ML23156A029
| ML23156A029 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/12/1993 |
| From: | NRC/SECY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 58FR42987, PR-054 | |
| Download: ML23156A029 (1) | |
Text
DOCUMENT DATE:
TITLE:
CASE
REFERENCE:
KEYWORD:
ADAMS Template: SECY-067 08/12/1993 PR-054 - 58FR42987 - LICENSE RENEWAL WORKSHOP PR-054 58FR42987 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete
STATUS OP RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE:
PR-054 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N RULE NAME:
LICENSE RENEWAL WORKSHOP PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE:
58FR42987 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE:
08/12/93 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 10/12/93 NUMBER OF COMMENTS:
EXTENSION DATE:
I I
FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE:
FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE:
NOTES ON WORKSHOP NOTICE SIGNED BY ACTING DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR 6
I I
TAiUS POR ADVANCED REACTORS AND LICENSE RENEWAL, NRR.
FILE LOCATED ON P lHJLB 16-G.
TO FIND THE STAPP CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAKING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OP THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-054 RULE TITLE:
LICENSE RENEWAL WORKSHOP DATE PROPOSED RULE ROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER:
PROPOSED RULE SRM DATE:
I I
SIGNED BY SECRETARY:
08/06/93 PINAL RULE SECY PAPER:
PINAL RULE SRM DATE:
I I
DATE FINAL RULE SIGNED BY SECRETARY:
I I
STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACTl: THOMAS G. HILTZ CONTACT2:
MAIL STOP: 11-F-23 PHONE: 504-1105 MAIL STOP:
PHONE:
l DOCKET NO. PR-054 (58FR42987)
In the Matter of LICENSE RENEWAL WORKSHOP DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 10/12/93 08/06/93 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE 10/12/93 10/11/93 COMMENT OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY 10/12/93 10/13/93 (SUSAN L. HIATT, DIRECTOR) (
- 1) 10/12/93 COMMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (E. C. BROLIN) (
10/08/93 COMMENT OF YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (0. W. EDWARDS) (
- 3) 10/12/93 COMMENT OF NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL (WILLIAM H. RASIN, V. P.) (
- 4)
- 2) 10/13/93 10/14/93 10/12/93 COMMENT OF VIRGINIA POWER (W. L. STEWART, SR. V. P.) (
ll/!!193 12/16/93 11/18/93 COMMENT OF NUMARC (WILLIAM H. RASIN) (
- 6) 11/19/93 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SUPPLEMENT TO ITS EARLIER COMMENT (COMMENT NO. 2)
- 5)
November 19, 1993 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch
Dear Mr. Chil k:
Cl\\[
On October 12, 1993, the U.S. Department of Energy provided written comments to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) addressing the need for changes to the NRC's license renewal rule, 10 C.F.R. Part 54.
The Department provided these comments in response to the NRC's notice of a public workshop on license renewal published in the Federal Register (58 FR 42987) on August 12, 1993.
The Department's comments included a recommendation for rulemaking.
Since its October 12, 1993, comments, the Department has refined its recommendations (i.e., its proposed amendments) after considering comments submitted by others, as well as questions raised by the NRC staff at recent public meetings.
The Department's revised recommendations are presented in "red-lined" form in Enclosure 1 to this letter.
An explanation of the changes is provided in Enclosure 2.
The explanation in Enclosure 2 addresses and is limited to the changes that the Department has made to its recommendations. to this letter (the red-lined rule), however, includes all of the Department's recommended amendments to Part 54, including those recommendations from the Department's October 12, 1993, submittal that have not changed.
The rationale for the recommendations that have not changed was fully addressed in the Department's October 12, 1993, submittal and that discussion is not repeated here.
We would be pleased to discuss our comments and recommendations further.
If further discussions would be useful or if you have any questions, please contact Dennis Harrison at 301-903-2884.
Sincerely,
- T)--t{M'J1~
t,. E. C. Brolin r
Acting Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Energy
00"
'f CO'.
\\SSION CE "EC110 CRET RV ssoN
~) I l J ~__.r1~--
~ I
/LY lT'L
ENCLOSURE 1 Revised November 1993 Text of Proposed Amendments to 10 C.F.R. Part 54
§ 54.3 Definitions As used in this part, Age-related degradation means a change in a system's, structure's or component's performance or physical or chemical properties resulting in whole or part from one or more aging meehanisms.
Examples of this type of change include changes in dimension, ductility, fatigue resistance, fracture toughness, mechanical strength, polymerization, viscosity, and dielectric strength.
Age-related degradation unique to license renewal is age-related deg rad at i On jijp\\ijg\\ftitt!:P:£ 1§))~:ri:[l:~:g;n1::n:nu~n:t:J:illiIHrulit1n:1 (1) That oeeurs du1*ing the term of the eurrent operating lieense but whose effeets in eharaeter or magnitude after the term of the current operating license
( the period of extended operation )if;---itt"'-
( 2) Whose effeets were not explieitly identified and evaluated by the l i eensee for the period of extended operation and the e*,al uation found aeeeptabl e by tne NRC; or (3) That oeeurs only during the period of extended operation.
§iJr~Rlt::11,nmI::::n:Rt{::I:1,:t::sgn:~:tglrtg::::::::1:i1n:J:1;:ii:1:ni1;yJ::1]::r:11:r,n1::r:mni:m1:1:::11:p1J 1J::111J:qn::::::::q1; ixi ijJ::j::ni:::::::11Pt)111m1::1Pri:111mvtt:1:,~::::::rij1:1:Rn111;1::r11:i:1111:::::;:n11::11,::::::1:11:r11:1::m:r1,1@1:11,;n, Rr e1rr1rmj::ntt:::::11:1::::1is.1:i:,;µ;:: rµ:ns1M:gn:1::::::tnJ:1ItisPriinP:1::::,i:11:::::lin:1::::v11r1:µ@in1t1n:1re1ri1g qt iiltnli@
1fR>>tm,t!:t@ltt 11s1e1::11;9:rrrJ::1ni::m:::,:1:11Jr :1t1i:1:1:v;;Mi:1:1:iin:i:,::1m:::::::1:11µ:1!1r1i:::t111:is1me1n1n:11]:::::: n:g
§[l',98&Mit1~I::!~M1W\\/yP,ID,89~~!~!i:t!9.!R4.!~~!\\]J!Q[\\~:9::::::@rmI:IM[§.t:§9:!![i?]:1n:11::1r:Y!i!'!'!£Pn!!J:!JM'.1j,1;mi::f:i!ifpJ:~:sl t9 jgl:r:ril 1111 ::11ir11:11J:~tnIIin:ts.9!1:::::1trtmi:Pi111::::::rin1w11::::n1::::11ri:n1:1:~:::::::ng:ti:1m:s11:11:1gr
SHIDP:iRiinli]Iln:11m=::::11::::::::::;9ij!IJ!qi!i!ettiltiJii!IB}]l§))l§.imrill:iili~U]l~l!liifiJ9ij}fy9!j:i~Ui,itIII!
J:illifi§iIIiliiiWili}!]:w1:(::1:1:::::::J::1:::m:11:::H1fii:tni:1:111:mim1:11:111:11:1::::::f:~1,:1IJ~:r!!l:J:1:1JJ::11111:iIJ{g):
1:t: v11:::::;11ntP:r111::211J:1:::::111]:11111::19:t]til:11e1:rrn::9:~t]tn11~t:ina11:::::1p:tri11]~1IIin:q::11111g4 ijij~]lisi!Riil]t:ili!i!J~i:11:1:;y:i2n:i:t1:1::::::(!i):::i]::,::::::i:1:=::::§ypJiiilt:1eIIiliii!lilr1i:r1,m:::111:tr:1ttli:l1n§ 9:g99}!]!1:,1::1:rttP:if11Yiimliii:::!Iliiiffii:iiit:1:11::::::11mem1::1:iiiiiiiilli~:::!Ifili}Ii&li[
Aging mechar,i sm ue the physical el" chemical prncesses that result i r, degl"adatier,.
These mechar,isms ir,clude but al"e r,et limited te fatigue, e!"esier,,
cel"l"esier,,
eresier,/cel"l"esier,,
weal",
thel"mal embl"ittlemer,t, radiatier, embrittlemer,t, micl"ebiolegically ir,duced effects, creep ar,d shyir,kage.
Effective Program ( EP) is a documented program to manage !fii}:i:jiff!ili)i]Ri age-re 1 ated degradation unique to 1 i cense renew a 1 1:n:::::1::::m1,,1:rJriJt§#:n:11J1::::1:1:§!il]ig§ that er,sul"es that a system, structure or component will continue to perform its required function or will not prevent the performance of a required function during the period of extended operation.
1~tr1:tJ:i:v1~::~IIe11:1:1::11m::::1111:ij:1,:11111:r1111:111::::111::::sem1211:1:1:1t111::::11:r111!tn11:::::1:i:µ,
sBmPi?!ln:11:f)f
!(;:J]!j:jj:1,iu:::Mill!rt:t11:::::mit1~::1i11::111:11:;::::~tf]!li!!I!\\xf!lii!l
- (1:,::1:::::1n,1H 1u1::1n2ti:::::::111m:,:n19::::::12::1s1:1:n11:::::::::::11:1s1::1:::1,1:111::,1m111:11:r::::11titt;1:r:i 9999] !]!t:rtMIIlne
- ti]!J!ifi~tt:~n::11jrni:r1f ii!ll:lq]:qij};;j sl]iM]uiil:l:lf mlII]Jlli)[:ei:J 111:11m:::11:11111:=itiiisl:t:e1 J:m:::::1::::in11:o:1iMii:!1:::::::1111:i:1111:t1it:::111:::::::g,51,1:
Systems, structures and components (SSCs) important to license renewal
( 4) A 11 SSCs :I p:l@ilinJ:iiil:]ixJ1:9in!:1m:;:1iM1:1 subject to operability requirements contained in the facility technical specification limiting conditions for operation.
§ 54.21 Contents of application--technical information.
Each application must include a supplement te the final safety analysis repert ( FSAR) that presents the i nformati en ret1ui red by this part.
The FSAR Supplement shall contain the following information:
(a) Integrated plant assessment (IPA).
The IPA must:
(3) For those SCs identified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, identify the SCs that eeuld ha*,e i~ir;l!]~i9§~i~~:1,:::m:9 age-related degradation unique to license renewal.
(6) Describe the applicable effective programs for each SC identified in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section, and demonstrate that these programs will be effective in maintaining the CLB during the period of extended operation.
The evaluation of these programs shall include a review of the CLB as appropriate.
Effective programs must:
(i) ~iP:!~Wgi]'fiii:ltil Ensure identifieatien and mitigation of ~1:1::::iiJ;;tgsiti~ilPii age-related degradation unique to license renewal for the SCs identified pursuant to Par a gr a Ph ( a ) ffl(e,i)::fmli Of th i S Se Ct i O n:ii:!:i:i:l!i]iijijj!j p!r,!\\UU!Ji)!lill!liiini!:i:i:i:uinii!i!!i!fe]i!gif ti~i!
Biinirm~inRi]:§il£i999ilif :ii§n] Pti]Jl~sij]ij!iji~]!~fiJmi]t:lllJ!Ji!~MP!ti:i:9):l!liti!l!ilil911i!~t::l~tiM:!:l:n i£89(9!Di£i!]!/f.jj!!ib!I:i:tlifJMJ!; and (ii) Contain acceptance criteria against which the need for corrective action will be evaluated, and require ensure that timely corrective action will be taken when these acceptance criteria are not met; and (ii+) Be implemented by the facility operating procedures and reviewed by the onsite review committee.
§ 54.22 Contents of application--technical specifications.
Each application must include any technical specification changes or additions necessary to support operation during the renewal term as part of the renewal application. The technical justification for these changes or additions must be ijryilY~U~g:::=in:::::::t:~1::::::;iuu:m£::,:t:1:9p]: contained in the FSAR supplement submitted to support license renewal.
§ 54.24 Contents of application--FSAR supplement 1:121:: :111Hl:,91l:ie:rr ::mi:11:=:=:::1::ntlliiliif IIIl!!PPllimin!:lll!tt::;~~n:::r::t:n:ilf ::§JltlliII:t\\fti]iti:1::1 iiPPlnlttfilfl§l'!)ta\\tl1lllitillln!ifll1 jfqJJ,lltln!I ][ij[)§,r;m11ie:1:i:
Jlilttinllfr!!:!i!Jtlli{!ntt)EPlnli]Hl!liinliIIl~tnIIlllt::l!}til:!i~i:t:i:1n:!Ilililih9PiilfJtµt:1y:;;t;::::19 1::::§t:Ul?J:::t11::i:::tin2
- i::1l:t1t:9inlt\\!Jf]!lliiltiPltJ:9n=]:ti:::::::11tMi!li:tilitl!rel]timit:::11t11:i:11::1;:tp§!il!!1:n~:::::::11t::
J:~ §J:J:1:1:1:1::l]JUf:
§ 54.33 Continuation of current licensing basis and conditions of renewed license
( d)
The l i censee sha 11 maintain the programs and procedures illfg;ljlg!til!?i!
]Qll!inillllf)§~~llllilijpp]!:i~;Q!';;Jrj~9.9J;pij:J:~ylll§l§~~~~ re*,iewed by the staff that manage age-related degradation unique to license renewal.
A licensee may make changes to
~:µ§)~ prevfotisly approved programs and procedures i)flill!~!stmP:i~ua,::]l:tJ!! referenced in the renewal application or FSAR ~iHPJU!!!lin'.lf without prior Commission approval if the changes are reviewed by the onsite review committee and found not to decrease the effectiveness of the management of age-related degradation unique to 1 icense renewal of specific systems, strticttires and components pre*,iotisly accepted. Changes that do not decrease the effectiveness of previotisly accepted programs or procedures i!fii9i!fip,ijJ!giq![i::nttn:itf11!ilIIl!~i,:pp]:1m!it must be documented in accordance with§ 54.37.
Proposed changes that decrease the effectiveness of programs or procedures is:::::qtlflsnlllqfjlfffifll!::::;iji!Jltii:ep]!lm!i+/- for management of age-re 1 ated degradation unique to license renewal must be submitted to the NRC and receive NRC approval before implementation.
§ 54.37 Additional record and record keeping requirements
( b) The an n ti al F SAR ti pd ate !f!y!pp]ilffi!ff+/- req u i red by ~!i;l§i!Mi~!!i:!:!:i!Ri:::::::f~!J:i~ti!ip;~ir!
~n~];];;::9:1:::;y;pq~lis:::~::~t::::~:ss2:r#iinF*~::::1jliil 10 CFR *~ 50.7l(e}:f:: mtist incltJde any SSC newly identified as important to license renewal as a restilt of generic info1°mation, research, or other new information after the renewal license is isstied.
The tipdate mtist al so identify any SSC deleted from thi g list of SSCs important to license renewal. This FSAR tipdate mtist describe how the age related degradation tiniqtie to license renewal of newly identified SSCs important to license renewal will be effectively managed dtiring the period of extended operation. The tipdate mtist also be accompanied by a jtistification fo1° deleting any SSC previotisly identified as important to license renewal.
(c) The licensee shall submit to the NRq: at least annually 9r::::;!il:999!liJi;!ij HP:i]fi!A'B]HPBiil~Iil~::rrt§.!li)zgq{;p;t;:::::1:1::::::itW!t~*tl!]:;:1::rtJ:J:: a 1 i st of a 11 changes made to programs :ilJIIlltilliil!ililj]tIIlli11lm§IBili91ell~l!iil for management of age-related degradation unique to license renewal that do not decrease the effectiveness of
§!9§9 programs to which the lieensee eommitted and a brief description, including a summary of the safety evaluation for each change. The licensee shall maintain the written documentation that provides the basis for concluding that the change does not reduce the effectiveness of these programs.
ENCLOSURE 2 EXPLANATION OF CHANGES At the outset, it is worth emphasizing that the Department's revised recommendations continue to have the same fundamental objectives as the recommendations in the Department's October 12, 1993, comments.
They seek to preserve the concept of II age-related degradation unique to 1 i cense renewal 11 (ARDUTLR) in order to preserve the basic pri nc i p 1 es of the current 1 i cense renewal rule.
They seek to amend the definition of ARDUTLR so that it may be applied in a meaningful manner.
They seek to credit current licensing basis (CLB) programs and the maintenance rule so that the license renewal process may be focused quickly on structures and components deserving additional evaluation.
They seek to confirm that the evaluations required by the rule may be focused on the effects of aging, rather than on mechanisms.
And they seek to specify the level of detail and commitment that must be provided in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Supplement, in order to avoid unduly encumbering 1 icensees' programs and preserve the flexibility of the maintenance rule.
In light of the further discussions that have occurred since the Department submitted its October 12, 1993, comments, the Department has refined its recommendations to accomplish the objectives above. The most significant change concerns the amendment of the definition of ARDUTLR.
Other changes include clarifying the fourth criterion of the definition of systems, structures, and components (SSCs) important to license renewal (ITLR) (i.e., SSCs subject to operability requirements in technical specification 1 imiting conditions of operation),
deletion of references to aging mechanisms, revision to section 54.21(a)(3), and relocation of the FSAR Supplement requirements.
The Definition of ARDUTLR The Department's prior recommendation kept the NRC's three-pronged, affirmative definition of ARDUTLR (~, greater in character or magnitude, not evaluated, or occurring only during the period of extended operation), changing only the conjunctions between and order of the three prongs so that the definition could be effectively applied. There is, however, a concern that a definition, which focuses so specifically on differences in the character or magnitude of aging, may necessitate an evaluation of aging mechanisms in order to quantify the rate of degradation.
This is unnecessarily complicated and unlikely to be useful.
The Department believes that the focus of the Integrated Plant Assessment (IPA),
and the definition of ARDUTLR, should be on assuring that SSCs will be capable of performing their function in accordance with each facility's current CLB and not on unnecessary research into degradation mechanisms.
The Department strongly believes that mechanistic evaluation should not be required for the reasons discussed at length in the Department's October 12 comments.
It is also the Department's opinion that the IPA process should be focused on the effects of age-related degradation--~ on reasonably assuring function by condition or performance monitoring.
I I
In light of the above-mentioned concern, the Department has revised its recommended definition of ARDUTLR to eliminate the language taken the current definition (i.e., the three prongs, including the greater in character or magnitude criterion). In its place, the Department proposes defining ARDUTLR as age-related degradation whose effects are significantly different during the period of extended operation.
This formulation is intended to eliminate any implication that it is necessary to quantify the character or magnitude of degradation, by performing exhaustive studies to identify mechanisms and quantify the rate at which they might progress.
Such an effort for thousands of components would be a monumental and unnecessary undertaking, and the results would be speculative at best.
The Department continues to believe that ARDUTLR should connote degradation that is somehow significantly different during the period of extended operation (and consistent with the basic principles underlying the current rule, if degradation is not significantly different during the period of extended operation, it should be adequately addressed by existing licensee programs). However, the Department suggests that a performance-based approach can be accomplished by specifying in the rule that age-related degradation will not be considered significantly different when existing programs or activities reasonably assure that an SSC will be capable of performing its required functions in accordance with the CLB during the period of extended operation.
In suggesting this revision, the Department intends that a license renewal applicant would not be required to quantify the extent of degradation to make a significance determination. Instead, the applicant would disposition a structure or component based on a determination that existing programs reasonably assure function. In such case, any differences in degradation that might theoretically exist or be postulated would not be considered significant.
