ML19126A101
| ML19126A101 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/24/2019 |
| From: | Kimberly Green Plant Licensing Branch III |
| To: | |
| Green K, 415-1627 | |
| References | |
| NRC-2018-0109 | |
| Download: ML19126A101 (74) | |
Text
NRC Response to Public Comments Draft Letter to the Nuclear Energy Institute Regarding the Clarification of Regulatory Paths for Lead Test Assemblies NRC-2018-0109 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation June 24, 2019
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT LETTER TO THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE REGARDING THE CLARIFICATION OF REGULATORY PATHS FOR LEAD TEST ASSEMBLIES Introduction This document presents the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) response to written public comments received on the draft guidance letter to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) regarding Clarification of Regulatory Paths for Lead Test Assemblies [LTAs]. The NRC published the draft letter (Agencywide Documents and Access Management System (ADAMS)
Accession No. ML18100A045) in the Federal Register (83 FR 26503) on June 7, 2018, for an initial 20-day public comment period. The comment period closed on June 27, 2018. The draft guidance letter finalizes the staffs views on the regulatory positions discussed in the NRCs letter from Dr. Mirela Gavrilas, Response to Nuclear Energy Institute Letter Concerning the Regulatory Path for Lead Test Assemblies, to Mr. Andrew Mauer, dated June 29, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17150A443). The draft letter, which would supersede the June 29, 2017, letter, is intended to clarify several issues in the June 29, 2017, letter, including those related to Section 4.2.1, Fuel Assemblies, of the Standard Technical Specifications (STS),
Volume 1; the use of approved methods, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.59, Changes, tests, and experiments; and 10 CFR 50.46, Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power reactors.
After consideration of comments requesting additional time to comment on the draft letter, the NRC reopened the public comment period for an additional 20 days on July 2, 2018 (83 FR 30989). The additional comment period closed on July 23, 2018.
In developing the final guidance letter, the NRC considered all comments provided in response to the draft letter. If, as a result of its review of a public comment, the NRC changed the guidance letter, the NRCs response to the comment indicates where the change occurred.
Comment Overview The NRC received 272 comment submissions on the draft guidance letter. Table 1, Commenters on the Guidance Letter, identifies these submissions. The NRC determined that some of the submissions were duplicates and are not repeated in the table. The NRC reviewed and annotated the comment submissions to identify separate comments within each submission Accordingly, a single submission may have several individual comments associated with it. The NRC gave each individual comment within a submission a unique identifier. The unique comment identifier consists of the Unique Identifier shown in Table 1 for the particular comment letter followed by a sequential number. For example, if a comment letter whose Identifier in Table 1 is 500ANON contained 5 comments, the unique comment identifiers would be 500ANON1 through 500ANON5. The NRCs responses use this unique identifier to identify which individual comments are addressed by each response. Some individuals are listed more than once because they provided more than one comment letter.
Comments on the draft letter are available electronically in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select Begin Web-based ADAMS Search. From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRCs public documents.
Table 1. Commenters on Guidance Letter Submission Name Affiliation (if provided) Unique ADAMS Number Identifier Accession No.
1 Rick Ennis 1RE ML18177A178 2 David Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists 2UCS ML18179A146 (UCS) 3 Anonymous 3ANON ML18179A147 4 Andrew Mauer Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 4NEI ML18180A136 5 David Lochbaum and UCS 5UCS ML18180A137 Edwin Lyman 6 Ken Schrader Pressurized-Water Reactor 6PWR ML18180A138 Owners Group (PWROG) 7 Gary Peters Framatome, Inc. 7FRAM ML18180A139 8 Anonymous 8ANON ML18180A140 9 Edmond Mercier Westinghouse Electric 9WEST ML18180A135 Company 10 David Gudger Exelon Generation Company, 10EX ML18180A134 LLC 13 Rick Ennis 13RE ML18184A378 12 Norman Pierce 14NP ML18184A379 13 Sandra Kurtz 15SK ML18184A380 16 Audrey Tyrka 16AT ML18187A211 17 Sara Altherr 17SA ML18187A212 18 Henrietta Cosentino 18HC ML18187A208 19 Peter Baker 19PB ML18187A207 20 Anonymous 20ANON ML18187A206 21 Mary Lampert and Pilgrim Watch 21MLRC ML18187A205 Rebecca Chin 22 Robert Haslag 22RH ML18187A204 23 Scott Sklar GWU Solar Institute, The 23SS ML18187A203 George Washington University 24 Mark Creighton 24MC ML18187A202 25 Steve Johnston 25SJ ML18187A200 26 Margo Vanderhill 26MV ML18190A190 27 Stephen Roddy 27SR ML18190A189 28 Mha Atma Khalsa 28MK ML18190A188 29 Ed Robertson 29ER ML18190A187 30 Noreen Cullen 30NC ML18190A186 31 Croitiene ganMoryn 31CG ML18190A185 32 Laura Horowitz 32LH ML18190A184 33 James Strick Department of Earth and 33JS ML18190A182 Environment, Franklin and Marshall College 34 Christine Roane 34CR ML18190A183 35 Cynthia McNamara 35CM ML18190A421 36 Linda Greene 36LG ML18190A419
Submission Name Affiliation (if provided) Unique ADAMS Number Identifier Accession No.
37 Hendrica Regez 37HR ML18187A276 38 Patricia Reynolds 38PR ML18190A418 39 Millicent Sims 39MS ML18190A417 40 Roxanne Friedenfels 40RF ML18190A416 41 Freya Goldstein 41FG ML18190A415 42 Norman Lathrop 42NL ML18190A414 43 Jim Lieberman 43JL ML18190A413 44 Annie McCombs 44AM ML18190A411 45 Kenneth Gibson 45KG ML18190A409 46 James Garb Pilgrim Legislative Advisory 46JG ML18187A343 Coalition 47 JL Angell 47JA ML18187A278 48 Naomi Zuckerman 48NZ ML18187A344 49 Estelle Voeller 49EV ML18187A342 50 Vanessa Carbia 50VC ML18187A341 51 Boris Dirnbach 51BD ML18187A340 52 Frank Belcastro 52FB ML18187A339 53 Ellen Epstein 53EE ML18187A338 54 Rose Leather 54RL ML18187A337 55 Joe Holdner 55JH ML18187A335 56 Gerald Brown 56GB ML18187A334 57 Patrick Annabel 57PA ML18187A274 58 Henry Berkowitz 58HB ML18187A272 59 Elke Hoppenbrouwers 59EH ML18187A270 60 Caroline Courtwright 60CC ML18187A268 61 Stephan Hewitt 61SH ML18187A266 62 Cary Anderson 62CA ML18187A265 63 Pat Annoni 63PA ML18187A264 64 Anonymous 64AN ML18187A263 65 Vernon Huffman 65VH ML18187A262 66 Howard Cohen 66HC ML18187A261 67 Leigh Hill 67LH ML18187A209 68 Dorothy Anderson 68DA ML18187A293 69 Margaret Goodman 69MG ML18187A291 70 Lee Blackburn 70LB ML18187A290 71 Melissa Bird 71MB ML18187A287 72 Sandra Cobb 72SC ML18187A285 73 David Ransom 73DR ML18187A283 74 Bonnie Shephard 74BS ML18187A281 75 Jane Leatherman Van 75JL ML18190A192 Praag 76 Judith Leggett 76JL ML18190A191
Submission Name Affiliation (if provided) Unique ADAMS Number Identifier Accession No.
78 Gerritt and Elizabeth 78GS ML18191B128 Baker-Smith 79 Luke Pryjma 79LP ML18191B129 80 Carole Connet 80CC ML18191B130 81 Sarah Doenmez 81SD ML18191B131 82 L Clark 82LC ML18191B132 83 Anonymous 83AN ML18191B133 84 Thomas Paulson 84TP ML18191B134 85 Tom Cannon 85TC ML18191B136 86 Anonymous 86AN ML18191B137 87 Don Hawkins 87DH ML18192A471 88 Anonymous See comment set 94AN N/A ML18192A473 89 Charlene Woodcock 89CW ML18192A475 90 Lucile Burt 90LB ML18192A477 91 Frank Albani 91FA ML18192A479 92 Martha Martin 92MM ML18192A481 93 Virginia Davis 93VD ML18192A483 94 Anonymous 94AN ML18192A485 95 Connie Hogarth 95CH ML18192A487 96 James Cunningham 96JC ML18192A490 97 Shellee Davis 97SD ML18192A492 98 Forest Shomer 98FS ML18192A494 99 Douglas Bender 99DB ML18192A496 100 Kathy Gritz 100KG ML18192A498 101 Mark Meeks 101MM ML18192B947 102 Doug Landau 102DL ML18192B949 103 Lydia Gerson 103LG ML18192B951 104 Nancy Chismar 104NC ML18192B953 105 Todd Millions 105TM ML18192B957 106 Allison Ostrer 106AO ML18192B960 107 Elizabeth ODear 107EOD ML18192B963 108 Jacuelyn Dreschler 108JD ML18192B965 109 Joseph Magid 109JM ML18192B968 110 Anonymous 110AN ML18192B970 111 Karen Clagett 111KC ML18192B973 112 Eileen Mahood-Jose 112EM ML18192B975 113 Anonymous 113AN ML18192B977 114 Anonymous 114AN ML18192B980 115 Arthur Kennedy 115AK ML18192B982 116 Jane Swanson San Luis Obispo Mothers for 116JS ML18194A579 Peace 117 William Collins 117WC ML18194A562 118 Noreen Flowers 118NF ML18194A563
Submission Name Affiliation (if provided) Unique ADAMS Number Identifier Accession No.
119 Timothy Enloe 119TE ML18194A564 120 Victor Tiship 120VT ML18194A565 121 Patricia Marida 121PM ML18194A567 122 Marlena Lange 122ML ML18194A568 123 Anonymous 123ANON ML18194A569 124 Anonymous 124ANON ML18194A571 125 Patricia Carter 125PC ML18194A572 127 M. Christopher Nolan Duke Energy 127DE ML18197A065 128 Craig Sly Dominion Energy Services, 128DE ML18197A066 Inc.
129 David Gudger Exelon Generation Company, 129EGC ML18197A067 LLC 130 R. M. Krich X Energy, LLC 130XE ML18198A111 131 Anonymous 131ANON ML18198A108 132 Stephen Gliva 132SG ML18198A107 133 Anonymous 133ANON ML18198A106 134 Anonymous 134ANON ML18198A105 135 Anonymous 135ANON ML18198A104 136 Rick Ennis 136RE ML18199A097 137 Anonymous 137ANON ML18199A096 138 Mary Ann and Frank 138M&FG ML18199A095 Graffagnino 139 Christopher Currie 139CC ML18199A094 140 Gail Sullivan 140GS ML18199A093 141 Rochelle Becker Alliance for Nuclear 141RB ML18200A062 Responsibility 142 Deborah Cate 142DC ML18200A061 143 Kate Harder 143KH ML18201A195 144 Mark Leyse 144ML ML18201A196 145 Anonymous 145ANON ML18205A167 146 Anonymous 146ANON ML18205A168 147 Anonymous 147ANON ML18205A169 148 Linda Destefano 148LD ML18205A170 149 Anonymous 149ANON ML18205A171 150 Jane Swanson San Luis Obispo Mothers for 150JS ML18250A172 Peace 151 Charley Bowman See Comment Set 5 from UCS N/A ML18205A173 152 Mark Leyse See Comment Set 144 N/A ML18205A368 153 Anonymous 153ANON ML18205A369 154 Anonymous 154ANON ML18205A370 155 Anonymous 155ANON ML18205A371 156 Joanne Steele 156JS ML18205A372 157 Rhonda Schlamm 157RS ML18205A373 158 Ann Malyon 158AM ML18205A374
Submission Name Affiliation (if provided) Unique ADAMS Number Identifier Accession No.
159 Anonymous 159ANON ML18213A158 160 Diane Moss 160DM ML18205A375 161 Mana Iluna 161MI ML18205A376 162 Gerritt and Elizabeth 162GS ML18205A377 Baker-Smith 163 Hank Buser 163HB ML18206A759 164 Barbara Trypaluk 164BT ML18206A760 165 Anonymous 165ANON ML18206A761 166 Stephen Hopkins 166SH ML18207A389 167 Caroline Lane 167CL ML18207A390 168 Sharon Michales 168SM ML18207A391 169 Wendy Fast 169WF ML18207A393 170 Sharon Gambocorto 170SG ML18206A464 171 Anonymous 171ANON ML18206A465 172 Phyllis Arist 172PA ML18206A466 173 Manna Jo Greene Hudson River Sloop 173MG ML18206A467 Clearwater 174 L. Scott 174SL ML18206A468 175 Peter Guerrero 175PG ML18206A744 176 David McFarland 176DM ML18206A745 177 Diane Brickman 177DB ML18206A746 178 Diane Swords 178DS ML18206A747 179 Peter Bianco 179PB ML18206A748 180 John Costello 180JC ML18206A751 181 John Storbeck 181JS ML18206A754 182 John Szalasny 182JS ML18206A753 183 Allison Ostrer 183AO ML18206A755 184 Anonymous 184ANON ML18207A395 185 Anonymous 185ANON ML18207A394 186 Anonymous 186ANON ML18207A396 187 Stephen Gareau 187SG ML18207A397 188 Jan Boudart 188JB ML18207A398 189 Charles Culhane 189CC ML18207A399 190 Rebecca Casstevens 190RC ML18207A400 191 Raphael Kosek 191RK ML18207A401 192 Larry Beahan 192LB ML18207A402 193 Anonymous 193ANON ML18207A403 194 Anonymous 194ANON ML18207A404 195 Anonymous 195ANON ML18207A405 196 Frank Gage 196FG ML18207A706 197 Lucille Gervase 197LG ML18207A707 198 Anonymous 198ANON ML18207A708 199 Joseph Quirk 199JQ ML18207A709
Submission Name Affiliation (if provided) Unique ADAMS Number Identifier Accession No.
200 Anonymous 200AN ML18207A710 201 Anonymous 201AN ML18207A711 202 Anonymous 202AN ML18207A712 203 David Schonberger 203DS ML18207A713 205 Pam Magidson 205PM ML18207A716 206 Edward Butler 206EB ML18207A717 207 Elizabeth Mosley 207EM ML18207A718 208 Bonita Staas 208BS ML18207A719 209 Jill Simon 209JS ML18207A720 210 Anonymous 210AN ML18208A418 211 Anonymous 211AN ML18208A419 212 Anonymous 212AN ML18208A420 213 Anonymous 213AN ML18208A421 214 Anonymous 214AN ML18208A422 215 Anonymous 215ANON ML18208A423 216 Craig Keiser 216CK ML18208A424 217 Joanne Rogers 217JR ML18208A425 218 Anonymous 218ANON ML18208A426 219 Anonymous 219ANON ML18208A427 220 Anonymous 220ANON ML18208A428 221 Anonymous 221ANON ML18208A429 222 Erica Gray 222EG ML18208A430 223 Anonymous 223ANON ML18208A432 224 Anonymous 224ANON ML18211A280 225 Kathleen 225KBF ML18211A281 Benedetti-Fisher 226 Anonymous 226ANON ML18211A282 227 Carl Tyndall 227CT ML18211A283 228 Sara Barczak Southern Alliance for Clean 228SACE ML18211A284 Energy 229 Catherine DeGraw 229CD ML18211A285 230 Anonymous 230ANON ML18211A286 231 Dave Elder 231DE ML18211A288 232 B. Frackiewicz 232BF ML18211A289 233 Anonymous 233ANON ML18211A290 234 Anonymous 234ANON ML18211A291 235 Anonymous 235ANON ML18211A292 236 Anonymous 236ANON ML18211A293 237 Anonymous 237ANON ML18211A294 238 Anonymous 238ANON ML18212A198 239 Anonymous 239ANON ML18212A199 240 Anonymous 240ANON ML18212A200 241 Anonymous 241ANON ML18212A201
Submission Name Affiliation (if provided) Unique ADAMS Number Identifier Accession No.
242 Matthhew Lipschik 242ML ML18212A203 243 Debra Muhlbeier 243DM ML18212A204 244 Bruce Rosen 244BR ML18212A206 245 Diana Wulf 245DW ML18212A207 246 Laura Lynch 246LL ML18212A208 247 Gerard Marzec 247GM ML18212A209 248 Jarret Wolfman 248JW ML18212A210 249 Lynn F 249LF ML18212A211 250 Laura Sue Wilansky 250SW ML18212A212 251 Anonymous 251ANON ML18212A213 252 Anonymous 252ANON ML18213A159 253 Anonymous 253ANON ML18213A160 254 Anonymous 254ANON ML18213A161 255 Anonymous 255ANON ML18213A162 256 Anonymous 256ANON ML18213A163 257 Anonymous 257ANON ML18213A164 258 Anonymous 258ANON ML18213A165 259 Anonymous 259ANON ML18213A166 260 Anonymous 260ANON ML18213A167 261 Christopher Lish 261CL ML18213A168 262 Anonymous 262ANON ML18213A169 263 Anonymous 263ANON ML18214A304 264 Anonymous 264ANON ML18214A305 265 Anonymous 265ANON ML18214A306 266 Anonymous 266ANON ML18214A307 267 Anonymous 267ANON ML18214A308 268 Anonymous 268ANON ML18214A309 269 J. M. Stein 269JS ML18214A310 270 Rick Ennis 270RE ML18208A092 271 Martin Murphy Xcel Energy 271XE ML18219A713 272 Cheryl Gayheart Southern Nuclear Operating 272SNC ML18260A169 Company (SNC)
Comment Categorization This comment response document separates the comments into the 53 categories identified in Table 2 below. Within each category, the NRC summarizes each comment and responds to the comment. In general, the NRC addresses each individual comment. However, when similar comments can be readily grouped together, the NRC has binned those comments and treated them as a single comment. The NRCs response addresses the binned comment. The annotated comment number or numbers appear in a parenthetical list at the end of each comment summary to provide a cross-reference aid to the reader.
Table 2. Reoccurring Topics in Guidance Letter Topic No. Topic Topic 1: Licensing Requirements for Technical Specifications Topic 2: Potential Enforcement Actions Topic 3: LTAs Potentially Represent a Significant Hazard Topic 4: Allowing LTA Experiments Will Increase the Likelihood of an Accident Topic 5: LTA Fuel Failure Topic 6: Lack of Requirements for LTAs Topic 7: Use of LTAs in Limiting Core Regions Topic 8: Fuel Misload Topic 9: Letter Promotes Self Regulation Topic 10: Positions in the Guidance Letter Constitute a Backfit Topic 11: LTAs Need for License Amendment Requests (LARs) and Their Content Topic 12: Need for Commission Involvement or ACRS Review Topic 13: NRC Processes or Programmatic Issues Topic 14: The Regulatory Process Topic 15: Installation of LTAs at Hatch Unit 1 Topic 16: Safety of the Public, Workers, and Safety Culture Topic 17: Typographical and Administrative Changes Topic 18: Support for the Views in the NEI Comment Letter Topic 19: Support for the Views in the UCS Comment Letter Topic 20: Non Concurrence that Was Filed on the Draft Letter to NEI Topic 21: Endorsement of the Views in Non Concurrence on Draft LTA Guidance Letter Topic 22: 10 CFR 50.46 and Exemptions Topic 23: 10 CFR 50.46 Exemption History and Precedent Topic 24: 10 CFR 50.46 Exemptions for Batch Loading Topic 25: 10 CFR 50.46 and Exemption Guidances Impact on Regulatory Stability Topic 26: Use of Approved Codes and Methods Topic 27: Use of Methods and Engineering Judgment Topic 28: Historical Limits on LTAs Topic 29: Clarity of the Examples of LTA Campaigns that Would Require an LAR Topic 30: Definition of Terms Topic 31: Guidance Letter Contains New Interpretations Topic 32: STS 4.2.1 is Being Misinterpreted Topic 33: Further Investigation into the STS LTA Provision is Needed Topic 34: LTA Statement Is Taken Out of Context in Generic Letter 90 02 and Supplement Topic 35: Proposed Regulatory Paths Topic 36: LTAs and 10 CFR 50.59 Topic 37: Owners Will Seek Relaxation or Elimination of Hydrogen Control, Emergency Power, or Emergency Makeup Cooling Systems Topic 38: Need to Clarify Regulatory Expectations Topic 39: Issues to Investigate for LTA Fuel Topic 40: Revisions to Regulations Topic 41: Consistency with 10 CFR 50.57 Topic 42: Generic Issues Topic 43: Public Involvement
Topic No. Topic Topic 44: Sholly Notices and De Facto Amendments Topic 45: Rulemaking Topic 46: Implementation Topic 47: Interpretations of STS 4.2.1 Topic 48: Issuance and Finalization of the Letter Topic 49: Comments Expressing General Opposition to the Letter Topic 50: Other Comments Topic 51: Comments Requesting to Expand Scope of Letter Topic 52: Allegations of Wrongdoing, Collusion, Conflict of Interest, Criminal Negligence, Creating a Chilled Work Environment, and Similar Issues Topic 53: Comments that are Unrelated to the Subjects of the Draft Letter to NEI Topic 1: Licensing Requirements for Technical Specifications Comment: The NRC staff positions fail to address any issues related to lead test assembly (LTA) licensing requirements for technical specifications (TSs) in accordance with 10 CFR 50.36.
