ML20062B533
| ML20062B533 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1990 |
| From: | Denise Edwards YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-55FR29043, FRN-56FR64943, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-54 55FR29043-00053, 55FR29043-53, AD04-2-106, AD4-2, AD4-2-106, NUDOCS 9010250163 | |
| Download: ML20062B533 (31) | |
Text
,
~
'l l ']/bb YSf
,7
,,,-2 5, ( *e ~
E NYCELECIAlCCONPANY(BF2Mobfh"$ff he l
580 Main Street, Bolton, Massachusetts 017%% 15 P 3 :00.
,,; w: ; M Ci t lMi-
~
gn uci,m! A PL October 11, 1990
' l. i. fg.
SPS90-168 FYC 90-017-U
' Secretary of the' Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, DC 20555 i
Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch 1
Subject:
Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Proposed Rulemaking-(55FR29043)
Dear Sir:
I
.e aYankee Atomic Electric' Company (Yankee)' appreciates the opportunity to comment on-this proposed rule regarding license renewal for commercial. nuclear,
power plants. -Yankee is the owner'and operator of the first plant that will 1
chronologically require a. renewal license.
Yankee Nuclear Power. Station isi
-also;the lead PWR plant. selected by the Department of Energy and the Electric 4 1
Power Research Institute to demonstrate the validity'of the license renewal'-
process.
Furthermore Yankee's Nuclear Services Division'providesiengineering-l and liceo ing services to other nuclear power plants in the Northeast, ll including, Vermont ~ Yankee, Maine Yankee, and Seabrook.
As you~are aware, Yankee has been an active participantLin.the.NUMARC NUPLEX Working Croup since its inception.
We have been: extensively involved' in the development;of the NUMARC comments,1 and we fully endorse those, comments,;particularly the annotated rule provided with the comments.
We-would like to take this-opportunity to reiterate and. add toithe comments
.provided by NUMARC1and previously by Yankee.
i Yankee' continues,f.o stress:that the success of license renewal' depends on a-rule 1that focuses ent,irely and solely on age-related degradation:of significant plant components for which remedial actions are=necessary-in the renewal period.
The proposed version of the rule appears to go,substantially j
beyond this scope because systems potentially drawn in by a systems.
-interaction evaluation would.be.. included by-the proposed definition of-f
" Systems, Structures, and Components Important'to License Renewal." Further -
t
~once included -most components.in these systemc would require'an in-depth 1
analysis, similar to that done for. Equipment Qualification.
'The. industry.has made'the case to the ACRS and the Commission on several
' occasions that not all components that are important to license renewal t
,i
{
e",
90[0250163 901011 3
-PDR PR 1Lt q
- 2. 55FR29043 PDR!s
-pD
,(
?-
l}h l
m
\\
.g,4-4
'y
(
.[-
g 1
' United-States Nuclear Regulatory Conmission.
October-11. 1990
'j Attentions -Docketing and Service Brat.'h page 2
~
.c 1;'
1 4
l' require an in-depth analysis to' ensure the continued capability to perform-L their-safety function.- Station batteries are a classic example. They are L
rigorously' monitored and tested throughout their lifetime and replaced when t
i
'found not to meet performance criteria.
Such replacements take place several
.i l:
times during a license term.
Yet,' the proposed rule, when read with the j
regulatory conservatism typically reserved for regulations, continues to' l
L require in-depth analyses for a_lll components important to license renewal.-
-I Such an approach ignores the fundamental premise of license renewal-regarding j
h adequacy of the current licensing basis, gives minimal credit for' existing licensee programs and activities, and takes minimal credit for continuing NRC
)
oversight. The rule instead creates the' foundation for a research program l
that is virtually unbounded. We would offer that absent the proper focus on
'l those significant plant components that require remedial actions to manage i
age-related degradation during the renewal term', license renewal might not be
{
l-a viable option for many facilities.
Our additional comments regarding the proposed rule follow.
A mark-up of the proposed rule, as submitted by NUMARC, is incuded for your convenience (Attachment 1).
L Compilation'of the Current Licensing Basis f
L We continue to oppose the requirement to compile the Current Lice'aing-Basis-(CLB) for several reasons:
s
[
1.
.The' lead plants have demonstrated that only limited parts of the CLB l
are needed for the plant analysis.
For example,;the applicant may use piping and instrumentation diagrams, operations manuals, and, i
knowledgeablo plant personnel to identify systems, structures, and components important to license renewal. None of these aids are found in the CLB.
l The information that is necessary to implement;the-integrated plant i
L assessment is available in well docmented sources which are updated and controlled in.accordance with regulatory requirements, such as-l 10CFR,-Sections 50.71 and part 50, Appendix B, and licensee E
administrative requirements.
A double standard that takes credit
[
for NRC regulatory oversight during the. initial' license term, but-does not take credit for such oversight during the license renewal
-process, appears to be inappropriate.
2.
Compliation invites, and almost-demands, an NRC review for adequacy. The only real difference between the proposed rule and previous versions of the rule is that'the entire CLB is no longer required as part of the application.
Instead,'the rule requires-that a list of documents identifying portions of the CLB relevant to the integrated plant ~ assessment be submitted.
Such a measure appears to have been employed by the NRC in the mistaken belief that this'new requirement-will insulate the license renewal process from 2
l i
1 U
10 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
October ; 11, 1990.
Attentions-Docketing and Service Branch
-page'3 1
-c challenges to CLB adequacy.
Since the finding required'of the NRC 1
(Section 50.29) is that "the activities authorized by the renown 1 license can be conducted in accordance'with the current licensing i
basis," the rule seems to invite such challenge for each plant.
3.
There has been and continues to be no-justification for requiring.
l compilation of the CLB.
While it is generally true that plant CLBs are not-concisely catalogued in only one_or two documents, it is also true that plant CLBs reside within the design and. licensing 1
documents that are part of. formal NRC' dockets andf plant-specific' document control systems.
Plant-specific document control systems are subject to regulatory controls under 10CFR50,_ Appendix B, Quality Assurance.
The most important CLB documents, that'is,-the FSAR and Tecnnical Specifications, are further subject to regulatory o
controls under 10CFR50. 71(e) and 10CFR50.59.
Compliance with these regulatory requirements is reviewed and assessed on a routine basis by NRC Staff and inspectors throughout the life of'the plant.
If~
deficiencies, such as failure to translate regulatory requirements and commitments into specifications, drawings, procedures, or instructions, are identified, the NRC takes appropriate action to ensure that such deficiencies are' corrected, t
Civen the continuous oversight provided by the many NRC regulatory requirements and licensee administrative programs for ensuring implementation, there exists no justification'to require. compilation is of the CLB currently or ' for license renewal.
Adequacy of Current programs' The'definitional requirements of " Established Effective' Program" are I
inconsistent with the. fundamental principle that the. level of-safety provided
'l by the CLB is adequate.
For example, there are-currently programs.being implemented by licensees to manage age-related degradation. Not all'of these
_ programs are part of the CLB as defined, nor'are all of these program documents subject to review by on-site review. committees. Though all.
. implementation procedures would be administered in accordance with plant-
- administrative controls. 'Since the 1evel of safety provided by the CLB is-1 adequate,_there'is no need to suddenly require.that these non-CLB programs / activities be incorporated into the CLB and/or be reviewed.by on-site
- review committees.
Furthermore, the requirement to monitor the assumptions
- [
which were utilized intperforming'the assessments for age-related degradation is also inconsistent with the fundamental principle of 'icense renewal. We j
agree with NUMARC that a unique approach to monitorica the assumptions used-
[
for' license renewal vercus'that used to monitor licensee. activities today is not'nocessary.
Integrated plant Assessment We agree with NUMARC that the integrateu plant assessment, as detailed in the proposed rule and supporting documents, is too becad, and the depth of'the t !
o s,o1 6
(
)
'l i
-United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 11,' 1990 LAttentiont,. Docketing and Service Branch Page.4 1
1 evaluations to be performed on components which are important to license renewal is more> extensive than necessary to support the finding that j
significant age-related degradation will be effectively managed = during< the I
renewal term. We urge NRC'to revise their approach to'the. integrated plant assessment'by adopting a process'that progressively intensifies the aging.
1 assessment by focusing on safety significance ofl components,.significant l
age-related degradation, and need for management and/or mitigation of.
significant age-related degradation measures during the renewal period.-_A 1
means to achieve this has been provided by NUMARC in their formal comments.
j Hearints 1
At the second of three hearings held recently by the Congressional Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation to examine the external obstacles to-nuclear power, Senator Alan Simpson stated that while public participation
-l must not be eliminated, at some point,the babbling must be closed off."
