Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22461

require the approval of OMB under 44

U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

Comments

A general description of the statutory

basis for this final rule was set forth in

the interim rule published on

September 16, 1994, (59 FR 47530). The

interim rule provided 60 days for

comments. No comments were received

during the interim rule comment period

of September 16 through November 15,

1994. This final rule provides that in

determining net proceeds for shorn

wool or mohair, effective for 1993 and

subsequent marketing years, marketing

charges for commissions, coring, or

grading shall not be deducted. This rule

provides authorized representatives of

USDA and CCC access to the premises

of buyers and sellers of wool and

mohair in order to inspect their records

for authenticity.

This provision had been accidentally

omitted when the wool regulations and

mohair regulations were combined in

1991. This final rule also clarifies the

definition of nonmarketing charges to

make it consistent with the calculation

of net proceeds and net proceeds for

payment purposes.

Section 1468.18(d) was inadvertently

omitted from the interim rule. This

provision was accidently omitted when

the mohair regulations and the wool

regulations were combined in 1991 (56

FR 40233, August 14, 1991). This final

rule, in part, merely reinstates the

omitted provision.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1468

Grant program-agriculture, Livestock,

Mohair, Reporting and recordkeeping,

Wool.

Accordingly, the interim rule

amending 7 CFR part 1468 published on

September 16, 1994, (59 FR 47530) is

adopted as final with the following

changes:

PART 1468—WOOL AND MOHAIR

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 1468 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1781–1787; 15 U.S.C.

714b and 714c.

2. In § 1468.3 the definition of

‘‘Nonmarketing charges’’ is revised to

read as follows:

§ 1468.3 Definitions.

* * * * *

Nonmarketing charges means charges

paid by or for the account of the

producer that are not directly related to

improving the marketability of the shorn

wool or mohair, such as, but not limited

to, storage bags, advances, interest on

advances, shearing, and association

dues, and are not deducted from the

producer’s gross proceeds to determine

net proceeds for payment purposes and

are deducted from gross proceeds to

determine net proceeds.

* * * * *

3. Section 1468.18 is amended by

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 1468.18 Maintenance and inspection of

records.

* * * * *

(d) At all times during regular

business hours, authorized

representatives of CCC or USDA shall

have access to the premises of the

applicant, of the marketing agency, and

of the person who furnished evidence to

an applicant for use in connection with

the application, in order to inspect,

examine, and make copies of the books,

records, and accounts, and other written

data as specified in paragraphs (a), (b),

and (c) of this section.

Signed at Washington, DC, on May 1, 1995.

Bruce R. Weber,

Acting Executive Vice President, Commodity

Credit Corporation.

[FR Doc. 95–11180 Filed 5–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 2, 51, and 54

RIN 3150–AF05

Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal;

Revisions

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has amended its

regulations to revise the requirements

that an applicant must meet for

obtaining the renewal of a nuclear

power plant operating license. The rule

also clarifies the required information

that must be submitted for review so

that the agency can determine whether

those requirements have been met and

changes the administrative requirements

that a holder of a renewed license must

meet. These amendments are intended

to provide a more stable and predictable

regulatory process for license renewal.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas G. Hiltz, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, telephone: (301) 415–1105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background.

II. Final 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. Reaffirmation of conclusions concerning

the 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. General Comments and Responses.

V. Public Responses to Specific Questions.

VI. Availability of Documents.

VII. Finding of No Significant Environmental

Impact: Availability.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.

IX. Regulatory Analysis.

X. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification.

XI. Non-Applicability of the Backfit Rule.

I. Background

The previous license renewal rule (10

CFR Part 54) was adopted by the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

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 previous license

renewal rule, the NRC staff has

conducted various activities related to

implementing this rule. These activities

included: developing a draft regulatory

guide, developing 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 (NEI)).

In November 1992, the law firm of

Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge

submitted a paper to the NRC that

presented the perspective of Northern

States Power Company 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

discussed key license renewal issues

with the Commission, industry groups,
22462 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

1Throughout 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 (§ 54.4), time-limited aging analyses

(§ 54.21(c)), and the license renewal finding

(§ 54.29). The phrase, ‘‘structures and components’’

applies to matters involving the integrated plant

assessment (IPA) required by § 54.21(a) 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 § 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 timelimited aging analyses. The finding required by

§ 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.

and individual licensees. The NRC staff

presented its recommendations

regarding several of these key license

renewal issues in two 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

stated that it is essential to have a

predictable and stable regulatory

process clearly and unequivocally

defining the Commission’s expectations

for license renewal. This process would

permit licensees to make decisions

about license renewal without 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 people. Attendees included

nuclear utilities, industry organizations,

public interest groups, 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

amend 10 CFR Part 54.

In its SRM of February 3, 1994, the

Commission agreed with the NRC staff’s

conceptual approach (explained 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

amendment is to establish a more stable

and predictable license renewal process.

The amendment will identify certain

systems, structures, and components 1

that require review in order to provide

the necessary assurance that they will

continue to perform their intended

function for the period of extended

operation.

On May 23, 1994, the NRC staff

provided the Commission with its

proposed amendment to the license

renewal rule in SECY–94–140,

‘‘Proposed Amendment to the Nuclear

Power Plant License Renewal Rule (10

CFR Part 54).’’ In the SRM of June 24,

1994, the Commission approved the

publication of the proposed rule

amendment for a 90-day public

comment period. In the SRM, the

Commission directed the staff to (1)

ensure consistency in the use of the

terms ‘‘structures, systems, and

components’’ and ‘‘structures and

components,’’ (2) solicit comments on

the ability of existing programs to detect

failures in redundant structures and

components before there is a loss of

intended system or structure function,

(3) address the need for § 54.4(a)(3) in

the statements of consideration for the

proposed rule, and (4) review the

necessity of retaining § 54.4(a)(4) and

include the rationale for its conclusions

in the proposed rule.

On September 9, 1994, (59 FR 46574)

the proposed revisions to the license

renewal rule were published in the

Federal Register for a 90-day public

comment period. The public comment

period ended on December 9, 1994. The

Commission received 42 separate

responses concerning the proposed

rulemaking for license renewal. In early

April 1995, after reviewing SECY–95–

067, ‘‘Final Amendment to the Nuclear

Power Plant License Renewal Rule (10

CFR Part 54),’’ the Nuclear Energy

Institute and Yankee Atomic Electric

Company provided additional

comments. All comments received have

been considered in developing this final

rule.

Comments on the proposed rule came

from a variety of sources. These

included: a private citizen, 3 public

interest groups (Sierra Club—Atlantic

Chapter, Public Citizen, and the Ohio

Citizens for Responsible Energy Inc.), 1

Federal organization (Department of

Energy (DOE)), 4 State organizations

(Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety

(Illinois), Connecticut Department of

Public Utility Control (Connecticut),

New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection (New Jersey),

and Nevada Agency for Nuclear

Projects, Nuclear Waste Project Office

(Nevada)), 2 industry organizations (NEI

and Nuclear Utility Group on

Equipment Qualification (NUGEQ)), 2

vendor owners groups (Babcock and

Wilcox (B & W) Owners Group and

Westinghouse Owners Group), 2

vendors/consultants (B & W Nuclear

Technologies and Westinghouse Electric

Corporation), and 27 separate nuclear

power plant licensees. All 27 licensees

endorsed the comments provided by

NEI, and some utilities also provided

additional comments.

The Commission specifically solicited

responses to five questions in the

proposed rule. The questions and the

responses to them can be found in

Section V of the Supplementary

Information also known as the

Statement of Considerations (SOC).

Many of the letters contained similar

comments, which were grouped

together and are addressed on an issue

basis. The NRC has responded to all of

the significant points raised by the

commenters. Those comments that are

applicable to a specific issue discussed

in a specific section of the

Supplementary Information portion of

this document are discussed within that

section. Comments received that are not

responsive to a particular issue are

addressed in Section IV. Public

comments received on the proposed

rule are available for inspection and

copying for a fee at the Commission’s

Public Document Room located at 2120

L Street NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22463

II. Final Action

The final rule revises certain

requirements contained in 10 CFR Part

54 and establishes a regulatory process

that is simpler, more stable, and more

predictable than the previous license

renewal rule. The final rule continues 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 changes

made to the previous license renewal

rule are as follows:

(1) The intent of the license renewal

review has been clarified to focus on the

adverse effects of aging rather than

identification of all aging mechanisms.

The final 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 is not

required as part of the license renewal

review. The definitions of age-related

degradation, age-related degradation

unique to license renewal, aging

mechanisms, renewal term, and

effective program have been deleted.

(2) The definitions of integrated plant

assessment (IPA) (§ 54.3) and the IPA

process (§ 54.21(a)) have been clarified

to be consistent with the revised focus

in item (1) on the detrimental effects of

aging.

(3) A new § 54.4 has been added to

replace the definition of systems,

structures, and components ‘‘important

to license renewal’’ in § 54.3. Section

54.4 defines those systems, structures,

and components within the scope of the

license renewal rule and identifies the

important functions (intended

functions) 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 § 54.21(a), the IPA process has

been simplified. The wording has been

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

has been delineated. Only passive, longlived structures and components are

subject to an aging management review

for license renewal. Sections 54.21 (b)

and (d) have been deleted, and a new

§ 54.21(c) dealing with time-limited

aging analyses (TLAA) and § 54.21(d)

dealing with requirements for the final

safety analysis report (FSAR)

supplement have been added. The

requirement in § 54.21(c) of the previous

rule to review any relief from codes and

standards has been deleted, and the

requirement in § 54.21(c) of the previous

rule to review exemptions from

regulatory requirements has been

clarified and linked with the timelimited aging analyses.

(5) In § 54.22, the requirement to

include detailed justification for certain

technical specification changes in the

FSAR supplement has been modified to

require that the detailed justification be

included in the license renewal

application.

(6) In § 54.29, the standards for

issuance of a renewed license have been

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

§ 54.30 has been added to distinguish

between those issues identified during

the license renewal process that require

resolution during the license renewal

process and those issues that require

resolution during the current license

term.

(7) In § 54.33, requirements for

continuation of the current licensing

basis (CLB) and conditions of renewed

licenses have been changed to delete all

reference to age-related degradation

unique to license renewal (ARDUTLR).

Section 54.33(d) of the previous rule,

which requires a specific change control

process, has been deleted.

(8) In § 54.37, additional records and

recordkeeping requirements have been

changed to be less prescriptive. Section

54.37(c) has been deleted.

III. Principal Issues

a. Continued Validity of Certain

Findings in Previous Rulemaking

The principal purpose of this final

rule is to simplify and clarify the

previous license renewal rule. Unless

otherwise clarified or reevaluated, either

directly or indirectly, in the discussion

for this final rule, the conclusions in the

SOC for the previous license renewal

rule remain valid (56 FR 64943;

December 13, 1991).

One commenter stated that the

previous license renewal rule has been

substantially modified in the proposed

rule so as to constitute a ‘‘recision’’ of

the previous rule.

The Commission does not believe that

this final rule represents a recision of

the previous license renewal rule, 10

CFR Part 54. As stated in the SOC for

the proposed rule, ‘‘[u]nless 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 * * *’’ September 9, 1994

(59 FR 46576). Some of the subjects

resolved in the previous Part 54

rulemaking that remain unaffected by

this final rule include the concept of the

CLB, the nature of the current regulatory

process, the regulatory process for

assuring compliance with the CLB, form

of the renewed license, the term of the

renewed license, antitrust

considerations, and the applicability of

the provisions of the Price-Anderson

Act.

Furthermore, regardless of whether

this final rule constitutes a recision of

the previous rule, the Commission

agrees with the commenter that the

Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

requires the Commission to provide a

‘‘reasoned analysis’’ for the changes to

Part 54 that are being adopted in this

final rule. The Commission takes issue

with the commenter with regard to

whether the SOC for the proposed and

for the final rule adequately explain the

bases for the changes. The Commission

believes that this SOC provides a

detailed discussion setting forth the

perceived problems with the previous

license renewal rule as well as a

discussion of the bases for this final

rule. In sum, the Commission has

fulfilled its obligation under the APA to

provide the bases for this rule,

regardless of whether the changes that

are being adopted in this final rule

constitute a recision of the previous

license renewal rule.

b. Reaffirmation of the Regulatory

Philosophy and Approach and

Clarification of the Two Principles of

License Renewal

(i) Regulatory Philosophy

In developing the previous license

renewal rule, the Commission

concluded that issues material to the

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 by the existing regulatory
22464 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

process within the present license term

rather than deferred until the time of

license renewal. Consequently, the

Commission formulated two principles

of license renewal.

The first principle of license renewal

was that, with the exception of agerelated degradation unique to license

renewal and possibly a few other issues

related to safety only during the period

of extended operation of nuclear power

plants, the regulatory process is

adequate to ensure that the licensing

bases of all currently operating plants

provides and maintains 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 previous license

renewal rule focused the Commission’s

review on this one safety issue.

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

previous rule.

The Commission still believes that

mitigation of the detrimental effects of

aging resulting from operation beyond

the initial license term should be the

focus for license renewal. After further

consideration and experience in

implementing the previous 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 objective of a license renewal

review is to determine whether the

detrimental effects of aging, which

could adversely affect the functionality

of systems, structures, and components

that the Commission determines require

review for the period of extended

operation, are adequately managed. The

license renewal review is intended to

identify any additional actions that will

be needed to maintain the functionality

of the systems, structures, and

components in the period of extended

operation. The Commission has

determined that it can generically

exclude from the IPA aging management

review for license renewal (1) those

structures and components that perform

active functions and (2) structures and

components that are replaced based on

qualified life or specified time period.

However, all systems, structures, and

components evaluated based on timelimited aging analyses would be subject

to a license renewal evaluation.

Structures or components may have

active functions, passive functions, or

both. 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 of

systems, structures, and components

requiring a license renewal evaluation

are contained in Section III.g of this

SOC.

This final 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 adequately managed in the

period of extended operation. This

change is viewed as a modification

consistent with the first principle of

license renewal established in the

previous rule. In view of this final 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 a few other issues related to

safety only during extended operation,

the regulatory process is adequate to

ensure that the licensing bases of all

currently operating plants provides and

maintains an acceptable level of safety

so that operation will not be inimical to

public health and safety or common

defense and security. As modified, the

Commission affirms its support of the

first principle of license renewal, as

well as the (unmodified) second

principle.

(ii) Deletion of the term ‘‘Age-Related

Degradation Unique to License

Renewal’’

The use of the term ‘‘age-related

degradation unique to license renewal’’

in the previous license renewal rule

caused significant uncertainty and

difficulty in implementing the rule. A

key problem involved how ‘‘unique’’

aging issues were to be identified and,

in particular, how existing licensee

activities and Commission regulatory

activities would 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 final rule eliminates both the

definition of ARDUTLR and use of the

term in codified regulatory text. Thus,

confusion regarding the detailed

definition of ARDUTLR in the rule and

questions regarding which structures

and components could be subject to

ARDUTLR have been eliminated.

Public Citizen noted that deletion of

the term ARDUTLR represents alteration

of the ‘‘original premise’’ of the rule and

this change ‘‘has not been precipitated

by any realization about reactor aging

and safety.’’ Under both the previous

renewal rule as well as this final rule,

the objective was to supplement the

regulatory process, if warranted, to

provide sufficient assurance that

adequate safety will be assured during

the extended period of operation. The

Commission has concluded that the

only issue where the regulatory process

may not adequately maintain a plant’s

current licensing basis concerns the

detrimental effects of aging on the

functionality of certain systems,

structures, and components in the

period of extended operation. While the

objective and conclusion has remained

the same in the two rulemakings, the

first principle of license renewal has

been revised consistent with the

deletion of ARDUTLR. The Commission

recognizes that the concept of

ARDUTLR has been removed inasmuch

as the term ‘‘ARDUTLR’’ has been

deleted from the first principle and from

the rule language itself. However,

consistent with the focus of the previous

rule, the final rule will ensure that the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22465

effects of aging in the period of

extended operation are adequately

managed.

The Commission disagrees with the

commenter’s statement that this change

was arrived at without regard to reactor

aging and safety. As discussed above,

greater understanding that (1) aging is a

continuous process and (2) that the

actual effects of aging are not explicitly

linked, from a technical perspective, to

the term of an operating license, led the

Commission to consider deleting

ARDUTLR. The Commission’s current

determination that a narrower set of

systems, structures, and components

than that of the previous license

renewal rule should require evaluation

to ensure that the effects of aging will

be adequately managed in the period of

extended operation recognizes that

many licensee programs and regulatory

activities will continue to adequately

manage the adverse effects of aging

during the period of extended operation.

Therefore, the Commission believes that

this alteration is firmly based on an

appropriate consideration of reactor

safety and aging. The final rule reflects

a greater understanding of effective

aging management (focus on effects

rather than mechanisms) and more

realistic expectations of aging in the

extended period of operation.

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 final rule, the Commission has

deleted the definition (in § 54.3) of

systems, structures, and components

important to license renewal and

replaced it with a new section entitled

§ 54.4 Scope. This new section

continues 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 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

new § 54.4.

In the SOC for the previous 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, the initial focus of license

renewal should be (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.

Since publishing the previous rule,

the Commission has gained

considerable preapplication 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 scope 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, as discussed below (see

Justification for the Elimination of the

Technical Specification Limiting

Conditions for Operation Scoping

Category) the Commission determined

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 is unnecessary

and has been deleted.

The first two categories of systems,

structures, and components discussed

in the new scope section (§ 54.4(a)(1)

and (a)(2)) are the same categories

defined in the previous definition of

systems, structures, and components

important to license renewal. These

scoping categories concern (1) all safetyrelated systems, structures, and

components and (2) all nonsafetyrelated 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

nonsafety-related systems, such as

auxiliary systems, necessary for the

function of safety-related systems.

