ML092330784

Applicant'S Motion for Summary Disposition of New York State Contention 8 (Electrical Transformers)

ML092330784
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	08/14/2009
From:	Bessette P, O'Neill M Entergy Nuclear Operations, Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, RAS-E-272
Download: ML092330784 (157)

Text

DOCKETED

ýA-3 9oqý USNRC August 14 2009 (3:05pm)

OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ADJUDICATIONS STAFF NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDO0

)

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) )

.)

APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF NEW YORK STATE CONTENTION 8 (ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS)

Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.

William C. Dennis, Esq.

COUNSEL FOR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC August 14, 2009 w-&7Ký -AT- - 0 S7 (03

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1. PRELIM INARY STATEM ENT .................................................................................. 1 II. STA TEM EN T O F FA CTS ............................................................................................ 3 A. Submittal and Admission of Contention NYS-8 ....................... 3 B. Transformer Operation and Transformer Properties .......................................... 5 C. Ongoing Monitoring and Maintenance of Indian Point Transformers .............. 7 D. The AMR Scoping and Screening Requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 54 ............. 8 E. Entergy's Scoping and Screening of Electrical SSCs in the LRA ..................... 9

1. The LR A Scoping Process ...................................................... ................... 9

2. The LRA Screening Process ................................................................. 12 F. The NRC Staff's Safety Evaluation Report ...................................................... 13 III. STATEM EN T OF THE ISSUE ................................................................................... 14 IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................... 15 A. Legal Standards for Summary Disposition ...................................................... 15 B. Legal Standards for License Renewal ............................................................. 17 V. AR GU M EN T ................................................................................................................... 19 A. NYS's Allegation that the LRA Improperly Excludes an AMP for Transformers Presents No Genuine Issue of Material Fact ............................ 20

1. Transformers Perform Their Intended Function Through a Change in State and Are More Similar to the Component Examples Listed in 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1) as Excluded from Aging Management Review .............................................................................................. . . 21

2. The NRC Staff s Long-Standing Interpretation of 10 C.F.R.

§ 54.21(a)(1)(i) and Associated Regulatory Practice Confirms That Transformers Are Properly Excluded from Aging Management Review Under the License Renewal Rule .......................................... 24 B. NYS's Allegations that Failure to Properly Manage Aging of Transformers Could Result in Beyond-DBA Accidents and Loss of Emergency Power Present No Genuine Issue of Material Fact ....................... 29 C. NYS's Allegation that Entergy Has Excluded "Switchyard Transformers" from the Scope of License Renewal Presents No Genuine Issue of M aterial F act ................................................................................................. . . 29 V I. C ON C L U S IO N ................................................................................................................ 30 i

UNITED STATES oF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDO1 (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) )

)

) August 14, 2009 APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF NEW YORK STATE CONTENTION 8 (ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS)

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ("Entergy" or "Applicant") hereby requests that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("Board") grant summary disposition, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.1205, in favor of Entergy on New York State ("NYS") Contention 8 ("NYS-8"). As admitted, NYS-8 alleges that Entergy's license renewal application ("LRA") for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 ("IP2" and "IP3") improperly excludes an aging management program ("AMP") for each electrical transformer in IP2 and IP3 required for compliance with 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.48 and 50.63.1 The record in this proceeding and the expert declarations accompanying this Motion demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that Entergy is entitled to a See New York State Notice of Intention to Participate and Petition to Intervene (Nov. 30, 2007) ("NYS Petition"); Entergy Nuclear Operations,Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3), LBP-08-13, 68 NRC 43, 89, 218 (2008). 10 C.F.R. § 50.48, "Fire protection," sets forth the NRC's fire protection requirements for operating nuclear power plants. 10 C.F.R. § 50.63, "Loss of all alternating current power,"

requires operating nuclear power plants to "be able to withstand for a specified duration and recover from a station blackout as defined in § 50.2" and specifies other related requirements. Id. § 50.63 (a)(1).

decision in its favor as a matter of law.2 Neither NYS nor its technical consultant has provided any information or analysis to support the allegation that transformers "function without moving parts or without a change in configuration or properties" and, therefore, require an AMP under 10 C.F.R. Part 54.-

As shown below, NYS's allegation is conclusory and unfounded. Indeed, it is untenable in view of established legal and technical principles. In brief, for those plant-specific systems, structures, and components ("SSCs") within the scope of license renewal, 10 C.F.R.

§ 54.21 (a)(1)(i) excludes from aging management review ("AMR") those structures and components that perform their intended functions through "a change in configuration or properties." In implementing this provision, the Commission stated unequivocally that "a change in configuration or properties should be interpreted to include a change in state."4 It is uncontroverted, as a technical matter, that all transformers perform their intended functions through changes in their voltage and current properties; i.e., "a change in state." Therefore, because transformers perform their intendedfunctions through a change in state, they are properly excluded from the AMR requirements in Part 54, and no AMP is required.

In fact, the exclusion of transformers from AMR under Part 54 is a settled and long-standing NRC Staff position, and consistent with the regulatory intent of the License Renewal Rule and directly apposite Commission guidance. Moreover, it is manifest in formal Staff This Motion is supported by (1) a Statement of Material Facts as to which Entergy asserts there is no genuine dispute; (2) the declaration of Roger Rucker, Engineering Consultant to Entergy License Renewal Services; (3) the declaration of John Craig, Senior Nuclear Safety Consultant, Talisman International, LLC (and former Director, NRC License Renewal and Environmental Review Directorate); and (4) and the declaration of Dr.

Steven Dobbs, Electrical Engineering Consultant, Dobbs & Associates Engineering, Inc. The Motion and supporting expert declarations cite four exhibits that also are appended hereto.

NYS Petition at 103; see also New York State Reply in Support of Petition to Intervene at 58 (Feb. 22, 2008)

("NYS Reply").

See Final Rule, Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal; Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. 22,461, 22,477 (May 8, 1995)

("1995 Part 54 Revisions") (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added), attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

The 1995 Part 54 Revisions also are referred to herein as the Statement of Consideration ("SOC").

2

communications, NRC guidance, and the Staff s prior review and acceptance of LRAs for over 50 nuclear power units to date. As such, no evidentiary hearing is needed to resolve NYS-8.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Submittal and Admission of Contention NYS-8 This proceeding concerns Entergy's application, submitted to the NRC on April 23, 2007, to renew the operating licenses for IP2 and IP3 for 20.years beyond their current expiration dates of September 9, 2013 and December 12, 2015, respectively. On November 30, 2007; NYS filed a petition to intervene in the associated adjudicatory hearing. Therein, NYS proffered several contentions challenging various aspects of Entergy's LRA, including NYS-8.-

NYS-8 alleged that the LRA violates 10 C.F.R. §§ 54.21(a) and 54.29 because it does not include an AMP for each electrical transformer whose proper function is important for plant safety.- NYS claimed that the management of these transformers is within the scope of license renewal because transformers allegedly perform their safety function "without moving parts or without a change in configuration or properties." 2 NYS further claimed that a failure to properly manage these transformers "may" compromise (1) the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary; (2) the capability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition; or (3) the ability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents.- Finally, citing a September 21, 2007 draft request for additional information ("D-RAI"), NYS alleged that the Staff had identified certain transformers "for which [sic] AMP should be provided but which are not included in the LRA.,, 2 NYS claimed that "the DRAI indicates that switchyard 5 NYS Petition at 103-05.

6 Id. at 103.

_ Id.

B Id at 103-04.

2 Id. at 105; see also NYS Reply at 59-60.

3

transformers... are within the scope of [AMR] and are 'within the scope of the [license renewal]

0 rule."1 As support, NYS relied principally on the declaration of Mr. Paul Blanch.11 Of the 31 paragraphs comprising Mr. Blanch's declaration, only four relate to NYS-8.2 With regard to the operation of transformers, Mr. Blanch's declaration states that "[t]ransformers function without moving parts or without a change in configuration or properties as defined in that regulation. `13 Notably, his declaration contains no technical justification for this claim.

On July 31, 2008, the Board admitted NYS as a party to this proceeding.1 4 Among other contentions, the Board admitted NYS-8, which, as admitted, alleges that: "Entergy has not proposed an AMP for each electrical transformer in IP2 and IP3 required for compliance with 10 10 NYS Reply at 60 (quoting October 16, 2007 Memorandum Confirming September 21, 2007 D-RAI, Encl. 2. at 10, available at ADAMS Accession No. ML072770605).

-' See Declaration of Paul Blanch (Nov. 28, 2007) ("Blanch Decl.").

12 With respect to transformers, Mr. Blanch's declaration (¶¶ 21-24) states, in its entirety, as follows:

21. There are numerous Electrical Transformers that perform a function described in

§§ 54.4(a)(I)/(2) and (3). Transformers function without moving parts or without a change in configuration or properties as defined in that regulation.

22. Failure to properly manage aging of Electrical Transformers may compromise:

a. The integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary;,

b. The capability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition; or

c. The capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents which could result in potential offsite exposures comparable to those referred to in

§§ 50.34(a)(1), 50.67(b)(2), or § 100.11 of this chapter, as applicable. 10 C.F.R. §§ 54.4(a)(1)(2) and (3).

23. The consequence of failures of Electrical Transformers may result in accidents beyond the Design Basis Accidents resulting in exposures to the public exceeding 10 C.F.R. § 100 limits.

24. Failure to properly manage aging of electrical transformers could result in loss of emergency power to the 480 volt safety equipment and 6.9kV busses including station blackout loads. Appendix A, Page A-35 of the UFSAR supplement describes a Structures Monitoring Program that includes a program for monitoring "transformer/switchyard support structures" yet there is no [sic]

APM described for transformers within the scope of 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1)(i).

SId. at¶21.

14 Indian Point,LBP-08-13, 68 NRC at 89, 217.

4

C.F.R. §§ 50.48 and 50.63. This does not include transformer support structures. "-' Thus, as admitted, NYS-8 focuses on the application of the AMR requirements of Part 54 to a single type of component; i.e., the electrical transformer.

B. Transformer Operation and Transformer Properties As Dr. Dobbs explains in his declaration, all transformers, irrespective of their size or specific application, are based on two fundamental scientific principles.-6 First, an alternating electric current flowing through a wire will produce a magnetic field.17 Second, a changing magnetic field within a coil of wire will produce a voltage across the ends of the coil.18 The alternating current that flows through the "primary" winding establishes a time-varying magnetic flux (i.e., the strength of the magnetic field is continuously increasing or decreasing), some of which links or "couples" with the "secondary" winding and induces an alternating voltage across that coil."9 If the secondary winding is connected to a load and current is allowed to flow into that load, then power will be transferred to that load.L° Thus, the "very essence" of a transformer is the process by which it accepts voltage and current at an input and then "transforms" that voltage 15 Id. at 218.

16 Declaration of Steven E. Dobbs in Support of Entergy's Motion for Summary Disposition of New York State Contention 8 at ¶9 7, 21 ("Dobbs Decl."). IP2 and IP3, like other nuclear plants, contain numerous types of transformers, including, for example, instrument transformers, load center transformers, small distribution transformers, large power transformers, isolation transformers, coupling capacitor, and voltage transformers.

See Declaration of Roger B. Rucker in Support of Entergy's Motion for Summary Disposition of New York State Contention 8 at ¶ 17 ("Rucker Decl.").

17 Dobbs Decl. at ¶ 7.

I_ Id.

19 Id. at ¶T 9, 11. Dr. Dobbs describes the fundamental mathematical principles governing transformer operation in his declaration. See id. at ¶%10-15.

2o Id at T 14; see also Declaration of John W. Craig in Support of Entergy's Motion for Summary Disposition of New York State Contention 8 at IT 21-22 ("Craig Decl.").

5

and current to different values at its output(s).-1 A transformer performs its intended function by stepping down voltage from a higher to a lower value, stepping up voltage from a lower to a higher value, or providing isolation to a load. 22 The voltages and currents associated with a transformer are integral properties of a transformer.23 Without voltage and current, there is no transformer operation.24 The voltages, current, and the associated magnetic field all must vary in time to achieve transformer operation.-5 Moreover, the voltage and currents vary whenever load conditions change.26 These principles apply equally to all transformers-from the smallest electronic unit to the largest 27 distribution transformer.

Furthermore, these integral properties can be monitored while the transformer is performing its intended function and provide an indication as to the operational health of a transformer.-8 For example, all transformers have internal losses that result in heating of the unit.-9 A normally functioning transformer will stabilize at a temperature dependent on its environment.3- The temperature of a transformer or its infrared signature, which changes with load, can be monitored to verify proper operation.31 As such, the voltages, currents, and heat 21 Dobbs Decl. at ¶ 6.

22 Craig Decl. at ¶ 26. For example, in the IP2 and IP3 turbine buildings, when 6.9 kV 60-cycle AC voltage is applied to the primary coil of the station service transformers, a 480-volt AC at 60-cycle voltage is created on the secondary coil, so secondary or output current is higher than the primary or input current. See id. at ¶ 22.

23 Dobbs Decl. at ¶ 16.

24 Id.

Id. at ¶22.

26 Id.

27 Id. at ¶21.

SId. at ¶25.

29 Id. at¶ 26.

i0 Id.

31 Id.

6

signature of transformer are all properties that are peculiar to a given unit, change as the transformer performs its intended function, and are readily monitorable.32 C. Ongoing Monitoring and Maintenance of Indian Point Transformers All transformers at IP2 and IP3 are governed by the above-described scientific principles.

Thus, potential degradation of the ability of a transformer to perform its intended function is monitorable by changes in the electrical performance of the transformer and/or its associated circuits.33 In fact, certain transformers are directly and continuously monitored at IP2 and IP3 through instrumentation provided to detect degrading conditions.-4 Station operators monitor the in-service performance of instrumented transformers, including those necessary for compliance with 10 C.F.R. § 50.48 and 50.63.3-5 If voltage conditions exceed defined acceptable ranges, then an alarm condition will be sounded automatically to alert operators tothe condition.36 These indicators or alarms appear on supervisory panels in the IP2 and IP3 control rooms or on individual transformer panels that are checked during frequent operator rounds.37 Station procedures require corrective actions if transformer performance is outside of acceptable ranges.38 Established station procedures, which are included in activities such as personnel training and quality assurance audits, and subject to periodic NRC inspection, require appropriate corrective actions when monitored transformer performance does not meet acceptable ranges. 39 32 Id. at 27.

L3 Rucker Decl. at I 19.

L4 Id. at 1119-20.

L_5 Id. at $ 20.

36 Id.

L Id.

L8 Id.

L9 Id.

7

Additionally, Entergy has implemented, as part of the current licensing bases ("CLBs")

for IP2 and IP3, preventive maintenance, inspection, and surveillance programs and procedures to manage "active" systems and components, including transformers required for compliance with 10 C.F.R. § 50.48 and 50.63.4o These programs and procedures, some of which are necessary to comply with the NRC's Maintenance Rule (10 C.F.R. § 50.65), are intended to identify and correct potential degradation (including aging) issues associated with active systems and components. Instrument checks, functional tests, and calibration functional tests, among other methods, are used at IP2 and IP3.4 1 As at other NRC-licensed plants, the data and information from such tests and performance monitoring programs is analyzed and trended to provide an indication of potential aging degradation for these electrical components.42 D. The AMR Scoping and Screening Requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 54 Two of the principal steps in the development of an LRA are (1) identification of the SSCs within the scope of the License Renewal Rule (also known as "scoping") and (2) identification of the structures and components subject to AMR based on their intended functions (also known as "screening").43 Section 54.4 defines the plant SSCs within the scope of the License Renewal Rule based on their intended functions.44 The "scoping" phase requires the licensee to identify all plant SSCs that are safety-related or whose failure could affect safety-4o Id. at ¶¶ 19, 21. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 54.33(d), these CLB programs and procedures would continue during the period of extended operation. Id. at ¶ 19.

Id. at¶21.

42 Id.

'L Id. at ¶ 6. These two steps are discussed in greater detail in NUREG-1800, Revision 1, "Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants" at §§ 2.1 and 2.2 (Sept. 2005)

("SRP-LR").

'44 Rucker Decl. at ¶ 6.

8

related functions, or that are relied on to demonstrate compliance with specific NRC regulations.4 Section 54.21(a)(1) limits the'structures and components "subject to an aging management review" to those structures and components that "perform an intended function...

without moving parts or without a change in configuration or properties"(also known as "passive" structures and components).46 Section 54.21(a)(1) excludes from AMR those structures and components that (1) perform an intended function with moving parts or a change in configuration or properties or (2) are replaced based on a qualified life or specified time period.47 The identification of the subset of components subject to AMR is commonly referred to in license renewal applications as "screening.'"48 The objective of screening is to determine if components in the scope of license renewal are subject to AMR.49 Components subject to AMR are subsequently reviewed to determine whether applicable aging effects require some form of aging management to meet the requirements of Part 54.50 E. Entergy's Scoping and Screening of Electrical SSCs in the LRA

1. The LRA Scoping Process During the license renewal scoping process, Entergy used a bounding approach for plant electrical and instrumentation and control ("I&C") systems and componentsi-1 Specifically, the bounding approach included in the scope of license renewal all plant electrical and I&C systems 4 Id.

46 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1)(i) (emphasis added); Rucker Deci. at ¶ 8.

47 Rucker Decl. at ¶ 8; see also SRP-LR at § 2.1.3.2.2. Structures and components that are not replaced based on qualified life or specified time period are referred to as "long-lived" components. Rucker Deci. at ¶ 8.

• 48 Rucker Decl. at ¶¶ 6, 9; see also SRP-LR at § 2.1.3.2.

49 Rucker Decl. at ¶ 9.

1o Id.

51Id. at¶7 10.

9

(as well as electrical and I&C components in mechanical systems).52 This bounding method eliminates the need for unique identification of every electrical and I&C component and its specific location, and assures that components are not improperly excluded from the scope of license renewal.i3 Consequently, Entergy included in the scope of license renewal all plant electrical equipment, including all plant transformers.54 Importantly, this encompasses all transformers that perform a function necessary to demonstrate compliance with the NRC regulations identified in 10 C.F.R. § 54.4(a)(3), including 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.48 and 50.63.L' LRA Tables 2.2-1 b-IP2 and 2.2-lb-IP3 list the electrical and I&C systems within the scope of license renewal for IP2 and iP3, respectively.56 In addition to plant electrical systems, Entergy included in the scope of license renewal certain switchyard components that restore offsite power following a station blackout ("SBO")

event.L7 The offsite power sources that support SBO recovery actions are those that supply the IP2 and IP3 station auxiliary transformers and gas turbine autotransformers.L8 The offsite power recovery path thus includes these transformers, the switchyard circuit breakers supplying the 52 Id.

L Id.; see also SRP-LR at 2.5-1 to 2.5-2. The NRC's SRP-LR states that "[tihe applicant may use the 'plant spaces' approach in scoping electrical and I&C components for license renewal," and that this approach "provides efficiencies in the AMR of electrical equipment located within the same plant space environment."

Specifically, under "plant spaces" approach, an applicant may indicate that all electrical and I&C components located within a particular plant area ("plant space"), such as the containment and auxiliary building, are within the scope of license renewal. SRP-LR at 2.5-1, 2.5-4.

L Rucker Decl. at ¶ 11.

L Id.

56 Id.; Exh. 2, LRA at 2.2-12 to 2.2-14.

L7 Rucker Decl. at ¶ 12; Exh. 2, LRA at 2.5-1. See also LRA Figures 2.5-2 and 2.5-3 (IPEC Offsite Power Recovery Diagrams for IP2 and IP3, respectively). Figures 2.5-2 and 2.5-3 were revised on March 24, 2008 and November 16, 2007, respectively in response to Staff requests for additional information. The revised versions of these figures are included in Exhibit 2. An SBO is defined as "the complete loss of alternating current (ac) electric power to the essential and nonessential switchgear buses in a nuclear power plant (i.e., loss of offsite electric power system concurrent with turbine trip and unavailability of the onsite emergency ac power system)." 10 C.F.R. § 50.2.

58 Rucker Decl. at ¶ 12; Exh. 2, LRA at 2.5-2; LRA Figures 2.5-2 and 2.5-3.

10

transformers, the circuit breaker-to-transformer and transformer-to-onsite electrical distribution 59 interconnections, and associated control circuits and structures.

Entergy's scoping for SBO recovery is consistent with NRC regulations and guidance, in which the Staff has indicated that the plant system portion of the offsite power system should be included within the scope of license renewal.6° Entergy has clarified' and confirmed this point in response to RAIs from the NRC Staff, including in its response to the final version of the D-RAI 2.5-1 cited by NYS in support of NYS-8.61 Accordingly, by including in scope for license renewal the SBO recovery paths from the offsite power system or grid connection to the plant systems, Entergy included in scope the "switchyard transformers" alluded to in NYS-8.

In summary, as described in the LRA, Entergy used a comprehensive bounding approach to scoping for electrical and I&C equipment. On-site electrical systems and electrical equipment in mechanical systems-including all transformers-are, by default, included in scope for license renewal. Additionally, switchyard components (including transformers) that restore offsite power following an SBO are included within the scope of license renewal.

L Rucker Decl. at ¶ 12; Exh. 2, LRA at 2.5-2.

60 Rucker Decl. at ¶ 13. See Letter from David B. Matthews, Director, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, NRC, to Alan Nelson, Nuclear Energy Institute,

Subject:

Staff Guidance on Scoping of Equipment Relied on to Meet the Requirements of the Station Blackout (SBO) Rule (10 CFR 50.63) for License Renewal (10 CFR 54.4(a)(3)) (Apr. 1, 2002), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML020920464. The Staff has determined that the plant system portion of the offsite power system that is used to connect the plant to the offsite power source should be included within the scope of the rule. According to the Staff, "[t]his path typically includes the switchyard circuit breakers that connect to the offsite system power transformers (startup transformers), the transformers themselves, the intervening overhead or underground circuits between circuit breaker and transformer and transformer and onsite electrical distribution system, and the associated control circuits and structures." Id. at 2. See also SRP-LR at 2.1-9, 2.5-2 to 2.5-3.

See NL-07-138, Letter From Fred Dacimo, Entergy, to NRC Document Control Desk,

Subject:

Reply to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Renewal Application, Att. 1 at 20-24 (Nov. 16, 2007)

(responding to final RAI 2.5-1) ("November 16, 2007 RAI Response"), availableat ADAMS Accession No. ML073320225; NL-09-079, Letter From Fred Dacimo, Entergy, to NRC Document Control Desk,

Subject:

Reply to Request for Additional Information Regarding Offsite Power, Refueling Cavity, and Unit 2 Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Room Fire Event Att. 1, at 1-5, available at ADAMS Accession No. ML091750166 (June 12, 2009).

11

2. The LRA Screeningz Process In accordance with Section 54.21(a), Entergy conducted a screening process to determine which in-scope electrical structures and components are subject to AMR.6-- As part of screening, Entergy grouped the total population of in-scope electrical components into component types, and these component types were compared to NEI 95-10, Appendix B ("Typical Structure, Component and Commodity Groupings and Active/Passive Determinations for the Integrated Plant Assessment") to identify passive component types.3 The passive component types were identified as commodity groups, which include similar electrical and I&C components with common characteristics.64 Entergy then identified component-level intended functions of the commodity groups.- As Entergy examined these intended functions, certain commodity groups were eliminated from further review based on the criteria in 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1)(i) and the implementing guidance in NEI 95-10, Appendix B.66 Entergy identified two passive electrical and I&C commodity groups as meeting the Section 54.21 (a)(1)(i) criterion; i.e., components that perform an intended function without moving parts or without a change in configuration.-7 Those commodity groups are (1) high voltage insulators and (2) cables and connections, bus, electrical portions of electrical and I&C 62 Rucker Decl. at ¶ 14.

Id. at ¶ 15; NEI 95-10, Industry Guideline for Implementing the Requirements of 10 CFR Part 54 - The License Renewal Rule, Revision 6 (June 2005), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML051860406. The portion of NEI 95-10, Appendix B relevant to electrical components and commodity groupings is attached as Exhibit 3. NEI 95-10 provides NRC-approved guidance for screening to identify the passive and long-lived structures and components that support an intended function. See Regulatory Guide 1.188, "Standard Format and Content for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses," Revision 1, at 7 (Sept. 2005),availableat ADAMS Accession No. ML051920430, which endorses Revision 6 of NEI 95-10 (stating that NEI 95-10 "provides methods that the NRC staff considers acceptable for complying with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 54 for preparing a license renewal application.")

64 Rucker Decl. at ¶ 15; Exh. 2, LRA at 2.5-2.

L65 Rucker Decl. at ¶ 15; Exh. 2, LRA at 2.5-2.

66 Rucker Decl. at ¶ 15 67 Id. at ¶ 16.

12

penetration assemblies, fuse holders outside of cabinets of active electrical systems and components.- For ease of discussion and comparison to NUREG-1801, Vol. 1, Table 6,L these two commodity groups were further divided into the component types and commodity groups listed in page 2.5-2 of the LRA.7° LRA Table 2.5-1 lists the specific component types or commodity groups that are subject to AMR along with their intended functions.L-Thus, consistent with NRC-approved guidance and the underlying regulations, Entergy determined that all other electrical and I&C commodity groups are active and are not subject to AMR, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 54.21.72 Those other active electrical and I&C commodity groups include transformers.L3 Specifically, as reflected in Appendix B to NEI 95-10, transformers (e.g., instrument transformers, load center transformers, small distribution transformers, large power transformers, isolation transformers, coupling capacitor, voltage transformers) are not part of a commodity group subject to AMR in accordance with 10 C.F.R.

§ 54.21(a)(1)(i).74 Table 2.1-5 of the SRP-LR also indicates that transformers are not passive structures and components subject to AMR under Section 54.21 (a)(l)(i).75 F. The NRC Staff's Safety Evaluation Report The NRC Staff published its Final Safety Evaluation Report for the LRA on August 12, 2009.16 Therein, the Staff concluded that Entergy had adequately identified the electrical and 68 Id.; LRA, Exh. 2, LRA at 2.5-2.

69 See NUREG- 1801, Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report, Rev. 1 (Sept. 2005) (i. e., GALL Report).

70 Rucker Deci. at ¶ 16; Exh. 2, LRA at 2.5-2.

71 Rucker Decl. at ¶ 16; Exh. 2, LRA at 2.5-4.

72 Rucker Decl. at ¶ 17.

M Id L4 Id.; Exh. 3, NEI 95-10, App. B at B-14.

L' Rucker Decl. at ¶ 17; SRP-LR at 2.1-23 (Table 2.1-5, Item 104).

76 Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Aug. 12, 2009) ("Final SER").

13

I&C component commodity groups within the scope of license renewal, as required by 10 C.F.R.

§ 54.4(a), and those subject to AMR, as required by 10 CFR 54.21(a)(1).! The Staff did not conclude that any IP2 or IP3 transformers are subject to AMR, or that an AMP is required for transformers, under 10 C.F.R. Part 54. As discussed below, this determination is fully consistent with 10 C.F.R. § 54.21 and the Staff s long-standing position that transformers constitute active components that are not subject to AMR.

III. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE As admitted by the Board, NYS-8 raises a discrete and narrow issue. Specifically, the Board admitted NYS-8

[T]o the extent that it questions the need for an AMP for safety-related electrical transformers that are requiredfor compliance with 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.48 and 50.63. We note that 10 C.F.R.

§ 54.21(a)(1)(i) lists components that require AMPs and also excludes other components that do not require AMPs. In addressing this contention, the Board will require, inter alia, representations from the parties to help us determine whether transformers are more similar to the included, or to the excluded, component examples.-

In so ruling, the Board cited the need for a "legally binding justification to exclude transformers from AMR beyond an apparent similarity to other components that have been excluded by 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1)(i)," and an "explanation on how a transformer changes its configuration or properties in performing its functions.'"'9 This Motion and the supporting expert declarations appended hereto provide the explanation sought by the Board, including the "legally binding justification to exclude transformers from AMR" under the license renewal rule.

77 See id § 2.5.1.3 at 2-225; Rucker Decl. at ¶ 18. Section 2.5 of the Final SER also contains a detailed discussion of the scoping and screening results for IP2 and IP3 electrical and I&C systems. See Final SER at 2-220 to 2-225.

78 Indian Point, LBP-08-13, 68 NRC at 89 (emphasis added).

79 Id. at 89. In its contention admissibility ruling, the Board explicitly noted that "transformer support structures" are excluded from the scope of admitted NYS-8. See id. at 89, 218.

14

IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS A. Legal Standards for Summary Disposition Motions for summary disposition are available in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart L proceedings.00 Such motions "may be submitted to the presiding officer by any party no later than forty-five (45) days before the commencement of hearing."-s Section 2.1205 governs the submission of motions for summary dispositionE2 and directs the Board to apply the standards for summary disposition in Subpart G of Part 2.13 Specifically, Section 2.710(d)(2) states that

"[t]he presiding officer shall render the decision sought if the filings in the proceeding...,

together with the statements of the parties and the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law."

Section 2.7 10(d)(1) explicitly authorizes the Board to consider a summary disposition motion if "its resolution will serve to expedite the proceeding if the motion is granted." Indeed, the NRC's hearing rules "long have allowed summary disposition in cases where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and where the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law."'4 Summary disposition is not simply a "procedural shortcut"; rather, it is designed "to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action," and should 8o 10 C.F.R. § 2.1205.

Id. § 2.1205(a). The Board has not established a specific deadline for filing dispositive motions. As the commencement of the hearing has not yet been established, this motion is timely.

82 10 C.F.R. § 2.1205.

Id. § 2.1205(c).

84 CarolinaPower & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), CLI-01-1 1, 53 NRC 370, 384 (2001)

(internal quotation marks omitted); Advanced Med Sys., Inc. (One Factor Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041), CLI 22, 38 NRC 98, 102-03, reconsiderationdenied, CLI-93-24, 38 NRC 187 (1993) (affirming Licensing Board ruling granting NRC Staff's motion for summary disposition in an enforcement proceeding to impose a civil penalty on the licensee and reversing the Board's disposition of one violation).

15

be granted when appropriate.85 In this regard, "[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.",86 Initially, the burden of proof is on the movant, and "the evidence submitted must be construed in favor of the party in opposition thereto, who receives the benefit of any favorable inferences that can be drawn."8' 7 However, "if the movant makes a proper showing for summary disposition, and if the party opposing the motion does not show that a genuine issue of material fact exists, the Board may summarily dispose of all arguments on the basis of pleadings.,, 88 "To preclude summary disposition, when the proponent has met its burden, the party opposing the motion may not rest upon 'mere allegations or denials', but must set forth specific facts showing 90 that there is a genuine issue."'8 9 Thus, "[b]are assertions or general denials are not sufficient."

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986) (citations omitted) (holding that the moving party was "entitled to a judgment as a matter of law" because the nonmoving party had failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of its case with respect to which it has the burden of proof); see also Crow Butte Res., Inc. (License Renewal for In Situ Leach Facility, Crawford, Nebraska), CLI-09-09, 69 NRC __,

slip. op. at 37-38 (May 18, 2009) (recently directing the Board, sua sponte, to grant the applicant's pending motion for summary disposition of an admitted contention because "in our view summary disposition. . . is appropriate"); Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-01-39, 54 NRC 497, 509 (2001) (stating that summary disposition "is a useful tool for resolving ... in short order those contentions that ... are shown by undisputed facts to have nothing to commend them").

86 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (emphasis added).

87 See Duke Cogema Stone & Webster (Savannah River Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility), LBP-05-04, 61 NRC 71, 79 (2005) ("DCS") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (granting the applicant's motion for summary disposition of a contention challenging its probabilistic seismic hazard analysis).

88 Advanced Med. Sys., CLI-93-22, 38 NRC at 102; see also N. States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 241, 242 (1973), aff'd sub. norn. BPIv. AEC, 502 F. 2d 424 (D.C. Cir. 1974) ("It remains for [the intervenor] to establish, to the satisfaction of the Board which has been convened to conduct the hearing, that a genuine issue actually exists. If the Board is not so satisfied, it may summarily dispose of the contention on the basis of the pleadings.").

89 AdvancedMed Sys., CLI-93-22, 38 NRC at 102 (emphasis added).

2o Id. at 102. Although the opposing party does not need to show that it would prevail on the issues, it must at least demonstrate that there is a genuine factual issue to be tried. Id If it does controvert any material fact properly set out in the statement of material facts that accompanies a summary disposition motion, then that fact will be deemed admitted. Id. at 102-03.

16

Rather, the opposing party must "present contraryevidence that is so significantly probative that it creates a material factual issue."1 "[I]n the face of persuasive affidavits in support of a motion for summary disposition, an opponent of the motion runs a high risk of defeat if he fails.to produce persuasive rebuttal affidavits.'"2- Importantly, "[c]onflicting expert opinions.., do not necessarily preclude summary disposition."93 "[T]he nonmoving party and its expert, in opposing summary disposition, must clearly and thoroughly explain the basis for the expert's opinion.4" They cannot defeat summary disposition by presenting "subjective belief or unsupported speculation.'"9 The Board need not consider documents merely quoted or cited in support by the opposing party without a competent affidavit.96 B. Legal Standards for License Renewal NYS-8 challenges the sufficiency of Entergy's LRA, as judged under the applicable license renewal requirements contained in 10 C.F.R. Part 54. Those requirements are based on two well-established principles.97 The first principle is that, with the exception of age-related 91 Id. at 102 n.13 (citing Pub. Serv. Co. offN H. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-92-8, 35 NRC 145, 154 (1992)) (emphasis added); see id at 103 ("When the movant has satisfied its initial burden and has supported its motion by affidavit, the opposing party must either proffer rebutting evidence or submit an affidavit explaining why it is impractical to do so.").

92 CarolinaPower & Light Co. .(Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-7, 19 NRC 432, 435 (1984) (emphasis added).

9 DCS, LBP-05-04, 61 NRC at 81.

94 Id at 81 (emphasis added). In opposing summary disposition, "expert opinion is admissible only if the affiant is competent to give an expert opinion and only if the factual basis for that opinion is adequately stated and explained in the affidavit." Id.

25 Id. at 80 (quoting Daubertv. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589-90 (1993)); see also United States v. Various Slot Machines on Guam, 658 F.2d 697, 700 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that "in the context of a motion for summary judgment, an expert must back up his opinion with specific facts" in an affidavit).

96 Shearon Harris, LBP-84-7, 19 NRC at 435-36 (stating that "quotations from or citations to [the] published work of researchers [or experts] who have apparently reached conclusions at variance with the movant's affiants" are insufficient); see also FirstNat'l Life Ins. Co. v. CaliforniaPac.Life Ins. Co., 876 F.2d 877, 881, reh 'g denied en banc, 887 F.2d 1093 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding that unswom documents need not be considered).

9- See Exh. 1, 1995 Part 54 Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,463-64.

17

degradation unique to life extension for certain passive and long-lived structures and components, the existing NRC regulatory process is adequate to ensure that currently-operating plants will continue to maintain adequate levels of safety during the period of extended operation.98 The second principle is that each plant's CLB is required to~be maintained during the renewal term in the same manner and to the same extent as during the original licensing term.99 Thus, the overriding purpose of the license renewal requirements is to identify any additionalactions an applicant/licensee will need to take to maintain the functionality of the structures and components for the period of extended operation.- Accordingly, the Commission has limited its license renewal safety review to the matters specified in 10 C.F.R. §§ 54.21 and 54.29(a)(2), which focus, in relevant part, on the management of aging of passive and long-lived structures and components.1-1 In revising Part 54 in 1995, the Commission underscored its intent to "fully integrate the maintenance rule and the license renewal rule."1°2 The Maintenance Rule, 10 C.F.R. § 50.65, was issued in July 1991 and became effective in July of 1996.-l3 The main purpose of the Maintenance Rule is to require monitoring of the overall continuing effectiveness of licensee maintenance programs to ensure that (1) safety-related and certain nonsafety-related SSCs are capable of performing their intended functions; (2) for nonsafety-related equipment, failures will 2- Id. at 22,464.

19 Id.

100 See Fla.Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3, .7 (2001) (stating that the "potential detrimental effects of aging that are not routinely addressed by ongoing regulatory oversight programs" are the focus of the NRC's safety review in license renewal proceedings).

101 See Turkey Point, CLI-01-17, 54 NRC at 8; Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),

CLI-02-26, 56 NRC 358, 363 (2002).

10_z2 Craig Decl. at ¶ 18; Exh. 1, 1995 Part 54 Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,471.

10o3 See Final Rule, Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants, 56 Fed. Reg. 31,306 (July 10, 1991), as amended, 58 Fed. Reg. 33,996 (June 23, 1993).

18

not occur that prevent the fulfillment of safety-related functions; and (3) failures resulting in scrams and unnecessary actuations of safety-related systems are minimized.104 Noting that "the intent of the license renewal rule and the maintenance rule is similar (ensuring that the detrimental effects of aging on the functionality of important [SSCs] are effectively managed)," the Commission "determined that the license renewal rule should credit existing maintenance activities and maintenance rule requirements for most structures and components."0 5 The Commission also found that there was"sufficient basis for concluding that current licensee programs and activities, along with the regulatory process, will be adequate to manage the effects of aging on the active functions of all [SSCs] within the scope of license renewal during the period of extended operation so that the CLB will be maintained."'106 Accordingly, "structures and components that perform active functions can be generically excluded from an [AMR] on the basis of performance or condition monitoring programs.17 Conversely, "structures and components within the scope of the license renewal rule that perform passive intended functions" are subject to AMR under Part 54.108 V. ARGUMENT As shown below, NYS-8 raises no genuine issue as to any material fact and should be summarily dismissed. The contention is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Part 54 requirements, and the technically untenable premise that "[t]ransformers function without 10-4 Craig Decl. at ¶ 18; 10 C.F.R. § 50.65(b)(1)-(2). NRC conducts inspections on a routine basis to verify licensee compliance with the Maintenance Rule. If performance problems arise, corrective action requirements of 10 C.E.R. Part 50, Appendix B, and the Maintenance Rule require effective corrective actions to preclude recurrence of the failure. See Exh. 1, 1995 Part 54 Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,470.

-o_5 Craig Decl. at ¶ 19; Exh. 1, 1995 Part 54 Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,471.

10-6 Craig Decl. at ¶ 19.; Exh. 1, 1995 Part 54 Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,471 (emphasis added).

10-7 Craig Decl. at ¶ 19; Exh. 1, 1995 Part 54 Revisions, 60 Fed, Reg. at 22,477 (emphasis added).

108 Craig Decl. at ¶ 19; Exh. 1, 1995 Part 54 Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,477.

19

moving parts or without a change in configuration."'"°9 Contrary to NYS's claim, transformers do not "meet the functional requirements of systems for which aging management programs may be required" under the License Renewal Rule.1-° NYS has provided "nothing to commend" NYS-8 for further litigation."' The contention should be dismissed.

The attached expert declarations support this conclusion. In brief, Dr. Dobbs demonstrates that transformers perform their intendedfunction through a readily-monitorable "change in state." This scientific fact is incontrovertible. Mr. Craig, former Director of the NRC's License Renewal and Environmental Project Directorate, explains that the conclusion that transformers are active components and not subject to AMR is a long-standing NRC Staff position-and fully consistent with the Commission's clear regulatory intent that a "change in state" be considered a "change in configuration or properties.112 Therefore, no AMP is required.

A. NYS's Allegation that the LRA Improperly Excludes an AMP for Transformers Presents No Genuine Issue of Material Fact NYS claims that "transformers function without moving parts or without a change in configuration or properties" and, therefore, require an AMP under Part 54.L113- This conclusory assertion finds no support in NYS's pleadings or Mr. Blanch's associated declaration. Neither the contention nor the declaration contains any discussion of the intended function of an electrical transformer, or how a transformer performs its intended function.' 4 In fact, NYS-8 ignores a key principle established by the Commission itself: "a change in configuration or 1o09 NYS Petition at 103 (emphasis added).

1l10_ NYS Reply at 58.

-L1-1 PrivateFuel Storage, LBP-01-39, 54 NRC at 509.

11-.2 Exh. 1, 1995 Part 54 Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,477 (internal quotation marks omitted).

L13 NYS Petition at 103; Blanch Decl. at ¶ 21.

L14 Craig Decl. at ¶ 20; Exh. 1, 1995 Part 54 Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,477.

20

properties" includes "a change in state.'11 5 Nor has NYS offered a scintilla of evidence to support. its erroneous belief that transformers perform their intended function without undergoing a change in configuration or properties. Summary disposition of NYS-8 plainly is warranted.

1. TransformersPerform Their Intended Function Through a Change in State and Are More Similar to the Component Examples Listed in 10 C.F.R.

. 54.21(a)(1) as Excluded from Aging Management Review Applying the criteria of 10 C.F.R. § 54.21 (a)(1) and the elucidative principles set forth by the Commission in the 1995 Part 54 Revisions to the science of transformer operation, Dr. Dobbs concludes that "all transformers are properly excluded from AMR under § 54.21(a)(1)(i)." 1-6 As he explains, all transformers, regardless of type, size, or application, are active components because they perform their intended functions through a change in state.m117 The voltages, currents, and heat signature of a transformer are all "integral properties" of a transformer that are peculiar to a given unit, change as the transformerperforms its intendedfunction, and are readily monitorable.1 l-8 Simply put, "a transformer cannot perform its intended function without changes 119 in voltage and current properties."

As Dr. Dobbs further explains, the Commission has defined "active functions" as those that can be "directly measured or observed," and "passive functions" as those that must be verified indirectly.120 The integral properties of a transformer (voltage and current) can be 1 Craig Deci. at ¶ 20; Exh. 1, 1995 Part 54 Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,477.

11-6 Dobbs Decl. at ¶ 52.

1*7 Id. at 77 17, 21,22, 27, 31, 35, 49, 52.

8 Id. at ¶7 16, 27, 31.

11_9- Id. at ¶ 22; see also Craig Deck. at T 23.

L2-0 Id. at TT 40, 45; Exh. 1, 1995 Part 54 Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,471.

21

directly measured. 121 Therefore, a transformer-regardless of its size or specific application-performs an active function and is properly excluded from AMR.12__ 2 Consistent with the Board's request, Dr. Dobbs further explains that transformers are more similar to the components listed in 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1)(i) as excluded from AMR.123 Those excluded items include transistors, batteries, breakers, relays, switches, power inverters, battery chargers, and power supplies. 124 The ability of these items to perform their intended functions is directly indicated by one or more measurable properties, and their serviceability "is 125 determined by making direct measurements while the items perform their intended function."

Of the items listed in 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1)(i), Dr. Dobbs concludes that "the closest match to a transformer is a transistor," which is excluded from AMR.126 Like a transformer, a transistor has no moving parts.-27 This fact alone, however, does not render it a "passive" component.128 A transistor performs its intended function by receiving voltage and current at an input and providing a different voltage and current at an output. 29 Therefore, as in the case of a transformer, the input/output and currents are integral properties of a transistor and change as the transistor performs its intended function. 130 12-1 Dobbs Decl. at IT 24-27, 35, 45, 50.

12_'2 Id. at ¶47.

12-3 Id. at 77 31-32, 49.

-L24 Id. at¶ 33; 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1)(i).

125 Dobbs Deci. at ¶¶ 33, 51; see also Craig Decl. at ¶16.

12_6- Dobbs Deci. at 77 34-35, 50.

127 Id. at ¶35.

128 Id 129 Id.

13-0 Id. at 77 34-35 22

In contrast, those items listed as subject to AMR perform their intended functions in a way that cannot be directly verified by monitoring of a measurable property.-3 These items include, among others, the reactor vessel, pressure boundaries, piping, component supports, penetrations, electrical cables, and electrical cabinets.m Indirect measurements, tests, and observations must be used to predict the serviceability of the item based on an analysis of this secondary information. 1-33 The ability of a pipe to perform its intended function (e.g., conveying water), for instance, is determined by measuring the thickness of its wall and observing it for signs of corrosion. 134 In summary, the intended function of any transformer is to induce voltage in a separate electrical circuit. This induced voltage only exists when the transformer is performing its intended function.13-5 Thus, a transformer can perform its intended function only through changes in state; i.e., changes in voltage and current properties 6- These changes, moreover, may be directly measured during transformer function. 137 For these reasons, transformers are properly excluded from AMR under 10 C.F.R. § 54.21 (a)(1)(i). 138 Neither NYS nor Mr. Blanch provide any information to support a contrary conclusion, including the technically untenable

-L3-' Id. at ¶ 32;see also Craig Decl. at ¶ 15.

13-2 Dobbs Decl. at ¶ 32; 10 C.F.R. § 54.2 l(a)(1)(i).

1L33 Dobbs Decl. at ¶ 32; Craig Decl. at ¶ 15. As Mr. Craig explains, the intended function performed by those structures and components listed in 10 C.F.R. § 54.2 1(a)(1)(i) as subject to AMR is static; i.e., the intended function is to maintain physical configuration and properties. Craig Decl. at ¶ 10. Aging degradation is not readily monitored for these components on an ongoing basis. Id. Additionally, these passive structures and components perform their intended functions without the application of an external force or input, and without a change of configuration, properties, or state. Id.

13-4 Dobbs Decl. at ¶ 32.

13-5 Dobbs Decl. at ¶ 16 ("Without voltage and current, there is no transformer operation.").

13-6 Id. at ¶¶ 22, 31.

137" Id. at ¶ 51.

13_8 Id at ¶ 52.

23

statement that transformers function "without a change in configuration or properties," which the 39 Commission has made clear includes a "change in state."'

