ML20006A149

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 891213 Meeting W/Util in Rockville,Md Re Plant Life Extension Program.Licensee Presented Detailed Technical Discussion of Screening Methodology for License Renewal Effort.List of Attendees & Viewgraphs Encl
ML20006A149
Person / Time
Site: Yankee Rowe
Issue date: 01/11/1990
From: Sears P
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 9001250308
Download: ML20006A149 (75)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:w r . January 11, 1990 -M + 4 ,4 c f' M Dhcke(N3.E50 0291 w k * % t.ICENSEE: Yankee Atomic Electric Company 7 L* ' FACILITY: Yankee Nuclear Power Station at Rowe Y. ' A b,

SUBJECT:

LMEETING

SUMMARY

. PLANT LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAM k BRIEFING BY'. LICENSEE J .A meeting between Yankee Atomic Electric Company and the NRC occurred on p December 13, 1989. -At this meeting the licensee presented updated positions-on aLrange~of technical and. policy issues related to license renewal as they ps

pertained to the-Yankee plant at Rowe, Massachusetts.- The list of topics

' discussed. included but was not limited to:.. current licensing basis, severe f. accidents, compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, and the contents of.an application'. : contains a copy of the presentation j j made to the' staff ontlicense renewal technical.and policy issues. The licensee also presented-a detailed technical discussion of the screening I methodology being used by'the. licensee for their license renewal effort as j .well as the'results of their screening process on a selected pilot system

(safety injection). :The envelope of the safety injection system included both fluid.containing: and instrumentation components, emergency power system com.

1 u ponents and the structural components that house the safety injection system -(such as the' Primary Auxiliary Building, Diesel Generator Building and the 1 Battery Room No. 3 Building). ) The licensee's. evaluation of the pilot system concluded that the areas of the j plant evaluated were generally found to be in good condition with no signs of 1 significant degradation. The licensee did identify some components which will l require further evaluation and some programs which will.need enhancements to j better' address degradation concerns for-license re_newal. A copy of the -licensee's presentation on the pilot system report is included as Enclosure 2 1 to this: summary. j /s/ l Patrick N. Sears, Project Manager 'i Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor. Projects I/II

Enclosures:

-j As stated cc w/ enclosures: See next page. , DISTRIBUTION (DockettJUea, NRC& Local PDRs PDI-3 r/f P. Sears -0GC-E. Jordan B. Grimes ACRS(10) -M.' Rushbrook J. Wiggins, RI S. Varga T. Murley LR. Wessman B. Boger F. Gillespie F. Akstulewicz W. Travers K. Manoly J. Durr, RI D. Cleary W.~Minners R. Bosnak J. Vora G. Mizuno D. Kubicki / 9 'YR 5 ~ 0FC = =: ADSP/ST ALA : ADSP

PDI-3
PDI-3

..... :........'F..n. :. _ _ _ _..__.:.........__.:.... .NAME1:FAkstulewic.::WTra ers

PSears
RWes an

'DATE-:01/u/90

0 / /90
01/p /90
01/0 /90

) , OFFICIAL RECORD COPY [ Document Name: YANKEE

SUMMARY

2 \\ 9001250308 900111 sd PDR ADOCK 05000029 p PDC

kiDEL }. ; January 11,1990 < \\;; i LDu ket Nu. 50 029i [ LICENSEE:. Yankee Atomic Electric Company m 5 FACILITY:. Yankee Nuclear Power Station at Rowe

SUBJECT:

MEETING

SUMMARY

- PLANT LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAM BRIEFING BY LICENSEE g

A nieeting' between Yankee' Atomic Electric Company and the NRC occurred on . December 13,.1980.- At this meeting the licensee presented updated positions m _on a range of technical and policy issues related to license renewal as they J pertained to the Yankee plant at Rowe,-Massachusetts. The list of topics -discussed included but was not limited to: current licensing basis, severe accidents,' compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, and the contents of an. application. -Enclosure 1 contains a copy of the presentation

y made to the~ staff on. license renewal technical and policy issues, s

The licensee also presented a detailed technical discussion of the screening r methodology being used by the licensee for'their license renewal effort as well as the:results of their screening process on a selected pilot system L (safety injection). The envelope of the safety injection system included both N fluid containing.and. instrumentation components, emergency power system com-k ponents and:the structural components that house the safety injection system W (such as the' Primary Auxiliary Building, Diesel Generator Building and the -Battery Room No.-3 Building). The.11censee's evaluation of the pilot system concluded that the areas of the plant evaluated were generally found to be in good condition with no signs of L, significant degradation. The licensee did identify some components which will require further evaluation and some programs which will need enhancements to t E 3 better address degradation concerns for license renewal. A copy of the licensee's presentation on the pilot system report is included as Enclosure 2 L -to this sumary. /s/ Patrick M. Sears, Project Manager Project Directorate 1 3 Division of Reactor Projects 1/11

Enclosures:

As stated r cc w/ enclosures:- see next page D DISTRIBUTION Docket File NRC& Local PDRs PDI-3 r/f P. Sears OGC-. E. Jordan B. Grimes ACRS110) M. Rushbrook J. Wiggins, RI S. Varga T. Murley R. Wessman B. Boger F. Gillespie F. Akstulewicz W. Travers K. Manoly J. Durr, RI D. Cleary W. Minners R. Bosnak J. Vora G. Mizuno D. Kubicki QW / IFC - :AD5P/51A D :AD5P

PDI-3
PDI.3

.....:....... 7..".:..... JAME :FAkstulewicz:WTra ers

PSears
RWes an LATE :01/u /90
0f/ /90
01/p /90
01/0 /90 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name: YANKEE

SUMMARY

2

l '..,; 5 . y; + Rf ^ s UNITED STATES -

8' 7.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r i )d' W AsmNOTON, 0. C. 20555 4 ;' 1 ^ -- ( s.,, '3anuary 11, 1990 ....+ Docket No. 50-029-LICENSEE: Yankee Atomic Electric Company 3-FACILITY: Yankee. Nuclear. Power Station at Rowe

SUBJECT:

itEETING SUl1 MARY - PLANT LIFE EXTENSION PROGRA!! - BRIEFING BY LICENSEE A' meeting between Yankee Atomic Electric Company and the NRC occurred on December.13, 1989. At this meeting.the licensee presented updated positions .on a range of technical and policy issues related to license renewal as they pertained to the Yankee plant at Rowe, Massact;usetts. The list of topics discussed included but was not limited to: current licensing basis, severe- ~ accidents, compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, and the . contents of<an application. Enclosure 1 contains a copy of the presentation made to the staff.on license renewal. technical and policy issues. The licensee also presented a detailed technical discussion of-the screening -methodology being used by the licensee for their license renewal effort as ' well as the results of-their screening process on a selected pilot system (safety injection). The envelope of the safety injection system included both fluid-containing.and ' instrumentation components,' emergency power system com-ponents and the~ structural components that house the safety injection system (such as the Primary Auxiliary Building Diesel Generator Building and the Battery Room No. 3 Building). The licensee's evaluation of the pilot system concluded that the areas of the j plant evaluated were generally found to be in good condition with no signs of i significant degradation. The. licensee did identify some components which will require further evaluation and some programs which will need enhancements to better address. degradation concerns for license renewal. A copy of the licensee's presentation on the pilot system report is included as Enclosure 2 to this summary. k ? Patrick H. Sears, Project Manager Project Directorate 1-3 ) Division of Reactor Projects 1/11

Enclosures:

.i As stated cc w/ enclosures: See next page r i ) e

gg :1, y = g,y(sy f1

;n

.-.y ' x W: '4 Mr. George Papanic, Jr.:

e 04 p

f4 cc:- - Dr. Andrew C. Kadak, President k and Chief Operating Officer L Yankee Atomic. Electric Company b 580 Main Street L Bolton, Massachusetts 01740-1398 J p -Thomas Dignan, Esquire Ropes and Gray-- f. P25 Franklin Street- 'L Boston, Massachusetts 02110. 1 JNr. T. K. Henderson'. 1 L Acting _ Plant Superintendent-i p Yankee Atomic Electric Company ' Star Route C Rowe, Massachusetts. : 01367 j Resident. Inspector-Yankee Nuclear Power Station i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ] t

Post Office' Box 28 J

Honroe Bridge, Massachusetts 01350-Regional Administrator,l Region-I J lU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j! ,? '1 475 Allendale Road-L King of Prussia, Pennsylvania' 19406 j l 1

