ML20062B552
| ML20062B552 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1990 |
| From: | Creel G BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-55FR29043, FRN-56FR64943, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-54 55FR29043-00054, 55FR29043-54, AD04-2-107, AD4-2, AD4-2-107, NUDOCS 9010250176 | |
| Download: ML20062B552 (18) | |
Text
r .
i ;.. u %
.,.9"~~
- 0. . . 2
. . - f.50.~*5 9
.n. =.a..
8 .-.
g hC [f
~
(66 FA Md B ALTIMORE GAS AND 4 ELECTRIC " '90 Oct 15 p3,(Q
?
....t CHARLES CENTER e P.Of BOX 1475 e BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203 I4/5. ,le, .N b
.;;C-
+
- Gronot C Catto V*Ct Pot s Dt h?
Nuttgan [wgmoy ooq ,eo.. ss October 12,1990 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk
. Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 A*ITENTION: Docketing and Service Branch
SUBJECT:
Proposed Rule 10 CFR Parts 2,50, and 54; Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal, Federal Register Notice 29043 dated July 17,1990
. Gentlemen:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with
-Baltimore Gas and Electric (BO&E) Company's comments on the Proposed License Renewal
~ Ruling,10 CFR Part $4 and supporting NUREGs.
We applaud the Nuclear Regulatory. Commission on their efforts in the development of this rulemaking. The technical requirements of the final rule will be one of the prime factors used to-determine the economic feasibility of license renewal. Nuclear power will continue to serve an l important role in supplying the nation's energy needs only if the owners, financial regulators and the L public see it as a safe, reliable and economic source. ,
l As proposed, the license renewal rule package consists of the draft rule and Statement of Considerations as submitted to the Public Document Room and Federal Register on July 12,1990, for publication on July 17,1990, and three draft NUREGs, i.c.,
u
, 1. NUREG 1362,
- Regulatory Analysisfor Proposed Rule on Nuclear Poner Plant License Renennt,"
p
- 2. NUREG 1398, ' Environmental Assessmentfor Proposed Rule on Nuclear Poner Plant License Renewal,"
- 3. NUREG 1412, *Fouridationfor the Adequacy of the Licensing Basis. "
L 1
' 9010250176 901012 PDR PR 2 55FR29043 PDR, h/O
. Docketing and Service Br:nch October 12,1990 4 Page 2 ,
Our comments identify and address three main issues from this package:
0 the 4menewal approach selected and supported by the Regulatory Analysis,
+ desenpuon and implementation of the Integrated Plant Assessment concept, and e description and implementation of the Current Licensing Basis (CLB) concept.
1 Our comments on the specific content of the proposed rule and supporting documents are included '
in Enclosures (A) through (C). They identify and address issues that are strengths. Additionally, they suggest improvements which ensure license renewal is not only a safe and reliable option but 1 also a manageable and economical alternative.
We support the selection of Alternative B in the Regulatory Analysis with the exception of the requirement to compile the CLB. Over the past two years, the industry has provided the NRC with the basis for this position and continues to believe that this compilation is unwarranted by any noticeable increase in safety, and has the potential to widen the renewal process beyond the focus of age rcleted degradation. Our comments, and those submitted by Nuclear Utility Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) reiterate our objections to such a compilation.
The proposed Integrated Plant Assessment, which would determine whether additional measures must be taken during the renewal period to ensure continued safe operation, is too broad in scope.
Additionally, there is little credit given to established licensee programs that already address agmg through sound maintenance, modifications, inspection and testing. Although the proposed rule allows a licensee to take credit for some " established effective programs", the proposed constraints on these activities would hamstring our ability to make even the smallest routine changes. The proposed approach defeats the Commission's first principle oflicense renewal.
We strongly support the CLB concept for License Renewal. We do, however, have several concerns regarding its proposed use and the requirement to compile it.
As part of our efforts to establish a comprehensive srpgram to manage the aging of Calvert Cliffs '
Nuclear Power Plant, we have actively worked with NUMARC to address the technical and regulatory aspects of license renewal. As such, BG&E directly participated in developing the- .
