ML021780270

June 25, 2002 Meeting Handouts - Meet with NEI to Discuss Issues Associated with Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) Implementation

ML021780270
Person / Time
Site:	Nuclear Energy Institute
Issue date:	06/25/2002
From:	Joseph Sebrosky NRC/NRR/NRLPO
To:	Nuclear Energy Institute
References
Download: ML021780270 (21)

Text

NRC FORM 658 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (9-1999)

TRANSMITTAL OF MEETING HANDOUT MATERIALS FOR IMMEDIATE PLACEMENT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN This form is to be filled out (typed or hand-printed)by the person who announced the meeting (i.e., the person who issued the meeting notice). The completed form, and the attachedcopy of meeting handout materials, will be sent to the Document Control Desk on the same day of the meeting; under no circumstances will this be done later than the working day after the meeting.

Do not include proprietarymaterials.

DATE OF MEETING The attached document(s), which was/were handed out in this meeting, is/are to be placed 06/25/2002 in the public domain as soon as possible. The minutes of the meeting will be issued in the near future. Following are administrative details regarding this meeting:

Docket Number(s) Project Number 689 Plant/Facility Name Nuclear Energy Institute TAC Number(s) (if available)

Reference Meeting Notice June 13, 2002 Purpose of Meeting (copy from meeting notice) Meet with NEI to discuss issues associated with inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) implementation.

NAME OF PERSON WHO ISSUED MEETING NOTICE TITLE Joseph M. Sebrosky Senior Project Manager OFFICE NRR DIVISION NRLPO BRANCH Distribution of this form and attachments:

Docket File/Central File PUBLIC D703J NRC FORM 658 (9-1999) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER This form was designed using InForms

Meeting with NEI to Discuss Inspections, Tests, Analyses and Acc~eptanceCriteria (ITAAC) Implementation June 25, 2002 Agenda 1:30 pm Introductory Comments NRC/NEI 1:40 pm Discussion of selected items from NRC June 4, 2002 NEI/NRC letter regarding ITAAC implementation (see below) 1:40 - 3:30 pm Public will be given the opportunity to comment after the end of one discussion topic and before proceeding to the next topic

• . 3:30 pm . Discussion of next steps NEI/NRC 3:45 pm Summary 4:00 pm Adjourn NEI Proposed Discussion "Topics:

1. 52.99/FRN process (NRC Comments 2, 5, 7, 21, 22 from June 4, 2002, letter)

1. Apparent staff distinction between 52.99/FRN process and independent NRC assessment of ITAAC completion

2. Appropriate finality of ITAAC sign-offs by NRC

3. "Higher standard" for ITAAC sign-offs vs. routine inspection reports

4. Nature of staff's post-construction recommendation to the Commission on the status of ITAAC completion

2. Sign as You Go (SAYGO) Process (NRC Comments 3, 4, 12-16)

• Objectives of SAYGO process (NRC and industry)

• Appropriate "finality" of SAYGO sign-offs by NRC

3. Engineering Design Verification (NRC Comments 17-18)

• Defining an early EDV milestone

• Difference between EDV and ITAAC/DAC

4. Transition to operation (NRC Comments 30, 32)

• License conditions on power operations ,

5. Other clarifications/discussion (time permitting)

• 30-day target for completion of NRC ITAAC verification process (NRC Comment 23)

"it will be incumbent on the licensee to demonstrate that such staff identified deficiencies do not invalidate an ITAAC" (NRC Comment 24)

Materiality of ASME welder qualification (NRC Comment 29)

June 25, 2002 DRAFT Table of Industry Responses to June 4 NRC Comments on NEI's Nov. 20, 2001, Draft White Paper:

ITAAC Implementation and Transition to FullPower Operations UnderPart52 PITAAC 1, 6, 11, 31 52.99/FRN process. 2, 5, 7,21, 22, 28 SAYGO 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 EDV 17, 18 Transition to operation 30, 32 Other 8, 9, 10, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 33 June 4 NRC Comment Industry Response General Comments

1. NEI's draft white paper is inconsistent with the staff's recommended position This is a policy issues that significantly affects the ITAAC regarding programmatic ITAAC.' The staff recommended in SECY-02-0067, implementation process and transition to operation under Part 52.

"Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria for Operational Programs (Programmatic ITAAC)," that combined licenses (COLs) for a nuclear power plant Commission policy decision pending submitted in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 52,. Subpart C contain ITAAC for operational programs required by regulations such a§ training and emergency planning (so-called programmatic ITAAC). The staff awaits the Commission's decision in this area and notes that it will have an affect on revising the construction inspection program.

