ML20058P386
| ML20058P386 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/10/1990 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-55FR29043, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-54 PR-900710, NUDOCS 9008170013 | |
| Download: ML20058P386 (88) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
~..
1 7
I ROCKET NUMBER FROPOSED RULE PR 2e *sv t75 0-013 1
g,fe.mej
'of,!P o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION 10 CFR Parts 2, 50, and 54 RIN 3150-AD04 (Ch r.$EC) {
Ent:u Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal 9
AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
i ACTION:
Proposed rule.
SUMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to issue a rule that would establish the requirements that an applicant for renewal of a nuclear power plant operating ' license must meet, the information that must be submitted to the NRC for review so that the agency can determine i
whether those requirements have in fact been met, and the application pro-cedures. This proposeu rule will inform nuclear power plant licensees of necessary requirements for renewing operating licenses.
DATE: The comment period expirea 90 days from the date of publication in the Federal. Register.
Comments received after this date will be con-sidered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission'is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES:
Comments may be sent to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, b hington, DC 20555, Attention:
Docket-ing and Service Branch, or may be hand-delivered to One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, W 20852, between 7:30 an and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.
Copies of comments received may be examined at the
- \\\\
+
9008170013 900710 NSF29043 PDR.
s l
%D
l 4
[7590-01) 2 Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L St., NW (Lower Level),
e Washington. 00, between the hours of 7:45 an and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.
1 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Sege, Office of Nuclear Regulatory
[
Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 Telephone:
(301) 492-3917.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I.
Introduction.
II.
Background.
P III.
Proposed Action.
IV.
Principal Issues, a.
Regulatory Philosophy and Approach.
b.
Current Licensing Basis.
c.
d.
Nature of License.
e.
Latest Data for Filing Renewal Application, the Timely Renewal Doctrine, and Suf ficiency of the Renewal Application.
f.
Earliest Data for Filing Applications, g.
Renewal Ters.
h.
Effective Date of Renewed License.
_y.
,...,.,w..
,, ~
y_
,-r-
m 1
i
[7590-01]
3 1.
Content of Application -- Technical Information.
j.
Environmental Information, k.
Backfit Considerations.
1.
- Hearinas, m.
Report of the advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, n.
Emergency Planning Considerations.
o.
Plant Physical Security Considerations, p.
Operator Licensing Considerations.
q.
Financial Qualification Considerations.
r.
Decommissioning Considerations, s.
Antitrust Review, t.
Compliance with 10 CFR Part 140.
V.
Questions.
VI.
Ave'1 ability of Documents.-
VII.
Environmental Impact.
VIII Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.
IX.
Regulatory Analysis, s
l
Db90-01]
i 4
X.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification, XI.
Non-Applicability of Backfit Rulo, J
t 5
p k
?
I t
I l
e e
[7590-01]
5 I.
INTRODUCTION i
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA) limits the duration of most i
operating licenses for nuclear power plants to a maximum of 40 years, but permits their renewal.
The Commission's regulations at 10 CFR 50.51
. implement this authority by permitting renewal.
However, f 50.51 provides no standards or procedares for determining renewal applications.
The nuclear utility industry has expressed considerable interest in operating existing nuclear powe
- plants beyond their initial term of operation.
The industry has undertakon several initiatives in support of plant life exten-sion.
A Steering Committee on Nuclear Plant Life Extension (NUPLEX) has been formed under the direction of the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC).
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), in coop-eration with the U.S. Department of Energy (D0E), and two utilities have sponsored research on life extension, including pilot studies on two nuclear plants, Surry-1 and Monticello.
This has culminated in DOE funding of two lead applications for renewal of the operating licenser for the Yankee Rowe and Monticello facilities.
The nuclear industry has urged the NRC to develop standards and procedures. for license renewal so that the utilities would know what will i
be required to obtain a renewed operating license.
The industry states that a license renewal rule is needed now because of the need for a sig-nificant number of plants to make decisions in the near future as to whether to seek license renewal.
For the oldest nuclear power plants, the expiration of their original operating licenses is approaching.
If the 108 nuclear power plants licensed as of the end of 1989 were licensed l
,,..,..-,.-,_,...._,--,---...__-~,-.....v.,_.-._.__.,-,-._.,.~,,~,...-y-.
[7590-01]
6 for 40 years from the date of their operating license, the first eight plants will have their licenses expire during the years 2000 to 2009, with another 40 licenses expiring by 2014.
U.111 ties contend that they will require 10 to 15 yaars to plan and build replacement power plants if the operating licenses for existing nuclear power plants are not renewed.
They also contend that the NRC's technical requirements for licence renewal must be established before utilities can reasonably deter-mine whether renewal of their existing operating licenses is economically and technically justified.
(For more information on the expiration of facility operating licenses, see Appendix A to the Regulatory Analysis for License Renewal, NUREG-1362.) To ensure a reasoned process for con-sidering license renewal for those who may pursue it, the NRC has deter-mined to proceed with license renewal rulemaking now in order to establish the requirements for renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses in a timely fashion.
II.
BACKGROUND The NRC's research progs an on the degradation of nuclear power plant systems, structures, and components (SSCs) due to aging began in the early 1980s.
In 1982, the NRC staff, recognizing the potential impact of plant aging phenomena on the continued safe operation of nuclear power plants, convened a " Workshop on Plant Aging" in Bethesda, Maryland.
The purpose of the workshop was to focus attention on how to best proceed to identify and resolve the various technical plant aging issues relevant to life extension..In 1985, the Division of Engineering of the Office of Nuclear
1
[7590-01]
l 7
i Regulatory Research issued the first comprehensive program plan (NUREG-l 1144) for nuclear power plant aging research.
By 1986, age-related degra-f i
dation became a more important priority with the recognition that utilities were interested in ex Ming the life of their existing power plants beyond the tem of up to 40, ears of their original operating licenses, j
In response, the NRC staff developed the " Plan to Accomplish Technical Integration for Plant Aging / Life Extension" (May 1987) and established i
a Technical Review Group for Aging and. Life Extension (TIRGALEX).
The objectives of TIRGALEX were to clearly define the technical safety and regulatory policy issues associated.iith plant aging and life extension and to develop a plan for resolving the issues in a timely, well-integrated
)
manner.
In May 1987, the TIRGALEX report was issued.
It identified a i
broad spectrum of technical safety and regulatory policy issues.
These included identification of systems, structures, and components that are i
susceptible to aging and could adversely affect safety; degradation pro-cesses; testing, surveillance, ar.d maintenance requirements; and criteria for evaluating residual life.
TIRGALEX concluded that many aging phenom-l.
ena are readily managed and do not pose major technical issues that would preclude life extension, provided that necessary compensatory measures such as maintenard, surveillance, repair, and replacement are effectively implemented during the extended operation, and for a number of the mea-sures during the existing license term as well.
Simultaneously, a request for comments on establishment of a policy statement on life extension was published in the Federal Register (51 FR 40334; November 6,1986).
Comments were requested on seven major policy, technical, and procedural issues (21 separate questions).
The first and
-r++-p w
,u n e,-
,m.
n,sw
, - - - ~
,---,r-.,-~~-,.,n.,
-a n--+
e-wwewe, e:
[7590-01) 8 Sixth policy areas focused on the timing of regulatory action on life extension, including the need for a policy statement, and timing of reso-lution of policy, technical, and procedural issues.
The earliest and latest dates for filing a life extension application and the potential term of such an extension were the subject of the second and a portion of the fourth policy area.
The question of an appropriate licensing basis was the third policy issue, including the need for and role of a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA).
The fourth and fifth areas focused on technical issues regarding the ' nature of aging degradation, its identifi-cation and mitigation, and the need for research and changes to industry codes and standards.
The final policy area was the need for procedural changes in the Commission's regulations for handling life extension requests.
A total of 58 written comments were received from the electric utility industry, public interest groups, private citizens, independent consultants, and government agencies.
These comments were reviewed and a summary provided in SECY-87-179, " Status of Staff Activities to Develop a License Renewal Policy, Regulations and Licensing Guidance and to Report on Public Comments" (July 21, 1987).
Based on these comments, the staff began to specifically identify and resolve the wide variety of policy,and technical issues relevant to life extension.. In August 1988, the staff published an Advance Notice of Pro-posed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register (53 FR 32919; August 29, 1988) in which the Commission announced its intention to bypass a policy statement and go directly to preparing a proposed rule on license renewal.
The ANPRM also announced the availability of NUREG-1317, " Regulatory Options for Nuclear Plant License Renewal," and requested comments on the J
l 1
(7590-01) 9 issues discussed.
First, three alternative licensing bases for assessing the adequacy of a _ life extension application were presented and discussed:
(a) the existing licensing basis for a facility, (b) supplementation of the existing licensing basis with reviews in safety significant areas, or (c) compliance with new plant standards at the time the application is submitted.
Commenters were asked to identify whether any other major regulatory options for license renewal should be considered, and whether verification of the existing licensing basis at each plant should be required for license renewal.
Second, two alternatives for handling uncertainties in age related degradation were described and discussed:
(a) emphasize maintenance, inspection, and reliability assurance, or (b) emphasize defense-in-depth.
The relative merit of the two alternatives was the second subject for comment.
Third, the advisability of preparing
}
a generic environmental impact statement (EIS) and whether Part $1 should be amended to permit the NRC the option of preparing an environmental assessment (2A) instead of an EIS were discussed.
Finally, 12 procedural and policy issues were discust.ed.
Comments on the environmental, proce-dural, and policy issues were invited.
Fifty-three written comments were received from nuclear industry groups and individual utilities, public interest groups, and Federal and State agencies in response to the ANPRN and commenting on NUREG-1317.
An overview and summary analysis of the comments are contained in NUREG/CR-5332, " Summary and Analysis r.i 'ublic Comments on NUREG-1317:
Regulatory Options for Nuclear Plant License Renewal" (March 1989).
Also in 1988 the NRC, in cooperation with the American Nuclear Society (ANS) the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE),' the American Society l
4 (7590 01) 10 of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and the Institute of Electrical and Elec-tronics Engineers (IEEE), sponsored an International Nuclear Power Plant Aging Symposium.
The symposium, which was held in Bethesda, Maryland, from August 30 to September 1, 1988, was attended by more than 550 internation-ally prominent nuclear scientists and engineers from 16 countries.
The
)
symposium focused on the potential safety issues arising from progressive aging of nuclear power plants.
These issues included aging of structures
[
in austenitic steel, fatigue life of structural materials, aging of insul-ating materials, degradation of pumps and valves, reliability of safety system components, radiation and thermal embrittineent of metals, and erosion-corrosion of fluid-mechanical systems.
Discussion addressed topics i
in the staff's report h0 REG-1317, which had been published immediately preceding the symposium.
The proceedings of the symposium were published f
as NUREG/CP-0100 in March 1989.
The NRC staff's views on specific license renewal issues, as evolved in early 1989, were presented to the public in an NRC panel discussion and l
question and answer session at the NRC's Regulatory Information Conference.
l held on April 18, 19, and 20, 19$9.
Among the issues discussed were the I
nature of a renewed license (renewed license versus amendment of existing license), the need for probability risk assessment (PRA), integration with the Individual Plant Examination (IPE) process, and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
on October 13, 1989 (54 FR 41980), the Commission announced that a workshop would be held on November 13 and 14,1989, to focus on specific technical issues, including identification of the significant technical issues bearing on safety, the nature and content of standards for issuance 1
s
~,.,,
.,..-_..,..,,,.ym.-
m..,
,,_-..,e.-_-
-.m.--
[7590-01) 11 of a renewed license and the appropriate role and scope of deterministic I
(
4 and probabilistic risk t*sessments.