NUMARC comments on the proposed rule, and fully endorses them. Additionally, BG&E believes that when the current NUMARC Screening Methodology has been updated to reficct these j comments, it will be a valuable tool to assist industry in developing their plant specific procedures. '
1' We encourage the NRC to incorporate these comments in the final rule, the license renewal Regulatory Guide and the license renewal Standard Review Plan. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company believes that the renewal process can be accomplished in a safe and reliable manner, and still provide reasonable assurance of cost effective operation. We believe a license renewal option X that appropriately balances public health and safety with cost effective operation will contribute greatly to the nation's energy base-i I
sIi o"
g Docketing and Service Branch ,
! . October 12,1990 Page 3 i
L-1 ,
L
- i. ,
^
Should you have any questions regarding these comments, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
i' Very truly yours, l- m O. C. Creel #
Vice President - Nuclear Energy
- GCC/BWD/ dim o
Enclosures:
As Stated ,
i cc: D. A. Brune, Esquire J. E. Silberg, Esquire R. A. Capra D. G. Mcdonald. Jr., NRC h
T. T. Martin, NRC
.. L E. Nicholson, NRC f R.1. Mekan, DNR 1
4 p 4 !
i i
-i i
FNCLOSURE A :
Regulatory Analysis l
. >roposed ucense Renewal Rule l Baltimore Gas & Electric Company October 12,1990
<l INTRODUCTION One of the significant issues raised by the proposed license renewal rule and supporting ;
documentation involves the alternatives available to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for ;
establishing regulatory guidance for license renewal. Two levels of alternatives are mentioned in .
+
NUREG 1362, regulatory policy alternatives and alternatives for safety review of license renewal applications.
We strongly recommends that the Commission consider these comments as well as those made by NUMARC on the Regulatory Analysis for License Renewalin the preparation of the final rule. As a member of NUMARC, we have actively participated in the NUMARC NUPLEX Working Group's efforts to provide industry comments on the Proposed Rule and supporting NUREGs. Through our ,
comments and those supplied by NUMARC, we believe that improvements in this portion of the Proposed Ruling can be made such that licensees can rely on a sound and reasonable renewal process which will provide the necessaty technical justification for a renewed license.-
l As discussed in more detail below, the No Renewal Option is unnecessary and undesirable since the :
Atomic Energy Act specifically precludes this option.
Additionally the following provides more detail in the discussion of the four alternatives for safety {*
review as well as the we recommendation that Alternative B be modified slightly and.then adopted as the optimum approach.
POLICY ' ALTERNATIVES .;
Issue Identification . .
NUREG 1362, Regulatory Analysis for Proposed Rule on Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal, -
lists three policy alternatives available to the NRC when initially approaching the issue of nuclear -
power plant license renewah No Renewal Option Do not allow the option of renewing an existing operating license ;
.! No License Renewal Rule Grant license renewals without the benefit of a license renewal rule. .
. License Renewal Rule - Promulgate a License Renewal Rule that sets forth guidance on ,
license renewalissues.
Discussion of the first policy alternative above is not needed and not desirable.
1
->m~ - w
a i
ENCLOSURE A ,
. Propor.ed 10 CFR 54 Comments l Baltimore Gas & Electric Company ;
October 12,1990 4
Comments f We agree with NUMARC that discussion of the no renewal policy option is not necessary since the Atomic Energy Act specifically provides licensees with the option to renew operating licenses upon their expiration. The numerous cases cited by NUMARC provide more than adequate justification >
for this assertion. !
Recommendation -!
Delete the No Renewal Option of the license renewal policy alternatives.
ALTERNATIVES FOR SAFETY REVIEW Issue Identification The four alternatives considered in the Draft rule and supporting NUREGS are :
Alternative A Current Licensing Basis with No Additional Requirements
. Alternative B Extension of Alternative A to Require Assessment and Management of Aging Alternative C - Extension of Alternative B to Require Assessment of Design Differences Against Selected New Plant Standards
. Alternative D - Extension of Alterative B to Require Compliance with All New-Plant
- Standards.
The NRC stsif has selected Alternative B as the optimum alternative for safety review and has ,
outlined the steps needed in order for a utility to pursue this alternatie Comments We believe that, with the exception of our comments, both Alternative A and Alternative B are acceptable alternatives for safety review for license renewal.
Alternative A is adequate because existing regulatory oversight programs will continue to ensure that public health and safety are adequately protected during the license renewal term with or without a specific Integrated Plant Assessment for agmg.
Although we consider Alternative B to be the optimum alternative for license renewal, BG&E agrecs with NUMARC that the affects of aging are over-estimated in the discussion provided in NUREG 1362. 'Ihis comment is supported by the following:
1 1
2 l 1
, t 7 ENCLOSURE A l
' Proposed 10 CFR 54 Comments l
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Company October 12,1990 !
