unique to license renewal is necessary" (M., Col. 3).
The second fundamental principle was that "the plant-specific licensing basis (CLB] must be maintained during the renewal term in 1
the same manner and to the same extent as during the original license term" (56 FR at 64953, Col. 1), except that the CLB could be amended in a process separate from and prior to renewal (H. at Col. 3).
i i
4 These two fundamental principles are the legal underpinning for the basic theory of license renewal that applicants need not i
address the hundreds of safety issues relevant both to current and extended operation, but must effectively manage age related degradation unique to license renewal to assure continued compliance with the CLB.
These fundamental principles are not under reconsideration in this rulemaking.
Under the provisions of the License Renewal Rule, a renewal applicant must submit an integrated plant assessment (IPA).
The IPA includes an identification and screening i
part (Section 54. 21(a) (1) -(4 ) ) and an " effective programs" part (Section 54.21(a) (5)-(6)).
Of relevance here, the screening part i
of the IPA must include identification of a specified subset of plant structures and components (SCs).
Section 54.21(a) (1)-(2).
For this subset, applicant must both " identify the SCs that could have age-related degradation that is unique to license renewal" (Section 54.21(a) (3)), and " describe and justify... the technical criteria to be used in determining whether an SC is subject to age-related degradation unique to license renewal" (54. 21(a) (4) (iii).
In the effective programs part of the IPA applicant must either describe the effective programs and " demonstrate that they_will be effective in maintaining the CLB during the period of extended 4
operation," or demonstrate that an " effective program" is not needed.
Section 54.21(a) (5)-(6).
Effective programs must, among other things, " ensure identification and mitigation of age-related degradation unique to license renewal."
10 CFR 54.21(a) (6) (1).
t The Northern States Power Company (licensee for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant ) prepared a report titled, " Perspectives 2
on the License Renewal Process (10 CFR Part 54),"
dated November 20, 1992.
The paper was provided to the Commission for information.
The report included a discussion of several areas that NSP determined needed additional clarification of the Commission's intent with the implementation of the License Renewal 1
The Northern States Power Company -(NSP) is the lead boiling water reactor applicant in the nuclear industry's lead plant license renewal program.
The NSP's Monticello plant was selected by the nuclear industry to work with the Commission on i
developing and implementing the License Renewal Rule, which was issued in final form in December 1991.
NSP had been actively applying the final License Renewal Rule by preparing a license renewal application until the fall of 1992 when NSP placed the i
application on indefinite hold.
NSP stated the following reasons i
for this hold:
(1) the uncertain resolution of the high level l
radioactive waste issue, (2) the uncertain resolution of the low level radioactive waste issue and rising costs resulting from that uncertainty, (3) a need to demonstrate the ability to continue l
excellent operations while reducing costs, and (4) the regulatory uncertainties of the imC license renewal process.
5 Rule (10 CFR Part 54).
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), in a letter to the Commission dated November 25, 1992, stated that EPRI shared the same concerns discussed in the Northern States Power Company's report.
Additionally, the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC), in a letter to the Commission dated December 4,1992, also provided a brief discussion on several issues with the License Renewal Rule.
The overriding concern expressed by the industry in general is that the regulatory process for license renewal needs to be predictable and stable.
The major concerns relevant to the rulemaking are:
(1) the need for an effective and efficient implementation of the IPA provisions, 10 CFR 54.21(a), of the License Renewal Rule, (2) the question of whether the Maintenance and License Renewal rules (10 CFR 50.65 and 10 CFR Part 54, respectively) can be integrated further, (3) the appropriate scope of the License Renewal Rule, (4) the appropriate interpretation of the definition of age-related degradation unique to license renewal contained in 10 CFR 54.3, (5) the role of risk-based methodologies in the IPA, and (6) the appropriate level of detail required in an application and in updates to the FSAR required by the license renewal rule.
[ Copies of the referenced documents may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.,
(Lower Level), Washington, DC between the hours of 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.)_
The NRC Staff, in a series of senior staff management meetings in December 1992 and January 1993, evaluated these issues and recommended approaches and positions to clarify the Commission's intent for these issues.
The evaluation of the issues and the recommendations are contained in a paper written by the staff and sent to the Commission, SECY-93-049 (March 1,1993). The following conclusions were made by the staff in SECY 93-049:
(1) the License Renewal Rule does not need to be changed, since its two kcy princi-ples, are logical and practical, and provider a sound basis for safe operation beyond the 40-year term of the original operating license; (2) the license renewal review begins with a defined broad scope but enables the applicant to quickly focus on important equipment that could be negatively affected by aging in the renewal tern; (3) an approach (described in SECY 93-049) for an appropriate integration of the '.L tenance Rule and the License Renewal Rule requirements can '
- eloped which will enable both the NRC and applicants to use aeir resources efficiently; (4) the scope of-ITLR SSCs, including those subject to operability requirements contained in technical specification limiting conditions of operations, is defined in the rule and any change would require a rule change; changes to remove technical specification limiting conditions of operations which are not safety significant can-be effected outside of license renewal; (5) in conducting the IPA, ARD UTLR should be viewed broadly and the IPA should focus on effective i
programs rather than the identification of aging that is or is not unique to the renewal term; although SCs may be demonstrated as not being subject to ARD UTLR, as defined in the rulo, such a demonstration would require a detailed analysis by the applicant
-l I
i
6 and review by the NRC Staff for each SC; (6) programs that involve, in part, performance and condition monitoring can be structured so that they can be relied upon to demonstrate that aging is being effectively managed; (7) the IPA can be carried out so that a large majority of SCs can be demonstrated to be included in existing effective programs as evidenced by (a) the equipment being ad-dressed by regulation or in facility technical specifications, with specified acceptance criteria for performance or condition; and..
(b) inclusion in the maintenance rule scope and requirements; (8) i
- issues, including those related to fatigue and environmental qualification of electrical equipment, that involve the adequacy of the CLB will be addressed as potential safety issues within the existing regulatory process.
Where a facility's current licensing bases includes time-dependent elements, some additional analyses and/or actions may be needed to demonstrate that the CLB requirements continue to be satisfied in the renewal term; (9) the level of detail required for information in the application, and for future reporting, is appropriate and does not result in unwarranted administrative burdens.
Specifically, (a) ITLR SSCs can be identified in the application by means of appropriate group-ings rather than the identification of each piece of equipment, (b) reporting requirements for listed ITLR SSCs are applicable to additions and deletions and should not result in additional bur-dens, (c) requirements in 10 CFR 54.37 (c) for annual reporting of changes will not result in unwarranted burdens for renewal licens-ees; and (10) the form of the renewal license does not affect the scope of the technical issues reviewed or the safety evaluations required.
1 The NRC Staff held public meetings with NUMARC and other utility representatives on January 29, 1993, and March 12, 1993, to better understand the industry concerns and to explain the NRC Staff's positions on the various license renewal issues.
Based on these meetings, other interactions with industry groups involved with license renewal, and questions from individual Commissioners, the NRC staff provided an additional paper to the Commission that clarifies the staff's approach described in SECY-93-049 and proposes resolution of additional implementation issues.
This paper, SECY-93-113 (April 30,1993) discussed the following issues:
(1) clarification of the term " acceptance criteria" as it applies to effective programs in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR
- 54. 21(a) (6) (ii),
(2) clarification of the terms " character" and
" magnitude" as they apply to the definition of age-related degradation unique to license renewal contained in 10 CFR 54.3, (3) clarification of the necessary descriptions of effective programs in a renewal application as required by 10 CFR 54. 21(a) (6) and explanation of the criteria for deciding that no effective program is needed under 10 CFR 54.21(a) (5) (ii), (4) clarification of the practical implications of the effective program descriptions contained in the renewal applications from an enforcement-perspective, (5) guidance on the expected level of detail an applicant would submit as part of its renewal application to l
?
i 7
i justify the continuation of exemptions and relief as required by 19 CFR 54.21(c), (6) guidance for implementing the recordkeeping provisions of the rule and discusses the need to report changes in programs used to manage age-related degradation unique to license
- renewal, in accordance with 10 CFR 54.33 and 54.37, (7) clarification of the NRC staff's implementation of Section
- 54. 21(a) (5) that requires the applicant to demonstrate that age-related degradation unique to license renewal for important to license renewal structures or components is managed and the CLB is t
maintained.