The third category of systems,

structures, and components discussed

in the new scope 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 previous definition of

systems, structures, and components

important to license renewal and

included those systems, structures, and

components relied upon to meet certain

regulations. This category was

developed to ensure that important

systems, structures, and components

that may be considered outside the

traditional definition of safety-related

and outside of the first two categories in

§ 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. The Commission, therefore,

concludes that these systems, structures,

and components should be included as

part of the initial scope of the license

renewal review.

In their comments on the proposed

revision to the rule, NUGEQ noted that

there is substantial overlap between the
22466 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

equipment that would be identified in

§ 54.4(a) and the electrical equipment

important to safety identified in

§ 50.49(b). To provide clarity and

consistency and minimize the potential

that a licensee will be required to

reassess the entire scope of § 50.49

equipment, NUGEQ suggests that

§ 54.4(a)(3) be modified to include only

the additional electric equipment

identified in § 50.49(b)(3). The

Commission concludes that the rule

modification proposed by NUGEQ is not

necessary. However, the Commission

agrees that for purposes of § 54.4, the

scope of § 50.49 equipment to be

included within § 54.4 is that

equipment already identified by

licensees under 10 CFR 50.49(b).

Licensees may rely upon their listing of

10 CFR 50.49 equipment, as required by

10 CFR Part 50.49(d), for purposes of

satisfying § 54.4 with respect to

equipment within the scope of § 50.49.

Justification for the Elimination of the

Technical Specification Limiting

Conditions for Operation Scoping

Category

In the previous 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 not to reexamine 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, if necessary, evaluated.

However, existing technical

specifications for many plants have

functional requirements on certain

systems, structures, and components

with low or indirect safety significance.

Preapplication rule implementation

experience has indicated that this

category of systems, structures, and

components, as defined in the previous

rule, could lead to an unwarranted reexamination of plant systems,

structures, and components that are not

of principal importance for license

renewal.

For example, limiting conditions for

operation are frequently included in

technical specifications for plant

meteorological and seismic monitoring

instrumentation, main turbine bypass

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. Recognizing this, the

Commission concludes that current

activities for such systems, structures,

and components, including licensee

programs and the NRC regulatory

process, are sufficient and that no

additional evaluation is necessary for

license renewal. The technical

specification category would only add

(i.e., not captured by § 54.4(a)(1)–(3))

nonsafety-related systems, structures,

and components that do not support

safety-related systems, structures, and

components. As discussed in greater

detail below, the Commission concludes

that these additional nonsafety-related

systems, structures, and components

should not be the subject of license

renewal.

Relationship Between Improved

Technical Specifications and License

Renewal Scoping

While it is not the Commission’s

intent to require applicants for license

renewal to ‘‘improve’’ their technical

specifications, it remains the

Commission’s intent 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 may not

appropriately focus licensee and NRC

resources on those systems, structures,

and components that are of principal

importance to safety.

In its ‘‘Final Policy Statement on

Technical Specifications Improvements

for Nuclear Power Reactors’’ (58 FR

39132; July 22, 1993), 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 before

conducting license renewal (experience

shows that approximately 40 percent of

limiting conditions for operation and

surveillance requirements could be

deleted).

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 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

conclusions in this rulemaking about

the appropriateness of whether these
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22467

additional systems, structures, and

components 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 safetyrelated system, structure, or component.

Additionally, the Commission believes

that the existing 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.

The Commission believes that there is

sufficient experience with its policy on

technical specifications to apply that

policy generically in revising the license

renewal rule consistent with the

Commission’s desire to credit existing

regulatory programs. Therefore, the

Commission concludes that the

technical specification limiting

conditions for operation scoping

category is unwarranted and has deleted

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 previous license renewal rule

required an applicant for license

renewal to identify, from 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 previous 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

previous rule, the Commission has

changed the term ‘‘required function’’ to

‘‘intended function’’ and explicitly

stated in § 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 final 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 this possibility for the

scoping category relating to nonsafetyrelated systems, structures, and

components, the Commission intends

this nonsafety-related category

(§ 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 CLB, actual plant-specific

experience, industry-wide operating

experience, as appropriate, 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 CLB and that have not been

previously experienced is not required.

Likewise, 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

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 these

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, as appropriate,

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.

Several commenters noted that the

word ‘‘directly’’ did not precede the

phrase ‘‘prevent satisfactory

accomplishment of any of the functions

identified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (ii), or

(iii) of this section’’ in § 54.4(a)(2) and

concluded that, in the absence of the

word ‘‘directly,’’ the license renewal

review could cascade into a review of

second-, third-, or fourth-level support

systems. The Commission reaffirms its

position that consideration of

hypothetical failures that could result

from system interdependencies that are

not part of the CLB and that have not

been previously experienced is not

required. However, for some license

renewal applicants, the Commission

cannot exclude the possibility that

hypothetical failures that are part of the

CLB may require consideration of

second-, third-, or fourth-level support

systems. In these cases the word

‘‘directly’’ may cause additional

confusion, not clarity, regarding the

systems, structures and components

required to be within the scope of

license renewal. In removing the word

‘‘directly’’ from this scoping criterion,

the Commission believes it has (1)

achieved greater consistency between

the scope of the license renewal rule

and the scope of the maintenance rule

(§ 50.65) regarding nonsafety-related

systems whose failure could prevent

satisfactory accomplishment of safetyrelated functions and thus (2) promoted

greater efficiency and predictability in

the license renewal scoping process.

The inclusion of nonsafety-related

systems, structures, and components

whose failure could prevent other

systems, structures, and components

from accomplishing a safety function is

intended to provide protection against

safety function failure in cases where

the safety-related structure or

component is not itself impaired by agerelated degradation but is vulnerable to

failure from the failure of another

structure or component that may be so

impaired. Although it may be

considered outside the scope of the

maintenance rule, the Commission

intends to include equipment that is not

seismically qualified located near

seismically qualified equipment (i.e.,
22468 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Seismic II/I equipment already

identified in a plant CLB) in this set of

nonsafety-related systems, structures

and components.

In one of its comments, the Sierra

Club indicated that all nonsafety-related

equipment and required functions

should be considered because failures

could go unnoticed for a long period of

time and start a chain reaction that

could lead to catastrophic events.

Nevada also proposed a fuel life-cycle

approach to license renewal that would

consider the plant operations as an

‘‘Integrated Operating System.’’ The

Commission disagrees with the Sierra

Club comment and the Commission

concludes that the license renewal

approach proposed by Nevada would

result in the consideration of issues

outside the scope of this rule and result

in consideration of additional systems,

structures, and components that are not

directly related to the safe operation of

the plant for the period of extended

operation. The Commission has

reviewed its scoping criteria and

determined that the criteria (1) reflect an

appropriate consideration of the existing

regulatory process, (2) properly focus

the initial license renewal review on

those systems, structures, and

components that are most important to

safety and (3) will not result in an

unwarranted re-examination of the

entire plant.

One commenter indicated that the

scope of systems, structures, and

components considered for license

renewal could be further reduced by

identifying and addressing the very few

issues in which a plant’s design must

specifically consider 40 years of

degradation. In one of its comments,

Illinois suggested that those systems,

structures and components required to

mitigate a sequence leading to core

damage, as determined by plant-specific

probabilistic analyses, and those

systems, structures, and components

required to make protective action

recommendations for the protection of

the public, should also be included in

the scope of this rulemaking.

As the commenter suggested, the

Commission did consider further

limiting the scope of license renewal to

certain issues in a plant’s design that

were specifically based on a time period

bounded by the current license term (40

years). As a result, the Commission

explicitly identified the need to review

time-limited aging analyses and

incorporated this requirement into the

final rule. However, as discussed in

Section III.d and III.f of this SOC, the

Commission determined that, at this

time, there was not an adequate basis to

generically exclude passive, long-lived

structures and components from an

aging management review. Therefore,

the Commission believes it is

inappropriate to further reduce the

systems, structures, and components

within the scope of license renewal.

Regarding the use of probabilistic

analyses in the license renewal scoping

process, a separate Section III.c(iv) has

been added to the SOC, to discuss the

role of probabilistic risk assessment in

license renewal. Regarding systems,

structures, and components required to

make protective action

recommendations, the Commission

thoroughly evaluated emergency

planning considerations in the previous

license renewal rulemaking. These

evaluations and conclusions are still

valid and can be found in the SOC for

the previous license renewal rule (56 FR

64943 at 64966). Therefore, the

Commission concludes that systems,

structures, and components required for

emergency planning, unless they meet

the scoping criteria in § 54.4, should not

be the focus of a license renewal review.

(iv) Use of Probabilistic Risk

Assessment in License Renewal

Several comments from Illinois

concerned the use of probabilistic

analysis techniques in the license

renewal process. Illinois indicated that

the NRC should require rigorous

probabilistic analyses, require these

analyses to be used in appropriate

regulatory applications, and require

these probabilistic analyses to be

updated, as needed. In addition, Illinois

noted that the previous rule and the

proposed rule did not require

consideration of individual plant

examination (IPE) results.

The Commission is finalizing a policy

statement regarding the increased use of

probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)

methods in nuclear regulatory activities

(59 FR 63389; December 8, 1994).

However, there is currently no

additional guidance for licensees to

conduct more rigorous probabilistic

analyses beyond the guidance for an IPE

and an IPE External Events (IPEEE)

(Generic Letter 88–20). The

Commission’s consideration of

regulatory requirements associated with

developing, maintaining, or using

probabilistic analyses is beyond the

scope of this rulemaking.

The CLB for currently operating

plants is largely based on deterministic

engineering criteria. Consequently, there

is considerable logic in establishing

license renewal scoping criteria that

recognize the deterministic nature of a

plant’s licensing basis. Without the

necessary regulatory requirements and

appropriate controls for plant-specific

PRAs, the Commission concludes that it

is inappropriate to establish a license

renewal scoping criterion, as suggested

by Illinois, that relies on plant-specific

probabilistic analyses. Therefore, within

the construct of the final rule, PRA

techniques are of very limited use for

license renewal scoping.

In license renewal, probabilistic

methods may be most useful, on a plantspecific basis, in helping to assess the

relative importance of structures and

components that are subject to an aging

management review by helping to draw

attention to specific vulnerabilities (e.g.,

results of an IPE or IPEEE). Probabilistic

arguments may assist in developing an

approach for aging management

adequacy. However, probabilistic

arguments alone will not be an

acceptable basis for concluding that, for

those structures and components subject

to an aging management review, the

effects of aging will be adequately

managed in the period of extended

operation.

Illinois also indicated that as

probabilistic insights are more fully

integrated with our traditional

deterministic methods of regulation,

they may define a narrower safety focus.

Thus, the use of probabilistic insights

could reduce the scope of the very

programs that the license renewal rule

credits for monitoring and identifying

the effects of aging.

The Commission reaffirms its

previous conclusion (see 56 FR 64943 at

64956) that PRA techniques are most

valuable when they focus the

traditional, deterministic-based

regulations and support the defense-indepth philosophy. In this regard, PRA

methods and techniques would focus

regulations and programs on those items

most important to safety by eliminating

unnecessary conservatism or by

supporting additional regulatory

requirements. PRA insights would be

used to more clearly define a proper

safety focus, which may be narrower or

may be broader. In any case, PRA will

not be used to justify poor performance

in aging management or to reduce

regulatory or programmatic

requirements to the extent that the

implementation of the regulation or

program is no longer adequate to credit

for monitoring or identifying the effects

of aging.

d. The Regulatory Process and Aging

Management

(i) Aging Mechanisms and Effects of

Aging

The license renewal review approach

discussed in the SOC accompanying the

December 13, 1991, rule emphasized the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22469

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 previous 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)

during the period of extended operation

is of principal concern for license

renewal. 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 agerelated degradation and replacing the

requirement to manage ARDUTLR in the

IPA with a requirement to demonstrate

that the effects of aging will be

adequately managed for the period of

extended operation.

Illinois commented that additional

research should be undertaken to ensure

all aging effects are understood.

Mitigating the effects of aging cannot be

completely divorced from

understanding the aging mechanisms.

Illinois indicated that the effects of

aging on a system, structure, and

component cannot be managed without

some consideration of all the aging

mechanisms causing the effects. As

some aging mechanisms are not well

understood, research will still need to

be performed, and the regulatory

process will still need to be adequate to

address aging uncertainties.

When the Commission concluded that

the proper approach for a license

renewal review was one that focused on

mitigating the detrimental effects of

aging regardless of the mechanisms

causing the effects, the intent was to

concentrate efforts on identification of

functional degradation; that is, except

for well-understood aging mechanisms,

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. Once functional degradation

is identified through performance or

condition monitoring, corrective actions

can be applied. The Commission agrees

that adverse aging effects cannot be

completely divorced from an

understanding of the aging mechanisms.

The corrective actions that should be

taken following identification of

functional degradation logically include

determination of the cause of the

degradation, which could involve

mechanisms other than aging (e.g.,

faulty manufacturing processes, faulty

maintenance, improper operation, or

personnel errors). If one or more aging

mechanisms are the cause of functional

degradation, corrective actions should

focus, as appropriate, on prevention,

elimination, or management of the

effects caused by the mechanism(s) in

the future. Licensees are required by

current regulations to develop and

implement programs that ensure that

conditions adverse to quality, including

degraded system, structure, and

component function, are promptly

identified and corrected.

(ii) Regulatory Requirements and

Reliance on the Regulatory Process for

Managing the Effects of Aging

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 generally 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 rootcause 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.

The Commission amended its

regulations, at 10 CFR 50.65, on July 10,

1991 (56 FR 31306), to require

commercial nuclear power plant

licensees to monitor the effectiveness of

maintenance activities for safetysignificant 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) Provide

for continued emphasis on the defensein-depth principle by including selected

balance-of-plant (BOP) systems,

structures, and components, (2)

integrate risk consideration into the

maintenance process, (3) provide an

enhanced regulatory basis for inspection

and enforcement of BOP maintenancerelated issues, and (4) provide 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.

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 amendment to the

license renewal rule focuses 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.

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
22470 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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.

(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 safetyrelated 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-related 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. Performance

and condition monitoring against

licensee-established goals is not

required, 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 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, although, 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

§ 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

§ 50.65(a)(2) if monitoring under

§ 50.65(a)(1) is not performed.

The SOC for the maintenance rule (56

FR 31308; July 10, 1991) states that the

scope of § 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 previous 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 generically 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 crediting the rule (along

with the entire regulatory program) is

acceptable to support managing the

effects of aging for certain 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 and the NRC staff has reviewed this

guidance and found it acceptable. Many

utilities are expected to 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.

One commenter stated that reliance

on the maintenance rule is

inappropriate because the NRC does not

plan to scrutinize every system,

structure, and component and how it is

monitored in assuring compliance with

the maintenance rule. According to the

commenter, if there are uncertainties in

the maintenance rule or its

implementation, then there is

uncertainty in the license renewal rule.

The commenter also stated that the

aging management analyses and

measurements required by the license

renewal rule for the period of extended

operation should commence for all

operating reactors when the

maintenance rule goes into effect. The

NRC disagrees with the commenter that

the 100-percent inspection of all

systems, structures, and components is

necessary to verify compliance with

NRC requirements, including the

maintenance rule. The Commission

disagrees with the commenter that the

licensees should be required to

commence aging management reviews

required for license renewal when the

maintenance rule becomes effective.

As discussed in the SOC for the

previous rule (56 FR at 64951), the NRC

inspection methodology utilizes a

sampling technique. When problems are

identified, the inspection sample size is

broadened to determine the extent of the

problem. Additionally, while the

maintenance rule does not require

licensees to submit their maintenance

programs to the NRC for review and

approval, compliance with the

requirements of the maintenance rule

will be verified through the NRC

inspection process. The NRC will be

conducting inspections on a routine

basis onsite to verify licensee

compliance with the maintenance rule.

Furthermore, as discussed in Section

III(d)(iv) of this SOC, the maintenance

rule allows for monitoring at a train,

system, or plant level, and that goals

should be commensurate with safety. If

performance problems arise, corrective

action requirements of 10 CFR 50,

Appendix B, and the maintenance rule

require effective corrective actions to

preclude repetition of the failure.

Passive, long-lived structures and

components that are the focus of the

license renewal rule are also within the

requirements of the maintenance rule,

as discussed in the SOC Section

III(d)(iv). Treatment of these structures

and components, however, under the

maintenance rule is likely to involve

minimal preventive maintenance or

monitoring to maintain functionality of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22471

such structures and components in the

original operating period. Consequently,

under the license renewal rule, the

Commission did not allow for a generic

exclusion of passive, long-lived

structures and components based solely

on maintenance activities associated

with implementing the requirements of

the maintenance rule. It also would be

inappropriate to require that all

licensees perform an aging management

review required for license renewal

when some licensees may not seek

license renewal and do not intend to

operate beyond the end of their current

operating license. Furthermore, if aging

issues are identified during the license

renewal review that apply to the current

operating term, licensees are required to

take measures under their current

license to ensure that the intended

function of systems, structures, and

components will be maintained in

accordance with the CLB throughout the

term of the current license. In addition,

if aging issues are identified during the

license renewal review that apply to the

current operating term, the NRC will

evaluate these issues for generic

applicability as part of the regulatory

process.

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

so 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. 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 is

fundamental to establishing credit for

the existing programs and the

requirements of the maintenance rule.

As a result, the requirements in this 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.

Two commenters stated that it is

inappropriate for the license renewal

rule to rely on the maintenance rule

implementation because 10 CFR 50.65

will not be in effect until July 10, 1996.

The Commission disagrees with the

commenters. As discussed in Section

III.d. (ii) and (iii) of this SOC, the results

of the Commission’s MTIs indicate that

licensees have adequate maintenance

programs in place and have exhibited an

improving trend in implementing them.