Robert H. Hallisey, Director-i Radiation Control Program

-Massachusetts: Department of Public Health 150'Tremont Street, 7th Floor Boston,-Hassachusetts' 02111 l 1 :' 1 - Mr.' George Sterzinger l Comraissioner - y Vermont-Department of Public Service i n 120 State Street, 3rd Floor ' Montpelier, Vermont 05602 'i )

i m

I [. pn 33-gv. a ;g N- . s: p YankeePresentationonLicenseRenewal 1) L.',' December 13, 1989 yy. j Attendance List-h gf J Name-Organization Francis ' Akstulewicz - NRR/ADSP Jane M;. Grant Yankee l [ Donnie H. Whitehead. Sandia Nationa'i Labs / DOE-J %i Robert'R. McCoy-Yankee Atomic- ,,~ tEric Hale-SERCH/Bechtel ".1 J. Rajan'. NRR/EMEB i Karl Kniel NRC/RES 1 f Jack. Burns. NRC/RES 4 dn.. 4 G. H. Heidenhamer -NRC/RES ' Sang Rhow' NRC/SICB l Dennis Kubicki. NRC/NRR c." Chen P. Tan!. NRC/NRR Kamal Manoly, NRC/NRR L> . Charles 1Serpan NRC/RES n Tom Law 1 EPRI b Edward P. Griffing NUMARC Barry Elliot. NRC/NRR Jacqueline'Gilchrist: Northern States Power 'J.. S.-' Werrriel NRC/NRR/SPLB "L Beth Doolittle-NRR/ADSP 'i W Tom King NRC/RES/0 SIR-t Nort Fairtile NRR/PDI-3 Scott'Newberry NRC/NRR Eric Beckjord-RES Tom Murley:. NRR Frank Miraglia NRR 21 - Joe McCumber Yankee Atomic John Haseltine Yankee Atomic Paul Norian RES Jim'Partlow-NRR Bill-'Szymcza k Yankee Atomic 'e Andy Kadak' Yankee Atomic + l# s h ..j t

~_f w: e ,.,,,r.r. wm.,.y.;..ys,.,g,._:.. g, ...;.c.,,y y.,....,, m. .m ..,...,.7,. a 7./ y q x y, i LICENSE RENEWAL. J w FOR YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION y u 4 i NRC UPDATE MEETING .c WITH DR. MURLEY f e-- .- 3, ( 1 [, __ Ass E, l e l ____.7 TANKEE m ~ ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND L DECEMBER 13,1989 E A.C. Kadak O t 14

me. M. Y L Yankee-Plant License Renewal E Policy Issues 1 7 #; {;

  • OBJECTIVE If T'

e LICENSE RENEWAL REGULATIONS L

  • CURRENT LICENSINGLBASIS m

V u-L

  • - SEVERE ACCIDENTS
    BACKFIT CONTROLS c
  • LICENSING PROCESS
  • LTIMING OF RULE l
  • NEPA COMPLIANCE i

L,

  • DRAFT RULE PROBLEMS o

s[1

  • STANDARDS OF ISSUANCE
  • ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE D

.L. p

  • CONTENTS OF APPLICATION
  • EVALUATION METHODOLOGY s
  • FUTURE OF LICENSE RENEWAL

= e -m s..w-+ ---e-

g1 7 y [" OBJECTIVE OF T: LICENSE RENEWAL l J y 4 lI 1

  • - THE' OBJECTIVE OF THE RENEWAL-t EVALUATION IS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT

~ THE PLANT CAN OPERATE SAFELY FOR Ji THE RENEWAL PERIOD - 20 YEARS. -{ 1 L,

  • - THE FOCUS OF THE EVALUATION SHOULD L

BE LIMITED TO STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS, L - AND COMPONENTS THAT MAY BE SUBJECT L. TO AGE;RELATED DEGRADATION TO DETER-l- MINE ITS SIGNIFICANCE..TO SAFETY. u IT SHOULD NOT BE.THE INTENT OF LICENSE u F - RENEWAL-TO REDESIGN.THE. PLANT THAT ALREADY HAS; A LICENSE AND IS DEEMED .h SAFE TO OPERATE. 4

s r-t a

f 9 m + nem-

W n, c. y x

LICENSE: RENEWAL

~ E REGULATIONS q l c r

  • NRC HAS LEG AL AUTHORITY TO DEVELOP REGULATIONS SPECIFICALLY TAILORED p

j FOR LICENSE RENEWAL-L i w

  • - CONSTRAINED ONLY BY OBLIGATION FOR 4

FINDING, WITH REASONABLE ASSURANCE, THAT THE HEALTH AND. SAFETY OF THE l PUBLIC IS-ADEQUATELY PROTECTED 4 l ib

  • MUST. FULFILL OBLIGATIONS UNDER ATOMIC

-l ENERGY ACT ONLY - NOT CONSTRAINED BY l h -REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW PLANTS- } o m

  • RENEWAL. REGULATIONS WHICH CONTINUE THE CURRENT LICENSING BASIS (CLB)

~ ARE' ENTIRELY: DEFENSIBLE J

  • ALL CURRENTLY OPERATING REACTORS MEET q

THE REGULATIONS - LICENSING BASIS FOR n-THESE REACTORS HAVE NRC ACCEPTANCE - FAVORABLE FINDING FROM INITIAL' TERM CAN BE ADOPTED FOR THE RENEWAL TERM 1 b e CLB DOES NOT EXPIRE e REGULATIONS ARE LARGELY PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES WHICH, WHEN MET REMAIN SATISFIED .f a NRC'S COMPREHENSIVE OVERSIGHT ASSURES COMPLIANCE I f ,r-- +

m.1. m. .= m A 's I N FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION e. HOW.CAN-YOU LICENSE A PLANT.THAT DOESN'T 1 (.. . MEET CURRENT LICENSING CRITERIA 7???? y e y? ANSWER:- c ^ ik h 1 -CURRENT CRITERIA ARE DEFINED BY THE STANDARD: REVIEW-PLAN WHICH IS-ONLY-ONE-F i WAY-TO' MEET CURRENT REGULATIONS. STANDARD LREVIEW PLANS" ARE STAFF INTERPRETATIONS - o' L; NOT: LEGALLYL BINDING. p ALL OPERATING PLANTS MEET ' CURRENT REGULATIONSt OR HAVE SPECIFIC-. EXEMPTIONS. I t ] LTHE FUNDAMENTAL'NRC FINDING 18 ADEQUATE i PUBLIC PROTECTION - NOT CONFORMANCE TO -STAFF INTERPRETATIONS. s 4 8 9 r e

%g u y xi', <j-- 4>. pu y j ' ', - [ K Current Licensing Basis .t What it Means

  • ' THE-CURRENT LICENSING BASIS DEFINES THE i STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS, AND. COMPONENTS, i
..p t,1

- THAT UNIQUELY MEET NRC REGULATIONS FOR s EACH PLANT. .l THE CURRENT LICENSING-BASIS IS THE-- BASIS UPON WHICH THE NRC DETERMINES

y.

.( d!-

pg w. ,iy J p

E

~ e {! i ,t ? lDENTIFICATION OF CLB i ng i P - FOR LICENSE RENEWAL 1 V d ( -' g SEARCH THROUGH ENTIRE CLB FOR o . EQUIPMENT-RELATED REQUIREMENTS / J R COMMITMENTS f .JL L-

  • REVIEW IDENTIFIED DOCUMENTS FOR I

TIME. DEPENDENCY. - INCLUDES. s EXEMPTIONS t H. REVIEW ALL TIME DEPENDENCIES FOR ~ ' REQUIREMENTS / COMMITMENTS FOR APPLICABILITY-TO'20-YEAR RENEWAL L iTERM l

  • DOCUMENT RESULTS FOR USE IN L

EVALUATIONS OBJECTIVE IS TO ASSURE THAT TIME DE PENDENCIES ' ASSOCIATED WITH NRC AttlONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ANALYSIS FOR COMPLIANCE IS T. UNNECESSARY DUE TO ROUTINE REGULATORY OVERSIGHT-j 1 1 a k e w v v tr v =

y:l ,f' 4 ( ~ ~ hc. W i'; E, S E V E R. E A C C I D E N T S .. r ) i p[ . SEVERE - ACCIDENT: RESOLUTION . SHOULD'BE TREATED SEPARATELY FOR-'ALL LICENSEES. t BURDENING: LICENSE RENEWAL R'ULE .WITH SEVERE-ACCIDENTS IS UNNECES-1 l SARYzSINCE THE NRC CAN CONDITION ANY LICENSE AT ANYTIME. 4 n, m . * - MOST PLANTS WILL HAVE RESOLVED SEVERETACCIDENT ISSUES BEFORE i SEEKING LICENSE RENEWALS. ,. l 4 + j e 4 9 ? we

p'b[.. 3 r, +a ,Q8s ,7 > :i; ', * \\ ^ Ji1 ^~ :

4, c E'

