POLICY ISSUE 

NOTATION VOTE

October 24, 2008 SECY-08-0161

FOR: The Commissioners 

FROM: R. W. Borchardt 

 Executive Director for Operations 

SUBJECT: REVIEW OF RESEARCH AND TEST REACTOR LICENSE RENEWAL 

APPLICATIONS 

PURPOSE: 

To provide the Commission with information regarding staff plans to improve the review of 

license renewal applications for research and test reactors (RTRs). 

SUMMARY: 

The NRC staff has explored several possible alternatives for the RTR license renewal process 

that would improve the efficiency of the process for both the NRC staff and the licensees while 

ensuring that the facilities would operate safely during extended periods of operation. The NRC 

staff has also considered process changes that could increase the effectiveness of reviews 

without changing the review scope. The NRC staff held a public meeting with stakeholders to 

gather feedback on the current process, ways it could be improved, and the options the staff 

was considering for improving the review process. The staff also evaluated causes for the 

current backlog of RTR license renewal applications under review, many of which are greater 

than 4 years old. Several issues have contributed to the large backlog, including U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) RTR licensing staffing levels, emergent issues, limited licensee 

resources, existing license infrastructure, regulatory requirements, and the broad scope of the 

RTR license renewal process. 

The staff has evaluated these causes and factored them into streamlining options for the 

renewal process. While the staff considers some of these options or alternatives, the staff 

intends to continue with the current review process for the review of RTR license renewal 

applications where the review has already commenced. The NRC staff will then use a process 

similar to a generic analysis approach where information that is applicable to common plant 

designs could be referenced by each new review. Recently approved renewed licenses will be 

used as reference for similar facilities with pending reviews as applicable. In the future, the 

CONTACT: Robert Kuntz, NRR/DPR 

 (301) 415-3733 
The Commissioners - 2 - 

NRC staff will work with stakeholders to develop a generic analysis approach that will be as 

universally applicable as possible for the most common plant designs. The NRC staff will 

continue to interact with stakeholders to explore additional potential enhancements to the RTR 

renewal protocol. 

BACKGROUND: 

On April 3, 2008, the Commission issued a staff requirements memorandum (SRM), entitled, 

“Briefing on State of NRC Technical Programs”, that, in part, requested the staff to “examine the 

license renewal process for non-power reactors to identify and implement efficiencies that will 

streamline this process while ensuring that adequate protection of public health and safety are 

maintained.” 

The current license renewal process for an RTR is essentially the same as for initial licensing of 

the facility. In response to the SRM, the NRC staff has considered alternatives to the current 

review process that would narrow the scope of the review as well as process changes to 

streamline license renewal reviews. 

DISCUSSION: 

Status of Research and Test Reactor Renewal Applications and Contributors to Backlog

Currently, a large number of RTR renewal applications are under review, many of which are 

greater than 4 years old. The following four issues have contributed to the large backlog and 

are important to understand and factor into the steps the staff proposes for improvement of the 

renewal process. 

 (1) historic NRC staffing and emergent issues; 

 (2) limited licensee resources; 

 (3) poor existing license infrastructure; 

 (4) regulatory requirements and the broad scope of the license renewal process. 

(1) Historic NRC Staffing and Emergent Issues 

The staffing level for non-power reactor licensing has been discussed in SECY-05-0062 (SECY 

paper) dated April 13, 2005. The SECY paper noted that work was deferred on a number of 

license renewal applications because of other high priority work such as the security initiatives 

instituted after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Work on the security initiative 

continued into the current fiscal year significantly contributing to the current backlog. Another 

emergent issue that has limited the staffing available for license renewal reviews is the program 

to convert all high-enriched uranium (HEU) sites to low-enriched uranium (LEU). 

Table 2 of the SECY paper provided an initiative plan for FYs 2005 - 2010 which included an 

estimate of the number of renewals that should be completed each fiscal year. The staff has 

not completed renewals at the rate estimated in the SECY paper because of several factors. 

First, the effort required to convert numerous sites from HEU to LEU was not figured into the 
The Commissioners - 3 - 

estimate. Second, the staffing levels for RTR licensing have been increased to the level 

recommended in the SECY paper, but not at the rate assumed in the paper. Finally, the SECY 

paper assumed the formation of a project-based license renewal team. Difficulties in filling the 

staffing needs delayed the formation of that team, but it is currently being constructed. 

