UNITED STATESNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

September 23, 2003

ORGANIZATION: Nuclear Energy Institute

SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTETO DISCUSS NRC's IMPROVED PROCESS FOR REVIEWINGLICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS

On August 27, 2003, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff (the staff) met withthe Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and utility representatives to provide an overview of theimproved license renewal application (LRA) review process and to obtain feedback frominterested stakeholders. Enclosed is the meeting agenda (Enclosure 1), the list of meetingattendees (Enclosure 2) and the staff presentation (Enclosure 3).

The NRC's public meeting notice, dated August 14, 2003 (ADAMS Accession Number:Ml032260253), had indicated that two subjects would be discussed: (1) the improved processfor reviewing license renewal applications and, (2) the number of LRAs that the staff would beable to simultaneously review. However, the discussion of Item 2 was deferred until a later timewhen more information on the subject is available.

The staff's presentation provided a forum for an in-depth discussion of the improved LRAreview process. The following bullets highlight some of the more pertinent comments:

* One of the main purposes of the improved LRA review process is to enable the staff toconduct simultaneous reviews of a larger number of LRAs

* One of the main goals of the improved LRA review process Is to achieve optimumeffectiveness and efficiency that can be gained with utilizing the Generic Aging LessonsLearned (GALL) Report

* The improved review process will be used to perform the LRA reviews for the next set ofincoming applications (Farley, ANO-2 and D.C. Cook) and will be adjusted, if needed,based on this experience

* The improved review process maintains the goal of a 22-month schedule for each LRAreview (for uncontested application)

The staff's presentation emphasized that the improved process is structured to have early andfrequent staff/applicant contacts to identify questions and acceptable resolutions earlier than inthe traditional review process. The improved process utilizes a Project Team to perform auditsof those portions of LRA that are consistent with the GALL Report and perform reviews of thoseareas that are consistent with previously approved staff positions. The staff stated that two orthree site visits are expected by the Project Team as part of its review process. The improvedreview process also makes provisions for other staff reviewers to conduct optional site visits tomake their reviews more effective and efficient. Most of these site visits will be technicalworking sessions aimed at obtaining clarification to support the LRA reviews. It is anticipatedthat these face-to-face meetings will expedite clarifying staff questions and therefore make theLRA reviews more effective and efficient.

-2-

The staff recommended that applicants provide a reviewer's aid (i.e., a cross reference table)identifying those aging management reviews/aging management programs (AMRs/AMPs) thatare based on previously approved LRAs. Having a reviewer's aid will make the staff reviewmore effective and efficient by focusing the Project Team's resources in expeditiously reviewingthose items that had been approved in previous LRAs, and thus allowing the technical staff tofocus on those more technically challenging or plant-unique issues.

During closing remarks, NEI and the utility representatives agreed that the improved processappeared reasonable and that they would be willing to support it during its pilot implementation.The staff further agreed that it would consider holding future meetings with stakeholders todiscuss lessons learned and potential changes to the improved LRA review process. NEIindicated that they would provide any additional written feedback on the improved LRA reviewprocess by mid-September 2003.

If you have questions, please contact Kurt Cozens at (301) 415-4104, or koc@nrc.gov.

Kurt 0. Cozens, Project ManagerUcense Renewal Section BUcense Renewal and Environmental Impacts ProgramDivision of Regulatory Improvement ProgramsOffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Project No.: 690Enclosures as stated

cc w/enclosures: See next page

NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTEProject No. 690cc:Mr. Joe BartellU.S. Department of EnergyNE-42Washington, DC 20585

Ms. Christine S. Salembier CommissionerState Liaison OfficerDepartment of Public Service112 State St., Drawer 20Montipelier, VT 05620-2601

Mr. Fred EmersonNuclear Energy Institute1776 I St., N.W., Suite 400Washington, DC 20006-3708

Mr. Stephen T. HaleFlorida Power & Light Company9760 S.W. 344 St.Florida City, FL 33035

Mr. William CorbinVirginia Electric & Power CompanyInnsbrook Technical Center5000 Dominion Blvd.Glen Allen, VA 23060

Mr. Frederick W. PolaskiManager License RenewalExelon Corporation200 Exelon WayKennett Square, PA 19348

George WrobelManager, License RenewalR.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant1503 Lake Rd.Ontario, NY 14519

