ML083390367

November 20, 2008 Topical Report Monthly Public Meeting: Industry Handout

ML083390367
Person / Time
Site:	Nuclear Energy Institute, Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group, PROJ0669, PROJ0700, PROJ0694
Issue date:	12/29/2008
From:	Nuclear Energy Institute
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Tanya Mensah, 415-3610
Shared Package
ML083450606	List: ML083390367 ML083430107
References
TAC MD4832
Download: ML083390367 (7)

Text

NRC/NEI Meeting on Topical Report Process (11/20/08)

NEI Handout 1

I.

Limitations & Conditions in NRC Safety Evaluations of Topical Reports II.

Regulatory Treatment of Topical Report Pilot Applications III.

Publishing the A (NRC-approved) version of a Topical Report IV.

NRC Disposition of Comments on LIC-500

I.

Limitations and Conditions in NRC Safety Evaluations of Topical Reports 2

NEI PROBLEM STATEMENT The final Safety Evaluations issued by the NRC on topical report submittals frequently contain limitations and conditions that were not envisioned by the authors of the report. The result is that the usefulness of the report may be limited to a diminished set of applications, may not achieve the full spectrum of benefits, or may require substantial additional licensing effort when applied by a licensee. Furthermore, this result may not become apparent until the draft SE is issued. This can significantly reduce the value of the report, in some cases to the extent that it cannot be implemented.

Unexpected conditions and limitations adversely affect utility plans, schedules, and budgets. Similarly, NRC may incur additional review burden as licensees attempt to accommodate the conditions and limitations in plant-specific licensing action requests.

PROBABLE CAUSES The causes are varied and usually include one or more of the following:

1. In the NRC staffs opinion, the topical report as submitted and supplemented by RAI responses cannot adequately justify the intended applications without further conditions and limitations.

2. The author has not adequately communicated to the NRC staff expectations with respect to the scope and applicability of the report.

3. The NRC has not adequately communicated to the author in a timely fashion that the report will be limited in application if further justification is not provided.

4. The NRC and the author cannot reach agreement on the need for or extent of further justification on a given topic.

I.

Limitations and Conditions in NRC Safety Evaluations of Topical Reports 3

5. There is a lack of consensus on the scope of the regulatory review, such that the author believes that reviewer expectations exceed the guidance provided by the NRC during the pre-submittal meeting.

6. NRC reluctance to extend the review in order to allow the author to provide additional justification. Potential contributing factors are:

a) NRC staff concern that the 2-year or 3-year metric may not be achieved.

b) NRC staff delay in beginning the regulatory review after receipt of the submittal and the metric clock starts.

c) Relatively low priority of TR reviews compared to other licensing action requests.

7. The author is unwilling or unable to expend the additional time or resources to attempt to justify removal of conditions and limitations.

8. [Placeholder for additional items from NRC/NEI working meetings.]

EXAMPLES

[Placeholder for examples]

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Template for NRC/author meetings that includes the topic of conditions and limitations.

• Authors include known conditions and limitations in the report

• Include standards in LIC-500 on NRC/author communications, such that potential conditions and limitations are a continual topic of discussion.

• [Placeholder for additional recommendations]

II.

Regulatory Treatment of Topical Report Pilot Applications 4

What is a pilot trying to achieve?

• Add benefit of plant-specific information to the regulatory review

• Address issues of complexity

• Increase incentive for follow-on licensees to use the TR

• Helps avoid limitations and conditions

• Improved cost/benefit for pilot applicant

• Demonstrates interest within the licensee community for implementing the TR NEI Problem Statement:

• Different metrics for LARs and TRs; difficulty with different criteria for TR (3 years) and pilot LAR (2 years)

• Latest draft of LIC-500(11/17/08) still involves re-submittal (i.e., delayed approval) of the pilot amendment.

Options:

• NRC GUIDANCE - Submit as part of TR. Review in parallel & use TR metric. Follow TR SE with a separate LAR reviewed to the LAR metric.