(3ANON6) (147ANON8)
Response: The letter does not alter the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36 or the TSs for any licensee. The guidance letter states that the Standard Technical Specifications (STS) LTA provision in TS 4.2.1 restricts LTAs to placement in nonlimiting core regions; therefore, the addition of LTAs would not challenge the safety limits which require TSs per 10 CFR 50.36. If LTAs are inserted in such number or location that they invalidate the core operating limits report (COLR) limits or updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) safety analyses, they would not meet the requirement for LTAs in TS 4.2.1 that they be limited in number and placed in non-limiting core regions. Approved codes and methods must be used to determine the COLR limits. The comment did not result in a change to the letter.
Comment: Commenters stated that the letter fails to address issues related to LTA licensing requirements for TS, that the letter is contrary to 10 CFR 50.36(c)(4), and that the 1968 version of 10 CFR 50.36 explicitly required incorporation of the fuel cladding into the TSs.
(154ANON3) (154ANON4) (254ANON3)
Response: The provisions of 10 CFR 50.36, which require certain NRC licenses to include TSs and describes what those TSs must contain, continue in effect. This includes 10 CFR 50.36(c)(4), which describes design features which must be included in the TSs. While the guidance letter provides new interpretive guidance on the STS, the NRC does not believe there is any inconsistency between the letter and 10 CFR 50.36.
Comment: This draft letter conflicts with 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)(D), which states the following:
Design features. Design features to be included are those features of the facility such as materials of construction and geometric arrangements, which, if altered
or modified, would have a significant effect on safety and are not covered in categories described in paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3) of this section.
Fuel cladding is a design feature which is important to plant safety and therefore must be specifically controlled though the technical specifications.
(131ANON5) (135ANON1) (135ANON2) (145ANON10)
Response: The NRC does not believe there is any conflict between the letter and 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)(D). The NRC does not consider changes resulting from the use of LTAs that meet the STS provision to have a significant effect on safety given they are limited in number and placed in nonlimiting core regions, as described in the letter.
The NRC staff did not revise the letter in response to this comment.
Topic 2: Potential Enforcement Actions Comment: Use of a letter to NEI could leave the door open for 2.206 enforcement actions and/or petitions for rulemaking.
(5UCS5) (5UCS15)
Response: The NRC disagrees that the letter would have any impact on the submission of 10 CFR 2.206 petitions or petitions for rulemaking. The guidance letter is intended to promote greater stability and reliability in the regulatory framework by formally stating the NRCs position on the use of LTAs. Members of the public who believe a licensee is violating NRC regulations may submit a petition for enforcement under 10 CFR 2.206 at any time, and members of the public that believe the NRC should engage in rulemaking to address a generic issue may submit a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802.
For more information regarding the NRC procedures for accepting enforcement petitions, see Management Directive (MD) 8.11, Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions (ADAMS Accession No. ML18296A043). For information regarding the rulemaking petition process, please visit the NRCs public Web site at www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking/petition-rule.html#howsubmit. For more information regarding the NRC procedures for accepting rulemaking petitions, see Management Directive 6.3, The Rulemaking Process (ADAMS Accession No. ML18169A097).
Topic 3: LTAs Potentially Represent a Significant Hazard Comment: A core reload using fuel assemblies different than previously found acceptable or whose methods have not been approved by NRC could potentially represent a significant hazard. Because the LTA provision places no limitation on design of fuel, past license amendment requests (LARs) could involve significant hazard due to reduction in plant safety margin.
(13RE6) (131ANON9) (212AN2) (212AN3)
Response: The licensee must perform reload analyses to establish core operating limits using NRC-approved analytical codes and methods listed in the licensees TS (i.e., STS 5.6.3). If a new fuel material or design feature, including an LTA, necessitates a change to these approved
analytical codes and methods to determine the COLR limits and UFSAR safety analyses, then a license amendment would be required to use the new or changed analytical code or method.
The NRC staffs position is that approved methods should be used wherever possible to ensure COLR limits are not exceeded and UFSAR safety analyses continue to be valid with LTA fuel loaded in nonlimiting core regions; however, approved methods for the LTA fuel (e.g.,
assembly-specific critical heat flux correlations) may not exist. In those instances, the licensee should perform a conservative evaluation of the LTAs using sound engineering judgment and analytical codes and methods that reflect well-established engineering principles. The letter has been revised to reflect the staffs position stated above.
Topic 4: Allowing LTA Experiments Will Increase the Likelihood of an Accident Comment: Using LTAs in a commercial nuclear reactor will increase the likelihood of an accident and/or result in increased risk and reduced safety.
(75JL1) (81SD2) (89CW1) (97SD2) (108JD2) (108JD4) (119TE1) (141RB6)
Response: The NRC staff disagrees with these comments. When completing their core reload analyses, licensees must consider their licensing bases and the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59.
The criteria in 10 CFR 50.59 address increases in the frequency and consequences of accidents previously evaluated in the final safety analysis report (FSAR) and creation of the possibility of an accident of a different type than previously evaluated in the FSAR. If the licensee does not have prior NRC approval for the core reload and the associated analysis, and cannot meet any of the criteria in 10 CFR 50.59 considering all the fuel in the reload (including LTAs), the licensee is required to submit a license amendment to request NRC approval prior to loading the fuel. Additionally, all 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations are subject to NRC inspection under the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP). Thus, the NRC staff maintains oversight over the licensees reload analysis completed under 10 CFR 50.59..
There was no change to the guidance letter as a result of these comments.
Topic 5: LTA Fuel Failure Comment: If a licensee uses this guidance and experiences a failure of an LTA or an LTA adversely affects other fuel in the reactor, then it could have a significant impact on other licensees that use LTAs.
(94AN18)
Response: The NRC agrees with this comment in part and disagrees with this comment in part. The NRC agrees that the failure of an LTA or the adverse effect of an LTA on other fuel in the reactor could impact other licensees that use the same LTA. Therefore, there are a number of regulations and guidance documents (e.g., 10 CFR 21, 10 CFR 50.72, 10 CFR 50.73, NUREG-1022) that require or recommend licensees and fuel vendors to report defects and noncompliances in a timely fashion to NRC and to industry organizations. Additionally, each licensee and fuel vendor has a corrective action program which is maintained in conformance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
The NRC disagrees with the general assertion that the failure of an LTA or an adverse effect of an LTA on other fuel in the reactor would have a significant impact. LTA campaigns that meet the STS LTA provision are restricted to a limited number in nonlimiting core regions for the
purpose of minimizing the safety impact of any particular LTA, and the 10 CFR 50.59 criteria provide requirements as to when further NRC approval is required before insertion of an LTA.
The safe use of these campaigns has been demonstrated over the past 30 years.
No change was made to the letter as a result of this comment.
Comment: Operational safety issues have resulted from the implementation of new fuel cladding including its use in LTAs. Two examples of this are the twisting of LTAs at Three Mile Island, Unit 1, resulting in impaired ability to fully insert and move some control rods and the inability to fully insert control rods at South Texas Nuclear Power Plant. This operating experience underscores the importance of having materials of construction for fission product barriers explicitly delineated in the Design Features section of the TSs in accordance with 10 CFR 50.36.
(254ANON2)
Response: There is operational experience in the U.S. and international nuclear fleet regarding assembly deformation as fuel rods approach end of life burnup, which, at times, has interfered with control rod movement. If a licensee planned to insert a sufficient quantity of LTAs in locations with control rods, without sufficient prior experience to show that assembly bow or twist would not interfere with safe shutdown of the reactor, the 10 CFR 50.59 process would conclude that a license amendment was necessary.
Topic 6: Lack of Requirements for LTAs Comment: A number of comments suggested that, if this letter is issued, there will be no requirements for LTAs.
(20ANON5) (94AN1) (94AN19) (131ANON3) (145ANON3)
Response: The NRC staff disagrees with these comments. The existing requirements for LTAs continue to apply. For LTAs inserted in a plant with STS LTA language and under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 without the need for a license amendment, the LTAs must be limited in number and placed in nonlimiting core regions. Additionally, the licensee must evaluate the change in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 to determine if the LTA campaign satisfies any of the criteria that would require a license amendment. The NRC also maintains oversight over LTA campaigns through the ROP.
Topic 7: Use of LTAs in Limiting Core Regions Comment: The letter indicates that only the first and last sentence of the STS LTA provision apply to LTAs. Thus, the STS LTA provision does not exclude the placement of LTAs in limiting core regions. The letter states that 50.46 is not applicable to LTAs. This leads to the conclusion that licensees can insert LTAs anywhere in the core, so long as the total number of assemblies is not exceeded.
(145ANON8) (145ANON9)
Response: The NRC disagrees with these comments. Placement of LTAs under the STS LTA provision must be in nonlimiting core regions, consistent with the last sentence of STS 4.2.1, which states, A limited number of lead test assemblies that have not completed representative testing may be placed in nonlimiting core regions. Therefore, loading LTAs in limiting core
regions without additional NRC approval is not permitted by STS 4.2.1. Further guidance on the meaning of nonlimiting core regions is provided at pages 3-4 of the letter. No change was made to the letter as a result of these comments.
Topic 8: Fuel Misload Comment: A number of comments questioned how fuel misload events would be evaluated with respect to LTA insertion in nonlimiting core regions or asked how or whether LTAs needed to be considered in analysis of fuel misloads.
(5UCS7) (145ANON6) (145ANON7) (268ANON2)
Response: Table 15-1 in RG 1.70, Standard format and content of safety analysis reports for nuclear power plants, identifies a number of reactivity and power distribution anomalies that should be considered in the safety analysis report, including inadvertent loading and operation of a fuel assembly in an improper position. As stated in the guidance letter on page 4:
This evaluation should demonstrate that under normal operation, anticipated operational occurrences, and postulated accidents (including loss-of-coolant accidents), the performance of the LTA will not negatively impact the performance of the co-resident fuel and confirm that the design bases, including the UFSAR safety analyses, COLR limits, and applicable terms, limitations, and conditions, remain applicable and bounding.
Fuel misloads are included in the UFSAR safety analyses; therefore, a licensee would need to evaluate if the fuel misload analysis remains applicable and bounding before proceeding to insert LTAs under 10 CFR 50.59 and TS 4.2.1. If the insertion of LTAs would invalidate the UFSAR analysis, a license amendment request would need to be granted prior to insertion.
Topic 9: Letter Promotes Self-Regulation Comment: The letter should not be issued or should be revised because it allows the licensees to self-regulate the insertion of LTAs and, therefore, removes NRC oversight. This would remove the public from the process, allow the licensees to perform in-reactor experiments without NRC review and cause a danger to public health and safety.
(15SK2) (35CM3) (38PR3) (87DH1) (90LB3) (94AN55) (94AN58) (96JC2) (103LG2) (117WC3)
(120VT3) (142DC1) (142DC2) (157RS3) (173MG2) (178DS1) (182JS4) (185ANON2) (188JB7)
(196FG2) (196FG3) (207EM3) (208BS1) (228SACE9) (229CD3) (236ANON2) (249LF1)
(261CL2)
Response: The NRC staff disagrees with these comments. The guidance letter does not remove NRC oversight from the LTA implementation process, rather, it clarifies what is already allowed under the NRCs current rules and regulations and by the licensees technical specifications.
The guidance letter clarifies an acceptable path for LTA insertion under the STS LTA provision, which includes the insertion of LTAs without the need for additional NRC approval beyond the prior approval of the TS language. A licensee completes its core reload analysis under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 (which may or may not include LTAs). All 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations are subject to inspection under the ROP. If the licensee does not appropriately justify that LTAs are limited in number and in nonlimiting locations in the reload analysis, the
NRC may take appropriate enforcement action to address the issue. Through the ROP, the NRC maintains its oversight over the LTA process even if explicit prior approval to insert LTAs is not necessary.
There was no change to the guidance letter as a result of these comments.
Topic 10: Positions in the Guidance Letter Constitute a Backfit Comment: The letter should be reviewed for potential backfit and issue finality issues by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR). Change in position may constitute a backfit and should be reviewed by CRGR.
(94AN15) (94AN33) (146ANON5)
Response: Issuance of the letter does not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) and is not otherwise inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR Part 52. The guidance letter does not impose new requirements, and licensees are not required to conduct LTA campaigns in accordance with the guidance in the letter. The guidance letter was provided to the CRGR for information prior to being made publicly available for comment. These comments did not result in a change to the letter.
Topic 11: LTAs Need for License Amendment Requests (LARs) and Their Content Comment: Commenters provided varying opinions regarding whether licensees needed to request license amendments and exemptions for LTAs. Commenters stated that, if the NRC decides to issue the letter to NEI on LTAs, then the previously issued amendments and exemptions for LTAs were unnecessary, and the NRC staff should explain why it would accept unnecessary amendments for review and justify spending resources, or rectify these instances by refunding licensees, training staff, and revising the Standard Review Plan. The NRC staff should explain why past reviews have not determined the exemption was not necessary. NRC staff should have told licensees to withdraw exemption requests if they werent necessary.
(13RE13) (94AN12) (94AN48) (146ANON10) (146ANON11) (146ANON14) (169WF2)
(218ANON4) (218ANON5)
Response: It is a licensees prerogative to decide whether to request a license amendment.
Section 50.90 of 10 CFR states that whenever a holder of a license desires to amend the license, it must file an application with the NRC. The NRC staff will review all properly filed license amendment requests.
The Commission is guided by the considerations in 10 CFR 50.40 when determining that an amendment to a license can be made. The regulations at § 50.40 state, in part, that in determining that an operating license will be issued, the Commission is guided by a consideration that the processes to be performed, the operating procedures, the facility and equipment, the use of the facility, and other technical specifications, or the proposals, . . .
provide reasonable assurance that the applicant will comply with the regulations in this chapter, including the regulations in Part 20 of this chapter, and that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered. These considerations do not include the NRC staffs position on whether the license amendment is necessary or prudent.
While NRCs treatment of past exemption requests is out of the scope of the guidance letter, section 50.12 of 10 CFR allows any interested person to apply for an exemption. As stated in
§ 50.12, the Commission may grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulations of this Part (i.e., Part 50), which are authorized by law, will not present undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security. Additionally, special circumstances must be present.
At the time of the issuance of the previous amendments and exemptions associated with the insertion of LTAs, the NRC staff made determinations consistent with the regulatory requirements noted above. Therefore, no remediation is required to address these issuances.
The letter provides guidance to assist licensees in future determinations as to whether an amendment and/or exemption request is appropriate. The comments did not result in a change to the letter.
Comment: The commenter referred to the following statement in the 50.59 section of the draft letter, If a licensees TS contains a provision allowing for use of LTAs, and if the LTA irradiation campaign satisfies the TS, then a change to that TS is not required (item (i) above). It is unclear what is meant by that TS. Also, the licensee must determine if any TSs must be revised, and it may not be sufficient just to focus on a single TS when determining if a license amendment is needed, including consideration of whether a new TS provision for LTA is needed to comply with 10 CFR 50.36.
(94AN43)
Response: The term that TS is referring to STS 4.2.1 or substantively similar TS that contains a provision for the insertion of LTAs. If the licensees TS contains a provision for the insertion of LTAs and the LTAs satisfy the provision of a limited number in nonlimiting core regions, then a license amendment would not be needed solely to revise TS 4.2.1 or the substantively similar TS to insert LTAs.
Page 2 of the guidance letter states:
This letter does not address all regulatory requirements that licensees should consider when planning an LTA campaign, such as other TS; 10 CFR 50.68, Criticality accident requirements; and transportation and storage requirements in 10 CFR Part 71, Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material, and in 10 CFR Part 72, Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste. Licensees should also remain cognizant of other potential requirements, such as other TS or methodologies that apply more restrictive requirements to LTA campaigns.
The letter explicitly states that other TSs should be considered when planning an LTA campaign. Licensees are responsible for understanding their TSs and for complying with the regulations.
Comment: LTAs have always been installed after the NRC staff has reviewed a license amendment request and granted exemptions to the regulations. If you review the history of
amendments associated with LTAs, you will find that they are not a burden to industry regarding time and hours to complete. What is the problem that is trying to be fixed?
(147ANON4)
Response: Based on the history of LTA programs, licensees have used various approaches to LTA campaigns. While some campaigns have been preceded by license amendments and exemptions, there are a variety of regulatory paths that have been taken, including using the LTA provision of STS 4.2.1. The purpose of the guidance letter is to address a perceived lack of clarity in NRCs regulations related to LTAs. Specifically, the staff received a letter from NEI requesting clarification on two points related to LTAs (ADAMS Accession No. ML18038B080).
The guidance letter clarifies the NRC staffs position on STS 4.2.1, Fuel Assemblies, including guidance on the use of approved methods, 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, tests, and experiments; and 10 CFR 50.46, Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power reactors, in response to the NEI letter.
Comment: It does not seem appropriate to circumvent 10 CFR 50.59 with the criteria proposed here of limited number and nonlimiting core regions, without the use of an exemption or new rulemaking. Regardless of the location, should the fuel adversely impact the fundamental core dynamics and physics predictions, accident progression, and/or the radiological source term such that core operating limits, UFSAR Chapter 15 transient and accident analyses, or approved analytical methods were no longer applicable and/or bounding, prior NRC approval should be needed.
(114AN7)
Response: The letter does not allow plants to circumvent 10 CFR 50.59. The regulatory pathway presented in the letter describes a process whereby a licensee satisfying the 10 CFR 50.59 process, in addition to the limited number and nonlimiting core regions restrictions, could insert LTAs without additional NRC review and approval.
No changes to the guidance letter were made as a result of this comment.
Comment: The insertion of an LTA in a nuclear power plant requires a license amendment request. The use of new cladding, new fuel materials, or altering a fission product barrier in an LTA would require a license amendment request.
(13RE9) (94AN44) (114AN2) (116JS2) (134ANON6) (149ANON5) (150JS2) (157RS2)
(195ANON1) (234ANON3) (259ANON3) (262ANON4) (264ANON5) (265ANON5)
Response: As explained in the guidance letter, the insertion of an LTA may require a license amendment request if the licensee does not meet the criteria provided in 10 CFR 50.59. The regulation at 10 CFR 50.59 allows a licensee to make changes to its facility as described in the UFSAR, and conduct tests or experiments not described in the UFSAR without obtaining a license amendment provided that it does not meet a list of criteria. For those LTAs that satisfy any of these criteria, an LAR must be submitted to the NRC and approved prior to their insertion. However, those LTAs that do not satisfy these criteria may be inserted in limited numbers into nonlimiting regions in the core without the need for specific NRC approval of the LTA campaign, provided the licensee has the LTA language from STS 4.2.1 in its TS. No change was made to the letter as a result of this comment.
Topic 12: Need for Commission Involvement or ACRS Review Comment: Staff should submit a SECY to the Commission for a vote on policy change. Staff is subverting process and attempting to cut out the Commission from a policy decision.
(153ANON3) (153ANON4)
Response: The NRC staff has reviewed the agencys delegations of authority and determined that the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) has the authority to issue this guidance. During a briefing in April 2018, the staff informed the Commission that guidance on LTAs would be issued in early summer (ADAMS Accession No. ML18100A002). The comments did not result in a change to the letter.
Comment: The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) should be provided an opportunity to review this letter.
(94AN8)
Response: This comment refers to the ACRS, an advisory committee which is statutorily mandated by the Atomic Energy Act to review and advise the Commission with regard to the licensing and operation of production and utilization facilities and related safety issues, the adequacy of proposed reactor safety standards, technical and policy issues related to the licensing of evolutionary and passive plant designs, and other matters referred to it by the Commission. More information on the ACRS is available at https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/advisory/acrs.html.
While there is no requirement for the NRC staff to refer the letter to the ACRS, the staff will do so if the Commission so directs. Otherwise, the ACRS will receive a copy of the letter when it is finalized and distributed.
No change was made to the letter as a result of this comment.
Comment: The ACRS should review each LTA concept and provide a report to the Commission on their recommendations.
(123ANON2) (253ANON3)
Response: For background on the ACRS, see the previous comment response. Some major licensing actions, such as construction permits and operating licenses, must be reviewed by the ACRS under the Atomic Energy Act. However, there is no requirement for the ACRS to review LTA concepts. On its own initiative, the ACRS may conduct reviews of specific and generic matters of nuclear facility safety-related items. Further, the Commission may direct the NRC staff to refer licensing actions related to LTAs to the ACRS.
No change was made to the letter as a result of these comments.
Topic 13: NRC Processes or Programmatic Issues Comment: Extend the comment period for the draft letter to NEI.
(1RE1) (2UCS1) (3ANON23) (18HC6) (20ANON14) (78GS3) (207EM4) (229CD1)
Response: The NRC extended the original comment period by an additional 20 days in order to accommodate further input from interested stakeholders.
Comment: Why is the agency trying to limit the discussion of the issues discussed in the draft letter?
(133ANON2)
Response: The NRC understands the comment to be asking why the public comment period was not extended for a greater amount of time. The NRC staff issued the draft guidance letter for public comment for an initial period of 20 days. This comment period closed on June 27, 2018. After consideration of comments requesting additional time to comment on the draft letter, the NRC reopened the public comment period for an additional 20 days on July 2, 2018.
The additional comment period closed on July 23, 2018. The NRC believes the initial 20 days, along with the additional comment period, provided sufficient time for interested stakeholders to provide input on the draft letter.
Comment: The commenter was unable to locate the draft letter in ADAMS, and also questioned why the letter itself was not accessible as part of NRC-2018-0109 at www.Regulations.gov.