(2) Limited Licensee Resources 

Many RTRs have limited staff and resources available for licensing. RTR staff available for 

licensing can range from as low as one part-time employee for some low power reactors up to 

four or five for higher power reactors. The RTR staff that perform the licensing function do so in 

addition to their normal organizational responsibilities, which often results in delays (particularly 

in responding to requests for additional information (RAIs)) in the license renewal process. 

(3) Poor Existing License Infrastructure 

The last time that many of the licenses in the current backlog came due for renewal was in the 

1980s. Because of priorities within the NRC after the accident at Three Mile Island, the agency 

did not act on these applications, which created a backlog of applications. Consequently, these 

applications were reviewed with varying levels of depth. Also, NUREG-1537, “Guidelines for 

Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors,” which 

prescribes the content for RTR safety analysis reports (SARs) was issued in 1996, after the 

current renewal applicants were last licensed or renewed. None the less, the SARs that have 

been submitted with the RTR renewal applications often do not adhere to the guidance located 

in NUREG-1537. The SAR format, content guidance and staff review procedures before the 

issuance of NUREG-1537 were informal, which resulted in varying levels of completeness and 

consistency in reviews. For these reasons, the NRC staff has found that the SARs submitted 

with renewal applications are frequently out of date and, in some cases, contain errors in 

important areas such as the accident analysis. 

(4) Regulatory requirements/broad scope of license renewal process 

The other issues contributing to a lengthy review process are the requirements for the renewal. 

The NRC has developed numerous regulations and guidance since the current renewal 

applicants were originally licensed. Pertinent regulations for the review of RTR license renewal 

include Title 10, Part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation,” of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR Part 20); 10 CFR 50.33, “Contents of Applications—General Information”; 

10 CFR 50.34, “Contents of Construction Permit and Operating License Applications—

Technical Information”; 10 CFR 50.36, “Technical Specifications”; 10 CFR 50.54, “Conditions of 

Licenses”; 10 CFR 50.75, “Reporting and Recordkeeping for Decommissioning Planning”; 

10 CFR Part 73, “Physical Protection of Plants and Materials”; and 10 CFR Part 100, “Reactor 

Site Criteria” (for test reactors only). Although the regulatory requirements are not as 

prescriptive for RTRs as they are for power reactors, the NRC staff must still reach a 

determination that the licensee is in compliance with the regulatory requirements to issue a 

renewed license. The primary safety finding that the staff makes is that facility operation will 

comply with 10 CFR Part 20. As a result, the regulatory requirements for the content of an 

application for a renewed RTR license, and the associated NRC staff review, are essentially the 

same as those for an original license. 
The Commissioners - 4 - 

The renewal process in 10 CFR Part 54, “Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for 

Nuclear Power Plants,” which provides for a review scope focused on aging management, does 

not apply to nonpower reactors. This is primarily because power reactor facilities have 

regulatory requirements for maintaining current licensing-basis documentation that do not apply 

to nonpower reactor licensees. During the development of 10 CFR Part 54, the NRC made a 

deliberate decision not to apply 10 CFR Part 54 to RTRs. 

The NRC staff has found that the scope and depth of the current reviews are driven primarily by 

the need to ensure that the SAR, technical specifications (TSs), and decommissioning funding 

assurance are up to date. Changes in the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36 and 50.75 that 

occurred since these facilities were last licensed or renewed are key factors in the review 

requirements for non-power reactor license renewals. 10 CFR 50.36(b) states in part that “The 

technical specifications will be derived from the analyses and evaluation included in the safety 

analysis report [SAR], and amendments thereto, submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.34.” 10 CFR 

50.36 also specifies criteria for which limiting conditions for operations must be established. In 

the process of reviewing the TSs, the NRC staff must ensure that the associated SAR analyses 

are up to date and correct. This has resulted in substantial interaction with the licensees to 

correct and update the SARs and to upgrade the TSs to meet the current regulatory 

requirements. 

The guidance for financial assurance has been updated since the current renewal applicants 

were found to be in compliance with the financial assurance regulations. Therefore, the 

information in the renewal applications does not address the updated guidance adequately, and 

numerous RAIs are generated. 

