ML20128A108
| ML20128A108 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/19/1992 |
| From: | Curtiss J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Parler W, Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212030186 | |
| Download: ML20128A108 (5) | |
Text
- _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _.
j ' *
- RELEASED TO T
- o**e.e.,,,,,,,
/
UNITED STATES HE PDR 3%
6 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONe
.{.
I.i W ASHIN GT ON, D.C. 20$$$
N
,1 j
k, llovember 19, 1992 eeee,,
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSION E R MEMORAllDUM FOR James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations William C.
Parler General Counsel FROM:
James R.
Curtiss b
SUBJECT:
LICE!1SE REllEWAL Over the course of the past coveral weeks, I have had the benefit of a number of in-depth briefings on the current status of license renewal, focusing on the status of the agency's efforts in implementing the license renewal rule (10 CFR Part 54).
In addition, I have had an opportunity to review the list of topics that the etaff forwarded to the Coth.aission via a morandum of liovember 17, 1992 for possible discussion at the Commission briefings currently scheduled for December 7, 8,
and 18, 1992.
The upcoming Commission briefings will provide an important and timely opportunity for the Commission to undertake a comprehensive review of the status of the agency's license renewal effort.
Indeed, with the recent decisions that have been taken by the two lead license renewal candidates rrt to purse license renewal at this point in time -- and in light of th concerns that have been expressed by both of these licensees about the current regulatory approach to license renewal -- this series of Commission briefings comes at an important juncture for this program.
Accordingly, I would like to take this opportunity to share with you my thoughtn on what I consider to be some of the more significant issues or challenges now before us, as the agency endeavors to provide a stable, well-defined framo. work within which to consider license renewal applications.
My principal observations follow:
First, it has become clear to me that, to date, the staff has by and large approached the development of technical guidance for implementing the license renewal rule with the expectation that a "revt lod standard" will emerge as a result of our interactions with tne lead license renewal applicants.
This, in turn, has led to a great deal of uncertainty on thc part of both lead applicants as to what the agency's technical criteria are for renewing a license.
As a conseguence of this, and because of the attendant financial uncertainties that such an approach creates 9212030186 % 1119
,h PDR ORG NRRB r
e 1
l l
1
-2 for the licenstes and their respective state rate-setting bodies, we have found that licensees have thus far expressed great reluctance about embarking upon an effort where the technical I
requirements have not yet been clearly established.
In turn, we as an agency have reduced the level of effort devoted to license renewal, citing the apparent lack of licensee interest.
We nood to find a way to break out of this " Catch-22".
Perhaps the recently-announce4 B&W Owners' Group initiative will provide a vehicle for doing so.
But in any event, I believe we need to reconsider the extent to which we are relying on our interactions with individual licensees to produce a " revealed standard", and instead place greater emphasis on defining in adyanqn and in a generic f ashion the technical criteria that we believe need to be met by license renewal candidates.
Escond, there appears to be a need for more thought on what the staf f considers to be " age-related degradation unique to license renewal" ( ARDU LR).
While this term is dafined in 10 CFR section 54.3, there has been considerable controveraf over how this term is being interpreted and applied.
In particular, the controversy appears te have arisen as a result of that part of the definition which states that ARDULR includes degradation "
(W) hose ef fects were not explicitly identified and evaluated by the licensee for the period of extendad operation and the evaluation found acceptable by the NRC
" (see 10 CFR S4.3(2)).
In its broadant sense, this provision might be construed as capturing virtually everything and excluding nothing, since it is unlikely that any licensee, operating under its initial license, previously will have explicitly identified and evaluated I
degradation for a renewed 2C year license term for any significant number of its structures or components.
In fact, licensees may have undertaken such an evaluation for very few, if any, structures or components.
Yet it is dif ficult to reconcile such an interpretation with the limited focus of the license renewal rule on matters npicue to lignnse renewal; more significantly, it is difficult to reconcile such an interpretation with the approach that we have taken to currently-operating plants for the first 40 years of their licensed life.
In this regard, there are numerous instances where an evaluation of the type that the staff appears to be seeking in the context of license renewal has not been undertaken (much leus submitted for agency review) for structures or components in gprrentiv-operatina plantq.
Yet we have found this situation to be acceptable for currently-operating plants, largely because licensees currently have programs in place, including monitoring, surveillance, and/or refurbishment programs (which, in turn, are incorporated in a licensce's " current licensing basis"), and nqt because we have insisted that each structure or component explicitly be analyzed or tested for all
-3 of the effects of age-related degradation and proven to be adequate for the first 40 years of operation.