Mr. David LochbaumUnion of Concerned Scientists1707 H St., NW, Suite 600Washington, DC 20006-3919

Ronald B. ClaryManager, Plant Life ExtensionV.C. Summer Nuclear StationBradham Blvd.P.O. Box 88Jenkinsville, SC 29065

Mr. John B. HermanManager - Nuclear LicensingOmaha Public Power DistrictFort Calhoun Station FC-2-4 Adm.Post Office Box 550Fort Calhoun, NE 68023-0550

Mr. Paul GunterDirector of the Reactor Watchdog ProjectNuclear Information & Resource Service1424 16e St., NW, Suite 404Washington, DC 20036

Mr. Hugh JacksonPublic Citizen's Critical Mass Energy &Environment Program215 Pennsylvania Ave., SEWashington, DC 20003

Mary OlsonNuclear Information & Resource ServiceSoutheast OfficeP.O. Box 7586Asheville, NC 28802

Talmage B. ClementsManager - License RenewalNuclear Engineering ServicesCP&L410 South Wilmington St.Raleigh, NC 27602

Mr. Charles R. PierceManager - License RenewalSouthern Nuclear Operating CompanyP. O. Box 1295Birmingham, AL 35201

Mr. Garry G. YoungManager, License Renewal Services1448 SR 333, N-GSB-45Russellville, AR 72802

I AGENDANEI MEETING WITH NRC STAFF

IMPROVED LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESSAUGUST 27, 2003

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Opening

ObjectivesImproved License Renewal Review Process

Public Participation

Closing

1:00 - 1:15 p.m.

1:15 - 1:20 p.m.

1:20 - 4:10 p.m.

4:10 - 4:25 p.m.

4:25 - 4:30 p.m.

Enclosure 1

ATTENDANCE LISTNEI MEETING WITH NRC STAFF

IMPROVED LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESSAUGUST 27,2003

IName [Organization J Name [ organization lBob Kalinowski ASD Mark Lintz NRCPeter Mazzaferro Constellation Tilda Liu NRCJohn Ricywa Constellation Cliff Munson NRCBill Watson Dominion Quynh Nguyen NRCAlan Cox Entergy Jonathan Rowley NRCNatalie Mosher Entergy Ram Subbaratnam NRCMichaell Stroud Entergy Jacqwan Walker NRCGarry Young Entergy Steve West NRCAl Fulvio Exelon Talmage Clements Progress EnergyMassoud Tafazzolt Framatome Nancy Chapman Search/BechtelDeann Raliegh LIS, Scientech Tim Abney TVAGregory Twachtman McGraw Hill Kathryn Sutton Winston Strawn, LLPFred Emerson NEI Todd Anselmi Wolf CreekJames Knorr NMCDarrel Tumer NMCRaj Anand NRCWilliam Burton NRCKen Chang NRCMario Cora NRCKurt Cozens NRCBill Dam NRCYvonne Edmonds NRCRani Franovich NRCFrank Gillespie NRCSteve Hoffman NRCLisa Jenkins NRCPeter Kang NRCThomas Kenyon NRCTJ Kim NRCP T Kuo NRCBrian Lee NRCSam Lee NRC

Enclosure 2

* * * 4( *

IMPROVED PROCESSfor

LICENSE RENEWAL SAFETY REVIEWS

NRR/DRIPIRLEP

Enclosure 3

OBJECTIVES:

* To provide an overview of the improved LRA review process

* To obtain support from pilot plant applicants and industry inimplementing the improved process

2

WHY CHANGE?

* To better manage NRC staff resource loading associated withfuture LRA submittal schedule

* To achieve optimum effectiveness and efficiency that can begained with utilizing the GALL Report

3

WHAT'S CHANGED?

Key LRA Review Activities Process Change

Identification of SSCs requiring Early and frequent interactionsAMR in scope of LR with applicant to address staff

questions and RAls

Review of AMRIAMP consistent Conduct site audits (Projectwith GALL Team)

Review of AMR/AMP consistent Reviewed by Project Teamwith previous staff position

Review of AMR/AMP not Early and frequent interactionsconsistent with GALL & TLAAs with applicant to address staff

questions and RAls

Issue SER with Open Items No process change.

Issue License (if approved) No process change.