2. The NRC Staff's Long-StandingInterpretationof 10 C.F.R. 6 54.21(a)(1)(i) and Associated Regulatory Practice Confirms That TransformersAre Properly Excluded from Aging Management Review Under the License Renewal Rule NYS's claim that Entergy must provide an AMP for transformers is completely at odds with the long-settled NRC Staff position that transformers are not subject to AMR under Part 54 because they are active componentsL4°- When NEI first developed NEI 95-10 in the mid-1990s, it submitted that document to the NRC for review and endorsement.-41 In a related letter signed by the Director of the License Renewal Project Directorate, the NRC Staff discussed its views regarding the AMR requirements for certain electrical components. Of particular relevance here, the Staff explicitly recommended "revising Appendix B of NEI 95-10 to indicate that transformers ... do not require an aging management review."'142 The Staff explained that transformers, in particular, are not subject to AMR because:

Transformers perform their intended function through a change in' state by stepping down voltage from a higher to a lower value, stepping up voltage to a higher value, or providing isolation to a load. Transformers perform their intended function through a change in state similar to switchgear,-power supplies, battery chargers, and power inverters, which have been excluded in

§54.21(a)(1)(i) from an aging management review. Any degradation of the transformer's ability to perform its intended 13_9 NYS Petition at 103; Blanch Decl. at ¶ 21; see Exh. 1, 1995 Part 54 Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,477.

14-0 It is noteworthy that, after reviewing the applicant's and NRC Staff s pleadings in the PrairieIslandlicense renewal proceeding, the petitioner withdrew a similar proposed contention alleging the need for an AMP for each electrical transformer that has a safety-related function. Specifically, at oral argument, the petitioner stated that "we now recognize that it is an established NRC position" that transformers are active components and withdrew its contention. See Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-08-26, 68 NRC _, slip op. at 56 (Dec. 5, 2008) (citation omitted).

14-1 Craig Decl. at ¶ 25.

142 Id.; Letter from Christopher Grimes, Director, License Renewal Project Directorate, NRC, to Douglas J.

Walters, NEI, Determination of Aging Management Review for Electrical Components at 4 (Sept. 19, 1997)

("NRC 1997 Letter") (emphasis added), attached hereto as Exhibit 4. The NRC 1997 Letter also is included as Reference 2 in Appendix C to NEI 95-10, Revision 6.

24

function is readily monitorable by a change in the electrical performance of the transformer and the associated circuits.

Trending electrical parameters measured during transformer surveillance and maintenance such as Doble test results, and advanced monitoring methods such as infrared thermography, and electrical circuit characterization and diagnosis provide a direct indication of the performance of the transformer. Therefore, transformers are not subject to an aging management review. 143 NEI revised Appendix B to NEI 95-10 to incorporate the explicit recommendation of the Staff that transformers be excluded from AMR, because they do not qualify as passive and long-lived structures or components.144 In 2001, the NRC Staff endorsed Revision 3 of NEI 95-10 in Regulatory Guide 1.188. -45 Thus, since 1997, it has been the NRC Staff s formal, documented position that transformers are not subject to AMR under Part 54.

Importantly, when the Staff described its position regarding transformers in September 1997, it explicitly considered Commission guidance in the 1995 Part 54 Revisions discussion of "active" and "passive" components and structures.-146 The Staff expressly prefaced its discussion by stating "[w]hile § 54.21(a)(1)(i) excludes many electrical and I&C components from an

[AMR] for renewal, it also states that the exclusion is 'not limited to' only these components."'147 With this indisputable premise as a starting point, the Staff concluded that certain other electrical 14-3 Craig Decl. at ¶ 26; Exh. 4, NRC 1997 Letter at 2 (emphasis added).

-44 Craig Decl. at ¶ 27.

145 Id.; Regulatory Guide 1.188, "Standard Format and Content for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses" (July 2001). As noted above, the latest revision of NEI 95-10 is Revision 6, issued in June 2005. The latest revision of Regulatory Guide 1.188 is Revision 1, issued in September 2005. Although these and other guidance documents (including the SRP-LR) do not have the binding effect of regulations, they are entitled to "special weight," especially because they incorporate a formally-documented position reached by the Staff after careful consideration of the underlying rule and its regulatory history. See PrivateFuel Storage, L.L. C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-0 1-22, 54 NRC 255, 264 (2001) ("Where the NRC develops a guidance document to assist in compliance with applicable regulations, it is entitled to special weight.").

146 Craig Decl. at ¶ 26. Indeed, its September 19, 1997, response to NEI, the Staff stated: "This issue relates to the guidance provided in the [SOC] in which the Commission concluded that an aging management review is required for passive, long-lived structures and components within the scope of the license renewal rule." Exh.

4, NRC 1997 Letter at 1.

14-7 Exh. 4, 1997 NRC Letter at 1.

25

structures and components not specifically listed in Section 54.21(a)(1) also are excluded from AMR:

The Staff has considered the aging management review requirements for transformers ... with respect to the definitions, background, and specific electrical examples in the license renewal rule (circuit breakers, relays, motors, circuit boards, etc.). Based on the considerable discussionprovided in the rule and SOC, the staff compared the electrical components identified above with the examples explicitly provided in the rule in terms of how the performance of their intendedfunctions would be achieved and whether aging degradation of these components would be readily monitored using currently available techniques, in a similar way by which the examples in the rule (circuit breakers, relays, switches, etc.) would be monitored.148 Mr. Craig concludes that the Staff's position is fully consistent with the approach discussed by the Commission in the SOC accompanying the 1995 revisions to the License Renewal Rule.149 In the 1995 SOC, the Commission discussed what it meant by the use of the terms "active" and "passive" in the context of license renewal.L5- Distinguishing certain prior industry concepts of "passive" structures and components, the Commission developed its own "description of 'passive' characteristics of structures and components."'-51 To be considered "passive," the Commission clarified that a structure or component must (1) be susceptible to aging degradation that is not readily monitorable and (2) perform its intended function without moving parts or without a change in configurationor properties.1 52 Significantly, the Commission stated that "a change in configuration or properties should be interpreted to include 14-8 Id. at 1-2 (emphasis added). Craig Deci. at ¶7 8-19, 28-34, 37-38.

15_0 Id. at T$ 8-14; Exh. 1, 1995 Part 54 Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,476-78.

15-1 Craig Deci. at $ 10; Exh. 1, 1995 Part 54 Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,477.

15-2 Craig Deci. at T 9; Exh. 1, 1995 Part 54 Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,477.

26

a change in state,"'53 even though the term "change of state" is "sometimes found in the literature relating to 'passive."154 As an example, the Commission indicated that a battery is not passive because it changes its electrolyte properties during use.-55 Furthermore; the performance of a battery (supplying electric current and voltage) is readily monitorable and would not be considered "passive."156 Similarly, the Commission concluded that a transistor can "change its state," and therefore is not passive, even though it has no moving parts and does not chemically change.L57 The examples listed in 10 C.F.R. § 54.21 (a)(1) as excluded from AMR include, but are by no means limited to, pumps, valves, motors, diesel generators, air compressors, pressure indicators, pressure transmitters, relays, batteries, and power supplies.'15 8 The intended function performed by these structures and components is dynamic; i.e., it requires changes in their configuration, properties or state.1 -9 Moreover, these changes in the structures and components can be readily monitored. 160 For example, the output fluid pressure of a pump, the output voltage and frequency of a diesel generator, the air pressure of a compressor, the output signal of a pressure indicator, the output voltage of a battery, the electrical output of a power supply, the position of a valve, and the status or condition of a relay all can be readily monitored.61 L-'_ Craig Decl. at ¶ 14; Exh. 1, 1995 Part 54 Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,477 (internal quotation marks omitted).

1 -4 Exh. 1, 1995 Part 54 Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,477. Craig Deci. at ¶ 14; Exh. 1, 1995 Part 54 Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,477.

156- Craig Deci. at ¶ 16; Exh. 1, 1995 Part 54 Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,477.

157 Exh. 1, 1995 Part 54 Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,477.

158* Craig Decl. at ¶ 16; see also 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1)(i). As Mr. Craig explains, the Commission did not intend the list of AMR-excluded items in Section 54.21 (a)(1)(i), to be, exhaustive; rather, it anticipated that additional clarification and examples would be provided in NRC guidance documents. Craig Deci. at ¶ 17; Exh. 1, 1995 Part 54 Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,479. 9 Craig Decl. at ¶ 16.

160 Id.

161 Id.

27

In concluding that transformers are not passive components subject to AMR under Section 54.21(a)(1)(i), the Staff fully explained the technical and regulatory bases for its position. The Staff, thus, already has prepared and documented the explanation and justification sought by the Board relative to the exclusion of transformers from AMR. As Mr. Craig explains, the Staff has conveyed this position to the ACRS and the Commission and met with no objections. And, no less significantly, the Staff has consistently applied this position in every one of its approvals of a license renewal application since the very first application was submitted on April 10, 1998, for Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2.L63 Every subsequent LRA approved by the NRC similarly has concluded that transformers are not subject to AMR under 10 C.F.R. Part 54.164 In short, the conclusions reached by Dr. Dobbs and Mr. Craig are fully consistent with, and further corroborate, the settled NRC Staff position that transformers are active components because they function through a readily monitorable "change in state." Entergy's experts (and previously the Staff)-following explicit Commission guidance-have provided the "legally binding justification" sought by the Board to exclude transformers from AMR. The "subjective belief or unsupported speculation" of Mr. Blanch, in stark contrast, provides no basis for further 16-2 Id. at ¶¶ 29-3 1; see also SECY-01-0157, Rulemaking Issue (Negative Consent), License Renewal Rulemaking (Aug. 17, 2001), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML011990176; SRM-SECY-01-0157, Staff Requirements Memorandum, SECY-01-0157, License Renewal Rulemaking (Sept. 5, 2001), availableat ADAMS Accession No. ML012480330.

16-3 Craig Decl. at ¶ 28. The Calvert Cliffs LRA discussed the first integrated plantassessment, which concluded that electrical transformers (i) are in the scope of the license renewal as defined in Section 54.4, but (ii) are not subject to the AMR requirements of Section 54.21 (a)(1). Id. The NRC issued its safety evaluation report in December 1999, and the approved renewed licenses for Calvert Cliffs Units I and 2 in 2000. See NUREG-1705, Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, at 2-92, 2-98, 2-102 (Dec. 1999), availableat ADAMS Accession No. ML003674053.

164 Id. See Status of License Renewal Applications and Industry Initiatives, available at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ licensing/renewal/applications.html (containing previously-approved license renewal applications and the NRC's associated final safety evaluation reports).

28

proceedings on this clear-cut matter.-65 Accordingly, the Board should grant summary disposition of NYS-8 because there is no genuine issue of material fact.

B. NYS's Allegations that Failure to Properly Manage Aging of Transformers Could Result in Beyond-DBA Accidents and Loss of Emergency Power Present No Genuine Issue of Material Fact NYS and Mr. Blanch also assert that failure to manage aging degradation of transformers could result in beyond-DBA events (with offsite doses exceeding Part 100 limits) and a loss of 66 emergency power to the 480 volt safety and 6.9kV busses, including all station blackout loads.'

This assertion is immaterial. The Board admitted NYS-8 only "to the extent that it questions the needfor an AMP for safety-related electrical transformers that are required for compliance with 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.48 and 50.63."167 Consistent with the scope of Part 54, the Board admitted 68 NYS-8 insofar as raises a discrete aging-management issue; i.e., the alleged need for an AMP.1 As demonstrated above, such transformers do not require an AMP under Part 54. Accordingly, NYS's allegations regarding beyond-DBA events and loss of emergency power present no genuine issue of material fact.

C. NYS's Allegation that Entergy Has Excluded "Switchyard Transformers" from the Scope of License Renewal Presents No Genuine Issue of Material Fact Based on its review of a then-draft RAI, NYS also asserted that Entergy has improperly excluded unspecified "switchyard transformers" from the scope of license renewal. 169 This claim is without merit. As explained above, Entergy used a bounding approach to scoping for 16-5 DCS, LBP-05-04, 61 NRC at 80 (quoting Daubert,509 U.S. at 589).

166 NYS Petition at 104; Blanch Decl. at ¶¶ 22-24. Notably, in so asserting, NYS and Mr. Blanch merely paraphrase the language of 10 C.F.R. § 54.4(a), which sets forth the function-based criteria for determining which plant-specific SSCs are within the scope of Part 54. Compare NYS Petition at 103-04 and Blanch Decl.

¶ 20 with 10 C.F.R. § 54.4(a).

627 Indian Point,LBP-08-13, 68 NRC at 89 (emphasis added).

168- Compare NYS Petition at 103-04) and Blanch Decl. at¶ 20 with 10 C.F.R. § 54.4(a).

L69- NYS Petition at 105; NYS Reply at 59-60.

29

electrical and I&C equipment.17° All plant transformers were included in scope for license renewal. Entergy also included in the scope of license renewal switchyard components, including the associated transformers, which restore offsite power following an SBO.171 While included in-scope for license renewal, IP2 and IP3 transformers (including those required for compliance with the fire protection and SBO requirements of Sections 50.48 and 50.63) are active components and, accordingly, not subject to AMR under Part 54. Therefore, no AMP is required. NYS's allegation does not present a genuine issue of material fact.

VI. CONCLUSION As demonstrated above, the allegation that Entergy has improperly failed to provide an AMP for transformers necessary for compliance with 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.48 and 50.63 lacks merit.

All transformers are active components because they perform their intended function through a change in configuration or properties, which the Commission has explicitly stated should be interpreted to include "a change in state." They are not passive and long-lived structures or components and, therefore, are not subject to AMR under 10 C.F.R. Part 54. Therefore, an AMP is not required for any IP2 or IP3 transformers. NYS's claim to the contrary is entirely unsupported and without technical or legal basis. Accordingly, there is no genuine dispute of material fact to litigate. Contention NYS-8 should be dismissed as a matter of law.

170- Rucker Decl. at¶¶ 10-11; Exh. 2, LRA at2.2-1, 2.5-1.

17-1 Rucker Deci. at ¶¶ 12-13.

30

4N CERTIFICATION OF CONSULTATION UNDER 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b)

In accordance with 10 C.F.R. §2.323(b), counsel for Entergy discussed this Motion with counsel for NYS and counsel for the NRC Staff prior to its submittal. Entergy and NYS did not reach agreement on an acceptable means of resolving the matters raised in this Motion. NYS indicated that it appreciated the opportunity to consult with Entergy on this matter, but that it anticipated that NYS would oppose this Motion. The NRC Staff stated that it does not oppose this Motion.

Respectfully submitted, William C. Dennis, Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

440 Hamilton Avenue MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP White Plains, NY 10601 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Phone: (914) 272-3202 Washington, DC. 20004 Fax: (914) 272-3205 Phone: (202) 739-5738 E-mail: wdennis@entergy.com E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com Martin J. O'Nei, Esq.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1000 Louisiana Street Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 890-5710 E-mail: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com COUNSEL FOR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC, Dated in Washington, D.C.

this 14th day of August 2009 DB 1163260566 31

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDO1

)

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3))

._) August 14, 2009 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ("Entergy") submits this statement of undisputed materidl facts in support of its Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-8.

A. Transformer Operation and Transformer Properties

1. Transformer operation is based on two scientific principles. First, an electric current flowing through a wire will produce a magnetic field. Second, a changing magnetic field within a coil of wire will produce a voltage across the ends of the coil. Dobbs Decl. at ¶ 7. Thus, in its most basic form, a transformer is formed by winding two coils of wire around the same iron form, called a core. Id. at ¶ 9.

2. One of the coils of wire, the primary, if excited by an alternating current, will create a magnetic field around the wire. Because the wire is wrapped in a coil, the magnetism produced by each wrap of wire combines with the magnetic fields emanating from the other wraps to produce a strong magnetic field within the core. Id. at ¶ 9.

3. The alternating current that flows through the winding establishes a time-varying magnetic flux (i.e., the strength of the magnetic field is continuously increasing or decreasing),

some of which links or "couples" with the secondary winding and induces an alternating voltage across that coil. The magnitude of this voltage is proportional to the ratio of the number of turns on the secondary and primary coils. This is referred to as the "turns ratio." Id. at ¶¶ 9-11, 18.

4. If the secondary winding is connected to a load and current is allowed to flow into that load, then power will be transferred to that load. Thus, the essence of a transformer is the process by which it accepts voltage and current at an input and then "transforms" that voltage and current to different values at its output(s). Id. at T¶ 6, 14; Craig Decl. at TT 21-22.

5. A transformer performs its intended function by stepping down voltage from a higher to a lower value, stepping up voltage from a lower to a higher value, or providing isolation to a load. Dobbs Decl. at ¶ 18; Craig Decl. at ¶ 26.

6. The voltages and currents associated with a transformer are integral properties of a transformer. Without voltage and current, there is no transformer operation. The voltages, current, and the associated magnetic field all must vary in time to achieve transformer operation.

Moreover, the voltage and currents vary whenever load conditions change. Dobbs Decl. at TT 16, 21-22. Therefore, all transformers perform their intended functions through a change in state (i.e., changes in voltage and current properties). Id. at ¶ 52.

7. Neither the complexity of transformer design nor the occurrence of electrical and magnetic losses during operation alters these conclusions. These scientific principles apply equally to all transformers from the smallest electronic unit to the largest distribution transformer. Id. at ¶ 21.

8. The voltages, currents, and heat signature of a transformer are all properties that are peculiar to a given unit, change as the transformer performs its intended function, and are readily monitorable while the transformer is performing its intended function, providing an indication as to the operational health of a transformer. For example, the temperature of a transformer or its infrared signature, which changes with load, can be monitored to verify proper operation. Id. at TT 25-27.

B. Ongoing Monitoring and Maintenance of Electrical Transformers

9. The potential degradation of the ability of a transformer to perform its intended function is monitorable by changes in the electrical performance of the transformer and/or its associated circuits. Moreover, certain IP2 and IP3 transformers, including those necessary for compliance with 10 C.F.R. § 50.48 and 50.63, are subject to direct, ongoing surveillance, monitoring, maintenance, and inspection. Rucker Decl. at ¶ 19.

2

10. For certain transformers, particularly large power transformers, instrumentation is provided to detect degrading conditions. For example, if voltage conditions exceed defined acceptable ranges, then an alarm condition will be sounded automatically to alert operators to the condition (e.g., excessive load on transformer, transformer fault, undervoltage conditions).

These indicators or alarms appear on supervisory panels in the IP2 and IP3 control rooms or on individual transformer panels that are checked during frequent operator rounds. Established station procedures require appropriate corrective actions if transformer performance is outside acceptable ranges. Such procedures are included in activities such as personnel training and quality assurance audits, and subject to periodic NRC inspection. Id. at ¶ 20.

11. Entergy has implemented preventive maintenance, inspection, and surveillance programs and procedures to manage "active" systems and components, including transformers required for compliance with 10 C.F.R. § 50.48 and 50.63. These programs and procedures, some of which are necessary to comply with the NRC's Maintenance Rule (10 C.F.R. § 50.65),

are intended to identify and correct potential degradation (including aging) issues associated with active systems and components. These activities include, as appropriate, periodic cleaning and inspections of transformers, as well as instrument checks, functional tests, and calibration functional tests. The data and information from such tests and performance monitoring programs are analyzed and trended to detect potential degradation of transformer performance (e.g., a change in the electrical performance of the transformer or the associated circuits). Id. at ¶ 21.

C. The Scopina and Screening Requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 54

12. The NRC's License Renewal Rule (10 C.F.R. Part 54) for nuclear power plants is based on two well-established principles. First, with the exception of age-related degradation unique to life extension for certain passive and long-lived structures and cofniponents, the NRC regulatory process is deemed adequate to ensure that currently operating plants will continue to maintain adequate levels of safety during the period of extended operation. Second, each plant's current licensing basis ("CLB") is required to be maintained during the renewal term in the same manner and to the same extent as during the original licensing term. Final Rule, Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal; Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. 22,461, 22,464 (May 8, 1995).

13. NRC regulations require a license renewal applicant to (1) identify the structures, systems, and components ("SSCs") within the scope of 10 C.F.R. Part 54 and (2) identify the 3

structures and components subject to aging management review ("AMR") based on their intended functions. These two processes are commonly referred to, respectively, as "scoping" and "screening." Rucker Decl. at¶ 6; 10 C.F.R. §§ 54.4, 54.21.

14. The purpose of"scoping" is to identify all plant SSCs that are safety-related or whose failure could affect safety-related functions, or that are relied on to demonstrate compliance with the NRC regulations specified in 10 C.F.R. 54.4. Rucker Decl. at T 6.

15. The purpose of "screening" process is to determine which in-scope structures and components are subject to AMR. Rucker Decl. at TT 9, 14; 10 C.F.R. § 54.2 1(a)(1).

16. Part 54 excludes from the scope of AMR those structures and components that (1) perform their intended functions with moving parts or a change in configuration or properties or (2) are replaced based on qualified life or specified time period. Rucker Decl. at ¶ 8; 10 C.F.R.

§ 54.21(a)(1)(i)-(ii).

17. Only passive, long-lived structures and components within the scope of license renewal are subject to AMR. Passive structures and components are those that perform their function without a change in configuration or properties. Long-lived items are those that are not subject to replacement based on a qualified life or specified time period. Rucker Decl. at T 8; Craig Decl. at TT 9-10; 10 C.F.R. §54.21(a)(1)(i)-(ii); Final Rule, Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal; Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,477-78.

18. The Commission has stated that "a change in configuration or properties" should be interpreted to include "a change in state." Dobbs Decl. at ¶ 42; Craig Decl. at ¶ 14; 60 Fed.

Reg. at 22,477. Therefore, a structure or component that performs an "active" function, including one that can "change its state," is not subject to AMR. Dobbs Decl. at ¶ 44-45; Craig Decl. at ¶ 14, Final Rule, Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal; Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,477.

19. Part 54 lists examples of structures and components that are excluded from AMR because they perform "active" functions. The examples of AMR-excluded systems or components include, "but are not limited to," "pumps (except casing), valves (except body),

motors, diesel generators, air compressors, snubbers, the control rod drive, ventilation dampers, pressure transmitters, pressure indicators, water level indicators, switchgears, cooling fans, 4

transistors, batteries, breakers, relays, switches, power inverters, circuit boards, battery chargers, and power supplies." 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1)(i); Craig Decl. at T 16.

D. The "Scoping" Process as Applied to 1P2 and IP3 Transformers

20. During the scoping process, Entergy used a bounding approach for plant electrical and instrumentation and control ("I&C") systems and components by including in the scope of license renewal all plant electrical and I&C systems (as well as electrical and I&C components in mechanical systems). Consequently, Entergy included in the scope of license renewal all plant electrical equipment, including all plant transformers, including those that perform a function necessary to demonstrate compliance with 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.48 and 50.63. LRA Tables 2.2-1b-IP2 and 2.2-lb-IP3 list the electrical and I&C systems within the scope of license renewal for IP2 and IP3, respectively. Rucker Decl. at TT 10-11; LRA at 2.2-12 to 2.2-16.

21. In addition to the plant electrical SSCs, and in accordance with NRC guidance, Entergy included in the scope of license renewal switchyard components (including the ,

associated transformers) that restore offsite power following a station blackout ("SBO") event.

Rucker Decl. at TT 12-13; LRA at 2.5-1 to 2.5-2.

22. By using a bounding approach to scoping for electrical and I&C equipment, Entergy included in the scope of license renewal all electrical equipment, including all transformers that perform a function necessary to demonstrate compliance with 10 C.F.R.

§§ 50.48 and 50.63. Rucker Decl. at ¶1 11-13.

E. The "Screening" Process as Applied to IP2 and 1P3 Transformers

23. Entergy grouped the total population of in-scope electrical components into component types, and compared these component types to those in NEI 95-10, Appendix B to identify passive component types. The passive component types were identified as commodity groups, which include similar electrical and I&C components with common characteristics.

Entergy then identified component-level intended functions of the commodity groups. Rucker Decl. at 15; LRA at 2.5-2.

24. As Entergy examined the intended functions of these commodity groups, certain commodity groups and specific plant systems were eliminated from further review based on Section 54.21 (a)(1)(i). In conducting this process, Entergy followed NRC regulations and the 5

recommendations of NEI 95-10, "Industry Guideline for Implementing the Requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 54 - The License Renewal Rule," Revision 6 (June 2005). The NRC has endorsed this approach in Regulatory Guide 1.188, "Standard Format and Content for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses," Revision 1 (September 2005). Rucker Decl. at ¶¶ 14-15; LRA at 2.5-2.

25. Appendix B to NEI 95-10 indicates that transformers are not subject to AMR in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 54.21 (a)(1)(i) because they are "active" components. Table 2.1-5 of the NRC's Standard Review Plan for license renewal also indicates that transformers are not passive structures or components subject to AMR under 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(a)(i). Rucker Decl.

at ¶ 17; NUREG-1800, Revision 1, "Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants" at 2.1-23 (Table 2.1-5, Item 104) (Sept. 2005).

26. Entergy identified two passive electrical and I&C commodity groups as meeting the 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1)(i) criterion and, therefore, as subject to AMR. Those commodity groups are (1) high voltage insulators and (2) cables and connections, bus, electrical portions of electrical and I&C penetration assemblies, fuse holders outside of cabinets of active electrical systems and components. These two commodity groups were further divided into the component types and commodity groups listed on page 2.5-2 of the LRA. LRA Table 2.5-1 lists the specific component types or commodity groups that are subject to AMR along with their intended functions. Rucker Decl. at ¶ 16; LRA at 2.5-2 to 2.5-4.

27. Entergy determined that all other electrical and I&C commodity groups are active and, therefore, not subject to AMR. Those other active electrical and I&C commodity groups include transformers. Rucker Decl. at ¶ 17.

28. The NRC Staff published its Final SER for the IP2/IP3 LRA on August 12, 2009.

Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Aug. 12, 2009). The Final SER concludes that Entergy "has adequately identified the electrical and I&C component commodity groups components within the scope of license renewal, as required by 10 CFR 54.4(a), and those subject to an AMR, as required by 10 CFR 54.21(a)(1)." Id. at 2-225.

The Staff did not conclude that any IP2 or IP3 transformers are subject to AMR, or that an AMP is required for transformers, under 10 C.F.R. Part 54. Rucker Decl. at ¶ 18.

6

F. NRC Staff's Position on Whether Transformers Are Subiect to AMR

29. In a September 19, 1997 letter signed by the Director of the NRC's License Renewal Project Directorate, the NRC Staff recommended revising Appendix B of NEI 95-10 to indicate that transformers "do not require an aging management review." In reaching this conclusion, the Staff considered the discussion of active and passive components and structures in the Statement of Consideration ("SOC") accompanying the 1995 revisions to the License Renewal Rule. Craig Decl. at ¶T25-26; Letter from Christopher Grimes, Director, License Renewal Project Directorate, NRC, to Douglas J. Walters, NEI, Determination of Aging Management Review for Electrical Components (Sept. 19, 1997) ("NRC 1997 Letter").

30, In particular, the NRC Staff's 1997 Letter states:

Based on the considerable discussion provided in the rule and SOC, the staff compared [transformers] . . . with the examples explicitly provided in the rule in terms of how the performance of their intended functions would be achieved and whether aging degradation of these components would be readily monitored using currently available techniques, in a similar way by which the examples in the rule (circuit breakers, relays, switches, etc.) would be monitored.

Craig Decl. at ¶ 26; NRC 1997 Letter at 2.

31. The NRC Staff concluded in the 1997 Letter that "[t]ransformers perform their intended function through a change in state similar to switchgear, power supplies, battery chargers, and power inverters, which have been excluded in §54.21(a)(1)(i) from an aging management review," and that "[a]ny degradation of the transformer's ability to perform its intended function is readily monitorable by a change in the electrical performance of the transformer and the associated circuits." Craig Decl. at T 26; NRC 1997 Letter at 2.

32. NEI revised Appendix B to NEI 95-10 to incorporate the recommendation of the Staff that transformers be excluded from AMR, because they do not qualify as passive, long-lived structures or components. The NRC Staff endorsed NEI 95-10 in Regulatory Guide 1,188.

Craig Decl. at ¶ 27; Rucker Decl. at TT 14-15.

33. The Staff has conveyed this position to the Commission and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. Craig Decl. at ¶¶ 29-31. In SECY-01-0157, dated August 7

17, 2001, the Staff explicitly referred to transformers as "active components" that "are not subject to the license renewal requirements." Craig Decl. at ¶¶ 30-31; SECY-01-0157, Rulemaking Issue, License Renewal Rulemaking (Aug. 17, 2001).

34. In a Staff Requirements Memorandum issued on September 5, 2001, the Commission concurred with the Staff recommendation that no additional changes to Part 54 be pursued at that time. The Commission expressed no objection to the Staff's explicit characterization of transformers as "active components" that are not subject to AMR under Part

54. Craig Decl. at ¶ 32; Staff Requirements Memorandum, SECY-01-0157, License Renewal Rulemaking (Sept. 5, 2001), availableat ADAMS Accession No. MLO 12480330.

35. The NRC issued the first renewed operating licenses under Part 54, for Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2, on March 23, 2000. That application and every other license renewal application subsequently reviewed and approved by the NRC has reflected the determination that transformers are not subject to AMR under Part 54. Craig Decl. at ¶ 28, 34.

8

Respectfully submitted, William C. Dennis, Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

440 Hamilton Avenue MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP White Plains, NY 10601 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Phone: (914) 272-3202 Washington, D.C. 20004 Fax: (914) 272-3205 Phone: (202) 739-5738 E-mail: wdennis@entergy.com E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com Martin J. O'Nor'l, Esq.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1000 Louisiana Street Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 890-5710 E-mail: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com COUNSEL FOR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.

Dated in Washington, D.C.

this 14th day of August 2009 D13),/63153465 9

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDO1

)

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3))

_) August 12, 2009 DECLARATION OF STEVEN E. DOBBS IN SUPPORT OF ENTERGY'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF NEW YORK STATE CONTENTION 8 Steven E. Dobbs states as follows under penalties of perjury:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. I am a self-employed electrical engineering consultant. I hold a Professional Engineer (P.E.) license in the State of Arkansas.

2. My education and professional experience are summarized in the curriculum vitae attached to this declaration. I have over 35 years work experience, 16 years of which have been in the nuclear power industry. I hold a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree in Physics from Arkansas Tech University, a Master of Science (M.S.) degree in Electrophysics from George Washington University, and a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Electrical Engineering from the University of Arkansas.

3. I taught in the Engineering Department at Arkansas Tech University from 1977 until 1990. During that time period, I taught classes in Electrical Machinery that covered the theory and operation of transformers, motors, and generators. For a period of time, I directed the laboratory associated with that class. From 1990 to 2004, I worked as an electrical engineer,

I including Senior Staff Engineer, for Entergy Operations, Inc. at Arkansas Nuclear One, providing engineering support for computer and electronic systems throughout the plant.

4. I am familiar with New York State ("NYS") Contention 8 ("NYS-8"). As admitted into the proceeding by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, NYS-8 alleges: "The LRA for IP2 and IP3 violates 10 C.F.R. §§ 54.21(a) and 54.29 because it fails to include an aging management plan for each electrical transformer whose proper function is important for plant safety.'.' NYS argues that these transformers are subject to aging management review

("AMR") for license renewal because, by New York's account, transformers perform their safety function without moving parts and without a change in configuration or properties. That argument is erroneous.

5. My declaration addresses the nature and operation of transformers. I will demonstrate that transformers perform their intended function with a "change in configuration or properties" and, therefore, are properly excluded from AMR under 10 C.F.R. Part 54.

II. THEORY OF TRANSFORMER OPERATION

6. This section provides a simplified explanation of the scientific principles involved in transformer construction and operation. The overall purpose of the discussion is to demonstrate that the very essence of a transformer is the process by which it accepts voltage and current at an input and then "transforms" that voltage and current to different values at its output(s). Thus, the voltages and currents associated with a transformer, which change as the transformer performs its intended function, are tied to the transformer at such a basic level that they must be considered to be properties of the transformer. Moreover, these properties will be shown to change during transformer operation. Paragraphs 7 through 15 are a short explanation of the scientific and mathematical basis for transformer operation. The discussion beginning at paragraph 15 demonstrates how the voltage and current properties of a transformer change during operation.

7. The transformer is based on two scientific principles. First, an electric current flowing through a wire will produce a magnetic field. Second, a changing magnetic field within a coil of wire will produce a voltage across the ends of the coil.

8. A third scientific principle that affects the design of transformers is that magnetism is more easily induced into certain types of materials. The magnetic permeability, normally designated as ýt, is a measure of how easily a material is magnetized. The larger the value of [i, the easier it is to magnetize the material. Air has a very low magnetic permeability, whereas iron and steel have very high values of permeability. Thus, it requires less energy to create or maintain a magnetic field in iron or steel than in air.

9. In its simplest form, a transformer is formed by winding two coils of wire around the same iron form, called a core. An alternating current is used to excite the "primary" coil.

This current creates a magnetic field around the wire. Because the wire is wrapped in a coil, the magnetism produced by each turn or wrap of wire adds to the magnetic fields from the other wraps to produce a strong magnetic field within the core (i.e., the greater the number of turns around the iron core the greater the strength of the magnetic field). Because the core is iron and has a high permeability, the magnetism easily permeates the entire core. Because alternating current is used to drive the primary coil, the magnetic field produced in the core has a time-varying magnitude.

10. Farady's Law relates the voltage used to drive the current through the primary wire to the magnetic flux produced in the core by the equation:

Vp = Npd'y/dt where Vp is the voltage applied to the primary coil, Np is the number of turns of wire in the primary coil, and dt'iýis the time-changing magnetic field in the core produced by the current in the primary coil.

11. The time-varying magnetic flux created by the primary winding permeates the core. Because the secondary winding is wound around the same core, the changing magnetic field inside the core excites the secondary winding as well. Again, Faraday's Law expresses the relation between the changing magnetic flux in the core and the voltage produced at the winding terminals:

V N. d¢/at where Vs is the voltage created at the terminals of the secondary winding, N, is the number of turns of wire in the secondary coil, and is the time-changing magnetic field in the core produced by the current in the primary coil.

12. Because the equations depicted in paragraphs 10 and 11 both contain the identical term "/, they can be solved for that term and then set equal to each other to produce:

.7,,= V/u"

13. This equation can be rearranged to provide the classic transformer equation:

V/V, = ,-SN,,

14. If the secondary winding is connected to a load and current is allowed to flow into that load, then power will be transferred to that load. If the transformer is considered "lossless,"

then the power supplied by the primary winding will be equal to the power consumed by the load connected to the secondary. In equation form, the conservation of energy can be expressed as PPrimary= IpVp = IsVs = Psecondauy

15. Solving the equation in 14 for the ratio of the voltages leads to the following relation:

%/, -- /15 w here Vp is the voltage applied to the primary coil, Np is the number of turns of wire in the primary coil, Ip is the primary coil current, Vs is the voltage created at the terminals of the secondary winding, N, is the number of turns of wire in the secondary coil, and Is is the current in the secondary winding.

16. The equation in paragaph 15 is the mathematical statement of transformer operation. Without voltage and current, there is no transformer operation. Therefore, voltage and current are integral properties of a transformer.

17. As shown in the derivation of this equation, the voltages, currents, and the associated magnetic field all must vary in time to achieve transformer operation. Therefore, all voltages and currents associated with a transformer are alternating current ("AC") values, which vary continuously in time.

18. The following table shows how applying the results of the equation in paragaph 15 leads to the different types of transformers in common use:

Ratio) Vs in terms of Vp Is in terms of Ip Type of Transformer 10 10 Vp 0.1 Ip Step-up 1/10 0.1 Vp 10 Ip Step-down 1 Vp Ip Isolation if windings not electrically connected Thus, as the ratio of turns increases (i.e., there are relatively more secondary turns as compared to primary turns), the voltage at the terminals of the secondary winding increases. If the ratio exceeds one, voltage is stepped up at the secondary terminals. If the ratio is less than one, voltage is stepped down.

19. The following table shows an example of the AC voltages and currents in a typical step-up transformer having a turns ratio of 10 under various load conditions.

Load Condition Vp Vs IP Is 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 100 VAC 1000 VAC 500 AAC 50 AAC 1 100 VAC 1000 VAC 1000 AAC 100 AAC Thus, as the load increases at the primary terminals in a step-up configuration, the current output at the secondary terminals will increase in proportion to the increased load.

20. The table above (paragaph 19) demonstrates that the voltage and current properties of a transformer change depending on the load condition of the transformer.

21. The above discussion was based on the simplest possible transformer that was assumed to be "lossless." The basic principles, however, do not change by adding complexity to the design or by considering electrical and magnetic losses. That is to say, these same principles apply equally to all transformers from the smallest electronic unit to the largest distribution transformer. Neither the way the transformer is constructed nor the way in which it is used alters the principles and conclusions set forth herein. Consideration of losses will add variables and complexities to the calculations, but it will not change the underlying principles or the basic equations.

22. In summary, a transformer accepts voltage and current at an input and changes that voltage and current to some other value at its output(s). All of the voltages and currents must vary in time. The voltages and currents also vary whenever load conditions change.

Therefore, a transformer cannot perform its intended function without changes in its voltage and current properties.

III. PROPERTIES OF A TRANSFORMER

23. A transformer basically is a series of wire windings around some type of core.

The core usually is constructed of a material that has a high magnetic permeability, such as iron or steel. There can be many windings or as few as one. However, regardless of the number or arrangement of the windings, the basic transformer equation described in paragraph 15 above will be true.

24. The currents in the windings of a transformer are quantities that can be measured.

When a transformer is performing its intended function, currents will be present in some or all of the windings. The currents in the transformer windings will vary depending on the load placed on the transformer.

25. Voltage, current, and the winding turns ratios are all properties of a transformer.

These properties are easily monitored while the transformer is performing its intended function and provide an indication as to the operational health of the transformer.

26. All transformers have internal losses, which result in heating of the unit. A normally functioning transformer will stabilize at a temperature dependent on its environment.

The temperature of a transformer or its infrared signature can be monitored as a method of verifying proper operation. The heat signature of a transformer is a property that changes with load as the transformer operates.

27. The voltages, currents, and heat signature of a transformer are all traits that are peculiar to the unit, and all of these properties change as the transformer performs its intended function.

IV. DISCUSSION OF 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(A)(1)(I)

28. Section 54.21 (a)(1)(i) states, in pertinent part: "Structures and components subject to an aging management review shall encompass those structures and components--(i) that perform an intended function, as described in §54.4, without moving parts or without a change in configuration or properties."

29. Section 54.21(a)(1)(i) includes a list of structures and components that are subject to AMR, as well as a list of structures and components that may be excluded. It explicitly states that neither of these lists is all-inclusive.

30. Transformers do not appear in either list.

31. Based on the facts of Sections II and III above, voltage, current, and heat signature are all properties of a transformer. When the transformer changes from an idle state to an active state, the voltages and currents change. Also, the currents and heat signature will change with a variation of the load. Because transformers perform their intended function with a change in properties, they are excluded from an AMR according to the defining statement in

§ 54.21(a)(1)(i).

32. This conclusion is confirmed by comparing transformers to the examples on the included and excluded lists under § 54.21(a)(1)(i). The included list contains such items as the reactor vessel, pressure boundaries, piping, component supports, penetrations, electrical cables, and electrical cabinets. The common characteristic of all of these items is that each one's ability to perform its intended function cannot be directly verified by monitoring a measurable property.

Instead, indirect measurements, tests, and observations are used to predict the serviceability of the item based on an analysis of this secondary information. For example, the ability of a pipe to perform its intended function (e.g., transporting water) is monitored indirectly by, for example, periodically measuring the thickness of the pipe's wall and observing it for signs of corrosion.

33. By contrast, it is possible to directly measure performance of the intended function of all the items on the excluded list. The excluded list contains such items as motors, diesel generators, pressure transmitters, pressure indicators, transistors, batteries, breakers, relays, switches, power inverters, battery chargers, and power supplies. The serviceability of these items is determined by making direct measurements of the intended function of the items.

For example, the intended function of a power supply is to provide a specified current at a specified voltage. The ability of a power supply to perform its intended function can be verified by loading it to the desired current and then measuring the output voltage.

34. In studying these two lists, the closest match to a transformer is a transistor, which is found on the excluded list. A transistor has no moving parts. Its intended function is to receive voltage and current at an input and provide a different voltage and current at an output.

The properties of a transistor that change while it is performing its intended function are its input and output voltages and currents. The ability of a transistor to perform its intended function is directly indicated by monitoring these voltages and currents.

35. Like a transistor, a transformer has no moving parts. A transformer's intended function is to receive voltage and current at an input and provide a different voltage and current at one or more outputs. The properties of a transformer that change while it is performing its intended function are its input and output voltages and currents. The ability of a transformer to perform its intended function is directly indicated by monitoring these voltages and currents.

Because the transistor and transformer share these characteristics, a transformer also belongs on the excluded list.

V. THE 1995 STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE 1995 LICENSE RENEWAL RULE

36. The NRC publishes Statements of Consideration ("SOC") with rule changes. The SOC provides historical context and supplementary information that can be used to help interpret the intent of the License Renewal Rule. The SOC for the NRC's 1995 revisions to 10 C.F.R.

Part 54 is available at 60 Fed. Reg. 22,461 (May 8, 1995). See Exhibit 1.

37. SOC Section 11(4) states: "In § 54.21(a), the IPA [integrated plant assessment]

process has been simplified.... A simplified methodology for determining whether a structure or component requires an aging management review for license renewal has been delineated.

Only passive, long-lived structures and components are subject to an aging management review for license renewal." Exh. 1, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,463.

38. SOC Section III.a.(i) states: "The Commission still believes that mitigation of the detrimental effects of aging resulting from operation beyond the initial license term should be the focus for license renewal." Exh. 1, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,464.

39. SOC Section III.a.(i) later states: "The Commission has determined that it can generically exclude from the IPA aging management review for license renewal (1) those structures and components that perform active functions ..... " Exh. 1, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,464 (emphasis added).

40. SOC Section III.d.(v) ("Excluding Structures and Components With Active Functions") states: "Direct verification is practical for active functions such as pump flow, valve stroke time, or relay actuation where the parameter of concern (required function), including any design margins, can be directly measured or observed. For passive functions, the relationship between the measurable parameters and the required function is less directly verified. Passive functions, such as pressure boundary and structural integrity are generally verified indirectly, by confirmation of physical dimensions or component physical condition.... ." Exh. 1, 60 Fed.

Reg. at 22,471.

41. SOC Section III.f.(i) states: "The Commission has determined that passive structures and components for which aging degradation is not readily monitored are those that perform an intended function without moving parts or without a change in configuration or properties." Exh. 1, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,477.

42.Section III.f.(i) then states: "Further, the Commission has concluded that 'a change in configuration or properties' should be interpreted to include 'a change in state,' which is a term sometimes found in the literature relating to 'passive.' For example, a transistor can

'change its state' and therefore would not be screened in [as a passive component] under this description." Exh. 1, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,477.

VI. APPLICATION OF 1995 SOC PRINCIPLES TO TRANSFORMERS

43. The SOC makes clear that the purpose of license renewal is to identify those structures and components that might experience the detrimental effects of aging resulting from operation beyond the initial license term and that may not be adequately monitored by current programs and activities. Items to be included in a licensee's IPA are classified as "passive."

44. The SOC states that structures and components that perform "active" functions can be generically excluded from the IPA and, thus, from AMR.

45. The SOC defines "active functions" as those where the required function can be "directly measured or observed" and "passive functions" as those where the required function must be verified indirectly. The SOC makes clear that passive structures components do not include those which perform an intended function with a change in configuration or properties, which includes a "change in state."

46. The intended function of a transformer is to accept an input voltage and current, to transform it in some way, and then supply an output voltage and current to one or more loads.

All of the parameters of interest can be directly measured. The voltages and currents change as the transformer performs its intended function. Therefore, a transformer performs an active function and should be generically excluded from the IPA.

47. The fact that any transformer, regardless of size or application, is an active component means that all transformers equally should be excluded from the IPA.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

48. It is not possible to describe transformer operation without referring to the input and output voltages and currents. Therefore, these voltages and currents must be considered to be properties of a transformer.

49. The voltages and currents of a transformer change as the transformer performs its intended function. Therefore, transformers are excluded from the requirement of an AMR by the definition stated in § 54.21 (a)(1)(i).

50. Of all of the items listed in § 54.21 (a)(1)(i), transformers are most similar to transistors. Transistors are in the excluded list. Transformers likewise should be excluded from an AMR.

51. The SOC for § 54.21(a)(1)(i) provides additional background as to what should be included and excluded in an AMR. Items that are included are classified as "passive." Items that are excluded are classified as "active." Transformers should be classified as active because their required function (transforming voltages and currents) can be directly measured.

52. Because all transformers perform their intended function through a change in state (i. e., changes in voltage and current properties), all transformers are properly excluded from AMR under § 54.21 (a)(1)(i).

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on August 12, 2009.

Dr. Steven E. Dobbs, P.E.

Name: Steven E. Dobbs Current Position: Engineering Consultant, Dobbs & Associates Engr., Inc.

Education:

B.S. Physics, Arkansas Tech University 1971 M. S. Electrophysics, George Washington University 1975 Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, University of Arkansas 1983 Professional Certificates/Associations:

Arkansas Professional Engineer, Certificate Number 4931 General Class Radiotelephone Certificate Arkansas Academy of Electrical Engineering Employment History:

1979 to Present - Dobbs & Associates Engineering, Inc. Engineering consulting in electronics and computer applications. Primarily consulting with nuclear power plants since January 2007.

October 2006 to December 2006 - Research Associate at McMurdo Station, Antarctica.

Operated, maintained, and repaired multiple long-term computer-based geophysical experiments. Responded to PI requests as required.

October 2005 to May 2006 - Research Associate at Palmer Station, Antarctica. Operated, maintained, and repaired multiple long-term computer-based geophysical experiments.

Moved experiments from their old facilities to the new IMS (Terra Lab) building.

Responded to PI requests as required.

1990 to 2004 - Entergy Operations, Inc., Arkansas Nuclear One. Worked in Computer Support Group, Systems Engineering, and Design Engineering providing engineering support for computer and electronic systems throughout the plant. Progressed from Senior Engineer to Senior Lead Engineer to Senior Staff Engineer (highest engineering grade). Formed the Electronics Resource Group in 1999. This group deals with electronics issues at multiple Entergy nuclear plants.