In addition, the schedule for rulemak-ing and alternatives for addressing compliance with NEPA were identified as issues for discussion.
General questions to focus workshop discussions l
were provided in the Federal Register notice and later supplemented by a 4
more detailed set of questions.
In addition, the Federal Register notice 1
i included a " Preliminary Regulatory Philosophy and Approach for License i
Renewal Regulation" and an " Outline of a Conceptual Approach to a License j
Renewal Rule." Written comments on the questions posed, the statement of l
regulatory philosophy, and the conceptual rule outline were accepted by the agency up to December 1, 1989.
Transcripts were mado of the entire i
w % hop.
Two hundred and one individuals (not including NRC staff) l representing 89 organizations registered for the workshop.
A partial i
listing by category includes 62 individuals representing 28 electric j
utilities,10 individuals representing 2 nuclear industry groups,16 individuals representing 4 nuclear vendors, 5 individuals representing 21rchitect-engineer firms, 36 industry consultants representing 26 firms, 5 individuals representing 4 State agencies, 2 journalists from 2 trade i
press organizations, and 1 individual from a public interest group.
Com-ments provided during the workshop were from industry representatives and individuals affiliated with the nuclear industry.
The Nuclear Management 1'
and Resources Council (NUMARC), Yankee Atomic Electric Company, and North-l ern States Power Company presented prepared comments at each session.
In addition, written comments were received from 12 organizations, including substantial submissions by NUMARC, Yankee Atomic, Northern States Power, j
i l
Westinghouse, the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, and an independent a
l v...
m
. ~ - -
-.,, ~
,--n-..,.
[7590-01]
l 12
\\
I consultant.
DOE was the only Federal agency submitting written comments.
No comments were submitted by any public interest group.
l III.
PROPOSED ACTION The Atomic Energy Act, which permits renewal of licenses, and the license renewal rule already in effect (10 CFR 50.51) do not contain specific procedures, criteria, and standards that must be satisfied in order to renew a license.
The proposed rule would establish the proce-l dures, criteria, and standards governing nuclear power plant license renewal.
The following are the principal elements of the proposed rule:
l (1) The licensing basis for a nuclear power plant during the renewal l
term will consist of the current licensing basis for that plant together with any additional considerations related to possible degradation through aging of systems, structures, and components ($5Cs) important to license renewal, necessary to ensure that the facility can continue to be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
The " current f
licensing basis" includes all applicable NRC requirements and licensee commitments, as defined in the rule.
(2)
Provisions are included requiring renewal applicants to perform and submit an integrated plant assessment, in which systems,. structures, and components important to license renewal are identified and screened, to determine and describe the required age related degradation management
- actions, l
1
[7590-01) 13 (3) An application is required to contain specified information for NRC review, including a description of plans for. aging management.
(4) Opportunity for public hearings is provided.
i (5) Application may be made not more than120 years before license l
expiration.
It must be made not. lass than 3 years before license expira-tion for the timely renewal provision of 10 CFR 2.109 to apply.
(6) A renewal license is effective-upon its issuance, t
(7) 'A renewal term may be granted or approved as justified by the licensee, but not for more than 20 years beyond the original license il expiration.
I IV.
PRINCIPAL ISSUES r
l l
a.
Regulatory Philosophy and Approach i
(i) Two Principles.
l The regulation that the Commission proposes for license renewal is founded on two key principle;. The first principle is that, With the exception of age-related degradation, the current licensing basis for each reactor provides-and maintains an acceptable level of safety for operation during any renewal period.
The second and equally important principle is that each plant's current licensing basis must be maintained during the renewal period, in part through a program of age-related degra-l dation management for systems, structures, and components that are l-important in this connection.
[7590-01)
I 14 (ii) First Principle:
Licensing Basis Retention.
The current licensing basis, as used above, means the Commission requirements and licensee commitments imposed on a nuclear power plant at the time of the initial license, as modified or supplemented by the many additional requirements that have been imposed on the licensee by the Com-mission subsequent to the initial license and by the additional commit-ments made by the licensee during the period of plant' operation up to the filing of a renewal application.
This principle is founded on the Commis-sion's initial finding of adequate protection for the. initial design and construction of a nuclear power plant, as well at che Coenission't contin--
uing oversight and regulatory actions with respect to nuclear power plants.
The Commission may issue an operating license to a utility only if it can make the findings required by 10 CFR 50.57.
More specifically, the-Commission must conclude that the facility will operate in compliance with the application, as amended, and the rules and regulations of the Commis-i sion.
Further, the Commission must conclude that the authorized activi-t ties can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the t
public and that the issuance of an operating license will not be inimical.
to the common defense and security or the public health and safety.
- Thus, when the Commission issues an initial operating license, it has determined that the design, construction, and proposed operation of the facility satisfy tne Cohaission's requirements and provide adequate protection of the public health and safety and common defense and security.
l However, the licensing basis upon which the Commission determined that an acceptable level of safety existed does not remain fixed for the term of the operating license.
Rather, the licensing basis continues to
i l
[7590-01) 15
\\
evolve during the term of operation, in part due to the continuing regula-tory activities of the Commission.
These include research, inspections, and the evaluation of operating experience.
New requirements and guidance are promulgated by the Commission wh?ch may require plant modifications on a plant-specific basis; generic and unresolved safety issues are resolved and the resolution may require that licensees evaluate and modify their designs; and additional evaluations are routinely required as the Commission identifies areas of plant operation that require additional understanding.
(iii) Review of Operating Events.
The Commission has a program for the review of operating events at nuclear power plants.
As a requirement of the current licensing basis, r
and one which would continue during the renewal term, each licensee is required to notify the Commission promptly of any plant event that meets or exceeds the threshold defined in 10 CFR 50,72 and to file a written l
1 censee event report for those events that meet or exceed.the threshold defined in 30 CFR 50.73.
This information is reviewed daily and followup efforts are carried out for events that appear to be potentially risk sig-nificant or are judged to be a possible precursor to a more severe event.
Depending on-the significance, further action may be taken to notify all licensees or to impose additional requirements.
Information on operating events is disseminated by the NRC in the form of information noti *es, bul-latins,'and other reports; by individual licensees in the form of licensee l
event reports.
The total process offers a high degree of assurance that i
s
_ ~ _.,,,..
-.c.~r
I c
[7590-01]
16 1
events that are potentially risk significant or precursors to potentially significant events are being reviewed and resolved expeditiously.
j (iv) Generic Safety Issues.
I As described in SECY-89-138, the Commission also maintains an active program for evaluating and resolving generic issues that may impact public
{
health and safety.
A generic safety issue (GSI) involves a safety concern that may affect the design, construction, or operation of all, several, or a class of reactors or facilities.
Its resolution may have a potential for safety improvements and promulgation of new or revised requirements or guidance.
It should be noted, nowever, that all unresolved GSIs generally address only enhancements of safety.
This conclusion was determined during the initial evaluation of the generic concern which assessed whether any aspect of the generic concern might have a significant impact on the pro-tection of the public health and safety or that immediate remedial action would be warranted.
The licensing basis of' individual plants includes j
changes that have resulted from resolution of generic issues determined to be applicable and will include applicable generic-issue-derived changes h
in the future, i
A special group of 22 generic safety issues deemed to be of sufficient significance to warrant both a high priority resolution effort and special
)
i attention in tracking was designated as unresolved safety issues (USIs).
All USIs have been resolved.
Most of the USI resolutions have been imple-i mented; the remainder are being implemented on a schedule found r
saticfactory by the staff.
The USI and GSI resolution process is limited to issues that-are not of such gravity that immediate action (remedy or shutdown) is required.
{
r
~ ~
[7590-01]
17
- Cost-benefit analyses were employed as part of the basis of resolving GSIs involving safety enhancement above the adeounte-safety level.
In these tradeoffs between net safety benefit and net cost, the remaining plant operating term ordinarily enters the calculations.
However, such calculations do not have a precision sufficient to make a significant dis-tinction between plant operating terms with and without a 20 year renewal, given the fact that these decisions have been based on average plant ages in the first half of a 40 year license ters.
Accordingly, it is not nec-essary to reexamine in the license renewal context such cost-benefit cal-culations underlying decisions not to backfit.
Should special circum-stances in connection with a particular issue as applied to a particular plant warrant reassessment, such reassessment would be undertaken on a plant-specific basis.
(v) Systematic Evaluation Program.
In 1977 the NRC initiated the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) to review the designs of older operating nuclear power plants and thereby confirm and document their safety.
The reviews were organized into approximately 90 review topics (reduced by consolidatinns from 137 originally identified).
The review results were documented in a series of l
Integrated Plant Safety Assessment Reports.
As a result of these reviews with respect to some of the issues, the licensees proposed and implemented procedural or hardware modifications or additional analyses to define corrective actions that would improve plant safety with respect to the differences from current requirements that were identified.
The SEP effort highlighted a smaller group of 27 regulatory topics 9
)
o
[7550-01]
18 l
for which corrective action was generally found to be necessary for all of the initial SEP plants and for which significant safety improvements i
for other operating plints of the same vintage could be expected.
The topics on this smaller list are referred to as the SEP " lessons learned,"
and the staff expects that these topics would be generally applicable to J
operating plants that received their construction pemits in the late-1960s or early 1970s, As part of the current staff effort associated with documenting the regulatory processes that contribute to the continued adequacy of the cur-rent licensing bases at operating plants, the staff has under way a short-term effort to identify how specific " lessons learned" from the SEP effort have been factored into the licensing bases of all operating plants or
[
into ongoing regulatory programs.
The staff proram includes identifica-tion and cinfinition of the lessons learned as generic safety issues and determination of the appropriate priority rankings'for the resolution of these issues.
The staff effort will take public comments on this issue
(
into account.
I (vi) Consistency of Regulatory Philosophy.
The regulatory philosophy containing the two fundamental principles is also consistent with the Commission policy stated in the Policy State-ment entitled " Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Future Designs and Exis-ting Plants (50 FR 23138; August 8, 1985)." In this Policy-Statement, the Commission concluded that existing plants pose no undue risk to public health and safety.
Moreover, the Commission stated that it has ongoing nuclear safety programs, described in NUREG-1070, that include the
(
-n
,,.-_w-,.n.,,-
e
,,n
e I
[7590-01]
i 19 l
resolution of unresolved safety and generic safety issues, the Severe l
Accident Research Program, operating experience and data evaluation con-cerning equipment failures and human error, and scrutiny by NRC inspec-l tors to monitor the quality of plant construction, operation, and main-tenance.
If new safety information were to become available, from any source, to question the conclusion of na undue risk, then the technical issue (s) so identified would be resolved by the NRC under its backfit policy and other existing procedures including the possibility of generic l
rulemaking.
(vii) Probabilistic Risk Assessment.
?
Althougn a plant-specific probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) or plant safety assessment (PSA) will not be a requirement for the renewal of plant operating licenses, the Commission recognizes that a plant-specific probabilistic assessment can be used as an effective tool that can providt integrated insights into the plant design and procedures and provide an l
additional measure of overall plant safety.
The Commission understands l
l that all plants will have completed a plant-specific PRA as part of the Individual Plant Examination program.
Probabilistic assessment techniques 1
could also be used as a supplemental tool in the renewal applicant's integrated plant assessment that is to underlie the plant's age-related degradation management program as well as in monitoring the safety impli-cations of a plant's performance during the renewal term.