4

KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

* Format/content of the LRA consistent with standardized format

* LRA to identify AMPs & AMRs consistent with GALL

* Applicant to identify those items that were previously approvedby the staff

* Applicant fully supports on-site audits and site visits

* Timely/complete responses to staff questions and RAIs

5

Improved License Renewal Review ProcessP ~ ~ ~ q~ . - .

- 1. K ae__II Application Received____ M~iMLI MZM~ J 4.. M5JM~IMZ M8IM9 I M1L~Mlj MLM13tM1'! MiSIM1eI M171I M181 M19 I M201I M211I M22

139

144

Initial Notifications and Work Assignments

OGCIRLEP confirms If heafing Is needed

Generate and Issue RAls;

Generate SER Inputs

Compile SER wI Open Items

Uicensee response to ME with Open Items

Final SER Inputs

Final SER Issued by PM to Licensee

VI-

Vi-

-I-I-I-I-

-I-I-I-I-I- 11W]

1T61i Issuance of Renewed Uicense (If Approved & No Hearing) I4Month 22*

6

Improved License Renewal Review Process (Representative Model)ID tYaskJNance1 Applicaton Received

2 1 Initial Notifications and Work Assignments

61 1OGC/RLEPconfika 11hearingh needed

62

i | Generat RAh

64 DIPM

65 DIPM

'6 O|bn-sk

67' | DSSA

I8 SPILB

69 1 SPSB

iO7 SRXB

71 s DE

72 DE

73 i Owst (Tentative)

7Ti. Osen-sb (Tentative)---- i

75 DRIP

-761 DRIP

77i On-se

On-sile

810 Genmte SER Inputh

8iu 1 DIPM

DIPM

83 j DSSA

DSSA

85 1 50% of SER Inputs

Be i 75% of SER Inputs

87i DE

DE

of50% dSER Inputs

90 75% of SER Inputs

91 DRIP

92 DRIP

93-

94 Compile SER wf Open Rom

ii2j Lcenses response to SER with Open Items

1 34 Final 5ER Inputs

12 3

12-4 Finln 8ER ssewd by PM to Lleensee

... . 1- .--- I... .--- .--- . - - - . - .__ML-1 MI _ M2 I IM3_ M4 ML MSS 55 IL7 MLH MA I UIO lUli MIM12 MI M1 MIA

.......... ............ .......... .. .......... ... .. ... ........... . ..... ............

.. .......... . ........ .. .. ... ..... ..........

.... . .. .... ............ .. .. ..... . .............. . .... ... ... .............. .... .. ........ . .... ....... ... .. .........

.. .... .... .. ........ .. .

. ................ .. . ... .... .....................

....... ............... .... .... . . .. . .. ......... ... ....... . . ... ....... ... ... ... ...... . ....... ........... . ........ .................... .. ........... ....... . ...... ... ........ ...... ...........

................. ..... ...... .... .. .... ......... ... ...

.. ..... ... ..... .......... ..... ... ............... .......... .. . . . ...... ..

.......... ..... .......... ............. ...........

__

........... ....... ...................... ............................... ...... ....

6I"' 6fron* "Ve

-DE.... .. ....... ..... ....... .. ........... .... . ... . . . . ....... .. ..... .... .

I0 I 111,hIII ~DRIP* On-sete

* On-SN,

.............

...........

................................. ........ .........

......... ...

.................

___| _ DIPMDSSA

4 00% of SER Ints

* 75% of IR Inp.uts

............

. .. .... . .

................ .... .

:

-1: l

* I.. _

. .. .. ..

... .... . . .. ... ...

* 80% of SER In"ut

..... . .:, ........................DR.

,,! s, ,. , ,,,,,,g!',,,~j,,,i,,!g,,,,,!! ,!|,,,!,,,, IF

* 70% of SER inpFI tr -

.. ............ ..... . ....... ..... .......... ......... ..... ................... ........ ..... ...........

.......... . .. ............... ............ .... .......... ............. ................ . .. .. ....... ..

............................ .......... .............. .... .......................... ............... ............... ..........

I7

PILOT REVIEWS

* Pilot for the improved process - Farley, ANO-2, and D.C. Cook

* Reevaluate the process to incorporate the lessons learned fromthe pilot plant reviews

8

LR PROGRAM SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

* GALL update

* Interim Staff Guidance

* Update Guidance Documents

9

FEEDBACK

* Pilot plant support for improved LRA review process

* Industry's comment on improved LRA review process

10