We agree with Senator Simpson that~public participation is important.
Public-(
participation helps to ensure the validity of the licensing process. However,
like Senator Simpson,:we believe that debate on issues cannot be allowed to continue as it.has in the past to impede the rendering of a decision.
Given the inmortance of license renewal to our. nation's energy' security, it11s imperative that license. renewal remain a viable option. 'In order to-
?
, protect this option the NRC must provide some certainty to the hearing
[
.pcocess. Licensees can take very little comfort in the " timely' renewal" provision-of.10CFR, Part 54.' - Utilities need to know whether renewal will be
-scanted well before-the expir'ation of their initial licenses so that in the case of denial, Lsuf ficient time remains to ~ implement alternatives for d
replacement capacity.
Timely renewal does not' recognize this need.
j Furthermore, although'the-plant-mayx be permitted to operate under timely 3
renewal, decisions' regarding capital investments and issues involving staffings will be held.in suspens1'on until a final decision is rendered.
These potentially serious problems can be easily avoided by requiring in this rule that the hearing boards identify the hearing schedule and hold all parties to that schedule. We urge the commission to adopt such a requirement for license.
renewal.
1
-In this regard..we believe that NUMARC has not gone far enough. We support the suggestion that an explicit scope should.be defined for the hearings. -However,-without the companion requirement'that a schedule also be established, the spectre of endless and pointless debate remains.
1 Backfit Controls NUMARC's suggestion'that the rule codify the Commission'siwishes
'regarding applicability of the Backfit Rule is unimpeachable. The arguments presented in the supplementary infonmation accompanying the rule merely explain how staff. actions during the review of a renewal application might h
conform to specific provisions in the Backfit Rule.
At no point does the-1 5
- 3.-
(j i
s i
s
o l *. :,
i e-e.
t i
United States Nuclear. Regulatory Commission.
October >11, 1990 ll Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch page '
a
+
proposed-rule establish the Backfit Rule as a constraint on the staff during a
{
renewal term as it is during the initial term.
Further, it seems unreasonable 4
.to prevent licensees from meeting staff imposed requirements in a cost-effective mannce if equivalent safety is provided by different alte rnatives.
For all these reasons, the explicit formulation-of tho Backfit Rule suggested by NUMARC in Section 54.22 is a vast improvement over the rule as proposed.
Findings NRC proposes that.a renewal license can be. granted upon making thel finding that age-related degradation of SSCs important to license renewal has:
been addressed in a manner such that operations during the
- rencwal term can be
" conducted in accordance with the CLB."
While we do not belicie it was the-NRC's intent,.such a finding unnecessarily elevates the CLB to the level:of Technical: Specifications..This status would require that any change made to1 the CLB be approved by the NRC prior to implementation. ;In other words, it.
appears as though.the NRC would suddenly become involved with the day to' day.
-decisions made to operate a plant. safely.because.the' flexibility afforded; i
plant operators by 10CFR50.59 would no longer be available. The finding-should instead reflect the need to address age-related degradation in a manner-such that oporations during the renewal ~ term-can be " conducted in accordance, with the regulations." We urge'the Commission to adopt this change.
In closing, we wish=to commend the NRC for vigorously addressing the need.
4 for a license renewal rule.- Development of a. rule has been a complicated
'i process. 'We are hopeful that the staff, in. reviewing comments, will be!
'a persuaded by the proposed reformulation of the rule. The suggested changes:
permit full use of the simplicity and. power resident in application'ofLthe CLB l concept to create a logical and comprehensive license renewal-process.
Sincerely, i
W Donald W. Edwards Director of Industry Affairs Attachment-k-
i i
b
,j W
- +
-., +.
~'
ATTACHMENT 1i J'
1
(-;
i
'h FINAL DRAFT-t x
a IL
- 54.15 S'pectit; exemptions.
I e
.l s
.2-54.17 Filing of application.
3:
.54.19 Contents of application - general-information.
[
L4 4 54.21 Contents of application - technical information.
J 5>
547,22mwJRkTjftHIB' 1
6-
-54.23-Contents of application - environmental information.
- i
.jy!17' 54.25 Report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
J
'8 54.27 Hearings.
1 1
9 54.29 Standards for issuance of a renewed license.
,l 10 54.31~
, Issuance of a renewed license.
~11~
. 54'.33' Coritinuation of current licensing bases and conditions of renewed
'12 license'.
j 7
- l13, 54.35
' Requirements during: term of renewed license.
14.-
54.37
' Additional recor*
-J recordkeeping requirements.
j
'15' Authority:
Secs.102,103,104, 161,181,182,183,186,189, 68 Stat.
- m 15
- 936 ~937,.938, 948, 953,-954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244,.as:
4 L
D 17 amended (42'U.S.C. 2132 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201', 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 0 y 18 2282); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat.-1242, 1244, as amended (42'U.S.C. 5841,.
~l
}c 19
- 5842).
r y-
[i (20 General Provisions
-21
. ' A.new $ 54.22 Backfitting has been added'to the proposed rule,
- 22 codifying;the Commissions-trea 5ent of 5 50.109 described in the Statement of 23!
Considerations.
- l1 '
(
q-
' mmmtc f sments-en Lteense Renewst-Proposed Rute i
u i:
' M.
M i ii;
~;
V0MR
,.ah.'.
--.= = =
,y FINAL DRAFT 1
'l 54.1 Purpose and scope.
g 2.'
This part governs the issuance of renewed operating licenses for nuclear
'3' power plants licensed pursuant to Section 103 or 104b of the Atomic Energy Act 4
of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 919) and Title II of the Energy Reorganization a
5 Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1242).
.i 6
-l 54.3 Definitions.
j.
-w 7
(a)
-As used in this part, 8
" Aging mechanisms" are the physical or chemical. processes that result in 9
. aging degradation.
Th::: = :h:ni::: inhd: b t cr: =t linited t: f:t i;=,
I a
10 cr: k gr=th, =rr=i:n, rni=, anr, th:r :l' =britth:=t, r:di: tic 11-
=britth;=t, bi:1:g!::1 ff=t:, :rup, : ' :hrink:;:.I 12
" Age-related degradation" means a change in a system's, structure's, or 13 component's physical or chemical properties resulting in whole or part from 14 one or more aging mechanisms.
E=:;h: Of th=;; d= t: :;; r:ht:d 15 d:gr:d:ti= i= led: :h=;= in di==i=, d=tility, f:ti;= ::pnit;,
i 16
.fruter: t=;h==, =:h=i=1 :tr=;th, p:1;=rinti=, vi==ity, =d 17 dich:tri: :tr=;th.'
i i
18 7 Specific mechanisms or measures of age-related degradation are still 19=
controversial, and not appropriate for a definition. The fundamental cause 20 and effect relationship, however, is recognized.
21-a Specific mechanisms or measures of age-related degradation are still 22:
controversial, and not appropriate for a definition. The fundamental cause
'23
'and effect relationship, however, is recognized.
A-10 NUMARC Comments on License Renewal Proposed Rule
. I
1 4
j t
t ml FINAL DRAFT
)
Vful at' didif fsdit_1_3nvaE_iWF_t_hitT1_WViroffdit3FiWFitWH
. 1
,"Sl.iWifitTht?Y9 e
~
-z 2 -.
b._f_Tth.r._~p.hylTEET"~oH. hiMIE_iFR5.)ieYt^1ET'6T"E"- My_itib7stPRtiiFET6FEomp_onfit t
LEn.t.Tiii6~ldIThip. K1E. itY_ri.b. i_lity"tOEFTo^fMTEhy,4. fritFYifetE_f6 Hut 1,_3.h_Tn' 3
_.,_ u -
4
" Current licensing basis" (CLB) means the NRC4 requirements imposed bJ q
c 5
th~iTWRC on a particular nuclear power plant :t th: ti= th:t th: initi:1 L
6, 41::n:: f:r th:t p:w;r pl:nt 1;:: gr:nt:d and the licensee's 21tt35 7_
commitments for complying with those requirements J_iht_Tiid._iWF_M._5d_iTRT_tTjTLs,Hg
-8 Eddit~15hTth"iEh'E6fnitiithidiiti] t ihe ti= ih: initi:1 1ft:n:: ::: gr: t:d,
~9-including th::: r :;;ir:d t: 5: d:::=nt:d in eith:r th: lic:::::': initi:1 10;
- p:r: ting lin n : :ppli :ti:n er fin:1 S:f:ty ^ :1y:i: ":p;rt (FS*").
.11
.u.n....,,.,.,
n,.,__,..
