[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-22086]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 9, 1994]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 2, 51, and 54

RIN 3150-AF05

 

Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal; Proposed Revisions

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

I. Background

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

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

II. Proposed Action

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

III. Principal Issues

a. Continued Validity of Certain Findings in Previous Rulemaking

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

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

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

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

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

d. The Regulatory Process and Aging Management

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

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

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

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

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

f. Integrated Plant Assessment

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

g. Time-Limited Aging Analyses and Exemptions

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

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

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

i. Regulatory and Administrative Controls

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

IV. Availability of Documents

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

V. Questions

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

VI. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability

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

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

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

VIII. Regulatory Analysis

    The NRC has prepared a regulatory analysis of the values and 
impacts of the proposed rule and of a set of significant alternatives. 
The regulatory analysis has been placed in the Commission's public 
document room for review by interested members of the public. A summary 
of the findings and conclusion of the regulatory analysis are discussed 
below.
    The specific objective of the proposed rule is to clarify the 
Commission's requirements for license renewal by providing greater 
reliance on the maintenance rule and other existing licensee activities 
and programs for purposes of license renewal.
    The NRC staff has defined and evaluated a set of specific 
alternatives that cover a range of activities that would meet the 
objective. The alternatives were evaluated and compared in the 
regulatory analysis. The results of the regulatory analysis are 
summarized as follows:
    Alternative 1: Implement existing rule using SECY-93-049 and SECY-
93-113 as guidance.
    Alternative 1 (the existing rule) requires an integrated plant 
assessment (IPA), which consists of screening plant systems, 
structures, and components that are important to license renewal 
(ITLR), identifying those structures and components that could be 
subject to age-related degradation unique to license renewal (ARDUTLR), 
and demonstrating that ARDUTLR would be managed during the period of 
extended operation. Systems, structures, and components with an aging 
assessment based on time-limited analyses corresponding to the current 
operating term (40 years) would be treated as having ARDUTLR. The IPA 
would be included in a FSAR supplement.
    The existing rule requires the greatest expenditures for license 
renewal because it is not explicit regarding reliance on the 
maintenance rule and other existing licensee activities and programs 
for purposes of license renewal. The regulatory analysis of the 
existing rule was published in NUREG-1362 (December 1991).
    Alternative 2: Amend the existing rule to focus on long-lived, 
passive structures and components and systems, structures, and 
components with time-limited analyses according to SECY-93-331 and the 
Commission's staff requirements memorandum (SRM) dated February 2, 
1994.
    Alternative 2 would contain an IPA framework similar to the 
existing rule but would be simplified, including the elimination of the 
terms ARDUTLR and ITLR. Most systems, structures, and components 
subject to the maintenance rule or other existing programs would 
require no further evaluation for license renewal. The focus of 
Alterative 2 is on long-lived, passive structures and components and 
those systems, structures, and components with time-limited aging 
analyses. Although the IPA would be a part of the application, 
Alternative 2 would only require that the results and conclusions of 
the IPA be included in an FSAR supplement.
    This alternative would require fewer expenditures for license 
renewal and achieve a similar reduction in risk to the public health, 
as does the existing rule. The Commission has identified the focus of 
license renewal, that is, long-lived, passive structures and components 
and systems, structures, and components with time-limited aging 
analyses. The Commission has decided that other systems, structures, 
and components would continue to be managed by the current regulatory 
process, including the maintenance rule and existing programs and 
require no further evaluation for license renewal.
    Alternative 3: Amend the existing rule to focus on systems, 
structures, and components with time-limited analyses according to the 
NRC staff's ``Option 4'' discussed at the license renewal workshop (58 
FR 42987; August 12, 1992).
    Alternative 3 would rely on the current regulatory process, 
including the maintenance rule and other existing programs, to address 
aging. Alternative 3 would only require a reevaluation of aging based 
on time-limited analyses corresponding to 40 years. An extension of 
these analyses to the end of the period of extended operation, for 
example, 60 years, would be required. An IPA is not required and the 
existing FSAR updating requirements apply when a time-limited analysis 
described in the FSAR is revised.
    This alternative would require the lowest renewal expenditures. 
Aging management of systems, structures, and components, except for 
those addressed by time-limited analyses, would be addressed by the 
current regulatory process. Alternative 3 has a potential increase in 
accident risk when compared with the existing rule. The risk increase 
results from the NRC staff's conservative assumption that aging 
management activities in response to future regulatory actions 
regarding long-lived, passive portions of systems, structures, and 
components are not included in the averted risk estimate for the period 
of extended operation. Although the NRC staff believes that the current 
regulatory process could address aging effects of systems, structures, 
and components during the period of extended operation, the extent of 
these future activities has not been determined.
    Alternative 2 was chosen as the preferred alternative by the 
Commission. The reliance on the maintenance rule and other existing 
licensee activities and programs for purposes of license renewal, which 
is absent from Alternative 1, directly focuses on systems, structures, 
and components subject to license renewal review. The systematic aging 
assessment, which is absent from Alternative 3, is warranted for the 
period of extended operation because of the importance of long-lived, 
passive structures and components. Alternative 2 shows a significant 
positive net value while maintaining a similar level of public health 
and safety to the existing rule. An approach similar to Alternative 2, 
but retaining the term ARDUTLR, was endorsed by industry organizations 
that are actively involved in license renewal activities.
    As future regulatory actions are implemented, the associated aging 
management activities could be considered for managing the effects of 
aging during the period of extended operation. If the Commission 
decides that the specific regulatory actions are adequate in 
maintaining the function of systems, structures, or components during 
the period of extended operation, the Commission may amend 10 CFR Part 
54 to exclude that particular system, structure, or component from 
evaluation in a renewal application.