As part of the monitoring function, time trends in the frequency of events or in the rate of deterioration of equipment with significant safety implications could be identified.
This monitoring process helps ensure that acceptable. levels of
,. ~
....,e
[7590-01]
i 23 t
the current licensing basis proposed by the licensee to accommodate age-related degradation must be thorougiily analyzed and justified by the i
licensee.
The justification must show that the licensee proposed changes provide adequate protection to the public health and safety.
Such licensee-initiated changes in the current licensing basis would be subject to challenge in a hearing.
{
If the staff or the licensee seeks to make changes in a plant's licensing basis for reasons other than age-related degradation, they l
should be pursued either in the existing operating license or the renewed license, once. issued.
Staff-initiated changes would be evaluated in accordance with the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109.
b.
Current Licensing Basis 4
l (1) Current Licensing Basis Explained.
As discussed earlier and as defined in this pecposed rule, the current licensing basis (CLB) means the Commission requirements for the plant that are in effect at the time of the renewal application.
Included are the requirements at the time that the initial license for the plant was granted together with requirements subsequently imposed.
It includes the licensee's commitments for complying with those requirements at the time the initial license was granted, including those documented in the operating license application or Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
Further, the CLB includes.those requirements and commitments as modified or supplemented by add',tional requirements imposed by the Commission and -
by commitments made Sy the licensee during the period of plant operation f
k I
e
+~
h_
i,..
v t-}s
[7590-01]
24 up to the filing of a' renewal app 1C cation that are part of the docket.for
.the plant's licens'e.
More ipecifically this includes, but is not limited to, plant-specific compliance with the Commission regulations as prescribed in Parts. 2,19, 20, 21, 30; 40,- 50, 55,L 72, 73, and 100 and the appendices thereto of Title.10 of the Code of Federal-Regulations; orders;. license conditicis; exemptions; and technical specifications.
In addition, the current 1_icensing basis includes written commitments made in docketed licensing correspondence, such as responses to NRC bulletins, generic letters, and enforcement actions, that remain in effect at the time of the application.
'The licensing basis for the plant at the time of application will form the basis for each licensee's compilation of those items that would be tested against the criteria used in the SSC screening process as accep-tance or rejection criteria and, therefore, for determining the need for additional masures related to preventing, mitigating, or monitoring age-related degradation.
The Atomic Energy Act directs the owission to ensure that nuclear 1
power plant operation provides adequate protection to.the health and 1
safety of the public..However, adequate protection is not absolutt pro-taction or zero risk and.therefore safety improvements beyond the minimum needed for adequate protection are possible.
As new information is devel-oped on technical subjects, the NRC identifies potential hazards and then may require that designs be able to cope with such hazards with sufficient safety margins and reliable: systems.
When this new information may reveal an unforeseen significant harcrd or a substantially greater potential' for a known hazard, or insufficient margins and backup capability, the 9
__ _ ~ _... _ _.. _ _. _..90-011 l
25' Commission may,'in light of the information, conclude that: assurance of an' acceptable level of safety requires changes in the existing regulations.
j Therefore, as the Commission identifies new issues or concerns, reasoned engineering decisions occur within the Commission concerning whether any additional measures must be taken at plants to resolve the issues.
When i.
. specific actions are identified, the Commission, through its-regulatory.
nrograms _ can modify the ilicensingLbases at operating plants at any time-l to resolve the new concern.
This process of determinations concerning.
I backfitting of evolving requirements to plants already licensed is cur-rently. guided by the provisions of the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109).
Before promulgation of the backfit. rule, similar considerations were applied, though the backfit rule enhanced the discipline of the process.
4 In view of the regulatory programs and processes just described, it i
is' evident that the licensing basis differs'among plants.
These differ-4 ences arise from differences in'~1icense date as well as differences in such factors as site, plant design, and plant operating experience.
The
- paragraphs = above have described, in general terms, the processes ' employed by the Commission to provide continued assurance that the licensing basis.
at an operating plant provides an acceptable level of safety at any point in time of its operating life and that the current licensing bases of older plants remain acceptable through backfit of: newly. evolving require-
[
ments and guidance when that.is necessary for adequate safety or warranted as worthwhile safety enhancements.
These regulatory processes also ensure that the-licensing bases of older plants excused from complying with specific new requirements remain acceptable.
i
[
[7590-01) 26'
_(ii) Foundation for the Adequacy of the Licensing Bases.
j
~
L In order to limit the Commission's license renewal decision to
(
consideration of whether age-related degradation has been adequately addressed, the Part 54 rulemaking must make a generic finding for all nuclear power plants that the reasonable' assurance findings for issuance t
l of an operating license continue to be true at the time of the renewal L
1 application and accordingly need not be made anew at the time of license renewal.. The technical and policy bases for this generic finding are set forth in a document entitled " Foundation for the Adequacy of the Licensing
-Bases" (NUREG-1412), which is a separate supplement to this statement of considerations.
This document describes how the: licensing process has evolved in major safety. issue areas, under processes that have ensured continued adequacy'of older plants.
The document thus details the Com-1 mission's reasons for considering it unnecessary to re-review an operating l
plant's licensing basis, except for age-related degradation concerns, at the time of license renewal.
The document does-this in generic terms.
Plant-specific details can be found in.the docket files containing the records of individual plant license applications and licenses.
The document also illustrates how the regulatory process will continue to ensure that an operating reactor's licensing basis will continue to provide an acceptable level of safety during any renewal. term.
In view of the differences in the licensing bases among plants, each licensee will be required to compile its plant's licensing basis for use in the screening process to identify SSCs requiring action to manage ge-related degradation.
Since porticas of this compilation constitute acces-tance criteria for determining the adequacy of the screening methodolog -
.. ~.
~
[7590-01]
27 and will be carried forward in the renewed ters, a list of documents identifying these' portions ofLthe current licensing Dasis should be subal+.ted as part of the application.. All documents describing the current licensing basis should be maintained in an auditable and retrievable form.
(iii)- Compliance with the Licensing Bases.-
The Commission has determined that.a finding of compliance by a plant wtta its current licensing basis is not required for issuance of a renewed licersv. -When-a plant's original operating license was issued, the Com-mission made a finding, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.57(a)(1), that construction of the plant had been substantially completed. and was "in conformity with" L
the construction permit, the operating: license application, the require-ments of the Atomic Energy Act, and the'NRC's rules and' regulations.
That finding was essentially equivalent to a finding that the plant was in compliance with its licensing basis' as 'it existed at the time of issuance z
of the operating license.
Once the operating license is issued, the licensee'must continue to comply with11ts licensing basis, unless the. licensing basis. is properly changed or the licensee is excused by the-NRC from compliance. Assurance of continued licensee compliance during the license term rests on two-factors:
(a). licensee programs required by the NRC's rules and regula-tions to ensure continued safe operation of the plant, and (b) the NRC's regulatory-oversight program.
The licensee programs include self-inspection, maintenance, and surveillance programs that monitor and test the physical condition of plant I
w
f
~.:
[7590-01]-
28-.
equipment-'as the ' plant operates, as.well as review of systems, structures, and components to ensure that plant' life can be extended beyond the.'origi-nally planned 40 years. Through these programs,. licensees _ identify the t
degradation of components due to a number of different environmental stressors-and are, in general, able to replace or refurbish their equip-ment so that the~ frequency and severity of challenges to plant systems, structures, and components remain within acceptable limits and the neces-sary safety features would work when actually called upon urderl transient or accident conditions.
The Commission's regulatory oversight programs are established to ensure that the plant's licensing basis'is modified as apprcpriate to
. reflect new information on technical topics affecting the design, con-struction, or operation of'the licensed plant so that the licensing bases at operating plants continue to provide.an acceptable level of safety.
These continuing activities in place during the initial license. term would continue during the renewal term as well.
Examples-of these types of pro-grams include its inspection, operating events asse; ament, and-generic issues programs and are discussed in greater dettil in the paragraphs i
below.
In the cases where the Commission finds that. additional protection is necessary to ensure the public health and safety or where significant-j-
additional protection at a reasonable cost substantially enhances plant safety, the Commission may require the backfit of a licensed plant, i.e.,
the addition, elimination, or modification of the systems, structures, or components of the plant.
Historically, the Commission's inspection program has been constructed
-around a series of inspection procedures that provide for the routine exam-L f
-e n.-
..-.4+
.~
e--
m
,,r--
w
~
(7590-01]
-29 ination nf activities at an operating nuclear facility on a periodic basis.
Once licensed, a nuclear facility remains under NRC surveillance and under-goes periodic safety inspection during its operating term.' The inspection program is designed to obtain sufficient-information on licensee perform-ance, through direct observation and verification of licensee activities, i
to determine whether,the facility is being operated safely and whether the j
licensee management control program is effective, and to ascertain whether i
there is reasonable assurance that the licensee is in compliance with the:
l NRC regulatory requirements.
The program includes inspection of the licensee's performance ~in technical disciplines such as operations, radio-logical controls and protection, maintenance, surveillance, emergency pre-paredness, physical security, and engineering.
In summary, the policy contained in NRC Inspection Manual' Chapters (IMC) 2500, Reactor Inspection Program, and IMC-2515, Light-Water Reactor Inspection Program --
Operations Phase, is designed to provide for reasonable assurance that i
1 the licensee is.in compliance with the NRC regulatory requirements, to ensure that'?he plant is operated and maintained in a safe condition-and i
that ceriditions-adverse to quality and safe operation are identified-and corrected.
In. sum, the licensee's' programs and actions to ensure cuntinued compliance with its evolving licensing basis, together with the Commis-sion's activities to ensure continuing licensee compliance with its-licensing basis, provide reasonable assurance that a licensee continues to be in compliance with its current licensing basis at the time of issu-ance of the renewed license.
Therefore, the proposed rule's standard for issuance of a renewed operating license does not require a finding that a nuclear power plant is in compliance with its current-licensing basis.
- n
- 1
[7590-01]
m 30-i s
c.
Aging Management The proposed rule requires _
t the applicants for license renewal I
take necessary actions to ensure that the plant will continue to meet an l
acceptable level ofl safety during the renewal term.. Required actions l
2 would include those necessary for the effective management of age-related i
degradation of-systems, structures, and components'(SSCs) important to license renewal.
. Aging can affect all SSCs to some degree.
Generally, the chang % 'due to the aging mechanisms involved are gradual; Where Lnecessary, nuclear Power plant-licensees are and have been required to establish programs for L
managing age-related degradation during the original license term.
Age-t related' degradation becomes a subject of regulatory concern in the context of license renewal if the SSCs involved have a role in ensuring plant =
safety and the degradation of SSCs can progress to a point of impairing
[
1 safety performance during the renewal term, b'ut the SSCs involved are not 1
yet subject to an established effective program of aging management.
i Continued safe operation.of a commercial nuclear power plant requires that SSCs that perform or support safety functions continue to perform in.
I~
accordance with the applicable requirements,in the current. licensing basis
, 1 i
of:the plant and that other plant.SSCs'do not substantially increase the 7
frequency of challenges to plant safety systems.
As a plant ages, a
}I variety of aging mechanisms are operative.
they include erosion, corro-sion, thermal and radiation embrittlement, creep, oxidation, wear, fatigue, and vibration.
b i-I s
[7590-01) 311 Existing regulatory reouirements, ongoing licensee programs, and national consensus codes and standards address the aforementioned aging mechanisms and the means of mitigating age-related degradation.
