# Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal; Proposed Revisions

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-22086

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** September 9, 1994

## Text

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 2, 51, and 54

RIN 3150-AF05

Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal; Proposed Revisions

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend
its regulations to change the requirements that an applicant for
renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license must meet, clarify
the required information that must be submitted to the NRC for review
so that the agency can determine whether those requirements have in
fact been met, and change the administrative requirements that a holder
of a renewed license must meet. The proposed amendments are intended to
provide a more stable and predictable regulatory process for license
renewal. This proposed rule would inform nuclear power plant licensees
and interested members of the public of the proposed changes to the
regulatory requirements for extending nuclear power plant operating
licenses beyond 40 years.

DATES: Submit comments by December 8, 1994. Comments received after
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the
Commission is able only to ensure consideration for comments received
on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service
Branch.
Deliver comments to: One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm Federal
workdays.
Copies of comments received may be examined at: NRC Public Document
Room, 2120 L Street N.W. (lower level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas G. Hiltz, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555, telephone: (301) 504-1105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background.
II. Proposed Action.
III. Principal Issues.
a. Continued validity of certain findings in previous
rulemaking.
b. Reaffirmation of the regulatory philosophy and approach and
clarification of the two principles of license renewal.
c. Systems, structures, and components within the scope of
license renewal.
d. The regulatory process and aging management.
e. Current licensing basis and maintaining the function of
systems, structures, and components.
f. Integrated plant assessment.
g. Time-limited aging analyses and exemptions.
h. Standards for issuance of a renewed license and the scope of
hearings.
i. Regulatory and administrative controls.
IV. Availability of Documents.
V. Questions.
VI. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.
VIII. Regulatory Analysis.
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification.
X. Non-Applicability of the Backfit Rule.

I. Background

The license renewal rule (10 CFR Part 54) was adopted by the
Commission on December 13, 1991 (56 FR 64943). This rule established
the procedures, criteria, and standards governing the renewal of
nuclear power plant operating licenses.
Since publishing the license renewal rule, the staff of the NRC has
conducted various activities related to implementing this rule,
including developing a draft regulatory guide and a draft standard
review plan for license renewal, interacting with lead plant licensees,
and reviewing generic industry technical reports sponsored by the
Nuclear Management and Resources Council (now part of the Nuclear
Energy Institute).
In November 1992, the law firm of Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and
Trowbridge submitted a paper to the NRC that presented Northern States
Power Company's perspectives on the license renewal process. The paper
included specific recommendations for making the license renewal
process more workable. In addition, industry representatives provided
the Commission with views on several key license renewal implementation
issues. In late 1992, the NRC staff conducted a senior management
review and interacted with the Commission, industry groups, and
individual licensees to discuss key license renewal issues. The NRC
staff discussed its recommendations regarding several of these key
license renewal issues in two recent Commission policy papers (SECY-93-
049, ``Implementation of 10 CFR Part 54, `Requirements for Renewal of
Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,''' and SECY-93-113,
``Additional Implementation Information for 10 CFR Part 54,
`Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power
Plants''').
In its staff requirements memorandum (SRM) of June 28, 1993, the
Commission indicated that a predictable and stable regulatory process
that defines the Commission's expectations for license renewal in a
clear and unequivocal way is essential. This would permit licensees to
make decisions about license renewal without these decisions being
influenced by a regulatory process that is perceived to be uncertain,
unstable, or not clearly defined. The Commission directed the NRC staff
to convene a public workshop to evaluate alternative approaches for
license renewal that best take advantage of existing licensee
activities and programs as a basis for concluding that aging will be
addressed in an acceptable manner during the period of extended
operation. In particular, the Commission directed the NRC staff to
examine the extent to which greater reliance can be placed on the
maintenance rule (10 CFR 50.65, Requirements for Monitoring the
Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants) as a basis for
concluding that the effects of aging will be effectively managed during
the license renewal term.
On September 30, 1993, the NRC staff conducted a public workshop in
Bethesda, Maryland, that was attended by over 180 representatives from
nuclear utilities, industry organizations, architect and engineering
firms, consultants and contractors, and Federal and State governments.
In December 1993, the NRC staff forwarded SECY-93-331, ``License
Renewal Workshop Results and Staff Proposals for Revision to 10 CFR
Part 54, `Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear
Power Plants,''' to the Commission. The NRC staff recommended that the
Commission direct it to amend 10 CFR Part 54 to establish a more stable
and predictable license renewal process.
In its SRM of February 3, 1994, the Commission agreed with the NRC
staff's conceptual approach in SECY-93-331 for performing license
renewal reviews and directed the staff to proceed with rulemaking to
amend 10 CFR Part 54. The Commission believes that the license renewal
process should focus on the management of the effects of aging on
certain systems, structures, and components during the period of
extended operation. An objective for the proposed amendment is to
establish a more stable and predictable license renewal process that
identifies certain systems, structures, and components1 that
require review to provide the necessary assurance that these systems,
structures, and components will continue to perform their intended
function for the period of extended operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\Throughout the Statement of Considerations, the phrases
systems, structures, and components and structures and components
are used. As a matter of clarification, the Commission intends that
the phrase systems, structures, and components applies to the
matters involving the discussions of the overall renewal review, the
specific license renewal scope (Sec. 54.4), time-limited aging
analyses (Sec. 54.21(c)), and the license renewal finding
(Sec. 54.29). The phrase structures and components applies to
matters involving the integrated plant assessment (IPA) required by
Sec. 54.21(c) because the aging management review required within
the IPA should be a component and structure level review rather than
a more general system level review. The phrase systems, structures,
and components applies to the evaluation of time-limited aging
analyses required by Sec. 54.21(c) because such plant-specific
analyses may have been carried out, for the initial operating term,
for either systems, structures, or components. Reevaluation for the
renewal term is intended to focus on the same systems, structures,
or components subject to the initial term time-limited aging
analyses. The finding required by Sec. 54.29 considers both the
results of the integrated plant assessment and the time-limited
aging analyses and, therefore, the phrase system, structures, and
components is applicable to this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Action

The proposed rule would revise certain requirements contained in 10
CFR Part 54 and establish a regulatory process that is simpler, more
stable, and more predictable than the current license renewal rule. The
proposed rule would continue to ensure that continued operation beyond
the term of the original operating license will not be inimical to the
public health and safety. The more significant proposed changes to the
license renewal rule are as follows:
(1) The intent of the license renewal review would be clarified to
focus on the adverse effects of aging rather than identification of all
aging mechanisms. This change would emphasize that the rule is intended
to ensure that important systems, structures, and components will
continue to perform their intended function in the period of extended
operation. Identification of individual aging mechanisms would not be
required as part of the renewal review. The definitions of age-related
degradation, age-related degradation unique to license renewal, aging
mechanisms, renewal term, and effective program would be deleted.
(2) The definition of integrated plant assessment (IPA) (Sec. 54.3)
and the IPA process (Sec. 54.21(a)) would be clarified to be consistent
with the revised focus in item (1) on the detrimental effects of aging.
(3) A new Sec. 54.4 would be added to replace the current
definition of systems, structures, and components ``important to
license renewal'' in Sec. 54.3. Section 54.4 would define those
systems, structures, and components within the scope of the license
renewal rule and would identify the important functions (intended
functions) of the systems, structures, and components that must be
maintained. The requirement to include systems, structures, and
components that have limiting conditions for operation in facility
technical specifications within the scope of license renewal has been
deleted.
(4) In Sec. 54.21(a), the IPA process would be simplified. The
wording would be changed to resolve any ambiguity associated with the
use of the terms systems, structures, and components (SSCs) and
structures and components (SCs). A simplified methodology for
determining whether a structure or component requires an aging
management review for license renewal would be delineated. Only long-
lived, passive structures and components would be subject to an aging
management review for license renewal. Sections 54.21(b) and (d) of the
current rule would be deleted, and a new Sec. 54.21(c) dealing with
time-limited analyses and a new Sec. 54.21(d) dealing with final safety
analysis report (FSAR) supplement requirements would be added. The
requirement to review any relief from codes and standards contained in
Sec. 54.21(c) of the current rule would be deleted, and the requirement
to review exemptions from regulatory requirements contained in
Sec. 54.21(c) of the current rule would be clarified and linked with
the time-limited analyses.
(5) In Sec. 54.22, the requirement to include technical
specification changes in the FSAR supplement would be clarified
consistent with the revised focus on the detrimental effects of aging.
(6) In Sec. 54.29, the standards for issuance of a renewed license
would be changed to reflect the revised focus on the detrimental
effects of aging concerning structures and components requiring an
aging management review for license renewal and any time-limited issues
(including exemptions) applicable for the renewal term. A new paragraph
(b) would be added to separate those issues identified during the
license renewal process that require resolution during the current
license term from those issues that require resolution during the
license renewal process.
(7) In Sec. 54.33, requirements for continuation of the current
licensing basis (CLB) and conditions of renewed licenses would be
changed to delete all reference to age-related degradation unique to
license renewal (ARDUTLR). Section 54.33(d) of the current rule, which
requires a specific change control process, would be deleted.
(8) In Sec. 54.37, additional records and recordkeeping
requirements would be changed to be less prescriptive. Section 54.37(c)
would be deleted.
A set of questions, which is included in Section V of this
statement of considerations (SOC), identifies certain issues considered
in the development of the proposed rule for which the Commission is
soliciting additional information from members of the public.