Considerations Given to Changes in the Renewal Process 

The NRC staff has evaluated the potential to apply a more focused review process to the 

current backlog of RTR renewal applications. Consistent with the primary objective of the NRC, 

any process changes to the review of RTR license renewal applications must ensure that the 

reactors would be safely operated for the extended life of the license. Therefore, any changes 

to the renewal process must address how safe operation of the reactors is ensured for the 

extended life of the license. Also consistent with the NRC’s commitment to openness, any 

streamlining of the license renewal process would have to ensure that the public has the 

opportunity for involvement. 

Any streamlined process must consider the following eight areas addressed in the current 

renewal review process, either periodically during the license process or at the time of license 

renewal: 

 (1) as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) program; 

 (2) security program and procedures; 

 (3) emergency plan; 

 (4) financial qualification; 

 (5) operator training and requalification program; 
The Commissioners - 5 - 

 (6) identification of potential aging degradation; 

 (7) changes in design; 

 (8) TS compliance with 10 CFR 50.36. 

Although the fleet of RTRs has had an extended history of safe operation and the U.S. Atomic 

Energy Commission and/or the NRC have previously reviewed and approved the licenses, the 

staff has repeatedly found issues when reviewing renewal applications (see Enclosure 2 for 

examples). The safety significance of these review findings varies, and can be difficult to 

quantify. However, all of these issues needed to be resolved to ensure the safe operation of the 

facilities at the time of license renewal. Reductions in the scope of review could lead to these 

issues remaining unresolved in the renewed license. Although these issues were not created 

during the license renewal process, they are items that the staff has had the opportunity to 

address under the current scope of review that an altered process may not afford. 

It is also important to note that none of the RTR licenses have conducted a probabilistic risk 

assessment (PRA) for their facilities. Based on this, the staff can evaluate narrowing the scope 

of the license renewal review for RTRs based on engineering judgment, and not a quantitative 

assessment of the risk associated with a narrowed scope of review. 

Stakeholder Engagement and Options for Streamlining

The NRC staff held a public meeting with members of the RTR licensed community to gather 

feedback on; the current process and ways it could be improved, and options the staff is 

considering. Through discussions with the regulated community and the NRC staff, several 

options for revising the license renewal process for RTRs have been evaluated. Through 

consideration of the discussions with the stakeholders and the staff, the following steps are 

being taken as a first step to streamlining the renewal process. For further details on the 

options considered by the staff refer to Enclosure 1. 

Immediate Staff Actions

The increased staffing levels in the budgets for fiscal years 2008-2009 at the NRC and the 

creation of a dedicated team for renewals is, and will, aid in the backlog being steadily reduced. 

The use of a generic analysis approach where appropriate will streamline the renewal process 

for common plant designs. 

The NRC has issued several renewed licenses in fiscal year 2008. The issued renewed 

licenses will be used as resources for other pending and planned reviews. For example, the 

NRC staff issued a renewed license to Oregon State University using the current rigorous 

review criteria. The analysis provided by Oregon State University and the subsequent NRC 

approval can now be used for other TRIGA facilities. Licensees that have outstanding RAIs, for 

example, can reference the Oregon State renewal where applicable. Additionally, in the public 

meeting previously mentioned, the staff at Oregon State offered the analytical tools that they 

developed as a resource to any licensee interested. Therefore, the Oregon State University 

renewed license will be used, where applicable, as a generic analysis approach (as described in 

Enclosure 1). 
The Commissioners - 6 - 

The use of a previously approved renewed license as a generic analysis approach can have 

limitations. For example, a design aspect for a facility that has already been approved may be 

unique to that facility and not applicable to other similar designs. Therefore, the NRC staff will 

work with the licensees to develop a generic analysis approach that will be as universally 

applicable as possible. 

Long Term Actions

After the current back-log of renewals is completed, the NRC staff may consider working with 

the RTR licensees and the public beyond FY2012 to develop a rule governing the renewal 

process for RTRs. The staff may work with the RTR licensees to develop a basis for redefining 

the scope of the license renewal process (i.e. PRA). The rulemaking could potentially adopt the 

alternate safety review approach, the graded approach, or some other form that would meet the 

Atomic Energy Act minimal regulation requirement while ensuring the safe operation of the 

facilities during the extended licensing period. 

COMMITMENTS: 

The staff will continue to interact with the RTR community and the public to develop renewal 

protocol and will provide a progress report within one year of the date of this paper. 