3-lBACKFITDCONTROLS f: } k j-LICENSEJRENEWAL;DOES NOT' MEAN-REDESIGN OF PLANTS 1: 3 I sQ 4 IF PLANT OPERATES: SAFELY FOR 1 40 YEARSLAND IF CHANGES: _ CANNOT BE COST JUSTIFIED FOR MEANINGFUL SAFETY. lMPROVEMENTS, B THEY SHOULD NOT BE DONE-n .* : BACKFlT RULE PROVISIONS SHOULD APPLY TO LICENSE RENEWAL REVIEW PROCESS AS WELL t 1. (.. l k o l\\ l a 6 - - + -

j!p6 '6 'd 3., 3, s ,' ' y t. + 1 r# r LICENSING PROCESS THEL KEYLTO1 SUCCESSFUL RENEWALS [. '

  • ATOMIC ENERGY l ACT GIVES

,u Gi?- : I NRC AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH i ' A SPECIAL LICENSING PROCESS: ' FOR RENEWAL p 0 h;

  • . ESTABLISH ElB.M SCHEDULES FOR L

T LICENSEE,_ NRC AND HEARING J BOARDS ~ u . ESTABLISH RULES FOR INTERVENTION k. AND: CONTENTIONS MODELED AFTER DISTRICT COURT PRECEDENTS (MAXIMUM g . THIRTY'FIVE INTERROGATORIES LIMITED l; .TO' SPECIFIC. AGE RELATED ISSUES) i L j 4 TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OPPORTUNITY TO i JSEE IF ANY LICENSING PROCESS WILL WORK'(NEW'OR RENEW) { l -{l y g l. r ..i-

f[, ,\\ ' l f p. ?,e - 4 e'

,E

.e, p" V -sw =t- ,g. 8 eBE! E l = e-1 ,A 2.$$ ~$$$ , [E[, g' <c - y - ' yE! ' EEE 'I-[- a 'I l s s .= I e i I $g 2, g s.Eg ' s-g_ .s 'Z g J. a s, .a ,g at r 4 as a =5 gae .mi M l /~) E' Efh!-E-w ,g gj IIN! j$Mg b l 'aga! 'is[e! 4 $g eE wf s!,=- r g 4-ug=0 ag g EisEnf g .J.- B m-a .mi g~ gage - re s e E+l_ 4 ,x- ', r El_g g h:s N hN N 6-- !(I

  • E s a

.a ..a g; r aa ser k I I I [ 4 E } Ems s ass w .m =$ =$ 4 D = = = E E'.S E =S ss Si!g 9g s:w si-g .7 s-E E EEf EE5$-E g:' E 4 4 Mh,g $g{Ew$ E y W

  1. e
f. ' 4 E
  • s e F sEgg =

itI .E a e i - is,s- .s .re s .r= e E s es,r s s

m. es-g hhh W5fh E ik af k

CI w'"'4 a < r =Y g p, ,Q$_e n ~ D RE' Y

  • e g=

E myc ?. a e 6 D, mE wES~ w12 [ '.y .pgE ~ ' l C'> ' g:es$w ' ggg 2 g 5. s-g 2.-es ,m gg e g = wE t g!g,E lE Eg g ng , E-E2 E g f R W i

  • 1 to m-E d, t_:f f a

, i r a a y ", I h. E Z I $E o h [ M. E a# ab ige $ I' B 2 u 9 u 6 B

g7g y,., [(7 s 6 M" L TIMING OFL RULE 1 m 3(_ 1;: V I. [- LRULE.MUST BE FINAL BEFORE-i; FIRST APPLICATION a 4 1 h

.- NO REASON WHY' FINAL RULE.

CANNOT BE PUBLISHED IN APRIL 1991' -1 c. i-l::: ll REGULATORY LIMBO NOT A GOOD L PLACE TO'BE s L-1.:- l; . [';

.L.

l l, l-

I.t

a i;;[ 1 ,~ f' NEPA COMPLIANCE w l -}: -

  • CONDUCT AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TO SUPPORT-ISSUANCE:OF THE PART 50 l

SAFETY RULE.ON. LICENSE RENEWAL. L: 1S' IN. PARALLEL, CONDUCT A GENERIC ' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT-TO SUPPORT _r PARTL61. RULE CHANGE THAT WILL ENVELOPE-GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS-TO REDUCE SCOPE AND NUMBER 0F' ISSUES. i 9 s 9 .4~.,

y 2, 3, y DRAFT; RULE PROBLEMS

  • - PHILOSOPHY GOOD'- IMPLEMENTATION

' NOT CONSISTENT WITH PHILOSOPHY _ RULE.lS TOUGHER THAN FOR' NEW PLANTS - f e ' APPLICATION REQUIRES DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALL IMPORTANT-TO-i i. SAFETY PLANT COMPONENTS APPLICATION CONTENT IS~ ENORMOUS - 4

  • "NO CREDIT FOR EXISTING NRC

' i-. OVERSIGHT'OR CURRENT OPERATING '~ LICENSE -

  • DOES NOT TAKE CREDIT FOR INTELLIGENT SCREENING OF COMPONENTS-k EVERY COMPONENT IN PLANT WILL BE SUBJECT.TO *EQ' TYPE DOCUMENTATION - CURRENT PLANTS c'

I NOT: SUBJECT TO THIS'

  • CREATES. LOTS OF PAPER - MISSES AGE DEPENDENCE AND FUNCTIONAL RELEVANCY -

I-RULE FOCUSES ON

  • FORM
  • VS.

'FU N CTION' U m____m._______-m__.______.-um_________________-__________m____ ___________:___-m___ __,_mmm-m-m.__m m

y;. 1 + + STANDARDS FOR ISSUANCE u' LOF RENEWED LICENSE W p. 1 i. i -1.. k .'* ADOPT FINDINGS, MADE TO SUPPORT W* ISSUANCE OF FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE,: AND;THElR CONTINUED I EFFECTIVENESS DURING FACILITY J OPERATIONS, EXCEPT FOR EFFECTS - OF AGE-RELATED DEGRADATION. L = FIND THAT APPROPRIATE ACTIONS HAVE BEEN L

OR WILL' BE TAKEN
TO MANAGE AGE-RELATED

/ DEGRADATION 0F SSCsilMPORTANT TO j SAFETY.

  • FIND THAT APPROPRIATE ACTIONS HAVE

.BEEN OR.WILL BE TAKEN.TO EVALUATE AND RESOLVE REGULATORY EXEMPTIONS -THAT ARE BASED Of4 TIME-DEPENDENT CONSIDERATIONS. LI-a l-t l E f L Y d 7 m.

u(4',1 .',y K,': it. " ir p? ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE L p. ~ m, i I -* NRC OVERSIGHT' AND LICENSEE PROGRAMS CONTINUE TO ENSURE COMPLlANCE WITH' 4 f REGULATIONS. jf a H" j.

  • 1 ADMINISTRATIVE-CONTROLS WILL BE L

USED TO' ENSURE ~THE INTEGRITY OF AGE-RELATED DEGRADATION-M AN AGEMENT ~ ACTIVITIES.- 1 l i

= CHANGES IMPORTANT TO SAFETY GSCs

'WILL' BE SUBJECT TO AN AGE-REL ATED DEGRADATION GEViEW. e' CHANGES TO PROGRAMS AND-PROCEDURES RELIED UPON TO MANAGE AGE-RELATED DEGRADATION WILL BE SUBJECT-TO A REVIEW TO ENSURE THEIR CONTINUED EFFECTIVENESS. L h g L l.

.j ; lh} 4 i "1 CONTENTS OF APPLICATION 1 ' e LIST OF CLB DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE E -FACILITY'S SYSTEMS, STRUCTURES, AND COMPONENTS. -* TIME DEPENDENCIES - IDENTIFIED AND RESOLVED. 4 J

  • LIST OF FACILITY SYSTEMS AND STRUCTURES LTHAT

. ARE IMPORTANT TO SAFETY. LT

  • EVALUATION OF COMPONENTS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO S

THE SAFETY FUNCTION OF THE SYSTEM (S) OR STRUCTURE (S) y AND THAT ARE NOT COVERED BY'AN ESTABLISHED EFFECTIVE PROGRAM AND ARE SUBJECT TO AGE-p RELATED DEGRADATION. pi . *LJUSTIFICATION FOR ACTIONS TO MANAGE ~ L " COMPONENT AGE-RELATED DEGRADATION. L PROPOSED CHANGES AND TECHNICAL BASES TO THE ^ FACILITY, FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS TO L MANAGE AGE-RELATED DEGRADATION. - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS (ES) TO CONTROL l CHANGES-TO PROGRAMS-AND ACTIONS USED TO MANAGE AGE-RELATED DEGRADATION. EVALUATION OF THE INCREMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF OPERATION THROUGH THE RENEWAL I, TERM. i-

%. s_ eu W -} 1 L;- s A 7 ll:. t;g 1 i l, w EVALUATION t.; .n. r .I -l ~ m'n, { T t + SYSTEMS s S-RJCTURES m i s P;1:- AND i -s COMPONENTS J 4 .:V 5'[

