ML20058C659
| ML20058C659 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/22/1993 |
| From: | Wiggins J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Russell W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR GL-87-02, GL-87-2, NUDOCS 9312020522 | |
| Download: ML20058C659 (49) | |
Text
4 November 22, 1993 MEMORANDUM FOR:
William T. Russell, Associate Director for Inspection and Technical Assessment FROM:
James T. Wiggins, Acting Director Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF MEETING 2ETWEFN THE NRC AND THE SEISMIC QUALIFICATION UTILITY 400P TO DISCUSS USI A-46 FEE COLLECTION ISSUE In response to a request from the Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG),
in the letter of October 15, 1993, to James G. Partlow, Associate Director for Projects, a meeting was held on November 17, 1993, between representatives from SQUG and the NRC staff (Enclosure 1). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the NRC's plans for recovering costs associated with reviewing materials to be submitted in the future by SQUG in response to Generic Letter (GL) 87-02.
SQUG made a presentation (Enclosure 2) which addressed the primary purpose of the meeting, as well as considerations related to past interactions between SQUG and NRC staff in relation to activities to evaluate J
the current Revision 2 of the Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP-2).
SQUG focused on what it considered as an inconsistency with the Commission's Fee Policy (58 FR 21,116) in the NRC's determination to bill SQUG for the staff review services of what was characterized by the NRC Controller's Office as a topical report, under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 170 rather than 10 CFR Part 171 (annual fees) which is applicable to services associated with responses to generic activities required by the NRC.
SQUG transmitted, subsequent to the November 17th meeting, a discussion (Enclosure 3) supporting its above stated contention that the GIP should be treated as a required response to a generic letter and not as a topical report.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the NRC staff informed SQUG that it will evaluate SQUG's request based on current NRC practices, and respond to SQUG in writing with the agencies fee billing decisio g g g g gy.
JamesT.Wiggins i James T. Wiggins, Acting Director Division of Engineering
Enclosures:
As stated r
Di stributio_q
~
Central Files CPaul 93-56 NRC POR 002066 LCallan FGillespie EMEB RF/CHRON Meeting Attendees MMSb ' (([ -
/
.g EMEB:DE /T EljE
- DE
//f//
//qh
\\\\b y I 'N 0 /W h
)
h
, h h
,1 ;,a. c. n y)
}\\
Q G:\\Manoly\\PT9356 Y
I 9312O20522 931122 v
/
PDR GTECI GSCA-46 C
d' November 22, 1993 MEMORANDUM FOR:
William T. Russell, Associate Director for Inspection and Technical Assessment FROM:
James T. Wiggins, Acting Director Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF MEETING BETWEEN THE NRC AND THE SEISMIC QUALIFICATION UTILITY GROUP TO DISCUSS USI A-46 FEE COLLECTION ISSUE In response to a request from the Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG),
in the letter of October 15, 1993, to James G. Partlow, Associate Director for Projects, a meeting was held on November 17, 1993, between representatives from SQUG and the NRC staff (Enclosure 1). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the NRC's plans for recovering costs associated with reviewing materials to be submitted in the future by SQUG in response to Generic Letter (GL) 87-02.
SQUG made a presentation (Enclosure 2) which addressed the primary purpose of the meeting, as well as considerations related to past interactions between SQUG and NRC staff in relation to activities to evaluate the current Revision 2 of the Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP-2).
SQUG focused on what it considered as an inconsistency with the Commission's Fee Policy (58 FR 21,116) in the NRC's determination to bill SQUG for the staff review services of what was characterized by the NRC Controller's Office as a topical report, under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 170 rather than 10 CFR Part 171 (annual fees) which is applicable to services associated with responses to generic activities required by the NRC.
SQUG transmitted, subsequent to the November 17th meeting, a discussion (Enclosure 3) supporting its_above stated contention that the GIP should be treated as a required response to a generic letter and not as a topical report. At the conclusion of the meeting, the NRC staff informed SQUG that it will evaluate SQUG's request based on current NRC practices, and respond to SQUG in writing with the agencies fee billing decisi "0RGlNALSIGNEDBY:
JamesT.W9fas a James T. Wiggins, Acting Director Division of Engineering
Enclosures:
As stated Distribution Central Files CPaul 93-56 NRC PDR LCallan FGillespie EMEB RF/CHRON Meeting Attendees EMEB:DE 4 ERE
- DE KManoly:eh Jti erg Wiggins
/// /7/93 g/p//93
\\\\ /1Zf93 G:\\Manoly\\PT9356
$,p g 4
9
1 y
NOVEMBER 17, 1993, MEETING BETWEEN NRC STAFF AND SQUG NAME AFFILIATION PHONE Neil Smith SQUG 708 663-7402 John Mac Evoy Winston & Strawn/SQUG 202 371-5769 Michael Rafky NRC - OGC 301 504-1974 James Wiggins NRC/NRR/DE 301 504-2722 James Norberg NRC/NRR/DE 301 504-3286 Kamal Manoly NRC/NRR/DE 301 504-2765 Malcolm Philips Winston & Strawn 202 371-5729 Daniel Dorman NRC/NRR/DRPE/PD I-3 301 504-1429 Walter Butler NRC/NRR/DRPE/PD I-3 301 504-1434 Vince San Angelo Bechtel Power 301 417-8828 Dick Wessman PMSB/NRR 301 504-1202 Ronald Villafranco PMSB/NRR 301 504-1201 Lee Hiller OC 301 492-7535 Leah Tremper OC/DAF/LFDCB 301 492-8741 Marnella Rodriguez OC/DAF/LFDCB 301 492-4200 P
l W m & Samwn 8
l PLAN FOR FUTURE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN SQUG AND NRC l
I
\\
l l
Presented to NRC Staff-I l
4 November 17,1993
g,, _,,,
A ae._wJL.