- However, the Commission believes that not all age-related degradation that may be-I important in the renewal term will be adequately addressed by existing y
regulatory or licensee programs and, for some SSCs,i age-related degrada-tion, if_ unmitigated, could affect the operability and reliability of SSCs important to license renewal and=could lead to lors of-safety functions or' to unacceptable reduction in safety margins during the renewal term.
The approach reflected in the proposed rule-is to require each renewal applicant to address age-related degradation in an integrated plant assessment which demonstrates that age-related degradation of the facility's systems,-structures, and components have.been identified, eval-usted, and accounted for as needed to ensure that the facility's licansing basis will be maintained throughout the term of the renewed license.
The required assessment consists of a-screening process to select SSCs important to license-renewal, based on their intended safety functions or 4
-contribution-to challenging safety systems; an evaluation and demonstration of-the effectiveness of the already ongoing licensee actions under 4
existing regulatory requirements and plant-specific programs to-address aging concerns; and the implementation, as necessary, of supplemental programs to prevent or mitigate age related degradation during'the renewed-license term. Whereissch supplemental programs are not needed at the inception of the renewal term, the plan may provide for a deferred start.
Screening of SSCs'will identify those that, by virtue of safety roles. are important t'o license renewal' and, accordingly, could require l
[7590-01]
J32 additional attention.
In the screening, it-is recognized that there are many SSCs that are either covered by the existing ongoing NRC requirements p
and licensee-established programs or are not subject to age-related degra-
'dation' The screening process ~ and methods for 'the selection of SSCs impor-1;
~
\\
tant to license renewal are expected.to take such factors into account and will allow programs for understanding and managing age-related degradation to be properly scoped and focused..
The renewal applicant is required to identify and propose acceptable methods to be employed for the SSC selection process. The methods are-expected to be primarily deterministic.
Consistent with requirements for L
compliance with the current licensing basis, ~ the selection process is expected to employ'a deterministic basis for identifying SSCs with known important-to-safaty functions.
The screening methods -- as well as aging management. approaches --
selected by the license renewal applicants may also include use of pro-babilistic risk assessment (PRA) techniques as a supplementL o the pri-t marily deterministic methods. -The public comments 'at the November 1989 License Renewal Workshop and those submitted in writing following the workshop reflected the view that the use 'of PRA should be permitted, but not required, in the screening process for systems, structures, and com-l-
ponents.
Appropriate aging data and models have-not been developed for many SSCs for inclusion in the PRAs, and. uniform criteria do not exist for evalcating the PRA results.
However, as aging research progresses, 1.
l it may become appropriate to use PRA to a greater extent in license renewal applications.
.- ~,
[7590-01]
The planning for the management off age-related degradation reflects the knowledge that materials,- stressors, the operating environment, and their interactions ~ contribute to' age-related degradation in.SSCs.
When
- these' interactions cause degradation of reliability and may impact safety. -
then age-related degradation effects must be mitigated t'o ensure that the
. aged.SSCs will adequately perform their design safety functions.
To gain the' necessary understanding.of ' aging mechanisms, the rene'nal applicants will need to raview the system, structure, or component design, fabrication, installation, testing, inservice' inspection, operation, and
_j maintenance cycles.
-The recognized elements for timely mitigation of age-related degradation effects are inspection, surveillance, condition monitoring, maintenance', trending, recordkeeping, replacement, refurbishment, and 7
l appropriate adjustments in operating environment'of the equipment in.which the degradation occurs..
Adequate recordkeeping is-needed on such items as. transients,.
o
. component failures, and root causes,- and-repair and replacement of com-ponents.
Records.being genera,ed now will be useful in providing the-technicalLbases for continued safe operation of nuclear power plants.
Maintenance, refurbishment, replacement of. parts.and components, residual' life assessment, and changes' in operating ' environment are.other
{
elements useful for mitigating-age-related degradation effects.
Timely I
['
mitigation of degradation through servicing, repair,' refurbishment, or-1[
replacement of components is the prime function of:an effective mainte-nance program. - Mitigation of age-related degradation can be construed C
j as the collection of activities that to a large extent relate directly to physical maintenance of. components.
p 4
e
a-
[7590-01]-
34=
i Operating practices that< reduce stresses on the equipment by adjustment of'the operating environment are also important consl e rations.
i to mitigating degradation effects.
For example.if warranted, operat'ons could be required in an environment with lower temperatures, reduced fl.tx, or controlled humidity.:. However, in taking such actions, the potential consequences need.to be evaluated and considered in order to guard against 4
inadvertent adverse side effects onlsome other aspect of safety.
d..
Nature of License-An issue that the~ Commission identified early in' the rulemaking is the legal nature of the license authorizing operation beyond that approved i
in the original operating license.
Industry commenters suggested-that i
extended operation'could-be accomplished through amendment of the expira-tion date in the. existing: operating license.
After reviewing the Atomic Energy-Act (A'EA), as amended, and the relevant legislative history, the Commission concludes that extended operation-of nuclear power plants licensed under Section 1031of the AEA-should be accomplished by issuance of renewed operating licenses.
The Commission proposes that extended operation of nuclear power plants licensed under Section 104b of the AEA also be accomplished through issuance of renewed operating licenses.1 1 until 1970, nuclear power plants were licensed as "research and' develop-ment-facilities" under Section 104b of the AEA,.since the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)'did not make a " practical value" finding for any power plant design, which was a necessary prerequisite for issuing an operating license.under Section 103.
In 1970, the AEA was amended so that all com-mercial nuclear power plants whose construction permits were filed after 1970 must be given Section 103 operating licenses.
i I
I i
s
n
[7590-011 35 Section 103c of the AEA limits the term of: licenses for~ commerciai nuclear
-power plants-issued under Section-103 to 40 years,,but provides that they may be renewed upon expiration.' Based on.the AEA's explicit prohibition v. license terms in, excess of 40 years, together with the statutory pro-vision for' renewal,t the Commission concludes that the term of a Section 103. operating license may not be extended beyond 40 years by amending the expiration date in the' existing operating license. yhile the record-does not show any safety basis for the Congress's decision to set the 40 year-limitation, the Commission.is'not; free to ignore the statutory mandate.
Section 104b does not contain any limit on the ters:of operating licenses for nuclear pover plants licensed as research and development facilities,2 although the Commission h'as as7a matter of practice limited Section 104b operating, licenses!to 40 years.
Nonethelessi the Commission
~
i believes that life extension for nuclear power plants licensed under Section~ 104b should also be f accomplished through -issuance of: renewed licenses.-
1 2 Research and test reactors, which are licensed under Section 104c of the AEA, are also not limited by statute' to any particular term.
- However, the Commission has, as a matter of practice, issued operating licenses for such facilities for shorter terms, e.g.,10 years.
. O
i Jo, i
[7590-01)--
' ~-36
~~
L
. From. the point 'of. view of r#gulatory complexity,. stability, and consis-p['
. tency, it is simpler to have one process and one set of regulations gov-
]
~
S
. erning license renewal for all nuclear power plants.
For all practical purposes, there is no technical distinction between the class of nuclear power plants licensed under Section 103 and the class licensed under Sec-tion 104b. ;0nly:the 1970 change in the AEA mandated by Congress separates g
these iwo classes of plants.
Accordi.ngly, the proposed rule makes no dis-L tinction'.betweei. Saction 103 and Section 104b power reactor licenses.
Non power reactors, including research and test reactors, on the other hand, differ. as a class from nuclear power plants; they are not covered-
- by this~ruiemaking.
In sum,-the Commission has concluded that life extension for-a u
facilities with' both Section'103 and Section 104b operating licenses shall l
be achieved.through issuance of renewed operating licenses, rather than through amendment of the existing operating license.: The Commission does.
not regard the legal form of a license authorizing: extended' operation as j
having any substantial effect on,the technical, aspects of life extension.
Indeed, as discussed in the following section, the licosee-applicant for L
a renewed license is entitled to favorable ~ treatment unctr the Timely Renewal Doctrine of the Administrative Procedura Act and 10 CFR 2.109.
This treatment.is not available.to an applicant for a lice 1se amendment.
e.
Latest Date;for Filing Renewal-Application, the Timely i
Renewal Doctrine, and Sufficiency of Renewal Application l
Section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), referred to I
e
+
.,l
,,---y-
[7590-01]
37 Las the " timely renewal doctrine," provides-that if a Mcensee of an activity of a continuing nature makes'a " timely and sufficient" application for renewal in accordance with. agency rules, the existing licer.se does not expire until the application has been finally-determined by the agency.
The timely renewal doctrine i's embodied'in the Commission's regulations at 10 CFR 2.109:,
j
~"If, at least thirty (30)' days prior to the expiration of an existing license authorizing any activity of a continuing l
nature, a ' licensee files an-application for a renewal 'or for a new license for the activity so authorized, the existing license willnot be deemed to have expired until the application has been finally determined."
The 30-day dead 1.ine for timely renewal; contained in 6. 2.109 would not provide the NRC a reasonable time to review an application for a renewed operating license for a. nuclear power plant.
Staff review of a -
technically complete and sufficient renewal application is projected to require approximately 2 years. ; Any necessary hearing lwould'likely add an additional year.
Therefore, the Commission proposes that 6 2.109 be modified to require that ' dlear power plant operating license renewal applications be submitted at least 3 years priorL to their expiration in order to.take advantage of the timely-renewal doctrine.'
Renewal applications-should be essentially complete and sufficient when filed.
Section 9(b) of the APA confers the benefit of " timely renewal" to those who make a timely filing of a " sufficient application,"
^
T:
~ ~ ~ ~ xw. -
' ~ ~.. _ _ _ _
l
,.c
'. 38 -
6 2.109-7590-01]
ording'.of the Commission's_ parallel'rulefin l or for l mely filing of-an " application for. a renewafficient"I the
/"
i j d2es not inclu'de the proviso for a "su 1g arallel the VI'W of amissien proposes to modify 5 2.109 to piderations lead-direct I "9 -
- llies j a f' sufficient" application. Other consfficient application is an' agree acy porate the requirement for a su timely submission red.:
com-
- ,,theproposed3-yeardeadlinefor ts.
pienslis based upon s' projected 3-year period for com.
in ary hearing,.
idual
. er-
'ew of-a renewal application and any necess inst-h t are reasonably com, ted.
,remised on renewal' applications t aion does not
- , and i
ant whtn filed.
In addition, the' Comm ss lications which are With.
ncy the filing.of pro-forma renewal app dline.
For these ins-the sake.of, meeting the 10 CFR 2.109, deaf ficient"' renewal 9-
's of
'a: sed revision to i 2.109 requires a su
- s t contemplate Juring making' this change the Commission does noin order for a license se ate-ths' "suf ficiency" of theiapplication Sufficiency'is essentially a 1
force. under timely renewal.
ible lstafftodeterminebasedontherequiredcontentsofanh t th e
18P der $$ 54.19 and 54.20. -It is enough t a uired in such.
ty-eports, analyses, and other documents req lementation or twal
- he
- That such documents may require further supptimely renewal, d
no consequence to continued operation un erthe content of)
- I'"
sOff plans to-issue a regulatory guide on ll present one "I-i plant. license renewal applications that wi
'#8 that would meet the
~
ay.of preparing a renewal application
!:4 " sufficient" application.
ss l
l
.,;.g j.
" ~ '
~
[7590 01) 49 through 9)' remain in a state of operational readiness, without significant performance impaiment due'to-age-related degradation.
Accordingly, the additional aging management provisions of the proposed 10 CFR Part 54 rule are not needed for those facilities-'and equipment.