In view of the concerns raised by the nuclear utility industry, and the Staff's proposals to address these concerns, the Commission proposes to both endorse SECY 93-049 and SECY 93-113 as an acceptable means of meeting Part 54, and adopt limited rule changes that would facilitate use of the Staff's proposed approach.
III. Areas of Additional Guidance A.
Assuming the Existeme of Age-Related Degradation Unique to License Renewal When Performing the IPA The Commission proposes to allow a licensee to assume, for i
I purposes of 10 CFR 54.21(a) (3) and (a) (4 ) (iii), that an SC is, or could be, subject to age-related degradation unique to license
{
renewal. Section 54.21(a) (3) currently requires that the applicant identify SCs that "could have age-related degradation that is unique to license renewal;" Section 54.21(a) (4) (iii) requires the applicant to describe the methods used in (a) (3), including "the technical criteria to e used in determining whether an SC is subject to age-related degradation unique to license renewal." The l
Commission's proposed alternative approach would specify that as an alternative to performing the identifying the SCs and the methodology used for identifying SCs required by Section
- 54. 21 (a) ( 3 ) and (a) (4) (iii), an applicant could simply assume that an SC is (or could be) subject to ARD UTLR.
i The definition of age-related degradation unique to license renewal
. Part 54 includes degradation "whose effects were not explicit]v identified and evaluated by the licensee for the period of extended operation and the evaluation found acceptable by the NRC."
See 10 CFR 54.3).
Therefore, the rule specifically addresses the circumstances where age-related degradation unique to license renewal is not identified and evaluated as part of the I
screening process for all or some SCs, and provides in effect that in this circumstance the SC is deemed subject to age-related l
degradation unique to license renewal and therefore must be further i
addressed within the IPA, either by demonstrating that an effective program is necessary, or that an effective program is not required.
Permitting an applicant to assume that most SCs are subject to age-related degradation unique to license renewal produces a result contemplated by the rule.
Moreover, at this point in the analysis
8 there is no adverse safety consequence because the result is a broader scope of effective program than the rule might otherwise require.
In this regard, the provision in
- 54. 21(a) (4) (iii) requiring identification and justification of the
" technical criteria" used for determining age-related degradation unique to license renewal in the screening process can reasonably be. read to refer to those circumstances where applicant does choose to perform an explicit identification and evaluation of age-related degradation unique to license renewal for specific SCs in the screening process.
In sum, while the License Renewal Rule's existing language is consistent with the Staff's proposal, the Commission proposes to make that clear in the proposed rule.
B.
Future Identification of Effects (Versus Mechanisms) and Mitigation of Age-Related Degradation Unique to License Renewal The Ccmmission proposes to interpret Section 54.21(a)(6) such that timely future identification of age-related. degradation effects rather than age-related degradation mechanisms will be sufficient to satisfy the regulatory requirement.
Under this interpretation, the renewal applicant need not identify' specific age-related degradation unique to license renewal, and describe the nature of the activities intended to address such degradation in the application itself.
Rather, the renewal application would describe the future maintenance activities (e.g.,
surveillance, testing, corrective actions) that provide reasonable assurance that all age-related degradation will be effectively managed to assure maintenance of the plant's current licensing basis (CLB).
The focus of an effective program is to ensure that a structure, system, or component (SSC) will continue to perform its required function or the SSC will not prevent the performance of a required function, and that the program must be effective in maintaining the CLB.
Although the language of Section 54.21(a) (6) is somewhat ambiguous, the License Renewal Rule and the SOC for the rule overall tend to permit an IPA which is focused on the effects of
.i age-related degradation unique to license renewal.
For one thing, the definition of age-related degradation unique to license renewal in 10 CFR 54.3 focuses on effects.
Second, there are statements in the Soc that would allow an exclusive focus on aging effects.
For
- example, the Soc states,-
"[T]he IPA should contain...a demonstration that, for all structures or components identified as being subject to degradation mechanisms o_r exhibiting degradation effects..., the degradation mechanism p_r ef fects will be addressed (56 FR at 64955, Col. 1).
The focus of the license renewal rule is to ensure that important plant equipment will perform their required function as necessary and that the current licensing basis is maintained, thus providing an acceptable level of safety.
This is also a focus of
m
._a b
t 9
Commission requirements that exist during the current operating license.
If one takes a close look at how the Commission requires licensees to ensure that aging is assessed so that equipment performs its required functions and that the current licensing basis is maintained, it will become clear that licensees and the Commission relies on both the initial identification and mitigation of aging mechanisms and the development of future activities to identify the effects of the aging and to mitigate the effects to maintain the performance of the required functions and the current licensing basis.
Structures and co=ponents that had degradation evaluated during design and initial licensing established a limit for the current operating term based on analysis.
For example, the aging mechanism of metal fatigue is required to be identified and mitigated prior to initial licensing by designing the equipment to a minimum level for the initial operating license term to ensure the equipment will perform its required functions throughout the initial operating license term.
Alternatively, the Commission relies, in part, on the identification of the effects.of radiation embrittlement of the reactor pressure vessel in order to ensure the reactor pressure vessel will perform its required functions and the CLB will be maintained.
Should degradation occur in the vast majority of reactor plant systems, surveillance programs are in place that will detect the degradation through functional tests or condition inspection.
With the exception of possibly fatigue and l
some others, the Commicsion relies mainly on the identification and i
mitigation of the effects of aging degradation and not the aging mechanisms themselves during the current operating term to ensure an acceptable level of safety is maintained.
i The Commission has determined that future identification of the effects of age-related degradation on performance or condition of a
structure or component in the
- future, as opposed to identifying degradation mechanisms in the renewal application itself will not result in any change in safety.
The emphasis here is on the effective management of the effects of age-related degradation on the structure or component and maintenance of the CLB.
The future identification of the effects of age-related degradation in an effective program is acceptable since age-related degradation manifests in a change of functional performance or condition.
Rather than focus on the degradation or aging mechanism, the IPA would focus on the adequacy of the program to monitor the structure's or component's functional performance or condition to assure its reliable functioning throughout the renewal term, regardless of the degradation nechanisms.
The commission recognizes that licensees should have a thorough knowledge of the functional requirements of important plant equipment, and have developed and implemented numerous activities and programs, both in compliance with Commission requirements and through actions on their own initiative, that effectively identify and mitigate the effects of aging.
The Commission and the licensees have had considerable experience with these types of programs and activities
10 and they have been effective, when properly implemented, at providing an acceptable level of safety.
As discussed in OGC's memorandum to the Commission (March 9, 1993), the most important question presented by this proposal is whether the License Renewal Rule itself requires identification and evaluation of age-related degradation unique to license renewal for specific SCs in the renewal application as part of the step-by-step process required by 10 CFR 54.21.
The relevant provision in the License Renewal Rule is Section 54. 21(a) (6), which states that effective programs must " ensure identification" of age-related degradation unique to license renewal, but is not crystal clear whether the effective program set forth in the renewal annlication
~
must include this idsntification or whether the application may merely set forth a program for timely future identification.
The use of the term " ensure" as opposed to " include" suggests a future identification, but the rule language would allow for either interpretation.
- However, there are relevant explicit indications in the Commission's explanation of the rule in the rule's SOC that the Commission anticipated that the IPA itself would include identification and evaluation of age-related degradation unique to license renewal for SCs.
The IPA, among other things, " consists
[of]
an evaluation of the age-related or performance degradation of those SSCs important to license renewal" (56 FR at.
64954, Col. 3), and requires the applicant "to gain the necessary understanding of aging mechanisms" and to " review the SSC design, fabrication, installation, testing (including performance and non-destructive testing),
inservice inspections, operation, and maintenance to the extent necessary in performing the IPA" (56 FR at 64956, Col.
2).
Numerous aspects of an adequate IPA are described as " dependent on factors such as the specific type of structure or component and the applicable degradation mechanisms" (56 FR at 64958, Col. 1)
Existing licensee programs may not constitute an adequate IPA because they. may not include "an evaluation of the possibility of age-related degradation problems unique to license renewal" (56 FR at 64956, Col.
2).
"The Commission concludes that a
formal review of age-related degradation unique to license renewal is needed at license renewal to ensure that operation during the period of extended operation i
will not be inimical to the public health and safety," (56 FR at 64946, Col.
1, emphasis added).
The staff's proposal that no.
i specific evaluation of age-related degradation unique to license renewal be performed for most SCs'before renewal is at variance with some portions of the statement of considerations of how the rule would be implemented when the rule was issued.
