[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 88 (Monday, May 8, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22461-22495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11136]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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, [[Page 22462]] 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<SUP>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.

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

    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 Sec. 54.4(a)(3) 
in the statements of consideration for the proposed rule, and (4) 
review the necessity of retaining Sec. 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. [[Page 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) 
(Sec. 54.3) and the IPA process (Sec. 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 Sec. 54.4 has been added to replace the definition of 
systems, structures, and components ``important to license renewal'' in 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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, long-lived 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 Sec. 54.21(c) dealing with time-limited aging 
analyses (TLAA) and Sec. 54.21(d) dealing with requirements for the 
final safety analysis report (FSAR) supplement have been added. The 
requirement in Sec. 54.21(c) of the previous rule to review any relief 
from codes and standards has been deleted, and the requirement in 
Sec. 54.21(c) of the previous rule to review exemptions from regulatory 
requirements has been clarified and linked with the time-limited aging 
analyses.
    (5) In Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
[[Page 22464]] 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 age-related 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 time-limited 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 [[Page 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 
Sec. 54.3) of systems, structures, and components important to license 
renewal and replaced it with a new section entitled Sec. 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 Sec. 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 (Sec. 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 safety-related systems, structures, and 
components and (2) all nonsafety-related systems, structures, and 
components that support the function of a safety-related system, 
structure, or component or whose failure could prevent a safety-related 
system, structure, or component from satisfactorily fulfilling its 
intended function(s). These two categories are meant to capture, as a 
minimum, automatic reactor shutdown systems, engineered safety feature 
systems, systems required for safe shutdown (achieve and maintain the 
reactor in a safe shutdown condition), and 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 (Sec. 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 Sec. 54.4, would be included within the initial focus of 
license renewal. Through evaluation of industry operating experience 
and through continuing regulatory analysis, the Commission has 
reaffirmed that systems, structures, and components required to comply 
with these regulations are important to safe plant operation because 
they provide substantial additional protection to the public health and 
safety or are an important element in providing adequate protection to 
the public health and safety. 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 [[Page 22466]] equipment 
that would be identified in Sec. 54.4(a) and the electrical equipment 
important to safety identified in Sec. 50.49(b). To provide clarity and 
consistency and minimize the potential that a licensee will be required 
to reassess the entire scope of Sec. 50.49 equipment, NUGEQ suggests 
that Sec. 54.4(a)(3) be modified to include only the additional 
electric equipment identified in Sec. 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 
Sec. 54.4, the scope of Sec. 50.49 equipment to be included within 
Sec. 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 Sec. 54.4 with respect to equipment within the scope of 
Sec. 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 re-examine the entire plant for 
license renewal but to ensure that all systems, structures, and 
components of principal importance to safe plant operation were 
identified and, 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 re-
examination 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 Sec. 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 [[Page 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 safety-
related 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 Sec. 54.4 that the intended functions for systems, 
structures, and components are the same functions that define the 
systems, structures, and components as being within the scope of the 
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 nonsafety-related systems, structures, and 
components, the Commission intends this nonsafety-related category 
(Sec. 54.4(a)(2)) to apply to systems, structures, and components whose 
failure would prevent the accomplishment of an intended function of a 
safety-related system, structure, and component. An applicant for 
license renewal should rely on the plant's 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 Sec. 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 
(Sec. 50.65) regarding nonsafety-related systems whose failure could 
prevent satisfactory accomplishment of safety-related 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 age-related 
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., [[Page 22468]] 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 Sec. 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 
plant-specific 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-
in-depth 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 
[[Page 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 age-related 
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 root-cause analysis 
leading to repetitive failures, lack of equipment performance trending, 
and lack of appropriate consideration of plant risk in the 
prioritization, planning, and scheduling of maintenance.
    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 
safety-significant plant equipment to minimize the likelihood of 
failures and events caused by the lack of effective maintenance. The 
maintenance rule and its implementation guidance (1) Provide for 
continued emphasis on the defense-in-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 maintenance-related 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 
[[Page 22470]] 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 safety-related 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 Sec. 50.65(a)(1), licensees must establish 
goals and monitor performance against these goals. These goals should 
