ML15253A108
| ML15253A108 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1997 |
| From: | Hoffman S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9709240278 | |
| Download: ML15253A108 (8) | |
Text
I REGO&(
UNITED STATES 0o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 September 12, 1997 ORGANIZATION:
Duke Power Company
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH DUKE POWER COMPANY ON LICENSE RENEWAL ACTIVITIES FOR OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 On August 14, 1997, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff met with representatives of Duke Power Company (Duke) to discuss the status of Duke's license renewal activities and the NRC staff's review of Duke submittals.. contains the meeting agenda and Attachment 2 provides the list of meeting attendees. Summaries of the agenda topic discussions follow:
- 1.
Duke Presentation Duke provided the following observations based on its experience to date with license renewal:
Lessons-Learned
- Based on staff feedback received, Duke now understands that the discussions provided in the application need to be broader to more fully discuss the aging management reviews performed.
- When identifying aging management programs (AMPs) and assessing their adequacy, the focus is on the period of extended operation; not just what is needed and acceptable today. Although, the majority.of AMPs identified to date by Duke are existing plant programs, clarification is needed with respect to what level of detail is necessary in the application to justify them for license renewal.
Additionally, an acceptable approach needs to be established for describing programs that affect more than one group of structures or components (e.g.,
inservice inspection and chemistry control).
- Duke has identified a number of AMPs that are based on regulatory requirements of other federal agencies and, in some cases, such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's responsibility for dams, also provide continuing regulatory oversight.. The level of detail for justifying these AMPs in the application and the extent to which the NRC credits the regulatory oversight of other federal agencies needs to be established.
9709240278 970912 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
PDR__
a~~~iii 1111 U111111
-2 Status of Activities/Future Activities The technical portion of an Oconee license renewal application will be contained in Duke's report, OLRP-1001, "License Renewal Technical Information Topical Report."
Duke originally planned to individually submit for staff review the major sections of the report (i.e., reactor building, reactor coolant system, mechanical components, electrical components, and structures). Duke previously submitted and obtained staff feedback regarding the format, content, and level of detail for an application for (1) the reactor building section (2) examples of the structures and electrical com'ponents sections, and (3) a discussion of a new inspection for license renewal.
Staff feedback on a mechanical components example was provided at this meeting. Based on the feedback received and the status of its reviews, Duke determined that it can now proceed with development of OLRP-1001 and submit it as a complete report rather than submitting the individual sections. Duke expects to submit the report in early 1998. The earliest time for submitting a formal license renewal application, if Duke decides to proceed, is still July 1998.
Duke indicated that the staff's review of the reactor building section, which was previously submitted, should continue. Although Duke is looking at the format of-OLRP-1001 to determine if revisions would facilitate its development and review, no significant technical changes are anticipated in the reactor building section when the complete OLRP 1001 is submitted.
- 2.
Application and Technical Report Review Plans The staff indicated that submittal of the complete report will facilitate its review as there are interelati(Iships between the different sections, for example, regarding discussion of the scope of reviews, AMPs, and programs for corrective actions, administrative control, and quality assurance. With Duke and Baltimore Gas and Electric's (BGE's) submittal plans becoming better defined, the staff is assessing the schedules and resource needs for completing the reviews.
- 3.
Working Draft License Renewal Standard Review Plan (SRP-LR)
The staff is on schedule to place an updated working draft of the SRP-LR in the Public Document Room by September 30, 1997. The staff will notify Duke, BGE, and the Nuclear Energy Institute by letter when the SRP-LR is issued and will indicate its plans for use and revision of the SRP-LR. The staff plans to use the SRP-LR as an aid in performing the technical reviews and expects questions and comments from the industry
-3 and public. Comments and experience gained from the trial use of the SRP-LR will be factored into future revisions of the SRP-LR. A public workshop is also being considered for Spring 1998 to discuss the SRP-LR.
- 4.
Staff Assessment of the Mechanical Components Example By letter dated August 4, 1997. Duke submitted a mechanical components example and an aging management process overview on which staff feedback was requested regarding the format, content, and level of detail provided. At the meeting, the staff provided comments to Duke on the examples. Although a comprehensive review to determine the completeness or technical adequacy of the examples was not performed by the staff, a number of technical comments were identifed and were provided to Duke at the meeting. Comments provided by the staff were subsequently documented in its letter to Duke dated September 3, 1997. Subject to the comments contained in the letter, the staff indicated that the examples provided the type of information that if provided for complete submittals should result in submittals with format and content sufficient for the staff to begin a technical review.
Stephen T. Hoffman, Senior Project Manager License Renewal Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 Attachments: As Stated cc w/encls:
See next page R. L. Gill, Duke Power
Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 cc:
Mr. Paul R. Newton Mr. Ed Burchfield Duke Power Company, PB05E Compliance 422 South Church Street Duke Power Company Charlotte, North Carolina 28242-0001 Oconee Nuclear Site P. 0. Box 1439 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esquire Seneca, South Carolina 29679 Winston and Strawn 1400 L Street, NW.