(188JB2) (188JB3)
Response: The draft guidance letter to NEI was made publicly available in ADAMS, the NRCs official repository for official agency records, on June 1, 2018, and continues to be available to the public in ADAMS at Accession No. ML18100A045. To ensure that the official record is the one being solicited for comments, the NRC prefers to provide accession numbers for the official agency records in ADAMS. The ADAMS accession number for the draft letter was provided in the announcement in the Federal Register. The NRC is not aware of any issues regarding inaccessibility of the guidance letter in the past or at any time since its posting. Help with using ADAMS can be found at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Additionally, the NRC maintains a Public Document Room, whose staff are available to help members of the public access ADAMS, and the Federal Register notice associated with the guidance letter provided the names of individuals who could be contacted for questions or help with accessing the guidance letter.
Comment: Records related to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request FOIA 2018-0515 (now combined with FOIA 2018-0567) should be made publicly available.
(1RE2) (35CM6)
Response: The details and status of particular FOIA requests are not within the scope of this letter. Specific questions regarding the status of a FOIA request should be directed to the NRCs FOIA Team. More information may be found at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/foia/foia-privacy.html.
Comment: Is the NRC honestly and fairly going to consider public comment or is the decision regarding the need for amendments and exemptions for LTAs already been made?
(8ANON3)
Response: The public comments received are being addressed in this comment response document. If the staff has determined that revisions to the draft letter are warranted as a result of a comment, the letter has been revised and the comment response document indicates as much.
Comment: The NRC should create a link on the NRC public website to make all accident tolerant fuel (ATF) and LTA information available in a conspicuous location.
(123ANON3)
Response: The NRC often creates such pages on its public Web site to keep the public informed of key topics. Key topic pages include information on NRC activities, reports and correspondence such as regulations and guidance, technical references, and draft guidance, and other pertinent information. With regard to LTAs, which have been treated in various regulatory manners, the NRC staff would have a difficult time developing a topical page that would be beneficial for stakeholders. The guidance letter and this comment response document clarify the NRC staff position on several topics related to LTAs and are available in ADAMS at ML18323A169 and ML19126A101, respectively. If, in the future, the NRC staff believes a public Web page for LTAs would be beneficial to stakeholders, one could be created at that time. The comment also requested a public Web site for ATF, which is available at www.nrc.gov/reactors/atf.html.
Comment: The NRC should make the hearing records, including transcripts and written testimony, from hearings associated with 50.46 rulemaking publicly available in ADAMS.
(171ANON2)
Response: As stated in NUREG-0910, NRC Comprehensive Records Disposition Schedule, Revision 4 (ADAMS Accession No. ML051390495), paper records created before April 1, 2000, which is when ADAMS became the NRCs official agency records repository, are offered to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Accordingly, the NRC does not plan on including these documents in ADAMS.
Comment: The draft letter provides guidance that is inconsistent with principles of good regulation such as openness, clarity, reliability. The guidance proposed in the clarification letter undermines the integrity of the NRC and the industry.
(13RE1) (13RE2) (13RE3) (154ANON9) (210AN2) (210AN3) (210AN4) (210AN5) (235ANON3)
Response: The NRC staff adheres to the NRCs Principles of Good Regulation Independence, Openness, Efficiency, Clarity, and Reliability. In this case, the staff believes that the publication of this letter will further the values of Openness, Clarity, and Reliability.
Being an open and transparent agency ensures that the public has an opportunity to participate in the regulatory processes as required by law, and that we maintain open channels of communication. With respect to Openness, the NRCs regulations, which reflect the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Administrative Procedure Act, provide opportunities for members of the public to engage the staff through comments and opportunities to request
hearings. The staff issued the guidance letter for public comment for the intended purpose of receiving feedback from stakeholders on the proposed staff position on LTAs. This action is consistent with our Openness principle.
The NRC staff believes that the guidance letter will advance the principle of Clarity because it will publicly state the agencys position on a generic topic that has been approached in varied ways in the past.
With respect to Reliability, the NRC staff notes that there has been regulatory uncertainty with respect to LTAs, with questions over the years about the NRCs approach. As stated in a recent amendment request, the NRC has not communicated alignment with this position [that LTA demonstration programs can be conducted by licensees under 10 CFR 50.59], creating regulatory uncertainty regarding the licensing approach for accident tolerant fuel LTAs (ADAMS Accession No. ML18067A431). The guidance letter is intended to ameliorate this uncertainty and promote greater stability and reliability in the regulatory framework by formally stating the NRCs position on the use of LTAs.
Comment: The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation does not have the authority to reinterpret regulations.
(135ANON3)
Response: The NRC disagrees with this comment. NRR is responsible for key components of the NRCs nuclear reactor safety mission. Among many other functions, NRR plays a pivotal role in agency rulemaking, including the development and issuance of regulatory guidance for licensees. The NRC reviewed the Commissions delegations of authority and determined that it was within the authority of the Director of NRR to issue this guidance, in accordance with Management Directive 9.27, Organization and Functions, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (ADAMS Accession No. ML18073A256).
Comment: The staffs policy on exemptions is in direct contradiction with the Commission Policy on Generic Rulemaking, 43 FR 58377.
(137ANON1) (137ANON10)
Response: The NRC understands this comment to be referring to the NRCs Interim Policy Statement on Generic Rulemaking to Improve Nuclear Power Plant Licensing (43 FR 58377; December 14, 1978). This policy statement provides a sample of generic licensing issues to illustrate cases in which rulemaking might be more cost-effective and dispositive than treating generic issues repetitively for each individual licensing action. Although LTAs are not one of the specific issues discussed in this document, the NRC believes that, rather than contradicting the Interim Policy Statement, the guidance letter is in the same spirit. By treating the issue of LTA campaigns generically rather than on a case-by-case basis, Federal, State, public, and applicant resources [can] be more effectively focused on site-specific and design-specific issues of importance and the NRCs licensing process [will] be more effective and better understood (Interim Policy Statement at 43 FR 58377).
Topic 14: The Regulatory Process Comment: Several commenters stated that the letter to an NEI is an inappropriate means of communicating regulatory expectations, and that the letter should not replace legally promulgated regulations. Some of these commenters suggested other means of providing
guidance, such as issuing a NUREG, Regulatory Guide, or Regulatory Issue Summary, or amending the Standard Technical Specifications.
(5UCS1) (5UCS2) (13RE4) (16AT2) (21MLRC4) (21MLRC5) (28MK2) (28MK3) (47JA3)
(47JA4) (53EE2) (57PA4) (61SH3) (61SH6) (66HC4) (66HC7) (70LB1) (86AN2) (86AN5)
(94AN6) (113AN3) (113AN5) (116JS4) (131ANON1) (144ML2) (146ANON4) (150JS4)
(173MG5) (206EB3) (206EB6) (228SACE4) (228SACE7) (239ANON1)
Response: The NRC believes that the guidance letter is one of many appropriate methods for communicating regulatory expectations to the public. The NRC has a range of tools that can be used to communicate with licensees, applicants, and the public that satisfy statutory and regulatory requirements. NUREGs, Regulatory Guides, Regulatory Issue Summaries, and letters have been used by the NRC in appropriate circumstances. In this case, after weighing its options, the NRC determined that a guidance letter was the most effective and timely method of communicating the agencys expectations for LTAs. This letter does not replace any existing regulations.
The NRC staff will continue to engage with licensees and other stakeholders through its normal processes.
Comment: The guidance is a new regulatory position that should be reviewed in accordance with the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
(3ANON5) (147ANON7)
Response: The NRC agrees in part with this comment. The guidance letter was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the provisions of the CRA at 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). The CRA allows Congress to review major rules issued by Federal agencies before the rules take effect. Congress may disapprove new major rules, in which case the rule will have no force or effect. However, not every agency action qualifies as a major rule under the CRA definition of that term. In this case, OMB has determined that the guidance letter is not a major rule.
Comment: On page 9 of the response to the non-concurrence, the NRC stated:
The CRA [Congressional Review Act] does not apply to this draft letter because the CRA only applies to agencies final rules. I agree that once finalized, this letter will be considered a rule for CRA purposes and will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to determine whether is constitutes a major rule.
How will this rule be integrated with NRCs other rules such that persons need not review every NRC letter in ADAMS to ensure they are conforming with all applicable rules?
(5UCS4)
Response: The guidance in the letter applies to power reactor licensees who are considering LTA campaigns. The letter is addressed to NEI, Florida Power & Light Company (FP&L), and Entergy Services, Inc. (Entergy), who together represent all U.S. power reactor licensees.
Therefore, the NRC believes that all licensees to whom the guidance in the letter applies will be informed of it. In addition, the guidance letter will be published in the Federal Register and in ADAMS. Other NRC rules and guidance documents are routinely published in the Federal
Register and on www.regulations.gov. Future revisions to NRC guidance documents will incorporate references to this guidance letter as appropriate. In addition, the NRC will continue to collect feedback and assess the need for additional publicly available guidance on LTAs.
There was no change to the guidance letter as a result of this comment.
Comment: Instead of issuing the draft letter, the NRC staff should issue a generic communication to inform licensees that the STS LTA provision is insufficient to ensure plant safety. Plants should enter this issue into their corrective action program and resolve the issue in accordance with NRC Administrative Letter 98-10.
(131ANON2)
Response: The NRC does not agree that the STS LTA provision is insufficient to ensure plant safety. Insertion of LTAs under the STS LTA provision requires demonstration that under normal operation, anticipated operational occurrences, and postulated accidents, the performance of the LTAs will not negatively impact the performance of the co-resident fuel and confirmation that the UFSAR safety analyses and COLR limits remain applicable and bounding.
This ensures continued compliance with 10 CFR 50.36, Technical Specifications, and continued conservatism. Because the STS LTA provision is not a non-conservative TS, no actions with respect to the corrective action program or to Administrative Letter 98-10 are needed.
Topic 15: Installation of LTAs at Hatch Unit 1 Comment: The LTAs at Hatch Unit 1 were loaded without an amendment and an exemption.
The LTAs installed in Hatch Unit 1 violate 10 CFR 50.46. Additionally, Hatch Unit 1s operating license should be suspended until the licensee performs an evaluation of the LTAs with an NRC approved methodology and analysis and the NRC completes an amendment and an exemption for the installed LTAs.
(159ANON1) (159ANON3)
Response: The NRC is aware of the circumstances in which LTAs were loaded at Edwin I.
Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 1. This comment was described by the commenter as a petition for enforcement submitted under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.206. However, because the comment raised issues that have already been reviewed and resolved by NRC staff, it is not an acceptable 10 CFR 2.206 petition. For more information regarding the NRC procedures for accepting such petitions, see Management Directive 8.11, Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions (ADAMS Accession No. ML18296A043). Other issues raised by this comment are addressed in response to similar comments below.
Comment: Hatch Unit 1 TS 4.2.1 is identical to the STS. The LTAs at Hatch are of a different cladding material than the cladding material specified in 10 CFR 50.46, and Hatch loading these LTAs is in violation of TS 4.2.1 for not getting an amendment and 10 CFR 50.46 for not getting an exemption. So how did the NRC determine on a plant-specific basis that no amendment or exemption was needed, when it is still trying to figure out generic guidance?
(8ANON1) (8ANON2) (234ANON4)
Response: Licensees are responsible for assessing potential changes to their plants and determining whether a license amendment is necessary or whether the change can be made
without additional NRC approval under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. In this case, the NRC provided the interpretation that Hatch Unit 1s TS 4.2.1 allows for the use of LTAs; therefore, a license amendment to revise the TS was not necessary prior to installing the LTAs so long as the LTAs met the TS. A summary of this conversation between NRC staff and the licensee is available at ADAMS Accession No. ML18039A979. The licensee stated that it would insert the LTAs in accordance with TS 4.2.1 and 10 CFR 50.59 (See Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant - Unit 1 Information Reports for Lead Test Assemblies, Enclosure 2, GNF FeCrAl ATF Lead Test Assembly and Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant - Unit 1 Information Reports for Lead Test Assemblies, Enclosure 4, GNF ARMOR Lead Test Assemblies, ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML18012A058 and ML18012A059, respectively). Based on the information available to the staff, the NRC does not believe that the installation of LTAs at Hatch Unit 1 was in violation of the license. This determination was specific to the proposed LTA campaign at Hatch Unit 1, and does not obviate the need for generic guidance.
As explained in the guidance letter to NEI, an exemption to expand the applicability of 10 CFR 50.46 to other claddings is not necessary for LTAs. Therefore, a licensee could be in compliance with its license and the regulations of the Commission without an exemption to 10 CFR 50.46 for LTAs with claddings other than zircaloy and ZIRLO.
Comment: Since the Hatch Unit 1 LTAs are not made of Zirconium, there is a potential the LTAs could burst, increasing the danger of the fission product release to the environment.
(159ANON2)
Response: There are two types of lead test rods that were recently inserted in Hatch Unit 1: IronClad and ARMOR. ARMOR is a zirconium-based alloy with a coating applied to the exterior of the rod. IronClad is an iron-based alloy; however, no fuel pellets were inserted into the IronClad rods.
While the nuclear industry has succeeded in greatly reducing the incidence of fuel rod failures, failures are an event that still occurs across the U.S. commercial nuclear fleet.
Plants have systems to clean the primary coolant of contaminants that may leak from fuel rods and have limits on primary coolant radioactivity in their TS. The TS require the plant to shut down if these limits are exceeded. Plants must demonstrate that no design basis accident or anticipated occupational occurrence will release radiation to the public at levels that exceed the regulatory limits. All of these systems, limits, and analyses still apply to plants regardless of whether LTAs are inserted in the core.
Topic 16: Safety of the Public, Workers, and Safety Culture Comment: NRC should prioritize the safety of the people and the environment over industry profits.
(49EV3) (49EV4) (51BD1) (59EH3) (96JC1) (120VT6) (157RS6) (164BT2) (165ANON3)
(182JS3) (197LG2) (203DS1) (216CK2) (246LL5) (269JS2)
Response: The NRC works to protect the public health and safety and the environment from the effects of radiation from nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities. The NRC established a safety culture policy in June 2011 (76 FR 34733) that set forth the Commissions expectation that individuals and organizations establish and maintain a positive safety culture commensurate with the safety and security significance of their activities and the nature and
complexity of their organizations and functions. The NRC defines nuclear safety culture as the core values and behaviors resulting from a collective commitment by leaders and individuals to emphasize safety over competing goals to ensure the protection of people and the environment.
LTAs are a necessary and important step in the fuel development and qualification process and have led to safety improvements in the design of nuclear fuel, such as improved resistance to corrosion, improved thermal-hydraulic performance, increased heat transfer properties, and reductions in the number of leaking fuel pins.
Comment: If the industry does not have to confirm through comprehensive testing that a new fuel will not cause injury, then this will inevitably lead to situations that endanger public safety.
Other comments expressed not feeling safe with the use of LTAs, concerns about the impact on the health and safety of the public and environment from the use of LTAs, and that LTAs would diminish safety by condoning safety efforts of lower quality.
(5UCS14) (191RK2) (193ANON2) (228SACE8) (231DE2)
Response: The NRC staff agrees that untested fuel could give rise to concerns about its ability to function properly in a reactor core. The purpose of an LTA is to allow safe testing of the assembly in a reactor core to gather the intrinsic data necessary to evaluate the fuel properties to ensure it will function and act as expected in the core. The STS 4.2.1 has a provision that limits the placement of the LTAs in the reactor core to nonlimiting core regions, or in other words locations that do not experience the highest linear heat generation rate, highest cladding temperature, minimum departure from nucleate boiling, as well as other parameters identified in the plants safety analyses. Prior to insertion of LTAs in the core, the fuel vendor evaluates the approved methodology for the core and the accident and abnormal analyses described as part of the plants licensing basis to ensure that the LTAs will be inserted in locations that are nonlimiting, and that these analyses will remain bounding. Limiting the LTAs to these locations allows the collection of the needed data without compromising the safety of the reactor, the environment, or the health and safety of workers or the public.
Comment: The NRCs apparent willingness to abdicate the authority to review new fuel assembly designs, before they are utilized in the reactor core, is unwise and contrary to the goal of ensuring the safe use of radioactive materials in order to protect people and the environment.
(212AN4)
Response: The NRC disagrees with this comment. The guidance letter does not alter NRCs existing authority, and NRC is not abdicating its authority to review new fuel assembly designs.
The NRC reviews and evaluates fuel vendors topical reports for fuel designs and analyses.
Once a topical report is approved for use, a licensee who wishes to incorporate the topical report into its licensing basis must submit an LAR. The NRC staff reviews the amendment request, and only if properly supported will the NRC approve the amendment.
The NRC allows a limited number of LTAs to be inserted in nonlimiting core regions for the purpose of collecting data on changes to fuel designs. The locations are limited such that the LTA will not experience the highest linear heat generation rate, highest cladding temperature, minimum departure from nucleate boiling, or other parameters identified in the plants safety analyses. This limitation ensures that the plants safety analyses remain bounding for the core, including the LTAs. Thus, the health and safety of the public and environment are protected.
Comment: The NRC should explain how it reached a conclusion that it expects loading of LTAs will be done safely with very limited requirements. In addition, the NRC should explain
why its conclusion is only an expectation regarding the loading of LTAs. This appears to be a lesser standard than a reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety.
(94AN20) (94AN21)
Response: The guidance letter does not change existing NRC regulations, including the reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety standard, which appears in several parts of 10 CFR. As stated in the guidance letter on page 2, A licensee is responsible for assessing its ability to irradiate LTAs in accordance with its license and must comply with its license and the NRCs regulations. The combination of the STS LTA provision requirements, individual plant licensing basis requirements, and the 10 CFR 50.59 criteria ensure that the licensee continues to meet all applicable regulations, thereby ensuring adequate protection of public health and safety. Furthermore, the NRCs inspection program and ROP continue to ensure adequate oversight of licensee actions including LTA campaigns.
Comment: The regulatory paths described in the proposed NRC clarification letter lack any credible evaluation of radiological dose to workers (TEDE), changes in effluents and offsite doses for normal operations, abnormal occurrences, and postulated accidents.
(3ANON15) (200AN1)
Response: The guidance letter does not include a discussion of radiological dose because the guidance letter does not change the existing standards for radiation protection. Whether or not licensees engage in LTA campaigns using the guidance in the letter, they must comply with 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation, and 10 CFR Part 100, Reactor Site Criteria, or 10 CFR 50.67, Accident source term, which provide requirements for radiological dose to workers, effluents, and offsite doses for normal operations, abnormal occurrences, and postulated accidents.
Topic 17: Typographical and Administrative Changes Comment: On page 8, Paragraph 5, 4.21 should be 4.2.1.
(4NEI9)
Response: The guidance letter was revised to correct this typographical error.
Comment: Please change the addressee of the guidance letter to Joseph Pollock.
(4NEI10)
Response: The guidance letter was revised to change the addressee to Mr. Joseph Pollock.
Topic 18: Support for the Views in the NEI Comment Letter Comment: Several industry organizations and licensees stated that their comments had been incorporated in or support or endorse the comments provided in the NEIs comment letter to the
NRC (ADAMS Accession No. ML18180A136), or that they agree with the regulatory approach in the NRCs draft letter to NEI.
(6PWR1) (7FRAM1) (10EX1) (127DE1) (128DE1) (129EGC1) (130XE1) (271XE1) (272SNC1)
Response: The NRC staff evaluated the comments provided by NEI, and responses to the comments are addressed elsewhere in this document. The NEI comments are identified by 4NEI1 through 4NEI10.
Topic 19: Support for the Views in the UCS Comment Letter Comment: Support the views in the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) comments.
(21MLRC1) (33JS1) (34CR4) (35CM5) (41FG2) (47JA1) (49EV1) (51BD5) (66HC1) (68DA1)
(74BS1) (83AN1) (90LB1) (92FA2) (95CH1) (98FS1) (99DB1) (116JS5) (120VT5) (144ML3)
(144ML6) (150JS5) (173MG7) (187SG1) (192LB1) (197LG1) (228SACE1) (232BF1)
(236ANON1) (244BR1) (250SW1)
Response: The UCS letter was divided into 15 separate comments and addressed individually.
The comments are addressed in the following categories:
- Issue a Generic Letter, Regulatory Guide, or Regulatory Issue Summary instead of a letter to NEI (5UCS1)
- Exemptions are necessary for LTAs (5UCS8, 5UCS10, 5UCS12)
- Letter does not mention 10 CFR 50.46c (5UCS11)
- Depriving publics legal rights (5UCS13)
- Diminish safety by condoning efforts of lower quality (5UCS14)
- Leave open the possibility for petition for rulemaking (5UCS15)
- Letter is not an appropriate vehicle to communicate regulatory expectations (5UCS2)
- 10 CFR 50.59 and non-exemption path are not needed due to the pending 50.46c rulemaking (5UCS3)
- Integrating this guidance letter with other NRC rules (5UCS4)
- Use of NEI letter leaves open the possibility for 2.206 enforcement actions (5UCS5)
- Need to define terms (limited number, non-limiting locations, and up to 2 percent of the core) (5UCS6)
- 10 CFR 50.59 could not be used for LTAs without a license amendment (5UCS7)
- Need to revise regulations to clearly state how and under what conditions fuel designs that differ from parameters explicitly stated in the regulations can be used (5UCS9)
Any changes as a result of the UCS comments are discussed where they are specifically addressed.
Topic 20: Non-Concurrence that Was Filed on the Draft Letter to NEI Comment: Portions of the response to the non-concurrence filed by Harold Chernoff are missing, all of the issues raised in the non-concurrence were not addressed in the response, and the redacted portion of the non-concurrence should be released for public comment.