Courts defer to agencies' reasonable interpretation of their own regulations, even where the interpretation may.not appear as l
reasonable as some other alternative.
ph) '
v.
- Tallman, 380 U.S. 1 (1965).
There is no serious quest.2 n that Staff's
11 proposal would stand as an initial interpretation of the renewal i
rule (la., as an explanation in the SOC for the final License Renewal Rule).
The Commission has not found any reported cases where, as i
here, a Federal agency departed from an explicit explanation of the intent of a regulation in the regulation's SOC without going back and amending the rule. However, as a general rule agencies are not absolutely bound even by prior interpretations and may adjust policies in light of experience.
American Truckina Assoc.
v.
Atchison, Toneka & Santa Fe Rv, 387 U.S.
397 (1967); Montana Power Co.
v.
EPA, 608 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1979).
In principle, the explanatory language in a rule's SOC is not binding and merely l
represents guidance and expression of current intentions and policy.
Eowell v.
Andrus, 631 F.2d 699 at 705 (10th Cir. 1980);
Attorney General's Manual on the APA, p.
128.
Therefore, in principle an explanation in a rule's SOC may be departed from just i
as any matter of interpretation may be changed.
However, there are cases indicating that the weight to be afforded a given agency's interpretation depends on its consist?ncy with prior pronouncements, e.a..
Morton v.
Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (1974).
i In sum, the language of the Section 54.21(a) generally i
suggests that a program for timely future identification and r
mitigation of age-related degradation unique to license renewal l
will be adequate, but some language in the 1991 License Renewal Rule's SOC suggests otherwise.
Nevertheless, to remove any doubt, the Commission is proposing changes to Section 54.21(a) that would l
add a now paragraph confirming that a program of timely future i
identification and mitigation of age-related degradation will be sufficient for license renewal applications.
C.
Description of an Effective Program i
10 CFR
- 54. 21 (a) ( 6) requires that a
licensee submit a
description of the applicable effective programs for each structure j
or component and demonstrate that these programs will be effective in managing the effects of ARD UTLR as part of the technical information to be submitted in a renewal application.
In addition, Section 54.21(a) (6) (ii) indicates that an effective program must i
1
"[c]ontain acceptance criteria against which the need for
[
j corrective action will be evaluated, and ensure that timely i
i corrective action will be taken when these acceptance criteria are i
not met."
Questions have been raised regarding the level of l
detail which is necessary in the application to " describe" a proposed effective program that satisfies the requirements in the i
rule.
In particular, as issue has been raised, whether the renewal application's description of the effective program must actually I
contain the acceptance criteria-as opposed to describing the nature l
and basis for development of such criteria.
t s
t
I
~
12 The Commission believes
- that, in order to satisfy Section 54.21(a) (6), the renewal application must provide sufficient detail for the staff to conclude that all the necessary elements of an effective program are present, and that the acceptance criteria need not be included in the application, so long as the application describes:
(1) how the effective program will ensure the identification and mitigation of any effects of ARD UTLR, (2) the conditions or parameters used to establish the acceptance criteria, (3) how timely corrective action will be taken if acceptance criteria are not met, and (4) the administrative controls for implementing the effective program.
The identification and mitigation of the degradation can be described by clearly identifying the function (s) of the structure or component and the program elements that would ensure, by testing, monitoring, or evaluating, the applicable performance or condition regardless of the type of degradation.
These descriptions could rely to a large extent on methods, processes, and quantitative values that have been previously accepted by the staff (i.e., are given in some existing licensing documentation).
The " description" of the effective programs simply refers to the basis for the criteria and state the vehicle that implements the specific program actions.
The practical effect of this type of 4
description is that the detailed plant procedures are not drawn into the specific review as part of the renewal application.
t
- Further, should the implementing surveillance procedures be revised, the process in 10 CFR 54.33(d) to determine whether the effectiveness of the progrems is decreased would only be initiated if a licensee were to chanc.m an element of the program description contained in the application (e.g., the period of a surveillance, l
the type of inspections, the value of a minimum wall thickness, or the method for calculating the critical crack size) or if the program described incorporates by reference a specific element of the plant procedures.
NRC approval would only be necessary should l
this determination conclude that the change involved is a decrease in effectiveness of the programs described in the application.
i Other changes to the implementing surveillance procedures which are i
not contained in the application or directly referenced in the i
application would not be reportable in the 10 CFR 54.37(c) annual report.
l The Commission regards the clarification <. set forth above as entirely consistent with the language of Section 54.21(a) (6) and the SOC for the final License Renewal Rule.
However, to avoid any argument over the matter, the Co= mission pre,ses to add a new paragraph (11) to Section 54.21(a) which states that the i
description of an effective program need not contain acceptance criteria, so long as the application sets forth the conditions or parameters used to establish the acceptance criteria.
I D.
Reliance on Activities Intended to Demonstrate Compliance with the Maintenance Rule, 10 CFR 50.65 L
k
[
13 i
The Commission's proposed rule will also clarify that broad-l scoped maintenance activities which comply with the Maintenance 1
Rule, when coupled with appropriate acceptance criteria, can be 4
I relied upon by a renewal applicant as an " effective program" under Section 54.21(a) (6), if the applicant can demonstrate that all age-related degradation, including age-related degradation unique to license renewal, will be managed effectively both during the current term and the extended term of operation. The proposed rule adds a new paragraph (10) to Section 54.21(a) which sets forth the additional criteria (that is, requirements which are in addition to the Maintenance Rule's requirements) which maintenance activities would have to meet in order to be considered an effective program for license renewal.
Under the clarified requirements of Section l
54.21(a) (12), a maintenance program developed under the Maintenance 6
Rule will constitute an " effective program" under the License Renewal Rule only if the maintenance objectives assure compliance l
with the CLB rather than some other, possibly different, risk-based t
objectives.
This is because the License Renewal Rule requires an applicant to " demonstrate that these (effective) programs will be effective in maintaining the CLB during the period of extended operation," see 10 CFR 54. 2 (a) (6).
The Commission notes that where a licensee relies on the l
maintenance program together with acceptance criteria in technical r
specifications and regulations as a basis for a finding of an
" effective program," the plant's CLB will have to be reviewed as appropriate, to confirm that the maintenance program objectives, technical specifications and regulations will be effective in l
maintaining the CLB throughout the extended term of operation.
See i
i E.
Change in Magnitude of Age-Related Degradation The current definition of age-related degradation unique to 7
license renewal (ARD UTLR) identifies three sets of conditions under which degradation would be classified as unique to license i
renewal.
Part one of the definition states that age-related degradation shall be considered " unique to license renewal" if it
"...that occurs during the term of the current is degradation operating license but whose effects are different in character or magnitude af ter the term of the current operating license (the i
period of extended operation) ;...."
Effects of degradation that are different in " magnitude" refer to the condition that occurs when degradation of a structure or component (1) continues beyond the degradation that would or could have occurred if operation had ceased at the end of the currently licensed term and (2) the l
degradation that would or could result, if unmitigated by any action, in unacceptable performance or condicion of the structure or component (i.e., outside the current licensing basis) during the period of extended operation.
j i
14 The Commission proposes to modify the definition of age-related degradation unique to license renewal to make clear that structures or components that are not normally replaced are subject to cumulative degradation greater than that experienced in the original 40-year license period.
Examples would include primary system piping that would experience continued degradation through
- erosion, or stainless steel that would experience additional thermal embrittlement caused by continued exposures to high temperatures during plant operations.
If a licensee evaluates, by inspection and/or
- analysis, the cumulative effect of such-degradation and determines that the effect of the degradation will result in a failure to maintain the current licensing basis, then the effects of the degradation are "different in magnitude" and the structure or component is subject to ARD UTLR.
If by evaluation, the licensee determines that the effect of the degradation will not result in the failure to maintain the current licensing ' basis during the renewal term and that no activity is necessary to manage the degradation, then the effects of the degradation are not "dif ferent in magnitude. " If the evaluation further concludes that there is no change in the character (e.g., no significant increase in the rate of degradation in the renewal period), the structure or component is not subject to ARD UTLR.
A licensee could then use the specific structure or component evaluation in its integrated plant assessment as a basis to conclude either:
(1) that, in accordance with 10 CFR 54.21(a) (3), the structure or component is not subject to ARD UTLR, or (2) that, in accordance with Section
- 54. 21(a) (5) (ii), an effective program meeting the requirements of Section
- 54. 21 (a) (6) (i)-(iii) to manage the effect of the degradation is not needed.