w mom +44.eaime a
m--W 5%,,..,,
a am,e n,a.-
m4%.x,.,
.en.
.-.--a e.
W'amian & Suawa 2
OBJECTIVE ESTABLISH HOW SQUG & NRC WILL WORK TOGETHER IN THE FUTURE IN A MANNER THAT MAINTAINS THE GIP GENERICALLY AND CONTINUE THE SQUG/NRC COOPERATIVE EFFORT y
y 3m,s
,c--
m
l
%baus & Sisewa
)
BACKGROUND Utility cost structures are changing rapidly -- many utility budgets are dropping yearly, cost control pressures are rising Rancho Seco, Trojan, and Yankee Rowe are highly visible casualties of this cost-conscious environment The GIP must be kept current, but if done by members individually:
Expense per utility will be higher to maintain a given quality level, i.e., quality and safety may suffer Cross-pollination of ideas and experiences will suffer NRC staff workload will increase because of numerous different programs
. Increased review time, inspection time, generic communications, etc.
9
b w-, s BACKGROUND (Cont'd)
SQUG's Position:
e Upcoming GIP changes are part of a required response to Generic Letter 87-02; such responses are billed under Part 171, consistent with:
Commission's published fee policy and published fee practice Controller's stated practice Licensee and industry group experience Further, GIP is used by 42 of 47 nuclear utilities, which supports e
billing under Part 171 L
we asm i
PLAN FOR FUTURE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN SQUG AND NRC l
l l
Presented to NRC Staff November 17,1993 4
'6 L.
A..
e.
W insean & $t, 2
OBJECTIVE ESTABLISH HOW SOUG & NRC WILL WORK TOGETHER IN THE FUTURE IN A MANNER THAT MAINTAINS THE GIP GENERICALLY AND CONTINUE THE SQUG/NRC COOPERATIVE EFFORT
---e e-ere-
= -
r a
w ga e
e-a w.
w-
.,we-wr.-
n-+-
-.3--r oe-
%~ewem & Strews 3
BACKGROUND e
Utility cost structures are changing rapidly -- many utility budgets are dropping yearly, cost control pressures are rising Rancho Seco, Trojan, and Yankee Rowe are highly visible casualties of this cost-conscious environment The GIP must be kept current, but if done by members l
individually:
l Expense per utility will be higher to maintain a given quality level, i.e., quality and safety may suifer Cross-pollination of ideas and experiences will suffer NRC staff workload will increase because of numerous different programs
. Increased review time, inspection time, generic communications, etc.
4 l
4
% eere & Serows 4
BACKGROUND (Cont'd)
SQUG's Position:
e Upcoming GIP changes are part of a required response to Generic Letter 87-02; such responses are billed under Part 171, consistent with:
y Commission's published fee policy and published fee practice Controller's stated practice Licensee and industry group experience Further, GIP is used by 42 of 47 nuclear utilities, which supports billing under Part 171 m--.
u-- --
f ---- -1 m.
e a-
- -- 2
- =~
we u e
'N
-+1-%'&*d' 1 sit
---1-s-e
,wg a
-+-ew a
+-4-4--*.k4-e-"-N9-
~
T r-
'er-*t*-
e t7-9--P-~t'----
r
.s COMMISSION'S FEE POLICY i
e Ccmmission's Fee Policy (58 FR 21,116 (1993)) supports billing required Generic Letter responses under Part 171 Reviews which do not result in formal approvals or license amendments are not billed under Part 170 Specific example:
Individual Plant Examination submittals requested by generic letter and which result in an SER A-46 submittals will result in SER, not approva; or licence amendment SER on GlP documented the NRC Staff's " general evaluation" that the information in the GIP is " generally acceptable." This is not an approval or amendment e
. - - + - - - -, -,. -, - -
- - -. - ~ - - - -
-. - ~
r
- - - - - -m- - - --
O
. s, COMMISSION'S FEE POLICY (Cont'd) e Expenses resulting from required activities, e.g., responses to Commission Orders, are not billed under Part 170 where:
The NRC, on its own, issues the order and the order is not incident to a voluntary act Amendments resulting from orders are not assessed Part 170 fees "because such amendments are not filed voluntarily by the licensee, but are filed as a requirement of the order" e
This does not appear to differ significantly from the " requested" response re_ quired by GL 87-02 (H 50.54(f) converts information requests to requirements)
NRC encouraged the required response to be generic
V isuome & Strewn 7
COMMISSION'S FEE POLICY (Cont'd)
Controller's Office statements and experience of licensees and industry agiee that current practice is consistent with Commission's Fee Policy (58 Fed. Reg. 21,116 (1993).)
