ML20196A331
| ML20196A331 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/18/1998 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-3057, NUDOCS 9811270115 | |
| Download: ML20196A331 (83) | |
Text
e
/
N f,
k 3
$[,'$,
.. +;
.;. ', : ~. l :.
7.*. h,['..,'g,7 '.. '.I d4'.
["i,2f*
!. 5 :) s[#,. #f i.!(f'*.[ e ;
4.<
Q<., ';:.'.:y ', i.,u,g.... %.,, c.'C.:. l:-l' %l; ). ':L. ;a'LM.;.hlg.l'. yl:.%, N
.. '- Pi. y ",1l, '['
7.. y ; ; $ '
' '; 7* ;
' 'Sfl.
- . 9,h ;.'.'
f 7
ei-
.n :-.
. ' -(1,. %y;.e. ; l " ( y',~;.;",,% :<i. ' ',' '.':l '.;. ' '
.f
,. l.:';;. *C.. : :
1
. T * '.
~..M. :,' ~' s
's..i,, Ql :
, s &c <fm :.
- y
- ~,)p<y.... ; f; v'. -
-G,h, f, s.
..':. 1: *, j
'.. ; :,'.lv.. y <
- ef. {,V 'Q; Q' 4.
?> - i..,>
f..J i
q p' Q' ;. 2. '. ' :. '.; * ::, .::, y:: ;,( ;Q,7,. :',..,4.l.,ft:,:';l.f. k?' ' *.
,. \\,,..t
'. 3 K c.,,', J*
l %,f _ g,, -jf. :sk ; Q
.(,,
l:, k ; ~;? *: 1 i
j 1
0,,
'g,
' Vh..
i
.4, ' J. gg.;pfD,$'h.,
< ; Q j '.S "ef.g,..'!.,] ~ f.,,,. ;
',',; -, ' '. :H,,
, g.9l.;.,,, 5 9.,y,. '. - ', ' -
,,,,,5.,.,.,.
f
[',.. r :,.,...*. ; s..
r*..,
,. 3.s.'..a
' *:. l-l :. '* : ' <.1:.".':,'..'*.;. ~ : :: q Q.:,, '.'i. : :!'.;.ls' y,~h l, **,,l,. gf ;I:yy: t or N '. ". '
y
,,,,.,._.,'..,.-:. *% &, ';x ;
/. c n. '..
.a
.v:'2.
- .l
- ..
fl. :< ': n..s
'... ll..
,,. :r. ':
?..J.:, '.; '4,. '!1:' ;.1,.:.'.,'..',..... - l';, :
e,. '. -. : : s.
l 1,
.n
-l
- ':.,j. :-
7 ?.. ':. =,.'.,s
,;l.., ;e'.:.
_,!. * *;, :, '".'.',. i
?.. :- { :
.s...i.
).,
...= y >:'.. - :n o e l1;
~.'l
. -e sl**:.,
.a
':0:
l 'kf', l.f.f,.p, f!,'.
... :.. r \\ v 'p.s,.f.y,:*.. ;'y:.
.).-
v.
- *.. q ' ~ ;.... ',,:.
..-(
... (,'Nf':.0..:
?
" f h,. t..f.>-
Q k'.' Y:$.:,....., f' f :l$. *;~.fl l,'! ^.' :f
' l.i.;$.0*: d.$: '. ' '.
.Y 5 N_' N,'.. ~i.} i.,'..f ';.,
..,. ; f.,
- f.
- t
,;.. ;6)~., T.p:;,c* ;.:1..
.i
...,.....,1,;'
~ ' e :. :.. ' ',.
,..:n
......e,o,....:~
,.'s?
. s '
.c s
..g< '... $. 6.,.-l6lr..o e ?.P.. o,.., '. t v, *,.
~
..s.
.- *-. s:
u.
. ::. : ;... : _<g. s;.o. "
s.
,1
'<g....'...-
.l.
, 1:
.y ; u -.
,j'.
t.-- }. e. :._%...
.,,*n,. ' :.
....s..
s u..::l - > zs ;. c
- s*
- ?
...,.~'...'.'..~.:,.'.,:,
1.
tr.,.',,,3 ',.- f.: %. :'..s j'. : ;. v s,%
,.:. e e...$.. \\
f,,, y.-,., j.
. e '.: :,...:,.,... _ :.., ' i '.,, . Q ;'.3. :'.
./;
,.g..,
.. -y,. ;..
v...
4 *. '.'.",;.
.:? ;
.4. :,
9,.
. ;',p.
,, e,),'. n..
3
.g.. e s.;.........
f.
. ' ', '. l l '.;.$ : ~; : '.gl' ' h' '. : '.' A
.e
. - : S.,. '. '.
- 4. y '!1" } 'l r':
. o '. ;
r-
'3 t :. :,
.,., ~.... ;; ' j ; " ;. 'h.0.'.; '- ( b'* ! ' '.W ' n, 'y. ". h t,.
- _ 4:.q
- 4'
~..,llc ".l,l,.,, ' ;. *.
,. 3,,;,.r ;., ;,.. t's, :-
E ".r%.. :
.~s
- ..'.,_,,.c...,,;.q....,'._,',y.
- .*a.<.-
4-l..,..
1 s - :, ;
- r
.:...., ; i.o. ', e 4
....s.
,.. ~
s
, *. p..
. t t, ;.,
.s
^.
. c :. ;,: :
,r.
a m,., * '.
4..,,
yr. '., : 5...,
s.
,.Q...,
s
.,...,.,.~q'
... <. -. *.~
. i
- p. u *,,.; ' ;*:.,s g,,...:,,.,.,,.s.,
e
.,.. --'.,,'..s.
.-m,
.,..,,....o.
- 3..
- ...':
n u.-
- ls:..
,.t :, %
t
.\\ \\
..c.*,'z';".',p'.....,
s,?,
,: n
,a s.
,..,...,...r.
l... ; :... ?. '......,i ::, e..,:,c,;.i
'q : l-
.+
.. e :)., '. '
.s.
'" ~.. s y...'."<*."t._l'..d..
a:
r s.'>.'..
..~....,::
v,i %r.,.. ?. Us.
<:'.'.<.,..,,.',c.*-
'.
- e.
..,'.i< :.~.o. :..
,.,a
. 1
. '.: l.e '.l... E ',j?.'s':
.s-w
. n.. v..
. "...t, ; t i... ' ',
'.'., Yi".\\ y :
,.: ;, _ r,,.
, r......,
. N *.. ' : ~ ':;?,. ' l
. s. ". ;. 'l '..,,",f
..,' : * ; " i ' l f '..".:'('. l
- 1,.., y l.',:
,..., j:? l \\: t, g !.;. -l. ' '. e ' '
,9 l
- 4
-.;,- -.,.N.
- .
- ' ',,, p. :.., ::., ',~ ;- '
'.6, o
'.y
... _,.. l eg, :
,7-a.
., " 4..,, e.. ;
,.a..
- .. *.-,, 'fl,' ;5 : :..:.,.., : ;, '
t..,.
... :. *I,.. -l
,,..... q.s,.,-,.< i~... s,,
s.
., **-.,,,,,}. :.'
.\\. E,7 _ [ l l ),;,2;,
- l..
.'.;'l 4
/ - '..;, ;. -
. 9 j.g.'
. r.
' " ' ;;' ~.:;'j!,':'
'.* h l. !
', / ' :. Cr'. '. ' * * '* h ;;. 2 ' ' '
f.'
q
[. ' ' -
.w).,.". ' 5 " <l J.. U -l
!.. ; ' '. y
..~.,-ll.:..'.',.,'.... "','.v.
.- ; ;.. V e.
g
-l' "E' ' '
s. 0 "* ' :
6'l ;-l.l.<.
': L.,
t'.,!{: ' q ':' 4l\\ ll ' '
,.:Y,' 'l ~:* $ i ' *;.. : l;
[
- ll!. },l[ll )
lt.
.'"..Q :
..,,' &. l ' yl &.. V ','., '.,','
, ' ' ' ' !.l.?
' ' ! ~
- ~!
,l ; 'jj.
. q;.
'. ::' ' ?.,;',
.':.., :.:, '; :ll'.~,.., z. ;:.' '..~ ; ;;'_f;.[:},,. _ ; !. ' y ;. f':. +'-:\\ : : "*
s.
,, y;. ;:l:.
. l :.
e,.
c..'*: A. g. i,4
. ". ? 1:..l 4 f. - A...,
- , '.,.,k.
u
- ,l.,.', s.,,.
',,' b ' : ;;. ;, i'., '.'" :, ; *;,;., *,
Q, :
J
. ss..
- s. ;., ;.:.y
,'.<;,<'. - i..L 4
\\.'
s,!:
- j,.;
- : -
k ;t>
~.., '..
- ~
'G.'
- ..,. '. ': l; :
- >.,,....', ;.. 4 ':l l '.. y " y<*.;*,4.:e,~),-
- ,',.3..
y z:,, ::.,,i...:.: :
,i. ;,,. ;
G. ;
- r a.
~
.r.
n :;- n -.
.. '.. '.. :*q '.:.1..\\.
,. :..< u.,.. l.. -.
.t...,'...:
'.. ' ', '. f. '. c.i.. V'. r. ":.~3. : tf" :
- .
- .i.: '..
.a y.,
e'. ;.. '.
. ' '.:' *.. p.: %,
- y;;_ f..
- .;. v?...; '
n. *
...v,v
_.....,'.~...'+.s s
... 9,c '. '....,,.., Q,. v.. :. t i y< ~.<.,.
,m. '.,
..,,; ;. -... i. : ", f.'..
.s s;.
,v
-...:., $. ;y ze
.;. g;._
e.x :, e *::;; ;.,. ':
y,
},.>.
_...:,q..f._, ?.. '..,., e, f. l. ',j;, :....;.Q,.
.; )i.,.,;r
_. r;.
- j ; ;,!.-. 3,.,. l -
-r
,g.
.'.s :.
r:.;.*8... :n :l f.
Ig :;.
,,;. q;,.
-l e.
.., ;,.':.p w.
. g, y ;q, ;p;. ; L:.;;<:,,... ;;'.< p.:. (,.
~ j', ~,,,.,,,'.r.g: _.:,;,.:.;,.j.,,. y :;. ',, %;;;;.y ;; ;,
n
. p y :.:, z s. :,, b ',...,
- ./
e..
7 8 7, j 6,,.,y V L. :,..g.,..,%.
n ;,..d..
e
,d..,, ;. s.
y is.
f
.s 4/9
~';. L:.' '....;,..\\.\\i: % * { Wil':::Yi};f.. &'.;'...l;,;hll '.l,% l.l'l:l' : ". l's);[.l,l.'{,;.(,.,'.' 9 Q[q.._fOl;&e.;'.,
.h l
- . ? ;.'i. " j-f.) [f,..
?
- '... t,,
... $ m,e.7,'y..,N
- ._.' _ g
- 1,g.
s.. v.,:.}, ;s.e :.?.: -;
- {:.:5.p;g ;,, ;.;,
f.9 < ~ -.,; ;,. :: - ' %p.h., ;. ;,
$.;;. D.: p.p.jNty S'{;
ll.':.f '. 'f.<;; 1."?.. 'i. }l{l6.._; :. ?. 7:$.h.. ;Q? lY: },.?_Q{.: '.'W, ;.G:.
.cn:..$.3: fig fMluf::?:, W'5;' i&', ;*y);*W:;$.}h :{s7? ;l;a W
s:: : i':.?
.Q:
G
.g~ ; :
.,: ~; ;e'.l Q',',;. 4,:. : 1.f.;.:,b:&.,,g;.i '!',%
- 2. J
- p. g',, y.
<m.9..:::s:
- 6 ya';f *:.*:
i 'i,%.>
.s.,
Q.,.
, p. r.4
..;.:,..;,,;.,7. t.'3...,:. r.,, w. 7:.
... W,.... i'. j y,. :::c. :;,.. ! 7:.. f.
g ;..... !,,... -
9.::.r a
.e j.; ;.. :y.c:.,;,.".y,, ;, :,..,,,,; ;. l_ ; *. '.:,., :. ?,.
.., 3. a.,..,;.'.
s<
. 3
....;41,. +,.....!..f.,...
t :.a;.;;
,. :g.:
.e.i.
- .q p
- o. n (:%;,'..l E:,: 4,6. 4y..,.q-:4;7:::
...n(,,, a: u.;;J.f:'p i.e,;..q;' J,.
... s. n,...l;. :9. l.:. - J. i: ' '. e i;:l. -
e.,..
g 1.:
/,....,,,a
.,. ~..-
f. ;.:L,(
- 1..:
- ..
- .s,.p:.. ; :.WJ c y:c.'::
..E ).N :
s 5
,:,y;JJ:
j.:
.:'['&.l n.
y.. n: : 1.,W>..M.., u.p..(4 :.: . :,.,1:: ;-l. ~... s:,,,, q;9:..;:
e7;;
/
ll~s -l;j ;l'*
Q ;' !. ::ll,..:,, N,:.
',,e.,g:. l,u;n.
.r'..
'1'.f,';
'!:i ':g f.l1,.'f.,$... ' +
y'. ;!.:.;:..t
, : '....s
.' ;. ':.. ; e e
- =...
e.C *.9
- ,.h l
.?,.
y :.,eg
- s='l,,l, i.L[I'
' ll,f; '; 0:g'
. ;l.]9
.Y*-
,, l \\ -
.4,.... '.
- 5..
o
,;f1 n
n.'5... o ' s,.
'l'
'I.l:-l):' Dl'G yl,fO.y{.}; J.
.f?:f;;;
,k.
".*[;,.}.
- ~ ?.f
- a. ; V.$fl {.of. p,l ^ k
.,.1'*
,A, f.
f*$ :c 'f ':g n?*fl., % :l[.e ), 'g..! ".l.'.f;-l;<y(s.4
- s:gp:.*f: Y; f. f l:,?..:v'.sf.' N,M.s yq.1'.
[K f '",p. * ; j'?.$(.. fls,(h.'
A *,,:
- ;f =Y'e' l.n T
. ', '?*;{';.:.y.,. ?.,;.. e
- . '..
- ;z ~ 9..'
.ya
-',.,:..!:".:.:,,'.:t.:g ". j... *.. ;s. ?.. ' 9 :.* 's *.,..f r
- ."s
. :m
- .,a.'. ;; t:'n
.... 1.:
y: :
.? p:
.;;. ~:.m.
- . ;i -,
!:'i.,. $. i..g.,
- ,4',.
....*,0 g.
e, 1.t, '.' A'y. *.h,a l o.
-4
.q
.M n
. 16 :
j
- g. 5,;A,.,, :-
f,.
/:Q(?;):;;y$.
.c..-
.e e
t
- ,.*- 3:.
.' Jay ', *
, i.- "
'.v p
r "
.e
?
+.'. q' V.:r:. :f&* 4. t Q.Gi..,g, a..,. '.v.,.:Tlw.,;;.:,;,;';w,L.M:.M.$[.',;
- ,a:m.s.; 4 :s:e..;: ~ m.:<,.:.s:;;;[.e
..%n:
3:
a::44:
..T 7 W,>**.F:C%
- % m..9'h.i
.c
- n;
...:-, j.
c.:
+.c.:.,...;;,,, a
. m:.-
y.
p:.am...: :r:
- g.. :p; A :. :o::c:.%: s:V,....
. +
,,re.a,3.:: : c, e:
- v.. ?.
y.;. y%..a ;,.m. /.:
.,.,;1...., q.
G; v:
- n. -
...,,f a, j-
, ~
..y. "i..