The Commission believes that structures or components that are replaced with like-kind replacements such that the service life is precluded from exceeding 40 years, and which are not projected to be affected by a significantly greater degradation rate during the renewal term, would not be subject to ARD UTLR.
This conclusion is viewed as consistent with the Commission's SOC accompanying 10 CFR Part 54 which indicated that a generic conclusion regarding the acceptability of ' all periodic replacement programs could not be made at the time the rule was promulgated.
This conclusion is based on the specific requirement that like-kind replacement occurs such that service life will not exceed 40 years.
programs which involve replacement based on condition monitoring and which do not ensure a service life of 40 years or less would not permit a Dot subject to ARD conclusion that a structure or component.is o
UTLR.
However, programs which rely on condition monitoring to determine replacement, but which also ensure that service life does not exceed 40 years (e.g.,
replacement has already occurred or a specific replacement commitment is included) can be used to justify a conclusion that a structure or component is not subject to ARD UTLR.
Using this approach, a greater number of structures and components could be identified as not subject to ARD UTLR than was indicated in SECY-93-049.
i
e 15 Should a licensee choose not to perform a specific evaluation of the degradation effect for the period of extended operation in accordance with 10 CFR 54.21(a) (3), then as part of the integrated plant assessment, the licensee assumes that the structure or i
co=ponent could be subject to ARD UTLR.
The licensee would be required to discuss how the effects of degradation would be managed during the period of extended operation.
The presence of' existing programs or activities that would adequately manage degradation effects that are or could be important to license renewal is NOT an acceptable sole basis for arguing that a component could not experience ARD UTLR but could be used as the means of demonstrating how the effects of ARD UTLR would be managed.
F.
Need for Effective Program 10 CFR 54.21(a) (5) requires an applicant to demonstrate that structures or components that could have age-related degradation unique to license renewal are either:
(i) addressed through an effective program, or (ii) need not be addressed in an effective program.
However, Section 54.21(a)(5) does not set forth the criteria for demonstrating that an effective program is - not necessary to address age-related degradation unique to license renewal.
The Commission proposes the following approach for determining whether an SC that is or could be subject to age-related degradation unique to license renewal must be subject to an
" effective program" under Section 54.21(a) (5):
- 54. 21(a) (5) (1) :
EFFECTIVE PROGRAM IS NECESSARY Effective programs would be required for those structures and components of " fundamental safety importance." Such structures and components pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21(a) (5) (i) would need to meet the specific requirements of 10 CFR 54.21(a) (6).
The Commission proposes to define "SCs of fundamental safety importance" as those 2
SCs which satisfy any one of the following criteria Criterion 1:
Installed instrumentation that is used to detect and indicate in the control room a significant abnormal l
degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary.
Criterion 2:
A SC which include a design feature that is an initial condition of a' Design Basis Accident or Transient analysis that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier.
These criteria are based upon the criteria in SECY-93-067, 2
" Final Policy Statement on Technical Specifications Improvements,"
dated March 19, 1993.
[ Copies of this paper may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.,
(Lower Level),
Washington, DC between the hours of 7:45 a.m.
and 4:15 p.m.
in Federal workdays.]
)
o i
16
[
Criterion 3:
A SC that is part of the primary success path and which functions or actuates to mitigate a Design Basis Accident or Transient that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product i
barrier.
t Criterion 4: A SC which operating experience or probabilistic i
safety assessment has shown to be significant to public health and safety.
- 54. 21(a) (5) (ii) :
NO EFFECTIVE PROGRAM NEEDED - NO ACTION No ef fective program needed pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21(a) (5) (ii) would apply to those structures and components for which no action would be necessary to manage ARD UTLR such that the current licensing basis is maintained through the renewal term.
- 54. 21(a) (5) (ii) :
NO EFFECTIVE PROGRAM NEEDED - ACTION REQUIRED Structures and components, which are or could be subject to ARD UTLR, but which are determined not to be of fundamental safety t
importance (i.e.,
do not require " effective programs") would be addressed either by current licensee programs or by commitments for future action (e.g.,
maintenance programs) if they were demonstrated to be sufficient to ensure compliance with the current licensing basis.
Although program demonstrations under 10 CFR
- 54. 21(a) (5) (ii) would not need to meet all of the specific i
requirements for effective
- programs, they would require descriptions in the application which would be reviewed and approved by the staff and found acceptable to manage age-related i
degradation unique to license renewal.
Such program descriptions would not be subject to 10 CFR 54.33(d) or 54.37.
The Commission 5
believes that actions to manage ARD UTLR for SCs which are not of fundamental safety importance under 10 CFR 54.21(a) (5) (ii) need not be subject to the regulatory controls and recordkeeping requirements of Sections 54.33(d) and 54.37 because those activities will be subject to other programs and controls, such as the activities covered by the Maintenance Rule (10 CFR 50.65), 10 i
CFR Part 50.
To disposition a structure or component under 10 CFR
- 54. 21(a) (5) (ii), a renewal application would need_ to contain a i
description of the evaluation or program performed which I
demonstrates that the effects of ARD UTLR will not adversely affect the performance or-condition of the structure or component during the renewal period.
Detailed evaluations and i=plementing procedures need not be submitted but would be retained by the licensee in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 54.37(a).
i G.
Regulatory Controls: Changes to Previously-Approved Programs and Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
^
17 Section 54.21(a) (5) requires the renewal applicant to specify whether an SC which is (or could be) subject to age-related degradation unique to license renewal is addressed in an " effective program" which meets the requirements of Section 54.21(a) (6), or which "need not be addressed in an effective program." In SECY 93-113, the Staff proposed that only systems and components (SCs) of
" fundamental safety importance" need an " effective program" under Section
- 54. 21 (a) ( 5) to manage the effects of age-related degradation unique to license renewal for a SC.
This approach, which the Commission proposes to endorse as part of this rulemaking, would establish two different' categories of programs:
(a) " effective programs" to manage the age-related degradation unique to license renewal for SCs of fundamental safety i
significance; and (b) other programs / activities to manage age-related degradation unique to license renewal for SCs which are not i
of fundamental safety significance.
The significance of the distinction is that
" effective programs" would be subject to the regulatory controls in Sections
- 54. 21(a) (6), 54.33(d), and 54. 37 (c), whereas other programs to manage age-related degradation unique to license renewal of SCs which are not of fundamental safety importance would not be subject to those regulatory controls.
Under these sections, it is clear that an effective program is subject to Section 54.21(a) (6) (iii),
which requires that an effective program be implemented by onsite procedures, and that any changes be reviewed by the onsite review committee.
An effective program is also subject to Sections 54 33(d) and 54.37(c).
Section 54.33(d) requires NRC approval of' any licensee change that involves a decrease in effectiveness of programs described in the FSAR or application for managing age-related degradation unique to license renewal before it can implement the change.
Finally, Section 54.37(c) requires the licensee to report annually to the NRC any changes that do not i
decrease the effectiveness of programs described in the FSAR that manage the offects of ARD UTLR, and maintain records of these changes, including a written safety evaluation of the bases for concluding that the changes do not decrease the effectiveness.
Programs and activities necessary to manage aging but where the Commission finds that an " effective program" is not needed, are not subject to the administrative controls in Section 54.21(a) (6).
However, the language of Sections 54.33(d) and 54.37(c) are unclear as to whether their provisions apply only to " effective programs',"
or to all activities managing aging, ia., including those programs addressing aging but which are not "ef fective programs" pursuant to Section 54.21(a) (5) (ii).
The Cor. mission believes it is more i
reasonable to limit the reach of Sections 54.33(d) and 54.37(c) only to activities and programs which are "ef fective programs,"~ and not to the programs and activities which address aging but for which the Commission determines-need not be covered by " effective programs." The Commission believes that actions to manage ARD UTLR for SCs which are not of fundamental safety importance'under 10 CFR Y
l l
4 l
I 18 I
i 54.21(a) (5) (ii) need not be subject to the regulatory controls and l
recordkeeping requirements of Sections 54.33(d) and 54.37 because those activities will be subject to other programs and controls, such as the activities covered by the maintenance rule (10 CFR 59.65),
and 10 CFR 50.59.
