ML20210N837
| ML20210N837 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/09/1999 |
| From: | Charemagne Grimes NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Walters D NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (FORMERLY NUCLEAR MGMT & |
| References | |
| PROJECT-690 NUDOCS 9908110224 | |
| Download: ML20210N837 (10) | |
Text
00 August 9,1999 Mr.' Douglas J. Walters Nuclear Energy institute 1776 i Street, NW., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708 q
SUBJECT:
STANDARD FORMAT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION
Dear.Mr. Walters:
Your June 17,1999, letter provided the industry's two draft standard license renewal
' application formats. The staff met with you and the industry on July 13,1999, to discuss these draft standard formats. In response to your letter, I have enclosed a draft standard format for a license renewal application developed by the staff.
The staff has developed the enclosed draft standard format based on considerations of the information in your letter, additional clarification at the July 13,1999, meeting, and lessons loamed from the initial license renewal reviews. The staff believes the enclosed format would accommodate the two approaches in your letter and provide for review efficiency within our organizational structure, in developing the enclosed format, the staff also looked ahead to the staff review process and the development of the standard review plan for license renewal (SRP-LR). The staff plans on reformatting the draft SRP-LR to match the standard format for an application. (You should note that the enclosed format does not address the environmental requirements in 10 CFR Part 51.)
Based on the urgent need of the standard format as expressed by the industry in the July 28,999, License Renewal Steering Committee meeting, please contact Steve Hoffman at (301) 415-3245 regarding when the Nuclear Energy institute would provide comments on the enclosed format.
Sincerely, W
\\
Christopher 1. Grimes, Chief j
License Renewal and Standardization Branch 1
Division of Regulatory improvement Programs l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
Project No. 690
/
Enclosure:
As stated, ccw/ encl: See next page
(
Document Name: G:\\RLSB\\ LEE \\ format.wod
- See previous concurrence OFFICE LA RLSB RLSB
/
NAME EHylton*
' Slee*
SHoffman*
DATE 7/30/99 8/2/99 8/2/99 OFFICE RLSB:BC DE:D / kg,
RLSB:BC f
JStrosniderd CGrimes%r NAME.
PTKuo* '
DATE 8/2/99 8 /[s/99 f
6d/99 4
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY e
9908110224 990809 0 '10
/n-PDR REVGP ERONUMRC I tN 2 0]D PDR 2
fC4k 3kY
i~
l Mr. Douglas J. Walters Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 \\, Street, NW., Suite 400 Washin ton, DC 20006-3708 i
SUBJECT.
STANDARD FORMAT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Wal rs:
Your June 17,1 9, letter provided the industry's two draft standard license renewal application i
formats. The staff et with you and the industry on July 13,1999, to discuss these draft standard formats. I esponse to your letter, I have enclosed a draft standard format for a license renewal appli ion developed by the staff.
The staff has developed t e enclosed draft standard format based on considerations of the information in your letter, a ditional clarification at the July 13,1999, meeting, and lessons learned from the initiallicens renewal reviews. The staff believes the enclosed format would accommodate the two approa es in your letter and provide for review efficiency within our organizational structure. In dev loping the enclosed format, the staff also lcoked ahead to the staff review process and the deve(opment of the standard review plan for license renewal (SRP LR). The staff plans on refortnatting the draft SRP-LR to match the standard format for an application. (It is noted that the enclosed format does not address the environmental requirements in 10 CFR Part 51.)
Based on the urgent need of the stand iti format as te.assed by the industry in the July 28,999, License Renewal Steering Committee meeting, please contact Steve Hoffman at (301) 415-3245 regarding when the Nuclear Energy Institute would provide comments on the enclosed format.
\\
Sincerely,
\\
Christopher I. Grimes, Chief License Renewal and Standardization Branch Division of Regulatory imprc,vement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 690
\\
Enclosure:
As stated y
Document Name: G:\\RLSB\\ LEE \\ format.wpd OFFICE LAf RLSB
\\
RLSB g y NAME klton Slees5L-
\\SHoffman# '
DATE 1/p/99 81499 h2/99 OFFICE RLSB:BC DE:D RLSRBC
_jg
[hIJStrosnider CGrime's NAME PTKuo s
DATE
$l7/99
/.99
/ /99 \\
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
\\
\\
\\
Distribution:
Hard coov PUBLIC 1 Docket File '
RLSB RF N. Dudley, ACRS - T2E26 E-mail:
R. Zimmerman W. Kane D. Matthews S. Newberry C. Grimes C. Carpenter B. Zaleman J. Strosnider R. Wessman E. Imbro W. Bateman J. Calvo T. Hiltz G. Holahan T. Collins C. Gratton B. Boger R. Correia R. Latta J. Moore J. Rutberg R. Weisman M. Mayfield S. Bahadur J. Vora A. Murphy D. Martin W. McDowell S. Droggitis RLSB Staff G. Tracy A. Thadani J. Craig M. Federline C. Julian R. Gardner D.Chyu 110033 pp
b,.
l.t li Y
N'UCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE -
(License Renewal Steering Committee) l Project No,. 690 l
cc:
Mr. Dennis Harrison i
Mr. Robert Gill
' U.S. Department of Energy Duke Energy Corporation NE Mail Stop EC-12R Washington, D.C. 20585 P.O. Box 1006 Charlotte, NC 28201-1006 Mr. Ricard P. Sedano, Commissio 1er Mr. Charles R. Pierce State Liaison Officer Southem Nuclear Operating Co.
