ML003718643
| ML003718643 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | PROJ0690 |
| Issue date: | 05/24/2000 |
| From: | Joseph Sebrosky NRC/NRR/DRIP/RLSB |
| To: | Walters D Nuclear Energy Institute |
| Sebrosky J, NRR/DRIP, 415-1132 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML003718643 (17) | |
Text
May 24, 2000 ORGANIZATION:
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI) TO DISCUSS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GENERIC AGING LESSONS LEARNED (GALL) REPORT AND THE STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR LICENSE RENEWAL (SRP-LR)
On May 15, 2000, representatives of NEI met with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff in Rockville, Maryland, to discuss the relationship between the GALL report and the SRP for license renewal. A list of meeting attendees is contained in Enclosure 1. Enclosure 2 contains handouts provided by NEI during the meeting.
Prior to the meeting the staff issued 2 documents that were discussed at the meeting. The documents were the following: a letter to Douglas Walters from Christopher Grimes dated February 3, 2000, titled, Generic Aging Lesson Learned (GALL) Report and Standard Review Plan Guidance for License Renewal (SRP-LR), and the draft Standard Review Plan for the Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants, dated April 21, 2000.
NEI stated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the relationship and alignment of three documents: NEI 95-10, the SRP-LR, and the GALL report. NEI stated that it did not believe that the standard application format, the SRP-LR and GALL reports were in alignment.
NEI believes that the GALL report should be used similar to the way the generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) is used for the 10 CFR Part 51 review. The staff did not agree that this analogy was appropriate and believes there are fundamental differences between the way the GALL report will be used and the way the GEIS has been used. Specifically, the staff believes the GALL report should be treated in the same manner as an approved topical report.
The staff stated that it should not repeat its review of the matters described in the GALL report and should find it acceptable when the GALL report is referenced in a license renewal application. However, the staff stated it would ensure that the material presented in the GALL report is applicable to the specific plant involved. The staff would also verify that the applicant has identified specific programs as described and evaluated in the GALL report.
NEI raised a concern that the GALL report would be used as a checklist by the staff during its review of a license renewal application. The staff disagreed with NEIs contention. The staff believes that the GALL report is a reference. The staff stated that guidance for how the GALL report should be used in reviewing a license renewal application belongs in the SRP for license renewal. The staff stated that if NEI was concerned about the staff using the GALL report incorrectly it should suggest a language change for the SRP, and not for the GALL report. NEI also indicated that the current GALL report was inefficient for the program reconciliation. NEI recommended a new GALL chapter as a repository for program evaluations and proposed a reformatting of GALL. Enclosure 2 contains an example that NEI provided for the containment May 24, 2000 spray system. There are 6 columns in NEIs example, as opposed to 4 columns in the February 3, 2000, letter from the staff. NEI believes the new format would allow flexibility to apply programs to similar plant systems not evaluated in GALL and that reconciliation to specific systems and components was not necessary.
The staff also stated that NEI should concentrate on the simplest way to resolve the issues and to attempt to resolve as many issues as possible between now and August of this year. The staff noted that it would not try to resolve all license renewal issues with the GALL report.
Rather, the staff believes the GALL report should be used to reduce the workload of the applicants and the staff as much as possible. That is, the GALL report should be used to document the bulk of the components, aging effects, and aging management programs that do not need to be changed as a result of license renewal. If NEI still believes that the draft GALL report needs to be reformatted the staff would consider working on the reformatting during the public comment period for the draft GALL report after August.
The staff stated that it would like a response to its February 3, 2000, letter as soon as possible.
The staff noted that when it receives the comments from NEI it will determine how much of the comments it can resolve and incorporate into the August version of the draft GALL report. NEI stated that it believed it could provide the staff with 90 percent of its comments by the end of May. NEI questioned the staffs long term plan for updating the GALL report. The staff stated that before it updates the GALL report it would determine the cost and benefit of the update.
/RA/
Joseph M. Sebrosky, Project Manager License Renewal and Standardization Branch Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 690
Enclosures:
As stated cc: See next page May 24, 2000 spray system. There are 6 columns in NEIs example, as opposed to 4 columns in the February 3, 2000, letter from the staff. NEI believes the new format would allow flexibility to apply programs to similar plant systems not evaluated in GALL and that reconciliation to specific systems and components was not necessary.
The staff also stated that NEI should concentrate on the simplest way to resolve the issues and to attempt to resolve as many issues as possible between now and August of this year. The staff noted that it would not try to resolve all license renewal issues with the GALL report.