To disposition a structure or component under 10 CFR 54.21(a) (5) (ii),
l a renewal application would need to contain a description of the j
evaluation or program performed which demonstrates that the effects of ARD UTLR will not adversely affect the performance or condition of the structure or component during the renewal period.
Detailed evaluations and implementing procedures need not be submitted but would be retained by the licensee in accordance with the i
requirements of 10 CFR 54.37 (a).
Furthermore, to read Section 54.33(d) and 54.37(c) broadly to cover all programs and activities i
to manage aging, rather than limited only to effective programs, would largely eliminate any practical distinction between effective programs and other activities needed to manage aging.
Therefore, to provide that only those activities constituting j
" effective programs" are subject to the regulatory controls, including recordkeeping and reporting, in Sections 54.33(d) and 54.37(c), the Commission proposes to modify those sections by substituting the
- term,
" effective program" for the phrases,
" programs and procedures reviewed and approved by the staff that manage age-related degradation unique to license renewal," and l
" programs for manage =ent of age-related degradation unique to d
)
IV.
Questions I
i
)
In addition to comments on the proposed clarifying amendments l
l to Part 54 which are discussed above, the Commission would like l
public comments on the following questions.
l 1.
Are there any specific changes that the NRC should make to the License Renewal Rule, which are consistent with I
the two fundamental principles of license renewal i
reiterated above in Section II?
Provide the specific j
a language that should be used, clearly state the reasons t
l for the proposed changes and how the proposed changes resolve the issue of concern.
}
2.
Are there other approaches to implementation of the current License Renewal Rule that the Commission should i
pursue or additional alternatives to the process proposed in SECY-93-049 and SECY-93-113, which are consistent with l
the two principles of license renewal?
Please provide j
the reasons or basis for any proposed alternatives or suggested changes.
l 3.
Are the staff's proposed criteria for identifying i
structures and components which are of fundamental safety j
i 1
r
+
~
i 19 importance for license renewal appropriate? If not, why not? What would be appropriate criteria for identifying i
structures and components which are of fundamental safety
[
importance?
{
4.
Will the approach for meeting the requirements of 10 CFR Part 54, as described in SECY-93-049 and SECY-93-113, result in the imposition of regulatory requirements for j
J j
plant structures or components that are not of fundamental safety importance?
l (a)
What are specific examples of equipment that are not of fundamental safety importance but would l
become newly subject to the regulatory controls as l
a result of the license renewal process?
l (b)
Would any resulting regulatory requirements be l
needed to satisfy the rule's objective--that age-related degradation unique to license renewal will
~
be managed to ensure that the licensing basis will I
be maintained during the renewal tern?
(c)
Would any such regulatory requirements be overly burdensome? If yes, provide a detailed explanation j
for your conclusions.
{
l V.
Implementation The approach for conducting an IPA, as discussed in Sections III. A, B and C above, represents only one method for complying with j
3 the requirements of Section 54.21(a).
Licensees are free to l
implement the IPA in accordance with the SOC acccupanying the final i
J 1991 rule.
The Commission will evaluate the experience of the first i
license renewal applications, in order to identify other
[
alternative ways of accomplishing the IPA which are consistent with i
Section 54.21(a), and desirable from other standpoints.
VI.
Section-by-Section Analysis Section 54.3 This section is amended to add a new definition, "SC of fundamental safety importance."
t Section 52.21(a) j Section 54.21(a) is modified to add paragraph (7), which clarifies that an applicant's IPA may assume the existence of age-l related degradation unique to license renewal for one or more.SCs.
J Tnis would preclude the need for the applicant to specifically
t 20 L
l explain whether that SC is subject to age-related degradation unique to license renewal.
Paragraph (8) is added to Section 54.21(a) to clarify that an applicant need not identify mechanisms, as opposed to the effects, of age-related degradation unique to license renewal unless they are necessary to identify or describe a program which will timely l
identify the effects of such degradation.
Paragraph (9) indicates that SCs subject to age-related degradation unique to license renewal will not need " effective programs" meeting the requirements of Section
- 54. 21(a) (6) if either: (a) no action is necessary to assure compliance with the CLB throughout the renewal term, or (b) the SC is not of fundamental safety importance.
Paragraph (10) allows the applicant to rely upon future identification, evaluation and appropriate mitigation of age-related degradation unique to license renewal.
Finally, paragraph (11) explicitly states that maintenance activities conducted as required by the Maintenance Rule, 10 CFR 50.65, can be considered to be an " effective program" if the requirements of Section 54.21(a) (6) are satisfied.
Sections 54.33(d) and 54.37 are amended to make clear that i
their provisions only apply to " effective programs."
XII. Conclusion The Commission's proposed rule, together with the positions set forth in SECY 93-049 and SECY 93-113, would provide alternative ways of complying with the requirements. of an IPA under 10 CFR 54.21(a), and provide revised guidance on other requirements of Part 54.
The two fundamental principles of license renewal remain unchanged under the proposed rule, and there would be no change to the findings in 10 CFR 54.29 which the Commission must make in order to issue a renewed license.
VIII.
Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this proposed rule is the type of action described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c) (2).
Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed rule.
The NRC has also prepared a draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) which discusses, in a generic fashion, the environmental impacts associated with the renewal of operating licenses for individual nuclear power plants.
The draft GEIS has been published for public comment as part of a proposed rule amending the NRC's requirements for environmental review (56 FR
e 21 47016, September 17, 1991).
The NRC is currently reviewing public comments and preparing a final GEIS.
IX.
Paperwork Reduction Act State =ent The proposed rule does not contain an new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).
Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval number 3150-0155.
t X.
Re-gulatory Analysis The NRC has not prepared a regulatory analysis for this proposed rule because it is not the type of action for which a regulatory analysis is required or would be useful.
XI.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 USC 605(b), the Commission certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rule concerns itself with the technical requirements for obtaining renewed operating licenses for nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plant licensees do not fall within the definition of small businesses as defined in Section 3 of the Small Business Size Standards of the Small Business Administrator (13 CFR Part 21),
or the Commission's Size Standards (50 FR 502441; December 9, 1985).
XII.
Non-Applicability of Backfit Rule The NRC has determined that the Backfit Rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed rule and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required for this proposed rule, because this proposed rulemaking does not involve any provisions which would impose backfits, as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (a) (%.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 54 Government contracts, Insurance, Intergovernmental relations, Inventions and patents, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Age-related degradation.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC adopts the following amendment to 10 CFR Part 54.
PART 54 - Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants
/
22 1.
The authority citation for Part 54 continues to read as follows:
PART 54 -- REQUIREMENTS FOR RENEWAL OF OPERATING LICENSES FOR i
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 161, 181, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C.
5841, 5842).
2.
Section 54.3 is amended to read as follows:
i S54.3 Definitions.
As used in this part, j
Age-related degradation means a change in a system's, structure's, or component's performance or physical or chemical properties r
resulting in whole or part from one or more aging mechanisms.
Examples of this type of change include changes in dimension, ductility, fatigue resistance, fracture toughness, mechanical strength, polymerization, viscosity, and dielectric strength.
Age-related degradation unique to license renewal is degradation-(1)
That occurs (or could occur) during the term of the current i
operating license but whose effects are different in character or magnitude af ter the term of the current operating license (the period of extended operation); or (2)
Whose effects were not explicitly identified and evaluated by the license for the period of extended operation and the evaluation found acceptable by the NRC; or (3)
That occurs only during the period of extended operation.
Aging mechanisms are the physical or chemical processes that result in degradation.
These mechanisms include but are not limited to fatigue, erosion / corrosion, wear, thermal embrittlement, microbiologically induced effects, creep, and shrinkage.
Current licensing basis is the set of NRC requirements applicable to a specific plant and a licensees written commitments for ensuring compliance with and operation within applicable NRC requirements and the plant-specific design basis (including all modifications and additions to such commitments over the life of the license) that are docketed and in effect. The CLB includes the NRC regulations contained in 10 CFR parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 30, 40, s
50, 51, 54, 55, 70, 72, 73, and 100 and appendices thereto; orders; I
I
/
l 23 license conditions, exemptions; and technical specifications.
It also includes the plant-specific design basis information defined in 10 CFR 50.2 as documented in the most recent final safety analysis report (FSAR) as required by 10 CFR 50.71 and the licensee's commitments that were made in docketed licensing correspondence such as licensee responses to IEC bulletins, generic letters, and enforcement actions, as well as licensee commitments documented in IGC safety evaluations or licensee event reports.