June 4 NRC Comment Industry Response

2. The staff does not agree with NEI's interpretation of 10 CFR The staff interpretation would reverse a previous Commission decision and significantly 52.99. Specifically, the staff does not believe that 10 CFR affect the ITAAC- implementation process. Essential to the predictability and workability of 52.99 requires it to make separate ITAAC findings and publish Part 52 is the longstanding interpretation that there would be incremental ITAAC sign-offs by these in the FederalRegister. The staff believes that the the NRC staff as ITAAC are completed, followed by opportunity for hearing on the entire set language of §52.99 should be interpreted as requiring the NRC of completed ITAAC and the 52.103(g) finding by the Commission. Specific comments:

to publish notices in the FederalRegister of the licensee's claim that certain inspections, tests, or analyses have been

• We strongly believe the requirements of 52.99 should be affirmed, not re-interpreted.

completed and the acceptance criteria have been met. The NRC Specifically, that the NRC. shall "find [conclude] that prescribed acceptance criteria are staff will perform periodic inspections during construction of met" and at appropriate intervals "publish [FRNs] of the successful completion of ITA."

the facility and implementation of the licensee's operational

• Last sentence is inconsistent with rest of comment - Does NRC staff intend that its programs, issue reports on these inspections, and at the ITAAC conclusions be separate from the 52.99/FRN process? If so, we do not agree with conclusion of construction, the staff will make a the proposal for separate processes.

recommendation to the Commission on its assessment of the "* The word "interim'" is inconsistent with the intent of 52.99 to provide staff-level (as licensee's completion of ITAAC. If the Commission opposed to agency/Cornmission-level) sign-off of successfully completed ITAAC.

determines that all of the acceptance criteria in the ITAAC for "* The word "interim" is unnecessary in the sense that significant new information can the combined license have been met, it will make the finding always provide basis to reconsider previous regulatory actions, including ITAAC required under 10 CFR 52.103(g). Notwithstanding the above, conclusions.

the staff does believe in making interim conclusions regarding "* The 52.99 process should uphold the intent to complete and sign-off ITAAC ITAAC and processes fundamental to ITAAC as discussed in incrementally, building towards completing the set of all ITAAC. The staff comment 3 below. recommendation to the Commission (alter construction is essentially complete) should be mechanistic - that ITAAC have been satisfactorily completed, or will be before fuel load.

The staff recommendation will precipitate the 52.103 process, as described in Section 6 of the white paper.

"* The reference to Comment 3 in the last sentence suggests that the staff does not intend to make conclusions, interim or otherwiseý, as individual or groups of ITAAC are completed bv the licensee. Only SAYGO conclusions. Is this true?

June 4 NRC Comment Industry Response

3. The staff is in general agreement with some of NEI's philosophy regarding the sign F'urther discussion ncecee.

as-you-go (SAYGO) process. As part of the construction inspection program, the staff envisions a system of early assessment of licensee construction processes embodied in this process. The SAYGO process is discussed in the "Draft Report on the Revised Construction Inspection Program," dated October 1996. In this report See specific comments 12-16.

the staff notes that SAYGO is a structured method to establish that regulatory commitments have been met, to enhance the stability and predictability of the licensing process, and to identify and resolve construction problems early in the project. SAYGO would be a phased verification program in which the licensee certifies to the NRC that certain aspects of construction have been completed adequately, and the NRC staff would perform direct inspections to verify that the certification is accurate. The -draftconstruction inspection program lists candidate areas for the SAYGO process such as^ structural concrete, concrete expansion anchors, safety related piping, and welding. The staff believes that the results of these direct inspections would be fundamental to the staff's later ITAAC determinations.

The staff's inspection activity would be performed in parallel with the licensee's construction activities. The staff's assessment of the construction activities would be provided publicly throughout construction. The staff is considering methods such as sharing the information in a web-based platform, but has not yet decided the best method(s) to perform this public notification. The staff believes that this approach will benefit all of its stakeholders, because the staff's assessment of the construction activities will beknown throughout construction. NEI's draft white paper incorporates some of this SAYGO philosophy.