Another change to the Department's recommended definition of ARDUTLR relates to what might be characterized as the categorical exclusions resulting from the definition of ARDUTLR.
The Department's prior recommendations defined what was considered to be essentially a class of short-lived structures and componen\\s and specified that the maintenance rule would preclude ARDUTLR for this class.
The Department now proposes a more general exclusion of structures and components subject to the maintenance rule, but with further evaluation of certain long-lived, passive, essential structures and components.
Although this reformulated exclusion is slightly broader, the Department's current and prior recommendations are essentially two sides of the same coin.
Both the current and prior recommendations seek recognition that the maintenance rule is adequate to disposition many components and that further evaluation should be necessary only for certain long-lived structures and components.
In The Department's prior recommendations specified that structures and components subject to the maintenance rule would not be considered to have ARDUTLR if they are regularly inspected or tested and replaced or refurbished when performance or condition criteria are not met.
This formulation was intended to describe and encompass short-lived components addressed by a licensee's preventive maintenance programs and the maintenance rule.
addition, both would allow efficient disposition of structures and components with a service life of less than 40 years, as well as structures and components addressed by CLB programs that reasonably assure condition or performance.
The affirmative definition of ARDUTLR in the Department's revised recommendations, which focuses on significantly different degradation and provides that differences are not significant when functionality continues to be reasonably assured, a 11 ows and justifies the somewhat broader categorical exclusions now recommended by the Department.
By focusing on performance and ignoring insignificant effects that do not prevent performance, it is no longer necessary to attempt to show that changes in degradation are thPoretical impossibilities. Instead, it is possible to credit the maintenance rule directly as the NRC's regulatory program reasonably assuring that structures and components remain capable of performing their intended function, thereby precluding ARDUTLR (i.e., significantly different degradation) under the revised definition.
One needs only look at the requirements and intent of the maintenance rule to make this generic determination.
The maintenance rule requires that licensees monitor the performance or condition of SSCs within the scope of the rule in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that those SSCs will be capable of performing their intended function (10 C.F.R. § 50.65(a)(l) (See also 56 FR 31306 (1991)).
A licensee may discontinue this monitoring only when and as long as preventive maintenance is demonstrated to be effective in controlling the performance or condition of an SSC such that it remains capable of performing its intended function (10 C.F.R. § 50.65(a)(2) (See also 56 FR 31309)).
In short, the maintenance rule reasonably assures that SSCs within its scope will perform their intended function.
The relationship of the maintenance rule to the license renewal rule and its existence as a regulatory program reasonably assuring performance has been recognized by both the Commission and the Staff.
In the July 22, 1992, NRC Regulatory Information Conference, Commissioner Curtiss stated:
At bottom, the fundamental purpose of both the license renewal rule and the maintenance rule is to ensure that age-related degradation of plant equipment is properly addressed.
While the maintenance rule is nonprescriptive with regard to maintenance activities per se--such as work control processes and procedures--it implicitly requires that processes be established and implemented that will result in the systematic review of the performance and condition of all plant equipment within the scope of the rule and corrective action, where necessary, in order to restore equipment or condition to an acceptable level.
Remarks of Commissioner Curtiss at NRC Regulatory Information Conference (July 22, 1992) at 2, 6.
Similarly, in SECY-93-049, the Staff stated:
Although different in some respect, the [maintenance rule] and the license renewal rule... share a fundamentally similar objective and scope. The object of both rules is to ensure that the effects of age-related degradation on the performance or condition of important plant equipment are adequately mitigated; the specific focus of the maintenance rule--
maintenance preventable failures--essentially encompasses all forms of age-related degradation.
SECY-93-049, Implementation of 10 C.F.R. Part 54, "Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants" (March 1, 1993) at 7.
Assuring the functionality of SSCs maintains the CLB, which is the ultimate objective of the license renewal rule.
Under the NRC Inspection Manual, a system, including its integral components, is not considered operable unless it is capable of performing its specified functions; and specified functions are those safety functions specified in the facility's CLB.
NRC Inspection Manual, Part 9900, Enclosure 2, "Technical Guidance on Operable/Operability:
Ensuring the Functional Capability of a System or Component" (Oct. 31, 1991) at 3.
Further, any loss of full qualification, which is defined as conformance to all aspects of the CLB, requires an operability determination and corrective action Id. at 7.
Thus, if an SSC is not being maintained in a manner that assures compliance with CLB requirements, the licensee would not be providing reasonable assurance that the SSC would remain capable of performing its intended function and would not be in compliance with the maintenance rule.
The Commission recognized this relationship between the maintenance rule and the CLB in its June 28, 1993, Staff Requirements Memorandum.
For activities such as those that fall within the scope of the maintenance rule, which will become effective in 1996, it is implicit that they have the objective of maintaining the functionality of SSCs as set forth in the CLB.
As with our other regulations, and regulatory requirements, the maintenance rule need not explicitly reference the CLB to accomplish that purpose.
Memorandum from S. Chilk to J. Taylor, Re COMSECY-93-029, SECY-93-049, and SECY-93-113 (June 28, 1993) at 1 n.1.
Under this logic, the maintenance rule appears sufficient to address aging of all SSCs within its scope.
Nevertheless, the Department proposes that a more detailed assessment be performed on certain long-1 ived, passive, essential structures and components based on recognition of the importance of these structures and components.
Accordingly, the Department has reformulated the categorical exclusions in its recommended definition of ARDUTLR.
For simplicity, the Department proposes adding a definition of long-lived, passive, essential structures and components.
DOE's recommended definition then provides that, except for long-lived, passive, essential structures and components, no structure or component subject to the maintenance rule shall be considered subject to ARDUTLR.
Consistent with the industry's proposal, DOE further recommends that no structure or component shall be considered subject to ARDUTLR if it has a service life of less than 40 years or if it is subject to a CLB program that monitors condition or performance to maintain compliance with the CLB.
In addition, the Department's recommendations add that no structure or component shall be considered subject to ARDUTLR if it has been previously evaluated for the period of extended operation and the NRC has accepted the evaluation. This exclusion was implicit in the original definition of ARDUTLR (the definition in the current rule) and should be maintained.
It will be particularly important for certified advanced reactors that may be initially designed and analyzed for a 60-year life, but it may also be applied appropriately to existing plants if there are analyses that bound the period of extended operation and have been accepted by the NRC.
The Limiting Conditions of Operations (LCO) Criterion in the Definition of SSC ITLR The Department proposes clarifying the definition of SSCs ITLR to provide some reasonable bounds on the fourth criterion used in classifying such SSCs.
More specifically, the Department proposes revising the fourth criterion so that it encompasses only SSCs "specifically identified as" subject to operability requirements in the facility technical specification LCOs.
The statement of considerations (SOC) published with the license renewal rule currently ca 11 s for a very broad interpretation of the fourth criterion, capturing not only structures and components subject to explicit operability requirements, but also any supporting SSCs, any SSC subject to a functional requirement, and any SSC even mentioned in an LCO (See 56 FR 64955). This very broad interpretation in the SOC, which is not even consistent with the literal wording of the fourth criterion, captures a number of structures and components of very marginal (or no) safety significance, such as SSCs that are merely identified for programmatic or admi ni strati ve purposes.
It wil 1 cause an applicant's review and identification of such SSCs to cascade needlessly. It is also inconsistent with the approach adopted by the NRC in defining the second criterion used to classify SSCs as ITLR, which limits nonsafety-related SSCs within the scope of the rule to those whose failure could "directly" prevent safety-related SSCs from accomplishing their safety function.
The Department recommendations would correct these problems and inconsistencies and return the focus to structures and components deserving attention.
Deletion of References to Aging Mechanisms The Department proposes deleting the definition of aging mechanisms, as well as the reference to aging mechanisms in the definition of age-related degradation, in order to avoid an inappropriate focus on mechanisms and mechanistic evaluations. Mechanistic evaluations are generally inappropriate for the reasons set forth in the Department's October 12, 1993, submittal.
Amendments to Section 54.2l(a)(3)
The Department proposes amending section 54.2l(a)(3) to require identification of structures and components that "are subject to" ARDUTLR, as opposed to those that "could have ARDUTLR.
11 This change makes section 54.2l(a)(3) consistent with section 54.2l(a)(4)(iii), which currently requires an applicant to describe in the IPA the technical criteria used in determining whether a structure or component "is subject to" ARDUTLR.
It also eliminates any implication that effective program reviews are required simply because imaginative persons might postulate the possible existence of degradation effects not currently known or possible changes in effects without any showing of significance.
Mere speculation about possible effects should not be sufficient to support a contention that a system or structure is subject to ARDUTLR.
Instead, there must be some real basis for concluding that a system or structure is subject to ARDUTLR (i.e., that the effects of age-related degradation will in fact be significantly different) before effective program reviews are required.
Relocation of the FSAR Supplement Requirements DOE previously recommended separating the IPA from the FSAR Supplement and using the FSAR Supplement as a vehicle to describe the results and conclusions of the IPA and of effective programs in order to establish an appropriate level of commitment. The Department's prior recommendations would have specified the FSAR requirements in section 54.2l(e). The Department now proposes specifying these requirements in a new section 54.24 and has modified its recommended rule accordingly. The Department also proposes a minor amendment to section 54.22 to indicate that the justification for changes to technical specifications should be provided in the application rather than the FSAR supplement. Justifications for technical specifications are not information typically included in the FSAR, and since a technical specification may only be changed by license amendment, there is no need for further commitments or controls in the FSAR.
Conclusion The Department continues to believe that amendments to the license renewal rule are needed to produce a more predictable, stable, and efficient licensing process. DOE's revised recommendations would substantially improve the license renewal process to further these objectives. The recommendations and proposals are consistent with the Commission's directive in its June 28, 1993, memorandum that maximum credit be given to existing activities and programs that ensure a plant will continue to operate safely during the extended period of operation.
The Department urges the NRC to consider these recommendations and proposals and act accordingly.
oocK:T UMBER Pn0 O cD RULE
(,Y FF-L-/1-t:i f-1 CCJ,-E:'i[D NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL USNHC WIiiiam H. Rosin Vice President & Director Technica l Division 1776 Eye Street, N.W.
- Suite 300
- Washington, DC 20006-3706 (202) 872-1280 November 18, 1993 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Office of the Secretary of the C<?mmission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
SUBJECT:
Notice of Public Workshop (58 Fed. Reg. 42987), August 12, 1993
Dear Mr. Chilk:
- 93 NO ' 18 P 5 :34 On October 12, 1993, the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC)1 provided comments on matters covered in the NRC's public workshop on license renewal, including responses to the questions set out in the August 12, 1993, Federal Register notice (58 Fed. Reg. 42987). We noted in our comments that they would be further supported with more detail in a supplemental submittal in November. to this letter identifies those revisions to 10 CFR Part 54 that the industry believes are necessary to provide an efficient, predictable, and stable regulatory approach to license renewal. Enclosure 2 is an extensive discussion of the bases and justification for all recommended rule modifications.
Although this document contains greater detail than our October package, the details described in Enclosure 2 are continuing to be refined. We envision submitting other supplements to further support our recommended modifications to the license renewal rule.
1NUMARC is the organization of the nuclear power industry that is responsible for coordinating the combined efforts of all utilities licensed by the NRC to construct or operate nuclear power plants, and of other nuclear industry organizations, in all matters involving generic regulatory policy issues and on the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues affecting the nuclear power industry. Every utility responsible for constructing or operating a commercial nuclear power plant in the United States is a member ofNUMARC. In addition, NUMARC's members include major architect/engineering firms and all of the major nuclear steam supply system vendors.
d MAY 1 o 1994 1 ---._
Acknowledged by car.............. -*-*"-....,..
G Y CO., HSSION
- Si::CTION
.ETAIW V. I :.
,ON
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk November 18, 1993 Page2 NUMARC would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this package with the NRC staff and to respond to any specific questions they may have.
Sincerely, d/~l/{ff{WAA-William H. Rasin WHR/DJW /acm c:
Chairman Ivan Selin Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers Commissioner Forrest J. Remick Commissioner E. Gail de Planque James M. Taylor, Executive Director of Operations, NRC Thomas E. Murley, Director, NRR William D. Travers, Deputy Associate Director Advanced Reactors & License Renewal William C. Parler, Esq., General Counsel
PART 54--REQUIREMENTS FOR RENEW AL OF OPERA TING LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS General Provisions Sec.
54.1 54.3 54.5 54.7 54.9 54.11 54.13 54.15 54.17 54.19 54.21 54.22 54.23 54,24 54.25 54.27 54.29 54.31 54.33 54.35 54.37 Purpose and scope.
Definitions.
Interpretations.
Written communications.
Information collection requirements: 0MB approval.
Public inspection of applications.
Completeness and accuracy of information.
Specific exemptions.
Filing of application.
Contents of application: General information.
Contents of application: Technical information.
Contents of application: Technical specifications.
Contents of application: Environmental information.
Contents of application: FSAR supplement Report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
Hearing.
Standards for issuance of a renewed license.
Issuance of a renewed license.
Continuation of current licensing basis and conditions of renewed license.
Requirements during term of renewed license.
Additional records and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 161, 181, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936,937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2132,2133,2134,2135,2201,2232,2233,2236,2239,2282);secs.201,202,206, 88 Stat. 1242, 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842). For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273), §§ 54.13, 54.33, 54.35, and 54.37 are issued under secs. 161b, 161i, or 1610, 68 Stat. 948, 949, or 950, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2201(b), 2201(i), or 2201(0)).
General Provisions
§ 54.1 Purpose and scope.
This part governs the issuance of renewed operating licenses for nuclear power plants licensed pursuant to Sections 103 or 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 919) and Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat.
1242).
§ 54.3 Definitions.
As used in this part, Age-related degradation means -a change in a system's, structure's, or component's performance or physical or chemical properties resulting in whole or part from one or mers aging mechanisms. Examples of this type of change include changes in dimension, ductility, fatigue resistance, fracture toughness, mechanical strength, polymerization, viscosity, and dielectric strength.
Age-related degradation unique to license renewal is --age-related degradation to SSCs important to license renewal which, even with the continuation of existing programs or activities, results in loss ofITLR function such that plant operation is not in accordance with the CLB during the period of extended operation.
For the purpose of this definition, (a) An SSC ITLR could be subject to ARDUTLR and must be evaluated under the appropriate provisions of §54.21 if:
(i) its service life exceeds 40 years; (ii) it is passive (i.e., cannot or should not change state under normal operating conditions or in response to accident conditions); and (iii) its failure would directly result in loss ofITLR system or structure function in a manner not permitted by the CLB.
(b) Except for those SSCs ITLR that meet the criteria identified in paragraph (a) of this definition, an SSC ITLR shall be deemed not to have ARDUTLR if it is subject to:
(i) the provisions of 10 CFR 50.65; (ii) replacement such that service life is less than 40 years; or (iii) a CLB program that monitors condition or performance to maintain compliance with the CLB.
degradation (1) That occurs during the term of the current operating license but 'Nhose effects are different in character or magnitude after the term of the current operating license (the period of extended operation); or (2) '.Vhose effects were not explicitly identified and evaluated by the licensee for the period of extended operation and the evaluation found acceptable by the NR{;; or (3) That occurs only during the period of extended operation.
Aging mechanisms are the physical or chemical processes that result in degradation. These mechanisms include but are not limited to fatigue, erosion, corrosion, erosio111corrosion, wear, thermal embrittlement, radiation embrittlement, microbiologically induced effects, creep, and shrinkage.
Current licensing basis (CLB) is the set ofNRC requirements applicable to a specific plant and a licensee's written commitments for assuring compliance with and operation within applicable NRC requirements and the plant-specific design basis (including all modifications and additions to such commitments over the life of the license) that are docketed and in effect. The CLB includes the NRC regulations contained in 10 CFRparts 2, 19, 20, 21, 30, 40, 50, 51, 54, 55, 70, 72, 73, 100 and appendices thereto; orders; license conditions; exemptions; and technical specifications.
It also includes the plant-specific design basis information defined in 10 CFR 50.2 as documented in the most recent final safety analysis report (FSAR) as required by 10 CFR 50.71 and the licensee's commitments remaining in effect that were made in docketed licensing correspondence such as licensee responses to NRC bulletins, generic letters, and enforcement actions, as well as licensee commitments documented in NRC safety evaluations or licensee event reports.
Effective program (EP) is a documented program to manage the effects of age-related degradation unique to license renewal in a manner reasonably assuring that ensures that a system, structure, or component important to license renewal will continue to perform its required function or will not prevent the performance of a required function during the period of extended operation.
Integrated plant assessment (IP A) is a licensee assessment that demonstrates that a nuclear power plant facility's systems, structures, and components important to license
renewal have been identified and that age-related degradation unique to license renewal will be managed to ensure that the facility's licensing basis will be maintained during the renewal term.
Nuclear power plant means a nuclear power facility of a type described in 10 CFR 50.21(b) or 50.22.
Renewal term means the period of time that is the sum of the additional amount of time beyond the expiration of the operating license that is requested in the renewal application plus the remaining number of years on the operating license currently in effect.
Systems, structures, and components (SSCs) important to license renewal are:
(1) Safety-related SSCs, which are those relied upon to remain functional during and following design basis events [as defined in 10 CFR 50.49(b)(l)] to ensure:
(i) The integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary;.
(ii) The capability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition; or (iii) The capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents that could result in potential offsite exposure comparable to the 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines.
(2) All non-safety-related SSCs whose failure could directly prevent satisfactory accomplishment of any of the required functions identified in paragraphs (1) (i), (ii), or (iii) of this definition.
(3) All SSCs relied on in safety analyses or plant evaluations to demonstrate compliance with the Commission's regulations for fire protection (10 CFR 50.48),
environmental qualification (10 CFR 50.49), pressurized thermal shock (10 CFR 50.61),
anticipated transients without scram (10 CFR 50.62), and station blackout (10 CFR 50.63).
(4) All SSCs specifically identified as subject to operability requirements contained in the facility technical specification limiting conditions for operation.
All other terms in this part have the same meanings as set out in 10 CFR 50.2 or section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act, as applicable.
§ 54.5 Interpretations.
Except as specifically authorized by the Commission in writing, no interpretation of the meaning of the regulations in this part by any officer or employee of the Commission other than a written interpretation by the General Counsel will be recognized to be binding upon the Commission.
§ 54. 7 Written communications.
All applications, correspondence, reports, and other written communications shall be filed in accordance with applicable portions of 10 CFR 50.4.
§ 54.9 Information collection requirements: 0MB approval.
(a) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has submitted the information collection requirements contained in this part to the Office of Management and Budget (0MB) for approval as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
0MB has approved the information collection requirements contained in this part under control mimber 3150-0155.
(b) The approved information collection requirements contained in this part appear in§§ 54.13, 54.17, 54.19, 54.21, 54.22, 54.23, 54.24, 54.33, and-54.37.
§ 54.11 Public inspection of applications.
Applications and documents submitted to the Commission in connection with renewal applications may be made available for public inspection in accordance with the provisions of the regulations contained in 10 CFR part 2.
§ 54.13 Completeness and accuracy of information.
(a) Information provided to the Commission by an applicant for a renewed license or by a licensee or information required by statute or by the Commission's regulations, orders, or license conditions to be maintained by the applicant or the licensee must be complete and accurate in all material respects.