1977 to 1992 - Arkansas Tech University, Engineering Department. Taught classes in Engineering, Computer Science, and Management Science. Developed curriculum in Digital Electronic Systems. Helped department gain accreditation by ABET.

Progressed from Instructor to Assistant Professor to Associate Professor to Professor of Engineering (highest academic grade).

1974 to 1977 - Central Intelligence Agency, Office of ELINT. Worked in the area of Electronic Intelligence collection. Spent 1976-1977 at a remote collection site in Iran providing engineering support for high tech electronic signal intercept equipment.

1971 to 1973 - Central Intelligence Agency, Office of Scientific Intelligence. Prepared estimates of the nuclear capabilities of the communist block countries. Invented a statistically based computer program for estimating fissile material production at gaseous diffusion plants. Held both Top Secret and Q clearances.

Specific Areas of Experience:

.Programming Experience:

FORTRAN, PLM, COBOL, RPG, BASIC, Paradox (PAL), LabVIEW, C on industrial class single board computers, RSLogix 5000 ladder logic (Allen Bradley Control Logix)

• ASSEMBLER

• Motorola 6800, Zilog Z-80, Intel 8085, Motorola 68000, HP 21MX, 68HC 11 Operating Systems Experience:

• CPM, DOS, Windows, Isis II, HP 21MX, Linux Applications Experience:

• Word, Excel, Access, Powerpoint, Outlook, Paradox, ORCAD, TurboCAD, Visio, AutoCAD, and others too numerous to mention Hardware Experience:

• Maintained and repaired wide-band tape recorders, antenna systems, and radio receivers.

• Designed, equipped, and set-up college level electronics laboratories. Wrote experiments and ran laboratory sessions. Repaired equipment when necessary.

Ensured that these laboratories met ABET accreditation standards. Laboratories included all of the following: Circuits I, Circuits II, Electronics, Digital Systems Design, Motors and Generators, Auto-CAD, Senior Design Project.

Configured and repaired S-100/CPM computers.

• Repaired printers

• Configured and built computer systems from S-100 through Pentium.

• Interfaced serial and parallel computer equipment.

• Designed, built, and programmed a single board computer with monitor type operating system.

• Designed, built, and programmed a real-time EKG heart arrhythmia detector.

• Designed, built, and programmed a security transaction unit including a Weigand wire badge scanner and keypad. All units networked to central security system.

Helped in design of spent fuel crane control system. Wrote the entire controlling program in ladder logic.

Designed and built several electronic assembly replacements for obsolete nuclear plant equipment including relay modules, power supplies, 7-segment displays, computer I/O interfaces, etc.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDO1

)

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3))

._) August 12, 2009 DECLARATION OF ROGER B. RUCKER IN SUPPORT OF ENTERGY'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF NEW YORK STATE CONTENTION 8 Roger Rucker states as follows under penalties of perjury:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. I am an electrical engineering consultant who provides technical services to Entergy's License Renewal Services Division at the Arkansas Nuclear One office. I am the License Renewal Electrical Lead for a number of Entergy nuclear power plant license renewal projects, including Entergy's effort to renew the operating licenses for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 ("IP2" and "IP3").

2. My education and professional experience are summarized in the curriculum vitae attached to this declaration. I have over 19 years of work experience, most of which has been in the nuclear power industry. I hold a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Arkansas. I am a licensed Professional Engineer (P.E.) in the State of Arkansas. I am the Entergy representative for the Nuclear Energy Institute ("NEI") License Renewal Electrical Working Group. I have been a member of several NEI, Electric Power and Research Institute ("EPRI"), and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE")

groups involved with license renewal and aging activities, such as the NEI Medium Voltage Task Force, the NEI License Renewal Task Force, the EPRI cable users group, and the IEEE Standards Association.

3. With regard to the Indian Point license renewal application ("LRA"), I prepared or reviewed the supporting electrical aging management review ("AMR") report, and the electrical portions of the aging management program ("AMP") evaluation report, the scoping and screening report, and the operating experience review report. I reviewed the electrical portions of the LRA prior to submittal, and assisted in preparing responses to electrical-related RAls and NRC audit and inspection questions. I also supported Entergy at the related ACRS subcommittee meeting held in March 2009. Finally, I reviewed the electrical portions of the NRC Staff s Safety Evaluation Report ("SER") with Open Items and Final SER, issued in January 2009 and August 2009, respectively.

4. I am familiar with New York State ("NYS") Contention 8 ("NYS-8"). As admitted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, NYS-8 "questions the need for an AMP for safety-related electrical transformers that are required for compliance with 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.48 and 50.63." NYS argues that transformers perform their intended function without moving parts or without a change in configuration or properties and, therefore, are subject to AMR under the License Renewal Rule, 10 C.F.R. Part 54.

5. The principal purpose of my declaration is to summarize the process that Entergy used to (1) identify IP2 and IP3 systems, structures and components ("SSCs") within the scope of the License Renewal Rule, and (2) determine which in-scope structures and components are subject to AMR. My declaration focuses, in particular, on the process by which Entergy determined that electrical transformers are not subject to AMR (and, therefore, do not require an AMP). My declaration also briefly explains that transformers, while not subject to AMR under 10 C.F.R. Part 54, are subject to ongoing surveillance and maintenance activities as part of the current licensing bases ("CLBs") for IP2 and IP3.

II. OVERVIEW OF THE PART 54 "SCOPING" AND "SCREENING" PROCESSES

6. The development of an LRA requires (1) identification of the SSCs within the scope of the License Renewal Rule (also known as "scoping") and (2) identification of the structures and components subject to AMR based on their intended functions (also known as "screening"). 10 C.F.R. § 54.4 defines the plant SSCs within the scope of the rule based on their intended functions. The "scoping" phase requires identification of all plant SSCs that are safety-related or whose failure could affect safety-related functions, or that are relied on to demonstrate compliance with the specific NRC regulations listed in 10 C.F.R. § 54.4(a)(3).

7. The scoping and screening processes are discussed in greater detail in NUREG-1800, Revision 1, "Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants" at §§ 2.1 and 2.2 (Sept. 2005) ("SRP-LR"). The SRP-LR references NEI 95-10 for detailed descriptions of the scoping and screening process. See NEI 95-10, "Industry Guideline for Implementing the Requirements of 10 CFR Part 54 - The License Renewal Rule,"

Revision 6 (June 2005) (ADAMS Accession No. ML051860406).' Table 2.1-5 in the SRP-LR is used by the NRC Staff for the 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1)(i) determination for passive structures and components. This table replicates NEI 95-10, Appendix B ("Typical Structure, Component and Commodity Groupings and Active/Passive Determinations for the Integrated Plant Assessment").

8. 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1) limits the structures and components "subject to aging management review" to those structures and components that "perform an intended function...

without moving parts or without a change in configuration or properties." These structures and components are also referred to as "passive." 10 C.F.R. § 54.2 1(a)(1) excludes from AMR those structures and components that (1) perform an intended function with moving parts or a change in configuration or properties or (2) are replaced based on a qualified life or specified time period. Structures and components that are not replaced based on qualified life or specified time period are referred to as "long-lived" components.

9. "Screening" is performed to determine which components in the scope of license renewal are subject to AMR. Structures and components subject to AMR are subsequently reviewed to determine whether applicable aging effects require some form of aging management to meet the requirements of Part 54. Scoping and screening are discussed further below.

III. "SCOPING" OF THE 0P2 AND 1P3 ELECTRICAL SSCs

10. During the license renewal scoping process, Entergy used a bounding approach for plant electrical and instrumentation and control ("I&C") systems and components by including in the scope of license renewal all plant electrical and I&C systems (as well as electrical and I&C components in mechanical systems). This bounding method eliminates the need for unique identification of every electrical and I&C component and its specific location, and assures that components are not improperly excluded from the scope of license renewal.

11. By using this approach, Entergy included in the scope of license renewal all plant electrical equipment, including all plant transformers (and, thus, all transformers that perform a function necessary to demonstrate compliance with the NRC regulations identified in 10 C.F.R. § 54.4(a)(3), including 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.48 and 50.63). LRA Tables 2.2-lb-IP2 and 2.2-1 b-IP3 list the electrical and I&C systems within the scope of license renewal for IP2 and IP3, respectively. See Exh. 2, LRA at 2.5-1.

12. In addition to plant electrical systems, Entergy included in the scope of license renewal certain switchyard components that restore offsite power following a station blackout

("SBO") event. As defined in 10 C.F.R. § 50.2, an SBO is "the complete loss of alternating current (ac) electric power to the essential and nonessential switchgear buses in a nuclear power plant (i. e*, loss of offsite electric power system concurrent with turbine trip and unavailability of the onsite emergency ac power system)." The offsite power sources that support SBO recovery actions are those that supply the IP2 and IP3 station auxiliary transformers and gas turbine autotransformers. The offsite power recovery path thus includes these transformers, the switchyard circuit breakers supplying the transformers, the circuit breaker-to-transformer and transformer-to-onsite electrical distribution interconnections, and associated control circuits and structures. See Exh. 2, LRA at 2.5-2; LRA Figures 2.5-2 and 2.5-3 (IPEC Offsite Power Recovery Diagrams for IP2 and IP3, respectively).

13. Entergy's scoping for SBO recovery is consistent with NRC regulations and guidance, in which the Staff has indicated that the plant system portion of the offsite power system should be included within the scope of license renewal. See Letter from David B.

Matthews, Director, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, NRC, to Alan Nelson, Nuclear Energy Institute, "Staff Guidance on Scoping of Equipment Relied on to Meet the Requirements of the Station Blackout (SBO) Rule (10 CFR 50.63) for License Renewal (10 CFR 54.4(a)(3))" (Apr. 1, 2002) (ADAMS Accession No. ML020920464); SRP-LR at 2.1-9, 2.5-2 to 2.5-3. By including in scope for license renewal the SBO recovery paths from the offsite power system or grid connection to the plant systems, Entergy included in scope the "switchyard transformers" alluded to in NYS-8.

IV. "SCREENING" OF THE IP2 AND IP3 ELECTRICAL STRUCTURES AND COMPONENTS

14. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1), Entergy conducted a screening process to determine which in-scope electrical structures and components are subject to AMR.

NEI 95-10 provides NRC-endorsed guidance on screening structures and components to identify the passive and long-lived structures and components that support an intended function.

Regulatory Guide 1.188, "Standard Format and Content for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses," Revision 1 (Sept. 2005)

(ADAMS Accession No. ML051920430), states that NEI 95-10 "provides methods that the NRC staff considers acceptable for complying with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 54 for preparing a license renewal application."

15. As part of screening, Entergy grouped the total population of in-scope electrical components into component types, and compared these component types to those in NEI 95-10, Appendix B to identify passive component types. The passive component types were identified as commodity groups, which include similar electrical and I&C components with common characteristics. Exh. 2, LRA at 2.5-2. Entergy then identified component-level intended functions of the commodity groups. Id. As Entergy examined these intended functions, certain commodity groups were eliminated from further review based on the criteria in 10 C.F.R.

§ 54.21 (a)(1)(i) and the implementing guidance in NEI 95-10, Appendix B.

16. Entergy identified two passive electrical and I&C commodity groups as meeting the Section 54.21 (a)(1)(i) criterion; i.e., components that perform an intended function without moving parts or without a change in configuration. Those commodity groups are (1) high voltage insulators and (2) cables and connections, bus, electrical portions of electrical and I&C penetration assemblies, fuse holders outside of cabinets of active electrical systems and components. Exh. 2, LRA at 2.5-2. For ease of discussion and comparison to NUREG-1801, "Generic Aging Lessons Learned Report," Rev. 1 (Sept. 2005) (the GALL Report), these two commodity groups were further divided into the component types and commodity groups listed on page 2.5-2 of the LRA. LRA Table 2.5-1 lists the specific component types or commodity groups that are subject to AMR along with their intended functions. Exh. 2, LRA at 2.5-4.

17. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 54.21, Entergy determined that all other electrical and I&C commodity groups are active and, therefore, not subject to AMR. Those other active electrical and I&C commodity groups include transformers. Specifically, NEI 95-10, Appendix B indicates that transformers (e.g., instrument transformers, load center transformers, small distribution transformers, large power transformers, isolation transformers, coupling capacitor, voltage transformers) are not part of a commodity group subject to AMR in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1)(i). Exh. 3, NEI 95-10, Appendix B at B-14. Table 2.1-5 of the SRP-LR also indicates that transformers are not passive structures or components subject to AMR under Section 54.21(a)(1)(i). SRP-LR at 2.1-23 (Table 2.1-5, Item 104).

18. The NRC Staff published its Final SER for the IP2/IP3 LRA on August 12, 2009.

Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Aug. 12, 2009). The Final SER concludes that Entergy "has adequately identified the electrical and I&C component commodity groups components within the scope of license renewal, as required by 10 CFR 54.4(a), and those subject to an AMR, as required by 10 CFR 54.21(a)(1)." Id at 2-225.

The NRC Staff, therefore, approved Entergy's determination that transformers are not subject to AMR and do not require an AMP under Part 54.

V. ONGOING SURVEILLANCE AND PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS

19. As explained above, transformers are not subject to AMR and, therefore, no AMP is required under 10 C.F.R. Part 54. Nonetheless, degradation of the ability of a transformer to perform its intended function is monitorable by changes in the electrical performance of the transformer and/or its associated circuits. Moreover, certain IP2 and IP3 transformers, including those necessary for compliance with 10 C.F.R. § 50.48 and 50.63, are subject to direct, ongoing surveillance, monitoring, maintenance, and inspection. These CLB programs and activities would continue during the period of extended operation, in accordance with 10 C.F.R.

§ 54.33(d). They are intended to ensure that any degradation or failure of the transformers, as active components, is detected and corrected, and that the transformers continue to perform their intended functions.

20. For certain transformers, particularly large power transformers, instrumentation is provided to detect degrading conditions. For example, if voltage conditions exceed defined acceptable ranges, then an alarm condition will be sounded automatically to alert operators to the condition (e.g., excessive load on transformer, transformer fault, undervoltage conditions, etc.).

These indicators or alarms appear on supervisory panels in the IP2 and IP3 control rooms or on individual transformer panels that are checked during frequent operator rounds. Established station procedures require appropriate corrective actions when monitored transformer performance does not meet acceptable ranges. Such procedures are included in activities such as personnel training and quality assurance audits, and subject to periodic NRC inspection.

21. In addition, Entergy has implemented preventive maintenance, inspection, and surveillance programs and procedures to manage "active" systems and components, including transformers required for compliance with 10 C.F.R. § 50.48 and 50.63. These programs and procedures, some of which are necessary to comply with the NRC's Maintenance Rule (10 C.F.R. § 50.65), are intended to identify and correct potential degradation (including aging) issues associated with active systems and components. These activities include, as appropriate, periodic cleaning and inspections of transformers, as well as instrument checks, functional tests, and calibration functional tests. The data and information from such tests 'and performance monitoring programs are analyzed and trended to detect potential degradation of transformer performance (e.g., a change in the electrical performance of the transformer or the associated circuits).

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on August 12, 2009.

- Iu Ro~g rB. Rucker P-"ý Name: Roger B. Rucker Current Position: Engineering Consultant, Rucker Nuclear Consultants, Inc.

Education:

B.S. Electrical Engineering, University of Arkansas 1990 Professional Certificates / Associations:

Arkansas Professional Engineer, Certificate Number 11649 Arkansas Master Electrician, License Number M-7007 IEEE Member (20 years); Electromagnetic Compatibility Society, and Standards Association Employment History:

June 2005 to Present - Rucker Nuclear Consultants, Inc. Engineering consulting in electrical and instrumentation and control applications. Primarily consulting with nuclear power plants for license renewal activities.

September 2006 to Present - Consultant to Entergy Services, Inc., License Renewal Services.

Responsible for preparation and review of Electrical, Instrumentation and Control (EIC)

Aging Management Reviews, EIC Aging Management Program Report, and EQ TLAA Reports for the Indian Point and Cooper License Renewal Projects. Responsible for the support and review of the EIC portions of the Scoping Report, the OE Report, and the LRA for Indian Point and Cooper. Responsible for Electrical Lead activities including Implementation Activities for Entergy License Renewal Projects (Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee, Fitzpatrick, Indian Point, Palisades, and Cooper). Develop and review RAI and audit question responses, support LRA contentions and ASLB hearings, support NRC audits and inspections, provide audit training for site program and system engineers, and attend NRC and Industry meetings as assigned.

March 2009 to April 2009 - Consultant to Iepson Consulting Enterprises, Inc. for training development and presentation to Korea Plant Service for license renewal and aging management of electrical components.

September 2008 to December 2008 - Consultant to Entergy Operations, Inc., Design Engineering. Prepared and reviewed instrument loop uncertainty calculations associated with the replacement of the data acquisition hardware for the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) computer.

July 2008 to October 2008 - Consultant to Entergy Operations, Inc., Design Engineering.

Developed the modification package for the replacement of the Unit 1 Startup Boiler Control System. The project included providing details for design development including purchase of material, control system software integration, field installation, and testing.

December 2007 to May 2008 - Consultant through EXCEL Services, Inc. for Beaver Valley License Renewal Support. Provided support for the NRC Review of the Beaver Valley LRA including NRC Audits and RAIs.

June 2005 to September 2007 - Consultant through EXCEL, Services, Inc. for the Beaver Valley License Renewal Project. Beaver Valley LR Project Manager for the License Renewal recovery project. Responsible for overall performance of the project from the conceptual, developmental, through the LRA Development phases. Acted as the primary point of contact for problem resolution and as the "lead" of the Project Team. Ensured the project safely achieved the project deliverables within the approved scope, cost, and schedule.

Ensured proper review and approval of project management documents for clarity and completeness. Examples include contracts, requisitions, task authorizations, and other similar project guidance documents as needed. Ensured proper review and approval of the LRA and LRA supporting documents for clarity and completeness. Reviewed and approved project and contract budgets for adequacy, completeness, and other requirements and assuring that required budgets exist and project budget revisions are initiated if required. Responsible for selecting and assigning project personnel, and ensuring project personnel are trained and qualified.

October 2005 to February 2007 - Rucker Nuclear Consultants, Inc., EPRI: License Renewal Electrical Handbook Revision. Created draft revision for EPRI 1003057, and coordinated review with the NEI License Renewal Electrical Working Group (LREWG).

Submitted Final Draft to EPRI, and supported EPRI review of final draft. EPRI 1013475 (EPRI 1003057 Rev. 1) issued February 2007.

August 2005 to May 2008 - Consultant to EXCEL, Services, Inc. Participated in various activities including developing proposals for projects including license renewal, reviewing miscellaneous documents, and developing whitepapers for various clients.

July 2002 to June 2005 - Entergy Services, Inc., License Renewal Electrical Lead. Responsible for preparation and review of Electrical, Instrumentation and Control Aging Management Reviews and EQ TLAA Reports for the ANO2, DC Cook, Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee, and Fitzpatrick License Renewal Projects. Responsible for preparation and review of Electrical programs, and the Electrical sections for the license renewal application for the ANO2, DC Cook, Pilgrim, and Vermont Yankee projects. Responsible for the preparation and review of the electrical RAIs, and the electrical sections of the SER for the ANO2 and DC Cook projects. Review and direct work of Electrical Engineers assigned to various License Renewal projects. Responsible Lead for developing the ANO-2 and Vermont Yankee OE review reports.

January 2000 to July 2002 - Entergy Operations, Inc., Arkansas Nuclear One - Senoir Lead Startup Engineer, ANO-2 Steam Generator Replacement and Power Uprate Projects.

Night-Shift Test Lead for Power Uprate Startup: provided approval for proceeding to the next planned power plateau, provided coordination between operations, reactor engineering, design engineering, and startup test group, dispositioned test deficiencies associated with the startup, and provided the morning turnover/status report to the restart team and plant management. Responsible for control systems and plant transients testing associated with Steam Generator Replacement and Power Uprate startup activities.

Developed test procedures (work plans) as required to implement the required control system and plant transient testing.

September 1996 to December 1999 - Entergy Operations Inc., Arkansas Nuclear One - Senior Engineer, Minor Modifications. Developed, Implemented, and Tested Design Changes for various Unit 1 and 2 systems. Provided support for various modifications as the Post-Modification Test Engineer.

January 1991 to September 1996 - Entergy Operations Inc., Arkansas Nuclear One - Engineer I to Senior Engineer, EIC Design Engineering. Project Manager for several plant modifications. Developed Design Changes for various Unit 1 and 2 systems, including Plant Computer Replacement, CAPS Upgrade, and ANO-2 Turbine Supervisory Instrumentation. Developed Testing Work Plans for several design packages while assigned to Plant Modification and Startup for three outages.

1986 to 1990 - University of Arkansas Co-operative Education Program. Alternating semesters between an AP&L employee and a full time student while attending the University of Arkansas.

Co-op Engineer, July 1988 to December 1988, Design Engineering Co-op Engineer, July 1987 to December 1987, Design Engineering Electrical and I&C Engineer for Arkansas Power and Light (AP&L) for Arkansas Nuclear One in the organizations during the dates stated above. Past duties included engineering support roles for various modifications.

Co-op Engineer, January 1986 to July 1986, Plant Engineering Plant Engineer for Arkansas Power and Light (AP&L) for Independence Steam Electric Station (ISES) in the organization during the dates stated above. Past duties included engineering support roles for various modifications.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDO1

)

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3))

)_ August 12, 2009 DECLARATION OF JOHN W. CRAIG IN SUPPORT OF ENTERGY'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF NEW YORK STATE CONTENTION 8 John W. Craig states as follows under penalties of perjury:

I. INTRODUCTION AND

SUMMARY

OF CONCLUSIONS

1. I am a Senior Nuclear Safety Consultant working for Talisman International, LLC. I have been retained by Entergy to provide expert services related to contention NYS-8 regarding the classification of electrical transformers as active components, as discussed in Entergy's license renewal application ("LRA") for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 (also referred to as "IP2" and IP3," respectively). I have prepared this declaration in support of the "Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition of New York Contention 8 (NYS-8)

Concerning Electrical Transformers."

2. My education and professional experience are summarized in the curriculumvitae attached to this declaration. I hold a Bachelor's Degree in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Maryland. I have over 35 years of experience in nuclear energy and nuclear safety matters, including positions with the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") and in the U.S. Navy's nuclear power program.

3. While at the NRC, I held numerous technical and management positions. I was the Director of the License Renewal and Environmental Project Directorate responsible for managing license renewal activities in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ("NRR"). I had direct responsibility to manage NRR license renewal activities, including: (1) development and issuance of the initial license renewal rule and regulatory guidance documents for license renewal; (2) review of technical license renewal reports submitted by industry groups; and (3) NRR interactions with the first nuclear plants seeking renewal of their operating licenses.

Subsequently, as Associate Director for Inspection and Programs, NRR, I was responsible for management of NRC inspection and oversight activities for all civilian nuclear power reactors and non-power reactors in the U.S., including NRR's license renewal program; next-generation reactor designs and facilities; assessment of environmental issues; standard technical specifications, emergency planning, technical evaluations and assessment of operating reactor events, nuclear plant operator licensing, and licensee quality assurance programs.

4. I have reviewed the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's ("Board") decision on contention admissibility (LBP-08-13) dated July 31, 2008, in which the Board admitted Contention NYS-8. In admitting NYS-8, the Board stated that electrical transformers "nominally perform their intended function without moving parts and without a change in configuration or properties," ostensibly making them subject to the aging management review ("AMR")

requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 54.21 (a)(1). Noting an apparent lack of a "legally binding justification" to exclude transformers from AMR, the Board directed the parties to explain how a transformer changes its configuration or properties in performing its intended function (such that it could be excluded from AMR). Specifically, the Board asked the parties to address "whether transformers are more similar to the included, or to the excluded, component examples" listed in Section 54.21(a)(l)(i). See LBP-08-13, 68 NRC 43, 88-89.

5. Accordingly, my declaration addresses: (1) the regulatory treatment of electrical transformers in an LRA in accordance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 54; (2) the change of properties that takes place in transformers as they perform their intended function; (3) the similarities between transformers and components that have been explicitly excluded from AMR in 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1)(i); and (4) the Staff s consistent treatment of transformers as active components in license renewal guidance documents and prior LRA reviews.

6. In forming my opinion, I have reviewed documentation including, inter alia, pertinent portions of Entergy's LRA, the License Renewal Rule (10 C.F.R. Part 54) and its regulatory history, and applicable NRC and industry guidance documents. I also have reviewed the expert declarations of Dr. Steven Dobbs and Mr. Roger Rucker, as submitted by Entergy in support of its motion for summary disposition of NYS-8.

7. Based upon my professional experience and judgment, I have reached the following conclusions:

(a) Electrical transformers are within the scope of the license renewal rule, as defined in 10 C.F.R. § 54.4. Under 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1)(i), however, transformers are properly excluded from AMR because they cannot perform their intended functions without undergoing continuous changes in their electrical and magnetic properties, i. e., a change in state. A transformer's ability to perform its intended function is readily monitorable. Transformers, therefore, do not meet the definition of a "passive" component, as set forth in the Statement of Consideration ("SOC") for the Commission's 1995 License Renewal Rule.

(b) Electrical transformers are similar to the component examples listed in 10 C.F.R.

§ 54.21 (a)(1)(i) that are excluded from the AMR requirements of Part 54. As discussed in this declaration, electrical transformers are significantly different from the examples of components discussed in Part 54 that require AMR.

(c) The SOC for the 1995 License Renewal Rule discusses the Commission's stated intent to rely on existing licensee maintenance activities and Maintenance Rule (10 C.F.R. § 50.65) requirements as a basis for concluding that the effects of aging will be effectively managed during the license renewal term for active components.

(d) Both NRC and industry license renewal guidance documents properly conclude that electrical transformers are not subject to AMR under Part 54 because effects of aging will be effectively managed during the license renewal term through existing licensee maintenance activities. These guidance documents also discuss the long-standing NRC Staff position that electrical transformers are "active" components and, therefore, are excluded from the AMR requirements in 10 C.F.R. § 54.21.

(e) Accordingly, Entergy's conclusion that electrical transformers are active components and, therefore, not subject to AMR, is fully consistent with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 54.21 and long-standing NRC regulatory practice and guidance.

II. REGULATORY HISTORY OF 10 C.F.R. PART 54 - THE CRITICAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN "ACTIVE" AND "PASSIVE" STRUCTURES AND COMPONENTS

8. The NRC published the final, revised License Renewal Rule, including the associated SOC, in the FederalRegister on May 8, 1995. 60 Fed. Reg. 22,461 (May 8, 1995)

(Exhibit 1). The process established in 10 C.F.R. Part 54 is intended to demonstrate that the effects of aging would be adequately managed for the period of extended operation. The Commission observed that "[b]ecause the detrimental effects of aging are manifested in degraded performance or condition, an appropriate license renewal review would ensure that licensee programs adequately monitor performance or condition in a manner that allows for the timely identification and correction of degraded conditions" Id. at 22,469. It concluded that AMR is not required for structures and components performing "active" functions:

Therefore, the Commission believes that with, the additional experience it has gained with age-related degradation reviews and with the implementation of the maintenance rule, there is a sufficient basis for concluding that current licensee programs and activities, along with the regulatory process, will be adequate to manage the effects of aging on the active functions of all systems, structures, and components [SSCs] within the scope of the license.

renewal during the period of extended operations.

Id. at 22,471 (emphasis added).

9. By contrast, the Commission "determined that passive structures and components for which aging degradation is not readily monitored"-that is, components that perform an intended function "without moving parts or without a change in configuration or properties"-

are subject to an AMR, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1). Exh. 1, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,477 (emphasis added).

10. During the review and comment phases of the rulemaking process, the NRC considered several different concepts of "passive" structures and components. The NRC found that prior industry concepts "do not accurately describe the structures and components that should be subject to an [AMR] for license renewal." Exh. 1, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,477. Hence, the Commission developed a new description of "passive" characteristics of structures and components. Id. The SOC clarified that the determination whether particular structures and components are subject to an AMR for license renewal should be based on consideration of defined characteristics as opposed to a dictionary definition or plain English usage of the term of "passive." The License Renewal Rule does not use the term "passive," but the Commission used the term in the SOC to facilitate the discussion of relevant characteristics. Id. ("This SOC uses the term 'passive' for convenience.")

11. One factor that distinguishes "active" structures and components from their

passive" counterparts is the ability to readily monitor performance of their intended functions.

As the 1995 SOC explains, "structures and components that perform active functions can be generically excluded from an aging management review on the basis of performance or condition-monitoring programs. The Commission recognizes that structures and components that have passive functions generally do not have performance and condition characteristics that are as readily monitorable as those that perform active functions." Exh. 1, 60 Fed. Reg. 22,477.

12. Passive functions, such as pressure boundary and structural integrity, are generally verified indirectly, by confirmation of physical dimensions or component physical condition. The Commission determined that passive structures and components for which aging degradation is not readily monitored are those that perform an intended function without moving parts or without a change in configuration, properties or state.

13. Significantly, however, the Commission emphasized that structures and components that perform their intended function without moving parts, but which nonetheless experience a change in configuration, properties or state, are excluded from the AMR requirements of Section 54.21(a)(1)(i). These are described as active structures and components in the SOC. Exh. 1, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,477-78.

14. The Commission noted that defining active structures and components as only those with "moving parts" would result in certain structures and components, such as batteries (which change their electrolytic properties when discharging), or transistors and power supplies (which do not have moving parts but change electrical properties) being defined as passive components. Exh. 1, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,477. The Commission thus made clear that "'a change in configuration or properties' should be interpreted to include 'a change in state."' Id. Thus, the SOC makes clear that structures and components with no moving parts, but which experience changes in configuration or properties in performing their intended function, are excluded from the AMR requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 54.21 (a)(1)(i).

15. The examples of structures and components provided in 10 C.F.R. § 54.21 and discussed in the SOC that are subject to AMR include, but are not limited to, the reactor vessel, the reactor coolant system pressure boundary, steam generators, valve bodies, pump casings, and the containment. The intended functions performed by these structures and components are static. That is, their intended functions are to maintain physical configuration and properties.

Aging degradation is not readily monitored for these components on an ongoing basis.

Additionally, these passive structures and components perform their intended functions without the application of an external force or input, and without a change of configuration, properties, or state.

16. The examples listed in 10 C.F.R. § 54.21 that are excluded from AMR include, but are not limited to, pumps, valves, motors, diesel generators, air compressors, pressure indicators, pressure transmitters, relays, batteries, and power supplies. The intended functions performed by these structures and components are dynamic. That is, the functions require changes in the configuration, properties or state of the structures and components. Moreover, these changes can be readily monitored. For example, the output fluid pressure of a pump, the output voltage and frequency of a diesel generator, the air pressure of a compressor, the output signal of a pressure indicator, the output voltage of a battery, the electrical output of a power supply, the position of a valve, and the status or condition of a relay all can be readily monitored.

17. During the public comment period for the 1995 License Renewal Rule, a commenter suggested that the regulatory test include a more comprehensive list of components subject to AMR. The Commission opted not to include a more detailed list because the components subject to AMR can be "highly plant specific." Exh. 1, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,479.

Nevertheless, the Commission promised to "include additional clarification and examples of components requiring an aging management review in its implementation guidance for the rule."

Id. The Standard Review Plan for License Renewal ("SRP-LR"), NUREG-1800, Revision 1 and Regulatory Guide ("RG") 1.188 provide this guidance to the NRC Staff and industry.

18. In revising Part 54 in 1995, the Commission underscored its intent to "fully integrate the maintenance rule and the license renewal rule." Exh. 1, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,471.

The Maintenance Rule, 10 C.F.R. § 50.65, was issued in July 1991 and became effective in July of 1996. See Final Rule, Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants, 56 Fed. Reg. 31,306 (July 10, 1991), as amended at 58 Fed. Reg. 33,996 (June 23, 1993). The main purpose of the Maintenance Rule is to require monitoring of the overall continuing effectiveness of licensee maintenance programs to ensure that (1) safety-related and certain nonsafety-related SSCs are capable of performing their intended functions; (2) for nonsafety-related equipment, failures will not occur that prevent the fulfillment of safety-related functions; and (3) failures resulting in scrams and unnecessary actuations of safety-related systems are minimized. 10 C.F.R. § 50.65(b)(1)-(2).

19. Noting that "the intent of the license renewal rule and the maintenance rule is similar (ensuring that the detrimental effects of aging on the functionality of important [SSCs]

are effectively managed)," the Commission "determined that the license renewal rule should credit existing maintenance activities and maintenance rule requirements for most structures and components." Exh. 1, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,471. The Commission also found that there was "sufficient basis for concluding that current licensee programs and activities, along with the I

regulatory process, will be adequate to manage the effects of aging on the active functions of all

[SSCs] within the scope of license renewal during the period of extended operation so that the CLB will be maintained." Id. Therefore, "structures and components that perform active functions can be generically excluded from an [AMR] on the basis of performance or condition monitoring programs." Id. at 22,477 (emphasis added). On the other hand, "structures and components within the scope of the license renewal rule that perform passive intended functions" are subject to AMR under Part 54. Id.

III. THE ACTIVE AND READILY-MONITORABLE FUNCTIONS OF TRANSFORMERS

20. NYS-8 incorrectly assumes that transformers are passive components. The contention, however, contains no discussion of the intended function of an electrical transformer, or the manner in which a transformer performs its intended function. In fact, NYS-8 does not appear to recognize or understand the fundamental distinction between "active" and "passive" functions. As discussed below, transformers perform an active function and, therefore, are not subject to AMR requirements.

21. The Declaration of Dr. Steven E. Dobbs provides a detailed discussion of the operation and properties of electrical transformers. I do not repeat that discussion here. In short, transformers are comprised of two coils, a primary and a secondary coil. When energized by an alternating voltage and current flowing in the primary coil, an alternating magnetic flux is created in the transformer that in turn "couples" with the secondary coil, inducing an alternating voltage in the secondary coil. If an electrical load such as a motor is connected to the secondary side completing the circuit, then an alternating current will be created supplying voltage and current to the load such as an electrical bus. Performance of this function requires a continuous change of electric and magnetic propertieswithin the transformer.

22. Transformers perform the active function of supplying voltage and current to electrical busses. For example at IP 2 and IP3, when 6.9 kV 60 cycle AC voltage is applied to the primary coil of the station service transformer, a 480 volt AC at 60 cycle voltage is created on the secondary coil, so secondary or output current is higher than the primary or input current.

See Exh. 2, LRA Figures 2.5-2 and 2.5-3. The voltage in the secondary coil is the result of continuous change of the magnetic properties or magnetic field in the transformer while the transformer is in service. Thus, while transformers do not have moving parts, each of these components of the transformer undergoes changes in electric properties or state when energized, much like the components in a transistor, inverter, or power supply. When connected to an electrical load or circuit, each of these components must change properties in order to perform its intended function.

23. In short, in the absence of these changing electrical and magnetic properties, a transformer cannot function. These changing electrical and magnetic properties are continuous as long as the transformer is performing its intended function of supplying voltage and current to electrical busses. This constant, active change of properties causes the transfer of energy from the primary to the secondary coil of a transformer. Therefore, consistent with the SOC, electrical transformers are not subject to an aging management review under 10 C.F.R. § 54.21 (a)(1)(i).

24. As discussed in the declaration of Roger Rucker, periodic inspection, surveillance, monitoring, and preventive maintenance of transformers-all performed as part of the current licensing bases for IP2 and IP3-helps to ensure transformer reliability.

IV. THE NRC'S LONG-STANDING AND CONSISTENT TREATMENT OF ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS AS ACTIVE COMPONENTS THAT ARE EXCLUDED FROM AMR UNDER 10 C.F.R. PART 54

25. When the Nuclear Energy Institute ("NEI") developed NEI 95-10, "Industry Guideline for Implementing the Requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 54 - the License Renewal Rule,"

it submitted that document to the NRC for review and endorsement. In a September 19, 1997, letter signed by the Director of the License Renewal Project Directorate, the NRC Staff, discussed its view on the AMR requirements for certain electrical components. See Exh. 4. In pertinent part, the NRC staff recommended revising Appendix B of NEI 95-10 to indicate that "transformers... do not require an aging management review." Exh. 4, Att. at 4.

26. The NRC Staff explained the technical and regulatory basis for excluding transformers from AMR under 10 C.F.R. Part 54 as follows:

Transformers perform their intended function through a change in state by stepping down voltage from a higher to a lower value, stepping up voltage to a higher value, or providing isolation to a load. Transformers perform their intended function through a change in state similar to switchgear, power supplies, battery chargers, and power inverters, which have been excluded in

§54.21(a)(1)(i) from an aging management review. Any degradation of the transformer's ability to perform its intended function is readily monitorable by a change in the electrical performance of the transformer and the associated circuits.

Trending electrical parameters measured during transformer surveillance and maintenance such as Doble test results, and advanced monitoring methods such as infrared thermography, and electrical circuit characterization and diagnosis provide a direct indication of the performance of the transformer. Therefore, transformers are not subject to an aging management review.

Exh. 4, Att. at 2 (emphasis added). The NRC Staff based this conclusion on "the considerable discussion provided in the [1995] rule and SOC," and compared transformers "with the examples explicitly provided in the rule in terms of how the performance of their intendedfunctions would be achieved and whether aging degradation of these components would be readily monitored using currently available techniques, in a similar way by which the examples in the rule (circuit breakers, relays, switches, etc.) would be monitored." Id. (emphasis added).

27. Based on the NRC Staff's explicit recommendation, NEI revised Appendix B to NEI 95-10 to incorporate the conclusion that transformers are excluded from AMR because they are not passive, long-lived structures or components. The Staff endorsed Revision 3 of NEI 95-10 in RG 1.188, "Standard Format and Content for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses" (July 2001).

28. On April 10, 1998, the very first license renewal application filed under Part 54 (for Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2) was submitted to the NRC. This application discussed the first integrated plant assessment that concluded that (i) electrical transformers were in the scope as defined in 10 C.F.R. § 54.4, but that (ii) electrical transformers are not subject to AMR requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(!). The NRC issued the renewed operating licenses for Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2 on March 23, 2000. Every subsequent license renewal application approved by the NRC reflects the same conclusion.

29. During various presentations to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

("ACRS") Subcommittee on License Renewal, the classification of certain electrical equipment (including transformers) as "active components" has been discussed. For example during a meeting held October 19, 2000, to discuss drafts of the SRP-LR, the generic aging lessons learned ("GALL") report, the draft regulatory guide DG-1 104 (which was published as NUREG-1800), and NEI-95-10, the Subcommittee and NRC Staff discussed the classification of electrical transformers as active components. As a member of the NRC technical staff (Mr. Mitra) explained to the ACRS:

MR. MITRA: If you don't have anymore questions on comments, then we'll go to the license renewal issues. Number 8 is a component list and the staff identifies the component list by plant-specific diagram, as Chris was saying, P&ID diagram, that is. The commodity groups are allowed and guidance on how to evaluate commodity groups is contained in a revised SRP and it's in Section 2.1 and through 2.3 through 2.5. And next, 11 through 20, its passive-active determinations, fuses, active-passive transformers, indicating lights, heat tracing, electrical heaters. The determination of passive-active was made on NEI document 95-10 and later on included in SRP table 2.1.6. The electrical components identified above [including transformers] are determined to be active components, and thus not subject to an aging management review.

Transcript of October 19, 2000 Public Meeting Held by the ACRS, Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal, at 48 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003765808).

30. Significantly, in SECY-01-0157, dated August 17, 2001, the Staff conveyed this position to the Commission. In a Staff requirements memorandum ("SRM") dated August 28, 1999, in response to SECY-99-148, "Credit for Existing Programs for License Renewal," the Commission had directed the Staff to "prepare a detailed analysis and provide recommendations to the Commission on whether it would be appropriateto resolve generic technical issues, including any credit for existing programs, by rulemaking." The Staff s response to the Commission's directive is set forth in SECY-01-0157, Rulemaking Issue, License Renewal Rulemaking (Aug. 17, 2001) (ADAMS Accession No. ML011990176).

31. The Staff considered stakeholder comments and experience gained in its initial license renewal application reviews. Among other things, the Staff discussed a letter submitted by the Union of Concerned Scientists ("UCS") on June 26, 2001. UCS had cited eight unplanned reactor shutdowns since January 1, 2000, due to equipment failures caused by aging, and suggested that those failures indicated that the aging management programs might not be effective. The Staff found that only one case of the cited shutdowns was caused by the failure of a passive component (a steam generator tube failure). The Staff found that "[t]he other shutdowns were attributed to the failure of active components, such as transformers,solenoid valves, and circuit breakers," and that "these active components are not subject to the license renewal requirements." See SECY-01-0157 at 3 (emphasis added).

32. Significantly, in another SRM issued on September 5, 2001, the Commission concurred with the Staff recommendation that no additional changes to Part 54 be pursued at that time. As such, the Commission raised no objection to the Staff s conclusion that transformers are "active components" that are not subject to AMR under Part 54. See Staff Requirements Memorandum, SECY-01-0157, License Renewal Rulemaking (Sept. 5, 2001) (ADAMS Accession No. ML012480330).

33. The view that transformers are active components exempt from the AMR requirements is further reflected in industry and NRC guidance documents. The latest revision of NEI 95-10 is Revision 6, issued in June 2005. The latest revision of RG 1.188 is Revision 1, issued in September 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML051920430). RG 1.188 endorses Revision 6 of NEI 95-10 and, like its precursor, states that NEI 95-10 "provides methods that the NRC staff considers acceptable for complying with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 54 for preparing a license renewal application." RG 1.188, Rev. 1, at 7. In September 2005, the NRC also issued Revision I to NUREG-1800, the SRP-LR. Table 2.1-5 of the SRP-LR lists typical structures and components, and indicates whether they are active or passive; i.e., perform their intended functions with or without moving parts or a change in configuration or properties.

Table 2.1-5 indicates that transformers are not passive structures and components subject to AMR under 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1)(i). SRP-LR at 2.1-23 (Table 2.1-5, Item 104).

34. The development of RG 1.188 and the SRP-LR included extensive review, comment, and discussion involving members of the public, the ACRS, and submittal to the Commission prior to issuance. The conclusion that electrical transformers are active components-not subject to the AMR under 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1)-is a long-standing NRC Staff position, reflected in every LRA submitted to, and approved by, the NRC to date.

V. CONCLUSIONS

35. In order to perform their intended function, transformers must be energized from another electrical source that causes a change in electrical/magnetic properties-that is, a "change in state." The performance of electrical transformers is readily monitorable.

36. Furthermore, existing plant procedures and programs define routine maintenance, corrective action, and surveillance activities for certain IP2 and IP3 transformers.

37. The conclusion that electrical transformers are not subject to the AMR requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 54.2 1(a)(1) is an NRC Staff position formally documented as early as 1997. This position is reflected in both NRC and industry guidance documents and the NRC's review and approval of numerous license renewal applications, and previously conveyed to the ACRS and Commission.

38. Entergy's determination no IP2 and IP3 electrical transformers are subject to AMR is fully consistent with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 54.21. This determination also comports with the Commission's clear and express intent to credit existing licensee programs that provide adequate aging management for most structures and components.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on August 12, 2009.

/ol W. Craig John W. Craig 3912 Springarden St.

Olney, MD 20832 301-570-1650 Summary John Craig is a Senior Nuclear Safety Consultant to Talisman, with over 35 years of nuclear safety experience, most recently in the areas of management systems, quality assurance, license renewal, emergency preparedness, and safety conscious work environment. Mr. Craig began his career with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 1976. He retired from the NRC in 2005, after 33 years of Federal service. Mr. Craig began his NRC career in the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) as a reactor inspector. Later, as Associate Director for Inspection and Programs in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), his responsibilities included management of inspection and oversight activities for all civilian nuclear power reactors and non-power reactors in the U.S., review of next-generation reactor designs and facilities, license renewal reviews, assessment of environmental issues, standard technical specifications, emergency planning, technical evaluations and assessment of operating reactor events, nuclear plant operator licensing, and licensee quality, assurance programs. As Director of the License Renewal and Environmental Project Directorate, he was responsible for managing license renewal activities in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). He had direct responsibility to manage NRR license renewal activities including: [1] development and issuance of the initial license renewal rule, Standard Review Plan and Regulatory Guide for License Renewal, and related documents for license renewal; [2] review of technical license renewal reports submitted by industry groups; and [3] NRR interactions with license renewal lead nuclear plants.

As the Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), his responsibilities included management of research activities associated with nuclear power facilities, activities associated with consensus and voluntary standards for agency use, and recommending regulatory actions to resolve ongoing and potential safety issues for nuclear power plants and other facilities regulated by the NRC, including those issues designated as Generic Safety Issues (GSIs). He directed the NRC's initiative for cooperative research with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), various federal agencies, U.S. nuclear industry participants, universities, and international participants.

As a Senior Executive, he also served as the Assistant for Operations for the Executive Director for Operations, and as the Chief of Staff for the Chairman of the NRC. His assignments as a Senior Executive in NRR included Chief, Plant Systems Branch, where he managed technical reviews associated with secondary and balance of plant systems, fire protection and environmental qualification of electrical and mechanical equipment. He also served as Director Projects Directorate 3-2 where he managed licensing activities for commercial nuclear power plants. As a Senior Executive in RES, he served as Director of the Division of Engineering and Division of Regulatory Applications, where he directed research activities in the areas of materials; electrical, structural, and mechanical engineering; instrumentation and control; and earth sciences.

Education B.S., Nuclear Engineering, University of Maryland Qualifications Management - Over 20 years of management experience with NRC. As the Assistant for Operations for the NRC's Executive Director for Operations, served as the Secretary for the NRC Executive Council; managed interface and coordination with the NRC Commission, the General Accounting Office and the NRC's Inspector General; and coordinated international activities as a member of the NRC International Council. As a Senior Executive in NRR, was responsible for inspection and licensing programs with a staff of approximately 650 people and a budget of approximately $10 million. As a Senior Executive in RES, was responsible for research programs with a staff of approximately 200 people with budgets of approximately $50 million.