Plant' Physical Security Considerations
-o.
i Licensees must establish and maintain a system for the physical protection of plants and materials, in' accordance with 10 CFR Part 73, to protect the plant from acts of radiological-sabotage and prevent the theft of special nuclear material.
The NRC reviews the status'of physical security measures at each individual plant during the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance-(SALP).
The NRC has also used Regulatory Effectiveness Reviews (RERe7 to-J determine site compliance with 10 CFR 73.55-and ensure that the level of protection required by Part 73 is maintained.
The RER teams use NRC security personnel and members of the U.S. Army Special Forces to test plant security systems.and personnel.
The requirements of 10 CFR Part 73, notably the testin'g and maintenance requirements-of 10 CFR 73;55(g), include _ provisions for keeping up the performance-of security equipment against impairment due-to age related degradation or other causes.
Once a licensee establishes an acceptable physical protection system, changes that would decrease the. effectiveness of the system cannot be made without filing an application for license amendment in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(p)(1).
wm
[7590-01) 50' Appilcation for a renewed iicense.will not affect the standards for-physical protection required.by the NRC.. The level of protection will be maintained during tSe renewal. term in the same manner as during the origi-nal license term.- The requirements of 10 CFR Part 73 will continue to be reviewed and changed to inenrporate new information, as necessary.
The NRC will continue to ensure compliance of all licensees, whether operating under 'an original license or a renewed one, through ongoing inspections and reviews.
The NRC has reviewed current ~ requirements'for physical protection and determined that they provide reasonable assurance that an adequate level of physical protection will exist 'at any reactor at any time in its operating lifetime.
Based'on the above, the Commission has determined that the adequacy of a renewal. applicant's physical protection program will' not be readdressed during review of individual license renewal applications.
p.
Operator Licensing Considerations Individuals who manipulate the controls of nuclear power facilities licensed under 10 CFR Part 50, and individuals who. direct activities of those individuals, must be licensed by the NRC.
Specific criteria for obtaining a license are set forth in 10 CFR Part 55, which establishes the procedures and criteria for issuing operator licenses and defines the terms and conditions under which the NRC grants, modities, and renews these licenses.
The licensing process for individual plant operators is independent of the facility licensing process, and no change to 10 CFR Part 55 is necessary.
[7590-01]
51 l
1.icense renewal of the facility could affect operators, however, in that additional maintenance, surveillance, or equipment replacement may.
.be necessary at some' plants.
Plant personnel would be informed of and trained to handle these activities through training programs.
Operators are currently required to participate in periodic training programs, which cover important changes to the facility or supporting programs and proce-dures, and to requalify for' their licenses, demonstrating this knowledge on a periodic basis..The requirements for operator knowledge set forth i
-in 10 CFR Part 55, Subpart E. " Written Examinations and Operating, Tests,"
l as well.as normal NRC review of plant operations, are adequate to ensure
-t that operators are aware of any license renewal developments that may l
affect their duties.
In addition, the use of approved plant simulators for testing individual plant operators is required of all licensees 'by i
May 26, 1991, and will not be affected by license renewal.
Ongoing NRC inspection and licensing efforts'will verify that important license renewal developments are adequately addressed in the training of plant operators.
q.
Financial Qualification Considerations
-In 1984, the NRC adopted changes to $$ 50.57 and 2.104 concerning the need to. perform financial qualification reviews of applicants for commercial nuclear power plant' licenses (49 FR'35747; September 12, 1984).
Under the revised rule, electric utilities that apply for or possess an operating license are excluded from review of their financial qualifi-cations by the NRC during an operating license proceeding.
In publishing the final rule, the Commission stated:
[7590-01]-
52 4
u, "The Commission believes that the record.of this rulemaking s
' demonstrates generically that the ~ rate process assures that funds needed for s'afe operation will be'made available to regulated electric utilities.. Since obtaining such assurance.
~
i
.was the sole objective of the financial qualification rule, the Commission concludes that, other than in exceptional cases,
.no case-by-case: litigation of the financial qualification of'
-such applicants is warranted."
-i I
This finding was based on a national survey submitted by the nuclear industry and the' National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners regarding the provision of operating funds for nuclear power plants through -
the rate-making process of State commissions.
The study concluded,' inter alia, that rate-making authorities had various mechanisms to ensure the availability of utility revenues sufficient to meet the costs of NRC safety requirements.
More specifically, most rate-making bodies indicated that while no specific provision was made for NRC safety requirements. rates are generally estimated to. produce. sufficient overall revenues to ensure sound functioning of-electrical power systems, including ~ nuclear plants.
'Some:public utility commissions indicated that their' orders specifically:
,s allocate funds to meet NRC. safety requirements (49 FR 35750).
n l
The Commission believes that.this> finding'is-also true for renewed operating licenses for nuclear power plants.
Therefore,-the exclusions t
D in $$ 50.57(a)(4) and 2.104(c)(4) with respect to the need for financial reviews of. applications for operating licensec will be. extended to appli-f
[7590-01]'
i 53 cants for renewal of operating licenses.
The Commission concluded that the rate-making process generally provides assurance that funds needed for safe operation will be made available to regulated electric utilities.
It further concluded that case-by-case litigation.of the financial quali-fication of applicants for operating licenses is not warranted, except in exceptional ceses-(49 FR 35750).
The Cornission also stated that the pro-I cess contained in the rule satisfies the statutory requirements 'of the-Atomic Energy Act concerning the need for financial qualification reviews (49 FR 35762),
- r.. Decommissioning Q nsiderations The Commission's current requirements with respect to decommissioning 1
assume that decommissioning is the only option following the expiration of the nuclear power plant's operating license.
Five years before an operating license is to expire, the licensee is required by 10 CFR 50.54(bb) to submit written notification to the Commission for review i
j and approve.' r.f a program for funding of the costs of management of spent fuel during the time between expiration of the operating license until the spent fuel is transferred to'the V.S. Department of EnergyLfor disposal in a spent fuel repository.
Also five years prior to the " projected end of operation," the licensee is required, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.75(f), to pruide a preliminary decommissioning plan, a cost estimate for implement-ing the plan, and any changes in funding necessary to ensure that-there l
will be sufficient funds for decommissioning.
One year.before the licens'e 1'
l -
is.to expire, the licensee must file an application to terminate its oper-L 1-.-
-w.,.-
~
[7590-01)-
54 l
ating license, together with a detailed plan for decommissioning,- in l
accordance with 10 CFR 50.82.
If an operating-license is renewed, decommissioning is postponed -
)
until expiration of the renewed license.
The Commission does not believe that l'icensees who file their license renewal applications should also-be required to proceed as if their facility will be_ decommissioned at the l-expiration of the current operating license.
Submission of the funding l
reports required by $$ 50.75 and 50.82, as well as application for ter-mination of the operating license and decommissioning plan in accordance with 9 50.82, will require substantial licensee resources that will be wasted if the renewal application were' approved.a The proposed rule addresses these concerns by amending $$ 50.54(bb) and 50.82 in such a-way that licensees who filed sufficient renewal applications, but have'not yet received,a final determination on their application, would not need to file either the interim spent fuel funding plan or the application for termination and accompanying! detailed decommissioning report.
The Com-i mission does not believe that any change to S 50.75(f)-is necessary, since the current wording may be interpreted to exclude licensees who have filed renewal applications from the requirements lfor submission of the interim funding reports.
l
- 3 It is unlikely that a detailed decommissioning plan prepared at the time that a renewed license is requested would be considered technically suf-ficient so that it could be resubmitted at the termination of operation.
As much as 35 years could have passed between the-plan's preparation and submittal; and it is inevitable that technical information and regulatory reqJiPements on decommissioning Would render the decommissioning report obsolete.
y
[7590-01).
55 e
It is expected that, in consideration of. their planning needs,
- t licensees will ordinarily elect-to apply for license renewal well before the 5 year-lead time of the decommissioning planning requirements of SS 50.54(bb) and 50.82.
Thus,-timing problems with respect to contingency preparations for decommissioning, in case renewal is denied, would ordi-narily not be expected to 'arise.
The requirement for submittal of a pro-posed decommissioning plan is retained, with a proposed new provision.
l 6 50.82(a)(1)(ii), to allow delay to within 1 year after disapproval of an application for a renewed license.
i
{
s.
Antitrust Review The proposed rule does not require antitrust review by the Attorney.
General of the renewed license application.
The legislative history of Section 105c(2) of the AEA, which is the'-statutory basis for antitrust review of commercial nuclear power plants licensed under Section 103 of the AEA, makes clear that such review is required only-for the initial-
~
application for construction permit-(CP), or the initial application for operating license (if an antitrust review was not done for the CP), unless there are changes in licensee activities or modifications that would constitute a new or substantially different facility.'
[ Joint Committee
(
On Atomic Energy.
Amending the Atomic Energy.Act','H. Rep. No. 1470, 91st
. Cong., 2d Sess. 29 (1970); S. Rep. No. 1247,'91st Cong., 2d Sess. 29
- (1970).] License renewal will not require modifications to commercial nuclear power plants such that they will constitute a "new or different facility"; therefore, an antitrust' review by the Attorney General would a
e 1
e w
-a we m
---e e
e -
w e-e
_[7fAO-01]_
L
- 56 not be necessary.- Nuclear power plants licensed under Section 104b of the AEA are exempt from antitrust review under Section 105c(3).
t.
Compliance with 10 CFR.Part 140
'l Section'170 of the AEA (commonly referred to as the Price-Anderson Act) establishes financial protection and indemnification requirements for NRC licensees.
10 CFR Part 140 codifies the requirements of the Price-'
i Anderson Act.> The Part 140 requirements with respect to nuclear: power I
- plants apply to all licensees regardless of the plant's design or con-I struction date.
Furthermore, licensees are required to comply with any revisions in Part 140 that are required as a result of changes in the o
Price-Anderson Act, i
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.57(a)(5), each licensee was found to comply with the requirements of _Part 140 when the original operating =
1 license as issued.
Subsequently, the.NRC; reviews-the indemnity provi-1 sions and makes required adjustments as a result of further licensing
-j action.
In addition, the nuclear power plant insurance pools that form the basis for compliance with the financial protection requirements for-
- 10 CTR Part'140 inform-the NRC each year regarding any changes in insurance i
or potential cancellations.
.Because all licensees are required to comply with 10 CFR Part 140, and because the NRC continues to. ensure compliance with those require-ments, the Commission concludes that the finding,of compliance with Part 140 need not be made in any-individual nuclear _ power plant operating license renewal under 10 CFR Part 54.
k
i..
[7590-01]
j 57 f
V.
QUESTIONS The Commission invites public comment' on all aspects of'this proposed rulemaking.
In addition, the Commission specifically solicits views con-I cerning the following questions:
v
.(1) Are there any-specific equipes't items, equipment categories, or.
topics'that should by rule be-excluded from review under the age-related i
degradation management: program requirements of the proposed rule?. If so, wh'at equipment or topics should be' excluded, and what would-be'the justification for such exclusion?
-(2) : Should any equipment items, equipment categories, or. topics (including topics related to the site, such as nearby hazards or deme-l graphy) that may involve changes over time be-added to the' review require-it men's under the proposed rule?. If so, what equipment items, equipment 4 -
categories, or topics should be added, and what would be the-justification a
r for such addition?
i ll (3) For certain licited technical issues with respect.to which
~
~
l requirements have been established, some work on implementation and com-l :.
pliance remains to be completed.