III. Principal Issues

a. Continued Validity of Certain Findings in Previous Rulemaking

The purpose of this proposed rule is to simplify and clarify the
current license renewal rule. As such, it is a narrowly circumscribed
rulemaking. Unless otherwise clarified or reevaluated, either directly
or indirectly, in the discussion for this proposed rule, the
conclusions in the SOC for the current license renewal rule remain
valid (56 FR 64943; December 13, 1991). Therefore, if any conflicts
arise between discussions in the SOC for the December 13, 1991, license
renewal rule and discussions in the justification for this proposed
rule that follow, the intent discussed in the justification for this
proposed rule should take precedent.

b. Reaffirmation of the Regulatory Philosophy and Approach and
Clarification of the Two Principles of License Renewal

(i) Regulatory Philosophy
In developing the current license renewal rule, the Commission
concluded that issues that are material to renewal of a nuclear power
plant operating license are to be confined to those issues that the
Commission determines are uniquely relevant to protecting the public
health and safety and preserving common defense and security during the
period of extended operation. Other issues would, by definition, have a
relevance to the safety and security of the public during current plant
operation. Given the Commission's ongoing obligation to oversee the
safety and security of operating reactors, issues that are relevant to
current plant operation will be addressed within the present license
term rather than deferred until the time of license renewal.
Consequently, the Commission formulated the following two principles of
license renewal.
The first principle of license renewal was that, with the exception
of age-related degradation unique to license renewal and possibly some
few other issues related to safety only during extended operation of
nuclear power plants, the regulatory process is adequate to ensure that
the licensing bases of all currently operating plants provide and
maintain an acceptable level of safety so that operation will not be
inimical to public health and safety or common defense and security.
Moreover, consideration of the range of issues relevant only to
extended operation led the Commission to conclude that the detrimental
effects of aging is probably the only issue generally applicable to all
plants. As a result, continuing this regulatory process in the future
will ensure that this principle remains valid during any period of
extended operation if the regulatory process is modified to address
age-related degradation that is of unique relevance to license renewal.
Consequently, the current license renewal rule focuses the Commission's
review on this one safety issue. Under the current rule, the Commission
may address any other safety issue unique to the period of extended
operation.
The second and equally important principle of license renewal holds
that the plant-specific licensing basis must be maintained during the
renewal term in the same manner and to the same extent as during the
original licensing term. This principle would be accomplished, in part,
through a program of age-related degradation management for systems,
structures, and components that are important to license renewal as
defined in the current rule.
The Commission continues its fundamental support for these
principles. In particular, the Commission still believes that
mitigation of the deleterious effects of aging resulting from operation
beyond the initial license term should be the focus for license
renewal. After further consideration and experience in implementing the
current rule, the Commission has, however, determined that the
requirements for carrying out the license renewal review can and should
be simplified and clarified. The Commission has concluded that, for
certain plant systems, structures, and components, the existing
regulatory process will continue to mitigate the effects of aging to
provide an acceptable level of safety in the period of extended
operation.
The Commission now believes that it can generically exclude from
the IPA aging management review for license renewal (1) those
structures and components which perform active functions and (2)
structures and components subject to replacement based on qualified
life or specified time period. However, all systems, structures, and
components subject to time-limited aging analyses would be subject to a
license renewal evaluation. The objective of a license renewal review
is to determine whether the detrimental effects of aging could
adversely affect the functionality of systems, structures, and
components that the Commission determines require review for the period
of extended operation. The license renewal review is intended to
identify any additional actions that will be needed to maintain the
functionality of these systems, structures, and components in the
period of extended operation. Detailed discussions concerning
determination of those systems, structures, and components requiring a
license renewal review are contained in Section III.c of this SOC;
detailed discussions of those structures and components subject to an
aging management review are in Section III.f of this SOC; and, detailed
discussions on systems, structures, and components requiring a license
renewal evaluation are contained in Section III.g of this SOC.
Accordingly, this proposed rule focuses the license renewal review
on certain systems, structures, and components that the Commission has
determined require evaluation to ensure that the effects of aging will
be managed adequately in the period of extended operation. This change
is viewed as a modification consistent with the first principle of
license renewal established in the current rule. In view of this
proposed rule, the first principle can be revised to state that, with
the possible exception of the detrimental effects of aging on the
functionality of certain plant systems, structures, and components in
the period of extended operation and possibly some other issues related
to safety only during extended operation, the regulatory process is
adequate to ensure that the licensing bases of all currently operating
plants provide and maintain an acceptable level of safety so that
operation will not be inimical to public health and safety or common
defense and security.
(ii) Deletion of the Term ``Age-Related Degradation Unique to License
Renewal''
The use of the term ``age-related degradation unique to license
renewal'' (ARDUTLR) has caused significant uncertainty. A key problem
involves how unique aging issues are to be identified and, in
particular, how existing licensee activities and Commission regulatory
activities are to be considered in the identification of systems,
structures, and components as either subject to or not subject to
ARDUTLR. The difficulty in clearly establishing ``uniqueness'' in
connection with the effects of aging is underscored by the fact that
aging is a continuing process, the fact that many licensee programs and
regulatory activities are already focused on mitigating the effects of
aging to ensure safety in the current operating term of the plant, and
the fact that no new aging phenomena have been identified as
potentially occurring only during the period of extended operation.
The proposed rule would eliminate both the definition of ARDUTLR
and use of the term in codified regulatory text. Confusion regarding
the detailed definition of ARDUTLR in the rule and questions regarding
which structures and components could be subject to ARDUTLR would be
eliminated. Specifically, the proposed rule would focus on ensuring
that the effects of aging in the period of extended operation are
adequately managed.
Under the current rule, time-limited aging analyses applicable to
systems, structures, and components important to license renewal that
were based either on an explicitly assumed service life or defined by
the current license term and were the basis for a safety analysis, are
considered subject to ARDUTLR. Because the proposed amendment would
delete the definition of ``ARDUTLR,'' the proposed rule would
explicitly identify time-limited aging analyses as requiring evaluation
as part of the renewal process. Time-limited aging issues are discussed
further in Section III.g of this SOC.