(1) Specifically evaluating the aging of *important" systerm, structures and components is an !
undertaking which each utility should pursue prior to making a collective commitment to pursue license renewal. De decision to continue operating a complex reactor plant for a significant additional time period must certainly be supported by various types of information and data, nis te:hnical data must demonstrate that vital plant systems, structures and components could be relied - :
upon to support safe plant operation during the additional time period. !
(2) Including the requirement for an Integrated Plant Assessment in the license renewal process provides more guidance to utilities on how to adequately perform this assessment instead of allowing each utility to develop their own approach separately. .i Of the six requirements for Alternative B discussed in'NUREG 1362, we believe that two are -t unnecessary to accomplish the intent of the approach. Specifically the following requirements lack any justification in the Rule, Statement of Considerations and supporting NUREGs and do not '
appear to be directly related to aging assessments:
+ Identification and Compilation of the CLB, and l
+ Collection and Analysis of Data.
Our position on the Compilation of the CLB is presented in Attachment C to this letter. ,
We believe that the' requirement in NUREG 1362 to collect and analyze information about the !
design basis'ofimportant structures and components is inconsistent with the requirements presented ' ;
in the draft rule and violates the first principle of license renewal;i.e., the presumption of adequacy L of the Current Licensing Basis.
We agree with NUMARC that NUREG.1362 overestimates the potential benefits from Alternatives C and D. Both of these alternatives clearly provide an extreme approach which,'if adopted, would require us to reassess its view of the viability of the license renewal process. t Recommendation ,
Adopt Alternative B as the optimum alternative for safety review. We strongly recommend that the !'
Commission exclude the " Identification and Compilation of the CLB" and the ' Collection and
- l. Analysis of Data Related to Past Operation of Components" from the requirements related to this alternative, i
L l-l'.
o L 3 t
4 3 mg h' '
[..
o
}
l ENCLOSURE B Integrated Plant Assessment Proposed License Renewal Rule L Baltimore Gas & Electric Company October 12,1990 INTRODUCTION The Proposed License Renewal Rule und supporting documentation would require a licensee to perform an Integrated Plant Assessment to evaluate what appropriate actions, if any, would be
[ necessary to ensure that effects of age related degradation would not reduce the capability of important systems, structures and components from performing their intended safety functions. his assessment would provide the technical basis with regard to the Commission's decision to grant a renewed license.
We strongly recommend that the Commission consider these comments as well as those made by NUMARC on the Integrated Plant Assessment in the preparation of the final rule. As a member of NUMARC, we have actively participated in the NUMARC NUPLEX Working Group's efforts to provide industry comments on the Proposed Rule and supporting NUREGs. nrough our and NUMARC's comments, we believe that improvements in this portion of the Proposed Ruling can be made such that licensecs can provide reasonable technical justification for a renewed license and continue to produce electricity m a safe manner,
, We believe that the currently proposed Integrated Plant Assessment goes far beyord what is necessary to provide the technical basis with regard to the stated principles of the Proposed Rule. As such, we recommend that these principles be modified to reflect the proposed changes submitted by NUMARC. lt is our position that,' as currently structured, the Proposed Rule should not require an evaluation of each and every system, structure and component used in a safety analysis or plant i evaluation of a licensec. His proposed scope of plant assessment goes well beyond the parameters of I defense in depth that licensees currently maintain and is not consistent with the principles set forth j by the Proposed Rule.
we are concerned that the Proposed Rule does not adequately give credit to licensees' l Additionally,tenance, current mam modification and inspection practices that,in many cases, a related degradation. This particular concern lies with the proposed definition and use of Established Effective Programs. The proposed definition of Established Effective Program is too restrictive ~ i because of the documentation and implement 6n reqdrements. De current definition would put a strangle hold on changes to even minor me'.atenance proeviures. A typical plant may have more than ,
6000 maintenance procedures alone, many of which alrea ly address agmg. These tight constraints 1 during the renewal period would be unmanageable and, more importantly, would not result in any appreciable increase in safety that plants currently possess.
c As part of our industry participation, we have additionally been a contributor to the development of
- the NUMARC screening methodology that the NRC '.s currently reviewing. We believe that this methodology has been updated to reflect NUMARCs comments on the Proposed Rule. It will provide an acceptable approach for licensees to deriv., plant specific methodologies.
i 1
1
_ _ ~. _ _
, 1 e
. r
- R ENCLOSURE B .
