ML20211J245
| ML20211J245 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/27/1999 |
| From: | Hoffman S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| PROJECT-690 NUDOCS 9909030098 | |
| Download: ML20211J245 (24) | |
Text
a ter y
h UNITED STATES
}
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/g WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001
(
August 27, 1999 ORGANIZATION: Nuclear Energy institute (NEI)
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF LICENSE RENEWAL STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING WITH THE NEl LICENSE RENEWAL WORKING GROUP The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) License Renewal Steering Committee (LRSC) met with the NEl License Renewal Working Group on July 28,1999, to discuss the status of the first two license renewal applications and generic activities and issues associated with license renewal. Attendees are listed in Attachment 1. The agenda for the meeting is provided in. Following is a summary of the topics discussed at the meeting:
- 1. Status of Acolications Calvert Cliffs Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE) stated that they believe they have submitted all information requested by the staff. This includes responses to the open and confirmatory items along with comments resulting from BGE's adequacy review of the safety evaluation report. BGE indicated that they are particularly concerned about the closure of Open Item 3.0-1 regarding the changes to the final safety analysis report (FSAR) supplement. The NRC staff is waiting for BGE to submit examples of changes to the FSAR supplement resulting from the NRC's review. This approach would credit a process to ensure that the appropriate license renewal information would be incorporated into the next FSAR update after issuance of the renewed license. BGE's presentation materials are contained in Attachment 3.
Oconee Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) is currently supporting three parallel activities. The aging management program site inspections were in process and going well. Duke is also preparing responses to the open and confirmatory items identified in the SER issued on June 16,1999.
Duke plans to submit all responses by September 30,1999. In the interim, the staff will conduct an audit at the plant site to address the scoping issue, and other meetings have been planned to discuss other open items.. Finally, Duke is preparing an amendment to the application as required by 10 CFR 54.21(b) to submit any current licensing basis changes since submittal of the application that materially affect the contents of the application and FSAR supplement.
h hh -
b
- 2. Identification of licensee interest in renewal
/
The NRC staff announced that an improved license renewal website is now available on the NRC's external server. The website includes a list of publically announced future license expected. Because of the importance of good resource planning associated renewal applications of which the NRC is aware, as well as the dates the applications are a renewal application, the staff continues to monitor the publically announced as well as available informal information for use in its 5-year budget projections. Licensees were 13 i
9909030098 990827 PDR REVOP ERONUMRC PDR
' h,.h) h C RW9)(M G D
c 1
- encouraged to inform the staff of their best estimates for submittal of renewal applications, even if that information may change later. The NEl Working Group indicated that it will pursue compiling a list of planned renewal applications.
Virginia Power discussed its plans to submit in the first quarter of 2002, joint renewal applications for its Surry and North Anna plants. The applications would involve a common program review and separate environmental reviews for each site.
- 3. Status of the resolution of aeneric renewalissues The NRC staff provided the table in Attachment 4 which provides a list and current status of Priority 1 license renewalissues. Limited progress was made on resolving issues due to the effort needed to address the existing program issue, including preparation of the Commission paper and briefing. Two columns were added to the table as discussed at the last meeting to include the status of NEl's responses and the closure of issues. Based on discussions at the meeting, the staff and NEl will coordinate to include in the list, issues that are important to the staff or industry but are not prioritized as Category 1. The expanded list and status of the issues will be discussed at future meetings.
4.' Status of severe accident mitiaation attematives (SAMA) activities The NRC staff described its accomplishments since the last LRSC meeting with NEl on May 12, 1999 (Attachment 5). A multi-office technical review team was formed and met to discuss performing a feasibility study to determine if evaluation of severe accident mitigation alternatives can be classified as a Category 1 issus. By letter dated July 13,1999, NEl submitted a petition for rulemaking on SAMA for license renewal. Subsequently, on July 23, 1999, the staff held a public meeting where NEl explained their petition. The staff is currently developing its options for addressing the petition and performing the feasibility study. A brief overview was also provided by the staff of the NRC's process for handling rulemaking petitions.