?:. - w '.sts 1k x.
- .p 3 : ~,;. ",e e
.. A :
.c e-n m p p~ w n n yega geg;n mW.a *n y n mag, p?4:b 4.:>
pn>+.w+u y.v.nn x
mt
- + w p q. m s
k d.9l:hN.d.$ km9,w.sy4 ; a s w. w.
a kF$dfIy.m ew o w!M 5
M$F., ik Ng'.j l #'
' O.h.
i h fhIhT h k M h h j
$k.hihhhhhw w ;w M y y g y we:pI$kk k m
nn w..a m.= w wy.g992g.
.r.m m.w w a:pgyawg; u
g
-,y-v-
n.
h N
% % % %m Q %,-M M w Mi':w'C'.
M & ^
'n><
w
~
&mqq#y%4n i~ w-, m ~ys, es
.c
~ 3,,
. 4 m
.m a
+
o y -
R7,%mmw$ 3 p j OFFICIKIA
- nTRANSC,; RIP %OEJPROCEEDINGSL l
mv n
~w -
n-L.
43 x s.
- x.. w n;p;f w ~nm m;;~ :qpx ! m,. x;y... x m,a ~
- wn >
~
~
gg%gg%uy;p hmn,y* UCLEARtREGUIpATORYJCOMMIS e
9 ap yo w
1 gw n
y g g g"vN 16d gd&_s0M W @ %n;M:p%$ N D,.2 4%f M~,ME < < T TW@ J J
J -
,>,'s fW9
'N
+
- w %wL;:@4xD Y. %@%WW$yMyMy<.w@4Q dm:ny+ IS o C. u@; >
m:%.n.,
.,t
" u 3
.<e.
4yw w~ ?
a k
t 2'a si u n v
aa w.>av Dy
- vg 7
4 n
LMy (l Nbhd>wk > wMdWfd..mD / h, yM @ N %.n;A m y
e ma
~
- m. N,pN CW-C N, @ d %n d'%
- f"
$pML@
.,u.<
' NTM M. $/
e
%gp Q%~%aW1'.Ukk.[hb[.NikM' $%Q%QT g
k vn a: [>
lgr@&Wm$,N??A%M[g)fi ww\\ j ; hh b v
i
~
~s
- m, w
v v
.c
^j Mh'jk*
h
.$4 b
$. c,,h M 2lJ[cfi kh M@
N t
7 e
y Q
M
%a w~
a-x k %y b
h h
hb.RSl MEETING % -
', k Mp E h g [ + M $ $ @n te s.
QY % &&WGaq&$3 MtMMW ' Qx4MQ% $%QVho A
Ng, ze %.. J s
qDi ppm ~ % W %i$$2UW % d6 % W W W W 8 % %2 W
.. ~
K@Q&
y h~h@ WAD)h hhhf M[dg&6lQ^ W@WQh% QWW?Y
- t+";
h MN M
GNTMICENSE!RENEWAIJWh
$* W@" %%;
M
%y hW nW%%3 Min G '1 MW dQf N
ff hh h'
h.
j Eh%$Fsh($@%g(f MNb NM/$dhMMhMdd *
[ 39 e tp%s yy aMy% nim, bQ N pg.3ng4D f M ACRs c,. N, g g Mq M M gff,i
.,u g% w w;wy@a ms;yw'; wn.,4% + n. w. p wmy uw%m;p g4s y
y
- e Vws e es i J.
. g
- p. 4
% ~, >Uk
- 'g..
ca 10 m
t
+
g o
e y
% qQ%w )my> awg g
r y %p.4#.
yu
'&w{p W-
~
, x
,+
n y c.
w as y ap WW@dg;xp% a mQ qMs q g: u p hv a mh=
a*-
~
y 4+,)k
. Ac ye
~ %
4 W %gqdyhm% hkf & ?y Mgng%na;f q
e
- r n
!$rQm.M%evf,dx.
A~%,f '7 d
U k Wk & s &p & &ematehYhN$2?
h x
- r vy 2
%g J W9:
w si
+ b s
.y;;c
,OE
'W Nkkkh
'c hhth?
?QW$WQ$MM%W3%QQf d; i~ M_ $ l ?
e@%
mwd %%
h)Yh k %.m
$@9 @h h MIMQh/%$OI@ @@ a 5lg$d M Q Nh z
gOgg a;b :
W%
w nwnw 1
%QeWWW om' wpMM
$h
@Q
?fM mue%g@[W&
WfWQM Docket Nowi %W, ~ M s.N,,N ?,u rW 4
4
,, g.,
5fhhh,&wwMpg%%Mtp a %e w%., -. vp a v '3 Q J.&PM h%
y A%
%e % M & M Qw.
WW W hrkm%p Q' Q'M%.;,iM g
u <
g #e%vpw ra%W5hlp%f, n;c%, W+ Ad?nW%g%l MW j$h' %. ; pn w
'Axgg:F fjegg 1 +r
-s e
9#g & a..%
gP a4 i
m mum j
Y * = %m
.5 A M
.pg
~
w..
b
$W W c &w#W bMEab RW d t p er 4&
q%
M N5$$mm$y$g44 r&,&my$gN?QA&hW W m$Y ? ' > c$UM QMlW
- w + $ 5 J ! % D y? ~'~
?'
n.,%
m on n v
c f
&Q W
?
hhhlidhew >> MUMEMhMMSB4553sd?Mtn u,S,, M~ f: m;$m
^
p, mag cJeg
+yt4; w,-
&w 4
>Gm e-
->JQ q. L 4
c &, geyc.~~..+:
QcW.w gs e p, %s a g~'
A
' M-we g
f h hW, V ' t %" %%' rkW?@;G r%
m 9h EN:: rK&;,
- u t,
g i
7..
_./
v w
WY%:(m.,
'iv x#
+ '
s<<. ' ' ' '
J % SW i
3
'.g W z:
e-dfW b=
lhh.:sy$g&n t g ve& k W
W "g
,; W hh A
e.
'*e vwz-
- y n mn s
n w
~
y fMMm%Q, phx< ',, w y x-r,
, v.
unm
^-
ic y
.r 4
me n t, v.
ya n-wp
>w rn.
m: m
- m. mk s.
[
.v.
r
,k d
-. -0I M
'O.
k
-f:
k 'm a$:q n$pp @h 2N ? n4
" 0@4 "c
T i "'
J % @eN h
4
~ yw s
W,.s @g[ U r*
i.
4 7'
- Qrk $
ms
- Ogi en' Q.
- ma
.,w y
3 c.
.~
~y o
M s:
TION
- RockNileMD -
h JO
% h Apm%n;;g$
.o wk %:
e' x
6 %.edb 9811270115 981118 k $pQ@Lc:%wm{
J o-PDP ACR5 4
1
$h T - 3 0 D '7 PDR 4Mn hy%g a
,n, v
%q wy
$ i. Apn arw _
DATE: i :
iWednesday, November 18,199.81 2PAGES:1d80; >
H, T
3 y
n' # '
@c - :. +g [r ' ' P ' jf e
16' k
py-3,
h)Q.b.f '\\w f ' lf _ o a Q'y@ @ % F~" + m
.,2 n.
a NNj %m m. -
v-y& M r
MM&&
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
d%$$
q" '3.'
F1025 Connecticut Ave.,NW, Suite 1014
&s SW. W Washi 4
n.[M f g f.W ulO.
Nw..
on, D._C. 20036 :
m 4
~f F
Y
.e,.
1 s,Q,w yh@Mh<am1 M.S w 8 4'9ce vo3y-e2 r p
1f
- C 'v M W m i e
c I
{
ye m:
i o.o g
Q-4 l-8 b
u.
l*
I'
.f)
LJ DISCLAIMER i
l UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S
)
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS NOVEMBER 18, 1998 l
The contents of this transcript of the proceeding j
of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory i
[
)
Committee on Reactor Safeguards, taken on November 18, 1998,
%J as reported herein, is a record of the discussions recorded l
at the meeting held on the above date.
This transcript had not been reviewed, corrected and edited and it may contain inaccuracies.
l wu) i
1 1
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 3
4 ACRS MEETING RE PLANT LICENSE RENEWAL 5
6 7
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8
TWFN Building, Room T2B3 9
Two White Flint North 10 Rockville, Maryland 11 Wednesday, November 18, 1998 12 13 The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:30 14 a.m.
J
[ }
15 kJ 16 MEMBERS PRESENT:
17 THOMAS KRESS, Acting Chairman, ACRS 18 DON MILLER, Member, ACRS 19 W.TLLIAM SHACK, Member, ACRS 20 ROBERT UHRIG, Member, ACRS 21 22 23 24 25
T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
)
Court Reporters m,
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
2 l
1 PROCEEDINGS-(}
2
[8 :30 a.m.]
3 DR. KRESS:
The meeting will now please come to 1
J 4
order'.
5 This is a meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on l
6 Plant License Renewal.
I'm Thomas Kress.
I'm acting as 7
chairman of the. subcommittee today.
Our usual subcommittee 8
chairman is home sick with the flu or something.
i 9
ACRS members expected to be here and present are 10 Dr. Uhrig and Dr. Shack, and I think Don Miller will be i
11 here.
12 The purpose of this meeting is to discuss generic 13 issues.
That's not the normal generic issues.
That's the 14 issues that are generic to this specific area and it's
()
15 related to license renewal activities, and the schedule for 16 their resolution; discuss selected technical and topical 17 reports and the associated safety evaluation reports; and, l
18' the status of the staff's reviews of the applications for 19 license renewal Calvert Cliffs and Oconee.
[
i L
20 The subcommittee will gather information and 21 analyze the-relevant issues and facts and formulate proposed 22 positions and act-as appropriate, for deliberation by 23 the full committee.
H24 The cognizant ACRS staff engineer for this meeting 25 is Medhat El-Zeftawy.
i J'
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 t:
3 l
1 The rules for participation in today's meeting
[~\\ )D
~
have been announced as part of the notice of this meeting 2
\\
3 previously published in the Federal Register on November 4, 4
1998.
A transcript of the meeting is being kept and will be 5
made available as stated in the Federal Register notice.
6 It is requested that speakers first identify i
7 themselves and speak with sufficient clarity and volume so 8
that they can be readily heard.
9 We have received no written comments or requests 10 for time to make oral statements from members of the public.
11 I don't have any additional comments.
I don't 12 know if the other subcommittee members want to say anything i
13 before we proceed or not.
14
[No response.]
' (,)
/
,)
15 DR. KRESS:
Seeing none, I think we'll just jump 16 right into the agenda and call upon Mr. Chris Grimes, of the 17 Office of NRR, to get us started.
18 MR. GRIMES:
Thank you, Dr. Kress.
My name is 19 Chris Grimes.
I'm the Director of the License Renewal 20 Project Directorate.
As Dr. Kress described, our purpose 21 here today is to continue a dialogue with the advisory 22 committee on a description of how we're implementing the 23 license renewal process.
24 We are going to start off with a brief description 25 of where we stand in the reviews of the two license renewal 4
4 4
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
4 1
applications that we have received thus far.
The first
()
2 application, from Calvert Cliffs, was received in April of.
3 this year.
The second' application for the Oconee units was 4
received in July of this year.
The staff's review of those i
5 applications-is proceeding.
6 But, also, as Dr. Kress noted, there are a number i
j 7
of what we refer to as generic renewal issues.
These are 8:
largely comments on the industry guidance and proposed 9
regulatory. guide that attempted to endorse that regulatory i
10 guidance and the staff's draft standard review plan that 11 outlines the scope and depth of a license renewal 12 application review.
13.
As we describe to the Commission back in June of 14
'97, I believe it was, we decided to proceed to review the
()
15 license renewal applications and let the review focus the 16 resolution of those issues.
17 During today's presentation, we're also going to 18 address some of the staff's reviews of industry generic 19 renewal reports, what historically are referred to as 20 topical reports, but I tend not to use that term and refer i
21 to them as generic renewal reports, because they*te focused 22 on trying to satisfy Part 54 as opposed to typical topical 23
-reports that address things for the purpose of Part 50.
24 DR. KRESS:
Would those be part of the license 25 renewal then?
1
~
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1 Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
5 1
MR. GRIMES:
.Yes.
These reports were intended to
! /~ T 2
be referred to by license renewal applications in the same
!d 3
way that utilities-would refer to approved topical reports 4
for use in the current licensing basis.
l 5
DR. KRESS:
So that would be as a part of the t
j 6
renewal licensing basis.
l L
7
. MR. GRIMES:
That's correct.
So we're going to 1
8 discuss some of the key findings from the industry report l
9 revi'ews that have been completed thus far.
Some have final I
i 11 0-safety evaluations.
Others have draft safety evaluations l
11' that we're hwaiting resolution of open items from the t
l
'12 industry.
13 Then at the conclusion of the meeting, we'll turn 14 to you and ask you to tell us how you would like to continue
(
15 this dialogue in the future.
The present schedules we're I
16 on, we're sort of work in progress.
We're going to talk 1
17-
.about where we stand with many.of these issues.
We're going 18 to talk about what our hopes and expectations are.
19 But you will see, as we describe the schedules, 20 that meaningful products that the advisory committee can l
21 focus on, that's primarily the initial safety evaluations 22 for the two applications, the resolution of issues on future
(_
- 23 safety evaluations are on owners' groups reports.
.24 Those things will be forthcoming over the next 25
-year and we would like feedback from you in terms of how you
,7 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
1 6
i 1
would like us to continue to work with the advisory l(
2 committee to tell you about our progress and to get feedback
}
3 from you on your views about how the reviews are proceeding.
4 So that's our purpose today.
To-the extent that 5'
we can respond to any particular questions, we'll attempt to L
6 do so, but because of.the breadth of topics that we're going l
7 to. cover, we may simply make commitments about bringing back 8
.more detailed explanations in the future.
r 9.
Do you have any general questions before we
-10 proceed with the staff's, presentations?
11 DR. SHACK:
Just one.
For example, these things l
12 are a little bit out of synch now.
Does Oconee refer to l-13
.this B&W topical report on the vessels or is it supposed to 14' be a stand-alone?
()
15 MR. GRIMES:
Oconee refers to the B&W topicals, 16 because the B&W owners' group is intimately involved in the j
17
.Oconee application.
Calvert Cliffs, on the other hand, is l
1
[
18 essentially a stand-alone because there isn't comparable 19 work from the CE owners' group, but that's largely an 20 organizational matter for the industry.
l l
21 But we are going to talk about the B&W topicals 1
22 and the status of some other topical report reviews.
We 23 have BWR owners' group reports, mostly the ones on the 24 vessel internal issues.
We also have a number of 25 Westinghouse topical reports that are expected to be l
l 1
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l-l
=
t 7
1 referred to by perhaps Turkey Point, who has announced an
[
2 interest in license renewal, as well as VEPCO, who wants to 3
tag along with their efforts.
4 DR. KRESS:
These other. topical reports, they're 5
on other components that are under the license renewal 6
scope.
7 MR. GRIMES:
Yes, sir.
They're largely things 8
like the vessel-to-vessel internals, the pressurizer, RCS 9
piping, RCS piping supports.
r 10 DR. KRESS:
You have a different topical report 11 for each one of these things.
12 MR. GRIMES:
That's correct.
But they're intended 13 to provide the information that would be expected in the 14 application.
They've just attempted to address it on a 15 generic basis, so that several applicants could refer to it.
[
16 And, of course, the staff would like to do more of the 17 reviews generically.
18 The more that we can make conclusions on one time 19' basis and identify what our expectations are, the simpler 20 our reviews would be.