Proposed 10 CFR 54 Comments - {
Baltimore Gas & Electric Company ,
October 12,1990 .
6 IMPORTANT TO LICENSE RENEWAL DEFINITION ,
Issue identification The concern that we have with regard to the scope of the Integr# ed Plant Assessment lies within the defini' ion of "Important to License Renewal" and the exterir i the evaluations proposed to be performed on those systems, structures and components so designated. As defined, any system, . [
structure, or component used in a safety analysis or plant evaluation would be Important to License -
- Renewal. In addition, any system, structure or component whose failure could cause resultant failure of the systems, structures or components designated important to License Renewal would also be considered Important to License Renewal. The sco x of these systems, structures and components is beyond what is necessary to assure continued safe p ant operations.
P Comments We are concerned that this proposed scope could therefore include systems or structures which are - ,
even so much as mentioned in the UFSAR to ensure a complete " evaluation" of the plant. >
Additionally,it could include systems and structures which may be conceivably be utilized in the most i extreme cases (i.e. beyond design basis events). This could include fire hoses, fire hydrants, access roads and so on. Additionally, the proposed definition of Important to License Renewal could be interpreted to reintroduce the previously completed Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A 17, Systems. ,
J. Interaction.
Recommendations We strongly recommend that the Commission remove the uncertainty in the scope of the Integrated -
Plant Assessment. He scope should focus on those systems, structures and components whose '
primary purpose is to provide safety functions or whose failure could directly cause failure of those i systems, structures and components serving safety functions. ,
.We additionally believe that for systems, structures and components which are not Important to License Renewal, continued licensee maintenance acti ities, applicable regulatory requirements and other plant programs will continue to serve as reasonable assurance that safe operation can be conducted during the renewal term.
- ESTABLISIIED EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS DEFINITION i
. Issue Identification ne proposed definition of " Established Effective Programs" would currently require that a licensee would have to document even the smallest maintenance activity in the UFSAR, have it approved by -
on site review committees and implemented by facility operating procedures. The definition also includes a set of requirements which govern how to evaluate systems, structures and components not only from the technical aspect but how to continue to revalidate the assumptions made during the assessments. This definition is not only overly restrictive and burdensome but is also inconsistent with l the principles of the Proposed Rule itself. Additionally, it places unreasonable restrictions on a licensee when even minor changes need to be made on simple maintenance activitics.
2
7
- ENCLOSURE B Proposed 10 CFR 54 Comments:
Baltimore Gas & Electric Company q October 12,1990 i
)
) l Comments ,
We do not agree with the current definition and intended use of the Established Effective Program proposed by the Commission. It places hand cuffs on a licensee with regard to normal plant operations and maintenance. The Proposed Rule should give more credit to licensee's ongoing maintenance and inspection activitics, many of which have strong emphasis on detceting degraded ,
performance due to normal and, in some cases, off normal aging. The rule should not create unique controls for the renewal period with regard to programs that address maintenance and inspection
. since aging is not unique to the renewal term.
1 Recommendations We recommend thu the definition for Established Effective Programs be modified to reflect the proposed wording in the NUMARC response to this Federal Register notice.
F f
P e
9 Ir V
\
3
n: .r - -
7__
!. O'
.i t -;
g 7 ,
i ENCLOSURE C 3 I
Current Ucensing Basis issue Comments ]
. Proposed License Renewal Rule ;
1 Baltimore Gas & Electric Company !
October 12,1990 j
{-
INTRODUCTION j One of the significant issues raised by the proposed license renewal rulemaking involves the concept of the current licensing basis. This concept is defined and described in rule package documents and -
is integral to the license renewal regulatory approach and the requirements specified in the proposed . ;
s rule. I As part of our on the License Renewal issue, we have participated extet:sively as a member of 'the NUMARC NUPLEX Working Group in the development of industry positions regarding this important subject. As such we fully endorse the comments provided to the Commission by i NUMARC on the use of the current licensing basis concept in the Proposed Rule and supporting i NUREGs. Baltimore Gas & Electric believes that through the recommended improvement made in ~!
these and NUMARC's comments, License Renewal will remain a viable option for the industry.