__u.r... ___...................,......-..._,_.____.,t..
.a __. ___. w ___
ll
-(
12 the M".C =d =difi::ti:= =d' n==it=nt: =d: by 55: 1i = = = derin; t5; 13-p:ri:d ' f p1=t :p:r:ti n up t: filing Of th 1 t==: ::==1 :pp1!=ti= =d 1
14 remaining in effect.-:t 15: ti= Of :pplintion that are part of the docket for
. 35' the facility's license. These plant-specific requirements =d==it=nt:
s 16_
(=d =dif!=ti:= =d :ddition: t5:r:t:) i=1;d:, but :r: =t 1i:tt:d t:,
j L
17 c:pli== wie EbhsiltT--.6f the Commission's regulations as prescribed in 10 A
18'4 CFR Parts 2,19, 20, 21, 30, 40, 50, 51[ 55, 72, 73, and 100 and appendices H
119 thereto; orders; license conditions; exemptions; and' technical _ specifications.
r 1.
120 In addition, the current licensing basis includes written commitments-
- J21, fdiill1Nih1?fif'lbTf4W'TfRI made in docketed licensing correspondence such as-
~22:
' Significant age-related degradation is another tenn'which needs to be 23.
defined.since not all age-related degradation is significant.
24
Part 51 should also be included.
A-11 1
numac comenu on ue n.. n n.wt Propo d aut.
1 1
a 1
m
~m
+
)..
t i
[
FINAL DRAFT. licensee responses to NRC bulletins, generic letters, and enforcement' actions 2;
th:t 7:=in in :ff=t :t the ti= cf :pplinti=".
i 3
" Established effective program" means a documented program that eeewt*
4:
Ep(Poprjltpffa~d,dFisii'sithiIiffift's~6fEfifnlYitiiit'Eiyu:FilitTdTdsi~fHitT6H]
l 5
. th~eFibyy671~d~g3T_toElbTeNfHPERE that a system, structure, or component
- 6 important to license renewal will continue to perform t_h~d Me safety function!
7
- dsIEFitiid'Thlth~eidiftlif tibE6E5 fit'6EiMt~r~dttuffiEEHd'T5Ep6KEnTs~1iSNPtM a
t,,o]l1[eMIf,fisglg during th: r=:=1 i:r: will =t f:il in :=h : cy th:t -9. 44 ::ald pr:=nt :::==ful :=cepli:h:=t Of : =f:ty,f;=ti:n by :=th:r 10-
- y:te=,
tr=ter:, er cap==t; =d will untin; to f;= tion with =ffici=t 11 reli:b!1ity t: =!nt:in th: 1i==ing b=!f. 4+e EsMlTihTdNff6tRE l 112 programi!Eay, sheM include = :ppr:pri:t:, but EFi 4e not limited to, 1 13 . inspection, surveillance,QfiVEhtitjiiT6fM5~ffEEtTf6 maintenance, trending, .14 filt'ijig recordkeeping,* replacement, refurbishment, (u~ilytEttT5({ and the 15 " Although we agree, in general, with the definition as proposed in 16 Sectica 54.3 of-the Proposed Rulemaking, we find that:a change is necessary to i .17 reflect the fact that the current licensing basis. changes during the initial-18' license term and will' continue to change during the renewal' term in order to 1@ ensure an acceptable level' of safety. During the review of the license '20 renewal. application, changes may occur for several reasons; for example, NRC 21 may issue new requirements under 10CFR50, or the licensee may process a 1 22- . Technical Specification amendment for a new fuel cycle. The fact is that the 23 current licensing basis will continue to change. Therefore, the definition i 24 should. reflect the changing nature of the current licensing basis. 25: The definition of current licensing basis should be changed in several 26 respects. First, the revised definition would.not " freeze" the CLB at the 27 time that the license renewal application is filed. Freezing the CLB would be 28. inconsistent with NRC practice and would make continued plant operation 29 difficult and perhaps impossible by causing plants to adhere to less-safe 30, current licensing bases. The revised definition would also assure that the CLB. included only those commitments that were in writing, on the docket,' and 31. 32-remained in effect. A-12 EMARC Ceuunnts.en License tenewal Proposed Rule + u
'&'j, J l FINAL DRAFT J b Lli assessment of operational life for the purpose of EffWih@lEtlilsystWi] n J 2 MFUdtiiFG"6FToi@bH6htTrillT6htihUi~tWWFf6MitEslfetfJfin~Qibj ti :b
- 3.
-
- itig:ti:n f th: :ff::t: Of :;ing d:;r:d:ti: 18 This program must:
.4' (1) Be documented in th: 5 ",, approved by onsite review committees, 5 and implemented ShTaW6Fdancelith711HtIEdriitiiTitifit1Wffy(i;dEfes by th: L 6-fscility :p;r: ting pr ::d:r::13, 12 L 7 The definition of " Established Effective Program" contained in the z ~1 L"
- 8'-
proposed rule included words which required a program to assure that a SSC, I 9 would not fail in such a way that it could prevent successful accomplishment j 10 of a safety function by another SSC. To meet this criteria a systems 1
- 11' interaction review would be necessary.
The systems interaction, issue, ,Ls 12' Unresolved Safoty Issue A-17 was resolved via Generic Letter 89-18 with'no 13 specific action required by the licensees. Guidance provided in Generic L '14 Letter 89-18 will' continue to be taken in account during the renewal term as i 15-it has been in the initial licensing term. No additional requirements should L 16-be necessary. The scope of license renewal should be~ limited to those systems l -17 and structures required to perform a safety function by regulation. The-L ~ 18 ~ definition also contains words which require that an SSC continue to function _ L 19' with sufficient reliability to maintain the licensing basis. This requirement P 20 is vague and would be difficult to demonstrate. It could be interpreted to D 21 require.a PRA which establishes reliability numbers on a system or component-
- 22 level.
This would be inconsistent with other portions of the rulemaking '231 package which explicitly state that a PRA is not required for license renewal.' ,24 The wording discussed above should be removed and replaced with words which-c 25' correlate to the identification of safety. functions under the definition of l-26-SSCs important to. license renewal. 27 Testing, qualification and preventative and corrective maintenance .28 should be added to the list of items that programs can include, o -29 13 Reference to FSAR should be removed since all programs are not ) 30 typically included in the FSAR. Established Effective Prog ams should not' 31 need to be documented in-the FSAR. There are many program manuals e.g. fire-L~, '; 3 4 - ~ protection or inservice inspection manuals) that describe programs w(hich 32 33 satisfy all other criteria of the definition and legitimately qualify programs- .which' effectively manage aging. Many older FSARs have been maintained in. l 35 their original format (in accordance with-10CFR50 Part 50.71 e), the FSAR
- update rule) and therefore have been.. supplemented by program (documents when L, 36
-37! new program requirements were addressed. Many processes are controlled by the '38 . Administrative Controls section of the plant's Technical Specifications. E l 39 Changes to plant procedures to reflect commitments made in response to Generic 40-Letters, Bulletins,- I 1'E inspection findings, etc. are typically made under A-13 IBMARC Commenta en License Rencuel Proposed Rule n i i
I a. t J FINAL DRAFT d 11 (ii) Ensure that e4-5 t_h] component 3 safety h -2 functions Eprop~W1)ZiddFessedic4hilditj{thi~iffittiT6I end ~sJhifRhht 3 age-related degradation, ~Ei@,@yFlitu :r: pr:p sly :v:1;:ted t; th: pr;;r:: a 4 prc::d:r;;,-' and ) 5 (111) Establish acceptance criteria against which the need for 6 corrective action is to be evalusted and require that timely corrective action-7
- be taken when these. criteria are not met.