Nuclear Reactor Safety Management - Managed the development and implementation of nuclear reactor regulatory programs, including licensing, inspection, license renewal, technical and engineering reviews, research programs, and consensus codes and standards activities. Also served as the NRC's Standards Executive, and was Chairman of the NRC's Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR). Positions held include the following:

0 Associate Director for Inspection and Programs, NRR 0 Director, License Renewal and Environmental Review Directorate, NRR

• Director, Project Directorate 111-2, NRR

• Chief, Plant Systems Branch, NRR 0 Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 9 Director, Division of Engineering, RES 0 Director, Division of Regulatory Applications, RES 0 Chief, Vendor Inspection Section, I&E

• Senior Reactor Inspector, I&E Operational Readiness Review - Led numerous inspection teams and conducted inspections at nuclear power plants. The focus of inspections included management and organizational processes, engineering support, maintenance programs, nuclear and secondary systems, operational event assessment, and operator qualification and training. One example is being Team Leader for a Diagnostic Evaluation Team that examined plant safety and management performance at the Brunswick Nuclear Plant. Also participated in investigations of the events related to the breakdown of quality assurance at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, and the flow of information during the accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2. Conducted numerous inspections at nuclear power plants, vendor facilities including nuclear fuel fabricators, nuclear steam system suppliers, and architect engineer facilities. Additional responsibilities include being the NRC's Standards Executive, and the NRC representative on the ASME Nuclear Quality Assurance Main Committee.

Security - Managed numerous research projects focused on security issues related to U.S.

commercial nuclear power plants.

Emergency Preparedness - Managed NRR's responsibilities in emergency preparedness, including coordination with FEMA, state, and local emergency response organizations. Served as a member of the NRC's Incident Response Executive Team and Reactor Safety Teams.

Human Factors Safety - Team Leader for the inspection team that examined safety conscious work environment issues at Tennessee Valley Authority facilities. Participated in commercial plant inspections of human factors issues, involving revised operating and emergency procedures and control room design.

Employment Talisman International, LLC, Senior Nuclear Safety Consultant, 2007-Present U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1976-2005

• Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

• Associate Director for Inspection and Programs, NRR

• Chief of Staff to Chairman

• Assistant for Operations for EDO

• Director, Division of Engineering, RES

• Director, Division of Regulatory Applications, RES

• Deputy Director, Division of Engineering, RES

• Director, License Renewal and Environmental Review, NRR

• Director, Project Directorate 111-2, NRR

• Chief, Plant Systems Branch, NRR

• Chief, Vendor Inspection Section

• Senior Reactor Inspector

• Enforcement Specialist University of Maryland's Co-operative Education Program.

Alternating semesters between being an NRC employee and a full time student while attending the University of Maryland, 1976-1979 Vitro Labs, Staff Specialist, 1973-1976 U.S. Navy, Nuclear Submarine Program, 1968-1973 LIST OF SUPPORTING EXHIBITS Exhibit Description 1 Final Rule, Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal; Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. 22,461 (May 8, 1995) 2 Excerpts from Chapter 2 of the Indian Point Energy Center License Renewal Application 3 Excerpt from Appendix B ("Typical Structure, Component and Commodity Groupings and Active/Passive Determinations for the Integrated Plant Assessment")

to NEI 95-10, Industry Guideline for Implementing the Requirements of 10 CFR Part 54 - The License Renewal Rule, Revision 6 (June 2005) 4 Letter from Christopher Grimes, Director, License Renewal Project Directorate, NRC, to Douglas J. Walters, NEI, Determination of Aging Management Review for Electrical Components (Sept. 19, 1997)

EXHIBIT 1 Exhibit I Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22461 require the approval of OMB under 44 dues, and are not deducted from the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

U.S.C. 3501, et seq. producer's gross proceeds to determine 1. Background.

net proceeds for payment purposes and II. Final Action.

Comments are deducted from gross proceeds to Ill. Principal Issues.

A general description of the statutory determine net proceeds. a. Continued validity of certain findings in basis for this final rule was set forth in previous rulemaking.

the interim rule published on b, Reaffirmation of the regulatory

3. Section 1468.18 is amended by philosophy and approach and September 16, 1994, (59 FR 47530). The adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

interim rule provided 60 days for clarification of the two principles of license renewal.

comments. No comments were received § 1468.18 Maintenance and Inspection of c. Systems, structures, and components during the interim rule comment period records. within the scope of license renewal.

of September 16 through November 15, d. The regulatory process and aging 1994. This final rule provides that in (d) At all times during regular management.

determining net proceeds for shorn business hours, authorized e. Reaffirmation of conclusions concerning wool or mohair, effective for 1993 and representatives of CCC or USDA shall the current licensing basis and subsequent marketing years, marketing have access to the premises of the maintaining the function of systems, charges for commissions, coring, or structures, and components.

applicant, of the marketing agency, and f. Integrated plant assessment.

grading shall not be deducted. This rule of the person who furnished evidence to g. Time-limited aging analyses and provides authorized representatives of an applicant for use in connection with exemptions.

USDA and CCC access to the premises the application, in order to inspect,. h. Standards for issuance of a renewed of buyers and sellers of wool and examine, and make copies of the books, licefise and the scope of hearings.

mohair in order to inspect their records records, and accounts, and other written i. Regulatory and administrative controls.

for authenticity. data as specified in paragraphs (a), (b), IV. General Comments and Responses.

This provision had been accidentally V. Public Responses to Specific Questions.

and (c) of this section. VI. Availability of Documents.

omitted when the wool regulations and Signed at Washington, DC, on May 1, 1995. VII. Finding of No Significant Environmental mohair regulations were combined in Impact: Availability.

1991. This final rule also clarifies the Bruce R. Weber, VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.

definition of nonmarketing charges to Actin8 Executive Vice President,Commodity IX. Regulatory Analysis.

make it consistent with the calculation Credit Corporation. X. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification.

of net proceeds and net proceeds for [FR Doc. 95-11180 Filed 5-5-95; 8:45 am] XI. Non-Applicability of the Backfit Rule.

payment purposes. BILLING COOD 3410-05-M

1. Background

Section 1468.18(d) was inadvertently omitted from the interim rule. This The previous license renewal rule (10 provision was accidently omitted when CFR Part 54) was adopted by the the mohair regulations and the wool NUCLEAR REGULATORY Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations were combined in 1991 (56 COMMISSION on December 13, 1991 (56 FR 64943).

FR 40233, August 14, 1991). This final This rule established the procedures, rule, in part, merely reinstates the 10 CFR Parts 2, 51, and 54 criteria,-and standards governing the omitted provision. renewal of nuclear power plant RIN 3150-AFO5 operating licenses.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1468 Since publishing the previous license Grant program-agriculture, Livestock, Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal; renewal rule, the NRC staff has Mohair, Reporting and recordkeeping, Revisions conducted various activities related to Wool. implementing this rule. These activities AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Accordingly, the interim rule included: developing a draft regulatory Commission. guide, developing a draft standard amending 7 CFR part 1468 published on ACTION: Final rule.

September 16, 1994, (59 FR 47530) is review plan for license renewal, adopted as final with the following interacting with lead plant licensees,

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory changes: and reviewing generic industry Commission (NRC) has amended its technical reports sponsored by the regulations to revise'the requirements PART 1468-WOOL AND MOHAIR Nuclear Management and Resources that an applicant must meet for Council (now part of the Nuclear Energy

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR obtaining the renewal of a nuclear Institute (NEI)).

part 1468 continues to read as follows: power plant operating license. The rule In November 1992, the law firm of Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1781-1787; 15 U.S.C.

also clarifies the required information Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge 714b and 714c. that must be submitted for review so submitted a paper to the NRC that that the agency can determine whether

2. In § 1468.3 the definition of presented the perspective of Northern those requirements have been met and States Power Company on the license "Nonmarketing charges" is revised to changes the administrative requirements renewal process. The paper included read as follows: that a holder of a renewed license must specific recommendations for making

§ 1468.3 Definitions. meet. These amendments are intended the license renewal process more to provide a more stable and predictable workable. In addition, industry regulatory process for license renewal.

Nonmarketing chargesmeans charges representatives provided the paid by or for the account of the EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 1995. Commission with views on several key producer that are not directly related to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: license renewal implementation issues.

improving the marketability of the shorn Thomas G. Hiltz, Office of Nuclear In late 1992, the NRC staff conducted a wool or mohair, such as, but not limited Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear senior management review and to, storage bags, advances, interest on Regulatory Commission, Washington, discussed key license renewal issues advances, shearing, and association DC 20555, telephone: (301) 415-1105. with the Commission, industry groups, HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22461 1995

22462 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8. 1995 / Rules and Regulations and individual licensees. The NRC staff of aging on certain systems, structures, Commission received 42 separate presented its recommendations and components during the period of responses concerning the proposed regarding several of these key license extended operation. An objective for the rulemaking for license renewal. In early renewal issues in two Commission amendment is to establish a more stable, April 1995, after reviewing SECY policy papers: SECY-93-049, and predictable license renewal process. 067, "Final Amendment to the Nuclear "Implementation of 10 CFR Part 54, The amendment will identify certain Power Plant License Renewal Rule (10

'Requirements for Renewal of Operating systems, structures, and components t CFR Part 54)," the Nuclear Energy Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."' that require review in order to provide Institute and Yankee Atomic Electric and SECY-93-113, "Additional the necessary assurance that they will Company provided additional Implementation Information for 10 CFR continue to perform their intended comments. All comments received have Part 54, 'Requirements for Renewal, of function for the period of extended been considered in developing this final Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power operation. rule.

Plants."' On May 23, 1994, the NRC staff In its staff requirements memorandum provided the Commission with its Comments on the proposed rule came (SRM) of June 28. 1993, the Commission proposed amendment to the license from a variety of sources. These stated that it is essential to have a renewal rule in SECY-94-140, . included: a private citizen, 3 public predictable and stable regulatory "Proposed Amendment to the Nuclear interest groups (Sierra Club-Atlantic process clearly and unequivocally Power Plant License Renewal Rule (10 Chapter, Public Citizen, and the Ohio defining the Commission's expectations CFR Part 54)." In the SRM of June 24. Citizens for Responsible Energy Inc.). 1 for license renewal. This process would 1994, the Commission approved the Federal organization (Department of permit licensees to make decisions ptiblication of the proposed rule Energy (DOE)), 4 State organizations about license renewal without being amendment for a 90-day public (Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety influenced by a regulatory process that comment period. In the SRM, the (Illinois), Connecticut Department of is perceived to be uncertain, unstable, or Commission directed the staff to (1) Public Utility Control (Connecticut),

not clearly defined. The Commission ensure consistency in the use of the New Jersey Department of directed the NRC staff to convene a terms "structures. systems, and Environmental Protection (New Jersey).

public workshop to evaluate alternative components" and "structures and and Nevada Agency for Nuclear approaches for license renewal that best components," (2) solicit comments on Projects, Nuclear Waste Project Office take advantage of existing licensee the ability of existing programs to detect (Nevada)), 2 industry organizations (NEI activities and programs as a basis for failures in redundant structures and and Nuclear Utility Group on concluding that aging will be addressed components before there is a loss of Equipment Qualification (NUGEQ)). 2 in an acceptable manner during the intended system or structure function, vendor owners groups (Babcock and period of extended operation. In (3) address the need for § 54.4(a)(3) in Wilcox (B & W) Owners Group and particular, the Commission directed the the statements of consideration for the Westinghouse Owners Group), 2 NRC staff to examine the extent to proposed rule, and (4) review the vendors/consultants (B & W Nuclear which greater reliance can be placed on necessity of retaining § 54.4(a)(4) and Technologies and Westinghouse Electric the maintenance rule (10 CFR 50.65, include the rationale for its conclusions Corporation). and 27 separate nuclear "Requirements for Monitoring the in the proposed rule. . power plant licensees. All 27 licensees Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear. On September 9, 1994, (59 FR 46574) endorsed the comments provided by Power Plants") as a basis for concluding the'proposed revisions to the license that the effects of aging will be NET, and some utilities also provided renewal rule were published in the additional comments.

effectively managed during the license Federal Register for a 90-day public renewal term. The Commission specifically solicited comment period. The public comment On September 30, 1993, the NRC staff period ended on December 9, 1994. The responses to five questions in the conducted a public workshop in proposed rule. The questions and the Bethesda, Maryland, that was attended ' Throughout the Statement of Considerations. the responses to them can be found in by over 180 people. Attendees included phrases, "systems. structures, and components" Section V of the Supplementary nuclear utilities, industry organizations. and "structures and components" are used. As a Information also known as the public interest groups, architect and matter of clarification, the Commission Intends that Statement of Considerations (SOC).

the phrase. "systems, structures, and components" engineering firms, consultants and applies to the matters involving the discussions of contractors, and Federal and State Many of the letters contained similar the overall renewal review, the specific license comments, which were grouped governments. In December 1993, the renewal scope (S54.4), time-lImited aging analyses NRC staff forwarded SECY-93-331, (§54.21(c)). and the license renewal finding together and are addressed on an issue "License Rendwal Workshop Results (§54.29). The phrase, "structures and components" basis. The NRC has responded to all of applies to matters involving the integrated plant the significant points raised by the and Staff Proposals for Revision to 10 assessment (IPA) required by § 54.21(a) because the CFR Part 54. 'Requirements for Renewal aging management review required within, the IPA commenters. Those comments that are of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power should be a component and structure level review applicable to a specific issue discussed Plants,'" to the Commission. The NRC rather than a more general system level review. The in a specific section of the phrase systems, structures. and components applies Supplementary Information portion of staff recommended that the Commission to the evaluation of time-limited aging analyses amend 10 CFR Part 54. required by § 54.21(c) because such plant-specific this document are discussed within that In its SRM of February 3, 1994, the analyses may have been carried out, for the initial section. Comments received that are not Commission agreed with the NRC staff's operating term, for either systems, structures, or responsive to a particular issue are conceptual approach (explained in components. Reevaluation for the renewal term Is addressed in Section IV. Public intended to focus on the same systems. structures, SECY-93-331) for performing license or components subject to the Initial term time. comments received on the proposed renewal reviews and directed the staff to limited aging analyses. The finding required by rule are available for inspection and proceed with rulemaking to'amend 10 § 54.29 considers both the results of the integrated copying for a fee at the Commission's CFR Part 54. The Commission believes plant assessment and the time-limited aging Public Document Room located at 2120 analyses and, therefore, the phrase system, that the license renewal process should structures, and components is applicable to this L Street NW. (Lower Level).

focus on the management of the effects section. Washington, DC.

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22462 1995

Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 88 1 Monday, May 8. 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22463 II. Final Action safety analysis report (FSAR) the proposed rule, "[ulnless otherwise The final rule revises certain supplement have been added. The clarified or reevaluated, either directly requirements contained in 10 CFR Part requirement in § 54.21(c) of the previous or indirectly, in the discussion for this 54 and establishes a regulatory process rule to review any relief from codes and proposed rule, the conclusions in the that is simpler, more stable, and more standards has been deleted, and the SOC for the current license renewal rule predictable than the previous license requirement in § 54.21(c) of the previous remain valid **" September 9, 1994 renewal rule. The final rule continues to rule to review exemptions from (59 FR 46576). Some of the subjects ensure that continued operation beyond regulatory requirements has been resolved in the previous Part 54 the term of the original operating license clarified and linked with the time- rulemaking that remain unaffected by will not be inimical to the public health limited aging analyses. this final rule include the concept of the and safety. The more significant changes (5) In § 54.22, the requirement to CLB. the nature of the current regulatory made to the previous license renewal include detailed justification for certain process, the regulatory process for rule are as follows: technical specification changes in the assuring compliance with the CLB. form (1) The intent of the license renewal FSAR supplement has been modified to of the renewed license, the term of the review has been clarified to focus on the require that the detailed justification be renewed license, antitrust adverse effects of aging rather than included in the license renewal considerations, and the applicability of identification of all aging mechunisms. application. the provisions of the Price-Anderson The final rule is intended to ensure that 16) In § 54.29, the standards for Act.

important systems, structures, and issuance of a renewed license have been Furthermore, regardless of whether components will continue to perform changed to reflect the revised focus on this final rule constitutes a recision of their intended function in the period of the detrimental effects of aging the previous rule, the Commission extended operation. Identification of concerning structures and components agrees with the commenter that the individual aging mechanisms is not requiring an aging management review Administrative Procedure Act (APA) required as part of the license renewal for license renewal and any time-limited requires the Commission to provide a issues (including exemptions) "reasoned analysis" for the changes to review. The definitions of age-related degradation, age-related degradation applicable for the renewal term. A new Part 54 that are being adopted in this unique to license renewal, aging § 54.30 has been added to distinguish final rule. The Commission takes issue mechanisms, renewal term, and between those issues identified during with the commenter with regard to effective program have been deleted. the license renewal process that require whether the SOC for the proposed and (2) The definitions of integrated plant resolution during the license renewal for the final rule adequately explain the assessment (IPA) (§ 54.3) and the IPA process and those issues that require bases for the changes. The Commission process (§54.21(a)) have been clarified resolution during the current license believes that this SOC provides a to be consistent with the revised focus term. detailed discussion setting forth the in item (1) on the detrimental effects of (7) In § 542.33, requirements for perceived problems with the previous aging. continuation of the current licensing license renewal rule as well as a (3) A new § 54.4 has been added to basis (CLB} and conditions of renewed discussion of the bases for this final replace the definition of systems, licenses have been changed to delete all rule. In sum, the Commission has structures, and components "important -reference to age-related degradation fulfilled its obligation under the APA to to license renewal" in §54.3. Section unique to license renewal [ARDUTLR). provide the bases for this rule, 54.4 defines those systems, structures, Section 54.33(d) of the previous rule. regardless of whether the changes that and components within the scope of the which requires a specific change control are being adopted in this final rule license renewal rule and identifies the process, has been deleted. constitute a recision of the previous important functions (intended f8) In §54.37. additional records and license renewal rule.

functions) that must be maintained. The recordkeeping requirements have been

b. Reaffirmation of the Regulatory requirement to include systems, changed to be less prescriptive. Section Philosophy and Approach and structures, and components that have 54.37(ej has been deleted. Clarification of the Two Principlesof limiting conditions for operation in IIL.Principal Issues License Renewal facility technical specifications within the scope of license renewal has been a. Continued Validity of Certain (i) Regulatory Philosophy deleted. Findings in PreviousRulemaking In developing the previous license (4) In § 54.21(a), the [PA process has The principal purpose of this final renewal rule, the Commission been simplified. The wording has been rule is to simplify and clarify the concluded that issues material to the changed to resolve any ambiguity previous license renewal rule. Unless rernewal of a nuclear power plant associated with the use of the terms otherwise clarified or reevaluated, either operating licinse are to be cpnfmed to systems, structures, and components directly or indirectly, in the discussion those issues that the Commission (SSCs) and structures and components for this final rule, the conclusions in the determines are uniquely relevant to (SCsi. A simplified methodology for SOC for the previous license renewal protecting the public health and safety detennining whether a structure or rule remain valid (56 FR 64943; and preserving common defense and component requires an aging December 13, 1991). security during the period of extended management review for license renewal One commenter stated that the operation. Other issues would, by has been delineated. Only passive, kong- previous license renewal rule has been definition, have a relevance to the safety lived structures and components are substantially modified in the proposed and security of the public during subject to an aging management review rule so as to constitute a "recision' of current plant operation- Given the for license renewal- Sections 54.21 (b) the previous rule. Commission's ongoing obligation to and (d) have been deleted, and. a new The Commission does not believe that oversee the safety and security of

§ 54.21(c) dealing with time-limited this final rule represents a recision of operating reactors, issues that are aging analyses (TLAA) and § 54.21(d) the previous license renewal rule, 10 relevant to current plant operation will dealing with requirements for the final CFR Part 54. As stated in the SOC for be addressed by the existing regulatory HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22463 1995

22464 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and -Regulations process within the present license term of systems, structures, and components (ii) Deletion of the term "Age-Related rather than deferred until thc time of that the Commission determines require Degradation Unique to License license renewal. Consequently, the review for the period of extended. Renewal" Commission formulated two principles operation, are adequately managed. The The use of the term "age-related of license renewal. license renewal review is intended to degradation unique to license renewal" The first principle of licerlse renewal identify any additional actions that will in the previous license renewal rule was that, with the exception of age- be needed to maintain the functionality caused significant uncertainty and related degradation unique to license of the systems, structures, and difficulty in implementing the rule. A renewal and possibly a few other issues components in the period of extended 'key problem involved how "unique" related to safety only during the period operation. The Commission has aging issues were to be identified and, of extended operation of nuclear power determined that it can generically in particular, how existing licensee plants, the regulatory process is exclude from the IPA aging management adequate to ensure th at the licensing activities and Commission regulatory bases of all currently operating plants review for license renewal (1) those activities would be considered in the provides and maintains an acceptable structures and components that perform identification of systems, structures, and level of safety so that operation will not active functions and (2) structures and components as either subject to: or not be inimical to public health and safety components that are replaced based on subject to ARDUTLR. The difficulty in or common defense and security. qualified life or specified time period. clearly establishing "uniqueness" in Moreover, consideration of the range of However, all systems, structures, and connection with the effects of aging is issues relevant only to extended components evaluated based on time- underscored by the fact that aging is a operation led the Commission to. 'limited aging analyses would be subject continuing process, the fact that many conclude that the detrimental effects of to a license renewal evaluation. licensee programs and regulatory aging is probably the only issue Structures or components may have activities are already focused on generally applicable to all plants. As a active functiohms, passive functions, or mitigating the effects of aging to ensure result, continuing this regulatory both. Detailed discussions concerning safety in the current operating term of process in the future will ensure that determination of those systems, the plant, end the fact that no new aging this principle remains valid during any structures, and components requiring a phenomena have been identified as period of extended operation if the license renewal review are contained in potentially occurring only during the regulatory process is modified to Section III.c of this SOC; detailed period of extended operation.

address age-related degradation that is The final rule eliminates both the discussions of those structures and definition of ARDUTLR and use of the of unique relevance to license renewal. components subject to an aging Consequently, the previous license term in codified regulatory text. Thus, managcment review are in Section I1I.f confusion regarding the detailed renewal rule focused the Commission's of this SOC; and detailed discussions of review on this one safety issue. definition of ARDUTLR in the rule and systems, structures, and components questions regarding which structures The second and equally important requiring a license renew~al evaluation and components could be subject to principle of license renewal holds that the plant-specific licensing basis must are contained in Section ill.g of this ARDUTLR have been eliminated.

be maintained during the renewal term SOC. Public Citizen noted that deletion of in the same manner and to the same This final rule focuses the license the term ARDUTLR represents alteration extent as during the original licensing renewal review on certain systems, of the "original premise" of the rule and term. This principle would be- structures, and components that the this change "has not been precipitated accomplished, in part, through a Commission has determined require by any realization about reactor aging program of age-related degradation evaluation to ensure that the effects of and safety." Under both the previous management for systems. structures, and aging will be adequately managed in the renewal rule as well as this final rule, components that are important to period of extended operation. This the objective was to supplement the license renewal as defined in the change is viewed as a modification regulatory process, if warranted, to previous rule. consistent with the first principle of provide sufficient assurance that The Commission still believes that license renewal established in the adequate safety will be assured during mitigation of the detrimental effects of the extended period of operation. The previous rule. In view of this final rule, Commission has concluded that the aging resulting from operation beyond the first principle can be revised to state the initial license term should be the thatI with the possible exception of the only issue where the regulatory process focus for license renewal. After. further may not adequately maintain a plant's detrimental effects of aging on the consideration and experience in current licensing basis concerns the implementing the previous rule, the functionality of certain plant systems, detrimental effects of aging on the Commission has, hiowever, determined structures, and components in the functionality of certain systems, that the requirements for carrying out period of extended operation and structures, and components in the the license renewal review can and1 possibly a few other issues related to period of extended operation. While the should be simplified and clarified. The safety only during extended operation, objective and conclusion has remained Commission has concluded that, for the regulatory process is adequate to the same in the two rulemakings, the certain plant systems, structures, and ensure that the licensing bases of all first principle of license renewal has components, the existing regulatory currently operating plants provides and been revised consistent with the process will continue to mitigate the maintains an acceptable level of safety deletion of ARDUTLR. The Commission effects of aging to provide an acceptable so that operation will not be inimical to recognizes that the concept of level of safety in the period of extended public health and safety or common ARDUTLR has been removed inasmuch operation. defense and security. As modified, the as the term "ARDUTLR" has been

• The objective of a license renewal Commission affirms its support of the deleted from the first principle and from review is to determine whether the first principle of license renewal, as the rule language itself. However, detrimental effects of aging, which well as the (unmodified) second consistent with the focus of the previous could adversely affect the functionality principle. rule, the final rule will ensure that the HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22464 1995

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22465 effects of aging in the period of principal importance to the safety of the systems, structures, and components extended operation are adequately plant. The Commission also believed important to license renewal. These managed. that the focus of an aging evaluation for scoping categories concern (1) all safety-The Commission disagrees with the license renewal cannot be limited to related systems, structures, and commenter's statement that this change only those systems, structures, and components and (2) all nonsafety-was arrived at without regard to reactor components that the Commission has related systems, structures, and aging and safety. As discussed above, traditionally defined as safety-related. components that support the function of greater understanding that (1) aging is a Therefore, the Commission determined a safety-related system, structure, or continuous process and (2) that the that, in order to ensure the continued component or whose failure could actual effects of aging are not explicitly safe operation of the plant during the prevent a safety-related system, linked, from a technical perspective, to renewal term, the initial focus of license structure, or component from the term of an operating license, led the renewal should be (1) safety-related satisfactorily fulfilling its intended Commission to consider deleting systems, structures, and components, (2) function(s). These two categories are ARDUTLR. The Commission's current nonsafety-related systems, structures, meant to capture, as a minimum.

determination that a narrower set of and components that directly support automatic reactor shutdown systems, systems, structures, and components the function of a safety-related system. engineered safety feature systems, than that of the previous license structure, or component or whose systems required for safe shutdown renewal rule should require evaluation failure could prevent the performance of (achieve and maintain the reactor in a to ensure that the effects of aging will a required function of a safety-related safe shutdown condition), and be adequately managed in the period of system, structure, or component, (3) nonsafety-related systems, such as extended operation recognizes that systems, structures, and components auxiliary systems, necessary for the many licensee programs and regulatory relied upon to meet a specific set of function of safety-related systems.

activities will continue to adequately Commission regulations, and (4) The third category of systems.

manage the adverse effects of aging systems, structures, and components structures, and components discussed during the period of extended operation. subject to the operability requirements in the new scope section (§ 54.4(a)[9))

Therefore, the Commission believes that contained in the facility technical are those systems, structures, and this alteration is firmly based on an specification limiting conditions for components whose functionality may be appropriate consideration of reactor operation. relied on in safety analyses or plant safety and aging. The final rule reflects Since publishing the previous rule. evaluations to perform a function that a greater understanding of effective the Commission has gained demonstrates compliance with the aging management (focus on effects considerable preapplication rule Commission's regulations for 10 CFR rather than mechanisms) and more implementation experience and gained 50.48 (Fire Protection), 10 CFR 50.49 realistic expectations of aging in the a better understanding of aging (Environmental Qualification), 10 CFR extended period of operation. management, in part, through the 50.61 (Pressurized Thermal Shock), 10 development of a regulatory guide to CFR 50.62 (Anticipated Transients

c. Systems, Structures, and Components implement the maintenance rule, 10 Without Scram), and 10 CFR 50.63 Within the Scope of License Renewol CFR 50.65. The Commission now (Station Blackout). This category is also (i) Scope of the License Renewal Review believes that (1) by appropriately specified in the previous definition of and Elimination of the Technical crediting existing licensee programs that systems, structures, and components Specification Limiting Conditions for manage the effects of aging and (2) by important to license renewal and appropriately crediting the continuing included those systems, structures, and Operation Scoping Category regulatory process, it can more narrowly components relied upon to meet certain In the final rule. the Commission has define those systems, structures, and regulations. This category was deleted the definition (in § 54.3) of components within the scope of license developed to ensure that important systems, structures, and components renewal and more narrowly focus the systems, structures, and components Important to license renewal and license renewal review. that may be considered outside the replaced it with a new section entitled The Commission continues to believe traditional definition of safety-related

§ 54.4 Scope. This new section that the initial scope for the license and outside of the first two categories in continues to define .the set of plant renewal review should not be limited to § 54.4. would be included within the systems, structures, and components only those systems, structures, or initial focus of license renewal. Through that would be the initial focus of a components that the Commission has evaluation of industry operating license renewal review. From this set of traditionally defined as safety-related. experience and through continuing systems, structures, and components, a However, as discussed below (see regulatory analysis, the'Commission has license renewal applicant will Justification for the Elimination of the reaffirmed that systems, structures, and determine those systems, structures, and Technical Specification Limiting components required to comply with components that require review for Conditions for Operation Scoping these regulations are important to safe license renewal. The intent of the Category) the Commission determined plant operation because they provide definition of systems, structures, and that the requirement to consider substantial additional protection to the components important to license additional systems, structures, and public health and safety or are an renewal (i.e., to initially focus the components subject to.the operabilit important element in providing review on important systems, structures, requirements contained in the facility adequate protection to the public health.

and components) remains intact in the technical specification limiting and safety. The Commission, therefore, new § 54.4. conditions for operation is unnecessary concludes that these systems, structures, In the SOC for the previous license and has been deleted. and components should be included as renewal rule, the Commission The first two categories of systems, part of the initial scope of the license concluded that applicants for license structures, and components discussed renewal review.

renewal should focus on the in the new scope section (§ 54.4(a)(1) In their comments on the proposed management of aging for those systems, and (a)(2)) are the same categories revision to the rule. NUGEQ noted that structures, and components that are of defined in the previous definition of there is substantial overlap between the HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22465 1995

22466 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations equipment that would be identified in limiting conditions for operation resources on those syste-ms, structures.

§ 54.4(a) and the electrical equipment scoping category to be consistent with and components that are of principal important to safety identified in the Commission's intent not to re- importance to safety.

§ 50.49(b). To provide clarity and examine the entire plant for license In its "Final Policy Statement on consistency and minimize the potential renewal but to ensure that all systems, Technical Specifications Improvements that a licensee will be required to structures, and components of principal for Nuclear Power Reactors" (58 FR reassess the entire scope of § 50.49 importance to safe plant operation were 39132; July 22, 1993), the Commission equipment, NUGEQ suggests that identified and, if necessary, evaluated. identified four criteria for defining the

§ 54.4(a)(3) be modified to include only However, existing technical scope of improved technical the additional electric equipment specifications for many plants have specifications. The four criteria are as identified in § 50.49(b)(3). The functional requirements on certain follows:

I Criterion 1: Installed instrumentation Commission concludes that the rule systems, structures, and components modification proposed by NUGEQ is not with low or indirect safety significance. that is used to detect, and indicate in necessary. However, the Commission Preapplication rule implementation the control room, a significant abnormal agrees that for purposes of § 54.4, the experience has indicated that this degradation of the reactor coolant scope of § 50.49 equipment to be category'of systems, structures, and pressure boundary. -

included within § 54.4 is that components; as defined in the previous Criterion 2: A process variable, design equipment already identified by rule, could lead to an unwarranted re- feature, or operating restriction that is licensees under 10 CFR 50.49(b). examination of plant systems, an initial condition of a Design Basis Licensees may rely upon their listing of structures, and components that are not Accident or Transient analysis that 10 CFR 50.49 equipment, as required by of principal importance for license either assumes the failure of or presents 10 CFR Part 50.49(d), for purposes of renewal. a challenge to the integrity of a fission satisfying § 54.4 with respect to For ex.,mple, limiting conditions for product barrier.

equipment within the scope of § 50.49. operation ar' frequently included in Criterion3: A structure, system, or technical specifications for plant component that is part of the primary Justification for the Elimination of the meteorological and seismic monitoring success path and which functions or Technical Specification Limiting instrumentation, main turbine bypass actuates to mitigate a Design Basis Conditions for Operation Scoping systems, and traversing incore probes. Accident or Transient that either Category These requirements, while important for assumes the failure of or presents a In the previous license renewal rule, certain aspects of power plant challenge to the integrity of a fission the Commission established a fourth operation, have little or no direct product barrier.

category of systems, structures, and bearing on protection of public health Criterion 4: A structure, system. or components to be the focus of the initial and safety. Recognizing this, the component which operating experiei,:wu license renewal review. In this category, Commission concludes that current or probabilistic safety assessment has the Commission included all systems. activities for such systems, structures, shown to be significant to public health structures, and components that have and components, including licensee and safety.

operability requirements in the plant programs and the NRC regulatory Nuclear power plant licensees that technical specifications limiting process, are sufficient and that no voluntarily choose to "improve" their conditions for operation. As defined in additional evaluation is necessary for technical specifications based on this Standard Technical Specifications, "a license renewal. The technical Commission policy may submit. changes system, subsystem, train, component, or specification category would only add to the Commission for review and device shall be operable when it is (i.e., not captured by § 54.4(a)(1)-(3)) approval that will remove systems, capable of performing its specified nonsafety-related systems, structures, structures, and components from their safety function(s) and when all and components that do not support technical specifications before necessary attendant instrumentation, safety-related systems, structures, and conducting license renewal (experione;k:

controls, normal or emergency electrical components. As discussed in greater shows that approximately 40 percent of power, cooling and seal water, detail below, the Commission concludes limiting conditions for operation and lubrication, and other auxiliary, that these additional nonsafety-related surveillance requirements cou.d be equipment that are required for the systems, structures, and components deleted).

system, subsystem, train, component, or should not he the subjdct of license After considering the substantial device to perform its specified safety renewal. overlap between the four criteria for function(s) are also capable of defining te scope of technica!

performing their related support Relationship Between Improved specifications and the first thice scjp;wig function(s)." This was intended to Technical Specifications and License categories for license renewal, the include (1) all systems, structures, and Renewal Scoping Commission concluded that the nurnh:r components specifically identified in While it is not the Commission's of additional systems, structures, and the technical specification limiting intent to require applicants for license components that would be considered conditions for operation, (2) any system,, renewal to "improve" their technical *as a result of applying the technical structure or component for which a specifications, it remains the specification scoping catego,-y to functional requirement is specifically Commission's intent to focus the license improved technical specifications is identifibd in the technical specification renewal review on those systems, small. These additional systems, limiting conditions for operation, and structures, and components that are of structures, and components most likcly (3) any necessary supporting system, principal irmportanr-e to safety. would result from differences in ca-.

structure or component that must be Therefore, a license'-renewal scoping plant's current licensing basis wid f.':m operable or have operability in order for category that requires wholesale the application of these criteria and a required system, structure, or consideration of systems, structures, categories on a plant-specific bWses.

component to be operable. and components within the scope of The Commission cannot make The Commission previously technical specifications may not conclusions in this rulemaking abovt considered the technical specification appropriately focus licensee and NRC the appropriateness of wheiher these HeinOnline -- GO Fed. Reg. 22466 1995

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22467 additional systems, structures, and Commission's intent. Therefore, the plant-specific experience, industry-wide components should be included in an Commission determined that "required operating experience, as appropriate, individual plant's technical function" in the previous license and existing engineering evaluations to specifications. However, the renewal rule refers to those functions' determine those systems, structures, and Commission can conclude that these that are responsible for causing the components that are the initial focus of additional systems, structures, and systems, structures, and components to the license renewal review.

components are of a relatively lower be considered important to license Consideration of hypothetical failures safety significance because they are, by renewal. that could result from system exclusion, nonsafety-related systems, To avoid any confusion with the interdependencies, that are not part of structures, and components whose previous rule, the Commission has the current licensing bases and that failure cannot prevent the performance changed the term "required function" to have not been previously experienced is or reduce the availability of a safety- "intended function" and explicitly not required.

related system, structure, or component. stated in § 54.4 that the intended Several commenters noted that the Additionally, the Commission believes functions for systems, structures, and word "directly" did not precede the that the existing regulatory process for components are the same functions that phrase "prevent satisfactory these additional nonsafety-related define the systems, structures, and accomplishment of any of the functions systems, structures, and components is components as being within the scope Identified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (ii), or adequate to ensure that age degradation of the final rule. (iii) of this section" in § 54.4(a)(2) and will not result in a loss of functionality (iii) Bounding the Scope of Review concluded that, in the absence df the in accordance with the CLB.. word "directly," the license renewal The Commission believes that there is Pre-application rule implementation review could cascade into a review of sufficient experience with its policy on has indicated that the description of second-, third-, or fourth-level support technical specifications to apply that- systems, structures, and components systems. The Commission reaffirms its policy generically in revising the license subject to review for license renewal position that consideration of renewal rule consistent with the could be broadly interpreted and result 'hypothetical failures that could result Commission's desire to credit existing in an unnecessary expansion of the from system interdependencies that ore regulatory programs. Therefore, the review. To limit this possibility for the. not part of the CLB and that have not Commission concludes that the scoping category relating to nonsafety- been previously experienced is not technical specification limiting related systems, structures, and required. However, for some license conditions for operation scoping components, the Commission intends renewal applicants, the Commission category is unwarranted and has deleted this nonsafety-related category cannot exclude the possibility that the requirement that identifies systems, [§ 54.4(a)(2)) to apply to systems, hypothetical failures that are part of the structures, and components with structures, and components whose CLB may require consideration of operability requirements in technical failure would prevent the second-, third-, or fourth-level support specifications as being within the scope accomplishment of an intended systems. In these cases the word of the license renewal review function of a safety-related system, "directly" may cause additional structure, and component. An applicant confusion, not clarity, regarding the (ii) Intended Function for license renewal should rely on the systems, structures and components The previous license renewal rule plant's CLB, actual plant-specific required to be within the scope of required an applicant for license experience, industry-wide operating license renewal. In removing the wvord renewal to identify, from systems, experience, as appropriate, and existing '.directly" from this scoping criterion, structures, and components impotent engineering evaluations to determine the Commission believes it has (I) to license renewal, those structures and those nonsafety-related systems, achieved greater consistency between components that contribute to the structures, and components that are the the scope of the license renewal rule performance of a "required function" or initial focus of the license renewal and-the scope of the maintenance rule could, if they fail, prevent systems, review. Consideration of hypothetical (§ 50.65) regarding nonsafety-related structures, and components from . failures that could result from system systems whose failure could prevent performing a "required function." This interdependencies that are not part of satisfactory accomplishment of safety-requirement initially posed some the CLB and that have not been related functions and thus (2) promoted difficulty in conducting pre-application previously experienced is not required. greater efficiency and predictability in reviews of proposed scoping Likewise, to limit the potential for the license renewal scoping process.

methodologies because it was not clear unnecessary expansion of the review for The inclusion of nonsafety-related what was meant by "required function." the scoping category concerning those systems, structures, and components Most systems, structures, and systems. structures, and components Whose failure could prevent other components have more than one whose function is relied upon in certain systems, structures, and components function and each could be regarded as plant safety analyses to demonstrate from accomplishing a safety function is "required." Although the Commission compliance with the Commission intended to provide protection against could have required a licensee to ensure regulations (i.e., environmental safety function failure in cases where all functions of a system, structure, or qualification, station blackout, the safety-related structure or component as part of the aging anticipated transient without scram, component is not itself impaired by .age-management review, the Commission pressurized thermal shock, and fire related degradation but is vulnerable to concluded that this requirement would protection), the Commission intends failure from the failure of another be unreasonable and inconsistent with that this scoping category include all structure or component that may be so the Commission's original intent to systems. structures, and components impaired. Although it may be focus only on those systems, structures, whose function is relied upon to considered outside the scope of the and components of primary importance demonstrate compliance with these maintenance rule, the Commission to safety. Consideration of ancillary Commission's regulations. An applicant intends to include equipment that is not functions would expand the scope of for license renewal should rely on the seismically qualified located near the license renewal review beyond the plant's current licensing bases, actual seismically qualified equipment (i.e HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22467 1995

22468 Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 88. / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations Seismic I/1 equipment already structures and components from an PRAs, the Commission concludes that it identified in a plant CLB) in this set of aging management review. Therefore, is inappropriate to establish a license nonsafety-related systems, structures the Commission believes it is renewal scoping criterion, as suggested and components. inappropriate to further reduce the by Illinois, that relies on plant-specific In one of its comments, the Sierra systems, structures, and components probabilistic analyses. Therefore, within Club indicated that all nonsafety-related within the scope of license renewal. the construct of the final rule, PRA equipment and required functions Regarding the use of probabilistic. techniques are of very limited use for should be considered because failures analyses in the license renewal scoping license renewal scoping.

could go unnoticed for a long period of process, a separate Section IUl.c(iv) has In license renewal, probabilistic time and start a chain reaction that been added to the saC, to discuss the methods may be most useful, on a plant-could lead to catastrophic events. role of probabilistic risk assessment in specific basis, in helping to assess the Nevada also proposed a fuel life-cycle license renewal. Regarding systems, relative importance of structures and approach to license renewal that would structures, and components required to components that are subject to an aging consider the plant operations as an make protective action management review by helping to draw "Integrated Operating System." The recommendations, the Commission attention to specific vulnerabilities (e.g.

Commission disagrees with the Sierra thoroughly evaluated emergency results of an IPE or IPEEE). Probabilistic Club comment and the Commission planning considerations in the previous arguments may assist in developing an concludes that the license renewal license renewal rulemaking. These approach for aging management approach proposed by Nevada would evaluations and conclusions are still adequacy. However, probabilistic result in the consideration of issues valid and can be found in the SOC for arguments alone will not be an outside the scope of this rule and result the previous license renewal rule (56 FR acceptable basis for concluding that, for in consideration of additional systems, 64943 at 64966). Therefore, the those structures and components subject structures, and components that are not Commission concludes that systems, to an aging management review, the directly related to the safe operation of structures, and components required for effects of aging will be adequately the plant for the period of extended emergency planning, unless they meet managed in the period of extended operation. The Commission has the scoping criteria in § 54.4, should not operation.

reviewed its scoping criteria and be the focus of a license renewal review. Illinois also indicated that as determined that the criteria (1) reflect an probabilistic insights are more fully (iv) Use of Probabilistic Risk appropriate consideration of the existing Assessment in License Renewal" integrated with our traditional regulatory process, (2) properly focus deterministic methods of regulation, the initial license renewal review on Several comments from Illinois concerned the use of probabilistic they may define a narrower safety focus those systems, structures, and Thus, the use of probabilistic insights components that are most important to analysis techniques in the license renewal process. Illinois indicated that could reduce the scope of the very safety and (3) will not result in an programs that the license renewal rule unwarranted re-examination of the the NRC should require' rigorous probabilistic analyses, require these credits for monitoring and identifying entire plant. the effects of aging.

One commenter indicated that the analyses to behused in appropriate regulatory applications, and require The Commission reaffirms its scope of systems, structures, and previous conclusion (see 56 FR 64943 at components considered for license these probabilistic analyses to be updated, as needed. In addition, Illinois 64956) that PRA techniques are most renewal could be further reduced by valuable when they -focus the identifying and addressing the very few noted that the previous rule and the proposed rule did not require traditional, deterministic-based issues in which a plant's design must regulations and support the defense-in-specifically consider 40 years of consideration of individual plant examination (IPE) results. depth philosophy. In this regard, PRA degradation. In one of its comments, methods and techniques would focus Illinois suggested that those systems, The Commission is finalizing a policy structures and components required to statement regarding the increased use of regulations and programs on those items mitigate a sequence leading to core probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) most important to safety by eliminating damage, as determined by plant-specific methods in nuclear regulatory activities unnecessary conservatism or by probabilistic analyses, and those (59 FR 63389; December 8, 1994). supporting additional regulatory systems, structures, and components However, there is currently -no .requirements. PRA insights would be required to make protective action additional guidance for licensees to used to more clearly define a proper recommendations for the protection of conduct more rigorous probabilistic safety focus, which may be narrower or the public, should also be included in analyses beyond the guidance for an IPE may be broader. In any case, PRA will the scope of this rulemaking. and an IPE External Events (IPEEE) not be used to justify poor performance As the commenter suggested, the (Generic Letter 88-20). The in aging management or to reduce Commission did consider further Commission's consideration of regulatory or programmatic limiting the scope of license renewal to regulatory requirements associated with requirements to the extent that the certain issues in a plant's design that developing, maintaining, or using implementation of the regulation or were specifically based on a time period probabilistic analyses is beyond the program is no longer adequate to credit bounded by the current license term (40 scope of this rulemaking. for monitoring or identifying the effects years). As a result, the Commission The CLB for currently operating of aging.

explicitly identified the need to review plants is largely based on deterministic d. The Regulatory Process and Aging time-limited aging analyses and engineering criteria. Consequently, there Management incorporated this requirement into the is considerable logic in establishing final rule. However, as.discussed in license renewal scoping criteria that (i) Aging Mechanisms and Effects of Section ll.d and III.f of this SOC, the recognize the deterministic nature of a Aging Commission determined that, at this plant's licensing bagis. Without the The license renewal review approach time, there was not an adequate basis to necessary regulatory requirements and discussed in the SOC accompanying the generically exclude passive, long-lived appropriate controls for plant-specific December 13, 1991, rule emphasized the HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22468 1995

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22469 246 identification and evaluation of aging process will still need to be adequate to because the MTls identified some mechanisms for systems, structures. and address a in uncertainties. common maintenance.-related components within the scope of the When th Commission concluded that weaknesses, such as inadequate root-rule. Primarily through pre-application the proper approach for a license cause analysis leading to repetitive implementation experience associated renewal review was one that focused on failures, lack of equipment performance with the previous license renewal rule mitigating the detrimental effects of trending, and lack of appropriate and the evaluation of comments aging regardless of the mechanisms consideration of plant risk in the resulting from the September 1993 causing the effects, the intent was to prioritization, planning, and scheduling license renewal workshop, the concentrate efforts on identification of of maintenance.