Unimplemented USIs,.such as. Station Blackout and Anticipated Transients Without Scram,,GSIs, and the " lessons t
L learned" issues of the Systematic Evaluation Program.are examples.
Is there a-basis for removal of such issues'at this time from the provision of 6 54.29 of the proposed rule that the findings under(10 CFR 50.57(a) need not be made in order to. issue a renewed license?- If so, what would fs that. basis be?
=1 l
y
'1
- p
[7590-01)?
h 58 VI. AVAILABILITY--0F DOCUMENTS-I The principal supporting documents of this supplementary information are as follows:
(1) NUREG-1412. " Foundation for. the Adequacy of the Licensing Bases,"
Draft for Comment,~ U.S. Nuclear Regulat'ory Commission (USNRC), July 1990.
1 (2) NUREG-1411, " Response to Public' Comments Resulting from the Public Workshop on Nuclear. Power Plant License Renewal," USNRC, July 1990.
(3) NUREG-1398' " Environmental-Assessment for Proposed Rule on
~
Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal," Draft for Comment, USNRC; July 1990.
4 (4) NUREG-1362,." Regulatory Analysis for Proposed Rule on Nuclear Power Plant License Renewel," Draf t for Comment, USNRC, -July 1990.
A free single copy of Documents.(1), (3), and (4) above, to the extent of supply, may.be requested by those considering providing comment by writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:
Distribution Section,- Washington, DC 20555.
Copies of all. documents cited in this Supplementary Information are i
available for inspection, and/or for copying' for a fee, in the NRC'Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
In addition, copies of HUREGs cited in this document may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082.
Copit. are also available for purchase from the^ National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal ^
Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
i
I
[7590-01]
59
~
VII.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT A draft environmental assessment of this rule has been prepared pursuant to the National. Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental-Quality Regulations, 40 CFR 1500-1508, and NRC's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51.-
Under NEPA and 10 CFR'Part 51, the NRC must consider, as an integral part.of its decisionmaking process on the proposed action,.
the expected environmental impacts of promulgating the-rule and reasonable alternatives to the-action. -The NRC concludes that promulgre, ion of,the rule would not significantly affect-the environment, and, therefore, a.
i full environmental impact statement 'is not required, 'and & finding of No Significant Impact can be made.
The environmental assessment and finding of No Significant Impact are issued as a. draft, and public comments are being solicited.
Implementing the proposed action would produce essentially the same effects as would result from= implementation of the existing license renewal rule, since the proposed rule'is distinguished from the existing rule in that it would establish the specific criteria and standards for.
renewal, whereas the existing' rule is silent about criteria and standards.
However, the proposed rule would add discipline to the license renewal process, tending in the directions of effective control of risk and er,vi-ronmental consequences and favorable benefit-cost-relationships.
Renewal under either the existing rule or the proposed rule would result in repair, replacement, or refurbishment of selected nuclear plant' components and structures that are subject to aging.
The scope of such activities would be specific to each plant, based on an assessment of plant safety and operation.
Depending on the specific changes required in each case, the
,~
[7590-01]
plants would make these changes at'.least partly during normal refueling shutdowns, but some plants'may require additional shut'down for as much as 1 to'2 years prior to expiration of the' initial license to accomplish the changes.
A work force of from 300 to 950 coul'd be on site during this period, regardless of whether renewal is under the existing rule or the proposed rule, The environmental impactsJassociated with' repair, replacement, or refurbishment would be of the same magnitude as those experienced during other maintenance or replacement activities conducted during the previous-operation'of the plant.
Occupational exposures resulting from these activities are expected to range from 270 to 1930 person-rems based on exposure data from previous major maintenance activities.
These impacts i
would not vary significantly whether renewal is accomplished under the current or the proposed rule.
The modifications, repairs, and replacements undertaken in each plant would not entail changes to the overall design of.the plant..Thus, basic plant operating parameters, such as thermal performance, power output,'and i
fuel utilization would not, in general, be expected to change during any renewal term under either the current' rule-or the proposed. action.- Fur-ther, occupational exposure and both radiological and non-radiological releases from the plant would be essentially the same whether renewal is done under the current or the proposed rule and are not expected to' differ.
in magnitude from those experienced during operation prior to license renewal ~
The current average occupational radiation dose per plant of 425 person-rems per year (based on 1987 data) is expected to continue at 3
about that level through a 20 year license renewal term.
~.
m
[7590-01]
61 Under the proposed license renewal rule, each licensee will be required at the time of application to identify. safety-significant com-ponents and structures of the plant that are subject to aging'and, during the renewal term to assess and manage the aging degradation of those com-ponents.
These activities will ensure that a reactor would not continue -
to operate if-the probability of radiological release events increases-significantly during the renewal ' term because' of degradation-of plant sys-tems; Though:similar objectives would be required to be met under the current rule, the current rule does not specify the procedures and'stan-dards'that would be. involved.
'In either case, annual radioactive waste production is not expected to change. significantly from rates during the original license term.' A 20 year addition to a 40 year term of operation for a plant lwould, under either the existing or the proposed license renewal rule, result in about a 50 percent increase in the' requirement for high-level waste repository storage, some increase in the spent fuel storage capability at each 1
j individual plant, and about a 50 percent increase in low-level waste l
storage capacity.
In sum, the environmental impact of-no new-rulemaking '(i.e., not establithi.ig specific criteria and standards for renewal) would be similar i
to those for license renewal with the proposed rule; however, there would be an undesirable level of uncertainty and lack of predictability in the plant relicensing process.
V'
[7590 03)
S2 VIII.
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT The proposed rule amends information collection requirements that y
are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This proposed rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval under the paperwork requirements.
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average approximately 130,000 person-hours per response, including time 5
for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other 1
aspect of this collection of infon.<ation,~ including suggestions for reduc-6 ing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and to the Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-0136, 0011, and 0021), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
IX.
REGULATORY ANALYSIS The NRC has prepared a regulatory analysis of the benefits and costs of the proposed rule and of a set of significant alternatives.
The anal-ys.; is reported in NUREG-1362.
Some highlights are presented below.
The specific objectives of the revised license renewal rule are to establish the standards that must be met by license renewa1' applicants, to define the scope of information required for reviewing the applications, and to specify the procedur9s for submitting the applications.
In order 6
l
[7590-01) 63 to determine the specific content of the rule consistent with these objec-1 tives, the staff has defined and evalsated a set of specific alternatives that cover the range of alternatives that would meet these objectives, as 1
summarized below.
(Also considered and covered in the cited full report, t
but not included in the summary below, are alternative regulatory positions on issues related to the environmental review and procedural requirements.)
The alternative sets of safety crheria and standards, reflecting differing approaches and stringencies, th ' Mr. evaluated and comparcd in the regulatory analysis are a follows:
Alternat0Je A:
Current licensing basis (original licensing basis, as amender to the date of the renewal application); no additional require-
- ments, f
This alternative is based on the proposition that risk-significant changes in the plwMs materials and equipment generally occur as a gradual, progressive process.
Knowledge of plant condition, ma.tenance actions to keep up an adequately safe condition, and aging management are all required during the original licensing term as well as after rened l
The current licensing basis, together with such future changet in requirements as may become applicable to particular plants, could thus be viewed as adequately accommodating the evolving technical issues of plant -
j aging past the renewal date.
J This alternative would require the lowest renewal expenditures but would be least intensive in addressing the advancing age-degradation issues.
i I
. - - - - - - -. - ~
- - - - ~
~
[7590-01) 64 i
Alternative B:
Extension of Alternative A to require assessment and management of aging.
This alternative would place the following requirements on the licensee:
(1) systematic identification of systems, structures, and components important to license renewal; (2) screening to determine com-ponents requiring action to manage age-related degradation; (3) assessment e
of aging to provide the basis for estimating the remaining service life 1
of the components, for identifying changes necessary to the operational and maintenance plans, and for determining the parameters that should be monitored during the renewal term; and (4) identification of aging manage-ment activities to ensure that adequate margins of safety are preserved throughout the renewal term.
Alternative B would provide a formal and consistent structure to the licensee's efforts to assess and manage aging during the renewal term.
The results of lir nsee assessments also would provids information for an NRC finding of whether or not the renewal term requested by the liceiisee l
1s justified.
As compared with Alternative A, Alternative B offers the benefit of a more-intensive and systematic program to control aging risks.
- However, it foregoes Alternatives C and O's new-plant safety enhancements.
Alternative B would involve greater. renewal expenditures than.
L-Alternative A, but less than Alternatives C and D.
Alternative C:
Extension of Alternative B to require assessment of design differences against selected new-plant standards.
The selection of applicable new plant standards would be based on l
l
..-.e
,.-.,,m
..,-.m.,-,
e 4-
,y.-
,sy.
[7590-01) potential risk importance and the practicality of overcoming obstacles to the modifications involved.
Applicants would be required to demonstrate, through PRA-aided analyses, that their specific plants' differences from i
the selected new plant standards are not risk-significant or that the plant and procedural changes are adequate.
The objective of Alternative C l
would be to upgrade the safety of renewed-license plants above the degree of safety that had been deemed acceptable for the original license term by j
seeking to attain the improvements envisaged for new plants in the more promising and less difficult areas.
I Alternative C seeks safety enhancements over Alternative 0, but its renewal expenditures would be higher.
Alternative D:
Extension of Alternative B to require compliance with all new plant standards.
Some limited compromises would necessarily be involved, both in new plant requirements that it may not be possible or practical to c.omply
[
with and in the fact that much retained equipment would not be free of all aging effects. Without some tolerance for near equivalents or specific exemptions, this alternative may assimilate to the no-renewal option.
The objective of this alternative would be to seek the closest possible safety equivalence of renewal-license plants with new plants, in recognition of the historic _ gradual tightening of safety requirements t
over the years and increasing evolution of more conservative, more risk-i averse public attitudes toward safety objectives of technological enter-l prises, notably nuclear power plants.
Alternative D would be the most ambitious in its safety objectives I
t l.
k 1
, ~,,- -.
[7590-01]
and highest in renewal expenditures.
Alternative B was chosen as the preferred alternative.
Its intensive aging management requirement, absent from Alternative A, is warranted by
)
the importance of equipment aging as the key safety issue in nuclear plant life extension and license renewal and is well justified on a cost-benefit basis.
The enhancement over Alternative B offered by the selective or full introduction of new plant standards, as would be the case with Alter-t natives C and D, are neither necessary for adequate safety nor worthwhile f
on a cost-benefit basis.
s 4
X.
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT CERTIFICATION The proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial i
number of small entities.
The proposed rule sets forth application procedures and technical requirements for 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 Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, the Small Business Size Standards of the Small Business Administrator (13 CFR Part 121), or the Commission's Size Standards (50 FR 50241; December 9, 1985).
XI.
NON-APPLICABILITY OF BACKFIT RULE t
The proposed rule addresses the procedural and technical requirements for obtaining a renewed operating license for nuclear power plants.
The i
Commission has not previously addressed the policy, technical, and proce-L
.. = -..
[7590-012 i
dural issues unique to renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses in a rulemaking.
Accordingly, the proposed rule, if adopted, would not constitute a "backfit" as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1) and a backfit analysis need not be prepared. The primary impetus for the backfit rule was " regulatory stability," vjl., that once the Commission decides to issue a license, the terms and conditions for operating under that license would not be arbitrarily changed post hoc.
Regulatory stability is not a relevant issue with respect to the proposed license renewal rule.
The rule, if adopted, would have a prospective effect only.