Controller's Office confirmed verbally that:
Generic Letter responses are billed under Part 171 (annual fees), which is consistent with the Fee Policy if the GIP is submitted on each licensee's docket, review costs would be billed under Part 171 Costs for review of Generic Letter 87-02 responses by non-SQUG utilities are being billed under Past 171; as are NUMARC documents supporting IPEEE responses 4
- - - -.. ~. - -
-. ~., -_
=_
a
- m..,_
PAST PRACTICE (Cont'd) e Other examples of past practice -- GLs 87-12:
"This information [related to loss of RHR in mid-loop operation]
is required pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) to assess conformance of PWRs with their licensing basis and to determine whether additional NRC action is necessary.... Our review of information you submit is not subject to fees under the provisions of 10 CFR 170" e
Very similar to the GL 87-02 request for additional information for NRC to assess conformance with the seismic licensing basis GIP sets forth a uniform method of collecting information, simplifying NRC staff evaluation NRC requests for action as a result of their evaluation arc outside the scope of GL 87-02, subject to 10 CFR !i 50.109
W'.wenn & Ser.we 9
PARTS 170 & 171 Costs associated with Generic Communications are to be billed under annual fees (Part 171). (Sea 53 FR 52,632, 52,637 (1988)) ("The NRC has not changed the basic... policies for calculating the 10 CFR part 170... and the 10 CFR part 171 annual fees...."
58 FR 38,676 (1993))
l Part 170 is "for assessing fees to persons who are identifiable recipients of special benefits."
(43 FR 7210,7216 (1978))
Special benefits " include services rendered at the request of a recipient...." li Costs associated with Generic l
Communications are not "special benefits" since Generic Communications were specifically addressed under Part 171 Thus, review costs for the GIP, as a response to a Generic Letter, should be invoiced under Part 171 l
O '
b o
%"esshoe & Sir,we 10 PARTS 170 & 171 (Cont'd)
The GIP, or GIP training, is being used by practically every nuclear utility for seismic l'oEEE walkdowns, for the cost of copying the GIP or conducting training. Use for IPEEE was encouraged by the NRC:
Generic Letter 88-20, Supp. 4, encourages coordinating seismic IPEEE with A-46 "so that the objectives of both activities may be accomplished with a single walkdown effort."
SECY-91-102: the procedures for the seismic walkdown portion of this program, which are "one of the most important ingredients in the seismic IPEEE, are similar to those that will be used in the implementation of [A-46]"
Thus, billing review costs to power reactor licensees under Part 171 would no be inequitable
~-
- ~
~-
Wswam A Strewa iI PARTS 170 & 171 (Cont'd)
A Generic Letter 87-02 response was TAquired by the NRC Staff; the GIP is the form of the response NRC Staff encouraged the GIP as the GL response, and expected i
to review and approve that response 8/23/85 H. Denton letter to SQUG, encouraging SQUG to develor the GL " implementation plan on a generic basis so that the staff would not have to review and approve licensee submittals on individual dockets" 4
2/19/87 GL 87-02: "[sleismic verification may be accomplished generically, as described in the er. closure," and "[a]
generic resolution will be accepted in lieu of a plant-specific verification review subject to the guidance
' presented herein" e
- ~.. -. ~, -
, -, +.,
.~.-,.-m,
.,. -. -..,, -,,... ~ -.
,m..--.m
e w'ensean & Strowe 12 PARTS 170 & 171 (Cont'd) 4/10/87 SQUG responded to the GL on behalf of member licensees, asking for additional time to prepare GIP 4/28/87 NRC staff accepted single SQUG response to GL and required a 12/1/87 response 10/ 9/87 SQUG again responded on behalf of members 11/19/87 NRC staff again accepted SQUG's single response to its 12/1/87 response requirement l
7/29/88 NRC sent SER to SQUG, requested dissemination to rnembers with a reminder to respond in 60 days I
_, - - - ~
..m._
__..m.
..m Wawann & Str a Il PARTS 170 & 171 (Cont'd) 5/22/92 NRC issues GL 87-02 Supp.1 with GIP SSER attached, linking GIP to GL response GL requires licensees to state whether they commit to GIP and SSER-2 or to justify deviation. NRC treats GIP as part of generic program, to be complied with or justified otherwise.
l l
h 9
m m.