c. Systems, Structures, and Components Within the Scope of License
Renewal

(i) Scope of the License Renewal Review and Elimination of the
Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for Operation Scoping
Category
In the proposed rule, the Commission has deleted the definition (in
Sec. 54.3) of systems, structures, and components important to license
renewal and proposes to replace it with a new section entitled
Sec. 54.4 Scope. This new section will continue to define the set of
plant systems, structures, and components that would be the initial
focus of a license renewal review. From this set of systems,
structures, and components, a license renewal applicant will determine
those systems, structures, and components that would require review for
license renewal. The intent of the definition of systems, structures,
and components important to license renewal (i.e., to initially focus
the review on important systems, structures, and components) remains
intact in the proposed Sec. 54.4.
In the Statements of Consideration for the current license renewal
rule, the Commission concluded that applicants for license renewal
should focus on the management of aging for those systems, structures,
and components that are of principal importance to the safety of the
plant. The Commission also believed that the focus of an aging
evaluation for license renewal cannot be limited to only those systems,
structures, and components that the Commission has traditionally
defined as safety-related. Therefore, the Commission determined that,
in order to ensure the continued safe operation of the plant during the
renewal term, (1) safety-related systems, structures, and components,
(2) nonsafety-related systems, structures, and components that directly
support the function of a safety-related system, structure, or
component or whose failure could prevent the performance of a required
function of a safety-related system, structure, or component, (3)
systems, structures, and components relied upon to meet a specific set
of Commission regulations, and (4) systems, structures, and components
subject to the operability requirements contained in the facility
technical specification limiting conditions for operation should be the
initial focus of the license renewal review.
Since publishing the final rule, the Commission has gained
considerable pre-application rule implementation experience and gained
a better understanding of aging management, in part, through the
development of a regulatory guide to implement the maintenance rule, 10
CFR 50.65. The Commission now believes that (1) by appropriately
crediting existing licensee programs that manage the effects of aging
and (2) by appropriately crediting the continuing regulatory process,
it can more narrowly define those systems, structures, and components
within the scope of license renewal and more narrowly focus the license
renewal review.
The Commission continues to believe that the initial scoping for
the license renewal review should not be limited to only those systems,
structures, or components that the Commission has traditionally defined
as safety-related. However, the Commission proposes that the
requirement to consider additional systems, structures, and components
subject to the operability requirements contained in the facility
technical specification limiting conditions for operation be deleted
and not included in this new scope section; the other three categories
would not be changed.
The first two categories of systems, structures, and components
discussed in the proposed new scoping section (54.4(a)(1) and (a)(2))
are the same categories defined in the current definition of systems,
structures, and components important to license renewal. These scoping
categories concern (1) all safety-related systems, structures, and
components and (2) all non-safety related systems, structures, and
components that support the function of a safety-related system,
structure, or component or whose failure could prevent a safety-related
system, structure, or component from satisfactorily fulfilling its
intended function(s). These two categories are meant to capture, as a
minimum, automatic reactor shutdown systems, engineered safety feature
systems, systems required for safe shutdown (achieve and maintain the
reactor in a safe shutdown condition), and non-safety systems such as
auxiliary systems necessary for the function of safety systems.
The third category of systems, structures, and components discussed
in the proposed new scoping section (54.4(a)(3)) are those systems,
structures, and components whose functionality may be relied on in
safety analyses or plant evaluations to perform a function that
demonstrates compliance with the Commission's regulations for 10 CFR
50.48 (Fire Protection), 10 CFR 50.49 (Environmental Qualification), 10
CFR 50.61 (Pressurized Thermal Shock), 10 CFR 50.62 (Anticipated
Transients Without Scram), and 10 CFR 50.63 (Station Blackout). This
category is also specified in the current definition of systems,
structures, and components important to license renewal and includes
those systems, structures, and components relied upon to meet certain
regulations and was developed to ensure that important systems,
structures, and components which may be considered outside the
traditional definition of safety-related, and outside of the first two
categories in Sec. 54.4, would be included within the initial focus of
license renewal. Through evaluation of industry operating experience
and through continuing regulatory analysis, the Commission has
reaffirmed that systems, structures, and components required to comply
with these regulations are important to safe plant operation because
they provide substantial additional protection to the public health and
safety or are an important element in providing adequate protection to
the public health and safety; therefore, the Commission concludes that
these systems, structures, and components should be included as part of
the initial scope of the license renewal review.
In the current license renewal rule, the Commission established a
fourth category of systems, structures, and components to be the focus
of the initial license renewal review. In this category, the Commission
included all systems, structures, and components that have operability
requirements in the plant technical specifications limiting conditions
for operation. As defined in Standard Technical Specifications, ``a
system, subsystem, train, component, or device shall be operable when
it is capable of performing its specified safety function(s) and when
all necessary attendant instrumentation, controls, normal or emergency
electrical power, cooling and seal water, lubrication, and other
auxiliary equipment that are required for the system, subsystem, train,
component, or device to perform its specified safety function(s) are
also capable of performing their related support function(s).'' This
was intended to include (1) all systems, structures, and components
specifically identified in the technical specification limiting
conditions for operation, (2) any system, structure or component for
which a functional requirement is specifically identified in the
technical specification limiting conditions for operation, and (3) any
necessary supporting system, structure or component that must be
operable or have operability in order for a required system, structure,
or component to be operable.
The Commission previously considered the technical specification
limiting conditions for operation scoping category to be consistent
with the Commission's intent to not re-examine the entire plant for
license renewal but to ensure that all systems, structures, and
components of principal importance to safe plant operation were
identified and evaluated. However, existing technical specifications
for many plants have functional requirements on certain systems,
structures, and components with low or indirect safety significance.
For example, limiting conditions for operation are frequently included
in technical specifications for plant meteorological monitoring
instrumentation, solid and liquid radioactive waste treatment systems,
and traversing incore probes. These requirements, while important for
certain aspects of power plant operation, have little or no direct
bearing on protection of public health and safety. Applying the first
three categories (54.4(a)(1), (2), and (3)) results in the majority of
systems, structures, and components that would be captured into the
license renewal scope when applying the technical specification
category. The technical specification category only adds non-safety
systems, structures, and components that do not support safety related
systems, structures, and components and consequently should not be the
subject of license renewal. Pre-application rule implementation
experience has indicated that this category of systems, structures, and
components as defined in the current rule could lead to an unwarranted
re-examination of plant systems, structures, and components that are
not of principal importance.
In its ``Final Policy Statement on Technical Specifications
Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors'' (58 FR 39132), the Commission
identified four criteria for defining the scope of improved technical
specifications. The four criteria are as follows:
Criterion 1: Installed instrumentation that is used to detect, and
indicate in the control room, a significant abnormal degradation of the
reactor coolant pressure boundary.
Criterion 2: A process variable, design feature, or operating
restriction that is an initial condition of a Design Basis Accident or
Transient analysis that either assumes the failure of or presents a
challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier.
Criterion 3: A structure, system, or component that is part of the
primary success path and which functions or actuates to mitigate a
Design Basis Accident or Transient that either assumes the failure of
or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier.
Criterion 4: A structure, system, or component which operating
experience or probabilistic safety assessment has shown to be
significant to public health and safety.
Nuclear power plant licensees that voluntarily choose to
``improve'' their technical specifications based on this Commission
policy may submit changes to the Commission for review and approval
that will remove systems, structures, and components from their
technical specifications prior to conducting license renewal.
(Experience shows that approximately 40 percent of limiting conditions
for operation and surveillance requirements could be deleted).
While it is not the Commission's intent to require applicants for
license renewal to ``improve'' their technical specifications, it
remains the intent of the Commission to focus the license renewal
review on those systems, structures, and components that are of
principal importance to safety. Therefore, a license renewal scoping
category that requires wholesale consideration of systems, structures,
and components within the scope of technical specifications (that may
not be improved) may not appropriately focus licensee and NRC resources
on those systems, structures, and components that are of principal
importance to safety.
After considering the substantial overlap between the four criteria
for defining the scope of technical specifications and the first three
scoping categories for license renewal, the Commission has generically
concluded that the number of additional systems, structures, and
components that would be considered as a result of applying the
technical specification scoping category to improved technical
specifications is small. These additional systems, structures, and
components most likely would result from differences in each plant's
current licensing basis and from the application of these criteria and
categories on a plant-specific bases.
The Commission cannot make generic conclusions in this rulemaking
about these additional systems, structures, and components regarding
the appropriateness of whether they should be included in an individual
plant's technical specifications. However, the Commission can conclude
that these additional systems, structures, and components are of a
relatively lower safety significance because they are, by exclusion,
nonsafety-related systems, structures, and components whose failure
cannot prevent the performance or reduce the availability of a safety-
related system, structure, or component. Additionally, the Commission
believes that the current regulatory process for these additional
nonsafety-related systems, structures, and components is adequate to
ensure that age degradation will not result in a loss of functionality
in accordance with the CLB. Moreover, these additional nonsafety-
related systems, structures, and components should be within the scope
of the maintenance rule (Sec. 50.65).
The Commission believes that there is sufficient experience with
its policy on technical specifications to apply it generically in
revising the license renewal rule consistent with the Commission's
desire to credit existing regulatory programs. Therefore, the
Commission has concluded that the technical specification limiting
conditions for operation scoping category is unwarranted and proposes
to delete the requirement that identifies systems, structures, and
components with operability requirements in technical specifications as
being within the scope of the license renewal review.
(ii) Intended Function
The current license renewal rule requires an applicant for license
renewal to identify from the systems, structures, and components
important to license renewal those structures and components that
contribute to the performance of a ``required function'' or could, if
they fail, prevent systems, structures, and components from performing
a ``required function.'' This requirement initially posed some
difficulty in conducting pre-application reviews of proposed scoping
methodologies because it was not clear what was meant by ``required
function.'' Most systems, structures, and components have more than one
function and each could be regarded as ``required.'' Although the
Commission could have required a licensee to ensure all functions of a
system, structure, or component as part of the aging management review,
the Commission concluded that this requirement would be unreasonable
and inconsistent with the Commission's original intent to focus only on
those systems, structures, and components of primary importance to
safety. Consideration of ancillary functions would expand the scope of
the license renewal review beyond the Commission's intent. Therefore,
the Commission determined that ``required function'' in the current
license renewal rule refers to those functions that are responsible for
causing the systems, structures, and components to be considered
important to license renewal.
To avoid any confusion with the current rule, the Commission has
changed the term ``required function'' to ``intended function'' and
explicitly stated in Sec. 54.4 that the intended functions for systems,
structures, and components are the same functions that define the
systems, structures, and components as being within the scope of the
proposed rule.
(iii) Bounding the Scope of Review
Pre-application rule implementation has indicated that the
description of systems, structures, and components subject to review
for license renewal could be broadly interpreted and result in an
unnecessary expansion of the review. To limit the potential for an
unnecessary expansion of the review associated with the scoping
category relating to nonsafety-related systems, structures, and
components, the Commission intends this proposed nonsafety-related
category (Sec. 54.4(a)(2)) to apply to systems, structures, and
components whose failure would prevent the accomplishment of an
intended function of a safety-related system, structure, and component.
An applicant for license renewal should rely on the plant's current
licensing bases, actual plant-specific experience, industry-wide
operating experience, and existing engineering evaluations to determine
those nonsafety-related systems, structures, and components that are
the initial focus of the license renewal review. Consideration of
hypothetical failures that could result from system interdependencies
that are not part of the current licensing bases and that have not been
previously experienced is not required.
Likewise, in order to limit the potential for unnecessary expansion
of the review for the scoping category concerning those systems,
structures, and components whose function is relied upon in certain
plant safety analyses to demonstrate compliance with the Commission's
regulations (i.e., environmental qualification, station blackout,
anticipated transient without scram, pressurized thermal shock, and
fire protection), the Commission intends that this scoping category
include all systems, structures, and components whose function is
relied upon to demonstrate compliance with the Commission's
regulations. An applicant for license renewal should rely on the
plant's current licensing bases, actual plant-specific experience,
industry-wide operating experience, and existing engineering
evaluations to determine those systems, structures, and components that
are the initial focus of the license renewal review. Consideration of
hypothetical failures that could result from system interdependencies,
that are not part of the current licensing bases and that have not been
previously experienced is not required.