(b) Each applicant or licensee shall notify the Commission of information identified by the applicant or licensee as having for the r_egulated activity a significant implication for public health and safety or common defense and security. An applicant or licensee violates this paragraph only if the applicant or licensee fails to notify the
Commission of information that the applicant or licensee has identified as having a significant implication for public health and safety or common defense and security.
Notification must be provided to the Administrator of the appropriate Regional Office within 2 working days of identifying the information. This requirement is not applicable to information that is already required to be provided to the Commission by other reporting or updating requirements.
§ 54.15 Specific exemptions.
Exemptions from the requirements of this part may be granted by the Commission in accordance with 10 CPR 50.12.
§ 54.17 Filing of application.
(a) The filing of an application for a renewed license must be in accordance with subpart A of 10 CPR part 2 and 10 CPR 50.4 and 50.30.
(b) Any person who is a citizen, national, or agent of a foreign country, or any corporation, or other entity which the Commission knows or has reason to know is owned, controlled, or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation, or a foreign government, is ineligible to apply for and obtain a renewed license.
( c) An application for a renewed license may not be submitted to the Commission earlier than 20 years before the expiration of the operating license currently in effect.
( d) An applicant may combine an application for a renewed license with applications for other kinds of licenses.
( e) An application may incorporate by reference information contained in previous applications for licenses or license amendments, statements, correspondence or reports filed with the Commission; provided that the references are clear and specific.
(f) If the application contains Restricted Data or other defense information, it must be prepared in such a manner that all Restricted Data and other defense information are separated from unclassified information, in accordance with 10 CPR 50.33G).
(g) As part of its application and in any event prior to the receipt of Restricted Data or the issuance of a renewed license, the applicant shall agree in writing that it will not permit any individual to have access to Restricted Data until an investigation is made and reported to the Commission on the character, association, and loyalty of the individual and the* Commission shall have determined that permitting such person to have access to*
Restricted Data will not endanger the common defense and security. The agreement of the applicant in this regard is part of the renewed license, whether so stated or not.
§ 54.19 Contents of application--general information.
(a) Each application must provide the information specified in 10 CFR 50.33(a) through ( e ), (h), and (i). Alternatively, the application may incorporate by reference other documents that provide the information required by this section.
(b) Each application must include conforming changes to the standard indemnity agreement, 10 CFR 140.92, appendix B, to account for the expiration term of the proposed renewed license.
§ 54.21 Contents of application--technical information.
Each application must include a supplement to the final safety analysis report (FSAR) that presents the information required by this part. The FSAR supplement shall contain the following information:
(a) Integrated plant assessment (IPA). The IPA must:
(1) Identify and list the SSCs important to license renewal.
(2) From the list required by paragraph (a)(l) of this section, identify the structures and components (SCs) that contribute to the performance of a required function, or could, if they fail, prevent an SSC important to license renewal from performing its required function.
(3) For those SCs identified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, identify the SCs that are subject to could have age-related degradation that is unique to license renewal.
(4) Describe and justify the methods used in paragraph (a)(l), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of this section. The description must include:
(i) the specific criteria for determining whether an SSC is important to license renewal; (ii) the criteria for evaluating whether an SC is necessary for the performance of a required function; and (iii) the technical criteria to be used in determining whether an SC is subject to age-related degradation unique to license renewal.
(5) For each SC determined to be subject to age-related degradation unique to
license renewal pursuant to identified in paragraph ( a )(3) of this section, demonstrate that the age-related degradation unique to license renewal:
(i) Is addressed through an effective program, or (ii) Need not be addressed in an effective program.
( 6) Describe the applicable effective programs for each SC identified in paragraph (a)(S)(i) of this section, and demonstrate that these programs will be effective in maintaining the CLB during the period of extended operation. The evaluation of these programs shall include a review of the CLB as appropriate. Effective programs must:
(i) Reasonably assure Ensure identification and mitigation of age-related degradation unique to license renewal for the SCs identified pursuant to in paragraph (a)~.(5).(il of this section; ana (ii) If appropriate~ G.Qontain acceptance criteria against which the need for corrective action will be evaluated, and ensure that timely corrective action will be taken when these acceptance criteria are not met; and (iii) Be implemented by the facility operating procedures and reviewed by the onsite review committee.
(b) CLB Changes. Identification and justification of any changes in the current licensing basis associated with age-related degradation unique to license renewal.
( c) Exemptions. A list of all plant-specific exemptions granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12 and reliefs granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a. For those exemptions and reliefs that either were granted o:n the basis of an assumed service life or period of operation bounded by the original license term of the facility or otherwise relate to SSCs subject to age-related degradation unique to license renewal, an evaluation that justifies the continuation of these exemptions and reliefs for the renewal term must be provided.
( d) Plant modifications. A description must be provided of any proposed modifications to the facility or its administrative control procedures necessary to ensure that age-related degradation unique to license renewal is adequately managed during the renewal term.
( e) CLB changes during NRC review of application. Each year following submittal of the license renewal application and at least 3 months before scheduled completion of the NRC review, an amendment to the renewal application must be submitted that identifies any change to the current licensing basis of the facility that materially affects the contents of the license renewal application, including the FSAR supplement.
§ 54.22 Contents of application--technical specifications.
Each application must include any technical specification changes or additions necessary to support operation during the renewal term as part of the renewal application.
The technical justification for these changes or additions must be contained in the application F8AR supplement submitted to support license renewal.
§ 54.23 Contents of application--environmental information.
Each application must include an environmental report that complies with the requirements of subpart A of 10 CFR part 51.
§ 54.24 Contents of application--FSAR Supplement As part of the license renewal application~ the applicant shall provide a supplement to its FSAR including the following:
(a) The results and conclusions of the evaluations performed pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21(a); and (b) A general description of effective programs as specified in 10 CFR 54.21(a)(6).
§ 54.25 Report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
Each renewal application will be referred to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards for a review and report. Any report will be made part of the record of the application and made available to the public, except to the extent that security classification presents disclosure.
§ 54.27 Hearings.
A notice of an opportunity for a hearing will be published in the Federal Register, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.105. In the absence of a request for a hearing filed within 3 0 days by a person whose interest may be affected, the Commission may issue a renewed operating license without a hearing, upon 30-day notice and publication once in the Federal Register of its intent to do so.
§ 54.29 Standards for issuance of a renewed license.
A renewed license may be issued by the Commission, up to the full term authorized by§ 54.31, based on the following findings:
(a) Actions have been identified and have been or will be taken with respect to age-related degradation unique to license renewal of SSCs important to license renewal, such that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the renewed license will be conducted in accordance with the current licensing basis, and that any changes made to the plant's current licensing basis in order to comply with this paragraph are otherwise in accord with the Act and the Commission's regulations. *
(b) Any applicable requirements of subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 have been satisfied.
(c) Any matters raised under§ 2.758 have been addressed as required by that action.
§ 54.31 Issuance of a renewed license.
(a) A renewed license will be of the class for which the operating license currently in effect was issued.
(b) A renewed license will be issued for a fixed period of time, which is the sum of the additional amount of time beyond the expiration of the operating license (not to exceed 20 years) that is requested in a renewal application plus the remaining number of years on the operating license currently in effect. The total number of years for any renewal term may not exceed 40 years.
( c) A renewed license will become effective immediately upon its issuance, thereby superseding the operating license previously in effect. If a renewed license is subsequently set aside upon further administrative or judicial appeal, the operating license previously in effect will be reinstated unless its term has expired and the renewal application was not filed in a timely manner.
( d) A renewed license may be subsequently renewed upon expiration of the renewal term, in accordance with all applicable requirements.
§ 54.33 Continuation of current licensing basis and conditions of renewed license.
(a) Whether stated therein or not, each renewed license will contain and otherwise be subject to the conditions set forth in 10 CFR 50.54.
(b) Each renewed license will be issued in such form and contain such conditions and limitations, including technical specifications, as the Commission deems appropriate and necessary to address age-related degradation unique to license renewal, including such provisions with respect to any uncompleted items of plant modification and such limitations or conditions as the Commission believes are required to ensure that operation during the period of completion of such items will not endanger public health and safety.
Other conditions and limitations, including technical specifications, that do not address age-related degradation unique to license renewal continue in effect for the renewed license.
( c) Each renewed license will include those conditions to protect the environment that were imposed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36(b) and that are part of the current licensing basis for the facility at the time of issuance of the renewed license. These conditions may be supplemented or amended as necessary to protect the environment during the term of the renewed license and will be derived from information contained in the supplement to the environmental report submitted pursuant to 10 CFR part 51, as analyzed and evaluated in the NRC record of decision. The conditions will identify the obligations of the licensee in the environmental area, including, as appropriate, requirements for reporting and recordkeeping of environmental data and any conditions and monitoring requirements for the protection of the nonaquatic environment.
.(d)_ The licensee shall maintain the programs and proc~dures as described in the FSAR supplement revie*Ned and approved by the staff that manage age-related degradation unique to license ren.ewal. A licensee may make changes to previously approved such programs and procedures as described in the referenced in the renewal application or FSAR supplement without prior Commission approval if the changes are reviewed by the onsite review committee or equivalent and found not to decrease the effectiveness of the management of age-related degradation unique to license renewal.. ef specific systems, structl.ires, or components pre:iliously accepted. Changes that do not reduce the effectiveness of pre*liously accepted programs or procedures as described in the FSAR supplement must be documented in accordance with§ 54.37. Proposed changes that decrease the effectiveness of programs or procedures as described in the FSAR supplement for management of age-related degradation unique to license renewal must be submitted to the NRC and receive NRC approval before implementation.
( e) The licensing basis for the renewed license includes the current licensing basis, as defined in§ 54.3(a); the inclusion in the licensing basis of matters such as licensee commitments does not change the legal status of those matters unless specifically so ordered pursuant to paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section.
§ 54.35 Requirements during term of renewed license.
During the term of a renewed license, licensees shall continue to comply with all Commission regulations contained in 10 CFR parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 30, 40, 50, 51, 54, 55, 70, 72, 73, and 100 and appendices thereto that are applicable to holders of operating licenses.
e
§ 54.37 Additional records and recordkeeping requirements.
(a) The licensee shall retain in an auditable and retrievable form for the term of the renewed operating license all information and documentation required by, or otherwise necessary to document compliance with the provisions of, this part.
(b) The annual FSAR supplement must be updated consistent with the requirements of update required by 10 CFR 50.7l(e).,_ must include any SSCs newly identified as important to license renewal as a resuk of generic information, research, or other nevi information after the renewed license is issued. The update must also identify any SSCs deleted from the list of SSCs important to license renewal. This FSAR update.
must describe how the age related degradation unique to license rene,.val of ne,.vly identified SSCs important to license renewal ~11ill be effectively managed during the period of extended operation. The update must also be accompanied by a justification for deleting any SSCs pre:viously identified as important to license renev1al.
( c) The licensee shall submit to the NRC with the FSAR updates as required by 10 CFR 50.71(e)~ at least annually a list of all changes made to programs as described in the FSAR supplement for management of age-related degradation unique to license renewal that do not decrease the effectiveness of such programs to which the licensee committed and a brief description, including a summary of the safety evaluation of each change. The licensee shall maintain written documentation that provides the basis for concluding that the change does not reduce the effectiveness of these pro grams.
ENCLOSURE2 THE INDUSTRY'S PROPOSED APPROACH TO LICENSE RENEWAL I. Introduction On December 13, 1991, the NRC issued its final rule on license renewal (10 CFR Part 54; 56 Fed. Reg. 64,943). The rule's objective was to address the renewal of existing commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses in a manner that would ensure continued protection of the public health and safety. Specifically, the rule set out the requirements which a renewal applicant must meet, the information required for NRC review and the application procedures.
Since the issuance of the final rule, the nuclear industry has expended significant resources to better understand its implementation. For a variety of reasons which will be discussed below, the rule has been shown to be very difficult, inefficient and costly to implement. Moreover, the burdens imposed under the current rule are not justified by additional safety benefits and the added complexity produces regulatory uncertainty.
These factors are likely to weigh heavily in a utility's decision about whether to pursue license renewal.
To address the practical difficulties in implementing the current Part 54, the industry believes that refmements to the rule are necessary. The industry, through the Nuclear Management and Resources Council ("NUMARC"), recommends the changes described herein to provide an efficient, predictable and stable :framework for license renewal.
In particular, it is necessary to change the definition of "age-related degradation un1que to license renewal" ("ARDUTLR").l The industry's recommended change to the definition not only will give meaning to the concept of ARDUTLR but also will facilitate a technically sound Integrated Plant Assessment ("IP A") process. The industry's proposed definition provides objective standards by which it can be determined with certainty which SSCs must be evaluated in the IP A process. This promotes regulatory stability and predictability.
II. Discussion A. The Industry Has Expended Significant Effort to Implement Part 54 There is more than a decade of industry experience in evaluating the technical feasibility of and processes inherent in the renewal of commercial nuclear power plant
\\
operating licenses beyond the initial forty-year license term established by the Atomic Energy Act. In 1982, the Electric Power Research Institute ("EPRI") published an economic and technological review of the feasibility of extending nuclear plant operation and, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE"), funded pilot plant studies at the Monticello and Surry Unit 1 nuclear plants. Upon conclusion of the pilot plant initiative in 1988, it was determined that safe and economical plant operation was feasible for at least an additional thirty-year period.
1 "Age-related degradation unique to license renewal" is employed in the final Part 54 rule. 10 CFR
§ 54.3. Prior to promulgation of the final rule, the term was not used in the license renewal context and, therefore, it was not subject to public notice and comment. Instead, the Commission simply referred to "age-related degradation." See,~' SECY-91-138, "Final Rule on Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal," May 15, 1991.
2
In order to develop the license renewal process and demonstrate how it would be implemented, the "lead plant" program was instituted in 1988. It was sponsored by DOE and EPRI and endorsed by the commercial nuclear power industry through NUMARC.
Monticello was selected as the lead boiling water reactor ("BWR") and Yankee Rowe as the lead pressurized water reactor ("PWR"). The initial phases of the lead plant program were devoted to the investigation of possible means of defining the appropriate scope and the depth of review and analysis necessary for license renewal. Subsequent to the promulgation of the final license renewal regulations in December 1991, NSP continued to actively prepare and completed its license renewal application for the Monticello plant.
NSP has deferred the submission of the Monticello application.2 Yankee Rowe was voluntarily shut down by the licensee in October 1991.
Another plant-specific effort to implement Part 54 was initiated by Baltimore Gas
& Electric Company ("BG&E"), in conjunction with BG&E's Life Cycle Management Program. BG&E's Life Cycle Management Program has included a substantial effort to prepare a license renewal application for Calvert Cliffs, Units 1 and 2.
In November 1992, the.Babcock & Wilcox ("B&W") Owners Group initiated a Generic License Renewal Program designed to develop a license renewal process that implements Part 54 on a generic basis for B&W plants. As a result, implementation of the IP A process has been examined at five additional operating plants -- Arkansas Nuclear One, Crystal River 3, Davis-Besse 1, Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3, and Three Mile 2
See "Perspectives on the License Renewal Process (10 CFR Part 54)," Northern States Power Company (November 20, 1992).
3
Island Unit 1. Similar efforts to implement Part 54 on a generic basis, prior to the submission of individual license renewal applications, were initiated by the BWR and Westinghouse Owners Groups in early 1993.
Overall, the Owners Group initiatives have focused significant resources on the implementation of Part 54 at several of plants throughout the country. In combination with the site-specific license renewal initiatives at Monticello, Calvert Cliffs, and Yankee Rowe, the scope and magnitude of industry's collective efforts to implement Part 54 have been considerable and the results have been instructive.
B. The Lessons Learned Demonstrate the Need to Revise Certain Aspects of Part 54 The industry's extensive efforts have confirmed the validity of the two principles underlying Part 54; i.e., that, with the exception of ARDUTLR, the current licensing basis
("CLB") together with continuing regulatory oversight is adequate for purposes of license renewal, and that each plant's CLB must be maintained throughout the renewal term. See 56 Fed. Reg. at 64,946. Thus, it is critical to understand at the outset that the industry's approach to license renewal does not differ intrinsically from the approach embodied in the principles of Part 54. We believe that these principles must be rigorously adhered to in order to achieve the regulatory predictability and stability they offer.
Other lessons learned as a result of the industry's efforts to implement Part 54 are that: (1) the definition of ARDUTLR must be revised to provide appropriate focus in the IP A process; (2) age-related degradation is adequately managed by reasonably assuring the "important to license renewal" ("ITLR") functions of systems, structures and components important to license renewal ("SSC ITLR"); and (3) subject to the assessment 4
of certain long-lived passive SSCs, existing plant programs or activities (including certain replacement regimes) and the maintenance rule (10 CFR § 50.65) are sufficient to reasonably assure ITLR functions such that plant operation is in accordance with the CLB during the period of extended operation. The industry believes that current activities also are sufficient to assure the capability of certain long-lived passive components to perform their ITLR function, but an evaluation will be undertaken (through the application of the ARDUTLR definition) to confirm the adequacy of these activities for the period of extended operation.
C. The Need to Modify the ARDUTLR Definition The difficulty in interpreting and implementing the license renewal rule is attributable principally to the current definition of ARDUTLR. The concept of ARDUTLR is a reasonable regulatory tool, and is supported by the industry on that basis.
But the current definition of ARDUTLR is unworkable. Modification of the definition is necessary to give meaning to the term and to better capture the Commission's intent.
The current definition of ARDUTLR3 does not allow a "broad net to be cast" and the focus to be quickly refined to systems, structures and components requiring additional 3
The final license renewal rule defines ARDUTLR as degradation (1) That occurs during the term of the current operating license but whose effects are different in character or magnitude after the term of the current operating license (the period of extended operation); or (2) Whose effects were not explicitly identified and evaluated by the licensee for the period of extended operation and the evaluation found acceptable by the NRC; or (3) That occurs only during the period of extended operation.
10 C.F.R. § 54.3 5
evaluation to ensure that the ITLR function and the CLB during the period of extended operation will be preserved. Due to use of the conjunction "or," a literal reading of the existing definition leads to the conclusion that any degradation that has not been explicitly identified and evaluated by the licensee and approved by the NRC staff for the renewal term is ARDUTLR. With few exceptions, because licensees have not performed prior evaluations for age-related degradation for the period of extended operation, virtually all age-related degradation becomes ARDUTLR, even if such degradation is occurring and being effectively managed at nuclear plants today. As a consequence few, if any, systems, structures and components may be dispositioned without further analysis under the current rule. The IP A process then devolves into a broad and unfocused review of all SSCs ITLR--exactly the type of broad review the Commission determined was unnecessary. See 56 Fed. Reg. at 64,954.
Another flaw in the current rule is that it does not appear to recognize and, indeed, appears to preclude an applicant from considering any existing program when determining whether a structure or component is susceptible to ARDUTLR. The supplemental information for the current rule, often referred to as the Statement of Considerations ("SOC") makes this point by stating:
Age-related degradation of SSCs are (sic) important to license renewal, if unmitigated, could lead to the loss of required functions, unacceptable reduction in safety margins, or higher rates of challenge to plant safety systems during the renewal term.
56 Fed. Reg. at 64,954 ( emphasis added).
This statement and others in the SOC divorce ARDUTLR determinations from reality by requiring licensees to ignore the existence of existing programs, regulatory requirements 6
and, in particular, the maintenance rule. If existing programs and requirements are ignored, step 3 of the IPA process (10 CFR § 54.2l(a)(3)) becomes meaningless.