j 8 " Nuclear power plant" means a commercial nuclear power facility of a 9 type described.in 10-CFR 66 50.21(b) or 50.22. 10 " Renewal term" means the period of time which is the sum of the 11 remaining number of years on the operating 1icense currently in effect, plus- ~ 12 the additional' amount of time beyond the expiration of the operating. license-13 !(not to' exceed 20-years) which is requested in the renewal application. - The 14 - total number of years for any renewal term shall not exceed 40. years. 15 " Systems, structures, and components (SSCs) important to' license- ,j ~16' renewal" are: j 17-(1) Safety-related SSCs, which are those relied upon to remain-38 functional'during and following design basis events to ensure the integrity of 'I 19 the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the capability to' shut _down the reactor 20 and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, and the capability to prevent or 21? this section. Part 54 should recognize these controls and not establish-a new 22 requirement. 231 As previously written an applicant would be responsible for 24 evaluating the age-related degradation of a component that is periodically '25 replaced on a schedule that assures the component will continue to perform its -26 ' safety function. Since replacement is an effective program such an evaluation 27 should not be ' warranted.. A-14 tamAAC Comments on License Renewal Proposed Rule t n 1 i m
FINAL DRAFT -1; mitigate the consequences of accidents that could result in potential offsite - 2 eensequenees eip6H W 5 comparable to the 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines. Design- ~ 3-basis events are defined the same as in 10 CFA 50.49(b)(1). 4 111))(ii) Ali N6ntifityirelitid!SSCE :y;t:::, :tr;;tur:: =d 5 =:p==t: tEit7ifflecet~saryIt6"dieWth~e'WquffiliiihttT6f :::d in : ::f:ty 6 =:ly:i: Or pl =t :v:1;:ti= f:r th: li:=:ing b::i:. Thi:.:::ld inl;d;, but 7 =t li:r.ted te, :y:t=:, :tr=t r:: =d = p==t: id=tifi:d in the fini 8 - S:f:ty A=ly;i: ":p;rt, the t=hni=1 :pnifisti=:, =d the :=1=ti=: 9
- bmitt:d t: :h:w = pli = = with th: C:=i::i=': r;;;1 ti=: := h = ATWS j
10-110CFR50:62), Station Blackout QOCFR5025y, Pressurized Thermal Shock 11 J10CFR50763,lhdFireProtection110CFR50!48), =d E:;;ip:=t 0=lifisti=. 12-JH)I(iii) Any i=1; ding Nonsafety-related SSCs [ejilT~r~6dstbls~li[pVii'ith] 13 EiM6MiiWid"6f7s'igty1TGifdtT6hTYy3hJggityp614tEdlififg316Ti,tiffe3~d t ( i 14 > 15 The consequences of accidents are defined in terms of "offsite 15: exposure, " not "offsite consequences" 16; A; previously written, this item would include all SSCs considered in 17 a_ "... safety analysis or plant evaluation for the licensing-basis." ' This 1 18 'would include any docketed correspondence on bulletins, generic letters or any 19 -general request made by the Staff to the licensee. These words greatly expand
- 20
.the scope of review beyond that necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of 21 the continuing protection of the public health and safety. The SSCs required 22-by this portion of the rule should only be those nonsafety-related systems 23'- that.are used to satisfy regulations to perform specific safety functions. '24 The Environmental Qualification rule-(10CFR 50.49) specifies no requirements -25 for additional systems and is inconsistent with the intent of this definition. ~26. The scope of license renewal : hen 1d be limited to those SSCs required to 27.. perform a safety function by regulatia. This is reflected in the rewording
- ~28 provided.
A-15 samARC Comments on License Rensuel Proposed Rute
1 }( 's FINAL DRAFT- , l1 - p)@j Sn: f:". r: n id pr;=;t ::ti:'ut:ry =:n;1i:hnntL:f }:;;ind l12: inf:ty ' ::ti:::."-
- 3 (h) Pu t n ident n ait:rin; :;;i; n nt n'd:fi n d in 10 Cffi l4 50.O(b)(3).1s-
-5. (b) All otherl terms in this'part have the same meaning set out in
- 6.
.10 CFR 50.2 or Section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act, as applicable. L :7 5 54.5 Interpretations 8 Except as specifically ajthorized by the Comission in writing, no i 9 interpretation of the meaning of the regulations in this part by any officer ( 1 t 10- .or employeeof the Comission other than a written interpretation by_ the, j .ll- -General Counsel will be recognized to be binding upon the Comission. 12: 5-54.7 Written comunications." q 13 " As previously written, this item would include any nonsafety-related ." 14; system whose failure could prevent satisfactory accomplishment-of a required 15-safety-function. This would require-a systems interaction review.J The '167 systems. interaction issue, Unresolved Safety Issue A-17 was resolved via- '171
- Generic Letter 89-18 with no specific action required by licensees.
Guidance 18~ provided in Generic Letter 89-18 will continue to be taken into account'during' 19' the renewal-term as it has been in the initial licensing term. No additional j 120-requirements are necessary, a 1s
- 21 This item includes Post-accident monitoring equipment as defined by 122:
- 10 CFR 50.49(b)(3). This item should be deleted.
The requirements contained- ~ 1 23, 'in the previous three items will include those SSCs that-are important to 24-i license. renewal. The. staff agreed with this~ position in response to a etdanent n 25 where they stated, "Upon further review, the staff believes that this explicit ' 26 ? identification.[of post accident monitoring equipment)-is not necessary." !27' ((NUREG-1411 (Juns 1990)). 4 ?28 10CFR 50.4 should be referenced in a similar manner as i 50.47, % 50.54 under Part 50 -- DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 29-p '30 FACILITIES-A-16 MJMARC Comunents on t teense Renovet Proposed Rule l
r l j FINAL DRAFT .1 All applications, correspondence,- reports, and.other written 12 comunications shall be filed in accordance with applicable portions of 10 CFR-3s 50.4. 4 5 54.9 Information collection requirements: OMB approval. 5 (a) The Nuclear Regulatory Comission has submitted the information l l 6 collection requirements contained in this part to tiie Office of Management and
- 7=
Budget (OMB) for approval'as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 - 8 =(44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.). OMB has' approved the information collection. 9 requirements contained in the part under control number l -i 10' (b) The approved information collection requirements contained in this 11: part appaar.in 121 154.11 Public inspection of applications. 13' Applications and documents submitted to the Comission in connection 14 with renewal. applications may be made available for public inspectnrin g L '15 . accordance with the provisions of the regulations contained in 10 CFR Part 2 L 16. of this chapter. 7 '17L 5,54.13 Completeness and accuracy of information. 18-MTfFTNiipT5t'IfiWHM115N#tmitI3f30!9tHwir6Ttb4 l -19 tFnemcensemenWITrapaticatT5HD1sdansarenewar"ternierantWr:ung L' 20 g -22 A-17 l. lasWtc Comments on License Renewal Proposed Rute l' l \\
o l, . FINAL DRAFT l ~ thittimit.EH.111Fiffitt'thFt3HtihtF.n. Fth8T11tE6ii'YeEE*alwaLyTiv_itiss_e_r.!#' 6 n. 1-2 1RNTW6t_1TffitT5hilii1.1F_. brpF6f.id6U1h'~i~tI_ Wily [N_hhhiW71hTth_WF_f6 hit _6fFiTW1ttWH, l. 3 ENWdMht7bbhi__ttiditWithFDfit_Vi_t6E'o_f7_NUElili"RE_EE_t.F_FTRiju11tf667. x L4i 1_di_ht'Iff thfwthF.ITf.istud,"f6. 4ti5h'bFthu~iyy~11E._it16h74hd*idshtiff thF_th_'6_Tifft1 lj - 5, - 9elg m h., mm c an 6 s ,1,..., _..,..... 7... o.. ,J. . L. r.._._.._..,...... L.,.. rr...... .....l.. 7 L.,o 1.,... 2..t. ..m.J..-...2....J L.,. L,o . L. e....,... J. 7. ..J m J 8 m.,m,...,.,1., .,.,J..... .f. 1. L .,...J...J....L.,., . L. . 12. rr 9 .-. t..,,...... _.... L
- 3.,......
.....r.... ..r..... 10 's '. ' ' ".... ',.-y.'...-.', r' 11 .,..a._..,.,.,... , J... ,. J.
- u.,.. L.
- L......, .L. .12 ...J. ..n.,..,. ... L u... L..,. L.. ..J ....r......... r. 13- .J. f. ... J......2..,o. 1, 2. 1,...... o.f.,..... L. 2.....-.L A m, rr r.... r., 14 ..., ~, s, e,. u....,,..... 2.......
- z. 1.,.
- a. c..,.. u...e..._.2...>..
.a rr..... i 15 '.. '.. -..,. '. '.... "... - '. ".... -.7,...-..'. + 26
- c..
...L.,.,.
- t...,
L., ,J...,.., ,J.,.. ..J ....r........ r 4 A .L. -I '. L. 17' k.l. i. f.,...,............ L. 7..
- 2..J. J
...n.. m.J._.. J.. #..... f. - 18~ ry..r.... ft.J. f.i f. f. i....
- 2.. L. 1..9
..LJ... .J.,u . f.
- 2. f..u,l...,.
. L. JJ. 1 19
- 2.. f.... J.
T..L. A.. -.. 2..... 2. .....,2,..L,.
- 2. f....