. NEl presented a summary of the basis for its rulemaking petition (Attachment 6). The petition proposes to delete the requirement to consider SAMAs in the NEPA review for license renewal.
. NEl claims this would achieve consistency between 10 CFR Part 54 and Part 51 analyses and eliminate an unnecessary burden on NRC staff and licensees that does not have a commensurate safety benefit. This petition is constructed primarily on a legal basis. The petition claims that severe accidents are " highly unlikely" and that there is no Part 50 requirement to evaluate severe accidents. NEl requested an expedited rulemaking with issuance of a final rule within seven months.
- 5. Control over accretion of reaulatory reauirements and orocess for aoolicant acoeal The NRC staff noted that the fundamental industry concem described to the Commission on July 13,1999, in conjunction with Credit for Existing Programs, is accretion of regulatory requirements for future license renewal applicants. The industry representatives agreed that the potential for " regulatory creep" is an important aspect of their concem, particularly an expectation that future renewal applicants will be required to meet increasing regulatory requirements as new reviewers become involved and less management attention is applied to
r i
3-license renewal. In addition, the industry representatives believed that standards should be established that would provide "backfit protection" and a clearly defined process for appealing what applicants might consider unjustified staff requirements.
The NRC staff responded that the industry's concems appear to be on three levels:
(1) Clear review guidance for the staff Detailed guidance for staff review of renewal applications will be provided in the standard review plan for license renewal (SRP). As discussed under item 8 below, the i
staff is working to incorporate into the SRP, resolution of generic renewal issues and lessons-learned from review of the initial applications. Opportunities for industry and public involvement will be provided in the development of the SRP.
(2) Management involvement and control over staff requests NRC management recognizes its responsibility and will continue to provide control over the license renewal process as part of its line management functions. The Steering Committee pointed out that the managers' performance plans have been revised to include accountability for the appropriate review scope and need for staff requirements.
In this respect, license renewal is not very different from other reactor licensing processes.
(3) Appeal process Licensees have the right to question actions requested by staff reviewers for renewal and can always raise issues to management in the same way they currently appeal issues under the existing operating license. However, based on discussions at the meeting, the process to resolve disputes may not be clear to the industry. The Steering Committee ind;cated that it would review its charter in this area, in conjunction with a more detailed description of the process for the industry to appeal staff positions.
- 6. Process for final resolution of unresolved open items and issuance of a renewed license This topic was discussed in more detail during the preceding management meetings with BGE and Duke (see separate meeting summaries). For BGE, the staff has received BGE's responses to the SER open and confirmatory items. If the staff identifies any items that remain open, the staff will notify BGE and the appropriate action to resolve the item determined. The staff is also developing the form and content of a renewed license and identifying what is needed to go forward to the Commission with a recommendation to issue a renewed license.
The NRC staff explained that any further actions would be formally documented and meetings would be held to discuss the form and content of the new license and the basis for the
. Commission's decision on the renewal application so that all parties would clearly understand the plan to achieve completion for the renewal application.
- 7. Status of aoolication standard format develooment l
I In a letter dated June 17,1999, NEl responded to the staff's March 15,1999, letter by submitting two possible standard application formats for staff review. The NEl formats were
c.
i -
discussed in a public meeting on July 13,1999. The staff is currently developing a consolidated standard format based on consideration of the information in NEl's letter, additional clarification provided at the July 13,1999, meeting, and lessons learned from the initial license renewal l
reviews. The revised format was subsequently sent to NEl by letter dated August 9,1999.
- 8. Plan for Standard Review Plan (SRP) and NEl 95-10 update The NRC staff is ready to move forward with the process to revise the SRP after the Commission provides its direction on the crediting existing programs issue (SECY-99-148).
The process needs to address not only update of the license renewal SRP, but also update of j
the regulatory guide and associated NEl guidance document, NEl 95-10. These updates must be integrated with resolution of generic renewalissues and documentation of lessons-leamed l
from the review of the initial applications. The staff intends to prepare a list of the generic.
license renewal activities that must be completed and develop an integrated schedule for their completion. The staff will meet with NEl to obtain industry input on the scope of activities, a mutual issues list, and the task priorities.