RESOURCES: 

The staffing requirements for implementing the staff’s plans have been included in the FY 2009 

Presidents Budget (PB) and the FY 2010 Current Estimate (CE) (FY 2009: $975K and 17 FTE, 

and FY 2010: $915K and 19 FTE). Any efficiency, which results from process changes to 

license renewal, will be applied to reducing the backlog of existing projects. Cost estimates for 

FY2011 and FY2012 are expected to remain flat with budgeted resources for FY2010 ($915K 

and 19 FTE). 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. 

/RA Bruce S. Mallett for/ 

R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director 

 for Operations 

Enclosures: 

1. Detailed Description 

2. Example Review Findings 

3. Example Regulatory “Tree” 
The Commissioners - 6 - 

The use of a previously approved renewed license as a generic analysis approach can have limitations. 

For example, a design aspect for a facility that has already been approved may be unique to that facility 

and not applicable to other similar designs. Therefore, the NRC staff will work with the licensees to 

develop a generic analysis approach that will be as universally applicable as possible. 

Long Term Actions

After the current backlog of renewals is completed, the NRC staff may consider working with the RTR 

licensees and the public beyond FY2012 to develop a rule governing the renewal process for RTRs. The 

staff may work with the RTR licensees to develop a basis for redefining the scope of the license renewal 

process (i.e. PRA). The rulemaking could potentially adopt the alternate safety review approach, the 

graded approach, or some other form that would meet the Atomic Energy Act minimal regulation 

requirement while ensuring the safe operation of the facilities during the extended licensing period. 

COMMITMENTS: 

The staff will continue to interact with the RTR community and the public to develop renewal protocol and 

will provide a progress report within one year of the date of this paper. 

RESOURCES: 

The staffing requirements for implementing the staff’s plans have been included in the FY 2009 

Presidents Budget (PB) and the FY 2010 Current Estimate (CE) (FY 2009: $975K and 17 FTE, and FY 

2010: $915K and 19 FTE). Any efficiency, which results from process changes to license renewal, will be 

applied to reducing the backlog of existing projects. Cost estimates for FY2011 and FY2012 are 

expected to remain flat with budgeted resources for FY2010 ($915K and 19 FTE). 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. 

/RA Bruce S. Mallett for/ 

R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director 

 for Operations 

Enclosures: 

1. Detailed Description 

2. Example Review Findings 

3. Example Regulatory “Tree” 

WITS 200800186/EDATS: SECY-2008-0205 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML082550140 *via e-mail

OFC NRR/DPR/PRTA/PM NRR/DPR/PRTA/LA OGC NRR/DPR/PRTA/BC 

NAME RKuntz (KBrock for) EBarnhill (RKuntz for) SUttal NLO KBrock 

DATE 10/01/08 09/11/08 09/26/08 10/01/08 

OFC NRR/DPR Tech Editor* NRR EDO 

NAME MCase (TBlount for) KAzariah-Kribbs ELeeds (BBoger for) RBorchardt (BMallett for) 

DATE 10/09/08 09/12/08 10/16/08 10/24/08 

 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 
Enclosure 1 

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH AND TEST REACTOR LICENSE RENEWAL 

STREAMLINING OPTIONS THE STAFF HAS CONSIDERED

Alternate Safety Review Approach

One approach the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has considered for streamlining 

the research and test reactor (RTR) license renewal process would be to adopt an alternate 

safety review. The basic premise of the alternate safety review is that the previously granted 

license was granted with due diligence and that the plants have operated safely during their 

previously licensed term. Therefore, the alternate safety review would not re-analyze those 

items that were approved when granting the previous license. The scope of the review would 

be all of the changes to the facility since it was last licensed including, but not limited to, 

physical modifications, and license modifications. The review would also ensure that the 

proposed renewed licenses meet the requirements of all changes to the regulations since the 

last license was issued. 

The alternate safety review approach would not reanalyze those items the staff has previously 

reviewed and approved. Therefore, safe operation of the facility would be assured by; the 

review of the changes to the facility, compliance with the current regulations, the previous NRC 

analysis, and the inspection process. 

This process would require the licensee to submit a summary of the changes to the facility since 

it was last licensed or renewed. The NRC staff would review the changes and verify the plant 

configuration during site visits. 

Steps to Implement Alternate Safety Review Approach 

The NRC staff would need to develop a rule to incorporate this approach into the Commission’s 

regulations and develop format and content guidance documents for the licensee and a 

standard review plan for the NRC staff. The guidance document would include guidance for the 

licensee on information required to be submitted. The guidance for the staff would include 

instructions for the site audit, a time line of the relevant changes to the regulations, and what 

would be in the scope of the review. The updated guidance would be noticed for public 

comment prior to implementation. 