~. -::7~ ; :_y;.g., ~- -72 y -, . ~ s ~'_% -,~s e n ~_ n-- _g_ D., SCREENING v .+ v OBJECTIVE IDENTIFY COMPONENTS THAT REQUIRE FURTHER-EVALUATION TO ASSURE THE CURRENT-LEVEL 'OF. SAFETY IS MAINTAINED DURING A 20 YEAR ' PLANT LICENSE EXTENSION PERIOD. METHOD COMPONENTS REQUIRING FURTHER EVALUATIONESELECTED.. USING NUMARC/NUPLEX SCREENING METHODOLOGY. AND ASSOCIATED IMPLEMENTING CRITERIA f 'N a ., 4. .v., ...-s.,

u,u;> g o, p.; 7. , *l : s 4 s t p P 1METHODOLOGYL:TO EVALUATE PLANT 3' g m. EQUIPMENT 1FOR LICENSE RENEWAL REVIEW-STEP'1 EVALUATION OF PLANT' o SYSTEMS AND STRUCTURES m. i r All Plant Equipment a -e t :. wre......mm.x=-r.r: 1.mw1-r.-umm..... n==

=

e m r n - n n. ..tve:: E

c : ' ". '

~ j Substep te V' r No System or Structure Does t i Does the Plant System or Structyre Not Require Further i Contribute to Plant Safety? License Renewal Revies tf; Yes g- ' Substep 1b y No

I. ls Degradation of the System or Structure m

[ ~l'PotentiallySignificanttoPlantSafety? l .Yes l s.-.. o' ( ._.y._,. 3e.. ,,n. ~ l' 'l

(

v Systems and Structures Subject to Component-level Evaluation 1 l STEP 2 F

Lg. k L CONTRIBUTORS TO PLANT SAFETY SCREEN (STEP 1A) SAFETY-RELATED BASIS LICENSING BASIS 7 MAJOR LICENSING ISSUES (CURRENT LICENSING BASIS) WIDE SPECTRUM r OVERLAPPING COVERAGE 1: E EOP BASIS I SYSTEMS CALLED OUT.IN EOPs .I j k L L ~ 4 N

n,-..

-w,-------- --r- -.,,----n----,-m-- e

w'

- - ~ - - -e--- --w'1

e. ,s. -,h,,..su e m,m4i.-- e A_a_.. A _a g4 4 4 M,,_. m.,,#-.,r,gJ-MA-ahe? LICENSING BASIS l 1. FSAR ACCIDENT ANALYSIS . TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 2. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION (EQ) 4. APPENDIX R L 5. FIRE PROTECTION L 1' 6. SEISMIC r 7. HEAVY LOADS l 8. INTERNAL FLOODING J 9. EXTERNAL FLOODING 10. RAIN / SNOW { { 11. TORNADO / WIND L 12; HELB 13. RADIATION SHIELDING b 14. STATION BLACKOUT u l n ,e r. -,- -.,--,..... ~.,_-. ____, ___ m

~. I STEP 1A - DOES THE SYSTEM OR STRUCTURE CONTRIBUTE TO SAFETY i 63 OF 78 SYSTEMS CONTRIBUTE TO PLANT SAFETY l 33 OF 46 STRUCTURES CONTRIBUTE TO PLANT SAFET SYSTEMS SCREENED OUT: i ~ BREATHING AIR SYSTEM 5 CHEMICAL FEED SYSTEM I CORROSION CONTROL SYSTEM SANITARY DISPOSAL SYSTEM l .I. SHIELD TANK CAVITY PURIFICATION SYSTEM WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION BLDG VENTILATION SYSTEM GAS STORAGE ROOM VENTILATION SYSTEM l PAB NON-FILTERED VENTILATION SYSTEM SCREENWELL PUMPHOUSE VENTILATION SYSTEM SERVICE BLDG VENTILATION SYSTEM SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY: SYSTEM SG BLDN l&C SYSTEM TECHNICAL SUPPORT CENTER SYSTEM STRUCTURES SCREENED OUT: i ADMIN BUILDING PCA BUILDINGS 1&2 CAMERA AND LIGHTING POLES POLE BARN I DECONTAMINATION ROOMS SEAL PIT FENCES AND GATES TRAINING AREA BLDGS GATEHOUSE HEATING BOILER VENT STACK NON-ESSENTIAL UPS BUILDING +-.. m.- __..__._....,,,.,.-...e.. ,,,.~, v .m .--m... ,.c,..

.c ~ y a. DEGRADATION POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT SCREEN (STEP 1b) i RADIOACTIVE RELEASE - FSAR/ TECH SPEC RELEASE LIMITS .. BARRIER FAILURE -MAIN COOLANT SYSTEM .+ -CONTAIMENT CRITICAL SAFETY FUNCTIONS j -ALLOWANCE FOR DETECTION i l r l b h -,_..w--- -e,ww-nm.~we,--.w.

~ ~ ~ ~ ^ q).. STEP 1b IS DEGRADATION POTEN-l TIALLY SIGNIFICANT TO SAFETY? 43 OF REMAINING 63 SYSTEMS SIGNIFICANT 27 OF REMAINING 33 STRUCTURES SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL SYSTEMS SCREENED OUT: ) AIR REMOVAL BATTERY RM NO.3 VENTILATION CIRCUL ATING WATER BATTERY RMS 1+2 VENTIL ATION EXTRACTION STE AM NRV ENCLOSURE VENTILATION FLOOR DRAINAGE TURBINE BLDG VENTILATION GENERATOR GAS GENERATION & TRANSMISSION t FIXED INCORE DETECTION GENERATOR SEAL OIL HEATING STEAM MOVABLE INCORE DETECTION LUBRICATING OIL SECURITY SYSTEM POTABLE WATER ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM l: TURBINE / GENERATOR J ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES SCREENED OUT: METEOROLOGICAL TOWER PLANT MODULAR OFFICE BLDG SLE DIESEL GENERATOR BLDG SERVICE BLDG STORES WAREHOUSE SWITCHYARD STRUCTURE r I l \\ L.- ---- ,n,.-w- < ~

,x.z. . c. 4 STEP 2 L COV DONENT REVIEW h y {aJerg '--- r ggamr m-um m. ].w mwnngr-mmanum, wn ;gwmE2d urtars : ' u n, +- e l. Step 2 - Evaluation of Components witnin Systems and Structures j f: Substep ta y 'l p is the Component important to System or Structure Safety Function? E E 4 t- ,o r .[ $ Substep te p yes Component Does Not ji 4 Require Further License H Is_the Component Subject to' Renewal Review Y'S l, Established, Effective m . Replacement, Refurbishment, or inspection Programs? Substep 2d r t No Options to Resolve ( , ' Substep se 3,. Potentially significant 1: istheComponentSubjectto No Age Related Degradation Potentially significant l> r e i b ^ . Age'related Degradation? I l Yes i-i L p OC *. L.. .,. ~:~t~.:.~~~= ~.~ :~.. 1nw ..a:,w.. w.u..mntm _, -d.mr.,;~;: - lb + l. l: l l i L i ?

i L COuPONEN T SYSTEN SAFETY L FUNCTION SCREEN (Stea 2a) n 1', COMPONENTS ARE DESIGNATED IMPORTANT TO SYSTEM OR STRUCTURE SAFETY FUNCTION UNLESS: o IT IS NORMALLY ISOLATED AND DOES NOT PERFORM A MITIGATION FUNCTION t OR o ITS FAILURE WOULD NOT DEFEAT ONE OR . MORE SYSTEM TRAINS k AND 1 o NOT. REDUCE STRUCTURAL SUPPORT OF OTHER IMPORTANT COMPONENTS AND I o NOT PHYSICALLY DAMAGE OTHER IMPORTANT COMPONENTS i I, w ,,n,- n-- a

j COMPONENT. SYSTEM SAFETY . FUNCTION SCREEN CONT. l o FLUID, ELECTRICAL AND STRUCTURAL i L COMPONENTS EVALUATED.FOR IMPORTANCE L 1 USING CRITERIA DIRECTLY j q L n o I&C COMPONENTS IMPORTANT..TO SYSTEM SAFETY FUNCTION ARE THOSE IDENTIFIED-4 IN THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: REG GUIDE 1.97 (POST-ACCIDENT MONITORING) TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS [ SAFETY CLASS MANUAL EO PROGRAM APPENDIX R SAFE SHUTDOWN SYSTEM INSTRUMENTATION t-l l ->,,----r ~-v--+, --r---

e,-*

EFFECTIVE REPLACEMENT, REFURBISHMENT, OR INSPECTION PROGRAM SCREEtl (Steo 2b) - A COMPONENT IS CONSIDERED TO BE SUBJECT TO AN ESTABLISHED EFFECTIVE REPLACEMENT, REFURBISHMENT, OR INSPECTION PROGRAM /F: o PROGRAM is DOCUMENTED, APPROVED, AND j ROUTINELY IMPLEMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ~ AND I o PROGRAM PROCEDURES ENSURE THAT ALL OF THE COMPONENT'S SIGNIFICANT SAFETY i L FUNCTIONS ARE PROPERLY ADDRESSED AND o CRITERIA AND ACTIONS FOR NONCONFORMANCE ARE CLEARLY DEFINED FOR YANKEE: PROCEDURES OVERLAP MULTIPLE COMPONENTS - PROCEDURE REVIEW INCLUDED: COMPONENTS AFFECTED TECH SPECS SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES VENDOR MANUALS ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA INSPECTION METHODS FREQUENCY l l l e -,,---m., m ,<-_.----.4-,,_-,-.t-

y ,1 -c .y n-e+ -m w_ .sies d Saugt ee'estt (tit 1Dit tverest - e 74r$. Pits i 9tlettfD fiest Poetroust eteFT. $witt We tes eartet se. $ftttf!C fat up/tlet 85 mn.. ..mm____ ._m.- __..mm mam ; -n _ _ t fag to : P_481 1 Destreption. S P9tt$5BE SI fWIP 1 teraeret C95t-P 3 e m n.= n__..........__ _ mmmwe memm.m m. _ _ _ .. -emeemw.. Preredere se Specific actiettydereeptance Criteria