Effective Program (EP) is a documented program to manage age-related degradation unique to license renewal that ensures that a system, structure, or component important to license renewal will continue to perform its required function or will not prevent the performance of a required function during the period of extended operation.
Integrated plant assessment (IPA) is a licensee assessment that demonstrates that a nuclear power plant facility's systems, structures, and components important to license renewal have been identified and age-related degradation unique to license renewal will be managed to ensure that the facility's licensing basis will be maintained during the renewal term.
Nuclear power plant means a nuclear power facility of a type described in 10 CFR 50.21(b) or 50.22.
Renewal term means the period of time that is the sum of the additional amount of time beyond the expiration of the operations license that is requested in the renewal application plus the remaining number of years on the operating license currently in effect.
Systems, structures and components (SSCs) important to license renoval are:
(1)
Safety-related SSCs, which are those relied upon to remain functional during and following design basis events (as defined in 10 CFR 50.49(b) (1)) to ensure:
(i)
The integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary; (ii)
The capability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition; or (iii)
The capability to prevent or mitigate the-consequences of accidents that could result in potential offsite exposure comparable to the 10 CFR part 100 guidelines (2)
All non-safety-related SSCs whose failure could directly prevent satisfactory accomplish =ent of any of the required
)
I 24 functions identified in paragraphs (1) (i), (ii), or (iii) of this definition.
(3)
All SSCs relied on in safety analyses or plant evaluations to demonstrate compliance with the Commission's regulations for fire protection (10 CFR 50.48),
environmental qualification (10 2FR 50.49),
pressurized thermal shock (10 CFR 50.61),
anticipated transients without scram (10 CFR 50.62), and station blackout (10 CFR 50.63).
(4)
All SSCs subject to operability requirements contained in 7
the facility technical specification limiting conditions for t
operation.
SC of fundamental safety importance is a SC which is either:
(a) installed instrumentation that is used to detect and indicate in the control room a significant abnormal degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary; (b) a SC which includes a design feature that is an initial condition of a design basis accident or transient analysis that either assumes the failure of, or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier; (c) a SC that is part of the primary success path and which functions or actuates to mitigate a design basis accident or transient that either assumes the failure of, or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier.
(d) a SC which operating experience or probabilistic safety I
assessment has shown to be significant to public health and safety.
All other terms in this part have the same meanings as set out in 10 CFR 50.2 or section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act, as
(
applicable.
l l
t 3.
Section 54.21 is amended to read as follows:
l
$54.21 Contents of application-technical information.
(a)
(1)
I (2)
(3) h
'{
25
)
(4) i (5)
(6)
(7)
The applicant can comply with paragraphs (a) (3) and (a) (4 ) (iii) of this
- section, and with the requirement for identification of age-related degradation unique to license renewal in paragraph (a) (6) (i) of this section, by assuming that ce SC is (or could be) subject to age-related degradation which is un!que to license renewal.
(8)
In conplying with paragraphs (a) (3)-(11) of this section, an applicant need not identify the mechanisms of age-related degradation unique to license renewal, except to the extent this may be necessary to identify or to describe a program which will on a timely basia mitigate the effects of such degradation.
l t
(9)
An effective program is not needed under paragraph (a) (5(11) l of this section if either:
(i) the applicant demonstrates that no actions are required to manage age-related degradation unique to license renewal for an SC in order to provide reasonable assurance that the current licensing basis is maintained throughout the renewal tern; or (ii) the SC is determined not to be of fundamental safety importance.
(10) An description of an effective program under paragraph (a) (6) of this section may either:
(A) identify and describe the mitigation actions intended to address age-related degradation unique to license renewal; or (B) describe the activities for timely future identification, evaluation, and appropriate mitigation of the effects of age-related degradation unique to license renewal.
(11) The description of an effective program under paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this section need not contain the acceptance criteria against which the need for corrective action will be evaluated, if 1
the description contains the conditions or parameters used to establish the acceptance criteria.
(12) A maintenance program developed under 10 CFR 550.65, if coupled with appropriate acceptance criteria, will constitute an
" effective program"under paragraphs (a) (5) and (6) of this section if the applicant demonstrates that all age-related degradation will be effectively managed during the current term and the extended term of operation.
i
?
o k
26 4.
Section 54.33 is amended to read as follows:
SS4.33 Continuation of current licensing basis and conditions of renewed licenses.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
The licensee shall maintain the effective programs approved by the staff that manage age-related degradation unique to license renewal.
A licensee may make changes to effective programs referenced in the renewal application or FSAR without prior Commission approval if the changes are reviewed by the onsite review committee or equivalent and found not to decrease the effectiveness of the effective programs for management of age-related degradation unique to license renewal of specific systems, structures, or components previously accepted. Changes that do not reduce the effectiveness of effective programs must be documented in accordance with S54.37.
Proposed changes to effective programs that decrease the effectiveness of effective programs must be submitted to the NRC and receive NRC approval before implementation.
(e) 5.
Section 54.37 is amended to read as follows:
S54.37 Additional records and recordkeeping requirements.
(a)
(b)
(c)
The licensee shall submit to the NRC at least annually a list of all changes made to effective programs as described in the FSAR that do not decrease the effectiveness of such programs, and a brief description, including a summary of the safety evaluation of each change.
The licensee shall maintai:. written documentation that provides the basis for concluding that the change does not reduce the effectiveness of these programs.
- e
_.-4 t
+
1
+
?
i, s
- tr i
' I 3
. p f
r
- b
-i v
'I t
4 i
ATTACHMENT 3 s
h
- ?
t
.. t 6
?
8 t
I
.f
,ih h
- f f
I
-Y
.[
a i +
- r f
e f
i
..g n
I
- i
- .I 6
.. j
?
.i v
-n.
,_,',w
.x
G 1
ENCLOSURE 2 May 14, 1993 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 54 l
t RIN Satisfying the Requirements of 10 CFR Part 54 l
l AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
l ACTION:
Proposed Rule.
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to modify the License Renewal Rule, 10 CFR Part 54, by clarifying the regulatory controls applicable to activities managing age-related degradation unique to license renewal in Sections 54. 21(a) (6), 54.33(d) and l
54.37.
DATE:
Comment period expires
[60 days after publication).
I 1
to do s
but the Co issi is able t assu e-consideration only for comments received on'or before this date.
ADDRESSES:
Mail written comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear i
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing l
and Service Branch.
j i
Deliver comments to:
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD
~
between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven
- Reynolds, Office' of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: (301) 504-1115.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
I.
Introduction II.
Background
III. Discussion j
IV.
Questions l
l V.
Implementation VII. Conclusion VIII.
Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion IX.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement i
1 e
e I
i 2
X.
Regulatory Analysis XI.
Regulatory Flexibility Act i
XII. Non-Applicability of Backfit Rule I.
Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to amend the License Renewal Rule, 10 CFR Part 54, to make clear that only " effective programs" required by Section 54. 21(a) (5) and described under Section 54.21(a) (6) are subject to the regulatory controls in Sections 54.33(d) and 54.37.
II.
Background
As set forth in the Statement of Consideration (SOC) for Part 54 (56 FR 64943, December 13, 1991), the License Renewal Rule was based on two fundamental principles.
'% first principle was that, because of the breadth and vigcJ u the licensing and regulatory oversight process for licens.-
actors, license renewal did not require a formal review of the full range of safety issues.
However, the Commission also concluded that "certain age related i
degradation that may be important in the period of extended operation is not required to be addressed during the present license in a manner that would be adequate for the period of extended operation" (56 FR at 64954, Col.
2).
This ' led the Commission to conclude that "a formal, disciplined licensing review of age-related degradation unique to license renewal is necessary" (M., Col. 3).
The second fundamental principle was that "the plant-specific licensing basis [CLB) must be maintained during the renewal term in the same manner and to the same extent as during the original license term" (56 FR at 64953, Col.1), except that the CLB could be amended in a process separate from and prior to renewal (E. at Col. 3).
These two fundamental principles are the legal underpinning for the basic theory of license renewal that applicants need not address the hundreds of safety issues relevant both to' current and extended operation, but must effectively manage age related degradation unique to license renewal to assure continued compliance with the CLB.
These fundamental principles are'not under reconsideration in this rulemaking.
Under the provisions of the License Renewal Rule, a renewal applicant must submit an integrated plant assessment (IPA).
