ML20055C728

"Draft Meeting" is not in the list (Request, Draft Request, Supplement, Acceptance Review, Meeting, Withholding Request, Withholding Request Acceptance, RAI, Draft RAI, Draft Response to RAI, ...) of allowed values for the "Project stage" property.

Summary of 900605 Meeting W/Numarc Re NUMARC Draft Response to NRC Comments on BWR Vessel License Renewal Industry Rept of Oct 1989

ML20055C728
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/11/1990
From:	Parkhill R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Jocelyn Craig Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 9006220175
Download: ML20055C728 (3)

Text

[!f* ?%,,,*

+

UMTED STATES r

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,_f o

WASHING TON. D. C. 20665

\\,,,,,

June II, 1990 hEMORAHDUM FOR:

John W. Craig, Director License Renewal Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects-III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of-Nuclear Reactor Regulation THRU:

P. T. Kuc, Secticn Chief ~

License Renewal Project Directorate Dhision of Reactor Projects-III IV. Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Pegulation FROM:

Ronald W. Parkhill, Sr. Mechanical Engineer License Renewal Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects-III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 50 EJECT:

SUMMARY

OF MEETINC WITH NUMARC REGARDING NUMARC'S RESPONSE TO NRC COMMENTS ON " BOILING WATER REACTOR VESSEt LICENSE RENEWAL INDUSTRY REPORT" DATED OCTOBER 1989

(

NLFlit forwarded the subject industry report (IR) to the NRC for review and approsal via a letter dated October 16,1989. NRC-concents were provided in a letter to NUMARC dated April E, 1990.

NUMARC's draft response to the NRC coments was forwarded via a letter dtted May 29, 1990 and a meeting was held between NUMARC and the NRC on June 5, 1990 to discuss NUMARC's draft response.

Enclosed is a list of the attendees. This memorandum sumarizes the results of that meeting.

[

At the beginning of the meeting NUMARC was informed that the staff had not had sufficient time to review in detail the May 20, 1990 draft response, but had performed a cursory review based on the time allotted.. Many of-the staff reviewers felt the meeting was premature. As a result, it was agreed that the NRC would forward detailed comments to NUMARC within about 2 weeks and that NUMARC would, concurrently, revise the subject IP based on comitments made in their May 29, 1990 letter, as well as, in consideration of the staff's preliminary coments raised in this meeting.

NUMARC was informed that it should not construe 16ck of NRC coments in regard to a specific response es acceptance of thet response by the staff. During the meeting, NUMARC discussed all of its responses except for those NRC connents characterized as editorial.

The following is a brief sumary of the n. ore significant issues discussed:

(1) NL M C intends that the IR's will be used similar to NRC approved topical reports, in that each applicant who makes reference to it would be expecteo to individually-conf-i their plant is bounded by the IR's x

"nm qoor,notgg y4 3

gog y-

//g

Ja* Craig.,

bases and would_ verify that no unique feature exists which is outside of the IR's technical bases. Therefore, plant specific evaluations would be necessary by the applicant for referencing each IR and would be retained '

as-part of docunentatior, supporting license renewal applications.

(2) The staff suggested that guidelines be added that' clearly state what actions are expected of applicants that utilize this IR. Also, the staff suggested that HUMARC make these actions mandatory to avoid writing a SER that is predicated on the completion of numerous NUMARC recomendations by the applicant.

NUMARC objected to making the IR include mandatory requirements'and stated that it would refer the applicants to individually evaluate the applicability of t'.;e IR to their facility j

i (3) The staff recommended that a matrix be added similrr to Table 1.1 in.the i

PWR Reactor Vessel IP which identifies what age elated degradation i

mechanSms affect specific reactor coniponents.

In addition, this matrix should list all applicable regulatory instruments for which credit is taken as part of an effectivt program to manage aging during the license-renewal period.

i (4) The staff took exception to the NUMARC position that inspections-per ASME Code Section XI were an acceptable alternative to analysis for evaluation i

of fatigue degradation.