  • Freguenr e term. cal *,sesf 6eatism Die ms 1.ge apthee Bra.dsag ree p

mmwm.mwe _. _. _ _ .,,mm-wm,m.. ..mno,m.... F_4294 verify that eart LPSI peep starts fees the at toest twey 31 day, s$tassp+ed test 6.eess 457e2e ~ tvet gestrel como (> fess ofready reuniagt T*999 fe?tett. _ _ _ f** <r9999999 - __ .4 _.e9999elettyet99*e-**e. F_42H 9ersey that each LPS: pump decelers e M teast twee 31 esse t$taegmd test tmst 417e26 feet sp.girA destbarge pressere le TV psig on retireefst6en f ten tfesegh CS-W95-532/9et of $,ec.aP 53% m-,mm=wm m mm _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _... __mm mweaeesmm m._ .. e-e,-e--e.. __ _ _ nn 9P 4294 Torsfy that eart LP$I pump operates f or at et least teece 38 days (Stage =eed tett bases) 452e2t tvet f eest 15 meestos 'OP-4 *44 eae each see6) ( emmemn==_ _ . _ __ ssm-sms-wms.. __ _ ..m_. er_4295 9eelff that earn IIP $t and tr$t peep starts te= e le maaths 452e3 tyst setsmatieelty en a safety impeteen segnal/tetosties of tte safety espetion r systen "E" retsyv eleses the sin saf et, impetion ymmy at9 s in proper segme=re eemmmenm._ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _..._ __ _ _ __ __ nmeessmennese mereenemmmeer, e-em_. ..m m m_. _ _ _n-wemmem,_ _ .. nnw

m..

9P 4290 9erify that ett esoteestices of tuo tr$l tellessae reartetion of flee therartmetee 4$2gI test tw penpo deselop e cembened tiem/). 2148 SMt. attweeg sydee eedetecotecas j romeng asps (. 386 momem mm._ _ __ __m.. . _. m-m. _ 8P_4294 9erify Ett$ setsystem teshage outside teaterreat meth f.S 4 $ 2 e (F 4294 eaeb 45$ vit conteiament/ (e 30 Opp (I,$,3 $.5) emeer e/15 een een) l m.m.mn mmmmm. _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. __ - _...s____ ..n- -mem.-e-m _ _ _.m,._ l F 4294 theek letriestions, eeksties, ceaning meathly t$taggered) neers l_3 sad s e>< 4 % ffe tw eP.13% e asys/9stration est of feec_W_$3% -)190 P$fG l mwmm=momw _ _ _ _ _ _ mm. _ __ _ __wm-,_. _ _, mm.. . mm. _ . 42 4 Se., iso tes,s. store, Set of $,.c .sm -ei .as, 9,.. ..s. monweewn _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ ,ee,* _ _.. __m__ r_5354 l} teb, section/ discharge prss. and wit. 2) to Henthly teet 6eareng trap D 29 t'aestly 452.s2 test T19 9P 4799 Searing tesqrf). 250 P$ts, ethoc, see SP.Pg 3 45Z ebearing temp ) Sfe I eemmmums. ___. _ _ mm e-m+meen_. ..e ssmmmemnmsmn_ _ __ _ ..m. OP-42T4 penneag asps ). 386 sups temmen tiendee f ten ~ tefee86ag 131 feet to 2500 W9 ist. leap he fles * $80 GP4 .mmmm-m=m.... _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _.. wm.mme _ _ _ . _ mmum,,mmm. . _mmmm _ 9P_5352 Raiateneere inspection el estratim 9) angeer es e*gested pers es,st 919 til et 14 959 m.,,memn _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ mm mm--mmemnmom,,em-,_. ...m_. l I l l l v + .3 ,w. -aw a-. .,_m.,,_m_ _._____r,_mmm_ _ _, _ _.,, _ _,, _ _. ~ _ _..

.. 1, L COMPONENT. AGE-RELATED DEGRADATION SCREEN (Step 20) p L o: DETERMINE AGE DEGRADATION MECHANISM o DETERMINE CONTROLLING PARAMETERS 1 o ESTABLISH ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA o COMPARE WITH PLANT OPERATING PARAMETERS - FLUID COMPONENTS L

  • USE EXPERT SYSTEM - CoDAT
  • 20 DEGRADATION MECHANISMS

^ I CERTAIN MECHANISMS EVALUATED SEPARATELY. (e.g., FATIGUE) l I - l&C AND ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS NOT SUBJECT TO AN EFFECTIVE PROGRAM ARE q ASSUMED TO BE SUBJECT TO AGE-RELATED DEGRADATION. THESE COMPONENTS WILL BE f EVALUATED, GENERICALLY IF POSSIBLE. l - STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS ARE GENERICALLY ASSESSED FOR. AGE-bEGRADATION. THESE [ ASSESSMENTS FORM THE BASIS FOR FOCUSED WALKDOWNS -OF PLANT STRUCTURES. k FOLLOW-UP EXAMINATIONS AND TRENDING PERFORMED AS WARRANTED. -w, ~

.~ DEGRADATION MECHANISMS FOR FLUID COMPONENTS, CoDAT ASSESSES THE-POTENTIAL FOR: GENERAL CORROSION THERMAL-EMBRITTLEMENT EROSION / CORROSION NEUTRON EMBRIT.TLEMENT i TWO PHASE EROSION-HYDROGEN EMBRITTLEMENT MIC SELECTIVE LEACHING-IGSCC GALVANIC CORROSION TGSCC IASCC IGA i NOTE: Other degradation mechanisms, such as j 4 l fatigue, are assessed seoarately. i ^ !l

i j# s-RUCTURAL COMPONEN-- j f* GENER C ASSESSMENTS PROVIDE FOCUS FOR PLANT WALKDOWN e IDENTIFY AGE RELATED DEGRADATION +1 MECHANISMS APPLICABLE TO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS DESCRIBE CONDITIONS WHICH LEAD TO DEGRADATION AND HOW DEGRADATION IS MANIFESTED ASSESSMENTS: = - CONCETE STRUCTURAL COMPONENT - STRUCTURAL STEEL COMPONENTS - SEAL ANTS, ROOFING, AND WATERPROOFING BARRIERS - EQIJIPMENT SUPPORT COMPONENTS i 1 L gu 4 w ,, -. - -,,- ---~ ~. --., - -, - -,, - -, - -, - -, _ --~ >

n. g r. .WALKDOWN 0 1 PLAN" STRUCTURES 1 j

  • PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAILED e

WORK INSTRUCTIONS s

  • APPROXIMATELY 6.MANWEEKS OF PREPARATION j

- STUDYING ASSESSMENTS AND PLANT DRAWINGS i '8 - PREPARING DATA SHEETS AND' PLANS ]

  • WALKDOWN TE AM g

1..YAN K E E .i - '2 STONE & WEBSTER t 1BECHTEL (OVER 80 YEARS TOTAL COMBINED civil [ ENGINEERING EXPERIENCE)

  • TWO WEEKS ON SITE

.[ - FOCUSED EXAMINATION OF AREAS IDENTIFIED lN GENERIC ASSESSMENTS L l. - EXAMINED ALL ACCESSIBLE AREAS - VIDEOTAPED CONDITIONS FOR DOCUMENTATION AND AS THE BASELINE FOR FUTURE TRENDING OF MATERIAL CONDITION, AS DETERMINED NECESSARY i l., + L-. --------------.

,-e

~. q

g....