21 DR. KRESS:
Yes.
It seems like an. efficient way 22 to work.
23 MR. GRIMES:
Unless there are other questions, 24 then.we'll proceed and David Solorio will talk about the 25 status.
[
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l.
Court Reporters l
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
8
.1 DR. KRESS:
When you talk about the generic
{}
2
. license renewal issues, you'll talk.about priorities of 3
those and how you arrive at those priorities, or is that on-4 the --
5 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
We're going to talk about the j
6
. priorities of the issues.
We've also distributed to the 7
committee members -- we have -- I sent a letter to NEI back i
[
- 8 in August, I believe it'was.
I think it was the middle of l
9 1 August.
We'll get into the priorities of the issues and the 10
. process that we're going through right now to schedule i
j 11 completion for issues.
l 12 David Solorio will proceed and describe the status
-13 of the Calvert Cliffs review.
l 14 MR. SOLORIO:
Good morning.
My name is Dave 15.
Solorio.
I'm assigned as the licensee renewal project 16 manager for Calvert Cliffs.
Today I'm going to provide you 17 some status on how the Calvert Cliffs license renewal 18.
application has been going here at the NRC.
19-
' Back on 4/10 of this year, BG&E submitted their l
20 application.
On the 21st of the same month, we noticed l-21 receipt of the application in the Federal Register, and, on 22' May 8th, we accepted it for docketing.
We also noticed that L
]
23
'in the Federal Register.
1 (L
24-In order to facilitate public participation during l-1.
- 25' this process, on 7/7/98, we published a notice for I
l 1.
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014-Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
-w-v-T-"
et
'T m
W&mu-'
e-
+
+'+T+
xe - - -
-+~
7
- u-*-T 1--$
g
'h W
- r>T
u 9
t-1 opportunity for hearing.in the Federal Register.
One group,
()
2 the National Whistle-Blower Center filed a petition to 3
intervene.
I'll talk more about that in a little bit.
4 But the next important milestone following that 5
was on 7/9, just a couple months ago, the staff issued our I
6.
request for additional information to BG&E on their: license J
7 renewal' application.
We issued approximately 450 questions 8
to BG&E.
l l
9 The next significant milestone that occurred was L
10 on -- excuse me -- was on -- I made a mistake.
On 9/7 we l
11 issued the REIs to BG&E.
Excuse me.
On 7/9, we held a i
12 public meeting for an EIS scoping and a public outreach.
~
13 The EIS scoping meeting was conducted in accordance with the l
14 requirements of Part 51 and whereby the staff could provide 1
(Oj 15 the public an opportunity to make us aware of any other i
i 16 environmental concerns which should be considered in the 17 staff's preparation of the environmental supplement to 18
'BG&E's environmental statement and, as I said before, to l
119 also conduct public outreach.
j
-20 On 8/19, the Commission referred to the National 21 Whistle-Blower Center's petition, as I mentioned earlier, to 22 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
23 DR. KRESS:
Is that the standard way to handle 24 those?
Is that the way you handle those generally?
25 MR. SOLORIO:
The petitions?
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 4
I l
i 10 1
1 DR. KRESS:
Yes, when you get them.
I'm not too
(~'\\
2 familiar with how petitions are dealt with.
%J l
3 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
This is a standard procedure, 4
although I would expand on that by saying that the 5
Commission issued a policy statement on adjudicatory 6
proceedings.
That does tend to put some more direction to the ASLB in terms of how they schedule and conduct their 7
8 proceedings.
But the general practice of noticing an 9
opportunity for hearing, receiving petitions for 10 intervention and then processing them, this is not -- let me 11 say it more positively -- this is the usual practice for 12 holding adjudicatory proceedings.
13 DR. KRESS:
I notice they appealed the ASLB 14 decision.
Does it go to a higher court then when they --
()
15 MR. GRIMES:
They appeal to the Commission, upon a 16 Commission decision, if the petitioner is not satisfied, 17 then it would go to the courts.
18 DR. UHRIG:
It would go to the appeals court, 19 would it not?
20 MR. GRIMES:
That's right.
21 DR. UHRIG:
Not the district court.
22 MR. GRIMES:
We forgot to bring counsel with us.
23 DR. KRESS:
I would guess it would go to the 24 district court, because it is --
25 DR. UHRIG:
Unless it's changed since I was last t
h ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
, \\_/
Court Reporters l
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
.~.
....... - ~ ~,
11
'l involved, it would go to the appeals court.
2 DR. KRESS:
Sorry for the distraction.
L 3
MR. SOLORIO:
That's okay.
We're here to answer 4
questions.
Let's see.
Where was I?
So on 8/19, the 5
Commission referred the National Whistle-Blowers' petition
{
i 6
to.the.ASLB, provided guidance on the conduct of prc' sings 7
if hearings ended up being conducted, and also provided a 8
suggested schedule..
I 9
Now, getting back to this date, on 9/7/98, the i
10
' staff completed its REIs on the application, issued over 450 l
11 REIs.
Quickly following this, the -- those were the 12 technical / safety REIs on the engineering part of the 13 application.
14 The REIs on the environmental part of the
()
15 application were issued by 9/28/98.
I mentioned earlier i
16 that the National Whistle-Blower Center filed a petition.
17 On 10/1, they were required to file their contentions.
They 18 didn't file contentions by 10/1.
They filed them by 10/13.
^ 19-On 10/16, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 20 issued its decision on intervention and denied the 21 intervention petition request for hearing and then dismissed 22 the proceeding.
V
- 23 Therefore, the pre-hearing conference you see l'
L 24 there on 11/12 was no longer needed.
1' 25.
Currently, BG&E'is au the process of providing us I f[~)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l h_/-
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 L
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 e
r
--,e r
-~u
12 1
-responses to'their REIs at a. pretty feverish pace.
For the
/"'\\
2 most part, I expect them to meet'the 11/21 deadline right U
3 there.
Around that time or shortly thereafter, they'll be 4
getting in their responses to the environmental REIs on that 5.
part of their application.
6 So that's' kind of where we are right now.
The 7-next milestones are things we hope to accomplish over the i
'8 next couple of years.
9 DR. KRESS:
What's a DES, draft safety evaluation 10
. report?
11 MR. SOLORIO:
The draft environmental statement.
12 DR. KRESS:
It's an environmental statement.
13 MR. SOLORIO:
Yes.
That's issued for comment.
14 Then the staff will finish our safety evaluation report, r'\\ '
( )
15 identify any open items by the 21st of next year.
'16 The next milestone would be a public meeting on 17 the draft environmental statement.
Following up there,
'18' there is a schedule to complete that, with comments by 19 5/20/99.
Then the applicant is going to -- we're going to 20 try to see if BG&E can close out the open items by 7/19 of
-21
'99 and go with to issue the SSCR and FES by 11/16 of
'99.
j 22 Of course, then we would be coming here to you all 23 sometime around --
24 DR. KRESS:
In 1900?
2/14/1900?
25
[ Laughter.]
[]
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
()
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
- -. ~
13 1~
MR. SOLORIO:
Right now it shows 2000.
~
2 MR. GRIMES:
We don't have a year 2000 problem.
3 That's exactly the way the computer spit it out when we put 4
the schedule in.
i 5.
DR. KRESS:
It did it like that.
Okay.
6 Wonderful.
Of course --
7 DR. SHACK:
It just thinks it's 1900 right there.
8 DR. KRESS:
Of course, we have on our agenda a 9
number of meetings before then.
You have those on your 10 list, I'm sure.
11 MR. SOLORIO:
To come and brief you?
'12 DR. KRESS:
Yes.
In between this.
We won't sit 8
13
'here till'the year 2000.
14' MR. SOLORIO:
I'm sorry if that's what you're --
()
15 no.
This is not meant to imply that.
I'm sure we're going 16 to have more opportunities to interact with you all.
17 MR. GRIMES:
We put -- these are the major
'18 milestones.
19 DR. KRESS:
These are the major ones.
20 MR. GRIMES:
And that's the milestone where we 21 need you.
We definitely need you to make a recommendation 22 to the Commission.
23 DR. KRESS:
Well before then, you should probably 24 know how we feel about it.
25 MR. SOLORIO:
Yes, we would hope so.
We would i
l O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
%/
Court Reporters 4
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 1
- ~ - -.. - -. - - - -. - - -. - - ~. -. ~. - - -
l i-14
[
1 intend on coming to you periodically throughout the review 2
process, but that milestone represents the point at which we
)
i 31 would ask the ACRS to make a recommendation to the 4
Commission.
t 5-DR. UHRIG:
Let me ask a question.
The L
6.
environmental report, does it deal with a broad. scope of i
l 7
' issues or does it deal primarily with those that have i-8 changed over the operating time that the reactor has been l
9 and the new issues that come up?
What is the scope of that?
10-MR. GRIMES:
The Part 51 was revised to focus the 11 scope of plant-specific issues for license renewal and out 12 of 90-some environmental impacts, 60-some were concluded on 13 a generic basis and that left 20-some.
We could get you the 14 exact figures.
()
15 I think that they're part of a previous L
16 presentation by the staff on the environmental standard 17 review plan, but it was a focused -- it is a focused review 18 and it is following the usual practice for the preparation 19 and conduct of an environmental impact statement under NEPA, 20-the National Environmental Policy Act.
21 MR. SOLORIO:
But I believe we're talking about 22 looking at the additional period of time and the impact.
23 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
The environmental impact review 2.
focuses on the period of extended operation.
4 l
25 DR. UHRIG:
And what might happen as a result of l-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
15 1
the operation of this plant.
[^}
2 MR. GRIMES:
For that extended period, yes.
Q/
l 3
DR. UHRIG:
Thank you.
l 4
MR. SOLORIO:
Any additional questions?
5 DR. SHACK:
Just a procedural one.
Don't you 6
normally issue a draft SER?
It looks in this case like you 7
issue an SER, then you're going to issue a supplemental SER, 8
rather than a draft and a final.
9 MR. GRIMES:
Actually, we're following the same 10 practice that we followed for the operating licenses.
11 Whether you call it a draft SER or an initial safety 12 evaluation with open items, our practice with the operating 13 licenses was to issue the safety evaluation.
That was the 14 first report.
But it had a list of things that had to be
(
)
15 resolved and then we issued supplements.
U 16 I remember on Diablo Canyon, we got, I think, a 17 supplement 32 before we finally concluded the review.
- Also, 18 there was a sensitivity to calling the safety evaluation 19 draft, leaving it as non-committal.
1 20 So we've resumed a practice of the past in terms 21 of referring to the initial safety evaluation issuance and 22 then supplementing that as necessary.
That tends to put l
23 more stability to the decisions.
24 Also, it allows that, if need be, we can go to 25 several supplements if it turns out that the schedule drives i
/~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(._,T)
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
- -. -.. - -... ~. -. ~ _ ~
16 1
us to that.
But our -- a difference from the-past is we're O
2 not.asking rounds and rounds of questions.
This schedule is
\\_)
3 very aggressive and it essentially requires of us to ask a 4
set of questions, write a safety evaluation, identify open.
5 items and resolve those open items,.and conclude the review.
6 So'it's a much crisper schedule in that respect I
7 than the old operating license.
8 DR. KRESS:
Are you going to' talk about the basis
~
9 for the Whistle-Blower Center's contention at all?
10 MR. GRIMES:
We hadn't intended to get into that 11.
and since it's currently being appealed to the Commission --
12 DR. KRESS:
Better wait then.
13 MR. GRIMES:
We can brief you.
I would prefer to 14 have'the General Counsel's office brief you, if you're
'(
15 interested in any of those details.
But we will make sure
).-
16 that copies of their contentions and copies of their appeal 17 to the Commission are made available to the committee.
t
. 18 DR. KRESS:
We would like to have that.
19 MR. GRIMES:
Okay.
l
' 20 DR. SHACK:
Since your standard review plan is 21 only draft, is there a problem with your SER and acceptance 22 criteria as a draft?
23 MR. GRIMES:
When we develop a safety evaluation, 24 we would intend that that would be a staff conclusion.
We i
25 left the standard review plan in a draft form because we l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l.
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C 20036 i
(202) 842-0034 1p r
--n
+
.,m.
,v-
-.x,'re u'
- -. + -
w
l 17 1
know from the generic renewal issues that standard review
[~T 2
plan isn't an optimum tool at this point.
But that has no
(
3 bearing on our ability to develop a safety evaluation 4
conclusion and defend it.
P 5
DR. SHACK:
So the discussion there of acceptable 6
aging management programs for various elements, if you 7
change your mind, that doesn't affect the safety evaluation 8
report?
9 MR. GRIMES:
No, it does not.
The safety 10 evaluation report has got to be defensible in its form, 11 whether or not -- like any regulatory guide, we attempted in 12 the standard review plan and the industry guide attempts to 13 describe one acceptable way to satisfy Part 54.
The staff 14 safety evaluation has got to have a sufficient evaluation f
(
15 basis to develop a conclusion regarding whether or not Part s
16 54 has been satisfied.
17 Joe Sebrosky will now describe the status of the 18 staff's review of Oconee.
19 MR. SEBROSKY:
My name is Joe Sebrosky.
I'm a 20 project manager that's just been reassigned to the licensing 21 group.
I'm not going to go over each and every milestone.
22 I think Dave did a good job with that.
I will just point 23 out the differences between Oconee and Calvert.
24 If you look at the milestones, in general, they 25 are three months behind, starting with when we received the i
l I (~')
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
ix_/
Court Reporters l
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
)
18 1
renewal application, basically all the way down until you O(~'\\
2 get to the ACRS meeting.
3 The differences in where we're at right now, you 4
can see here the petition submits contention.
The 5
petitioner is called the Shotuga River Watershed Coalition 6
and they're in the process right now of determining whether 7
or not they will be granted standing with the ASLB.
8 DR. KRESS:
This is a different set of 9
petitioners.
10 MR. SEBROSKY:
Yes, it's a different petitioner 11 than the National Whistle-Blowers Center.
The Shotuga River 12 Watershed Coalition is a group that's within -- based within
'13 20 miles of the site.
14 So that's one difference.
And to show you where O
I
(
15 we're at right now, the milestone that we're working on is
%-)
16 staff complete technical REIs by December 4, and we're on 17 schedule to meet that milestone.
18 The rest of the milestones, like I said, basically 19 fall three months behind the Calvert schedule.
20 Are there any questions on Oconee?
21 DR. KRESS:
When does Oconee's initial license 22 expire?
23 MR. SEBROSKY:
The ballpark, I think, is '73 and 24
'7.
for Oconee Units 1 and 2.
I'm not 100 percent sure, but 25 it's 2013-2014, in that time-frame.
()
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\\m,/
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
. -.- -.-..- - --. - --- --.. - -~. -..-- - - - - _.
19
'l
'DR.'KRESS:
I've been a little confused as to how
.2 you count the start time for the original 40 years.
3 DR. UHRIG:
In the early days, that was a
.4 confusing' issue because many of the original licenses were i
5 issued from the structure permit rather than --
15
.DR.
KRESS:
When they first started.
7 DR. UHRIG:
And were later revised.
I think this 8
Lhappened, as I recall, on both Turkey Point and St. Lucie.
9 I know it happened on St. Lucie.
I'm not sure about Turkey 10 Point.
But'normally it is from -- and correct me if I'm 11 wrong on this -- nominally, it is from the operating license 12 date.
'13 MR. GRIMES:
Nominally.