d. The Regulatory Process and Aging Management

(i) Aging Mechanisms and Effects of Aging
The current license renewal review approach discussed in the SOC
accompanying the December 13, 1991, rule emphasized the identification
and evaluation of aging mechanisms for systems, structures, and
components within the scope of the rule. Primarily through pre-
application implementation experience associated with the current
license renewal rule and the evaluation of comments resulting from the
September 1993 license renewal workshop, the Commission determined that
an approach to license renewal that focuses only on the identification
and evaluation of aging mechanisms could constitute an open-ended
research project. Ultimately, this type of approach may not provide
reasonable assurance that certain systems, structures, and components
will continue to perform their intended functions. The Commission
believes that regardless of the specific aging mechanism, only aging
degradation that leads to degraded performance or condition (i.e.,
detrimental effects) is of principal concern for license renewal
reviews. Because 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. The Commission
concludes that a shift in focus to managing the detrimental effects of
aging for license renewal reviews is appropriate and will provide
reasonable assurance that systems, structures, and components are
capable of performing their intended function during the period of
extended operation.
This shift in focus of the license renewal review has resulted in
several proposed changes to the license renewal rule. These changes
include deleting the definitions of aging mechanism and age-related
degradation, and replacing the references to managing ARDUTLR in the
IPA with a requirement to demonstrate that the effects of aging will be
adequately managed for the period of extended operation.
(ii) Regulatory Requirements and Reliance on the Regulatory Process for
Managing the Effects of Aging
The Commission amended its regulations on July 10, 1991 (56 FR
31306), to require commercial nuclear power plant licensees to monitor
the effectiveness of maintenance activities for safety-significant
plant equipment to minimize the likelihood of failures and events
caused by the lack of effective maintenance. The maintenance rule and
its implementation guidance (1) provides for continued emphasis on the
defense-in-depth principle by including selected balance-of-plant (BOP)
systems, structures, and components, (2) integrates risk consideration
into the maintenance process, (3) provides an enhanced regulatory basis
for inspection and enforcement of BOP maintenance-related issues, and
(4) provides a strengthened regulatory basis for ensuring that the
progress achieved to date is sustained in the future. The requirements
of the maintenance rule must be implemented by each licensee by July
10, 1996.
Commercial nuclear power plants have been performing a variety of
maintenance activities that function effectively as aging management
programs since plants were initially constructed. The Commission also
recognizes that both the industry and the NRC have acquired extensive
experience and knowledge in the area of nuclear power plant
maintenance. Regarding the need for a maintenance rule, the results of
the Commission's Maintenance Team Inspections (MTIs) indicated that
licensees have adequate maintenance programs in place and have
exhibited an improving trend in implementing them (56 FR 31307; July
10, 1991). However, the Commission determined that a maintenance rule
was needed, in part because the MTIs identified some common
maintenance-related weaknesses, such as inadequate root-cause analysis
leading to repetitive failures, lack of equipment performance trending,
and lack of appropriate consideration of plant risk in the
prioritization, planning, and scheduling of maintenance.
Since publishing the license renewal rule on December 13, 1991, the
regulatory process (e.g., regulatory requirements, aging research,
inspection requirements, and inspection philosophy) for managing the
detrimental effects of aging for important systems, structures, and
components has continued to evolve. The changes in the regulatory
process and initial experience with the license renewal rule have had a
direct bearing on the Commission's conclusions regarding the
appropriate focus of aging management review for systems, structures,
and components that are within the scope of the license renewal rule,
and how these systems, structures, and components are treated in the
IPA process.
In June 1993, the NRC issued Regulatory Guide 1.160, ``Monitoring
the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants.'' The
regulatory guide provides an acceptable method for complying with the
requirements of the maintenance rule and states that a licensee can use
alternative methods if the licensee can demonstrate that these
alternative methods satisfy the requirements of the rule. Because aging
is a continuing process, the Commission has concluded that existing
programs and regulatory requirements that continue to be applicable in
the period of extended operation and provide adequate aging management
for systems, structures, and components should be credited for license
renewal. Accordingly, the proposed amendment to the license renewal
rule would focus the renewal review on plant systems, structures, and
components for which current activities and requirements may not be
sufficient to manage the effects of aging in the period of extended
operation.
(iii) Maintenance Rule Requirements and Implementation
As discussed in the regulatory analysis for the maintenance rule
and in Regulatory Guide 1.160, the Commission's determination that a
maintenance rule was needed arose from the conclusion that proper
maintenance was essential to plant safety. A clear link exists between
effective maintenance and safety as it relates to factors such as the
number of transients and challenges to safety systems and the
associated need for operability, availability, and reliability of
safety-related systems, structures, and components. In addition, good
maintenance is important to providing assurance that failures of other
than safety-related systems, structures, and components that could
initiate or adversely affect a transient or accident are minimized.
Minimizing challenges to safety systems is consistent with the
Commission's defense-in-depth philosophy. Therefore, nuclear power
plant maintenance is clearly important to protecting the public health
and safety.
The maintenance rule requires that power reactor licensees monitor
the performance or condition of systems, structures, and components
against licensee-established goals in a manner sufficient to provide
reasonable assurance that these systems, structures, and components are
capable of fulfilling their intended functions. Where it can be
demonstrated that the performance or condition of systems, structures,
and components is being effectively controlled through the performance
of appropriate preventive maintenance, performance and condition
monitoring against licensee-established goals is not required.
Performance and condition-monitoring activities and associated goals
and preventive maintenance activities must be evaluated once every
refueling cycle, provided the interval between evaluations does not
exceed 24 months.
As discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.160, the extent of monitoring
may vary from system to system, depending on the system's importance to
risk. Some monitoring at the component level may be necessary. However,
most of the monitoring could be done at the plant, system, or system
train level. For systems, structures, and components that fall within
the requirements of Sec. 50.65(a)(1), licensees must establish goals
and monitor performance against these goals. These goals should be
derived from information in the CLB and should be established
commensurate with safety significance of the systems, structures, or
components. These goals may be performance-oriented (reliability,
unavailability) or condition-oriented (pump flow, pressure, vibration,
valve stroke time, current, electrical resistance). An effective
preventive maintenance program is required under Sec. 50.65(a)(2) if
monitoring under Sec. 50.65(a)(1) is not performed.
The SOC for the maintenance rule (56 FR 31308; July 10, 1991)
states that the scope of Sec. 50.65(a)(2) includes those systems,
structures, and components that have ``inherently high reliability''
without maintenance. It is expected that many long-lived, passive
structures and components could be considered inherently reliable by
licensees and not be monitored under 10 CFR 50.65(a)(1). There may be
few, if any, actual maintenance activities (e.g., inspection or
condition monitoring) that a licensee conducts for such structures and
components. Further, experience gained under the current license
renewal rule, staff review of industry reports, NRC aging research, and
operating experience indicate that such structures and components
should be reviewed for license renewal if they are passive and long-
lived. Therefore, the Commission believes that such structures and
components that are technically within the scope of the maintenance
rule should not be excluded from review for license renewal on the
basis of their inherent reliability.
Although the maintenance rule does not become effective and
enforceable until July 10, 1996, the Commission believes that reliance
on the rule is an acceptable basis for managing the effects of aging
for active functions of systems, structures, and components. As
discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.160, implementation of the maintenance
rule relies extensively on existing maintenance programs and
activities. The industry has developed guidance for complying with the
maintenance rule. The NRC staff has reviewed this guidance and found it
acceptable. Many utilities may follow the industry guidance in
implementing the maintenance rule. Furthermore, the failure of any
licensee to comply with the maintenance rule is enforceable by the
Commission after July 10, 1996.
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 within the scope of license renewal during the period of
extended operation such that the CLB will be maintained. The bases for
this conclusion are discussed further in the following sections.
(iv) Integration of the Regulatory Process and the Maintenance Rule
With the License Renewal Rule
Because of the resultant insight and understanding that the NRC
gained in developing the implementation guidance for the maintenance
rule, the Commission is now in a position to more fully integrate the
maintenance rule and the license renewal rule. Because 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
systems, structures, and components are effectively managed), the
Commission has determined that the license renewal rule should credit
existing maintenance activities and maintenance rule requirements for
most structures and components. Fundamental to establishing credit for
the existing programs and the requirements of the maintenance rule is
the recognition that licensee activities associated with the
implementation of the maintenance rule will continue throughout the
renewal period and are consistent with the first principle of license
renewal. As a result, the requirements in this proposed rule reflect a
greater reliance on existing licensee programs that manage the
detrimental effects of aging on functionality, including those
activities implemented to meet the requirements of the maintenance
rule.
In addition to the maintenance rule, the Commission has many
individual requirements relative to maintenance throughout its
regulations. These include 10 CFR 50.34(a)(3)(i); 50.34(a)(7);
50.34(b)(6)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv); 50.34(b)(9); 50.34(f)(1)(i),
(ii), (iii); 50.34(g); 50.34a(c); 50.36(a); 50.36(c)(2), (3), (5), and
(7); 50.36a(a)(1); 50.49(b); 50.55a(g); Part 50, Appendix A, Criteria
1, 13, 18, 21, 32, 36, 37, 40, 43, 45, 46, 52, 53; and Part 50,
Appendix B.
(v) Excluding Structures and Components With Active Functions
Performance and condition monitoring for systems, structures, and
components typically involves the collection and analysis of key
parametric data. This data provides information on the practical
effects of age-related degradation on the functionality of systems,
structures, and components. The nature of this parametric data
associated with active functions (e.g., pump flows, pressure,
vibrations, valve stroke time, current, electrical resistance) makes
the data generally easier to monitor and analyze than parametric data
related to passive functions (e.g., pipe wall thinning, fracture
toughness, ductility, and mechanical strength). Although, as previously
discussed, the requirements of the maintenance rule apply to systems,
structures, and components that perform both active and passive
functions, the Commission has determined that performance and
condition-monitoring programs for structures and components that
perform passive functions present limitations that should be considered
in determining which structures and components can be generically
excluded from an aging management review for license renewal.
Based on consideration of the effectiveness of existing programs
which monitor the performance and condition of systems, structures, and
components that perform active functions, the Commission concludes that
structures and components associated only with active functions can be
excluded from a license renewal aging management review. Functional
degradation resulting from the effects of aging of those systems,
structures, and components that perform active functions is more
readily determinable, and existing programs and requirements applicable
to this equipment are expected to continue to ensure the functionality
of such equipment. Considerable experience has demonstrated the
effectiveness of these programs and the performance-based requirements
of the maintenance rule delineated in Sec. 50.65 are expected to
further enhance existing maintenance programs. For example, many
licensee programs that ensure compliance with technical specifications
are based on surveillance activities that monitor performance of
systems, structures, and components that perform active functions. As a
result of the continued applicability of existing programs and
regulatory requirements, the Commission believes that active functions
of systems, structures, and components will be reasonably assured in
any period of extended operation. Further discussion and justification
for exclusion of active functions of structures and components within
the scope of the license renewal rule but outside the scope of the
maintenance rule are presented in Section (vi).
(vi) Excluding Active Fire Protection Components
The scope of the maintenance rule does not, in general, include
installed fire protection systems, structures, and components because
performance and condition monitoring is required by Sec. 50.48.
Therefore, for the purposes of license renewal, installed structures
and components with active functions can be excluded from an aging
management review because they are either within the scope of
Sec. 50.65 or Sec. 50.48. Compliance with Sec. 50.48 is verified
through the NRC inspection program.
The fire protection rule (Sec. 50.48) requires each nuclear power
plant licensee to have in place a fire protection plan (FPP) that
satisfies 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 3. Licensees are
required by Sec. 50.48 to retain the FPP and each change to the plan
until the Commission terminates the reactor license. The NRC reviews
each licensee's total FPP as described in the licensee's safety
analysis report (SAR), using basic review guidance described in
Sec. 50.48, as applicable to each plant.
The FPP establishes the fire protection policy for the protection
of systems, structures, and components important to safety at each
plant and the procedures, equipment, and personnel requirements
necessary to implement the program at the plant site. The FPP is the
integrated effort that involves systems, structures, and components,
procedures, and personnel to carry out all activities of fire
protection. The FPP includes system and facility design, fire
prevention, fire detection, annunciation, confinement, suppression,
administrative controls, fire brigade organization, inspection and
maintenance, training, quality assurance, and testing.
The FPP is part of the CLB and contains maintenance and testing
criteria that provide reasonable assurance that fire protection
systems, structures, and components are capable of performing their
intended function. The Commission concludes that it is appropriate to
allow license renewal applicants to take credit for the FPP as an
existing program that manages the detrimental effects of aging. The
Commission concludes that active functions of installed fire protection
components are excluded from aging management review based on a generic
finding that performance or condition-monitoring programs afforded by
the FPP are capable of detecting and subsequently mitigating the
detrimental effects of aging.
(vii) Future Exclusion of Structures and Components Based on NRC
Requirements
As part of the ongoing regulatory process, the NRC evaluates
emerging technical issues and, when warranted, establishes new or
revised regulatory requirements as part of the resolution of a new
technical issue, subject to the provisions of the backfit rule
(Sec. 50.109). Increasing experience with aging nuclear power plants
has led to the imposition or consideration of additional requirements.
For example, at this time the Commission is considering rulemaking
activities associated with steam generator performance and containment
inspections. For steam generators, the Commission is considering the
need for a performance-based rule to address steam generator tube
integrity. To address concerns regarding containments and liners, the
Commission is considering amending Sec. 50.55(a) to incorporate the
most recent version of Subsections IWE and IWL in the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code, Section XI.
Such new requirements, if implemented, would be relevant to both
aging management and the structures and components subject to an aging
management review for license renewal (i.e., long-lived, passive
structures and components). As a result, as part of relevant future
rulemakings, the Commission intends to evaluate whether these new
requirements can be considered effective in continuing to manage the
effects of aging through any renewal term. A positive conclusion could
establish the bases for further limiting the scope of review for
license renewal.

e. Current Licensing Basis and Maintaining the Function of Systems,
Structures, and Components

In the SOC for the current license renewal rule, the Commission
concluded that, with the exception of ARDUTLR, the current regulatory
processes are sufficiently broad and rigorous and that these processes
generally provide reasonable assurance that extended operation of
existing plants would not endanger the public health and safety and
would not be inimical to the common defense and security. By stating
that the CLB must be maintained for the period of extended operation,
the Commission indicated its intent to ensure the continuation of an
acceptable level of safety for the plant.

Note: The expression in the second principle ``Maintaining the
CLB,'' recognizes that a plant's CLB is not fixed. Rather, the CLB
is dynamic and can be modified at any time during the initial
operating term, during the license renewal process, and during the
period of extended operation.