Steps in the Alternate Safety Review Approach 

The licensee would submit an application for renewal that would include a discussion of 

changes to the facility since it was last licensed. For those applications already on the docket, 

the licensee would amend those applications to include the changes to the facility. The staff 

would review the changes that the licensee submitted and conduct an on-site visit to review the 

current plant configuration. Additionally, the proposed license would be reviewed for 

compliance to any changes in the regulations since the issuance of the previous license. 

The review of the application would be noticed in the Federal Register similar to the current 

process. The safety evaluation accompanying the approved license would explicitly state those 

areas that were reviewed. 
 - 2 -

Advantages of the Alternate Safety Review 

The alternate safety review would save the staff and licensee effort on items that have been 

previously reviewed and approved by the NRC. The approach has similarities to that used for 

power reactors. 

Disadvantages of the Alternate Safety Review 

The approach is based on the premise that the existing license does not contain any 

deficiencies important to safety. As shown in the examples in Enclosure 2, the potential may 

exist for safety analysis reports (SARs) to contain errors that could be safety significant. There 

is no way to predict which applications would have issues brought to light by a traditional review. 

The staff would not pursue non-regulation based enhancements to the licensing basis (e.g., 

evaluating potential pool leakage to show safety significance) or updates to technical 

specifications (TSs). Licensees that have submitted renewal applications would be asked to 

amend the applications, which may involve more resources than finishing the application 

already on the docket. The public could raise questions or find errors in applications on the 

docket that would not be reviewed by the staff. 

Graded Approach

Because of the variety of RTR designs and power levels the risks associated with the operation 

of an RTR can vary considerably. A potential means of streamlining the review would be to 

base the areas of review on the relative risk associated with the renewed license. Those 

facilities that present the least risk would be subject to a minimal review for renewal of the 

license. Those that present a moderate risk would receive a more rigorous review, and finally 

those facilities with the highest risk would require a complete review similar to what is currently 

accomplished for all licensees. 

The graded approach would ensure safe operation of the facility by properly identifying the 

inherent risk associated with the various facilities and ensuring those risks are minimized. 

The staff must develop the technical, regulatory and policy bases to support this option. If this 

option is imposed by regulation, then the bases must be covered in the rulemaking’s statement 

of considerations. It may well be that this option cannot or should not be initiated until it has 

been incorporated into a regulation, or, at the very least, published for comment, since it is a 

change in a long standing process that will require amendment of the SRP and other guidance. 

Steps to Implement Graded Approach 

The first step to implement the graded approach would be to develop the guidelines for how to 

classify each reactor and the proper review for each classification. Once the guidelines are 

determined, guidance documents for each level of review must be developed for both the 

licensee and the staff. The guidance documents would then be noticed for public comment. 
 - 3 -

Steps in the Graded Approach 

The staff would apply the appropriate review criterion for the reactor. The renewal applications 

would be noticed in the Federal Register prior to issuance. 

Advantages of the Graded Approach

The major advantage to the graded approach is that it would adhere to the regulatory 

requirement of minimal regulation for non-power reactors by only reviewing items that are 

necessary to ensure safe operation of the facility for the extended life of the license. The 

graded approach would save the staff and licensee effort on items not important to safety. 

Disadvantages of the Graded Approach 

As with any narrowing of the scope of review for license renewal, the potential exists for 

licenses to be issued that contain errors. However, proper adoption of the graded approach 

would result in any errors that remain in the license to be items not important to safety. 

A potential issue with adopting the graded approach would be determining the risk of extending 

the license because probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) have not been accomplished for any 

of the non power reactors. The staff would need to establish that areas not subject to review 

are not significant to safety. Therefore, adopting the graded approach could take considerable 

time and effort for the staff. 

Another disadvantage of the graded approach is that its implementation could be lengthy as it 

may require rulemaking. 

Generic Analysis Approach

The generic analysis approach would be similar to the NRC’s Topical Report process. The 

NRC would review and approve a generic design for a reactor design (e.g. Aerojet General 

Nucleonics design). The licensees with a similar design would confirm that they are bounded by 

the generic analysis (for those portions of the license where the generic analysis is bounding). 