June 4 NRC Comment Industry Response

4. The staff disagrees with NEI's white paper regarding the finality of interim staff conclusions made in accordance with the SAYGO process. As discussed in the draft revision to the construction inspection program the staff is in the process of developing management tools such as SAYGO and significant inspection conclusions (the term "finding" was used in the draft construction inspection report). While not a part of the Section 52.99 process, SAYGO and significant inspection conclusions would be utilized as mechanisms for developing broad staff conclusions regarding significant construction activities or processes such as reinforced concrete, cable tray and conduit installations, etc. Such conclusions would be documented (e.g., inspection reports) after sufficient work had been completed to permit judgement of underlying processes but before the work activity had been completed. However, it must be emphasized that such conclusions made early in the inspection program would not be the NRC's final position, since the inspected activity and the NRC's inspections of the activity would continue. The issuance of a favorable significant inspection conclusion would allow the NRC to reduce inspections in the area where such a conclusion was made, but maintenance type inspections would continue. If a problem were identified during these maintenance-type inspections it could cause the NRC to revisit the previous SAYGO significant conclusion. The NRC would be responsible for determining the appropriate actions in this case. Options include, but are not limited to, increasing NRC inspections in this area, taking enforcement action, and issuing a public notice that the previous SAYGO determination is no longer valid and a new SAYGO determination will need to be made.

June 4 NRC Comment Industry Response

5. The staff disagrees with the way NEI characterizes the finality of the staff's interim NRC staff ITAAC sign-offs will absolutely be held to a higher standard conclusions regarding ITAAC. Specifically, on page 21 of the white paper NEI than conclusions in routine inspection reports. ITAAC are a lynchpin of states that "absent new information, the staff's §52.99 finding will be binding, and the Part 52 process and are the sole basis for the Commission's 5 2 .103(g) would not be reconsidered bv the NRC staff." NEI implies that the staff's interim finding. Therefore' ITAAC sign-offs clearly have greater significance conclusions would be held to a higher standard than conclusions the staff makes that routine inspection reports. For example, we would expect a routinely in its inspection program and reports. The staff believes that the interim headquarters senior manager to sign off on ITAAC, while the cognizant conclusions for ITAAC have the same standing as inspection report conclusions and region would sign out typical inspection reports (including SAYGO SAYGO conclusions. Both of these conclusions are based on audit-type reports).

inspections. If new information is identified that casts doubt on an NRC previous interim conclusion regarding ITAAC, NRC staff would be responsible for As identified in tesponse to NRC Comment 2, appropriate terms for determining the appropriate actions. Similar to problems identified in the SAYGO ITAAC sign-offs are "staff conclusions" or "staff determinations," rather process, NRC options include, but are not limited to, increasing NRC inspections in than "interim staff conclusions." Regardless of terminology, the this area, taking enforcement action, and issuing a public notice that the previous distinction is between staff-level sign-offs pursuant to 52.99 and the NRC ITAAC interim conclusion is no longer valid and a new ITAAC interim Commission finding under 52.103.

conclusion will need to be made. NRC management will be responsible for putting in place the proper controls over when ITAAC interim conclusions are made and under what circumstances they will be revisited.

Section 1 - Introduction

6. Regarding Figure 1 contained in this section, the staff does not agree with the This issue will be resolved based on the Commission's PITAAC distinction shown between design and construction inspection activities and determination.

operations-based activities. This is not consistent with the staff's recommendation in SECY-02-0067.

Section 2 0 Part 52 Requirements

7. The staff notes that the resolution of comment 2 above will affect this section. Agree

June 4 NRC Comment Industry Response Section 3 - NRC Inspection During Construction The staff notes the following general agreements with NEI's white paper:

Agree

8. The staff agrees with NEI regarding the need for licensees to provide the NRC staff with detailed construction schedules that identify the timing of activities that are to be the subject of NRC inspections. The staff also agrees that these schedules should be provided sufficiently in advance of the activity to enable the NRC staff to properly plan and implement its inspections to facilitate timely ITAAC conclusions.

Although there is no requirement to submit such schedules in advance, the staff believes that by volunteering this information licensee's will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the construction inspection process.

9. The staff agrees with NEI that NRC inspectors are expected to perform the same Agree types of inspections and audits of licensee construction-related activities under Part 52 as they did for plants licensed under Part 50. Application of information technology, risk insights and past construction inspection experience will be used in revising the construction inspection program. The staff notes that the development of ITAAC during the design certification reviews for the AP600, advanced boiling water reactor and System 80+ used risk insights extensively. The amount of ITAAC for these designs is proportional to the risk-significance of structures and systems. That is why, in general* there are more detailed ITAAC on risk-significant systems in these certified designs.

