Home > Electronic Reading Room > Document Collections > Commission Documents > Commission Papers (SECY) > 2001 > SECY-01-0157

RULEMAKING ISSUE
(NEGATIVE CONSENT)

SECY-01-0157

August 17, 2001

• PURPOSE
• BACKGROUND
• DISCUSSION
• EVALUATION
• CONCLUSION
• RESOURCES
• COORDINATION
• RECOMMENDATION

PURPOSE:

To inform the Commission that the staff recommends that the current license renewal rule (10 CFR Part 54), "Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants," need not be changed to achieve the benefits of the improved renewal guidance and generic aging lessons learned.

BACKGROUND:

By staff requirements memorandum (SRM) dated August 28, 1999, in response to SECY-99-148 , "Credit for Existing Programs for License Renewal," the Commission directed the staff to "prepare a detailed analysis and provide recommendations to the Commission on whether it would be appropriate to resolve generic technical issues, including any credit for existing programs, by rulemaking." SECY-99-148 discussed options and provided a staff recommendation to address the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) comment on credit for existing programs for license renewal. The Commission approved the staff recommendation and directed the staff to develop improved guidance documents to focus the staff's review on areas where existing programs should be augmented. On April 26, 2001, the staff forwarded the completed guidance documents to the Commission in SECY-01-0074, "Approval To Publish Generic License Renewal Guidance Documents." In an SRM dated July 2, 2001, in response to SECY-01-0074, the Commission approved the issuance of these guidance documents.

DISCUSSION:

In assessing the appropriateness of resolving generic technical issues, including credit for existing programs, by rulemaking, the staff considered stakeholder comments and experience gained in the initial application reviews. Written comments were received from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and NEI on whether the license renewal rule should be revised (Enclosures 1 and 2 ). In addition, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) previously provided a comment on enhancing the license renewal process when it recommended the approval of the improved license renewal guidance documents, which the staff also considered as a comment on the rule (Enclosure 3 ). These comments were discussed at a June 28, 2001, public meeting to solicit stakeholders' comments on the need for rulemaking. The following evaluation supports the staff's conclusion that rulemaking is not necessary at this time.

EVALUATION:  

Having successfully issued three renewed licenses, the staff believes that the license renewal process is sufficiently clear, stable, and predictable. The reviews have been completed on schedule. Resource levels have started to decline as the staff and industry become more familiar with the application of the rule. Under the current renewal rule, the staff has flexibility to resolve aging management issues with an applicant and the applicant has flexibility to modify existing programs to take advantage of technological advances and additional lessons. The improved license renewal guidance documents, which focus the staff review on areas where existing programs should be augmented, address NEI's comment on crediting existing programs. Further improvement of the license renewal process can be achieved by enhancing and clarifying the license renewal guidance documents based on future lessons.

In a letter dated April 13, 2001, the ACRS commented that the staff should encourage applicants to include the results of the scoping process in their applications. This will facilitate the review process by making license renewal applications more understandable. The current rule only requires the applicant to describe and justify a method for license renewal scoping and provide the resulting list of structures and components subject to an aging management review in the license renewal application.

The ACRS believes it is important to categorize the structures and components by system to ascertain which system, structures, and components (SSCs) are within the scope of license renewal. The staff agrees with the ACRS. From the information gathered and experience gained from the review of applications to date, the staff found that scoping results usually have been included voluntarily in renewal applications. This voluntary information provides sufficient detail to improve the transparency of the scoping process. The improved license renewal guidance documents, including the staff-endorsed NEI license renewal guidance document (NEI 95-10, Revision 3), indicate that an applicant should provide scoping information. The staff will continue to work with industry to revise the guidance documents to further clarify that scoping results should be provided voluntarily to facilitate staff review and improve the public's access to information. In a letter dated July 20, 2001 (Enclosure 4 ), the ACRS advises that the rule is effective and efficient and does not need to be revised at this time.