The next LRSC meeting with the NEi Workin'g Group will be scheduled in September 1999.
WuS.
e Stephen T. Hoffman, Project Manager License Renewal and Standardization Branch Division of Regulatory improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 690 Attachments: As stated cc w/atts: See next page
i.
NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (License Renewal Steering Committee)
Project No. 690 cc:
Mr. Dennis Harrison Mr. Robert Gill U.S. Department of Energy Duke Energy Corporation
. NE-42 Mail Stop EC-12R Washington, D.C. 20585 P.O. Box 1006 Charlotte, NC 28201-1006 Mr. Ricard P. Sedano, Commissioner Mr. Charles R. Pierce State Liaison Officer Southern 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 Carl J. Yoder Nuclear Energy Institute Baltimore Gas and Electric Company 1776 i Street, N.W.
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Washington, DC 20006 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway DJW@NEl.ORG NEF 1st Floor Lusby, Maryland 20657 National Whistleblower Center 3233 P Street, N.W.
4 Wastd.gton, DC 20007 Chattooga River Watershed Coalition P. O. Box 2006 Mr. Garry Young Clayton, GA 30525 Entergy Operations, Inc.
Arkansas Nuclear One 1448 SR 333 GSB-2E Russellville, Arkansas 72802 1
ATTENDANCE LIST NRC LICENSE RENEWAL STEERRING COMMITTEE MEETING WITH THE NEl LICENSE RENEWAL WORKING GROUP JULY 28,1999
)
NAME ORGANIZATION
- 1. Steve Hoffman NRC/NRR/ DRIP /RLSB
- 2. Chris Grimes NRC/NRR/ DRIP /RLSB
- 3. Margaret Federline NRC/RES/ADT
- 4. William Kane NRC/NRR/ ADIP
- 5. Stephen Burns NRC/OGC
- 6. Jack Strosnider NRC/NRR/DE
- 7. Roy Zimmerman NRC/NRR/ADP
- 9. Ward Sproat PECO Nuclear
-10. Louis Long Southern Nuclear
- 11. Leslie Hartz Virginia Power
- 12. Greg Robison Duke Energy
- 13. Doug Walters Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
- 14. Barth Doroshuk Baltimore Gas & Electric (BGE)
- 15. Tony Pietrangelo NEl
- 16. Ellen Ginsberg NEl
- 17. Carl Yoder BGE
- 18. Jeff Shiplet BGE
- 19. Chuck Rayburn BGE
- 20. Garry G. Young Entergy Operations, Inc. (EOl)
- 21. Natelie Mosher EOl
- 22. Nancy Chapman SERCH/Bechtel
- 23. Fred Polaski PECO Energy
- 24. Steve Hale FPL
- 25. R. D. Baker Southern Company
- 26. Charles Pierce Southern Company
- 27. Bill Corbin Virginia Power
- 28. Donald Ferraro Winston & Strawn
- 29. Jim Lang EPRI
- 30. Michael Mayflield NRC/RES/DET/MEB
- 31. Melvin Frank NUSIS
- 32. Goran Stojkovich Morgan, Lewis & Backins LLP
- 33. Dave Solorio NRC/NRR/ DRIP /RLSB
- 34. M. Callahan GSI
- 35. Will Kenworthy GSI
- 36. Doris Martin NRC/OlG
- 37. Cindi Carpenter NRC/NRR/ DRIP /RGEB
2-
- 38. David L. Meyer NRCIADM/DAS/RDM
- 29. Brian Richter NRCINRR
- 40. Aki Noguchi NRCIADM/DAS/RDB
- 41. Jit Vora NRC/RES/DET/MEB
- 42. P. T. Kuo NRC/NRR/ DRIP /RLSB
- 43. J. Zimmerman NRC/NRR/ DRIP /RLSB
- 44. Sam Lee NRC/NRR/DRIPIRLSB
- 45. Janice Moore NRC/OGC
- 46. Dwight Chamberlain #
Region IV By telephone
AGENDA NRC LICENSE RENEWAL STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING WITH THE NEl LICENSE RENEWAL WORKING GROUP JULY 28,1999 1.