+,.,_ --..
.D 14 Westne & Strowe
SUMMARY
i I
Billing under Part 171 is consistent with Commission policy and e
practice GIP is a required response to a Generic Letter GIP is not a topical report GIP is used by a vast majority of nuclear utilities for IPEEE and A-46 Changing practice now is unfair e
Billing under Part 171 will encourage a group effort e
I greatest amount of safety for a given cost low'er resources and costs for NRC and overall industry
Warenne & Strews 15 GIP IS NOT A TOPICAL REPORT e
Controllar has characterized GIP as a-topical report "is, or is expected to be, referenced in a number of license or standardized reference desigo_ap_ proval applications."
9/29/92 (emphasis added).
This statement is not true.
Not associated with license or other design approval application Staff has made it clear that GIP is for A-46 use only e
c, w i-..,
w..,-
-r
,m
.. r
~._.,.-.
+
Womem & Serswa to TOPICAL REPORT (Cont'd) l Additional arguments that GIP is a topical report:
e "NRC approval of the report will result in increased efficiency of the review process for applications which reference the report." 9/29/92 (emphasis added).
1 GIP is not associated with a license application which references the " report";
GIP supports a r_eguited Generic Letter response, not a voluntary license application (relates to Fee Policy, below) 1
. ~
. ~. -..
1 Weetan A Str,==
17 i
BACKGROUND i
e 1/92:
SQUG receives invoice for $10,028 for period 12/90 through 6/91 l
By statute NRC must recover 100% of its costs from users Billing for review of topical reports is authorized under 10 l
CFR Part 170 e
2/92:
SQUG petitions Controller for exemption from billing e
9/92:
NRC denies petition GIP is a topical report GIP was developed for benefit of A-46 licensees only Development of GIP was voluntary, not at NRC request i
e O
--wyw-p
+-
e+--e
,y-
>-,-4,y.a r-w--
m
,,,,,,.,.#4-y-.m.%
s.
m m
w-,u BACKGROUND 10/92: SQUG petitions for reconsideration of denial.
GIP is not a topical report NUREG 0390 provides specific criteria; GIP does not fit GIP or GIP training used by almost all industry NRC encourage development 2/93: NRC denies second petition, sends bill for $280,344 covering 12/30/90 through 9/19/92 Maintains that GIP is a topical report 4/93: SQUG again petitions for reconsideration, disputes the validity of the invoices and cites further reasons why GIP is not a topical report 4
Wawann & Str=wa
!9 i
BACKGROUND l
e 4/93: Commission publishes its fee policy l
l Reviews that do not result in formal approvals or license l
changes are not billed under Part 170 Cites IPE submittals as examples Notes that SERs are not approvals 7/93: Based on Commission policy, SQUG supplements 4/93 petition GIP is a generic response to a generic letter NRC issued SER, not approval or license change Billing under Part 170 for response to generic letter violates Commission policy r-be-ru
.-aw-a
-w--
2 Tr
-tee
+ _ _ _.9.,-ee
=u m
r-mm, m.
m
=
a we--.
Womene & Str=we 20 BACKGROUND e
8/93: Controller denies latest request SQUG letters " provide no new information" Does not address any issues set forth Payment in full within 15 days
" Commission's final determination" e
To present:
SQUG has no process for collecting bills; asks for NRC to bill utilities--there is no SQUG, only members. Controller denies.
SQUG asks NRR to stop all SQUG work (Letter to J. Partlow) 1 SQUG is pursuing installment contract I
. ~....
.3..
.=....
-f' GIP Had The Effect Of A Submittal On The Docket The GIP has been characterized by the Controller's Office as a topical report.
This is not correct--the GIP is a required response to.a Generic Letter, satisfying a requirement for a submittal on each SQUG member licensee's docket, and is, in
{
effect, a submittal on each docket.
Correspondence between the t
Staff and SQUG, especially during the time period preceding and immediately following issuance of Generic Latter 87-02, corroborates this position.
Implementation plans for resolution of USI A-46 were expected from each licensee, but the Staff recognized that advantages would result from a generic response, rather than individual responses, according to a letter from Harold Denton to SQUG (undated, but mailed in the August 1985 time frame).F In this letter, the Staff encouraged SQUG to develop the Generic Letter
" implementation plan on a generic basis so that the staff would not have to review and approve licensee submittals on individual dockets."
In other words, the Staff intended that a single generic plan (the GIP) could satisfy requirements for an individual plan on each licensee's docket.