Nuclear power plants have been

performing a variety of maintenance

activities since plants were initially

constructed. The need for a

maintenance rule arose primarily

because the MTIs identified three

common maintenance-related

weaknesses (inadequate root-cause

analysis, lack of equipment performance

trending, and lack of appropriate

consideration of plant risk in the

prioritization, planning, and scheduling

of maintenance). Additionally, the SOC

for the maintenance rule (56 FR 31310)

states that ‘‘[T]he focus of the rule is on

the results achieved through

maintenance, and, in this regard, it is

not the intent of the rule that existing

licensees necessarily develop new

maintenance programs.’’ Furthermore,

as stated in Regulatory Guide 1.160, it

is intended that activities currently

being conducted by licensees, such as

technical specification surveillance

testing, can satisfy monitoring

requirements. Such activities could be

integrated with, and provide the basis

for, the requisite level of monitoring.

Finally, at the time of this rulemaking,

nine licensees volunteered to participate

in an NRC pilot inspection effort to

review implementation of the

maintenance rule. Five pilot inspections

had been completed at nuclear power

plants. The pilot inspections involved a

step-by-step review of the

implementation of the maintenance

rule. In general, the pilot inspections

found that licensees were able to utilize

existing maintenance activities in

complying with requirements of the

maintenance rule. Therefore, for these

reasons and as discussed in Section

III.(d) of this SOC, the Commission

continues to believe that 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

so that the CLB will be maintained.

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

functional verification, either directly or

indirectly. Direct verification is

practical for active functions such as

pump flow, valve stroke time, or relay

actuation where the parameter of

concern (required function), including

any design margins, can be directly

measured or observed. For passive

functions, the relationship between the

measurable parameters and the required

function is less directly verified. Passive

functions, such as pressure boundary

and structural integrity are generally

verified indirectly, by confirmation of

physical dimensions or component

physical condition (e.g., piping

structural integrity can be predicted

based on measured wall thickness and

condition of structural supports, but its

seismic resistance capability cannot be

verified by inspection alone). Although

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 that structures and

components can be generically excluded

from an aging management review for

license renewal.

On the basis of consideration of the

effectiveness of existing programs which

monitor the performance and condition

of systems, structures, and components
22472 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

that perform active functions, the

Commission concludes that structures

and components associated only with

active functions can be generically

excluded from a license renewal aging

management review. Functional

degradation resulting from the effects of

aging on active functions is more readily

determinable, and existing programs

and requirements are expected to

directly detect the effects of aging.

Considerable experience has

demonstrated the effectiveness of these

programs and the performance-based

requirements of the maintenance rule

delineated in § 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

excluding structures and components

that perform active functions and are

within the scope of the license renewal

rule, but outside the scope of the

maintenance rule, are presented in

Section (vi).

One commenter argued that the

Commission should not exclude active

components because aging can be

discontinuous, leading to catastrophic

failures. Examples of catastrophic

failures provided by the commenter

included overstretching of metal,

bending of beams, and embrittlement. In

their supplemental comments, NEI and

Yankee Atomic Electric Company

indicated that the use of the term

‘‘portions of’’ could be misinterpreted

and lead to an unnecessary evaluation

of all passive subcomponents of active

structures and components.

The commenters appear to have

misunderstood the Commission’s intent

with regard to ‘‘active’’ and ‘‘passive’’

functions. Passive parts of structures

and components that only perform

active functions do not require an aging

management review. Structures and

components that perform both passive

and active functions require an aging

management review for their intended

passive function only. The exclusion

regarding active components is focused

on active functions rather than on an

exclusion of the entire component. For

example, diesel generators and air

compressors (excluding structural

supports) perform active functions and

can be excluded from an aging

management review. The examples

given by the commenter for catastrophic

failures are those related to ‘‘passive’’

intended functions (e.g., structural

integrity, pressure boundary). It is the

Commission’s intent to include these

‘‘passive’’ functions in the license

renewal review, irrespective of the

components ‘‘active’’ function. For

example, a safety system pump casing

(i.e., pressure boundary function) would

be required to be reviewed, while the

pump (i.e., the active pumping function)

would not. The Commission believes

that considerable experience has

demonstrated that its regulatory process,

including the performance-based

requirements of the maintenance rule,

provide adequate assurance that

degradation due to aging of structures

and components that perform active

functions will be appropriately managed

to ensure their continued functionality

during the period of extended operation.

In addition, to address the NEI and

Yankee Atomic Electric Company

comments, the Commission has

removed the words ‘‘portions of’’ and

similar wording from the Statement of

Considerations when it could be

misinterpreted to mean a subcomponent

piece-part demonstration.

A commenter argued that the

Commission should not exclude from

review manual valves that are rarely

operated during the life of the plant,

some of which are relied on as part of

contingency actions in plant emergency

operating procedures. The commenter

argued that because these valves are

rarely ‘‘officially’’ exercised, there is

insufficient evidence that the active

functions will be maintained in the

renewal period. The Commission

disagrees with the commenter’s

assertion that there is insufficient

evidence that the active functions will

be maintained in the renewal period.

Such valves are within the scope of

various regulatory programs, including

the maintenance rule. Consequently, the

ability of the valves to perform their

intended function must be assured

through either (1) effective preventive

maintenance or (2) performance or

condition monitoring.

(vi) Excluding Fire Protection

Components With Active Functions

The scope of the maintenance rule

does not generally include installed fire

protection systems, structures, and

components because performance and

condition monitoring is required by

§ 50.48. Therefore, for the purposes of

license renewal, installed structures and

components that perform active

functions can be generically excluded

from an aging management review

because they are either within the scope

of § 50.65 or § 50.48. Compliance with

§ 50.48 is verified through the NRC

inspection program.

The fire protection rule (§ 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 § 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 § 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 installed

fire protection components that perform

active functions can be generically

excluded from an aging management

review on the basis of performance or

condition-monitoring programs afforded

by the FPP that are capable of detecting

and subsequently mitigating the

detrimental effects of aging.

(vii) Future Exclusion of Structures and

Components on the Basis of 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 (§ 50.109).

Increasing experience with aging
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22473

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

§ 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.

These 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., passive, long-lived 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 license renewal review.

e. Reaffirmation of Conclusions

Concerning the Current Licensing Basis

and Maintaining the Function of

Systems, Structures, and Components

(i) Current Licensing Basis

As defined in § 54.3 of the rule, the

CLB is the set of NRC requirements

applicable to a specific plant and a

licensee’s written commitments for

ensuring compliance with and operation

within applicable NRC requirements

and the plant-specific design basis

(including all modifications and

additions to such commitments over the

life of the license) that are docketed and

are in effect. A detailed explanation of

the CLB, the regulatory processes

underlying the CLB, compliance with

the CLB, and consideration of the CLB

is contained in the SOC for the previous

license renewal rule (56 FR 64949:

December 13, 1991). In summary, the

conclusions made in the SOC for the

previous rule remain valid. The CLB

represents the evolving set of

requirements and commitments for a

specific plant that are modified as

necessary over the life of a plant to

ensure continuation of an adequate level

of safety. The regulatory process is the

means by which the Commission

continually assesses the adequacy of

and compliance with the CLB.

Compilation of the CLB is unnecessary

to perform a license renewal review.

One commenter argued that the

definition of CLB in § 54.3 should be

clarified. Specifically, the commenter

interprets that licensee written

commitments made in docketed

licensing correspondence such as

responses to bulletins, generic letters,

and enforcement actions and

commitments in safety evaluations and

licensee event reports (items in the third

sentence of the definition) should be

considered as part of the CLB only to

the extent that these commitments

reflect compliance with more formal

requirements and regulations. These

would include those elements of NRC

requirements and regulations identified

in the first two sentences of the

definition. All other licensee

commitments identified in those

document types listed in the third

sentence should not be considered CLB

commitments if they are not otherwise

necessary to demonstrate compliance

with NRC requirements and regulations.

The Commission is aware of public

concerns associated with the definition

of CLB in § 54.3. Some of these concerns

can be explicitly linked to what is

meant by the term ‘‘written

commitments’’ as it relates to the CLB.

These concerns relate to ongoing

consideration of the regulatory and

licensee processes for defining,

identifying, tracking, and validating

licensee commitments. Although

identified in the license renewal

rulemaking process, many of these

concerns are not directly associated

with license renewal, but are relevant to

current commitment management

methods and practices. Therefore, the

Commission is evaluating concerns

associated with the definition of CLB in

the context of currently operating

reactors and may, in the future,

determine that the definition of CLB

needs to be clarified. Thus, the

Commission concludes that, at this

time, a revision to the definition of CLB

is premature and will not be considered

as part of this rulemaking.

In addition, the Commission

concludes that, for the licensee renewal

review, consideration of written

commitments only need encompass

those commitments that concern the

capability of systems, structures, and

components, identified in § 54.21(a),

integrated plant assessment and

§ 54.21(c) time-limited aging analyses,

to perform their intended functions, as

delineated in § 54.4(b).

For the previous rule as well as for

this rulemaking, commenters argued

that the CLB of a number of plants is

inadequate. Multiple examples of

operational concerns and issues at

specific plants were identified to

demonstrate the inadequacy of the

CLBs. One commenter stated that the

Yankee Rowe reactor pressure vessel

problem (the plant was removed from

service rather than show compliance

with its CLB for its reactor pressure

vessel) demonstrates the inadequacy of

CLBs. The commenter stated that ‘‘the

Rowe experience demonstrated that

examination of the licensing basis for

extended operation could jeopardize the

remaining years on the current license.’’

The Commission did not agree with

the comments on the previous rule in

this area and comments received for this

rulemaking did not provide compelling

reasons to alter the previous

Commission determinations. The

examples cited were all identified by

the NRC through the inspection and

oversight processes. The identification

of these issues through the regulatory

process demonstrates that the

Commission’s programs are effective in

identifying and resolving new technical

and safety issues and areas of

noncompliance in a timely fashion. In

each example provided by the

commenters, appropriate corrective

action was taken or is being taken on a

plant-specific or on an industry-wide

basis to either modify the CLB to resolve

the concern or to ensure the continued

compliance with the present CLB. The

Commission agrees that the Yankee

Rowe case demonstrated that the

regulatory process can jeopardize

current operation during license

renewal activities. The decision to retire

the Yankee Rowe plant was a utility

economic decision when faced with the

prospect of demonstrating continued

compliance with its CLB. Noncompliance with the CLB, while not

shown in the Rowe example, is one of

the reasons that justifies the existence of

the regulatory process.

Public Citizen stated that the

Commission’s contention that all

reactors are in compliance with their

CLBs is both arbitrary and capricious

and neither stands the test of logic nor

reality. The commenter continued by

stating that the ‘‘NRC’s assumption is

based upon the specious argument that

having operated without a meltdown for

a finite period of time means that safety

is adequate.’’

The Commission does not contend

that all reactors are in full compliance

with their respective CLBs on a

continuous basis. Rather, as discussed

in the SOC for the previous rule, the

regulatory process provides reasonable

assurance that there is compliance with

the CLB. The NRC conducts its

inspection and enforcement activities
22474 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

under the presumption that noncompliances will occur.

The Commission does not believe that

an absence of accidents over a given

period of time equates to adequate

safety. Neither does the Commission

believe that all risk can be eliminated.

Adequate safety is a subjective term that

cannot be directly measured. The

Commission’s performance indicators

demonstrate that, while not

quantifiable, relative safety levels are

increasing. An absence of accidents over

a finite period of time can be considered

as just one safety performance indicator.

Despite improving performance

indicators, the Commission intends to

continue the meticulous process of

insuring and maintaining an adequate

level of protection.

Commenters for both the previous

rule and for this rulemaking argued that

the plant-specific CLB should be

compiled and the NRC should verify

compliance with the CLB as part of the

license renewal process. Public Citizen

stated that ‘‘The NRC must review the

documents which make up the current

licensing basis and examine the plant

itself in order to determine whether the

licensee has complied with the current

licensing basis,’’ and further,

submission of the documents, and NRC

verification of the licensee’s compliance

with its CLB is necessary to avoid

‘‘fraud and abuse.’’ Public Citizen also

contends that ‘‘[a]bsent the submission

of the documents the public and the

Commission are left to examine the

reactor’s license renewal application

and the IPA in a vacuum.’’

The Commission disagrees with the

commenter, and points out that the

proposed rule did not explicitly require

the renewal applicant to compile the

CLB for its plant. The Commission

rejected a compilation requirement for

the previous license renewal rule for the

reasons set forth in the accompanying

SOC (56 FR at 64952). The Commission

continues to believe that a prescriptive

requirement to compile the CLB is not

necessary. Furthermore, submission of

documents for the entire CLB is not

necessary for the Commission’s review

of the renewal application. As stated in

section III.b(i) of this SOC, the

Commission has determined that the

single issue generic to all plants with

regard to license renewal is the effects

of age-related degradation during the

period of extended operation. As

explained in the SOC for the previous

rule, section IV.c(i) (56 FR at 64948), the

CLB of any plant is comprised of

numerous regulations, license

conditions, the design basis, etc. As

discussed in III(e)(ii), ‘‘Maintaining the

function of systems, structures, and

components,’’ the portion of the CLB

that can be impacted by the detrimental

effects of aging is the design basis. Thus,

there is no compelling reason to

consider, for license renewal, any

portion of the CLB other than that

which is associated with the structures

and components of the plant (i.e., that

part of the CLB that can suffer

detrimental effects of aging). All other

aspects of the CLB have continuing

relevance in the license renewal period

as they do in the original operating

term, but without any association with

an aging process that may cause

invalidation. From a practical

standpoint, an applicant must consult

the CLB for a structure or component in

order to perform an aging management

review. The CLB for the structure or

component of interest contains the

information describing the functional

requirements necessary to determine the

presence of any aging degradation.

The definition of CLB in § 54.3(a)

states that a plant’s CLB consists, in

part, of ‘‘a licensee’s written

commitments * * * that are docketed

* * *’’ Because these documents have

already been submitted to the NRC and

are in the docket files for the plant, they

are not only available to the NRC for use

in the renewal review, they are also

available for public inspection and

copying in the Commission’s public

document rooms. Furthermore, the NRC

may review any supporting

documentation that it may wish to

inspect or audit in connection with its

renewal review. If the renewed license

is granted, those documents continue to

remain subject to NRC inspection and

audit throughout the term of the

renewed license. The Commission

continues to believe that resubmission

of the documents constituting the CLB

is unnecessary. With respect to the

commenter’s argument that the CLB

needs to be verified, the Commission

had concluded when it adopted the

previous license renewal rule that a

reverification of CLB compliance as part

of the renewal review was unnecessary

(56 FR at 64951–52). Public Citizen

presented no information questioning

the continuing soundness of the

Commission’s rationale, and the

Commission reaffirms its earlier

conclusion that a special verification of

CLB compliance in connection with the

review of a license renewal application

is unnecessary. The Commission

intends, as stated by the commenter, to

examine the plant-specific CLB as

necessary to make a licensing decision

on the continued functionality of

systems, structures, and components

subject to an aging management review

and a license renewal evaluation. This

activity will likely include examination

of the plant itself to understand and

verify licensee activities associated with

aging management reviews and actions

being taken to mitigate detrimental

effects of aging.

After consideration of all comments

concerning the compilation of the CLB,

the Commission has reconfirmed its

conclusion made for the previous rule

that it is not necessary to compile,

review, and submit a list of documents

that comprise the CLB in order to

perform a license renewal review.

(ii) Maintaining the Function of

Systems, Structures, and Components

As discussed in the SOC for the

previous 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 final 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 others do not

substantially increase the frequency of

challenges to those required for safety.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22475

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

§ 50.36, and other licensee maintenance

activities. Except for some wellunderstood 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 verify that the necessary

quality of systems, structures, and

components is maintained, that facility

operation is within safety limits, and

that LCOs continue to be met.

Furthermore, § 50.55a requires, in part,

that systems, structures, 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 the

effects of age-related degradation

include activities that provide

reasonable assurance that systems,

structures, and components will

perform their intended functions when

called on. Through these programs,

licensees identify the degradation of

components resulting from a number of

different environmental stressors as well

as degradation from inadequate

maintenance or 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 condition to its original

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 most

systems, structures, and components.

Consequently, there is considerable

logic in ensuring that the design basis

(as defined in § 50.2) of systems,

structures, and components is

maintained through activities that

ensure continued functionality. This

process, including surveillance, is relied

on in the current term to ensure

continued operability, (i.e., to the

greatest extent practicable, the intended

design functions will be properly

performed). The focus on maintaining

functionality 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 54

definition of the CLB is the plantspecific 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 those 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

required function(s) will be maintained

in the period of extended operation.

When the design bases of systems,

structures, and components can be

confirmed either indirectly by

inspection or directly by verification of

functionality through test or operation,

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. All other aspects of the CLB,

e.g., quality assurance, physical

protection (security), and radiation

protection requirements, are not subject

to physical aging processes that may

cause noncompliance with those 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., operation 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 loss of

coolant accident (LOCA)/loss of offsite

power (LOOP) integrated tests. 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 feedwater

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 fully 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 directly verified.
22476 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Between integrated tests, monthly and

quarterly surveillances verify specific

component performance criteria such as

emergency diesel generator start times

or pump flow values. The acceptance

criteria stated in the surveillance

requirements are derived from designbasis 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 previous license renewal rule

required 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.

On the basis of experience gained

from implementation of the previous

license renewal rule, the Commission

determined that the previous rule

required the evaluation of an

unnecessarily large number of plant

systems, structures, and components to

establish appropriate aging management

in the period of extended operation.