As discussed in the SOC for the current license renewal rule, the
Commission stated that continued safe operation of a nuclear power
plant requires that systems, structures, and components that perform or
support safety functions continue to perform in accordance with the
applicable requirements in the licensing basis. In addition, the
Commission stated that the effects of ARDUTLR must be mitigated to
ensure that the aged systems, structures, and components will
adequately perform their designed safety or intended function.
In developing this proposed rule, a key issue that the Commission
considered was whether or not a focus on ensuring a system's,
structure's or component's function through performance or condition
monitoring is a sufficient basis for concluding that the CLB will be
maintained throughout the period of extended operation. The Commission
considered whether the regulatory process and a focus on functionality
during the license renewal review for the period of extended operation
are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that an acceptable level
of safety (i.e., the CLB) will be maintained.
Continued safe operation of a commercial nuclear power plant
requires that systems, structures, and components that perform or
support safety functions continue to function in accordance with the
applicable requirements in the licensing basis of the plant and that
other plant systems, structures, and components do not substantially
increase the frequency of challenges to plant safety systems,
structures, and components. As a plant ages, a variety of aging
mechanisms are operative, including erosion, corrosion, wear, thermal
and radiation embrittlement, microbiologically induced aging effects,
creep, shrinkage, and possibly others yet to be identified or fully
understood. However, the detrimental effects of aging mechanisms can be
observed by detrimental changes in the performance characteristics or
condition of systems, structures, and components if they are properly
monitored.
Aging can affect all systems, structures, and components to some
degree. Generally, the changes resulting from detrimental aging effects
are gradual. Licensees have ample opportunity to detect these
degradations through performance and condition-monitoring programs,
technical specification surveillances required by Sec. 50.36, and other
licensee maintenance activities. Except for some well-understood aging
mechanisms such as neutron embrittlement and intergranular stress
corrosion cracking, the straightforward approach to detecting and
mitigating the effects of aging begins with a process that verifies
that the intended design functions of systems, structures, and
components have not been compromised or degraded. Licensees are
required by current regulations to develop and implement programs that
ensure that conditions adverse to quality, including degraded system,
structure, or component function, are promptly identified and
corrected. The licensees' programs include self-inspection,
maintenance, and technical specification surveillance programs that
monitor and test the physical condition of plant systems, structures,
and components.
For example, technical specifications include limiting conditions
for operation (LCOs), which are the lowest functional capability or
performance levels of equipment required for safe operation of the
facility. Technical specifications also require surveillance
requirements relating to test, calibration, or inspection to ensure
that the necessary quality of systems and components is maintained,
that facility operation will be within the safety limits, and that the
LCOs will be met. Furthermore, Sec. 50.55a requires, in part, that
structures, systems, and components be tested and inspected against
quality standards commensurate with the importance of the safety
function to be performed, such as inservice testing (IST) and inservice
inspections (ISIs) of pumps and valves.
Elements for timely mitigation of age-related degradation effects
include activities that provide reasonable assurance that systems,
structures, and components will perform their intended functions when
called upon to do so. Through these programs, licensees identify the
degradation of components resulting from a number of different
environmental stressors as well as degradation from faulty maintenance
or other errors caused by personnel. Once a detrimental performance or
condition caused by aging or other factors is revealed, mitigating
actions are taken to fully restore the conditions within the design
basis. As a result of these programs, degradation due to aging
mechanisms (detrimental aging effects) is currently being adequately
managed, either directly or indirectly, for many systems, structures,
and components.
Consequently, there is considerable logic in ensuring that the
design basis (as defined in Sec. 50.2) of systems, structures, and
components is maintained through activities that ensure continued
functionality. This process is relied on in the current term to ensure
continued operability of systems, structures, and components and
includes surveillance of systems, structures, and components to ensure
that, to the greatest extent practicable, the system, structure, or
component properly performs the intended design functions. The focus on
maintaining operability results in the continuing capability of
systems, structures, and components, including supporting systems,
structures, and components, to perform their intended functions as
designed.
A key element of the 10 CFR Part 54 definition of the CLB is the
plant-specific design-basis information defined in 10 CFR 50.2.
According to this definition, ``[d]esign bases means that information
which identifies the specific functions to be performed by a structure,
system, or component of a facility, and the specific values or ranges
of values chosen for controlling parameters as reference bounds for
design.'' In addition, design bases identify specific functions to be
performed by a system, structure, and component, and design-basis
values may be derived for achieving functional goals. For plant
systems, structures, and components that are not subject to performance
or condition-monitoring programs or for plant systems, structures, and
components on which the detrimental effects of aging may not be as
readily apparent, verification of specific design values (e.g., piping
wall thickness) or demonstration by analysis can be a basis for
concluding that the function of the system, structure, or component
will be maintained in the period of extended operation.
When the design bases of systems, structures, and components can be
confirmed either directly by inspection or by verification of
functionality through test or analysis, a reasonable conclusion can be
drawn that the CLB is or will be maintained. This conclusion recognizes
that the portion of the CLB that can be impacted by the detrimental
effects of aging is limited to the design bases aspects of the CLB.
Although the definition of CLB in Part 54 is broad and encompasses
various aspects of the NRC regulatory process (e.g., operability and
design requirements), the Commission concludes that a specific focus on
functionality is appropriate for performing the license renewal review.
Reasonable assurance that the function of important systems,
structures, and components will be maintained throughout the renewal
period, combined with the rule's stipulation that all aspects of a
plant's CLB (e.g., technical specifications) and the NRC's regulatory
process carry forward into the renewal period, are viewed as sufficient
to conclude that the CLB (which represents an acceptable level of
safety) will be maintained. Functional capability is the principal
emphasis for much of the CLB and is the focus of the maintenance rule
and other regulatory requirements to ensure that aging issues are
appropriately managed in the current license term.
An example of performance verification activities that must be
performed by licensees is the integrated loss of coolant accident
(LOCA)/loss of offsite power (LOOP) integrated test. This technical
specification surveillance is typically required to be performed at
least once every 18 months. This test simulates a coincident LOCA/LOOP
(design-basis accident) for each train or division of emergency
alternating current (ac) power source (e.g., emergency diesel
generators), the associated emergency core cooling systems (e.g.,
safety injection subsystems), and other electrically driven safety
components (e.g., containment isolation valves, emergency ventilation/
filtration components, and auxiliary steam generator feed components).
All engineered safety features required to actuate for an actual LOCA/
LOOP are required to actuate for the test and either duplicate the
LOCA/LOOP function completely (e.g., electric loads are sequenced onto
emergency busses, containment isolation valves actually shut from full
open positions) or approximate the actual function to the greatest
extent practicable (e.g., safety injection pumps start and run in
recirculation mode instead of actually injecting water into the reactor
coolant system). Design-basis values that can only be measured during
this testing, such as load sequence times and emergency bus voltage
response to the sequenced loads, are verified. Between integrated
tests, monthly and quarterly surveillances verify specific component
performance criteria such as valve stroke times or pump flow values.
The acceptance criteria stated in the surveillance requirements are
derived from design-basis values with appropriate conservatisms built
in to account for any uncertainties or measurement tolerances.
Satisfactory accomplishment and periodic repetition of these types of
surveillance provide reasonable assurance that system, structure, and
component functions will be performed as designed.