June 4 NRC Comment Industry Response The staff believes the following issues need to be clarified: We agree that if a problem is identified for a generic activity during the SAYGO process, the problem could affect the determination of whether I O.NEI states that the construction inspection program should be ITAAC-focused. an ITAAC has been successfully completed. The impact on ITAAC of However, NEI's white paper seems to try to divorce significant conclusions made SAYGO and routine inspection findings would be.evaluated on a case during the SAYGO process from ITAAC. In SECY 94-294, "Construction by-case basis.

Inspection and ITAAC Verification," the staff noted, based on the designs being reviewed at the time, that ITAACs were generally written as final verification of The term "ITAAC focused" refers to the expectation that the NRC will satisfactory plant construction; and they routinely referred to as-built configurations select a "smart sample" of construction activities to review/inspect. Just or conditions. On this basis the staff estimated that the majority of the ITAAC as the staff might choose to inspect or witness testing of aHSS would be completed late in the construction of the plant. The staff notes that for component over a similar, but LSS, component, the staff can also choose many ITAACs it will rely on both system-specific observations and generic to inspect or witness testing of SSCs directly implicated in ITAAC, over conclusions regarding the adequacy of construction activities throughout the plant. SSCs not covered by ITAAC.

The staff believes that the SAYGO conclusions will be relied on to form a portion of the staffs basis for ITAAC conclusions. This philosophy is discussed above in Comment number 3. Therefore, if a problem is identified for a generic activity during the SAYGO process the staff believes the problem could affect the determination of whether an ITAAC has been successfully completed.

The staff notes the following disagreements with NEI's white paper: The PITAAC issue will be resolved shortly by the Commission.

11.NEI's white paper is not consistent with the staff's recommendation in Agreement on the treatment of QA deficiencies related to ITAAC SECY-02-0067 regarding operational quality assurance (QA). Specifically, the staff verification.

recommended in this paper that operational QA have its own ITAAC. However, the staff does note that NEI's white paper appears to be consistent with the Commission approved position in SECY-00-0092 regarding the treatment of QA deficiencies related to ITAAC verification. Specifically, the recommendation contained is SECY-00-0092 and approved by the Commission, that "...underlying information (such as QA/quality control deficiencies), which is relevant and material to ITAAC, must be considered in determining whether ITAAC have been successfully completed. In addition, there may also be deficiencies identified that are not relevant to ITAAC."

June 4 NRC Comment Industry Response 12.NEI makes the comment that meaningful assessment and determinations (SAYGO We agree that 20% may not be the right number for all SAYGO significant conclusions) can be made by NRC inspectors based on completion of inspection areas. It could be more or less.

approximately 20% of a given type of work. Based on the fact that the NRC inspection process is audit-based involving the inspection of a relatively small sample of construction activities, 20% mav not be a realistic figure for all the areas covered by SAYGO.

13.Paragraph 3 on page 10 of NEI's white paper states that after a significant amount We agree that the staff may begin inspections as soon as an activity starts of a particular type of work has been performed and the licensee has conducted and and that any problems that the staff encounters should be brought to the documented its own quality assurance program inspections and evaluations, the licensee's attention as soon as possible.

licensee would request that the NRC perform its inspections in that area and make its assessment. The staff does not believe it should have to wait for the licensee to The intent of paragraph 3 on page 10 is simply that the licensee, when conduct and document its own inspections and evaluations. Depending on the ready, would request a non-routine SAYGO assessment and conclusion activity, the staff may begin inspections as soon as the activity starts. Any problems- by NRC.

that the staff encounters will be brought to the licensee's and other NRC stakeholder's attention as soon as possible (i.e., the staff will not wait until 20% of the work is done for an activity before staff-identified issues are made public).

During the Vogtle plant construction, "Readiness Review" program, the NRC notes that some programs to be reviewed at the 15-20% completion point, were in excess of 50% complete by the time that the licensee conducted the necessary inspections, evaluations, and provided a fully reviewed and approved report. In some cases, the 95% completion report was received within a few weeks of receiving the early (15 20%) completion report.

June 4 NRC Comment Industry Response The staff has the following detailed comments regarding Section 3 of NEI's white paper: Response to NRC Comments 14 & 15

14. Page 4, Second Arrowhead Paragraph - Second, fourth and fifth lines We agree that "SAYGO assessment" is a good term for the envisioned (non-ITAAC) inspections of construction processes.

