ML19332D423

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Slide Presentation Entitled, Public Workshop on Technical & Policy Considerations for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal,891113-14
ML19332D423
Person / Time
Issue date: 11/13/1989
From:
NRC
To:
References
NUDOCS 8912010175
Download: ML19332D423 (72)
v • d • e


Text

,

de

..., - m.,:

1 4

s t

A e

l i

PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON TECHNICAL AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT-LICENSE RENEWAL l-L November 13 - 14, 1989 Reston, Virginia e

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION u

f e

og l'

8912010175 091113 PDR MISC 8912010175

. ~. -.. -....

PNU..-

s NRC LICENSE RENEWAL WORKSHOP November 13,1989 i

Time Subiect Session Leader (s)-'

Place.

7:30 am Registration Foyer of Room A -

8:30 am introduction

-- E. Beckjord Rooms A, B, & C l

8:45 am Regulatory Philosophy and Approach

' J. Sniezek Rooms A, B. & C 9:30 am Session I - Overview of Conceptual Approach F. Gillespie, R. Bosnak,;

Rooms A, B & C to a License Renewal Rule L Chandler _

i 10:00 am Break j

10:15 am Session 1 Continued Rooms A, B, & C 12:00 am Lunch 1:15 pm Concurrent Sessions Session 2 - Reactor Pressure Boundary J. Richardson, L Shao Room C -

Session 3 - Fluid and Mechanical System J. Wermiel, M. Vagins Room B i

Session 4 - Screening Methodology for System, A. Thadani, Room A i

Structures and Components important to Safety M. Cunningham i

Session 5 - Overview of Conceptual Approach C. Thomas, R. Bosnak,

. Room 5 and Regulatory Framework - continued L Chandler discussion from Session 1 2:45 pm Break 3:00 pm Sessions 2,3,4, and 5 Continue 5:00 pm Adjoum l

-l 4

q

~

=

NRC LICENSE. RENEWAL. WORKSHOP 1

1

' November 14,1989 -

Time Subiect Session Leader (s).

Place 8:00 am Registration Foyer of Room A.

t 8:30 am Concurrent Sessions Session 6 - Containments J. Richardson, L Shao Room C Session 7 - Electrical Systems.

A. Thadani, M. Vagins Room B Session 8 - Environmental Effects F. Gillespie, D. Cleary Room A 10:00 am Break i

10:15 am Sessions Continue 11:45 am Lunch 1:15 pm Summary of Concurrent Sessions T. Speis, All Session Rooms A, B, & C Leaders i

2:45 pm Break 3:00 pm Comments and Discussion T. Speis, All Session Rooms A, B, & C l

Leaders 4:00 pm Summary and Conclusion T. Speis.

Rooms A, B, & C l

4:30 pm Adjoum l

?

l 4

e i

+

r SPEAKERS'AND SESSION LEADERS WORKSHOP ON LICENSE RENEWAL d

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH:

' Eric S. Beckjord, Director i

Themis P. Spels, Deputy Director for Generic Issues Lawrence C. Shao, Director, Division of Engineering Robert J. Bosnak, Deputy Director, Division of Engineering M Lon Vagins, Chief, Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering Mark A. Cunningham, Chief, Probabilistic Risk Analysis Branch, Division of Systems Research Donald P. Cleary, Senior Task Manager, Reactor and Plant Safety issues Branch, Division of Safety Issue Resolution OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION:

L James H. Sniezek, Deputy Director Frank P. Gillespie, Director, Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff James E. Richardson, Director, Division of Engineering Technology Ashok C.Thadani, Director, Division of System Technology Jarad S. Wermiel, Section Leader, Plant Systems Branch, Division of System Technology OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL:

l

\\

Lawrence J. Chandler, Assistant General Counsel for i

Hearings and Enforcement i

.-~.. - -

HOTEL FACILITIES-i a

i I

l I

i i

l' HOTEL MOISTRATION'l om as E

FL J, ""L L,.

l oeu a

L HOTEL ENTRANCE 4

MAIN CONFERENCE Al LEA -

b8 L

A C

5

=

1 g

l phones==

g I_

M 1

0

.n4i_..

, L i.

ii SHOP RESTROWIS P

Tf'g'C CONFERENCE M

staif REGISTRATION W

l e

D E

P e

=

1 8

  • iEN" f

l STTH STREET ORILL RESTAURANT AND SOWMAN'S LOUNGE, SND FLOOR (Opens 6:30 an) j 1

l r

1 to i

=

- -.......J l

- a e

l 6

l D

.am l

gi 7

4 y

t Conference Room s

e STROOM f OTHER AREA RESTAURANT - Plaza Level - Dominos Pizza A Taste of the World Deli r 1 Charlie chiang's j 9 e e.w.,,e.w-.s sw.--_.6,esve. ,+e-----..-.w,w w.e wr.me .-..s...... _-n..-.,.. __,.--_.s.

L"

l I

i 'li I i i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PUBLIC WORKSHOP DN NUCLEAR ~ POWER PLANT LICENSE RENEWAL

RESTON, VIRGINIA-(,

NOVEMBER 13-14, 1989 j Eric S. Beckjord, Director: ] Office of Nuclear Regulatory. Research i ~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 2055. 1 Good morning ladies and gentlemen. I want to welcome you to the U.S. Nuclear n Regulatory Commission's Public Workshop on Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal. - The purpose of this workshop is to elicit public views on technical and policy n iconsiderations for nuclear power plant license renewal. I appreciate your . attendance at this meeting and look farward to the discussion and obtaining your comments. -Extending the life of nuclear power plants beyond the current 40 year license - period has the potential to save the country considerable energy resources. Nuclear' power now produces about 18% of our electrical energy needs. By safely. extending the life of a typical nuclear power plant by 20 years, ~it ris estimated Lthat the net benefit for each plant is about $1 billion. Since the licenses of e lthe current operating reactors will start to expire by the year 2000, it is 'important to establish the terms and conditions for license renewal by the early 1990s. N

kl

( 4

h: Y Y s y L s ?.! The NRC has been working on license renewal for'several years and has actively sought public participation in this process. On two previous occasions, public coments'have been solicited through the Federal Register. The first_ I solicitation on seven major license renewal issues was published in November, !1986. The second solicitation was part of an advance notice of proposed rule-making published on August 29, 1988. The advance notice requested comments on NUREG-1317 entitled Regulatory Options for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal. l Over fif ty written responses to NUREG-1317 were received. -For those who are. interested in reviewing the responses, alsumary and analysis are presented in NUREG/CR-5532. The process of obtaining public input as the Comission develops -its plans for license renewal is continuing with this workshop. For the benefit of you who may not be familiar with the NRC's program on aging researchiI would like to describe briefly this program since it is an 'mportant contributor to license renewal. The NRC has for a number of years i been carrying out a program of aging research. Much of this effort can be I directly applied to assuring the continued safety of operating nuclear plants for which extended' licenses may be granted. The principal concern of the NRC's aging research is that plant safety could be compromised if the degradation of key components or structures and the effects of such degradation on system operation were not detected ~and mitigated well before a loss of functional capability. The technical safety issue here is that age-related degradation could result in a reduction of defense-in-depth. ( 2