f. Integrated Plant Assessment

The current license renewal rule requires license renewal
applicants to perform a systematic screening of plant systems,
structures, and components to ultimately determine if aging would be
adequately managed in the period of extended operation. This IPA
process would begin broadly and consider all plant systems, structures,
and components. The IPA would then focus on only those that are
important to license renewal and finally on only those structures and
components that could be subject to ARDUTLR. For those structures and
components subject to ARDUTLR, the IPA process required an evaluation
and demonstration that either (1) New programs or licensee actions
would be implemented to prevent or mitigate any ARDUTLR during the
period of extended operation or (2) justifies that no actions are
necessary.
Based on experience gained from implementation of the license
renewal rule, the Commission determined that the current license
renewal review would require the evaluation of an unnecessarily large
number of plant systems, structures, and components to establish
appropriate aging management in the period of extended operation.
Experience, further consideration of existing activities, and the
requirements of the maintenance rule have led the Commission to
conclude that many of these systems, structures, and components are
already subject to activities that ensure their function through any
period of extended operation. Therefore, the Commission proposes to
amend the IPA process in the license renewal rule to more efficiently
focus the license renewal review on certain structures and components
for which the regulatory process and existing licensee programs and
activities may not adequately manage the detrimental effects of aging
in the period of extended operation.
The approach reflected in this proposed rule maintains the
requirement for each renewal applicant to address possible detrimental
effects of aging for certain structures and components during the
period of extended operation through the IPA process. The proposed rule
would simplify the IPA process consistent with (1) The Commission's
determination that the aging management review should focus on ensuring
that structures and components perform their intended function(s) and
(2) the additional experience the Commission has gained related to
aging management review since publishing the current license renewal
rule. The proposed rule would still require that applicants for license
renewal take necessary actions to ensure that the CLB will be
maintained and thus maintain an acceptable level of safety during the
period of extended operation.
Similarly, the IPA process would continue to require an initial
review of all plant systems, structures, and components to identify the
scope and would then focus on those structures and components requiring
aging management review for license renewal. The principal differences
between the IPA process in the current license renewal rule and the IPA
process in the proposed rule is--
(1) The determination of the reduced set of structures and
components which must undergo an aging management review;
(2) The form of the aging management review (managing the effects
of aging on functionality versus managing aging mechanisms); and
(3) The elimination of the term ARDUTLR.
(i) Determination of Structures and Components Requiring Aging
Management Review for License Renewal
In the SOC for the current license renewal rule, the Commission
stated that as it gains more experience with age-related degradation
reviews it may revisit the need for such a disciplined review process
and may narrow the scope of the safety review. The Commission now
believes that after reviewing its recent implementation experience, a
narrower scope of review is warranted. The Commission concludes that a
generic exclusion from aging management review is appropriate for those
categories of structures and components subject to existing programs
and activities that the Commission believes are sufficient to provide
reasonable assurance of continued function in the period of extended
operation.
As discussed in Section III.d of this SOC, the Commission has
determined that the current regulatory process, existing licensee
programs and activities, and the maintenance rule provide an acceptable
rationale for generically concluding that structures and components
that have active functions can be excluded from an aging management
review. However, the Commission does not believe that it can
generically exclude structures and components that--
(1) Do not have performance and condition characteristics that are
as readily monitorable as active components; and
(2) Are not subject to periodic, planned replacement.
Unlike the extensive experience associated with the performance and
condition monitoring of the active functions of structures and
components, little experience has been gained from the evaluation of
long-term effects of aging on the passive functions of structures and
components. The Commission considers that the detrimental effects of
aging affecting passive functions of structures and components are less
apparent than the detrimental effects of aging affecting the active
functions of structures and components. Therefore, the Commission
concludes that a generic exclusion for passive structures and
components is inappropriate at this time. The Commission also concludes
that an aging management review of the passive functions of structures
and components is warranted to provide the reasonable assurance that
their intended functions are adequately maintained during the period of
extended operation. Additional experience with managing the effects of
aging on the function of these structures and components may narrow the
selection of structures and components requiring an aging management
review for license renewal in the future.
(a) ``Passive'' structures and components. In Section III.d of this
SOC, the Commission concluded that structures and components having
active functions can be excluded from an aging management review based
on performance or condition-monitoring programs. The Commission
recognizes that ``passive'' structures and components, in general, do
not have performance and condition characteristics that are as readily
monitorable as active structures and components. Therefore, the
Commission concludes that an aging management review for certain
passive structures and components is required for license renewal.
The Commission has reviewed several industry concepts of
``passive'' structures and components and has determined that they do
not accurately describe the structures and components that should be
subject to an aging management review for license renewal. Accordingly,
the Commission has developed a description of ``passive''
characteristics of structures and components that require aging
management review. Furthermore, the Commission has directly
incorporated these characteristics into the IPA process to avoid the
creation of a new term, ``passive.'' This SOC uses the term ``passive''
for convenience. Furthermore, the description of ``passive'' structures
and components incorporated into Sec. 54.21(a) should be utilized only
in connection with the IPA review in the license renewal process.
The maintenance rule implementation guidance contains a provision
by which licensees may classify certain systems, structures, and
components (e.g., raceways, tanks, and structures) as inherently
reliable. Inherently reliable systems, structures, and components by
definition generally do not require any continuing maintenance actions
and should be considered as ``passive.''
The Commission considers structures and components for which aging
degradation is not readily monitored to be those that perform an
intended function without moving parts or without a change in
configuration or properties. For example, a pump or valve has moving
parts, an electrical relay can change its configuration, and a battery
changes its electrolyte properties when discharging. Therefore, the
performance or condition of these components is readily monitored and
would not be captured by this description. Further, the Commission
proposes 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 battery
can ``change its state'' and therefore would not be screened in under
this description.
Structures or components may have multiple functions, thus some
structures or components may meet the ``passive'' description. For
example, although a pump or a valve has some moving parts, a pump
casing or valve body performs a pressure-retaining function without
moving parts. A pump casing or a valve body meets this description and
therefore would be considered for an aging management review. However,
the moving parts of the pump, such as the pump impeller, would not be
subject to aging management review.
As examples of the implementation of this screening requirement,
the Commission would consider structures and components meeting the
passive description as including, but not limited to, the reactor
vessel, the reactor coolant pressure boundary, steam generators, the
pressurizer, piping, pump casings, valve bodies, the core shroud,
piping supports, the spent fuel rack, pressure retaining boundaries,
heat exchangers, ventilation ducts, the containment, the containment
liner, electrical penetrations, mechanical penetrations, equipment
hatches, seismic Category I structures, electrical cables and
connections, cable trays, and electrical cabinets.
Additionally, the Commission would consider structures and
components not meeting the ``passive'' description as including, but
not limited to, the portions of pumps that do not form pressure
retaining boundaries, motors, diesel generators, air compressors,
snubbers, the control rod drive, ventilation dampers, pressure
transmitters, pressure indicator, water level indicators, switchgears,
cooling fans, transistors, batteries, breakers, relays, switches, power
inverters, circuit boards, battery chargers, and power supplies.
(b) ``Long-lived'' structures and components. The Commission
recognizes that the detrimental effects of aging will increase as
service life is extended. One way to effectively mitigate these effects
is through replacement. Accordingly, maintenance programs that
periodically replace structures and components may provide reasonable
assurance that the effects of aging will not impair structure or
component performance during the period of extended operation.
Conversely, structures and components that are not replaced may be more
likely to be impaired by cumulative aging effects.
The Commission considers structures and components to be ``long-
lived'' if they are not subject to periodic replacement based on a
qualified life or a specified time period. Therefore, in addition to
the ``passive'' screening criterion, the Commission concludes that
structures and components that are not replaced based on a qualified
life or specified time period must be considered for an aging
management review.
It is important to note, however, that the Commission has decided
not to generically exclude structures and components that are replaced
based on performance or condition from an aging management review. The
Commission does not intend to preclude a license renewal applicant from
providing site-specific justification in a license renewal application
that a replacement program based on performance or condition for a
passive structure or component provides reasonable assurance that
functionality will be maintained in the period of extended operation.
(ii) The IPA Process
The Commission proposes to revise and simplify the IPA requirements
(Sec. 54.21(a)) as follows:
First, instead of listing those systems, structures, and components
that are important to license renewal, the Commission proposes to
require only a list (from those systems, structures, and components
within the scope of license renewal) of structures and components that
a licensee determines to be subject to an aging management review for
the period of extended operation. A licensee has the flexibility to
determine the set of structures and components for which an aging
management review is performed, provided that this set encompasses the
structures and components for which the Commission has determined an
aging management review is required for the period of extended
operation. Therefore, a licensee's aging management review must include
structures and components--
(1) That were not subject to replacement based on a qualified life
or a specified time period; and
(2) That perform an intended function (Sec. 54.4) without moving
parts or without a change in configuration or properties.
In establishing this flexibility, the Commission recognizes that
licensees may find it preferable to not take maximum advantage of the
Commission's generic conclusion regarding structures and components
which do not require agency management review, and may undertake a
broader scope of review than is minimally required. For example, a
licensee may desire to review all ``passive'' structures and
components. This set of structures and components would be acceptable
because it includes ``long-lived'' as well as periodically replaced
structures and components and, therefore, encompasses all structures
and components which would be identified through criteria (1) and (2).
Second, the IPA must contain a description of the methodology used
to determine those systems, structures, and components within the scope
of license renewal and those structures and components subject to an
aging management review, such that the minimum required structures and
components are included in the applicant's aging management review.
Third, the IPA must contain a demonstration for each structure and
component subject to an aging management review so that the effects of
aging will be managed in such a way that the intended function(s) will
be maintained for the period of extended operation. This demonstration
should include a description of activities, as well as any changes to
the CLB and plant modifications that are relied upon to demonstrate
that the intended function(s) is adequately maintained despite the
effects of aging in the period of extended operation.

g. Time-Limited Aging Analyses and Exemptions

(i) Time-Limited Aging Analyses
The definition of ARDUTLR in the current license renewal rule
requires a licensee evaluation and NRC approval of previous time-
limited aging analyses for systems, structures, and components within
the scope of license renewal that either were based on an assumed
service life or a period of operation defined by the original license
term. For example, certain plant-specific safety analyses may have been
based on an explicitly assumed 40-year plant life (e.g., aspects of the
reactor vessel design). As a result, an evaluation for license renewal
would be required. Time-limited aging analyses based on an assumed
period of plant operation short of the current operating term should be
addressed within the original license and are of no concern for license
renewal.
Because the Commission proposes to delete the definition of
ARDUTLR, the amended license renewal rule would have to identify these
explicit time-limited analyses as issues that must be clearly addressed
within the license renewal process. The proposed rule would explicitly
require that--
(1) Applicants perform an evaluation of time-limited aging issues
relevant to systems, structures, and components within the scope of
license renewal in the license renewal application; and
(2) The adequate resolution of time-limited aging analysis issues
as part of the standards for issuance of a renewed license.
The time-limited provisions or analyses of concern are those that--
(1) Involve the effects of aging;
(2) Involve time-limited assumptions defined by the current
operating term, for example, 40 years;
(3) Involve systems, structures, and components within the scope of
license renewal;
(4) Involve conclusions or provide the basis for conclusions
related to the capability of the system, structure, and component to
perform its intended functions;
(5) Were determined to be relevant by the licensee in making a
safety determination; and
(6) Are contained or incorporated by reference in the CLB.
The applicant for license renewal will be required in the renewal
application to--
(1) Justify that these analyses are valid for the period of
extended operation;
(2) Extend the period of evaluation of the analyses such that they
are valid for the period of extended operation, for example, 60 years;
or
(3) Justify that the effects of aging will be adequately managed
for the period of extended operation if an applicant cannot or chooses
not to justify or extend an existing time-limited aging analysis.
The Commission considers analyses to be ``relevant'' if the
analyses provided the basis for the licensee's safety determination
and, in the absence of the analyses, the licensee may have reached a
different safety conclusion. Time-limited aging analyses that need to
be addressed in a license renewal evaluation are not necessarily those
analyses that have been previously reviewed or approved by the
Commission. The following examples illustrate time-limited aging
analyses that may need to be addressed and were not previously reviewed
and approved by the Commission.
(1) The FSAR states that the design complies with a certain ASME
code requirement. A review of the ASME code requirement reveals that a
time-limited aging analysis is required. The actual calculation was
performed by the licensee to meet code requirements, the specific
calculation was not referenced in the FSAR, and the NRC had not
reviewed the calculation.
(2) In response to a generic letter, a licensee submitted a letter
to the NRC committing to perform a time-limited aging analysis that
would address the concern in the generic letter. The NRC had not
documented a review of the licensee's response and had not reviewed the
actual analysis.
The Commission expects that the number of time-limited aging
analyses that would have to be addressed in a license renewal
evaluation is relatively small. Although the number and type will vary
depending on the plant-specific CLB, these analyses could include
reactor vessel neutron embrittlement (pressurized thermal shock, upper-
shelf energy, surveillance program), concrete containment tendon
prestress, metal fatigue, EQ of electrical equipment, metal corrosion
allowance, inservice flaw growth analyses that demonstrate structural
stability for 40 years, inservice local metal containment corrosion
analyses, and high-energy line-break postulation based on fatigue
cumulative usage factor.
(ii) Exemptions
The current license renewal rule requires that an applicant for
license renewal provide a list of all plant-specific exemptions granted
under 10 CFR 50.12. For exemptions that were either granted on the
basis of an assumed service life or a period of operation bounded by
the original license term of the facility or otherwise related to
systems, structures, or components subject to ARDUTLR, an evaluation
that justifies the continuation of the exemptions for the renewal term
must be provided.
With the deletion of the definition of ARDUTLR and the
corresponding addition of a separate time-limited aging analysis
section, the Commission proposes to include this exemption review with
the separate time-limited aging analyses Section (Sec. 54.21(c)). These
changes are consistent with the Commission's intent to review
exemptions based on time-limited aging analyses under the current rule.