And it gets a little more
-14 complicated because there were licenses that were issued j
15 under'Part 103 of the Act and.others that were issued under 1
16 Part 104 (b), I think, of the Act.
But the simplest 17 explanation is the NRC maintains a listing of the issuance 18 dates and the expiration dates for all the licenses and we 19 have those nicely tabulated.
20 So if you want to know what any expiration date is 21' 22 DR. KRESS:
It's so confusing, that takes care of 23' it.
24.
MR. GRIMES:
Right.
25 DR. KRESS:
Okay.
p' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- g ).
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
..... _ - ~
- _ - - - - ~.. -. -. -. ~. - -. -....
20 1
DR.-UHRIG:
There is another issue.
This came up 2
at the American Nuclear Society meeting yesterday, I think 3'
it was.
The initial license is issued for 40 years.
This i
'4 is a new license, correct?
i 5
MR. GRIMES:
Correct.
6 DR. UHRIG:
Suppose you go through and sometime 7
down the line, let's say 2000-2001, this is approved.
At 8
that point, the second new license is issued, am I correct 9'
on that?
10 MR. GRIMES:
I'm sorry.
)
11 DR. UHRIG:
When is the --
j 12 MR. GRIMES:
Upon the completion of our review, at I
13 the end of that schedule, we're going to make a 14-recommendation to the Commission to issue a new license to 15 replace the existing --
\\
16 DR. UHRIG:
And that license will continue on 17 through the end of the original license plus 20 years.
18 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
19 DR. UHRIG:
Okay.
That's my --
20 DR. KRESS:
You were wondering about the overlap.
21 DR. UHRIG:
Yes.
But the second license replaces 22 the first one.
23 MR. GRIMES:
That's correct.
24 DR. UHRIG:
Okay.
There was some confusion on 25 that yesterday and I thought this was the way it was, but --
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
~..
l 1
l 21 1
DR. KRESS:
But it would be for 20 years after the h
'[d 2
expiration date of the first license.
3 MR. GRIMES:
That's correct.
We would have to 4-make it conform with the new licensing basis that goes along 5
with the new license and that:is essentially the design 6'
basis is now a 60-year design basis, nominal 60-year design l
7
- basis, t
8 DR. KRESS:
Is it always a 20-year renewal?
9 MR. GRIMES:
It's up to 20 years.
l l
~ 10 DR. KRESS:
Up to.
l 11 MR. GRIMES:
Now, why you would ask for a license 12 renewal for less than 20 years and still spend the same 13 amount'of effort escapes me.
14 DR. KRESS:
That would be a little strange.
.15 '
Unless they could only show they could comply at 15 years.
16 MR. GRIMES:
You might do that, yes.
If that were 17 going to be the crux of the issuance of the license.
But 18 the rule also provides that you can request as many license 19 extensions as you want, theoretically.
20 DR. KRESS:
After that 20 years, you might do l-21 a'.lother 20.
22 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
As soon as you get into the new l
23 period, you're 20 years away from the license expiration, 24 again, you can apply for another license renewal.
Right now 25 we're -- as a matter of fact, we've only just begun a i
i
'N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
22 1
dialogue with General Counsel's office in terms of what the
[m) form of this new license is going to take.
t 2
3 So I expect those details will sort themselves out 4
well in advance of --
5 DR. UHRIG:
Will there be new tech specs issued in 6
conjunction with the new license?
7 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
The rule requires that any tech 8
spec changes that would be required be submitted with the 9
application.
The existing tech specs we carry forward with 10 whatever changes would be needed associated with the scope 11 of the license renewal.
i 12 DR. UHRIG:
So if there were any significant l
13 changes in the tech specs from the original license, they 14 would be applicable immediately upon approval of this new r^N
(%s) 15 license.
i l
16 MR. GRIMES:
At this point, that's problematic.
17 Until we identify what changes we need in the tech specs, i
18 the effectiveness of those new tech specs would be 1
l 19 determined based on why we put any changes in place.
20 Certainly the license becomes effective upon its l
21 issuance, but in the -- theoretically, for example, we've 1
1 22 got some circumstances where we're looking at one time 23 inspections to verify the absence of an aging effect needing 24 management and depending on when we conclude that one-time 25 inspection might be conducted, that could take the form of i
l l
/~')
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
x_/
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
23
.1-either a technical specification or a license condition and 4
/'"T 2
its timing would be a part of the license.
V 3
It might not be immediately effective.
It might 4
be something that is done at year 40, for example.
But so 5
far we've only discussed these things theoretically.
We 6
don't have any specific examples.
I would expect those
~
7 things to be a part of the safety evaluation basis.
l 8
Decisions about the timing of particular new requirements.
9 DR. SHACK:
How are steam generators being 10 handled?
11 MR. SEBROSKY:
In general, they have to identi'y 12 the aging effects associated with steam generators.
You 13 guys can correct me if.I'm wrong.
But there is a section in
~
14 Oconee's application that talks about steam generators.
t
. A 15-Oconee has indicated that they don't expect especially the
()
16 ones on Unit 1 to last to 2013 and they're going to have to 17 replace them.
18 DR. SHACK:
They just pick them as part of their 19 aging management plan.
20 MR. SEBROSKY:
Regardless of the 20-year life 21 extension.
To meet the current licensing basis for those 22 steam generators prior to 2013 for Unit 1, they're looking 23 into replacing the Unit 1 steam generator.
24 DR. KRESS:
But isn't that -- that's just 25 MR. SEBROSKY:
That process would carry through O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
_ _ ~. _..
..m..
l:
24 j
l' into the 20 years.
2.
DR. KRESS:
That's an economic decision, isn't it?
3
.I mean, as long as they keep plugging the tubes, there is no
(;
4 regulatory requirement for them to do anything with the t
5 steam generator, is there?
6 DR. UHRIG:
Sure.
7.
'MR.
GRIMES:
You can say that it's going to be_--
l l
8 I agree with all of you.
It's largely an economic decision l
9 because basically the limits on the plant operation and the i
10 cost of trying to continue to repair tubes ic going to drive j
t l
11
.them to the decision.
But eventually they're going to run L
l 12 into some operational limits and start bumping up against 13 margins and tech specs and things like that.
3 14 DR. KRESS:
That's what you were referring to.
i 15 Okay.
16 DR. UHRIG:
Plus, the structural integrity, at 17 some-point, these, particularly when there was cracking in 18~
the support plates, the structural integrity issue.
So if 19 you get too many tubes that are damaged and plugged, it will 20 eventually start cutting down the capacity.
21' MR. GRIMES:
Whether or not you're going to reach 22 it, a design limit in terms of your ability to meet the i
23 acceptance criteria and make repairs to the tubes, whether 24 you reach that point or whether you reach the economic point 25 in terms of limitations on plant operation, those are 1
(.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
(
1025. Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034.
~
. ~. -.... - -.. - -
l-s l
25 1
probably a horse race.
Either way, we would expect that the
[
2 utilities are going to replace the steam generators before 3
they hit either of those limits.
4 DR. SEACK:
Is Calvert Cliffs scheduled to replace L
5 them?
6 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
As a matter of fact, when they i
7 announced the submittal of their application, they also
'8 announced the funding for their replacement steam 1
l 9
generators, but I don't recall what the date is.
10 Any other questions about Oconee?
11 MR. SEBROSKY:
That's all I have.
l 12
[No response.]
l I
13 MR. GRIMES:
Do you want to continue with the 14 staff's presentation?
It's a little early for a break.
l(
)
15 DR. KRESS:
Yes.
Let's continue.
It's too early 16 for a break.
17 MR. VIAS:
Good morning.
My name is Stephen Vias.
18 I'm assigned'to the License Renewal Branch in NRR, detailed 19
.from Region 2, until early next summer, i
20 I'm going to go over a little bit about the status 21 of the technical reports for the topical reports, as they're I'
22 called.
As the agenda shows, it showed it was supposed to 23 be just the reactor vessel for B&W.
I'm going to go over 24 all of them instead of just one.
25 The B&W owners' group so far has nine reports, i
/~'
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l (,)T 4
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
26 l'
nine topical reports.
Two of them are in final stages or l ['N 2
have been issued.
One is in draft.
One we've requested i
3 additional information in the form of questions.
Four are 4
in review and two have not yet been submitted.
5 The B&W owners;' group, the first one is the RCS 6
piping.
It was issued in March 1996.
The typical l
7 components of the report are -- the typical parts of the 8
report are the components, the intended functions, and the j
9 effect on aging.
10 DR. KRESS:
Did you folks agree with the B&W 11 owners' group on the format of those or is this something 12 they came up with and you just accepted it?
13 MR. KUO:
Yes.
PT Kuo, PDRR.
Yes, we reviewed i
14 the topical report and we agreed to the format of the (n) 15 topical report and finally we wrote the SER.
v 16 DR. KRESS:
I see.
17 MR. VIAS:
Two findings came out of the first 18 report on RCS piping.
One is that the use of the ASME i
l 19 Section 11 Class 1 ISI boundary, which define the scope of 20 the report, provides a clear and convenient boundary for the 21 member plants that are going to be referenced in this 22 report, to use to determine what components of their plant 23 are covered by the report.
24 This also helps the licensees in their aging 25 management program, since the Section 11 Class 1 ISI defines l
/~%
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- (,,)
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 li 1
l
27 1
the aging management program, f\\
2 In this first report, there were two open issues, d
3 One had to do with alloy 82-182 clad on the hot leg segment 4
and another one is they are going to require them to do a 5
sample inspection of a small bore RCS piping less than four 6
inches.
7 DR. KRESS:
Seeing as how George Apostolakis is
)
1 8
not here, I'm going to ask the question.
Does PRA and risk 9
evaluation enter into this process anywhere at all?
10 MR. GRIMES:
The answer to that question is no.
11 But from my perspective, there will be a role for 12 risk-informed processes, aging management processes in the 13 future.
I look to the staff's efforts to develop 14 risk-informed ISI and to identify procedures like that that r
!.,,\\)
15 would be used to change the current licensing basis, as 16 having a natural extension into this review process, 17 But at this point, the findings that Steve is 18 describing are based mostly on trying to extrapolate the 19 existing traditional engineering basis for plant 20 surveillance programs.
21 DR. KRESS:
Of course, the pressure vessel is 22 probablistically based with the acceptance criteria.
23 MR. GRIMES:
That's correct.
24 DR. KRESS:
So it's risk-informed already.
25 MR. GRIMES:
But there, again, we would look at it l
I f)/
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
U Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l'
I
28 11 from the standpoint of extending that for the period for 1
2 license. renewal..But at this point, we're continuing to l
j 3
. dialogue with our PRA branch about whether and how you would i
4 go about calculating a change in risk associated with 5
At present, PRAs do not model aging in an l
6 explicit way.
I 7
DR. KRESS:
I recognize that.
In fact, this i
8 appears to.me like one of the places where the concepts of
)
9 risk-based regulation and defense-in-depth is a head-on 1
10 collision and I think what we're doing is saying we can't l
11 handle this with PRA and risk information very well, most of l
12-it, so we're opting to use defense-in-depth concepts.
13 In my view, this is probably an appropriate l
14 approach.
I really can't see how you can do much of a
()
15 risk-informed.
You do what you can, but it's going to be 16 hard in this area.
-17 MR. GRIMES:
I think that the efforts that the l
18 staff is applying right now to develop risk-informed ISI --
L 19 IHl. KRESS:
Yes, I think that is applicable.
l 20 MR. GRIMES:
-- could -- we could probably learn 21 from that.
But until we firm up some of the scope and aging 22 management program requirements, until those become a little 23 more firm, it's difficult.
You don't really have a starting i.
24 point to start going into risk-informed ISI approaches.
25 DR. KRESS:
To do that, you would have to have i
!k ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
..... _. _ -. _. _. ~.. _. _ _. _. _. _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _.
29 l
1
. correlations between reliabilities and aging, and.those just
()
.2 don't. exist, as far as I know.
l 3
MR. GRIMES:
That's our understanding, as well.
H L
4 MR. VIAS:
The second report that was issued by 5
the B&W owners' group was on the pressurizer, issued 6
November 15 of last year.
(
'7 Two major findings came out of that.
One was they I
8 could take credit for water. chemistry controls for managing 9-the effects of stress corrosion cracking on the stainless l
10 steel safe ends, and, again,'taking credit for the Section l
11 11 ISI program, which gives a reasonable assurance that the 12 effects of aging can adequately manage the -- can be-13 adequately managed for the~ pressurizer.
i 14 DR. KRESS:
Is it mostly subjected to thermal
'15-cycling?
Is that the aging process for the pressurizer or i
16 is there some chemistry stress corrosion cracking that's t
17 used?
I guess I'm asking you, Bill, i
l 18 DR. SHACK:
I think they have cracked, up to now, l
19 by thermal fatigue.
But the question was, in fact, whether l
1 20 there was a stress corrosion cracking problem.
l 21 MR. GRIMES:
I'd refer to our technical guy.
22 MR. HERMAN:
I'm Bob Herman, of the staff.
I 23 think the issues on the pressurizer, at least some of the 24
. main issues are probably thermal, thermal-related cracking 25 and the other big issue is, especially on the B&W plants, is
/'
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters t
i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C.
20036 l
.(202)'842-0034
30 f
1 prir.tary water: stress corrosion cracking of INCO-600 or l
2 alloy-600, being politically' correct.
I 2L DR. SHACK:
You mentioned there was a request for 4'
additional information on the 182 weld clad on the piping.
f i
5 MR. HERMAN:
That's correct, for the reactor 6
vessel.
7 DR. SHACK:
That's a stress corrosion cracking 8
issue, again, f
9 MR. HERMAN:
I'm not sure, Bill, because Lee i
10' Maddock did the review and she's out of the country now.
11 Barry says yes.
12 DR. SHACK:
Has a response come back?
13 MR. ELLIOT:
How we're handling that issue is 14 we've put a -- this is Barry Elliot, NRR.
How we're 1
f '/
f s
--15 handling that issue is we're asking a plant-specific review g_,
16 for Oconee, specific questions on their pressurizer, how 17 they plan to manage the aging effect of stress corrosion 18 cracking on the cladding.
19 So it's -- and they have to respond how they're 20 going to handle that.
21 DR. SHACK:
The 182-82 here is a -- it's a metal 22 joint thing, you're using it to buffer between a low alloy 23 steel and a stainless steel weld.
24 MR. ELLIOT:
Yes.
1 25 DR. SHACK:
It's not like it is in the pressure i
,. O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l (_)
Court Reporters l
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washing; m, D.C.
20036 (202, 842-0034
._.m._
l L
31
- j' 1
vessel, where it's really cladding the internal surface.
().
2 MR. ELLIOT:
We have both those issues.
They're 3
both part of the stress corrosion issue.
We have both those L
4 issues, the cladding issue and the buffer between the i
5.
stainless-steel and the iron.
)
ln j'
6 MR. VIAS:
In this report, the owner could have 7
identified two issues, open issues that are being resolved 8
and reviewed by the staff.
9 The third report that's been brought to another 10 stage is the reactor vessel.
A draft safety evaluation was i
11 issued on September 18 of this year.
There are two findings 12 in that.
One was, again, the credit for the water chemistry 13 program and the ISI program.
14 There were six open issues on this report that are
)
15 being reviewed by the ataff.
l 16 MR. SANTANA:
Are you going to talk about those 17 open issues somewhere?
18 MR. VIAS:
I can tell you what the issues are.
i' i
j 19 The first one is the intended function of the reactor vessel L
j 20 components.
These are questions that they have.
Flow 21 stabilizers subject to peer management review.
We're on the 22 core guide lugs, under clad cracking, neutron fluents, 23 reactor vessel material surveillance program.