(3ANON19) (3ANON22) (18HC2) (155ANON3) (240ANON4) (241ANON1) (241ANON2)
Response: The NRC staff attempted to address all of the concerns identified in the non-concurrence. Mr. Chernoff identified six main issues. As part of the non-concurrence,
Mr. Chernoff provided two appendices. One appendix contained two documents, one of which identified essentially the same issues Mr. Chernoff raised in the non-concurrence. The second of the two documents were comments provided on a previous version of the draft letter by an employee who had recently retired. The NRC staff determined that this particular comment document met the definition of a deliberative work product. The former employee was not a co-signer to the non-concurrence form. To protect his views and identity, the NRC staff decided to remove his identity from the documents, and to withhold the one document that was determined to be a deliberative work product. The second appendix contained Mr. Chernoffs specific comments on the draft letter.
As part of the non-concurrence process, the responding staff members summarized the issues and presented them to Mr. Chernoff. The staff attempted to group the individual comments on the draft letter within one of the six main issues identified in the non-concurrence form. In the staffs response to the six main issues, it attempted to ensure that the individual comments on the draft letter were addressed as part of the response. Some of the comments resulted in changes to the draft letter, and such indication was noted in the response to the non-concurrence.
With regard to the comment that the redacted portions of the non-concurrence should be released for public comment, the NRC is not obligated to release deliberative work products.
The document that was redacted contained comments on a version of the draft letter that was later revised extensively. Therefore, that version of the draft letter is obsolete, and its release would likely cause more confusion than provide benefit.
Comment: NRC should hold a public meeting to discuss the comments, the non-concurrence, and the differing professional opinion (DPO).
(3ANON20) (123ANON1) (133ANON1) (136RE4) (195ANON2) (202AN4)
Response: The NRC staff does not believe that a public meeting to discuss the non-concurrence and the DPO is necessary in order for the staff to be able to meaningfully respond to the non-concurrers and the staff members DPO concerns. However, the non-concurrence and the NRC staffs response to it have been made publicly available, consistent with the non-concurring persons preferences. The completed package, including the non-concurrence and the NRC staffs response, is available at ADAMS Accession No. ML18151B016, and was also listed in the Federal Register notice that requested public comments on the draft letter (83 FR 26503; June 7, 2018). Likewise, the DPO and the staffs response have been made publicly available, consistent with the staff members preferences.
The complete package, including the DPO and the NRC staffs response, is available at ADAMS Accession No. ML19141A075. The NRCs non-concurrence process is documented in MD 10.158, NRC Non-Concurrence Process (ADAMS Accession No. ML13176A371), and the DPO process is documented in MD 10.159 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15132A664).
The NRC staff made the draft guidance letter publicly available, and, in response to requests from members of the public, extended the initial comment period by an additional 20 days. The NRC staff believes the extended comment period provided sufficient opportunities for comment; therefore, a public meeting on the guidance letter is not planned at this time.
Comment: Did senior management ever sit down with Harold [Chernoff] to understand his issues? Did NRC senior management ignore Harolds issues and just attach the non-concurrence to the draft letter?
(155ANON4) (155ANON5)
The NRCs response to the non-concurrence offers weak, misleading, and unconvincing arguments to support the positions stated in the draft letter to NEI. The draft letter should be revised consistent with the regulatory framework described in the non-concurrence and the March 22, 2018, memorandum to the NRCs General Counsel.
(211AN2) (13RE5)
Response: Consistent with the NRCs open collaborative work environment policy and the non-concurrence process, as documented in MD 10.158 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13176A371), several senior managers discussed the issues with Mr. Chernoff throughout the development of the guidance letter. The NRC staff followed procedures in MD 10.158 for responding to Mr. Chernoffs non-concurrence. The staff summarized what it believed were the issues documented in the non-concurrence. The summary of issues was provided to Mr. Chernoff. The staff developed comprehensive responses to the issues, which included issues described in the March 22, 2018, memorandum to the General Counsel, provided as Appendix A to the non-concurrence. Each response was reviewed by senior management. The non-concurrence was made publicly available after it was approved by the acting Director of NRR and can be located in ADAMS at Accession No. ML18151B016. The non-concurrence form was not attached to the draft guidance letter.
Topic 21: Endorsement of the Views in Non-Concurrence on Draft LTA Guidance Letter Comment: Several commenters indicated that they support the views of the NRC staff member who did not agree with some content of the draft letter and submitted a non-concurrence on the letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML18151B016).
(27SR4) (30NC4) (34CR5) (35CM4) (37HR2) (38PR2) (41FG3) (49EV2) (57PA5) (60CC2)
(74BS2) (80CC2) (90LB2) (100KG1) (102DL1) (103LG3) (106AO2) (121PM5) (122ML1)
(140GS1) (142DC4) (144ML4) (147ANON3) (155ANON2) (157RS5) (165ANON4) (189CC2)
(206EB7) (211AN1) (228SACE2) (231DE1) (250SW2)
Response: As discussed above, the staff followed procedures in MD 10.158 to address the NRC staff members concerns. The non-concurrence and the NRCs responses are available in ADAMS at Accession No. ML18151B016.
There was no change to the guidance letter as a result of these comments beyond what was already revised as a result of the NRC staff members non-concurrence.
Topic 22: 10 CFR 50.46 and Exemptions Comment: The commenters cited the Perry decision (In the Matter of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CLI-96-13, 44 NRC 315, 325 (1996)) with regard to the staffs new interpretation of 10 CFR 50.46:
The Staff is certainly free to change rule interpretations if appropriate. But the Staff may not adopt an interpretation unsupported by the language and history of the rule.
They stated that exemptions are the appropriate means of addressing licensees requests to use LTAs until the necessary rulemaking is completed.
(13RE16) (94AN51) (219ANON2)
Response: Exemptions from 10 CFR 50.46 may not be appropriate for LTA campaigns. As discussed in the guidance letter, the regulations in 10 CFR 50.46 were written specifically for uranium oxide fuel encased in cylindrical zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding. While some licensees designs that use similar fuel and cladding materials may be able to utilize the 10 CFR 50.46 criteria by requesting exemptions, the limits in 10 CFR 50.46 are not likely to apply for many potential new fuel designs. Consequently, exemptions that would allow 10 CFR 50.46 to be applied to these new materials are not likely to satisfy the requirements for granting an exemption. This interpretation is a plain language reading of the regulation.
Licensees are responsible for complying with the terms of their licenses, including decisions to seek license amendment, exemption, or relief request, or, alternatively, determinations that the proposed action be accomplished without seeking approval from the NRC.
Comment: The NRC position deprives the public of litigation rights under the exemption process.
(51BD3) (202AN3)
Response: As discussed in the response above, exemptions are not appropriate for all LTA campaigns. If a licensee does not request an exemption for its LTA campaign, procedural rights associated with the exemption process would not apply. However, members of the public have ways to make their opinions heard outside the exemption process. In addition to commenting on proposed NRC actions, members of the public who believe a licensee is violating NRC regulations may submit a petition for enforcement under 10 CFR 2.206, and members of the public who believe NRC should engage in rulemaking to address a generic issue may submit a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802.
Comment: It is irresponsible for the NRC to dismiss the question of exemptions for LTAs without having performed any evaluation to determine a finding of no significant impact. Without any environmental assessment, the NRC improperly ignores all questions related to the proposed actions having significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
(202AN1) (202AN2)
Response: The NRC disagrees with this comment. The guidance letter does not dismiss the need for exemptions, but rather it provides guidance to assist licensees when making a determination if an exemption request is appropriate. If a licensee requests an exemption, the
NRC will determine whether an environmental assessment is needed in accordance with the regulations in 10 CFR Part 51. No changes were made to the letter as a result of this comment.
Comment: The guidance constitutes de facto industrywide exemptions to 10 CFR 50.46.
(3ANON3) (147ANON5) (251ANON3)
NRC is essentially aiding and abetting rule-breaking by short-cutting appropriate processes to authorize licensees to install LTAs containing fuel other than uranium dioxide or cladding other than ZIRLO or zircaloy without license exemptions.
(5UCS12)
Response: The NRC staff disagrees with these comments. The guidance letter does not alter the text of 10 CFR 50.46 and is not a de facto exemption. As stated in the text of the regulation at 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1)(i), the provisions of 10 CFR 50.46 apply to boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor[s] fueled with uranium oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding. Licensees that meet these criteria (or that have exemptions to apply 50.46 to other fuel materials currently loaded in the core) are obligated to abide by the provisions of 10 CFR 50.46, and the insertion of a limited number of LTAs that do not meet this criteria does not change the applicability of the acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.46(b). As the regulatory path in the guidance letter only applies to LTA programs that do not invalidate the safety analyses in the UFSAR, which includes the analysis demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR 50.46, there would be no need for either an exemption to apply the acceptance criteria, nor a need to demonstrate compliance with General Design Criterion (GDC) 35 through an alternate means. (Plants whose construction permits were issued before 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, was promulgated in February 1971 have similar design criteria for emergency core cooling system (ECCS) performance.)
The NRC staff does not believe this guidance letter constitutes aiding or abetting rule-breaking; rather, the purpose of the letter is to provide clarification as to how licensees may conduct LTA campaigns without violating NRC regulations. Members of the public who believe licensees are in violation of NRC regulations may submit an allegation to the NRC by calling NRCs toll-free Safety Hotline at 1-800-695-7403 or by e-mailing allegation@nrc.gov. Allegations may be made anonymously. More information about the NRCs process for handling allegations is available in NUREG/BR-0240 Rev. 8, Reporting Safety Concerns to the NRC (ADAMS Accession No. ML17208A272).
Comment: An exemption to 10 CFR 50.46 is or should be required for the insertion of LTAs with materials outside the applicability of 10 CFR 50.46. The letter removes the need to apply the acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.46 to LTAs.
(3ANON12) (5UCS8) (94AN2) (94AN52) (94AN54) (131ANON4) (266ANON5)
The NRC could continue the practice most commonly employed over the past decades. When an LTA deviates from the explicit applicability of regulations such as 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K to 10 CFR 50, licensees seek and obtain exemptions from the NRC. This process has been successfully used for decades. The exemption process to address LTAs not
conforming to the express configurations of Federal regulations or a revision to the Federal regulations to cover non-conforming LTAs are the proper means of ensuing safety.
(5UCS10)
The letter states that the licensee is expected to demonstrate that limits are still relevant to LTAs and that LTAs are not the most limiting assemblies. However, if 50.46 is not required for LTAs, the licensee would only need to evaluate its normal reactor fuel and the limits would not apply to LTAs. Thus, based on the logic in the letter, a licensee would only have to identify the nonlimiting core regions for the normal reactor fuel. The licensee could then place the LTAs in these regions, without demonstrating that the LTAs are not limiting. The letter should explain the regulatory basis for stating that the licensee would be expected to demonstrate that limits are still relevant to LTAs and that LTAs are not the most limiting assemblies.
(94AN35)
Based on the Use of Open Door memorandum dated March 22, 2018 [ADAMS Accession No. ML18078A011; not publicly available], until pending rulemaking on 10 CFR 50.46c is approved, licensees will need exemptions for cladding using materials other than zircaloy or ZIRLO and fuel other than uranium oxide. Regardless of the interpretation of the design features TS for fuel assemblies, a licensee still would not have the authority to load LTAs, with different cladding or pellet material than specified in 10 CFR 50.46 and its current TSs, without an approved exemption.
(266ANON3) (266ANON4)
Response: The NRC staff does not believe exemptions from 10 CFR 50.46 are necessarily needed to enable LTA campaigns. Exemptions related to 10 CFR 50.46 that have historically been issued when new fuel materials are inserted in reactors are atypical in that, rather than exempting a licensee from the acceptance criteria in the regulation, the exemptions instead allow the licensee to expand the bounds of the applicability statement in order to apply the acceptance criteria to the new fuel materials. 10 CFR 50.46 begins:
(a)(1)(i) Each boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor fueled with uranium oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding must be provided with an emergency core cooling system (ECCS) that must be designed so that its calculated cooling performance following postulated loss-of-coolant accidents conforms to the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section.
This is the sentence from which licensees have been exempted in the past, allowing them to apply the acceptance criteria in paragraph (b). This has typically occurred when a plant has loaded fuel with zirconium alloy cladding other than zircaloy (a category of zirconium alloys) or ZIRLO (a zirconium alloy trademarked by Westinghouse).
The letter clarifies that such an exemption is not necessary to load limited quantities of LTAs in nonlimiting core regions. This is not because the acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1)(i) do not apply to the core in these cases, but rather the opposite. Referring to the first sentence of 10 CFR 50.46, a plant that has uranium oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding (or other fuel to which 10 CFR 50.46 is applied via exemption) must conform to the acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.46(b). This requirement is unchanged by the insertion of limited quantities of LTAs in nonlimiting core regions. The acceptance criteria contained in
10 CFR 50.46(b), therefore, still apply to a reactor fitting this description without the need for further exemptions.
Furthermore, an exemption from the acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.46(b) is not necessarily needed for LTA campaigns. As described in the guidance letter:
Insertion of LTAs under the STS LTA provision requires demonstration that under normal operation, anticipated operational occurrences, and postulated accidents, the performance of the LTAs will not negatively impact the performance of the co-resident fuel and confirmation that the UFSAR safety analyses and COLR limits remain applicable and bounding.
The demonstration of the ECCS performance, which determines if the licensee meets the criteria in 10 CFR 50.46(b), is located in the UFSAR safety analyses. Therefore, if the UFSAR analyses remain applicable and bounding, the 50.46 acceptance criteria continue to be met.
Alternatively, if the UFSAR analyses are no longer applicable and bounding, the LTA campaign would no longer meet the STS LTA provision requirements that the LTAs be of limited quantity and placed in non-limiting core regions. In this case, an LAR would be required; due to the significant variability of potential future LTA programs, as well as plant-specific differences in licensing bases, the letter does not attempt to make a generic determination on the need for an exemption for campaigns that do not meet the STS LTA provision.
The open door memorandum referred to by some commenters represents an NRC staffers personal opinion, not the official position of the agency and does not change licensees obligations. Because the NRCs proposed rulemaking on 10 CFR 50.46c has not been approved by the Commission, it also does not change licensees obligations.
The section of the guidance letter titled Exemptions from Applicability Statement in 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1)(i) for Lead Test Assembly Campaigns has been revised to clarify the staff position consistent with the response above.
Topic 23: 10 CFR 50.46 Exemption History and Precedent Comment: The position on exemptions to 10 CFR 50.46 is inconsistent with past precedent.
Provide an analysis of this history. NRC should do a complete review of its records on 50.46 and not just the records that support its new position. The guidance letter is not supported by the language and history of 10 CFR 50.46.
(13RE14) (13RE15) (18HC5) (94AN46) (94AN47) (171ANON1) (171ANON3) (171ANON4)
(219ANON1) (266ANON1)
Response: The NRC staff believes that the guidance in the letter is consistent with the language of 10 CFR 50.46. The plain language of 10 CFR 50.46 states that its provisions apply to boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor[s] fueled with uranium oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding (10 CFR 50.46(a)(1)(i).) The insertion of a limited number of LTAs, which may contain different fuel materials, will not impact the applicability of the rule as the core will continue to contain fuel as described in 50.46(a)(1)(i) or included by exemption. Furthermore, the NRC has reviewed the regulatory history of 10 CFR 50.46 and believes the guidance letter is consistent with this history.
Comment: The letter states that 50.46 does apply to LTAs. Therefore, past exemptions from 50.46 for LTAs were unnecessary. The NRC should explain whether or not licensees still need to comply with statements made in exemption requests or any limitations placed on exemptions from 50.46 for use of LTAs.
(146ANON13)
Response: Licensees must continue to comply with their licensing bases, including any exemptions that have been issued. A licensee that wishes to change its licensing basis may submit an LAR under provisions in 10 CFR Part 50.
Comment: The letter downplays regulatory history by indicating that, in the past, some licensees have requested exemptions to expand applicability of 50.46 to other zirconium alloys.
(218ANON3)
Response: The NRC acknowledges in the guidance letter that some licensees have requested license exemptions to utilize LTAs in their cores and exemptions may still be required or desirable in some circumstances. The NRCs intention in outlining this background in the guidance letter was not to downplay the past lack of clarity around LTAs, but rather to provide additional clarity and guidance for the future.
Topic 24: 10 CFR 50.46 Exemptions for Batch Loading Comment: The NRC received a number of comments and questions on the need for 50.46 exemptions for batch loading going forward, specifically with respect to the potential loading of non-zirconium-based alloys.
(94AN50) (137ANON9) (233ANON1)
Response: The discussion of batch loading of new fuel types is outside the scope of the guidance letter. Accordingly, the paragraph that mentioned batch loading of fuel with cladding types not mentioned in 10 CFR 50.46(a) has been removed from the guidance letter, and, throughout the guidance letter, the term batch loading has been replaced for clarity. The second paragraph of the guidance letter introduces the term unrestricted use to mean use of fuel that, unlike LTAs, has been approved for use at the plant in question without limits on quantity or placement within the core (except for those limits that are part of the approval).
License amendments for approval of unrestricted use are commonly called fuel transitions.
Other similar terms sometimes used include batch quantities and reload quantities of fuel assemblies. Additionally, the section of the guidance letter regarding exemptions to 10 CFR 50.46 has been revised to clarify that the provided guidance applies to LTA campaigns that meet the STS LTA provision.
The NRC staff will continue to collect feedback and assess whether additional guidance on batch loading of new fuel types is necessary.
Comment: No 10 CFR 50.46 criteria distinguish a difference in regulatory treatment for batch loading as compared to LTAs.
(230ANON2)
Response: While batch loading of new fuel types is outside the scope of this letter, the language of 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1)(i) specifies which reactors are subject to the acceptance
criteria in 10 CFR 50.46(b); furthermore, some licensees have been granted exemptions to apply these acceptance criteria to fuel types that do not fall under 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1)(i).
Licensees must maintain compliance with their licensing bases, even if they choose to utilize LTAs with new fuel and/or cladding materials.
Topic 25: 10 CFR 50.46 and Exemption Guidances Impact on Regulatory Stability Comment: The NRCs position on 10 CFR 50.46 regarding LTAs creates confusion, introduces instability and unpredictability, increases the likelihood of diverse licensing outcomes, undermines the public understanding, and will increase cost for both the industry and the NRC.
(137ANON2) (137ANON3) (137ANON4) (137ANON5) (137ANON6) (198ANON1)
Response: The NRC staff disagrees with these comments. The guidance letter clarifies how licensees may use LTAs under existing regulations and STS 4.2.1. The goal of the guidance letter is to increase clarity and reliability by formally stating the agencys position on a topic with past varied approaches and regulatory uncertainty. The issuance of the guidance letter is intended to promote greater stability and reliability in the regulatory framework. Additionally, by clarifying which LTA programs may require additional NRC review, the letter will help ensure that costs to the industry and NRC are predictable and appropriate.
Topic 26: Use of Approved Codes and Methods Comment: The use of approved codes for LTA fuel types not already reviewed would be outside the NRCs approval for the method and would require a license amendment. If fuel assemblies are not analyzed using the COLR specified codes and methods for all fuel assemblies, including LTAs, a license amendment modifying the COLR would be required.
(114AN9) (267ANON4)
The NRC staffs views and positions lack technical and regulatory understanding of the provisions of the COLR with respect to the use of NRC-approved methods for core reload (e.g.,
GESTAR states that LTAs must be analyzed with NRC-approved codes and methodologies).
(3ANON8) (20ANON8) (255ANON3) (262ANON5)
Notwithstanding the TS COLR requirements, the use of a non-COLR code of methodology would represent a new or different method of evaluation.
(267ANON5)
The NRC staff does not understand that TS 5.6.3 also requires that The analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits shall be those previously reviewed and approved by the NRC. As such, LTAs have to be supported by NRC-approved analytical methods.
Licensees cannot simply rely on bounding analysis for LTAs.
(20ANON7) (20ANON9)
On page 5 of the draft letter, it states: The NRC staffs position is that approved methods should be used wherever possible .... This suggests that the use of approved methods is not a requirement. The NRC should clarify this statement. The NRC should clarify if an NRC-approved method for developing new fuel designs is required or if a licensee can apply
NRC-approved codes and methods for LTAs that are not within the scope of the code or method.
(94AN37) (94AN38)
The NRC should insist on the use of NRC-approved topical reports as a basis for the use of LTAs.
(185ANON1)
If a licensee modifies approved codes and methods or uses them outside the bounds for which they were explicitly approved, then it would be operating with greater operating authority than was granted for the use of those approved codes and methods.
(214AN1)
The letter describes a policy that would permit licensees and fuel vendors to irradiate material in the reactor that has not previously been reviewed by the NRC staff. The analysis used by the licensees and fuel vendors would be different than the previously approved analysis methods.
This would appear to be a missed opportunity for the NRC staff to provide oversight prior to the irradiation of the new design fuel.
(238ANON1)
All licensing actions must be supported by NRC-approved codes and methods.
(251ANON4) (253ANON2) (255ANON2)
The NRC clarification letter fails to address the use of topical reports in establishing NRC approval of codes and methods.
(253ANON1)
NRC review and approval of any method by a license amendment is the only alternative to analysis using codes and methods already approved and included in the COLR.