Status of Applications Calvert Cliffs Oconee 2.
Identification of licensee interest in renewal 3.
Status of the resolution of generic renewalissues 4.
Status of severe accident mitigation alternatives activities 5.
Control over accretion of regulatory requirements and process for applicant appeal 6.
Process for final resolution of unresolved open items and issuance of a renewed license 7.
Status of application standard format development 8.
Plan for Standard Review Plan and NEl 95-10 update
~
n 3
o t
i n
s e
n m
i h
v c
D o
i a
t t
i A
yg n
s r
o s
e n
i E
m i
r t
ra a
o c em s
e i
lc h
v i
t o
d u
l N
p A
s oC f
pt c
t At y
e f
i r
j l
9 o
r o
Cl r
a ot 99 P
wpa t
1 r
k el ee u
8 u
vnRg 2
hs la ese y
o l
r C RuR u
o J
t D
ear st a
W nSe h
l e
c tr c
u a
B iL N
SU l
lll
no is 2
iv e
i o
s y
n C
g ge R
r e
nc N
n i i e
rlef r
a r
e o o
ae n
sP t
i SeP E
c i
u t
N e
a uN G
l s
B e
wsC M
e/C d
i ns e
r f
e s en o
o Rref no 83 0
i t t 9
gn an s
e oo 9
e s
ri h
e t
t t v
npa t
e c
sa i
tc c
ni et olp un i
e L
ep se jb Cea sm i
O Rt se l
tia sg Nmw ua feme cn r
o n sa i
i BCre DM M
tc o
e is 3
v n
n p
i e
xg iD o
pl en l
y i
a
- t i
O; ge g
t re a
,d ne n
c d
e nm e
i i
et r
l a
t ef n
e p
el f e
i pa ge ic p
lpmt s et u
t A
m bi N
o m
ocC s
la s
c R
em w
s s
wl N go e
eA nC e
r 8
n g
iRto a
30 v
h g
-9 e
o emd cn 9
r r
R P
yt t e
xi r et ee cii e
e aymtnt s
ur s
eS n
o n mt qt e
eaa x
ee c
d mt pn r
l a
i L
r n
p y i
Rf o
ni ub P
Eo ta S
e P
SCmRr MC N
/
u Emo As r
C Gef So t
n F
c l
BI i
o h'.
is gd 4
iv n
uo i
i D
o or r
e y
i g
t h
p t
re a
n c
k g
r n
E i
oi r
l t
e p
wr a
o ic p
op u
A t
e N
r e s la ui nh w
s t
it e
ns e
8 u
oe 3
n 0
s cu
-9 e
s s
9 ss R
i f
i f
e ao t
s sN n
El l
e Ge c
Bw i
s L
d e
n u P
a s P
s Ci MC N
Re C
Nt h
u o
~
is 5
iv iD ygren e
e r
ra e
n e
H o
ic i
u t
m a
N z
o i
l r
a F
n if 8
o t
3 r
0 G
o 99 p
n e
e o
R W
i s
n d
i c
e o
e e
u i
r t
e a
s D
u s
n h
i l
o a
S W
i v
s I
E E
s i
y S
m t
M l
e a
m fa n
o i
S F
C
e r
u s
4 lo t
C nem hca t
e t
sn A
ooseR lEN SE T
T C
C C
T T
T T
T T
T C
T T
9 U
n 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 D
9 9
D 9
9 9
o 9
/
9 9
9 9
9 9
S i
/
5 t
/
/
/
/
9 9
/
/
B 9
9 B
9
/
/
c 0
0 7
7 7
/
/
1 3
3 0
0 T
6 6
T 5
/
/
/
3 0
S A
1
/
2 1
2 2
/
/
1 2
/
/
/
1 2
I
/
2
/
/
/
/
9 9
/
/
8 8
5 8
8
/
/
9 9
9 4
2 4
8 L
1 A
W E
C C
C C
C C
C T
T N
u t
E o
8 8
8 8
8 8
9 9
9 I
A A
A 9
n
/
9 9
9 9
9 9
A A
9 A
A A
R I
N N
N 6
9
/
/
/
/
/
/
N N
/
N N
N
/
0 3
4 4
4 6
2 2
1 E
E
/
1
/
/
/
/
2
/
/
t.