24 MR. SANTANA:
Refresh my memory on the license 25 renewal rule as far as scope.
If I we.re thinking about i
).
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i s_/
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
. =
32 l
1-license renewal in a defense-in-depth -- welcome, Don, glad
)
~
'2 to see you made it -- in a defense-in-depth concept, I-would 3
say you need to manage aging with respect to the barriers, l
dL
-with respect to shutdown, scram, with respect to.ECCS, and 2
5 probably with respect to long-term cooling.
6 Now, are those in the scope included?
L 7
MR. GRIMES:
Yes, sir.
Part 54.4 defines that 8
part of the license renewal rule ti.ut addresses scope, 9
identifies the scope as being related to all the preventive t
l 10 and mitigative functions associated with the licensing 11
-basis.
12 Any non-safety equipment that could impact or l
13 prevent the primary safety functions and then a select set
'14 of. specific regulatory requirements, PTS, station blackout.
10( )
15 MR. SANTANA:
It's broader than I said, then.
16 MR. GRIMES:
That's correct.
Now, once you've 17-identified those intended safety functions, then you have to t
18 go through and identify all the passive long-lived 19 components, systems and structures.
Then you apply aging l
20 effects and aging management programs to those systems, l
21 structures and components that are passive and long-lived.
22 Certainly the reactor vessel is considered a 23 passive and long-lived, although in jest, I'll mention 24 someone asked -- once asked me whether or not you could 25 consider the steam generators as a replaceable component.
i[~}
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\\s/.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l~
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 L
t l
l
i 33 i
1 MR. SANTANA:
How about the reactor vessel, is it
)'
2 a replaceable' component?
l 3
MR. GRIMES:
I think they were' waiting to the t
i 4
question about the steam generators before they asked that.
i 5
MR. UHRIG:
There is actually a design that's l
6 provided for that.
I think it was a data design that had a
-- just above the channel head, where they had. bolts.
I
{
.7 8
don't know that any of them were ever built, but I know.that l
9 there was a design for that.
i 10 MR. GRIMES:
We're not anticipating to have to 11.
. address any of those for license renewal.
l 12 MR. UHRIG:
Okay.
13 MR. VIAS:
Currently, for the B&W group, there are 14 four reports under review.
The main one is the vessel
()
15' internals, but there are three sub-reports also that are 16 being reviewed, and B&W has yet to submit two reports.
17 DR. SHACK:
Just on the reactor vessel report, I 18 guess I didn't see much of a discussion of the alloy 82-182 19 weld, and that surprised me a.little bit, because there is l-20 this cladding on the vessel.
l 21 MR. ELLIOT:
As far as the alloy 182 and 82, y
22 that's an open issue and right now that's a current 23 licensing issue for a lot of plants.
1 24 DR. SHACK:
That's why it's not treated here.
1 25 MR. ELLIOT:
So we didn't want to make a 1
1 l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i \\
Court Reporters b
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
i l
34 l
1
' commitment until we have resolved the current issues.
But
. 7 2
we have questions on that for the licensee as part of their L
3 aging management program, but we have to work it through 4
both the current licensing basis and the license renewal 5
period at the same time.
6 DR. SHACK:
Just while I've got you up here.
7 There is also this question that the flaw growth is a time 8
limited aging analysis for the vessel that's going to be 9
left to the plant-specific applicant.
In what sense do you 10 do a flaw growth analysis here?
I mean, this is not a 11 fracture proof.
12 Is this based on the largest fabrication flaw that 13 is found that he has to account for it or postulates a flaw?
14 MR. ELLIOT:
It's not a postulated flaw.
That's f^s
'()
15 intended for if they find a flaw.
Now, in the case of 16 Oconee, I think they found a flaw in one nozzle.
So they 17 have to -- based upon the size of the flaw they found, using 18 the fatigue crack growth laws in the code, they have to 19 project to the end of the 60-year period how large the flow 20 would be and then would it be acceptable to ASME code 21 requirements.
22 DR. SHACK:
So he takes essentially the largest 23 fabrication flaw that he identifies as a crack.
24 MR. ELLIOT:
Right.
25 DR. SHACK:
And then has to decide whether he can l
l
[ ')
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
V Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
m 35 1
live with that.
(
2 MR. ELLIOT:
Right, for the 60 years.
'3 DR. SHACK:
The other question, there was an open 4
issue on the fluents calculations.
Is this basic neutronics or is through-wall attenuation again?
.5 r-6 MR. ELLIOT:
I'm not neutron fluents., but I think 7
it's the basic neutrons.
g 8-DR. SHACK:
Okay.
We're back to the neutron l
9 jocks.
10 MR. ELLIOT:
Right.
l l
'11 DR. SHACK:
There was a discussion of the cladding
)
3 12 stress in here and a Tim Mashanko equation and I wasn't --
13 are we just talking about a simple mismatch between thermal 14 expansion coefficients and you assume a uniform stress and i
[\\
'15 get a stress --
16 MR. ELLIOT:
You have to show me where it is in 17 the report, but they have been -- was it under the issue of
)
18 the under-clad cracking?-
19 DR. SHACK:
Right.
It's the effect of -- it's the 1
20 additional stress you're getting from delta T on the K.
21 MR. ELLIOT:
Right.
And the issue here is that i
22 the Oconee plants, when they made the original forgings and 23 put the clad on, developed under-clad cracking.
And looking l
l 24 at the differential expansion, the thermal expansion between 1
1 25~
the clad and the steel and the heat-up and cool-down of the l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\\-
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
' Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 h
l-
[
~
s
36 1
vessel, how much growth would you get in those under-clad r~s'
! 1!
2, cracks and would they reach an unacceptable size.
(
3 So we looked at the impact of clad on crack growth 4
rate.
5 MR. UHRIG:
When you say under-clad cracking, is 6
that in the vessel material itself?
7 MR. ELLIOT:
It's in the forgings in the vessel, 8
yes.
9 DR. SHACK:
There's an interesting thing on page 10 36, it's an interesting geometrical concept.
It's an 11 internal semi-elliptical surface flaw.
I assume that it's 12 really an internal crack that you assume is a surface flaw 13 in the analysis.
14 MR. ELLIOT:
That's right.
It's just to make it a f*%
(,)
15 little -- so that we could do the analysis, i
16 DR. SHACK:
To make it a little clearer.
17 MR. ELLIOT:
Right.
18 DR. KRESS:
Refresh my memory again, Bill.
I was 19 under the impression that the clad decreased the stress on i
20 those under-clad cracks because of differential thermal 21 expansion.
It reduced the stress.
Is that wrong?
22 DR. SHACK:
I'm not sure which way it goes, 23 actually.
24 MR. ELLIOT:
What we're looking for is flaw growth 25 and it's the heat-up and cool-down process that causes the
(>)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
l 37 l
1
[\\
2 DR. SHACK:
You get a stress.
c) i 3
DR. KRESS:
I know, but you get that whether the 4
clad is there or not.
Right?
l 5
DR. SHACK:
But you get a different one if you 6
have the thermal impact.
7 DR. KRESS:
And it's better with the clad there 8
than without it, is what I was under the impression of.
9 MR. UHRIG:
The expansion coefficient there, the 10 thermal coefficient is less for the stainless.
11 DR. KRESS:
And it's pretty thin as the thermal 12 gradient.
The clad actually helps you with respect to that.
13 I'm asking a question just for my own -- since I'm a thermal 14 hydrologist and not a structural mechanic.
(3 l ( )
15 DR. SHACK:
Actually, I think it goes the other 16 way because you have a thermal mismatch between them.
17 That's why you have the allow 182 weld butter when you're 18 actually putting these things together, typically.
You live 19 with it in this case because the stainless is so thin that 20 it doesn't impose much of a stress.
21 MR. ELLIOT:
You have a tinsel stress from 22 applying the clad to the steel.
That's a given stress.
But 23 what we're looking at here is that's one stress.
The other 24 stress we're looking at is if you heat up and cool down the 25 vessel, there is a different thermal expansion of the two
[~')
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
'w_/
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
i
~
38 i
1 materials which causes another tinsel stress, which is a
(
2 driving force for the crack growth, and that's what we're
'3 looking.for; how much is the crack going to grow.
4-Not from the applied initial, but from the l
l 5
combination of the applied initial and the -- the
(
6 differential thermal expansion from the heat-up and 7
cool-down.
8.
MR. HERMAN:
I think there is a worse thermal l
l 9.
mismatch between stainless steel -- Bob Herman, of staff.
I 10.
think there is a worse thermal mismatch between stainless 11 and carbon steels, probably 690 is intermediate and 600 l
12 probably closer matches the carbon steels.
13-DR. KRESS:
Okay.
Thank you.
14 MR. VIAS:
Let's go on to Westinghouse now.
i 15 Westinghouse to date has submitted five topical reports.
l l
16 One is the draft safety evaluation has been issued.
No,
17 it's in final review, sorry, 18 DR. KRESS:
Are these in the same-format as the i
l 19 B&W owners' group?
i 20 MR. VIAS:
In general, they're almost identical l
21 reports.
These cover the components, the intended function 22 and effects of aging, and they're broken down in that 23 manner.
24 Three issues came out of this report.
One was the t
l 25 Westinghouse group concluded that the aging effects I
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C.
20036 l
(202) 842-0034 l..
L
m _. _ _
._.-.--_m 39 1
associated with neutron embrittlement, thermal' aging
()
2 embrittlement, mechanical wear,. fatigue, creep, and other 3
types of stresses and fracture are all totally insignificant 4
for the RCS support.
So that was a positive for that.
}
5 Also, that the aging effects caused by concrete l
6
' degradation mechanicism are not significant enough, except 7
for when you're dealing with neutron irradiation.
Now, one 8
of the things on all these topical reports, all these open 9
questions that have been listed, they have to address --
10 each of these applicants have to address these on a 11 point-by-point basis.
12 So that's where the answers come back for these 13 questions or open items.
J i
14-MR. GRIMES:
Steve, I would like to interject that
)
15 that doesn't mean that not going to stop trying to work with 16 the industry, the owners' groups, in order to try and get 17 these questions resolved on a generic basis.
So that the 18 future applicants that want to refer to these things can do 19 so more efficiently.
20 In the meantime, we will continue to let the 21 applicants address these issues, if they want to, in a 22 plant-specific way.
We don't expect that the applicants 1
23.
have to resolve generic problems.
We want to make sure that i
l 24 that point is clear, too.
25 MR. VIAS:
Of the four Westinghouse reports that h
[I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\\-
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 l
(202) 842-0034
-.=
=.
40 1
are under review, they're all on hold right now for an
[
2 indeterminate time.
I don't know what the date is.
I u.
3 MR. GRIMES:
Actually, we're in the process of 4
scheduling them.
Since Turkey Point announced an 5
expectation that they wanted to submit a license renewal 6
application, we're now in the process of trying to develop 7
an integrated resource schedule that shows progress on all 8
of these things and we have gotten some schedule commitments 9
from the staff to produce the safety evaluations for the 10 Westinghouse reports, as well.
11 DR. MILLER:
Does that mean they're on hold or not i
12 on hold?
13 MR. GRIMES:
It means that they sort of halfway in 14 between.
The reviews are continuing, resuming, and we now I
' f%
",)
(
15 have commitments to complete them, but understanding that l
i 16 the staff's immediate attention is looking at milestones
\\
17 that are measured over the next several days or weeks, but 18 the Westinghouse reviews, we're looking at commitments to 19 get things done later this year and next year, because --
20 DR. MILLER:
They have not established a date, in 21 other words, when they're going to finish them.
22 MR. GRIMES:
We've got some tentative dates.
We 23 just haven't published them yet.
24 MR. VIAS:
The last group of topical reports is by 25 the B&W owners' group.
There is one large group.
The VIP l
i rO ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\\-s Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C.
20036 l
(202) 842-0034 i
41 1
program, the vessel internal program, has 12 reports in it.
s 2
Currently, the group is waiting for the resubmittal of those v
3 reports due by the end of this year.
The containment one is 4
on hold at this time.
5 MR. GRIMES:
That one is on hold at the request of 6
the BWR owners' group.
7 DR. MILLER:
But the internal part is going 8
forward then.
Is there a listing of those 12 programs?
l l
9 MR. VIAS:
Yes.
We can get the list.
10 DR. SHACK:
Some of those are actually -- haven't 11 they been resolved?
I mean, one of those addresses the 12 inspection of the surface cracks or the welds in the vessel.
13 So wouldn't that -- I mean, it's more than under review, 14 isn't it?
Isn't that basically -- haven't you issued an SER O()
15 on that?
16 MR. CARPENTER:
This is Gene Carpenter of the 17 staff.
Basically, each one of the VIP reports are in 18 conjunction with operating reviews.
So we have reviewed the 19 VIP-05 literature.
As a matter of fact, ACRS reviewed that 20 this past July.
21 We also have another 11 that are under review and 22 as soon as we issue the operating reviews, we have a couple 23 of other items for review, we will be issuing the license 24 renewal.
25 DR. SHACK:
So you're going to have two SERs then.
,O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
k/
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
~
l 42 1
One is applied to operating plants and one is applied to
[ )t 2
c 3
MR. CARPENTER:
Correct.
4 MR. GRIMES:
But we have to do that because the 5-purposes are different.
The safety evaluations for the 6
operating reactors is going to address the needs relative to 7
the current licensing basis in the Part 50 requirements.
We 8
will have separate safety evaluations for the license 9
renewal that address the aging effects, aging management
)
i 10 conclusions that we're required to pursue under Part 54.
11 MR. VIAS:
Any other questions?
12
[No response.]
13 DR. KRESS:
Seeing none, maybe this might be a 14 good time for us to take our break, since we're scheduled
(~h
-(,)
15 for one at 9:45 anyway.
)
16 So I'm going to declare a 15-minute break and 17 start again at 9:45.
18
[ Recess.]
1 19 DR. KRESS:
Let's get started again, please.
I 20 will turn the meeting back over to you, Chris, to introduce 21 the next topic.
22 MR. GRIMES:
Dr. Sam Lee is going to go over the 23 generic renewal issues.
He's going to concentrate on the 24 priority one issues, but he's also going to explain how we 25 went through and prioritized all of the generic renewal
[~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
N-Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
.... _..... _ _.. _. _ _ _ - - -. _ _.. ~..
_ _ _... _. _. ~.
43 1
issues.
Then we'll go into any particular issues you want
()
2 to' talk about.
L 3
DR. LEE:
My name is Sam Lee.
I'm from the l
4 license renewal proje;t.
NEI has collected issues from the 5
industry relating to license renewal.
A lot of these come l
6 from the draft standard review plans for license' renewal and 7
the industry guidance'and the staff draft reg guide for 8
9 After NEI collected the issues, then the staff and 10 NEI worked on the priorities or identifying the priorities 11 of the issues.
Here is the definition of the priorities.
12 Priority one are issues that are needed to support 13 the staff review of BG&E and Oconee applications.
Many of 14 these issues will naturally be resolved when we start
(
15 working on BG&E and Oconee, we will.
16 DR. KRESS:
So you took this list of issues -- how
-17 many was it, 90-some?
18 DR. LEE:
We actually'-- based out of a larger 19 list and then we condensed them to 90-some.
20 DR. KRESS:
And you looked at them and made L
21 judgments as to which category they fall into.
22 DR. LEE:
And worked with NEI to agree on where 23 things belong.
So we need a tighter schedule on that.
l l
'24..
Priority two for the development.
l L
25 DR. SHACK:
You don't need a generic resolution I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C.