The current licensing basis concept leads to a number of related issues which include the following:
the adequacy of the current licensing basis,
- requirements: to compile and maintain the current licensing basis in an auditable and ;
retrievable form, -:
use of the current licensing basis as a safety standard, L. compliance with the current licensing basis, I
- current licensing basis change mechanisms and changes, and
. the definition of the term " current licensing basis."
?
We agree with the conclusions reached and regulatory approach used by the NRC with regard to the adequacy of the current licensing basis, ne logic of the proposed regulatory approach relics on the '
l presumption of adequacy of the current licensing basis during both the imtial and renewal terms. ,
l~ However, BG&E believes that NUREG 1412. " Foundation for the Adequacy of the Licensing Bases," could be improved to more effectively support this logic, j We disagree with the requirement to compile and maintain the current licensing basis in an auditable .
l- 'and retrievable form.
- We disagree with language in the proposed rule package that establishes the current licensing basis as the safety standard for continued operation during the renewal term and the Integrated Plant Assessment. De appropriate standard is conformance with NRC rules and regulations to the extent implemented via the current licensing basis.
l L , 1
m . . . _ _ _ _ .
s . ;
l ENCLOSURE C
, Proposed 10 CFR 54 Comments ' '
Baltimore Gas & Electric Conpany
' October 12,1990 i
ne balance of this Enclosure provides the Commission with detailed ' comments and I recommendations regarding the use of the current licensing basis concept during renewallicensing.
ADEOUACY OF Tite CURRENT LICENS'NG BASIS ;
)! De Drst principle of license renewal, as identiGed in Statement of Considerations,Section IV.a.(i), '
page 13, second sentence, states that, ". , , with the exception of age related degradation, the current '
licensing basis far cach reactor provides and maintains an acceptable level of safety for operation during any renewal period." he second principle of license renewal states that .". . . cach plant's ;
current licensing basis must be maintained during the renewal period, in part through a program of ;
l1 , age related degradation management for systems, structures and components that are important in i this connection."
There are two issues that are raised regarding the adequacy of the current licensing basis. . The fgg isste is the validity of the first and second principles regarding current licensing basis adequacy and
. how they are applied in the regulatory approach for license renewal. The second issue is necessary
. improvements in the logic and increased justification for the adequacy of the current licensing basis ;
as documented in NUREG 1412.
t issue identification Regulatory Approach ;
The proposed license renewal rule package states that the current licensing bases of all operating plants are adequate at the time of imtial licensing, based on Commission findings in accordance with 10 CFR 50.57(a), and are maintained adequate over the initial license term by means of licensee programs required by the NRC and by NRC regulatory oversight processes. This validates the first ,
pnnciple.
Therefore, the proposed license renewal rule does not require a demonstration of current licensing basis adequacy, as mdicated in Statement of Considerations,Section IV a.(x), page 22, which states e
, , .the rule does not require submission of information relating to the adequacy of the current i licensing basis".
The proposed license renewal rule package also states that the current licensing basis of each plant will be adequately maintained during the renewal term by means of the same programs and oversight l 3rocesses, augmented with aging management practices as appropriate, that apply during the initial '
icensed term. His validates the second principle.
t Comments Although we agree that the current licensing bases are adequate for operation during the renewal terms, we do not agree with the implications in the first and second principles of the rule. As proposed, the principles imply that age-related degradation is not already adequately managed and x that additional actions would necessarily be rec uired to adequately manage age related degradation during the renewal term. Although this may x true, many licensee programs monitor, test and ,
2
)
'4- lE I ed/ ,
W W
ENCLOSURE C Proposed 10 CFR 54 Comments Baltimore Gas & Electric Conpany October 12,1990 inspect systems, structures and components for degraded performance much of which is due to normal and sometimes off normal aging.
Recommendations The final rule should rely on the first and second principles of license renewal as modified by the NUMARC response which changes the principles to read that the current licensing bases are adequate for the renewed terms.
Issue Identification NUREG-1412 " Foundation for the Adequacy of the Licensing Basts" NUREG 1412 has the overall objective to provide the basis for the Commission's continued reliance on the adequacy of the current hcensing basis. The objective of the analysis presented in NUREG-1412 is stated in Section 1.1, page 1 1, as follows:
"The objective of this analysis is to describe the regulatory processes that form the bases for the staft's conclusion that any plant-specific licensing bases at the time oflicense renewal will continue to provide reasonable assurance of the protection of the public health and safety."