There are no licensees currently holding renewed nuclea' power plant operating licenses; consequently, t' sere are no ' valid expectations that may be changed regarding the terms and conditions for obtaining a renewed operating license.
As the l
Commission bas previously expressed in the Statement of Considerations for 10 CFP. Fa*t 52, which prospectively changed the requiNments for receising design certifications, the backfit rule:
"was not intended to apply to every regulatory action which changes settled expectations.
Clearly, the backfit rule would not apply to a rule which imposed more stringent requirements on all future applicants for construction permits, even though such a rule might arguably have an adverse impact on a person who was considering applying for a permit but had not done so yet.
In this latter case, the backfit rule protects the construction permit holder, but not the prospective applicant, or even the present applicant." See 54 FR 15385-86; April 18,1989.
~!
(7590-01]
I 68 j
i i
At the November 1989 workshop and in written comments, the industry f
asserted that a backfit analysis for the license renewal rule is desirable f
to ensure that the NRC engages in " disciplined decisionmaking" when deter-mining what additional actions should be required by the rule to address age-related degradation.
The Commission believes that the industry con-cerns in this regard will be achieved by proper implementation of the regulatory analysis process, the internal reviews by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR), review of the license renewal rule by the AC O, the analyses that are required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, the high degree of public interaction and comment which the NRC staff has sought to date with respect to license renewal (e.g., public workshops, advance notices of rulemakings), and the public interaction which the staff will continue to seek on the proposed license renewal rule, as part of its obligation to comply with the rulemaking provisions uf the APA.
In sum, because the proposed rule does not constitute a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), because the reasons underlying the Commission's adoption of the backfit rule are inapplicable to the kind of rulamaking being undertaken here, and because the proposed rule would not adversely affect licensees with respect to backfit considerations, the Commission l_
has determined that a backfit analysis need not be prepa.ed for the
[
proposed rule.
I l
i
1
[7590-01) 69 LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 10 CFR PARTS 2, 50, and 54
)
Part 2 - Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct material, Classified information, Environmental protection Intergovern-mental relations, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, l
Penalties Sex discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste treatment and disposal.
Part 50 - Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting, Classified information, Criminal penalty, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Part 54 - Administrative practice and procedure, Age related degradation, Backfitting, Classified information, Environmental protec-tion Incorporation by reference, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reason 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. 553, the Commission is proposing to add a new Part 54 to 10 CFR Chapter I and proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 2, 50, and 51.
i PART 2 -- RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS i
1.
The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read in part as follows:
5 s..
+,-,,.
~
o
[7590-01) 70 Authority:
Section 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201);
sec. 201, B8 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841) * * *.
2.
Section 2.4 is amended by revising the definitions of " license" and " licensee" to read as follows:
S 2.4 Definitions.
=
=
=
a a
" License" means a license. including a renewed license, or construc-tion permit issued by the Commission.
" Licensee" means a person who is authorized to conduct activities under a license, including a renewed license, or construction permit
. issued by the Commission, a
a a
a a
3.
Section 2.109 is revised to read as follows:
j S 2.109 Effect of timely renewal application.
I (a) Except for the renewal of an operating license for a nuclear power plant under 10 CFR 50.21(b) or 50.22, if, at least 30 days prior to the expiration of an existing license authorizing any activity of a con-tinuing nature, the licensee files a sufficient application for a renewal
{
or for a new license for the activity so authorized, the existing license will not be deemed to have expired until the application has been finally determined, s
(b) If the licensee of a nuclear power plant licensed under 10 CFR 50.21(b) or 50.22 files a sufficient application for renewal of an oper-ating license at least 3 years prior to the expiration of the existing 1
l o
[7590-01]
l
'71 i
license, the existing license will not be deemed to have expired until the application has been finally determined.
I PART 50 -- DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 4.
The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read in part as follows:
Authority:
Section 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201);
sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841) * * *.
5.
In S 50.47, paragraph ( )(1) is revised to read as follows:
6 50.47 Emergency plans.
(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph-(d) of this section, no initial operating license for a nuclear power reactor will be issued unless a finding is made by the NRC that there is reasonable assurance l
that adequate protection can and will be taken in the event of a radio-logical emergency.
No finding under.this section is necessary for t
issuance of a renewed operating license under 10 CFR Part 54 of this
- chapter, a
a a
a n
l l
6.
In S 50.54, paragraph (bb) is revised to read as follows:
6 50.54 Conditions of license.
a n.
m (bb) For operating nuclear power reactors, the licensee shall, no later than 5 years before expiration of the reactor operating license,
.8.+.
.. =. + ~
,,w
[7590-01]
[
72
{
l I
subm't written notification to the Commission for its review and prelimi-
{
nary approval of the program by which the licensee intends to manage and l
provide funding for the management of all irradiated fuel at the reactor l
upon expiration of the reactor operating license until title to the irra-diated fuel and possession of the fuel is transferred to the Secretary of Energy for its ultimate disposal in a repository.
However, no report need be submitted if the licensee has. timely filed a sufficient application for a renewed operating license under Part 54 of this chapter.
Final Commis-sion review will be undertaken as part of any proceeding for continued licensing under Part 50 or Part 72.
The licensee must demonstrate to NRC that the elected actions will be consistent with NRC requirements for i
licensed possession of irradiated nuclear fuel and that the actions will be implemented on a timely basis.
Where implementation of such actions i
requires NRC. authorizations, the licensee shall verify in the notification i
that submittals for such actions have been or will be made to NRC and shall identify them.
A copy of the notification must be retained by the
[
I licensee as a record until expiration of the reactor operating license or renewal license.
The licensee shall notify the NRC of any significant changes in the proposed waste management program as described in the official notification.
1 A
A A
A 7.
In 6 50.82, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
$ 50.82 Application for termination of license.
(a) Any licensee may apply'to the Commission for authority to surrender a license voluntarily and to decommission the facility.
Each
j
[7590-01) 73 I
application must be accompanied, or preceded, by a proposed decommissioning plan.
(1) After July 27, 1988:
(i) For a facility that permanently ceases operation, this I
application must be made within 2 years following permanent cessation of operations, but no less than 1 year prior to expiration of the operating license.
(ii) For a facility that has not permanently ceased operation and for which a timely application for a renewed license under Part 54 of this chapter has been docketed, this application must be postponed for that
)
period of time until a final determination of the renewal application has been made by the Commission.- If the application for a renewed license is disapproved, an application for termination of license must be submitted within 1 year of the disapproval of the application for the renewed license.
(2) For a facility that has permanently. ceased operation prior to July 27, 1988, requirements for contents of the decommissioning plan as I
specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section may be modified with approval of the Commission to reflect the fact that the decommis-sioning process has been initiated previously.
=
a a
a 8.
Part 54 is added to read as follows:
~...
[7590-01]
74' PART 54 -- REQUIREMENTS FOR RENEWAL OF OPERATING LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS General Provisions i
t SCC.
54.1 Purpose and scope.
54.3 Definitions.
54.5 Interpretations.
54.7 Written communications.
54.9 Information collection requiremonts:
OMB approval.
54.11 Public inspection of applications, i
54.13
- ompleteness and accuracy of information.
54.15 Specific exemptions.
54.17 Filing of application.
54.19 Contents of application general information.
54.21 Coitents of application - technical information.
54.23 Contents of application - environmental information.
54.25 Report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
54.27 Hearings.-
54.29 Standards for issuance of a renewed license.
54.31-Issuance of a renewed license.
54.33 Continuation of current licensing bases and conditions of renewed-license.
1 I
I i
,er
-e<
=
u
--ex-
[7590-03T 75
~
54.35 Requirements during term of renewed license.
54.37 Additional records and recordkeeping requirements.
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 i
(42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842).
1 General Provisions S 54.1 Purpose and scope.
This part governs the issuance of renewed operating licenses for nuclear power plants licensed pursuant to Sections 103 or 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, at amended (68 Stat. 919) and. Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat.-1242).
S 54.3 Definitions.
(a) As used in this part,
" Aging mechanisms" are the physical or chemical processes that result in aging degradation.
These mechanisms include but are not limited to L
fatigue, crack growth, corrosion, erosion, wear, thermal embrittlement.
radiation embrittlement, biological effects, creep, and shrinkage.
j
" Age-related degradation" means a change in a system's, structure's, or component's physical or chemical properties resulting in whole or part i
from one or more aging mechanisms.
Examples of change due to age-related degradation include changes in dimension, ductility, fatigue capacity, f
s
.n
[7590-01]
i fracture toughness, mechanical strength, polymerization, viscosity, and dielectric strength.
" Current licensing basis" (CLB) means the NRC's requirements imposed I
on a particular nuclear power plant at the time that the initial license for that power plant was granted and the licensee's commitments for complying with those requirements at the time the initial license was granted, including those required to be documented in either the licen-see's initial operating license application or Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
Additionally, it includes all modifications and new requirements imposed by the NRC and modifications and new commitments made by the licensee during the period of plant operation up to filing of the license renewal application and remaining in effect at the time of application that are part of the docket for the facility's license.
These plant-specific requirements and commitments (and modifications aM additions thereto) include, but are not limited to, compliance with the Conission's ' regulations as prescribed in 10 CFR Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 30, 40, 50, 55, 72, 73, and 100 and appendices thereto; orders; license con-ditions; exemptions; and technical specifications.
In addition, the current licensing basis includes written c amitments made in docketed licensing correspondence such as licensee responses to NRC bulletins, generic letters, and enforcement actions that remain in= effect at the time of application.
" Established effective program" means a documented program that assures that a system, structure, or compcnent important to license renewal will continue to perform its safety function during the renewal term; will not fail in such a way that it could prevent successful accom-
,,.,,,.,-.-,w
[7590-01) 77 plishment of a safety function by another system, structure, or component; and will continue to function with sufficient reliability to maintain the licensing basis.
This program shall include as appropriate, but is not limited to, inspection, surveillance, maintenance, trending, recordkeeping, replacement, refurbishment, and the assessment of operational life for the purpose of timely mitigation of the effects of aging degradation.
This program must:
(i) Be documented in the FSAR, approved by onsite review committees, and implemented by the f acility operating procedures, (ii) Ensure that all system, structure, or component safety functions and age-related degradation are properly evaluated by the program proce-dures, and (iii) Establish acceptance criteria against which the need for corrective action is to be evaluated and require that timely corrective i
action be taken when these criteria are not met.
" Nuclear power plant" means a commercial nuclear power facility of a type described in 10 CFR SS 50.21(b) or 50.22.
" Renewal term" means the period of time which is the sum of the remaining number of years on the operating license currently in effect, plus the additional amount of time beyond thr txpiration of the operating license (not to exceed 20 years) which is requested in the renewal i
application.
The total number of years for any renewal term shall not exceed 40 years.
1 l
-w s
\\
[7590-01]
78 t
" Systems, structures, and components (SSCs) important to license l
renewal" are:
(i) Safety-related SSCs, which are those relied upon to remain functional during an't following design basis events to ensure the inte-grity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the capability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, and the capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents that t
could result in potential offsite consequences comparable to the 10 CFR l
Part 100 guidelines.
Design basis events are defined the same as in 10 CFR $0.49(b)(1).
I i
(ii) All systems, structures, and components used in a safety i
analysis or plant evaluation for the licensing basis.
This would include, l
but is not limited to, systems, structures, and components identified in
[
the Final Safety Analysis Report, the technical specifications, and the I
evaluations submitted to show compliance with the Commission's regulations
[
such as ATWS, Station Blackout, Pressurized Thermal Shock, Fire Protec-tion, and Environmental Qualification.
i (iii) Any, including nonsafety-related SSCs whose failure could prevent satisfactory accomplishment of required safety functions.