In addition, the application of elements (I) and (3) of the existing definition
("character and magnitude" and degradation that "occurs only during the period of extended operation") creates two serious problems. First, elements (1) and (3) require a license renewal applicant to engage in speculation ( determining whether degradation mechanisms will appear for the first time during the renewal period), or to prove the negative (that degradation mechanisms will not change in character or magnitude during the period of extended operation).
The second problem is that elements (1) and (3) lead to a predominant emphasis on the identification and analyses of degradation mechanisms. The current language could be construed as requiring an applicant to quantify the character and magnitude of degradation by identifying specific aging mechanisms and determining the rate at which they progress. Such an effort would be extremely burdensome and without safety benefit.
This troublesome focus on mechanisms is compounded by the fact that the current rule contains an explicit definition of and several references to aging mechanisms. Aging mechanisms are used to define age-related degradation and, consequently, ARDUTLR.
The existence of the definition of aging mechanisms would suggest that applicants must identify specific mechanisms when attempting to show, at the third step of the IPA (10 CFR § 54.21(a)(3)), that a structure or component is not subject to ARDUTLR, or attempting to show, at the fifth step of the IPA process (10 CFR § 54.21(a)(5)), that an Effective Program ensures identification and mitigation of ARDUTLR. Indeed, if the 7
definition of aging mechanisms is not intended to be somehow applied at these steps, there is no apparent reason for having the definition at all, for it is not applied elsewhere.4 The Statement of Considerations for the current rule suggests that no structure or component may be dispositioned without an extensive evaluation of degradation mechanisms.
[A] licensee may, after evaluation of an SSC and associated age-related degradation mechanisms, conclude that an SSC is not subject to age related degradation unique to license renewal.
56 Fed. Reg. at 64,958.
An important lesson learned by the industry in its attempts to implement Part 54 is that identification, evaluation and documentation of age-related degradation mechanisms in all instances, as is perceived to be required under the present license renewal regulations, add considerable effort and complexity to the license renewal process without any discernible safety benefit. The industry agrees with the NRC staffs present view (identified in SECY-93-049) that an evaluation of degradation effects, as opposed to mechanisms, is an important element of the IPA process. See also Memorandum to the Commission from W. C. Parler, Office of General Counsel, "License Renewal and SECY-049," March 9, 1993 at 6. Indeed, this is the approach used to manage aging for reactor operations under existing operating licenses and the industry believes that, in most cases, programs are adequate if they manage the effects of aging. 5 4
5 For this reason, the industry's proposed rule would delete the references to aging mechanisms from 54.3 This can be accomplished by activities such as condition or performance monitoring, that reasonably assure ITLR function.
8
Although some SCs may be appropriately evaluated by considering degradation mechanisms,6 for many SCs, a far more useful approach is to assure the mitigation of degradation effects by monitoring performance or condition in a manner sufficient to reasonably assure that the SCs will continue to perform all required functions. The focus upon the effects of radiation embrittlement of the reactor pressure vessel is an example of this approach. In this example, surveillance programs are in place to detect the effects of degradation through condition inspections to assess the component's continuing ability to perform its required function.
The industry's proposed redefinition of ARDUTLR builds on current reactor maintenance practices and experience by allowing applicants to focus on maintaining the ITLR function. Licensees and their equipment vendors have extensive knowledge of the functional requirements of important structures and components. They have developed and implemented preventive maintenance programs that identify and mitigate degraded performance or condition which might result from the effects of aging. The considerable experience with such programs and activities provides reasonable assurance that the structures and components covered by such programs will continue to perform their required function. Where performance or condition monitoring is sufficient to manage the effects of age-related degradation, or other sufficient functional assurance is provided, there should be no requirement or need to identify or to evaluate degradation mechanisms.
6 For example, the identified aging mechanism of metal fatigue is addressed by designing equipment such that it will withstand fatigue cycles during the initial term and still maintain required functions throughout a period conservatively estimated to envelope the initial operating term.
9
D. The Industry's Proposed Redefinition of ARDUTLR The following is the industry's proposed redefinition of ARDUTLR.
Age-related degradation unique to license renewal is --age-related degradation to SSCs important to license renewal which, even with the continuation of existing programs or activities, results in loss of ITLR function such that plant operation is not in accordance with the CLB during the period of extended operation.
For the purpose of this definition, (a) An SSC ITLR could be subject to ARDUTLR and must be evaluated under the appropriate provisions of §54.21 if:
(i) its service life exceeds 40 years; (ii) it is passive (i.e., cannot or should not change state under normal operating conditions or in response to accident conditions); and (iii) its failure would directly result in loss of ITLR system or structure function in a manner not permitted by the CLB.
(b) Except for those SSCs ITLR that meet the criteria identified in paragraph (a) of this definition, ~n SSC ITLR shall be deemed not to have ARDUTLR ifit is subject to:
(i) the provisions of 10 CFR 50.65; (ii) replacement such that service life is less than 40 years; or (iii) a CLB program or activity that monitors condition or performance to maintain compliance with the CLB.
The proposed definition consists of three elements. First, a single sentence (hereinafter referred to as "the affirmative definition") is substituted for the language of the existing definition. Second, paragraph (a) establishes criteria for identifying certain long-lived 10
passive structures and components which, because of their relative importance and the manner in which they perform their ITLR function, merit evaluation to determine whether they are subject to ARDUTLR. Third, paragraph (b) establishes criteria to categorically exclude certain systems, structures and components from further license renewal evaluation. These categorical exclusions are based on the knowledge that for certain structures, systems and components, activities presently being conducted by nuclear power reactor licensees adequately address the effects of age-related degradation and therefore, are sufficient to preclude ARDUTLR. The continuation of these activities for the renewal term will reasonably assure the protection of public health and safety.
- 1. The Affirmative Definition As noted above, the industry's proposed redefinition ARDUTLR is as follows:
age-related degradation to SSCs ITLR which, even with the continuation of existing programs or activities, results in loss of ITLR function such that plant operation is not in accordance with the CLB during the period of extended operation.
The proposed affirmative definition allows appropriate credit for existing programs. This is consistent with the two principles of license renewal. It is appropriate to focus the IP A process on whether an SSC's ITLR function will be maintained under existing programs or activities throughout the period of extended operation. If existing programs or activities are not sufficient for this purpose for certain SSCs ITLR, those SSCs are appropriately considered subject to aging "unique" to license renewal. In contrast, if age-11
related degradation will continue to be adequately managed during the period of extended operation so as to maintain the SSCs' ITLR function, no "unique" aging occurs.
The affirmative definition will be applied at step 3 of the IPA process
(§ 54.21(a)(3)) to determine whether the SSC ITLR is, in fact, subject to ARDUTLR. At this step, an applicant may perform the evaluation through various means. Depending on the SSC, the applicant may perform an evaluation of aging effects or mechanisms to determine the sufficiency of continuing programs and activities to prevent the loss of ITLR function during the period of extended operation. The choice between evaluation of degradation effects and evaluation of mechanisms is properly left to the exercise of applicant's engineering judgment. Any structures and components that this review indicates would lose ITLR function during the renewal period, despite the application of existing programs or activities, would be determined to be subject to ARDUTLR. They would then be evaluated under§ 54.21(a)(5) to determine whether an Effective Program is needed.
- 2. SCs Subject to Evaluation for ARDUTLR The criteria in paragraph (a) apply to systems, structures arid components that have a service life in excess of 40 years, perform a passive function 7 and whose failure would directly result in loss ofITLR system or structure function in a manner not permitted by the CLB. This paragraph of the proposed definition would capture, among other SSCs, important fission product barriers which represent principal means for protecting public 7
A function that does not or should not be subject to a change in state under normal operating conditions or in response to accident conditions.
12
health and safety under the NRC's defense-in-depth safety protection philosophy.8 These SSCs are required to be evaluated under the affirmative portion of the definition. They may not be dispositioned on the basis of the categorical exclusion provisions of paragraph (b) of the industry's proposed redefinition of ARDUTLR, even though they may qualify for such exclusion.
The Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) in the PWRplant design serves as an apt example to explain how the criteria of paragraph (a) would be applied. It is not a fission product barrier but it is ITLR because it is safety-related. Among its various functions, the RWST serves as a source of borated water for emergency core cooling/safety injection during a LOCA. With respect to core cooling, the function of the tank is to maintain a minimum volume of borated water to ensure safe plant response toaLOCA.
The RWST meets all of the criteria under paragraph (a). First, it is expected to last for more than the 40 year original licensed life of the plant. Second, the tank is passive because it is not required to change state to perform its required function of maintaining inventory. Finally, failure of the tank could directly result in the inability of the emergency core cooling/safety injection system to satisfactorily respond to a LOCA by reducing the available borated water inventory to an unacceptable level. Therefore, the tank also meets criterion (iii) of paragraph (a). Under the proposed definition, the RWST 8
The NRC, through its defense-in-depth regulatory philosophy, causes reactor designers to provide multiple fission product barriers to protect public health and safety. For example, uranium fuel pellets are required to be encapsulated in metal fuel rods which act as the first barrier to the escape of fission products to the environment. Should the metal ceramic cladding develop a leak, the reactor coolant pressure boundary serves as a second barrier to release. Should the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary be breached, the reactor containment acts as the third barrier which will contain the fission products and protect public health and safety.
13
could be subject to ARDUTLR and, pursuant to the appropriate provisions of§ 54.21, would be evaluated to determine if, in fact, the RWST is subject to ARDUTLR.
The third criterion9 of paragraph (a) recognizes that certain long-lived passive SSCs are subject to requirements for redundancy, diversity and other provisions (e.g.,
design margin) that make failures tolerable under the CLB. Failure of the SSC does not result in loss of the ITLR function because that function is provided by the redundant or diverse system or train, or other failure tolerance mechanism. The current plant design accommodates such failures, including common-mode failures to the extent they are currently required to be considered.10 Where long-lived passive SSCs are not subject to such redundancy or diversity requirements, they will be evaluated in accordance with applicable provisions of the IP A process. If an ITLR function is maintained by redundant or diverse systems or other design margin, these features justify consideration of the components and structures comprising that system against the categorical exclusion provisions of paragraph (b) of the proposed redefinition ofARDUTLR.
Systems, structures and components that do not meet the paragraph (a) criteria either because of redundancy, diversity or other design margin considerations or because they are short-lived active systems, structures and components, would be evaluated under the categorical exclusion provisions of paragraph (b) of the proposed redefinition of 9
A structure system and component whose "failure would directly result in loss of ITLR system or structure function in a manner not permitted by the CLB."
Additional common-mode failures, such as those due to undetected effects of aging, are not currently required to be considered. The equipment qualification rule serves as an apt example. Because redundant and diverse items of equipment are subject to different environmental effects over time, common-mode failures due to aging were not required to be considered under§ 50.49.
14
ARDUTLR. Those structures and components not qualifying for an exclusion would be evaluated under the affirmative portion of the proposed ARDUTLR definition under
§ 54.21(a)(3).
- 3. SCs Subject to Categorical Exclusion from Evaluation for ARDUTLR Paragraph (b) of the proposed redefinition of ARDUTLR specifies several categories of systems, structures and components that are deemed not to be subject to ARDUTLR. These include SSCs subject to the provisions of the maintenance rule (10 CFR § 50.65), or that are addressed by another licensee program in the CLB that monitors condition or performance, or that are replaced at less than 40-year intervals. Exclusion of SSCs by generic rulemaking on the above-stated bases will eliminate duplicative evaluations of qualifying ITLR systems, structures and components in individual plant IP As. This generic rulemaking approach also will greatly enhance the efficiency and stability of the regulatory process.
Systems, structures and components within the scope of the first categorical exclusion, the maintenance rule,*are determined to not be subject to ARDUTLR because the implementation of the maintenance rule for covered systems, structures and components will assure ITLR function and CLB compliance. Other systems, structures and components not within the scope of the maintenance rule are also justifiably excluded if they are subject to replacement such that their service lives are less than 40 years, or the structures and components are otherwise covered by a CLB program that assures ITLR function and CLB compliance by monitoring condition or performance.
15
- a. The Maintenance Rule As recognized by the Commission in a Staff Requirements Memorandum ("SRM")
dated June 28, 1993,11 "it is appropriate to allow license renewal applicants to rely to a
' considerable extent on existing programs and activities to ensure that a plant will continue to operate safely during the extended period of operation pursuant to Part 54." Indeed, licensees have developed and implemented numerous activities and programs, including extensive maintenance and surveillance programs, during the initial term of their licenses to address the effects of aging at their plants. Experience with these existing maintenance programs and activities demonstrates that they have been effective in managing the effects of aging during the initial license term in a manner that maintains the requirements 1 of the CLB and reasonably assures protection of public health and safety.
With the promulgation of the maintenance rule, the Commission has provided a formal framework for assessing the effectiveness of these maintenance programs on an ongoing basis, "in a manner which ensures that the desired result, reasonable assurance that key structures, systems, and components are capable of performing their intended function, is consistently achieved." 56 Fed. Reg. 31,306, 31,307 (July 10, 1991).
The requirements set forth in the maintenance rule are consistent with the fundamental objectives of the license renewal rule. In fact, the maintenance rule and the 1 license renewal rule share a common fundamental objective: licensees must maintain key plant structures, systems and components in a manner that will provide reasonable 11 Memorandum to J.M. Taylor (EDO), from S. J. Chill( (Secretary), "COMSECY 93-029 - Draft Rulemaking Package on License Renewal," dated June 28, 1993.
16
assurance that such structures, systems and components will be capable of performing their intended functions.
The specific focus of the maintenance rule -- maintenance preventable functional 1 failures -- essentially encompasses all forms of age-related degradation. 12 Part 54 seeks to ensure the "continuing functionality" of SSCs ITLR throughout the renewal term.13 Thus, as stated in SECY-93-049, the maintenance and license renewal rules are fundamentally similar in terms of objective and scope. The objective of both rules is to
, ensure that the effects of age-related degradation on the performance or condition of
' important plant equipment is adequately mitigated.
Furthermore, the performance-based approach of the maintenance rule and the industry's proposed changes to Part 54 are complementary. They each focus on the management of aging effects to assure continued equipment performance. The industry believes that this is the appropriate technical focus. The industry's proposal will accomplish the same objectives as the current Part 54 without imposing prescriptive, deterministic requirements for an evaluation of aging mechanism and aging management activities. At the same time, CLB requirements, such as those set forth in NRC regulations and facility Technical Specifications(~, surveillance requirements), will carry forward into the period of extended operation. The maintenance rule, in 1 combination with the other CLB requirements, will assure compliance with the CLB during the period of extended operation.
12 I 13 SECY-93-049, "Implementation of 10 CFR Part 54, 'Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants," March 1, 1993, at 7 (herein after cited as "SECY-93-049").
See Memorandum for T.E. Murley (Director, NRR) from J.E. Sniezek (Deputy Executive Director, NRR),
"License Renewal," July 9, 1993.
17
The maintenance rule, through monitoring activities and implementation of timely corrective action, will reasonably assure that SSCs ITLR will continue to perform at an 1 acceptable level of reliability in the future as they do today. Indeed, the Commission emphasized at the time it promulgated the maintenance rule that "maintenance is important to ensure that design assumptions and margins in the original design basis are either maintained or are not unacceptably degraded." 56 Fed. Reg. at 31,307. The Commission further noted in this regard that the maintenance rule provides added assurance that the existing Commission requirements directly or indirectly relevant to maintenance will be complied with. 14 Based on the similarity in objectives and the general focus of the two rules, the industry proposes to modify the definition of ARDUTLR to recognize that, except for certain SSCs ITLR specified in paragraph (a) of the proposed definition, those SSCs ITLR that are subject to the provisions of the maintenance rule are not subject to ARDUTLR. The activities undertaken to implement the maintenance rule during the initial licensing term serve well as the basis for an approach which recognizes that continuing those maintenance activities into the renewal term, subject to ongoing NRC regulatory oversight and the continuation of other CLB requirements, will effectively and sufficiently monitor and address the effects of aging for those SSCs ITLR covered by the maintenance rule. This will, in tum, ensure that such structures, systems, and components 14 56 Fed. Reg. at 31,307-308. Examples of other regulatory requirements expressly referenced in the statement of considerations supporting§ 50.65 include: § 50.34 (a)(3)(i); § 50.34(a)(7); § 50.34(b)(6)(i) -
(iv); § 50.34(b)(9); § 50.34(f)(l) (i)- (iii); § 50.34(g); § 50.34a(c); § 50.36(a); § 50.36(c)(2), (3), (5), (70; § 50.36(a)(l); § 50.49(b); § 50.55a(g); General Design Criteria 1, 13, 18, 21, 32, 36, 37, 40, 43, 45, 46, 52, 53; and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
18
will not experience ARDUTLR, thus assuring plant operation in accordance with the
~
CLB.
Further review of the two rules demonstrates that the programs and activities
- implemented under the maintenaIJ_ce rule will effectively accomplish the objectives of Part 54. The maintenance rule requires that licensees monitor the performance or condition of certain SSCs against licensee-established goals in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that those SSCs will be capable of performing their intended function. 10 CFR § 50.56 (a)(l); 56 Fed. Reg. 31,306 (1991).
Where it has been demonstrated that preventive maintenance is effective in controlling the performance or condition of an SSC such that it remains capable of performing its intended function, goal setting of particular SSCs may be discontinued under the maintenance rule. Id. at 31,309; 10 CFR § 50.56(a)(2). Where maintenance-preventable functional failures occur on SSCs under§ 50.65 (a)(2), a cause determination is undertaken and corrective action implemented. The performance and condition monitoring activities, the associated goals and preventive maintenance activities must be evaluated by licensees at least once per refueling outage. Inherent in the maintenance rule is a self-correction mechanism which adjusts the goals to the level of detail necessary to monitor and improve performance of SSCs experiencing repetitive maintenance 1 preventable functional failures or unacceptable performance. If the licensee established goals are not met, appropriate corrective action must be taken.
Part 54 focuses the license renewal IP A process on the management of aging
' effects that are "unique" to the period of extended plant operation so as to ensure the ITLR function of SSCs ITLR. Section 54.3 defines SSCs ITLR on the basis of their 19
1 "required" function, which the industry believes is a system level function. 10 CFR §§ 54.3, 54.2l(a)(2). These "required functions" are referred to herein as "ITLR functions."
The industry's proposed revision to the definition of ARDUTLR clarifies that the IP A
! process focuses on reasonably assuring the ITLR function of SSCs ITLR in accordance with applicable CLB requirements. It is the reasonable assurance ofITLR functions, as reflected in the CLB, that justifies continued plant operation during the renewal term.
Compliance with the provisions of the maintenance rule provides reasonable assurance that SSCs will remain capable of performing their "intended functions" under the CLB both during the initial and extended terms of plant operation. Monitoring programs required under§ 50.65(a)(l) can be performance oriented (such as measuring reliability and availability) or condition oriented (parameter trending) or both.
Monitoring programs must be capable of detecting significant changes in SSC
, performance. Where failures or inability to meet performance criteria are likely to cause
' loss of an intended function, monitoring should be predictive in nature in order to provide timely warning of degradation. 56 Fed. Reg. at 31,308. The frequency of monitoring is to be adjusted, if necessary, to allow for early detection and timely correction of negative trends. NUMARC 93-01 at page 28. Thus, pursuant to the maintenance rule, licensees must identify and address degraded SSC performance or condition in order to ensure that the SSC will perform its intended function in accordance with applicable requirements.