Thus, the A-46 resolution program went forward with this understanding, which was reinforced by the Staff's and SQUG's subsequent actions.
On February 19, 1987, the Staff issued Generic Letter 87-02, indicating that " seismic verification may be accomplished generically, " and " [a] generic resolution will be accepted in lieu of a plant-specific verification review."
A 60-day licensee i
response requirement was included.
Note that the Generic Letter l
echoed H. Denton's 1985 letter:
a required plant-specific response could be satisfied for each licensee by a generic response.
That generic response was, of course, the GIP.
t SQUG responded to the 60-day requirement by letter on April 10, 1987, expressly on behalf of member licensees, asking for additional time to prepare the GIP.
The Staff responded by letter on_ April 28, 1987.
In that letter, Thomas Marley acknowledged receipt of the April 10 SQUG letter, noted the Staff's 60-day response requirement for each licensee, and agreed to extend the time period for all SQUG licensees.
Similar exchanges occurred on October 9, 1987, when SQUG requested another extension of time for member licensees, and on November 19, 1987, when the Staff accepted the request and extended the time period once again.
This correspondence demonstrates that the Staff accepted SQUG's actions as meeting submittal requirements on the docket for each member licensee.
In much the same manner as the letters eited above, when SQUG submitted the various versions of the GIP, they were accepted as versions of the implementation procedure i
1/
SQUG has the signed original of this letter in its files.
i
\\
i o
l I
required on each licensee's docket, as expected in the Generic i
Letter and in H. Denton's 1985 letter.
i-t In contrast, a topical report is submitted at the request of j
an entity for the purpose of obtaining NRC approval,F not as a-i required response on the docket as was done with the GIP.
- Also, even though the GIP was submitted by a group, that in itself does not mean the GIP is a topical report.I' This, in addition to.a i
number of other reasons addressed in detail in letters to the j
Controller's Office, in the enclosure to our October 15, 1993, j
letter to Jim Partlow, and in the slides accompanying our i
November 17, 1993, presentation to the NRC staff
(" Staff")
l demonstrate that the GIP cannot be considered a topical report.
r i
i i
I I
i i
i I
i i
l 3
i
~
t r
?
i
'i 2/
Staff approval, in this case, not formal Commission approval of the type referred to in the Commission's published Fee i
Policy, 58 Fed. Reg. 21,116 (1993).
-l
- 1/
Apparently, the Controller's Office considers the group origin of-the GIP as thm controlling factor in identifying l
I the GIP as a topical' report.
l l
l a
t O
November 22, 1993 MEMORANDUM FOR:
William T. Russell, Associate Director for Inspection and Technical Assessment FROM:
James T. Wiggins, Acting Director Division of Engineering t
SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF MEETING BETWEEN THE NRC AND THE SEISMIC QUALIFICATION UTILITY GROUP TO DISCUSS USI A-46 FEE COLLECTION ISSUE In response to a request from the Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG),
in the letter of October 15, 1993, to James G. Partlow, Associate Director for Projects, a meeting was held on November 17, 1993, between representatives from SQUG and the NRC staff (Enclosure 1).
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the NRC's plans for recovering costs associated with reviewing materials to be submitted in the future by SQUG in response to Generic Letter (GL) 87-02.
SQUG made a presentation (Enclosure 2) which addressed the primary purpose of the meeting, as well as considerations related to past interactions between SQUG and NRC staff in relation to activities to evaluate the current Revision 2 of the Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP-2). SQUG focused on what it considered as an inconsistency with the Commission's Fee Policy (58 FR 21,116) in the NRC's determination to bill SQUG for the staff review services of what was characterized by the NRC Controller's Office as a topical report, under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 170 rather than 10 CFR Part 171 (annual fees) which is applicable to services associated with responses to generic activities required by the NRC.