.J.. ..L. 2. L. 2. 77, -20 ro Just as the definition of " Current Licensing Basis" should be revised 121 to: reflect its changing. nature, so too should the proposed rule be revised to 22-include an administrative step that would require the applicant to notify the .23 NRC staff-(responsible-for the review of:the license renewal application) of 24' changes to the CLB that impact the applicant's integrated plant. assessment, or !25 -are otherwise related to activities required by Part 54. Notification would - 26 be in the form of written correspondence on an as-needed basis. A-18 NLMARC Couuiente on License Renewal Proposed Rute
Gh f j L~ -o m .O FINAL DRAFT a 1. dr::dy r:;;ir:d t: 5: pr:0id:d t t5: C:ni::ica by :th:r r:p;rting r t2-pd: ting 7:q ib::;;t:. 3' L3 54.15 Specific exemptions.- L4 ' Exemptions from the requirements of this part may be granted by the-5: Commission in:accordance with i 50.12 of this chapter.- II 2
- 6' E 54.17 Filing of application.
'l l 7: (a) The filing of an application for a renewed license must be in -l 8' -accordance with Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 2 and 59.50.4 and 50.30 of 10 CFR 9~ 'Part'50. 110 (b) Any person who is a citizen, national, or agent of a foreign q Ils country, or,any corporation, or other entity which the Commission knows or u s j 412' . reason to believe is owned, controlled, or dominated by an alien, a foreign j i' 113: corporation, or a foreign government, is ineligible to-apply for and obtain a E 22 14 FyeiB license, c151 '(c)
- An application for a renewed license may not be submitted to the-116 Comission earlier than 20 years before the expiration of the operating
.; 17 license currently in effect. 1 .18 (d) An~ applicant may combine an application for a renewed: license with' T19 applications for other kinds of licenses. 20; .. 2rThe requirements-of Section 50.9 need not be spelled out in Section
- 21 54.13.
Like other sections of Part 50, Section.50.9 should be referenced as 22 being applicable to the license renewal application and the renewal ters. L23 2aThis part deals with renewed licenses and, as such should only address '24 renewed licenses A-19
- WW. ARC Cements an Licerse Rensual Proposed Bute 1
i
1 a y '$e p FINAL DRAFT 'l-(e) An application may incorporate.by reference information contained p 1
- 2 in previous applications for licenses or license amendments, statements, 3
correspondence or reports filed with the Commission; provided that such 4' references are clear and specific. 5 (f). If the application contains Restricted Data or other defense j i 6 information, it must be prepared in such a manner that all Restricted Data and 7~ other defense information are separated from unclassified information, in l 85 accordance with 6 50.33(j) of Part 50. l 9-(g) As part of its application and in any event prior _to the receipt 10 of Restricted Data or the issuance of a renewed license,. the applicant shall-l 11 ~ agree in writing that it will not permit any individual to.have access to ~ L 22 Restricted Data until an investigation is made and reported to the Commission 13 on the character, association, and loyalty of the individual.and the - 14 Commission shall have da.termined that permitting such person to have access to 15 Restricted Data will not endanger the common defense and security. The
- 16 agreement of.the applicant in this regard is part of the renewed license,
-17 whether so stated or not.. 18 9 54.19 Contents of application - general information. 19 Each application shall provide the information specified in 6 50.33(a) 20 through (e),-(h), (i) of Part 50. Alternatively, the application may -21 incorporate by reference other documents that provide.the information required. 22 by this section. '23 5 54.21. Contents of application - technical information. A-20 NUMARC Ccaments on License Renewal Proposed Rule l 1.
i L FINAL DRAFT 1, Each application must. include a-supplement to the Final' Safety Analysis 2 Report.(FSAR) which presents the information required by this part. The-FSAR ~ -3 -supplement must' include an evaluation of the aging mechanisms that are g5Wil l '4 @[present and that result in iTQ1flEint?I)le?FeTitTd degradation of the 5 plant's systems, structures, and components !y5ftistR17TEEKi'ETfiWiiifflu,. 6 and a demonstration that the effects of such degradation will be effectively 1 L 7 managed throughout the renewal term. Each FSAR must contain the following-P 8 information: 9 (a) Integrated plant assessment. An integrated plant assessment WTIT .30 bi3gdHElsdJwhich demonstrates that i]ihlffiEifitjage-related degradation of. L L 11 the facility's systems, structures, and components jgi6ftistit'6I1TEEWil Kn;iWg has been identified, evaluated, and accounted for as needed to assure 12 13 thfcgib'1Titp6fMfibTfyitikTsitfUEtiffi'sTIW~dloy'65hTitUtQiff6Hii~fhE f 14 EIfittaunctT5h~4Taine!!igIlt e7fy_ungnivs th:t the f::ility': : rr:nt 15 1i::::in; 5::i: will b; :: int:in;d thr::;h::t th; em Of th: r:n;;;d 16 1 i:::::". ThWsthTd'6T65yTtu'EViliistEPTIntIsfitiliiN$tVUttDFEirilid. t~ pip 6' hTn~tsf f o rgTdifis"ErfihiiiiT;MRg90I1706t'6bfiS1990BillEE^((RtI51V '17 o t 18 8 Not all of a facility's systems, structures and components contribute 19 to plant safcty. Only those components which are important to license renewal 20 need to be considered under the scope of the Integrated Plant Assessment. 21 This also limits the scope to significant age-related degradation as defined-22= in 5 54.3(a). 23 8' The purpose.of this requirement is to ensure that the subject '24 structures and components will continue to perform.as designed; in.other 25 words, they will continue to perform during the renewal term the same safety 26 functions required for the initial term. Therefore, f 54.21(a)(5) should be 27 tied lto the safety function of the structure or component. A-21 EMMtt Comuments en License Renewat Proposed Rute
%i.'. l. i FINAL DRAFT j 85 I! le_thFdl Each license renewal applicant shall identify and-justify.any 2' changes in the current licensing basis associated with age-related -3~ degradation.. E=h li:== r=:=1 :ppli:=t :h:11 r:f:r==, by li: ting th:= 4- =:pil: : 'i:t Of d=;rnt: id=tifyin; ;;rti=: Of th: =rr=t li=n:in;: 5- ' bni: rel:v=t t: in th: int:;r:::d pi nt = = = = nt, t: 5: = b itt:d = p ut -6 Of'th: :pplic:ti=, =d :: int:in :11 d=; =t: d==ibing th: =rr=t 7 l t:=:ing b=i: _ in = =dit:b1: =d r:tri:v:bi: f =. 26 Each applicant shall q 8 .revie: GM the current licensing basis 3:pil:ti= @~#Dppf6pffit~i for the 9 purpose of determining th :y:t=:, :tru:tur=, =d = p==t; te b; :=1=t:d H l' i L l '10-25 The industry has developed a method of performing an integrated plant i 11: assessment. This methodology has been submitted to the NRC for review and I '12' comment. Reports detailing its use and the results for both lead plants have'- 13-been submitted to the Staff for their review and comment. This methodology is - 14. consistent with the principles as outlined in the rulemaking package and-L 15 should be acceptable as one way of completing the Integrated Plant Assessment. L 16 The referenced version of the methodology would be that which a final SER is 17 written. i 18 a'. Since the CLBL is adequate, as has been set forth in the statement of 19: considerations and in various portions of the proposed rule, neither the 20' compilation of the CLB nor compilation of a list of CLB documents for the 21L purpose of conducting the IPA is' unnecessary. No such compilation is required 22 for the determination of SSC's important to safety and thus subject to -23 environmental qualification -(Part 50.49) which the definition of SSC's '24 important to license renewal parallels. If such a compilation for 25 environmental qualification under the current licensing basis was not 26' required.. it is not clear why such a compilation should be required for the 27 identification of SSC's important to license renewal. A-22 NUMMtc Casuusnts on License Renewal Proposed Rule
i + 'l [. FINAL DRAFT [ '11 end the acceptance criteria to be used in the integrated plant assessment.8' 2' This assessment must: l ,3: (1) Describe the applicant's methodology, for the identification of 2s 4 all GGGe pHips]EKdritTirstWi~s -important to license renewal, as defined in 5 5 54.3(a), and list the identified GGGe gitFif75683tVuc'tWii. -l 6' (2) Describe the applicant's methodology, including. selection 7 criteria, for HitTWiildf5fTbisp5Ni&tt th: id:ntift::ti:n cf th::: :tr :tur:: 8'
- nd ::q:n: t: that are constituent elements of the SGGe ystiinig 9
htFdtt0Fii on the list from' paragraph (a)(1) of this section that contribute. 10 to the performance of ahTiddhtTffid7fsTEfFsitiFrctGN li:t:d SSC': safety .Il function or whose failure could dfQtlCprevent" ahlidist'iffidTifftWiM6
- l l
27
- 12 In i 54.21(a), prior to modification, each applicant was required to 13 use the current licensing basis in identifying those SSCs to be evaluated and 14 the acceptance criteria to be used in the Integrated Plant Assessment (IPA).