The IPA includes an identification and screening i
part (Section 54.21(a) (1)-(4)) and an " effective programs" part (Section 54.21(a)(5)-(6)).
Of relevance here, the screening part
g
- ^
3 of the IPA must include identification of a specified subset of plant structures and components (SCs).
Section 54.21(a) (1)-(2).
For this subset, applicant must both " identify the SCs that could have age-related degradation that is unique to license renewal" (Section 54.21(a) (3)), and " describe and justify... the technical criteria to be used in determining whether an SC is subject to age-related degradation unique to license renewal" (54. 21(a) (4) (iii).
In the effective programs part of the IPA applicant must either describe the effective programs and " demonstrate that they will be effective in maintaining the CLB during the period of extended operation," or demonstrate that an " effective program" is not needed.
Section 54.21(a) (5)-(6).
Effective programs must, among other things, " ensure identification and mitigation of age-related degradation unique to license renewal."
10 CFR 54.21(a) (6) (1).
The Northern States Power Company (licensee for the Monticello 2
Nuclear Generating Plant ) prepared a report titled, " Perspectives on the License Renewal Process (10 CFR Part 54),"
dated November 20, 1992.
The paper was provided to the Commission for information.
The report included a discussion of several areas that NSP determined needed additional clarification of the Commission's intent with the implementation of the License Renewal Rule (10 CFR Part 54).
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), in a letter to the Commission dated November 25, 1992, stated that EPRI shared the same concerns discussed in the Northern States Power Company's report.
Additionally, the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC), in a letter to the Commission dated December 4,1992, also provided a brief discussion on several issues with the License Renewal Rule.
The overriding concern expressed by the industry in general is that the regulatory process for license renewal needs to be predictable and stable.
The major concerns relevant to the rulemaking are:
(1) the need for an effective and efficient implementation of the IPA provisions, 10 CFR 54.21(a), of the License Renewal Rule, (2) the question of whether the Maintenance and License Renewal rules (10 1
The Northern States Power Company (NSP) is the lead boiling water reactor applicant in the nuclear industry's lead plant license renewal program.
The NSP's Monticello_ plant was selected by the nuclear industry to work with the Commission on developing and implementing the License Renewal Rule, which was issued in final form in December 1991.
NSP had been actively applying the final License Renewal Rule by preparing a license renewal application until the fall of 1992 when NSP placed the application on indefinite hold.
NSP stated the following reasons for this hold:
(1) the uncertain resolution of the high level radioactive vaste issue, (2) the uncertain resolution of the low level radioactive waste issue and rising costs resulting from that uncertainty, (3) a need to demonstrate the ability to continue excellent operations while reducing costs, and (4) the regulatory uncertainties of the IEC license renewal process.
i
6' 1
4 i
CFR 50.65 and 10 CFR Part 54, respectively) can be integrated further, (3) the appropriate scope of the License Renewal Rule, (4) the appropriate interpretation of the definition of age-related degradation unique to license renewal contained in 10 CFR 54.3, (5) the role of risk-based methodologies in the IPA, and (6) the appropriate level of detail required in an application and in updates to the FSAR required by the license renewal rule.
[ Copies of the referenced documents may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street IM.,
(Lower Level), Washington, DC f
between the hours of 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.]
The NRC Staff, in a series of senior staff management meetings in December 1992 and January 1993, evaluated these issues and recommended approaches and positions to clarify the Commission's intent for these issues.
The evaluation of the issues and the recommendations are contained in a paper written by the staff and sent to the Commission, SECY-93-049 (March 1, 1993). The following l
conclusions were made by the staff in the paper:
(1) the License Renewal Rule does not need to be changed, since its two key princi-ples, are logical and practical, and provides a sound basis for safe operation beyond the 40-year term of the original operating license; (2) the license renewal review begins with a defined broad scope but enables the applicant to quickly focus on important equipment that could be negatively affected by aging in the renewal term; (3) an approach for an appropriate integration of the Maintenance Rule and the License Renewal Rule requirements can be developed which will enable both the NRC and applicants to use
~
their resources efficiently; (4) the scope of ITLR SSCs, including those subject to operability requirements contained in technical specification limiting conditions of operations, is defined in the rule and any change would require a rule change; changes _to remove technical specification limiting conditions of operations which are not safety significant can be effected outside of license renewal; (5) in conducting the IPA, ARD UTLR should be viewed broadly and the IPA should focus on effective programs rather than the identification of aging that is or is not unique to the renewal term; although SCs may be demonstrated as not being subject to ARD UTLR, as defined in the rule, such a demonstration would require a detailed analysis by the applicant and review by the ImC Staff for each SC; (6) programs that involve, in part, performance and condi-tion monitoring can be structured so that they can be relied upon to demonstrate that aging is being effectively managed; (7) the IPA can be carried out so that a large majority of SCs can be demonstrated to be included in existing effective programs as evidenced by (a) the equipment being addressed by regulation or in f acility technical specifications, with specified acceptance crite-ria for performance or condition; and (b) inclusion in the nainte-i nance rule scope and requirements; (8) issues, including those related to fatigue and environmental qualification of electrical equipment, that involve the adequacy of the CLB will be addressed as potential safety issues within the existing regulatory process.
Where a facility's current licensing bases includes time-dependent I
I
3 5
l i
elecents, some additional analyses and/or actions may be needed to demonstrate that the CLB requirements continue to be satisfied in the renewal term; (9) the level of detail required for information in the application, and for future reporting, is appropriate and does not result in unwarranted administrative burdens.
Specifically, (a) ITLR SSCs can be identified in the application by i
means of appropriate groupings rather than the identification of each piece of equipment, (b) reporting requirements for listed ITLR SSCs are applicable to additions and deletions and should not result in additional burdens, (c) requirements in 10 CFR 54.37(c) for annual reporting of changes will not result in unwarranted burdens for renewal licensees; and (10) the form of the renewal license does not affect the scope of the technical issues reviewed or the safety evaluations required.
The NRC Staff held public meetings with NUMARC and other utility representatives on January 29, 1993, and March 12, 1993, to better understand the industry concerns and to explain the NRC Staff's positions on the various license renewal issues.
Based on these meetings, other interactions with industry groups involved with license renewal, and questions from individual Commissioners, the NRC staff provided an additional paper to the Commission that clarifies the staff's approach described in SECY-93-049 and proposes resolution of additional implementation issues.
This paper, SECY-93-113 (April 30,1993) discussed the following issues:
(1) clarification of the term " acceptance criteria" as it applies to effective programs in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 54.21(a) (6) (ii),
(2) clarification of the terms " character" and
" magnitude" as they apply to the definition of age-related degradation unique to license renewal contained in 10 CFR 54.3, (3) clarification of the necessary descriptions of effective programs in a renewal application as required by 10 CFR 54. 21(a) (6) and explanation of the criteria for deciding that no effective program is needed under 10 CFR 54.21(a; (5) (ii), (4) clarification of the practical implications of the effective program descriptions contained in the renewal applications from an enforcement l
perspective, (5) guidance on the expected level of detail an applicant would submit as part of its renewal application to justify the continuation of exemptions and relief as required by 19 CFR 54.21(c), (6) guidance for implementing the recordkeeping provisions of the rule and discusses the need to report changes in programs used to manage age-related degradation unique to license i
- renewal, in accordance with 10 CFR 54.33 and 54.37, (7) clarification of the NRC staff's implementation of Section i
- 54. 21(a) (5) that requires the applicant to demonstrate that age-related degradation unique to license renewal for important to license renewal structures or components is managed and the CLB is maintained.
t In view of the concerns raised by the nuclear utility industry, and the Staff's proposals to address these concerns, the Commission proposes to both endorse SECY 93-049 and SECY 93-113 as I
c'.
6 L
F an acceptable means of meeting Part 54, and adopt a limited rule changes that would make clear that only " effective programs" as required in Section 54. 21(a) ( 5) are subject to the regulatory controls and recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Sections 54.33(d) and Section 54.37.
III. Discussion Section 54.21(a) (5) requires the renewal applicant to specify whether an SC which is (or could be) subject to age-related degradation unique to license
- renewal, is addressed in an
" effective program" which meets the requirements of Section
- 54. 21(a) ( 6), or which "need not be addressed in an effective i
program." In SECY 93-113, the Staff proposed that only systems and components (SCs) of
" fundamental safety importance" need an
" effective program" under Section 54.21(a) (5) to manage the effects of age-related degradation unique to license renewal for a SC.