/
2 1
1 1
/
4 4
n N
1 S
4 1
1 1
1 3
e 1
N m
E mo C
c I
r L
d o
a f
l S
S S
l l
S S
B B
B B
B S
B B
B B
e B
B B
B B
1 l
Y C
L L
L E
E E
E S
S S
S S
E S
S C
S E
L L
L L
L L
L M
L N
R R
R E
E R
R R
R R
R R
R R
R E
R o
T R
t I
N R
ec O
na IR d
P iu d
g e
F d
im n
e O
s r
o e
S p
)
t g
o e
U n
r D
T ip p
o s
e A
c e
B n
S id o
T o
(
S it v
T n
o o
S t
s t
o r
c e
S e
c y
n it p
D ir u
S e
c l
s c
A b
r f
B t
e m
n f
e n
C s
is p
s r
t c
p e
u a
T D
ie n
s x
/e o
n m
lt t
F s
f r
o o
e E
l p
l t
p i
e e
u la e
d c
t e
r g
n c
r t
p n
s n
e a
p s
u ie t
n t
t b
g h
e x
e n
e n
S t
le ig T
I O
c ito v
n s
m e
E a
n n
e m
E h
e lp r
n b
i g
u A
g o
a A
la W
W W
E id le i
C n
L L
L a
d S
m a
s c
h m
n n
C m
A n
n d
la Ex w
o it e
a a
s C
u L
s m
l l
l t
a R
s T
e r
/
/
/
e c
s t
r n
r t
e A
n s
e E
E E
ia o
a e
o E
d s
s n
R e
a i
p S
o O
u h
W I
W t
e e
O F
C E
F T
I W
I M
C C
V C
F n
H a
C t
I d
no it e
t 3
9 2
4 6
0 8
9 2
7 8
2 5
7 0
3 5
e 0
0 1
1 1
3 4
4 5
5 6
8 8
8 0
0 0
c g
9 A
u 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 1
r 9
s 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
a
/8 s
e T
2 l
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
9 t
/
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 o
7 N
T
Presentation to the License Renewal Steering Committee on the Status of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Activities i
Brian J. Richter RGEB/ DRIP /NRR July 28,1999
I
Background
Staff appeared before th'e Steering Committee in May Described formation of a multi-office technical review team Proposed formation of a feasibility study to learn if SAMAs could be classified as Category 1
i l
Subsequent Activities SAMA technical review team formed and convened Team planned to conduct feasibility study NRC notified of NEl petition
l NEl Submits Petition for Rulemaking on July 13 NEl petitions NRC "... to delete the requirement to consider Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives in the NRC's National Environmental Policy Act-(NEPA) review associated with renewal of a nuclear plant operating license."
NRC staff held open meeting with NEl on Friday, July 23, 1999, to allow NEl to describe its petition
1 1
i Technical Review Team Response Because of petition time constraints, technical review team needs to focus near-term activities more on the petition than the feasibility study.
The technical review team will develop a range of options for Commission consideration to be described at the next Steering Committee meeting.