15 All of the CLB is not used to make the determination in Step (1) and/or the 16 remaining Steps'(2), (3) and (4). The CLB should be used where-appropriate. R '17 However, the use of the CLB will differ depending on the step in the~ industry 18-methodology and the SSC or commodity group (e.g., MOVs, piping, or cables) l 19 being assessed. Furthermore..when part of-the CLB is used, it does not mean' L 20 that the applicant must reverify the design basis or reconfigure the plant. 21 Such a requirement would be contrary to the key principle that the current 22 licensing' basis provides an acceptable level of safety. 23 2s Paragraph (2) is redundant to paragraph (1) as originally written. 24 The intent appears to be to identify those components of identified systems i 25 and structures which are important to the safety function of the systems and '26 structures important to license renewal. But since paragraph (1) identifies have be(n rewritten to identify first the systems and s(tructures, then54.21 a)(1), (2), (3 "SSC's" the.second step has already been done. 27 28-29 identify the constituent components, noting that structures are composed of L L30 components-as well. i l -31 The requirement to perform a review of a ecmponent failure that could 8 ~32 prevent an identified system or structure from performing its intended safety 33 function'could be interpreted to require a systems interaction review. The 34 systems interaction issue, Unresolved Safety Issue A-17 was resolved via l 35-Generic Letter 89-18 with no specific action required by the licensees; o A-23 m MARC Comments on License Renovel Proposed Rute
1 + FINAL DRAFT u IL -htijcyrili:t:d MG from performing its intended safety function, and list j 2 such identified :tr :t r:: ::d components. [ 3 (3) Describe the' applicant's methodology for the identification of I
- 4 those :truct r;; : d components identified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section 1
e L 5 -that are subject to an established effective prograin as defined in 9 54.3(a), which will. continue to enewe p?MideW6TsTnayi!sssutin'ceT6f ' the capability 3 '7 of the :tr;:tur:: : d components to perform their safety functions during'the 8-renewal term, and list such identified :truct r:: : d components and the. 9 associated established effective programs. [ l L 10 (4){4} For those-:trutter:: Or components includ:d :n th: li:t fr;. 11^ jjl61it;i,ffid71H paragraph (a)(2) of this section but :t includ:d n the li:t' 12 feem (thTbhTaVgn3THb[6?tHtBT6itibT11K6~d'uffiQHEpro,grainFlii paragraph 13 (a)(3) of this section, d::: ribe : d pr vid: th: b:::: f r ::ti::: t:h: Or t: M b: t:k:n t: ::::;; th: :;: r:1:t:d d;;r:d:ti:n ii~de)1TfTtE5FiTf6MTvhTEhTSE filitiididiyffd_itT6E1FN6tN6TEgla))yJji]jEifiEGtTWI thliirfditBE6TitilUfj l 15-d 16 uf2thTToy5Eint"t6?pe rfd@MtEilT6;tffuifdtT55"shd *pr,ov ideTETSiis11Tf3MthR 1 =17f golc]URT6HIVcrd:::::tr:t:,by::1;:ti r., th:t th: ;;; ':1:t:d d:;r:d:ti: r 18< i: :t :i;;ifi:::t eith r::p::t t: th: :;rr::t 1i::::in; b::i:. 39 (4)) F6i7thosTEtFmMHelitTT6fn7a 51NjirdurcYItieTihdiproVidiIthetipasisnot 20 qctions to AR4ngoirgtther/assessrotisanagnithD6tWHtTHElthM 1211 menege age-related degradationjl :::1d in:1;d: b t cr: :t li:it:d t: 22 Guidance provided in Generic Letter 89-18 will continue to be taken in account 123 during-the renewal term as it has been in the initial licensing ters. - No 24 additional requirements should be necessary. 25
- ' ens ~ure" should be replaced with " provide reasonable assurance of" 26 this phrase more correctly represents the necessary demonstration.
A-24 IU4AAC Caummte on Lico.:e tensesel Primosed Rule r - ~,,,
e, 1 FINAL DRAFT
- 1
= int===,. :=;==t r:;1===t, r r:ferbi:h:=t; =difinti= cf ' q _2-
- p:= tin; pr= tin:;
r ::t:bli:h:=t f : pr;;r= t: :=1=t: =d tr=d U 3 eff= t:.;f the d:;=d:ti = d: ring th: r=:=1t:=. Bey 6Hittu?iffiH"6^t 4-sing ~eJ6WntTil1FiliElffEihtT3)FfilitEdIdigrad.stT6Hi"WiyEibc1Dd6@gg .5 K6t71Ef t1RDtBT1 - 6 JTfFUfthTrTfKililliTtiiddis6'Kitfit'e3h'it'rthi'ipe~YiliYid~' igfiditT5hTfi. d i
- 7-W5 TTY 1Jni fiYiHUtFth'e7cVmp66sntTilfityIfGWiYi Jhn]
8: J11)p'tTfthfrT&H517Y1'i~t'6 di'monstFIYin.Tiit7thiTfiTTUFu"~6f7,thiTeosponig 9-tTpiFf6fiii'itTTiffit)ffi64tLl65]TE6t!YiyEl f f Eiht7tXpliht?Tife ty] 10 i IllDiR@lgcemeht*Fr7pifLifblihiihtWMhiMypj6FdtTohTaTifhidGT~eTtEit j -Il pfidWdes;;sageWeTitYd[disfidiltiuhitb7thFainpW5thtiffbgbTIEj^J3hTficantM5 12 $E674mpo_nent"YifityTfif6Eff6ngpoy 1 L 33 JYiT?InititUtlH1313QTERIthitTiiiKMEJ6 iip 6HF6tisi{eTr~eTitTdidijffditT6W 14-Ebhil itFitW1 thith6;crJtEF1E6rTanle st^iblTiredNffeltW67p^ ~ri6frg 35 The basis of any action could include information concerning the component-15 design requirements, functions, environmental conditions, the degradation j J7 mechanisms, and eey other relevant information as necessary to demonstrate i <18-that the action will 5: ff= tin in =:; ring th: @li l; continue tbTentiffifth) 19 safe operation of the plant. i 20 31 Steps 4(1) and 4(11) are two discrete steps and should be separated. 21- . Components which have.made it to this point should first be evaluat(d to L22 determine if age-related degradation is of actual significance. Following .23 that determination, those components for which the insianificance of age- '24-related degradation can not demonstrated will be evaluated to a greater level 25 of detail utilizing one of the methods described. A-25 NUMARC Comasnts on License Renewal Proposed Rule I
- s, u
I j l FINAL DRAFTL ) 1- -(b)- Exemptions. A li:t :f'4R pl::t :p;;if t: ::::ptica: gr: t:d -2 -p;r::::t t: 10 C{R 50.12, ::d r:li:f: ;r::t:d p;r::::t to i 50.55(:)(3).33 =3- ' For those PTEHtTs}_ef1YH exemptions (FI6t~edipurHF6t*E103CFRI50712 : d r:li:f: 4l th:t ::r: gr::t:donthebasisofan:::::5d[i[HQtservicelifeorperiod 5 - of operation boundH by the original license term of the facility, or j v 6-otherwise relate! to SSCs subject to EgyiYicHY age-related degradation, a ] ~
- 7:
justification for continuing these exemptions ::d rili:f: must be provided. 8 (c) Plant modifications. A description of any proposed modifications 33 9 to.the facilitypNtTTTHbKTbiU~5pijTfitit~issi or its administrative control L _10 - procedures resulting from the evaluation or analysis required by paragraph (a) l i i 11 or (b) of this section. 12L ,E5E22?Bick~fTtt'1T 32 13 Only those plant specific exemptions which are time dependent should 14' be evaluated and provided to the NRC. Providing a list of all exemptions is ) 15 not consistent with the scope of license renewal. Relief requests pursuant to 1 16 50.55(a)(3) are reviewed regularly ~at 10 year intervals as part of the 17 Inservice Inspection Program. As such any time dependencies would have to be- '18 . reviewed and justified every 10 years as part of that submittal. This '19 precludes the need to review those as part of the license renewal process. 20' 33 Plant modifications may require a changes-to the technical-21-specifications. If a change is necessary a descri) tion associated with the 22 . plant modifications required for license renewal siould be included here. i 23 In the Statement of Considerations on page 43 it-is pointed out the l 24 - extent to which 6 50.109 applies to license renewal. Unfortunately, although L25 these views are clearly expressed in the Statement of Considerations, they are 26 not reflected.in the rule itself. The rule should make clear how the Backfit L27 rule should be used during the review of a license renewal application. j L 28 9 54.22 has been written such that those structures and components, 29 which are properly screened (either dispositioned as a result of current 30- ~ ffective programs,_ treated by additional aging management techniques or for e 31. which age-related degradation is not significant), should be acceptable for A-26 IRMARC Commente on License Renewet Proposed Rute