X The NRC aging'research effort is directed toward gaining an understanding of degradation processes within nuclear power plants. This hardware-oriented engineering program is a rigorous and systematic investigation into the potentially adverse effects of aging on plant components, systems, and structures'during the period of normal licensed plant operation, as well as the potential period of extended plant life for license renewals beyond 40 years. The emphasis is on identifying and characterizing the mechanisms of material l t andcomponentdegradationduringservicelandonusingresearchresultsinthe regulatory process. The_research includes evaluating methods of inspection, -surveillance, condition monitoring, and maintenance as a means of managing aging effects that may impact safe plant operation. Specifically, the goals of the program are o Identify and characterize aging effects that could cause degradation of' components, systems, and structures. E L o Identify methods of inspection, surveillance, and monitoring, and evaluate residual life of components, systems, and structures that will ensure timely detection of significant aging effects before loss of safety function. l-o Evaluate the effectiveness of storage, maintenance, repair, and replacement practices in mitigating the rate and extent of degradation caused by aging. 3 ~.

1 i e 1 g 1_ expect that the results of this program will be reflected in the sessions to 1' l be held during this workshop. Additional recent information on the aging g - research program can be obtained in the proceedings of the Seventeenth Water Reactor Safety Information Meeting. I wish to review briefly the agenda for this workshop. The agenda-has been l arranged to obtain views on the technical and policy issues involved in license l, l renewal. Input _is requested as to what should be appropriately addressed in the rule and what should be included in regulatory guides to support a proposed i tule. This morning's plenary session will open with the staff's presentation 1 L of' regulatory philosophy, and approach for license renewal. This will-provide an overview of the basis for developing tec:inical, policy and legal positions regarding a license renewal rule and the regulatory guides to support the rule. 7l-Following this presentation a series of questions which have been made j l available in the handout will be used to guide the presentation of comments. This session will generally track the conceptual rule-as presented in the i L Federal Register Notice. The intent is to complete an overview tour through L this material so that only a limited time will be spent on individual parts. - This overview will then be expanded on in the concurrent sessions to be held this afternoon and tomorrow morning. This afternoon's sessions will consist of four concurrent meetings with the 4 topics being Reactor Pressure Boundary, Fluid and Mechanical Systems, Screening Systems Structures and Components Important to Safety and continuation of session one. The staff will make a very short introduction at the start of 4 i ~ _ - - ~. - - -. _... _,. - _. _. -

g >y y l5. .? each. session..which will be guided by the series of questions.for that session presented in the handout,' followed by comments by parties who have previously'

notified the Comission. Additional coments may be allowed at the discretion of;the individual session chairmen as time permits. Tomorrow morning's sessions will consist of three concurrent sessions with the topics being Containments, Electrical Systems and Environmental Effects and will be conducted in a t,imilar manner. On tomorrow afternoon, a sumary session will be held with all participants.- Each. chairman of the individual sessions will present a brief sumary of his session. This will enable all participants to get an overview of the entire workshop. This will be followed by a general session for coments and conclusions.

For your information, a verbatim transcript will be taken of all sessions, and will be available about the end of this week. I wish to emphasize the importance that we place in obtaining your input to the . preliminary Regulatory Philosophy and conceptual approach to a License Renewal Rule. Thank you again for your attendance and participation in this workshop. { 5 L.

4 N d i E i REGULATORY APPROACH AND. PHILOSOPHY i by i i i JAMES H. SNIEZEK DEPUTY DIRECTOR i OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION. PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON LICENSE RENEWAL i NOVEMBER 13, 1989 l + e .--.a m. =, .a

~.. j - i.. g l f PLANNED DISCUSSION TOPICS i } l o Purpose ~ of the workshop i l o

Background

i o Regulatory Philosophy i h l o Program Plan for License Renewal i i t 1 i .,J-... ,,.r s.

PURPOSE OF THE -LICENSE RENEWAL WORKSHOP 1 o To inform the industry and public l of the staff concept for license renewal i o To obtain feedback on technical and policy issues o To obtain feedback on the fram ework - i t s j regulatory language t o To determine -whether there are j a d ditional issues which should be l i dealt with in the regulatory process f i

m t . BACKGRO.UND o FRN on License Renewal Policy l Development, November 6, 1986 i i o SECY-87-179, Status of Staff ~ i Activities :and Report on l Public Comments July 21, 1987 l o Advance ' Notice of Proposed Rulemaking l and NUREG-1317,. " Regulatory Options for Nuclear Plant License Renewal," j i August 29, 1988 1 i l-NUREG/CR-5332, " Summary and Analysis-o L of Public Comments,"

March, 1989 l.'::

? .-G ~ t.

m: a l MAJOR ISSUES REQUIRING RESOLUTION PRIOR TO PROPOSED RULEMAKING a t j o License Renewal Basis and Scope o Severe Accident Treatment i 4 o Environmental Impact Treatment i l i i l 5 I.;

i LICENSE RENEWAL PHILOSOPHY t 1 o Current licensing. basis is l sufficient for adequate 1 i. protection of public health i j and safety i I o Maintain the current level of l l plant safety during the l l extended plant life j i { l ...-. ~ . - ~......