20036 L
(202) 842-0034 l
t-
44 1
there.
All you need to do is resolve them for Calvert (n) 2 Cliffs and Oconee.
V 3
DR. LEE:
That's correct.
But the thing is we put 4
it up there so we know we need a tighter schedule on that.
5 And the second part are things that we need to help us 1
6 develop the implementation guidance document, write the 7
standard review plan and the NEI documents and the reg 8
guides.
9 And priority three are of less importance and 10 priority four are the low priorities.
11 DR. KRESS:
What will you do with those?
12 DR. LEE:
Basically, this is kind of scheduling.
13 So this has a very tight schedule.
This is like one to two 14 years.
This is after three years.
We'll get to them.
So
/
)
( j 15 when you start working on the SRP, you can take care of it.
16 MR. UHRIG:
What is the basis for a low priority 17 issue?
A low risk issue?
18 DR. LEE:
It's not the risk.
It's basically the 19 impact of the process as it directly impacts the BG&E 20 Oconee.
21 MR. UHRIG:
The licensing process, not the --
22 DR. LEE:
Not the risk basis, no.
23 MR. UHRIG:
Not a risk basis.
Okay.
24 DR. LEE:
No.
Okay.
This is mostly scheduling.
25 MR. UHRIG:
Strictly scheduling.
l
\\
['
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\\-
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
l 45 1
DR. LEE:
Okay.
And now going to priority one
'h 2
issues here.
l 3
DR. SHACK:
Sam, I guess I still had a problem i
4-with this.
It would seem to me that you would have to j.
5
-resolve some of the priority two items at least for Calvert 6
Cliffs and Oconee to evaluate their reports.
I mean, you 7
might not have to do it generically.
l 8
.DR.
LEE:
That's correct.
The thing is it's the l
9
_ urgency.
We have more time to dwell on this.
Some of this l
10 affects the industry as a whole.
So we have more time and 11 some of this might be left as open items.
Okay.
12 MR. GRIMES:
If I could add.
The focus on 13 priority two gets largely into guidance to the industry on 1
14 how to prepare an application.
Calvert Cliffs and Oconee
)
'15 made those decisions and they framed their applications and t
16 they submitted them and so to that extent, they have already l
17 addressed them.
l l
18 DR. SHACK:
I see things like bolt cracking and l
19-defining what is an aging management program for bolting.
20 It would seem to me that that has to be addressed for the 21 two license renewals, for the fatigue of metal components is i
L 22 one that, it seems to me, you have to address.
23 MR. GRIMES:
That's correct.
They are addressed,
- 24 but to the extent that we still have had comments on the 25 guidance on how to address those issues in a license renewal b
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
t U Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 4
~
l 46 1
' application, what we learned from our reviews on initial
]
2 applications we will try and extend into providing better 3
guidance for future applicants on how to address those 4
issues.
5.
DR. SHACK:
But you are going to have to resolve 6
those problems with those applications.
I
'7 MR. GRIMES:
That's correct.
We will have to make 8.
decisions on the adequacy of the Calvert Cliffs and.Oconee I
j 9
applications in terms of have they addressed appropriate
{
f 10-aging effects and have they demonstrated that they've got
]
l 11 aging management programs and they've made their -- they've l
12 made their best shot at it with their applications.
l 13 Now, as we learn from the review of those issues, l
L 14 then we want to take that experience and then feed it back l
-O li,j 15 generically into process improvements.
So a large number of L
16 these issues get into that.
They also get into scope and 17' depth, to what extent do the -- to what level of detail do
'18 these issues have to be addressed in the application and 19 have to be reviewed by the staff.
20 DR. MILLER:
I'm still confused on how we get 21 priority one and priority -- it seems like priority one and 22 priority two are -- I'm not clear how you did that.
You 23 said based on schedule, but really they both have to be 24 resolved.
-25 MR. GRIMES:
We selected the priority one issues F
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
.=
. -.~.
. -. - ~ ~. -.
47 l'
as those that we felt needed'to be' addressed as we proceed
-['3 2
with these reviews.
Now, admittedly, there was a certain V
3 subjectivity in it and the industry'had originally proposed 4
to expand the' priority one issues and as we discussed them, l
5 I pointed out, in some of the areas, more work by the 6
industry in terms of how they would want to frame guidance
-7 for future applicants might result in a better resolution.
8 So we did take some of those and we moved some 9:
from priority one to priority two on the basis we're taking 10 more time to address the issue more fully might be i
11-beneficial.
12 So the answer tx) your question is there was 13 subjectivity associated with picking which ones we felt 14 needed to be on priority one.
f~%
. (,)
15 DR. MILLER:
It will probably become clear when we 16 go through some of the issues.
Thank you.
17 DR. LEE:
Here is a summary of the current L
18 priority one license renewal issues.
The first one here, 19 existing programs at the plant.
And the issue is on how to 20 l evaluate them for aging management for license renewal.
21' An example is the existing program, the l
l 22 containment inspection program.
The industry has a question 23 on how to use the inspection to manage aging effects in 24 inaccessible areas, the base mat and the welds.
Industry 25 also has a question on the scope of in-service inspection, I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- ^
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i
Washington, D.C.
20036 L'
(202) 842-0034 l
l
l l
48 1
which is a subsection out of ASME Section 11, and the
' [^')
2 experience of this inspection.
i%)
3 Another existing program is the maintenance rule 4
and the question related to how to monitor aging of 5
structures and the maintenance rule.
6 I just want to add, a lot of these, when we go 7
through aging management, we will -- probably 80 to 90 8
percent of the program wound up as existing programs.
So I 9
feel like the allow 182-82, those are with the new programs, 10 but the majority -- kind of what you heard earlier, the 11 topical report, what we find is mostly in existing programs.
12 DR. KRESS:
What's that last one there?
13 DR. LEE:
The last one?
14 DR. KRESS:
No, no.
On your list.
r'N
(
)
15 DR. LEE:
This one here.
You want to jump to u) 16 there.
Okay.
This is kind of an interesting one.
This is 17 license by FERC.
Oconee has a hydro electric dam licensed 18 by FERC.
This is the Federal Energy Regalatory Commission.
19 They do not have diesel generators.
)
20 DR. MILLER:
That's a DOE plant.
21 DR. KRESS:
That's their auxiliary power.
22 DR. LEE:
That's correct.
23 DR. KRESS:
I remember that now.
24 DR. LEE:
So this is their diesel.
Then our 25 question is how should we review that.
So we rely on FERC, l
1 1
- [
\\
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\\_I Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 j
t
l l
49 1
since they're already regulating it and inspecting it.
Do l
2 we need to do anymore?
3 DR. MILLER:
So that only applies to Oconee.
t 4
DR. LEE:
This only applies to Oconee.
I I
5 DR. MILLER:
That's not generic.
Anybody besides 6
Oconee.
1 7
DR. LEE:
As far as'I know.
There might be one or 8
two plants, I guess.
Gutam is not here.
That has dams 9
licensed through FERC.
Right now, this impacts the Duke 10 application right now.
That's why I put it on the priority 11 one list.
12 MR. GRIMES:
There is also an underlying issue 4
13 associated with like the existing programs, to what extent 14 we would rely on some oversight requirement or some
()
15 regulatory requirement that transcends the aging management l
16 program and te what extent would we rely on that or would we 17.
require something above and beyond those requirements to 18 address aging management.
19 So we're exploring that primarily from the 20
. standpoint of trying to determine what those FERC 21 requirements provide in the way of managing aging effects 22 and that way we'll try and establish that there is some
-23 credit that we give, just like the credit that we look for 24 in containment in-service inspection or maintenance.
25 We want to say,-yes, those things accomplish a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C.
20036 l
(202) 842-0034 9_ - - -
-eem 4
-s pw e
+.~
50 certain part of aging management and then how can we develop 1
(~')
2 guidance to the industry on how they should refer to that V
3 credit.
4 DR. MILLER:
Is that the entire list of priority C
one?
6 DR. LEE:
This is a summary.
We' looked at this, 7
there were like five or six items referred to the first one.
8 I tried to group them by similarity here.
Right now there 9
are 18 priority one issues.
10-DR. MILLER:
Not consistent with the list we have 11 here. 'For example, I'd pick out one I think was very 12 important, that is neutron -- or neutron -- or one --
13' DR. LEE:
The fluents?
14 DR. MILLER:
Fluents.
()
15 DR. LEE:
This is after this one.
What we did was 16
-- when I prepared this slide, I kept going back to the 17 reference and tried to --
18-DR. MILLER:
So you grouped it in that.
19 DR. LEE:
I tried to find out what the issue is
- 20 and then tried to be more specific on the slide, rather than 21 just say fluents.
What's that mean?
Okay.
That's how I do L22 it here, by summarizing and changing the title a little bit.
23 But these encompass the 18 issues that are priority one 24 right now.
25 DR. MILLER:
So the 18 priority one issues are ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
4 3
y or
~
c.,
,,-.,.-_v.--
l i
51 l
1 somehow grouped into this list here.
i 2
DR. LEE:
That's correct.
Just for presentation 3
purposes.
Some of this we'll clarify the title, clarify the 4
description later when we work toward these issues.
5 MR. GRIMES:
I would like to also add that the 1
6 objective in trying to convey these issues is not to confuse 7
the issue further, but to point out that these areas, first 8
and foremost, we need to sit down and make sure that we in 9
the industry understand what's the problem we're trying to f
10 solve, what is the nature of the issue that we're trying to 11 address in terms of what kind of credit for existing 12 programs or what constitutes an acceptable reactor vessel 13 surveillance program, what is it that we agree or disagree 14 about.
/~
(v) 15 So a lot of the work that we're going to do over 16 the next several months with these priority issues is to 17 continue a dialogue with the industry in order to make sure 18 that we both understand what we agree on what we disagree 19 on, so we can address the underlying issues.
20 MR. UHRIG:
What is the significance of the 21 inspection of pressurized heater penetrations as opposed to 22 penetrations in the steam generator or the pressure vessel 23 or any other component?
Is there something special about 24 the pressurizer?
25 DR. LEE:
The special thing about this particular i
f"'g ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Q Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 l
(202) 842-0034 l
l 52 1
one is in the draft standard review plan for license 2
renewal, we identified the pressurizer heater penetration 3
weld should be inspected for cracking.
So when industry 4
sees that, then they're focusing on that part of the 5
standard review plan, based on operating experiences in 6
their craft.
7 Then they come to the question in terms of how do 8
they do inspections there.
So this is like how to do l
9 inspections on that particular component because of the way 10 it's constructed, maybe different geometries.
11 So this is really very specific to the inspection J
12 of that component.
13 DR. MILLER:
Is there going to be a point when 14 we're going to see more detail on the discussion of these
~
[V) 15 items or is that when you get a better understanding 16 yourself?
For example, reactor vessel surveillance, you 17 grouped neutron -- or fluents in there.
Now, surveillance, 18 everybody has had a surveillance program for their pressure 19 vessels, right?
20 DR. LEE:
For 40 years.
21 DR. MILLER:
For 40 years.
1 22 DR. LEE:
The question is what do you do for 60, 23 that's the real question.
24 DR. MILLER:
But the question -- the other thing, l
25 many plants have also readjusted their fuel configurations l
f']
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(,/
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 1
l l
53 1
and reduced the fluents on that.
2 DR. LEE:
That's correct.
3-DR. MILLER:
Now, how do those two fit together 4
only in the sense that you're having less effect of neutrons 5
on your pressure vessels?
6 DR. LEE:
This issue really doesn't deal with the
)
7 fluents.
So the -- we clarified the title'for that i
8
.particular one.
That issue wasn't really the fluents issue.
9 DR. SHACK:
Is this'one the fact that you may not' 10
.have enough materials of a critical ~ type --
r 11' DR.' LEE:
That's correct.
i 12 DR. SHACK:
to last for 60 years, basically.
13 DR. LEE:
.That's correct.
And right now this 14 ~
program.is in accordance with the ASTM standards, which i
()
115 basically is like a 40-year program.
It tells you how many f
16 capsules you have and what's the schedule for withdrawing j
17 that in 40 years.
The question is now I go to 60, what do I f
18 do.
One thing is I don't have 20 more capsules.
That's a f
19 variable.
20 MR. GRIMES:
But all of the related aspects of the 21-surveillance program, including what kinds of credit they 22 might get for fluents management techniques or improved 23 fluents calculational techniques, all of those things could
[
-24 fit together into a.n evaluation that specifically addresses l
25 the generic aspects of aging management requirements for the I
i O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
A
-... ~ - -.
54 i
l' reactor vessel.
2
~And I think a more direct answer to your question 3
is, yes, you're going to see these things because the next l
4
. step in the process is now that we've prioritized them and 5-we're scheduling these issues, we'll prepare individual 6
safety evaluations to' address individual issues or groups of 7
issues along with an evaluation of how they will be 8
dispositioned.
9 We would send those evaluations and the i
10 conclusions, including any conclusions regarding whether l
11 there should be changes to the standard review plan or 12 changes to the industry guidance, we'd send those back to 13 NEI.
The NEI task force would review them.
They'd give us 14 comments back and at least then we'd have a record of how 15 we've focused and addressed the issues and you will be able 16 to see those as each of them comes out.
17 We did an' easy one to test the process.
We had an 18 issue associated with the impact of human activity on aging 19 effects.
20 DR. MILLER:
I saw that.
I'm curious about the 21 resolution of that.
22 MR. GR'.MES:
The resolution of it was we sent a 23 note back and said we're not going to treat that separately.
24' We're going to --whatever human activity is involved in 25 aging effects will be addressed for the particular aging
/
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025. Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
55 1
effects of interest and we're not going to attempt to try
)
'and address human activities as a separate matter in the 2
l 3
review process.
4 We sent a position back, proposed a change to the
-5 standard review plan and NEI accepted that.
So that was an l
6 illustration of how we would. exercise the process in the-7 future.
8 MR. ELLIOT:
I just want to expand the answer on j
9-the reactor vessel surveillance program.
We have many 10 different types of programs in the United States.
We have 11 some plants that have a lot of capsules and very good 12 materials.
We have some plants that don't have as many 13 capsules and then we have plants that don't have any 14.
capsules that are a part of integrated surveillance
()
15
- programs.
16 What we try to do is put together some kind of way 17.
that all the plants, all the different types of different 18 surveillance programs, what they would have to do to extend i
19 the program from 40 years to 60 years.
1 20 So it's a lot of different things that you have to 21 look at and since there are many different programs in-the
)
~22 United States, we have to make a general -- not a general, 23 but we have to have enough of a program to cover everybody.
~
24 DR. MILLER:
That would include also what you call 25 fluents management.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
~,, -.
~.... -
-.~...
_ --.~.-.-
I t
56 1
MR. ELLIOT:
It would -- as part of the 2
surveillance program, there would be a dosimetry program and 3
the dosimetry program would be used to monitor whatever 4
fluents management the applicant would be -- licensee would-4 5
be using.
l 6
MR. UHRIG:
What do'you do when you have a 7
situation where there are no capsules left?
l 8
MR. ELLIOT:
That's one-of the issues we're trying l
9 to address as part of this generic issue, is.what should a 10 license -- if he doesn't have anything, what could he do, 11 how would he demonstrate that the materials are being 12 effectively monitored.
And not only the materials are being 13 effectively monitored, but the actual operation of the 14 vessel is being monitored.
()
15 That's one of the issues.
Don't forget, we're 16 talking about something that's going to happen when I'm gone 17 here and all of us will probably be gone and what -- how do 18 you operate these plants during that 20 year period so that 19 the surveillance program is meaningful.