This experience, further consideration

of existing activities, and the recent

adoption 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 is

amending the IPA process in this

rulemaking 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 rule

maintains the requirement for each

renewal applicant to address possible

detrimental effects of aging for certain

systems, structures and components

during the period of extended operation

through the IPA process. The rule will

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 IPA process continues to require

an initial review of all plant systems,

structures, and components to identify

the scope of structures and components

requiring aging management review for

license renewal. The principal

differences between the IPA process in

the previous license renewal rule and

the IPA process in this rule is—

(1) The determination of the reduced

set of structures and components that

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 previous 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 existing regulatory process,

existing licensee programs and

activities, and the maintenance rule

provide the basis for generically

excluding structures and components

that perform active functions 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.

New Jersey commented that since so

much of original plant design assumed

40 years of service, utilities should be

required to determine the actual

conditions of systems, structures, and

components at the 40-year point

‘‘license renewal milestone.’’

The focus of the license renewal rule

on passive, long-lived structures and

components conforms to the

commenter’s concern. For a licensee to

perform an effective aging management

review of long-lived, passive structures

and components identified in the IPA,

a logical starting point for a given

structure or component may be to assess

its current condition against the CLB via

a ‘‘one time’’ inspection. Although this

assessment is not specifically required

by the rule, the licensee must

demonstrate that the effects of aging will

be managed so that the intended

function(s) will be maintained for the

period of extended operation. If a

licensee chooses not to perform a ‘‘one

time’’ inspection or similar assessment

for a particular structure or component,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22477

the aging management review must still

adequately demonstrate that detrimental

effects of aging will be managed during

the period of extended operation.

(a) ‘‘Passive’’ Structures and

Components

In Section III.d of this SOC, the

Commission concluded that structures

and components that perform active

functions can be generically excluded

from an aging management review on

the basis of performance or conditionmonitoring programs. The Commission

recognizes that structures and

components that have passive functions

generally do not have performance and

condition characteristics that are as

readily monitorable as those that

perform active functions. Therefore, the

Commission concludes that an aging

management review is required for

structures and components within the

scope of the license renewal rule that

perform passive intended functions.

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. 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 § 54.21(a) should be

used only in connection with the IPA

review in the license renewal process.

The Commission has determined that

passive structures and components for

which aging degradation is not readily

monitored are those that perform an

intended function without moving parts

or without a change in configuration or

properties. 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

has concluded that ‘‘a change in

configuration or properties’’ should be

interpreted to include ‘‘a change in

state,’’ which is a term sometimes found

in the literature relating to ‘‘passive.’’

For example, a transistor can ‘‘change

its state’’ and therefore would not be

screened in under this description.

Structures or components may have

active functions, passive functions, or

both. 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 the Commission’s

description and would therefore 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. Additionally, the

maintenance rule implementation

guidance (Regulatory Guide 1.160)

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.’’

As examples of the implementation of

this screening requirement, the

Commission considers structures and

components meeting the passive

description as including, but not limited

to, the reactor vessel, the reactor coolant

system pressure boundary, steam

generators, the pressurizer, piping,

pump casings, valve bodies, the core

shroud, component supports, pressure

retaining boundaries, heat exchangers,

ventilation ducts, the containment, the

containment liner, electrical and

mechanical penetrations, equipment

hatches, seismic Category I structures,

electrical cables and connections, cable

trays, and electrical cabinets.

Additionally, the Commission

determined that structures and

components that perform active

functions are not subject to an aging

management review (e.g., pumps

(except casing), valves (except body),

motors, diesel generators, air

compressors, snubbers, the control rod

drive, ventilation dampers, pressure

transmitters, pressure indicators, water

level indicators, switchgears, cooling

fans, transistors, batteries, breakers,

relays, switches, power inverters, circuit

boards, battery chargers, and power

supplies). However, pressure-retaining

boundaries (e.g., pump casings, valve

bodies, fluid system piping) and

structural supports (e.g., diesel

generator structural supports) that are

necessary for the structure or

component to perform its intended

function meet the description of

passive, and will be subject to an aging

management review.

A commenter requested clarification

as to whether the Commission intended

pressure boundaries, other than the

reactor coolant pressure boundary, to be

included in an aging management

review (e.g., pressurized water reactor

main steam lines). The Commission

does not limit the consideration of

pressure boundaries for an aging

management review to only the reactor

coolant pressure boundary. All pressure

retaining boundaries necessary for the

performance of the intended functions

delineated in § 54.4 would be subject to

an aging management review. For

example, those portions of a plant’s

main steam lines that meet the intended

function criteria of § 54.4 would be

included in an aging management

review.

One commenter expressed a belief

that cables were prematurely included

as ‘‘passive’’ and should not be subject

to an aging management review. The

commenter stated that the only aging

effects of cables are shorting and loss of

continuity, and for cables not in a harsh

environment, these effects would be

immediately detected during normal

operation or functional testing. The

Commission considers the examples of

electrical components (e.g., electrical

cables, connections, and electrical

penetrations) listed in 10 CFR

54.21(a)(1)(i) and Section III.f(i)(a) of the

SOC to be properly categorized as

‘‘passive’’ because they perform their

intended function without moving parts

or without a change in configuration or

properties and the effects of aging

degradation for these components are

not readily monitorable. The

Commission also believes that this

categorization is not premature as stated

by the commenter.

The Commission disagrees with the

commenter’s assertion that the aging

effects of cable make it easy to monitor

functional degradation. Although there

have been significant advances in this

area, there is no single method or

combination of methods that can

provide the necessary information about

the condition of electrical cable

currently in service regarding the extent

of aging degradation or remaining

qualified life. Degradation due to aging

of electrical cables caused by elevated

temperature and radiation can cause

embrittlement in the form of cracking of

insulation and jacket materials. The

cracks degrade the electrical properties

of the insulation materials. The major

concern is that failures of deteriorated

cable systems (cables, connections, and

penetrations) might be induced during

accident conditions. Because these

components are relied on to remain

functional during and following designbasis events (including conditions of

normal operation) and there are

currently no known effective methods
22478 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

for continuous monitoring of cable

systems, these examples of passive

electrical components subject to an

aging management review will remain

in 10 CFR 54.21(a)(1)(i) and Section III

f(i)(a) of the SOC.

(b) ‘‘Long-Lived’’ Structures and

Components

The Commission recognizes that, as a

general matter, the effects of aging on a

structure or component are cumulative

throughout its service life. One way to

effectively mitigate these effects is to

replace that structure or component,

either (i) on a specified interval based

upon the qualified life of the structure

or component or (ii) periodically in

accordance with a specified time period

to prevent performance degradations

leading to loss of intended function

during the period of operation.

Where a structure or component is

replaced based upon a qualified life

(appropriately determined), it follows

that the replaced structure or

component will not experience

detrimental effects of aging sufficient to

preclude its intended function. This is

because the purpose of qualification of

the life of a structure or component is

to determine the time period for which

the intended function of that structure

or component can be reasonably

assured.

Where a structure or component is

replaced periodically in accordance

with a specified time period, the

regulatory process will ensure that

degraded performance of the structure

or component experienced during the

replacement interval will be adequately

addressed and the established replacing

interval will be appropriate. Thus, there

is a high likelihood that the detrimental

effects of aging will not accumulate

during the subsequent period such that

there is a loss of intended function.

In sum, a structure or component that

is not replaced either (i) on a specified

interval based upon the qualified life of

the structure or component or (ii)

periodically in accordance with a

specified time period, is deemed by

§ 54.21(a)(1)(ii) of this rule to be ‘‘longlived,’’ and therefore subject to the

§ 54.21(a)(3) aging management review.

It is important to note, however, that

the Commission has decided not to

generically exclude passive structures

and components that are replaced based

on performance or condition from an

aging management review. Absent the

specific nature of the performance or

condition replacement criteria and the

fact that the Commission has

determined that components with

‘‘passive’’ functions are not as readily

monitorable as components with active

functions, such generic exclusion is not

appropriate. However, the Commission

does not intend to preclude a license

renewal applicant from providing sitespecific justification in a license

renewal application that a replacement

program on the basis of performance or

condition for a passive structure or

component provides reasonable

assurance that the intended function of

the passive structure or component will

be maintained in the period of extended

operation.

A commenter recommended that the

Commission exclude specific

components from an aging management

review if they have been replaced in the

later years of the original license or if

they are subject to routine testing. The

Commission believes that one-time

component replacements and

replacements based on routine testing

are essentially replacements based on

performance or condition. Absent the

specific nature of the performance or

condition replacement criteria (e.g.,

routine testing program) it is not

appropriate for the Commission to

generically exclude all such

replacement programs of passive

structures and components. However,

the Commission does not preclude a

license renewal applicant from

providing a plant-specific justification

in a license renewal application that a

one-time replacement program or

replacement program on the basis of

routine testing of passive structures and

components provides reasonable

assurance that functionality will be

maintained in the period of extended

operation.

A commenter requested that the

Commission provide an example of a

performance- or condition-based

replacement program that could be used

to justify that aging effects will be

adequately managed during the period

of extended operation. While an exact

application of a performance or

condition replacement is necessarily

dependent on plant-specific situations

and their respective aging effects of

concern, the Commission would

generally expect that such a

replacement program would have

defined performance or condition

measuring methods (e.g., wall thickness

of heat exchanger tubes), an established

monitoring frequency that supports

timely discovery of degraded conditions

(e.g., every refueling outage), and an

appropriate replacement criterion (e.g.,

upon reaching a specified number of

tubes plugged).

One commenter stated that the

Commission should consider dividing

long-lived passive structures and

components into two categories: those

that have a less rigorous approach to

oversight and maintenance and those

that have a sufficiently high level of

licensee programs and regulatory

oversight. The commenter then suggests

that the rule should recognize the

quality and effectiveness of the

programs in the second category and

appropriately credit them relative to an

aging management review. Specifically,

the commenter provided the reactor

coolant pressure boundary as an

example of a passive, long-lived

component for which rigorous programs

and regulatory oversight currently exist

to adequately manage the effects of

aging. Currently, the Commission

believes it would be too difficult to

further divide the structures and

components required for an aging

management review into those passive,

long-lived structures and components

‘‘rigorously’’ managed and those ‘‘not as

rigorously’’ managed. The variations

among plant specific designs and

programs make such a determination

unmanageable at present. However, as

the Commission gains more experience

with industry activities for management

of passive, long-lived structures and

components, it may consider further

narrowing the scope of those structures

and components requiring an aging

management review. With regard to the

commenter’s specific example of the

reactor coolant pressure boundary,

because of its high-risk significance, the

differences in plant-specific design and

operational histories, and the lack of

operating experience beyond the

original operating terms, the

Commission does not believe it

appropriate to generically exclude the

reactor coolant pressure boundary from

an aging management review.

(ii) The IPA Process

The Commission revised and

simplified the IPA requirements

(§ 54.21(a)) as follows:

First, instead of listing those systems,

structures, and components that are

important to license renewal, only a list

is required (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.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22479

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

(§ 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

that do not require an aging

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 that would

be identified through criteria (1) and (2)

above.

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.

Third, the IPA must contain a

demonstration, for each structure and

component subject to an aging

management review, that the effects of

aging will be managed so that the

intended function(s) will be maintained

for the period of extended operation.

This demonstration must include a

description of activities, as well as any

changes to the CLB and plant

modifications that are relied on to

demonstrate that the intended

function(s) will be adequately

maintained despite the effects of aging

in the period of extended operation.

A commenter suggested that the

regulatory text include a more

comprehensive list of components

subject to an aging management review

in order to clarify its intent. The

Commission decided that not to include

a more detailed list of components

subject to an aging management review.

Components subject to an aging

management review are highly plant

specific and the Commission does not

intend to establish plant-specific lists by

regulation. However, the Commission

will include additional clarification and

examples of components requiring an

aging management review in its

implementation guidance for the rule.

DOE commented that the wording in

§ 54.21(a)(3), requiring a demonstration

that the effects of aging will be managed

so that the intended function(s) will be

maintained, could be interpreted too

restrictively. Specifically, DOE asserts

that the IPA process serves to

demonstrate that a structure or

component will perform in a manner

consistent with the CLB rather than to

provide ‘‘absolute’’ assurance that the

structure or component will not fail.

Therefore, DOE recommends revising

§ 54.21(a)(3) to include requiring a

demonstration that the effects of aging

are ‘‘adequately managed’’ and that the

intended functions are maintained, ‘‘to

the extent required by the CLB.’’

The Commission agrees with DOE

that the IPA process is not intended to

demonstrate absolute assurance that

structures or components will not fail,

but rather that there is reasonable

assurance that they will perform such

that the intended functions, as

delineated in § 54.4, are maintained

consistent with the CLB. The

Commission has clarified the wording

in § 54.21(a)(3) to require a

demonstration that the effects of aging

be adequately managed so that the

intended function(s) will be maintained

consistent with the CLB.

One commenter suggested that the

amendment provides more uncertainty

as to which structures and components

should be considered for an aging

management review. Specifically, the

commenter cited fasteners as an

example of what is important but

appears not to be considered in the

proposed rule. The commenter states

that the NRC should provide more

detailed guidance.

The Commission does not agree that

the rule provides more uncertainty with

regard to what structures and

components should be considered. In

fact, the rule provides clear criteria for

what types of structures and

components must be subject to an aging

management review—namely passive,

long-lived structures and components

from those determined to be within the

scope of license renewal. With regard to

the specific example of fasteners cited

by the commenter, the rule would

require an aging management review for

fasteners because fasteners are

considered to be passive and if the

fasteners (1) were determined to be

within the scope of license renewal as

defined in § 54.4 and (2) were

determined not to be subject to periodic

replacement or replacement based on a

qualified fastener life. As in the

previous rule, this rule does not

delineate a comprehensive list of the

specific structures and components that

must be considered for an aging

management review.

g. Time-Limited Aging Analyses and

Exemptions

(i) Time-Limited Aging Analyses

The definition of ARDUTLR in the

previous 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. Those time-limited aging

analyses that need to be evaluated for

renewal are limited to those analyses

with (i) time-related assumptions, (ii)

utilized in determining the acceptability

of systems, structures, and components

within the scope of license renewal (as

defined in Section 54.4), (iii) which are

based upon a period of plant operation

equal to or greater than the current

license term, but less than the

cumulative period of plant operation

(viz., the existing license term plus the

period of extended operation requested

in the renewal application). Timelimited aging analyses based on an

assumed period of plant operation short

of the current operating term should be

addressed within the original license

and need not be reviewed for license

renewal.

Because the Commission deleted the

term of ARDUTLR, this license renewal

rule identifies these explicit timelimited analyses as issues that must be

clearly addressed within the license

renewal process. This rule explicitly

requires 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 timelimited 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
22480 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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. Timelimited 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 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 timelimited 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 need 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, environmental qualification

(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.

Three issues were raised by five

commenters relating to time-limited

aging analyses in the proposed rule.

(1) The proposed rule contains a

definition of time-limited aging analyses

in § 54.3 which is further discussed in

the proposed SOC. However, the

proposed rule definition appeared to

contain two criteria in defining timelimited aging analyses while the

discussion in the proposed SOC

appeared to contain six criteria. Three

commenters indicated that there may be

potential inconsistencies between the

proposed rule definition and the

proposed SOC. The commenters

recommended various methods for

incorporating the SOC language in the

rule.

The proposed SOC discussion was

intended to further clarify the criteria

contained in the proposed rule

definition. After reviewing the

comments, the Commission has decided

to replace the proposed definition of

time-limited aging analyses in § 54.3

with the six criteria in the proposed

SOC as recommended.

(2) One commenter recommended

reconsideration of all proposed plant

modifications which were not imposed

by the Commission due to a cost-benefit

analysis that had time-dependent

factors. The commenter suggested that

this should include any backfits which

the Commission declined to impose, as

well as potential plant modifications to

reduce risk identified in programs such

as the individual plant examination

(IPE) and the individual plant

examination of external events (IPEEE)

for severe accident vulnerabilities.

The Commission does not regard such

reconsideration to be necessary to

provide reasonable assurance that there

is no undue risk to the public health

and safety for the period of extended

operation of nuclear power plants.

As discussed in the SOC for the

previous license renewal rule (56 FR

64943 at 64948), in NUREG–0933, A

Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues,

the NRC examined 249 generic safety

issues (GSIs) that had been resolved

through October 1990, in order to

identify possible cases where

consideration of the additional period of

operation during the renewal term

might have altered the NRC’s regulatory

decision not to undertake additional

action. Of the 139 GSIs resolved through

October 1990 that did not result in

backfits, the Commission found that

only 3 issues for which a reexamination

of the backfit determination appeared to

be prudent. In two instances, the

reexamination confirmed the

appropriateness of the no backfit

conclusion for an additional 20 years of

operation beyond the original 40-year

license term. The third issue (GSI Item

III.A.1.3 ‘‘Maintain Supply of Thyroid

Blocking Agent’’) had been placed in the

resolution process for reasons apart

from license renewal. Thus, cost-benefit

analyses of the resolved GSIs were

relatively insensitive to consideration of

the period of extended operation. The

cost-benefit methodologies utilized in

resolution of GSIs are the same as those

used by the NRC in conjunction with

the full gamut of regulatory actions

involving nuclear power plants,

including rulemaking and enforcement.

Since the methodologies are the same,

the Commission believes that the results

of NUREG–0933 can be reasonably

extrapolated to other regulatory

assessments where backfits were not

imposed on the basis of cost-benefit

analyses limited to 40 years of

operation. Furthermore, cost-benefit

considerations simply do not come into

play in backfit determinations involving

adequate protection—except in selecting

among different ways of achieving

adequate protection, as is acknowledged

in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(7). The IPE and

IPEEE are licensees’ studies to search for

plant vulnerabilities to internal and

external events. As such, the IPE and

IPEEE are not intended to identify or

address matters involving adequate

protection and, to date, no such issues

have been identified.