Although the scope of the two rules is not identical, the somewhat broader scope of the maintenance rule15 encompasses most SSCs ITLR, and therefore facilitates the IPA 15 See SECY-93-049, at 7.
20
process. The maintenance rule applies to (1) safety-related SSCs; (2) non safety-related SSCs that are relied upon to mitigate accidents or transients or are used in plant emergency operating procedures ("EOPs"); (3) nonsafety-related SSCs whose failure could prevent safety-related SSCs from fulfilling their safety-related function; and (4) nonsafety-related SSCs whose failure could cause a reactor scram or actuation of a safety-related system. 10 CFR § 50.65(b)(2). The scope of Part 54 is similar to that of§ 50.65.
Four types of SSCs are addressed by the license renewal rule: (1) safety-related SSCs; (2) nonsafety-related SSCs whose failure could directly prevent a safety-related SSC from performing its required safety function; (3) SSCs relied on in safety evaluations to demonstrate compliance with the fire protection, station blackout, environmental qualification, pressurized thermal shock, and ATWS rules; and (4) SSCs specifically identified as subject to operability requirements in Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for Operation.16 It is evident that the SSC "functions" covered by both rules are very similar. The "required functions" under Part 54 (i.e., "ITLR functions") are listed in the first column of Table 1 hereto. Maintenance rule "intended functions" are those identified in§ 50.65(b) and are set forth in the second column of Table 1.17 A comparison of the two rules 16 The words "specifically identified as" have been inserted here to conform with the industry's proposed revision to the defmition of SSCs ITLR in 54.3. Further explanation of this change is provided at page 32 of this document.
17 The Statement of Considerations accompanying § 50.65 explains the meaning of the term "intended function."
( continued)
The intention of paragraph (a)(l) of the rule is that the licensee establish a monitoring regime which is sufficient in scope to provide reasonable assurance that (1) intended safety, accident mitigation and transient mitigation functions of the SSCs described in paragraph (b)(l) and (b)(2)(i) can be performed; and (2) for the SSCs in paragraphs (b )(2)(ii) and (b )(2)(iii), failures will not occur which prevent the fulfillment of safety-related functions, and failures resulting from 21
demonstrates, on a generic basis, that compliance with the provisions of§ 50.65 provides reasonable assurance that SSCs ITLR will remain capable of performing their "intended function" throughout the period of extended plant operation. Thus, it is reasonable to
' conclude on a generic basis that whenever "intended function" is equivalent to "ITLR
, function," the activities performed in accordance with the maintenance rule provide reasonable assurance that age-related degradation does not result in the loss ofITLR 1 function and thereby constitute ARDUTLR.18 Using Table 1, it is possible to correlate the majority of intended maintenance rule functions to ITLR functions. The ITLR functions specified in paragraph (1) of Table 1
("ITLR Functions"), which are traditionally considered "safety-related," directly correlate 1 to the intended maintenance rule functions specified in paragraph ( 1) ("Intended 1'v1R Functions") of Table 1. Furthermore, the functions required by paragraph (2) ("ITLR Functions") correlate to the functions required by paragraph (2)(ii) ("Intended 1'v1R Functions").19 Finally, many of the ITLR functions specified in paragraphs (3) and (4)
("ITLR Functions") directly correspond to functions specified in maintenance paragraphs
(.. continued) scrams and unnecessary actuations of safety-related systems are minimized.
56 Fed. Reg. at 31,308 18 19 Recall that the industry's proposed redefinition of ARDUTLR is "age-related degradation to SSCs ITLR which, even with the continuation of existing programs or activities, results in loss of ITLR function such that plant operation is not in accordance with the CLB during the period of extended operation." 10 CFR § 54.3 (proposed) ( emphasis added).
This generic determination precludes the need for a similar site-specific evaluation of SSC functions by a license renewal applicant.
22
(2)(i) and (2)(iii) ("Intended MR Functions").20 Where an SSC's ITLR function corresponds to an "intended function" reasonably assured by§ 50.65, it would not be
' subject to age-related degradation effects that would be "unique" to the extended period of plant operation.
Those remaining SSCs ITLR, identified in paragraphs (3) and ( 4) ("ITLR Functions") of Table 1, that do not correspond to a maintenance rule function could not be dispositioned solely on the basis of the maintenance rule pursuant to subsection (b )(i) of the proposed redefinition of ARDUTLR. Rather, they would have to be analyzed in accordance with Subsections (b )(ii)-(iii) of the proposed redefinition of ARDUTLR in order to determine whether they are deemed not to be subject to ARDUTLR.
One of the fundamental tenets of the license renewal rule is the need to maintain the current licensing basis throughout the renewal term. Consequently, there must be a nexus between activities undertaken pursuant to the maintenance rule and a licensee's CLB if the maintenance rule is to be relied upon in the manner proposed here. In this regard, it should be emphasized, as the Commission noted in the Staff Requirements Memorandum of June 28, 1993, that although the maintenance rule does not explicitly reference maintaining the "current licensing basis," the activities to be undertaken
- pursuant to the maintenance rule nonetheless have the objective and result of maintaining
! the functionality of SSCs as set forth in the CLB. By ensuring functionality, the
\\ maintenance rule ensures the operability of SSCs. Plant Technical Specifications
!
- 20 i i If an applicant wishes to disposition SSCs under pfilagraph (b )(i) of the proposed ARDUTLR definition, the applicant may have to demonstrate, for certain SSCs having ITLR functions specified in paragraphs (3) and (4) of the ITLR definition, that those functions are covered by the maintenance rule.
23
generally provide that an SSC has operability when it is capable of "performing its specified function."21 In general, for an SSC to be considered operable, there must be "reasonable assurance that the system continues to conform to all appropriate criteria in 1 the current licensing basis (CLB)."22 If the full qualification (conformance to all aspects of the CLB) is not maintained, a licensee must make an operability demonstration and
' take corrective action. 23 Moreover, all CLB requirements will be carried forward during the period of i extended operation consistent with the first and second principles of Part 54. The scope ofCLB requirements extends beyond§ 50.65. Separate and apart from the maintenance rule, a licensee must maintain compliance with the entire scope of CLB requirements, such as those set forth in plant Technical Specifications and NRC regulations. Therefore, reliance on§ 50.65 in subsection (b)(i) of the proposed redefinition of ARDUTLR, in conjunction with the totality of CLB requirements, ensures continuation of the CLB throughout the period of extended operation. For example, the quality assurance requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, will continue to apply to a license renewal applicant during the renewed term of plant operation as they do throughout the 21
- 22
- 23 i
See Generic Letter 91-18, "Information to Licensees Regarding Two NRC Inspection Manual Sections on Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions and On Operability," November 7, 1991, at 3. Operability determinations are necessary "whenever a verification or other indication calls into question the system's or component's ability to perform its specified function." GL 91-18, at 4.
Id., Enclosure 2 at 3.
See also 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, which states, in pertinent part, that "[m]easures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected." ( emphasis added) 24
original operating term. Applicable design criteria will also continue in accordance with the CLB.
For the foregoing reasons, the industry believes that the actions now required to implement the maintenance rule form a reasonable technical and legal basis for concluding that those SSCs ITLR that are covered under the maintenance rule and not otherwise excluded under paragraph (a) of the propose redefinition of ARDUTLR shall be deemed not to have ARDUTLR.
25
TABLE 1 ITLR Functions
! (1)
(2)
(3)
- (4)
Functions relied upon during and following design basis events to ensure:
(i)
The integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary.
(ii)
The capability to shutdown the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition.
(iii)
The capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents that could result in potential offsite consequences comparable to the Part 100 guidelines.
Functions whose failure could directly prevent satisfactory accomplishment of required safety functions identified in (1) above.
Functions relied on in safety analyses or plant evaluations to demonstrate compliance with the Commission's regulations for fire protection environmental qualification, pressurized thermal shock, anticipated transient without scram, and station blackout.
Functions required by operability requirements contained in the facility technical specifications Limiting Conditions for Operations.
Intended MR Functions (1)
(2)
Functions relied upon during and after a design basis event to ensure the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the capability to shutdown the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, and the capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accident that could result in potential offsite exposure comparable to the 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines.
Functions (i)
(ii)
Relied upon to mitigate accidents or transients or are referred to in plant emergency operating procedures; or Whose failure could prevent safety related SSCs from fulfilling their safety related functions; or (iii)
Whose failure could cause a reactor scram or actuation of a safety related system.
26
- b. Replacement The second criterion of paragraph (b) would eliminate from further license renewal review short-lived components that are replaced on a periodic basis during initial operations or at least once after the 20th year of operation.24 Replacement under the above described circumstances25 would ensure a service life of less than 40 years. This prevents SSCs ITLR from being subject to age-related degradation other than that accounted for during the original 40 year license term. It follows that components subject to this replacement regime would not experience ARDUTLR resulting in a loss of function or CLB compliance prior to the time of its replacement.
Under the industry's proposal, replacement would be permitted as long as a new component of equivalent or greater quality is used. This approach provides licensees with the flexibility to obtain improved quality components which have been developed since the original component's installation.
24 25 In general, the NRC staff has endorsed this approach in SECY-93-113, "Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plant," April 30, 1993, Enclosure 1 at 3 - 4.
Licensees may opt to replace SSCs ITLR which have a service life of 40 years prior to the expiration of that service life.
This may be done, for example, to upgrade the component with one that is technologically more advanced or constructed with upgraded material. This does not imply, however, that further replacements at the same interval are necessary for the purposes of license renewal. On the other hand, for SSCs ITLR determined to require periodic replacement based upon time, condition or performance, the replacement interval would be carried forward into the period of extended operation.
This ensures that the CLB is maintained.
27
' c. CLB Programs The third criterion of Paragraph (b) would eliminate from further license renewal review SSCs, except those which meet the criteria of Paragraph (a), which are subject to CLB programs that monitor condition or performance to maintain compliance with the CLB.26 Examples include Technical Specification surveillance requirements to verify
'1
, operability and quality of equipment, environmental qualification of electrical equipment under 10 CFR § 50.49, inservice inspection and testing under 10 CFR § 50.55a, and various testing and monitoring programs such as those for service water systems and motor-operated valves. These programs may provide for replacement or refurbishment of 1 equipment based on time or condition.
In conjunction with the NRC's ongoing regulatory oversight process, these CLB programs adequately address the effects of age-related degradation during the present operating term and will continue to do so during the period of extended operation for
, those SSCs covered by paragraph (b ). As the Commission recognized in the final Part 54 i rulemakings:
. 26 the existing regulatory processes provide reasonable assurance that the current licensing bases of operating plants provide an acceptable level of protection of the public health and safety or common defense and security so that a broad safety review is not required at license renewal.
This conclusion covers age-related degradation occurring during the current licensing term.
Such degradation is being As used here, the term "CLB program" means those programs implemented to satisfy an NRC rule, regulation or order, as well as those progrnms that implement a written commitment necessary for ensuring compliance with and operation within applicable NRC requirements and the plant-specific design basis.
28
addressed by ongoing programs to identify and manage the degradation so that corrective action is taken to ensure continued safe operation.
56 Fed. Reg. at 64954 The programs credited under criterion (iii) of paragraph (b) are those that implement the facility's CLB -- i.e., the NRC regulations and the licensee's written 1 commitments for ensuring compliance with and operation within applicable NRC
'_ requirements and the plant-specific design basis. These programs provide performance-based assurance similar or identical to that attained through the maintenance rule and, thus, are deemed adequate by the NRC to ensure operability. In many cases, the CLB programs credited under criterion (b )(iii) are used to implement the maintenance rule but are used for a universe of SSCs broader than those subject to the maintenance rule. These reasons support a determination of the adequacy of these programs to maintain
- compliance with the CLB throughout the period of extended operation.
Under paragraph (b )(iii), existing programs that implement the CLB are deemed
'. adequate, without further analysis, to preclude the existence of ARDUTLR by reasonably
- assuring SSCs' ITLR function during the period of extended operation.27 However, to
- qualify for the exclusion under criterion (iii), the program's implementing procedures i need not be included in the CLB. For example, the implementing procedures of a CLB
- program do not need to be docketed or detailed in the FSAR. The same level of
- regulatory control that currently exists for the program should suffice for the period of I
1-----------
, 27 ARDUTLR is defined to occur if age-related degradation would result in the loss of an SSC's ITLR function (as defined in the CLB) even with consideration of existing programs. Under this definition, the programs covered by criterion (iii) -- programs that implement the CLB -- are deemed sufficient to prevent loss of ITLR function for the short-lived SSCs and the redundant or diverse long-lived passive SSCs that are subject to paragraph (b ), thus precluding ARDUTLR.
29
extended operation. Otherwise a safety concern with the adequacy of the program would exist today and, in fact, it is precisely because these programs implement a CLB requirement or commitment in force in the current term, (e.g., 10 CFR § 50.49 or Technical Specifications), that the continuing adequacy of the programs into the period of extended operation is not an issue for purposes of license renewal.
Moreover, CLB programs are subject to ongoing NRC oversight through the inspection and enforcement process. The details of particular implementing procedures may not have been subject to NRC approval. Nevertheless, the program and procedures are subject to NRC inspection to ensure compliance with the requirements reflected in the
' CLB, such as requirements of facility Technical Specifications and applicable criteria of 1 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B ( especially Criteria V, XI and XVI).28 The following examples illustrate the use of the CLB program or activity criterion i of paragraph (b):
. 28
- Electrical power cable to an RHR pump is subject to 10 CFR § 50.49.
Where an analysis has been performed under Section 50.49 demonstrating that the cable has a qualified life of at least 40 years, at the end of the qualified life, the equipment must be replaced, refurbished or otherwise requalified.
Thus continuation of the EQ program provides reasonable assurance that this equipment will be capable of CLB programs also are subject to adequate change control mechanisms. These include administrative controls in Technical Specifications which specify requirements (e.g., onsite review committee approval) for changes to plant procedures and 10 CFR § 50.59 for changes to commitments as described in the FSAR. These control mechanisms have been judged adequate for the initial 40 years of plant operation and will remain so for any extended operating period.
30
performing its function and, consequently, prevents it from being subject to ARDUTLR.
Fire suppression systems must be maintained and tested by properly qualified personnel and are subject to required surveillance procedures to ensure that the suppression systems and their components remain operable.Section II.C.7 of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50. Continuation of these measures will ensure functionality and, therefore, will preclude ARDUTLR.
For the reasons given above, it is appropriate under criterion (iii) to deem existing CLB programs adequate to prevent ARDUTLR for short-lived or active SSCs and redundant or diverse long-lived SSCs covered by paragraph (b) of the proposed redefinition of ARDUTLR.
E. The Industry's Proposed Revisions to the IPA Process 10 CFR § 54.21 Each applicant for a renewed license is required, under the Integrated Plant Assessment process of§ 54.2l(a), to identify SSCs important to license renewal. The applicant must further demonstrate that, with respect to those SSCs, ARDUTLR is being or will be managed, as needed, to assure that the plant licensing basis or CLB will be maintained throughout the term of the renewed license. The required assessment consists of a series of evaluative steps intended to provide a systematic basis upon which to identify the subset of SSCs that warrant a comprehensive regulatory evaluation for the period of extended operation. What follows is a discussion of the IP A steps and the recommended revisions to Section 54.21(a) to accommodate industry's redefinition of ARDUTLR and, in some instances, to make the process more efficient.
31
- 1. Step 1 - §54.21(a)(1)
Paragraph (a)(l) requires that the IPA must "identify and list SSCs important to I license renewal." In this context, the industry proposes that subsection ( 4) of the definition of SSCs ITLR be revised. The revision would clarify that it is only SSCs "specifically identified as" subject to operability requirements contained in the technical specification limiting conditions of operation that are ITLR.
This is to address the very broad interpretation of the ITLR criterion in the current statements of considerations. See 56 Fed. Reg. at 64955. The SOC could be interpreted
- to mean that this criterion would capture systems, structures, and components of very
~ marginal or no safety significance such as those that are merely identified for programmatic or administrative purposes.
The industry believes that subsection (2) of the ITLR definition appropriately
- reaches supporting non-safety systems whose failure could "directly" prevent safety-
' related SSCs from accomplishing their safety function. Similarly, the criterion related to
- the LCO operability requirements should not cause a "cascading" effect which would
. result in unnecessary evaluations of SSCs that are of no controlling importance to plant
- safety.
I 1 2. Step 2 - §54.21(a)(2)
Paragraph (a)(2) requires that "from the list required by (a)(l), [the license
- applicant must] identify the structures and components that contribute to the performance 1 of a required function, or could, if they fail, prevent an SSC important to license renewal 32
from performing its required function." No substantive change in this provision is contemplated. The term "SCs," as used in this paragraph, is construed broadly to consist of structures, or components, or systems, or groups of common components. It makes
, engineering sense to use these categories as a part of the IPA process because functional
, requirements, in some instances, are better characterized on a system basis or, in the case of common components, on a group basis.
- 3. Step 3 - §54.21(a)(3)
The industry proposes to revise paragraph (a)(3) to require that for the SCs identified in (a)(2), the IPA must "identify the SCs that are subject to age-related
- degradation unique to license renewal." The underscoring indicates new language. It
- replaces the verb "could." The change improves the predictability and efficiency of the I
I : IP A process by making Step 3 the point where the industry's proposed redefinition of I
ARDUTLR is applied to the SCs identified in Step 2 and a determination is made
- regarding whether the SCs are, in fact, subject to ARDUTLR.
The SCs identified in Step 2 first would be evaluated under paragraph (a) of the i ARDUTLR definition. This evaluation would identify SCs with a service life in excess of 40 years, that are passive (i.e., cannot or should not change state under operating
- conditions or in response to accident conditions), and whose failure would directly result
- . in loss ofITLR system or structure function in a manner not permitted by the plant CLB.
- SCs that meet these criteria would be evaluated next under the affirmative definition to
'. determine whether they are subject to ARDUTLR.
I I
I 33
Those SCs that do not satisfy paragraph (a) of the industry's proposed redefinition of ARDUTLR because they are short-lived or active SCs or, as explained in the
, discussion of the revised ARDUTLR definition, involve redundancy, diversity or other design margin considerations, would next be evaluated under the categorical exclusion 1 provisions of paragraph (b) of the ARDUTLR definition.29 Any such SCs within the scope of the maintenance rule, subject to either a replacement regime such that service life is less than 40 years, or a CLB program that monitors SC condition or performance to
' maintain compliance with the CLB, would be so identified. These would be categorically excluded as not being subject to ARDUTLR based on the generic justification provided by rulemaking.
1 (a). SC Evaluation under the Affirmative Definition of ARDUTLR SCs meeting the criteria of paragraph (a) and those not excluded by paragraph (b)
- of the ARDUTLR definition would then be evaluated under the affirmative portion of the 1 ARDUTLR definition. The purpose of applying the affirmative portion of the
- ARDUTLR definition would be to determine whether age-related degradation would I
- cause any of the SCs, despite the continuing application of any existing programs ( e.g.,
1 inspection, surveillance, replacement and refurbishment activities), to lose ITLR function
- such that plant operation would not be in accordance with the CLB during the period of
- extended operation.
An SSC may perform more than one ITLR function, in which case the SSC must be reviewed for each function. As a result, these SSCs may be dispositioned using different criteria contained in the proposed redefmition of ARDUTLR. Under the industry's proposal, it is up to.the applicant to determine the basis for dispositioning each function.