h. Standards for Issuance of a Renewed License and the Scope of
Hearings

Section 54.29 of the current license renewal rule provides that the
Commission may issue a renewed license if--
(1) Actions have been identified and have been or will be taken
with respect to age-related degradation unique to license renewal so
that there is reasonable assurance that operation in the period of
extended operation would be conducted in accordance with the plant's
CLB. This necessarily includes compliance with the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 and the Commission's regulation as defined in Sec. 54.3);
(2) The applicable requirements of the Commission's environmental
requirements in 10 CFR Part 51 have been satisfied; and
(3) Any matters raised under 10 CFR 2.758 have been addressed as
required by that section.
Issues that are material to the findings in Sec. 54.29 of the
current rule, as well as matters approved by the Commission for hearing
under Sec. 2.758, were within the scope of a hearing on a renewed
license. The December 13, 1991, license renewal rule also modified
Sec. 2.758 to clarify that challenges to the license renewal rule in an
adjudicatory hearing on a renewal application would be considered by
the Commission only in the following limited circumstances:
(1) That there are special circumstances with respect to age-
related degradation unique to license renewal or environmental
protection so that application of either 10 CFR Part 54 or 10 CFR Part
51 would not serve the purpose for which these rules were intended; or
(2) Because of circumstances unique to the period of extended
operation, there would be noncompliance with the plant's CLB or
operation that is inimical to the public health and safety during the
period of extended operation.
The intent of these provisions was to clarify that safety and
environmental matters not unique to the period of extended operation
should not be the subject of the renewal application or the subject of
a hearing in a renewal proceeding absent specific Commission direction.
Rather, issues that represent a current problem for operation should be
addressed in accordance with the Commission's regulatory process and
procedures. Thus, a member of the public who believes that a current
problem exists with a license or a matter exists that is not adequately
addressed by current NRC regulations should either petition the NRC to
take appropriate action under Sec. 2.206 or petition the NRC to
institute rulemaking to address the issue under Sec. 2.802.
The Commission continues to believe that issues concerning
operation during the currently authorized term of operation should be
addressed as part of the current license rather than deferred until a
renewal review (which would not occur if the licensee chooses not to
renew its operating license). The Commission also proposes narrowing
the scope of structures and components which will require an aging
management review for the period of extended operation and
identification of time-limited aging analyses by the applicant as
requiring an evaluation. Accordingly, conforming changes in Sec. 54.29
are being proposed to reflect the refocused renewal review.
Specifically, Sec. 54.29 would be revised to delete the term ``age-
related degradation unique to license renewal,'' and substitute the
findings (required for consistency with the revised Sec. 54.21(a)(3)
and (c)) with respect to aging management review and time-limited aging
analyses evaluation for the period of extended operation. Furthermore,
Sec. 54.29 would be modified to make clear that aging issues discovered
during the renewal review for the structures and components that are
reviewed in Sec. 54.21(a)(3) and that raise questions about the
capability of these structures and components to perform their intended
function during the current term of operation must be addressed under
the current license, rather than as part of the renewal review.
Finally, Sec. 2.758 has similarly been revised to delete the terms
``age-related degradation unique to license renewal'' and ``unique to
the requested term.''

i. Regulatory and Administrative Controls

Certain regulatory and administrative controls in the current
license renewal rule were imposed to specify the circumstances and
requirements necessary to make changes relating to the determination
and management of ARDUTLR and the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements relating to the renewal application. In view of the
greater reliance on existing programs in the license renewal process,
as discussed in Section III.d of this SOC, the Commission has
determined that many of these requirements are no longer necessary.
Therefore, the Commission proposes to decrease the recordkeeping and
reporting burden on the applicant for license renewal in the level of
detail in the application, requirements for supplementing the FSAR, and
in recordkeeping requirements.
The Commission seeks to ensure that, in general, only the
information needed to make its safety determination is submitted to the
NRC for license renewal review and that regulatory controls imposed by
the license renewal rule are consistent with current regulatory
controls on similar information that may be developed by a licensee
during the current operating term.
(i) Controls on Technical Information in an Application
In Sec. 54.21, the current license renewal rule requires that an
application include a supplement to the FSAR that presents the
information required by this section. This information includes the IPA
lists of systems, structures, and components; justification for
assessment methods; and descriptions of programs to manage ARDUTLR.
The simplification of the IPA process (Section III.f of this SOC)
and the clarification of the concept of ARDUTLR (Section III.b of this
SOC) have resulted in a potential inconsistency regarding the treatment
of information associated with the IPA. The Commission has determined
that there is no need to include the entire IPA in an FSAR supplement
because only the information associated with the IPA regarding the
basis for determining that aging effects are managed in the period of
extended operation requires the additional regulatory oversight
afforded by placing the information in the FSAR. Therefore, only a
summary description of the programs and activities for managing the
effects of aging during the period of extended operation for those
structures and components requiring an aging management review need to
be included in the FSAR supplement. The IPA methodology and the list of
structures and components need not appear in an FSAR supplement.
However, this information will still be required in the application for
license renewal.
The Commission also proposes to eliminate Sec. 54.21(b) and
Sec. 54.21(d). These sections concern CLB changes associated with
ARDUTLR and plant modifications necessary to ensure that ARDUTLR is
adequately managed during the period of extended operation. The
Commission fully expects that relevant information concerning CLB
changes and plant modifications required to demonstrate that aging
effects for systems, structures, and components requiring an aging
management review for license renewal will be described in the
application for license renewal (proposed Secs. 54.21(a)(3) and (c)).
If a license renewal applicant or the Commission determines that CLB
changes or plant modifications form the basis for an IPA conclusion
regarding structures and components requiring an aging management
review, then an appropriate description of the CLB change or plant
modification must be included in the FSAR supplement and later changes
can be controlled by Sec. 50.59.
Section 54.21(c) of the current license renewal rule requires that
an applicant for license renewal submit (1) A list of all plant-
specific exemptions granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12 and each relief
granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a and (2) an evaluation if the
exemption or relief is related to a system, structure, or component
that was subject to ARDUTLR or a time-limited function. These lists and
evaluations would be included in the supplement to the FSAR. At that
time, the Commission determined that these requirements were necessary
to make an independent assessment that all exemptions and reliefs had
been evaluated as part of the license renewal process. The Commission
determined that these requirements were important because they provided
a summary of the instances in the licensing basis for the period of
extended operation in which the staff determined that strict compliance
with existing regulatory requirements is not needed to ensure that the
public health and safety is adequately protected.
The Commission continues to believe that the rationale and basis
for requiring the information to be submitted are still valid for
exemptions. The Commission proposes to relocate the requirement to list
and evaluate certain exemptions to proposed Sec. 54.21(c) so that
exemptions can be considered a subset of time-limited aging issues and
the conclusions about exemptions can be explicitly considered in the
finding for license renewal.
However, consistent with the Commission's rationale for including
only a summary description of programs and activities in the FSAR
supplement, the Commission concludes that only a summary description of
the evaluation of time-limited aging analyses, including a summary of
the bases for exemptions that are based on time-limited aging analyses,
need to be included in the FSAR supplement. The Commission concludes
that no need exists to establish additional requirements that place the
list of exemptions or specific exemption evaluations into the FSAR
supplement. This information must still be contained in the application
for license renewal.
A relief from codes need not be evaluated as part of the license
renewal process. A relief granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a is
specifically envisioned by the regulatory process. A relief expires
after a specified time interval (not to exceed 10 years) and a licensee
is required to rejustify the basis for the relief. At that time, the
NRC performs another review and may or may not grant the relief.
Because a relief is, in fact, an NRC-approved deviation from the codes
and subject to a periodic review, the Commission concludes that reliefs
are adequately managed by the current regulatory process and should not
require an aging management review and potential rejustification for
license renewal. Therefore, the Commission proposes to delete the
requirement to list and evaluate reliefs from Sec. 54.21(c).
(ii) Conditions of Renewed License
Section 54.33 requires that, upon renewal, a licensee maintain the
programs and procedures which are reviewed and approved by the NRC
staff who manage ARDUTLR. In addition, Sec. 54.33 establishes
requirements for making changes to previously approved programs and
procedures to manage ARDUTLR.
Considering the proposed amendments associated with the
clarification of the concept of ARDUTLR, the Commission will review
programs and procedures to manage the effects of aging for certain
systems, structures, and components. However, the Commission will not
approve specific programs and procedures as envisioned by the current
license renewal rule (e.g., effective programs). The Commission will
review programs and procedures described in the license renewal
application and determine whether these programs and procedures provide
reasonable assurance that the functionality of systems, structures, and
components requiring review will be maintained in the period of
extended operation. The license renewal review that would be conducted
under this proposed rule may consider all programs and activities to
manage the effects of aging that ensure functionality for these
systems, structures, and components. A summary description of the
programs and activities for managing the effects of aging for the
period of extended operation or evaluation of time-limited aging
analyses, as appropriate, for these systems, structures, and components
will be placed into the FSAR supplement. License conditions and
limitations determined to be necessary as part of the license renewal
review will continue to be required by the Commission in accordance
with Sec. 54.33(b).
The regulatory process will continue to ensure that proposed
changes to programs and activities that may affect descriptions in the
FSAR will receive adequate review by the licensee and, if appropriate,
by the NRC. Therefore, the Commission proposes to delete the
Sec. 54.33(d) requirements for making changes to previously approved
programs and procedures to manage ARDUTLR.
(iii) Additional Records and Recordkeeping Requirements
Section 54.37 currently requires that the periodic update required
by Sec. 50.71(e) do the following:
(1) Include any systems, structures, and components newly
identified as important to license renewal after the renewed license is
issued;
(2) Identify and provide justification for any systems, structures,
and components deleted from the list of systems, structures, and
components important to license renewal; and
(3) Describe how ARDUTLR will be managed for those newly identified
systems, structures, and components.
The Commission has determined that regulatory controls over
programs or activities credited during the IPA process should not have
additional regulatory oversight unless a program or activity is
determined to be necessary to address the effects of aging for the
period of extended operation. Therefore, the Commission proposes to
modify Sec. 54.37(b) to limit the information required in the FSAR
update. For newly identified systems, structures, and components that
would have required review for license renewal, the proposed
requirement for the periodic FSAR update will require that the licensee
describe how the effects of aging will be managed to ensure that the
systems, structures, and components perform their intended function
during the period of extended operation.
Section 54.37(c) currently requires that a licensee do the
following:
(1) Submit to the NRC at least annually a list of all changes made
to programs for management of ARDUTLR that do not decrease the
effectiveness of ``effective'' programs, with a summary of the
justification and
(2) Maintain documentation for any changes to ``effective''
programs that are determined not to reduce the effectiveness of the
program.
Under the proposed rule, the Commission would review aspects of
programs and procedures described in the license renewal application
and determine whether these programs and procedures will provide
reasonable assurance that the functionality of systems, structures, and
components requiring review will be maintained in the period of
extended operation. The license renewal review that would be conducted
under this proposed rule may consider all programs and activities that
manage the effects of aging and ensure functionality for these certain
systems, structures, and components. The current regulatory process,
existing licensee oversight activities, and the additional regulatory
controls associated with placing a description of activities to manage
the effects of aging into the FSAR are sufficient to ensure that
changes to programs that could decrease the overall effectiveness of
the programs to manage the effects of aging for the systems,
structures, and components requiring license renewal review will
receive appropriate review by the licensee. Therefore, the Commission
proposes to delete Sec. 54.37(c).