SQUG transmitted, subsequent to the November 17th meeting, a discussion (Enclosure 3) supporting its above stated contention that the GIP should be treated as a required response to a generic letter and not as a topical report. At the conclusion of the meeting, the NRC staff informed SQUG that it will evaluate SQUG's request based on ccrrent NRC practices, and respond to SQUG in writing with the agencies fee billing decisior0RIGNALSIGNEDBY:
JamesT.Wggins a James T. Wiggins, Acting Director Division of Engineering
Enclosures:
As stated Distribution Central Files CPaul 93-56 NRC PDR LCallan FGillespie EMEB RF/CHRON Meeting Attendees EMEB:DE &
E!1E
- DE KManoly:eh JN er Wiggins
/// /7/93 g/p//93 l\\(LZf93 G:\\Manoly\\PT9356 n
@n 4
I o
i NOVEMBER 17, 1993, MEETING BETWEEN NRC STAFF AND SQUG NAME AFFILIATION PHONE Neil Smith SQUG 708 663-7402 John Mac Evoy Winston & Strawn/SQUG 202 371-5769 Michael Rafky NRC - OGC 301 504-1974 James Wiggins NRC/NRR/DE 2 301 504-2722 James Norberg NRC/NRR/DE
301 504-3286 Kamal Manaly NRC/NRR/DE 30] 504-2765 Malcolm Philips Winston & Strawn 202 371-5729 Daniel Dorman NRC/NRR/DRPE/PD I-3 301 504-1429 Walter Butler NRC/NRR/DRPE/PD I-3 301 504-1434 Vince San Angelo Bechtel Power 301 417-8828 Dick Wessman PMSB/NRR 301 504-1202 Ronald Villafranco PMSB/NRR 301 504-1201 Lee Hiller 0C 301 492-7535 Leah Tremper OC/DAF/LFDCB 301 492-8741 Marnella Rodriguez OC/DAF/LFDCB 301 492-4200 i
l a
t i
l
Wesson A strews t
l PLAN FOR FUTURE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN SQUG AND NRC l
I Presented to NRC Staff November 17,1993 t
l O
Weske & Strs==
2 OBJECTIVE ESTABLISH HOW SQUG & NRC WILL WORK TOGETHER IN THE FUTURE IN A MANNER THAT MAINTAINS THE GIP GENERICALLY AND CONTINUE THE SQUG/NRC COOPERATIVE EFFORT l
8
.__-__x.:--
l
l 1
%he A Stwes 3
BACKGROUND Utility cost structures are changing rapidly -- many utility budgets e
are dropping yearly, cost control pressures are rising Rancho Seco, Trojan, and Yankee Rowe are highly visible casualties of this cost-conscious environment The GIP must be kept current, but if done by members individually:
Expense per utility will be higher to maintain a given quality level, i.e., quality and safety may suffer Cross-pollination of ideas and experiences will suffer NRC staff workload will increase because of numerous different programs
. increased review time, inspection time, generic communications, etc.
h 6
o w
, s-l l
BACKGROUND (Cont'd)
SQUG's Position:
Upcoming GIP changes are part of a required response to Generic Letter 87-02; such responses are billed under Part 171, consistent with:
Commission's published fee policy and published fee practice Controller's stated practice Licensee and industry group experience Further, GIP is used by 42 of 47 nuclear utilities, which supports billing under Part 171 4
. -u m-w
- a a
m.--*--
m a v
'.-h f
+-
e
-M-<
1-r m--w--'
9 e
w we m
i w
e-e
harm & Str.we 5
COMMISSION'S FEE POLICY e
Commission's Fee Policy (58 FR 21,116 (1993)) supports billing required Generic Letter responses under Part 171 Reviews which do not result in formal approvals or license amendments are not billed under Part 170 Specific example: Individual Plant Examination submittals requested by generic letter and which result in an SER A-46 submittals will result in SER, not approval or licence amendment SER on GIP documented the NRC Staff's " general evaluation" that the information in the GIP is " generally acceptable."
This is not an approval or amendment O
O
O Woman & Streou 6
COMMISSION'S FEE POLICY (Cont'd) e Expenses resulting from required activities, e.g., responses to Commission Orders, are not billed under Part 170 where:
The NRC, on its own, issues the order and the order is not incident to a voluntary act Amendments resulting from orders are not assessed Part 17C fees "because such amendments are not filed voluntarily by the licensee, but are filed as a requirement of the order" This does not appear to differ significantly from the " requested" response r_equired by GL 87-02 (9 50.54(f) converts information requests to requirements)
NRC encouraged the required response to be generic
COMMISSION'S FEE POLICY (Cont'd) e Controller's Office statements and experience of licensees and industry agree that current practice is consistent with Commission's Fee Policy (58 Fed. Reg. 21,116 (1993).)
Controller's Office confirmed verbally that:
Generic Letter responses are billed under Part 171 (annual fees), which is consistent with the Fee Policy if the GIP is submitted on each licensee's docket, review costs would be billed under Part 171 Costs for review of Generic Letter 87-02 responses by non-SQUG utilities are being billed under Part 171; as are NUMARC documents supporting IPEEE responses l.
~
4 Wweema 4 Strees t
l PAST PRACTICE (Cont'd) l Other examples of past practice -- GLs 87-12:
"This information [related to loss of RHR in mid-loop operation]
is required pursuant 1010 CFR 50.54(f) to assess conformance of PWRs with their licensing basis and to determine whether additional NRC action is necessary.... Our review of information you submit is not subject to fees under the provisions of 10 CFR 170" e
Very similar to the GL 87-02 request for additional information for NRC to assess conformance with the seismic licensing basis GIP sets forth a uniform method of collecting information, simplifying NRC staff evaluation NRC requests for action as a result of their evaluation arc outside the scope of GL 87-02, subject to 10 CFR 5 50.109
---m
.m mm --A.-
-a a
a m
- a-.*--
T e
-u
--m
+
sw me-
-w
- -~
-+r-^"w
-e wi-mu-
,r-"
f e
g-t' M
+
w w
"--7
%*.iswi & Saroos 9
PARTS 170 & 171 Costs associated with Generic Communications are to be billed under annual fees (Part 171). (S_en 53 FR 52,632, 52,637 (1988)) ("The NRC has not changed the basic... policies for calculating the 10 CFR part 170... and the 10 CFR part 171 annual fees...."