UCS commented in a letter dated June 26, 2001, that the license renewal rule should be augmented to (1) subject the gaseous and liquid radioactive waste systems to an aging management review, (2) provide explicit criteria defining acceptable minimum standards for aging management programs, and (3) deal with the assumptions of requiring one-time inspections.

Because UCS also submitted a petition on May 3, 2000, for rulemaking to include radioactive waste systems in the scope of renewal, the staff is addressing this comment separately in accordance with the petition process.

UCS cited eight unplanned reactor shutdowns since January 1, 2000, due to equipment failures caused by aging. UCS concludes that these failures indicate that the aging management programs may not be achieving the expectations. The staff found that only one case of operating experience cited by UCS, the steam generator tube failure at Indian Point Unit 2, was caused by the failure of a passive component. The other shutdowns were attributed to the failure of active components, such as transformers, solenoid valves, and circuit breakers. To the extent that these component failures involved licensee performance issues during plant operation, they are subject to the current inspection program (including compliance with the maintenance rule and corrective action program requirements) and, if warranted, enforcement process. As such, these active components are not subject to the license renewal requirements. The improved license renewal guidance documents attempted to clarify how the evaluation of aging management programs should be based on 10 specific program attributes. The staff agrees with UCS that it is important to public confidence that the distinction between aging management for active and passive components, as well as the basis for applying the 10 program attributes, needs to be clearly understood. The staff intends to use this goal in developing future improvements to the renewal guidance.

UCS commented that the license renewal rule or the associated guidance should deal more explicitly with the results of the one-time inspections. Because the current regulatory process continues in the period of extended operation, the staff believes that if the one-time inspections reveal aging degradation, the licensee's quality assurance process, in accordance with Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, requires the appropriate corrective actions which may include additional aging management activities. Should the staff consider changing aging management programs to which licensees have previously committed, the 10 CFR 50.109 backfit procedure cited in the UCS comment would be the appropriate regulatory process to evaluate the need for changes. The staff agrees that it is important to public confidence to clearly explain the role of one-time inspections and the relevance of the regulatory process to provide future improvements in aging management programs. The staff intends to use this goal in developing future improvements to the renewal guidance.

NEI commented that the industry does not believe rulemaking is necessary at this time. In a letter dated June 4, 2001, NEI stated that the current license renewal process is reasonably stable and predictable. NEI expects the renewal process to be even more efficient once application preparations begin to take advantage of the improved license renewal guidance documents and the lessons learned from the demonstration project. In addition, NEI commented that it may be appropriate to update the improved license renewal guidance documents. Based on experience with reviewing license renewal applications, the staff concurs with NEI's comment. The staff also notes that issues related to risk-informed changes to the scope of license renewal will be addressed under the risk-informed rulemaking, separate from this recommendation.

CONCLUSION:

Having successfully issued three renewed licenses, the staff believes that the license renewal process is sufficiently clear, stable, and predictable. Under the current rule, safety will continue to be maintained. Revising the guidance documents to address the constructive suggestions provided by our stakeholders will make the license renewal process more efficient and effective. Clearly articulating staff expectations will help reduce unnecessary regulatory burden.

The staff also considered whether to revise the rule to codify aging management programs as evaluated in the GALL report. Codifying the programs could improve the predictability and efficiency of the process, but also reduces the flexibility in resolving plant-specific aging issues and incorporating future lessons. As the Commission stated in its August 27, 1999, SRM, these guidance documents are living documents. The staff will periodically update the license renewal guidance documents to capture future lessons learned.

RESOURCES:

There are no financial implications because the staff has budgeted adequate resources for license renewal application reviews and the periodic update of the improved license renewal guidance documents.

COORDINATION:

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Commission not pursue a rule change to 10 CFR Part 54 at this time. Staff requests action within 10 days. Action will not be taken until the SRM is received. We consider this action to be within the delegated authority of the Director of NRR.

Privacy Policy | Site Disclaimer
Thursday, February 22, 2007