APPROACH FOR MAINTAINING CURRENT LEVEL OF PLANT SAFETY o Ensure that systems, structures and components will perform intended functions o Focus attention on managing age-related degradation unique to extended life o Credit given for ongoing regulatory and licensee programs o Use industry technical studies for resolution of issues on generic basis o Use NRC research findings for d eve'lopment of acceptance criteria m_

M SEVERE ACCIDENT TREATMENT I, o Resolved prior to submittal of ) l license renewal application l j IPE completed and submitted to staff i Accident Management Program l in place Corrective actions i dentified l and agreed to by staff i Approved schedule for corrective actions -aw=== m --mmae .ew- ,y ,,.,%~,-%....,+,. .-,a w- , ~ -, - -.. _. _ _ _ ________.m m ..mm. .m. a

i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TREATMENT i i e o Comply with NEPA requirements i j Rulemaking to specify technical and procedural requirements Actual relicensing of plants l h o Handle issues in generic manner j Environmental Assessment i Environmental Impact Statement i i i O Plant-specific Environmental Reports r a

I i .k i LICENSE RENEWAL PROGRAM PLAN i 4 o Rulemaking o GEA/GEIS o Regulatory Guidance Development o Industry Technical Report Program o Lead Plant Program i mem_m_ m.____ -.ww>+ yw - e-e we g N=emw e-w o.- .+mww&*-e- +sem uL.ma+ws ma.+--*sm-P L-*-e

OVERALL SCHEDULE j o Publish proposed rule June 1990 l for comment o Publish proposed key December 1990 i j Regulatory Guides 1 SRP

Sections, and GEA/GEIS i

o Pilot plant application June 1991 4 o Publish Final

Rule, April 1992 key
RGs, SRP and i

GEA/GEIS i o Publish additional RGs April 1993 I or

SRP, as necessary l

o Issue SER on Pilot June 1993 4 Plan t application 1 i i.

r a f: l \\ s l 1 1 1 j i Session 1 Overview of Conceptual Approach ] to a License Renewal Rule 1 l I l i i I i l o F l-Public Workshop l. on Technical and Policy Considerations l-for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal + U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission November 1314,1989, Reston, Virginia b T .,. _,... _. ~.... ........,..,...,..._..~.....,_........,m.

,l J . i, I E SES$10NS 1 AND $ i l OVERVIEW OF A CONCEPTUAL APPROACH TO A LICENSE RENEWAL RULE l I Approach 1. Is the approach taken reasonable in light of known technical information? 2. Are the two principles stated in the philosophy discussion supported by the rule wording? l 3. Are there any known technical or safety issues that would argue l against the selected approach? l 4 What areas of the philosophy need additional clarification? 5. Is the schedule for the rulemaking adequate to permit utilities to ( consider license renewal as an option for assuring adequate electrical supply? II. Definition of the Licensing Basis 1. Has the current licensing basis been adequately defined? l 2. What requirements, if any, should be included or deleted? 3. Are the requirements clear and is it clear how the requirements will be met? 4 What type and amount of documentation should be required as part of a renewal application? 5. What are the problems or issues in meeting the proposed requirements and'is regulatory guidance needed in this area? 111. Exclusion of Regulatory Programs from Review 1. Should any identified programs or any other programs be included or excluded from review during a renewal application review? If so, identify those programs or issues and provide the technical or safety basis for the need to review or for exclusion from review. 2. Is it clear how the regulatory requirements of the programs excluded from review will continue to be met during a renewal ferm? l

Sessions l'and 5 Continued J !Y. Envelope of Structures, Systems and Components to be Considered l 1 1. Is equipment *important to safety" adequately defined and ) s comprehensive? 2. 15 it clear how the requirements will be met and what problems exist with establishing the envelope of 'important to safety?' 3. Is it clear that this rule requires the review of mild environment electrical equipment in systems important to safety to the identified degradation mechanisms? V. Degradation Mect anism 1. Are there any additional known degradation mechanisms which should be included in a license renewal rule? If so identify the mechanismandcitereferencestotechnicalinYormationdescribing the mechanism. I 2. 15 it clear how the requirements for identifying the mechanisms will l be met or is there a need for additional regulatory guidance in this area or are definitions needed for the categories of the degradation - r mechanisms? 3. Shauld definitions of the mechanisms be included in the rule? VI. Severe Accidents 1. Should the staff require a completion of the Individual Plant Examination as a precondition to submission of a renewal l application? j 2. Should severe accidents have any additional role in a decision on renewal of an operating license? 3. Are the requirements clear and is it clear how the requirements can l be met? 4 What are the problems or issues in meeting the proposed requirement and is additional regulatory guidance needed in this area? 5. Should the Accident Management Program be required to be in place? Vll. Content of Application 1. Are the requirements for what should be submitted clear and is it clear how those requirements are to be met? 2. Should a new FSAR be submitted in support of a renewal application i or an addendum to the existing document?

i { sessions 1 and B Continued 3. What amount of documentation of data, analyses and program changes should be provided in the application? Should the rule propose the types of information that can be retained in auditable foms at f applicant locations? 4 Is additional regulatory guidance needed in this area and should 1 publication of additional guidance in this area be linked to publication of.the final rule? ' 5. Is more detail needed to provide a regulatory framework in the l conceptual rule for a well-defined and acceptable screening process? j j Vl!1. Certification of Compliance 1. Is the requirement clear and is it clear how the requirement will be met? 2. Should the NRC require applicants for renewal licenses to describe deviations from the SRP as is required of initial OL applicants? I IX. Environmental Information ~ ) 1. Should the staff prepare a generic environmental statement which would discuss and envelope as many environmental issues as possible and which would then be used as a cited reference and preclude litigation in any relicensing proceeding? 2. eed for Separate rulemaking on Part 51 separate or with proposed rule? j X. Standards for lssuance of a Renewed License l 1. Is it clear what the standards require and how the standards can be l satisfied? 2. Do the specified standards provide reasonable assurance that a facility can be operated beyond its initial time or subsequent renewal terms? If not, what additional standards should be established for the issuance of renewal licenses? 3. Should a limit be placed on the number of renewals permitted at any one facility? XI. Postponement of Compliance in the area of Deconnissioning and Fuel Managements 1. Should a license renewal rule include an automatic postponement of e the existing requirements or should it be necessary to have the renewal applicant specifically request a postponement or exemption from the stated requirements?