3, :: % i FINAL DRAFT l L1 H)UFDUfthFthTyeVlir6fTa~1?EEWilarpp11EltT6H3hTrpFuvirfaim - ~2-50!IO974WDUapplytas; tdt 15tT 3 [17"?"StTff~1W1tTitiRFBRIfitEpT555's es z as t re@YBi63BT1Fs1HVFa~56~qTR5 pF6tRt1bTr6~P3ThT6' mancerwitriTr~1%t'4nicommitBEhVsEbyit]h~ElleTue,eIarTtTHE 4-r 5 ff5EithliTJTEhtTENITyITYOUhTil5518Fi?IUJ3JE8U4)TbETDI5)MT3R~titinTsstu - l 6 yhTtT1The EgoverneG FDL DU.TURIHi}1EE 7 12FTAlE6thTF~JPbposed1RkTitiTfiiinliTdmlFiddf61sE6feTf311tl5 N ygdJtion1stiET1TblifUitlfliHITngaecordyrcFUlthT50!109[p}J3fih5tTtM J 8 9 ,(3)7sErnTi1TW1TiiltutViT6f;71NjibsEBIbEkfi tTWhifeTil t e rnitWeKdlitTfBY Yggfy]hf~ Cit _1Tf-3ihgT6BTEh'angegeltT6H50710937,JMhT11 RTgg - 10 e -II : (b)Mgfft,Ktenewslitifilgi!) rov 1T1WsWf75071093h~411Tpjg -12 ghjil f~Eht'iFEty?Y'6TE111NcTfTtT"filip51"e~dib76thTUtTfD l 13 $ 54.23 Contents of apo,lication - environmental information. 14 Each application must include an environmental report that complies with-15 the requirements of Subpart A of Part:51 of this chapter. 16-5 54.25 Report of the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards. 1 17-Each renewal application must be referred to the Advisory Committee on 18 -- Reactor Safeguards for a review and report. Any report must be made part of i .19-the renewal ters. If the requirement for adequate protection of the public 20 health and safety are not met er the NRC determines that, to continue to meet 21 Ingulatory requirements and licensee commitments in the renewal ters, additional aging management actions are necessary for those com>onents 23 dispositioned in 5 54.21(a)(3), (4) or (5), that action should se so ordered 24 by the NRC. The provision also allows applicants to choose among satisfactory 25 . aging management options based on cost or resources as is presently allowed. A-27 NUMARC Commerits en License Rensuel Proposed Rule _a
1: . y. f.,. >:n 'i y FINAL DRAFT G 1 the record oflthe application and made available to the public,'except to the: 1 i '2-
- extent ~ that security classification prevents disclosure.
3 '$_54.27 Hearings. . A notice ' f an opportunity for a hearing will be published in the. -4' o -5 - Federal Register,- in accordance with 6 2.105 of Part 2. In the absence of a 6 request therefor filed within 30 days by a person whose interest may be ~ 7 affected, the Commission may issue a renewed op rating license without a 81 hearing, upon 30-day notice and publication once in the Federal Register of l A -l R l9: its-intent to do so. gTeiFTWfiQ35N@Tifit16n3f6PEIfiWEWiH'TpTfgYg
- 10-JTEEMETehaiE?tJ1TIPiFtY54"Th11ElfeTtF5fitiH7f61417ItbTth~e71Y$ueliorMmut 11
, U)Mh~fICBElTIT6nAmayyoTirlFiitriniitbTiiinthTircEWmithTrfIturts 12 f6fthT3FSRtT6~n]5429715)pEndHTT);tK6WEyUffliiiihtTIT5f?PIPt?5156f?tRN
- i 13L Cli11teretngdWHtTtBBhYfiHWl]75nUmueTEIM],EgoperatTilf"1RER5 35 14
_ h~iVi?tiiE5?tiit?t#rN6I5thTr3 TRITE 3h1,]Mcon1TdifiB1! L , 15> $ 54.29 S WiffREfW~d1Hfy~f[f64pt'iFITfXyI6fEP11KtRCLBPriiid. Standards for-J s J16! . Issuance of a Renewed License. t '35 17D The;second full paragraph on p. 46 of the Statement of Considerations-t 18' points out a number of limitations on the scope of litigable issues in a i
- 19?
- license renewal ~ proceeding. Basically, these issues are limited to age-i203 related degradation.and those environmental' issues related specifically to, a "21 license renewal. Unfortunately, 'although these views. are' clearly expressed in h22 the Statement of Considerations, they are not reflected in the rule itself. 23i The rule should make clear that the scope of issues litigable at the hearing 24' is limited to those-issues which the NRC has determined are specifically -25: ' germane to license renewal, so that the license renewal hearing does not; 261 become a'means for revisiting the CLB itself. A-28 mswie ca nts on ue.r.. a.n t propo d aut. ,)
1 ,' ~., . 3 FINAL DRAFT j l' .,(E)~ETBH6d T6h7thW"f0.16MKi h(7ercWfd7thi'C6Mit fil 5n"Wifeb)? f f 6dFIEd ' 'ditEFh1NEtithTtRf ECCBs s toriepeta,tJpgNGU WFr7p5WiPTihti jif6Vf HMR. 2-e 3 hec ep tib11"s'tINdif5"inFbase11W6'tTEWTUitiTtNEWffeTt's~T5fflyFfelitig 4 BFyFidit15h'f6rEtNe~TfeneHJ1 tii%~En~dT(11HthitMLBrVithithFiWWpt13HN! 5 [giir~N15tI5T5egradit1Bn7T6~d3hfTiiRl1NiF6fIII50 57(1]EthTtTIDJh5P.THE Thlt'1El"&lidW6t1NQTdT6"pTfit ons;Ic6EtThYfff"Fffict~f6151TfenTf!~MMW911 6 j 4 7 ITHiitT3 8 Q~EBEliH~6^ KMI)la grenewedTITEepsej maQTN1Yue87bfilt e;C5idii111Jongg - 9 157thuifGllj tiiiiPTGth6Fli6d?Yf,!$]gMMp6FEYfthd i ngithit'*T&tT6n t a naVi 10 b._uihi.l_aih.y_ffi.d,_ii_h~d"l_ii_Vi._~b_liH~b.F. wit 17biTti_REW7Elt.hT_FespectT_tF_~sJjh_iffEliff m _ g.
- 11 EpiTFiTitTord_iyFiditToniof?SSciN_-M_p_FFtIHtTtT1. fEiWi~eTfTKiWITMUdhitW;it?lh5 12 fid1Ti_tyTCIWiFi?5)~efitTdrf5F;th_"irt'iVinT6fTth_V""fihiW64. I11M. ntFWitN6Dt 13 EHaang 6J1'6g'""tEF.,;iDbT1Phiil th716d?ilfity_Pf(Qh_urc5N.iii6F_dsf. ih1F_EW3
'TyGr]Jyf' 14 s 1 15 " r:n:w:d lic:::: ::y b: i::::d by th: C: xt::ica, up t: '5: full t: : 16'
- th:ri::d by i St.21, 5:::d up:n : fiadin; t5:t ::ti::: h:v: b;;n id::tifi:d n
1 [ 17
- nd 5:ve b::: Or will be t:k:: with r::p;:t t: :;; r:1:ted d: grad:ti:n Of
- 18 th::: SSC: imp;rt:nt t: lic:::: r:n:::1, :::h th:t th:r: i: r::::::51:
19
- r:n:: t5:t th: ::tiViti:: ::th:ri::d by th: r;n:w:d 1i::n:: ::: b; l
L '20
- d::ted in ::::rd::::.:ith th: :;rr:;t li::::in; b::10.
S;;h : findin; will-1 1 E 21: 3' Under this approach, plant CLBs, as amended to account for the effects 22 of significant age-related degradation, would continue in effect under renewed
- 23 licenses.. Licensees would cor.tinue to be bound by all NRC regulatory g
24-requirements (proposed 6 54.33(a) and '54.35), and plant.CLBs would continue to L25 be used, as necessary, to demonstrate compliance with those requirements. 26 Thus, the license-renewal process would be framed in the same consistent-27 manner that governed reactor operations for the first 40 years. A-29 1 WUNARC Commente on License Renewel Proposed Rule i
..(..,s; 4 l' FINAL DRAFT. 4 1 1'
- titet: ': finding th:t th: f::ility :: b; :p;r:t:d f:r th: t: = :f th:
w -1 21 r;::::d 1i::::: wiih::t :nd:n;;rin; t5: publi: h::lth :nd ::f:ty er th: eemmen j 3 d:f ::: :nd :::;rity :nd th: finding: :nd:r 10 CFR 50.57(:) n::d net b; ::d: 42 in Ord:r t: i:::: : r:n:w:d 110::::. 5 . $ 54.31 Issuance of a' renewed license.