(255ANON4)
Response: The NRC believes the interpretation set forth in the letter is consistent with STS 5.6.3. STS 5.6.3.a establishes the list of core operating limits that have been relocated from the TS to the COLR. STS 5.6.3.b requires that the limits listed in STS 5.6.3.a be determined using analytical methods previously approved by the NRC. These methods must also be listed in TS 5.6.3.b. When analytical methods are approved by the NRC, they are approved within certain bounds; use outside these bounds is not acceptable for the purposes of determining core operating limits. Any method not used directly in the determination of the core operating limits is not, however, required to be listed in TS 5.6.3.b.
The guidance letter clarifies that, for the limited use of determining whether an LTA campaign would invalidate the COLR limits or the UFSAR safety analyses, using an approved method outside of its approved bounds, using a modified version of an approved method (such as adding best-available material properties), and using engineering judgment are all acceptable.
This may be necessary because, in general, a significant amount of data is required to approve a method, and some of this data must be collected through the use of LTAs. The evaluation
performed by the licensee to determine if the COLR limits or UFSAR safety analyses are impacted is subject to NRC inspection through the ROP.
If a previously unapproved code or method (or a method outside its bounds of approval) is used to determine the COLR limits or perform UFSAR safety analyses for a core with or without LTAs, a license amendment is likely required due to either a change to the TS to incorporate a new COLR reference or meeting the criterion in 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(viii) to submit a license amendment.
The guidance letter has been revised to state:
The guidance in Section 4.3.8.2 of NEI 96-07, Revision 1, related to changing from one method of evaluation to another, is not necessary for LTA campaigns that meet the STS LTA provision. That is because such LTAs will not affect the performance of safety-related SSCs, and therefore, the method of evaluation used in establishing the design bases will remain the same. In such cases, the licensee may not meet 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(viii) and therefore may not require a license amendment because of this criterion.
Comment: Citing the decision in In the Matter of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CLI-96-13, 44 NRC 315 (1996), commenters stated that licensees need prior NRC approval via a license amendment if they modify NRC-approved codes and methods.
(13RE11) (214AN2)
Response: The requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 govern when a change, test, or experiment requires additional NRC approval. As explained in the guidance letter, the NRC has determined that the use of good engineering practices, including the extension of current codes and methods, may be used to confirm the non-limiting nature of proposed LTAs. However, if a proposed LTA campaign undermines the basis of a code or method such that it is no longer applicable and bounding, a license amendment may be required. The NRC staff does not believe that this is contrary to a plain language reading of 10 CFR 50.59 and, therefore, the position in the guidance letter is consistent with the Perry decision.
Comment: The draft letter to NEI which states, Additionally, the incorporation of TS Section 4.2.1 into a plants licensing basis represents the NRCs approval for use of new or different methods of evaluation for LTAs under the constraints of the TS provision, is incorrect given that the STS LTA provision does not mention or imply a method of evaluation and, as such, cannot represent the NRCs approval for use of new or different methods of evaluation for LTAs under the constraints of the TS provision.
(267ANON2) (267ANON3)
Response: The referenced statement does not exist in the draft guidance letter to NEI (ADAMS Accession No. ML18100A045) nor does it exist in the final guidance letter.
There was no change to the guidance letter as a result of this comment.
Topic 27: Use of Methods and Engineering Judgment Comment: State that the use of good engineering judgment, well-established engineering practices, and the most current state of knowledge of the LTAs can be used to assure that the LTAs meet the STS LTA provision of limited number and nonlimiting core regions which provides confirmation that the existing COLR limits and UFSAR safety analyses remain conservative and bounding for LTA operation.
(9WEST2)
The guidance letter already states that it is an expectation that the licensees will use good engineering judgment and analytical codes and methods that reflect well-established engineering practices reflecting the current state of knowledge, including all available data.
Therefore, the use of a code and/or method that has not previously been approved by the NRC but is based on well-established engineering practices should be reasonable under those expectations.
(4NEI6)
Consider revising the sentence that begins in those instances as follows:
In those instances, the licensee should perform a conservative evaluation of the LTAs using sound engineering judgment and analytical codes and methods that reflect well-established engineering practices.
(4NEI5) (128DE3)
Response: The guidance letter has been clarified to more clearly articulate the requirements for codes and methods used to evaluate the limiting or non-limiting nature of LTAs. The guidance letter, on pages 5-6, now reads:
The evaluation of LTA campaigns requires some engineering judgment because of the incomplete availability of representative data before irradiation of the LTAs, and evaluation may necessitate using modified or different codes and methods in the form of (1) modifications to approved codes and methods, (2) use of approved codes and methods outside the bounds for which they were explicitly approved, or (3) use of a code or method, based on well-established engineering practices, that the NRC has not previously approved. Use of these modified or different codes and methods, solely for the evaluation of a limited number of LTAs, may be acceptable without additional NRC approval for confirming that the LTAs are placed in nonlimiting regions and that the core operating limits and UFSAR safety analyses, which themselves are calculated using approved codes and methods, remain applicable.
Comment: Multiple comments questioned the language in the letter that states:
The NRC staff expects that licensees will use good engineering judgment and analytical codes and methods that reflect well-established engineering practices and consideration of risk to confirm that, with insertion of the LTAs, the COLR limits and UFSAR Chapter 15 transient and accident analyses remain applicable and bounding.
These comments assert that the statement is industry-biased, requested clarification if this is a requirement or a suggestion, and generally objected to the statement.
(3ANON9) (94AN36) (223ANON1) (223ANON2) (223ANON3)
Response: The guidance letter is neither a requirement nor a suggestion; rather, it lays out one acceptable regulatory pathway that licensees may choose to use for the insertion of LTAs.
Licensees may choose to follow the guidance or pursue other regulatory paths.
Good engineering judgment and analytical codes and methods that reflect well-established engineering practices are acceptable for the limited scope evaluation of whether LTAs are of limited number and in nonlimiting core regions as long as uncertainties in input parameters and models are conservatively addressed using the current state of knowledge and all available data to the extent practical. Alternatively, if the UFSAR transient and accident analyses are not bounding or are otherwise invalidated by the insertion of LTAs, then a license amendment would be required prior to embarking on the LTA campaign. Additionally, as stated in the guidance letter on page 9, the evaluations performed by the licensee are subject to inspection through the ROP.
The guidance letter has been revised to clarify this staff position.
Topic 28: Historical Limits on LTAs Comment: Historically, werent the numbers of LTAs reviewed and approved by the NRC before use? Maybe this should indicate that historically the NRC staff has limited the number of LTAs able to be used and required prior NRC approval for any increase as the potential to significantly increase the radiological consequences of a Chapter 15 accident has not been quantified given the unapproved nature of the LTAs as discussed.
(114AN6)
Response: The guidance letter is intended to provide clarity to a history of LTA-related regulatory actions that were not always consistent. In some cases, the NRC approved specific numbers and types of LTAs via license amendment; that regulatory path is still available to licensees and may be required by 10 CFR 50.59 for some LTA programs. In other cases, insertion of LTAs may be permissible without the need for NRC review in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. If an LTA campaign would significantly increase the risk of radiological consequences, the 10 CFR 50.59 process would result in the need for a license amendment, and the NRC would review that campaign prior to the insertion of LTAs.
Topic 29: Clarity of the Examples of LTA Campaigns that Would Require an LAR Comment: The statement providing examples of LTA campaigns which would need a license amendment on page 4 of the draft letter should be amended for clarity.
(4NEI4) (128DE4)
Response: The suggested edit from comment 4NEI4 has been partially included in the guidance letter on page 4. This sentence now reads:
These LTA campaigns exceeded established limitations on core dynamics and physics predictions, accident progression, or the radiological source term (or a
combination of these) such that core operating limits, UFSAR safety analyses, or approved analytical methods were no longer applicable or bounding, or both. In those cases, the licensees sought, and the NRC approved, license amendments.
Going forward, LTA campaigns such as these would require a license amendment if they do not meet the provisions of applicable TS.
Comment: Clarify that the guidance is applicable to all LTA materials, including those that are not zirconium-based cladding and uranium oxide fuel pellets.
(9WEST1)
Response: The NRC agrees that the guidance in the letter is applicable to all LTA materials, but does not believe any changes to the letter are necessary. The letter defines LTAs on page 1 as fuel assemblies that contain design features or materials for which additional data may be needed to support approval for unrestricted use. Moreover, the last portion of the second paragraph of the Standard Technical Specifications Lead Test Assembly Provision section (page 3) includes the following language:
Because LTAs may, by definition, incorporate new design features or materials, this final sentence can be read as separate from the other limitations placed on fuel assemblies. As such, LTAs loaded under this TS provision may comprise features with different mechanical or material design specifications than the approved, unrestricted co-resident fuel assemblies defined earlier in STS Section 4.2.1.
New materials may include non-zirconium-based cladding and/or non-uranium oxide pellets.
Comment: The NRC staff view and position on allowing LTAs that will not invalidate either the final safety analysis report (as updated) Chapter 15 transient analysis and accident analysis of the core operating limits report limits, indicates an inadequate understanding of plant design bases as described in 10 CFR 50.2. Licensees must operate the plant in accordance with its design bases.
(3ANON7) (20ANON6)
Response: The NRC staff is aware of the definitions in 10 CFR 50.2. Licensees must operate in accordance with their licensing basis. A licensees TSs, which may allow the operation of the plant with LTAs, are also part of its current licensing basis, as are topical reports incorporated by reference and license amendments that describe LTA programs or criteria for LTA insertion.
The letter has been revised to read as follows:
To meet the TS provision of nonlimiting core region, a licensee should perform an evaluation that demonstrates that the LTAs core location, combined with their operating parameters (e.g., power density), ensures that the new design features maintain more thermal and mechanical margin to their respective design, performance, and safety limits relative to the co-resident fuel during normal operation, anticipated operational occurrences, and postulated accidents. As such, the performance of the LTAs will not impact the performance of safety related structures, systems, and components (SSCs) (i.e., their ability to perform intended safety functions). This evaluation should demonstrate that under normal operation, anticipated operational occurrences, and postulated accidents
(including loss of coolant accidents), the performance of the LTA will not negatively impact the performance of the co-resident fuel and confirm that the design bases, including the UFSAR safety analyses, COLR limits, and applicable terms, limitations, and conditions, remain applicable and bounding.
Comment: The NRC staffs evaluation of prior amendments was inadequate in evaluating the licensing history for amendments for lead test assemblies. In particular, some licensees modified the core operating limits report in order to adopt new codes and methods supporting LTA initiatives. In Amendment Nos. 222 and 215 for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), the NRC approved modification to technical specification 5.7.1.5, Core Operating Limits Report, to approve use of a new methodology for analyzing the core for use of lead fuel assemblies (ADAMS Accession No. ML093220105).
(20ANON11)
Response: The NRC staff is aware of the SONGS amendments referenced by this comment.
The guidance letter does not preclude licensees from submitting LARs prior to LTA campaigns, and licensees should do so if they meet the 10 CFR 50.59 criteria for submittal of an LAR.
These LARs would include an analysis of the safety impacts of the LTA campaigns, and could also include new methods or incorporate previously approved methods into the COLR references. In the referenced license amendments, SONGS incorporated new methods into its COLR to allow it to analyze the LTAs. According to statements made by the licensee when making this request, previously approved neutronics methods did not include a gadolinia model, and therefore, were not applicable and bounding. Under the guidance in the LTA letter, this specific LTA campaign would likely still require a license amendment, while licensees might be able to engage in other LTA campaigns without a license amendment.
Comment: The letter should identify all requirements that apply to LTAs, since we cannot rely on the plain language reading of requirements or past precedents to make this determination.
This information should be provided for licensees that have the STS LTA provisions and for those that do not.
(94AN10)
Response: The guidance letter addresses the requirements for LTAs for plants that have the STS 4.2.1 language, or substantively similar language included in their TS, in response to a specific request by NEI for clarification of this language.
Plants without either the LTA provision in Section 4.2.1 of the STS or substantively similar TS are not addressed in the guidance letter. The guidance letter has been revised on page 6 for clarity as follows: . . . because of the different combinations of licensing basis considerations and TS language, the NRC staff is not providing more specific guidance in this letter for licensees that do not have the STS LTA provision or a substantively similar TS provision.
Licensees without the STS LTA provision are still bound by 10 CFR 50.90 and 10 CFR 50.59 for making changes to their licensing basis.
Comment: The third paragraph of the draft letter should discuss issues or unexpected performance with LTAs. Right now, it gives a one-sided view that LTAs only improve safety.
(94AN17)
Response: The NRC staff disagrees with this comment. LTAs that perform unexpectedly in a positive or negative manner are still a necessary and important step in the fuel development process, as stated in the cited paragraph. The performance of the LTAs, positive or negative, assist the vendors design process by providing essential data on performance in the actual reactor environment. This paragraph of the letter is intended to provide background on LTAs and their importance to fuel development, not to address individual LTA campaign performance.
LTA performance is still subject to the regulations and TS requirements that apply to the plant during operation.
Comment: The discussion indicates that [s]ome licensees obtained prior NRC approval via license amendments approving changes to Technical Specification 4.2.1 or exemptions from 10 CFR 50.46 for their LTA campaigns, or both. Other licensees conducted LTA campaigns under 10 CFR 50.59 without prior NRC approval. However, it is not indicated whether those actions were deemed by the NRC as appropriate. Did or should enforcement have been taken as a result of significant changes to a licensee facility which could affect the radiological consequences of a design basis event/accident without prior NRC approval? It is recognized that there is a 5-year period after which no civil penalty would be assessed, but the associated violation could/should have been issued.
(114AN1)
Response: To date, the NRC has not identified any enforcement issues as a result of LTA campaigns. If a licensee performed a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation and determined that an amendment was not needed in order to insert LTAs, then it determined that the change, test or experiment did not result in more than a minimal increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the final safety analysis report (as updated). Otherwise, an amendment would be required. All changes made to a facility under 10 CFR 50.59 are subject to NRC inspection.
Additionally, members of the public that believe a licensee is violating NRC regulations may submit a petition for enforcement under 10 CFR 2.206 and members of the public that believe the NRC should engage in rulemaking to address a generic issue may submit a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802.
Comment: The NRC should not approve LTA provisions that are not specific on the types of material, geometry, and other design criteria that are needed to demonstrate adequate performance of the LTA during both normal and accident conditions.
(131ANON13)
Response: Prior to insertion of LTAs, the licensee would need to evaluate the material, geometry, and other design-specific criteria of the LTAs to determine if the LTAs can be inserted under 10 CFR 50.59. When a licensee inserts an LTA under 10 CFR 50.59, without a license amendment, the NRC would not generally perform a review of the program prior to insertion of the LTAs; however, the 10 CFR 50.59 analysis is available for NRC inspection, and if found inadequate could result in a violation being issued to the plant. If, alternatively, a licensee determines that it cannot insert LTAs under 10 CFR 50.59, or if the licensee prefers to follow the
license amendment process, the license amendment request would include a description of the LTA campaign.
Comment: The letter does not address fuel handling accidents involving LTAs and ATF, which may, in fact, be the most limiting accident for LTAs/ATF, particularly since these out-of-core events have fewer barriers to release, control room dose, and public exposure.
(20ANON12) (226ANON1) (226ANON2)
Response: Although the letter does not provide a detailed discussion of fuel handling accidents, fuel handling accidents are included in the UFSAR safety analyses; therefore, a licensee would need to ensure that this analysis is still applicable and bounding before proceeding to insert LTAs under 10 CFR 50.59 and TS 4.2.1. If this could not be ensured, NRC approval would be required prior to insertion of the LTAs.
Comment: It is also notable that the fuel vendor methodologies stipulated in TS COLRs incorporate direct reference to the September 23, 1981, letter from the NRC (T. A. Ippolito) to General Electric (R. Engel) Lead Test Assembly Licensing (ADAMS No. 8110090006). This letter, which pre-dates the requirements later incorporated into the TSs, stated that one of the key elements for licensee use of LTAs was analysis of the LTAs using approved methods.
(267ANON6)
Response: The GE letter to the NRC, dated August 24, 1981 (ADAMS Legacy Library Accession No. 8108280228), proposed that a simplified procedure be adopted for a majority of General Electric LTAs which have only small changes to current fuel designs. For these types of design changes, the design and safety analysis models and criteria documented in the generic reload fuel licensing topical report (NEDE-24011-P-A-1) will apply. The approved methods being referred to are those in the NEDE-24011-P-A report, which has been approved by the NRC.
The guidance letter has been revised for clarity to state:
In 1981, the NRC staff approved General Electric Companys (GEs) simplified licensing approach for LTAs involving only small changes relative to approved designs for which the design and safety analysis models and criteria documented in the generic reload fuel licensing topical report NEDE-24011-P-A-1, General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel, (also known as GESTAR) were applicable.1 This approval stated that as long as the analysis of the LTAs using approved methods meets the approved criteria, it would be concluded that no unreviewed safety question[ ] exists.2 This program predated the STS LTA provision and therefore did not involve consideration of the TS 4.2.1 restrictions regarding limited number of LTAs and their placement in a nonlimiting core region. Other vendors have similar fuel design change processes that have been approved by the NRC.
1 Ippolito, Thomas A., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, letter to Ron Engel, General Electric Company, Lead Test Assembly Licensing, (Sept. 23, 1981) (ADAMS Legacy Library Accession No. 8110090006) (Ippolito Letter);
see also NEDE-24011-P-A, Rev. 23, General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel (GESTAR II, Main),
September 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16250A047) (non-proprietary).
2 Ippolito Letter at 1.
Topic 30: Definition of Terms Comment: There is no definition for limited number, nonlimiting core region, or up to 2 percent of core. Additionally, please clarify that 2 percent is not an upper limit.
(4NEI2) (4NEI3) (5UCS6) (128DE2) (144ML7) (144ML8) (264ANON3) (265ANON3)
(268ANON1)
Response: The guidance letter was revised to more clearly articulate how a licensee can demonstrate compliance with the STS LTA provision that LTAs are of limited number and in nonlimiting core regions.
The phrase up to 2 percent of the core was included for historical context. The sentence was revised to state, Historically, LTA campaigns have ranged from a few rods within a single assembly to eight fuel assemblies,4 where the footnote states, U.S. power reactors range in size from 121 to 800 fuel assemblies. While the NRC staff agrees that 2 percent of core is not intended as an upper limit for LTA campaigns, the context of the sentence is clear without further clarifying statements.
Comment: The draft letter introduces a number of new terms when discussing the STS LTA provision. The NRC should explain these terms and identify existing regulatory documents that support the application of these terms to the STS LTA provision. The terms include: applicable and bounding, degree of characterization, and batch loading.
(145ANON4)
Response: The guidance letter was revised to replace the term batch loading with unrestricted use, to distinguish between LTAs that are limited in number and location and fuel assemblies that are inserted in accordance with their approved topical report. A footnote was added to define the term unrestricted use. The guidance letter also defines the term degree of characterization, which refers to the amount and quality of the data that support the expected material or design performance.
The draft letter stated:
Applicable and bounding means that the limits are still relevant to the LTAs, that the LTAs are not the most limiting assemblies, and that uncertainties in input parameters and models are conservatively addressed.
Changes to this section of the guidance letter were made in response to other comments and a definition of applicable and bounding is no longer included in the guidance letter. Generally speaking, safety analyses used by nuclear plants do not attempt to perfectly describe the plant state at all points in time. Instead, the analyses either evaluate a window of acceptable operation or a bounding case, which may be thought of as a worst case scenario. For an analysis to be applicable and bounding, the core configuration, including the LTAs, would have to be within the assumptions and uncertainties of the safety analysis, such that the conclusions in the analysis still apply to the plant operating with LTAs, and the plant operation continues to be bounded by the analysis. This definition is well understood and commonly used.
Comment: The term LTAs, as well as similar terms such as lead use assemblies, prototype assemblies, etc., should be explained and clarified how guidance applies to them.
(145ANON5) (188JB1)
Response: The letter defines LTAs on page 1 as fuel assemblies that contain design features or materials for which additional data may be needed to support approval for unrestricted use.
A fuel assembly is a matrix of nuclear fuel, historically in the form of UO2 pellets contained within zirconium-based alloy cladding. LTAs are placed in operating reactors to collect data in conditions that are prototypical for nuclear fuel, generally as part of the development and/or qualification processes for new fuel designs or materials. The guidance letter provides the following explanation:
LTAs are a necessary and important step in the fuel development and qualification process and have led to safety improvements in the design of nuclear fuel, such as improved resistance to corrosion, improved thermal-hydraulic performance, increased heat transfer properties, and reductions in the number of leaking fuel pins. New features of LTAs can include design and material changes to the fuel, cladding, or other parts of the fuel assembly. For example, an LTA may be nearly identical to the co-resident fuel except for a new fuel assembly filter design, or an LTA may be an assembly with a completely different design and materials.
LTA irradiation campaigns provide knowledge of and experience with irradiated material properties and performance, which is critical for qualifying analytical codes and methods and for developing the design bases to license new fuel material or design features for unrestricted use. In particular, the campaigns accomplish the following tasks:
- collection of data to characterize irradiated material properties and performance;
- provision of irradiated material for subsequent hot-cell examination, characterization, and research;
- demonstration of in-reactor performance.
The guidance letter differentiates between LTAs, which are limited in terms of placement and quantity, and unrestricted use fuel assemblies. As described in the 2nd footnote in the guidance letter:
The term unrestricted use means that, unlike LTAs, the fuel has been approved for use at a plant without limits on quantity or placement within the core (except for those limits that are part of the approval). License amendments for approval of unrestricted use are commonly called fuel transitions. Similar terms sometimes used include batch quantities and reload quantities of fuel assemblies.