Comment: The staff does not agree with some of the terms used by NEI to describe the staffs inspection process in this paragraph. NEI uses terms such as "approved" However, we believe that "favorable significant inspection conclusions" and "determinations of acceptable licensee construction processes," when referring (language from NRC Comment 4) are the objective of "SAYGO to the NRC construction inspection program. NRC can and will provide assessments and that it is appropriate to characterize such "favorable assessments of the licensee's program implementation based on a sampling conclusions"' as "approvals" or "determinations of acceptable inspection, but this "assessment" should not be portrayed as an "approval." construction processes.'" This is consistent with the language used in the 1996 draft CI? report describing "significant inspection findings" as 15.Page 8, Section 3.4, Second Paragraph, second line and fifth line, and Third "judgments about construction acceptability."

paragraph, fifth line: Page 9, Section 3.4, First line at top of page, and Final paragraph, Second line We envision that SAYGO reports could contain two kinds of "favorable significant inspection conclusions:"

Comment: The staff does not agree with some of the terms used by NEI to describe the staff's SAYGO inspection process in this section. The staff believes a more e determinations of acceptable generic construction processes accurate term for its SAYGO inspection pr6cess is "assessment" in the following 0 determinations that specific completed work is acceptable (i.e.,

instances: Page 8: Second paragraph, second line, "conclusions" should be changed work in the _-26% sample on which the generic construction to "assessments" - Page 8: Second paragraph, fifth line, "judgement" should be process was judged) changed to "assessment" - Page 8: Third paragraph, fifth line, change "judgements" should be changed to "assessments" - Page 9: First line at top of We agree that a reduced level of inspections in areas assessed and found page, "determinations of constru'ction process acceptability" should be changed to acceptable ("spot check,," or process maintenance inspections) would "assessments of the construction processes" - Page 9: Final Paragraph, Second continue.

line, "determinations of acceptatle" should be changed to "assessments of."

We *ilso agree that significant findings could impact earlier SAYGO Justification: Results of "SAYGO" inspections are NRC management assessments. conclusions.

The NRC inspection program is not in the approval cycle for licensee program implementation.

June 4 NRC tomment Industry Response Page 10, Paragraphs 4 through 7 16.Comment: The staff disagrees with these paragraphs, and believes that the Further discussion necded in connection with NRC Comments 14 & 15.

following better represents the NRC staffs position on SAYGO.

"Sign as you go (SAYGO)" is seen by the NRC staff as an NRC tool for the management of inspection resources. For the functional areas, or types of work, selected for this process, implementation inspections should be heavy for the first 15

- 20% (or appropriate amount depending on the area) of the work and then the results reviewed by NRC management. The frequency of inspections would be relaxed if a determination was made that the licensee had a good program and was exercising good quality controls over the program.

Subsequent inspections would continue to observe construction activities at a reduced frequency and rely heavily on a continuing review of the licensee's corrective action program for assurance that performance was still at an acceptable level. (Evidence of decreasing performance would be reviewed by NRC management for possible increase in frequency of inspections in that area.)

Results of inspections and assessments would be published appropriately. The staff is considering use of the NRC web site, in a fashion similar to the reactor oversight process (ROP), except that instead of the ROP cornerstones, the subjects of the blocks would be the functional areas, or types of work, selected for the SAYGO process. Additional possible avenues for publication of the results are FederalRegister Notices, and placing inspection report results on the web.

Justification: Because of the sampling nature of NRC inspections, the NRC should not be placed in the role of "approving" licensee process applications. The NRC will do enough independent inspections to provide an adequate assessment of the process applications, without being placed in the approval cycle.

June 4 NRC Comment Industry Response Section 4 El NRC Engineerin2 Design Verification The staff notes that its position regarding Engineering Design Verifications is provided in SECY-94-294. NEI's white paper appears to be inconsistent with the staff's stated position in several areas. The staff would like to discuss the following issues:

June 4 NRC Comment Industry Response

June 4 NRC Comment Industry Response I We agree that engineering design verification by NRC could begin at

17. The expectation that NRC will do a detailed design verification, starting at the time of COL issuance or shortly thereafter, complete it before or shortly after the about the time a COL application is submitted and contracts are let for first concrete pour, and publish an acceptability determination as a significant long-lead major components.

project milestone, appears to be an over-simplification of what is involved.