=
D O
bop e
ba E5As iTjne n
e nl 1
o e
i c
i ndma h
r t
nie hd c
t e
St l
t i
e d
e e
i f
i i
i c
n a
v Ao l
v t
nt y
e R
Ne l
i e
a e
t c
e Ee s
e s
o s
Pt Mn e
e u
s h
e n
n u
Ae Af s
n s
l it r
r we s
s e
e so ic t
t e
e vq eiu r
hs n
i os c
wr R
ua y
e t
r om u
f y
b a
e r
e b
t c
l n
l o
u w
e i
t r
md e
c t
m e
e o
e mn n
ns c
e P
e o
a n
o n
s n
a r
k r
e s
uN nd t
i i
r 5
e e
n a R 4
wr A
t t
e C a
aS g
tac hm s
n l
A e
~
s at d
n t
f a
e f
P M
6 t
f a
A Qy r
t s
E I
=
=
=
bN uc "oa P
s GyE noRfc a
a t
o in u
dir n v SP l
t s
l e
ot kie de i ;n 5
a r
e d
cA s
4 r
n ly e og o
r f
nd d
dm pA t
a r
o e
f ot ie be f
o e
r n en o oa a
s i
s n
t c nso ine Hh a
ol c
o s
os I
uf n
e t
Sl fy r
ip d
"ac d
n r
s Ps o
ut c
o c
lp f
o i
ds uo f
as ie e
ds c r" r
i n
n e
e iu ti s d
e l
t o
r n
.e 5
s
- t e
f "r
e c
o 4B he e
dy f
iq ve o
r g
u a
r e
hi ul a
u l
a r
l s
e a
o n
y ti n
d o
n e
gN d
E P
I l
i l,
=
=
=
=
fp E
h M
I t
A P
u ox r
f mp t
o usp of p
p i
i r
t e
uc o
r l
e i
i vdg e
i s
o ip c
~
i l
hn ie t
ti r
y c
l e
r c
o i
ey d
uy n
a na r
e l
t C
s f
u e
d o
me f
f o
e f
l e
e r
a ib o
r c mkv u
uc n
e t
n ie r
s da e
e k
nd d
s wvig f
e o
i n
r n
f d
a eg o
l l
mwP e
a o
s a
r p
p c
it r
a p
mh g
h t
l e
e o
5 t
i e
c nd n
u 4
io a
t u
e t
t l
r a
i s
n n
i a
e on c
a c
r f
d s
ndo e
P e
s t
r u
s y
a e
l o
r vd l
b t
i u
e 5
e tin Q
w o
e 1
o n
f i
E t
f I
r
=
=
=
=
=
R F
CP6p a3 I
e in o
r 6
a n0 s
o r
d s
a mp d
a d
u c
l l
Na e
msyoa o
l r
Ry N m~
e u
e e
s l
s le n
dl Cc o
t a
t m
t e o i
i s
Re c
ss o
u
,r vme mo e
u n
l a
e e
l i
d Nms u
e f
n s
a n R
d P
a u
t 6
t 0
Rke e
e a
sp c
i d
d na p
e e
t r
i i
a ug N
e ip o
y e
t o
t i
s o
t d
6 t
i o
n l
i a
0 c
oo f
s e
d e
nn P
t i
r a
o np e
t y
f e
i s
t t
i i
l t
o i
a t
o n
e n
r Q
E I
F f
-. DISTRIBUTIOtF Hard copy N181 T
PUBLIC
'RLSB RF -
LICENSE RENEWAL STEERING COMMITTEE R. ZIMMERMAN, NRR '- 05E7 W. KANE, NRR - 05E7 B. SHERON, NRR - 05E7 S. BURNS, OGC - 015B18 D. CHAMBERLAIN, RIV
. M. FEDERLINE, RES - T10F12 N. Dudley, ACRS - T2E26 E. Hylton E-mail:
D. Matthews S. Newberry C. Grimes C. Carpenter B. Zaleman J. Strosnider.
R. Wessman E. Imbro -
W. Bateman J. Calvo T. Hiltz B. Boger G. Holahan T. Collins C. Gratton R. Correia R. Latta J, Moore J. Rutberg R. Weisman M. Mayfield I
S. Bahadur A. Murphy D. Martin W. McDowell S. Droggitis RLSB Staff G. Tracy j
A. Thadani D. Chamberlain L. Chandler M. Federline J. Craig C. Julian W. Lanning R. Gardner D.Chyu