Department of Public Service 40 inverness Center Parkway 112 State Street BIN B064 Drawer 20 Birmingham, AL 35242
. Montipelier, Vermont 05620-2601 Mr. Douglas J. Walters Mr. Barth Doroshuk Nuclear Energy Institute Baltimore Gas & Electric Company
~ 1776 i Street, N.W.-
' 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Weshington, DC 20006 Lusby, Maryland 20657-47027 DJW@NEl.ORG l
NationalWhistleblower Center Chattooga River Watershed Coalition 3233 P Street, N.W.
P. O. Box 2006 Washington, DC 20007 Clayton GA 30525 Mr. William H. Mackay Entergy Operations, Inc.
Arkansas Nuclear One 1448 SR 333 GSB-2E Russellville, Arkansas 72802 l
l l
l 5
B e-DRAFT STANDARD FORMAT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION 1.0 ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION Purpose, plant description, and matters described undsr: 1. General Information.
in draft standard review plan forlicense renewal (September 1997). ($54.17(a)-(g) and 54.19(a)-(b)](Staff reviews information as part of sufficiency determination in S2.109(b).)
2.0 STRUCTURES AND COMPONENTS Empty heading, or at most, it could be a SUBJECT TO AGING MANAGEMENT one-paragraph introduction for the REVIEW section. The standard review pian for license renewal (SRP-LR) will not provide a section to review this information.
l 2.1 Scoping and Screening Methodology Describe and justify the methodology.
[$54.21(a)(2)] (include a matrix or table delineating the set of plant-specific design basis events, and corresponding set of l
plant specific nomenclature, that the applicant relied on to determine the scope of systems, structures, and components required in $54.4, consistent with the plant's current licensing basis.)
2.2 Plant Level Scoping Results A list of all the plant systems and structures identifying those that are within scope of license renewal. For example, a list may contain 135 plant systems and l
structures, identifying only 37 that are within the scope of license renewal. The staff determines whether 37 is the right answer by reviewing informat on such as the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR).
l 2.3 System Scoping and Screening identify mechanical components subject Results: Mechanical '
to aging management review L
[$54.21(a)(1)). For each system, the j
following information is provided: system description, intended functions, design basis, interface / boundaries, components, and commodities that make up the system. SRP-LR would provide a generic review procedure. Some specific system examples would be provided in the SRP-LR.
t
1 2.3.1 Reactor Coolant System Tnis is a subsection of 2.3. There would not be a separate SRP-LR section for the system-specific review. Review criteria for the subsection would be those in section 2.3 of the SRP LR.
2.3.2 Engineered Safety Features ditto
{
2.3.3 Auxiliary Systems ditto 2.3.4 Steam arid Power Conversion ditto System 2.4 Structures and Structural Components identify containment, civil structures, and Scoping and Screening Results component supports, subject to aging management review [S54.21(a)(1)] For each structure, the following information is provided: structure description, intended functions, design basis, interface / boundaries, structural components, and commoriities. SRP-LR would provide a generic review procedure. Some specific st uctures examples would be provided in the SRP-LR.
2.5 Syctem Scoping and Screening identify electricai and l&C components Results: Electrical and Instrumentation and subject to aging managament review Controls
[$54.21(a)(1)). For eceb e!ectrical and l&C, the following infonriation is provided:
description, intended functions, design basis, interface / boundaries, components, and commodiths. SRP-LR would provide a generic review procedure. Some specific examples would ce provided in the SRP LR.
e >
c m
3.0 AGING MANAGEMENT REVIEW Empty heading, or at most, it could be a 4
RESULTS one paragraph introduction for the I
section. The SRP LR will not provide a section to review this information.
3.1 Common Aging Managemer,t Empty heading, or at most, it could be a Programs one-paragraph introduction for the l
section. The SRP-LR will not provide a section to review this information. (These are programs that are reviewed by separate groups within the staff and cut l
across systems. These programs are in conjunction with other relevant programs as discussed in individual system and structure sections.)