58 FR 38,676 (1993))
Part 170 is "for assessing fees to persons who are identifiable recipients of special benefits."
(43 FR 7210,7216 (1978))
Special benefits " include services rendered at the request of a recipient...." Id, Costs associated with Generic Communications are not ^special benefits" since Generic Communications were specifically addressed under Part 171 Thus, review costs for the GIP, as a response to a Generic Letter, should be invoiced under Part 171 O
e 4
Wmem & Strews 10 PARTS 170 & 171 (Cont'd)
The GIP, or GIP training, is being used by practically every nuclear utility for seismic IPEEE walkdowns, for the cost of copying the GIP or conducting training. Use for IPEEE was encouraged by the NRC:
Generic Letter 88-20, Supp. 4, encourages coordinating seismic IPEEE with A-46 "so that the objectives of both activities may be accomplished with a single walkdown effort."
SECY-91-102: the procedures for the seismic walkdown portion of this program, which are "one of the most important ingredients in the seismic IPEEE, are similar to those that will be used in the implementation of [A-46]"
Thus, billing review costs to power reactor licensees under Part 171 would no be inequitable t
.m.
.~ -
---.__.-....s..
Wswene & Strown Il PARTS 170 & 171 (Cont'd) i A Generic Letter 87-02 response was required by the NRC Staff; the GIP is the form of the response NRC Staff encouraged the GIP as the GL response, and expected i
to review and approve that response 8/23/85 H. Denton letter to SQUG, encouraging SQUG to develop the GL " implementation plan on a generic basis so that the staff would not have to review and approve licensee submittals on individual dockets" f
2/19/87 GL 87-02: "[s]eismic venfication may be accomplished generically, as described in the enclosure," and "[a]
generic resolution will be accepted in lieu of a plant-specific verification review subject to the guidance
' presented herein" l
e e
Weswe & Strwa 12 PARTS 170 & 171 (Cont'd) 4/10/87 SQUG responded to the GL on behalf of member licensees, asking for additional time to prepare GIP 4/28/87 NRC staff accepted single SQUG response to GL and reqmred a 12/1/87 response 10/ 9/87 SQUG egain responded on behalf of members 11/19/87 NRC staff again accepted SQUG's single response to its 12/1/87 response requirement 7/29/88 NRC sent SER to SQUG, requested dissemination to members with a reminder to respond in 60 days
Wsuena A Stro+n il PARTS 170 & 171 (Cont'd) 5/22/92 NRC issues GL 87-02 Supp.1 with GIP SSER attached, linking GIP to GL response GL requires licensees to state whether they commit to GIP and SSER-2 or to justify deviation. NRC treats GIP as part of generic program, to be complied with or justified otherwise.
l l
O
.~.m --
m
= -.
4 m
. s_
i.
SUMMARY
Billing under Part 171 is consistent with Commission policy and practice GlP is a required response to a Generic Letter GIP is not a topical report GIP is used by a vast majority of nuclear utilities for IPEEE and A-46 Changing practice now is unfair Billing under Part 171 will encourage a group' effort greatest amount of safety for a given cost low'er resources and costs for NRC and overall industry l
W~swens& Swwwm 15 GIP IS NOT A TOPICAL REPORT Controller has characterized GIP as a topical report "is, or is expected to be, referenced in a number of license or standardized reference desigrLapproval applications."
9/29/92 (emphasis added).
i e
This statement is not true.
i i
Not associated with license or other da. sign approval application l
Staff has made it clear that GlP is for A-46 use only l
1 b
i i-TOPICAL REPORT (Cont'd) 1 1
l Additional arguments that GIP is a topical report:
1 1
"NRC approval of the report will result in increased efficiency l
l of the review process for applications which reference the report." 9/29/92 (emphasis added).
GIP is not associated with a license application which references the " report";
GIP supports a required Generic Letter response, not a voluntary license application (relates to Fee Policy, below) e t
Wruke &.h 17 BACKGROUND e
1/92:
SQUG receives invoice for $10,028 for period 12/90 through 6/91 By statute NRC must recover 100% of its costs from users Billing for review of topical reports is authorized under 10 CFR Part 170 1
e 2/92:
SQUG petitions Controller for exemption from billing 1
9/92:
NRC denies petition GIP is a topical report GIP was developed for benefit of A-46 licensees only Development of GIP was voluntary, not at NRC request t
9 3
9 7
H~rsom A Strewn 14 BACKGROUND e
10/92: SQUG petitions for reconsideration of denial.