To meet the aggressive construction schedules currently projected by the industry, licensees will have to issue contiacts for the start of fabrication of major equipment, and facility modules, at about the same time as the COL application is submitted for NRC review and approval. The industry could also be expected to request limited work authorizations (LWA) in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 52.91.

Therefore, to begin to meet the NEI expectation of detailed design verification, the NRC would necessarily have to begin design inspections as soon as possible. As noted in SECY-94-294, the NRC will inspect and review the adequacy of licensee design engineering early in a construction process, possibly beginning soon after receipt of a licensing application; first-of-a-kind engineering for the lead plant of We believe that early completion of EDV by NRC is an important each certified design will be assessed during these inspections. milestone both with respect to the NRC's "reasonable assurance" finding in the COL and to instill confidence and stability as plant construction The staff also disagrees with the timing for the completion of these activities. The (and significant capital investment) begins in earnest. As described in staff ideally would expect to perform the majority of the inspections associated with SECY-94-294, the purpose of EDV is to verify the proper translation of engineering design verifications before a COL is issued (assuming the design high level design certification information into detailed design and information is available at that time). This is based on the concept that the staff will construction drawings. The effectiveness of this translation process by have to make a "reasonable assurance" finding prior to granting the COL. the licensee's engineering organization(s) must be evident prior to However, the staff does expectto continue inspections in this area after a COL is construction, and it is to the benefit of the licensee, the NRC and the issued. As discussed in SECY-94-294, as plant construction progresses, NRC will public that this be verified and documented as soon as possible. This determine if the engineering design is being implemented properly primarily determination will not affect subsequent NRC audit/inspection of field through performance-based inspections to verify that plant systems and components change requests, resolution of non-conformances and the implementation are installed and tested to applicable standards, certified design information, and of DAC; it is recognized that those resolution and implementation ITAACs. NRC will also assess the effectiveness of the licensee's design change activities must continue in order to confirm the continued effectiveness of process in maintaining the fidelity of high-level certified design information that is the licensee's design engineering processes. However, we believe that translated into construction drawings. the adequacy of construction, QA and testing activities is assured by the NRC CIP, 1TAAC verification program, etc. As such, these activities need not be included in a continuing program of engineering design verification EDV.

June 4 NRC Comment Industry Response 17 (continued)

The staff notes that NEI's white paper does not recognize that some of the design NRC verification of DAC will involve both verification of the design effort may not be completely done until late in construction. As an example, during process (e.g., for piping or I&C) and verification of the design the design certification reviews for the AP600, ABWR and System 80+ the concept implementation (through typical ITAAC on as-built SSCs). We envision of design acceptance criteria (DAC) was introduced for certain ITAAC. For areas that the EDV milestone would include completion of the design process such as the design of the contfol room the staff accepted high-level design elements of any DAC.

information instead of more detailed design information. Consequently, the ITAAC or DAC for portions of the certified design include the design process. DAC, like ITAAC, are required to be completed prior to fuel load. However, there is no requirement for when these activities would begin and they could conclude very late in the construction process. The engineering design verification inspections for these areas could therefore conclude very late in the construction process.

The staff does not have enough specific information regarding the construction and We agree that.EDV should be completed ASAP, i.e., before or near the design schedule to make a determination at this point as to when is the most time the COL -is issued.

appropriate time to perform engineering design verifications. The staff does believe that this activity should occur as soon as possible. The staff also does not have enough We believe that EDV is a significant milestone for both the NRC and the information at this point to determine how best to communicate the results of the licensee and that NRC conclusions on EDV should be treated similarly to inspection. That is, what additional steps, if any, should be taken beyond documenting other "significant inspection conclusions," e.g., SAYGO.

the results in a publicly-available inspection report.

18. NEI states that the Engineering Design Verification is distinct from ITAAC. See response to Comment 17 The staff disagrees. As discussed above, DAC is a form of ITAAC. The staff also believes that to the extent tho inspections are performed after the COL is issued they could have an impact on ITAAC.

June 4 NRC Comment Industry Response Section 5 5 ITAAC Process Implementation The staff notes the following general agreements with NEI's white paper: Agree

19. The staff agrees with NEI's recognition that construction and inspection activities corresponding to ITAAC will be specially flagged on licensee construction plans and schedules, and that the NRC staff will be kept informed of these schedules.

20. The staff believes that an ITAAC determination bases (1DB) is an appropriate concept for documenting specific inspections, test or analyses results on which the Agree licensee's ITAAC determinations will be based.