For the purposes of applying the guidance letter, any fuel assembly that has not been approved for unrestricted use at the plant in question would be considered an LTA. The letter does not use the terms lead use assemblies or prototype assemblies.
Topic 31: Guidance Letter Contains New Interpretations Comment: The guidance in the letter constitutes a new interpretation of STS 4.2.1, 10 CFR 50.46, and 10 CFR 50.59.
(13RE12) (18HC3) (94AN9) (114AN8) (114AN10) (134ANON1) (134ANON4) (153ANON2)
(154ANON2) (154ANON6) (188JB4) (218ANON1) (218ANON2) (219ANON1) (221ANON3)
(252ANON1) (252ANON2) (252ANON3) (254ANON1) (260ANON1) (260ANON4) (262ANON1)
The letter should identify what specific interpretations are being made with consideration of 10 CFR 50.3. It is unclear what interpretations are considered binding and what interpretations are subject to change.
(146ANON9)
Response: The guidance letter provides an interpretation of STS 4.2.1 that clarifies how the last sentence of the STS can be read and how 10 CFR 50.59 applies to LTA campaigns that meet the STS LTA provision. In the past, some licensees have interpreted this TS as requiring a TS amendment to load LTAs using different materials or fuel. Other licensees have not submitted amendment requests for their LTA campaigns. Because of these different approaches and other requests for clarification on the meaning of the STS LTA provision, the NRC believes providing this guidance to licensees on the meaning of the STS LTA provision will promote consistency and clarity.
With regard to 10 CFR 50.46, additional discussion can be found in this comment response document under the heading Topic 22: 10 CFR 50.46 and Exemptions.
The NRC staff has reviewed the agencys delegations of authority and determined that the Director of NRR has the authority to issue this guidance. The provisions of 10 CFR 50.3 are not relevant to the issuance of this guidance.
Comment: NRC should work with industry on a revision to STS 4.2.1 that clearly states the requirements for the use of LTAs. This could avoid issues with inspection and enforcement of 10 CFR 50.59.
(94AN23)
Response: The staff is always willing to engage with licensees and other interested stakeholders on potential TS revisions when requested or when operating experience or research identify a safety issue that needs to be addressed. At this time, no revision has been proposed to STS 4.2.1, nor has the NRC staff identified a safety issue that needs to be addressed. The NRC staff will continue to collect feedback on this issue.
Comment: The TS Branch should have reviewed the draft letter and been on concurrence.
(136RE3)
Response: The Technical Specifications Branch falls under the management of the Division of Safety Systems and provided input to the guidance letter. The TS Branch was not specifically on concurrence because the letter requested concurrence at the division level rather than the branch level.
Topic 32: STS 4.2.1 is Being Misinterpreted Comment: Some commenters stated that the interpretation set forth in the letter was inconsistent with a plain language reading of the STS, that the guidance constituted de facto industrywide amendments to STS 4.2.1, or that the NRCs description of the TS is incorrect and nonconservative. Some commenters stated that the STS provisions to which the guidance letter refers were designed to facilitate fuel reconstitution and did not state or imply broader applicability. Another commenter stated that the guidance letter erroneously categorizes LTAs as fuel assemblies for the purposes of the first sentence of STS 4.2.1, and then claims that LTAs are not fuel assemblies for the purposes of the fourth sentence. Another commenter stated that the letter is silent on the second sentence in STS Section 4.2.1 which specifies the requirements for each assembly. Additionally, the letter states that the fourth sentence applies only to batch loading but does not provide a basis nor explanation for what is meant by batch loading.
(13RE7) (13RE8) (13RE10) (20ANON1) (20ANON2) (20ANON3) (20ANON4) (94AN30)
(94AN31) (134ANON3) (184ANON1) (213AN1) (221ANON1) (221ANON2) (233ANON2)
(237ANON1) (237ANON2) (237ANON3) (255ANON1) (256ANON2) (259ANON1) (260ANON2)
(260ANON3) (262ANON2) (262ANON3)
Response: STS 4.2.1 states:
The reactor shall contain [157] fuel assemblies. Each assembly shall consist of a matrix of [Zircaloy or ZIRLO] fuel rods with an initial composition of natural or slightly enriched uranium dioxide (UO2) as fuel material. Limited substitutions of zirconium alloy or stainless steel filler rods for fuel rods, in accordance with approved applications of fuel rod configurations, may be used. Fuel assemblies shall be limited to those fuel designs that have been analyzed with applicable NRC staff approved codes and methods and shown by tests or analyses to comply with all fuel safety design bases. A limited number of lead test assemblies that have not completed representative testing may be placed in nonlimiting core regions.
The term fuel assemblies is used in more than one sense within STS 4.2.1. LTAs are considered fuel assemblies because they are counted towards the total number of fuel assemblies required by the first sentence. However, in the fourth sentence, the term fuel assemblies is not intended to apply to LTAs because by definition, the purpose of an LTA is to gather data for the further development of codes and methods. Rather, the fourth and fifth sentences establish a distinction between fuel assemblies, which must have already been analyzed and shown to comply with fuel safety design bases, and LTAs, which may be used in limited numbers and in nonlimiting core regions before analysis is complete.
Although part of the intent of STS 4.2.1 is to allow the use of filler rods for the purposes of fuel reconstitution, it also provides a specific allowance for LTA campaigns, as shown by the explicit mention of LTAs in the fifth sentence. More discussion on filler rods is included in Topic 34: LTA Statement Is Taken Out of Context in Generic Letter 90-02 and Supplement.
As indicated above, an LTA is considered to be a fuel assembly for the purpose of satisfying the condition in the first sentence of STS 4.2.1, regardless of whether it contains fuel. The same is
true for those assemblies that contain zirconium alloy or stainless steel filler rods for fuel rods described in the third sentence; yet the NRC does not expect these rods to contain an initial composition of natural or slightly enriched UO2 as required by the second sentence. Similarly, LTAs are fuel assemblies, but they are not subject to all of the requirements preceding the last sentence.
With regard to the term batch loading, the guidance letter has been revised to remove this term. The guidance letter now uses the term unrestricted use, to distinguish between LTAs, which are limited in number and location, and fuel assemblies that are not restricted by number and location except for those limits that are part of their approval.
Comment: The discussion indicates that [b]ecause LTAs may, by definition, incorporate new design features or materials, this sentence can be read as separate from the other limitations placed on fuel assemblies. Why? If it is meant to be separate from the connected discussion, why wasnt a new paragraph started consistent with standard use of paragraph structure?
Additionally, the generic TS language was taken from another NRC regulatory document and that document did not address nor suggest the new interpretation of an NRC requirement being proposed in a letter to industry. Given that by definition the LTA would incorporate new design features or materials, this suggests that a review under 10 CFR 50.59 would apply and, therefore, requires prior NRC approval.
(114AN3)
Response: Discussion on interpretation of STS 4.2.1 is included in the responses in Topic 32:
STS 4.2.1 is Being Misinterpreted. Topic 34: LTA Statement Is Taken Out of Context in Generic Letter 90-02 and Supplement covers discussion of the intent of the TS language in historic terms.
The NRC disagrees with the comment suggesting the licensees would always need prior NRC approval if they complete a 10 CFR 50.59 review for their LTA campaign. The result of the evaluation may trigger the need for the licensee to obtain a license amendment for their LTA campaign (i.e., prior NRC approval) or not, depending on whether the 10 CFR 50.59 criteria are met.
There was no change to the guidance letter as a result of this comment.
Comment: The LTA provision was not adequately described when it was developed. Without an adequate description to indicate that the only requirements that applied to LTAs are the first and last sentence of the STS LTA provision, it is more likely that the public would follow the plain language reading of this provision. In other words, members of the public were led to believe that all sentences within the STS LTA provision were applicable to LTAs. Therefore, members of the public were not provided with a meaningful opportunity to comment [on the draft STS].
(131ANON6)
Response: As described above, the plain language reading of STS 4.2.1 supports the position in the guidance letter. The public had a meaningful opportunity to comment on this provision when licensees submitted LARs to convert to STS.
Comment: It is not consistent with the principles of good regulation such as predictability and stability to suddenly extract portions of the TS and take a position that the extracted portion is exempt from the previous requirements in the paragraph. This is a different philosophy than applied by the NRC inspectors. This erodes the stature of the license and the TS.
(237ANON4) (237ANON5) (237ANON6)
Response: The staff disagrees that clarifying TS wording is a different philosophy than the philosophy applied by NRC inspectors. NRC inspectors regularly contact other NRC staff to discuss questions on TSs. The guidance letter clearly states guidance for TS 4.2.1 that inspectors can use when inspecting 10 CFR 50.59 modification packages for LTAs. If an inspector has a question about the guidance in the letter when inspecting an LTA 10 CFR 50.59 issue, he or she may follow the current process of contacting NRC headquarters to get clarification on the issue being inspected.
With regard to adhering to the principles of good regulation, the NRC staffs response is provided under Topic 13: NRC Processes or Programmatic Issues.
Topic 33: Further Investigation into the STS LTA Provision is Needed Comment: Since the STS LTA provision was added to plant-specific TS by license amendment, the NRC should provide a summary of how these license amendments characterized this provision and how the NRC reached a conclusion that regulatory requirements would continue to be met. The NRC should identify what regulations and guidance were considered when this provision was added. Specifically, the NRC should identify how the safety evaluations for the addition of the STS LTA provision demonstrate that the following requirements would continue to be met:
- 1. Each category in 50.36(c), since LTAs may need additional TS requirements.
- 2. Existing COLR requirements, safety limits, and TS fuel limits (e.g., linear heat generation rate).
- 3. Existing source term analysis.
- 4. Defense-in-depth, since the interpretation in the draft letter would permit LTAs without cladding.
- 5. 10 CFR 50.44, 50.46, and Appendix K
- 6. GDC 10, 12, 15, and 35.
- 7. Existing reactor water chemistry analysis.
(94AN26) (94AN27)
Response: The guidance letter is intended to provide generic, high-level guidance on the regulatory path for LTAs; the letter does not provide a safety evaluation for any specific LTA campaign or set of TS. As indicated in the comment, the STS LTA provision was added to plant-specific TS by license amendment for each set of TS. The safety evaluations documenting the staff findings on these license amendments are already publicly available.
Therefore, no changes were made to the letter in response to these comments.
Topic 34: LTA Statement Is Taken Out of Context in Generic Letter 90-02 and Supplement Comment: The statement about a limited number of lead test assemblies is being taken entirely out of context. This statement was initially published in Supplement 01 to Generic
Letter 90-02, and the draft letter fails to consider that context in its interpretation of the statement. One commenter stated that the Generic Letter identifies that a change to fuel cladding and/or fuel type could not be implemented under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 because they are described in the Design Features section of TSs. Another commenter stated that the draft guidance letter and the June 29, 2017, letter mischaracterize the intent of STS 4.2.1, which was created for reconstituted fuel.
(20ANON10) (239ANON2) (240ANON1) (240ANON3) (251ANON1) (251ANON2) (252ANON4)
(256ANON1) (256ANON2)
Response: The NRC disagrees with these comments. Based on a review of past records, the earliest version of what would become STS 4.2.1 is found in Revision 0 of NUREG-0452, Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors, which is an earlier version of the STS from 1976. That version contained the following paragraph:
5.3 Reactor Core FUEL ASSEMBLIES 5.3.1 The reactor core shall contain ______ fuel assemblies with each fuel assembly containing _____ fuel rods clad with (Zircaloy-4). Each fuel rod shall have a nominal active fuel length of _____ inches and contain a maximum total weight of _____ grams uranium. The initial core loading shall have a maximum enrichment of _____ weight percent U-235. Reload fuel shall be similar in physical design to the initial core loading and shall have a maximum enrichment of _____ weight percent U-235.
This paragraph remained unchanged through Revision 4 of NUREG-0452, published in 1981.
In 1987, the Commission released an interim policy statement on Technical Specification Improvement for Nuclear Power Reactors (58 FR 39132; July 22, 1993). As a result of that policy statement, the Boiling Water and Pressurized Water Reactor Owners Groups proposed new Standard Technical Specifications. A draft of the new STS Section 4.0, Design Features, was sent from the NRC to the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) on June 19, 1990, and contained the following paragraph for STS Section 4.2.1 for Pressurized Water Reactors:
The reactor shall contain [ ] fuel assemblies. Each assembly shall consist of a matrix of Zircaloy clad fuel rods with an initial composition of natural or slightly enriched uranium dioxide (UO2), as fuel material. Limited substitutions of zirconium or stainless steel filler rods for fuel rods may be used. Fuel assemblies shall be limited to those fuel designs which have been analyzed with NRC approved codes and methods (including DNBR correlations and seismic analysis), and have been shown to comply with all Safety Design Bases in the FSAR.
For boiling-water reactors, the draft contained the following paragraph for STS 4.2.1:
The reactor shall contain [ ] fuel assemblies. Each assembly shall consist of a matrix of Zircaloy clad fuel rods with an initial composition of natural or slightly enriched uranium dioxide (UO2), as fuel material [and water rods]. Fuel assemblies shall be limited to those fuel designs which have been analyzed with
NRC-approved codes and methods (including DNBR correlations and seismic analysis) and have undergone representative testing, and have been shown to comply with all Safety Design Bases in the FSAR.
In January 1991, NUREG-1431, Standard Technical Specifications: Westinghouse Plants(ADAMS Accession No. 9102140299) was published in draft form for public comment and contained the following paragraph for STS Section 4.2.1:
The reactor shall contain [N] fuel assemblies. Each assembly shall consist of a matrix of [Zircaloy or ZIRLO] fuel rods with an initial composition of natural or slightly enriched uranium dioxide (UO2) as fuel material. Limited substitutions of zirconium alloy or stainless steel filler rods for fuel rods, in accordance with approved applications of fuel rod configurations, may be used. Fuel assemblies shall be limited to those fuel designs that have been analyzed with applicable NRC staff approved codes and methods and shown by tests or analyses to comply with all fuel safety design bases. A limited number of lead test assemblies that have not completed representative testing may be placed in nonlimiting core regions.
The same version of NUREG-1431 (including the cited language) remains in use today. The same LTA provision is included in the January 1991 draft of NUREG-1430, Standard Technical Specifications: General Electric Plants, BWR/4 (ADAMS Accession No. 9102140324).
LTAs do not appear in the draft STS Section 4.0 sent to NUMARC in June of 1990, but the sentence allowing restricted use of LTAs does appear in the first draft of NUREG-1431 issued for public comment (ADAMS Legacy Library Accession No. 9006280230). Publication of this paragraph occurred after GL 90-02, Alternative Requirements for Fuel Assemblies in Design Features Section of Technical Specifications (February 1, 1990), but before GL 90-02, Supplement 1 (July 31, 1992). Moreover, GL 90-02 Supplement 1 references the draft STS when it discusses this paragraph:
The staff has issued the drafts of the new Standard Technical Specifications (STS) for public comment, including the following specification for fuel assemblies under the Design Features Section:
The reactor shall contain [ ] fuel assemblies The GL supplement did not introduce any changes to the STS, but instead quoted the STS that the NRC had previously published. While it is likely that the STS were influenced by GL 90-02, neither the GL nor its supplement provided any specific discussion of LTAs. The draft STS sent to NUMARC in 1990 contained allowances for reconstituted fuel, but not for LTAs, indicating that the two provisions should be read separately. In order to become reconstituted fuel, a fuel assembly must be in the reactor and contain rods that are found to be leaking or are determined to be probable sources of future leakage; those rods are then replaced. LTAs are fuel assemblies that contain new design features or materials for which additional data may be needed to support approval for unrestricted use. No change was made to the letter as a result of this comment.
Comment: Commenters stated that, according to Generic Letter 90-02, a change to fuel or cladding, even to one rod, cannot be implemented without prior NRC approval under 10 CFR 50.59 because those parameters are explicitly described in the Design Features section
of the STS. Federal Register notices associated with 10 CFR 50.59 did not state that the proposed action would allow the use of fuel cladding material or fuel of a different type than that stated in the TS Design Features section.
(240ANON2) (240ANON3) (257ANON1) (258ANON1) (260ANON5)
Response: The NRC disagrees with this comment. Generic Letter 90-02 does not mention LTAs or 10 CFR 50.59. Generic Letter 90-02 was not intended to address the issue of LTAs or to describe the proper scope of changes implemented under 10 CFR 50.59. Instead, Generic Letter 90-02 provides guidance for licensees who wish to modify the Design Features section of the TS in order to reconstitute fuel by substituting filler rods or open water channels for fuel rods. Therefore, there is no inconsistency between the guidance letter and Generic Letter 90-02.
With regard to 10 CFR 50.59, although Federal Register notices associated with this section did not describe every change, test, or experiment which might be conducted under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59, these notices described the overall intent behind the creation of 10 CFR 50.59: the creation of criteria by which licensees can conduct changes, tests, and experiments without additional NRC approval.
Topic 35: Proposed Regulatory Paths Comment: The draft letter outlines two regulatory pathways: (1) the STS path for licensees having technical specification provisions comparable to STS 4.2.1, and (2) the 50.59 and non-exemption path. The STS path is more appropriately provided through revisions to the STS Bases documents and/or issuance/revision of Regulatory Guides and Regulatory Issue Summaries to explain this path and the conditions for its use.
(61SH4) (66HC5) (86AN3) (145ANON11) (146ANON2) (206EB4)
Response: The guidance letter has been revised to focus on the first regulatory pathway, applicable to licensees that have TS provisions comparable to STS 4.2.1. There are multiple processes which the NRC can use to provide regulatory guidance, and each of these has advantages and disadvantages. In this case, after weighing its options, the NRC determined that a guidance letter was the most effective and timely method of communicating the agencys expectations for LTAs.
Comment: The 10 CFR 50.59 / non-exemption path is not needed because of the pending 10 CFR 50.46 rulemaking and the existing 10 CFR 50.59 approach described in Path 1 of the guidance letter. Additionally, the letter makes no mention of the pending 50.46c rule.
(5UCS3) (5UCS11) (28MK4) (61SH5) (66HC6) (86AN4) (113AN4) (206EB5)
Response: The NRC agrees in part with this comment. The guidance letter has been revised to focus on guidance applicable to licensees that have TS provisions comparable to STS 4.2.1 and to clarify that a licensee is responsible for assessing its ability to irradiate LTAs in accordance with its license and must comply with its license and the NRCs regulations.
The proposed 10 CFR 50.46c rulemaking is not discussed in the letter because the Commission has not approved this proposal. The guidance letter does not alter any of the existing 10 CFR 50.46 requirements.
Comment: For regulatory path 2, it states that the staff has not attempted to provide more specific guidance for this regulatory path. Does this mean that the guidance in the letter for 50.59 and 50.46 is not applicable to regulatory path 2? If this is the case, then the letter should provide further explanation for this position. The letter should also explain why the NRC staff believes there are only two possible options.
(94AN39) (94AN40)
Response: The guidance letter has been revised to focus on the first regulatory path and to clarify that the regulatory path described in the letter is only applicable to licensees with the STS LTA provision (or substantively similar LTA TS provision). If licensees do not have or do not meet such a provision, it is the licensees responsibility to determine the acceptable regulatory path in accordance with its licensing basis and NRC regulations. The NRC has not attempted to provide more specific guidance in those instances due to the number of different plant-specific licensing basis considerations.
Topic 36: LTAs and 10 CFR 50.59 Comment: Several commenters provided general statements to indicate that the letter contains inappropriate guidance that significantly expands the use of 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations to encompass LTAs, that the letter should not provide advice on how to perform 50.59 evaluations, or that only an amendment is sufficient to evaluate LTAs.
(18HC4) (141RB2) (145ANON13) (146ANON15) (154ANON5) (173MG1) (198ANON2)
(198ANON3) (262ANON6) (263ANON2) (263ANON3)
Response: The NRC disagrees with these comments. The letter makes it clear that the NRC expects licensees to conduct a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation, and, in some cases, this evaluation may find that NRC approval is required before an LTA campaign may be initiated. However, the letter does not provide any information to either provide the basis or prejudge the outcome of 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations performed by licensees. The NRC believes 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations are sufficient to evaluate whether a license amendment is necessary, for licensees to whom the guidance is applicable.
Comment: The draft letter to NEI provides no basis for why LTAs that meet the STS LTA provision (i.e., a limited number of lead test assemblies, placed in nonlimiting core regions) is in any way related or is otherwise sufficient to support a 10 CFR 50.59 statement that the LTAs would continue to meet all applicable design and functional requirements, and any new failure modes would be bounded by the existing analysis.
(263ANON1)
The letter claims that only the first and last sentence of the STS LTA provision applies to LTAs.
In addition, the letter claims that 50.46 does not apply to LTAs. This leads to the conclusion that when the NRC approved amendments to adopt the STS LTA provision, it authorized the licensee to use any LTA design in the reactor core, with the only limitations being the number of LTAs and the placement of LTAs in nonlimiting locations. If this new NRC position is correct, then a 50.59 evaluation for an LTA is never required for a licensee that has the STS LTA provision, since the amendment was already approved by the NRC. In addition, the NRC cannot impose restrictions or limitation on the use of LTAs, such as requiring them to conform to
methods that were not explicitly identified with the license amendment requires or required with the approved STS LTA provision.
(94AN29)
Response: Licensees will need to evaluate their LTA programs in accordance with both STS 4.2.1 and 10 CFR 50.59. Inserting LTAs in accordance with STS 4.2.1 does not, by itself, permit the insertion of LTAs without a license amendment, as it does not guarantee that the 10 CFR 50.59 process will not result in the need for a license amendment. The NRC believes 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations are sufficient to evaluate whether a license amendment is necessary, for licensees to whom the guidance is applicable.