Also. NUMARC stated it intended to recomend that the original licensing basis ASME fatigue design curves continue to be utilized, whereas t'ne staff identified that the later ASME Code fatigue design curves more realistically accounted for-the in-service 1

environmental effects.

l

(

(5) The staff indicated that the subject report referenced many publications that were not previously reviewed by the staff. The staff will have to review these publications if they are used as the basis for.the subject report. NUMARC committed to make all relevant publications available to the staff.

l (E)

In addition to including more technical information in the IR to support the staff's review. NUMARC indicated that many of its responses would also be added.

Original signed by Ronald W. Parkhill. Sr. Mechanical Engineer License Renewal Project Directorate Division of Reactor P-ojects-Ill. IV. V i

and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

U. Travers. APSP

.. Muscara RES

'R. Germann. EMCE i

J. Vora. RES H. Brammer. EMEB A. Taboada. RES R. Bosnak. RES K. Wichman. EMCB P. Shemanski, LRPD-W. Minners. RES E. Terao. EMEB T. Quay. LRFD F. Akstulewiz. ADSP J. Thoma. LRPD N. Markinshon. IPPD E,. E1110t. EMCB

\\K. Cozens NUMARC J. Partlow. ADPR D. Crutchfield. ORSP Distribution LRPD R/F JC PTKuo LLuther JVora ppa Centra F

~

0FC

tRFD:SME

LRPD:

LRPD:SC NAME :PParkhill:vb

llut

PTKuo 061E,jg6/f@p,,,,, :06/ V/90 :06/#f/90

L i

Asak $ w Rs" da

/6

• o M *pmee he a t-m-niw iwa ArsnJrau Lup %,u ww w s.<-ns-w.<

.Ti% C ffhLboS-6 f Q,j ug_

(% y3jg,.np7 1

ges (son 49 2-s e r4 3 < +-

VopA w we l/L.uo chO *U-7b f, T NOO yte Tsk W C.mi

,ce,t e o

< - v'9 a - ae-J 3

M/km L.

tuves

/VRk/RM't sot 49 a.-tu 7 EopApo P.

G4nFFt90-H u M & R c--

2 02 - 6~19 ~ 19 90 MJ u).%k<

Apai 4it-ass-zu6

~%.e S tucmce GE uoO 325-M i 9 6 DENNI5 l* llAM50N

,])DElNE-V2.

30/~255 20$f l

.- v '.

I l w c v

%oA,b c (g a s', 5 G

~ Y ~~

WifC,lfE5lMf?@

(50/) y$2 -3t2 2 C*CP_

NV5CA44 i

KEdS Al m Sin es ?e :nac 0.

((oIt.). E'95~ ~ lO 4 /

WRl %say e%,.

Til.?nx.

.f's - B s s

,e.to s -

I WAClfYA.Ml8./1c.b(3*/) 47) b n &

h A + ov &

AM/4/#4 /AMEL 30/ '-49% -o 7P4 N /. /s M n n M

/

. TK60 sA acc/AR5',/ mes

?* r - 49x 3r.*s T44.1c.4mo ORA [/ Lgep (seij 492 e757 NB Pnut s1E h n N5 kl N6t qoi-4 %-siei Mg /)/ne 8 3o I-10. - 33 / 7 hd Tm ts rcz LRPD

.g o i - + 9 ;t - 3 1 4 6 TE 6 Qum'

'JOHu

0. 'THosn/)

HAblLAfD 3 01 - %~ t> 4 9 l

N Mc1 t1 AMtso%J gggJcgeo

\\

@r4wm T2M/E.lO 3el-fbaAPZY

/favxcsM A%9xmc u nar<./Wo 3* t vtz-lr76

' Aw,- e. A~.,9 w., i w G.1) nr eiye x'ebe,+ 4. Nicke/Y Ear (4 is) 43 s - es 83 BApY 'J. Ewr IMry'ctscs

&Gece m3/n,ce.c.

(rahs 72-/2to 1

.