Ms. Karen E. Long Washington, DC 20005 Assistant Attorney General North Carolina Department of Mr. Robert B. Borsum Justice Framatome Technologies-P. 0. Box 629 Suite 525 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 1700 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Mr. G. A. Copp Licensing -
ECO50 Manager, LIS Duke Power Company NUS Corporation 526 South Church Street 2650 McCormick Drive, 3rd Floor Charlotte, North Carolina 28242-0001 Clearwater, Florida 34619-1035 Richard Fry, Director Senior Resident Inspector Division of Radiation Protection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission North Carolina Department of Route 2, Box 610 Environment, Health, and Seneca, South Carolina 29678 Natural Resources P. 0. Box 27687 Regional Administrator, Region II Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta Federal Center Mr. William R. McCollum, Jr.
61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Suite 23T85 Vice President, Oconee Site Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Duke Power Company P. 0.* Box 1439 Max Batavia, Chief Seneca, South Carolina 27679 Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 County Supervisor of Oconee County
- Walhaloa, South Carolina 29621
Meeting Summary HARD COPY Docket File PUBLIC PDLR R/F OEDO RIV Coordinator, 0-17G21 E-MAIL:
S. Collins/F. Miraglia (SJC1/FJM)
R. Zimmerman (RPZ)
M. Slossom (MMS)
S. Weiss (SHW)
P. Shemanski (PCS)
M. Pratt (MDP)
R. Correria (RPS)
R. Wessman (RHW)
J. Strosnider (JRS2)
S. Droggitis (SCD)
S. Peterson (SRP)
G. Lainas (GCL)
B. Morris (BMM)
J. Moore (JEM)
G. Mizuno (GSM)
G. Holahan (GMH)
B. Sheron (BWS)
M. Mayfield (MEM2)
A. Murphy (AJM1)
H. Brammer (HLB)
L. Shao (LCS1)
G. Bagchi (GXB1)
R. Johnson (REJ)
D. LaBarge (DEL)
H. Berkow (HNB)
J. Costello (JFC2)
L. Banic (MJB)
H. Brammer (HLB)
PDLR Staff AGENDA DUKE POWER COMPANY - NRC STAFF MEETING ON OCONEE LICENSE RENEWAL AUGUST 14, 1997
.1. Duke Presentation Lessons-learned Status of technical and environmental activities Future activities
- 2.
Application and technical report review plans
- 3.
Status and use of the working draft license renewal standard review plan
- 4.
Initial assessment of Duke's mechanical example ATTENDANCE LIST NRC MEETING WITH DUKE POWER COMPANY August 14, 1997 NAME ORGANIZATION
- 1. Steve Hoffman NRC/NRR/PDLR
- 2. Robert Gill Duke
- 3. Anne Cottingham Winston & Strawn
- 4. Kathryn Sutton Winston & Strawn
- 5. P. T. Kuo NRC/DRPM/PDLR
- 6. Chris Grimes NRC/DRPM/PDLR
- 7. Christopher M. Regan NRC/DRPM/PDLR
- 8. David Solorio NRC/DRPM/PDLR
- 8. William Stuard BGE
- 9. Carl Yoder BGE
- 10. Bill Mackay Entergy - ANO
- 11. Greg Robison Duke
- 12. James F. Costello NRC/RES/DET
- 13. Lee Banic NRC/NRR/EMCB
- 14. Hai-Boh Wang NRC/DRPM/PDLR
- 15. H. L. Brammer NRC/NRR/DE
-3 and public. Comments.and experience gained from the trial use of the SRP-LR will be factored into future revisions of the SRP-LR. A public workshop is also being considered for Spring 1998 to discuss the SRP-LR.
- 4.
Staff Assessment of the Mechanical Components Example By letter dated August 4,. 1997, Duke submitted a mechanical components example and an aging management process overview on which staff feedback was requested regarding the format, content, and level of detail provided. At the meeting, the staff provided comments to Duke on the examples. Although a comprehensive review to determine the completeness or technical adequacy of the examples was not performed by the staff, a number of technical comments were identifed and were provided to Duke at the meeting. Comments provided by the staff were subsequently documented in its letter to Duke dated September 3, 1997. Subject to the comments contained in the letter, the staff indicated that the examples provided the type of information that if provided for complete submittals should result in submittals with format and content sufficient for the staff to begin a technical review.
Original signed by:
Stephen T. Hoffman,. Senior Project Manager License Renewal Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 Attachments:
As Stated cc w/encls: See next page R. L. Gill, Duke Power DOCUMENT NAME: A:DUKE814.MTS (S.
Hoffman/LLM Disk)
To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure."E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE SPM:PDLR C-D:PDLR NAME SHoffman:aic CGrimes DATE 09/(,L-/97 09/\\2/97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY