ML051250245
| ML051250245 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | PROJ0690 |
| Issue date: | 05/05/2005 |
| From: | Kuo P T NRC/NRR/DRIP/RLEP |
| To: | Lochbaum D A, Marion A Nuclear Energy Institute, Union of Concerned Scientists |
| Hoffman, S T, NRR, 415-3245 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML051250245 (7) | |
Text
May 5, 2005Mr. Alex MarionMr. David LochbaumSenior Director, EngineeringUnion of Concerned Scientists Nuclear Generation Division1707 H Street, NW, Suite 600 Nuclear Energy InstituteWashington, DC 20006-3919 1776 I Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708
SUBJECT:
STAFF RESPONSE TO "INDUSTRY POSITION PAPER ON THE INTERIMSTAFF GUIDANCE PROCESS" - RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 18, 2005
Dear Messrs. Marion and Lochbaum:
By letter dated December 12, 2003, we issued our final guidance document related to theinterim staff guidance (ISG) process. By letter dated February 13, 2004, you submitted a series of questions and requested clarifications on the process. NRC staff responses to theseinquiries were enclosed by letter on July 21, 2004. By letter dated February 18, 2005, you enclosed an Industry Position Paper discussing the application of 10 CFR 54.37(b). The NRC staff maintains its position on the effect of § 54.37(b), which requires that updates ofthe Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) pursuant to 10 CFR 50.71(e) include "any systems,structures, and components (SSCs) newly identified that would have been subject to an aging management review or evaluation of time-limited aging analyses in accordance with § 54.21."
§ 54.37(b) also requires that "[t]his FSAR update must describe how the effects of aging will bemanaged such that the intended function(s) in § 54.4(b) will be effectively maintained during theperiod of extended operation." It remains the staff's position, as explained in the "Responses toNuclear Energy Institute Questions on the 'Process for Interim Staff Guidance Developments and Implementation'," dated July 21, 2004, that after a renewed license is issued, § 54.37(b)requires the licensee to assess newly identified SSCs and manage their aging, if necessary, without the staff's performance of a backfit analysis. The requirement stems from application of the rule language itself, and therefore does not constitute a new requirement or a new interpretation that could be considered a backfit.
A. Marion and D. Lochbaum Furthermore, § 54.37(b) does not limit how "newly identified" SSCs are found; rather, any entitymay identify such SSCs. Therefore, should the NRC staff identify (through an interim staffguidance) an SSC as needing an aging management review to comply with § 54.21, all holders of renewed licenses affected by this SSC would then be obligated by the requirements of
§ 54.37(b) to take appropriate action leading to an update of the FSAR with respect to that SSC.The Statement of Consideration (SOC) for the rule as originally promulgated in 1991 supportsthis view. It states at 56 Fed. Reg. 64966:The Commission continues to believe that a special provision in 10 CFR part 54 that would impose backfit-style requirements on the agency is not needed. ... Any additional requirements to address age-related degradation unique to license renewal that are necessary to ensure compliance with the plant's current licensing basis may be imposed without regard to cost. This is analogous to the "compliance exemption" in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(I). The NRC need not prepare a separate document explaining the basis for such a conclusion.The SOC for the 1995 revision of the rule similarly supports the staff's position. The 1995 SOCstates at 60 Fed. Reg. 22483-84: For newly identified [SSCs] that would have required either an agingmanagement review or a time-limited aging analysis, the final rule requires that the licensee describe in the periodic FSAR update how the effects of aging will be managed to ensure that [SSCs] performtheir intended function during the period of extended operation.Two commenters to the 1995 rule revision suggested that the level of detail required by § 54.37(b) was greater than and inconsistent with the level of detail required in the FSARsupplement required by § 54.21(d). However, the Commission emphasized that the level ofdetail required by § 54.37(b) is appropriate since newly identified SSCs would not have been reviewed as part of the renewal application. 60 Fed. Reg. at 22484. Therefore, detailing thenewly identified SSCs in FSAR updates would assure that licensees have considered relevant technical information regarding the aging effects of these SSCs. Including newly identified SSCs in FSAR updates would also establish appropriate administrative and regulatory controls on the programs that manage their aging.