34
With respect to what would be considered an existing program, the industry proposes that a program or activity could be so categorized if it were in place and functioning prior to the time of the filing of a license renewal application. If, however, a program is put into place subsequent to the filing of the application (e.g., in response to a generic communication, etc.) and that program would satisfy the ARDUTLR definition such that an SSC would not be subject to unique aging, the applicant may revise its application and request credit for that program for the purpose of license renewal.
- 4. Step 4 - §54.21(a)(4)
Paragraph (a)(4) requires the documentation of the bases for Steps 1-3. The industry recommends that this provision be modified so that the description required by this paragraph includes criteria appropriate to accomplish the objectives of subsections (a)(4)(i-iii). In essence, the recommended deletion of the word "specific" as it relates to the criteria in subsection (a)(4)(i) and of the word "technical" as it relates to the criteria in subsection (a)( 4)(iii) are not substantive _changes. Rather, they serve to make (a)( 4)(i-iii) consistent.
- 5. Step 5 - §54.21(a)(5)
Paragraph (a)(5) has been revised to make it clear that this step is only applicable to SCs that, by evaluation, have been determined to be subject to ARDUTLR. These SCs would be subject to the existing process of Step 5 (i.e., determine whether or not Effective Programs are needed, and, if so, describe applicable Effective Programs).
35
- 6. Step 6 - §54.21(a)(6)
Paragraph (a)(6) provides the documentation bases for Effective Programs. Two changes are proposed to this paragraph. First, the industry proposes that subsection 6(a)(i) be amended to delete the requirement that Effective Programs ensure identification of age-related degradation. The purpose of this change is to avoid any implication that degradation mechanisms must be identified or that unknown effects must be identified prospectively. We believe that mitigation of effects of aging is sufficient.
The second proposed change would preface the acceptance criteria requirement in subsection 6(a)(ii) with the phrase "if appropriate." The purpose of this qualifying phrase is to make clear that acceptance criteria may not be needed in all cases. Rather, license renewal applicants should have the flexibility to demonstrate the need and timing of corrective actions. Further, the industry agrees with and strongly advocates the NRC staffs position on what would constitute acceptable acceptance criteria. In SECY-93-113 the staff stated:
... that not all acceptance criteria would have defined or derived quantitative values. The criteria could describe a physical condition that would initiate corrective action.... Acceptance criteria and the implementing procedures for license renewal could be those that already exist in current plant surveillance procedures for such things as technical specification compliance.
Further, licensee programs established to implement the maintenance rule may also contain performance criteria that could serve as the criteria against which a licensee would evaluate the need for timely corrective action for license renewal required effective programs.
36
The industry further agrees with the staffs statement, "that the specific values or conditions need not necessarily be submitted for each structure or component as part of the effective program description in an application." Id.
F. Other Conforming Changes to the Rule The current rule requires the entire IP A and all other elements of the application to be included in the FSAR supplement. This means that all of the procedural descriptions and details contained in the IPA will become part of the FSAR and subject to the review procedures set forth in 10 CFR § 50.59.
This approach is not consistent with NRC licensing practices. Previously, the NRC has not required licensees to put all of the details of either the construction permit or operating license applications in the safety analysis reports. Rather, certain information
(~, plant operating procedures) is generally described in an FSAR to indicate compliance with basic operating principles and standards. The actual procedures and details are not incorporated into the FSAR nor are such items as the "Q-list" or the details contained in environmental qualification files included in the FSAR.
The industry does not believe that it is appropriate to require that the entire contents of a renewal application, including all the detail specified in the IP A, be included in the FSAR supplement. Such an approach does not identify that information important to be singled out for inclusion and control in the FSAR.
The industry proposes to address this problem by adding a new provision, 37
§ 54.24. The IP A would still provide information necessary to demonstrate that existing programs and Effective Programs will maintain the CLB. However, only the results and conclusions of the IPA, including descriptions of Effective Programs, would be incorporated into the FSAR supplement. The industry proposes a new paragraph as follows:
§ 54.24 Contents of application -- FSAR Supplement As part of the license renewal application, the applicant shall provide a supplement to its FSAR including the following:
(a)
The results and conclusions of the evaluations performed pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21(a); and (b)
A general description of effective programs as specified in 10 CFR 54.21(a)(6).
Conforming changes would be required in 10 CFR §§ 54.33, 54.37, and 54.44.
Currently, section 54.33(d) imposes administrative and regulatory requirements variously
- applied to "programs and procedures reviewed and approved by the Staff' or "previously
- approved programs and procedures referenced in the renewal application or FSAR
- supplement." Section 54.37 requires that all of the lists in the IPA be updated annually.
To be consistent with current NRC practice, as exemplified by 10 CFR § 50.59,
- the administrative and regulatory controls imposed by the license renewal rule should i apply only to programs and procedures "as described in the FSAR supplement." The
- FSAR supplement would serve as the codification of basic enforceable principles and i commitments. The industry proposes that the FSAR supplement would then be updated
- in accordance with 10 CFR § 50.71(e).
38
The industry recommends that the NRC make the administrative and regulatory controls imposed by the license renewal rule applicable only to the programs and
' procedures as described in the FSAR supplement. This could be accomplished by revising§ 54.33(d) as follows:
( d) The licensee shall maintain the programs and procedures as described in the FSAR supplement that manage age-related degradation unique to license renewal. A licensee may make changes to such program and procedures as described in the FSAR supplement without prior Commission approval if the changes are reviewed by the onsite review committee or equivalent and found not to decrease the effectiveness of the management of age-related degradation unique to license renewal. Changes that do not reduce the effectiveness of programs or procedures as described in the FSAR supplement must be documented in accordance with§ 54.37.
Proposed changes that decrease the effectiveness of programs or procedures as described in the FSAR supplement for management of age-related degradation unique to license renewal must be submitted to the NRC and receive NRC approval before implementation.
The industry also proposes that the FSAR supplement be updated consistent with 1 the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e).
(b) The FSAR supplement must be updated consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e).
( c) The licensee shall submit to the NRC with the FSAR updates as required by 10 CFR 50.7l(e), a list of all changes made to programs as described in the FSAR supplement for management of age-related degradation unique to license renewal that do not decrease the 39
effectiveness of such programs and a brief description, including a summary of the safety evaluation of each change. The licensee shall maintain written documentation that provides the basis for concluding that the change does not reduce the effectiveness of these programs.
III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the industry believes that Part 54 should be modified as recommended herein. These recommended modifications are fully consistent with the
, unaerlying principles of the rule. They provide regulatory stability and predictability and
' ensure that an efficient, technically sound process will be followed. In sum, the industry i
. believes that the proposed rule modifications and resulting IP A process will enhance the I
I
- NRC's ability to reasonably assure "... that the activities authorized by the renewed license
' will be conducted in accordance with the CLB... " 10 CFR § 54.29.
40
WI.U.MM L. SrEwAKr Sen,ior Vice President
( lC L1 l}
US 'hC Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen A/Jen, Virginia 23060 804-273-3551
- 93 OCT 14 P 4 : l 8 October 12, 1993 Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:
,_,, t
- I
,/
{
\\
(
VIRGINIA POWER Serial No.93-545 NL&P/HMF-RBP IMPLEMENTATION OF LICENSE RENEWAL RULE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT In the August 12, 1993 Federal Register, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced a workshop to request public comment on the implementation of the final license renewal rule, 10 CFR Part 54, published in December 1991. Virginia Power would like to provide the following comments regarding implementation of the license renewal rule and the need to modify it.
10 CFR Part 54 describes a basically sound license renewal process aimed at preserving the necessary levels of safety during the term of the renewed license.
However, the experience to date by the two lead plants, other utilities, and several owners groups have demonstrated that some parts of the rule lead to different interpretations, and substantially more evaluations and documentation than was originally anticipated without any commensurate enhancement in nuclear safety. We believe that the current rule requires both clarification and simplification in order to support an effective license renewal process.
At the heart of the matter is the term "age related degradation unique to license renewal," or ARDUTLR. This term did not appear in the rule at the proposed rule stage, or in the version of the final rule offered by the staff to the Commission in June 1991. At its broadest this term can be interpreted as including everything, and indeed, earlier this year the staff interpretation in SECY-93-049 was that "most structures and components could be subject to age-related degradation that is unique to license renewal." We recommend that this term be deleted from the rule.
MAY 1 0 1994 I Acknowledged by card...........,,.,.,,,,.,.,,11,..111 (f)
00.
!O &
':'-" T!O, 0
Cf EThht Of THE ION Do ment StatUics POs\\ma~ Date -s--~:;...£-..,__,__----
CO 1as eceiveci ___,_ ____ _
Add'\\ C-opies R' prcd~d ->------
Specl3\\ Qistr:~J!icf\\_#1 ~5l Pf}~
/::I J 112--:
Aging is a continuous process that affects all structures, systems and components (SSCs) to some degree from the moment that they are fabricated or placed in operation.
Aging is currently being addressed by a multitude of inspection, surveillance testing, and maintenance repair and replacement programs.
These programs will continue during the renewed license term. If new aging mechanisms are detected, licensees will address them as necessary, whether during the initial license term or during the renewed license. Continued compliance with the current licensing basis (which now includes 1 O CFR 50.65, the Maintenance Rule) is sufficient to assure that the necessary margins of safety exist now, between now and the expiration of the original operating license, and during the license renewal period.
Further, the requirement in 1 O CFR 54.21 (a)(3) to consider all systems and components that could have ARDUTLR is contrary to the rule's basic premises that license renewal would not constitute a broad safety review of the facility and that the current licensing basis (CLB) would continue to provide adequate margins of safety during the renewal term. For this reason, we support a change in the rule that is in accordance with NRC Approach 4: Reliance on the Maintenance Rule and Current Regulatory Process. In our opinion, this approach conceptually provides a reasonable strategy for modifying 1 o CFR 54. (Reference 58 FR 154, August 12, 1993)
Virginia Power considers the establishment of a straightforward, orderly and credible regulatory process for obtaining license renewal to be of the highest priority.
Economic and competitive considerations will likely make license renewal a very attractive option if such a regulatory framework can be established. Alternatively, the situation with the current rule does not encourage the pursuit of license renewal.
Therefore, we strongly urge the Commission to clarify and simplify 1 O CFR Part 54 on an expedited basis so that it is unambiguously understood by all while maintaining its original intent and focus. The rule, and the staff review process, should acknowledge existing regulatory requirements and oversight, as well as, ongoing license programs to avoid unnecessary delay and complication of the license renewal process.
Very truly yours,
cc:
Dr. T. E. Murley Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. J. F. Colvin President and CEO Nuclear Management and Resources Council 1776 Eye St., N. W.
Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006-3706 Mr. W. H. Rasin Vice President and Director Technical Division Nuclear Management and Resources Council 1776 Eye St., N. W.
Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006-3706
WIiiiam H. Rasln Vice President & Director Technical Division Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary DOCl<ET NUMBER nn t.J PROPOSED RULE r S t (5~-FR- ~--X-1~-1)
[;CCK::.1 i:.D NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL USNi{C 1776 Eye Street, NW
- Suite 300
- Washington, DC 20QQ6.-37et-13 p 1 :,. 7 (202) 872-1280
~j October 12, 1993 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 ATTENTION:
SUBJECT:
Dear Mr. Chilk:
Docketing and Service Branch Notice of Public Workshop (58 Fed Reg. 42987), August 12, 1993 On behalf of the nuclear industry, Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) 1 is pleased to provide its written comments on matters covered in the NRC's public workshop on license renewal, including responses to the questions set out in the August 12, 1993, Federal Register notice (58 Fed. Reg. 42987) announcing the workshop. The industry appreciates the NRC staffs efforts to address the concerns that have arisen regarding the license renewal rule. Resolution of these concerns is very important for utility planning, decision-making and license renewal implementation.
As discussed by the NUMARC and industry representatives at the workshop, the industry believes that changes to the license renewal rule are necessary for a stable and predictable regulatory process. The industry continues to support the basic principles of the license renewal rule, and the concept of "age-related degradation unique to license 1NUMARC is the organization of the nuclear power industry that is responsible for coordinating the combined efforts of all utilities licensed by the NRC to construct or operate nuclear power plants, and of other nuclear industry organizations, in all matters involving generic regulatory policy issues and on the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues affecting the nuclear power industry. Every utility responsible for constructing or operating a commercial nuclear power plant in the United States is a member ofNUMARC, In addition, NUMARC's members include major architect/engineering firms and all of the major nuclear steam supply system vendors,
NUCtE ~:1 ;:--:.~. :_ r_:-, (,!0\\' C* :,.;,;,,%S\\014 occr*_:-_ '!:'
~ ::*.:.:- '1 1,..-
1
- ~.!:.~ f'O, Oi=r ; ;: (;;:,,::. c:*.: _;::i:.T:SW o;:: TH:; co:.'.:::.SSION Documtnt S at'.:tivS Pos.. ar1{ Date f/Ai,,.vl.,/.t:/( 1 iJ < _,.J Cop;s~ Rocei-red _ __
..:../ ____ _
Aclrfl C p;:;., \\:S;)~('uUCSd -1,~c--------
Specia~ o:~tritiu\\\\011 11 ~J.;1 i,?kJll; =
r Mr. Samuel J. Chilk October 12, 1993 Page 2 renewal" (ARDUTLR). However, the industry has through extensive experience attempting to implement the rule determined that the definition of ARDUTLR and certain aspects of the Integrated Plant Assessment process need to be changed to make license renewal the focused process that the Commission intended. to this letter focuses upon the industry's proposed amendment to the current definition of ARDUTLR, 10 CFR § 54.3, and discusses the basis for the industry's proposed modification. In addition, Enclosure 1 describes the industry's approach to the integrated plant assessment process, 10 CFR § 54.21, and recommends that§ 54.21(a)(5) be amended in order to accommodate the ARDUTLR modification. responds to the questions posed in the Federal Register notice.
The industry intends to supplement the information contained in these attachments by providing the NRC with significantly more detail supporting its comments in November. We expect that the document to be submitted in November will contain a complete proposal identifying all necessary amendments to Part 54, including amendments addressing documentation and commitments, and an extensive discussion of the bases and support for all recommended modifications.
NUMARC would be pleased to discuss with the NRC the industry's proposed approach to license renewal and to respond to any specific questions regarding the industry's recommendations for modifications of the license renewal rule.
WHR/ECG:bjb Enclosures Sincerely,
,',,.///_
)
-//
,'p(/ i Cc----~.:-<- ~
William H. Rasin
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk October 12, 1993 Page 3 c:
Chairmain Ivan Selin Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers Commissioner Forrest J. Remick Commissioner E. Gail de Planque James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Director, NRR Dr. William D. Travers, Deputy Associate Director for Advanced Reactors & License Renewal William C. Parler, Esq., General Counsel
ENCLOSURE!
THE INDUSTRY APPROACH TO LICENSE RENEW AL I. Introduction License renewal has been the subject of extensive, sustained NRC and nuclear utility industry effort for almost a decade. A series of rulemaking activities, dating back to 1986, culminated in the promulgation 'of 10 CFR Part 54 in December 1991. 56 Fed.
(t Reg. 64,943 (December 13, 1991). Even prior to the issuance of final regulations, however, the nuclear utility industry was performing analyses and evaluations believed to be prerequisite to the renewal of existing commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses in a manner that would ensure continued protection of the public health and safety. As explained below, such efforts have continued and expanded in scope since December 1991. They provide a substantial body of cumulative, practical experience relevant to the implementation of Part 54 and the issues posed in the Commission's License Renewal Workshop Notice. 58 Fed. Reg. 42,987 (August 12, 1993).
Lessons learned as a result of industry efforts to implement Part 54 indicate that refinements to the rule are necessary to provide an efficient, predictable and stable framework for license renewal. In particular, it is necessary.to change the definition of "age-related degradation unique to license renewal" ("ARDUTLR").1 The industry's*
1 "Age-related degradation unique to license renewal" is employed in the final Part 54 rule. 10 CFR § 54.3. Prior to promulgation of the final rule, the term was not used in the license renewal context and, therefore, it was not subject to public notice and comment. Instead, the Commission simply
( continued)
- 1
recommended change to the definition has the benefit of not only imputing meaning to the concept of ARDUTLR, as originally intended by the Commission, but also of providing a technically sound integrated plant assessment ("IP A") process.
II. Discussion A. Industry Efforts to Implement Part 54 There is almost a decade of industry experience m evaluating the technical feasibility of and processes inherent in the renewal of commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses beyond the initial forty-year license term established by the Atomic Energy Act.
In 1982, the Electric Power Research Institute ("EPRI") published an economic and technological review of the feasibility of extending nuclear plant operation and, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") funded pilot plant studies at the Monticello and Surry Unit 1 nuclear plants. Upon conclusion of the pilot plant initiative in 1988, it was determined that safe and economical plant operation was feasible for at least an additional thirty-year period.
In order to develop and demonstrate the license renewal process, the "lead plant" program was instituted in 1988. It was sponsored by DOE and EPRI and endorsed by the commercial nuclear power industry through the Nuclear Management and Resources Council ("NUMARC").
Monticello was selected as the lead boiling water reactor
("BWR") and Yankee Rowe as the lead pressurized water reactor ("PWR"). The initial
(.. continued) referred to "age-related degradation." See,~' SECY-91-138, "Final Rule on Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal," May 15, 1991.
2
phases of the lead.plant program were devoted to the investigation of possible means of defining the appropriate scope and depth of review and analysis necessary for license renewal.
Subsequent to the promulgation of final license renewal regulations in December 1991, NSP continued to actively prepare a license renewal application for the
- Monticello plant. Although completed, submission of the Monticello application has been deferred by NSP.2 Yankee Rowe was voluntarily shut down by the licensee in October 1991.
Another plant-specific effort to implement Part 54 was initiated by Baltimore Gas
& Electric Company ("BG&E"), in conjunction with BG&E's Life Cycle Management Program. BG&E's Life Cycle Management Program has included a substantial effort to prepare a license renewal application for Calvert Cliffs, Units 1 and 2.
In November 1992, the Babcock & Wilcox ("B&W") Owners Group initiated a Generic License Renewal Program designed to develop a license renewal process that implements Part 54 on a generic basis for B& W plants. As a result, implementation of the IP A process has been examined at five additional operating plants -- Arkansas Nuclear One, Crystal River 3, Davis-Besse 1, Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3, and Three Mile Island Unit 1. Similar efforts to implement Part 54 on a generic basis, prior to the submission of individual renewal license applications, were initiated by the BWR and Westinghouse Owners Groups in early 1993.
2 See "Perspectives on the License Renewal Process (10 CFR Part 54),"
Northern States Power Company (November 20, 1992).
3
Overall, the Owners Group initiatives have focused significant resources on the implementation of Part 54 at a variety of plants throughout the country. In combination with the site-specific license renewal initiatives at Monticello, Calvert Cliffs, and Yankee Rowe, the scope and magnitude of industry's collective and sustained efforts to implement Part 54 have been considerable.
B. Lessons Learned The extensive industry efforts have confirmed the validity of the two principles underlying Part 54; i.e., that, with the exception of ARDUTLR, the current licensing basis
("CLB") together with continuing regulatory oversight is adequate for purposes of license
. renewal, and that each plant's CLB must be maintained throughout the renewal term. See 56 Fed. Reg. at 64,946. Thus, the industry approach to license renewal does not differ intrinsically from the approach intended by the Commission and embodied in the principles of Part 54.