The staff believes that the following issues need to be clarified: The 52.99/FRN process is intended to provide timely public information on ITAAC completion and, along with SAYGO notices, on overall

21. Similar to SAYGO the staff believes its independent assessment of completion construction progress. As discussed in response to Comment 2, we of ITAAC should be communicated as soon as possible to its stakeholders (e.g., the believe these FRNs should reflect NRC concurrence in the licensee's licensee, interested members of the public, local and state government officials). determination that one or more ITAAC have been met.

The staff also believes that once an interim ITAAC conclusion is made by the staff that NRC management would be responsible for establishing a process which will We agree that it is important to define the circumstances under which an define the threshold for when such a conclusion would be revisited. ITAAC conclusion would be revisited (e.g., based on significant new information). The process/criteria for revisiting ITAAC conclusions needs to be established now, at least in general terms, as part of the current dialogue and envisioned SECY.

z June 4 NRC Comment Industry Response The staff notes the following disagreements with NET's white paper: Proper terminology will derive from resolution of NRC Comments 2 & 5, we are amenable to discussing use of alternative terminology sufch as NRC staff "ITAAC sign-offs," "ITAAC

22. Regarding NET's interpretation of §52.99 the staff does conclusions" and "ITAAC determinations."

not believe that ITAAC are "closed out" with the §52.99 notification. In fact, the staff does not believe that ITAAC are See responses to Comments 2 & 5.

closed out until the Commission makes its finding in accordance with §52.103(g). Comment number 2 also We understand and agree with the respective roles of the NRC staff under 52.99 and the discusses this issue. Commission under 52.103, as described by the Commission in the 1989 SOC for Part 52.

23. Although the staff believes in timely notification of its We think it is important to establish a target, such as 30-days, for NRC to complete the interested stakeholders regardingits interim conclusions ITAAC verification process and issue the required 52.99 notice.

regarding ITAAC, it does not agree with the proposed target to issue such a conclusion within 30 days of NRC receipt of an We agree that based on various factors, the-actual time to complete NRC ITAAC verification ITAAC determination letter. The staff believes that developing may be more or less than-the target. We also agree that the density of ITAAC sign-offs will a target independent of knowing the detailed construction be greater at the back end. But mitigating factors are expected to enable ITAAC sign-offs to schedule is not possible. As stated earlier, based on the ABWR keep pace. These factors include'; ability for one sign-off to cover many logically grouped ITAAC review the majority of the ITAXAC will be met late in ITAAC, increased ITAAC verification efficiency in the later stages of construction, and the construction program. Meeting the same target date increased NRC resources to meet the surge-in licensee ITAAC determinations.

throughout construction does not recognize that the process is back-end loaded. The staff does agree with NET that through The 30-day target is consistent with - and reinforces - the intent that ITAAC verification will day-to-day, on-site inspection activities, interactions with generally not require additional NRC inspection once the licensee's ITAAC determination licensee personnel and observation of activities in the field, the letter is received. The 30-day target also reflects the expectation that ITAAC determination NRC staff will be familiar with the status and adequacy of plant bases will be readily available and that NRC personnel will be familiar with the adequacy and construction. The staff therefore, should be able to issue timely status of plant construction, including licensee performance in the areas pertaining to a notification of its interim conclusions regarding ITAAC. particular ITAAC verification.

p industry cesponse June 4 NRC Comment Industry Response

24. NEI states that if the staff identifies discrepancies in the ITAAC determination The NRC staff will be aware of existing inspection findings and may bases or in the field, such matters would be referred to the licensee's normal judge their relevance to a particular ITAAC verification. A licensee corrective action program. NEI further states that "unless there is a deficiency that would not be expected to request NRC ITAAC verification when there indicates an ITAAC has not been successfully completed, the staff would be are inspection findings!or other deficiencies that are known to be material expected to make the required Section 52.99 finding of ITAAC completion, while to the ITAAC determination.

corrective action proceeds separately~under the quality assurance program." The staff believes that it will be incumbent on the licensee to demonstrate that such Further discussion is needed regarding the staff belief that "it will be staff-identified deficiencies do not invalidate an ITAAC. incumbent on the licensee to demonstrate that such staff-identified deficiencies do not invalidate an ITAAC."