L Sessions 1 and 5 Continued 2. Is the postponement period reasonable or should it be more limited in time, e.g. for one year or 2 years only? Kil. Maintenance, Surveillance and Recordkeeping What, if any, maintenance practices should be required by)a license 1. renewal rule? (such as reliability centered maintenance. 2. What type of process should be required by this regulation to assure that future changes in the maintenance or surveillance programs do not reduce the effectiveness of these programs in monitoring plant degradation mechanisms? 3. What specific standards for maintenance practices should be developed and issued in a regulatory guide related to license renewal? 4. What types and amount of documentation of existing or newly proposed maintenance practices should be submitted as part of a renewal application? 5. What types of documentation can provide a verification of insitu equipment condition and how much onsite inspection should be performed to validate the documentation? 6. What, if any, use and participation in NPRDS should be required in a license renewal application? 7. Whatstepsshouldberequiredaspartofalfcenserenewaltoassure that programmatic aspects of an enhanced maintenance program are effectively implemented? 8. What credit, if any, should be given for voluntary adoption and implementation of an industry standard for maintenance? t 9. What type of information should be included or required of maintenance records for license renewal?

10. What specific requirements should be included for monitoring aging effects on specific critical components?
11. Should the ptoposed license renewal rule require a program for tracking maintenance records (performance trending) on specific safety-related equipment in order to monitor system performance, and how soon prior to submittal of the licensee renewal request should such a program be implemented?
12. When inspections have not been made or operating history records and trending information documentation have not been maintained, what alternative measures can be taken to justify extendedjife?

l l

13. Can components which are " routinely maintained" be excluded from license renewal considerations unless there are agreed upon reliability goals for these components?

1

I j-i i OVERVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL APPROACH i TO A LICENSE RENEWAL RULE i j F. GILLESPIE, NRR (POLICY ISSUES) l R.

BOSNAK, RES (TECHNICAL ISSUE'S) l L.
CHANDLER, OGC (LEGAL ISSUES) i p

PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON LICENSE RENEWAL l l NOVEMBER 13, 1989 4 l l 4

~ ~_ .~. '._~..L

~a_

TOPICS OF DISCUSSION i j o Renewal philosophy i o Licensing basis o Severe accidents i o Content of application o Standards for issuance l 1 o Backfit considerations j l o Hearings o Maintenance and records l l

A i t 4 i LICENSE RENEWAL PHILOSOPHY i t I I i Current licensing basis is o sufficient for adequate protection of public health 1 l and safety e ) o Maintain the current level of a i plant safety during the. l extended plant life i t l ) e .-,,~,-..-.m ..-,-.~m..

-1 .l i LICENSING BASIS l o Establishes the envelope of regulatory compliance and j enforcement for the renewal term t o Includes: Regulations of 10 CFR Orders 4 License Conditions l Exemptions j l Adjudicatory decisions Technical Speeifications j NRC Bulletins l Generic Letters D.ocketed Correspondence f ~ i --w. n k-W* W T T fml'9% D"#'"* d r W m "*t W*"+ t#sG

      • e
  • eutW*-M-er e

rr-wew-WWM

    • --ei+-ee a.

w --1P ww-tWW m e

b { 't ~~v t I [ 'l' } T) M /' Ce M . c-o - W e w r,* Yd i ' Z-O m b h t l

X C

4o i 4 N 7'. I.0 r,, j Q ZK 0 C 4 N 1 0N [ I h.$ C 0 y E G w a N \\ -U ,o z M 4 0 o e v g ,V g [. M

== I e j 'l O b ( e u e,> ~ + V w.# mum M fw [ I'"'" A F i n y A , T y

7. '(.

em W H vm Q o. m s E l 4 -v ,s c g g. c v n s r m d N .[. M A V 'm e, V 4 w r. v D-D Y /, V M N Q A M r.1 Q w M W

  • m N.

M R. 4 v\\ ~ g,, J w Q, 4 ~ ~ m .j ' h M d 5) Q Q >; 4 M V s r b i O C h C a > ',,O h-c S O ( i sF o + o a v; b p,-),c 3 h L s C e ga g. g> p a O. c p C y ~ O 9 Ac m $s .C Uk l k n CI 2340 o p., o b C' C C e4C 4* L l i + L 42 0 m o

I<0mN

-3 0 + r. .s 7, y C 0 .i

_ -, ~. _..... - _.z SEVERE ACCIDENTS l o Subject to be resolved under l l initial license i o Precondition in rule to assure l completion prior to application i 1 I I l l i l o Completion includes: { t IPE including external events Accident Management Plan j Approved schedule or completion i j of licensee proposed modifications l r i 1 a een me. e. .h g ,.g s ,g y c w.g.- .,,g7 9- .. qg a.+,4 pp g g -e --ag*-4 ey,, qw%u%,4r w y-w.-p-g-M We ysu-w-g48 et'w'hww w*-%-9Pw'mw--e- <w w '-e-e.-w-+r---^m-+ w-*w+v-T-4

+ 1 i CONTENT OF APPLICATION. o Definition of licensing basis Certification of licensmg basis j o o Technical evaluations and SSC i t l screening process l o Degradation mechanisms covered I o Basis for conclusions that degradation is properly monitored or corrected 3 o Technical specifications l o Environmental Report update l i i l c j t -.~..

I t 1 l STANDARDS FOR ISSUANCE OF LICENSE i L j o Identifies only those areas on which j l the staff must make findings in order to issue a renewal license l 1 i o Regulatory areas not identified are not basis for issuance of renewal f i license i i i I i i i 1 i

l } l STA N I) A ltDS FOlt ISN U A N CE ( CO NT. ) t o S ta nd a rd s in cl u d e: i 1. Licensin g liasis has been coro ple tely t and accura tely defined i

2. SSC importan t to safety have been id enti fied 3.

Applicable degradation rn echanisin s Itave been id entified l

4. Appropria te actions have been or l

will be taken to account for l l d egrad a tio n { l i 5. Accep ta ble program for trending l i j and evalu a t.i o n d eg,ra da tion effects l 1 I i ~ a b e w y ..#s-9 c e..,. ,+.c -...-,e ,e.v..-..--.-.--~,,-.----%.,.--.._.w. .,e.~..