Other lessons learned as a result of these efforts are that: ( 1) the definition of ARDUTLR must be revised to provide appropriate focus in the IP A process; (2) age-related degradation is adequately managed by reasonably assuring the "important to license renewal" ("ITLR") functions of systems, structures, and components important to license renewal ("SSC ITLR"); and (3) with a few exceptions (i.e., passive long-lived SSCs), existing plant programs, activities and the maintenance rule (10 CFR § 50.65) are sufficient to reasonably assure ITLR functions such that plant operation is in accordance with the CLB, both during the current license term and any period of extended operation.
In many cases, current activities may also be sufficient to assure the capability of long-4
lived passive components, but further evaluation may be appropriate to confirm the adequacy of these activities for the period of extended operation.
The difficulty that has arisen in interpreting and implementing the license renewal rule is attributable principally to the definition of ARDUTLR in the current rule. While the concept of ARDUTLR is a reasonable regulatory tool, and is supported by the industry on that basis, the current definition of ARDUTLR is unworkable. Modification of the definition is necessary to infuse meaning into the unique concept inherent in the term and to better capture the Commission's intent.
The IPA required by the license renewal rule (10 CFR § 54.21) is intended to start with a broad set of.systems, structures and components ("SSCs") and quickly focus on those requiring additional evaluation to maintain the CLB during the period of extended operation. The definition of ARDUTLR is meant to be applied at the third step of the IPA process (10 CFR § 54.21(a)(3)) to identify, from a broad list of SSCs deemed important to license renewal, those structures and components that could have unique aging during the period of extended operation, so that the adequacy of aging management for these SSCs can be assessed.
For SSCs that are not susceptible to unique aging, the NRC has determined that there is no need for a further evaluation.
... the regulatory processes provide reasonable assurance that the current licensing bases of operating plants provide an acceptable level of protection of the public health and safety or common defense and security so that a broad safety review is not required at license renewal. This conclusion covers age-related degradation occurring during the current licensing term.
5
Such degradation is being addressed by ongoing programs to identify and manage the degradation so that corrective action is taken to ensure continued safe operation. Therefore, for a renewal of an operating license the Commission has determined that only degradation mechanisms or effects that are unique to the period of operation beyond the current license term... should be the focus of evaluation for a renewal license.
56 Fed. Reg. at 64,954. It is the industry's view that the Commission intended that aging which occurs and is mitigated in the current term is not at issue for purposes of license renewal. Further, if programs and activities under the current license are continued in the same manner and to the same extent for SSCs ITLR, and the regulatory oversight process continues, no aging other than that which is unique is at issue under Part 54.
Unfortunately, the current definition of ARDUTLR does not allow this focus. The final license renewal rule defines ARDUTLR as degradation (1) That occurs during the term of the current operating license but whose effects are different in character or magnitude after the term of the current operating license (the period of extended operation); or (2) Whose effects were not explicitly identified and evaluated by the licensee for the period of extended operation and the evaluation found acceptable by the NRC; or (3) That occurs only during the period of extended operation.
10 CFR. § 54.3.
Due to use of the conjunction "or," this definition may be read literally to indicate that any degradation that has not been explicitly identified and evaluated by the licensee and approved by the NRC staff for the renewal term is ARDUTLR. Generally, with few exceptions, licensees have not explicitly evaluated degradation for the period of extended operation, virtually all degradation becomes ARDUTLR, even if such degradation is 6
exactly the same as that occurring at nuclear plants today. As a consequence, few, if any, structures and components may be* dispositioned under the current rule and the IP A process devolves into a broad and unfocused review of the entire plant -- exactly the type of broad review the Commission determined was unnecessary. See 56 Fed. Reg. at 64,954.
In addition, elements (1) and (3) of the existing definition ("character and magnitude" and degradation that "occurs only during the period of extended operation")
divert the focus of the IP A away from the identification and management of aging effects that are unique to the renewal period and, instead, lead to an unintended focus on analyses of degradation mechanisms.3
- The focus on mechanisms is inappropriate because, in many instances, there is no relationship between a study of mechanisms and the ultimate objective of the IPA -- maintaining the CLB. Maintenance of the CLB can be assured by addressing the performance of SSCs' ITLR functions. Further, elements (1) and (3) both require a renewal applicant to prove a negative -- that degradation effects will not change in character or magnitude or appear for the first time in the period of extended operation.
Thus, as they currently exist, elements (1) and (3) of the ARDUTLR definition have 3
One of the primary lessons learned by industry in implementing Part 54 is that detailed, mechanistic analyses and documentation of ARDUTLR, as currently defined, add considerable effort and complexity to the license renewal process and yield no appreciable safety benefit. Staff has already determined in SECY-93-049 that a focus on effects, as opposed to mechanisms, is appropriate. See also Memorandum to the Commission from W.C. Parler, Office of General Counsel, "License Renewal and SECY-93-049," March 9, 1993, at 6.
7
proven difficult to implement, contributing to an unstable and unpredictable license renewal process.
Finally, certain problematic statements in the supplemental information published with the rule ("Statement of Considerations" or "SOC") may be read to preclude an applicant from considering any existing program when determining whether a structure or component is susceptible to ARDUTLR.4 Other statements in the SOC suggest that no structure or component may be dispositioned without an extensive evaluation of degradation mechanisms. 5 These statements in the SOC divorce ARDUTLR 4
The SOC states:
Age-related degradation of SSCs are (sic) important to license renewal, if unmitigated, could lead to the loss of required functions, unacceptable reduction in safety margins, or higher rates of challenge to plant safety systems during the renewal term.
56 Fed. Reg. at 64,954 (emphasis added). In the past, this statement has been construed by the staff to preclude any consideration of existing programs at the third step of the IPA process (10 CFR § 54.21(a)(3)).
5 The SOC states, for example,
[E]limination of structures and components important to license renewal from further aging consideration on the basis of an a priori claim by a licensee that they are subject to an effective program is not an acceptable technical basis since it does not include an evaluation of the possibility of age-related degradation problems unique to license renewal and an evaluation of the adequacy of the program to manage age-related degradation.
56 Fed. Reg. at 64,956. The SOC also states,
[A] licensee may, after evaluation of an SSC and associated age-related degradation mechanisms, conclude that an SSC is not subject to age-related degradation unique to license renewal.
( continued) 8
determinations from reality by requiring licensees to ignore the existence of existing programs, regulatory requirements, and in particular, the maintenance rule. If existing programs and requirements are ignored, step 3 of the IPA process (10 CPR§ 54.21(a)(3))
becomes meaningless.
C. Proposed Modification of the ARDUTLR Definition To correct these problems, the industry proposes amending the definition of ARDUTLR. A general discussion of the proposed changes follows. A more detailed and supported discussion will be provided in the industry's complete proposal to be submitted in November.
The existing definition of ARDUTLR merits modification because it fails to provide the focus intended by the Commission. The result is regulatory instability and unpredictability. In addition, the existing definition fails to focus on the ability of SSCs to continue to perform their ITLR functions, and thereby reasonably assure plant operation in accordance with the CLB throughout the period of extended operation.
The proposed amendments to ARDUTLR is set forth here and in Attachment 1.
§ 54.3 Definitions As used in this part,
(.. continued)
Id. at 64,958 (emphasis added).
9
Age-related degradation unique to license renewal (ARDUTLR) is age-related degradation to SSCs ITLR the effects of which, notwithstanding the application of existing programs during the period of extended operation, result in loss of ITLR function such that plant operation is not in accordance with the CLB during the period of extended operation.
For purposes of this definition, (a) An SSC. ITLR could be subject to ARDUTLR and must be evaluated under 54.23(a)(4)-(a)(6), as appropriate, if:
(i) its service life exceeds 40 years; and (ii) it is passive (i.e., cannot or should not change state under normal operation or in response to accident conditions); and (iii) its failure would directly result in loss of ITLR system or structure function in a manner not permitted by the CLB.
(b) Other than those SSCs ITLR identified in paragraph (a) of this definition, an SSC ITLR shall be deemed not to have ARDUTLR if it is subject to:
(i) the provisions of 10 CFR 50.65; or (ii) replacement or refurbishment based upon time or condition; or (iii) an existing program or activity that monitors condition or performance and reasonably assures that the SSC will be capable of performing its ITLR function in accordance with the CLB during the period of extended operation.
These proposed amendments refocus the definition on degradation whose effects could result in performance not in accordance with the CLB during the period of extended operation. The proposed amendments also allow greater reliance on performance-based evaluations of SSCs ITLR. In addition, the proposed amendments explicitly exclude 10
those SSCs that are adequately addressed by existing
- programs and requirements, including replacement and refurbishment programs and the maintenance rule. Where an existing program relied upon to disposition an SSC (as not being subject to ARDUTLR) is not part of the applicant's CLB, the applicant would provide a discussion in its application of how the CLB function will be maintained.
The proposed amendments are consistent with the Commission's instructions in its June 28, 1993, memorandum to the Staff. In that memorandum, the Commission stated:
. Based upon the agency's experience with currently operating reactors,. the Commission believes that it is appropriate to allow license renewal applicants to rely to a considerable extent on existing activities and programs to ensure that a plant will continue to operate safely during the extended period of operation.
Such activities and programs, including periodic replacement and refurbishment programs, have proven effective in managing aging during the initial license term and, hence, can serve as a basis for concluding that aging for many components, particularly. short-lived components, will be effectively managed during the renewal term, if these programs are simply continued for the period of extended operation.
For this reason, the Commission wishes to ensure that such activities are given maximum credit where appropriate.
Memorandum from S. Chilk to J. Taylor and W. Parler (June 28, 1993) at 1-2 (emphasis added).
To accomplish the objectives discussed above, the industry proposes that the definition of ARDUTLR be revised. The first sentence of the proposed definition is as follows:
Age-related degradation unique to license renewal (ARDUTLR) is age-related degradation to SSCs ITLR the effects of which, notwithstanding the application of existing programs during the period of extended operation, 11
result in loss of ITLR function such that plant operation is not in accordance with the CLB during the period of extended operation.
This affirmative definition refocuses the applicant's inquiry on degradation effects that, even with the mitigating effects of existing programs, result in loss of ITLR function and noncompliance with the CLB during the period of extended operation. In applying this definition, an applicant would consider existing programs and requirements, and if these programs and requirements are sufficient to reasonably assure the ITLR function in compliance with the CLB during the period of extended operation, the applicant would disposition the SSCs as not susceptible to ARDUTLR6.
This performance-based evaluation assures ITLR function and is far more effective and practical than the mechanistic approach currently embodied in the rule.
The industry proposes adding two additional sentences to the definition of ARDUTLR to govern the application of the revised definition to certain classes of SSCs ITLR. Part (a) of the proposed definition defines long-lived passive SSCs that could have ARDUTLR and must be evaluated pursuant to§ 54.2i(a)(4)-(6), as appropriate. It states:
(a) An SSC ITLR could be subject to ARDUTLR and must be evaluated under 54.23(a)(4)-(a)(6), as appropriate, if:
(i)
- its service life exceeds 40 years; and (ii) it is passive (i.e., cannot or should not change state under normal operation or in response to accident conditions); and 6
This change would not preclude an examination of mechanisms where appropriate.
12
(iii) its failure would directly result in loss of ITLR system or structure function, in a manner not permitted by the CLB.
Part (b) of the proposed definition specifies that SSCs, other than those under Part (a) of the proposed definition, shall be deemed not to have ARDUTLR if they are subject to the maintenance rule or certain types of existing programs:
(b) Other than those SSCs ITLR identified in paragraph (a) of this definition, an SSC ITLR shall be deemed not to have ARDUTLR if it is subject to:
(i) the provisions of 10 CFR. 50.65; or (ii) replacement or refurbishment based upon time or condition; or (iii) an existing program or activity that monitors condition or performance and reasonably assures that the SSC will be capable of performing its ITLR function in accordance with the CLB during the period of extended operation.
- 1. Part A of the Amended Definition There are certain passive long-lived SSCs that are relatively permanent (i.e.,
installed for at least forty years) and are considered to be the most appropriate for evaluation under the IPA. Passive long-lived SSCs generally are not regularly replaced, and because they do not perform an active function, the effects of age-related degradation are not necessarily manifested in degraded performance. These SSCs may require further review to demonstrate that the CLB will be maintained during the period of extended operation.
The criteria proposed to define this set of passive long-lived SSCs (Part (a) of the proposed definition of ARDUTLR) are intended to focus the evaluation on the specific 13
set of equipment that is not regularly replaced ( and, thus, has a service life greater than 40 years), does not perform an active function, and whose failure would directly result in operation not in accordance with the CLB. Generally, this equipment is considered highly reliable. In many cases, long-lived passive SSCs are subject to inspection activities that require corrective action when there is an indication of unacceptable degraded condition. The industry considers these activities to be adequate but acknowledges that additional assessments may be warranted to ensure that the effects of age-related degradation are appropriately considered for the period of extended operation.
Until these SSCs are evaluated, it is assumed that they could have ARDUTLR. Ifit is determined upon further evaluation that existing activities will adequately manage aging effects during the period of extended operation and that such operation will remain in accordance with the CLB, then the SSC would be determined not to be subject to ARDUTLRpursuant to 10 CFR § 54.21 (a)(4). We interpret 10 CFR § 54.21(a)(4) to allow a determination of whether an SC that could have ARDUTLR pursuant to 10 CFR
§ 54.2l(a)(3) is in fact subject to ARDUTLR. If so the SC would be subject to the effective program provisions of 10 CFR 54.21(a)(5) - (a)(6).
- 2. Part B of the Industry's Proposed Definition The basis for excluding SSCs under Part (b) of the proposed definition, as discussed further below, identifies classes of SSCs that the industry believes are not subject to ARDUTLR. It should be noted that the exclusions in Part (b) of the proposed definition do not apply to passive long-lived SSCs, defmed in Part (a) of the proposed definition.
14
(i) Disposition under the Maintenance Rule The. first element of Part (b) allows disposition of SSCs covered by the maintenance rule. In effect, with the exception of long-lived passive SSCs as defined in Part (a), SSCs subject to the provisions of the maintenance rule are deemed not subject to ARDUTLR.
It is important to bear in mind that from the time a nuclear power plant goes into
. service, a large part of the operational activities deal directly with the management of aging, even though that is not the terminology used to describe those activities. Similarly, a large portion of current regulatory requirements deal directly with degradation brought on by aging mechanisms, and, therefore, directly or indirectly prescribe how age-related degradation must be managed. Much of the content of Technical Specifications is aimed at demonstrating that age-related degradation is being properly mitigated throughout the lifetime of a nuclear power plant by setting various performance limits on equipment.
The maintenance rule now overlies these operational and regulatory activities to ensure that all important SSCs are covered and that the varied maintenance practices applied to these SSCs are now effective.
The maintenance rule requires that licensees monitor the performance or condition of certain SSCs against licensee-established goals in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that those SSCs will be capable of performing their intended function. 10 CFR § 50.65 (a)(l); 56 Fed. Reg. 31,306 (1991). Where failures are likely to cause loss of an intended function, monitoring should be predictive in nature, providing early warning of degradation. 56 Fed Reg. at 31,308. Monitoring of particular SSCs may be discontinued under the rule, but only where, and so long as, preventive maintenance is 15
demonstrated to be effective in controlling the performance or condition of an SSC such that it remains capable of performing its intended function. Id. at 31,309.
The license renewal rule and the maintenance rule have the same fundamental purpose. "At bottom, the fundamental purpose of both the license renewal rule and the maintenance rule is to ensure that age-related degradation of plant equipment is properly addressed."
Remarks by Commissioner Curtiss at NRC Regulatory Information Conference (July 22, 1992) at 2. As Commissioner Curtiss stated:
[ w ]hile the maintenance rule is nonprescriptive with regard to maintenance activities per se - such as work control processes and procedures - it implicitly requires that processes be established and implemented that will result in the systematic review of the performance and condition of all plant equipment within the scope of the rule and corrective action, where necessary, in order to restore equipment or condition to an acceptable level.
Id. at 6 The NRC staff recognized this relationship in SECY-93-049.
Although different in some respects, the MR and the license renewal rule (LRR) share a fundamentally similar objective and scope. The objective of both rules is to ensure that the effects of age-related degradation on the performance or condition of important plant equipment are adequately mitigated; the specific focus of the maintenance rule - maintenance preventable failures - essentially encompasses all forms of age-related degradation.
SECY-93-049, "Implementation of 10 CFR Part 54, 'Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants"' (March 1, 1993) at 7.
16
The industry believes that the reasonable assurance of performance provided by the maintenance rule should be sufficient to disposition SSCs other than long-lived passive SSCs. Maintenance is focused primarily at active components whose lifetimes, though varied, include periodic overhaul and replacement. For these active components, degradc1;tion effects and consequences are no different in the first or fifth decade. 7 With the promulgation of the of the maintenance rule reasonably assuring effective maintenance of these components, there now appears to be little value of aging assessments per se except to satisfy the administrative and procedural detail of the license renewal rule. As a result an appropriate focus for license renewal should be long-lived passive components.
Further, for SSCs other than those defined as passive long-lived, the maintenance rule reasonably assures compliance with the CLB. As the Commission noted in its SRM dated June 28, 1993, at note 1:
7 For activities such as those that fall within the scope of the maintenance rule which will become effective in 1996, it is implicit that they have the objective of maintaining the functionality of SSCs as set forth in the CLB. As with our other regulations and regulatory requirements, the maintenance rule need not -
explicitly reference the CLB to accomplish that purpose.
This is not intended to mean that there is no attention paid to long lived passive c_omponents. Containment leak rate testing, steam generator inspection and in-service inspection (ISI) are but three examples of maintenance activities intended to monitor for degradation of long lived components.
17
In sum, monitoring of performance under the maintenance rule reasonably assur~s that SSCs are maintained so that they are capable of performing their intended function.
Maintenance rule activities will detect age-related degradation through performance or reliability monitoring and reasonably assure timely management of such degradation during the current license term and the period of extended operation.
(ii) Disposition of Replaced and Refurbished SSCs The second element of Part (b) allows certain short lived SSCs ITLR to be dispositioned based upon replacement or refurbishment8 on time or condition.
Replacement or refurbishment on a time or condition basis should* be recognized as an adequate means of assuring the functionality of SSCs other than those defined in Part (a) of the definition.
Through replacement or refurbishment, SSCs are restored to a satisfactory state precluding unique aging*
(iii) Disposition of SSCs Covered by Certain Existing Programs Reasonably Assuring Function in Accordance with the CLB Some SSCs within the scope of the license renewal rule but beyond the scope of the maintenance rule may not be subject _to programs that require replacement or refurbishment based on established time or condition criteria. Nevertheless, such SSCs may be adequately managed by existing programs or activities that monitor condition or performance. The industry proposes that such SSCs can be dispositioned as not subject to ARDUTLR if an existing program or activity reasonably assures that a given SSC will be 8
Refurbishment is the act of restoring the condition of a structure or component consistent with its service requirements.
18
capable of performing its ITLR function in accordance with the CLB during the period of extended operation.
Although these programs do not establish explicit replacement and refurbishment criteria, such programs would result in replacement or refurbishment when necessary.9 Examples might include inservice testing programs, programs established in response to NRC generic communications and Technical Specification surveillance requirements.
Degraded condition or performance of an SSC not in accordance with the CLB initiates corrective action. The action could include detailed analyses, additional monitoring, replacement, refurbishment, or other corrective action sufficient to assure the function of the SSC in accordance with the CLB. Tests or analyses could show that the degraded condition is not significant. Likewise, further monitoring could show that the condition is arrested. However, in any case where analysis or further monitoring shows it to be necessary replacement or refurbishment will occur to restore the SSC to an acceptable condition. This regime, which includes replacement or refurbishment when necessary, nullifies the effects of aging, prevents aging from progressing to the point where the SSC would fail, and reasonably assures that the SSCs will continue to perform in accordance with the CLB.