Id.
A. Marion and D. Lochbaum- 3 -In summary, § 54.37(b) requires the holder of a renewed license to include newly identifiedSSCs in updated FSARs, as well as to describe how the effects of aging will be managed forsuch SSCs. A reading of the 1991 and 1995 SOCs for the Part 54 rule confirms the staff's position that it may impose the requirements of § 54.37(b) without conducting a backfit analysis. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Steve Hoffman at 301-415-3245.Sincerely,/RA/Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program DirectorLicense Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationProject No.: 690 cc w/encls: See next page
ML051250245Document Name: E:\Filenet\ML051250245.wpd OFFICEPM:RLEPLA:RLEPOGC:NLO(w/comments)SC:RLEPPD:RLEPNAMESHoffmanYEdmondsDReddickKChang (S. Hoffman for)PTKuoDATE05/02/0504/29/0505/02/0505/02/0505/05/05 NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE Project No. 690
cc:Mr. Joe Bartell U.S. Department of Energy NE-42 Washington, DC 20585Ms. Christine S. Salembier CommissionerState Liaison Officer Department of Public Service 112 State St., Drawer 20 Montipelier, VT 05620-2601Mr. James Ross Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I St., N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708Mr. William CorbinVirginia Electric & Power Company Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Blvd.
Glen Allen, VA 23060Mr. Frederick W. PolaskiManager License Renewal Exelon Corporation 200 Exelon Way Kennett Square, PA 19348Peter A. MazzaferroSite Project Manager - License Renewal Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC
P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093Mr. David LochbaumUnion of Concerned Scientists 1707 H St., NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006-3919Mark AckermanProject Manager, License Renewal FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company
P.O. Box 4 Route 168 (Mail Stop BV-SGRP)
Shippingport, PA 15077Mr. Paul GunterDirector of the Reactor Watchdog Project Nuclear Information & Resource Service
1424 16 th St., NW, Suite 404Washington, DC 20036Mr. Hugh JacksonPublic Citizen's Critical Mass Energy &
Environment Program 215 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Washington, DC 20003Mary OlsonNuclear Information & Resource Service Southeast Office P.O. Box 7586 Asheville, NC 28802 Talmage B. ClementsManager - License Renewal Progress Energy P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602Mr. Charles R. PierceManager - License Renewal Southern Nuclear Operating Company P. O. Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201Mr. Garry G. YoungManager, License Renewal Services 1448 SR 333, N-GSB-45 Russellville, AR 72802Richard J. GrumbirProject Manager, License Renewal Indiana Michigan Power Company Nuclear Generation Group 500 Circle Drive Buchanan, MI 49107 NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE Project No. 690
cc:Mr. Timothy E. Abney, Manager Licensing and Industry Affairs Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority P.O. Box 2000 Decatur, AL 35609Mr. James E. Knorr6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241 DISTRIBUTION: Letter to A. Marion and D. Lochbaum, Re: Staff response to letter dated2/18/05, Dated: May 5, 2005ADAMS Accession No.: ML051250245HARD COPYRLEP RFE-MAIL:RidsNrrDripRidsNrrDe G. Bagchi K. Manoly W. Bateman J. Calvo R. Jenkins P. Shemanski J. Fair RidsNrrDssa RidsNrrDipm D. Thatcher R. Pettis G. Galletti C. Li K. Winsberg (RidsOgcMailCenter)
R. Weisman M. Mayfield A. Murphy S. Smith (srs3)
S. Duraiswamy Y. L. (Renee) Li RLEP Staff
C. Julian M. Modes J. Vora L. Kozak D. Reddick