(3) Two commenters recommended

clarifying that the requirement of timelimited aging analyses does not apply to

a component that is replaced based on

a qualified life less than the full original

license term. The commenters cited the

EQ of electrical equipment pursuant to

§ 50.49 as a specific example. This type

of equipment is replaced during the

current license term and will continue

to be replaced during the renewal term

based on its qualified life.

The Commission’s intent for the

requirement of time-limited aging

analyses is to capture, for renewal

review, certain plant-specific aging

analyses that are explicitly based on the

duration of the current operating license

of the plant. The Commission’s concern

is that these aging analyses do not cover

the period of extended operation.

Unless these analyses are evaluated, the

Commission does not have assurance

that the systems, structures, and

components addressed by these
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22481

analyses can perform their intended

function(s) during the period of

extended operation. The periodic

replacement program discussed in the

previous paragraph would ensure that

the subject component can perform its

intended function(s) during the period

of extended operation. Thus, the

Commission agrees with the

commenters that components replaced

based on qualified lives less than the

duration of the current license term

need not be addressed under timelimited aging analyses for renewal if the

scheduled replacement continues to be

performed in the period of extended

operation. This is consistent with the

definition of time-limited aging analyses

in § 54.3.

(ii) Exemptions

The previous license renewal rule

required that an applicant for license

renewal provide a list of all plantspecific exemptions granted under 10

CFR 50.12. An evaluation that justifies

the continuation of the exemptions for

the renewal term must be provided 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.

With the deletion of the definition of

ARDUTLR and the corresponding

addition of a separate time-limited aging

analysis requirement, the Commission

has included this exemption review

with the separate time-limited aging

analysis requirement in § 54.21(c). This

change is consistent with the

Commission’s intent to review

exemptions based on time-limited aging

analyses under the current rule.

Two commenters questioned the

proposed requirement to list and

evaluate all granted exemptions,

including those that are no longer in

effect. One commenter recommended

that only exemptions in effect at the

time of renewal application and

continuing into the period of extended

operation should be considered for

renewal. Further, the other commenter

indicated that requiring a listing of all

exemptions is inconsistent with the

removal of other lists currently required

in 10 CFR 54, such as the list of systems,

structures, and components important

to license renewal, to provide applicants

flexibility in developing suitable

methodologies to implement the

requirements of § 54.21. The

Commission agrees with the

commenters. Exemptions that have

expired are no longer part of the CLB for

that plant. Further, a requirement to list

all exemptions in effect is unnecessary

because the only exemptions of concern

for license renewal are those that have

time-limited aging analyses.

Thus, the Commission has revised

§ 54.21(c)(2) to require a listing of only

those exemptions in effect at the time of

renewal application that are based on

time-limited aging analyses as defined

in § 54.3.

The Commission will rely on explicit

wordings in the granted exemptions to

determine if an exemption is in effect at

the time of renewal application. The

Commission will not require an

exemption to be considered for license

renewal if the exemption was granted

with an explicit expiration date that has

passed prior to the renewal application.

However, the Commission will require

exemptions granted without explicit

expiration dates to be considered for

renewal. If an applicant believes that a

certain exemption has expired and yet

the supporting documentation does not

have a clearly stated expiration date, the

applicant should update its CLB prior to

submitting its renewal application to

clearly indicate that the exemption has

expired.

h. Standards for Issuance of a Renewed

License and the Scope of Hearings

Section 54.29 of the previous license

renewal rule provided that the

Commission may issue a renewed

license if—

(a) Actions have been identified and

have been or will be taken with respect

to age-related degradation unique to

license renewal of systems, structures,

and components important to license

renewal, such that there is reasonable

assurance that the activities authorized

by the renewed license will be

conducted in accordance with the

current licensing basis, and that any

changes made to the plant’s current

licensing basis in order to comply with

this paragraph are otherwise in accord

with the Act and the Commission’s

regulations.

(b) Any applicable requirements of

subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have been

satisfied.

(c) Any matters raised under 10 CFR

2.758 have been addressed as required

by that (section).

Issues that were material to the

findings in § 54.29 of the previous rule,

as well as matters approved by the

Commission for hearing under § 2.758,

were within the scope of a hearing on

a renewed license. The previous license

renewal rule modified § 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 agerelated 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 those provisions in the

previous rule was to clarify that safety

and environmental matters not unique

to the period of extended operation

would 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 would have been addressed in

accordance with the Commission’s

regulatory process and procedures.

Thus, under the previous rule, a

member of the public who believed that

a current problem exists with a license

or a matter exists that is not adequately

addressed by current NRC regulations

would have either petitioned the NRC to

take appropriate action under § 2.206, or

petitioned the NRC to institute

rulemaking to address the issue under

§ 2.802.

The Commission continues to believe

that aging management of certain

important systems, structures, and

components during this period of

extended operation should be the focus

of a renewal proceeding and 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). However,

in this final rule, the Commission has

narrowed the scope of structures and

components that will require an aging

management review for the period of

extended operation and identification

and evaluation of time-limited aging

analyses by the applicant. Accordingly,

conforming changes in § 54.29 have

been made to reflect the refocused

renewal review. Specifically, § 54.29 has

been revised to delete the term ‘‘agerelated degradation unique to license

renewal,’’ and substitute the findings

(required for consistency with the

revised § 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, § 2.758 has similarly been

revised to delete the terms ‘‘age-related
22482 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

2The scope of Commission review determines the

scope of admissible contentions in a renewal

hearing absent a Commission finding under 10 CFR

2.758.

degradation unique to license renewal’’

and ‘‘unique to the requested term.’’ The

elimination of ARDUTLR requires

elimination of the concept that the

renewal review or hearing must be

confined to aging issues that are

‘‘unique’’ to license renewal. Instead,

limits on the scope of renewal review

and hearing are based on careful review

of the sufficiency of the NRC regulatory

process to resolve issues not considered

in renewal.

Section 54.29 of the proposed rule (59

FR 46579) was intended to accomplish

several things. Proposed § 54.29(a) was

intended to define the findings that the

Commission must make in order to

issue a renewed operating license to a

nuclear power plant and the scope of

any hearing on the renewal

application.2 By contrast, proposed

§ 54.29 (b) and (c) were intended to

identify the issues that were NOT to be

part of the renewal review and to reemphasize the renewal applicant’s

obligation under its current operating

license to address, in the context of that

license, those aging matters identified in

the course of its renewal review that

may reasonably be expected to cause a

loss of function for systems, structures,

or components during the current term

of operation. Both DOE and NEI

commented that by combining these

purposes into a single section, the

proposed rule could be erroneously

interpreted as requiring a general

demonstration of compliance with the

CLB as a prerequisite for issuing a

renewed license. While the Commission

believes that the proposed rule was

sufficiently clear in distinguishing

between the issues that must be

addressed as part of the renewal review

versus those which must be addressed

in the context of the current license, the

Commission has considered the

comments of DOE and NEI as evidence

that the language of the proposed rule

could be further improved. Upon review

of NEI’s and DOE’s proposals, the

Commission has decided to adopt an

approach similar to the DOE proposal,

which narrows § 54.29 to the findings to

be made for issuance of a renewed

license, and describes in a new section,

54.30, the licensee’s responsibilities for

addressing safety matters under its

current license, that are not within the

scope of the renewal review. Separating

the subjects into two different sections

should minimize any possibility of

misinterpreting the scope of the renewal

review and finding.

Section 54.29(a) of the proposed rule

set forth the three findings, in

paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3),

which the NRC must make in order to

issue a renewed license. The first

finding in paragraph (a)(1) was divided

into two numbered paragraphs (1)(i) and

(1)(ii). DOE commented that numbering

the clauses could lead to an erroneous

interpretation that two separate, parallel

conditions must be met in order to make

the first finding. To avoid the potential

misinterpretation, DOE recommended a

revised numbering scheme. The

Commission agrees that separately

numbering clauses (i) and (ii) in

paragraph (a)(1) could lead to an

erroneous interpretation that two

parallel conditions must be met in order

to make the finding in paragraph (a)(1).

Therefore, the Commission has adopted

an approach similar to the DOE

proposal.

i. Regulatory and Administrative

Controls

Certain regulatory and administrative

controls in the previous 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 has decreased 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 existing

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 § 54.21, the previous license

renewal rule requires that an

application include a supplement to the

FSAR that presents the information

required by this section. This

information included 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 during 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 needs to be

included in the FSAR supplement. The

IPA methodology and the list of

structures and components need not

appear in an FSAR supplement,

although this information will still be

required in the application for license

renewal.

The Commission has also eliminated

§ 54.21 (b) and (d) of the previous rule.

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.

This information is now required as part

of § 54.21 (a)(3) and (c). Relevant

information concerning changes to the

CLB and plant modifications required to

demonstrate that aging effects for

systems, structures, and components

requiring an aging management review

for license renewal must be described in

the application for license renewal

(§ 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.

Subsequent changes are controlled by

§ 50.59.

Section 54.21(c) of the previous

license renewal rule required 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22483

50.55a and (2) an evaluation if the

exemption or relief was related to a

system, structure, or component that

was subject to ARDUTLR or a timelimited function. These lists and

evaluations were to 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

has relocated the requirement to list and

evaluate certain exemptions to proposed

§ 54.21(c). Thus, these exemptions can,

therefore, be considered a subset of

time-limited aging issues.

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 timelimited aging analyses, including a

summary of the bases for exemptions

that are based on time-limited aging

analyses, needs to be included in the

FSAR supplement. The Commission

concludes that no needs exist to

establish additional requirements that

place the list of exemptions or specific

exemption evaluations into the FSAR

supplement, although 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

existing regulatory process and should

not require an aging management review

and potential rejustification for license

renewal. Therefore, the Commission has

deleted the requirement to list and

evaluate reliefs from § 54.21(c).

In its comments, NEI noted that the

requirement contained in § 54.22 of the

proposed rule requiring justification for

technical specifications changes that are

necessary to manage the effects of aging

in the period of extended operation be

placed in the FSAR supplement is not

generally consistent with current

regulatory practices. NEI states that the

basis for such technical specification

changes only should be required to be

documented in the bases section of the

technical specifications. The

Commission agrees with NEI concerning

the requirement to include the

justification for technical specifications

in the FSAR supplement and has

clarified the requirement in § 54.22 to be

more consistent with § 50.36. Section

54.22 now states that the justification

for changes or additions to the technical

specifications must be contained in the

license renewal application.

(ii) Conditions of Renewed License

Section 54.33 of the previous rule

required that, upon renewal, a licensee

maintain the programs and procedures,

which would have been reviewed and

approved by the NRC staff, for managing

ARDUTLR. In addition, § 54.33

established requirements for making

changes to previously approved

programs and procedures to manage

ARDUTLR consistent with the rule

changes that delete the term

‘‘ARDUTLR.’’

Considering the proposed

amendments associated with the

elimination of the term ‘‘ARDUTLR,’’

the rule requires 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 previous 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 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

§ 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 has deleted the § 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 of the previous rule

required that the, § 50.71(e) required,

periodic FSAR update:

(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 reviewed the

requirements for updating the FSAR

(§ 54.37(b)) and determined that the

requirements needed to be modified. As

discussed in Section III.i.(i) of this SOC,

the requirement to list systems,

structures, and components that are

‘‘important to license renewal’’ in the

FSAR supplement that accompanies the

renewal application has been deleted.

Therefore, in order to be consistent with

the controls on technical information

discussed in Section III.i.(i), the

Commission has revised the

requirements for information to be

included in the periodic FSAR

supplement. For example, the previous

requirement to identify and provide

justification, in the periodic FSAR

update, for any systems, structures, and

components deleted from the

aforementioned list is no longer

necessary and has been deleted from the

final rule. In addition, the previous

rule’s requirement to describe how

ARDUTLR will be managed for those

newly identified systems, structures and

components has been modified. For

newly identified systems, structures,

and components that would have

required either an aging management

review or a time-limited aging analysis,

the final rule requires that the licensee
22484 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

describe in the periodic FSAR update

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.

Two commenters indicated that the

level of detail required by § 54.37(b) (a

description of how the effects of aging

will be managed in the period of

extended operation) is greater than, and

therefore inconsistent with, the level of

detail required in the FSAR supplement

required by § 54.21(d) (a summary

description of the programs and

activities necessary for managing the

effects of aging). The Commission

believes that it is important to note that

the systems, structures, and components

discussed in § 54.37(b) are those newly

identified systems, structures, and

components that would have been

subject to an aging management review

in the license renewal process. If

identified as part of the license renewal

process, information concerning the

aging management for these structures

and components would have been

contained in the application for license

renewal. During the license renewal

process, the application and the FSAR

supplement, together, provide the

necessary information and

administrative controls to evaluate and

help ensure the efficacy of aging

programs for these structures and

components. After a renewed license is

issued, the information in the FSAR

supplement serves the dual purposes of

(1) Assuring that the licensee has

considered relevant technical

information regarding the evaluation of

aging effects for these newly identified

systems, structures, and components

and (2) establishing appropriate

administrative and regulatory controls

on the programs that manage aging for

these newly identified systems,

structures, and components. Therefore,

the Commission concludes that the

characterization of the level of detail

required in the FSAR supplement for

newly identified systems, structures,

and components by § 54.37(b) is

appropriate.

Section 54.37(c) of the previous rule

required 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 this rule, the Commission will

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 rule

may consider all programs and activities

that manage the effects of aging and

ensure functionality for these certain

systems, structures, and components.

The existing regulatory process, existing

licensee oversight activities, and the

additional regulatory controls associated

with placing a summary 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

and the evaluation of time-limited aging

analyses for the systems, structures, and

components requiring license renewal

review will receive appropriate review

by the licensee. Therefore, the

Commission has deleted § 54.37(c).

IV. General Comments and Responses

(1) One commenter recommended

that the NRC perform a full economic

analysis for the period of extended

operation. The commenter indicated

that topics such as the expense involved

in monitoring and/or replacing

components, the increase in

decommissioning costs as plants are

operated longer and waste is

accumulated, a comparison of the costs

for operating the plant for the additional

time versus the cost of other sources of

power need to be addressed.

The economics of electrical power

generation is the responsibility of the

individual utility and the Federal or

State agencies that are given that

authority and responsibility. Generally,

a State public utility commission or the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

along with the utility, have the

responsibility and the authority to

address economic issues associated with

power generation. Furthermore, the

Commission’s regulatory responsibility

(as defined by the Atomic Energy Act,

the NRC’s organic statute) does not

confer upon the Commission primary

authority for regulating the economics

of nuclear power generation. Under

these circumstances, the Commission

does not believe that it should perform

economic analyses of nuclear power

generation as a basis for informing the

Commission’s licensing decisions.

While it is true that the Commission

currently addresses the economics of

operating a nuclear power plant in the

context of an environmental impact

statement (EIS), it should be recognized

that these analyses have been conducted

in the context of EISs as part of the

Commission’s process for complying

with the mandates of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

However, NEPA does not require such

economic analyses. In a separate

rulemaking (59 FR 37724) the

Commission is considering whether the

Commission’s current analytical

approach should be altered by moving

away from economic analyses in EISs

and redirecting the NEPA evaluation to

focus on environmental impacts. In

sum, the Commission is not statutorily

required, and does not believe it is

necessary, to perform economic

analyses of extended operation of

nuclear power plant licenses.

(2) NEI commented that an aging

management review that involves an

issue that is being addressed by the NRC

as a GSI or an unresolved safety issue

(USI) should not hold up the issuance

of a renewed license pending the

resolution of the issue.

Resolution of a USI or GSI generically

for the set of applicable plants is not

necessary for the issuance of a renewed

license. GSIs and USIs that do not

contain issues related to the license

renewal aging management review or

time-limited aging evaluation are not a

subject of review or finding for license

renewal. However, designation of an

issue as a GSI or USI does not exclude

the issue from the scope of the aging

management review or time-limited

aging evaluation.

For an issue that is both within the

scope of the aging management review

or time-limited aging evaluation and

within the scope of a USI or GSI, there

are several approaches which can be

used to satisfy the finding required by

section 54.29. If an applicable generic

resolution has been achieved before

issuance of a renewed license,

implementation of that resolution could

be incorporated within the renewal

application. An applicant may choose to

submit a technical rationale which

demonstrates that the CLB will be

maintained until some later point in

time in the period of extended

operation, at which point one or more

reasonable options (e.g., replacement,

analytical evaluation, or a surveillance/

maintenance program) would be

available to adequately manage the

effects of aging. (An applicant would

have to describe its basis for concluding

that the CLB is maintained, in the

license renewal application, and briefly

describe options that are technically

feasible during the period of extended
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22485

operation to manage the effects of aging,

but would not have to preselect which

option would be used.) Another

approach could be for an applicant to

develop an aging management program

which, for that plant, incorporates a

resolution to the aging effects issue.

Another option could be to propose to

amend the CLB (as a separate action

outside of the license renewal

application) which, if approved, would

revise the CLB such that the intended

function is no longer within the CLB.

(3) Several commenters suggested that

as plants age, the regulatory

requirements need to be strengthened

rather than relaxed. These commenters

indicated that the proposed license

renewal rule is a relaxation of the

previous rule, serving only to provide

incentives for applicants, rather than an

enhancement to public safety.

The Commission does not agree that

regulations must be strengthened simply

because a plant ages. The Commission

believes that additional regulations

should be imposed when there is some

reason to believe that current regulation

are inadequate. The Commission’s

regulatory process continuously

assesses the need for additional

oversight and implements appropriate

regulations to ensure public health and

safety. Equally important, however, is

the Commission’s policy to ensure that

its regulations promote a stable,

efficient, and predictable regulatory

environment. Therefore, where the

Commission recognizes a more efficient

and stable means of achieving a

particular level of safety, it strives to

implement that approach.