Commission determined that an functional degradation; that is, except The Commission amended its approach to license renewal that focuses for well-understood aging mechanisms, regulations, at 10 CFR 50.65, on July 10, only on the identification and* the straightforward approach to 1991 (56 FR 31306), to require evaluation of aging mechanisms could detecting and mitigating the effects of commercial nuclear power plant constitute an open-ended research aging begins with a process that verifies licensees to monitor the effectiveness of project. Ultimately, this type of that the intended design functions of maintenance activities for safety-approach may not provide reasonable systems, structures, and components significant plant equipment to minimize assurance that certain systems, have not been compromised or the likelihood of failures and events structures, and components will degraded. Once functional degradation caused by the lack of effective continue to perform their intended is identified through performance or maintenance. The maintenance rule and functions. The Commission believes condition monitoring, corrective actions its implementation guidance (1) Provide that regardless of the specific aging can be applied. The Commission agrees for continued emphasis on the defense-mechanism, only aging degradation that that adverse aging effects cannot be in-depth principle by including selected leads to degraded performance or completely divorced from an balance- 'of-plant (BOP) systems, condition (i.e., detrimental effects) understanding of the aging mechanisms structures, and components, (21 during the period of extended operation The corrective actions that should be integrate risk consideration into the is of principal concern for license taken following identification of maintenance process, (31 provide en renewal. Because the detrimental effects functional degradation logically include enhanced regulatory basis for inspection of aging are manifested in degraded determination of the cause of the and enforcement of BOP maintenance-performance or condition, an degradation, which could involve related issues, and (4) provide a appropriate license renewal review mechanisms other'than aging (e.g., strengthened regulatory basis for would ensure that licensee programs faulty manufacturing processes, faulty ensuring that the progress achieved to adequately monitor performance or maintenance, improper operation, or date is sustained in the future. The condition in a manner that allows for personnel errors). If one or more aging requirements of the maintenance rule the timely identification and correction mechanisms are the cause of functional must be implemented by each licensee of degraded conditions. The degradation, corrective actions should by July 10, 1996.

focus, as appropriate, on prevention, In June 1993, the NRC issued Commission concludes that a shift in Regulatory Guide 1.160, "Monitoring focus to managing the detrimental elimination, or management of the effects caused by the mechanism(s) in the Effectiveness of Maintenance at effects of aging for license renewal Nuclear Power Plants." The regulatory reviews is appropriate and will provide the future. Licensees are required by current regulations to develop and guide provides an acceptable method for reasonable assurance that systems, complying with the requirements of the structures, and components are capable implement programs that ensure that conditions adverse to quality, including maintenance rule and states that a of performing their intended function licensee can use alternative methods if degraded system, structure, and during the period of extended operation component function, are promptly the licensee can demonstrate that these This shift in focus of the license identified and corrected. alternative methods satisfy the renewal review has resulted in several requirements of the rule. Because aging proposed changes to the license renewal (hi) Regulatory Requirements and is a continuing process, the.Commission rule. These changes include deleting the Reliance on the Regulatory Process for has concluded that existing programs definitions of aging mechanism and age- Managing the Effects of Aging and regulatory requirements that related degradation and replacing the Commercial nuclear power plants -continue to be applicable in the period requirement to manage ARDUTLR in the have been performing a variety of of extended operation and provide EPA with a requirement to demonstrate maintenance activities that function adequate aging management for systems, that the effects of aging will be effectively as aging management structures, and components should be adequately managed for the period of programs since plants were initially credited for license renewal.

extended operation. constructed. The Commission also Accordingly, the amendment to the Illinois commented that additional recognizes that both the industry and license renewal rule focuses the renewal research should be undertaken to ensure the NRC have acquired extensive review on plant systems, structures, and all aging effects are und'erstood. experience and knowledge in the area of components for which current activities Mitigating the effects of aging cannot be nuclear power plant -maintenance. and requirements may not be sufficient completely divorced from Regarding the need for a maintenance to manage the effects of aging in the understanding the aging mechanisms. rule, the results of the Commission's period of extended operation.

Illinois indicated that the effects of maintenance team inspections (MTIs) Since publishing the license renewal aging on a system, structure, and indicated that licensees generally have rule on December 13, 1991, the component cannot be managed without adequate maintenance programs in* regulatory process (e.g., regulatory some consideration of all the aging place and have exhibited an improving requirements, aging research, inspection mechanisms causing the effects. As trend in implementing them (56 FR requirements, and inspection some aging mechanisms are not well. 31307; July 10, 1991). However, the* philosophy) for managing the understood, research will still need to Commission determined that a detrimental effects of aging for be performed, and the regulatory maintenance rule was needed, in part important systems, structures, end HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22469 1995

22470 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations components has continued to evolve. monitoring at the component level may failure of any licensee to comply with The changes in the regulatory process be necessary, although, most of the the maintenance rule is enforceable by and initial experience with the license monitoring could be done at the plant, the Commission after July 10, 1996.

renewal rule have had a direct bearing system, or system train level. For One commenter stated that reliance on the Commission's conclusions systems, structures, and components on the maintenance rule is regarding the appropriate focus of aging that fall within the requirements of inappropriate because the NRC does not management review for systems, § 50.65(a](1), licensees must establish plan to scrutinize every system, structures, and components that are goals and monitor performance against structure, and component and how it is within the scope of the license renewal these goals. These goals should be monitored in assuring compliance with rule, and how these systems, structures, derived from information in the CLB the maintenance rule. According to the and components are treated in the IPA and should be established commenter, if there are uncertainties in process. commensurate with safety significance the maintenance rule or its of the systems, structures, or implementation, then there is (iii) Maintenance Rule Requirements uncertainty in the license renewal rule.

and Implementation components. These goals may be performance-oriented (reliability, The commenter also stated that the As discussed in the regulatory unavailability) or condition-oriented aging management analyses and analysis for the maintenance rule and in (pump flow, pressure, vibration, valve measurements required by the license Regulatory Guide 1.160, the stroke time, current, electrical renewal rule for the period of extended Commission's determination that a resistance). An effective preventive operation should commence for all maintenance rule'was needed arose maintenance program is required under operating reactors when the from the conclusion that proper § 50.65(a)(2) if monitoring under maintenance rule goes into effect. The maintenance was essential to plant § 50.65(a)(1) is not performed. NRC disagrees with tho commeniter that safety, A clear link exists between The SOC for the maintenance rule (56 the 100-percent inspection of all effective maintenance and safety as it FR 31308; July 10, 1991) states that the systems. structures, and components is relates to factors such as the number of scope of § 50.65(a)(2) includes those necessary to verify compliance with transients and challenges to safety- systems, structures, and components NRC requirements, including the related systems and the associated need that have "inherently high reliability" maintenance rule. The Commission for operability, availability, and without maintenance. It is expected that disagrees with the commenter that the reliability of safety-related systems, many long-lived, passive structures and licensees should be required to structures, and components. In addition, components could be considered commence aging management reviews good maintenance is important to inherently reliable by licensees and not required for license renewal when the providing assurance that failures of be monitored under 10 CFR 50.65(a)(1). maintenance rule becomes effective.

other than safety-related systems, There may be few, if any, actual As discussed in the SOC for the structures, and compdnents that could maintenance activities (e.g., inspection previous rule (56 FR at 64951), the NRC initiate or adversely affect a transient or or condition monitoring) that a licensee inspection methodology utilizes a accident are minimized. Minimizing conducts for such structures and sampling technique. When problems are challenges to safety-related systems is components. Further, experience gained identified, the inspection sample size Is consistent with the Commission's under the previous license renewal rule, broadened to determine the extent of the defense-in-depth philosophy. Therefore, staff review of industry reports, NRC problem. Additionally, while the nuclear power plant maintenance is aging research, and operating maintenance rule does not require clearly important to protecting the experience indicate that such structures licensees to submit their maintenance public health and safety. and components should be reviewed for programs to the NRC for review and The maintenance rule requires that license renewal if they are passive and approval, compliance with the power reactor licensees monitor the long-lived. Therefore, the Commission requirements of the maintenance rule performance or condition of systems, believes that such structures and will be verified through the NRC structures, and components against components that are technically within inspection process. The NRC will be licensee-established goals in a manner the scope of the maintenance rule conducting inspections on a routine sufficient to provide reasonable should not be generically excluded from basis onsite to verify licensee assurance that these systems, structures, review for license renewal on the basis compliance with the maintenance rule and components are capable of fulfilling of their inherent reliability. Furthermore, as discussed in Section their intended functions. Performance Although the maintenance rule does III(d)(iv) of this SOC, the maintenance and condition monitoring against not become effective and enforceable rule allows for monitoring at a train, licensee-established goals is not until July 10, .1996, the Commission system, or plant level, and that goals required, where it can be demonstrated believes that crediting the rule (along should be commensurate with safety If that the performance or condition of with the entire regulatory program) is performance problems arise, corrective systems, structures, and components is acceptable to support managing the action requirements of 10 CFR 50, being effectively controlled through the effects of aging for certain systems, Appendix B, and the maintenance rule performance of appropriate preventive structures, and components. As require effective corrective actions to maintenance. Performance and discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.160, preclude repetition of the failure.

condition-monitoring activities and implementation of the maintenance rule Passive, long-lived structures and associated goals and preventive relies extensively on existing components that are the focus of the maintenance activities must be maintenance programs and activities. license renewal rule are also within the evaluated once every refueling cycle, The industry has developed guidance requirements of the maintenance rule, provided the interval between for complying with the maintenance as discussed in the SOC Section evaluations does not exceed 24 months. rule and the NRC staff has reviewed this III(d)(iv). Treatment of these structures As discussed in Regulatory Guide guidance and found it acceptable. Many and components, however, under the 1.160, the extent of monitoring may vary utilities are expected to follow the maintenance rule is likely to involve from system to system, depending on industry guidance in implementing the minimal preventive maintenance or the system's importance to risk. Some maintenance rule. Furthermore, the monitoring to maintain functionality o&

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22470 1995

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22471 such structures and comlionents in the that licensee activities associated with maintenance rule. Therefore, for these original operating period. Consequently. the implementation of the maintenance reasons and as discussed in Section under the license renewal rule, the rule will continue throughout the IL.(d) of this SOC, the Commission Commission did not allow for a generic renewal period and are consistent with continues to believe that there is a exclusion of passive, long-lived the first principle of license renewal is sufficient basis for concluding that structures and components based solely fundamental to establishing credit for current licensee programs and activities, on maintenance activities associated the existing programs and the along with the regulatory process, will with implementing the requirements of requirements of the maintenance rule. be adequate to manage the effects of the maintenance rule. It also would be As a result, the requirements in this rule aging on the active functions of all inappropriate to require that all reflect a greater reliance on existing systems, structures, and components licensees perform an aging management licensee programs that manage the within the scope of license renewal*

review required for license renewal detrimental effects of aging on during the period of extended operation when some licensees may not seek functionality, including those activities so that the CLB will be maintained.

license renewal and do not intend to implemented to meet the requirements In addition to the maintenance rule, operate beyond the end of their current of the maintenance rule. the Commission has many individual operating license. Furthermore, if aging requirements relative to maintenance Two commenters stated that it is issues are identified during the license inappropriate for the license renewal throughout its regulations. These renewal review that apply to the current include 10 CFR 50.34(a)(3)(i);

rule to rely on the maintenance rule operating term, licensees are required to 50,34[a)(7); 50,34(b)(6) (i), (ii). (iii), and implementation because 10 CFR 50.65 take measures under their current will not be in effect until July 10, 1996. (iv); 50.34(b)(9); 50.34(0(1) (i). (ii). (iii):

license to ensure that the intended The Commission disagrees with the 50.34(g): 50.34a(c); 50.36(a): 50.36(c) (2).

function of systems, structures, and (3), (5), and (7); 50.36a(a)(1); 50.49(b):

commenters. As discussed in Section 50,55a(g); Part 50, Appendix A, Criteria components will be maintained in Ill.d. (iH]and (iii) of this SOC. the results accordance with the CLB throughout the 1. 13, 18, 21. 32, 36, 37, 40, 43, 45, 46, of the Commission's MTIs indicate that 52, 53; and Part 50, Appendix B.

term of the current license. In-addition, licensees have adequate maintenance if aging issues are identified during the programs in place and have exhibited an (v) Excluding Structures and license renewal review that apply to the improving trend in implementing them. Components With Active Functions current operating term, the NRC will Nuclear power plants have been evaluate these issues for generic Performance and condition performing a variety of maintenance monitoring for systems, structures, and applicability as part of the regulatory activities since plants were initially process. components typically involves constructed. The need for a functional verification, either directly or Therefore, the Commission believes that with the additional experience it maintenance rule arose primarily indirectly. Direct verification is has gained with age-related degradation because the MTIs identified three practical for active functions such as reviews and with the implementation of common maintenance-related pump flow, valve stroke time, or relay the maintenance rule, there is a weaknesses (inadequate root-cause actuation where the parameter of sufficient basis for concluding that analysis, lack of equipment performance concern (required function), including current licensee programs and activities. trending, and lack of appropriate any design margins, can be directly along with the regulatory process, will consideration of plant risk in the measured or observed. For passive be adequate to manage the effects of prioritization, planning, and scheduling functions, the relationship between the aging on the active functions of all of maintenance). Additionally, the SOC measurable parameters and the required systems, structures, and components for the maintenance rule (56 FR 31310) function is less, directly verified. Passive within the scope of license renewal states that "iTihe focus of the rule is on functions, such as pressure boundary during the period of extended operation the results achieved through and structural integrity are generally so that the CLB will be maintained. The maintenance, and, in this regard, it is verified indirectly, by confirmation of bases for this conclusion are discussed not the intent of the rule that existing physical dimensions or component further in the following sections. licensees necessarily develop new physical condition (e.g., piping maintenance programs." Furthermore. structural integrity can be predicted (iv) Integration of the Regulatory Process as stated in Regulatory Guide 1.160, it based on measured wall thickness and and the Maintenance Rule With the is intended that activities currently condition of structural supports, but its License Renewal Rule being conducted by licensees, such as seismic resistance capability cannot be Because of the resultant insight and technical specification surveillance verified by inspection alone). Although understanding that the NRC gained in testing. can satisfy monitoring the requirements of the maintenance developing the implementation requirements. Such activities could be rule apply to systems, structures, and guidance for the maintenance rule, the integrated with. and provide the basis components that perform both active Commission is now in a position to for, the requisite level of monitoring. and passive functions, the Commission more fully integrate the maintenance Finally, at the time of this rulemaking, has determined that performance and rule and the license renewal rule. nine licensees volunteered to participate condition-monitoring programs for Because the intent of the license in an NRC pilot inspection effort to structures and components that perform renewal rule and the maintenance rule review implementation of the passive functions present limitations is similar (ensuring that the detrimental maintenance rule. Five pilot inspections that should be considered in effects of aging on the functionality of had been completed at nuclear power determining that structures and important systems, structures, and plants. The pilot inspections involved a components can be generically excluded components are effectively managed). step-by-step review of the . from an aging management review for the Commission has determined that the implementation of the maintenance license renewal.

license renewal rule should credit rule. In general, the pilot inspections On the basis of consideration of the existing maintenance activities and found that licensees were able to utilize effectiveness of existing programs which maintenance rule requirements for most existing maintenance activities in monitor the performance and condition structures and components. Recognition complying with requirements of the of systems. structures, and components HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22471 1995

22472 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations that perform active functions, the can be excluded from an aging from an aging management review Commission concludes that structures management review. The examples because they are either within the scope and components associated only with given by the commenter for catastrophic of § 50.65 or § 50.48. Compliance with active functions can be generically failures are those related to "passive" § 50.48 is verified through the NRC excluded from a license renewal aging intended functions (e.g., structural inspection program.

management review. Functional integrity, pressure boundary). It is the The fire protection rule (§ 50.48) degradation resulting from the effects of "commission's intent to include these requires each nuclear power plant aging on active functions is more readily passive" functions in the license licensee to have in place a fire determinable, and existing programs renewal review, irrespective of the protection plan (FPP) that satisfies 10 and requirements are expected to components "active" furiction. For CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 3 directly detect the effects of aging. example, a safety system pump casing Licensees are required by § 50.48 to Considerable experience has (i.e., pressure boundary function) would retain the FPP and each change to the demonstrated the effectiveness of these be rbquired to be reviewed, while the plan until the Commission terminates programs and the perform ance-based pump (i.e., the active pumping function) the reactor license. The NRC reviews requirements of the maintenance rule would not. The Commission believes each licensee's total FPP as described in delineated in § 50.65 are expected to that considerable experience has the licensee's safety analysis report further enhance existing maintenance demonstrated that its regulatory process, (SAR), using basic review guidance programs. For example, many licensee including the performance-based described in § 50.48, as applicable to programs that ensure compliance with requirements of the maintenance rule, each plant.

technical specifications are based on provide adequate assurance that The FPP establishes the fire surveillance activities that monitor degradation due to aging of structures protection policy for the protection of performance of systems, structures, and and components that perform active systems, structures, and components components that perform active functions will be appropriately managed important to safety at each plant and the functions. As a result of the continued to ensure their continued functionality procedures, equipment, and personnel applicability of existing programs and during the period of extended operation. requirements necessary to implement regulatory requirements, the In addition, to address the NEI and the program at the plant site. The FPP Commission -believes that active Yankee Atomic Electric Company is the integrated effort that involves functions of systems, structures, and comments, the Commission has systems, structures, and components, components will be reasonably assured removed the words "portions of" and procedures, and personnel to carry out in any period of extended operation. similar wording from the Statement of all activities of fire protection. The FPP Further discussion and justification for Considerations when it could be includes system and facility design, fire excluding structures and components misinterpreted to mean a subcomponent prevention, fire detection, annunciation.

that perform active functions and are piece-part demonstration. confinement, suppression, within the scope of the license renewal A commenter argued that the administrative controls, fire brigade rule, but outside the scope of the Commission should not exclude from organization, inspection and maintenance rule, are presented in review manual valves that are rarely maintenance, training, quality Section (vi). operated during the life of the plant, assurance, and testing..

One commenter argued that the some of which are relied on as part of The FPP is part of the CLB and Commission should not exclude active contingency actions in plant emergency contains maintenance and testing components because aging can be operating procedures. The commenter criteria that provide reasonable discontinuous, leading to catastrophic argued that because these valves are assurance that fire protection systems, failures. Examples of catastrophic rarely "officially" exercised, there is structures, and components are capable failures provided by the commenter insufficient evidence that the active of performing their intended function.

included overstretching of metal, functions will be maintained in the The Commission concludes that it is bending of beams, and embrittlement In renewal period. The Commission appropriate to allow license renewal their supplemental comments, NEI and disagrees with the commenter's applicants to take credit for the FPP as Yankee Atomic Electric Company assertion that there is insufficient an existing program that manages the indicated that the use of the term evidence that the active functions will detrimental effects of aging. The "portions of" could be misinterpreted be maintained in the renewal period. Commission concludes that installed and lead to an unnecessary evaluation Such valves are within the scope of fire protection components that perform of all passive subcomponents. of active various regulatory programs, including active functions can be generically structures and components. the maintenance rule. Consequently, the excluded from an aging management The commenters appear to have ability of the valves to perform their review on the basis of performance or misunderstood the Commission's intent intended function must be assured condition-monitoring programs afforded with regard to "active" and "passive" through either (1] effective preventive - by the FPP that are capable of detecting functions. Passive parts of structures maintenance or (2] performance or and subsequently mitigating the and components that only perform condition monitoring. detrimental effects of aging.

active functions do not require an aging management review. Structures and (vi) Excluding Fire Protection. (vii) Future Exclusion of Structures and components that perform both passive Components With Active Functions Components on the Basis of NRC and active functions require an aging The scope of the maintenance rule Requirements management review for their intended does not generally include installed fire As part of the ongoing regulatory passive function only. The exclusion protection systems, structures, and process, the NRC evaluates emerging regarding active components is focused components because performance and technical issues and, when warranted, on active functions rather than on an condition monitoring is required by establishes new or revised regulatory exclusion of the entire component. For § 50.48. Therefore, for the purposes of requirements as part of the resolution of example, diesel generators and air license renewal, installed structures and a new technical issue, subject to the compressors (excluding structural components that perform active provisions of the backfit rule (§ 50.109).

supports) perform active functions and functions can be generically excluded Increasing experience with aging HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22472 1995

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 1 Rules and Regulations 22473 nuclear power plants has led to the Compilation of the CLB is unnecessary operational concerns and issues at imposition or consideration of to perform a license renewal review. specific plants were identified to additional requirements. For example, One commenter argued that the demonstrate the inadequacy of the at this time the Commission is definition of CLB in § 54.3 should be CLBs. One commenter stated that the considering rulemaking activities clarified. Specifically, the commenter Yankee Rowe reactor pressure vessel associated with steam generator interprets that licensee written problem (the plant was removed from performance and containment commitments made in docketed service rather than show compliance inspections. For steam generators, the licensing correspondence such as with its CLB for its reactor pressure Commission is considering the need for responses to bulletins, generic letters, vessel) demonstrates the inadequacy of a performance-based rule to address and enforcement actions and CLBs. The commenter stated that "the steam generator tube integrity. To commitments in safety evaluations and Rowe experience demonstrated that address concerns regarding licensee event reports (items in the third examination of the licensing basis for containments and liners, the sentence of the definition) should be extended operation could jeopardize the Commission is considering amending considered as part of the CLB only to remaining years on the current license."

§ 50.55(a) to incorporate the most recent the extent that these commitments The Commission did not agree with version of Subsections IWE and IWL in reflect compliance with more formal the comments on the previous rule in the American Society of Mechanical requirements and regulations. These this area and comments received for this Engineers (ASME) Code,Section XI. would include those elements of NRC rulemaking did not provide compelling requirements and regulations identified reasons to alter the previous These new requirements. if in the first two sentences of the Commission determinations. The implemented, would be relevant to both definition. All other licensee aging management and the structures examples cited were all identified by commitments identified in those the NRC through the inspection and and components subject to an aging document types listed in the third oversight processes. The identification management review for license renewal sentence should not be considered CLB of these issues through the regulatory (i.e., passive, long-lived structures and commitments if they are not otherwise process demonstrates that the components). As a result, as part of necessary to demonstrate compliance Commission's programs are effective in relevant future rulemakings, the with NRC requirements and regulations. identifying and resolving new technical Commission intends to evaluate The Commission is aware of public and safety issues and areas of whether these new requirements can be concerns associated with the definition noncompliance in a timely fashion. In considered effective in continuing to of CLB in § 54.3. Some of these concerns each example provided by the manage the effects of aging through any can be explicitly linked to what is commenters, appropriate corrective renewal term. A positive conclusion meant by the term "written action was taken or is being taken on a could establish the bases for further commitments" as it relates to the CLB. plant-specific or on an Industry-wide limiting the license renewal review. These concerns relate to ongoing basis to either modify the CLB to resolve

e. Reaffirmation of Conclusions consideration of the regulatory and the concern or to ensure the continued Concerningthe CurrentLicensing Basis licensee processes for defining, compliance with the present CLB. The and Maintainingthe Function of identifying, tracking; and 'validating Commission agrees that the Yankee Systems, Structures, and Components licensee commitments. Although Rowe case demonstrated that the identified in the license renewal regulatory process can jeopardize (i) Current Licensing Basis rulemaking process, many of these current operation during license concerns are not directly associated renewal activities. The decision to retire As defined in § 54.3 of the rule, the with license renewal, but are relevant to the Yankee Rowe plant was a utility CLB is the set of NRC requirements current commitment management economic decision when faced with the applicable to a specific plant and a methods and practices. Therefore, the prospect of demonstrating continued licensee's written commitments for Commission is evaluating concerns compliance with its CLB. Non-ensuring compliance with and operation associated with the definition of CLB in compliance with the CLB, while not within applicable NRC requirements the context of currently operating shown in the Rowe example, is one of and the plant-specific design basis reactors and may, in the future, the reasons that justifies the existence of (including all modifications and determine that the definition of CLB the regulatory process.

additions to such commitments over the needs to be clarified. Thus, the Public Citizen stated that the lifp of the license) that are docketed and Commission concludes that, at this Commission's contention that all are in effect. A detailed explanation of time, a revision to the definition of CLB reactors are in compliance with their the CLB. the regulatory processes is premature and will not be considered CLBs is both arbitrary and capricious underlying the CLB, compliance with as part of this rulemaking. and neither stands the test of logic nor the CLB. and consideration of the CLB In addition, the Commission reality. The commenter continued by is contained in the SOC for the previous concludes that, for the licensee renewal stating that the "NRC's assumption is license renewal rule (56 FR 64949: review, consideration of written based upon the specious argument that December 13, 1991). In summary, the commitments only need encompass having operated without a meltdown for conclusions made in the Soc for the those commitments that concern the a finite period of time means that safety.

previous rule remain valid. The CLB capability of systems, structures, and is adequate."

represents the evolving set of components, identified in § 54.21(a). The Commission does not contend requirements and commitments for a integrated plant assessment and that all reactors are in full compliance specific plant that are modified as § 54.21(c) time-limited aging analyses, with their respective CLBs on a necessary over the life of a plant to to perform their intended functions, as continuous basis. Rather, as discussed ensure continuation of an adequate level delineated in § 54.4(b). in the SOC for the previous rule, the of safety. The regulatory process is the For the previous rule as well as for regulatory process provides reasonable means by which the Commission this rulemaking, commenters argued assurance that there is compliance with continually assesses the adequacy of that the CLB of a number of plants is the CLB. The NRC conducts its and compliance with the CLB. Inadequate. Multiple examples of inspection and enforcement activities HeinOnline -- 6.0 Fed: Reg. 22473 1995

22474 Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations under the presumption that non- components," the portion of the CLB' and a license renewal evaluation. This compliances will occur. that can be impacted by the detrimental activity will likely include examination The Commission does not believe that effects of aging is the design basis. Thus, of the plant itself to understand and an absence of accidents over a given there is no compelling reason to verify licensee activities associated with period of time equates to adequate consider, for licefise renewal, any aging management reviews and actions safety. Neither does the Commission portion of the CLB other than that being taken to mitigate detrimental believe that all risk can be eliminated. which is associated with the structures effects of aging.

After consideration of all comments Adequate safety is a subjective term that and components of the plant (i.e., that cannot be directly measured. The part of the CLB that can suffer concerning the compilation of the CLB, Commission's performance indicators detrimental effects of aging). All other the Commission has reconfirmed its demonstrate that, while not aspects of the CLB have continuing conclusion made for the previous rule quantifiable, relative safety levels are relevance in the license renewal period that it is not necessary to compile, increasing. An absence of accidents over as they do in the original operating review, and submit a list of documents a finite period of time can be considered term, but without any association with that comprise the CLB in order to as just one safety performance indicator. an aging process that may cause perform a license renewal review Despite improving performance invalidation. From a practical indicators, the Commission intends to (ii) Maintaining the Function of standpoint, an applicant must consult Systems, Structures, and Components continue the meticulous process of the CLB for a structure or component in insuring and maintaining an adequate order to perform an aging management As discussed in the SOC for the level of protection. review. The CLB for the structure or previous license renewal rule, the Commenters for both the previous component of interest contains the Commission stated that continued.safe rule and for this rulemaking argued that information describing the functional operation of a nuclear power plant the plant-specific CLB should be requirements necessary to determine the requires that systems, structures, and compiled and the NRC should verify presence of any aging degradation. components that perform or support compliance with the CLB as part of the safety functions continue to perform in license renewal process. Public Citizen The definition of CLB in § 54.3(a) accordance with the applicable stated that "The NRC must review the states that a plant's CLB consists, in requirements in the licensing basis. In documents which make up the current part, of "a licensee's written addition, the Commission stated that the licensing basis and examine the plant commitments * *

• that are docketed effects of ARDUTLR must be mitigated itself in order to determine whether the * * " Because these documents have to ensure that the aged systems, licensee has complied with the current already been submitted to the NRC and structures, and components will licensing basis," and further, are in the docket files for the plant, they adequately perform their designed submission of the documents, and NRC are not only available to the NRC for use safety or intended function.

verification of the licensee's compliance in the renewal review, they are also In developing this final rule, a key with its CLB is necessary to avoid available for public inspection and issue that the Commission considered "fraud and abuse." Public Citizen also copying in the Commission's public was whether or not a focus on ensuring contends that "lalbsent the submission document rooms. Furthermore, the NRC a system's, structure's or component's of the documents the public and the may review any supporting function through performance or Commission are left to examine the documentation that it may wish to condition monitoring is a sufficient reactor's license renewal application inspect or audit in connection with its basis for concluding that the CLB will and the IPA in a vacuum."

• renewal review. If the renewed license be maintained throughout the period of The Commission disagrees With the is granted, those documents continue to extended operation. The Commission commenter, and points out that the remain subject to NRC inspection and considered whether the regulatory proposed rule did not explicitly require audit throughout the term of the process and a focus on functionality the renewal applicant to compile the renewed license. The Commission during the license renewal review for CLB for its plant. The Commission continues to believe that resubmission the period of extended operation are rejected a compilation requirement for of the documents constituting the CLB sufficient to provide reasonable the previous license renewal rule for the is unnecessary. With respect to the assurance that an acceptable level of reasons set forth in the accompanying commenter's argument that the CLB safety (i.e., the CLB) will be maintained SOC (56 FR at 64952). The Commission needs to be verified, the Commission Continued safe operation of a continues to believe that a prescriptive had concluded when it adopted the commercial nuclear power plant requirement to compile the CLB is not previous license renewal rule that a requires that systems, structures, and necessary. Furthermore, submission of reverification of CLB compliance as part components that perform or support documents for the entire CLB is not of the renewal review was unnecessary safety functions continue to function in necessary for the Commission's review (56 FR at 64951-52). Public Citizen accordance with the applicable of the rene.wal application. As stated in presented no information questioning requirements in the licensing basis of section III.b(i) of this SOC, the the continuing soundness of the the plant and that others do not Commission has determined that the Commission's rationale, and the substantially increase the frequency of single issue generic to all plants with Commission reaffirms its earlier challenges to those required for safety regard to license renewal is the effects conclusion that a special verification of As a plant ages, a variety of aging of age-related degradation during the CLB compliance in connection with the mechanisms are operative, including period of extended operation. As review of a license renewal application erosion, corrosion, wear, therm.al and explained in the SOC for the previous is unnecessary. The Commission. radiation embrittlement,"

rule, section IV.c(i) (56 FR at 64948), the intends, as stated by the commenter, to microbiologically induced aging effects, CLB of any plant is comprised of examine the plant-specific CLB as creep, shrinkage, and possibly others yet numerous regulations, license necessary to make a licensfng decision to be identified or fully understood.

conditions, the design basis, etc. As on the continued functionality of However, the detrimental effects of discussed in Ill(e}(ii), "Maintaining the systems, structures, and components aging mechanisms can be observed by function of systems, structures, and subject to an aging management review detrimental changes in the performance HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22474 1995

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 /. Rules and Regulations 22475 characteristics or condition of systems, personnel. Once a detrimental protection (security), and radiation structures, and components if they are performance or condition caused by protection requirements, are not subject properly monitored. aging or other factors is revealed, to physical aging processes that may Aging can affect all systems, mitigating actions are taken to fully cause noncompliance with those aspects structures, and components to some restore the condition to its original of the CLB.

degree. Generally, the changes resulting design basis. As a result of these Although the definition of CLB in Part from detrimental aging effects are programs, degradation due to aging 54 is broad and encompasses various gradual. Licensees have ample mechanisms (detrimental aging effects) aspects of the NRC regulatory process opportunity to detect these degradations is currently being adequately managed, (e.g., operation and design through performance and condition either directly or indirectly, for most requirements), the Commission monitoring programs, technical systems, structures, and components. concludes that a specific focus on specification surveillances required by Consequently, there is considerable functionality is appropriate for

§ 50.36, and other licensee maintenance logic in ensuring that the design basis performing the license renewal review activities. Except for some well- (as defined in § 50.2) of systems, Reasonable assurance that the function understood aging mechanisms such as structures, and components is of important systems, structures, and neutron embrittlement and intergranular maintained through activities that components will be maintained stress corrosion cracking, the ensure continued functionality. This throughout the renewal period, straightforward approach to detecting' process, including surveillance, is relied combined with the rule's stipulation and mitigating the effects of aging on in the current term to ensure that all aspects of a plant's CLB (e.g.,

begins with a process that verifies that continued operability, (i.e., to the technical specifications) and the NRC's the intended design functions of greatest extent practicable, the intended regulatory process carry forward into systems, structures, and components design functions will be properly the renewal period,' are viewed as have not been compromised or performed). The focus on maintaining sufficient to conclude that the CLB degraded. Licensees are required by functionality results in the continuing (which represents an acceptable level of current regulations to develop and capability of systems, structures, and safety) will be maintained. Functional implement programs that ensure that components, including supporting capability is the principal emphasis for conditions adverse to quality, including systems, structures, and components, to much of the CLB and is the focus of the degraded system, structure, or perform their intended functions as maintenance rule and other regulatory component function, are promptly designed.

Akey element of the 10 CFR 54 requirements to ensure that aging issues identified and corrected. The licensees' are appropriately managed in the programs include self-inspection, definition of the CLB is the plant- current license term.

"maintenanpe, and technical specific design-basis information An example of performance specification surveillance programs that defined In 10 CFR 50.2. According to verification activities that must be monitor and test the physical condition this definition. "[d)esign bases means performed by licensees Is the loss of of plant systems; structures, and that information which identifies the coolant accident (LOCA)/loss of offsite components. specific functions to be performed by a power (LOOP) integrated tests. This For example, technical specifications structure, system, or component of a technical specification surveillance is include limiting conditions for facility, and the specific values or typically required to be performed at operation (LCOs), which are the lowest ranges of values chosen for controlling least onceevery 18 months. This test functional capability or performance parameters as reference bounds for simulates a coincident LOCA/LOOP levels of equipment required for safe design." In addition, design bases (design-basis accident) for each train or operation of the facility. Technical identify specific functions to be division of emergency alternating specifications also require surveillance performed by a system, structure, and current (ac) power source (e.g.,

requirements relating to test, calibration, component, and design-basis values emergency diesel generators), the or inspection to verify that the necessary may be derived for achieving functional associated emergency core cooling quality of systems, structures, and goals. For plant systems, structures, and systems (e.g., safety injection components is maintained, that facility components that are not subject to subsystems), and other'electrically operation is within safety limits, and performance or condition-monitoring driven safety components (e.g.,

that LCOs continue to be met. programs or for those on which the containment isolation valves, Furthermore, § 50.55a requires, in part, detrimental effects of aging may not be emergency ventilation/filtration that systems, structures, and as readily apparent, verification of components, and auxiliary feedwater components be tested and inspected specific design values (e.g., piping wall components). All engineered safety against quality standards commensurate thickness) or demonstration by analysis features required to actuate for an actual with the importance of the safety can be a basis for concluding that the LOCA/LOOP are required to actuate for function to be performed, such as required function(s) will be maintained the test.and either duplicate the LOCA/

inservice testing (IST) and inservice in the period of extended operation. LOOP function completely (e.g., electric inspections (ISIs) of pumps and valves. When the design bases of systems, loads are sequenced onto emergency Elements for timely mitigation of the structures, and components can be busses, containment isolation valves effects of age-related degradation confirmed either indirectly by actually shut from fully open positions) include activities that provide inspection or directly by verification of or approximate the actual function to reasonable assurance that systems, functionality through test or operation, the greatest extent practicable (e.g.,

structures, and components will a reasonable conclusion can be drawn safety injection pumps start and run in perform their intended functions when that the CLB is or will be maintained. recirculation mode instead of actually called on. Through these programs, This conclusion recognizes that the injecting water into the reactor coolant licensees identify the degradation of portion of the CLB that can be impacted system). Design-basis values that can components resulting from a number of by the detrimental effects of aging is only be measured during this testing, different environmental stressors as well limited to the design-bases aspects of such as load sequence times and as degradation from inadequate the CLB. All other aspects of the CLB, emergency 'bus voltage response to the maintenance or errors caused by e.g., quality assurance, physical sequenced loads, are directly verified HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22475 1995

22476 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / RUles and Regulations Between integrated tests, monthly and The approach reflected in this rule aging management review. However, the quarterly surveillances verify specific maintains the requirement for each *Commission does not believe that it can component performance criteria such as renewal applicant to address possible generically exclude structures and emergency diesel generator start times detrimental effects of aging for certain components that-or pump flow values. The acceptance systems, structures and components (1)Do not have performance and criteria stated in the surveillance during the period of extended operation condition characteristics that are as requirements are derived from design- through the IPA process. The rule will readily monitorable as active basis values with appropriate simplify the IPA process consistent with components; and conservatisms built in to account for (1) the Commission's determination that (2) Are not subject to periodic, any uncertainties or measurement the aging management review should planned replacement.

tolerances. Satisfactory accomplishment focus on ensuring that structures and Unlike the extensive experience and periodic repetition of these types of components perform their intended associated with the performance and surveillance provide reasonable function(s) and (2) the additional condition monitoring of the active assurance that system. structure, and experience the Commission has gained functions of structures and components, component functions will be performed related to aging management review little experience.has been gained from as designed. since publishing the current license the evaluation of long-term effects of renewal rule. aging on the passive functions of

f. IntegratedPlantAssessment The [PA process continues to require structures and components. The The previous license renewal rule an initial review of all plant systems, Commission considers that the required license renewal applicants to structures, and components to identify detrimental effects of aging affecting perform a systematic screening of plant the scope of structures and components passive functions of structures and systems, structures, and components to requiring aging management review for components are less apparent than the ultimately determine if aging would be license renewal. The principal detrimental effects of aging affecting the adequately managed in the period of differences between the IPA process in active functions of structures and extended operation. This IPA process the previous license renewal rule and components. Therefore, the Commission would begin broadly and consider all the IPA process in this rule is- concludes that a generic exclusion for plant systems, structures, and (1) The determination of the reduced passive structures and components is components. The IPA would then focus set of structures and components that inappropriate at this time. The must undergo an aging management Commission also concludes that an on only those that are important to license renewal and finally on only review; aging management review of the passive (2) The form of the aging management functions of structures and components those structures and components that could be subject to ARDUTLR. For those review (managing the effects of aging on is warranted to provide the reasonable structures and components subject to' functionality versus managing aging assurance that their intended functions ARDUTLR, the IPA process required an mechanisms); and are adequately maintained during the (3) The elimination of the term," period of extended operation.

evaluation and demonstration that.

either (1) new programs or licensee ARDUTLR" Additional experience with managing actions would be implemented to (i) Determination of Structures and the effects of aging on the function of Components Requiring Aging these structures and components may prevent or mitigate any ARDUTLR narrow the selection of structures and during the period of extended operation Management Review for License components requiring an aging ore(2) justifies that no actions are Renewal management review for license renewal necessary. In the SOC for the previous license in the future.

On the basis of experience gained renewal rule, the Commission stated New Jersey commented that since so from implementation of the previous that, as it gains more experience with much of original plant design assumed license'renewal rule, the Commission age-related degradation reviews, it may 40 years of service, utilities should be determined that the previous rule revisit the need for such a disciplined required to determine the actual required the evaluation of an review process and may narrow the conditions of systems, structures, and unnecessarily large number of plant scope of the safety review. The components at the 40-year point systems, structures, and components to Commission now believes that after "license renewal milestone.-"

establish appropriate aging management reviewing its recent implementation The focus of the license renewal rule in the period of extended operation. experience, a narrower scope of review on passive, long-lived structures and This experience, further consideration is warranted. The Commission components conforms to the of existing activities, and the recent concludes'that a generic exclusion from commenter's concern. For a licensee to adoption of the maintenance rule have aging management review is appropriate perform an effective aging management led the Commission to conclude that for those categories of structures and review of long-lived, passive structures many of these systems, structures, and components subject to existing and components identified in the IPA, components are already subject to programs and activities that the a logical starting point for a given activities that ensure their function Commission believes are sufficient to structure or component may be to assess through any period of extended provide reasonable assurance of its current condition against the CLB via operation. Therefore, the Commission is continued function in the period of a "one time" inspection. Although this amending the IPA process in this extended operation. assessment is not specifically required rulemaking to more efficiently. focus the As discussed in Section lII.d of this by the rule, the licensee must license renewal review on certain SOC. the Commission has determined demonstrate that the effects of aging will structures and components for which .that the existing regulatory process, be managed so that the intended the regulatory process and existing existing licensee programs and function(s) will be maintained for the licensee programs and activities-may activities, and the maintenance rule period of extended operation. If a not adequately manage the detrimental provide the basis for generically licensee chooses not to perform a "one effects of aging in the period of excluding structures and components time" inspection or similar assessment extended operation. that perform active functions from an for a particular structure or componeht HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22476 1995

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22477 the aging management review must still Structures or components may have reactor coolant pressure boundary, to be adequately demonstrate that detrimental active functions, passive functions, or included in an aging management effects of aging will be managed during both: For example, although a pump or review (e.g., pressurized water reactor the period of extended operation. a valve has some moving parts, a pump main steam lines). The Commission (a) "Passive" Structures and casing or valve body performs a does not limit the consideration of Components pressure-retaining function without pressure boundaries for an aging In Section IlI.d of this SOC, the moving parts. A pump casing or a valve management review to only the reactor body meets the Cormmission's coolant pressure boundary All pressure Commission concluded that structures description and would therefore be retaining boundaries necessary for the and components that perform active considered for an aging management performance of the intended functions functions can be generically excluded review. However, the moving parts of delineated in § 54.4 would be subject to from an aging management review on the pump, such as the pump impeller, an aging management review For the basis of performance or condition- would not be subject to aging example, those portions of a plant's monitoring programs. The Commission management review. Additionally, the main steam lines that meet the intended recognizes that structures and maintenance rule implementation function criteria of § 54.4 would be components that have passive functions guidance (Regulatory Guide 1.160) included in an aging management generally do not have performance and contains a provision by which licensees review condition characteristics that are as may classify certain systems, structures, One commenter expressed a belief readily monitorable as those that and components (e.g., raceways, tanks, that cables were prematurely included perform active functions. Therefore, the and structures) as, "inherently reliable." as "passive" and should not be subject Commission concludes that an aging Inherently reliable systems, structures, to an aging management review The management review is required for' and components by definition generally commenter stated that the only aging structures and components within the do not require any continuing effects of cables are shorting and loss of scope of the license renewal rule that maintenance actions and should be continuity, and for cables not inma harsh perform passive intended functions. considered as "pasgive." environment, these effects would be The Commission has reviewed several As examples of the implementation of immediately detected during normal industry concepts of "passive" this screening requirement, the operation or functional testing. The structures and components and has Commission considers structures and Commission considers the examples of determined that they do not accurately components meeting the passive electrical components (e.g., electrical describe the structures and components description as including, but not limited cables, connections, and electrical that should be subject to an aging to, the reactor vessel, the reactor coolant penetrations) listed in 10 CFR management review for license renewal. system pressure boundary, steam 54.21(a}(1)(i) and Section Ill.fti)(a) of the Accordingly, the Commission has generators, the pressurizer, piping, SOC to be properly categorized as developed a description of "passive" pump casings, valve bodies, the core "passive" because they perform their characteristics of structures and shroud, component supports, pressure intended function without moving parts components. Furthermore, the retaining boundaries, heat exchangers, or without a change in configuration or Commission has directly incorporated ventilation ducts, the containment, the properties and the effects of aging these characteristics into the IPA containment liner, electrical and degradation for these components are process to avoid the creation of a new mechanical penetrations,.equipment not readily monitorable. The term, "passive." This SOC uses the term hatches, seismic Category I structures, Commission also believes that this

'passive" for convenience.

electrical cables and connections, cable categorization is not premature as stated Furthermore, the description of trays, and electrical cabinets. by the commenter "passive" structures and components Additionally, the Commission The Commission disagrees with the incorporated into § 54.21(a) should be determined that structures and commenter's assertion that the aging used only in connection with the IPA components that perform active effects of cable make it easy to monitor review in the license renewal process. functions are not subject to an aging functional degradation. Although there The Commission has determined that management review (e.g., pumps have been significant advances in this passive structures and components for (except casing), valves (except body), area, there is no single method or which aging degradation is not readily motors, diesel generators, air combination of methods that can monitored are those that perform an compressors, snubbers, the control rod - provide the necessary information about intended function without moving parts drive, ventilation dampers, pressure the condition of electrical cable or without a change in configuration or transmitters, pressure indicators, water currently in service regarding the extent properties. For example, a pump or level indicators, switchgears, cooling of aging degradation or remaining valve has moving parts, an electrical fans, transistors, batteries, breakers, qualified life. Degradation due to aging relay can change its configuration, and relays, switches, power inverters, circuit of electrical cables caused by elevated a battery changes its electrolyte boards, battery chargers, and power temperature and radiation can cause properties when discharging. Therefore, supplies). However, pressure-retaining embrittlement in the form of cracking of the performance or condition of these boundaries (e.g., pump casings, valve insulation and jacket materials. The components is readily monitored and bodies, fluid system piping) and cracks degrade the electrical properties would not be captured by this structural supports (e.g., diesel of the insulation materials. The major description. Further, the Commission generator structural supports) that are concern is that failures of deteriorated has concluded that "a change in necessary for the structure or cable systems (cables, connections, and configuration or properties" should be component to perform its intended penetrations) might be induced during interpreted to include ta change in function meet the description of accident conditions. Because these state," which is a term'sometimes found passive, and will be subject to an aging components are relied on to remain in the literature relating to "passive." management review.