50 1 t ii I P _OT STUDY j i I COMPONENT SCREENING i l .d I i STEP 2 I ~ [ SA:ETY INJECTION SYSTEM l i L t i. ll l u t I s m_-- - _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i________..._.______.__ _., _.,.,........, _ ,.e

y w,, ; :. - IDENTIFICATION OF COMPO\\ENTS

  • FLOW DIAGRAMS
  • TAG NUMBER
  • DESCRIPTION

+

  • LINE NUMBER

~

  • OTHER AVAILABLE INFORMATION r
  • 392 SI-FLUID COMPONENTS I

-%. 168 SI I&C COMPONENTS k

  • 100 EMERGENCY ELECTRICAL SYSTEM COMPONENTS i

t 4 3 STRUCTURES ASSESSED a y e 6 b .-,.-.,---.,-.r-,,, -n.. ,,.,...,~a.

^ ~ ^ ' ' ^ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ^ ~ ~ ~ ^ ' ~ ~ k y _pf

i;; :p

- ) o PILOT SYSTEM COMPOhENT- .t SCREEhlNG RESULTS l SI: SYSTEM : FLUID I&C ELECT TOTAL '# 1 [ COMPONENTS-392 168 100 IMPORTANT ~ COMPONENTS-377 97 88 (STEP!2a) b NOT SUBJECT TO l EFFECTIVE PROGRAM 377* 43 25 [ (STEP 2b) SUBJECT TOl [ AGE DEGRADATION 18 " 43 25 (STEP 2c)- o

  1. . COMPONENTS REQUIRING EVALUATION.

18 43 25 y-n . ' Operability function of 58 active components [ covered by_'ef fective program. Pressure boundary function assessed for allimportant Si fluid components.

    • Six components identified by CoDAT as having potential; age-related degradation. Twelve L-components identified as having potentially active deoradation mechanisms.

+ ,, - ~ -.-,.....,--,...,--,-w< -r .---ew -e=

- l,3%? q v n BALANCE OF PLAN-L SYSTEMS AND STRLCTURES L i l: IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT OTHER PLANT = SYSTEMS' AND STRUCTURES WARRANT-i 0 FURTHER REVIEW BEYOND THE SCOPE OF I LICENSE RENEWAL - POTENTIAL TRANSIENT INITIATION - PERSONNEL SAFE.TY r - ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS I THESE-AREAS ARE BEING REVIEWED AS 1; PART OF YANKEE'S OVERALL PLEX EFFORT ' INDUSTRY AND PLANT SPECIFIC RISK

=

STUDIES ARE USED TO FOCUS REVIEW l-i t-u _-.Y_-_l.'-L,-_._---- ~--,-w-a - - -,s,ve--- ~~w v - '-o*--- -rva-' ~

i? 7.~ ) COMPONENT EVALUATION l SUVVARY

  • ONLY 5% OF SI FLUID SYSTEM COMPONENTS REQUIRE FURTHER EVALUATION

- BASED ON SI SYSTEM MATERIALS,' STANDBY l J SERVICE, AND EXTENSIVE MAINTENANCE AND SURVEILLANCE - AVERAGE FOR ALL SYSTEMS IS APPROX. 50%

  • MANY ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS HAVE BEEN-DISPOSITIONED BASED ON EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS (i.e. MCC'S AND SWITCHGEAR) f

- HOWEVER, ANY SPECIFIC ISSUES WHICH MAY BE IDENTIFIED IN GENERIC EVALUATIONS OF SUBCOMPONENTS WILL BE ADDRESSED l I e' STRUCTURAL WALKDOWN FOUND PLANT IN GENERALLY VERY GOOD CONDITION k - FOLLOW-UP EXAMINATIONS, MATERIAL CONDITION TRENDING, AND FURTHER [ -EVALUATION WILL BE' RECOMMENDED, AS APPROPRIATE, BASED ON WALKDOWN RESULTS

  • PROCEDURE ENHANCEMENTS FOR l&C COMPONENTS IN THE AREAS OF FORMALIZED CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND INCREASED TRENDING ARE BEING CONSIDERED

.L 1 t l

l. 2 l

p FUTURE OF LICENSE 1 9 ~ RENEWAL l e /~

  • DEPENDS MORE ON LICENSING PROCESS THAN TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS l

i ' e PROCESS MUST BE AN IMPROVEMENT OVER NEW. PLANT LICENSES- ' SHOULD BE STRAIGHTFORWARD AND ' SIMPLE ^ H - e RECOGNIZE EXISTING LICENSE AS BASIS L FOCUS SHOULD BE ON ABILITY TO L MAINTAIN SAFETY FUNCTION OVER-l TIME USING TECHNIQUES OF INSPEC-TlON, REPLACEMENT, REFURBISHMENT AND MONITORING .I - SHOULD RECOGNIZE CONTINUING NRC AND LICENSEE OVERSIGHT OF STRUCTURES, l SYSTEMS, AND COMPONENTS p l-l. w w -, - ..-e e,--, ,w .m,,..w,., m....,, - ....... _. _ _ _ _ _ _, +

k ;3.;x [.. FUTURE OF LICENSE RENEWAL (coHTINUED) f. ,e NEED TO MAKE LICENSE RENEWAL DESIRABLE WITHOUT RISK OF DELAY, UNNECESSARY, NON-AGE RELATED BACKFITS AND A REOPENING OF l; ENTIRE LICENSING BASIS l: 1 LICENSE RENEWAL SHOULD BE ROUTINE e i PROCESS SHOULD NOT IMPOSE MORE 1 e I REQUIREMENTS THAN EXISTS TODAY TO ASSURE SAFETY WE CAN DO IT, PROVIDED WE FOCUS i ON FUNCTION, NOT FORM l .i i e l I 'I

c w.. 'f f SCREENING COMPARISON I IDENTIFICATION OF IDENTIFICATION OF E . lMPORTANT TO SAFETY IMPORTANT TO SAFETY l - STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS ) AND COMPONENTS AND COMPONENT 8 (SCREENING). s j ( CNECK TO SEE OF BASI RECONSTITUTE DESIGN .l MAINTEN ANCE, SURVEJLL ANCE FOR ALL IMPORTANT TO OR INSPECTION-ADDMSSES. SAFETY STRUCTt'RES. COMPONENT FUNCTipN-SYSTEMS, AND COMPONENTS I / YEG-OUT 1 l-DEGRADES AGE 7 /- NO - OUT CHECK ENVIR NMENT DEFINE ENVIRDNMENT . E MLU ATE FOR ALL COMPONENTS, DESIGN CRITERIA - EELUATE ALL I '[ NO ACTION ~ [ NECESSARY ~ ACTION ACTION REQUIRED REQUIRED j (REPLACE TREND, OVERHAUL) L MORE FUNCTIONAL - RELEENT MORE WORK TO AtlNG, NOT DESIGN BASIS MORE PAPER RECONSTITUTION d h SAME CONCLUSIONS V f. ,m . -. +.,, n,~ ,-~~ - ~~=

m e g g :. ^;,m. _.S5f ~ ~ - uc.usu e ' c-- .~. ..e 4 YANKEE 'NRC ~ PILOT EVALUATION REPORT ; MEETING DECEMBER 13,1989 1 EVALUATION-OF l COMPONENTS 4 4 I BY JOSEPH T. MCCUMBER YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY-c l n -yv g--nv-w mm vs,e.-- 'n ,.~rw ~,g ~,<-,, y e--w w...w yc-,+ v.- w-r-w.ge-- 4 w- _,_ae, e .e a. _e,=-au____-. _. -a,-,__._1_,

.[ '.' 4 - l OBJECTIVES o l DEMONSTRATE THROUGH A FORMAL PROCESS THAT: o ALL COMPONENTS REQUIRING LICENSE RENEWAL. REVIEW ARE IDENTIFIED o ANY AGE RELATED DEGRADATION WHICH COULD RESULT IN A COMPONENT'S INABILITY TO PERFORM ITS REQUIRED SAFETY FUNCTIONS, DURING THE RENEWAL-PERIOD, IS RECOGNIZED AND PROPERLY. MANAGED 3 +- v er.- # . a- <...i m- .2. . mmm = i - -m

_= l T. ' PROCESS KEY POINTS i i

  • COMPONENT IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAILED l

WORK INSTRUCTIONS

  • UTILIZED A SCREENING METHODOLOGY AND J

CRITERIA TO FOCUS EFFORTS l [ . PROVIDE DESIGN INFORMATION, ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTATION ONLY AS NEEDED TO SUPPORT JUSTlFICATION OF CONTINUED SAFETY 1 i = VARIOUS METHODS USED TO DETERMINE.THE POTENTIAL FOR AGE RELATED DEGRADATION l IN THE MANAGEMENT OF SUCH DEGRADATION l