The Commission implemented a

license renewal rule because existing

regulations did not contain clear

guidance on renewals and, further, the

Commission believed that current

regulations were inadequate to address

the effects of aging in the period of

extended operation. Upon

implementation of the previous license

renewal rule, however, the Commission

determined that the rule could be

amended to create a more efficient and

stable license renewal process, while

retaining the same degree of safety

provided by the previous rule.

(4) Nevada commented that the

Commission should be analyzing

whether there was any condition, act, or

practice that occurred during the period

of initial licensing that would affect the

period of extended operation. In a broad

sense, the regulatory process

continuously evaluates the safety status

of licensed plants and modifies

licensing bases as necessary to ensure

that plant operation is not inimical to

the public health and safety. As

discussed in the SOC of the previous

rule (56 FR at 64951), the Commission’s

inspection program obtains sufficient

information on licensee performance,

through direct observation and

verification of licensee activities, to

determine whether the facility is being

operated safely and whether the

licensee management control program is

effective and to ascertain whether there

is a reasonable assurance that the

licensee is in compliance with

regulatory requirements. Further, as

discussed in the SOC for the previous

rule (56 FR at 64947), the Commission

has a program for the review of

operating events at nuclear power

plants. The total program offers a high

degree of assurance that events that are

potentially risk significant or precursors

to significant events are being reviewed

and resolved expeditiously. Response to

events may result in minor followup

inspection activities at a single plant up

to generic safety improvements at all

plants—regardless of license terms.

Thus, the Commission continuously

analyzes conditions, acts, and practices

that could affect safe operation of plants

and takes appropriate action.

(5) One commenter asked whether the

original rules concerning emergency

preparedness are still in effect, even

though the proposed rule changes did

not mention any revisions to emergency

preparedness requirements. The

Commission’s response is; yes, the

previous rules provisions on emergency

preparedness are still in effect.

(6) One commenter stated that the

rule should be written in language that

the average, literate citizen can

comprehend. The commenter further

states that technical terms, or

specialized phraseology whose purpose

is to express a precise meaning, legal or

otherwise, can and should be fully

explained. The Commission agrees with

the commenter to the extent that NRC

documents should be written so that as

many people as possible can

comprehend them. The expectation is

for all Commission documents to be

written as clearly as possible so that

they can be easily comprehended. The

Commission has taken steps to clarify

technical terms and phraseology in the

final rule and SOC. For example: the

phrase ‘‘age-related degradation unique

to license renewal’’ was not well

understood and not easily explained; in

part because of this the Commission has

removed this phrase from the rule.

(7) One commenter claimed that the

Commission did not consult with either

any environmental group or any

members of the general public when the

Commission was seeking advice during

a public workshop on the proposed

changes to the license renewal rule.

Rather, the Commission relied solely on

the expertise of representatives of

nuclear utilities, industry organizations,

architects and engineering firms,

consultants and contractors, and Federal

and State agencies.

The Commission disagrees. Consistent

with the Commission’s policy of seeking

input from the entire spectrum of the

public, the Commission provided ample

opportunity for public comment. The

Commission held a public workshop on

September 30, 1993, to discuss

alternative approaches to the license

renewal rule. A notice of the public

workshop was published in the Federal

Register on August 12, 1993. In addition

to the Federal Register notice, the NRC

explicitly contacted four public interest

groups that had previously indicated

interest in license renewal. The NRC

staff contacted representatives from the

Union of Concerned Scientists, the

Nuclear Information and Resource

Service, the Natural Resources Defense

Council, and the Public Citizen

Litigation Group. Representatives from

the Nuclear Information and Resource

Service and the Public Citizen Litigation

Group attended the workshop. Written

comments from the Ohio Citizens for

Responsible Energy, Inc. were also

received. The proposed changes to the

license renewal rule were published in

the Federal Register on September 9,

1994, for public comment. Three public

interest groups provided comments: the

Public Citizen, the Ohio Citizens for

Responsible Energy, Inc., and the Sierra

Club. During the upcoming

development of implementation

guidance (a standard review plan for

license renewal and a regulatory guide

for license renewal), external NRC

meetings will be open to the public and

the draft standard review plan for

license renewal and the draft regulatory

guide for license renewal will be made

available for public comment.

(8) NEI stated that 10 CFR 54.23

requires an ‘‘environmental report that

complies with the requirements of 10

CFR Part 51.’’ 10 CFR 51.53 requires a

supplemental environmental report. The

wording should be consistent between

Parts 51 and 54. The Commission agrees

and the Part 54 wording will be changed

to be consistent with Part 51.

(9) Two commenters encouraged the

creation of implementation guidance in

the form of a regulatory guide and a

standard review plan. The current NRC

effort is focused on the completion of

this license renewal rule and the review

of the initial license renewal submittals.

The NRC intends to develop and issue

guidance in the future in the form of a

regulatory guide and a standard review
22486 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

plan, however, the guidance may not be

issued prior to the NRC review of a

number of submittals.

(10) One commenter suggested that

the NRC should require an update of

plant environs for parameters such as

population density to assure that the

original licensing basis is still valid

prior to license renewal.

The Commission does not agree that

a review of plant environs is necessary

as a precondition for license renewal.

Aside from such a review being beyond

the scope of license renewal, the

Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR

50.71(e) require a licensee to ensure that

the FSAR contains the latest and most

accurate information. This requirement

includes parameters on plant environs

such as population density, which is

normally contained in Chapter 2 of the

FSAR.

V. Public Response to Specific

Questions

In the Notice of Proposed Rule (59 FR

at 46589), the Commission requested

public comment on five specific

questions. The Commission appreciates

the public’s comments on these five

questions.

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 of this SOC, the

Commission believes, on the basis of

existing 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?

Commenters responded to questions 1

and 2 by stating that additional

structures and components not included

in the proposed rule require an aging

management review, no additional

structures and components require an

aging management review, and

structures and components requiring an

aging management review under the

proposed rule should be excluded. The

Commission has responded to the

individual comments on requiring an

aging management review for additional

structures and components in Section

III(d)(v) of this SOC. Comments stating

that additional structures and

components should be generically

excluded from an aging management

review are answered in response to

question 3 in this Section.

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 § 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 defensein-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,

because it cannot generically determine

that all licensees have processes,

programs, or procedures in place for the

timely detection of degraded conditions

as a result of aging during the period of

extended operation for passive, longlived structures and components, that

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 generically 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?

One commenter stated that ‘‘built in’’

redundancy is an essential safety feature

and suggested that redundant, passive,

long-lived structures and components

should not be excluded from an aging

management review.

Industry commenters, on the other

hand, attempted to provide sufficient

justification for generically excluding

from an aging management review those

components whose failure will not

result in a loss of system function. The

industry divided these components into

two categories: (1) redundant

components and (2) small components

that can be isolated, such as instrument

lines. The industry believes that

passive, long-lived components that

have designed redundancy are subject to

extensive licensee programs that verify

structural integrity and functional

capability. These extensive programs,

together with the established

redundancy, ensure that the effects of

aging will be detected so that corrective

action can be taken before a loss of the

system’s intended function. The

industry believes that the stringent

seismic design requirements coupled

with current plant programs provides

greater assurance that structural

integrity and capability of passive

components will be maintained during

an earthquake. Moreover, the industry

believes that the slow, long-term

characteristics of the aging process and

the fact that this aging process is not

occurring at an identical rate in

redundant trains, allows degraded

conditions to become self-revealing

before a loss of the intended system

function.

As discussed in the proposed rule

amendment, the Commission concluded

that passive, long-lived components

should be subject to an aging

management review because, in general,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22487

functional degradation of these

components is not as readily revealable

so that the regulatory process and

existing licensee programs may not

adequately manage the detrimental

effects of aging in the period of

extended operation. In their comments

on the proposed rule amendment, the

industry provided some examples of

how aging effects of certain passive

structures and components could be

considered by the Commission to be

adequately managed during the period

of extended operation. However, the

basis for the aging management

programs described in the examples

relies on individual licensee programs

rather than on design redundancy.

While the industry examples may be

a basis for determining that aging of a

structure or component is adequately

managed in a plant-specific application,

a generic determination of acceptability

is difficult given the variations among

plant designs and programs. However,

as the NRC gains more experience with

the effects of aging during the period of

extended operation and can better

define the boundary of adequate aging

management for passive, long-lived

structures and components, the

Commission may consider further

narrowing the scope of passive, longlived structures and components

requiring an aging management review.

Additionally, the industry did not

adequately address the Commission’s

concern relative to aging degradation

below design bases occurring

simultaneously in redundant trains such

that an initiating event (e.g., a seismic

event) may lead to failure of the

intended system function. The

industry’s argument that aging will not

occur at identical rates and that a failure

in one redundant train will lead to

investigative and corrective actions

before the remaining component fails, is

not compelling. Absent more detailed

information, the Commission cannot

preclude the possibility of common

mode failures of redundant, passive

structures and components. Further, the

Commission believes that crediting a

regulatory requirement (i.e.,

redundancy) as a surrogate for an aging

management program to ensure a

system’s intended function exploits the

Commission’s defense-in-depth

philosophy. In addition, this argument

is circular because the established

redundancy would, in essence, be used

to assure continued redundancy in the

period of extended operation.

The industry also proposed that the

Commission generically exclude from

an aging management review certain

portions of systems whose failure can

either be isolated or whose failure will

not result in the loss of the associated

system’s intended function. The

industry cites small instrument lines

and sensors that can be isolated (i.e.,

manual isolation by operator action) as

examples of components that could be

excluded from an aging management

review using these criteria.

The Commission cannot generically

exclude these components from

consideration for an aging management

review for several reasons. The

Commission does not deem it

appropriate to generically credit

operator action (e.g., manual component

isolation), exclusively as adequate aging

management for portions of systems that

would otherwise require an aging

management review. Such an exclusion

necessarily presumes that manual valve

isolation would occur—a presumption

the Commission cannot make. In

addition, all ‘‘passive’’, ‘‘long-lived’’

portions of systems that perform an

intended function as specified in

§ 54.4(b) require an aging management

review. Instrument lines, for example,

typically are ‘‘passive’’, ‘‘long-lived’’

and form part of a system’s pressure

boundary. The Commission cannot

generically exclude these portions of

systems from an aging management

review because failure of these portions

of systems may result in the loss of the

system’s intended function (e.g.,

required instrumentation, pressure

boundary, flowrate). Therefore, an

applicant for license renewal will be

required to perform an aging

management review for these portions

of systems. However, an applicant for

license renewal may perform, or may

have performed, additional plantspecific analyses that adequately

demonstrate that failure of these nonredundant portions of systems will not

result in the loss of any of the associated

systems’ intended functions. In this

case, these plant-specific analyses could

provide the basis for a license renewal

applicant to conclude that these nonredundant portions of systems do not

meet the functional scoping criteria of

§ 54.4(b) and, therefore, are not subject

to an aging management review.

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?

The NRC received six responses to the

question. Four of the six commenters

opposed consideration of license

renewal applications prior to 20 years of

operation. These comments included

arguments such as:

(1) Early applications may not allow

for the effects of deterioration due to

aging to appear in sufficient diversity or

intensity for management to acquire a

full range of experience in dealing with

these problems;

(2) Licensees might apply for renewal

over a shorter period before the effects

of aging are apparent;

(3) Early applications could

negatively impact the review schedule

for older plants; and

(4) There is a lack of experience with

the maintenance rule. One of these

commenters suggested the possibility of

approving a license renewal contingent

on imposing certain special testing

requirements during the final years of

the original license term to ensure that

substantial physical degradation of

passive, long-lived safety-related

equipment had not occurred. NEI, while

not specifically favoring a rule change

allowing early applications, stated that

depending on the individual plant and

its operating history, there may be

sufficient operating history available to

provide reasonable assurance that aging

concerns can be identified and,

therefore, an applicant may request an

exemption. One commenter (DOE) was

in favor of a rule change allowing an

early application. DOE stated that, in

general, aging effects are apparent after

only a few years of operation and that
22488 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

industry-wide data provides a sound

basis to understand and address the

effects of aging, even at a plant that has

operated only a few years. DOE foresees

no technical impediment to license

renewal prior to 20 years of operation.

Based on the general nature of the

information provided by the

commenters, no change to the final rule

will be made. The Commission is

willing to consider, however, plantspecific exemption requests by those

applicants who believe that they may

have sufficient information available to

justify applying for a renewal license

prior to 20 years from the expiration

date of the current 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?

The NRC received two responses to

this question. NEI felt that a significant

economic benefit would likely be

derived from license renewal decisions

made before the 20th year of operation.

However, they stated that the industry

cannot estimate the exact benefit

because it is likely to vary considerably

from plant to plant. NEI also stated that

it is clear that knowledge gained from

license renewal will enhance the

utility’s ability to engage in long-range

planning and may enable the utility to

modify its electrical rates accordingly.

DOE added that they were unaware of

any safety or environmental concerns

that would result from a license renewal

decision before the 20th year of

operation, other than those issues that

would be considered for any license

renewal.

No new specific information

concerning additional safety,

environmental, or economic benefits of

license renewal applications before the

20th year was provided by any

commenters. Therefore, the Commission

has determined not to change Section

54.17.

VI. 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, Mail

Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–

9328. Copies are also available for

purchase from the National Technical

Information Service, 5285 Port Royal

Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

VII. Finding of No Significant

Environmental Impact: Availability

The NRC prepared a draft

environmental assessment (EA) for the

proposed rule pursuant to the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA), as amended; the regulations

issued by the Council on Environmental

Quality (40 CFR 1500–1508), and the

NRC’s regulations (Subpart A of 10 CFR

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

concluded that promulgation of the

proposed rule would not significantly

affect the environment and, therefore, a

full environmental impact statement

would not be required and a finding of

no significant impact (FONSI) could be

made. The basis for these conclusions

and the finding are summarized below.

The NRC previously assessed the

environmental impacts from

promulgation of a license renewal rule

in NUREG–1398, ‘‘Environmental

Assessment for the Final Rule on

Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal.’’

In this assessment, the NRC concluded

that the promulgation of 10 CFR 54 will

have no significant impact on the

environment. With this assessment as a

baseline, the NRC’s approach for

assessing the environmental impact of

the proposed rule centered on analyzing

any differences in the expected rulerelated actions from the previous rule

compared to those under the proposed

rule.

The requirements for a renewed

license under both the previous rule and

the proposed rule 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,

thus 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

actions are required to manage the

effects of aging so that the intended

function is maintained. The principal

differences between the proposed rule

and the previous rule are in (1) the

screening of systems, structures, and

components to identify those that must

undergo a plant-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 rule

effectively narrows the scope of

systems, structures, and components

subject to an aging management review.

In general, the previous rule contained

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 rule 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

activities and NRC requirements that

will continue into the period of

extended operation. Because the

proposed rule has essentially the same

results with respect to management of

aging effects in the period of extended

operation as the previous rule, but

provides a more efficient process to

achieve these results, the environmental

impacts of the proposed rule would be

similar to those under the previous 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

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 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 previous 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 previous rule.

However, the required activities to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22489

manage the effects of aging will be

arrived at more efficiently under the

proposed rule. Therefore, the

environmental impact of license

renewal under the proposed rule would

be similar to that for license renewal

under the previous rule. Hence, the

Commission concluded that the

proposed rule would not significantly

impact the environment.

The Commission’s EA and FONSI for

the proposed rule were issued in draft

and public comments were solicited.

Several public comments were received

and are addressed below.

Two commenters stated that the NRC

should be required to prepare an EIS for

license renewal. In general, these

commenters believed that the EIS

should include a discussion on the

following issues:

(a) A full description of proposed

mitigation measures to counteract

reactor degradation due to aging;

(b) The cumulative effects of an added

20 years of discharge of radioactive

cooling waters and/or steam;

(c) The environmental impacts of

prolonged stockpiling of high-level and

low-level waste; and

(d) Plans for public involvement from

the first scoping session, through

subsequent public hearing.

The Commission has undertaken a

review of the environmental impacts of

license renewal from two different

perspectives. First, for the purposes of

evaluating the environmental impacts of

a formal regulatory process for license

renewal, the NRC prepared NUREG–

1398. This environmental assessment

served to assess the degree to which the

renewal of operating licenses via a

formal regulatory process would differ

from renewal of operating licenses

under existing regulations that do not

specify standards for license renewal

applications. The environmental

assessment discussed the issues of

additional waste generation, activities

required to address aging degradation in

the renewal period, and impacts of

radioactive discharges. The Commission

concluded in that environmental

assessment that a formal license renewal

regulation establishing the standards for

license renewal applications would

result in no significant impact from

those impacts expected from renewal

without a formal license renewal

process. The staff performed an

additional environmental assessment for

the proposed amendments to the

previous license renewal rule and

concluded, consistent with the previous

environmental assessment, that the

amended rule would result in no

significant impact.

Second, for the purpose of evaluating

the environmental impacts associated

with granting a renewed license, the

NRC is preparing ‘‘Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants’’

(GEIS), NUREG–1437, as part of its

amendments to 10 CFR 51. The GEIS

addresses, in generic fashion, the

impacts associated with continued

operation of a nuclear plant beyond its

original license, including the impacts

of activities to counter the effects of

aging, the impacts of high-level and

low-level waste, and the effects of

radioactive discharges. In addition, the

Commission has proposed amendments

to 10 CFR 51 that would require that a

supplement to the GEIS be prepared for

individual license renewal applications

to address those impacts that could not

be generically evaluated in the GEIS.

This supplement would be issued in

draft for public comment.

One commenter stated that the draft

FONSI for the proposed rule is

inappropriate. The commenter stated

that the NRC is creating incentives for

the licensees to seek license renewal by

easing rules. The commenter stated that

the reduction in review of the new rule

will result in significant environmental

impacts. The Commission disagrees.