IV. Availability of Documents

Copies of all documents cited in the Supplementary Information
section are available for inspection and/or for reproduction for a fee
in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street N.W. (lower level),
Washington, DC 20555.
In addition, copies of NUREGs cited in this document may be
purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies are
also available for purchase from the National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. The NUREGs can
also be accessed through the NRC electronic bulletin board system.
Details of how to use this system were published in the Federal
Register on November 25, 1992 (57 FR 55602).

V. Questions

Although the Commission invites public comments on all issues in
this proposed rule and statement of considerations, responses to the
following questions are particularly solicited:
Discussion. An aging management review is required for a small
subset of structures and components within the scope of license
renewal. As described in Section III.f, the Commission believes, based
upon current regulatory requirements and operating experience, that the
aging management review can be limited to ``passive,'' ``long-lived''
structures and components.
1. Should additional structures and components within the scope of
license renewal be explicitly required to receive an aging management
review?
2. If so, what would be the bases for requiring such additional
structures and components to be subject to an aging management review?
Discussion. The IPA in the proposed amendment to the license
renewal rule contains a process to narrow the focus of the aging
management review to encompass those structures and components that are
``long-lived'' and ``passive'' (see Sec. 54.21(a)(1) (i) and (ii)).
In SECY-94-140, the Commission considered the possibility that
redundant, long-lived, passive structures and components could be
generically excluded from an aging management review for license
renewal. The basis for this consideration was that redundancy is one
aspect of a defense-in-depth design philosophy that could provide
reasonable assurance that certain single failures would not render
systems, structures, or components incapable of performing their
intended function(s). The staff reasoned that although simultaneous
failures of redundant structures and components are hypothetically
possible, the physical variables and the differences in operational and
maintenance histories that will influence the incidence and rates of
aging degradation between otherwise identical structures and components
make simultaneous failures of redundant equipment unlikely. In
addition, existing programs and requirements (i.e., maintenance rule
and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B) would result in activities to determine
the root causes for failures and mitigate future occurrences of them.
On further consideration, however, the Commission has recognized
that since it cannot generically determine that all licensees have
processes, programs, or procedures in place for the timely detection of
degraded conditions due to aging during the extended period of
operation for passive, long-lived structures and components, the
potential exists for reduced reliability and failure of redundant,
long-lived, passive structures and components. If the condition of
these structures and components were degraded below their CLB (i.e.,
design bases, including seismic design), without detection and
corrective action, a failure of redundant, passive structures and
components is possible given, for example, the occurrence of a design
basis seismic event, such that the system may not be able to perform
its intended functions. Therefore, without readily monitorable
performance and/or condition characteristics to reveal degradation that
exceeds CLB levels (as in the case of passive, long-lived structures
and components) the Commission believes it inappropriate to permit
generic exclusion of redundant, long-lived, passive structures and
components. If, however, an applicant, in the site-specific renewal
application, can demonstrate that their facility has specific programs
or processes in place to detect ongoing degradation such that failure
of redundant, long-lived, passive structures and components is avoided,
the Commission may be able to credit such programs and allow redundant,
long-lived, passive structures and components to be excluded from
further aging management review.
3. Is there additional information for the Commission to consider
that would satisfy the Commission's concern relative to the detection
of degradation in redundant, long-lived, passive structures and
components such that failures that might result in loss of system
function are unlikely, and to warrant a generic exclusion?
Discussion. The Commission concluded in the SOC for the current
license renewal rule (56 FR 64963; December 13, 1991) that 20 years of
operational and regulatory experience provides a licensee with
substantial amounts of information and would disclose any plant-
specific concerns with regard to age-related degradation. In addition,
a license renewal decision with approximately 20 years remaining on the
operating license would be reasonable considering the estimated time
necessary for utilities to plan for replacement of retired nuclear
power plants. One utility has recently indicated that decisions
regarding license renewal made earlier in the current license term may
create substantial current-day economic advantages while still
providing sufficient plant-specific history. This utility suggested
that the earliest date for filing a license renewal application be
changed so that a license renewal application can be submitted earlier
than 20 years before expiration of the existing operating license. The
term of the renewed license would still be limited to 40 years.
4. Is there a sufficient plant-specific history before 20 years of
operation as specified in the current rule that provides reasonable
assurance that aging concerns would be identified? If not, can reliance
on industry-wide experience be used as a basis for considering an
application for license renewal before 20 years of operation? What
should be the earliest time an applicant can apply for a renewed
license?
5. What additional safety, environmental, or economic benefits or
concerns, if any, would result from a decision about license renewal
made before the 20th year of current plant operation?

VI. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability

A draft environmental assessment (EA) for this proposed rule has
been prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
the regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR
1500-1508), and the NRC's regulations (10 CFR Part 51). Under NEPA and
the NRC's regulations, the Commission must consider, as an integral
part of its decisionmaking process on the proposed action, the expected
environmental impacts of promulgating the proposed rule and the
reasonable alternatives to the action. The NRC concludes that
promulgation of the proposed rule would not significantly affect the
environment and therefore a full environmental impact statement is not
required and a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), can be made.
The basis for these conclusions and the finding are summarized below.
The EA and FONSI are issued as drafts, and public comments are being
solicited. The draft EA and FONSI are available in the NRC Public
Document Room, 2120 L Street N.W. (lower level), Washington, DC.
The NRC staff previously assessed the environmental impacts from
promulgation of the current license renewal rule in NUREG-1398,
``Environmental Assessment for the Final Rule on Nuclear Power Plant
License Renewal.'' In this assessment, the NRC staff concluded that the
promulgation of 10 CFR Part 54 will have no significant impact on the
environment. With this assessment as a baseline, the NRC staff's
approach for assessing the environmental impact of the proposed
amendment centered on analyzing any differences in the expected rule-
related actions of the current rule compared to those under the
proposed amendment.
The requirements for a renewed license under both the current rule
and the proposed amendment are similar. Both approaches could result in
the operation of plants up to 20 years beyond the expiration of the
initial license. An emphasis would be placed on certain systems,
structures, and components undergoing a specific aging management
review to provide assurance that the effects of aging are adequately
managed, ensuring functionality during the period of extended
operation. Under both approaches, license renewal applicants must
screen plant systems, structures, and components through an IPA to
determine which systems, structures, and components will be subject to
a license renewal review and then determine whether additional programs
are required to manage the effects of aging so that the intended
function(s) is maintained. The principal differences between the
proposed action and the current rule is in (1) the screening of
systems, structures, and components to identify those that must undergo
a specific aging management review and (2) the form of this aging
management review.
Under the screening of systems, structures, and components that
must be further reviewed, the proposed amendment effectively narrows
the scope of systems, structures, and components subject to an aging
management review. In general, the current rule contains a definition
of ARDUTLR that would cause many systems, structures, and components to
require further aging management review but would allow existing
licensee programs and activities (including the maintenance rule) to
serve as a basis for concluding that ARDUTLR will be adequately managed
in the period of extended operation. The proposed amendment would
retain the screening of systems, structures, and components but would
reduce the scope of systems, structures, and components requiring
review to a narrowly defined group based on an NRC determination in
this rulemaking of the effectiveness of current licensee programs and
NRC requirements that will continue into the period of extended
operation. Because the proposed amendment has essentially the same
results with respect to management of aging effects in the period of
extended operation as the current rule, but provides a more efficient
process to achieve these results, the environmental impacts of the
proposed amendment would be similar to those under the current rule.
With respect to the form of the aging management review, the
proposed rule would establish a clear focus on managing the
functionality of systems, structures, and components in the face of
detrimental aging effects as opposed to identification and mitigation
of aging mechanisms. The Commission has concluded that the focus on
identification of aging mechanisms is not necessary because regardless
of the aging mechanism, only those that lead to degraded component
performance or condition (i.e., potential loss of functionality) are of
concern. Therefore, the Commission has concluded that an aging
management review that seeks to ensure a component's functionality is a
more efficient and appropriate review. This change only improves the
efficiency of the licensee's aging management review. Therefore, the
environmental impacts would be similar to those under the current rule.
The ultimate licensee actions to manage aging in the renewal term
under the proposed rule are expected to be similar to those under the
current rule. However, the required aging management activities will be
arrived at more efficiently under the proposed rule. Therefore, the
environmental impact of relicensing under the proposed rule would be
similar to that for relicensing under the current rule. It should be
noted, however, that under the proposed rule an applicant need not
include a projection of future aging effects and any corresponding
mitigation activities (major refurbishment or other plant changes) for
the renewal period. Instead, the focus is on assuring that programs are
in place to identify and mitigate aging effects as they occur. As a
result, this environmental assessment was limited to licensee
activities required to put in place any relevant aging management
programs rather than a review of any future mitigation activities that
may be required under these programs.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This proposed rule amends information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and approval of the information collection
requirements.
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 94,000 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records
Management Branch (T6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001; and to the Desk Officer, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3019, (3150-0155), Office of
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

VIII. Regulatory Analysis

The NRC has prepared a regulatory analysis of the values and
impacts of the proposed rule and of a set of significant alternatives.
The regulatory analysis has been placed in the Commission's public
document room for review by interested members of the public. A summary
of the findings and conclusion of the regulatory analysis are discussed
below.
The specific objective of the proposed rule is to clarify the
Commission's requirements for license renewal by providing greater
reliance on the maintenance rule and other existing licensee activities
and programs for purposes of license renewal.
The NRC staff has defined and evaluated a set of specific
alternatives that cover a range of activities that would meet the
objective. The alternatives were evaluated and compared in the
regulatory analysis. The results of the regulatory analysis are
summarized as follows:
Alternative 1: Implement existing rule using SECY-93-049 and SECY-
93-113 as guidance.
Alternative 1 (the existing rule) requires an integrated plant
assessment (IPA), which consists of screening plant systems,
structures, and components that are important to license renewal
(ITLR), identifying those structures and components that could be
subject to age-related degradation unique to license renewal (ARDUTLR),
and demonstrating that ARDUTLR would be managed during the period of
extended operation. Systems, structures, a

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-22086. Public record. Not legal advice.