Section 1.4, page 16, concludes the following:
"The processes outlined above and described and disca: sed i:. mare substantial detail in the specific major safety issue areas in the remainder of this report provide the information and justification for exclusion of the CLB from review at license renewal."
Based on this conclusion, one would expect that concluding statements contained in Sections 2.0 through 19.0 would directly support this conclusion in the particular issue area. Ilowever, this is not-the case. The existing conclusions should be reworded to fully support the overall conclusions.
In the majority of instances, i.e., about 37 concluding r.tatements out of 45, the concluding statements only provide reiterations of the regulatory oversight processes that are discussed in the particular section and describe logic similar to the following:
plant specific current licensing bases were adequate at the time of initiallicensing, based on 10 CFR 50.57(a) findings made by the Commission, NRC regulatory oversight processes, which include Commission backfit policy and inspection and monitoring activities, are adequate to assure that NRC regulations provide for the public health and safety and to assure that licensees are in compliance with the regulations.
In essence, NUREG 1412 uses a series of selected generic examples to make plant specific conclusions. 'Ihc generic examples demonstrate how regulatory oversight processes resulted in plant-specific backfits for selected upper tier technical issues over the past two decades.
3 1
4
, ENCLOSURE C
,~
Proposed 10 CFR 54 Comments Baltimore Gas & Electric Conpany October 12,1990
!' Comments Although we strongly agree with the generic conclusion that plant specific licensing bases will continue to be adequate, NUREG 1412's concluding statements in areas need better support.
The key point is that the oversight and regulatory processes are continuing and evohing in nature,
- NUREG 1412's conclusions need to be based on (1) the adequacy of the base line, i.e., adequacy of the original licensing basis, and (2) the ability to manage the incremental changes over time.
- NUREG 1412 should be improved by the addition of clear concise conclusions addressing:
b .
Adequacy of NRC regulation in providing for continued public health and safety.
- Conduct of plant operations, documented in each current licensing basis, will continue to be in compliance with the Commission's requirements and regulations.
NRC regulatory oversight, which includes Commission backfit policy and inspection and monitoring activities, will continue to assure that regulations are adequate, Recommendations We recommend that the bpecific concluding statements in each issue a ca be revised to support the stated objective and conclusion.
Concluding statements should specifically address that plant-specific current licensing bases are adequate Dow, and will be maintamed adequate over th.: renewal term and that plant specific current licensing bases need not be reviewed at the time of license renewal. Exceptions due to age related
- degradation will be addressed in the Integrated Plant Assessment.
COMPILATION OF THE CURRENT LICENSING BASIS The current licensing basis consists of imposed NRC requirements and licensec commitments that exist on the plant docket, and therefore in a sense, is already compiled. It is open to insp::ction by
. the general public and it can be retrieved in pieces or in its entirety upon request.
Here are severalissues regarding compilation of the CLB. They include the following:
Lack of a clear requirement in the rule, Lack of justification for the compilation requirement, Lack of justification and definition for the auditing and retrievability requirement, he distinction between the entire current licensing basis and the age-related degradation (ARD) portions and license renewal application content requirements, and
- The potential for discovery and litigation of non ARD issues, j 1
)
l 4
I
n.7 a;, .c 1
l ?
[_ m l ENCLOSURF.C -
Proposed 10 CFR 54 Comments
,, Baltimore Gas & Electric Conpany'-
October 12,1990 7pp ,
< Issue Identification Clear Requirement
~ Section 54.21(a) states that "Each license renewal applicantT shall compile a list of documents identifying portions of the current licensing basis relevant to the integrated assessment,' to be - -
submitted as part of the application, and maintain all documents describing the current licensing basis in an auditable and retrievable form."
J As identified in the following examples,'the rule package support documentation repeatedly mentions a requirement to compile the entire current licensing basis:
Statement of Consideret. ions,Section IV.b.(ii), page 26, last paragraph:
NUREG 1362, Executive Summary, page xii, third paragraph, second sentence:
- NUREG 1362, Section 3.2, page 3 8,last paragraph, first sentence; NUREG-1362, Section 4.2.1, page 4-4, first paragraph, Grst sentence; NUREG 1362, Section 6.3, page 6-3, first paragraph, last sentence.
The Proposed Rule calls for a list of documents identifying portions of the current licensing basis relevant to the integrated plant assessment and, thus age-related degradation, to be compiled and submitted with the license renewal application. However, the specific requirement to compile the entire current licensing basis is less clear.