The FONSI for the proposed rule was

based on the FONSI from the previous

license renewal rule (see NUREG–1398)

and an analysis of the difference

between the previous rule and the

proposed rule. As discussed in the EA

for the proposed rule, the amended rule

will result in the same activities

required to adequately manage the

effects of aging in the period of

extended operation as in the previous

rule; however, the method for arriving at

these activities will be more efficient.

This efficiency is gained because the

NRC is generically crediting, in this

rule, the existing aging management

programs for which the applicant would

have had to describe and justify under

the previous rule. The Commission does

not agree with the commenter that the

amendments to the previous rule

represent any less stringent a review.

The environmental impacts from the

amendments to the license renewal rule

are expected to be the same as the

previous rule because the ultimate

actions to manage aging will be the

same. Therefore, consistent with the

finding of no significant impact for the

previous rule, the Commission finds

this final rule will result in no

significant impact.

One comment stated that the waste

confidence decision assumptions can

not be transferred to license renewal.

The waste confidence decision is not

relevant to 10 CFR 54 or any of its

amendments. The formal requirements

that an applicant for renewal must meet

and the information that must be

submitted for the NRC to conduct a

license renewal review are established

in 10 CFR 54. The environmental

assessment for the previous license

renewal rule (NUREG–1398) assessed

the degree to which the renewal of

operating licenses via a formal

regulatory process would differ from

renewal of operating licenses under

existing regulations that did not specify

standards for license renewal. The

Commission concluded, in that

environmental assessment, that the

impacts from spent fuel storage under a

formal license renewal process would

not differ from the spent fuel impacts

from license renewal under existing

regulations that did not specify

standards for renewals. This conclusion

does not rely on the Commission’s

waste confidence decision.

Upon considering these comments,

the Commission has determined that the

commenter’s concerns do not alter the

proposed finding in the EA for the

proposed rule. Consequently, the

Commission has determined under the

NEPA, and the Commission’s

regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part

51, that this rule is not a major Federal

action significantly affecting the quality

of the human environment; therefore, an

environmental impact statement is not

required. This is because this rule will

result in the same activities to

adequately manage the effects of aging

in the period of extended operation as

in the previous rule, although, it arrives

at these activities in a more efficient

manner. The EA and FONSI on which

this determination is based are available

for inspection at the NRC Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street N.W.

(Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single

copies of the environmental assessment

may be obtained from John P. Moulton,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, (301) 415–1106.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

Statement

This final rule amends information

collection requirements that are subject

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These

requirements were approved by the

Office of Management and Budget,

approval number 3150–0155.

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
22490 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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–10202,

(3150–0155), Office of Management and

Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

IX. Regulatory Analysis

The NRC prepared a draft regulatory

analysis of the values and impacts of the

proposed rule and of a set of significant

alternatives. The draft regulatory

analysis was placed in the

Commission’s public document room

for review by interested members of the

public. In addition, a summary of the

findings and conclusions of the

regulatory analysis were published in

the Federal Register (59 FR 46591,

September 9, 1994) concurrent with the

proposed rule. No comments were

received on the regulatory analysis. The

regulatory analysis has been finalized

and is available for inspection in the

NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L

Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington

DC. Single copies of the analysis may be

obtained from Joseph J. Mate, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington DC 20555, (301) 415–1109.

X. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Certification

As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 605

(b)), the Commission certifies that this

final rule does not have a significant

economic impact upon a substantial

number of small entities. The final rule

sets forth the application procedures

and the technical requirements for

renewed operating licenses for nuclear

power plants. The owners of nuclear

power plants do not fall within the

definition of small business entities as

defined in Section 3 of the Small

Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632), the Small

Business Size Standards of the Small

Business Administration (13 CFR Part

121), or the Commission’s Size

Standards (56 FR 56671; November 6,

1991).

XI. Non-Applicability of the Backfit

Rule

This rule, like the previous license

renewal rule, addresses the procedural

and technical requirements for

obtaining a renewed operating license

for nuclear power plants. Although this

amendment constitutes a change to an

existing regulation, the NRC has

determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR

50.109, does not apply because this

amendment only affects prospective

applicants for license renewal. The

primary impetus for the backfit rule was

‘‘regulatory stability.’’ Once the

Commission decides to issue a license,

the terms and conditions for operating

under that license would not be

changed arbitrarily post hoc. As the

Commission expressed in the preamble

for 10 CFR 52, which prospectively

changed the requirements for receiving

design certifications, the backfit rule—

[W]as not intended to apply to every

regulatory action which changes settled

expectations. Clearly, the backfit rule would

not apply to a rule which imposed more

stringent requirements on all future

applicants for construction permits, even

though such a rule might arguably have an

adverse impact on a person who was

considering applying for a permit but had not

done so yet. In this latter case, the backfit

rule protects the construction permit holder,

but not the perspective applicant, or even the

present applicant. (54 FR 15385–86; April 18,

1989).

Regulatory stability from a backfitting

standpoint is not a relevant issue with

respect to this rule. There are no

licensees currently holding renewed

nuclear power plant operating licenses

who would be affected by this rule. No

applications for license renewal have

been docketed. It is also unlikely that

any license renewal applications will be

submitted before this rule becomes

effective. Consequently, there are no

valid licensee or applicant expectations

that may be changed regarding the terms

and conditions for obtaining a renewed

operating license. Accordingly, this rule

does not constitute a ‘‘backfit’’ as

defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).

Furthermore, one reason the

Commission is amending 10 CFR Part

54 is because of the concerns of nuclear

power plant licensees who were

dissatisfied with the previous

requirements in 10 CFR Part 54 and

urged the Commission to modify the

rule to address their concerns. Under

this circumstance, the policy objective

of the backfit rule would not be served

by undertaking a backfit analysis.

Regulatory and technical alternatives for

addressing the concerns with the

previous 10 CFR Part 54 were analyzed

and considered in the regulatory

analysis that has been prepared for this

rule. Preparation of a separate backfit

statement would not provide any

substantial additional benefit.

Therefore, the Commission has

determined that a backfit analysis

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109 need not be

prepared for this rule.

NEI commented that the NRC should

review its determination regarding the

application of backfit protection to

license renewal. Although not clearly

stated in its comments, NEI appears to

argue that the protection afforded by 10

CFR 50.109 should apply in individual

license renewal proceedings when the

NRC seeks to impose requirements that

‘‘go beyond what is necessary for

adequately managing the effects of aging

on intended functions in the period of

extended operation (i.e.,

enhancements).’’ NEI stated that in such

cases, the NRC should perform an

analysis to demonstrate that the

proposed additional requirements will

result in substantial increase in overall

safety and that direct and indirect costs

are justified relative to the safety

benefit. Furthermore, NEI believes that

if there are two or more means of

adequately managing the effects of

aging, cost must be taken into account

in selecting an alternative.

The industry’s desire for a special

provision in the rule that would impose

backfit-style requirements on the

Commission’s review is neither

necessary nor appropriate. The intent of

the license renewal rule is clear—to

ensure that the effects of aging on

functionality of certain systems,

structures, and components are

adequately managed in the period of

extended operation. The Commission

does not intend to impose requirements

on a licensee that go beyond what is

necessary to adequately manage aging

effects. The focus of the industry’s

concern appears to be on potential

disagreements between the Commission

and renewal applicants regarding what

is or is not considered ‘‘adequate’’ for

managing the effects of aging. The

Commission understands the industry’s

concern, but does not believe it

appropriate or consistent with current

practice to further limit (i.e., beyond the

limits established by the rule) the NRC

staff in its review of an application for

a renewal license.

Additionally, the Commission sees no

justification for requiring a

consideration of costs among alternative

aging management programs. The

renewal process is designed such that a

renewal applicant proposes the

alternatives it believes manages the

effects of aging for those structures and

components defined by the rule. The

NRC staff has the responsibility of

reviewing the applicant’s proposals and

determining whether they are adequate

such that there is reasonable assurance

that activities authorized by the

renewed license will continue to be
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22491

conducted in accordance with the CLB.

The Commission believes that this

license renewal review must necessarily

be performed without regard to cost.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 2

Administrative practice and

procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct

material, Classified information,

Environmental protection, Nuclear

materials, Nuclear power plants and

reactors, Penalties, Sex discrimination,

Source material, Special nuclear

material, Waste treatment and disposal.

10 CFR Part 51

Administrative practice and

procedure, Environmental impact

statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclear

power plants and reactors, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 54

Administrative practice and

procedure, Aging, Effects of aging,

Time-limited aging analyses,

Backfitting, Classified information,

Criminal penalties, Environmental

protection, Nuclear power plants and

reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble and under the authority of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,

as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553,

the Commission is adopting the

following amendments to 10 CFR Parts

2, 51, and 54.

PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE FOR

DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS

1. The authority citation for Part 2 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 161, 181, 68 Stat. 948,

953, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec.

191, as amended, Pub. L. 87–615, 76 Stat. 409

(42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 552.

Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62,

63, 81, 103, 104, 105, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933,

935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2135);

sec. 114(f), Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2213, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)); sec. 102, Pub.

L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42

U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 88 Stat. 1248 (42

U.S.C. 5871). Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104,

2.105, 2.721 also issued under secs. 102, 103,

104, 105, 183, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938,

954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133,

2134, 2135, 2233, 2239). Section 2.105 also

issued under Pub. L. 97–415, 96 Stat. 2073

(42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200–2.206 also

issued under secs. 161b, i, o, 182, 186, 234,

68 Stat. 948–951, 955, 83 Stat. 444, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b), (i), (o), 2236,

2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat. 1246 (42 U.S.C.

5846). Sections 2.600–2.606 also issued

under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853,

as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections

2.700a, 2.719 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 554.

Sections 2.754, 2.760, 2.770, 2.780, also

issued under 5 U.S.C. 557. Section 2.764 and

Table 1A of Appendix C are also issued

under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat.

2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section

2.790 also issued under sec. 103, 68 Stat. 936,

as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133) and 5 U.S.C.

552. Sections 2.800 and 2.808 also issued

under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 2.809 also issued

under 5 U.S.C. 553 and sec. 29, Pub. L. 85–

256, 71 Stat. 579, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2039). Subpart K also issued under sec. 189,

68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub.

L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154).

Subpart L also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat.

955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Appendix A also issued

under sec. 6, Pub. L. 91–560, 84 Stat. 1473

(42 U.S.C. 2135). Appendix B also issued

under sec. 10, Pub. L. 99–240, 99 Stat. 1842

(42 U.S.C. 2021b et seq.).

2. In § 2.758, paragraphs (b) and (e)

are revised to read as follows:

§ 2.758 Consideration of Commission

rules and regulations in adjudicatory

proceedings.

* * * * *

(b) A party to an adjudicatory

proceeding involving initial or renewal

licensing subject to this subpart may

petition that the application of a

specified Commission rule or regulation

or any provision thereof, of the type

described in paragraph (a) of this

section, be waived or an exception made

for the particular proceeding. The sole

ground for petition for waiver or

exception shall be that special

circumstances with respect to the

subject matter of the particular

proceeding are such that the application

of the rule or regulation (or provision

thereof) would not serve the purposes

for which the rule or regulation was

adopted. The petition shall be

accompanied by an affidavit that

identifies the specific aspect or aspects

of the subject matter of the proceeding

as to which the application of the rule

or regulation (or provision thereof)

would not serve the purposes for which

the rule or regulation was adopted, and

shall set forth with particularity the

special circumstances alleged to justify

the waiver or exception requested. Any

other party may file a response thereto,

by counter affidavit or otherwise.

* * * * *

(e) Whether or not the procedure in

paragraph (b) of this section is available,

a party to an initial or renewal licensing

proceeding may file a petition for

rulemaking pursuant to § 2.802.

PART 51—ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR

DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED

REGULATORY FUNCTIONS

3. The authority citation for Part 51 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as

amended, Sec. 1701, 106 Stat. 2951, 2952,

2953, (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2297f); secs. 201, as

amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended,

1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842). Subpart A also

issued under National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969, secs. 102, 104, 105, 83 Stat. 853–

854, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332,, 4334,,

4335); and Pub. L. 95–604, Title II, 92 Stat.

3033–3041; and sec. 193, Pub. L. 101–575,

104 Stat. 2835, 42 U.S.C. 2243). Sections

51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.61, 51.80, and 51.97

also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97–

425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241, and sec. 148, Pub.

L. 100–203, 101 Stat. 1330–223 (42 U.S.C.

10155, 10161, 10168). Section 51.22 also

issued under sec. 274,73 Stat. 688, as

amended by 92 Stat. 3036–3038 (42 U.S.C.

2021) and under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of

1982, sec. 121, 96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C.

10141). Sections 51.43, 51.67, and 51.109

also under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982,

sec. 114(f), 96 Stat. 2216, as amended (42

U.S.C. 10134(f)).

4. In § 51.22, paragraph (c)(3) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 51.22 Criterion for categorical exclusion;

identification of licensing and regulatory

actions eligible for categorical exclusion or

otherwise not requiring environmental

review.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) Amendments to Parts 20, 30, 31,

32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 40, 50, 51, 54, 60, 61,

70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 81 and 100 of this

chapter which relate to—

(i) Procedures for filing and reviewing

applications for licenses or construction

permits or other forms of permission or

for amendments to or renewals of

licenses or construction permits or other

forms of permission;

(ii) Recordkeeping requirements; or

(iii) Reporting requirements; and

(iv) Actions on petitions for

rulemaking relating to these

amendments.

* * * * *

5. Part 54 is revised to read as follows:

PART 54—REQUIREMENTS FOR

RENEWAL OF OPERATING LICENSES

FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

General Provisions

Sec.

54.1 Purpose.

54.3 Definitions.

54.4 Scope.

54.5 Interpretations.

54.7 Written communications.

54.9 Information collection requirements:

OMB approval.
22492 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

54.11 Public inspection of applications.

54.13 Completeness and accuracy of

information.

54.15 Specific exemptions.

54.17 Filing of application.

54.19 Contents of application—general

information.

54.21 Contents of application—technical

information.

54.22 Contents of application—technical

specifications.

54.23 Contents of application—

environmental information.

54.25 Report of the Advisory Committee on

Reactor Safeguards.

54.27 Hearings.

54.29 Standards for issuance of a renewed

license.

54.30 Matters not subject to a renewal

review.

54.31 Issuance of a renewed license.

54.33 Continuation of CLB and conditions

of renewed license.

54.35 Requirements during term of renewed

license.

54.37 Additional records and recordkeeping

requirements.

54.41 Violations.

54.43 Criminal penalties.

Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 161, 181,

182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938,

948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83

Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133,

2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239,

2282); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242,

1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842).

General Provisions

§ 54.1 Purpose.

This part governs the issuance of

renewed operating licenses for nuclear

power plants licensed pursuant to

Sections 103 or 104b of the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68

Stat. 919), and Title II of the Energy

Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat.

1242).

§ 54.3 Definitions.

(a) As used in this part,

Current licensing basis (CLB) is the set

of NRC requirements applicable to a

specific plant and a licensee’s written

commitments for ensuring compliance

with and operation within applicable

NRC requirements and the plantspecific design basis (including all

modifications and additions to such

commitments over the life of the

license) that are docketed and in effect.

The CLB includes the NRC regulations

contained in 10 CFR Parts 2, 19, 20, 21,

26, 30, 40, 50, 51, 54, 55, 70, 72, 73, 100

and appendices thereto; orders; license

conditions; exemptions; and technical

specifications. It also includes the plantspecific design-basis information

defined in 10 CFR 50.2 as documented

in the most recent final safety analysis

report (FSAR) as required by 10 CFR

50.71 and the licensee’s commitments

remaining in effect that were made in

docketed licensing correspondence such

as licensee responses to NRC bulletins,

generic letters, and enforcement actions,

as well as licensee commitments

documented in NRC safety evaluations

or licensee event reports.

Integrated plant assessment (IPA) is a

licensee assessment that demonstrates

that a nuclear power plant facility’s

structures and components requiring

aging management review in accordance

with § 54.21(a) for license renewal have

been identified and that the effects of

aging on the functionality of such

structures and components will be

managed to maintain the CLB such that

there is an acceptable level of safety

during the period of extended operation.

Nuclear power plant means a nuclear

power facility of a type described in 10

CFR 50.21(b) or 50.22.

Time-limited aging analyses, for the

purposes of this part, are those licensee

calculations and analyses that:

(1) Involve systems, structures, and

components within the scope of license

renewal, as delineated in § 54.4(a);

(2) Consider the effects of aging;

(3) Involve time-limited assumptions

defined by the current operating term,

for example, 40 years;

(4) Were determined to be relevant by

the licensee in making a safety

determination;

(5) Involve conclusions or provide the

basis for conclusions related to the

capability of the system, structure, and

component to perform its intended

functions, as delineated in § 54.4(b); and

(6) Are contained or incorporated by

reference in the CLB.

(b) All other terms in this part have

the same meanings as set out in 10 CFR

50.2 or Section 11 of the Atomic Energy

Act, as applicable.

§ 54.4 Scope.

(a) Plant systems, structures, and

components within the scope of this

part are—

(1) Safety-related systems, structures,

and components which are those relied

upon to remain functional during and

following design-basis events (as

defined in 10 CFR 50.49 (b)(1)) to ensure

the following functions—

(i) The integrity of the reactor coolant

pressure boundary;

(ii) The capability to shut down the

reactor and maintain it in a safe

shutdown condition; or

(iii) The capability to prevent or

mitigate the consequences of accidents

that could result in potential offsite

exposure comparable to the 10 CFR Part

100 guidelines.

(2) All nonsafety-related systems,

structures, and components whose

failure could prevent satisfactory

accomplishment of any of the functions

identified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (ii), or

(iii) of this section.