This approach, which the Commission proposes to endorse as part of this rulemaking, would establish two different categories of programs:
(a)
" effective programs" to manage the age-related degradation unique to license renewal for SCs of fundamental safety significance; and (b) other programs / activities to manage age-related degradation unique to license renewal for SCs which are not of fundamental safety significance.
The significance of the distinction is that
" effective programs" would be subject to the regulatory controls in Sections
- 54. 21(a) (6), 54.33(d), and 54.37 (c), whereas other programs to manage age-related degradation unique to license renewal of SCs which are not of fundamental safety importance would not be subject
{
to those regulatory controls.
Under these sections, it is clear that an effective program is subject to Section 54.21(a) (6) (iii),
which requires that an effective program be implemented by onsite i
procedures, and that any changes be reviewed by_the onsite review committee.
An effective program is also subject to Sections 54.33(d) and 54.37(c).
Section 54.33(d) requires NRC approval of any licensee change that involves a decrease in effectiveness of programs described in the FSAR or application for managing age-related degradation unique to license renewal before it can implement the change.
Finally, Section 54. 37 (c) requires the licensee to report annually to the NRC any changes that do not decrease the effectiveness of programs described in the FSAR that manage the effects of ARD UTLR, and maintain records of these changes, including a written safety evaluation of the bases for concluding that the changes do not decrease the effectiveness.
Programs and activities necessary to manage aging but where i
the Commission finds that an " effective program" is not needed, are r
not subject to the administrative controls in Section 54.21(a) (6).
However, the language of Sections 54.33(d) and 54.37(c) are unclear as to whether their provisions apply only to " effective programs,"
or to all activities managing aging, i.e., including those programs l
~~
s c*.
4 7
addressing aging but which are not " effective programs" pursuant to Section 54.21(a) (5) (ii).
The Commission believes it is more reasonable to limit the reach of Sections 54.33(d) and 54.37 (c) only to activities and programs which are " effective programs," and not to the programs and activities which address aging but for which the Commission determines need not be covered by " effective programs." The Commission believes that actions to manage ARD UTLR for SCs which are not of fundamental safety importance under 10 CFR 54.21(a) (5)(ii) need not be subject to the regulatory controls and recordkeeping requirements of Sections 54.33(d) and 54.37 because those activities will be subject to other programs and controls, such as the activities covered by the maintenance rule (10 CFR 59.65),
and 10 CFR 50.59.
To disposition a structure or component under 10 CFR 54.21(a) (5) (ii),
a renewal application would need to contain a description of the evaluation or program performed which demonstrates that the effects of ARD UTLR will not adversely affect the performance or condition of the structure or component during the renewal period.
Detailed evaluations and implementing procedures need not be submitted but would be retained by the licensee in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 54.37(a).
Furthermore, to read Section 54.33 (d) and 54.37(c) broadly to cover all programs and activities to manage aging, rather than limited only to effective programs, would largely eliminate any practical distinction between effective programs and other activities needed to manage aging.
"3erefore, to provide that only those activities constituting
" effective programs" are subject to the regulatory controls, including recordkeeping and reporting, in Sections 54.33 (d) and 54.37(c), the Commission proposes to modify those sections by substituting the term,
" effective program" f-the phrases,
" programs and procedures reviewed and approved by the staff that manage age-related degradation unique to license renewal," and
" programs for management of age-related degradation unique to licanse renewal."
IV.
Questions The Commission would like public comments on the following questions.
1.
Are there any specific changes that the NRC should make to the License Renewal Rule, which are consistent with the two fundamental principles of license renewal reiterated above in Section II?
Provide the specific language that should be used, clearly state the reasons for the proposed changes and how the proposed changes resolve the issue of concern.
2.
Are there other approaches to implementation of the current License Renewal Rule that the Commission should pursue or additional alternatives to the process proposed
9*',
s 8
in SECY-93-049 and SECY-93-113, which are consistent with the two principles of license renewal?
Please provide the reasons or basis for any proposed alternatives or suggested changes.
3.
Are the staff's proposed criteria in SECY 93-113 for identifying structures and components which are of fundamental safety importance for license renewal appropriate? If not, why not? What would be appropriate criteria for identifying structures and components which are of fundamental safety importance?
4.
Will the approach for meeting the requirements of 10 CFR Part 54, as described in SECY-93-049 and SECY-93-113, result in the imposition of regulatory requirements for plant structures or components that are not of fundamental safety importance?
(a)
What are specific examples of equipment that are not of fundamental safety importance but would become newly subject to the regulatory controls as a result of the license renewal process?
(b)
Would any resulting regulatory requirements be needed to satisfy the rule's objective--that age-related degradation unique to license renewal'will be managed to ensure that the licensing basis will be maintained during the renewal term?
(c)
Would any such regulatory requirements be overly burdensome?
If yes, provide a detailed explanation for your conclusions.
V.
Conclusion The Commission's proposed rule, together with the positions set forth in SECY 93-049 and SECY 93-113, would provide alternative t
ways of complying with the requirements of an IPA under 10 CFR 54.21(a), and provide revised guidance on othar requirements of Part 54.
The two fundamental principles of license renewal remain unchanged under the proposed rule, and there would be no change to the findings in 10 CFR 54.29 which the Commission must make in I
order to issue a renewed license.
VI.
Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion i
The NRC has determined that this proposed rule is the type of action described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c) (2).
Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed rule.
- 5. e o 9
The NRC has also prepared a draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) which discusses, in a generic fashion, the environmental impacts associated with the renewal of operating licenses for individual nuclear power plants.
The draft GEIS has been published for public comment as part of a proposed rule amending the NRC's requirements for environmental review (56 FR 47016, September 17, 1991).
The NRC is currently reviewing public=
comments and preparing a final GEIS.
l VII.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement The proposed rule does not contain an new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).
Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval number 3150-0155.
VIII.
Regulatory Analysis The NRC has not prepared a regulatory analysis for this proposed rule because it is not the type of action for which a regulatory analysis is required or would be useful.
IX.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 USC 605(b), the Commission' certifies that this proposed. rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rule concerns itself with the technical-requirements for obtaining renewed operating licenses for nuclear power plants.
Nuclear power plant licensees do not fall within the definition of small businesses as defined in Section 3 of the Small i
Business Size Standards of the Small Business Administrator (13 CFR Part 21),
or the Commission's Size Standards (50 FR 502441, December 9, 1985).
X.
Non-Applicability of Backfit Rule The NRC has determined that the Backfit Rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed rule and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required for this proposed rule, because this proposed rulemaking does not involve any provisions which would impose backfits, as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (a) (1).
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 54 Government contracts, Insurance, Intergovernmental relations, Inventions and patents, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Age-related degradation.
i i
~
a 3 ;+.
e 10 For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy l
Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C.
552 and 553, the NRC adopts the following amendment to 10 CFR Part 54.
j PART 54 - Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants l
1.
The authority citation for Part 54 continues to read as-follows*
i PART 54 -- REQUIREMENTS FOR RENEWAL OF OPERATING LICENBES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 161, 181, 182, 183, 186,_189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954r 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, 1244, as anended (42 U.S.C.
5841, 5842).
2.
Section 54.33 is amended to read as follows:
554.33 Continuation of current licensing basis and conditions of renewed licenses.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
The licensee shall maintain the effective programs approved by the staff that manage age-related degradation unique to license renewal.
A licensee r.ay make changes to effective programs referenced in the renewal application or FSAR without prior Commission approval if the changes are' reviewed by the onsite review committee or equivalent and found not to decrease the effectiveness of the effective programs for management of age -
related degradation unique to license renewal of specific systems, structures, or components previously accepted.
Changes that so not reduce the effectiveness of effective programs must be documented in accordance with 554.37.
Proposed changes to effective programs that decrease the effectiveness of effective programs must be submitted to the NRC and receive NRC approval before implementation.
(e) 3.
Section 54.37 is amended to read as follows:
i
c}**s o
11
$54.37 Additional records and recordkeeping requirements.
(a)
(b) j (c)
The licensee shall submit to the NRC at least annually a list of all changes made to effective programs as described in the
-t FSAR that do not decrease the effectiveness of such programs, and a brief description, including a summary of the safety evaluation of each change.
The licensee shall maintain written documentation that provides the basis for concluding that the change does not reduce the effectiveness of these programs.
J i
e 1
l t
i f
f i
I
..