9 The existing programs credited in the third prong of Part (b) of the proposed definition differ from replacement and refurbishment programs credited under the second prong in that replacement and refurbishment programs in the third prong are not preestablished.
19
D. The Implementation of The Industry Approach Through its implementation efforts, the industry has learned that the effects of age-related degradation can be detected by monitoring the condition and performance of SSCs ITLR.
Aging is adequately managed by performance test, inspection, or condition monitoring programs that result in activities -- such as replacement or refurbishment --
that reasonably assure ITLR function. Most SSCs have multiple maintenance activities associated with them that may or may not be included as part of the CLB. For purposes of license renewal, it is crucial to recognize that existing programs and activities, independently or collectively, are adequate and will continue to assure ITLR function.
The criteria specified in Parts (a) and (b) of the ARDUTLR definition credit existing programs that adequately manage functional performance and, thereby, aging. They provide meaningful, objective standards by which to determine which SSCs ITLR must be evaluated in the IPA process pursuant to § 54.21(a)(4) through 54.21(a)(6), as appropriate, and thereby promote regulatory stability and predictability.
Incorporating these lessons learned and the revised definition of ARDUTLR, the industry's proposed approach focuses on assuring ITLR function and continued plant operation in accordance with the CLB throughout the extended period of operation. The proposed approach would encompass the same scope of equipment included in the existing definition of SSCs ITLR and would retain the same basic IP A process.
Thus, the first step of the industry IP A process would require the identification and listing of SSCs ITLR and would not deviate from the existing§ 54.21(a)(l). The industry 20
believes, however, that further guidance should be provided concerning implementation of the LCO criterion, particularly with regard to support systems.
Under the industry's approach, SSCs subject to operability requirements contained in Technical Specification LCOs would continue to be classified as ITLR. However, for this purpose, the SSC should be specifically identified and subject to operability requirements in an LCO. If a support system, for example, is not specifically subject to an LCO operability requirement, it should not be classified as ITLR under this criterion.
In addition, under the industry's approach SSCs would not be identified as ITLR where the LCO condition is programmatic or administrative, as opposed to an "operability requirement."
This includes limiting conditions sometimes imposed on process variables such as chemistry for the reactor system.
The second step.of the industry approach would not differ from § 54.21(a)(2); i.e.,
"identify the structures and components (SCs) that contribute to the performance of a required function, or could, if they fail, prevent an SSC[ITLR] from performing its required function." 10 Consistent with the proposed definition of ARDUTLR set forth above, the industry approach would require the following upon entering the third step of the IPA process,§ 54.21(a)(3):
- Identify SSCs which are to be reviewed in accordance with Part (a) of the ARDUTLR definition.* This group of SSCs is considered long-lived passive.
10 In applying the term "required function" in this context, the industry approach considers "required functions" to be safety functions.
21
These long-lived passive components could have ARDUTLR and, therefore, must be evaluated pursuant to §54.21(a)(4) to determine whether they are, in fact, subject to ARDUTLR and thereby subject to the effective program evaluation steps oftheIPA process, § 54.21(a)(5) - (6) as amended below;
- Identify those SSCs which are not subject to ARDUTLR, pursuant to Part (b) of the proposed definition; i.e., those SSCs ITLR which are subject to (1) the provisions of 10 CFR §50.65, (2) replacement or refurbishment based upon time or condition, or (3) an existing program that monitors condition or performance and assures that the SSC will be capable of performing its ITLR function in accordance with the CLB during the period of extended operation.
Any SSCs covered by (1), (2), or (3) other than passive long-lived SSCs under Part (a) will be dispositioned pursuant to the revised definition of ARDUTLR.
Any SSCs ITLR that do not satisfy these requirements must be evaluated pursuant to § 54.21(a)(4) to determine whether they are, in fact, subject to ARDUTLR and thereby subject to* the effective program evaluation requirements of the IPA process, § 54.21(a)(5) - (6) as amended.I 1 SSCs that are evaluated under 10 CFR § 54.21(a)(4) and determined not to be subject to ARDUTLR because of existing CLB programs, will be dispositioned on that basis.
This approach to § 54.21(a)(3)-(4) allows license renewal applicants to take credit for the maintenance rule (§ 50.65), existing programs that manage aging, either on a 9
performance or condition basis, and replacement or refurbishment activities that are based on time or condition. Such activities effectively preclude ARDUTLR and maintain the 11 The industry is currently considering amendments to sections 54.21 (a)(3) and (a)(5) as follows:
"(3) For those SCs identified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, identify the SCs that could have age-related degradation that is unique to license renewal and determine if they are subject to such degradation."
"(5) For each SC that is subject to ARDUTLR, as determined pursuant to identified in paragraphs (a) (3) - (a) (4) of this section.
22
CLB during the extended term of plant operation.12 License renewal applicants seeking to disposition SSCs as not having ARDUTLR on the basis of existing, non-CLB programs and activities must provide in the application a discussion of how the CLB function will be maintained during the period of extended operation.
Passive, long-lived SSCs that satisfy Part (a) of the definition are subject to an assessment of degradation effects to provide reasonable assurance of the required ITLR function and continued plant operation in accordance with the CLB.13 If a long-lived, passive SC is determined not to be subject to ARDUTLR, it would not pass down into § 54.21(a)(5)-(6). Such SSCs would be subject, however, to § 54.2l(a)(5)-(6), as amended, if they are determined to be subject to ARDUTLR in the context of the evaluation performed pursuant to § 54.21(a)(4).
12 In addition, an applicant may determine whether an SSC was previously evaluated for the renewal term in documents that provide a basis for dispositioning the SSC as not being subject to ARDUTLR. Applicants relying upon such information must demonstrate that the SSC at issue is enveloped by the existing evaluation.
13 The assessment of long lived passive SSCs would determine whether such SCs are subject to ARDUTLR; i.e., "degradation to SSCs ITLR the effects of which, notwithstanding the application of existing programs during the period of extended operation, result in loss of ITLR function such that plant operation is not in accordance with the CLB during the period of extended operation."
23
Attachment I PROPOSED CHANGES TO 10 CFRPART 54
§ 54.3 Definitions As used in this part, Age-related degradation unique to license renewal (ARDUTLR) is age-related degradation to SSCs ITLR the effects of which, notwithstanding the application of existing programs during the period of extended operation, result in loss ofITLR function such that plant operation is not in accordance with the CLB during the period of extended*
operation.
For purposes of this definition, (a) An SSC ITLR could be subject to ARDUTLR and must be evaluated under 54.23(a)(4)-(a)(6), as appropriate, if:
(i) its service life exceeds 40 years; and (ii) it is passive (i.e., cannot or should not change state under normal operation or in response to accident conditions); and (iii) its failure would directly result in loss of ITLR system or structure function in a manner not permitted by the CLB.
(b) Other than those SSCs ITLR identified in paragraph (a) of this definition, an SSC ITLR shall be deemed not to have ARDUTLR ifit is subject to:
(i) the provisions of 10 CFR. 50.65; or (ii) replacement or refurbishment based upon time or condition; or 24
(iii) an existing program or activity that monitors condition or performance and reasonably assures that the SSC will be capable of performing its ITLR function in accordance with the CLB during the period of extended operation.
25
ENCLOSURE2
- 1.
Will the approach be consistent with the principles of license renewal as discussed in the statement of considerations for the final license renewal rule?
Yes. The industry's proposed approach to and revisions of Part 54 are consistent with the two fundamental principles identified in the Statement of Considerations
("SOC") accompanying 10 CFR Part 54. The industry strongly believes that the two principles are sound and any revisions to Part 54 should be consistent with these principles.
As stated in the SOC accompanying the current license renewal rule, the first principle is that, with the exception of age-related degradation unique to license renewal and possibly some few other issues related to safety only during extended operation, the regulatory process is adequate to ensure that the licensing bases of all currently operating plants provide and maintain an acceptable level of safety for operation so that operation will not be inimical to public health and safety or common defense or security.
This principle singles out age-related degradation unique to license renewal as that which should be reviewed for the period of extended operation. It recognizes that aging is ongoing throughout the first 40 years and that such aging is adequately managed by the combination of existing licensee programs and the NRC's regulatory oversight processes.
It also identifies the Commission's conclusion that the NRC's regulatory oversight processes will continue into the period of extended operation and, therefore, will continue to ensure that plants operating during the renewal term will meet the same standard of reasonable assurance as they are required to meet during the current license term.
The industry's proposed approach clearly adheres to the first principle. The approach identifies SSCs ITLR which could have ARDUTLR by focusing the definition of ARDUTLR on that degradation which is "unique" to the period of extended operation.
Under the industry's proposed approach, degradation of an SSC is considered unique if existing programs would be insufficient to prevent loss of an SSC's ITLR function such that plant operation would not be in accordance with the current licensing basis (CLB) during the period of extended operation.
Further, the industry's proposed approach recognizes that regulatory processes contribute to the maintenance of an adequate level of safety both in the current term and in the renewal term. The industry's proposed approach relies upon the staffs implementation of its license renewal responsibility in a manner consistent with the
Commission's view that current regulatory processes are sufficiently broad and rigorous to ensure the public health and safety during the period of extended operation.
The second principle of license renewal identified in the Statement of Considerations for the final rule requires that "each plant's current licensing basis must be maintained during the renewal term in the same manner and to the same extent as during the original licensing term." The industry's proposed approach also clearly adheres to this principle. The industry strongly believes that this principle mandates that credit be given to existing programs and activities because they provide reasonable assurance that the performance and condition of SSCs ITLR will be maintained during the term of extended operation in accordance with the CLB. 1 As noted, the industry's proposed definition of ARDUTLR reflects the principle that existing programs are adequate to manage the effects of aging in most circumstances by defining ARDUTLR as degradation which could occur notwithstanding the application of existing programs, and the consequence of which is that the plant's operation would not be in accordance with the CLB during the period of extended operation.
l(a). Will the approach preserve a logical distinction between those age related degradation issues suitable for license renewal review and other safety issues considered to be adequately addressed by the normal regulatory oversight process for operating reactors?
- 2.
Yes. See above.
Will the proposed license renewal approach maintain the current licensing basis?
Yes. The industry's proposed approach ensures that the CLB is maintained. The industry's proposed definition defines ARDUTLR as degradation to SSCs ITLR the effects of which, notwithstanding the application of existing programs during the period of extended operation, result in loss of ITLR function such that plant operation is not in accordance with the CLB during the period of extended operation. Any SSC determined to be subject to ARDUTLR would be subject to a review of whether an effective program review is needed.
1 With respect to most SSCs ITLR, monitoring performance or condition to comply with the CLB is an effective means to detect degradation. The industry's considerable experience with performance and condition monitoring provides a reasonable basis to conclude that the SSCs covered by such programs and actiyities will continue to perform their intended function during the period of extended operation 2
I.
Under the proposed industry approach, existing programs and activities currently.
employed to maintain the CLB will continue into the period of extended operation. The industry's proposed definition of ARDUTLR permits credit to be taken for maintenance rule activities, replacement and refurbishment activities, and other existing programs and activities because the objective and effect of all of these is to maintain the CLB. Thus, under the industry's proposed approach, with the exception of passive, long-lived SSCs that meet part (a) of the definition, SSCs ITLR covered by any these three activities will be deemed not to be susceptible to ARDUTLR. The Commission recognized the value of such an approach in its June 28, 1993 memorandum to the NRC staff:
Based upon the agency's experience with currently operating reactors, the Commission believes that it is appropriate to allow license.renewal applicants to rely to a considerable extent on existing activities and programs to ensure that a plant will continue to operate safely during the extended period of operation. Such activities and programs, including periodic replacement and refurbishment programs, have proven effective in managing aging during the initial license term and, hence can serve as a basis for concluding that aging for many components, particularly short-lived components, will be effectively managed during the renewal term, if these programs are simply continued for the period of extended operation. For this reason, the Commission wishes to ensure that such activities are given maximum credit where appropriate.
We would emphasize that the concept of the CLB, which is used as the regulatory basis upon which the NRC determines whether a plant is operating in conformance with regulatory requirements and docketed commitments, is evolutionary in nature. The CLB evolves as generic as well as plant specific issues are addressed. Its evolutionary nature has made it a successful regulatory tool-- one which can be expected to continue to ensure that aging effects on structures and components will be adequately addressed.
- 3.
Is the concept of age-related degradation unique to license renewal, as
,discussed in the SOC for the final license renewal rule, a useful regulatory concept? Should it be eliminated?
The concept of age-related degradation unique to license renewal is a reasonable regulatory concept, but its value has been eviscerated by its definition in the current rule.
The definition in the current license renewal rule forces almost every structure and component important to license renewal to be declared by the applicant to be subject to ARDUTLR. While the continued use of the concept of ARDUTLR is supported by the industry, it is only supported in conjunction with the industry's revised definition of the concept. The industry's definition focuses ARDUTLR on aging that, notwithstanding existing measures, would compromise compliance with the CLB during the period of 3
extended operation. However, it permits ( as the Commission intended but the current rule impedes) the applicant to limit the scope of SSCs on which aging assessments must be performed to those necessary to maintain the CLB during the period of extended operation.
- 4.
For any proposed approach, what standard (e_.g., 10 CFR 54.29) do you propose the NRC apply for issuing a renewed license?
The industry currently believes that the standard contained in 10 CFR 54.29 is appropriate and should be retained.
- 5.
How does the proposed approach consider existing licensee programs that help assure acceptable performance or condition of systems, structures and components?
The industry's proposed approach would allow applicants to take credit for existing programs if the programs reasonably assure the ITLR function in accordance with the CLB during the period of extended operation. Thus, the applicant could disposition the SSCs covered under those programs and activities as not susceptible to ARDUTLR. The industry's proposed approach involves a functional evaluation which we believe is far more effective and practical than the mechanistic approach currently embodied in the rule. The approach reflects the industry's belief that if SSCs are covered by the maintenance rule, by replacement and refurbishment activities based upon time or condition, or by mandated regulato:ry or other existing programs, such programs or activities preclude a structure or component from experiencing ARDUTLR.
- 6.
How is the maintenance rule relied on in the proposed approach? Does the scope of the license renewal rule need to be the same as that of the maintenance rule?
Under the industry's proposed approach, the maintenance rule is directly credited in the definition of ARDUTLR as sufficient to reasonably assure ITLR functions of SSCs, other than certain passive, long-lived SSCs, such that the CLB will be maintained during period of extended operation. Thus, SSCs ITLR covered under the maintenance rule would be deemed not to be susceptible to ARDUTLR.
The scope of the license renewal rule does not need to be the same as that of the maintenance rule.
4
The industry believes that the Commission, in its June 29, 1993 memorandum to the staff, in essence, required that an approach which relies upon the maintenance rule be considered. Therein, the Commission stated:
- 7.
For activities such as those that fall within the scope of the maintenance rule which will become effective in 1996, it is implicit that they have the objective of maintaining the functionality of SSCs as set forth in the CLB. As with our other regulations and regulatory requirements, the maintenance rule need not explicitly reference the CLB to accomplish that.purpose.
How does the proposed approach reduce uncertainty and promote stability?
If areas of uncertainty or instability remain, how should they be addressed?
The industry's proposed approach reduces uncertainty and stability through suggested modifications to key provisions of the final license renewal rule.
The industry's proposed approach would reduce substantially or eliminate uncertainty and stability through the proposed amendment to the definition of ARDUTLR. The industry's proposed approach provides regulatory certainty by identifying, through the application of specific objective criteria, those SSCs which must be reviewed for ARDUTLR and those which are determined not to be subject to ARDUTLR. This will allow applicants to determine with a high degree of certainty and consistency those SSCs ITLR that could be subject to ARDUTLR. For those long-lived passive components meeting the definition's criteria, an analysis pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21 (a)(4)-(a)(6) as applicable would be performed. This approach essentially limits further evaluation to those long-lived passive SSCs and those SSCs not covered by the maintenance rule, replacement and refurbishment activities or other existing programs.
Another area.where the industry's proposed approach is intended to provide greater certainty and stability is the level of detail required for license renewal. Under the current rule, the IP A and all other elements of the license renewal application must be included in the FSAR supplement. The industry believes that this is neith_er necessary nor consistent with current NRC practice.
The industry believes that the IP A and the FSAR supplement should be different documents -- with appropriately different focuses. The proposed approach would require that the information and analyses contained in the IP A would be that necessary to demonstrate that the CLB will be maintained during the period of extended operation.
The FSAR supplement would contain the results and conclusions of the IP A, although 5
including descriptions of the effective programs, in order to establish an appropriate level of commitment. To accomplish this, certain changes would be required.
Finally, the industry's approach will reduce uncertainty by making clear that evaluations performed on SSCs identified by Part (a) of the proposed definition of ARDUTLR should focus on the effects of ARD, independent of specific mechanisms. In this way, inspection and surveillance activities which result in corrective action based on degraded condition can be appropriately credited as precluding ARDUTLR. The considerable experience with such programs demonstrates that SSCs covered by such programs will continue to perform their intended function and maintain the CLB.
The industry believes that its focus on effects is technically justified and consistent with recent recommendations by NRC staff. In the SECY s issued earlier this year, the staff recognized that it is appropriate to focus on effects. In light of the importance of appropriately focusing the rule on aging effects, and the staffs concurrence with that focus, the industry's proposed approach would modify the rule to make clear that where performance or condition monitoring is sufficient to mitigate the effects of ARDUTLR, it is not necessary to identify or evaluate degradation meqhanisms.
- 8.
Would the proposed approach alter other aspects of the final license renewal rule, such as content or description of an effective program, contents of a license renewal application, or continuing reporting requirements?
Yes. See answer to question 7.
- 9.
Is the concept of "fundamental safety importance" as discussed in SECY 93-113 appropriate? Will the proposed approach result in the imposition of regulatory requirements for plant structures or components that are not of "fundamental safety importance"?
At this juncture, this concept has not been incorporated into industry's approach.
- 10.
Does the proposed approach incorporate consideration of "like-kind" replacement? If so, should the term "like-kind" be interpreted with respect to structures and components which are replaced such that they will not experience a service life of greater than 40 years during the renewal term?
The proposed approach excludes from further review of ARDUTLR those SCCs which are replaced based on time or condition in accordance with the CLB. Replacement 6
in this context is the same as under CLB and generally means replacement with a component of equal or greater quality, subject to controls established by 10 CFR 50.59.
Limiting replacement to identical "like-kind" substitutions is overly restrictive and could induce licensees to use original design components when better ones have become available.
- 11.
How does the proposed approach consider refurbishment? What is a definition of refurbishment? How should guidelines be established to ensure that the concept of "refurbishment" is consistently applied in the implementation of the proposed approach to license renewal?
The industry's proposed approach allows the applicant to take credit for refurbishment activities based upon time or condition. SSCs subject to such refurbishment would be deemed not to be susceptible to ARDUTLR.
Refurbishment in this context generally means actions to restore a degraded SSC to an acceptable condition in accordance with the CLB. Specific guidelines need not be established beyond those reflected in the CLG to ensure consistent application of the refurbishment concept. The NRC's regulatory oversight is sufficient to ensure consistent application of the concept in the implementation of Part 54.
7