Comment: LTAs would not screen out of the 10 CFR 50.59 process, per NEI 96-07, Revision 1, Section 4.2.2.
(146ANON3) (270RE1)
The text must perform a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation can be confusing as it appears to assume a full 50.59 evaluation is required - however, that may not be the case as the 50.59 process may screen out this need. Please change to must follow the 10 CFR 50.59 process.
(4NEI7)
Response: As stated in the guidance letter on page 6:
LTA campaigns that are not described in the UFSAR meet the definition of a change, test, or experiment under 10 CFR 50.59(a), and the licensee must perform a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation to determine whether it may proceed with its campaign without prior NRC approval.
A licensee may have previously incorporated an LTA program into its UFSAR through reference to a topical report which provides details on acceptable design, placement, and quantity of LTAs. This licensee would not meet the criteria described in the guidance letter, as the LTAs would be described in the UFSAR. In that instance, it may be possible to load LTAs without completing a full 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation (i.e., screen out).
The letter was not modified in response to these comments.
Comment: The first paragraph (page 5, Regulatory Path 1) is ok up to the word provision.
The remainder of the last sentence totally contradicts the preceding discussion on the STS provision. The provision is in the TS; therefore, it is in the operating license. It provides permission to use LTAs subject to the provisions; therefore, it is redundant and out of process to require a licensee to then apply a process (10 CFR 50.59) to determine if NRC permission is
required for the aspects of the LTA program to which TS 4.2.1 applies. All subsequent SNC comments are predicated on the premise put forth in this comment.
(272SNC2) (272SNC3) (272SNC4) (272SNC5) (272SNC6) (272SNC7) (272SNC8) (272SNC9)
Response: The NRC disagrees with these comments. Licensees must comply with both their licenses and the regulations. The STS LTA provision does not impact the applicability of 10 CFR 50.59(c)(1), which states:
A licensee may make changes in the facility as described in the final safety analysis report (as updated), make changes in the procedures as described in the final safety analysis report (as updated), and conduct tests or experiments not described in the final safety analysis report (as updated) without obtaining a license amendment pursuant to § 50.90 only if:
(i) A change to the technical specifications incorporated in the license is not required, and (ii) The change, test, or experiment does not meet any of the criteria in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
As stated in the guidance letter on page 6:
LTA campaigns that are not described in the UFSAR meet the definition of a change, test, or experiment under 10 CFR 50.59(a), and the licensee must perform a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation to determine whether it may proceed with its campaign without prior NRC approval.
A licensee may have previously incorporated an LTA program into its UFSAR through referencing a topical report, which provides details on acceptable design, placement, and quantity of LTAs. This licensee would not meet the criteria described in the guidance letter and the regulation, as the LTAs would already be described in the UFSAR. In that instance, it may be possible to load LTAs without completing a full 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation, as long as the LTAs comply with all requirements in the plant-specific licensing basis.
The additional SNC comments (272SNC3-272SNC9) were not directly addressed because they are predicated on the NRC staffs agreement with 272SNC2.
Comment: The guidance letter incorrectly implies that 50.59 evaluation can be done after the LTAs are inserted in core because of the phrase if the LTA campaign demonstrates (94AN45)
Response: The NRC disagrees with the commenters interpretation of the cited phrase. The term LTA campaign is broad and does not only refer to the specific action of loading fuel. The 10 CFR 50.59 rule is clear in that the license must meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59(c)(1) before making a change to the facility as described in the FSAR (as updated).
Comment: Commenters asserted that statements by NRC staff on guidance from NEI 96-07 with respect to 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(ii), (vii), and (viii) have no basis. Specifically, the draft letter to NEI provides no basis for why LTAs that meet the STS LTA provision (i.e., a limited number
of lead test assemblies, placed in nonlimiting core regions) is otherwise sufficient to support a 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(ii), (vii), and (viii) determination.
(94AN42) (264ANON1) (264ANON2) (264ANON4) (264ANON6) (264ANON7) (265ANON1)
(265ANON2) (265ANON4) (265ANON6) (267ANON1)
Response: These specific comments and concerns were raised by NRC staff members prior to issuance of the draft guidance letter for public comment. In accordance with MD 10.158, the NRC addressed the NRC staff members concerns. The non-concurrence and the NRCs responses are available in ADAMS at Accession No. ML18151B016. Some of the comments indicated that part of the NRCs response to the non-concurrence cited NEI 96-07, Section 4.3.7 out of context. The NRC disagrees with these comments and the commenters restrictive interpretation of Section 4.3.7 and 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(vii). NEI 96-07, Revision 1, Section 4.3.7 states, in part, that if an engineering evaluation demonstrates that the analysis presented in the UFSAR remains bounding, then no further 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(vii) evaluation is required.
Comment: With respect to 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(vii), the letter should state that use of LTA materials does not constitute an alteration of the licensed design-basis limits for fission product barrier provided good engineering judgment is used. Please provide specific guidance for evaluating LTA programs against 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(vii).
(9WEST3) (9WEST4)
Response: The section Lead Test Assembly-Specific Guidance on 10 CFR 50.59 in the guidance letter highlights consideration of specific 10 CFR 50.59 criteria. The letter is not intended to provide guidance on how to arrive at any specific outcome for a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation.
Comment: For new fuel types, if the design-basis limits are expected to be different than already established for a plant or if there is a change in the method of analysis due to reliance on not yet licensed codes and methods, then 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(vii) and (viii) both clearly require the change to be implemented via a license amendment.
(136RE1) (136RE2)
Response: The NRC agrees in part with this comment, as reflected in the 10 CFR 50.59 guidance in the letter. For instances where the different design-basis limits and changes to elements of analysis methods for new fuel types exceed or yield non-conservative results against those limits and methods of analysis established in a licensees UFSAR, a license amendment may be necessary.
Comment: In the second paragraph of the draft letter, it states: Other licensees conducted LTA campaigns under 10 CFR 50.59 without prior NRC approval. This statement is either misleading or the NRC staff is not enforcing its regulations under 50.59. If a licensees TS were amended to include the STS LTA provision (or similar) and COLR methodology that permits use of LTAs, then it has received prior NRC approval to use LTAs. If the licensee is using LTAs without either of these items, it is likely in violation of 50.59. The NRC should clarify what is intended by this statement.
(94AN13)
Response: The regulation at 10 CFR 50.59 allows licensees to make changes to the facility, make changes to procedures, and conduct tests or experiments without additional NRC
approval, provided that a specific set of criteria located in 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2) are not met. The NRC staff has not at this time identified any enforcement issues related to LTA campaigns. The guidance letter has been revised to state, Other licensees conducted LTA campaigns under 10 CFR 50.59 without additional NRC approval.
Topic 37: Owners Will Seek Relaxation or Elimination of Hydrogen Control, Emergency Power, or Emergency Makeup Cooling Systems Comment: If ATF designs reduce the amount of hydrogen generated during accidents, owners will seek to eliminate hydrogen control measures at plants to reduce the costs of maintaining those systems. Also, licensees will seek to reduce response times for emergency power systems and emergency makeup cooling systems.
(30NC5) (51BD4) (59EH2) (67LH2) (122ML2) (122ML3) (142DC3) (157RS4) (261CL3)
Response: The guidance letter does not change existing requirements for hydrogen control or emergency response times. A licensee may request a relaxation of current requirements for a variety of reasons. The NRC will review such requests and make a determination based on information provided in the application, the regulations, and the impact on the health and safety of the public and the environment.
Topic 38: Need to Clarify Regulatory Expectations Comment: There is a need to clarify regulatory expectations for LTAs.
(57PA3) (61SH2) (66HC3) (86AN1) (113AN2) (116JS3) (146ANON12) (150JS3) (206EB2)
Response: The NRC agrees that there is a need to clarify regulatory expectations. The purpose of the guidance letter is to clarify the NRC staffs position in response to a letter from NEI (ADAMS Accession No. ML18038B080) on STS 4.2.1, Fuel Assemblies, including guidance on the use of approved methods, 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, tests, and experiments; and 10 CFR 50.46, Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power reactors.
Topic 39: Issues to Investigate for LTA Fuel Comment: The following issues should be investigated for LTAs and/or ATF concepts:
- Vulnerability to critical accidents in dry and wet environments. This includes any interactions between current and new types of cladding and fuel.
- Balloon and rupture tests for new types of cladding for both reactor and spent fuel pool conditions.
- Possible eutectic reactions which may occur in an overheated reactor operating environment for new cladding and fuel. As well as interactions between current and new cladding.
- Testing for the vulnerability to oxidation and nitriding.
- Understanding of how the new cladding or fuel would impact the progression and outcome of a spent fuel pool accident.
- Control rod overpressure, fracture and melting during accident tolerant fuel uncover conditions hypothesized for increased emergency core cooling system coping times.
- Risk of the core returning to criticality during re-flood without control rods.
- Welding challenges of new cladding materials and embrittlement of chromium-iron-aluminum (CrFeAl) cladding.
- Loss of ductility following transient conditions.
- Delamination of coating (e.g., Cr) and changes in plant chemistry and dose.
- Fission gas release for new fuels and cladding during normal operation.
- Changes in fuel melt progression, source term, and iodine releases from fuel failures.
- Lack of updated NRC computer codes.
- Discontinuous experiments in alternate facilities (e.g., autoclave tests in lieu of high-pressure flow tests, different temperature regimes, etc.) that do not provide sufficient volume or precision of data for regulatory decisions.
(124ANON2) (144ML10) (144ML11) (144ML12) (144ML13) (144ML14) (144ML15) (144ML16)
(144ML17) (144ML18)
Response: The purpose of the guidance letter is to finalize the NRC staffs position on the generic guidance described in the NRC staffs earlier letter to NEI. As such, the letter focuses on process questions rather than technical details of specific LTA programs. The in-reactor technical concerns raised will be addressed, as appropriate, on a plant-specific basis by licensees conducting 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations and by the NRC staff when an LAR is submitted to permit the use of LTAs outside the regulatory path described in the guidance letter, when a topical report to support unrestricted use of a new fuel assembly or material is submitted, or under the ROP.
The guidance letter does not address all regulatory requirements that should be considered when planning an LTA campaign, such as other TS, 10 CFR 50.68, Criticality accident requirements, and transportation and storage requirements in 10 CFR Part 71, Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material, and 10 CFR Part 72, Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste. All applicable requirements should be considered by a licensee considering an LTA campaign.
While not directly connected to the guidance letter on LTAs, the NRCs ATF Project Plan to prepare for efficient and effective licensing of ATF (ADAMS Accession No. ML18261A412) covers the complete fuel cycle, including consideration for the front and back ends (e.g.,
fabrication, transportation, and storage), and MELCOR severe accident progression and source term evaluations. The ATF Project Plan also outlines a strategy for preparing the NRC to license ATF designs with a focus on the preparation (including NRC codes), review, and approval of topical reports.
Topic 40: Revisions to Regulations Comment: Rather than condoning the pretending that applicable requirements in Federal regulations are actually not applicable, the NRC must revise the regulations to clearly state how and under what conditions fuel designs that differ from the parameters explicitly stated in the
regulations can be used in operating reactors. The NRC staff position on 10 CFR 50.46 reveals a gap in NRC regulatory requirements for emergency core cooling acceptance criteria for cladding other than Zircaloy and ZIRLO and fuel other than UO2.
(3ANON11) (5UCS9)
Response: The NRC believes the current regulatory framework is adequate to regulate fuel designs. As stated in Appendix A to Part 50, GDC 35, an emergency core cooling system is to be provided such that the system safety function shall be to transfer heat from the reactor core following any loss of reactor coolant at a rate such that (1) fuel and clad damage that could interfere with continued effective core cooling is prevented and (2) clad metal-water reaction is limited to negligible amounts. Plants that entered service before the GDCs were codified have similar ECCS design criteria to GDC 35. The regulation at 10 CFR 50.46(b) contains the acceptance criteria for reactors with fuel that meets the applicability statement in 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1)(i) to satisfy GDC 35 or the equivalent ECCS design criteria. This regulation does not require that reactors have uranium oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZIRLO' cladding but provides the prescribed means to satisfy ECCS design criteria for those reactors that do have that fuel type and those cladding types.
The guidance letter does not address regulatory requirements for reactors that do not have uranium oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZIRLO' cladding. Members of the public who believe the NRC should engage in rulemaking to address a generic issue may submit a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802.
No change was made to the letter as a result of these comments.
Topic 41: Consistency with 10 CFR 50.57 Comment: The new interpretation is contrary to 10 CFR 50.57.
(154ANON7) (266ANON2)
Response: The NRC disagrees with this comment. The provisions of 10 CFR 50.57, which in part require the Commission to make a finding that Part 50 licensees will operate in conformity with the rules and regulations of the Commission, continue to be in effect. The NRC does not believe there is any inconsistency between the guidance letter and 10 CFR 50.57.
Topic 42: Generic Issues Comment: Please further clarify that unapproved codes used solely to confirm the nonlimiting nature of the LTAs do not result in a departure from a method of evaluation described in the UFSAR used in establishing the design bases or in the safety analyses because they did not impact any of the applicable design limits.
(4NEI8)
Response: The NRC staff did not revise the guidance letter on page 6, paragraph 1 as suggested by the commenter because a clarification was provided elsewhere (page 8) in the guidance letter. The letter now includes the statement:
. . . LTAs will not affect the performance of safety-related SSCs, and therefore, the method of evaluation used in establishing the design bases will remain the
same. In such cases, the licensee may not meet 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(viii), and therefore, may not require a license amendment because of this criterion.
Comment: Page 3, paragraph 2 has several clarity issues. Please revise the paragraph as follows:
Licensees can demonstrate compliance with the STS LTA provision that LTAs are of limited number and in nonlimiting core regions through an evaluation of the LTAs using good engineering judgment and analytical codes and methods that reflect well-established engineering practices, and where uncertainties in input parameters and models are conservatively addressed using the current state of knowledge and all available data to the extent practical. The NRC expects that licensees will confirm that the UFSAR Chapter 15 transient and accident analyses of the core with the LTAs and the COLR limits remain applicable and bounding. These evaluations are subject to verification through the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP).
(4NEI1)
Response: The revisions suggested by this comment were partially incorporated into the guidance letter. Page 3 of the guidance letter now states:
Licensees can demonstrate compliance with the STS LTA provision that LTAs are of limited number and in nonlimiting core regions through an evaluation of the LTAs using sound engineering judgment and analytical codes and methods that reflect well-established engineering practices, and by conservatively addressing uncertainties in input parameters and models using the current state of knowledge and all available data to the extent practical. The staff expects that this evaluation will confirm that the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) safety analyses and core operating limits report (COLR) limits remain applicable and bounding. If a licensee cannot demonstrate compliance with these restrictions within the STS LTA provision, then prior NRC approval may be necessary to insert LTAs.
Topic 43: Public Involvement The NRC received a large number of instances of the same comment. The comment is:
The NRC is proposing to set aside federal regulations and deprive members of the public of their legal rights by using a letter to the Nuclear Energy Institute to permit nuclear plant owners to experiment with new fuel pellets and fuel rods in the nuclear power reactors in our backyards without prior NRC review and approval, and without your getting a chance to agree or disagree with the experiment.
In order to appropriately address this comment, the NRC staff has divided it into three issues:
(1) the NRC is proposing to set aside Federal regulations and deprive members of the public of their rights by using a letter to NEI, (2) nuclear plant owners should not experiment with new fuels without prior NRC approval, and (3) members of the public should be allowed to agree or disagree with the experiment.
Below are the responses to these three issues.
Comment: Commenters stated that NRC is setting aside Federal regulations and depriving members of their public of their legal rights. One commenter stated the regulations should be followed to inform local citizens and to ensure that NRC can thoroughly review the proposed action.
(5UCS13) (22RH1) (24MC1) (27SR1) (31CG1) (31CG3) (34CR1) (39MS1) (43JL1) (46JG1)
(57PA1) (64AN2) (106AO1) (121PM4) (138M&FG1) (144ML5) (162GS1) (162GS3)
(165ANON2) (175PG1) (182JS1) (183AO1) (188JB6) (199JQ1) (207EM2) (211AN3)
(234ANON6) (242ML3) (246LL1) (247GM2)
Response: The NRC believes that the guidance letter, which is being issued after thorough internal review and after providing the opportunity for public review and comment, is fully consistent with all applicable laws.
Comment: Unreviewed experiments and untested fuel should not be permitted in reactors without prior NRC review.
(14NP1) (17SA1) (19PB1) (21MLRC6) (22RH2) (22RH3) (23SS1) (24MC2) (27SR2) (29ER1)
(30NC3) (31CG2) (34CR2) (35CM1) (36LG1) (37HR1) (39MS3) (40RF1) (41FG1) (42NL1)
(43JL2) (44AM1) (46JG2) (46JG4) (48NZ1) (49EV5) (50VC1) (51BD2) (55JH1) (56GB1)
(60CC1) (62CA1) (64AN3) (67LH3) (69MG1) (73DR1) (74BS3) (78GS4) (91FA1) (92MM1)
(97SD1) (101MM2) (104NC1) (105TM1) (107EOD1) (108JD1) (108JD3) (109JM1) (109JM2)
(112EM1) (117WC2) (120VT2) (122ML4) (125PC1) (132SG1) (138M&FG2) (143KH1) (148LD1)
(157RS1) (160DM1) (161MI1) (162GS4) (163HB1) (164BT1) (165ANON1) (166SH1) (167CL1)
(168SM1) (170SG1) (172PA1) (173MG8) (174LS1) (175PG2) (177DB1) (179PB1) (180JC1)
(181JS1) (188JB5) (189CC1) (191RK1) (193ANON1) (193ANON3) (196FG1) (205PM1)
(205PM3) (207EM1) (209JS1) (217JR1) (217JR2) (220ANON1) (220ANON2) (222EG1)
(225KBF1) (227CT1) (228SACE5) (228SACE10) (229CD2) (238ANON2) (242ML1) (243DM1)
(245DW1) (246LL2) (247GM2) (248JW1) (249LF2) (250SW3) (261CL1) (269JS1)
Response: The regulation at 10 CFR 50.59 allows licensees to make changes to the facility, make changes to procedures, and conduct tests or experiments without additional NRC approval, provided that a specific set of criteria located in 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2) are not met.
These criteria stipulate that a change or test does not result in a more than minimal increase in the likelihood, frequency, or consequences of an accident without undergoing NRC review.
As described in the guidance letter, under the existing regulatory framework, a licensee may be able to embark on an LTA campaign that meets the STS LTA provision under 10 CFR 50.59 without additional NRC approval. However, the licensees 10 CFR 50.59 analysis is available for NRC inspection through the ROP.
Comment: Public input into regulatory decisions is valuable and the public is not getting a chance to agree or disagree with experiments conducted by nuclear power plants.
(15SK1) (25SJ1) (27SR3) (29ER2) (33JS3) (34CR3) (35CM2) (36LG2) (39MS2) (43JL3)
(46JG3) (53EE1) (54RL1) (58HB1) (59EH1) (63PA1) (64AN1) (67LH1) (71MB1) (72SC1)
(76JL2) (78GS1) (80CC1) (81SD1) (82LC1) (84TP1) (89CW2) (93VD1) (101MM1) (101MM3)
(101MM4) (103LG1) (108JD5) (111KC1) (115AK1) (118NF1) (132SG2) (138M&FG3) (148LD2)
(160DM2) (162GS2) (169WF1) (173MG3) (175PG2) (179PB2) (182JS2) (183AO2)
(184ANON2) (205PM2) (207EM2) (216CK1) (228SACE6) (239ANON3) (239ANON4) (242ML2)
(246LL3) (247GM1) (259ANON2)
Response: The NRC agrees that public input is valuable, and accordingly, has used the notice and comment procedure as a means to solicit feedback from interested individuals and organizations. The public was provided notice and opportunity to comment on both the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 and on this guidance letter, including an extended comment period for the draft guidance letter. Aside from this process, members of the public who believe a licensee is violating NRC regulations may submit a petition for enforcement under 10 CFR 2.206, and members of the public who believe NRC should engage in rulemaking to address a generic issue may submit a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802.
If a licensee determines, based on the guidance in the letter, that a license amendment is not required, a no significant hazards analysis, for which public comment would be afforded in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91, would not be required, nor would there be an opportunity for hearing in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309.
Comment: Some commenters expressed a concern that NRC is depriving members of the public of rights associated with LARs, such as the right to review such requests and to request hearings on them. One commenter stated that NRC is obligated to publish a Sholly notice to give the public notice of its right to request a hearing.
(26MV1) (30NC1) (97SD3) (134ANON5)
Response: The NRC disagrees with these comments. As described above, if a licensees TS include the STS LTA provision or a substantively similar provision, it may be able to insert a limited number of LTAs in nonlimiting core regions without the need for a license amendment under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. If a licensee determines a license amendment is not required and therefore does not request a license amendment, the regulations and processes associated with license amendments would not apply.
The term Sholly notice, which derives from the case of Sholly v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 651 F.2d 780 (D.C. Cir. 1980), is commonly used to refer to the biweekly Federal Register notice in which the NRC publishes notice of amendments it is issuing or proposing to issue, and in which the NRC publishes its determination that certain amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. This notice also informs members of the public that persons whose interests may be affected by these license amendments may request a hearing.