The staff has the following detailed comments regarding Section 5:

25. Page 15, first bullet starting with "Prior to sending..." We agree that interactions will be continuous between the NRC inspection staff and the licensee regarding the status and adequacy of Comment: The staff does not agree with this paragraph. construction, coordination of testing and inspection schedules and the status of ITAAC activities.

Justification: While there is nothing wrong with continuing dialogue between licensee and NRC concerning status of completion of construction, formalizing discussions between NRC and the licensee prior to submitting a letter announcing completion of an ITAAC could result in a public perception that the NRC is in the business of reviewing licensee drafts.

June 4 NRC Comment Industry Response I

26. Page 16, Second paragraph.'

Agree Comment: The following thought should be included in this discussion:

For the purpose of resource loading and inspection planning, plant construction schedules shared with the NRC should include the schedule for issuance of contracts for pre-fabrication of structural modules and important components offsite, prior to issuance of the COL.

Justification: To meet demanding construction schedules, components and structural modules, which are the subject of ITAACs, could be pre-fabricated offsite prior to issuance of the COL. Some later fabrication steps could mask or hide the results of earlier fabrication steps, making it important that NRC be provided the

27. On page 22 of the white paper NEI suggests that any person with information contrary to the licensee's ITAAC conclusion published in accordance with § 52.99 Agree provide information to-the NRC. Failure to provide information in response to a § 52.99 notice would not be a basis for excluding participation for a timely-filed request for hearing.

Section 6 0 Preoperational Finding Process and Hearine Opportunity Agree.

The staff has the following comments regarding this section:

See responses to Comments 2 & 5 regarding characterization of NRC

28. Regarding the Section 52.103(g) finding, the staff's position is that this finding ITAAC conclusions as "interim."

will be based on earlier interim staff conclusions unless new information casts doubt on these conclusions or the Commission determines that there is an unresolved issue needing inspection or evaluation.

29. On page 26 of the white paper the staff does not agree with the claim that an ASME welder not appropriately certified would never constitute prima facie Clarification of this comment needed.

evidence that a welding ITAAC had not been met.

June 4 NRC Comment Industry Response

30. On page 28 NEI states that the 52.103(g) finding We believe it was premature to propose and approve in 2000 the generic form of a COL authorizes plant operation, including scheduled fuel load, power (including requirements for separate NRC authorizations for low power testing and full power ascension testing and full power operations. The Generic operations) in the SRM on SECY-00-0092. At that time, the industry and NRC had not had Combined License contained in SECY-00-0092 and approved substantial discussions on the subject of transition to operations under Part 52 -- and still have by the Commissions has license conditions for power not -- due to priority focus on other matters (eg, ESP, Part 52 rulemaking, etc.). The focus of operations, which is not consistent with this statement (See our June 16, 2000, response to SECY-00-0092 was on the staff proposal for programmatic comment 32 below). ITAAC. We provided no other comments except to request that the Commission defer action on the recommendations in the SECY, including the recommendation to approve the form and content of a generic COL, "until such time that the impact of these actions can be fully explored with affected stakeholders."

Under Part 52, the only positive finding that the NRC must make post-construction.is the 52.103g ITAAC finding. Required authorizations to go above 5% power and to full power are tantamount to additional positive findings that Part 52 does not envision. We do envision a post-52.103(g) license condition on completion of start-up testing as described in the FSAR.

And, of course, the licensee must also be in compliance with all tech specs, other license conditions and NRC regulations.

The key point is that further broad determinations by NRC after the 52.103g ITAAC finding are not required. The time for general readiness determinations is before fuel load, not after (two track approach discussed in Section 7 of the white paper).

I

June 4 NRC Comment Industry Response Section 7 El Assuring Operational Readiness Under Part 52 Commission policy decision pending.

31. The staff disagrees with NEI's position in this section. This section is inconsistent with the staffs recommended position contained in SECY-02-0067.

Section 8 El Transition to Operation Under Part 52 See response to NRC Comment #30.

32. The staff agrees with the NEI's position that after the Commission makes its 52.103(g) finding authorizing fuel load, no further authorization under Part 52 by the NRC is required to proceed to full power and commercial operation. However, as stated in SECY-00-0092 any post 52.103(g) limitation on operation will be imposed by a condition in the combined license (See conditions D.2 and D.3 of the generic combined license contained in SECY-00-0092). The September 5, 2000 staff requirements memorandum from the Commission approved the form and content of this license.

Section 9 0 Role of ITAAC After Fuel Load Agree

33. The staff has no comments on this section and agrees with NEI's stated position.