+. 4 ll j UACKFIT CONSIDERATIONS i i Requirernen ts specified in rule o l are not covered by backfit rule f i f i o P reviou s decisions on backfit for i i l some technical issues may be revisited to deterrnine if additional life 4 i significantly affects previous position i 1 l l o Dackfit rule to apply af ter issuance j of renewal license r ) f j

1 ......e. 4 ,.e_,,.w.._ en w. m %. ..+=,ww-+ i LICENSE RENEWAL APPROACH

l l

o Are there any known. technical or { i l safety issues that would argue against the selected approach? i i i o Is the philosophy implemented by \\ l the wording of the framework? 1 o Is the schedule reasonable in light of public and utility 4 i interests? s i j a

d' A SCIGIC N ING l 'ICOCI*:H S AND CONTENT i: OI' A P I'I.I C ATIO N 4 o Is equig>rnen(. "i n i g > o r t.a n I, lo s a fe t.y"

  • a a d e q u a t.cly d e fi n ed ?

o Slaould <legra da t. ion rn cehanisms be i 1 1 i nclu ded in

t. h e tule?

o Winal is an ad eq u a te level of d oeu rn en ta tio n con cerning

data, a nalyses and program changes?

l o Is it clear how and why

t. h e certification or cornpliance is an s

essential part of applicption? o is I.h e re a need for additional guidance? ..~....,....__.%. - ~ ~,. _ ~

LICENSING BASIS o Has licensing basis been adequately defined? i q i i l o What is the necessary level of i l documentation in application? l I o Is it clear how the requirements will be met? l l o Are other regulatory programs j i r l candidates for exclusion from review for license renewal? N L n. t a . - - - - ~ -~,..,..,.

e,t, e-s.--su.,we, e.-e-m-- ue m - = em,wm.m.,...wwa.-. em 2 ar menn. e*-+,e e-- - = wegem m mom me e - 4 L i I ROLE OF SEVERE ACCIDENTS t i l o Should completion of IPE be an j precondition of application? i i l l t l o Should an Accident Management Plan be required? i o Should the question of severe j accidents have any role in a license renewal decision? i 6 l i.

1 1-i. STANDAltDS FOlt ISSUANCE 4 o Do the specific s tand a rd s provide reasonable a ss u rance th a t a f acili ty l can be o peral.e d safely for an i exten ded terrn ? l o Should a lirait be placed on the n urn b er i 4 of renewals? j o Should a process for renewal of a i renewal license be d i fferen t than l that for the first renewal and i j i what would be a reasonable approach? i e ' --ew., .,.c c .._r..-.,, u+ .w ,n r ,.___.,_________m___2. i___i"_.7"__*'__'_.__.,

J ) I i i Session 2 Reactor Pressure Boundary I 6 ? l l i . Public Workshop on Technical and Policy Considerations - for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal U. S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Novernber 1314,1989, Reston, Virginia e ,t .-r-, ,,_m._ -.--,~.4.._

~. p';,' J 9 t i SESSION 2 REM, TOR PRESSURE BOUNDARY O. ) 1. Since the surveillance programs required by Appendix H of.10 CFR 50 to 4 monitor radiation embrittlement of reactor vessels generally have been designed for a 40 year period what additional requirements should be implemented to comply lwith this Appendix for the extended life?- E 2. In' view of the uncertainties involving the material properties of aged cast austenitic stainless steel, what measures are needed to assure safe operation of components manufactured of this material during extended q plant life? '3. Do the current ISI and IST programs adequately address aging mechanisms in the reactor. pressure boundary syttems and components? F 4 *. Many operating plants with piping which cracked due to IGSCC have had L weld overlay' repairs. While this repair is safe for current operations, NDE is difficult and stress patterns have been changed in the piping i l-system. What bases exist to permit the continued use of such piping for extended plant life? L 5. Since plants have used less efficient NDE' techniques than are available today,.should they be.re-baselined with modern techniques? Should 151 J intervals andxextent of sampling remain the same? Considering loss of toughness with aging, should flaw acceptance standards be modified? ' Because of uncertainties in the level of degradation and in the effectiveness of 151, should continuous monitoring NDE techniques be applied during extended life?- 6. Existing fatigue-requirements do not take into account the accelerated damage caased by water environment and higher temperatures of LWR plants. What provisions should be required to permit operating life to be safely extended without more definitive knowledge of this effect and how should these provisions affect the application of Miner's rule and ? the S-N curves applied in the ASME design code incorporated by reference into the NRC regulations? Should NDE techniques be used that give - ~ measures of remaining fatigue life and levels of toughness? 7. Are there any kinds of tests that should be done to demonstrate integrity and operability to qualify for extended life? .m,- ,,,..y c.,.,,.-,,.m. ,,....m ,,..,,.,,, ~,,, 2 m

w- .,. ! i,. ,..x-h, A is e PRIMARY PRESSURE BOUNDARYJ o REACTORVESSELS ~ i i o STEAM GENERATORS I i 1 o-PIPINGS J, 1 1 o< PlfPS ,j. l-l l 0 VALVES ~! .l I i i f i l.. ,l l I i l y-y y ye ,+wy.- w-ca-J.-* -= m aoer e W s-g -e y -y

o. a REACTOR VESSEL o NEUTRON IRRADIATION DERITTLEENT OF BELTLINE P%TERIALS o EGULATORY GUIDE 1.99, EV. 2 PROVIDES 00tPlffATION ETHOD FOR CALCULATING EFERITTLEMEhT o COPPER, NICKEL,-NEUTRON FLUENCE AND IRRADIATION TEWERATURE ARE IMPORTANT VARIABLES AFFECTING DERITTLEMENT o THERMAL FATIGLE .o-IRRADIATION ASSISTED STRESS CORROSION CPACKING 0F VESSEL i: INTEWALS AND CORE SUPPORT STRUCRlRE i. l i L 1 1

r c x: ? xc-y r s S1EAM GEERATOR TLBES 1 j o PRIMARY SIDE STRESS CORROSION CRACKING u o SECONDARY SIDE STRESS CORR 0S!0N CRACKING l. o o- . FATIGUE (FLOW INDUCED VIBRATI0fS) 4 o-DENTING (SUPPORT PLATE CORROSION) o If(IERGRANNULAR ATTACK I 3 o' FRETTING 8 WEAR (FOREIGN OBJECTS) o PITTING o WASTAGE o STEAM GENERATOR PLUGS

s' y T-L i PIPING [ 1 o INTERGRANULAR STRESS COPJ0SION CRACKING (IGSCC) CAUSED BY-- SENSITIZED MATERIALS - RESIDUAL STRESSES - OXYGEN CONTENT AND ItFURITIES IN COOLANT WATER L 01 EMBRITTLEMENT DUE TO AGING AT OPERATING TEFFERATURE