Rather, the staff believes the GALL report should be used to reduce the workload of the applicants and the staff as much as possible. That is, the GALL report should be used to document the bulk of the components, aging effects, and aging management programs that do not need to be changed as a result of license renewal. If NEI still believes that the draft GALL report needs to be reformatted the staff would consider working on the reformatting during the public comment period for the draft GALL report after August.
The staff stated that it would like a response to its February 3, 2000, letter as soon as possible.
The staff noted that when it receives the comments from NEI it will determine how much of the comments it can resolve and incorporate into the August version of the draft GALL report. NEI stated that it believed it could provide the staff with 90 percent of its comments by the end of May. NEI questioned the staffs long term plan for updating the GALL report. The staff stated that before it updates the GALL report it would determine the cost and benefit of the update.
/RA/
Joseph M. Sebrosky, Project Manager License Renewal and Standardization Branch Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 690
Enclosures:
As stated cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
See attached page Document Name: C:\\5-15 NEI MTG SUM.wpd See previous concurrence OFF LA PM:RLSB:DRIP PM:RLSB:DRIP BC:RLSB:DRIP NAME EHylton*
JSebrosky SLee CGrimes DATE 05/19/00 05/22/00 05/22/00 05/24/00 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
NRC MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE ON LICENSE RENEWAL ATTENDANCE LIST MAY 15, 2000 NAME ORGANIZATION CHRIS GRIMES NRR/DRIP/RLSB SAM LEE NRR/DRIP/RLSB JOE SEBROSKY NRR/DRIP/RLSB JERRY DOZIER NRR/DRIP/RLSB RANI FRANOVICH NRR/DRIP/RLSB STEVE HOFFMAN NRR/DRIP/RLSB WINSTON LIU NRR/DRIP/RLSB HAI-BOH WANG NRR/DRIP/RLSB PAUL SHEMANSKI NRR/DE/EEIB GOUTAM BAGCHI NRR/DE BILL BATEMAN NRR/DE/EMCB JUAN PERALTA NRR/DIPM/IQMB JIT VORA NRC/RES/DET/MEB CHUCK HSU NRC/RES BROOKE POOLE NRC/OGC JANICE MOORE NRC/OGC NOEL DUDLEY ACRS DOUG WALTERS NEI TONY PIETRANGELO NEI ROBERT GILL DUKE ENERGY PAUL COLAIANNI DUKE ENERGY FRED POLASKI PECO ENERGY STEVE HALE FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT BILL CORBAN VIRGINIA POWER KENNETH KARCHER CP&L JOHN RYCYNA CONSTELLATION NUCLEAR BERNIE VAN SANT OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT DEANN RALEIGH SERCH/BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION DONALD FERRARO WINSTON AND STRAWN LYNN CONNOR DSA CHARLES WILLBANKS NUS INFORMATION SERVICES
DISTRIBUTION:
Hard copy RLSB RF E. Hylton J. Sebrosky E-mail:
PUBLIC R. Zimmerman J. Johnson D. Matthews S. Newberry C. Grimes C. Carpenter B. Zalcman J. Strosnider R. Wessman G. Bagchi K. Manoly W. Bateman J. Calvo M. Tchiltz G. Holahan T. Collins C. Gratton B. Boger J. Peralta J. Moore J. Rutberg R. Weisman B. Poole M. Mayfield S. Bahadur A. Murphy W. McDowell S. Droggitis RLSB Staff N. Dudley, ACRS - T2E26 A. Thadani M. Federline C. Julian R. Gardner D. Chyu M. Modes J. Vora
NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (License Renewal Steering Committee)
Project No. 689 cc:
Mr. Dennis Harrison U.S. Department of Energy NE-42 Washington, D.C. 20585 Mr. Ricard P. Sedano, Commissioner State Liaison Officer Department of Public Service 112 State Street Drawer 20 Montipelier, Vermont 05620-2601 Mr. Douglas J. Walters Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006 National Whistleblower Center 3238 P Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20007-2756 Mr. Garry Young Entergy Operations, Inc.
Arkansas Nuclear One 1448 SR 333 GSB-2E Russellville, Arkansas 72802 Mr. James P. Riccio Public Citizens Critical Mass Energy Project 211 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20003 Mr. Robert Gill Duke Energy Corporation Mail Stop EC-12R P.O. Box 1006 Charlotte, NC 28201-1006 Mr. Charles R. Pierce Southern Nuclear Operating Co.
40 Inverness Center Parkway BIN B064 Birmingham, AL 35242 Chattooga River Watershed Coalition P. O. Box 2006 Clayton, GA 30525 Mr. David Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists 1616 P. St., NW Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036-1495 Mr. Paul Gunter Director of the Reactor Watchdog Project Nuclear Information & Resource Service 1424 16th Street, NW, Suite 404 Washington, DC 20036