This suggests that there may be merit in an approach that would permit a licensee to rely on (i.e., to take credit for) existing licensee programs (e.a., maintenance, su veillance, monitoring, 3
and refurbishment programs) to address age-related degradation, on the ground that such programs -- (i) have proven to be fully adequate to address age-related degradation during the initial license period; and (ii) if simply continued during the extended license period, will be equally effective during this period in addressing age-related degradation.
Such an approach would eliminate the need for a component-by-component or structure-by-structure evaluation by a licensee of individual aging mechanisms for such components and structures, in effect permitting a licensee to exclude components or structures covered by existing licensee programs from its Integrated Plant Assessment.
Moreover, such an approach would serve to move in the direction of greater harmonization of the maintenance and license renewal rules, a topic that I will discuss in more detail below.
For these reasons, I would encourage the stuff to evaluate the merits of such an approach.
Third, I believe that a much more aggressive effort needs to be undertaken to harmonize the maintenance and license renewal g
rules.
As I have emphasized on previous occasions, the objective of these two rules is virtually the same:
to ensure that age-related degradation of plant equipment is properly addressed so that plant structures, systems, and components are capable of pell forming their intended functions.
The agency's effort to date has largely focused on comparina the lancuace of the two rules, for the purpose of identifying whether 4
there are overlapping requirements that, in turn, will permit licensees to achieve certain efficiencies in implementing the two rules.
This perspective has proven to be useful in focusing attention on the general objective of harmonizing the two rules, but I must say that I am disappointed in the actual progress that has been made in this regard.
Indeed, as an agency, we have devoted very little thought to this issue at a senior level.
In the meantime, staff at the working levels have proceeded to implement these respective rules largely independent of one another.
Accordingly, I believe the time has come to approach this question from a different perspective -- setting aside for a moment the actual language of the license renewal rule, and instead focusing on what stens are necessary from a health and
=afety standpoint, beyond those that will be taken in implementing the maintenance rule, to support extension of a plant's license.
To be npecific, with tha maintenance guidance now close to being finalized and with the verification and l
l 1
-4 validation program for this guidance nearing completion, I
believe the senior agency staff now needs to refocus its attention on this issue of harmonization, taking the maintenance regime -- which every licensee will be required to implement by July of 1996 -- as the central point of departure for license renewal, and then focusing on what steps, beyond the actions that will be required of a licensee under the maintenance rule, will be necessary from a health and safety perspective for purposes of extending a plant's license.
In the preceding discussion on pages 2 and 3, under my second principal observation, I laid out how the issue of " age-related degradation unique to license renewal" might be treated in the context of such an integrated approach.
Yet another example of how I would approach the analysis that I have suggested here has to do with the scope of " structures, systems, and components" under the two rules:
Upon completion of the V&V program for the maintenance guidance, we will have identified the key SSCs for plants representing all four vendors.
In my judgment, the results of this effort should be sufficient to define the scope of SSCs on which the agency should focus in the context of license renewal.
To put it differently, if an SSC is important in the context of the maintenance rule, it should be considered when it comes to license renewal; if it is not important in the context of the maintenance rule, I believe we should be able to dismiss it for purposes of license renewal.
Again, this conclusion flows directly from my view that the purpose of both rules is essentially the same -- to ensure that SSCs important to safe operation of the plant are capable of performing their intended function.
Viewed from this perspective, the*e ought to be no difference in the SSCs that are the focus of these tuo rules.
These are but two axamples of the approach that I would take in evaluating how to bring about a closer integration of our efforts in these two areas.
I fully recognize that in addressing these and other related questions from the perspective that I have suggested, it may well be that what emerges is a conclusion that the license renewal rule itself may constrain our ability to come up with a more efficient approach to harmonizing our efforts in these two areas -- an approach that takes full advantage of the actions that all licensees will be required to take under the maintenance rule.
If that turns out to be the case, I believe it weuld be helpful to know that.
The Commission can then consider what action, if any, it wishes to take.
Fourth, I believe we need to ensure that the license renewal process remains focused on issues that are indeed " unique to license renewal".
In this regard, it is not clear to me that this is the case with the staff's current approach to the fatigue issue, and perhaps with the EQ issue as well.
I would simply note here that if tha concern is one that is truly unique to
-c l license renewal, it should be pursued and pursued aggressively.
If, on the other hand, the issue is one that is not unique to license renewal, but instead is an issue that arises irrespective of whether a licensea intends to seek license renewal, the license renewal process is not the appropriate forum in my view for raising and resolving such issues.
As I indicated at the outset, the upcoming Commission meetings will provide a timely opportunity to focus on the status of the agency's license renewal effort.
The foregoing issues are of particular interest to me and, accordingly, I look forward to the opportunity to discuss these issues with you in more detail at that time.
cc:
The Chairman Commissioner Rogers commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque SECY ACRS 1