The NRC has had some generic accident analyses performed in the past (e.g., NUREG/CR2198, “Fuel Temperatures in an Argonaut Reactor Core Following a Hypothetical Design Basis 

Accident”). 

Advantages of the Generic Analysis Approach 

The advantage of the generic analysis is that once the initial work is completed to develop the 

guidance, it would save considerable time for both the licensee and staff on items that are 

similar for several licensees. The licensees would save time by referring to the generic analysis 

where applicable thereby streamlining the application process. The NRC staff will save time by 

relying on the previously approved generic analysis where applicable and not reanalyzing those 

items for each licensee. The generic analysis would also save effort for both the licensees and 

the NRC staff by eliminating some requests for additional information (RAIs). 
 - 4 -

The licensed facilities that have provided feedback on the renewal process have stated that 

generic analysis for the various designs would be very beneficial and could be relatively easy to 

develop. 

Disadvantages of the Generic Analysis Approach 

The disadvantage of the generic analysis approach is the initial burden of developing the 

generic analysis and the variety of RTR designs. The RTR inventory has several designs that 

have limited application. For these designs a generic analysis would likely not be worth the 

initial investment. Also, the RTR licensees may not have the expendable budget to develop the 

necessary application. 

Generic Siting Analysis

A portion of the application submitted by the licensee is information related to the site of the 

facility. The license renewal application contains, for example, local climatology and 

seismology. Currently, many licensees have to spend considerable time gathering the 

necessary data. The NRC staff has considered developing a generic communication that 

contains this information for each of the sites which the licensees could then reference in their 

submittals. The licensee would still make the case to the NRC that the site continues to be 

acceptable based on the data. The NRC would then periodically update the generic 

communication for future use. 

Advantages of the Generic Siting Analysis 

The generic siting analysis would ease the burden on the licensee when applying for license 

renewal. The generic siting analysis would eliminate requests for information related to the site 

of the facility. 

Disadvantages of the Generic Siting Analysis 

The generic siting analysis would expend NRC resources both for the initial development of the 

generic communication and with subsequent revisions. 

Also, the NRC funding to develop the generic siting analysis may run afoul of administrative 

regulations and appropriations law prohibitions that prevent the agency from funding or 

undertaking certain activities that are required to be performed by licensees. The answer to that 

question will require additional information and research. However, if the siting surveys are for 

the purpose of meeting the agency’s own official needs then such funded effort would be 

permissible. 

Extended License Term

10 CFR 50.51(a) states that “[e]ach license will be issued for a fixed period of time to be 

specified in the license but in no case to exceed 40 years from date of issuance.” 

Consequently, no renewed license period can be greater than 40 years under the current 

regulatory requirements. However, Section 104 of the Atomic Energy Act does not establish a 

term limit for RTR licenses. Therefore, the Commission may either grant an exemption to the 
 - 5 -

regulations contained in 10 CFR 50.51(a), or establish a rule that would extend the license term 

for RTRs. 

License terms are generally based upon the life expectancy of the facility and its components. 

In order to permit an extended term (including possibly an indefinite term), the staff would have 

to explain why it is appropriate and, more importantly, demonstrate that there are no aging 

concerns. 

Environmental conditions such as temperature, pressure and radiation levels in most RTRs are 

not significant. With surveillance, maintenance and repair, RTRs can have indefinite lives. 

For a facility to be eligible for an extended license term, the staff would complete a detailed 

renewal with a licensing basis reviewed against NUREG-1537. To maintain the licensing basis 

over time, the staff would propose a license condition or regulation that requires licensees to 

revise their SARs on a periodic basis such as every 2 years. The inspection program would be 

enhanced to place additional focus on surveillance, maintenance and repair, and changes to the 

facility made under 10 CFR 50.59. The licensee would still be required to adhere to changes in 

the regulations. 

In addition, the public would still have the opportunity to raise concerns about the licensee. A 

member of the public could file a request under 10 CFR 2.206 to institute a proceeding under 

10 CFR 2.202 to modify, suspend, or revoke a license or for any other action as may be proper. 

The staff could also offer the opportunity to the public to request a hearing on continuation of the 

license on some periodic basis such as every 20 years. 

An extended license term would assure safe operation of the facilities in the exact same way as 

a license with a shorter duration. The requirement to periodically update the SAR would allow 

for the more even expenditure of licensee resources than updating documentation every 20 

years. In focusing on the licensing basis periodically, licensees will have a more up to date 

understanding of their facilities. Public confidence is maintained by the enhanced inspection 

program and retaining periodic formal opportunity for hearing. 