• functional during and following design For example, a transistor can "change A commenter requested clarification basis events (including conditions of its state" and therefore would not be as to whether the Commission intended normal operation) and there are screened in under this description. pressure boundaries, other than the currently no known effective methods HeinOnline -- 60 Fed'. Reg. 22477 1995

22478 Feder~al Register / Vol. 60. No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations for continuous monitoring of cable functions, such generic exclusion is not that have a less rigorous approach to systems, these examples of passive appropriate. However, the Commission oversight and maintenance and those electrical components subject to an does not intend to preclude a license that have a sufficiently high level of aging management review will remain renewal applicant from providing site- licensee programs and regulatory in 10 CFR 54.21(a)(1)(i) and Section 111 specific justification in a license oversight. The commenter then suggests f(i)(a) of the SOC. renewal application that a replacement that the rule should recognize the (b) "Long-Lived" Structures and program on the basis of performance or quality and effectiveness of the condition for a passive structure or programs in the second category and Components component provides reasonable appropriately credit them relative to an The Commnission recognizes that, as a assurance that the intended function of aging management review. Specifically, general matter, the effects of aging on a the passive structure or component will the commenter provided the reactor structure. or component are cumulative be maintained in the period of extended coolant pressure boundary as an throughout its service life. One way to operation. example of a passive, long-lived effectively mitigate these effects is to A commenter recommended that the component for which rigorous programs replace that structure or component, Commission exclude specific and regulatory oversight currently exist either (i) on a specified interval based components from an aging management to adequately manage the effects of upon the qualified life of the structure review if they have been replaced in the aging. Currently, the Commission or component or (ii) periodically in later years of the original license or if believes it would be too difficult to accordance with a specified time period they are subject to routine testing. The further divide the structures and to prevent performance degradations Commission believes that one-time components required for an aging leading to loss of intended function component replacements and management review into those passive.,

during the period of operation. replacements based on routine testing long-lived structures and components Where a structure or component is are essentially replacements based on "rigorously" managed and those "not as replaced based upon a qualified life performiance or condition. Absent the rigorously" managed. The variations (appropriately determined), it follows specific nature of the performance or that the replaced structure or among plant specific designs and condition replacement criteria (e.g., programs make such a determination component will not experience routine testing program) it is not detrimental effects of aging sufficient to unmanageable at present. However, as appropriate for the Commission to the Commission gains more experience preclude its intended function. This is generically exclude all such because the purpose of qualification of with industry activities for management replacement programs of passive of passive, long-lived structures and the life of a structure or component is structures and components. However, to determine the time period for which components, it may consider further the Commission does not preclude a narrowing the scope of those structures the intended function of that structure license renewal applicant from or component can be reasonably and components requiring an aging providing a plant-specific justification management review. With regard to the assured. in a license renewal application that a Where a structure or component is commenter's specific example of the one-time replace *mentprogram or reactor coolant pressure boundary, replaced periodically in accordance -replacement program on the basis of with a specified time period,-the because of its high-risk significance, the routine testing of passive structures and differences in plant-spec'ific design and regulatory process will ensure that components provides reasonable degraded performance of the structure operational histories, and the lack of assurance that functionality will be* operating experience beyond the or component experienced during the maintained in the period of extended replacement interval will be adequately original operating terms, the operation.

addressed and the established replacing A commenter requested that the Commission does not believe it interval will be appropriate. Thus, there Commission provide an example of a appropriate to generically exclude the is a high likelihood that the detrimental performance- or condition-based reactor coolant pressure boundary from effects of aging will not accumulate replacement program that could be used an aging management review.

• during the subsequent period such that to justify that aging effects will be (ii) The IPA Process there is a loss of intended function. adequately managed during the period In sum, a structure or component that of extended operation. While an exact The Commission revised and is not replaced either 4i) on a specified application of a performance or simplified the IPA requirements interval based upon the qualified life of condition replacement is necessarily* (§54.21 (a)) as follows:

the structure or component or (ii) dependent on plant-specific situations First, instead of listing those systems, periodically in accordance with a and their respective aging effects of structures, and components that are specified time period, is deemed by concern, the Commission would important to license renewal, only a list

§ 54.21 (al)(iijH of this rule to be "long- generally expect that such a is required (from those systems, lived," and therefore subject to the replacement program would have structures, and comnponents within the

§ 54.21 (a)(3) aging management review. defined performance or condition scope of license renewal) of structures It is important to note, however, that measuring methods (e.g., wall thickness and components that a licensee, the Commission has decided not to of heat exchanger tubes), an established determines to be subject to an aging generically exclude passive structures monitoring frequency that supports management review for the period of and components that are replaced based timely discovery of degraded conditions extended operation. A licensee has the on performance or condition from an (e.g., every refueling outage), and an flexibility to determine the set of aging management review. Absent the appropriate replacement criterion (e.g., structures and components for which an specific nature of the performance or upon reaching a specified number of aging management review is performed, condition replacement criteria and the tubes plugged). provided that this set encompasses the fact that the Commission has .One commenter stated that the structures and components for which determined that components with Commission should consider dividing the Commission has determined an "passive" functions are not as readily long-lived passive structures and aging management review is required monitorable as components with active components into two categories: those for the period of extended operation.

H-einOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22478 199S

Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22479 Therefore, a licensee's aging DOE commented that the wording in must be considered for an aging management review must include § 54.21(a)(3), requiring a demonstration management review.

structures and components- that the effects of aging will be managed g. Time-Limited Aging Analyses and (1) That were not subject to so that the intended function(s) will be maintained, could be interpreted too - Exemptions replacement based on a qualified life Or a specified time period; and restrictively. Specifically, DOE asserts (i) Time-Limited Aging Analyses (2) That perform an intended function that the IPA process serves to The definition of ARDUTLR in the

(§ 54.4) without moving parts or without demonstrate that a structure or previous license renewal rule requires a a change in configuration or properties. component will perform in a manner licensee evaluation and NRC approval In establishing this flexibility, the consistent with the CLB rather than to provide "absolute" assurance that the of previous time-limited aging analyses Commission recognizes that licensees for systems, structures, and components may find it preferable to not take structure or component will not fail.

Therefore, DOE recommends revising within the scope of license renewal that maximum advantage of the either were based on an assumed service Commission's generic conclusion § 54.21(a)(3) to include requiring a demonstration that the effects of aging life or a period of operation defined by regarding structures and components the original license term. For example, that do not require an aging are "adequately managed" and that the intended functions are maintained, "to certain plant-specific safety analyses management review, and may undertake may have been based on an explicitly a broader scope of review than is the extent required by the CLB."

The Commission agrees with DOE assumed 40-year plant life (e.g.. aspects minimally required. For example, a of the reactor vessel design). As a result, licensee may desire to review all that the IPA process is not intended to "passive" structures and components. demonstrate absolute assurance that an evaluation for license renewal would structures or components will not fail, be required. Those time-limited aging This set of structures and components analyses that need to be evaluated for would be acceptable because it includes but rather that there is reasonable assurance that they will perfonr such renewal are limited to those analyses "long-lived" as well as periodically with (i) time-related assumptions, (ii) replaced structures and components that the intended functions, as delineated in § 54.4, are maintained utilized in determining the acceptability and, therefore, encompasses all of systems, structures, and components structures and components that would consistent with the CLB. The Commission has clarified the wording within the scope of license renewal (as be identified through criteria (1) and (2) defined in Section 54.4), (iii) which are in § 54.21(a)(3) to require a above. demonstration that the effects of aging based upon a period of plant operation Second, the IPA must contain a be adequately managed so that the equal to or greater than the current description of the methodology used to intended function(s) will be maintained license term, but less than the determine those systems. structures, and consistent with the CLB. cumulative period of plant operation components within the scope of license One commenter suggested that the (viz., the existing license term plus the renewal and those structures and amendment provides more uncertainty period of extended operation requested components subject to an aging as to which structures and components in the renewal applicationl. Time-management review. should be considered for an aging limited aging analyses based on an Third, the IPA must contain a management review. Specifically, the assumed period of plant operation short demonstration, for each structure and commenter cited fasteners as an of the current operating term should be component subject to an aging example of what is important but addressed within the original license management review, that the effects of appears not to be considered in the and need not be reviewed for license aging will be managed so that the proposed rule. The commenter states renewal.

intended function(s) will be maintained that the NRC should provide more Because the Commission deleted the for the period of extended operation. detailed guidance. term of ARDUTLR, this license renewal This demonstration must include a The Commission does not agree that rule identifies these explicit time-description of activities. as well as any the rule provides more uncertainty with limited anialyses as issues that must be changes to the CLB and plant regard to what structures and clearly addressed within the license modifications that are relied on to components should be considered. In renewal process. This rule explicitly demonstrate that the intended fact, the rule provides clear criteria for requires that-function(s) will be adequately what types of structures and (1) Applicants perform an evaluation maintained despite the effects of aging components must be subject to an aging of time-limited aging issues relevant to in the period of extended operation. management review-namely passive, systems, structures, and components A commenter suggested that the long-lived structures and components within the scope of license renewal in regulatory text include a more from those determined to be within the the license renewal application; and comprehensive list of components scope of license renewal. With regard to (2) The adequate resolution of time-subject to an aging management review the specific example of fasteners cited limited aging analysis issues as part of in order to clarify its intent. The by the commenter, the rule would the standards for issuance of a renewed Commission decided that not to include require an aging management review for license.

a more detailed list of components fasteners because fasteners are The time-limited provisions or subject to an aging management review. considered to be passive and if the analyses of concern are those that-Components subject to an aging fasteners (1) were determined to be (1) Involve the effects of aging:

management review are highly plant within the scope of license renewal as (2) Involve time-limited assumptions specific and the Commission does not defined in § 54.4 and (2) were defined by the current operating term, intend to establish plant-specific lists by determined not to be subject to periodic for example, 40 years; regulation. However, the Commission replacement or replacement based on a (3] Involve systems, structures, and will include additional clarification and qualified fastener life. As in the components within the scope of license examples of components requiring an previous rule, this rule does not renewal; aging. management review in its delineate a comprehensive list of the (4) Involve conclusions or provide the implementation guidance for the rule. specific structures and components that basis for conclusions related to the HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22479 1995

22480 Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations capability of the system, structure, and (EQ) of electrical equipment, metal October 1990 that did not result in component to perform its intended corrosion allowance, inservice flaw backfits, the Commission found that functions; growth analyses that demonstrate .only 3 issues for which a reexamination (5) Were determined to be relevant by structural stability for 40 years, of the backfit determination appeared to the licensee in making a safety inservice local metal containment be prudent. In two instances, the determination; and corrosion analyses, and high-energy reexamination confirmed the (6) Are contained or incorporated by line-break postulation based on fatigue appropriateness of the no backfit reference in the CLB. cumulative usage factor. conclusion for an additional 20 years of The applicant for license renewal will Three issues were raised by five operation beyond the original 40-year be required in the renewal application commenters relating to time-limited license term. The third issue (GSI Item to-- aging analyses in the proposed rule. III.A.1.3 "Maintain Supply of Thyroid (1) Justify that these analyses are valid (1) The proposed rule contains a Blocking Agent") had been placed in the for the period of extended operation; definition of time-limited aging analyses resolution process for reasons apart (2) Extend the period of evaluation of in § 54.3 which is further discussed in from license renewal. Thus, cost-benefit the analyses such that they are valid for the proposed SOC. However, the analyses of the resolved GSIs were the period of extended operation, for proposed rule definition appeared to relatively insensitive to consideration of example, 60 years; or contain two criteria in defining time- the period of extended operation. The (3) Justify that the effects of aging will limited aging analyses while the cost-benefit methodologies utilized in be adequately managed for the period of discussion in the proposed SOC resolution of GSIs are the same as those extended operation if an applicant appeared to contain six criteria. Three used by the NRC in conjunction with.

cannot or chooses not to justify or commenters indicated that there may be the full gamut of regulatory actions extend an existing time-limited aging potential inconsistencies between the involving nuclear power plants, analysis. proposed rule definition and the including rulemaking and enforcement.

The Commission considers analyses proposed SOC. The commenters Since the methodologies are the same, to be "relevant" if the analyses provided recommended various methods for the Commission believes that the results the basis for the licensee's safety incorporating the SOC language in the of NUREG-0933 can be reasonably determination and, in the absence of the rule. extrapolated to other regulatory analyses, the licensee may have reached The proposed SOC discussion was assessments where backfits were not a different safety conclusion. Time- intended to further clarify the criteria imposed on the basis of cost-benefit limited aging analyses that need to be contained in the proposed rule analyses limited to 40 years of addressed in a license renewal definition. After reviewing the operation. Furthermore, cost-benefit evaluation are not necessarily those comments, the Commission has decided considerations simply do not come into analyses that have been previously to replace the proposed definition of play in backfit determinations involving reviewed or approved by the time-limited aging analyses in § 54.3 adequate protection--except in selecting Commission. The following examples with the six criteria in the proposed among different ways of achieving illustrate time-limited aging analyses SOC as recommended. adequate protection, as is acknowledged that need to be addressed and were not (2) One commenter recommended in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(7). The IPE and previously reviewed and approved by reconsideration of all proposed plant IPEEE are licensees' studies to search for the Commission. . modifications which were not imposed plant vulnerabilities to internal and (1) The FSAR states that the design by the Commission due to a cost-benefit external events. As such, the WPE and complies with a certain ASME Code analysis that had time-dependent IPEEE are not intended to identify or requirement. A review of the ASME factors. The commenter suggested that address matters involving adequate Code requirement reveals that a time- this should include any backfits which protection and, to date, no such issues limited aging analysis is required. The the Commission declined to impose, as have been, identified.

actual calculation was performed by the well as potential plant.modifications to (3) Two commenters recommended licensee to meet code requirements, The reduce risk identified in programs such clarifying that the requirement of time-specific calculation was not referenced as the individual plant examination limited aging analyses does not apply to in the FSAR and the NRC had not (IPE) and the individual plant a component that is replaced based on reviewed the calculation. examination of external events (IPEEE) a qualified life less than the full original (2) In response to a generic letter, a for severe accident vulnerabilities. license term. The commenters cited the licensee submitted a letter to the NRC The Commission does not regard such EQ of electrical equipment pursuant to committing to perform a time-limited reconsideration to be necessary to § 50.49 as a specific example. This type aging analysis that would address the provide reasonable assurance that there of equipment is replaced during the concern in the generic letter. The NRC is no undue risk to the public health current license term and will continue had not documented a review of the and safety for the period of extended to be replaced during the renewal term licensee's response and had not operation of nuclear power plants. based on its qualified life.

reviewed the actual analysis. As discussed in the SOC for the The Commission's intent for the The Commission expects that the previous license renewal rule (56 FR requirement of time-limited aging number of time-limited aging analyses 64943 at 64948), in NUREG-0933, A analyses is to capture, for renewal that need to be addressed in a license Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues, review, certain plant-specific aging renewal evaluation is relatively small. the NRC examined 249 generic safety analyses that are explicitly based on the Although the number and type will vary issues (GSIs) that had been resolved duration of the current operating license depending on the plant-specific CLB, through October 1990, in order to of the plant. The Commission's concern these analyses could include reactor identify possible cases where is that these aging analyses do not cover vessel neutron embrittlement consideration of the additional period of the period of extended operation.

(pressurized thermal shock, upper-shelf operation during the renewal term Unless these analyses are evaluated, the enargy, surveillance program), concrete might have altered the NRC's regulatory Commission does not have assurance containment tendon prestress, metal decision not to undertake additional that the systems, structures, and fatigue, environmental qualification action. Of the 139 GSIs resolved through components addressed by these HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22480 1995

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22481 analyses can perform their intended because the only exemptions of concern (1) That there are special function(s) during the period of for license renewal are those that have .circumstances with respect to age-extended operation. The periodic time-limited aging analyses. related degradation unique to license replacement program discussed in the Thus, the Commission has revised renewal or environmental protection so previous paragraph would ensure that § 54.21(c)(2) to require a listing of only that application of either 10 CFR Part 54 the subject component can perform its those exemptions in effect at the time of or 10 CFR Part 51 would not serve the intended function(s) during the period renewal application that are based on purpose for which these rules were of extended operation. Thus, the time-limited aging analyses as defined intended; or Commission agrees with the in § 54.3. (2) Because of circumstances unique commenters that components replaced The Commission will rely on explicit to the period of extended operation, based on qualified lives less than the wordings in the granted exemptions to there would be noncompliance with the duration of the current license term determine if an exemption is in effect at plant's CLB or operation that is inimical need not be addressed under time- the time of renewal application. The to the public health and safety during limited aging analyses for renewal if the Commission will not require an the period of extended operation.

scheduled replacement continues to be exemption to be considered for license The intent of those provisions in the performed in the period of extended renewal if the exemption was granted previous rule was to clarify that safety operation. This is consistent with the with an explicit expiration date that has and environmental matters not unique definition of time-limited aging analyses passed prior to the renewal application. to the period of extended operation in § 54.3. However, the Commission will require would not be the subject of the renewal exemptions granted without explicit application or the subject of a hearing in (ii) Exemptions expiration dates to be considered for a renewal proceeding absent specific The previous license-renewal rule renewal. If an applicant believes that a Commission direction. Rather, issues required that an applicant for license certain exemption has expired and yet that represent a current problem for renewal provide a list of all plant-

• the supporting documentation does not operation would have been addressed in specific exemptions granted under 10 have a clearly, stated expiration date, the accordance with the Commission's CFR 50.12. An evaluation that justifies applicant should update its CLB prior to regulatory process and procedures.

the continuation of the exemptions for submitting its renewal application to Thus, under the previous rule. a the renewal term must be provided for clearly indicate that the exemption has member of the public who believed that exemptions that were either granted on expired. a current problem exists with a license the basis of an assumed service life or .or a matter exists that is not adequately a period of operation bounded by the h. Standardsfor Issuance of a Renewed addressed by current NRC regulations original license term of the facility or License and the Scope of Hearings would have either petitioned the NRC to otherwise related to systems, structures, Section 54.29 of the previous license take appropriate action under § 2.206, or or components subject to ARDLrTLR. renewal rule provided that the petitioned the NRC to institute With the deletion of the definition of Commission may issue a renewed rulemaking to address the issue under ARDUTLR and the corresponding license if- § 2.802.

addition of a separate time-limited aging (a) Actions have been identified and The Commission continues to believe analysis requirement, the Commission have been or will be taken with respect that aging management of certain hasincluded this exemption review to age-mlated degradation unique to important systems, structures, awid with the separate time-limited aging license renewal of systems, structures, components during this period of analysis requirement in § 54.21(c). This and components important to license extended operation should be the focus change is consistent with the renewal, such that there is reasonable of a renewal proceeding and that issues Commission's intent to review assurance that the activities authorized concerning operation during the exemptions based on time-limited aging by the renewed license will be currently authorized term of operation analyses under the current rule. conducted in accordance with the should be addressed as part of the Two commenters questioned the current licensing basis, and that any current license rather than deferred proposed requirement to list and changes made to the plant's current until a renewal review (which would evaluate all granted exemptions, licensing basis in order to comply with not occur if the licensee chooses not to including those that are no longer in this paragraph are otherwise in accord renew its operating license). However, effect. One commenter recommended with the Act and the Commission's in this final rule, the Commission has that only exemptions in effect at the Yegulations. narrowed the scope of structures and time of renewal application and Vb) Any applicable requirements of components that will require an aging continuing into the period of extended subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have been management review for the period of operation should be considered for " satisfied. extended operation and identification renewal. Further, the other commenter (c) Any matters raised under 10 CFR and evaluation of time-limited aging indicated that requiring a listing of al) 2.755 have been addressed as required analyses by the applicant. Accordingly.

exemptions is inconsistent with the by that (section). conforming'changes in § 54.29 have removal of other lists currently required issues that were material to the been made to reflect the refocused in 10 CFR 54, such.as the list of systems,

• findings in § 54.29 of the' previous rule, renewal review. Specifically, § 54.29 has structures, and components Important as well as matters, approved by the been revised to delete the term "age-to license renewal, to provide applicants Commission for hearing under § 2.758, related degradation unique to license flexibility in developing suitable were within the scope of a hearing on renewal," and substitute the findings methodologies to implement the a renewed license. The previous license (required for consistency with the requirements of § 54.21. The renewal rule modified § 2.758 to clarify revised § 54.21 la)X3) and (c)) with Commission agrees with the. that challenges to the license renewal respect to aging management review and commenters. Exemptions that have rule in an adjudicatory hearing on a time-limited aging analyses evaluation expired are no longer part of the CLB for renewal application would be for the period of extended operation.

that plant. Further, a requirement to list considered by the Commission only in Furthermore. S 2.758 bas similarly been

.all exemptions in effect is unnecessary the following limited circumstances. revised to delete the terms "age-related HeinOnline -- 60 Fed.. Reg. 22481 1995

22482 Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations degradation unique to license renewal" misinterpreting the scope of the renewal information included the IPA lists of and "unique to the requested term." The review and finding. systems, structures, and components, elimination of ARDUTLR requires Section 54.29(a) of the proposed rule justification 'for assessment methods, elimination of the concept that the set forth the three findings, in and descriptions of programs to manage renewal review or hearing must be paragraphs- (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3), ARDUTLR.

confined to aging issues that are which the NRC must make in order to The simplification of the IPA process "unique" to license renewal. Instead, issue a renewed license. The first (Section Ill.f of this SOC)}and the limits on the scope of renewal review finding in paragraph (a)(1) was divided clarification of the concept of ARDUTLR and hearing are based on careful review into two numbered paragraphs (1)(i) and (Section IlI.b ofrthis SOC) have resulted (1)(ii). DOE commented that numbering in a potential inconsistency regarding of the sufficiency of the NRC regulatory process to resolve issues not considered the clauses could lead to an erroneous the treatment of information associated interpretation that two separate, parallel with the IPA. The Commission has in renewal. conditions must be. met in order to make determined that there is no need to Section 54.29 of the proposed rule (59 the first finding. To avoid the potential include the entire IPA in an FSAR FR 46579) was intended to accomplish misinterpretation, DOE recommended a supplement because only the several things. Proposed § 54.29(a) was revised numbering scheme. The -information associated with the IPA intended to define the findings that the Commission agrees that separately regarding the basis for determining that Commission must make in order to numbering clauses (i) and (ii) in aging-effects are managed during the issue a renewed operating license to a paragraph (a)(1) could lead to an period of extended operation requires nuclear power plant and the scope of erroneous interpretation that two the additional regulatory oversight any hearing on the renewal parallel conditions must be met in order afforded by placing the information in application.2 By contrast, proposed to make the finding in paragraph (a)(1). the FSAR. Therefore, only a summary

§ 54.29 (b) and (c) were intended to Therefore, the Commission has adopted description of the programs and identify the issues that were NOT to be an approach similar to the DOE activities for managing the effects of part of the renewal review and to re- proposal. aging during the period of extended emphasize the renewal applicant's i. Regulatory and Administrative operation for those structures and obligation under its current operating Controls components requiring an aging license to address, in the context of that management review needs to be license, those aging matters identified in Certain regulatory and administrative included in the FSAR supplement. The controls in the previous license renewal IPA methodology and the list of the course of its renewal review that rule were imposed to specify the may reasonably be expected to cause a structures and components need not circumstances and requirements appear in an FSAR supplement,.

loss of function for systems, structures, necessary to make changes relating to or components during the current term although this information will still be the deteftnination and management of required in the application for license of operation. Both DOE and NEI ARDUTLR and the recordkeeping and renewal.

commented that by combining these reporting riequirements relating to the The Commission has also eliminated purposes into a single section, the renewal application. In view of the § 54.21 (b) and (d) of the previous rule:

proposed rule could be erroneously greater reliance on existing programs in These sections concern CLB changes interpreted as requiring a general - the license renewal process, as associated with ARDUTLR and plant demonstration of compliance with the discussed in Section IlI.d of this SOC, modifications necessary to ensure that CLB as a prerequisite for issuing a the Commission has determined that ARDUTLR is adequately managed renewed license. While the Commission many of these requirements are no during the period of extended operation.

believes that the proposed rule was longer necessary. Therefore, the This information is now required as part sufficiently clear in distinguishing Commission has decreased the of § 54.21 (a)(3) and (c). Relevant between the issues that must be recordkeeping and reporting burden on information concerning changes to the addressed as part of the renewal review the applicant for license renewal in the CLB and plant modifications required to versus those which must be addressed level of detail in the application, demonstrate that aging effects for in the context of the current license, the requirements for supplementing the systems, structures, and components Commission has considered the FSAR, and in recordkeeping requiring an aging management review comments of DOE and NEI as evidence requirements. for license renewal must be described in that the language of the proposed rule The Commission seeks to ensure that, the application for license renewal could be further improved. Upon review in general, only the information needed (§ 54.21 (a)(3),and (c)). If a license' of NEI's and DOE's proposals, the to make its safety determination is renewal applicant or the Commission Commission has decided to adopt an submitted to the NRC for license determines that CLB changes or plant approach similar to the DOE proposal, renewal review and that regulatory modifications form the basis for an IPA which narrows § 54.29 to the findings to controls imposed by the license renewal conclusion regarding structures and be made for issuance of a renewed rule are consistent with existing components requiring an aging license, and describes in a new section, regulatory controls on similar management review, then an 54.30, the licensee's responsibilities for information that may be developed by a appropriate description of the CLB addressing safety matters under its licensee during the current operating change or plant modification must be current license, that are not within the term. included in the FSAR supplement.

scope of the renewal review. Separating Subsequent changes are controlled by (i) Controls on Technical Information in the subjects into two different sections § 50.59.

an Application Section 54.21(c) of the previous should minimize any possibility of In § 54.21. the previous license license renewal rule. required that an 2 renewal rule requires that an applicant for license renewal submit (1)

'The scope of Commission review determines the scope of admissible contentions in a renewal application include a supplement to the a list of all plant-specific exemptions hearing absent a Commission finding under 10 CFR FSAR that presents the information granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12 and 2.758. required by this section. This each relief granted pursuant to 10 CFR HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22482 1995

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 1 Rules and Regulations 22483 50.55a and (2] an evaluation if the deleted the requirement to list and systems, structures, and components exemption or relief was related to a evaluate reliefs from § 54.21(c). will be placed into the FSAR system, structure, or component that In its comments, NEI noted that the supplement. License conditions and was subject to ARDUTLR or a time- requirement contained in § 54.22 of the limitations determined to be necessary limited function. These lists and proposed rule requiring justification for as part of the license renewal review evaluations were to be included in the technical specifications changes that are will continue to be required by the supplement to the FSAR. At that time, necessary to manage the effects of aging Commission in accordance with the Commission determined that these in the period of extended operation be § 54:3'3(b).

requirements were necessary to make an placed in the FSAR supplement is not The regulatory process will continue independent assessment that all generally consistent with current to ensure that proposed changes to exemptions and reliefs had been regulatory practices. NEI states that the programs and activities that may affect evaluated as part of the license renewal basis for such technical specification descriptions in the FSAR will receive process. The Commission determined changes only should be required to be adequate review by the licensee and, if that these requirements were important documented in the bases section of the appropriate, by the NRC. Therefore, the because they provided a summary of the technical specifications. The Commission has deleted the § 54.33(d) instances in the licensing basis for the Commission agrees with NEI concerning requirements for making changes to period of extended operation in which the requirement to include the previously approved programs and the staff determined that strict justification for technical specifications procedures to manage ARDUTLR.

compliance with existing regulatory in the FSAR supplement and has (iii) Additional Records and requirements is not needed to ensure clarified the requirement in § 54.22 to be Recordkeeping Requirements that the public health and safety is more consistent with § 50.36. Section 54.22 now states that the justification Section 54.37 of the previous rule adequately protected.

for changes or additions to thetechnical required that the, § 50.71(e) required, The Commission continues to believe periodic FSAR update:

specifications must be contained in the that the rationale and basis for requiring license renewal application. (1) Include any systems., structures, the information to be submitted are still and components newly identified as valid for exemptions. The Commission (ii) Conditions of Renewed License important to license renewal after the has relocated the requirement to list and Section 54.33 of the previous rule renewed license is issued; evaluate certain exemptions to proposed required that, upon renewal, a licensee (2) Identify and provide justification

§ 54.21(c). Thus, these exemptions can, maintain the programs and procedures, for any systems, structures, and therefore, be considered a subset of which would have been reviewed and components deleted from the list of time-limited aging issues. approved by the NRC staff, for managing systems, structures, and components Consistent with the Commission's important to license renewal; and ARDUTLR. In addition, § 54.1,3 rationale for including only a summary established requirements for making (3) Describe how ARDUTLR will be description of programs and activities in changes to previously approved managed for those newly identified the FSAR supplement, the Commission programs and procedures to manage systems, structures, and components.

concludes that only a summary ARDUTLR consistent with the rule . The Commission reviewed the -

description of the evaluation of time- changes that delete the term requirements for updating the FSAR limited aging analyses, including'a "ARDUTLR." (§ 54.37(b)) and determined that the summary of the bases for exemptions Considering the proposed requirements needed to be modified. As that are based on time-limited aging amendments associated with the discussed in Section II.i.(i) of this SOC, analyses, needs to be included in the elimination of the term "ARDUTLR," the requirement to list systems, FSAR supplement. The Commission the rule requires programs and structures, and components that are concludes that no needs exist to procedures to manage the effects of "important to license renewal" in the establish additional requirements that aging for certain systems, structures, FSAR supplement that accompanies the place the list of exemptions or specific and components. However, the renewal application has been deleted.

exemption evaluations into the FSAR Commission will not approve specific Therefore, in order to be consistent with

• supplement, although this information programs and procedures as envisioned the controls on technical information must still be contained in the by the previous license renewal rule discussed in Section II1i.(i), the application for license renewal. (e.g., effective programs). The Commission has revised the A relief from Codes need not be Commission will review programs and requirements for information to be evaluated as part of the license renewal procedures described in the license included in the periodic FSAR process. A relief granted pursuant to 10 renewal application and determine supplement. For example, the previous CFR 50.55a is specifically envisioned by whether these programs and procedures requirement to identify and provide the regulatory process. A relief expires provide reasonable assurance that the justification, in the periodic FSAR after a specified time interval (not to functionality of systems, structures, and update, for any systems, structures, and exceed 10 years) and a licensee is components requiring review will be components deleted from the required to rejustify the basis for the maintained in the period of extended aforementioned list is no longer relief. At that time, the NRC performs operation. The license renewal review necessary and has beern deleted from the another review and may or may not that would be conducted under this rule final rule. In addition, the previous grant the relief. Because a relief is, in may considerall programs and activities rule's requirement to describe how fact, an NRC-approved deviation from to manage the effects of aging that ARDUTLR will be managed for those the Codes and subject to a periodic ensure functionality for these systems, newly identified systems, structures and review, the Commission concludes that structures, and components. A summary components has been modified. For reliefs are adequately managed by the description of the programs and newly identified systems, structures, existing regulatory process and should activities for managing the effects of and components that would have not require an aging management review aging for the period of extended required either an aging management and potential rejustification for license operation or evaluation of time-limited review or a time-limited aging analysis, renewal. Therefore, the Commission has aging analyses, as appropriate, for these the final rule requires that the licensee IHeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22483 1995

22484 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and, Regulations describe in the periodic FSAR update Under this rule, the Commission will operating a nuclear power plant in the how the effects of aging will be managed review aspects of programs and context of an environmental impact to ensure that the systems, structures, procedures described in the license statement (EIS), it should be recognized and components perform their intended renewal application and determine that these analyses have been conducted function during the period of extended whether these programs and procedures in the context of ElSs as part of the operation. will provide reasonable assurance that Commission's process for complying Two commenters indicated that the the fimctionality of systems, structures, with the mandates of the National level of detail required by § 54.37(b) (a and components requiring review will Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),

description of how the effects of aging be maintained in the period of extended However, NEPA does not require such will be managed in the period of operation. The license renewal review economic analyses. In a separate extended operation) is greater than, and that would be conducted under this rule rulemaking (59 FR 37724) the therefore inconsistent withthe level of may consider all programs and activities Commission is considering whether the detail required in the FSAR supplement that manage the effects of aging and Commission's current analytical required by § 54.21(d) (a summary ensure functionality for these certain approach should be altered by moving description of-the programs and systems, structures, and components. away from economic analyses in EISs activities necessary for managing the The existing regulatory process, existing and redirecting the NEPA evaluation to effects of aging). The Commission licensee oversight activities, and the focus on environmental impacts. In believes that it is important to note that additional regulatory controls associated sum, the Commission is not statutorily the systems, structures, and components with placing a summary description of required, and does not believe it Is discussed in § 54.37(b) are those newly activities to manage the effects of aging necessary, to perform economic identifiedsystems, structures, and into the FSAR are sufficient to ensure analyses of extended operation of components that would have been that changes to programs that could nuclear power plant licenses.

subject to an aging management review decrease the overall effectiveness of the (2) NEI commented that an aging in the license renewal process. If programs to manage the effects of aging management review that involves an identified as part of the license renewal and the evaluation of time-limited aging issue that is being addressed by the NRC process. information concerning the analyses for the systems, structures, and as a GSI or an unresolved safety issue aging management for these structures components requiring license renewal (USI) should not hold up the issuance and components would have been review will receive appropriate review of a renewed license pending the contained in the application for license by the licensee. Therefore, the resolution of the issue.

renewal. During the license 'renewal Commission has deleted § 54.37(c). Resolution of a USI or GSI generically process, the application and the FSAR for the set of applicable plants is not IV, General Comments and Responses necessary for the issuance of a renewed supplement, together, provide the (1) One commenter recommended license. GSIs and USIs that do not necessary information and that the NRC perform a full economic administrative controls to evaluate and contain issues related to the license analysis for the period of extended renewal aging management review or help ensure the efficacy of aging operation. The commenter indicated programs for these structures and time-limited aging evaluation are not a that topics such as the expense involved subject of review or finding for license components. After a renewed license is in monitoring and/or replacing issued, the information in the FSAR renewal. However, designation of an components, the increase in issue as a GSI or USI does not exclude supplement serves the dual purposes of decommissioning costs as plants are the issue from the scope of the aging (1) Assuring that the licensee has operated longer and waste is management review or time-limited considered relevant technical accumulated, a comparison of the costs information regarding the evaluation of aging evaluation.

for operating the plant for the additional For an issue that is both within the aging effects for these newly identified time versus the cost of other sources of scope of the aging management review systems, structures, and components power need to be addressed. or time-limited aging evaluation and and (2) establishing appropriate The economics of electrical power within the scope of a USI or CS!, there administrative and regulatory controls generation is the responsibility of the are several approaches which can be on the programs that manage aging for individual utility and the Federal or used to satisfy the finding required by these newly identified systems, State agencies that are given that section 54.29. If an applicable generic structures, and components. Therefore, authority and responsibility. Generally, resolution has been achieved before the Commission concludes that the a State public utility commission or the issuance of a renewed license, characterization of the level of detail Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, implementation of that resolution could required in the FSAR supplement for along with the utility, have the be incorporated within the renewal newly Identified systems, structures, responsibility and the authority to application. An applicant may choose to and components by § 54.37(b) Is address economic issues associated with submit a technical rationale which appropriate. power generation. Furthermore, the" demonstrates that the CLB will be Section 54.37(c) of the previous rule Commission's regulatory responsibility maintained until some later point in required that a licensee do the (as defined by the Atomic Energy Act, time in the period of extended following: the NRC's organic'statute) does not operation, at which point one or more (1) Submit to the NRC at least confer upon the Commission primary reasonable options (e.g., replacement, annually a list of all changes made to authority for regulating the economics analytical evaluation, or a surveillance/

programs for management of ARDUTLR of nuclear power generation. Under maintenance program) would be that do not decrease the effectiveness of these circumstances, the Commission available to adequately manage the "effective" programs, with a summary does not believe that it should perform effects of aging. (An applicant would of the justification and economic analyses of nuclear power have to describe its basis for concluding (2) Maintain documentation for any generation as a basis for informing the that the CLB is maintained, in the changes to "effective" programs that are Commission's licensing decisions. license renewal application, and briefly determined not to reduce the While it is true that the Commission describe options that are technically.

effectiveness of the program. currently addresses the economics of feabible during the period .of extended.

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22484 1995

Federal Register / Vol, 60, No. *88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 248 22485 operation to manage the effects of aging, discussed in the SOC of the previous changes to the license renewal rule.

but would not have to preselect which rule.(56 FR at 64951), the Commission's Rather, the Commission relied solely on option would be used.) Another inspection program obtains sufficient the expertise of representatives of approach could be for an applicant to information on licensee performance, nuclear utilities, Industry organizations, develop an aging management program through direct observation and architects and engineering firms, which, for that plant, incorporates a verification of licensee activities, to consultants and contractors, and Federal resolution to the aging effects issue. determine whether the facility is being and State agen1cies.

Another option could be to propose to operated safely and whether the The Commission -disagrees. Consistent amend the CLB (as a separate action licensee management control program is with the Commission's policy of seeking out side of the license renewal effective and to ascertain whether there input from the entire spedtrum of the applicatioiq) which, if approved, would is a reasonable assurance that the public, the Commission provided ample revise the CLB such that the intended *licensee is in compliance with opportunity for public comment. The function is no longer within the CLB. regulatory requirements. Further, as Commission heldl a public workshop nn (3) Several commenters suggested that discussed in the SOC for the previous September 30, 1993, to discuss as plants age, the regulatory rule (56 FR at 64947), the Commission alternative approaches to the license requirements need to be strengthened has a program for the review of renewal rule. A notice of the public rather than relaxed. These commenters operating events at nuclear power workshop was published in the Federal indicated that the proposed license plants. The total program~ offers a high Register on August 12, 1993. In addition renewal rule is a relaxation of the degree of assurance that events that are to the Federal Register notice, the NRC previous rule, serving only to provide potentially risk significant or precursors explicitly contacted four public interest incentives for applicants, rather than an to significant events are being reviewed groups that had previously indicated enhancement to public safety., and resolved expeditiously. Response to interest in license renewal. The NRC The Commission does not agree that events may result in minor followup staff contacted representatives from the regulations must be strengthened simply inspection activities at a single plant-up Union of Concerned Scientists, the because a plant ages. The Commission to generic safety improvements at all Nuclear Information and Resource believes that additional regulations plants-regardless of license terms. Service, the Natural Resources Defense should be imposed when there is some Thus, the Commission continuously Council, and the Public Citizen reason to believe that current regulation analyzes conditions, acts, and practices Litigation Group. Representatives from are inadequate. The Commission's that could affect safe operation of plants the Nuclear Information and Resource regulatory process continuously and takes appropriate action. Service and the Public Citizen Litigation assesses the need for additional (5) One commenter asked whether the Group attended the workshop. Written oversight and implements appropriate original rules concerning emergency comments from the Ohio Citizens for regulations to ensure public health and preparedness are still in effect, even Responsible Energy, Inc. were also safety. Equally important, however, is though the proposed rule changes did received. The proposed changes to the the Commission's policy to ensure that not mention any revisions to emergency license renewal rule were published in its regulations promote a stable, preparedness requirements. The the Federal Register on September 9, efficient, and predictable regulatory Commission's response is; yes, the 1994, for public comment. Three public environment. Therefore, where the previous rules provisions on emergency interest groups provided comments: the Commission recognizes a more efficient preparedness are still in effect. Public Citizen, the Ohio Citizens for and stable means of achieving a .(6) One commenter stated that the Responsible Energy, Inc., and the Sierra particular level of safety, it strives to rule should be written in language that Club. During the upcoming implement that approach. the average, literate citizen can development of implementation The Commission implemented a comprehend. The commenter further guidance (a standard review plan for license renewal rule because existing states that technical terms, or license renewal and a regulatory guide regulations did not contain clear specialized phraseology whose purpose for license renewal), external NRC guidance on renewals and, further, the is to express a precise meaning, legal or meetings will be open to the public and Commission believed that current otherwise, can and should be fully the draft standard review plan for regulations were inadequate to address explained. The Commission agrees with license renewal and the draft regulatory the effects of aging in the period of the commenter to the extent that NRC guide for license renewal will be made extended operation. Upon documents should be written so that as available for public comment.

implementation of the previous license many people as possible can (8) NEI stated that 10 CFR 54.23 renewal rule, however, the Commission comprehend them. The expectation is requires an "environmental report that determined that the rule could be for all Commission documents to be compies with the requirements of 10 amended to create a more efficient and written as clearly as possible so that CFR Part 51." 10 CFR 51.53 requires a stable license renewal process, while they can be easily comprehended. The supplemental environmental report. The retaining the same degree of safety Commission has taken steps to clarify wording should be consistent between provided by the previous rule. technical terms and phraseology in the Parts 51 and 54. The Commission agrees (4) Nevad commented that the final rule and SOC. For example: the and the Part 54 wording will be changed Commission should be analyzing phrase "age-related degradation unique to be consistent with Pert 51.

whether there was any condition, act, or to license renewal" was not well (9) Two commenters encouraged the practice that occurred during the period understood and not easily explained; in creation of implementation guidance in of initial licensing that would affect the part because of this the Commission has the form of a regulatory guide and a period of extended operation. In a broad removed this phrase from the rule.. standard review plan. The current NRC sense, the regulatory process (7) One commenter claimed that the effort is focused on the completion of' continuously evaluates the safety status Commission did not consult with either this license renewal rule and the review of licensed plants and modifies any environmental group or any of the initial license renewal submittals.

licensing bases as necessary to ensure /members of the general public when the The NRC intends to develop and issue that plant operation is not inimnical to Commission was seeking advice during guidance in the future in the form of a the public health and safety. As a public workshop on the proposed regulatory guide and a standard review HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22485 1995

22486 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday; May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations plan. however, the guidance may not be review are answered in response to long-lived, passive structures and issued prior to the NRC review of a question 3 in this Section. components. If, however, an applicant, number of submittals. Discussion.The IPA in the proposed in the site-specific renewal application, (10) One commenter suggested that amendment to the license renewal rule can demonstrate that their facility has the NRC should require an update of contains a'process to narrow the focus specific programs or processes in place plant environs for parameters such as of the aging management review to to detect ongoing degradation such that population density to assure that the encompass those structures and failure of redundant, long-lived, passive original licensing basis is still valid components that are "long-lived" and structures and components is avoided, "passive" (see § 54.21(a)(1) (i) and (ii))... the Commission may be able to credit prior to license renewal.

. The Commission does not agree that In SECY-94-140, the Commission such programs and allow redundant, a review of plant environs is necessary considered the possibility that long-lived, passive structures and redundant,long-lived, passive components to be generically excluded as a precondition for license renewal.