- 6 (a)
~A renewed license must be.of the class for which the operating 7: license currently in effect was issued. 8 (b) A renewed license will be issued for a fixed period of: time to be
- 9 specified in the licensej but in : :::: t: :::::d 10 y::r: fr:: th; d:t: Of 10
= +swenee The term of a renewal license will be equal to the period of time 11 remaining on the operating license currently in effect at the time of the 12 approval of the application plus the additional period of. time j;; tift:d 13 regiTi~sted by the licensee (but n: 1:n;;r th:n ' nlani6DHt'?h6ffoTexceEU 20 a 14 ' years). THi~noicW43h'Ulith~ii?titigifceydi40]eatiTff56]hE8Hawf '15 MiliEhce? i /16 (c) The renewed 11 cense thyT!Vilisilud"iftiMitiIippliYitWK!hi!!b5E( 17' fiWIT1EdifersthidKfhMUdlMIidrifihTit~ritWEInhdMirdi'cTi1Ny,IlsHn]sa,jj) L 18 ' 37 Clarification of intent. 38 .19 The wording of proposed Section 54.31(c) does create an uncertainty 20' which should be removed. According to Section 54.31, a renewed license ~ 21. becomes immediately effective upon its issuance and the initial operating l 22 license <thereupon is " entirely ineffective and superseded.": This language 23-could be interpreted to have the unintended effect of leaving the facility. ' 24' without any effective license in the unlikely event that the renewed license
- 25 for some reason was set aside on administrative or judicial appeal. Because u
26< the initial operating license would have become " entirely ineffective," it is ~ l- ' 27 - not clear that the timely renewal doctrine in proposed Sectica 2.109(b) would l 28 apply to keep the initial license in effect. To avoid this interpretation, we l 1, 29-recommend that proposed Section 54.31 be revised so that issuance of the <30 renewed license not: occur until completion of any administrative and judicial A-30 NUMARC Ccaments en License Renewel Proposed Rule l_ \\
f
- $ '.[ *. '
e i FINAL DRAFT 4 i .14 'become effective immediately upon its issuance, thereby rendering the. 2 ' operating license previously.in effect entirely ineffective and' superseded.. -3 (d) A renewed license may be subsequently renewed upon expiration of. 4 the-renewal term, in accordance with all applicable requirements. Thi 5 fppintf5hTfir74GEhTiUllSIFiireTit75 hew ~il7E1FdeTWeVpiliaEMTs~~ubililitTdM 6-EUthT 1Yga}ii5hNf3hTYPEV15Uf"YEhWMitE 7 f 54.33 C:ntin;; tion of curr:nt li::n ing b::i: :nd Conditions of renewed 8 license. 9 (a) Whether stated therein or not, the following are conditions of. 10 every renewed license issued under this part: 11- -(1) Each renewed license will contain and otherwise be subject to the '12 . conditions set forth in fi 50.54 and 50.55a(g) of this chapter. 13 (b) Each renewed license will be issued in such form and contain such l 14 conditions and limitations, including technical specifications, as the 15-Commission deems appropriate :nd n::::::ry t: :ddr::: :;; r:1:t:d L d:gr:d:ti:n'8,L ncluding such provisions with respect to any uncompleted items 16 i l 1 l 17 review proceedings. This would leave the initial operating license in effect,- i -18 .either because its original 40-year term had yet to expire or through 19 operation of the timely renewal doctrine. 20 To accomplish this, proposed Section 54.31(c) has been reworded (using , 21. language borrowed from proposed Section 2.109(b). 722 3' This sentence has been clarified to allow a second application' prior 123 to the expiration of the first renewal. 24 The referenced phrase should be deleted since it creates the 25 impression that the Commission intends to regulate the actions necessary to 26 manage age-related degradation through technical specifications which is A-31 NUMARC Comments on License Renewal Proposed Rule l
N'.. ' e. L FINAL DRAFT .i l. 1. .of plant modification and such limitations or conditions as th: C:rt::in 1 ' b:li:=: are required to enesee Wiiiii that operation during the period of. .( 2 3. completion of such items will not endanger public health and safety. Other L '4, conditions and limitations, including technical specifications, in the =rr;-t i l 5 licensing bui: that do not address age-related degradation continue in effect 6. for the renewed license. 7 (c) Each renewed license will include those conditions to protect the L B environment that were imposed pursuant to 5 50.36b-and that are part of the '91 curr=t licensh 4eg bee +e for the facility at the time of. issuance of the 10' renewed license. These conditions may be supplemented or amended' as necessary 11-to protect the environment during the term of the renewed license and will be 12 derived from information contained in-the supplement to the environmental ,o ~13' report submitted pursuant to 5 Sl.53(b) of this chapter, as analyzed and 14 evaluated in the NRC rec,ord of decision. The conditions will identify the l15 obligations of the licensee in the environmental area, including, as
- 16
appropriate, requirements for reporting and recordkeeping uf environmental '17 data and any conditions and monitoring requirements for the protection of the J18 nonaquatic environment. a19: (d) Th: li: =:ing bu i: f r th: r==:d li:=:: :h:11 includ; th:- 20
- rr=t li==ing bui:, = d: find in S :ti= 5'.
(:); th: i nit:i= in th: .21 ' inconsistent with current practice. 122' Consistent with terminology used in 50.57(b). i23 '8 Since reference in both cases are to conditions of the license it is 24= more appropriate that the license is referenced rather than the licensing '25 basis. A-32 mmAAC Comments en Llcense tenewel Proposed Rule l 4 y .y.
'e:.l'$ FINAL DRAFT-1 l'::::in; b::i: Of ::tt:r: :::h :: li:::::: ::rit::nt: t;;::t.N6thlf93 l 2-thJ,,~s]iltTshill change the legal status of th6TiiFF6htT1TarnMiib~iili eeee 3
- tt:r: unless specifically so ordered pur:::nt i: p;r:gr:ph: (b) cr (:) if 4-th': :,::ti:.'3 i
5 Q4J347WitliUFIW6T2 6 ,lhT"E[)~1TEltT6n3for;aTfiWiW11]Jc[ s1WbE"W1tEdfiniE5fEtH8IEFpWK L 7 Et3Et~11iiFEN531 tN(dEcTggfutQelt'lH1y7t'6TQyiiieutI6TNf(Uffidifee s mich gl thdfiWil"'kTil"f6tMQ~c_t3Hy~ ft1TO:1ji,yiWfiTeTd]fjgaMiYih tTliD,hg [ f 8 9 i f tE s thjdF3 Fili" 10 5 54.35 Requirements.during term of renewed license. 11 During the term of a renewed license, licensees shall continue to comply .12. with al1 ~ Commission regulations contained in 10 CFR Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 30, .33 40, 50, 51, 55, 72, 73,gand 100 and appendices thereto which are applicable to 14 holders of operating licensees. 15-N 54.37. Additional records and recordkeeping requirements. 16 The licensee shall retain in an auditable and retrievable form for the '17 term of the renewed operating license all information and documentation i '3 ~ IB . Proposed section-54.33(d) incorporation of the current licensing 19 basis into licensing-basis should be deleted because it has been replaced by 20 NUMARC's revised section.54.29. Moreover, section 54.33(d) must be modified 21 .to avoid the possible interpretation that it and NRC's proposed section 54.29 22' intend the CLB to become either a condition or a part (like technical
- 23 specifications).of the renewed licenses.
Continuation of the present legal -24 status of the current licensing basis must be specifically stated to avoid 25 this confusion. 26 " The rule should include an option to allow an applicant for license 27 renewal to withdraw the application at any time during the proceeding. A-33 E84 ARC Comments art License Renewal Proposed Rule
g t R , n -- l. - l> . a.,; - ll \\ p i h-l R FINAL DRAFT
- 7..
- 1'
. required by,' or otherwise necessary to document comp 1'iance with, the~ 2 - provisions of_ this part.. . i s j t i ' 4 } t ( i 't i-t p 4 1 :;, ,a i:_q; i .I i t- "i l: i l J f'- i 0% i s I A g A-34 8481 ARC Ceenants on License Rensuel Proposed Rule i! i o s-- o}}