Advantages of an Extended License Term 

An extended license term would streamline the license renewal process by having fewer license 

renewals required. 

Disadvantages of an Extended License Term 

The license renewal process ensures public confidence by reaffirming facility maintenance, the 

licensing basis and accident analyses, emergency planning, and facility and material security 

and safeguards. The extended period of the license, with fewer opportunities for public 

involvement, would be detrimental to ensuring public confidence. 
 - 6 -

Other Staff Initiatives

Along with changes to the requirements for the renewal, the NRC staff has considered process 

changes that could increase the effectiveness of reviews and possibly decrease the burden on 

the licensee. 

Regulatory Trees 

The NRC staff has considered development of regulatory “trees” to help guide the NRC staff 

and contractors reviewing renewal applications. The regulatory “trees” would focus the staff on 

items required to make a regulatory finding of acceptability. Each of the regulatory 

requirements that must be satisfied for the license to be renewed would be presented in a 

schematic with various ways to meet the requirements. The staff would then canvas the 

application to ensure that the licensee properly addressed each of the regulatory requirements. 

The regulatory “trees” would focus the review, and potentially eliminate RAIs that are not 

necessary to make a regulatory finding of acceptability on the renewal application. For an 

example of the Regulatory Trees please see Enclosure 3. 
Enclosure 2 

EXAMPLE RESEARCH AND TEST REACTOR LICENSE RENEWAL

AND FUEL CONVERSION REVIEW FINDINGS

Some examples of the more significant items the staff has discovered during the review of 

Research and Test Reactor renewal and conversion applications are (issues with conversion 

are included as examples because they are items that could potentially remain in a renewed 

license if a narrowed scope of review were implemented): 

• A safety analysis report (SAR) contained an accident analysis that assumed a maximum 

coolant temperature at the beginning of a maximum hypothetical accident, yet the 

technical specifications (TSs) did not contain an operating restriction to ensure that the 

coolant temperature would not exceed the analytical limit. 

• An SAR contained a thermal-hydraulic analysis that was not based on limits for reactor 

power or coolant temperature. The safety margins for operation of the reactor were not 

known. 

• An SAR did not contain calculations showing that the limiting safety system setting 

(LSSS) protected the safety limit. The response to a staff request for additional 

information (RAIs) showed that the proposed LSSS did not protect the safety limit under 

all allowed core configurations. Changes to the TSs were needed. 

• An SAR contained accident analysis with unrealistic assumptions that resulted in large 

postulated doses to members of the public. Through the RAI process, the analysis was 

made more realistic and stated doses were reduced. 

• The proposed TSs for one facility would allow operation up to 500 kW in natural 

circulation. However, the SAR only evaluated the use of natural circulation up to 10 kW. 

• The accident analysis provided in one SAR demonstrated a dose to the member of the 

public in excess of the 10 CFR Part 20 limits with no information required by 

 10 CFR Part 20 to approve an alternate dose limit. 

• The accident analysis in one SAR discusses in general terms that earthquakes in the 

area are rare and not likely to damage the reactor, but provided no actual accident 

analysis. 

• The review of the SAR for one site identified a potential direct release path to the 

environment. The site in question has a single heat exchanger used to remove heat 

from the primary coolant. The water used to cool the primary coolant is released to the 

atmosphere. A failure of the heat exchanger could potentially release primary water 

directly into the environment. 

Potential reductions in the scope of review could lead to these issues remaining unresolved in 

the renewed license. While these issues were not created during the license renewal process, 

they are items that the staff has had the opportunity to address under the current scope of 

review that a streamlined process may not afford. 
Enclosure 3 

EXAMPLE REGULATORY TREE

Protect the public from 

radiation 

Accident dose limit of 100 

mrem 

10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1) 

Routine annual dose limit 

of 

100 mrem 

10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1) 

Routine dose in 

unrestricted area of 

2 mrem/hour 

10 CFR 20.1301(a)(2) 

ALARA dose of 

10 mrem from gaseous 

effluents 

10 CFR 20.1101(d) 

Surveys of radioactive 

materials in effluents 

released to unrestricted 

and controlled areas 

10 CFR 20.1302(a) 

Demonstrating by 

calculations that 

TEDE<100 mrem 

10 CFR 20.1302(b)(1)