Appropriate notice will be issued as required if licensees submit LARs related to LTAs or to other changes that require a license amendment under NRC regulations.
No change was made to the letter as a result of these comments.
Topic 44: Sholly Notices and De Facto Amendments Comment: Commenters stated that, if a broader meaning than stated in the Sholly notice is attributed to the proposed TS changes (when converting to STS), the action is an expansion of operating authority requiring a license amendment.
(134ANON2) (258ANON2)
A review of some LARs indicates that licensees requested to adopt the STS 4.2.1 provision, but did not state that only the first and last sentences applied to LTAs. The LARs do not provide
any technical justification for the use of LTAs with no limitations on their design. The LARs should have provided information similar to what is provided for use of a new fuel design. The public was not provided adequate information to understand these requests; therefore, it was effectively denied an opportunity to comment on the NSHC and to request a hearing (131ANON7)
Response: As described above, these comments refer to the Sholly notice issued for certain license amendments in which the NRC publishes its determination that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. This notice does not determine whether affected persons may request a hearing, but rather governs when an amendment may become effective relative to the timing of a hearing, if one is requested.
The NRC interprets these comments as stating that, if the notice published when a licensee converted to the STS did not describe the interpretation set forth in the guidance letter, then a licensee who acts on that interpretation would need a license amendment to do so. The NRC disagrees with these comments. The notice associated with a licensees adoption of the STS gives members of the public fair notice of the proposed license amendment and of their right to request a hearing if they are affected by that amendment. A Federal Register notice is not intended to discuss or resolve every possible issue that may arise in interpreting a licensees TS or the STS. Whether a licensee action requires a license amendment depends on the nature of the action rather than the content of the notice.
Comment: Some comments stated that the proposed guidance constitutes de facto fleet-wide license amendments.
(3ANON2) (94AN24) (251ANON3)
Response: The NRC disagrees with these comments. The guidance letter is not a license amendment because it does not change existing license conditions or expand the scope of previously existing operating authority. Rather, the guidance letter is being issued to interpret and clarify how licensees may use LTAs under existing regulations, TS, and license conditions.
As the guidance letter explains, if a licensees TS contain STS 4.2.1 or a substantively similar TS provision and there is no conflicting documentation, that licensee may be able to initiate an LTA campaign under 10 CFR 50.59 without additional NRC approval. However, the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 continue to apply to licensee actions and, in some circumstances, a license amendment may be necessary to conduct an LTA campaign.
Topic 45: Rulemaking Comment: The guidance letter constitutes de facto rulemaking to 10 CFR 50.46, or should be considered a rule.
(3ANON4) (147ANON6)
Response: The guidance letter is an interpretive rule, which promulgates the NRCs interpretation of its own regulations. It does not alter the text or effect of 10 CFR 50.46.
Licensees who fall under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.46that is, light-water power reactors fueled by uranium oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZIRLO claddingcontinue to be bound by them.
Comment: Commenters stated that the guidance letter meets most of the rulemaking screening criteria, the letter presents a new interpretation of 10 CFR 50.59 and of 10 CFR 50.46, which should go through rulemaking, or that the guidance should be considered a rule.
(94AN14) (135ANON4) (137ANON7) (137ANON8) (154ANON8)
Response: The NRC agrees that the guidance letter is an interpretive rule, which promulgates the NRCs interpretation of its own regulations. In this case, the NRC has provided notice and comment opportunities to the public, providing for additional public input beyond what is required for an interpretive rule in 10 CFR 2.804(d)(1).
Comment: New positions taken in the guidance letter would require rulemaking, license amendments, or license exemptions to implement.
(94AN3) (94AN4) (149ANON1)
Response: The guidance letter underwent thorough consideration, including incorporation of public comments. The purpose of the guidance letter is to provide clarification of the existing regulations and the staff did not identify the need for rulemaking. The need for license amendments and exemptions are addressed in Topics 11, 22, 23, 24, and 25 in this document.
The NRC staff will continue to engage with licensees using LTAs and other stakeholders to determine whether additional guidance or rulemaking is necessary.
Topic 46: Implementation Comment: There is concern over the effectiveness of the NRCs oversight of licensees implementation of LTAs under the framework described in the letter to NEI. Can the ROP appropriately detect and enforce improper implementation of LTAs? There are no explicit inspection procedures that address LTAs, and it does not appear that the inspection procedures address the COLR in a manner that would verify the use of NRC-approved codes and methods or topical reports.
(3ANON1) (3ANON17) (94AN56) (114AN4) (114AN5) (212AN1) (224ANON1) (224ANON2)
(224ANON3) (234ANON5)
Response: The ROP framework, which is both risk informed and performance based, will continue to provide the means to collect information about licensee performance, assess the information for its safety significance, and provide for appropriate licensee and NRC response.
With regard to the comment about the adequacy of the inspection procedures, there are several inspection procedures that would cover the use of LTAs. Inspection Procedure (IP)
IP 71111.17T and IP 71111.18 address licensees 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations, and IP 71111.20 covers physics testing and comparing the results against the COLR. Inspection procedures are available on the NRC public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/insp-manual/inspection-procedure/.
Topic 47: Interpretations of STS 4.2.1 Comment: The guidance letter should explain why it is providing interpretations rather than guidance.
(94AN16)
Response: The NRC does not understand this comment. Interpretation and guidance are not mutually exclusive categories. The guidance letter provides guidance for licensees by explaining the meaning of NRC regulations and the STS.
Comment: It makes no difference if NRC has been inconsistent in requiring licensees to adhere to the requirements. Regulatory obligations of regulations and TS are not modified by the degree to which NRC identifies or pursues failure of licensees to adhere to regulatory obligations.
(260ANON6)
Response: The NRC agrees in part with this comment. The interpretation set forth in the guidance letter does not rely on an argument that the regulatory obligations of licensees related to LTAs are modified by any potential past failures of licensees to adhere to their regulatory obligations or by potential NRC enforcement discretion. Rather, the letter provides guidance to clarify the means by which licensees may adhere to their regulatory obligations in the future.
Comment: The guidance letter should provide a review of past precedents and identify areas where it is not consistent, and the letter should identify which licensees can use STS 4.2.1 and which cannot, based on their licensing basis.
(94AN25)
Response: The NRC acknowledges that past regulatory treatment of this issue has not been entirely consistent, due in part to a lack of clear guidance. The NRC expects each licensee to understand its licensing basis and to determine how the guidance letter applies to its specific situation. It is not necessary for the guidance letter to detail every licensing basis or relevant past licensing action. With regard to identifying which licensees can use STS 4.2.1, each licensees TS are publicly available and can be accessed via http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRCs public documents. Any member of the public can search the TS to determine if the licensee has the STS provision or a substantively similar one.
Topic 48: Issuance and Finalization of the Letter Comment: Several commenters provided statements to indicate that the letter should not be issued or finalized and provided their supporting basis. Other commenters expressed their general opposition to the letter.
(16AT1) (18HC1) (21MLRC3) (25SJ2) (28MK1) (31CG4) (33JS2) (47JA2) (57PA2) (61SH1)
(66HC2) (76JL1) (78GS2) (83AN2) (113AN1) (114AN11) (116JS1) (117WC1) (120VT7)
(121PM1) (121PM2) (141RB1) (141RB4) (144ML1) (145ANON1) (146ANON1) (147ANON2)
(149ANON4) (150JS1) (153ANON1) (153ANON5) (154ANON1) (155ANON1) (173MG4)
(183AO3) (200AN3) (206EB1) (210AN1) (212AN5) (213AN2) (214AN3) (218ANON6)
(219ANON3) (228SACE3) (246LL4)
Response: The NRC is issuing the guidance letter in response to a letter from NEI that requested clarification of the NRCs positions expressed during the 2017 Regulatory Information Conference regarding LTAs. As NRC staff examined this issue, it became clear that there was inconsistent precedent set by both NRC and the industry with regard to the licensing approach for LTA campaigns. As such, it is appropriate and prudent for the NRC staff to issue a letter to reduce the uncertainty with which licensees undertake LTA programs.
The NRC has a range of tools that can be used to communicate with licensees, applicants, and the public that satisfy statutory and regulatory requirements. NUREGs, Regulatory Guides, Regulatory Issue Summaries, and letters have been used by the NRC in appropriate circumstances. In this case, after weighing its options, the NRC determined that a guidance letter was the most effective and timely method of communicating the agencys expectations for LTAs.
Topic 49: Comments Expressing General Opposition to the Letter Comment: The NRC staff has offered an industry-biased perspective, in both examples and quotations.
(3ANON21)
Response: The NRC staff disagrees with this comment. The examples and quotations provided in the guidance letter were selected to demonstrate that STS 4.2.1, 10 CFR 50.46, and 10 CFR 50.59 guidance endorsed by the NRC are consistent with the regulatory path described in the guidance letter.
Comment: The consequences of the NRC positions taken in the letter are not well thought out and are riddled with errors and bias.
(149ANON2) (235ANON1) (235ANON2)
Response: The NRC disagrees with this comment. The NRC staff strives to adhere to the NRCs Principles of Good Regulation and NRCs Organizational Values in performing NRCs mission. These principles and values were applied in the development of the NRCs positions in the guidance letter and the staff determined that the positions provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety.
There was no change to the guidance letter as a result of this comment.
Comment: The positions taken in one part of the letter are inconsistent with statements made in other parts of the letter (e.g., the NRC interpretation of the STS LTA provisions eliminates the need for 50.59 evaluations to be conducted for LTAs, but the letter provides guidance on the application of the 50.59 criteria for LTAs).
(94AN5) (94AN41) (94AN57) (149ANON3)
Response: The NRC disagrees with these comments. The guidance letter clarifies that licensees that have the STS LTA provision may be able to use the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 to load LTAs without the need for additional NRC approval. Additionally, as discussed in the
guidance letter, licensees complete their core reload analysis under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 and can consider LTA campaigns as part of this analysis. The LTA campaign, as part of the core reload analysis (or separate LTA campaign analysis), will have to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 50.59 or the licensee will need to obtain a license amendment.
There was no change to the guidance letter as a result of this comment.
Topic 50: Other Comments Comment: Licensees are required to provide the TS bases when they apply for amendments to revise the TS covering design features. License amendments to adopt the STS LTA provision appear to be deficient since the only bases provided was that they were consistent with the STS (or the generic letter). The safety evaluations that approved adoption of STS 4.2.1 do not provide any bases other than to state the provision is consistent with the STS. The public was not provided adequate information to understand the request; therefore, it was effectively denied an opportunity to comment on the no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) and to request a hearing.
(131ANON8) (145ANON12)
Response
While past licensing actions such as requests to adopt the STS via LARs are outside the scope of this guidance letter, the NRC staff disagrees that license amendments related to licensees adoption of the STS were deficient. In order to issue these previous amendments, the NRC made required findings as to the sufficiency of the application. The NRC staff also believes that the public was given adequate notice and opportunity to comment or request a hearing on the NSHC determination.
Comment: The NRC should explain why its conclusion (on page 2 of the draft letter) is limited to just loading of LTAs and does not apply to LTA irradiation during reactor operation or removal from the reactor core. The NRC should define batch loading.
(94AN22)
Response: When the guidance letter uses the phrase loading of LTAs or similar, it also includes the in-core performance and post-irradiation removal from the core. This language and definition is consistently used throughout the nuclear industry.
The use of the term batch loading was replaced throughout the guidance letter with more specific terms for clarity. A footnote was added (page 1) to define the term unrestricted use.
The footnote states:
The term unrestricted use means that, unlike LTAs, the fuel has been approved for use at the plant without limits on quantity or placement within the core (except for those limits that are part of the approval). License amendments for approval of unrestricted use are commonly called fuel transitions. Similar terms sometimes used include batch quantities and reload quantities of fuel assemblies.
Other terms that imply in-core performance are batch loading, batch quantities, reload quantities, and core reload analysis. None of these phrases is intended to mean only the initial placement of the fuel in the reactor.
Additionally, the guidance letter is intended to clarify several issues in the June 29, 2017, letter regarding STS 4.2.1, Fuel Assemblies, including guidance on the use of approved methods, 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, tests, and experiments; and 10 CFR 50.46, Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power reactors, and not to address all regulatory requirements that should be considered when planning an LTA campaign.
Comment: In some of the historical amendments to add the STS LTA provision, the NRC staff approved the amendment because the staff assumed that the other requirements in STS Section 4.2.1 applied (i.e., no additional representative testing was necessary because the LTA was designed consistent with the other STS 4.2.1 requirements) and not because the staff took the same interpretation of the STS LTA provision or the 50.46 regulations in the same manner described in the draft letter. Thus, the draft letter constitutes a change in NRC position.
(94AN28)
Response: In some cases, there is a lack of consistency in historical staff positions.
Plant-specific licensing bases and licensing actions may lead to different results for different licensees. To the extent that this letter represents a change in position, the NRC may make such a change as an interpretative rule.
There was no change to the guidance letter as a result of this comment.
Comment: Risk [of LTA insertion] is compounded by the expected decommissioning of the Halden reactor in Norway. It is the only reactor in the world that can do some tests necessary to validate LTA performance.
(220ANON3)
Response: While the Halden test reactor has been used extensively in the qualification of fuel designs in the past, qualification using Halden has never been an explicit or implicit requirement for insertion of LTAs. Much of the data from Halden has been collected from segmented rods that were first irradiated as part of an LTA.
Comment: Additional risk would be presented for criticality and dose involving enrichments greater than 5 percent U235.
(226ANON3)
Response: Enrichments greater than 5 percent U235 are currently not allowed by NRC regulations. The regulation at 10 CFR 50.68, Criticality accident requirements, states (7) the maximum nominal U235 enrichment of the fresh fuel assemblies is limited to five (5.0) percent by weight. Thus, licensees are not currently permitted to insert any fuel, including LTAs, with enrichments above 5 percent. Additionally, spent fuel storage TSs limit the licensee to a specific initial fuel enrichment. These requirements, as well as others addressing fuel manufacturing and transportation, would all need to be addressed prior to a licensee loading an LTA with greater than 5-percent U235 enrichment.
There was no change to the guidance letter as a result of this comment.
Topic 51: Comments Requesting to Expand Scope of Letter Comment: Expand the scope of the letter to include other topics such as guidance on additional regulations, more detailed fuel discussion, future changes to STS adoption processes, and additional historical context.
(3ANON10) (3ANON13) (3ANON14) (20ANON13) (94AN7) (94AN11) (94AN32) (94AN33)
(94AN34) (94AN49) (94AN53) (124ANON1) (131ANON10) (131ANON12) (146ANON6)
(146ANON7) (146ANON8) (200AN2) (230ANON1) (230ANON3) (234ANON1)
Response: The purpose of the guidance letter is to clarify the NRC staffs position in response to a letter from NEI (ADAMS Accession No. ML18038B080) on STS Section 4.2.1, Fuel Assemblies, including guidance on the use of approved methods, 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, tests, and experiments; and 10 CFR 50.46, Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power reactors. The NRC staff has not determined there is a need for additional guidance on the subjects suggested by the commenters. The NRC staff will continue to collect feedback and assess the need for additional guidance.
No changes were made in response to these comments.
Topic 52: Allegations of Wrongdoing, Collusion, Conflict of Interest, Criminal Negligence, Creating a Chilled Work Environment, and Similar Issues Comment: The NRC is reluctant to release the DPO, and/or the FOIA response records.
(2UCS2) (35CM7)
Comment: Chairman Svinicki has openly advocated relaxing NRC licensing requirements for ATF and LTAs, the use of Department of Energy (DOE) analysis codes in lieu of NRC-approved fuel analysis codes and has sought to undermine NRC regulations that have supported NRC reactor fuel-related decisionmaking for decades.
(110AN2)
Comment: With the issuance of the letter to NEI, the NRC once again seems to be shirking public scrutiny and reducing transparency in the process.
(141RB3)
Comment: Several comments were submitted suggesting the NRC is colluding with DOE or being bullied by DOE to relax fuel-related regulations; NRC is colluding with or being paid off by the industry; and that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) should review all closed meetings and drop-in meetings between the NRC staff, NRC Chairman, NRC Commissioners and NEI, and reverse drop-in meetings by the NRC at NEI, Electric Power Research Institute, DOE, fuel vendors, and licensees.
(110AN1) (120VT4) (121PM3) (123ANON5) (141RB5) (156JS1) (173MG6) (184ANON3)
(186ANON1) (221ANON4) (234ANON2)
Comment: Mr. Raymond Furstenau, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, has a conflict of interest due to his prior work at the DOE involving ATF. Furthermore, DOE influence at NRC, and ignoring conflicts of interest, has intensified substantially in the fuels area.
(110AN3) (110AN4)
Comment: The position in the draft letter may be a criminal abdication of responsibility.
(120VT1)
Comment: Several comments were received that indicated they were from NRC employees who submitted their comments anonymously out of fear of retaliation, that there are many more NRC staffers that oppose the plan but remain silent due to the NRCs chilled work environment, and that questioned whether Harold Chernoff had been retaliated against and removed from his position because of his differing view and suggested that the OIG should perform an investigation.
(21MLRC2) (147ANON1) (155ANON6) (237ANON7)
Comment: An independent or OIG investigation should be conducted to identify the supposed failings of the ROP with regard to violations of Technical Specification 4.2.1, or LTAs executed under 10 CFR 50.59. Additionally, the draft letter appears to be a cover-up for a failed ROP program for inspecting fuel analyses.
(3ANON18) (201AN1)
Response: In accordance with Management Directive 7.4, Reporting Suspected Wrongdoing and Processing OIG Referrals (ADAMS Accession No. ML18073A180), allegations of suspected wrongdoing by NRC staff were reported to the OIG.
Topic 53: Comments that are Unrelated to the Subjects of the Draft Letter to NEI This section contains a listing of comments that either are unrelated to the subject of the draft letter on LTAs, contained links that were broken, or did not contain a comment.
Comment: The letter does not address lessons learned from failed steam generators and flawed 50.59 evaluations at San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station.
(3ANON16)
Comment: These comment letters did not contain a discernable comment.
(45KG) (52FB1) (215ANON1)
Comment: Native Americans and their holy sites will be in the cross-hairs of toxic threat.
(22RH4)
Comment: The safety record of the nuclear industry is appalling and financial incentive is the worst possible motivation to shorten any approval process within the industry.
(30NC2)
Comment: Must have people in nuclear industry and NRC who care about safety.
(30NC6)
Comment: I am opposed to secrecy and haste in creating or expanding nuclear sites. I see no reason not to have regulatory paths that are comprehensive and fully public.
(32LH1)
Comment: Secretary Perry--you want to eliminate safeguards to help profit companies responsible for safe operation of nuclear plants?
(38PR1)
Comment: The comment proposes to do away with nuclear power in favor of solar energy.
The comment further claims that nuclear power is a capitalist conspiracy.
(43JL4)
Comment: Please do the job were paying you to do.
(48NZ2)
Comment: You [NRC] MUST fulfill your sworn duty to protect people and earth from all possible threats from all nuclear related activities; to do less is a dereliction of your duty and a crime against humanity.
(48NZ3)
Comment: Dont try to fix it. Anything you do is bound to compound the problem. Tell your buddies to shut it down. Quit your job. Get a life.
(65VH1)
Comment: Please do the right thing to stop this and then work to shut down nuclear power safely, now and forever.
(79LP1)
Comment: This comment letter appears to contain a link to a document with which the commenter concurs; however, the NRC staff is unable to activate the link to the document.
(85TC1)
Comment: I am opposed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOT regulating but being dictated to by the nuclear plant operators.
(112EM2)
Comment: The NRC staff should make all schedule records and briefing materials related to drop-in meetings, Commission periodic meetings, and Commissioners Assistant Notes available to the public.
(123ANON4)
Comment: NRC should require licensees to adequately describe changes in LARs so they can be understood. Notice of the LAR should clearly explain what is being changed.
(131ANON11)
Comment: This could be a MASSIVELY DEADLY MISTAKE!
(139CC1)
Comment: The term Accident-Tolerant Fuel seems propagandistic.
(144ML9)
Comment: Rather than issue the letter, the NRC staff should be trained on rulemaking requirements, licensing processes, plain language, and the appropriate vehicles for issuing NRC guidance.
(145ANON2)
Comment: NO to allowing the nuclear industry to do as IT chooses. IT must do as WE THE PEOPLE choose! That is called Democracy! NO! NO! NO! to this rat-brained regulation!
(156JS2)
Comment: Nuclear is dangerous, not acceptable to allow it near populations.
(158AM1)
Comment: Its good to finally see some Pro-Nuclear Legislation!
(176DM1)
Comment: MORE regulation is called for - not less.
(177DB2)
Comment: We demand that the NRC take its regulatory role seriously.
(178DS2)
Comment: The NRC should make all closed meetings between the NRC, industry, and industry organizations publicly available, and all drop-in meetings between the NRC Commissioners and Senior Executive Service staff members that are not open to the public should cease immediately.
(184ANON4) (184ANON5)
Comment: General comment about nuclear energy is too dangerous.
(190RC1)
Comment: Do your job and regulate this industry.
(191RK3)
Comment: Comments appear to be unrelated to topic. Comments state that EPA should establish regulations on big city air pollution and water due to human waste on street.
(194ANON1)
Comment: NRC funding and fee recovery needs to change.
(221ANON5)
Response: The NRC staff is unable to provide a response to the above listed comments because they either do not contain a comment related to the subject of LTAs or other topics in the guidance letter, or the staff was unable to discern what the comment was, or was unable to access the comments via a link that did not work.