~ 1 7 li: j

1. u

--7 1 SCOPE .l 1 COMPONENT REVIEW OF EXAMPLE SYSTEMS l AND STRUCTURES COVERING BROAD RANGE OF COMPONENTS: l o SAFETY INJECTION FLUID SYSTEM AND I&C COMPONENTS o EMERGENCY ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEM o PRIMARY AUXILIARY BUILDING, DEISEL GENERATOR BUILDING, AND BATTERY ROOM NO. 3 BUILDING 4 r d ) .-g- --r w- -e-v a.- ,&w ve wy v -. me m s m- .mm m ..m. .m m.m- .u

a ~. - e + METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIAT + BASED ON NUMARC NUPLEX.. METHODOLOGY = COMPONENTS REQUIRING REVIEW :ARE-EQUIVALENT TO "lMPORTANT TO SAFETY" SCOPE i i i f i .m ,-... - -.- -~.., -- ~ = - -. - -

--J

_.m-. .+ _ -y. .;g _s. ~ COMPONE N T-NOT. IMPORTAN T ' TO SYSTEM / STRUCTURE SAFETY FUNCTION i . OR. OOMPONENT FAILURE COMPONENT NORMALLY a 6 .WOULD NOT Fall !SOLATED AND DOES NOT PERFORM INDIVIDUAL TRAIN ACCIDENT MITIGATING OR SYSTEM FUNCTION COMPONENT FAILURE WOULD NOT REDUCE O OTHER COMPONENT'S STRUCTURAL SUPPORT COMPONENT FAILURE NOULD NOT PHYSICALLY C DAMAGE OTHER COMPONENTS FIGURE _ CRITERI A FOR IDENTIFYING COMPONENTS NOT IMPORTANT TO SYSTEM / STRUCTURE SAFETY FUNCTION .}

w

-r ~

-;w --a ,c ,- L nit:;- _u Aw. ' ~~~ 4, C 4 ~ x. ~ .A COMPONENT SUBJECT TO 'AN ESTABLISHED. EFFECTIVE' REPL ACEMENT, REFURBISHMEN T 'z OR INSPECTION PROGR AM - 4 t-r a L J l -J L 4 b PROGRAM DOCUMENTED PROGRAM ENSURES

PROGR AM ESTABLISHES APPROYED AND ROUTINELY ALL COMPONENT *S CRITERI A FOR DETERMINING '

IMPLEMENTED I AW SIGNIFICANT SAFETY NEED FOR CORRECTIVE ' ACTION PL ANT ADMINISTR ATIVE FUNCTIONS ARE - AND REOUIRES ACTION BE TAKEN PRCOEDURES PROPERLY ADDRESSED IF CRITERIA ARE NOT MET s FIG URE ___ CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING COMPONENTS SUBJECT TO ESTABLISHED. EFFECTIVE. REPL ACEMENT. REFURBISHMENT OR INSPECTION PROGRAMS

y -~. . ~_ .a c. ~ _y, 7l.k . - - - -_ =_., .'{. ;;

  • ;i: >

_-W-- ps_ :. '7H' f., ~ +, _,4; j-g:3 ~ 2 ::: z== ;, Y ~ ( 2.'; t ~3 -::12 ^ x-u .s W . COMPONENT NOT SUBJECT 'TO POTENTI ALLY; SIGNIFICANT AGE-REL AT ED DE_GR ADATION - k c: ESTABLISHED AND DOCUMENTED' THAT POTENTI ALLY SIGNIFICANT AGE-RELATED DEGR ADATION WILL NOT OCCUR DURING LICENSE RENEWAL PERIOD FIGURE _ ~ CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING COMPONENTS NOT SUBJECT TO POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT. AGE-REL ATED DEGR ADATION -k.- .,..m 44

n: -x~ .. 4:: - m 4 ;. ~ [ FLUID SYSTEM COMPONENTEREVIEW 'R~ _ f_ MOST FLUID SYSTEM COMPONENTS ARE CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT TO-SYSTEM. SAFETY FUNCTION. SAFETY FUNCTIOhS: Operability ~ l . Pressure Boundary IN GENERAL, SURVEILLANCE AND TEST PROCEDURES-PROPERLY MANAGE OPERABILITY FUNCTION. EXPERT SYSTEM USED TO ACCESS DATABASE INFORMATION TO DETERMINE POTENTIAL AREAS OF PRESSURE BOUNDARY. DEGRADATION. -i .i k i i

g r EXPERT 1 SYSTEM ! OVERVIEW CREATED ON COMMERCIAL ~ SHELL t

e SIMPLE 'lF - THEN' RULE STRUCTURE RULES BASED ON LOGIC. DIAGRAMS DEVELOPED FOR EACH MECHANISM 1 APPROXIMATELY 330 RULES EVALUATES 20 DEGRADATION MECHANISMS U ACCESSES MULTIPLE DATA BASES TO = RETRIEVE DATA r EXPERT SYSTEM NAMED CODAT l

,, r - f.7 = L DEGRADATION MECHANISMS FOR FLUID COMPONENTS, CoDAT ASSESSES 1THE. POTENTIAL FOR: GENERAL CORROSION THERMAL EMBRITTLEMENT EROSION / CORROSION NEUTRON EMBRITTLEMENT TWO PHASE EROSION HYDROGEN EMBRITTLEMENT 1 MIC SELECTIVE. LEACHING I IGSCC GALVANIC CORROSION TGSCC IASCC IGA NOTE: Other degradation mechanisms,. such as fatigue, are assessed separately. .i ? a.- v n.na, -

,g.Egq M?.

J

!1l

i

[ ?, v i. _ g y :. ~ gA=;:. w 7 ~ , ~ n 0-e -e g; e ~ n c,. .^ j' ~ a m_ ~ I ^ w c j 3 q 3' M E + ^ T 2 26427623 u ..i.. 9 2927.51 S 3 1 n Y v e MS E N S T T ~ S D N S. O- .i; _I YI S T m I E ~ m ~ m N ES N .y Sd O w VE SE w E P LV TN s D J M AL NO UN O V A EP I y V C L MM I L i S S S AKG UO FY R C P UC N l 1. A K M V' NEI T B T T N 4 ~ E O AU OAH PS U N I F T TPMMCPI S + A y S g g ~ l 3 t r 1; ~ ~ . ~ h u t 6

~ - u.w ~ .g. ' ^ ~ FLUID SYSTEM COMPONENTS REQUIRING FURTHER EVALUATION-t GENERAL CORROSION OF ALUMINUM Sl TANK DUE-TO FLUID PH: 1 CREVICE PITTING-AND MIC OF BURIED PIPING GENERAL CORROSION OF SI' ACCUMULATOR TANK-SHELL OPERABILITY OF SELECTED-MOVs-AND SAFETY. VALVES i [ n w ,.,.+ c~ ,,p-n,y,wa w m,

. yy=p.m =. -9gp

?

^,;. '" ' ?;:' 6 - -in-

'3 SI : FLUID

~ SYSTEM RESULTS: TOTAL COMPONENTS 392: gggg,yy) NOT IMPORTANT TO -SAFETY FUNCT..

15;:

GOVERED BY PLANT PROGRAMS O (58 OF 70 SEEWiMMME= 4MM#N W9WP NOT SUBJECT TO DEGRADATION ~371 REQUIRING FURTHER EVALUATION 18.(6 PRESSURE BOUNDARY 12 OPERABILITY) __.,...J_._.: ~__.....i_. ._mm_._

-~g L L

GENERALEFLUIDLSYSTEM DEGRADATIONLMECHANISM RESULTS 1

DEGRADATION MECHANISM i GENERAL CORROSION 37 I MIC 20 l GALVANIC CORROSION-- 17 CREVICE / PITTING CORROSION 12 TGSCC 8 IGSCC 7 EROSION / CORROSION 5 THERMAL-EMBRITTL EMENT 5 OTHERS (2 i l [ PRELIMINARY +-

x gy ^ W'Tq? z 4 _. I&CTANDTELECTRICAL i COMPONENTTREVIEW 7

  • MANY COMPONENTS HAVE: BEEN.. REPLACED IN RECENT YEARS

. EXISTING PROGRAMS ( i.e. EQ, CAllBRATION 9 AND TESTING) HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVE IN ENSURINGLCONTINUED SAFETY - ENHANCEMENTS IN THE-AREAS OF FORMAllZED' CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND INCREASED TRENDING ARE BEING CONSIDERED

  • COMPONENTS NOT DEMONSTRATED AS COVERED.