be derived from information in the CLB and should be established 
commensurate with safety significance of the systems, structures, or 
components. These goals may be performance-oriented (reliability, 
unavailability) or condition-oriented (pump flow, pressure, vibration, 
valve stroke time, current, electrical resistance). An effective 
preventive maintenance program is required under Sec. 50.65(a)(2) if 
monitoring under Sec. 50.65(a)(1) is not performed.
    The SOC for the maintenance rule (56 FR 31308; July 10, 1991) 
states that the scope of Sec. 50.65(a)(2) includes those systems, 
structures, and components that have ``inherently high reliability'' 
without maintenance. It is expected that many long-lived, passive 
structures and components could be considered inherently reliable by 
licensees and not be monitored under 10 CFR 50.65(a)(1). There may be 
few, if any, actual maintenance activities (e.g., inspection or 
condition monitoring) that a licensee conducts for such structures and 
components. Further, experience gained under the 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 [[Page 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 [[Page 22472]] 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 Sec. 50.65 are 
expected to further enhance existing maintenance programs. For example, 
many licensee programs that ensure compliance with technical 
specifications are based on surveillance activities that monitor 
performance of systems, structures, and components that perform active 
functions. As a result of the continued applicability of existing 
programs and regulatory requirements, the Commission believes that 
active functions of systems, structures, and components will be 
reasonably assured in any period of extended operation. Further 
discussion and justification for 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 50.65 or Sec. 50.48. Compliance with Sec. 50.48 is 
verified through the NRC inspection program.
    The fire protection rule (Sec. 50.48) requires each nuclear power 
plant licensee to have in place a fire protection plan (FPP) that 
satisfies 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 3. Licensees are 
required by Sec. 50.48 to retain the FPP and each change to the plan 
until the Commission terminates the reactor license. The NRC reviews 
each licensee's total FPP as described in the licensee's safety 
analysis report (SAR), using basic review guidance described in 
Sec. 50.48, as applicable to each plant.
    The FPP establishes the fire protection policy for the protection 
of systems, structures, and components important to safety at each 
plant and the procedures, equipment, and personnel requirements 
necessary to implement the program at the plant site. The FPP is the 
integrated effort that involves systems, structures, and components, 
procedures, and personnel to carry out all activities of fire 
protection. The FPP includes system and facility design, fire 
prevention, fire detection, annunciation, confinement, suppression, 
administrative controls, fire brigade organization, inspection and 
maintenance, training, quality assurance, and testing.
    The FPP is part of the CLB and contains maintenance and testing 
criteria that provide reasonable assurance that fire protection 
systems, structures, and components are capable of performing their 
intended function. The Commission concludes that it is appropriate to 
allow license renewal applicants to take credit for the FPP as an 
existing program that manages the detrimental effects of aging. The 
Commission concludes that 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 
(Sec. 50.109). Increasing experience with aging [[Page 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 Sec. 50.55(a) to 
incorporate the most recent version of Subsections IWE and IWL in the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code, Section XI.
    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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 54.21(a), integrated 
plant assessment and Sec. 54.21(c) time-limited aging analyses, to 
perform their intended functions, as delineated in Sec. 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. 
Non-compliance 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 
[[Page 22474]] under the presumption that non-compliances 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 Sec. 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 
[[Page 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 Sec. 50.36, and other 
licensee maintenance activities. Except for some well-understood aging 
mechanisms such as neutron embrittlement and intergranular stress 
corrosion cracking, the straightforward approach to detecting and 
mitigating the effects of aging begins with a process that verifies 
that the intended design functions of systems, structures, and 
components have not been compromised or degraded. Licensees are 
required by current regulations to develop and implement programs that 
ensure that conditions adverse to quality, including degraded system, 
structure, or component function, are promptly identified and 
corrected. The licensees' programs include self-inspection, 
maintenance, and technical specification surveillance programs that 
monitor and test the physical condition of plant systems, structures, 
and components.
    For example, technical specifications include limiting conditions 
for operation (LCOs), which are the lowest functional capability or 
performance levels of equipment required for safe operation of the 
facility. Technical specifications also require surveillance 
requirements relating to test, calibration, or inspection to 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, Sec. 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 Sec. 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 plant-
specific design-basis information defined in 10 CFR 50.2. According to 
this definition, ``[d]esign bases means that information which 
identifies the specific functions to be performed by a structure, 
system, or component of a facility, and the specific values or ranges 
of values chosen for controlling parameters as reference bounds for 
design.'' In addition, design bases identify specific functions to be 
performed by a system, structure, and component, and design-basis 
values may be derived for achieving functional goals. For plant 
systems, structures, and components that are not subject to performance 
or condition-monitoring programs or for 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. [[Page 22476]] 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 design-basis values with 
appropriate conservatisms built in to account for any uncertainties or 
measurement tolerances. Satisfactory accomplishment and periodic 
repetition of these types of surveillance provide reasonable assurance 
that system, structure, and component functions will be performed as 
designed.