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 
605 (b)), the Commission certifies that this proposed rule, if adopted, 
would not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number 
of small entities. The proposed rule sets forth the application 
procedures and the technical requirements for renewed operating 
licenses for nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plant licensees do not 
fall within the definition of small businesses 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). 
Therefore, this proposed rule does not fall within the purview of the 
Act.

X. Non-Applicability of the Backfit Rule

    This proposed rule, like the original license renewal rule, 
addresses the procedural and technical requirements for obtaining a 
renewed operating license for nuclear power plants. Although the 
proposed amendment constitutes a change to an existing regulation, the 
NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply 
because the proposed 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 Part 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 is not a relevant issue with respect to this 
proposed 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 application will be submitted before 
the proposed rule becomes effective because of implementation 
difficulties with the existing 10 CFR Part 54 rule. 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 proposed rule does not constitute a 
``backfit'' as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).
    Furthermore, one reason the Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 
Part 54 is because of the concerns of nuclear power plant licensees who 
are dissatisfied with the current requirements in 10 CFR Part 54 and 
have 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 current 10 
CFR Part 54 are being analyzed and considered in the regulatory 
analysis that has been prepared for this proposed 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 proposed rule.

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 
proposing to adopt 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 counteraffidavit 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 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201); 
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.
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.
54.31  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).


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 form the basis for a 
licensee conclusion regarding the capability of systems, structures, 
and components within the scope of this part to perform their intended 
function(s) that--
    (1) Consider the effects of aging; and
    (2) Are based on explicit assumptions defined by the current 
operating term of the plant.
    (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) through (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 number XXXX-XXXX.
    (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, 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.


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, pressure retaining boundaries, component supports, reactor 
coolant pressure boundaries, the reactor vessel, core support 
structures, containment, seismic Category I structures, electrical 
cables and connections, and electrical penetrations, excluding, but not 
limited to, pumps (except casing), valves (except body), motors, 
batteries, relays, breakers, and transistors; 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 managed 
so that the intended function(s) will be maintained for the period of 
extended operation.
    (b) CLB changes during NRC review of 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 all plant-specific exemptions 
granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12. For exemptions 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.


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 technical 
justification for these changes or additions must be contained in the 
FSAR supplement submitted to support license renewal.


Sec. 54.23  Contents of application--environmental information.

    Each application must include an 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) A renewed license may be issued by the Commission up to the 
full term authorized by Sec. 54.31 based on the following findings:
    (1)(i) Actions have been identified and have been or will be taken 
with respect to--
    (A) 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 in accordance with Sec. 54.21(a)(1); 
and
    (B) Evaluating time-limited aging analyses that have been 
identified to require review in accordance with Sec. 54.21(c);
    (ii) 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 otherwise in accord with the 
Act and the Commission's regulations.
    (2) Any applicable requirements of Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have 
been satisfied.
    (3) Any matters raised under Sec. 2.758 have been addressed.
    (b) The licensee shall comply with the requirements specified in 
paragraph (c) of this section if the reviews required by Sec. 54.21 
show that either:
    (1) Aging will cause a loss of function of those structures or 
components that are reviewed in Sec. 54.21(a)(3) so that there is not 
reasonable assurance during the current license term that licensed 
activities will be conducted in accordance with the CLB; or
    (2) The time-limited aging analyses reviewed in Sec. 54.21(c) are 
not sufficient to provide reasonable assurance during the current 
license term that licensed activities will be conducted in accordance 
with the CLB.
    (c) As determined by paragraph (b) of this section, the licensee 
shall take measures under its current license to ensure that the 
intended function of those systems, structures, or components will be 
maintained in accordance with the CLB throughout the term of the 
current license. The adequacy of the measures for the term of the 
current license shall not be subject to challenge as a part of the 
renewal review or hearing under Part 54, but may be raised in a 
petition filed under 10 CFR 2.206.


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 50.36(b) 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 paragraph 
(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 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 September, 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 94-22086 Filed 9-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P