3.1.1 Chemstry Control Describe the program and discuss the 10 program attributes, as appropriate. May reference optional Appendix B. Also provide a reference to the associated summary description of program in FSAR supplement (Appendix A). Use hypertext to link to the appropriate locations in the appendices for electronic submittals.
3.1.2 Quality Assurance ditto 3.1.3 Structure and System Walkdowns ditto l
i l
3.2 Reactor Coolant System Briefly describe the s[ stem, components, materials, and environment (set the stage for aging management review). Identify applicable aging effects, identify the aging management program relied upon to manage certain aging effects for particular components, and describe how the program will manage those aging effects. Also provide a reference to the associated summary description of programs relevant to the system in the FSAR supplement (Appendix A). Use hypertext to link to the appropnate location in the appendix for electronic submittals. (May reference aging 5
management programs in optional Appendix B. Use hypertext for electronic submittals.) (May discuss aging management of the system as commodity groups and reference optional Appendix C. Use hypertext for electronic submi"ols.) (Also, note that the staff reviewers for Section 3 are different than for Section 2.) [S54.21(a)(3) and 954.21(d)]
3.3 Engineered Safety Features ditto 3.4 Auxiliary Systems ditto 3.5 Steam and Power Conversion System ditto 3.6 Structures and Structural Components ditto (containment, civil structures, and component supports) 3.7 Electrical and Instrumentation and ditto Controis 4.0 TIME-LIMITED AGING ANALYSES Empty heading, or at most, it could be a one-paragraph introduction for the section. The 3RP-LR wil1 not provide a section to review this information.
4.1 Identification of TLAAs A list of the time-limited aging analyses (TLAAs) and applicable exemptions, if any. [S54.21(c)(1) and (2))
-4 I
l t
4.2 Reactor Vessel Neutron Embrittlement Evaluation of each of the identified TLAAs. Also provide a reference to the summary description of TLAA evaluations in the FSAR supplement (Appendix A).
Use hypertext to link to the appropriate l
location in the appendix for electronic submittals. ((54.21(c)(1) and $54.21(d))
4.3 Metal Fatigue ditto 4.4 Environmental Qualification (EO) ditto 4.5 Concrete Containment Tendon ditto Prestress 4.6 Containment Liner Plate Fatigue ditto Analysis
)
4.7 Aging of Boraflex in Spent Fuel Rack ditto 4.8 Other Plant-Specific TLAAs Sections 4.2 through 4.7 discuss TLAAs j
that are applicable generically. Section 4.8 discusses the remaining TLAAs. The SRP would contain generic guidance on other TLAAs. As we team more from additional reviews, we would expand the list (4.2-4.7) to address additional specific TLAAs.
APPENDIX A: FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS This appendix contains the proposed REPORT (FSAR) SUPPLEMENT revised FSAR pages, with sidebars indicating changes to the existing FSAR.
($54.21(d)] (The SRP-LR will not have a separate section on the review of this appendix. The staff guidance would be provided in the previous sections. For example, under 3.4, " Auxiliary Systems,"
the SRP-LR may indicate that corrosion of buried piping should be managed and one acceptable method is a sample inspection. In 3.4, the SRP-LR would also contain guidance on the review of the associated FSAR supplement for managing corrosion of buried piping.)
(Staff assignment would not be made for this appendix, applicable portions would be reviewed as part of the review of the previous sections.) _
l 1
l APPENDIX B: AGING MANAGEMENT This appendix lists and describes the l
PROGPAMS ANO ACTIVITIES aging management programs and
)
(OPTIONAL) activities referenced in the text. The 10 program attributes will be discussed, as appropriate. (The SRP-LR will not have a separate section on the review of this appendix. The staff guidance would be provided in the previous sections. For example, under 3.4, " Auxiliary Systems,"
the SRP-LR may indicate that corrosion of buried piping should be managed and one acceptable method is a sample inspection. In 3.4 of the application, an applicant may indicate that corrosion of buried piping is managed by a sample inspection as described in this appendix.)
(Staff assignment would not be made for this appendix, applicable portions would be reviewed as part of the review of the previous sections.)
APPENDIX C: COMMODITY GROUPS This optional appendix discusses (OPTIONAL) commodities. (The SRP-LR will not have a separate section on the review of this appendix. The staff guidance would be provided in the previous sections. For example, under 3.4, " Aux liary Systems,"
the SRP-LR may indicate that corrosion of buried piping should be managed and one acceptable method is a sample inspection. In 3.4 of the application, an applicant may indicate that buried piping is a commodity group as described in this appendix.) (Staff assignment would not be made for this appendix, applicable portions would be reviewed as part of the review of the previous sections.)
(Because the staff assignment is made at the previous sections, that is, at the system level, it is potentially possib!e that the outcome for a ccmmodity may be different for different systems. The differences may be warranted based on system characteristics and operating experience.)
l l
{ l l
l