f. Integrated Plant Assessment

    The 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, [[Page 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 condition-monitoring programs. The Commission recognizes 
that structures and components that have passive functions generally do 
not have performance and condition characteristics that are as readily 
monitorable as those that perform active functions. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 design-basis events (including conditions of normal 
operation) and there are currently no known effective methods 
[[Page 22478]] 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 Sec. 54.21(a)(1)(ii) of this rule to be ``long-
lived,'' and therefore subject to the Sec. 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 site-specific 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 
(Sec. 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. 
[[Page 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 (Sec. 54.4) without moving 
parts or without a change in configuration or properties.
    In establishing this flexibility, the Commission recognizes that 
licensees may find it preferable to not take maximum advantage of the 
Commission's generic conclusion regarding structures and components 
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 54.4, 
are maintained consistent with the CLB. The Commission has clarified 
the wording in Sec. 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 
Sec. 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). Time-limited aging analyses based on an assumed 
period of plant operation short of the current operating term should be 
addressed within the original license and need not be reviewed for 
license renewal.
    Because the Commission deleted the term of ARDUTLR, this license 
renewal rule identifies these explicit time-limited 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 time-limited aging analysis issues 
as part of the standards for issuance of a renewed license.
    The time-limited provisions or analyses of concern are those that--
    (1) Involve the effects of aging;
    (2) Involve time-limited assumptions defined by the current 
operating term, for example, 40 years;
    (3) Involve systems, structures, and components within the scope of 
license renewal;
    (4) Involve conclusions or provide the basis for conclusions 
related to the [[Page 22480]] capability of the system, structure, and 
component to perform its intended functions;
    (5) Were determined to be relevant by the licensee in making a 
safety determination; and
    (6) Are contained or incorporated by reference in the CLB.
    The applicant for license renewal will be required in the renewal 
application to--
    (1) Justify that these analyses are valid for the period of 
extended operation;
    (2) Extend the period of evaluation of the analyses such that they 
are valid for the period of extended operation, for example, 60 years; 
or
    (3) Justify that the effects of aging will be adequately managed 
for the period of extended operation if an applicant cannot or chooses 
not to justify or extend an existing time-limited aging analysis.
    The Commission considers analyses to be ``relevant'' if the 
analyses provided the basis for the licensee's safety determination 
and, in the absence of the analyses, the licensee may have reached a 
different safety conclusion. Time-limited aging analyses that need to 
be addressed in a license renewal evaluation are not necessarily those 
analyses that have been previously reviewed or approved by the 
Commission. The following examples illustrate time-limited aging 
analyses that need to be addressed and were not previously reviewed and 
approved by the Commission.
    (1) The FSAR states that the design complies with a certain ASME 
Code requirement. A review of the ASME Code requirement reveals that a 
time-limited aging analysis is required. The actual calculation was 
performed by the licensee to meet code requirements. The specific 
calculation was not referenced in the FSAR and the NRC had not reviewed 
the calculation.
    (2) In response to a generic letter, a licensee submitted a letter 
to the NRC committing to perform a time-limited aging analysis that 
would address the concern in the generic letter. The NRC had not 
documented a review of the licensee's response and had not reviewed the 
actual analysis.
    The Commission expects that the number of time-limited aging 
analyses that 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 Sec. 54.3 which is further discussed in the proposed SOC. 
However, the proposed rule definition appeared to contain two criteria 
in defining time-limited 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 Sec. 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 
time-limited 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 
Sec. 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 
[[Page 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 time-
limited 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 
Sec. 54.3.
(ii) Exemptions
    The previous license renewal rule required that an applicant for 
license renewal provide a list of all plant-specific 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 54.29 of the 
previous rule, as well as matters approved by the Commission for 
hearing under Sec. 2.758, were within the scope of a hearing on a 
renewed license. The previous license renewal rule modified Sec. 2.758 
to clarify that challenges to the license renewal rule in an 
adjudicatory hearing on a renewal application would be considered by 
the Commission only in the following limited circumstances:
    (1) That there are special circumstances with respect to age-
related degradation unique to license renewal or environmental 
protection so that application of either 10 CFR Part 54 or 10 CFR Part 
51 would not serve the purpose for which these rules were intended; or
    (2) Because of circumstances unique to the period of extended 
operation, there would be noncompliance with the plant's CLB or 
operation that is inimical to the public health and safety during the 
period of extended operation.
    The intent of 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 Sec. 2.206, or petitioned the NRC 
to institute rulemaking to address the issue under Sec. 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 Sec. 54.29 have been made to reflect the 
refocused renewal review. Specifically, Sec. 54.29 has been revised to 
delete the term ``age-related degradation unique to license renewal,'' 
and substitute the findings (required for consistency with the revised 
Sec. 54.21 (a)(3) and (c)) with respect to aging management review and 
time-limited aging analyses evaluation for the period of extended 
operation. Furthermore, Sec. 2.758 has similarly been revised to delete 
the terms ``age-related [[Page 22482]] 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 54.29 
(b) and (c) were intended to identify the issues that were NOT to be 
part of the renewal review and to re-emphasize 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 Sec. 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.