Proposed rule package documentation repeatedly mentions a requirement to compile the entire .
, current licensing basis. In addition, the rule implies that this is to be done in 54.21(a), last sentence, i which states that, "Each applicant shall review the current licensing basis compilation . . ."
Comments We strongly oppose the' requirement of compiling the "eurrent licensing basis" in en "auditable and retrievable format". Additionally, we are not sure what this actually means since it is not defined anywhere in the rule package.
, (c) Recommenditions F . It.is the Commission's generic finding that the CLB adequately protects the public health and safety
- and the piant-specific finding that age related degradation is being appropriately managed for the
- renesi term which provides confidence in continued safe operation. The compilation of the current licensing basis does not result in this level of confidence.
We recommend that the NRC remove any and all requirement: to compile and maintain the current
' licensing basis is an auditable and retrievable format.
1 IO;f
m i1 k .h i A '
1
'_,;, + j .-
r 4
ENCLOSURE C
- Proposed 10 CFR 54 Comments'. ;
Baltimore Gas & Electric Conpany ?
October 12,1990
-)
4 USE OF CURRENT LICENSING BASIS AS A SAFETY STANDARD e "
]
The purpose for introducing the concept of current licensing basis and defining the term in the proposed license renewal rule package is to establish the first-and second principles of license .
i
- renewal and to facilitate the concept of re licensing, i.e., carrying the current licensing basis forward
. into the renewal term.
There is an issue regarding the inappropriate use of the current licensing basis in the proposed rule.
7 Issue Identification -
J In the following Sections of the proposed rule, the current licensing basis is being mis. applied as a safety standard.
t In Sections 54.21(a) and 54.29, the 3roposed rule establishes the current licensing basis (1) as the 4 safety standard for the Integrated P ant Assessment, (2) as a source of acceptance critena for the >
Integrated Plant Assessment and (3) as the standard ofissuance for a renewed license.
f- ' Section 54.21(a), page 82, first sentence, states that ". . . to assure that the facility's licensing basis will . >
be maintained throughout the term of the renewed license."
Section 54.21(a)(4)(i), page 84, first sentence, states that ". . . that the age rchted degradation is not
. sig 9ficant with respect to the current licensing basis." s Section 54.29, page 85, first sentence, states that ". . . in accordance with the current licensing basis."
, Section 54.21(a), page 83, second sentence, states that "Each applicant shall review the current licensing basis compilation for the purpose of determining the systems, structures and components to ..
be evaluated and the acceptance criteria to be used in the integrated plant assessment."
Comments [
The purpose of the Integrated Plant Asseument (IPA) is to examine systems, structures and components that are important to license renewal to determine whether they;are subject to-significant age related degradation and ,if so, that appropriate steps are being taken to manage it.
s We contend that the standard for issuance of a renewed license should be the public health and
, safety and common defense and sectrity and not ". . . that activitics authorized by the renewed license can be conducted in accordance with the current licensing basis." '
Recommendations JRevise the words in Section 54.21(a), page 82, to read: ". . . to assure that the facility will continue to operate in. accordance with the Commission's r.:quirements and icgulations, as they apply,
= throughout the renewal term."
-x
- ! s
\ !-- 6-
>> l1. '
- a. '(- , .- ,
- e. -
3L d,= ENCLOSURE C . .
L
~
, Proposed 10 CFR 54 Comments
, Baltimore Gas & Electric Conpany
- 4 L October 12,1990; a
Revise the words in Section 54.21(a)(4)(i), page 84; to read: ". . . that age.related degradation is not 1 signincant with respect to the Commission's requirements and regulations as they apply to each licensee." ++ .
Delete the following from Section' 54.21(a), page 83, secon'd sentence, "Each applicant shall review -
the current licensing basis compilation for the purpose of determining the systems, structures and component. to _be evaluated and the acceptance criteria to be used in the integrated plant assessment "
Delete the following from Section 54.29, page 85, ". . in accordance with the current licensing basis.
g .
Such a finding will constitute a finding that the facility can be operated . . ."
CIIANGES TO Tile CURRENT LICENSING BASIS The proposed license renewal rule package discusses the evolving nature of the current licensing basis. ~ We recognize that changes to the current licensing basis may be required to address and
- manage age-related degradation during the renewal term.