Aside from such a review being beyond structures and components could be from further aging management review.

the scope of license renewal, the generically excluded from an aging 3. Is there additional information for Commission's regulations in 10 CFR management review for license renewal. the Commission to consider that would 50.71(e) require a licensee to ensure that The basis for this consideration was that satisfy the Commission's concern the FSAR contains the latest and most redundancy is one aspect of a defense- relative to the detection of degradation accurate information. This requirement in-depth design philosophy that could in redundant,long-lived, passive includes parameters on plant environs provide reasonable assurance that structures and components such that sur-h as population density, which is certain single failures would not render failures that might result in loss of .

normally contained in Chapter 2 of the systems, structures, or components system function are unlikely, and to FSAR. incapable of performing their intended warrant a generic exclusion?

function(s). The staff reasoned that One commnenter stated that "built in" V. Public Response to Specific although simultaneous failures of redundancy is an essential safety feature Questions redundant structures and components and suggested that redundant, passive, In the Notice of Proposed.Rule (59 FR are hypothetically possible, the physical long-lived structures and components at 46589), the Commission requested variables and the differences in should not be excluded from an aging public comment on five specific operational and maintenance histories management review.

that will influence the incidence and Industry commenters, on the other questions. The Commission appreciates rates of aging degradation between hand, attempted to provide sufficient the public's comments on these five justification for generically excluding questions. otherwise identical structures and components make simultaneous failures from an aging management review those Discussion. An aging management components whose failure will not review is required for a small subset of of redundant equipment unlikely. In addition, existing programs and result in a loss of system function. The structures and components within the requirements (i.e., maintenance rule and industry divided these components into scope of license renewal. As described 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B) would two categories: (1) redundant in Section JII.f of this SOC, the result in activities to determine the root components and (2) small components Commission believes, on the basis of causes for failures and mitigate future that can be isolated, such as instrument existing regulatory requirements and occurrences of them. lines. The industry believes that operating experience, that the aging On further consideration, however, passive, long-lived components that management review can be limited to the Commission has'recognized, have designed redundancy are subject to "passive," "long-lived" structures and because it cannot generically determine extensive licensee programs that verify components. that all licensees have processes, structural integrity and functional

1. Should additional structures and programs, or procedures in place for the capability. These extensive programs, components within the scope of license timely detection of degraded conditions together with the established renewal be explicitly required to receive as a result of aging during the period of redundancy, ensure that the effects of an aging management review? extended operation for passive, long- aging will be detected so that corrective

2. If so, what would be the bases for lived structures and components, that action can be taken before a loss of the requiring such additional structures and the potential exists for reduced system's intended function. The components to be subject to an aging reliability and failure of redundant, industry believes that the stringent management review? long-lived, passive structures and seismic design requirements coupled Commenters responded to questions I components. If the condition of these. with current plant programs provides and 2 by stating that additional structures and components were greater assuranve that structural structures and components not included degraded below their CLB (i.e., design integrity and capability of passive in the proposed rule require an aging bases, including seismic design), components will be maintained during management review, no additional without detection and corrective action, an earthquake. Moreover, the industry structures and components require an a failure of redundant,passive believes that the slow, long-term aging management review, and structures and components is possible characteristics of the aging process and structures and components requiring an given, for example, the occurrence of a the fact that this aging process is not aging management review under the design-basis seismic event, such that the occurring at an identical rate in proposed rule should be excluded. The system may not be able to perform its redundant trains, allows degraded Commission has responded to the intended functions. Therefore, without conditions to become self-revealing individual comments on requiring an readily monitorable performance and/or - before a loss of the intended system aging management review fox additional condition characteristics to reveal function.

structures and components in Section degradation that exceeds CLB levels (as As discussed in the proposed rule Ill(d)(v) of this SOC. Comments stating in the case of passive, long-lived amendment, the Commission concluded that additional structures and- structures and components) the that passive, long-lived components components should be generically Commission believes it inappropriate to should be subject to an aging excluded from an aging management permit generic exclusion of redundant, management reviewlbecause, in general, HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22486 1995

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22487 functional degradation of these not result in the loss of the associated replacement of retired nuclear power components is not as readily revealable system's intended function. The plants. One utility has recently so that the regulatory process and industry cites small instrument lines indicated that decisions regarding existing licensee programs may not and sensors that can be isolated (i.e., license renewal made earlier in the adequately manage the detrimental manual isolation by operator action] as current license term may create effects of aging in the period of examples of components that could be substantial current-day economic extended operation. In their comments excluded from an aging management advantages while still providing on the proposed rule amendment, the review using these criteria. sufficient plant-specific history. This industry provided some examples of The Commission cannot generically utility suggested that the earliest date how aging effects of certain passive exclude these components from for filing a license renewal application structures and components could be consideration for an aging management be changed so that a license renewal considered by the Commission to be review for several reasons. The application can be submitted earlier adequately managed during the period Commission does not deem it than 20 years before expiration of the of extended operation, However, the appropriate to generically credit existing operating license. The term of basis for the aging management operator action (e.g., manual component the renewed license would still be programs described in the examples isolation), exclusively as adequate aging limited to 40 years.

relies on individual licensee programs management for portions of systems that 4. Is there a sufficient plant-specific rather than on design redundancy. would otherwise require an aging history before 20 years of operation as While the industry examples may be management review. Stch an exclusion specified in the current rule that a basis for determining that aging of a necessarily presumes that manual valve provides reasonable assurance that structure or component is adequately isolation would occur-a presumption aging concerns would be identified? If managed in a plant-specific application, the Commission cannot make. In not, can reliance on industry-wide a generic determination of acceptability addition, all "passive", "long-lived" experience be used as a basis for is difficult given the variations among portions of systems that perform an considering an application for license plant designs and programs. However, intended function as specified in renewal before 20 years of operation?

as the NRC gains more experience with § 54.4(b) require an aging.management What should be the earliest time an the effects of aging during the period of review. Instrument lines, for example, applicant can apply for a renewed extended operation and can better typically are "passive", "long-lived" license?

define the boundary of adequate aging and form part of a system's pressure The NRC received six responses to the management for passive, long-lived boundary. The Commission cannot question. Fbur of the six commenters structures and components, the generically exclude these portions of opposed consideration of license Commission may consider further systems from an aging management renewal applications prior to 20 years of narrowing the scope of passive, long- review because failure of these portions operation. These comments included lived structures and components of systems may result in the loss of the arguments such as:

requiring an aging management review. system's intended function (e.g., (1) Early applications may not allow Additionally, the industry did not required instrumentation, pressure for the effects of deterioration due to adequately address the Commission's boundary, flowrate). Therefore, an aging to appear in sufficient diversity or concern relative to aging degradation applicant for license renewal will be intensity for management to acquire a below design bases occurring required to perform an aging full range of experience in dealing with simultaneously in redundant trains such management review for these portions these problems; that an initiating event (e.g.. a seismic of systems. However, an applicant for (2) Licensees might apply for renewal event) may lead to failure of the license renewal may perform, or may over a shorter period before the effects intended system function. The have performed, additional plant- of aging are apparent; industry's argument that aging will not specific analyses that adequately (3} Early applications could occur at identical rates and that a failure demonstrate that failure of these non- negatively impact the review schedule in one redundant train will lead to redundant portions of systems will not for older plants; and investigative and corrective actions result in the loss of any of the associated (4) There is a lack of experience with before the remaining component fails, is systems' intended functions. In this the maintenance rule. One of these not compelling. Absent more detailed case,-these plant-specific analyses could commenters suggested the possibility of information, the Commission cannot provide the basis for a license renewal approving a license renewal contingent preclude the possibility of common applicant to conclude that these non- on imposing certain special testing

• mode failures of redundant, passive redundant portions of systems do not requirements during the final years of structures and components. Further, the meet the functional scoping criteria of the original license term to ensure that Commission believes that crediting a § 54.4(b) and, therefore, are not subject substantial physical degradation of regulatory requirement (i.e., to an aging management review passive, long-lived safety-related redundancy) as a surrogate for an aging Discussion. The Commission equipment had not occurred. NEI. while

- management program to ensure a concluded in the SOC for the current not specifically favoring a rule change system's intended function exploits the license renewal rule (56 FR 64963; allowing early applications, stated that Commission's defense-in-depth December 13, 1991) that 20 years of depending on the individual plant and philosophy. In addition, this argument operational and regulatory experience its operating history, there may be is circular because the established provides a licensee with substantial sufficient operating history available to redundancy would, in essence, be used amounts of information and would provide reasonable assurance that aging to assure continued redundancy in the disclose any plant-specific concerns concerns can~be identified and, period of extended operation. with regard to age-related degradation. therefore, an applicant may request an The industry also proposed that the In addition, a license renewal decision exemption. One commenter (DOE) was Commission generically exclude from with approximately 20 years remaining in favor of a rule change allowing an an aging management review certain on the operating license would be early application. DOE stated that, in portions of systems whose failure can reasonable considering the estimated general. aging effects are apparent after either be isolated or whose failure will time necessary for utilities to plan for only a few years of operation and that HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22487 1995

22488 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and- Regulations industry-wide data provides a sound VII. Finding of No Significant screening of systems, structures, and' basis to understand and address the Environmental Impact: Availability components to identify those that must effects of aging, even at a plant that has The NRC prepared a draft undergo a plant-specific aging operated only a few years. DOE foresees environmental assessment (EA) for the management review and (2) the form of no technical impediment to license proposed rule pursuant to the National this aging management review.

renewal prior to 20 years of operation. Under the screening of systems, Environmental Policy Act of 1969

. Based on the general nature of the (NEPA), as amended; the regulations structures, and components that must be information provided by the issued by the Council on Environmental further.reviewed, the proposed rule commenters, no change to the final rule Quality (40 CFR 1500-1508), and the. effectively narrows the scope of will be made. The Commission is, NRC's regulations (Subpart A of 10 CFR systems, structures, and components willing to consider, however, plant- subject to an aging management review 51). Under NEPA and the NRC's In general, the previous rule contained specific exemption requests by those regulations, the Commission must applicants who believe that they may a definition of ARDUTLR that would have sufficient information available to .consider, as an integral part of its cause many systems, structures, and decisionmaking process on the justify applying for a renewal license components to require further aging prior to'20 years from the expiration proposed action, the expected management review but would allow environmental impacts of promulgating existing licensee programs and activities date of the current license.

5. What additional safety, the proposed rule and the reasonable (including the maintenance rule) to environmental, or economic benefits or alternatives to the action. The NRC serve as a basis for concluding that concerns, if any, would result from a concluded that promulgation of the. ARDUTLR will be adequately managed decision about license renewal made proposed rule would not significantly in the period of extended operation. The before the ZOth year of current plant affect the environment and, therefore, a proposed rule would retain the operation? full environmental impact statement screening of systems, structures, and The NRC received two responses to would not be required and a finding of components but would reduce the scope this question. NEI felt that a significant no significant impact (FONSI) could be of systems, structures, and components economic benefit would likely be made. The basis for these conclusions requiring review to a narrowly defined derived from license renewal decisions and the finding are summarized below group based on an NRC determination, made before the 20th year of operation. The NRC previously assessed the in this rulemaking, of the effectiveness However, they stated that the industry environmental impacts from of current licensee programs and cannot estimate the exact benefit promulgation of a license renewal rule activities and NRC requirements that because it is likely to vary considerably in NUREG-1398, "Environmental will continue into the period of from plant to plant. NEI also stated that Assessment for the Final Rule on extended operation. Because the it is clear that knowledge gained from Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal." proposed rule has essentially the same licenserenewal will enhance the In this assessment, the NRC concluded results with respect to management of utility's ability to engage in long-range that the promulgation of 10 CFR 54 will aging effects in the period of extended planning and may enable the utility to have no significant impact on the operation as the previous rule, but modify its electrical rates accordingly. environment. With this assessment as a provides a more efficient process to DOE added that they were unaware of baseline, the NRC's approach for achieve these results, the environmental any safety or environmental concerns assessing the environmental impact of impacts of the proposed rule would be that would result from a license renewal the proposed rule centered on analyzing similar to those under the previous rule.

decision before the 20th year of any differences in the expected rule- With respect to the form of the aging operation, other than those issues that related actions from the previous rule management review, the proposed rule would be considered for any license compared to those under the proposed would establish a clear focus.on renewal. rule. managing the functionality of systems, No new specific information The requirements for a renewed structures, and components in the face concerning additional safety, 'license under both the previous rule and of detrimental aging effects as opposed environmental, or economic benefits of the proposed rule are similar. Both to identification and mitigation of aging license renewal applications before the approaches could result in the operation mechanisms. The Commission 20th year was provided by any of plants up to 20 years beyond the concluded that the focus on commenters. Therefore, the Commission expiration of the initial license. An identification of aging mechanisms is has determined not to change Section emphasis would be placed on certain not necessary because regardless of the 54.17. systems, structurgs, and components aging mechanism, only those that lead undergoing a specific aging management to degraded component performance or VI. Availability of Documents review to provide assurance that the condition (i.e., potential loss of Copies of all documents cited in the effects of aging are adequately managed, functionality) are of concern. Therefore, Supplementary Information section are thus ensuring functionality during the the Commission concluded that an available for inspection and/or for period of extended operation. Under aging management review that seeks to reproduction for a fee in the NRC Public both approaches, license renewal ensure a component's functionality is a Document Room, 2120 L Street N.W. applicants must screen plant systems, more efficient and appropriate review.

(Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555.. structures, and components through an This change only improves the In addition, copies of NUREGs cited IPA to determine which systems, efficiency of the licensee's aging in this document may be purchased structures, and components will be management review. Therefore, the from the Superintendent of Documents, subject to a license renewal review and environmental impacts would be similar U.S. Government Printing Office, Mail then determine whether additional to those under the previous rule.

Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402- actions are required to manage the The ultimate licensee actions to 9328. Copies are also available for effects of aging so that the intended manage aging in the renewal term under purchase from the National Technical function is maintained. The principal* the proposed rule are expected to be Information Service, 5285 Port Royal differences between the proposed rule 'similar to those under the previous rule Road, Springfield, VA 22161.. and the previous rule are in (1) the However, the required activities to HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22488 1995

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22489 manage the effects of aging will be Second, for the purpose of evaluating relevant to 10 CFR 54 or any of its arrived at more efficiently under the the environmental impacts associated amendments. The formal requirements proposed rule. Therefore, the with granting a renewed license, the that an applicant for renewal must meet environmental impact of license NRC is preparing "Generic and the information that mu st be renewal under the proposed rule would Environmental Impact Statement for .submitted for the NRC to condL._t a be similar to that for license renewal License Renewal of Nuclear Plants" license renewal review are established under the previous rule. Hence, the (GELS), NUREG-1437, as part of its in 10 CFR 54. The environmental Commission concluded that the amendments to 10 CFR 51. The GElS assessment for the previous license proposed rule would not significantly addiesses, in generic fashion, the renewal rule (NUREG-1398) assessed impact the environment. impacts associated with continued the degree to which the renewal of The Commission's EA and FONSI for operation of a nuclear plant beyond its operating licenses via a formal the proposed rule were issued in draft original license, including the impacts regulatory process would differ from and public comments were solicited. of activities to counter the effects of renewal of operating licenses under Several public comments were received aging, the impacts of high-level and existing regulations that did not specify and are addressed below. low-level'waste. and the effects of standards for license renewal. The Two commenters stated that the NRC radioactive discharges. In addition, the Commission concluded, in that should be required to prepare an EIS for Commission has proposed amendments environmental assessment, that the license renewal. In general, these to 10 CFR 51 that would require that a impacts from spent fuel storage under a commenters believed that the EIS supplement to the GEIS be prepared for formal license renewal process would should include a discussion on the individual license renewal applications not differ from the spent fuel impacts following issues: to address those impacts that could not from license renewal under existing (a) A full description of proposed be generically evaluated in the GELS. regulations that did not specify mitigation measures to counteract This supplement would be issued in standards for renewals. This conclusion reactor degradation due to aging; draft for public comment. does not rely on the Commission's (b) The cumulative effects of an added One commenter stated that the draft waste confidence decision.

20 years of discharge of radioactive FONSI for the proposed rule is Upon considering these comments,

• inappropriate. The commenter stated the Commission has determined that the cooling waters and/or steam; that the NRC is creating incentives for commenter's concerns do not alter the (c) The environmental impacts of the licensees to seek license renewal by proposed finding in the EA for the prolonged stockpiling of high-level and easing rules. The commenter stated that proposed rule. Consequently, the low-level waste; and the reduction in review of the new rule Commission has determined under the (d) Plans for public involvement from will result in significant environmental NEPA; and the Commission's*

the first scoping session, through impacts. The Commission disagrees. regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part subsequent public hearing. The FONSI for the proposed rule was 51, that this rule is not a major Federal The Commission has undertaken a based on the FONSI from the previous action significantly affecting the quality review of the environmental impacts of license renewal rule (see NUREG-1398) of the human environment; therefore, an license renewal from two different and an analysis of the difference environmental impact statement is not perspectives. First, for the purposes of between the previous rule and the required. This is because this rule will evaluating the environmental impacts of proposed rule. As discussed in the EA result in the same activities to a formal regulatory process for license for the proposed rule, the amended rule adequately manage the effects of aging renewal, the NRC prepared NUREG- will result in the same activities in the period of extended operation as 1398. This environmental assessment required to adequately manage the in the previous rule, although, it arrives served to assessthe degree to which the effects of aging in the period of at these activities in. a more efficient renewal of operating licenses via a extended operation as in the previous manner. The EA and FONSI on which formal regulatory process would differ rule; however, the method for arriving at this determination is based are available from renewal of operating licenses these activities will be more efficient. for inspection at the NRC Public under existing regulations that do not This efficiency is gained because the Document Room, 2120 L'Street N.W specify standards for license renewal NRC is generically crediting, in this (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single applications. The environmental rule, the existing aging management copies of the environmental assessment assessment discussed the issues of programs for which the applicant would may be obtained from John P. Moulton, additional waste generation, activities have had to describe and justify under Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, required to address aging degradation in the previous rule. The Commission does U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the renewal period, and impacts of not agree with the commenter that the Washington, DC 20555, (301) 415-1106.

radioactive discharges. The Commission amendments to the previous rule concluded in that environmental VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act represent any less stringent a review.

assessment that a formal license renewal The environmental impacts from the Statement regulation establishing the standards for amendments to the license renewal rule This final rule amends information license renewal applications would are expected to be the same as the collection requirements that are subject result in no significant impact from previous rule because the ultimate to the Paperwork Reduqtion Act of 1980 those impacts expected from renewal actions to manage aging will be the (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These without a formal license renewal same. Therefore, consistent with the requirements were approved by the process. The staff performed an finding of no significant impact for the Office of Management and Budget, additional environmental assessment for previous rule, the Commission finds approval number 3150-0155.

the proposed amendments to the this final rule will result in no . The public reporting burden for this previous license renewal rule and significant impact. collection of information Is estimated to concluded, consistent with the previous One comment stated that the waste average 94,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> per response, environmental -assessment. that the confidence decision assumptions can including the time for reviewing amended rule would result in no not be transferred to license renewal. instructions, searching existing data significant impact.. The. waste confidence decision is not' sources, gajtherir.g and maintaining the HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22489 1995

22490 . Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations data needed, and completing and amendment constitutes a change to an pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109 need not be reviewing the collection of information. existing regulation, the NRC has prepared for this rule.

Send co&nments regarding this burden determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR NEI commented that the NRC should estimate or any other aspect of this 50.109, does not apply because this review its determination regarding the collection of information, including amendment only affects prospective application of backfit protection to suggestions for reducing this burden, to applicants for license renewal. The license renewal. Although not clearly the Information and Records primary impetus for the backfit rule was stated in its comments, NET appears to Management Branch (T6 F33), U.S. "regulatory stability." Once the argue that the protection afforded by 10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Commission decides to issue a license, CFR 50.109 should~apply in individual Washington, DC 20555-0001; and to the the terms and conditions for operating license renewal proceedings when the Desk Officer, Office of Information and under that license would not be NRC seeks to impose requirements that Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202. changed arbitrarily post hoc. As the "go beyond what is necessary for (3150-0155), Office of Management and Commission expressed in the preamble adequately managing the effects of aging Budget, Washington, DC 20503. for 10 CFR 52, which prospectively on intended functions in the period of IX. Regulatory Analysis changed the requirements for receiving extended operation (i.e.,

design certifications, the backfit rule- enhancements)." NEI stated that in such The NRC prepared a draft regulatory cases, the NRC should perform an analysis of the values and impacts of the [Wias not intended to apply to every regulatory action which changes settled analysis to demonstrate that the proposed rule and of a set of significant expectations. Clearly, the backfit rule would proposed additional requirements will alternatives. The draft regulatory not apply to a rule which imposed more result in substantial increase in overall analysis was placed in the stringent requirements on all future safety and that direct and indirect costs Commission's public document room applicants for construction permits, even are justified relative to the safety for review by interested members of the though such a rule might arguably have an benefit. Furthermore, NEI believes that public. In addition, a summary of the adverse impact on a person who was if there are two or more means of findings and conclusions of the -considering applying for a permit but had not adequately managing the effects of regulatory analysis were published in done so yet. In this latter case, the backfit aging, cost must be taken into, account the Federal Register (59 FR 46591. rule protects the construction permit holder, in selecting an alternative.

September 9. 1994) concurrent with the but not the perspective applicant, or even the The industry's desire for a special proposed rule. No comments were present applicant. (54 FR 15385-86; April 18, provision in the rule that would impose received on the regulatory analysis. The 1989).

backfit-style requirements on the regulatory analysis has been finalized Regulatory stability from a backfitting Commission's review is neither and is available for inspection in the standpoint is not a relevant issue with necessary nor appropriate. The intent of NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L respect to this rule. There are no the license renewal rule is clear-6t Street NW (Lower Level), Washington licensees currently holding renewed ensure that the effects of aging on DC. Single copies of the analysis may be nuclear power plant operating licenses functionality of certain systems, obtained from Joseph j. Mate, Office of who would be affected by this rule. No structures, and components are Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. applications for license renewal have adequately managed in the period of Nuclear Regulatory Commission, been docketed. It is also unlikely that extended operation. The Commission Washington DC 20555, (301) 415-1109. any license renewal applications will be does not intend to impose requirements submitted before this rule becomes on a licensee that go beyond what is X. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification effective. Consequently, there are no necessary to adequately manage aging valid licensee or applicant expectations effects. The focus of the industry's As required by the Regulatory that may be changed regarding the terms concern appears to be on potential Flexibility Act of 1980, (5 U,S.C. 605 disagreements between the Commission and conditions for obtaining a renewed (b)), the Commission certifies that this and renewal applicants regarding what operating license. Accordingly, this rule' final rule does not have a significant is or is not considered "adequate" for does not constitute a "backfit" as economic impact upon a substantial managing the effects of aging. The defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).

number of small entities. The final rule *Commission understands the industry's sets forth the application procedures Furthermore, one reason the concern, but does not believe it and the technical requirements for Commission is amending 10 CFR Part- appropriate or consistent with current renewed operating licenses for nuclear 54 is because of the concerns of nuclear practice to further limit (i.e., beyond the power plants. The owners of nuclear power plant licensees who were limits established by the rule) the NRC power plants do not fall within the dissatisfied with the previous staff in its review of an application for definition of small business entities as requirements in 10 CFR Part 54 and a renewal license.

defined in Section 3 of the.Small urged the Commission to modify the Additionally, the Commission sees no Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632), the Small rule to address their concerns. Under justification for requiring a Business Size Standards of the Small this circumstance, the policy objective consideration of costs among alternative Business Administration (13 CFR Part of the backfit rule would not be served aging management programs. The 121), or the Commission's Size by undertaking a backfit analysis. renewal process is designed such that a Standards (56 FR 56671; November 6, Regulatory and technical alternatives for renewal applicant proposes the 1991). addressing the concerns with the alternatives it believes manages the previous 10 CFR Part 54 were analyzed effects of aging for those structures and XI. Non-Applicability of the Backfit and considered in the regulatory Rule components defined by the rule. The analysis that has been prepared for this NRC staff has the responsibility of This rule, like the previous license rule. Preparation of a separate backfit reviewing the applicant's proposals and renewal rule, addresses the procedural statement would not provide any determining whether they are adequate and technical requirements for substantial additional benefit. such that there is reasonable assurance obtaining a renewed operating license Therefore, the Commission has that activities authorized by the for nuclear power plants. Although this determined that a backfit analysis renewed license will continue to be HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22490 1995

Federal Register / Vol 69, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulation9 12491 ronducted in accordance with the CLB. under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 *ART 51-ENVIRONMENTAL The Commission believes that this as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections QcOTECTION REGULATIONS FOR license renewal review must necessarily 2.700a, 2.719 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 554. flOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED be performed without regard to cost. Sections 2.754, 2.760, 2.770. 2.780, also REGULATORY FUNCTIONS issued under 5 U.S.C. 557 Section 2.764 and List of Subjects Table 1A of Appendix C are also issued 3. The authority citation for Part 51 is 10 CFR Part2 under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. revised to read as follows:

2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Sectinn tuthority: Sec. 161,68 Stat. 948, as Administrative practice and 2.790 also issued under sec. 103, 68 Stat. 936, procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct amended, Sec. 1701, 106 Stat. 2951, 2952, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133) and 5 U.S.C. 2953, (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2297f0; secs. 201, as material, Classified information.

552. Sections 2.800 and 2.808 also issued amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, Environmental protection, Nuclear under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 2.809 also issued 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842). Subpart A also materials, Nuclear power plants and under 5 U.S.C. 553 and sec. 29, Pub. L. 85- issued under National Environmental Policy reactors, Penalties, Sex discrimination, 256, 71 Stat. 579. as amended (42 U.S.C. Act of 1969, secs. 102, 104, 105, 83 Stat. 853-Source material, Special nuclear 2039). Subpart K also issued under sec. 189, 854, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332,, 4334,,

material, Waste treatment and disposal. 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. 4335); and Pub. L.95-604, Title 11,92 .tat.

3033-3041; and sec. 193, Pub. L. 101-575, 10 CFR Part 51 L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154).

104 Stat. 2835, 42 U.S.C. 2243). Sections Subpart L also issued under sec. 189. 68 Stat.

Administrative practice and 51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.61, 51.80, and 51.97 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Appendix A also issued also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-procedure, Environmental impact under sec. 6, Pub. L.91-560, 84 Stat. 1473 statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclear 425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241. and sec. 148, Pub.

(42 U.S.C. 2135). Appendix B also issued L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-223 (42 U.S.C.

power plants and reactors, Reporting under sec. 10, Pub. L.99-240, 99 Stat. 1842 10155, 10161,10168). Section 51.22 also and recordkeeping requirements. (42 U.S.C. 2021b et seq.). issued under sec. 274,73 Stat. 688, as 10 CFH Part 54 amended by 92 Stat. 3036-3038 (42 U.S.C.

2. In § 2.758, paragraphs (b) and (e) 2021) and under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of Administrative practice and are revised to read as follows: 1982, sec. 121 96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C.

procedure, Aging, Effects of aging, 10141). Sections 51.43, 51.67, and 51.109 Time-limited aging analyses, §2.758 Consideration of Commission also under Nuclear Waste Policy ,Actof 1982, Backfitting, Classified information, rules and regulations in adjudicatory sec. 114(f), 96 Stat. 2216, as amended (42 Criminal penalties, Environmental proceedings. U.S.C. 10134(o):

protection, Nuclear power plants. and 4. In § 51.22, paragraph (c)(3) is reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping revised to read as follows:

(b) A party to an adjudicatory requirements.

proceeding involving initial or rene wal §51.22 Criterion for categorical exclusion; For the reasons set out in the licensing subject to this subpart may preamble and under the authority of the Identification of licensing and regulatory petition that the application of a actions eligible for categorical exclusion or Atomic Energy-Act of 1954, as amended, otherwise not requiring environmental the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, specified Commission rule or regulation or any provision thereof, of the type review.

as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the Commission is adopting the described in paragraph (a) of this section, be waived or an exception made (c)

• following amendments to 10 CFR Parts (3) Amendments to Parts 20, 30, 31, 2, 51, and 54. for the particular proceeding. The sole-ground for petition for waiver or 32,33,34,35, 39,40,50. 51.54, 60,61, PART 2-RULES OF PRACTICE FOR exception shall be that special 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 01 and 1OO of this DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS circumstances with respect to the chapter which relate to-(i) Procedures for filing and reviewing

1. The authority citation for Part 2 is subject matter of the particular applications for licenses or construction revised to read as follows: proceeding are such that the application permits or other forms of permission or of the rule or regulation (or provision for amendments to or renewals of Authority: Secs. 161, 181,68 Stat, 948. thereofn would not serve the purposes 953, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec. licenses or construction permits or other 191, as amended, Pub. L.87-615, 76 Stat. 409 for which the rule or regulation was forms of permission; (42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as adopted. The petition shall be (ii) Recordkeeping requirements; or amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 552. accompanied by an affidavit that (iii) Reporting requirements; and Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62, identifies the specific aspect or aspects (iv) Actions on petitions for 03, 81, 103, 104, 105, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, of the subject matter of the proceeding rulemaking relating to these, 935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 U.S.C. as to which the application of the rule amendments.

2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2135);

sec. 114(f), Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2213, as or regulation (or provision thereof) amended (42 U.S.C. 10134(n)); sec. 102, Pub. would not serve the purposes for which 5. Part 54 is revised to read as follows.

L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 the rule or regulation was adopted, and U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 88 Stat. 1248 (42 shall set forth with particularity the PART 54-REQUIREMENTS FOR U.S.C. 5871). Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2,104, special circumstances alleged to justify RENEWAL OF OPERATING LICENSES 2.105, 2.721 also issued under secs. 102, 103, the waiver or exception requested. Any FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 104, 105, 183, 189, 68 Stat. 936,937,938, other party may file a response thereto, 954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, General Provisions by counter affidavit cr otherwise.

2134, 2135, 2233, 2239). Section 2.105 also Sec.

issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 54.1 Purpose (42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200-2.206 also (e) Whether or not the procedure in 54.3 Definitions.

issued under secs. 161b, i, o, 182, 186,234, 54.4 Scope.

68 Stat. 948-951,955, 63 Stat. 444, as paragraph (b) of this section is available, 54.5 Interpretations..

amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b), (i), (o), 2236 a party to an initial or renewal licensing 54.7. Written communications.

2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat. 1246 (42 U.S.C. proceeding may file a petition for 54.9 Information collection requirements:

5846). Sections 2.600-2.606 also issued rulemaking pursuant to § 2.802. OMB approval HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22491 1995

22492 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

.4.11 Public inspection of applications. docketed licensing correspondence such accomplishment of any of the functions 94.13 Completeness and accuracy of as licensee responses to NRC bulletins. identified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (ii), or information. generic letters; and enforcement actions. [iii) of this section.

54.15 Specific exemptions. as well as licensee commitments 54.17 Filing of application. (3) All systems, structures, and 54.19 Contents of application-general documented in NRC safety evaluations components relied on in safety analyses information. or licensee event reports.

or plant evaluations to perform a 54.21 Contents of application-technical Integrated plant assessment CIPA) is a function that demonstrates compliance Information. licensee assessment that demonstrates with the Commission's regulations for 54.22 Contents of application-technical that a nuclear power plant facility's

. specifications. fire protection (10 CFR 50.48),

structures and components requiring 54.23 Contents of application- aging management review in accordance environmental qualification (10 CFR environmental information. with § 54.21(a) for license renewal have 50.49), pressurized thermal shock (10 54.25 Report of the Advisory Committee on CFR 50.61). anticipated transients Reactor Safeguards. been identified and that the effects of aging on the functionality of such without scram (10 CFR 50.62). and 54.27 Hearings. station blackout (10 CFR 50.63).

54.29 Standards for issuance of a renewed structures and components will be

- license. managed to maintain the CLB such that (b) The intended functions that these 54.30 Matters not subject to a renewal there is an acceptable level of safety systems, structures, and components review. during the period of extended operation. must be shown to fulfill in § 54.21 are 54.31 Issuance of a renewed license. Nuclear power plant means a nuclear those functions that are the bases for 54.33 Continuation of CLB and conditions power facility of a type described in 10 including them within the scope of of renewed license. CFR 50.21(b) or 50.22. license renewal as specified in 54.35 Requirements during term of renewed license.

Time-limited aging analyses, for the paragraphs (a)[1)-(3) of this section.

54.37 Additional records and recordkeeping purposes of this part, are those licensee calculations and analyses that: §54.5 Interpretations.

requirements.

54.41 Violations. (1) Involve systems, structures, and Except as specifically authorized by 54.43 Criminal penalties. components within the scope of license the Commission in writing, no Authority: Secs. 102. 103. 104,161, 181, renewal, as delineated in § 54.4(a) interpretation of the meaning of the 182, 183, 186. 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, (2) Consider the effects of aging: regulations in this part by any officer or 948. 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 (3) Involve time-limited assumptions employee of the Commission other than Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C 2132, 2133, defined by the current operating term, a written interpretation by the General 2134, 2135, 2201. 2232. 2233. 2236, 2239. for example, 40 years; 2282); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242. Counsel will be recognized to be (4) Were determined -tobe relevant by 1244. as amended (42 U.SC. 5841, 5842) the licensee in making a safety binding upon the Commission.

General Provisions determination; §54.7 WrItten communications.

(5) Involve conclusions or provide the

§54.1 Purpose. basis for conclusions related to the All applications, correspondenco.

This part governs the issuance of capability of the system, structure, and reports, and other written renewed operating licenses for nuclear component to perform its intended communications shall be filed in power plants licensed pursuant to functions, as delineated in § 54.4(b); and. accordance with-applicable portions of Sections 103 or 104b of the Atomic (6) Are contained or incorporated by 10 CFR 50.4.

Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 reference in the CLB.

Stat. 919), and Title U1of the Energy § 54.9 Information collection (b) All other terms in this part have requirements: OMB approvaL Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. the same meanings as set out in 10 CFR 1242). 50.2 or Section 11 of the Atomic Energy (a) The Nuclear Regulatory Act. as applicable. Commission has submitted the

§ 54.3 Definitions. information collection requirements (a) As used in this part, § 54.4 Scope. contained in this part to the Office of Current licensing basis (CLB) is the set (a) Plant systems, structures, and Management and Budget (OMB) for of NRC requirements applicable to a components within the scope of this approval as required by the Paperwork specific plant and a licensee's written part are- Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 commitments for ensuring compliance (1) Safety-related systems, structures, with and operation within applicable et seq.). OMB has approved the end components which are those relied information collection requirements NRC requirements and the plant- upon to remain functional during and contained in this part under control specific design basis (including all following design-basis events (as modifications and additions to such numbers 150-0155.

defined in 10 CFR 50.49 (b)(1)) to ensure commitments over the life of the the following functions- Uh The approved information license) that are docketed and in effect. (i) The integrity of the reactor coolant collection requirements contained in The CLB includes the NRC regulations pressure boundary; this part appear in §§ 54.13, 54.17, contained in 10 CFR Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, (ii) The capability to shut down the 54.19, 54.21, 54.22. 54.23. 54.33, and 26, 30, 40, 50, 51, 54, 55, 70, 72, 73, 100 reactor end maintain it in a safe 54.37.

and appendices thereto; orders; license shutdown condition: or §54.11 Pubflc bispection ofapp.icauons.

conditions; exemptions; and technical (iii) The capability to prevent or specifications. It also includes the plant- mitigate the consequences of accidents Applications and documents specific design-basis information that could result in potential offsite submitted to the Commission in defined in 10 CFR 50.2 as.documented exposure comparable to the 10 CFR Part connection with renewal applications in the most recent final safety analysis 100 guidelines. may be made available for public report (FSAR) as required by 10 CFR (2) All nonsafety-related systems, inspection in accordance with the 50.71 and the licensee's commitments structures, and components whose provisions of the regulations contained remaining in effect that were made in failure could prevent satisfactory in 10CFR Part 2.

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22492 1995

Fed eral Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations .22493 249

§ 54.13 Completeness and accuracy of a manner that all Restricted Data and cabinets, excluding, but not limited to, Information. other defense information are separated pumps (except casing), valves Cexcept (a) Information provided to the from unclassified information in body), motors, diesel generators, air Commission by an applicant for a accordance with 10 CFR 50.33(j). compressors, snubbers, the control rod renewed license or information required (g) As part of its application and in drive, ventilation dampers, pressure by statute or by the Commission's any event prior to the receipt of transmitters, pressure indicators, water regulations, orders, or license Restricted Data or the issuance of a level indicators, switchgears, cooling conditions to be maintained by the renewed license, the applicant shall fans, transistors, batteriesi-breakers, applicant must be complete and agree in writing that it will not permit relays, switches, power inverters, circuit

-accurate in all material respects. any individual to have access to boards, battery chargers, and power (b)Each applicant shall notify the Restricted Data until an investigation is supplies; and Commission of information identified made and reported to the Commission (ii) That are not subject to by the applicant as having, for the on the character, association, and replacement based on a qualified life nr regulated activity, a significant loyalty of the individual and the specified time period.

implication for public health and safety Commission shall have determined that (2) Describe and justify the methods or common defense and security. An permitting such persons to have access used in paragraph Ca)(1) of this section applicant violates this paragraph only if to Restricted Data will not endanger the (3) For each structure and component the applicant fails to notify the common defense and security. The identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this

• Commission of information that the agreement of the applicant in this regard section, demonstrate that the' effects of applicant has identified as having a is part of the renewed license, whether aging will be adequately managed so significant implication for public health so stated or not. that the intended function(s) will be and safety or common defense and maintained consistent with the CLB for

- security. Notification must be provided § 54.19 Contents of application-general Information. the period of extended operation.

to the Administrator of the appropriate regional office within 2 working days of (a) Each application must provide the (b) CLB changes during NRC review of identifying the information. This information specified in 10 CFR 50.33(a) the application. Each year following requirement is not applicable to through (e), (h), and (i). Alternatively, submittal of the license renewal information that is already required to the application may incorporate by application and at least 3 months before be provided'to the Commission by other reference other documents that provide scheduled completion of the NRC reporting or updating requirements. the information required by this section. review, an amendment to the renewal (b) Each application must include application must be submitted that

§54.15 Specific exemptions. conforming changes to the standard identifies any change to the CLB of the Exemptions from the requirements of indemnity agreement, 10 CFR 140.02, facility that materially affects the this part may be granted by the Appendix B, to account for the contents of the license renewal Commission in accordance with 10 CFR expiration term of the proposed application, including the FSAR 50.12. renewed license. supplement.

Cc) An evaluation of time-limited

§ 54.17 Filing of application. § 54.21 Contents of application-technical aging analyses.

(a) The filing of an application for a information.

(1) A list of time-limited aging renewed license must be in accordance Each application must contain the analyses, as defined in § 54.3, must be with Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 2 and 10 following information: provided. The applicant shall CFR 50.4 and 50.30. (a) An integrated plant assessment demonstrate that-(b) Any person who is a citizen, (IPA). The IPA must-

.(1) For those systems, structures, and (il The analyses remain valid for the national, or agent of a foreign country, period of extended operation; or any corporation, or other entity components within the scope of this which the Commission knows or has part, as delineated in § 54.4. identify (ii) The analyses have been projected reason to know is owned, controlled, or and list those structures and to the end of the period of extended d,ominated by an alien, a foreign components subject to an aging operation; or corporation, or a foreign government, is management review. Structures end (iii) The effects of aging on the ineligible to apply for and obtain a components subject to an aging intended function(s) will be adequately renewed license. management review shall encompass managed for the period of extended

. c) An application for a renewed those structures and components- operation, license may not be submitted to the (i) That perform an intended function, (2) A list must be provided of plant-Commission earlier than 20 years before as described in § 54.4, with6ut moving specific exemptions granted pursuant to the expiration of the operating license parts or without a change in 10 CFR 50.12 and in effect that are currently in effect. configuration or properties. These based on time-limited aging analyses as (d) An applicant may combine an structures and components include, but defined in § 54.3. The applicant shall application for a renewed license with are not limited to, the reactor vessel, the provide an evaluation that justifies the applications for other kinds of licenses. reactor coolant system pressure continuation of these exemptions for the

( e) An application may in'corporate by boundary, steam generators, the period of extended operation.

reference information contained in pressurizer, piping, pump casings, valve (d) An FSAR supplement. The FSAR previous applications for licenses or bodies, the 'core shroud, component supplement for the facility must contain license amendments, statements, supports, pressure retaining boundaries, a summary description of the programs correspondence, or reports filed with heat exchangers, ventilation ducts, the and activities for managing the effects of the Commission, provided that the containment, the containment liner, aging and the evaluation of time-limited references are clear and specific. electrical and mechanical penetrations, aging analyses for the period of (0) If the application contains equipment hatches, seismic Category I extended operation determined by Restricted Data or other defense structures, electrical cables and paragraphs Ca) and Cc) of this section, information, it must be prepared in such connections, cable trays, and electrical respectively.

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22493 1995

22494 Federal Registei / Vol. 60, No. 88 1 Monday, May 8, 1995./ Rules and Regulations

§ 54.22 Contents of application-technical (b) Any applicable requirements of. continue to perform their intended specifications. Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have been functions for the period of extended Each application must include any satisfied. operation. In addition, the renewed technical specification changes or (c) Any matters raised under § 2.758 license will be issued in such form and additions necessary to manage the have been addressed. contain such conditions and limitations effects of aging during the period of as the Commission deems appropriate extended operation as part of the § 54.30 Matters not subject to a renewal and necessary to help ensure that renewal application. The justification review.

systems, structuresand components for changes or additions to the technical (a) If the reviews required by § 54.21 associated with any time-limited aging specifications must be containled in the (a) or (c) show that there is not analyses will continue to perform their license renewal application. reasonable assurance during the current intended functions for the period of license term that licensed activities will extended operation.

§ 54.23 Contents of application- be conducted in accordance with the (c) Each renewed license will include environmental Information. CLB, then the licensee shall take those conditions to protect the Each application must include a measures under its current license, as environment that were imposed supplement to the environmental report appropriate, to ensure that the intended pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36b and that are that complies with the requirements of function of those systems, structures or part of the CLB for the facility at the Subpart A of lo CFR Part 51. components will be maintained in time of issuance of the renewed license.

§ 54.25 Report of the Advisory Committee accordance with the CLB throughout the These conditions may be supplemented on Reactor Safeguards. term of its current license. or amended as necessary to protect the (b) The licensee's compliance with environment during the term of the Each renewal application will be referred to the Advisory Committee on the obligation under Paragraph (a) of renewed license and will be derived Reactor Safeguards for a review and this section to take measures under its from information contained in the report. Any report will be made part of current license is not within the scope supplement to the environmental report the record of the application and made of the license renewal review. submitted pursuant to I0 CFR Part 51, available to the public, except to the § 54.31 Issuance of a renewed license. as analyzed and evaluated in the NRC extent that security classification (a) A renewed license will be of the record of decision. The conditions will prevents disclosure. class for which the operating license identify the obligations of the licensee currently in effect was issued. in the environmental area, including, as

§54.27 Hearings. appropriate, requirements for reporting A notice of an opportunity for a (b) A renewed license will be issued and recordkeeping of environmental hearing will be published in the Federal for a fixed period of time, which is the data and any conditions and monitoring Register in accordance with 10 CFR sum of the additional amount of time requirements for the protection of the 2.105. In the absence of a request for a beyond the expiration of the operating nonaquatic environment.

hearing filed within 30 days by a person license (not to exceed 20 years) that is (d) The licensing basis for the whose interest may be affected, the requested in a renewal application plus renewed license includes the CLB, as Commission may issue a renewed the remaining number of years on the defined in § 54.3(a); the inclusion in the operating license without a hearing operating license currently in effect. The licensing basis of matters such as upon 30-day notice and publication term of any renewed license may not -licensee commitments does not change once in the Federal Register of its intent exceed 40 years. the legal status of those matters unless to do so. (c) A renewed license will become specifically so ordered pursuant to effective immediately upon its issuance, paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section.

§ 54.29 Standards for Issuance of a thereby superseding the operating renewed license. license previously in effect. If a renewed §54.35 Requirements during term of A renewed license may be issued by license is subsequently set aside upon renewed license.

the Commission up to the full term further administrative or judicial During the term of a renewed license, authorized by § 54.31 if the Commission appeal, the operating license previously licensees shall be subject to and shall finds that: in effect will be reinstated unless its continue to comply with all (a) Actions have been identified and term has expired and the renewal Commission regulations contained in 10 have been or will be taken with respect application was not filed in a timely CFR Parts 2, 19, .20, 21, 26, 30, 40, 50, to the matters identified in Paragraphs manner. 51, 54, 55, 70, 72, 73, and 100, and the (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, such that (d) A renewed license may be appendices to these parts that are there is reasonable assurance that the subsequently renewed in accordance applicable to holders of operating activities authorized by the'renewed with all applicable requirements. licenses.

license will cofitinue to be conducted in accordance with the CLB, and that any § 54.33 Continuation of CLB and § 54.37 Additional records and changes made to the plant's CLB in conditions of renewed license. recordkeeplng requirements.

order to comply with this paragraph are (a) Whether stated therein or not, each (a) The licensee shall retain in an in accord with the Act and the renewed license will contain and auditable and retrievable form for the Commission's regulations. These otherwise be subject to the conditions term of the renewed operating license matters are: set forth in 10 CFR 50.54. all information and documentation (1) managing the effects of aging (h) Each renewed license will be required by, or otherwise necessary to during the period of extended operation issued in such form and contain such document compliance with, the on the functionality-of structures and conditions and limitations, including provisions of this part.

components that have been identified to technical specifications, as the Cb) After the renewed license is require review under § 54.21(a)(1); and Commission deems appiopriate and issued, the FSAR update required by 10 (2) time-limited aging analyses that necessary to help ensure that systems. CFR 50.71(e) must include any systems, have been identified to require review structures, and components subject to structures, and components newly under § 54.21(cl. review in accordance with §54.21 will identified that would have been subject HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22494 1995

Federal Register I Vol. 60, 'No. 88 1 Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22495 to an aging management review or SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION eligibility for physical and economic evaluation of time-limited aging .injury disaster assistance provided analyses in accordance with § 54.21. 13 CFR Part 123 under section (7)(b) (1) and (2) of the This FSAR update must describe how Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 63M(b) (1) the effects of aging will be managed Disaster-Waiver of Judgment Lien and (2), where there exists good cause such that the intended function(s) in Restriction to do so.

§ 54.4(b) will be effectively maintained AGENCY: Small Business Administration. The proposed regulation applied to during the .period of extended operation. ACTION: Final rule. applicants for disaster assistance who

§ 54.41 Violations. have outstanding judgment liens in

SUMMARY

This final rule applies only to favor of SBA or in favor of other (a) The Commission may obtain an disaster loan assistance. It will enable agencies. It identified two nonexclusive injunction or other court order to SBA to waive, for good cause shown, instances in which good cause will prevent a violation.of the provisions of the restriction in the Federal Debt ordinarily be found to exist, both of the following acts-- Collection Procedures Act of 1990 (1) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as them involving adverse circumstances prohibiting debtors on whose property occasioned by the disaster for which the amended. the United States has an outstanding

12) Title 11of the Energy assistance is sought.

judgment lien from receiving disaster Waivers would be granted denying Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended loan assistance from the Federal the eligibility review of an application or (3) A regulation or order issued Government. for either physical or economic injury pursuant to those acts. EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is disaster assistance, but only upon a (b) The Commission may obtain a effective on May 8, 1993. demonstration of good cause by the court order for the payment of a civil FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: applicant. Examples of good cause penalty imposed under Section 234 of Bernard Kulik at 202/205-6734, include, but are not limited to: (1) the Atomic Energy Act- Associate Administrator for Disaster belinquencies leading to a judgment (1) For violations of the following- Assistance, U.S. Small Business lien, which are caused by a disaster, (i) Sections53, 57, 62, 63, 81. 82. 101, Administration, 409 Third Street SW. whether-the original debt was incurred 103. 104, 107. or 109 of the Atomic Washington, DC 20416. prior to or after the disaster, and (2)

Energy Act of 1954, as amended- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The defaults in any agreement to satisfy a (ii) Section 206 of the Energy Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act judgment lien, which are caused by a Reorganization Act; of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 3201(e)) provides that disaster, whether the agreement has (iii) Any rule, regulation, or order a debtor who owns property which is been made with SBA, another creditor issued pursuant to the sections specified subject to a judgment lien for a debt agency, or any other Federal entity in paragraph (b{ll)(i) of this section; owed to the United States shall not be holding the lien, such as the Resolution (iv) Anyterm, condition, or limitation eligible to receive any grant or loan Trust Corporation or the Federal Deposit of any license issued under the sections which is made, insured, guaranteed or Insurance Corporation. In the case of specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this financed directly or indirectly by the agreements with other agencies, SBA section. United States. It also provides that such will not waive the restriction on (2) For any violation for which a debtor shall not be eligible to receive eligibility until the appropriate Federal license may be revoked under Section funds directly from the Federal entity has certified that thedebtor had 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Government in any program, except made adhering satisfactorily to the as amended. funds to which the debtor is entitled as terms of the agreement prior to the

§ 54.43 Criminal penalties. beneficiary, until the judgment is paid commencement date of the disaster (a) Section 223 of the Atomic Energy in full or otherwise satisfied. However. The proposed regulation contemplates Act of 1954, as amended, provides for the statute permits any agency that SBA's Associate Administrator for criminal sanctions for willful violations responsible for such grants or loans to Disaster Assistance, or his/her designee of, attempted violation of, or conspiracy promulgate regulations to allow for will make the determination as to to violate, any regulation issued under waivers of this restriction. As an agency whether good cause for waiving the sections 161b. 161l, or 161o of the Act. authorized to provide several forms of restriction has been demonstrated by the For purposes of section 223, all the assistance proscribed by this restriction. applicant. Although such regulations in Part 54 are issued under including disaster loan assistance and determinations are subject io the one or more of sections 161b,161i, or other types of direct and guaranteed provisions of § 123 12 governing 161o, except for the sections listed in loans, SBA also has the waiver authority requests for reconsideration, no appeal paragraph (b) of this section. conferred by the statute. from an adverse determination is (b) The regulations in Part 54 that are SBA recognizes that disaster losses contemplated.

not issued under Sections 161b, 1611, or may strain the financial resources of SBA received no comments from the 161o forthe purposes of Section 223 are responsible debtors to such extent as to public in response to the June 29, 1994 as follows: §§ 54.1, 54.3, 54.4, 54.5, 54.7. prevent them from meeting their Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

54.9, 54.11, 54.15, 54.17, 54.19, 54.21, financial obligations to the United Therefore, by this publication, SBA is 54.22, 54.23, 54.25, 54.27, 54.29, 54.31, States. Such losses also may prevent finalizihg the.rule as proposed 54.41, and 54.43. debtors who have been complying with agreements to satisfy one or more Compliance With Executive Orders Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day judgments in favor of the United States 12866, 12612 and 12778; the Regulatory ofMay. 1995. from continuing to comply with the Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.; and For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. terms of those agreements, Therefore, by The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 John C. Hoyle, publication in the Federal Register on U.S.C. CH 35 Secretary of the Commission. June 29, 1994, 59 FR 33456, SBA SBA submitted this final rule to the IFR Doc. 95-11136 Filed 5-5-95" 8:45 aml proposed-to issue a regulation Office of Management and Budget for

,ILUNG CODE 75r"-.1-P permitting it to waive the restriction on purposes of Executive Order 12865

-HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22495 1995

EXHIBIT 2 Exhibit 2 Indian Point Energy Center License Renewal Application Technical Information 2.2 PLANT LEVEL SCOPING RESULTS Table 2.2-1a-IP2 and Table 2.2-1a-IP3 list the mechanical systems within the scope of license renewal for IPEC Unit 2 and Unit 3, respectively. Table 2.2-1 b-IP2 and Table 2.2-1 b-IP3 list the electrical and instrumentation and controls systems within the scope of license renewal for IPEC Unit 2 and Unit 3. Table 2.2-3 lists the structures that are within the scope of license renewal for IPEC. For mechanical systems, a reference is given to the section which describes the system.