    \2\The scope of Commission review determines the scope of 
admissible contentions in a renewal hearing absent a Commission 
finding under 10 CFR 2.758.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 (Sec. 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 Sec. 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 [[Page 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 time-limited 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 Sec. 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 time-limited 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 Sec. 54.21(c).
    In its comments, NEI noted that the requirement contained in 
Sec. 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 Sec. 54.22 to be more consistent with Sec. 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, Sec. 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 Sec. 54.33(b).
    The regulatory process will continue to ensure that proposed 
changes to programs and activities that may affect descriptions in the 
FSAR will receive adequate review by the licensee and, if appropriate, 
by the NRC. Therefore, the Commission has deleted the Sec. 54.33(d) 
requirements for making changes to previously approved programs and 
procedures to manage ARDUTLR.
(iii) Additional Records and Recordkeeping Requirements
    Section 54.37 of the previous rule required that the, Sec. 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 
(Sec. 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 
[[Page 22484]] 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 [[Page 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 [[Page 22486]] 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 Sec. 54.21(a)(1) (i) and (ii)).
    In SECY-94-140, the Commission considered the possibility that 
redundant, long-lived, passive structures and components could be 
generically excluded from an aging management review for license 
renewal. The basis for this consideration was that redundancy is one 
aspect of a defense-in-depth design philosophy that could provide 
reasonable assurance that certain single failures would not render 
systems, structures, or components incapable of performing their 
intended function(s). The staff reasoned that although simultaneous 
failures of redundant structures and components are hypothetically 
possible, the physical variables and the differences in operational and 
maintenance histories that will influence the incidence and rates of 
aging degradation between otherwise identical structures and components 
make simultaneous failures of redundant equipment unlikely. In 
addition, existing programs and requirements (i.e., maintenance rule 
and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B) would result in activities to determine 
the root causes for failures and mitigate future occurrences of them.
    On further consideration, however, the Commission has recognized, 
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, long-lived 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, [[Page 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, long-lived 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 Sec. 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 plant-specific analyses that adequately demonstrate that 
failure of these non-redundant 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 non-redundant portions 
of systems do not meet the functional scoping criteria of Sec. 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 
[[Page 22488]] 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, plant-specific 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 rule-related 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 
[[Page 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 [[Page 22490]] 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 
[[Page 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 Sec. 2.758, paragraphs (b) and (e) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 51.22, paragraph (c)(3) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 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. 
[[Page 22492]] 
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


Sec. 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).


Sec. 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 plant-specific 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 plant-specific 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 Sec. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 Secs. 54.13, 54.17, 54.19, 54.21, 54.22, 54.23, 
54.33, and 54.37.


Sec. 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. [[Page 22493]] 


Sec. 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.


Sec. 54.15  Specific exemptions.

    Exemptions from the requirements of this part may be granted by the 
Commission in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 plant-specific exemptions granted 
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12 and in effect that are based on time-limited 
aging analyses as defined in Sec. 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. [[Page 22494]] 


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 54.21(a)(1); and
    (2) time-limited aging analyses that have been identified to 
require review under Sec. 54.21(c).
    (b) Any applicable requirements of Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have 
been satisfied.
    (c) Any matters raised under Sec. 2.758 have been addressed.


Sec. 54.30  Matters not subject to a renewal review.

    (a) If the reviews required by Sec. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 [[Page 22495]] to an 
aging management review or evaluation of time-limited aging analyses in 
accordance with Sec. 54.21. This FSAR update must describe how the 
effects of aging will be managed such that the intended function(s) in 
Sec. 54.4(b) will be effectively maintained during the period of 
extended operation.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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: 
Secs. 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