t E

-(PWP, CAST S.S.) L l. l~ o THERMAL STPATIFICATION o EROSION / CORROSION . _,.. ~

T + ? {, t ( PitPS L o CLPULATIVE FATIGUE EFFECTS TO SHAFT [ o BEARING EAR o -DEGRADATION OF SEALS, GASKETS AND PACKING [ t o EROSION AND CORROSION OF INTERNALS - 1 o-DISTORTION OF SUBC0FFONEES o LOOSENING 0F PARTS 1 l-l l. l I.- 1' I' l L

y VALVES a o CLMJLATIVE FATIGUE EFFECTS TO DISC AND CONNECTIONS l o SEAT E AR o-DEGRADATION OF SEAL AND W TOR INSULATION o SET P01hT DRIFT o EROSION AND CORROSION OF-INTERNALS o DISTORTION OF INTERNAL PART .o STEM AND GEAR WEAR' o DISC / SEAT BINDING o-WORN OR BROKEN BEARINGS o TOROUE SWITCH OR LIMIT SWITCH BINDING wc - rv- ,.---3. e m

w c,. .a e Session 3 Fluid and' Mechanical Systems L l,. l. l j.- t Public Workshop on Technical and Policy Considerations for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission November 1314,1989, Reston, Virginia l: l 1-l- W a-t- 7 r-%w rr e-- r-h- .-w-% -arew nr r 9.ww- +

^ 4 a - SESSION 3 FLUID AND MECHANICAL SYSTEMS q l 1. Whet additional criteria should the proposed license renewal rule and I associated regulatory guidance contain regarding periodic surveillance .and preventative maintenance to ensure the operability of mechanical equipment important' to safety and fluid system performance beyond their initial design life? 2. What. type of augmented inspections and/or analyses are needed to address aging mechanisms in pumps and valves, such as: detection of degradation in pump and valve internals (e.g. and-corrosion due to flow turbulence and chemical attacks), erosion - detection of possible cumulative fatique of pump shafts which may lead to cracking. detection of possible cumulative fatique effects'to valve discs and hinges due to cyclic stresses t.nd impact loading from valve operation and flow excitations. 3. What should the-proposed license renewal rule require regarding functional testing of systems important to safety as a prerequisite for license renewal, recognizing that such functional testing may not have been per-formed previously as part of the original licensing basis? J 4, In light of the great variability in the treatment *'of fatique in the design of Class I (or quality group A) piping and components, there is a need that license extension requirements be based on operating history of individual plants. How should the NRC confirm that Class I components have not-exceeded their original fatique design requirements? Also, should the industry address this issue in a topical report? 5. How can.the residual fatique life for Class 2 and 3 piping and components be determined for license renewal? 6. Existing fatique requirements do not take into account the accelerated damage caused by water environment and higher temperatures of LWR plants. What provisions should be required to permit operating life to be safely extended without more definitive knowledge of this effect and how should n - these provisions affect the application of Miner's rule and the S-N curves applied in the ASME design code' incorporated by reference into the NRC regulations? Should NDE techniques be used that give measures of remaining fatique life and levels of toughness? 7. Are there any kinds of proof tests or hot functional tests that should be done to demonstrate integrity and operability to qualify for extended life? m o at w--- m w w ,*9--

w.
a:-

{.~ l-I t APPROACH TO' ESTABLISHING SCOPE OF TECHNICAL ISSUES i 1 u l 1. DEFINES A PROPOSED SCREENING PROCESS FOR EQUIPMENT AND_ STRUCTURES TO BE REVIEWED 2. DEFINES STRUCTURES,

SYSTEMS, AND COMPONENTS FOR EVALUATION 3.

DEFINES SPECIFIC SET OF DEGRADATION . MECHANISMS FOR EVALUATION 4. DEFINES-REQUIREMENTS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION WHEN DEGRADATION IS NOT BEING MONITORED . ~

1 LICENSE RENEWAL WORKSHOP SESSION 3 l FLUID AND MECHANICAL SYSTEMS c L - ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR PERIODIC SURRVEILLANCE AND \\ PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE TO ENSURE OPERABILITY OF - MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT BEYOND INITIAL DESIGN LIFE. l 2. AUGMENTED INSPECTIONS / ANALYSIS TO ADDRESS AGING MECHNAISMS IN PUMPS AND VALVES L 3. FUNCTIONAL TESTING OF SYSTEMS AS A PREREQUISITE FOR' LICENSE RENWAL l 4.- LONG TERM EFFECT OF FATIGUE ON CLASS I COMPONENTS U i 5. RESIDUAL FATIGUE LIFE FOR CLASS 3 AND 3 PIPING AND l' l l-COMPONENTS l 6. EFFECTS OF WATER ENVIRONMENT AND ELEVATED TEPERATURES ON FATIGUE OF PIPING AND COMPONENTS i. 7. PROOF TESTING AND HOT FUNCTIONAL TESTING TO DEMONSTRATE INTEGRITY AND OPERABILITY i .....1

f x b+ (.Il ~ 'l . 'j [ \\ .. a i:;,p l u-J f 1 1 g P 'e } 'i Session 4 Screening Methodology for Systems, Structures and Components important to Safety f . t t 1 Public Workshop on Technical and Policy Considerations r- . for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission November 1314,1989, Reston, Virginia ll

l SESSION 4 SCREENING METHODOLOGY FOR SiSTEMS, STRUCTURES AND COMPONENTS IMPORTANT TO SAFETY I 1. Is the scope of the systems covered by the conceptual rule adequate to assure safety? ) 2. Are the requirements clear? -3. Is it' clear how the screening process in the rule works and is it clear -how the requirements of the rule will be met? 4. Should the regulation permit the use of screening methods that are based on probabilistic risk assessments? If yes, describe the type of assessment and the specific rule of the risk assessment. If no, provide -an explanation for your answer. [5. Should experimental aging models be required'in probabilistic risk assessments to estimate aging degradation effects? '6. What are any additional issues or problems that might arise in meeting the proposed requirements and how can these concerns be dealt with j through regulatory instruments? 7..- Can defense 'in.' depth be incorporated into the screening methods? 8. How should the NRC judge the adequacy of an aginji data model for use in PRA?