For electrical systems, no description is necessary since electrical systems are in scope by default (see Section 2.5). For structures, a reference is given to the section that includes the structure in the evaluation.

Table 2.2-2-1P2, Table 2.2-2-1P3 and Table 2.2-4 list the systems and structures that do not meet the criteria specified in 10 CFR 54.4(a) and are therefore excluded from the scope of license renewal. For each item on these lists, the table also provides a reference (if applicable) to the section of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) that describes the system or structure. For structures with no description in the UFSAR, a brief description of the building function is given. None of these structures house safety-related equipment.

The IP2 and IP3 units were originally constructed, owned and operated by the Consolidated Edison Company of New York. IP2 began operation in 1973 and IP3 in 1975. With the exception of minor design differences due to new requirements for IP3, the units were essentially the same design. Shortly after the initial operating license for IP3 was issued, that unit was purchased by the Power Authority of the Sate of New York, which subsequently assumed responsibility for its operation. The two units were operated independently until Entergy purchased and assumed operations of IP2 and IP3 in 2001 and 2000 respectively. Because of the extended period of independent operations, differences developed in the design and operation of the two units.

Different approaches were taken to resolve emergent licensing and design issues, resulting in further variations in the plants' designs. Some aspects of the unit operations were different, including methods for identification and documentation of systems and their boundaries. As a result, even though the plants remain largely the same, with about the same number of components per unit, there are marked differences in the number of IP2 and IP3 systems and in the boundaries for similarly named systems.

The list of systems used in these tables and determination of system boundaries is based on the IPEC component database and flow diagrams (see Section 2.1.1). System intended functions are identified in the section referenced in Tables 2.2-la-IP2 and 2.2-la-IP3. Component types subject to aging management review and their intended functions are provided in tables for each system.

As needed, components are grouped functionally for the aging management review. For example, ASME Class 1 components in various systems (e.g., the residual heat removal and containment spray systems) are evaluated with the ASME Class 1 reactor coolant system in Section 3.1.2.1.3, and containment penetrations from various systems are grouped into one 2.0 Scoping and Screening Methodology for Identifying Structures and Components Page 2.2-1 Subject to Aging Management Review and Implementation Results

Indian Point Energy Center License Renewal Application Technical Information containment penetrations review in Section 3.2.2.1.5. For each system, see the discussion in Section 2 under "Components Subject to Aging Management Review" for further information concerning which aging management review includes components from that system.

Nonsafety-related components whose failure could prevent satisfactory accomplishment of safety functions (10 CFR 54.4(a)(2)) due to the potential for a physical interaction (see Section 2.1.1.2) are evaluated together in an (a)(2) aging management review (AMR). The (a)(2) AMR includes nonsafety-related components with the potential for a spatial interaction with a safety-related system as well as components in safety-related systems outside the safety class pressure boundary, such as piping, valves, pumps, and support elements, that are required to be structurally sound in order to maintain the integrity of safety class piping. Section 2.3.3.19 discusses systems within the scope of license renewal based on the criterion of 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2) due to the potential for a physical interaction.

Components subject to aging management review are highlighted on license renewal drawings, with the exception of components in scope for 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2) for a physical interaction with other equipment that could prevent accomplishment of a safety function. Drawings are flagged as needed to indicate system intended function boundaries. For further discussion of license renewal drawings, see Section 2.1.2.1.3.

The list of plant structures was developed from a review of plant layout drawings, maintenance rule documentation, design basis documents, and the UFSAR. Structure intended functions are identified in the section referenced in Table 2.2-3. Structural commodities associated with mechanical systems, such as pipe supports and insulation, are evaluated with the structural bulk commodities.

2.0 Scoping and Screening Methodology for Identifying Structures and Components Page 2.2-2 Subject to Aging Management Review and Implementation Results

Indian Point Energy Center License Renewal Application Technical Information Because of the bounding approach used for scoping electrical and I&C equipment, all electrical and I&C commodities contained in electrical and mechanical systems are in scope by default.

Table 2.2-1b provides the list of electrical and I&C systems for Unit 2 and Unit 3 that do not include mechanical components that meet the scoping criteria of 10 CFR 54.4. Systems with mechanical components that meet the scoping criteria of 10 CFR 54.4 are listed in Table 2.2-1a-lP2 and Table 2.2-la-IP3. Descriptions of each electrical system are not provided. For further information, see Section 2.5, Scoping and Screening Results: Electrical and Instrumentation and Controls Systems.

Table 2.2-1b-IP2 Electrical and I&C Systems within the Scope of License Renewal (Bounding Approach)

System Unit 2 System Name UFSAR Section Code 118V 118 VAC Electrical UFSAR 8.2.2.5 120V 120 VAC Electrical UFSAR 8.2 13.8 13.8 KVAC Electrical UFSAR 8.2.1 138K 138 KVAC Electrical UFSAR 8.2.1 220V 220 VAC Electrical None 22KV 22 KVAC Electrical None 345K 345 KVAC Electrical UFSAR 8.2.1 440V 440 VAC Electrical UFSAR 8.3 480V 480 VAC Electrical UFSAR 8.2.2.3 6.9K 6.9 KVAC Electrical UFSAR 8.2.2.2 COM Communications UFSAR 7.7.4 COMP Computer UFSAR 3.2.5 DC Batteries and 125V DC UFSAR 8.2.2.4, 8.2.3.5 EANS Emergency Alert Notification None EGND Earth Grounds None EHT Electrical Heat Tracing UFSAR 9,2.2.4.23, 9.2.2.5.13 EML Emergency Lighting UFSAR 7.7.3.3.6 EOFE EOF Electrical Distribution None 2.0 Scoping and Screening Methodology for Identifying Structures and Components Page 2.2-12 Subject to Aging Management Review and Implementation Results

Indian Point Energy Center License Renewal Application.

Technical Information Table 2.2-1b-IP2 Electrical and I&C Systems within the Scope of License Renewal (Bounding Approach) (Continued)

System Unit 2 System Name UFSAR Section Code EP Electrical Penetrations UFSAR 5.1,4.2.1, 7.2.4.1.5 ESFA Engineered Safeguards Features Actuation UFSAR 7.2.3.2 ICI In-Core Instrumentation UFSAR 7.6 LGHT Lighting & 110 Volt None MET Meteorological System IP3 UFSAR 2.6.5 NIS Nuclear Instrumentation UFSAR 7.4 OPS Overpressurization Protection UFSAR 7.3.3.5 RMS Radiation Monitoring UFSAR 11.2.3 RPI Rod Position Indication UFSAR 3B.3 RPS Reactor Protection System UFSAR 7.2.3.1 SEC Security None SISA Safety Injection System Actuation UFSAR 7.2.5.1.13 Table 2.2-1 b-IP3 Electrical and I&C Systems within the Scope of License Renewal (Bounding Approach)

System Unit 3 System Name UFSAR Section Code 120V 120 VAC Electrical UFSAR 8.2.2 13.8KV 13.8 KVAC Electrical UFSAR 8.2.1 138KV 138 KVAC Electrical U FSAR 8.2.1 220V 220 VAC Electrical None 22KV 22 KVAC Electrical None 345KV 345 KVAC Electrical UFSAR 8.2.1 480V 480 VAC Electrical UFSAR 8.2.2 2.0 Scoping and Screening Methodology for Identifying Structures and Components Page 2.2-13 Subject to Aging Management Review and Implementation Results

Indian Point Energy Center License Renewal Application Technical Information Table 2.2-1 b-1P3 Electrical and I&C Systems within the Scope of License Renewal (Bounding Approach) (Continued)

System Unit 3 System Name UFSAR Section Code 6.9KV 6.9 KVAC Electrical UFSAR 8.2.2 AIR Air (General) None AMSAC ATWS Mitigating System Actuation Circuitry UFSAR 7.2.2 ARM Area Radiation Monitoring UFSAR 11.2.3.2 CAM Cameras None CET Core Exit Thermocouples UFSAR 7.6.2 CFM Critical Functions Monitoring UFSAR 7.5.2 COMM Communications UFSAR 9.6.5 COMP Computer None CPFHT Condensate Polisher Facility Heat Trace None DCPWR DC Power UFSAR 8.2 ED Electrical Distribution UFSAR 8.2 EHT Electrical Heat Tracing None EHT 31 Intake Structure Heat Trace None EHT 32 Yard Area Heat Trace None EHT 33 Boric Acid Heat Trace UFSAR 9:2.2 EHT 34 Nuclear Tank Heat Trace UFSAR 9.2.2 EHT 35 Diesel Generator Heat Trace None EM Environmental Monitoring UFSAR 2.9 EML Emergency Lighting UFSAR 9.6.2.6 ESS Engineered Safeguards Initiate Logic UFSAR 7.2.2 EXCOR Excore Nuclear Instrumentation UFSAR 7.4 FDA Fire Detection and Alarms UFSAR 9.6.2.4 FENCE Fence Protection None 2.0 Scoping and Screening Methodology for Identifying Structures and Components Page 2.2-14 Subject to Aging Management Review and Implementation Results

Indian Point Energy Center License Renewal Application Technical Information Table 2.2-lb-IP3 Electrical and I&C Systems within the Scope of License Renewal (Bounding Approach) (Continued)

System Unit 3 System Name UFSAR Section Code FP Fire Protection (General) None FPHHT Fire Pump House Heat Trace None HR Hydrogen Recombiners UFSAR 6.8.2 HSBAHT House Service Boiler Annex Heat Trace None lB Instrument Bus AC Power UFSAR 7.2.2 INCOR Incore Nuclear Instrumentation UFSAR 7.6.2 LIGHT Lighting None MET Meteorological System UFSAR 2.6.5 METHT Meteorological Tower Heat Trace None MIMS Metal Impact Monitoring UFSAR 4.3.6 NIS Nuclear Instrumentation UFSAR 7.4.2 OPS Overpressurization Protection UFSAR 4.3.4 PAGE Paging UFSAR 9.6.5 PMON Personnel Monitoring None PRM Process Radiation Monitoring UFSAR 11.2.3.1 PVMHT Plant Vent Monitor Heat Trace UFSAR 11.2.3.1 PZRC Pressurizer Control UFSAR 7.2.3 QSPDS Qualified Safety Parameter Display UFSAR 7.5.2 RDC Rod Control UFSAR 7.3.2 RDO Radio UFSAR 9.6.5 RM Radiation Monitoring UFSAR 11.2.3 RPC Reactor Protection Control UFSAR 7.2.2 RPI Rod Position Indication UFSAR 7.3.2 RTR Reactor Trip Relays UFSAR 7.2.2 2.0 Scoping and Screening Methodology for Identifying Structures and Components Page 2.2-15 Subject to Aging Management Review and Implementation Results

Indian Point Energy Center License Renewal Application Technical Information Table 2.2-1 b-IP3 Electrical and I&C Systems within the Scope of License Renewal (Bounding Approach) (Continued)

System Unit 3 System Name UFSAR Section Code RVLIS Reactor Vessel Level Indication UFSAR 7.5.2 SCC Security Computer & Concentrators None SE Seismic Monitoring UFSAR 16.1.6 SEC Security (General) None SECL Security Lighting UFSAR 9.6.2.6 SGLC Steam Generator Level Control UFSAR 7.2.2 SPP Sound Powered Phones UFSAR 9.6.5 SSHT Sampling System Heat Trace None TEL Telephones UFSAR 9.6.5 TGEC Turbine Generator Excitation UFSAR 10.2.2 TM Toxic Monitoring None TSI Turbine Supervisory Instrumentation None VCHA Vapor Containment Hydrogen Analyzer UFSAR 6.8.2 WGA Waste Gas Analyzer UFSAR 11.1.2.1 2.0 Scoping and Screening Methodology for Identifying Structures and Components Page 2.2-16 Subject to Aging Management Review and Implementation Results

Indian Point Energy Center License Renewal Application Technical Information 2.5 SCOPING AND SCREENING RESULTS: ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL SYSTEMS Description As stated in Section 2.1.1, plant electrical and instrument and control (I&C) systems are included in the scope of license renewal as are electrical and I&C components in mechanical systems.

The default inclusion of plant electrical and I&C systems in the scope of license renewal reflects the method used for the integrated plant assessments (IPA) of electrical systems, which is different from the methods used for mechanical systems and structures.

The basic philosophy used in the electrical and I&C components IPA is that components are included in the review unless they are specifically screened out. When used with the plant spaces approach, this method eliminates the need for unique identification of every component and its specific location. This assures components are not improperly excluded from an aging management review.

The electrical and I&C IPA began by grouping the total population of components into commodity groups. The commodity groups include similar electrical and I&C components with common characteristics. Component level intended functions of the commodity groups were identified.

During the IPA, commodity groups and specific plant systems were eliminated from further review as the intended functions of commodity groups were examined.

In addition to the plant electrical systems, certain switchyard components required to restore offsite power following a station blackout were conservatively included within the scope of license renewal even though those components are not relied on in safety analyses or plant evaluations to perform a function that demonstrates compliance with the Commission's regulations for station blackout (SBO) (10 CFR 50.63). The evaluation boundaries of the offsite power system are described below.

The purpose of the offsite power system (Figure 2.5-2 and Figure 2.5-3) is to provide the electrical interconnection between IPEC and the offsite transmission network.

UFSAR References Additional details for electrical commodities can be found in UFSAR Chapters 7 and 8 for both IP2 and IP3.

Evaluation Boundaries Plant electrical and instrument and control systems are included in the scope of license renewal as are electrical and I&C components in mechanical systems.

2.0 Scoping and Screening Methodology for Identifying Structures and Components Page 2.5-1 Subject to Aging Management Review and Implementation Results

Indian Point Energy Center License Renewal Application Technical Information The offsite power sources required to support SBO recovery actions are the offsite sources that supply the station auxiliary transformers. Specifically, the offsite power recovery path includes the station auxiliary transformers, the 138KV switchyard circuit breakers supplying the station auxiliary transformers, the circuit breaker-to-transformer and transformer-to-onsite electrical distribution interconnections, and the associated control circuits and structures.

Components Subiect to AMR As discussed in Section 2.1.2.3.1, IPEC electrical commodity groups correspond to two of the commodity groups identified in NEI 95-10. The two commodity groups are

• high-voltage insulators, and

" cables and connections, bus, electrical portions of electrical and I&C penetration assemblies, fuse holders outside of cabinets of active electrical SCs.

The commodity group cables, connections, bus, and electrical portions of I&C penetration assemblies is further divided into the following.

• cable connections (metallic parts)

" electrical cables and connections subject to 10 CFR 50.49 EQ requirements

• electrical cables and connections not subject to 10 CFR 50.49 EQ requirements

• electrical cables and connections not subject to 10 CFR 50.49 EQ requirements used in instrumentation circuits

• electrical connections not subject to 10 CFR 50.49 EQ requirements exposed to borated water leakage

" fuse holders - insulation material

" fuse holders - metallic clamp

• inaccessible medium-voltage (2 kV to 35 kV) cables (e.g., installed underground in conduit or direct buried) not subject to 10 CFR 50.49 EQ requirements

• metal enclosed bus - bus / connections

• metal enclosed bus - enclosure assemblies

• metal enclosed bus - insulation / insulators

• switchyard bus and connections

• transmission conductors and connections

• uninsulated ground conductors

• 138kV direct burial insulated transmission cables Each of these commodity groups is subject to aging management review with the following exceptions.

• Electrical cables and connections subject to 10 CFR 50.49 EQ requirements are not subject to aging management review since the components are replaced based on qualified life.

2.0 Scoping and Screening Methodology for Identifying Structures and Components Page 2.5-2 Subject to Aging Management Review and Implementation Results

Indian Point Energy Center License Renewal Application Technical Information

• Fuse holders with metallic clamps are either part of a complex active assembly or part of circuits that perform no license renewal intended function.

" Uninsulated ground conductors limit equipment damage in the event of a circuit failure, but do not perform an intended function for license renewal.

Table 2.5-1 lists the component types that require aging management review.

Table 3.6.2-1 provides the results of the aging management review.

2.0 Scoping and Screening Methodology for Identifying Structures and Components Page 2.5-3 Subject to Aging Management Review and Implementation Results

Indian Point Energy Center License Renewal Application Technical Information Table 2.5-1 Electrical and Instrumentation and Control Systems Components Subject to Aging Management Review Structure and/or Component/Commodity Intended Function 1 Cable connections (metallic parts) Conducts electricity Electrical cables and connections not subject to 10 CFR 50.49 Conducts electricity EQ requirements Electrical cables not subject to 10 CFR 50.49 EQ requirements Conducts electricity used in instrumentation circuits Electrical connections not subject to 10 CFR 50.49 EQ Conducts electricity requirements exposed to borated water leakage Fuse holders (insulation material) Conducts electricity High voltage insulators for SBO recovery Insulation (electrical)

Inaccessible medium-voltage (2KV to 35KV) cables not subject Conducts electricity to 10 CFR 50.49 EQ requirements Metal-enclosed bus (non-segregated) and connections for SBO Conducts electricity recovery Metal-enclosed bus (non-segregated), insulation/insulators for Insulation (electrical)

SBO recovery Metal-enclosed bus (non-segregated) enclosure assemblies for Support for Criterion SBO recovery (a)(3) equipment Switchyard bus and connections for SBO recovery Conducts electricity Transmission conductors and connections for SBO recovery Conducts electricity 138kV direct burial insulated transmission cables Conducts electricity

1. Intended functions are defined in Table 2.0-1.

2.0 Scoping and Screening Methodology for Identifying Structures and Components Page 2.5-4 Subject to Aging Management Review and Implementation Results

NL-08-057 Attachment 2 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 28 of 28 Underground Medium Volt Cable,.

138kV Trmnsmisslon Lines 138kV Switchyard Bus 138-k Undderground.Cable: Buchanan Substation Medium Volf Cible 1. 8 Nýo Segregat6d Phase Bus IP2'13RV Bus:,

'13,81 S..9'kV-GT'Aulo Figure 2.5-2 IP2 Offsite Power Scoping Diagram

NL-07-138 Attachment I Page 24 of 25

[iaOffite7

.,ed Oy ath..

• Buchanan.

I U gndergrin Medium Volt B~uc.ha n'a'n'*ke

.138kV Transmissio Linesý Su~b' tatian'.

13S.8kV <.

/

"138,kV~hSWc"hari Bus Station%. 'Mediu-m` V 6`0 ofe Switchyard i3skv K

St~atIon N

.1' Bus Transformer Yard

- .. -. I

.6.9kV Bts5 .-. J 6.9kV Bus Z A.ekv Bus'-3 I .kBus 6

Npn Sa6t Ndn,.feW, 1~~~~Tur~bl~ine BuIdlnag.. 1..

(Yin SS2 SST 4 SSTG6 480VBUS5A ..4B0V Bus.2A .48OVBus3A 480V Bus BA(

SýfeY Safety,

$witcttgear Room Room i Swiichgear Figure 2.5-3.

1P3 ffsite Power Scoping Diagram

EXHIBIT 3 Exhibit 3 NO 95-10 Revision 6 lndustrv Guideline For Implementing The Requirements of 10 CFR Part 54-The License Renewal Rule Nuclear Energy Institute June 2005

TYPICAL STRUCTURE, COMPONENT AND COMMODITY GROUPINGS NEI 95-10 Revision 6 AND ACTIVE/PASSIVE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE June 2005 INTEGRATED PLANT ASSESSMENT ITEM CATEGORY STRUCTURE, COMPONENT, OR STRUCTURE, COMMODITY GROUPING COMPONENT, OR COMMODITY GROUPING MEETS 10CFR54.21(a)(1)(i)

(YESINO)

Air Compressor 'No 72 Miscellaneous Process Components Alarm Unit No 73 Electrical and (e.g., fire detection devices)

I&C Analyzers No 74 Electrical and (e.g., gas analyzers, conductivity analyzers)

I&C Electrical and Annunciators (e.g., lights, buzzers, alarms) No 75 I&C Batteries No 76 Electrical and I&C Cables and Connections, Bus,'electrical Yes 77 Electrical and portions of Electrical and I&C Penetration I&C Assemblies, Includes fuse holders outside of cabinets of active electrical SCs (e.g., electrical penetration assembly cables and connections, connectors, electrical splices, terminal blocks, power cables, control cables, instrument cables, insulated cables, communication cables, uninsulated ground conductors, transmission conductors, isolated-phase bus, nonsegregated-phase bus, segregated-phase bus, switchyard bus)

Chargers, Converters, Inverters No 78 Electrical and (e.g., converters-voltage/current, converters-I&C voltage/pneumatic, battery chargers/inverters, motor-generator sets)

Circuit Breakers No 79 Electrical and (e.g., air circuit breakers, molded case circuit I&C breakers, oil-filled circuit breakers)

B-10

TYPICAL STRUCTURE, COMPONENT AND COMMODITY GROUPINGS NEI 95-10 Revision 6 AND ACTIVE/PASSIVE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE June 2005 INTEGRATED PLANT ASSESSMENT ITEM CATEGORY STRUCTURE, COMPONENT, OR STRUCTURE, COMMODITY GROUPING COMPONENT, OR COMMODITY GROUPING MEETS 10CFR54.21(a)(1)(i)

(YES/NO)

Communication Equipment No 80 Electrical and (e.g., telephones, video or audio recording or I&C playback equipment, intercoms, computer terminals, electronic messaging, radios, transmission line traps and other power-line carrier equipment)

Electric Heaters, No, Yes for a Pressure 81 Electrical and Boundary if applicable, I&C See Appendix C Reference 2 Heat Tracing No 82 Electrical and See Appendix C I&C Reference 2 Electrical Controls and Panel Internal No 83 Electrical and Component Assemblies (may include I&C internal devices such as, but not limited to, switches, breakers, indicating lights, fuse holders, etc.)

(e.g., main control board, HVAC control board)

Elements, RTDs, Sensors, Thermocouples, No 84 Electrical and Transducers I&C (e.g., conductivity elements, flow elements, Yes for a Pressure temperature sensors, radiation sensors,watt Boundary if applicable transducers, thermocouples, RTDs, vibration probes, amp transducers, frequency transducers, power factor transducers, speed transducers, var. transducers, vibration transducers, voltage transducers)

Fuses No 85 Electrical and See Appendix C I&C Reference 3 Generators, Motors No 86 Electrical and (e.g., emergency diesel generators, ECCS and I&C emergency service water pump motors, small motors, motor-generator sets, steam turbine generators, combustion turbine generators, fan motors, pump motors, valve motors, air compressor motors)

B-I1

TYPICAL STRUCTURE, COMPONENT AND COMMODITY GROUPINGS NEI 95-10 Revision 6 AND ACTIVEIPASSIVE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE June 2005 INTEGRATED PLANT ASSESSMENT ITEM CATEGORY STRUCTURE, COMPONENT, OR STRUCTURE, COMMODITY GROUPING COMPONENT. OR COMMODITY GROUPING MEETS 10CFR54.21(a)(l)(i)

F(YESNO)

High-voltage Insulators Yes 87 Electrical and (e.g., porcelain switchyard insulators, I&C transmission line insulators)

Surge Arresters No 88 Electrical and (e.g., switchyard surge arresters, lightning I&C arresters, surge suppressers, surge capacitors, protective capacitors)

Indicators No 89 Electrical and (e.g., differential pressure indicators, I&C pressure indicators, flow indicators, level indicators, speed indicators, temperature indicators, analog indicators, digital indicators, LED bar graph indicators, LCD indicators)

Isolators No 90 Electrical and (e.g., transformer isolators, optical isolators, I&C isolation relays, isolating transfer diodes)

Light Bulbs No 91 Electrical and (e.g., indicating lights, emergency lighting, See Appendix C I&C incandescent light bulbs, fluorescent light Reference 2 bulbs)

Loop Controllers No 92 Electrical and (e.g., differential pressure indicating I&C controllers, flow indicating controllers, temperature controllers, controllers, speed controllers, programmable logic controller, single loop digital controller, process controllers, manual loader, selector station, hand/auto station, auto/manual station)

Meters No 93 Electrical and (e.g., ammeters, volt meters, frequency I&C meters, var meters, watt meters, power factor meters, watt-hour meters)

Power Supplies No 94 Electrical and I&C B-12

TYPICAL STRUCTURE, COMPONENT AND COMMODITY GROUPINGS NEI 95-10 Revision 6 AND ACTIVE/PASSIVE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE June 2005 INTEGRATED PLANT ASSESSMENT ITEM CATEGORY STRUCTURE, COMPONENT, OR STRUCTURE, COMMODITY GROUPING COMPONENT, OR COMMODITY GROUPING MEETS 10CFR54.21(a)(1)(i)

(YES/NO)

Radiation Monitors No 95 Electrical and (e.g., area radiation monitors, process I&C radiation monitors)

Recorders No 96 Electrical and (e.g., chart recorders, digital recorders, I&C events recorders)

Electrical and Regulators (e.g., voltage regulators) No 97 I&C Relays No 98 Electrical and (e.g., protective relays, control/logic relays, I&C auxiliary relays)

Signal Conditioners No 99 Electrical and I&C Solenoid Operators No 100 Electrical and I&C Solid-State Devices No 101 Electrical and (e.g., transistors, circuit boards, computers)

I&C Switches No 102 Electrical and (e.g., differential pressure indicating I&C switches, differential pressure switches, pressure indicator switches, pressure switches, flow switches, conductivity switches, level indicating switches, temperature indicating switches, temperature switches, moisture switches, position switches, vibration switches, level switches, control switches, automatic transfer switches, manual transfer switches, manual disconnect switches, current switches, limit switches, knife switches)

B-13

TYPICAL STRUCTURE, COMPONENT AND COMMODITY GROUPINGS NEI 95-10 Revision 6 AND ACTIVE(PASSIVE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE June 2005 INTEGRATED PLANT ASSESSMENT ITEM CATEGORY STRUCTURE, COMPONENT, OR STRUCTURE, COMMODITY GROUPING COMPONENT, OR COMMODITY GROUPING MEETS 10CFR54.21(a)(1)(i)

(YESINO)

Switchgear, Load Centers, Motor Control No 103 Electrical and Centers, Distribution Panel Internal I&C Component Assemblies (may include internal devices such as, but not limited to, switches, breakers, indicating lights, etc.)

(e.g., 4.16 kV switchgear. 480V load centers, 480V motor control centers, 250 VDC motor control centers, 6.9 kV switchgear units, 240/125V power distribution panels)

Transformers No 104 Electrical and (e.g., instrument transformers, load center See Appendix C I&C transformers, small distribution Reference 2 transformers, large power transformers, isolation transformers, coupling capacitor voltage transformers)

Transmitters No 105 Electrical and (e.g., differential pressure transmitters, I&C pressure transmitters, flow transmitters, level transmitters, radiation transmitters, static pressure transmitters)

Hydraulic Operated Valves Yes (Bodies) 106 Valves Explosive Valves Yes (Bodies) 107 Valves Manual Valves Yes (Bodies) 108 Valves Small Valves Yes (Bodies) 109 Valves Motor-Operated Valves Yes (Bodies) 110 Valves B-14

EXHIBIT 4 Exhibit 4 Mr. Douglas J. Walters September 19, 1997 Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 1 Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC. 20585

SUBJECT:

DETERMINATION OF AGING MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS Dear Mr. Walters; During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's review of the Nuclear Energy Institute's NEI 95-10, "Industry Guideline for Implementing the Requirements of 10 CFR Part 54 - The License Renewal Rule," the need was identified for guidance on whether selected electrical components are subject to an aging management review. NEI addressed a number of the components in iLs letter dated December 24, 1996, Consistent with the staff's approach in its February 27, 1997, letter to provide positions on significant issues associated with the license renewal regulatory guide and NEI 95-10, enclosed please find the. staff's position on the aging management review requirements for selected electrlcil components, The recommendations in the enclosed position should be considered when revising NEI 95-10.

Sincerely, Original signed by:

Christopher I. Grimes, Director License Renewal Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project 690

Enclosure:

As stated cc: w/ercl.: See next page Di str'bution:

DOwk,eFile S. Droggitis, 0-3D23 E. Sullivan 0-7 D4 PUBLIC S. Peterson, 0-12G18 PDLR R/F G. Lainas, 0-7D26 S. Collins/F. Miragl ia, 0-12G18 B. Morris, 0-9F23 R. Zimmerman, 0-12G1 8 J. Moore/E. Holler, 015818 M. Slosson G. Mizuno. 0-15B18 I.

S. Weiss G. Holahan, 0-8E2 S. Meador, 0-17G21 B. Sheron, 0-7026 R. Correria. 0-I1A17 M. Mayfield, T-10E10 R- Wessman, 0-7E23 A. Murphy. T-1OL1 J. Strosnider, 0-704 H. Brammer, O-7H15 L. Shao. 0-IOD20 G. Bagchi, O-7H15 J. Calvo, 0-7E4 R.L. Gili, Duke Power

0. Thatcher, 0-7E4 B.W. Doroshuk, BGE PDLR Staff A

DOCUMENT NAMU> A:/NEILTR.1 (PTKuo/LLM Disk) o A1 To r. ma*v "p docu*mpi, o f OWdt9cat, 14 Inthe1.4: C" - Copy without ottachment/onciosure "E" Copy with f1totohmont/onclosurf oo I -PY DAITETEEL.... " LO G D:P..R RAWV4 PShemansk i~LJalvo t CGrimeG na DBATCE -973/ 08/ 1 /97 P0;8/Z.o10/ý97 /ý /97/

9709240243 970q19 PDR REVOP ERONUNRC 0 0 D I. I if "v .< I÷*

110111 101111111RII

NVCL.,AR REGUL-ATORY OM MISSION September 19, 1997

.Mr, Douglas J. Walters Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 1 Street, NW Suite 300, Washington, DC 20585

SUBJECT:

DETERMINATION OF AGING MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS

Dear Mr. Walters:

During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's review of the Nuclear Energy Institute's NEI 95-10, 'Industry Guideline for Implementing the Requirements of 10 CFR Part 54 The License Renewal Rule." the need was identified for guidance on whether selected electrical components are subject to an aging management review, NEI addressed a number of the components in its letter dated December ?4, 1996. Consistent with the staff's approach in its February 27, 1997. letter to provide positions on significant issues associated with the license renewal regulatory guide and NEI 95-10, enclosed.

please find the staff's position on the aging management review requirements.

for selected electrical components. The recommendations in the enclosed position should be considered when revising NEI 95-10.

Sincerely, Christopher I, Grimes, Director License Renewal Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project 690

Enclosure:

As stated QC: w/encl- See next page

,NUJCLfA ENERGY INSTITUTE (NED)

Project No. 690 cc: Mr. Dennis Harrison U.S. O~partment of Energy NE. .42 Wa$hflngton, DC 20585 Mr. Douglas J. Walters Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 1 Street, NW Suite 40 Washington, DC 20006 Mr, Richard P. Sedano, Commissioner State Liaison Officer State of Vermont Department of Public Service I.2 State Street Drawer 20 Montpelier, Vermont 05620-2601

Determining if transformers, fuses, indicating lights, heat tracing, electric heaters, and recombiners are subject to an aging management review.

This issue relates to the guidance provided in the Statements of ConsiJerati.on (SOC) in which the Commission concluded that an aging management review is required for passive, long-lived structures and components within the scope of the liconse *'enewal rule. Appendix B of NEI 95.-10 addresses this requirement by Identifying typical structure, component, and coomodity groupings and a determination as to whether they require an aging management review. Several electrical components, as identified above, were not classified in Appendix B.

The rule in §54.21(a)(1), states that "structures and components subject tO an aging management review shall encompass those structures and components (i)

Ntihat perform an intended function as described in §54,4, without moving parts or without a change in configuration or properties." The SOC uses the term "passive" to represent these characteristics for convenience.. The description of "passive" structures and components incorporated into

§54.21(a)(1)(i) is used only in conjunction with the IPA review in the license renewal process. The SOC accompanying the renewal rule states: "The.

Commission has determined that passive structures and components for which aging degradation is not readily monitored are those that perform an intended function without moving parts or a change in configuration or properties." (60 FR 22477). The SOC also states: "[T]he conmmission has concluded that "a

.change in configuration or properties" shiould be interpreted to include "a change in state," which is a term sometimes found in the literature relating to "passive."

§54.21(a)(I)(i) excludes a variety of 2lectrical and instrumentation and control (I&C) structures and components from an aging management review for renewal such as motors, diesel generators, air compressors, pressure transmitters, pressure indicators, water level indicators, switchgear, cooling fans, transistors, batteries, breakers, relays, switches, power Inverters, circuit boards, battery chargers, and power supplies. The SOC provides the following discussion as the basis for excluding several Plectrical and I&C devices from an aging management review: "an electrical relay can change its configuration, and a battery changes its electrolyte properties when discharging" and "a transistor can 'change its state'." The SOC also provides the following discussion as the basis to include electrical cables in an aging management review; "they perform their intended function without moving parts or without a change in configuration or properties and the effects of aging degradation for these components are not readily monitorable." (60 FR 22477)

While §54.21(a)(l)(i) excludes many eloctrical and I&C components from an aging management review for renewal, it also states that the exclusion is "not limited to* only these components. The staff has considered the aging Attachment

-I

.m0a*agment review requirements for transfow.rs, fuses, indicaing ligh.-,

hiit'fraci¢ng, aiectoic heaters, and recombine rs with respect to tlie d*e*nitioons, background, avid specific electrical examples in the license:

renewal rule (circuit breakers, relays, motors, circuit boards, etc.). Based on the considirable dtscussion provided in the rule and SOCF the staif CO¢MPred the electri-cal components identified above with the examples P1i" tly- pr.vided in the rule it terms of how the performance of their.

Intendod fukctions would be achleved and whether aging degradation of thee.

cOmpone, ts would be readily monitored using currently available technlqueý.ý'in a sim~ila way by which the examples in the rule (circuit breakers, relays, switche, eOtc.) would ho monitored. These techniques include perfommance or condition monitoring by testing and maintenance/surveillance pograms th-.t A Include instrument checks, functional tests, calibration functional testi., and response time verification tests. The results of these tests and performoance monitoring programs can be analyzed and trended to provide an indication of aging degradation for these electrical components as discussed below:

Transformers perform their intended funrtion through a change in state by stepping down voltage from higher to a lower value, stepping up voltage to a higher value, or providing Isolation to a load. Transformers perform their intended function through a chaige in state similar to switchgear, power supplies, battery chargers, and power inverters, which have been excluded in §54.21(a)(1)(i) from n aging management review. Any degradation of the transformer's abiliLy to perform its intended function is readily monitorable by a change in the electrical performance of the transformer and the associated circuits. Trending electrical parameters measured during transformer iurveillance and maintenance such as DQoble test results, and advanced, monitoring methods such as infrared thermography, and electrical circuit characteri7ation and diagnosis provide a direct indication of the perfornance of the transformer. Therefore, transformers are not subject to an aging management review.

Indicating lights (dual filament) perform their intended function through a change in state by displaying readily monitorable visible light when energized with sufficient voltage. Indicatin g lights perform their intended function through a change in state similar to transistors and circuit boards, which have been excluded in §54.21(a)(1)(i) from an aging management review. Any degradation of the indicating lights ability to perform its intended function is readily monitorable since the ligh7s (e.g., control room and local panel annunciators) typically havw:both a visual and audio test capability that is initiated, on a periodic basis by the operator. This self-test capability is relied upon to provide a direct indication of the performance of the indicating lights. Therefore, indicating lights are not subject to an aging monagement review.

• Heat tracing performs its intended function through a change in state by supplying heat when energized, for example, to a boric acid system or a

- 3-refuelIng water storage tank/piping in order to maintain a minimum solution temperature to prevent boron from precipitating out or water from frezing in an outside pipe. Heat týing performs its intended function through a change in state when energized similar to a power supply, battery charger, power inverter, etc., which have been excluded in 04.21(a)(1)(i) from an aging management review. Any degradation of the heat tracing to perform its intended function is readily monitored by alarm circuitry (control room and local panel annunciators) or by surveillance requirements that monitor solution temperature on a periodic basis which provides a direct indication of the performance of the heat tracing, Therefore, heat tracing is not subject to an aging management review, Electric heaters perform their Intended function through a change in state by supplying heat when energized, for example, to a pressurizer water volume for reactor coolant system pressure control. Electric heaters perform their intended function through a change in state similar to a battery charger, power inverter, power supply, etc., that

.hange state when energized and which have been excluded in

§54.21(a)(1)(i) from an aging management review. Any degradation of the electric heaters' ability to perform their intended function due to aging will be readily monitorable from existing monitoring equipment (voltmeters and active performance of the equipment in the circuit) and surveillance requirements by verifying that the heaters are energized.!

and by measuring circuit current on a periodic basis. Therefore, electric heaters are not subject to an aging management review for the intended function of supplying heat, The pressure boundary intended function would still be subject to an aging management review.

The staff has also considered the aging management review requirements for fuses, and hydrogen recombiners as discussed below:

Fuses perform one of their two intended functions through a change in configuration or state of the fuse by interrupting pcwr in the case of a fault or overload in a load in order to provide protection to the rest of the electrical circuit. Fuses also perform a second intended function which is to maintain electrical continuity during non-faulted conditions. Unlike other electrical components which hava simliar continuity functions such as breakers, switches, and relays which have been excluded in § 54.21 (a)(1)(i) fror an aging management review, degradation of the fuse's ability to perform this intended function due to aging is not readily monitorable. Degradation of the fuse's intended continuity function may not result in detectable losses in associated system safety functions until degradation becomes unacceptable.

Therefore, the staff believes that fuses are subject to an aging management review.

Recombiners remove gaseous hydrogen from the contaijment atmosphere by combining hydrogen with oxygen to form water. This intended function is accomplished with several component types such as electric heater

banks, cabling., Connections, etc. As such, recombiners should be consi.dereO as colex assemblies and should be evaluated on a plant specific. basis to determine if they are subject to an aging managenent .

review for renewal,

[

OA0e4 on the abovq assessment, the staff concluded that these components, with the exCeptio" of fuses and recombtners, perform their i*-tended function(s)'Y with a change in Configuration/state and the effects of aging are readily.

monitored. and therfore, are not subject to an aging management review.

Elect:rical and JIC structures and components that are subject to an aging management review for renewal include, but may not be limited to: electrical cab40 and connections, fuses, electrical- and I&C penetration assemblies,

-c.able trays, a*d electrical and I&C cabinets, panels, racks, frames,

enclosures, and other similar component supports.

.e.....d.t.on  :

The NRC staff recoummends revising Appendix B of NEI 95-10 to indicate that transformers, indicating lights, heat tracing, and electric heaters do not require an aging management review (recombiners should remain plant specifi~c) and to state that electrical and I&C structures and cwitponeots subject to 0:0.,

aging management review for renewal should inclvde: electrical cables and connections, fuses, electrical and I&C penetration assemblies, cable trays, and eiectrical and I&C cabinets, panels, racks, frames, enclosures, and other similar component supports.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and

) 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)

))

) August 14, 2009 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of (1) "Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention New York State 8 (Electrical Transformers)" dated August 14, 2009; (2) "Statement of Material Facts" dated August 14, 2009; (3) "Declaration of Steven E. Dobbs in Support of Entergy's Motion for Summary Disposition of New York State Contention 8" dated August 12, 2009; (4)

"Declaration of Roger B. Rucker in Support of Entergy's Motion for Summary Disposition of New York State Contention 8" dated August 12, 2009; (5) "Declaration of John W. Craig in Support of Entergy's Motion for Summary Disposition of New York State Contention 8" dated August 12, 2009; and (6) supporting Exhibits 1 through 4 were served this 14th day of August, 2009 upon the persons listed below, by first class mail and by e-mail as shown below.

Office of the Secretary ** Administrative Judge Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Lawrence G. McDade, Chair U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Mail Stop: T-3 F23 (E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: 1gm 1nrc.gov)

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Richard E. Wardwell Kaye D. Lathrop Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 190 Cedar Lane E.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ridgway, CO 81432 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: kdl2gnrc.gov)

(E-mail: rew@nrc.gov)

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Zachary S. Kahn, Law Clerk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: O-16G4 Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (E-mail: ocaamailgnrc.gov) Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: zxkl gnrc.gov)

Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Greg Spicer, Esq.

Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. Office of the Westchester County Attorney David E. Roth, Esq. 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor Brian G. Harris, Esq. White Plains, NY 10601 Andrea Z. Jones, Esq. (E-mail: gssl1westchestergov.com)

Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: 0-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: setgnrc.gov)

(E-mail: bnmlnrc.gov)

(E-mail: david.rothgnrc.gov)

(E-mail: brian.harrisgnrc.gov)

(E-mail: andrea.jones~nrc.gov)

Manna Jo Greene Thomas F. Wood, Esq.

Environmental Director Daniel Riesel, Esq.

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Ms. Jessica Steinberg, J.D.

112 Little Market Street Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.

Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 460 Park Avenue (E-mail: mannaiogclearwater.org) New York, NY 10022 (E-mail: driesel~sprlaw.com)

(E-mail: isteinberggsprlaw.com)

Stephen C. Filler, Board Member John Louis Parker, Esq.

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Regional Attorney 303 South Broadway, Suite 222 Office of General Counsel, Region 3 Tarrytown, NY 10591 NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation (E-mail: sfiller(2nylawline.com) 21 S. Putt Corners Road New Paltz, New York 12561-1620 (E-mail: j lparker~gw.dec.state.ny.us)

Ross Gould, Member Michael J. Delaney, V.P. , Energy Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. New York City Economic Development Corp.

10 Park Avenue, #5L 110 William Street New York, NY 10016 New York, NY 10038 (E-mail: rgouldesq~gmail.com) (E-mail: mdelaney@nycedc.com)

Phillip Musegaas, Esq. Daniel E. O'Neill, Mayor Deborah Brancato, Esq. James Siermarco, M.S.

Riverkeeper, Inc. Liaison to Indian Point 828 South Broadway Village of Buchanan Tarrytown, NY 10591 Municipal Building (E-mail: phillipgriverkeeper.org) 236 Tate Avenue (E-mail: dbrancatogriverkeeper.org) Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 (E-mail: vob@bestweb.net) 2

Robert D. Snook, Esq. Mylan L. Denerstein, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Executive Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General Social Justice State of Connecticut Office of the Attorney General 55 Elm Street of the State of New York P.O. Box 120 120 Broadway, 2 5 th Floor Hartford, CT 06141-0120 New York, New York 10271 (E-mail: Robert. Snookgpo.state.ct.us) (E-mail: Mylan.Denersteingoag.state.ny.us)

Andrew M. Cuomo, Esq. Janice A. Dean Attorney General of the State of New York Office of the Attorney General John J. Sipos, Esq. of the State of New York Charlie Donaldson Esq. Assistant Attorney General Assistants Attorney General 120 Broadway, 26th Floor The Capitol New York, New York 10271 Albany, NY 12224-0341 (E-mail: Janice.Deangoag.state.ny.us)

(E-mail: john.siposnaoag.state.ny.us)

Joan Leary Matthews, Esq.

Senior Attorney for Special Projects Office of the General Counsel New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, 14th Floor Albany, NY 12207 (E-mail: jlmatthe(2gw.dec.state.ny.us)

• • Original and 2 copies provided to the Office of the Secretary.

Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.

Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

DB 1/63525704.1 3