The results you got 20 earlier actually represent what is going to happen in the 21 future, and that's one of the issues that we have to 22 resolve.
23 MR. UHRIG:
Are you talking about things like low l
24 leakage configurations?-
We're talking about different ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 j
(202) 842-0034
m..
)
L 57 1
operating temperatures, different -- the flux, fluents, that 2.
type of thing.
3 DR. MILLER:
It all depends on.their history of 4
things like scrams and so forth, doesn't it?
That also 5
depends on their history of emergency shutdowns and'so 6
forth.
7 MR. ELLIOT:
As far as a shutdown, that doesn't 8
impact the surveillance results.
It has to be the 9
irradiation embrittlement is only occurs when the plant is 10 operating at full power.
So as long as we accumulate the 11 time at full power and the flux and the neutron fluents, we 12 figure out the amount of embrittlement.
13 MR. GRIMES:
The cycles, the aspect of the thermal 14 cycles in the plant is one aspect of aging management, too.
()
15
.That's a time limited aging analysis and how they count the 1
16 cycles and how they monitor them, that's an evolving art 17 form'these days, too.
18 They're going to much more sensitive monitoring 19 systems in order to come up with a different way of managing 20 the thermal cycling of the plant components and piping.
21 MR. ELLIOT:
Thermal cycling is more of a fatigue 22 issue.
In the case of the materials surveillance program, 23 it's a radiation embrittlement issue.
24 DR. MILLER:
But those two interact in their 25 ultimate integrity of the vessel, though, right?
l.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
58 L
1
'MR. ELLIOT:
Right, but they're evaluated ll()
2-separately.
There are different criteria for evaluating the i \\_)
L 3.
vessel.
There is a fatigue criteria, which looks at the 4
thermal cycling, and then there is the radiation l
5 embrittlement, which is affected by the chemistry and the 6
neutron fluents.
7 DR. MILLER':
On the original materials and 8
everything else.
9-
'MR. ELLIOTi Right.
10 DR. MILLER:
I-had one more, one more that kind of 11-piqued my curiosity.
That's the issue on fuses, which has 12~
to be far less complex than the one on reactor vessel 13 surveillance.
Is that a matter of you just have to 14 determine what kind of fuses are going to passive and what
()
15 kind are going to be active, is.that it?
16 DR. LEE:
Yes.
The license renewal rule requires 17 the aging management of passive equipment.
The question is I
18 is it active or passive, do you need to manage it.
For 19 electrical --
20 DR. MILLERi I'll be interested in the resolution 21 of that one.
22 MR. GRIMES:
So will we.
23 DR. SHACK:
Just coming back to another question I
.4 guess I asked earlier, and that's this interaction between 2
25 the review of the application and the standard review plan.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
59 1
Do you have an SER anywhere, for example, that sort of
/)
2 justifies the choice of acceptable programs you have in the
%-)
3 standard review plan as being adequate?
The one that sort 4
of strikes me as a little curious, in the standard review 5
plan, it says I can manage the effect of the embrittlement 6
of reactor internals by visual inspection.
I can manage the 7
effect of IAACC by visual inspection, but SCC is an open E
issue.
9 Calibrated eye-balls, I can see embrittlement of 10 components, but somehow you've made the distinction that if 11 it breaks by IASCC and you can see it, that's acceptable, 12 but if it breaks by SCC, that's not acceptable.
13 DR. LEE:
The thing about the draft standard 14 review plan is that was -- the information there is largely 15 based on the NUMARC, which is now the NEI industry report a
16 that was over ten years old now.
In there we talk about 17 internals.
We have visual inspections and some of these 18 reports at that time and some of this we have open items, 19 because we know it's an emerging issue and we need to 20 somehow deal with it.
21 Then we left out the big open item until we 22 resolve it.
Now we're in the arena of actually resolving 23 all these now.
24 DR. SHACK:
But as I read it, the standard review 25 plan says an acceptable aging management for the f)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
'A,/
Court Reporters m
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
60 1
embrittlement of the reactor internals is visual inspection.
l
(~}
2 DR. LEE:
That's correct, for some of it, yes.
At 3
that time.
4 DR. SHACK:
How about visual inspection for 5
embrittlement of the vessel?
6 DR. LEE:
I don't think we've gone that far.
7 DR. MILLER:
That one is curious because in 8
certain places, visual inspection is not easy.
Is that true 9
or am I missing something there?
10 DR. LEE:
It depends on what it is.
On the PWI 11 internals, you can pull those out, I guess.
You can de 12 visual inspection of those.
I could be wrong.
13 MR. GRIMES:
Mr. Carpenter left us, but the whole 14 of the vessel internals programs are looking at whether or (O) 15 not the existing practice of visual inspections for the 16 internals is sufficient to address the baffle barrel bolting 17 problems and we expect that ultimately whatever decision is 18 made about what requirements should be adopted for vessel 19 internals would naturally extend into these aging management 20 programs.
21 DR. SHACK:
Although eventually it's 399, right?
22 MR. GRIMES:
In 399, we're going to have to make a 23 stand and we're going to write a safety evaluation and it's 24 quite conceivable for areas like this, where it's -- we make 25 a conditional finding on this basis, recognizing that before
()N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(,
Court Reporters l
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 j
(202) 842-0034 1
1
i i
l I
61 1
too long, some other requirements might also come into play.
("]
2 DR, SHACK:
Is that a backfit analysis then for
%/
3 any requirements beyond what you do in 399?
4 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
And I hesitated because I 5
expect that we're going to be challenged to develop backfit 6
analysis to impose any requirements beyond the current 7
visual inspection practices in order to address these 8
questions about baffle barrel bolts and other SCC aging 9
effects for vessel internals.
But we're probably going to 10 do the backfit analysis based on why should you do it for 11 all these plants for the first 40.
12 I would expect that that analysis would also 13 provide an adequate basis for us to say -- and we'll include 14 it in the standard review plan for license renewal.
('h) 15 What's more significant, from our perspective, is q
16 where we might find that a particular existing practice, a
17 visual inspection practice isn't sufficient for the period 18 of extended operation and having to go beyond any current 19 licensing practices, especially for license renewal.
That 20 may be an area where we end up having to do some backfit 21 analysis on the basis of justifying why we need to do 22 something over and above what the current practice is.
23 But in the meantime, we're not -- we're not trying 24 to push the envelope in current practices any harder than we 25 have to.
We need to stay focused on what the staff needs in l
'. O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
'q_,I Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
l
62 1
the way of a basis to make a conclusion about the adequacy
)
of aging management programs.
2 3
Sam mentioned that about 90 percent -- and I may 4-soften that and say 80 to 90 percent of the programs that 5
the plants are going to rely on for aging management are 6
existing programs.
We first need to determine to what 7
extent are we going to challenge those existing programs as Et adequate aging management programs.
9 Then we still have this ten to 20 percent new 10 things.
There are more than what is required today and 11 we're going to have to test ourselvet in terms of what will 12 our evaluation basis be to conclude that those things are 13 adequate, as Barry mentioned, to provide adequate safety for 14 a period of extended operation that doesn't start for
()
15 another 15 years.
16 DR. LEE:
We talked about this already.
The next 17 one here is the thermal aging of cast stainless steel.
The 18 cast stainless steel materials, in temperature environment, 19 they tend to embrittle and industry has proposed a 20 methodology for evaluating the extent of embrittlement and 21 the staff will be evaluating that.
22 DR. SHACK:
Is that important for Oconee and for 23 Calvert Cliffs?
I can understand it for Westinghou.se I
24 plants.
25 DR. LEE:
I think they have some importance for O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
63 1-both.
As a matter of fact, they're needed.
'2 DR. SHACK:
The internals, most of it is
[
3
' internals.
4 MR. GRIMES:
Baltimore Gas & Electric actually 5
took the initiative to organize a meeting with EPRI that 6
will be held on December 3 and EPRI and the other industry 7
interested groups are going to come in.and we're going to l
f 8
have a meeting'to discuss EPRI's conclusions and the staff's 9
questions related to the adequacy of delta ferrite.
Delta 1
1CL ferrite right now is the criteria that BG&E has proposed to 11 address'this issue and we're going to try and get that issue l
12 focused.
13 It's -- that's also an example where it's 14 conceivable that BG&E's interests might also drive us to
()
15 develop a generic conclusion, but that does not preclude us 16 from -- we still-need to proceed to make a decision on i
17 BG&E's proposal relative to how they're going to address 18 this particular issue.
19 DR. LEE:
We already talked about this one.
The
'20
'next one is concrete temperature.
Concrete degradation is 21 something that is below certain temperatures.
The industry
]
22 question is how they meet that-temperature.
So these are l
23 specific questions.
The next one is the so-called TLAA.
\\
24 This is time limited aging analysis.
The license renewal 25; rule requires an evaluation of TLAAs.
These are analysis l
O.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
l
~.. -. -- -,
r 64 l
1-that have been performed assuming a 40-year operating term.
t,L' 2
The license re'lewal rule requires them to somehow extend 3
that to 60 years or manage'the aging effects.
Industry is now proposing i
5-to rely on the current regulatory process to manage EQ for i
So we are developing our position on that.
l l
7-The next issue is the use of operating experience 1
l
~8 information.
This information should be considered in 9.
identifying the applicable aging effects to be managed and
)
10 to also show that'the aging management programs are i
11 adequate.
So we are also developing a position on that.
l l
12 The next one is the FSAR supplement.
The license l
13 renewal rule requires an FSAR supplement that summarizes the 14 aging management programs and the TLAA evaluations.
()
15 In terms of the level of detail, we are still l
16 trying to figure out how to do that and we need to be L
17 consistent with the current 50.59 integration effort.
18 The next one is another specific question.
The 19 application references specific codes as aging management 20 programs and the industry has a question in terms of how to 21 update that coefficient, that reference in the future.
I j
l 22' guess as things go on in the future, the code change, but 23 they're under the impression that they are still logged into 24 the coefficient that they reference in their application.
25 So what is the mechanism for them to update the 4
O' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD..
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 1
i
i 65 l
1 modern additions.
l l ("}
2 DR. MILLER:
When you say codes, I assume that
! %-)
3 really means codes like ASME.
4 DR. LEE:
ASME, yes.
5 DR. MILLER:
So it may mean standards which may 6;
apply -- it's really kind of synonymous.
1 7
DR. LEE:
That's correct.
1 8
DR. MILLER:
So the question is, let's say you l
9 have a code that was dated '83 and hasn't been updated.
Is 10 that the question?
11 DR. LEE:
That's correct.
Like this one, this is 12 a good example, containment in-service inspection.
Right 13 now people are required to do it according to the '92 code 14 edition.
So ten to 20 years from now, people will be doing i
/~
(%)
15 2000, 2010 code edition, but then these licensees, they're i
16 locked into the '92 edition according to this application 17 for license renewal.
How can he free himself so that he can 18 adopt the new technology and move on with the rest of the 19 industry to the 2010 or 2015 code editions.
l 20 MR. GRIMES:
I would like to add, the staff also 21 has a problem in terms of we're developing conclusions on 22 the basis that they refer to these codes and standards for l
23 their practices and we need to know that -- well, we rely on 24 those codes and standards to perform certain surveillances l
25 or manage certain aging effects and how do we know that that
()
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(_/
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C.
20036 l
(202) 842-0034 i
66 1
aging management aspect is going to be maintained through
/)
2 the period of extended operation.
NJ 3
But we don't necessarily want to end up tying i
4 particular surveillances to particular editions of codes and 5
standards.
So we have a certain philosophical wrestle here, 6
too.
7 DR. MILLER:
What about the case where -- I'm 8
thinking about instrumentation, which really doesn't fall in 9
this, but how about the case where you have a reg guide 10 which endorsed a standards, say '83, even though the 11 standard has been updated maybe twice and it's a matter that 12 the staff hasn't updated the reg guide?
Is that an issue 13 that falls in here?
14 MR. GRIMES:
It naturally fits in the underlving (n) 15 philosophical problem.
16 DR. SHACK:
Just while we're on that code edition, 17 I guess I -- I thought somewhere in the SER, it said there 18 was a discussion of whether you would credit the volumetric 19 inspections of the vessels without the performance 20 demonstrations that would be in the latest versions of the 21 code.
That doesn't seem to be one of the open items.
Has 22 that been resolved?
23 MR. ELLIOT:
I can't specifically answer that 24 question.
I think our position is that you need a 25 performance demonstration.
(~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(_,)
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
67 1
DR. SHACK:
The question is whether that's a 2
3 MR. ELLIOT:
I don't know how we implement this, 4
but that's -- a lot of these things are things we want, but 5
there is a regulatory process for implementing it and we 6
have to do that as part of these reviews, also.
7 DR. MILLER:
Does cable aging fit in one of these 8
categories or is it under a lower priority?
9 DR. LEE:
It's a priority two, I think.
10 DR. MILLER:
Priority two.
11 DR. LEE:
It's EQ.
I think these have to do with 12 the aging right here, really.
Then we also have a GSI on 13 cable, which is priority two.
14 DR. MILLER:
I'm surprised it wasn't a priority
()
15 one issue, because I know industry spent a lot of effort.
16 DR. LEE:
I understand, but the thing is that the 17 rule anticipates things like that, like the unresolved GSI.
18 So the rule, the license renewal rule provides a way to 19 evaluate for license renewal, resolving the GSI.
-20 DR. MILLER:
I understand.
Let's take that GSI, 21 since I brought it up.
It's my understanding that GSI --
22 it's 168, I think -- won't be resolved for another year and 23 a half.
24 DR. LEE:
That's correct.
25-DR. MILLER:
Is that going to give us a problem
/~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
l 68 1
here?
2 DR. LEE:
No, because like I mentioned earlier,
)
3 the statement of consideration of the license renewal rule, l
4 that just says that one option.
Then provide different
.5 options to handle unresolved GSIs.
The option I guess most 6
of the industry is heading towards is to provide us an 7
interim justification to say why the plant is safe for the 8
foreseeable. future, until the GSI is resolved and then they l
9 adopt the resolution of the GSI.
10 That's what they need to say in the application.
11 We've already gone through this one.
So these'are the 12 priority one issues, and that concludes my presentation.
13 MR. UHRIG:
Let me just ask a general question 14 here.
You indicate that there's -- someone indicated there
()-
15 were like 450 to 475 requests for additional information.
16 Is this a reflection of the incompleteness of the 17 ap,lication or is this a reflection of lack of definition of i
18' what was needed or could you characterize this?
Maybe the 19 question is to Grimes over here.
I'm not sure.
20-MR. GRIMES:
I want to make sure I do this 21 consistently.
This is the third time I've been asked the 22 question is 453 a lot of questions.
The answer is I don't 23 think so for a first review.
And I don't think that it 24 reflects on an inadequacy in the application.
I think it --
25 and I have not been able to find any statistics on how many l
l
( (}
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(_,/
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
~..
m.
~.m 69 1
questions we typically asked in an operating license, but l
2 even with the best standard review plan, we still expect V) 3
. that the staff is going to probe and test and do its job in i
4 terms of developing a good sound technical evaluation basis.
5 Actually, I was heartened by BG&E's categorization 6
of the questions.
Recognizing that we originally agreed on 7
a template for their application, before we -- before the 8
NEI guidance and the standard review plan were developed, we 9
were guessing at best in terms of what would be a good 10 content.
11 But even after that, when they looked at those 453 12 as the official number that we're tracking, they concluded 13 that 300-and-some of those questions were fair, reasonable 14 and within scope, which I think is a good fraction.
i
()
15 Out of all 453, only 26 of the questions have been 16 pursued as controversies and we're defining success paths 17 for those 26.
