ML20057B131
| ML20057B131 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/13/1993 |
| From: | David Nelson Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9309200014 | |
| Download: ML20057B131 (10) | |
Text
r September 13, 1993 o
ORGANIZATION:
Department of Energy (DOE)
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH DOE OFFICE OF LIGHT WATER REACTOR (LWR)
SAFETY AND TECHNOLOGY CONCERNING ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH LICENSE RENEWAL On Thursday, August 26, 1993, representatives of DOE, Office of LWR Safety and Technology, met with the NRC staff at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, to provide a status briefing on DOE efforts to develop a draft amendment to the license renewal rule. is the meeting attendance list, and is a copy of information provided by DOE for discussion during the meeting.
DOE is developing the rule amendment as an independent party.
The DOE approach is concentrated on the Integrated Plant Assessment (IPA) portion of the renewal process.
The draft amendment is undergoing internal DOE review, and a decision on whether to submit the proposed amendment has not been made.
The staff and DOE discussed the draft approach in limited detail.
00E indicated that the approach remained conceptual in nature and was not prepared to present examples of its use.
Information provided by DOE included a process flow chart of the IPA approach.
The staff stated that alternative approaches are welcome and described the public workshop scheduled for September 30, 1993, as an appropriate forum for further presentations.
Original signed by:
David J. Nelson, Project Manager License Renewal and Environmental Review Project Directorate Associate Directorate for Advanced Reactors and License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
List of Attendees hV,v@, r/
[ /h6 6 \\
2.
DOE Handout DISTRIBUTION:
Central File PDR PDLR R/F TMurley/FMiragli a,12G18 JPartlow,12G18 DCrutchfield, 11H21 (44k /gy WTravers, llH21 SNewberry, llF23 LLuther, llF23 FAkstulewicz, llF23 OGC EJordan, MNBB370lf NRC Participants ACRS (10) g' g,m.t r.
smnn4 n 4
PDR DRG NRRB
/ 0 l >,1/~ b O / }l 9309200014 930913 rs f
PDR e
PDLR:LA PDLR:PM PDLR:SC PDLj[
LLuther:v DNelson M FAkstulek Shberry z
09/f/93 09/7 /93 09/9/93 09/9/93 DOCUMENT NAME:
NELSON / DOE
SUMMARY
N8 i
rm 2w 3 w s. w,- c.= ;
f9 m,
'h
o Q
ENCLOSURE 1 ATTENDANCE LIST AUGUST 26, 1993, MEETING WITH DOE NAME ORGINAZATION Steven Reynolds PDLR/NRC William Travers ADAR/NRC Scott Newberry PDLR/NRC Charles Thompson DOE Stearling Franks DOE Dennis Harrison DOE Doug Walters NUMARC Tricia Heroux EPRI Kathryn Kalowsky Winston & Strawn Antony Pfeffer Bechtel Bob Borsum BWNT Lynn Connor STS Sam Lee PDLR/NRC Debbie Jackson PDLR/NRC Steve Hoffman PDLR/NRC Rebecca Nease PDLR/NRC Dave Nelson PDLR/NRC P.T. Kuo PDLR/NRC Scott Wingate NUS Tom Hiltz PDLR/NRC Jeff Sharkey PDLR/NRC John Moulton PDLR/NRC Jocelyn Mitchell ED0/NRC Jit Vora RES/NRC
?
t I
/
/
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
' ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH LICENSE RENEWAL t
BRIEFING FOR L
NUCLEAR REGULATC'RY CC'MMISSION White Flint Office August 26,1993 P
8
'3
~
Dennis L. Harrison, Sterling Franks and Charles Thompson Office of LWR Safety & Technology Office of Nuclear Energy m-
.m m
______.s.z_,__m.__.
.m m.
. m mm.--.
m 2
v---.
A h
STATUS OF PROPOSED DOE ACTION I
n A draft amendment to the license renewal rule is being.
L developed by the DOE DOE is developing this rule as an independent party.
The proposed draft rule has not been finalized and is undergoing internal DOE review.
t A final decision on whether to submit the proposed rule amendment has not been made.
8/26/93
h i
REASONS FOR DEPARTMENT ACTION L
The path to a viable license renewal process is uncertain NRC, industry and DOE share a common objective of establishing-a stable, predictable and efficient license renewal process.
Based on initial efforts to use the license renewal rule, there is no consensus that the regulatory process is predictable,
)
stable or clearly defined.
There are differences between the NRC and industry on how and when to remove the regulatory process uncertainties.
DOE has developed an independent approach that factors in NRC and industry.
4 4
8/26/93
. _.. -. - =. -,
\\
WHAT ARE SOME OF TIIE PROBLEMS WITII THE REGULATORY PROCESS?
i 1
1 Very few, if any SC's can be screened subject to ARDUTLR.
SGs that are monitored on a routine basis to determine when replacement or refurbishment is needed are considered subject to ARDUTLR.
IPA focus is on the identification and evaluation of ARD mechanisms versus managing the effects of ARD.
The Maintenance Rule was not determined to be sufficient under the license renewal process.
8/26/93
NUMARC, EPRI, Owner Group, Lead Plants and inoivual utility efforts 1.
SECY-93-049 and SECY-93-113 2.
CO.MSECY-93-019 3.
Commisioner Curtiss notation vote on SECY's and COMSECY
- 4. Staff Requirement Memorandum, dated June 28,1993, on staff proposed action on license renewal
- 5. Monticello draft license renewal application
- 7. License Renewal Workshop notice 8/26/93
HOW WILL THE PROPOSED DRAFT RULE CORRECT THE PROBLEMS?
Revise the definition of ARDUTLR to allow IPA screening Exclude SCs that are regularly inspected or tested and are replaced or refurbished, if established performance,
~
time or condition criteria are not met Allow use of Maintenance Rule programs without imposing additional prescriptive requirements on MR implementation Clarify the options to allow management of the effects of degradation or the management of the ARD mechanisms.
Make the reporting and documentation process more efficient 8/26/93
c
-a INTEGRATED PLANT ASSESSMENT PROCESS 1
54.21 (a)(1) Identify SCs ITLR 2
54.21 (a)(2) Identify SCs ITLR by Functional Evaluation 1I 3
54.21 (a)(3)
Identify SCs Subject to ARDUTLR If c
a t
SC Performance or.
condition is reasonably assured no 1I b
l' Are the effects y,,
different in character or 3
7 magnitude no 1 F c
Effects only occur during extended operation If no
. If 4
54.21 (a)(4) m 6
64.21 (a)(4))
Document bases for not subject SC is subject to to ARDUTLR ARDUTLR-7
-w.
1 1
INTEGRATED PLANT ASSESSMENT PROCESS CONT.
e 5
l SCs subject to i
ARDUTLR I
lf 6
no 7
54.21 (a)(5))
is an effective Document bases rogram required yes 1I O
54.21 (a)(6))
Develop new l
program and implement i
l e
r e
e