J GIP is not a topical report 1
NUREG 0390 provides specific criteria; GIP does not fit GIP or GIP training used by almost all industry NRC encourage development e
2/93: NRC denies second petition, sends bill for $280,344 covering 12/30/90 through 9/19/92 Maintains that GIP is a topical report o
4/93: SQUG again petitions for reconsideration, disputes the validity of the invoices and cites further reasons why GIP is not a topical report t
i
~
W' wenn & Str,wo 19 s
l BACKGROUND e
4/93: Commission publishes its fee policy l
Reviews that do not result in formal approvals or license changes ere not billed under Part 170 Cites IPE submittals as examples Notes that SERs are not approvals e
7/93: Based on Commission policy, SQUG supplements 4/93 petition GIP is a generic response to a generic letter NRC issued SER, not approval or license change Billing under Part 170 for response to generic letter violates Commission policy I
l
WW & Struee 20 BACKGROUND e
8/93: Controller denies latest request SQUG letters " provide no new information" l
Does not address any issues set forth Payment in full within 15 days l
" Commission's final determination"
~
To present:
l SQUG has no process for collecting bills; asks for PIRC to bill utilities--there is no SQUG, only members.
Controller denies.
SQUG asks NRR to stop all SQUG work (Letter to J. Partlow)
SQUG is pursuing installment contract t
l l
. - ~.
l y'
I
.c GIP Had The Effect Of A Submittal On The Docket The GIP has been characterized by the Controller's office as a topical report.
This is not correct--the GIP is a required response to.a Generic Letter, satisfying a requirement for a submittal on each SQUG member licensee's docket, and is, in effect, a submittal on each docket.
Correspondence between the Staff and SQUG, especially during the time period preceding and immediately following issuance of Generic Letter 87-02, corroborates this position.
i Implementation plans for resolution of USI A-46 were expected from each licensee, but the Staff recognized that advantages would result from a generic response, rather than individual responses, according to a letter from Harold Denton to SQUG (undated, but mailed in the August 1985 time frame).F In this letter, the Staff encouraged SQUG to develop the Generic Letter
" implementation plan on a generic basis so that the staff would not have to review and approve licensee submittals on individual dockets."
In other words, the Staff intended that a single generic plan (the GIP) could satisfy requirements for an individual plan on each licensee's docket.
Thus, the A-46 resolution program went forward with this understanding, which was reinforced by the Staff's and SQUG's subsequent actions.
On February 19, 1987, the Staff issued Generic Letter 87-02, indicating that " seism c verification may be accomplished i
generically, " and " {a) generic resolution will be accepted in lieu of a plant-specific verification review."
A 60-day licensee response requirement was included.
Note that the Generic Letter echoed H. Denton's 1985 letter:
a required plant-specific response could be satisfied for each licensee by a generic response.
That generic response was, of course, the GIP.
SQUG responded to the 60-day requirement by letter on April 10, 1987, expressly on behalf of member licensees, asking for additional time to prepare the GIP.
The Staff responded by letter on April 28, 1987.
In that letter, Thomas Marley acknowledged receipt of the April 10 SQUG letter, noted the Staff's 60-day response requirement for each licensee, and agreed to extend the time period for all SQUG licensees.
Similar exchanges occurred on October 9, 1987, when SQUG requested another extension of time for member licensees, and on November 19, 1987, when the Staff accepted the request and extended the time period once again.
This correspondence demonstrates that the Staff accepted SQUG's actions as meeting submittal requirements on the docket for each member licensee.
In much the same manner as the letters cited above, when SQUG submitted the various versions of the GIP, they were accepted as versions of the implementation procedure 1/
SQUG has the signed original of this letter in its files.
a 4 9
required on each licensee's docket, as expected in the Generic Letter and in H. Dcnten's 1985 letter.
In contrast, a topical report is submitted at the request of an entity for the purpose of obtaining NRC approval,2 not as a required response on the docket as was done with the GIP.
- Also, even though 'he GIP was submitted by a group, that in itself does not mean the GIP is a topical report.I' This, in addition to a number of other reasons addressed in detail in letters to the Centroller's Office, in the enclosure to our October 15, 1993, letter to Jim Partlow, and in the slides accompanying our November 17, 1993, presentation to the NRC staff (" Staff")
demonstrate that the GIP cannot be considered a tcpical report.
1/
Staff approval, in this case, not formal Commission approval of the type referred to in the Commission's published Fee Policy, 58 Fed. Reg. 21,116 (1993).
1/
Apparently, the Controller's Office considers the group origin of the GIP as thg controlling factor in identifying the GIP as a topical report.
-