(3) All systems, structures, and

components relied on in safety analyses

or plant evaluations to perform a

function that demonstrates compliance

with the Commission’s regulations for

fire protection (10 CFR 50.48),

environmental qualification (10 CFR

50.49), pressurized thermal shock (10

CFR 50.61), anticipated transients

without scram (10 CFR 50.62), and

station blackout (10 CFR 50.63).

(b) The intended functions that these

systems, structures, and components

must be shown to fulfill in § 54.21 are

those functions that are the bases for

including them within the scope of

license renewal as specified in

paragraphs (a)(1)–(3) of this section.

§ 54.5 Interpretations.

Except as specifically authorized by

the Commission in writing, no

interpretation of the meaning of the

regulations in this part by any officer or

employee of the Commission other than

a written interpretation by the General

Counsel will be recognized to be

binding upon the Commission.

§ 54.7 Written communications.

All applications, correspondence,

reports, and other written

communications shall be filed in

accordance with applicable portions of

10 CFR 50.4.

§ 54.9 Information collection

requirements: OMB approval.

(a) The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission has submitted the

information collection requirements

contained in this part to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

approval as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.). OMB has approved the

information collection requirements

contained in this part under control

numbers 150–0155.

(b) The approved information

collection requirements contained in

this part appear in §§ 54.13, 54.17,

54.19, 54.21, 54.22, 54.23, 54.33, and

54.37.

§ 54.11 Public inspection of applications.

Applications and documents

submitted to the Commission in

connection with renewal applications

may be made available for public

inspection in accordance with the

provisions of the regulations contained

in 10 CFR Part 2.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22493

§ 54.13 Completeness and accuracy of

information.

(a) Information provided to the

Commission by an applicant for a

renewed license or information required

by statute or by the Commission’s

regulations, orders, or license

conditions to be maintained by the

applicant must be complete and

accurate in all material respects.

(b) Each applicant shall notify the

Commission of information identified

by the applicant as having, for the

regulated activity, a significant

implication for public health and safety

or common defense and security. An

applicant violates this paragraph only if

the applicant fails to notify the

Commission of information that the

applicant has identified as having a

significant implication for public health

and safety or common defense and

security. Notification must be provided

to the Administrator of the appropriate

regional office within 2 working days of

identifying the information. This

requirement is not applicable to

information that is already required to

be provided to the Commission by other

reporting or updating requirements.

§ 54.15 Specific exemptions.

Exemptions from the requirements of

this part may be granted by the

Commission in accordance with 10 CFR

50.12.

§ 54.17 Filing of application.

(a) The filing of an application for a

renewed license must be in accordance

with Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 2 and 10

CFR 50.4 and 50.30.

(b) Any person who is a citizen,

national, or agent of a foreign country,

or any corporation, or other entity

which the Commission knows or has

reason to know is owned, controlled, or

dominated by an alien, a foreign

corporation, or a foreign government, is

ineligible to apply for and obtain a

renewed license.

(c) An application for a renewed

license may not be submitted to the

Commission earlier than 20 years before

the expiration of the operating license

currently in effect.

(d) An applicant may combine an

application for a renewed license with

applications for other kinds of licenses.

(e) An application may incorporate by

reference information contained in

previous applications for licenses or

license amendments, statements,

correspondence, or reports filed with

the Commission, provided that the

references are clear and specific.

(f) If the application contains

Restricted Data or other defense

information, it must be prepared in such

a manner that all Restricted Data and

other defense information are separated

from unclassified information in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.33(j).

(g) As part of its application and in

any event prior to the receipt of

Restricted Data or the issuance of a

renewed license, the applicant shall

agree in writing that it will not permit

any individual to have access to

Restricted Data until an investigation is

made and reported to the Commission

on the character, association, and

loyalty of the individual and the

Commission shall have determined that

permitting such persons to have access

to Restricted Data will not endanger the

common defense and security. The

agreement of the applicant in this regard

is part of the renewed license, whether

so stated or not.

§ 54.19 Contents of application—general

information.

(a) Each application must provide the

information specified in 10 CFR 50.33(a)

through (e), (h), and (i). Alternatively,

the application may incorporate by

reference other documents that provide

the information required by this section.

(b) Each application must include

conforming changes to the standard

indemnity agreement, 10 CFR 140.92,

Appendix B, to account for the

expiration term of the proposed

renewed license.

§ 54.21 Contents of application—technical

information.

Each application must contain the

following information:

(a) An integrated plant assessment

(IPA). The IPA must—

(1) For those systems, structures, and

components within the scope of this

part, as delineated in § 54.4, identify

and list those structures and

components subject to an aging

management review. Structures and

components subject to an aging

management review shall encompass

those structures and components—

(i) That perform an intended function,

as described in § 54.4, without moving

parts or without a change in

configuration or properties. These

structures and components include, but

are not limited to, the reactor vessel, the

reactor coolant system pressure

boundary, steam generators, the

pressurizer, piping, pump casings, valve

bodies, the core shroud, component

supports, pressure retaining boundaries,

heat exchangers, ventilation ducts, the

containment, the containment liner,

electrical and mechanical penetrations,

equipment hatches, seismic Category I

structures, electrical cables and

connections, cable trays, and electrical

cabinets, excluding, but not limited to,

pumps (except casing), valves (except

body), motors, diesel generators, air

compressors, snubbers, the control rod

drive, ventilation dampers, pressure

transmitters, pressure indicators, water

level indicators, switchgears, cooling

fans, transistors, batteries, breakers,

relays, switches, power inverters, circuit

boards, battery chargers, and power

supplies; and

(ii) That are not subject to

replacement based on a qualified life or

specified time period.

(2) Describe and justify the methods

used in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

(3) For each structure and component

identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this

section, demonstrate that the effects of

aging will be adequately managed so

that the intended function(s) will be

maintained consistent with the CLB for

the period of extended operation.

(b) CLB changes during NRC review of

the application. Each year following

submittal of the license renewal

application and at least 3 months before

scheduled completion of the NRC

review, an amendment to the renewal

application must be submitted that

identifies any change to the CLB of the

facility that materially affects the

contents of the license renewal

application, including the FSAR

supplement.

(c) An evaluation of time-limited

aging analyses.

(1) A list of time-limited aging

analyses, as defined in § 54.3, must be

provided. The applicant shall

demonstrate that—

(i) The analyses remain valid for the

period of extended operation;

(ii) The analyses have been projected

to the end of the period of extended

operation; or

(iii) The effects of aging on the

intended function(s) will be adequately

managed for the period of extended

operation.

(2) A list must be provided of plantspecific exemptions granted pursuant to

10 CFR 50.12 and in effect that are

based on time-limited aging analyses as

defined in § 54.3. The applicant shall

provide an evaluation that justifies the

continuation of these exemptions for the

period of extended operation.

(d) An FSAR supplement. The FSAR

supplement for the facility must contain

a summary description of the programs

and activities for managing the effects of

aging and the evaluation of time-limited

aging analyses for the period of

extended operation determined by

paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section,

respectively.
22494 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

§ 54.22 Contents of application—technical

specifications.

Each application must include any

technical specification changes or

additions necessary to manage the

effects of aging during the period of

extended operation as part of the

renewal application. The justification

for changes or additions to the technical

specifications must be contained in the

license renewal application.

§ 54.23 Contents of application—

environmental information.

Each application must include a

supplement to the environmental report

that complies with the requirements of

Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51.

§ 54.25 Report of the Advisory Committee

on Reactor Safeguards.

Each renewal application will be

referred to the Advisory Committee on

Reactor Safeguards for a review and

report. Any report will be made part of

the record of the application and made

available to the public, except to the

extent that security classification

prevents disclosure.

§ 54.27 Hearings.

A notice of an opportunity for a

hearing will be published in the Federal

Register in accordance with 10 CFR

2.105. In the absence of a request for a

hearing filed within 30 days by a person

whose interest may be affected, the

Commission may issue a renewed

operating license without a hearing

upon 30-day notice and publication

once in the Federal Register of its intent

to do so.

§ 54.29 Standards for issuance of a

renewed license.

A renewed license may be issued by

the Commission up to the full term

authorized by § 54.31 if the Commission

finds that:

(a) Actions have been identified and

have been or will be taken with respect

to the matters identified in Paragraphs

(a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, such that

there is reasonable assurance that the

activities authorized by the renewed

license will continue to be conducted in

accordance with the CLB, and that any

changes made to the plant’s CLB in

order to comply with this paragraph are

in accord with the Act and the

Commission’s regulations. These

matters are:

(1) managing the effects of aging

during the period of extended operation

on the functionality of structures and

components that have been identified to

require review under § 54.21(a)(1); and

(2) time-limited aging analyses that

have been identified to require review

under § 54.21(c).

(b) Any applicable requirements of

Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have been

satisfied.

(c) Any matters raised under § 2.758

have been addressed.

§ 54.30 Matters not subject to a renewal

review.

(a) If the reviews required by § 54.21

(a) or (c) show that there is not

reasonable assurance during the current

license term that licensed activities will

be conducted in accordance with the

CLB, then the licensee shall take

measures under its current license, as

appropriate, to ensure that the intended

function of those systems, structures or

components will be maintained in

accordance with the CLB throughout the

term of its current license.

(b) The licensee’s compliance with

the obligation under Paragraph (a) of

this section to take measures under its

current license is not within the scope

of the license renewal review.

§ 54.31 Issuance of a renewed license.

(a) A renewed license will be of the

class for which the operating license

currently in effect was issued.

(b) A renewed license will be issued

for a fixed period of time, which is the

sum of the additional amount of time

beyond the expiration of the operating

license (not to exceed 20 years) that is

requested in a renewal application plus

the remaining number of years on the

operating license currently in effect. The

term of any renewed license may not

exceed 40 years.

(c) A renewed license will become

effective immediately upon its issuance,

thereby superseding the operating

license previously in effect. If a renewed

license is subsequently set aside upon

further administrative or judicial

appeal, the operating license previously

in effect will be reinstated unless its

term has expired and the renewal

application was not filed in a timely

manner.

(d) A renewed license may be

subsequently renewed in accordance

with all applicable requirements.

§ 54.33 Continuation of CLB and

conditions of renewed license.

(a) Whether stated therein or not, each

renewed license will contain and

otherwise be subject to the conditions

set forth in 10 CFR 50.54.

(b) Each renewed license will be

issued in such form and contain such

conditions and limitations, including

technical specifications, as the

Commission deems appropriate and

necessary to help ensure that systems,

structures, and components subject to

review in accordance with § 54.21 will

continue to perform their intended

functions for the period of extended

operation. In addition, the renewed

license will be issued in such form and

contain such conditions and limitations

as the Commission deems appropriate

and necessary to help ensure that

systems, structures, and components

associated with any time-limited aging

analyses will continue to perform their

intended functions for the period of

extended operation.

(c) Each renewed license will include

those conditions to protect the

environment that were imposed

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36b and that are

part of the CLB for the facility at the

time of issuance of the renewed license.

These conditions may be supplemented

or amended as necessary to protect the

environment during the term of the

renewed license and will be derived

from information contained in the

supplement to the environmental report

submitted pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51,

as analyzed and evaluated in the NRC

record of decision. The conditions will

identify the obligations of the licensee

in the environmental area, including, as

appropriate, requirements for reporting

and recordkeeping of environmental

data and any conditions and monitoring

requirements for the protection of the

nonaquatic environment.

(d) The licensing basis for the

renewed license includes the CLB, as

defined in § 54.3(a); the inclusion in the

licensing basis of matters such as

licensee commitments does not change

the legal status of those matters unless

specifically so ordered pursuant to

paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section.

§ 54.35 Requirements during term of

renewed license.

During the term of a renewed license,

licensees shall be subject to and shall

continue to comply with all

Commission regulations contained in 10

CFR Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 26, 30, 40, 50,

51, 54, 55, 70, 72, 73, and 100, and the

appendices to these parts that are

applicable to holders of operating

licenses.

§ 54.37 Additional records and

recordkeeping requirements.

(a) The licensee shall retain in an

auditable and retrievable form for the

term of the renewed operating license

all information and documentation

required by, or otherwise necessary to

document compliance with, the

provisions of this part.

(b) After the renewed license is

issued, the FSAR update required by 10

CFR 50.71(e) must include any systems,

structures, and components newly

identified that would have been subject
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22495

to an aging management review or

evaluation of time-limited aging

analyses in accordance with § 54.21.

This FSAR update must describe how

the effects of aging will be managed

such that the intended function(s) in

§ 54.4(b) will be effectively maintained

during the period of extended operation.

§ 54.41 Violations.

(a) The Commission may obtain an

injunction or other court order to

prevent a violation of the provisions of

the following acts—

(1) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended.

(2) Title II of the Energy

Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended

or

(3) A regulation or order issued

pursuant to those acts.

(b) The Commission may obtain a

court order for the payment of a civil

penalty imposed under Section 234 of

the Atomic Energy Act—

(1) For violations of the following—

(i) Sections 53, 57, 62, 63, 81, 82, 101,

103, 104, 107, or 109 of the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended;

(ii) Section 206 of the Energy

Reorganization Act;

(iii) Any rule, regulation, or order

issued pursuant to the sections specified

in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section;

(iv) Any term, condition, or limitation

of any license issued under the sections

specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this

section.

(2) For any violation for which a

license may be revoked under Section

186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,

as amended.

§ 54.43 Criminal penalties.

(a) Section 223 of the Atomic Energy

Act of 1954, as amended, provides for

criminal sanctions for willful violations

of, attempted violation of, or conspiracy

to violate, any regulation issued under

sections 161b, 161i, or 161o of the Act.

For purposes of section 223, all the

regulations in Part 54 are issued under

one or more of sections 161b, 161i, or

161o, except for the sections listed in

paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) The regulations in Part 54 that are

not issued under Sections 161b, 161i, or

161o for the purposes of Section 223 are

as follows: §§ 54.1, 54.3, 54.4, 54.5, 54.7,

54.9, 54.11, 54.15, 54.17, 54.19, 54.21,

54.22, 54.23, 54.25, 54.27, 54.29, 54.31,

54.41, and 54.43.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day

of May, 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–11136 Filed 5–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

13 CFR Part 123

Disaster—Waiver of Judgment Lien

Restriction

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule applies only to

disaster loan assistance. It will enable

SBA to waive, for good cause shown,

the restriction in the Federal Debt

Collection Procedures Act of 1990

prohibiting debtors on whose property

the United States has an outstanding

judgment lien from receiving disaster

loan assistance from the Federal

Government.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is

effective on May 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bernard Kulik at 202/205–6734,

Associate Administrator for Disaster

Assistance, U.S. Small Business

Administration, 409 Third Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act

of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 3201(e)) provides that

a debtor who owns property which is

subject to a judgment lien for a debt

owed to the United States shall not be

eligible to receive any grant or loan

which is made, insured, guaranteed or

financed directly or indirectly by the

United States. It also provides that such

debtor shall not be eligible to receive

funds directly from the Federal

Government in any program, except

funds to which the debtor is entitled as

beneficiary, until the judgment is paid

in full or otherwise satisfied. However,

the statute permits any agency

responsible for such grants or loans to

promulgate regulations to allow for

waivers of this restriction. As an agency

authorized to provide several forms of

assistance proscribed by this restriction,

including disaster loan assistance and

other types of direct and guaranteed

loans, SBA also has the waiver authority

conferred by the statute.

SBA recognizes that disaster losses

may strain the financial resources of

responsible debtors to such extent as to

prevent them from meeting their

financial obligations to the United

States. Such losses also may prevent

debtors who have been complying with

agreements to satisfy one or more

judgments in favor of the United States

from continuing to comply with the

terms of those agreements. Therefore, by

publication in the Federal Register on

June 29, 1994, 59 FR 33456, SBA

proposed to issue a regulation

permitting it to waive the restriction on

eligibility for physical and economic

injury disaster assistance provided

under section (7)(b) (1) and (2) of the

Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 636(b) (1)

and (2), where there exists good cause

to do so.

The proposed regulation applied to

applicants for disaster assistance who

have outstanding judgment liens in

favor of SBA or in favor of other

agencies. It identified two nonexclusive

instances in which good cause will

ordinarily be found to exist, both of

them involving adverse circumstances

occasioned by the disaster for which the

assistance is sought.

Waivers would be granted denying

the eligibility review of an application

for either physical or economic injury

disaster assistance, but only upon a

demonstration of good cause by the

applicant. Examples of good cause

include, but are not limited to: (1)

Delinquencies leading to a judgment

lien, which are caused by a disaster,

whether the original debt was incurred

prior to or after the disaster, and (2)

defaults in any agreement to satisfy a

judgment lien, which are caused by a

disaster, whether the agreement has

been made with SBA, another creditor

agency, or any other Federal entity

holding the lien, such as the Resolution

Trust Corporation or the Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation. In the case of

agreements with other agencies, SBA

will not waive the restriction on

eligibility until the appropriate Federal

entity has certified that the debtor had

made adhering satisfactorily to the

terms of the agreement prior to the

commencement date of the disaster.

The proposed regulation contemplates

that SBA’s Associate Administrator for

Disaster Assistance, or his/her designee,

will make the determination as to

whether good cause for waiving the

restriction has been demonstrated by the

applicant. Although such

determinations are subject to the

provisions of § 123.12 governing

requests for reconsideration, no appeal

from an adverse determination is

contemplated.

SBA received no comments from the

public in response to the June 29, 1994,

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Therefore, by this publication, SBA is

finalizing the rule as proposed.

Compliance With Executive Orders

12866, 12612 and 12778; the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.; and

The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. CH 35

SBA submitted this final rule to the

Office of Management and Budget for

purposes of Executive Order 12866.