One of the 26 is how to address the 18 environmental qualification time limited aging analysis.
19 So that's my best characterization of how you 20 might read the number of questions.
21 MR. UHRIG:
Would there be a comparable number 22 coming in from the Oconee application?
23 MR. GRIMES:
We haven't got a good count now.
24 We're feeding from a fire hose in terms of getting inputs 25 from the tech staff and trying to. focus the questions, work ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 4
i 70 t
-1 with the reviewers to develop packages to issue to the
! (T 2
licensee -- excuse me -- the applicant.
I have to get back
'u]
3 into that practice.
[
4 I think there will be fewer questions.
Part of 5.
the difficulty is we don't have a standard counting system 6
and if you have one question that's got 12 parts, is that 7
one question or 12 questions.
8 We're also trying to implement process 9
improvements that will get the questions out quicker.
So 10 we're not too careful about combining questions the way that 11 we did with BG&E.
12 So at this point, I think the staff's experience l
13 on the Calvert Cliffs question process has had some learning 14 associated with it and so there may not be as many rh
(
15 questions, w
16 They seem to be more focused questions on Oconee.
17 MR. UHRIG:
At the ANS session yesterday dealing 18 with the relicensing, there were some comments to the effect 19 that there was a significant difference in the approach 20 taken by Duke versus Baltimore Gas & Electric, at least in 21 form.
In one case, it was primarily dealing with systems 22 and the other case it was literally dealing with components.
23 Is this a significant factor in the review?
Maybe 24 I have improperly stated the difference here.
25 MR. GRIMES:
We took an informal poll of the staff O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(,j/
Court Reporters 4
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
l
71
~ 1
'after they started looking at the Oconee application and I 2-almost got split results in terms of the staff's preferences 3
on'the. form of the application.
For'those folks that deal 4
primarily with programs, they found the format of the Oconee 5
application more desirable because it tends to look at 6
programs more consistently.
7 MR. UHRIG:
Valves and that type of thing.
1 8
MR. GRIMES:
Exactly.
The chemistry program, 9
erosion / corrosion.
It tends to do things that.are j
10
. cross-system in a clearer way.
For those folks that are 11 used to working.at system and component level, they prefer j
12 the BG&E format.
Before the next application comes in, we 13 need to make a firm decision about what the preferred form 14 and content of the application will be and so it may be that
()
15 we just have to throw all the staff reviewers in a box and 16 shake them up and roll them out on the floor.
17 DR. MILLER:
It seems like that's almost too late.
18 I would assume there are other applications being developed 19-and they'll do it along one line or the other.
20 MR. GRIMES:
Right now the ne:<t application that 21 we see is Hatch and they're doing the technical work and 22-they're following the resolution of these generic renewal 23 issues.
And, yes, they've opened a dialogue with us about 24
'what the format of the r.? plication would look like and 25 they're in the process now of trying to make that decision.
i O.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i
l Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
_. ~.
72 1
MR. UHRIG:
Now, Fatch is a BWR and the two
/~')
2 applicants, they are PWRs.
Do you see a significant
'J 3
difference in the issues that are going to come up because 4
of-the different type of reactor?
Basically the same 1
5 issues.
6 MR. GRIME:
It's basically the same issues.
There 7
are some -- certainly some BWR interest.
They're going to 8
-- they're looking at it from the standpoint of whether or 9
not they can package aging management programs for common 10 system, common to several plants.
They're looking at 11 cost-spreading techniques right now, but they haven't 12 identified any unique technical issues or program issues.
.13 I think the fact that they suspended work on the 14 containment report, I know the containment is one area where
()
15 there may be a substantial difference.
The pressure 16 suppression containments have some unique aging effects that 17 they will have to address, but they're not insurmountable.
18 They're tractable issues.
It'c just a matter of what i
i 19 constitutes the demonstration.
20 DR. MILLER:
Is the BWR owners' group coming and 21 developing some generic type topicals as well as the -- I l
22 guess along with the Hatch application.
23 MR, GRIMES:
The BWR owners' group originally was 24 headed in that direction, but they've been -- right now 25 they're concentrating on the vessel internals reports.
Mr.
l
('~5 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(_sl Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
i i
73 i
1
. Carpenter explained where they stand relative to all of the
)
2 vessel internals reports and I think for the immediate 3
future, at'least for-about the next year or so, they're 4
going to concentrate their efforts in that area.
5 And Hatch and some other BWR owners are looking at i
6 exploring. parts of specific renewal topics.
7
'The BWR owners will probably get back into the 8
owners' groups report format maybe in a year or two, but 9
that's pure speculation on my part at this point.
10 DR. MILLER:
Are there any Westinghouse plants 11-pipelined, so to speak?
12 MR. GRIMES:
Turkey Point has announced an 13 interest and they've publicly described a teaming effort 14 with VEPCO and VEPCO has inquired about submitting on l
()
15 application that would cover both Surry and North Anna at l
16 the same time, 17 Most of the interest that we see from the industry i
18 right now is driven largely by the concepts of to what 19 extent they can minimize the amount of what they need to 20 demonstrate on the docket, what they need to provide in the 21 way of commitments and additions to their licensing basis.
22
-They're looking at efficiencies and cost savings 23 and there isn't a real time crunch for most for the last 24 part of the population.
But as aoon as we get over a number 25 of these issues, our next concern is we're going to see a s
0, t ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 4
74 1
bow wave of renewal applications.
There are about 50-some 2
plants that are eligible and for anybody who has seen the
(~')\\
(
3 buy-out offers for early retirements, when you get into that 4
eligibility phase, they're starting to get anxious and as 5
soon as they see a cost-effective approach to license 6
renewal, we expect to get a lot of renewal applications.
7 DR. MILLER:
What do you mean 50 are eligible?
8 MR. GRIMES:
You can apply for license renewal 20 9
years prior to the expiration and although you don't need to 10 have the extended license for 20 years, almost all of the 11 utilities have a very serious financial interest in the 12 stability of knowing that they've got their license extended 13 and then the public utility commissions and the financial 14 analysts start salivating over what the potential for a
[ I 15 renewed license or for a new license would mean to their G/
16 financial interests.
17 DR. MILLER:
If utilities are trying to sell 18 plants, which I think we already are seeing, it makes that 19 plant more valuable if it has a renewed license.
20 MR. GRIMES:
I would think so.
21 DR. MILLER:
If we see a teaming, like you 22 mentioned Surry -- or VEPCO with Surry and North Anna, plus 23 Turkey Point, that would be a total of six units.
Would we 24 see an application which would have six units?
25 MR. UHRIG:
It couldn't be six.
They're two
/~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
k__)
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
i 74 1-bow wave of renewal applications.
There are about 50-some N~T 2
plants that are eligible and for anybody who has seen the (ms/
3 buy-out offers for early retirements, when you get into that I
i 4
eligibility phase, they're starting to get anxious and as I
5 soon as they see a cost-effective approach to license i
6 renewal, we expect to get a lot of renewal applications.
7 DR. MILLER:
What do you mean 50 are eligible?
8 MR. GRIMES:
You can apply for license renewal 20 9
years prior to the expiration and although you don't need to 10 have the extended license for 20 years, almost all of the 11 utilities have a very serious financial interest in the 12 stability of knowing that they've got their license extended 13 and then the public utility commissions and the financial 14' analysts start salivating over what the potential for a
()
15 renewed license or for.a new license would mean to their 16 financial interests.
17 DR. MILLER:
If utilities are trying to sell 18 plants, which I think we already are seeing, it makes that 19 plant more valuable if it has a renewed license.
20 MR. GRIMES:
I would think so.
21 DR. MILLER:
If we see a teaming, like you 22 mentioned Surry -- or VEPCO with Surry and North Anna, plus 231 Turkey Point, that would be a total of six units.
Would we 24 see an application which would have six units?
l 25 MR. UHRIG:
It couldn't be six.
They're two l.
1 i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\\,
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
F.
~ _..
~
t i
i 75 t
1 separate companies, VEPCO and Florida Power & Light.
They 2
would individually have to put in their own.
l 3
IMt. MILLER:
But would the staff treat those as 4
the same. independent of the fact that they're from two L
5 different companies?
6 MR. UHRIG:
VEPCO has a bigger plant than Turkey L
7 Point and Surry, as I recall, is bigger than VEPCO.
I'm 8
sorry.
North Anna is bigger than Surry or is it the same?
9 DR. LEE:
They're the same.
10 MR. UHRIG:
The same.
They're what, 900s?
f 11 DR. LEE:
They're 900s.
I think Surry is a couple 12 years older.
13 DR. MILLER:
For the majority of the issues, size 14' of the= plant shouldn't --
()
15 MR. UHRIG:
Shouldn't be an 3, sue.
.16 DR. MILLER:
Should not make a difference.
17 MR. GRIMES:
I think the concept is illustrated by 18 the way that Hatch has described sharing with Northern 19 States Power and PECO and'they're distributing -- each one 20 of the utilities wants to develop an explanation of the 21 aging management programs for a particular system.
Like one 22 of them will pick SLC, the standby liquid ccacrol system.
l 23 The other one would pick RHR and then each one of them would 24 develop sort of a piece of a renewal application to address 25 that system and bear that cost and then the three of them l
l i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
i 76 i
1-would come in and submit those things and get a staff 2
reaction.
3 Then if the reaction is ;
7able and they've 4
addressed all the aging effects adequately, then the others 5'
would just.take that report and turn around and fill in the 6-plant-specific information and validate the conclusions 7
apply to their plant, j
8 That way they could reduce the cost of-the l
l 9
engineering that goes into a renewal application.
10 1R. UHRIG:
It looks like it's headed towards a 11 topical type report.
Topical in the sense that it would not 12 be for maybe all, but certainly certain classes.
13 l
.DR. MILLER:
Like sub-groups of, say, Westinghouse 14-or GE plante.
15 MR. UHRIG:
- Yes, j
16.
DR. MILLER:
Of course, that's going to reduce the 17 load on the staff, too, if we do it that way.
It's a guid 18 pro quo.
Obviously, the staff has to be worried that if you 19
~ got 50 applications at once, that it might delay your early 20 retirement.
-21 MR. GRIMES:
We're looking for ways to achieve 22 efficiencies, but by the same token, there are those of us 23 who are also interested in job security.
So of all of the 24 programs at the NRC right now, I think I'm the one that's l
25 got the highest job security rating of any part of the NRC.
1 2
o ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i
i Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
.=.
- - _. _.... - - _. ~ _...- - _ - - _ -.. ~
77 1
DR. MILLER:
You're saying there's internal i
2 ratings on this?'
{
3 MR. GRIMES:
None that are written down.
l 4
DR. KRESS:
It's subjective.
+
I 5
MR. GRIMES:
We have shared _the big list with you.
s 6
We have gone over the priority one issues and tried to i
7-explain those to you.
As we address these issues, we will 8
continue to share the reports that we exchange with the 9
Nuclear Energy Institute and the two applicants.
10 I would characterize most of what we're dealing 11 with today-as a lot of process, a lot of issues concerning 12 what is the nature of the staff's review, the scope and i
13 depth and how are we going to develop our conclusions.
14 Dr. Lee has been working with the division of
()
15 system safety and analysis and the division of engineering 16 on formatting the safety evaluation report, assigning 1
17 ownership to particular staff reviewers and developing 18 conclusions.
19 And in parallel with the resource commitments that 20 we have for Calvert Cliffs and Oconee and all of the related 21 renewal technical reports from the owners' groups, we are l'
22 now assigning ownership of these individual generic renewal 23 issues to the staff.
We met with NEI last week and they've 24 committed to provide us with some dates when they're going 25 to submit some clarification of the questions to us and I
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
4 l \\
Court Reporters l
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
78 1
we're going to commit to some dates by which the staff would
(}
2 expect to have documented. positions on these issues sent 3
back to NEI.
4 So that constitutes the integrated resource plan 5
that the chairman asked us for back in August.
It's taken a l
6 while to get there, but right now we have NRC staff working 7
across all of those fronts and we've got a process in place 8
now that identifies ways to collect the commitments on 9
changes to the standard review plan and very soon we hope to
'10 have a similar commitment from NEI in terms of how they're l
11 going to deal with making improvements to the industry 12 guidance.
l 13 And in that way, I see the loop as being complete 14 in terms of having a process in place to perform the license
()
15 renewal reviews on a very aggressive schedule, but, at the l
16 same time, collecting experience, resolving as many issues l
17 generically as possible and having a rigor in place to feed o
l 18 that experience back into improvements and the tools the L
19 staff will use in the future.
20 And in closing, I guess I would offer that if 21 there are any particular areas, particular technical issues, 22 particular programs or generic renewal process issues that 23 you want to pursue, just let us know and we'll schedule l
24 specific meetings.
We'll even provide status reports in 25 this fashion between now and when we complete the safety l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
- - ~...-.
_- - -.. -l 1
79 j
1 eval'uation reports for Calvert Cliffs and Oconee.
l 2
It would be my intent that when we'get those 3
'. initial safety evaluation reports, that we would come and l
4 meet with you and discuss their-contents, the nature of the 5
open items and get any feedback from you in terms of issues 6
that you want particular attention on before we complete the 7
supplement.
8 So that by the time that we get to the milestone l
9.
in February of the year 2000 when we ask you to make a l
10 recommendation to the Commission, you will be fully 11
- prepared.
12 DR. KRESS:
That sounds like a good plan to me.
I 13 think we particularly want to be sure that we receive these
- 14 '
technical reports, because it looks like there's quite a few l
15 of them, and then I think we'll want to look at those to see 16 what's in them.
17 DR. MILLER:
With as much lead time as possible.
18 DR. KRESS:
With as much lead time as we can get.
19 MR. GRIMES:
We will continue the practice, like 20 we recently did with the vessel safety evaluation for B&W, 21 but we'll issue a draft safety evaluation.
When we send 22 that out to the owners' group, we will provide copies to f
'23 you, as well.
(
24 DR. KRESS:
That would be good to do that.
25 MR. GRIMES:
We will check with you to determine f'
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 84 b3
)
80 i
1 whether or not you want to meet to discuss that particular 2-product.
Similarly, we'll send you copies of all of the 3
correspondence with NEI on all of.these generic renewal 4
issues and if there's -- whether it's packaged the way Sam 5
packaged it or whether or not you want to take on individual 6
topic areas, like EQ or fuses, just let us know and we will I
7 arrange to have special briefings on those topics.
8' DR. KRESS:
It'looks to me like you have a good 9
process in place and a good plan.
10 DR. MILLER:
And it appears like on the grass 11 roots level, that staff and NEI are working to resolve 12 issues before they become issues.
13 MR. GRIMES:
That's certainly our goal.
14 DR. KRESS:
Do any of the subcommittee members 15-want to make other comments?
It looks like we've reached 16 the end of our agenda well ahead of time.
So I'd like to 17 thank you for the briefing and the update and the status and 18 we look forward to interacting with you further on these.
19
- MR. GRIMES
Thank you very much.
We will do 20 that.
'21 DR. KRESS:
So I will adjourn the meeting, well l
22 early.
[Whereupon, at 10:49 a.m.,
the meeting was 23 l'
l 24 concluded.]
l i
25 f'
4 i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
4 Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
-c.
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE T[~}
This is to certify that the~ attached proceedings kJ before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
ACRS-MEETING RE-PLANT LICENSE RENEWAL DOCKET NUMBER:
PLACE OF PROCEEDING:
Rockville, MD were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear i
Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
0 Mike Paulus Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
O