9. -

What, if any, should be the role of a mandatory plant-specific data base j in license renewal? 10. What types of data analysis should be used to detect increasing failure rates of components? ~ It is well known that the data used in PRAs can change the results as 11. well as the ranking of the contributors to core damage frequency. If a PRA is used in license renewal. what role should plant specific data play in this area? How much data are required for plant specific applications? ~ 12. PRAs normally do not include passive components as basic events in the logic models. How should passive components be treated in PRA for license renewal? 13. If a PRA is used in a screening process for license renewal, how should the humsn error probabilities be treated so that the PRA reflects the design and not the human actions? >.,.,.-.-,--,--e, %.e e%,,..m .,-....,e,,~,-,,_,-,..,.....,,m..,.--..,.,--.,..m ,,_.m.-%,-,.-, -.

4M ' 1 3. -1 i. e N.; [ ,~

m.

a

c. -

1 ^ . l

  • Session 4 Continued 14 To what level of detail-does n PRA need to be for use in license -
renewal?
Does' specific guidance exist for. performing a PRA for, license:.

( -renewal?. ~ ~ 15.. What:is the role of: Level 1 PRA in license renewal?. Level 11? Level 1117 .{ \\, [. 1 i '? A t 4 + - - c -+v .~- ~ m.e ,, =.

i5 u LA3 3 ROAC "O ES AB _ S-N G-1 SC03 E O r ~EC-N CA_ SS ES -I -l L

1. DEFINES A PROPOSED SCREENING PROCESS FOR EQUIPMENT AND STRUCTURES TO BE REVIEWED.

q

2. DERNES STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS, AND COMPONENTS FOR EVALUATION
3. DERNES SPECIRC~ SET OF DEGRADATION L

MECHANISMS FOR EVALVATION L

4. DERNES REQUIREMENTS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION WHEN DEGRADATION IS-NOT BEING MONITORED

.= =. .c. 1 !4 UCENSE RENEWAL WORKSHOP i SESS10N !4 SCREENING METHODOLOGY FOR SYSTEMS, STRUCTURES AND COMPONENTS IMPORTANT.TO SAFETY

1. THE ADEQUACY OF THE SCOPE OF SYSTEMS COVERED BY THE PROPOSED RULE
2. THE Cl.ARITY OF REQUIREMENTS IN THE RUlf

?3. THE Cl.ARITY 0F THE SCREENING PROCESS i 4.'THE APPUCABluTY OF PRAs l i

5. THE NEED FOR EXPERIMENTAL AGING MODELS
6. THE RESOLUTION OF POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS

[ IN MEETING THE PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS l

7. INCORPORATION OF DEFENSE IN DEPTH

1 .l .] UCENSE RENEWAL WORKSHOP .,l SESSION 4 CONTINUED u . SCREENING; METHODOLOGY. FOR SYSTEMS, STRUCTURES AND. COMPONENTS IMPORTANT TO SAFETY

8. THE ADEQUACY OF THE AGING DATA MODEL.

i

9. THE ROLE OF MANDATORY: PLANT-SPECIFIC DATA BASE
10. DATA ANALYSIS TO DETECT INCREASING FAILURE RATES p

p

11. THE ROLE-0F PLANT-SPECIFIC DATA IN PRAs USED IN UCENSE RENEWAL l

l

12. THE TREATMENT-0F PASSIVE COMPONENTS IN PRAs USED IN UCENSE RENEWAL
13. THE TREATMENT OF HUMAN ERROR PROBABluTIES IN PRAs USED IN UCENSE RENEWAL
14. THE LEVEL OF DETAll AND THE NEED FOR SPECIFIC GUIDANCE FOR PRAs USED IN UCENSE RENEWAL
15. THE ROLE OF LEVEL I THRU lli PRAs IN UCENSE RENEWAL

w-q. l 0 i ) Session 5 7 Overview of Conceptual Approach p i and-. Regulatory Framework (continued discussion, see Session 1 questions and notes) t .s Public Workshop on Technical and Policy Considerations for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal - U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Novernber 1314,1989, Reston, Virginia r

'W., a t 4 27, j (:' i I w Session 6 - Containments-5 t ? J Public Workshop - on Technical and Policy Considerations for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - November 13-14,1989, Reston, Virginia -g i- --y-v- 3--+6 -w-e o g-,-_ e e-'

c t; 2: i SES$10N 6 CONTAINMENTS 11 What additional measures should be taken to monitor and address 2 anticipatedandunanticipatedstructuraldegradations(including the loss of prestressing forces) such that an acceptable level of safety it, maintained during the extended life? 2.. For what additional degradation environments or mechanisms should containments be monitored or inspected?' Also, how can detrimental long term chemical interactions in concrete containment be measured and predicted in the future? 3. Prior to granting a license renewal, should the licensee be required to - implement-(a) containment leak rate qualification test, (b) containment structural integrity test, and (c) containment configuration (including foundation) surveillance? For other Category 1 structures (including x ultimate heat sink, water retaining structures), what type of surveillance should be required for detection of likely degradations during extended license? L l 1 I t l l g e-->. .= y.yy sow.swe v. w,- ..,y, y-g.,. ,.,wo-9 ..,. - -,..e 3 T www e- -rt ww www w-w w weww-+w-w-tmwe-wv-mvu

  • ev

~ ~ SESSION 6 CONTAIN M ENTS 1 i l l Ba c kg ro u n d j e Defense-in-Depth Concept Lost Barrier To Contain ^ Uncontrolled Release Of Fission Products in A Multiple Overlapping Successive System. l i i i j Regulatory Design Requirements in 1 O CFR 50, ' APP. A e Establishment Of A Leak-Tight Barrier Assurance Of Not Exceeding-Design Requirements For f Postulated Accident. Conditions i l I i l I i i l

s b. i 1 i l TYPES OF STRUCTURAL DEGRADATIONS i i i i Loss Of Tendon prestress in prestressed.' Concrete Containments l Corrosion Of Tendons l l Corrosion Of BWR - Mark l Drywell Shell 4 Corrosion Of BWR Torus. i i i Corrosion Of PWR Ice Condenser Containment Potential Corrosion Of Rebors in Reinforced Concrete Containments l r s j Corrosion ' Of Rebars And Spotling Of-Concrete In intoke Structures i t r i l l t i I i 1 .. - ~. -. .~. -. -. - ~:

~ m y. i u. 1 ,1 i I Session 7 Electrical Systems b -l 1 Public Workshop - on Technical and Policy Considerations for Nuclear Power Plant Ucense Renewal U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission November 1314,1989, Reston, Virginia }

g o

.. s 4 -

W I# SESSION 7 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS 1. What. Should the proposed licensee renewal rule and associated regulatory guidance ~ contain regarding additional criteria for testing, analysis, or replacement of electrical equipment currently included in the 10 CFR 50.49 Equipment Qualification Program which is qualified for a life -less than the original-license term plus the renewal period but is not subject to . periodic replacement? 2. What additional programs are necessary to address aging degradation issues associated with electrical equipment important to safety but located in niild environments? What should the proposed license renewal rule or other associated regulatory guidance require with regard to additional -l L qualification or operability verification for electrical equipment in mild- ) environments which has.a design life less than the license renewal period l. but which is not subject to periodic replacement? I 1 L 3. Licensees have identified electrical components important to safety that-have been assumed to have a life expectancy of 40 years but have been found to fail, or otherwise become unreliable, after 5 to 10 years in service. ~ To what extent has the industry identified electrical equipment that is known to exhibit high failure rates in less than 40 years and what.should be done to ensure reliable equipment performance to support license renewal? 4. Most cable has been qualified by manufacturers fora 0 years. The 40 year -life was predicated on certain installed and application conditions (including environmental stressors, cable electrical loading and cable mechanical loading) for which the cable was designed. Given that manu-facturers have provided certain important initial parameters for new . cable, what kind of program should be proposed that could be instituted to establish the insitu condition of cables and the. potential degradation that would take place beyond the current design life? In addition, what insitu monitoring methods would be useful for an aging assessment of circuit breakers, relays, reactor protection systems, and electrical ' distribution systems? 5. What requirements should NRC issue as part of a license renewal rule for electrical equipment important to safety? 6i What should the proposed license renewal rule require regarding functional testing of electrical equipment important to safety as a prerequisite for license renewal, recognizing that such functional testing may not have been performed previously as part of the original licensir,g basis? + .~ }

c'

4

' e' ~* y 4 .APPR.OACH TO ESTABLISHING. 4 L SCOPE OF TECHNICAL ISSUES 1. DEFINES A PROPOSED SCREENING PROCESS ( FOR EQUIPMENT' fND STRUCTURES TO BE. - REVIEWED 2. - DEFINES STRUCTURES,

SYSTEMS, AN COMPONENTS FOR EVALUATION 3;-

- DEFINES SPECIFIC ' SET OF DEGRADATION MECHANISMS FOR EVALUATION 4. DEFINES REQUIREMENTS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION WHEN-DEGRADATION IS NOT BEING MONITORED e+- s e m-- .r-. .-...= e r -y.,r.-.- m. ...,.v.3ww uw wme-w

  • -se mes**

e-vw+-ew+%---w w ew am e n p e 4 woww -a t*v w-

  • -**w* * '
  • a

.y i JCENSE RENEWAL WOR (S ; SESS ON 7-ELECTR CAL SYSTEMS L

1. ADDm0NAL CRITERIA FOR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT INCLUDED IN THE E.Q.

PROGRAW-BUT NOT PERIODICALLY REPl. ACED L

2. ADDm0NAL PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS AGING DEGRADATION OF ELECTRICAL p

- EQUIPMENT LOCATED IN MILD ENVIRONMENTS

3. PROGRAMS TO ESTABUSH THE INSITU CONDm0N OF CABLES AND-COMPONENTS AND THE POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE DEGRADATION
4. REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE RUlf FOR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT lWPORTANT TO SAFETY 1
5. FUNCTIONAL TESTING OF ElICTRICAL EQUIPMENT AS A PREREQUISITE FOR UCENSE RENEWAL l

l^- "i &r=#,-"'r-SP-r e 's wet %w 's e

  • w aste-.- w w w ww e-- v = w e ewvue se me m--*--wwu a--a-ve-mm--P*am-----w'*

w------ --'s* --M'w - ----- = =

  • As'-'h--------

eN--tw-*

    • ew *we

vg;8 ;t, y ~ ^ 0 + + L. r F Session 8 Environmental Effects-L l

i

i V 1 Public Workshop on Technical and Policy Considerations for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Novernber 1314,1989, Reston, Virginia

O,> a .i o".

s.

a 3 ' :._., SESSION 8 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS q

15. there any compelling reason not to permit the NRC the option of 1.

preparing an environmental assessment rather than an environmental impact statement'(or supplement to)-in individual relicensing actions as now ~ required in 10 CFR 517 .+ 2.; To what extent might a generic environmental impact statement reduce the number and scope of-environmental issues which would need to be addressed in. individual relicensing actions? 3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of concurrent NEPA (10 CFR 51) and health and safety (10 CFR 50) rulemakings? Should these rulemakings be combined and pursued on the same schedule? 4 What are the potential sources of environmental effects from relicensing? 5. What are the potential magnitudes and significances of such environmental. effects? 6. What experiential-knowledge, studies and data are available to perform generic evaluations of potential environmental effects? 7. To what' extent would such environmental effects differ from those-experienced during the initial term of operation?' 8. What should be the focus and scope of analysis of severe accident consequences in a generic environmental impact statement? 9.; Should plant specific Level 111 PRA's be required in the NEPA severe s accident consequence analysis? 1

10. To what extent should future availability of spent fuel storage capacity l

be a consideration in the generic environmental impact statement?

11. What should be the focus and scope of analysis of alternatives to relicensing the current generation of LWRs?

12~. What role might utilities and Federal and State agencies play in the l process of developing a generic environmental impact statement? l l

s s'.

91sa%_ LICENSE RENEWAL WORKSHOP Session 8 Environmental Effects NEPA Review is Required for: - License Renewal Rule - NOW! - License Renewal Actions - NOW cr LATER? - Alternative NEPA Documents Schedule implications Sources of Environmental Effects Analysis SMe1 h 4 e

x ,=, ' f. unemmu l LICENSE RENEWAL WORKSHOP Session 8 l l Environmental Effects - Continued

k Significance of Effects l

Severe Accident Consequences L Spent Fuel Storage Capacity Alternatives to Relicensing i Contribution of Federal and State Agencies to a I ~ Generic Review sukse 2 8 i ~... .. - - -. ~. - -. - - - -. .. = -}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19332D423&oldid=4741844"