There is a lack of discussion in NUREG 1412 pertaining to existing mechanisms for controlling changes to'the current licensing basis.
Issue Identification
. Change Mechanisms -
The Code of Federal Regulations contains req'uirements and provisions that provide mechanisms for.
controlling changes to the current licensing basis.
3 Discussions in NUREG 1412 do not specifically address existing mechanisms for controlling changes
- to the current licensing basis. This could create the mistaken notion that the current licensing basis
= can be changed for any reason by anyone arbitrarily.
e Comments 4 We suggest that the case for current licensing basis adequacy can be improved by adding a clear,
,' discussion on how current licensing basis changes are controlled and made. De NRC staff may
- make changes to the current licensing basis provided proposed changes are evaluated in accordance -
, with the backfit process,10 CFR 50.109. The licensee may make changes to the current licensing basis provided the proposed changes are evaluated in accordance with the 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR
- 50.90 processes.
O
. Ea
- 4 7
.]
- , +
% &g
>x ,
4 J '
- ENCLOSURE C y' " ' . M 'T
! Proposed 10 CFR 54 Comments ':
~
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Conpany October 12,1990 :
i
! r Recommendations
. .. t
. NUREG 1412 discussions should be expanded or a new discussion added to sufficiently address u . current licensing basis . change _ mechanisms. It should be pointed out that requirements or commitments which could affect the adequacy of the current licensing basis cannot be arbitrarily included or removed.
y '
, ..?
1 !
DEBNITION OF THE CURRENT LICENSING BASIS !
The term " current licensing basis", although extensively used throughout the nuclear industry, is l currently not a defined 3erm in the Code of Federal Regulations. License renewal rulemaking is
- providing an opportunity for NRC to introduce and implement a definition. .
" here is ar' issue regarding the definition of the term " current licensing basis." Our comments are as follows:
hsue Identification The definition of the term " current licensing basis," throughout the proposed license renewal' ,
= package, contains language that limits the definition to a singular point in time, i.e. the time oflicense ' >
renewal application. For example, note the following: ,
Proposed Rule '
. t Section 54.3, page 76, "curunt licensing basis", second sentence, states that ". . . up to the filing of the 3
'^
license renewal application and remaining in effect at the time of the application . . ."
Section 54.3, page 76, fourth sentence, states that ". . . at the time of the renewal application."
i
, m' ' Statement of Considerationa
.Section IV.a.(ii), page 14, first sentence, states that ". . . up to the filing of a renewal application." +
Section IV.h.'i), page 23, first sentence, states that ". . . at the time of the renewal application."
P js NUREG .1362, " Regulatory Analysis for Proposed Rule on Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal" L .Section 3.2,:page 3-8, last paragraph, third sentence, states that "up to the filing'of a renewal L
' application." '
4 i;
~
h,, NUREG-1412, " Foundation for the Adequacy of the Licensing Basis" p <
L Section 1.1, page 1-1, first paragraph, last sentence, states that ". . . at the time oflicense renewal . . ."
L H
y .
f a yt e 8 .
k ,qe g , m
m --
Q[(f. '
M L ENCLOSURE C ; ,
h" N Proposed 10 CFR 54 Comments
?
O i Baltimore Gas & Electric Conpany i '
- October 12,1990 -
3 8
~
Section 1.3.2, page 12, first sentence,s ' tates that ". . . that are in effect at the time of the renewal!
application."
NUREG-1398, " Environmental Assessment for Proposed Rule on Nuclear Power Plant License i q) . Renewal" Executive Summary, page viii, first paragraph, last sentence, states that ". . . at the time of renewal:
, . application. J The language in the proposed license renewal rule package incorrectly implies that the concept of i; current licensing basis is exclusive to license renewal.
1
~i Comments
~
iWe basically' agree with the development and definition of the term " current licensing basis."'
However, we note that'the language in the proposed licerae renewai rule package fails to recognize;-
f an important distinction, There should be no time limitation in the definition of " current licensing: .
, basis", since the term would be inapplicable at any other time. The term " current licensing basis" :
should be consistent and apply to any point in time. -
We iccognize that there should be a time specified when describing which "( : 9t licensine basis"is -
used as a reference during the safety review of the license renewal application.
e a Recommendations ,[
The references quoted above should be revised to delete the limitations to a singular point in time.
'j-
~
4j/
f
, .D, '
I 4
i.if 3y:
I
,U lfh
![A i i ,
,, ,