• NEI PROPOSAL - Submit as separate LAR. Review in parallel & use TR metric. Issue approved TR and pilot amendment concurrently. No need for separate follow-up pilot LAR.

II.

Regulatory Treatment of Topical Report Pilot Applications 5

NEI depiction of NRC guidance in draft LIC-500 (NRC Series TR/Pilot Review)

NEI Parallel TR/Pilot Review TR Submittal Pilot LAR submitted as a Supplement to the TR NRC SE on TR LAR referencing TR FRN Pre-notice NRC SE on LAR Implementation TR Metric LAR Metric TR Submittal Pilot LAR Submittal NRC SE on TR FRN Pre-notice Implementation NRC SE on Pilot LAR NRC review subsequent LARs per the LAR Metric Both reviewed to TR Metric

III.

Publishing the A (NRC-approved) version of a Topical Report 6

NEI Position - NRCs formal review ends at publication of the Safety Evaluation (SE). There is no requirement for further NRC technical review of the Topical Report authors A-Version. It is incumbent on the author to properly reflect the SE in the A-Version and incumbent on licensees to properly implement the approved topical report. If NRC decides to conduct follow-up activities to confirm that the author incorporated the SE into the A-Version, they can be conducted as part of the routine NRC inspection and enforcement process. If necessary, the NRC headquarters staff may decide to perform a verification review, but the author should not be subject to NRC review fees.

IV.

NRC Disposition of Comments on LIC-500 7

DATE SECTION ISSUE NEI STATUS 7/25/07 Change Notice, Title Closed 7/9/08 Change Notice, Scope Initiation through implementation Open 7/25/07, 7/9/08 2, Objective Acknowledgement of TR value Open 7/9/08 4.1.1, Accepting TR for Review

1. NRR/NRO

2. Docketed minutes vs. letters

3. Technical vs. Topical reports

1. Open

2. Open

3. Open 10/21/08 4.1.1, Accepting a TR for Review

2. Technical vs. Topical reports

1. Closed

2. Open

3. Closed 7/9/08 4.1.2, Fees Closed 10/21/08 4.1.2, Fees Define significant Open 7/9/08 4.2, Process Steps

1. Establish NRC review team

2. Provide work control forms

1. Open

2. Open 7/9/08 4.2.1, Presubmittal

1. Closed

2. Closed 10/21/08 4.2.1, Presubmittal Closed 7/9/08 4.2.2, Submittal

1. Closed

2. Closed 7/9/08 4.2.3, Work Plan Obtain ACRS feedback Open 7/9/08 4.2.4, Acceptance Review

1. Closed

2. Closed 7/9/08 4.2.5, Proprietary Determination Resolving disagreements Open 7/25/07 4.2.6, RAIs Consistency among guidance documents Open 10/21/08 4.2.6, RAIs

2. Resolving disagreements

3. Elevating disagreements

4. Metric time out

1. Closed

2. Open

3. Open

4. Open 7/25/07 4.2.7, Tech Br SE Conditions & Limitations Open 10/21/08 4.2.7, Tech Br SE Conditions & Limitations Open 7/25/07 4.2.8, Draft SE Questions about procedure/precedent Open 7/9/08 4.2.10, A-Version

1. Timing

2. NRC post-SE review & fees

1. Open

2. Open 10/21/08 4.2.10, A-Version Minor edits Open 7/25/07 4.3, SE Content NEI White Paper Open 7/25/07 4.4, Metrics NEI recommendations Open 7/25/07 4.5, CLIIP NEI White Paper Open 7/9/08 4.5, CLIIP Pilot CLIIP Open 7/25/07 4.6, Dispute Resolution NEI White Paper Open 7/9/08 4.6, Dispute Resolution Develop a process Open 10/21/08 5.1, Branch Chiefs Knowledge transfer Open 7/25/07 General Communications Closed 7/25/07 General NRC Endorsement of industry guidance Open 7/25/07 General NEI White Paper (process improvement)

Open