1 BY PLANT PROGRAMS REQUIRE FURTHER 1 EVALUATION j

  • MANY COMPONENTS WILL BE GROUPED FOR GENERIC EVALUATION-i

-,,__;;r,. .-,..,J

i, .l.! ]! R 1 w,,Mj ?, q n t-ny w wp s~ s,, g w M a, ~ E T 8 267401 1548 e. S 6 242 1 2 2 eM ~ w 1 g Y g S m O S EI T S TO N C S I 1 E I ST N S O E N YC O R^ IL P R. SE P E J M TS SP T ~ C N O TRS S RU C &I C M OE~ R ES E I TH SO D L S L S AC M YT R RSE n II O EE + A NCTRAIAL N CWVC T T AI s I LS 4 L E O R DWLE O EOAI N e F T Tl SARMRPVM A S 4 y 1 u-s ~ + w A. y. ~ y nLl l Il l1lllllll i +

7 -... z y - L. ' D.: ~ /s1. ~ f fjg T l&C COMPONENTS ~ IMPORTANT TOLSYSTEM SAFETYi FUNCIlON-l ~ 'ALL INSTRUMENTS COVERED BYlTHE: FOLLOWING ARE CONSIDERED lMPORTANT TO SYSTEM SAFETY-FUNCTION: EQ PROGRAM SAFETY CLASS MANUAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 (POST ACCIDENT MONITORING) I APPENDIX-R REQUIRED INSTRUMENTATION' SAFE SHUTDOWN SYSTEM INSTRUMENTATION o i i r -.- ~ . ~ - - ~~4 m J

= ,, 3 =r -3;, ;, m ,37 ;v. ~ ~. 7 p, + m- . _.. ~,.,. _ ~ f, j _.a t_ ~ ~t__ 'y C 9;. <4'_Q %3^3 - * ^' ' ' * ~ _ 9,. , ~,,. _~ ~ = ~ Q u ,.~ sl&C i SYSTEMLRESULTS TOTAL' COMPONENTS (168 NOT IMPORTANT TO SAFETYIFUNCT. '71 COVERED BY PLANT PROGRAMS' 54 (4 UNDER EQ. PROGRAM) NOT SUBJECT TO DEGRADATION. O' REQUIRING FURTHER EVALUATION 43 4 o a 1 7 -i 'l L __ r - _a . _ _ -...,.:,.~. ...._-.,,f.

,7 - w i :. a! ' ? t ) g. ~. P p _,z, 1 y ' W y,,+. W g g. s p 7, m,. .M e 3 ;,. E p:. T + g ..g S a, p;,. g Y p S i s e 9 .R 0 455321 ME 0 35 ,v-EW p 1 9 y TO gg SP S r V. S E S L T H e A N C E T L C. N S 7 I dI y,. CR O W R E w T ,P R S M p RC M A / S S R

I E

S D 7 TE G RI R O OC S EOE F CL H R KN T S 'F = EE L C O AE N 7 R h A T E T EL A LL T I EY O WO RO V R N s. y C T SMBSI T w N ba 4' E t '.s G = y=- _ RE e v.e. M E w g 4 ,-j F i.

.~ .= i ^' ~ ~ i.} ncc r- ~- e ELECTRICAL 1COMPONENTSL IMPORTANT TO SYSTEM SAFETY:1 UNCTION: 4 ALL ELECTRICAL' EQUIPMENT lS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT TO SYSTEM SAFETY FUCTION ~ EXCEPT FOR: 1 LOADS DETERMINED:-NOT IMPORTANT TO FLUID SYSTEM SAFETY FUNCTION COMPONENTS NORMALLY ELECTRICALLY- ' DISABLED l COMPONENTS USED ONLY FOR MAINTENANCE OR REFUELING ^ 4 v 9 7 t

  1. g,31

.. ~. y

.%.-9.

e- ~ w ^' u @p s ~2'i$ B '- 11.. 3

1.,

.j_ ~ ~ Y ~= ' %:p 6 ! ELECTRICAL SYSTEM RESULTS n TOTAL COMPONENTS-

100 I

NOT IMPORTANT TO SAFETY;FUNCT. ' 12 's COVERED'BY PLhNT: PROGRAMS 63 (23.UNDEH EO PROGRAM)L NOT SUBJECT TO DEGRADATION O REQUIRING FURTHER EVALUATION 25 .w -o- <. e.+-m+ a, -sm.+r-m w-wwm. m.r-. e.%4,m. .--4.-am.'ermem A_w-smew-'ew s. ...w%d,e-p_--mu.- im h---ammm w.m--+eshm.__sw.m.-.--

h ~ r ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT GROUPINGS FOR FURTHER EVALUATION. CATEGORY - EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATIONS ANNUNCIATORS PHONES SIRENS / HORNS CONDUCTORS CABLE -PENETRATIONS l - BUS DUCT l CONTROL AND PROTECTION BREAKERS-RELAYS FUSE. HOLDERS GROUNDING / SURGE PROT. - SWITCHES / SHUNTS DC SUPPLY GENERATORS-BATTERIES-DIESELS LOADS < MOTORS. HEATERS 2 4 '-s'-- m u1.1. .m. ____.;___x

.y ; n s n x =v ; =a+w-wwway ~ [ f - :Q;&g n = w _ 3.. m. + g, w m y m.s ~ m , ;-9 ELECTRICAE EQO!PMENT GROUPINGSL FOR F.URTHER4 EVALUATION 1(CONT} CATEGORY EQUIPMENT 1 TERMINATIONS LUGS

SPLICES TERMINAL 1 BLOCKS TRANSFORMERS.

'DRYL LIQUID.' FILLED VOLTAGE REGULATORS ~ l l . _. =... ... ~

= +: 4 = g s: 1 w .N'- ~ PLANT STRUCTURES EVALUATED L PRIMARY AUXILIARY BUILDING - TWO STORY MIXED REINFORCED CONCRETEL AND BRACED STEEL FRAME: BUILDING - REINFORCED CONCRETE FOUNDATION' - MASONRY AND REINFORCED ~ CONCRETE WALLS DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING - REINFORCED CONCRETE FOUNDATION - SINGLE STORY BRACED STEEL FRAME BUILDING - MASONRY WALLS il 1 BATTERY ROOM NO.3 BUILDING - REINFORCED CONCRETE FOUNDATION AND ROOF SLAB - STEEL REINFORCED MASONRY WALLS-q i ..-e ,,. c .s .m.

~ ~i(.: y j;.g i.f ..N.; STRUCTURAL COMPONENT GENERICEASSESSMENTS

  • PROVIDE FOCUS FOR PLANT WALKDOWN:
  • IDENTIFY AGE RELATED DEGRADATION MECHANISMS.

APPLICABLE TO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

  • DESCRIBE CONDITIONS WHICH LEAD TO DEGRADATION AND HOW DEGRADATION IS MANIFESTED
  • ASSESSMENTS:

-CONCETE STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS - STRUCTURAL STEEL COMPONENTS - SEALANTS, ROOFING, AND WATERPROOFING BARRIERS r - EQUIPMENT SUPPORT COMPONENTS-

iY .;_ yj-F ; ' ~ ?OY& l: ~

-W l

'N. $? "-A ./ t,_ y

#p

/. w ;4, ~ + g f " -Q, c WALKDOWNLOF ? PL~ANTLSTRUCTURES g

  • PERFORMED IN ACCONDANCE.WITH. DETAILED

~ i ~ WORK INSTRUCTIONS-

  • APPROXIMATELY 6 MANWEEKS OF PREPARATION

- STUDYING ASSESSMENTS AND PLANT DRAWINGS. - PREPARING DATA SHEETS' AND-PL'ANS

  • WALKDOWN TEAM 1 YANKEE 2 STONE & WEBSTER-1 BECHTEL (OVER.80-YEARS TOTAL. COMBINED civil ENGINEERING EXPERIENCE)-

4

  • TWO WEEKS ON-SITE

- FOCUSED EXAMINATION.OF AREAS IDENTIFIED. IN GENERIC.- ASSES _SMENTS - EXAMINED ALL. ACCESSIBLE AREAS l - VIDEOTAPED CONDITIONS FOR DOCUMENTATION AND AS THE' BASELINE FOR FUTURE TRENDING OF MATERIAL CONDITION, AS.. DETERMINED NECESSARY z ______,.__.___.__._.___tc_____. ma- -u- -w2 ^tb-m - - A

w....n rm n%m.m

. Ma .__,_a. ,..u..rv.r_- .,a m'"

=

T uff l = ~ y. y x 5 WALKDOWNi FINDINGS; 5

  • BUILDINGS-ARE GENERALLY-IN VERY--

GOOD CONDITION i

  • STRUCTURAL STEELL - AREAS:.WITH.lNITIATION.

T OF MINOR CORROSION WERE OBSERVED, POINTING TO THE NEED FOR INCREASED ATTENTION TO MAINTENANCE: PAINTING

  • CONCRETE - A FEW INSTANCES OF. DEGRADATION:

WERE OBSERVED (i.e. MINOR CRACKING). F.URTHER EVALUATION WILL DETERMINE THE NEED AND EXTENT OF FOLLOW-UPLEXAMINATION-OR REFURBISHMENT

  • ROOFING DEGRADATION WAS NOTED, WITH SOME.

REPLACEMENT IN PROGRESS. FURTHER EVALUATION OF ROOFING WILL BE PERFORMED e m. o ~y',.. e.y ,m- .. n l g. p. ,mmm. m. _.,v., ,e}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20006A149&oldid=4665150"