(iv)
Post-accident monitoring equipment as defined in 10 CFR 50.49(b)(3).
l (b) All other terms in this part have the same meaning set out in 10 CFR 50.2 or Section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act, as applicable.
E 6
r i.-..
....,m
,,_r
.s e
1
[7590-01) 79 S 54.5 ' r.cerp retations.
Except as specifically authorized by the Commission in writing, no interpretation of the meaning of the regulations in this part by any offi-cer or employee of the Commission other than a written interpretation by the General Counsel will be recognized to be binding upon the Commission.
6 54.7 Written communications.
All applications, correspondence, reports, and other written comunications shall be filed in accordance with applicable portic.is of 10 CFR 50.4.
S 54.9 Information collection requirements:
OMB approval.
(a) The Nuclear Regu'.atory Commission has submitted the information collection requirements contained in this part to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.).
OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained in the part under cor, trol number (b) The approved information collection re.quirements contained in this part appear in t
S 54.11 Public inspection of applications.
Applications and documents submitted to the Commission in connection
.with renewal applications may be made available for public' inspection in accordance with the provisions of the regulations contained in 10 CFR Part t
2 of this chapter.
l l
l
[7590-01]
i 80 l
S 54.13 Completeness and accuracy of information.
(a) Information provided to the Commission by an applicant for a license or by a licensee or information required by statute or by the Commission's regulations, orders, or license conditions to be maintained by the applicant or the lict.nsee must be complete and accurate in all material respects.
(b) Each applicant or licensee.shall notify the Commission of information identified by the applicant or licensee as having for the regulated activity a significant implication for public health and safety or common defense and security.
An applicant or licensee violates this paragraph only if the applicant or licensee fails to notify the Commission of information that the applicant or licensee has identified as having a significant implication for public health and safety or common defense and security.
Notification must be provided to the Administrator of the appropriate Regional Office within 2 working days of identifying the information. This requirement is not applicable to information which is already required to be provided to the Commission by other reporting or a
updating requirements.
S 54.15 Specific exemptions, i
Exemptions from the requirements of this part may be granted by the Commission in accordance with 9 50.12 of this chapter.
S 54.17 Filing of application.
(a) The filing of an application for a renewed license must be in accordance with Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 2 and SS 50.4 and 50.30 of 10 CFR Part 50.
I
,, ~
. ~.,
...w..
,,.-..e,y-
[7590-013 81 (b) Any person who is a citizen, national, or agent of a foreign country, or any corporation, or other entity which the Commission knows or has reason to believe is owned, controlled, or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation, or a foreign government, is ineligible to apply for and obtain a license.
(c) An application for a renewed license may not be submitted to the
' Commission earlier than 20 years before the expiration of the operating license currently in effect.
I (d) An applicant may combine an application for a renewed license with applications for other kinds of licenses.
(e) An application may incorperate by reference information contained 4
in previous applications for licenses or license amendments, statements, i
correspondence or reports filed with the " m ission; provided that such references are. clear and specific.
(f) If the application contains Restricted Data or other defense informatio'n, it must be prepared in such a manner that all Restricted Data and other defense information are separated from unclassified information, in accordance with S 50.33(j) of Part 50.
(g) As part of its application and in any event prior to the receipt of Restricted Data or the issuance of a renewed license, the applicant t
shall agree in writing that it will not permit any individual to have-access to Restricted Data until an investigation is made and reported to i
the Commission on the character, association, and loyalty of the indivi-dual and the Commission shall heve detemined that permitting such person to have access to Restricted Data will not endanger the common defense and security.
The agreement of the applicant in this regard is part of the renewed license, whether so stated or not, l
l
[7590-01) i 82 S 54.19 Contents of application general information.
Each application shall provide the information specified in i 50.33(a) l through (e), (h), (i) of Part 50.
Alternatively, the application may incorporate by reference other documents that provide the information required by this section.
h
$ 54.21 Contents of application - technical information.
i Each application must include a supplement to the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) which presents the information required by this part..The FSAR supplement must include an evaluation of the aging mecha-nisms that are present and that result in degradation of the plant's sys-tems, structures, and components, and a demonstration that the effects of such degradation will be effectively managed throughout the renewal term.
Each FSAR must contain the following information:
(a)
Integrated plant assessment.
An integrated plant assessment which demonstrates that age-related deg,
'% 3 of the facility's systems, structures, and components has been identif1s, evaluated, and accounted for as needed to assure that the facility's licensing basis will be main-tained throughout the term of the renewed license.
Each license renewal applicant shall identify and justify any changes in the current licensing basis associated with age-related degradation.
Each license renewal applicant shall compile a list of documents identifying portions of the current licensing basis relevant to the integrated plant assessment, to be submitted as part of the application, and maintain all documents l:
i I
[7590-01]
describing the current licensing basis in an auditable and retrievable form.
Each applicant shall review the current licensing basis compila-tion for the purpose of determining the systems, structures, and compo-nents to be evaluated and the acceptance criteria to be used in the integrated plant assessment.
This assessment must:
t (1) Describe the applicant's methodology, for the identification of all SSCs important te license renewal, as defined in $ 54.5(a), and list the identifiei,SSCs.
(2) Desc>ibe the applicant's methodology, including selection criteria, for the identificat.on of those structures and components that are constituent elements of the SSCs on the list from paragraph (a)(1) of this section that contribute to the performance of a listed SSC's safety function or whose failure could prevent a listed SSC from performing its intended safety function, and list such identified structures and I
l components.
(3) Describe the applicant's methodology for the identification of those structures and components identified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section that are subject to an established effective program as defined in S 54.3(a), which will continue to ensure the capability of the struc-tures and components to perform their safety functions during the renewal.
L s
term, and ilst such identified structures and components and the associated established effective programs.
(4)(1) For those structures or components included on the list from paragraph (a)(2) of this section but not included on the list from para-graph (a)(3) of this section, describe and provide the bases for actions taken or.to be taken to manage the age-related degradation or demonstrate, y-.---
m e
,-w---
[7590-01]
l 84 t
I by evaluation, that the age-related degradation is not significant with i
respect to the current licensing basis.
(ii) Actions to manage age-related degradation could include but are not limited to maintenance, component replacement, or refurbishment; modi-6 fication of operating practices; or establishment of a program to evaluate i
and trend ef fects of the degradation during the renewal term.
The basis of any action could include information concerning the component design j
t requirements, functions, environmental conditions, the degradation mecha-i nisms, and any other relevant information as necessary to demonstrate that the action will be effective in ensuring the continued safe operation of the plant.
I (b) Exemptions.
A list of all plant-specific exemptions granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, and reliefs granted pursusnt to S 50.55(a)(3).
l For those exemptions and reliefs that were granted on the basis of an assumed service life or period of operation bound by the original license term of the facility, or otherwise relate to SSCs subject to age-related degradation, a justification for continuing these exemptions-and reliefs must be provided.
(c) Plant modifications. A description of any proposed modifications to the facility or its administrative control procedures resulting from the evaluation or analysis required by paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, i
l 6 54.23 Contents of application - environmental information.
Each application must include an environmental report that complies with the requirements of Subpart A of Part 51 of this chapter.
i O
1
[7590-01)
S 54.25 Report of the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards.
Each renewal application must be referred to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards for a review and report.. Any report must be made part of the record of the application and made available to the public, except to the extent that security classification prevents disclosure.
S 54.27 Hearings.
A notice of an opportunity for a hearing will be published in the Federal Register, in accordance with 6 2.105 of Part 2.
In the absence of a request therefor filed within 30 days by a person whose interest may i
be affected,'the Commission may issue a renewed operating license without a hearing, upon 30-day notice and publication once in the Federal Register of its intent to do so.
S 54.29 Standards for issuance of a renewed license, A renewed license may be. issued by the Commission, up to the full t
l term authorized by 6 54.31, based upon a finding that actions have been identified and have been or will be taken with respect to age-related degradation of those SSCs important to license rent 3.1, such that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the renewed license can be conducted in accordance with the current licensing basis.
Such a finding will constitute a finding that the facility can be operated for the term of the renewed license without endangering the public health and safety or the comon defense and security and the findings under 10 CFR 50.57(a) need not be made in order to issue a renewed license.
k e
w
-w,
-n.-
a-
,,w
i
[7590-01]
86 S 54.31 Issuance of a renewed license.
(a) A renewed license must be of the class for which the operating license currently in effect was issued.
(b) A renewed license will be issued for a fixed period of time to be specified in the license but in no case to exceed 40 years from the date of issuance.
The term of a renewal license will be equal to the period of time remaining on the operating license currently in effect at the time of the approval of the application plus the additional period of time justified by the licensee (but no longer than 20 years).
(c) The renewed license will become effective immediately upon its issuance, thereby rendering the operating license previously in effect entirely ineffective and superseded.
t t
(d) A renewed license may be subsequently renewed upon expiration of the renewal term, in accordance with all applicable requirements.
S 54.33 Continuation of current licensing bases and conditions of renewed license.
(a) Whether stated therein or not, the following are conditions of
'e f
every renewed license' issued under this part:
(1) Each renewed license will contain and otherwise be subject.to l
the conditions set forth in $$ 50.54 and 50.55a(g) of this chapter.
~
I (b)
Each renewed license will be issued in such form and contain such conditions and limitations, including technical specifications, as the Commission deems appropriate and necessary to address age related.
degradation, including such provisions with respect to any uncompleted items of plant modification and such limitations or conditions as the L
4 w.-
.n.---
,,,,,, -, ~,,
[7590-01]
37 Connission believes are required to ensure that operation during the period of completion of such items will not endanger public health and safety.
Other conditions and limitations, including technical specifica-tions, in the current licensing basis that do not address age-related degradation continue in effect for the renewed license.
(c) Each renewed license will include those conditions to protect the environment that were imposed pursuant to 8 50.36b and that are part c
of the current licensing basis for the facility at the time of issuance of the renewed. license.
These conditions may be supplemented or amended as necessary to protect the environment during the term of the renewed license and will be derived from information contained in the supplement to the environmental report submitted pursuant to S 51.53(b) of this chapter, as analyzed and evaluated in the NRC record of decision.
The conditions will identify the obligations of the licensee in the environ-mental area, including, as appropriate, requirements for reporting and recordkeeping of environmental data and any conditions and monitoring requirements for the protection of the nonaquatic environment.
(d) The licensing basis for the renewed license suall include the current licensing basis, as defined in Section 54.3(a); the inclusion in the licensing basis of matters such as licensee commitments does not change the legal status of those matters unless specifically so ordered pursuant to paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section.'
I
$ 54.35 Requirements during term of renewed license.
During the term of a renewed license, licensees shall continue to comply with all Commission regulations contained in 10 CFR Parts 2,19,
[7590-01]'
l 88 20, 21, 30, 40, 50, 61, 05. 72, 73, and 100 and appendices thereto which are applicable to holders of operating licenses.
5 54.37 Additional records and recordkeeping requirements.
The licensee shall retain in an auditable and retrievable form for the term of the renewed operating license all information and documenta-tion required by, or otherwise necessary to document compliance with, the provisions cf this part.
,W k Dated at Ruckville, Maryland, this, i day of d, 1990, k
i F
the Nuclear, Regulatory Commission s..
Samuel J. Chilk, %
T Secretary of thelCommission T
t t
4 i
. - ~.
.,...